 |
|
|
 |
|
Furious 7 does what it can (04/08/2015)
Furious 7 was supposed to be released June 2014 but after the death of Paul Walker, that date was scrapped. The film was only halfway completed and the creators had the unenviable task of deciding what was next
for the billion dollar franchise. Should they scrap 7 altogether ?(unlikely, grieving is necessary and all but, money is money) Should they cut Walker, who had shot many of his scenes already, from the movie? Should they try to make the same movie
as originally planned but edit around the elephant in the room? Eventually, James Wan and producers went another way. With no good choices, they decided on keeping Walker in the movie but giving him a fitting sendoff. That's the right choice
and the most respectful. To pull this off Wan and co. had to combine CGI trickery, awkward plot contortions and a level of emotion never pulled off by the series known for cars, babes and blowing s*** up. Do they succeed? Well, let's just
say that they did the best they could under the circumstances. Let's start with the Walker scenes: technology has certainly improved since 2001 when the series began, but the parts where Walker is replaced by his brother's
body double and a CGI mask are very very noticeable. You'll spend a lot of time watching the movie trying to figure out if what you're seeing is Walker and being disappointed you're not having a tougher time doing so. The action sequenes fare better,
they are tightly edited, smartly shot and suitably exciting. Hey, Walker wasn't really going to jump out of cars and do Tae Kwon Do anyway so, why does it matter if it happens in the dark? Does the plot make sense? Well,
not really. In an effort keep Walker in the movie but still give his character a reason to leave, the creators had to cobble together existing Walker footage and new scenes the rest of the cast shot. The result is very disjointed. Brian
speak to Maya on the phone and their conversations feels odd, as if they're not really talking to each other but at each other. Frequently, it doesn't seem like they're having the same conversation as Mia tires to shoehorn in some plot point needed to set
up Brian's exit later on with Brian barely reacting. And with Walker not around to act or "react" to the person on the other side of the phone, the scenes don't gel. It's the equivalent of trying to force a puzzle piece that "kind of" fits. Something
eventualy looks off and here, the scenes FEEL off. But I understand why they did this. It would make more sense for new scenes to be shot around Brian but they wanted to use every piece of footage Walker already shot. Does
Furious 7 stick the landing with the emotional scenes? The answer here is a resounding yes. Diesel and Brewster have to do the heavy lifting, giving speeches that sit up Walker's reasons for leaving. They're heartfelt, even if they're
not the most articulate. By the time the final goodbye occurs you'll be tearing up a bit. The final sequence, in particular, is so beautifully shot it stands as the best bit of filmmaking in the whole series. Pity, a tragedy had to happen
to make it happen, but it does it's job. But the movie is supposed to be a fun action movie. How does it hold up there? A lot of the film will bring you down since we know Brian is leaving and the movie has to spend a lot of
time establishing that. This can be awkward, with a fun stunt being followed by a conversation about Brian that that will bum you out. For 3/4 of the film, however, this works. The action sequenes are fantastice, in a ridiculous way, and very thrilling.
All the depressing stuff is kept on the backburner. However, when it makes its way to the front, the movie starts feeling less fun. In fact, you can probably track your enjoyment level with the time into the movie. As we get closer
to the final goodbye, you'll be dreading it. There are other issues too: Jason Stathem is given very little to do. He was set up as such a badass at the tag of Furious 7 and he does kill a lot of people, but he's almost
besides the point. A lot of the film is about trying to find him and to do that Diesel teams up with Kurt Russell, who offers him help if he can retrieve a super secret survellience program that is stupidly named "God's Eye." So Stathem is in it very
little and the payoff from Han's death in the past movie never really happens. There is also a lot of exposition Russell gives and a lot of time set up to show him and Diesel like each other. The reason? Well, this movie is going to start
a new triloty in the franchise so seeds must be sown. It just feels a little too chaotic. Which leaves me to the final problem. Not enough "Rock!" He's in it for about 7 minutes. Why? See, above. There's
too much going on. There's not enough room for him to take up screen time which is a shame because he single handidly saved the franchise by injecting new life into it with "Fast Five." But I understand why he's pushed to the side. In the
end the movie needs to be about Walker's exit and his character has nothing to do with that. Would a Furious 7 as originally planned have been better? I think so. The action is here , as are the characters. Is
this still the best film that could've been made under the circumstances? Yes, I believe it is so I will forgive all the above cinema sins because of the circumstances. You will be entertained by this movie and you will not regret seeing it.
