Movies: Kingsman: The Secret Service

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Long Story Short:  Kingsman is the latest action-comedy comic book adaptation from Matthew Vaughn.  The director continues his great work here, combining a 007-like world with the YA trend of youth taking on dangerous worlds.  Stars Colin Forth and Samuel L. Jackson provide a rock-solid foundation around which mayhem thrillingly ensues, with high quality in everything from the script to the choreography.  Highly recommended.


After a flurry of year-end awards candidates and my own year-end reviews, the need for a little break coincided nicely with a dearth of interesting film releases.  Things look set to ramp up again from Hollywood in March, but the rest of February might still be slow.  Fortunately, an interesting movie did surface last week.  The first few commercials I saw, months ago, showed an almost sci-fi level spy movie - starring the gentlemanly Colin Firth.  Intrigued, I kept my eye on this and good scores on Rotten Tomatoes made it a sure thing.  Kingman: The Secret Service was directed by Matthew Vaughn and stars Firth, Taron Egerton, and Samuel L. Jackson.

On a dangerous, unpredictable mission in the Middle East, a British secret service unit nabs its target but a team member goes down, sacrificing himself for the others.  Agent Hart (Firth) visits the man's family afterward, promising that the Service will take care of them.  Almost twenty years later, the fallen agent's son, Eggsy (Egerton), is a listless young man in a broken home.  When he gets himself into more trouble than he can handle, sure enough Hart shows up to bail him out.  Expressing disappointment in Eggsy's life choices, Hart offers him a chance to do something meaningful with his life: he enters him into a secret competition for an open spot in the Service.

Meanwhile, the Secret Service has had its hands full.  One of its top agents fell during a rescue mission, and Hart investigates both his death as well as a series of disappearances of government officials and others around the world.  Eggsy must find out if he's suited for this life - if he can repay the Service and the world itself - as he's thrown straight into the storm.

Kingsman has a good, entertaining cast that suits the material well.  Young newcomer Taron Egerton (looking much like a younger Ryan Phillippe) plays the lead, a disillusioned youth through whose eyes we are introduced to an extraordinary spy underworld.  While he isn't a phenom, Taron certainly has the brash confidence needed for his character, unafraid to work side-by-side with big stars.  Not the most riveting of characters, he's still intriguing to watch.  Colin Firth does an excellent job in what is not a typical role for him, by any stretch (other than his insistence on manners... before he beats people up).  Beyond easily inhabiting the role of suave, 007-like agent, he projects toughness and believability as a (lethal) enforcer.  Along with his dry wit, Firth firmly establishes the Bond-like (almost tributary) atmosphere effectively.

Samuel L. Jackson is a most welcome star presence as well, playing the sideways-cap-wearing villain.  Almost every time he speaks brings a laugh, with his combination of a direct, no-nonsense attitude, major lisp, and unvillain-like aversions (like blood).  Not much for him to work with, but Jackson gets miles out of it.  Mark Strong (great in Vaughn's Kick-Ass) is a stern but supportive agent trainer, and Michael Caine plays the wise leader for the millionth time.  Not much in the way of female roles; Eggsy's peer in training is a dull (but at least not romantically-motivated) presence, and Jackson's baddie is a deadly blades-for-prosthetics assassin but a blank slate.

Kingsman is a top-rate entry in the fairly recent genre of stylishly violent action-comedies (which the director helped launch - more on that later).  These films rely on a few tricky balancing acts:  be new, or at least offer a new combination of different genre elements - but remain accessible to the general audience.  And offer some crackling violence, but not such that it overwhelms the humor.  Kingsman succeeds brilliantly with both of these tasks.  There are many cool 007-type elements (from gadgets to headquarters), but it's also fused with a sort of YA-like coming of age for youth in difficult circumstances.  The script wisely - and effectively - keeps these mostly separate in the plot until the final act.  There is plenty of action and violence (though not overkill - pun intended), and each set is unique in both choreography and rationale (the showcase scene -in a hate group church- somehow manages to be both horrific and hilarious).  Most of the humor flows organically through the unique combination of genre elements, though both Firth and Jackson are excellent individually.

***

When the credits came up at the end of this film, I was unsurprised (though I didn't explicitly know it beforehand) to find Matthew Vaughn as the director.  He is quickly becoming one of my favorite directors in Hollywood by so effectively coupling action and comedy in really strong films - from the bizarre Stardust to a new take on the superhero blockbuster with X-Men First Class to the groundbreaking (and polarizing) classic Kick-Ass.  Kingsman is more of Vaughn in top form, in a film that likely has wider appeal than his previous films.  It could have been edited down a bit, particularly at the end, and I would have loved to have seen a great Eggsy, when the one we get is merely good.  But there's really not much else I would say against this one.  Quite simply it's a huge amount of fun - at least to my tastes - and the writing, acting, choreography, etc. is at worst solid and at best brilliant.  Of course, the violence level isn't for everyone, but if you can take it (or even enjoy a little fictional blood shed now and then), this is a great way to escape the midwinter doldrums.




"Kingsman: The Secret Service poster".  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsman:_The_Secret_Service#mediaviewer/File:Kingsman_The_Secret_Service_poster.jpg

Movies: 2014 "Cinema & Stadium" Awards

2014 "Cinema & Stadium" Film Awards

I liked how last year's year-end film posts worked out - one concentrating on the films overall, and one on Oscar-style awards.  I've already posted my look at the films of 2014 here, with my top 10 of the year, miscellaneous awards and blurbs about films I saw on Netflix.  Now here are my picks for traditional categories within films - acting and so on.  Like last year, the nominees are picked only from movies I've actually seen and that were released widely in 2015 (I'll mention which Oscar nominees I haven't seen - or saw but would leave out anyway).  Let me know if you agree (winners in bold, runners-up underlined)!


