Movie News: Trailers, Reviews, Articles

Batman: The Killing Joke Review

The Joke’s on Us

A Film Review of Batman: The Killing Joke

Once again, Warner Bros. has seen fit to prod their golden goose of infinite, licensed content that is the one and only Batman. The Killing Joke is an animated feature based on a graphic novel of the same name written by the caustically polarizing Alan Moore who wove a gruesome tale of sexual assault, torture and taking a peek behind the veil of pure insanity in order to present an origin story of the Dark Knight’s arch nemesis, the Joker. Originally published as a one-shot in 1988, the gravity of The Killing Joke sent terrifying shockwaves through the entire Batman mythology, fundamentally altering the makeup of every participating character from that point forward.

Director Sam Liu and Executive Producer Bruce Timm present an adaptation of this iconic story that valiantly attempts to channel the same sense of terror and revulsion in addition to restraint and sympathy held within the original graphic novel. The first act of this film, however, is an addendum which establishes a certain relationship between Batgirl and Batman in order to set the audience up for the actual Killing Joke story later on. This element of the feature has been a major point of contention within the fan community for just about every reason under the sun, but mostly because it doesn’t belong.

As much as I can understand these criticisms, its addition is not completely without merit. First, it provides viewers not familiar with the Bat-mythology a specific reason why Batman would be personally vested in the conflict to come. Second, it generates a decent amount of action for a story never having been lauded for its intense combat sequences or martial arts work by any character. Third, it reestablishes the same implied relationship between Barbara and Bruce that was suggested towards the end of the Batman animated series when Tim Drake Robin and Batgirl replace Dick Grayson Robin as Batman’s sidekicks. Thinking about the hooks to this subplot: stalker obsession and the issues that come from working under Batman (no pun intended) could have easily transformed into its own feature, one-shot novel or comic series by itself. Unfortunately, it was tacked on in the beginning and wrapped up as quickly as possible because the name of this film still happens to be The Killing Joke; a plot the film hadn’t actually begun yet. As a result this subplot overall feels vapid and rushed. Developing it into something more interesting would have defeated the purpose of this production all together.

The rest of the film does an adequate job at breathing life into the bullet points of The Killing Joke. The same story is told; the exact same story and therein lies my criticism. An adaptation affords the filmmaker a unique opportunity to fill in the blanks between the panels of comic fiction, but this film didn’t seem too concerned with pushing the envelope beyond the base recreation of those panels. Perhaps Liu and Timm felt they had reached their “creative meddling limit” with their ultimately unnecessary first act, but expanding upon The Killing Joke plot by making it more suspenseful, violent and shocking is something I was not only looking forward to, but also expecting considering its R-rating.

As it turns out, this production wasn’t going for that kind of edge in the first place. There’s no doubt that the filmmakers of The Killing Joke were mindful of dangling in the range of PG-13 (the highly coveted rated for maximized profitability). Apparently, they seemed to forget about the massive inferiority complex western society has about sexuality vs. violence that has always been reflected by the MPAA because they were a tad miffed at getting the big “R.” According to Sam Liu during this past Comic-Con in San Diego:

“We‘ve had many films where people get shot and there’s blood, things that make me think we’re going to get an R-rating! For whatever reason violence is – there’s a certain desensitization that’s happened. That’s not as shocking anymore. But for some reason, sex and psychological torture is more touchy ground.”

The Killing Joke adaptation certainly has enough content “on paper” to qualify for its rating, but seeing it all play out in real time doesn’t feel very harsh at all. As a matter of fact, it’s about as soft as R-ratings come. Nudity is constantly cut away from or conveniently obscured by foreground/background framing. There are a few curses in passing dialogue, but they seem forced and awkwardly placed. There were even some instances where characters would build up to drop an F-bomb and then is curiously replaced by gosh-darned cleaned up alternatives. Yes, there is violence here, blood is shown and some succumb to headshots, but even this is tame in comparison to something along the lines of Ninja Scroll (1993).

Other things bothered me about this feature such as the musical number sung by Mark Hamil’s Joker that was composed specifically for this production. It was far too whimsical and childish in its melody and lyrics that it really belongs in one of Timm’s BAS episodes and specifically not this adaptation. The documentary featurettes would have you believe this segment was designed for maximum disgust, horror and fear, but I literally laughed at the screen when I heard those talking heads say that. (Note: the Mark Hamil interview is the best part of this entire production)

I also could not wrap my head around the inconsistent art design for the characters in this film. Non-primaries have the exact same Bruce Timm style from his classic animated series. Joker has his own unique style which transitions to and from an anime-style during more emotive moments. And then there’s Batman … ugh! His design is some abomination hybrid between Brave and the Bold and New Frontier, and it simply looks ridiculous when paired with the Kevin Conroy’s legendary baritone voice.

In the end, The Killing Joke is a film that plays out in a very average way which is fitting for the summer of 2016: the year summer blockbusters (overall) were so dedicated to tedium they almost broke the superhero genre. It isn’t terribly bad, nor is it terribly good, but it could be a waste of time if you had anything else interesting to do. If I wanted a motion comic of The Killing Joke, I would hold the graphic novel above my head, move it around and read it out loud.

Ghostbusters (2016) Movie Review

Something Meh in the Neighborhood

A Film Review of Ghostbusters (2016)

If you didn’t realize there was a new Ghostbusters movie coming out this summer, chances are you don’t watch TV, don’t use the internet and more than likely live out in the hearty wilderness. The advertising campaign for this film had the kind of social penetration one would expect from a Star Wars film or a new installment to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. This kind of visibility (paying Kobe Bryant to strap on a Proton Pack) and cross marketing (Papa John’s, Progressive Insurance, Volkswagen) is more than mildly suggestive of severe damage control by Sony Executives in an attempt to curtail this film’s largely negative preconceptions. [Please see this movie! Look at all the cool stuff we’re associated with!] With a production budget of $150 million dollars Sony has justified motivation to make certain this film makes money. However, there comes a point when the message is trying too hard and in their attempt to make female Ghostbusters a “cool idea” for males 18-35, the overcompensation may wind up back firing.

As for the movie itself, it is an unequivocal reboot of the original franchise from the ground up. There is no shared universe; the paranormal events of the 1980s in NYC did not happen. Fans of the original films may be disheartened by this, but can also be pleased or annoyed (toss of the coin) by a steady stream of re-gifted gags and concepts from the originals remixed with contemporary cultural phenomena that may or may not be received as “fresh” and “new.” The plot certainly isn’t, but the visual effects reflect the new (and expected) industry standard in terms of excellent blending with live action. However, be prepared to be inundated with flashy neon lights at all times of paranormal activity. In addition, despite a lack of historic proficiency in the creation of action sequences, the overall action was well performed and captured by both the cast and director Paul Feig. I guarantee that none of our leading ladies worked as hard physically in front of the camera and their efforts culminate in sequences the original films were simply incapable of.

The genre classification on IMDB lists the 1984 Ghostbusters as “Adventure, Comedy, Fantasy.” The classification for the 2016 Ghostbusters is “Comedy, Fantasy, Sci-Fi.” One might not notice a big difference here, but the order of priorities is 100% correct. The new Ghostbusters film is a comedy first and foremost as every single scene has some kind of laugh it is primarily concerned with setting up and paying off in a distinctly Saturday Night Live sketch comedy manner. One can take the SNL vibe or leave it, but the fact remains that there isn’t one iota of seriousness to the journey in this film. Whatever “danger” these ghosts present to the general public, no semblance of gravitas can be formed because all the laughs, gags and awkward humor in the world flanks every possible instance where the main characters could pull back and say “Whoa! This just got real!”

What allows this film to work as a sell-out comedy outside of its questionable plot, effects, history or substance is its cast and the genuine chemistry they all share with each other. This was a lynchpin to the success of the original films and it is no less important here. Melissa McCarthy refrains from sucking all the oxygen out of the room to allow her fellow leads equal opportunity to play off of and match her own comedic competence (unlike what occurred in Bridesmaids). The audience can tell these women had an awesome time making this movie together and that sentiment shines through in such brilliant fashion during its runtime.

Action Style	I was stunned at the amount of action this film had that wasn’t exclusively wrangling ghosts with neutrino wands. Our leading ladies get into some serious scraps with these pesky poltergeists by manner of fisticuffs, gunplay and explosives. They also get tossed around a lot because they get whipped a couple of times.	4/6
Action Frame	Wider shots that tended more towards complete CG had some interesting angles going on, but as dynamic as the action sequences were, one could tell these weren’t another Michael Bay shameless rip from the 80s.	3/5
Lead Performance	Melissa McCarthy is fairly funny, but also delivers the exact same performance you’ve seen her accomplish in everything she’s been in. Ditto for Kristen Wiig. Kate McKinnon is the goofball, but seemed to be sending out a confusingly homosexual vibe which would have been fine had she not been so determined to come off as an absolute joke whenever she wasn’t talking about tech stuff. Leslie Jones’ Patty Tolan was easily the most consistent and charismatic of the Ghostbusters. She brought sobering moments of anger and shock to balance her comedic delivery.	3/6
Supporting Performance	The one point goes to Chris Hemsworth for having the courage to play the dumbest, most mind-numbingly vacant excuse for female eye candy EVER placed in front of a camera. Yes, he’s hysterical, but in the back of my mind, Thor is shaking his head in disapproval. Nobody else in this entire cast that isn’t a Ghostbuster is worth a lick of salt which especially includes Andy Garcia for his “paycheck film” performance and the lamest villain since the bad guy in any Pee Wee Herman film courtesy of Neil Casey.	1/5
Music	Oh no. New flashy tracks with big names do not a good soundtrack make. I am so happy they did not put the original Ray Parker Jr. song on repeat throughout, but doing so probably would have been an improvement. None of it sounded spooky at all.	2/6
Sound F/X	Yes! Great audio effects for all the pseudo science ghost-busting equipment. The ghosts themselves also sounded pretty great, but again, not particularly spooky.	4/5

“Moving” = 17/33

Digital F/X	All ghostly and supernatural effects throughout looked really neat, at least at first. Unfortunately, the exclusively neon color gradient used for every single ghost got distracting and with even more neon introduced with proton pack lasers, it was like watching My Little Ponies at a rave party shooting rainbows of Skittle candies at each other from their unicorn horns.	4/6
Special F/X	Well done practical effects with wire work! Our ladies get beat up pretty well by their ghostly opposition as they are thrown about the screen with seamless proficiency. Also, who doesn’t love slime and goo everywhere?	4/5
Costumes	Yikes. This is a significant downgrade from the jumpsuits in the original films. Seriously, these new ones are burlap sacks with orange duct tape wrapped around them. More effort was needed here.	2/6
Hair & Makeup	For a collection of women who aren’t on the short list to be cast as “the babe” in any particular film, the hair and makeup team made every single Ghostbuster look pretty damn cute. Point deduction for Andy Garcia’s team who seemed to go for a slight awkward Crypt Keeper look about his face.	4/5
Exteriors	No. No. No. Part of what made the original Ghostbusters film great was that it was also a great NYC movie featuring a bunch of notable landmarks and wide exterior shots that presented the city itself as an honorary character. The exteriors in this film are far too boxed in save for the climax which looked like it was setup on a soundstage.	1/6
Interiors	Interiors are the polar opposite what with a nice range of diversity among businesses, schools, laboratories and hotels filled out with some very neat set dressings (especially in the labs).	4/5

“Picture” = 19/33

Hook	“Besties” from high school are reunited through convenient circumstance bringing in to question the validity of paranormal science. Videotaped evidence leads to a journey through a sea of naysayers and debunkers to fight real ghosts.	2/4
Conflict	Ghosts are bad on their own, but someone is causing them to be more assertive than your garden variety haunting.	2/4
Resolution	Good guys win. Bad guys lose. And an obvious hook to turn this into a franchise appears post credits.	2/4
Dialogue	The women really shine in their casual repartee as the crack wise and figure out what to do next. They falter when they try to use scientific jargon which is meant to at least sound funny, but comes off as laborious. All of Leslie Jones’ lines are pure gold though.	3/6
Exposition	These characters may not have the greatest depth in the world, but that also means their back stories can be wedged in anywhere and shelved instantly to get back to the laughs and action.	3/5
Character Uniqueness	Yes, these Ghostbusters are women who live in a fictional universe completely removed from the original film with their own, personal idiosyncrasies. The problem is, those eccentricities directly equate them as feminine iterations of their original counterparts: Kristen Wiig = Peter Venkman, Melissa McCarthy = Ray Stantz, Kate McKinnon = Egon Spengler and Leslie Jones = Winston Zeddmore (not just a race thing, but also a race thing).	3/6
Character Relatability	Sure, some people may know the bitterness of social media pointing and laughing at whatever you do or say, but the more heartfelt message of these Ghostbusters is that people, no matter how weird, or tough, or silly, want to belong and it takes special people to put differences aside and accept you for who you are.	4/5

“Story” = 19/34

Overall MPS Rating: 55/100

The new Ghostbusters film of 2016 is an average blockbuster featuring above average comedy telling a story that isn’t overly concerned with the concept of an interesting plot. Fans of SNL and Bridesmaids will instantly feel the exact tone of those comedies echoed here. I didn’t hate this film, but there was nothing special going on here that I haven’t already seen on SNL,Bridesmaids or the original Ghostbusters. Plugging in Channing Tatum, Jonah Hill, Seth Rogen and Paul Rudd (and changing absolutely nothing else) would have yielded the exact same product and the main reason is because a story about people fighting ghosts to save the world without any drama or danger ultimately has no relevance. If there’s something wrong in the neighborhood, I am unfortunately going to have to call He-Man. By the Power of Greyskull: let there be NO MORE REBOOTS!

