Movies: The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Long Story Short:  Battle of the Five Armies recalls The Return of the King in many ways, besides being the conclusion in a Tolkien trilogy.  Despite falling well short of that Best Picture-winning movie, it's still a triumphant effort.  Besides being stale at this point, the big battles indicated in the title are numbed by video game-like CGI.  Fortunately, the character battles - both action and emotional - are quite good, led by Freeman's outstanding Bilbo.  If you're a fan of these films, then I recommend you catch the trilogy finale in theaters.


At last, a review for a movie on its first weekend of release!  Thanks to the last Hobbit film's mid-week release date, I am able to be a little earlier than usual this time.  I also saw another film that was released earlier; since I'm already "late" for that one, I'll post it next week.  A number of other good options are being released at the end of December but I don't know which ones will be released in my theater (many are starting in just NY and LA).  Well, this was probably my second most anticipated film of the year (after Interstellar).  As the Lord of the Rings films quickly secured a place among my all-time favorites, I have eagerly anticipated each Hobbit film as well.  While the first two were not Lord of the Rings-level good, they were still very good.  And now for the finale!  The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies was directed by Peter Jackson and stars Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage, et. al.

The action picks up right where The Desolation of Smaug left off.  Bilbo and the dwarves failed to slay Smaug the dragon at the end of the last one, and the beast now flies to the nearby Laketown in a rage.  He engulfs the city in a conflagration, but one of the citizens is able to bravely stop it.  Now homeless, Laketown's people make their way toward the ancient, abandoned city of Dale on the footstep of the Lonely Mountain (where Smaug came from).  News of Smaug's demise spreads quickly, and a race begins to claim the vast store of treasure that he had hoarded.

Dwarves, Elves and Men each have their own interests in the mountain, its treasure and the surrounding land, but they soon find that they are all in danger of being wiped out by the evil orc armies.  Only working together, both armies and individuals, can the varied peoples of Middle Earth prevent their destruction.

Battle of the Five Armies returns the principle cast of the first two Hobbit films, and adds a few more characters.  Martin Freeman as Bilbo the Hobbit is superb once again.  After a reduced role in the second film, he is fortunately prominent again in this one, despite it being action heavy.  You can read my review of the first film for my reasons why Freeman is a perfect Hobbit.  He is more serious in this one, but equally effective.  Next up is Thorin, the leader of the Dwarves.  Despite his leadership, he did not really stand out to me in the previous films - but in this one, he definitely takes the spotlight.  Armitage is most effective when coveting his treasure early in the film (more on this later).  While he's more of a generic hero in the second half, he's still more distinguished here than in the previous films.

Everyone else (and that's a lot) is basically a supporting player.  Ian McKellen as Gandalf has a disappointingly small role - in fact, it may be the thing I most regret about the film since he's so good.  Luke Evans gets a decent size part in the first half as Bard; his character, like Thorin, is more distinctive this time, and he does a good job (even if he's still Aragorn-lite).  Tauriel (Lilly) the elf and Kili (Turner) continue their stale "romance", blessedly briefly, and Legolas has more awesome action scenes even if he isn't much of a character.  Finally, Tolkien-verse favorites return for some brief but kick-ass action:  Saruman (Christopher Lee), Elrond (Hugo Weaving) and Cate Blanchett (Galadriel).

The final chapter of the Hobbit is parallel in many ways to The Return of the King (the last of the Lord of the Rings).  Both are epics that are challenged to balance vastly different objectives:  massive battles and personal struggles with equally high stakes.  Along with this is an expectation of both exhilarating action sequences and poignant emotional ones.  While uneven and with a few stumbles, Battle of the Five Armies is successful overall in this mission.  The weakest link I would say are the epic battles between armies.  Sure, there are some cool CGI effects, unexpected touches, and they (sort of) go all out.  But here the CGI-heavier nature of the Hobbit films - and these battle scenes in particular - also show their weakness.  The CGI, while perhaps necessary, also acts as a wall to believability, and it feels much more like a video game (I know the elves are disciplined, but do they all have to move exactly in precision?).  And many of the overall tactical elements are quite obviously just plot-driven and not very logical/"realistic" (relatively speaking).

Fortunately, the movie works much better at the personal level - both emotionally and in the action scenes.  The most intriguing relationship is between Bilbo and Thorin, one that doesn't last all that long.  In place of the Ring (which Bilbo does have, and comes up a few times), the main source of evil influence is the treasure in the Mountain, which twists Thorin in both believable and story-relevant ways.  Bilbo plays an important role here, which serves as the most touching part of the film.  Of course, the conclusion of the film has the usual happiness in victory, sadness over deaths, and welcome return to the Shire for Bilbo which are all effective (esp. the latter) - and much briefer than Return of the King.  As for the action, this is much, much better than the CGI armies.  This is mainly comprised of Thorin and Legolas each taking on a leader of the Orc army, and they're probably the best battles of the Hobbit trilogy.

***

Is the Battle of the Five Armies as good as The Return of the King?  Hell, no, but that's certainly no insult to the final chapter of the Hobbit films.  There are some interesting comparisons between the Star Wars and... Jackson/Tolkien (?) film franchises.  Each are made up of two trilogies (well, that's about to change), and the trilogies in each series are stylistically distinct from each other - and even in parallel ways at that, I'd argue.  Jackson's trilogies are more closely related to each other, but still different.  The Hobbit films, tone and story are more pure entertainment and appropriately (if overall also disappointingly) more CGI-based.  Humans in orc costume are quite a bit more frightening than today's most impressive, big and bad CGI orcs.  Much of The Lord of the Rings is essentially about escaping or defending from evil, whereas The Hobbit goes out to find it, to a certain degree.  There are plenty of other differences, of course, but those overall differences are a large part of what drew me into LotR significantly more than The Hobbit.

As I mentioned in my review of the first Hobbit film, I am quite impressed by the way that Jackson retained much of the LotR Middle Earth setting, visually as well as in tone.  And Martin Freeman was the home run of the trilogy - despite being the lone Hobbit, he was better than any of his peers from the LotR films.  The Hobbit films are worthy, if lesser companions to the LotR:  they truly inhabit the same world, and are damn entertaining.  So if you've seen the other two Hobbit films, I'd recommend that you go out to the theaters to see this satisfying conclusion to the trilogy.




"The Hobbit - The Battle of the Five Armies" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit:_The_Battle_of_the_Five_Armies#mediaviewer/File:The_Hobbit_-_The_Battle_of_the_Five_Armies.jpg

Movies: Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1

Score:  ***1/2 out of ***** (B-)

Long Story Short:  Since it worked twice before (financially), Hollywood decided to do it again - splitting the final book of a popular YA series into two films.  The Hunger Games filmmakers had their work cut out for them with this book, and it didn't help that their star Jennifer Lawrence isn't any better as Katniss this time.  Obviously, avoid if you haven't seen the first two films - but if you have, this is a watchable set up for the finale, thanks to a good supporting cast and a decent war atmosphere.


Although I'm a bit late with this one, today's film review marks the start of the holiday blockbuster season.  Rest assured, there are more to come in December!  As I've noted in my review of the other Hunger Games films, I read the trilogy of books about a year or so before the first film came out.  I enjoy the stories, although I wouldn't put it among my favorites.  Still, I'm certainly interested in seeing through the conclusion of the film adaptations.  The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 was directed by Francis Lawrence (also did Catching Fire) and stars Jennifer Lawrence, Woody Harrelson, et. al.

