Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2

Score:  ** out of ***** (D+)

Directed by James Gunn
Starring Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Bradley Cooper, Vin Diesel, et. al.
Running time: 136 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 swoops into the prime opening weekend of the summer, following the first hit film's opening in the garbage heap of summer.  Just as the openings are reversed, however, so is the quality of the two films.  A horrifically bad script is largely to blame for its myriad problems - bloated, dumb plot; loss of interest in its quirky main cast; and mostly poor attempts at humor.  Skip it.


After saving the universe from the evil schemes of Thanos, the so-called "Guardians of the Galaxy" - Star-Lord (Pratt), Gamora (Saldana), Drax (Bautista), Rocket (Cooper), and Groot (Diesel) - have become interstellar superstars.  Their services are in high demand, and one such mission finds the Guardians protecting highly valuable... batteries from various would-be thieves.  In payment, the batteries' owners, known as the Sovereign, release Gamora's sister, Nebula (Gillan) to them.  Unfortunately, Rocket's old habits have yet to wear off and he pockets several of the batteries.  The Sovereign quickly discover the treachery, and soon the Guardians are forced to flee to a distant planet for shelter.  Even there, the Guardians find themselves sought by other forces - one a mysterious being from Star-Lord's past, who takes him and part of the team to another world.  Another, led by pirate Yondu (Rooker), confronts the remaining Guardians.  Although allegiances seem apparent - those who want to help the Guardians, and those who hunt them - the team must rely on each other more than ever before in a quickly-changing galaxy.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 features most of the cast from the first film, and significant roles for several newcomers.  The main quintet remains, of course, but in almost every way is not as interesting or as fun as in the previous adventure.  Chris Pratt as Star-Lord is the de facto leader of the group, but is largely prevented from unleashing his new age Han Solo act again.  There are just too many other active parts given screen time, and most of his time is stuck in serious, plot-based stuff rather than the silly or casual scenes at which he excels.  Zoe Saldana's Gamora is even worse off, mostly dealing with a boring sibling rivalry/war.  She is a generic side part here, rather than the intriguing tough-as-nails assassin from the first.  Dave Bautista's Drax is about as annoying as last time, although he benefits from his relationship with one of the new characters.  Groot, now a tiny version of himself, is basically the cute pet of the film, to hit-and-miss effect.  But among the group, Rocket is by far the worst off; Cooper is forced to spit out some pretty terrible lines.  Among the many newcomers, Kurt Russell has the biggest part as Star-Lord's long lost father.  He's a welcome presence, fitting in with his zany colleagues, although a brief digital youth transformation is a little disturbing.  And Elizabeth Debicki, leader of the Sovereigns, is by far the most interesting character in the film; unfortunately, it's a pretty small role.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 retains many of the explicit elements of the first film, but has been blockbuster-ized, spoiling a lot of what made the first so much fun.  Things start promisingly and cleverly, focusing on a dancing, oblivious baby Groot with a battle raging around him as a great 70s pop song plays.  After that, though, much of the premise is not very interesting and has way too many threads, both major and minor.  Added to this is a horrendous script, likely the worst I've seen from the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  This weakness is immediately apparent after the introduction, and dooms at least a few scenes that could otherwise have been interesting.  The script is most glaring in much of the attempted humor - it is far more infantile, seemingly designed to please five-year-olds rather than adults.  Sure, there are some funny bits (particularly the Sovereigns, which pilot their ships from afar in essentially a massive arcade game, and their absurd self-seriousness), but it lacks almost any of the first film's mischief.  Despite being "cleaner", this film has some rather shocking amounts of cold-blooded violence.  This is coming from a reviewer not bothered by John Wick, but I found an entire ship's crew being stabbed, one at a time, by a guided arrow to be a bit much.  To cap it off, the film is too long with a final act that sees the chaos of the past two hours collapse into one final jumble before limping on for another fifteen minutes.

***

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is the first big belly flop of the otherwise-impressive Marvel film universe.  The first film was a gamble that paid off spectacularly, following a group of not-so-super (or willing) heroes - without a single superstar character or actor - in space.  It's not so much that Marvel made it into a Serious Franchise (although its convoluted plot did it not favors) with this one, but rather that it became generic, overcrowded, and despite all the money spent on effects, the pitiful quality of the script put it in a league with films like *gulp* the Fast and Furious franchise.  There are a lot of promising elements in this franchise still, from its characters to the irreverent tone (at least the first film's).  But there needs to be a major, major rethink at Marvel headquarters for the next one.  Are they going to boldly continue into new, interesting territory as they've proved they can do successfully - or will they simply use these now-familiar faces as a front for a boring franchise with eyes only for box office rather than artistic success?  For this installment, give it a try at home if you are curious, but please avoid it in theaters.




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=52041243

The Circle

Score:  ***1/2 out of ***** (B-)

Directed by James Ponsoldt
Starring Emma Watson, Tom Hanks, John Boyega, Karen Gillan, et. al.
Running time: 110 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  The Circle, based on the novel by Dave Eggers, tells the tale of a young woman who joins a huge social media tech company and quickly becomes the public face placed in front of its private ambitions.  Emma Watson and Tom Hanks provide watchable, intriguing characters but the plot is obvious and its message and direction inconsistent.  Still, there are plenty of good moments throughout, making it worth viewing at some point, if not an essential theater experience.


Mae Holland (Watson) is a young woman struggling to get by day to day, let alone launch a fulfilling, exciting career.  One day she gets her lucky break, though, when a college friend, Annie (Gillan) sets her up with an interview at the world's largest tech company, the Circle.  Mae gets in, and is dazzled as Annie takes her on a whirlwind tour of the Circle's massive, utopian campus.  Although she is thrilled with her new job, Mae returns home regularly to spend time with her parents and others, including childhood friend Mercer (Coltrane).  She is taken aback when the Circle shows a desire to be more than just her place of employment, but also like a second family.  Mae finds herself drawn closer and closer, to everything from the cheerful atmosphere to Circle leader Eamon Bailey's (Hanks) vision.  As Mae's own family grows worried about this closer connection, Mae herself is becoming an essential part of the Circle's mysterious mission - as millions around the world follow her every day life.

