Score: ****1/2 out of ***** (A)
Long Story Short: Captain America is the last major Avenger to get his post-block party solo outing - and they definitively saved the best for last. Johansson and Jackson are welcome carry-overs from The Avengers to aid Evans' Captain America who is good but not yet great. What is great is the bone-crunching, edge-of-your-seat action. Add a rock solid, ominous yet occasionally humorous script, and a highly contemporary theme and you've got an outstanding blockbuster.
A little change in my movie plans resulted in my seeing the Captain America sequel on opening weekend (which worked out great considering its neat synergy with ABC's "Agents of SHIELD"!). I hope to eventually get to see Noah before it leaves theaters. At any rate, there's a good chance of a nice string of movie reviews coming out and before you know it, we'll be in prime summer blockbuster season! I liked the first Captain America (subtitled The First Avenger) film a lot, with its fresh tone for a superhero film and some great performances (Tommy Lee Jones, etc.). Since then, the Marvel Avengers universe has only grown, and I looked forward to seeing the Captain America sequel. The Winter Soldier was directed by Anthony and Joe Russo, and stars Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, and Samuel L. Jackson.
Steve Rogers (Evans), aka Captain America (or "Cap"), is getting adjusted to life in the 21st century (the first film takes place during WWII... long story, just watch it). Now an agent for SHIELD, an international defense/intelligence organization, Rogers soon gets called in for a mission to free SHIELD hostages on a ship captured by pirates. With fellow SHIELD agent Romanoff (Johansson; aka Black Widow) and a team of commandoes at his side, Rogers triumphs - although he also catches Romanoff sidetracked with a different task. Rogers debriefs at SHIELD's headquarters in Washington, D.C., where director Nick Fury (Jackson) shows him SHIELD's latest high-tech defense plan, Operation Insight.
Soon after, an attack on one of Rogers' friends startles him and makes him question just who he can trust. With fellow skeptic/mistrusting ally Romanoff at his side, Rogers must figure out what is going on - and who the real threat is in an increasingly complex and dark world.
No one in the cast of The Winter Soldier is on track for an Oscar - but perhaps just as importantly, none of them stink, either. Chris Evans proved himself a charismatic hero in the first Captain America film; while he got a little lost in the big cast of Avengers, he continues his growth in his solo sequel. Evans doesn't waver in portraying Rogers as a humble, earnest man powerfully guided by his moral code. But it doesn't mean he's boring; Evans has good comic timing, typically with dry humor. Scarlett Johansson is making even more rapid progress in her role as Black Widow. A nondescript femme fatale in Iron Man 2, Johansson has made her character relatable and tough, with a backstory that has promise but yet to be fully fleshed out (semi-antihero).
Samuel L. Jackson also returns as SHIELD director Nick Fury. His role is about as big as it was in Avengers, which is considerable. He doesn't have a lot of nuance - he's a badass, of course - but has shown interesting willingness to bend if not break some moral standards ostensibly in the cause of safety, not something many heroes do in these films. I was pleasantly surprised to see Robert Redford show up, naturally as the head honcho. His presence gives the film a great boost to its serious tone. There are a number of smaller roles, most notably Anthony Mackie as Steve's friend in SHIELD; perhaps the most "likable" character, though unspectacular.
While packed with action, Captain America: The Winter Soldier has higher ambitions than mere popcorn flick. But the action is a fine place to start. Honestly, I've been unimpressed with the fight scenes in many recent action films, superhero or not. This film's action, however, is quite simply kick-ass. It's certainly helpful that Captain America is stronger than the average human, but not boringly overpowered like Superman. They don't rely much on CGI, and the hand-to-hand combat is brutal, fast-paced, creative and thrilling (the 300 sequel could only do "brutal"). As mentioned, The Winter Soldier goes beyond just action to dive into some ideas, most notably the very contemporary issue of surveillance and targeting of terrorists/"threats". Is it a subtle exploration? No. But, the film keeps the focus on its characters and when rhetorical language is used it's neither too cliched nor overdone. And there are actual repercussions at the end of the film, rather than the good guys winning and everything going back to the way it was. With all the tense action and frighteningly relevant themes, this might have been too dark a film, but it keeps a good thriller-esque tone. Plus, there's an appropriate amount/type of humor to keep the mood from sinking.