P.S. – I had to make special note of the Chris Hemsworth dance routine that played during the final credit roll of this film. This sequence is noticeably absent from the film proper as it was clearly setup in scenes that preceded the final confrontation. I can understand if Paul Feig decided to cut this for time purposes, and I can also understand using it for something because it is somewhat funny, but it also seems like a huge waste of resources to have it choreographed, performed and CG’d only to scrap it entirely. That’s all right though. I’m sure the money couldn’t possibly have been used better elsewhere…

independence-day-resurgence-movie-review

Movie News Reviews

Independence Day: Resurgence Review

They Didn’t Stop To Think If They Should

A Film Review of Independence Day: Resurgence

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

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

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

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

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

Action Style	Like the original ID4 the majority of the action comes in the form of aerial combat and mass scale digital destruction. Some laser/plasma gunplay is featured too, but not nearly as visually dynamic.	4/6
Action Frame	Roland Emmerich makes sure the frame is moving, shifting and expanding enough to capture as much scale of destruction and combat as possible. It is much easier to do all this when most of these sequences are created digitally.	4/5
Lead Performance	Were there any leads in this film? I guess Liam Hemsworth’s Jake Morrison technically qualifies as some random rival to crack ace Dylan Hiller played by Jessie Usher who apparently was given specific direction to copy every possible nuanced mannerism Will Smith produced in ID4 to more easily identify him as his son. Neither was particularly inspiring as a leader, a hero or a character.	3/6
Supporting Performance	Too many to list and they were all inconsistent. Judd Hirsh as Julius Levinson was charming and comedic, but his scenes were awkwardly placed and annoying speed bumps to the action. Jeff Goldblum was solid, but as a primary architect of this new world, needed to be featured more. Maika Monroe’s Patricia Whitmore is the President’s aid, a combat pilot and the primary love interest and has zero time to do any of that. Bill Pullman reprising his role as former President Whitmore had a couple of decent moments that were instantly countered by odd moments. Every tertiary support character was more painfully unfunny than Jimmy Fallon.	2/5
Music	A decent job done here, but the music is not used as effectively at exposing massive screen reveals as the original.	4/6
Sound F/X	Explosions tend to blur into an avalanche of rumbles and the pew, pew, pews between plasma rifles and aircraft cannons are a bit indistinguishable. The aliens sounded pretty cool though.	3/5

“Moving” = 20/33

Digital F/X	All spacecraft and future tech on Earth and the moon looks pretty great. The scale of abandoned alien craft on the planet is intimidating, but not nearly as much as the new inbound threat. No complaints. Well done.	6/6
Special F/X	With so much of the visual effect burden being hoisted by digital composites and CG there wasn’t much left to be shown practically with simple pyro and miniature work. Still, any scene featuring human/alien combat face to face required some kind of wire work.	3/5
Costumes	Not particularly inspired designs for any clothing, but especially flight suits of the future which is interesting seeing how drastically alien technology improved society; the clothing with which we interacted with it seemingly didn’t have to? Seriously, not even some kind of power armor for foot soldiers?	3/6
Hair & Makeup	The Robert Loggia cameo looked like a silicone Kardashian job gone horribly, horribly sour. Whitmore’s scraggly beard looked better on him than shaved off. Were they trying to make Jeff Goldblum’s character look older than his father?	2/5
Exteriors	The digital moonscape looked great. Africa looked like it was clearly thrown together on a soundstage. Future D.C. looked decent and the dessert around Area 51 is as desolate as before.	3/6
Interiors	A vast improvement in the set design is reflected in every interior scene during this film production. Excellent diversity is displayed within regular spaces to military bases to space platforms.	5/5

“Picture” = 22/33

Hook	The aliens are pissed and they’re coming back to finish the job. Really? And it’s somehow more difficult having exponentially increased our planetary defenses over the past 20 years? So we’re basically playing the same gags one more time?	1/4
Conflict	There wasn’t enough internal conflict to parallel the obvious external threat of the aliens to make it as interesting as the first film. Giving the audience more scenes from the aliens’ perspective would have amplified the effectiveness of this sole source of conflict.	2/4
Resolution	Apparently there is a larger struggle in the galaxy thanks to a subplot that’s shoehorned in paying no immediate dividends in this film, but clearly meant to setup another sequel providing Resurgence makes enough money globally. The battle may be won, but the war goes on.	2/4
Dialogue	Does a good job in getting the audience up to speed as to what’s going on in this newly advanced world, but does a poor job building camaraderie amongst its characters nullifying any sympathy we have for them or the challenges they face.	2/6
Exposition	This film presumes an audience that has seen the original. Understanding what’s happening now is dependent on understanding what happened then which, by the way, does not get revisited in any meaningful way. What the hell happened to Will Smith’s character again? This is not the main character you are looking for.	2/5
Character Uniqueness	First we have the cocky smart ass vs. by the book golden boy. Then we have the underappreciated scientist. Finally we have the sacrificial icon. As far as blockbusters go, these are as unique as mud.	1/6
Character Relatability	Again, due to a complete disregard for character development, there are few moments of relatability with the audience save for the tried and true families of combat veterans angle desperate for their safe return.	2/5

“Story” = 12/34

Overall MPS Rating: 54/100

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

Movie News

Wesley Snipes Says Ball Is In Marvel’s Court For More Blade

The actor and fans want more Blade but it’s up to Kevin Feige and the MCU.

Movie News Reviews

Review: Captain America: Civil War

Ultimate Victory

A Film Review of Captain America: Civil War

There are event films and then there are EVENT FILMS. So many studios own so many licenses and they all want to convert them into license-to-print-money franchises and most of them fail to reach that threshold because the studios want their cash back and then some ASAP. Phenomena like Star Wars (for instance) don’t just happen overnight and these types of cinematic universes require multiple, high quality entries to build legacy. As we look back to the beginning of these Avengers films, few could have predicted that the first Iron Man could have set the stage for the immense and ever growing success of this franchise as a whole. Even super-producer Kevin Feige, the man most singularly responsible for making these films reality, could not have predicted this kind of windfall even if he was gifted with infinite resources and unrivaled decision making power. The latest entry in Marvel Studios’ amazing galaxy of super-people represents a new pinnacle for what these films can accomplish in the entertainment industry. The genre is not about cookie-cut-outs in cheesy costumes playing hyper stereotypes in fictional scenarios anymore.

Of course, no film is without flaws and this film did have some practical difficulties. To begin, I saw this movie in IMAX 3D, and I must say that I do not recommend anyone to experience this film in that format. There seemed to be frame rate issues from the opening action sequences that my eyes never fully adjusted to even by the film’s end. I don’t know if the reason for this is because I wear glasses and placing the (rather uncomfortable) IMAX 3D glasses on top of them causes too much distortion for my eyes to process as smooth motion or the rotoscoping effect the filmmakers used inside the frame to enhance the already hectic action. Either way, I found it physically uncomfortable to process all the action on such a large screen with 3D that I would recommend standard screenings (editor’s note: we noticed frame rate issues in 2D as well).

Second, a runtime of 2 hours and 27 minutes seems about standard for epic blockbusters these days, but that doesn’t make it any less of a challenge to sit through despite even this film’s excellent effort at balanced pacing. Obvious tips like “don’t drink too much soda” and “go to theaters with comfortable seats” helps with every cinematic adventure, but I would also add “don’t see this at the end of a busy work day.” Third, there is a ton of content in this film to process. Without at least a cursory following of the Iron Man and Avengers (proper) films, Civil War can be difficult (but still enjoyable) to follow and only the most devoted fans that have seen every satellite installment will connect all the dots.

Captain America: Civil War is a chapter in the Marvel Cinematic Universe primarily interested in expansion. The Avengers’ roster of super-people has grown and thus, its ability to intercede anywhere on the planet has become unprecedented. With Hydra in shambles and other nefarious individuals causing trouble off-planet, the only conflict currently posing a challenge to this new global power is itself. This presents a convenient opportunity for the movie to spend an inordinate percentage of its total runtime on character development rather than presenting another single-serving antagonist to punch in the face. As such, every single hero has a moment to shine both in drama and in combat all while introducing two brand new and pivotal characters to the franchise in Black Panther and Spider-Man.

Normally, this type of film buckles under the pressure of accomplishing so much in so little time resulting in abandoned characters and abbreviated subplots, but those films also had a “big bad” to wrap up by the end. Civil War has no such task and this film’s story yields fragmentation and uncertainty; a recession if you will for an organization representing the pinnacle of human endeavor. Some may see this overarching plot as dull and unproductive, but it demonstrates a maturity in its self-criticism of the inevitable fallout that occurs when heroes save the day.

Action Style	There’s so many different styles of action to make note of. We begin with high speed vehicular chases bridging to firearm combat to fisticuffs to super-powered stunt work and then Spider-Man does what a spider can on top. There’s almost something for just about everyone who likes action.	5/6
Action Frame	Granted, the dynamic cinematography on display throughout is thanks most in part to frames compiled purely in a computer, but they had to be conceived by someone and the frame is anything but static.	4/5
Lead Performance	Almost everyone qualifies as a lead and not one single person phones it in. Chadwick Boseman is impressive in his debut as T’Challa/Black Panther. Anthony Mackie continues to exude pure charisma as Sam Wilson/Falcon. Scarlett Johansson is reliably unpredictable as Black Widow, Sebastian Stan’s intensity is unrivaled as Bucky/Winter Soldier, everybody likes Paul Rudd as Scott Lang/Ant-Man, Elizabeth Olsen shows a more tender side to her Scarlet Witch, Paul Bettany continues mystify as the Vision, Jeremy Renner brings the all important sarcastic laughs, Don Cheadle produces a fine rationalist perspective and Tom Holland’s Spider-Man brings great hope for the future of his satellite franchise as well as the importance of his character in the grand scheme of things moving forward. Amidst all these fine performances it is easy to overlook our diametrically opposed protagonists: Chris Evans as Captain America and Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man. Evans once again channels the tempered idealist from the classic white knight archetype while Downey discovers a new level of concern and despair for Tony Stark that has transplanted Stark’s signature attitude with something more dire and serious.	6/6
Supporting Performance	Not to be outdone by a healthy contingent of leads, the supporting roles effectively round out a brilliantly assembled cast. William Hurt’s Thunderbolt Ross is a prototypical authoritarian without coming off as whimsically maniacal. John Kani’s King T’Chaka is absolutely brilliant in virtually no screen time. Emily VanCamp continues to add credibility to her Sharon Carter. Daniel Bruhl’s Zemo may not have been a physical, mental or phsycological match for the heroes, but no one could argue with his motivations and his ability to convey his character’s despair makes him Marvel’s most effective villain since Loki.	4/5
Music	Acceptable, but not quite iconic enough. My favorite soundtrack moments were those stylized instrumental screeches signifying Winter Soldier activity.	4/6
Sound F/X	Sharp. Clean. Diverse. Creative. No complaints whatsoever.	5/5

“Moving” = 28/33

Digital F/X	These films exist to deliver top mark CG and the fusion with live action is all but seamless. Surprise, surprise, these moments peak at the battle royale among our heroes showcasing everyone’s abilities in an explosion of visual brilliance.	6/6
Special F/X	With so many computer generated imagery flying about the screen simple pyro, wall crumbles and explosions pale in comparison.	3/5
Costumes	Every hero looks as great as they have in their respective films while the new Black Panther is much more ornate than film trailers make him and Spider-Man’s costume is a welcome classic configuration.	5/6
Hair & Makeup	Well done, but nothing exceptional being accomplished here.	3/5
Exteriors	An exceptional collection of diverse locales representing very different parts of the world.	5/6
Interiors	These also do no not fail to impress as the futuristic tech of Avengers’ facilities contrasts quite well with more mundane government facilities and even more average settings such as obscure apartment spaces in Queens.	4/5

“Picture” = 26/33

Hook	The Avengers may be the newest superpower in the world, but they are beyond perfect and not above the machinations of those who wish to control them as agents of some prescribed agenda.	4/4
Conflict	Heroes have been beating each other up in the comics for many years thanks to underdeveloped villains, but their live-action counterparts now going through the same motions adds to the realism because even people of supernatural ability are bound to disagree with the fundamentals of what they do and who they are.	3/4
Resolution	Agreeing to disagree is as open ended (or non-existent) as resolutions come, but it also leaves the audience in an uncertain and uncomfortable place regardless of whether they were on #teamironman or #teamcaptainamerica.	2/4
Dialogue	For all the characters that already know each other, their natural speak and camaraderie shines through. For newcomers Black Panther and Spider-Man, their fresh takes and commentary are well placed, justified and completely in character.	5/6
Exposition	With so many MCU films in the can, the only real exposition required are the one or two films that preceded it. A couple of expository sequences early in this film attempt to bring everyone up to speed, but every Marvel movie from this point forward cannot be relied upon for a thorough rehash at some point in every first act. Also, more probably could have been done to flesh out the antagonist’s perspective, motivation and methods.	2/5
Character Uniqueness	Black Panther and Spider-Man provide some welcome new blood, but I am even more impressed with Tony Stark’s shift back towards the establishment as it shows that even a man of his infinite ego is not beyond an ever growing sense of guilt over his inability to solve every problem. Then again, it is almost as surprising for Steve Rogers to take the path he chooses after his insider information is revealed.	5/6
Character Relatability	Not to continue beating a dead horse, but once again, Black Panther and Spider-Man provide the perfect gateway for all viewers to get in on the ground floor in terms of connecting with these super-people. Vengeance and the desire to please/impress are powerful and commonplace motives that most can identify with. Still, these people can bench press cars and we did just meet them.	3/5

“Story” = 24/34

Overall MPS Rating: 78/100

Captain America: Civil Waris as entertaining as special effect blockbusters featuring larger than life spectacles come. Kevin Feige and whoever else he considers his brain trust at Marvel Studios continue to prove they know how to make spectacular comic book adaptations. They have also proved they know who else to trust with their most prized licenses with the Russo Brothers directing their first Avengers film and absolutely delivered the goods. This installment also happens to be its darkest not because it coats the frame in black, but for people that have this kind of ultimate power, their worst enemy is what they see in the mirror; that is until Thanos reveals himself to Earth’s mightiest heroes.

P.S. I found it interesting that the directors of Infinity War Parts 1 and 2 did not deliver even a hint of Infinity Stones, Thanos or anything else even remotely cosmic to parallel the chaos on Earth with the chaos amassing in the cosmos. It is a bit disappointing, but not entirely soul-crushing.

Movie News Reviews

Batman Vs. Superman Review

Batman!(Co-starring Superman)

A Film Review of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

By Lawrence Napoli

Not even one day released to the American viewing public and the only headlines regarding this film revolve around poor receptions and dreadful reviews. Ouch! Is this film really that bad? Are the fanboys being too critical? Are the trolls having too much fun? Is it being unfairly judged for not being absolutely spectacular? I’d be lying to you if I didn’t admit just a hint of glee over this project’s initial, global reaction for a number of reasons: poor casting choices, using The Dark Knight Returns plot for introducing a Justice League cinematic universe and Batman upstaging Superman’s sequel (to list a few). The details of this production had me shaking my head in absurdity light years beyond the casting of Mr. Mom as Tim Burton’s Batman back in 1989 so much so that its present day difficulties seem a foregone conclusion.

Rather than rubbing salt into open wounds, this review will be more concerned with simply critiquing what we have on the screen, and it begins with this film being Batman’s movie from the very first second to its very last. In a way, it makes sense for the story to be so Bat-centric because “this” version of the Dark Knight has not yet been established in this particular cinematic universe. It is more than just the plot featuring Batman or its themes, framework or even the outcome that makes it so. The feel, sound and look of this entire film are “Batman” through and through. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with this tactic outside of the cost of sacrificing every other character and their subplots as window dressing to Batman’s mission. As such, Superman is all but designated as a formal antagonist if the story weren’t also interested in introducing the audience to the Justice League as well as a major tease for a destined conflict against one of DC’s Ultimate Evils in subsequent films. The fact is that this story is so much more than just Batman and Superman that it crumbles under the weight of its own lofty ambitions. This leads to a bit of distraction and incoherence which requires the viewer to make frequent leaps of faith to traverse the plot holes.

Then there’s the pacing of this movie which does a fine job at mimicking the overall flow and tenor of Man of Steel. We start off pretty slow as Zack Snyder clearly makes conscious efforts at establishing intrigue. But then, the film stays at that same tempo because we need a ton of exposition fed to us in order to appreciate what is going on thanks to advancing the plot more than a year past the destruction of Metropolis at the hands of Zod. With little screen time left to build upon any drama or suspense, the burden falls squarely on action sequences to break things up and sometimes they get the job done. It’s neat seeing Batman drive his car, fly his plane and beat up (and kill) bad guys. [Yes, this Batman kills – more on that later] Unfortunately, Batman isn’t Superman; meaning those awesome Dragonball Z live-action combat sequences from Man of Steel are nowhere to be found in this film, not even during the climactic battle against a conveniently placed plot device.

I understand that Zack Snyder is essentially doing the same thing as the competition, but trying so desperately to differentiate by doubling down on the gravitas. These films may not be taking place in a Chris Nolan reality, but there is no denying the tone of seriousness here. I for one am all for making these blockbusters as poignant as any art house, indie obscurity. However, the fun factor should not be hunted down and eradicated like some Thanagarian Snare Beast. No one needs to tell this production staff about the importance of finding the right balance between gravity and levity so you can all be assured that the next DC film, Suicide Squad, will be layered with silliness as a counterweight, but hopefully not too much.