Acting Awards

Best Actor:
Benedict Cumberbatch (The Imitation Game)
Robert Downey, Jr. (The Judge)
Bill Hader (Skeleton Twins)
Michael Keaton (Birdman)
Bill Murray (St. Vincent)
Jack O'Connell (Unbroken)

(haven't seen Carell's Foxcatcher or Redmayne's Theory of Everything; Cooper's American Sniper was released in 2015)

Honestly, this year's roster of top actors is lower quality overall than last year's.  O'Connell makes it on for the sheer physicality of his performance.  Hader did a quirky, real, nuanced but not elite job in his dramedy.  Robert Downey, Jr. is always very entertaining and he's also quite good in The Judge.  Bill Murray is a very respectable 3rd place finisher here.  However, this was really between Keaton and Cumberbatch, and I give the slight edge to Benedict.  (Note: if Selma had been released in 2014, David Oyelowo would be the winner - his snubbing by the Academy is outrageous)


Best Actress:
Emily Blunt (Edge of Tomorrow)
Eva Green (300: Rise of an Empire)
Melissa McCarthy (Tammy)
Rosamund Pike (Gone Girl)
Kristen Wiig (Skeleton Twins)
Shailene Woodley (Divergent)

(*gulp* Pike's Gone Girl is the only best actress-nominated film I've seen...)

I'm sorry to say the available performances I had to choose from was particularly bleak this year for best actress, due to my seeing only a handful of the (very few) 2014 films with elite woman leads.  That said, each of the nominees had very good performances.  Emily Blunt stood toe-to-toe with Tom Cruise last summer, and Eva Green was the only good thing about the 300 sequel, playing a gonzo but entertaining villainess.  Woodley was far more impressive playing a YA heroine than Lawrence has been, and McCarthy showed she has acting chops far beyond comedy.  Kristen Wiig continues to show that she is one of the most talented entertainers in the world, man or woman - but Pike's performance in Gone Girl was the best, going from innocent victim to terrifying predator.


Best Supporting Actor:
Adam Driver (This Is Where I Leave You)
Mark Duplass (Tammy)
Robert Duvall (The Judge)
Matthew Goode (The Imitation Game)
Edward Norton (Birdman)
Vincent Piazza (Jersey Boys)

(haven't seen Hawke's Boyhood, Simmons' Whiplash or Ruffalo's Foxcatcher)

Normally there's a wealth of great supporting actor roles for me to choose from but I was surprised how fast the options dropped off after the Oscar nominees.  Duplass did fine but really not worthy of a nomination.  Piazza gave some real fire to the pop musical and was very entertaining.  Driver also had a charismatic part, although it bordered on hammy; Goode, on the other hand, was rock solid and steady but not a stand out.  Duvall is a fine runner-up, and he worked well with the more entertaining RDJ.  But Norton blew everyone else out of the water with an outstanding performance in Birdman - he's the winner, no contest.


Best Supporting Actress:
Rose Byrne (Neighbors)
Tina Fey (This Is Where I Leave You)
Keira Knightley (The Imitation Game)
Jennifer Lawrence (X-Men: Days of Future Past)
Melissa McCarthy (St. Vincent)
Emma Stone (Birdman)

(haven't seen Arquette's Boyhood, Dern's Wild, or Streep's Into the Woods yet)

Now the ladies get to turn the tables on the men in the supporting category, as I witnessed an abundance of admirable female roles and performances in 2014, just not so many as leads.  Rose Byrne was far from Rogen's straight wife in Neighbors; she's probably the funniest actor in the film.  Meanwhile, McCarthy tones her usual humor way down for a very strong dramatic turn in St. Vincent.  Tina Fey gives perhaps the best performance I've ever seen from her in This Is Where I Leave You, while Jennifer Lawrence again shows that her best role in fantasy is as X-Men's Raven, not Katniss.  Knightley was tremendous in The Imitation Game in a role that was begging to be cliche; she instead brought it to life.  And Emma Stone was the best of them all, with an intense performance - sometimes simmering, sometimes bursting out - in Birdman.


Other Awards

Best Director:
Peter Berg (Lone Survivor)
Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (Birdman)
Doug Liman (Edge of Tomorrow)
Christopher Nolan (Interstellar)
Ira Sachs (Love Is Strange)
Morten Tyldum (The Imitation Game)

(haven't seen Linklater's Boyhood or Miller's Foxcatcher; did not think Anderson's directing of The Grand Budapest Hotel was worthy of a nomination)

As I mentioned last year, I don't know enough about filmmaking to identify exactly what makes a well-directed film, so I try to choose the films that either A) had a high degree of difficulty and/or B) made best use of performances, script, etc.  All of the nominees this year did outstanding jobs.  Berg created a super tense film that somehow avoided being jingoistic (IMO) and somehow made me relieved to get a Hollywood-type ending.  Nolan took my breath away again with his sweeping vision and created the kind of unique tone and world that no one else in Hollywood can right now.  Sachs took a pretty dull premise and brought it to moving life, bringing out real, incredible performances that were grounded.  Tyldum deftly avoided the pitfalls of a Historical Oscar Bait film, keeping the audience riveted on the story, not on its award chances.  Liman created a near flawless action film, nailing the pacing when that was exactly the most difficult and important thing to do; then letting Cruise do his thing.  But Inarritu was the king this year, creating an entirely new (to me) movie in which everything worked and (literally) flowed together as one for a spellbinding experience.


Best Screenplay:
Simon Kinberg (X-Men: Days of Future Past)
Steven Knight (Locke)
Alejandro Inarritu, et. al. (Birdman)
Phil Lord, Christopher Miller (The LEGO Movie)
Theodore Melfi (St. Vincent)
Graham Moore (The Imitation Game)

I'm not sure if the directing or screenplay (or both) is the highlight in the new X-Men film, but for being able to crunch in so many characters and such a complex plot so well, it gets a nod here.  Oscar front-runners The Imitation Game and Birdman obviously benefit from great scripts; I don't rank films that highly in my top 10 if they don't.  While Locke overall isn't the best, it was an impressive feat to get something even watchable from a man driving his car for an entire movie - it's sort of like reading a book, but you're watching a movie.  And The LEGO Movie directors, who also wrote the film, deserve highest honors for writing a super clever script on top of a plot that didn't try to get to tricky yet subtly worked in LEGO themes and an appropriate, touching emotional element.