The Circle has an impressive cast, one not fully utilized but which still gives the film some of its strongest elements.  Emma Watson is the lead as Mae, a young woman drawn quickly from obscurity into a prominent position at a powerful tech company.  Watson does a good job and was a wise choice for the role.  She is particularly convincing as the unprecedentedly visible symbol of the Circle; as one of the (real) world's most famous actresses, she knows all too well both the adoration of a crowd but also the personal consequences of that attention.  Watson struggles a bit more with her early start as a "nobody", and her development is inconsistent, but this has at least as much to do with the script as her performance.  Tom Hanks is very impressive in the Steve Jobs-like role of Circle leader Eamon Bailey.  As always, he is quite charismatic, and easily makes Eamon seem a comforting presence even as the words he speaks become more and more disturbing.  Unfortunately, John Boyega is wasted in a small role that serves only as an unnecessary plot device.  And Karen Gillan and Ellar Coltrane, both fine actors, seem thrown off by the poor script and respond with equally poor, overacted performances.

The Circle is a thriller that, while largely failing as a drama, has its fair share of interesting moments and observations on the modern world.  The overall structure of the plot is familiar: a naive young person joins a massive, apparently benevolent yet mysterious organization, which uses her until she realizes its true intentions.  Unfortunately, this structure is rapidly apparent, removing much of the mystery.  On a related note, the film is too often both unsubtle and exaggerated in showing the motives or background for various developments; yet at other times, decisions (particularly from Mae) are jarringly inexplicable.  Boyega's character, a former Circle leader disillusioned by the company's direction (yet still always hanging out on campus for some reason), meets Mae at random times throughout to bluntly point out the obvious dangers to her.  Yet Mae continues on her path, if for no other reason than to keep the film going, right up until a very sudden and unconvincing ending.

Still, there are good elements in this film, too.  Hanks's very performance helps show how the Circle's omnipresent surveillance - while obviously extreme - could in fact appeal to both those in power as well as the masses in a variety of ways.  As for the Circle's culture, it is a clever exaggeration of the Google or Facebook utopian stereotype.  One particularly good scene has Mae confronted with two smiling Circle employees forcing her to get with the program - in the most passive aggressive way possible.  Later, when Mae becomes the face of the company, scenes depicting her comings and goings are made fascinating by a constant stream of social media posts that float around her on screen.  And the film's most emotional scene, involving Mae's childhood friend, may strike some as unrealistic, but was both effective and all too plausible to me.

***

The Circle had a lot of promising elements going for it, and while its failures make it an overall disappointment, it's still an intriguing film.  Social media is with us constantly, and news reports about the dangers of this are regular, yet seeing it put on film is still valuable.  The Circle proves the danger of it as well, falling prey to certain cliches and not presenting the most subtle, effective warnings about - and possibilities of - the technology.  With some impressive performances, particularly Tom Hanks's, and some well done parts here and there, it's not difficult to accept the failings yet focus instead on both the entertaining and enlightening features.  Certainly not an essential theater viewing option, The Circle will make for a nice change of pace choice at home.



By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=52503603

Logan

Score:  ****1/2 out of ***** (A-)

Directed by James Mangold
Starring Hugh Jackman, Dafne Keen, Patrick Stewart
Running time: 137 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  Logan is the third "solo" film for Hugh Jackman's iconic superhero character, likely also his final.  This film is darker than others in the X-Men franchise, not just because of the increased violence due to its R-rating, but also because Logan and others are confronted with heightened personal crises.  While therefore not a cheerful one, this is a more emotionally powerful superhero film than most, and thoughtfully made.  Highly recommended.


In 2029, few mutants remain in comparison to the heyday of the X-men; none have been born for twenty-five years, and the remaining population barely struggles on.  Among the survivors is Logan (Jackman), once known as Wolverine.  With his mutant powers in decline and his old friends almost all gone, he quietly works as a chauffeur.  He also cares for his old mentor, Professor Xavier (Stewart), who has begun to lose control of both his formidable mind and powers and must be kept at a safe distance from society.  Logan's routine is interrupted, however, by a woman who is desperate for his help.  She begs him to take her and her daughter to the Canadian border where they can find a safe haven - and he must be the one to do it, or so she insists.  When Logan confronts the forces seeking this woman, he reluctantly decides to help her, taking the dependent Xavier with him.  Although Logan wishes to spend the rest of his life in peace and quiet, he is forced to once again confront duty to his people - both past and future.

Logan has relatively few familiar faces for an X-Men movie, but the cast is solid all around.  Returning for a seventh film in the role of Logan, aka Wolverine, is Hugh Jackman.  There is no question that Jackman knows the character; at this point, he is Logan, however similar that may or may not be to the comic book version.  Jackman brings a familiar sense of weariness and moral heaviness, but it is also very clear that he is at the breaking point here.  His acting conveys the passage of time - mainly, that it's been a long time since fighting with the X-men, but also simple aging - both through a more subdued yet mature demeanor as well as a still-impressive yet ravaged physique.  Patrick Stewart is equally affecting in his return as Professor Xavier.  He is even more clearly on the edge, portraying a physical suffering and exertion as he never has before in playing the wheelchair-bound leader of mutants.  Joining them is one final mutant, a young girl played by Dafne Keen.  She does not speak for most of the film, but still conveys a wild, sometimes frightening fierceness while also being a shy, very human child in need of a guiding figure.

Logan is a fairly thoughtful, though also brutal, superhero film that - there's no point in beating around the bush here - likely will serve as the final chapter for Hugh Jackman as the Wolverine.  The mood and look of the film is immediately more desolate than other X-Men films - from the desert environment to the jarring sight of Logan as a chauffeur.  For Logan, however - always the outsider on a team of outsiders - this is perfectly appropriate.  The fortunes of mutants, even as powerful as him and Xavier, have soured, not due to any apocalyptic events or enemies but rather simple time and the curse that their once world-saving abilities have become.  This allows the film to focus on a familiar choice for Logan, though this time with finality: to eke out the most dignified, quiet retirement he can from the world and all its troubles, or to put everything he has into a service greater than himself.  As he joins the fray again, and the film turns into essentially a chase scenario, the heaviness is relieved by an unexpected but touching detour into "normal" life that rewards both Logan and the audience.

