Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

Score:  ***1/2 out of ***** (B)

Directed by Gareth Edwards
Starring Felicity Jones, Diego Luna, Mads Mikkelsen, Ben Mendelsohn
Running time: 133 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Rogue One is the first stand-alone film in the Star Wars universe, whose main characters are all-new (though familiar ones make cameos).  It's an interesting set up, led by another capable young woman in Felicity Jones playing a pre-Luke Skywalker rebel.  There's plenty of action and then some, much of it impressive, but ultimately the film fails to let its new cast truly shine and make a connection, playing it too safe.  You'll have a good time watching it, but temper those expectations.


On a cold and lonely outpost in a galaxy far, far away, a young woman named Jyn Erson (Jones) languishes in the captivity of the ubiquitous, evil Empire.  A small group of renegades breaks her out; surprised that anyone should come for her, she discovers that her father, Galen (Mikkelsen), is helping the Empire to develop a superweapon.  The renegades - working for the Rebel Alliance - hopes she will help them find him.  Jyn is sent first to another Imperial-controlled world which harbors an old friend of the Erso family.  The man takes Jyn to an Imperial pilot who has defected, bringing with him information on the nearly-finished Death Star, a message from Galen himself.

Jyn and her companions manage to escape with the news and return to the rebellion, but there is panic at the imminent danger to all.  Therefore Jyn, herself recently thrust into the galactic war between the Empire and the rebellion, must choose her own path, caught between the stakes to the galaxy and her family's personal involvement in the danger.

Rogue One has a solid, impressively diverse, yet unspectacular cast.  Leading the charge is Felicity Jones as Jyn Erso, the daughter of a crucial weapons engineer who herself becomes a rebel at a young age.  Jones does a nice job, a charismatic presence with her share of strong moments, but is let down by the script.  I'm all for a female hero/leader in the wake of The Force Awakens' Rey, but despite an interesting set up there isn't much development of her character.  An engaging hero, Jones' Jyn is also merely a generic one by the end of the film.  Jones is joined by an ensemble of fellow rogues; Diego Luna as the main rebel spy commander, who has hints of a grittier background and character but is even less well fleshed out.  Most interesting are a blind warrior and a droid.  Donnie Yen plays Imwe, who maintains strong faith in the Force despite the last (known) Jedi having disappeared years ago.  Yen makes Imwe's faith fervent and fascinating when allowed to, and he is unexpectedly (and somewhat mischievously) funny.  Alan Tudyk voices the droid of the film, a reprogrammed Imperial.  He, too, is quite funny (more directly so) and gets the best lines.  Ben Mendelsohn, a great actor, does well as the primary Imperial villain, although his part doesn't reach its menacing potential.

Rogue One is the first stand-alone Star Wars film; in other words it doesn't have a single Skywalker (let alone a Jedi), whose lineage has served as the backbone of the franchise.  In ways this is freeing, allowing more storytelling flexibility with many familiar elements (the space ships, aliens, etc.); yet also challenges the filmmakers to develop a new set of compelling characters.  Rogue One has the pieces and potential for a truly special development of the Star Wars universe, but unfortunately only succeeds in limited ways.  The collection of characters is an intriguing one, as described earlier, a group that fits their predecessors' scrappy nature perfectly.  Each has different, interesting reasons for fighting against the Empire, as well as realistic flaws.  In fact, Rogue One gets into the politics of Star Wars, similar to the prequels (which I continue to defend) and much more than in the original trilogy - both on the rebel and the Imperial sides.  The effects are very good, of course, and the final 30+ minutes put the "war" in Star Wars, both in the trenches and in space.  I did enjoy a lot of this quite a bit, watching X-wings, Star Destroyers, AT-ATs (walking tanks) and more engaged in far more spectacular battle than ever before.

However... in the end, Rogue One in other ways lives down to its status as a stand-alone film, unable to ultimately distinguish itself within the Star Wars universe.  The film begins with a flashback that appropriately takes its time in introducing Jyn's family and their role - and then the film kicks into hyperdrive, in a bad way.  Jyn is all grown up, and being hustled around as quickly as the exposition that is shouted around and about her.  Not only is it done too quickly, but it all gets straight to the point - the Death Star - leaving little to the imagination; and far worse, neglecting to pay any attention to the characters that are involved.  Things start to settle down a bit, yet the script remains quite clunky in trying to fit all the pieces together, always focused on the Death Star to the detriment of everything else.  Other problems crop up here and there:  stormtroopers are mowed down at a ridiculous clip, the score is clearly trying to invoke John Williams but is a sad imitation (not the composer's fault - he was brought on late and had literally only a few weeks to start and finish it).

***

Rogue One is still a solid film; if you're looking for an entertaining action movie, you're not going to do better right now (unless Doctor Strange is still out).  But Rogue One also isn't just any movie: it's a Star Wars movie.  The results remind me a lot of Suicide Squad - both exist in well-established franchises/worlds, but focus on a new set of grittier, much less well-known characters.  Both films introduce a set of intriguing new characters, potentially worthy of their own mini-franchise.  But both films also largely squander this potential by trying to play it safe with formula and focusing on the plot and action at the expense of nurturing their characters.  Yes, it's cool to know how the events of Episode 4 - A New Hope were made possible (i.e. blowing up the Death Star) - but it would have been even cooler to have launched a parallel set of rebels to continue the fight behind the scenes.  Maybe repeat viewings will bring me around to it, but for now I am well entertained but ultimately disappointed.  Moderately recommended, but not a success like The Force Awakens was.



By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=50076808

Manchester by the Sea

Score:  ***** out of ***** (A+)

Directed by Kenneth Lonergan
Starring Casey Affleck, Lucas Hedges, Michelle Williams, Kyle Chandler
Running time: 137 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  Manchester by the Sea is a quiet, simple drama on the outside, and a tumultuous and affecting one on the inside.  It's also one of the best films I've ever seen.  Casey Affleck leads a set of brilliant performances as the film takes a deep, sometimes painful but always revelatory, dive into his character.  Amazing writing and filmmaking turn ordinary people and events into both a moving and thought-provoking experience.  A must-see.


Lee Chandler (Affleck) lives a lonely existence as a janitor in Boston.  Forced to deal with abrasive tenants in an apartment, Lee's patience is often tested and he frequents a bar to cope.  One day, his routine is abruptly interrupted when he receives a call that his brother (Chandler) suffered a heart attack.  Lee rushes to him, but by the time he arrives his brother is dead.  Left behind is his sixteen-year-old son, Patrick, and Lee is shocked to learn that he is to become the young boy's guardian, according to his brother's will.  Once close, Lee and Patrick are now tense in each other's presence; Patrick dealing with school, girlfriends and a band, and Lee trying to sort out his brother's affairs and coping with his past.  One missing a father, the other his brother, the two must relearn how to live, together.

Manchester by the Sea boasts an ensemble that works so well, both individually and as a group, that it is easy to forget that they are acting.  Casey Affleck delivers an incredibly powerful, nuanced and memorable performance as the quiet and tormented lead, Lee.  The camera follows Lee throughout the film, and mostly his misery is internal, seen through his gaze and his weary but persistent march through life's everyday challenges.  Affleck brings Lee to life as fully as any film character I've ever seen.  Like any human, he sometimes responds awkwardly to others, makes odd decisions, and grits his teeth and bears life's annoyances; and he is also sympathetic, a good man trying to find his way after losing it years ago, though often conflicted about whether he should even try.  Lucas Hedges does a great job as teenage Patrick, simultaneously aware of the adult challenges of his situation while showing the pain of the loss of his father as he experiences both setbacks and joy in other roles.  Michelle Williams' screentime is fairly limited, but she makes the most of it as Lee's ex-wife by bringing startling detail and individuality to a character that could have merely been a powerful symbol of Lee's old life.  Kyle Chandler is in the final significant role, as Lee's brother Joe in flashbacks; although we don't get to know him, he excels at portraying the pillar of emotional stability in the family, without which we can see (partly) how things have fallen apart.

Manchester by the Sea is an incredible film, the drama of a simple story of ordinary humans, but the film delves deeply - and movingly - in and through those people.  The main plot event, Joe's death, is front and center, yet the film's most powerful event is one from the past and in more subtle ways it affects everything and everyone in the film just as much.  I won't reveal what that is (and please don't go look it up!), but it is a symbol of the way the film overall works not through direct events but through individual responses and relationships.  Manchester confounds expectations everywhere; it is deeply affecting and emotional, yet by the end neither depressing nor uplifting but simply life affirming.  It is not Hollywood drama in any way, yet not minimalistic (read: boring), either.  Though there are a few incredibly emotional scenes (especially the one above), you can regain an emotional equilibrium afterward.  The film has no jokes, and of course is quite serious, yet it finds humor consistently and effectively through the little things in life.  The film ends with the characters having made progress and there is hope, yet it is not at all tied up with a bow; it resists expected resolution and not everything works out the way you think it will or want it to.

