Fantastic Four August o7, 2o15

See, the problem with us fan boys is that we tend to hold Marvel Comics in very high regard. Probably it’s because we got hooked on them at a very young, a very impressionable age. We take our comic books seriously because they have gotten us through those rough teenage years as

"the-kid-who-doesn't-fit-in." We were bullied by the bigger guys, invisible to girls, we looked funny, we were awkward, skinny (and fat), and Stan Lee and Marvel Comics wrote directly to us, for us, about us. Marvel Comics weren’t about superheroes; they were about very human beings that just happened to be superheroes. They lead tortured lives that mirrored the real life miseries that we the outcasts of teenage society faced on a daily bases. So, you’ll have to excuse us when we appear to get unreasonably angry when a movie studio (like 20^th century Fox) takes our beloved treasures of hope and turn them into celluloid sludge (I know, "celluloid" is an outdated word for film stock . . . but it sounds so cool!).

In a nutshell: Why The Fantastic Four Sucks

Lacks human interaction

When're you studio guys gonna get it? The ONLY reason people go to the movies is to see human beings interact with each other. Scripts need to be active and not passive. We want to see on the screen people struggling to overcome obstacles and reach (hopefully) whatever objective they are struggling to achieve. We don’t want you to tell us about the struggle, we want to SEE the struggle, hear it and feel it. For example, late in the movie when Reed is captured by the Evil Government Agent (a very Snidely Whiplash stereotype played by Tim Blake Nelson), he tells Ben, “Ben . . . you are my best friend.” Okay, that’s nice and everything, everybody NEEDS at least one friend, but there’s no exploration of that relationship. it doesn't seem to be more than a master/servant arrangement; Reed’s the boss and Ben is his unpaid employee. There's plenty you could have done in the beginning of the movie where Ben and Reed meet in grade school to show that “best friend relationship” without making the movie any longer than it is already. But the production team thought . . . well, there's the problem . . .  they didn't think the concept out. They don't think in terms of action when it comes to characters.

Another example: The Dimensional Traveling Machine is finely up and running and the “Evil Government Agent” comes in and announces that NASA is taking over the project “. . . and there’s nothing you eggheads can do about it! Woohahahaha!” 

 (Okay, the actor doesn’t really say that, but it comes off as something like that.) Anyway, the science boys are pissed. Victor Von Doom (Why is Dr. Doom in this movie?) pulls out this teeny tiny flask of whiskey(?) and everybody takes a sip and they’re drunk! And they decide to “Screw The Man! We’re gonna be the first to use the Dimensional Traveling Machine!” and . . . Well, and then it’s a breakneck run to get to the final scene where we “finally” see the BIG CGI action sequence that is so flat and cartoonish, so excruciatingly dull that I wished I had a Dimensional Traveling Machine so I could beam myself to another theatre in another dimension where I’m sure Fantastic Four would be a much better film.

If there’s a point to this “review” it’s that you can’t just sit down and write a script without exploring the specifics of human behavior in dire situations, and then figuring out a way to effectively express that human behavior in very clean, sensory images. I mean, you CAN be superficial if you want because that’s exactly what the producers of Fantastic Four (2015) have done. But there’s a price to pay for it. Ironically, the producers made this movie primarily to make a lot of money off the Fantastic Four franchise. And the rush to get the product out there to the public, to throw it together without truly exploring the world of the characters, hurt their bottom line.

Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation July 31, 2o15

Here’s a little secret that a lot of screenplay writers don’t know: ALL movies—no matter the genre, no matter the topic, no matter the setting—are action oriented. I’m not talking about gun battles and car chases and buildings imploding or scenes full of physical violence from the moment the credits roll, I’m talking about those smaller scenes where people . . . just talk. Yeah, that’s what I said: there is (or should be) A ton of action, verbal action in scenes where people sit in chairs, stare at each other and just talk. I know! Revolutionary idea, right, that the “dialogue scenes” in Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation are just as action filled as that beautifully insane Moroccan motorcycle chase in MI5? Well, it’s not really a “new” idea to make dialogue scenes “active.” The ancient Greeks knew that the actor’s voice with the right words to say could create in the audience’s mind a wonderful sense of movement and activity. And the GREAT acting coach, Constantin Stanislavski, made this a major point in his teachings:

Acting = Action

Writer (and director) Christopher McQuarrie delivers a script that is “nonstop” action. No, Seriously. Every scene is geared towards action. The characters are actively trying to accomplish something in an extremely active manner in EVERY scene. And whether it’s the very intimate scenes when Ethan and the mysterious Ilsa try to figure out if the other is an ally or a deadly enemy, or the bigger than life scene where Benji pleads with Ethan to let him go into the field it’s all an exciting/edge of your chair time for the audience.

But as grand a script as this is, it also takes an extremely skilled group of actors to make it work. And this ensemble of Thespians (Okay, I just had to use the old high school term for theatre geeks at least once in a review) are working together like a
well-oiled acting machine. There are no real stars here, and much to his credit Tom Cruise works extremely well fitting in with this group. But I have to single out one actor cause the character he created for this movie, Solomon Lane (which is real close to sounding like Robert E. Howard’s character, Solomon Kane), is one scary frigging psychopathic villain. Listen, I’m an ex-Marine and Vietnam veteran (Okay, okay, I was a cook . . . Semper Fi; stir and fry . . . but still a vet.) and this character scared the crap out of me. It was a brilliant performance by English actor, Sean Harris.

