Lawrence Napoli

Review: Birdman (2014)

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:19297:]]

The Perpetual Pissing Contest between Cinema and Stage

[Continuing Our 2015 Academy Award Roundup]

A Film Review of Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

Writer, director, producer, Alejandro González Iñárritu has taken it upon himself to make some social commentary regarding the entertainment industry as it pertains to the acting slice of the pie and oh my, he’s got some interesting observations to make. For anyone who has been on the ground floor regarding this current renaissance of comic book blockbuster adaptations, for those who are down with the theater (Broadway or otherwise), for those who follow the entertainment industry and for anyone with even a modest interest in the status of “celebrity,” Birdman has got the goods for an eye-opening adventure. Fans of both the cinema and stage will have layers upon layers of subtext and context to smile, weep and chuckle upon as the story unveils before our eyes. Birdman is a film undeserving of its own mundane title for it easily suggests a limited scope to the vision of its production. I assure you all that viewers who side with big money glam and those that prefer small indie art can build a bridge with a film like this. It is easily one of this past year’s best in every conceivable aspect of the filmmaking process and as of right now has surpassed American Sniper as my favorite to win best picture this year.

Birdman’s story follows former blockbuster superhero actor Riggan Thomson and his attempt to get back into the biz by way of his own, single-handed financing, directing and starring in a stage adaptation Raymond Carver’s What We Talk About When We Talk About Love. However, the audience is taken on a much more surreal journey into Riggan’s mind, ego and distorted sense of self worth as the telekinetic powers of his former “Birdman” persona appear to be playing havoc with the production. What’s most entertaining about this film is the seamless integration of all the action and drama of every scene thanks to a virtual non-existence of cuts. Everything is happening here and now and in this very instant. This film’s composition (cinematography, lighting and setting) establishes an intimate, mise en scène reality upon reality; perspective upon perspective; viewer’s physical placement within the film’s frame of what is actually happening during the setup, rehearsal and debut of this Broadway show. Riggan’s supernaturalism collides with his costars’ personal agendas which reflect the harsh realities of the acting profession and is all consumed by our society which commands infinitely more power than we, ourselves realize in our ability to interact “socially” via the internet. While all this is happening, the audience is also getting an introductory course on the unspoken animosity between stage and screen actors, the nature of prima donnas, the influence of critics, the difficulties of production, and the personal toll of the less disciplined who choose to get into this profession in the first place.

Despite the very interesting use of special effects as well as the placement of these moments during the film, Birdman is primarily a dialogue, driven drama and must therefore have a cast willing to lift that kind of load. Just about every character in this film is either a struggling actor or producer, yet ironically, this entire cast has first-hand experience in mega budget production films: Michael Keaton (Batman 1989), Emma Stone (The Amazing Spider-Man 2012), Zach Galifianakis (The Hangover Trilogy ’09-’13), Naomi Watts (King Kong 2005), Andrea Riseborough (Oblivion 2013) and Edward Norton (The Incredible Hulk 2008). Please note the number of comic book blockbuster adaptations on this list. The names of this cast, independent of its fine performance, is a comedic slap in the face to stage actors due to the roles they fill in Birdman and the fact that despite differences in performances, preparation and processes between stage and screen acting, they are more similar than either side would ever admit. Thus, this production is heavily sided with the cinema, and that’s perfectly all right seeing how it is far more interested in deconstructing Hollywood than Broadway. This is further evidenced by the heavy use of steadi-cam shots to deliver screen perspectives that piggy back Michael Keaton as he walks through the St. James theater and park right in front of Emma Stone’s face when she’s going on about how old and irrelevant her father is. This intimate proximity is an experience the theater can never produce, and it is a style that film actors are comfortable with which aids in the delivery of exceptional individual performances for the cast of Birdman.

Selecting Ed Norton to play the antagonizing golden child of the stage, Mike, was just about the biggest no brainer this side of casting Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man. Norton is a fine actor that brings an experienced touch to a character type that today’s pop culture may or may not have confused for his personality in real life. The fact that his character has specific issues reconciling his stage and true life behavior is equally unsurprising, yet quite satisfying. Playing an actor that doesn’t “play” well with others in a production is yet another ironic link to the fact that he was removed from the potential cast of The Avengers as continuing the role of Bruce Banner/Hulk for true reasons that you and I will probably never know. Mike isn’t a character completely devoid of sympathy as he tries to make sincere observations of life to the naive Sam, which is somewhat invalidated by his sexual interest in her. Mike’s sole concern is the artistic integrity of the stage which may be a front to protect the adoration and ego boost he receives from the theatrical community by being the maverick he’s come to relish.

Zach Galifianakis as Jake the producer does not fill this film’s role as the solitary generator of comedic energy, but he does a fantastic job at doing so. As with Norton’s prima donna, Jake is somewhat of a stereotypical producer whose undefined responsibilities and uniformed status presents a member of the production team that clearly has authority, but is also disconnected from the visceral evolution of the production at hand. Representing the money invested and potential profits made or lost by reviews will never present the most sympathetic character for an audience, but it is Zach’s comedic timing and facial expressions that soften the blow. Jake is an easier character to identify with because most of us aren’t experienced in artistic production, so it’s easy to be completely confused by actors when they are knee deep in their “process.”

Emma Stone plays Sam Thomson, Riggan’s daughter and yet again stereotypes are hard at work in presenting a character the audience has seen before in real life. Being the daughter of a blockbuster actor may have yielded minimal bonding with dad, but plenty of cash to get into fun and trouble with; so much so, that it lands her in rehab. Where oh where have we ever heard of such tragedy that has befallen the sons and daughters of celebrities whose only real challenge in life is living under mommy or daddy’s shadow? Sam is a troubled girl in search of guidance and Emma’s ability to pierce the frame with her giant eyes signify moments to the audience when her character is being sincere as opposed to just mailing it in with a middle finger.

Unsung heroine Amy Ryan as Riggan’s ex wife Sylvia easily delivers the most dramatic performance by a supporting cast member in this film. Representing the one character that is completely removed from the acting/entertainment profession, her interests are simple: the welfare of her daughter as well as her flaky ex-husband. She relates to the rest of us “normies” best because it might seem like no big deal for a former hot shot actor to refinance a home to pay for a pet project, but that’s a big time red flag for people who worry about paying for food, rent, utilities, etc. Sylvia seems like a character with almost saintly levels of patience as she is desperate to anchor Riggan to reality, despite his emotional issues. What I like best about Amy’s performance is the fresh perspective she gives to this “theater scene” with her kind demeanor and practical attitude.

Michael Keaton may not be the only man alive that could have pulled off this part, but he certainly did so phenomenally in Birdman. So let’s quickly examine some past Batmen just for comparative giggles. Adam West is too old and too successful at being a current spoof of his former self. Val Kilmer is certainly removed enough from the current film scene to develop the irrelevant angle, but would require some significant P-90x to get back into “washed-up” physical shape. George Clooney is bigger than any possible role cast in an indie or indie-esque film at this point in his life; so he’s out. Christian Bale has more than enough acting chops for the indie scene, but the content of this film would perhaps be a bit too harsh for the sensitivities of his past work, especially when being critical of acting and actors is the order of the day. What makes Michael Keaton an ideal choice for Riggan Thomson, formerly “Birdman,” is NOT any conceivable personal baggage he may or may not be dragging into it, but his entire filmography and in particularly the range of his past work. Keaton has done action, comedy and drama and his work has been solid (please forget Multiplicity) and it takes that kind of balance to be able to approach this burnt out, actor role in a manner that almost crosses the shameless threshold. He fires up enough anger for his fight with Ed Norton, he plays back every funny beat he picks up on and he can stare down others as well as himself when his character is most vulnerable, pathetic and empowered.

Birdmanis an entertaining cinematic adventure, layered with meaning, filled with great performances and most importantly, is self-reflecting of Hollywood (and Hollywood loves that). Politics always play a role in the Academy process and until the entire system of lobbying or campaigning for films to be recognized in this way is removed or the consuming public gets more transparency regarding the voting process (reveal the counts in every category), politics will be as influential as the base quality of the product. Michael Keaton has one heck of an acting legacy and adding an Academy Award to his accolades would be a hell of a thing, but best actor is still going to Eddie Redmayne. Birdman is my pick for best film not because I enjoy blockbusters or comic book adaptations, but because it’s just that damn good and that damn fun!

Review: The Theory Of Everything

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:19201:]]

Defying the Laws of Physics

[Continuing Our 2015 Academy Award Roundup]

A Film Review of The Theory of Everything

Yet another period piece about a British super genius is up for a series of Academy Awards including best picture this year. The Theory of Everything is an indie biopic (with Hollywood level production value) that tells the tale of Stephen Hawking based on the first hand written accounts of his wife, Jane. Hawking is globally known for his contributions in the field of physics, but perhaps more so for the physical status that his motor neuron disease has restricted him to. The man in the chair with the robotic voice has been a concept that has been the subject of pop cultural mockery as well as productive social and scientific discussion. Yet, his journey from seemingly healthy Cambridge student to the man he would become has never absorbed into the mainstream. This film does an excellent job at giving the audience an abridged, but emotionally poignant vision of his young adult life amidst the framework of a love story with his wife to be.

Presenting the film in this manner allows director James Marsh to make the story more accessible to a wider audience not necessarily interested in scientific jargon and intellectual rhetoric. Yes, Hawking is a scientific genius, but the man’s impact on the world is more than just numbers and theories. Thus, we see Hawking in love, with his family and struggling to balance it all with his research and his disease. It does much to humanize the often seen as “larger than life” Hawking because more people can identify with family struggles and illness than the thermodynamics of singularities. What follows is an endearing tale of determination as every new chapter in Hawking’s life is sideswiped by another segment of his body breaking down and the effort made to overcome it. What makes this film more artistic than a History Channel documentary is the fact that cinematographer Benoit Delhomme decorates his frames with dynamic angles and lighting to artificially infuse some magic behind the mystery of Hawking’s life. The filmmakers are attempting to link the almost otherworldly sight of Hawking’s mind with the imagination of the viewer not necessarily to demonstrate how alpha humans’ take on the world is innately superior, but that different perspectives can be inspired from the most unlikely of circumstances. Being able to recognize these brief moments in time and seizing them represents some of life’s most magical instances of serendipity.

Unlike fellow best picture nominee The Imitation Game, this film is not being mired with inauthentic accounts or some other form of historical heresy. Naturally, it helps any biopic if the bullet points of history are altered as seldom as possible, but creative license is inevitable as the adaptation is only undertaken for its potential for profit. This film had the blessing and approval of the Hawking family, and Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones in particular were given personal, first hand confidence by Stephen Hawking and Jane Wilde respectively for their efforts made in this endeavor. Not every biographical adaptation has the luxury of having this level of contact (if at all) with the original subjects, but this is the kind of credibility that is all but infallible. Granted, even this film is not perfect regarding the presentation of every fact and detail, but the spirit of authenticity is maintained throughout.

As with almost every other nominee for best picture this year, there is a noteworthy absence of action and this always has the potential of losing an audience regardless of the content, context, genre or scope of any film production. By “action,” I don’t necessarily mean explosions, combat, gunplay or violence in some form. Movement within the frame and/or movement of the frame can do much to keep our eyes stimulated and our minds more focused on the narrative as a result. A movie completely devoid of movement may be an experimental videographer’s wet dream, but isn’t a particularly satisfying or effective “moving picture.” Action in The Theory of Everything literally starts off at the races, but is in a constant state of decay from the film’s very first minutes until the final credits roll. Obviously, the content of this film parallels this imagery and must therefore disallow any semblance of acrobatic choreography for its characters within the frame. Perhaps the frame itself could have been moved a bit more with tracking shots, pans and tilts as some form of compensation? There’s a difference between dramas and “dialogue-driven” dramas and the visual presence of action is that difference.

Besides Patricia Arquette’s performance in Boyhood, Felicity Jones’ portrayal of Jane Wilde (Hawking’s first wife) is another marquee performance by a female lead in the films up for best picture. I must admit to not having been blown away by this year’s leading ladies overall, which I also admit is a loaded statement considering the male centric nature of filmmaking as an art form. Besides films like Gone Girl and Still Alice (projects completely centered on the performance of the female lead) women have been completely overshadowed by their male counterparts. This easily could have been the case for Felicity Jones as her costar is portraying Stephen f*ing Hawking of all people. However, Jane is a character that cannot be ignored as she becomes the audience’s anchor to the emotional toll diseases like ALS has on the families of the diagnosed. Jones is masterful at morphing from love struck innocence to burned-out housewife with such subtlety, that the audience is barely aware at her character’s shift in status. Jane begins every bit the wide eyed, eager youth and matures into a confidant and competent woman at her wit’s end thanks to the path she willingly chose years ago. Look for even greater performances from Felicity Jones in the very near future.

Now I’d like to introduce you to this year’s Academy Award winner for best actor in a leading role: Eddie Redmayne. He may not be the best looking actor out there, but he has the true performance skills to discover a character, make it his own and then make it connect with his audiences. Seeing some of the stills from the film paired side by side with actual photographs of Hawking at the time is almost shocking how the hair, costume and make-up teams transformed Redmayne into a virtual doppleganger. Eddie displays the same command of the scene, intimate facial expression and eye piercing charisma of every other esteemed actor nominated for Oscar gold, but the one thing that separates him from everyone else is the physicality he demonstrates in his role. Wait, what? Physicality? Isn’t Stephen Hawking that wheelchair guy? Yes, yes, we’ve been through that, but the fact remains that Eddie Redmayne does not have ALS and the conscious physicality required of him in every scene that calls for the virtual deletion of parts of his body as the film progresses is immense. We haven’t seen a performance of such titanic disempowerment since Daniel Day Lewis in My Left Foot. Towards the end of the film, when Hawking is at his weakest, Redmayne is working his hardest. No other actor has reached this level of intimacy with his or her character on film this year. The only thing that could possibly prevent his victory on Oscar night is politics.

The Theory of Everything is a fine film that showcases some very impressive filmmaking despite a very meager budget of $15 million dollars. Those interested in learning more about Stephen Hawking, the man (as opposed to the science) should certainly check this out at your earliest convenience. Eddie Redmayne delivers a great performance for a great role and it isn’t to be missed by any who claim to be fans of the cinema. However, I would not pick this film as a favorite to walk away with the grand prize of best picture overall. Other films (American Sniper and Boyhood) have made equally meaningful commentary on life but have done so with significantly higher entertainment value. The Theory of Everything is a film that can be appreciated by anyone, but may not necessarily be for everyone.

Movie News Reviews

Review: The Imitation Game (2014)

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:18967:]]

Facsimile of History

[Continuing our 2015 Academy Award Roundup]

A Film Review of The Imitation Game

Welcome back ladies and gentlemen to another World War II dramatic period piece because 1) why not? 2) it is always difficult to ignore during award season and 3) The number of brilliant individuals whose singular contributions to this highly romanticized global conflict is seemingly endless as their tales continue to enter the mainstream. I have an admitted fatigue with WW II films because they’ve become just as predictable as zombie films, are more concerned with glorifying heroism (and violence) than anything else and between movies, TV and video games; I’m just sick and tired of seeing Nazis in any capacity. Enter The Imitation Game, a film that tells a story of British mathematician Alan Turing who invented a machine that broke Nazi Germany’s Enigma codes which was instrumental in turning the tide in the Allies’ favor in the European Theatre. Unlike American Sniper, this is not a war film that takes the audience to the front lines, but rather gives us a glimpse into the technical and strategic think tanks that have essentially made the evolution of war infinitely more efficient in its brutality than the use of sticks and stones. Expect lots of dialogue, a minimum of action and a healthy regimen of expert acting.

One more thing to expect is a significant amount of criticism regarding the “facts” of this film and the manner in which they are portrayed. Quite frankly, historians are foaming at the mouth to bite into the multitude of inaccuracies made for the purpose of enhanced drama and I am shocked, SHOCKED, to learn of this scandalous situation. Actually, I am not. I would like to think that those who frequent the cinema often enough would be aware of the truth regarding “reel” history, but for those who accept everything they see and hear as the absolute truth, let me make this abundantly clear. Film adaptations (Hollywood or otherwise) are works of fiction. They are not documentaries which are indeed works of non-fiction and should therefore be viewed as entertainment first and secondly, as an invitation to research actual recorded history should the story peak one’s interest.

Although The Imitation Game credits biographer Andrew Hodges’ book “Alan Turing: The Enigma” as the basis for its screen story, this film has no interest in simply recreating a series of bullet points in Turing’s life. Even if the creative license at work by director Morten Tyldum and screenwriter Graham Moore has been stretched beyond acceptable limits, it is still a work of fiction. Perhaps critics are frustrated that the possible slander of Turing’s legacy, as suggested by moments in the film, is the lasting impression that will be absorbed into the global culture’s zeitgeist. My suggestion is that if this film’s offenses are that outrageous, and then address the situation with a documentary that calls out the inaccuracies by concerning itself with being educational about the facts. Sniping at it from the academic pulpit without something more productive behind the criticism will be met with apathy and that’s usually the way any controversy regarding the entertainment industry’s mucking up of history plays out.

Thus, accepting this screen story as fiction, The Imitation Game gradually unveils its true message through a series of flashbacks in Alan Turing’s life that most frequently visits his active Enigma work at Bletchley Park. Brought up to be a intellectual from boyhood, Turing’s apparent weakness as a human being turns out to be social interaction and as often as this story highlights the tragic effects of his personality quirks, it also provides moments of genuine comedy which forced me to laugh out loud in the theatre on more than one occasion. The interesting aspect of this story is that although it is primarily concerned with the human effort put into cracking Enigma, it does have secondary and tertiary agendas at work. As the story progresses, we realize that it has much more to do with Turing’s personal life, the moments that shaped it and the possible reasons for his rabid desire to do what most deemed impossible outside of surviving and ultimately winning the war against Nazi Germany.

The story’s perspective also flashes forward periodically to Turing’s life post WW II and the police investigation regarding his personal affairs. These moments are amongst the most contentious for the historians and a bit for me due to the aforementioned third agenda regarding sexuality that seemed to come out of nowhere. The final moments of this film are literally spelled out for the audience via superimposed text which explains the aftermath of Turing’s death. Because the previous ¾ of the film had not been actively pursuing this angle in Turing’s life beyond mild hinting, this dénouement felt a bit awkward in how it was shoehorned in considering the seriousness of its message. This last minute curveball dilutes the message of tolerance and I wonder if this film would have been better served had these moments were cut all together. Tolerating Alan Turing as a character was framed within the concept of him being an intellectual elitist and an impersonal narcissist. His redemption was a genuine ignorance of other people’s feelings and opinions and the effort he made to bridge the gap of understanding (much like the effort that was not reciprocated to him by British society at the time).

This film is an entirely dialogue driven drama and one of its weaknesses is its ability to connect the film’s most interesting moments (anything involving Turing at Bletchley) to the devastation of WW II. There are a couple of action scenes that show subs, ships and tanks at various fronts, but they are very short vignettes to remind the viewer that a war is in fact going on, but it isn’t lasting and not particularly satisfying for action junkies. There is also one scene that shows Turing himself riding a bicycle through a recently bombed part of a city, but again this plays the role of one of those “reminder” scenes. Playing the balancing game between action and dialogue scenes is never an easy task, but at the end of the day, the editor can only mix in whatever footage has been captured (or CG generated) in the first place. In the case of this film the only reliable change in tempo or scenery throughout are the flashes to the different points in Turing’s life.

An excellent cast was assembled to support the protagonist in this story as contributions from Mark Strong, Charles Dance, Matthew Goode and Keira Knightley deliver respectable performances, but such is to be expected from these veterans. This film (like American Sniper and The Theory of Everything) is one that ultimately boils down to one performance and its singular journey; namely Benedict Cumberbatch as Alan Turing. If you missed him in Star Trek Into Darkness or the Sherlock TV series, The Imitation Game is an excellent opportunity to see this actor produce an absolute tour de force when it comes to dramatic acting for the silver screen. As an introvert, Turing isn’t a particularly interesting character, but then he is forced to work with his colleagues and Cumberbatch revs up his awkward charm and sharp comedic timing. The regal nature of his baritone voice easily establishes and maintains Turing’s intellectual domination in every scene. However, where Cumberbatch truly shines is in every scene where Turing meets with heartbreaking failure, frustration or defeat. Cumberbatch takes every ounce of negative energy to heart and channels his reaction so personally that the audience feels it in every tear he sheds. Those believing Benedict Cumberbatch to be nothing more than a character actor with robotic tendencies are in for a rude awakening upon the screening of this film.

Few WW II films have shown less combat scenes during its runtime than The Imitation Game, but fewer have shown the little people behind the scenes that developed the technology, research and strategy that was clearly the difference between victory and defeat. The code breakers at Bletchley may not have spilled blood on the battlefield, laid waste to an enemy platoon with a machine gun or piloted a single bomber into the heart of the enemy stronghold, but their efforts and Turing’s in particular, saved England. Despite some of the historical inaccuracies, I found this film to be entertaining enough at telling aspects of Turing’s life. The production could certainly have benefitted from more focus in its narrative, but it remains to be seen how much the audience will care when Benedict Cumberbatch’s performance resonates so profoundly. However, when you factor in the historic faux pas and the multitude of hidden messages that are heavily back loaded towards the film’s final act, I couldn’t say that this film has a realistic chance at winning Best Picture. It is a good film that deserves the viewer’s consideration for the outstanding performance of Benedict Cumberbatch.

Movie News Reviews

Review: The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:18910:]]

Yet, Another Wes Anderson Film

[Continuing our 2015 Academy Award Roundup]

A Film Review of The Grand Budapest Hotel

Hollywood is rife with reboots, remakes, adaptations and re-imaginations and despite some of these projects still making enough profit across the board to continue justifying that business model, audiences have all but fully accepted that originality in La La Land is dead. This lack of originality cannot be said of Wes Anderson and his movies as this particular writer/director has effectively invented his own sub-genre of filmmaking that I would best describe as folk-comedy. Of course, one only needs to watch but one Wes Anderson film to understand his style and eccentricity because it is carbon copied without fail in all of his pictures. There isn’t a lot of action, there is plenty of narration, and there are whimsical selections of background music as well as a number of select Hollywood A-Listers that are apparently at Anderson’s beck and call whenever he’s written a new film. Wes Anderson has made a career at crafting his own films, telling his own stories and essentially answers to no one and that’s the kind of autonomy most filmmakers in Hollywood secretly covet, yet are unwilling to make the compromises required to attain it. The Grand Budapest Hotel is a Hollywood-ish production with the heart of an Indie, but viewers beware: Wes Anderson films are acquired tastes so if your idea of comedy is Will Ferrell, please look elsewhere.

The story of The Grand Budapest follows the exploits of Gustave H, the charming, womanizing concierge of the hotel whose dedication to his post would rival a clergyman’s. He mentors and befriends the hotel’s lobby boy, Zero and the two proceed to get entangled in a murder mystery (of sorts) of an insanely wealthy and elderly woman whom Gustave was involved with sexually. Mind you, this whole story is also being told as a flashback from the perspective of an elderly Zero who happens to be the current owner of the hotel in what is established as the present time of the film. What starts off as a fairly mundane drama morphs into an absurd “whodunit” featuring some improbable twists of fate to further heighten the ridiculous series of events that appears to set Gustave up as the primary culprit. This screen story isn’t some overdressed metaphor regarding today’s society nor is it some ambiguous commentary regarding the past. There is no hidden agenda. It is a simple, somewhat hilarious adventure that is about friendship and the special extended family that is the circle of premium hotels and their staffs. This is a film that ultimately relies on telling the story to the audience through narration and dialogue as opposed to showing with action. Prepare yourselves for this fact in addition to the eccentric formality of its delivery, further enhancing the overall absurdity which is never acknowledged by the film’s characters.

The Grand Budapest Hotel is not a film one could easily argue for as being “seminal” and if that is the case, one could also easily ask why this film is even in the final 8. What I said in my review of Boyhood regarding this year’s Indie love applies to this film as well. Big studio losses yield smaller films’ gain and although Wes Anderson films retain the spirit of true independence, there are a number of factors that clearly elevate their status to established studio productions. A $30 million dollar budget, distribution through Fox Searchlight and a cast that includes Ray Fiennes, Adrien Brody, Willem Dafoe, Jeff Goldblum, Harvey Keitel, Jude Law, Bill Murray, Ed Norton, Tilda Swinton, Tom Wilkinson and even Owen Wilson – well, let’s just say that any Indie film would kill to have any one of these individuals, budget or distribution as part of its production. Beyond these factors, The Grand Budapest Hotel belongs with the other nominees thanks to exceptional set design, cinematography, performances and ability to entertain. Even if the scope of the film in question doesn’t have monumental questions about life to challenge, it doesn’t mean that simpler ideas cannot have an equally moving effect on the audience.

I mentioned earlier how the audience is in on the absurdity of this series of unfortunate events despite the ignorance of all its characters. That’s where Wes Anderson’s sense of comedy originates, but the fact that his cast plays these events as seriously as a WW II drama (or thereabouts) is what allows the sophisticated banter throughout to not be misconstrued as a dainty passing of mere poop jokes. Fully engaged and interested performances are had by all (including the previously mentioned A-Listers) which is essential to a Wes Anderson film. Without this level of dedication, his movies become sub-pedestrian. Unfortunately, the volume of big names afford little opportunity for most of them to shine within this narrative as Gustave and Zero hog most of the screen time.

Tony Revolori generates a fine performance as the eager to learn and underappreciated lobby boy, Zero. The audience certainly is introduced to the world of The Grand Budapest through his eyes as we learn what being a true professional in the hotel business is all about, along with some helpful tips to navigate some of the other tumultuous waters in life. His character certainly starts off being very sheepish in relation to Gustave, but his character grows and the audience can appreciate his evolution into that of a peer. The key to Revolori’s performance is maintaining a certain level of innocence about Zero, despite his experiences and moments of self incrimination. After all, a lobby boy must know and learn at the same time so innocence in the face of intimidation is something we can all identify with.