How does Manchester by the Sea achieve such balance and power while relying on simple components (characters, plot, setting)?  The acting described above is of course an essential part, and just as important is a phenomenal script which, combined with the performances, creates one of the most vivid worlds I've every seen on film.  The plot - Joe's death, and what that sets in motion - is only the canvas of this work; it is the characters and their relationships that are the "action".  The pacing, in a conventional sense, is therefore deliberate (some would say slow), yet it is the characters driving the pace, not the events.  Everyday life makes up most of the scenes, particularly that of Lee adjusting into his old hometown, Patrick struggling with adolescence, and the two attempting to bond (or at least put up with each other).  Each scene shows one (or usually several) of the following: another side of a richly shaded character; a small (yet important) thing that causes them to change; and/or something amusing.  This allows us to know the characters as few other films can do, increasing the impact of all that happens to them, from the small to the large.  We genuinely root for them, want the best for them, because we see some of ourselves in them.

***

Manchester by the Sea is one of the best films I've ever seen, period, and is therefore one of the few films that I've give an A+ to outright.  I admit that when I first heard about this film and read the premise, I was unimpressed.  But I read (while trying to avoid too much detail) that it was outstanding, and I try to see most films that get praise like that.  Fortunately for me, my rural theater happened to show it.  This is a film that had me thinking about it the rest of that night and the next morning.  The performances, writing, and filmmaking in general are masterful.  And there's plenty you can take away from it, both specific to the type of tragedy it illustrates as well as to life's struggles and changes in general.  I'm not sure what more I need to say about it here, though it's also a film that I could talk about all day.  Manchester by the Sea is a must-see classic.



By Source (WP:NFCC#4), Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=51487176

Arrival

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Directed by Denis Villeneuve
Starring Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner, Forest Whitaker
Running time: 116 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Arrival is another alien encounter sci-fi film, but not at all what you're expecting.  Denis Villeneuve, having shown so much skill with both tension and personal challenge in previous films, is the perfect filmmaker for this ostensibly much different story.  With Amy Adams leading the drama in a strong performance, the film is more concerned with what alien contact might mean for humanity beyond just who blows up who.


In the span of a few minutes, the life of a young girl with her mother, Louise (Adams), unfolds and is tragically cut short by illness.  Louise, a linguist, teaches at a university when normal life is abruptly interrupted by the appearance of twelve alien craft, spread around the world.  The military, led by Col. Weber, soon comes to Louise in hopes of finding a way to communicate with the alien visitors.  Intrigued, Louise agrees and goes with them to Montana, where she meets the team including physicist Ian (Renner).  Operating from a small make-shift base, the team goes into the alien ship.  They encounter two individuals who make odd, indecipherable noises.  Although she is overwhelmed by them at first, Louise remains determined, and becomes convinced that written communication is mankind's best hope of understanding the aliens.

While Louise and Ian became fascinated by the intellectual process of understanding the aliens, their military commanders pressure them to work faster and faster.  Society begins to crumble under the stress of the alien presence, and other nations faced with alien ships in their territory also begin to lose patience.  Resting on Louise's shoulders, then, may be the fate of civilization itself.

Arrival operates with a small cast, and focuses even more narrowly on its lead.  Amy Adams takes on that lead role as Louise, and she is tremendous.  Of course, Adams has proven herself one of today's top actors already and she readily takes on this complex - and not particularly sci-fi-y - role.  She brings Louise to life, a woman more comfortable as a curious, highly intelligent academic woman than her personal side which she keeps to herself.  Louise first develops a professional rapport with Ian, only slowly becoming closer on a personal level as they are confined together on the base.  Encouragingly, Louise remains not only the more active but also the primary character in the film, not giving way to Ian.  Personal stakes do eventually come into play for Louise, and Adams handles them in a way appropriate for the character (i.e. controlled), rather than succumbing to Hollywood norms.  Jeremy Renner is also very good, perhaps for his restraint more than anything else.  Optimistic, though not cheerful, Ian is a team player who does not try to become the star of the show, offering crucial support for the lonely and stressed Louise.  Beyond Louise and Ian, the roles are few and small; Whitaker's Weber is torn between support for Louise and military duty to achieve its objectives as quickly as possible; and Michael Stuhlbarg is a sarcastic agent focused on America's coming out on top in the situation, regardless of the consequences.

Arrival is a brand-new flavor of sci-fi film, one that is flawed yet powerful and represents great hope as a melding of popular and artistic styles.  Like Christopher Nolan's Interstellar (more comparisons to this to come), Arrival is not a simple us-vs.-them shoot out.  There is plenty of tension, yes, but both films' primary mission is to engage your mind by using the tangible strangeness of sci-fi to look inward at humanity and the self.  Again, Arrival shares similar themes to the Nolan film: both the importance and lack thereof of time, and the need to put aside societal differences to advance the common causes (or to prevent the common destruction) of humanity.  A new element is that of communication and language, which plays into both of the others.  The details still demand a certain suspension of disbelief, of course, but I would argue it's the concepts that count.  The emotional elements are much more restrained in Arrival, but the main twist is fascinating (**highlight the blank area after this if you want to read spoilers**).  Louise's flash-forwarding to her daughter's life is both ingenious and heartbreaking.  I personally feel it actually could have been made even more affecting, with a tweaking of other elements in the film, but opinions on this will vary.

Fear not, Arrival is not just some abstract examination of ideas (Tree of Life this is not, thankfully).  The build up to the aliens in the first third or so of the film is riveting, and most reminiscent of the director Villeneuve's other work.  It's all quiet and very real, given just enough information and atmosphere (empty seminar rooms, roaring jet engines) to feel something big coming - not to mention a very eerie and affecting soundtrack.  Getting suited up to go into the alien ship, Adams breathes hard and noisily, echoing the audience's feelings.  Then the film admittedly bogs down a bit; there's only so much you can do to enliven the process of essentially language translation, I suppose.  But there is constant pressure to the intellectual work being done, with occasional news footage of rioting and tension among nations shown.  The ending, in fact, is surprisingly nail-biting in bringing the fate of the world to a last second confrontation at the base.  Impressively though, thanks to the script and directing, there is more intrigue in solving the film's idea riddles than in the exciting yet comparatively empty goal of preventing humanity's destruction.

***

Arrival is a great film, but I'm finding it one of the more difficult films to grade in a satisfactory way.  Once again, I come back to the comparison to Interstellar.  Both films reach for much more than the usual sci-fi genre, and appeal as both entertainment as art, which raises them (for me) to a certain minimum score.  Arrival is also made with the care and high-quality that I've come to expect from director Denis Villeneuve, one of my new favorites.  But I also feel it is missing a certain something, perhaps a crucial last link between the intellectual and emotional elements that could make it truly memorable.  It does also have its flaws, notably a pace that sometimes bogs down and a few odd elements in the script that are out of place.  I think it's easier to for me to nitpick these ambitious, hybrid films but Arrival's strengths still far outweigh its weaknesses.  From Adams' performance to the tremendous opening to the development of interesting ideas to the resolving personal twist, it has more positive things to offer than either flaws or just run-of-the-mill sci-fi.  Highly recommended.



By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=51343430

Doctor Strange

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Directed by Scott Derrickson
Starring Benedict Cumberbatch, Tilda Swinton, Mads Mikkelsen, et. al.
Running time: 115 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Doctor Strange is the latest superhero film from Marvel Studios, and like Guardians of the Galaxy, it extends the reach of the genre.  Benedict Cumberbatch is perfectly suited for the title role and gives the film a great anchor while spectacular special effects provide dazzle like few others.  Yet it's all grounded in good acting, a good script and pacing, resulting in another high quality Marvel film.  Highly recommended for all, whether or not you're a fan of the genre.


In New York City, Dr. Stephen Strange (Cumberbatch) is a great neurosurgeon and knows it, humiliating colleagues in showing off and zooming around town in his Lamborghini.  One day, his ego leads him to disaster - and on the other side of the table in his own hospital.  Dr. Strange's mind remains as sharp as a scalpel, but his hands have been ruined and he is unable even to shave.  Strange searches the globe for something or someone to heal his hands but despairs as he continues to fail, turning against the few who remain close to him like Dr. Palmer (McAdams).  He finally turns to an old story he heard about a man who should have been permanently paralyzed but now walks again; tracking him down, Strange is pointed to Kathmandu, Nepal.

