The Expendables is an interesting franchise. The first movie was a big deal because it was kind of like a wet dream of '80s nostalgia with a super group of over-the-hill '80s action stars coming together for one final ride. But of course, Hollywood is involved and they like milking cows until they run dry so another one came out. Both of the two films were advertised as the "one last ride." Yet we all knew that if they made money they'd be getting back in line for the merry-go-round once again. It didn't really bring anything new to the table. Expendables wanted to stay too close to what made the '80s action movies what they were for better and for worse. You were either on board for something that was not much more than a celebration of what movies that these guys did back in their heyday, or you rolled your eyes and just wished it would be over with.
Staying pretty close to Expendables formula, the third film goes forward without much changing. We get two action set pieces right out of the bat that are fun, but shallow. Really not much invested in whether or not these people are going to make it or not, but then again, it's not really about that. This is just eye candy for people who like action. Not to say they don't have moments of creativity. You don't ever feel like anyone's in any real danger. But it's still entertaining.
First we spend time with some of the old crew. Even though we spent two movies with these characters, no one other than Sylvester Stallone and Jason Statham feel like they're really characters. Everyone else just feels like they're there for name sake and a cool piece of the action here and there. Everyone has their own personality, but I don't feel like I know who they are. Now, given there are more than a dozen characters in this film, you can't expect everyone to be fully fleshed out. Guardians of the Galaxy did it with their main 5 plus a couple more, but that movie's focus was the characters. The Expendables 3's main focus is the action.... for the most part.
After the first two action set pieces, probably about 15 minutes of the first 20 of the film, there's a bit of a lull. Terry Crews sort of gets the Jet Li treatment from Expendables 2 and we don't see much of him. There's a lot of talking and "plot development" (I use that term very loosely). Then we get this cool scene with Kelsey Grammer coming in and introducing us to the new, younger members of the team. Now, I can't tell you for the life of me any of the new character's names. Maybe it was the beers I had before coming in or me just not really caring, but it's really not that important. I can tell you there's a hacker/adrenaline junkie, a femme fatale-ish, someone who we were told doesn't like taking orders but I can't recall a moment where he had a problem doing so but he was better than Vin Diesel on a motorcycle with less wire work, and someone else.
Once the new crew is all together we get another action set piece. Here's where this film strays from the previous two.... a bit. Because the old crew is all from the '80s (except Terry Crews who isn't an action star but should be), the style was typical '80s bust in guns blazing, which we get with the first two set pieces. Here we get a nice contrast between the old-school and new-school. Tactical, well-planned, quiet at first but not afraid to kick ass when shit goes down. It was a nice change of pace from all the other moments from all the other Expendables movies. And we actually see a younger Expendable do more than just die for plot purposes (sorry, Thor's younger brother).
Of course things go wrong and the old team has to come in and save the new team. Then the new and the old team work together in the big final set piece. It's all good and fun. It does what it wants to do. There's no real sense of danger. I didn't feel like anyone is going to be killed. But things are just so gloriously destructive that I didn't give a crap. Anonio Banderas and Wesley Snipes are the new older guys to come in, but Antonio Banderas just steals the show. I know this is sort of cliché to say, but he knows exactly what this movie is. While everyone else is being so serious (which works), he's just chewing up the scenery. Everything he does is hilariously brilliant. Even the way he runs from chopper fire had the audience laughing. But he's more than just comic relief, he's a badass while doing so. I would pay to see a movie of Antonio Banderas playing this character as a lead. There just isn't enough of him here.
What else is there to say about this movie? Plot? Something about going after an old friend turned enemy and saving the new crew from him. It's not important. It's just a reason to go from one set piece to the next. The movie starts out fast, then slows down a bit too much in the middle, so if you have to go to the bathroom, you can go and not have to worry about missing anything important. Mel Gibson is servicable, but not as entertaining or as threatening as Jean Claude Van Damme in Expendables 2. He doesn't do anything to make you really hate him.
Is the movie good? Depends on your definition of "good." It's stupid, paper thin and predictable, but it's also well executed, sporadically creative and fun. Just don't expect much new with this one. I think I enjoyed it more than the last two, but then again I can't really remember the other two more than I enjoyed them as cheesy as they were.
RECOMMENDED if you enjoyed the first two movies.
Friday, August 15, 2014
Friday, August 8, 2014
Ninja Mutant Turtle Teenagers Review
Like many boys who grew up in the 90's, I loved the Ninja Turtles. I unfortunately wasn't one to collect comics for a few reasons. First, I didn't get an allowance, so no money. Second, my mom didn't buy them for me. Third, I didn't know any comic book stores near me. But I loved the live action movies and the 90's cartoon. I even immersed myself in the video games, both the good and the bad.
Just recently I purchased the 4 previous films on blu-ray, the 3 live-action and the animated TMNT. I've rewatched them all, and they don't quite hold up to where I held them as a kid. Quickly going through them, the first one I still thing is a solid movie for what it is. It gets the emotion, the comedy, the sense of family, and the action, and that's all that really matters. The second one is fun if you don't think about it too much. We all know the angry mothers who were saying the first one was too violent brought the action level down quite a bit for the second one, but oh well. Still a nostalgically enjoyable film at the very least. The third movie... oh god, the third movie... Let's not talk about that third movie... TMNT was the only one I was able to see in theatres. I enjoyed it then, and I enjoy it now. It's not great, but it's serviceable. I also liked how it followed along with the cannon of the first 3 films. Although, it's kind of both cool and weird when you think about it...
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, the new one, raised a mixed set of emotions when it was announced. First, "Awesome! New Turtles movie!" Then, "Oh, shit. Michael Bay..." Luckily, after a lot of fiddling around with a variety of different pre-production issues, good news arose. Bay wouldn't direct (score!), but would still be producing (damn). Jonathan Liebesman (Battle: Los Angeles, Wrath of the Titans) would be directing instead (Both his last two movies I thought were bad scripts he did decently with) and the movie wasn't going to be all Dark Knight grim and dark.
Thank god they didn't go and Dark Knight the Turtles. What made TMNT so great was the light-hearted fun. The turtles were teenage brothers who bickered, made quips, and tried having a good time even when fighting crime. Now days everything has to be so brooding and dark and gritty. Even Spider-Man (Sam Raimi's version, and to some extent Marc Webb's version) seemed to have forgotten what it meant to be fun. Knowing that it's OK to not take yourself so seriously all the time is one reason why I praised Guardians of the Galaxy so much last week. Unfortunately, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles won't be receiving nearly as much love.
The movie isn't terrible. With everything going on in pre-production, TMNT could have been a train wreck. Luckily, it's got enough going for it to stop me from being angry with the film, but not enough going for it so say much more than that. And just to get it out of the way, yes, there are changes from the source material. THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME, SO STOP BITCHING ABOUT IT! That isn't what's wrong with this movie.
I expected a little bit from from the writers of Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. The story is pretty stupid, to say the least. The last act of the film is pretty much the exact same as The Amazing Spider-Man with a little taken from the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. We spend a bit too much time with April O'Neal, horribly acted by Megan Fox, and not enough with the Turtles. What I mean is, it's about 60/40 April and the Turtles. We do spend more time with the human characters, but the green foursome... sorry, I just had a moment... is in this movie quite a bit. The overall goal of the villain is kind of silly. And the way the go about it is even sillier. I mean, the original movie didn't have much of a goal more than "punish the turtles." But at least it was simple and understandable. Here, it's a bit more needlessly complicated and convoluted. The plot isn't hard to follow, but it just doesn't really make too much sense motivation wise.
While The Shredder is menacing, he's a bit too over-the-top. They do a good job of making him more fierce and a badass than the original film. However the flashiness to him just screams "trying too hard." He could have been simplified and still been a badass villain. In fact, everything could have been simplified and still achieved the same effect.
The design of the turtles has been the subject of a lot of controversy. Watching the movie, it doesn't really bother me as much as the stills or trailers. But the CG is so obviously CG that it does kind of take me out of the movie. The brothers have so many pieces of flair they look like they're applying for a job at Chotchkie's. Donnie would bring Brian to shame.
Fortunately, their overdone designs aren't too distracting when everything is moving. Thankfully the pacing of the film is quick once the brothers show up. The first act following April is pretty bland. Once the turtles show up, they stay on screen the majority of the rest of the film. Because we are mainly following April, we do leave them for a while here and there, and those bits do drag. But when it almost gets to be too much, the turtles show back up.
I don't know what it is with Michael Bay and a lot of these movies now, but we don't always need a human character to follow in these types of movies. They need to look at movies like Hellboy 2 and Guardians of the Galaxy to see that we can follow along with these non-humans through the story without our hands being held.
What makes it kind of worse that we spend too much time with April is that the time with the turtles and Splinter is pretty damn good. Leonardo, Raphael, Donatello and Michelangelo act and feel like real brothers, and Splinter like their father/mentor. The comradery going on between them feels genuine. I got a real sense that these ludicrously massive turtles were brothers, or at least believed they were. The time spent with them is fun. The movie should have been focused mainly on that. Had it been, I probably would have liked it a lot more.
We do get some pretty good action sequences. There's two sort of teaser action moments where we first get a glimpse of what the turtles can do without being really introduced to them yet. After we meet them, you get your typical three big set pieces. All three of them well set up and executed. The camera hardly ever goes in too close or shakes too much to where you can't see what's going on. There is a sense of danger throughout the battles to keep them engaging. All four turtles get several moments to be a badass. And even though Splinter only has one scene to kick ass, he really kicks ass. It was pretty cool to see the sensei show why he is the master.
I probably had more fun with this film than I should have. There wasn't enough time spent with the turtles for this movie to be what it should have been. The writers may not have gotten many things right, but I think the director knew how to accentuate what was good: the family bond between the four brothers and their father/mentor, Splinter, the overall good nature of the turtles, the eagerness to help out. It's a lot of what I really loved about Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles growing up. And I think I'm just grateful that this movie didn't end up nearly as bad as it could have been. And I don't think it's as bad as Ninja Turtles 3.
I'm honestly not sure if I can RECOMMEND this movie or not. I guess...
SOMEWHAT RECOMMENDED if you can overlook obvious shortcomings, but
NOT RECOMMENDED if you're going in hoping for more than an OK film.
Just recently I purchased the 4 previous films on blu-ray, the 3 live-action and the animated TMNT. I've rewatched them all, and they don't quite hold up to where I held them as a kid. Quickly going through them, the first one I still thing is a solid movie for what it is. It gets the emotion, the comedy, the sense of family, and the action, and that's all that really matters. The second one is fun if you don't think about it too much. We all know the angry mothers who were saying the first one was too violent brought the action level down quite a bit for the second one, but oh well. Still a nostalgically enjoyable film at the very least. The third movie... oh god, the third movie... Let's not talk about that third movie... TMNT was the only one I was able to see in theatres. I enjoyed it then, and I enjoy it now. It's not great, but it's serviceable. I also liked how it followed along with the cannon of the first 3 films. Although, it's kind of both cool and weird when you think about it...
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, the new one, raised a mixed set of emotions when it was announced. First, "Awesome! New Turtles movie!" Then, "Oh, shit. Michael Bay..." Luckily, after a lot of fiddling around with a variety of different pre-production issues, good news arose. Bay wouldn't direct (score!), but would still be producing (damn). Jonathan Liebesman (Battle: Los Angeles, Wrath of the Titans) would be directing instead (Both his last two movies I thought were bad scripts he did decently with) and the movie wasn't going to be all Dark Knight grim and dark.
