Review: If I Stay

158. If I Stay
The latest adaptation of a young adult novel (though I had never heard about the book except when mentioned in connection with the film), "If I Stay" fails to impress, despite two very good performances from Chloe Grace Moretz and Stacy Keach.

The film follows Mia (Moretz) who, in the opening minutes, is involved in a car accident that kills off the rest of her immediate family while leaving her comatose. The twist is that her consciousness (or soul, or whatever) is freed from her body, and she can wander around the hospital, observing her friends and family members. Eventually, she has to decide whether she wants to live or die. But first, she (and the audience) are "treated" to a series of flashbacks, most of which show the ups and downs of her budding romance with rock musician Adam (Jamie Blackley). This is where the film starts to fall apart.

When so much of the focus is on the romance, it's integral that it be convincing. Unfortunately the character of Adam is a virtual charisma vacuum. Whether this is the script's or Blackley's fault I'm not sure, though I suspect it's a bit of both. The material he's given isn't very good, but Moretz is given similar material in their scenes together, and she's able to make it work. She's one of the best actresses in her age group right now, and is showing a tendency to be the standout feature in otherwise remarkable films (as in last year's remake of "Carrie"). She delivers her dialogue with thoughtful, sometimes quirky pauses, lending a sense of realistic spontaneity to the otherwise staid material. Her performance can't elevate the material, but she's able to deliver it with her dignity intact. She's convincing enough that I can believe her character is interested in Adam. Blackley's performance, however, leaves me wondering why?

For a movie hell bent on being a tear-jerker, there was only one scene that I found to be genuinely moving. There were several scenes of friends and family sitting by Mia's hospital bed, imploring her to live (and imploring the audience to cry), but they tended to fall flat. The one that worked featured Stacy Keach as Mia's grandfather, telling her that if she wanted to die, that was okay, too. Keach was given a little screen time before this, but not enough to really set up the moment. The only thing that made it work was the raw power of his acting, and make the scene work it did.

If the film had jettisoned the young adult mandated romance plotline and had instead, from square one, been about the grandfather-granddaughter relationship between Keach and Moretz, it might have actually been something new, interesting, and very good. Admittedly it would have been a drastically different film (and nothing like the book it's based on, I'm sure), but being drastically different couldn't have been anything but good for this film. It had a couple good things going for it, and should have focused on them. Instead it took its weakest element, an underwritten romance featuring a bland love interest, and made that the focus instead, to the exclusion of everything else.

D+

August 29 Weekly Preview

There are only three movies opening in wide release this week (and they're the only ones I'm previewing here), but there are also several foreign films that will be available at a local theatre. I'm sure I'll check out some of them--just not sure which ones.

The November Man- I've seen the trailer a few times. I'm hoping for a fun, if forgettable action flick. I enjoy Pierce Brosnan's work, as he frequently has the charm to elevate the material he's given. Let's hope he manages to do so here.

As Above, So Below- The first time I saw this film's trailer, it really did manage to scare me. The feeling of claustrophobia it created was palpable and incredibly unsettling. Subsequent viewings of the trailer haven't been as impactful, but I hope the film manages to have moments of sustained dread that the initial viewing of the trailer promised. I've enjoyed most of the horror films I've seen this year, but with none of them has the horror followed me home. Could this be the first?

Ghostbusters- This is getting a one week re-release in theatres. I've seen it once several years ago. Like most of the rereleases I see this year, I probably won't give it a very long write up.

Review: Sin City: A Dame To Kill For

157. Sin City: A Dame To Kill For
Stylistically this film has nothing new when compared to the first "Sin City" film (I suppose it does have 3-D, but as I caught a 2-D screening, that is irrelevant to me). That style is more often than not the focus of the film. The action scenes are not of the heart-pounding variety, but instead rely on the visual comic book aesthetic to "look cool" for their entertainment value. Fortunately, this largely worked, and I had a lot of fun with the film, even if it didn't have much "new" to present.

The film tells four stories (three if you don't count the shortest, a pre-credits sequence). The longest is easily the best, and it is literally the heart of the film, coming all in one big chunk at the middle of the movie. The other two stories are intercut around it; each have at least one scene before the central storyline begins. Intercutting the stories, instead of showing them one after the other as the first film did, is a smart move. The film's style is great, but it does become homogenous after a while. Going back and forth between the various stories was a good way to keep things varied. I actually wish it had been done a little more. "A Dame To Kill For", the central story, has a perfect place where it could have cut away, but instead it proceeds as one long story. It works, and I'm glad they didn't jump around so much that each segment lost its narrative momentum, but since it was the longest story, a little break wouldn't have hurt.

This isn't the kind of film to really get into analyzing performances. In a lot of ways, the more over the top and unrealistic the performance, the better. Josh Brolin and Eva Green are given the most to work with, getting a few quieter, introspective moments in addition to the over the top comic book ones. Green is especially good, bringing a growing intensity to her role as each layer of her character is revealed. For the record, I sincerely believe that my comments are based solely on the quality of her performance, and not the fact that she rarely wears any clothes whenever she appears on screen.