However, as wonderful as the movie is, there are a few glitches.

1. Too many damn close ups! Don’t you filmmakers get it? Close ups kill tension in a scene. It’s that simple. And you shot most of this film in one of the most beautiful, intriguing places in the world, Morocco, and all you want to show me are close ups of the inside of Tom Cruise’s nose? Okay, it is pretty nice the septum . . . but I’d rather see Morocco! So back that damn camera up!

2. Extremely uninteresting hand-to-hand combat scenes. It’s got to stop these uninteresting, chopped-up, unwatchable fight scenes. They really slow down the action. If the actor can’t do the stunts, then hire someone who can. Or if the problem is you just don’t know HOW to shoot a fight scene, go watch—John Wick (2015), Kingsman: the Secret Service (2015)—to see how it’s done!
3. Stop jump cutting intimate dialogue between characters. It’s extremely annoying to try and follow intimate dialogue scenes when you keep jump cutting back and forth to each character when he/she speaks!  There’s a scene in a café when the MI Team sits around a table to discuss their strategy to take out the ever evil Syndicate and the camera keeps jumping back and forth, back and forth to whomever is talking.  They do it ALL THE TIME! Again, it’s annoying and totally uninteresting to watch from an audience member’s point of view. Back the camera up, make it a static shot if you like, and just shoot the damn scene. Everybody doesn’t have to be seen face-full just because they’re talking.

Although the above gripes are artistic ideals I’m passionate about . . . I really liked the script and the work of the actors in this movie. And it’s saying something about the power of a good script and damn good acting when I can forgive technique faults.

 

Maggie May o8, 2o15

Okay, have we had enough flesh eating zombie movies, TV shows . . . yet? I mean it was 1968 when Georgie Romero and his buddies got drunk in a Pittsburgh bar and came up with the idea: “Hey! Wouldn’t it be cool if we brought the dead back to life and they go on an eating frenzy? A HUMAN FLESH eating frenzy!” Ain’t it old . . . yet? I mean, we’ve had slow moving flesh eaters, fast moving eaters, dancing zombies, action movie zombies, horror flick zombies, comedy and romantic zombie films . . . HAVEN’T WE HAD ENOUGH . . .  YET?! Well, the answer is, absolutely . . . NOT!

Maggie is a domestic drama about how a family (and community) deals with a young family member who’s contracted the incurable and extremely contagious disease, “The Romero Scourge.” Okay, they don’t call it that, of course. It IS a flesh eating Zombie movie,  but unlike the usual Zombie action film, Maggie is slow paced. The action is mostly internal dealing with the mental and physical turmoil that erupts when a family member is exposed to a deadly and highly contagious disease. The progression of the disease is also slow taking up to eight weeks before the infected “turns” and tries to eat everybody in the house. The “bitten” has basically two choices: A. Be committed to a hell hole of a hospital and await with other infected people the inevitable or B. Return to your home to be watched over by the local doctor and, again, wait out the time before you turn into a flesh eater surrounded by family and friends.

The cast is just brilliant. Joely Richardson as Carol Vogal struggles beautifully with the desire to be a dutiful wife and her fear for her children’s welfare when her husband brings the infected Maggie (Carol’s stepdaughter) home. And Abigail Breslin is perfect as the runaway daughter who gets infected by some random flesh eater and decides she needs her father. And Arnold as the stoic Wade Vogal, the father determined to protect his daughter no matter what the cost is? Well, Arnold is just superb. It’s not so much that Arnold’s work in this film is better than anything he’s ever done, it’s more like it’s a totally different style for Arnold, and to be honest about it, I never thought him capable of performing the “art film” style.

And yes, Maggie is definitely an art film. Not a lot of physical action in this movie. It’s more of a study of the internal action of the characters. There’s a scene in the opening where Wade and Maggie are taking her half brother and sister to their aunts, and Carol stands on the porch, big smile on her face, waving goodbye to her children as they go to a “safer” location. Then we cut a scene of Carol sitting in her chair in the kitchen and thinking about the danger that Maggie’s presence presents to her, her husband and their children. It’s an extremely moving scene without a bit of dialogue in it. There are lots of scenes like that one in this movie where we watch people think, contemplate the serious of the situation they are in and decide how to best deal with the given circumstances that fate has stretch out before them.

There’s a lot of good, subtle stuff going on in this movie that you might miss if you don’t watch it more than once. I know after my first viewing of it, I didn’t think much of it. But something told me that I should watch it again. And the second time around I saw things about it that I had taken for granted. The movie Maggie is a sort of a animated painting, and like a painting it demands that you look at it for a long time and allow it to work its magic on you. So, give this small film a look see. You may like it.

ANT-MAN July 17, 2o15

Okay, I admit it. When I heard that Paul Rudd would be the ANT-MAN, I about cried! Holy crap! Could there be a worse actor to cast in a “serious” action movie?! Horrible images of good actors doing bad things to our belovèd Comic book heroes flashed in my mind:  Ben Affleck’s puffy-chested, Daredevil (stoic to a fault), Seth Rogen’s dopey, misplaced humor in The Green Hornet, and let’s not forget the gratefully dead Fantastic Four franchise that was so pathetically NOT FUNNY when it was trying so hard to BE funny! No, please, no Paul Rudd! Now, don’t get me wrong, I actually love Rudd in romantic comedies (Clueless {1995} for example) and stupid comedies (Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy {2004}, The 40-Year-Old Virgin {2005} which really aren’t my cup of funny but Rudd was good  in them). No! A comedian taking on a serious, action-packed Marvel super hero film? No way, Michael Peña! Comic book heroes are serious business! You can’t mix straight-up comedy with hardcore, intense comic book action!