***
Captain America: The Winter Soldier is the best superhero movie (though The Wolverine remains an underrated gem) I've seen since The Dark Knight Rises. Heck, it's one of the best movies I've seen since 2012, period. Overall, these Cap movies are the best of The Avengers' solo outings. I love Robert Downey, Jr. as Iron Man, but the films built around him are less compelling than these. It starts with having a strong foundation: good old fashioned bare-knuckle throw downs that rival any action film in recent memory. There's also eventually a fantasy-like scenario involving the villain, but it's kept to what qualifies as a "minimum" in today's world of cinema. Add a strong, diverse trio - Evans, Johansson, and Jackson - good scripts and humor, and you have a very good franchise. There are no major weaknesses here; it's a pretty long film, but the pacing is great. I guess I'd like to see Evans really become a top-tier superhero/star, but other than that, soldier on, Cap! Highly recommended.
Score: ***1/2 out of ***** (B)
Long Story Short: The Muppets are back again, ready for more after their smash hit comeback in 2011. We even get an upgrade in the human department, starring three of today's top comedians in Ricky Gervais, Tina Fey and Ty Burrell. But these stars, plus a slightly overemphasized plot, steal a bit too much of the spotlight away from our old friends Kermit, Miss Piggy, and Co. It's an amusing entry with some really good songs, but ultimately Most Wanted falls well short of classic.
Well, it's been a bit of a drought for me recently, with my last post coming nearly a month ago. Due to scheduling, I got to see Muppets Most Wanted a week late so the review, which I normally write the weekend after its release, is two weeks late. The good news is that there should be a review each of the next two weeks - although each will also be delayed two weeks from the films' release date. As for Muppets, I was interested in this sequel after Netflixing the reboot from 2011 and enjoying it. I almost decided to just wait on this one, too, but I was itching to see a movie and this seemed the best option. Muppets Most Wanted was directed by James Bobin and stars Ricky Gervais, Tina Fey, Ty Burrell, and of course the Muppets.
Muppets Most Wanted picks up literally right where 2011's The Muppets left off, and the gang is wondering what to do next. Thanks to their successful comeback, they get plenty of attention, including from Dominic Badguy (Gervais). He suggests that the Muppets do a world tour, and they are all (except Kermit) excited by the idea. They first travel to Berlin, where Badguy insists that the Muppets upgrade from their shabby planned venue to the best scene in town. As Badguy takes charge Kermit gets more and more frustrated, before getting jumped by his criminal look-alike, Constantine. Before he knows what's happening, police are taking Kermit off to the gulags while the criminal takes his place.
The Muppets continue from city to city on their tour, happy as Badguy gives them free reign - and also oblivious to Badguy's secret plans. Meanwhile, Kermit finds life in the gulags to be as difficult as you'd imagine, being watched closely by prison guard Nadya (Fey). Investigators Napoleon (Burrell) and Sam Eagle start on the case, but this is one that will take the whole gang to resolve.
As with the 2011 film, Muppets Most Wanted features a few main human actors to accompany the Muppets, along with a large cast of cameos (which I won't spoil). Ricky Gervais has the biggest part, although even he is just #2 to the criminal mastermind, Constantine (a relationship put to song in the film). Gervais was a very nice choice, as Badguy ingratiates himself to the Muppets with ease, praising their talents and raising their expectations for success. At other moments, Gervais entertains by playing the smirking villain even as he's kept in check by Constantine. Tina Fey is also fun as prison guard Nadya. Perhaps her accent is not the greatest (not that that matters in a Muppet movie) but she does a great job adjusting to the silly, semi-villainous humor of her role while also embodying the human warmth required in this kind of family film. Finally, there's Ty Burrell playing Interpol agent Napoleon. This character is the most stereotyped of the three, but Burrell, as he is on Modern Family, is plenty amusing nonetheless.
I'm far from a Muppets aficionado, but I know that the films have certain required components to make them worthy additions to the franchise. Primarily the films are about the Muppet family itself, and how it deals with various challenging situations. While that may seem obvious, Muppets Most Wanted actually goes a little bit off script here (admittedly, I didn't think of this until I read a few other reviews, but I agree with them). Kermit, Miss Piggy and the rest just aren't the dominant focus here; instead, the heist aspects take center stage, and that mainly deals with the Constantine-Badguy and Napoleon-Eagle duos. However, Muppets Most Wanted is faithful in its use of song, and here it does a great job. In fact, I think they are the best parts of the film, when I usually find these routines boring and unnecessary. Finally, the Muppets need a good sense of humor, and Most Wanted is decently if not wildly successful here. All three human actors are great in this department, but most of the humor is more chuckle-worthy than hilarious.