This film, however, is all about Ray Fiennes and his quest for Oscar vindication. Well, perhaps that’s being a tad overzealous because if Voldemort wanted such praise, he would command it via the cruciatus curse. Seriously though, Fiennes approaches the role of Gustave with the same level of professionalism he applied at the Royal National Theatre. Although this character isn’t nearly as appalling as a Nazi War criminal or as intriguing as a Count desiring to be euthanized (both roles he was nominated for in Schindler’s List and The English Patient respectively), Gustave allows Fiennes an opportunity to fully engage his own, personal charm. Gustave’s arrogance isn’t too domineering, his attention to detail isn’t too obsessive and his appetite for wealthy hags isn’t too disgusting. They are all just enough before crossing the line into the realm of the anti-hero with the help of one other area of motivation: his religious care and dedication for the hotel establishment in his charge. Love for one’s job or profession engenders dignity and exemplary self-worth and this elevated demeanor is masterfully maintained throughout by Fiennes and it generates a healthy amount of charisma about him. Gustave may have invited the negative attention he receives for sticking his nose where it doesn’t belong, but the audience cannot help but sympathize for him because he really doesn’t deserve it.

Every scene in a Wes Anderson film is like a rectangle of framed art with live motion within. Characters are constantly looking through the screen and at its audience. Close ups are very intimate. These scenes leave the infusion of meaning and beauty entirely in the eyes of the viewer. This is the style of The Grand Budapest Hotel and although this film is entertaining enough featuring some excellent performances, I don’t expect this film to be a serious contender on Oscar night. Ray Fiennes certainly has better odds at winning that elusive Oscar gold, but with very serious competition in the best leading male category from the likes of Bradley Cooper and Benedict Cumberbatch, it’s far too difficult to predict.

Movie News Reviews

Review: Boyhood (2014)

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:18814:]]

Growing Up Is Hard To Do

A Film Review of Boyhood

Greetings readers! Hopefully you all had a good holiday season, but this is a new year and that means the Hollywood Award circuit is in full effect. The Academy released its Oscar nominees few days ago to what seems like an absolute love fest for Indie films. The bigger films starring bigger stars are low on this past year’s totem which can mean whatever you want it to mean, but when you look at the dollars and cents, it means 2014 was an off year for Hollywood. According to boxofficemojo.com 2014’s domestic take saw 5.2% less gross than 2013 and about the same percentage was down from the number of tickets sold. To be honest it’s not all about the money either. There was no “absolute must-see for everyone;” no true juggernaut that people should be aware of. So why not make it a year for the Indies to regain some prominence? 8 Films are nominated for Best Picture, and I will be reviewing them all for you right here at Cosmic Book News. I’ve already done one for American Sniper, up next is Richard Linklater’s experimental drama Boyhood.

Right away, if you note some sort of a stomach turning sensation with the term “experimental” being connected to a movie then rest easy; it’s a natural response. Thankfully this isn’t a film where the experiment at work isn’t self indulgence, hyper abstract imagery, elusive content or a mind-numbing thematic onslaught. Linklater directs the same cast over the course of 12 years in blocks of real time to capture his characters’ evolution, but also the physical growth of his cast to further enhance the realism. The narrative features a (surprise, surprise) coming of age tale of a young boy and his family amidst a bevy real life problems such as divorce, geographic displacement, alcoholism, bullying, peer pressure and parents trying their best to stay connected to their kids despite it all. Although this film is billed as charting new territory in the depiction of childhood, it also happens to be a calculated examination that pays much credence to the perspective of parents. Having also been written by Linklater, a personal touch of constant self reflection is apparent for most characters in every scene. The pacing is deliberate to present some of the most sincere vignettes of family life caught on camera despite the film being a fictional narrative. Like real life, this film isn’t always beautiful. In fact, it’s mostly ugly and awkward, but at least it doesn’t look bad on the screen. Worry not about home video style, handheld camera juggling. The cinematography is smooth, classic and dramatic. It prevents the dialogue from stealing the entire story, thus turning Boyhood into a really elaborate audio book.

12 years is a long time to keep a film in production for, even at a part time rate. Linklater and co. probably amassed a healthy amount of footage over that time period and this brings us to the first hurdle for the audience. This film has a runtime of 165 minutes and you will feel that time pass all too well. There are several moments in the plot where it felt like the drama would turn to heighten the danger as well as the tempo, but it never happens. Perhaps this was done to mimic mundane life too closely. There’s no question that a multitude of traps exist in life that can easily get small kids into big trouble, but to paraphrase Star Lord, if the kid really isn’t a complete dick (thank you parents), chances are they will veer from that kind of trouble. The lack of any defined or constant threat to any protagonist will defang any plot and the reality of Boyhood as a cinematic journey is that it reaches a certain level of intimacy and intrigue early on and then plateaus.

The various family crisis that are depicted in Boyhood never shows the audience any full and raw emotional outburst from anyone in the cast which further adds to the film’s overall monotone pacing handicap. The reason for this is that the story is actually being narrated to the audience through passive observations by the main character: Mason Jr. played by Ellar Coltrane. Right now, young master Coltrane is receiving much Hollywood love as his contributions are being hailed as “a breakthrough performance” and that would be correct if that description simply meant having a feature role in a film nobody saw coming. His performance exists, but is exceptional in no way other than having one of those “different” Hollywood looks that is neither overly pretty nor unattractive to justify him being there in the first place.

One of two explanations can account for this. First, Linklater specifically directed Coltrane to just pretend his scenes and remember his lines (which is fine for him as a young child, but doesn’t fly at all when he gets older) or two, Coltrane doesn’t really have it; i.e. the screen presence, the charisma, the “it” factor. Either way, Mason Jr. is our main character and he literally grows up for the audience onscreen from childhood to adolescence to young adulthood and the only thing he delivers is … the air of indifference. Unless a child is being fed mescaline, there is no way any realistic coming of age tale can feature the absolute absence of anger, bliss or any other possible emotion between the two. There is far too much neutered “whatever” attitude from Coltrane at every age that I simply stopped believing him as an actual participant in his own journey. There are far too many opportunities for Coltrane to unleash some very real angst as his character is put through more than enough trials to justify a clear path to becoming a sociopath. All things being equal, Mason is a pretty damn decent kid despite the circumstances and it actually feels weird. The only rationalization the audience has for Mason Jr.’s relative sainthood is the imperfect, yet sincere and constant parenting at work during his life.

Anyone can notice the effect of a veteran actor that’s engaged with his or her character in just about any kind of film. Such an effect is even more noticeable when veterans are matched up with complete novices as is the case between the adult and child cast members of Boyhood. Not enough credit can be given to both Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke for their work as the mother and father in this production for it is every scene they share with their children (Mason and Samantha) that completely blows away every other. These scenes make this film worth watching, period. Any actor will tell you that a performance is based on a give and take relationship with fellow cast members. Neither Arquette nor Hawke get much of anything from either Coltrane or Lorelei Linklater (Samantha) which requires them to “be the parent” for the film’s content as well as its context, but at least they take full advantage of their heavy lifting in each scene. Arquette as the mom is the disciplinarian so there is a certain stern responsibility that goes into her character, but she accomplishes this without becoming a dictator which is thanks to her tempered balance with maternal concern. This sincere balance is capable of masking both kids’ “deer in the headlights” demeanor as genuine moments of learning their lessons. Hawke as the every other weekend father is the cool jokester who wants to befriend his kids as much as he wants to dish out legitimate street smarts. His tact lulls the kids into pleasant comfort while still finding several moments to deliver important messages that transcend his own cavalier attitude and lifestyle.

Boyhood is an exceptional family film despite being rated R for language and adult situations, but even those never get graphic (no nudity) or violent (no onscreen striking). The content of the scenarios and the parenting dialogue take great pains to reproduce realistic situations that today’s families have to deal with. Watching this can be as rewarding to children with the appropriate adult supervision as it obviously will be for adults. The real trick is keeping everyone in the family in front of the screen before the credits roll because it is a slow moving picture. If you are up to the challenge, you will be rewarded with an education into the modern family featuring a unique, real life development of its cast that is seamless in its transition between ages. Perhaps this unique experiment regarding its production will be enough to win Oscar gold as the Best Picture, but limitations regarding its pacing and performances couldn’t make its chances better than any other for the win.

Movie News Reviews

Review: American Sniper (2015)

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:18796:]]

War. War Never Changes.

It is Now; Always Has Been and Always Will Be Hell.

A Film Review of American Sniper

American Sniper, directed by Clint Eastwood, is a work of fiction despite being based on true events as described by the “American Sniper” himself, Chris Kyle, in his autobiography. Characters will be treated as characters in this review, and any commentary regarding individuals does not refer to their real life counterparts. The very real issues regarding modern warfare and society will be commented upon and taken as seriously as the film itself presents them. I have not read Kyle’s autobiography so I will not comment on screenwriter Jason Hall’s reported “loose” adaptation of a book about someone else’s personal observations of their own life. This film uses the iconic status of Chris Kyle as the deadliest sniper in American history to make some important commentary regarding any war’s effect on any soldier (even exceptional ones) and their families. No soldier is immune from the harmful touch of war; not even “The Legend.”

The concept of “the hero” is as important to military recruiters as it is to movie makers as this film certainly lays the groundwork early for establishing Kyle as a gifted warrior for the sake of good (the sheep dog) and continues to build his “Achillean” altruism at various moments describing how he transitioned from civilian to soldier. Hawks will love how this story makes the motivation for the soldier and potential soldier simple and uncompromising. Someone sees something on the news or reads something online and it becomes personal, so much so that anger inspires vengeance and that leads to enlistment. Such is the case for Kyle as his journey to weaponize himself in SEAL training is insanely difficult, but despite the adversity, he stares it down with another signature of the classic hero: a never give up, never surrender code of conduct. But this screen story doesn’t sell out completely by romanticizing Kyle as the golden calf that belongs on everyone’s altar of American glory. Every sequence where “The Legend,” Chris Kyle, aces terrorists in Iraq is followed up by “Lesser than the Legend,” Chris Kyle as he struggles to keep it together back home in between tours. He’s despondent, disinterested, paranoid and losing every personal connection he has to his family. This is the kind of balance that Doves would appreciate because as simple as the motives and rationale may be for going to war, the psychological fallout of such an experience is layered with complexity. Kyle isn’t the sharp, charismatic, collected and concerned warrior/brother he was in Iraq. He’s a man that has seen and done horrific things and slapping labels like “patriotism” and “freedom” to cover it up becomes a less and less effective means of compartmentalizing.

Still, this film favors the heroic Chris Kyle overall because it isn’t concerned with being critical of war as much as it is about being critical about how war changes soldiers. It’s a shame that Eastwood did not take a more significant moment to make some commentary regarding an important part in the process of a soldier returning to civilian life whether it is permanent or in between multiple tours: psychological debriefing. Every soldier goes through this process to some extent when coming home and most people don’t know much about it. Soldiers who obviously needed more critical attention and therapy are the ones who come back and beat their wives, shoot their friends or commit suicide. If we are to take this country’s less than stellar record regarding the physical care of its veterans as a measuring stick, one can presume that the resources available for helping soldiers work out the psychological hell they went through is equally lacking. Chris Kyle is clearly depicted as a soldier who would have greatly benefited from more thorough debriefing, but this classic hero is capable of willful, self-healing as he gives back by helping other wounded and maimed warriors of the VA. Please note: This is not an easy, sure-fire fix that works for every soldier.

Despite this film being a drama, it shows off a number of expertly shot and visually satisfying action segments. The film begins with a number of tension building sniper sequences where Kyle stalks his prey through a magnified scope which are quite adept at allowing the audience to identify with Kyle’s inner turmoil over taking human life, especially for the first time. However, the audience will not be kept in the bell tower for the duration of the film as Kyle gets down and dirty on the ground floor with Marines charged with clearing buildings, one of the most dangerous jobs for soldiers in an urban warfare environment. Gunplay sequences are procedural, but acute, demonstrative and indicative of films more strictly devoted to explosions and body counts. I won’t go so far as to say this film could teach the likes of Black Hawk Down a few lessons, but it certainly gets across the lethality of Navy SEALs as well as the contemporary American soldier in general.

Most of the cast puts forth very adequate performances to support the main character’s evolution and journey. Sienna Miller as Taya delivers every wife of a soldier’s worst nightmare regarding the safety and return of their husbands from the brink of disaster. However, this film makes no mistake regarding the singularity of its focus and it is all about Chris Kyle, or rather Bradley Cooper as Chris Kyle. Cooper undergoes a significant physical transformation favoring a wider and buffer frame than the trim and defined body type he regularly sports. He assimilates a Texan accent with acceptable fluency and does not break for the film’s duration. As physical as Cooper is in his embodiment of Chris Kyle, it is his facial expressions that sell his performance. The audience shares in Kyle’s horror at watching the Towers fall on the news. We grate our teeth in his determination to become a SEAL. We hold our breaths before he pulls the trigger. And we are completely lost when he is unable to reconnect to anything real in his civilian life. Bradley Cooper is an actor who has developed a reputation for really getting into and emotionally selling out his characters with consistency, reliability and superiority. His interpretation of Chris Kyle is no different. Whether “The Legend” is as close to “the reality” this film presents, Cooper’s Chris Kyle is a sympathetic character whose devotion to his personal mission of protecting his brothers in arms is as admirable as his complete disregard for his own family stateside is deplorable. This is where Cooper’s acumen really shines through because he’s as devoted to showing a man being disintegrated by war as he is at producing G.I. Joe. Bradley Cooper is every bit as classic as any other Hollywood leading man in history and his performance in American Sniper is a continued testament to that fact.

Clint Eastwood may be turning 85 years old this year, but his ability to direct a poignant and entertaining film is defying the physics of father time. I have enjoyed a number of the films he has directed, but this is easily my favorite. It’s got intellectual meat, visual eye candy and cultural significance. All these things combined make it the clear cut leader for Best Picture at the Academy Awards, right? Hold the phone. There’s still a ton of Indie love for the rest of the nominees and in an off year for Hollywood, it might be too much of a taboo for a big budget studio film to walk away with the gold, especially when most of the contenders in every category is being maligned for what one could describe as a vanilla sky of alternatives. American Sniper is not an easy film to watch because no matter how romanticized war can be, it’s still hell and this film has a number of absolutely gut-wrenching moments. A number of films this year are worthy of my personal recommendation, but few are as accessible as this one. Regardless of where your personal politics regarding the state of current American warfare stand, everyone can come together to acknowledge its brutal nature as well as its human cost.

Movie News Reviews

Interstellar (2014) Review

Bringing Even More Credibility to Sci-Fi

A Film Review of Interstellar

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:17820:]]

Is Christopher Nolan waging a losing battle to save the art of Hollywood-style filmmaking? His most recent contribution to humanity’s collective creativity is yet another fine example of thought-provoking and entertaining storytelling via the finest audio-visual technology the good folks at Syncopy can provide. Yet, amidst a sea of adaptation, rebooting and reimagining at the movies, the one detail about this film which is most unique and will be easily overlooked is Interstellar’s originality. It is a story written by talented screenwriters Chris and John Nolan based on the theoretical physics of Kip Thorne (who also happened to be the scientific consultant and producer for this film). When people complain about Hollywood’s cycle of regurgitated drivel that is based on X or inspired by Y, my recommendation would be to check out a Chris Nolan picture that isn’t a part of The Dark Knight Trilogy (for which he’s best known). Sure, he doesn’t have the extensive library of the Steven Spielberg’s or the Ridley Scott’s, but his selectivity permits an investment in multiple levels of the filmmaking process for just about every project he helms. It’s what makes him one of the last remaining auteurs in this business. Nolan does it his way, and his narrative imprint is neither a constrictive millstone nor is it an overbearing hammer, but more like a key unlocking doors to new perspectives and scenarios outside of the mechanical mass production of formulaic filmmaking.

As much as I enjoyed Interstellar, the one thing I fully expected from this film (which I ultimately did not experience) was the definitive “IT” factor making it the hands down best film of the year. Certainly, this is a situation where expectations can skew an experience as I was all but banking on the path Gravity (2013) paved for Oscar gold last year in the same way Moulin Rouge (2001) set up genre success for Chicago one year later in 2002. As interesting as the plot is, as compelling as the characters endear and as visually stimulating as the effects impress, the story exposes a major hurdle that the audience can trip on: pacing. “Adrenaline fueled roller coaster ride” is not something that would accurately describe Interstellar as a cinematic adventure. The first third of the runtime is devoted to heavy exposition and a bevy of set-ups. For this particular story, all of that groundwork is necessary for every single plot and thematic payoff that comes later on, but it is somewhat of a grind; so much so that people in the theater started engaging each other in small talk. As much as I absolutely cannot stand people talking in the movies, the lack of activity and intrigue early on tempts distraction.

The film’s second act features a significant increase to the stakes and the dangers which helps bring the audience back, but the narrative never sways from the concept of saving humanity as a species. Just about everything from metaphysics, morality, conservation, sacrifice, faith, family, evolution (and a multitude of other themes and ideas) are touched upon because this film claims that just about everything that defines humanity is as connected to our salvation as we are to each other as individuals as we are to our environments. I applaud the script’s ambition because these ideas are extrapolated from the fantastic, yet easily relatable scenarios that are presented thanks to some good characters and great performances. The story does shift gears a second time during the third act which may present problems for some members of the audience not willing to take leaps of faith to get past a few plot gaps. The action and conflict of the story become less about actual characters and realistic situations and become much more ambiguous and theoretical. It’s at this point the story “transcends time and space” and while it is extremely interesting to view this different dimension, reality, form of thinking, experience of reality (or however you want to describe it); reconciling it with the rest of the story proves a challenge unless one simply accepts and moves on. Fighting it by searching for some logical explanation for where the story wants to go may seem natural, but at that point in the story the rules of “reality” are out the window and should be viewed as such. Those in the audience that can “make the jump” may find a hopeful and inspiring ending while the rest may find an ending that is contrived and convenient. This moment could very well sweeten or sour the entire 2 hour and 49 minute film; no pressure.

Even if you don’t know what it is you are actually looking at on the screen, the visual effects at work during Interstellar never cease to impress. Science fiction as a genre has presented a number of notable, visually effect driven pictures so there have been a number of concepts that have been rinsed and repeated. I would say the same holds true for the basic “space flight” depictions of this film. Ships enter and exit atmospheres in similar ways, they spin to simulate gravity, and the hull gets breached by debris or other external forces. All of that you’ve seen before. What you haven’t seen are some of the more amorphous spatial phenomena depicted in the manner they have been here. We’ve seen wormholes in movies before as “pockets” and “funnels” of space/time that a vessel goes “into” but Interstellar presents it as a large, three dimensional sphere that a vessel “orbits” in order to cross into another galaxy. We’ve seen singularities (or black holes) before, but never quite on a massive scale that dwarfs the size of the sun in comparison. The process of entering a black hole in this film (warping, bending or otherwise destroying matter and light) takes a “less is more” approach by focusing on the subject which never breaks physical form and surrounding it with shear emptiness. Then there’s “the next dimension” which I won’t spoil any further by describing it as infinitely abstract art. All of these effects are masterfully crafted which reveal and obscure exactly what the director wants. Above all, these effects attempt something different from the status quo which is most welcome.

Despite Nolan’s literary and technical wizardry in his films, he still manages to extract intense emotions and marquee performances from his casts. Despite some of the fantastic scenarios his films are involved with, his need to ground them in reality by making it “feel” as real and relatable as possible to his cast allows for greater opportunities to connect with and relate to a larger range of viewers. The same holds true for the cast of Interstellar. Cast members from The Dark Knight Rises Anne Hathaway and Michael Caine return here as a father/daughter physicist duo that’s part of a greater team dedicated to saving humanity. Their particular dynamic isn’t expressed by direct chemistry because the story doesn’t have them sharing the same space, but their individual performances evoke intense passion and even desperation for characters that are lifelong scientists. Jessica Chastain plays Murph, a talented scientist, but an even more devoted daughter whose research is motivated by love and less by equations. Murph’s journey as a character is a much more personal one which is defined by a series of disappointments, thus Chastain is called upon for several instances of anger and frustration without completely flying off the hinge. The rest of the cast is equally impressive with very limited screen time (thank you John Lithgow), just be prepared to see a few A-List cameos drop in playing roles you never saw coming which are very happy surprises.

Of course, Matthew McConaughey plays Cooper, our protagonist and one of the better everyman characters I’ve seen in recent years: a man of machines as well as the land, a trailblazing explorer as well as family man, a man of unfulfilled promise as well as the excellence of execution. Playing a great man that hasn’t done anything great in his own eyes is a challenge well suited for McConaughey’s natural persona (do I need to reference last year’s Oscar acceptance speech?). Once again, his droll, the timing of his delivery and his desperate need to emotionally exhaust himself in just about every scene makes his characters easy to like, sympathize and identify with. Not enough can be said of his performance in this film because it is absolutely vital to the audience’s experience. Only his character gives the audience a window to every event and without that character being someone every viewer can get behind, this film fails. Despite the slow start to this movie, every minute spent is used to endear Cooper to us and McConaughey nails every scene.

If Interstellar were a film that was more accessible to a wider demographic of moviegoers (and fleeting attention spans), the momentum for an Oscar victory would be an unstoppable force. As it stands, it is not a movie for everyone despite all of its impressive accomplishments and must therefore be considered as an immovable object when being considered for some of the best examples of filmmaking this year. This movie’s format and story can have stretches that may lose viewers who are not fully engaged. It also discusses subject matter regarding humanity, its nature, its purpose and its direction that may be uncomfortable if not divisive for people of today to discuss or deal with at any level. However, this film asks those questions in an intelligent, thoughtful, creative and dramatic way that simply dismissing it without giving it a chance would be downright criminal. I loved this movie for everything it showed me onscreen and every image it meant to parallel in real life. It may not end up being the best film of the year, but it cannot be missed if you are in the mood for a tantalizing adventure that electrifies the eyes, tickles the fancy and resonates with the soul.

Movie News Reviews

Movie Review: Gone Girl (2014)

2014’s Fall Film Season Is Here!

A Film Review of Gone Girl

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:17406:]]

David Fincher’s latest thriller starring Batfleck (aka Ben Affleck) and Rosamund Pike is the first exceptional film for the fall season which sets an appropriately devilish tone as we approach Halloween for a story layered with thought provoking plot, twists, surprises, shock, awe and an unscrupulous need to take a shower after watching. Although the gist of this story revolves around a nightmare scenario for relative newlyweds, the fact is its paranoia thrusts its greasy palms into society’s chest cavity considering the commentary being made concerning the national media’s coverage of various kidnappings across the USA. Thank goodness we have a 24 hour news cycle to keep every living room with a flat screen hard wired to some of the most gruesome and perplexing tragedies that only the most singular slices of Americana can bring home as family entertainment.

Despite being a dialogue driven drama, there is plenty of meat to this hearty meal; namely the smart character dynamics, an escalating tone of suspense and cliché obliterating plot twists and resolutions. The viewer may be reintroduced to some common troupes of the “disappeared, who-dun-it, he said/she said” in the first 30 to 40 minutes, but the rest of the film sets the audience up with familiarity specifically to yank the rug out from under us. The audience is constantly on edge and being thrown for a loop as nothing plays out as it traditionally would. Although I designate this as a plus, some may find the twists a tad far-fetched, but either way, this movie will unsettle and may even send some viewers home needing to be cuddled in the fetal position by someone they truly love and trust (or do they? Muah, ha, ha!).

Before I continue singing the praises of the cast and crew of this film, it must be noted that the primary strength of this film is its screen story and script which happened to be written by the author of the original novel for which this film was adapted: Gillian Flynn. Obviously, it’s a major convenience to have the originator of a certain piece of fiction being as involved with an adaptation as possible, but despite all of the intangible benefits of this kind of cooperation, it is an uncommon practice for studios which may or may not have something to do with a bunch of board room tools knowing more about a story than the person that actually wrote it. Gillian crafts a suspenseful drama that translates very well to the screen with a story that is conscious of murder mysteries and unexplained disappearances that have been popularized in various forms of fiction as well as documented in a variety of news coverage. The cast of characters are all presented in stereotypical fashion for what seems like a garden variety mystery, but the story couldn’t play out any further from that. What makes all of the twists much more impactful is the wrench time put into setting up opposite presumptions; you know the ones that allow the audience to figure it all out before the halfway mark in the film. These instances lull the audience into thinking the obvious culprits will be found out for committing the same blundering mistakes they have for every crime drama ever conceived. With circumstances and character status in constant flux, the audience will find that they love to hate and hate to love every single character by the time the end credits roll. Of course, this is only made possible thanks to characters that reveal much more depth as individuals as every minute passes. In a genre for an industry that is so desperately fused to “the formula,” it is refreshing to experience a story that’s much more interested in breaking rules than obeying them.

Viewers beware: a severe lack of action is this film’s primary weakness. We may all know David Fincher for Fight Club, Se7en and The Game, but rest assured this film has even less action than The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. This may instantly turn off the male demographic, but to that I say “Hey! Summer is over. It’s time to get your psychological freak on!” What helps this film even less is the overall vanilla setting of suburban Missouri. Sure, scenes are almost always changing, but their combined lack of visual flair (save for one or two) makes them all blend together. Visual and special effects are also virtually nil, but there is one scene towards the film’s climax where a special effect salvo gets dumped all over the audience that pays off quite well considering its shocking timing. Long story short: Gone Girl isn’t about eye candy; it’s about mind jobs and emotional spasms.

With this kind of film, one must have his or her cast firing on all cylinders and I can confirm this is certainly the case despite my never having been a particular fan of one Mr. Ben Affleck. I’ll admit to somewhat nefarious motivations for seeing this film in that the trailers seemed to setup Affleck as either the antagonist or at the very least the subject of ridicule and rejection. Yes, the thought of that genuinely amused me because he hasn’t exactly been called upon to play the part of the punching bag in any of his films. However, Affleck meets this particular challenge with the casual, matter of fact confidence of a truly innocent man or the actual mastermind behind it all. Sure, he plays Nick Dunne, a prodigal son of Missouri who apparently has no ability to rediscover an accent that he may not ever have had, but his character’s “likeability” is a lynchpin to both the plot and the moment to moment experience for the audience. The fact that Affleck delivers nuanced performances that shrieks both guilt and innocence throughout the film completely bolsters the mystery and uncertainty. I found the chemistry he shares with onscreen sister Margo Dunne (Carrie Coon) to be a series of welcome breaks to the ever building intensity which does much to generate sympathy for the Dunne’s while generating specific instances of further incrimination as the film progresses. Affleck’s Everyman performance is superior to his previous contributions thanks to conscious decisions to play scenes in different (yet subtle) ways to keep the audience guessing.