 

Now having got all that out of my system, let me say that . . . ANT-MAN IS ONE OF THE GREATEST ACTION/COMEDY MOVIES I HAVE EVER, EVER SEEN! And it’s due to two important elements:

1. One hell of a great script! It is intelligent, very witty and when it needs to being extremely earnest and action packed.  And the comedy, the humor isn’t forced on the script but comes directly from the actions of the characters. The writers (Paul Rudd, Edgar Wright, Adam McKay, Joe Cornish) created a well-balanced comedy/thriller that had me laughing and hootin’ and hollerin’ and totally buying the drama of ANT-MAN!

2. Just great casting! Paul Rudd (as Scott Lang/ANT-MAN) and Michael Peña (as Luis) are a frigging comedy duo of awesomeness, never losing the momentum or diminishing the terrifying, super villain  . . . villainy of YELLOWJACKET (played by hairless Corey Stoll). Not to be dismissed are Michael Douglas (Hank Pym, the “mad” scientist who created and wore the first ANT-MAN suit), Evangeline Lilly (as Hope van Dyne, Hank Pym’s Kick-Ass-And-Take-A–Few-Names daughter) Annnnnd Abby Ryder Fortson as Scott Lang’s seven year old kid who is outrageously cute, and extraordinarily lovable and a heck of an actor! Hell, the whole cast is GREAT!

 

The only complaint that I might have is that every now and then the ant army’s CGI was a tad out of sync. But to be honest again, it’s such a slight hiccup I can’t complain about it too much. Look, ANT-MAN is one of Marvel’s best super hero/action movies to ever grace the screen. Sure, the action is powerful and somewhat frightening but not overly so. It is rated PG-13, but tends to be more PG than 13.  ANT-MAN has a different feel to it than say the Avengers, Captain America or even the X-Men. However, if you love Marvel movies, you should . . .  GO SEE IT! GO SEE IT! GO SEE IT! Right NOW!

Terminator: Genisys July 2o15

 

 

Ten minutes into Terminator Genisys (General Identification System {computer system for biological identifications} just in case you thought it might just be a typo) I heard a very soft but distinct voice speak to me:

 

” Listen, and understand! That Terminator is out there! It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.”

 

It was a warning from the future . . . from Sergeant Kyle Reese directly to me: “This movie wants to kill you!”

 

Terminator: Genisys is murderously slow and explicitly cumbersome. It’s an action film without a lick of action in it. Oh, sure, there’s plenty of gunfire, lots of CGI enhanced explosions (one of which is a rip off from The Matrix), car chases and crashes, killer Terminator-exterminators, a slow motion sequence of a school bus flipping over lengthwise across the Golden Gate Bridge leaving the occupants (Sarah and Kyle) hanging Barrel of Monkeys style over the Golden Gate strait looking all Wile E. Coyote eyed hoping that  someone (I wonder who) will come along and haul them out of danger—but all that doesn’t add up to much because action isn’t guns going off, and special effects (practical or CGI), it’s not about high speed chases and explosions . . .action is actors portraying characters who are working as hard as they can (verbally and mentally as well as physically) to protect their imaginary lives and defeat, hopefully,  the bad cyborg monsters (oh, yeah, there appear to be a LOT of them in this sequel) and win the day. . . . until, of course, it’s time for the next installment of a new (and improved?) sci-fi soup opera  franchise: As the Terminator Turns.

 

And what about that acting! Boy, that’s where this movie really falls apart, there’s no real acting going on, it’s just a herd of performers sputtering a bunch of lines that make no sense to them or to the audience, “Just following orders, sir!” stepping on the mark at the right time . . . turning left, right, smiling on cue, crying on cue, yelling on cue and . . .  well, that’s about it. It’s not acting at all. It’s more like theatrical calisthenics. Sarah Connor (Emilia Clarke) and Kyle Reese (Jai Courtney), our time-crossed lovers have no “chemistry.” I hate using the word chemistry, but I can’t think of any other word that can describe how dull, how plodding every scene is when they are the focal point. Although most of the cast seems to be just reciting lines, J. K. Simmons playing Detective O’Brian does a great job in a role that doesn’t seem to have any real storytelling reason for even being in this movie.

 

The original Terminator (1984) was made for 6.5 million dollars. Terminator: Genisys cost 170 million to produce and it’s a far, far less effective than the original. My question to you, fellow time travelers . . . how in the hell is that possible? How can anybody spend 170 million dollars on a movie and not make really, really good one? Simple, they don’t worry about writing a great script. All the money is spent on special effects because in their little minds the only reason anyone goes to see an action film is to see stunts, special effects and . . . well, you know the drill. Do yourself a favor, skip Genisys, rent a copy of the original Terminator and see how a movie SHOULD be made.

