Review: Transformers: Age of Extinction

I've been a little lax in both my movie viewing and my writing about it for the last couple of days. My sister was visiting for the weekend, and as she is officially the Greatest Person Alive, I was more concerned with spending time with her than doing anything else. But now: back to the movies.

121. Transformers: Age of Extinction
This film had very nice, large scale action sequences presented in immersive 3D that had a constant depth to it that many 3D films lack. Most of my complaints about the film are merely based on the fact that it does not quite measure up to the previous installment, "Dark of the Moon".

The film is a little bloated, and its runtime could be cut down, but by this point that's almost expected of this franchise (although not a problem I had with the last film). It takes a little while to get going due to the necessity of having to introduce a new human cast into the mix. The scenes at Mark Wahlberg's farmhouse are not the most interesting the film has to offer, but once it is left behind (or, more accurately, blown up), the film's pace rarely lets up. The new characters established in this early section of the film meet with varying levels of success when it comes to making an impression. Wahlberg works, even if this isn't the most complex character he's ever played, as he is already familiar to the audience. He is more suited for certain action sequences than Shia LaBeouf was, and is believable picking up an alien gun and jumping into the fray. On the other hand, one of the best parts of the last film was LaBeouf's character knowing he was facing certain death by going into enemy controlled Chicago, but bravely going anyway. Wahlberg's greater physical prowess makes it always seem like he would have a fighting chance of surviving, making moments like that harder to create. The film evades this problem by not trying to create such a scenario--the whole movie is almost a non stop roller coaster, throwing the characters from one situation to the next without time to contemplate their mortality. The younger characters don't fare quite as well. The character of Wahlberg's daughter is fine, but I can barely remember her boyfriend, as he made virtually no impression on me at all.

This film also continues the franchise tradition of featuring well known actors in the supporting roles. This time it's Kelsey Grammar as the villain, seeking to wipe out all Transformers, and Stanley Tucci as an ethically questionable scientist who gets most of the film's funny lines. The humor tends to be hit or miss, but Tucci did get quite a few good moments.

While the story didn't involve me as much as it did in the last film (which made the action scenes genuinely harrowing), I still appreciated the spectacle that was on display. If one was to ignore the other films in the franchise, this film could be said to feature some of the most over the top, intricately crafted special effects driven action sequences of all time. The 3D is a tremendous aid in this regard. As the year has gone on and I have seen various films in 3D, I've found that with very few of them is the third dimension a worthwhile addition (of the films I've seen in both formats, only "Mr. Peabody and Sherman" had 3D that I thought really enhanced the film). I won't be seeing this film in 2D, but I cannot believe it would be the same experience. In many 3D films it becomes easy at times to forget you're watching a 3D film. The sense of depth is often lost. That never happened here.

Yes, this film had its problems, but I don't really feel like dwelling on them because it accomplished exactly what it set out to do and left me satisfied. The grandiosity of its action and scope make it the very definition of summer movie entertainment.

June 27 Weekly Preview

I thought this was going to be a very low-key week at the movies. The new Transformers film is the only big new release today. Then I realized that a few other movies are opening on Wednesday July 2, ostensibly to get a head start on the July 4th weekend. I won't include those movies in this preview, but I'll do a separate preview for them later, which may or may not go up before next Friday. I also plan on seeing "Ida" this week. It was on my preview for last week, but I decided to push it to this week when I saw how barren (I thought) the week was of new releases.

Transformers: Age of Extinction- I've skimmed over a couple of reviews that have mercilessly panned this film, and another that said it was just "okay". I can't say that I consider myself a fan of the Transformers franchise. I've never had any of the toys or seen the old cartoons. I saw the first two movies of this series once each, on cable long after their theatrical releases. I thought they were okay ways to kill a couple hours, but didn't amount to anything more than that. The third film, however, I saw in theatres twice and absolutely loved. The only reason I haven't seen it since is that I have no interest in seeing it in 2D. That film's 3D was the best I have ever seen in a movie theatre and made the action scenes visceral and exciting in a way I'd never seen before. I'm really hopeful that this follow up can live up to that. My expectations are high.

Obvious Child- From the trailers I've seen this seems like a romantic comedy that embraces its indie film sensibilities. Whether that results in it being fresh and original or gratingly pretentious remains to be seen.

Ek Villain- Another Indian release. I'll probably make it to this one. It seems to be somewhat of an action oriented film, but beyond that I don't know much about it.

Review: Jersey Boys

120. Jersey Boys
This type of movie is the least fun to write a review for. It isn't offensively bad in any way so as to merit a gleefully scathing response (which also precludes it from venturing into "so bad it's good" territory), but while it's not necessarily boring (at least on a first viewing), it is thoroughly uncompelling. I suspect that, on a second viewing, boredom would indeed begin to set in.

