The Other Woman (2014)

3 of 10

Personal Bias Alert:  dislikes chick flicks, doesn’t hate men

            I inadvertently got to the theater early to see “The Other Woman.”  This allowed me to watch the majority of the audience stream in as one long flow of estrogen.   I don’t mean this in any derogatory or dismissive way, it’s simply the facts.  The audience was overwhelmingly female, and I didn’t see a single man there without a woman accompanying him.  What really caught my eye was the amount of families that came to see it sans their male counterparts.  Grandmothers, daughters, sisters, mothers, aunts, they all came together to see this female-centric romp, chuckling and passing popcorn in a festive mood more appropriate for last weekend’s Easter gatherings.  These are the lessons we pass down now.  When a film like this comes out, you get your girlfriends together and have a laugh.  Unless, of course, you are male.  Then you stay as far away as possible.

            I can’t say that I blame the men for staying away from this one.  Inverse to the rest of Hollywood’s productions, chick flicks are notorious for relegating men to bit parts, appearing mainly as hot love interests or sleazebags waiting to get their comeuppance.  Why should men have any interest in seeing themselves portrayed this way when there’s a plethora of other films that show them in a better light?  Maybe they just really want to see Kate Upton running in a bikini, in which case, they’re in luck!

            Upton plays Amber, one of several women Nikolaj Coster-Waldau’s Mark is cheating on.  The other two are NYC girlfriend Carly (Cameron Diaz) and wife Kate (Leslie Mann).  Carly and Kate are the first to discover Mark’s cheating ways, which Carly is able to walk away from relatively unscathed but leaves Kate unraveled.  Kate pushes herself onto Carly, and the two form an uneasy friendship which takes up a big chunk of the early part of the film.  Once the pair discovers Amber, the three are finally fed up with Mark enough to exact some revenge.  Their plans are big, hoping to make him feel more pain than a simple kick in the balls would deliver (that was Amber’s suggestion).  Some of the things they do are boring, like slipping him estrogen pills, but it eventually gets somewhere sort of interesting when they discover that Mark’s also cheating people out of their money.

            The plot is very mixed, with the first part playing almost as a rom-com, only with Kate and Carly forming a friendship instead of a romantic relationship.  Then the revenge part kicks in, and it starts feeling more like a buddy cop movie.  It leaves the whole thing feeling unfocused and unnecessarily long.  It’s got a runtime of 109 minutes, and boy did I feel every second of it.  It doesn’t help that I don’t find the humor in this film particularly funny.  There’s a large amount of slapstick, particularly from the very game Mann, but I simply don’t enjoy that style of comedy. 

            What I’ve always found interesting about this sort of chick flick, and what this film in particular is guilty of doing, is how blatantly sexist the whole thing is.  Yes, it tries to sell itself as a pro-woman, feminist vehicle, but if you’re being this nasty to men, then you’re just redirecting the sexism.  Mark, obviously, is a bad dude.  There’s really only two other men in this movie:  Carly’s dad Frank and Kate’s brother Phil.  Frank is a cradle robbing, sex obsessed man with questionable business practices of his own.  Phil is sweet and romantic, but is given no purpose outside of being available for Carly to fall in love with.  Basically, you can either be a womanizing jerk or the bland love interest.  If refusing to allow male characters to exist as recognizable people isn’t sexists, then I don’t know what is.  To make matters worse, this film is even sexist against women!  Of course the young bombshell Amber has to be an airhead.  And how about the whole giving Mark estrogen as revenge plot.  The effects of giving Mark estrogen essentially makes him take on some feminine qualities.  Being that this is part of their revenge, the women must think that making Mark seem more feminine, or at least taking away from his manliness, is a bad thing.  That is sexist.

            Did you notice how often I took sexist pot shots throughout this review?  Movies like “The Other Woman” encourages it.  After almost two hours this film burrows into your head, letting loose all the stereotypes it reinforces.  I hate that I let it do that to me, but then again it’s fitting.  That’s all this movie is.

            Other Notes (Ridiculous Chick Flick Version):

Ø  Is dog balls in the face really funny?

Ø  Mark works in the city.  Therefore, I expect him to be familiar enough with glass walls to not walk through them.  Especially more than once.

Ø  Of course the high heel broke.

Ø  Before all this happened, what did Kate do all day?

Other Notes (Normal Version):

Ø  All the actors/actresses were good at what they were told to do.  No blame goes to them.