 

Jurassic World June 12, 2o15

Here’s the thing. Jurassic World is not a bad movie because it might be sexist. It’s not awful because the dinosaurs don’t have feathers even though all the leading  proctologist—oh, excuse me . . .  leading paleontologists say that REAL dinosaurs most certainly (at least for now) had feathers. And it’s not an awful movie because it’s racist, though it may well be exactly that. AND it’s not a bad movie because of whatever political or social rules that you, the audience, believe movies should always follow. The reason that there are glitches in this film is due solely to bad character development in the script.

The problem with the Claire Dearing  (Bryce Dallas Howard) character isn’t that she’s a low life corporate lap dog B**** in high heels. The problem is that she is not a character at all . . . she’s a plot point. Her whole reason for her existence in this make-believe world is to do one thing . . .get that big a** killer dinosaur that the scientists created out of its cage so IT can go KILL humans (and the other dinos it encounters) and just raise holy hell in this utopian, live action Disneyland that the producers and director and writers have created.

 

The same goes for the Simon Masrani (Irrfan Khan) character. He’s not there to show the world how corporate bosses can be greedy, and at the same time, concerned about the wellbeing of the folks visiting his sideshow park. His job is to jump in that helicopter and smash it into the park's pterosaur aviary so all the cute little pterodactyls can fly around and terrorize and eat a lot of extras and one particularly nonessential character, the assistant to Ms. Dearing who was supposed to watch over Claire’s nephews.

 

Almost every supporting character in this movie was either totally unnecessary or used solely as a human prop. And while I’m on a rage: what the HECK is Jimmy Fallon even doing in this movie?! Don’t get me wrong. I love Jimmy Fallon, but in this movie? The gag of him showing up on in an instruction video inside the human hamster ball . . . is not funny, doesn’t at all fit in with the movie. I know, the director thought it would be cool to have Jimmy in his movie . . . but the bit is so haphazardly thrown into the flow of things that it just knocks the audience out of that reality the moviemakers are trying to establish.

My point is this: no matter what we say, we audience members go to the movies, to the theatre to SEE human characters go through their struggle for life, for happiness, for whatever it is that the characters hold dear. No, we don’t just go to see giant dinosaurs, or car crashes, or imaginary people eaten alive, or bombs blowing up buildings . . . we go to see “human” characters struggle to survive that which we REAL people struggle with every day, life. Yes, I said it! Life is far more dangerous and scary than any CGI dinosaur ever made. And we know it. We know it from the moment we step into that theatre, get our popcorn and our large ice teas with lots of ice. Yes, we know that what we are seeing is a representation of life, not real life. However, for us to believe in this imaginary world, we need a guide, a humanlike character, an imaginary person that we can trust. When the production team doesn’t create characters that walk and talk and behave like human beings . . .we know it. And once we know you’re conning us . . .well, good luck in getting us involved in your movie.

P.S. Soon more reviews will be available: Nightingale, Tomorrowland, San Andreas . . . and many more.

 

 

Mad Max: Fury Road May 2o15

Hell-hath-no-FURY-like-a-woman-scorned-ROAD!

Look, if you are expecting Mad Max: Fury Road to be just a carbon copy of the original, The Road Warrior, you are going to be both surprised . . . and not surprised. Yes, Mad Max: Fury Road is exactly like every Mad movie you have seen  . . . and also totally different. Confused? Join the club. I’ll admit that it took me a few minutes to realize that the title character, Mad Max, wasn’t the lead or the focus of this movie. He is supporting character, a utilitarian character, a character not unlike The Feral Kid in Mad Max 2.

The real Mad Max character in this movie is a female character named Imperator Furiosa who rose from her slavery to become a general in Immortan Joe’s kick-booty army of paint huffing War Boys. And what does she do? Well, as soon as she gets her War Rig,  and the opportunity, she snags Joe’s wives and hightails it to some feminist fantasy land called the Green Place.

 

And yes, this movie is full of “feminist propaganda!” How do I know? Well, the director says so, the author of the script says so, and if that’s not enough proof for you, they cast a woman in the lead role. So, ergo: it’s feminist propaganda. I mean, that’s the way we all American, eat all you want, heterosexual white dudes think, right?

 

Woman in lead role = feminist propaganda

 

Never mind the that if the lead role had been cast as a white male we’d all be thinking that it was a brilliant movie about “. . . the MANly spirit standing proudly up for “HIS” rights against the evil powers of a totalitarian regime—

 

Irate Fan Boy: Hey Woodie! I thought this was going to be a movie review?

 

Oh, yeah, the movie. The movie’s great, man. Just the cinematography alone is worth the price of admission (Which if you go to a matinée showing like I do, it ain’t that much). The shots of the Namib Desert are just devastatingly beautiful. The pic above this review is a still from the movie. Granted, not too impressive in miniature, but on the BIG screen, totally awe-inspiring.  And forget about any action sequences you’ve seen in the past. The chase scenes across the desert are brilliant! New camera techniques, incredible car crashes, great, extremely great stunt work make this “sequel” the best movie of the Mad Max franchise. Okay, I do admit I STILL don’t like the way they shoot hand-to-hand combat scenes these days. They speed up the camera to make the fight seem more “powerful(?)” and to also cover-up the fact that the lead actors can’t do stunt work. It makes it all look a bit herky-jerky  . . .  like this:

 

Anyway, no matter what, if you love great action, exceptional acting and storytelling, Mad Max: Fury Road is a must see!

 

“Oh what a day, what a lovely day!”

