Interstellar November 2014

Sorry. Took me awhile to get into writing this review. No SPOILERS, I hope.

Interstellar is one of those movies that I watched intently, didn’t miss a beat of it, and I was totally engrossed in the whole thing. However, once the experience was over, I wondered why they made it? It’s not that Interstellar is a bad movie. The production value is high, the acting works well, and the script . . . well there’s the problem. The script just isn’t deep or specific enough for me.

 

The best parts of Interstellar are the scenes between the father and daughter. There’s a deep connection there between the characters, a good sense of a specific relationship that is still universal, the love between father and daughter. However, the final scene of that relationship (I won’t tell you what it is) is rather dissatisfying.  Also working for this film (for the most part) is the sound. Yes, it’s damn loud but it helps create such a visceral response in the audience. Best example: when the spaceship is leaving the Earth there is this bone rattling (I mean, it physically SHOOK the audience) sound of the rocket engines, and then when it finally left the Earth’s gravity and entered outer space

. . . dead quiet. But not wanting to let go of a good thing, they use the same sound level in another part of the movie when the spaceship is in trouble (again), and it only got in the way of the audience hearing important dialogue. I mean, I “think” it was important dialogue because I couldn’t understand a word of it, AND in turn, I couldn’t understand what was happening in the movie!

 

Although Christopher Nolan has great ideas and a good eye for visuals, the script seems more of an outline for a movie leaving this audience member feeling a bit underwhelmed. And the “science moments?” Yeah, I know, there’s a whole group of scientists out there who get their equations all in a bunch if you don’t get the science “right,” but every “science moment” they have in Interstellar stops the action, it’s not incorporated into the film as well as it needs to be. I ain’t kidding. Every time they started talking science I felt like somebody walked on with a giant dry erase board and I was back in junior college sitting through another boring lecture. Don’t get me wrong, getting the science  “right” is important but you must make it a part of the action, and not just shove it down our throats because you’re afraid  that Dr. deGrasse Tyson will jump on his iPod show and get all “better than thou” on us “uneducated,” low life movie goers. 

John Wick October 2o14

 

John Wick isn’t the Boogeyman. He’s the man you send to kill the Boogieman!

Thank you, movie gods, for finally answering my prayer! And the answer is . . . John Wick! What a wonderfully executed movie. A Hand-to-hand combat movie where you can actually SEE the characters fight! Yeah, I’m talking to you (AGAIN!), Antoine Fuqua! Study this movie and learn how it is done, or please, please give up on making action films.

 

This movie is just chucked full of beautifully choreographed fight sequences, and not a lot of flying kicks and wire work (if there is any at all). This is, for the most part, just straight up  jiu-jitsu and MMA fighting with guns . . . and sometimes . . . CARS! Lots of close up combat filmed (again, for the most part) in wide shots and medium shots. Did I say fight scenes? Nay! Each scene is a ballet of blood and violence. Just the most wonderful thing I have seen in an action film in a long time.

 

However, the fight scenes aren’t the only star in this film. The “talking” scenes are also brilliant, the dialogue is exceptional. Most action films blow off these scenes as fast as they can, but not John Wick! The directors are just as specific in the “smaller” scenes as they are in the big action sequences. For example, the whole reason for Wick to put on his ass kicking suit and go to town on the baddies is that they . . . KILL HIS DOG! Any other director (again and again, Fuqua!) would probably just get ANY old dog for the scene, I mean, why not? It’s not like it’s an important scene! Let’s get to the action! But not our director(s). They went out and found the cutest damn puppy that ever lived (or is it CGI?) so that we, the audience, would fall in love with this rascally pup and be even more outraged at the evilness of the bad guys, and  be all crazy for John Wick to get off his butt and lay down so retribution.

 

So, If you haven’t got it all ready . . . I LOVE THIS MOVIE! And it is really worth watching.

SnowPiercer 2o14

I try very hard to stay away from SPOILERS in my reviews while still giving you, the reader, something worth reading. However, I’m not perfect. I may have inadvertently slipped a SPOILER or two in here somewhere. Be advised.

