Score: *** out of ***** (C)
Long Story Short: Summer's "biggest" film (if we're measuring by size of the film's star) comes out in the form of an updated classic, Godzilla. Despite very promising previews, this film is a disaster, and I don't mean the genre. A suspenseful intro with interesting characters quickly dissolves into a senseless, even dull chase/disaster film with too many boring humans and not enough monster mayhem (until there's too much). Skip.
May keeps bringing more big movies to the theater, and so far I'm keeping pace! I'm back to action with this one and, if I get to see the films I'd like to for the rest of the month, there will be more action and comedy to follow. I'm not a particular fan of Godzilla - in fact, I've never seen any of the originals (saw the 1998 version but don't even remember it). However, a trailer made it look quite promising as a disaster film, along with Breaking Bad's great Bryan Cranston. Godzilla, the 2014 update, was directed by Gareth Edwards and stars Cranston, Aaron-Taylor Johnson and Ken Watanabe.
Starting off in 1999, a team of scientists is called to a quarry in the Philippines where a massive skeleton is found deep underground, along with two mysterious cocoon-like structures. At the same time, in Japan, Joe Brody (Cranston) works at a nuclear facility and a seismic event causes a catastrophe that leaves him with a deep personal scar. Flash forward to 2014, and Joe relentlessly pursues the source of the 1999 disaster. His son, Ford (Johnson) comes to Japan to get him out of trouble for snooping around. In exploring the wreckage of their former hometown, the two stumble upon a shocking operation.
The 1999 event was no "natural disaster", as Joe and Ford discover a new world. And just in time, because that event is about to repeat itself, and this time there's going to be much more trouble. A small group, including the scientists from the Philippines, help in the race against time - but can mankind do anything to stop the impending doom?
Godzilla features an impressive cast that is given an increasingly awful script to work with. Bryan Cranston plays the traumatized, conspiracy-theory father, Joe. Spoiler alert: despite his prominent role in advertisements, he's only in about the first 30 minutes or so. He does a great job with much of the set up at the beginning of the film, then gets handed crap (which he delivers as well as possible) near the end of his time. After that, Aaron Taylor-Johnson takes the lead's reins as Joe's son. Like Cranston, Aaron does good work with some of his early scenes (a warm-hearted protector), but his role crumbles into dullness and cliche as the film goes along. His wife is played by Elizabeth Olsen, a role that is so meaningless it should have been scrapped entirely. Ken Watanabe is intriguing as a scientist, Dr. Serizawa, and doesn't get enough screen time for his part to be ruined. There are more stars with small roles, none of them particularly notable (Sally Hawkins, David Straitharn).
On those cheerful notes about the cast, what about the rest of the film? Godzilla represents an interesting, perhaps unique, challenge as a modern film. It has a huge and loyal following, back to the days when Godzilla was a man in a monster suit - but today, technical wizardry can make just about anything look real at the click of a button. Old Godzilla films featured fun, epic throw downs between giant monsters, while today's films tend more toward ominous themes directly related to present challenges (terrorism, climate change, etc.). This film tries to have it all. It is sparing, in a modern way, with its use of monsters: Godzilla doesn't really show up until about halfway through. Yet by the end, we have mayhem on a truly immense (I would say ridiculous) scale. Godzilla has an interesting, suspenseful introduction, but this unspools rather quickly into bland "how do we kill the monster?" talk which proceeds as expected.
***
I really had high hopes for Godzilla. The trailer presented what seemed to be a fairly realistic version of the classic as a disaster film, featuring top-flight acting talent led by Bryan Cranston. Talk about false advertising (even more misleading than last year's Now You See Me). All the problems basically come down to the film wanting to have it all, as described earlier. The film has such a promising start, but they don't stick to the intelligence, suspense, and interesting human elements that it offered. If they wanted to have the monster mash that it ends up as, then fine: but if so, then a much more silly (there are so many opportunities for humor!), much less serious attitude needed to be taken throughout. As it is, a neat set-up and characterization gets flushed down the toilet, and the "serious" scenes of the massive devastation caused by the monsters (hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people killed) are superseded by an unaffecting "family" element. The only reason that this gets a "C" is that it's fairly entertaining in some spots despite being a pretty bad film (like last year's Kick Ass 2 - also starring Aaron Taylor-Johnson!). If you're going to see this, it should be in the theater - but it's also not worth the money. So, if you have a decent-sized screen at home, go rent/Netflix a similar but superior film: Pacific Rim. Godzilla has finally met his match - Hollywood executives and their writers!
Score: **** out of ***** (B+)
Long Story Short: Neighbors, the latest vehicle of star Seth Rogen, is positioned as one of the comedies of the summer. While many recent such films have disappointed, this one lives up to its billing. The cast fits into their roles quite well - even more from a dramatic than comedic stance. But while the story offers much more than its contemporaries', it's also pretty darn funny and entertaining. Well recommended, particularly for groups of friends.
