Her - Review

Strange looking back now that I thought Her looked like a disaster. That Joaquin Phoenix guy was fresh back from madness. The trailer was just odd. Why would anyone, ever, fall in love with a machine? Not even an android. Some little hipster iPhone of a thing. Nevertheless, I pride myself on watching all science-fiction movies so in I went.

The short story, here, is that Her is perfect in every single way. I mean that. Technically flawless. Masterfully told. I saw the film quite a while ago and was excited to review it until I actually sat down to do so. I found I didn’t want to break it down or talk about it. I just wanted to watch it again. I wanted everyone to just watch it. It speaks for itself better than I ever could.

The sole facet that bugged me at first was the wardrobe. I’d call it “hipster” but concede that’s a moving target. Beltless pants from the 70’s or 80’s. Pastel shirts. What it did in the end was make the future feel warm. Free to use Artificial Intelligence and not conjure images of 2001 or Blade Runner in the audience. Without a bloated special effects budget or LED lights glued to every surface, Her sold me on the idea this was a different Earth. My expectations for “normal” human behavior needed to be checked.

Which led right into a smooth introduction of the A.I., Samantha. I imagine, should one find themselves fortunate enough to have a conversation with Scarlett Johansson in bed, this is what she sounds like. Unguarded. She projects nothing. It is only compassion and sweetness. Objections or apprehensions to machine / human bonding are obliterated in scant words and a minute. It’s no longer “if” Theodore will fall in love with her but why is he’s still denying it. This is the first conversation. In which they exchange names. I was floored.

And I stayed right there for the entire movie. Captured? I went along with every movement, no matter how minor. Their relationship was real to me. It ebbed and flowed according to their desires and moods. I don’t see how anyone could turn in better performances. The whole cast. Far from being a silly concept, I thought this was the perfect scenario to explore so much of the modern relationship. Changes arise organically, without the need for external forces to force a choice on either party. There aren’t any tricks to the plot. Her is way too smart for that.

What’s most impressive is not that Her executed perfectly, but that it reached for something new. To be so confident in an off-kilter concept, to play itself out without concession to skeptics. Truly a beautiful project.

Guardians of the Galaxy - Review

Not even a comic book movie has any right to be as dumb as Guardians is. Had I watched the movie from Zoe Saldana’s lap I’d still complain about it. Yet, that doesn’t matter! The Marvel Fanatics have already, at 5pm Friday, made this some record breaking opening weekend. They don’t read reviews. The people who call this a Star Wars knock-off aren’t going to see it and aren’t reading reviews. For posterity?

Guardians is meant to expand the Marvel Universe. It seems all Marvel movies do anymore is expand. Setup a new “Phase” or character. Credit to those running the studio for seeing, correctly, it doesn’t matter what the plot is. Avengers featured ramping aliens coming through a portal and a nuke nearly going off over New York City. It was monstrously cliché. It was called the greatest superhero movie ever made.

The Guardians juggle a gem of cosmic power, at first for money then because it’s real strong. No, there isn’t anything more to explain than that. No, it’s not symbolic in any way. It’s purple. A big purple guy wants the purple gem so he sends this other, smaller but still pretty large, blue guy to retrieve it. The over anxious Marvel nerd, “talking” in a voice to fill the theater, can tell you why the blue guy is called Ronan the Accuser. Or what the hell a Kree is. But I will save you time and tell you it doesn’t matter.

Another keen insight on display here is that Villains Don’t Need To Have Any Character. Or development. They just need a big, monolithic, spaceship. Made of black stone. Thanos sits on a throne in a field of rocks! Subtle. Our Ronan kills someone within seconds of being introduced. That particular “subplot” is done and over right there. I understand these films are aimed to include children, but as a youngin’, I was quick to understand the dark figure in the dark room wearing dark makeup attended to by darkly robed minions, spouting some nonsense about “wrongs done” to no one, was meant to be the foil. The hammer is an apt choice for him.

The most starling moments of the film were when it ceased to represent any sort of fictional world. I didn’t see aliens, just people in full body paint. Dressed in some stupid costume. And everyone making a complete ass of themselves. Truthfully, I looked away during these moments of intense shame to spare the actor. It was embarrassing for me to be in the theater. To see a movie fall apart like that… Not even the worst of the worst summer blockbuster films have imploded like that. To be dumb not in the service of anything greater. But just to be dumb.

The action sequences were plain, sometimes seeming to be unrehearsed. It was odd, too, to see how little the environment was integrated into the pieces. Everything felt like it was shot in a green room. Just a big, empty, green room. There’s no weight to anything. No imagination given to any sequence. I wouldn’t be surprised if any particular shot was reskinned with X-Wings or whatever the hell else Disney wanted. I could see anyone doing everything the Guardians do.

I’m sure Guardians will be praised and remembered for its humor. This must have been the Funny Committee’s first foray into comedy. The approach is to bookend everything. Throw out a million quips or, if possible, have someone dance. A dumb slapstick moment (see any recent animated feature for examples) followed by a dry observational remark. Maybe two! I found having a ridiculous scene summarized immediately after it occurred with, max, five words, aggravating. The audience I saw it with ate everything up. Barely a flat joke. Chris Pratt did get me a few times despite the low ambition of each bit. If you find teenage boys hilarious, this movie will kill it for you.

I’m trying to understand the popular adjectives slapped on this travesty. “Weird”, “charming”, “unique”. If this is the first science-fiction movie you’ve ever seen, sure! Talking trees are going to blow your mind! Everything felt like a pulpy knock-off to me. It wanted to be B movie but conscious of the fact. It felt like a bastardization of a really great comic book. A 93% on Rotten Tomatoes? As a dumb summer action movie I’d rate Guardians Disappointing. As space-opera I’d call it Abysmal. This is pure Paint by Numbers, Studio drivel. Congratulations on your bajillion dollars. 

X-Men Days of Future Past - Review

The lead up to X-Men was exciting. Not only was there good buzz but this was going to be a reboot, a smart one at that, done inside the universe. Had someone brought intelligence to the X-Movies? Turns out, no. But this one is a lot of fun. Provided you never think of the scientific plausibility of any of it.