Thank god they didn't go and Dark Knight the Turtles. What made TMNT so great was the light-hearted fun. The turtles were teenage brothers who bickered, made quips, and tried having a good time even when fighting crime. Now days everything has to be so brooding and dark and gritty. Even Spider-Man (Sam Raimi's version, and to some extent Marc Webb's version) seemed to have forgotten what it meant to be fun. Knowing that it's OK to not take yourself so seriously all the time is one reason why I praised Guardians of the Galaxy so much last week. Unfortunately, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles won't be receiving nearly as much love.
The movie isn't terrible. With everything going on in pre-production, TMNT could have been a train wreck. Luckily, it's got enough going for it to stop me from being angry with the film, but not enough going for it so say much more than that. And just to get it out of the way, yes, there are changes from the source material. THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME, SO STOP BITCHING ABOUT IT! That isn't what's wrong with this movie.
I expected a little bit from from the writers of Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. The story is pretty stupid, to say the least. The last act of the film is pretty much the exact same as The Amazing Spider-Man with a little taken from the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. We spend a bit too much time with April O'Neal, horribly acted by Megan Fox, and not enough with the Turtles. What I mean is, it's about 60/40 April and the Turtles. We do spend more time with the human characters, but the green foursome... sorry, I just had a moment... is in this movie quite a bit. The overall goal of the villain is kind of silly. And the way the go about it is even sillier. I mean, the original movie didn't have much of a goal more than "punish the turtles." But at least it was simple and understandable. Here, it's a bit more needlessly complicated and convoluted. The plot isn't hard to follow, but it just doesn't really make too much sense motivation wise.
While The Shredder is menacing, he's a bit too over-the-top. They do a good job of making him more fierce and a badass than the original film. However the flashiness to him just screams "trying too hard." He could have been simplified and still been a badass villain. In fact, everything could have been simplified and still achieved the same effect.
The design of the turtles has been the subject of a lot of controversy. Watching the movie, it doesn't really bother me as much as the stills or trailers. But the CG is so obviously CG that it does kind of take me out of the movie. The brothers have so many pieces of flair they look like they're applying for a job at Chotchkie's. Donnie would bring Brian to shame.
Fortunately, their overdone designs aren't too distracting when everything is moving. Thankfully the pacing of the film is quick once the brothers show up. The first act following April is pretty bland. Once the turtles show up, they stay on screen the majority of the rest of the film. Because we are mainly following April, we do leave them for a while here and there, and those bits do drag. But when it almost gets to be too much, the turtles show back up.
I don't know what it is with Michael Bay and a lot of these movies now, but we don't always need a human character to follow in these types of movies. They need to look at movies like Hellboy 2 and Guardians of the Galaxy to see that we can follow along with these non-humans through the story without our hands being held.
What makes it kind of worse that we spend too much time with April is that the time with the turtles and Splinter is pretty damn good. Leonardo, Raphael, Donatello and Michelangelo act and feel like real brothers, and Splinter like their father/mentor. The comradery going on between them feels genuine. I got a real sense that these ludicrously massive turtles were brothers, or at least believed they were. The time spent with them is fun. The movie should have been focused mainly on that. Had it been, I probably would have liked it a lot more.
We do get some pretty good action sequences. There's two sort of teaser action moments where we first get a glimpse of what the turtles can do without being really introduced to them yet. After we meet them, you get your typical three big set pieces. All three of them well set up and executed. The camera hardly ever goes in too close or shakes too much to where you can't see what's going on. There is a sense of danger throughout the battles to keep them engaging. All four turtles get several moments to be a badass. And even though Splinter only has one scene to kick ass, he really kicks ass. It was pretty cool to see the sensei show why he is the master.
I probably had more fun with this film than I should have. There wasn't enough time spent with the turtles for this movie to be what it should have been. The writers may not have gotten many things right, but I think the director knew how to accentuate what was good: the family bond between the four brothers and their father/mentor, Splinter, the overall good nature of the turtles, the eagerness to help out. It's a lot of what I really loved about Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles growing up. And I think I'm just grateful that this movie didn't end up nearly as bad as it could have been. And I don't think it's as bad as Ninja Turtles 3.
I'm honestly not sure if I can RECOMMEND this movie or not. I guess...
SOMEWHAT RECOMMENDED if you can overlook obvious shortcomings, but
NOT RECOMMENDED if you're going in hoping for more than an OK film.
Sunday, August 3, 2014
Guardians of the Galaxy
Marvel has been on a roll. Ever since Iron Man came out Marvel has been reigning king of the summer movies. Sure, some movies have made more money. But no other company has been putting out solid movie after solid movie without any major missteps. To make it even more impressive, the continuity between all ten films so far is one of the cleanest and consistent of any movie franchise. I'm sure there are errors here and there between each movie. But the universe is so large and well planned out that it's pretty tight.
Other than Thanos and The Collector (along with some other nice easter eggs), Guardians of the Galaxy is pretty stand-alone in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I think that works out in favor for Guardians. As we saw with Iron Man 2, and a bit with Thor, Guardians doesn't have any need to cram any unnecessary exposition or universe building that's specifically for the upcoming Avengers movie. There's no mention of Shield, Tony Stark, no cameo by Agent Coulson or Nick Fury. Guardians of the Galaxy is here to for the Guardians and no one else. Writer/Director James Gunn (Slither, Super, PG Porn) was given a lot of freedom with this movie. With that freedom, he's created my favorite, and possibly the best, Marvel movie, and possibly comic book or super hero movie, yet.
Guardians of the Galaxy has one of the best blends of serious and goofy I've seen in a movie all year. Mixing the two can be a dangerous thing. Too much of either without the right sensibility or timing can leave a bad taste in your mouth. This is something Gunn seems to have a knack for. Slither, Gunn's directorial debut, is one of the best horror-comedies that actually has a nice balance of both without being a parody like Shaun of the Dead. While Super tiptoes along a very thin line of depressingly real and darkly hilarious without falling over onto either side. Guardians has these powerful moments of emotional depth and some of the most laugh-out-loud moments all year. It's serious enough to be heart-crushing one scene, yet goofy enough give us a fun song and dance the next scene.
I was emotionally invested from the first scene. Much like Up, within minutes I'm trying to keep my eyes dry. I thought to myself, "Seriously? It's barely 2 or 3 minutes into this thing and you're trying not to sob?" I wasn't sure if it was because the movie was that good or I had already been ready to accept this movie because of the build up I've given it for the past year or so. Upon a second viewing I've decided that the movie is indeed that good. This scene isn't just to try to get tears from you. It's so you understand the heart of the main character, Peter Quill (a.k.a. Star-Lord), before we catch up with him 26 years later.
Peter is taken from Earth immediately after this scene and we spend the rest of the movie in space. Normally in a movie like this we get a protagonist, or someone the protagonist knows, who doesn't understand the universe to serve as the viewer, like Kevin Bacon in Footloose. That way there's a reason to stop and tell everyone what's going on and how things work. Guardians doesn't feel the need for this. Peter's been in space for 26 years now and is familiar with how things are. No one's holding the audience's hand through any of this. But the movie feels that the audience will be smart enough to catch on to things as we go along. There are a few bits of exposition here and there that do let us know who some people are, where we are, what's happening. But they're never done in a way that's talking down to the audience.
What's great about not wasting time with an exposition character is that we can spend more time getting to know the characters that matter. We get to see early on who these characters are and what's unique about them. Star-Lord (Chris Pratt), Rocket (voiced by Bradley Cooper), and Groot (voiced by Vin Diesel) are all incredibly well-developed. While Drax (Dave Bautista) and Gamora (Zoe Saldana) aren't as fleshed out as the rest of the crew, but they're far from one dimensional. It's rare to see a movie with five leads where all are feel equally unique and interesting. While The Avengers had the luxury of having a movie for each character before hand to introduce us and get familiar with the several different leads, Guardians does it all in 2 hours.
All the actors are great. Bradley Cooper's Rocket is definitely a stand-out performance despite being entirely CGI. Maybe I'm a little biased as Rocket's been one of my favorite Marvel Characters since I've read the comics. But even separated from the comics and going on just the movies, Rocket is still my favorite character in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Not only does he get Rocket's snarky sense of humor, but really brings out Rocket's heart. Chris Pratt as Star-Lord is kind of like if his character from Parks and Recs was a badass. Pratt is flawless. Vin Diesel as Groot only has 3* lines, along with some grunts, but does a lot with it. Much like his voice work for The Iron Giant, Diesel knows how to do a lot with very little. You could say he's better when he does less. But when he does less, he's better than almost anyone else. There's something special about Dave Bautista's Drax. He's so deadpan and literal, but it works so well. There's a lot of gut-busting laughs because of the dead-serious delivery from Bautista. If there's one thing I love about Gamora by Saldana is that it's finally a female character that's a badass and NOT a love interest to anyone. Yeah, the trailer did make some teases at a Star-Lord/Gamora love thing going on, but no. She doesn't need it.
Michael Rooker (Merle in Walking Dead, Slither) as Yondu is a surprise. He's not one of the Guardians (In the original comics he was, but this is a long discussion which I'm not going to get into here) but he steals every scene he's in. He's responsible for taking Peter from Earth and sort of raised him. He's not quite a villain, not a hero, he's just another badass with goals that interject with some of the main characters. And he also gets a nice moment near the end of the film that rivals Quicksilver's in Days of Future Past.
One thing you could say is kind of lacking is development with the villains. Lee Pace does a great job with Ronan the Accuser. Ronan is terrifying and it's made clear early on that he is here to cause havok and you should be afraid. While he is a force to fear, he doesn't really get fleshed out a whole lot. You could compare him to a Islamic Extremist since his goal is to "clense" those who don't believe in the Kree Gods and avenge the death of his father and grandfather who died in old wars. Ronan is a tad disappointing as a villain given the wide variety of villains already existing in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. But the movie isn't really about him. It's about the Guardians. And if we're going to spend so much time with the Guardians, time with the villain is sacrificed. If I had to weigh the two, I'm wholeheartedly for spending more time with the Guardians.
To make it as Marvel movie, or a summer movie in general, you need to have some flair. Guardians definitely delivers the goods. Where most movies specialize in one type of crazy spectacle or set pieces, whether it be hand-to-hand fights, chases, space/air battles, Guardians has a bit of everything. All of these sequences are beautifully shot, some sequences are filmed in IMax which look astounding, and well choreographed. There's never any moment where shots were too close to where you couldn't see clearly what was going on. But I do feel there were a lack of some wide shots to give us a better scope of how big some of these scenes were. This could be from Gunn's lack of experience with these large-budget action movies. But I'll take the lack of wide shots as long as it comes with a lack of excessive shaky cam and quick cuts.
I saw this in both IMax and regular format theatres. If it weren't for the 3D, I would highly suggest seeing this in IMax. The 3D isn't bad, but I don't feel it really adds much to the film. One problem I do have with filming in IMax is when you don't watch it in IMax, the cropping for those scenes can make things feel a bit more cramped than they should be. And having seen both version, there were times I noticed some shots were missing a bit of space. It doesn't take away too much from the overall experience. It's just a minor detail that I, and some other people might, notice.
