Movies: Furious 7

Score:  *** out of ***** (C)

Long Story Short:  The increasingly popular Fast and Furious franchise just keeps getting bigger, and this seventh installment continues that trend.  While it still highlights cool cars and the merits of driving really fast, Furious 7 is primarily a full-fledged action film (including the presence of Johnson and Statham, whose presence is one of the few good things here).  Maybe I'm missing something, but this is just not a good film, action or not.  If you need more detail, then keep reading!


As the weather outside gets warmer, my excitement for the summer movie season grows.  In two weeks it will kick off with a bang:  the sequel to The Avengers.  Starting with that movie, I think I'm going to make a few changes to my reviews; we'll how it goes.  Meanwhile, you might think that the summer movie season has already begun, with the release of this blockbuster which made nearly $150 million in its first weekend and already has over $1 billion worldwide.  I'd only seen one other Fast and Furious movie before (that I remember), but I figured I'd see what all the fuss was about - and it even has an 82% score on Rotten Tomatoes.  Furious 7 was directed by James Wan and stars Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Jason Statham, et. al.

At the end of the last film, Dom (Diesel) and his crew took down bad guy Owen Shaw; now his brother, Deckard (Statham), wants revenge.  While the team has tried to rebuild normal lives, particularly Brian (Walker) and Mia (who are married and have a son), Deckard soon goes after them, forcing them to regroup.  Fortunately, they have allies:  a covert government team saves Dom, and then offers assistance in bringing down Deckard in return for help recapturing a young hacker and her powerful surveillance program.  The battle takes the team all around the world, but it seems the bad guys are always one step ahead.  A return to their home turf of Los Angeles may be the only chance Dom and co. have to prevail - and survive.

The acting in Furious 7 is not terrible but also unimpressive, even by the standards of this genre.  No one expects to see Daniel Day-Lewis in these movies, but charismatic, fun characters are quite important.  Unfortunately, Vin Diesel - the lead - is a terrible actor.  Mumbling through most scenes and trying (and failing) to balance tough guy aloofness with heroic strength, he also earnestly delivers the film's "key" awful lines.  Dwayne Johnson is a superior actor, if that tells you anything, but he only gets 10-15 minutes of screen time.  Paul Walker, who died during filming, is much closer to the charismatic star the film needed, but his role was necessarily reduced.  Most of the minor characters are nothing to write home about, though I did enjoy Tyrese Gibson's funny character.  Finally, the two non-group characters are quite opposite.  Kurt Russell as the government ops team leader practically spends the whole time winking and it gets annoying.  But Jason Statham's bad guy Deckard is actually pretty good, a menacing and ruthless presence (despite his usually playing the hero).

After its incredible start at the box office, it's safe to say that the Fast and Furious franchise is the current king of action movies.  Admittedly going based on what I've read rather than the movies themselves, this is a shift from a primarily car/racing culture.  And Furious 7 does still have plenty of cars - sometimes in cool ways, more often ridiculous.  But back to the action; despite the series' addition of stalwarts Johnson and Statham and blockbuster effects and sets, Furious 7 is just not a good action film.  A fight between Johnson and Statham at the beginning is very impressive, and a car chase in the middle of the film (if you cut out the utterly ridiculous beginning and end to the extended sequence) are quite entertaining.  Beyond that, the action is actually just not very interesting - from either lack of imagination, lack of realism (even relatively speaking), or sheer repetition.  Furious 7 also makes awkward and completely failed attempts to show its characters' feelings and value of family (though admittedly the tribute to Walker at the end is emotional, knowing that the actor himself was also the father of a young child).  Finally, all this crammed together adds up to a two hour, fifteen minute runtime which is far too long, especially the brutally extended final action set.

***

Frankly, I'm a bit flabbergasted by the popular and (especially) critical success of this film (and probably franchise; though I've only seen the fifth one, it too was not good).  If you've read my blog you know that I love action movies - from superheroes to James Bond and so on.  But this is just low quality, and I'm shocked that the critics - who unfairly malign countless superior action films - don't call this series out for it for some reason.  The film lacks star-worthy heroes or even much in the way of talented, charismatic acting.  The plot and writing is so ridiculous and pointless it isn't even worth pointing out specific flaws.  And the action - including what are supposed to be the showcase stunts - are mostly poorly conceived, executed, or both.  Now, I've certainly seen worse, and Furious 7 does have some good things about it as I've mentioned.  Statham-Johnson fight (and Statham himself), the mountain-top car chase, Tyrese Gibson.  But it is bewildering to me that this is both a box office smash and a critical success.  If you're a 10-16 year old boy, OK, go out and see this.  Otherwise, skip.



"Furious 7 Film Poster"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furious_7#/media/File:Furious_7_poster.jpg

Movies: Get Hard

Score:  ***1/2 out of ***** (B)

Long Story Short:  Ferrell's latest comedy teams him with fellow star Kevin Hart in a premise mixing financial crime and race.  Get Hard is certainly in the same class as Ferrell's other films, love them or loathe them, and while the overall quality of laughs is not tremendous, the two stars' presence and chemistry is entertaining.  It's also a well-made film in general, worthy of better than the critical reviews; worth a theater viewing, certainly if you're a Ferrell/Hart fan.