FINAL GRADE: B
It Follows bucks the trend of most horror movies (03/26/15)
Most horror movies are garbage. I can admit this because I am a horror film fan so I'm not condemning the genre, just commenting on the quality of a significant amount of its product. When a flick hits however, it leaves a powerful impression that will have you overreacting to noises and strange sounds for at least a couple hours after you've finished it. It Follows was originally to be released on VOD the 27th of March, but after a couple of sold out showings in NY/LA, the Weinstein Company figured out that "hey, this movie doesn't suck so let's try to get more people to watch it." I'm glad this happened but I don't know that the movie lives up to the hype. It's good, VERY good in fact. Let's start with the creepy premise: A girl has unprotected sex with a her boyfriend who she's only known for a short while. After they're done, he kidnaps her. She wakes up tied to a chair in an abandoned building but, don't worry this isn't torture porn. He doesn't want to hurt her, he just wants to inform her that he just gave her something. An STD, of sorts, but instead of a virus, he's passed on what's akin to a curse. Now a monster, a horrible, soundless monster that can look like anyone alive or dead so therefore has many faces, is going to come after her. It follows (hence the title) the cursed wherever they are, slowly walking to them. Don't let it touch you, he warns, just keep running and get rid of it as soon as you can. How? Give it to someone else. There's an allegory here that is pretty obvious about safe sex, but the movie doesn't dwell on it. It uses this set to stage sequences that are smart and plenty scary. The direction is extremely measured and confident. The scares are earned, not cheap, and the gore is present but not excessive. The writing of the characters is also strong. Along with our heroine we have her sister, their friend, and the boy next door who is still in love with her. They form a family unit that band together to figure out how to stop It. Where the film falls apart is it's final 20 minutes. The final confrontation is a big let down. It's not in the least bit satisfying. These kind of films are never one for great resolution, but here there's a feeling of "is that all?" when you reach the end. In short, you leave disappointed. But the movie is good, which is a minor miracle in this genre so for that, it deserves much acclaim. Go watch it, just have reasonable expectations.
FINAL GRADE: B
Insurgent comes up a bit short (03/26/15)
Insurgent picks up right where 2014's Divergent left off. In a dystopian future what's left of society is walled into greater Chicago and split into factions based on personality traits: Abnegation (the selfless), Amity (the peaceful), Candor (the honest), Dauntless (the brave), and Erudite (the intelligent). Beatrice Prior belongs to Dauntless but has a secret revealed at the end of the first film: She actually has traits of all factions, making her Divergent. This threatens the societal order and she and her elk are hunted. On her trail is Jeanine, who orchestrates a takeover and blames the divergents. She hates wants them dead but when she finds a box that was left by the long-gone founders, she all of a sudden needs them. The box can only be opened by a divergent. What's in the box and how Beatrice adjusts to being a fugitive is the central story of Insurgent. It moves very quickly, which is sort of the problem. There are so many details and cool ideas in the world author Veronia Roth built, that a little time to breathe and develop characters is needed. While I'm not advocating splitting up movies into two for no other reason than to print money (cough Harry Potter, Hunger games, cough), an extra 30 minutes would've done this movie wonders. I had a simliar experience with the first entry, but that left me wanting more, this left me feeling cheated. But the action is exciting, the acting is strong, and the resolution of the main mystery is satisfying. There's another one or two to go in the series so I'm pot committed at this point. Insurgent was a lesser entry for sure, but I'm hoping it isn't the beginning of the franchise's downward slope.