***
All week, I've been going back and forth between a "B" and "B+" for Muppets Most Wanted as I've thought about it. Either way, it meant that I found it a very solid film, but also one that does not really rise to the level of a great Muppet movie. In the broadest terms, this is quite a fun film; it's doubtful that it won't entertain you as long as this type of film appeals to you. The plot is clever and, while not unique, doesn't abandon the Muppets and actors to carry the film by themselves. Gervais, Fey, and Burrell make a great trio, I'll say again; and many of the songs are really good. However, in the end it just doesn't feel very "filling"; I don't think that this is one that'll stick with me. I think a large part of that is the aforementioned mysteriously shrunken parts for the main Muppets, including even Kermit and Miss Piggy. Maybe if they'd wrapped it up with a killer ending, it'd get a "B+", but it's only a tepid conclusion, especially in comparison to the 2011 film. Certainly, Muppets Most Wanted is worth seeing - but unless it's for a family outing, you can probably wait for it on Netflix.
Score: **1/2 out of ***** (C-)
Long Story Short: Seven years later, the long-expected sequel to the surprise hit 300 arrives in theaters. Although it tries to offer up some variety with a naval setting and a female enemy, 300: Rise of an Empire is more of the same - but worse. Newcomer Eva Green is fun but the other humans are either just meat cleavers or the cleaved. Add a butchered story and incessant, numbing repetition of action and you've got a film that most should avoid.
After a nice run of movies early in the year, my prediction of a short drought proved accurate. Looking ahead again, I'm not sure which films I'll see next and when (I've got my eye on a few), so we'll just wait and see. My decision to see 300: Rise of an Empire was driven primarily by desire to see a fun action film; since Liam Neeson's latest clone of Taken didn't interest me, I chose this one. I saw 300 in the theater back in 2007; I wasn't nearly as impressed as some but at least it was unique. Previews showcasing naval battles and - shock! - a female main character gave the impression that this wouldn't just be a carbon copy of the first. Despite middling reviews (43% on RT), I went ahead with it. 300: Rise of an Empire was directed by Noam Murro and stars Sullivan Stapleton and Eva Green.
The first act of this sequel is an extended prologue, narrated by Spartan Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey). Prior to the events of 300, Athenian General Themistocles (Stapleton) led his troops in defending Greece from a Persian invasion. In the process, he kills the Persian King Darius with the king's son Xerxes at his side. Persia retreats and grieves its king, but a cunning naval commander, Artemisia (Green), convinces Xerxes that he must exact revenge on the Greeks. The Greeks discover the imminent invasion, but are divided on how to respond. The proud Spartans refuse to cooperate, instead sending the famous three hundred to defend their own land.
It's up to General Themistocles, then, to try to stop as much of the Persian fleet as he can before it reaches Greece. Though outnumbered, he quickly shows tactical brilliance and develops a rivalry with Artemisia. The fate of Greece hangs in the balance as Themistocles tries to hold off the Persian hordes at sea while Leonidas (in the background; see 300) does the same on land.
The cast of 300: Rise of an Empire is not very good overall; the filmmakers clearly prioritized fit bodies over talented thespians. Leading the charge in this sequel is Sullivan Stapleton (what a name!). While I'd hardly call Gerard Butler a great actor, he was a much better choice (as Leonidas in 300) for this kind of film than Sullivan. He's simply bland; nothing distinguishes him at all. When he started to launch into one of many "pep talks", my attention immediately began to wander. Fortunately, at least his co-star, Eva Green, is intriguing to watch. Green, in stark contrast, is highly distinctive and the one human worthy of attention in the film. She isn't just a girl who happens to be on the enemy team - she is more sadistic than any of her brethren. Unfortunately, despite being leader of an army, Artemisia ends up being another cliched female villain - using her sex as a weapon (which the hero enjoys momentarily then rejects as beneath him) and ultimately losing the war due to her "feminine" arrogance and emotionality.
OK, OK, you might be saying. The acting might be bad, but that's not the point of these films! It's all about the action/violence and visual effects! Don't worry, that is certainly the case. Despite a bizarrely long prologue which leads to an unnecessarily complicated yet arbitrary plot, there are precious few minutes in which blood is not being spilt. For the first few minutes, it's kind of neat to watch the stylized violence (this coming from a young man). However, it gets a bit dull and numbing after, oh, the fiftieth kill or so - and there are still about a thousand to go. 300 ran into the same problem to some degree, but they mixed things up considerably better. And the naval battles? Boring (with the exception of one neat engagement). Much of the failure in this area is due to the "despite the fact that the enemies are more numerous and powerful, they are also dumb as ****" syndrome. The special effects are well done, technically speaking, but they just pile on more and more rather than making it truly special (other than a few instances). To conclude, there were a number of times that I laughed, but I believe only once was I supposed to (during the sex scene of all places).