The movie never quite wears out its welcome. When the visual style is just starting to get old, it knows to call it quits. I only wish it had waited a few more minutes to do so, as the ending was quite abrupt. The storylines were all wrapped up well enough, but the film could have used a short scene (of what I don't know) to let it end gracefully instead of just ending. The first film featured such a scene.

It's hard to say whether this film bests the original. It's not as fresh visually, since those aesthetics were set up by the first film. But I do think the main story trumps all three of the stories told in the original. On that basis, it's a film worth seeing.

B

Review: Calvary

156. Calvary
Sometimes a movie is just not really my thing, and that's the case with "Calvary". For a while it was intriguing, but as the film went on it became more obvious that there wouldn't be a satisfying ending coming, and I started to become detached from the viewing experience.

The most praiseworthy element of the film is Brendan Gleeson's performance. He alternates between many states and shades of emotion while always staying grounded in his character. He plays a Catholic priest who, in the film's opening moments, is visited in the confessional by someone who promises to kill him in one week's time as revenge for their abuse at the hands of a different priest years before. This is a compelling way to start a film. The exploration of a small town's dark side is well done for a time, especially when the camera is allowed to linger on shots of the Irish countryside. These landscapes are typically seen in cinema as the backdrop for fantasy films, and their appearance here, accompanied by a dark, imposing soundtrack, is unsettling and effective.

The film's first major mistake comes early. While we, the audience, are presented with a whole town full of suspects, Gleeson's character admits that he knows who has threatened him. He just won't reveal it. This makes what could have been a fascinating central mystery far less interesting. Having characters hold back information from the audience is one thing, but actually informing the audience of this deception defies all logic. Much of the film's attention is spent on exploring the town and the relationships that Gleeson has with various members of the community. If he had been trying to solve the mystery of who was trying to kill him, his interactions with the other characters would have been much more exciting to watch. In "Twin Peaks" the "who killed Laura Palmer" mystery served as a gateway through which to explore the title town. The mystery of who was out to kill Gleeson could have been a similar gateway if it had actually been a mystery to him.

This one mistake took most of the wind out of the film's sails. Watching a man go about his life in the week before he knows someone will try to kill him is not nearly as interesting as watching a man try to save his own life. I understand that is not the film the filmmakers wished to make, but I think this was a mistake. The film had other problems as well. Gleeson's character has a dog who, the second it showed up, I predicted would get killed at some point. While this is an effective technique (at least for me, as I am very sensitive to the suffering of animals), it is also lazy and clichéd--it may manipulate me into feeling a certain way, but I am more than aware that I am being manipulated.

This is the kind of film that may appeal to some people. Just not to me.

C-

Review: The Giver

155. The Giver
I can't provide much in the way of comparison between "The Giver" and the young adult novel it's based on--I haven't read the book since middle school. I remember liking it well enough, but I think I liked the movie more. Being "required reading" in school always necessitated stopping every chapter for discussions and analysis, which could wreak havoc on a book's pacing. The movie, unsaddled with this external handicap, is exciting throughout, keeping up a brisk pace that, if anything, is a little too fast.

The film establishes its world quickly and effectively, mostly through "showing" rather than "telling". Getting to observe the rules and customs of the emotionless society depicted is more interesting and makes a stronger impression than if all of that information had been relayed by voiceover. The unsubtle, yet effective, technique of having the opening act of the film be almost entirely black and white serves both the narrative and tone of the film, making for some powerful moments when color begins to be utilized.

One of the best things book to film (or television) adaptations can do is at times expand on what was in the book. Such expansion is done to good effect here. If I recall correctly, the book is entirely from the main character's viewpoint, and the reader is never privy to what is going on when he is not present. The film expands the scope a bit, giving us some scenes between Jeff Bridges and Meryl Streep that lend gravitas to the proceedings. Especially well done is the brief hint of a shared history between their characters. The audience is left to fill in the blanks and decide exactly what the hint means, and it adds deeper layers of resonance to the story. The climax of the film also benefits from adaptation expansion, creating a "ticking clock" scenario as the actions of the main character are intercut with one of his friends facing imminent peril.

While I found the film to be very fast paced and exciting, I would have preferred that if it had been allowed to breathe just a little bit more. I think that several months are supposed to have passed over the course of the film, but I never really got that impression. It was slightly jarring when I realized that what I had thought had been a matter of weeks had actually been much longer. A brief time passage montage could have solved this problem.

I also wish there had been a little more to the ending. While I know they were faithfully adapting the somewhat abrupt ending from the novel, I felt the film needed a little more. Especially since the adaptation expansion had allowed us to know some of the supporting characters in greater detail, I was disappointed that we didn't get much beyond their initial reactions to the events of the climax.

In spite of these few quibbles, I found "The Giver" to be a largely successful book to film adaptation. It created an interesting new world and was exciting from start to finish.

