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20^th century Fox) takes our beloved treasures of hope and turn them into celluloid sludge (I know, "celluloid" is an outdated word for film stock .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.