Movies: Gone Girl

Score:  **** out of ***** (B+)

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

Movies: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

*

Score:  ***1/2 out of ***** (B-)

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

Movies: Guardians of the Galaxy

*

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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



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

Movies: Lucy

*

Score:  ** out of ***** (D-)

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

Movies: Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

Score:  **** out of ***** (B+)

Long Story Short:  Dawn kicks the story of humans vs. apes into high gear after 2011's slower but exquisite Rise.  Andy Serkis resumes his role as the actor behind Casear, who is now the leader of a colony of the super smart apes.  The apes collide violently with the boring remnants of human civilization led by Jason Clarke and Gary Oldman.  There's great action and solid moral themes, but a predictable plot and stale human characters keep it from greatness.


Back to the summer blockbuster genre!  Since May, I haven't been too impressed with the summer action releases (although I may catch some of them on Netflix).  The remainder of July doesn't look great, either, but there are at least a few in August I'm looking forward to.  As for Dawn, it was a pretty clear choice given that I was very impressed by 2011's Rise of the Planet of the Apes and its remarkable technological and emotional creation of Caesar the ape.  With an outstanding Rotten Tomatoes score (+90%), I was excited to head back to the theater.  Dawn of the Planet of the Apes was directed by Matt Reeves (Cloverfield) and stars Andy Serkis, Jason Clarke, Keri Russell, et. al.

A montage of news footage reveals that in the ten years since Rise, the simian virus has spread quickly and devastatingly across the world leaving only a handful of human survivors.  One such outpost of humanity lives in San Francisco, and an exploratory group in the woods encounters the colony of apes, led by Caesar, which escaped at the end of Rise.  Wary but not hostile to humans, Caesar demands that the group leave the forest, and that the two civilizations - the two species - leave each other alone.

Unfortunately, the humans in San Francisco are running short on fuel.  Their only chance to keep the lights on is to make use of a hydroelectric dam - in ape territory.  While individuals on both sides loudly call for war, it is up to just a few others to try to prevent calamity for both human and ape.

Dawn is quite similar to its predecessor Rise in that its ape characters steal the show completely from their dull human counterparts.  Thanks to outstanding visual effects work in both films, the film allows human actors to bring ape characters to startlingly realistic life.  Leading the acting effort once again is the motion-capture king, Andy Serkis as Caesar.  Where Rise showed Caesar's development as a sentient, non-human person, Dawn moves him on to the role of leader of a tribe, a tribe of what might be "primitive" humans if not for their ape bodies.  Serkis and the effects people work in beautiful harmony to produce subtle, human-like expressions of anger, frustration, pain, and many more complex emotions.  The other apes see significantly increased screen time, including Rise apes Koba, a scarred, angry former lab ape, and Maurice, a wise old former circus orangutan.  Other individual apes are introduced, including members of Caesar's family.

I'll briefly mention the human characters, secondary to the apes.  Jason Clarke is the brave, empathetic leader of a small band of the survivors.  He does fine, but his character Malcolm is more important to the plot than as an individual.  Keri Russell is the lone woman, playing the exasperatingly cliche role of former CDC medic.  She and Kodi-Smit McPhee (?), playing Malcolm's son, make emotional connections with some of the apes - a touching but also fleeting part of the film.  Gary Oldman is entirely wasted as the leader of the humans; with just a few minutes of screen time, could have easily been replaced by someone else.  And Kirk Acevedo, so likable in his role on Fringe, plays a very dislikable asshole (on purpose) here.

With Rise having set the stage for why the apes are so smart and why human civilization is brought to its knees, Dawn is the first of presumably at least a few films depicting the direct conflict between the two sides.  Even if you're not an Apes (I'm not) or film buff in general, you'll likely pick out the clash-of-civilizations theme quite quickly, which anchors the film.  This serves as both the film's greatest strength, and its greatest weakness.  For the good, Dawn takes a complex viewpoint of neither apes or humans being "good guys" - there are good and bad on each side.  Even at that level, there's no knight in shining armor nor devil; the bad are driven by experience and self-interest, while the good are tempered by mistrust and uncertainty.  The bad part is, the plot is pretty predictable.  Once you see where it's going, it's pretty easy to see the journey from point A to point B, if not all the details.  Dawn is also a much, much more action-packed film than Rise (featuring a thrilling centerpiece gun-enabled ape assault on the humans), although it also maintains a nice level of tension most of the way through.  And of course the visual effects, led by the CGI apes themselves, are very impressive.

