Latest Entries »

BOYHOOD (2014)
Starring Ellar Coltrane, Ethan Hawke, Patricia Arquette & Lorelei Linklater
Directed by Richard Linklater
Written by Richard Linklater
Produced by Richard Linklater, Cathleen Sutherland, Johnathan Sehring & John Sloss
Cinematography by Lee Daniel & Shane Kelly
Music by Various Popular Artists
Edited by Sandra Adair

boyhood_xlg

Rejected subtitle: The Tale of the Tiny-Arm Lad

   Hello, friends. Yes, I am back. After many false starts, undelivered promises & procrastination-involved setbacks, I am finally here to think way too hard and text-scream about feature films once again. Be afraid, y’all. Because while I was away on my year-long sabbatical, I spelunked in the deepest caverns of film history, and I’m armed to the teeth with new perspective. However, the lack of posts in 2014 was borderline inexcusable, so to make up for lost time, I’ve picked quite a doozy of a diatribe for my triumphant return to the Blogrealm – a doozy of a film, to be sure. This essay I’m about to unfold may cause lots of angst, consternation and outright insufferable rage out there in the filmiverse, but, fellow cinephiles…please know I do this for you. It’s something which must be done. And I’m here to do it big.

   Perhaps no film in the past decade has been as gloriously overhyped yet so dramatically underwhelming as Richard Linklater’s Boyhood. Here it stands as an acclaimed film, a film which critics have almost unanimously described as “groundbreaking”, “breathtaking”, “daring”, “epic,” and other superlatives, yet at its core is a film which not only fails to entertain on a purely cinematic level, but also misses the entire point its admittedly intriguing concept promised to deliver from the get-go. It’s a film with grand ambitions, but not nearly enough dramatic heft to live up to them. It’s a film from a genuinely talented director which feels out-of-touch with the generation it’s depicting. It’s a film which feels completely flat and is devoid of any stylistic nuances. Basically, Boyhood is kind of like a Phantom Menace of indie cinema – profoundly exciting on paper, likewise profoundly disappointing in execution.

boyhood_raves

Yet, not as profoundly maligned.

   But obviously, this is an unpopular opinion – one which just might get me hundreds of unhappy & dissenting comments, emails & messages (assuming anybody reads this diatribe). How could I possibly say so many bad things about Boyhood – a movie generally described as a heartwarming masterpiece of modern cinema; an intimate portrayal of life, maturity & existence on a pure, human level? Am I heartless, cynical asshole just looking to shit all over a solemn piece of epic filmmaking? Do I simply hate Richard Linklater’s films and just want to see him fall on his face, no matter how objectively great his films may be? Am I a horrible troll just looking for blog views? Have I simply LOST MY GODDAMN MIND???

   The answer to all these questions is, of course, a resounding No. I am not any of those things. (Well, I’m not so sure about that last one.) I love cinema, I love human expression, I love being reduced to tears at the sheer beauty of magnificent art unfolding in front of my face, intimating the dreams & realities of life, death, love, hate, & the rest of the soul’s deepest unknown mysteries. Dat’s dat shit to me. I also love the films of Richard Linklater – I happen to find him to be a very honest, intuitive filmmaker, whose films range from a large palette of personal, broad, experimental, mainstream, and other styles. Waking Life is one of my favorite films of all time, a truly jaw-dropping experience in mind-expanding cinema. A Scanner Darkly is an expertly crafted film, surreal & thought provoking while also being funny & disturbing in equal doses. Slacker, Dazed & Confused, Bernie…these films were made by no slouch. Linklater’s filmography is by no means perfect, but he’s certainly not a hack filmmaker. I went into this movie with respect for Linklater’s work, and I can genuinely say that I WANTED to like Boyhood with all my movie-loving heart.

   So what, pray tell, could possibly be my HUGE fucking problem with Boyhood?

   That answer in itself is simple: It’s really just not as good as it’s been blown up to be. In fact, it’s actually highly flawed. Please note that I didn’t say the movie SUCKS, or that it’s completely worthless – there is some genuine merit to this film, which I will certainly discuss at length later. I acknowledge it has a unique place in cinema history, and says some very meaningful things about family, parenting & the human experience. However, given the reception it’s received & the actual quality of storytelling going on here, well…it certainly ain’t Shakespeare. Yet for some inexplicable and unexplained reason, all of moviedom has resorted to shoving this movie up into the “All-Time Great” lexicon, touting it as a “modern masterpiece” and hailing it as a “groundbreaking event in cinematic history”. Then when you see the movie, it’s just so plain, unadventurous & stale over the course of its nearly 3 hour(!!!) running time that you wind up zoning out in the movie theater wondering if you’ve fallen victim to some kind of giant marketing pyramid scheme. Watching events play out in Boyhood is akin to watching paint dry – the humdrum pacing, the boring, uninteresting cinematography, the wooden and hokey acting & writing…this certainly does not seem like any groundbreaking cinema classic I’ve ever seen. It’s just mind-boggling how much film critics are jizzing their pantaloons over this honestly boring film – just what exactly is the big fucking deal here?

boyhood

WOA HOW TEHY DO ThAT??

   Well, to answer THAT question, it’s going to take a little more time & in-depth analysis. Let me begin by delving into the film itself:

   Boyhood is the story of Mason (played by newcomer Ellar Coltrane), an average suburban boy with divorced parents (Ethan Hawke & Patricia Arquette) and an older sister (played by the director’s own daughter Lorelei Linklater) growing up in the heart of turn-of-the-21st-century America. Mason goes to school, fights with his sister, ogles scantily clad women in underwear magazines with his friends, and generally lives your normal, everyday suburban life. (Sounds enthralling, right?) His dad comes to visit every now and then, taking them off to do fun things like bowling while Mom lays down the law at home. Mason’s mom is a hard-working woman raising two rambunctious kids on her own, and seems to constantly date drunken assholes who unsuccessfully try to act as father figures for Mason as he gets older. Meanwhile, Dad is a free spirited drifter type, driving around in a cool car and insisting on always being the “fun dad” around his kids. We follow Mason throughout his life, watching him go to school, hang out with friends, date girls, smoke weed while pondering the mysteries of life, and other generic things humans do.

(Notice how I never used the word “but” at any point while describing this film’s story? Remember that for later.)

   As the film progresses on, we see Mason literally grow up before our eyes – the same actor, Ellar Coltrane, physically growing older as the movie unfolds. Richard Linklater’s vision for the film – indeed, the entire gimmick the film is based around – is that we are going to follow this one kid throughout his life, and watch him actually grow and change as the film chugs along. An entire human life observed over the course of a few hours. Like, WOAH man! Actually using the same person, and like, going back every so often to film more stuff? Sounds AMAZING, DARING and GROUNDBREAKING, right???

81WyJBUja8L._SL1500_

Pictured above: shameless Boyhood ripoff

   Hey, have you guys ever heard of a series of documentary films called the Up Series? It’s really great. It started in 1964 and chronicles the lives of 14 different individuals, starting from age 7 and periodically checking in on them throughout their lives as they grow older. In fact, it’s still continuing up into the present day – the latest in the series, 56 Up, aired in 2012. All the individuals participated voluntarily, and it’s generally considered to be one of the best documentaries ever conceived, depicting in extreme detail the trials, tribulations & evolutions of several human lives. If you haven’t checked it out you should really give it a look, it’s a really fascinating, insightful & comprehensive view into what it is to be a modern human being.

   So then, Boyhood took that idea and spun it into a fictional story. Um…whoopee?

   Everywhere you look, people are jawing on about the “12 years” deal. “The movie took 12 years to make!” “It’s a masterpiece, it took 12 years to make!” “12 years, 12 years, 12 years!!!” The movie poster even does us the favor of reminding us that the film was “12 years in the making”. Literally every time I hear somebody describing the movie to somebody else, the phrase “it took 12 years to make!” inevitably comes up in the conversation – as if this single defining factor was the only important detail in the quality of the film itself. Well, here’s the thing, my friends, and I cannot emphasize this point enough:

   Just because a movie takes a long time to make does NOT mean it’s automatically good.

   In all seriousness, I consider this to be the cinematic equivalent of people going on & on about how 50 Cent got shot 9 times back in the days when he was first getting famous. I don’t care about how many times the guy got shot – all I really want to know is, how good of a rapper is he??? (Editor’s Note: Not a very good one, as it turns out.) Now, please don’t confuse my point here: I know filming a movie over the course of 12 years and waiting for your cast to age is a risky move. I understand it inherently makes the movie meaningful because it’s a catalog of a (somewhat) real person’s life. I comprehend the boldness & cinematic significance of doing such a thing, & I applaud Linklater, a director whom I respect, for doing something genuinely ballsy. But what I’m saying is, the movie itself – the story, the characters, the performances, the EVERYTHING – still needs to be held up to the same standard of quality by which you’d judge any other movie, ESPECIALLY if you’re going to be sticking the G.O.A.T. title on it. I don’t give a damn how long the movie took to make, quite frankly – if it’s boring and filled with stilted dialogue & generic cinematography, it’s not going to be much fun to watch! I watched this movie the same way I would watch any other movie, and let me tell you, most of the movies I’ve seen that I would regard as “cinematic classics” are MUCH more entertaining than this one. I guarantee you if Linklater made this same exact film – everything exactly the same, right down to the last detail – but made it over the course of a few months with different actors playing Mason at different ages, it would NOT be met with the same level of esteem it’s currently being treated with. In fact, I’m certain a fair amount of critics would label it as an embarrassing fiasco.

boyhood_frame_077

Speaking of embarrassing fiascos, have you guys seen Ellar Coltrane’s stylish creeper ‘stache? Yeeeeeesh.

   You see, the whole “aging factor” built up around this movie’s hype machine should just be a part of what it has going for it, an addition to the overall focus & plot progression of the movie, NOT the sole purpose of the movie itself. Yeah, Ellar Coltrane ages before our eyes in the movie – but what the fuck else happens? What struggles does he go through as a character, what tough decisions does he have to make the drastically impact the course of his life, possibly shaping the type of man he chooses to be? What do we get out of living through these experiences with him? The unfortunate thing about Boyhood is…apparently, not a whole hell of a lot.

   In the Up Series, you see actual human lives grow & develop in realistic, genuinely interesting ways. One of the kids, Neil, lived arguably the most unpredictable life of all the kids – he was living in a squat and cruising around the countryside by the time he was 21, having dropped out of college and living a carefree lifestyle. Now he’s an English politician, imagine that. Then there’s Symon, who had an absentee father and jumped around from a charity home to his depressed mother’s house…sheesh, that already sounds traumatizing. Suzy came from a wealthy background, had divorced parents and dropped out of school at 16 to move to Paris, and even though she had a negative view of marriage and being a parent, she eventually did both and found new positive meaning in her life. You know…stories. Actual, real life decisions affecting outcomes, viewpoints being challenged and turned around by life experiences. This is the stuff of real life & drama! So, to say that Boyhood, a 3-hour long movie where nothing happens is “daring” because it shows how “boring” real life is, is not only exploiting a lazy creative crutch, it’s just a plain & simple fallacy.

   Don’t get me wrong. Things happen in the movie…it’s not like Mason just sits around on his ass the whole time. But the problem is – and this is my MAIN PROBLEM with the film Boyhood – nothing of significant dramatic importance happens in the story. Not a single story development with that real element of human weight, the tension that comes with facing a problem & making a difficult decision about how to overcome it. There’s never a moment in the film where Mason has to ask himself a difficult question (other than “What college do I want to go to?” which makes for intensely compelling cinema, let me tell you) or face an unforeseen challenge, one which makes him come to terms with something he’d rather not have to come to terms with. Basically what I’m saying is, there’s no conflict. There’s nothing in Boyhood to make us root for Mason’s character, other than the fact that this is the kid we’re gonna be following around for the next 3 hours.

article-0-1D6F491300000578-89_634x380

“Drugs, mom? What are those?”

   Now I know what some of you out there might be thinking: “Well, that’s like, the point of the movie, man! Life just happens, life isn’t like a movie, real life doesn’t have significant dramatic weight behind it, man!” And to that I say, you’re right – life isn’t a movie, and it doesn’t have those dramatic embellishments going on all the time, and Linklater’s film does a very good job of capturing that. The thing is – and I’m just going to be blunt here – that doesn’t make for very compelling storytelling. You see, if I wanted to experience something just like real life, I’d just…walk out of the theater and go experience real life. I HAD a boyhood man, and a pretty typical one at that – I’ve LIVED this shit already, and I don’t need to see some other kid’s boring life in my movie – ESPECIALLY if that other kid’s life is completely fictional, like this kid’s! When I go to a movie, I’m looking for something which is a reflection of life – not necessarily life itself, but rather, an interpretation of what life is like. I’ll tell you this right now: this movie is called Boyhood, and there’s not one moment in the film – NOT ONE – where Mason cries. He doesn’t shed a single tear, about anything – his cat doesn’t die, he doesn’t flunk a test he really wanted to do well on, he never seems distraught over the fact his stepdads are all drunken assholes. Hell, he doesn’t even fall down and skin his knee! In a film about a single human being, we never see that human being partake in one of the most ubiquitous human experiences of all: crying. THAT, to me, is a huge problem with Boyhood, and one which may appear trivial to some, but to me, sets an important precedent for how this film should be judged: it’s an idealistic vision of life, not a realistic one.

   I’m NOT saying Mason should have been an overemotional sap who cries buckets at every unfortunate turn – what I am saying is, there should have been at least ONE moment in his life where he had to cope with some seriously heavy shit. I don’t care how humdrum or boring you might consider your life to be – there’s at least one moment in all of our lives where something was so horribly fucked that we weren’t sure how life could ever be the same afterwards. Whether it be the death of a friend or family member, getting in a horrible accident, being abused by a drunken asshole stepdad, or even something shocking like discovering you’re gay and not knowing how to deal with it socially, there are defining moments in all of our lives which force us to come to terms with something uncomfortable, and define us as growing & changing human beings. Hell, they could’ve had Mason be the victim of extreme bullying & alienation, offering the opportunity to explore Mason’s reaction to such treatment AND make a statement about how cruel & ruthless modern kids can be to each other. Plus, it would give the audience something to empathize with Mason on and emotionally connect to! What I’m saying here is, we NEED those “buts” – the instances in the story where something comes along and flips the script for our protagonist. “Mason wanted to make friends at school, BUT -” “Mason decided to make the chess team, BUT -” “Mason was riding his bike down a steep hill blindfolded with no handlebars, BUT -” there are no “buts” in Boyhood, just a bunch of “thens”. Quite frankly, this movie needed quite a few more “buts”.

   And yes, there is “drama” in the movie, with Mason’s mom constantly shacking up with drunken assholes over & over again while said drunken assholes throw things at the dinner table and overdramatically declare, “I HATE SQUASH!!!” The sequence I’m referring to involves Mason, his mother, sister and step-siblings being violently harassed at the dinner table by Drunken Stepdad #1, who openly drinks hard liquor at the table and throws plates on the ground, commanding his kids to clean it up. Aside from the hokey performance from Drunken Stepdad, I would honestly give a scene like this a little more praise since there’s actually something happening…if only it weren’t so manipulative and one-dimensional. This scene is designed to make us pity Mason and his family, and feel some sort of empathy towards them in their tragic human plight. But the problem is, these experiences don’t really seem to have any traumatic or life-changing effect on Mason, other than being somewhat of an inconvenience. We never see him struggle with these issues, so there’s no reason for us to care. There’s never a scene where Mason lashes out at Daddy Drunkman, or in any way for that matter, other than the occasional stink eye from a distance. It’s mostly happening to his mom – in the end, she’s the one being abused and treated terribly by a drunken asshole, not Mason. These scenes of familial strife don’t add anything to the overall narrative. Mason doesn’t learn anything from these experiences, and if he does, we certainly aren’t made aware of what it is. There’s no dimensionality or deeper implications, and therefore, nothing to connect with or ruminate on beyond a superficial surface level.

boyhood-jpg

Remember that special, unforgettable scene where they argue about sides in the car? Omg like SO meaningful

   Over the course of Boyhood’s nearly 3 hour running time, there is not a single moment I could describe as profoundly significant, or challenging to Mason’s character in any way. Sure, Mason’s mom keeps dating horrible men, and there’s a (very) brief scene where Mason gets (sort of) bullied, and Mason’s girlfriend breaks up with him in high school, but these problems are meager at best – and what’s worse, they’re not treated with any sort of weight – they kind of just happen, and then…yeah. Mason just sort of goes along with it. Big whoop. If we as audience members are supposed to be projecting ourselves into Mason’s position and feeling real empathy for this character, then isn’t it a contradiction to make that position something stale, predictable & unchallenging? Anytime Boyhood presents an opportunity to become truly engaging to the audience, the scene changes and the next uneventful highlight of Mason’s life occurs. This is my main, main problem with Boyhood – it’s utterly, horribly, almost absurdly dull.