Picking up where the story left off in Catching Fire, Katniss (Lawrence) has been retrieved from the arena of her second Hunger Games' event.  She is now with the rebels, located in the hidden, underground, supposedly destroyed District 13, along with the survivors of District 12 (her home area).  While Katniss is relieved to be reunited with her mother, sister, and childhood friend, Gale (Hemsworth), she is tormented by the horrific experiences of two different Hunger Games and the loss of friends from the Games, including Peeta (Hutcherson).  She is given little time to recuperate, though:  the leader of District 13, Alma Coin (Moore) insists that Katniss be used as a propaganda tool in the fight against the government and its seat of power, the Capitol.

With help from friends both old and new, Katniss is persuaded to join the cause, though it puts her right back in the thick of the danger.  And she discovers that Peeta is not dead, but rather put to horrifying use by the Capitol.  With a symbol to rally around, rebels across the country push harder and harder against their oppressors - but the fight has only just begun.

As with the other films in the series, Mockingjay Part 1 has a tremendous cast.  Despite this, I'm still not happy with Jennifer Lawrence in the lead as Katniss.  In fact, I think she might be worse than before (partly due to her different role in this film).  Ironically, the film intentionally pokes fun at Katniss' early attempts to film propaganda pieces - she simply comes off as inauthentic.  But this is increased by the fact that Lawrence herself seems hard-pressed to fit this role, as well as other aspects of her character.  As I've mentioned before, she has done really well in other roles - but this one just doesn't work for her.  Three films in, I have to say this is the biggest (and it's a doozy) problem for the film series.

Fortunately, Lawrence is surrounded by a (mostly) tremendous supporting cast.  Highlights are Philip Seymour Hoffman in one of his final roles; even if the part is pretty cliche, he is still so fun to watch and delivers a few great lines.  And the best one-two punch, as it has been since the start, is Woody Harrelson as grumpy veteran Haymitch and Elizabeth Banks as air headed yet layered Effie.  Both are tremendous fits and seem to really relish their roles.  I only wish they had more screen time.  Newcomer Julianne Moore is leader Alma Coin; she effectively makes her vaguely off-putting yet difficult to read (a little bland so far).  Hutcherson as Peeta just gets a few brief parts, unfortunately, after his breakout in Catching Fire.  In his place, the incredibly dull (as character and actor) Liam Hemsworth gets the spotlight as Gale.  Finally, there are other familiar faces that get fleeting but appreciated appearances (Stanley Tucci as Caesar, Jeffrey Wright as Beetee, etc.).

Hunger Games is now at least the third major YA franchise (following Harry Potter and Twilight's lead) to break up its final book into two films.  It's tricky enough to create a compelling film from a book in the middle of a series, but with an abrupt start and no clear break in the story, the task is even harder for these films.  Fortunately, Mockingjay Part 1 pulls it off about as well as can be expected.  It all takes place either in the cramped underground spaces of District 13, or the devastated rubble of former cities, which makes for a rather sobering experience.  While Lawrence is unable to generate much personal connection by herself, there is a fascinating propaganda war between her and Peeta.  Scenes of her with Gale are wastes of time, but once things get going there is a neat little bond that develops among Heavensbee (Hoffman's character), Haymitch, Effie, Beetee and so on.

Part 2 is where the real fireworks will surely be set off, but Part 1 also squeezes in some action, too.  With no more actual Hunger Games to show, the film pivots to some fairly genuine war scenes that avoid gore but still create a realistic setting.  The film does have a few high points, and even a climax, but it really should have been shorter for all the story is advanced (cutting Gale's part way down would have been a great start).  Finally, the film does still a retain a modest sense of humor like the others, driven almost entirely by Haymitch, Effie, Heavensbee and company.

***

In sum, the experience of Mockingjay Part 1 is pretty much, "eh."  This should be obvious by now, but if you haven't seen the other two Hunger Games films yet, don't even think about watching this one yet.  If you have, this is a perfectly watchable movie but not what one would expect from a blockbuster franchise.  Again, the filmmakers had quite a challenge splitting Mockingjay into two different films - add in the fact that their lead really just doesn't cut it, and it's kind of amazing that it's as good as it is.  Credit that to a good script which, after a bit of a rocky first few minutes, finds a good narrative flow apart from the useless Gale scenes - as well as to an entertaining supporting cast and some pretty good war scenarios.  Next year, of course, is the conclusion to this series which should be more satisfying.  But that's OK, since this year we get to finish the (underrated) Hobbit series!







*3rd teaser poster for the film The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunger_Games:_Mockingjay_–_Part_1#mediaviewer/File:MockingjayPart1Poster3.jpg

Movies: Birdman

Score:  ****1/2 out of ***** (A)

Long Story Short:  Birdman is a fascinating drama that toys with what is real and what isn't (on many different levels) in the form of the production of a play in New York.  Foremost in the intricate web of fantasy and reality is the casting of Michael Keaton as a one-time superhero star who looks for a renewal after becoming forgotten (sound familiar?)  But that's just the icing - the real substance of Birdman is the virtuosic long-take style in which it is filmed, along with the great performances and even soundtrack that goes with it.  One of the best movies of the year - both in quality and entertainment value.


I was not expecting to be able to see the movie I am reviewing today, so the month is turning out to be even more packed than expected!  Starting next weekend, the first in December, the focus will likely shift back to blockbusters as the holiday movie season gets underway.  When I read about the premise of this awhile back (same as ever), I was immediately amused by the interaction of the premise and the leading man (more on this later).  Later I found that the film was not just a straight-up comedy, as I had assumed it would be - it was also getting glowing reviews as an Oscar contender.  Like last week's film, I assumed it would be just a limited release and therefore get nowhere near my theater - but I got lucky again!  Birdman was directed by Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (Babel) and stars Michael Keaton, Edward Norton, Emma Stone, et. al.

Riggan (Keaton) is a Hollywood actor trying to re-establish his fame through the production of (he's writing, directing and starring in) a play in New York.  Years ago, Riggan played a very popular superhero character - Birdman - which won him fame and fortune for three films, before he decided to quit the franchise.  The story begins perhaps just a week or so before the play's premiere, and trouble abounds.  A key cast member has to be replaced suddenly, and a talented yet hard-to-handle theater star, Mike Shiner (Norton) takes his place.  As Riggan tries to rein in Mike, he also deals with his secret girlfriend - and co-star - Laura (Riseborough), and his miserable daughter, Sam (Stone), who is his assistant.

Riggan gets the production through several previews, all of which suffer disasters of varying degrees.  While he is starved for the attention and the fame of his earlier career, he's unsure if he can - or even wants to - reclaim it through the theater.  With the ghost of Birdman ever present in his mind, Riggan tries to juggle both his personal and professional relationships as they push and pull him in all different directions.

Birdman has a great cast, and it produces some tremendous performances.  Michael Keaton is the lead as Riggan, the former Birdman.  Although he strangely denies it, Keaton is the obvious choice for this role with his parallel history as the first film actor to play Batman.  Fortunately, Keaton goes beyond this meta-appropriateness to deliver a great performance.  Most strikingly, he is convincing as a star who knows the ropes (of fame and dealing with other big personalities, at least) and has become utterly and unconsciously driven entirely by his ego - yet he's also wearied and scarred from years in the business, insecure from his lack of recent success and lack of experience on the stage.  He inhabits both of these sides quite naturally.  And while the film is primarily a drama, he leads the way in shifting smoothly into some quirkier and/or humorous moments as well (one scene even recalls a Will Ferrell stunt that had everyone laughing out loud).

Birdman has great supporting roles aplenty.  Most notable is Edward Norton as Broadway hotshot Mike.  He has such effortless confidence - both his character, and his playing the character - that he steals the show several times.  Sometimes it borders on caricature, but he's so good and entertaining that it doesn't matter.  Emma Stone is also excellent, showing a broad range from juvenile indifference to, occasionally, explosive fury.  She is the emotional center of the film, and not just because she's Riggan's daughter.  Zach Galifianakis is the revelation in the cast, as Riggan's friend and lawyer/manager:  yes, he's funny of course, but he shows some real acting chops here, too.  And there are several other good, though small roles:  Andrea Riseborough as Riggan's girlfriend, Amy Ryan as his ex-wife, and Naomi Watts as a co-star in the play.