Well, it's two movie reviews in consecutive weekends! Hopefully I'll be able to keep this up, now that we're fully in summer movie season. The NBA playoffs are also in full swing and the French Open is coming up soon, so there will likely be one or more sports posts, too. Having seen my second superhero film of the year last weekend, I was pleased to switch genres to comedy this time. Although I'm a fan of Seth Rogen, his recent movies have disappointed me. Still, Neighbors got good reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and the premise looked fun. Neighbors was directed by Nicholas Stoller (Forgetting Sarah Marshall) and stars Seth Rogen, Zac Efron, Rose Byrne and Dave Franco.
The plot of Neighbors, as you might imagine, is not tremendously complicated. And since I don't want to give too much away, here is just a brief summary. Mac (Rogen) and Kelly (Byrne) are a young couple with a new baby daughter. Although they long for the fun of earlier times, family life has put those days seemingly out of reach. To compound their frustrations, the couple gets a new next-door neighbor: a fraternity from a local university. As Mac and Kelly try to provide a safe, quiet place to grow up for their daughter, they go to war with Delta Psi and their leaders, Teddy (Efron) and Pete (Franco).
Neighbors has an interesting cast, one that does the "serious" parts as well or better than the comedic. Seth Rogen as Mac is the film's co-lead, the exasperated, former-partier father. Rogen has a unique style that, while sometimes off-putting, works well enough here. You can see him as a young father who pines for his party days yet genuinely wants to develop his family life. As in other films, he's typically funniest as the object of jokes rather than the producer, and his trademark long-winded, overly "realistic" back-and-forths are starting to get stale. Rose Byrne is quite good as Mac's wife, Kelly. She pulls off the strange, commendable feat of being a secondary character yet very distinct and valuable to both story and humor. Rather than just being the stereotypical mother representing only the "responsible adult" view, she also has a realistic desire for fun and freedom. Her humor flows naturally, as expected from an actress more familiar in dramatic roles.
I'm not too familiar with Zac Efron, of High School Musical fame, who plays co-lead, fraternity top dog Teddy. So, coming in with only popular opinions in mind, I was pretty impressed. The role fit him to a "T". He is by no means a great comedic actor, but he provides a very fun, charismatic presence. He mixes the asshole and the brotherly love components well, and displays genuine vulnerability alongside his arrogant fraternity personality. Dave Franco as Pete does pretty well, too. I've seen him in few roles, but have to say that he's a repellant presence on screen for me, whether or not that's fair. But again, he's ideally suited to the role he plays, a stereotype like Efron's yet one that is also equally nuanced. Franco has even less comedic sense than Efron, but that didn't surprise me.
Two things have really dragged down a lot of recent comedies, in my opinion: pathetic and/or overly large dramatic components, and lack of true belly laughs. Neighbors manages to turn the first of those problems into an actual strength, and makes progress on the second. The setup was ripe for boring stereotypes: a young family that wants to be serious yet gets dragged into old hooliganism, and the hidden social drama behind a hard-partying frat. But both of these elements are handled quite well in this film. They are played out with very smartly written dialogue and scenes, some with humor and some without. And it pulls off a fine balancing act in not overwhelming nor being overwhelmed by the parallel comedic craziness. Neighbors is also quite funny, which is obviously the most important thing. The main thrust of the humor is an old-standby with a new twist: frats behaving badly/hazing, with ordinary family life in close proximity. Strangely, none of the actors are stand-outs here, but the situations and scenes are often brilliantly composed (especially the final showdown). Rogen naturally pulls in a good bit of his usual shtick, which is becoming less and less funny (to me at least), but it's kept to a reasonable minimum and is not the primary style, fortunately.
***
Neighbors gives me hope for the short-term future of comedy films, in addition to being enjoyable itself. Too many recent comedies have been severe letdowns, from last year's wildly overrated This Is the End to the Anchorman 2 bellyflop. I often find comedies the hardest to grade, and this one was a little tricky, too. I think "B+" is about right. It's entertaining and pretty well-paced throughout, with above average humor and way above average dramatic backdrop. Still, it couldn't quite punch through to the hilarity of, say, last year's The Heat, and none of the cast comes close to the presence of a Ferrell, Wiig, or similar comic. That said, while it may not reach the "A" range for comedies, Neighbors is a very good time at the theater, especially with friends. Keep in mind, of course, the type of humor you'll find here. If vulgar humor, particularly sexual in nature, offends you, stay away (though I've seen far worse). But you could probably figure that out. Enjoy!
