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

Movies: Lucy

*

Score:  ** out of ***** (D-)

Long Story Short:  Luc Besson, director of the Taken films, gives the other sex a chance for some one-(wo)man beatdown in Lucy.  The film combines the "science" of the brain's potential with Matrix-esque action.  Unfortunately, it does a horrendous job with both of these aspects, and both of the stars, Johansson and Freeman, get swallowed up whole by it.  Avoid.

I thought there would be an even longer (albeit one week longer) gap between movie reviews, but here's another.  The next two weeks will also have reviews - and they, too, will be action films.  Summer is going by too quickly, and I'm already digging into fantasy football... please last a little longer this year, August!  As for Lucy, I wasn't initially planning to see it in the theater (although Netflix seemed a distinct possibility).  I didn't know much about it, something I've been purposely doing the last few years to maximize surprise while actually watching them, but I knew it was some kind of sci-fi in which Scarlett Johansson gets crazy powers.  Cool!  Lucy was directed by Luc Besson and stars Johansson and Morgan Freeman.

Lucy (Johansson) is a young woman studying in Taiwan.  At the start, she is standing in downtown Taipei, bickering with a recent jerk of an "acquaintance".  Before she knows what's hit her, Lucy has a suitcase handcuffed to her, and the only way to get it off is to see a mysterious Mr. Jang.  Hustled through Jang's headquarters, Lucy sense of dread rises - a dread that is confirmed when she learns that she is to be used as a drug mule for an experimental substance.  Along the way to her destination, however, some of the drug leaks into Lucy, causing dramatic changes to her brain chemistry.

From there, it's a race as Lucy tries to recover the remainder of this experimental drug before it falls into the wrong hands.  But Mr. Jang is determined to get there first...

Apart from its two stars, Lucy features a pretty unrecognizable cast - one that adds nothing to a film desperate for any bright spots.  Scarlett Johansson plays the lead, of course, as Lucy.  The most notable part of her performance occurs early on, when she is still just a normal young woman, terrified by her kidnapping by the evil Mr. Jang.  Once she gets her powers, Johansson assumes a blank persona - perhaps understandable given the changes to her brain, but it zaps any emotional connection to Lucy.  Johansson's stoic Black Widow is the life of the party compared to Lucy.  And then there's Morgan Freeman.  Did he even read his part before accepting?  I've heard Freeman is interested in scientific theories, but Lucy is to scientific theory what Animal House is to college life.  No one else has a significant role; there's a bewildered sidekick French cop haphazardly thrown in, and several bystanders spewing unintentionally hilarious lines.

Lucy is a sci-fi action film with a philosophical message (roughly in the vein of The Matrix) that goes horribly awry after the first ten minutes or so.  The filmmaker is clearly most interested in showing what he thinks (or at least would like to imagine) that the human brain is capable of if we could utilize more than the fraction of it that we do.  This has two ridiculous results.  Most obvious are Lucy's new powers, which include control of (and ability to see) any radio or electrical signals, completely control of other people's bodies, and, eventually, time travel.  About fifteen minutes after Lucy starts getting her powers, it's pretty obvious that literally nothing can touch her (other than forced plot devices) and so the drama drops to zero.  The other ridiculous result is that Lucy starts babbling about "knowing everything" and the importance of somehow transferring this to humanity (?).  Freeman picks this up, though he warns that humanity "may not be ready for it yet".  At the end, Lucy tells us "life was given to us a billion years ago, and now you know what to do with it."   Umm, OK.  A good bit of action ensues along the way, but it's all completely pointless since Lucy is invulnerable.

***

Yep, Lucy is a bad, perhaps terrible film.  The most shocking thing about it is that it's at 61% on Rotten Tomatoes!!!!!  Huh?!  I'll admit:  not everything about the film is bad.  The first few minutes are interesting and suspenseful; it's often hilarious (albeit unintentionally - no joke, Johansson at one point calls her mom and tells her "I remember the taste of your milk in my mouth", and her mom's reaction is "OK, sweetie, have a good day."); and it's mercifully only an hour and a half long.  Oh, and I guess it's not morally repulsive or offensive (to me).  Perhaps it's that Lucy's weakest points are my pet peeves.  I'm pretty good at suspending disbelief - superhero films are some of my favorites, for crying out loud - but the "science" and subsequent action based on the film's artificial rules completely took me out of it.  Relatable characters might have been able to salvage the film to some degree, but there are none to be found.  For a more detailed (and hilarious) breakdown of Lucy's absurdity, check out TheAtlantic's review.  And don't fall for anyone who is favorable to it - worst movie of the year so far.

* "Lucy (2014 film) poster" by http://www.impawards.com/intl/france/2014/lucy.html