Best Visual Effects:
The LEGO Movie
X-Men: Days of Future Past
Interstellar
Guardians of the Galaxy
The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes


Well, I hope you've enjoyed reading about what I think were some of the most impressive aspects of 2014's films.  Check back in this weekend for my first review of 2015 movies!



"Academy Award trophy"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Awards#mediaviewer/File:Academy_Award_trophy.jpg

Movies: 2014 "Cinema & Stadium" Film Year-in-Review

2014 "Cinema & Stadium" Film Year-in-Review

It's time for another look back at a year of films - at least the ones that I got to see.  And this year, I saw more then ever as my interest in this hobby just keeps increasing!  Even with that, I still have not gotten to see all of the major Oscar nominees, but I hope to do so before the ceremony so that I can form an opinion about who truly should have won (and which films should have been left out in favor of the snub victims).  Like last year, I also have my own Oscar-type awards, based only on the films that I got to see and that were released in 2014 (no Selma, American Sniper).

But first, my favorite post of the year - starting with my top 10 films (this year, you can click on the titles to get to my full review of the film), followed by various other notes.  I hope you enjoy reading, and feel free to leave a comment about my selections!


Top 10 of 2014:

10.  Guardians of the Galaxy (dir. by James Gunn; starring Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Vin Diesel, Bradley Cooper, et. al.)

The surprise hit of the year, Guardians was a calculated risk (little known characters, goofy premise) for Marvel that struck gold.  It seems that audiences were ready for a less serious superhero film, and although I like those, too, it was indeed a refreshing change of pace.  The movie really was driven by its oddball cast that had great chemistry, led by the hilarious Chris Pratt and supported by Saldana and off-the-wall (digital) roles for Cooper and Vin Diesel.  The plot and villains weren't great, but the fun, humor and soundtrack helped make Guardians one of the most enjoyable films of the year.

9.  The Judge (dir. by David Dobkin; starring Robert Downey, Jr., Robert Duvall, Bill Bob Thornton, et. al.)

Nothing flashy here - unless you count Downey, Jr. (who is a perpetual disco ball of an actor - in a good way).  The Judge takes just about everything down to the fundamentals in a law/family drama, and it nails them.  I always enjoy watching RDJ, and Duvall is of course an excellent actor; but the supporting cast is quietly strong, too.  The script is very good, balancing realism and drama quite effectively.  Plenty have argued that it's often over-emotional (I like it just fine), and it is a bit on the long side.  However, for a good old fashioned movie night, this one is hard to beat.

8.  Interstellar (dir. by Christopher Nolan; starring Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, et. al.)

Oh, Chris Nolan.  Probably my current favorite director, the vision of Nolan's films just blow me away (and I usually try to avoid cliches like that, but it's true).  His films are also dream-like in that often - particularly here and in Inception - that vision sits just a hair beyond the reach of its execution.    The acting is both central and superficial to the film - McConaughey and co. do a fine job but not very memorable.  Even the adventure - boldly venturing through a wormhole (and its spectacular visuals) to find a new home for humanity - is secondary to a very poignant ending that brings the big story full circle to a father and his daughter.  Flawed, but well worthy of a watch with the right mindset.

7.  St. Vincent (dir. by Theodore Melfi; starring Bill Murray, Melissa McCarthy, Naomi Watts, et. al.)

"Standard" comedies have had a rough go of it in recent years, and they would all do well to look to this film for guidance.  The premise - overwhelmed parent with bright, lonely kid moves next to grumpy old man - is not terribly original, but it shines brightly in oh-so-many ways.  Bill Murray gives one of the top performances of the year, not easy for a comedic role; the character may be familiar to him, but he gives it all he's got.  He's supported by a great cast, including stars who are in surprising roles.  And perhaps most importantly, it's very funny and the script is great.

6.  Edge of Tomorrow (dir. by Doug Liman; starring Tom Cruise, Emily Blunt, Bill Paxton, et. al.)

Over the past decade or even longer, Tom Cruise, one of the most famous actors in the world, has settled into cranking out sci-fi/action films.  Almost all have been at least fun and decent, but he helps create a true gem in Tomorrow, sure to become a classic in the genre.  The idea is pretty cool, having Cruise die and come back repeatedly to try to defeat an alien invasion, and everything just clicks.  This could have been done badly, but the pacing and story progression is handled great, Cruise is charismatic as always, and Emily Blunt is a worthy partner.  It's quite funny while capable of sending shivers of dread, and doesn't spoil it with forced emotion.  Excellent.

5.  Captain America: Winter Soldier (dir. by Anthony and Joe Russo; starring Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Samuel L. Jackson, et. al.)

I've been quite impressed with Marvel's lineup of superhero films, and the first Captain movie was one of their most fun.  Winter Soldier executes a major pivot and is one of the strongest superhero films I've ever seen.  Sure, there's still some sense of the original's lightweight fun, but this one throws the Captain into one of the most real - and dangerous - worlds I've seen in these films.  The plot eschews the usual safe, all-the-good-guys win ending, while also effectively mirroring contemporary society.  Evans is solid, but Johansson gets a much improved role this time.  The action is hard-hitting, tense and well-choreographed.  If you haven't seen the other Marvel films - well, this is a great excuse to do so so that you get the most out of it.

4.  X-Men: Days of Future Past (dir. by Bryan Singer; starring Hugh Jackman, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, et. al.)

The X-Men have not been as enormously popular as some other superheroes, but the series has produced consistently good films.  And this is possibly the best one (over X2).  The plot played to the strengths of the series perfectly.  The stakes are big, but the conflicts play out on a very intimate, personal level (except for its flashes of a vision of a potential dystopic future that works better than any I've seen before).  Hugh Jackman, brilliant as always as Wolverine, fits right in with the younger cast led ably again by McAvoy, Fassbender, and especially Lawrence.  The pacing is propulsive and tense, and the relatively few action scenes are spectacular (especially the slo-mo part).  Once again, it works much better if you've seen the other X-Men films, and if you have, the ending is sublime.