Strange finds there a compound full of unusual individuals - and even more unbelievable revelations about the nature of reality itself.  The leader of the group, known as the Ancient One (Swinton), acknowledges that they are capable of healing his hands, but only if Strange is able to relearn what he knows is possible in the world.  Determined to return to his old life, Strange is a quick study - but lurking in the shadows are forces seeking to harness that same power for evil.

Doctor Strange reaps the benefits of a well-chosen and engaged cast that brings a, well, strange story to life.  Benedict Cumberbatch, an actor well-known and regarded for brilliant enigma roles, plays the title character.  There are times when casting against type is great, but Cumberbatch seemed so tailor-made for the role that he was an obvious choice.  Cumberbatch fully inhabits Strange, from the physical performance (action scenes to his American accent) to the human.  He makes both a believable star surgeon and an entirely new kind of action star, his movements melding seamlessly with the awe-inspiring CGI.  Cumberbatch mostly keeps Strange's feelings reserved, with a few notable exceptions; this bearing is in line with the story and Strange's background.  Tilda Swinton, known for her unusual roles, plays the Ancient One.  This role is actually pretty straightforward for her, despite sporting a shaved head, as the guru and leader of the world's sorcerers.  Still, Swinton's acting makes the role appropriately mysterious, with both compassion and menace lurking just underneath the serene surface.  The other roles are comparatively small yet also impressive.  Chiwetel Ejiofor plays the Ancient One's lieutenant, at first a standard role which by the end morphs into a crucial one for future films; Rachel McAdams makes the most of her brief but important time as Strange's closest "normal" relationship; Mads Mikkelsen's villain is rather shallow but the actor knows how to play a bad guy; and Benedict Wong provides great comic relief as the sorcerers' librarian.

Doctor Strange is yet another resounding success for Marvel in pushing the boundaries of the superhero film genre.  It uses a very familiar story structure, but executes it with such energy - produced by the actors, the ideas, and the visuals - that the film easily defines its own, incredibly entertaining identity.  Yes, this is another origin story, but one that is less like the typical superhero than an interesting combination of The Matrix, Star Wars, and Harry Potter.  The script introduces Dr. Strange, the man, in a straightforward yet also an effective and prompt manner.  Then it's off to the races when Dr. Strange meets the sorcerers.  Here again the script - and direction - displays a subtle yet crucial balance.  The amazing new aspects of reality are revealed so as to convey an appropriate sense of awe but not to the degree that the audience becomes numbed to them, nor do they overwhelm the characters.  But it's not all about neat tricks and dazzling visuals (see more below).  Doctor Strange has some great food for thought as well, particularly around the theme of whether means justify ends.  The film doesn't dwell on these - it (rightfully, in my opinion) prioritizes the adventure elements and therefore avoids tonal incongruity.

The film's magical reality truly is awesome.  Not only is the CGI stunningly realistic and enveloping (think Inception on steroids), but it's thoughtfully designed and nothing is there without reason.  There are several incredible action scenes, particularly Dr. Strange's first encounter with the main villain.  To top it all off, Doctor Strange is one of the funniest in a catalog of Marvel films that are always humorous to some degree.  The standout here is not any of the human characters, but a certain item of clothing.  Doctor Strange isn't perfect, most notably character development and emotional grounding are minimal, and the villain isn't all that interesting.  But as in the case of its Big Ideas (see above), the filmmakers were wise to instead accentuate the strong focal points of the film.

***

Doctor Strange is one of the year's strongest films, and to me cements Marvel's status as the Pixar of superhero films.  The studio churns out its films - about two a year - at an amazing rate, especially considering the high quality of virtually every single one.  Rather than stick with one winning formula, the studio has boldly expanded the limits of the genre (in film, anyway), enriching every element of its films - stories, characters, visuals, ideas.  Had Doctor Strange been released in 2008 or earlier - even granted today's technical capabilities - I would have been quite skeptical.  But Marvel has proven itself and so I came in with every expectation that it would be strong film.  In Hollywood today, that is a rare thing.  Certainly, I am a fan of the genre but I don't think the general quality of the studio's productions can be denied.  I highly recommend this film, in particular, to anyone - even if you aren't a fan of the genre yourself.




*By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=50143602

The Birth of a Nation

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Directed by Nate Parker
Starring Nate Parker, Armie Hammer, Aja Naomi King
Running time: 120 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  The Birth of a Nation tells the life story of Nat Turner, who led perhaps the most famous slave rebellion in American history.  Once hailed as a sure Oscar contender, the film has found controversy via news of criminal allegations in filmmaker Nate Parker's past.  The film is solid if flawed, but worth pushing past the noise surrounding it to see it and confront its issues for yourself.


In the early 1800s, young Nat Turner (Parker) lives as a slave on a Virginia plantation.  His father flees, his fate unknown, when he kills a white man in an altercation and so Nat is raised by his mother and grandmother.  The matron of the plantation takes Nat in to be educated when she discovers that the boy has an inclination to read, and years later he begins preaching to the other slaves on the plantation.  Samuel (Hammer) becomes the head of the plantation and frequently takes Nat with him on his travels, having played with him when the two were young.  When visiting town one day, Nat urges Samuel to purchase a female slave at auction, and the two end up growing close and marrying.  Once thriving, the Turner plantation comes on hard times and so Samuel takes Nat to other plantations in the area to preach to other slaves for a fee.

On his preaching visits, Nat is exposed to shocking conditions and barbaric acts of cruelty endured by slaves.  Confronted with such pain, suffering and injustice, Nat agonizes over not just the words he brings to his brothers - carefully selected passages from white men seeking to justify their actions - but also what he can and should do in accordance with his faith.

The Birth of a Nation features a sizable and generally strong cast.  Nate Parker - who also directed, wrote, and produced the film - stars as the famed Nat Turner.  He is a charismatic man who commands focus on the screen, particularly in intimate personal moments with his wife and family.  Nate also portrays a convincing evolution in his character from quiet, thoughtful, gentle man of faith to increasingly despairing and enraged as his eyes are opened to the full horrors of his world.  Among his multiple roles in the film, Parker's acting might be the strongest.  Beyond Parker's Turner, all other characters are supporting.  Armie Hammer does an OK job as Turner's slaveholder, though he struggles with Samuel's darker turns later in the film.  Jackie Earle Haley, an actor much more familiar with ugly roles than Hammer, effectively plays a stereotypical white goon.  Unfortunately, there are not any other black characters of real depth beyond Nat; even his wife played by Aja Naomi King is largely a plot device.  Esther Scott does do well, however, as his grandmother.

For all the controversy surrounding Nate Parker and his film, The Birth of a Nation itself is actually a fairly straightforward film, not as harrowing as 12 Years a Slave.  The film literally goes from the beginning to the end of Nat Turner's life, and he is the focus from start to finish.  Thanks to his strong performance, Parker keeps the audience engaged throughout even when the script or pacing wander at times.  There are a number of powerful scenes and images to convey the horror of slavery, though admittedly having seen 12 Years I found myself slightly less impacted.  Those of you who have also seen that film will likely find that Birth of a Nation deals with the portrayal of slavery with less subtlety and power, though well enough anyway.  To be fair, Birth's tone is more consistent than 12 Years, as it - consciously or not - finds a stable middle ground between stark realism and Hollywood drama.  Having a standard plot and tone, The Birth of a Nation most unsettled me in Nat's turn to violence.  I don't attempt to defend slave owners but I felt a significant pang of regret when Turner, a good man and one of faith, turns to brutality himself.  Parker as actor and filmmaker tries as hard as he can to tell us that Nat simply embraced his destiny, but I felt his turn to revenge was more worthy of heart break rather than victory in the noose.  There were no winners, only victims.

I have not read extensively about the news surrounding Nate Parker, but even a basic awareness leads to some interesting thoughts on the film - both intended and not.  Parker has asserted the film's relevance to our society today, but it wasn't apparent to me at first since I essentially viewed it as a biopic.  However, I now see the parallels to the black lives matter movement.  The black community is still witness to, yet largely helpless to prevent, the violent suffering of so many of its members - whether at the hands of law enforcement or inner turmoil - and this must lead to a tremendous urge to do something when words alone seem to fail.  I would hope that the follow-up message to that is that more violence is NOT the answer... yet beyond that, there is frustratingly little I can say.  Another topic that arises is the treatment of women, coming into the spotlight with Parker's acquittal of sexual assault charges in 1999.  Birth of a Nation includes several sexual assaults (not shown) which help fuel Parker's rage yet are not apparently historically accurate (or at least confirmed).  The women of the film generally are victimized or at least relegated to the sidelines in favor of male counterparts.  It's difficult to avoid an association between Parker's previous actions and his portrayal of women in the film, one that shows them as passive and at the mercy of men for better or worse.

