Movies: Tomorrowland

Score:  ****1/2 out of ***** (A)

Directed by Brad Bird
Starring George Clooney, Britt Robertson, Hugh Laurie, et. al.
Running time:  130 minutes
Rated PG

Long Story Short:  Based on a Disney ride, like Pirates of the Caribbean (although that's where the similarities end), Tomorrowland is a difficult to define sci-fi adventure.  What isn't difficult to say is that it's a resounding triumph.  A strong cast includes a solid lead in newcomer Robertson, the reliable Clooney, and a stunning (hopefully break-out) performance from young Cassidy.  They help propel a strong story, interesting, hopeful ideas - and yes, some cool visuals.  Highly recommended.


In 1964, a young boy named Frank visits the World Fair in New York City.  Not content to watch others, Frank has brought his own jetpack to the inventors' competition, though the judge, Nix (Laurie) is unimpressed by its flaws.  A young girl, Athena, watching nearby meets Frank, and tells him to follow her as she and Nix go on what appears to be an ordinary ride.  Frank obeys, and the ride takes him to quite literally a whole new world - one much more receptive to his grand ideas.  Later, in the present day, Casey (Robertson), is another curious teenager frustrated by a limiting world holding her back.  One day, after her frustrations get her in trouble, she has a bewildering but brief experience in the same world Frank found.

Enraptured by the visit, Casey is determined to find a way to get back.  However, forces in our world have been waiting for someone to try to do just that, and will do anything to stop her - for the other world holds a secret that they will not let out.

Tomorrowland is one of the strangest - yet also one of the best - cast movies in recent memory.  Despite what the previews may show, Britt Robertson as Casey is the lead, rather than Clooney's Frank.  Robertson, whom I have not seen before, gives a strong performance.  It's also restrained - I'm going to say this was on purpose, since it works well to allow the audience to, in a sense, use her as their surrogate in the adventure.  But she conveys personality of her own, particularly determination and courage.  With no love interest or similarly limiting cliches, her Casey seems a great role model for younger (esp. girl) viewers.  Though his role is smaller than expected, Clooney's presence is most welcome - at once the stable, safe adult chaperone and also the charming curmudgeon (is that a thing? Well, George is here).  Clooney also does a good job giving the impression of a sharp, exciting mind that is shaking off years of neglect.

The film also features some very strong supporting roles.  None are better than Raffey Cassidy's Athena.  Although somewhat passive early on with young Frank, later she helps out Casey in a vibrant role.  Just twelve years-old, Cassidy is remarkably expressive and equally controlled in her acting.  Anytime she has an active part on screen, my attention was drawn to her like a magnet, though she also easily pulls back when not featured.  Maybe it's just me, but Cassidy's ability to project her emotions off screen is outstanding, and also has great humor and timing.  Really, really hoping filmmakers in Hollywood take notice.  Hugh Laurie is great every time I see him, so not surprisingly he is a pleasure here as well.  And there are small roles (one scene, really) for Kathryn Hahn and Keegan-Michael Key; they are as hilarious as expected.

Tomorrowland is a difficult film to describe succinctly, which is likely (one reason) why the previews are deceptive.  It is also a reason, along with the strong cast, as mentioned, story and sentiment, why it's so good.  With such a premise - there's a parallel universe with future technology and always blue skies! - the filmmakers could easily have leaned on the special effects, from glittering city portraits to high-tech action, to carry the film.  While there is a healthy-enough dose of wondrous imagery, the film wisely instead relies on good old-fashioned characters, story and ideas.  The cast I've already discussed individually, but it's a very good balance in size and chemistry, particularly Casey, Frank and Athena.  They relate well and naturally, unforced.  The script is very good, including dialogue that avoids cheese and/or cliche, and explains enough to bring you into the world but not so much that it bogs down everything else.  And the ideas!  Beyond the high-tech wonders is a strong sense of optimism, of exploration and creativity.  Yes, there are some "bad guys" in the film - including one notable, entertaining scene of Frank and Casey evading attack in his gizmo-laden home.  But the main point is not to defeat someone else, it is rather to become their - and our - best selves.

***

Tomorrowland is a great film, in my opinion, but it is not a straightforward classic.  That's why it has a 49% on RT (although it has plenty of great reviews, shame on critics overall for not giving it more thought), and why it's disappointing at the box office (that, and it's not part of a franchise).  It was not made for any one demographic; I think it's intended for all.  Different parts of it will appeal to different people.  To me, and I've said this about other highly-rated films before, this is just classic, excellent filmmaking.  It does take advantage of today's technology - but only in support of telling a good story, not to replace it.  And working in tandem with the great story and ideas is a great team of characters, with some of the best casting I've seen in years.  This was not a "must-see" movie for me; I thought it looked entertaining, and a good change of pace after last week's Mad Max.  And it was both of those things and so, so much more.  So if you're looking for a great quality entertainment - and especially if you'd like less violence and more optimism - then do yourself a favor and see this.

