As Above, So Below

Released:  August 29^th, 2014

Rated:  R

Studio:  Universal Pictures

Starring:  Perdita Weeks, Ben Feldman, Edwin Hodge, François Civil, Marion Lambert, Ali Marhyar

Directed by:  John Erick Dowdle

Written by:  Drew Dowdle, John Erick Dowdle

Personal Bias Alert:  claustrophobic, wasn’t feeling well during the screening

2.3 of 10

Full Disclosure:  I did step out for a minute in the middle of this film because of nausea.  It was due to illness and not anything onscreen, and I don’t feel it affected my viewing at all.

            This movie starts out on the wrong foot, stays on the wrong foot, and ends on the wrong foot.  It opens with a scene of our main character, Scarlett (Perdita Weeks), on a bus to Iran.  She explains into her camera that she is entering the country knowing that she will be killed if she’s caught, but that it’s her last chance to find some key thing before they blow it up.  Now, what the audience is supposed to learn from this little scene is that our heroine is determined, stubborn, and moderately reckless.  What we actually learn is that she’s dumb enough to say out loud that she is committing an act that she can be killed for on a bus full of people in a normal speaking voice.

            That’s a frustrating start that the film never recovers from.  It plods along for another twenty minutes trying to establish that Scarlett and her friend George (Ben Feldman) are smart (they speak multiple languages and like old things!), but we know better.  Once things start going down, I knew they would make dumb decision after dumb decision because Scarlett had already proven that that’s what she does.  You can have all the degrees and speak all the languages you want, but if you follow the supposedly dead guy into the tunnel that no one returns from, not a soul on Earth is going to think you’re smart.

            Despite the rough setup, I did actually take a liking to the two leads.  Weeks is a Brit, and if there’s one thing that makes exposition and setup go down smooth it’s an attractive person with a British accent spouting it.  Feldman’s a good looking guy, too, but my crass observations about their appearance is selling them short.  These two actually manage to show off some decent acting despite their poorly drawn characters, and their likability stems more from their talent than their looks.  I’d actually like to see the two paired up again in the future, albeit in a better film.

            While poorly paced, I did appreciate that the film took the time to establish a clear motivation for the two’s journey into the catacombs of Paris:  to find the philosopher’s stone.  They even build in some nice puzzle mysteries to slow down and explain to uninformed audience members such as myself (a.k.a. those who didn’t read Harry Potter) what the hell the philosopher’s stone is and what some of the mystical symbols they encounter are.  Early on, it seems like the filmmakers are actually trying to establish a mythology, which would make the early slow parts worth it if they actually stuck with it to a grand ending.  Instead, some lazy storytelling techniques muddles the mythology and the ending doesn’t add up to anything, including satisfaction for the viewer. 

            I thought going into this that setting a horror film in an inherently creepy place like the catacombs of Paris would at least ensure some creepy visuals, but this film even managed to let me down there.  Admittedly, they were effective in triggering my mild claustrophobia, but everything else here is downright tired.  Creepy cult people?  Check.  Dead children?  Check.  Shaky cam that blurs potentially scary images?  Check.  When even I, who is not a horror film aficionado, thinks your costume department raided the nearest Spencer’s and Hot Topic, you’ve done something terribly wrong.

            I’m sure As Above, So Below sold due to its creepy setting, but the laziness behind the camera drags this film down lower than the characters ever go.

  

Other Notes:

Ø  How did Scarlett run back to the room where she got the stone so fast?

Ø  I’m glad Scarlett’s fluent in so many languages except the one she actually needs to know.

Ø  That was the laziest way to get George down into the tombs.

Ø  Oh, that over-the-top shaky cam.  I get the conceit that he’s filming a documentary, but his shot should be steady during Scarlett’s interview.

The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters

Released:  August 17^th, 2007

Rated:  PG-13

Studio:  Picturehouse

Starring:  Steve Wiebe, Billy Mitchell, Walter Day

Directed by:  Seth Gordon

Personal Bias Alert:  likes underdogs, rarely achieves my dreams

9.5 of 10

            I’m a big fan of classic stories.  It was something I noticed gradually as I looked back on the movies, books, and television that I loved.  I thought my heart laid the oddballs, the slightly off-beat comedies with an arched brow and the dramas that eschew painfully close to home.  I do love these things, but the classics are there too, weaving their way slyly through the comedies, the dramas, and yes, the documentaries.