Rosamund Pike may have been circulating in the Hollywood pipeline for a while, but she has finally found a signature role for which she is completely deserving of every bit of praise as well as a potential Oscar nomination for her performance as Amy Dunne, the titular “Gone” girl. As with Affleck, conscious choices are being made in tandem between Rosamund and director David Fincher to present a full spectrum character from inspired enchantress to loving wife to chilling ice princess (and everything in between). Ms. Pike’s ability to shift gears at will is masterful, and the fact that she retains such consistent demeanor in virtually every scene is absolutely confounding to the audience because it makes her character impossible to read. She commands the audience’s attention both in her active scenes as well as her voice over narration of the events as various journal entries are read to the audience to provide instantaneous back story and exposition which fills in the details as circumstances develop. There is a moment near the middle of the film where Amy’s perspective wrestles control from husband Nick where a thick veil of mystery is removed and almost changes the end game of the film into something much more predictable. Luckily, Rosamund’s performance continues to hold enough back to retain the right level of intrigue with the audience to keep us all guessing even at that point as to who did what, who is guilty, what just happened and how it could all possibly end.

The supporting cast is equally deserving of the praise I’ve already given its two leads. Right off the bat, I’ve got to say that Tyler Perry’s performance as attorney Tanner Bolt is easily the best I’ve seen of him as an actor for presenting a character that is as dynamic as he is entertaining and charismatic. Carrie Coon’s Margo Dunne is the most sympathetic character in this film as she masterfully sells the victim of circumstance thanks to her proximity to the key players. Let’s just say her performance demonstrates a text book example of how to deliver “frustration” in film. Kim Dickens approaches Detective Rhonda Boney with an even balance of rational investigator, small town yokel and sincere do-gooder. Her performance reflects enough authority and confidence during the investigation of a crime without becoming overbearing and annoying. Neil Patrick Harris’ contribution as Desi Collings presents a supremely effective (and creepy) wild card to the entire drama who’s sheer presence evokes a level of discomfort that is vital to the plot’s mystery and always raises suspicion with the audience.

Gone Girl is not your average thriller because it is a story designed to take you to familiar places from a plot perspective, but it leaves the audience in the abandoned alley ways of the unexpected, unnerving and downright repulsive. This overall strategy makes a relatively simple plot much more captivating. Labeling this film as a cautionary tale to married couples does the story a bit of a disservice because it could be applied to the relationship between any two individuals as a psychological experiment in what anyone could rationalize if pushed to their emotional breaking point. The two and a half hour runtime gives the audience an added window to equally disturbing and mind bending circumstances that would have been otherwise completely dropped and left to the audience’s imagination once the central plot resolved and the reason for this is that it doesn’t really resolve. There’s enough of an open ending to allow for a multitude of “what if’s,” but make no mistake, a hopeful storybook is a possibility removed from the negotiating table. This film is an exceptional mystery that is disturbing, graphic and above all, incredibly uncomfortable. If the viewer is up for that kind of emotional gut check, I couldn’t recommend a better film. You’ll never have a better time being made to feel so bad.

Movie News Reviews

Review: Sin City: A Dame To Kill For

Black and White and Red All Over

A Motion Comic … er, Film Review of Sin City: A Dame to Kill For

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:16893:]]

The sort of, but not really sequel to Sin City (2005) has hit the summer of 2014, and I was a bit confused by it all. Certain characters are still alive and kicking while others remain deceased as per the events that transpired in the first film. I understand that this franchise is Frank Miller’s neo-noir wet dream where time (I presume) doesn’t have any real meaning, but this isn’t a comic book or a motion comic. It’s a film adaptation that essentially has no loyalty to its predecessor whatsoever so if the viewer’s only experience in this mythos is the first film, A Dame to Kill For will leave you scratching your head. But then, co-directors Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez didn’t intend on even this much thought going into their flick in the first place. The fact is that this Sin City is yet another protein shake of testosterone and steroids that’s as satisfying to men as it is vomit-inducing to women. The brand is an exercise in unadulterated, hyper graphic, human behavior where all men are cavemen and all women are whores. And that’s fine; what with the first amendment and all. The film would have been made a bit more substantial if it tried to use all that shock value for some kind of commentary, but alas it’s just 2 hours of raw machismo. Again, that’s totally fine, but when the audience has seen this kind of graphic violence time and time again (and that’s this film’s ONLY Ace up its sleeve), well, the one trick pony gets as old and busted as Mr. Ed.

Frank Miller penned the script for A Dame to Kill For and once again utilizes every character self narrating every passing thought in addition to their dialogue in every scene. It was an expository VO strategy that wore out quickly in 2005 and is equally tiresome today, not just for the constant droll of incessant speak, but because the audience isn’t allowed to use any imagination to make their own sense of a scene because every scene is always telling them what to think. As for the story, here’s the abridged version: I’m a man; therefore I have an insatiable ego that I attempt to feed with violence, dominance, murder and substance abuse. I’m a woman; therefore I am super sexy and must use my body to get brainless men to do whatever I want for selfish motives. Yawn. The dialogue and plot for every sub-story at work in this film is pedestrian. It is mechanical, it is formulaic and worst of all it is boring.

One fun thing that is happening in this film is the patented Sin City color scheme that features stark contrasts between black and white, with some strategically placed splashes of vibrant color within every frame. It’s a visual aesthetic that requires an army of visual effect artists that are at the top of their games. Their combined effort along with the make-up, costume and set design departments deliver an impactful experience that clearly channels the comic book/graphic novel format, but of course, in live action. Sincerely, two thumbs way up for the visual style and presentation of this film.

Nudity! It’s a significant element of this film, and before I give you the rundown, know that there is 0% full frontal male that makes the final cut as every instance where one would see a penis is conveniently concealed by a perfect placement of shadows that reveals no texture and no line so thoroughly that it’s as if a black hole were placed above the crotch. With a film as pulpy as this, the audience is bound to be subjected to some amount of it, but I hate to disappoint all those horny boys out there; Jessica Alba’s non-nudity clause in all of her film contracts is still going strong. Sure, that’s really weird for a character in a film as R-rated as this that happens to be a stripper, yet shows the least skin, but whatever. In Miller and Rodriguez we trust, right? Character actress Juno Temple goes topless for a scene with Ray Liotta which will turn some heads and get the attention of directors and producers for future parts because she is quite lovely, but is not called upon to discard all her apparel, and the scene is shot from a wide perspective, so this one instance in the buff could easily qualify as “tasteful.” Of course, all this pales in comparison to the frequent display of an exquisite example of the female form in all its glory by one Ms. Eva Green, a woman who has said Hollywood only sees her as a femme fatale and naturally plays exactly that in this film. Green appears to be a woman born to be placed in front of a camera and is as confidant an actress with or without a stitch of clothes on her. Let’s just say there’s nothing left to the imagination regarding Eva Green in Sin City.

The action in this film is as dynamic as a transition between cells in a comic book. Again, this was a conscious choice for this production, but it doesn’t translate well to 34 FPS. I found the “kung fu” displayed by Jamie Chung as Miho to be laughable especially when she’s shooting her bow. The gunplay was average and fisticuffs featured a lot of cutaways to shadows. Even the scenes featuring characters driving in this movie seemed flat and lifeless. The true “eye candy” of this film is entirely composed of the previous two paragraphs of this review.

I feel torn concerning the performances of this film because every actor is called upon to behave like an over the top, cartoon character and everyone does an exceptional job in doing so. Sure, every character is edgy, dark, disturbed and raw, but they’re cartoons nonetheless. As such, not many of the actors leave a lasting impression as Bruce Willis walks around a few times, Mickey Rourke punches and growls, Josh Brolin looks really angry all the time, Rosario Dawson is lucky to be there and Jessica Alba dances really well. On the other hand, Powers Boothe (what a stage name) plays an exceptionally nefarious villain in Senator Roark, Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays the one character worth generating any sympathy for as Johnny and Eva Green is no woman to trifle with as Ava the “Dame to Kill For” whom everyone can’t stop loving to hate.

The circumstances aren’t laid out too well for this Sin City “sequel.” A hard R plus mild entertainment value by themselves suggest a weak take even from the global box office, but when factoring in the stereotypically male branding of this franchise, not too many girlfriends would tolerate being dragged to this one. The storytelling at work in this film may be graphic, but it’s far too nonchalant to generate any suspense, intensity, or even intrigue outside of the brief window of the present moment. Yeah I get it; (Ba)Sin City is really messed up, populated and run by messed up people. My question is, “And then what?” I can appreciate looking at beautiful women as much as the next guy, but a movie must do more than look pretty to get my endorsement. This is a must-see strictly for those hot for Eva Green.

Movie News Reviews

Movie Review: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014)

No Ninja, No Ninja, No!

A Film Review of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014)

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:16794:]]

Make no mistake, fans of true “Turtle Power,” even though Michael Bay was merely the producer for this particular film adaptation, his imprint is all over this celluloid like crazy is on Casey Jones. As such, the viewer should expect a familiar bevy of calling cards such as plot holes, close-up action, hand-held camera work, blurry combat and Megan Fox. Those who grew up with TMNT are adults now and may be disappointed in this reboot because it reworks the origin story, significantly alters the size and look of the turtles, does the same for the Shredder and turns the foot clan into a gang of Call of Duty terrorists with ski masks. But this film was not made for us. It was strictly made for our children, or rather, children under 10 who have mild to severe cases of ADHD. Despite the PG-13 rating, even teenagers would look at this film and regard it as too childish for even them and tossing in a few “adult words” here and there doesn’t (ahem) transform its juvenile nature.

The only entertainment value of this film was watching all these pint-sized-Turtle-wannabes in the theatre performing air jiujutsu on their friends, brothers and sisters before and after the movie played. The rapid fire pace of this film and complete disregard for character development to accommodate fart jokes drew the kiddies in, and I’m happy they enjoyed it. Parents, however, won’t even be allowed to fall asleep to this eye-rolling affair due to their child bouncing around in their seat and/or pestering them to buy Turtle action figures after the movie and/or telling you about all the characters from the TV show and/or yelling back at the movie screen to participate with the dialogue thanks to the sugar high of popcorn and Mountain Dew. Parents, you have been forewarned. No rational person would disapprove of bringing ear plugs and a sleep mask to this one.

For those of you willing to face the fire of mediocrity head on, get ready for a story that makes the original live action film of 1990 look like Gone with the Wind in comparison. One of the things that make TMNT unique as a brand has more to do with the “T” than the “MNT.” The teenage segment of growth continues to be a delicate and volatile time of uncertainty and empowerment in any young person’s life. The Turtles have always displayed growing pains in every previous depiction of their fiction as well as the concept of family being a stabilizing influence. This movie features none of that. Why? Well, the short answer is “Michael Bay,” but a more thoughtful one is the fact that this film is dedicated to showing off these giant, ninja, mutants performing feats of physical impossibility with the kind of proficiency that only the best CG animators can fabricate.

Another thing that’s missing in this film is any semblance of character development. There are no campfire scenes that reestablish the Turtles’ relationships to each other: no “Ralph annoying Leo” moments, no “Donny educating Mikey” pauses. There is literally one scene of Splinter being a sensei and another moment (the best in the entire film) in an elevator demonstrating brotherhood. Every other segment of dialogue is either too subtle where only fans would appreciate or is generic and derivative to simply move the plot along. Screenwriters Josh Appelbaum, Andre Nemec and Evan Daugherty presume a healthy familiarity with this franchise from the audience in order to free up as much screen time for action sequences. This is a shame because these Turtles are very different from the original animated series, the original live action films and the original comic books. I don’t have much tolerance for reboots in general, but even less for a reboot that can’t be bothered with putting any time into actually identifying what makes this new version of an established fiction different from the rest. I didn’t even care that the origin story was retooled for the sake of convenience, but at least take a time out from sliding down giant snow mountains (during the first week of spring?) to make any of it matter.

As I’ve said before, the action is prevalent in this film. But how pretty is that action? Well, it’s Transformers pretty which means that the frame rate and camera angles reveal enough to communicate the general idea of the action, but slams the door shut on detail. Once again, Michael Bay’s influence over director Jonathan Liebesman (Wrath of the Titans [2012] Battle: LA [2011]) is apparent. 90% of the action featured in this film is CG, green screen, wizardry which may or may not bother some in the audience due to its seizure-inducing pace, but the fact is that intense action from CG characters doesn’t HAVE to be displayed in that manner. Sure, quick cuts to and from obscure angles and a shaky frame are classic filmmaking tricks to up the emotional intensity of a scene, but where’s the payoff when nobody realizes what exactly happened just then? I guess the audience can thank Liebsman’s or Bay’s use of slow motion to hammer home isolated “cool” moments like the Turtles being bullet proof. (The Turtles are bullet proof?!?) Long story short is if you’ve seen any of Bay’s Transformer films, all the action in TMNT (2014) will look the same. Also, there’s no real karate being shown throughout.

The digital redesigns for every CG character in this film from previous interpretations of any medium is a significant point of criticism for this film. The aesthetics of the look are immaterial if the design serves the story or characters in a direct way. All the Turtles are mammoth, ugly and look more like Orcs from World of Warcraft than actual turtles of any variety (mutated or otherwise). Making them look uglier helps in emphasizing the “mutant” angle which plays into their separation from human society which they adore, but their scale doesn’t make much sense if they were trained as ninjas and not meant to be seen in a combat situation. The only environment where the Turtles would be less conspicuous above ground would be at a WWE event. Splinter’s redesign was clearly going for a more stereotypical Fu Man Chu appeal that isn’t as old and weathered as he’s usually depicted. His stature scaled up with his Turtle sons which led to some fairly satisfying combat moments showing off his rat-kung-fu as a force to be reckoned with. Shredder is now apparently Iron Man, but instead of guns, he’s got blades. I felt this was the worst of all the digital redesigns. I fully understand they had to build this menacing exo-suit to match up with the enlarged stature of the Turtles, but the sheer number of blades this suit could produce was just Looney Tunes comical.

Other than the aforementioned “elevator scene” there isn’t one single performance from any CG character in this film that is noteworthy. They are all as plastic as every scene featuring Mannequin Skywalker from the Star Wars prequels. One significant reason for this is that the Turtles rarely share any dialogue scenes with live actors in the same frame. These moments are always displayed with matching shots of high and low angles to differentiate the perspective of ogre Turtles and regular humans. This makes it difficult for the audience to identify with any of the Turtles as inpiduals and the fact that they have no pertinent interaction with each other doesn’t help things either.

Human performances were equally irrelevant and apparently mailed-in. What the hell is Whoopi Goldberg doing in this picture? Oh I know; it’s a paycheck film. Can you believe she actually won an Academy Award for Ghost (1991)? Well you won’t after seeing her contributions here. Will Arnett plays Vernon, a camera man for the news who seems to have a penchant for behaving like Will Arnett, which is convenient because the casting director happened to cast that actor in this role; and nobody cares. My boy William Fichtner (Eric Sacs) from Cheektowaga represents WNY well with a tenured career as an excellent character actor in Hollywood, but this film is not a bullet point on his resume. If you ever needed confirmation that Megan Fox is the worst actress on the planet, watch this movie. I really can’t say much more other than her performance was an awkward train wreck; as per usual.

TMNT (2014) is an unquestioned pass. See it if someone else is treating. See it if a theatre is giving free showings because it’s going out of business. See it on demand two months from now because it’s that awful, will be pulled from theatres soon and will be on retail shelves in time for Christmas. But don’t pay real money from your wallet for this nonsense. If you have a Ninja Turtle fever, then the only prescription is watching the original 1990 film or the original animated series.

Movie News Reviews

Movie Review: Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)

Beyond Infinity

A Film Review of Guardians of the Galaxy

By Lawrence Napoli

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:16652:]]

Wow! There’s no doubt there were several concerns that hovered about this production which easily made it the biggest risk out of all the Marvel Studio, unified cinematic universe, films. No one knows who these “Guardians” are. Marvel heroes are more Earthbound as opposed to space. How is the obscure James Gunn getting a production budget of $170 million dollars? Can Chris Pratt of Parks and Recreation anchor an action/adventure/sci-fi blockbuster? Rest easy, true believers. All concerns, all questions, all doubts and all hesitations are quickly and emphatically put to rest in the final cut of Guardians of the Galaxy. Even if you, the viewer, know absolutely nothing about these people, even if you are not easily moved by superhero movies, even if you have only fringe interest in the Avenger films, there is plenty of action, eye candy, effects and comedy to entertain even the driest humbug on a hot summer day. This movie is great fun for everyone of every age, so much so, that it has supplanted The Winter Soldier as this film reviewer’s favorite movie of the summer of 2014.

The story of Guardians, penned by director James Gunn and Nicole Perlman, describes a gathering of some loveable losers from all over the galaxy, but is framed within the personal journey of Star Lord aka Peter Quill aka Chris Pratt from the time he was taken from Planet Earth. Quill along with Rocket, Groot, Gamora and Drax are a collection of thieves, mercs, soldiers and thugs that are given the charming rogue treatment as each is afforded plenty of screen time to demonstrate their personal eccentricities, but also time to develop chemistry within the group; to bounce their very different personalities and agendas off each other in quite comedic fashion. This method of character development flows well with what amounts to a healthy dose of exposition that catches the audience up on what is happening in the Marvel Universe outside of Earth’s orbit. This may even seem a bit familiar to you, and it should, because it’s the same kind of group dynamic that was showcased in The Avengers and last I heard that film did pretty well for itself. The hook that gets the primary conflict rolling is the only direct link to the Avenger films and it centers on the pursuit of an “infinity item” and that means Thanos (more on him later). Finally, the audience is given an onscreen explanation of what these things are, what they can do and what it could possibly mean as provided by The Collector aka Benicio Del Toro. The rest of the story is a rather heart-warming journey of redemption, family and sacrifice, but what makes it interesting throughout is the fact that it never gets too serious or too dark thanks to the interplay within the group. The X-Men should have given the Guardians a call for tips on how to make a team-based, superhero film actually fun.

The film trailers that preceded the release of this movie were very clear about establishing Guardians as an action film and thankfully, Gunn backs up that promise with lots of hand to hand combat, gunplay, space flight, explosions and all other kinds of mischief and mayhem. Now, I won’t go as far as describing the action here as tactically proficient or as ferociously intense as The Winter Soldier, but the destruction that is left as a result of the combat action is performed, captured and framed with confidence which allows the audience to appreciate all of the activity. There may be a couple of scenes towards the middle of the film where some first person perspective space flight may move the frame at a blurring speed, but these scenes are isolated as wide shots are heavily favored for most of the action. Of course, the visual stimulation does not end at the movement within the frame as the digital fabrication of seemingly every location within this other-worldly adventure produces some of the most beautifully creative environments modern day sci-fi has been able to produce. I was a personal fan of the contrast between the majestic cleanliness of Xandar and the back alley, trading-post appeal of Knowhere. I also need to give an additional thumbs-up to the team in charge of digitally creating Rocket and Groot as entities that may not have had physical mass in reality, but their presence within the frame is seamlessly interwoven and indistinguishable from the live actors. Close-ups of Rocket and Groot reveal the level of detail given to both. One can practically count every hair protruding from Rocket’s face. One is almost moved to tears when Groot’s eyes well up. Oh yes, this production team used every single dollar of that (once again) $170 million dollar budget in every single frame that exudes sharpness, excellence and the best of what Hollywood magic can create.

Performances can be easily lost in a film that layers itself within the infinite folds of visual effects, but seeing how the concept of “character” was a plus for this movie, one cannot have it without solid acting. The voice-over work by Bradley Cooper as Rocket was something that I wasn’t necessarily expecting. I was expecting something very stylized, perhaps digitally filtered and fueled by high doses of caffeine to present a talking Raccoon with an attitude. Cooper’s Rocket is nothing like that. Cooper definitely alters his voice from his normal speak, but vocally presents Rocket as matter-of-fact, casual style which allows a wider birth for emotional shifting to anger and sadness when the moment calls for it. Vin Diesel isn’t exactly tasked with moving mountains by repeating the one sentence his character is capable of speaking, but he gives enough emotion in each instance to communicate to the audience that the walking tree is saying more than just “I am Groot.” Personally, I don’t know why an actor of Diesel’s visibility was cast for Groot, but perhaps James Gunn was a big fan of The Iron Giant (1999).

Zoe Saldana’s Gamora is rigid, disciplined, and focused … and basically the same kind of female action hero she is used to playing in the majority of her past roles. She is meant to be Star Lord’s love interest late in the film, but I wasn’t sold on the chemistry between their characters. Dave Bautista’s Drax (the Destroyer) may be interpreted by the casual audience member as just another pro wrestler struggling to make it as a proper actor in his first, truly featured role, but I saw more than that. So he isn’t exactly Laurence Olivier, but Bautista’s performance is sincere and one can tell he is trying to match the comedic timing of his costars in dialogue sequences. As long as Bautista remains genuine in his commitment to Marvel Studios, I’m sure he’ll be able to smooth out his mechanical delivery as well as maintaining the physicality his character demands. Michael Rooker’s Yondu was an interesting performance in that his character certainly was compelling, but made more so in that Yondu seemed very much like Meryl Dixon from The Walking Dead without the graphic racism and with blue makeup. I have no idea if Yondu in the comics is anything like that, but if you are a fan of Meryl’s, you’ll love Yondu.

The rest of the cast is rounded out by bigger names than the performances they produced. Lee Pace provides a prototypical bad guy in Ronan the Accuser. Dijmon Hounsou’s Korath is a forgettable, cookie-cutter underling of Ronan’s. Laura Haddock (you’ll remember her as Da Vinci’s Demons’ Lucrezia Donati) stuns the audience early in the film with a brief, but gut-wrenching scene as Star Lord’s mother. John C. Reilly’s “regular Joe” Nova Corps soldier literally has 3 scenes in the film, yet retains his patented JCR charm in all. Glenn Close’s Nova Prime is a throwaway. Benicio Del Toro’s Collector is an afterthought, which is odd seeing how it seemed his character would be more prominent thanks to his appearance in Thor: The Dark World.

And then there’s Chris Pratt as Star Lord. Yeah he was ok. I’m kidding. Pratt does a great job at combining his naturally comedic demeanor with an irreverent character that’s half hero, half rogue, but all heart. His character is a child of the 80s (literally) as Quill’s love of the popular songs of that era sets the tone (again, literally) for most of the scenes that play out in this film. Peter Quill/Star Lord is a character that probably shouldn’t even be present in this kind of story, yet somehow manages to hold his own thanks to a balanced application of technology, absurdity, firepower and cunning. The key to Pratt’s charisma is his comedy, but the laughs never become bigger than individual moments during the film that could distract the audience from seeing his character less as a hero and leader and more like a clown. He’s just a simple human trying to make his way in a galaxy of powerhouses, who’s able to keep stride because he’s got his shit together much more than his cavalier attitude presents.

Guardians of the Galaxy was the most fun I’ve had at the movies all summer long and my recommendation is for anyone who likes fun to go see this in any format they can get tickets for at your earliest convenience. The connections this movie has to the Avenger films may be brief, but they are extremely important. The main characters may be considered rip-offs of proper Avengers: (Star Lord = Iron Man, Groot = Hulk, Drax = Thor, Gamora = Black Widow, Rocket = some weird amalgam of Captain America and Hawkeye???), but that’s ok and really only noticeable to the most rabid fans. This movie doesn’t take itself as seriously as The Winter Soldier, but that isn’t a bad thing because it maintains a sense of levity despite the gravity of the danger which produces fun at every turn. The audience applauded the end of this film and I don’t know about you, but this doesn’t happen too often at the theatre anymore. The last time it did was for The Avengers and the time before that was Avatar, so that’s not bad company for the humble Guardians of the Galaxy to share company with.

Now I will launch into a breakdown of the appearance of the mad titan, Thanos.

Spoilers follow. This is your warning to stop scrolling now.

Here we go.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:16653:]]

We finally get to see more of Marvel’s marquee super villain as he rests in the sanctuary he holds in the middle of nowhere-sville, space.

The first thing I noticed instantly was that the character has been visually redesigned from his brief appearance at the end of The Avengers. His skin is less purple and pinker, his chin folds are far less pronounced and it seems like his costume is comprised of full plate, golden armor. Personally, I felt Thanos’ look from The Avengers was a perfect representation from the comics short of his eyeballs actually being visible, but I can understand some alterations are necessary when transitioning from a live actor (in Avengers) to purely digital (in Guardians). The titan’s shade of purple skin must be restored at some point; I didn’t like the pink at all. I’ll give his chin alteration a pass. His golden armor seems a bit TOO gold and that was displayed with very low key lighting in the scene. Perhaps this is Kevin Feige’s ironic take on the character seeing how Thanos is a depraved nihilist obsessed with the concept AND personification of Death, but if he is to maintain this look in his future appearances it might become too sparkly on the screen when Thanos demonstrates the extent of his powers and abilities.

I’m on the fence regarding Thanos’ visual redesign. It isn’t terrible, but isn’t noteworthy. I suspect further alterations for his future appearances.

Then we heard Thanos speak … and … I was less than enthralled. I noticed a familiarity in the voice as it wasn’t nearly as bass as James Earl Jones’ Darth Vader or as ominous as Orson Wells’ Unicron. It was Josh Brolin’s voice. Josh Brolin? How was that decision made? Don’t get me wrong, I didn’t mind his performance, but I wasn’t intimidated in the least by it and if there’s anything Thanos needs to do – it’s to intimidate. For a character this important to the unified, cinematic universe, I would have figured Marvel to tap Mickey Mouse for a few extra bucks for someone a bit more capable in the VO profession. Who wouldn’t like to see Mark Hamil come up with something for Thanos?

Perhaps some digital filtering can help Brolin add some menacing undertones to what amounted as casual speak from Thanos in his one scene from Guardians, but once again, this was another element of Thanos’ appearance that I was not impressed by.

I felt that Thanos was animated perfectly for his one scene. That may seem like a loaded statement because all he really did was posture himself on his throne while remaining seated throughout. BUT, that is the character. An epicenter villain doesn’t pace about, shake fists or haphazardly break things. All of those activities demonstrate weakness. Like his counter-part in the DC universe (Darkseid), Thanos’ presence is all that is required to dominate a scene.

(Incidentally, I find it interesting how Darkseid’s standing posture is always of him with his arms folded behind his back, while Thanos is usually depicted with his arms folded across his chest – oh boy, that would be one hell of a stare down contest!)

The point is that a character like Thanos moves only when it is absolutely necessary and very little is to a being as powerful as him (but, he sure would acquire those infinity gems faster if he took a more direct approach). Even when Ronan betrays Thanos, his non-reaction is typical as there never seems to be any doubt in his mind that he will get what he wants, despite the circumstances.

All in all, it was nice to see Thanos be confirmed onscreen as the man behind the curtain, but it was bittersweet at best. Back to the drawing board for the mad titan!