Just make sure the theatre you decide to go to has a good sound system. The music is incredible. The score is serviceable and does a great job with the necessary sequences. But what really glues the movie together is the soundtrack. While soundtracks are usually just a collection of songs that the director feels will help this scene or that scene, the reason why these songs appear when the do is kind of a big part of the movie. When Peter leaves Earth as a boy, he had a Sony Walkman on him. This walkman with his "Awesome Mix Vol. 1" is one of the few connections to home he has. And all the music for the movie is from that mix tape. As we explore this galaxy into these alien worlds, the music keeps us grounded with something relatable. There's also character moments that tie into the music being played, and one or two essential plot points come from these songs. The songs also enhance both the serious and cheesy tones of the movie.
Guardians of the Galaxy just works so well. It's such a tightly wound script with nearly flawless direction. There just aren't enough movies like this anymore. Aside from being my favorite Marvel movie, it's going up there with one of my favorite Sci-Fi/Fantasy movies along with Star Wars, Alien, Blade Runner, and Galaxy Quest. Yes, Galaxy Quest! It plays it serious enough where the emotional notes hit you hard, but cheesy enough to know when to have fun. I was fully invested with the character the entire film, and I had one of the most entertaining times I've had in a theatre in years. I'd say the one criticism I have is the third act sort of becomes your typical Marvel, "Stop the badguy from doing the bad thing." But the first two acts are so unique and original that this is completely forgiven. It still doesn't take away from sheer entertainment value of the movie. Even if you're not a Marvel fan, go see this movie.
HIGHEST RECOMMENDATION
Little sub-note. I purposely left out connections to the source material because I don't think it should matter. Yes, movies take liberties with the source material, and Guardians is not exception. But as long as a movie captures the heart or essence of what makes the source great, then go ahead and make whatever changes you feel like will make for a better movie. So stop being a canon-queen and just enjoy the damn movie.
Other than Thanos and The Collector (along with some other nice easter eggs), Guardians of the Galaxy is pretty stand-alone in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I think that works out in favor for Guardians. As we saw with Iron Man 2, and a bit with Thor, Guardians doesn't have any need to cram any unnecessary exposition or universe building that's specifically for the upcoming Avengers movie. There's no mention of Shield, Tony Stark, no cameo by Agent Coulson or Nick Fury. Guardians of the Galaxy is here to for the Guardians and no one else. Writer/Director James Gunn (Slither, Super, PG Porn) was given a lot of freedom with this movie. With that freedom, he's created my favorite, and possibly the best, Marvel movie, and possibly comic book or super hero movie, yet.
Guardians of the Galaxy has one of the best blends of serious and goofy I've seen in a movie all year. Mixing the two can be a dangerous thing. Too much of either without the right sensibility or timing can leave a bad taste in your mouth. This is something Gunn seems to have a knack for. Slither, Gunn's directorial debut, is one of the best horror-comedies that actually has a nice balance of both without being a parody like Shaun of the Dead. While Super tiptoes along a very thin line of depressingly real and darkly hilarious without falling over onto either side. Guardians has these powerful moments of emotional depth and some of the most laugh-out-loud moments all year. It's serious enough to be heart-crushing one scene, yet goofy enough give us a fun song and dance the next scene.
I was emotionally invested from the first scene. Much like Up, within minutes I'm trying to keep my eyes dry. I thought to myself, "Seriously? It's barely 2 or 3 minutes into this thing and you're trying not to sob?" I wasn't sure if it was because the movie was that good or I had already been ready to accept this movie because of the build up I've given it for the past year or so. Upon a second viewing I've decided that the movie is indeed that good. This scene isn't just to try to get tears from you. It's so you understand the heart of the main character, Peter Quill (a.k.a. Star-Lord), before we catch up with him 26 years later.
Peter is taken from Earth immediately after this scene and we spend the rest of the movie in space. Normally in a movie like this we get a protagonist, or someone the protagonist knows, who doesn't understand the universe to serve as the viewer, like Kevin Bacon in Footloose. That way there's a reason to stop and tell everyone what's going on and how things work. Guardians doesn't feel the need for this. Peter's been in space for 26 years now and is familiar with how things are. No one's holding the audience's hand through any of this. But the movie feels that the audience will be smart enough to catch on to things as we go along. There are a few bits of exposition here and there that do let us know who some people are, where we are, what's happening. But they're never done in a way that's talking down to the audience.
What's great about not wasting time with an exposition character is that we can spend more time getting to know the characters that matter. We get to see early on who these characters are and what's unique about them. Star-Lord (Chris Pratt), Rocket (voiced by Bradley Cooper), and Groot (voiced by Vin Diesel) are all incredibly well-developed. While Drax (Dave Bautista) and Gamora (Zoe Saldana) aren't as fleshed out as the rest of the crew, but they're far from one dimensional. It's rare to see a movie with five leads where all are feel equally unique and interesting. While The Avengers had the luxury of having a movie for each character before hand to introduce us and get familiar with the several different leads, Guardians does it all in 2 hours.
All the actors are great. Bradley Cooper's Rocket is definitely a stand-out performance despite being entirely CGI. Maybe I'm a little biased as Rocket's been one of my favorite Marvel Characters since I've read the comics. But even separated from the comics and going on just the movies, Rocket is still my favorite character in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Not only does he get Rocket's snarky sense of humor, but really brings out Rocket's heart. Chris Pratt as Star-Lord is kind of like if his character from Parks and Recs was a badass. Pratt is flawless. Vin Diesel as Groot only has 3* lines, along with some grunts, but does a lot with it. Much like his voice work for The Iron Giant, Diesel knows how to do a lot with very little. You could say he's better when he does less. But when he does less, he's better than almost anyone else. There's something special about Dave Bautista's Drax. He's so deadpan and literal, but it works so well. There's a lot of gut-busting laughs because of the dead-serious delivery from Bautista. If there's one thing I love about Gamora by Saldana is that it's finally a female character that's a badass and NOT a love interest to anyone. Yeah, the trailer did make some teases at a Star-Lord/Gamora love thing going on, but no. She doesn't need it.
Michael Rooker (Merle in Walking Dead, Slither) as Yondu is a surprise. He's not one of the Guardians (In the original comics he was, but this is a long discussion which I'm not going to get into here) but he steals every scene he's in. He's responsible for taking Peter from Earth and sort of raised him. He's not quite a villain, not a hero, he's just another badass with goals that interject with some of the main characters. And he also gets a nice moment near the end of the film that rivals Quicksilver's in Days of Future Past.
One thing you could say is kind of lacking is development with the villains. Lee Pace does a great job with Ronan the Accuser. Ronan is terrifying and it's made clear early on that he is here to cause havok and you should be afraid. While he is a force to fear, he doesn't really get fleshed out a whole lot. You could compare him to a Islamic Extremist since his goal is to "clense" those who don't believe in the Kree Gods and avenge the death of his father and grandfather who died in old wars. Ronan is a tad disappointing as a villain given the wide variety of villains already existing in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. But the movie isn't really about him. It's about the Guardians. And if we're going to spend so much time with the Guardians, time with the villain is sacrificed. If I had to weigh the two, I'm wholeheartedly for spending more time with the Guardians.
To make it as Marvel movie, or a summer movie in general, you need to have some flair. Guardians definitely delivers the goods. Where most movies specialize in one type of crazy spectacle or set pieces, whether it be hand-to-hand fights, chases, space/air battles, Guardians has a bit of everything. All of these sequences are beautifully shot, some sequences are filmed in IMax which look astounding, and well choreographed. There's never any moment where shots were too close to where you couldn't see clearly what was going on. But I do feel there were a lack of some wide shots to give us a better scope of how big some of these scenes were. This could be from Gunn's lack of experience with these large-budget action movies. But I'll take the lack of wide shots as long as it comes with a lack of excessive shaky cam and quick cuts.
I saw this in both IMax and regular format theatres. If it weren't for the 3D, I would highly suggest seeing this in IMax. The 3D isn't bad, but I don't feel it really adds much to the film. One problem I do have with filming in IMax is when you don't watch it in IMax, the cropping for those scenes can make things feel a bit more cramped than they should be. And having seen both version, there were times I noticed some shots were missing a bit of space. It doesn't take away too much from the overall experience. It's just a minor detail that I, and some other people might, notice.
Just make sure the theatre you decide to go to has a good sound system. The music is incredible. The score is serviceable and does a great job with the necessary sequences. But what really glues the movie together is the soundtrack. While soundtracks are usually just a collection of songs that the director feels will help this scene or that scene, the reason why these songs appear when the do is kind of a big part of the movie. When Peter leaves Earth as a boy, he had a Sony Walkman on him. This walkman with his "Awesome Mix Vol. 1" is one of the few connections to home he has. And all the music for the movie is from that mix tape. As we explore this galaxy into these alien worlds, the music keeps us grounded with something relatable. There's also character moments that tie into the music being played, and one or two essential plot points come from these songs. The songs also enhance both the serious and cheesy tones of the movie.
Guardians of the Galaxy just works so well. It's such a tightly wound script with nearly flawless direction. There just aren't enough movies like this anymore. Aside from being my favorite Marvel movie, it's going up there with one of my favorite Sci-Fi/Fantasy movies along with Star Wars, Alien, Blade Runner, and Galaxy Quest. Yes, Galaxy Quest! It plays it serious enough where the emotional notes hit you hard, but cheesy enough to know when to have fun. I was fully invested with the character the entire film, and I had one of the most entertaining times I've had in a theatre in years. I'd say the one criticism I have is the third act sort of becomes your typical Marvel, "Stop the badguy from doing the bad thing." But the first two acts are so unique and original that this is completely forgiven. It still doesn't take away from sheer entertainment value of the movie. Even if you're not a Marvel fan, go see this movie.
HIGHEST RECOMMENDATION
Little sub-note. I purposely left out connections to the source material because I don't think it should matter. Yes, movies take liberties with the source material, and Guardians is not exception. But as long as a movie captures the heart or essence of what makes the source great, then go ahead and make whatever changes you feel like will make for a better movie. So stop being a canon-queen and just enjoy the damn movie.
Monday, July 28, 2014
Hercules?
One thing Hollywood has never gotten right about the Greek myth of Zeus's son is the name. Hercules is the Roman name for the Greek myth while Heracles is the Greek name. Yes every iteration of the character uses the Roman name with Greek everything else. Small nitpick, and it'll probably never be fixed. So let's move on.
Of all Hercules movies, the Disney version is widely known for being one of the lease accurate depictions of the legend. Leave it to Brett Ratner to one-up someone in doing it wrong. Remember, this is the guy who nearly single-handedly destroyed the X-Men franchise. THE X-MEN!!!! *deep breath* Woosah. Woosah...
Anyway.
Hercules, starring Dwayne Johnson, is the least faithful to the legend of all tellings that I've seen or heard of. At first, I didn't have a problem with this. It tried to approach the story in a realistic fashion. As we know, the legends of Greek mythologies are a bit exaggerated from what really happened. So this film is showing what could have happened with a real man named Hercules who inspired the legends.