   A lot of this also has to do with Mason himself, and the almost lackadaisical manner in which he’s portrayed. Ellar Coltrane was not an actor when Richard Linklater picked him to be the Boy in his Hood 14 years ago, and that is abundantly apparent as Mason ages before our eyes – particularly during the dreadful high school years the movie chronicles. I’ve seen critics gush over how fantastic Coltrane is in the film, but really, there’s no actual acting going on in his performance. While watching the movie, I kind of got the impression Coltrane was just being himself the whole time, reciting lines in the boring, humdrum way he’d say them if he was actually Mason. Yeah, I guess that’s “acting” on one level, but it’s not really “acting” on the same level as Ethan Hawke – who unquestionably delivers the best performance in the film – is acting. Coltrane portrays Mason as a fairly unexcitable downer, someone who’s kind of withdrawn and sort of a wet blanket, especially during his high school years. This isn’t necessarily a problem – it’s not like he has to be a perfect All-American high school student or anything, but it becomes troublesome when we don’t have any real reason to identify with his directionless teenage angst – he just sort of comes off as patronizing. He doesn’t have charisma, he mumbles a lot of his lines, and he seems almost uninterested in heavily emoting towards the end of the film – almost as if Coltrane lost interest in the whole project somewhere in those 12 years of production time. I just don’t see how he could be labelled as a good actor. In fact, I bet a big reason Mason never cries in the film is because Ellar Coltrane can’t make himself squeeze out the tears in real life! When you’ve got an actor in a lead role who can’t really emote or perform with real dramatic weight who’s supposed to carry your entire 3 hour running time, and kind of comes off like a moody asshole the whole time, you’ve got a real problem on your hands.

boyhood_frame_000

Mason: Illuminati confirmed.

   As long as we’re on the subject of performances, let me address something you won’t hear in most of the reviews you’ll find: the acting in this movie is subpar, at best. We’ve already been over Coltrane’s “stellar” performance, but seriously: Lorelei Linklater is pretty damn terrible as Mason’s older sister. I can understand Linklater’s enthusiasm for casting his daughter in this substantial role (especially after she apparently begged, pleaded & wouldn’t leave her father alone about being cast in it), but at the end of the day, Lorelei just isn’t an actress. And look, I’m really not trying to be harsh here, I don’t have anything against the kid, but her performance is one of the weakest aspects of the movie – I’m not gonna let a bad performance slide, no matter who’s delivering it. Her incessant squeals & behavior when she’s younger and eventual passiveness as a performer when she’s older are annoying, and drag the movie down as a whole. She’s a pretty major part of it for the first half, and while it establishes Mason has a boisterous & annoying older sister, her presence in the film starts to get a little grating.

   And hey, here’s an interesting side note: while doing my diligent research for this analysis online I read that a few years along into the Boyhood project, Lorelei Linklater got disinterested with the film and suggested to her father that he kill off her character. Linklater balked, basically stating that it was too grim for the film he was planning and he convinced her to stay on board. Given the uneventful nature of the movie’s story, I think it actually would have been extremely daring – TRULY daring – of Linklater to kill off the sister character, because then Mason would have had some actual dramatic conflict in his life!!! It just goes to show something here…Linklater had the opportunity to make his movie a little more dramatic, yet he deliberately chose against it. Do what you will with that information, but I believe it sets a precedent for how this movie should be judged.

   Anyway, Patricia Arquette fares better as the Mom character, but – despite recently winning a Golden Globe for her performance – her portrayal comes off as a little forced in many scenes. There’s a scene in the film where Mom, having recently come to her senses and left her drunken asshole boyfriend with the kids in tow, is dropping Mason & Lil’ Linklater off at a new school, and Sister Mason whines (in a very repugnant & bratty tone) that they have no friends at this school and no place to live. Mom then blows up at her, yelling about how she’s doing “the best she can” and how she “has no idea what it’s like to have a drunken asshole SLAM YOUR HEAD AGAINST A WALL” or something to that effect. It’s supposed to be a dramatic moment, Patricia Arquette’s overacted delivery of this line just takes me out of it – it’s forced, at best. This scene is the worst of it, but there are a handful of moments in the film which carry the same forced vibe. By the end of the movie, when Arquette’s character is given a farewell scene which involves an unjustly whiny, self-absorbed breakdown over her ungrateful son not taking a photo as he leaves for college, we’re not really feeling sympathy for her…it’s more like pity. And while Arquette’s performance in this scene is realistic, the narrative as a whole is casting such an unflattering light on her in her final moments onscreen that we can’t help but feel the same way she does… “it all led up to this?”

   Despite my minor complaints about Patricia Arquette’s performance, Mason’s Mom and Dad are actually the most interesting characters in the whole film. More so than Mason’s character, both of the parents actually have arcs – Mom puts herself through school and kind of learns that dudes who are rich with good jobs aren’t necessarily the right picks, and Dad goes from being kind of a boyish, free-spirited slacker type of guy to a mature man with a job at an insurance company. (Hey, I didn’t say they were good arcs.) What is Mason’s arc over the course of the movie? Um…he starts out as a boy and…uh, doesn’t know what he wants to be when he grows up, so he, uh…takes up photography, and…ponders life? That’s another thing about the writing in this movie – it feels detrimentally non-directional and devoid of any deeper purpose, other than “this is what happens in real life.” “Remember that? When you couldn’t decide what college you wanted to go to? That was reeeeally tough, wasn’t it?” Anyway, I’m digressing. As I said before, Ethan Hawke gives the best performance of the film, really embodying the Dad character and giving him a boyish, carefree quality which is much needed for the role. You really get the sense that the Dad cares about his kids, and wants the best for them no matter what. Hawke takes a very naturalistic approach to the role, and doesn’t feel the need to imbue his character with any melodramatic heft or excess. His character is fair & honest with his kids, and Hawke plays the role pitch perfectly. It’s a standout performance in a sea of mediocre ones, and definitely a positive highlight of the movie as a whole.

boyhood-lorelei

Mason & sister smile politely while Dad secretly wishes he was out driving his fancy car instead of spending time with his boring kids.

   Allow me to illustrate my points by highlighting one particular segment: There’s a scene in the film where Mason and some of his friends are hanging out with older kids. They’re talking shit, drinking beers, smoking cigarettes, throwing metal saw blades into slabs of dry wall, doing things “rebellious” young boys do. Like every other scene in the movie, it sort of just happens and doesn’t lead to anything else whatsoever. The reason I call this particular scene into question is because nearly all the performances in it are horrendous. The older kids have acting skills so shoddy that I can’t believe Linklater accepted them, and that they’re in a film being considered for the Best Picture Oscar. The writing is godawful too: the kids speak in horribly outdated slang, actually saying things like “True dat!” (In an earlier scene, when Mason is being introduced to his new class, one kid actually says to him “Welcome to the Suck”, which, I don’t know about you, is something my friends and I would ALWAYS say to each other in grade school.) In this scene we learn a new key aspect about Mason. After some hassling from the other guys about his Lady Biz Status, Mason lets it slip that he’s (apparently) hooked up with girls before. Only the thing is, we haven’t seen Mason hook up with any girls before, at least not up until this point. So either Mason is openly lying to these kids to appear cool, or we just simply haven’t seen this defining moment in a young straight man’s life – his first kiss with a girlOr hell, doing anything romantic with a girl! Either way, we’re never told what the case is – he just says it, and I guess it’s a fact now because the movie told us so. When I saw this scene I was just like, “News To Me!” Oh, and remember that saw blade I mentioned? These kids are drinking beers, throwing sharp metal objects around, and practicing their ninja punches in close proximity to said sharp objects…suspiciously sounds like a dramatic setup, right? But, instead of one of the boys having an unfortunate accident that they’ll all have to deal with, the scene just…ends, and moves on to the next event in Mason’s life. You know, if you build up a scene, even with a hint of something dangerous going on, the audience is going to subconsciously think something is afoot…because, you know, we’ve seen movies before. However, there’s no payoff whatsoever – no payoff to the saw blade setup, no building of an emotional connection to Mason’s outlook on existence – just events, happening in sequential order like a memory reel with all the good bits chopped out.

   Or how about the scenes where an older role-model type of person tries to give Mason some much-needed life advice? There are several points in the film where Mason’s dad, his photography teacher, and Drunken Stepdad #2 try to speak to him about the choices one makes in life, and how those choices shape who you are and what you’re going to be. Mason tends to listen to his father’s words with more intent, but he sort of blows off the advice of his teacher & stepdad. I can’t really say I grew to like Mason as a character more over time, because he sort of just became a closed off twerpy guy – not really the kind of person I’d want to hang out with, to be honest. For all the narrative problems Boyhood has, I will say the first half of the film is highly more engaging than the second half, where Mason becomes an angsty teenager and ponders clichéd existential questions about life. The early childhood scenes have this sense of freedom and discovery to them, while the high school scenes get bogged down with plodding, overwritten dialogue & stale performances – it really makes the 2nd half of the film feel like a chore. A good 45 minutes could have easily been cut from this film and not weighed down significantly on the movie’s overall effect.

boyhood_coltrane_3

Mason stoically ruminates on deep, meaningful mysteries like “woah, man” and “like, for real, bro”

   Next let’s talk about the visual style (or lack thereof) utilized throughout the film. A notable thing about Boyhood is how plainly everything is shot. Scenes unfold in front of the camera in a very basic, conventional manner, without any attempt to make it feel “like a movie”. Now, in some ways, this makes sense, since the route Linklater is taking narratively is a very straight-up, clear-cut path through the life of this boy – no need to really embellish, right? Well…yes and no. For how plain the narrative is, we honestly could have used some embellishments in the visual style of this film, if only to keep us distracted for a few hours. But the editing & cinematography in Boyhood is so basic & by-the-book in its execution it almost feels like the first cut of an ambitious student film. What some people don’t seem to realize is that movies, being a visual medium, are capable of wooing & bedazzling us with just pure imagery alone, no need for the characters to say ­anything, really – the style of a film can add a special layer of richness to it, and make it more memorable in your mind-parts. I’m not asking for There Will Be Blood-caliber cinematography here, but something that’s at least visually stimulating – especially since nothing stimulating is happening in the story.

   For all the talk about how personal & close to home this project was for Richard Linklater, the distant, by-the-book manner in which the story is presented to us leaves this feeling like the most impersonal personal film ever made. We never really connect with Mason as a character – he’s a bit too passive and ho-hum to be relatable on any deeply personal level. We’re never let in on what he’s thinking – and more importantly, what he’s feeling. It’s as if Linklater is simply documenting the plain, natural things that happen to a plain, natural person from an outside and omnipotent perspective, which would probably be a little more interesting if this was a documentary – but it’s not. It’s a fictional movie Linklater had complete creative control over, and for some reason, there doesn’t seem to be any creativity going on anywhere, from the choice of visual style to the way the main character is depicted. For a movie that’s supposed to be a personal, insightful look at the developing life of a single specific person, we never really get a decent grip on what it is that makes Mason Mason – and that is a huge fundamental flaw with Boyhood, in my opinion.

   Do you guys remember that movie The Tree of Life, directed by God-tier director Terrence Malick and released in 2011? In that film, Malick takes us on a visual & narrative journey through the truths & mysteries of life and existence as presented through the lens of experiences from a small Texas family, specifically those of eldest son Jack. In the film he is torn between two forces: the caring love of his mother and the cold, authoritative control of his father. Because of this contradiction in his life, Jack acts out, making some questionable decisions with his actions that lead to his understanding of life as a whole. Plus, there’s dinosaurs! While Tree of Life is inarguably a more complex & ponderous movie with more on its conceptual plate than Boyhood has, there are several similarities between the two which I couldn’t help but compare & contrast.

tree-of-life-movie-image-brad-pitt-04

Ethan Hawke & Ellar Coltrane share a tender father/son mome…oh shit sry this is from a similar film which did everything better, my bad

   First of all, Boyhood is also about a small Texas family, and the emotional struggles they go through as a young boy grows older. However, unlike Boyhood’s Mason, who pretty much goes with the status-quo flow his entire life, Jack in Tree of Life reaches a point where he starts acting out, vandalizing buildings and even abusing animals with his friends. He steals from his neighbor at one point, and also feels genuine complex emotional dissonance because of his parents’ different parenting styles. Tree of Life features breathtaking visual splendor on an imaginative and more down-to-earth level, and an emphatic attention to character nuance that is quite frankly missing from Boyhood’s dry, boring scenes. And while some may write off Tree of Life as pretentious and overly ambitious, it at least takes creative & narrative risks in a meaningful and interesting way, making us ask questions about our own inherent natures and choices we make in life. Boyhood just presents us the bare bones account of a life, one that doesn’t nearly approach the level of depth and complexity Malick strives to imbue his similarly-themed film with.

   Now, is it fair to compare Boyhood, a small, quiet & unassuming depiction of everyday American life from the mind of a grounded, down-to-earth director like Richard Linklater, to The Tree of Life, a sprawling art-house epic directed by a certifiable madman/genius auteur which basically tries to singlehandedly answer the question of the meaning of life? Probably not, but I would argue that the ends justify the means on this one. Boyhood is being called a new American masterpiece, a heartwarming tale for young & old, and The Tree of Life, while receiving its fair share of acknowledgement & glory upon its release (including a Best Picture nomination), has sort of faded from the public eye in such short time. Why is Boyhood “bold” while Tree of Life is “polarizing”? Well, for one thing, The Tree of Life is more esoteric and thematically complex than Boyhood is – there aren’t any extended, 2001-esque cosmic flight segments where the audience soars across the universe and witnesses existence on a macrocosmic level in Boyhood. It’s a little safer, a little more cookie-cutter for modern mainstream audiences to consume & digest. It won’t offend you or your sensibilities in any way, and because of that, I feel like it’s just going to be more generally accepted than The Tree of Life will ever be.

83687

But WHAT COLLEGE IS HE GOING TO GO TO?!?!?!

   Boyhood has received a lot of hype as being “exciting” and “daring” but, to me, it doesn’t come anywhere close to being as daring as The Tree of Life was. Tree of Life delved deeper into the underlying nature of things, and was trying to ask larger questions about consciousness & what this all really means – kind of like what Linklater did in his own film Waking Life 13 years ago. For Linklater, Boyhood isn’t any kind of narratively risky project, even if he did spend 12 years making it. It’s about a semi-privileged suburban white kid, which is something Linklater himself grew up as. If he really wanted to make Boyhood a “daring” film, he should have made it about a young black boy, growing up on the dangerous streets of an American ghetto and facing the real challenges such a life presents, not something safe and close to home. Then he could have shot THAT film over the course of 12 years. Getting out of comfort zones, much? But such a film wouldn’t sit well with the mass viewing public of the world, many of whom don’t like to have their perceptions challenged or put into question. THAT would have been a much more interesting film to me, not something which plays like an overly-sentimental Hallmark card for 3 hours straight.

   Okay, now that I’ve got most of my griping out of the way and we’re nearing the end, let me just say this: if you see Boyhood, and you feel like it connects with you on an emotional & spiritual level, then by all means, enjoy your experience with this film, there’s nothing wrong with that. I’m not trying to blast Boyhood as a completely unnecessary waste of time – it is a reflection of life, and as such, contains some insightful moments on what it is to be a young person growing up in this world. It speaks a lot about how things change, while somehow seeming the same all the while – gradual change, rather than sharp and drastic. There are some genuinely touching moments in the film, particularly with Mason and his dad, which show how meaningful family relationships can be – scenes like Dad giving Mason a specially-made, self-compiled Beatles mix album complete with CD case and album art, or Mason going camping with Dad and talking about movies. Boyhood has its heart in the right place, and you can’t really knock it for that. It’s trying to be a meaningful and positive film, showing us the simplicity of existence and how our relationships interact and shape our lives. My problem is, it tends to fall flat about 98% of the time – but it does have its moments.