New - rolling rankings of the summer's movies (click to go to my reviews):

1. Tomorrowland (A)
2. Mad Max: Fury Road (A-)
3. Avengers: Age of Ultron (A-)

As you can see, it's been an outstanding summer movie season so far - I hope you're enjoying it!

"Tomorrowland movie poster".  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrowland_(film)#/media/File:Tomorrowland_poster.jpg

Movies: Mad Max: Fury Road

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Directed by George Miller
Starring Tom Hardy, Charlize Theron, Nicholas Hoult, et. al.
Running time:  120 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  With Mad Max: Fury Road, George Miller has resurrected the franchise he created - and last visited 30 years ago.  Tom Hardy takes Mel Gibson's place in the title role, but the true lead belongs to co-star Charlize Theron - they make a good, if hesitant, team.  The film's true strength is its blistering action, focused on chase scenes in gnarly vehicles in a desert world.  Go along for the ride - it's a must-see.


In a post apocalyptic desert world, Max (Hardy) is a former patrol man whose family has been destroyed by elements of the uncivilized remains of humanity.  His own survival is precarious, and he quickly finds himself pursued and captured by a gang known as the War Boys.  Max is taken back to their home, an outpost ruled by the brutal, masked Immortan Joe.  From that same outpost, a commander named Furiosa (Theron) has taken a convoy to get more gasoline - but in reality has a different mission.  When Immortan Joe realizes this he orders his entire army of suicidal War Boys into pursuit on a fleet of modified and supercharged vintage vehicles, with Max along for the ride.

Eventually able to free himself, Max joins up with Furiosa.  Both flee from Immortan Joe but do not know or trust each other.  However, the two strong personalities must work together to avoid a shared grizzly demise.

In the frenzied journey that is Mad Max: Fury Road, there is relatively little dialogue but the cast still comes up with intriguing performances.  Tom Hardy plays the title character, Max; we get none of his backstory (three films made from 1979-1985) except brief, vague flashbacks to a traumatic past.  Max has little personality, the implication being that spending years alone in this desert world has stripped it from him.  Still, Hardy does a good job as a tough, sometimes brutal and even vulnerable action hero.  The real main character in fact, as you may have heard, is Charlize Theron's Furiosa.  Theron slips naturally into her role as a tougher-than-nails heroine, similar to Sigourney Weaver and the like.  The film doesn't give much space for character development, but Furiosa achieves the goal as coming off the equal, if not the stronger, in her partnership with Max.  Nicholas Hoult has the only other significant role, as the War Boy Nux.  He is quite good as a deranged acolyte of Immortan Joe early on, and still does alright when Nux starts to change later on.

The newest Mad Max is first and foremost a high-octane action film, and a damn well-made one at that; riding shotgun are several plots that succeed to varying degrees.  The film essentially comes down to one big chase, and so the vehicles used in that setting are almost characters themselves.  Moreso because they, unlike the gleaming but generic rides in Furious 7, are each customized creatures - big rig oil trucks with VW Beetle husks mounted on top; double-decker muscle cars; porcupine attack cruisers; etc. etc.  There are at least four main chase/fight scenes (amongst scattered thrills throughout - and limited CGI!), and each one has a new dynamic and new dangers to add; you almost start to cheer for Max and Furiosa's big rig itself.  Along with this, Mad Max keeps things fresh along the way by incorporating different filming techniques (the opening sequence is in semi-"fast forward"); gonzo, sometimes loony characters, behavior, and dialogue appropriate to this "mad" world; and a nifty, atmospheric score with everything from pounding percussion to hard rock to grand orchestral music.  It's the more straight-faced plot elements that are merely "meh".  Furiosa's backstory, mission, and pre-climactic "twist" are been-there-done-that, though decently executed.

***

With a stunning 98% on Rotten Tomatoes, Mad Max is widely viewed as one of the best films of the summer, if not the year, so far.  And I would agree, too, that it's one of the best pure action movies in years (this is the vehicle-based action franchise that deserves further entries, unlike some others *cough*).  What George Miller, the filmmaker who also created the series 35 years ago, understands is that there's a fine balance in great action films between excellent production and awe-inspiring moments on the one hand, and a level of craziness/creativity (that's different for each film) on the other.  I would hope to see some character development for Max, Furiosa and/or (even better) some new personalities in further entries.  The lack of this in Fury Road is not a mark against it, but rather a condition of the kind of film it is, nevertheless capping my initial score for it to A-.  Again, this is an outstanding action film; if you want to see the most entertaining film available and don't know much about superhero films, I'd even recommend it over the new Avengers movie.  Go see it!



"Mad Max theatrical poster"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Max:_Fury_Road#/media/File:Max_Mad_Fury_Road_Newest_Poster.jpg

Movies: Avengers: Age of Ultron

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Directed by Joss Whedon
Starring Robert Downey, Jr., Chris Hemsworth, Chris Evans, James Spader, et. al.
Runtime:  141 minutes
Rating:  PG-13

Long Story Short:  Joss Whedon unleashes his follow-up to the 2012 superhero all-star blockbuster and delivers another smashing success.  The action soars in a variety of fun fights and battles, as the Avengers are challenged by AI nemesis Ultron.  While there's maybe a little too much going on this time around, we get more of the same great work on the heroes and their relationships too.  Highly recommended.


