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.

The Raid: Redemption

The Raid didn’t realize it was a dumb movie. Nor did it feel inclined to present a single entertaining fight. I know why I’m here. So after an hour in on this hour and forty minute film and I have seen three fights, I’m pissed. Please don’t fake tension when your own trailer shows Homeboy slamming people into walls nonstop.

The action is overly choreographed. To the point that the lead will run to his mark, hands raised in anticipation of an assailant that hasn’t entered the scene yet. Every punch is pulled. It feels like a weird game of hand-slap. You don’t need any strength or force! Just lightly touch the man’s arm who is attempting to punch you and he’ll stop. Every few seconds someone needs to break the monotony of hand-slap so throws happen. How nice that any man here is capable of flipping another over his head using just his fingers. Don’t bend your knees or anything you assholes. One action sequence feels like any other. Just elbows and knees flying. No simultaneous attacking! A hallway full of guys steps forward, one at a time, pitches their hideously telegraphed, in-no-way-even-if-it-hit-could-it-do-any-real-damage, strike, then SuperCop slaps them ten times real quick and they fall down. Even the climatic 2v1 fight at the end adheres to the above mentioned rules of combat.

Credit to the production crew for creating every set out of balsa wood

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?

Skyfall Review

Skyfall continues this rebooted quest to humanize James Bond. Here the question is “what happens when James Bond gets old?”. It’s an awkward question. The franchise started fresh three movies ago.  Bond was new and untested in Casino Royale. Daniel Criag still looks great (fuck, is that 43? Man looks 32). But, as I learned at the credits, this is the 50^th Anniversary of Bond films. Alright, that’s a fair question then. But it grows more awkward as the film itself refuses to answer, only repeat it.

The movie starts off great. Daniel Graig’s face, while running, channels focused vigor. You don’t see him open-mouthed, sucking air. Ten minute sprint across variable terrain? James Bond is not even winded! Got shot in the lung? You get a grunt from James Bond. He shakes it off. You cannot hamper this man! Graig’s performance perfectly syncs with the beautiful, smooth, visuals. You feel fresh watching him work. Like you've never been tired in your life. Then at the end of this sequence, some new agent, presumably new as nothing is said but she lacks the control of James, takes a wild shot and hits our boy. But we’re told it’s James’ fault because he’s old!? What!? HE HAD THAT GUY!

(Also, Bond is shot, TWICE, falls about a mile into water, landing on the back of his head, then appears to drown as his body is kicked down river. How did he survive that? Other times, when James has been “killed”, an explanation was provided. Special chemical from Q to mimic death. Fake bullets. Something. Did I miss it?)

Now, the film isn't shy about the idea of Bond being old. It comes right out and asks. Then it reminds you with a very subtle metaphor about an old warship being towed away for scrap. Then it asks again. All the action of the film has stopped, by the way. The film wants you to take this idea very seriously and is giving you a lot of time to mull it over. Then the film comes right out and calls James old. Keeps calling him old. Ect. Evidence? Hanging from an elevator that goes up God Knows how many floors, James’ grip slips for a moment.  The constant questioning of Bond’s ability doesn't make me take the idea any more serious. I got irritated the question went no further and denied anything else being said. Nothing shown convinced me. The harping only dragged the middle of the film way down.

The bit of espionage James is working on is, if I can be honest, more than a little embarrassing. Technology is treated like it is too complicated to understand. Like the audience is mystified by its real workings. Remember all the action films made in the 90's when the villain hacker would speedily hit every key on the keyboard and launch every missile in the world or whatever? Same here. And it’s always so easy. “Few key strokes”. Ok, I don’t know how to hack NORAD but I know you don’t start pounding keys in DOS. Doesn't matter though! For all the threats of being able to alter reality with a laptop, nothing comes of it. Portable radios end up being the heavy guns. I was never sure of what Skyfall was saying. Are we mocking new technology? Is old or young better than the other? Should I be rooting for something or just taking a new perspective?

What I am God Damn sure of is that Skyfall was fucking stunning to look at. Skyfall nailed globetrotting. NAILED. Lots of times I can’t tell what city I’m looking at with world spanning films. Skyfall always had a beautiful local quirk in every shot. The location was made critical to the action, it could happen nowhere else. Inventive! I felt I had seen a real piece of Shanghai. Understood a small aspect of the culture there. Marveled at what the rest of the world had accomplished while I had no idea! The use of light in every scene was so striking that even a film novice, myself, couldn’t miss it. This is where the film speaks. So eloquently. Beautifully. The final scene was a work of art and I am not using an ounce of hyperbole. That final scene can stand on its own to just be admired. Put it on loop and it would fit, comfortably, with authority, and rightly, in any museum of art.

That’s what sustains the film until Javier Bardem, as Silva, comes through to own it. He seems goofy at first. You’ll laugh at him. Then he tells an amazing story that I’m sure will be repeated as often as The Dark Knight’s “die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain”. His shifting from creepy to scary to funny and back is sublime. There is no hesitation in his performance. He comes out fearless and the audience has to play catch-up. Daniel Craig seems to appreciate him as much; their scenes together bring out the best James Bond Craig has, the one we saw in the torture scene in Casino Royale. I got absorbed. No more thoughts of how much the ticket cost me. I was there and living it. Silva throwing a train at James slaps the audience awake. Finally there is noise, breathing, life, again! M finally answers the question about Bond being old! I loved Bérénice Marlohe’s Sévérine. Intriguing from the first, she does not need to speak to communicate with the audience. I knew, just from the way she walked, that she was the one who ordered the hit when James first meets her. Just the way she stood there looking at James I knew she was a big deal in a criminal empire. Just before James comments that she’s nervous I felt it. Reading her performance was a joy. I felt like James Bond decoding her. Was that a lie she just said? Why is she walking over there? Why sit like that? What’s her game? While I’m questioning the metaphysics of this movie, she pulls me in, getting me to enjoy it again.

I can only shrug at “James Bond is old”. It’s forgotten in the end. Graig is tireless again. Dead-on accurate again. Fights a man under a frozen lake without ever losing the upper-hand. Again, was this a serious question? I appreciate the focus on Bond as a person. The slow exploration of Bond’s character is unique in the fiction world. After 20-odd movies, now we’re asking “yes, but how’d he do that? Why?”. It’s wonderful to account for the total spectrum of the character in each of these new films. Graig is able to balance all the outlandish, charming, and deadly parts of James Bond’s history. To pay off years worth of audience investment with nods, smiles, jokes, and homages. He knows. He knows we know. That invitation alone makes Craig one of the strongest Bond’s. The shame of the fumbled middle story elements is only so great because of the heights the rest of the film achieves. So egregious because the middle is the meat of the experience. You can’t really love a movie if the middle sucks. That interruption. High marks still accorded. The prospects for the next film are still exciting. I still love James Bond.