Action Style	When the action happens, it is captured quite well featuring some extremely diverse Batman combat both inside and out of vehicles. Meta-beings are relegated to flying at stuff, punching stuff and eye beams.	5/6
Action Frame	Fairly static camera setups for dialogue scenes and much more animated during combat. Better than average.	3/5
Lead Performance	Batfleck wasn’t terrible, but he might have been if he had to “act” his own, gruff “Bat-voice” instead of relying on sound filters. Henry Cavil is just plain solid, and I am pained that he’s totally overshadowed in this film. Both men put in the serious wrench time at the gym for these parts. Speaking of overshadowed: Amy Adams is superb, but did anyone really care?	4/6
Supporting Performance	Gal Gadot has the right presence for WW, but is basically as skinny as she has been for Fast and Furious films. Michael Shannon surpasses himself playing a cadaver of the character he played in Man of Steel. But Jesse Eisenberg produces a whimpering, erratic shell of some character meant to be Lex Luthor – not unlike many of the characters he’s made a Hollywood career by playing. Also, Jeremy Irons’ Alfred was WAY too sarcastic for me.	1/5
Music	The quality echoed by the iconic theme music of The Dark Knight Trilogy normally gives Hans Zimmer an A+ when it comes to music, but then I heard his theme for Wonder Woman. Ugh! Also, not enough Superman’s theme is featured in this film.	2/6
Sound F/X	Fake Batman voices are to be preferred to whatever Batfleck would have come up with. Thank you audio effects. Thank you.	3/5

“Moving” = 18/33

Digital F/X	The CGI within this film is text book for pristine excellence for a Hollywood production of this budget. A full point is deducted for the not so inspired monster design of Doomsday being a gray, Ninja Turtle, knockoff.	5/6
Special F/X	Explosions are solid as is gunfire and bleeding effects. Practical effects shine during the Bruce Wayne charging into Metropolis sequence.	3/5
Costumes	I wasn’t in love with Superman’s suit in the first film, but it has grown on me. Batman’s suit is great from the neck down. Lex Luthor’s apparel is fitting for a genius tweaker who couldn’t be bothered by the concept of “respectable attire.”	4/6
Hair & Makeup	Neither exceptional nor horribly out of place.	3/5
Exteriors	Kent farm exteriors were perfect. Cityscapes (only slightly) less so.	4/6
Interiors	I must say that I was impressed by this iteration of the Bat Cave.	4/5

“Picture” = 23/33

Hook	Batman sees first-hand what the damage of meta-humans can do to a city of mere Earthlings and feels mankind may need to go to war with Superman to survive.	3/4
Conflict	So the world’s greatest detective would not have thoroughly explored all avenues, investigated all the players and exhausted every last resource before forcing a physical confrontation with a god? If he did, he would not have been played so easily by the bad guys.	1/4
Resolution	Batman and Superman just formally met, so to witness this contrived mutual respect they suddenly upgrade to is ridiculous.	1/4
Dialogue	I sometimes hear Daredevil narration when Batman speaks. Superman easily has the best lines if for any other reason he isn’t flapping his lips all the time. Every line of dialogue for Luthor equates to ear rot.	3/6
Exposition	The audience gets just enough to comprehend what’s happening in this film only and absolute zero for everything that happened off screen in the time immediately after Man of Steel. Also, these scenes aren’t blended particularly well with the action to help with the pacing.	2/5
Character Uniqueness	Superman kills. Batman kills. And Lex Luthor is a tool. These are all certainly unique takes on these particular characters historically, but also demonstrates a fundamental disconnect with the cores of who they are. If Superman kills, his principles are no longer his greatest strength. If Batman kills, his ironclad will and excellence of execution and preparation is rusted. If Luthor has no backbone, no level of intelligence or resources will ever make him a viable threat because above all else, he is defined by his own hubris.	1/6
Character Relatability	Amazingly enough, I relate to Superman the best in this film because despite his amazing abilities he isn’t trying to lord anything over anyone and is really just trying to do the right thing the best way he can. I’d understand Batman’s perspective if it were based on something more than vengeance. I have no motivation to relate to Luthor as I mentally switch him off whenever he’s onscreen.	2/5

“Story” = 13/34

Overall MPS Rating: 54/100

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is an average blockbuster. It wasn’t atrocious, nor was it anything spectacular, but apparently that’s enough for its crucifixion. An unfocused story combined with questionable casting and inconsistent performances demonstrate major weaknesses for perhaps one of the most hyped and anticipated film fictions of all time. The expectations were clearly impossible to satisfy, but one film attempting to do so much in a mere 2.5 hours was all but inviting disaster. A simpler story focusing on an introduction between Batman and Superman and how their credos differ in almost every way would have been more than enough to fill out a full time slot. Then again, what made this plot work in The Dark Knight Returns is the fact that these two characters had a long history of conflict and disagreement that built up to a direct physical confrontation which clearly doesn’t fit in Batman v Superman. Simply put, this was not the fiction to rip-off to launch this new generation of heroes, and that is Zack Snyder’s fault. Taking a risk by inventing a brand new framework for licensed characters is not something indicative of a Snyder production. His history is adaptation through emulation and that brief stint with originality gifted us all with Sucker Punch. Need I say more?

Movie News Reviews

2016 Oscars Results, Recap & Opinions

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:24521:]]

Holy Oscar Fallout 2016!

By Lawrence Napoli

(Editor’s note: the article was written live as the Oscars happened)

As the red carpet nonsense starts to simmer down, I’m thinking about a couple of things. First, is it beyond a foregone conclusion that Leo takes home his first Oscar? It does seem it would take an act of God to prevent this from occurring seeing how he has as much hype to win as any other “favored” star in the past. Second, what is Chris Rock going to do or say: Is he going to play it safe – corporate and PC – or is he going to set the show on fire? Third, what kind of surprises are we going to experience during the show (please let there be an appearance by Deadpool)? I hope the show producers do more than simply speed things along, but find an entertaining twist without using musical interludes as a crutch. Fourth, will there be more disdain for the rise of comic book/special effect driven adventure films, or will there be a deeper appreciation for the ones that really pull out all the stops? Blockbusters deliver the magical spectacle to audiences as well as any other heavy handed drama. I understand the argument for over-saturation, but purists should shut their mouths when it comes to scoffing at and mocking these films. There’s nothing wrong with bringing more attention to smaller, indie productions that have bare bones budgets and make their films as much about “the art” as possible, but make no mistake, The Academy Awards is a show that is much more about money and politics in Hollywood and studios that own winners have big pay days to cash in on. We’ll leave post show analysis to the end and hopefully we will be treated to a good one; on with the show.

[Side note: Holy crap! It’s Louis Gossett Jr. prior to the show! He had a great message regarding diversity that was short, sweet and poignant and probably going to be ignored by the majority of people on the planet.]

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:24514:]]

Opening Monologue by Chris Rock: All race; all the time. Major props go out to Chris for not shying away from the issue and going straight for the jugular and never letting it settle for the entire speech. He had a great observation regarding the racism of Hollywood as “Sorority Racism.” Sure we like you, but you’re not a Kappa. This is perhaps the most accurate description of Hollywood racism (and let’s be honest, Corporate racism) and you’ll probably be hearing this repeated on social media, but probably not the mainstream. He may have gone a bit far with that bit regarding the “In Memoriam” sequence of black people being shot on their way to the Oscars, though. Let’s just say that Ellen would have about zero percent chance at addressing the elephant in the room, but Chris Rock was pretty calm and collected the whole time, and he kept at it and didn’t give it a chance to dissipate.

Really Charlize, writers are the backbone of the industry? Two words: my ass (also written by a writer). If that were really true, they’d be getting paid much more and we’d be getting higher quality stories.

Best Original Screenplay: Spotlight – Tom McCarthy and Josh Singer are our first candidates to ignore the thank you scroll at the bottom of the screen who get played off stage cutting off their speeches.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:24515:]]

Best Adapted Screenplay: (Good awkward comedy between Russell Crowe and Ryan Gosling) The Big Short – Adam McKay and Charles Randolph also get played off stage by the orchestra. I predict that the Academy will attempt to damage control the lack of diversity among its nominees by putting corporate big money in as much bad light as possible. This means that The Big Short will probably win best picture.

Oh My. Chris Rock certainly has the racism angle playing strong with the “funny” media promos featuring black people that didn’t make the cut for The Martian, The Danish Girl and Joy with help from Whoopi Goldberg and Tracy Morgan.

Sarah Silverman making fun of James Bond. One word: Yikes!

Sam Smith performing “The Writing’s on the Wal”l theme from Spectre was nice, but certainly not an example of his best vocal work live or recorded. I felt he forced it a little bit as opposed to being smooth and legato.

Best Supporting Actress: Alicia Vikander for The Danish Girl. Seeing her performance in The Man from U.N.C.L.E. didn’t exactly pave the way for her victory here. The effort she made in Ex Machina was certainly more telling. Ultimately, it was a great performance in a period piece for a British actress that brought home the gold for this relative newcomer. Well done Alicia. 2015 was an incredibly busy year for you.

Best Costume Design: Jenny Beavan for Mad Max: Fury Road. WOW! This was a legitimate surprise for me. Usually this award goes directly to one of the annual period pieces, but to go to an action film was pretty bold.

Best Production Design: Colin Gibson and Lisa Thompson for Mad Max: Fury Road.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:24516:]]

The Joker (Jared Leto) and Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie) present for best makeup. Appropriate.

Best Makeup: Vanderwalt, Wardega and Martin for Mad Max: Fury Road. They probably should have seated these folks a bit closer to the stage than the nosebleeds.

Best Cinematography: Emmanuel Lubezki forThe Revenant. There was never any doubt. No film in 2015 did more with its framing than this. The cinematography made the harsh environment of this film as imposing a character as any other in this story.

Best Film Editing: Margaret Sixel for Mad Max: Fury Road. The George Miller juggernaut continues to roll, and it’s only picking up steam. Thank you again orchestra for another awkward play off.

[Black History Month Presentation thanking Jack Black for his contributions was a tactical jab at Will Smith for his personal boycott of the Oscars. This being the second moment Chris Rock put the finger on the Smith household is more than likely going to start a Twitter war. The Smith’s are likely to be righteously pissed come the morning.]

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:24517:]]

Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman) and Captain America (Chris Evans) present Best Sound Editing: which goes to Mark Mangini and David White for Mad Max: Fury Road. Ah, cursing blotted out by the satellite delay. Well done sound editors! More love for George Miller!

Best Sound Mixing: Jenkins, Rudloff and Osmo for Mad Max: Fury Road. Thanks to Australians! I’m starting to get upset with the show’s director and orchestra for not giving the film production nerds a chance to say anything.

Best Visual Effects: Whitehurst, Norris, Adington and Bennett for Ex Machina. Hey, let’s give it up for a film not named Mad Max: Fury Road for winning something in a while. I don’t mind the extra kick to the groin The Force Awakens gets for its continued snubbing for the tech categories. Star Wars doesn’t need awards as cash is king in this business, and Episode 7 has plenty last I checked.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:24518:]]

[C-3P0, R2-D2 and BB-8 make an appearance to give some love to John Williams. Sorry guys, you still haven’t won anything tonight.]

[Chris Rock fleecing his daughters to sell Girl Scout cookies continues the strange live interaction with the audience moment recent Oscar shows have adopted.]

Best Animated Short: Gabriel Osorio and Pato Escala forBear Story. First Oscar for the country of Chile, well done folks!

Best Animated Feature Film: Pete Docter and Jonas Rivera for Inside Out. Once again, the winner for the Disney/Pixar category is another Disney/Pixar film. Yawn.

[Kevin Hart bringing more attention to Chris Rock’s agenda and even more cursing blotted out by the satellite delay.]

Best Supporting Actor: Mark Rylance for Bridge of Spies. Well, a Steven Spielberg film had to go home with something, even if it’s another period piece, even if it’s using another backdrop for war. No disrespect for Mr. Rylance, but this was a disappointment for me as I felt that either Christian Bale or Mark Ruffalo had this one in the bag. Oh well.

Best Documentary Short Film: Louis C.K. found a way to lighten up an otherwise dull presentation due to its heavy subject matter. I agree that this award can genuinely change the lives for the winner Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy for A Girl in the River: The Price of Forgiveness.

Best Documentary Feature: Asif Kapadia and James Gay-Rees for Amy. Not a surprise here. Amy was critically acclaimed at every turn and in every film festival it was presented in. This was the equivalent of a Michael Moore documentary competing against the field.

A nice speech made by the president of the Academy regarding a more positive angle on the race issue in Hollywood, but despite the total combined political power in the entire auditorium, I feel this speech needs to be shared with the CEO’s and board of directors of every major studio and media conglomerate because they are the true gatekeepers.

In Memoriam was, once again, a classy remembrance of talented stars gone, but not forgotten.

Best Live Action Short Film: Benjamin Cleary and Serena Armitage for Stutterer.

Best Foreign Language Film: Lazlo Nemes for Son of Saul.

Best Original Score: Ennio Morricone for The Hateful Eight. There was lots of love from Quincy Jones and much love for Tarantino and Harvey Weinstein in Ennio’s speech. Thank goodness they gave him time to have his short speech translated.

Best Original Song: Jimmy Napes and Sam Smith for Spectre – The Writing’s on the Wall. Well, if they gave one to Adele for doing a James Bond theme song they have to give one to Sam Smith for doing the same. Was anyone surprised here? Seriously, anyone?

Best Director: Alejandro G. Iñárritu for The Revenant. Why was J.J. presenting for this category when Alejandro won last year. Oh yeah, because he can’t present it to himself and as soon as I saw J.J., I knew, it was Alejandro’s time once again. Once again, an awful orchestral playoff to knock out his acceptance speech, but he stuck it through to finish strong despite the distraction. Stop doing it!

Best Actress: Brie Larson for Room. Another actress who had political momentum leading into this evening as well as strong showings in festivals took home the gold. She actually kept her acceptance speech very short and very sweet.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:24519:]]

Best Actor: Leonardo DiCaprio for The Revenant. Finally. It’s been a long time coming for the king of the world. Leo pulled out all the stops on this one because it was full of raw emotion despite the fact it wasn’t a very talky role. Pretty excellent as far as acceptance speeches go and whether or not you agree with his politics, you cannot argue with Leo’s sincerity.

Best Picture: Spotlight. Wow. Holy cow! No pun intended. In an evening of politics, the filmmakers here call out Pope Francis. It appears as though the Left has heard the Right in the news these past few months and a ton of crazy rhetoric has not gone un-countered. Hollywood drew its line in the sand regarding race, the environment, the church and the corporate conglomerate. I’m not so surprised that this film won more than the fact it won with very little build up individually prior to this evening. With Mad Max taking so many artistic and tech categories, it could have taken the grand prize. Leo and Alejandro’s wins for two major categories could have done the same. Everyone (other than the rich) hated Wall Street for the housing market disaster so there was a lot of talk for The Big Short. Still, congratulations to the victors, and we will soon see the various responses to what has occurred this evening.

In Conclusion: Another Academy Award show has come and gone and there was a solid mix of expected outcomes as well as surprises. Chris Rock took early command of the show and kept hammering at the race angle all evening long. Mad Max: Fury Road was more than a dark horse as the sheer number of categories it won had to have made it the second or third most important film of 2015. Leo can finally return to his magical mountain of mystical fairy virgins with his golden trophy. How about that big old goose egg for Star Wars? I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Straight Outta Compton was woefully snubbed because it featured some damn fine acting by a cast of relative newcomers, and it was a very entertaining film overall.

I will say this in regards to diversity in Hollywood. Chris Rock made it very clear that more diversity means more roles, opportunities and recognition for black actors. Well, it really means more than that because the Oscars aren’t the BET awards that he invited everyone in the audience to attend next year. Yes, Hollywood IS “Sorority Racist,” but it needs equally strong recognition for Asians, Hispanics and far more cultures and ethnicities, too. As I said earlier in this overview, the studio heads need to lead on this issue. Unfortunately, IF the rumor is true regarding Hollywood coveting the Chinese market over all others, and IF the rumor is true that Chinese audiences don’t want to see black people in films they see, then no amount of socially responsible discussions and debates is going to amount to a hill of beans because white, yellow or black are colors that are irrelevant when compared to the color of green.

Movie News Reviews

Movie Review: Deadpool

Maximum Effort!

