Transformers: Age of Extinction

Released:  June 27^th, 2014

Rated:  PG-13

Studio:  Paramount

Staring:  Mark Wahlberg, Stanley Tucci, Kelsey Grammer, Nicola Peltz, Jack Reynor

Directed by:  Michael Bay

Written by:  Ehren Kruger 

Personal Bias Alert:  haven’t seen anything in the Transformers line

3.7 of 10

            Hearkening back to my “Captain America:  The Winter Soldier” review, I went into “Age of Extinction” with almost no knowledge of anything Transformers.  I’ve seen none of the movies or the television show.  I don’t even recall playing with the toys.  Now, that doesn’t mean I went into this movie with an entirely open mind.  I know the less-than-stellar reputation that its director, Michael Bay, has, and I’m aware of the critical punching bag the movie series has become.  It seems to have taken on the sins of all the dumb, CGI laden explosion fests that have littered our summer movie screens, with each installment being offered up for the weary, sardonic critics to rip apart with frustrated ferocity.  And yet, people go to see them.  Each film has earned more than the last, with “Age of Extinction’s” predecessor earning over 1 billion dollars.  I couldn’t see how a film series with that kind of earning power could be a complete mess, so I tried to give this film a fair shot.  I set my mind to blockbuster mode, bought some nachos (I’m not a popcorn fan), and plopped myself down for a Friday evening romp.

            As we all know, the human cast has been revamped, with Mark Wahlberg’s Cade taking over as Optimus Prime’s best bud.  Cade and his beautiful daughter, Tessa (Nicola Peltz), get sucked into a battle between transformers, the CIA, some evil transformer thing named Lockdown, and a tech corporation.  It sounds insane, which it is, and after 165 minutes I didn’t really understand why they were all fighting each other.  Instead of being told with a traditional 3-act structure, the film feels like it was told by that guy who tells all his stories in the “and then this happened, and then this happened, and then THIS happened!” structure.  Sure, there’s a series of escalating encounters between the groups, but there isn’t a real narrative reason for why everything hits the fan at once, it just does.

            Wahlberg is a competent lead for the film, with his over-buff physique fitting into the excess surrounding him remarkably well.  He and the rest of the cast aren’t given anything to do, but he sells the protective father trope and the nauseatingly bad humor okay.  Peltz is given even less to do, but she never embarrasses herself, unlike her onscreen boyfriend played by Jack Reynor.  Reynor is hampered with an awful, inexplicably Irish character that he fails to make believable or enjoyable.  Other, more established actors like Kelsey Grammer, Stanley Tucci, and Titus Welliver fare about as well as Wahlberg, turning in competent performances that will bolster their box office credibility. 

            Now as I said, I went into this film searching for whatever it was that made people keep coming back to the series, and its saving grace turned out to be exactly what I thought it would be:  the special effects.  They’re dazzling, pulling off everything from car chases to robots transforming to massive, magnetic spaceships.  It all looks very realistic, and it actually seems to exist in the same world as the live-action stuff.  That’s something that’s not often pulled off, so a massive amount of credit needs to go to the special effects folks.  But don’t discount Michael Bay’s work, either.  He’s a populist filmmaker, and even if his films aren’t artistically great, he manages to hit on something that a lot of people like.  I didn’t like this film, but I’m willing to stand up and admit that I liked “Armageddon” when it came out in 1998 (with the caveat that I was a kid at the time).

            As an adult, I find Bay’s films to be shockingly honest about how dumb he expects the audience to be.  We are led by the hand through any emotional moments, and the dialogue is filled with characters stating their most basic thoughts.  The plot is so rudimentary that it almost doesn’t exist as an actual story, instead playing out as a series of “me want this item, so I go get it” events.  The spectacle aspect of it still works just as well as it did when I was a kid, and I think with some paring down, there is a harmless, Saturday night basic cable movie in here somewhere.

            Other Notes (Silly Blockbuster Version):

Ø  How did Cade’s tiny little weapon matter at all in the last battle?

Ø  How was Cade strong enough to stop Lockdown from crushing him?

Ø  Why did they take the time to show a car flipping around and the tire hitting a guy’s face midair?

Other Notes (Regular Version):

Ø  Sitting down to take notes on this movie, I remembered that there was a friend of Cade’s who died at the beginning.  Boy had I totally forgotten about him.

Ø  This film has a weird idea of freedom.  Twice a group of robots are told that they are free, then in the next breath they are told that they are under the command of the robot who set them free.  That ain’t free.

Ø  I thought Mark Wahlberg’s shirt sleeves were going to pop for sure.

Ø  The product placement is shameless.  The Budweiser scene is obvious enough, but did you notice the Goodyear logo that was also in the background of that scene?