Movie News Reviews

Review: Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes (2014)

Apes with Attitude

A Film Review of Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

By Lawrence Napoli

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:16579:]]

One of the reasons why I never became a fanboy of this particular mythos is because it was an inescapably depressing and ugly reflection on just about everything humanity has defined as “contemporary society.” PotA as a brand, doesn’t pull punches, doesn’t sugar coat with hope and unabashedly puts the blame on you, me and every other human being for the fall of mankind. Matt Reeves’ Dawn of the Planet of the Apes not only advances the dynamic origins of Rise of the Planet of the Apes, but maintains that unique blend of hopelessness and intimate storytelling that were born of the original films and television series of the late 60s and 70s. Of all 2014’s summer blockbusters, Dawn… delivers the most intellectually engaging plot by dialing back a bit on the popcorn and ramping up the dialogue driven drama amongst the key members of the cast. The audience is spared witnessing the global plague of the Simian Flu and catapulted into an Earth where only small colonies of humans remain while the society of Caesar’s Apes flourishes. Once their paths intersect, history seems to repeat, our ideas of evolution are challenged and what “the right thing” means to society and the individual is examined under a microscope.

I only had a slight apprehension regarding this film for two reasons. First, despite James Franco not being one of my favorite Hollywood types, he did a fantastic job in Rise … and his character is not in this sequel. Second, there’s a change at director, and sometimes that doesn’t affect the quality of the film (see the multiple directors of the Harry Potter films) and sometimes it sinks the franchise (see Joel Schumacher’s adoption of Tim Burton’s Batman). Thankfully, screenwriters Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver return to scribe the plot of Dawn … and despite the massive plot jump from where we left of at the end of Rise … this film’s story effectively connects to its predecessor and stands strong on its own so newcomers shouldn’t feel obligated to see the first film, but I highly recommend it.

Caesar, the unofficial king of Apes in his particular kingdom, is certainly the focal point for the majority of this film which is interesting for a number of reasons. He is still comprised of computer graphics and he doesn’t speak fluent English with his brethren as sign language is still the dominant form of communication amongst the Apes. Making this kind of character as important to the plot of any production is simply not done too often even with today’s technology due to the aforementioned communication restraints. The visual effects combined with the motion capture talents of Andy Serkis presented the most believable fabricated manifestations to date, but it is the gravitas of the dialogue amongst the Apes that enhances the illusion to the point where talking Apes are practically indistinguishable from live actors. The content of this film’s story works extremely well with the context of the spectacle and social commentary.

Granted, this film is not exactly on the same level as the other summer blockbusters in terms of intense action scenes throughout its runtime, but that doesn’t mean Dawn … degenerates into another snoozer, morality tale. Most of the ape movement and combat is depicted from wide angles, which allows the visual effect artists to showboat their impressive skill set. Apes swing through the trees with fluid grace, while lumbering about when walking on the ground on their hind legs. Ape combat is fairly brutal by featuring hand to hand ferocity, but let’s just says fists and melee weapons are not the limit to the danger they present to each other as well as the surviving human beings. Of course, humans are no pushovers and while they are as tough as wet toilet paper when facing down an ape face to face, they compensate with superior firepower and explosives which showcases some standard issue ballistics and pyro visual and practical effects. I’d prefer the bar to be raised for the effects used for gunplay in films that feature it, but seeing how so many resources were dumped into breathing life into fabricated apes, this film gets a pass. The only catch regarding the action in this film is that it’s not particularly well balanced and the dialogue tends to lull the audience. Again, the individual needs to realize that this franchise is not about adrenaline and explosions, but there’s enough here to maintain a high entertainment value provided one engages with the plot.

Despite drama being the priority in this film, there aren’t many individual performances that stand out. Andy Serkis as Caesar once again demonstrates motion capture as a performance art that needs greater recognition from the entertainment industry in general, but before that happens, there needs to be more actors than just him to demonstrate a similar level of excellence. When Caesar speaks, Serkis produces a voice that is equal parts honorable, dominating, serious and threatening. As a matter of fact, most of the dramatic moments occurring in this film are between Caesar, his son, his family and the rest of his society. Jason Clarke’s performance as Malcom represents the best of the live actors in this film. Yes, his character has the luxury of being the one human to consistently reach out to and interact with Caesar, but his performance in general and his facial expressions in particular sells sincerity and desperation in the exact ways they were meant to reflect the composure of his own colony. Gary Oldman, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to have enough screen time for the audience to truly define him as either a protagonist or antagonist which leaves his performance in the neutral role of the placeholder. This criticism applies to the rest of the human cast because quite simply, this film really isn’t about them and there’s only so much you can do with support status.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes takes the pedigree of Rise … and raises the stakes on the drama and danger involved with creating and maintaining a “civilized” society. This fiction is yet another interesting experiment in the “what if?” scenario where things like decency, safety and general order are determined less by institutions and more by anyone’s ability to manipulate the mob. “Conjure magic for them and they’ll be distracted. Take away their freedom and still they’ll roar.” – Gracchus from Gladiator (2000). If this film inspires yet another sequel (which judging by its global take at the box office, it may) it will be interesting to see Caesar evolve into a more seasoned philosopher-king having shed his naiveté after the events that transpire here. This movie is the best-rounded cinematic experience of the summer of 2014, but don’t splurge on IMAX or Real 3D tickets to partake.

Movie News Reviews

Review: Transformers: Age Of Extinction (2014)

A Decent Transformers Movie? Maybe This is Why Shia Got Himself Arrested Last Thursday

A Film Review of Transformers: Age of Extinction

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:16013:]]

Michael Bay has a very acute style of filmmaking which has seen financial success and increased visibility with his helming of the Transformer movie adaptations. Like it or not, his style has delivered predictably reliable profit to the Hollywood machine and the Age of Extinction will more than likely, be no exception. Explosions, loud noises, oversaturated colors, annoying comic relief, women as mindless sex objects and what seems to be the same exact chord progression in every overture of every single Michael Bay film are rinsed and repeated. Personally, I haven’t been too keen on these films primarily because they have basically been the same movies with the same bad guys enacting the same plots and woefully misplacing far too much importance on the human characters of every cast. If nothing has really changed, then why on Earth would I find any improvement now? The answer begins with the absence of Shia Labeouf’s Sam Witwicky, his ridiculous parents and his cosmically improbable girlfriends. Bay may have been trading away a numbskull for a meathead in Marky Mark, but at least Wahlberg gives the audience something different to (possibly) roll their eyes at as we patiently await the Transformers to come back on the screen. In a sea of similarity, ANY difference is a good thing.

Screenwriter Ehren Kruger returns to deliver a story that once again pays mere lip service to a rich Transformer mythos from the comics and animated series in favor of yet another derivative tale of “Transformers are cool pets for humans, oh wait they’re headed right for us, we gotta blow them up, yada, yada yada.” If any of that sounds familiar, it should because it’s the same plot of the last two Transformer sequels for which Kruger is also responsible for. Talk about a well oiled machine, despite a retooled cast and Autobots we’ve never seen before, Kruger is able to carbon copy a tried-and-true Transformer tale as if he were simply swapping out defective gears, shafts and valves. I was perturbed by how Kruger introduces and utilizes the Dinobots. First, don’t hold your breath folks because they don’t appear until very late in the film. Second, some of them are dino-remixes of the classic forms fans may be familiar with and third, none of them are referred to by their proper names so if you’re waiting for someone to yell Grimlock, Snarl, Slag, Sludge or Swoop, expect disappointment. One other thing about the story worth mentioning is a conscious choice regarding the evolution of the most important character of this franchise: Optimus Prime. The years spent on Earth have yielded constant battle for the Autobot Leader and frustration is not only understandable, it is expected. However, I have never seen Optimus Prime depicted with such darkness that I started feeling uncomfortable with his new attitude. I’ve never heard Prime say the word “kill” as often and with such ferocity.

Action, effects and computer graphics are what Transformer films are all about. They are the reason these films still retain summer blockbuster entertainment value which yields the kinds of dollars these films are made for in the first place. For the life of me, I still cannot understand why none of the Transformers use energy-based weapons (as opposed to projectiles requiring bullets for instance), but rest easy knowing that there are plenty of ballistics, big guns and missiles riddling the screen at every turn. I like how the camera doesn’t push in too close during the marquee action sequences, thus allowing the audience to fully appreciate the scale of the destruction. I also enjoyed the aerial action which naturally features a multitude of dynamic angles, but also strikes a good balance with slow motion effects to maximize satisfaction without abusing it (typically another staple of Michael Bay productions). Of course, I can’t discuss the eye candy without talking about the giant f’ing robots themselves who, by the way, still look so great that the audience is left wondering why anyone would want to cut away from them for any reason. Autobot Hound is one of the standouts as his digital render obviously channels the real life human who voices him, John Goodman. The Dinobots are intimidating in both robot and animal forms as their sizes may not be precisely to scale in reference to Optimus Prime, but they are noticeably larger, which makes sense seeing how they’re robotic dinosaurs. It’s too bad Devastator was already disposed of in these films because I’d love to see the Dinobots take him on. Maybe we could see Bruticus in the sequel?

The only real performance that matters in this film and every other live action Transformer adaptation is that of Peter Cullen and his legendary, lifelong, vocal performance of Optimus Prime. Despite turning 74 this coming July 28^th, Cullen’s unique voice retains the chivalrous charm fans of the animated Prime have always enjoyed to the point where we can feel the honor in the air whenever he speaks a word. Cullen is called upon to produce more anger and aggression for this Prime than any other performance in his career, but the sheer sincerity in his voice continues to produce a transcendent experience. Mark Wahlberg does another fine job performing as Mark Wahlberg, er … Cade Yeager, a Texas roughneck who struggles to make a living as an independent robotics engineer because in a reality where Transformers are walking the Earth, everyone and their mother is apparently better at building and programming robots than Marky Mark. (Sigh) Stanley Tucci does a fine job by filling the role of the charming comic relief, Joshua Joyce, which is most welcome seeing how the idiotic comic relief is thankfully eradicated earlier in the film. Kelsey Grammer is a fine villain with his performance as Harold Attinger, but this is thanks mostly to his dulcet tones and less for his “physicality.” Jack Reynor plays the character type Shia Labeouf used to, and Nicola Peltz plays the token sex appeal Megan Fox formerly represented in a movie franchise that’s really supposed to be about giant, transforming robots that happen to be alive.

2014 has not been a particularly effective year for a number of blockbusters to at least meet the hype that pumped them up in the first place. In terms of raw action, even the Age of Extinction doesn’t come close to the action intensity of Captain America: The Winter Soldier, but even Transformers walking down the street on film is more interesting than a majority of what Hollywood produces, and this is why there appears to be no end in sight for this franchise with or without Michael Bay. Anyone with the team of digital artists and animators behind the CG magic of making the Transformers real with VO talent like Peter Cullen can make hundreds of millions of dollars leading a Transformer production. There is a clear lead-in to another sequel, but there’s nothing to suggest that such a film would be a departure from everything we’ve seen thus far, until those pesky humans get cut loose from the plot entirely. Despite it all, Age of Extinction, though far from a perfect production is entertaining enough for a standard admission. Don’t even think about shelling out extra for IMAX or Real 3D admission because the 3D conversion is just plain irrelevant – waste of time, waste of money. Trust me, Wahlberg’s deer-in-the-headlights face is far less annoying than Labeouf’s “no, no, no, no, no!”

Movie News Reviews

X-Men: Days Of Future Past (2014) Review

The Ultimate Mulligan

A Film Review of X-Men: Days of Future Past

By Lawrence Napoli

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:15534:]]

There’s no questioning the ambitious nature of a film production of this magnitude. Not only is director Bryan Singer attempting to unite two separate, yet equally popular casts of successful X-Men films, but he is also attempting to correct the course for one of 20^th Century Fox’s most valuable licenses where installments he wasn’t responsible for may have, shall we say, veered astray. Oh yeah, he’s also trying to make an excellent summer blockbuster while laying the foundation for an ever expanding X-Men, cinematic universe (Channing Tatum as Gambit in a standalone is real) and all of this is somehow supposed to be accomplished in 2 hours and 11 minutes. A solid attempt was made to corral all of the above, with several more A-list characters added to the fray, while nodding to one of the most influential X-Men storylines ever conceived, but Bryan Singer is no Franklin Richards. He does not make fully functional universes in the palm of his hand with the speed of thought and with instantaneous relatability and comprehension by the audience. There are plot gaps, there are awkward moments, there are unsatisfying resolutions and it’s all to be expected because there’s simply too much to account for, but they’ll be damned if they don’t try to cram it all in.

The primary reason for this is the same reason why Sony is attempting a similar strategy by pitting Spider-Man against most of his famous rogues at once by pursuing the Sinister Six storyline. Fox wants that Avengers money and they want it now. Apparently, the only way to do this is by chucking more characters, subplots, and spectacle at the audience as possible. Thus the writers must deliver or be discarded and Simon Kinberg, Jane Goldman and Matthew Vaughn responded with a story that’s a jack of all trades, but clearly a master of none. First, let me note that despite Hugh Jackman’s presence in addition to his character’s significance, this is the first X-Men film that is not all about Wolverine. The story is a tale that is as much Wolverine’s, as it is Mystique’s, as it is Professor Xavier’s, as it is Magneto’s. Unfortunately, because this script is particularly required to focus on so many primary characters, the audience isn’t privy to a more rounded presentation of any of them. This film is able to reconcile this deficiency due to an assumed familiarity with at least X-Men’s1-3 in addition to First Class and the hope that everyone remembers the good guys from the bad in addition to what they are all about as individuals. Every reference to the past, every reference to the future, every comedic quip and all the clever banter does not pay off for those in the audience who are not in the know. Those that are will be treated with layers of nostalgia and an unending parade of familiar faces which is, by far, this story’s absolute strength. There are plenty of campfire scenes throughout to hammer home the team camaraderie theme, but as good as that feeling is, it is noticeably incomplete with several significant characters left out in the cold if not entirely forgotten all together.

This is the reality of the limitations of a script and how it translates to the final minute count, but the compromises do not end with character development, they extend to the story’s format. As this film is initially told as a flashback from an (ahem) apocalyptic future of totalitarian hate, the audience is constantly shifting settings between the future (original cast) and the 70s (newer cast). The dichotomy between worlds is an intriguing contrast that eventually gives way entirely to the 70s because ultimately the future subplot is window dressing for the 70s despite being infinitely more visually dynamic and interesting in general. More screen time could have yielded a better balance in the importance of the activity of both realities, but there were more pressing matters to spend time on, like exposition. There is an immense amount of off screen plot that has been at work since X-Men: First Class and it is leaked via dialogue to explain why the future is the way it is as well as why the 70s are the way they are. Despite these obligatory scenes the most important plot device of this film (the time travelling element) is frustratingly revealed to be not exactly what we think it is and it is to be accepted completely on faith and forgotten immediately. When is a DeLorean, not a DeLorean?

Unfortunately, the biggest loser when it comes to this film’s accommodation of so many characters and subplots is the action and visual effects, you know, the real reason people go to be wowed by summer blockbusters. First, the number of action sequences can be counted by a fraction of the fingers on one hand. Second, the combat in both the future and past crawls along at a snail’s pace thanks mostly to a healthy application, reapplication AND REAPPLICATION of slow motion effects. Third, the character powers and Sentinel activity portrayed in the future when compared to those depicted in the 70s is like comparing the special effects of Avatar to those used in Spaceballs. (I get that the 70s can’t be as stylized as the future, but mutant powers are no less amazing in any time and should be presented as such) Fourth, the hand to hand combat demonstrated by Jennifer Lawrence’s Mystique is as sensual as it is breathtaking; too bad she’s the only character who demonstrates this ability in the entire film. (I’m looking at you “bone claws” Wolverine)

Now I invite the reader to forget everything and focus on the film within the film: Days of Future Past which I affectionately have labeled: Recruiting Quicksilver. The small cross-section of this film that encompasses the character’s presentation, dialogue and action scenes are so uniquely satisfying that removing them from the final film would yield an end product that could only be described as average at best. The Peter Maximoff/Quicksilver sequence is the first and last thing the audience will remember about this entire movie and its entertainment value is liquid gold in its comedic timing, glistening diamonds in its visual effect wizardry and pure platinum in its overall brilliance and added value to this cinematic adventure. This sub-film even has its own 3 act structure that begins with pulling into the Maximoff drive way, shifts gears as soon as the headphones go on and decelerates when arguably the most powerful character the audience has seen thus far is unceremoniously dismissed to go back home to momma. Evan Peters absolutely owns this character and he (along with the visual effects company that created his effects) deserves a standing ovation for invaluable contributions to this film that infuses significant moments of fun and joy throughout an otherwise foreboding film.

As for everyone else, I’ll see if I can touch base on the entire cast. James McAvoy delivers the best performance all around featuring sincere frustration, depression and redemption as a young Professor X. Hugh Jackman delivers the most tame and tempered manifestation of Wolverine to date. Michael Fassbender’s Magneto turns into a cookie-cutter, somewhat disinterested, pseudo-antagonist. Jennifer Lawrence makes Mystique more and more interesting, seductive and much more sympathetic than Rebecca Romijn ever did. Halle Berry’s Storm couldn’t be more irrelevant thanks to a severe lack of lines. Nicholas Hoult is the quintessential, Big Bang Theory kind of Beast. Anna Paquin is barely referenced as Rogue. Ellen Page’s Kitty Pryde has an unexplained evolutionary jump in powers and still looks like a little girl amongst the rest of the cast. Peter Dinklage commands respect on the screen as Bolivar Trask, but cannot stop playing (and winning) staring contests throughout the film. Shawn Ashmore’s Iceman has a beard. Omar Sy’s Bishop looks more impressive than his ability to impact a battle. Josh Helman’s young Stryker does a decent job channeling Brian Cox with limited screen time. Daniel Cudmore’s Colossus somehow has fewer lines than he had in X2. Bingbing Fan’s Blink had an excellent visual effects team in charge of her. Adan Canto’s Sunspot speaks softly (or not at all) and carries an enflamed stick. Booboo Stewart’s Warpath uses knives. Patrick Stewart’s Professor X is heartfelt and grandfatherly. Ian McKellen’s Magneto is extremely old. Lucas Till’s Havok says hi to prove his character is still alive in this universe. Evan Jonigkeit’s Toad has got some mean goggles.

X-Men plus $200 million dollars of production budget is going to draw a crowd and make money and that’s completely independent of the concept of quality. The proof is X-Men Origins: Wolverine and that movie was, sorry to say, a steaming turd by all accounts yet it made $373 million globally. I have plenty of reservations for this film due to 1) having followed every previous X-Men film, 2) being a rabid fan of the 90s cartoon series and 3) casually following the current stories from the comic books. There are more than enough plot gaps and inconsistencies to downgrade its status from “great” because a film so reliant on connections to its predecessors should not be so flippant with “maintaining” its own continuity. What makes X-Men: Days of Future Past a “good enough” blockbuster is the huge nostalgia factor of character interaction throughout in addition to anything involving Peter Maximoff/Quicksilver. However, this film cannot bear the weight of its own plot because there’s simply too much going on in and between every scene. In fact, just about every subplot could sustain its own, respective, feature length film. Alas, the order of the day is to gloss over as many details as possible in order to bombard the audience with character, after plot twist, after character (and so on…) until the final credits roll. At the end of the … Days of Future Past, this film serves Bryan Singer as the ultimate nullifier for abominable X-Men installments of the past so as to reassume control of a franchise he foolishly spurned for Superman. We can all have hope for the future, but I certainly have nothing good to say regarding the post credit teaser in this film, which by the way, IS the lead-in to the sequel come 2016.

Movie News Reviews

Godzilla (2014) Movie Review

Yep, Another Giant Monster Movie

A Film Review of Godzilla (2014)

By Lawrence Napoli

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:15442:]]

There’s only so much you can do with a monster movie when your monsters 1) don’t speak, 2) aren’t the real focus of the story or 3) behave exactly the same as they have in every giant monster attack film seen by audiences all over the world since the birth of this genre. That still won’t stop Hollywood from trying as everyone’s favorite beast from the east, Godzilla, rears his stubby snout and portly belly [sign that lizard up for some Jenny Craig!] in a disaster film that tries to breathe some freshly radiated energy into the creature’s origin and purpose for existing. I don’t mean to lay a MUTO egg down the throats of everyone that helped make this film (because there is artistry in every completed film thanks to its collaborative nature; regardless of its end quality), but I struggled to find any entertainment value in this film. In recent history the audience has seen more visually imposing disasters, better looking monsters, more satisfying action involving said monsters and most importantly, more interesting human stories that always become the plot engines for these types of spectacles.

Novice screenwriter Max Borenstein created this screenplay for Godzilla based on a story conceived by one of the “brains” behind The Expendables franchise, Dave Callahan. In it, the audience is treated to a retro-reboot of the King of Beasts’ most iconic films of the 60s and 70s which thankfully ignores the atomic bomb that was Roland Emmerich’s interpretation in 1998 starring Matthew Broderick and sees Gojira return to his heroic roots. At one point in this film’s first act, an idea is introduced suggesting that the Big G is a force of nature meant to restore balance to the planet. That would have been a neat idea to frame an entire giant-monster-attack film around. Too bad it was conveniently pulled out of thin air by Dr. Serizawa (the “lead” MUTO scientist?) and shelved immediately because this moment’s only purpose was to get the audience thinking the giant lizard might be good. These are the kinds of plot twists that make a story more interesting because (traditionally) they are well setup for the audience to discover with onscreen action or investigative dialogue. Unfortunately, Godzilla’s story is not presented with any methodology outside of left-field, coincidental moments of clarity where the divine intervention of lazy writing empowers every character to move the plot ahead without any particular connection with or loyalty to any previous scene.

The other problem I have with this story is the fact that people go to see these movies for Godzilla, Rodan, Mothra, etc., yet they aren’t the main characters in their own tales due to the understood communication deficiencies of these larger than life beings. Thus, the story must focus on the screaming masses of human beings that foolishly try to control the situation while they avoid being stepped on. In this regard, Godzilla is likened to Michael Bay’s Transformers in that the movie should be renamed: Stupid Humans and Their Godzilla Pet. That’s not to say the monsters couldn’t accomplish this task, but that would have required shutting up the entire cast for chunks of screen time to allow the Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organisms to pantomime some plot and formulaic filmmaking will have none of that. Perhaps the strategy of leaning on the monsters more wasn’t even considered, but it would have been a welcome novelty considering every aspect of the human part of this story is as annoying as it is recurring. Scientists that are experts in their fields have no clue what’s going on, military people want to blow everything up, soldiers want to protect their families, blah, blah, blah. Zero of these human subplots have any emotional weight. They feel tacked on, with minimalist dialogue and performed with the gravitas of a high school musical save for Bryan Cranston’s contributions (but we’ll revisit his situation later).

The visual spectacle of giant monsters destroying locations of the world that aren’t named New York City, Los Angeles and Washington D.C. looks good enough, but certainly nothing different from the city wide destruction we see every day on the national news as a result of war and natural disasters. Part of the problem is that the audience doesn’t actually see the giant monsters actively ripping skyscrapers to shreds until the climactic battle late in the film. What we do see is a lot of aftermath shots of urban areas that look like bombs were dropped all over, but they are static and completely devoid of danger. It makes you wonder where all the money from a very healthy $160 million dollar budget went, and I presume it went to animating Godzilla himself who looks great (especially when he “charges up”), but he’s the only exceptional visual effect at work for the duration. I’d also like to restate how the climactic battle was a real treat to watch, but it left me wanting more and wondering why I didn’t get it this whole time. I suppose long time special effect engineer turn director Gareth Edwards felt that a couple of really good looking moments with monsters is enough to satisfy an audience so long as it’s supplemented with some average looking stunt work featuring people being crushed, people falling down and people otherwise at the complete mercy of these forces of nature.

As this review closes out, I will briefly comment on the “acting” that was apparently at work in Godzilla for which the entire cast can be described as looking like the “deer in the headlights” at all times. Quicksilver (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen) seem to be a package deal as they play husband and wife Ford and Elle Brody in this film as a family displaced by a mega monster grudge match. I guess I can’t blame them for a severe lack of romantic chemistry seeing how they have two scenes together, but I can blame the casting directors (four of them, if you can believe it) for recruiting an actor meant to play a tough soldier leading man who still sounds like he’s 13 years old. I suppose casting someone from the Olsen bloodline was fine for Godzilla because her role impacts no other character, no additional subplot and is completely irrelevant. David Strathairn and Juliet Binoche are here strictly to pick up their paychecks. Ken Watanabe further demonstrates his exponential mastery of the English language with his five lines. As for Bryan Cranston, the most respectable actor in this entire cast, I only have two things to say to the reader: Deep Blue Sea (1999) and Samuel L. Jackson. You do the math.

The fact is that Godzilla is a license that’s going to keep coming back to the big screen because of a ready-made fan base and global recognition, but whether these films are ultimately good is strictly in the eyes of the beholder. However, I gained increased appreciation for the 60s and 70s films after watching this most recent installment and especially for the ones that showed cheesy dialogue between Mothra and Godzilla regarding the king lizard’s hesitance to help human beings because they always open fire on him whenever he shows up to help. That’s Academy Award winning material when compared to this film and although the campy films of the past don’t have all the bells, whistles and big names of 2014’s Godzilla, they have a hell of a lot more heart. This film is a pass. It’s too bad this movie will still be occupying IMAX theatres into next week because I’d rather spend a few more bucks to watch Days of Future Past on the largest screen possible.

Movie News Reviews

Review: Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

Revisiting a Sticky Situation

A Film Review of The Amazing Spider-Man 2

By Lawrence Napoli

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:15239:]]

The summer is fully up and running what with a second comic book blockbuster to grace the box office in the much anticipated sequel to The Amazing Spider-Man. We are almost two exact years to the day removed from The Avengers and the (ahem) amazing things it did by interweaving multiple franchises into a culminating, team-based extravaganza the likes of which have never been seen before. Marvel Studios, and Kevin Feige in particular, certainly had sky-high ambitions regarding this effort, but they continue to reap the rewards as the trend setters. Since then we’ve seen every other major studio with comic book rights setting themselves up for the same kind of “Avengers-like” mega film in hopes of duplicating, if not surpassing, $1.5 billion in global sales. Warner Bros.’ Man of Steel/Justice League, 20^th Century Fox’s X-Men and of course Sony Picture’s Amazing Spider-Man franchises all aspire to Marvel Studios’ success, but they all want to get to that Avengers money faster, and they’ve all figured throwing a whole bunch of major characters at audiences in one fell swoop is the key.

