Is it safe for someone to admit that their preferred 1996
summer blockbuster of choice was not, in fact, “Independence Day?” I always
preferred “Twister.” There’s nothing wrong with “Independence Day;” it is
certainly a big budget fun alien invasion movie in the style of a 1970s Irwin
Allen disaster flick. And let’s be honest with ourselves, it’s not really a
very good movie. It makes sense then
that I felt completely underwhelmed by “Independence Day: Resurgence.” My
dislike of it has nothing to do with any kind of Star Wars prequel fanboy hate
whatsoever. When it comes right down to it, “ID4-2” is frankly dull, incompetent,
and just plain stupid.
No one really goes out of their way to praise the body of
work of director Roland Emmerich. The guy is mostly known for his large scale
on-screen disasters, some of them good: “2012” was goofy fun, as was “The Day
After Tomorrow” but his 1998 version of “Godzilla” was a disaster in more ways
than one. I’d be lying if I said “The Patriot” wasn’t my favorite of his films.
“Independence Day: Resurgence” is a definite low for the filmmaker in a career
filled with lows. While his films are nowhere near as terrible or utterly
bombastic as say, Michael Bay's, there is a glaring sheen of incompetence in this
latest effort.
“ID4 2” takes place twenty years after the events of the
first movie and the world has moved on. They’ve rebuilt bigger and better than
ever, while even harvesting a lot of the advanced technology brought to Earth
by those pesky aliens. This world doesn’t feel like the same world from the
last movie, it feels way too advanced and unrealistic. The United States now
has a female president played by Sela Ward who spends the entire movie doing
her best Hillary with regrettably slicked back hair look. She’s not the only
one who needs a makeover, former President Whitmore (Bill Pullman) has some
serious post-traumatic stress issues and is in serious need of a hairbrush. His
daughter Patricia is all grown up and played by It Follows’ Maika Monroe. She’s
with hotshot military pilot Jake (Liam Hemsworth) because movies like this need
love interests obviously. Will Smith is nowhere to be found so we have his son
Dylan (Jessie T. Usher) filling in. That wacky scientist Dr. Okun (Brent
Spiner) is back, somehow surviving a twenty year comma, waking up to his life
partner (John Storey), which was an unexpected twist in a film otherwise
riddled with clichés. Indie actress Charlotte Gainsbourg, playing a scientist,
looks mostly confused throughout the film as if she either lost a bet or mistakenly
got lost getting back to Lars von Trier’s set. Most of the actors look pretty
bored.
Oh, and don’t even make me try to describe the film’s plot.
The aliens actually aren’t done attacking Earth and send a mothership down to
kill everyone, again. And again no one listens to Jeff Goldblum (or his
father). Characters inexplicably die, or end up not dying in confusing ways. The
action scenes are so shoddily filmed and terribly jumbled together that I felt
like I was trying to decipher some three year old’s abstract drawing. There’s
no real sense of time and place; characters are on the moon one minute and then
on Earth the next without much explanation and in the meantime I generally lost
interest. Especially in the lame attempts at humor from the film’s five screenwriters
who I’ll give a break to by not actually naming them. Oh and the visual effects
are just plain terrible considering the film’s budget was twice as big as the
first film. And that movie won a freaking Oscar for its visual effects (over “Twister”
I might add).
So yeah “Independence Day: Resurgence” is bad. I didn’t like
it. It’s not a good sequel. But you know what? It doesn’t profoundly change or
affect my life in any way and it’s very possibly that a lot of people out there
will find it fun and enjoyable. I’m still sticking with “Twister.” GRADE: D+
An easy way to
describe “The Shallows” would be “it's 'Jaws' meets 'Gravity,'”
but that would be somewhat inaccurate; those were Oscar-winning movies after
all and this is a movie from the guy who directed Paris Hilton in
“House of Wax.” But actually, “The Shallows” is a fun
little shark thriller even if it's a B-movie through and through,
which happens to be exactly how I take my fun little shark thrillers.
Spanish director Jaume Collet-Serra is the master of the “efficient
little thriller” subgenre having made other “efficient little
thrillers” like “Non-Stop” the efficient little airplane thriller and “Orphan” the efficient little psycho kid thriller and he's right at
home with “The Shallows.” Even if the film doesn't remotely
pretend to know anything about actual Great White Shark behavior, "The Shallows" is a completely watchable and suspenseful thrill ride that makes
efficient use of its 86 minute run time.
There's not really
much to say about the plot of “The Shallows” except that it's
essentially about a woman who becomes trapped on some rocks while a
hungry shark circles around her. The film's script attempts to give
us a well-formed principle female character in Nancy (Blake Lively)
who decides to find the unnamed beach in some unnamed foreign country
that her late mother used to frequent. A Spanish-speaking man drops
Nancy off, where she meets two other surfers, who, besides a drunk
man, are really the only other characters in the film. But that
doesn't matter, this is the story of woman vs. beast. I haven't seen
a woman so pissed off at a shark since “Jaws the Revenge.”
It's no surprise
that shortly after catching some waves, Nancy gets attacked by a
shark and refuses to leave the area because it's been feeding on a
floating whale carcass. The shark also has some kind of hook lodged
into its mouth which makes me think that's reason enough for us to
think that's why the shark wants to badly to eat every human being in
sight. This is not a Shark Week documentary; it's a shark thriller so
we can easily forgive it's lack of scientific shark knowledge and
feel ok with just being scared for Nancy every time she's forced to
enter the water in attempt to get to shore. She's basically stuck on
the rocks with her bleeding leg, her wits, and an injured seagull who
I guess is supposed to be her Wilson stand-in. She's also
conveniently a former medical student which helps.
If you're not
expecting much in terms of Oscar-winning writing, acting, or effects
you'll have a hell of a fun time watching “The Shallows” as I
did. The film is overwhelmingly suspenseful and packs enough scares
to make people scared of bodies of water of any kind. Lively is good
enough here; and she makes Nancy smart enough that you rarely need to
smack your forehead. The shark effects aren't exactly amazing but
they're convincing enough; the film is scary which is really all that
matters. GRADE: B+
As far as
unnecessary sequels go, “Finding Dory” is actually pretty darn
good. Nothing will ever match the sheer joy of the first film but
this follow-up certainly makes its mark in the glorious Pixar cannon.
It obviously loses some originality points for being somewhat
familiar and can't match the obviously far-out antics of last year's
masterpiece “Inside Out.” But why should it? In a time when
sequels are so common it's a breath of fresh air just to have one
that is simply great – even if it never really needed to be made in
the first place. Luckily, this underwater world created by the
geniuses at Pixar is brimming with enough new colorful characters and
smart gags that make “Finding Nemo” one of the better
“Pixar-lite” entries.
“Finding Nemo”
was essentially an underwater road trip movie. Clownfish Marlin
(Albert Brooks) was searching the open Australian Ocean for his lost
son Nemo and hesitantly teamed up with lovable blue tang Dory (Ellen
DeGeneres) who suffers from short term memory loss. In case you were
living under an underwater rock all those years ago, Nemo was found
and they all lived happily ever after. Now, taking place a year after
the events of the first movie, Dory has a revelation and realizes
that she has a family and may knew where to find them. This takes
her, Marlin, and Nemo on a crazy adventure across the ocean in and
around the Marine Life Institute which involves the voice of
Sigourney Weaver in what is one of the movie's best running gags.