I tend to focus on story and characters to determine the quality of a film, and view other components as secondary or less.  However, the strength of Birdman is driven by the way that it was made and by the performances (I make the distinction here to characters).  Think you've seen long takes - in other words, the film is seen through one camera for an extended period without editing - in other movies?  You ain't seen nothing yet.  The camera twists and turns and snakes through the theater in Birdman for ten, twenty, thirty minutes at a time and more.  I can only think of a handful of times that there is a somewhat clear break in the filming.  Sometimes there are seamless time jumps, using the same location, but it creates the effect of a living, breathing production.  Simply marvelous work by Emmanuel Lubezki (Children of Men, Gravity).  The film also has a cool, naturalistic soundtrack driven by drums, with occasional breaks into orchestral/theatrical excerpts.  And you've already read about the great performances.

While it's secondary this time, in my mind, it's worth talking at least a little about the story.  Part of it is personal, with Riggan and both his girlfriend and ex-wife - both of these are minor and not all that original.  Most prominent is the fondness that develops between Mike and Sam - but all these relationships feel almost intentionally cliched (not that they're bad; and they're also brief).  The Riggan-Sam, father-daughter relationship is the most serious, and plays into the other main aspect.  That is what gets back to why Keaton was the obvious leading man: his career trajectory.  The film critiques blockbusters, but more so the people who aggrandize themselves through those works.  It also pokes at the other side, the art-y, theater culture - and both of these cultural models get dressed down in one withering exchange between a NYTimes reviewer and Riggan.

***

Birdman is not and likely will not become a favorite for me - but it is undeniably an excellent and enjoyable film.  It combines a little from each of the "film types" I've talked about earlier this fall - creative, ambitious, risky ones and conventional, solid ones - into one great package.  I can't emphasize enough how great the filmmaking itself is (the creative, risky parts), with those long takes; it's utterly dazzling, and also fits perfectly with the tone and setting of the film.  The performances themselves are great and slightly theatrical (beyond the literal setting) themselves, and the soundtrack goes right along with both the camerawork and performances to create the very enjoyable experience.  This all overshadows both the personal elements (the conventional, solid parts) and even Riggan's story (and the film's cultural critique of) of the resurrection/transformation of an acting career.  There's even - I haven't had time to mention it yet - some magical elements, which are small and relatively subtle until the final act of the film, where it allows for individual interpretation of the ending.  Simply put, if you are able to see this film, I highly recommend that you do so.



"Birdman poster"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Birdman_poster.jpg#mediaviewer/File:Birdman_poster.jpg

Movies: St. Vincent

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Long Story Short:  Headlined by major stars Bill Murray and Melissa McCarthy, this new dramedy sprung surprisingly quietly into theaters.  The quiet is not at all due to poor quality:  Murray is tremendous in the lead, and he is supported by fine co-stars (several of whom are in surprising roles). The drama leads the way here, with a standard odd couple set up leading to thoughtful, moving, original results.  And don't worry, Murray and co. bring the funny, too.  Recommended for all.


The movie train keeps chugging along this November, with a change of pace in the form of a comedy (a rare critically-acclaimed one at that).  My review of the penultimate Hunger Games film will also be coming soon, after which I'm not sure what will come other than The Hobbit part 3 in December.  I read a blurb for this (as it starts with many other movies) in a fall movie preview article, and seeing Bill Murray and Melissa McCarthy attached to the same movie immediately grabbed my attention.  It seemed to be a smaller project, though, so I was thrilled when my local theater picked it up.  St. Vincent was directed by Theodore Melfi (debut) and stars Murray, McCarthy and Naomi Watts.

Vincent is an aging, grumpy drunk in New York City (I think; Wikipedia has let me down with this film).  His only source of income is taking out money against his own home and horse race betting, which typically nets a negative outcome.  Vincent is about to be evicted when new neighbors move in:  Maggie (McCarthy) and her young son, Oliver.  At first simply a nuisance, Vincent soon sees financial gain in the situation by offering his services as a "baby sitter" for Oliver after school while Maggie works long hours as a single mother.

It turns out that Vincent and Oliver offer unexpected benefits for each of their very different life stages and situations.  Unfortunately, while their friendship helps them cope with life, it does not solve their problems - and these intervene to threaten the bond that has formed.

St. Vincent is led by several strong performances, none better than its leading man's.  Bill Murray plays the anti-hero Vincent, giving the film its emotional and humorous core.  This role is not exactly out of Murray's comfort zone as an actor, but he takes nothing for granted.  He builds a very believable character, and a very fascinating, watchable one at that even if his behavior is often loathsome.  His grumpy bits are predictably hilarious, yet we also feel for this guy and when the non-gruff side shows it is quite moving.  Everything in this film depended on him, and Murray delivered.  Also good is Jaeden Liberher, who plays sidekick young Oliver.  He plays a quiet, friendly boy with a bit of the overly mature style marked by many young actors (but not badly).  Perhaps most impressive is simply how he plays against Murray's sheer presence and personality:  he doesn't overcompensate by being loud and overacting, but he's also (nearly) an equal partner in the story.

There are some strong supporting performances as well.  First is Naomi Watts as Vincent's Russian stripper girlfriend, Daka.  Daka is certainly the most "colorful" of the film's characters, but Watts is both funny as well as restrained enough to not become a caricature.  A role that is surprising in many ways, from her importance to the story overall to her fit in the cast.  McCarthy as "Maggie the mom" is much, much more subdued than typical - and she does a great job with it.  Certainly, she still has sharp, effective humor, but she accepts both a much smaller and much different role and manages to excel.  Finally, Chris O'Dowd (Bridesmaids) plays Oliver's teacher in a very small but subtly humorous role.

Overall, St. Vincent falls into the mold of an odd couple dramedy.  Both main characters (Vincent and Oliver) start off with significant (and very different) problems, become friends, and help each other out.  However, while the start may be familiar in many ways, the results are intriguingly different than expected.  Vincent does not, as one would think, essentially become Oliver's new father.  There is one scene that veers in this direction - and also ties many of the film's themes together in a blunt but very touching way - but it's the exception, and really doesn't fundamentally change things.  Also, while Vincent and Oliver's problems are not original (although a few are surprises), the film does not resolve any of them with a neat little bow.  The friendship does not cure all ills - it "merely" helps heal, and gives the characters new perspective.  Finally, I've already mentioned how Murray, McCarthy, et. al. are funny - duh - but it is also worth mentioning that the drama really is the primary feature and the humor is deftly, naturally incorporated into the story.

***

St. Vincent is quite simply a strong, well-made film and the more I think about it, the more I like it.  There were many ways this could have been done wrong - or at least been completely forgettable or annoying.  The acting and writing, though, are both exceptional.  Bill Murray's phenomenal performance is the centerpiece, as I mentioned earlier, leading all the crucial elements of the film.  However, the acting and the fit of the other characters, especially young Oliver, is an important success, too.  The pacing of the film is a little odd, but this is due to expectations:  I figured that I could predict the results of certain major events but, as explained previously, the film subverts those.  Again, the more I think and write about St. Vincent, the more I find its strengths and struggle to identify weak points, so this could rise in my rankings further by the end of the year.  At any rate, I recommend this for all.