Another delay, I'm afraid, has put me another week behind on writing my movie reviews.  It has been slower at the movies this year than I had expected, but now summer is just around the corner.  And next week, I'll have my review for the biggest box office hit of the year so far, Furious 7.  Those who read this blog likely know that I'm a huge Will Ferrell fan, so when I got news that this was to be his next film it was almost certain that I'd see it.  Throw in Kevin Hart, who has become one of  my favorite comedians, too, and an interesting premise, and I was sold.  Bad score on Rotten Tomatoes be damned, I was going!  Get Hard was directed by Etan Cohen and stars Ferrell and Hart.

James (Ferrell) is a hedge fund manager living the dream.  He is enormously wealthy and revered by his peers, has an adoring and gorgeous fiancee, lives in an enormous mansion, and on and on.  James has become quite convinced that things are only getting better - until cops unexpectedly crash an engagement party and lead him away in cuffs for financial crimes.  James is sure that he is innocent, but before he knows it all his assets are frozen, his fiancee leaves him, and he has been sentenced to ten years in a maximum security prison.

Darnell (Hart), a car wash manager, finds James hiding in the trunk of his car back at work.  In a burst of inspiration, James grasps onto the idea that Darnell, a black man, can surely prepare him for the roughest of prison experiences.  Darnell, a law-abiding, model citizen, is briefly inflamed by James' assumption - but agrees to help him anyway in exchange for money needed for his daughter's school. Thus the "training" begins - while more guilty eyes watch closely.

Get Hard has a good cast, led, of course, by the duo of mega-popular comedians.  Ferrell's James is the main character, and indeed this is a Ferrell-style film.  As usual, Will has created a character both hilarious and interesting.  While a hedge fund-type arrested for fraud would usually be positioned as the villain or, at best, anti-hero, James is instead a naive innocent - he understands numbers, not the system, and any outrage stems from his acclimation to privilege.  In Ferrell terms, he's a cross between Ron Burgundy and Buddy (from Elf).  Kevin Hart is great, too; perhaps more impressive, as he is great in this supporting role despite being the lead in most films.  Partly the set up of the film allows for a good convergence of their comedic styles, but Ferrell and Hart also have good chemistry and complement each other well.  Everyone else is a minor player; the only one of note is Alison Brie who nearly steals a few scenes with an impressively flamboyant performance.

Get Hard is not the biggest success when judged strictly by the size of its laughs, but it at least partially makes up for this in other areas.  Ferrell and/or his team consistently find really excellent set ups, in both story and character, even if they don't fully realize the potential.  Get Hard is no different, with the contemporary theme of outrage over financial crooks, hints of race (but skirting much controversy), and the rising star of Kevin Hart.  One could argue that had the filmmakers been less PC, a more hilarious film could have been made - but it is what it is, and therefore the humor is of a different kind.  Of course, this centers around prison stereotypes, though race is a considerable (and well done) aspect as well as some gay "humor" (not well done).  Beyond the humor, the film is quite well crafted for a comedy.  The story is of course simplistic and silly, but it is sound and flows well, helped by good pacing.  It hits some cliches, but avoids most annoying ones.  The movie knows which scenes to highlight and mixes conventional and stylistic approaches well, depending on the needs of the story/humor.

***

Get Hard is not a great comedy by any means - but nor is it a bad one as many critics have labeled it, and it's also made me realize and/or accept a few things about comedies.  While Will Ferrell is possibly my favorite comedian, on strictly the strength of jokes his films have been disappointing for the last half or so of his film career.  Still, he consistently comes up with interesting characters (some among the best in all of comedy, IMO) that are always entertaining - and, as I mentioned, the premise of his films is almost always creative or interesting.  So while the quality of the humor may have declined and/or turned more toward lower-common-denominator areas, there are still joys to be had in his films that I find in few if any other places.  Another thing I'm coming to appreciate more is simple quality of filmmaking.  I have not studied film in any academic sense, but just having seen a lot over the last few years, I think I'm getting better at spotting the underlying differences among similar films.  Character, story, writing - humor, in comedies - and other direct qualities are hugely important, but so are less obvious things like pacing and tone/style (both consistency and quality).  So while Ferrell may be impressing me less with the most obvious of elements - the humor - I am appreciating more the quality of the supporting elements.  As a final recommendation, of course consider whether Ferrell's brand of humor is for you first because this has the usual (including language, sexual references, etc.).  If you do like it, this is a perfectly fine choice for a trip to the theater, but also not a must see, if you'd prefer to wait for Netflix.