But wait a minute, didn't the trailers show Hercules going all out and killing these legendary creatures like the Hydra? Yes, yes it did. And you do get to see that... in the first 7 minutes of the movie. These tasks that Hercules is known for, his labours, which included slaying the Hydra, slaying the Nemean Lion, killing the Erymanthian Boar, are all done in montage with a voice over. Then the voice over is revealed to be one of Hercules's partners, who I forget his name and don't really care to look up. He tells these tales of Hercules's labours to bring fear to the enemy and inspire allies. So, basically, they're all lies.
Now, I'm not one to judge a movie for not delivering on what I expect. Nor am I really going to hold a movie to what the trailer promised. For those that don't know, trailers are typically made by people who aren't involved with the production of the film. They're just paid to make something that will get people to buy tickets. Sometimes a trailer will lie and what actually is presented is far better. A good example is The Grey. Advertised as Taken with wolves while it was actually a survival-horror/philosophical/existential thriller. Some were disappointed; I was enamored.
At first I was interested. I like to think of myself as somewhat of a skeptic, so I like stories that play with "what is known may be false" angle. I'm enjoying how Hercules and his companions, who are just a band of mercenaries, use their friend's gift of story-telling to their advantage to both obtain jobs and frighten those they oppose.
On paper this sounds kind of fun. Unfortunately, as shown with X-Men The Last SttttaaaaaaAAAAHHHH--- Woosah... Brett Ratner somehow finds a way to suck the joy out of it. You find that without his labours, Hercules is an incredibly boring character. And other than Ian McShane, the characters surrounding him are just as boring. The dog-like mad man. The best-friend from war. The Woman. The younger relative who can't fight and he doesn't want to be harmed. Then you throw all these characters in a tired "train my men so we can fight a war" story with your typical twists and turns. If you can't see where this movie is heading after 20 minutes, you probably haven't seen many movies.
I will admit, there are some fun moments in this film. There's 2 big battle sequences that, for the most part, are well-done for a PG-13 movie. Dirt and mud serve as a substitute for blood. It's not quite the same, but it's still something to see small particles fly off a person when they're hit. Even if the enemies are rejects from 300, they have some moments where they seem threatening. There's also a few details through the first two acts that show how Hercules and his friends keep their legend alive. A good example is when Hercules takes an arrow tip in his fist and punches a guy in the face with it. No one except his companions saw the arrow tip, so to everyone else it appears that Hercules killed a man with a single blow. There are a few clever moments that this for the first hour.
Unfortunately, everything that gets built up from the first two acts of Hercules just being a normal man and a group who uses the power of perception and exaggeration to make it seem as if he were "More than just a man." The movie takes a hard left turn and has him do things that completely break all the rules set up in the first two acts. All of a sudden, a man of just superior human strength becomes a man of god-like strength. Why? Because the plot needed him to escape an impossible situation. Why was he there? Because the plot needed him to do something stupid to get there. Then the last 20 minutes just go against everything set up in the first hour and change for this big battle between Hercules and his friends and an army culminating and an outlandish final moment. Yes, the previous parts of the movie were boring. But you can't just break your own rules for no reason. Fully commit to the story you want to tell, or at least give the possibility throughout the entire film that things could be more than what's let on.
If I had to tell the story of Hercules in a "realistic" manner that played with the notion that the legend is an exaggeration, I would show how the story came to be. I wouldn't just have someone be telling the story to tell you that it's an exaggeration. I would show you what really happened along side with the storyteller's exaggerations. That could be a cool movie. But, as it stands, Hercules is just another typical action movie.
NOT RECOMMENDED
Of all Hercules movies, the Disney version is widely known for being one of the lease accurate depictions of the legend. Leave it to Brett Ratner to one-up someone in doing it wrong. Remember, this is the guy who nearly single-handedly destroyed the X-Men franchise. THE X-MEN!!!! *deep breath* Woosah. Woosah...
Anyway.
Hercules, starring Dwayne Johnson, is the least faithful to the legend of all tellings that I've seen or heard of. At first, I didn't have a problem with this. It tried to approach the story in a realistic fashion. As we know, the legends of Greek mythologies are a bit exaggerated from what really happened. So this film is showing what could have happened with a real man named Hercules who inspired the legends.
But wait a minute, didn't the trailers show Hercules going all out and killing these legendary creatures like the Hydra? Yes, yes it did. And you do get to see that... in the first 7 minutes of the movie. These tasks that Hercules is known for, his labours, which included slaying the Hydra, slaying the Nemean Lion, killing the Erymanthian Boar, are all done in montage with a voice over. Then the voice over is revealed to be one of Hercules's partners, who I forget his name and don't really care to look up. He tells these tales of Hercules's labours to bring fear to the enemy and inspire allies. So, basically, they're all lies.
Now, I'm not one to judge a movie for not delivering on what I expect. Nor am I really going to hold a movie to what the trailer promised. For those that don't know, trailers are typically made by people who aren't involved with the production of the film. They're just paid to make something that will get people to buy tickets. Sometimes a trailer will lie and what actually is presented is far better. A good example is The Grey. Advertised as Taken with wolves while it was actually a survival-horror/philosophical/existential thriller. Some were disappointed; I was enamored.
At first I was interested. I like to think of myself as somewhat of a skeptic, so I like stories that play with "what is known may be false" angle. I'm enjoying how Hercules and his companions, who are just a band of mercenaries, use their friend's gift of story-telling to their advantage to both obtain jobs and frighten those they oppose.
On paper this sounds kind of fun. Unfortunately, as shown with X-Men The Last SttttaaaaaaAAAAHHHH--- Woosah... Brett Ratner somehow finds a way to suck the joy out of it. You find that without his labours, Hercules is an incredibly boring character. And other than Ian McShane, the characters surrounding him are just as boring. The dog-like mad man. The best-friend from war. The Woman. The younger relative who can't fight and he doesn't want to be harmed. Then you throw all these characters in a tired "train my men so we can fight a war" story with your typical twists and turns. If you can't see where this movie is heading after 20 minutes, you probably haven't seen many movies.
I will admit, there are some fun moments in this film. There's 2 big battle sequences that, for the most part, are well-done for a PG-13 movie. Dirt and mud serve as a substitute for blood. It's not quite the same, but it's still something to see small particles fly off a person when they're hit. Even if the enemies are rejects from 300, they have some moments where they seem threatening. There's also a few details through the first two acts that show how Hercules and his friends keep their legend alive. A good example is when Hercules takes an arrow tip in his fist and punches a guy in the face with it. No one except his companions saw the arrow tip, so to everyone else it appears that Hercules killed a man with a single blow. There are a few clever moments that this for the first hour.
Unfortunately, everything that gets built up from the first two acts of Hercules just being a normal man and a group who uses the power of perception and exaggeration to make it seem as if he were "More than just a man." The movie takes a hard left turn and has him do things that completely break all the rules set up in the first two acts. All of a sudden, a man of just superior human strength becomes a man of god-like strength. Why? Because the plot needed him to escape an impossible situation. Why was he there? Because the plot needed him to do something stupid to get there. Then the last 20 minutes just go against everything set up in the first hour and change for this big battle between Hercules and his friends and an army culminating and an outlandish final moment. Yes, the previous parts of the movie were boring. But you can't just break your own rules for no reason. Fully commit to the story you want to tell, or at least give the possibility throughout the entire film that things could be more than what's let on.
If I had to tell the story of Hercules in a "realistic" manner that played with the notion that the legend is an exaggeration, I would show how the story came to be. I wouldn't just have someone be telling the story to tell you that it's an exaggeration. I would show you what really happened along side with the storyteller's exaggerations. That could be a cool movie. But, as it stands, Hercules is just another typical action movie.
NOT RECOMMENDED
Sunday, July 20, 2014
The Purge: Anarchy
I wasn't a fan of The Purge. I thought it was an interesting premise that never really went anywhere. The idea of allowing 12 hours for people to let loose and get all the crime out of their system is kind of silly, but could provide for a fun romp for 90 minutes. While the movie was trying to more intelligent, which I respect, it ultimately devolved into a by-the-numbers home-invasion thriller with an annoyingly dysfunctional family. But the movie was made for a ridiculously low budget ($3M) and made a huge profit (raked in $64.4M at the box office) so the sequel is here. Anarchy does have a significantly higher budget, but still incredibly cheap, $9M, and it made over $28M opening weekend. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a third Purge movie either next year or the following year.
The Purge: Anarchy is more or less what I want sequels to do. The first movie had some interesting concepts that were never really explained or expanded. The most intriguing things in the first movie were some of the world-building aspects. Neighbors who seem like such nice people talking about what kind of atrocities they're going to do during the annual purge like it's no big deal. One of my favorite moments of the first movie was two characters seeing their neighbor sharpening a machete in his back yard. One character looks at the other and simply says, "Looks like someone's getting ready to have fun." It's creepy to think that the person next door has these wild urges that they have to keep held up under any normal circumstances, but given a way to let them go, you can see what people's true colors are. Unfortunately, The Purge never really goes anywhere with it.
Unlike the first film, The Purge: Anarchy shows more than it tells. It's taken a couple of the more political ideas that the first film would just talk about in passing and puts you right in the middle of it. In this world, there's a new American government calling themselves The New Founding Fathers of America. It seems more like an overthrow of the original government and now a totalitarian state. The NFFA are almost like gods. They're referred to multiple times as divine or blessed.
The biggest problem with the first movie is that it just told us about its political agenda. It's just mentioned in passing, but some believed that one reason why the purge exists is to have the citizens commence "population control" on themselves and "cleanse the country of the poor, unproductive members of society." Here, we actually see this happening. Instead of following a rich family in a rich neighborhood, we follow a group of people stuck in the middle of the city surrounded by purgers. The lower-class families can't afford all the high-tech stuff to protect their homes, the expensive weapons or armor to defend themselves. Homeless people have almost no chance other than to hide, and even that doesn't work. The first movie just told us (in passing) about this side of the purge. Anarchy puts you right in the middle of it.
Director James DeMonaco has definitely improved in every aspect from his first film. He's got 3 movies under his belt as a director (2 of the are The Purge movies), and a few more writing/co-writing credits, including The Negotiator, Assault on Precinct 13, and.... Jack starring Robin Williams? OK.... Anyway... Everything is improved in The Purge: Anarchy. The cinematography is better composed, the action is better captured and has more urgency, the pacing is much quicker, the political message is more clear and poignant, and it's simply more fun.
Instead of trying to connect with a rich family, we're following your everyday people, and a bad ass played by Frank Grillo (who you may remember from the recent Captain America movie, or that guy as that one character along side that bigger actor in that one movie that you can't quite remember the title). This does wonders for the story because the characters are much more relatable and they're more suited for the film's political message. We got the mother and daughter (Carmen Ejogo and Zoe Sould), the boyfriend and girlfriend who may or may not be breaking up (Zach Gilford and Kiele Sanchez), and the Punisher (Frank Grillo). Well, he's actually an ex cop or ex military, but it really doesn't make a difference.
Grillo's character (not given a name, credited as Sergeant) is trying to find a guy who killed his son. The mom and daughter's house was raided by seemingly government soldiers trying to capture them. And the boyfriend/girlfriend are being chased by a bunch of guys in masks and what seems to be an ice-cream truck. They all come across each other, and of course the people who don't want to be out there want Grillo to help them survive the night. He reluctantly accepts, so we follow them trying to navigate the city without getting killed. It almost reminded me of Escape from New York. Through their trek through the city, we get to know them and they all are given enough character for us to care about them. Even though we don't spend as much time TRYING to develop them as the first movie did -- I emphasize trying because the first film wasn't successful at it -- we still get to know them enough to feel a sense of urgency when shit goes down.