3.  The Imitation Game (dir. by Morten Tyldum; starring Benedict Cumberbatch, Keira Knightley, Matthew Goode, et. al.)

I saw very few "traditional" Oscar-favorite dramas this year - partly because several didn't come out in my area - but this is one that is certainly worth the hype.  This historical war drama hits most of the notes that the Academy expects, but it's excellently done and doesn't feel pandering.  Benedict Cumberbatch gives a great performance in a familiar anti-social role but one that has depth and genuine emotion.  Knightley plays a well-written and well-acted partner who enhances rather than cheapens the story (she's not just "the girlfriend").  The script is excellent, its before- and after- flashes providing key development to the main story - which itself is remarkably driven by a rather abstract puzzle but well supported by even more daunting human factors.

2.  Birdman (dir. by Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu; starring Michael Keaton, Edward Norton, Emma Stone, et. al.)

And now for something completely different.  I really didn't know what to expect from this, and was floored by the results.  There's no easy way to describe Birdman; much of the plot is metaphorical (and just plain meta - exhibit A, Keaton's part) yet also straightforward.  It's quite funny and quirky, but also deals seriously with redemption, family, and so on.  The cast is just phenomenal, and Keaton, Stone, Norton - even Galifianakis showing some nice dramatic chops - are all riveting.  And even on top of all that, Birdman is a remarkable experience in the camera work - single shots that extend with seemingly no break for thirty minutes and more, following the action through the labyrinth of the theater like a fly on the wall.  A truly creative - and extremely well made - film.

1.  The LEGO Movie (dir. by Phil Lord and Chris Miller; starring Chris Pratt, Will Ferrell, Morgan Freeman, et. al.) 

I've said before, I review movies with a combination of how objectively (as well as I can, anyway) good they are with how much I enjoy them.  And The LEGO Movie was quite simply my favorite film of the year, by far; it's also incredibly well done.  While Pixar failed to release a film in 2014, I feel like this one definitely took its place in spirit and quality.  The story is really clever, interweaving the unique elements of LEGOs (and those who love them) with a traditional structure.  It's also the funniest movie of the year, thanks to a brilliant script and hilarious voicing from ever-eager Pratt, smirkingly "evil" Ferrell, spit-take sarcasm from Freeman, etc.  These elements are all wrapped up in a tone that is just so fun and happy ("Everything Is Awesome", indeed) - it's one of the top reasons I love movies so much in the first place.  With a poignant ending, The LEGO Movie (which I hadn't even planned on seeing at first!) is my top film of 2014.

Honorable mentions:  Lone Survivor, Love Is Strange, The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies


Miscellaneous Awards:

Most Overrated Film of the Year:  Snowpiercer (runner-up: The Grand Budapest Hotel)
I agreed with the overall critical consensus on many 2014 films, but there were a few that I disagree with significantly.  I don't think GBH is a bad film exactly, but I did not like it at all.  The plot was a poor match for the director's unique style, and the conflicting tones were disruptive.  I heard the hype about Snowpiercer, and was disappointed that I couldn't see this new "instant classic" sci-fi action film in theaters.  When I saw it on Netflix, though, I couldn't see what the fuss was about.  It's pretty well made but there's little reward to offset the dismal tone.  The plot is a poorly veiled metaphor, and the ending kinda sucks.

Most Underrated Film of the Year:  Tammy (runner-up: N/A)
There are always at least a few of my top-10 films that I think were criminally underrated (this year, the big one is The Judge) but I leave them out of this.  Frankly, there weren't many other films I saw that I rated significantly higher than most critics.  However, Tammy was the biggest disagreement I had this year.  Is it a great film?  No.  But it's worth a watch.  It is not as outrageously funny (in terms of quality or type) as McCarthy's other films; instead, it's more of a romantic comedy.  While it has its flaws, it's also very original with a lot of genuine moments and non-cliche relationships.

Most Disappointing Film of the Year:  Godzilla (runner up: A Million Ways to Die in the West)
This year didn't feature a lot of films that I was looking forward to for months, so this section is also lighter than last year.  After the success of Ted, I was quite hopeful for Seth MacFarlane's second film.  I like his sense of humor, but this was just a poor film.  There are a few funny parts but it is so generic that it's actually pretty boring.  Godzilla wins if only because of the trailer-to-film differential.  Featuring Bryan Cranston and awesome, ominous CGI, the trailer made it look almost like a "prestige" disaster film, if that's possible.  Yeah.  Cranston dies after 30 minutes, the plot is beyond bonkers and it stops being fun pretty fast.

Most Surprisingly Good Film of the Year:  Lone Survivor (runner-up: John Wick)
There are always films that are the opposite of Godzilla - crappy trailer/premise that ends up being good.  I was 99% sure that Keanu Reeves' career was over.  He was good in The Matrix, but I hadn't even seen him in anything since because it was all getting horrible reviews.  This, though, was one of the best action films of the year, with a combo of intense action and 007-type cool.  Lone Survivor seemed like it would be a meat-headed, ra-ra shoot-'em-up, but it was quite well done.  Not even Mark Wahlberg's presence could disrupt it!  The military aspects seemed pretty real, along with a dose of Hollywood that didn't hurt it because I was sweating bullets (sorry, bad pun) and needed the reprieve.

drum roll, please...
Worst Film of the Year:  Lucy (runner-up:  Transformers 4)
Ah, there is a certain sadistic pleasure to ripping into a poorly made film.  Before I get to the "top" two, I'd like to give shout-outs to Exodus: Gods and Kings and 300: Rise of an Empire for also being pretty dang crappy movies.  Yes, I knew Transformers would suck.  But sometimes I just get a sugar tooth for these blockbusters so I saw it.  This is at least as bad as the last one, thanks in large measure to Mark Wahlberg taking on the starring role.  It panders horribly to China (which still threw $300 million at it to make it the #1 movie in 2014, worldwide - hello, Transformers 5!) and misfires badly again in trying to just be a "fun" film.  But Lucy takes the cake.  This film is sort of interesting for the first five minutes.  Then it sucked.  Hard.  I am not one to try to predict how movies will go, or even to do so unconsciously, but it was obvious what the end result would be after the first few minutes.  That meant all drama/tension was completely out the window.  Not only that, the writing the rest of the way was god-awful and I started to come up with my own sarcastic lines.  There's no point, no fun, and I should have just left.  In other words - avoid at all costs!