Just as quickly, events turn more bleak and brutal than ever before, accentuating the urgency of Logan's mission.  The villains and their plot are not all that new and exciting, but that doesn't end up being a big problem.  The good guys - both familiar and new - are clearly more vulnerable this time around, and so their mission and very survival is the main source of tension.  This is made all the more gripping by the aforementioned brutality, which mainly serves not to shock (though that it does) but to illustrate the depths Logan must go to and the psychic damage all this must have done to him over the years.  After one last bloody, slicing-and-dicing battle, Logan gets the ending he deserves.  His sacrifice is not for those in his past, but for those - including the young girl mutant - who now have a future.

***

Logan is a very good superhero film by itself, but it also represents how franchises can be brought to a close in a satisfying and - hopefully - truly final way.  Made possible by the success of Deadpool, this film takes the license for an "R"-rated superhero film and uses it not gratuitously but to finish the theme and tone of the Wolverine character as it should be.  While the X-Men can be overshadowed at times by the more famous and popular comic pillars like Batman, Superman and the Avengers, Hugh Jackman's achievements in longevity and quality are arguably greater than any other.  Even as the faces and styles changed around him, Jackman's Wolverine was the anchor for the entire franchise - someone who could kick butt as well as any other hero, but also provide character depth and growth in the puzzle of his past as well as intriguing relationships (particularly with Professor X and Jean Gray) and his outlook on the world itself.  Bravo, Mr. Jackman, and thank you for creating such a great character to watch over the course of seven films.  If you, too, have seen the other X-Men films, Logan is a must-see.




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=50496657

Get Out

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Directed by Jordan Peele
Starring Daniel Kaluuya, Allison Williams, Bradley Whitford, et. al.
Running time: 103 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  Get Out is Jordan Peele's first movie - not a comedy, but a horror.  Peele's insight and intellect clearly guides this film beyond typical genre material by using race, which accentuates the horror and vice versa.  Daniel Kaluuya gives a great performance as the intriguing surrogate, through whom we feel the chills and dread of race relations, mortal danger - and sometimes both at once.  Highly recommended.


A young couple in love, Chris (Kaluuya) and Rose (Williams) go to her family's home in the country for the weekend.  Before they leave, Chris discovers that Rose has not told her family that he is black, making him more nervous about meeting the family.  When they arrive, Chris feels a little more at ease; Rose's parents embarrass her and they seem to like Chris, even if they are a little naive.  There are also several black staff members who work at the house, although they are mysterious.  Soon Chris meets more of Rose's family, including her odd brother, and a whole gathering of older relatives at an annual get-together.  Despite suffering the type of slights and affronts that Chris is accustomed to, all seems relatively normal: except that the more time he spends with Rose's family, the more her family seems to be interested in him...

Get Out has a good cast that effectively transitions from ordinary drama to wacko horror stuff.  Leading the way is Daniel Kaluuya, who is fantastic.  This is a horror film, so there's not a lot of character development here, but he is a very effective and charismatic surrogate for the audience.  And I'm not talking only about the horror elements, but also the everyday drama.  Kaluuya shows how Chris patiently weathers some of the milder (often unintentional) racial moments, but the overall impact of Rose's family's behavior affects him in a variety of ways, both when he is with others and when is by himself.  And he does the horror elements just as well, particularly several scenes of extremely unsettling hypnotism.  The focus of the film is almost entirely on Chris, but others fill out supporting roles admirably.  Allison Williams is his steadfast defender as girlfriend Rose, though love for family does eventually pull her in different directions.  Bradley Whitford and Catherine Keener are both perfectly believable parents as well as - I doubt this is too spoiler-y - creepy horror villains.

While Get Out follows many horror genre conventions, it stands out for being driven by - and effectively illustrating - race relations, both everyday and more broadly.  Like many horror movies, it starts "normal", just a few young people taking an average trip; with the exception of some eerie, lingering shots and foreboding music.  And by the end of the film, little mystery remains while a considerable amount of blood has been shed.  Both the early and the later parts do their jobs well without being too terrifying (thankfully, IMO).  The film also has some good humor in it, particularly with Chris's friend Rod, a TSA agent (usually participating on his phone), although there isn't as much as I would have expected in a work from Jordan Peele - he of Key and Peele.

The formula stuff is fine and entertaining, but the social commentary is truly interesting and well done.  It's a simple idea, yet gets at some complex, nuanced realities.  A young black man is meeting his white girlfriend's family for the first time, and they are a regular, modern - even liberal - group.  Thus, Get Out uses its early scenes not just for horror build-up, but actually more to illustrate common interracial interactions.  Chris withstands everything from overcompensating niceties, to blatant, ignorant remarks from older family members that set his - and the audience's - teeth on edge. And Chris himself is observer, too, as he looks on the subtly yet significantly different ways that the family treats their black staff than they do him.  The racial component builds in parallel with the horror, and you get a sick feeling as you think you know what's going on but don't want to believe it.  Sure enough, the master plot behind it all is a disturbing allegory for race and society.  All is not lost, though:  for a horror movie, it has a pretty good, "happy" ending.

***

I had not even heard of Get Out until just before its release, and then I quickly dismissed it since it is a horror movie.  However, great reviews came in (99% on RT!!!), and I learned more about it - the social commentary and Peele's involvement.  The horror genre is still one I'm going to stay away from most of the time, but I'm definitely glad I saw this one.  Daniel Kaluuya is so fun to watch here, and thus makes all the social commentary more meaningful but not the least bit preachy.  So even if you're not a fan of the genre, I'd give this a try - though I recommend seeing this either in a packed theater or at least with a group of friends to get the most out of it.




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=53245463

The Lego Batman Movie

Score:  ***1/2 out of ***** (B)

Directed by Chris McKay
Starring Will Arnett, Michael Cera, Rosario Dawson, Zach Galifianakis, et. al.
Running time: 104 minutes
Rated PG

Long Story Short:  The Lego Batman Movie is the follow-up to 2014's smash hit The Lego Movie.  This time we move into the superhero world - and meet nearly all his friends and enemies along the way.  Lego Batman is very similar in style and structure to The Lego Movie but is a far cry from that gem. Still, it's a worthwhile, entertaining option for most - especially families with young children - whether seen in the theater or later at home.