"Passengers, this is not a shoe. This is disorder. This is size ten chaos. This. See this? This is death."—Minister Mason, Snowpiercer

Snowpiercer is one of those movies that is so enthralling that you can respectfully overlook the few flaws in the script and in the visuals.  There’s something for everybody in this movie. If you’re a straight up action junky, there are a herd of incredibly crafted riot scenes, one on one, hand to hand combat scenes (hey, Antoine Fuqua, you should pay attention to this part) that outshines every fist smashing, jaw breaking film that has come along in quite a long while.  Very little jump cutting or close-ups, you can really see the work of the stuntmen/actors. However, if you are the film goer that likes a little “intellectual” meat with his smorgasbord of movie ass kicking, then Snowpiercer has plenty of that to go around also. Political wrangling and intrigue, class struggle, child abuse . . . hell, there is so many different social/political ideas and issues woven into this movie that it takes more than one viewing to find them all.

 

The acting is impeccable in this film. I mean, even Chris Evans, an actor I really don’t care to watch much, is just smoking it in this film. The whole cast is brilliant, but I do have to say that Tilda Swinton is just one of the most underrated actors of our times, or maybe not “underrated” but just not use enough in mainstream films to suit this audience member. Her portrayal of Minister Mason is tragically funny, disturbing and downright evil . . . all at the same time. Checkout this deliciously sadistic monologue:

Mason

Order is the barrier that holds back the flood of death. We must all of us on this train of life remain in our allotted station. We must each of us occupy our preordained particular position. Would you wear a shoe on your head? Of course you wouldn't wear a shoe on your head. A shoe doesn't belong on your head. A shoe belongs on your foot. A hat belongs on your head. I am a hat. You are a shoe. I belong on the head. You belong on the foot. Yes? So it is. In the beginning, order was proscribed by your ticket: First Class, Economy, and freeloaders like you. Eternal order is prescribed by the sacred engine: all things flow from the sacred engine, all things in their place, all passengers in their section, all water flowing. all heat rising, pays homage to the sacred engine, in its own particular preordained position. So it is. Now, as in the beginning, I belong to the front. You belong to the tail. When the foot seeks the place of the head, the sacred line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.

 

Bong Joon-ho is just one of a handful of directors in the 21^st century that are making films that are enlightening and entertaining. We film lovers should support artists like Bong Joon-ho, Kathryn Bigelow, Quentin Tarantino, and Wes Anderson, and politely say “NO” to the directors of films like The Equalizer, The Purge (1 & 2) and the other unfortunate wastes of film that promise something special and never ever deliver.

 

Mason did not include in her diatribe that shoes are also good for kicking ass! Let’s be shoes and “stomp out” mediocre filmmaking in America!

 

Fury October 2o14

or

How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Loved the CGI!



 

Naturalism

1. (in art and literature) a style and theory of representation based on the accurate depiction of detail.

2. a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.
 

Wardaddy: Ideals are peaceful. History is violent.
 

You know, everything about this naturalistic movie is working. They just plop the audience down smack in the middle of WWII, and brother, it's a jolt. This isn't a story about WWII, it is as close as we can get to the experience of WWII without actually being there. Sure, Saving Private Ryan does most of that, but this is even more surreal, horrifying without being preachy about the wrong or right of war.

 

And the characters are so existential. We really don't know much about them except for their job description: "We kill Nazis." But we do identify with them because no matter how they try to hide it this killing Nazi thing gets to them.

 

So, this is a great film with one giant drawback: CGI muzzle flashes! I know, it's the thing today. I guess it saves money on blank ammunition, maybe safer for the actors, and maybe they use it to get the gamer crowd to put down the Halo or whatever phony baloney first-person video game kids are playing these days and watch, actually watch a movie . . . or maybe they, the production team just thinks its cool to turn WWII into Star Wars. Whatever the excuse . . . I hate it. I hate it with such a passion. I'm surprised that Brad Pitt let them get away with it. It doesn't fit in a naturalist WWII film to have "cartoonish" animation for gunfire. It looks ridiculous. Why aren't more people offended by this? Anyway, if you are going to try and depict an actual war, the way war really is get rid of the CGI!