We all knew the rouge’s gallery was coming. Every trailer for The Amazing Spider-Man 2 specifically showed us the tech that “belongs” to classic members of The Sinister Six of which Sony has confirmed will have a stand-alone film not to mention a separate film to introduce everyone’s favorite lethal protector, Venom. Rest assured true believers, references, name-dropping and direct appearances from major characters in Spidey’s universe are part of the very joy that makes ASM 2. Unfortunately, it is also the major source my criticism for this film as I predict similar problems for future films in other franchises pursuing the character-bomb method. You see, if a film is trying to sell me on multiple antagonists, then that film better have enough screen time to get the job done properly. The problem is that ASM 2 is a film primarily concerned with Peter Parker’s struggle with his alter ego, his relationship with Gwen Stacy, his relationship with Aunt May and his search for the truth surrounding the mystery of his parents’ disappearance. All of that stuff was absolutely great as Spidey’s moments with his girlfriend and Aunt are far and away the most dramatic and emotional high’s (and low’s) of this film. The screenwriting team of Kurtzman, Orci, Pinker and Vanderbilt carried over the best plot elements from the first film and expanded upon Web-Head’s drama in the second.

Thus, it should be to no one’s surprise that this leaves little old Electro (and everyone else) a whole lot of bupkis regarding screen time to develop themselves as characters, to make their presence meaningful and to compare/contrast with the hero’s motivations to perhaps identify them other than flat, evil and dull. I simply could not help but think that every one of these supposedly alpha villains was a mere afterthought to Peter’s intimate relationships, and this problem is amplified by their sheer number. These fellows go through some pretty drastic personal and physical transformations in no time flat that results in some plot gaps here and convenient plot devices there just to get the audience from point A to B as efficiently as possible. That’s all well and good for animated series and comic books because there’s always the next episode or issue to explain what just happened. Movies need to get it right the first time around because sometimes a character arc gets fully resolved in the same film he or she is introduced. Every single villain in this film, regardless of how strong or menacing they appear to be, pale in comparison to the Tyrannosaurus Rex that is Peter Parker’s personal insecurity, guilt and shame. ASM 2’s villains are vacant spectacles of eye candy and they could have all been replaced with common bank robbers and gang bangers.

If story isn’t your meat and potatoes, ASM 2 has some of the best CG effects at work in the film industry today, and it almost makes up for one of the worst endings I’ve seen in a comic book adaptation to date (but more on that later). I loved how the virtual camera gets in super close to Spidey’s POV while swinging around NYC. and I appreciated more than just one static angle where the audience only sees his hands, then webs then rinse and repeat. Spider-Man has never appeared as aerial as he does in this film, and this welcome feature infuses some visually pleasing movement to the frame without jarring explosions or mid flight fisticuffs muddling the flow. I believe director Marc Webb finds a good balance between real time and bullet time effects for the overall action. Yes, yes, we all know the “Spider-Sense” is technically “on” all the time, but it would get pretty boring to watch slow motion action in every scene. The visual aesthetics don’t get any better than the powered up Electro whose CG team were clearly drawing some inspiration from Watchmen’s Dr. Manhattan. Every sinewy, neon bolt pops from every background in both day and night and seeing that character fling lightning and transport from place to place is a sight to see.

Cast performances are all over the map, but thankfully the main roles that are reprised are solid once again. Emma Stone’s Gwen Stacy is easily the most charismatic character onscreen, and it’s more than just her good looks at work. She has a great smile, great energy, comedic timing a notable ability to dial it back for drama and dial it up for anger and all while having some genuine chemistry with Peter Parker a.k.a. Andrew Garfield. And speaking of whom, Spidey is a perfect blend of smart-ass, hopeless romantic, and indecisive pariah as the charming Mr. Garfield delivers once again while minimizing his ADD nervousness around Gwen when he wishes to communicate his guilt about the relationship in light of the promise he made to Captain Stacy. Sally Field gives the audience another reliable “mom performance” and continues to keep Aunt May energized with some attitude, which is fine by me because I never want to see that character as a decrepit grandmother ever again.

Everyone else appears to be out-acted by Dennis Leary playing the stoic ghost of Captain Stacy. Paul Giamatti hasn’t played a more irrelevant character as Aleksei Sytsevich since the fraudulent Rudy he played in The Negotiator opposite Kevin Spacey and Samuel L. Jackson. His appearance in this film as the “Rhino” is nothing more than a paltry down payment for future films which will hopefully evolve into more than a series of snarls and grunts, but don’t hold your breath. Chris Cooper goes un-credited as Norman Osborn in an absolute throwaway role. I suppose this is just as well because I too would want to forget that I was criminally underused as perhaps the most talented thespian of the cast in a mega-budget paycheck film. Dane DeHaan delivers a duplication of the dreary and demented Andrew Detmer from Chronicle. Seriously, his rendition of Harry Osborn is the exact same character, but with better clothes, and his Green Goblin … well, it could very well end up with the golden razzie for worst character of the year.

Perhaps it was silly of me to expect more out of an academy award winning actor like Jaime Foxx because quite frankly, those actors are usually not filling out these kinds of “popcorn” roles. He definitely overplayed the hokey nature of Max Dillon almost as if he was mimicking Jim Carrey’s Riddler. I understand he did this to accentuate his obsessive compulsive social disorder which in turn makes him a more pathetic target for everyone else to push around if not completely disregard. It explains the anger he lets loose as a severely pissed off Electro, but it also left open a moment for Electro to be a sympathetic villain which almost happens in the Time Square sequence. Due to time constraints and the pre-designation of that scene being a “fight” scene, that moment vanishes as quickly as it’s suggested as whatever character he had left loses all dimensionality and transforms as another, ho-hum (I’ll get revenge on Spider-Man!) villain that’s about as cookie-cutter as comic book villains get.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is a film that suffers from way too much going on at the same time for the duration of the entire film that it lessens the emotional impact of every moment as a result. Peter Parker’s internal struggle was conveyed well at the expense of trivializing his external conflict. This would not have been an issue had Electro been the sole villain which would have (potentially) expanded Spidey’s ability to talk down a would-be villain or find some way to reason with him or her to resolve the conflict other than knocking them out. Alas, that option literally goes up in smoke as what seems like a natural end to the film after a climactic battle drags out into a half-hearted, amended ending for no other reason than squeezing in a couple more characters for the last precious minutes of screen time. It’s the kind of moments you would see shoehorned into a post-credits or mid-credits teaser (of which there is none, so once you see the X-Men thing, you can leave the theatre). What’s worse is that these token battles bookend a major (and somewhat expected) plot twist that simply does not deliver the emotional outburst it damn well should have accomplished. It was a disappointing end to an already slumping third act that I kept shaking my head over and over seeing how the first 2/3 of the film was shaping up so well.

Spidey fanboys will go nuts over all the references in addition to all the dramatic placeholders left in this film that expanded universe films might eventually deliver upon. There is plenty of action and special effects to satiate the average audience member looking to take a mental vacation for a couple of hours. But if you’re looking for a real character-driven, action-adventure, set in an ever expanding cinematic universe, you might still be able to catch a screening of Captain America 2: The Winter Soldier. This Spider-Man suffers from too much tacked-on, especially at the end. Topher Grace knows exactly what I’m talking about.

Movie News Reviews

Movie Review: Transcendence (2014)

Not More Than Meets the Eye.

Movie News Reviews

Review: Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)

Holy ‘Merica!

A Film Review of Captain America: The Winter Soldier

By Lawrence Napoli

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:14746:]]

As we approach the end of the Phase 2 Marvel Studio films, we see an upward trend in the quality of these individual blockbusters which continue to prime an already rabid (and ever expanding) fan base for Avengers: The Age of Ultron. Captain America’s second installment is a very well balanced action/adventure that ups the intensity in hand-to-hand combat, gunplay and vehicle stunts without its plot degenerating into a half baked Die Hard sequel that should never have seen the light of day. If Hollywood sees fit to add the month of April as the new starting point for the parade of summer blockbusters, then I couldn’t pick a better film in The Winter Soldier to thaw us all out of this chilly “Spring” as quickly as humanly (or in this case, superhumanly) possible.

The story, by itself, is one that several war, action and science-fiction films have addressed a multitude of times in the past: How much security does the world need at the expense of liberty? This will forever be a hot button issue for humanity as the military industrial complex continues to proliferate and specialize into increased automation which dehumanizes the task of enacting security, allowing those in power to make drastic choices efficiently without the burden of diplomacy, ethics or morality. Obviously, the difference is we’re seeing this dilemma unfold in the Marvel Universe with its most iconic soldier thrust into the epicenter, but let’s be frank, we’ve seen this before. It becomes quite clear that an organization as powerful as S.H.I.E.L.D. isn’t content with simply cleaning up any messes The Avengers leave behind, let alone sitting on the bench when it comes to “protecting the planet.”

I like how the script continued to touch upon Cap’s “man out of time” theme while the character entered this personal conflict between following orders and simply doing the right thing, but then we all saw how upset Steve Rogers got at Nick Fury in The Avengers when that whole Tesseract WMD project was revealed. Personal connection, trust and a moral compass are the things that drive Captain America to have a mission in the first place. Without them, even regular men would begin to find difficulty in being soldiers, police or any security personal with the power of using lethal force to maintain order. As a result, the audience is taken on a journey that sees Steve Rogers develop as a leader not just as a combatant, but as a tactician and an inspiration. I only wish the story had time to shed this kind of light on Black Widow, Falcon and Nick Fury, but alas, Cap had some serious character maturation going on here, and it demanded just about every minute.

If all you really care about these individual Avenger films is checking out some kick-ass action, The Winter Soldier absolutely has your back with high quality special and visual effects, explosions, but most importantly fight choreography. Captain America doesn’t fly, shoot lightning or steps on his opposition, but he does punch and kick and throw his shield with improbable accuracy, and it is the speed at which the camera captures it that makes it impressive. Every close quarter combat sequence masterfully blends ballet-like strikes and counter-strikes with gut wrenching brutality. There are several moments during fight sequences when the camera gets in a little too close and stays there for the duration of each conflict that it might get too blurry for some in the audience to maintain who’s who and what exactly just happened, but I didn’t find this too problematic. There are enough moments when the camera pulls back to let you catch a breath in order to appreciate the impact of the action, but close-ups and quick cuts will forever be the director’s best friends when it comes to capturing stunt actors doing what they do best as opposed to faking it with lead actors hooked up to wire rigs yanking them all over the place. I also really enjoyed how weapons were incorporated into every fight. Pistols, machine guns, knives and of course, the shield, are in constant use and showcased at every conceivable range from far out to in your face.

The performance of the cast as a whole is without any glaring deficiency, but also without an absolute standout akin to the signature eccentricity of a Robert Downey Jr. or the charisma of a Chris Hemsworth or Tom Hiddleston. For instance, all of the supporting characters that return from previous Avenger appearances retain their previously established reliability. Samuel L. Jackson is still a bad-ass Nick Fury; Scarlett Johansson is still a sexy, innuendo-dropping Black Widow, and Cobie Smulders is a no-nonsense and businesslike Maria Hill. In their defense, none of these actors are really given huge opportunities to give the audience something new, but the plot puts a noticeable dent in the mythos of this fictional world that I would have appreciated a more significant shift in character status from all these actors. Anthony Mackie provides a successful integration into the world of the Avengers as a solid sidekick in Falcon, but his scenes as regular guy Sam Wilson are much more compelling and provide some golden nuggets of dramatic chemistry with Chris Evans.

The villains are not much to write home about because the real “villain” happens to be the flawed system/philosophy behind contemporary global security/control. But Cap needs to punch someone in the face, and Sebastian Stan gets ripped to go toe-to-toe with the Star Spangled Man. He also gets very proficient with a consistent death glare he sends everyone he shares any screen time with because his character has precious little dialogue to speak of. Robert Redford’s Alexander Pierce was more than I was expecting when compared to Ben Kingsley’s hilarious, yet ultimately irrelevant portrayal of “The Mandarin.” Redford is icy cool and matter-of-fact, but never deviates from that level of emotional tenor.

The plain reality is that The Winter Soldier is all about the growth of Steve Rogers/Captain America and the actor that plays him: Chris Evans. Once again, Evans successfully channels the boy next door who gets abs and arms and buns of steel, but there’s just something missing in his Captain America that simply playing him as “just another guy from the block” doesn’t quite cut it in this film and will most certainly not fly for the remainder of his Avenger appearances. I’ve seen enough of the plainest superhero alive. Evans shows moments of Cap’s signature heroic assertiveness towards the end of this film, but the fact is he’s been Captain America for a while now, and Steve Rogers has had a handle on his personal sense of right and wrong well before his mannish head never grew into his formerly boyish body. Don’t get me wrong. Evans absolutely nails his down-to-earth Steve Rogers with Peggy and Steve Rogers with Sam moments. It’s nice to see heroes with their capes off just trying to be people, but eventually the capes go back on and I’m still waiting for that moment where I see Evans own it onscreen as Captain America: the iconic hero that every Marvel superhuman acknowledges in some way. He’s more than capable, and I hope he gets there before his character is killed off or cast aside or dealt with according to Kevin Feige.

This is the first must-see of the Spring/Summer run of blockbusters and the number one reason to do so is for the action. Effects and eye candy would be reason number two. The story and characters are all well and good, but I see a whole lot of place holders for even more significant things set to happen in future films involving Captain America. I happened to see this film in IMAX 3D which wasn’t distracting at all, but I wouldn’t qualify this film as an absolute necessity to experience it in that format. Obviously, you have to wait for all the credits to roll to get those teases for where Ultron might be heading, but I was more enthralled with the Easter Eggs throughout Cap 2, particularly the nod to Dr. Stephen Strange.

Movie News Reviews

Op-Ed: Thoughts On A Michael B. Jordan As A Black Johnny Storm

Josh Trank’s Got A ‘Fantastic’ Curveball For Ya!

More Casting Shenanigans from the Hollywood Machine

By Lawrence Napoli

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:14084:]]

All right, so we all know by now that 20^th Century Fox is bankrolling a reboot of the Fantastic Flops from ’05 and ’07. Josh Trank, director of Chronicle (2012), will be in command of this reboot starring a bunch of semi-known white actors in the principal roles … and … a black Johnny Storm? Oh yes, Michael B. Jordan (which is I’m sure a stage name that totally and is in no way attempting to siphon off any mojo from ‘His Airness’) has been cast as the Human Torch. Questions?

First, let’s state the obvious. Jordan is Josh Trank’s boy from his break out film Chronicle. Jordan did a great job in that role, but he still happened to be the token black guy in a super-hero-y type of movie so that means [SPOILER ALERT!] he wasn’t the main character and was the first one with powers to be killed. Surprise, surprise. What truly isn’t a surprise, however, is the fact that this kind of Hollywood nepotism or reciprocation or familiarity or whatever you want to label it as is pretty gosh darn common. Just look at anything produced or directed by Chris Nolan and you may notice the carbon copying of entire cast lists. Be that as it may, I have no problem with any director recasting actors with whom he or she developed good, professional relationships with – provided it’s not just about throwing someone a bone and the decision will be mutually beneficial.

Second, nobody knows where exactly this “reboot” is going to go with the story, but examining the sparse details on imdb.com (assuming them to be accurate) allows us to deduce a few things: The Fantastic Four will be Reed Richards/Mr. Fantastic, Sue Storm/Invisible Woman, Ben Grimm/The Thing and Johnny Storm/The Human Torch. Each character would not have been given their pseudonym on the cast page if this reboot was going to be doing something way off formula by changing the origin story from “these people get blasted with cosmic rays in space that turns them into the super-humans we’ve come to know them as.” So it seems that everyone is going to have the same or similar range of status and relationships they share with each other from the comics and the previous films. The issue at bar is that the characters of Sue and Johnny Storm share a biological heritage that is clearly going to be broken based on this most recent casting news. I can only presume that Trank will go for some alternative/adoptive family structure to “plot-device” that little detail away because both introducing themselves as “I’m Sue Storm. I’m Johnny Storm. No relation,” is just plain dumb even for a (non-spoof) comic book adaptation.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:14086:]]

I could care less about whatever taboo may result from reorienting the ethnicities of fictional characters. If anything, Hollywood needs as many truckloads of actual, progressive thought patterns to do anything to kick the white/male hero to the curb and deliver stories whose main characters are women, Asians, Africans, Hispanics, homosexuals – basically anyone who isn’t the stereotypical white, hetero, leading man. I like the idea of casting Michael B. Jordan in this role because of the potential it gives to refreshing a whole lot of super hero been there/done that. My problem with this casting reveal is not that Johnny Storm is black, but that his sister, Sue Storm (Kate Mara, pictured left), isn’t.

There was a real opportunity to do something unique with a fairly popular (though certainly not a flagship) license amidst this tidal wave of comic book films we’ll be digesting for the next 10 years. Seeing interracial couples in films and TV today reflect trends in western society that have been happening for a while, and Hollywood is still catching up. Seeing this in a super hero family for a big budget blockbuster would not only have brought the proverbial spice, but also a whole new angle to reflect on the first family of super-heroes not to mention an added level of depth this potential film’s predecessors could never have addressed. If Trank wants Jordan as Johnny, then that’s fine, but it makes no sense to make his (traditionally) biological sister a different race, regardless of whatever complex family dynamic you’ll only address with these two characters by themselves. Finding the screen time to explain whatever this brother-sister relationship will eventually be defined as will diminish the capacity of the most important relationship in this family: between Reed and Sue (and their future child Franklin who is arguably the most powerful, non-abstract, character in the Marvel Universe). An interracial couple would have raised the stakes, delivered something new and sweetened the drama for the entire cast.

In the end, Josh Trank is going to be directing a comic book adaptation that is going to feature plenty of action and special effects and typically, those kinds of films aren’t primarily interested in commenting on anything too heavy. As much as people may be making a big deal about Michael B. Jordan now, I have a feeling that Trank is going to sweep his ethnicity under the rug in the due course of the film’s progression by making these “however related” siblings as matter-as-fact as possible. One or both of them will be adopted or have different fathers and yada, yada, yada, as long as two white people are hooking up as husband and wife of this super hero team then everything’s fine. Diving any deeper into this subplot turns this film into the Fantastic Two. Denying that depth forces the elephant in the room to get completely ignored and, as a director, you’ve made your actor (in this case, Jordan) completely inconsequential to the character. I suppose it’s a good thing to get to the point in society where things like race and everything else that makes us different from each other doesn’t impact behavior in any way, but maintaining the unique sibling nature of Sue and Johnny with the ethnicity swap would have brought a whole new level of complexity to this film that I can only assume was simply (ahem) too hot to handle for this particular production staff.

I’m sure when more information and promotions regarding this film become available, we’ll hear Trank and perhaps every producer at the top talk about “we just picked the best cast with the best chemistry,” as an explanation for it all. Yeah, ok. This isn’t casting for a high school musical where it would be novel to cast an African American male for Peter Pan, an Asian American female for Jean Valjean, a Latino American male for Sky Masterson and so on and so forth. Picking whomever for whatever shouldn’t enter the equation unless the production is going to make those kinds of choices more meaningful to the overall production than “just ‘cause.” Hollywood films can ill afford to be flippant in regards to any decision made for the production unless that choice fully serves the story; anything less needs to be reconsidered if not instantly retracted. Of course, that kind of idealism doesn’t fuel even your average Hollywood blockbuster and the “just ‘cause” rationale is actually something that pops up quite frequently. It’s one of the main reasons we continue to see some awful filmmaking and the audience notices those choices with every awkward moment we bear witness to.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:14087:]]

All I care about is seeing a really good movie, and I feel this one could be great if the Storm family was an African American family, but let’s dial it back and keep it real with the Fantastic Four. That franchise isn’t anything close to the grandeur of The Avengers, X-Men, Spider-Man, Batman, Superman or the Justice League. Infinitely less people are going to care if this movie actually gets made, let alone this one little detail. So who gives a damn, right? Well, I would think a filmmaker would want as many people as possible to give a damn by trying to show people a story and give them an experience they haven’t had before. The brother-sister no relation situation seems foolish to push in any film where the story isn’t fully focused on that major plot point. But who am I kidding? It’s just another reboot. Why should anyone expect more from something less?

Movie News Reviews

Movie Review: RoboCop (2014)

Nothing Says “I Love You” Like … Another 80s Remake?

A Film Review of Robocop (2014)

By Lawrence Napoli

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:13737:]]

First I’d like to say happy Valentine’s Day or Weekend or whatever to everyone taking some extra time to show some of those good vibrations to the ones closest to your hearts. I wish you all good times, good talks and good (where appropriate) whoopee.

As for the Robocop remake, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: “I don’t like remakes.” I will never appreciate the principal of revisiting fictions of the past, calling it a “re-imagining” and then putting the exact same title on it. Heck, so many remakes claim to be exploring different perspectives, different takes and doing different things with the plots when in fact they really don’t and if they do their characters aren’t as good, the stories aren’t as interesting and the new setups seem odd in that nothing seems to be relevant to the original film, thus invalidating the need to copy the title in the first place. A good example of this would be another Paul Verhoeven film that was recently remade back in 2012: Total Recall.

So if you don’t want to copy an original film (frame for frame) with contemporary special effects and computer graphics, but still want a story that harkens to its roots and still be good, all at the same time, what do you do? The options are limitless for the unrestricted writer, but in the case of the Robocop remake, the strategy at work was some aesthetic bodywork to the candy coated shell of a sci-fi/action film while completely overhauling the gooey, caramel filling of pulp shock value and ultra-violence by upgrading the engine with the heart healthier dark chocolate of political and social commentary concerning the ghost in the machine, the manipulation of “security” at home and abroad as well as Corporate America’s role in the whole equation. Essentially, director José Padilha and writer Joshua Zetumer turn the Robocop franchise into something else and in my opinion, something much more interesting. Gone are the excessive blood squibs, gone are the close-ups on limb explosions, gone is the casual vulgarity, gone is the shameless sexual objectification, gone is the R-rating. What remains is incorporating a nearly dead human being into the body of a robot, his (or its) struggle to reintegrate with his family and community, corporate conspiracy and action (despite the fact that it cuts away every time for PG-13 purposes).

This contemporary update of Robocop features a story and script that clearly desires to step away from its predecessor, but what’s astounding is that it does so with such assertiveness that is extremely rare coming from a rookie in the screenwriting game. Joshua Zetumer has one credit on imdb.com (and no bio – with a few un-credited rewrites) and it’s for Robocop (2014). Perhaps the collaboration of MGM and Columbia-Sony had seen far too many shameless rip-offs by other up and coming writers that adding another to the list of remake throwaways wasn’t worth another hundred million dollar budget. The studios took two major risks in 1) putting novices in command of production and 2) signing off on such a divergent tale from the original. I imagine that Padilha and Zetumer were constantly reassuring studio execs at every stage that “he’s still Robocop, he’s still shooting bad guys, he’s still going toe to toe with other robots – don’t worry.”

With any story, there are strengths and weaknesses. As a whole, the Robocop remake is a much more intelligent use of the license that delves into global issues concerning security and the various costs of said security paid by governments, communities and individuals. In lieu of the random commercials that framed the audience in 80s sentiment from the original, the remake features media commentary from Pat Novak (Samuel L. Jackson) who lays out the exposition of this not so distant future as well as commentating on the progression of the active plot through the eyes of the media machine. These scenes run much longer than 30 second spots, but give the audience a much fuller perspective of the pro-corporate, pro-robot and pro-right wing perspective when it comes to the politics of handing all security over to inanimate objects.

It also features a large amount of dialogue concerning the ethics, morality and/or philosophy of the melding of man and machine. Every scene between Dr. Norton (Gary Oldman) and Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman) is intensely emotional as Murphy must deal with the gut-wrenching shock of accepting his new reality while the doctor must deal with the ever increasing guilt of “What have I done?!” to this living, breathing person.

All of this extra time spent with dialogue and exposition certainly leaves less room for the eye candy that is CG-driven action. I would guess that the actual amount of gunplay scenes are close to even between the original and remake, but everyone will remember the original for its graphic violence, which can easily be mistaken as being more “active” in and of itself. The remake attempts to compensate with much cleaner and fluid action sequences that features Robocop being more limber than look-away headshots and the odd, head-torso turn when navigating the general public. This Robocop moves in and out of cover quickly, can make a motorcycle fly and wields guns akimbo. The action also cuts away to some jarring, first person perspective shots from Robocop himself, featuring the various targeting and vision modes he’s privy too behind the helmet. I’m somewhat on the fence in regards to these moments because they seem a bit too video-gamey and I’d rather stay in Robocop’s world and not cross over to Call of Duty. The action is framed with a good enough balance among medium, wide and (obligatory) close-up shots that communicates robotic movement that is indeed superior to human and not simply a walking tank that stomps through its opposition with the grace of a dinosaur.

Creating a Robocop remake that is more intent with explaining the method rather than showing off the active madness demands a cast that will not mail-it-in at any point, from top to bottom. Thankfully, the performances all rank from solid to exceptional thanks in large part to established talent filling most of the roles. Michael Keaton makes for a less nefarious corporate villain behind OCP (but a villain nonetheless) who channels Steve Jobs in terms of presence, but combines it with the savvy of a pure salesman with no medical or technical proficiency to speak of. Jackie Earle Haley is pigeon-holed into another bad-guy role as OCP’s head robot-drone security man who provides a singular opposition to Robocop outside of the waves of drones he must dispatch. Haley’s smarmy delivery provides some welcome comic relief and general bad-assery. Jay Baruchel’s Tom Pope is your prototypical marketing/advertising tool who thinks only in terms of image and the way to sell image and he thankfully doesn’t develop some smooth-talking, suave presence just because the role demanded it. He is still the same awkward speaking, sniveling nerd, but just in a better suit that makes the audience want to hate the principal of “commercializing” more than we already do.

Abbie Cornish’s Clara Murphy is not put into many opportunities to succeed because she’s given one scene to establish “loving, devoted wife” and the rest of the time she is a woman put through the meat grinder of her husband being transformed into a machine, being manipulated by OCP and trying to retain her son’s (and her own) sanity amidst it all. With her role solely dedicated to demonstrating the personal toll of such a science experiment, it is impossible to demand actual chemistry with onscreen husband Alex Murphy, of which there is basically none. As for Robocop, Joel Kinnaman does a very adequate job in a leading role that requires less and less of his entire body to produce a performance. He portrays a tough as nails, undercover cop quite exceptionally, but it is his emotional vulnerability as Robocop “behind the curtain” or rather, as “a fraction of a man” who realizes a monstrosity in his new reality that any rational person would be begging to reject and abort. It’s a performance that’s as real as green screen gets.