Movie News Reviews

Movie Review: The Revenant

Movie News Reviews

Movie Review: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies

Family Friendly Zombie Slaying

Movie News Reviews

Movie Review: The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:23117:]]

Starved

A Film Review of The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2

I appreciate what the Hunger Games film adaptations started off doing. They put women to the forefront of an action/adventure, special effect driven saga typically reserved for the boys club and the story unfolded in a way where themes of female empowerment did not equate to male enfeeblement, thus avoiding a battle of the sexes on the internet for every reason under the sun. The first two films were entertaining, had interesting characters and had a few nuggets of social commentary regarding the state of the western world. Unfortunately, Mockingjays part 1 and 2 were devoid of the energy and passion that spring boarded this franchise as they were the cinematic equivalent of gearing down so as not needing to apply the brake to the approaching intersection of completion.

As a result, I give thanks that the Hunger Games film franchise has been finally put to rest. I am all about seeing film entertainment focused on main characters that are not exclusively white and male. However, the way Jennifer Lawrence’s cash cow put out to pasture couldn’t have been more underwhelming, and I am legitimately vexed because despite having the budget, talent and production value to truly put this fiction on the same level as the likes of Star Wars, Avengers and Harry Potter; the opportunity was squandered. To be clear, I am speaking only in terms of the quality of this film’s narrative and not its pocketbooks, which are certainly being stuffed with gobs of tween cash having already banked over $200 million in domestic sales in 11 days. Even with this handsome sum (not to mention zero competition at the box office) Mockingjay Part 2 is running behind the pace of its predecessors, and I can’t help but think that more people than not were truly dissatisfied with how it all ended. I will quote my fiancé regarding this film’s 3^rd act: “The climax sucked. I cried a little. I got bored. And then it was over.”

There are two other aspects of this film that kept me looking down at my watch waiting for it to end well before its 3^rd act even had a chance to lay into me. First, Katniss Everdeen stopped being an interesting character two films ago. I totally engaged with her desperation during the first film. I was completely in sync with her rage over being manipulated (especially at the end) of Catching Fire. Then these Mockingjay films came along and mothballed Katniss’ mojo. Part of the problem is that Katniss is written to never be comfortable let alone fully accepting of her role as a revolutionary icon, let alone a base participant in the overall conflict of Panem. Only when Katniss has no home to return to does she begrudgingly accept her greater role with half-hearted enthusiasm vainly masking her only motivation: protecting her friends and family at all costs. The blame for this offense lies at the feet of Jennifer Lawrence and director Francis Lawrence. Where Katniss’ defiance, anger and frustration would naturally be approaching critical mass, her character is presented as a back seat driver who endures inevitable victory as if she knew all along, thus finding no real need to demonstrate passion. Not having read the books, I cannot tell if Katniss ever drops the selfishness, indecisiveness, self-loathing and general mopey attitude, but this status quo is fully maintained in both Mockingjay films. Hell, just looking at Jennifer Lawrence during the climactic “arrow strike” sequence couldn’t have screamed a millennial “whatever, why am I even here?” any louder even if the filmmakers tried.

The second thing that never sat well with me in this film is that although we are constantly following Katniss’ journey towards the Capitol, this adventure is actually not important to the overall plot. Everything significant happens off camera in the hopes that the audience can simply connect the dots back to Katniss in some meaningful way. Her journey certainly has more personal meaning by aiding her mind in choosing between Gale and Peeta, but even that element gets scuffled because she and her spec ops unit are too busy dodging death traps in areas of the capitol not on the front lines of combat? What? The fact that Katniss’ sham of a final mission is so resolutely inert makes perfect sense how this film ends in the very definition of “insult to injury.”

Action Style	When the cast finally gets around to opening fire and throwing a punch, it actually isn’t too bad. I simply wished there was more of it.	4/6
Action Frame	Plenty of low and high angle dynamic shots feature a series of tracks, pulls and pans during both action and dialogue sequences.	4/5
Lead Performance	Jennifer Lawrence is still J-Law, but that’s no excuse for mailing in anything even at this point in her career. The girl on fire has been doused! Josh Hutcherson is credited for all the points in this category.	3/6
Supporting Performance	Donald Sutherland is great. Julianne Moore is zzzzzz. Liam Hemsworth has only one facial expression. And I hope Mahershala Ali gets more roles in a leading capacity. Nothing but love for House of Cards! Also, I’d like more Woody Harrelson please.	3/5
Music	Passable, but not inspiring in any way.	3/6
Sound F/X	Actually quite good, especially in the sewers!	4/5

“Moving” = 21/33

Digital F/X	This entire franchise has maintained a dedicated “less is more” approach to the use of CG. As such, the moments where spectacle and the impossible occur are much more impactful. Still, I’d rather see a bit more.	5/6
Special F/X	Most of the CG required close coordination with the stunt and pyro teams to show the effects of an ever-changing, hostile environment on our heroes. This was an effective partnership that obscured the lines between CG and practical effects.	4/5
Costumes	Our tributes aren’t interviewing with Stanley Tucci in this film, thus the range of spectacular design concepts are limited to the mundane.	4/6
Hair & Makeup	See above.	3/5
Exteriors	The outskirts of the capitol are as drab as the inner bunkers of District 13.	3/6
Interiors	If you are going to go dark, go all the way. Those were some of the cleanest service tunnels and sewer systems I’ve seen from Hollywood.	2/5

“Picture” = 21/33

Hook	Being Part 2, the actual hook is carried over from Part 1 which leaves the viewer understanding that we’re still at war with the capitol and Katniss is still a propaganda proxy.	2/4
Conflict	I used to believe in Katniss’ personal anger towards President Snow two films ago. The only real conflict is her inner struggle to choose between the hunky boy and the pretty good looking friend – which is a decision somewhat taken out of her hands.	2/4
Resolution	One of the least satisfying and surprising endings in the history of film.	1/4
Dialogue	Down to earth, intimate and not riddled with made up fictional jargon. I just wished Katniss had something more significant to say all the time.	4/6
Exposition	There’s way too much happening off screen that Katniss has nothing to do with that forces the viewer into too many leaps of faith plot-wise.	2/5
Character Uniqueness	Nothing new is happening with Katniss as a character. Peeta’s transformation from homicidal boyfriend back to the baker with political aspirations is quite interesting, but of course, there’s not much screen time devoted to it.	4/6
Character Relatability	After three films of Katniss being put through the ringer physically, emotionally and spiritually (and still breathing) one would think that even the most common of human beings regardless of sex, age, ethnicity or personal talent would be capable of ascending to a version of themselves that is greater than their own personal agenda. Perhaps it is the lesson of The Hunger Games [films] that sometimes the crucible has no effect on us?	1/5

“Story” = 16/34

Overall MPS Rating: 58/100

The “girl on fire” couldn’t be further away from going out in a blaze of glory. Mockingjay Part 2 is an adventure without energy, passion and the will to succeed which it cannot make up for with plot twists of convenience to divert the viewer’s attention. These journeys don’t always have to end in victory, but the protagonist must have something radiating from inside that makes the hero/heroine’s path worthwhile even if an audience cannot identify or sympathize with him or her. It is a reliable failure of Hollywood filmmaking that culminates when lackluster performance intersects unfocused direction.

Movie News Reviews

Movie Review: James Bond Spectre

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:22850:]]

Give up the Ghost

A Film Review of Spectre

I’ve never been the biggest fan of the Daniel Craig Bond films, and it has less to do with the man himself and more to do with the adventures his character undertakes. For a fictional character that has been there and done everything, Daniel Craig’s Bond rarely saw the opportunity to properly peacock by engaging in some rather pedestrian plots. That was, of course, until Skyfall (2012) where MI6 comes under direct attack and James Bond was called upon to demonstrate some semblance of actual human weakness yielding a more compelling character and a more interesting story overall. With such a breath of fresh air, one would think that this trend would easily blend into Spectre. It has the same director (Sam Mendes), some of the same writers (Neal Purvis and Robert Wade) and much of the same cast, so naturally, it stands to reason, no?

No. And I’ll tell you why. Skyfall presented audiences with some specific details extracted from the nebulous origin of this iteration of Bond, but what made that exposition pay off in a big time way was how it was inexorably linked to how the arcing conflict played out. Bond was outmatched and nearly paid for it with his life, but loyalty to a mother figure in M forces him back in the game despite the fact he isn’t ready for it and uses the setting of his broken past as a means of survival and in a way, redemption. Spectre is a film that once again attempts to hit the audience’s “G” spot for nostalgia by linking the current conflict back to his boyhood and recent past. Unfortunately, no ground work was laid in this (or any other) Bond film to make the hard connections audiences need for any of those story elements to matter. In fact, every connection between Bond and the bad guy is simply spoken from the horse’s mouth in a matter of minutes with some of the least cryptic rhetoric from a Bond villain to date. “It was me all along,” spoken by someone we have never met, nor even alluded to is a flaccid revelation. No tension is built, no conspiracy is ruminated, it simply gets to that moment in the movie where things need to move forward instead of aimlessly and boom; the audience knows the “what” and has a glance at the “why”. Screen writing is not just any form of literature. It must always be mindful of using words “to show” rather than “to tell” both audiences and producers of film. Dialogue is an effective tool in filmmaking, but if it happens to be a crutch, it’s already too late to realize it’s actually a noose.

What ground my gears the most regarding Spectre is a cancerous trend not exclusive to the recent Bond films, but to all action/adventure films coming out of Hollywood these days: vanilla villains. They talk big games, but don’t do much. They claim tortured pasts without showing its effects. Their bark is much worse than their bite. They are the least interesting antagonists in the world and they are everywhere. (I’m looking at you too Marvel films!) Christoph Waltz is an amazing, Academy Award winning actor and his ability to create compelling characters for the screen was recklessly mishandled by Sam Mendes and the entire production staff of Spectre. Waltz was given practically zero material to work with: no real back story, no clear cut motive and virtually no screen time. In many ways, his character doesn’t even need to be in this film for it to turn out in exactly the same way. Why even cast an extra, let alone Waltz, to play a role of such inconsequence?

Action Style	Thank goodness they hired a stunt runner for Daniel Craig. Excellent hand to hand, close quarters combat. Decent car chases with an interesting dash of gunplay. General stunt work in this film was top notch.	6/6
Action Frame	Talk about an animated frame. Wow! The cinematography of Hoyte Van Hoytema is to be celebrated in this film. Both action and dramatic sequences are enhanced by his efforts at creating the picturesque, everywhere.	5/5
Lead Performance	Daniel Craig is still the Blue Steel of James Bonds, but also happens to present a Bond you can root for. Christoph Waltz on the other hand … see above.	3/6
Supporting Performance	Ray Fiennes as M is solid and I wish Ben Wishaw and Naomie Harris had more to do as Q and Moneypenny respectively. Lea Seydoux may be a babe, but her character was far too dull. What the heck was Drax the Destroyer doing in this film?	3/5
Music	Sam Smith’s The Writing’s on the Wall is everything you need in a Bond theme: seductive, emotive, and mysterious. It is echoed effectively in the dramatic soundtrack throughout.	6/6
Sound F/X	Par for the course, although I’ll admit to having a weakness for hearing the engines of super-cars chasing each other on the streets.	3/5

“Moving” = 26/33

Digital F/X	One mark of successful CG is the audience not knowing it was there at all, but I am uncertain if this was due to exceptional CG, or practical effects being so much better than the digital ones in this film. That said, there did seem to be some plasticity to some explosions and Drax gets dealt with by some goofy animation.	4/6
Special F/X	Chris Corbould as the special effect supervisor proves that practical effects can still have a wicked punch! Great use of vehicle stunts, explosions, ballistics and crashes.	5/5
Costumes	So many suits in this film. I’m not exactly pining for ridiculous “onesies” of Moonraker, but come on; can we get a little more creative here?	4/6
Hair & Makeup	Very acceptable battle damage on bodies and faces combined with gorgeous styling of female follicles.	4/5
Exteriors	Every Bond film is a potential exotic travelogue. I wish we could have gotten more exotic than Mexico City, though.	5/6
Interiors	I understand that MI6 has been in funding hell for the past few Bond films, but we really need to move these guys out of the sewers once and for all and dress it up with some more tech please.	3/5

“Picture” = 25/33

Hook	Even a 007 movie needs something more than “James Bond doing his thing” as the lead in to what exactly is happening, which we don’t exactly know for sure other than vague and undeveloped memories from previous Daniel Craig Bond films regarding the organization of Spectre itself. The hook is unclear and happened upon by chance.	1/4
Conflict	So the Legion of Doom DOES exist?! How do you fight them? Obviously, you run a couple of obstacle courses, shoot a few dudes and victory is assured. Oh wait, there was supposed to be a more meaningful, personal conflict at work? Sorry, no one got that memo.	1/4
Resolution	Can something resolve if it was never setup in the first place? Neither surprising nor satisfying, unless the article that reveals who gets tapped as the next James Bond counts as a dénouement for Spectre.	1/4
Dialogue	The moment to moment talking does an excellent job at keeping the audience in the moment, but these are all short term hits with no long term grand slam.	4/6
Exposition	What exposition? You mean this photograph and me telling you stuff about it you already knew, but no one else does?	1/5
Character Uniqueness	Blue Steel is certainly a unique looking Bond, but I was getting used to him not being played like Mr. Roboto in Skyfall. The main villain in this film is as common as they come.	3/6
Character Relatability	Super Spies and secret government cabals are beyond the grasp of “normies”. Too bad the whole sibling rivalry thing wasn’t developed in this film at all because lots of people could connect to that concept.	2/5

“Story” = 14/34

Overall MPS Rating: 65/100

Spectre is a very average action film that looks better than the story settles on one’s mind. Perhaps the greatness of Skyfall is a difficult concept to surpass, but film franchises will always make the attempt to string things along, beyond their natural ends because they know those dollar bills will be there. I don’t expect Spectre to even knock on the door of Skyfall’s financial success long term. Still, I didn’t hate this film as much as some of my comments make it appear to be, but I certainly didn’t love it and I especially expected it to take Bond into even murkier waters leading to a more domesticated 007 who finally got out of the spy business (something Daniel Craig Bond was ready to do clean and clear at the end of Casino Royale). What if he had already been out for a few years, started a family, then Spectre takes them out to settle a vendetta, forcing a psychotic James Bond to break every rule in the book to quench an insatiable vengeance and proceeds to set the world on fire (literally) to achieve some twisted form of justice before committing to some ritualistic suicide that only makes up for about 10% of all the bad he committed? Hold everything! That’s way too much plot for a James Bond film. We’ll just have him shoot some people to stop a regurgitated attempt at world domination in the hopes of preserving civilization as we know it. Yawn.

Movie News

Ronda Rousey To Star In Road House Reboot

Said to be a done deal and that Rousey got the blessing of Patrick Swayze’s widow.