Another huge improvement from the first movie is the action here is actually fun. While the first Purge tried to have this slow-burn build up, the payoff wasn't satisfying enough to justify the long wait to get there. Anarchy doesn't waste as much time getting to the purge's commencement, and it keeps it steady once it gets there. It didn't just remind me of Escape From New York in the sense that it's people trying to navigate their way through a city, but it had that same feel of B-Movie fun. I know a lot of people were excited for The Purge because they wanted to see people go crazy for a night. The Purge: Anarchy actually delivers on that. But it aspires to be more intelligent and thoughtful than your typical violence splurge of a movie.
Remember how I said this movie has a political agenda? Anarchy is basically showing us an extreme version of what happens when country's government is run by the wealthy and for the wealthy. We see them using media outlets to say what a great thing the purge is while using it to manipulate the lower-class citizens to kill each other. We also see the people who are in dire situations sell themselves off to be killed by wealthy families so their loved ones can live a better life. The poor and homeless can't afford to defend themselves, so they get picked off easily. We also see what seems to be S.W.A.T.-like government-paid soldiers kidnapping and killing people in poor neighborhoods. They even throw in someone supposedly like a Malcom X and a resistance that's using the Purge to fight back. It's a tad heavy-handed, but it's doing this in an action-horror movie for an audience that didn't come for things like subtlety.
While James DeMonaco definitely got better the second time around, it's not quite where I think he wants to be. I definitely enjoyed The Purge: Anarchy much more than the previous film, but it's still not much beyond a fun, B-movie. There's still a lot of silly moments and contrived, "oh, how convenient" moments. But there's less stupid decision making for the sake of plot, and it does deliver on a lot of what The Purge didn't. If the next Purge movie proceeds to improve, we might actually get something of what I imagine DeMonaco is trying to convey.
SOMEWHAT RECOMMENDED
The Purge: Anarchy is more or less what I want sequels to do. The first movie had some interesting concepts that were never really explained or expanded. The most intriguing things in the first movie were some of the world-building aspects. Neighbors who seem like such nice people talking about what kind of atrocities they're going to do during the annual purge like it's no big deal. One of my favorite moments of the first movie was two characters seeing their neighbor sharpening a machete in his back yard. One character looks at the other and simply says, "Looks like someone's getting ready to have fun." It's creepy to think that the person next door has these wild urges that they have to keep held up under any normal circumstances, but given a way to let them go, you can see what people's true colors are. Unfortunately, The Purge never really goes anywhere with it.
Unlike the first film, The Purge: Anarchy shows more than it tells. It's taken a couple of the more political ideas that the first film would just talk about in passing and puts you right in the middle of it. In this world, there's a new American government calling themselves The New Founding Fathers of America. It seems more like an overthrow of the original government and now a totalitarian state. The NFFA are almost like gods. They're referred to multiple times as divine or blessed.
The biggest problem with the first movie is that it just told us about its political agenda. It's just mentioned in passing, but some believed that one reason why the purge exists is to have the citizens commence "population control" on themselves and "cleanse the country of the poor, unproductive members of society." Here, we actually see this happening. Instead of following a rich family in a rich neighborhood, we follow a group of people stuck in the middle of the city surrounded by purgers. The lower-class families can't afford all the high-tech stuff to protect their homes, the expensive weapons or armor to defend themselves. Homeless people have almost no chance other than to hide, and even that doesn't work. The first movie just told us (in passing) about this side of the purge. Anarchy puts you right in the middle of it.
Director James DeMonaco has definitely improved in every aspect from his first film. He's got 3 movies under his belt as a director (2 of the are The Purge movies), and a few more writing/co-writing credits, including The Negotiator, Assault on Precinct 13, and.... Jack starring Robin Williams? OK.... Anyway... Everything is improved in The Purge: Anarchy. The cinematography is better composed, the action is better captured and has more urgency, the pacing is much quicker, the political message is more clear and poignant, and it's simply more fun.
Instead of trying to connect with a rich family, we're following your everyday people, and a bad ass played by Frank Grillo (who you may remember from the recent Captain America movie, or that guy as that one character along side that bigger actor in that one movie that you can't quite remember the title). This does wonders for the story because the characters are much more relatable and they're more suited for the film's political message. We got the mother and daughter (Carmen Ejogo and Zoe Sould), the boyfriend and girlfriend who may or may not be breaking up (Zach Gilford and Kiele Sanchez), and the Punisher (Frank Grillo). Well, he's actually an ex cop or ex military, but it really doesn't make a difference.
Grillo's character (not given a name, credited as Sergeant) is trying to find a guy who killed his son. The mom and daughter's house was raided by seemingly government soldiers trying to capture them. And the boyfriend/girlfriend are being chased by a bunch of guys in masks and what seems to be an ice-cream truck. They all come across each other, and of course the people who don't want to be out there want Grillo to help them survive the night. He reluctantly accepts, so we follow them trying to navigate the city without getting killed. It almost reminded me of Escape from New York. Through their trek through the city, we get to know them and they all are given enough character for us to care about them. Even though we don't spend as much time TRYING to develop them as the first movie did -- I emphasize trying because the first film wasn't successful at it -- we still get to know them enough to feel a sense of urgency when shit goes down.
Another huge improvement from the first movie is the action here is actually fun. While the first Purge tried to have this slow-burn build up, the payoff wasn't satisfying enough to justify the long wait to get there. Anarchy doesn't waste as much time getting to the purge's commencement, and it keeps it steady once it gets there. It didn't just remind me of Escape From New York in the sense that it's people trying to navigate their way through a city, but it had that same feel of B-Movie fun. I know a lot of people were excited for The Purge because they wanted to see people go crazy for a night. The Purge: Anarchy actually delivers on that. But it aspires to be more intelligent and thoughtful than your typical violence splurge of a movie.
Remember how I said this movie has a political agenda? Anarchy is basically showing us an extreme version of what happens when country's government is run by the wealthy and for the wealthy. We see them using media outlets to say what a great thing the purge is while using it to manipulate the lower-class citizens to kill each other. We also see the people who are in dire situations sell themselves off to be killed by wealthy families so their loved ones can live a better life. The poor and homeless can't afford to defend themselves, so they get picked off easily. We also see what seems to be S.W.A.T.-like government-paid soldiers kidnapping and killing people in poor neighborhoods. They even throw in someone supposedly like a Malcom X and a resistance that's using the Purge to fight back. It's a tad heavy-handed, but it's doing this in an action-horror movie for an audience that didn't come for things like subtlety.
While James DeMonaco definitely got better the second time around, it's not quite where I think he wants to be. I definitely enjoyed The Purge: Anarchy much more than the previous film, but it's still not much beyond a fun, B-movie. There's still a lot of silly moments and contrived, "oh, how convenient" moments. But there's less stupid decision making for the sake of plot, and it does deliver on a lot of what The Purge didn't. If the next Purge movie proceeds to improve, we might actually get something of what I imagine DeMonaco is trying to convey.
SOMEWHAT RECOMMENDED
Sunday, July 13, 2014
DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES
I was never a Planet of the Apes fan to any extent. My mother wasn't really into sci-fi, she still really hasn't seen any of the Star Wars movies and she was born in the '60's... how do I say this without upsetting her.... before they came out... My dad never really liked to watch movies more than one time, because he didn't really see a point in doing so. With that upbringing, I never was exposed to the original Apes movies. And when I heard about the Tim Burton version, I thought that was the only one for quite a while. I never saw it because I heard it was bad.
As I grew older I did find out about the original films. But I really didn't have much drive to go back and see them. Then, out of nowhere, Rise of the Planet of the Apes came to theatres. I was really interested in this movie. It looked like it was taking the franchise to a serious tone and making the big twist with the original films plausible. Sort of like a reboot/origin story. While I never saw the original Apes movie, the twist ending I already knew. Being a huge fan of film I was exposed to a few spoilers from many old films before I got a chance to see them, including: Planet of the Apes, The Crying Game, Soylent Green, Psycho, and most unfortunately, The Usual Suspects.
However, I never ended up seeing Rise, even though I was doing movie reviews at the time it came out. I went on a family trip, missed the showing, and somehow never got around to sitting down and watching it. I did work as a projectionist at the time, so I did watch it in segments from the projection booth throughout my days during its running. And I got the gist of the movie by watching practically the entire thing as if Tarantino directed it. For those of you that don't get that joke... moving on.
What's really nice about Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is you don't need to have any knowledge of any other Apes movies. The opening credits do a quick rundown of everything you need to know. A test virus for Alzheimer's was accidentally spread to apes giving them enhanced intelligence, subsequently a flu virus called the simian flu ends up wiping out almost all of humanity with a 1-500 survival rate for the virus. 10 years later, humanity is pretty much close to extinct.
Matt Reeves (Cloverfield and Let Me In) does an incredible job with visual story telling. While the apes have had a lot of time to build their society and become more intelligent, they're still not quite on the level of humans. They speak mostly in sign language so we have to read subtitles and watch the emotions on the apes' faces. The first couple sequence after the credits do a fantastic job building up this world the apes have made their home. In a matter of 10 or 15 minutes, we see how they live their lives, how they hunt, the relationships between all the apes, how the families are handled, their politics. It's a great example of exposition through action. There are some less involving information dumps here and there, but almost all of them are handled in a way that doesn't feel contrived. It doesn't treat the audience like the dumb kid who the teacher keeps needing to stop class for in order for that kid to catch up to the rest of the class. Plus there's a fantastic one-shot sequence near the climax of the film which really shows off Matt Reeve's creativity with action set pieces (See also one of the best car crashes ever put on film in Reeve's Let Me In).
The motion capture is phenomenal. The apes look and feel real. Every detail is accounted for. Most lot of apes look the same. But the main ones to follow all have their special visual markings that make them stand out. Caesar doesn't have much to make him stand out, but for some reason you can always tell who he is. Caesar's son, Blue Eyes, is attacked by a bear in the opening sequence, so he has claw marks across his chest and face. Koba, Caesar's right-handman ape, was experimented on by humans giving him scars all over his body and an understandable loathing for all humans. Maurice is the only orangutan in the movie, so he's easy to spot. The visual detail isn't all that sells these creatures, the motion capture allows the actors to breath life into all these characters.
What really hit me with Dawn were the gut-wrenching dramatic moments. There is a lot of spectacle throughout the film. But the drama is what drives this movie. Moments like when the first time apes and humans come into contact with each other after 2 years had my palms sweating. Dawn portrays both the humans and the ape societies as almost mirrors of each other as far as how they fear each other.
The fact that one person or one ape can take two societies who are so close to the brink of destroying each other can screw it up for everyone. It's scary because both the ape-hating humans and the human-hating apes are realistic with their fear and hate. It is almost blind hatred, but it's a blind hatred that you can understand how it got there. Seeing your entire family be killed by a virus called the "simian (simian definition: higher primates. i.e. apes) flu." Recognizing that if they wanted to, they could wipe out what's left of humanity. And as an ape, being a test subject for humans for your entire life. Or having the first contact with humans almost kill your best friend. These scenes where you know if one person does the wrong thing at the wrong time, all hell is going to break loose.