            The King of Kong:  A Fistful of Quarters is one of those classics, a pure underdog story as traditional as Rudy or David and Goliath.  Billy Mitchell is our Goliath, parading through the film as a successful business owner and titan of classic arcade gaming, with a good-looking wife and a perfectly coifed mullet to boot.  Mitchell is even self-aware enough to note “If I have all this good fortune, if everything’s rolled my way, if all these balls have bounced in my favor, there’s some poor bastard out there getting his screws put to him.”  That cues a cut to our David, Steve Weibe.  Weibe is a man who’s consistently come up short in life.  He’s never outright failed, he’s too talented for that, but as his wife notes, things just never quite worked out for him.  The contrast between the two men is instantly noticeable, and the goofy, sensitive Weibe immediately gains the audience’s favor.

            Director/editor Seth Gordon initially intended to make a much broader documentary about competitive gaming, but upon entering the world found this rivalry and it’s perfectly cast archetypes.  Smart enough to know a good story when he saw one, he focused in on the two men’s battle for Donkey Kong supremacy and admits to twisting facts in order to construct the story.  That may be off-putting to some documentary purists, but in this case it doesn’t bother me.  After all, the world record on an arcade game isn’t life or death stuff, and the story it pulls off is powerful and entertaining enough to overlook pesky things like facts.

            Gordon stumbled into a hell of a story, but give him plenty of credit for hammering it into the clean, funny end product we get to see.  He allegedly had over 300 hours of video to work with, and he not only whittled that down into a tight 79 minute tale, he expertly cuts it all together to evoke sympathy and laughter at the exact right times.  Not only does Gordon know when we need to see Weibe break down in frustration or Mitchell gloating over the phone, he knows when to add in side characters to up the stakes.  Fellow Donkey Kong contender Brian Kuh shows up to hover over Weibe’s live record attempts, keep Mitchell constantly informed, and have a quietly devastating moment as Weibe beats him to a record.  Other characters pop in and out, but they’re always there to help along Weibe and Mitchell’s story.  In this sea of characters, Gordon never loses focus.

            That’s not say that Gordon makes his story into something that it’s not.  He doesn’t push the seriousness too far, always reminding us that the stakes aren’t really that high.  After all, it’s just video games, and it’s just Donkey Kong.  That knowledge makes the whole thing seem a bit silly at times, watching adults scramble and back-stab over such a small thing.  Gordon remembers to mine that for some laughs, but it also reveals an inherent truth at the center of the story:  Some people will do anything for a win, and in their monopolizing, other, less fortunate folks are left to pick from the scraps.

            I hope I haven’t lost you with the reveal that they’re battling over Donkey Kong.  I can’t tell you how many times I’ve raved about this movie only to have people’s eyes glaze over the instant they hear those words.  You don’t have to be a gamer (I’m not) or know anything about classic games (I don’t) to understand this story.  You just have to understand defeat and disappoint, and the longing for a win.

            Other Notes:

Ø  You wonder if Billy’s lost an edge, not just in his game playing skill, but in his ability to manipulate and control people.  He never wins over Gordon, and even some of his own herd starts to stray.

Ø  I love the music they used.  It’s another way of knowing that Gordon understood the story he was telling.

Ø  DDG is Drop Dead Gorgeous, if you don’t know.

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For

Released:  August 22nd, 2014

Rated:  R

Studio:  The Weinstein Company

Starring:  Mickey Rourke, Jessica Alba, Josh Brolin, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Rosario Dawson, Bruce Willis, Eva Green, Powers Boothe

Directed by:  Frank Miller, Robert Rodriguez

Written by:  Frank Miller

Personal Bias Alert:  didn’t like Sin City, gets distracted when the background exists in a different universe than the actors

5 of 10

            Like the original, Sin City:  A Dame to Kill For is less a feature than a series of shorts.  It’s only tied together in the sense that it takes place in the same town at roughly the same time, allowing the characters to move in and out of storylines.  Also like its predecessor, it’s packed with stars, guns, leather, unique coloring, terrible dialogue, and poor plots.