   I know I’ve said some pretty mean things about this movie throughout this analysis, but I’m really not an old codger who just wants to shit on a harmless flick about some kid’s life – really, I just expected more out of this movie, given the wondrous and glowing reviews it has received, and was drastically let down by its execution and presentation. It’s a simple film, with not much else going on under the surface, and there’s nothing really wrong with that. The thing is, that’s all it is, and it doesn’t really stand up to these grandiose accolades it’s been receiving. In my opinion, Boyhood is an interesting experiment, a sort of “what if I did this?” scenario that a talented filmmaker dared to undertake. It didn’t quite work to the fullest extent, but hey, we got something worth seeing and talking about out of it, and that’s worth something. Because of its simplicity and unassuming charm, Boyhood has kind of developed a shield for itself from negative criticism, being hailed as beautiful by critics who don’t want to seem like a sourpuss for not liking this inoffensive film about growing up. I’m running the risk of looking like a cynical asshole film critic, but I will proudly come out and say that the inoffensive nature of Boyhood is precisely what makes it offensive to me – it doesn’t have anything deep to say other than, “this is what life is like!”

BoyhoodBG-408x264

Just pretend the bubble is this movie’s overinflated sense of importance and Mason’s finger is this review.

   Here’s the thing about a movie like Boyhood, and I’m going to explain this as carefully as I can. When you’re watching this movie and see those “Kodak Moments” Mason has with his family, you automatically harken back your own memories with your own family and, somehow, inexplicably, those feelings become associated with the film. Then, the film is amazing by default because your own memories are amazing by default. “Look at that thing Mason got from his dad! I remember when my dad gave me a thing! This movie is SO brilliant and amazing!” You identified with your own nostalgic moment instead of the one Mason is half-heartedly experiencing onscreen. Because of this simple magic trick, Linklater is raking in millions and Boyhood is robbing more deserving films of their spotlight. If you really take a step back and watch Boyhood without the “taking a trip down memory lane” filter it becomes apparent that movie heavily relies on the audience projecting their own nostalgia into the frame. I think that’s why so many critics and so many regular people have latched on to this film so fervently like it’s some kind of wonderful new drug: it’s a nostalgia generator, but not because it actually creates its own nostalgic moments. More appropriately, it’s a nostalgia emulator – referencing those ubiquitous heartfelt moments and letting you fill in the gaps. This is what I mean when I describe Boyhood as a manipulative film.

   Which I guess is as good a spot as any to address the music in this film. Linklater made a very true-to-life move and decided not to incorporate a traditional musical score for the film, most likely because real life doesn’t have its own film score. I’ll actually give Linklater some credit here – while a film score might have been effective in its own right, it definitely wouldn’t have aligned with the “true to life” vibe he was shooting for. Having no orchestrated score made the movie feel at least a little more real, even if the convenient and simplistic writing detracted from that. The score of our modern lives is, of course, popular music, which is utilized to full effect throughout the movie. The very first thing our senses are treated to in Boyhood is the sound of Coldplay’s “Yellow” introducing Mason to us in the properly sappy tone only a song like “Yellow” could achieve. The movie’s got a wide range of musical selections – from Blink-182 to Sheryl Crow to The Flaming Lips to Soulja Boy to Gnarls Barkley to Lady Gaga to Paul McCartney to Arcade Fire. There’s a lot of tunes of varying degrees of quality throughout the film, and it at least serves to switch up the humdrum goings-on of what’s actually happening onscreen. In fact, I could probably say that Boyhood’s soundtrack is probably the most eclectic aspect of the film. That being said, it’s only with a few exceptions that the songs are used as anything more than background music – not really having anything to do with the scenes at hand, but placed there to remind us roughly what era it is, and also to wring all that precious nostalgia-juice out of our exhausted nostalgia glands. At least Linklater did us the favor of saving the movie’s “theme song” – that godawful song “Hero” by Family of the Year (how appropriate) till the end, where we don’t have to put up with it for very long! Words cannot describe how much I hate that song…it’s bland, corny and sickeningly oversentimental, much like the movie it will forever be associated with.

boyhood dad

Ethan Hawk & Ellar Coltrane silently reflect on the past 12 years of their lives after reading everything I’ve just said.

   Overall, I would say that Boyhood is an ineffective film, one which whole-heartedly tries but ultimately fails to achieve the deeper implications of what its intriguing premise promises. There’s too much hokey dialogue, bland cinematography, subpar-to-weak acting, and manipulative/faux-sentimental hoo-hah going on in the movie for me to consider it as one of the “greatest films of the decade.” There’s not enough energy in the movie, nothing exciting or interesting to really keep us ingrained in the film’s world throughout its butt-numbing three hour running time. And what’s worse, we’re never made to feel close or united with Mason and his “problems”, which is problematic for a movie which is solely concentrated on that one character. We never make a true connection with Mason, and that is why Boyhood is flawed. The sad thing is, critics and (some) audiences all over the country seem to be blind to this inherent flaw because they’re going absolutely gaga over it and nominating it for all sorts of awards – and what’s worse, giving it those awards! This is a slightly fancier Hallmark Channel TV movie, at best. It’s certainly no Birdman, which in MY humble opinion is THE BEST movie of 2014, if not the DECADE.

   Ah, Birdman. Birdman is so great. Birdman is 20 times more creative, risky & daring than Boyhood could ever HOPE to be, and it’s not getting the glorious recognition it deserves because this flop film has come out in the same year and is pulling a lampshade over everyone’s heads. Birdman has compelling characters, GREAT performances, stunning cinematography and music, and best of all, it’s DIFFERENT. It’s INTERESTING. It has soul, wit and heart that I frankly haven’t seen in a film in quite some time. And before I turn this into a full-blown Birdman review (that’s coming later), I just want to say that I brought up Birdman because that film embodies everything that makes a great film great – the human elements, an elegant & thought-provoking story, the deeper thematic underpinnings within that story, the memorable characters, the colossal drama & tension…those things make a Great Film fun to watch, not… “Where am I gonna go to college?” “Aw man, this girl broke up with me, that wasn’t fun. I’m gonna mope about it for 2 ½ hours of running time.” “Ohh, I don’t know what to do with my life…isn’t that, leik, so dramaaaatic??”

   Yes, Linklater’s Boyhood, a film being praised as a masterpiece and a profound appraisal on the human condition, is ironically one of the most lifeless films about real life ever made. It’s boring, plain & simple, and almost shockingly trite in how phony & unconvincing its portrayal of youth is. Mason is just a dude floating through life, free from any eye-opening choices, safe from any life-changing circumstances. It’s kind of insulting that this faux-sentimental tripe is being pushed upon us like the second coming of Movie Christ, actually. That’s why I have chosen it as the Most Overrated Film of the Decade, even though we’re just halfway through it. The sickening amount of critical praise this film has received is literally baffling to me, and I sort of wrote this analysis as a way of venting & figuring out just what it is that’s making everyone go gaga. It’s sappy, nostalgic, & directed by man whom film critics have come to respect over the years – it’s for these reason that I believe Boyhood has become so absurdly overhyped. And don’t forget – it took 12 years to make!!!

   In closing, here is a little something I’d like to share with you which sums up my feelings about Boyhood. There’s a scene early on in the film when Mason is out bowling with his annoying sister and absentee father, and Ethan Hawke’s character gives him these immortal words of profound fatherly advice: “You don’t need the bumpers. Life doesn’t give you bumpers.” Unfortunately, with his technically interesting but overly dull & ham-fisted film Boyhood, director Linklater has given Mason bumpers – the bumpers to coast throughout life with ease, bouncing off one setback to the next without ever once winding up in the gutter. I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t sound very “great” to me.

10943511_10153655239014968_1914388013_n

This, however, sounds fucking awesome!

Holy crappers, has it been that long? I hate to say it but man, have I been slackin’.

To any and all readers who may be out there and wondering what the fuck happened to the crazy asshole who wrote these wordy, fanatically TL;DR reviews (readers who, through some inexplicable miracle of internet goodness & mayhem have boosted my site views to LITERALLY OVER 9,000!!!), I apologize for the sad, Dust Bowl-rivalling drought this site has gone through over the past almost-year. The good news, though, is that I’M BACK!!!!! Yes, after oh-so many months of job hurdles, livelihood-juggling, musical endeavors, general laziness, and other human being-related minutiae, I have come to deliver some “thoroughly exhaustive, delightfully in-depth” [Editur’s Noote: Trademarked, bitches] movie reviews for your pop culture-addicted minds to get tweaked on!!!!!!

Well…not quite yet.

I still have to decide which movie I’m gonna write about, and I want to make it something good for my…er, triumphant? [Edtior’s Note: Try “guilt-ridden”] return. I have been watching many, many films in the time I’ve been gone, and especially recently as my desire to write about flicks has been growing back. Hopefully it takes a day or two, but I’m not prepared yet. I will, however, provide you with a brief update of some grand movie-related news in my personal life that is proudly delivered:

LOFT LOGO COLOR

I got a job at The Loft Cinema, an independent non-profit movie theater located in my hometown of Tucson, AZ! That’s right, Tucson – Seth MacFarlane’s favorite town to inexplicably deprecate! Too bad one of the most cinematically loyal, culturally significant & unique movie theaters in the country is located amongst the ball-punchers Seth MacFarlane, you glorious, Cosmos-beckoning FUCK! [Eidters not: Sorry. Personal conflictions coming out.] But yes, instead of just sitting on the sidelines bitching about an industry I have no active part in, I am now employed at a badass movie theater, and thusly, PART OF THE MOVIE INDUSTRY SORT OF!!! It’s a soul-affirming, exciting turn of events in my life that I just thought I’d share with all of you since it’s somewhat relevant.

Man…I don’t really know if I’m just talking to myself or what. Honestly one of the reasons I haven’t come back in a while is because I feel like these words are going nowhere, out into some internet black hole of absurd oblivion. But, if there ARE viewers out there – and, at 9,453 views, there just might be – I urge ALL of you to comment on my reviews to share your thoughts, criticize mine, or otherwise just shoot the shit! You can also reach me by e-mail at ishouldbeafilmcritic@gmail.com, so get to writin’ me, y’allz! Help me to help you help me to write movie reviews to help you! And then I just might stick around and continue delineating the Continuous Journey of One Man’s Thought Process Throughout His Journey Through Cinema!

….or don’t say shit! I’m gonna keep writing the goddamn movie reviews anyway, even I am just talkin’ to a digital wall. For that is why WE FIGHT AND DIE BY THE SWORD! Or in my case, the pen! Or rather, the laptop…keyboard…..or something….aw fuck, why did view counter stop going up?

REVIEW: PACIFIC RIM

PACIFIC RIM (2013)
Starring Charlie Hunnam, Idris Elba, Rinko Kikuchi, Charlie Day, Rob Kazinsky & Ron Perlman
Directed by Guillermo del Toro
Written by Travis Beacham & Guillermo del Toro
Produced by Thomas Tull, John Jashni, Guillermo del Toro & Mary Parent
Cinematography by Guillermo Navarro
Music by Ramin Djawadi
Edited by Peter Amundson & John Gilroy

pacificrim_main_poster

The Blood-Bot rapidly approaches the unsuspecting Crip-Bot, and the age-old struggle continues to perpetuate itself.

   The big-budget summer blockbuster, as you’re probably well aware, has been a staple of American cinema for decades now. Designed to enthrall the senses of the casual moviegoer during the slow, hot & sticky months of the middle of the year, summer blockbusters as a rule typically feature extravagant amounts of style over any sort of substance. Obviously, the best summer blockbusters are the ones which manage to feature plenty of both – movies like The Matrix, or Jurassic Park, or The Dark Knight for example, offer enough action to wow the escapist thrill-seeker residing in all of us while simultaneously providing enough clever dramatic embellishments to stimulate the muscle up in our head-parts. Nowadays, the average summer blockbuster tips a liiiiittle bit too much in the “more thrills, less brains” side of the scale. Okay let’s be real here, a LOT too much. I mostly blame the Transformers movies for this disturbing trend, although to be completely fair, there’ve always been those summer films which err more to the dumb side – that’s just the way it goes. (Although I could definitely argue that it’s just gotten EXTREMELY out of hand in recent years.) But you gotta admit, older blockbuster films at least tried to tell a cinematically pleasing story, with semi-developed characters and rationally legible plots that focused on wit and charm instead of explosions and…explosions. They were movies which understood that it was important to not only excite the audience with super-cool movie wizardry, but to emotionally connect with us as well; to actually engage the casual movie-goer in the film, and be a part of its world.

   Pacific Rim, the new film from the truly talented and visionary director Guillermo del Toro, is a film which tries to reconnect the audience to the magic and spectacle only the best summer blockbusters can provide. And for the most part, it succeeds – particularly in the spectacle aspect of things. Del Toro specifically aims to recapture the kind of wonder a 10 year-old boy would experience when seeing a movie like Godzilla for the first time, essentially trying to turn everyone in the audience into a kid again. And dammit, I give him mad props for even attempting to create something which could be considered quaint in this modern age of cynical cash-grab cinema. With the love of old school creature features and classic action blockbusters in his heart, del Toro has crafted a film which truly demonstrates how epic summer blockbusters ought to be handled. HOWEVER – despite the truly wonderful and patented visual marvels del Toro cooks up in this flick, Pacific Rim unfortunately weighs a tad too heavy on the “style” side of the scale – leaving little substance to be had for anyone looking for something a bit deeper than the average action battle flick.

3166992-pacific-rim-charlie-hunnam-rinko-kikuchi2

Mako looks nervous to ask, but Raleigh, an experienced Jaeger pilot, already knows the answer: yes, you can in fact go in your suit.

   On one hand, Pacific Rim is a cinema lover’s dream come true. For one thing, it’s actually an original idea, not something adapted from a comic book or TV show or some other kind of pre-established intellectual property – HALLELUJAH!!!! It boasts some of the most incredible visuals you’ve EVER seen, truly stunning battle sequences which excite and dazzle, and much needed moments of levity and heart which modern movies like Man of Steel are sorely lacking. But, on the other hand, it begins to slip into standard boneheaded action movie territory. It features such wonderful tropes as underdeveloped characters, clichéd and stilted dialogue, average performances which border on being too grating to sit through – basically it falters with anything actually involving actual human beings delivering dialogue and trying to emote. This of course is a HUGE detriment to a film which is trying to conjure up some semblance of human community and connection while simultaneously trying to astound our senses. For this reason, I found Pacific Rim to be a little disappointing – especially coming from a director with a track record as estimable as del Toro’s.

   BUT, it’s not all bad! Truthfully, I had a lot of fun watching Pacific Rim. As a summer blockbuster, it is leaps and bounds more accomplished and repeat viewing-worthy than most of the dreck thrown up on theater screens these days. I was looking forward to this film quite a bit, and I’m just a little sad about the fact my expectations were slightly let down – but not so much that I wouldn’t recommend the film to anyone, or give it a terrible review. I guess I just expected more out of the man who gave us a film as nuanced and layered as Pan’s Labyrinth – a truly engaging cinematic dream. Pacific Rim features precisely 0 nuance and subtlety – it’s like being beaten over the head with a schmaltzy brick and being hazily entranced by the pretty stars you see. It’s pretty, but your brain doesn’t get much out of it. But of course, this brings up the argument (one I’m still having with myself, actually) about del Toro’s intentions with this flick – has he purposely created something short on brains and high on action to remind us how pointlessly fun action movies can be? Is this all part of his grand design? I’ll elaborate more on this intriguing notion in a little bit – but first, let’s talk about the story.

PACIFIC RIM

Things got a lot more peaceful when they finally realized the kaiju just wanted someone to help with its really bad toothache.