There are plenty of
new colorful characters involved here. There's a pair of captive
whales voiced by It's Always Sunny's Kaitlin Olson and Modern
Family's Ty Burrell. The one who really steals the show this time is
a disgruntled octopus who's named Hank voiced by Ed O'Neill. There
are some truly inspired bits here as Dory, Marlin, and Nemo find
themselves hoping from body to water to body of water throughout the
institute trying to figure out where Dory's parents are. There's one
bit involving an unfortunate stop in a kids' touch tank that is
hilariously rendered by those clever Pixar people (including
co-directors Andrew Stanton and Angus MacLane).
“Finding Dory”
may feel like a movie that doesn't need to exist, but
the filmmakers have gone out of their way to assure you why it does: it's a sheer delight on every level. Like the first
film, it is filled with clever humor, fun characters, a great Thomas Newman score, jaw-dropping
animation, and a lot of heart. The movie also has a voice – it has
a positive message about those who have disabilities – which is not
entirely lost on those just looking for a fun time. It's a movie that
will have you initially questioning it's existence and proving in
the end that Pixar can pretty much do no wrong, because “Finding
Dory” is oh so right. GRADE: B+
Simply put, “The Conjuring 2” will not only restore your
faith in movie sequels but in the studio horror film, as well. Most horror fans have had
to turn to the little seen indie flicks that show up on demand or in art house
theaters. Horror films put out by major studios tend to be PG-13 cash grabs and
nothing more. And horror fans are lucky if they get one great horror film amongst
what usually ends up being an entire series full of mediocre entries. How “The
Conjuring” series has hit two home runs so far is an achievement in and of
itself. The success of this film (as with the first) remains due to top-notch
acting from great actors (and two of the most appealing horror movie lead
characters ever created and some of the best acting the genre has seen since “The
Exorcist”), sharp and interesting direction (from James Wan returning to horror
form after his fantastic “Furious Seven” detour), and a solid script. Yes, as
strange as it sounds, even horror films can be just plain great films, and thankfully
“The Conjuring 2” gives horror sequels a good name.
If one needed to instantly compare “The Conjuring 2” to the original I’d say it’s maybe a notch lower just because, as great as it is on
its own, you’ve seen these characters in situations like this before. It is a
sequel after all so it instantly lacks the uniqueness of the first time around.
However, this sequel does everything right. You could say it follows the
formula of the first but it also adds much depth and drama to the previous entry
as well. After being called to consult on the infamous Amityville case, paranormal
investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren (Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga, both
delightfully wonderful) are called upon overseas in England where a single
mother is having disturbances in her house that are affecting her children. One
disturbed child in particular, Janet (Madison Wolfe, who gives one of the most
impressive child horror film performances ever), has become increasingly unstable
as it’s apparent that some evil entity is causing her to practically become possessed.
Like the first film, the movie’s plot isn’t simply a
haunting or a possession. It’s sort of a weird combination of both. The family’s
mother played by A.I. Artificial Intelligence’s Frances O’Conner, is completely
at wit’s end but the Warrens – dealing with their own familial issues – promise
to only observe and help only if the case is particularly troublesome. The film’s
script from Chad & Carey Hayes (along with Wan and David Leslie Johnson)
interestingly deals with the concept of skepticism. In movies like this these
cases are always assumed to be real – but for once the storyline approaches the
subject of whether what’s going could be in fact a hoax.
“The Conjuring 2” features top notch production values all
around. Wan’s direction is simply suburb. He doesn’t just rely on jump scares
(though they’re there and they are, in fact, actually scary) but real frights,
choosing to let scenes play out in almost unbearable suspense. The cinematography
is particularly wild from the always reliable Don Burgess and matches nicely
with Joseph Bishara’s creepy score.
If there’s any criticism to be had, the third act feels
almost overblown compared to anything the first half (or first film) offered
and takes the “bigger is better” approach. It doesn’t hurt the film in anyway
but isn’t quite as strong as the film’s suspense-riddled first half. Long story
short (too late), “The Conjuring 2” is a completely scary delight and proves
that not all sequels suck. GRADE: A-
Nothing can quite top the experience of seeing “Borat” for
the first time. Its mockumentary format was nothing particularly new (see This
is Spinal Tap and the rest of Christopher Guest’s oeuvre) but it’s appealing
mix of wacky character interacting with unsuspecting real-life people was
something so funny, shocking, and downright outrageous that no other mockumentary
could barely touch it. With the glut of fairly recent concert films and other
musician-led documentaries on the rise (due to the popularity of reality
television, I believe) it only seemed natural that another musician focused
mockumentary was going to be unleashed on the public. Who better to do it than
former SNL funnyman and digital short maestro Andy Samberg? He and his Lonely
Island pals Akiva Schaffer and Jorma Taccone take on everyone from Justin
Bieber to Justin Timberlake in a film stuffed with enough cameos to fill an
entire season of “Will & Grace.” It’s mostly a success due to the always
game Samberg and his buddies though you can’t help but feel the film is a few
years too late and doesn’t quite feel as fresh and original as it thinks it is.
“Popstar” ultimately feels like a really long Digital Short,
which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it does sort of feel padded even
though it clocks in under 90 minutes. However, the film is pretty funny from
start to finish. Samberg is Conner Friel who’s part of pop boy band The Style
Boyz. Obviously things to end up working out so he starts his solo career as
Conner4Real which goes great after his
first album Thriller, Also is a hit but his second album bombs. The film
follows him as his entire career implodes even with the help of his manager
(Tim Meadows) and his publicist (Sara Silverman). It is sort of refreshing
knowing that his downward spiral isn’t caused by drugs as is the case with most
famous people but rather the fact that it turns out he’s a terrible song writer
without his two former band mates (one of which becomes a farmer and the other
remains with Conner as his DJ).
The success of the film (aka how much you find it funny)
will depend on how well you know the many famous people who make cameos. There
are a bunch of really good and clever ones which I won’t spoil here. Though, those
actors who are actually playing characters don’t really get all that much to
do. Maya Rudolph and Joan Cusack’s bits are criminally short. Much of the humor
comes from mocking the entire music industry and how obsessed with celebrity
culture we have become as a society. One
of my favorite bits include several scenes mocking the annoyingly popular “TMZ”
show in which a bunch of people sit around an office sipping from travel mugs
as they mock the stupid stuff famous people do.
All of the songs, most of which feature rap, are actually
decent and are generally pretty funny. I imagine the soundtrack would be a fun
listen with the right friends and the right road trip. I also love how far Shaffer,
Taccone, (who both co-wrote and directed) and particularly Samberg (who also
co-wrote) are willing to go in the name of comedy. Sure it relies heavily on
typically raunchy gross out humor but there’s something timeless about potty
humor isn’t there? You also get a sense that even if this trio is making a
mockery of the music industry you can tell they utterly respect it.
“Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping” is just as ridiculous
as its title suggests. Samberg doesn’t quite reach the comedic heights of Sacha
Baron Cohen and he certainly owes a lot to the mockumentaries of the past but “Popstar” is delightfully un-PC and is certainly worth visiting particularly if you’re a fan of the Andy Samberg brand
of absurdist musical mockery. GRADE: B
Those who complain
that Hollywood no longer makes outstanding movies geared towards
adults haven't seen “The Nice Guys.” How does one even describe
“The Nice Guys?” It's buddy comedy. It's a film noir. It's a
trashy porn-themed crime drama. It's even a cute story about a father
and daughter. By my count that's four films for the price of one. And
it's worth every penny.
Russell Crowe feels
like a far cry from his usual epic action fair here in this story
about two private hires who team up to solve the suspicious death of
a porn star in seedy 1970s LA. The film is dripping with personality,
style, and a deliciously absurd sense of humor. And no wonder because
it comes from Shane Black the director of cult favorite “Kiss Kiss
Bang Bang” and Marvel actioner “Iron Man 3.”
Crowe is joined
onscreen by Ryan Gosling who is such popular movie star it's hard to
remember how much of a standout actor he really is. He's perfectly
cast here as Holland March a boozy private investigator who comes
face to face with enforcer Jackson Healy (Crowe) who insists March
stop investigating the disappearance of a woman named Amelia. But
since this is seedy 1970s LA there are bad guys everywhere and soon
they have to reluctantly team up to solve a crazy mystery involving
amateur pornography and the auto industry.
This is one of those
movies where the script practically drips with originality and yet
you see the cinematic nods that have heavily influenced it. Black
(and co-writer Anthony Bagarozzi) have crafted such a fun, demented
script full of surprises and colorful characters. The direction is
solid; Black keeps things moving and you never quite know where
things are going. I never lived in LA let alone in the 1970s but the
film feels authentic; especially John Ottman's swanky 70s-esque
score. The chemistry between the actors, especially Crowe and
Gosling, is simply dynamite. And as dark and violent as the film can
be there is a surprising sweetness to it in the form of the
relationship between Gosling and his onscreen daughter played
wonderfully by Angourie Rice.
“The Nice Guys”
was truly a delight from start to finish. It has a fun, twisted plot,
fantastic performances by actors playing memorable characters, and
stylish direction from the always reliable Shane Black. This is the
summer movie that adults will love, especially those sick of sequels,
reboots, and caped crusaders (though I'm personally not quite sick of
any of those). GRADE: A-
Put simply, “X-Men:
Apocalypse” is an average X-Men outing. It's not really as good as
the best of the franchise but it's better than the terrible ones.
However, in today's golden age of comic book films average may not
quite be enough. Moviegoers are being bombarded with superhero
stories on the big screen – many of which are very good – and
others are simply cash grabs or big ol' messes. Even though Fox has
gone to the X-Men well probably more than it should have (there have
been eight films including some form of these characters, 9 if you
include the superior “Deadpool”), but I appreciate what they have
been trying to accomplish with this prequel series of X-Men films.
Each one has its own personality. “First Class” was a fun 60s
style espionage thriller, “Days of Future Past” was a fun time
travel sci-fi extravaganza, and “Apocalypse” feels like it's
supposed to be an Irwin Allen disaster film but the film fails to
give us much of what makes those movies so fun, though it has even
good moments to help it rise above the worst of the bunch.
First of all, any
“X-Men” film with a standout Quicksilver sequence makes it
instantly worth seeing. Luckily, “Apocalypse” uses this
character, played wonderfully again by Evan Peters, in a fun way and
he simply adds a lot of fun to what is ultimately a sort of dour
chapter. The film begins ala “The Mummy” in the BC era where
Apocalypse, supposedly the world's first mutant, is about to transfer
himself to a new body. It goes wrong and he lays dormant until he's
brought back in 1983 when the film takes place. Apocalypse, played by
Oscar Isaac underneath lots of blue make-up, is sort of a dull
villain compared to what the X-Men franchise usually provides. Even
his threat of total planet destruction feels underwhelming as you
never quite feel anything that bad is going to happen.
Luckily, the film
finally introduces us to younger versions of previously established
X-Men characters. Cyclopse (Tye Sheriden), Nighcrawler (Kodi
Smit-McPhee), Jean Grey (Sophie Turner), and to lesser excitement
Storm (Alexandra Shipp) who becomes one of Apocalypse’s unwitting
followers. Angel (Ben Hardy) is yet again practically pushed to the
background this time around with Pyslocke (Oliva Munn looking like
she lost a bet most of the time). Jubliee is there but you'd never
know since she's never actually named on screen. Some of the other
favorites like Beast (Nicholas Hoult), Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence),
Magneto (Michael Fassbender), and Charlies Xavier (James McAvoy) are
around as well, but most of them look like the material is beneath
them. And obviously it is, these actors are big stars now and feel
almost embarrassed to be starring in one of the weaker X-Men scripts.
It's a shame Simon Kinberg couldn't make the stakes a little higher
or get all the characters more interesting things to do. The film's
weakest link is it's third act; everything leading up to it was
completely watchable. The biggest surprise of all is Bryan Singer,
who arguably has delivered the best X-Men films, but here seems to be
going through the motions.
To be fair, I was
never actually bored during the film's 144 minutes. The film is
lightweight, fun, and has enough good moments to make it worth
seeing. Unfortunately, when compared to what's come before in both
the X-Men universe and other comic book films (ie “CaptainAmerica”) it's hard not to see the flaws staring us in the face
here. GRADE: B-
“Neighbors” was a funny movie. It finally proved the comedic
chops of Zac Efron and he and funnyman Seth Rogen made a delightfully dynamic
onscreen comedy duo (much like the genius pairing of Channing Tatum and Jonah
Hill in “21 Jump Street”). It’s natural for Universal to keep the comedy going
in this inevitable and borderline unnecessary sequel; the good news, however,
is that it thankfully doesn’t suck. It sucks very little in fact. Of course it
adheres to the time old tradition of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” They
break out a lot the same jokes that were funny the first time and are actually
still funny the second time. There’s plenty of new material too though. This
time the lovely Radners (Rogen and borderline comedic goddess Rose Byrne) must team up with their archenemies Teddy (Efron)
to destroy the new sorority who has just moved in next door so that they can
successfully sell their home. It’s a lot of the same raunchy shenanigans but
with more bloody tampons.
As the film begins we check back in with Marc and Kelly
Radner who find out they’re pregnant with their second child. Their first baby
Stella is now a little toddler whose fondness for her mother’s vibrator is one
of the film’s most delightfully dirty gags. Marc and Kelly are on the brink of
selling their house and moving to a quieter neighborhood. However, their
realtor informs them they’re in escrow, meaning their potential buyers have 30
days to reject their offer. Unlucky for them a new sorority has been formed by
new college freshman Shelby (Chloe Grace Moretz) after finding out the sorority
she planned to rush can’t throw their own parties. She rents the house next to
the Radners on the advice of Teddy who just can’t seem to grow up (or get a
decent job). His friend’s lives are flourishing with the announcement of his
best friend Pete’s engagement (who is now proudly gay). Teddy soon becomes Kappa
Nu’s mentor since being a frat guy is the only live skill he’s learned in four
years at college. But after the girls reject the smothering Teddy he vows vengeance
and switches sides and aligns with his former enemies the Radners.