The truly heart breaking thing is the fact that we do see that both the apes and humans have the capacity to become friends and trust each other. We see an up-and-down relationship between Caesar and Malcom (Jason Clarke), the leader of the group of humans who make initial contact with the apes. It's rocky and full of fear and mistrust. But Malcom is fascinated by Caesar and the apes by their intelligence, while Caesar is reminded of his human friends back before he was forced to flee with the other apes out of the San Francisco. We get a glimmer of hope of these two, man and ape, being able to overcome their differences and live in peace, maybe even as friends. But the actions of a few, and the inherent nature of intelligent societies, war ends up being what truly ties both the apes and humans together.
Caesar and Malcom , the main character from the human group, try all they can to keep peace between apes and humans. Watching them struggle to maintain this peace is emotional. I found myself getting angry with the characters that screw everything up. You do get a sense that it's inevitable that the two sides are going to clash. But that didn't stop me from hoping that in some way things won't go to absolute shit.
Dawn does take itself seriously. My cousin told me the original films were more on the campy level, and Tim Burton's version is just plain silly. There are a few things that don't quite make sense. Like the tribal face paint and feathers that the apes wear. I guess it's to make them more of an indians/native american type group to make their stage of human-like societal evolution (so to speak) more visually understandable. But why do they do it? What purpose does it serve? Where did they learn these practices? The movie does a great job at making the ape society believable in almost every aspect. But that was just kind of silly and felt out of place. And sometimes some character's blind hatred just seems a little too powerful. I guess I want to see the better side of people, and in this case apes as well, so having the typical "They can't be trusted" cliché is frustrating. It's supposed to cause an emotional response, but supposed to make you angry at those people and not frustrated with the movie. As much as I love Gary Oldman, his character isn't given enough to do, along with several other human characters, to really flesh out and become more than just plot devices.
Nitpicking aside, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a powerful and poignant film. There's enough action set pieces to keep the summer popcorn fans happy with enough heart and real drama to keep it nutritious. It also gives a depressing notion that intelligent societies are naturally driven to war. As much as we try to avoid it and seek peace, all it takes is one small thing to drive us to war. And now it's not just humans. It really is as dark as it sounds. It's unsettling. But it's compelling enough to probably make it one of my best movies of the year.
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.
(So far all but Transformers have been HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. Hopefully we'll have a mediocre movie come along just to prove that I don't just love or hate movies.)
As I grew older I did find out about the original films. But I really didn't have much drive to go back and see them. Then, out of nowhere, Rise of the Planet of the Apes came to theatres. I was really interested in this movie. It looked like it was taking the franchise to a serious tone and making the big twist with the original films plausible. Sort of like a reboot/origin story. While I never saw the original Apes movie, the twist ending I already knew. Being a huge fan of film I was exposed to a few spoilers from many old films before I got a chance to see them, including: Planet of the Apes, The Crying Game, Soylent Green, Psycho, and most unfortunately, The Usual Suspects.
However, I never ended up seeing Rise, even though I was doing movie reviews at the time it came out. I went on a family trip, missed the showing, and somehow never got around to sitting down and watching it. I did work as a projectionist at the time, so I did watch it in segments from the projection booth throughout my days during its running. And I got the gist of the movie by watching practically the entire thing as if Tarantino directed it. For those of you that don't get that joke... moving on.
What's really nice about Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is you don't need to have any knowledge of any other Apes movies. The opening credits do a quick rundown of everything you need to know. A test virus for Alzheimer's was accidentally spread to apes giving them enhanced intelligence, subsequently a flu virus called the simian flu ends up wiping out almost all of humanity with a 1-500 survival rate for the virus. 10 years later, humanity is pretty much close to extinct.
Matt Reeves (Cloverfield and Let Me In) does an incredible job with visual story telling. While the apes have had a lot of time to build their society and become more intelligent, they're still not quite on the level of humans. They speak mostly in sign language so we have to read subtitles and watch the emotions on the apes' faces. The first couple sequence after the credits do a fantastic job building up this world the apes have made their home. In a matter of 10 or 15 minutes, we see how they live their lives, how they hunt, the relationships between all the apes, how the families are handled, their politics. It's a great example of exposition through action. There are some less involving information dumps here and there, but almost all of them are handled in a way that doesn't feel contrived. It doesn't treat the audience like the dumb kid who the teacher keeps needing to stop class for in order for that kid to catch up to the rest of the class. Plus there's a fantastic one-shot sequence near the climax of the film which really shows off Matt Reeve's creativity with action set pieces (See also one of the best car crashes ever put on film in Reeve's Let Me In).
The motion capture is phenomenal. The apes look and feel real. Every detail is accounted for. Most lot of apes look the same. But the main ones to follow all have their special visual markings that make them stand out. Caesar doesn't have much to make him stand out, but for some reason you can always tell who he is. Caesar's son, Blue Eyes, is attacked by a bear in the opening sequence, so he has claw marks across his chest and face. Koba, Caesar's right-hand
What really hit me with Dawn were the gut-wrenching dramatic moments. There is a lot of spectacle throughout the film. But the drama is what drives this movie. Moments like when the first time apes and humans come into contact with each other after 2 years had my palms sweating. Dawn portrays both the humans and the ape societies as almost mirrors of each other as far as how they fear each other.
The fact that one person or one ape can take two societies who are so close to the brink of destroying each other can screw it up for everyone. It's scary because both the ape-hating humans and the human-hating apes are realistic with their fear and hate. It is almost blind hatred, but it's a blind hatred that you can understand how it got there. Seeing your entire family be killed by a virus called the "simian (simian definition: higher primates. i.e. apes) flu." Recognizing that if they wanted to, they could wipe out what's left of humanity. And as an ape, being a test subject for humans for your entire life. Or having the first contact with humans almost kill your best friend. These scenes where you know if one person does the wrong thing at the wrong time, all hell is going to break loose.
The truly heart breaking thing is the fact that we do see that both the apes and humans have the capacity to become friends and trust each other. We see an up-and-down relationship between Caesar and Malcom (Jason Clarke), the leader of the group of humans who make initial contact with the apes. It's rocky and full of fear and mistrust. But Malcom is fascinated by Caesar and the apes by their intelligence, while Caesar is reminded of his human friends back before he was forced to flee with the other apes out of the San Francisco. We get a glimmer of hope of these two, man and ape, being able to overcome their differences and live in peace, maybe even as friends. But the actions of a few, and the inherent nature of intelligent societies, war ends up being what truly ties both the apes and humans together.
Caesar and Malcom , the main character from the human group, try all they can to keep peace between apes and humans. Watching them struggle to maintain this peace is emotional. I found myself getting angry with the characters that screw everything up. You do get a sense that it's inevitable that the two sides are going to clash. But that didn't stop me from hoping that in some way things won't go to absolute shit.
Dawn does take itself seriously. My cousin told me the original films were more on the campy level, and Tim Burton's version is just plain silly. There are a few things that don't quite make sense. Like the tribal face paint and feathers that the apes wear. I guess it's to make them more of an indians/native american type group to make their stage of human-like societal evolution (so to speak) more visually understandable. But why do they do it? What purpose does it serve? Where did they learn these practices? The movie does a great job at making the ape society believable in almost every aspect. But that was just kind of silly and felt out of place. And sometimes some character's blind hatred just seems a little too powerful. I guess I want to see the better side of people, and in this case apes as well, so having the typical "They can't be trusted" cliché is frustrating. It's supposed to cause an emotional response, but supposed to make you angry at those people and not frustrated with the movie. As much as I love Gary Oldman, his character isn't given enough to do, along with several other human characters, to really flesh out and become more than just plot devices.
Nitpicking aside, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a powerful and poignant film. There's enough action set pieces to keep the summer popcorn fans happy with enough heart and real drama to keep it nutritious. It also gives a depressing notion that intelligent societies are naturally driven to war. As much as we try to avoid it and seek peace, all it takes is one small thing to drive us to war. And now it's not just humans. It really is as dark as it sounds. It's unsettling. But it's compelling enough to probably make it one of my best movies of the year.
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.
(So far all but Transformers have been HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. Hopefully we'll have a mediocre movie come along just to prove that I don't just love or hate movies.)
Sunday, July 6, 2014
Snowpiercer
Bong Joon-ho's first English film knocks it out of the park. He's a wonderful director who's responsible for The Host and Mother. If you haven't seen either of those, go to Netflix and watch them as soon as you can. Snowpiercer is absurd, heavy-handed, over-the-top, but in all the best ways possible.
Chris Evans plays Curtis, a passenger aboard a train carrying the last known survivors of earth after an experiment to counter global warmer is implemented. The experiment puts the earth into an ice age and all life freezes to death. But everyone aboard this train, which travels around the world's continents once every year, are alive as the last of humanity.
We start out in the back of the train where it's basically a slum. People have worn out clothes, it's dark, dirty. You can almost smell it the rotten stench of it all. And as you head forward through the train you can see a progression of luxury. To say it's a metaphor for class separation and struggle would imply that it's being subtle. Snowpiercer is anything but subtle.
Snowpiercer's world is like a Fox News wet dream. People in the lower class, the back of the train, are almost slaves. Soldiers come by and do head counts, they basically kidnap people to perform tasks for the people in the front of the train. "Oh, you can play violin? Well we need a violinists in a forward car. You're coming with us. Leave your things. No, your wife stays here." And there are brutal consequences if you don't obey the people from the front of the train. Along with a figurehead, in this case played by Tilda Swinton, giving a speech about social order and everyone "belonging in their place."
There's a moment where if it weren't for seeing how crazy some of the politicians can be, I wouldn't have believed how over-the-top Tilda Swinton's character is. Yet as despicable as she is, telling the lowly passengers in the back of the train, eating nothing but manufactured protein bars, that they should be grateful for what they have. So what if you're living in your own filth. You should be happy that we're being gracious enough to allow you to be here at all. It's almost as if Swinton's doing a Michelle Bachmann with a little bit of Hunger Games flair.
Curtis, along with Edgar, played by Jamie Bell, and Gilliam, played by John Hurt, are planning to revolt and march through the cars of the train towards the front to gain control of the engine, which is basically treated as a deity to the people in the front. What ensues is one of the most fantastically brutal uprisings put on screen.
The further along the train Curtis and the others go, the more losses they take. Snowpiercer is unapologetic about how brutal a revolution can be. It doesn't water it down or glorify it. It emphasizes that it could feel futile at times. I wondered at many points in the film what Curtis was going to do once he reaches the front of the train. Is it all going to be worth it in the end? Does the ends justify some of the hard choices he made to get to the front? You can even see it in Curtis's face that he's thinking the same thing.
I really have to praise Bong Joon-ho. He keeps the focus of the film very tight. There's some great world building as we see more and more of the train. The sharp contrast between the front cars and the back cars is jarring. Yet it completely fits within how the separation of classes works today in America.
Joon-ho also never reaches too far. With so many "epics" coming out now, large-scale destruction is losing meaning. It almost seems like the bigger the movie gets, the less we care about what's going on. Snowpiercer keeps the focus on the characters, and allows the action to envelop them instead of just places characters in the middle of a disaster. The use of lighting enhances these great character moments in the middle of these stylized action sequences. Almost none of the action feels unnecessary. Every frame of violence serves a purpose.