"St. Vincent poster"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:St_Vincent_poster.jpg#mediaviewer/File:St_Vincent_poster.jpg

Movies: Interstellar

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Long Story Short:  One of today's hottest directors has turned from exploring the depths of our dreams to the realm of space (and some other things).  Nolan's ambitions are higher than ever, even as he "grounds" most of this huge space adventure in sound science.  With Interstellar, Nolan also brings the personal to the foreground more than ever, centered on a father and daughter.  While not everything clicks perfectly, the film's final act brings it all together beautifully to make all the ups and downs of the (almost 3 hour) journey worth it.


As we reach the middle of November, the bigger and/or more awards-friendly films are coming in more steadily - and snow is starting to fall.  The upcoming calendar of films looks to be full of a variety of interesting films, including several comedies, of which I haven't seen very many yet this year.  Interstellar was probably my most anticipated film of 2014.  Director Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy is the best series of superhero films ever made, and both Inception and (especially) The Prestige are creative, superbly made films.  I didn't know (and didn't want to know) much about the plot of his newest film, other than it being about space exploration beyond anything we've seen before.  No matter the reviews, I was going to see it.  Interstellar was directed by Nolan, and stars Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway and Jessica Chastain.

In the near future, Earth is a grim place, resigned to further decline.  The reason is quite basic:  some form of blight has eradicated wheat and other essential crops, and so the production of food is society's priority.  This has forced Cooper (McConaughey) into farm life following a promising career as an astronaut.  He is a widower, living with his father-in-law and two children, teen Tom and younger daughter Murphy.  His children reflect opposing views of Earth's condition: Tom is a willing farmer, ready to serve alongside his father, but Murphy is a very bright, curious girl who refuses to accept her limitations.  This urge to explore leads Cooper and Murphy to a top secret location.

Cooper learns the full truth of Earth's situation:  human life is no longer sustainable on the planet.  He is given the choice - both a challenge and an opportunity - to take up his old life and help find a new home for humanity.  Even if he succeeds, though, will he ever see his children again?

Interstellar has a very impressive cast.  Matthew McConaughey takes the lead as astronaut-turned-farmer-turned-astronaut Cooper.  He certainly puts his star presence to use here, and is believable as a very competent man, as farmer, pilot and leader.  In the first part of the film, he also shows himself to be a loving father.  Yet, there is a disconnect between the two parts of this character.  Individual elements of Cooper - and McConaughey's acting - are strong, but they don't mesh into a particularly memorable lead character.  Anne Hathaway plays scientist Brand, a member of Cooper's team who goes toe-to-toe with him as the crew faces its challenging decisions.  She does pretty well, but the character is not well-developed despite significant screen time.  Chastain stands out as the adult Murphy, taking the challenging job of shifting Murphy's unrestrained childhood tendencies into a more mature, subtle form.  She is essential in anchoring the last few acts of the film.  Michael Caine appears briefly as an Earth-bound scientist in his usual advisory role, and two robots (although I had thought there was only one when watching it) on the mission to provide a little bit of comic relief.

Interstellar is unmistakably a Nolan film:  ambitious, creative, flawed, divisive, thought-provoking, and 95% fulfilling.  The closest cousin to this film is Inception.  Nolan apparently did do his space homework here, accurately utilizing fascinating phenomena like wormholes and black holes.  With so much to potentially explain, he makes overall good choices of what to include; Cooper goes from life as a farmer to blasting off into space in a matter of moments, but he is careful to explain how time moves differently near black holes, etc.  Despite these fancy new space ideas, the tension in the film - sometimes eating away slowly, sometimes abrupt - is more about the relationships and the fate of mankind.  Less direct, in other words.  In fact, apart from a handful of set pieces (such as a harrowing attempt to dock a shuttle on a rapidly spinning and debris-spewing station), I was not blown away by the visual effects.  The ideas of how space and time itself are challenges to be overcome are powerful enough in themselves.

Interstellar does bring something new to the table for Nolan in the form of family relationships.  This is the other main element of the film - and perhaps the primary one.  Precocious young Murphy is played by a talented actress, and in some ways she steals the show early on - her weathered father just tries to keep up with her.  But then the stakes come into play, and of course it gets more serious.  When watching this at first, I didn't feel too affected by it.  Then as the focus shifts to the mission, we get just glimpses of this (although some powerful ones at that).  It's in the final act that the film brings it full circle and the early moments assume their full power.  Some will, I'm sure, roll their eyes at a particular scene (no spoilers here), but I went with it and was quite moved.  Even if the father-daughter relationship doesn't ever quite fully click, the ideas behind it are poignant.

***

Nolan's films are some of the hardest for me to evaluate, and Interstellar might be the hardest yet.  His films go where literally no one else can or will go in Hollywood.  The ideas, placed within interesting if not fully-realized characters, are some of the most thought-provoking you'll encounter in the theater.  But, especially for Nolan's last three films, there's also a feeling of ...and yet...  At times, key plot explanations are left perilously, loosely addressed; or an interesting character never quite connects with us as much as we wanted; or behind the main whirring motor of thought is a strange emptiness to some of the "real" content.  This is not at all to say that Nolan's films (IMO) are bad - but with my OCD, it can be a little maddening when the films are almost there... but just short.

Really, that's more than enough negativity.  I had no idea what to expect when walking into that theater, other than knowing that Nolan would impress and dazzle me.  And that he did - the film is one big crescendo, starting slowly but ending with not so much a brief Big Bang as an echoing Big Boom.  Nolan is so good with ideas, and the finale wraps up not just the technical details this time (at least as well as usual) but also the personal in a very beautiful way.  Maybe we don't care about the actual characters as much as we should, but I'll remember the overall feeling.  Recommended for all.



"Interstellar film poster."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_(film)#mediaviewer/File:Interstellar_film_poster.jpg

Movies: John Wick

Score:  **** out of ***** (B+)

Long Story Short:  Keanu Reeves is back in the spotlight as an action star, leaving behind the sci-fi of The Matrix for the bloody body count of a revenge story.  The role fits Keanu well, and the veteran action crew behind the scenes make the violence more compelling than most.  However, it's some of the little things, and new twists (a "hit man hotel"?!), that make John Wick stand out and a possible new franchise.


Back to action and popcorn this week, with the surprising return of a faded star.  It's not the time of year that I expect these types of films to come out - usually, it's more of the dramas that I've seen the past few weeks (OK, other than Fury).  The long-awaited Interstellar will be up next week, with a likely mix of other blockbusters and awards contenders after that.  I had not even heard of John Wick until a week or two before its release.  Reeves has fallen so far since The Matrix that he just doesn't command A-list attention (and rightly so).  But this film was getting good buzz, and had a surprisingly good score on RT.  A change-of-pace film in October with a chance to see Reeves back in form?  I'll take it.  John Wick was directed by Chad Stahelski (Reeves' stunt double in The Matrix!) and stars Reeves, Michael Nyqvist and Willem Dafoe.

John (Reeves) is a Sad Keanu at the beginning of the film, mourning the recent death of his wife from cancer.  However, he soon receives a special present that his wife had secretly arranged for him before her death:  a puppy companion.  Gradually, John begins to come around, but trouble is just around the corner.  He happens to run into a rich Russian brat one day, who takes a liking to John's '69 Mustang.  That night, the Russian and his buddies break into John's home, steal his car, and kill the puppy (I felt I needed to be specific about this to warn dog lovers like myself who would be quite disturbed by this.  Never mind the rather large human body count later in the film...).

Now John's had it:  out comes Mad Keanu, and we learn about his profession previous to his marriage - one he was exceedingly good at.  The bad guys have pulled John back in, even if unwittingly, and now there's going to be hell to pay!