Ø  In a shocker (sarcasm), this is from a first-time screenwriter.

Ø  The editing in this movie is really choppy.  It flips from one close-up to another as the characters banter, staying on each one just long enough for them to deliver their line.  Every time one of the actors/actresses was about to show genuine emotion, the camera cut away.  That’s sexist (kidding).

In Bruges (2008)

8.5 of 10

Personal Bias Alert:  Likes dark comedy, not at all offended by language

            Few movies are as delightful smart as “In Bruges.”  Too often movies feel dumbed down, and even intelligent films can fall into the trap of making only one aspect of it truly interesting or surprising.  I understand why; movies simply don’t have a lot of time to tell their story.  According to Amazon, the average length of a book is 64,000 words.   A television show can have hundreds of hours of content, and even unsuccessful series often get 5 to 6 hours from their initial order, far exceeding the runtime of a movie.  Plays are the only equivalent medium, normally running between 1½ to 3 hours.  It makes sense, then, that an accomplished playwright could swoop in and effortlessly cram so much into a movie.

            “In Bruges” picks up the story of Irish hitmen Ray (Colin Farrell) and Ken (Brenden Gleeson) shortly after a botched assignment, finding them hiding out in the Belgian city of Bruges.  Ken seems happy about the paid excursion, dragging the huffy Ray around while he takes in the sights.  Eventually the botched hit catches up with them, and their lackadaisical days are replaced with life and death decisions.

            Other characters eventually come into play, including their boss played by Ralph Fiennes, but much of the movie is dominated by Ray and Ken’s odd couple pairing.  Despite their differences they do like each other, and their banter is razor sharp.  They discuss everything from mortality to gay beers, and it never fails to be fun.  This seems like a good time for a side note.  The characters say really offensive things throughout the film, so if you can’t get past that sort of thing, then this isn’t the movie for you.

            The wide range of discussions that Ray and Ken have are a direct result of how well drawn the characters are.  They both have a lot on their minds, and thoughts sink and surface at the drop of a hat.  That’s often enough to carry a film, but playwright turned writer/director Martin McDonagh puts in a deceptively intricate plot as well, then garnishes the whole thing with some well-used symbolism.  Oh, and it’s really funny, too.

            It’s a treat to see “In Bruges” walk the tightrope it does, balancing many tricky elements without dropping the ball.  It’s one of those plots where everything crashes together at the end, but the connections and coincidences don’t feel forced or disingenuous.  The characters aren’t cookie-cutter likable but do have an undeniable charm (Colin Farrell is perfect for this).   It blends genres with ease, and the tonal shifts aren’t jarring.  It’s delightful when a film sets itself up so well then capitalizes on its promise.

            It’s a pleasing, funny film, but I can’t say it ever becomes more than that.  It evokes an oddly subdued reaction.  I was amused but never laughed out loud.  I was engaged but not invested.  I liked it but didn’t love it.  It didn’t do anything wrong, and I can’t explain why I had this reaction.  My only clear complaint of the film is with the end narration, which felt tacked on.  But my subdued reaction predated the ending, so that’s clearly not to blame.  This is why I described “In Bruges” as delightful; it will make you smile, maybe make you feel a generalized affection towards it, but it’s not love.

            Other Notes:

Ø  The city was filmed beautifully.  It evoked the languid, fairytale-like atmosphere really well.

Ø  Ray is one of those characters that says the things you wish you could say, and I liked it.

Ø  Is Bruges purgatory?

Ø  “What’s a lollipop man doing knowing f***ing karate?”

Transcendence (2014)

5 of 10

Personal Bias Alert:  Likes sci-fi, likes the previous work of nearly everyone involved in this film

            “Transcendence” is the kind of film that makes people like me drool with anticipation.  It’s a big budget sci-fi story that seems rife with social commentary.  That it is the directorial debut of Wally Pfister, longtime cinematographer for Christopher Nolan, hardly scratches the surface of the impressive cast and crew.  Starring Johnny Depp, Rebecca Hall, Paul Bettany, and a cavalcade of Nolan actors, you know performances won’t be an issue.  It’s edited by David Rosenbloom, who among many things did last years “Out of the Furnace.”  The music is by Mychael Danna, whose catalog includes “Life of Pi,” “(500) Days of Summer,” and “Little Miss Sunshine.”  If for some reason you’re worried about the cinematography, rest assured that they got Jess Hall to back up Pfister, whose credits include “The Spectacular Now” and “Hot Fuzz.”  I could keep going, but you get the point.  This movie is stacked, and I was pumped to see it until I thought about its release date.  Putting it out in mid-April and free from comparable competition felt like a vote of no-confidence from the studio, and after seeing this underwhelming film, I have to agree with their choice.