 

Ex Machina, April 2015

Nathan: One day the AIs are going to look back on us the same way we look at fossil

skeletons on the plains of Africa. An upright ape living in dust with crude language and
tools, all set for extinction.

 

It’s difficult to write a review of a movie that has inspired you so much that you feel compelled to entice other people to go see it. You don’t want to say too little, but you don’t want to overstate the brilliance of the movie because folks are folks and they’ll probably be disappointed if you glorify it too much.

 

Ex Machina is at its core a Sci-Fi/Thriller. But it is even so much more than that. It’s an exploration of morality, ethics and human strengths and weaknesses. Yes, there have been many A.I. movies that use Artificial Intelligence as a plot device more than a study of human behavior. But, as I said, this movie goes beyond the basic thriller genre without being a bit preachy or making you feel as if you just stepped into a Philosophy 101class. It is an extremely personal and human exploration of the relationship between humans, a nonhuman/sentient being and, if I dare say the word . . . God.

 

Everything is working for this film. A really intriguing script that gives you just enough info to want to stay and see what’s going to happen next, lots of clever, human dialogue that always has something hidden just under the surface to make seeing this film more than once a pleasure and not a chore, and the acting? Forget about it! The three main actors (Alicia Vikander, Domhnall Gleeson and Oscar Isaac) are at the top of the Thespian food chain. Man, they know how to play an action and how to make the words they’re saying sound like music to my over-educated, theatre oriented ears

 

Unfortunately, the grandeur of this little film is being dwarfed by the humongous shadows of this summer’s blockbuster hits: Avengers: Age of Ultron and Mad Max: Fury Road. But if you look for it, you should be able to find it somewhere close to you. And see it? Yes, definitely, you should see this movie!

 

If you have an interest in A.I. movies (and who the heck doesn’t?), you can check out some of my favorites: Gog (1954) Colossus: The Forbin Project (1970) Blade Runner (1982) The Matrix (1999)The Thirteent Floor (1999) I, Robot (2004)

Avengers: Age of Ultron, May 2o15

Like every other comic book/film geek in the universe I was pawing at the ground just waiting for Avengers: Age of Ultron to hit the movie houses. Get this! David and I were so pumped to see this flick that we got up early enough to catch an 8:30am showing at the Regal Spotlight! And we weren’t the only ones. Fast head count in the dark, there were at least three other fans who braved the early morning just to see the sequel to one of Marvel’s biggest movies, The Avengers! And after 2hrs and 21min of almost nonstop action, I can say whole heartedly that this movie was . . . okay. Yeah, you heard me, it was okay but it did suffer somewhat from a mild case of:

 

MSS (Matrix Sequel Syndrome)

 

You remember The Matrix (1999), right, that kick-ass little fantasy/action film by the Wachowskis that took Hollywood by its box office receipts and sent all us action geeks running to the closest theater showing it. And WOW! What great action! What great fight scenes! And I remember when the Wachowskis won best picture at the MTV Movie Awards, one of them smiled at us real big and said, “You liked this movie? You ain’t seen nothing yet!” And lo, they madest two sequels, The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolution, and guess what? We had seen their “something yet,” and it was called, The Matrix (1999). Yeah, pretty much both sequels were about the same as the original The Matrix . . . just bigger, faster and cluttered to hell with uninspired action scenes.

 

And that’s the problem with Age of Ultron; we’ve seen pretty much all the action sequences before in the original The Avengers. Remember the cool fight scene in A1, Thor vs Hulk? Well, the second action scene in Ultron is Ironman vs. Hulk. Granted, it was a longer action sequence than in A1, but virtually the same except that the battle Between I & H was sped up so fast that it looked like blurry globs of red and green mashed potatoes whizzing across the screen!

 

And do you remember the great climactic war at the end of Avengers 1 where our heroes kick the crap out of Loki’s inept alien army? If you didn’t see it, no worries because the opening scene to Age of Ultron has the Avengers fighting an inept  army of puny humans . . . and again, if you missed that cause you were dipping into your popcorn barrel instead of paying attention to the movie. . . no worries. The final battle has the Avengers kicking the crap out of Ultron’s inept army of robots. Now, you’d think that at least one of those smart villains would have figured, “Hmmm, these Avenger guys are tough cookies! Maybe I should create a less wimpy army?”

 

To give Age of Ultron some credit, the writers did try to create a few scenes that had

something more to offer than the Avengers kicking bad guys’ bottoms and saving the world (again) from total annihilation:

 

Natasha and Bruce Love Scene (paraphrase)

Natasha: Hey, Bruce wanna hook up?

Bruce: Well, I can’t have kids.
Natasha: Neither can I.
Bruce: Well, then, maybe we shouldn’t.
Natasha: (catch in her voice) Oh, okay.

 

Or how about that heated moral debate over the creation of AI?

 

Bruce and Tony moral Debate (paraphrase)

Tony: I’m gonna create Artificial Intelligence!

Bruce: That would be immoral!

Tony: I’m gonna do it anyway.
Bruce: (catch in his voice) Oh, okay.

 

There are so many subplots going on in this movie (Hawkeye and his secret family, the love triangle between Natasha, Banner and Cap, The backstory of Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch, etc.) that there’s no time to explore any of them in depth, so they come off as being totally artificial and lacking a real sense of life.