            This is a guess, but I think Mickey Rourke had the most screen time, making him the de facto star.  His character, Marv, fits in so well with the city that he’s almost bound to pop up in every story.  He’s big, tough, and always looking for a fight, which isn’t a difficult search in Basin City (Sin City?  What is this town’s name?).  He starts one in the opening story Just Another Saturday Night and gets recruited in A Dame to Kill For and Nancy’s Last Dance.  In between, he sucks booze and cigarettes, lusts after Nancy (Jessica Alba), and laments in clunky noir-style narration his meaningless life.  I think he just needs to put down the booze and take his pills on time, but this isn’t that kind of world.  As a summation of the city, and by extension the movie, he’s a natural fit.  He even has a good leather coat.

            Perhaps the only thing Marv’s missing is some good curves, because to go without mentioning the hyper sexual nature of this film would be a disservice.  It’s incredibly preoccupied with the female body, whether entirely naked or bound in leather.  Eva Green’s Ava, the titular dame to kill for, stars in the largest section of the film, often naked, using her extreme powers of seduction to get what she wants.  The catch is, she is neither the main character nor the good guy in the story (both go to Josh Brolin’s Dwight).  Her powers are portrayed as evil, driving men to do the things they are otherwise able to resist.  It’s a sexist slant that runs through the entire film, as much of the action seems to spawn from the strip club Nancy works at.  Tsk-tsk.  We women and our sexuality are always causing problems.

I know you’re shaking your head at me for pointing out Sin City’s sexism, because hey, it’s a selling point.  It’s on par with criticizing it for its cinematography, which is arguably the most distinctive look in modern cinema.  When you see a still from this series, it’s instantly recognizable.  You will never mistake it for something else.  While I’m not a massive fan of the style, it is interesting if only for its novelty, so when the story started to drag I remained moderately entertained by its looks.  The hyper sexuality is a natural extension of this desire to visually entertain, and it’s ultimately successful.  Green does look good, as do all the ladies in the film, so even though it’s appealing to a base desire, I have to give the film credit for delivering what it promises.

As I mentioned, the stories do drag at times, with certain ones working better than others.  A Dame to Kill For is by far the most complete story, even if everything in it is very one-note.  Nancy’s Last Dance manages to give fans of the first movie a gratifying ending, and Just Another Saturday Night is over so quickly that it’s hard to have a strong opinion.  By far the worst is The Long Bad Night, featuring Gordon-Levitt as a talented gambler taking on Senator Roark.  The plot outcome is so preordained that the story seems pointless, and it adds absolutely nothing to the tone or overarching themes of the story.  Why it exists is a mystery to me.

If I thought this film was trying to be anything other than pulpy noir, then I would give it a much lower rating.  For what it is, it works adequately well, and there’s no way you can accuse it of false advertising.

Other Notes:

Ø  No joke, an anti-smoking ad played in front of my screening.

Ø  Throughout most of Eva Green’s scenes, I imagined her turning to the camera, pointing to her face, and saying “eyes up here.”

Ø  I feel like a lot of these character’s problems would be solved if they just shot people in the head faster.

The Thin Blue Line

Released:  August 25^th, 1988

Rated:  NR

Studio:  Miramax

Starring:  Randall Adams, David Harris

Directed by:  Errol Morris 

Written by:  Errol Morris

Personal Bias Alert:  likes crime docs, understands the flaws in America’s judicial system

7 of 10

            After being released from prison, documentary subject Randall Adams sued director Errol Morris for the rights to his life story.  He wasn’t going after the money from the film, nor was he making big plans to cash in on his story.  In fact, Adams lived a relatively obscure life after his release, so much so that despite being a famously exonerated man, his death in 2010 wasn’t noted nationally.  Speculation over why the lawsuit came to pass has no clear answer, with Morris stating “it’s a long, complicated story, but I guess when people are involved, there’s always a mess somewhere.”  It’s too bad that Morris waited to make this statement until after the film was released, because it would have made a perfect ending to the muddled story his documentary unfolds.

              The Thin Blue Line investigates the murder of Texas police officer Robert W. Wood, who was shot and killed during a routine traffic stop in November 1976.  Adams would later be convicted of the killing based on flimsy evidence, and Morris would eventually come across the case while working on a film about the prosecution psychiatrist nicknamed Doctor Death.  A dogged researcher, Morris would spend the next two years investigating the case, abandoning the ostentatiously named doctor in favor of the subdued Adams’ very troubling story.