Boys Don't Cry (1999)

Released:  October 22nd, 1999

Rated:  R

Studio:  Fox Searchlight

Staring:  Hilary Swank, Chloë Sevigny, Peter Sarsgaard, Brendan Sexton III, Alicia Goranson, Jeanetta Arnette, Matt McGrath

Directed by:  Kimberly Peirce

Written by:  Kimberly Peirce, Andy Bienen 

Personal Bias Alert:  thinks Hilary Swank is amazing at a very particular kind of role, not familiar with the true story

8.3 of 10

            Everyone knows someone like Brandon.  That optimistic, bubbly personality radiates off them, and simply being in close proximity perks you up.  They dream and speak of the dream as if it’s something they’ll do tomorrow.  Even if you know they’ll never end up doing it, those dreams always seem a little closer when they’re around.  I don’t know if this is something writers Kimberly Peirce and Andy Bienen gave to Brandon or if their research on the real-life man made him out to be this way.  Either way, it serves as an excellent congealer for this rough, complex, and loving story.

            Set in Falls City, Nebraska, the film follows trans man Brandon Teena (Hilary Swank) as he finds a new group of friends and falls in love with a local girl named Lana Tisdel (Chloë Sevigny).  The city itself is captured as one of those small towns with few things to do and even fewer opportunities to leave.  I have no clue if that’s how the town really was, but I do know that it was named for a small waterfall that no longer exists.  It’s not hard to imagine a town that’s lost its namesake as a pretty forlorn place.

            Brandon’s big personality provides a spark to the otherwise listless group of friends that includes Lana, Candace (Alicia Goranson), and Tom Nissen (Brendan Sexton III).  The story takes it time getting to know the group and its self-appointed leader, John (Peter Sarsgaard), a recklessly enjoyable imp.  What the film doesn’t waste its time doing is in setting up the inevitable conflict between John and Brandon.  In Lana’s introduction, she sings a boozy karaoke song, and a shot holds on Brandon and John sitting side-by-side, each blissfully enamored and entirely unaware of the other.  It’s an untenable situation that ends in a graphic, nasty way.  To be clear, the last 40 minutes of this film is a tough watch.

            The preceding time, though, is largely a love story, portraying Brandon and Lana’s budding romance.  Swank and Sevigny have great chemistry, and the flush of their romance is the most palpable aspect of the film.  What makes both of their performances great, and what won Swank her first Oscar, is that they first and foremost portrayed their characters.  They didn’t get distracted by the issues the film brings up, but instead focus on what makes their characters tick, what makes them upset, and what ultimately makes them fall in love.  Their performances are equaled by Sarsgaard, who unfolds John’s personality in an immaculately even way.  He’s tragic in and of himself, unable to handle losing the family he has built in his head.

            Despite a wonderfully told story, a few small missteps hold it back from being a masterpiece.  Some technical problems, like an awkward lighting change after a character is shown turning off a lamp, jolts you out of the film.  The music is often too prominent, and the cinematography takes some risks, occasionally stumbling on its more ambitious attempts.  The film thrives on its slowing building story, which makes these jolts all the more detrimental.

            It would have been easy to make this film about intolerance, to paint the locals as ignorant hillbillies, and send the audience home with a message about acceptance, but “Boys Don’t Cry” does something much richer.  It tells a timeless story of ill-fated lovers, and in doing so makes you see them how they see themselves, as a boy and a girl, destined to be separated. 

            Other Notes:

Ø  I criticized the music, but Nina Persson and Nathan Larson’s version of “The Bluest Eyes in Texas” is perfect.  I can’t hear that song without thinking about this film.

Ø  The line where the sparks fly:  “Someone walked me home last night.  I think it was you.”

Ø  The line that reassured me they were going to land the ending:  “There was never any Memphis, was there?”

Jersey Boys (2014)

Released:  June 20th, 2014

Rated:  R

Studio:  Warner Bros.

Starring:  John Lloyd Young, Erich Bergen, Michael Lomenda, Vincent Piazza, Christopher Walken

Directed by:  Clint Eastwood 

Written by:  Marshall Brickman, Rick Elice

Personal Bias Alert:  Didn’t see the musical, never heard of The Four Seasons

4.7 of 10

            Any discussion of American cinema in the last 60 years would be incomplete without mentioning Clint Eastwood.  He’s played such a prominent role and outlasted so many others that he has ingrained himself into the very idea of American cinema.  With roles like the Man with No Name and Harry Callahan, Clint’s the only man who could arguably equal John Wayne’s iconic portrait of masculinity.  Then again, he’s never shied away from prominent, strong roles for women, either.  His directorial efforts include “Sudden Impact,” “The Bridges of Madison County,” “Million Dollar Baby,” and “Changeling,” starring Sondra Locke, Meryl Streep, Hilary Swank, and Angelina Jolie respectively.  His work has touched upon nearly all genres of film, earned millions of dollars, and won nearly every award imaginable.  That he’s still making movies, and still pushing himself in new directions, is a reward to film lovers everywhere.