 

But that’s cool, right, ‘cause the only reason we go to see this type of movie is for the “KICK-ASS” action scenes, right? Well, maybe not. I’m pretty sure that most of us want a bit more story and a lot less of the amateurish, CGI hokum that the directors and producers force on us movie after movie, after movie . . .

Furious 7, April 2o15

Clusterfu**

n. A chaotic situation where everything seems to go wrong. It is often caused by incompetence, communication failure, or a complex environment.

v. To fu** (something) up, to make a total mess of. –Wiktionary Creative Commons

 

I’ve been a closet fan of the Fast & Furious Franchise from the get go. Yes, I admit it, I did NOT express my love for this series of movies until F&F 5 and 6, but I WAS dedicated. I loved the simple stories, stereotypical antihero characters AND I have always dug the hell out of the fast cars, the live action crashes and stunts. The F&F franchise brought the car chase back from the edge of extinction by snubbing CGI effects and relying (mostly) on practical car stunts and live action, precision driving. Yeah, life was good for us closet couch-jockey street racers . . . until something awful happened:

 

Car Chases & Stunts

What was (in all the other F&F movies) fast, precision car chases, turned into muddled mush when the previous director, Justin Lin, decided to call it quits and the production team hired James Wan to take over. Wan's got a pretty good résumé as a director of horror films but nothing when it comes to high octane action films . . . and it really shows. His mistake was to think that  if you jump cut all the time, use thousands of camera shot changes (long, medium, close-up and variations of such) through all the action scenes it will make the action seem faster and more urgent. Unfortunately, it has the opposite effect on the audience. Too many changes in point of view confuses the mind, it doesn’t have enough time to figure out what the hell it’s looking at. before it changes to something else So, instead of seeing a car chase that is Fast & Furious we experience action sequences that are Slow & Tedious. Want to see some incredibly exciting car chase choreography? Checkout any of the previous F&F movies, and some of these old favorites: Bullitt (1968), The French Connection (1971),
Vanishing Point (1971), The Seven-Ups (1971), To Live and Die in L.A. (1985)

 

Explosions & GUNS . . . LOTS of BIG GUNS

Okay, we do go to these action films to see cars crashing into each other, buildings exploding, guns going off . . . No, BIG GUNS going off, but in this film it’s far too much BOOM! BOOM! BANG! BANG! So much that after about the third explosion in the last action sequence I was thinking . . . “I wonder, should I have pizza for dinner?” 

 

Hand-to-Hand Combat

And my pet peeve, “Don’t over use camera tricks in a Fight sequence.” They are using this camera technique these days that sort of cuts section out of a fight so you don’t really see the fluid movement of the actors. It was used pretty well in Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014) but they didn’t over use the technique. In Furious 7 all the fight scenes are in a state of constant blurriness. You never really see the fight, and you never really connect with the action: “Hmmm, maybe some pepperoni on that pizza.” Some of my favorite hand-to-hand combat movies are: Enter the Dragon (1971), Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003), Haywire (2011), Merantau (2009), The Matrix (1999)

Did I like anything about this movie? Yeah, I really got into the scenes where the characters are just talking to each other. No guns going off, no fast cars, no explosions, just people talking. Yes, the “romantic” dialogue in a few of the quieter places was a bit clunky, but the actors’ commitment to the whole “We are Family” concept of the film made me believe them, that they really felt the love for each other that the script dictated. And I—YES I DID—I did, have a bit of a tear in my left eye as I watched the heart felt tribute to Paul Walker at the very end of the show.

 

The F&F series has been a pretty successful franchise except for this one misstep. I hope they continue it . . . hopefully, with a director that knows how to film an action scene. But if they decide to stick with Wan on the next one, and he does a really good job . . . I'll send him a pizza.

 

 

Chappie March 2o15

 

*Chappie: An Extremely Crappie Mess

 

I’ve made three very bad decisions in my life: I joined the Marine Corps during the Vietnam era, I let the love of my life walk out the door and didn't even try to stop her, and I allowed my friend, David, talk me into seeing the movie Chappie.

 

I knew it wasn’t a good idea to go see Chappie, I knew it. It was March and the month of March is notorious for puking out the worst movies of the year. Why? Well, because March is the month right before the summer movie season gets started, and it’s always been the opportune time for production companies to dump their crappy, low budget flicks on the public. This horrendous piece of sci-fi fluff, Chappie, seems to have been thrown together quickly without much care for production quality; and it rips-off storylines/ideas from older, more successful sci-fi films (Robo Cop {1987} and I, Robot {2004} for example), and the bigger budgeted Avenger movie, The Avengers: Age of Ultron, that’s to be released later on this summer.

 

There’s nothing positive I can say about Chappie. It’s advertised as being a movie about the birth of artificial intelligence (AI) but it’s so badly produced that it turns out to be a movie about . . . well, nothing much at all. Yeah, sure, it sort of mentions the idea of artificial intelligence but doesn’t really examine the creation or development of artificial life. The problem with this film is that it pays lip service to about every social issue you can think of (corporate corruption, child abuse, urban crime, etc.) but never explores any idea in depth. It’s impossible to review this movie seriously because  the director/writers didn’t seem to care at all about making a seriously good movie.

 

Unfortunately, Chappie tries to be a funny but turns out to be a hateful and extremely condescending mess. There are elongated scenes where Chappie’s “adopted father” teaches him how to be all “Gangsta,” how to cuss and to walk bad-ass and . . . oh, and how to pull off a carjack. Yep, that’s right, the maker of this film thinks there’s something humorous about a cute, robot “Gangsta” ripping the doors off of cars, waving a gun in the faces of terrified drivers, and then grabbing them up and flinging them to the ground.  Yeah, ha-ha, funny.