***

While I think Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a very good film, I'm not as enthusiastic as the overall critical praise (i.e.: RT score) indicates.  I'm in the minority in preferring Rise to Dawn.  Origins films are hardly, well, original, these days, but I felt that Rise actually was.  By concentrating on the development of a creature (an admittedly advanced one) into a non-human person, making use of astounding visual effects and physical acting, Rise set itself apart (and also incorporated enough supporting elements to keep it lively).  Considering we get even more of the CGI ape wizardry in Dawn, it's amazing how much more conventional the new film is.  Don't get me wrong, the themes (clash-of-civilization, good and bad on both sides) and the action/effects are strong and better done than most others.  But it also didn't really try anything particularly new or daring, not to mention its predictable plot and throwaway human characters.  This franchise still has potential to grow past a very solid base, here, and I look forward to Caesar's next adventure.  Recommended (if you want a July blockbuster, this is likely your best best).

Sports: 2014 tennis season

2014 Tennis:  French Open, Wimbledon

Before I get started on tennis, I have to say that I'm very excited about the news that LeBron James is coming back to Cleveland.  It makes it a lot easier to forgive him for The Decision and the Miami years (btw, the number of Heat fans probably just dropped 75%).  I'll be watching the Cavs closely - and since they're the closest NBA team to me, that includes in-person!

But back to tennis.  It's been yet another interesting year, thanks mostly to the phenomenal, all-time talent at the top of the men's game.  We've had some surprises and glorious victories in the past couple months.  Here's a recap.

French Open:
This is old news by now, so I won't go into too much detail.  The men's top 20 thinned out fairly quickly, most notably #3 seed Stan Wawrinka losing in the first round.  The quarterfinals featured a typically unusual clay court mixture, such as Monfils back from who-knows-where (losing in 5 sets to Murray).  Clay court bulldog Ferrer had the misfortune of running into the Nadal meat grinder in the quarters; Nadal would go on to humiliate Murray even worse (6-3, 6-2, 6-1).  On the other side, Djokovic cruised to the final without much trouble, either.  No surprise, though, that Nadal won it, claiming his ninth French Open title in ten years (the other year, he was injured).

The women's draw was a crapshoot, as it has frequently become these days.  Only three top 10 players made the quarters, after five of them bowed out in the third round or earlier (including Serena in the second).  On the positive side, Canadian Eugenie Bouchard continued her rapid rise, making the semifinals; and Simona Halep got to the finals, and looks poised to be a fixture (but will she simply be yet another very solid player who can't reach greatness?).  Perhaps most impressive was Maria Sharapova, who fought through many three-set matches to claim the title.  While Sharapova may be a bit inconsistent, I admire her fierce competitive spirit.

Wimbledon:
Ah, the best tennis tournament in the world.  From seeing the nice, fresh green lawns to some of the most exciting tennis to the many traditions (e.g., everyone wears white), Wimbledon can't be matched.  And the men's draw certainly lived up to that standard in one of the best tournaments in recent memory.  This time, the only true surprise was Nadal missing the quarters (didn't get to see the match).  The quarters saw Federer and Wawrinka battling fiercely in an all-Swiss match; Djokovic taken to five sets by fringe star Cilic; and Dimitrov shellacking defending champion Murray in a quick three sets.  Every tennis fan could see it coming (or hope that it would come):  the best player of all-time on his best surface (Federer) trying for perhaps one last title, against arguably today's best player, Novak Djokovic.  In five very close sets, I was thrilled when my favorite player, Djokovic, captured the title.  Despite suffering a melt down in the fourth set, losing it 5-7 after being up 5-2, he rallied to win the fifth set, 6-4.  To be honest, it wasn't as thrilling of tennis as the score suggested, since there was a lot of brilliant serving that kept points very short, mostly.  But still, it was great to see such high-level tennis.