            “Transcendence” follows married couple Will and Evelyn Caster (Depp and Hall), artificial intelligence researchers whose lives are thrown off course after Will is shot and killed by an extremist group.  Evelyn, along with fellow researcher Max Waters (Bettany), manage to upload Will’s mind into their AI computers, allowing his consciousness to live on through the computer.  Max has reservations, wondering if what they are making will actually be Will or an approximation of him.  As computer-Will becomes more and more powerful, the ramifications of Max’s question threatens to influence all of humanity’s future.

            The script, written by newcomer Jack Paglen, was strong enough to make the 2012 Black List.  For those unfamiliar with the Black List, it is the product of a survey of film executives who select their favorite unproduced screenplays.  While not a sure-fire barometer, inclusion on the Black List normally indicates a certain level of quality.  I’m not sure if this is one of the anomalies or if the screenplay got altered during production, but the story that made it on the screen doesn’t deserve any accolades.  The story is derivative, the characters are flat, and the ending is a messy failure.  It plods through its two hour runtime with no sense of pacing, making the whole thing seem closer to three hours than two.

            Pfister’s directorial inexperience doesn’t help matters, allowing these shortcomings to fester without correction.  It’s clear that he is most comfortable directing the camera; the whole thing really is beautiful to look at.  The shot composition and lighting, even when there is a lot of CGI stuff on the screen, is top notch.  What emotion there is in this film often comes from these flourishes, but this excellence accentuates how average the rest of the film is.  I can’t help but think that Pfister lacked a clear vision of what he wanted from the plot and from his actors.  The cast and crew is talented enough to produce something better than what the screenplay gives them, but even the most talented teams need someone to push them.  Pfister, it seems, failed to do so.

            Many reviewers are coming down hard on “Transcendence,” but I don’t think it deserves as much ire as it’s getting.  I was never bored by it, and between the performances and the visuals, there was just enough things going right to make it a mediocre but forgettable film.  Its fallen victim to its own hype, and few things skew reviews more than disappointment.

            Other Notes:

Ø  SPOILER ALERT:  I really didn’t understand the ending.  Why would killing the computer program kill Will and Evelyn’s physical bodies?  If it killed them, shouldn’t it kill all the people computer-Will modified?

Ø  I got really distracted by the actor who played the first guy that computer-Will modified.  I thought he looked a lot like Depp, but I also recognized him from “Capote.”  I don’t know why that distracted me, but it did.

Ø  Evelyn checked into the hotel under the name Turing.  I’m assuming that a reference to Alan Turing, the forefather of modern computer science.

Ø  In the last scene, Will and Evelyn are wearing shirts with banded collars, just like the characters in “Her” wore.  Coincidence?

American Psycho (2000)

2 of 10

Personal Bias Alert:  fine with extreme violence, fine with allegorical storytelling, disliked “Fight Club”

            I must admit up front that I went into “American Psycho” with very low expectations.  What I knew of it reminded me very much of “Fight Club,” a movie I think succumbs to its violent trappings and fails to get it’s metaphor across.  That remains true for “American Psycho,” but what I didn’t suspect was how bad the central metaphor would be and how irritated I would be by the finished product.

            “American Psycho” follows New York banker Patrick Bateman (Christian Bale), a wealthy man with a secret night life.  He attends dinners at fancy restaurants, wears expensive suits, and maintains an impeccable physique not because he derives any pleasure from these activities, but because it flaunts his elite social status.  While mostly indifferent to other people, their occasional challenges to his perceived superiority cause him to go into fits of rage and homicide.  He tries to keep this hidden, killing at night and in controlled situations, but as the feelings build he begins to take more and more risks.

            The whole movie, like the book it is based on, is an allegory for the consumerism that runs rampant in our culture.  Everything in it is representative of the theme, and realism is thrown out the window.  The characters are shallow, self-obsessed people that we’re supposed to hate.  The narration is straightforward and preachy.  The sets are decadent and inhospitable (I can’t imagine anyone actually living in those apartments).  Everything hinges on the allegory working, but the ideas behind it are simply too banal to warrant the nastiness it puts on the screen.