The cast is pretty good, certainly by the standards of the genre.  Most importantly (and happily, for fans of The Matrix), Keanu is a good fit as the main character.  Reeves is not exactly a stellar actor, but the part is built to his strengths:  a cool dude who can kick everyone's butt in style.  Keanu is also decent at presenting basic vulnerability - both emotionally and in the action scenes.  Where this part diverges the most, though, is the fact that Wick is not really a hero - it's to Reeves' and the script's credit that we are rooting for him.  Michael Nyqvist has the next biggest part as the dad of the Russian brat and head of the Russian mob.  He is fine, though unremarkable.  The brat, played by Alfie Allen (Theon from Game of Thrones) is certainly a dislikable guy, a bad guy whose boasting far exceeds his courage (and the film fittingly doesn't give him the honor of a memorable demise).

Three members of the supporting cast give the film a bit more personality than the average action flick.  Willem Dafoe plays a veteran hit man whose allegiance you can't be sure of until pretty late in the film - not that that's new for a Dafoe character, but his motivations are genuine.  Adrianne Palicki plays a spunky assassin, fellow acquaintance of Wick's.  Also now cast in Agents of SHIELD on TV, Palicki seems to be positioned as a new female action star, and she has the athleticism and demeanor to thrive.  Finally, in a very small role, Lance Reddick (Fringe) plays the manager of a "hit man hotel" and adds a much needed dose of fun and silliness in the form of a serious man.

John Wick is a pretty traditional action movie in many ways, but its execution and a few new twists make it stand out.  We've seen it before:  the once-great hit man/cop/dispatcher-of-bad-guys has set aside his violent ways, only to be pulled back into the fray, often reluctantly at first.  Reeves does a good job showing that he really doesn't want to be a hit man anymore, and goes about his business without joy.  He's not quite grim about it, but perhaps "professionally detached" (at least most of the time).  Oh, right, and there's lots of action, too.  In reading about the film, Wick employs something called "gun fu", which is close quarters gun play.  There's blessedly little to no steadi-cam or lightning edits - the filmmakers, former stuntmen themselves, showcase not only the skill and intensity, but also the frequent elegance, of the action.  Wick takes down a lot of bad guys, but the action generally avoids becoming stale by A) providing variety of takedowns/settings and B) keeping Wick a very talented yet flawed fighter.

And then there's the new twist to the old genre.  John Wick is sort of the James Bond of hit men (who is becoming more and more of a hit man himself, I suppose).  As I mentioned earlier, there is a "hit man hotel" featured in the film, and it plays a crucial role not only as an interesting idea but also as a backbone for the plot itself, beyond just the revenge element.  Sprinkle in a little MIB, even - individuals who definitely do not fit into regular society, yet exist right in the midst of it (a downtown hotel) - and you have a unique backdrop that is introduced in this film yet could be further explored in sequels.  The hotel already has some interesting figures - led by the desk manager - and there's lots of potential for more.

***

This is one of my longer reviews, which I was not anticipating even just before sitting down to write it.  Perhaps this is because while the film itself is not groundbreaking (albeit very good), it diverges from my expectations the more I think about it, and lays the groundwork for a potential franchise.  There are plenty of signatures available to be used in future installments, similar to 007 (although to a lesser extent) and his martinis, cars, and so on.  Those signatures, little things in and of themselves, have either been done poorly or ignored entirely in film for quite some time.  Yet they tend to be the things that stick with you.  I'll let you identify John Wick's signatures for yourself.  Meanwhile, the film overall is, again, rock solid.  Keanu is back, the action is exciting, and it clocks in compactly at a little over 1.5 hours.  Add in some neat twists - particularly the "hit man hotel" - and we could be looking at the first in a franchise, if it does well at the box office.  John Wick, like last week's Fury, obviously isn't for all tastes (and stomachs) - but if it is for yours, I recommend that you give it a try.




"John Wick TeaserPoster" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John_Wick_TeaserPoster.jpg#mediaviewer/File:John_Wick_TeaserPoster.jpg

Movies: Fury

Score:  ***1/2 out of ***** (B)

Long Story Short:  Brad Pitt goes back to WWII again (Inglorious Basterds) for a more serious - but almost as bloody - tour of duty.  Leading a tank crew of familiar faces, such as LeBeouf and Lerman, Pitt is in an even grimmer, darker vision of the "Good War" than usual.  Action sequences from the perspective of a tank are both new and thrilling, but a strand of Hollywood cliche in the form of Lerman's rookie subverts the realistic portrayal.  Good film, could have been better.


After a week off, here's a third review from a busy October movie calendar.  Looking ahead in September I had identified Gone Girl, The Judge, and this week's film Fury as an impressive trio.  Be prepared for a change of pace next week, and the week after (should) bring my review of the much-anticipated Interstellar.  When I read a preview for Fury earlier this year, I was immediately interested.  I enjoy many war movies, and this one had an impressive cast, too.  With solid RT reviews, the choice was clear.  Fury was directed by David Ayer (End of Watch) and stars Brad Pitt, Logan Lerman and Shia LeBeouf.

Fury takes place in the final month of the European theater of WWII, in the heart of Germany.  From the midst of a devastated field of battle, one solitary American tank, driven by Collier (Pitt), Swan (LeBeouf), Travis (Bernthal), and Garcia (Pena) makes its way back to Allied lines.  Collier and crew just witnessed first-hand the fierceness and desperation with which the Germans are making their last stand, and not long after they're sent back to the line again.  However, during the earlier battle they had lost a crew member who is replaced by a complete rookie, Ellison (Lerman).

It quickly becomes clear that Ellison's inexperience and hesitance are almost as great a threat to the survival of the tank's (Fury) crew as the Nazis themselves.  Still, Collier and his mates, veterans from all the way back to North Africa, manage to rescue pinned down Allies and help capture towns.  When Fury finds itself alone in hostile Germany, though, Ellison must become a warrior like the rest if any of them are to survive.

The cast of Fury does a good job, although it is often let down by the script.  Brad Pitt is the lead as Staff Sergeant "Wardaddy" Collier.  Pitt does well throughout, quite natural as a hardened war leader and he gets most of the Important Lines ("Ideals are peaceful.  History is violent.").  However, the script can't really decide if it wants Collier to be a realistically-scarred son-of-a-bitch or an ultimately accepting father figure.  Logan Lerman plays new recruit Ellison, the one character the audience can directly sympathize with.  He does an OK job, with both high- and lowlights, but his character is the biggest problem in the film (more on this later).  The other three crew members are played well by recognizable faces.  Shia LeBeouf plays a much less frenetic person than usual, a quietly stern man of faith; Jon Bernthal (The Walking Dead) is a redneck asshole who I wanted to punch in the face every second he was on screen (so, he played his part well); and Michael Pena brings just a few touches of humor with his character.

The main objective of Fury, as a war film, is the "war is hell" theme.  While it accomplishes this task exceedingly well at times, it is also significantly undermined by a competing impulse to show Hollywood heroics, particularly in regard to young Ellison.  Despite the imminence of the Allies' victory, nearly everything about the atmosphere - from the weather to the landscape to the soundtrack - indicates a grim feeling devoid of "good".  It's an impressive - and important - tone to convey that, even as the Allies closed in on victory in perhaps the most "righteous" of war efforts, the reality of death and violence and brutality was inhuman.  People, soldiers and civilians, are matter-of-factly thrown into the grinder in various ways (hanging, burning, blown up, etc.).  There are also thrilling, tense (and more "enjoyable") battle scenes with Collier and co. spitting out realistic-sounding jargon as they maneuver Fury in battling Nazi defenses - and the terrifying Tiger tank.  And in the middle, an incredibly tense scene in a town as Collier, Lerman and the crew interact with two German women, constantly on a knife's edge of their urges and restraint.