***

The Birth of a Nation is a flawed yet intriguing film, deceptively simple in many ways yet oddly an important one (set +150 years ago) for today's audience.  I have had the pleasure and humbling learning experience of seeing several films on the black experience over the last few years, including The Butler, 12 Years a Slave, Selma, and now Birth.  I recommend seeing all of them, if simply because they are all very good (though Birth of a Nation lags significantly behind the others in this regard).  In addition they each have something important to say, each connected to the others yet with its own unique perspective.  While Birth of a Nation doesn't rise to the level of the others in quality, it may make up for that in the important discussions and debates it can inspire - about gender as well as race.  As a white male I do not pretend to understand let alone feel these issues as others do, but I hope that the films have played a part in helping me to be a better citizen in our diverse, messy, unfair world that needs more love.  I urge all to support films like Birth of a Nation which act as just one way but a very public and accessible way to continue the process.




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=50559876

Masterminds

Score:  *** out of ***** (B-)

Directed by Jared Hess
Starring Zach Galifianakis, Owen Wilson, Jason Sudeikis, Kristen Wiig, et. al.
Running time: 94 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Masterminds, based on a true story, features a cast of heavy-hitter comedians but doesn't follow through on the potential.  Galifianakis is rock-solid and funny, but the film can't decide on a tone and so the whole is less than the sum of its parts.  Don't rush out to see it in the theater, but it should make for a fine on-demand/Netflix choice on some frigid winter evening.


Armored truck driver David Ghantt (Galifianakis) is a simple, gentle yet restless soul, engaged to a desperate woman, Jandice (McKinnon) yet pining for a co-worker, Kelly (Wiig).  When Kelly is fired from the company, however, she joins up with Steve Chambers (Wilson) who leads a group of petty criminals.  Hoping to become a legend - and filthy rich - Steve sees an opportunity in Kelly's previous employment and gets her to draw David into the plot.  Despite a rather clumsy effort, David succeeds in robbing his employer and then takes flight to Mexico where he awaits Kelly.  Steve and his gang cut him off, however, and David soon finds himself hunted by the authorities as he was caught in the act on camera.  As David flees, Kelly finds herself conflicted between the comforts of a new life of luxury and her guilty feelings.

Masterminds features an impressive comedic cast which mostly hits its marks.  Zach Galifianakis, one of my favorite contemporary comics, is the lead.  Featuring a great country accent and style of speech that reflect his naivete, Galifianakis' David is a sympathetic main character who sets up easily for a variety of humor.  He does a solid job, stays true to the character and offers up plenty of primarily slapstick laughs.  Kristen Wiig, playing David's love interest, is another top comedian, but unfortunately she basically plays a normal, plot-device-based character here.  She's an underrated actress and still gets some laughs, but she's underutilized.  Owen Wilson, whom I find just OK, lives up (down?) to those middling expectations; not hilarious, but at least suits his role as the lead villain well enough.  And Jason Sudeikis clearly has a blast as a disturbed/disturbing assassin, earning some of the film's bigger laughs.  Current SNL cast members Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones also have small roles and they employ their vastly different styles to give the film a boost.

Masterminds is a solid comedy, though also a bit disappointing given the impressive acting talent involved.  The primary problem with the film is its indecision about what kind of comedy it wants to be.  Being based on true events admittedly makes this harder than usual, but it shifts between a fairly light-hearted silly slapstick adventure (more of this) and a more subtle, darker humor (less of this).  Given this inconsistency, it's all the more impressive that Galifianakis maintains a steady lock on his character.  But then you have the contrasting styles and tones of Wilson (slapstick) and McKinnon (weird); and with Sudeikis you get both styles.  Taken as individual scenes, both styles work, but it makes for kind of a messy body of work.  Partly this may have resulted from production troubles, as the film was originally to be released in August 2015.  The writing and script is at least solid with a few big laughs, and a lot of good chuckles to be had throughout.  Rated PG-13, there's nothing too raunchy (perhaps I've just been numbed).

***

Masterminds continues 2016's trend of decent but unspectacular comedies.  In fact, the best films that feature humor have been animated films, for which 2016 has been a great year.  There's a lot of great comedic acting talent out there, but I have significant doubts about the comedic writers (at least the ones that are in charge at the moment).  Your Galifianakis, Ferrell, McCarthy, and others do great work and tend to elevate otherwise mediocre if not poor material.  Most egregiously untapped by far is Kristen Wiig, perhaps the most talented actor/comedian active today.  She demonstrated her range on SNL, and in Welcome to Me which unfortunately only saw limited release (get it on Netflix!).  She should either be given complex, lead roles in well-written films, or something off-the-wall in bizarre roles in a new kind(s) of comedies.  Her roles in Ghostbusters and Masterminds are like having Michael Jordan in his prime play in the D-League.  You can do better than this, producers and writers.  All that said, Masterminds makes for a fine Netflix choice if you're in the mood for a goofy comedy, particularly for fans of Zach Galifianakis.



By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=51300259

Hell or High Water

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Directed by David Mackenzie
Starring Chris Pine, Ben Foster, Jeff Bridges
Running time: 102 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  Hell or High Water tells a tale set in contemporary Texas of brothers on a daring spree of bank robberies and the Rangers pursuing them.  Pine, Foster and Bridges are all great in this, though Pine definitely is the one going most out of his comfort zone.  Not a showy affair, the plot still has both excitement and drama in its heists, relationships, and real world relevance.  Highly recommended.


On a bright and quiet early morning in Texas, two men, Toby and Tanner Howard (Pine, Foster) break the peace by robbing several small-town banks.  The two are new to the business, but they are effective and get away, giddy, before the police can arrive.  As the brothers return home and try to cover their tracks, word of the crimes gets to the Texas Rangers where Hamilton (Bridges), near retirement, and his partner Parker are put on the case.  It turns out that Toby and Tanner have bigger goals in mind than petty theft and thrills, and as the Howard brothers continue to hit banks, the Rangers are left with interviewing their shaken victims.

Toby and Tanner head to a casino to launder the money and ready themselves for the final move in their daring plan.  Parker becomes frustrated by the lack of progress on the case, but Hamilton gradually begins to piece it together.  When the brothers make their final move, the Rangers connect the last dots and race to put the crime spree to an end.

Hell or High Water has a small core cast, and a very good one.  Chris Pine and Ben Foster take the leads as brothers in crime Toby and Tanner Howard.  Pine is a surprise here, not playing one of his usual charismatic leading man roles such as Captain Kirk.  He plays certainly the more sympathetic of the brothers, but Toby is still a very damaged character, raised in a broken home and failing to raise one of his own.  Pine does well, perhaps most notably in being low key and not commanding the spotlight as in his other roles.  Foster is much more familiar with his wild, intense, brutal character, having played similar roles in 3:10 to Yuma and others.  He brings the same sense of danger and bad-dude nature when needed, but also effectively portrays a fiercely loyal brother.  It's hard to root for him, but he also manages to earn some sympathy here and there.  Jeff Bridges is also in a familiar role as the lead Ranger on the case.  Those who have seen him in True Grit (highly recommended, if you haven't) will note not just vocal and physical similarities but also the weariness and detachedness mixed with a sense of duty and honor.  Bridges is just as good here as he was in that Oscar-nominated role, adding humor, tension in the hunt for the brothers, and much more.  His partner, Gil Birmingham, doesn't get as much to do but he's also good in the supporting role.

Hell or High Water is not a "big" film in the action of an Avengers or drama of a Spotlight, but its quiet, modest combination of tense and thoughtful elements make for a great film.  The main event is the plot: a daring set of bank robberies in service of a greater goal (which I'll leave secret), and the efforts of an odd-couple Ranger team to stop them.  The initial robberies are interesting, seemingly realistic scenes that make more sense as we learn more about the brothers.  And the climax is a very tense, extended scene that does justice to the earlier build up while not going overboard.  The driver of all these events is family, and High Water paints the Howard family picture in just enough detail, using the right moments to allow the audience to fill in the blanks and create authentic sympathy.  Toby and Tanner's relationship is of course the main one, and well done, but attention is paid to Hamilton and Parker's, too - one that is simultaneously more humorous and more contentious.  Finally, Hell or High Water is a film of the times, illustrating the desperate economic straits of much of rural America.  Whether it's the Howard brothers passing endless debt relief billboards on the way to their targets or a group of witnesses with little sympathy for the banks that have been hit, the reality is ever present to some degree.  The film does not dwell on this, but uses it to enhance the effects of the drama.