            Now Clint’s made a musical before.  He stared in 1969’s “Paint Your Wagon,” but hasn’t ventured into the genre since.  “Jersey Boys” marks his return, directing the adaption of the hit Broadway musical of the same name.  It claims to tell the story of the pop group The Four Seasons, but it’s more focused on the group’s lead singer, Frankie Valli.  This confusion is emblematic of the film, which never quite grasps a point.

            What struck me most while I was watching it was how odd the structure was.  It lays out the story with little regard for arcs, often relying on one of the band members to turn and explain to the audience a plot point or their feelings.  The musical, I later found out, is structured into four parts, one for each member of the band.  I now realize that the film was structured this way as well, with only one band member addressing the audience at a time.  This was not obvious while I watched it, hence it failed to give any structure to the meandering plot.  Also confusing was its sense of passing time.   The film would jump forward, but the date in which it landed wouldn’t be obvious.  Then at one point, for no particular reason, we jump back two years.  The rest of the story is told completely linearly, which makes this backward jump seem awkward and out of place.

            Younger audience members such as myself will likely be unfamiliar with The Four Seasons (I had never heard of them) and will only recognize their most famous hits.  With no vested interest, the film really had to sell me on why these guys were interesting.  Did they have a really messy start?  Were they plagued by personal flaws that tragically drug them down?  Were they particularly talented musicians/performers?  The answers are no, no, and sort of, which isn’t enough to make an interesting film.  The men all grew up in Jersey, and in movie world, if you’re of Italian decent in Jersey, then you have ties to the mob.  They do seem to have had some loose associations, but it never gets them into too much trouble.  The personal flaws that are brought up are stale:  one has a gambling problem and several struggle to keep their families together during their long absences on the road.  It’s also explicitly stated several times that only two of them are really talented, and guess what?  Those are the two who survive in the industry.  It really does bring into question why these guys deserve their own musical.  To be honest, it seems to have been a money play.  Bob Gaudio, an original member and the songwriter of the group, had the musical made.  The movie gives the impression that he and Valli own the songs, and I’m guessing that part of the story’s true.

            The reason this film isn’t a total bust lies in the obvious effort of everyone involved.  It was a flawed project from the start, but you get the sense that Clint, the actors, the crew, and even the writers did their best.  Costumes, makeup, and set design are all spot-on and are often the only things that help the audience navigate the changing time periods.  The writers manage to get in some laugh-out-loud jokes; I mean, with the name The Four Seasons, how do you not make a Vivaldi joke?  Then there’s the actors, who portray their thin characters as well as they can.  But it’s Clint and cinematographer Tom Stern’s work that elevates this into watchable territory.  They’ve worked together since 2002’s “Blood Work,” and no other filmmakers working today use light and shadow like they do.  They have a penchant for lighting one side of an actor’s face, letting the shadow of their hair and nose streak across the other side.  Here, they use soft lighting along with other techniques to evoke the time period.  It looks beautiful, so even when what’s happening onscreen isn’t very interesting, it is pleasing to look at.

            As a nice bow on the end of this meandering film, it just stops, without anything being resolved or wrapped up.  This is my best impersonation of it.

            Other Notes:

Ø  Several plot elements, like the girlfriend and the daughter, aren’t given enough screen time to make an impact.

Ø  John Lloyd Young, who played Valli, was far too old to play a teenaged version of the character.  I was completely confused as to why everyone was treating a 30 year old man like a kid at the beginning of the film.

Ø  When did the daughter decide she wanted to be a singer?

Ø  It’s a respectable failure.  Keep swinging, Clint.

The Kids Are All Right (2010)

Released:  July 9^th, 2010

Rated:  R

Studio:  Focus Features

Starring:  Annette Bening, Julianne Moore, Mark Ruffalo, Mia Wasikowska, Josh Hutcherson, Yaya DaCosta

Directed by:  Lisa Cholodenko 

Written by:  Lisa Cholodenko, Stuart Blumberg

Personal Bias Alert:  liked High Art, excited by the praise the movie received

4.5 of 10

            Writer/director Lisa Cholodenko seems very interested in the fluidity of life.  In the two films I’ve seen of hers, this and 1998’s “High Art,” love, sexuality, profession, and addiction are explored, and the boundaries that come with each are pushed.  Where is the line between recreational user and drug addict, hobbyist and professional, cheater and strayer?  People like their boxes, but Cholodenko brings the blurriness of life into her films, often making it the most interesting aspect of the story.  “The Kids Are All Right” draws from these questions, which only serves to amplify how pat and familiar everything else in the film is.

            At its core, this is a story about a nuclear family:  two parents, two kids, all that’s missing is the dog.  The kids are in their late teens, and are the usual angsty but decent suburbanites.  The hook is that the parents are two women, Nic (Annette Bening) and Jules (Julianne Moore).  The kids, curious about their sperm donor father, contact the sperm bank and set up a meeting with their donor, Paul (Mark Ruffalo).  Paul’s sudden presence shakes the family, and their functional little unit becomes threatened from several angles.