I've never been a fan of biopics that cover a very long period of time and thus come across like a collection of the subject's "greatest hits" (no pun intended, since this film adheres to this style of storytelling quite literally). I prefer it when the films cover a specific event from the life of their subject or, at least, examine a specific aspect of their character, like how "The Aviator" tracked Howard Hughes' descent into mental illness. This gives the actors and the script a chance to do their job and really examine a specific story. "Jersey Boys" manages to squeeze in a few running storylines, but a lot of it feels disconnected due to the frequent time jumps taken. It's hard to get attached to the characters and their problems when they're often seconds away from jumping a few years into the future, far removed from their current situation.

The movies saving grace, and what keeps it from falling into "boring" territory is that it's never far away from launching into another musical number. The songs here are not the most intricately staged numbers in movie musical history, but they are catchy and entertaining enough to hold your attention for a time. Christopher Walken also turns in a decent performance as a benevolent local gangster, elevating the film simply due to the fact that he's Christopher Walken.

Were it not for its feature film quality production values and the appearance of a genuine Movie Star like Walken, it would be easy to mistake "Jersey Boys" as a made for T.V. movie. Sadly, that's about the extent of its depth.

Review: The Rover

119. The Rover
Usually when I say that a movie "could" have ended before it did, the implication is that it "should" have. That was not the case with "The Rover". There were a few times where, if it had faded to black and rolled the credits (even without resolving its story), I'd have been more than satisfied. I'm glad that it didn't though, since it went on to provide resolution in a well-executed and surprising way.

The film takes place in the relatively near future: Australia ten years after the collapse of civilized society (the similarities to "Mad Max" are obvious but irrelevant). As the film opens, three criminals escaping from a shootout steal the car of our protagonist, Eric (Guy Pearce). Eric then spends the rest of the film tracking them down to reclaim his car. Along the way he captures Rey (Robert Pattinson), the fourth criminal (left for dead by his cohorts), and enlists his help in the hunt.

"The Rover" is incredibly successful at establishing a dark, hopeless tone, and it maintains it for the entire runtime. For the first twenty minutes or so, the film is just like many other dangerous post-apocalyptic worlds in the history of cinema. Then, there is a shockingly unexpected and sudden act of violence perpetrated by the protagonist. It caught me completely off guard and is the biggest "Holy Shit!" moment I've experienced while watching a film in a long time. It is what truly established the nature of this unique post-apocalyptic world, and made the lives of the characters in this film seem far more fragile than in any other recent release. Each time the characters went into a new dangerous situation, I was genuinely unsure if they would come out of it alive. This genuine uncertainty and tension is all too rare these days, but this film had it in spades. That is why there were several times I would have been okay with the film coming to a premature end. Stopping before Eric's quest was complete would have served to symbolize the never ending fight for survival that living in this world was. Since the world was established so well, that is a message I would have been content to leave the theatre with. I also feared that a conventional ending could mar everything that was special about what had come before.

Fortunately, the film did not end prematurely, and the ultimate confrontation it had been leading to was just as intense, dark, and tragic as it deserved to be. What really sold me on the film, though, was the very last scene. It features Pearce by himself, with no dialogue to work with. It has an emotionally moving twist that humanizes his character and changes your perception of everything that came before. His motivations throughout the entire film are suddenly seen in a new light. One of the things I liked best about this scene was that, while it did have a major and unexpected revelation, it was filmed very matter-of-factly. There was no dramatic flare of music or fancy camera moves to mark the "aha" of the reveal. It was just Pearce engaging in a mundane activity that changed everything. I was actually a quarter of the way through the scene before I realized exactly what was going on and its importance, and I loved it all the more for that.

I went into this film half expecting to be bored. Much like my experience viewing "Under the Skin", these expectations were thoroughly subverted and I found my eyes glued to the screen. With great performances, a stunning atmosphere, and an intricately constructed narrative that culminates in a brilliant ending, "The Rover" is one of the best films I've seen in a long time.

Review: How to Train Your Dragon 2

118. How to Train Your Dragon 2
The second consecutive movie that is a sequel to a movie I have not seen. Also the second consecutive movie that I have found to be sorely lacking in quality. One of my main issues with the film was something that bothered me in the trailers I'd seen, but the other problems I had with it were all discovered while watching.

The complaint that I knew I would have about the film going into it (the result of the trailer showing before practically every single film for the past couple months) was, as alluded to in my preview, the main character's annoying voice. I'm no expert when it comes to Jay Baruchel's filmography, but I've seen him in a few things and he hasn't bothered me before. But in this film I found his voice to be grating to the point that I outwardly cringed every time his character started to open his mouth. The nasally tone of his voice and his unnatural speech patterns (it sounds like he is trying to swallow every word) may work fine for the comedic relief roles he usually plays, but, at least to me, they are not a good fit for a leading character in anything but a straight comedy. It also didn't help that his character sometimes made inexplicably irrational decisions for no purpose other than to artificially get the plot started or drive it forward. When he finds out about the Big Bad and his Evil Plan, he insists on tracking him down to talk him out of it. This is in spite of the fact that he knows nothing about the villain while other characters who do warn him that his plan will not work. There's idealism, which can be admired, and then there's complete boneheaded stupidity, which cannot. I found it impossible to get behind and root for a character that was this ludicrously dumb. And there was no reason for it. The writers just couldn't think of a better way to get their story started, so they decided to hand their lead character the Idiot Ball.