Movie News Reviews

Review: Straight Outta Compton

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:21789:]]

Chronically Cubed and Cured

A Film review of Straight Outta Compton

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

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

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

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

Action Style	There is a surprising amount of action for this film as its first moments make it seem like Eazy-E is some true to life action star, but this eventually reverts to typical dramatic action through the general application of common violence during what may seem like uncommon times.	4/6
Action Frame	There are no moments of stagnation during this film as there is a constant change in scenery as well as dynamic camera work during NWA concerts. Close-ups are not abused and truly mark the moments of high drama.	3/5
Lead Performance	O’Shea Jackson Jr. (Ice Cube), Corey Hawkins (Dr. Dre), and Jason Mitchell (Eazy-E) completely buy into their roles and embody their characters fully. The shear quality of their performance is a sight to see.	6/6
Supporting Performance	Paul Giamatti matches tone quite well with the young guns of the rest of the cast. R. Marcos Taylor is almost as psychotic scary as the real life Suge Knight. Did I mention Tupac was channeled from beyond?	5/5
Music	The music is as important as any one character in this entire film. Nothing about this story is relevant without it.	6/6
Sound F/X	Seemed good enough throughout. Nothing notably negative to report.	3/5

“Moving” = 27/33

Digital F/X	[NA]	[NA]
Special F/X	Minimal use of gunfire and its residual effects, but cruising cars with hydraulics and how they “light up” the streets was fun to see.	2/5
Costumes	Biopics are always going for authenticity (at least regarding the look) and this production obviously raided the accumulated inventory of Lids to get part of the job done. Still, the wardrobe isn’t particularly exciting.	3/6
Hair & Makeup	Exceedingly good casting shares in the excellent work being done to make the actors look their parts as well as possible.	5/5
Exteriors	Impoverished Compton is a far cry from the lavish hotels and even more lavish domiciles secured by the wealthiest of the NWA.	5/6
Interiors	Very interesting to see the evolution of the recording studios from the one NWA initially rents out all the way to the sharpness of Death Row Records.	4/5

“Picture” = 19/27

Hook	Learning a bit more details about the culmination of the NWA and the rise of Gangsta Rap may only be interesting to some. You don’t need to be a fan of rap to appreciate this film, but it certainly helps.	¾
Conflict	Jerry Heller may be the de facto “villain,” but his portrayal is very sympathetic. More interesting is the conflict the group experiences from the life they left to the life they were rewarded with is the fitting definition of more money, more problems.	4/4
Resolution	The story ends on a somber, yet very practical book end to this story of NWA, but the “aftermath” effects of the group’s influence was a commercial for Beats and Ice Cube movies and it left a sour, corporate, taste in my mouth.	2/4
Dialogue	Authentic dialogue is really interesting when west coast terminology needs to be explained to east coast talent. You don’t need to be fluent in Ebonics to comprehend what’s going on for the rest of the film.	4/6
Exposition	The audience has a good grasp of the overall activity as we’re constantly reminded of the time and place thanks to a healthy application of titles, but the details do drop off as to why we get to the places we get to and how the characters have changed during those transitions.	2/5
Character Uniqueness	Why is it that music stars always seem like the most eccentric out of the entire celebrity class? Well, it’s because they are.	5/6
Character Relatability	Not all of America can identify with the harsh realities of the urban ghetto, but even less can empathize with machine guns on tour, parties populated by exclusively naked women and dog fights in the recording studio.	2/5

“Story” = 22/34

Overall MPS Rating: 68/94 or 72%

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

Movie News Reviews

Fantastic Four (2015) Review

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:21641:]]

Return of the Flop

A Film Review of (Another) Fantastic Four

I can’t say I didn’t warn you back when people were losing their minds over Johnny Storm being played by Michael B. Jordan and I wrote an article that didn’t criticize his casting, but that of his sister being cast as white girl, Kate Mara. Thus, we have finally come to the opening weekend of this brand new Fantastic Four and what we have received is a decent amount of what I predicted, copious amounts of plot gaps, bland characters in a character-driven flick and one of the worst villains ever conceived for the contemporary comic book adaptation. Looks like Marvel won’t have to wait much longer to get those film rights back from 20^th Century Fox. My general criticism of this film has less to do with the particulars and character reinventions and more to do with the project’s overall lack of focus, its disjointed nature and complete inability to build drama and suspense to allow the action that unfolds on screen to matter. There’s some kind of identity crisis going on where you can see the film wants to be about family, or about shady government, or about environmentalism, or even about plain old action. The problem is, none of these themes are given the proper screen time and production effort to allow them to mold the story in any unique way. It’s as if director Josh Trank and his studio overseer kept hitting the randomize button on a ton of film clips captured on Final Cut Pro to yield this product.

I don’t care if “the studio” is ultimately to blame for what certainly seems the worst effort put into a potentially serious, money making adaptation because even common civilians know by now that in the comic book film game, you don’t handle Hollywood, Hollywood handles you! That holds true even when the writer/director is also responsible for having created the source material. Trank may very well be correct in identifying studio interference as having negative effects to the production, but so what? Even if you are given a huge budget that gets stripped away from you, even if you cast A-listers that walk out on you or even if the studio exec bursts in and forces a major overhaul mid-production, as the director, there is one thing you can still ensure that has a lasting, positive impact that can save an audience: your cast’s performance. Sure, the modern day American film director has many responsibilities, but the most important and often overlooked is that of evoking the best out of your cast. You give them a framework for what you want, you show them how their characters matter and then you give them the freedom to explore those characters inside negotiable parameters. This cast clearly had their own ideas with little discipline because it shows in the lack of camaraderie, the lack of onscreen chemistry. When one’s cast is barely interested in the film, how then can an audience be convinced to be interested in watching?

Action Style	One would think that a comic book adaptation would have lots of good nuggets of cool power sequences and other worldly combat, but this film boasts none of that save for the climactic battle which was still more about CG going wild than anything else. Seriously, most of Ben Grimm’s “clobbering time” is seen through video monitors.	1/6
Action Frame	This too, is a little on the bland side as the FF’s powers are well contained for 80% of the film. Is it weird that a street race among POS used cars is the most dynamic sequence of movement going on in the whole film? The camera doesn’t follow Human Torch flight much because he doesn’t fly around very much.	2/5
Lead Performance	Apparently, Reed Richards is only a stereotypical super nerd in the strictest sense because nobody else has been able to perform this character as anything but, including Miles Teller. His performance evokes no semblance of leadership and no sense of loyalty for his own “friends” and “family.”	1/6
Supporting Performance	You know how you dodge the bullet over explaining the whole African American Storm family adopting Susan? You ignore it completely, kind of like how Kate Mara and Michael B. Jordan barely acknowledge each other as siblings onscreen. Jaime Bell is hamstringed by his character going full CG. Toby Kebbell delivers a Doom that is far too emo to be maniacal, too lazy to be a mastermind and too disinterested in being a character let alone a villain. The one shining light was Reg E. Cathey as Dr. Franklin Storm. Freddy from House of Cards gives us a character with charisma and cares about being there. Too bad he didn’t rub off on the rest of the cast	2/5
Music	Music was present, but held neither marquee melody nor lasting impression.	3/6
Sound F/X	Ben Grimm’s rock voice +, teleportation machine sounds +, other dimension sounds +	4/5

“Moving” = 13/33

Digital F/X	Human Torch looked fine, inter-dimensional portal and transportation light shows were bright and Ben Grimm looked great as pants-less Thing. Too bad his effects ate up 70% of the CG budget leaving the rest of the film with a lot of regular scenery to capture.	4/6
Special F/X	This area takes a hit not just because there isn’t a ton of practical effects going on here, but there is a scene where the glass on a backboard shatters due to a high pitched sound and it’s the ONLY glass in the area that shatters (no one’s glasses or windows are affected). Sure, this is more of a continuity issue but someone on the explosive team should have at least raised their hands.	2/5
Costumes	Uninspired is the only word that comes to mind here. Casual wear is fine what with all the scientists, military and business people walking around, but the FF’s clothes are generic spacesuits. The worst is the entire concept behind Doom: his garb makes no sense; it looks goofy and has nothing to do with any iteration of that character ever conceived for film, TV or comic books. Just awful.	1/6
Hair & Makeup	Not a bad job being done here. When people are roughed up, they show wounds and an appropriate amount of rubble. Still wished the script supervisor got with Josh Trank to point out Sue Storm’s mismatched hair style and coloring at incorrect chronological points.	4/5
Exteriors	Baxter building outskirts looked great as did the Grimm family junkyard. The other dimension looked threatening enough from the ground-scape but certainly need more going on in the background.	4/6
Interiors	Another comic book adaptation means more science labs and research facilities. They were certainly set up and dressed in an acceptable manner, but got a bit bland considering we spend most of the movie in these types of settings.	3/5

“Picture” = 18/33

Hook	Boy genius develops inter-dimensional travel only to grow up to become the stretchy guy on a team of super-powered people. The only difference this has from any other FF origin story is the extended screen time put into Reed as a child, which isn’t as interesting as Reed as a young adult.	2/4
Conflict	Very weak here. Is it smart people vs. government? Is it family vs. each other? Is it good guys vs. bad guys? It’s more like all of it jumbled in a washing machine and the focus changes throughout the film.	1/4
Resolution	Thanks to time being elapsed at multiple points in the film, everything is “solved” just as soon as anything becomes a problem. Of course, there’s a token scene to imply a sequel, but this film doesn’t deserve it.	1/4
Dialogue	There’s more significant talking that occurs between those that are “handling” the FF. The FF themselves are a bit too nonchalant as they go from perfect strangers to reserved “besties” in no time at all.	2/6
Exposition	Watch out for all the plot craters strewn about! A more nimble mind will be able to maneuver these to get a general idea so long as the viewer accepts and forgets to get to the next scene. Nothing is methodically explored or explained.	2/5
Character Uniqueness	All of the main characters are less amplified versions of the character types they are supposed to represent. Reed is just one of the squad as opposed to the alpha nerd. Sue is an emotionless, responsibility first kind of girl. Ben is the tamest rock warrior you’ve ever seen. Johnny isn’t an ego-driven hothead; he just has daddy issues.	2/6

Character Relatability

To achieve relatability, characters need a sympathetic anchor to the audience. Even if Dr. Franklin’s concern for “his children” is played well enough by the actor, those moments play as empty because the audience doesn’t have enough bonding moments between father and “kids” to matter much. Also, I have no idea why the hell Reed does what he ultimately does. I’ve never witnessed a more random display of cowardice onscreen than this.

2/5

“Story” = 12/34

Overall MPS Rating: 43/100

Few Hollywood comic book films make the Fantastic Flops of ’05 and ’07 look like Academy Award winning gems in comparison, but this Fantastic Four movie does just that. As mind numbing as they were, at least they were fun and at times funny. This film seems so desperate to take itself seriously, yet has no clear idea as to what it’s being serious about. I beg you all to put your money to better use: check in with Netflix, go out to dinner, go to a museum, go to a park – just please, do not pay to be “entertained” by this. Send 20^th Century Fox a clear message that pathetic, corporate attempts to squeeze as much profit from impotently developed licenses will not be rewarded by forgetting this movie exists at the box office.

Movie News Reviews

Terminator: Genisys Review

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:21611:]]

No More Years

A Film Review of Terminator Genisys

Yes, yes I realize this film has been panned enough by everyone that it has played itself out of virtually every cinema, but I was able to catch a screening at the cheap theater recently, and I was thinking it might have some redeeming value seeing how it still has some connection to the Terminator legacy. As it turns out, the popular vote regarding this example of Hollywood haberdashery was more or less, right on the money. As always, I encourage my readers to make up their own minds with as much information as they have available to them and certainly not to simply take my word for it, but not only would I recommend not giving this film one single viewing, I’d recommend not even acknowledging its existence. Well, that just about wraps up this review in terms of cutting to the chase, but for those of you who’d like to accompany me on a short, cathartic journey of ridicule over this formerly beloved franchise let us venture forth.

It is a pure and simple fact that this franchise has completely lost its way ever since James Cameron relinquished control after Terminator 2: Judgment Day. To this day, it remains as one of the best sci-fi thrillers that not only bench presses tons of action, effects and stunts, but has some of the best social commentary regarding unbridled scientific research into artificial intelligence and an over-dependency on automation. Sequels since have tinkered with gimmicks to keep an aging “Ahnold” in the fold, brainstormed with different killer robots and considered focusing on different characters of this inescapable temporal loop. None of the post T2 sequels had the desperate tone and raw impact of its predecessors. The same is easily said about Terminator Genisys, a film completely dependent on CG for spectacle, nostalgia for interest and Schwarzenegger for anyone else wondering how a 68 year old man can still sell “killer robot from the future” in a spoof-free presentation. There is so much gobbledygook going on from a story perspective of this train wreck on celluloid that really getting into it negates this new bullet point analysis I am experimenting with. So let’s dispense with the pleasantries and get right to the specifics.

Action Style	If the strategy for the approach to the entire action scheme could be summed up into one theme, it would be a battering ram. Burly men throwing each other all over the place is great for the testosterone, but gets old pretty quickly – no matter how much gunfire and explosions are filling in the empty spaces.	3/6
Action Frame	Since there’s no pressing need to explain what the hell is going on to the audience, this film keeps the pacing up as locations constantly shift along with the prescribed angles to keep the hectic motion accelerating.	4/5
Lead Performance	Arnold needs to stop making these films. His Austrian strongman antics and charm left him when he ceased being a strongman. If this is the best Emilia Clarke can bring over from her experience with Game of Thrones, then, yikes!	1/6
Supporting Performance	Jai Courtney is a better robot than a human being playing a robot for a Hollywood film production. Jason Clarke is an actor with 2 sides: one that is deep and emotional (Dawn of the Planet of the Apes) and one that feasts on 2 dimensions (White House Down). This film received the latter, but J.K. Simmons is a surprise cameo even if he’s used as a complete throwaway.	2/5
Music	Average and respectable.	3/6
Sound F/X	See above.	3/5

“Moving” = 16/33

Digital F/X	There’s a ton of CG going on throughout. If it isn’t some kind of time travel effect, it’s some sort of robot battle or crazy chase sequence. Not quite as plastic as the Star Wars Prequels, but that fake Arnold from the original Terminator sure was.	5/6
Special F/X	A Terminator film has a prerequisite amount of gunfire, explosions and car crashes, but digital effects lifted a heavier burden regarding all these categories.	3/5
Costumes	Everyone is in street clothes all the time, but I guess I can be thankful they didn’t decide to over-sex Sarah Connor with combat jeggings.	3/6
Hair & Makeup	No, no, no. Arnold looks too old and his hair looks too white and sparse. I don’t care if the script calls for an acknowledgement of the organic elements of his Cyborg design as being worn over time. They could have looked a hell of a lot better than that!	2/5
Exteriors	Lots of places to get transported to yields a bevy of contrasting locales.	5/6
Interiors	Adequate, but also a bit simplified. I feel like if I were planning a sewer ambush for that many years, I’d have a Mad Max film on steroids waiting for them – not what the audience witnessed here.	4/5

“Picture” = 22/33

Hook	So we have to go back in time to go forward in time because this time around things are different thanks to a McGuffin overshadowed by a new evolution in John Connor. Is that right?	1/4
Conflict	Humans vs. Terminators, Yay! But this Storm Shadow Terminator is using the same liquid metal gags from 1991? I don’t know whose tactics are more predictable, humans’ or Skynet’s?	1/4
Resolution	A cool upgrade finally happens, but of course it’s too late to have any impact on the action and none of it really matters because the whole journey seemed to go from nowhere to nowhere.	1/4
Dialogue	Arnold’s robot is far too high on the talky-talky, which sets a self perpetuating trivial tone with how just about every character addresses each other. I thought this was the end of the world people?!?	2/6
Exposition	Why the hell were we going back in time to go forward in time again? Why couldn’t we have found a better way and destination with our own time travel device? Where did Pops come from? These are not the droids you’re looking for.	2/5
Character Uniqueness	Same Terminator Protector, same Sarah Connor, same Kyle Reese – simply played by less effective and talented actors. Yes, 1991 Arnold was more talented than 2015 Arnold.	2/6
Character Relatability	For a ragtag group pulling out all the stops to save humanity, they sure struggle to ground their cause in any humanity. No, I didn’t buy that shoehorned “romance” between Kyle and Sarah nor did I buy into the Terminator’s “paternal” relationship with Sarah. Linda Hamilton did more with one scene staring into space with voiceover than everyone else did in this whole movie.	1/5

“Story” = 10/34

Overall MPS Rating: 48/100

Ugh! Terminator Genisys? More like Terminator Exodus, as in, never return to this franchise again unless James Cameron or someone who actually wants to say something meaningful is in charge of the production. Of course, what will probably happen next is a stop motion, claymation Terminator voiced by Arnold because no amount of Futurama will be able to CG him walking across the screen, let alone blowing up the bad guys and saving the day. Do yourselves a favor and just get T2 on Blu Ray and just watch that.

mission-impossible-rogue-nation-movie-review-1

Movie News Reviews

Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation Review

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:21605:]]

Cruis’n USA

A Film review of Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation

I am not a Tom Cruise guy. I haven’t been since that really odd display of possibly manufactured emotion on Oprah back in 2005 regarding now ex Mrs. Cruise. I continue to be turned off to this actor when more stories regarding Scientology’s handling of its highest ranking member break through to the normal news cycle. Despite whatever personal distaste I may have for him, I cannot deny his ability to flex the full muscle of an undeniable Hollywood star and its ability to propel any film into the upper atmosphere. Granted, Cruise hasn’t exactly been setting box offices on fire recently with nice successes that seemed to have had much more potential: Edge of Tomorrow (2014), Oblivion (2013), Jack Reacher (2012) and Rock of Ages (2012). Still, Mission: Impossible is Cruise’s franchise, and he knows how to make Ethan Hunt wow audiences with irrational stunts, epic set pieces and strenuous physical excursion for the screen. No one in Hollywood runs better on film than Tom Cruise.