However, this film really belongs to two actors. Samuel L. Jackson’s Tom Novak segments essentially produce a black Bill O’Reilly who presents his right-wing perspective with such commercial nuance that I keep expecting him to say “What’s in your wallet?” all the time. The fact that he plays his character with such seriousness and intensity makes his argument so shameless and un-forgivingly villainous that he’s about as cartoonish a politician as your garden-variety, hard-line Republican who actually buys into all the BS, or at least provides a convincing performance. Really? A purely synthetic police and military is such a great idea because they prevent American casualties, feel no fatigue and are most importantly “incorruptible?” Sure, robots, machines and software can’t be hacked, reprogrammed or effectively unplugged to accomplish that feat. CEO’s may be controlling the economic strings, but media icons like a Tom Novak can seduce and ensnare the rest of society which is basically anyone within eyeshot of a TV. Jackson may not be a “main character” in the Robocop remake, but he will be the one you remember.

This film is as much (if not more) Gary Oldman’s as it is (technically) Joel Kinnaman’s. For the life of me, I simply could not figure Oldman for throwing his hat into the remake parade because quite frankly, I thought it beneath an actor of his caliber who’s certainly made more than enough money over his career to be lured by a paycheck film. As the film stands, his role is a lynchpin to the plot and is ironically called upon to make the case for humanism despite his character being a scientist with medical background and a specialization in cybernetics. That’s the kind of role that Gary Oldman would be interested in and he expertly conveys a man torn between duty and morality; between the “could” of science and the “should” of science. The audience falls in love with his character in his very first scene and is constantly troubled by his inner turmoil thanks to the circumstances he is pushed into thanks to his job.

The Robocop remake is not meant to have any of the insight or intent of the original film which was an 80s period piece built around corporate greed, gluttonous consumerism and how it all connects to crime. Our corporate taskmasters remain in this day and age with basically the same agenda, but their influence has expanded to more than just the major cities of America. The larger “crime” at work is its infiltration abroad and the potential to invade the individual’s (literal) inner space. This film deals with the Frankenstein metaphors, the social ambiguities and the influence of “the conglomerate” directly through dialogue and has no interest in dressing it up as something else like ultra-violence. Some may be turned on by this, while others may be left pining for crotch shots and dismemberment. I would have liked to see an R-rated cut of this evolved take on Robocop, but alas, one can’t escape the business tether of Hollywood Land. Regardless, I was impressed at this film’s balance between brains and brawn despite the handicap of PG-13 and it tells a great story by emphasizing plot over spectacle.

This film is a success as a standalone. While it pays very modest respect to its predecessor with a couple familiar lines, retaining most of the original characters while altering some genders and ethnicities, as well as the general look of the lead, I would have loved this story to be entirely original; in name as well as in spirit. This film still doesn’t change my mind in regards to the negative stigma of remakes and reboots because this film had less to do with a re-presentation and more to do with slickly using an established franchise to satisfy studio execs while an entirely different story is told, emphasizing entirely different things, yielding a completely different experience from the original. Most remakes don’t have any of that in their culmination and execution. This one does and I would, in fact, buy that for a dollar!

Marvel Movie News Reviews

Who Leads DC’s and Marvel’s Cinematic Realities?

Divergent Adaptation

Who Leads DC’s and Marvel’s Cinematic Realities?

By Lawrence Napoli

Ah! What a great time to be a fan of comics and movies. The cinematic creation of characters once thought far too larger than life to portray on the silver screen due to the limitations of technology has become one of (if not the best of) the marquee staples of Americana Pop Culture in recent years. Comic book film adaptations have not only set this country on fire, but they have been fascinating the global audience as well, and it shows at the box office. Those who know DC and Marvel as comic book companies primarily know them for their characters, fewer know them by the individuals that created their respective icons and fewer still know them for the writers and artists that make their characters relevant today. Regardless of where the comic book industry has been financially from the distant past and/or recent past, there is no question that the movement of Hollywood adaptations of super-heroes continues to be a boom for everyone that owns the rights. So if these films are so popular and continue to boost the visibility of various franchises, which individual is ultimately responsible?

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:13631:]]

We know Christopher Nolan masterminded The Dark Knight Trilogy, we know Joss Whedon is behind Avenger films as well as Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., we know that Robert Downey Jr. is Iron Man, and we know that Bat-Fleck is happening for Batman vs. Superman or World’s Finest or [insert title here] and we know that both companies are aiming at an expanded universe where their respective characters coexist in an ever-evolving reality. But who’s really in command? Who’s bringing it all together? Sure, all the businesses involved with super-hero adaptations each have their nameless-faceless board of directors that are held responsible for decisions by their stock holders, but the choice to go in one direction or the other, veto power, day to day operations, coordination, communication and unification of this cellular network of films is being made by real individuals. These individuals bridge the gap between the corporate conglomerate and the artists of production. Without their knowledge of the material, business savvy, political skills and organizational aptitude, none of these films get made – or rather, none of these films get made well. These people are the most responsible for pleasing (or inciting) fanboys and girls around the world, and they are also the first to be fired or rewarded when the receipts are all tallied up.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:13632:]]

Marvel’s man is Kevin Feige. He got his start as an associate producer for the first X-Men film due to his extensive knowledge of the Marvel Universe and has gone on to produce virtually every Marvel character adaptation since 2000: Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy, Daredevil, the X-Men trilogy, The Punisher, Blade: Trinity, Elektra, both Fantastic Four films as well as all of Marvel’s recent Avenger “Phase X” films. We could debate the merits and failings of each and every one of these films, but they all (basically) made money and were obviously successful enough for those doing the hiring to continue to involve Feige at the highest level of decision-making for film production. Simply glancing at his résumé suggests that Feige was thinking about birthing a unified cinematic reality for Marvel’s characters long ago, and he would be one of the few individuals to have enough production experience to think about its creation in practical terms. When Iron Man was released in 2008, this theory took its first steps into reality. Despite the fact that the screenplay was written by the collective of Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby, Art Marcum and Matt Holloway, it was this film’s post credit scene that paved the way for The Avengers. This must be attributed to Kevin Feige because none of Iron Man’s writers have gone on to be involved with any level of production for any subsequent Marvel film.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:13633:]]

Of course, the eventual wunderkind that would be Marvel’s Avengers was only a glimmer in the eye of anyone who knew Nick Fury and what “The Avengers Initiative” could possibly represent. But it was also beyond a foregone conclusion for Feige himself because there was no public knowledge of contractual obligation for franchise expansion in any direction outside of Robert Downey Jr. which meant nothing more than more Iron Man films. Who knows what was really agreed to behind closed doors (and at what point in time?), but the future teasing in the post credits of The Incredible Hulk (2008), Thor (2009), Iron Man 2 (2009) and Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) continued to prove in each film that audiences liked the interconnectivity of these (seemingly) unrelated plots and characters. In many ways, the teases overshadowed the fact that all of these films from different directors and writing teams were successful by themselves, but had they not been, fewer would care about any sort of unification. One of Kevin Feige’s best attributes as a leader in this industry is the respect and courtesy he shows for the writers, directors, cast and crew he works with and has done so with the “Phase 1” films. More often than not, studio execs will throw their weight around to the point that it denigrates the production, but Feige is constantly credited (most notably by Joss Whedon) for providing leadership and direction without slapping on the creative shackles.

Introducing a massive franchise like The Avengers has proven to be successful in being introduced a bit at a time to audiences in a crescendo that built towards a pretty standard-issue “alien invasion of Earth” scenario, but let’s be frank. The whole movie could have been the Avengers going out for shwarma and people would still have fan-gasmed because there they are: all together. Big name actors playing big name characters and all in the same movie is a huge deal and completely beyond the minds of studio executives of yesteryear. Feige organized this effort between multiple films as intuitively as possible and as practically as possible. Simply acknowledging their existence in the same space as in “by the way, this too is happening over here,” is much less maintenance than designing a complex plot from the very first film as the “unifying force.” This too might have worked, but would unnecessarily marry one film to the other and the problems experienced in one might be inherited by a future production.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:13634:]]

Yes, that’s right; I’m talking about the Ed Norton recast for the Dr. Banner/Hulk character. This situation is one likely reason for the audience not having seen a second Hulk film prior to The Avengers, and recasting a major role could have been a significant monkey wrench to the gears of this unified franchise. Who knows if that problem was ultimately money, politics or ego; the man was replaced by Mark Ruffalo, and he did a great job. Had Ruffalo whiffed, we’d all be hearing no end of it from every critic working in every media outlet in the Western world. I like Ruffalo as an actor, but I didn’t really have an opinion of him replacing Norton other than I’d rather have established continuity maintained, but The Avengers film put the actor into many successful opportunities for the audience to like his Banner to the point that this recast has been practically forgotten. This is thanks to Joss Whedon, who in turn thanks Feige, who was knee-deep in the Norton situation, and their combined efforts made the necessary adjustments in the subsequent film to reconcile everything. That’s some uncharacteristically efficient leadership in Hollywood which is known for dragging its feet through the political muck of “creative differences.” Kevin Feige may be the unifying force for the Avengers Initiative, but he shows his leadership almost every day with interviews and public appearances and whenever people have questions, he has answers. I’m not sure his position as President of Marvel Studios requires him to do this, but his visibility and confidence suggests a master plan at work.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:13635:]]

So what about DC? They have every bit the intriguing roster of characters as Marvel and (so far) have demonstrated an equally high dedication to enlist big Hollywood names and attach them to franchise pillars for multiple films. This seems to be carbon-copied right out of Marvel’s playbook, but casting news for the Man of Steel sequel and its elusive title is evidence that the strategy for introducing its characters in a unified reality to audiences will be taking a completely different approach than Marvel Studios. It remains to be seen if audiences will buy into this strategy or not because the first film hasn’t been made, but who’s there to answer that question? Who’s there to lay our insecurities to rest? This person was a tad more difficult to track down due to the fact that this DC movement is only in its infant stages and the only news out there to comment on is a growing cast for a film years from completion. At first I looked at the closest corporate counterpart to Kevin Feige. Diane Nelson is President of DC Entertainment and President & Chief Content Officer of Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment. According to DC’s website, “Nelson is charged with leading the efforts to fully realize the power and value of DC Entertainment’s rich portfolio of stories and characters, including such cultural icons as Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman, across all media and platforms.”

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:13636:]]

First, I’d like to point out the order in which “DC’s icons” are placed as per Nelson’s title description (yep, Batman is #1). Second, her title and description sounds like someone ideal in bridging the gap between the comic book people and the movie making people, right? As it turns out, someone established more firmly on the Warner Bros. side of the equation will be overseeing DC’s adaptation expansion. He is Greg Silverman the President of Creative Development and Worldwide Production for Warner Bros. and according to the WB’s website, “In this role, he has full oversight of Warner Bros. Pictures’ development activities, global production and budget.” He began in Hollywood as a lowly craft services worker for indy films but eventually became an assistant at Tri-Star and Mandeville Films and eventually a production executive at Mad Chance. He got his start at Warner Bros. in 1997 being a junior production executive for The Matrix, A Perfect Murder and Cats & Dogs. WB credits him for “shepherding” the success of 300 (2006), The Dark Knight (2008), The Hangover (2009), and Inception (2010).

Silverman’s visibility is still on the low end with only his interview with Variety being his major public comments regarding “Batman vs. Superman?” and/or the franchise moving forward in which he addresses several concerns.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:13637:]]

Regarding Ben Affleck:

“We knew going in that we had more information than the general public had. We knew what the take of the movie was; we knew what the character was going to be. We don’t take these decisions lightly. We thought about everybody – brand new people, established people. Ben is the perfect guy to play this role.”

Regarding Batman and Superman’s interaction:

“They both will be wearing suits, there are capes involved, there will be action, there will be excitement.”

Regarding Wonder Woman:

“Wonder Woman is an amazing character. I think it’s a great opportunity both for box office success, but also to have an amazingly powerful female superhero.”

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:13638:]]

Again, I note that this is merely the beginning for DC adapted unification and based on that, Silverman seems to be saying all the right things so far. Nothing’s too committal, nothing’s specific and everything is going to turn out all right. It’s your standard politician or rather, executive response. If however, one is looking for a more personalized commentary regarding this next production, Zack Snyder is your man and has been at every stage of this production because every cast member revealed thus far has been a hot button topic. Personally, I don’t care for some of the decisions that have been made so far, but I do respect Snyder stepping up to the plate when it really isn’t, technically, his job to do so. When I first started hearing Snyder defend Affleck, I wondered if Snyder was the guy who really had all the answers or if he was just simply the only guy that had any authority in this new DC filmic reality to date. If Silverman has been in place prior to Man of Steel and Snyder’s involvement moving forward will only be related to Superman related films then the latter is true and Snyder was the only one at the time to face the firing squad of public scrutiny. If, however, Zack Snyder’s role expands to even that of a producer for any additional DC ancillary films, the significance of Greg Silverman as an individual directing this movement is greatly diminished and the true maestro will be revealed.

As a fan of movies and comics, I could care less about who’s making what call in regards to which movie, but I do care about seeing good movies, and I care even more when I see bad ones (especially when the potential was there for greatness). If things go well, the right individuals ought to be praised. If not … well you know what happens then. So far, DC’s and WB’s leadership is feeling itself out and being only so forthcoming with the details this early, and that’s as it should be. However, it still feels like this whole thing rests on Zack Snyder’s shoulders and many out there have him and Goyer fitted for pine boxes (figuratively, of course) should all of these interesting production and casting choices result in what is assumed to be a sub-standard envisioning of the Dark Knight and the Blue Boy Scout getting their hero on in the same movie. Studio exec’s (unlike Kevin Feige) that stay out of the limelight tend to reap rewards with zero risk because their association with given productions is obscured. I think Greg Silverman would be doing his own projects and people a big favor by getting out there a little more and putting on the best face he can to charm the pants off some reporters. Then, if in two years time, whether Batman vs. Superman booms or busts, no one will accuse him personally of not making a better effort to sell the film. But again, maybe this is what separates the Kevin Feiges from the Greg Silvermans? It’s not for me to tell him how to run his business, but I don’t want him to fail, I don’t want this franchise to fail, and I certainly don’t want this film to fail. The Justice League can be every bit as amazing as The Avengers.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:13639:]]

That being said, here is where I personally stand in regards to this Batman vs. Superman film as of 2/8/2014. This is my unlucky 7:

1) I don’t like most of the cast decisions regarding the newcomers to this franchise. Everyone returning from Man of Steel is fine and Jeremy Irons couldn’t mess up Alfred even if he showed up completely drunk and high for every day of principal photography (that would sure be a different take on Mr. Pennyworth).

2) I think Henry Cavil is being done a great disservice by having to play second fiddle to a bigger actor and a better character in Bat-Fleck for the sequel that used to be his franchise.

3) I think another chapter in Superman’s tale (solo) would have done more to establish the perils of this new DC cinematic universe than teasing the rest of the Justice League sooner than later.

4) I think Warner Bros. studio executives are forcing this massive cameo extravaganza prematurely because they see the X-Men franchise doing it for 20^th Century Fox and the Spider-Man franchise doing it for Sony Pictures – and they want that money ASAP!

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:13640:]]

5) If someone were to describe Jesse Eisenberg’s character based on the fact he’s playing it and how he’ll be a tattooed skinhead that will “earn” his wealth and intelligence on the mean streets of Metropolis, there’s no way I would have guessed him to play Lex Luthor. Every previous manifestation of that character is much higher status than that of a street thug – and then there’s the whole Jesse Eisenberg is playing a street thug, thing (editor’s note: rumored).

6) With each new development, I lose more and more interest with this franchise because decisions are seemingly being made just for the sake of being different: different from Marvel, different from its comic book roots, different from Tim Burton, Chris Nolan and Richard Donner.

7) I would reiterate Kevin Feige’s advice to the DC/WB powers that be in regards to their adaptation movement and that is: “have confidence in the characters, believe in the source material, don’t be afraid to stay true to all of the elements of the characters no matter how seemingly silly or crazy they are.”

Movie News Reviews

Op-ed: Thoughts On Jesse Eisenberg Cast As Lex Luthor

More Batman vs. Superman vs. The World Shenanigans

By Lawrence Napoli

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:13500:]]

I’d like to formally introduce you all to the Hollywood “Wait and Guess” game. It’s a game that entertainment journalism is most familiar with, but since the ‘90s has been intricately woven into the fabric of Western pop culture for the average John and Jane Doe. The global demand for entertainment is insatiable. So even before any production gets even the slightest hint of green-lit glory, every media entity dives head first into every rumor and infuses the commentary with as much speculation as possible to fill time slots and web pages. We all want to experience something new and fantastic from the Hollywood Machine so desperately that we want to consume it before it is even produced. Thus, we “Wait and Guess” before the next mega-budget blockbuster gets released to satisfy our appetites in the meantime with dialogue, debate and (more often than not) fanboy grudge matches.

So now I’m going to “Wait and Guess” (or “Obsess and Criticize”) the latest curiosity released by Warner Bros. regarding the fluctuating state of what seems to be a very ambitious movement to breath cinematic life into the Justice League. Jesse Eisenberg has been cast as Lex Luthor. Comments? Questions? Concerns? I’ll bet there are plenty of all of the above, but I’ll also bet that this actor wasn’t on anyone’s theoretical top 10 or even 20 casting call lists for this particular role. When I first heard his name I instantly thought, “Is it really big news for who’s been cast as Jimmy Olsen? Oh Wait. He’s going to be Lex?”

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:13501:]]

Eisenberg is an A-lister that has done well in both the studio and indie scene with roles that have regularly seen him tip toe between the lines of comedy and drama. He has shown an ever increasing range of acting ability in his expanding filmography, but still manages to hover around a certain character type. Do you need an awkward and atypical yet sympathetic hero to root for? He did a great job for that role in Adventureland and Zombieland (both in 2009). Do you need an awkward and sniveling yet sympathetic antagonist to root against? I give another solid checkmark for him in The Social Network (2010). He’s a solid actor that can give you more than you expected for roles that fit him visually, and he’s to be congratulated for an excellent career that will only get more visibility (and roles offered him) by hooking up with a big budget, comic book adaptation.

However, I simply do not see him as Lex Luthor outside of one of these scenarios: 1) a spoof, 2) a decoy (perhaps used as a younger Lex in flashbacks or a red herring like Ben Kingsley’s Mandarin), or 3) a complete reinvention of the character, written from the ground up and tailor-made for Eisenberg taking full advantage of his every idiosyncrasy. Chances are that option number three is the closest to what the production team is going for, although I wouldn’t count on that level of intricate character writing for everyone in the cast. But, then it seems the concept of “different” is defining this production more and more. Batman’s costume is getting all kinds of recognition for being different. The casting of a rail thin actress in Gal Gadot is very different for a character always depicted as a curvy, sometimes very muscular, but a certainly fuller bodied woman in Diana Prince/Wonder Woman. The DC and Warner Bros. strategy for introducing their superheroes into this cinematic reality is very different (almost the exact opposite) from Marvel’s. Superman kills people … that’s pretty different.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:13502:]]

The casting situation for what seems to be the Justice League Light movie is unconventional to say the least, so much so, that I wouldn’t be surprised to hear Jonah Hill cast as the Flash who’s obese Barry Allen will be struck by the lightning of the Speed Force and will have the most dramatic body transformation this side of “The Biggest Loser.” It could happen. Anything could, and maybe that’s what Warner Bros. wants us all to think? The only problem is that in an effort to out-think or over-think the conceptually simple (yet unprecedented) task of making the Justice League a live action reality, the end result is so far removed from any previous depiction of those characters and those kind of stories that you lose your fan base entirely as well as your most vigorous source of word of mouth advertising – the gateway to attracting audiences outside the target demographic which yields Avengers and Avatar levels of cash – which is what this is all about.

So we are left with the fact that Jesse Eisenberg will be Lex Luthor, and it could very well be that he delivers a transformative performance that would eclipse Heath Ledger’s Joker with a dedication to discover Lex as a character beyond the level of obsession. He could also deliver a completely unexpected and charismatic Lex that the audience finds charming in his ability to insert foot-into-mouth regularly while still being a force to be reckoned with. Yes, it could very well be that Ben Affleck and Henry Cavil stand next to Eisenberg on screen and sell Luthor as an actual threat to audiences around the world. Maybe none of this happens.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:13504:]]

I can appreciate Gene Hackman’s and Kevin Spacey’s portrayal of Luthor as much as the next person, but I always felt that the no-nonsense, intellectual hubris and unwavering confidence of the Lex from the Superman Animated series or the one that runs for President in the comics or the one that organizes the “Mankind Liberation Front” in Ross and Waid’s Kingdom Come is the kind of Luthor that could actually go toe-to-toe with both Batman and Superman in a live action adaptation. Eisenberg has never been tasked with portraying this kind of character (as in this particular level of “Lex Luthor”), and it remains to be seen if this kind of character is anyone’s goal in the first place. If it is, no amount of extreme fashion makeover for Eisenberg can generate the kind of screen presence that this kind of Luthor requires. Sure, great performances can transcend a lot of things, but an actor’s body and voice are essential tools in the formation of character, and neither in Eisenberg’s possession equate to the hyper-alpha-male of the Lex Luthor I’m thinking about. A director doesn’t cast an actor that doesn’t have the things you want in a character. One could, but this would be subscribing to the aforementioned “over-thinking” of this character in the first place. Suffice it to say that Eisenberg’s Luthor will neither pay homage to the past nor embody a realization of the ideal, but he will be … “different.”

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:13505:]]

The point is that the pressure is on (and has always been to match Marvel’s Avengers) once the decision was made to turn the Man of Steel sequel into whatever it’s ultimately going to be titled and whatever kind of superhero movie it’s trying to be. The big names representing the big characters are still there, but their revelation has split fans into pro’s, con’s and apologists (“so and so wouldn’t be my pick, but let’s give them a chance … yada, yada, yada”). Polarizing a potential audience that could very well be every man, woman and child on this planet could not have been something desired by casting director, Kristy Carlson, but it continues to do exactly that. I realize she helped Zack Snyder construct such legendary casts as those seen in Watchmen (2009) and Sucker Punch (2011), but it will be interesting to find out after this movie is finally made and released to the public how many of these decisions were actually hers and how many were Snyder’s or DC’s or (most importantly) Warner Bros.’s. Maybe we’ll never know, but she is still credited as the casting director, so I presume she has some say in the matter.

It seems the success of this next installment of the Justice League movement depends entirely on whether the audience likes “different” or not. That is until Verne Troyer is cast as Darkseid. Then, the franchise will officially be a flaming wreck of Hollywood mismanagement and utter cluelessness.

Movie News Reviews

Movie Review: The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug

There and Back; Again and Again…

A Film Review of The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

By: Lawrence Napoli

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:12887:]]

The Lord of the Rings prequel films continue to expand and evolve in grandiose fashion thanks to Peter Jackson’s next chapter in his adaptation of The Hobbit. Unfortunately, by the end of this film I had a much deeper awareness (or rather, loathing) for this prequel’s “expansive” nature due to the fact that this film shows the audience more of the same types of traveling, battling and CG generated sequences that we’ve come accustomed to for four films now. Mind you, this is not a criticism of the extremely high proficiency with which this film was shot, performed in and presented thanks to the miracle of digital effects. I was simply bored with the story overall. Every minute that passed in the theatre’s relatively uncomfortable seats solidified my lower posterior cell by cell. By the end credits I was convinced this was the longest LotR film by far (which is incorrect as that distinction goes to The Return of the King with a whopping 201 minute run time).

The “magic” of these Hobbit films seems to be getting lost due to the fatigue of LotR familiarity and an effort to “fill minutes” with scenes rather than using them to build the plot with a series of moments that actually matter towards some climactic end. Yes, yes, Peter Jackson will be the first to state that his Tolkien adaptations are really meant to be seen together: back to back to back. To that I say: “Very well! Bring me to this 9 hour, cinematic marathon!” Oh wait, such an event would never occur under the current theatre system because they would barely squeeze two screenings in a day and more screenings means more money which is what makes the Hollywood World go ‘round. Long story short: Peter Jackson is allowed his artistic preferences as an exceptional filmmaker, but these Hobbit adaptations are nowhere close to the self-contained nuggets of dramatic fantasy tales represented by his own Lord of the Rings Trilogy: The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers and The Return of the King.

There is a bit of a writing faux pas to initially explain why this second Hobbit film in particular misses. First of all, Bilbo Baggins (The Hobbit) really isn’t the main character here. In fact, there are several gaps in this film where he is all but forgotten. I understand that the Dwarven expedition to reclaim their home isn’t really his quest, but all of these LotR stories are about being mindful of the smaller things in life that may in fact be more powerful and important than larger ideas and conflicts that regularly consume our attention. Plus, it’s also a neat perspective on the hero’s journey to experience it through the eyes of a weaker character (despite his discovery of a unique power). The Desolation of Smaug is Thorin’s (the leader and most powerful of the Dwarves) journey with some timely aid of a Hobbit on the side. Second is the inflated importance and screen presence of Orlando Bloom’s Legolas. Don’t get me wrong, I like his character in addition to the way Bloom plays it, but his role does not advance the plot of the main characters in any way and should therefore not exceed that of a cameo appearance, much like Saruman and Galadriel in the first Hobbit. I suspect his featured status in The Hobbit: Part 2 of 3 is only to infuse some much needed action and combat-acrobatics that Dwarves, Hobbits and Half-lings of all sorts are apparently not capable of here. Third, the titular character “Smaug” and the scenes that feature him are absolutely captivating and masterfully played by Martin Freeman as Bilbo and the disembodied voice of Benedict Cumberbatch. The problem is the audience has to wait almost two hours to get to that part.

Ultimately, the weakness of The Hobbit Trilogy thus far boils down to lacking some serious charm and development when it comes to character. A group of heroes going on a journey against great odds must have moments onscreen when individuals identify themselves which endears them to the audience. Bilbo (an excellent main character) is a recovering optimist seeking to fit in and goes one on one with a dragon and he is completely absent from half of this film. Gandalf is the same crotchety old wizard with a tendency to leave the group the first chance he gets in order to get his butt kicked, and the audience is not surprised by any of this because we’ve seen it play out in exactly the same way as in every other LotR film. Thorin is the angry Dwarf would-be king who’s too mightier-than-thou to have Aragorn’s (Viggo Mortensen) roguish charm but is portrayed in these prequels as the substitute for that exact character type. And the rest of the group is comprised of supporting character #1, supporting character #2, etc. As a collective, our heroes are simply not as interesting as Harry Potter’s classmates, as iconic as The Rebel Alliance or as diverse as the original Fellowship, and there’s no excuse for that seeing how Peter Jackson has three whole feature length films to get an audience to invest in these guys. An attempt was made in this film to explore a subplot between Kili (Aidan Turner) and Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly), but that was literally two scenes, and apparently they are now totally in love forever.