This was a recurring problem that was the primary factor in ruining the movie for me. The film was full of things that made no sense and existed solely to further the plot. The bad guy's plan (the motivations of which are thin to begin with) depends on his dragon being able to control other dragons (their eyes go weird and everything). Why is it able to do this. It is never explained. Sadly, this leads to the audience having to endure the predictable and clichéd "Even though you're possessed, I know you're in there somewhere and will snap out of it because we're such good friends" scene. It is also never explained how the villain controls his big, bad, mind-controlling dragon in the first place. It's never even brought up. I don't mind that the film has a fairly loose narrative, with events leading from one to the other with little time for character growth. Films like that can be fun. But if you're going to go with a loose, fast-paced narrative like that, you'd better make sure that each of the events makes sense, at least until the viewer realizes the plot holes on the way home from the theater. I didn't have to wait that long. Each contrivance was evident the moment it occurred.

I'll confess that I feel like a bit of a dick for my complaints regarding the main character's voice--I wouldn't like it if someone made similar complaints about me. Still, I feel that in reviewing a film, if there was something in it that really bothered me, I'm obligated to address it. If the film had a (much) more well-written screenplay that moved logically from scene to scene without the need for character and plot contrivances, I might have been able to overlook the voice. Instead, the sloppiness of the movie as a whole made each individual aspect that fell short all the more glaring.

Review: Think Like a Man Too

117. Think Like a Man Too
I have not seen "Think Like a Man", this film's 2012 predecessor, but in looking up this film online, I see that a good many people have a reasonably decent view of it. Most of these people, however, do not have that same view of this sequel, and I am compelled to agree. Whatever the first film may have had going for it, this sequel is unoriginal and uninspired.

The film's characters consist primarily of several couples attending a Las Vegas wedding, along with Kevin Hart as the best man, and the only main character who happens to be single. Each of the couples has their own issue to work out over the course of the film, though they are all handled in spectacularly sloppy fashion. Most of the film is spent separating the male and female characters, so each issue is set up at the beginning and then arbitrarily settled at the end, with very little development in between. Hart's storyline gets more focus, as he attempts several get rich quick schemes once he realizes that he has massively overpaid for his luxury suite. Hart has had better material in other films I've seen this year, but, as always, he goes for it with maximum energy and enthusiasm, garnering the film most of its laughs. It's true that he is over the top and often steals focus from the other storylines going on around him. This might have bothered me, but since those other storylines are not at all worth paying attention to, I was okay with it.

This was the rare comedy that left me unsatisfied throughout almost its entire runtime. Often they'll at least be entertaining while you're actually watching them, but the moments of entertainment here were few and far between. The unoriginal stories, along with the boring characters and their contrived "issues" leave little to recommend the film.

June 20 Weekly Preview

In addition to the films listed below, I also need to see "How to Train Your Dragon 2" from last week's list. I'm planning to see it with a friend who wasn't available last weekend. Another Indian movie is also coming out, but I'm going to skip it. Again, an extended run time is what's scaring me off, especially since the film is a comedy and I'm not in the mood for a 160 minute comedy. I'll also probably skip the "classics" screenings of "The Godfather" and "The Godfather Part II". I think they're the two greatest films ever made, but I've already seen them on the big screen (on a bigger screen than they'll be on this time, in fact), and the time commitment would be significant.

Think Like a Man Too- A Las-Vegas set comedy. It will either be funny or really dumb.

Jersey Boys- Clint Eastwood's latest film as director, and the first since the incredibly disappointing (and mind-numbingly boring) "J. Edgar". Typically I'm a fan of Eastwood's work as both an actor and a director. I don't think this is destined to be one of his best films, but I'm hoping for at least an entertaining couple of hours.

The Rover- Looks like a possibly post-apocalyptic film set in Australia, though I'm not sure. I think it will either strike a chord with me and I'll find it really intriguing, or it won't and I'll find it boring.

Ida- I know almost nothing about this film. I think it might be a foreign film. Something about Jews in Poland, maybe? I'll find out.



















Think Like a Man Too, Jersey Boys, The Rover, Ida

Review: Dirty Dancing

116. Dirty Dancing
As per usual for the older films I see, I don't have that much I feel I need to say. I'd never seen the film before, but enjoyed it, certainly more than I did "Saturday Night Fever" last week. The story may have been more predictable, but it was also easier to get into. I wasn't enraptured, but it was a diverting way to spend an hour and a half. The dance choreography was good and, I thought, was also filmed in a more engaging manner.