B+

Review: What If

154. What If
I wasn't sure what to expect when I went to see this. The trailers made it look pleasant enough, and it was getting mostly good reviews. Then I saw the Entertainment Weekly review that trashed it, giving it a D+ rating. I have no idea what film that reviewer saw, because I am pleased to report that "What If" is easily the year's best romantic comedy, playing within the confines of its genre, yet doing so in fresh and unconventional ways.

The most important factor in any romantic comedy is that the two leads are likeable. If the audience isn't rooting for them to get or stay together, there's really no point. Here, the film shines by allowing them to be well-rounded characters with histories and lives that inform but exist separately from their relationship. These are not cookie-cutter archetypes, but well developed characters we can truly feel invested in. The script and the actors' chemistry make exchanges of witty dialogue actually feel like exchanges of witty dialogue, not like the pretentious ramblings of a pompous screenwriter that so often attempt to pass for cleverness.

The film's "twist" on the formula is that after the obligatory (but well done) boy/girl meet cute, Wallace (Daniel Radcliffe) finds out that Chantry (Zoe Kazan) already has a boyfriend (bummer!). He resolves to attempt to be "just friends" with her, an endeavor that anyone who has seen a movie before knows is doomed to failure. While a fool's errand on his part, this is a stroke of brilliance for the movie. Unencumbered by the need to immediately confront the characters with loads of romantic or sexual tension, the film allows them to build a deeper connection, learning things about each other for more than just the purpose of using that knowledge to make a big, romantic gesture in Act 3 to salvage the romance (a variation of this is done, but it is subtler and feels earned). When the sexual tension does begin to seep in, the relationship is developed enough that it's a real dilemma for the characters. Wallace has a discussion with a friend about his options: overtly trying to break up Chantry and her boyfriend, being subtle about it, telling her the truth, doing nothing and hoping for the best, and so on. The emotions and decisions of the characters are given real weight and are several times more effective than the bland (though sometimes effective) clichés in your run of the mill romantic comedy. This film doesn't always run away from the clichés, but it does tweak them enough to make them feel new. There is a "breakup" scene near the end, after which they will either get together for good or stay apart. In this case, though, it's not a literal breakup scene, since the characters were never romantically together to begin with. Instead the scene is the culmination of the tension and doubts and feelings that have been growing within the characters all along.

It's kind of amazing that the film stays engaging for its full runtime. A romantic comedy wherein the leads spend the bulk of the film explicitly not romancing one another should be very tough to pull off, but this film does it incredibly well. It does a great job establishing its characters, making them appealing, and really getting inside their heads for almost 100 minutes. Does it wrap up a little to neatly in the end? Perhaps, but it had put me in a forgiving mood. I questioned before going to see this whether it would be able to elevate itself above standard romantic comedy fare, and the answer to that is resoundingly: Yes it does. Very highly recommended.

A

Review: The Expendables III

153. The Expendables III
My prediction for this movie was right on the money. It was a fun enough diversion, but was nothing more than that, and not even one of the better examples of a pure "fun" movie.

Part of this franchise's problem is also part of its appeal. It is so full of in jokes and references to the actor's past roles and personal lives that they seem to be playing themselves more than actual characters. It's difficult to even keep track of the characters' names, they're so indistinctive. It's a given that you'll forget all their names between installments and even now, less than a week after seeing the film, I can't remember ninety percent of them. The in jokes are often humorous, but its a bad trade off when they result in a complete dearth of characters to actually care about. In the first film, the novelty of this approach helped, but when there's no growth by the third installment, that's a problem.

The story is standard action movie fare, but unable to create the illusion that it has any purpose other than to set up set piece sequences. When those sequences arrive, they are entertaining to watch, but never once got my heart racing. Partially this was because I wasn't that invested in what happened, thanks to the aforementioned blandness of the characters. But the action on its own merits never brought anything new to the table, either. Each successive scene of gunplay felt interchangeable with those that came before. They were somewhat entertaining, but there are a heck of a lot of "just entertaining" films out there that are a heck of a lot more entertaining. See one of them instead.

C

August 22 Weekly Preview

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For- Should be a fun, highly stylized film, much like its predecessor. It probably won't be quite as notable since the stylistic elements in the first film were "new" then and, being the first in the series, they were able to pick some of the more notable and well regarded storylines from the series. The new film is a combination of existing stories from the comics and some written for the screen.

When the Game Stands Tall- The ads I've seen don't make this seem like it will be any more than the typical sports "true story" that changes the truth in order to tug harder on the heartstrings. If it plays it subtle, things could work out alright, but if it too blatantly tries to be emotionally manipulative, I'll mentally check out.

If I Stay- I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe that the film's concept is enough to carry an entire movie, so my expectations are low. I am hoping for a good leading performance as Chloe Grace Moretz has experience being the only good thing in a not so good movie (last year's "Carrie" remake).

Review: Get On Up

152. Get On Up
For a film that had been on my "to see" list for a couple weeks, and that I had tried to see once before only for the screening to be sold out, "Get On Up" was not at all worth the wait.