            This could have been a fun little movie.  It’s a solid setup for the low-budget dramedy it is, but it never quite comes together.  Individual scenes are good, including a standout conversation between Nic, Jules, and son Laser (Josh Hutcherson).  It’s funny and smart and honest and it made me wish so much that the rest of the movie was like that.  Unfortunately, it too often falls back on clichés and easy answers to have any true emotional resonance.

            Undoubtedly, the weakest link in the whole movie is the characters.  It feels like writers Stuart Blumberg and Cholodenko never expanded upon them from their initial pitch.  Everyone fits into their little boxes and can be easily summarized in one sentence.  Nic is an uptight career woman.  Jules is a spineless wanderer.  Joni is a pleaser who always does what she’s told.  And Laser is, well, simply undeveloped.  They do point out that he’s not very in touch with his emotions, which lets them slip in some clichéd jokes about men (and gay men).  But let’s focus in on the worst offender:  Paul.  He’s a laid-back, plaid-wearing, organic and local gardener/restaurateur.  Of course Mia Wasikowska’s Joni thinks he’s cool, because that’s all he’s trying to be.  Nic detests him, and I’ve got to say that that drew me closer to her.  I never understood why everyone was so interested in him.  He is nice, and I guess Nic’s abrasiveness makes everyone want someone like him, someone who will just tell them that everything’s fine and they’re fine and whatever.  That still doesn’t make him an interesting character.

            As I said, Cholodenko is very interested in blurred boundaries.  Here, alcoholism and love is challenged, with Nic being a borderline alcoholic and Jules cheating.  Jules is the more interesting example, with her fling being based more on the need for support than a lack of love for Nic.  The boundary between straying and outright cheating is different for everyone, with many people claiming that a physical act isn’t cheating as long as your heart remains focused on your long-term partner.  Then there’s another version of straying, which I think the line “I’m not unfaithful but I’ll stray” from the song “Back in Your Head” by Tegan and Sara describes best.  I’ve always thought that this refers to the ebb and flow of a relationship and being honest about the fact that there will be times when your interest in the other person wanes.  In these instances, you become more interested in something or someone else, but you always come back to your partner.  Jules’s cheating falls at an intersection between all these definitions, and that makes it particularly challenging to figure out just how bad her actions are.

            These complications are interesting, but they never hide the fact that the characters are thin and the plot is stale.  I don’t understand why this script got such high praise, and I can’t help but feel that this film seemed more interesting to people simply because the home was headed by two women.  Of course two women can form a family, and of course they can have the same problems as heterosexual couples.  I don’t think that’s a novel idea, even way back in 2010.

            Other Notes:

Ø  The dialogue is clunky, especially early on.  There are exchanges that, while natural, are boring to watch.

Ø  The kid’s friends are clichés, and boring ones at that

Ø  Like Paul, this movie seemed a little self-satisfied.

How to Train Your Dragon 2 (2014)

Released:  June 13^th, 2014

Rated:  PG

Studio:  Dreamworks Animation

Starring:  Jay Baruchel, Cate Blanchett, Gerard Butler, Craig Ferguson, America Ferrera, Jonah Hill, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, T.J. Miller, Kristen Wiig, Djimon Hounsou, Kit Harington

Directed by:  Dean DeBlois 

Written by:  Dean DeBlois

Personal Bias Alert:  mildly enjoyed the first HtTYD, not a big fan of 3D

9 of 10

            Let’s talk about risks.  Risks for the viewers.  Few things break my heart more than seeing a much loved story expanded upon and expanded upon until everything I loved about it was beaten out of it.  Watching the shell of what it used to be limp along fills me with a nostalgic gloom, and I often wish that I could pay money to let the poor thing die.  “How to Train Your Dragon” was a much loved film, and although I didn’t have a strong attachment to it like others did, I was apprehensive about the sequel on behalf of those who did.  Add in that it’s a DreamWorks Animation product, a studio with a shaky reputation for quality, and a rare solo writing/directing effort from Dean DeBlois, and the feeling dropped to downright trepidation.  I hoped for the best, but I knew that as soon as I felt the film going off the rails I would be the first to turn on it.

            The sequel picks up the story five years after the first film, with Hiccup (Jay Baruchel) traveling far and wide to expand his map, find new dragon species, and generally satiate his curiosity.  He ends up stumbling upon dragon catchers who inform him of a Viking named Drago (Djimon Hounsou), a man intent on building an army of dragons to take over the world.  The passive Hiccup opposes this idea, and while trying to find Drago he is captured by a mysterious dragon rider.  She turns out to be his long-lost mother, who seems to be the genetic source for Hiccup’s dragon talents.  With the family reunited, they work together to thwart Drago’s march and free his enslaved dragons.