            Rampant consumerism had been discussed for decades preceding the books release in 1991.  The society in Aldous Huxley’s 1932 novel “Brave New World” revolved around it.  The characters in Evelyn Waugh’s 1930 novel “Vile Bodies” are consumed by status seeking.  Emile Henry Gauvreau, who died in 1956, once said “I was part of that strange race of people aptly described as spending their lives doing things they detest, to make money they don't want, to buy things they don't need, to impress people they don't like.”  That quote is an almost perfect description of the characters in this film/book, and it was delivered before the author was even born.

            Granted, a film or book doesn’t have to make a novel point.  It does, however, become a problem when it’s the selling point of the entire story.   When you’ve gone out of your way to make everything in the film as grating as it is in “American Psycho,” that central metaphor has to carry the audience’s interest.  Because that metaphor is so poor, anyone familiar with this theme will find little to be interested in.

            The nail in the coffin (or in the back of the head) is the film’s ending.  This is a massive SPOILER ALERT, because I’m about to reveal in detail the ending.  Throughout the film, there are suggestions that Bateman might not be sound of mind.  By the end, he seems to have a full mental breakdown.  He causes a police car to explode just by shooting it with a handgun, and an ATM machine tells him to feed it a cat.  Even in the reality of this film, neither of those things could happen.  It clearly points to Bateman’s unstable mental state, and although the filmmakers make it clear that he did kill all those people, it makes it feel like they pulled a punch.  The horrific things Bateman does is supposed to represent the horrible things people are capable of doing when they get blinded by their desire to acquire things.  Adding the idea that Bateman is crazy, even if it was the consumerist culture that drove him crazy, still transfers some of the guilt to his disjointed mind and lessens the metaphor.

            With such a weak idea behind it, the extreme nature in which the metaphor is told feels unearned.  The violence, sex, and dark humor feels like a mask, a desperate attempt to make a simple idea feel like more than it is.  With no other redeeming qualities, the film actually angered me, and not in the way that it wanted.

            Other Notes:

Ø  You can make an interesting story about a despicable character while still getting across a unique worldview.  Read Albert Camus’s “The Stranger.”  No punches pulled there.

Ø  I recognize that the actors and crew did what was asked of them.  This mess isn’t their fault.

Ø  Maybe I just don’t like transgressive fiction.

Ø  Are yuppies the ‘80s version of hipsters?

Oculus (2013)

9 of 10

Personal Bias Alert:  dislikes traditional horror, didn’t watch “Doctor Who”, loved Katee Sackhoff as Starbuck

            Coming off a strong showing at last year’s Toronto International Film Festival, “Oculus” had built some buzz as an intelligent horror film.  I like a scary story, but I’m so turned off by the traditional conceits of the horror genre (you know, where characters do incredibly dumb things) that I rarely watch them without reassurances that I won’t roll my eyes throughout.  Even then, I’m often led astray.  Last year’s “You’re Next” and “The Conjuring” disappointed, so I entered “Oculus” with a fair amount of trepidation.  After a slow start, the film nailed the ending and reminded me why I keep giving this genre so many chances.

            The story revolves around siblings Tim (Brenton Thwaites) and Kaylie (Karen Gillan), whose family has been destroyed by a haunted mirror.  When they were children, the mirror killed their parents and got Tim framed for his father’s murder.   Now in their twenties, Tim is released from the mental institution that was treating what they consider his haunted mirror delusion.  When Kaylie picks him up, she reveals that she’s ready to carry out their childhood promise:  to prove the mirror’s haunted and destroy it.

            We know the nuts and bolts of the kid’s story from the beginning, but instead of giving us the full-on kill scene at the start, the movie weaves the tale of the family’s destruction into the present day story.  It’s an effective method, giving us time to get invested in the siblings and making the payoff of both stories that much better.  There’s a narrative reason for this that I won’t reveal, simply because I had way too much fun with that aspect of the story.  Suffice it to say, it’s the twist that makes the character’s actions reasonable enough to go along with. Plus, it gives us a two-for-one climax.

            The obvious danger of this split storyline is the reliance on the dreaded child actors.  One kid hamming it up would ruin the entire thing, but Annalise Basso (young Kaylie) and Garrett Ryan (young Tim) are competent actors on par with their adult counterparts.  I say competent not because of any fault in their performances, but because not much is expected of them.  Deliver a few portentous lines, then run around screaming and clinging to each other, and you’re good.  The same can be said for the adult actors, who seem cast more for their physical demeanor than anything else.  While I’m predisposed to like Katee Sackhoff, I do think she’s well cast here as the children’s mother; she’s a believable housewife, but has a presence large enough to be menacing.