            Morris clearly believes that Adams is innocent, and uses his comprehensive understanding of the case to focus in on where things went wrong.  Racism, suckered cops, and fear of outsiders in small town America only scratches the surface of the complications surrounding the case, so Morris has plenty of material to cover.  To help make this wealth of exposition go down easy, he employed what was at the time a new technique in documentary filmmaking:  reenactments.  This is common now, especially in crime stories, but at the time it was believed that documentaries shouldn’t stray from absolute fact.  That Morris used these reenactments to show the different ways the murder might have gone down only made his technical choice all the more controversial, famously getting the film rejected by the Oscars for having too much scripted material.  But in this case of he said she said, allowing the viewers to see the way the story slowly changed throughout the investigation shows how even the small, good-intentioned efforts of law enforcement officials led this case astray.

            Of course, there were larger and far more harmful blunders throughout the case, the biggest of which was the absolute reliance on eye-witnesses to tie Adams to the crime.  Eye-witnesses are highly unreliable even when they have the best intentions, and the group of people who brought Adams down were far from model citizens.  In fact, he never would have been accused in the first place if then petty thief David Harris hadn’t thrown him under the bus, claiming that he was in the passenger seat when Adams shot Officer Wood.  Morris returns the favor, arguing throughout the film that Harris was the actual shooter.  The problem is, there’s so many conflicting sides to the story that even this film’s very slanted version is less than convincing.  There’s simply too many things that don’t add up, and the heap of complications that Morris throws out only further confuses the matter.  This uncertainty would be fine if the film was about how the case went wrong and the reasons why, but in trying to make the case that Adams is innocent and Harris is guilty, the film ultimately fails.

            It still manages to be rather absorbing, and anytime cases of police misconduct pop up, I think of this film.  It’s very good at encapsulating how badly investigations can go, and how long the mistakes can remain hidden away.  The police are just people too, and as Morris said, when there’s people involved, there’s always a mess somewhere.

            Other Notes:

Ø  The judge came off as an unlikable, smug guy, and his chuckle after he tells the story of what happened to the woman that turned in Dillinger was chilling.

Ø  I love Philip Glass’s score.  It sounds vaguely like Metamorphosis, but I’m unclear if there is really a connection.

Ø  Whatever happened to the milkshake?

The Expendables 3

Released:  August 15^th, 2014

Rated:  PG-13

Studio:  Lionsgate

Starring:  Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Antonio Banderas, Jet Li, Wesley Snipes, Dolph Lundgren, Kelsey Grammer, Randy Couture, Terry Crews, Kellan Lutz, Ronda Rousey, Glen Powell, Victor Ortiz, Robert Davi, Mel Gibson, Harrison Ford, Arnold Schwarzenegger

Directed by:  Patrick Hughes 

Written by:  Sylvester Stallone, Creighton Rothenberger, Katrin Benedikt

Personal Bias Alert:  Not an action movie fan, never seen the first two Expendables

 3 of 10

            Even I have to admit, this cast is impressive.  Not in the sense of being extremely talented actors, but in the sheer number of them that could break my spine in under a minute.  Yep, most of these guys (and the lady) are the real thing, ranging from massive bodybuilders to boxers to MMA fighters.  That makes me mildly terrified to say this, but they’ve collectively made a pretty terrible film.

            In a case of three heads are worse than two, the writing staff has been upped to a trio, and still they struggle to form a basic plot.  We get that Mel Gibson’s Stonebanks is the bad guy, having turned on Sylvester Stallone’s Barney and vaguely betrayed the expendables group they formed together.  But the reason why anything else happens, like why Barney breaks Wesley Snipes’ Doc out of prison or why he abandons his old group in favor of some young blood is only given cursory explanations.  It’s pretty clear that they’re trying to segue into the next action sequence (or at least the next quipy exchange) as fast as possible, and I have to wonder why three writers were necessary for that goal.