   Pacific Rim is basically your standard otaku (basically the Japanese synonym for “geek”) film, a movie about giant monsters which utterly decimate large cityscapes, seemingly just for the fun of it. It’s also a mecha film, sporting the biggest and baddest robots this side of Voltron. Del Toro is himself an otaku for these genres of film, and decided to combine the two into the most ass-kickingest sci-fi smash ‘em up in cinema history. SWEET! In the not-so-distant future, an inter-dimensional portal has opened up at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, out of which gigantic horrible creatures are ejected that level cities whole and kill tens of thousands of people easily. After being thoroughly ravaged enough times by these beasts, mankind decides to cut the bullshit and put aside their differences to construct a new weapon to wage war with these creatures, very appropriately referred to as kaijus (Japanese for “big ass motherfucking monsters”). These new weapons are equally gigantic robots known as Jaegers (German for “hunter”) which require two human pilots to operate. Apparently, the strain of being mentally linked to a gigantic robot suit is too much for one human to handle, so a duo of mentally-connected humans must share the load to effectively beat monster ass together. This mental connection process is known as “Drifting”. One you’ve Drifted with someone, you essentially know everything there is to know about them – their hopes, dreams, fears, secrets, memories, etc. The Jaeger project begins to turn the tide against the kaiju, and for a while humanity can once again rest easy knowing that we can finally assert ourselves against these inter-dimensional assholes. Over time, however, the kaiju begin to adapt and grow stronger against our defenses, and Jaegers start getting defeated left and right. Cue the entrance of our main character, Raleigh Becket (played by Charlie Hunnam from TV’s Sons of Anarchy), a Jaeger operator alongside his brother Yancy. Together they pilot the Gipsy Danger, a pretty badass looking Jaeger that thwomps with the best of them. However, at the start of the film the Gipsy Danger is overpowered by a wily kaiju and Raleigh’s brother is killed in action. Raleigh manages to survive the encounter but is heavily traumatized by the ordeal (he was still mind-linked to his bro at the moment of his death…not pleasant), so he spends the next 5 years helping construct a “Wall of Hope” being built to keep the kaiju out. Since the Jaegers are no longer as effective at defending humanity as they once were, the powers that be decide to discontinue the program and send the last remaining Jaegers to defend the wall until its completion.

   In charge of the operation is Stacker Pentecost (played by Idris Elba), your standard tough-as-nails, no-nonsense type of commander dude. Pentecost coaxes Raleigh back into service, as one of the last remaining Jaegers is Raleigh’s old mecha Gipsy Danger, completely rebuilt and refurbished since his last time in the cockpit. Joining this ragtag defense group is Mako Mori (played by Japanese actress Rinko Kikuchi), Pentecost’s second in command, and a quirky and eccentric kaiju-studying scientist named Dr. Newton Geizler (hilariously portrayed by Charlie Day, of TV’s It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, oddly enough). Mako wants to co-pilot one of the Jaegers but Pentecost won’t let her, and Geizler wants to try and Drift with a still-active kaiju brain but Pentecost won’t let him. (Pentecost is kind of a dick.) Mako and Raleigh quickly form a bond, and Raleigh pressures Pentecost to let her be his co-pilot. Meanwhile, Raleigh gets bullied by some asshole from another Jaeger crew and Geizler Drifts with a kaiju brain against Pentecost’s wishes. Then, some badass fights happen and the plot continues on in a fairly straightforward manner.

PACIFIC RIM

The kaiju, seeing the Sydney Opera House, finally locates a suitable looking mate while the horrified crowd looks on.

   The #1 problem with Pacific Rim is that the plot basically exists as an excuse to showcase kickass kaiju/Jaeger fights, and nothing else. It chugs along at a nice pace, but there’s this hollow feeling to all the intermediate scenes between battle sequences. You sort of get the feeling that way too much emphasis was put on the battles, and not enough on the rest of the movie. Plus, there are a few glaring logical problems in the flick. Throughout the entire thing, I kept watching robots punching the kaijus to no avail, and I kept thinking to myself Man, why don’t they just give these robots a giant sword or something? A big weapon would deeefinitely help, and then at one critical point in a battle towards the end, they actually activated a sword in the Gipsy Danger and killed the kaiju they were fighting in one blow! I was just like “for real? You couldn’t have just slashed him to pieces with that giant sword 10 minutes ago?” And then after they do that, they continue to use the sword until the end of the movie. What is up with that? Oh and hey, let’s not forget about completely convenient plot developments, either. The relationship between Mako and Raleigh seems almost forced out of necessity to the plot – they meet each other and just happen to be instantaneous Drift mates. Curiously, Raleigh happens to be completely fluent in Japanese seemingly out of nowhere and can understand Mako when she first speaks it to Pentecost. This is a little out of place when you consider earlier in the film, Raleigh stated that he and his brother weren’t really great in school, or anything else for that matter – they’re just really good at fighting, so they were a perfect match for Jaeger piloting. Then suddenly Raleigh just seems to know Japanese for some reason. I dunno about you, but that just seems extraordinarily convenient and out of character to me. And characters suddenly being able to do things they logically shouldn’t is something that really shouldn’t be present in a film of this supposed caliber.

   The #2 problem with Pacific Rim is that all the characters are extremely one-dimensional. Raleigh is a strong-willed hero-type with a troubled past. Pentecost is a stern, hard-nosed leader who is stubborn and authoritative. Mako is a determined and qualified yet underestimated fighter who just wants a shot. Geizler is a weird, eccentric comedy relief character who knows exactly what must be done to defeat the kaiju. I wish I could go into more detail regarding these characters but that’s literally it – there’s nowhere else to develop these characters, no deeper connection to be had. They’re all just cardboard cutouts being wielded around to further along the plot until the action scenes arrive. By far the worst character in the entire film is Raleigh’s half-assed rival – he basically exists because the script needs an asshole dude to create a sense of conflict. In the first scene they meet, this bully (his name is Chuck and he’s played by Robert Kazinsky) basically says to Raleigh “I don’t like you. I think you’re dead weight. Stay out of my way, buddy!” for…no real reason whatsoever. This kind of half-hearted antagonism is supposed to create a sense of tension for our main character, but it’s so obliviously one-dimensional and forced that it almost feels banal. Later in the film, these two characters inevitably gain respect for each other and proceed to work together in the final mission…much to no one’s surprise. I read that del Toro did this to illustrate how even though humans can be fighting, arguing assholes, at the end of the day you might just have to go into battle with the very same asshole you were fighting with, and at that point your petty beef doesn’t have a point anymore. This is a very admirable theme to have and I appreciate him trying to pull it off, but quite frankly it’s so blunt, simple and predictable that it ends up feeling contrived.

la_ca_0621_pacific_rim

Every now and then they like to let the Jaegers go out for a nice, relaxing dip…fully supervised, of course, those things are pretty damn expensive.

   I’m disappointed with Pacific Rim because even though its special effects are wonderful and genuinely engaging, the human aspect of the story is severely lacking – and what’s worse, it’s trying to pass itself off as a human story. The reason this is so troubling is because I just know del Toro is a stronger storyteller than this, and this sort of problem just feels like it shouldn’t be there. I mean, I get the feeling this movie is actively trying to be a stronger, more engaging film than most of its contemporaries, yet it experiences much of the very same problems that plague them. This is sort of why I’m almost willing to give del Toro the benefit of the doubt and say that this one-dimensionality and hokey storytelling is actually what he was going for – like he is trying to sort of capture that cheesy, gung-ho feeling of adventure that a lot of older B-movies tend to have. I mean, let’s face it – this is a movie about giant robots punching giant monsters in the face. It’s a movie for 13-year-old boys, and little kids in general. Del Toro has explicitly stated that he wanted to introduce the kaiju/mecha genres to a new generation of children, and based on THAT level alone, Pacific Rim succeeds with flying colors. Despite the lack of enriching, developed characters, the movie is still a hell of a lot of fun to watch. You won’t be able to believe your eyes when you watch the battles in this movie – they look incredible and pump the Action Receptors of your brain up to the maximum! Honestly, in the grand scheme of things, this movie isn’t really about deeper human connections – it’s about punching giant monsters in the face. It’s a silly and overblown premise, and the production values and performances are silly and overblown in return. So I guess under those stipulations, Pacific Rim is absolutely perfect – it hits the mindless action notes perfectly and with extreme style.

   Although, on the other hand, the movie goes out of its way to show these people making intimate connections and working together to overcome a horrifying obstacle. It’s trying to tell a human story. And when you start looking at the movie from the perspective of an adult moviegoer, not a little kid, it starts to fall apart at the seams a little bit. Sure, it’s a movie for little kids, but I mean…I was excited to see it, as I’m sure a lot of self-respecting adult moviegoers were. This movie is blunt, loud, and oversimplified – just like the vast majority of summer blockbusters coming out in 2013. In a way, Pacific Rim is falling right into the same pitfalls as the very blockbusters it’s trying to outdo – and that is a very real and contradictory problem for it. On a spectacle level, it’s unparalleled – but on a basic film level, it’s just not up to par with some of the more nuanced, detail-oriented action movies I’ve seen and loved in the past. This movie didn’t have to be underwritten or simplified – it could have been deep and resonant with rich characters and deeper themes that appeal to a mature audience. Instead, it’s got blunt, stiff dialogue that seems like it was written for people who aren’t able to understand what’s happening easily. It was just really hard for me to identify with the characters in this one – during the climax of the movie, I was honestly a little bit bored because I didn’t really care about any of the people, even though I knew what the stakes were. By that time I was so bogged down by the clichés and hokey writing that I didn’t even care if the humans would win (which I knew would happen, because duh). There’s a scene in this movie where Pentecost delivers a pre-battle speech, and it feels like it was ripped out of Independence Day so bad that after he delivers the highly quotable line “Today, we are cancelling the apocalypse!” I turned to my friend Frances in the theater and whispered, “Today, we celebrate our Independence Day!” It was just one of those moments that you’ve seen in countless movies before, and the movie is full of them. Clichés with a side of more clichés, if you will.

3167023-shine

Alright, did somebody set off a Jaeger bomb in here? (I’m sorry, I’m so, so sorry I just had to. Oh God please forgive me.)

   Before I close up I just want to state that I didn’t dislike Pacific Rim in any major or debilitating way. In fact, you could say I enjoyed this movie a hell of a lot more than I disliked it – I was just disappointed by several aspects of its overall execution and I wanted to adequately express them with this review. I also loved several aspects of this movie, which I’ll go into now. For one, it somehow manages to be HUGELY entertaining despite its many script flaws. There were a few boring parts, but even during things that didn’t make sense I was still going along for the ride and anticipating where it was going next. Also, despite what I said about the characters, the writing and some of the performances, a few people in this flick shine and are worth mentioning favorably. Idris Elba handles his one-dimensional role quite eloquently, and imbues it with a proper authoritative sheen that is highly believable. He was definitely the right man for the job. Also, I particularly enjoyed Charlie Day’s performance as the eccentric Dr. Geizler – he was actually my favorite character in the whole film. Charlie Day’s just a really funny guy, and seeing him be funny and wild in this serious action flick was a nice break from all the melodrama happening everywhere. I haven’t mentioned him yet, but there was another scientist character played by Burn Gorman who was sort of the serious-toned foil to Day’s character, and the two of them had excellent comedic chemistry together. Out of all the humans in the movie, they were definitely the highlights. Del Toro regular Ron Perlman also makes an appearance as Hannibal Chau, a black marketer who sells kaiju body parts for various practical purposes…like curing erectile dysfunction, for instance. No, really. Perlman stood out as one of the more memorable characters of the film, even though he was handled a little shakily. He was still a lot of fun, though!

  There are a lot of things to appreciate in Pacific Rim. The action sequences are astounding, the tone of the movie is solid and enjoyable, and it’s a lot of fun at times. But at other times it can be a hokey, overly simplified cliché factory that makes it a little difficult to adequately connect with the characters on a true emotional level. It’s not a perfect movie in the slightest, but I will say that it is incredibly imaginative and filmed with 100% honest devotion by its director, Guillermo del Toro. If they work out the kinks in the armor and add a little bit of depth to the story and characters, I’d be very interested in checking out a sequel to this flick in the future. I definitely recommend it to anyone who’s looking to have a fun time at the movies, and also don’t mind a little dumb mixed in with their action. With Pacific Rim, Guillermo del Toro at least attempts to valiantly remind us of the glory days of the Hollywood blockbuster, and just for that effort alone, I’m willing to give him and his entertaining yet flawed film some much deserved kudos. And shiiiit, at least it plays a hell of a lot better than Man of Steel. Yeeeesh!

REVIEW: MAN OF STEEL

MAN OF STEEL (2013)
Starring Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Laurence Fishburne & Russell Crowe
Directed by Zack Snyder
Written by David S. Goyer
Produced by Christopher Nolan, Charles Roven, Emma Thomas & Deborah Snyder
Cinematography by Amir Mokri
Music by Hans Zimmer
Edited by David Brenner

man_of_steel_poster7-610x889

Able to change broken light bulbs in a single bound!

   Hello, hello dear readers (if I have any left at this point), I am happy to report that I AM BACK! I know my absence might have been distressing to all of you who stood so steadfastly by my movie reviews (of course, this notion is completely hypothetical on my part), but you can now finally ease that void in your troubled minds. And while it certainly plagues the guilt glands of my brain-parts for not writing a review in so damn long, I’m gonna go ahead and argue that my little break was justified. For one thing, I had all sorts of things happening with my other, more pressing aspect of existence (being a fledgling full-time musician) and for another thing, there just simply weren’t any movies I was overly interested in seeing so far this year. Oh sure, there were minor interests here or there. Iron Man 3, for example – though I thoroughly disliked its predecessor – looked like it would be an enjoyable return to form for the franchise; I still haven’t seen it.  Star Trek Into Darkness looked mildly interesting, especially since I liked the first one a lot, but it still wasn’t enough to entice me out of my comfy home to plunk down $10 (or more!!!) for a movie ticket – plus, I heard pretty lackluster things about it. Frankly, nothing this year has really excited me as a movie-goer so far – if anything, this year’s releases have just added to my increasingly cynical view of the movie industry and the state of modern cinema. Now I admit, one movie I did go see in mainstream theaters this year was The Great Gatsby – but despite Baz Luhrmann’s, Leo’s and Jay-Z’s hyperbolic attempts to utterly enthrall my senses, it wasn’t nearly worthy of penning a lengthy rant to throw onto the internet. And so, the quest went on ever more to locate the prime time to start my 2013 moviegoing experience proper.

   Unfortunately, I decided to start my 2013 here. I wasn’t excited to see Man of Steel, the latest superhero reboot in the long, uncomfortably ever-growing line of superhero reboots, and I’ll tell you the exact reason why: I am fucking SICK of these goddamn superhero movies already. Yeah, I know – they’re “exciting” and whatnot. They’re based on comic books. And everyone knows that comic books are COOOOL! But the growing market trend that X-Men popularized in the year 2000 has (ironically) mutated into American cinema’s hideously gaudy and over-reliant crutch just 13 long, uninspired years later. Seriously, these fuckin’ superhero movies have gotten SO out of hand. Reboots of reboots, endless sequels, one offs that didn’t deserve to be made in the first place (The Green Hornet) keep plaguing the American cinemascape, and the hapless masses keep going to see ‘em cuz….well, they keep makin’ em! And yes, I know Iron Man and The Avengers are pretty cool movies, and there have admittedly been some pretty killer entries along the way…but what I’m saying is, there’s an obvious lack of true cinematic progression happening in this current era of popular filmmaking, and it’s being traded in for name brand value and simple marketability – names like Spider-Man, Iron Man, Batman, Superman, and the like. Yes, we love our heroes – all the characters I just mentioned are inarguable landmarks in pop culture history. But you people have to be able to see the pandering, bottom-of-the-barrel money grubbing going on here! Movies are about escapism for sure, but they’re also about pushing the boundaries of social norms, expressing the truths of what it is to be a human, and other deep shit like that. Escapism is certifiably fine for a certain time and place, but the excessive amount of boneheaded CGI escapism currently running rampant on countless screens across America while REAL problems keep happening all around us has just become grossly extravagant and gratuitous. After an exciting, engaging and genuinely surprising year for cinema in 2012, 2013 seems to have instantly reared back to the horrid 2011 mindset of Sequels and Superheroes…and this is precisely why I had no desire to participate in any part of the bloated big-budget lineup for movies to be released in the first half of this year.

general zod man of steel-1

General Zod, accurately demonstrating my own “look, another comic book movie” face.