Happily, Days of Future Past impresses right out of the gate. FINALLY, it feels like the mutants are up against something that can actually kill them! The rhetoric has always been present but it has, in every instance, come down to mutant versus mutant ideology, played out with a few dissenting mutants versus the larger group.  Fit in or conqueror, be a mutant or don’t, are again played out in shallow form here (offering zero new ideas or arguments the other five movies haven’t used).

The game changer is the Sentinels. They provide real meaning and consequence for the first time in the series. It’s much less the gentlemanly debate and now, more, a mad scramble for survival. The visceral illustration of seeing a robot rip a mutant in half is a more engaging format than stuffy dialogue. A chaotic, crumbling, world fits the X-Men much better than the matching uniforms with one on one matches upon the open battlefield ever did.

This X-Movie is also more realistic on its number of character subplots. New mutants are shown with barely a name, much less the short vignette of past films. Others have howled about the criminal underuse of the series key supports in Days of Future Past. I get that. It was atrocious what they did to Kitty Pride and Bishop might as well not have been cast. I also understand financially and narratively this is Wolverine & Friends, not X-Men. Given the abysmal development of the leads thus far, I’ll applaud a tightening of the belt. I’d rather the X-Verse dig itself out of the hole it’s currently in than adorn the pit with cute branching tunnels.

I didn’t expect much from Quicksilver. His inclusion came late in casting, on top of a mountain of other mutants, and seemed “me too”, being the center of some studio vs. studio power play coming after Joss Whdeon expressed a lot of excitement in featuring the character in the upcoming Avengers 2. Wouldn’t you know, he turns out to be the most fun? In one scene he embodies what I’ve wanted from the series since the beginning. Play with the super powers. Have fun with how these people mock the limits of human ability.

The action, otherwise, seesaws between the incredible and the campy. How many times am I going to watch Magneto vibrate every object in the room for a full minute before he throws something dumb, like a clock, at somebody? His use of a couple ball bearings is a way more fun, interesting, expression of his mastery. Beast jumping through the air? You might as well not have erased the wires for how obvious they still feel. Then we’ll be treated to Colossus supermaning through portals to slam into Sentinels. The unevenness of it strikes me as lazy rather than incompetent. Good ideas are clearly there.

Setting up Mystique as a force unto herself was another one of those good ideas. Ok, her fighting? Let’s stop being critical for a sec. Her fighting is so god damn cool. Matches perfect the style used in X1 through 3. The wild, frenetic, strikes are too fluid for my brain to keep up with. I’d be one of those slack-jawed guards who’s still wondering, after he hits the ground, how her heel got to be there.

The fact that Mystique is the only person concerned with continuity from First Class just makes her even more likeable. While everyone else is droning on about the morality of This and the historical lessons from That, she’s the real, living, center of the film. The grounded perspective. Really, the only person I care about. I’m curious what happens to the other mutants but their journey to philosophical pillar of the universe isn’t why I look forward to the next scene.

Or the next movie. I don’t have a comprehensive spreadsheet for this stuff, but by my count, Days of Future Past fixed all the problems that X3 and Wolverine Origins left. Bravo. It did the smart thing by deviating from established comic book canon, too.

I wish it could get some fresh blood behind the camera. That would really excite me. All the actors are dynamite. Don’t touch a single one of them. But they deserve better. Don’t tell me this is Jennifer Lawrence’s best work. Don’t say Hugh Jackman couldn’t bring a whole lot more to the character. (Ect) They need someone who doesn’t plop the whole franchise on their back. After six X-Films, I think they, and the audience, are owed a little more respect.

Captain America 2: The Winter Soldier

Cap is in some tough straights. His first film was of decided low ambition. It was fantasy thriller. By which I mean the characters gestured at some vague political message while punching each other. His role in the Avengers is easily overlooked, as his super powers don’t yet seem active and he became a naive idealist following World War II…  Wellp, someone fixed all that. Cap shoulder checks his critics and rallies the faithful around a something they can say “That’s why I love the Cap!”

I mean, Ok, a genuine political thriller it is not. But Cap 2 is a lot smarter about what to use. Absurd Nazi scientists are given minor roles before being mercilessly stomped out of canon. Most of the weaker story elements are carry-overs from the comics. They feel like ritual homage. Cap 2 doesn’t celebrate its comic history as much as pass it like a kidney stone. It wants to be better, smarter, but is saddled. It does its best to setup the factions and technology with modern sensibilities but when the punch line is “brainwashed Russian solider”… How is that ever going to feel rational? Larger themes come half-way to respectable. Issues like government overreach born out of zero oversight are hot. Again, the film does so much to come at these ideas honestly but in the end the comic booky-ness steps in and says “Helicarriers with, like, A THOUSAND GUNS!!!”.

Here’s what’s cool and will blow your mind. Captain America actually has badass super powers. I think the highlights from the first movie were 1) Cap running 40mph and 2) Him punching a car window. In The Avengers he nearly died fighting, what, six aliens? Fighting one brainwashed agent with a gun was touch and go. It’s every little thing here. His morning run is something to behold. And no matter how many times its Cap vs a squad of elite soldiers with guns, he makes it fresh. He rampages. I’m watching these sequences in theater wishing so badly I could rewind to see it again. I’m very nearly shouting in my seat. There is not a single bad action piece in the movie. They just get better. I don’t buy movies to own anymore. I see a lot so it’s always “on to the next one”. I cannot wait to rewatch The Winter Soldier. Everything was done Right. He fights like a soldier. But he moves with power well beyond human levels.

That feeling of Rightness is what I found so compelling. Finally, the potential of the concept is realized. Not only the fighting. The relationship between Cap and Black Widow is dramatically different. It’s apparent in the trailer. These characters aren’t a few special effects on top of a stream of shitty one-liners. They’re much more human than other characters in any Marvel movie. The banter is fun, not filler. There isn’t Dead Time. Those moments between major set pieces. If Cap and Widow are going to talk, it’s an honest talk with purpose. When they’re traveling, it’s with style. Even Nick Fury! Who has been the greatest disappointment to me in each film. It’s Samuel L. Jackson! Why is not doing anything Samuel L. Jackson would do? Well, now he does.