Nicholas Stoller’s “Neighbors 2” is one of those sequels
that changes very little of the formula from the first time around and it
mostly works. The writers (all five of them dudes) inject a little feminist
empowerment (I think?) this time around by showing girls can be just as raunchy
as men (which was basically the point of the Anna Farris comedy “The House Bunny” but way less successful). They do make a good point about sororities not
being allowed to throw their own parties, but I doubt is a real thing, and I’m
not going to justify it by even looking it up. However, they do make a good
point in that they can throw a kick-ass party with drinking and drugs without
needing to act like sluts or practically sell themselves to guys. Sure it’s
sketchy at best but you have to admire the filmmakers’ attempt at political
correctness. After all, besides a brief encounter with the girls in bikinis and
Kelly’s garden hose, Efron’s flesh seems more on display here than the women’s.
There’s literally a scene where Efron is rubbed with a greasy piece of meat
before showing off “Magic Mike” moves. This is an equal opportunity kind of
raunch fest.
The bottom line is that is you found the first movie funny
then surely you’ll find this one hilarious as well. Byrne and Rogen are enjoyable
as always and Efron gets to show off more than his eight pack throughout. The
film even gets to say a lot more about growing up, making something of
yourself, and finding your place in the world. You can easily identify with the
characters whether it’s the freshmen girls, Teddy’s hesitancy to grow up, or
Kelly and Marc questioning whether or not they’re good parents. After all, a
comedy with progressive ideals and Cosby rape jokes isn’t that bad in my
opinion. GRADE: B
Picture it, May 10th, 1996. There was so much
going on that day. I was twelve years old. It was a year to the day that I saw
my first Broadway show “The Phantom of the Opera.” And I’m always able to
remember my friend Amanda’s birthday because it’s the same day that the movie
“Twister” opened up in theaters. As my older sister got ready to attend her
boyfriend’s prom I was getting ready to experience what would soon become my
favorite movie, like, ever. I had seen all those windblown TV spots about “that
tornado movie” from the people who made “Speed” and “Jurassic Park.” Apparently
a fast bus plus dinosaurs equals tornado movie success. It certainly worked for
me. My dad took me that evening to see “Twister” and it was such an
enthralling, exciting experience I’ve literally never forgotten it. Sure I had
seen plenty of movies in the theater at that point; I mean I was at the ripe
old age of 12. I remember seeing typical kid fare like “The Little Mermaid,”
“The Wizard,” “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids,” “The Sandlot,” etc. I felt like a
major leaguer when I saw the terrifying “Jurassic Park” in 1993 and was never
the same since. But something about my experience with “Twister” formed my bond
with the movie going experience that has remained to this day. It was literally
the coolest thing I had ever seen that didn't involve dinosaurs. Oh did I mention
that I was also obsessed with the weather?
My dad always says how his love of baseball started when his
mom took him to his first baseball game. I find the comparison here works in
much the same way. At that point in my life I wanted to be a meteorologist when
I grew up. I has an unnatural obsession with The Weather Channel. I tuned into
the Tropical Report every hour at 49 minutes after the hour as I was mostly
fascinated by storms be they hurricanes or tornadoes. When Hurricane Bob hit
the northeast in 1991 I was mildly disappointed that Connecticut didn’t get the
brunt of the storm and I had to settle for rain and trees that easily withstood
the wind. I think a little part of me wanted the roof to blow off or something.
And since I lived in New England the odds of seeing the fascinating tornado
phenomenon was pretty much nonexistent. Perhaps one day there’d be a
tornado-related disaster movie?
By 1996 I was pretty sure that I really loved movies (especially
since I got hooked on the Video Movie Guide which was my cinematic bible until
it ceased publication in 2005). When I heard about “Twister,” how ever that may
have been in the days before the internet really took off, I was pretty excited
to see an action movie that was all about tornadoes. (To show how much I loved
anything about tornadoes and hurricanes I also was also previously obsessed
with a TV movie earlier that year that aired on The Family Channel called
“Night of the Twisters” and who could forget that 1993 TV movie about Hurricane
Andrew called “Triumph Over Disaster: The Hurricane Andrew Story” starring the
dad from “Blossom” and Lambert from “Alien;” the less said about the
Twister-cash-in rip-off “Tornado!” the better, but I still watched it). I recall
reading the reviews for “Twister” before the movie came out and was
disappointed in the critical drubbing the film took; Siskel and Ebert hated it,
though the USA Today liked it. How the film critic from the Connecticut Post
could give the film a negative review was unfathomable to me at the time. While
I didn’t really follow many film critics at the time I do recall some referring
to the movie has having “a stupid plot” or “dumb characters.” Sure, they were
technically right on the money but they weren’t a twelve year old kid who was
obsessed with weather. So, after seeing my sister off to the prom, my dad
whisked me away to the local theater to watch “Twister” on opening night. The
theater was packed, I was ecstatic, and I’ve never been the same since.
It was a riveting experience. It was exciting, scary,
intense, funny. I didn’t even care that the threadbare plot was essentially
about an estranged husband and wife trying to sign divorce papers. It was
obviously the tornado sequences that I really cared about. And that flying cow
obviously. “Twister” took a page from “Jaws,” as many films do, by showing very
little at first and slowly revealing the power of these fascinating whirlwinds
of destruction. Each tornado was bigger and more intense than the last (with
jaw-dropping computer effects that rightfully earned an Oscar nomination).
Director Jan de Bond staged each one perfectly giving each sequence – and each
twister – a distinct personality, more so than the characters according to
some. And let’s not forget the crazy finale in which our hapless heroes strap
themselves to pipes with leather belts and manage to survive the suck zone of
an F5 tornado. It’s that old adage that if you can reel in a viewer early on with
something outlandish they’ll believe anything is possible by the time the
ending rolls around. It was utterly ridiculous and epic.
I had this poster on my bedroom wall all the way through college
I loved every freaking minute of it and I’ve been obsessed
with the film ever since. When I got an awesome Twister poster from the local
video store I remember thinking my life couldn’t possibly get any better. In
middle school, I recall watching it on a band bus ride to play at the
Republican National Convention right after it came out on VHS. I distinctly
remember asking my band director, “Is this the bus that’s gonna be watching
Twister?” I watched it over and over again on home video. I even recall buying
the tape the night BEFORE its release date. I was at Wal-Mart and asked an
employee if they had “Twister” (even though I knew it was coming out the next
day) and the guy actually brought one out from the back for me. I was never happier,
except for maybe the aforementioned poster score. I obviously had to eventually
have it on DVD. And then on Blu-ray in May of 2008, roughly twelve years after
its theatrical debut; the exact same age I was when I first experienced “The
Finger of God.” I finally got to experience the Universal Studios Florida
attraction “Twister... Ride It Out” (RIP) a few years ago which was generally lame but
still a requirement as a Twister fanatic. And here we are now exactly twenty years since
“Twister” first blew into theaters. My love of meteorology has waned but my
love of “Twister” has remained.