Netflix Summary

(from best to worst; not including those in my top-10)
Love Is Strange (A-):  A movie about two married men that shows the strength of their relationship - and the difficulty of living with even loved ones - when times turn for the worse.  Excellent.
Skeleton Twins (B+):  Starring outstanding SNL alums Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig, this is a light comedy with heavy dramatic themes that shows the strength of siblings' bonds.
This Is Where I Leave You (B+):  The critics said "meh" and it's not original, but the stars involved do a very good job and it has touching moments and relationships.
A Most Wanted Man (B+):  In one of his final roles, Philip Seymour Hoffman plays a conflicted intelligence agent in a John le Carre thriller that cleverly shows the costs of the war on terror.
Divergent (B+): This didn't interest me enough for a theater viewing, but my expectations were surpassed.  Despite a truly goofy premise, the human drama is more effect than the Hunger Games'.
Bad Words (B):  Something of a disposable film, Jason Bateman is funny as an asshole competing in the spelling bee.  Gets too deep into emotion, but cleverly done.
Locke (B):  The entire thing takes place in a car, where one man makes phone calls to various people.  It's much more interesting than that sounds, but it left some potential unfulfilled.
Robocop (B):  Another that couldn't get me to the theater, this was a pretty decent action film.  Most memorable for actually digging into the psyche of the wounded warrior.
They Came Together (B-):  Depending on your company, this could go over much better.  A romantic comedy making fun of romantic comedies, starring the affable Paul Rudd and Amy Poehler.
The Interview (B-):  Not uproariously hilarious (other than the tiger scene; Rogen's Neighbors was much better, go see that one), but there's more going on here than I had expected.
Non-Stop (B-):  Liam Neeson steals Harrison Ford's famous role thwarting terrorists aboard an airplane.  Nothing great, but it's a fun Friday night flick if you need one.
Snowpiercer (B-):  See Overrated Films of the Year, Most.
Ride Along (B-):  I think Kevin Hart is very funny, so I wanted to give one of his movies a try.  This isn't fantastic, but Hart's comic energy carries the film the whole way through.
22 Jump Street (C+):  Overrated, just like the first one (at least I had the sense to wait for it on Netflix).  It has its moments, but the comedy starts fizzling out quickly.
Noah (C+):  This gets as good a score as it does because of the non-traditional take.  But between the Ents - er, "Watchers" - and Drunk/Murderous Noah, it's an overlong weirdfest.
How to Train Your Dragon 2 (C+):  I have a better question:  HOW THE $%^& DID THIS GET NOMINATED FOR AN OSCAR OVER THE LEGO MOVIE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Veronica Mars (C+):  Probably better if you've seen the show, which I haven't.  Comes off as an extended TV episode; not bad, but not particularly "cinematic."
Transcendence (C):  Starts off OK (I've lost count of how many I can say that about), but it gets truly bizarre and goes off the rails.  Skip.


I hope you enjoyed reading my 2014 review of the year in film.  It was a pretty good year, with some highlights that I will enjoy revisiting sometime.  Now, on to 2015 - with Star Wars, Jurassic World, Spectre (James Bond), Avengers 2 and more.  I have been waiting for this year's slate of films for a long time, and I'm so excited that it's finally here!



"The Lego Movie Sequel..."  http://www.jbgnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/the-lego-movie-sequel-takes-place-four-years-later.jpg

Movies: Blackhat

Score:  ***1/2 out of ***** (B-)

Long Story Short:  Blackhat is one of those very well-timed films, providing a fictional take on the subject of the all-too-real hacks on Sony and others.  Chris Hemsworth plays a suitable lead flanked by an unexpected but welcome Chinese element.  The film has a nice mix of computer and physical action, but it could have used some more editing and a better final act.  Despite its flaws, Blackhat is a quality, entertaining time at the movies.


It's quite rare for January to be a busy movie release month, but 2015 seems set to be an extraordinary year in film all around.  Granted, several films I'm calling January releases are technically from 2014, but they were not released widely until this year.  In short, I'm hitting the ground running this year with the movie reviews (you can find my review for Selma here).  Blackhat is not the Oscar-contender type film that the last two I saw were, but it's a nice change of pace and features both a well-known director and star.  Despite poor reviews, the premise intrigued me enough to give it a try. Blackhat was directed by Michael Mann (Heat, Collateral, etc.) and stars Chris Hemsworth.

In China, the computer systems of a nuclear power plant get hacked, causing a breach.  In the United States, trading in a commodities market goes haywire with manipulated stock figures.  The two are seemingly random cyber attacks, but security analysts in China determine that they are in fact connected; one of the analysts recognizes a common footprint.  The analyst, Dawai (Leehom), travels to the U.S. to try to work out the puzzle with his American counterparts - and soon insists, to their displeasure, that they release a hacker from prison to help them.  The man, Hathaway (Hemsworth), had designed code with Dawai in school that appeared in both hacks.  With few other leads, FBI Agent Barrett (Davis) works with them.

The group hops the globe, tracking traces of the mysterious hacker to its source.  It seems as though the threat slips through their grasp with the same frustrating ease as its malicious code.  Hathaway, as smart as he is, may be forced to risk his freedom again - and his life - in order to neutralize the threat.

Blackhat has a good, if rather odd, cast.  Chris Hemsworth plays the lead, hacker Hathaway.  Perhaps you've seen the trailers or commercials and thought this an unusual choice.  Well... you're not wrong, as there are certainly moments where it seems an awkward fit, but I give Hemsworth credit, too, for more frequently coming across as a believable hacker.  He is charismatic and a strong presence as the hero, but falls short of creating a particularly memorable character.  Wang Leehom, Hathaway's Chinese partner, is a nice addition as the affable Dawai.  While he sneeringly derides authority figures like a rebel nerd, he also shows refreshing camaraderie with Hathaway.  Viola Davis doesn't have a big part as the FBI chaperone, but she is a welcome presence who makes the best of essentially one-liners and Significant Looks.  Hathaway's love interest, played by Tang Wei, is probably the weakest link.  I've certainly seen far worse as these parts go, but she's not very convincing as a supposedly formidable coder herself, nor as the center of the film's minimal emotional component.