I was afraid going in that by covering a large swath of time the film would be unfocused, but it was far worse than I'd anticipated. The film hopscotches back and forth through time (permissible in a time travel film, not so much otherwise) in a failed attempt at building dramatic momentum. With so many years to cover, I guess the filmmakers decided they couldn't craft an arc of rising dramatic tension by working chronologically, so instead they jump all around. It seems like they had a list of "dramatic" scenes written and put in a hat, then would pull one out at random each time a moment of "drama" was required. This also allows them to obviously cheat there way out of writing scenes with actual endings. Instead of leading artfully from one scene to the next, they'll often cut away to something completely different, hoping you'll fail to notice that they never return to offer the original scene closure.

This is the textbook example of why I prefer biopics that manage to limit their scope. By telling a story of one specific moment in a character's life, it allows us to really watch them struggle and try to overcome something. Films like this go so quickly from one event to the next that it feels like watching a Cliff's Notes version of the person's life. This doesn't give the actors much to sink their teeth into--they're forced to do an imitation instead of actually playing a character trying to accomplish objectives. In this case, the leading performance (imitation) is very good. But what is the point in a good performance when it's in the service of a bad movie?

It seems to me that films like this are merely made out of the hope they'll score some Best Acting nominations come awards season. That's not enough of a reason to make a movie, and it's certainly not enough of a reason to see this one.

D

Review: Let's Be Cops

151. Let's Be Cops
Despite a few funny moments, "Let's Be Cops" is a sub-par comedy that not only fails to develop much beyond its initial concept, but is also repetitive in its execution, with paper-thin lead characters who exist only to serve the (shaky) plot.

The basic setup has the potential for humor. When two friends, dressed as cops for a party, find that regular people on the street think they're the real deal, one of them decides they should take advantage of this, while the other is reluctant. The problem is that this "basic setup" is repeated five or six times during the film. Each time Friend #1 comes up with an idea to escalate the game (by getting a cop car or responding to a real police call, for example), Friend #2 disagrees, but after an argument is finally won over. It's the same scene recycled over and over again, and serves to highlight how poorly written the characters are. By reacting the same way to every situation that presents itself, they call attention to the absolute lack of any character arc.

The "plot", when it finally kicks in, is standard fare involving gun smugglers and crooked detectives. Supporting performances by Rob Riggle and Andy Garcia don't make it worth watching, but they are the best part of the movie, making the most out of the shoddy material they're given. I know there are a few laughs in the film, because I remember chuckling a few times, but they weren't memorable enough for any of them to stick with me. There are much better comedies out there to spend your money on.

D+

Review: Step Up All In

150. Step Up All In
This is the kind of movie (especially since it's the fifth in a series) that you probably know whether you'll like it or not. It brings nothing new to the table, but makes no pretensions about trying to. For fans of the series, it's probably a "comfort food" kind of film. For everyone else, it manages to mostly accomplish what it sets out to do, but isn't worth a trip to the theater.

The film's choreography is quite good--probably the most important factor for a lot of people. It's possible, maybe even likely, that those with more dance knowledge than I would be able to criticize aspects of it, but as a layman I found it energetic and entertaining. That's a good thing, too, since so much of the film is spent dancing.

When the dancing stops, though, things start to get a little more dicey. The plot is nothing new--it's a dance movie about a big dance competition. It's also full of almost nothing but clichés. Some of them do work better than others as long as you don't mind rolling your eyes a little bit. It mostly seems to depend on how committed the actors are to the scene. Even if a moment is clichéd, if the actors take it seriously, it's easy for the audience to do so, too. The problems start when the actors seem to know they're just acting out a tired trope that's been used time and time again. For the most part, the film has a pretty good average at selling its clichés, but when it misses it misses hard.

This movie is nothing special, but I did enjoy myself, even if it ran a little long. I was happy to see it for free with my Movie Pass, but if I were paying out of pocket, I'd have spent my money elsewhere.

C

Review: Magic in the Moonlight

149. Magic in the Moonlight
I've previously complained that some films, even if they weren't terrible, felt like television movies instead of films that deserved a theatrical exhibition. "Magic in the Moonlight" demonstrates that it's possible to make a "small" film that is still eminently worthy of being shown in theatres.

The film never reaches operatic heights of drama or comedy, but that doesn't matter. It is full of charm and whimsy, helped along by two fun and quirky lead performances: Emma Stone as a psychic receiving the patronage of a wealthy family, and Colin Firth as the illusionist determined to prove her a fraud. Their playful chemistry is engaging and the script gives them no shortage of witty retorts to toss back and forth. That all of this dialogue is delivered against the backdrop of the French Riviera adds to the film's charm.

The plot progression is natural, hitting all the right beats along the way. While some deeper issues are touched upon, the film is more concerned with showing its audience a good time than with really making them think too hard. The pleasure in watching comes less from wondering what will happen next than from wondering how the characters will react to it and what clever comments they'll have to make. Even the films' bigger reveals seem designed more to be "fun" than shocking. Ironically, this is similar to the watching a magic show--a scene the film opens with. Rarely are we surprised when watching a magician pull off a classic trick. We know he's going to pick our card, make the elephant disappear, etc. We're in it for the fun, not the surprise.