FINAL GRADE: B
Do You Believe? is more a sermon than a movie (03/26/15)
Do you Believe? is the movie's title and central question. The "what" is, of course, "God" and, in particular, Jesus, and even more specifically, Jesus dying on the cross for our sins. So you can see already the audience the movie is going for is very targeted. Basically, if your answer to the question is "Yes," you'll be inclined to like this film. If the answer is "No," or something more ambivalent, than you probably won't. That's because as a film, "Do you Believe?" doesn't work. It's heavy handed, clumsily plotted, and uninteresting for most its overlong running time. It's Crash for the Saved so as a sermon designed to bring people over to Team Jesus, it works better. It's not terrible. For one, the acting is solid, especially for a Christian film, and some of the stories do suck you in. But you know how it will end before it begins. The atheist doctor will get his comeuppance, the humble ex convict gets redemption, the pastor finds a way to lead his herd after a sufficient bit of self reflection. If the writing was better, or at the very least more subtle, the journey could be satisfying even if the destination is pre determined, but it isn't and I was left very bored. FINAL GRADE: C-
Focus on Will Smith's best performance in years (03/06/15)
In Focus, Will Smith gets his best original role since 2008's Hancock (yes, it's been that long, go to imdb.com to check what I mean). He plays a slick talking con man named Nicky who uses a team of confidence men to scam millions from unsuspecting victims. This being Will Smith, however, you can never really dislike Nicky, even if he is a thief. Smith is charming and likeable as usual, and gives us permission early on to root for him when someone on his team says that they don't aim for anyone with "a cane or a wheelchair." He's mostly going after rich douches, so it's more than okay! Nicky is the best at what he does (or least he thinks he is), and is only thrown through a loop when a girl enters his life (Margo Robbie). She's an amateur and tries to scam Nicky, only to be discovered and ask to to be tutored. Robbie is incredibly hot so of course Nicky eventually agrees, and it's through her naive eyes that we enter his calculating and scheming world. The way they pull of their stealing is slick and fun to watch; Robbie and Smith have good, if not spectacular, chemistry. What stops this movie from being great is the same barrier with all these types of movies. With everyone conning each other, we never really know who to trust. As much as we respect when the wool is pulled over our eyes (and it was for me, quite a few times), mentally we acknowledge this deceit by not believing anything the characters say or do. The script follows suit, and never lets us get to close, always leaving open the possibility that everything everyone says is only a convenient lie. This limits character development. How can you explore a character if everything they do is in question? In the end, Focus plays like a lesser Ocean's Eleven film then anything more memorable (the second half is a let down, it's less smart and sexy). But Smith owns this role. I just wish he played Nicky in a better movie. FINAL GRADE: B
Old Fashioned will either have you awwing, or shuddering (03/06/15)
Depending on how religious and/or jaded you are, Old Fashioned is either a sweet throwback romance, or a creepy/scary lecture on the current state of courtship in America. I lean toward the former ( I am a Movie Optimist after all), but even I was laughing at some of the finer points of this drama. Rik Swartzwelder writes, directs, and stars as Clay Walsh. He's a reformed bad boy who turned to Jesus (or "God found him" as he puts it) after sinning up a storm in college. He's still friends with his old frat brothers but he's turned the corner. He wants to be a better person and this means respecting women. Taking things to an extreme that, to the film's credit, is discussed by skeptical characters, he refuses even to be in the same room alone as a woman. So adverse is he to sinning, his first date with the beautiful stranger he rents a room to (Elizabeth Roberts), is held at a pastor's office. The reason? He brings his possible- lady love for pre marital counseling. This takes even the pastor aback and, depending on your view and mood, will either have you utter a quiet "aww" or develop douchechills so powerful you'll reach for your jacket. In the context of the movie it works...barely, but it's odd. But it's only odd because I'm not an evangelical and the writer/director/star is. He's doesn't apologize for it, which I respect. He clearly is on a mission to educate the audience on what it means to be a gentleman, according to the bible. That's perhaps a noble goal and one that doesn't necessarily turn me off to the film. What does, is its pace. It's slow, meandering, and has repeated scenes where the same themes are dealt with again and again. It's also heavy handed, but you probably can guess that from the brief description I already gave of the plot. It does, however, avoid Kirk Cameron levels of preachiness and Roberts, as the lady lead, is strong. In the end, the movie is average and I can't recommend you spending your time to see it. Although the audience that it targets it won't need any convincing from me. FINAL GRADE: C