 

And the acting? Sigourney Weaver, Hugh Jackman, Dev Patel what the hell were you guys thinking? You were texting it in. All three should be arrested by SAG and sentenced to a hundred and twenty days of community theatre! Not one actor in this movie connects with the materiel, each other or the audience. I can forgive Yolandi Visser and Watkin Tudor Jones—oh, forgive me, again, I mean Ninja—for creating two of the most uninteresting characters in the history of forever. But you Ripley, Wolverine, and Dude-From-The-Newsroom, you guys should know better.

 

 

*My friend, Michael, took offense at my being so hard on this movie that he liked. So, I invite Koo to write a review for this blog page and I will post it here so my readers (Yeah both of you) can make up your own mind! {smiles}

American Sniper 2o14-15

American Sniper (2014)

 

. . . With a more than fifty percent rate of divorce in the United States today most people can relate what it was like to live through a divorce with their parents. Unfortunately, they can also relate to what it was like to feel like pawns in the war that was waged by at least one parent against the other . . . — Allan Schwartz, Ph.D.

 

American Sniper is a great movie if you’re a conservative; it’s a horrible movie if you are a liberal. Yeah, that’s right (or do I mean left?), the public has decided that the success or failure of the movie American Sniper is solely based on . . . the political point of view of the audience member watching the film, and not on the movie itself. American Sniper is the unfortunate kid caught in the middle of a bitter political war between Daddy Right and Mommy Left; they use their poor child as a weapon to beat the hell out of each other.

 

The truth of the matter is American Sniper is an okay war movie. Not the greatest war movie ever made . . . but it’s an okay movie. Its major flaw is it shows us the horrors of war but never really creates the experience for the audience. It’s like watching a news reel from WWII. Yes, we are told in pictures and words that the war is horrible . . . but we don’t really get the opportunity to experience what it might feel like to be in a war. There’s a host of films (Fury [2o14], The Hurt Locker [2oo8], Platoon [1986] to name a few) that depict war in a more personal, visceral way. American Sniper just feels too generic. Too many of the scenes feel like they were stolen from other war movies.

 

The only thing that half way works in this film is its exploration of PTSD. There are some pretty chilling scenes. One scene has Chris driving down the freeway and sees a car in his rearview mirror that resembles “the enemy’s” mode of transportation in Iraq. He spaces out for a minute and nearly causes a wreck. Another scene that works well is when his son’s playing with the dog and Chris beats the dog because he thinks it’s attacking his boy. Yeah, it’s pretty chilling stuff. But unfortunately, it’s not quite enough to redeem a movie that doesn’t really say anything new about war and its effect on the veterans and their family members who must deal with love ones suffering from PTSD.

Top Ten Movies of 2o14

Nice & Not So Nice:

Woodie’s Favorite Movies

2o14

Disclaimer

Okay, I didn’t see EVERY movie released in 2014! Reason? Because not EVERY movie came to my little Norman Town and since I don’t have a car to shuffle off to OKC to see a flick . . . well, you do the math. Another reason for not seeing ALL the movies that came out in 2o14? Hey! I’m retired. I can’t afford to go to EVERY movie even if they do show up in my town, and my friend who goes with me (he has the car) may not want to see every movie that was made in 2o14! Yes, I do own a bicycle, and yes, I do go to the movies by myself . . . but still I can’t see everything! So, get off my cloud! {smile} Anyway, here are my “Nice & Not So Nice” movie lists for 2o14:

 

Nice

1o. I, Frankenstein

Yeah, that’s right; I liked this Frankenstein rip-off brought to you by the same guy who created the graphic novel, I Frankenstein. Critics and fans pretty much buried this one. And to tell the truth, when I saw the previews for it, I decided to pass on it. But one day, I’m looking for a DVD at Walmart and saw I, Frankenstein on the discount rack and bought it. Much to my surprise it wasn’t as bad as the previews, reviewers and movie fans made it out to be. What’s not to love about a movie that has Frankenstein (the original loner/bad boy), gargoyle-angels and demons from hell kicking CGI ass on each other? Actually, it’s a pretty entertaining little film.

 

o9. Godzilla

I disliked this film at first because of the false advertising by the studio. First, it is NOT a remake of the original (1954). Secondly, Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad) has only a bit role in the film. I hate it when advertisers “mislead” me. But that aside, the movie is pretty good. The actors do okay, but they really don’t have much to do acting wise other than to look worried, frightened or simply unhappy when G and his band of rampaging monsters kick the crap out of each other . . .  and every skyscraper they come in contact with! The wonderfulness of this film is the CGI monsters. They are very affective. It’s worth the watch.

 

o8. Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Okay, Marvel and Chris Evans are starting to show me a little something with this movie. Although it doesn’t go into great depths, it does play around with political issues facing the
US of A right now. The fight scenes are better, But the director is still using schlocky camera techniques that he THINKS makes the action sequences more interesting to a “younger” audience, but they don’t. And Chris Evans as Captain America does appear a bit more human and less the pretty boy/actor robot that he was in the first Captain America movie.