Some of the scenes near the very end of the film run a little long. The dialogue is almost clever enough to render this problem moot, but not quite. The film shuffles its feet just a little too much on its way to the ending which, like the rest of the film, does not surprise, but manages to be fun and charming.

B+

August 15 Weekly Preview

Yet another week in which I'm carrying over "Get On Up". I tried to see it last Saturday, but the showing I went to was sold out and it took a few days to get things straightened out with my Movie Pass so that I could select it again. I also won't be previewing "Let's Be Cops" as it came out mid-week and I've already seen it, making it difficult to predict my reaction.

The Expendables 3- This could be fun and entertaining, but I don't see it being much more than that. When you're the second sequel in a series that is already intended as an homage to 80s action films, the odds of producing much originality are low. I'll probably enjoy it, but won't remember much about it within a few weeks.

The Giver- I read the book in school (didn't everyone?), but I don't think I'll be bothered in principal if they make any big changes. The real question is if it will be able to stand out in the crowded field of young adult film adaptations.

What If- I've seen mostly positive notices for this, but there have been a few that absolutely trashed it. I think I'll have a good time with it, and I hope the writing is good enough to elevate it above standard romantic comedy fare.

Calvary- Aside from seeing the trailer a few times, I haven't heard much about this film. It looks to be a small-town set thriller. Depending on the pacing it could turn out to be genuinely thrilling, but it could easily be too slow as well. I am excited to see Brendan Gleeson in a leading role. I've liked him ever since "In Bruges".

Review: The Hundred-Foot Journey

148. The Hundred-Foot Journey
"The Hundred-Foot Journey" effectively tells a decent story for its first half or so, before narrowing its focus and telling a far less compelling story far less capably.

The first half of the film isn't "great" by any means, but it gets the job done. One gets the sense that the marketers knew it was the best the film had to offer, as it is almost exclusively the subject of the film's trailer. An Indian family happens upon a small French village and its patriarch (Om Puri) finds a building for sale that he decides to turn into an Indian restaurant. Helen Mirren (icy at first, but guaranteed to thaw by the time the credits roll) owns the high-class restaurant across the street, and she's none too happy about the new competition. What follows is a predictable, yet entertaining game of one-upmanship as each attempts to hinder the other's ability to do business. Slowly, however, they begin to admire each other and a rapprochement appears likely. This part of the film doesn't offer the most nuanced of cultural commentary, but it's passable and Mirren and Puri turn in good performances.

At this point, however, the film suddenly decides to focus almost solely on Hassan (one of Puri's character's children) and his personal ambitions. He had already been a major player in the film's first half, but the decision to focus so heavily on him in the second was a mistake, as the character was not interesting or likeable enough to carry the narrative (he needn't have been both--one would have sufficed). Watching him go to work at Mirren's restaurant, then achieve a level of fame and go off to Paris lacked the occasional charm present in the first half. Even worse, the angle of the two competing restaurants is dropped cold turkey. I'm not even sure that the Indian restaurant was kept open, the references to it were so sparse once the film elected to follow Hassan. It felt like an entirely different movie, and one that I would have rather not been watching. Of course, at the very end everything comes together again, but in a way that feels too clean and unearned.

I know this film is based on a book, so I assume its strange narrative choices were faithful to the source material. I can't speak as to whether those choices would work in a novel, but in a film they were unwelcome, pulling focus from where it belonged.

C

Review: Into the Storm

147. Into the Storm
"Into the Storm" took the opposite "path of quality" to the just reviewed "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles". While that film toyed with being "okay" for a short time before rapidly declining in quality, this one starts out poorly, but eventually becomes a serviceable, if unremarkable, disaster flick.

When I say the film starts poorly, I mean that for a while there it's really bad. It kind of takes a found footage approach. Everyone seems to have a camera and is running around filming everything, but there are occasional moments where the action seems to be shot from an outside perspective, so I'm not sure how wedded the filmmakers were to the aesthetic. Regardless, it becomes incredibly contrived as the script comes up with unconvincing reasons for each of the various characters to have cameras rolling every time the action ramps up. You know how in found footage horror movies it often gets to a point where you find it hard to believe the characters would keep filming instead of dropping the camera and running? That's bad enough, but imagine every character in the movie having a camera and showing the same exact lack of self preservation instinct. Some of the characters here are a storm chasing camera crew, so they get a bit of a pass, but with most of the others it's inexplicable. The introductions of the various characters are also handled poorly. The relationships between them are all incredibly clichéd, running the gamut from overbearing parent, to absentee parent, to bickering coworkers, to "Golly gee, you're the hot girl I've always had a crush on but have never talked to before, but since the movie is starting now I should probably start talking to you."

The film doesn't save itself right away once disaster starts to strike, but it does start to bump up in quality shortly thereafter. Two of the more grating characters are quickly dispatched, and the others come together in fairly short order, narrowing the scope of the narrative and making the film more focused. At a certain point most of the characters still filming actually have a reason to be, removing that gripe from my list of complaints. The clichéd relationships also become less important, fading into the background as the characters' focus turns towards simple survival. To a point, the film does manage to exploit this, putting together some pretty intense sequences by tapping into primal urges and fears. It doesn't do so as effectively as other films have done, but it's better than nothing. For the most part, the effects in these sequences are of high quality--very good since they're why most people are probably coming out to see the movie. There is also enough variety in each subsequent storm sequence to keep the audience from getting bored.