McFarland USA is a solid sports movie (02/24/15)
I love sports movies. Something about the formula, where the underdogs start off as a joke but slowly gel as a team and show up the establishment, is captivating to watch. Even if you know each beat of the movie before it happens, watching that transformation can be moving. A great sports movie will have you at the edge of your seat (metaphorically or, sometimes, literally), clenching your fists in excitement. McFarland, USA doesn't quite get there. I can't blame the performances because "king of the sports" movie Kevin Costner conveys his usual earnest-wisdom and gives a hell of a halftime speech, even if there is no halftime. It's the subject matter, therefore, that lets him down. Running just isn't as exciting to watch as football or baseball or even hockey. And relay racing even less so because it's a game of points, so the photo finish you get with sprinting is absent. The film does what it can however and you will find yourself investing in the immigrant Mexican kids who Costner's Coach White takes under his wing. Some of them are a bit interchangeable but together they are effective. The performances of young actors illicit the appropriate emotional response from the audience, especially as they reach the final race. You could knit pick too and bring up the whole "White Knight" saving the brown people issue but the movie is a feel good so let's just leave it as a well done effort that's worth a couple hours of your time. FINAL GRADE: B
Hot Tub Time Machine 2 disappoints but it's not the most terrible thing in the world (02/24/15)
This is not a good movie. Let's just get that out of the way. I won't defend it, I won't make excuses for it and I certainly won't recommend you spending your hard earned money to see it. However, I just don't get the hate that I see in the reviews. Reading how some of the online critics rip into Hot Tub Time Machine 2 you would think that Rob Cordry came into some of their homes and killed their dog. Comedy is hard (much harder than Drama) and sequels to comedies are even harder. No, this movie doesn't work but the cast is talented and try their best, and I chuckled a few times. Sort of Side Note: Clark Duke turns in a surprisingly sincere performance, daring to go for real emotion versus just d**k jokes. For this reason I'm giving the flick a break. Catch it on cable. You may find some parts you like. FINAL GRADE: C
The DUFF, meet the DOSE (02/24/15)
I had high hopes for The Duff. The previews made it look like it could be an "Easy A" type hit. That is, a teenage movie that's smarter than you expect and has some worthwhile things to say about life. I'm sorry to say, I was disappointed. First off let me say that Mae Whitman, as the "DUFF" (Designated Ugly Fat Friend) is wonderful. She is an extremely talented actress who I think has a big future. She's funny, authentic and bold. She's not afraid to look unglamorous in a world where leads to these types of movies look like Disney Channel produced Femebots. She's flanked by a good adult cast including Allison Janney. However, the rest of the younger cast is just not very good. Beyond Whitman, there is not one memorable teen performance in the whole movie. This includes the male lead Robbie Amell who is extremely bland, unfunny, and most, disturbingly, looks like a 28 year old man. This is especially creepy when he flashes the teenage-looking Whitman with his "abs of steel." (Side note I wrote "28" before I knew how old he was but I just looked it up and he's 26, so I was close). And since the title is acronym I've never heard of, let me coin one now: DOSE. Designated Older Student Extra. Because if Amell looks 26, then we need to cast others around him to make him look like a high schooler. The extras and minor characters all look around 30. It's really bad. Beyond the huge casting misses, the script doesn't have anything new or interesting to say about the teenage experience. The moral of the story is that we are all someone's DUFF and we should be happy with who we are instead of focusing on labels. For more on that see "She's All That." "Can't Hardley Wait" "Sixteen Candles" "The Breakfast Club," and so many other movies I forgot. I am awarding the film the "+" only because Whitman is fantastic. Too bad, she's let down by the rest of the movie. FINAL GRADE: C+
50 Shades of Grey is about as good as it can be (02/19/14)