Gotham City is home to an infestation of criminals, but luckily it also has Batman (Arnett).  When the Joker (Galifianakis) hatches a plot to destroy the city, helped by a team of fellow do-badders, the Dark Knight is there once again to stop him - in style.  Unable to capture his foe, Batman still delivers him a devastating wound when he tells the Joker that he holds no special place among the gallery of Gotham's criminals.  The caped crusader returns to his impressive home, attended only by Alfred (Fiennes), and seems to enjoy a quiet break of solitude.  He returns to the city, as Bruce Wayne, to attend the retirement ceremony of Commissioner Gordon.  There he meets a young man named Dick (Cera), who in his awe for Wayne soon becomes attached.  The two listen as Barbara, the commissioner's daughter, announces that the police plan to start fighting crime without Batman.  The plan soon comes to fruition: the Joker launches another attack and this time Batman puts him and his partners away for good.  As Batman grapples with his sudden obsolescence, an evil plot is underway that may require not just his return to action, but an entirely new method of fighting crime.

The Lego Batman Movie has a very fine voice cast, although it doesn't quite take full advantage of its wealth of talent.  Will Arnett reprises his role as Batman from The Lego Movie, this time taking the spotlight.  He does a fine job, taking on the deep, gravelly style made famous by Christian Bale; although since it is much more heavily used here, it does get a bit tiring as the film goes on.  The focus of the Batman character is on his independence and narcissism, which is particularly effective (and humorous) early on.  Joining Batman is the team of Dick Grayson/Robin (Cera), Barbara Gordon/Batgirl (Dawson) and Alfred the butler (Ralph Fiennes).  These actors were all well-chosen, their voices strongly reflecting their personalities.  Robin is the young, exuberant (almost puppy-ish) sidekick; Batgirl is a tough, skeptical feminist; and Alfred is the refined mentor.  Last among the main characters is Zach Galifianakis' Joker.  Zach has quite a range of vocal styles, and here he uses a much gentler tone (though still smirking) than recent iterations (Ledger, Leto).  There is also, as in The Lego Movie, an impressive cast of cameos but few stand out much in my opinion; the lone exception is perhaps Eddie Izzard's Voldemort.

The Lego Batman Movie is a finely produced film that follows a formula similar to its predecessor The Lego Movie, but falls well short of that masterpiece in almost every way.  By far the strongest part of the film is the first act; we are treated to a flashy action piece to re-introduce Batman, and it's about as good as those from The Lego Movie.  Following this is an extended look at Batman once he's done for the day, and it does an excellent job of fleshing out his character flaws and is quite funny.  It's downhill from there, though.  I think ultimately this is a result of the approach itself: if you've seen The Lego Movie, you're already familiar with the structure and style, and then the characters - how many incarnations of Batman have you seen? - are plenty familiar, too.  There simply isn't enough here that is fresh or at least done with exceedingly high quality.  It is entertaining throughout, though, and the pace doesn't drag (it might be a little too stuffed, actually).  There is consistent humor as well, mostly from its satire of Batman, but it became less and less effective for me because the characters themselves aren't as funny.  Finally, the film has its own pop anthem, like The Lego Movie's "Everything Is Awesome"; this one, called "Friends Are Family", is also catchy but - sense a pattern here? - just not as good as its predecessor.

***

The Lego Batman Movie is an entertaining and well-made family film, but I had higher expectations for this follow-up to The Lego Movie.  I think it's likely, in fact, that your familiarity with The Lego Movie, and also the Batman franchise to a lesser extent, will determine your enjoyment of this one.  If you haven't seen The Lego Movie, this will probably seem much more fresh and interesting; but if you have seen it, be prepared for much of the same (just not nearly as good).  I'd also add that The Lego Movie has a level of maturity equivalent to that of Pixar films (therefore similarly interesting to adults), whereas The Lego Batman Movie is more like a typical Dreamworks production that is better suited for a younger audience.  This is a fun movie that can appeal to a broad audience, but you may want to take your experience (or lack thereof) with The Lego Movie into account when deciding to see it in the theater or waiting for it to come to Netflix.




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=49903959

2016 Cinema & Stadium Film Year-in-Review

2016 Cinema & Stadium Film Year-in-Review

This is one of my favorite times of the year, at least in terms of movies.  I get to look back at another year in film, remembering the ups and the downs.  In the past I have done this early the next year, but I've decided to delay a little longer for this year-in-review post for two reasons: 1) put it closer to the Oscars, which might make it feel more relevant/in the mood for anyone reading, and 2) it gives me a chance to see a few more films via Netflix that I didn't get a chance to see in theaters.

So, how was 2016 for moviegoers (or at least, this moviegoer)?  Well, it seemed a disappointment for awhile, but I mostly blame that on having to follow 2015, possibly my favorite year in film ever.  But eventually it improved in my mind, and I think it was a strong one overall.  Perhaps the theme of the year was animated movies: I saw more of them than I usually do, and they were all exceptionally good.  It was also another strong year for dramas, arguably the equal of 2015 in this regard.  There were also several very good superhero films, one of my favorite genres.  Actually, the worst I might have to say for 2016 is that there were a number of anticipated films that were merely decent or OK, but failed to live up to their potential.

For more detail, I'm pleased to present my year-in-review.  Readers of past years will be familiar with the format:  I'll start with my top ten films of the year (combination of my favorites and "objective" evaluation), followed by miscellaneous awards, and finishing with quick scores and blurbs for films that I saw on Netflix.  I have posted links to my reviews for movies that I mention below, and please also check out my annual companion post where I make my own Oscar-type awards.

Without further ado, here's a look back at 2016 in film, and feel free to comment!


Top 10 of 2016:

10.  Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (directed by Zach Snyder; starring Henry Cavill, Ben Affleck, Amy Adams, Jesse Eisenberg)

Wait, wait, wait!  Please don't click out of the review!  It might be jarring to see this in my top 10, particularly if you have only heard the rumors about it and, admittedly, perhaps even if you have actually seen it.  However, I have now seen this more than once and I do believe it is a great step forward for DC, Marvel's comic rivals who have a long way to catch up in the movie world.  It does a great job building on the events of Man of Steel, and it has an intriguing tone and visual style that distinguishes it from Marvel.  Affleck turned out to be pretty damn good, and it has a suitably epic feel - I mean, this is Batman against Superman, dammit.  I think the (jaded) critics got it wrong on this one, and it's worth a shot, if superheroes are your thing.