***
It's official - 300: Rise of an Empire is the first dud of the year (that I've seen). I probably should have been more prepared for it; considering my lukewarm feelings about 300, it was never likely that the sequel would be any better (and, in fact, it's significantly worse). On the other hand, it's kind of fun, in a mean way, to write reviews for films of this quality. Much easier to write about what a film does badly than about what it does well. And this film isn't all bad; I didn't give it an F or even a D, after all. Eva Green's Artemisia is entertaining to watch (even if the script slowly destroys her), a few of the battles are interesting, and it's visually unique. Of course, the ridiculous/cliched/bland plot, lack of interesting characters other than Artemisia, and numbing abundance of (over)kills far outweigh the positives. I'd only recommend this if you were crazy about 300 - and even then, you still won't like this one as much as the first.
Score: ****1/2 out of ***** (A)
Long Story Short: The Lego Movie brings one of the most popular and ubiquitous children's toy companies to the big screen. Many have thrown big brand names and big acting names together and expected greatness; using the enthusiasm, creativity and talent of all involved, The Lego Movie actually makes good on this promise. The cast, led by Chris Pratt and Will Ferrell, is perfect, and everything else from the script to the visuals is exceptional. Whether you have kids or still are one somewhere in your heart, you should see this movie.
Four movies in the first two months of the year is rather unusual for me, given the kind of movies that typically come out. But it happened, and they all scored a "B-" or better. Despite my earlier optimism, I'm unsure of when my next trip to the theater will be. A few movies look potentially interesting but I'll probably wait to see their aggregate scores on Rotten Tomatoes before deciding. Looking to this week, I was not at all impressed when I heard a Lego movie was coming out; I loved playing with Legos as a kid, but it didn't seem like something that would make a good film. However, after seeing its fantastic score on RT (96% or better), I decided to give it a try. The Lego Movie was directed by Phil Lord and Chris Miller (21 Jump Street) and stars the voices of Chris Pratt, Will Ferrell, Elizabeth Banks, et. al.
The Lego Movie introduces a world made up entirely of - you guessed it - Legos. Long ago, an evil Lego named Lord Business (Ferrell) discovers a super weapon called the "Kragle"; years (?) later, all seems to be well in Lego Land, where we meet Emmet (Pratt), an ordinary yet very cheerful construction worker. Poor Emmet finds something strange at the construction site one day, and the next thing he knows he is being interrogated by Lord Business' lieutenant, Bad Cop (Liam Neeson). Swooping in to save the day is Wyldstyle (Banks), a Master Builder who rescues him and takes him out of the Lego city. Wyldstyle and Vitruvius (Morgan Freeman), a fellow Master Builder, tell Emmet about the evil Lord Business' plans.
Emmet, it turns out, is Lego Land's best hope to defeat Lord Business. Unfortunately, he seems to be the farthest thing from a "Master Builder". As Lord Business' forces chase them around Lego Land, Emmet and his friends must find a way to beat the odds and save all from certain doom.
The cast of voice actors for The Lego Movie is brilliant. And the best of them all is Chris Pratt as Emmet. Many may know Chris as I do as the lovable lunkhead on Parks and Recreation, and he uses his best naive yet cheerfully earnest voice to bring Emmet to life. Chris' comic timing and tone of voice is well-honed and he's hilarious here, not to mention a surprisingly compelling lead. Elizabeth Banks also turns out to be a great choice as Wyldstyle. The first thing that strikes you is her seductiveness, but in tandem with her character's actions, her voice also effectively conveys a no-nonsense leadership, exasperation with knuckleheads, yet also compassion at times. Finishing out the big three is Will Ferrell. You probably know by now how big a fan of his I am, and he already has experience as the bad guy in an animated film (the underrated gem Megamind). Ferrell is delightfully evil as Lord Business, and his humor is a great complement to Pratt's. Many villains, animated or otherwise, can be dragged down by stereotypical dialogue, but Ferrell keeps Lord Business fresh throughout the film.
And there are even more big names to go around! Morgan Freeman voices Emmet's old wise guide (as well as, often, "wise guy"), Vitruvius. Obviously, Freeman has one of the most distinct and impressive voices in Hollywood - but he really bites into his role and seems to enjoy it, trading in his usual gentle persona for a wisecracker. Liam Neeson voices Bad Cop, the evil henchman, and we get to hear his Irish accent much more than in most of his other films. It's probably not too hard to imagine why he's good for this role. Rounding out the rest are Will Arnett as Batman (cocky and sarcastic), Nick Offerman as a pirate (barely recognizable; a small but fun part), and Alison Brie as Princess Uni-Kitty (bubbly and cute... but with a dark side). There are also some cameos, which I won't spoil.