Same with Falcon / Sam Wilson (Anthony Mackie). I thought he was going to get his abrupt little origin. Cap would give him a high-five so audiences would know he’s a good guy. Go see his movie whenever that comes out. No. Captain America does the unthinkable in an action / superhero movie and makes use of its supporting cast. Falcon is integral. What’s more, Mackie is supremely comfortable. He doesn’t try to get a mini Me Too action moment. Or be the funny guy. Or whatever one dimensional archetype. He elevates the movie through simple, authentic, acting. Who the fuck would have thought more actors in a superhero movies would make it stronger?

For my money, Captain America is wearing the crown as far as Superheroes go. Forget Avengers 2 or hoping for another Iron Man movie. What I most want is Cap 3. The universe building was so smart that I hope, so much, that the writers can transition away from the camp (crap) that is holding back Cap from becoming a legitimate movie. ‘Cause The Winter Soldier wasn’t just good comic book movie, it was straight up Good. Restoring my faith the genre won’t become a parody of itself. Contenting itself with lazy plots so long as there is gratuitous fan service to ward off criticism.

(Note: I didn't directly talk about the Winter Soldier because he fits into the "lousy comic book elements" paragraph and the "hype fighting" one. So, there.)

Amazing Spider-Man 2

I don’t get it. I thought this reboot was more focused on realism. So why is science thrown out at every turn? I thought, maybe stupidly, that the lead actor should sorta kinda set the tone for a film. Right? Don’t cast Arnold’s Mr. Freeze opposite Christian Bale’s Batman. So why is Jamie Foxx’s character, in his downtrodden nerd form, the most unbelievable thing in a movie about a kid who gets spider powers? It feels like everyone and everything is working against Andrew Garfield’s stellar portrayal of Peter Parker. With a plot that feels equal parts inevitable and filler. This movie was meant as the groundwork towards building Spidey his own universe to play in. As rich as what Marvel is doing with The Avengers. Yet the bigger this one gets, the less focus on Garfield, who was the saving grace of Amazing Spider-Man.

The absurdity of Foxx’s take on Max Dillon cannot be overstated. It is so stupid and over-the-top… but that’s Jamie Foxx. The man has only been good in two movies and in each he mostly kept his mouth shut and let the stronger lead carry his worthless ass for two hours (Collateral, The Soloist). Thankfully when he becomes Electro he does shut-up, and lets his pulsing blue skin do all the characterization for him.

There is fun to be had, though.  The first act is a riot. It was a genuine pleasure watching Spidey be Spidey. The action was fresh, at times exhilarating, that smartly used the CG effects. Even Paul Giamotti’s atrocious take on Rhino can’t really dampen the high spirits. Spider-Man saving a young dork from bullies? Genius! Offers to walk him home? My heart melted. This is where Spider-Man shines. He doesn’t have the powers or time to be saving the world. He’s your buddy who’s also a Superhero. And the filmmakers blew every ounce of creative juice they had for this first act. So enjoy it. What follows may cause you to smirk, or nod your head in sympathy, but it will lack any power to really excite or move you.

Emma Stone is there. I feel like all of her dialogue with Garfield is made-up on the spot. It reaches toward something poignant, funny, but falls short. They talk in circles, padding out the few arguments, but never addressing the core issues. I would kill for ONE! direct conversation. It’s nothing new either. “Oh Peter, I wished you saved fewer lives so you had more time to indulge me”. Might be better if they framed it in terms of Peter protecting his personal life (a la Batman), since losing his mind will become a real issue when groups of villains unite to kill him. And it’d make Gwen seem less The Most Selfish Person on Earth.

The Parker Parents subplot isn’t really allowed to move anywhere. Peter is frustrated, Aunt May is cryptic and unhelpful, I’m frustrated, then a breakthrough! But it’s fragile. If anyone calls Peter, or the fancy catches him to do anything else, or this whole thing takes more than 10 minutes screen time, he’ll drop the mystery of his parent’s death in a heartbeat. Never to rejoin those narrative threads until, presumably, Amazing Spider-Man 3. I want to care but, when the whole thing is used as filler, I can’t.

Harry Osborn (Dane DeHaan) invigorates the middle act. Like, maybe things will get back on track! The guy is fun, pretty weird, but puts a good tension into Peter’s relationships. Plus, the kid just has a look. If this is your first Spider-Man movie you will point to DeHaan and say “Oh yeah, he turns into something, doesn’t he?”. A lot of the work DeHaan does is by implication. He just seems like a guy who would have a ball running a giant corporation. Or doing whatever he wants around town. Peeks are offered, hints, but the dude should have gotten more screen time. Huge asset.

Then Amazing Spider-Man 2 becomes a turd. I hate to be so crude in describing it. The fighting, though? Becomes really video gamey. There’s one obvious way to damage the boss, so Spidey has to jump through a few hoops before it happens. At one point Goblin holds Spidey’s girlfriend above his head, taunting him. Are we back in Elementary school? The trashy form of CG comes out full force. I feel bad for the artist who meticulously “drew” those buildings fall to pieces over who-knows how many hours but I glazed over it. I’ve seen it a few times before. Thank you Norman Osborn for having a form-fitting rubber suit with lightning accents ready to go. I don’t know if it was the weak script or DeHaan but the Harry Osborn character falls apart. Grinning villains were thrown out decades ago, bud. At least he didn’t speak in puns… The shame is that Garfield could play off a competent adversary so well! He’s not even given a chance.

Amazing Spider-Man 2 doubled down on every mistake from the previous movie. Reneges on its predecessor’s promise of authenticity. It is, unequivocally, a step backwards for Spider-Man. 

Son of Batman - Review

There really isn’t any reason at this stage in The Game for a major studio to put out so awful a movie, especially on one of its leading brands. Despite how well established BATMAN is, and how well DC has done with previous animated features (see Under The Red Hood and Flashpoint), Son of Batman manages to screw up nearly everything. The lead-up seemed good! I watched the behind-the-scenes trailer. Every single person on there was passionate and knowledgeable. So… did none of them have anything to do with this film? I noticed the credits didn’t make any mention of Bruce Timm. Is there really no second in all of Warner Bros. to handle this?

I’m all for reinterpretations of characters. But Deathstroke, master assassin / strategist can’t be transformed into an overly talkative, supremely incompetent, whiny, loser. The rest of the cast doesn’t suffer as bad but they each have scenes of acting contrary to their core ideals. It’s not a case of this character doing things “differently”, it’s that they act so blindingly stupid it defies any characterization.