            Perhaps it was to get all that sharp, witty banter (sarcasm).  Now, I have to take a step back here and admit that I’ve always found this cheesy style of 80s-90s action movie dialogue rather off-putting, and while it did elicit a few laughs from others, there were long swathes of banter scenes that left the theater silent.  There’s simply too many lazy jokes, too many poorly performed gags, too many ‘there’s a woman in this one’ reminders, and one awfully terrible Antonio Banderas.  I actually kind of felt bad for him; he was clearly told to go that big, but watching his performance had me agreeing with the guy next to me who whispered “go back to Zorro.”

            The experience level in this cast is an odd mix, with some being action movie legends and others making their big screen debut.  It’s not noticeable, though, since everyone is skating along without really trying.  Sure, they give it their all in the action scenes, but anything that resembles actual acting is pretty sparse.  The only one really emoting anything here is Gibson.  Extracurricular activities aside, the man can act, and even in a one-note performance he outshines everyone else onscreen.  But hey, at least with a cast this size we get an overlong team introduction/recruitment sequence.

            Now to the selling point, the entire reason for this film’s existence:  the action sequences.  I’ll be frank; they’re very underwhelming.  Relying on uninspired gunfire and explosions sequences to keep you entertained, their repetitiveness eventually becomes outright tiresome.  The final sequence, which features the team fighting their way through an abandoned building, goes on for an eternity, endlessly repeating the hiding behind a wall and shooting the guy as he passes routine.  Add in that the $90 million budget was noticeably stretched too far, resulting in some unconvincing CGI, and you’ve got a dud.

            To be honest, I don’t have much to say about this film.  I walked out of the theater and tried to record my notes, but nothing came.  The stammering recording is almost sad, and at one point I actually exclaim “I just don’t know what to say about it, because I was so bored by it.”  Listening to the recording again, I actually remark twice on how bored I was.  So that’s my main takeaway:  I was bored.  You probably will be, too.

            Other Notes (Ridiculous Action Movie Version):

Ø  Guards never look up or down.

Ø  When Sly Stallone’s ears are ringing, he just has to yell incoherently to fix them.  (This was my favorite part of the film)

Ø  The beard shaving scene.  It’s worth a watch just for its awfulness.

Other Notes (Regular Version):

Ø  When they introduced Ronda Rousey’s character, were they trying to hide that she was a badass with hipster glasses?

Ø  What’s with all the shots of Mel Gibson walking up stairs?

Ø  SPOILER:  This does have an ethnically diverse cast, but they only toy with killing the two black characters.  I’m hoping that was meant to be a joke on that trope.

Undefeated

Released:  February 17, 2012

Rated:  PG-13

Studio:  The Weinstein Company

Staring:  Bill Courtney, O.C. Brown, Montrail ‘Money’ Brown, Chavis Daniels

Directed by:  Daniel Lindsay, T.J. Martin 

Personal Bias Alert:  loves football, dislikes platitudes

8.3 of 10

            A summary of this film is destined to instigate eye rolls and subtle smirks.  The story is so familiar that cynics will approach it with a been-there-done-that mentality, and I can’t blame them.  I mean, how many times do we have to watch the noble white guy steer a group of underprivileged youth using the magic of sports?  What you’ll find out if you give this film a chance, is that while it does follow that exact path, it dives deeper than most into the dynamics at work, giving us an honest and worthwhile examination of this tired cliché.

            Headed by volunteer coach Bill Courtney, the Manassas Tigers are ostensibly setting out to win a playoff game for the first time in the schools 100+ year history.  But Courtney’s ulterior motives are pointed out early on, as he lists the things he’s had to deal with:  “Starting right guard shot, no longer in school.  Starting linebacker shot, no longer in school.  Two players fighting right in front of the coach when he’s trying to make things work out.  Starting center arrested for shooting somebody in the face with a BB gun... I think that sums up the last two weeks for me.”  He’s annoyed without being flustered, standing in front of a roomful of players with a tired, mildly dejected look on his face that we come to know very well.  Notice how each event is framed by something entirely unrelated to football.  Two young men are no longer in school, one’s been arrested, and two are ignoring the efforts of someone trying to help them out.  It’s the behavior (and its long-term effects) that bother him, not how it will influence future games.