Unfortunately, there is a strain of "Hollywoodism" to dilute the grim but effective proceedings.  This centers on Ellison/Lerman.  Never mind the far-fetchedness of his role (would the Army really put a scrawny, brand-new (to fighting itself, let alone tanks) recruit on the front lines like that?).  Collier is forced to brutally turn him into a warrior (including a chilling scene of murder), and the next moment serve as a (not quite tender) father figure.  Ellison himself vacillates from annoying squeamishness/morality to unconvincing courage.  And the final battle disappointingly ditches most of the prior war realism for an obviously Hollywood "last stand".

***

Fury is a good war film, one that could have been great if it just resisted its Hollywood impulses (Pitt takes his shirt off, for crying out loud!).  Saving Private Ryan is still, to me, by far the gold standard of war films, and even this year's Lone Survivor is a superior film.  Survivor may have had some Hollywood heroism elements within its brutal-realism frame as well, but A) it was fit well into the script, and B) the whole movie was so damn tense it was nice to have a little relief.  Fury's Hollywood elements, on the other hand, do not fit well in the script (clumsy writing, despite having some realistic banter elsewhere) and divert the viewer from the film's main theme.  If they had simply not been determined to make Ellison a "zero to hero" character (and reworked the climactic battle sequence), this could all have been avoided.  Still, there are some significant drawing points for the film.  The tank action sequences are really well done, and a large part of the film conveys the horrors of war effectively and appropriately.  Is that enough?  You'll have to decide that for yourself.



"Fury 2014 poster" by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fury_2014_poster.jpg#mediaviewer/File:Fury_2014_poster.jpg

Movies: The Judge

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Long Story Short:  The Judge is a legal drama driven by a generational battle between father (Robert Duvall) and son (Robert Downey, Jr.).  While following a pretty well-worn plot, the film distinguishes itself with a great cast, led by the two stars, and a surprisingly strong script.  The tone is just right with appropriate laughs and, yes, more than a few powerfully emotional scenes.  If you just want a high-quality, no-frills film, look no further.


Week 2 of my fall movie season is here with another drama, although a considerably different kind than last week's.  It's nice to have a change of pace from summer's blockbusters but I'll probably be looking forward to The Hobbit before long!  The NFL season is well underway and, if possible, even more confusing and unpredictable than usual.  With a full slate of movies coming out, though, I probably won't post about it until playoff time.  When I read about The Judge in a fall movie preview article, it appealed as both a  traditional drama and a vehicle for the hilarious Robert Downey, Jr.  Despite middling scores on Rotten Tomatoes, I went to see it.  The Judge was directed by David Dobkin and stars Downey, Jr., and Robert Duvall.

In Chicago's highest-profile court rooms, Hank Palmer (Downey, Jr.) blazes a gleeful trail as a defense lawyer for wealthy (and often guilty) people.  However, when he receives word that his mother has died, Hank promptly leaves his current case and wife and young daughter to go back to his small Indiana hometown.  Everyone knows everyone else in Carlinville, and they all console Hank's father, Joseph, a local judge.  While Hank reunites easily with his brothers Glen and Dale, who are still local, his relationship with his father is still icy from an incident years ago.  Not feeling welcome, Hank prepares to leave as soon as he can, but before he does he discovers that Joseph has become a suspect in another recent death.

Hank reluctantly stays in town, a decision made harder by his father's refusal of his help.  But as more and more evidence comes to light, Joseph's predicament deepens.  Hank believes his father to be innocent - but with the evidence and his "client's" obstinance, he faces one of his most difficult cases yet.

The Judge features a very strong cast that gives the story believability and emotional impact.  I find Robert Downey, Jr. to be one of the most enjoyable actors in Hollywood, and he steps up again here.  Frankly, this film could have been pretty dull, considering the overall story and length (2.5 hours) - but Downey, Jr. is just magnetic.  Even toning down the funny sarcastic asshole persona to a very realistic level, he masterfully crafts Hank into a sympathetic yet just slightly larger-than-life man.  The script is wisely shaped to revolve around him, not in a "look at me" way but in order to show why he is the way he is.  Robert Duvall is also very good, although the other Robert typically overshadows him.  Still, he brings the same style to the table:  a realistic portrayal of an old, proud man in decline along with subtle yet undeniable moments of exceptionality.  They make a great team as actors, and that relationship (a rocky one, to say the least) is the backbone of the film.

There are good performances in the supporting cast as well.  Billy Bob Thornton is the biggest name, playing the prosecutor in the case.  While he could have been turned into a melodramatic villain, his role is restrained, with his reputation and gloating eyes providing all the antagonism needed.  Both brothers, played by Vincent D'Onofrio and Jeremy Strong, do well.  They come close to stock characters, but are fairly small roles anyway.  And Vera Farmiga has some great scenes as Samantha, Hank's high school girlfriend.

The Judge is almost peculiar in how un-peculiar it is.  The trend for high-profile dramas in recent years seems to be either A) try some new, exotic, or tongue-in-cheek style, and/or B) deal with a sensitive or very current topic.  Instead, The Judge is a pretty old-school drama.  You've likely seen this kind of story many times before, in both movies and TV: the disconnected child (usually son) is forced to return to his family and reunite through some type of ordeal.  Fortunately, this film is able to highlight the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of this tried (and tired)-and-true idea.  The first layer is the story, which really does an impressive job of toeing the line of familiar and realistic with more improbable yet exciting elements.  The script also does a nice job of providing a good sense of where things are going while maintaining a sense of uncertainty about which of the possible routes it will go (either that, or I'm just a sucker).  Next are the characters, which I've already gone over.  And finally, you have to get the tone and mix of emotions right.  Downey, Jr. definitely brings the humor - only one scene (that I remember) in which he uses his trademark rapid-fire, casually biting insults, and the rest more grounded and tone-appropriate funny bits.  Of course, there's also plenty of emotion.  Some may complain that it's too manufactured, and at times it does drift in that direction.  But the characters do work for the tears that they produce, and I prefer this course to the alternative of "too cool/artsy" for emotion.

***

The Judge is a high-quality drama that should appeal to about as wide an audience as possible.  I think it may even rise to a straight "A" for me at some point, but for now I think it sits just short of that.  Still, I think it's far better than its score on Rotten Tomatoes indicates (I haven't had a chance to read any of the actual reviews yet).  To me, this comes down to the argument between old but quality and new yet flawed.  In fact, it's perfect timing - the movie I saw last week, Gone Girl represents well the other side of the argument.  As I said in my review, I liked Gone Girl but the effects of the twist dragged it down.  Some people (apparently, many people) complain about the lack of originality in The Judge.  That would have been a bad thing (especially clocking in at nearly 2.5 hours) if the execution of that idea had been poor.  But just about everything, including, crucially, the script and actors, is great, so who cares if it isn't original?  I highly recommend it, whether you go to the theater to see it or wait for it on Netflix, etc.  Ignore the whiners, and go see Downey, Jr. and co. show you how it's done.



"The Judge 2014 film poster" by Team Downey - https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=309058782595927&set=a.156205521214588.1073741828.154213784747095&type=1&theater. 

Movies: Gone Girl

Score:  **** out of ***** (B+)

Long Story Short:  Acclaimed director David Fincher takes on perhaps the hottest book of the past few years, Gone Girl.  The film boosts its hype factor by starring Ben Affleck in the lead, but this doesn't backfire as he, as well as costar Rosamund Pike, is great.  A crackling yet nuanced picture of a marriage - and the growing investigation into the disappearance of the wife - emerges early, before getting swallowed up by the big "reveal" not even half way through.  It thus remains entertaining, but surrenders its chance at greatness.