The Lego Movie is structurally a standard family film which finds its niche within a unique world while employing both great grown-up humor as well as a solid "life lesson". Anchoring all three parts is the main character, Emmet. The film does a brilliant job of introducing him, and the Lego world, in a fun, humorous, and interesting segment. Once the adventure begins - which the film doesn't delay - the formula of a chosen one journeying to defeat evil is somehow executed with "wink-winks" galore and compelling seriousness at the same time. Now, the two aren't equal throughout: the beginning is more laugh heavy before the seriousness becomes the focus toward the end. But the balance and flow throughout is remarkable. I credit this to the strength of the screenplay and enthusiasm of the voice cast. The lesson itself - the importance and value of individual creativity (though teamwork isn't ignored) - might sound obvious for a Lego film, but it's handled exceptionally well and finishes strong. Oh, and I suppose I should also mention (the other aspects are so good that I tend to forget this) that visually the film is creative and appropriate, using a set of physical "rules" which make sense for a Lego universe; even the water is made of Legos!
***
What can I say? I was thoroughly impressed with The Lego Movie, despite my earlier doubts, and if it holds up (or even improves) on multiple viewings I could see this getting an "A+". Fascinating how some of the films that seem to face the biggest challenges to even become watchable - Life of Pi, Gravity, and now The Lego Movie - turn out to be some of the very best films. This is where I normally give an overview of the good and the bad of a movie, but I honestly can't think of anything bad to say (maybe it's already time to bump this up to an "A+"). The voice cast is perfectly chosen and they all perform wonderfully. The script is great, balancing often self-aware humor with potentially cheesy (but not in execution) lessons, all on the platform of a pretty typical plot outline. The pacing is great, and it doesn't carry on too long. If you have kids, go see this movie now. If you played with Legos as a kid, go see this movie now. If neither of those apply to you but you like expertly crafted films with great humor and creativity, go see this movie now. What are you waiting for?
Score: ***1/2 out of ***** (B-)
Long Story Short: The Monuments Men offers a rare wide release, dramatic film packed with stars in the middle of winter. Clooney, serving as director, co-writer, and star, picked an interesting new angle on the thoroughly filmed WWII - the effort to save Europe's art. The cast is likable of course, and four of them in particular are great. But the film tries for so many angles on the story that little focus develops until well into the second half. Worth seeing, but also a missed opportunity in many ways.
The early winter months of 2014, while being utterly terrible in terms of weather, are producing more films that are intriguing than is usual for this time of year. I think there will be several more movie reviews on the way in the coming weeks. When I first saw the trailer for this film, back in the fall, it immediately caught my attention as having a star-studded, likable cast and an interesting WWII premise. A poor score on Rotten Tomatoes (low 30s) wasn't nearly enough to overcome the attractive elements of the film. The Monuments Men was directed by George Clooney, and stars Clooney, Matt Damon, Bill Murray, John Goodman, et. al.
Based on true events, The Monuments Men sets the scene in the early 1940s as the tide of WWII starts to turn. In the States, Frank Stokes (Clooney), a museum director and lieutenant in the Army, requests that a task force be formed to retrieve, secure and protect the vast trove of art and cultural artifacts in harm's way in Europe. He gets permission - but leads only a seven-man "unit" comprised of fellow art professionals. The seven are excited and determined to get to their task, but the going is slow and frustrating as their mission is constantly relegated to second, if not lower, priority.
With such an overwhelming mission going against formidable odds, the team breaks up and spreads across Europe. They join forces with French resistance, Belgian priests, and others to prevent disastrous cultural destruction by the Nazis. While they achieve some remarkable successes, there are disappointments too, as well as heartbreaking losses.
Clooney managed to wrangle together a dream team for his WWII film. Although I mention Clooney as an actor first, I should note that even if he does have the most screen time it isn't by much, and he gives attention to the others pretty equally. Clooney, as the Monuments Men's team leader, basically plays Clooney: the charming, slightly mischievous yet calmly in control and solid as a rock lead. It's always fun to watch that, but I'm not sure I buy it as a good fit for Lt. Museum Director. The others basically play themselves, too, though. Matt Damon, the youngster of the group, gets the film's lone, slight romantic bit. He's here for his gentle earnestness and object of some humor. Cate Blanchett plays the French contact, a small role that she does well but is poorly written.
Bill Murray and Bob Balaban (you'll probably recognize him) team up, and are the most fun part of the film. Murray is of course hilarious, but he maybe does the best job acting by putting on his serious face and letting the humor flow naturally from the confidence of his character. Balaban is also amusing as a prickly professorial type - a good contrast in style. Goodman and Jean Dujardin (from The Artist) also make a good team, and have some of the film's most poignant moments together. The last MM, played by Hugh Bonneville, is a bit of a stereotype as Clooney's old, washed-up old friend out for one last adventure. Beyond this considerable lead cast, there are no other notable roles.