            Too often, sequels feel like entirely separate chapters from the original.  The first movie is made with a contained story, and if it is financially successful enough to warrant a sequel, then the second film is put into production.  This leaves a bit of a chasm between the films, and it often feels like they exist separately from each other.  “How to Train Your Dragon 2” avoids that pitfall.  It really feels like an extension of the first, with the characters having grown as they would have in the five years between the stories, and the themes from the first film being picked up and expanded upon.  Yes, it’s darker and more mature than the first, but it would seem a bit silly if Hiccup wasn’t dealing with bigger problems now that he’s 20.  It might be too much for very young children, but most will have no problem with the story.

            Now I’m not a big fan of 3D.  I find it unnecessary in most films, considering that half the time you just end up watching people standing around talking IN 3D!  Here, though, is an excellent example of when 3D really adds something.  Flying, or any instance where the characters are moving in a 3-dimensional plane, is when the 3D actually makes everything seem more realistic.  Much of this movie is spent with the characters flying around on dragons, and those scenes looked amazing.  There’s one in particular where Hiccup and his mother (voiced wonderfully by Cate Blanchett) are showing off to each other, and the combination of the effects and animation really adds to the emotional liveliness of the scene.  The animation deserves its own praise, bringing a variety of characters and dragons to life and imbuing them with a great sense of personality.  Pay attention to the background of the talky scenes, because there’s some great jokes going on back there.

            My main problem with the first film was with how basic it felt.  The story and the themes had been done numerous times, and although it was told in a very pleasurable manner, it felt very familiar to me.  The second is still a well-trod story, but it’s more filled out and moves along at a much better pace.  Some of the side characters are still cardboard thin, particularly the bad guy, but at least they have the excuse of being family film archetypes.

            “How to Train Your Dragon 2” is a rare instance where the sequel is better than its predecessor.  I may be going out on a limb here, but I liken this series to the “Toy Story” franchise.  The second HtTYD is just as good as any of the “Toy Story” films, and both franchises have managed to attract an audience far outside their target demographic.  But more importantly, they are both series that are/were intent on growing and developing with its target audience, and that ingrains them into a generation’s soul.

            Other Notes:

Ø  Another scene where the animation impressed me was when Hiccup’s parents danced together.  The contrast between the massive father and the angular mother was really enchanting

Ø  Some of the side characters, particularly Hiccup’s friends, get annoying and far too jokey.  Although, the running gag about the girl’s arm fetish was hilarious.

Ø  They really got a better handle on Astrid.  In the first, she was a throwaway tough girl, but in this one she gets her own personality.

Ø  SPOILER:  I cringed a bit at the end when Drago invited Hiccup to try to get through to Toothless.  I wish they had come up with a better way for him to do it.

Weekend (2011)

Released:  September 23rd, 2011

Rated:  NR

Studio:  Sundance Selects

Starring:  Tom Cullen, Chris New

Directed by:  Andrew Haigh 

Written by:  Andrew Haigh

Personal Bias Alert:  likes small character studies, not a prude

6.7 of 10

            There’s a clarity to small movies that I love.  They have no money, so there’s nowhere to hide, in front of or behind the camera.  There’s no reshoots, no 50 takes.  Any weaknesses will be laid bare, so you know watching it what kind of hands you’re in.  If you get the kind of quality that’s shown in “Weekend,” then you get to look forward to more and more quality films from everyone involved.

            “Weekend” tracks the relationship between Russell (Tom Cullen) and Glen (Chris New), who meet the weekend before Glen is to leave Britain for the US.  It operates both as a relationship study and a character study, interested in both the specifics of gay men and the generalities that can be extrapolated out to everyone.  It balances nicely between the two, and in its well-observed moments everyone can find something meaningful.

Character studies work best when you find someone relatable, and for me, Russell was my way in.  He reminded me much of myself in the way he has learned to be very reserved in public in order to protect himself.  There’s a great scene where he talks about this dynamic, stating that inside his home he’s happy with himself, while outside he feels uneasy.  Cullen does an excellent job at showing this dynamic.  You can see the ease with which he displays his oddities (like his musings on the history of an old mug) while in his home, but how he tightens up outside.  Glen is quite the opposite:  a loudmouth prone to spouting politically charged rhetoric.  New did a solid job making Glen’s likeable qualities show, but at times his musings seemed juvenile, like the rantings of an injustice-obsessed teenager.  It gets annoying, but he’s got just enough sweetness to prevent me from being turned off entirely.  I mean, how can you not get behind him when he gets so nervously smitten asking Russell to his going-away party?