***

After a summer of blockbusters - and a frankly disappointing one at that - it was refreshing to recharge with a high quality, entertaining drama in Hell or High Water.  This film should find itself in the thick of several Oscar races come this winter.  It is well made in almost every regard, from the script to the cinematography to the pacing.  I may bump up my rating to a straight "A" at some point, though after a first viewing it doesn't quite have the "wow" factor top put it over the top.  Still, I highly recommend this film for anyone - well, unless you're looking for something simple and cheerful.  Come to see some very good performances and a modest yet rich story, and you won't be disappointed.



By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=50162230

Suicide Squad

Score:  ***1/2 out of ***** (B)

Directed by David Ayer
Starring Will Smith, Margot Robbie, Joel Kinnaman, Viola Davis, et. al.
Running time: 123 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Suicide Squad lands in theaters as the film that promised to change what we think of as a superhero film.  It seems at this point that most critics would say it failed, but after getting past all the fanciful expectations, it's a solidly made and entertaining film with all kinds of things we haven't seen before.  Will Smith and Margot Robbie lead the team of "bad guys" in different but compelling ways, and plenty of humor and a greatest hits soundtrack keep it all humming along.


With Superman gone, a world filled with mad men such as Lex Luthor and the Joker (Leto) is suddenly quite vulnerable.  One woman willing to do whatever is needed to bring back a sense of security is a mysterious government officer named Amanda Waller (Davis).  Rather than risk the lives of America's best and bravest, she intends to force some of the world's darkest and most dangerous individuals to do the dirty work for her.  Waller recruits a former soldier, Colonel Flag, to oversee this wild group, which includes the Joker's girlfriend, Harley Quinn (Robbie); the world's best marksman (Smith); and his own girlfriend, Dr. Moone (Delevingne), who had become transformed into a sort of Jekyl-and-Hyde after being possessed by an ancient spirit.  Dr. Moone is kept under extra control by Waller, who possesses the spirit's, known as Enchantress, physical heart.

Sensing a chance for escape, however, Enchantress summons her powerful brother and the two begin to rampage through Midway City.  Told that their first mission is to suppress a "simple" terrorist attack, the Suicide Squad grudgingly enters the city under Flag's command.  Even as they encounter an enemy far more formidable than expected, the Squad is also pulled back to loved ones long separated - some of whom are quite eager to reunite...

Suicide Squad has an eclectic cast that works effectively in a movie about bad guys playing good guys.  Will Smith and Margot Robbie - who also co-starred in Focus - take on the lead roles in the squad as Deadshot and Harley Quinn.  Smith, always charismatic and one of my favorites, seems at first to be playing way against type here as a smart-mouthed hit man.  However, his character has a "good" side, his connection with his young daughter.  Smith succeeds in giving the film its emotional core, and some good laughs, even if it's still a stretch to buy him as a ruthless killer.  Margot Robbie is even better as the Joker's girlfriend, Harley Quinn.  As the clown's one-time psychologist turned obsessed lover, Robbie is magnetic as the unhinged woman.  She appears, both physically and at times through her girly behavior, to be harmless, yet in an instant a dramatic change in expression and tone makes her seem like the most dangerous character in the film.  Leto has gotten a lot of press playing the Joker, following in Jack Nicholson's and Heath Ledger's famous footsteps.  He's much closer to Ledger's interpretation though it's still his own - and for the time being, we get only an appetizing introduction.  Viola Davis, a top-notch actress, is a great choice for Waller, the government official who coerces the Squad into obeying her.  She is brutal, whip smart and completely in - and (acting) under - control.  Other notes:  Joel Kinnaman does a solid job as the Squad's non-bad-guy leader; Jai Courtney is finally interesting here even if he nears overplaying his Aussie-accented baddie; and Ike Barinholtz gets a small but hilarious role as a prison guard.

Much like last month's Ghostbusters, the success or failure of Suicide Squad hinges almost entirely on expectations - critics', fanatics', general audiences' and so on.  This doesn't just mean whether it's expected to be good or bad, but what tone and style it "should" have.  After working through my own expectations to evaluate the film, I believe that Suicide Squad is a successful film overall thanks to solid execution of a new take on the superhero genre.  It all starts with the characters.  Whereas a traditional superhero starts with a core goodness and has flaws of some kind and degree, Squad's "bad" guys must do the reverse: start with the significant flaws, and find where the good is.  The film is not always subtle in how it does this - particularly with Smith's character and one named El Diablo - it still is an interesting exercise, and one which audiences can sometimes identify with better than other heroes.  A slower point set at a bar - while the city continues to burn outside - is critical and well done in this regard.  And Quinn is a character with rich complexity and intrigue, thankfully one not ruined by the filmmakers.  From a more direct action/superhero perspective, there is also plenty to enjoy here.  There's both plenty of humor with LOL moments courtesy of Smith, Robbie and Barinholtz's characters as well as some genuine chills, mostly from Leto's Joker and Davis' Waller.  The action is frequently fun, even if not in Marvel's league; Quinn's "batting" practice and Deadshot's marksmanship offer a little something out of the ordinary, at least.

By no means is Suicide Squad a perfect film, and depending - once again - on expectations, you can nitpick it until the cows come home.  The plot is not the most interesting in the genre, nor is the antagonist; although I would argue that at least the former is driven along with good pacing and the latter makes sense for the characters and their origins even if the details are generic and a bit stale.  At times the styling, script, and filmmaking can be sloppy to varying degrees.  Squad takes Guardians of the Galaxy's idea of a pop soundtrack which is smart but it's done less effectively and feels ripped off at times.  And probably the biggest complaint (not having read any full reviews yet - I didn't want my review to be slanted by them) is the tone.  This is NOT The Dark Knight trilogy, it doesn't have those films' grittiness and relative realism.  Heck, it's not even as dark in tone as this year's Batman v Superman.  For a film about bad guys, this might seem strange, and likely the film is being panned as just being a regular old superhero film with this "gimmick".  I can see where they're coming from, but ultimately I disagree.  I think the filmmakers chose, consciously or not, to focus more on the bad guys' capacity for good - for humanity - rather than on simply reveling in being bad.

***

Suicide Squad is not the landmark film in the ways that many thought it might be, but it still has good qualities.  In the wider superhero genre, this marks the third film in DC's attempt at a multiverse, and ironically, the worst of them in my opinion, Man of Steel, has the best Rotten Tomatoes score.  I think there are a few reasons for critics' drubbing of DC's films.  First is likely simple superhero fatigue; I get it, and that's fine (but critics would do well to at least be more honest about the fact).  Second, it shows just how good the Marvel series of films have been.  They are remarkably consistent in tone and quality, yet (usually) manage to not just repeat themselves over and over.  The new DC universe is still in its infancy and while it's clearly a departure from Marvel - a good thing! - it hasn't yet nailed down its overarching tone as effectively as Marvel.  Sure, the DC films also haven't been as consistent in their level of quality either, but they have brought some truly interesting new elements, attitudes and ideas to the table that haven't yet been given the credit they deserve.  Circling back to Suicide Squad at last: no, it isn't for everyone.  But non-superhero film fans might also be surprised by how much they enjoy it, particularly the performances from Smith, Robbie and Leto.  So tune out the critics, if you can, and give it a shot.



By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=50874280

Jason Bourne

Score:  ***1/2 out of ***** (B)

Directed by Paul Greengrass
Starring Matt Damon, Alicia Vikander, Tommy Lee Jones
Running time: 123 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Matt Damon returns to arguably his most famous role as Jason Bourne for the first time in nearly a decade.  He slips easily back into the silent but tough mystery man, and there's plenty more fun chase and action scenes here.  However, the series strays from its storytelling roots in going bigger, and it's a turn for the worse.  There's some good potential that was left on the table here, but it's still an entertaining time at the movies.


Former CIA asset Jason Bourne (Damon) is living off the grid when an old friend - and fellow former CIA employee - Nicky Parsons (Stiles) drops in for a surprise visit.  She has joined an international hacking group which managed to penetrate the CIA's server and retrieve information on top secret projects, several of which directly relate to Bourne.  CIA Director Dewey (Jones) tracks Parsons, however, and Bourne barely escapes a riot-consumed Athens on his way to further investigate the leaks.  Dewey has been working to partner with a Silicon Valley-like CEO who is unveiling a newly integrated social media platform, and is determined to put an end to the Bourne loose end once and for all.