Worse than my favorite people getting mishandled is the wooden everything. It kicks off with a big battle between ninjas with guns and ninjas with swords. Where, for the most part, they stare at each other. Yes, the swordsman square off and then cry out in surprise and pain when they’re shot. The ninjas with guns forget how to use them as soon as they touch ground. They have automatic weapons yet only fire (once) when some moron lunges for them. Not even a ninja lunge. The guy just leaps, sword up, knowing he’ll never bring it down. It’s that level of action throughout. Batman and Robin surrounded by ninja Man-Bats? Everyone pause to think through the situation. Pull out grapple gun. Aim. Shoot. Zip away. Man-Bats track. Take off in pursuit at their leisure. Thrilling.

Deathstroke deserves special mention for being one of the worst voice actors out there. He is the keystone of Wooden in this stale, “would swear it was made decades ago”, mess. Everyone else has forgettable dialogue. A blessing for Damien. Honorary Mention to Talia for the worst seduction scene in any medium. “I missed you… beloved (lifts leg like Captain Morgan)”.

I need to vent. It doesn’t make any fucking sense for Ras’ to be able to deflect bullets with a sword but lose a sword fight because he’s not fast enough. It doesn’t make any fucking sense for an eight year old boy to match strikes with a grown man, WHO IS ALSO ENCHANCED. It doesn’t make any fucking sense for Deathstroke to dodge under Damien’s sword slash. The kid is maybe five feet. Doing that limbo garbage was easier than hopping? No.

The behind-the-scenes trailer discussed, in-depth, the complex interpersonal relationships each of the main characters has to each other. On screen they opted to explore none of it. There’s a quick “this is weird” exchange between Damien, son of Bruce Wayne that he didn’t know about, and father. I’m sure more can be said. I’m sure more was said in the fucking graphic novel this was based on. How hard would it be to lift dialogue directly and plant it into one of the many scenes of awkward no talking? NOT HARD AT ALL.

I felt, after watching this, the only Justice to come from it would be if the Director and all the Producers were fired from story-telling forever. 

Riddick

I expect more from a comeback movie. After The Chronicles of Riddick, it seemed the character was going to remain a good idea that never got itself together. Riddick (the movie) is a self-described ‘back to basics’ for the series. Offering long-time fans little new to see and new comers no reason to like this generic action hero.

The trailers would have you believe this is all just a retread of Pitch Black. Where Riddick gets caught by mercs but then scary monsters come out at night to kill everything. That’s only true for the third act of the movie. The first two are disappointing for different reasons, though. I won’t spoil those acts but suffice to say, there’s good reason they weren’t featured much in the trailer.

In general, Riddick is too overindulgent. There is zero sense of urgency to the action or characters. Riddick is going to take his damn time finding his animal side. The bounty hunters know Riddick has to come to them so set up camp and wait. And even minor events or details are fully played out as though they were critical the plot. Yet weirdly, this doesn’t extend to the fighting, which is short and unimpressive. Riddick built his reputation on flashy, cool, stunts. He’s given few moments here to really show off.

I’ve always appreciated the Riddick’s series sense of ‘show don’t tell’ style. The major workings of the universe have been left unexplained or unknown, yet clues and bits of conversation drop regularly enough to give a functional understanding. The problem with this new Riddick is not recognizing many of its core elements aren’t unique or fleshed out enough to hold interest. A rag tag bunch of mercenaries can’t support an entire second act because everybody has seen these same guys before. Ditto the snarling aliens. There just isn’t enough new insight into the universe or character. And overall, this storyline is a needless detour. Recycled plot points and an unconvincing notion that Riddick got soft can’t justify another hour and a half on another lifeless, desert planet. 

The Wolverine

I don’t think of Wolverine in terms of how the story played out or how the action came across; I was captivated by how the film imparts the essence of Wolverine to the audience. It has only intermittently come through in other X-Men films. Wolverine is crassly characterized as a rough, violent, man with a short temper. Sure, he pops his claws here, but now it isn’t fetishized. The camera doesn’t zoom-in and follow the claws around while Jackman screams in the background. I think that’s a superficial understanding of the character. More compelling, richer, and more rewarding is the idea that Wolverine represents the apex of fearlessness, confidence, is an utterly self-reliant individual. It’s what makes me excited to see Wolverine doing things other than gutting a faceless thug in half a second.

The scene I keep coming back to and replaying in my mind (doesn’t spoil anything) is where Logan is trekking back into town from the forest with a giant bear keeping pace with him. To read all the details of scene you have to keep swapping perspectives until the two characters are indistinguishable. It’s not a simple statement that Logan is as strong as a bear and cows them with his presence. It’s that they share the same instincts; knowing the bear is assessing Logan and reading that he’s doing the same off Jackman’s face. Seeing how relaxed Logan is in this element, mirroring the naturalness of a bear in a forest. Wolverine is fantastic because it allows moments like this. It isn’t fate of the world crap all the time.

The action itself was too disinterested in showcasing Logan’s talent. The stabbing is always just out of frame. Maybe that’s so the film isn’t just a montage of people getting skewered. Maybe that footage is being saved for the, rumored, R Rated cut to be included on the DVD. I’ve always felt the brutality of Wolverine, quite apart from most other members of the Marvel Universe, distinguished him as someone more grounded, realistic even. Whereas other characters could spout off their moral qualifications and get away with a tame, kid friendly, blast of energy to defeat a foe, Logan had to be intimate. He doesn’t have the option of hiding behind powers. He’s forced to sees their face, feel their bodies give way beneath his claws, to know exactly how they died when he cuts them, ect. That’s the rationale behind the gruff attitude. He’s earned it. The absence hurts the overall understanding of who Wolverine is.

Viper was sensational. Sauntering back and forth between vulnerable and powerful with perfect confidence. Her powers cross from cool to creepy / gross with similar grace. She is assuredly evil, but isn’t comfortably so. At times it’s hard to consolidate her outlandish attire with the tone and setting of the narrative but if she wants to be a crazy, flamboyant, mutant than I’ll let her have it.

Yukio (the one sent to find Logan) has a silly introduction but gets a rebirth in Japan. She, thankfully, doesn’t try to play a “me too” Wolverine, or act as the comic foil to Logan’s acclamation. Wolverine is so good at letting characters just be themselves. Yukio’s character gradually unfolds. I can’t say exactly when or why but after a while I started missing her. She always brought her own something to a scene. It seems an impossible position to manage being Wolverine’s sidekick but she went beyond by fighting for and winning a partnership with him.