One thing that struck me while watching the film (and it will mean nothing to almost anyone other than myself) is that it was clearly an inspiration for some aspects of "High School Muscial 2". There was one scene in particular where I thought some of the dialogue was even very similar.

Anyway, that's all I have to say. It was a fun way to kill some time, but didn't make enough of an impression on me to get an extended review like "Spartacus" did.

Review: The Signal

115. The Signal
Before I say anything else, let's get my obligatory "Hannibal" mention out of the way. Yes, this film features Laurence Fishburne (who plays Jack Crawford on "Hannibal") in a supporting role as a secretive scientist. Fishburne brings his strong screen presence and gravitas to the role, which is no small feet considering how difficult it is just to not look ridiculous when you spend the entire film in a bulky hazmat suit. His performance aside, this was a film that I really enjoyed for a while--it was very intriguing early on--but eventually it started to sag under the weight of its own mystery.

The film does a great job setting up its main character. In fact, it features one of the absolute best character establishing scenes I've seen in a long time. It's a brief scene where the main character, Nic, is leaving a convenience store and spots a kid failing to win a toy from a claw game. He stops, uses a sharpie to draw a diagram on the machine to show the kid how to get the toy he wants, then gives the kid a dollar to keep playing. Not only does this get the audience on Nic's side by having him be nice to a kid, but it also serves the purpose of demonstrating his technical skills that will come into play later. It is elegant in its simplicity.

As the film's setup continues, it reveals that Nic is on a cross country trip to take his girlfriend, Haley,  to her new college. A third friend, Jonah, is tagging along. The two boys are, to Haley's chagrin, engaging in a game of cat-and-mouse with a computer hacker named "Nomad". When they think they've figured out where Nomad lives, they make a detour only to find a creepy abandoned house right out of a horror movie. In short order, everything hits the proverbial fan and the film cuts to black. Next thing we know, Nic is being interviewed by the hazmat suit clad Fishburne, who tells him he's just been recovered from an alien abduction. The movie then turns into a film following Nic's efforts to figure out what has happened/is happening to him, find his friends, and escape. This is where the film loses a bit of its edge. The various story threads are not always woven together particularly well, and the film becomes solely about an extended attempt to escape for quite a while, with little focus on solving the "mystery". This makes some of the reveals feel unearned--the characters simply discover them by chance instead of really trying to figure out what is going on, making it a little harder for the audience to play along. The film's final plot twist works and doesn't feel like a cheat, but its reveal could have been more elegant. The last several minutes of the film also feature a bit too much slow motion for my taste, used in this case to call attention to some of the special effects and maybe to up the emotional resonance a bit. For me it compromised the film's immersion somewhat, but then again I've never been a huge fan of slow motion in films (it can work, but it's hard to do well).

The earlier parts of the film are very good, however. The scene at the abandoned house played out just like a sequence from a horror film, and was effective at raising the tension. I also applaud the film for not being conventional. It took risks. Some of them paid off and some didn't, but it was refreshing to see a movie that was willing to be original. That's a big part of the reason it was so intriguing for a long while. I truly had no idea where it was headed. In a world full of formulaic cookie cutter films, it's nice to be able to say that every once in a while.

Review: Words and Pictures

114. Words and Pictures
I enjoyed most of this film, which was much more of a straight drama than the romantic comedy I was expecting, though it certainly had elements of the former. Unfortunately, most of the elements I didn't like came into play near the end, somewhat spoiling what had come before.

The film's set-up is great. It tells the seemingly simple story of Jack Marcus (Clive Owen) a high school English teacher who is at risk of being fired due to his increasingly erratic public behavior and his stalled publishing career. When the new art teacher, Dina Delsanto (Juliette Binoche) arrives at the school, she and Marcus quickly enter into a debate as to whose artistic medium of choice is more powerful (hence the title of the film). A lot of time is spent establishing the two main characters, and Owen and Binoche deliver fantastic, complex performances. Their chemistry for much of the film, though of the friendly yet antagonistic sort, does not even have all that much of a romantic undercurrent. When they do finally fall into bed together, it feels more like an earned moment rather than an inevitable event the film was inexorably leading the viewer towards. Investing so much time in making the characters feel real paid off handsomely. It was a treat to learn about the lives and struggles of each complicated character, then seeing how they were challenged by and reacted to each other. I would have been fine with it if the film had ended when they finally got together. Unfortunately, it didn't.