9.  Arrival (directed by Denis Villeneuve; starring Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner, Forest Whittaker)

I now have listed a Villeneuve-direct film in three of my four annual film reviews (for the fourth year, I didn't even see any films by him).  With Arrival, he is back with all the familiar strengths:  a strong, interesting premise (that's also unique to other modern offerings); strong, focused acting and script; and awesome cinematography and score.  This film shows not just the thoughtful, human potential of sci-fi, but also is a great example of art and entertainment intertwining.  Amy Adams is excellent.  I do wish that there had been just a little something to further connect the emotional and plot twists - if it had, it would easily be in my top 3.  Still, highly recommended for all.

8.  Doctor Strange (directed by Scott Derrickson; starring Benedict Cumberbatch, Tilda Swinton, Chiwetel Ejiofor)

The length and consistency of Marvel's winning streak is just mind boggling.  Not content to rest on the laurels of a few super-popular characters, they continue to extend into less conventional places.  Doctor Strange is the latest resounding success in this expansion.  Benedict Cumberbatch is another perfectly chosen actor, bringing just the right seriousness yet silliness, intelligence and, well, strangeness that you would expect from the Sherlock star.  The film has serious actors in spades, in fact, with Swinton and others giving us plenty to think about but keeping the pace quite brisk.  Oh, and I haven't even mentioned the amazing visual effects... Incredibly strong entertainment.

7.  Moonlight (directed by Barry Jenkins; starring Alex Hibbert, Trevante Rhodes, Ashton Sanders, Mahershala Ali, Naomie Harris)

I saw this film a few weeks ago, and even after reviewing it, I'm still not quite sure what to think of it.  I gave it an "A", yet here it sits below several movies I gave "A-"s.  The skill and artistry of the director, writers, actors, and so on is not being questioned here.  And the ambition is commendable, examining the coming of age of a fictional, gay black man.  I guess perhaps I just can't quite wrap my head around it as a unified whole, and instead keep seeing moments - powerful ones - in isolation.  In any case, the performances will stay with me, such as Mahershala Ali and Naomie Harris' opposing roles.  And certainly the three young actors playing the lead - each with the same (despite being denied watching each other's work) haunting stare into the audience.

6.  The Secret Life of Pets (directed by Chris Renaud and Yarrow Cheney; starring Louis C.K., Kevin Hart, Eric Stonestreet)

For the opposite end of the spectrum, this animated film is about as pure a shot of adrenaline and joy as you will find at the movies.  Naturally, this will hit most fully for pet owners/lovers, among whom I proudly count myself.  The cast of voice actors is just great; Louis C.K. might seem an unusual choice but is oddly appropriate as lead, Kevin Hart was born to play his ferocious/adorable funny, and a host of support joins the fun as well.  The script is deceptively brilliant, able to incorporate countless truths about pets (from dread of vacuums to interspecies rivalries) while having a totally gonzo plot that powers on non-stop until the very end.  Treat yo' self.

5.  Hell or High Water (directed by David Mackenzie; starring Chris Pine, Ben Foster, Jeff Bridges)

This movie is a seemingly straightforward, relatively quiet western that contains depths and riches throughout.  About a pair of Texas brothers robbing banks, the script carefully constructs the background and reasons why as they criss-cross the state.  The brothers are an odd couple - including the actors, shiny Pine and rough Foster.  Just as intriguing (and mismatched) are the pair trying to catch them, Jeff Bridges and Gil Birmingham.  Through these characters, the robbed locales, and the sights along the way, a portrait of modern rural society takes shape - one both resilient and desperate. Full of tension, humor, wits, and relevance, this is a must-see.

4.  The Jungle Book (directed by Jon Favreau; starring Neel Sethi, Bill Murray, Ben Kingsley, Idris Elba)

I generally steer clear of reboots of classic children's stories, but I'm sure glad that I got to see this one.  I was intrigued by the idea of a CGI re-imagining of the tale (a favorite when I was young), complemented by some big name actors.  On both these counts, The Jungle Book is a smashing success.  The technology is astonishing and completely convincing (puts Avatar to shame), perfectly suited for the anthropomorphized animals.  The cast is phenomenal; Bill Murray as Baloo the bear, need I say more?  And the one real character on screen, young Neel Sethi as Mowgli, provides all the heart Disney could hope to offer.  Essential for families, and great for everyone else, too.

3.  Fences (directed by Denzel Washington; starring Denzel Washington, Viola Davis, Stephen Henderson)

Although it tells a relatively simple tale, Fences caught me off guard just as much as any other film in 2016.  I knew it was based on a play, but it soon became apparent that I could not let my mind wander for even a moment as the dialogue (sometimes monologues) persisted through the entire film.  This was far from a bad thing, as the script (adapted by Wilson himself) is great, truly breathing life and depth into the Maxson clan and friends.  And of course there are the performances, led by the towering duo of Denzel Washington and Viola Davis (already familiar with their characters from Broadway).  The specific experiences of Troy and his kin may be unique, but the relationships and truths it reveals are relevant to - and can teach - all of us.

2.  Captain America: Civil War (directed by Anthony and Joe Russo; starring Chris Evans, Robert Downey Jr., Scarlett Johansson, Chadwick Boseman, et. al.)

For all the ways in which it succeeds, this third Captain America film is one of the very best - if not the best - Marvel films yet.  It's really a third Avengers film, as all but Thor and Hulk are present, and it even juggles several new characters, notably the proud and strong Black Panther, who's also leader of his nation; and a humorous reintroduction of Spider-Man.  The action sequences are at least as good as we've come to expect from such films, including, appropriately, a superhero melee.  But it's the conflict between Steve Rogers and Tony Stark that takes center stage, one that has built over the course of films and now boils over, bringing a new paradigm to the franchise and obliterating the comfortable status quo.  It's everything you want in a superhero film.