It's funny that I was just talking about the delicate balance war films need to pull off, in my review of Lone Survivor. The Monuments Men goes for a lot: message film (importance of art); buddy film (humorous pairings); heist film (tracking certain pieces of art); as well as both generic perception of war (loss of comrades) and personal (effect on home front). That, as you can imagine, is a lot to cover in one film. Too much in fact; it does some parts better than others. It does the buddy parts well. Although it takes some time to develop, the Murray-Balaban and Goodman-Dujardin combos become the strongest parts of the film - they have the most powerful as well as the funniest scenes. The heist aspect is decent - again, takes some time to develop - thanks to the uniqueness of the circumstances; on the other hand, the sense of urgency could have been significantly stronger. Perception of war aspects are somewhat out of place, and should have been modified to instead emphasize the other parts. Finally, and strangely, the message of art's importance is not well developed. We are constantly being told how important it is, and what can be sacrificed to protect it, but when it comes down to it it doesn't feel like a huge difference between Clooney and co. racing to save art here, versus Clooney and co. racing to steal money in Ocean's Twelve.
***
There's no point in denying it: The Monuments Men is a disappointment, given the rich story potential and cast of stars. The film is a jumble at the start, bouncing from place to place and not providing a good introduction to any of the characters. As mentioned, it tries to juggle way too many different themes and styles resulting in some (the war-related) being there for the sake of posterity and others (the art theme) being left undeveloped and ineffective. And most of the stars essentially play themselves, with Clooney and to a lesser degree Damon not providing very natural fits for their characters. But, it's still a very likable, enjoyable cast all around - particularly the two aforementioned duos. The beginning might be a mess, but I was surprised how well the film started bringing the characters together in midstream. Even the story and script somehow become more focused and interesting from about the midpoint on, a tough task. What this all boils down to is that The Monuments Men is a significantly flawed but very watchable film. You can skip it in the theater, but give it a try on Netflix/rental.
2014 Super Bowl and Australian Open
The Grand Slams of tennis are located around key parts of the calendar for my other two favorite sports, football and basketball. The French Open and Wimbledon coincide with the NBA Playoffs and Finals, the U.S. Open happens right around the start of the NFL season, and the Australian Open takes place during the NFL Playoffs. Both of those latter events have now finished up, so let's see how they went! Stay tuned next week for a review of The Monuments Men.
Australian Open
It was a historic tournament in at least one way: the temperatures during the first week (and a little into the second) soared into the 100s just about every day. How (and why) someone could play tennis in those kind of conditions astounds me, but I guess that's why they're professionals. Beyond the weather, there were also surprising result on both sides of the draw. Here's a recap of the tourney.
Men: First of all, it was a shock to see Federer seeded outside the top 5, allowing Ferrer to sneak into the top 3. Now, the top 4+Federer all made the quarterfinals, but that's where the &*(^ hit the fan. Federer defeated Murray; not a huge surprise, given Fed's history and Murray coming off a back injury, but still unexpected. Ferrer lost to Berdych, and, in the biggest shock, #2 seed and two-time defending champion Djokovic lost in five sets to Wawrinka. In the semis, Nadal showed that he still owns Federer, and Wawrinka bested Berdych in a tough match. Then the finals: Wawrinka came out looking spectacular, taking the first set easily. Nadal injured his back in the second set, but kept playing. I recorded this match, and honestly started fast forwarding after the injury; somehow Nadal won a set, but the end result was inevitable. It was the first time since the 2009 U.S. Open that someone other than Nadal, Djokovic, Murray or Federer had won a Grand Slam tournament.
Women: There was very little shake up in the top ranks of the women's game in 2013, and so the top 10 looked pretty much the same for this tourney. A few top seeds were upset early, but things went pretty smoothly overall - until the 4th round. That was when former world #1 Ana Ivanovic shocked Serena Williams (I still can't believe it happened); Cibulkova knocked off Sharapova, and several other top 10 players lost as well. Azarenka, Li Na, and Radwanska remained as the favorites surviving in the quarterfinals. Azarenka, the most heavily favored, bowed out there in humiliating fashion to Radwanska, while some lower ranked players like Cibulkova and Canadian teen Bouchard managed to advance. It was Li Na and Cibulkova in the finals, and the Chinese veteran put on one of the most impressive performances on the women's side that I've seen in a long time. She went for her shots constantly and hit the mark; despite not having a trace of Serena's overwhelming firepower, she just blew Cibulkova off the court (who, I should add, competed hard the whole time).
A look at some of the top players after this tournament:
(1) Rafael Nadal: a nasty blister on his hand slowed Nadal a bit in Australia, and he struggled against some of the top players. Still, he dominated Federer again and made the finals. Considering his extraordinary return from injury last year, he will likely stay #1 most of the year and almost certainly win the French Open for the ninth time.