When Dewey attempts to bring down Bourne in London, who meets with a former CIA contact, one of his top cyber espionage officers, Heather Lee (Vikander), decides to give Bourne a chance.  After another close escape, Lee tells Bourne where to find Dewey, who is off to meet with his social media ally.  Even though it will put him right in the hornet's nest, Bourne is driven to confront Dewey and discover the full truth behind the secrets Parsons unveiled.

Jason Bourne has a strong cast of mostly new faces in this fifth installment of the franchise.  Matt Damon returns as Bourne for the first time in nine years, and it's difficult to detect any difference in his performance from the earlier films.  Of course, that's hardly a bad thing as Damon has made Bourne into an intriguing figure, a man of few words and ever-furrowed brow who nonetheless conveys deep inner turmoil and acts for justice, both his own and the world's.  All's well here.  He is once again joined by a woman on the inside who (at least partly) tries to help him, this time played by bright young star Alicia Vikander.  Vikander aces the outwardly business-like, even stoic presence of her talented, savvy, tech-genius CIA agent.  But she also communicates her discomfort with the CIA's stance on Bourne, mostly with her face; Greengrass's style gives plenty of close-ups, which has the added bonus of showing off Vikander's stunning beauty.  Tommy Lee Jones is the new big bad at the CIA, and of course he's a perfect choice.  His character has little nuance, but Jones is so good at these roles and he doesn't phone it in here.  There's also an evil super soldier for Bourne to contend with, as always, though this time he, played by Vincent Cassel, gets a bit more to do than his predecessors.

Jason Bourne is at least as thrilling an action film as previous films in the franchise, but the plot is a significant downgrade.  Admittedly, there's a bit less tension to the action here, since the feel is quite similar and so we know essentially what to expect, but it's still excellently choreographed and shot.  Bourne's escape through Athens, as the city is exploding with rioting, is the best action sequence I can remember in the franchise.  There's also an entertaining car chase in Vegas, though a bit over the top and at one point disturbingly reminiscent of the Nice, France tragedy.  And of course, a great, all-out slugfest between Bourne and "the Asset".  Unfortunately, the story suffers from being too similar to previous entries, while at the same time even less plausible and too trendy.  As mentioned with Jones, the bad guy is basically the same as always and predictable, but he also goes quite a bit further in his evil than one expects in a Bourne movie - too far, yet without much sense of the implications.  And the main plot also involves the government trying to make the mother of all tech surveillance programs... *yawn* which is painfully obvious bandwagon jumping, and is too on-the-nose, anyway, for Bourne.  Fortunately the pacing is quite good which keeps the two-hour run time clicking just fine, and the script - within its disappointing overall framework - is solidly done.

***

Jason Bourne is a good movie, very well done in some ways yet lazy enough in others that it doesn't quite measure up in the high quality franchise.  It has been a while since I've seen the first three films, but as I remember they offered tighter, tenser, more personal stakes and scope than this more broadly staged entry.  Broad is fine, but that's entering Bond territory and the franchise is better off staying on its own turf.  Still, the action is still a lot of fun and Damon is as good as ever.  And Vikander was a great new addition, who could possibly be in the next film if they make another.  Her character was poised to have a unique, series-altering ambiguity, but the film even spoiled that right at the end, which for me is the last straw in bringing it down to a "B" from a "B+".  If you want an entertaining time at the movies - as I've been saying for the last few weeks - here's another good choice.  It won't go down as a classic, but it's an alternative for those wishing to avoid its sci-fi competition.



By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=50834820

Star Trek Beyond

Score:  ***1/2 out of ***** (B-)

Directed by Justin Lin
Starring Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Idris Elba, et. al.
Running time: 122 minutes
PG-13

Long Story Short:  The third installment of the rebooted Star Trek franchise sees Kirk and Spock thrust into perhaps their most dangerous - and action-packed - adventure yet.  The crew is still awesome, though none get to shine quite as they should and some are altogether ignored.  There's too much action in this one, even if some of it is pretty well done.  Recommended if you're looking only for adrenaline backed by fun characters; otherwise, proceed with caution.


After years on the frontier of known space, the crew of the Enterprise is weary and in need of rejuvenation as the ship comes to port at a gigantic new space station.  Captain Kirk (Pine) feels adrift in his Starfleet career, and explores other options while at the station.  Commander Spock also looks in other directions, for other reasons, particularly when he learns of the death of someone close to him.  The rest and rethinking process is interrupted, however, when a strange alien ship stops at the station in distress.  Its sole inhabitant begs Starfleet for help, as the rest of her crew is stranded in a nearby nebula.  Kirk takes the Enterprise and its crew back out into space to assist, but finds the mission more complicated and dangerous than expected.

Much of the Enterprise crew becomes captured by a hostile, vampire-like alien.  In addition to saving them, Kirk and a few of his free crew must prevent the enemy from obtaining and using a weapon with catastrophic potential - a weapon that the Enterprise itself has unwittingly put within the enemy's reach...

The whole crew of the Enterprise - the crew of the franchise rebooted in 2009 - returns, along with some new and intriguing faces.  Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto take on the spotlight once again as Kirk and Spock, and prove as adept and entertaining as ever - and even more comfortable in their iconic roles.  Although their contrasting personalities - Kirk's passion and loyalty versus Spock's reason and calm - are no longer at the forefront, they still provide nice variety for the film's tone.  Among the supporting cast/crew, Simon Pegg's Scotty and Karl Urban's Bones get the biggest parts and do quite well with them.  Perhaps the most humorous members of the crew, Scotty's ingenuity and Bones's abrasive care play key parts in the story.  Others, like Zoe Saldana's Uhura and John Cho's Sulu, find little to do.  Sofia Boutella is featured as an alien ally named Jaylah, a charismatic loner who has a nice combination of ignorance of Federation/Star Trek custom and gritty know-how.  The villain is played by Idris Elba, who seems to be getting used to the dark side - and he's darn good at it.  His intimidating presence and ruthless efficiency make him a formidable foe for Kirk and co.

Star Trek Beyond inherits some considerable strengths from its predecessors, but it veers the franchise away from some of those albeit in a frequently entertaining adventure.  The cast itself has been the best part of this rebooted Star Trek series, with Pine and Quinto brilliantly taking on the Kirk and Spock roles as only the top of a very sharp collection of actors, from Pegg to Saldana.  They all have such energy, humor and vigor that they bring the occasional remoteness of the Trek universe back to humanity and keep it there.  The crew is all still there, but they are not given the chance to shine - as some just plain get back-burnered - and the focus, which should always be on them, strays too often.  Largely this lack of focus is due to too much action; director Justin Lin seems to have carried over a fondness for stunts from his experience with the Fast and Furious franchise.  Star Trek certainly has room for the incredible, but used more sparingly and tied closer to the story or themes rather than as pure spectacle.  There are some fun and/or tense sequences, certainly - like the lethality of a swarm of bee-like vessels in space - but it also veers into the absurd such as the "strategic" use of pop music.  There is a good bit of humor, but it too is a little cheapened by the lack of character and story focus and instead constant, eventually numbing motion.

***

Star Trek Beyond is an entertaining film, but it represents a step back for the franchise in its current form.  As a thrilling film in several ways, I left the film with a high opinion of it but the more I think back on it the lesser it seems.  While this may lose the attention of teens and others, Star Trek would be much better off by slowing down and going back to basics by really digging into its phenomenal characters.  There is rich potential for meaningful stories here, and from them much more tense and rewarding conflict and action can arise.  It doesn't always have to be (and shouldn't be) about the latest threat to the entire galaxy.  So ironically, Beyond might be best for specifically non-Trekkies, at least those who just want an exhilarating two hours with high production values.  Which is fine, too - but not what I was hoping for.  Still, live long and prosper, Trek!



By Source (WP:NFCC#4), Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=50376447

Ghostbusters

Score:  ***1/2 out of ***** (B)

Directed by Paul Feig
Starring Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon, Leslie Jones
Running time: 116 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  The highly anticipated - both positively and negatively - Ghostbusters reboot has arrived, and while it is a considerable success it also doesn't reach the hopes I had for it.  The hugely hilarious and talented Wiig and McCarthy are fine in relatively straight roles, while SNL's Jones and McKinnon (and costar Hemsworth) shine.  An undemanding summer entertainment, yet an important one in proving the strength of women in (in this case, literally) historically men's roles, it's recommended for all.