 

o7. The Lego Movie

Surprisingly, this CGI cartoon based on a toy franchise has a lot of adult appeal to it. They create a universe where these Lego characters really come to life. Very funny, very charming and a stunning use of computer generated images. “Everything is Awesome!”

 

o6. The Maze Runner

Another big surprise. I try to stay away from movies based on popular (or obscure) YA novels. I mean, come on! For most of these movies you’d have to be a thirteen year old girl to appreciate them. But this one is a bit different. Not so much the story of youngsters flirting with the idea of sex, this one focuses more on the idea of being trapped, imprisoned by a totalitarian society. Yes, of course, teenagers are the imprisoned and the adults are the ones doing the incarcerating, but the story is pretty good, and unlike most of the YA movies out there. I found myself identifying with characters. Particularly interesting is how the audience views the movie, through the experiences of a new arrival. It’s an engaging film. Hats off to the producers who made it AAV: Appropriate for Adult Viewing.

 

o5. The Drop

Now, I’m finally getting down to the more “adult” movies. And The Drop is that. If you enjoy dialogue and really engaging acting, this movie about low life thugs who dream of becoming “made” is for you. Neatest thing about this movie: nothing is what it appears to be. Enough said.

 

o4. John Wick

This is the BEST damn action film I have seen in a long while! Directed by stunt performers, David Leitch and Chad Stahelski, this movie kicks the right amount of ass, and does it without a bunch of jump cuts and camera tricks. I’m not kidding; this movie is a well-greased ballet of violence. Some critics have said there’s not enough dialogue to the movie, and they are right there’s not a lot. But what little there is, is well placed and well used by the actors. See this and learn what the term “old school action” really means.

 

o3. Gone Girl

Man, if you love Hitchcock and/or Agatha Christy you are going to love this tale about a man whose wife goes missing. I really don’t want to say more about it. I will say . . . go see it.

 

o2. Snowpiercer

Another film that barely got out to American audiences, but not because of production quality. Politics between the director and distributor almost sank this gem of a political action film. Seems the Weinstein Company wanted to cut some of the film for Americans, but the director wouldn’t allow it, and so the WC decided NOT to give the movie a wide release. It’s possible you’ve never heard of this movie loosely based on a French graphic novel . . . but see it you should. Chris Evans does his best acting in this taunt little film. Congrats to all involved with it.

 

o1. The Grand Budapest Hotel

When I go see a movie, I hope to see something that I’ve never seen before, and The Grand Budapest Hotel is like not nothing else I’ve seen this year. I think it can be best described as an absurdist farce. It’s highly stylized, extremely colorful and uses film techniques that come straight out of the slapstick era of silent film. A beautifully crafted, visually stunning film with wonderfully crafted, over the top characters.  A must see movie for the movie junky!

 

That’s it for the Nice list. There are a few honorable mentions that I should . . . well . . . mention!  {another smile} They are: Lucy, Guardians of the Galaxy, The Judge, Divergent, X-Men: Days of Future Past and Big Hero 6

 

& Not So Nice 

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

My friend David shook his head as we came out of the 1pm showing of the third hobbit movie. “I don’t know,” David said, “I should like this movie but I don’t.” And that’s pretty much it. I went to see all three of The Hobbit movies just out of respect for The Lord of the Rings series. The third film in this The Hobbit trilogy is probably the best of the three but that’s not saying much. The cast, the directing the writing, the usually stunning CGI work from WETA lacked inspiration. Shakespeare has a workable quote for this short review, “. . . It is a tale/Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury/Signifying nothing.” Yep, that sums up my feelings about the whole The Hobbit trilogy.

 

Fury

One of those naturalistic looks at a tank crew during WWII that’s both gripping and grizzly enough to make you hope you never see a real war. Why is it on my Not So Nice list? Because of the use of CGI muzzle flash from the tanks and the rifles fired by the actor/soldiers. Nothing ruins naturalism more than cartoonish weapon fire. I mean, we are supposed to be in WWII not Star Wars.

 

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1

I know that a book can’t be translated as is to the screen. But the whole story of The Hunger Games trilogy is based on a realistic description of what it’s like to be in a war. Maybe because they need a PG-13 rating for this film, the production cut back on the graphic violence, which makes it rather bland and uninteresting to this adult-child. MJ Part I tries to explore the role of propaganda in a war, but it too is just bland. The big problem with this movie is that it never changes gears. It tries to be thoughtful . . . but misses the mark.

 

The Giver

If the production team of The Giver wants to give me something, they can start by giving me back the popcorn money I spent on this lack luster movie! The storyline isn’t the problem with this film. The leaders of this futurist government have figured out a way to rid their dystopia society from  unpleasant emotions. They’ve blanked out everybody’s memory through genetic engineering, eliminated art, music, war . . . Hell, they even eliminated changes in weather, and no color! Yes, a black and white world they’ve created where people are always pleasant, always smiling, always unemotional.  However, there is one person in the community that carries all those bad things around in his head just in case they need some good old human behavior. He’s called the Keeper, and he’s old. And the community sends him a disciple that he can train to be the Keeper of the history of humanness. And that’s where the story begins with the training of the next Keeper. The story idea is a good one. We the audience can learn to appreciate things we take for granted as the fledgling Keeper sees for the first time color, emotion, art, etc. But most of the human feelings are not explored in enough depth. We really don’t get involved in the plight of this young human experiencing for the first time what it feels like to be human.

 

That’s it! See you in 2o15!