            One of the joys of the horror genre is the unabashed production style.  The lighting, set design, and music get a free pass to be over the top fun, and all are played up here.  There’s lots of well used visual flair, my favorite being the motif of the female character’s red hair.  Sackhoff, Gillan, and Basso all sport the fiery locks, and watching it swish around is like a promise of the blood you know is coming.

            The film’s structure makes the beginning feel long and not particularly scary, which may turn off some horror fans.  Stick with it, because once it unravels things get truly freaky.  It goes for psychological horror over gore, which I always find far more effective.  Watching characters hide in a closet from an axe man or ghost is scary, but “Oculus” understands that there could be far worse things behind that door.

            Other Notes:

Ø  Director/cowriter Mike Flanagan previously made a short film that seems pretty similar to this one.  I’m assuming the two stories are related in some way, but I can’t find anything to confirm it.

Ø  I was so freaked out that my hand literally went to my face at one point.  I rarely have physical reactions to films.

Ø  I like that the actors weren’t very well known.  Sackhoff and Gillan are recognizable to “Battlestar Galactica” and “Doctor Who” fans, but many people won’t even know them.

Ø  I had to look up what the hell oculus means.  The title makes sense now that I know the definition.

Boy A (2007)

6 of 10

Personal Bias Alert:  likes a good character study, dislikes people who kill children (duh)

            “You’re entitled to some happiness, Jack,” claims a character in “Boy A.”  That certainly isn’t asking for much.  Most people wish that for everyone but a select few, excluding only the monsters that lurk on the edges of our society.  Jack is uncertain about this right because he may in fact be one of those monsters.  It’s hard, though, once you really get to know someone, to write them off so completely.  That’s what “Boy A” tries to accomplish, to give us a full portrait of some who has committed a terrible act but still deserves a second chance.

            The film opens with Jack (Andrew Garfield) talking to his rehabilitation worker Terry (Peter Mullan) about his upcoming release.  He is brimming with energy, exuding a boyish glee even as they discuss the complications of his new life.  He is assuming a new identity as Jack, which must become second nature both for his own safety and to protect his chances at starting over.  This is where the cracks start to show.  There’s doubt in Jack that runs simultaneous to his optimism, and the whole scene is a balancing act for Garfield.  He must show someone acutely aware of the crossroads he is standing at, where his life can go in one direction and be disastrous or in another direction and be better than he could imagine.  Garfield excels at doing just that, and he maintains this emotional complexity throughout the film.  Seemingly immersed in the role, Garfield never showing a hint of artifice, and is the prime reason to see the film.

            The crime Jack committed is slowly revealed through a series of flashbacks.  We find out that when Jack was a boy, he and a friend murdered a young girl.  It’s a horrific act, seemingly incongruous with the bashful twenty-something we see for most of the movie.  The filmmakers are acutely aware that they must elicit enough compassion for Jack so that the audience will be willing to forgive him.  This leads them to lay it on thick, going out of their way to show the young Jack as a victim of circumstance and the older Jack as a reformed fellow.  This thick slathering pushes the audience so far to Jack’s side that any intellectual debate on the complicated issue of reformation is lost.  Worse yet, it undercuts Garfield’s conflicted performance.

            The focal point of the story, wherein Jack is trying to assimilate into society again, is burdened with repeated contrivances that aim to show how much Jack has changed.  He gets a job, befriends his coworkers, and even falls in love.  The screenwriters bring in Terry’s indolent son as contrast, in case you couldn’t see how well Jack was doing.  Strong characters save the day again, making the sagging middle section watchable.  His friends, played by Jeremy Swift and Shaun Evans, show the macho delicacy that can exist between young men.  They wheedle Jack for intimate information on his relationship, but also stop using a less than respectful nickname for his girlfriend.  The three are genuinely close, and the importance of their relationship becomes clear by the end.

            “Boy A” is based on the book of the same name, which I haven’t read.  Many of my problems with the plot may stem from the book, so I can’t outright blame the filmmakers for these issues.  The issue that does clearly stem from them is the bland style in which the film was made.  Director John Crowley and screenwriter Mark O’Rowe both work primarily in theater and haven’t seemed to grasp the differences between the mediums.  The script could easily be made into a play, and Crowley shot the movie in a very basic way.  Camera movements are minimal while interesting shot compositions are nonexistent.  These things don’t require a large budget (which the film didn’t have), but are indicative of the inexperience behind the camera.