Once best friends, Erin Gilbert (Wiig) and Abby Yates (McCarthy) have grown apart.  Yates still works on the pair's former hobby, investigating the paranormal, while Gilbert has moved on to more prestigious studies and a post at an Ivy League school.  Coming up for tenure, Gilbert is horrified when a man confronts her with a book she thought had disappeared long ago about her work with Yates on ghosts.  Gilbert confronts Yates, who has re-released the book, and agrees to go with her and her new assistant, Holtzmann (McKinnon), to look into a possible ghost sighting if Yates will stop publishing.  To the shock and delight of all three, they do find an apparition.  When their employers discover what they were up to, though, the three find themselves with little choice but to keep chasing their unlikely yet extraordinary dream careers.

Ghosts seem to keep popping up all over New York City, and the trio welcomes one of the witnesses, MTA worker Patty Tolan (Jones), onto the team.  Their organization, the "Department of the Metaphysical Examination", struggles not only to subdue the ghosts and figure out where they're coming from, but also to work with the skeptical authorities.

The Ghostbusters reboot has a good cast, but doesn't quite fulfill on screen the brilliant potential it has on paper.  The co-leads of the film are Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig, two of the funniest comedians around.  Each is known for their eccentric and/or wild characters, but each has a fairly straight role here.  They are both solid, but considering the talent each brings to the table, I was disappointed that more thought and effort (from them and/or the writers) wasn't put into creating truly unique, creative and memorable characters.  Many aspects of their typical humor is on display, particularly the banter (more on this later).  It's actually the two less well-known Ghostbusters who bring the best stuff:  SNL cast members Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones.  McKinnon is unleashed here, and in a way she channels both of the stars:  Wiig's sheer creativity and McCarthy's daring dirtiness.  Leslie Jones actually tones it down a bit from her usual SNL performances, but is still the "streetwise" presence here.  Both McKinnon and Jones are hilarious, and quite comfortable in their roles.  The "fifth Beatle" here is Chris Hemsworth as the team's secretary.  He straddles the line of going over the top, but has some of the funniest parts in the whole movie and seems to have loved the role.  Finally, there are also appropriate cameos for the old cast, but I'll say no more about them.

Ghostbusters, with so many expectations both high (from fans of the new stars) to low (from fanatics and worse), turns out to be a quality but incongruently modest action comedy film.  To start, don't worry about whether you have or haven't seen the original: there are plenty of nods to it, but you won't miss any huge laughs, let alone plot points, if you haven't seen it.  The story is parallel in structure to the original; it has the same major features but has its own distinct texture beyond that. This similarity, unsurprising in many ways for a reboot, has the advantage of not treating its new stars - all female - any differently than the originals.  In not focusing on the gender swap, it does a great service to women in film, particularly those in the role of hero (similar to The Force Awakens' Rey).  The story also gets a boost from the 32 years' worth of technological advances.  The visuals manage to be both a lot of fun, retaining a slightly cartoonish feel, as well as immersive, fitting seamlessly into the live-action world.

While the new team of Ghostbusters was well-picked, it also required a little adjustment to both the major stars' typical performances, as well as to the tone of the film itself, in order for the reboot to be successful.  To a degree this happened, but a lot of (particularly comic) potential was left on the table.  The physical, gross-out humor - common to both the original film and (to a lesser degree) the stars' experiences - is among the most successful in the film.  But to make this Ghostbusters truly their own, Wiig and McCarthy needed to weave their comic and acting sensibilities into the quieter moments, and they were far less successful here.  I'm not sure if there was anxiousness, or even laziness in diverting too much from either the original film's or their own experiences, but instead of developing cool new characters, the big stars more or less play the straight ladies and banter with each other (still often funny, but limiting).  Frankly, in many recent comedies the main character isn't all that great - it's the supporting players (in this case, McKinnon, Jones and Hemsworth) who make me laugh out loud and stand out.  I'd been hoping that Wiig and McCarthy could change that here, but they didn't quite manage it.

***

Ghostbusters is a solid summer entertainment, and I'm probably being a little too critical.  Like Keanu earlier this year, I simply have such high expectations based on the stars' talent that the failure of the movies around them to live up to them can be difficult for me to get past.  Here it's a bit different in that I do think that the stars themselves were part of the problem, or at least didn't live up to my expectations.  They still do very well, compared to just about anyone else.  It's like grading a Pixar movie that doesn't quite reach Up!, Toy Story or Inside Out level; because of their closest kin they seem a bit worse than they really are.  Expectations aside, this is a perfectly entertaining, well-made film, and I urge as many people to see it (in the theater) as possible.  The studios make films based on what has made money for them in the past, so in order to get more diverse (at least, nonwhite, nonmale) casts which can provide us all new stories and perspectives, we gotta show 'em the money.  Maybe then actors like Wiig and McCarthy can have the freedom to go outside the norm and unlock their full potential.  Who you gonna call?



By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=48847321

The Secret Life of Pets

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Directed by Chris Renaud and Yarrow Cheney
Starring Louis C.K., Eric Stonestreet, Kevin Hart, et. al.
Running time: 90 minutes
Rated PG

Long Story Short:  The studio that brought us the Minions now brings an even more irresistible subject to the screen: pets.  Simple yet focused, The Secret Life of Pets will likely be the most entertaining film you'll see all year.  A great voice cast led by Louis C.K., Kevin Hart and Jenny Slate bring the amusing animals to life, and all you have to do is settle in for the ride.  Highly recommended.


A terrier named Max (Louis C.K.) lives a contented life with his human companion Katie (Kemper) in Manhattan.  He is heartbroken each day when she leaves him for work... but soon turns to his fellow "abandoned" pets in the same apartment building.  When Katie returns home one day with a rescue dog named Duke (Stonestreet), however, Max feels his life has been turned on its head.  The two compete for top pet status with Katie, and during a walk one day with a careless petsitter, they get lost in the scary alleys of New York.  Max and Duke are saved from a life in the pound by Snowball, a little bunny, but their savior quickly becomes their tormentor.  Meanwhile, Gidget (Slate), a Pomeranian who has gazed adoringly at Max from the apartment next door, realizes he is missing and assembles the neighborhood pets for a rescue mission.  These pampered pets must summon their collective grit and wit in order to save their pals.

Like many other recent animated films, The Secret Life of Pets is voiced by an all-star cast that adds significantly to the fun.  Hilarious comedian Louis C.K. takes a break from his subtle comedy show to take on the lead role that is about as unsubtle as you can get: a pet dog.  C.K. voices the eagerness of Max when Katie is around, but his more sober sarcasm comes out to great effect when he is hanging out with the other pets.  Max's nemesis in the film, the feral bunny Snowball, is voiced even more entertainingly by Kevin Hart.  I'm a fan of his live-action work, and he clearly got the green light here to just go for it and it works brilliantly: he bounces seamlessly from streetwise gangsta to unhinged maniac to class clown and back again.  The third of the most impressive roles, though she may not be listed at the top, is Jenny Slate's Gidget.  Employing the same fun, breaking high-pitched voice (is there a special word for this?) as in her Zootopia role, Slate turns Gidget into the film's unlikely yet fascinating heroine.  The other voice actors are fun, too, with particular shout-outs for Lake Bell as rotund kitty Chloe and Bobby Moynihan as a pug named Mel.

While not as involved as a Pixar film, The Secret Life of Pets is near flawless pure entertainment.  This film will not leave you with a lot to chew on when the lights come back on, nor powerful moments of emotion, but if it's fun you want, that's exactly what you'll get.  The overall story itself is quite simple, too, but it is filled with enough Pixar-level clever winks that it holds attention easily (or mine, anyway).  Where the film really shines is pretty obvious: its capture of the pet mindset - again, with Pixar-level detail and wit - and release of that into an animated world whose rules can be bent to put all of it into action.  The introduction is basically what you've seen in the trailers, which is a great idea: remind the audience why they came, the snapshots of pets on their own at home, laughing at those gags one more time before moving to the new stuff/main story.  From there, the story gives just enough color to the characters among the high jinks to ground the humor, give it more punch, and prevent older members of the audience from wandering attention.  The varied type of humor involved also helps, from slapstick to observational, and just a dash of the more self-aware, cultural reference stuff that can be fun but wore itself out years ago in similar films.  Finally, great editing keeps things moving along - but not too quickly - so that the pace never ebbs and it all wraps up right on time.