The Dorothy prop as seen at Universal Studios
It’s easily remained one of my all-time favorite movies;
though it’s the theatrical experience that always stays with me. The film still
works on a variety of levels. The film’s musical score by Mark Mancina is a standout.
I could listen to the soundtrack over and over again. And I have. If I’m ever
driving by a wheat field it’s my go to choice. Also, somehow, Van Halen and mid-90s
weather-related destruction made a heavenly pair. I love that the movie’s
visual effects and sound still hold up to this day. If you want to show off
your fancy surround equipment the “Twister” Blu-ray is your ticket. Even
decades later I’m fascinated by all of the performances in the film. I love how
obsessed Helen Hunt’s Jo is with tornados and how she shouts, “I WANNA SEE IT!
I WANNT SEE IT!!” Ditto, Jo, ditto. The late, great Philip Seymour Hoffman is a
standout as the douchey wild man Dusty. His “suck zone” speech is famous, just
like Aunt Meg’s gravy. My younger sister and I would even shout, “Food. FOOD.
FOOOOD!” at my mom when we were hungry. Bill Paxton and Helen Hunt had amazing
chemistry you could just as easily buy them as a bickering couple as you could
a happily married couple. Tornados aren’t the only villain in the film – we also
get perpetually slimy Cary Elwes as Jonas the leader of a corporate-backed
rival storm chaser team. Jami Gertz has the misfortune of being the audience’s
stand-in as the characters spout exposition and define scientific terms for her
(and us). How else are you supposed to explain what the Fujita scale is when
all the characters are storm chasers? In fact, the only thing really dated
about the film is the fact that scientists now use the updated “Enhanced Fujita
scale” as of 2007. I’m also amazed at one of the criticisms at the time involving
the supposedly preposterous premise that so many tornados could form over a
twenty four hour period in real life. Twenty years later I can’t turn on the
news without seeing record tornado outbreaks daily.
Ok, I admit it. “Twister”
isn’t really a good movie. It’s a
completely competent summer blockbuster and represents a time when summer
blockbusters weren’t all about franchise building and sequels. The film,
however, was practically forgotten about once “Independence Day” became a
phenomenon just two months later. But I have a particular affinity for the
disaster genre and “Twister” just fits the bill for me. It (along with that year’s
“Daylight,” “ID4,” and the spoofy “Mars Attacks!”) also helped usher a brand
new wave of disaster movies to American audiences now that computer generated
imagery could produce bigger and more realistic destruction. Later we got
things like “Dante’s Peak,” “Volcano,” “Titanic,” “Deep Impact,” “Armageddon,”
to more recent fare like “2012,” “San Andreas,” and even the found footage tornado
flick “Into the Storm.” Every year on May 10th I like to celebrate
“Twister” because it thrilled me so much as a kid and it was something I really
loved a lot and I enjoy honoring that. I pretty much know the film like the
back of my hand. Though, it’s wise to not give nostalgia too much power because
if I learned anything from “Twister” it’s that, “You gotta move on. Stop living
in the past, and look what you got right in front of you!”
How could you watch this trailer and not be psyched?
“Captain America: The Winter Soldier,” “Iron Man 1 & 3,”
and “Guardians of the Galaxy” are pretty much the epitome of the always nerdy
sounding Marvel Cinematic Universe. Some would say “The Avengers” is one of the
best and while it’s completely serviceable, “Captain America: Civil War” feels
like the definitive Avengers adventure. It’s been a long road getting here (“Civil
War” is the thirteenth) but it was certainly worth the climb. “Civil War” is a
Captain America film that finds several members of the Avengers split into two
separate political factions. When the Avengers become government sanctioned it
sends a rift between Chris Evans’ Steve Rogers and Robert Downey Jr’s Iron Man.
For a comic book film with lots of characters, many of them introduced here for
the first time, the film handles everything rather nicely and “Civil War” finds
a nice pacing as it rages on for nearly two and a half hours of nerdy superhero
fun.
If I’m being completely honest I think I prefer “The Winter
Soldier” by a slight hair because its plot was so surprising since it essentially
ended up being a superbly-crafted comic book conspiracy actioner that was heavily
influenced by 1970s political thrillers. “Civil War” while it maintains much of
the same entertainment value as “The Winter Soldier” doesn’t quite have as
strong a personality or identity. It feels more like another “Avengers” film
which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The film’s main villain takes the form of Daniel
Brühl’s Helmut Zemo, who’s just a regular guy who seeks vengeance. Turns out he’s
somewhat of an avenger himself: he’s hell-bent on destroying the Avengers for
killing his family during the events of “Avengers: Age of Ultron.” Also,
William Hurt is the Secretary of State who introduces the Sokovia Accords a bill
that would make the Avengers accountable and owned by the government. Captain
America is severely against it but Iron Man agrees with it and insists they
must all be held accountable. Cue the fighting.
Obviously, there’s a lot more going on here than just superheroes
fighting each other. The film obviously has a lot to say about vigilantism and
politics. It helps that the film has wondrously staged action sequences.
Anthony and Joe Russo, who return from helming The Winter Soldier, really know
what they’re doing here and provide plenty of spectacle. Sure, see the film for
its glorious action set-pieces but stay for the great new character introductions.
Chadwick Boseman plays T’Challa a prince from Wakanda who shows up as the Black
Panther as he’s also out for revenge. Even the web-head Spider-Man is finally
introduced into the Marvel Cinematic Universe as recruited by Tony Stark.
Played here by The Impossible’s Tom Holland, the film takes the character back
to his high school days and, and he does a great job of playing that
smart-alecky teen who’s got something to say about everything. There are plenty
of other familiar faces including Paul Bettany and Elizabeth Olsen who get much
more character development than in their last outing. And Cap’s
friend-turned-mind-controlled-enemy Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan) returns to
remind us that he’s becoming one of this saga’s most interesting characters. Something
here that really got to me was the division between Rogers and Natasha Romanoff
(Scarlett Johansson) since they played off each other so well in “The Winter
Soldier.”
Anyone who found the “Avengers” films a bit bloated might
find “Civil War” to be similar in that regard but it felt much more grounded in
reality, fun, and significant than many of the films that came before it. The
Captain America films have quickly become some of the most well respected comic
book films which is saying something since these movies are being released
seemingly every other week. “Civil War” doesn’t necessarily do anything that
new or groundbreaking but it also seems to get everything right and has enough
fun tricks up its sleeve, and at this point is all most of us can ask for. GRADE: B+
Somewhere the logline “punk band must evade neo-Nazi skinheads
after witnessing a murder” made sense to someone and it has manifested itself
in the creepy, tight little thriller “Green Room.” I’m not quite sure how to
even describe this film to someone. Is it horror? Is it a thriller? It’s a bit of both but it’s certainly a suspenseful journey that isn’t afraid
to show pretty intense and graphic violence. The film is injected with so much
soul and depravity I’m not even sure what to compare it to. Director Jeremey
Saulnier gives the film a neo-realistic crime thriller feel with some truly
grotesque makeup effects. It’s an interesting film that’s truly impossible to
guess what exactly is going to happen next.