            What you come to find out about Courtney and the rest of the coaching staff is that they’re just as intent on getting these young men on a solid path as they are about winning that elusive playoff game.  Not that football isn’t important; it’s incredibly important to everyone involved, and that’s what allows them to connect to each other, to speak a common language.  Movie people, like you and I, might cite a film scene to express an intimate emotion, while these guys explain the pain of an absent father as having to carry your own pads home after scoring the winning touchdown.  This connection, and Courtney’s dogged effort to keep them all going in the right direction, makes for some of the richest, most complicated relationships you can find in fiction or nonfiction.

            Documentaries thrive and fail based on their subjects, and while Courtney is a great find, the three young athletes the film focuses on go on some incredible journeys.  O.C. (whose last name I kept expecting to be Umenyiora) is the most talented of the bunch, seemingly destined to play college ball if he can get his grades up.  Money is quite the opposite; an undersized lineman whose determination keeps him in the lineup, but whose grades is his best way out of their struggling neighborhood.  The most interesting, however, is Chavis, whose temper problems have already earned him a stint in juvie and threaten to derail what little he has going for him.  Even by the end, Chavis seems to have the least chance of getting out, but the steps he takes in righting himself is so surprising that it almost makes the entire film on its own.

            While Chavis’s story goes about as well as you could hope for, the documentary format allows for the possibility that things might not work out for everyone.  Life is tough and doesn’t always go according to script.  There are times in this film when the blows start to beat you down, and I can’t help but feel that directors Daniel Lindsay and T.J. Martin didn’t get quite enough positives from these people’s lives to make the whole thing work.  Still, the relationships playing out onscreen is more than enough to make this documentary worth watching.

            Other Notes:

Ø  Their running back looked really good.  Small but fast, and with some slippery moves.

Ø  My favorite moment is when O.C. asks Courtney for some cologne.  He’s noticeably embarrassed, and Courtney good-naturedly teases him before instructing him on how to put it on.  When Courtney tells him he’s going to have all the girls following him around, O.C. smiles and stares out the window, gently rubbing his arms, caught in a brief moment of fantasy.

Ø  I kind of wish I knew where everyone is now, but then again, life’s tough.  Maybe I’d rather leave it as is.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

Released:  August 8th, 2014

Rated:  PG-13

Studio:  Paramount Pictures

Staring:  Megan Fox, Alan Ritchson, Jeremy Howard, Pete Ploszek, Noel Fisher, Will Arnett, Danny Woodburn, William Fichtner, Johnny Knoxville, Tony Shalhoub

Directed by:  Jonathan Liebesman

Written by:  Josh Appelbaum, André Nemec, Evan Daugherty

Personal Bias Alert:  big Ninja Turtles fan as a kid, dislikes Michael Bay

6 of 10

           

            The dumbest idea I heard throughout the pre-production of this film was when they announced they were going with the title Ninja Turtles.  It beats out all the other ridiculousness (aliens, Brett Ratner) because it shows an inherent misunderstanding of their product.  They are TMNT.  Teenage.  Mutant.  Ninja.  Turtles.  The silliness is stated right in the title, and any effort to minimize or move away from that would be a fatal misunderstanding of why kids love it and why adults hold on to it.

            Now before everyone starts jumping down my throat about the Michael Bay bias, I know that he was not the director of this film.  It’s all the better for it, as Jonathan Liebesman brings a far more solid understanding of storytelling to the production than Bay has proven capable of in years.  Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles has a straightforward, coherent plot involving the turtle’s origins that is remarkably well paced.  Unlike Bay’s films, it’s not bloated, it doesn’t expect us to have a twenty minutes attention span, and it’s not trying to be serious.  I’m not arguing that it’s in any way remarkable.  In fact, it’s a very safe, blockbustery plot, but it’s a solid effort that blows Bay’s Transformers:  Age of Extinction out of the sewer.

            The brand is what I and many others clad in t-shirts and homemade costumes were coming for, and this film doesn’t disappoint.  We’ve all, filmmakers included, agreed that this is supposed to be a cheesy good time, and any fears that they were going to make the turtles too serious is assuaged early on.  The humor largely revolves around poking fun at the silliness of the product, and the jokes come fast and furious at the beginning of the film.  It’s here that Megan Fox shines.  No, she’s still not a great actress, but she’s often shown comedic chops and a willingness to make fun of her own vapid image.  This version of April O’Neil is perceived very similarly to Fox’s own image, which makes for comedic scenes that work due to Fox’s intimate familiarity with the jokes.  I have to give her credit for having a tough shell; there’s not many actors or actresses who have taken the barrage of criticism she has and come out able to laugh about it.