***

It's been a sensational year for animated films so far in 2016, and The Secret Life of Pets continues that trend.  I had high expectations going into this one, having enjoyed the trailer and loving pets in general.  It was a set up for disappointment, but in fact the film surpassed my expectations.  Secret Life has the same elements that many others - which failed - had as well: a talented cast, beautiful effects/visuals, and a great premise.  But unlike so many others, this film wisely keeps it simple and focused, not trying to play to every possible tangential market/trend out there.  For that I give the filmmakers - directors, writers, etc. - a lot of credit, and even the studio for (presumably) trusting in them.  Oh, and a final bit, like a Pixar film, Secret Life also has a short film before it: produced by the same company, it's an amusing sketch involving the Minions.  I highly recommend this to all, though fair warning to parents of young children: if you don't have any pets, you will likely face great pressure to get one.  But why resist?  Pick a dog or a cat (or both) from a rescue shelter, and you won't regret it.



By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=47006167

Finding Dory

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Directed by Andrew Stanton
Starring Ellen DeGeneres, Albert Brooks, Hayden Rolence, Ed O'Neill
Running time: 97 minutes
Rated PG

Long Story Short:  Pixar turns to another sequel of one of their bigger hits in Finding Dory.  Focused, of course, on a different character this time, the film explores challenging themes both powerful for adults and relatable for children in a way that only Pixar can.  The adventure itself might be nothing new, but fresh, fun characters combine with the ambition and impact of the themes to make this a worthy viewing for all audiences.


Dory (DeGeneres) is a happy member of her ocean community, with friends such as Marlin (Brooks) and his son, Nemo (Rolence).  However, this cheery blue tang fish is also lonely in other ways, due to her lack of short-term memory and, relatedly, the mystery of her origin.  During a school lesson one day, Dory has flashbacks to bits of her childhood and she recalls her parents.  With just the smallest scraps of information to work with, she takes Marlin and Nemo along on a quest to find her original family.  Dory's focus propels the trio both into and out of danger in the open ocean before they manage to find the last place she saw her parents: a marine life reserve.

Dory soon finds herself separated from Marlin and Nemo but continues her search among the various areas of the reserve.  A mistrusting octopus (O'Neill) helps her along, in exchange for an item that will grant his most treasured wish.  Although the elder fish has doubts about Dory's chances of success, Marlin and Nemo still do everything they can to find her - and to help her discover the truth about her family.

Finding Dory features a lively cast of voice actors, both returning stars from Finding Nemo as well as newcomers.  Ellen DeGeneres's Dory takes the lead this time around, and both her character and voice acting provide a strong center for the film.  Dory is relentless in a sometimes tiresome yet gentle and endearing way, and she is brave yet often not mindful of risk.  Thus a balanced and intriguing hero, and DeGeneres conveys this all in a warm, deceptively simple performance.  Marlin and Nemo are essentially "along for the ride" and convey the audience's contrasting feelings about Dory: exasperation and worry, but also determination and caring.  Many of the new characters are quite interesting, starting with Ed O'Neill as Dory's helper Hank, an octopus.  He is a fairly typical crank-with-a-heart, but O'Neill is a great voice for that.  His Modern Family costar Ty Burrell joins him in a small part as a beluga whale and seemed to have great fun making echolocation howls.  Kaitlin Olson's friendly whale shark and Idris Elba's competitive sea lion round out the fun.

Finding Dory qualifies as a standard (therefore, successful) Pixar adventure, but it's the emotional theme that, even more than prior films, holds it all together.  Admittedly, I read this idea in another review before seeing the film, but Dory is a powerful Pixar representative of individuals with learning disabilities.  The film gives us flashbacks to Dory as a youngster raised by her parents, which bring on tears of bittersweet joy as easily as other Pixar films, by showing both the challenges and ultimately the love of those who may be different but are no less special.  When the action gets back to the main story, with Dory as an adult, it shows her as a unique individual with unique talents like each of her friends, rather than as someone with "problems" (which we all have) that need to be fixed.  It's not a completely new idea for this thoughtful company, but it extends Pixar's reach in this important yet too often (in the general culture) avoided area.  The adventure around this is fairly standard, but maybe that's a good thing so as to focus more on Dory and what her character represents.  That is, until things go a little nuts in the final act - but it's also a lot of fun, so it works out just fine.  As a last word, the short, unrelated animated feature that comes before every Pixar movie is quite fun, too (and also ocean-related).  The animation is stunning and adds that much more to the value of your ticket.

***

Not surprisingly, Finding Dory finds itself among the year's strongest films as Pixar films tend to do.  I wasn't sure I would see this in the theater since I don't remember Finding Nemo too well, but Dory stands by itself perfectly capably.  It's mildly disappointing to me when I hear Pixar is releasing a sequel - not because the originals aren't great, but because they're so good at generating yet more original ideas.  But the strong and important themes of Finding Dory make the character- and even story-based similarities to Nemo irrelevant.  I'm certain that audiences who have a more direct connection to Dory's themes in their own lives will discern this much more deeply and meaningfully than me, too.  No matter who you are, heed my broken-record advice:  Pixar makes the best quality films today, and Finding Dory keeps up those standards.



By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=47530962

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows

Score:  ***1/2 out of ***** (B-)

Directed by Dave Green
Starring Megan Fox, Stephen Amell, Will Arnett, et. al.
Running time:  112 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  TMNT: Out of the Shadows continues the live-action film reboot of the beloved cartoon franchise that started with the 2014 film.  Settled in now, the sequel spends more time with the characters and boosts the humor factor.  It also has a few very fun action scenes, a crucial component in this series, but it lacks inventiveness, a good villain, and the 2014's films exhilaration.  You likely already know if this appeals to you and if so, it's worth at least a Netflix.


A year after saving New York City from the Shredder, the ninja turtles continue to watch over the city from their home in the sewers.  The Shredder's gang known as the Foot Clan attempts to free him as he is transported to a new prison and the ninja turtles race to stop them - when he suddenly disappears.  The Shredder had gained a new ally on the outside, a mad scientist named Stockman.  As the turtles try to figure out the Shredder and Stockman's plan, they encounter both new allies and new enemies, and also struggle to conceal their existence to a world not yet ready to accept them.

TMNT: Out of the Shadows has a fun cast that embraces the spirit of the cartoon in this live action sequel.  The turtles themselves are fully CGI, with distinctive designs for each turtle that makes it easy to tell them apart.  The turtles' personalities remain faithful to the cartoon and while they each occupy broadly stereotypical roles, the dialogue is typically light fun and nothing cringe-worthy.  Michelangelo and Rafael tend to get a bit more to do than Leonardo and Donatello, but it's definitely still an ensemble effort.  Megan Fox returns as April O'Neil, the turtles' first human friend and ally.  She provides a perfectly solid performance that shows her character's independence and grit more than in the first film.  Newcomer Stephen Amell is likable if unremarkable as the turtles' second ally, former cop and hockey enthusiast Casey Jones.  The other notable supporting roles are enjoyable for the humor they bring, including Tyler Perry's unhinged scientist villain, Will Arnett's returning Vern Fenwick, and a pair of numbskull criminals known as Bebop and Rocksteady (Gary Anthony Williams and Sheamus).

Out of the Shadows is an enjoyable sequel to the series' reboot from two years ago, with some improvements but still modest in its overall success.  Leaving anything heavy at the door, the Ninja Turtles films just want to have fun, something this film does well with its characters and humor, and to a lesser extent with CGI-based action.  Out of the Shadows, along with the 2014 film, takes advantage of the fun foursome of turtle characters, which is appreciated by fans of the series but also easily digestible for newer, younger audiences.  Having re-introduced them earlier, this film is able to expand on the relationships and interplay among the turtles to just the right degree.  And the turtles, assisted by some colorful supporting roles, bring a tone that is primarily light hearted, with frequent doses of appropriately juvenile humor.  The film has "serious" parts as well, but crucially never takes itself too seriously.  There are several fun action sequences in the film, particularly as the turtles attempt a prison break by Shredder, and overall they are slightly less ridiculous than the 2014 film's.  Unfortunately the main villain is quite strange yet not particularly interesting, with a disappointing climax; the fun is in the set up, not the hastily executed finale.

***

TMNT: Out of the Shadows gets a B-, just like the 2014 film: the sequel doesn't reach the action adrenaline highs of the first, but it does a better job with the turtle characters and humor.  To enjoy either of the films, though, requires that you understand the intended tone and audience, which the critics have completely ignored.  Yes, these films are produced by the dreaded Michael Bay, but unlike the over-the-top, dumb Tranformers movies, they understand that they're silly and all of their components, from the acting to the script, fit together well.  Within that framework improvements can still be made, but these are perfectly entertaining films - for the right audience.  Those most likely to enjoy them include nostalgia-prone adults who still enjoy a fun if silly action romp (*raises hand*), and pretty much any boy under 15.



By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=49463105