The women's draw?  Just as much confusion as in the French Open.  Once again, just three top-10 seeds made it to the quarters, and many top players lost early (again, Serena among them).  Interestingly, three women from the Czech Republic made the quarters (including the champion).  Last year's finalist Lisicki made it, too, but got crushed by rising star Halep - who was then stopped by the other rising star, Eugenie Bouchard.  Many predicted the winner of that match would win the title, but Kvitova unleashed one of the nastiest beatdowns in recent memory on poor Bouchard.  It wasn't even that Bouchard played badly, but Kvitova's shots were so fierce that almost every point was over within two to three shots (she won 6-3, 6-0).  Interestingly, 2011 Wimbledon saw Djokovic and Kvitova as champions - just like this tournament, three years later.

Top Players:
(1) Novak Djokovic:  As was entirely appropriate, Djokovic recaptured the top seed with his soaring Wimbledon title.  Sure, he's not the flashiest player (tennis experts can surely see his brilliance better than me) but he is the most reliable in the game.  Add to that a great sense of humor and a humble, respectful, classy character, and it's easy to root for him.  Here's hoping for many more Grand Slam titles to solidify his all-time status with peers Federer and Nadal.
(2) Rafael Nadal:  After winning two Wimbledons, Nadal has actually struggled there, losing early each of the last three years.  But he certainly isn't in decline.  He remains dominant on clay (only Djokovic has a chance against him), and he is up there with the other Big Four on hard courts.  Another humble, hard-working guy, I root for him, too.
(3) Roger Federer:  The number of times Fed has been prematurely declared finished is now almost as high as his Grand Slam title total.  He had a sensational tournament, no doubt about it, with one of the most dominant serving performances of all time.  Only a gutsy showing by the game's best overall player could barely take him out.  That said, Wimbledon has always been his best, so it will be interesting to see how he fares this summer.
(10) Andy Murray:  After failing to defend his Wimbledon title, Murray took a tumble down the rankings.  It's still hard for me to gauge his true level.  He may have already peaked, with his previous Wimbledon and U.S. Open titles.  Taken at their average levels, Murray is simply a tier below the other Big Four - without them, he likely has at least five Grand Slam titles already.
Other Players:  Stan Wawrinka is still a big threat; losing to Federer was no letdown... Milos Raonic is working his way up, a big Canadian server, but I haven't seen him play enough to know how good he is... Grigor Dimitrov seems to living up to the hype he's been getting - another baseline athlete, who whipped Murray at Wimbledon.

(1) Serena Williams:  Not to beat a dead horse, but... ugh, I hope this is finally the beginning of the end for Serena.  All through her career, she has been one of the most petulant (top) athletes I've ever seen.  She often lacks class when winning, and when she loses - look out.  There's no denying that she's an all-time great in the women's game.  But I won't be sad to see her go.
(6) Maria Sharapova:  Although she's ranked sixth, I think she's probably the second best player in the women's game right now.  If she can avoid injury, she should be in contention in every tournament due to her competitiveness and skill.  Of course, we've also seen that she can lose quite easily to lesser players when her inconsistent game isn't on.
Others:  Yes, everyone else qualifies as "other".  The other top seeds are a wild grab bag.  Li Na, Jankovic, Azarenka?  They've had their share of success, but whether it's injury or age, none of them should be considered favorites in any tournament.  Kvitova or Kerber?  They have big games but are also very up-and-down; Kvitova should likely just count herself lucky for her two Wimbledon titles.  Halep or Radwanska?  Basically the opposite of the previous two, these players will likely make it deep into most tournaments, but also usually fall to whomever happens to have the "hot hand" because they don't have any powerful weapons.  Bouchard is about the only player right now who seems to have the potential to become the next superstar:  she's mentally and emotionally stable, and her game is both potent and reliable (thus far).  We'll see!

Movies: Tammy

Score:  ***1/2 out of ***** (B)

Long Story Short:  Perhaps the most popular female comedian today, Melissa McCarthy launches her newest film, Tammy, on the iconic July 4th release date.  Formula genre blockbusters abound at this time, but Tammy steers away from its star's bread and butter.  The result may register significantly lower on the humor scale, but it packs a punch with characterization thanks to great dialogue and the two leading ladies.  Go see it to encourage more of this creative filmmaking.