Blackhat serves primarily as a high-tech thriller (quite a timely one, at that) crossed with a buddy action plot.  It performs both roles decently.  The core element - hacking and all the related computer wizardry - is both fascinating as well as grounded.  It's not like the bad guy is some super villain who is going to launch America's nukes at China or something.  It's difficult to get your heart racing with just a bunch of people typing away furiously at the computer, so that element is kept at a modest yet not overlooked level.  I was not expecting the action element of this film, one that is pretty hard-hitting.  The gun shots ring particularly loudly in one tense scene, bringing the fear from the abstract distance of the computer up close and personal.  Warranted or not, I was surprised by several of the personal losses as the film ramps up toward the conclusion.  And that's where the weaknesses start to come in.  The script and/or editing could have been tightened a good bit, as the film feels at least about 15 minutes too long and the pacing in the last third or so is not great.  The filmmakers would also have been wise to drop many of the obligatory "emotional" elements (although there are a few good moments).

***

Of course, Blackhat is quite a fall in quality from the other films I've seen recently.  However, I think critics have been too harsh on it - it's by no means a bad film.  An interesting meta-element of the film is the huge role played by both Chinese characters and Asian locations.  Now, as a film about cyber attacks, their presence is not out of place (this is not to label them as "bad guys", just that there are obvious tensions on this matter between the U.S. and China.  Heck, they're on the same team in this film, which I found quite nice).  But it's interesting to consider their presence for other reasons.  Just look at the newest Transformers:  it did quite well in the U.S., making $245 million - but that was a drop off from the others.  However, it finished #1 worldwide in 2014, by far, thanks to $300 million from China - arguably in large part because a good chunk of the film was set in China.  As long as films don't just pander to Chinese (or other) audiences (and Blackhat doesn't do it too much), I have no problem with this element in Hollywood films.  In fact, I'm fascinated by it as an admirer of the Chinese and their history.  It will be interesting to watch this trend develop - one that will quickly overshadow Blackhat itself.  You can wait for this one on Netflix, but it's also a perfectly fine, entertaining thriller for a night at home.



"Blackhat (poster)"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackhat_(film)#mediaviewer/File:Blackhat_poster.jpg

Movies: Selma

Score:  ****1/2 out of ***** (A)

Long Story Short:  At long last, Martin Luther King, Jr., is in a movie - the Oscar contender focused on the famed march leading to passage of the Voting Rights Act - Selma.  Though many were likely (and justifiably) worried about how Dr. King would appear on the big screen, David Oyelowo's outstanding performance hopefully eased those fears.  His acting and the script's nuanced treatment of the man, as well as the harrowing yet inspiring journey to victory, should make the film an instant classic.


The first film review for 2015 is an appropriate start - no throwaway entertainment, this is one of the main contenders for Best Picture at the Oscars.  And so the year overall seems destined to be an historic one for film with an absurd number of films I'm eagerly awaiting, from Star Wars to the latest James Bond episode.  And if, on the other side of the coin, there are more films like Selma as well?  Wow.  Buckle your seat belts.  As the first major motion picture (perhaps first of any kind?) to feature Martin Luther King, Jr., this film was obviously a must-see event provided that it had a wide release which it fortunately did.  Selma was directed by Ava DuVernay and stars David Oyelowo.

In late 1964, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (Oyelowo), is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize; but, as he sadly tells his wife, Coretta (Ejogo), the civil rights effort he has led is far from over.  With yet more influence - from all around the world - he goes to President Johnson (Wilkinson) to demand legislation that will end all obstruction to voting.  When the President resists, a frustrated King returns to the very difficult but ultimately effective work that had made him into a source of hope for the movement:  nonviolent protest.  King understood that this not only galvanized his followers but also raised the consciousness, bit by bit, of white people through media coverage of racists' brutal retaliation against these protests.  The next stop was Selma, Alabama.

Through the early months of 1965, Dr. King, the SCLC and SNCC led an effort to organize a march from Selma to Montgomery.  In order to achieve perhaps his most important victory, passage of the Voting Rights Act, King would be forced not just to deal with highly reluctant supporters in Washington, but also with threats to his family and choices between the safety of many of his closest friends and followers and the hope for another step towards equality for his people.

The cast of Selma is quite good, and David Oyelowo's magnificent performance pays tribute to Dr. King.  I cannot imagine the pressure Oyelowo must have felt in trying to portray the civil rights legend - not to mention the fact that he is the first to do so.  But he succeeded incredibly well.  It feels like a cliche, but Oyelowo really does inhabit Dr. King as a man, not as some dream-like myth above it all.  Sure, Dr. King was not an ordinary person, and Oyelowo captures his presence, his quiet confidence and dignity that towered over any resistance to progress that he met; and he delivers several thundering speeches.  And yet Dr. King was also a worried husband and father, and even a leader who, while had faith in the philosophy of nonviolent resistance, also dealt with human doubts about it.  The film does a great job of showing how all eyes, loving and hateful, were on one man who shouldered the hopes of his people and - though it was but one battle in the struggle - that man triumphed.

The supporting cast has some fine performances as well.  Coretta (Carmen Ejogo) is neither ignored nor highlighted, and her role is both subtle but also important.  Although an impressive cast of civil rights leaders is involved, John Lewis (Stephan James) gets the most development as an SNCC leader who joins Dr. King's cause.  Many notable white actors are also involved, most of whom you will recognize if not be able to name.  Tom Wilkinson plays President Johnson (more on this later), Tim Roth plays oily, awful Governor Wallace, and Martin Sheen takes the bench as a judge.