Mariko (the love interest) breaths a lot of life into simple gestures. That’s how she supported the quieter moments of the film. It balloons the limited time she and Logan have together into feeling like an honest piece of life.

Logan’s mutation is too often thought of as a commodity. It isn’t helped when Logan sees his berserker self as somehow implanted. As though there is a Weapon X stored in his body. Able to be healed, cured, or removed. No. Logan is Weapon X. That is a legitimate part of Wolverine’s character arc, though. But there can’t be an actual machine to suck the mutation out of Wolverine. Genetics doesn’t work like that. The plot throwing that out in all seriousness just renders an antiquated quality to the proceedings.

It will sound like a backhanded compliment but I’ll say it anyway: except for the story and action, Wolverine was a good movie, almost a great one.  It survives on excellent characters not being preoccupied with the weaker elements of the film.

Killing Them Softly

I’m talking about that most arrogant of self-centered people. The guy who cops a dated style but wears it like he invented it. His whole attitude a transparent grab for attention. And when he talks, every subject leads back to him. Sure, you hate him, everyone does. But there’s a small bit of respect for the conviction put into the whole charade. It being hideous may be part of the intent and definitely part of the charm.

I’m not sure I can call Killing Them Softly a good or bad movie. I can say I couldn’t help but stare and appreciate. The main reason I kept watching was that each character felt whole and independent. Instead of characters moving in to press a theme or plot further along, it felt that the narrative gets waylaid by these people. The audience gets a mini-character study while ideas / concepts trace through them. But the power came from each of these people not caring at all what came before them. It became their movie as soon they got the camera. Really, it was so arresting that had I been told how the whole thing ended, I would have kept watching to see these characters.

As for these ideas / concepts / themes, Killing Them Softly comes out really over-the-top. I cringed at the naked stretch towards “art house”. It screams “I HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY”, but then leaves the audience alone after that to supply the “what”. Brad Pit has a fun monologue at the end to summarize the one undeniable message of the piece. You know, in case everything that came before was too subtle for you (it won’t be).It’s tough not to see the willful self-destruction of every character and the demonization of corporate America / corporate culture. The idea is fun to turn over in your head, “organized crime has gone to the dogs”. It reminds me a quote from my father (I don’t know where he got it), that  “___ could screw up a dumpster”.  Citing corporate America as the source of all the nation’s ills isn’t new, but tracing it this far down is. Or like the mobster who robs his own games of poker, there’s this wink Killing Them keeps giving out. How serious / self-aware is the movie? Because robbing your own game of poker that is entirely attended by gangsters is both the most clever and dumbest thing a person could do. It’s a mind-game you play with yourself. (I recognize how stupid that sentence can sound. That’s the point)

It’s way too easy to throw this film out based on a surface understanding. The opening invites it, but then the acting is so good. You can take one glance at that self-absorbed person and know everything, maybe, but for me the idea keeps lingering… Is it a play on expectations or just willful blindness?

This film felt no need to justify itself. It simply did what it wanted. I approve. 

Cloud Atlas

Atlas got off to a bad start with me. It spouts off some Junk about how all stories are the same; they express some human commonality blah blah. I was offended both as a person who enjoys stories and one who writes them. Obviously the reverse is true, right? Does it not slight every story, including this one, to think they’re all different dressing on the same idea? Credit to Atlas for slowly winning me over.

At first it seemed like there were a dozen narratives and none of them have anything to do with each other. Then the irresistible thrill and challenge of solving a puzzle took over. When next I reassessed my general like / dislike I found myself engrossed in each little story. The offensive opening acted as the key, and I had to, grudgingly, agree with the claim.

I can see the potential turn off, though. For being all about the human condition, none of the stories feel real. They all take place on Earth, sure, but have a weightlessness to them. The only thing that matters is the Moral. Like a folktale or myth, everything feeds into the final lesson with such a hyper focus that there is nothing else but a condensed nugget of “truth”. And going through multiple climaxes was somewhat grating. Relieved somewhat by nobody being “safe”. The characters are instruments of the end message. So long as that’s served it doesn’t matter what happens to them.

The revealed Mysteries of the Universe aren’t going to astound. This is more touching celebration than breaking news. The connection between disparate narratives invites personal branching of the core idea. How important are stories to actual human loves? Deeply. And examining how personal favorites fit into this much larger Work is the loving send-off to this beautiful piece. 

Star Trek

I think the proper metaphor for this film is some slight of hand card trick. Very slick, with lots of movement, that ultimately doesn’t go far. These reshuffled stories, stories that acknowledge in some post-modern sense that they are stories already told but mean to realign the pieces in a new fashion, hit a deeper nerve than New stories. Expectations are met, challenged, and played with. I’m sitting there feeling like the story is talking to me. But Star Trek just teases at a reshuffle. Big changes are either killed early by other big changes or the “change” remains functionally the same as before. It’s all talk. Early on, Kirk is stripped of his captaincy . All the possibilities that bloom are beautiful to consider. I want to see how Kirk gets his ship back, how he grows under Pike (who is just one of the coolest guys in the film), what the rest of the crew do in his absence. Yet functionally, Spock still calls him captain, he still gives orders, and another big change comes through that knocks this one apart. The big movement in the beginning is a referendum on Kirk’s “go with your gut” style but before that can even get a hold everything switches and Kirk’s “just go” method is the only thing to save everyone.

Spock. He’s broken here. Beaten from one end of the film to the other by every major character, it’s no small wonder. He comes off as arrogant not confident, dismissive not calm, and the puzzlement he’s always had about emotions balloons into a willful ignorance. The Spock that approached problems from inventive new angles? Now he’s simply an asshole. His absence rips out a good chunk of the heart and humor of the series. Honestly, I spent so much time waiting for him to come around I feel I owe the film a second watch to see if I missed anything.

Cumberbatch, the main bad, is horrible. Every line he takes way over-the-top. And every ounce of that bad acting he channels through his mouth, forgetting the rest of his face, and contorting his mouth strangely for each word. His character’s name and associated history carry more weight than any action he takes. Meant to convey an unstoppable threat, it’s up to the rest of the cast talking about how serious he is to make the reputation stick. It doesn’t help he still looks and moves like Sherlock.