“Green Room’s” setup feels akin to something like “The Texas
Chain Saw Massacre” with a bunch of grungy young people stuffed into a van in
the middle of nowhere. Nowhere is in fact the Pacific Northwest and the young
people are a punk rock group called “The Ain’t Rights.” They seem to be
desperate for cash since they have to siphon gas just to get to where they need
to go. They get pointed to a gig at a club in the middle of the woods that
happens to be home to a bunch of skinheads. Next thing you know the entire
group is stuck in the club’s green room after witnessing something they most
definitely shouldn’t have seen. It quickly becomes band vs Nazis in a thrilling
game of cat and mouse as the band attempts to survive the night.
I’m not really sure where exactly this movie came from but I’m
glad it exists. It definitely feels inspired by films about kids getting lost
in the woods and happening upon psychotic killers. The direction from Saulnier
is proficient and even when the screenplay threatens to lag he mostly adds
something shocking to the mix whether it’s an unexpected death or some
disturbing ultra-violence. The actors are pretty fabulous here including
standout Anton Yelchin as the band’s leader.
Punk rockers vs. white supremacists feels like reason enough
to check out this film let alone the marquee name of Patrick Stewart, playing
wildly against type, as the leader of the neo-Nazi group. It at least convinced
one mildly disoriented theater goer where I saw the film to watch it for his
name alone. A bold move considering the film’s shocking violence and disturbing
story. If you know what you’re getting into it’s worth the wild ride. GRADE: B+
“Boyhood” was a brilliant and simple film about the trials
and tribulations and oftentimes mundanity of growing up. The 1980-set “Everybody
Wants Some!!” is similar and takes it to the next step by addressing finding
one’s identity when entering the crazy, fast-paced world of college. Director
Richard Linklater, ever the one to capture the realities of youth by drawing
from his own experiences, (he was a baseball player at his Texas college) presents
us with a story about a team of college baseball players in the days leading up
to the start of the school year. Linklater is also a master of the practically
plotless film choosing to focus on interesting characters and witty dialogue. Here
he gives us a bunch of baseball jocks and while it may be a turn off to anyone
who didn’t play sports in college, Linklater manages to make typically
unlikable characters into fascinating studies of human behavior. “Everybody
Wants Some!!” which plays like a spiritual sequel to Linklater’s own cult comedy
“Dazed & Confused,” is a delightful slice of Americana – all set to the
pleasant sounds of the late 70s and early 80s.
First of all, it must be said that like a majority of his
films Linklater follows a very loose narrative structure and those looking for
a truly compelling storyline need look elsewhere. “Everybody Wants Some!!” is
all about the nostalgic atmosphere, characters, dialogue, and rockin’ tunes. And
even though the film revolves around a bunch of baseball-playing college bros,
Linklater manages to make typically unlikable caricatures into really likable fully
developed people (though you’ll have to look elsewhere for many well-written
female characters).
It’s Texas, circa 1980 and our surrogate is Jake (Glee’s
Blake Jenner in his feature film debut) an incoming freshman. He’s moving into
one of the two houses for the Texas university’s baseball team. We’re quickly
introduced to some other players who initially seem rather unappealing
including Tyler Hoechlin’s star hitter McReynolds, Ryan Guzman’s Roper, Glen
Powell’s Finnegan, Wyatt Russell’s bearded stoner Willoughby, J. Quinton
Johnson’s Dale, and other freshmen Plummer (Temple Baker), Brumley (Tanner
Kalina), and redneck roommate ‘Beuter’ (Will Brittain). On the surface, these
characters seem like typical dumb jocks; you instantly stereotype them as dumb
idiots but Linklater slowly lets you get to know these guys. The film takes place
in the days before school begins with an onscreen text doomfully counting down
to the start of classes. The film’s story is basically watching Jake become accustomed
to his new college life while he pursues different parties as he and his
teammates ogle the coeds.
While “Dazed & Confused” followed several groups of high
school personalities (i.e., jocks, stoners, losers) “Everybody Wants Some!!”
follows the jocks as they attend several different party atmospheres. The first
night at college Jake’s teammates throw a huge beer bash. The next night they
attend a disco and then head to a country bar, and even a punk concert. After
Jake begins to pursue a cute theater major and some of his friends attend an
artsy theater party. Jake, like most incoming college students, attempts to
find his niche amongst his fellow jocks as no one should be pigeonholed to one
group. Jenner is extremely appealing here as are his other co-stars. I’d say
Powell feels like the MVP here though everyone gets their moment to shine. Oh, did I
mention the film’s awesome soundtrack filled with glorious 70s and 80s tracks? The
film’s title is, after all, also the name of a Van Halen song (with double exclamation
points sealing the deal) and the film's story easily reflects the title's proclamation.
“Everybody Wants Some!!” manages to take the leftover brilliance of “Boyhood” and form its own fascinating fly-on-the-wall nostalgic
tale of college life. And even if your personal college experience isn't reflected here it still feels rather universal. Those who are fans of Linklater’s early, influential work
will no doubt be in hog heaven here. As someone who was never quite on the
Linklater bandwagon until the magic of “Boyhood” it’s easy to see why this auteur
is in a league of his own. GRADE: A-
Is it a misnomer to call “The Jungle Book,” Disney’s latest redo
of an animated classic, a live action film? After all there’s really only one
human character and everything else onscreen was created in a computer. Whether
you wanna call it live-action or not, this version of “The Jungle Book” has
some of the most impressive computer effects I’ve ever seen in a film. The
so-called “uncanny valley” is almost all but dried up here. We’re constantly
looking at animals and their movements and facial expressions are so lifelike
it could easily fool some less informed moviegoers who may think there’s been
some kind of scientific talking animal breakthrough. Visually appealing or not
a movie has to also have a good story and interesting characters otherwise it’s
wizardry for naught. Since the original Disney animated version of “The Jungle
Book” was never quite one of my personal favorites, I have no problem declaring
this updated version the definitive version of Rudyard Kipling’s collective
works (though I, like many others I assume, haven’t seen the 1994 live action
version).
The plot of “The Jungle Book” is simple enough but extremely
effective and rewarding. Mowgli (Neel Sethi) is a little boy who’s abandoned as a boy and
then raised by a pack of wolves. He also has a wise black panther named
Bagheera (voiced by Ben Kingsley) who also watches over him. The film’s main villain
is the Bengal tiger Shere Kahn (Idris Elba) who believes the boy doesn’t belong
in the jungle living amongst animals and seeks to banish the boy or worse kill
him. Bagheera helps guide Mowgli back to his human kind but after an ambush is quickly
separated from the boy leaving Mowgli to fend for himself. Then Mowgli meets
several other animals; including a scary run-in with a gigantic, hypnotizing snake
named Kaa (Scarlett Johansson) and a big lovable bear named Baloo (Billy
Murray), not to mention a scene-stealing Christopher Walken as King Louie. The
film is very vignette-like which really works and give the film almost a “road
trip” type feel where you don’t quite know what adventure Mowgli is going to
get caught up in next (unless of course you’re pretty familiar with the
original cartoon).