Although I could analyze Selma much like I did The Imitation Game (both being historical dramas), I'll go a different direction.  The mission of Selma seems to be twofold:  to portray Martin Luther King, Jr., the man at perhaps the height of his power as a civil rights leader; and to show that though slavery was gone, black people were still imprisoned.  Both missions are accomplished exceedingly well.  I have already described Oyelowo's great performance, and it is given more meaning being parallel to the other mission.  Selma exposes the audience to white society's treatment of black people at an individual level, even women, from sneering denial of voter registration to horrific beatings with batons and whips.  Absent are the popular but "clean" portrayals of segregation in the form of whites-only water fountains and such - Selma shows how ingrained and intense the prejudice against black people was (still is...?) in many communities.  A particularly horrific attack at the beginning sets the stage for this, steeling the audience (but not numbing them) for what is to come.

Don't worry - the film is not all violence and hatred by a long shot.  The camaraderie, and disagreements, of the civil rights leaders are highlighted with many predictable elements but not cliche.  The film also takes time for plenty of quieter moments featuring Dr. King, with his family or just struggling with himself.  Plot-wise, the film is primarily a build up to the march itself, which required several direct attempts and even more behind-the-scenes efforts (side note: in a short but important scene, Dr. King also mentions the urgency of economic transformation, whose cause he would emphasize in just a few years).  Once the march itself does come, it is, essentially and appropriately, a victory lap, composed largely of archival footage of the historic event.

***

What a way to kick off 2015!  A few other notes on Selma.  The film reminds me quite a bit of Lincoln, and for much more than simply the historic struggles of African Americans.  They both center around legendary leaders but portray them as fallible (if extraordinary) people.  Both deal with a fairly limited historic scope, with legislative goals at that.  Of course, they are quite a bit different in many ways as well, but they are united by these structural elements as well as strong execution across the board (from writing to acting) to truly bring those pivotal events to life.  One of the main controversies about this film has been the portrayal of LBJ, and I'll address this briefly.  From a historic perspective, yes, his role in the film is misleading at best - but this is a work of art, and ultimately I feel that it's acceptable.  It could have been much "worse", and LBJ is far from the focus here, anyway.  Finally, I'll note that this film is timely in addition to being historic for its featuring of Dr. King.  I won't get into a full debate about it here, but in the last several years new threats have arisen to the right to vote in this country - and this film is an important reminder about the real dangers of that.  Anyway, in case you somehow missed it throughout this long review:  Selma is essential viewing.




"Selma (film) poster"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Selma_poster.jpg#mediaviewer/File:Selma_poster.jpg

Movies: The Imitation Game

Score:  ****1/2 out of ***** (A)

Long Story Short:  One of the season's leading Oscar contenders, The Imitation Game fully lives up to its reputation.  Based on the story of the mission to break the Nazi Enigma code, Cumberbatch is superlative as the hero-turned-persecuted Alan Turing.  He's supported by a great cast, and the script does a great job of balancing absorbing realism with genuine dramatic interest.  Must see.


Here it is - my last film review for a movie released in 2014!  I hope to have my year-end review up next week, with my usual top 10, blurbs on movies seen out of the theater, awards, etc.  There are several movies that technically came out in 2014 - in NY and LA - but I go by the wide release date (hence films like Selma will be counted as 2015 for me, unlike the Oscars).  Boy, am I excited for the movies coming out this year!  But first, I wanted to catch as many Oscar contenders from the late fall/winter season as possible.  The Imitation Game finally hit theaters around me (somewhat after the supposed "wide release"), and I was very intrigued by both the subject matter and the acting talent of the lead.  The Imitation Game was directed by Morten Tyldum and stars Benedict Cumberbatch and Keira Knightley.

As the Nazis advanced seemingly unstoppably in the early years of World War II, Britain desperately looked for something to give it an edge in the conflict - to survive, even.  Mathematics genius Alan Turing (Cumberbatch) is called on by the military to work with a group of cryptographers to try to solve Germany's message-encrypting Enigma machine.  Working in isolation, the group chafes at Turing's fantastical designs to build his own machine to solve the puzzle.  Reaching out for extra help, Turing meets a genius to match his own - Joan Clarke (Knightley) - who advances the cause but also complicates things for Turing who has a secret that could unravel all his efforts.  Turing and his team achieve amazing success in cracking the Enigma - but tragically, the end of one war simply means the beginning of another.

The Imitation Game is filled with great performances, and it all starts at the top.  Alan Turing is a character not too unlike another of Benedict Cumberbatch's famous roles: Sherlock Holmes.  As in that TV show, Cumberbatch is phenomenal.  Carrying over similar anti-social tendencies, he inhabits another major part of Turing, the tragedy, with equal effectiveness.  Like Sherlock, you can just imagine the genius going on behind his eyes, all the while being practically blind to those around him (which imparts arrogance, humor, but also sympathy).  And when Turing is forced to confront the "crime" of his nature, his innocence and lack of understanding are heartbreaking.  Cumberbatch is simply riveting, and is truly worthy of the focus of the film.  

Knightley has a fairly small role as his partner Joan, but she also does great work.  She is well known for her work in period roles like this, and this is one of the stronger I've seen her in.  Joan gives Alan as good as she gets, and has a unique relationship with him, almost sister-like in some ways.  While small, her role is also a big boost to the film.  There are also plenty of nice supporting roles such as Matthew Goode as one of Alan's group (his chief rival, but honorable man); Charles Dance (Game of Thrones) as the skeptical, practically hostile commanding officer; and Alex Lawther as a school-age Turing.

The Imitation Game is one of the best overall films I've seen in quite a while, strong in virtually every area.  As mentioned in my Unbroken review, historical dramas can be quite challenging, but this film succeeds on the two biggest fronts:  historical realism, and dramatic interest.  Now, I don't know the particulars of this story to tell, but it certainly seemed genuine to me.  Imitation Game provides plenty of details to do this (from how the Enigma worked to the setting), but not so much that you get bogged down in it.  Perhaps more impressive is how much dramatic interest it creates.  Let's face it - a bunch of nerds taking years to try to decode essentially a black box could be dull; or force writers to make up a lot of stuff to make up for it.  However, the script effectively conveys the direct difficulty of the task - and adds on top of it pressure from military brass, Turing's own skeptical group, and occasional glimpses of the war's wider stakes to hold you rapt.  You exult in the successes (personal as well as professional - with a clever little line that symbolizes it all and gets repeated in the appropriate places), and are deeply moved by the losses and injustices.  The film also does a good job of keeping the pace flowing by moving fluidly among three time periods:  WWII efforts to break Enigma (the main one), Turing as a school boy, and Turing under investigation after the war.