 

 

Gone Girl October 2o14

Gone Girl
A Sort of Review,

Sort of

 

I like to consider myself an adventurous movie goer, somewhat like Frank Buck: Bring ‘Em Back Alive . . .only I do my big game hunting with a medium popcorn (no butter) in one hand and a large ice tea (LOTS of ice!) in the other, sitting in my favorite seat, in an air-conditioned, big screen movie theatre with whomever I can talk into going with me. I don’t like to know much about the movie I’m going to see. I don’t read reviews because I don’t want to know the story or what some other "big game hunter" thought about the film. I do look at posters, and I’ve gotten pretty good at deciding whether or not a movie is worth my time by watching a little bit of the trailers. Sure, trailers are design to con you into believing that the movie they advertise is “The greatest movie in MOVIE HISTORY!” But if you know what to look for in a trailer, you can tell whether or not the advertisement guys are lying to you about the quality of the movie being promoted. Word of mouth is a good device for making your decision to see or not see a certain movie.

ME: How was the movie?
Mouth: Oh, it was okay . . .

or

ME: How was the movie?

Mouth: Man, That movie really SUCKED!

Either one of those answers to my question, "How was the movie?" is not a great indicator as to whether or not a movie is worth my viewing time. Let’s face it, people have different tastes. An audience member might not like a movie for other reasons than the movie itself. For example: back in 1989, I'd just finished watching Field of Dreams when I ran into an old (girl) friend of mine who had also just seen it. “How was the movie?” I asked. She replied, “It was all about MEN! Why was it all about what MEN WANT? What about us, WOMEN? Why isn’t there a Field of Dreams for WOMEN?!”  Hmmm, a good point, but it doesn’t really have anything to do with whether the movie was good or not. The only word of mouth review of a movie you can trust is:

ME: How was the movie?
Mouth: (smiling) Go see it.

Me: Okay, but how was it?
Mouth (bigger smile): Just go see it.

There’re a couple of important points you should get from my dialogue with Mouth: 1. Mouth is reluctant to tell me anything about the movie. 2. Mouth is smiling. Those two things tell me that it’s a sure bet that if I go to that particular movie, I'm going to see something . . . good/bad? Who knows, but I'm definitely gonna see . . . something worth my time.

 

So, what the hell does all this have to do with a review of Gone Girl? Actually, it has everything to do with Gone Girl. Gone Girl is one of those movies that you should go see without knowing much or anything about it. For me it’s one of those films that I really WANT to talk about, but only with people who have already seen it. Hell, I may have said too much all ready. Anyway, stop listening to me or to any reviewer, get you popcorn, ice tea, find a great seat in a theatre and just watch . . . Gone Girl.

The Equalizer September 2014

or
Home Mart: Let’s Kill Something Together

 

!MAYBE A FEW SPOILERS!

What the Fuqua, Antoine?! How the heck can you mess up a movie that has a decent enough revenge script, Denzel Washington as your lead (along with a killer support cast) AND some of the most beautiful cinematography I’ve ever seen? What the hell were you thinking? Okay, you didn’t make a terrible movie, but you surely didn’t make a great movie either. Instead, you took all those wonderful elements mentioned above and created a steaming pile of mediocrity, and that is worse than making something completely awful!

The script was solid, a great storyline about a mild mannered hardware store employee who has a black op, ass kicking demon hiding behind his smile, and one day something happens to force that demon out in the open. And yeah, I know, we’ve seen it all before in First Blood (1982), Valdez is Coming (1971) Death Wish (1974). . . Hell, almost every Marvel character is based on the “mild mannered” appearing schmuck who has a secret, superhero identity.  But what makes this script interesting to me is not that you have the demon hiding out in the average Joe type character, but the length of time the script takes in exploring the transformation from nice guy to cold blooded assassin. Unlike Banner’s Hulk personality that doesn’t need more than a dirty look to get him all “smashing” mad, Robert McCall’s dark side is buried so deep that it takes the attempted murder of the teenage prostitute he’s befriended to finely get him to his Popeye Moment: That’s all I can stands, I can’t stands no more! For me this was the best part of the movie. The quiet moments in your movie, Antoine, are where you excel.

And yeah, your casting was perfect. Denzel (the good guy psychopathic killer) and Marton Csokas (Teddy, the evil psycho killer) . . . wow! Their interactions were so intense I was nervously chewing up the theatre seat cushion! (Sorry, Warren Theatre. I’ll pay for that.) And no matter what the other ‘reviewers” say, Chloë Grace Moretz was brilliant as the young hooker looking for a way out of “the life.” And I’m gonna give you credit for picking Mauro Fiore as your cinematographer. Man, he sure has a way of getting that dark, depressing look of the big city . . . and also finding the beauty in that darkness. I was a little bit annoyed with the final shot of McCall sitting at a booth in his favorite café, reading a book and sipping tea. It was a bit too reminiscent of Edward Hopper’s  Nighthawks (1942).