I also have to subtract substantially for an ending that anybody, anybody, is going to see coming a mile and a half away. The moving words are drowned out by the audience screaming “get on with it”.

Action-wise it feels very samey. Stunts repeat from the previous film or just seem similar conceptually to each other. How many times is Kirk going to fit one fast moving object into a small section of another, larger, one?  Credit to the computer-effects wizards for making the same tricks feel a little fresh. It’s not boring, just disappointing.

And then it’s over and I wonder what it meant. The villains wanted a war, Kirk wanted a family, and for being the smart guy out there, Spock is still playing catch-up. They take off sure of themselves and lessons learned but I’m not. The film that began reviling in change slots all the pieces back where they’re supposed to go and takes off. Better luck next time Enterprise.

Zero Dark Thirty

The trouble with a reviewing on Zero Dark Thirty is that it wasn’t a movie. What you’ll get here is a series of news articles acted out. Acted well, sure. I don’t mean to be dismissive of the talent and skill on display here, as it’s considerable. But scenes come and go like all they were meant to do is tick off another signpost on the way to bin Laden’s head. Each ends with a “and here’s the general feeling of what just happened”. People were scared, then angry, but then they got really scared again, but then they got really angry. Those are the depths this film plumbs. Each event is just evidence, justification, for the ending everyone knows is coming. How did anyone get upset about the torture? All the film says is that it happened and the public didn’t like it. There is no defense or condemnation. Characters are likewise pushed along a flat progression. How did the same director do this and The Hurt Locker?

There really is no nuance here for me to write more about. The story is as you, no doubt, know it. Nothing new was added. Should a passionless reminder of what the hunt for Osama entailed, this is just the thing. 

Life of Pi

Watching movies way past their theatrical debt entails a management of hype from cultural osmosis. I don’t look for it, I just get it. Shocker here. I’m pretty confident in my own opinions. So I didn’t go into Pi expecting the Moon and all the Stars. Well… then the film itself promises it. The writer who is interviewing adult Pi about his life says (paraphrasing) “your Uncle says this is one of the greatest stories ever told and will make me believe in God”. I tensed a bit when that was said. Why would a film ever do that to itself? Maybe it was meant to disarm the audience. Because even with all the hype surrounding this thing, I felt like it was the underdog right then. The film under its own expectations. Accident or not, I’m rooting for this thing now so bully for Pi.

Such a trick really wasn’t needed. As a matter of fact, the writer character really wasn’t needed. Adult Pi is such a natural talker that something so weakly contrived as a writer needing a story isn’t necessary to get him rolling. Irrfan Khan plays it just right with an understated performance to ground the spectacle that follows. Though the fun stuff takes a while to come around. Up until Pi’s boat sinks it’s mostly sappy, crappy, cliché. Pi trying to connect to the soul of animals by looking into their eyes. I get that it’s about a young Pi growing up. Straddling the adult and child worlds, “is what it is” and “everything’s magical”. I stilled gagged.

Especially since Pi doesn’t fully refute the silly personification of… everything. Every little thing is a lesson sent directly from God to educate our young fella. The film will ask questions about belief or meaning but the answers it provides are shallow, relying on (outstanding) CG work to dazzle the audience and work on their sentimentality. I felt like young Pi when he asked a priest about Jesus and got some gibberish ring-around reply, “that doesn’t make sense!”.

Plus, the CG creates a disconnect. Everything is rendered convincingly, but the singular nature of what’s shown makes it unbelievable. It’s too pretty, too real, too much unlike the gray / brown world I live in. And I mean, I should believe in God because CG tigers and fish look so real? Pi’s journey is so obviously fake / clearly romanticized I can’t apply it to my own life. Or really take his seriously. Whole family dies? Aww. Oh well. Sure was beautiful when they drowned.

As a film: Don’t tell the audience you’re aiming for their heart! They will guard it! One must sneak in… Life of Pi is… nice, but has the impact of a pleasant breeze.

Flight

Flight flipped around how I thought of addiction. There have been precious few films, that I’ve seen, that are able to speak in the language of humanity. Films normally seem strange or robotic to me. They blast this “fill-in-the-blank” style of adlib emotion. A man’s whole family is killed, he feels a sadness that is relatable. It’s emotion without breadth or depth.  We relate to it but fill in the (noticeable) gaps with our own experience to make it work. It functions more like a check. Like when meeting someone new, unless there is instant chemistry, the discussion is crude. General topics or events are swapped, our ratings (sad, crazy, cool) and emotional response are matched, but it’s all a way of saying “I’m a normal person, how about you?”.* That’s authenticating, not talking.

Prior to Flight I thought of addicts as weak people. They had the potential to be great but constantly, and needlessly, fucked up. Think of Christian Bale in The Fighter. He was so fragile mentally and physically. The world was littered with all sorts of triggers that would lead to him having another colossal fuck up. Flight showed me how powerful it really is to manage. To live a life fairly close to normal but deal with a staggering addiction at the same time. Addicts from The Fighter’s view are like people who can’t swim and are put in the middle of the ocean while everyone else just watches from land. Pity is my strongest emotional response, how I relate to them. In Flight, addicts are like heroes of Greek Myth. They’re doing all the same things the normal people do, but with a giant bolder chained to them. It’s awe-inspiring. My thinking shifted from “just put them out of their misery” to “how amazing would they be with no bolder?”.* Addicts seem like stronger people. Stronger people with bigger weaknesses.

The role of normal (everyone not an addict) people gets shifted as well. Fighter’s normals were unlucky but incredibly generous people. They behave and function like blameless parents. Sure, typically the caregivers try to shoulder some of the responsibility in another heroic display of affection but the audience never buys that. Everything wrong in contained, neatly, within the addict. Flight, with their superpeople addicts, tears down that condescending wall. What makes non-addicts so good? Did you not feel that co-pilot’s (Brian Geraghty) wife (Bethany Anne Lind) had some very serious issues? With each normal person Denzel met I felt the take-away message was “who you calling crazy? who you think is weak? You’re lucky courts and lawyers don’t recognize what you do as an illness”. Normal wasn’t “normal”, those people were just undiagnosed. Or maybe managing better. Hiding whatever quirks they had.