The Desolation of Smaugis a very beautiful film to look at. Once again, there are plenty of breathtaking landscapes (both natural and digital) to gaze at. Elvin combat is an exquisite ballet that defies the laws of gravity and is masterfully captured by a series of tracking shots during the river sequence. Sauron (The Eye) reveals itself for the first time to Gandalf in an extremely terrifying way that gives some very interesting visual context as to what composes the iris. Pro tip: The audience has never seen this detail in the original trilogy. And of course there’s Smaug himself: who redefines what it means to depict such a mythical beast in cinematic reality. The scale and detail of his enormity is matched only by his equally grand lair of shimmering gold and the menacingly seductive nature of his voice (thank you Mr. Cumberbatch). The union of LotR and Peter Jackson has never failed to deliver the visual eye candy.

Performances by the cast are solid and are defined by their consistency, but no one stands out, steals scenes or delivers something truly memorable. The exception is that the digital characters in this entire mythology are some of the best Hollywood magic has produced, and they tend to upstage their fully human costars in the LotR films. I suppose I should not be too disappointed in the lack of a marquee human performance because the deck of characters is somewhat stacked against them. Men and women of Middle Earth are reflections of British history from kings and nobles to peasants and pond scum. Elves are hyper pretty people and Dwarves are ugly and stumpy. How do any of these compare to a winged, fire-breathing calamity that’s as big as a building who’ll only give you the time of day so long as you shower him with compliments? Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage and the rest are all fine actors, but they are mostly British people performing like British people – not exactly reinventing the wheel.

The Desolation of Smaug is a fine fantasy/adventure film that boasts much more intelligence than casual Hollywood drivel and is certainly a nice treat for the family during the holidays. I don’t recommend this for anyone looking for more than some light fantasy fun. This film is not a new benchmark that redefines Tolkien’s fantasy turned reality. Chances are, you’ve seen and heard much of what’s contained within this film before, and if it were to go head to head with a comparable blockbuster such as a major comic book character film, Star Wars or even a Fast and Furious sequel, my feeling is that it would lose ticket sales to that competition (which is why we never see these films go head to head in the first place). In one way (and one way only), I’m glad that The Hobbit Trilogy isn’t fleshing out the way its predecessor did because it puts the “multiple film per book adaptation” argument to rest. I don’t care how many details and subplots were snubbed from any single LotR movie. How much more did the audience need to fully understand those stories? I don’t feel overburdened by the exposition that drags out in these Hobbit prequels; I’m disinterested in it. There’s too much bland gobbledygook to wade through to get to the good stuff in the story. The art of adaptation is breaking fiction down intellectually and building it back up with the concept of efficiency in mind to visually present a story that ebbs and flows while not losing an audience’s interest.

Sure, it’s nice to have more of popular license “X” on the big screen, but we don’t need more than one Spider-Man punching Green Goblin in the face movie to understand teenage super-heroism, power and responsibility and father-son/hero-villain dynamics. Another movie can see him fight someone else for another reason that explores a different side to his character (or every other villain to explore every aspect of his character at the same time for The Amazing Spider-Man 2). Unfortunately, the whole film adaptation: “Part 1 of X, Part 2 of X, etc.” movement has done nothing but gain steam. Harry Potter did it, Twilight did it and Hunger Games is going to do it. Will this mean less concise filmmaking in the future? Yes. Will this frenzy fanboys and alienate everyone else? Maybe. Will this yield more money for the Hollywood machine? Absolutely! Well in that case, all is forgiven. Hopefully Bryan Singer has his writing team diligently at work on X-Men: Days of Future Past Part 2 of 10 right now just to keep the ball rolling.

Movie News Reviews

Movie Review: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)

Too Hot To Handle

A Film Review of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

By: Lawrence Napoli

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:12632:]]

You know what’s highly desirable in Hollywood? To own an insanely popular license, adapt it into a series of very lucrative blockbuster films and continue to draw interest in current and future installments from every audience outside the fanboy/girl core thanks to a contractual alliance with (arguably) the most popular individual in Hollywood today. Oh yes, Lionsgate snagged itself two gems in The Hunger Games and Jennifer Lawrence and both continue to pay dividends thanks to Catching Fire’s global take of about $678 million dollars over a budget of $130 as of December 11, 2013. Unfortunately, “bigness” and popularity alone do not always translate into quality and often allows the consumers of particular media to be very apologetic thanks to those two important elements that compose “true value” in contemporary Hollywood productions.

That is not an admission that I personally didn’t care for this movie; quite the contrary. Catching Fire is a superior “Hunger Games” experience from a visual perspective thanks to a much larger production budget than the original. For a story that takes place in the somewhat, not-so-distant future, I never felt that The Hunger Games showcased the kind of world where superior technology permits the aristocratic minority to dominate the impoverished majority. Catching Fire addresses this early and often throughout its run time by displaying more pyro, larger digital set pieces and more CG visuals. This film also demonstrates more accomplished combat and action sequences such as its version of “storm troopers” actually being physically imposing, more energetic training montages than throwing heavy things at stationary targets and much more danger during the actual games than a bunch of teens/tweens stalking each other with swords and spears. As far as contemporary action/adventure films go, Catching Fire looks, sounds and feels like a more proficient blockbuster.

Where I’m beginning to lose a little interest is in the presentation of this story within the confines of a two and a half hour film. Adaptation is an exercise in tough decision making for the screenwriters(s) so there’s always going to be a number of details, subplots and characters that simply do not come to fruition. Unfortunately, the screenwriting trend in Hollywood’s adaptation movement is to include “as much as possible,” which puts a priority on Easter Eggs and sacrifices screen time better used on cinematic exposition and character development for an audience not already familiar with the story. There are too many moments where references are being made (such as the makeup of this society, the importance of the games, the significance of the districts, the tributes, etc.) that simply has not been well established in the ongoing film or its predecessor, and I can’t appreciate any of these new details. Catching Fire’s story is one that communicates a comprehensive plot and a continuation of the trials of Katniss Everdeen, but it’s also one that is devoid of any interesting subplot for any character not played by Jennifer Lawrence. Katniss is involved in every meaningful moment on the screen. No supporting characters outside of the villains have any meat to them and this takes away from the other thing that makes Katniss interesting outside of kicking ass with a bow and arrow: her love triangle. Yes, the audience gets chapter 2 in the pseudo affair of Katniss, Peeta and Gale, but neither boy has a dramatic identity onscreen that isn’t fully dependent on Katniss’s presence. This may not be the case in the books, but this is the best example of an interesting movie conflict that merely gets paid lip service due to time limitations and priorities placed elsewhere.

Performances by the cast are fairly adequate all around, but I was somewhat surprised to find an actor such as Philip Seymour Hoffman involved with this kind of big budget, mainstream extravaganza. I suppose every major actor needs a fat paycheck every once in a while (just kidding, Philip), but his role in Catching Fire, like every other adult’s over the age of 20, doesn’t require any deep emotional exploration and isn’t afforded any real opportunity to do so even if the actor was interested. It’s not exactly the kind opportunity a king of the indy scene salivates over, but he brings veteran charisma and composure to Plutarch Heavensbee as does Donald Sutherland for President Snow as the primary antagonists of this film. Lenny Kravitz once again produces a regal and heart-warming performance as Cinna and Woody Harrelson thankfully steps into more of a leadership role than the loveably drunk, Haymitch has been thus far. Unfortunately, these adults do not elevate beyond the status of window dressing for the featured young adults in almost the exact same manner the veterans that composed the Harry Potter films were utilized.

Liam Hemsworth is given a few more minutes of screen time in this film to prove that his character, Gale, has some romantic feelings for Katniss and he manages to deliver a revered stillness to his performance that would make anyone raise an eyebrow over the fact that he appeared in an Expendables film. I wouldn’t necessarily say that the chemistry he shares with Jennifer Lawrence remotely approaches “sultry,” but there’s a reason for that I’ll discuss later. Josh Hutcherson continues to refine his keen ability to switch between the natural state of Peeta (somewhat unsure of himself and his feelings) and Peeta’s on air personality for reality TV (brave, confidant and charismatic). Josh has to contend with more characters requiring screen time in this film, but the fact that he shows that his character knows how to play the political game of these Hunger Games is satisfying to the audience even if he isn’t exactly the most accomplished combatant.

As expected, Catching Fire is a showcase for Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen for all the obvious reasons. She continues to portray an empowered, young woman in a harsh reality that is on equal (if not superior) footing as all the guys. Her best moment of this film is when she gives a speech at the district that her friend Rue (who dies in the first film) was from that shows the audience the exact kind of personality that makes Ms. Lawrence endearing in real life: raw emotion with a matter-of-fact, no BS delivery. Unfortunately, Katniss is not called upon to be her true self too often in this film as the constant surveillance of Capitol TV requires her to act the façade of her “fake” romance with Peeta and her shift from sincerity to “talking head personality” in front of the fictional cameras is evident to the audience. All things being equal, this role equates to fishing with dynamite for Jennifer Lawrence. She’s attractive, trendy and sassy and that’s more than enough to portray a character like Katniss, but I really could have used more moments of her patented blend of sincerity in Catching Fire because Lawrence is just plain good at it.

Catching Fire is an entertaining adventure for anyone interested in checking out some neat special and visual effects. It features an upgraded production value that becomes quite evident when our tributes are put to the test in a much more dynamic arena than previously shown in the original Hunger Games. This fictional world is not fleshed out particularly well as much of its references and the overall state of the setting are glazed over as quickly as possible which is unfortunate seeing how Katniss and Peeta begin this film by visiting every district on their victory tour. Sure, we get how every district outside of the Capitol is poor and subject to armies of thugs, but there’s no real distinction among any of them that they could all be District 12. If you can look past the light details and a number of flat characters, this can be a fun film to watch. The violence continues to be neutered in favor maintaining that PG-13 rating despite the subject matter revolving around making entertainment out of watching people slaughtering each other on TV. Risking harsher imagery to deliver a more poignant story might lose the film’s money demographic and if it’s one thing that Hollywood won’t do, is mess around with the prescribed money formula for its various adaptations.

Movie News Reviews

Movie Review: Thor: The Dark World

A Supreme Victory!

A Film Review of Thor: The Dark World

By: Lawrence Napoli

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:12206:]]

Let’s not beat around the bush on this one. Thor: The Dark World is a great sci-fi, action adventure film that has all the trappings of an excellent summer blockbuster that reaffirms its roots, acknowledges the events of The Avengers in a meaningful way and tempts the viewer with all kinds of possibilities regarding the potential of “Phase 2” and beyond. In essence, this film does everything that Iron Man 3 simply could not be bothered with and fortunately for the audience, this translates into a superior cinematic experience and worth 100% of the price of admission. Deeper levels of relevance and interconnectivity is the true superpower of the big screen Marvel Studios adaptations, but what made this expansion possible is the fact that each Avenger film stands on its own with varying degrees of success. The mighty Thor’s sequel is the only solo Avenger follow-up (so far) to be a significant upgrade from its establishing film and it does so with more of everything: story, action and effects and happens to do so without sacrificing character development or curtailing screen time in the process.

Experience in the Marvel Universe by the writers of this film best explains why this next chapter in Thor’s cinematic life is entertaining to both fanboys and novices alike. Those responsible for the screenplay begin with Christopher Yost, a veteran of several Marvel animated TV shows such as Iron Man: Armored Adventures, The Avengers: Earth’s Mightiest Heroes and Hulk Vs. while Christopher Marcus and Stephen McFeely helped co-write Captain America: The First Avenger and The Winter Soldier. As for Thor’s general story, Don Payne also helped write Fantastic Flop (er) 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer and though Robert Rodat hasn’t partaken in any Marvel license prior to The Dark World, he did write some fairly recognizable films like The Patriot and Saving Private Ryan. Everyone involved with this script is coming from a very comfortable place in terms of the superhero genre as well as how Thor ought to fit in this Marvel film universe. The strongest points of the story involve Thor’s evolved relationships with wayward brother Loki and difficult-to-please father Odin. Both were highlights of the original film, but The Dark World enhances the impacts of these subplots by introducing a new opposition that is by no means a pushover even when compared to the likes of the Chitari Invasion of NYC.

Of course, no story is flawless as I felt the implementation of comedy at various points truly fizzled thanks to the misplaced loyalty to some characters already established in this mythos. The repartee between Thor and Loki is, once again, pure genius thanks mostly to the chemistry and performances of the actors, but the interjection of Jane Foster and the rest of her human friends are inconsistent at best. In addition, I’ll make note of an old criticism concerning the use of the rest of Thor’s Asgardian Power Rangers such as Sif, Fandral and Volstagg which carries over from the first Thor. While their roles are only slightly more active and only slightly more significant in The Dark World I still would have liked to see more of them, their interactions amongst each other and how they influence Thor himself. Alas, characters that are purely situational support simply cannot be given expanded screen time to have satisfactory subplots fully mature and resolve when there are so many other characters waiting in line for it. Perhaps we’ll see more of Asgard’s marquee talent if and when Loki gets his spin off/prequel movie green lit? I hope X-Men: Days of Future Past has a specific plot device prepared to address its much larger cast of alphas that doesn’t involve “just making it a Wolverine movie” once again.

Let’s hear it for the action! Let’s hear it for the effects! The Dark World showcases much more frequent and higher quality action sequences and battles than its predecessor in so many ways, but none more pleasing than seeing the thunder god truly cut loose with power beyond clobbering jerks on the head with Mjolnir. There’s lots of lightning, lots of flying and lots of pure, unadulterated rage. There’s also plenty of close quarters brawling and swordplay, but the scale and scope have been expanded to raise the stakes and the suspense. I was a bit concerned when the word on the street was that this film would channel the look and feel of Game of Thrones when that would be a clear back-stepping of the higher plane tech/magic establishment of Thor thus far. Thankfully, this film does not get a Braveheart overhaul and actually looks and feels much more like a sci-fi film specifically thanks to the new enemy: The Dark Elves. The contrast between the idyllic paradise of Asgard and the cold technology of the Dark Elves yields a visually dynamic frame in almost every moment. The Dark World only saw a $20 million dollar bump to its budget from its predecessor, but it seems as though the money was put to much better use in regards to moment to moment visual effects, explosions and mass destruction.

The Marvel Studio films are, for the most part, exceptional action blockbusters, but another pillar of their success (beyond their interrelation) is character development and you simply don’t have it without solid performances by your cast. Unfortunately, the one actor in The Dark World that is currently in possession of an Academy Award is, ironically, the least impressive in regards to her performance. It could very well be that director Alan Taylor specifically told Natalie Portman to present Jane Foster as a lovesick, pre-teenie-bopper that doesn’t have a true grasp of the global impact of The Avengers and Thor in particular despite being a supposed “scientific leader in the field of inter-dimensional phenomena.” If this was the case, then Portman is the best actor on the planet, but I doubt Foster was meant to be so flippant and, candidly speaking, girly. Portman feels out of place and looks immature for a mortal woman meant to carry on a relationship with an Asgardian. The same holds true for the character Kat Dennings plays as the contributions of both of these actresses elevates to nothing more than damsels in distress and vapid, eye-rolling, comic relief. Their mere presence in a film like The Dark World is only to attract more young women within the money demographic to join their fanboy brethren at the box office.

I also had no clue what was going on with Stellan Skarsgard’s Erik Selvig for the entirety of The Dark World. Apparently he gets a concentrated dose of “the crazies” and never fully recovers. Mark him down as another comic relief character which is a shame seeing how one can tell that behind that glazed over and clueless demeanor, Skarsgard is aching to deliver a line of some relevance for the entirety of this film. I also want to make note of Anthony Hopkins, while still solid as Odin really shows his age in this film. He does not bring the same energy or sage, fatherly wisdom or warmth from the original and perhaps this was meant to be a specific status shift for the character, but doing so by way of stoic facial expression and a couple of eye twitches doesn’t exactly evoke a moving performance of any kind. I did like Jamie Alexander’s Lady Sif and for a while, it looked like the film was going to have a more capable and empowered woman impact the plot a bit, but alas Jane Foster is a more “important” character.

The real performances to make note of are (surprise, surprise) Tom Hiddleston and Chris Hemsworth as Loki and Thor, respectively. Hiddleston is a master of presenting the charming, smug, back-stabber and is rewarded with additional screen time to explore more redeeming motivations to his character. Hemsworth embodies everything demanded of the classic Hollywood hero with a heart of gold, but does so from a much more humble state of mind as his character has been through a lot and has clearly outgrown his brazen childishness. These two individual performers would be a windfall for any production, but together represent the best one-two character combination of any comic book adaptation, ever. Their onscreen chemistry is so good that I fear neither character will be allowed to grow on their own in future films in this ever expanding Marvel Universe. Not that I want to see Hiddleston without Hemsworth or vice-versa, but Loki shouldn’t be Thor’s “big bad” in every story.

Thor: The Dark World is a must-see for any Marvel true believer, comic book fanboy, or anyone interested in seeing a good looking, special effect driven adventure. And for as much money as Iron Man 3 made this past summer ($409 million in US, $806 million abroad), Thor’s sequel is a better movie; the end. Box office projections don’t see this film exceeding $100 million on its opening weekend, but I have a feeling those predictions may be debunked once word of mouth gets out. It’s winter time ladies and gentlemen and that means we’re all going to be subjected to some heavy handed dramas and Oscar contenders to power through the awards season. Grab some cinematic fun and whet your appetite for Phase 2 because the Marvel movement isn’t running out of steam anytime soon. Excelsior!

Movie News Reviews

Review: Peal Jam 10/12/13 – Buffalo, NY

Pearl Jam Descends on Buffalo

Stop #2 for the North American Lightning Bolt Tour 2013

By: Lawrence Napoli and Cat Carlson

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:11755:]]

So many have been eagerly anticipating Pearl Jam’s return to the touring circuit that as soon as it was announced, scoring tickets for any of the venues instantly became a hot commodity and awfully complicated if you weren’t waiting in a line at the box office or some website well in advance. My own adventure had me perusing tickets.com with multiple laptops only to be held in a virtual waiting line for which fate alone would determine the quality of my seats. Despite the three ring circus that process wound up being, I was pleased with getting tickets at all because Pearl Jam happens to be my girlfriend’s favorite band. I, unfortunately, am not a “music guy” and more of a “movie guy” and was only modestly familiar with their work mostly from the early to mid 90s, but I was very excited to go to a live rock show because the word everywhere was that they always put on great shows. As for me, only a recent addition to the Ten Club and relative novice in all things Pearl Jam; stop #2 in the North American Lightning Bolt Tour was nothing short of electrically charged adrenaline that cycled from the stage, into First Niagara Center, onto the audience and back. It was an amazing show, and I felt so privileged to catch Vedder and co. towards the beginning of a tour with fresh legs.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:11756:]]

The show itself started 45 minutes late as we were all wondering how on Earth an opening band could delay the main event for so long. As it turned out, there was NO opening band as Pearl Jam approached the stage with minimal effects and maximum fanfare. “Light,” “light bulbs,” and “lightning” were ever present on the stage as lighting effects which were obvious references to their upcoming album Lightning Bolt, but what I wasn’t expecting was the maximum energy being exerted and sustained by Pearl Jam and Vedder himself for the duration of a three hour show. As soon as they came out, everyone stood up and no one sat down until the last encore was taken. What follows is an incomplete set list for the evening: just a few notables and moments my girlfriend, Cat and I found most interesting.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:11757:]]

Pearl Jam started out with a song from the new album called “Pendulum” which would be one of the slower numbers in comparison to the rest of the evening and followed up with “Low Light” from the Yield album of 1998. Both songs set the mood right away and allowed the audience to ease into the concert.

Then came “Sometimes” (No Code, 1996) and “Corduroy” (Vitalogy, 1994) and anyone could clearly see Eddie was really starting to shift gears to a whole new level. The dial was set immediately to 9 and Eddie toasts wine to the crowd. But then another new song from Lightning Bolt strikes with “Mind Your Manners” (the first release off said album) and pushes that dial to 10 with the evening’s first really good, fever-pitched, song.

“Do the Evolution” (Yield, 1998) was the first of many sing-a-longs where Eddie was both pushing and feeding off of the crowd’s energy. I particularly enjoyed my girlfriend’s own participation as her enthusiasm easily conducted to my own. Eddie takes another moment to speak to Buffalo, gives another toast and promises that Pearl Jam would start pacing themselves because at this point it would’ve been invonceivable for the intensity to get any higher.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:11758:]]

“Immortality” (Vitalogy, 1994) is one of my girlfriend’s favorite songs and according to her is “not one of their standard grunge rock” and “more of a ballad.” It’s the kind of song that reached fans and non-fans due to it peaking at #10 on the billboard mainstream rock charts at that time in history.

“Sirens,” another new release from Lightning Bolt was my personal favorite for the entire evening which is a much more intimate song with mellow tones and on the opposite end of the style spectrum from “Mind Your Manners.” My girlfriend notes how this song indicates how wide the scope of this new album will wind up being.

“Once,” from PJ’s debut album Ten was a full blown love fest that got the whole crowd singing with Eddie and sometimes tagging him out all together. All the fans know the old songs and to many, PJ’s first album still happens to be the best.

The evening goes on a bit more with a relentless barrage of song after song, when Eddie takes another time out to talk about one of his mentors, Neil Young, and the story of how the song “I Got Shit” was created. This got a good laugh from the crowd as he proceeded to play “I Got Shit” (Merkin Ball, 1995) which is another of Cat’s favorite songs which once again reached popularity on several ratings charts from the mid 90s.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:11759:]]

The first encore started with Eddie addressing the audience very intimately as he thanked us all for the great energy he was receiving from the audience which, according to Cat (who was present the last time they came to Buffalo), was most certainly a vast improvement! Vedder always tries to personalize shows to the community he’s in and mentioned how the Sabres insignia was one of the coolest looking hockey logos around – which naturally got a rise from the audience.

Pearl Jam proceeds with “Off He Goes” (No Code, 1996) which Eddie describes as a song about what happens when you don’t get enough time at home. Is this perhaps a self portrait? Is this merely the price one pays for fortune and glory?

Vedder then takes another pause with the audience to share how his youngest daughter scored her first goal in soccer that day and that while he felt really bad about missing it, the crowd’s good energy and a good show so far certainly made him feel better. It really makes you feel for talented entertainers whose professions require them to be on the global move because their art is a double edged sword of success: passion & price. Vedder follows that statement with “Future Days,” another new song from Lightning Bolt which was a perfect bookend to that moment.

Eddie then made a very nice gesture to the ¼ of the arena that was seated behind the band for the entire evening thus far by playing “Elderly Woman Behind the Counter in a Small Town” (Vs., 1993). It was another high energy, high participation song and a nice reward for a lot of people that got some pretty crappy seats, but it really made me wonder why the First Niagara Center would be so greedy to sell those seats in the first place. Sure, it gave a bunch of people an opportunity to see the show at all, but I really hoped they paid a fraction of the price.

The second encore had Eddie talking to the audience about what the proper nomenclature is for describing a native of Buffalo, NY. “Are you a Buffalonian? A Buffaloite? (Jeff interjects a Bison?).” At this point, Vedder mentions that his favorite person from Buffalo is Vincent Gallo. (Sigh) I give the man a slight pass for the simple fact that Gallo is probably the only person Eddie Vedder has ever met from Buffalo. Some people really dig Gallo’s experimental art, but I don’t care one little bit for the film Gallo is most known for in Buffalo ’66. I haven’t seen a more depressing, self-absorbed, narrative on film that quite honestly, couldn’t paint Western New York in worse light. Perhaps Vedder was unaware that the classy Gallo sells his own sperm on the merchandising link of his own website vincentgallo.com? I could go on and on, but that’s a whole other article.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:11760:]]

Vedder follows that particular failed attempt at personalizing to the crowd (because the Gallo reference got zero reaction from anyone but me) with “Go” (Vs., 1993).

The show wrapped up around 11pm without an appearance form the standard “Yellow Ledbetter” and instead closed with a cover of The Who’s “Baba O’Riley” (Teenage Wasteland). This is Eddie’s regular tambourine-smashing act that had as much energy (if not more) than he had at 8:30.

This was an amazing show to experience and that’s coming from a non Pearl Jam acolyte. My girlfriend Cat had a wonderful time as she was moving and clapping to the music all evening. She made specific note of how this was a much better show than the last one she witnessed in Buffalo. As an additional side note, the interactive scenery that deployed from above the stage at various times during the show was a little atypical for Pearl Jam. It involved a tiered string of rustic-style light bulbs that seemed to evoke some kind of Tesla imagery for obvious reasons. Eddie and the rest of the band played with them regularly as they would be lowered so close to the stage that any of them could bat them around with their hands or their guitars. Cat predicts that Vedder will most certainly shatter one of them before the North American tour is done.

Even if you aren’t a fan of Pearl Jam, but like good rock music performed live, do your best to get some tickets for the Lightning Bolt Tour.

Pearl Jam “Lightning Bolt” is now available through iTunes and Amazon.