            Director of photography Urszula Pontikos deserves high praise, working in a variety of settings and filming them in slightly different ways to support the story.  Much of the film takes place in Russell’s cramped apartment, but there’s also scenes at a family home, a bar, the street, and other such places an urbanite would end up.  Urszula uses different styles for the different places, particularly to differentiate between the apartment and everywhere else.  The apartment, while small, never seems uncomfortable, and the couple are often filmed closely, intimately.  Once they leave the apartment, the shots expand in scope, often portraying a lone Russell off to the side, removed from the people around him.  It lands, in a nicely subtle way, the discomfort Russell feels when he leaves his home.  It also looks beautiful, and that combination really makes for some fine work.

            Unfortunately, the film’s not entirely balanced.  While the scenes between the two men are riveting, everything else feels a little pat and contrived.  One too many incidents occur that reinforced Russell’s reservations, and the sidetrack with Glen’s friends was too conveniently revealing.  Nothing outside their relationship ever felt very natural, and the larger scenes made me long for the two of them to run away on their own again.  That’s all they want to do too, so maybe that was intentional?  If it was, you still need to find some way to entertain your audience through these scenes.

            This a basic little film with a straightforward storyline and some excellent acting and cinematography.  You know where it’s headed, but the ride is enjoyable enough to go on.  I hope to see more work, and better funded work, from all involved.

            Other Notes:

Ø  It felt much longer than its 97 minute runtime

Ø  I liked Russell’s nervous hair tousle tick.

Ø  It seems like every semi-successful British actor ends up on either “Game of Thrones” or “Downton Abbey.”  Cullen has a recurring role on “Downton.”

Edge of Tomorrow (2014)

Released:  June 6^th, 2014

Rated:  PG-13

Studio:  Warner Bros.

Starring:  Tom Cruise, Emily Blunt, Bill Paxton, Brendan Gleeson

Directed by:  Doug Liman 

Written by:  Christopher McQuarrie, Jez Butterworth, John-Henry Butterworth

Personal Bias Alert:  likes time travel stories, not averse to Tom Cruise

8.7 of 10

            After seeing this film, I immediately texted my friend “find out nothing about ‘Edge of Tomorrow’ and go see it.”  It really is a film best seen cold, which brings up an old, tired dilemma for reviewers:  how do you talk about a film without talking about it?  There’s no good answer, so I’m going to try to balance my bubbling desire to talk about this film with my equally strong desire for everyone to go see it and have as much fun as I did.  Translation:  I’m going to be as vague as possible, but I encourage everyone to take the advice I texted my friend.  Stop reading this unless you’ve seen the film.  Please.

            Tom Cruise plays William Cage, a spokesperson turned soldier for the allied human forces fighting a species of alien invaders.  The aliens are marching across Europe, greatly helped by their ability to reset time.  Meaning, if things go wrong, they can rewind and start things over again until they get it right.  Humanity has recently landed a rare victory at Verdun, which prompts an ambitious, three-pronged attack against the aliens.  Cage is sent to the shores of France to participate in the first wave, only to witness the human forces be slaughtered and eventually be killed himself.  But he, in the process of killing an alien, absorbs their reset power and begins reliving the 24 hours preceding the invasion over and over again.  His task becomes to change the outcome of the attack, save humanity, yada yada yada.  He is helped by Verdun hero Rita Vrataski (Emily Blunt), one of the few people who believes his insane story.

            Now that’s just the setup, which, like here, does take some time to get through.  It’s something we’ve seen before, and this portion of the film does feel a bit tired.  It’s a necessary thing to get through, though, and there are moments of humor and some great battle sequences to keep you from getting too bored.  It’s what happens after this setup that makes the movie great, unfolding in zigs and zags as they try to figure out how the day needs to play out.  I’ve seen these sorts of movies before, and I was pleasantly surprised with the turns the film took.

            Cruise is made for these roles, either that or he’s done them so many times they have become part of his DNA.  He sells the crazy stuff happening, lands the jokes, and is incredibly watchable while doing it.  I don’t know what it is about movie stars like him, but they are just able to command a viewer’s attention.  Blunt is another great choice, but she’s not so obvious a fit as Cruise.  Then again, Cruise isn’t a young man anymore, and casting a slight woman and an aging man as your leads in an action film is kind of daring.  It works here because it sells the premise that his reset ability is what’s important.  It also lends an odd couple feel to the whole thing, which is the source of a decent amount of the film’s humor.  That humor keeps things from getting too dark, something the film flirts with throughout its midsection.  Part of me wanted it to go there, but then again, that would have slowed things down.  The steadily building plot is the strongest part of the film, so I’m fine with that particular choice.

            You’ve probably seen promos that heavily feature the robotic exoskeletons that humans wear as they fight the aliens.  They’re cool, but I also like that they didn’t give the soldier’s too much power.  They aren’t running around blowing everything up like super soldiers.  The suit the actors wore was supposedly very heavy (85 pounds).  I’m sure those were a pain to film in, but I loved that you could see the actor’s stance and gait change under the weight.  It really helps sell some of the action sequences, but others are hampered by blurry images that I can’t be sure were due to bad effects or bad camerawork.