I don't think everyone's going to enjoy Snowpiercer. It is incredibly heavy-handed in its political message. At times it does get really weird. Some of the cars further up in the train get a bit too satirical of the upper-class and may seem out of place. And the violence may be a bit too brutal for some. Despite this, Snowpiercer is among my favorite movies of 2014.
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!
Chris Evans plays Curtis, a passenger aboard a train carrying the last known survivors of earth after an experiment to counter global warmer is implemented. The experiment puts the earth into an ice age and all life freezes to death. But everyone aboard this train, which travels around the world's continents once every year, are alive as the last of humanity.
We start out in the back of the train where it's basically a slum. People have worn out clothes, it's dark, dirty. You can almost smell it the rotten stench of it all. And as you head forward through the train you can see a progression of luxury. To say it's a metaphor for class separation and struggle would imply that it's being subtle. Snowpiercer is anything but subtle.
Snowpiercer's world is like a Fox News wet dream. People in the lower class, the back of the train, are almost slaves. Soldiers come by and do head counts, they basically kidnap people to perform tasks for the people in the front of the train. "Oh, you can play violin? Well we need a violinists in a forward car. You're coming with us. Leave your things. No, your wife stays here." And there are brutal consequences if you don't obey the people from the front of the train. Along with a figurehead, in this case played by Tilda Swinton, giving a speech about social order and everyone "belonging in their place."
There's a moment where if it weren't for seeing how crazy some of the politicians can be, I wouldn't have believed how over-the-top Tilda Swinton's character is. Yet as despicable as she is, telling the lowly passengers in the back of the train, eating nothing but manufactured protein bars, that they should be grateful for what they have. So what if you're living in your own filth. You should be happy that we're being gracious enough to allow you to be here at all. It's almost as if Swinton's doing a Michelle Bachmann with a little bit of Hunger Games flair.
Curtis, along with Edgar, played by Jamie Bell, and Gilliam, played by John Hurt, are planning to revolt and march through the cars of the train towards the front to gain control of the engine, which is basically treated as a deity to the people in the front. What ensues is one of the most fantastically brutal uprisings put on screen.
The further along the train Curtis and the others go, the more losses they take. Snowpiercer is unapologetic about how brutal a revolution can be. It doesn't water it down or glorify it. It emphasizes that it could feel futile at times. I wondered at many points in the film what Curtis was going to do once he reaches the front of the train. Is it all going to be worth it in the end? Does the ends justify some of the hard choices he made to get to the front? You can even see it in Curtis's face that he's thinking the same thing.
I really have to praise Bong Joon-ho. He keeps the focus of the film very tight. There's some great world building as we see more and more of the train. The sharp contrast between the front cars and the back cars is jarring. Yet it completely fits within how the separation of classes works today in America.
Joon-ho also never reaches too far. With so many "epics" coming out now, large-scale destruction is losing meaning. It almost seems like the bigger the movie gets, the less we care about what's going on. Snowpiercer keeps the focus on the characters, and allows the action to envelop them instead of just places characters in the middle of a disaster. The use of lighting enhances these great character moments in the middle of these stylized action sequences. Almost none of the action feels unnecessary. Every frame of violence serves a purpose.
I don't think everyone's going to enjoy Snowpiercer. It is incredibly heavy-handed in its political message. At times it does get really weird. Some of the cars further up in the train get a bit too satirical of the upper-class and may seem out of place. And the violence may be a bit too brutal for some. Despite this, Snowpiercer is among my favorite movies of 2014.
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!
Monday, June 30, 2014
Transformers: Age of Meh-xtinction (O.K. that's doesn't work, but it's staying)
The Transformers movies are a blessing in disguise. On one hand, you have these loud, obnoxious, brainless, yet none-the-less, loved action movies from Michael Bay. They just rake in countless amounts of cash every time they come out for seemingly no good reason. On the other hand, every Transformers movie that comes out keeps Michael Bay away from a potentially good script. Honestly, I think this works out for everyone. The teenage boys and frat guys get the kind of movie they love, while everyone else gets to see a different director's name attached to another film that Bay may have gotten otherwise.
That being said, I do like the first Transformers movie. It was simple, silly, over-the-top, but it had heart and was a lot of fun. The second movie is one of the few movies that kind of made me angry while watching it. The frat boy in Bay completely took over -- along with a writer's strike leaving Bay with a partial script going into and throughout shooting. I can't completely blame Bay for it's faults. From what I read, they did a lot of improving on set and didn't really know what they were doing. The third movie had a boring first half, but the climax was worth waiting for.
Transformers: Age of Extinction isn't the worst one of the series (Revenge of the Fallen is) but it's the most boring. Yes, T:AoE is just incredibly boring. For being around 2 hours and 45 minutes, there's almost nothing going on.
It's kind of funny that T:AoE is almost trying to make a political statement. The plot is trying to have something to do with crony capitalism and government military contracts. But it's ineptly handles and becomes buried by even worse father/daughter road trip aspect of the film. But basically a government worker is trying to kill transformers so he can allow a major corporation to farm the transformers' bodies to harvest the metal they're made out of the make a profit. It sounds good on paper. It's an idea that I think is damn good. But instead we have to focus on Mark Wahlberg being a shitty dad.
Damn it, Marky Mark, learn how to change your accent. You played a New Orleans native and you still have your Boston accent. Here you play a Texas native, and you still sound like you're from Boston. You even make fun of another character for because he "sounds like a leprechaun" and lives in Texas. You have no right... I'm sorry Marky Mark. I still like you as an actor. But just not here. And it's not just your accent. We're supposed to be rooting for Mark's character, who's named Yaeger -- Honestly, I'm not sure if this isn't trying to take from Pacific Rim or not -- who's a failed inventor/man-child. Insert typical lowest-point-in-life clichés, and boom, you got Yaeger.
His daughter, played by... honestly, I don't even care... made me miss Megan Fox. She's supposed to be the rebellious teenager who also takes care of her father. But she is just so annoying. There are times where it's just stupid. Example, the human characters have to walk what is basically a tight rope hundreds of feet in the air. They have to go from one side to the other to get to safety. It's also going from the high point to the low point. She gets more than half way, but because she's scared, is yelling, "I'm going to go back." Why? Because we need to add tension to this scene. She's becomes a plot device. Oh, she's captured, now we have to go to this set piece to save her. Let's put a gun to her head to make the main character talk, let's have robots fight near her so we have to run and go get her. And the whole time we're dealing with this, we're also dealing with the "oh yeah, he's my boyfriend I never told you about because you don't want me dating anyone" cliché as well. No, the boyfriend isn't worth talking about. He's just there because occasionally they need a good driver and he drives cars. And some awkward "stay away from my daughter" bits. That's about it.
All of this made it incredibly hard to enjoy the action sequences. Sadly, there are a few sequences of action that look like they were well put together. However it feels there's nothing at stake. Very quickly even the death of the human characters becomes a non-factor. Scratch that, one character does die early on. But after that, it becomes comical how much punishment the humans take. One that sticks out the most was when Optimus Prime was driving probably around 45-55 mph, the two guys jump out onto the grass, they're ok. But the daughter gets launched out and tumbles along side Prime for a good hundred or two hundred feet. When she stops, she gets up, not even winded, no scratches, nothing, and runs for cover. And this happens so often I couldn't help but laugh at it.
There is no urgency when your characters can't be hurt. There's not drama in the action if you know the characters are going to be OK. This, along with simply not caring whether or not the characters make it, turn all the action sequences into light shows. Then the whole movie becomes that. To make matters worse is the action is few and far between. I think the first major set piece is an hour into the movie. T:AoE has less action of the 4 movies. It's also the longest of the 4 movies. And it had the biggest budget of the 4 movies. While it's not the worst, it's the most boring of the 4 movies.
One thing I want to add is Bay was bragging about this movie being 60% filmed in the IMAX format. Typically movies are either filmed in "Flat" format (1.85:1 aspect ratio), or "Scope" (2.39:1 aspect ratio). IMAX is 1.43:1. However, when you aren't watching the movie in IMAX, theatres are playing it in the Scope format. This becomes problematic because a lot of the action sequences are shot and designed for the taller aspect ratio, so a lot of what's supposed to be in frame gets cut out. Then you have to use extra digital panning which causes more motion on screen. That makes things messy. And I didn't feel like spending the extra money on IMAX or 3D. I don't think it needs me to, it made $100,000,000 in America alone this weekend...
NOT RECOMMENDED AT ALL.
That being said, I do like the first Transformers movie. It was simple, silly, over-the-top, but it had heart and was a lot of fun. The second movie is one of the few movies that kind of made me angry while watching it. The frat boy in Bay completely took over -- along with a writer's strike leaving Bay with a partial script going into and throughout shooting. I can't completely blame Bay for it's faults. From what I read, they did a lot of improving on set and didn't really know what they were doing. The third movie had a boring first half, but the climax was worth waiting for.
Transformers: Age of Extinction isn't the worst one of the series (Revenge of the Fallen is) but it's the most boring. Yes, T:AoE is just incredibly boring. For being around 2 hours and 45 minutes, there's almost nothing going on.
It's kind of funny that T:AoE is almost trying to make a political statement. The plot is trying to have something to do with crony capitalism and government military contracts. But it's ineptly handles and becomes buried by even worse father/daughter road trip aspect of the film. But basically a government worker is trying to kill transformers so he can allow a major corporation to farm the transformers' bodies to harvest the metal they're made out of the make a profit. It sounds good on paper. It's an idea that I think is damn good. But instead we have to focus on Mark Wahlberg being a shitty dad.
Damn it, Marky Mark, learn how to change your accent. You played a New Orleans native and you still have your Boston accent. Here you play a Texas native, and you still sound like you're from Boston. You even make fun of another character for because he "sounds like a leprechaun" and lives in Texas. You have no right... I'm sorry Marky Mark. I still like you as an actor. But just not here. And it's not just your accent. We're supposed to be rooting for Mark's character, who's named Yaeger -- Honestly, I'm not sure if this isn't trying to take from Pacific Rim or not -- who's a failed inventor/man-child. Insert typical lowest-point-in-life clichés, and boom, you got Yaeger.
His daughter, played by... honestly, I don't even care... made me miss Megan Fox. She's supposed to be the rebellious teenager who also takes care of her father. But she is just so annoying. There are times where it's just stupid. Example, the human characters have to walk what is basically a tight rope hundreds of feet in the air. They have to go from one side to the other to get to safety. It's also going from the high point to the low point. She gets more than half way, but because she's scared, is yelling, "I'm going to go back." Why? Because we need to add tension to this scene. She's becomes a plot device. Oh, she's captured, now we have to go to this set piece to save her. Let's put a gun to her head to make the main character talk, let's have robots fight near her so we have to run and go get her. And the whole time we're dealing with this, we're also dealing with the "oh yeah, he's my boyfriend I never told you about because you don't want me dating anyone" cliché as well. No, the boyfriend isn't worth talking about. He's just there because occasionally they need a good driver and he drives cars. And some awkward "stay away from my daughter" bits. That's about it.