            The film works as a character study, but it fails to explore the complicated issues it brings up.  Themes of reformation, second chances, and societal acceptance play large parts, and by only skimming the surface of them the film feels like a missed opportunity.

            Other Notes:

Ø  If you want something that explorers these themes more deeply, I recommend the Danish film “The Hunt.”

Ø  Andrew Garfield has only been working in film since 2007, but the variety of roles he has done is impressive.

Ø  They never say what the boys catch under the bridge, but after some research I’m pretty sure it is an eel from the family Anguillidae.  You can clearly see the pelvic fins in one shot, and the dorsal, caudal, and anal fins are connected.  Plus, it just looks like an eel.

Ø  Did anyone else immediately recognize the bully as Pyp from “Game of Thrones?”

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)

7 of 10

Personal Bias Alert:  This is my first Captain America movie, not a fan of blockbusters

            I can’t help but feel that my inexperience with the Marvel franchise has given me an unusual perspective on “Captain America:  The Winter Soldier.”  The lone film I’ve seen from the Marvel universe is “Iron Man.”  No Thor, Hulk, Avengers, or Captain America.  I also never read the comics, nor do I recall watching cartoons of any of these characters as a kid.  Here’s the rundown on my knowledge of Cap going into the film:  was a soldier in one of the world wars, the military made him into a super soldier, carries a shield, probably American.  This dearth of knowledge made me very concerned that I would get lost watching “The Winter Soldier,” but thanks to its clear storytelling my worries were unfounded.

            Captain America/Steve Rodgers (Chris Evans) starts this film at an oddly quiet time in his life.  Work has slowed, and he has enough time to start mulling over the direction his life has taken.  The people he grew up with are dead, and he’s having trouble fitting into the modern age.  Cap’s actually quite melancholy here.  He seems unable to let go of his past life, which gives newbies like me some time to get filled in on his story.  More importantly, he’s struggling with his growing disillusionment with SHIELD, which is exacerbated when Nick Furry (Samuel L. Jackson) shows him their latest creation.  It’s a trio of massive aircraft carriers designed to eliminate people who might be future threats.  Cap brings up some obvious moral problems (the people being killed haven’t actually done anything yet) and storms off, seemingly ready to quit.

            Of course, there’s no getting out that easy.  Furry is attacked by a mysterious hitman named the Winter Soldier.  Before dying, Furry entrusts Cap with some disturbing information:  SHIELD has been taken over from the inside.  This immediate threat kicks Cap out of his wallowing, and he teams up with Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Sam Wilson/The Falcon (Anthony Mackie) to find out who compromised SHIELD.

            From here, the movie becomes a series of alternating spy and action scenes, building a plot elaborate enough to keep your attention but failing to become very interesting.  The spy sequences keep the information flowing, but they are too often exposition-filled rants instead of believable character conversations.  One scene even commits the cardinal sin of allowing someone to wax poetic about the bad guy’s entire plan to Cap and Natasha.  Seemingly knowing how bad the scene is, the writers throw in a line to try to explain his ramble, but it’s too little too late.

            The action sequences fall into repetition, and are further marred by their wanton destruction.  Cap seems to prefer hand-to-hand combat, which is fun until you see his shield boomerang back to him for the fifth time and you realize that none of these folks are on his level.  His nemesis, the Winter Soldier, has a mechanical arm strong enough to level the fight, but even those battles become underwhelming after multiple encounters.  Prior to the big finish, the large fight scenes take place mostly on the streets of Washington D.C.  Cars flip, run into each other, and get shot to pieces, regardless of whether the drivers are participants or bystanders.  I normally don’t think about this too much, but I was oddly bothered by it in this movie.  There are non-public places to fight.

            The plot machinations leave little time for anything else, so once they kick in after the attack on Furry, the previously interesting characters devolve into stock superhero characters.  Early on, Natasha and Sam have gentle conversations with the troubled Cap, encouraging him to engage with the world and find some happiness.  Both characters are filled out with their own problems, and Natasha has a running joke with Cap about finding him a girlfriend.  It’s telling that the joke isn’t mentioned throughout the middle portion of the film.  Natasha’s playful attitude waters down into cheesy one-liners, Sam becomes the capable sidekick, and Cap’s preoccupation with his past disappears and reappears when the plot requires it.  If the character’s had been maintained better, it might have hidden the fact that the film is nothing more than a series of plot points.