The last half hour or so did not work nearly as well as the film that preceded it. Be warned: I'll have to reveal some slight spoilers in order to discuss the issues I had. Almost immediately after the two leads finally sleep together, Marcus gets drunk and ruins everything, then spends the rest of the film trying to make things right and achieve, if not a reconciliation, at least an understanding between himself and Delsanto. I won't claim that this development was not adequately set up--there were frequent references to and even demonstrations of Marcus's problems with alcohol. Still, for a film that had told such a real story and avoided most romantic comedy clichés, this felt to me like incredibly lazy, formulaic writing. We see that story all the time: everything is going great until the guy makes some terrible mistake, causing the girl to never want to speak to him again. In typical romantic comedies it's an expected twist that we accept as a part of the package. In this film it felt jarring and, frankly, I expected better. I also wasn't crazy about alcoholism being the catalyst for Marcus's breakdown. The alcoholic writer? Yeah, that's original.

I was really let down by the film's ending, but I still think it is worth seeing for the two great leading performances. If the film had ended a bit earlier or differently, it would have been great. As is, it's only "pretty good".

Review: 22 Jump Street

113. 22 Jump Street
I'll try to keep this brief since it can be hard to say much beyond generalities in a positive review of a comedy.

I've said it before: comedy is an incredibly subjective genre. What is funny to one person may be unfunny or even offensive to someone else. That being said, there were moments in this film that I found absolutely hilarious. I don't usually laugh much when seeing comedies in the theatre, even if I enjoy them, but this movie got continuous, extended laughter out of me several times. The film is packed with jokes, but not all of them are throwaways. Sometimes, while funny in their own right, they also serve as a setup for another (often funnier) joke a few minutes later. While there are some jokes that are (deliberately) eye-rollingly bad, others are actually quite clever. This is where I find my self restricted to the aforementioned generalities. To say any more about the jokes would be to spoil them to some degree--something I don't want to do.

The plot is serviceable. It exists as a delivery system for the jokes, a concept the film embraces, making frequent jokes about how similar it is to the plot of the previous film. If there is any fault in the film, it is the frequency with which it pokes fun at the shortcomings of movie sequels. These jokes are often amusing, but are rarely the best the film has to offer. One also has to wonder if the filmmakers were trying to use poking fun at the repetitiveness of the plot as an excuse to not mix it up. While it does work here, to a degree, it's the kind of trick that will only work once. If there is another sequel, they will have to come up with something new.

Similarities to its predecessor aside, the film was a blast. I remember being pleasantly surprised by the first film, and my expectations were significantly higher this time around. Those expectations were met and exceeded. This may be the most I've laughed in a movie theatre all year.

June 13 Weekly Preview

A pretty busy week, with four films I'll definitely be seeing and a few others that I may or may not get to.

22 Jump Street- I saw the first film on a lark with a couple friends, and found it surprisingly good. I've heard that the worst that can be said about this sequel is that it's more of the same--not a terrible thing for a comedy, in my opinion. My expectations are high.

The Signal- I've seen the trailer, but don't know much about the film other than that it seems to have a sci-fi premise. Also, it stars Laurence Fishburne, who is fantastic on "Hannibal". Yes, I will mention that show every chance I get.

How to Train Your Dragon 2- Haven't seen the first one, but I've seen the trailer for this way too many times. If the lead character's annoying voice doesn't bother me too much, I should enjoy it.

Words and Pictures- Seems like a romantic comedy, though aimed at a slightly older audience than is the norm. Hopefully this will result in a more sophisticated film. I like Clive Owen, so my hopes are high.

The two "classic" offerings this week are "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes" and "Dirty Dancing" Whether I see them depends on how my schedule works out and, in the case of the former, if I get up in time to make the screening. The Indian film I mentioned last week is still playing as well, but I doubt I'll get to it. It's only showing once per day, at 10:35 P.M.

Review: Saturday Night Fever

112. Saturday Night Fever
There isn't much I feel I have to say about this film. I'd never seen it before, and it didn't really do anything for me.

I'm sure there were elements of the film that were significantly more impressive when it was first released. The main attraction--the dancing itself--is well done, but cannot help but suffer in comparison to the more elaborate choreography, camera tricks, and editing that have been used for dance sequences in the decades since its release. I'll fully admit that the dancing depicted in this film likely displays a higher level of skill and quality than what can be found in many films that have come after, but to a layman like myself, they are not as visually compelling. It might be kind of like how those seeing the original "Star Wars" for the first time today cannot appreciate the quality of the special effects. What seems run of the mill these days was once groundbreaking and awe-inspiring.

I found the film's story to be a little scattershot, with too many plot threads dangling at once, some of them neglected for long stretches of the film before being returned to with little warning. There's nothing really wrong with this--the film was going for a "slice of life" approach. That just wasn't the approach I was expecting, and it wasn't really the type of film I was in a mood to see. Perhaps a few more likeable characters could have gotten me to feel more invested.

Rather than saying that this was a "good" or "bad" movie, I think it's fair to say that it is just not my kind of movie, and leave it at that.