            The turtles themselves are rather generic, maintaining their basic characteristics from previous iterations without getting anything added.  Leonardo is the leader, Michelangelo the goofball, Donatello the brains, and Raphael the rebel (and my personal favorite).  Their size is really the only thing that’s changed.  They used to be equivalent to humans, but here, with the aide of motion-capture animation, they are muscle-bound behemoths.  Luckily, their strength isn’t that big of a factor, leaving their ninja skills firmly intact.

            There’s really one word to sum up this whole thing:  safe.  It doesn’t meddle with the TMNT formula and takes no chances with its story.  While not special, it does nothing terribly wrong, and its competency compares favorably to this summer’s Transformers and The Amazing Spider-Man 2.  That’s a pretty low bar, but this film wasn’t shooting very high.

Other Notes:

Ø  The one thing they did mess up was Splinter.  He never looks like a rat, always seems mildly disgusting, and simply doesn’t look real.

Ø  I can roll with the turtle shells being bulletproof, and not with their ability to shoot the bullets back out of their shells.

Ø  Apparently Raphael’s sunglasses are immovable.

Ø  Were the canisters the foot clan were trying to steal at the beginning of the film labeled nitro ethanol?

The Invisible War

Released:  June 22nd, 2012

Rated:  NR

Studio:  Cinedigm

Directed by:  Kirby Dick

Written by:  Kirby Dick, Amy Ziering, Douglas Blush

Personal Bias Alert:  likes Kirby Dick, respects the military

9.3 of 10

            It takes The Invisible War seven minutes to become foreboding and ten minutes to get to its first rape story.  What follows is fourteen more stories, told in quick succession, that makes it clear how pervasive, how horrifying, and how despicable the subject matter is.  It’s also an effective setup for writer/director Kirby Dick’s format, a way to get everyone instantly on his side so the rest of the film can be devoted to a systematic takedown of the broken way that the US military handles rape and sexual assault.

            Have no doubt, the subject matter is difficult to watch, and Dick makes us look directly at it without ever glancing away.  He employs a smart tactic of inundating us with stories from several women that bleed together into a horrifying mash, then pulling back to focus in on one story in particular, telling us of the woman’s optimism and ideals before plunging us into her story and it’s lingering effects.  The blended stories keeps us unsettled and gives us a sense of scope, but it’s the well-chosen individual stories that really makes you angry.  Dick deftly focuses on one woman in particular, Kori, a Midwestern girl-next-door type who is suffering but showing a stiff upper lip, exactly the kind of girl you can imagine joining the military.  The fact that she is fighting with the VA to get medical coverage for the injuries she sustained from her rapist only makes her story more enraging.

            To contrast Kori, Dick also extensively explores the story of Ariana, a highly intelligent and successful Marine Corps officer who is more emotionally open about her difficulties.  She had worked her way into the prestigious Marine Barracks Washington (yes, that’s national capitol Washington D.C.), only to encounter a party culture that turned a blind eye to sexual harassment.  Ariana’s story builds to her rape, but it also serves as the culmination of Dick’s larger point that the various military branches have all had horrendous pockets where rape and sexual assault have been condoned and actively covered up.  Siting previous scandals like the Navy’s Tailhook convention and the Army’s Aberdeen Proving Ground, the uncovering of Marine Barracks Washington’s detestable culture, emotionally landed by Ariana’s tearful confession, is a devastating blow against the military’s current handling of rape and sexual assault.

            Comprehensive explorations are something Dick’s known for, so seeing such a complete takedown from him isn’t shocking.  He’s trying to outrage us into change, and on that he earns perfect marks.  Where the film falters, if only slightly, is in its more blatantly manipulative moments, laying it on so thick you can almost imagine Dick behind the camera going “ka-ching!”  In one of the worse moments, he toys with the inept Director of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office so forcefully that I almost feel bad for her when I should be feeling nothing but shock at her office’s weak actions.  It’s moments like this, when Dick pushes just a bit too far, that the film loses a bit of its momentum.

            I’ve often heard this film described as timely, but I see nothing timely about it.  It came far too late, and the best we can do now is demand change as quickly as possible.  If this movie taught me anything, it’s that the military know how to endure these scandals and maintain the status quo.  Let’s not let that happen this time.  Keep spreading this film around.