Once the film gets past its very shaky first steps, it becomes passable entertainment. Even at its best it is still extremely formulaic (a tornado, followed by a respite, followed by a bigger, more intense tornado, etc.), but I enjoyed myself more than I was expecting.

C

Review: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

146. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
The 2005 remake of "King Kong" starts out very strong, establishing its characters well, setting up some plot threads, and providing a few humorous moments for good measure. Some think it takes too long (about an hour) to get to the island where Kong lives. I disagree, because when the film does arrive at the island, the moment when things should really be "getting good", it's also the moment that the film falls apart. Its most interesting plot threads are dropped, all sense of verisimilitude is lost, and Peter Jackson starts to come across as a kid right out of film school who is determined to use every cinematic technique he learned regardless of whether it actually has a place in the film or not (excessive slow motion and an altogether unnecessary voiceover are his biggest sins).

While "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" was never in danger of being a particularly good movie, it was at least watchable and somewhat entertaining for its first several minutes. The trait it shares with "King Kong" is that the moment it starts to go downhill can be precisely pinpointed as the moment that it's meant to start picking up steam. In this case it's with the introduction of the titular turtles. Until that point the film has at least had a bit of mystery going for it, providing a through line as Megan Fox's character of April O'Neill investigates a series of thefts and how they may be related to research her father had been involved in. While Fox doesn't turn in an Oscar caliber performance, this isn't exactly Shakespeare--she's doing fine with the material she's given and I get the sense that most people knocking her performance had their minds made up about it before seeing the film. William Fichtner is also a welcome presence, reliably bringing as much weight as possible to his undercooked role.

If the film had proceeded similarly to its first fifteen minutes or so, it would have been a middle of the road film that I'd probably have enjoyed a little more than I should have, but would have forgotten about within a few weeks. Unfortunately this level of mediocrity manages to elude the film the moment the turtles are introduced. They bring a completely new and different energy to the film, which in many cases would be a good thing, but not here. They are over the top and jarring, constantly making jokes, but with a shockingly low hit to miss ratio. Their constant banter (with aspirations of wit) probably results in hundreds of jokes and sarcastic comments throughout the film, but I don't think I cracked a smile more than twice. For a little while, the original storyline with Fox and Fichtner continues on its own, intercut with the turtles' scenes. It feels like going back and forth between two different movies (I'll give you one guess which one is better). Pretty soon, however, the two plots come together and the film is irretrievably lost. The villain's plan is ridiculous in its idiocy, the action sequences are nothing but eye candy (when they even manage to achieve that), and the tonal dissonance between the (lazy) drama and the (bad) comedy is a constant distraction.

Despite initial flirtations with mediocrity, "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" quickly fails to live up to its early "promise".

D+

Review: I Origns

145. I Origins
Some of the films that I've liked best this years have only received limited releases. "Under the Skin" and "The Rover" both showed at only one of the theatres I regularly go to, and even then they only had engagements of one week. "I Origins" is the third film to receive that distinction. There was something fundamentally compelling about it that even now I can't definitively place (which in a way makes it all the more compelling).

The film doesn't have the most traditional narrative, but that's not to say that it's free form or experimental. What I mean is that the events proceed at their own pace and it's never quite clear what direction the film will take next. This is due, in part, to its exploration of both scientific and spiritual perspectives. At first each perspective is represented individually, with its own scenes. Gradually, however, they begin to bleed together to the point where just about anything could happen and it would not violate the rules that the film had established for itself. There is a significant time jump that occurs partway through the film and while this could have been jarring (especially because it soon opens up an all new overarching plot thread) it works because the exploration of science versus spirituality continues, granting a thematic consistency. By avoiding a formulaic narrative, the film is a lot more exciting. It almost felt like watching a tightrope walker. I was intrigued not just by the quality of the film, but by wondering if it would be able to maintain that quality throughout. Films that are daring like this are fascinating when they work, but they're always just a single misstep away from losing the audience completely. Endings are especially hard for them to get right. While "I Origins" didn't have the greatest ending of all time (no mindblowing twists) it was emotionally consistent with the rest of the film and felt earned.

Michael Pitt turns in a really good performance in the lead role. I'd seen him before on "Boardwalk Empire" and, just recently, in his brilliantly psychotic, nutty performance as Mason Verger on the television show "Hannibal". It's to his credit as an actor that I didn't recognize any remnants of his past performances in this one. The film gives him lots of different scenarios to play, and the time jump allows him to show subtle changes in his character over the years. There was no one particularly noteworthy or attention grabbing change he made; he simply imbued the character with the depth of a man who had a few more years and experiences under his belt.