By all accounts "50 Shades of Grey" is a horrible book with nothing intelligent to say and zero redeeming social value. It's an improvement, therefore, that the film version isn't terrible and isn't as stupid as you expect. The story of Anastasia Steele's introduction into the world of BDSM by the mysterious Christian Grey, is presented in a conventional, if not especially exciting way. Instead of boy meets girl, however, it's girl meets boy who likes to beat girl with whips and chains. So the film is a love story and it's a moderately successful one because, Dakota Johnson as Anastasia and Jamie Dornan as Christen, have sexy chemistry. Their scenes together are passionate, whether they're exchanging looks, negotiating over contracts, or actually having sex. The audience also comes to care for, and understand, Anastasia. She's likeable and relateable, so in that way 50 Shades of Grey accomplishes something Twilight couldn't: making you care about the heroine. The magic sauce is again the acting. Johnson is funny, sexy and intelligent. She plays the movie straight, making us care about her as a person and then investing in the relationship with Christian. The easy route would have been to go broad, play into the joke that the movie is supposed to be, but Johnson goes for something much riskier: sincerity. Unfortunately her (and Dornan) are let down completely by the story. There just isn't enough plot to warrant a movie. There's no villain, no 3rd act reveal and no real drama. The film feels repetitive: scenes of the two stars screwing, fighting, arguing, then doing it all over again. Notice too that I said the issue is the story, not so much the script. That's because I think the script does the best it can with the underwhelming source material. There are moments in the movie where both stars engage in a provocative exchange where you almost forget this movie is supposed to be trash and you start to consider that it can be good. Then one of them says something that is so stupid that, even though I never read the book, I could tell comes from the novel. These moments stick out in your mind as the trash infects the surprisingly un-trashy world the film creates. The movie, therefore, is the best adaptation that could've been done, and for that I applaud everyone involved. FINAL GRADE: C+
Two Days, One Nights will make you cringe but keep you watching (02/19/14)
Imagine a co-worker arrives at your door in the middle of the night, unannounced. With hat in hand, she goes on to explain that she's to be laid off unless you help her. How so? You have to give up the bonus you are counting on and worked all year to earn. Would you do it? If the situation makes you uncomfortable, it's supposed to. That's the premise of "2 Days, One Night," a terrific little film that does a lot with very little plot. The film's protagonist is Sandra (a wonderfully understated Marion Cotillard), a mother of 2 who is do back to work after time off suffering from depression. What she finds when she returns however is an employer who realized she may not be necessary, and decides he cannot afford to rehire her. He does give her an out, however. If she can convince her co workers to forgo their annual bonus, she can stay. If you're sense e of indignation is flaring up, then I agree with you. Not only is this patently unfair, it's also, in America, illegal. The catch is this is a French film and that is the very real position Sandra finds herself in. She must beg for her job by convincing people not any better off then her financially, to give up money they need. It's a terrible position to imagine yourself in and that's why you can't look away for the film's entire running time. Your heart will stop every time Sandra knocks on a door or pushes a buzzer as you wait to see if her co worker will even see her (many refuse to outright). You will cringe as she starts her explanation and gets to the big ask. The anticipation builds as the final "vote" for Sandra's livelihood approaches. You will find yourself sympathizing and rooting for her, even as you sympathize with her co workers who say "no" or, in many cases, "I can't." If the film stumbles is in some of Sandra's back story. As much as Sandra tries to save her job, her depression continues to plague her, turning her into a passive, whiny character who risks alienating the audience. Why should we want her to win if she isn't mentally able to handle it? It's her husband who pushes her, and at times I thought Sandra slipping back and forth from her "No, I can't ask them" trepidation to her "okay, let's do it" determination got repetitive. But I admired that the filmmakers weren't afraid to include this or make Sandra too much of a martyr. She's a real person, with faults just like anyone else, and in that way she reminds you of your sister, cousin, friend or maybe even co worker. The emotions she displays on screen hit home, and that's why 2 Days, 1 Night has you captivated and looking at the screen, even as part of you wants to look away. FINAL GRADE: B+