Other Notes:

Ø  It’s one-sided, but it’s a one-sided issue.  Who would argue that rape is right?

Ø  The fact that all the stats came from the US government and hasn’t been disputed is staggering.

Ø  The most horrifying quote for me:  “They actually did charge me with adultery.  I wasn’t married.  He was.”

Guardians of the Galaxy

Released:  August 1^st, 2014

Rated:  PG-13

Studio:  Marvel Studios

Starring:  Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Vin Diesel, Bradley Cooper, Lee Pace, Michael Rooker, Karen Gillan, Djimon Hounsou, John C. Reilly, Glenn Close, Benicio del Toro

Directed by:  James Gunn 

Written by:  James Gunn, Nicole Perlman

Personal Bias Alert:  not a Marvel Universe fan, likes all the actors

7.7 of 10

            On its face, Guardians of the Galaxy seems remarkably different than the rest of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  It’s the first release not associated with The Avengers, and it seemingly exists in its own world, populated with aliens, gods, and high-powered weaponry.  I was hoping this would mean a stray from the safe, middle-of-the-road formula the rest of these movies employed, but alas, its breezy humor isn’t enough to cover its conventional plot.

            To say that Guardians is simply a space western would be overlooking a large part of its appeal.   It’s an homage to the genre, a loving reminder of how much fun a shoot ‘em up in space can be.  Think back to 2011’s Super 8.  That film worked not because it was an immaculate rip-off of 1980’s Spielberg, but because it captured a nostalgia for how movies like E.T. made you feel when you watched them.  Guardians captures a similar feeling, even if it does lack the sappiness of my example.  It serves as a reminder of pleasurable romps gone by, and fans of Firefly and Star Wars will find themselves transported back to their first encounters with the genre.

            Nostalgia comes with a fair amount of good-naturedness, and there’s hardly a more fitting lead for that tone than Chris Pratt.  As Andy on NBC’s Parks and Recreation and the voice of Emmet in The Lego Movie, he’s honed an eager, affable personality that goes a long way to making his Peter Quill/Starlord a viable leader for the group of undesirables that become the Guardians of the Galaxy.  He’s not the brightest nor the strongest, but he’s capable and charming.  Plus, he owns his own ship.  Backing him up is a redemption-seeking assassin (Zoe Saldana), a very literal tough guy (Dave Bautista), and a bounty hunting duo consisting of a genetically modified raccoon and a walking tree voiced by Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel, respectively.

            Pratt’s comedy background comes in handy, as much of the film’s charm is wrapped up in its flippant humor.  Quill’s got a cocky streak, and his unsuccessful attempts at Saldana’s Gamora is mined for some early laughs.  Character flaws, ridiculous situations, and plot expectations are all used for comedy gold, and the silly laughs keep coming throughout the film.  Cooper’s Rocket (the talking raccoon, mind you) is often the smartest creature in the room, and if that doesn’t give you an idea of this film’s comedic style, then I don’t know what will.

            The plot of Guardians can essentially be summed up in one sentence:  There’s an orb, and everyone wants it.  I would love to say that there’s actually more to it, because the fixings that go with it are so delightful, but that would be a bold-faced lie.  To cover this inadequacy, Guardians fills its runtime with a series of roadblocks that the group must overcome, which never feels like it’s building to an actual resolution.  Instead of working towards a clear goal, it’s more like the group stumbles through the situations they find themselves in, making the whole thing feel almost episodic.  The plot machinations are basic, which they poke fun at, but that doesn’t stop me from knowing exactly how each situation will work out and feeling a little bored by it.

            I wish Guardians of the Galaxy backed up its flair with a bit more substance, but in the end it relies too heavily on familiar conventions to pack a real punch.  I chuckled my way through the film, but I could feel it sliding out of my brain as I walked out of the theater.

            Other Notes:

Ø  This is my favorite Marvel Cinematic Universe film.

Ø  I totally called the mom’s gift.

Ø  Why was Drax worthless?

Ø  Why were the Novas trustworthy enough to get the stone?

Ø  Why did we have to be explicitly told that Quill isn’t entirely human?  It was pretty clear in the very first scene.