It was a line of questioning Denzel kept coming back to. Even though the plane had faulty parts, fell apart on him, and even though he miraculously landed it anyway, the only thing everyone else was hearing and seeing was that he was drunk. His weakness broke the plane and God was the one who saved it. Addicts couldn’t do anything right, only varying degrees of wrong. I never felt that the search for the plane’s problem was an escape route for Denzel. It was more “what’s the bigger prolem?”.* I think Flight moved away from the Freudian notion that all character is built in childhood too, which is more satisfying, and allows addicts to be adults not just big malfunctioning kids. Flight replaced the linear equation so often used as a metric in real life with a grayscale. It never hid or emphasized one aspect over another, just asked you to form an opinion based on the total character.

Too many films corroborate our feelings or thoughts. They work so long and hard to authenticate themselves only. Flight effortlessly spoke with true humanity, carrying it so comfortably it could move beyond and challenge anyone watching to really understand their own notions about it. An absolutely beautiful piece or art.

*I do what I will with punctuation 

ARGO

I could be mistaken but I feel the wrong approach towards making a film with a historical setting is to play the whole thing straight, like nobody knows what’s going to happen. Knowing the ending hurts this film a lot. The first act of Argo, where it’s unknown what plan the CIA is going to go with to rescues the Americans? Waste of time. The tension as the audience wonders if the group will be able to hold together despite the pressure of the situation? Non-existent. The final “chase” where our heroes sit calmly in a plane while their pursuers frantically use every method available to them, notable exception a radio, to stop the plane that everyone knows takes off just fine…?

Mr. Ben Affleck, as the big play maker CIA escape artist, acts by not acting. His performance reminded me of Gary Oldman’s in Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy.  Both men stayed in the background and gave quite simple answers to anything directed towards them. I didn’t feel like he was channeling anxiety, or playing to the seriousness of the situation. He was just quiet.

The group of Americans in need of rescue are all just awful. Both in terms of their role in the story and their performance. The worst line of the film unquestioningly goes to Wife #3 who says “Joe… I’m scared”. YES DEAR. That is what the scene has been trying to convey. That has been your entire objective for the film. Was this the last kick upon that particular dead horse? One among them decides to play the most unlikeable person on Earth. It’s his job to cry and complain about everything that happens. Constantly threatening to go off by himself unless everyone plays the game he wants. So yes, of course he’s the one who surprisingly saves the team from their last hurdle. As for the rest… it was tough mustering my own concern for them as they ate lavish meals in a luxury home. Boredom was their greatest enemy. On that we can relate.

I liked John Goodman and Alan Arkin (Special Effects and Producer guys) despite how weak their jabs at Hollywood were. If there was some angle to make this film worth watching, it was undoubtedly with them. Some intersection of what people of any cultural background are prepared to believe with ideas on where the stage ends and how fake is sometimes real enough. 

End Of Watch

Yo, ok, so, CORRECTION. This movie is NOT about two cops who tackle a Mexican cartel that moves into Cali. This flick is all about two fucking bros, just being fucking bros, when ALL OF A SUDDEN, shit gets real. This cartel dude DOES make a phone call, sure yeah. But local gangsters answer the call. And the two bros really had very little idea what the fuck was going on for the majority of the picture here.

Unless you speak fluent Bro, you won’t know what’s good either. Shit, Fuck, and Bro are combined in various ways to construct a good portion of the script. I'm down for, no doubt. Cause, like, you’re watching Jake Gilly and you forget the dude is mad famous. The film is going for the fake reality TV style. Which, ya know, upside is most things feel pretty legit. People getting beat half to death will ma ya cringe cause it feels like you’re really seeing it! But flipside downside is that SUPER serious moments just flop dead. Paradoxical!? Nah, but the problem is twofold. 1) the Bro dialogue fails hard at conveying anything beyond Bro Talk. 2) The film does so well carving out a casual space, it becomes entrenched there. Anything approaching a serious tone is suspect and strange.

So, like, the end result has zero staying power. I mean, sure, the film is entertaining! But you don’t learn or experience much new (how Cartels kill rivals is one, though). But that’s a success! The film was going for “reality TV show” and nailed it! Contributed nothing of value to anyone!

Lawless Review Discussion

Lawless is the type of movie that you won’t know was shallow until the end. It’s murky, entertaining, and provocative throughout. I kept getting the feeling the film was going somewhere important. It just needed to build a few more pieces. Progress a few more relationships. When the end hits, I was left thinking “is that all?”.*

The moonshine business and wild west feel of prohibition are invitations for men to form their own rules about everything. The arbiter of all is Violence. Men’s reputations are made on it. It safeguards their land and livelihood. Men get women with displays of their master of it. Even a character as adverse to all expression of the form, like Jack (Shia LeBeouf), is compelled instinctually to, at least, fake it till he finally commits.

Beyond the rewards from its use, Violence is left as a scale. Success is directly correlated to “how far” a man takes Violence. That limit appears set at birth. The primal draw of its power is intuitively understood and not questioned. But that’s like saying “Hey Guy! Remember how you’re human. And we’re human!”. A reflection of what I already know isn’t interesting.

The narrative sings the first few notes of such a well-known song, the rest of the story will flash through your head in an instant. The struggle of one man coming to grips with Violence seems silly in this context. Nearly every single other male in the entire film is better apt and more comfortable with Violence. The scale comes in again to insinuate that maturity level also directly correlates to Violence. Consequences of any particular violent act has nothing to do with morals or honor and all to do with the ripple effect. “Who will this piss off? Can I kill the man who comes after me if I kill this guy?”.

Maggie (Jessica Chastain) alone is able to break this fixation on Violence (tell-tale, she wears red). Whether because of exhaustion (somewhere between coping with and ignoring Violence), fear , or a stronger will than to be defined by it is unclear.

* - Punctuation bends to my will

Looper

Firstly, the time travel. On the first pass through, everything makes sense. Should you need some help sorting any issues, Bruce Willis has a scene, in a diner, where he lays everything out for you: (I’m paraphrasing) shut the fuck up about the time travel shit. It’s crazy. Deal with it.

Is it possible to do clean time travel? Have it all make sense? Be clear? Or is that the “thing” with time travel, even if you could that’s not the point?