Review: The Fault In Our Stars

111. The Fault in Our Stars
This was not a bad movie, but I found it to be intellectually dishonest (for lack of a better term), never coming close to reaching the heights it claimed.

Typically, I will admire a film for its ambition. Even if it falls short in an attempt to tell a unique story or to take an in depth look at a complex issue from a fresh perspective, I'll give it points for taking the risk and attempting something new. The problem with "The Fault in Our Stars" is that it doesn't do this. Sure, it starts off with a grandiose claim that it is somehow different, that it is realistic when other films are not, but it then proceeds to dip its bucket into the same well of clichés and tropes as those films it just criticized. Excessively witty lead characters who always have something smart and clever to say--check! Sudden appearance of a too good to be true love interest who is *gasp* actually true--check! Over the top romantic gestures and declarations of love--check! No effort whatsoever is made to be particularly original--they figure that if they tell you how wonderful and unique their film is at the outset, you'll just take their word for it.

On the surface there's nothing wrong with following this pattern. These tricks have been used by countless romance movies in the past because they work. They may not provide an especially deep experience, but they make for an entertaining couple of hours in the cinema. The problem is the pretentiousness with which this film makes the claim--but no effort--to be something more. Giving the characters cancer, which allows for scripted relapses and other moments designed to milk the maximum tear-jerkiness out of each scene does not make for a more realistic film when you're still set on adhering to all the clichés you can think of--in fact, it opens the door to the use of even more clichés.

The only original aspect of this movie was that it flipped genders, having the manic pixie dream girl be a manic pixie dream guy. Sadly, this only called even more attention to what an unrealistic character the main love interest is. He's practically out of a Harlequin romance novel: the wonderful, selfless guy who shows up in the heroine's life for the sole purpose of "saving" her. It's almost offensive. In this regard, the film is actually less realistic than most of the films it claims to be superior to.

The film is competently made. It features some good performances. Were it not for its baseless claims of relevance, it would have been decent, if forgettable. But the ostentatiousness of those claims put a bad taste in my mouth. If the film had lived up to them, I would have congratulated it. If it had even tried to live up to them, it would have had my admiration. But it didn't. So it doesn't.

Review: Rebecca

110. Rebecca
Like most of the older films I see in theatres, I won't spend a lot of time talking about "Rebecca"--what is there to say that hasn't already been said?

"Rebecca" is one of Hitchcock's earlier well known films--although he has several directing credits that predate it, I have only seen two of them, and the bulk of his most popular films were still over ten years away. There are fewer sequences of suspense than in most of his oeuvre, with the film opting instead for an overall sense of growing unease.

The film was not afraid to have long scenes of dialogue when required, which I appreciated. For all the fancy camera and editing tricks that can be used today, sometimes the best thing to do is simply to train the camera on your actors, provide them with a good script, and let them act. Letting a scene build slowly to its reveals lends them more weight and importance.

I was also struck by some of the dramatic musical cues, a sign of the times the film was made during. Such underscoring of dramatic events would be over the top and inspire laughter in a film made today, but it was the norm back then and, in this case, it works.

While not as "scary" or unrelentingly suspenseful as some of Hitchcock's later works, "Rebecca" acquits itself well by concentrating on plot and atmosphere, both gradually revealing themselves as the film goes on.

Review: Night Moves

109. Night Moves
There are a few moments in "Night Moves" where a palpable sense of tension is created, but they are not enough to recommend the film, which has nothing original to say and, ultimately, nowhere compelling to go.

The film follows a group of three eco-terrorists as they plot to blow up a dam, carry out that plot, and deal with the aftermath. It's nothing that hasn't been seen before. There were a few moments when they carried out the operation that managed to be quite intense, when they were forced to lie low to avoid being seen, even while the bomb was ticking away behind them. A few later scenes also managed to convey a sense of paranoia, utilizing silence effectively. In the end, though, the film followed a predictable pattern, with one member of the group unable to deal with the consequences of what they'd done and events escalating from there. The "escalation" in this case was rather minimal, however, as the film often remained too detached from its characters to create any excitement outside of the isolated moments mentioned earlier.

I typically will give a film a lot of leeway to set things up, as long as that setup eventually pays off. With this film it didn't. The abrupt non-ending is likely meant to be either artistic or meaningful, but is neither. Many other films have explored similar territory and done so much better.

Skip it.

Review: Edge of Tomorrow

108. Edge of Tomorrow
Say what you will about Tom Cruise, but he has, by all accounts, a tremendous work ethic and is always fully dedicated to giving the audience maximum entertainment value for their money. With "Edge of Tomorrow", he succeeds. The film's finale, by necessity, falls short of what comes before, but the film as a whole is consistently enjoyable.