***

The Imitation Game was a great way to finish up the calendar year in film.  I saw several films based on either true stories or in war, and this one beats them all.  Cumberbatch's performance is certainly worthy of an Oscar nomination, and the entire cast should be up for one in whichever award show does that (Screen Actor's Guild?).  Also worthy of commendation is writer Graham Moore, for the reasons mentioned above.  A great film, and hopefully I'll be able to see more of the frontrunners before the Oscars.  Highly recommended.




"The Imitation Game"  https://www.clapsnslaps.com/img/movies/8806/The-Imitation-Game-poster-1.jpg

Movies: Unbroken

Score:  ***1/2 out of ***** (B)

Long Story Short:  A film critics have anticipated for its Oscar-worthy credentials - from director Angelina Jolie to its harrowing real-life WWII story - hit theaters on Christmas, Unbroken.  Jolie and the writers do in fact guide the film along, from (lost-at-sea) scene to (prisoner of war) scene, pretty well, sometimes even more than that.  But the man who somehow endured all these horrors, Zamperini, is still a mystery by the end, and so we're left with an unfortunate feeling of emptiness.


This week brings one of my final reviews for the films of 2014; it might be the very last one, but there are one or two 2014 releases that I still might see.  I also saw Exodus: Gods and Kings several weeks ago but I was unable to write a review for it soon after, and it wasn't very good anyway (I'll comment on it in my year-end review).  So here's another war movie, one that comes with some Oscar hype, in addition to (and partly because of) its extraordinary true story and famous director (Jolie).  Although the film has received middling reviews from critics (50% on RT), I decided to see for myself.  Unbroken was directed by Angelina Jolie, and stars Jack O'Connell and Miyavi.

The film begins in beautiful, bright blue skies - in which a fleet of warplanes zoom towards a mission.  Louis Zamperini (O'Connell) is aboard one of the B24s on its way to bomb a Japanese island in 1943, and his plane narrowly survives counterattacks from enemy fighter planes.  As the crew tries to survive, Zamperini's history comes in flashbacks, starting with his upbringing in California.  Teased as an Italian immigrant, Zamperini becomes a troublemaker but by chance a hidden gift is discovered - running.  Trained and disciplined by his older brother, Zamperini becomes focused and conquers state competitions, even getting to the Olympics.

Back in the Pacific, Zamperini and his crew are sent back in the air, and this time they are not so lucky.  Thus begins an unimaginably difficult series of obstacles and hardships for Zamperini, from being adrift in the middle of the ocean to abused as a prisoner of war.  And as much as he battles the conditions themselves to survive, Zamperini must also continually strengthen his own resolve to endure.

Unbroken has a relatively small cast, and even fewer who play significant roles.  Louis Zamperini, naturally, is the main character, played by Jack O'Connell.  O'Connell does fine in a difficult role, but ultimately he didn't grab my attention.  Depending on the tone of the film (more on this later), he could have played a heroic, charismatic man or a more realistic, gritty one - he ends up doing a bit of both at various times.  Decent acting, but something - the script, modesty, or perhaps just a lack of the right spark - prevents him from really taking control of the film as needed.  More impressive, in the second biggest and much more clearly defined role, is Japanese pop star Miyavi as Zamperini's tormenter (known as "the Bird").  Miyavi brings a needed dose of passion to the film, at times straying close to overdoing it but always commanding the audience's focus.  He portrays no cartoon evil, but an interesting take on an ultimately fragile, vulnerable villain.  There are a few other minor roles (mostly fellow American soldiers), but none of them are really worth mentioning.

As I talk about more and more in my reviews, for me a critical element for films is to get the right tone and stick to it effectively.  Here we have another WWII epic, but one that is trickier than usual because it truly is incredible yet is also a true story.  So the two opposing tones the filmmakers might choose between are the glamorous and/or heroic Hollywood style, and the realistic, gritty tone of a biopic (as I alluded to earlier).  To the director's and the screenwriters' credit, this film manages to get a pretty good blend of the two.  There are several moments of Hollywood-esque triumph (capped by the wood lift seen in previews) and peril, but also plenty of unpretty scenes of enduring life as a prisoner of war (most effectively near the end of the film, as they work at a coal station).  But from a bird's eye view, the film fails in some significant ways.  There isn't really a compelling narrative arc to tie it all together - admittedly, a tricky thing for a true-story film to do honestly (just ask 12 Years a Slave).  A perfectly acceptable alternative is to really dig into the real person whose life we are watching - but here the shortcomings of O'Connell's acting (and/or the script) handicap the film.

***

Unbroken is a quality film, but I would agree with most critics that it falls well short of being included in the best-picture conversation.  Despite the many differences, I have to say that this film also shares a good bit in common with the fall's other WWII film (and not just the fact that Jolie's husband, Pitt, stars in it), Fury.  Both films, from scene to scene, are competently, and sometimes very well, done.  They both show various facets of the horrors of the war, often quite effectively, but both films also resort to Hollywood-style heroism in ways that detract from it to some degree.  And ultimately, both left me feeling kind of empty, as a movie-goer, and unlikely to remember them long term - (no) thanks to lack of strong narrative arcs or at least good development of character(s).  This is where Saving Private Ryan stands as the model, to me, of a great war movie - and even 2014's Lone Survivor at least got the first part down well.  In summary, I wouldn't say you should avoid Unbroken - but there's no harm in waiting for it on Netflix.




"Poster for Unbroken (film)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unbroken_(film)#mediaviewer/File:Unbroken_poster.jpg