Jeff Bridges plays the same character for like the seventh time in Seventh Son (02/09/15)
Jeff Bridges has been basically playing the same character for at least the past 5 years. It's a mixture of The Dude from Big Lebowski, his character from True Grit and the "law" character from any western. I don't know anyone else who can pull off the marble-mouthed cross between no nonsense alpha male and apathetic hippy. So he's talented, admittedly. But maybe his comfort with his "Jeff-Bridgeness" is affecting his script choices. I can imagine him figuring "it doesn't matter how bad the movie will be, I'll be good in it." He's not wrong but, to paraphrase his famous Internet meme, he's just kind of an asshole for it. What we are left as the audience is last year's R.I.P.D and his new paycheck, I mean movie, Seventh Son. Julianne Moore is also in this one, playing a witch who is also a dragon, and she does her best to mantain her dignity through the proceedings. The plot is lazy, predictable and the writing is even worse. It's an aborted attempt to start a franchise which I'm glad to say didn't work. Bridges will have to find another movie, and hopefully a better one. FINAL GRADE: D+
Jupiter Ascending succeeds at building it's own universe (02/09/15)
I've recently come across the term "world building" to mean a movie or book's ability to build a complicated world for it's audience that is different then ours, but that feels just as real. I like it so I'm going to use it going forward. Jupiter Ascending is solid world-building (see, I told you). It creates a wide universe inhabited by humans, genetic mutations, aliens, robots, and, most frighteningly, bureaucrats in a span of 2 hours. It does so by telling the tale of a "reincarnated" Queen played by Mina Kunis, who is kidnapped and taken back to her home planet. She's our entry point into this weird "verse." So much is happening around her that the film feels like 50% information dump, but it's okay because it's so fascinating. I wish the story itself was a bit more complicated but it's still plenty entertaining and still manages to feel epic because of the universe where it takes place. The action sequences are exciting, well choreographed and suspenseful, which you would expect from the creators of the Matrix. The fact that this movie made no money saddens me because I feel like this could've been a start of a franchise I would be excited to see. As it stands, it may just be a one off but it will be a one-off that feels like a great first chapter to a book you feel excited to continue reading. Too bad, we won't. FINAL GRADE: B
Black Sea has the early lead for the best film of 2015 (02/9/15)
Jude Law plays a scornful laid off dock worker who goes against his former employer in search of Nazi gold. In a submarine. Full of Russians and Brits. If you aren't already sold on this then let me add that this one of the most suspenseful, well acted action films I've seen in a long while. It's certainly the best movie of 2015, but to be fair we're only 40 days in. It has shades of the claustrophobic experience you get when you watch the masterpiece Das Boot, mixed in with the espionage of Crimson Tide. You see, the Brits and Russkies don't trust each other, and an order early on from Law claiming everyone gets an "equal split" regardless of their role manning the old submarine they procure for their salvage mission, only makes things wore. It's not long before jealousy, paranoia and superstitions take hold of the crew in one way or another and they become their own worst enemy. If I had a nitpick it would be that the film is too short, which makes the film's fall into anarchy feel a bit forced. But this has enough explosions and plot twists to keep you thoroughly entertained. FINAL GRADE: B+
Spongebob: Sponge out of water, is as good as its title is short (02/09/15)
I know I'm not the target audience for Spongebob: Sponge out of water. I'm about 20 years and a bad back too old to be a kid. But in the age of Shrek, Despicable Me, and anything Pixar, really, kids movies that are smart enough for adults to enjoy have ruled supreme for the past 20 years or so. This is a welcome change that unfortunately is not evident in this effort. The movie dares to be weird ( rapping super intelligent time-traveling dolphin weird) but it doesn't bother to be coherent. The plot doesn't make sense, which wouldn't be a deal killer except that the movie isn't that funny either. This is also live action so you get to see Spongebob and his crew interact with a pirate played by Antonio Banderas, who has a good time hamming it up because you really can't be over the top when your lead is a talking sponge who wears pants. The reason they're on land is stupid and doesn't make sense. They should've stayed in the water and on TV, but like I said I'm a cynical adult, so what do I know? FINAL GRADE: C+
|
|
|
|
|
|