The film works on multiple levels beyond the fact that the
film is a visual wonder from beginning to end. The visual effects are so
photorealistic you’ll be shocked to find out the filmmakers never set foot in
an actual jungle. Sometimes the film is so realistic I could picture tiny kids
leaving the theater in fear despite the film’s family-friendly rating. Sethi
gives a rather impressive feature film debut performance considering his
co-stars weren’t even there (though he shot his scenes with puppeteers who don’t
appear in the final film). The film also works in some of the songs from the
original Disney film in a way that don’t feel forced or out of place. After
all, how could one watch a Disney version of “The Jungle Book” without hearing “The
Bear Necessities?” The script from Justin Marks is a real winner with subtle
themes about not fitting in or feeling different from those around you. Director
Jon Favreau who can go from creating little tiny CGI-free films like “Made”
or “Chef” to big budget effects-driven films like “Iron Man” and “Cowboys & Aliens” feels very much in his element here finding the right beats of humor, emotion,
and action.
“The Jungle Book” is an amazingly well-crafted, entertaining,
visual wonder of a film (and even worth the extra bucks for 3D if that’s your
thing). The film is thoroughly entertaining, impressive acting and voiceover
work, and has a surprising amount of emotional depth and some nice comic
relief. I’d be genuinely surprised if it doesn’t win an Oscar next year for its
effects; they’re some of the finest ever put to film. I can’t imagine a “live-action”
“Lion King” film being very far away. GRADE: A-
Ugh, more like “My
Big Fat Greek Trainwreck.” Now the nostalgia reaper has come to
claim the souls of middle-aged book clubbers who who could care less
about brooding caped crusaders. Of course, one doesn't need to be
50-something to enjoy the irresistible charm of the cloying but
lovable Portokalos family introduced fourteen years ago in the indie
(but Tom Hanks-backed) big fat smash hit “My Big Fat Big Greek
Wedding.” I, like many American moviegoers, fell in love with it.
It certainly wasn't the most original movie to ever come along but
somehow it's innocence and honesty and wittiness in portraying a
woman's struggle to find herself in a sea of her gigantic clingy
ethnic family was universally relateable. Even if you weren't
specifically Greek you easily saw yourself surrounded by your equally
gigantic clingy family whether it be Jewish, Italian or [insert other
borderline stereotypical ethnicity here]. It was harmless fun.
Harmless fun is what
I'm sure screenwriter/actress Nia Vardalos had in mind with the
long-awaited (for some I guess?) sequel unimaginatively titled “My
Big Fat Greek Wedding 2.” Fortunately, the entire cast returns.
Like everyone, really. Unfortunately, Vardalos, even in fourteen
years doesn't quite manage for anything all that interesting for
these people to do. And even if they were sort of ethnically
stereotypical the firs time, they've been upgraded to practically Looney Tunes
characters. Not to mention that many of them haven't quite aged very
well. I'm no fitness expert but many of them certainly have the fat
part down.
The film picks up
fourteen years after the last film and Toula (Vardalos) and Ian (John
Corbett) are preparing for their teenage daughter Paris to select a
college. Toula, even though she was the free-thinking black sheep who
had her own Cinderella story the first time around has become just as
clingy and annoying has her parents. Her marriage also seems to be on
the rocks for reasons the script doesn't quite explain. More
annoyingly is the film's central plotline which involves her parents
Gus (Michael Constantine) and Maria (Lainie Kazan) not actually being
married because the priest never signed their marriage certificate.
I appreciate
Vardalos giving the elder actors meaty roles in a day and age when
everything must be young and flashy and of a certain marketable
demographic but both actors seem to have seen better days and don't
quite have the same comedic timing they had the first time around.
The rest of the actors you remember show up here as well with not all
that much to do except mug for the camera. The first film's MVP Andrea Martin as Aunt Voula doesn't get as many funny lines even when
she's discussing all her strange bodily aliments (As a side note, can we get a "My Cousin Vinny" spin-off in which Martin plays Mona Lisa Vito's mother, please?) Martin really tries
to sell it. The bland sitcom-like direction from Kirk Jones certainly
doesn't do her any favors. Even the film's technical merits feel lazy
and uninspired.
It's obvious
Vardalos really cherishes being Greek and wants to share her
experiences with filmgoers. It's ripe material that was handled well
the first time around. It's also abundantly clear that she favors
progressiveness hence why her character arch from the first film was
so memorable if predictable. She displays a little bit more of that
ideology with the revelation of a certain male character who randomly
comes out of the closet. It's a brief subplot (among others
involving Alexander the Great and the dangers of bathtubs) but
wouldn't the film be more interesting, unexpected, and fresh had the
film revolved around this big fat Greek nuptial instead? The movie
already relies on mildly offensive ethnic stereotypes, why not throw
in some gay ones as well?
It's sort of obvious
that, in the end, a sequel to “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” was not even a good
idea in the first place. But geez this family is oh-so-lovable, for the most part. However, even the spin-off/sequel TV sitcom barely lasted seven
episodes on CBS back in 2003. You don't remember it? Neither do I. The
first film wasn't exactly a beacon of originality or quality cinema but it
was magical, harmless fun. It made you feel happy. And like the greatest movie comedies,
endlessly quotable. It's obvious here that you can't quite capture
lightning in a bottle twice, even if it's big, fat, and Greek. GRADE: C-
What was it that
Taylor Swift once said? Haters gonna hate hate hate hate hate? One
can not simply ignore how exciting the anticipation could be for a
feature film to finally feature both iconic superheroes Batman and
Superman. Judging from the relatively lackluster marketing campaign
and the somewhat *shrug* reception of 2013's “Man of Steel” you
can't really call “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” a
disappointment. After all the backlash after Ben Affleck was cast as
Batman which got me excited because of ya know, his recent
filmography hasn't been ya know terrible: "The Town," "Gone Girl," oh and Best Picture winner "Argo." So it is with mild
expectations I went into this battle royale of comic book movie event
films and not surprisingly I was met with mild results. The film is a
far cry from the bottom-of-the-barrel comic book offerings. This
isn't “Batman & Robin” of course. But it't not top tier stuff
either: it's simply middle of the road entertainment, plays things
safe, even if it offers some plot developments that sort of surprised
me (since I haven't read these comics).
It must be noted
that the film's run-time is long. Yes, too long. A lot of stuff is
crammed into those 151 minutes. Too much stuff I'd say. There are
lots of characters introduced, most rather well, though not much too
interesting happens to them as the film progresses. I had high hopes
when I heard Oscar winning “Argo” screenwriter Chris Terrio was
involved (along with perennial comic book film screenwriter David S.
Goyer). He injects the film with a needed boost of oomph and I
enjoyed some of the twists the story took but overall this feels a
little too self serious and lacks any sort of humor or comic relief.
The movie doesn't really feel “fun” and lacks a rooting factor
that was so present in the Christopher Nolan Batman films (and yet we
all know how that trilogy was the Kocoum of superhero films).