Somewhat unintentionally, I've had my longest delay between blog posts.  September is always a bad month for movies, but this year was particularly bad and I have been quite a bit busier than usual anyway.  Now that the fall film season has kicked off, I intend to make regular trips to the theater - and write regular reviews on this blog.  Gone Girl was one of the most anticipated films of the year, it being the adaptation of Gillian Flynn's wildly popular 2012 novel.  I knew very little of the plot (just as I wanted), but it seemed like an interesting idea.  The Rotten Tomatoes score (87%) sealed the deal.  Gone Girl was directed by David Fincher (Fight Club, The Social Network, etc.), and stars Ben Affleck and Rosamund Pike.

Warning:  while I'm not going to spell out the whole plot in my synopsis, I will be writing about "surprises" in later sections that are necessary to review the film.  I also have not read the book, so if you have read it you may find some differences to which I'm ignorant.  Proceed with caution!

Nick Dunne (Affleck), owner of a bar in a small Missouri town, receives a call from a neighbor on the fifth anniversary of his marriage to Amy (Pike) and discovers that she has gone missing.  As the police arrive on the scene, evidence of a crime begin to emerge, and the police start to become suspicious of Nick.  He seems detached and unfamiliar with many details of Amy's lifestyle.  The case also soon attracts national media attention - not only is Amy a young, attractive blonde, but her parents are also the authors of a best-selling children's book (which used Amy as the basis of its main character).  The evidence against Nick continues to build - and still no one knows if Amy is dead or simply gone.

Gone Girl has an excellent cast that brings the thrilling story to life.  Ben Affleck plays the lead, Nick Dunne, and gives the best performance I've ever seen from him.  For the first part of the film, he plays Nick as a fairly normal guy who is silently and vaguely distressed about the situation.  The camera holds on him often, and he's obviously thinking things through - but exactly what that is, he camouflages well.  As the investigation zeroes in on him, and we see flashbacks to tumultuous times in his marriage, we also get a glimpse of his temper and frustration.  Rosamund Pike as Amy is even better.  She appears only in flashbacks in the first part of the film, but bursts onto the scene when the crucial "reveal" happens.  Put simply, Amy is a psychopath, and Pike manages to pull off each of her wildly different sides - though she's especially fascinating as a cutthroat (no pun intended).

There's also a strong supporting cast in this film.  Carrie Coon plays Nick's sister, who is his strongest defender and provides both some of the best humor and most powerful emotion in the film.  Tyler Perry makes for a very charismatic, high-priced celebrity defense lawyer.  Neil Patrick Harris is interesting (if a bit over the top) as a former boyfriend of Amy's.  And Kim Dickens is a no-nonsense, professional yet human presence as the lead detective in the case.

I'm not sure how to define Gone Girl.  Wikipedia lists it as a mystery, but I don't think it can be boiled down to one label.  I might instead go with marriage thriller - "marriage" for the portrait of a relationship (from both sides), and "thriller" for the craziness that begins around the half way point.  While both parts are entertaining, the film is much, much more effective with the former than the latter.  Watching the investigation unfold (which kicks off almost immediately) is fascinating, and the script wisely and effectively starts to weave in flashbacks about Nick and Amy's relationship.  The tension and mystery build really well - and then the reveal comes, and throws subtlety out the window.  The reveal is at least well timed, as the investigation - featuring Nick, his sister, the detective, and soon Nick's lawyer - transforms in parallel.  But the film is almost completely different after this, not just in what we know, but also in the style of the film itself.  Where the investigation and relationships were realistic in the first part, both of these become increasingly unhinged in the second part (especially Amy).  A final few notes.  The score is pretty neat, and stands out in some particularly chilling scenes.  And there is actually a pretty good (although often dark) sense of humor.

***

Gone Girl is an entertaining film with some excellent elements, but it ultimately bites off more than it can chew.  There's an interesting comparison to be made with last year's Prisoners, which is a better film (snubbed at the Oscars).  Both involve chilling mysteries of missing people, as well as important relationships (Prisoners is more about a family unit, rather than a marriage).  But Prisoners stays consistent and believable, even after its own shocking twist (actually twists).  If Gone Girl the movie is consistent with the book, plot wise, then I would lay the blame for its failures at the author's feet.  She had such an interesting set up and lots of options of where to go with it, but the twist is ludicrous (from the perspective of both the relationships as well as the investigation).  Instead of getting a a real, complex situation of husband and wife who both mean well yet hurt each other, Amy becomes the undeniable villain.  As a side effect, the ludicrous twist also causes the film to run significantly too long, just to try (but ultimately fail) to explain things.  After all that criticism, it is still an entertaining film, with some great performances and at least a standout first half.  But it missed a shot at greatness by abandoning its strengths and instead going for shocks.

Movies: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

*

Score:  ***1/2 out of ***** (B-)

Long Story Short:  The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are back on the big screen, now CGI characters in a live-action film.  Besides just the extensive visual wizardry, this TMNT is in the style of its producer, Michael Bay (this is closer to the first Transformers, a quality film, than its horrific sequels).  It even stars (a far less annoying) Megan Fox as longtime Turtle companion, reporter April O'Neil.  It's not a great film, but the style is a good fit and it's plenty entertaining.  

Summer continues to move along (and August is flying by as quickly as usual), but there are still a few films that look good in the month that usually gets the dregs of the season.  Football and tennis seasons are heating up, in contrast, with the second major U.S. Open tune up ending this weekend, and the NFL preseason well underway.  As for this week, I loved watching the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon on TV when I was young.  The live-action films in the early 1990s were also fun, and so I decided to give this version a try, too, despite a poor score on Rotten Tomatoes.  The 2014 version was directed by Jonathan Liebesman and stars Megan Fox and Will Arnett as the turtles' human companions.

New York City is under threat from a powerful but shadowy criminal group known as the Foot Clan.  While politicians blather that the city will crack down on them, fledgling reporter April O'Neil (Fox) is on the ground trying to figure out what the Clan is all about.  Although even her good friend camera man Vernon is skeptical of her efforts, April manages to witness a late-night smuggling event by the Clan.  As she watches, though, a figure takes down the whole operation but she never gets a good look at him.  At the news station, April's report brings only rolled eyes and heavy sighs.

April is convinced that a vigilante is loose in the City, though, and she rushes to the scene of another crime.  This time she manages to track the vigilante - and his three accomplices - and is of course shocked to find the giant, talking turtles.  The end of the mystery for April, though, is just the beginning of the danger for the entire City, for the Turtles are not only New York's best hope but also its greatest threat...

As you might expect, TMNT is not a stage for Oscar-worthy acting performances.  That said, there is also nothing too terrible to find here, either.  Megan Fox is not a particularly good actress, but she does fine with April, whom the script makes a fairly bland, straightforward heroine.  But she also isn't annoying this time (see:  Transformers), and provides convincing urgency and determination.  Will Arnett does a very nice job as Vernon, essentially her sidekick who also longs for her yet not in an over-the-top or distracting way.  The passive member of the team, his grumbled side comments add considerable humor to the film.  And, of course, we have the Turtles - which this time are fully CGI.  I might have preferred real human beings in costumes, as in the 1990s, but the computerized versions were more impressive than I was expecting and I got used to them before long.  All the turtles have the same personalities as ever:  Leonardo the serious leader, Donatello the dorky scientist, Michelangelo the funny goofball, and Rafael the moody rogue.  Most of the focus in this film goes to Michelangelo and Rafael, with Leonardo getting oddly little attention.