(2) Novak Djokovic: the Djoker came into Australia with a nice winning streak, and cruised through the opening rounds. Unfortunately, he ran into the red-hot Wawrinka in the semis, didn't have his best stuff, and went down in five sets. As long as he stays focused and hungry (retaking the #1 seed could be a nice goal), Djokovic's fitness and phenomenal return game will make him one of the favorites on every surface.
(3) Stan Wawrinka: coming out of nowhere is the guy who makes Federer the second best Swiss player in tennis right now. Wawrinka has been a good but not great player for years; somehow he's boosted himself into the elite ranks - at least for the moment - at the age of 28. Whether he can maintain this or not might be the most interesting story in tennis this year.
(6) Andy Murray: from the second half of 2012 through Wimbledon 2013, it seemed like Murray was going to be the new Djokovic - a player having such incredible improvement to lift them to the level of all-time legends Federer and Nadal. A back injury may or may not have cut that rise short. He's playing with the confidence he lacked in years prior - but how soon can he get back to the top 3?
(8) Roger Federer: 2013 was the first year that reports of Federer's decline could be backed up by his results. It was no longer just the other top players who could beat Fed - he was losing to inferior players somewhat consistently as well. With a new coach and new racket, he hopes to rebound in 2014, and the semifinal showing seemed to bode well. It may just delay the inevitable a bit longer, though.
(1) Serena Williams: even at age 32, Serena is dominating the women's game right now. Although her fourth round loss in Australia raises questions, an even bigger question is who is ready to replace her as the top player. I don't have the answer.
(2) Victoria Azarenka: Azarenka had a golden opportunity to win a third straight Australian Open when Serena went down early. But she choked badly against Radwanska (admittedly a very solid player). She has great talent and confidence, but are they both good enough to make her the next women's superstar?
(3) Li Na: although she's now won "just" two Grand Slam tournaments, Li Na is perhaps the most important player in tennis right now - man or woman - as she brings attention to the game to the largest audience in the world, China. From what I know of her, she's an exemplary representative; she may not win anymore Grand Slams (now 31 years old), but her influence could go on for many more years.
(5) Maria Sharapova: many believed that Maria would be the first "bombshell" women's player to rise to the top of the women's game. I give her a lot of credit for how hard she works and competes on the tennis court, but it looks like her ceiling might be "very good" rather than "great".
Super Bowl
It was another fun year for the NFL. Sadly, the Steelers did not make the playoffs but at least they improved through the season to give hope for 2014. But most importantly, TTSNBN was defeated before reaching the Super Bowl! Looking back at my playoff projections from before the season started, I had some very good and very bad guesses. My "bold" pick of the Broncos playing the Seahawks in the Super Bowl came true (although I picked Denver to win). On the other hand, I had Houston (2-14), Washington (3-13) and Atlanta (4-12) making the playoffs - ouch! But that's a big part of what makes the NFL so interesting to follow: you never know which expected favorites are going to fold, and which expected cellar dwellers will rise to the top.
The playoffs produced quite a few close, competitive games. By far the most entertaining was the Colt's crazy comeback win over the Chiefs in the wildcard round. But two other games that weekend were also quite close, decided by field goals at the end of the game (NO over Philly, SF over GB). I became rather worried after TTSNBN crushed the Colts in round 2, while the Broncos snuck past the Chargers. Fortunately, the Broncos ended up dominating TTSNBN in the conference championship - doubly good since I'm a fan of Peyton Manning. In the NFC, Seattle scored 23 points in each of two home games to defeat New Orleans - an explosive offense - and San Francisco - a smash-mouth team - to reach the Super Bowl.
The trend of wildcard teams getting on a hot streak and going to the Super Bowl hit a wall this year, as we got the strangely rare occurrence of the #1 seeds from both conferences. The game itself doesn't merit much discussion: the Seahawks destroyed the Broncos. I do object to, after the fact, to the many analysts claiming the result was inevitable (despite most saying the Broncos were the favorites beforehand). Seattle probably did have the better team, but I think the result had more to do with football's "any given Sunday" variability than a truly significant disparity between the teams.
Two great sports tournaments complete - now to turn attention to the NBA and winter Olympics!
Score: ***1/2 out of ***** (B)
Long Story Short: Her is the Oscar-nominated, sci-fi romance film of Jonze and Phoenix, acclaimed director and actor, respectively. While the acting is good (not just Phoenix but also Amy Adams in a small part), and the sci-fi and cultural commentary is intriguing, the central premise - human-computer romance - just doesn't work well. And its effect on me, personally, was bitterness. I can see it having a much different impact on other people, but I still don't view it as a must see, let alone an Oscar frontrunner.