Rogue Nation is another fine addition to the Mission: Impossible saga that makes no attempt to bite off more than it can chew in the action genre. There may be a slight bit of commentary regarding the state of global security in there, but for the most part, it’s (still) all about Ethan Hunt saving the world by kicking butt (with some help from his friends). This being the fifth film in the franchise and seeing more familiar faces doing the same things they’ve done before makes the story feel all too familiar. Paramount certainly hopes familiarity breeds reliability (at least in terms of ticket sales), which certainly seems to be the case so far as Rogue Nation is poised for a strong global run after an impressive opening weekend at the domestic box office. As entertained as I was by the constant onslaught of visual stimuli, I feel that Ethan has come to full fruition as a character and has no more “story” in him beyond mentorship. Come to think of it, I wonder why we haven’t seen Hunt step into that role by now even if the powers that be haven’t deemed the very worthy (but often passed over) Jeremy Renner as next focal point for the franchise. MI still has some fuel left in the tank so long as the next installment takes a long, hard look at going to new places plot-wise; perhaps even the possibility of Ethan actually losing for once.

Action Style	I honestly don’t care what percentage of the stunt work, driving, combat, etc. may or may not have been actually done by Tom himself because it all looked terrific!	6/6
Action Frame	The shear variety of the types of camera angles at work, underwater sequences, dynamic tracking for car chases and of course the intro plane sequence ensures the audience only brief breathers to catch up on some exposition.	5/5
Lead Performance	Tom Cruise is Ethan Hunt in every way. He brings the intensity and he brings the enthusiasm. But he also needs more to do than always beating the bad guy.	5/6
Supporting Performance	Simon Pegg and Ving Rhames are reliable sidekicks. Jeremy Renner is woefully underused. Alec Baldwin has some slick cameos. Watch for Rebecca Ferguson to become a major player in Hollywood films to come! Oh my, Sean Harris. Did they ask you to be another bland, uninteresting villain with zero passion and expression?	4/5
Music	The reliable remixes of the classic MI theme are always welcome if not a bit repetitive. Unfortunately, Hans Zimmer isn’t walking through that door.	3/6
Sound F/X	Everything seems to sound as if it should, but nothing spectacular is occurring here.	3/5

“Moving” = 26/33

Digital F/X	Some of the more fantastic stunts like “the plunge” underwater sequence and multiple car cartwheels were brought to you by some very fine CG work.	4/6
Special F/X	The focus on practical effects in this film is ever apparent. The best examples of these were car chases, collisions and crashes. Explosions weren’t particularly impressive.	4/5
Costumes	I understand that spies need to blend in with the crowd, but that also means designers can’t get crazy with characters’ looks. Everyone’s look fit their characters well enough.	4/6
Hair & Makeup	Ethan Hunt certainly takes a beating in this film. I only wished that it looked like everyone else was afforded that same opportunity.	4/5
Exteriors	London and Vienna were presented with prototypical European lavishness while Morocco gives the audience a nice dusty contrast.	5/6
Interiors	There’s some very good set design going on from court rooms, to concert halls as well as secret bunkers and tech centers.	4/5

“Picture” = 25/33

Hook	The Impossible Mission Force faces off against its version of James Bond’s “Spectre” called “The Syndicate.” Meh.	2/4
Conflict	Spies figuring out what they are fighting for and why it’s worth it after they seem to get burned by their allies is an interesting internal conflict. Fighting each other seems slightly less so in this film.	3/4
Resolution	Neither surprising, nor satisfying. Anyone who has seen a Tom Cruise film (let alone a Mission: Impossible film) can project the ending.	1/4
Dialogue	Every character plays off of Ethan’s charisma quite well, while Benji grows an unexpected pair. Solomon Lane is too cryptic to be menacing though.	4/6
Exposition	So Ethan has to save the world from what? Bad people doing bad things with a ton of money? And why is this syndicate so bad ass? It’s all bit too muddled. Or is it too boring?	2/5
Character uniqueness	Ethan is a super cool super spy. Ilsa is a super hot, undetermined ally or enemy. Solomon is a garden variety villain.	4/6
Character relatability	I can sympathize with the frustration that comes with a seemingly no-win situation. I can also get with not wanting to expose one’s friends to unnecessary risk. I don’t understand wanting to turn someone to your side only by showing them up with no attempt at bribery and not directly threatening their lives at any point.	3/5

“Story” = 19/34

Overall MPS Rating: 70/100

Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation is a very entertaining, action heavy, cinematic adventure that’s equally compelling to Tom Cruise fans as well as casual action film fans. If you’re looking for some solid popcorn outside of the super-hero game, check this out at your local cinema. Don’t even think about springing for IMAX or REAL 3D tickets, though.

Movie News Reviews

Ant-Man Movie Review

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:21468:]]

Better Safe than Sorry

A Film Review of Ant-Man

In Kevin Feige, we trust. This is the message I continue to carry forward throughout the ever expanding MCU and once again true believers, we have another solid building block as we march towards Infinity and beyond. That’s not to say this result was a foregone conclusion. I believe fans had similar concerns for another seemingly left of center Marvel license known as the Guardians of the Galaxy. First of all, this film is about Scott Lang/Hank Pym/Ant-Man and this character(s) is completely off the radar for casual fans of comics and pop culture. Second, the lead is Paul Rudd: goofball comedy veteran actor and not an action star. Third, Adam McKay (goofball comedy writer) worked in tandem with Rudd to create the screenplay. Fourth, there’s Michael Douglass (screen legend) and you simply don’t know what you’re going to get from any actor in the twilight of their career no matter what the project is. Regardless of these or any other potential distraction or deterrent to a quality entertainment experience, you can indeed rest easy. The end result is a composed effort to yield another capable Avenger who has his own style and skill set to contribute to stories moving forward.

However, the effort put into keeping an Avenger film on task and not run off the rails on a crazy laugh train (a la, everything McKay has ever written) was very obvious at several moments during the film. How many more times did I need to be reminded that Scott was a family man? How often did Scott himself have to play the straight man to his own motley crew? How many cute bonding moments with insects needed to be shoehorned in? All of these were conscious plot devices that kept the Ant-Man from the brink of The Other Guys. As it turns out, they were necessary (and far too overt) “evils” to take as little risk as possible with the most obscure Avenger to date. Ant-Man is a hero, he has worthy moral ground to stand on, he has skill and he’s light hearted with a shade of sarcasm. Do any of these traits sound familiar to you? Perhaps it would have been better to allow Rudd to channel full blown Brian Fontana into Scott Lang because at least his obtuse, 70s, narcissism would have been hilarious to see next to Tony Stark in the future to see who wins the “inappropriateness wars.” Instead, the audience must rally behind a safe, bland, vanilla character type with precious little personality of his own to speak of. Individual Avenger adventures are as large as their respective protagonists’ personalities as well as their unique skills. I simply wished Ant-Man’s larval voyage left a larger footprint in the spectacular happenings of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

A full breakdown of the following Moving Picture Story Rating (MPS) “alpha build” can be found here.

Action Style	All Avenger films contain some form of combat and Ant- Man features plenty of pugilism and gunplay which are as bland as Scott Lang’s training montage.	3/6
Action Frame	Even if the fists and bullets aren’t flying around like ballet choreography, movement within the frame (specifically all of the miniaturization sequences) is really fun to look at; insects and all.	5/5
Lead Performance	Paul Rudd does an acceptable job while Michael Douglas blew me away with how genuinely interested he showed he was in his role and its place in the MCU. At some point, Ant-Man will have to be “just” Scott Lang without the Hank Pym training wheels.	4/6
Supporting Performance	Evangeline Lilly provides a decent love interest, Corey Stoll plays another 2-dimensional Marvel villain, Michael Pena plays a dumb stereotype and who hired T.I. for this movie?	1/5
Music	All films can certainly use emotionally heavy orchestration to make those epic moments on screen ascend to the next level. That wasn’t the case at all in this film.	2/6
Sound F/X	Hearing a tiny world come alive is just as important as seeing it come alive.	5/5

“Moving” = 20/33

Digital F/X	Getting a glimpse of the land of Avengers from an entirely different scale presented an excellent collision of “regular” and “tiny,” without too much cheesiness from the likes of Honey, I Shrunk the Kids. Insects working together with Ant-Man were also well animated.	6/6
Special F/X	Explosions? Check. Gunfire? Check. They’re simply nowhere near the scope of any previous Avenger film (Even Iron Man 3)	2/5
Costumes	Not much can be said of all the regular suits in this film, but I was much more impressed by the design of the “Yellowjacket” over the retro feel of the “Ant-Man” suit. Expect a redesign for future films.	4/6
Hair & Makeup	I was a bit distracted by Evangeline Lilly’s Jim Carey “bowl cut” wig. Why didn’t they let Kate from Lost simply grow it out? Everyone else was acceptable.	3/5
Exteriors	Regular scale settings were about as average as Hollywood can get, but at the subatomic level, “insides” and “outsides” (as assisted by heavy CG) has no meaning. There wasn’t too much interesting to see beyond the walls of abstract green screens.	3/6
Interiors	I was more impressed with the tech look of the research labs (thank you Iron Man films) especially when compared to the antique nature of Pym’s personal domicile.	4/5

“Picture” = 22/33

Hook	Who doesn’t love a tiny world perspective on things? This happens to be Marvel’s version of it and new angles on an ever saturating genre are always welcome.	4/4
Conflict	Hank Pym can’t be the Ant-Man anymore due to obvious reasons, but I wasn’t sold on Scott’s need to take up this fight himself, despite personal desperation being a clear and present motivator.	2/4
Resolution	I love all the connections made to the MCU, I appreciate the obvious lead-in to Civil War, but I was a bit underwhelmed by the cookie-cutter wrap up for Ant-Man himself.	3/4
Dialogue	Conversations in general seem natural enough, but every time Rudd speaks, he seems far too casual for a character that’s in the position he’s in. Douglas delivers more demonstrative lines in a more demonstrative manner. Ugh! I cringe at anything Scott’s crew says.	2/6
Exposition	The very first scene in this film gives the audience exactly what it needs to understand everything about Ant-Man and how he fits into this dynamic universe. No need to be cryptic, yet.	4/5
Character uniqueness	Hank Pym is my kind of scientist. Everyone else was my kind of been there; done that.	1/6
Character relatability	Sacrificing and doing whatever it takes for one’s family is a strong theme repeated amongst our heroes throughout this film. Can it be any easier to understand this?	5/5

“Story” = 17/34

Overall MPS Rating: 59/100

I was a bit surprised at this score as I enjoyed Ant-Man overall as a fairly entertaining popcorn, action and effects spectacle. In hindsight, I liked this film more for its connections to the growing cinematic universe of Marvel’s superheroes. I liked it less for its disinterest in really committing to standing on its own.

Movie News Reviews

Cosmic Book News Movie Rating System

The Moving Picture Story Rating

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

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

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

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

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

Each subset is broken down further into 3 smaller categories:

“Moving”

– Action (11 points)

– Performance (11 points)

– Audio (11 points)

“Picture”

– Visual Effects (11 points)

– Cast presentation (11 points)

– Setting (11 points)

“Story”

– Plot (12 points)

– Conversation (11 points)

– Character (11 points)

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

——————————————————————————————————

[Within the Moving Subset]

Action:

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

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

Performance:

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

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

Audio:

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

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

——————————————————————————————————

[Within the Picture Subset]

Visual Effects:

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

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

Cast presentation:

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

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

Setting:

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

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

—————————————————————————————————–

[Within the Story subset]

Plot:

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

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

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

Conversation:

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

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

Character:

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

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

——————————————————————————————————

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

Movie News Reviews

Review: Jurassic World (2015)

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:21047:]]

Dinosaurs and Kids Still Trying to Mix

A Film Review of Jurassic World

Giant f’ing reptiles return in the Steven Spielberg executively produced follow up to the much maligned Jurassic Park III with Jurassic World, a seemingly back to basics with fresh faces continuation of a fictional reality where contemporary human beings continue to bring real life dinosaurs into this day and age. We already know what kind of a success it is (beating The Avengers for best domestic opening weekend with a $208.8 gross at the box office) and as a result we can presume a trending success for the next few weeks as well. As a film franchise, Jurassic Park is as close to a sure fire blockbuster as Hollywood can come up with these days without having to knock on any comic book publishers’ doors. Jurassic World shows off just about everything a casual member of the audience is looking for in an exciting, summer, cinematic adventure that is relatively “safe” family fun for everyone save for parents who are exceptionally sensitive to exposing their children to fictional violence and danger. Although Spielberg did not direct this film, his imprint regarding childlike fascination for the improbable (E.T.) and “massive scale” (Transformers) combine once again to produce an experience that fills one up with nostalgia and wonderment.

However, the one criticism I’ve always had regarding these dino-destruction films, shamelessly rears its ugly head once more in Jurassic World. How are the all owners, scientists and corporate sponsors involved with anything “Jurassic” so incredibly stupid to continue to taunt (not tempt) fate once again by putting dinosaurs and contemporary humans in the same space? From a basic plot perspective, Jurassic World is pretty dumb in acknowledging and admitting the tragic failures of its fictional past, yet still marches forward with the delusional concept that people could and somehow should “walk with the dinosaurs” in a zoo-like environment. Despite his zeal and ambition, Dr. Hammond was proven to be woefully wrong by the end of the first Jurassic Park and guess what? It is still unsafe and generally speaking, a bad idea.

The script of Jurassic World, written by the combined efforts of Rick Jaffa, Amanda Silver Derek Connolly and director Colin Trevorrow, comes up way short in explaining how we got from the chaos and anarchy of the past to the Disney World stability of Jurassic World in the present. Plot holes run amok as people who are supposed to be in charge don’t seem to have a clue and security somehow seems more lax than in the first film. We get no sense of how long this establishment has been operating peacefully, nor are we privy to any new system, technology or process that allows this iteration of “Jurassic Park” to be successful where others failed. Those details are apparently irrelevant as the audience is immediately thrown into the thriving business of Jurassic World as it continues to push “size” and “teeth” to continue draw in massive tourist dollars. Of course, dinosaurs are massive, unpredictable, wild animals and man’s inability to control nature results in a lot of rinsed and repeated death and destruction that the audience has seen in every Jurassic Park film: people manipulating nature for profit, super-dinosaur is the big bad, children have 1000% increased luck in avoiding being eaten, stomped, smashed and otherwise bloodied by massive reptiles. It’s all there.

The only thing new and worthwhile regarding the story of Jurassic World is the underdeveloped and under-featured angle regarding Chris Pratt’s character, Owen, and his project with Raptors. These moments are easily the most interesting as it presents the concept of partnership with nature as opposed to domination. Not only are these sequences relatively hopeful, but they also set the audience up for a very satisfying and electric final conflict that wraps everything up.