            The plot is the star here, and I was enthralled by it.  At one point, I came out of my reverie and realized that I wasn’t paying attention to lighting, music, or any of the other technical stuff I should make note of in my review.  I was just having much fun with it, so I said screw it and dropped right back into the story.

            Other Notes:

Ø  The characters can be a bit thin, but then again, most of them never go through more than a day’s change.

Ø  For a time travel movie, there are remarkably few plot holes.  There’s always some, though.

Ø  Nice tie-ins to both world wars.  Verdun was the site of a major WWI battle and the invasion sequence looks like D-Day from WWII.

Ø  I wish it didn’t end that way.  It really feels false and tacked on.

Imagine Me & You (2005)

Released:  January 27^th, 2006

Rated:  R

Studio:  Fox Searchlight

Starring:  Piper Perabo, Lena Headey, Matthew Goode, Celia Imrie, Anthony Head

Directed by:  Ol Parker 

Written by:  Ol Parker

Personal Bias Alert:  not a rom-com fan, used to seeing Lena Headey playing tough characters

6 of 10

            This movie might be the definition of twee.  It starts out with a nauseating little sequence in which Rachel (Piper Perabo) is getting ready for her wedding.  The dress is put on, the parents lightly bicker, and the bridesmaids actually squeal in delight.  Then it’s off to the wedding, but not after an ever so cute pit stop at McDonalds to take care of nature’s business (product placement, anyone?).  I wasn’t happy right off the bat, but then a curious thing began to happen.  A running gag about how everyone’s more concerned about themselves than the bride and groom started working, and even though the clichés were still digging into me, I started to settle into the film’s gentle rhythms.  And if that’s how you go into it, with a breezy, lighthearted attitude, then this film can cast a pleasant little spell on you.

            Since this is a rom-com, you can be sure that the blossoming relationship isn’t going to go smoothly.  It had a good chance, though; Rachel and hubby Heck (Matthew Goode) are the best of friends, and their relationship is an easy one.  At least it was, until Rachel glances over and is instantly attracted to florist Luce (Lena Headey) as she walks down the aisle.  Both Rachel and Luce try to fight it, Luce being against breaking up couples and Rachel desperately not wanting to hurt Heck, but it’s a losing battle.  Add in Heck’s philandering best friend, Coop (Darren Boyd), and Rachel’s overbearing parents (Celia Imrie and Anthony Head) and you’ve got a pretty basic rom-com setup, except this time you’re rooting for a lesbian couple.

            I’ve got to say, it’s kind of nice how much of a non-issue the lesbian angle is.  Yes, people comment on it and jokes are made, but overall the situation plays out exactly how it would have if Rachel had fallen for another man.  No one is horrified or judgmental about it, and Rachel seems to accept this new development in her personality with little fanfare.  The film seems to approach the whole thing with an attitude of “yeah, it happens,” which it does.  It’s also a smart choice because any significant issues would have stuck out like a sore thumb.  This film’s simply not interested in that sort of thing.

            That’s not to say that there isn’t any weight to it.  For an airy movie, it does take the time to fill in some motivations and backstory so we understand why Rachel and Luce won’t just get together.  Both women get some throwaway scenes with their parents to show their motivations, but mostly they just pine over each other from afar.  The character of Heck is the most impressive, with Matthew Goode turning in a great performance.  Heck’s a decent guy without being a shmuck, and you understand why Rachel is so attached to him.  This is a film filled with people, besides Coop, who don’t want to hurt each other.  I think that’s how most people are in real life, but it’s not an oft portrayed characterization in film.  This decency goes a long way to making the film go down easy.

            It does, at times, cross the line into overtly saccharine material, particularly with the music and dialogue.  It’s cheese through and through, complete with stuttering admissions of attraction, flowers as innuendo, and endless meet-cutes.  Headey and Parabo don’t do much to smooth it out, either.  They have some chemistry, but I’m not sure I buy them rolling around on flowers, madly in love.  They just feel more like friends to me.  Headey does get to show off a comedy side, something that’s not often seen, and she’s excellent as the straight man (except for the fact that she’s playing a gay woman).

            Normally when I start throwing around words like twee, airy, and saccharine, you would be in for a scathing review.  I admit that this film is all of those things.  I also admit that those things generally inhibit a movie from working, but this one just does.  It’s a fairy tale, and it’s a gratifyingly sweet one.

            Other Notes:

Ø  The whole thing feels one note.  There’s barely enough to fill the 94 minute runtime.

Ø  He he.  Coop said “vagitarian.”

Ø  If you ever wanted to see a woman sobbing on Cersae Lannister while she tries to answer a phone, then this is the movie for you.

Ø  I’ll admit it, I had a big smile on my face at the end.