Movie News Reviews

Review: Grand Theft Auto 5

Great, But Not Perfect

A video game review of: Grand Theft Auto 5

By: Lawrence Napoli

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:11309:]]

Let’s face facts. GTA5 is the frontrunner for 2013’s Game of the Year, and why not? First, it’s GTA, and its release means a cultural event far greater than the annual installment of CoD yielding plenty of media coverage showing kids craving ultra-violent entertainment, clueless parents acting shocked over “youthful corruption,” and plenty of knuckleheads out there acting out real world violence in the name of the game. Second, despite a number of excellent games in rotation right now like BioShock Infinite and The Last of Us, the hype for GTA5 has made many a gamer instantly set everything else aside to give this game its due. Third, we must recognize the sales, as in over $1 Billion dollars in three days, which cannot be ignored for any reason. Fourth, the game is, simply put, very good and very entertaining. Yes, GTA5 meets much of the hype by providing some of the most adult centric and intellectually stimulating content that Rockstar has delivered via this game series yet. No, this game will not make you a board member of Mensa, but the husky layers of social commentary regarding the state of the Western World are pretty thought provoking should the gamer take a brief hiatus from digital homicide and hooker beatings to read between the lines.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:11310:]]

Presentation: Exquisite

This is easily the prettiest looking installment of GTA to date. Colors are vibrant, nightscapes are sleek, vehicles are exquisite and character models (specifically facial animation) are super smooth. The world of Los Santos is more alive than it’s ever been. I’ve not seen more detail in such an extensive sandbox game that one could literally donate hours of gameplay to simply walking around and taking in the views. The only thing that doesn’t look incredibly awesome in this game is the NPC population, which is totally justifiable seeing how you will be pulling them out of their cars, running them over, busting a cap in their *ss and subjecting them to various other nefarious activities that giving them all the same level of detail as the three protagonists (Franklin, Michael and Trevor) would be counter-productive. The whole environment is beautiful whether you’re hanging out in the countryside, driving around the city, parachuting from planes or deep sea diving.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:11312:]]

Gameplay: Mixed Bag

Rockstar made a big deal about talking about how every control element of GTA5 would be a vast improvement over its much maligned predecessor. If such a thing existed, I certainly did not notice it. The fact of the matter is that the player’s avatar still moves like a tank while walking and running with virtually no lateral movement or ability to change course without throwing the camera angle for a loop. Snapping your character in and out of cover can be very frustrating if you aren’t ducking behind a flat surface. You’ll think you’ve pressed the button to get into cover, but the avatar does nothing because you aren’t close enough to an “appropriate” surface. I noticed a slight improvement in the targeting, but using the aim assist option can sometimes make your character target something your own eyes weren’t tracking at the time; true veterans will go to work without it. Driving also seems more forgiving as taking bumps from traffic and the environment at modest speeds will no longer send your vehicle into a somersault, but that does not apply to pushing super cars to their max speeds and trying to handle corners without a healthy application of the hand and regular brakes in tandem. Flying helicopters is much more user friendly, albeit an acquired skill to engage in smoother flights, but even errant waggles on the analog sticks will not send the vehicle careening into the closest skyscraper instantly. Flying planes is very fun (especially the fighter jet!), but landing them is a whole different story: practice makes perfect and take it VERY slow.

I loved and I mean LOVED the heist (or significant job) planning mechanic and mission based execution. Unfortunately, this isn’t used nearly as much as what the advertising for this game made it appear to be, and it pays out for your characters even less. The first moment for the player to experience this occurs fairly early in the game via the diamond heist, and it’s a bit of a red herring because it is extremely fun to set it up and execute, but the player will see this perfect balance of missions and rewards rarely before the story ends. I thought we were a crew of professionals taking scores like in Michael Mann’s Heat. Shouldn’t we be pulling more jobs than random BS chores from “strangers and freaks” that pay out precisely zilch?

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:11313:]]

Functionality: Needs Patching

This is one of the biggest games, data-wise, that this counsel generation has been asked to digest, and as we enter only the second week of this game’s release, the gaming community is noticing a lot of issues. GTA5 is apparently making Xbox 360’s made prior to 2008 work too hard, forcing the game to crash fairly often. Players are noticing that vehicles stored in safe house garages and aircraft hangers will be erased spontaneously while progressing to story missions that instantly transport characters to a specific vehicle. I’ve personally run into several instances of the environment needing a few seconds to render back to normal fidelity upon exiting “skipped” taxi rides, which always makes me think the game is ready to crash before I get a chance to save my progress. Side missions seem to have an in-game shelf life as I’ve purposely put off doing some due to my increased interest in the story’s progression only to find side mission icons in the map to disappear permanently. That’s not to say all of the programming quirks are all bad. The very popular infinite money glitch involving sea exploration and swapping between two characters to reload money bags is a great way to acquire millions in the early game when money is fairly scarce.

I fully appreciate Rockstar’s desire to cram so much data into machines that almost need to over perform to get the job done, but giving them a complete pass on some of these significant issues is a mistake. I’m sure they will fix these issues in due time. My bet is a massive patch will come when we all download the GTA Online expansion next week.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:11314:]]

Story: Immersive journey with a lackluster ending

If anyone had any apprehension about splitting this GTA narrative into the trials and tribulations of three characters coming from completely different backgrounds, I will have you know that this presentation is fresh, gives the player a greater feeling of control, and made me feel like I was actually forming an in-game GTA crew on par with any other faction in the game. A one man army against a world of opposition can only work for so long, and seeing how GTA5 is trending towards slightly more realism than a series like Saints Row is concerned with, being successful at taking scores requires being a member of a capable crew. The story doesn’t hang around any one character for too long as each one is fully fleshed out as an individual, but their balance and interplay as a group allows the player empathize with them all on a different level. My personal favorite is Franklin, despite Michael’s experience and Trevor’s crazy shenanigans.

Unfortunately, the ending of such an involved journey that GTA5 delivers is anti-climactic at best. There is a direct element of player choice that will determine three very different outcomes to the narrative, but in my opinion, there’s really only one option and I’ll leave that to the reader. The final sequence of missions is varied, interesting and filled with action, but the story leaves you (figuratively AND literally) at the side of a cliff left wondering, “That’s it?” Other games this year have delivered much more drama, but no one has been able to knock the ending out of the park.

Conclusion: Must-buy for adults. Parents beware. Peaks and valleys, despite the beauty. Budgets for many games seem to be spiraling out of control as every developer and publisher is going for AAA, Game of the Year money without having the staff, facilities and vision to produce such a product. This doesn’t apply to Take-Two and Rockstar as they have created another gem of a video game, but considering the time and money that went into this game’s development, anything less than what GTA5 is, would not be acceptable. I say this without factoring in any aspect of the online segment of this game as it’s yet to be released. Running around with an actual crew of your own buddies, online in the world of GTA has been a dream for many gamers and what seems to await us all on October 1 experience. But we don’t know quite yet what will be involved beyond the availability of “hundreds” of missions and micro transactions paving the way.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:11315:]]

GTA5 really pushes the limit of the M-rating for video games as the excessive violence, pervasive nudity and relentless vulgarity are upstaged by the sheer adult content of the story and being able to understand why these characters are driven to the behavior they choose to engage in. Kids that are getting their mothers and grandmothers to buy this game for them should not be playing this because it’s much more involved than Call of Duty shooting. I say this because parents need to get smarter than their kids in regards to these kinds of games and because I don’t want these brats fouling up my online gameplay. Just kidding, but seriously, I don’t believe that video games turn kids into sociopaths, but immature people exposed to this kind of game without guidance might have their world outlook altered in unhealthy ways. Kids will find a way to play GTA5. It’s a fact. Parents need to be there for their kids to talk about it.

GTA5 is an excellent game that’s actually worthy of the $59.99 price point for a brand new copy, but by no means is it a “perfect” game. If I had to sum up its number one weakness (beyond the technical) it would be the restrictive controls and “feel” of the game, which is vintage Rockstar. Sure, the main characters are the furthest thing from trained ninjas, but I would have appreciated more precision to the overall control scheme. I also would have liked bank heists or high end robberies to be a larger presence throughout the game. I don’t think Rockstar would be concerned with stepping on the toes of a game like Payday 2, but as the player’s trio of protagonists attracts more heat, they aren’t exactly seeing the high reward for their high risk which results in fewer dollars to spend on stocks, property, vehicles and weapons to have even more fun with. Despite it all, GTA5 is just too much fun to pass on and the potential of GTA Online is as high as the sky, so my only recommendation to appropriate audiences is to pick this game up ASAP. Please, game responsibly.

Movie News Reviews

Movie Review: Prisoners (2013)

Intense Excellence and an Emotional Toll

A Film review of Prisoners

By: Lawrence Napoli

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:11203:]]

What is a parent to do in an impossible situation? Your child is missing, but you also have a means of possibly finding out where your child might be and it directly involves doing something horrible. It’s a catch-22 between hell and the devil, and Prisoners is a film that puts the audience right into a parent’s worst nightmare in this exact scenario. This dramatic thriller plagues its cast and all those bearing witness with the impossible choice between the guilt of doing nothing and the demons of doing the unspeakable, and it is incredibly impressive how this is accomplished via the lens of religious morality and secular ethics without allowing the plot to spin out of control in either direction. Make no mistake; Prisoners is the first Oscar worthy film of the Fall thanks to a litany of marquee performances by a veteran cast and a story that that plunges its emotional tendrils into your soul and pushes the limits of your resolve.

Screenwriter Aaron Guzikowski certainly had plenty of material to draw from what with America’s media obsession with child abduction. So many families have been shattered. So many creepers have been thrust to the limelight. So many channels have reaped the ratings. As exploitive as the media may or may not be, it does provide an additional resource to get the word out to larger communities to join in an effort to find lost children, but its presence in this script is surprisingly absent. This helps the story immensely as the script is more concerned with making this fictional tragedy as personal as possible by highlighting those most directly involved with it. Scenes that play out within the victims’ families are written very realistically as self loathing and internal combustion are both fueled by anger, frustration and despair. Scenes that play out with the police are not quite as raw, but become so gradually which reflects how personal it can become for the men and women charged with finding children they have no relation to. What allows these scenes to intensify tenfold is that Guzikowski is constantly framing every conversation and argument within the ethics and morality of the situation at large which forces the audience to anchor at a personal level to what is happening in that instant. Amidst all of this drama, a very thought provoking crime conspiracy is playing out in the background and the balance amongst all the storytelling elements at work is simply masterful.

This film is a character and dialogue driven affair layered with elements of suspense. The fact that there isn’t a significant amount of action hurts the pacing a bit seeing how it runs for over two and a half hours, and the mood never sways from a negatively charged place. In addition to this general lack of movement, this film features one of the least interesting and brown scale color schemes a setting could provide any production. It is not an easy task for any director to look at these supposed handicaps and suddenly weave into an interesting film, but Denis Villeneueve chooses to allow the assets he does have at his disposal to lead the way, by staying out of theirs: the cast. More often than not (especially in films I’ve seen recently), actors have been horse-collared by script limitations that prevent interesting characters to be fleshed out and flat characters to remain so because the actors playing the leads are not as skilled as their costars. This is not the case for Prisoners. Every actor seems to reach perfect synergy with their characters and it takes a director that knows the script as well as his or her cast to achieve that kind of intimacy. The best directors are the least intrusive and provide leadership where necessary to complete the production.

Prisoners is a film that boasts one of the best supporting casts for a dramatic crime/thriller film. Terrence Howard and Viola Davis as the parents of one of the missing girls are exceptionally skilled at summoning tears on command. Maria Bello as the mother of the other missing girl produces a tragic train wreck of a woman shredded by despair. Paul Dano, once again, does what he apparently does best and will seemingly never escape: being extremely creepy. And let’s not forget Melissa Leo’s contributions as her prosthetic makeup conceals her identity, but her performance is anything but forgettable.

As much as Hugh Jackman has been promoted as the de facto Oscar candidate for the male lead in this film, Prisoners is every bit Jake Gyllenhaal’s baby as Jackman’s. Officer Loki is a detective clearly tormented by the utter filth that the worst human behavior has subjected him to as he is a loner, but somehow driven to continue to fight the good fight. Gyllenhaal’s transformation into a man that is almost driven to any means necessary to solve this crime and save lives is truly a sight to see because it doesn’t take someone in law enforcement to identify with helplessness, and the frustration that manifests in attempting to completely hold your emotions in check to get the job done. It will be quite easy for most to overlook Officer Loki because he’s still an average cop, but Gyllenhaal’s everyman approach to it makes his part less about the impersonal role of the law and more about seeking justice without bending the rules of law and order.

Intensity describes every aspect of Hugh Jackman’s performance as Keller Dover, the father of one of the missing girls. He is presented as a burly father and husband who is loving yet very particular about doing things his own way because it is the “right” way. He’s also a man who’s Christianity is clearly a significant contribution to his outlook on life. He’s more of an Old Testament, wrath of God type than a New Testament, turn the other cheek type. All of this sets the table for a man who has always been in control of life to be completely at its mercy, but he’s certainly not taking it lying down. We may have all seen Jackman’s anger and rage in his iconic performances as Wolverine, but he goes well beyond that level in Prisoners. It isn’t a berserker rage that demonstrates this new level of intimidation, but a depraved indifference for any target of his character’s personal investigation to the disappearance of his child through his chilling demeanor akin to a psychopathic serial killer. Keller Dover’s decent into darkness is the fundamental journey of this film, and it is as disturbing as it is stomach-turning. Jackman shows what it means when seemingly average people are pushed to their emotional and spiritual limit, but also the dangers that come with rationalizing the irrational through faith or any other means of justification.

Prisoners is an excellent film, but it makes you feel awful to know that you are a member of a species of life that is capable of doing what is shown in this film, which is a reflection from reality. Any parents new to the child raising game could take a few lessons from this movie regarding always knowing where they are and who they hang out with. They will also leave the theatre completely paranoid over the very real possibilities out there, and the fact that there’s no such thing as a community that’s safe without vigilance, concern and care. Prisoners is a film that poses the question when life puts you to the test, will you abandon high class ethics, doctrines of faith or base human decency when extreme tragedy comes to your doorstep? Are all of society’s rules and regulations meaningless words in certain situations? Are we all just looking for excuses to go feral? So many films are asking these kinds of questions these days, but very few reek as much emotional havoc on the audience as Prisoners.

Movie News Reviews

Movie Review: Riddick (2013)

Remixing History

A Film review of Riddick

By: Lawrence Napoli

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:10901:]]

Anyone familiar with the Riddick Trilogy could have easily seen the trailers for this most recent installment and said, “Hey, I think I’ve seen that before,” and they would be absolutely correct. It seems as if the formula for this excruciatingly rigid character can find no wiggle room outside of stories strictly about being hunted by mercs. What I find most distasteful is the fact that Riddick returns to his roots with an almost exact, bullet point for bullet point, plot recreation of Pitch Black. Of course, this isn’t much of a big deal for those showing up late to the Riddick party, and I can completely understand seeing how these films never seemed to reach an audience outside a cult following. The fans, on the other hand, will be somewhat disappointed because despite the charisma of the character, the story is completely recycled and appears to be going nowhere fast.

Riddick is a film that had no business being made in the first place seeing how Universal and Vin Diesel had abandoned the franchise after the abysmal performance of The Chronicles of Riddick back in 2004 when that film’s global take at the box office was only $10 million dollars more than its production budget of $105 million. According to the Riddick Wiki page, Diesel and filmmaker David Twohy secured the rights to produce a sequel that promised to return to the basics, which in turn got Universal interested in distributing it. In order to finance this production’s near $40 million dollar budget, Diesel leveraged his own house, and what followed was a series of financial setbacks that sandbagged the whole production. Despite these clear red flags, the production managed to pull through and land in the can, and I have much respect for all the crew, production staff and cast that made the film a reality. But an “A for effort” does not a film worthy of your hard-earned dollars make, especially when the story was supposedly going to bigger and more interesting places. “Due to private funding and a limited budget, the ‘Underverse’ plot could not be continued.”

Clearly, the real world of dollars and cents encroached heavily on this page of Hollywood history, but when big bucks, bigger names and the best effects cannot be relied upon to deliver the spectacle; writing is the only gun you have left in the cabinet. Unfortunately for Riddick, this tale is shooting blanks. I completely understand looking to a franchise’s original film for inspiration in troubled times during a follow-up, but carbon copying the basics of that story is inexcusable. If writer/director David Twohy was so starved for creativity thanks to his distracting production woes and multiple responsibilities, he should have considered shamelessly rebooting the Furyan all together, and why not? Reboots are in. As it stands, the story picks up all but immediately where we left Riddick as the Lord Marshall of the Necromongers, the most powerful force in the galaxy. So naturally, we spend 5 minutes of Riddick taking all of that away from him and stranding old shiny eyes on yet another god forbidden planet. Insert the plot of Pitch Black here (mercs show up, precise killing, creepy crawlies target everyone, an uneasy alliance occurs, retrieving a ship’s power source to escape), and that’s Riddick in a nutshell. I couldn’t tell if the revisited story was more annoying than the awkward cursing by everyone that seemed too forced to overemphasize everyone’s status as a bad ass or the ever bland one-liners by Riddick himself whose quotes easily devolve to vintage Stallone/Schwarzenegger. I understand that certain conventions are inevitable in sci-fi/action films, but that wasn’t what made this franchise (and this character) unique in the first place. Playing around with themes of light vs. dark both literally and contextually through character, rooting for the supposed bad guy and a shoestring budget yielding a big picture look are all things that made Pitch Black unique. There’s nothing unique about Riddick.

I will give the production staff a lot of credit for making this film at least look the part of a big time Hollywood production. Detailed creature CG is sporadic, but very functional in wider angles. Gunplay is standard issue, but not particularly intense. Landscapes are bright, but rudimentary. Costumes are necessarily minimal and vehicles are easily the most impressive in how they move amidst the backdrops they are framed within. I am absolutely certain that Vin Diesel’s home is safe, and an opening weekend just under $19 million is certainly a step in the right direction. However, if the true purpose of this production was to transform this franchise into a more cost effective carrot to dangle in front of studios for future film development, the audience needs more than a good looking movie to spread that word of mouth like wildfire. $40 million dollars can only get you so far, but higher stakes, rounder characters and a unique plot would’ve brought more butts to the theatres.

Riddick is not a film that contains what anyone would refer to as a marquee performance by anyone, but considering its production woes, getting “average” out of anyone could be considered a major victory. Gone is the charm from the likes of Keith David and Judi Dench, and as nice as it was to see Karl Urban again as Vaako, his cameo is merely five minutes of interesting (and far too brief) exposition that connects this film to the last. The cast is basically a collection of tough guys and gals that are physical, intimidating and as flat as your kitchen table. That’s not a bad thing in and of itself, but plenty of action films in the past have had similar requirements of their casts and a number of them proved capable of doing more with less, performance-wise. This is Vin Diesel’s baby, and as much as I appreciate his efforts as a labor of love, he’s still Dominic Toretto with glowing eyes. Jason Statham plays Jason Statham like Michael Cera plays Michael Cera and so too is the same with Diesel. He’s a tough guy without the most staccato of line deliveries. He gives you everything you could possibly expect of him in Riddick.

I actually enjoyed Pitch Black and much of that was thanks to Diesel’s performance as Riddick. He cares about his character and he cares about these stories, and that is something that you just don’t see with most Hollywood productions (especially the big-budget-effect ones). Unfortunately, Riddick is simply not good enough to recommend to anyone paying any price for a general admission. This is a Netflix/On Demand situation all day long, and for all the money and effort that went into making this film, I can’t help but think it could have been more if the filmmakers hadn’t simply gone to ground with the safest, plausible scenario they could think up to make this franchise profitable again. You’d think a smaller budget with less corporate ties and interfering influences would help foster more spontaneity and courage in regards to story and character, but this was not the case for this film. Oh conventionalism, you truly are a silent killer. The audience covets your familiarity, but your lasting impression involves the individual thinking about all the other things he or she could have been doing rather than subjecting themselves to something else they’ve probably seen many times before. My suggestion: Put your $10 towards GTA 5 which comes out in just over a week.

Movie News Reviews

Op-Ed: A Response To Ben Affleck Batman Nerd Rage & Why Heath Ledger Argument Doesn’t Work

This One is for Brandon

Responding to Affleck Love and Nerd Rage

By: Lawrence Napoli

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:10480:]]

Oh internet; you truly are the last bastion of pure democracy. I suppose it makes sense to turn debating things as frivolous as casting calls into an absolute war of the words where no cheap shot will be left untaken and numerous lines will be crossed. The blanket of anonymity emboldens us all, and though it may give the individual courage to speak up where personal insecurities would otherwise keep the one mute, it has a tendency to inspire reckless behavior riddled with negative energy. Perhaps trashing other people’s opinions and perspectives acts as some twisted catharsis, but I’ve never felt pure glee by engaging in it.

Recently some readers took issue with my op-ed concerning my displeasure over Ben Affleck being cast as Batman for the Man of Steel sequel and presumably, all Justice League tie-ins for the foreseeable future.

First of all, that was (as this is) an op-ed which according to the Online Etymology Dictionary is defined as a page of a newspaper opposite the editorial page, usually devoted to personal opinion columns.
It was not an essay making an argument against sending financial aid to countries that appear to be acting against the interests of the US. It was a raw, emotional, soap box moment where I expressed a personal opinion that Affleck is not the right choice for Batman. A choice like that leaves too many questions for me regarding the future of these DC adaptations because the shear inclusion of that character in Superman’s sequel undercuts Kal-El’s own importance. That combined with the debacle that was Green Lantern plus the lack of some teaser, tie-in or reference to this new DC universe independent of Nolan’s trilogy at the end of Man of Steel makes me think there still is no master plan for the movement. Until that changes, “it’s the end” of those films for me.

Second, pinpointing The Town and Argo as proof positive that Affleck will clearly be an excellent Batman is as opinionated as my use of those examples to suggest the opposite.
In both of those productions, Affleck was placed in multiple seats of power and influence as a co-writer, director and lead actor. Is he somehow not going to use those opportunities to showcase himself in the best possible light? I liked both of those films, and I reviewed them here on Cosmic Book News, but until he has been confirmed as the director of Justice League and every other ancillary title where Batman will appear, he’ll have to start taking direction. Affleck and Snyder will certainly have moments of disagreement in their future endeavor as they are both bringing different experiences and ideas to the table. The danger lies in Affleck potentially responding in the way of the prima donna, and then press releases citing “creative differences” occur, people walk off sets and in the meantime, the production gets sandbagged. The Town and Argo are not proof that he can listen to someone else in authority over him to adjust a performance for the better of the film, not just the actor. He was the authority in those films.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:10481:]]

Third, let’s examine the comparisons with Michael Keaton’s Batman and Heath Ledger’s Joker as further proof positive that Affleck’s Batman will be just as unexpectedly successful.
Tim Burton’s Batman may have followed Richard Donner’s Superman, but it is the Dark Knight’s adaptation in 1989 that created the contemporary model of using big Hollywood names in the active, title roles for superhero films in the future as opposed to only support roles like Marlon Brando’s Jor-El. “Big” defined every level of this production and for Tim Burton, a man whose previous production credits only included Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure (1985) and Beetlejuice (1988), it could be understood that the pressure was on. We could have wound up with Mel Gibson, Kevin Costner, Charlie Sheen, Pierce Brosnan, Tom Selleck or Bill Murray, but producer Jon Peters liked Keaton’s edginess, and Burton’s familiarity with the actor certainly didn’t hurt. Yes, the fans blew up back then as they are now, but the main difference in the situations (besides the history between the director and lead actor) is that the production hired Batman co-creator Bob Kane as a creative consultant. If you can’t trust the character’s creator, who can you trust? Batman/Superman should have similar DC heavy weights like Geoff Johns or Scott Snyder as regulars on set, in the writer’s room and right now researching plot development, but as of now, anyone else’s involvement in these DC films are rumored at best. Sure, Johns failed Green Lantern as a co-producer, but I believe Affleck would respect actual DC writers if not his own film’s staff if push came to shove. This production requires supervision and/or support.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:10482:]]

As for Heath Ledger, the parallels are once again uncanny. Clearly he was cast against type where films like 10 Things I Hate About You, The Patriot and A Knight’s Tale had him on the path of the classic, Hollywood leading man. But then he starred in films like Monster’s Ball and Brokeback Mountain, and those were considerably riskier roles for a young actor who would eventually perish before his prime. Ben Affleck’s filmography is layered with classic, Hollywood leading male roles depicting him as the love interest, the tough guy or the arrogant power monger; i.e. fairly unchallenging work for a good looking dude to pull off. Nothing about the Joker as a role suggests the use of some formula for casting or performance in order for it to be successful, but then news reports concerning Ledger’s preparation process hit the press prior to his death which was equal parts disturbing and impressive. In an interview with Empire Magazine he stated, “I sat around in a hotel room in London for about a month, locked myself away, formed a little diary and experimented with voices . . . I ended up landing more in the realm of a psychopath – someone with very little to no conscience towards his acts.” That diary has since been revealed to the public demonstrating the obsessive immersion he subjected himself to so as to deliver the Joker unlike anyone before. Yes, working out two hours a day is impressive for Affleck to shape up for Batman, but his character will never be a physical match for Superman. I don’t expect his preparation to involve hanging out in caves or interviewing orphans who were victims of violent crimes, but something a little more mundane like researching with LA’s CSI would sway me more as to his seriousness for the role because it would at least get him in the right detective mindset (assuming that’s the kind of Batman we’ll even see).

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:10483:]]

Fourth, I’d like to address my opinion of Ben Affleck in general based on his career’s mixed bag of roles, his overbearing personality that comes out in shows like Real Time with Bill Maher and his less than gracious Oscar acceptance speech with Matt Damon for Good Will Hunting.
I also don’t like the fact that his ability to direct has been identified as some transcendent skill set unique from any other director and has nothing to do with the all-star actors that fill his casts like Jeremy Renner, Chris Cooper, Jon Hamm, John Goodman and Alan Arkin. Before we’re all ready to crown Affleck as the next American Auteur, let’s recognize that his opportunity to direct is specifically due to his being cast as the star, and his star equates to very specific dollars and cents for studios. He’s the money choice. He’s the corporate choice, and that above every other reason is why he is the next Batman. You may not agree with any of these statements, but they are reasonable enough to not like anyone or anything in particular.

Not once did I say that I hate him. Not once did I make some bigoted comment regarding him personally. Not once did I incite anyone else to join in on dedicated bashing like signing that petition to President Obama to remove Affleck from Batman. Heck, I never even said he was a bad actor. He’s simply not my cup of tea and I feel he doesn’t have the intimidation factor and mature mind set needed for Batman. That’s not a fact, it’s an opinion. Facts are as follows: He is an actor, he gets paid lots of money and he will make so much more being Batman.

Now I’d like to take this opportunity to thank our live caller, Brandon for his comments and discussion during CosmicBookNews’ first live podcast. He represents the best of what debates over pop culture can be. His comments were intelligent, entertaining, and although we didn’t agree on everything, nothing got personal and nothing got nasty. I’m not even going to reference the negative comments to my own article in order to address real concerns over the death threats being issued on Facebook pages for Man of Steel concerning this casting situation. I honestly do not know what people are thinking by sinking to that level and it clearly represents the worst of what actual nerd rages are capable of. It’s just a comic book adaptation for crying out loud. Even if people are joking, and even if they don’t really mean it, that is totally out of bounds. Commentary like that is an embarrassment to civilized society. Change that. It’s not commentary; it’s verbal vomit. So once again, I say to Brandon good looks, we appreciate your opinions and invite you to join us again for another live podcast.

Author name: Lawrence Napoli

Start typing and press enter to search