1.  Manchester by the Sea (directed by Kenneth Lonergan; starring Casey Affleck, Lucas Hedges, Michelle Williams)

Usually my number one film of the year has a special advantage over the competition, whether a favored genre, or set of actors, or premise that is particularly interesting to me.  Manchester by the Sea benefits from none of these, and yet it gets the top spot because it's one of the best films I've ever seen.  Remarkably, there is nothing remarkable about the film at all - on the surface.  It focuses on a guy who has seen better days, but is otherwise perfectly normal, and is set in motion when he returns to his hometown to see to the affairs of his suddenly-deceased brother and his teenage nephew.  But over two hours and fifteen minutes, the actors, the script, and everything else about the film show how this man's past has shaped him deeply (both subtly and sharply) and how he - and by extension, we all - grapple with this in our everyday lives in order to keep moving forward.  There are moments of incredible emotion, to match anything else I've seen on film.  Yet the overriding tone is of wading through the normal moments, and how even the frustration, humor, and hope they bring can make a difference among the "bigger" stuff.  I doubt I have done the film justice here, but if nothing else please believe me that this is a masterpiece, and see it when you get the chance.


Honorable Mentions:  Zootopia, The Revenant, Finding Dory


Miscellaneous Awards:

Most Overrated Film of the Year:  Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (runner-up: The Lobster)
If it had been a wider release with anything remotely resembling box office success and mass popularity, The Lobster would easily be the winner here.  As it is, it's a critical darling with a 91% on Rotten Tomatoes (and many top-10 lists), while also being one of the dumbest movies I've ever seen. Cute premise... for a five minute SNL sketch.  But have everyone act and speak like robots and try to make Important Societal Commentary?  Please give me back my two hours.  On the other hand, I feel kinda badly naming Rogue One the winner; but it was the top-grossing film of the year and an 85% on Rotten Tomatoes, so I'd call that pretty highly rated.  It wasn't bad at all, but ultimately vanilla, somewhat pointless, and showed just how much Jedi and/or Skywalkers mean to the franchise by their absence.

Most Underrated Film of the Year:  Batman v Superman (runner-up: Popstar: Never Stop...)
I've already discussed Batman v Superman, so I'll just reiterate that I feel this was unfairly maligned by the critics, and I'd argue that this (and other factors) colored the popular reception of the film.  But I want to focus on Andy Samberg's hilarious comedy, Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping.  It's pretty much a standard mockumentary, but a very well done one.  The critics liked it alright (77% on RT) but it completely bombed at the box office with less than $10 million (you almost have to try to do that).  There really weren't any breakout comedies last year, but this easily could have been one - had mass appeal yet was much more clever than its peers - if anyone had noticed it.

Most Disappointing Film of the Year:  X-Men: Apocalypse (runner-up: Ghostbusters)
Sadly, there were more than a few films that were in the running for this award.  While Ghostbusters was not a huge disappointment in terms of quality - it was a decent, fun film - it gets the runner-up because of the potential it represented not just for itself but also the industry.  They tried to adhere too closely to the original, and stifled the comedic creativity and brilliance of the stars.  Now, for a straight up disappointment in quality, none can match that of the newest X-Men.  Most of the films in this franchise have been very strong and have nuance and balance on the themes and characters to go along with the typical action.  Apocalypse blew up this heritage completely, not only losing the good but actively damaging the themes and characters while amping up - and numbing - the action.

Most Surprisingly Good Film of the Year:  Zootopia (runner-up: none)
There were plenty of quality films this year, I just couldn't pick a second that truly surprised me.  Of course, expectations are quite subjective and so I wasn't surprised when, say, Deadpool was good.  No, nothing other than Zootopia really sticks out to me for this category.  I thought I might Netflix it when I heard about it, but expected just a decent yet typical animated entertainment.  The great reviews (98% on RT!), though, grabbed my attention, and I headed to the theater during a slower time of the year.  So much of this film was inspired and written well, rather than a jumble of focus-grouped   trendy/irresistible bits.  The dialogue is Pixar-level - actually, even better than Pixar's own Finding Dory - with some creatively hilarious gags (sloths working the DMV? priceless) and clear yet not too on-the-nose metaphors to current issues.

Worst Film of the Year:  Green Room (runner-up:  The Lobster)
Fortunately, I didn't (directly) waste any money on them since I saw them on Netflix.  I've already mentioned The Lobster, a film that makes me wonder how no one in the cast or crew raised their hand and said, "what the hell are we doing?".  I understand not all films have to be direct and literal, but when your experiment is both blatant and obnoxiously clever-seeming, while being deadly dull and dry despite its uniqueness, you've got more problems than you can handle.  Having read a few reviews of Green Room, I was led to believe it was a thriller; a fairly violent one, but one featuring a great performance from Patrick Stewart.  Thriller my butt, this is a horror film, and a dumb one at that (granted, I hate the genre).  Lots of dialogue and build up that goes absolutely nowhere - much of it serving to just make things unnecessarily confusing - while at the center is a fairly simple crisis that falls out in the most bizarre and illogical ways.  Avoid at all costs.



Netflix Summary:

Eye in the Sky (A-):  A film that is both very suspenseful and comments wisely on the way we now conduct war (without taking sides).  Helen Mirren, Alan Rickman, Aaron Paul are all great... highly recommended.
Sausage Party (A-):  First, this is obviously not for all tastes - perhaps not for those who have taste in general.  But I admit it appealed to the adolescent in me, with hilariously clever, dirty (food-filtered) humor that blissfully does not hold back.
Don't Think Twice (B+):  A movie about stand up comedians, it's more a drama than a comedy.  Keegan Michael-Key shows his all-around talent in a very nice film about the dynamics of a group of friends and the ways that both success and failure can strain bonds.
Sully (B+):  Tom Hanks sure loves his historical dramas... he is of course very good, and the scenes of the crash itself are excellently done.  However, the drama following the crash is spoiled by Eastwood's (entirely unnecessarily) fictionalizing the NTSB into pathetic, clownish villains.
Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping (B+): The ridiculous title of this film reflects its silly nature well and, as mentioned above, it deserved far more attention than its meager box office results.  It's just a lot of good fun, with a few truly hilarious parts.
Kung Fu Panda 3 (B+):  It doesn't seem like this franchise could sustain itself past two (or even one) film, but it retains its predecessor's high energy level and manages to bring a level of freshness and new ideas to the table.  Certainly a good family film, and a nice fun option.
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (B): I actually saw this in the theater and never got around to writing a review for it.  This is one of the bigger disappointments of the year, as the main characters aren't nearly as intriguing as Harry Potter and co. (actually a wide-eyed Muggle/No-Maj is the most fun).  Harry Potter fans should probably see it (and probably already have), but there are plenty of better options for those who aren't already fans.
Money Monster (B):  A conventional thriller with A-list stars that's becoming an endangered species. It comments fairly overtly on the financial crisis, big-banks-screwing-little guy.  That part isn't too satisfying, but Clooney, Roberts, and relative newbie Jack O'Connell are fun.
The Brothers Grimsby (B):  While it's no Borat, this is a good bounce back for Sacha Baron Cohen after the poor Bruno and flat-out bad The Dictator.  This is structurally a pretty standard action comedy, but with it's all his inappropriate humor that you either love or love to hate.
Sing Street (B-):  Yet another decent, coming-of-age tale about a group of friends, this one forming a band spontaneously.  I think I need to just stop watching this genre as it's all too familiar, to me.  The young actors are pretty good, and importantly it doesn't try to be too clever, a common pitfall.
The Huntsman: Winter's War (C+):  Decent action, and some pretty nice special effects.  Plus, Chris Hemsworth, Jessica Chastain and Charlize Theron altogether is impressive in a film like this.  Still, it's a pretty disposable adventure film.
The Magnificent Seven (C):  The cast - featuring Denzel Washington and Chris Pratt - is entertaining, yet even they are unable to escape the tedium of the script.  There are some nice moments courtesy of those stars, but it could have been much better with a little imagination.
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (C):  Way too much pride and prejudice, not enough zombies.  Although it's interesting to have the mash-up be played matter-of-fact, it ended up exaggerating (for me) the promise of silliness, leaving a bitter taste of disappointment.
10 Cloverfield Lane (C):  So much build-up for so little - actually, make that too much pay off.  The hostage situation in John Goodman's bunker is decently executed, but it starts going downhill fast as she makes her escape, and what she finds outside - well, I wish they'd just kept it a mystery.
The Legend of Tarzan (C-):  Why bother?  Maybe those more fond of the character can/will enjoy this more, but to me there was little to keep my interest here.  And Christoph Waltz is completely wasted as the villain.
The Lobster (D-):  Already said all I want about this.
Green Room (F):  See above.


I don't want to finish on such a down note, so I'll finish with two more honorable mentions that are worth seeing (if you haven't already):  the once-hyped but now long-buried by controversy, The Birth of a Nation, and the way-hyped and very funny Deadpool.  So there may have been some disappointments and poor films, as there always are, but there were plenty of strong films released in 2016, too, and I encourage you to check out some of them.  I hope you enjoyed my year-end wrap up!
Here are links to my review of other films I saw in theaters but didn't mention in this post:

Jason Bourne (B)
The Nice Guys (B)
Keanu (B)
Hail, Caesar! (B)
Suicide Squad (B)
Masterminds (B-)
Star Trek Beyond (B-)
The Boss (B-)
TMNT: Out of the Shadows (B-)



Source:  http://statcdn.fandango.com/MPX/image/NBCU_Fandango/453/671/ManchesterbytheSea_Trailer.jpg

2016 Cinema & Stadium Film Awards

2016 Cinema & Stadium Film Awards

I want to take the opportunity, with the Academy Awards being presented this weekend, to describe what I consider the best performances of the year.  This is based, as always, only on films that I have actually seen.  I also include only films that were given a wide release in 2016 - which is becoming a murkier thing to determine each year, as many awards-hopeful films are given a limited release late in the calendar year and then trickle out across the country.  At any rate, I will present my awards in the same way I did last year:  my top five selections in the category, followed by an explanation of any of the Academy Awards nominees left out, then a brief recap of each of those performances.

Please also check out my 2016 Film Year-in-Review, where I list my top 10 movies of the year, miscellaneous awards (most disappointing/surprising/etc.) and quick review of the films that I saw via Netflix.  Enjoy!

Winners in bold
Runners-up underlined

Acting Awards

Best Actor:
Casey Affleck (Manchester by the Sea)
Leonardo DiCaprio (The Revenant)
Nate Parker (The Birth of a Nation)
Ryan Reynolds (Deadpool)
Denzel Washington (Fences)

Oscars nominees not listed:  Andrew Garfield (Hacksaw Ridge), Viggo Mortensen (Captain Fantastic) - haven't seen the films; Ryan Gosling (La La Land) - film released wide in 2017.

I'll start with an honorable mention nod for Tom Hanks, who turned in yet another impressive performance in a historical drama (following Captain Philips, Bridge of Spies).  Nate Parker not only starred in but also directed and wrote a film that was once a Best Picture shoe-in, The Birth of a Nation.  A controversy sunk the film's chances; I'm not going to weigh in on that, but the passion and skill of his performance I feel deserves recognition.  Ryan Reynolds may seem rather out of place here, but he was perfect for his role and his sarcastic, vulgar, hilarious superhero was a genre game changer.  Leonardo DiCaprio won the Oscar, and it's hard to argue given the grueling, determined physical nature of his performance.  I have seen few, if any, others like it.

I hate to start with a tie, but I really can't separate the outstanding performances by Casey Affleck and Denzel Washington in their films.  Affleck is unbelievably subtle and nuanced, playing a regular man with a devastating past.  His acting shows both his everyday, normal struggles and the way that the tragedy has affected all of it.  Denzel's performance seems quite the opposite, one of the most expressive, even explosive, I've ever seen.  Yet he has mastered the character and is in complete control, as he too reveals the complexity and depths of the soul.


Best Actress:
Amy Adams (Arrival)
Viola Davis (Fences)
Melissa McCarthy (The Boss)
Helen Mirren (Eye in the Sky)
Margot Robbie (Suicide Squad)

Oscar nominees not listed:  Isabelle Huppert (Elle), Ruth Negga (Loving), Natalie Portman (Jackie), Meryl Streep (Florence Foster Jenkins) - haven't seen the films; Emma Stone (La La Land) - film released wide in 2017.