   Of course, all that being said, my first movie review of 2013 is of a superhero movie. Why? Well, because I get masochistic when I get guilty, my friends. No literally, I decided to see Man of Steel as a punishment to myself for not writing a single movie review so far this year – I didn’t want to see it, but some part of my being was telling me I had to. After reading and hearing many unimpressed and/or scathing reviews from numerous, personally reliable sources, I generally pieced together that Man of Steel is a blundering, emotionally inept and misguided reimagining of the Superman mythos, designed to be “darker” and “more serious” in tone, à la producer Christopher Nolan’s own Batman films. Now, the only thing left to do was watch it and see if I was right.

   And boy, was I ever!!! Man of Steel, I’m sorry to report, is a narratively underwhelming and tonally vacuous exercise in “epic storytelling”…meaning, it tries to be “dark” like certain other superhero movies while incorporating one of the most obscene and inexcusably over-the-top climaxes in recent memory. Goddamn, did I utterly dislike this oblivious film. Never before have my already dirt-low expectations of a film been so utterly lived up to and – if it’s possible – maybe even surpassed. Man of Steel is a plodding, annoyingly shot, mediocrely acted, laughably simplistic, product placement-laden chore of a film to watch, a supreme butt-number if I’ve ever experienced one. Zack Snyder, the director of such comic book-inspired films as 300 and Watchmen, completely misses the mark in trying to combine those comic book film aesthetics with “real movie” ones. The result is a confusingly serious-toned yet ludicrously unrealistic comic book-styled action flick which inevitably leaves a contradictory and confusing imprint on the minds of the audience watching it.

MAN OF STEEL

Curiously missing: the scene where they strip Superman naked and make him walk on all fours while wearing a leash. (Too soon?)

   So we might as well start at the start, with Superman’s homeworld of Krypton blowing up and his parents sending him off into the universe to eventually land upon our planet and be heralded as a savior of mankind. We all know the story, because it’s been pounded into our collective heads over and over again since Superman made his debut in 1938. The first 20 minutes of the film take place on Krypton, where some asshole named General Zod (played by Michael Shannon) stages a coup against the leadership of the planet for putting it in its current apocalyptic situation. Krypton’s head scientist/Supe’s daddy, Jor-El (played by Russell Crowe) takes this chaotic opportunity to steal Krypton’s genetic codex, which holds the genetic material for the future children of Krypton, due to Zod’s (assumed) plan to control which bloodlines are continued on into the future. (All Kryptonian children are “grown” in little pods instead of being naturally born, à la The Matrix.) This pisses Zod off, and he chases Jor-El throughout the deteriorating planet as he makes his way to the place where he plans to blast his newly born son and the rest of the genetic material off into the stratosphere. (Wow, that almost sounds dirty.) Jor-El succeeds, of course, but not before being killed by Zod, who is in turn captured by the remainder of Krypton’s elites and sent away to the “Phantom Zone”…which makes a lot of sense, because sending a dangerous criminal AWAY from his planet which is currently being destroyed when he could just be kept there and killed along with everybody else is clearly the best course of action for everybody. Also, if they have the technology to send horrible criminals off into Phantom Zones, why don’t they just all evacuate the planet instead of staying there and dying like dumbasses? Anyway, little Supie’s pod jettisons to and lands on our planet, where all the limp magic desperately conjured by this movie’s opening scenes can die a horrible death.

   Now, I should point out that at this point of the film, I was actually enjoying it for the most part. And since I’m using this point of the review to point out something I liked, I’ll point out other points I liked, simply because there will never be another point to point out these enjoyable points beyond this point. Get the point? One thing I noticed was the musical score, which I was actually enjoying at first – it was pretty cool and atmospheric, a bit of a departure from Hans Zimmer’s usual assault on the senses. (The US military is currently doing tests to see if they can effectively weaponize the Inception score.) Of course, the score devolved into usual Zimmeresque grandiosity later, but I was genuinely impressed with the music at first. Then there was another scene later that showed little Superman in class freaking out because all of his extra-sensory powers are overwhelming him at the same time – his X-Ray vision, his super-hearing and etc. are all assaulting his mind like a Hans Zimmer score. It was a pretty nice touch, and I give ‘em some credit there. Also, Russell Crowe did a pretty nice job as Supe’s dad – I’d say it was the strongest performance in the film, actually. I credit this entirely to Crowe though, and his pure acting talent alone, not Snyder’s direction. But that’s about it – this intro is the only part of the film’s actual narrative I truly enjoyed. And sure, Michael Shannon’s performance as Zod was stiff and hammy, and the opening lingered on Krypton for far too long, but as far as spectacle goes, the intro to this movie was pretty neat. Zack Snyder is able to create really engaging and cool-looking scenes when he’s working in his element – that element being computer-generated effects, explosion fueled action scenes and fantastic looking worlds. But once we get down to Earth’s soil and you give him some actors and dialogue in a real-world environment, it starts to become a plodding nightmare. Now, to be fair, Snyder’s Dawn of the Dead remake dealt with real people in real locations and that was a pretty successful movie, but I’m willing to argue that he’s sort of lost his touch with realism after directing 5 films almost entirely filled with CGI backgrounds and effects (one of these being a fully computer-animated film about talking owls or some shit). Now he’s supposed to tell this “nuanced, reality-based” tale and it’s clear he no longer has any business doing such a thing. His lackluster Watchmen adaptation can serve to demonstrate his problems with nuance and subtlety, as well as getting realistic and emotional performances from his actors. Anyway, on with the schlock…

man-of-steel-superman-henry-cavill-600-01

This movie’s called Man of Steel, not Man HOLDING Steel! I want my fucking money back.

   So we make it down to Earth, and the film begins its pointlessly nonlinear narrative structure, as we jump around to various points of Superman’s life which show that he’s a good dude but just so different and apart from everyone else. He saves a bunch of guys on a burning oil rig, saves his bullying classmates from drowning in a school bus after it careens off a bridge, and is told by his father (portrayed by Kevin Costner, although I use the term “portrayed” loosely) on several occasions how his powers are good and that he’s going to “change the world” someday, even though he encourages his son not to reveal his powers to anyone, ever. Five points for parental consistency there, Johnny. So basically the film takes every opportunity to point out to us just how different and strange Superman is, all the while further hopelessly alienating him from the audience. Let me tell ya something: usually, in a big sci-fi action movie like this, it’s a good idea to try and make your audience relate to your protagonist, not constantly distance us from him. And yes, I know, Superman IS different from all of us, and he IS an alien. But that’s basically the point of Superman, isn’t it? We all KNOW that already! It’s a predetermined trait of his character! Spelling it out for the entirety of the movie does nothing but create an emotional rift between us and the character, and because of this, we cannot get emotionally invested in his script-mandated tortured brooding.

   Speaking of brooding, let me just touch on this point really quick: superheroes DO NOT always have to be tortured, internally suffering assholes in movies – ESPECIALLY if their previously established character does not call for it. Let’s compare this simple-minded trait tacked on to Man of Steel with Chris Nolan’s actual emotionally nuanced Dark Knight trilogy. It makes sense for Bruce Wayne to be a dark, brooding guy filled with inner angst and turmoil, because that’s his character. He’s fuckin’ Batman, for chrissakes! Batman’s parents were murdered in front of him, he uses shadows to his advantage, he dresses up in a black, spooky-looking jumpsuit; the darkness is inherent in his character. Superman is supposed to be a brightly-colored, sunny-dispositional do-gooder who fights for “truth, justice, and the American way.” He’s supposed to inspire hope and strength in people around him, not fear and uncertainty. That’s Batman’s job, because he’s a dark scary dude! Does anybody understand what I’m talking about? What I’m saying here is, the dark, brooding tone of Nolan’s Batman films works there because that is Batman’s character. Simply tacking on that trope to Superman not only alienates us from his character, but is completely contradictory to everything Superman is supposed to represent! Think about all the Superman imagery you’ve ever seen throughout your life, and compare it to all the Batman imagery you’ve seen. Doesn’t really correlate, does it? The movie makes it a point to make everything dark, grey, and dreary-looking. It’s almost always cloudy outside, the cinematography is drab, and worst of all, Superman just looks like a depressed person throughout the entire thing. You can make Superman have real problems, and you can make him have uncertainty, but you DON’T have to make him some boring asshole the whole time to get those points across!

man-of-steel-box-office-02

“I’m going to beat you mercilessly with my glaring insecurities.”

   The biggest problem I can point out with Man of Steel are its characters. Beginning with the writing and ending with the performances, the characters in this film are almost entirely flawed. Worst in show definitely goes to Kevin Costner as Superman’s daddy. The scenes with him are so horribly stilted it’s almost implausible. There’s a scene near the beginning where Johnny Kent shows his adopted son the space-pod in which he arrived on our planet, and to me it stood out as the worst acted scene in the entire film. Not only was the kid playing young Superman pretty bad, but Costner just seems to phone in his entire performance. The moment when they embrace and Costner flatly states “You are my son” is such a groaner that it sort of boggles my mind. Was that the best take they had? Also, his character is basically there to constantly remind Superman how he’s meant for great things…seriously, almost every scene he’s in, he tells Supie the same exact thing, pretty much. Even when his character DIES and they’re looking at his grave Superman’s mother says shit like “he always knew you were meant for great things”. We get it, Superman’s destined for great things, STOP SAYING IT EVERY 10 MINUTES. I know this has more to do with the shoddy script and less to do with Costner, but I’m just pissed about the character’s execution in general.

   Also, let’s focus on Amy Adams and her character of Lois Lane for a few moments. Amy Adams is a generally talented actress, but she kind of just goes with the horrid flow in this movie, not really adding any of that spunky charm I’ve seen imbued in the character in previous incarnations. And seriously, what is with her being SO GODDAMN CRUCIAL in this fucking movie? She’s flying around dangerous combat zones with the military when I’m pretty damn sure they wouldn’t let any civilians on board, regardless of how involved they were, Zod requires her presence on his ship with Superman later in the film for NO REASON other than to serve the plot, and she nearly always manages to be around to have expository dialogue delivered to her in any situation. WTF is up with that?! Lois Lane has always just been the nosy yet intrepid reporter who manages to sneak her way into situations and end up being the damsel for Superman to save. And don’t get me wrong, I’m all for making her character a little more involved than that, but not to the point where she’s unnecessarily shoved into scenes to give the audience someone normal to relate to because we’re so alienated from our protagonist. That’s just straying too far into shitty storytelling mode.

amy adams man of steel

I dunno about you, but I think this scene was way more effective when they did it the first time with The Joker in The Dark Knight….

   Ah yes, our protagonist. I’ve already talked about how poorly his character was written, but I want to focus on the new (and British) dude playing Superman, Henry Cavill. Actually, despite my misgivings about the way his character was handled, I didn’t have much of a problem with his performance as Superman. I feel like if he had some better, more fitting material to work with, he could have shined brightly as the iconic American hero. Instead, he has to use his obvious charisma and charm to try and play a tortured, angst-ridden emo guy. I honestly didn’t have any big qualms about his performance, other than the fact it was wasted on such poorly thought-out schlock.  There’s some genuine empathy in his eyes, and you get the feeling he could knock a more proper Superman role out of the park. Poor guy…he’s probably going to catch most of the flack for why this flick is such an exhausting, emotionally cold clunker, but it’s not really his fault…god-awful writing and direction are the primary killers of this piece.

   Not to mention jerky, needlessly handheld camera work. The cinematography in this movie borders on incomprehensible in its execution. I will say that despite the numerous problems with this movie, the general look of the way it was shot is probably the only real thing going for it. There are a lot of pretty-looking shots in this film, but sadly, they only exist for a more deceptive purpose. By focusing on things like socks on a clothesline blowing in the wind, or close-ups of random objects or young Superman’s dog, we’re supposed to get the impression that this movie has deeper or more personal implications than it really does. By utilizing desaturated, art-house styled establishing shots of random things, Zack Snyder thinks he can trick us into emotionally connecting with the characters and story being told, basically on the simple notion that “the imagery is so pretty. This movie must be good!” These duplicitous shots are especially used in scenes like the one of young Superman at home on his farm, playing with his dog. This type of emotional trickery is about the only place where subtlety is exercised in the film, and it’s not for the audience’s benefit, let me tell you. It’s to try and subversively convince the audience that the film they’re watching actually has some artistic value or integrity, to ingrain in us some notion of poetic cinematic composition that isn’t really there. Luckily for all of you, I can see past such cheap tomfoolery, and I can tell you firsthand that there is NO integrity to be had here. To make matters worse, when we’re not being fed sappy, faux-sentimental shots of peaceful households, the camera is almost ALWAYS moving around in a jerky, found-footage-emulating style. Snyder seems to think that the countless shaky-cam shots in his film somehow enhance moments, or give his film a dramatic, first-person sense of immediacy…yet most of the time it’s both highly unnecessary and nausea-inducing. Seriously, WHY DOESN’T THE CAMERA JUST STAY STILL?! There are moments where it’s just close-ups of characters talking and the camera is jerking around like it’s the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan or something. STOP. MOVING. THE CAMERA. We need to be able to comprehend what is going on, not trying to hold in motion-sickness induced vomit.

BadDC_Superman64

Wow, look at those amazing special effects.

   I can’t express enough how boneheaded and turgid this movie was. It’s almost insulting how they thought they could force this inept, deceptively heartstring-pulling tripe upon us. I mentioned the overblown, insufferable climax earlier so I guess I’ll talk about that shit now. So basically, Zod has come to Earth in the very ship he was banished in (because once Krypton blew up, Zod and his accomplices’ electronically-controlled shackles were lifted. Glad the Kryptonians thought that shit through so well) and he’s taken Superman into custody under the pretense of sparing the Earth in return. Little does Supes or the Earth know, Zod plans to make Earth the new Krypton with a giant planet-altering machine, and the entire human race is not invited. WHOOPS! So Zod sets up his monstrous device – one part in Metropolis, one part in the Indian Ocean – to start thwomping Earth into New Krypton with gravity or some shit. This causes MASSIVE damage and loss of life in Metropolis, with entire buildings being decimated and humans being visibly crushed and thrown up and down violently by this horrible machine. Snyder makes it a direct point to excessively show the destruction being caused by this device, and it’s pretty gruesome to watch because the entire tone of the film has been this realistic, moody and depressing one. And since we’ve been alienated from our protagonist for so long, we’re projecting ourselves into the position of the people and not Superman. Yeah, so this climax is going pretty well so far. To make matters worse, Superman decides to take out the Indian Ocean half of the death device first, and not the Metropolis half for…..some….reason. I feel like the area of the planet where people are dying by the thousands would sort of be the primary choice, don’t you? Anyways, Superman ends up destroying the device with some kind of convoluted black hole that somehow sucks up only the machine and the evil Kryptonians but not anything else around it. I guess the filmmakers liked the new Star Trek a lot and wanted to incorporate (read: rip-off) their ending into theirs, no matter how out of place it would be.

   Oh, and speaking of incorporate, just really quick I want to point out the obvious product placement and brand-pimping going on in this movie. At one point in the film we see lil’ Supie getting bullied by a kid, and then he saves the bully’s ass (along with the rest of his classmates in the bus incident I mentioned earlier). This kid inevitably winds up as an overweight loser who manages an IHOP later in life (nice touch) and we’re reminded of this numerous times, as Lois Lane finds him at IHOP while trying to track down who Superman is. Then later when Superman is having a destructive battle in his hometown of Smallville (before the climax), he’s thrown through the same IHOP, with the restaurant’s logo clearly displayed. Then they keep cutting back to this irrelevant character in IHOP and we get an impression of how deep Zack Snyder’s pocket must go. There’s also a scene in the climax where they do battle in front of a Sears with its giant logo clearly displayed, then shortly after Superman is tossed through that building as well. A 7-11 is also blown up in this film, and we see its logo, but it’s not featured as prominently as my other two examples. I understand product placement in films – it happens, and it’s no biggie if you find a clever way to incorporate it into the movie. Man of Steel wouldn’t know clever if it actually had a sentient mind capable of comprehending thoughts. The only positive thing I can say about this blatant and shameless commercialism is that the businesses depicted in the film are all implicitly destroyed, so that kind of makes things a little bit better. And maybe that was Zack Snyder’s clever little stipulation for being forced to include product placement in the film or something…although I just may be giving him more credit than he deserves. Whatever the case, it’s still just extraneous and distracting on the overall film, to say the least. Anyways, on with the carnage!