Cruise may not always play the most complex characters, but he's found a niche where he manages to succeed both financially and artistically. He plays "earnest" very well, coming across believably and, in turns, either dramatic or amusing as the man who knows a dark truth no one else will believe. He's tackled similar territory before in "Minority Report", but gets a bit more of a character arc here. At the film's beginning his character is, ironically, much like the negative stereotype of Tom Cruise many of his detractors seem to view him as. He's a smug, entitled guy who's convinced he has the pull to get whatever he wants out of others. As the film progresses and he's caught in a time loop, he undergoes a slow transformation, ultimately becoming someone willing to make a self-sacrifice for the greater good. This development is well "hidden" by the film. It occurs alongside an equally compelling main story that allows it to feel natural, not forced or artificial. The other actors ably support the film. Emily Blunt plays a famous war hero who works with Cruise, trying to find a way to destroy the aliens they are fighting. Their relationship forms the emotional backbone of the story as it changes depending on the actions he takes each time through the loop. Brendan Gleeson is good in a couple of scenes as a British General who is responsible for putting Cruise's character into his predicament in the first place. The only performance I had a little trouble with was Bill Paxton's "good old boy" officer who is in command of the troops Cruise is assigned to. Paxton's clearly having fun with the role, but maybe a little too much. I'm a fan of his work in general, and certainly found him amusing here, but he was over the top to the point that his character didn't seem to be in the same movie as the other actors.

The film has invariably been compared to "Groundhog Day", and while the similarities are obvious, calling it a rip-off is unfair. After all, I'm sure "Groundhog Day" wasn't the first time anyone had thought to have a story involving a character living the same day over again. "Edge of Tomorrow" manages to make the concept its own. It does feature many scenes and jokes that one would expect in a movie with the plot device, but let's face it: it would actually be disappointing if it didn't. The film also benefits from having a tangible goal for the hero to be working towards: finding and destroying the aliens' Cthulhu-esque leader/central brain, thus ending their invasion. Even though we see Cruise going through the same day over and over, he is still making progress towards this goal, giving the film valuable forward momentum. The main conceit may be a gimmick, but it's an effective gimmick, and the film commits to it.

The final twenty minutes or so are a little disappointing. They're about on par with what you'd get from a typical action film, but don't live up to the originality and excitement that was present in most of the film. This is an unfortunate necessity. It's not much of a spoiler to say that, near the end of the film, Cruise's character loses his ability to relive the same day. This is necessary to provoke dramatic tension. The characters are about to launch their final attack, and if Cruise was able to restart in the event that they failed, there's no reason to be truly invested in the outcome. The downside is that the film is forced to sacrifice what has made it unique thus far. Now the characters are in a situation just like any other action-adventure film's climax. I'm not completely sure how I feel about the very ending of the film. Plotwise, I either didn't get the science (to use the term loosely) of what was going on, or it was a major cheat. Emotionally, however, it felt like the right ending, so I was inclined to give it a pass. Cruise sold the last shot well.

Despite a climax that doesn't live up to the film as a whole, "Edge of Tomorrow" is a really fun, imaginative film. I expect that it will end up being one of the best "Summer Movies" released this year. I'm very glad to see a studio taking a chance on a film like this--one without much of a built in fan base, and without much sequel potential to boot. Creatively, that risk has paid off. Hopefully it will pay of financially as well, inspiring more risks in the future.

June 6 Weekly Preview

A slightly more active week than last week, with two major releases and one smaller film opening in local theatres, along with a few others that I may or may not get to.

Edge of Tomorrow- Tom Cruise's latest Science Fiction action film, following last year's "Oblivion" which went unseen by me and many others. I really hope it's good. It is not technically an original property (it's based on a Japanese light novel), but it's still nice to see a film studio take a chance by making a big budget film without a massive built in fan base.

The Fault in Our Stars- It's been hard to avoid the media attention surrounding this film's release. Most of that press has been incredibly positive, which means the film will have to really work hard to live up to the hype if it wants to impress me. When an article about a film (published over a month before the film comes out) claims that seeing it will "change your life", my reaction is to become very skeptical. Based on some of the actual reviews I've seen coming in, my skepticism may not be unwarranted.

Night Moves- Something about environmental terrorists, I think. I saw a trailer online a while back, but it didn't really stick with me. I'll be anticipating boredom to drive down my expectations.


The Wild Card movies I may or may not get to are: "Saturday Night Fever", the weekly "classics" offering; "Rebecca", a different theatres "classics" offering (both screenings are in the morning which, given my current sleeping schedule, might keep me away); and "Holiday: A Soldier is Never Off Duty", another Indian film (its 160 minute runtime might scare me off).

Review: Maleficent

107. Maleficent
This movie is a little hard to judge. Its main concern is to revisit the title character's story in a much different way to how it has previously been portrayed. It does this very well. Other parts of the film and story, however, are given very little attention to the point that it feels the filmmakers weren't concerned with them at all.