            It’s possible that my issues with the characters are influenced by the fact that I’m not as familiar with them as other moviegoers.  I’ve given the film the benefit of the doubt on that one, but the repetitive middle section and poor writing is inexcusable.  The films mostly concerned with its jumble of escalating set pieces, but it does try to add in some ideas about our society and its use of technology.  In the end, “Captain America:  The Winter Soldier” is only an average summer blockbuster, just released a little earlier than usual.

Other Notes (Ridiculous Action Sequence Version):

Ø  At one point, I thought I saw the Winter Soldier toss up a knife, punch Cap, catch the knife, and continue fighting.  It was moving too fast to tell for sure.  So why would you do that if the audience can barely see it?

Ø  None of the glass that Cap and the Winter Soldier stands on breaks while the ship crashes, except for that one piece that allows Cap to dramatically toss his shield away.

Ø  Sam outruns a crashing ship.  To make it worse, at one point he rolls over a desk and you can clearly see him stop to get up, but still the ship doesn’t catch up to him.

Ø  The Winter Soldier blocks gunfire with his mechanical arm.  An arm isn’t wide enough to do that.  Also, have they not heard of ricochet?  The way an arm curves, he would be likely to block the bullets right up into his face.

Other Notes (Normal Version):

Ø  Yes, I spotted Stan Lee.

The Iceman (2013)

4.5 of 10

Personal Bias Alert:  not a big fan of gangster movies, generally annoyed by David Schwimmer

            “The Iceman” is based on the true story of hitman Richard Kuklinski, who claimed to have killed over 100 people in a 38 year period.  His nickname has a double meaning, referring both to his cold demeanor and his habit of freezing victims to hide the time of death.  That a man like Kuklinski existed, and that he eluded detection for so long, is troubling.  A movie seems almost inevitable; bloody mob movies sell well, the true-life twist makes it more compelling, and Kuklinski’s troubled childhood gives the writers a motive audiences would understand.  Unfortunately, the film falls flat due to the simplistic script, unambiguous direction, and wooden characters.

            The film opens with Michael Shannon’s Kuklinski on a date with his girlfriend/future wife Deborah (Winona Ryder).  Kuklinski is delighted that Deborah’s there, and tries his best to keep up a conversation.  It’s the lightest you’ll see this character, and unfortunately, it’s the only time you’ll see him with any shading.  After a few minutes, the music takes on an eerie quality and he makes a flirtatious reference to Deborah being like Natalie Wood.  Because there’s nothing ominous about references to Natalie Wood.

            This scene sets up the rest of the movie well.  It lays its cards on the table early and often, never letting you develop any opinions of the characters or their actions independently.  The music is an obvious offender, being both prominent and lacking in subtlety.  The actors follow suit:  the bad guys leer, Ryder cowers, and Kuklinski’s girls waft angelically in the background.  Nothing about this film is novel, and most of it’s downright clichéd.  I mean, can you imagine Ray Liotta being cast as a mobster?

            Shannon plays Kuklinski with the passionless demeanor the real-life Kuklinski is known for.  Even the one thing he cares about, his family, is revealed to be a product of his childhood, not an actual connection between Kuklinski and his wife and family.  While this dispassion may be an accurate portrayal, it’s not a very cinematic one.  A character with no reactions seemingly has nothing that’s important to him, leaving the audience with no reason to care what happens to him.  Shannon’s Kuklinski seems fine with whatever, and so are we.

            The only character with any life is Kuklinski’s associate, a fellow hitman played by Chris Evans.  He reviles in the character’s blasé nature, bringing levity and humor to the nasty things they do.  It may not be the most normal of reactions, but at least it shows an awareness of the world around him, something Kuklinski never seems to acknowledge.

            A film with this kind of story behind it should be a slam dunk.  Lies, murder, and family is a winning combination that’s been used throughout time, and to mess it up this badly is almost impressive.  But then again, it’s kind of fitting that a film about a prolific murderer turned out this lifeless.

Other Notes:

Ø  What’s with James Franco being in everything?

Ø  Hey, it’s Ross from “Friends” with a terrible mustache!  And they pointed out the mustache with an incredibly ominous line!  Surely nothing bad will happen to him.

Ø  I’m so glad $10 million was spent on this film.