Jurassic World may attempt to pawn itself off as an adventure with important things to say about family relationships or a thought provoker regarding science’s ability to go too far; but ultimately it is an action film, through and through. Jurassic World easily boasts the highest body count of any Jurassic film. People are mercilessly chewed, skewered and crushed as effectively as previous films, but the fact that there are so many more potential victims really raises the stakes. Camera angles and movement of the frame (not simply inside the frame) produce a fairly exhilarating observation of all the action in general. What helps the audience retain this visual information is cinematographer John Schwartzman’s excellent framing and staging, but also his reluctance to enhance or exasperate the frame rate to make everything we do see, feel more hectic than it is. Not once is there a moment where the constant running and chasing amidst all the danger seems less adrenaline-filled. Extreme close-ups are not abused with sharp flashes of movement across the screen to fake a sense of added tension. The action in Jurassic World represents some of the most effectively captured sequences of many recent Hollywood blockbusters.

The visual effects were a bit hit and miss for me. CG dinosaurs looked great for the big boys, but not so much for the petting-zoo sized ones. Aerial dinos looked less menacing than those featured in JP III, but that may have more to do with the fact that they were captured more as flocks rather than one on one. Explosions and general destruction are nothing to write home about here. Gunplay is rather dry as security forces in Jurassic World are essentially mall cops with automatic weapons and tasers (again, people aren’t threats to dinosaurs, even though they could be with larger and more appropriate weapons). Dinosaur combat and battles are very well done and desperately needed to be extended because that’s what we really want to see.

The overall cast’s performance in Jurassic World is so bad that I experienced veiled levels of glee when dinosaurs dispatched or harmed them in any way. I understand that this movie (much like any Transformer film) is not about the people or the characters they play per say. We all know what it’s really about. However, people cannot be deleted entirely from Jurassic films (unlike any Transformer film) because their presence is vital to the story and regardless of how any of you may feel about Sam Neil or Jeff Golblum as individual thespians, their performances in the past are academy award winning in comparison. Bryce Dallas Howard as corporate tool #1 demonstrates no ability as an effective administrator and comes off as rather bumbling in her fluency of Jurassic World as a theme park. Nick Robinson as annoying child #1 and Ty Simpkins as annoying child #2 are yawn inducing for their stereotypical portrayals as siblings more interested in girls vs. more interested in giant f’ing dinosaurs respectively. Vincent D’Onofrio as the token (pseudo) bad guy is very disappointing because he’s a much better actor than the effort he gives here. Irrfan Khan as the cocky billionaire owner effectively channels what I presume was the director’s desire to mimic Sir Richard Branson charging in to save everyone with the hubris of his helicopter flying skills. BD Wong is the only returning cast member from a previous Jurassic film reprising his role as Dr. Henry Wu and is as memorable as any actor can be in a single, 2 minute scene for an action film. And then there’s Jimmy Fallon …

Chris Pratt is a different story, and it has less to do with his exceptional performance from Guardians of the Galaxy and more to do with his natural charisma as an individual actor. No, he’s not redefining what it means to be a leading man in a Hollywood blockbuster because he isn’t the prettiest and he isn’t the buffest (both of which are still requisites). What he does have is an everyman’s appreciation for decency and pragmatism for whatever character he plays in ridiculous situations. This is what allows audiences to root for him and it’s all one really needs to make a connection with viewers. This is precisely the reason why he would make for a great Indiana Jones, but there is no reason whatsoever why Indy needs to be rebooted in any way and for any reason unless it were a continuation of his adventures in a younger man’s body.

Jurassic World has made and will continue to make a ton of cash around the globe. It is more than a worthwhile expense for your time and wallet to check this adventure out at your local cinemas. If you have the opportunity, try to check it out in IMAX 3D. However, I would not necessarily recommend spending more on a regular, REAL 3D ticket on a standard displays because dinosaurs need as much screen as possible to show how awesome they are. I didn’t like spending half the film chasing around with the stupid brats that get lost in the park, but Chris Pratt represents the other half and he takes the audience home with some great action and comedic timing.

Movie News Reviews

Review: Tomorrowland (2015)

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:20731:]]

A Better Tomorrow Starts With Today

A Film Review of Tomorrowland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Movie News Reviews

Review: The Avengers: Age Of Ultron

Marching Towards Infinity (kinda)

A Film Review of Avengers: Age of Ultron

I am reminded of how earlier in the year, during the last Academy Awards, of the anti-super hero/comic book action blockbuster sentiment that filled the air. I do not subscribe to the notion that a flashy, licensed Hollywood production is somehow less worthy of being validated as “cinema” than the garden variety art house film made with zero budget and maximum imagination. A hell of a lot of creativity, hard work and organization goes into the art of filmmaking that it would be irresponsible for anyone to casually dismiss any segment or genre as drivel for any reason under the sun. We are all entitled to our opinions so chances are Indie purists will continue to diminish Hollywood for its profit driven grandiosity as fanboys will continue to mock Indies for their obscurity and therefore irrelevance. However, the next time you have a moment to bash a film for the sake of bashing please keep in mind that it is a major accomplishment simply getting a film made. Its ultimate worth is in the hands of audiences and critics, but there is no such thing as a perfect film nor does any film warrant a true value of zero.

And with that we have director Joss Whedon’s second (and final) contribution to Marvel’s cinematic universe in Avengers: Age of Ultron, a mega budget Hollywood production that continues the episodic journey of some of the most iconic characters in comics in live-action on the silver screen. Those who have been following these films since the first Iron Man in 2008 know that the quality of these films began at a relatively high level and (for the most part) have shown steady improvement. When combined with media hype, this franchise’s own success has justly set expectations for every installment at an equally high level. The audience can be assured that investing in a general admission will once again result in a high level of entertainment and fun for a film that features lots of action, visual effects and computer graphics. Every character has a moment or two (or more) to shine just like before as the genuine camaraderie among the cast relays a comfortable warmth and relatability to the audience with this assembly of superheroes. Joss Whedon knows that half of the wow factor for these spectacles is simply allowing these A-list actors representing top tier characters to simply share the same space together and watch what happens. The secret to his success is getting them into the same space and balancing the screen time all while cramming in as much action as possible to show off the full extent of their prowess as super individuals of a super team.

Age of Ultron’s story was also written by Joss Whedon, and it revolves around the Avengers dealing with the global threat of a maniacal AI and its unpleasant plan of achieving world peace by making human beings extinct. There is no question that there are several other movies that delve into the ideas, benefits and threats of a self aware artificial intelligence as a scientific reality better than Age of Ultron, but the plot of this film isn’t the draw. The Avengers are, and when a movie is driven by characters, the plot needs just enough to get them into position and keep them there until resolution. An army of evil robots is certainly a threat worthy of the Avengers in every respect, but it isn’t a far cry from Loki’s army of invading Chitauri in narrative terms. How the Avengers “deal with it this time” is the name of the game and that’s where Whedon’s dialogue is as efficient in its exposition as it is with its character interplay to not only keep the plot moving, but keep it entertaining. Unfortunately, with so much focus on character, important plot points like the infinity stone inside Loki’s staff, Thor’s “spirit walk,” and the introduction/deletion of characters from the team are glazed over in the most expedient of manners. Of these, Thor’s brief hiatus is the least satisfying and most frustrating because it comes out of nowhere, is riddled with plot holes, has no setup and therefore has a whimpering impact.

There is a greater dedication to action sequences in Age of Ultron than there was for the first Avengers because this film does not require any additional screen time for setup exposition. There are more of them and there is more happening within each extended cut with layers of simultaneous action. Hulk smashes while the Widow stings while the Hawk snipes as Cap shields, Thor bolts and Iron Man soars. Once again, there are several instances of combining powers as tag team attacks such as combining Thor’s hammer with Cap’s shield to produce a rather effective shockwave to debilitate a wave of opposition instantly. There are moments where the mammoth amount of content and movement within the frame is simply too much to process, but Whedon compensates with slow motion effects without using it like a crutch vis-à-vis Michael Bay in any film he does. There is plenty of martial arts, acrobatics, melee fisticuffs and gunplay at work throughout, however with the exception of the climax, there didn’t seem to be as many explosions this time around.

CG and visual effects are once again top notch for this production. Iron Man animations and Thor flight and lightning are reliably proficient as ever. Hulk animations (movement and facial) seemed to have an upgrade as the character is not required to be destroying everything in his path as often as before. I wasn’t as impressed with the powers of the “Twins.” Wanda’s chaos magic was essentially mini clouds of red dust emanating from her fingers, and Pietro’s super speed was simply outclassed (no pun intended) by the visual effects for the same character used last year in X-Men: Days of Future Past. Cap’s shield throws and bounces are really fun to follow onscreen. It’s almost like a “follow the bouncy ball” guide through a sequence of chaos and destruction. Ultron’s animations are very smooth and emotive (especially for his face) which is odd seeing how his AI is presented as various platforms of killer robots. Perhaps this was done to incorporate as much of James Spader’s motion capture performance as possible, but I’m not sure if using the same voice over with more rigid/mechanical animations would have yielded a more menacing villain.

Performances by the cast are the meat and potatoes of these Avenger films and once again, the individual micro contributions of all result in a fantastic group dynamic that has become the gold standard for comic book adaptations that feature more than two or three major characters. Everyone does an excellent job for the screen time they are afforded so I won’t guild the lily anymore by reminding everyone how great Robert Downey Jr. is playing Tony Stark. The most valuable relationship is between Bruce Banner/Hulk and Natasha/Black Widow. Sure it seems cheesy that the one female combatant on the team holds the key to soothing the savage beast on the battlefield, but there’s some actual chemistry going on between Johansson’s sex appeal and Ruffalo’s awkward innocence. Like it or not, their relationship adds a much needed romantic subplot to all the super heroics for the shear sake of variety. Most valuable standout performance goes to Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye for having all the best comedic moments as well as a nice heart-warming surprise to explain what he’s fighting for. Special recognition goes to Paul Bettany for making his first physical appearance as a member of this cast as well as added appreciation for not making the Vision a full on CG character. Bettany’s demeanor and facial expressions will compliment his witty banter in bringing even more charisma to his character. I also loved James Spader’s interpretation of an evil Tony Stark as his inspiration for Ultron: same ego, similar self reflections.

Avengers: Age of Ultron is a cinematic adventure worth paying a little extra to see on the big screen sooner rather than later. The added cost for a 3D viewing is much more justifiable than 80% of the rest of the films that get a cheap conversion these days. Casual movie goers need not be intimidated by the series of Marvel films that have built up to this point as the events of this film are contained enough for novices to come in fresh and enjoy nonetheless. Fanboys and girls will enjoy this film in general, but may be a bit underwhelmed for three reasons: 1) it isn’t as amazing as seeing the Avengers assemble for the first time (as few other films could ever be), 2) the connections to the ominous Infinity conflict were poorly developed and 3) the team will not be the same moving forward. Age of Ultron will most certainly be the biggest money making film of 2015, but it will be interesting to see the comparison with another Disney owned IP in Star Wars Episode 7 when it begins its theatrical run December.

Movie Trailers Reviews

Movie Review: Insurgent (2015)

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:19770:]]

Guns of the Insurgency

A Film Review of Insurgent

The first thought that came to mind when the end credits rolled on Insurgent was how similarly it improved on its predecessor in the exact same manner as Catching Fire (2013) did for The Hunger Games (2012). Of course, these two stories are eerily similar in so many ways that it doesn’t take a board member of Mensa to realize that Veronica Roth had more than just an “inspiration” in mind for her own brainchild seeing how Suzanne Collins wrapped up her book trilogy a full year before Divergent was released in 2011. I am certain their respective literatures divulge more than enough differentiating detail about the worlds and characters these stories are about to make it worth any reader’s while to devour every page. But you just don’t get that kind of flavor in a series of two hour movies. You get the bare bones of the world, some expository jargon; make a b-line for character which finally launches you right into the drama and action. Taken in this regard, the similarities of these film franchises start converging like every loony in Gotham gravitates to Batman.

I’d be willing to bet that, “A pretty young white girl compelled to engage in mortal combat to make some difference in a dystopian society that will implode unless her efforts inspire a revolution towards positive change” was used to pitch both trilogies (parts 1 and 2 for their respective final installments, of course). So what? Who cares, right? Meathead, bro-action blockbusters are all remixes of themselves, too! Die Hards and Under Sieges involve one man killing machines that grind up armies of opposition into kibble to save the day. Why not let the girls have their shot at it? I have absolutely no criticism of any of this save for one, and it’s the reason why Under Siege (1992) will always be described as Die Hard (1988) … on a boat. One of these films came first, caught some kind of lightning in a bottle and every other that follows in an attempt to recreate the formula of the progenitor will always be compared as its doppleganger until it is ultimately forgotten when another copycat steps up to the plate.

Long story short (too late); as entertained as I was by Insurgent, as improved as the visual effects were thanks to an additional $25 million to the budget of Divergent, and as talented as I am sure that Shailene Woodley will prove herself to be when she’s in her prime, this film and this series is old hat: been there, done that. Perhaps if there were more separation in real time between the releases of the Hunger Games and Divergent sagas, I’d be less susceptible to monotony fatigue. Lionsgate’s desire to have them run concurrently is curious. Yes, it makes sense to continue to capitalize on the popularity and success of The Hunger Games films by keeping its target audience primed for another run to the cinema for a similar, girl-powered, butt-kicking adventure. However, attempting to take advantage of the audience through this kind of acute, formulaic regurgitation is a dangerous game that can easily turn Insurgent’s opening weekend feast of $52.3 million into a second week famine in an instant. Even if Hunger Games and Divergent have several core concepts and characters that are closely related, it’s on Lionsgate and more specifically screenwriters Brian Duffield, Akiva Goldsman and Mark Bomback to make enough difference to motivate an audience to buy a ticket. There are too many paralleling plots and coincidental twists with the franchise that came before for Insurgent’s story to be a standalone draw for this movie.

Insurgent isn’t a bad film by any means and the primary reason for this is money, as in added money to the budget which shows improvements in so many ways. Set design gets an upgrade, external locations are vast and intricate, stunts and combat are more intense, and props actually look like they belong in this futuristic world, guns look much beefier than the piddling blow darts they used in Divergent. All of these elements translate directly into added entertainment value to the viewer, but as good as they all are, they pale in comparison to the huge upgrade in the visual effects department that is showcased during Tris’ faction simulation unlocking scenes. These surreal dream sequences push her divergence to the limit as her ability to overcome her fears amidst the challenges that each faction represent is loaded with all sorts of eye candy like floating buildings, obliterating walls with bare hands and disintegrating particle effects. From top to bottom, Insurgent is a much prettier and visually dynamic film than Divergent.

Performances by the main characters were solid. Shailene Woodley and Theo James have good chemistry together as Tris and Four, respectively, although I wouldn’t mind seeing them steam things up a lot more as passionate lovers than the good friends who happen to sleep with each other they come off as in this film. As individuals, Woodley succeeds in manipulating her vulnerability to dominate every scene when Tris is at her weakest. She needs a bit of improvement on showing her anger and rage as well as her fight choreography which is nowhere near as intensely staccato as Four, the love interest. Theo James is certainly a man’s man in addition to being the lady’s man because he demonstrates textbook intensity and strength at all times, even at restful times, when he needs to let that iron jaw of his kick back and take a rest. Kate Winslet as intelligence Nazi Jeanine reprises her role as the ice queen proficiently. I wish her villainy was allowed greater depth of depravity, but her character’s machinelike callousness represents the apex of her negative energy.

The rest of the cast is inconsistent at best. Jai Courtney delights once again as precocious, dickhead Eric while Mekhi Phifer’s Max is simply fortunate to be present to recite his lines to the camera. Miles Teller’s Peter is reliably untrustworthy and self-serving and shows the potential for being a much more capable villain than Jeanine at times. Ansel Elgort’s Caleb isn’t afforded much screen time to evolve his character and thankfully so because his casual demeanor at all times was as unimpressive as his one facial expression of nonchalance throughout. Octavia Spencer’s Johanna was a nice surprise to see a veteran showing how one “does more with less,” but it was in fact so little that it seemed like a complete misuse of her talent. Naomi Watts was in this film? My favorite moment of Insurgent was seeing Daniel Dae Kim as Jack King who is cool, calm, collected and in command of Candor faction with the charisma he learned to channel from Lost.