The film takes a much more sympathetic view on the character of Maleficent than the animated Disney film did (I've seen the film, but not since my age was in the single digits, so I won't be making many comparisons). She is given a backstory that explains her motivations when it comes time for her to cast the "sleeping beauty" curse. Angelina Jolie delivers a really fantastic performance--one that the film would probably be lost without. She has perfect command of subtle facial expressions that allow the audience to know what her character is thinking at all times, but without being too obvious or over the top about it. She doesn't just get a single character arc to work with, either. She takes the character full circle, from virtuous to villainous and back again. While the film, especially in the middle, often feels directionless in the plot department, Jolie's performance provides an anchor to keep it on track. It is, in most instances, a much smaller and more intimate film than your typical Summer Movie Season Fantasy Film, but I appreciated the change of pace.

It's a good thing that the handling of the title character is done so well, because aside from that the film gets a lot wrong. No character other than Maleficent gets much of anything in the way of character development. I was fine with this in the case of the Princess, who was portrayed competently if stereotypically as just that: a kind-hearted princess. It makes sense to me that since Maleficent was a stereotypical villain in the animated film, the princess might as well be a stereotypical "good guy" in Maleficent's film. The other characters don't fare quite as well. The King is also given a more complicated backstory, but while most of his motivations can be inferred on an intellectual level, the film never truly manages to get inside his head. It is the three fairies, however, who get the worst treatment. They exist in this film purely for (ineffective) comic relief, and if believability or any sense of realism must suffer in order for them to make a joke, the filmmakers seem more than happy to make that sacrifice. After the Princess is cursed, the King assigns the fairies the job of raising her in secret to keep her safe, an inexplicable decision since these fairies are three of the most inept characters I've seen on film in a long time. They are so bad at their job that it took me out of the film more than once--it was like watching three of Jar Jar Binks's even dumber cousins try to raise a child (and if you can imagine any humor in that scenario, I assure you that there is none).

The film more or less has two climaxes. First, there's the emotional climax that is the real conclusion of the story, but it is then followed by the "action" climax. I won't spoil the film's emotional climax here, but it was obvious it was where the film was headed. I saw it coming well before we were even at the half way point. That isn't to say its not effective. Even though it's predictable, it is consistent with what we've come to learn about the characters and feels earned. The second climax that follows just feels sloppy. As I said before, I appreciated the smaller and more intimate scope the film had for most of its runtime. This is why the addition of a big action scene to tie up the plot's remaining loose ends felt out of place. I don't so much have a problem with there being an action scene--my complaint is that the action is used to resolve some story elements and character relationships, something I wish could have been done through dialogue. Since Jolie's character was so well drawn, it was disappointing that the film climaxed on a note that did little to showcase her development.

"Maleficent" could have been much more effectively constructed in the screenwriting stage, but Jolie's performance manages to hold the film together in spite of its myriad of deficiencies. It's worth seeing the film for her character work alone.

Review: A Million Ways to Die in the West

106. A Million Ways to Die in the West
I found this movie to be, for the most part, pleasant and amusing. I don't think this is exactly what the filmmakers were going for, though. The film is never as subversively funny as it's trying to be, perhaps because it is too self-conscious in its attempts. It's the perfect example of how I am just a fan of movies in general. There's nothing in it that's really original, and it's not even particularly good, but I had a good time watching it tell a familiar story even if it did not fully live up to its potential.

The humor in the film is almost entirely of the hit-or-miss variety. They throw so many jokes at you one after the other in the hope that if one doesn't stick, the next one will. Many do stick. Many others don't. Some are clever and probably looked good on paper (like a bit where characters complain about kids hoop rolling using the same concerns some people today raise about video games), but are only amusing at best in practice, never inspiring a genuine laugh. The best laughs are usually the pop culture references, though their quality fluctuated as well--the more obscure they are, the funnier, but the less likely the audience will be to get them. Of the celebrity cameos, my favorite was the one that came at the very end of the movie. It was exponentially more entertaining since it hadn't been spoiled by the trailers and was a completely unexpected surprise. The major drawback is that the Wild West setting is not integral to either the film's plot or most of its humor.

The acting is adequate, with most of the actors playing the "type" that the film requires them to, and doing a fine job at it. Liam Neeson was especially entertaining as the villain, a role he rarely takes, especially when played so broadly. Seth MacFarlane is not bad in the leading role, but there are a few places where I feel he suffered from being an actor-director. For example, there was one moment where his character was shown in close-up, supposedly surprised by what he was witnessing. He didn't need to go over the top with it, but his eyes didn't widen at all. A director could have spotted this and requested another take, but it's a hard thing to spot that for yourself when you are the director.

In spite of my complaints, I did have fun with the movie, but I can't make any claim that it was actually very good. It's probably another one to wait for until its on television.