   So after the death machine gets sucked up and a sizeable portion of the city lays in ruin, General Zod is still somehow alive. I honestly can’t remember if he was in the death machine or not when it got sucked up (because it was never made clear), but part of me feels like he was, and that just irritates the fuck out of me. So Zod and Superman exchange some stupid dialogue and Zod attacks, and they continue to fight and continue to destroy MORE of the city as they battle! Seriously, at this point of the movie, I could not have been more bored or uninterested. What, did they want us to care about this drawn out, overly destructive battle? At least when The Avengers had the entire city being destroyed we cared about the characters enough to be distracted from all the carnage and human suffering happening all around. But in this shit, we’re reminded of it every moment with two assholes we don’t care about fighting and causing over-the-top destruction that looks like a horrible nightmare turned real. Also puzzling is the fact we spend pointless time following around some random fucking co-workers of Lois Lane’s (one of them being a tragically miscast and out of place-looking Laurence Fishburne) whom we’ve met only once or twice before, and then watch as they try to escape the horrible things happening all around them. I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THESE PEOPLE. WHO ARE THEY. WHY ARE WE FOLLOWING THEM. WHY DOES MY BRAIN FEEL LIKE A CAT STUCK IN A MICROWAVE. These are thoughts I couldn’t help having during this long, drawn-out battle scene. Also worth mentioning are the HILARIOUS crowd reaction cutaways strewn throughout this fight scene. Everybody looks waaay too calm for what’s happening around them. There are shots with people not even expressing the mildest amount of concern, and there are buildings exploding all around them! I guess when you stage an entire city being destroyed inside a computer and tell some extras to look at nothing but thin air and react to it, you can get some pretty embarrassing shots like that.

man-of-steel-amy-adams-henry-cavill

Superman feels a little uneasy about letting Lois get anywhere near this weird, kinky S&M alien chick…

   So FINALLY, this monstrosity ends in a train station, whereupon Supes has Zod in a headlock and Zod threatens a helpless family in the corner with his laser eyes. After ignoring Superman’s pleas to desist, Superman cries out and straight up breaks Zod’s fucking neck in order to stop him. No, really. Superman straight up kills this dude. And you can argue that the ends justify the means, but Superman doesn’t just straight murder motherfuckers. EVER. Dude, even fucking Batman doesn’t kill people, no matter how goddamn evil they are! THIS IS A SUPERHERO MOVIE ABOUT SUUUPERMAN!!! Did we really need to see Superman snapping a guy’s neck? Regardless of how much genocide this crazed alien wanted to commit, wouldn’t it have been more in line with traditional Superman morals if he somehow found a way to stop him and preserve his life? Oh but no, we’re not making a “traditional” Superman movie, we’re making a darker, edgier, “updated” version of Superman. So I guess murdering someone when it’s convenient for you is the new “truth, justice and American way.” Great, sounds great. I guess sacrificing character for “intensity” is an acceptable thing to do in movies now.

   Gone are the days when Superman flew around in sunny skies, doing charming things like connecting broken railroad tracks or saving people from burning buildings, or humorously implausible things like flying around the world so fast he reverses the earth’s rotation, and therefore, time itself. Gone are the days of lighthearted adventures and genuine spectacle, filling us with a sense of wonder and awe. Now we have a depressed, angst-ridden, gloomy alien who fails incredibly hard at saving thousands upon thousands of people from being gruesomely (and ridiculously) killed by a murderous genocidal psychopath. Now we have a guy who snaps bad guys’ necks at will, like he’s fucking Rambo or something. Hey do you guys remember what FUN is? Anyone? Can we put some JOY back into our movies? How bout some CHARM, or HUMOR, or any kind of LEVITY in there? Yeah, there were a couple moments in the film where they tried to throw in a little joke (like the American general’s female soldier exclaiming how she thinks Superman is hot), but they were either terrible or completely ineffective at brightening up this overly depressing fiasco of an action flick.

MoS-31

“COME, SON OF JOR-EL! KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!!!……….Snoochie Bootchies! hehehehehehehe”

   Man of Steel, in courting the same gravitas the Dark Knight trilogy evoked with its tortured hero, inexorably misses out the one simple thing which should be the driving force behind a film of like this – a true heart. Its emphasis on “grittiness”, or “reality”, or any of those other now commonplace modern superhero movie tropes does nothing but create a film of contradictory and grating tonality, and any real humanity of any kind. Superman is a boring, straight-faced, impossible-to-relate-with simpleton in this film, and it’s just not fun to watch at all.  There’s no joy here, or any kind of charming humor at all. I haven’t seen all of the Superman movies, but I am familiar with Superman lore (who isn’t, really?) and from what I’ve always known about Superman, he’s a positive-minded guy who has the glorious power to rescue people from horrors, and does. The original Superman movie (which I have seen) portrayed him as a kind-hearted defender of the people, and he did cool shit that made him look heroic. Superman does heroic things in this film, but it’s all dragged down by the bloated sense of conflict imbued throughout the film’s entire running time. It’s murky, confused, bloated, overlong, and worst of all, absolutely 0% fun to watch. Hollywood may be trying to reboot a reboot of Superman, but I haven’t even seen Superman Returns and I already prefer it WAY more over this trashy commercial schlock trying to pass itself off as respectable art with its “poetic” cinematography. Give me a fuckin’ break. I advise all people on planet Earth to avoid Man of Steel, and to avoid it at all costs. It genuinely left me with a depressed, uncomfortable feeling as I left the theater, and my friend Noah, who attended the screening with me and is a genuine comics lover in his own right, felt the same way. I paid the matinee price of $7.25 and I still feel like I was overcharged! Man, I’m just glad they didn’t get more. So in closing, and to sum up my opinion of this cultural shitbomb appropriately, I’m going to end with a quote from my good friend Moss Worthington: “Guess it’s more like Man of Steal All of My Money.”

Aaaaaaand I’d say my 2013 is off to a great start!

Alright, so I’m not really sure if there’s anyone out there who’s been wondering where I’ve been, or why there hasn’t been an update in a minute, but I thought I would let all of y’all know what’s goin’ on since I haven’t died mysteriously or dropped off the face of the earth! My lack of updating recently has been mainly due to the fact that there hasn’t really been anything exciting I’ve wanted to see or write about lately……..that’s it, really. I sort of decided to take the month of January off since there was absolutely NOTHING of value coming out in the notorious Hollywood dumping ground month……that movie Mama looked interesting, but I still haven’t seen it yet. I’ve also just been busy with other aspects of my life, working all the damn time plus trying to get things with my musical endeavors off the ground. Basically, I only update when I have a good chunk of time, and I haven’t really had a good chunk of time. I’ve still been seeing movies however – I never stop doing that! The only one that I saw that I really felt like writing about was David Cronenberg’s Cosmopolis….which I might still write about, but I haven’t decided yet. Rest assured though, there will be a long, drawn-out, thoroughly exhaustive movie review coming out of my brain and onto the internet very soon! In the meantime, I hope no one out there has grown impatient with my total negligence, and that you’re still being entertained by my other crazy ass reviews! Stay tuned for another review coming very, very soon, and thanks so much for reading ’em in the first place! Alright, Trenton out!

   Hello there, dear readers! Soooo due to both crazy scheduling in my daily life as well as my laptop being MIA for almost two weeks, I haven’t been able to post in quite a long time, and for this, I am most apologetic and ashamed. HOWEVER! In lieu of this vast gap in movie review posting, I have decided to go ahead and do my very first ever MOVIE REVIEW COMBO to make up for lost time! That’s right, instead of one long, giant ass review of one movie, you get several semi-long reviews about a variety of films! Don’tcha just love the feeling of compensation? Well get ready, my friends, because this is like a movie review OVERLOAD…in the best sense of the word! COMMENCE!

 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

LINCOLN (2012)
Starring Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, Daniel Strathairn, Tommy Lee Jones, James Spader, Hal Holbrook & Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Directed by Steven Spielberg
Written by Tony Kushner
Produced by Steven Spielberg & Kathleen Kennedy
Cinematography by Janusz Kamiński
Music by John Williams
Edited by Michael Kahn

lincoln-poster_743x1100

It was a nice touch for them to accurately depict the angle at which Lincoln actually had to tilt his head when talking to most people.

   There’s a certain type of feeling when you’re walking into a movie with this much pedigree. It’s an almost curious, theme park-like sense of wonder, the kind that fills you with anticipation for some kind of experience you’re about to have while you’re shuffling in to find your seats with the rest of the congregated citizens. You know you’re about to see something significant unfold…but you’re not really sure what. At least, that’s what I was feeling as I walked into the theater screening Steven Spielberg’s latest sprawling opus, Lincoln – the kind of feeling that this certainly wasn’t gonna be any regular come-and-go, fast-food type of flick. This was gonna be a four-course gourmet meal type of flick, the sort of dish served to you by the utmost professional and fancy chefs, all with exceedingly gi-normous track records for producing the zestiest types of exotic film flavors. Translated from weird, I’m saying that this movie has pristineness and dignity embedded into its DNA right from the start: It’s a biopic directed by Steven Spielberg, starring Daniel Day-Lewis, about one of the most iconic and legendary figures in American (and world) history – Abraham Lincoln. Oh, and not to mention John Williams and Janusz Kamiński – legends both – doing the score and the cinematography respectively, for a film written by Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Tony Kushner. Plus, a huge cast of talented character actors. GEE. I wonder how much THIS is going to suck?!

   Of course, Lincoln delivers every bit of cinematic esteem, credibility and bliss you could ever hope for in spades. It’s a 2 ½ hour-long exploration of the trials and tribulations a wise yet worn-out and weary leader of a fledgling, self-destructive nation must endure to somehow try and keep the whole damn thing from falling apart…oh, and also make some fucking real progress in the process. In 1865. Obviously, this is going to be a long, dialogue-heavy piece that focuses on performances and features little-to-no massive explosions. If the thought of sitting through something like that somehow startles or frightens you, then I suggest you go watch the completely relevant and entirely necessary new Red Dawn remake playing in the theater down the hall, because this is pure old-school film drama-cy turned up to Maximum Nobility Overdrive Power (MNOP). Long, slow-paced, contemplative, moment-focused, politically charged, philosophically complex, mood-building filmmaking that – despite those seemingly droll adjectives I just listed – never ONCE feels boring. Now that’s a damn hard thing to do, and Spielberg & Co. got juuuust the precise amount of baller cred to pull the whole damn thing off. Quite simply, they’ve lived up to every expectation I could have had for a movie of this caliber – it’s a damn fine piece of filmmaking.

AP740006339194_620x350

Lincoln looked around the room cautiously, hoping someone would eventually do the right thing…for he had indeed smelt it, but he was surely not the one who dealt it.

   Now, that isn’t to say that the narrative-bound Lincoln is a perfect movie. It isn’t. But, it’s far above the standard set by the average modern film, and it is sensationally executed by everyone involved – most especially the gifted cast, populated by all types of actors from all over the place who will have you saying “don’t I know that guy from somewhere?” a couple of times. Essentially, Lincoln is the story of our 16th president’s valiant efforts to both end the morally, physically, mentally, and financially taxing Civil War, and to pass the controversial 13th amendment, which would effectively end slavery in America for all time. Having just been re-elected to a 2nd term, Lincoln doubles his efforts to accomplish these two goals by any means necessary – even risking his reputation as an honest man at one point to pull it off in a pinch. The movie focuses on the political atmosphere of the era, with many scenes detailing the somewhat petty and unproductive arguments in the House of Representatives and the political bulldogging to get one’s own agenda accomplished. (Some things never change, huh?) Lincoln knows the 13th Amendment will never pass if the war is ended before it goes to vote, so he focuses all the attention he can on getting the Amendment voted upon before the bloody war reaches its conclusion…a dangerous ploy, given that the war is claiming lives everyday and most people would not approve of Lincoln’s stalling just to free some people from eternal enslavement. Such are the risks taken when trying to make history.

   The film also explores Lincoln’s personal relationship with his family as well, particularly with his wife and older son. This is where things begin to get a little shaky in the film’s narrative, specifically with the subplot involving Lincoln’s son Robert and his desperate attempt to participate in the war that his presidential father is trying to end. Robert is portrayed by the talented but tragically underused Joe Gord-Lev, in a role that provides a teensy bit of familial drama compounding upon Lincoln’s overbearing burdens, but is ultimately overshadowed by Sally Field as Lincoln’s devoted but overemotional wife, providing all the familial crises needed for Lincoln to be thoroughly stressed. The way the film sort of skims over this juicy conflict with his son makes it feel like it shouldn’t have really been in the movie in the first place – I mean, it definitely gives us another insight into Lincoln’s life, and there are a few really nice scenes with Robert and Abraham, but overall the subplot ends up feeling tacked on and underused, mainly because there’s so much more important stuff the movie’s trying to focus on. Joe Gord-Lev does nicely, but it just starts to stray into “we had to throw this in here too” territory. It’s really the biggest problem with the movie, apart from its length – but I’m not really bothered by long movies (unless they FEEL long, which Lincoln does not) so I give that a pass.

s_500_slate_com_0_Day-Lewis_Lincoln_trailer.png.CROP.rectangle3-large

Lincoln drifts off, using his large mind to ruminate on the possibility that someday, somebody somewhere will create a mediocre depiction of him as a hunter of some kind of supernatural creature…the thought does not sit well.

   Now of course, Daniel Day-Lewis tears acting an even newer asshole with his warm, thoughtful performance as the title character. The role was originally going to go to Liam Neeson, who might have been nice in the part, but since he’s recently become more of schlocky actor in recent years (Wrath of the Titans, anyone?), an actor of Day-Lewis’s pedigree is far better suited for this monumental role. You pretty much forget you’re watching an actor whenever Day-Lewis is onscreen – such is the strength of his acting prowess. Now, personally, I still prefer Day-Lewis’s powerhouse performance as a greedy oilman in Paul Thomas Anderson’s masterpiece There Will Be Blood –that is simply one of the greatest performances in all of cinematic history.But in this film, he really imbues Lincoln with a sense of almost godly prestige, yet totally approachable openness all at once…it’s a subtle and tricky balance, but he pulls it off nicely. I really liked how pretty much everyone around Lincoln was portrayed as having a sort of reverence towards him – like they were standing in the presence of someone clearly beyond them. It’s juxtaposed sublimely with Day-Lewis’s human portrayal of this man, a man who was obviously already a legend in his own time. There’s a great scene in the movie where Lincoln walks into a busy and frantic war room, with people running to and fro in a storm of hurried chaos. Lincoln simply begins telling a lighthearted story to seemingly nobody in particular, but everyone in the room stops everything they’re doing and shuts the fuck up, just listening to the man tell his seemingly out of place yet highly relevant tale. This scene – as well as a few other storytelling moments – really show how Lincoln was not just a gifted public speaker who knew how to address a crowd, but also a warm and friendly human being who’s not above taking a moment to sit back and spin a yarn despite pressing matters weighing down constantly. It’s a tricky nuance to pull off, and Daniel Day-Lewis pulls it off with absolute expertise. Basically what I’m saying here is, there is absolutely no hope for any other actor nominated for the 2012 Best Actor Oscar next year – Day-Lewis has this one in the bag.

   Lincoln isn’t really a biopic in the conventional sense of the term – it doesn’t focus on his entire life, in a somewhat vain attempt to convey a person’s entire complex story. Instead, it centers on perhaps the most important period of Lincoln’s life, in which almost every single aspect of the world was against him and yet he somehow managed to pull off ending a bloody, gruesome war and freeing an entire group of people from horrible servitude. In this sense, it’s more of a political thriller than anything, with Lincoln as the main character. As an audience, we’re left to sort of fill in the rest of his story with the information presented to us, and that information presents Lincoln as a determined yet calm and patient individual who knows how to play his cards right. Like Lincoln, the movie knows how to take its time, and the end result is considerably elegant. Overall, Lincoln is a competently made and genuinely though-provoking portrait of one of America’s most compassionate and honorable leaders during a time of considerable crisis.

 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

FLIGHT (2012)
Starring Denzel Washington, Kelly Reilly, Don Cheadle, Bruce Greenwood & John Goodman
Directed by Robert Zemeckis
Written by John Gatins
Produced by Laurie MacDonald, Walter F. Parkes, John Rapke, Steve Starkey & Robert Zemeckis
Cinematography by Don Burgess
Music by Alan Silvestri
Edited by Jeremiah O’Driscoll

flight-poster

As if you need any other image to sell your movie with.