It must be said that
one of the strengths of the film is actually in its casting. Have
there ever been so many Oscar nominated and winning thespians in a
superhero film? (For the record, I counted seven). Say what you want
about Ben Affleck. Go ahead, even call him Batfleck if you want. The
guy is actually a really good Bruce Wayne/Batman. And even though
we've seen Batman (and his “origin”) a million times on screen,
they certainly do something different with the character. Everyone
knows Wonder Woman shows up here as well and she's pretty awesome. I
also think Henry Cavill, even if he's not exactly Mr. Personality
makes a fine Man of Steel. Jesse Eisenberg hams it up as Lex Lurthor
(whose character and motivations I never really understood).
The writers even
attempt to concoct a decent reason why Batman and Superman would be
fighting in the first place. You remember the end of “Man of Steel”
when Superman managed to damage half of Metropolis and probably kill
thousands of people while fighting Zod? That has something to do with
it. I would have liked to see more of Superman actually being
Superman and saving people. And what about that internal struggle for
Clark Kent to constantly deal with being in two places at once?
Director Zack Snyder, who sort of feels like a Michael Bay wannabe,
is much more interested in the spectacle though he actually sort of
tones down his questionable desaturated color palette. Yes the film
is practically nonstop bombastic and unmemorable action. And that's
too bad because having Batman and Superman in the same movie feels
like such a big deal, but the movie doesn't quite capture awesomeness
of that idea. Though it must be said that I was genuinely surprised
the cajones involved with the final act development that I didn't see
coming because, like I said, I have never read any Superman comics
especially the one that influenced the film's ending. I kind of
admired it.
If you find the
advertisements for “Batman v Superman” to be mediocre at best,
then you will probably have the same experience watching the film.
Yes the film is long, I was never excruciatingly bored but there just
seems to be so much going on (and plenty of setup for the next set of
DC films) that fails to be completely compelling. The actors are good
with what they're given and the film does offer a few surprising
twists but the film doesn't make you feel the sense of wonder or
excitement one tends to get with these big budget event movies. I
cannot simply dismiss the film as terrible knowing there are truly
horrific comic book movies that exists like “Batman & Robin,”
“Superman IV: The Quest for Peace,” “Green Lantern,”
“Catwoman,” “Fantastic Four” (any of them), “X-Men Origins: Wolverine,” “Howard the Duck.” Go ahead, tell me that “Batman
v Superman” is worse than any of those. GRADE: B-
You have to hand it
do Disney Animation Studios as of late. Some may decry they're far
from their early 90s heyday but they have been making some terrific
strides when it comes to animated films and have certainly given
Pixar's crop a run for their money. You also have to admire their
originality, they haven't even produced a sequel in years and not
content on just making singing princess movies (though they're
sometimes into that too). “Zootopia” is no exception; it's an
exquisitely animated and fun buddy cop comedy with a surprisingly
amount of emotional depth one may not necessarily expect from it's
mostly silly marketing campaign.
The film's clever
concept involves a world in which animals have evolved into modern
society like humans. While walking and talking animals is certainly
nothing new when it comes to Disney movies, the film's plot is
certainly something we haven't seen before in animated form: buddy
cop comedy. We're introduced to a bunny named Judy Hopps (Ginnifer
Goodwin) who has always longed to be a police officer. Of course,
those around her including her family always tend to laugh it off as
tiny bunnies aren't known for being cops. Not content on being a
carrot farmer Judy attends the police academy and eventually becomes
the first bunny to become a cop in the big city known as Zootopia, a
melting pot of various animal species living in harmony. On her first
day she's met with plenty of skepticism and she's assigned meter maid
duties. It's not long before she reluctantly teams up with a sly con
artist fox named Nick (Jason Bateman) to uncover a stream of crimes
involving local missing animals. To say much more, like most films,
would ruin the fun.
Long story short,
“Zootopia” is one of the more interesting surprises in quite some
time. The film is refreshingly funny. The film's script does rely on
witty animal “stereotypes” like sloths being slow so they
obviously run the DMV. What's most surprising, besides how well the
film succeeds on a pure entertainment level, is how much the movie
has to say about society in general. The film isn't very subtle, with
it's hints at prejudice and racism, but neither was George Orwell's
animal allegory “Animal Farm.”
“Zootopia's”
jovial mix of state-of-the-art animation, silly comedy, and social
commentary is rather impressive. The characters are interesting, the
writing is crisp and funny, and the film's noir-like mystery ranks it
up there with the likes of “Who Framed Roger Rabbit.” That film
also starred a bunny, coincidence? GRADE: A-
You don't quite know
what you're getting into when you watch “10 Cloverfield Lane.”
The marketing has been almost perfect for this film. Is it really a
sequel to the hand-held camera monster mash “Cloverfield?” You'll
have to see it yourself to find out. The trailers are extremely vague
but offer a few bits of story. It seem as though a young man and
woman are being held in an underground bunker by a crazy guy who
insists that there's been some kind of attack above that has rendered
the air unbreathable. The film is fascinating and strange and offers
top-notch suspense as you never quite know what the filmmakers are up
to and what's gonna happen next.
If you've heard “10
Cloverfield Lane” is related to “Cloverfield” you'd be right
and wrong. The film's couldn't be more different in style and
execution, but the movies feel like they occupy the same purpose: to
offer a supreme sense of dread and keep the audience in suspense.
“Cloverfield” was a movie about a group of young people
celebrating a friend who was going away and became a monster movie.
This film feels more like “'Misery' in an underground bunker.”
Mary Elizabeth Winstead plays Michelle. In the film's opening
sequence she's seen packing up and hurriedly leaving her apartment
while she ignores calls from her boyfriend. She's suddenly in a car
accident and then wakes up with a gash on her head and an IV in her
arm. Oh, and she's chained to a wall (No, Samuel L. Jackson from
“Black Snake Moan” is nowhere to be seen). There's the creepy
Howard (John Goodman, simply chilling), who apparently saved her
life, and a younger guy named Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.) who share
the underground bunker she finds herself in. To say any more would be
a disservice to anyone even remotely interested in seeing the film.
The movie is
directed by Dan Trachtenberg, in his feature film directorial debut,
and what an incredible film debut it is. He offers the perfect mix of
suspense and just plain weirdness (and some fun musical choices). It
helps that the script from Josh Campbell, Matthew Stuecken, and
Whiplash's Damien Chazelle oozes with twists and turns which always
keep the audience on its toes (including a disturbingly intense scene
involving an air vent). You never really know where this thing is
going or what we're even really seeing. Things all come to a head in
a slam-bang finale that pulls the rug right out from under you.
Simply put, “10
Cloverfield Lane” is an engaging, claustrophobic exercise in
suspense. Goodman's work here is extremely fascinating and complex;
he really lets out his inner Annie Wilkes. Winstead and Gallagher are
also in fine form. The film really ratchets up the tension as it
progresses and offers lots of fun surprises and plenty of dread. You
shouldn't really expect a direct sequel to “Cloverfield” and
that's either a good thing or a bad thing depending on your views of
that film (I loved both). There certainly isn't anything else quite
like “10 Cloverfield Lane.” GRADE: A-