You might notice a few cosmetic changes to this review, but overall this is not a significant change in review style from my standard, as I had mentioned I would try.  I started writing this in a different style, but decided that I was doing too much describing, taking too long to do it, and still not getting to even my amateur-level analysis.  So I may try some tweaks through the coming months, but probably nothing huge.  Well, here is the first summer movie of the year and it's quite a doozy!  One of my most anticipated films of the year, though even this doesn't crack my top three.

Since saving the world from Loki-led alien domination last time, the Avengers have been cleaning up the leftovers.  At the beginning here, they assault one of Hydra's (evil organization) final strongholds to recover a powerful instrument.  Heading back to HQ in NY, the team is confident and ready to party.  However, a new villain rises from the very center of this victory in the form of artificial intelligence Ultron (Spader).  He calculates that the greatest source of danger in the world comes from humans themselves - none more so than the Avengers.

With the help of a new set of super twins, Ultron scatters the outgunned and outwitted Avengers.  Once again, it will take the Avengers working as a true team to stop their foe, but divisions are now greater than ever.

Age of Ultron is bursting at the seams with characters, both familiar faces comfortable in their roles and a few new ones as well.  Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man stands out the most due to his relationship with Ultron, but it is definitely an ensemble effort.  Downey, Jr. delivers the goods as always with both his humor and his quasi-anti-hero attitude.  Chris Evans' Captain America is seen mostly as Stark's ideological opposite once again, and Thor (Hemsworth) also gets relatively little to do (most of it not even having to do directly with the film's main events).  Instead, we get a refreshing, closer look at "the Ringos", Hawkeye (Renner), Black Widow (Johansson) and the Hulk (Ruffalo).  Hawkeye brings in some of the first family elements we've seen in these films and delivers some strong scenes.  Meanwhile, the Hulk and Black Widow are drawn to each other and we get a closer look at what makes them tick.  The relationship is intriguing, and hopefully will be explored further later on.

James Spader voices the villain Ultron, and what a good choice he was.  Spader brings a laser intelligence to the villain, someone who toys with and menaces the Avengers simultaneously.  He unfortunately fades and becomes more generic as the film progresses; more on that later.  The new super twins are played competently by Elizabeth Olsen and Aaron Taylor-Johnson.  Frankly they're largely plot devices, but they bring some charisma with them.  And then we have a whole train of cameos from old friends, from Samuel L. Jackson to Hayley Atwell.  Nice to see them, and they are neither frivolous nor feel bloated.

Joss Whedon proved in the first Avengers, among many other things, that he could make a kick-ass blockbuster that also fully utilizes its characters and their relationships.  He shows the same skill here, if not quite reaching the same heights in doing so.  Age of Ultron brings the fireworks expected of this kind of tentpole film.  There are three main battles, each nicely distinct.  We start with the Avengers' raid on Hydras base, just giving a taste of their capabilities - and effectively foreshadowing events to come.  In the middle is a no-holds-barred slugfest between Iron Man and the Hulk that is a showstopper.  And the finale is an ensemble epic much like the one from the first film.  I view it as continuity rather than copying, but admittedly it drags a bit and is overall less thrilling.  Ultron enters between the first and second battles, but unfortunately never rises to his potential (he is involved in a fourth big battle that I had actually forgotten about initially).  He simply fades to the background, becoming almost a symbol against other diversions, some worthy some not.

All the action just described gets a considerable boost from the great character work that Whedon and his actors produce.  I've already mentioned the surprising but welcome focus on the lesser-known Avengers, but a theme taken from the first film and amplified is the conflict between Captain America and Iron Man.  This works quite well in several powerful scenes, and if anything I would have liked to see more on this (and a bolder statement at the conclusion).  Sadly, like Ultron these Avengers too have to make room for just a little too much extra stuff.  A new character comes in in the latter half representing connection to an even bigger Marvel universe, and it's the point of overload.

***

I was pumped coming out of the theater after seeing this, and while I realize now it's not as good as the first, it's still a damn good movie.  Seeing Furious 7 with a better RT score makes me sick - don't always trust the critics (or me, probably)!  Yeah, there is too much going on in Age of Ultron.  But considering just how many characters and stories Whedon was juggling, it is incredible what an outstanding job he did as both writer and director.  It's quite unfortunate that he is now done with the series.  And I didn't even get to mention above that Ultron retains the first film's sense of humor; has quite good pacing considering its runtime and "bloat"; and is much better written than most blockbusters.  There is some top-notch entertaining action, and a fun to watch cast with interesting dynamics.  While this doesn't quite rise to an A for me - at least not yet - I still highly recommend it to anyone looking for a fun flick to see early this summer (and essential viewing, of course, for fans of superhero movies).



"Avengers: Age of Ultron movie poster."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avengers:_Age_of_Ultron#/media/File:Avengers_Age_of_Ultron.jpg

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