I took a little break from movies - partly on purpose, partly not.  Even for me, seeing six films in theaters in six weeks was quite a streak, so I wanted to take a little "break" to be fresh for the next summer offerings.  Well, it turned out June was a bummer for new releases, anyway.  I may end up seeing 22 Jump Street at some point (and Netflix the new Transformers - hey, I'm not forking over any more money to that franchise, but sometimes I just need a fix of plentiful explosions).  So I'm back with a new movie this week, followed by tennis next week.  I really enjoy Melissa McCarthy, so this film was a pretty straightforward choice, despite a worrying score on Rotten Tomatoes.  Tammy was directed by Ben Falcone (McCarthy's husband) and stars McCarthy and Susan Sarandon.

(Note: I always check Wikipedia to read a plot summary to make sure I'm not forgetting anything.  Usually the summaries are quite good and detailed but the one for Tammy is pretty shitty.)

Tammy is a good-natured but down on her luck young woman, who starts the movie by limping to work in her beat up old car and ends up discovering that she's been fired from her fast food job.  Upon returning home, the bad news continues as she finds her husband engaged in an affair with a neighbor.  Tammy goes straight to her mother's house (two doors down the street), where her unsympathetic grandmother Pearl (Sarandon) also lives.  It turns out both women feel a need to get away, and so Tammy and Pearl simply hit the road.

As the two women stumble along in various adventures, they rediscover a freedom that had been missing from their lives - but also must confront the problems that got them to their pre-road trip lives in the first place.

Tammy has a good cast, especially the two leads.  McCarthy takes a break from her usual foul-mouthed smart ass character in this one, exchanging it for a sincere and friendly, yet also bitter woman with self-esteem issues.  It's quite a change, combined with the fact that she is the true lead here and in a different type of film than usual.  The characterization is a little inconsistent as the movie develops, but McCarthy injects it with her impressive charisma and so she's never boring.  Sarandon is the co-pilot, and often just as good as McCarthy.  One of the best things she does is to not act over exuberantly as many "independent spirit" grandmother roles often resort to.  Instead, she delivers scalding lines calmly but with the effect of a cattle prod.  A perfect compliment to the often mopy Tammy.  There are a few other roles, none of which are nearly as big - among the noteworthy are Kathy Bates as Pearl's wealthy, lesbian cousin (hits a sweet spot of both humor and lesson-learning for Tammy), Mark Duplass as Tammy's love interest (great, finely-tuned performance), and Dan Aykroyd as Tammy's father (tiny role, but possibly the funniest in the film).

Warning:  do not go into this film thinking it will be in the style of The Heat (I did).  Tammy is a unique creation all its own, combining elements from other genres (including road movie and romantic comedy) - which ends up being both its best strength and greatest weakness.  We'll start with the positive:  unshackled (mostly) of genre convention and sporting two great leads, Tammy has some fascinating things to say and show about its characters that few other films do.  While the plot is a bit meandering, the dialogue is very strong and delves deeply into Tammy and Pearls' lives, as well as their relationship.  Now for the negative:  Tammy isn't as funny as a McCarthy film should be.  Two main reasons: the script forces McCarthy's usual humor into the first part of the film (but it doesn't fit here), and can't consistently figure out a style of humor that does work.  It does certainly have its moments (Aykroyd, fast food robbery, etc.), but it's hit or miss with a few embarrassing whiffs.

***

Critics have been quite unfavorable to Tammy (just 27% on Rotten Tomatoes), but I think that's unfair.  This film is a branching out effort from McCarthy - yes, there are some stumbles and it's not as finely-tuned as standouts like The Heat - and I think that many are holding that against Tammy.  Do I wish that this film had been funnier?  Sure, but I'm just as happy if not happier that McCarthy decided to go in a different direction.  Will Ferrell, as much as he's my favorite comedian, perhaps should have done the same.  He had real gems like Stranger Than Fiction that were outside his comfort zone, but he kept (keeps?) going back to the same well, with diminishing returns (Anchorman 2 being a perfect example).  McCarthy tries out not just a whole new kind of character (at least, new to me), but she also incorporates creative new storytelling and characterization (the dynamics of her relationship with Duplass are particularly well done).  I applaud McCarthy for her creative choices and hope she sets an example for the industry.  In order for that to happen, this movie needs to be a success - so go out and see it!