"Get Hard (2015) Poster"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_Hard#/media/File:Get_Hard_film_poster.png

Movies: Chappie

Score:  *** out of ***** (C+)

Long Story Short:  Director Neill Blomkamp (District 9) is out with his third feature, and unfortunately his development went in the wrong direction here.  Another sci-fi/action /allegory film, Chappie provides another take on artificial intelligence.  While Chappie the robot is entertaining and interesting, the human characters are all over the place and the script is strikingly bad.  Skip the theater, but its strengths may be enough to make it a worthwhile rental.


It's been far too long since the last time I've seen a movie in the theater!  Unfortunately, I'm also a few weeks late in seeing this one, but maybe you can use it to decide about seeing it on Netflix.  There are one or two more films coming up that I'd like to see, but there probably won't be a lot more until the summer film season arrives (and then I'll be cranking them out!).  I enjoy and am intrigued by, if not enthralled with, the work of Chappie director, who also did District 9 and Elysium.  Despite its getting poor reviews, that and my hunger to see a movie in the theater got me in the seat.  Chappie was directed by Neill Blomkamp and stars Sharlto Copley, Dev Patel and Hugh Jackman.

In the near future, Johannesburg, South Africa is reeling from violent crime and turns to a private company that has developed a robotic police force.  This quickly brings peace to much of the city, though pockets of criminal activity remain.  At the robot company, lead programmer Deon (Patel) is proud of his work but has even bigger plans in mind:  true artificial intelligence.  One night, he thinks he has made a breakthrough so he recovers a robot headed for scrap to test his program.  At the same time, caught between a ruthless ganglord and the omnipresent robot police force, a pair of criminals (Ninja, Yolandi) are desperate for an edge.  It seems Deon and his robot are the answer to their prayers...

The robot, named Chappie by the gangsters, is independent of the authorities but has the bright new - and naive and simple - mind of a child.  Even as Deon does his best to teach the new life form to do good, he encounters another threat from within - one that is not satisfied with the police robot for an entirely different reason.

Chappie has a bizarre yet entertaining cast.  Chappie the robot is the main character - movement and voice work by Sharlto Copley - reminiscent of Caesar's starring role in the new Planet of the Apes films.  Some will find him annoying, but I was entertained.  In fact, I would have preferred an even greater emphasis on him and less on the humans.  Copley (director Blomkamp's muse) does well with the physicality and the tech crew brings him marvelously to life.  He has an appropriate though at times hard to understand voice.  While his personality seesaws a bit too wildly (though I can buy that from an AI), he's almost always fascinating.

The humans could have used a lot more work.  Dev Patel does a decent job in sections, but his part is poorly written (this will become a theme) and it swallows him up.  Hugh Jackman, finally getting to use his native Aussie accent, does a nice job toeing the line of playing up his villain; the script again does a terrible job of trying to "hide" his eventual role.  Ninja and Yolandi of South African "rap-rave" group Die Antwoord play themselves as the gangsters.  They are both way over the top and have little consistency at all in their acting - yet they also serve to give the film an unpredictable, crazy tone that I wish the script had been adapted to fit.  There is a bit of their music in the film, appropriately, and I have to admit some of it is pretty catchy.

Chappie is a sci-fi film that is not particularly original, although it is in keeping with director Blomkamp's signature style.  In fact, the plot structure is essentially the same as District 9 - but much, much lower quality.  The core idea of the film is artificial intelligence, though one of the few positive credits I'll give to the script is its not reveling in the concept itself (we've been here before, after all) and focusing more on Chappie himself (good) and the humans (bad).  The technical achievements and overall artistic vision (I'm afraid I lack a better vocabulary to describe it) are impressive, and there are some genuinely fun moments - my favorite being a sequence of Chappie stealing cars.  However, the script is just awful.  Every one of the human characters is afflicted by cliche scenes only to careen wildly into entirely inexplicable behavior a few minutes later.  The pacing is fine for the first third or so, but then completely leads the audience adrift - setting up climactic moments and/or tension only to suddenly switch focus or fizzle out, and so on.  I was impressed by one particular plot development late in the film (no, not the one at the very end, if you've seen it), but it is poorly crafted into the film and so it loses much of its impact.

***

Although the Rotten Tomatoes score prepared me for what I was getting into, I was still disappointed with this third feature film from Neill Blomkamp.  I consider him a "mini-Nolan", as he has a distinct, creative vision in his movies that separates him from most other filmmakers in Hollywood.  And Chappie had many elements for a great sci-fi film; great effects and characterization ideas for the robot itself, an interesting setting and cast.  But, again, the script is atrocious.  Blomkamp is one of two credited writers, which makes me think he should maybe steer clear of this role in the future.  Despite all the negativity, I don't actually think you should necessarily avoid this film.  Unlike, say, Lucy, which also had a terrible script, this has a creative tone and more than a few entertaining elements.  It's not worth a trip to the theater, but if you're looking for an interesting (if significantly flawed) sci-fi/action film, you might put it in your Netflix queue.



"Chappie film poster"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappie_(film)#/media/File:Chappie_poster.jpg

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