The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles have been a pop culture establishment for a while now, so you (I'm looking at you, critics) should know essentially what to expect by now.  It's a version of New York City victimized by the criminal gang known as the Foot Clan and led by the Shredder (in a not so serious but not entirely silly way, either).  Opposing them are four humanoid turtles, whose personalities (and conflicts) drive the story.  2014's TMNT adheres to this formula, and puts it in the style of Transformers (it's produced by Michael Bay, after all).  While I sympathize if this sounds like a terrible idea, it actually fits the franchise well.  TMNT lets you absorb the tense yet over-the-top tone more readily, and the action can get crazy without devolving into "oh look, they demolished another skyscraper" tedium.  Actually this film keeps the Turtles hidden for most of the early parts (yet it's also not slow).  When they are finally unleashed, the cork pops off the fun bottle, especially in a thrilling (if ridiculous) avalanche chase.  There's even some tension, unlike in Transformers, since the Turtles often get their shells handed to them.

***

So, let me get this straight:  Lucy is at 64% on Rotten Tomatoes, and TMNT is at 20%.  Huh?  Did the critics just throw in the towel for the second half of the summer, putting it on auto-pilot and guessing how good each film would be?  I'm not saying TMNT is a masterpiece; I gave it a "B-".  But it basically was what I wanted it to be:  a thoroughly entertaining film with characters beloved from my childhood, and adapted to a modern style while keeping the spirit of the franchise.  Yeah, it could have been done better, but it was a perfectly good time at the theater; I didn't throw my money away.  Based on its box office success I would assume a sequel is in the works.  This might not be a great idea, but there's also potential for growth (as long as they keep Michael Bay at arms length...).  Lucy, on the other hand, had an intriguing premise and went horribly wrong in just about every way.  The take away:  yes, originality is good - essential, even, in today's film world.  But you can still do some really cool things with well-worn franchises, and "original" ideas can result in such toxic products that it makes us (or me, at least) want to avoid anything similar for awhile.  So if you are/were a TMNT fan, or just want to see a fun action film... cowabunga!

* "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles film July 2014 poster". Via Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Turtles_film_July_2014_poster.jpg#mediaviewer/File:Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Turtles_film_July_2014_poster.jpg

Movies: Guardians of the Galaxy

*

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Long Story Short:  Flush with success from The Avengers and its solo outings, Marvel turns in a whole new direction with Guardians of the Galaxy.  More a space-based sci-fi adventure than a super hero film, Guardians features five unlikely team members led by the hilarious, charismatic rising star Chris Pratt.  Featuring humor and a less serious tone, Guardians is a nice change of pace and just a blast.  Highly recommended.


It's been a busier summer, in several ways, than I anticipated, including movie going.  I'm on pace now to get near a record number of theater trips this year.  Each summer seems to have one flop; Lucy seemed to be the one last week, and I hope it's the only one.  August promises still a few more films, including Guardians.  When I first heard about this, I was a little skeptical but also excited to see Chris Pratt (Parks & Rec) starring.  Once the great reviews started pouring in, it was a no-brainer to go see.  Guardians of the Galaxy was directed by James Gunn (Thor 2) and stars Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Bradley Cooper, et. al.

In the 1980s, young Peter Quill visits his dying mother, then is literally transported away from his troubles by an alien spacecraft.  Twenty odd years later, Quill (Pratt) is an interstellar smuggler.  He manages to find a small orb on a desolate planet, taking it just before another group closes in on him.  When Quill does not return the orb to his employer, Yondu, a bounty is placed on him.  While visiting the benevolent galactic center known as Xandar, Quill runs into both bounty hunters as well as a powerful assassin from the other group trying to get the orb.

The whole group gets sent to space prison - Quill, assassin Gamora (Saldana), mutant raccoon Rocket (Cooper) and his sidekick talking tree Groot (Vin Diesel).  Each with very different motivations, they decide to team up in order to profit from the orb - but there is another powerful force in the galaxy with sinister plans for that strange object.

Guardians of the Galaxy has one hell of an oddball cast - but it works brilliantly.  The casting of Chris Pratt as Quill (or "Star Lord") is particularly good.  I've only seen him in supporting roles before but, as many other reviewers have pointed out, his lead performance here shows that he's a natural.  The smuggler aspect recalls Han Solo, as does Pratt's charisma and great humor, but Quill replaces sarcasm and pessimism with goofiness and optimism.  If anything, I wish he was an even bigger presence.  The second biggest role is shared by Rocket and Gamora.  Starting with Rocket, I probably would not have guessed that Cooper provided the vocal work if I didn't know going in, although there is some familiarity.  Rocket has inherited Solo's aforementioned sarcasm and pessimism, all coiled up in a small, ingenious, underestimate-me-at-your-peril package.  In his biting (no pun intended) remarks, Rocket is also the second funniest character.

Gamora, played by Saldana, is positioned as a cliche, enemy-turned-lover for Quill, but fortunately it doesn't go that way.  Saldana seems to enjoy these sci-fi films (Avatar, Star Trek) and she does feel very much at ease in the made up world.  She may not present as big a threat as the talk indicates, but she also doesn't melt into a puddle of compassion for Quill or anyone else.  Room for growth in a sequel.  Groot (Vin Diesel) is, to continue the Star Wars parallel, sort of a Chewbacca, speaking little/unintelligibly but carrying a big stick (pun intended).  He's a minor but welcome presence, and even helps bring some emotion to the story.  Finally, the fifth Guardian is Drax, a warrior out for revenge since the bad guys killed his family (pre-movie).  Played by wrestler Dave Baustista, the acting is fairly awkward - but luckily, that's what his (very literal-minded) character is like.

If you go into Guardians of the Galaxy expecting an Avengers-like experience, you'll be disappointed - think more (again!) Star Wars.  Well, maybe think somewhere between Star Wars and Spaceballs.  Or just think sci-fi action comedy.  At any rate, far and away the strength of the film lies on the comedy side, which bleeds into a group dynamic as strong or stronger than any fantasy in years.  Pratt, again, is the perfect actor to lead the way.  He is simply a funny guy, and his goofiness (not silliness; there's a difference there somehow) rubs off on the whole film in a great way.  Rocket is an ideal counterpart, balancing Quill with his sarcasm and pessimism.  Really, everybody else just follows their comedic lead.  The icing on the cake is a very well chosen collection of classic rock tunes.  In addition, the quintet is a great mixture of personalities and provides great potential (to Marvel's delight) for sequels.  Well, as long as Drax remains a background character (I cannot seem him in a lead role at all), I look forward to more.

Admittedly, Guardians is a little weaker on the sci-fi and plot side of things.  The bad guys are pretty generic and cliche, as is their scheme.  Even a separate, semi-helpful, semi-bad group (led smartly by Walking Dead's Merle) is not the most original idea.  However, the action itself is pretty good; sure, there's some generic stuff but also some really well done scenes (particularly when the Guardians first meet on Xandar).  And the visuals are cohesive and interesting, if a bit cartoonish.

***

Perhaps this is not the most original thing for me to say, but Guardians of the Galaxy is a surprise hit for Marvel.  The surprise, though, is really that a big movie studio would take a chance on essentially unknown characters in the unforgiving (especially in film) space environment.  Crucially, it looks like audiences are supporting Marvel's high-quality, brand new franchise effort.  As much as I enjoy established characters and franchises, it's critical that film studios take more "chances" like these on non-100% guaranteed blockbusters (aka something new).  Amazing Spider-Man 2 is a perfect example of just how stale and unimpressive even some of the best franchises can get if they are overused and/or not given enough variety.  Fortunately, the Guardians have already established a rock solid foundation in both tone and variety of characters.  This first entry may have been a bit lazy with the plot and enemies, but that's easy to fix in later films.  And it also packs more than enough comedy and just plain fun to warrant a trip to the theater.  If this appeals to you, please go see it - so we don't end up with just Spider-Man #453 in ten years!!!



* "Guardians of the Galaxy Movie Poster #2".  IMP Awards http://www.impawards.com/2014/guardians_of_the_galaxy_ver2.html