Upfront: I'm pretty embarrassed by my record of moviegoing this year in terms of strong female leads.  I tend to skew pretty heavily toward male/action films anyway, but I had to go through my list of films a few times before I settled on my list.  That's not to say any of these are weak performances.  Margot Robbie gives a gonzo, highly entertaining show as the unhinged Harley Quinn; if only the whole film could have followed suit.  Melissa McCarthy is probably the most reliable comedic star right now, and her dedicated, hilarious performance elevates an otherwise weak film.  Helen Mirren is of course a great actress, and her dedicated, exasperated, yet troubled general is the foundation in an intriguing look at modern warfare.  Amy Adams is great in the strange new sci-fi film, and hers was an essential human element in the thoughtful affair.  Her character is quiet and withdrawn, acting as a vessel for the audience's amazement at alien life early before showing why, powerfully, only later.

Viola Davis is simply remarkable as Rose in Fences.  Being able to register at all, when seen next to Denzel's dominating, bravura show, would have been impressive.  However, Viola takes what could have been a passive, nurturing yet victimized character and makes her into a strong, loving, wise yet vulnerable and flawed co-lead.  She is both perfect when out of the spotlight - cooking, listening to her family - as well as the center of attention, the only person whose retorts could silence Denzel.


Best Supporting Actress:
Naomie Harris (Moonlight)
Gillian Jacobs (Don't Think Twice)
Kate McKinnon (Ghostbusters)
Alicia Vikander (Jason Bourne)
Michelle Williams (Manchester by the Sea)

Oscar nominees not listed:  Nicole Kidman (Lion) - haven't seen the film; Octavia Spencer (Hidden Figures) - film released wide in 2017.

My introduction to the Best Actress nominees applies here, too.  Alicia Vikander more than holds her own among the many allies of Jason Bourne, morphing fluidly between confident, overwhelmed, and scheming.  Alongside the uber-talented Keegan Michael-Key, Gillian Jacobs is a great complement, someone very funny but also quite vulnerable and compassionate.  In a film filled with hilarious women, SNL's Kate McKinnon stole the show in the rebooted Ghostbusters as she took hold of her zany yet fierce character.  Naomie Harris was responsible for perhaps more heartbreak and brutality than anything or anyone else in Moonlight, both an impressive and very difficult achievement.  The wayward mother of the main character, she still manages to convey an enduring love for her son.

Although her screen time is quite limited, Michelle Williams' appearances in Manchester by the Sea are so powerful that they reverberate throughout the film.  An ordinary woman in many ways, she shows her fierce love for her children even as she navigates a tumultuous young relationship with her husband (Affleck).  So when tragedy strikes, you can't escape the devastation she must feel, and can't look away when she finally reconnects with Affleck for a brief but powerful few moments.


Best Supporting Actor:
Mahershala Ali (Moonlight)
Jeff Bridges (Hell or High Water)
Tom Hardy (The Revenant)
Lucas Hedges (Manchester by the Sea)
Mykelti Williamson (Fences)

Oscar nominees not listed:  Dev Patel (Lion), Michael Shannon (Noctural Animals) - haven't seen the films.

I want to give an honorable mention here to Kyle Chandler in Manchester by the Sea; playing Affleck's brother in flashbacks, he is a strong foundation for a family without which many individuals understandably suffer.  His co-star and on-screen son, played by Lucas Hedges, is more prominent, and is very good for a young actor; his teenage antics can be believably insufferable, but mostly he is a young man trying to bury his pain.  Tom Hardy is good at the stark and brutal, and that certainly describes his trapper in The Revenant.  Mykelti Williamson is Denzel's brain-damaged brother in Fences, unrestrained yet appropriately played as a reminder of both his brother's responsibilities and grievances.  Mahershala Ali is sadly only in the first part of Moonlight, but his performance makes perfectly clear why he has such long-lasting effect on the main character.  He is tough as nail, yet utterly humbled and moved when confronted with a young boy's suffering.

For Jeff Bridges, his Texas Ranger hunting a pair of bank robbers in Hell or High Water wasn't entirely new (see: True Grit).  But damn, is he good at this.  On the edge of retirement and set in his ways - both in his operating procedure and his cultural attitudes - he is loyal enough to both his responsibilities and his partner to try to fight his worst tendencies.


Other Awards

Best Director:
Barry Jenkins (Moonlight)
Kenneth Lonergan (Manchester by the Sea)
Anthony and Joe Russo (Captain America: Civil War)
Denis Villeneuve (Arrival)
Denzel Washington (Fences)

Oscar nominees not listed:  Mel Gibson (Hacksaw Ridge) - haven't seen the film; Damien Chazelle (La La Land) - film released wide in 2017

Although he will likely be remembered (and perhaps awarded) more for his acting, Washington did a superb job adapting Fences for the big screen, maintaining pace and intrigue throughout despite having just one set and near-constant dialogue.  Anthony and Joe Russo pulled off another difficult feat, producing a wildly entertaining movie that defied genre conventions, pushed the MCU's story forward, and somehow juggled a ridiculous number of characters.  Denis Villeneuve continues to be one of my favorite directors, going in yet another entirely new direction with a more thoughtful and culturally-relevant sci-fi film than I've seen in years.  In taking on a film about a young gay black man that has no plot, Barry Jenkins took perhaps the biggest risk of them all.  But instead of being boring or cliched (or worse), Jenkins made something challenging, haunting and artistic.

The director, Kenneth Lonergan, of the best film of the year, Manchester by the Sea, deserves much credit for creating a film that is strong in so many different ways.  He got an amazing amount of nuance and power from his entire cast, from Affleck, on down, which played ordinary people and could not rely on any of the usual actorly "red meat".  Despite a simply story (to go with the ordinary people), Lonergan paced it perfectly, letting the audience feel the ebb and flow of emotion just as his characters did.  Of course, perhaps it helped that he was working from such an amazing script (oh, he did that, too).  With all the investment, it ended up coming together perfectly in a wonderful film.


Best Screenplay:
Jared Bush and Phil Johnston (Zootopia)
Guy Hibbert (Eye in the Sky)
Kenneth Lonergan (Manchester by the Sea)
Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick (Deadpool)
August Wilson (Fences)

Best Visual Effects*:
Doctor Strange
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them
The Jungle Book
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story
Star Trek Beyond

*honorable mention to The Revenant (Emmanuel Lubezki) for absolutely amazing cinematography.




Source:  http://akns-images.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/2016022/rs_600x600-160122150806-600-oscar-statue_copy.jpg