Back to the normal reviews this week, and the first movies of 2014 (for a much different kind of film, read about Lone Survivor). I hope that you enjoyed my 2013 top 10 and awards posts from last week; many of my choices didn't align very closely with the major national critics, but hopefully they gave you some good ideas that you wouldn't hear elsewhere. Next week I'll have a sports post about the NFL playoffs, including Super Bowl, plus the Australian Open. I wasn't sure what to think about Her when I saw the first trailer; Joaquin Phoenix is a good actor but tends to be in very strange films (eg: The Master). Once I finally read about the premise, it sounded interesting, and as an Oscar contender, it seemed reasonable to expect high quality. Her was directed by Spike Jonze (Being John Malkovich) and stars Phoenix, Scarlett Johansson and Amy Adams.
I'll only give a brief plot summary for this film. It's set in a (seemingly) near future American city, where Theodore Twombly (Phoenix) lives and works as a romantic letter writer. Technology has advanced to the point that a new OS has been developed - it can accompany the owner everywhere via earpiece and matchbox-style hardware - that has consciousness. Theodore, lonely due to his introversion and life experiences, quickly grows close to his new OS, named Samantha (voiced by Johansson). The rest of the film is about this relationship which, as you can imagine, is a little different than that of a normal human-to-human one.
The cast of Her is relatively small but good. Joaquin Phoenix plays Theodore, the central role in the film. Phoenix is a very good actor, of course, and he plays the introverted yet romantic man believably (kind of reminded me of a serious version of Big Bang Theory's Leonard - even in appearance). Considering that for most of the time he has no other actors to work with, his performance is even more impressive. But - and this certainly isn't all his fault - Theodore simply isn't all that engaging a character. Calls for Johansson to get an Oscar nod for her voice part as the "conscious" OS Samantha are a little ridiculous, I think. She does a good job, but not so well to compensate for the obvious limitations. Amy Adams is great once again - in a smaller, much less striking role than in American Hustle - as Theodore's friend. She's the most likable character, and I only wish she had more screen time. Also involved are Rooney Mara, Twombly's ex who delivers one withering scene (more on this later), and Chris Pratt, hilarious as usual as Twombly's boss.
Her ends up as primarily a romantic film, with significant cultural commentary and sci-fi elements involved as well. It does an OK job at the first part, and excels at the other two. All those involved - writer, director, and actors - had quite a challenge to try to pull off a convincing romantic relationship between a human and a bodiless computer. Phoenix's acting, as noted, is very good, and Johansson "speaks" as you might think such an entity would. There are also a few scenes of striking (even disturbing) emotion, most notably when Samantha tries to make physical love to Twombly through a (willing, non-prostitute) surrogate. But I seldom felt a true romantic connection between the two, and the montages of "normal" romantic time together grew wearisome rather quickly. If anything, the one real-time meeting we see between Twombly and his ex is the most emotional scene in the entire film, one where she eviscerates Twombly so badly (I even felt hurt on his account) it could have - but doesn't - lead to a major change. On the other hand, the cultural and sci-fi aspects - which basically intertwine - are pretty fascinating. Twombly is often surrounded by other people, and yet there is a distinct feeling of isolation as everyone seems to be talking only to themselves (rather, to their own OS). The near-future world is very convincing and believable. A final note, there is a bit of humor in Her - I wouldn't call it "hilarious" as some critics have, but there are some chuckles, mostly produced by Chris Pratt and one of Twombly's video games.
***
Considering its 94% rating on RT and Oscar nomination for best picture, I had high expectations for Her, but I was not as impressed as other critics. It comes down to the central premise of the film - the romance between human and computer - being a failure, and simply the bitter taste it left me with. For everything in the film to truly click together, the audience has to believe in Theodore and Samantha as being in love, but it just never got there for me. It would be one thing if the script seemed to indicate that Theodore thought he loved Samantha but never did - but that's not the case. Also, while Her is not a downbeat film, I felt kind of cold and empty walking out of the theater. Many of the films I go to I would not mind seeing again, and some I immediately want to rewatch, but I have no such desire at all with this film. As usual, it's not all bad, though. The acting of Phoenix and Adams, and even the voice work of Johansson, keep you engaged (most of the time - it could have been 15 minutes or so shorter). And the biggest draw is the interesting concept of where human relationships are headed in a world of increasingly sophisticated technology. Her serves as a definitive warning (perhaps even more so than the director intended), and it's something worth thinking about. Still, don't bother rushing out to see this; a Netflix viewing is perfectly good, and afterwards you can watch a light-hearted sitcom or something to cheer yourself up again.