BUT where you went wrong, Antoine, were the fight scenes! What the heck, man! The whole first part of the movie is a build up to that first fight scene! It’s the payoff for us sitting with Robert McCall as he struggles with the question: “Should I let the demon out, make things right?” It’s the moment we, the audience, are waiting for. NOW we’re gonna see that demon from hell pull out a big old can of kick ass! And what did you do with the scene, Antoine? You jump cut the crap out of it! Audience couldn’t see the action. Couldn’t see the fight! It was such a bland scene, totally uninteresting to watch, and every fight scene in this movie was awful. Antoine, buddy, you need to take Hitchcock’s advice about action sequences. “If you are going to have a crop duster in your movie, it must dust crops.” Antoine, if you bill a character as a bad ass, ass kicker, then we, the audience, must see him KICK some major gluteus maximus! I don’t know what it is with you directors these days. You really think that shooting a fight scene in close ups and jump cutting it until it turns into blurry goo is the way it should be done? Well, if God had known how you were going to direct the action sequences in this movie, there would have been an 11^th commandment: THOU SHALL NOT DIRECT ACTION SEQUENCES, ANTOINE!

 

 

 

Guardians of the Galaxy August 2014

The Guardians of Popcorn

Movie review by Robert R. Woods
 

Peter Quill

So here we are: a thief, two thugs, an assassin and a maniac. But we're not going to stand by as evil wipes out the galaxy. I guess we're stuck together, partners.

 

Share this: Facebook  |  Twitter  |  Permalink Rocket Raccoon

Why would you want to save the galaxy?

Peter Quill

Because I'm one of the idiots who live there!

 

And there folks in those few lines of dialogue is the entire plot of:  

 

Granted there's not much to it. But it is straightforward and to the point. Most “good” movies are simple in plot. The writers, the director, and  actors of Guardians of the Galaxy fill in the few holes the script has with cool, hip, outlaw heroes, a couple of nasty ass villains who want to destroy the universe— why? Well, I don’t know! That’s just what evil guys do! They threaten to blow everything up to give our heroes a reason for racing across the galaxy kicking asteroid butts and taking names! It’s a popcorn movie, for goodness’ sake,  not Greek tragedy!

Greek tragedy
1. A popular and influential form of drama performed in theatres across ancient Greece from the late 6th century BCE.

Popcorn movie

1. A motion picture without serious dramatic content, a weighty message, or intellectual depth, which serves simply as enjoyable entertainment.

Although most times I like a bit more intellectual meat with my popcorn, this really is a hell of a lot of fun. Got some wonderfully off the wall characters— a  talking raccoon named Rocket (possibly named after The Beatles “Rocky Raccoon”) and his pal, Groot, a sort of hipster’s version of an Ent. And then there’s a very sexy (hubba-hubba) female assassin named Gamora, the long suffering Drax the Destroyer . . . AND . . . our lead hero . . . the Arthur Herbert Fonzarelli  of outer space . . . Peter Quill: Star-Lord! Who? Yeah, that question is asked more than once.  And then you throw in some rather snappy jokes (mostly references to ‘80’s pop culture), some dazzling CGI effects, LOTS of explosions and you got me saying "Pass the popcorn, PA-leeeeeease!"

I do have a couple of mild complaints. There are so many characters with very little backstory that it’s hard to tell who the heck they are! This is one of those movies where it’s almost necessary to have read the comic—oh, excuse me!—“graphic novel” it was based on. Plus, when, oh, when, ol’ might filmmakers are you gonna STOP filming live action, hand to hand combat scenes in close ups with so much jump editing that the audience NEVER gets to see the fights! I mean, come on! You got Dave Batista in your movie! He’s a collegiate wrestler, he’s MMA trained, and he’s in the WWE! Just back the camera up, lock it down and let Batista and stuntman have it!

Sorry. Anyway, Guardians of the Galaxy is a fun, mindless good time. Go see it.