All of this made it incredibly hard to enjoy the action sequences. Sadly, there are a few sequences of action that look like they were well put together. However it feels there's nothing at stake. Very quickly even the death of the human characters becomes a non-factor. Scratch that, one character does die early on. But after that, it becomes comical how much punishment the humans take. One that sticks out the most was when Optimus Prime was driving probably around 45-55 mph, the two guys jump out onto the grass, they're ok. But the daughter gets launched out and tumbles along side Prime for a good hundred or two hundred feet. When she stops, she gets up, not even winded, no scratches, nothing, and runs for cover. And this happens so often I couldn't help but laugh at it.
There is no urgency when your characters can't be hurt. There's not drama in the action if you know the characters are going to be OK. This, along with simply not caring whether or not the characters make it, turn all the action sequences into light shows. Then the whole movie becomes that. To make matters worse is the action is few and far between. I think the first major set piece is an hour into the movie. T:AoE has less action of the 4 movies. It's also the longest of the 4 movies. And it had the biggest budget of the 4 movies. While it's not the worst, it's the most boring of the 4 movies.
One thing I want to add is Bay was bragging about this movie being 60% filmed in the IMAX format. Typically movies are either filmed in "Flat" format (1.85:1 aspect ratio), or "Scope" (2.39:1 aspect ratio). IMAX is 1.43:1. However, when you aren't watching the movie in IMAX, theatres are playing it in the Scope format. This becomes problematic because a lot of the action sequences are shot and designed for the taller aspect ratio, so a lot of what's supposed to be in frame gets cut out. Then you have to use extra digital panning which causes more motion on screen. That makes things messy. And I didn't feel like spending the extra money on IMAX or 3D. I don't think it needs me to, it made $100,000,000 in America alone this weekend...
NOT RECOMMENDED AT ALL.
Sunday, June 15, 2014
How To Train Your Dragon 2
I was a fan of the first How To Train Your Dragon. It's one of the few animated movies I own on Blu-ray. It was a fantastic "A boy and his dog" stories with a dragon substituting for the dog. Without getting too into it, the only real problem I had with HTTYD was the last 15-20 minutes of it. The reason being was it didn't really have that heart-breaking moment most "A boy and his dog" movies have, and the ending came too easily. What took Hiccup several days, or even weeks, to do the first time, he's able to not only do a second time in just minutes, but teach 5 other kids how to do it as well in that same amount of time. Then the ending with all the dragons felt a tad too easy. These weren't enough for me to knock the film too much. The rest of the movie was just far too strong for this to be a deal breaker. But I'm just not a fan of having things come together instantaneously like that.
Anyway, I've wasted too much time on the first movie as it is. For How To Train Your Dragon 2, it's clearly obvious the movie is aimed at a more mature audience. Taking place 5 years after the original, Hiccup and the others have visually matured. They've even grown some facial stubble to go along.
Much like the first movie, the animation is stunning. Some of the movie's most beautiful moments are the flying sequences, which I kind of wish I saw in 3D. The world building in this movie takes things a step further than the last. Hiccup is exploring much farther than he did in the first movie and it leads to some amazing landscapes. The color palette is vibrant and the new dragon designs are really creative. While it's not really a big complaint, the first movie didn't have a ton of variety on the dragons that were actually seen on screen. HTTYD2 doesn't go into detail about all the different dragons that are flying around as the first one did, but it really doesn't need to.
The love interest subplot could hardly be called one. Yes, Hiccup is still with the love interest in the first movie. Luckily, there's no conflict or drama between the two of them. There's no need to retread that. Also, the simple fact that they've been together for five years would be enough reason to accept that they have worked out a lot of their differences. Instead, we're treated to a little bit of them acting like a couple who loves each other for a couple scenes. Instead of the love interested angle, we're treated to a much more powerful bond: mother and son. Some aspects do seem a little too easy and convenient. Luckily it's emotionally poignant enough to overcome that.
Hiccup is still the main focus of the story, but it's not just about him and Toothless. It is a coming-of-age time for Hiccup. But one thing that comes along with finding who you are is knowing where you come from. Before now, he's only had one side of his history. Some of the best scenes are when Hiccup takes a backseat to his parents, Stoik and Valda (voiced by Gerard Butler and Cate Blanchet), reuniting. Even when all Hiccup is doing is watching and reacting, we're seeing him grow.
Unlike the first movie, HTTYD2 has a villain. The first movie had a final boss. While that's all fun and cool, having a villain creates urgency. Drago (voiced by Djimon Hounsou) is intimidating. From the rough voice that rivals Stoik in amount of razor blades swallowed, to the ruthless nature and lack of empathy. He makes it clear that he is not to be messed with. Unfortunately, that's as deep as he gets. While Drago is intimidating, he's not compelling. Please, you can't just say that a crazy person can't be reasoned with when you can't give a proper reason on why that character does what he/she does. They do explain, but with everything shown throughout both movies, it's just so flimsy that I can't really buy it. It weakens the villain's character.
One thing I am thankful for with this villain is what he does at the end of the second act. While the first movie's idea of heart-breaking was losing a limb, HTTYD2 doesn't hold back. It makes the "tragedy" of the first film pale in comparison. And most importantly, it serves to move the plot forward and develop several characters. It's not just doing it for the sake of yanking tears.
Without question, the ending to HTTYD2 feels more organic than the first. It's still pushing the convenience factor a tad, but it's not anywhere near cheap. What I liked was it's not the typical "climatic boss fight" at the end of a lot of movies now. The climax is a character moment, and it works. It's a nice cap on a very pleasing movie.
Despite its shortcomings, HTTYD2 has matured quite a bit from the first film. I love it when films that start out for kids have sequels that allow the audience to grow with the movie. If the first film is the Sorcerer's Stone, then this is Prisoner of Azkaban. I just hope the next movie isn't Goblet of Fire.
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.
Sunday, June 8, 2014
Edge of Tomorrow (All You Need Is Kill)
Say what you will about Tom Cruise, I still like him as an actor. Even though they're at varying degrees I rather enjoy most of Tom Cruise's films. I really liked the last MISSION IMPOSSIBLE. Unlike most people, I thought JACK REACHER was really good. I also though OBLIVION was a terrific Sci-Fi movie that was just marketed wrong. But what I really liked about EDGE OF TOMORROW is is has Tom Cruise doing something he hasn't really had to do in a while: act.
Basically all you need to know is that in the battle, Cage (played by Tom Cruise) accidentally hijacks the Mimic's ability to reset the day when they die. At first it sounds like an awesome idea. But even before watching the movie I started thinking how this was going to work. How do we kill them if they're going to reset the day and they can adjust what they do accordingly? If Cage now has that power, where's the tension and sense of urgency? Are we going to have to see the exact same thing over and over again and get tired of it all? In a lesser movie, these would have been problems. Thankfully all these are taken care of. The movie explains enough so these concerns I had going into the movie were not a problem.
When Cage resets the day, Director Doug Limam (MR AND MRS SMITH, THE BOURNE IDENTITY) only has us experience the important parts of the day. After a while, the resets will almost jump us back to the exact moment Cage died the previous attempt. It sort of brings this video game aspect to the movie that was a lot of fun -- sort of reminiscent of SOURCE CODE. And this leads to Cage being killed A LOT! But thankfully, very early into this, the movie introduces a rule that makes it so Cage isn't immortal. Best of all, it doesn't feel like it's cheating, either. It fits in the context of how he got this "power" in the first place. The movie then becomes Cage and Rita (Emily Blunt) working together, mostly through trial and error, to figure out a way to end the war.
Typically Tom Cruise just comes out of the gates as a bad ass in his movies. He knows how to fight, fly, drive, get away from pursuers, you name it. But in EOT, he starts out as a coward. He starts off as a guy who is OK with talking people into going to war but is too much of a wimp to go into battle himself. But when he gets transferred to Europe to be underneath the General of a different country, he's basically given no other choice. This is a side of Cruise we don't see really at all anymore. What's great about it is that we get to see the progress of him going form this coward to the badass Tom that we're used to seeing. And because of this arc he's much more endearing and relatable.
Taking place in a future not exactly specified, this alien species called "Mimics" attack Europe. Through a series of brief TV broadcasts and news reports you get enough exposition to be up to speed. Aliens attack, they're ruthless, shit's bad, Emily Blunt is a badass, cool soldier suits, major attack that will either win us the war or doom everyone. Pretty basic alien invasion plot. The unique thing about EOT is the time travel bit.
Basically all you need to know is that in the battle, Cage (played by Tom Cruise) accidentally hijacks the Mimic's ability to reset the day when they die. At first it sounds like an awesome idea. But even before watching the movie I started thinking how this was going to work. How do we kill them if they're going to reset the day and they can adjust what they do accordingly? If Cage now has that power, where's the tension and sense of urgency? Are we going to have to see the exact same thing over and over again and get tired of it all? In a lesser movie, these would have been problems. Thankfully all these are taken care of. The movie explains enough so these concerns I had going into the movie were not a problem.
When Cage resets the day, Director Doug Limam (MR AND MRS SMITH, THE BOURNE IDENTITY) only has us experience the important parts of the day. After a while, the resets will almost jump us back to the exact moment Cage died the previous attempt. It sort of brings this video game aspect to the movie that was a lot of fun -- sort of reminiscent of SOURCE CODE. And this leads to Cage being killed A LOT! But thankfully, very early into this, the movie introduces a rule that makes it so Cage isn't immortal. Best of all, it doesn't feel like it's cheating, either. It fits in the context of how he got this "power" in the first place. The movie then becomes Cage and Rita (Emily Blunt) working together, mostly through trial and error, to figure out a way to end the war.
Doug Liman knows how to make entertaining action. The BOURNE IDENTITY and MR. AND MRS. SMITH had a lot of really cool set pieces. Even with as bad of a movie JUMPER was, Liman still gave that movie some memorable moments in its action. EOT wants you to see what's going on. The director and DP framed every moment of action wide enough to catch everything worth seeing while getting close enough to allow the actors express their emotions.
I was never bored watching EOT. It takes about 15 minutes or so to get to the first battle setting up characters and the situation. But once the battle starts, the movie doesn't let up until the end. For a movie that's almost 2 hours long, it hardly feels it. It doesn't waste its time with silly things like a romantic subplot. Sure, you see Cage getting closer to Rita with every death. Even Rita does show layers to her no-nonsense persona. But it doesn't go as far to let these characters forget what's really important: winning the war.
EDGE OF TOMORROW doesn't do a whole lot new or anything groundbreaking. It has a simple story it wants to tell with a little gimmick to make itself stand out. And it does what it sets out to do almost flawlessly. My only complaints would be that almost all of the characters outside of Cage and Rita are one dimensional and forgettable, the aliens don't really have any motivations except "take over the world," and the title of the novella is way cooler (All You Need Is Kill). Other than that, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND EDGE OF TOMORROW to everyone.
Saturday, June 7, 2014
Starting Anew.
It's been quite a long time since I've even really given serious thought to writing movie reviews again. Call it lack of motivation, lack of time, lack of energy, whatever. I think it's time I finally get back on this horse I once stepped off of.
So, some ground rules I'm setting for myself:
1. Either one new movie or one old movie every week.
2. New movie reviews must be posted on Sunday while old movie reviews posted on Wednesday.
3. If I miss a new review, I must do an old movie. If I miss both, then I must do both the following week.
I think that'll do for now. So, welcome to NotInWater's Movie Reviews.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)