Maleficent (2014)

Released:  May 30^th, 2014

Rated:  PG

Studio:  Disney

Starring:  Angelina Jolie, Sharlto Copley, Elle Fanning, Sam Riley, Imelda Staunton, Juno Temple, Lesley Manville

Directed by:  Robert Stromberg         

Written by:  Linda Woolverton

Personal Bias Alert:  not a fan of princess stories, was impressed by the trailer

4 of 10

            There seems to be this cultural myth that all little girls love princesses.  I was never that enamored with them, and I don’t recall any of friends loving them either.  Of course, I liked Disney movies, but I grew up in the ‘90s when our princesses got to be a little more proactive.  The old school ones, the traditional damsels in distress, were never a part of my childhood.  I was aware of them, vaguely knew the stories, and always chose “Beauty and the Beast” over “Snow White.”  The recent trend of retelling these classic tales, from 2012’s “Snow White and the Huntsman” (which I didn’t like) to television’s “Once Upon a Time” (my personal guilty pleasure), has made me realize that I don’t actually know these stories.  They’re all mixed up in my head, bleeding together into a jumble of Evil Queens and sleeping spells.  Before watching “Once Upon a Time,” I thought the Evil Queen was a general term applied to all the evil ladies that attached Disney’s classic princesses.  I didn’t know it was just the one from “Snow White.”

            More pertinent to this movie, I didn’t even remember the name Maleficent.  In fact, I don’t recall ever sitting down and watching “Sleeping Beauty.”  I assume I saw it at some point in my childhood, girls just tend to be shown these things, but it made no impression on me whatsoever. So I was immune to any nostalgic charm this movie might have, which I’m hoping makes it better for all of you who do, because for me, this movie laid there like a slug.

            Apparently, Maleficent is the fairy who put the sleeping curse on Sleeping Beauty aka Aurora.  Side note, what’s up with everyone calling her Aurora all the sudden?  When I was kid, we just called her Sleeping Beauty.  Anyway, “Maleficent” is a semi-retelling of the story from Maleficent’s perspective, fleshing out her motives and backstory.  And, if you didn’t already know, it’s a live-action version, with Angelina Jolie as Maleficent and Elle Fanning as Aurora.  Allegedly, many of the actors won their roles due to their strong resemblance to the characters in Disney’s animated version.  In this case, they still got a group of quality actors, from Jolie and Fanning to Sharlto Copley as King Stefan and Sam Riley as the crow Diaval.  Even the mostly-animated pixies tasked with keeping young Aurora safe are portrayed by Imelda Staunton, Lesley Manville, and Juno Temple.

            All the actors look fine, which is good since they were cast for that very reason, but none of them have anything to do.  You can extrapolate that statement out to the entire film, really.  With the exception of a few sequences, the thing looks good, but it feels like nothing happens.  There’s an awkwardly long beginning sequence in which Maleficent grows up and the reason for her hatred becomes known.  Then the second act is basically just Maleficent watching Aurora frolic around, then Aurora touches the spinning wheel, falls asleep, and is awoken by true love’s kiss.  And then it just ends.  There’s never a build to anything interesting, no tension, no character struggles, no nothing.  The whole thing felt like a prelude to some other, more interesting story.

             I think the film’s downfall ultimately stems from its struggle to tell an interesting, slightly dark story while trying to make it palpable for young children.  This film has a PG rating, and the edits to get it to that rating are noticeable, particularly in the battle sequences.  They play out with such quick cuts and tight shots that it’s impossible to tell what’s going on.  I don’t know if they intentionally shot things that way or if it was cut in the MPAA review process, but it really takes the oomph out of the film.  It makes me wonder why those sequences where put there in the first place.  You know you can’t show that stuff in a kid’s movie, and there are other, far better ways to get across menace.  There are moments when it’s done very well in this film, such as the sequence where Maleficent loses her wings or when she casts the curse.  Those moments are chilling, for adults and kids alike, and you know that you can make them age appropriate. 

            This film is Robert Stromberg’s directorial debut, after winning back-to-back art direction Oscars for “Avatar” and “Alice in Wonderland.”  He’s done numerous other impressive effects work, including “Master and Commander:  The Far Side of the World” and television’s “John Adams” and “Boardwalk Empire.”  He clearly understand the visuals well, but his grasp on story falters at almost every turn.  He had seasoned editors behind him, and apparently writer/director John Lee Hancock was brought in during reshoots of the opening scenes.  None of this was able to save the expensive, troubled little movie that “Maleficent” ended up being.

            Other Notes:

Ø  I liked the music.  It got the fairytale vibe right.

Ø  A few of the CGI sequences looked really bad.  People looked like they were made of plastic and such, but then again, I’ve never been impressed by CGI’s capabilities when it comes to making a realistic human being.

Ø  That trio of fairies was like an annoying version of The Three Stooges.

Ø  When Maleficent made her big entrance at Aurora’s christening, I really wanted someone to step on her train.  It was asking for it.