If the movie is about anything else besides, time travel becomes a distraction. Morality and questions of possibilities are drowned out by a debate on the feasibility or physics. What’s Joe’s motivation? Who cares, why didn’t he X instead of Y to circumvent this whole problem!? If nothing else it invites audiences to poke holes in everything, rather than roll with movie logic. Nobody is thinking about what’s currently going on, they’re still obsessing over what the character should have done ten minutes ago.

Besides vexing chronal paradoxes, Looper is beautiful setup with zero follow through. The current standard of dystopian future is employed. Trash everywhere, rich are partying to the end of the world while the poor slowly become mutants. Which is fine since it’s either this or white plastic and glow lights. Joe(our Hero, Joseph Gordon-Levitt) has a thing for “retro” cloths and cars. If there is a sure way to mark the protagonist in a future setting… His narration delineates him an observant, charming man, though his actions are (as he admits) selfish and simple. His friends are the type that, no matter what, are constantly losing their shit about something. The only antagonist Joe needs to worry about degrades every concept and theme in the film. He’s a dumb hick working for a fairly classy mafia that can’t do anything right. You don’t hate him so much as you will hate that he wastes screen time. And wish that somebody, somewhere, sometime, had shot the fidgety asshole for being a fidgety asshole.

What’s beautiful about Looper is the ease it speaks to the audience without resorting to high-minded monologues. The ideas you take away from here are going to, necessarily, depend on you, and what connections you’re making, but there’s ample grist to get you churning. Take my favorite moment, when Abe (the mafia boss from the future) is talking to Joe (the not future) about Joe’s plans. Actually, lemme stop myself for a quick sec to say that Jeff Daniels (Abe) is perfection. There are moments in a movie where you wiggle your butt a little bit, really get comfy in that chair, and begin the process of loving the film. Jeff Daniels instigates that. So he’s talking to Joe about Joe’s future. Not reciting What Cometh like he’s a fancy oracle but just talking like two regular guys would. They’re going back and forth, with Abe saying how it makes sense for Joe to go to Shanghai. Joe is having none of it and is adamant he’s going to France. A few rounds of this and Abe sighs, frustrated, glaring at Joe, who is sitting with an “I know I’m right” look about him. It dawned on me then, in this silence, that Joe is arguing with a man from the future. Joe (the everyman) will not accept any notion of destiny. How beautifully stubborn and short-sighted! I love the feeling of seeing humanity’s defects as the most noble virtues.

Then Joe from the future (Bruce Willis) comes in to herald an end of everything fun and thoughtful in the film. The Future needs to be personified by one boy and there needs to be a shootout (everyone here is a hitman, plus humanity is violent) to decide the fate of all mankind. Yeah, on a farm in Kansas. Of all places… Because Kansas is the place of deep morals! That’s where Superman learned ‘em! Instead of a handful of balls of intellectual thought being juggled, we have one or two. Despite the pondering of how a man becomes the man he will become, as the film had us ponder, our heroes become singular opposing forces. Again, cue audience second-guessing of these being the optimal routes to victory. Will you see the conclusion coming? Probably. It makes sense. It satisfies character development. It’s not pleasing in the slightest. I mean, shit! Bruce Willis AND Joseph Gordon-Levitt are in this movie! Go for broke! Or at least stick to genre conventions! Dystopian futures don’t get Happy Endings, where “happy” is the type from an Absolute Morality viewpoint. I don’t care if Joe’s a drug-addicted, hitman, he’s good people. As far as people being selfish, short-sighted, and relying on violence as the tool of change and progress.

Here’s a better ending: Both Joe’s kill the weird kid because dumping all hopes on how one person grows up is dumb. 

Les Miserables

Les Miserables has let its marketing be the prologue for the film. The only introduction made within the film is to the time period and country. Which doesn’t go as far as it might otherwise as most songs are strictly rooted in a character’s personal dilemma. In fact, the setting isn’t much seen or understood. The sets furnish the viewer with the basics but a deeper relationship is left off. The focus is unmistakably upon the cast (not characters). This list of top talent who have come to demonstrate the art of song. Even the plays pedigree contrive to create an atmosphere of exhibition. The only question to consider about the work is just the quality of it. Was this voice good or bad? Was it pleasing or not? There is little meaning to consider attached. Les Miserables’s ambition is to inspire sympathy between itself and the stage rather than advancing any theme or narrative.

The songs that do transcend the films shallow objective quickly carve out an actual place and, as though by illusion, the same flat characters are given depth. Unfortunately, these scenes are scattered over too great an area to be able to support the rest of the film’s selfish indulgences into a coherent work. They are spark with nothing to catch onto.

Thrice Did The Siren Sing

BRAVE

Take all the essential elements of a Disney film, boil them down to their most basic, boring, dull, then string them along in predictable fashion.

At least Pixar still does animation well.

The Pixar that I first liked was a much subtler beast. The stories were private ones, shared secrets between friends. Cute little oddball ones about talking toys and lost fish. Now Pixar feels like a lumbering giant. Blind. Striking at the most obvious nerves of sentimental connection. They have removed themselves from my company and have taken it upon themselves to lecture me. About all sorts of shit I already know. That’s what makes their current work so galling. Such a betrayal.

You’ve changed Pixar. And I don’t like it.

EXPENDABLES

What the fuck was that? Sly? You’re my boy. I have your back. All these young bloods talk shit about your action movies. Saying how they’re dumb, with bad stunts, and throw away stories.

You just proved right every bad thing ever said about you. Hey though, nice work with all those blood gags. That’s the nicest thing I can say about Expendables 2.

I just… Why? Why did you do that? That film showed a gross lack of respect for yourself, the work you do, the stellar fucking dudes you had in that travesty, and me. But don’t worry about me. I’m embarrassed for you guys.

You don’t have to say “sorry”. Just tell me you won’t ever do that again.

SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNTSMAN

We must weep! Out there, someone had a great idea for a movie. They must have gotten too excited about their idea because they told. Told the wrong person. That person, that twat, hollowed out that idea, ruined it. And we got Snow White And The Huntsman. This being the third film of the day, I started to wonder…

Remember when dialogue in movies wasn’t throw away? When you’d remember it?

Remember when the action in movies was exciting? And you’d always imagine yourself doing it like they did?

Remember when the characters in movies were likeable? People you’d love to know more about?

Remember when movies were good?