   Let me just get this out of the way first: Denzel Washington is my absolute favorite actor. Of ALL time. The dude simply commands the screen whenever he’s on it, playing every role that’s handed to him with honesty, intensity, emotional complexity, and obvious skill. He’s definitely been in a few clunkers in his time (Heart Condition, Virtuosity, Ricochet) but even in the worst films of his catalog he ALWAYS turns in a great performance. Besides, the amount of quality films he’s been in far outweighs the schlock, so he can easily be forgiven for a few early career missteps. He’s just a natural actor, someone who was clearly born to be a performer of the highest form. He can take an otherwise mediocre and somewhat formulaic cop flick like Training Day and turn it into a grade-A film simply based on his performance alone. Basically, the D rules. Okay, now that my showering of overblown fanboy praise is out of the way, we can focus on his latest tour de force: the emotional, tense, and dramatically powerful Flight. Directed by Robert Zemeckis, in a welcome return to live-action filmmaking after some hit-or-miss forays into the realm of motion-capture animation that his homie Steven Spielberg utterly upstaged him in with The Adventures of Tintin, Fight is a compelling if sometimes questionable character study that focuses on the struggles of alcoholism as well as the pressure of being in the public light. And if you’re going to be focusing an entire story solely on a single character, you best get a damn fine actor to fill the part. Luckily, Zemeckis was wise enough to hire Denzel Washington for the role.

   Flight begins in a trashed hotel room, one that has obviously been filled with lots of booze-drinking and sex very recently. We’re introduced right away to William “Whip” Whitaker, who groggily answers the ringing phone to argue with his ex-wife while the naked woman he’s with goes about her business in the background. Clearly, this guy is of the self-destructive sort. After having a few drinks and few snorts of cocaine, Whip cleans himself up and goes in to his job – being a pilot for a commercial airliner, with this specific flight travelling from Orlando to Atlanta. Yup, he’s pretty responsible. Right off the bat, Flight throws us an interesting curveball – it gives us a lead character that we just might not want to support very much over the next 2 hours. Whip himself is clearly a likeable guy – he’s charismatic, charming, and has a pretty good sense of humor with the people around him. He just happens to make some incredibly poor decisions, especially when you take into account he’s personally responsible for the lives of more than 100 people aboard his aircraft. So, we’re shown that Whip is actually a pretty damn good pilot despite his inebriated mindset by successfully navigating the plane out of a very nasty storm right after takeoff. After making himself a nice mid-flight blend of vodka and orange juice before passing out, Whip is knocked conscious by a sudden jolt in the flight. Something is wrong with the plane’s mechanics, and the plane begins to nosedive. While his co-pilot begins to freak out, Whip stays utterly calm and begins trying to save everyone on board. After one of the most intense and harrowing plane crash scenes I’ve ever seen, Whip manages to sustain the plane’s gliding speed by inverting it – as in, flipping the plane upside-down. It’s an insane and visually stunning move that miraculously works – the plane crashes in a field, and most of the passengers walk away with their lives.

Flight

The D proves you can never be too drunk to look fly.

   Instantly, Whip comes to be recognized as a public hero – someone who managed to save nearly every soul aboard a seemingly doomed flight. Unfortunately, the few deaths resulting from the plane’s malfunction – including Katerina Marquez, the flight attendant Whip had gotten busy with the night before – bear down upon Whip’s psyche far more than the saved lives do. Not to mention the toxicology reports taken from Whip’s unconscious body upon arrival at the hospital, which verify that Whip was indeed inebriated at the time of the accident. This pretty much means that even though Whip was able to miraculously rescue most of the people aboard the doomed airplane, and the accident itself wasn’t his fault, he’s still liable for being drunk and flying a goddamn airplane. Ya just can’t do that, ladies and gents. Wrought with guilt over his drinking problem, Whip immediately tries to quite alcohol cold turkey, and looks like he’ll be successful at first, but once he receives word of his toxicology report and his impending lawsuit he…starts…drinking again.

   Flight does a pretty good job of showing a man confronting his own guilt while simultaneously struggling with addiction, and it handles it in a mostly realistic way. I say “mostly” because something about Whip actively quitting drinking before he’s made aware of a toxicology report, then immediately starting to drink afterward, rings a little false to me. I just don’t know why somebody would make that sort of decision, especially after they have already resolved to STOP drinking in the first place. Wouldn’t continuing not to drink be the most sensible thing to do? Now, I myself am not an alcoholic, so I can’t speak on the logical machinations of a mind not only addicted to alcohol, but overcome with guilt, but basic deductive logic would denote that if you’re under scrutiny for drinking on the job, and you quit drinking before you’re even aware you’re under said scrutiny, that you would probably just say “well, good thing I stopped doing that shit” and continue being sober. However, it also sort of makes sense that the overbearing guilt of the entire situation would lead to that mindset being eradicated, so I can see it working that way too.

   What I’m trying to get at here is, it simply doesn’t make any sense for Whip to just keep drinking irrationally when it’s been established that he knows the drinking isn’t a great idea in the first place. I understand that’s the point of the whole movie, but it’s just really hard to remain sympathetic for a main character when he is continuously making self-destructive and boneheaded decisions, with seemingly no effort to even try and stop. Apart from the brief period of time Whip tried to stop drinking right after the crash, there’s no other point in the film where we see him struggle with trying to remain sober – at least, until it’s forced upon him by other people. Some scenes with him deciding to quit, and then slowly but surely turning back to the bottle would have been appreciated! He stubbornly and inexplicably sticks with getting wasted, to the point that it just starts to get ridiculous and you can’t help but say “is this guy a damn moron?” Now, I understand that alcoholism is NOT an easy thing to kick, I really do. But in terms of movie logic, why was it even shown that he tried to kick his alcoholism before he was even aware of his toxicology report when he makes absolutely no effort to remain sober AFTER he is told about said report – the results of which are extremely incriminating and could land him in TONS of trouble?! The logic there just doesn’t add up to me. I totally get that Whip is acting irrationally and self-destructively, perhaps even somewhat purposefully because he might believe he should be punished on a subconscious level, but his complete lack of effort to even try and be a little sober is not only frustrating to everyone around him in the film, but to the audience as well. I found myself questioning his actions many times throughout the film, and not really in the way I feel like the filmmakers intended…less in a concern-for-the-character type of questioning, and more in the “is this realistic?” type of way.

FLIGHT

Whip sits anxiously, trying as fast as he can to muster up a cooler story about how he obtained his flashy head bandage.

   That being said, Flight still packs a powerful dramatic punch, and it really gets under the skin of what addiction truly is. We see a pretty unorthodox relationship build between Whip and Nicole, a young heroin-addicted woman whom Whip meets in the hospital right after the crash. (She was in the hospital because of a heroin overdose.) Whip and Nicole take an instant liking towards each other, both broken people crippled by addiction who are able to console each other in times of need. Their relationship blossoms, but Whip’s alcoholism and pride begin to drive a wedge between them, and it’s pretty sad to see. It’s actually easier to sympathize with Nicole’s character, because she actually makes an effort to recover from her addiction without any outside reason while Whip egregiously continues on with his, despite the fact he has an overbearing burden directly related to that addiction weighing down upon him. She gives him support and even tries to get him to go to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting (which he attends but scoffs at and leaves, brilliantly enough), but his pride ends up ruining everything…it’s pretty heartbreaking stuff.

   As I said before, Flight takes the interesting choice of having a main character you can’t really sympathize with all the way through. It’s a gamble, but luckily, one that really pays off in the long run. Denzel Washington, predictably, turns in yet another incredible performance; it’s arguably his best one since Training Day, or Man on Fire at least. He really makes Whip a well-rounded character, giving him a lot of humor and seriousness all at once, and really driving home that this guy is troubled and wracked with too much grief for one man to handle. I will be both disappointed and shocked if Denzel doesn’t gain an Oscar nom for his performance in this movie – it’s just a damn shame it has to be this year, when Daniel Day-Lewis is being critically lauded and singled out as the prime contender for the Best Actor win for Lincoln. I definitely think Denzel would be a shoo-in for the win if it weren’t for Day-Lewis and his damn fine acting skills, but oh well – that’s just the way the cookie crumbles sometimes. Overall, Flight is a dramatically sound yet slightly logically flawed film that delivers on several emotional levels, and offers a pretty devastating look at the nature of addiction and being in the public eye. It shows that Robert Zemeckis is still a very competent director, and the guy to go to if you want a harrowing and realistic plane crash sequence in your movie – this flick and his earlier one Cast Away both sport the best movie plane crashes I’ve ever seen. It has great performances from the entire cast (Don Cheadle and John Goodman both do great, I didn’t really talk about them but they shine in this movie, especially Goodman as Whip’s profane yet loveable drug-dealing friend) and it takes considerable chances, and for that I can only give it my most emphatic recommendation. Plus, it’s a friggin’ Denzel movie – that alone is worth the price of admission!

 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

JOHN CARTER (2012)
Starring Taylor Kitsch, Lynn Collins, Willem Dafoe, Mark Strong & Samantha Morton
Directed by Andrew Stanton
Written by Andrew Stanton, Mark Andrews & Michael Chabon
Produced by Jim Morris, Colin Wilson & Lindsey Collins
Cinematography by Daniel Mindel
Music by Michael Giacchino
Edited by Eric Zumbrunnen

john-carter-poster-red-mars

In case you were wondering, he’s the not-red guy.

Some movies just don’t hit the mark they’re supposed to. This year’s horribly named yet excellently executed sci-fi/adventure epic John Carter is, unfortunately, one of those movies. It’s a movie that pretty much does everything right – methodical pacing, fun action scenes, interesting story ideas, epic and engulfing music, decent performances, and solid characters are all features of this unique flick. Sadly, some movies are destined to not find a solid audience, no matter how well-made they are. Who woulda thunk that a Disney-funded sci-fi/adventure flick that’s actually pretty well made would end up being a box office bomb?

   Personally, I blame the title. John Carter is an absolutely terrible name for this film. Anything, literally anything would have been better than simply naming the flick after the main character of the movie. It could have been called Mars Battle Adventures or something generic like that and that still would have been a better name for it, because then it at least describes what you’re getting. But John Carter? That sounds like a damn inspirational sports movie or something, or some kind of character-based story about some boring schmuck. It’s just NOT evocative of what kind of movie this is. I don’t know why they didn’t just call it A Princess of Mars, the name of the sci-fi/fantasy pulp novel written in 1917 by Edgar Rice Burroughs which this film is adapted from. I guess having “Princess” in the title is just WAY too gay, so they opted to take both that word and “Mars” out of the equation – even though those are by far the most exciting and descriptive words in the whole sentence – and just lazily name it after the main character. The fact that the word “Mars” does NOT appear in the title of this film is baffling to me. Why would you pass that opportunity up?! And then you consider how the sequel – I mean, the hypothetical sequel at this point – was going to be named John Carter of Mars, which by all logic and reasoning should have been the name of THIS film, if we’re changing names and shit….aggh it just really pisses me off, because this movie totally deserved to find a wider audience and its stupid ass name probably made people think it was about some real-life asshole they never heard of. SUCH a wasted opportunity.

John-Carter-1-680

John and Tars are awed by the sight of the Mighty Budget slowly rising from the horizon.

   Because, my friends, despite its tepid reaction upon its release, John Carter is actually a pretty damn fine film – it’s exciting, it’s humorous, it’s got all kinds of crazy alien shit going on in it, and it keeps your interest all the way through. And SOMEHOW, it actually gets you to care about and sympathize with weird events and strange aliens (respectively) that don’t even correlate to our planet in the slightest. If that isn’t some good filmmaking, I don’t know what is. And hey, I’m not too surprised about that aspect either – this movie is the live-action debut of Andrew Stanton, a two-time Academy-Award winning computer-animated film director of Pixar fame, specifically Finding Nemo and WALL-E. That pretty much means that this dude is an accomplished filmmaker (even if his previous movies technically don’t take place in reality) and can definitely be trusted with material such as this.

   So why did this film flop? Well, apart from the title problem I’ve already addressed, I’d have to say that it’s also because this film is pretty esoteric for the most part. It’s based on an almost 100-year old series of sci-fi books, cost a good $275,000,000(!), and featured no massively major stars of any real sort. It was pretty much a gamble from the get-go. In fact, I’m not entirely sure how or why Disney even let this film get made, and why they gave it the budget they did. I mean, they must have believed in the subject matter if they were willing to drop THAT many millions of dollars on it, right? A film this epic and large-scale surely would have been a sure bet, right? Well……no. Quite simply, the lack of any kind of public interest is the main reason this movie flopped. But the movie itself does not suck, despite what some critics out there have said.

   Speaking of the movie, well, it’s about a guy named John Carter (played with Indiana Jones-esque fervor by Taylor Kitsch), a Civil War Confederate Army Captain who is accidentally transported to Mars (known as Barsoom to the locals) via a magic medallion belonging to a mysterious figure John ends up murdering in a cave. Due to the planet’s lower gravity and his different bone density, John Carter is something of a Superman on Barsoom, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound and knock the shit out of enemies with extra strength. He’s instantly picked up by some aliens known as Tharks, whose leader Tars Tarkas (motion-captured by Willem Dafoe) recognizes the power within this stranger. Before long, John Carter is wrapped up in an interplanetary conspiracy and war, and must fight to protect the residents of Barsoom from an otherwise unstoppable force.

johncarter

You know when something’s so adorable you just want to rub your face in its cuddle parts? ……This is not one of those occasions.

   It’s a wild setup, but then again, it’s a wild movie. John Carter simply looks fantastic, executed with a visual style that shouldn’t be too surprising once you realize an animated film director made the flick. The colors are vibrant, the locations are rich, and the special effects looks extremely realistic – you can see where that $275,000,000 of Walt’s money went. Elaborate set pieces and costume design really drive home the “epicness” of the project, as well as the somewhat overblown acting. If there’s one negative thing I should say about John Carter, it’s that the acting is just a liiiiittle bit subpar. Not so bad that it’s groan inducing, but you can definitely tell that working with real, live actors is something this animation guy Stanton will have to learn over time. As lavish and elaborate as the sets and special effects are, it tends to shine a bigger light on the somewhat mundane acting. The actors do their part, and it doesn’t necessarily bog the movie down, but you can feel the somewhat forced feel coming out of the performances on occasion. It’s a shame because the rest of the movie that surrounds them is really quite vivid and wonderful. Another slight complaint I have is that the ending feels a bit rushed and forced…I don’t want to give too much away, but the film’s ending suffers from the Super Mario Bros. Ending Syndrome…a setup for a sequel that just might never be.

    John Carter isn’t the game changer Disney was most likely hoping it to be. It won’t be making any huge appearances at Disneyland anytime soon. But, despite the fact the film probably came about 40 years too late, it really does a good job of being solidly entertaining, and for that I give it some credit. I’m actually pretty glad that it just exists and is now out on home video, where perhaps it will find a new life from people who missed it the first time around. It certainly deserves some kind of accolades, if only just for its production design and nothing more. But, I was very entertained while watching it, and even though I didn’t go very in depth with this review, I highly recommend it to anyone kind of on the fence about it. It’s worth your time, and maybe – just maybe – there will be another one with a better title coming out soon.

    Although I highly doubt it.

 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

   Well, that does it for my first review combo. Hopefully in the future I’ll be more consistent with my updates so I don’t have to punish myself with epic multi-reviews such as this one. But, keep checking back for new reviews, and happy viewing to you all!

REVIEW: SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE

SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE (2000)
Starring John Malkovich, Willem Dafoe, Udo Kier, Cary Ewles, Catherine McCormack & Eddie Izzard
Directed by E. Elias Merhige
Written by Steven Katz
Produced by Nicolas Cage & Jeff Levine
Cinematography by Lou Bogue
Music by Dan Jones
Edited by Royinba Onijala

Satisfying your need for bloodthirsty vampires and fabulous manicures all in one sitting!