Score: *** out of ***** (C)
Long Story Short: Like superheroes, just because the first effort of a strong franchise fails doesn't mean he/she/it won't get up and return better than ever. Not the case for this "Amazing" Spider-Man franchise. The sequel isn't a carbon copy of the first, at least, but for every improvement there are two more problems that pop up. Plot, supporting characters, ending - you name it. Please go see Captain America 2 instead (even if it's for a second time).
I should stop making predictions about when and which movies I'm going to see, because I've been doing it quite badly this year. I hope to see a number of movies in May, though. It's not looking like the most exciting summer movie season, but there are several films that look promising. The first weekend always offers one of the biggest releases, and this year it's The Amazing Spider-Man 2. I was pretty underwhelmed by the first one (you can read my review), but since I love these superhero movies and this is a tentpole release, I thought, why not? The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was directed by Marc Webb (returned from the first) and stars Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, and Jamie Foxx.
The movie opens with a flashback to Peter Parker's parents' final days: Mr. Parker, a prominent scientist, is on the run and manages to erase mysterious data before his end. In the present, Peter Parker (Garfield) is graduating along with girlfriend Gwen Stacy (Stone) while fighting crime as Spider-Man. Tormented by his promise to Stacy's deceased father, Parker decides he must leave Stacy. Meanwhile, at OsCorp (owned by Parker's childhood friend, and where Stacy works), a lonely worker named Max (Foxx) is involved in an accident - much like what turned Parker into Spider-Man, just with different creatures. And while Parker struggles to get past Stacy and look into his parents' past, his friend Harry Osborn (of OsCorp) returns to see his dying father.
Parker is soon confronted with dilemmas from two of the people closest to him. Stacy announces a major change that will permanently change their relationship, and Harry seeks out Spider-Man to find a solution for his family malady. Oh, and Max isn't handling his powers quite as well as Parker. When it all comes together, Parker faces his greatest challenge yet - both to Peter the boy and to Spider-Man the hero.
The core of Spider-Man 2's cast - Garfield and Stone - remains from the first, and several new faces join the mix. Garfield, unfortunately, does not display significant improvement from the first film. It's clear that he's a talented actor, but not experienced enough yet to overcome the disaster handed to him by the screenwriters. In some scenes, he even reminded me of Hayden Christensen's Anakin Skywalker. Stone does a superior job working with a crappy script, and is one of the film's highlights. Emma is charming and funny, but an equally strong and independent woman as well (without forcing it, which is sometimes a pitfall for the role).
Jamie Foxx as Max - and alter ego "Electro" - is ostensibly the main new character, but he really doesn't get that much screen time. Which is OK, because Max is a one-note, somewhat irritating character, and Electro is given an extremely vague "conflict" that goes nowhere. Wasted talent. Dane DeHaan has a bigger role as Harry Osborn, Peter's friend. Well, actually, they don't really seem to be very good friends. On one hand, this could be accidental realism (the two had been apart for years) - but Harry is such an asshole that I'm not sure why Peter continues to hang out with him. Dane plays the entitled, whiny, slimy heir pretty well, but he's not fun to watch. Paul Giamatti's presence was marketed more than his actual role deserved, and if you're partly going just to see him, forget about it.
Now that the origin is done (again), we can finally get to the good stuff with this sequel! Right? It's true - Parker and Stacy's relationship is developed, and Spider-Man is swinging from the very start. Unfortunately, the Parker-Stacy relationship often makes the film feel YA in all the wrong ways. There are some good moments between the two, but also some quite bad ones that are forced and/or out of character. Some of the action is pretty good, and overall considerably better than the previous film's. Particularly in some early scenes with Electro, there is fantastic CGI and the beginnings of the presence of a real threat. However, there is quite a long stretch in the middle where Spidey is entirely absent, and the finale battle is so over the top it's numbing (except for the very last minute or so, which I won't spoil here). This Spider-Man isn't as funny as the first, but the soundtrack is more distinctive - Electro has a bass-heavy feel from Hans Zimmer, and I believe Pharrell Williams and others helped out with some nice pop music.
***
The big question this time: does Amazing Spider-Man 2 improve on the tepid start to the franchise? The answer: it's one step forward, but two steps back. First, the step forward. At least the sequel isn't bogged down by the origins story, and a lot of the action is much improved. Plus, it's overall a more entertaining film with a slightly improved style. But director Webb still hasn't learned to make a tonally coherent superhero film. Sometimes it's the gag-worthy YA, as previously mentioned; sometimes (not often enough, IMO) it's just silly fun; sometimes it's serious "with great power comes great responsibility". The script is poor and the plot meandering, generic, and disengaging. The editing is a little better up until the end - which turns out not to be the end, and the extension is painful and unnecessary. This franchise is by far the worst major superhero franchise going right now. To Webb and Garfield: I gave you a second change, and you failed. Next time (sequels are planned for 2016 and 2018!!!), I'm staying home. Probably.
_poster.jpg)
_Poster.jpg)