In a lot of "stranger" films like this, there is often strong, stylistic imagery. Unlike "Under the Skin", which had some really strange (yet wonderful) visuals going on, "I Origins" mostly keeps itself grounded, but there were a few moments that stuck out. For a brief period, after suffering a lab accident, Pitt has his eyes bandaged, yet still wears his glasses over the bandage, which made for a very iconic image that has stayed with me. The film also opens with, and features throughout, many extreme close ups of eyes. They were very powerful and got me thinking about how I don't know if I've ever really taken such a close look at the eyes before. It's an effective motif, and likely benefits from the film's tendency to otherwise stay away from such eye-grabbing imagery.

One of the best things about my Movie Pass is that I'm getting to see great movies that I otherwise would have decided to skip or would have not known about at all (had I not seen the trailers for this or checked movie listings as often as I do, I'd probably never have even heard of it). This is the latest film that I've very grateful to have gotten to see.

A

Review: Wish I Was Here

144. Wish I Was Here
It's ironic that for a film titled "Wish I Was Here", I spent almost all of its runtime wishing that I were anywhere else but here, in a theater showing this film. Sometimes when I go into a movie expecting not to like it, I am pleasantly surprised. Sometimes it's even worse than I'd suspected. This was an example of the latter.

The movie's fatal flaw (and it's a doozy) is making its protagonist one of the most obnoxious, selfish, contemptible, abhorrent, crass, despicable, rotten human beings I've seen on film in a long time. The audience is supposed to root for this guy? He's nothing but a self-righteous asshole. I know that Zach Braff seems to only be capable of playing the "man-child" role, but here that role is taken to a new low. The fact that this character has two children is disgusting. I think we're meant to laugh as he tries to get out of fulfilling even the most basic familial obligations, but I didn't. Not even once. The character wants to become an actor, but to him that means not holding down even a basic "actor's job" like waiting tables, instead letting his wife go to her menial, uninteresting job every day to support all four member of their family. Ha balks at the idea of contributing in any way, whining and complaining when his wife suggests he homeschools the children when they can no longer afford private school.

There are (very) few moments when Braff is off camera and the film briefly shows some promise. Some of the other actors are trying hard enough that even a few scenes with his character almost threaten to become watchable, but they never quite make it. His character truly poisons the entire film. And for the tone that I think the film was going for, there really is a surfeit of profanity. It's all over the place and really felt unnecessary.

The best part of the movie was when some brief gameplay from "Mass Effect 3" was shown. I was grateful for this, as it allowed my mind to temporarily wander, thinking more about how awesome "Mass Effect" is than about how terrible this movie was.

F

August 8 Weekly Preview

Another busy week with five new releases to see, along with "Get On Up", which I didn't manage to get to last week.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles- Hard to predict. I was not unaware of the property while growing up, but have never been a real fan, so if it's a fun film I should be able to enjoy it even if there are aspects that would annoy purists.

Into the Storm- The latest "disaster" movie, but seemingly without a "big star", which seems to be a common component in the genre. If any of the sequences are done very well or if they actually make you care about the characters there may be a little drama to be found here. Otherwise it will just be looking at special effects.

The Hundred-Foot Journey- Hopefully this will be good. I don't see myself loving it, but it could be okay.

Magic in the Moonlight- The latest Woody Allen movie, which means it should be interesting if nothing else.

Step Up: All In- Yeah...not really looking forward to this one. Maybe it will surprise me.

Review: Boyhood

143. Boyhood
While not quite deserving of the almost universal critical acclaim it has received, I found "Boyhood" to be an intriguing film that mostly kept my attention, not a small feat considering both its long runtime and lack of a traditional plot.

The film is built on a gimmick, and mostly it works. It was written and shot over a twelve year period, and the actors grow and change along with their characters. I'm inclined to deduct a few points for the film's dependence on this gimmick. The story it tells would not be enough to carry an identical movie in which different actors were cast as the characters grew up. The novelty factor is a large part of the appeal. Richard Linklater's "Before" trilogy, also starring Ethan Hawke, plays with the passage of time, too--each film in the series was filmed nine years after its predecessor. While watching how the characters in those movies have aged between installments is part of the fun, the three films also manage to stand on their own as brilliantly written and acted, thought provoking films. The "passage of time" gimmick isn't really a gimmick in this case, since the films don't rely on it as completely as "Boyhood" does. While in the "Before" movies I found myself emotionally invested, in "Boyhood" I felt more like a dispassionate observer.

That being said, the gimmick does work for most of the film. The goal here was to tell, not a slice of life story, but a slices of life story made up of brief vignettes portrayed in chronological order. While there are recurring plotlines and themes, there is no central narrative aside from the very basic: a boy grows up. This would seem like a difficult idea to keep interesting for 160 minutes, but the film manages it for almost that long. It rarely follows one particular "age" for more than fifteen minutes, constantly moving forward and giving the film a brisk pace. Even if it didn't manage to get me emotionally invested, it did hook me on an intellectual level--I was often curious what was going to happen next. For the most part it's refreshingly devoid of clichéd moments (some parts featuring abusive stepparents are about as close as it comes). At one point the characters go out target shooting. In most films something bad is going to happen when guns come out. Here that wasn't the case. The scene merely documented a normal moment in the lives of the characters. I also appreciated how the film trusted its audience enough not to completely spell out everything. It didn't feel the need to overtly explain every little thing that happened in between sequences, instead letting the audience work things out for themselves.