Insurgent is a fully capable and worthy follow up to Divergent for all the fanboys and girls. Casual viewers will continue to draw the parallels with The Hunger Games because the fictions are too similar, plain and simple. So far, global ticket sales are showing immunity (or apathy) to the elephant in the room and ultimately, that’s the only thing that really matters. As a pre-summer blockbuster, this film doesn’t have the same competition or expectations of the big boys like the next Fast and Furious or Avengers, but even Divergent saw more than a 50% drop in ticket sales in its second week domestically, and I would expect the same here. Don’t even think about wasting your money for IMAX or Real 3D screenings of this film as the conversion adds zero emersion to the experience and is a shameless cash grab. As for a recommendation for purchasing a general admission, I would suggest saving for multiple screenings for the true blockbusters that are just around the corner. Insurgent is good enough to satisfy that itch if you haven’t been to the movies in a while, but if you don’t feel the need, this can easily be pushed to Netflix.

Movie News Reviews

2015 Oscars: Results, Recap & Opinions

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:19315:]]

Oscar Fallout and Recap 2015

(Hold on to your butts!)

Welcome one and all to Oscar Night 2015 when the Academy Awards will be doled out by Doogie Howser M.D. in an attempt to surpass Ellen’s “internet breaking” effort of last year. As with every Oscar award season, perception, conjecture, and theories abound when it comes to who will actually win. There are a few foregone conclusions, there are some tight races, but I can posit with some certainty that we will have at least one major surprise and plenty of controversy (I’m looking at you John Travolta!).

The Red Carpet Observations

1) Does it matter who Kevin Hart brings with him anywhere? All women tower over him.

2) Boyhood’s director Richard Linklater and supporting actor Ethan Hawke get early featured love by interviewers, and Hawke shows much more excitement and charisma than his director. Perhaps Linklater is bracing for disappointment?

3) Dakota Johnson and mommy dearest, Melanie Griffith, are shown video footage of her years ago as a little girl at the Oscars in what I’m sure was #50shadesofawkward. Thanks for the reminder of young innocence turn softcore porn, Mr. red carpet coverage man. Lara Spencer’s follow up to push Melanie into watching 50 Shades of Grey made it even worse. Is there some kind of bounty on Johnson and Griffith tonight?

4) Andy Samberg got invited to the Oscars? I guess he can thank Adam Sandler for the invite?

5) Did everyone remember how Steve Carell was nominated for best leading actor for Foxcatcher?

6) Marion Cotillard is a beautiful woman, but she wasn’t wearing a beautiful dress. #plainjane

7) Michael Keaton and Birdman director Alejandro Iñárritu seem to have a bit more positive energy about being present. Too bad Keaton is dwarfed by Lara Spencer.

8) Rosamund Pike looks killer in that hot red dress of hers!

9) Nice guy Eddie Redmayne admits to bringing the wretched British weather over to LA. I appreciate the honesty.

10) I really like Anna Kendrick’s dress, but really, her look overall because despite her youth, she tends to give off a much more seasoned class to public appearances like this.

11) Lady Gaga fake holding an Oscar – yeah right. Well, maybe I shouldn’t mock her seeing how they gave Cher an Oscar. #anythingispossible BTW, does she plan on doing some dishes tonight with those rubber gloves?

12) Jimmy Kimmel is dressing down for the Oscars. #mailingitin

13) Wow! What kind of future-alternative dress is Naomi Watts wearing? I guess I like it, but wouldn’t figure her to rock that kind of look.

14) Chris Pratt’s a cool dude, but there’s no way anyone should be rebooting Indiana Jones for any reason.

15) Reese Witherspoon wants more questions asked to her on the red carpet other than the designer she’s wearing. I respect that. But, that goes away if Legally Blonde 3 is ever announced.

16) Jennifer Lopez wearing a remix of the only kind of dress she knows how to wear: plunging v-neck down to her belly button. #pass

17) What did Scarlett Johansson do to her hair???

18) Adam Levine still needs a shave. You know, I heard Gillette is the best a man can get.

19) Taya Kyle is present at the Oscars representing Chris and American Sniper. She’s still not sharing any proceeds of her husband’s book with the families of fallen service men and women like Chris had reportedly requested prior to his death. #anymorelawsuitsagainstthekyleestate?

20) Faith Hill and Tim McGraw don’t look like Faith Hill and Tim McGraw.

21) Kerry Washington looks really cute tonight. We need to see her in some more movies so hopefully Scandal won’t Black Snake Moan her from the rest of Hollywood.

22) Robin Roberts making an embarrassing moment with Captain America himself Chris Evans regarding his date wasn’t horrible, but never presume anything regarding the relationship between stars and their +1’s at these events.

23) Patricia Arquette seems a frumpy hot mess. Didn’t she learn anything from Jack? You gotta wear sunglasses if you do a line before sitting through the Oscars.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:19316:]]

And Now, the Show …

Oooo, Neil Patrick Harris starting off right away referencing the “white-washing” of this year’s nominations before launching into his introductory song and dance. His impromptu duet with Anna Kendrick as Cinderella was a nice little surprise, but Jack Black’s interruption representing the cynicism of Hollywood wasn’t as satisfying. I get that they were going for the magic vs. mud, but as far as opening musical numbers go, Hugh Jackman’s remains the gold standard. Also, Anna Kendrick is a much stronger singer than Neil, so it was good, but not great.

Best Supporting Actor– J.K. Simmons for Whiplash – First award of the night is not a surprise by any means. He was the hot choice for this category and I really liked his acceptance speech even if he kind of threw his own kids under the bus a bit. Also, I liked Neil Patrick Harris’ State Farm Commercial reference to this victory.

Liam Neeson’s aside regarding the nominated films this evening and their separation from the blockbusters like comic book films irked me a tad. I understand that he didn’t necessarily write the lines, but he did agree to read them, and it was somewhat hypocritical seeing how American Sniper was one of this past year’s big studio blockbusters. Excellence achieved in blockbusters is no less prolific than those “worthy” of recognition by the Academy because people don’t just go to see those cinematic adventures because they’re fanboys and girls. They go because those films are great fun, well, at least the good blockbusters are.

Chris Pine and J-Lo present best costume design. You must hand it to this show for always being able to pair some of the most random duos.

Best Costume Design– Milena Canonero for The Grand Budapest Hotel – Another disciple of Wes Anderson’s reaping the rewards of art house film proximity. This was the year for indie films and Wes Anderson is a marquee champion of the little guys.

Best Makeup and Hairstyling– Frances Hannon and Mark Coulier for The Grand Budapest Hotel – The only thing that you could bank on in this category was that it wasn’t going to Guardians of the Galaxy for every reason I mentioned above.

Best Foreign Language Film– Poland’s Ida – This victory was obviously a surprise for the winner, but he sure didn’t run out of people to thank as he went well over his wrap up time and kept going, and going, and going, and going …

Tegan and Sara and The Lonely Island perform Everything is Awesome. This might have been a highlight of the show for some viewers out there, but I would have preferred the song exactly how it was performed from the movie, minus The Lonely Island.

Best Live Action Short Film– Mat Kirkby and James Lucas for The Phone Call – Foreigners will have their moment on Oscar night! Orchestra be damned!

Best Documentary Short Film– Ellen Goosenberg Kent and Dana Perry for Crisis Hotline – An interesting black, pom pom dress selection for one of these ladies. It DOES take a lot of balls to wear it! I respect them for being aware of very brief time to speak their acceptance.

Neil Patrick Harris may be in need of a little life preserver with his joke tie-in with David Oyelowo. David’s reaction may have salvaged it, but a tidal wave of meh seems to be rising at this point in the show … and to get the energy back up, he shows back up on stage in tighty– whiteys with what I presume is a well placed sock. Yes, acting IS a noble profession. Thank you, Neil.

Best Sound Mixing– Craig Mann, Ben Wilkins and Thomas Curley for Whiplash – Even more indie love for perhaps the most indie film amongst all of this year’s nominees. This may go down as the most awkward acceptance

Best Sound Editing– Alan Robert Murray and Bub Asman for American Sniper – This is certainly my first surprise of the evening because the indies were really putting the petal to the metal. Winning a category like this might be an indicator for bigger victories for American Sniper because having “Academy Award winner for best Sound Editing” as the only label on the cover of this movie when it releases on retail would be awkward.

Best Supporting Actress– Patricia Arquette for Boyhood – Not a surprise here as she was getting the love for this win well before NPH (Neil Patrick Harris) started rehearsing for the Oscar show. Patricia had some important things to say about wage equality for women. I’m pretty sure what the world, not just this country, needs is wage elevation for the poor.

Best Visual Effects– Paul Franklin, Andrew Lockley, Ian Hunter and Scott Fisher for Interstellar – I honestly thought this was going to Dawn of the Planet of the Apes just for the Andy Serkis factor, but Chris Nolan’s overlooked space adventure comes away with a little hardware.

Anna Kendrick and Kevin Hart actually made a very cool pairing to present an award. And yes, Anna IS bigger than Kevin.

Best Animated Short– Patrick Osborne and Kristina Reed for Feast – This animated short really was a neat, entertaining tale of a pet’s perspective of its master’s relationship gone wrong. Thank you Dipson theatres for letting me see it before learning about it for the first time during the Oscars.

Best Animated Feature– Don Hall, Chris Williams and Roy Conli for Big Hero Six – Was anyone surprised at Fall Out Boy’s big comeback platform taking this category? The country of Japan sure wasn’t as this film enjoyed a 6 week reign as #1 at the box office. There was plenty of love for the Mickey Mouse corporation in this acceptance speech.

Best Production Design– Adam Stockhausen and Anna Pinnock for The Grand Budapest Hotel – Yet another slam dunk for the art house, Wes Anderson and style over substance.

Best Cinematography– Emmanuel Lubezki for Birdman – Finally, one of the so-called considered favorites of the evening actually wins an award. When you have practically zero cuts in your film, all you have is framing and camera work and that’s all cinematography baby!

“In Memoriam” sequence presented by Meryl Streep. This is always a difficult moment during the show which is important for its recognition, but I’ve never understood why anyone in the live audience would applaud for some of the bigger or more popular names as if their passing was more tragic than any other. They are dead. They have not won an award. So please, take this moment to be somber and respectful and keep your inner fan boy or girl in its seatbelt.

Best Film Editing– Tom Cross for Whiplash – The little film that could keeps racking up the victories. If there wasn’t full on confirmation of indie love tonight by now, we are officially there now.

Terrence Howard’s presentation of Whiplash, The Imitation Game and Selma is the first live train wreck of the evening. Travolta may be in the clear. Could it have been drugs, alcohol, overacting, or perhaps he actually was THAT emotionally moved by the films he was talking about? Terrence is a good actor, but he’s not that good. Maybe he’s still pissed about being replaced by Don Cheadle as Rhodie’s War Machine?

Best Documentary Feature– Laura Poitras, Mathilde Bonnefoy and Dirk Wilutzky for Citizenfour – A documentary about shadow government and praise for Edward Snowden in Hollywood? Good thing I discovered it existed in the first place tonight. #wherearethedocumentaryscreenings

NPH may have completely redeemed himself with the “Benedict Cumberbatch is what you get when you ask Travolta to pronounce Ben Affleck.” And THEN Idina Menzel presents best song WITH John Travolta and the two have awkward fun at each other’s expense. I wouldn’t exactly call it one of Tosh’s “web redemptions,” but it comes really close.

Best Song– “Glory” John Stephens (John Legend) and Lonnie Lynn for Selma – First of all, who knew Common’s real name was Lonnie Lynn? Common and Legend make a great acceptance speech regarding social justice. We ARE an over-incarcerated country, so whenever I hear stories about American money (private or government) being exported for ANY charity reason, I ask why can’t that money stay to help people HERE in THIS country: the homeless, the poor, the disenfranchised, the uneducated, the hungry.

Lady Gaga performing My Favorite Things and other songs from The Sound of Music does the legacy of Julie Andrews proud. She produced a clean operatic voice for every ballad and kept it classy the whole way. I must say this was a big surprise, but an even BIGGER surprise was Julie Andrews herself coming on stage to congratulate her. As powerful as the performance of “Glory” was, this moment was easily the warmest and most emotional of the evening.

Best Original Score– Alexandre Desplat for The Grand Budapest Hotel – Wes Anderson acolytes know how to suckle from the power teet as this fine little hotel continues to rack up the gold left and right. I personally would have liked to see this award go to Hans Zimmer for Interstellar because even if the audience got confused by the plot or the theoretical science, there’s no denying the emotion of his score. The Academy sees it otherwise.

Best Original Screenplay– Alejandro Iñárritu and company for Birdman – I’d like to note how the director thanked his cast entirely by first name, except for “Mr. Norton.” Hollywood likes a shiny mirror put up in front of itself; even if it isn’t pretty; even if it isn’t nice.

Best Adapted Screenplay– Graham Moore for The Imitation Game – This is a HUGE shocker! And historians are rolling up their sleeves right now as this script was maligned for its historical inaccuracies. I feel bad that Graham wanted to kill himself when he was younger, but if he wanted to make Alan Turing’s story about his sexuality, then he should have done exactly that from the first frame of the film and NOT slide it in at the very end as a footnote.

Best Director– Alejandro Iñárritu for Birdman – Major score #2 for Iñárritu. With two major victories in the bag, is Birdman set up for a clean sweep the rest of the way? This kind of film needs a director on cue and on his cast at all times because quite frankly, they were on, at all times.

Best Actor– Eddie Redmayne for The Theory of Everything – Eddie is gleefully enjoyed to accept this award and regardless of whatever politics were at work, or whoever’s “time it was,” no one could deny the power of his performance in this film. It was transformative. It was undeniable. I almost thought Birdman’s momentum was going to carry Michael Keaton through to the other side, but Redmayne was both the unstoppable force and the immoveable object.

Best Actress– Julianne Moore for Still Alice – One classy lady gives an equally graceful and humble acceptance speech. She’s had an amazing career and gave an amazing performance in this film. People had been talking up her victory for weeks

Best Picture– Birdman – And that’s all she wrote! Check out my review right here if you possibly needed any additional reason to check this movie out. It was fun, artsy, had social commentary and Michael Keaton maybe having real life super powers? No one can be told. You have to see it for yourself.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:19317:]]

Conclusion

Another successful evening of Hollywood showing the world how awesome it is all wrapped up and I must say that I was more surprised than not at the results. I was surprised that The Grand Budapest Hotel and Whiplash won as many awards as they did, but I am absolutely stunned that pre-Oscar night darlings Boyhood and American Sniper took home only 1 award each! Equally snubbed was Selma, but apparently the real reason for that was untimely logistics during the submission and campaigning process for the production. Birdman deserved ultimate victory as it took a number of major categories, and it was just plain great in every aspect of filmmaking. As for the Oscar show itself, yes it’s a LONG show, but Neil Patrick Harris did an adequate job as host with several moments of peaks and valleys throughout. I wouldn’t say he surpassed Ellen in any regard, but I also wouldn’t say he is undeserving of a second opportunity next year or any other in the future. I don’t disagree with any of the victors save for the firestorm that may culminate over The Theory of Everything’s victory for best adapted screenplay.

As I’ve said in my reviews leading up to this night, this past year was an “indie” year and with that, “indie love” was certainly represented at the Academy Awards. Despite this year being a down year in terms of tickets sold and money made, I felt this year’s nominees were superior to last year’s overall. This coming year will be a big time comeback for Hollywood as The Avengers and Star Wars will almost exclusively make all the difference.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:19318:]]

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:19319:]]

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:19320:]]

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:19321:]]

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:19322:]]

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:19325:]]

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:19324:]]

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:19326:]]

Movie News Reviews

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!

Movie News Reviews

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

Start typing and press enter to search