By the last twenty minutes or so, I did start to feel that the film had run a little long. There were three or four spots where I felt it could easily have ended before it did. But it's impressive that they managed to keep the plates spinning in the air for as long as they did. It's certainly a film worth checking out, but more for its originality than anything else.

B

Review: Guardians of the Galaxy

142. Guardians of the Galaxy
This was the most flat out "fun" movie that I've seen theatrically in a while, and while it had some flaws, they didn't do much to detract from the raw entertainment value.

I'm not a comic book enthusiast, but from what I understand, this is the least well known property to be adapted as a film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe thus far. I believe that this, along with allowing the film to exist largely in its own world, was a net positive. The lack of familiarity a basic moviegoer would have with this particular comic book likely allowed the filmmakers to have more creative slack to work with. Some of the more recent films in the overall series have suffered from being part of the larger universe, sometimes by including forced references to other films/characters, and sometimes by just as conspicuously avoiding references (the bad guy is trying to kill the U.S. President at the end of "Iron Man 3", so why is Iron Man the only superhero doing anything about it?). "Guardians of the Galaxy" does have a few nods to the wider series, but they are organic and fit the story well. As the story is about a group of characters who we have not met before and who don't (yet, at least) have relationships with characters from the other films, the movie is allowed to feel complete in its own right, avoiding the impression of killing time until the next sequel.

The film's comedy is one of its strongest aspects. I appreciate comedy the most when its not the actual genre of a film, but part of a larger canvas (my go to example being the back and forth between Harrison Ford and Sean Connery in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade"), and that's what this film delivers. It tells a fun, exciting story, with lots of laughs and some creative action set pieces. The main characters are universally entertaining, each of them getting several good laugh lines. Many aspects of the set design and the general tone have a very Star Warsy feel, sometimes, I felt, just shy of plagiarism (though even if it crossed that line I suppose it wouldn't be an issue since Disney now owns both properties). It was also refreshing to see a comic book origin story that breaks from the traditional mold. The origin is of the title group, not an individual. This spares the audience from having to sit through scenes where the hero, after acquiring some form of superpower, slowly comes to terms with his powers, often with humorous results. Those scenes were fun the first time we saw them, but they're becoming a bit formulaic. Instead of adjusting to new powers, the protagonists in this film are adjusting to working with (and sometimes just tolerating) each other. Watching how well written characters interact with each other is always going to be more interesting than watching how a single character interacts with a superpower. It was a wonderful, refreshing change.

There are a few problems. Some of the exposition is a little thin. The lead character, Peter Quill (Chris Pratt), is supposed to have had a long term, recently soured working relationship with Yondu (Michael Rooker), who basically raised him since abducting him from Earth in the film's opening moments. It's hard to put much stock into their relationship since we don't see much of this backstory--it's merely relayed to us through dialogue. A dispute between two planets (or races, I wasn't completely sure) figures heavily into the plot, but isn't really given much background. Finally, as is a problem with many of the recent Marvel films, the main villain is a generic, weakly written character. He's given bare bones motivations, but exists mainly as a plot device for the heroes to have someone to fight against.

In spite of these issues, the movie is a hell of a lot of fun to watch and it has no pretensions about being "deep" or "high art", which makes its shortcomings easier to forgive. Highly recommended.

A-

August 1 Weekly Preview

Four new movies to see this week, and I still need to get to "Wish I Was Here" from last week's list. I'll at least fit in a movie on Friday, but other than that, the week might get off to a slow start since my sister is bumming around town again.

Guardians of the Galaxy- I'm cautiously optimistic. Few of the films in the current Marvel Cinematic Universe project have been disappointments ("Iron Man 2" and "Captain America: The First Avenger" being the only ones, in my opinion--the one film I haven't seen is "The Incredible Hulk"). On the other hand, most of them have also been basic action films, at times relying too heavily on formula and concentrating on building the overall series structure, sometimes to the detriment of the individual films. I guess this means that they've got me expecting a basic piece of solid entertainment, but nothing more.

Get On Up- The runtime--almost 140 minutes--scares me. I'm hoping it's not a bloated biopic that tries to cover too much. I've previously said I prefer biopics that choose to focus on a finite period of time or tackle specific issues regarding the subject to provide the film with a clear focus.

Boyhood- I'm excited for this, as the concept of filming a movie over several years is an intriguing one. I'm also a big fan of the "Before" series of films, also directed by Richard Linklater and starring Ethan Hawke. They also explore the passage of time (each film was made nine years apart). Hopefully this can live up to the high expectations those films have given me.

I Origins- The trailer looks like it good be interesting. It will all depend on whether the film grabs me or not. I could see it go either way. On the plus side, it stars Michael Pitt, who turned in a fantastically deranged performance as Mason Verger in the latest season of "Hannibal".