   Sooooo it is the 31st of October, dear readers, and you know what that means – it’s time for me to kick this off by greeting you with a jubilant and somewhat obligatory “Happy Halloween!!!” Being that it’s the spookiest time of the year, I thought it would be fitting to do a review about one of my favorite movies of all time – a truly unique and expertly crafted horror film released in 2000 by the name of Shadow of the Vampire. Of course, I use the term “horror film” very loosely with this one, because it’s really more of a darker-than-coal black comedy. In fact, I would even go so far as to say this film establishes a very interesting and unique new type of genre:  gothic comedy. Because, while Shadow of the Vampire definitely sets a sublimely creepy/spooky tone and builds an atmosphere which compliments its subject matter perfectly, the movie excels in delivering ironic and well-thought out laughs which sink in deeper than the teeth of the titular vampire in question, daring to really get into the bloodstream of why vampires and cinema mix together so deliciously well. (Yeah, I really just went there. Deal with it.) Shadow of the Vampire is, in many respects, the most perfect vampire movie ever made – or certainly one of them, at least. And not only that, it’s also one of the best movies ever made about the act of filmmaking itself, and the trials, obsessions, and lengths a brilliantly mad artist will go to in order to truly manifest his exuberant vision for the world to behold and appreciate. And how can you not love that?

   Shadow of the Vampire is a movie about the making of another movie called Nosferatu. Unless you’re completely unfamiliar with the annals of film history, you’ll know that Nosferatu is a bonafide cinema classic, a legendary film which is considered to be one of the most powerfully influential and realistic German expressionist films ever made. Its director, F.W. Murnau – who was already considered to be a legend in his own time (that being the late 1910s/early ‘20s) – got around the troublesome minutiae of copyright infringement by simply changing the names of the characters in Bram Stoker’s Dracula story and naming his own film Nosferatu. The result was an unprecedented masterpiece, widely regarded as one of the first true horror films of the silent era, firmly cementing Murnau’s place in cinema history. But Shadow operates under one bizarre and extraordinarily juicy premise: what if not everything with the making of Nosferatu was exactly what it seemed? What if Murnau actually had the audacity to track down and hire an actual fucking vampire to portray the nightmarish vampire depicted in that 1922 masterpiece? It’s a weird premise for a movie to be sure, but one which was squeezed of every single last drop of dramatic excellence by its vastly gifted team of filmmakers and actors, and the results, my friends, are impeccable.

With fancy eyewear like that the results had damn well better be impeccable.

   The film opens with one of the most compelling, eerie, and strangely beautiful opening credits sequences I’ve ever seen. We’re treated to a series of slow tracking shots depicting abstract and surreal gothic artwork, set to a steadily rising and evocative piece of scoring which eventually crescendos into a blast of dramatic glory before it swiftly dwindles down again and we’re pulled slowly out of the nightmarish vortex of medieval-looking artwork and set gently back into the real world. It’s one of the most effective and exquisitely appropriate opening credit sequences I have ever witnessed, and it sets the tone of this strange, dark, and daringly beautiful film perfectly. Next, we find ourselves on a movie set in 1920’s Berlin, where we’re introduced to most of the principal cast and some characters are effectively built. The real-life filmmaker F.W. Murnau is portrayed with perfect obsessed brilliance by John Malkovich, who easily demonstrates why he gets nominated for Academy Awards and you do not. The guy is on another level in this flick, and his performance grounds the movie in some kind of absurd yet weirdly relatable context as we watch him portray a man willing to do anything to achieve his ideal vision for the perfect vampire film. It’s high caliber stuff, people.

   We see Murnau directing his female lead Greta Schröder (Catherine McCormack) in a minor scene involving her playing with a cat in a window, and we get a taste of her spoiled movie starlet attitude as she and Murnau trade subtle barbs. She’s quite displeased about having to act in front of a camera, and also at the fact she’ll have to leave Berlin to shoot on location in Heligoland. In fact, most of Murnau’s crew, including producer Albin Grau (Udo Kier), screenwriter Henrik Galeen (John Aden Gillet), and cinematographer Wolfgang Muller (Ronan Vibert) – all real-life people except for that last guy, I’m pretty sure – are confused as to why Murnau is choosing to leave the comfort of the studio to shoot at real locations. Albin tries to get Murnau to tell him some details about the mysterious actor who will be portraying the film’s titular character, but Murnau simply avoids answering him and leaves to do crazy German 1920’s drugs and do weird sex things at an endlessly peculiar club/brothel-type place. The crew is told by the other main actor in the film, Gustav (played with considerably dramatic chops and humorously arrogant gusto by standup comedian Eddie Izzard) that the mysterious actor’s name is Max Schreck, and that he already went to the location months ago to get a feel of the place. On top of that, Schreck will only be appearing onset in full makeup and completely in character as The Vampire, and the shooting of his scenes will only be done at night, in a somewhat overbearing form of method acting. Perplexed yet warily trustworthy of their director, the cast and crew set out for the location where they will finally meet the star of their movie.

He’s a charming, happy-go-lucky type of fellow, for certain.

   And what a star he is. Without a doubt, the vampire created in this film – referred to in the credits as “Max Schreck”, even though that’s definitely not his real name – is one of the finest depictions of a true-to-legend vampire in modern cinema. Once we get a glimpse of this living, breathing realization of an iconic screen villain in the “real world” of the film, it makes your hair stand up on the back of your neck…the dude really looks creepy! Willem Dafoe portrays the vampire portraying an actor portraying a vampire in a German silent film, and he singlehandedly gives one of the best performances of his – or anyone else’s, really – entire career. Dafoe exudes tormented brilliance as Schreck the vampire, putting an extra amount of effort and detail into every facial expression and jilted movement this centuries-old creature makes. To watch his character spar with Malkovich’s is truly the stuff of cinema gold; the two actors play off of each other with absolute perfection. I really can’t say enough good things about Dafoe’s performance – if I could compare it to another, more recent complete immersion into a character’s psyche by an actor, it would have to be Heath Ledger’s performance as the Joker in The Dark Knight. In fact, it might even be a little bit better than that already legendary performance. To see Dafoe twist himself into new shapes, emote with his gnarled vampire voice, and contort his face into hideous yet humorous expressions is to see the true embodiment of what it is to be a devoted actor: you forget you’re watching an actor in makeup. Quite frankly, this movie would completely fall apart without the right actor in the pivotal role of the Vampire, and Dafoe is the only actor in the world who could have done it. While Dafoe was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar in 2001, he unfortunately lost to Benicio del Toro in Traffic – not necessarily the worst call in the world, as Benicio is quite exceptional in that film, but it is a complete overlooking of the absolutely harrowing transformation Dafoe undergoes in this movie – no other actor could do what he did in this role, and I think he unquestionably deserved the Oscar that year. But, what can ya do?

   Anyway, back to the movie: after a transitional train sequence over which Malkovich gives one of the most powerful monologues I’ve ever heard regarding the power of motion pictures and their group’s place in it, the cast and crew arrive at their destination and begin noticing strange things right off the bat. It seems Murnau has brought along some bottles of actual blood, and Muller the cinematographer seems to be experiencing some type of strange sickness after their first night at the inn they’re staying and filming at. Despite the odd occurrences, the group begins shooting the following day, until a woman interrupts Murnau’s shot to admonish them for taking the crosses off the walls. “The crosses are NOT for decoration,” she warns gravely. Something is definitely a bit awry with these proceedings, and everyone except Murnau seems to acknowledge it.

You think you’d be entertained at least slightly after a night full of silly vampire antics…but judging from their faces, it’s not as fun as it might sound.

   Finally the night to shoot Schreck’s first scene comes, and Murnau has it all planned out: Gustav (in character) is walking into the shadows when suddenly, Count Orlock emerges from them, giving Gustav the convincing amount of shock and terror to translate perfectly onto the screen. Satisfied with the first take, Murnau calls it a night, much to his producer Albin’s dismay. “I would have gone anywhere at any time for that look on Gustav’s face,” Murnau professionally declares. Despite the brevity of the shoot, Muller again has another episode, falling to the floor and looking quite pale…almost like something is sucking the life force from him. Muller is rushed back to the inn to rest, and when he arrives the sight of him frightens the innkeeper lady from before, causing her to exclaim “Nosferatu!”and run away. Undeterred by the declining health of his photographer, Murnau continues shooting, with Schreck’s contract-reviewing scene with Gustav being the occasion when the entire crew finally gets a glimpse of this unconventional “actor”.  After a mishap and some confusion on the set due to Gustav actually cutting himself with a knife (at Murnau’s sly direction) and a generator blowing, Murnau finds Schreck biting the neck of Muller when the lights come on. Muller is taken away as Murnau chastises his star, telling him to stay behind. Not that Schreck minds; he seems to be in utter delight at his actions…and why shouldn’t he be? He just got to taste some sweet, fresh blood from some hapless victim, just like the good ol’ days.

   Shadow of the Vampire succeeds at blurring the line between fantasy and reality, bridging the gap between cinema and the macabre in a subtle and creative fashion. To see a real, live vampire (in the reality of the movie) trying to act alongside regular actors is not only highly unusual, it’s absolutely hilarious. Dafoe has the strange task of convincingly portraying an actual vampire who is terrible at acting, but is accepted as a talented actor by everyone else simply because he looks and behaves so damn convincing. It’s an awesome joke that only gets better as the movie goes along: there’s an absolutely great scene a little later in the film, after Murnau flies back to Berlin to find another cinematographer due to Muller being hospitalized and most likely killed because of Schreck’s vampire needs. Albin and Henrik are sitting around getting drunk in Murnau’s absence, and are unexpectedly joined by Schreck, who they still believe is just some crazy guy much too invested in his role. They jokingly and belittlingly begin asking him vampire questions, not expecting any real answers, but this real vampire begins providing them. He goes on at length about the novel Dracula’s inherent loneliness, expressing how absurd it is that Dracula would prepare food for his guest when he himself has not eaten food for centuries, how Dracula has to convince the man that “he is like the man.” While Albin and Henrik inquire as to how he became a vampire, Schreck pulls a bat from the air with cat-like agility and grotesquely sucks it dry in front of them, then proceeds to enlighten them on how being a centuries-old, undead, blood-sucking creature can really start to do a number on your memory. Schreck eventually stumbles away creepily, leaving Albin and Henrik to look at each other and come to the same conclusion: “What an actor.” Out of a large quantity of brilliantly written scenes in this film, this one probably takes the cake for its milking of the film’s premise for all its worth in a genius fashion.

Murnau learns quite quickly that you should never grip a vampire’s collar unless you mean some serious fucking business.

(I’m gonna stop summarizing the plot here, mainly because I don’t want to give away what else happens in the movie, but also because I just want to talk about other things now. If you don’t like it, then bite me like Orlock muthafuckaaaaaa!)

   Worth pointing out is composer Dan Jones’ quirky and evocative score, which is just as memorable and influential to the film’s feel as the characters themselves. The score really runs the horror gamut from creepy, unsettling background noise-type music, with barely audible low rumbles complimenting the film’s more intense scenes, to more melodic, jaunty tones achieved with woodwind instruments and lush string arrangements that really bring out the chilling edge to the scenes of the terror lying underneath. It’s a very appropriate score, and one that doesn’t just sound like your average movie music – an unfortunate precipice that many other film scores fall into. Another thing worth mentioning is the film’s commendable feat of recreating some of the iconic scenes from Nosferatu and showing them to us from a different perspective, namely, that of the filmmaker’s. This is probably obvious, but I should point out that anyone who is a fan of the original 1922 Nosferatu would be an absolute tool to miss out on this movie, and should probably get on seeing it ASAP if they haven’t already. Seeing the black-and-white recreations of the classic scenes from the movie is a really cool visual treat, and they’re pulled off quite proficiently.

   Possibly the one greatest thing about Shadow of the Vampire – as amazing as it is in its direction, makeup effects, performances, setting, cinematography, music, pretty much everything – the reason the movie is a triumph is because of its brilliant script. Screenwriter Steven Katz’s first script is unfathomably clever, self-knowing, and most importantly, entertaining. This movie is really an example of all the right people coming together to create something unique and special – a true filmmaking dream. The movie gets right into the nitty-gritty of what makes movies movies – the spectacle, the illusion of it all. Murnau has set up the illusion of an actor playing the part of a vampire with an actual vampire, to capture the illusion and put it up on the screen for people to see in reality – it’s all meta and self-referential, two things that I highly appreciate from my movies. As much credit as Steven Katz gets for scribing this polished gem, all hats go off to E. Elias Merhige for keeping all the components together and making one of the most smartly directed films I’ve ever seen. Every nuance, every line in every scene has an extra added weight, and the tone is kept remarkably grim – you really get a feel for what the characters are going through, and what their intentions are.

   Having just said that, I want to talk about the only real plot hole I’ve found in the movie. (Yeah, I like contradicting myself. What of it?!) It might be something implied within the context of the movie, I’m not really sure…I just want to elaborate on it a bit. Having watched this movie a few times, I am still not quite sure as to why Muller never just said he was being attacked by a vampire, and that the very same “actor” they’ve been filming was the one doing the attacking. It would have hurt the plot if he did, obviously, but that’s the very line of thinking where plot holes are born from. Maybe Muller isn’t the kind of guy to make waves even when something dreadful is happening to him? Maybe he didn’t think anyone would believe him if he did try to say something? Or maybe – and this is my most prevalent theory as to what might be the case – Murnau and him have some kind of weird past, one that allows Murnau to have some sort of mental control over him. Not in a psychic way or anything, but in this weird, sexual, dominating way. It’s heavily implied throughout the movie that Murnau is into weird freaky sex shit, probably of a violent nature, and at the beginning of the film there’s a scene in which the crew ponders where Murnau could be running off to after shooting is done. Henrik suggests “perhaps he has a woman?” and Muller chimes in with “Or a man.” The fact Muller says that, and some other VERY subtle evidence given through Malkovich’s performance when Muller starts getting sick, suggests to me that there’s some sort of weird, unspoken tryst between these two men that prevents Muller from telling everyone what’s really happening. The point I’m making here is, it’s never directly explained why Muller doesn’t say anything about being attacked by a fucking vampire. It is something that bothers me about the movie, and the only real “flaw” I can find with it in terms of plot progression. In the long run it doesn’t really matter, and it’s doesn’t detract from the movie necessarily, but it’s still something that puzzles me, and something I wish was more directly examined in the film. Because other than that, it’s pretty damn near flawless.

Ya gotta admit, despite the everlasting centuries of eternal pain, torment and unquenchable bloodlust, sometimes bein’ a vampire has its perks.

   Shadow of the Vampire excels as a dark yet humorous examination of the power of cinema, the mystique of illusion, and the very unstable line between what is fantasy and what is reality. Although a complete work of fiction, the movie treats its story as if it is completely genuine, taking its subject matter deadly serious. Perhaps more than any other vampire movie I’ve seen, other than Let the Right One In, it examines with an un-romanticized eye the brutal realities of what being a vampire would be like. The cold, insufferable loneliness, the bane of being shunned for centuries, the sense of longing and tragic desire within a heart that lusts for blood…never before have I seen a vampire character so depressingly pathetic yet entirely engaging. Again, it’s a testament to Willem Dafoe’s acting abilities than he was even able to pull this hideous creature off, and actually make him pretty damn likeable along the way. The movie really brings into question as to who is really the bigger monster: the vampire hired by the director, or the director Murnau himself, a man who will do anything in his power to execute his obsessive vision – no matter who or what must be sacrificed. In the end it produces cinematic gold and inspires millions of people all over the world for generations, but is that end really worth the means? It’s a question Shadow of the Vampire brings into question but sneakily refuses to answer, leaving you to ponder the ramifications of such notions long after the credits have rolled. It’s a haunting film that leaves a lasting impression on your psyche: even if you absolutely hate Shadow of the Vampire, it’s undeniable that you will not be able to forget it for a long, long time.

   So final thoughts? I highly, HIGHLY recommend checking out Shadow of the Vampire in some way before you pass into the next realm. It’s a movie that challenges perceptions and calls into question why we even love movies in the first place, and thrillingly exhibits those very reasons with utmost practicality and professionalism. It’s simply a well-made, well thought-out film that lingers with you after you see it. Not only that, but it’s PERFECT for the Halloween season, and will more than likely imbue your evening with that appropriate blend of fun and spookiness that accompanies the holiday. Do yourself a favor and check it out! And remember – this is what REAL vampire movies are supposed to be like.

   Aaaaaand, just for good measure, here’s what they’re NOT supposed to be like:

It’s like someone barfed out some Count Chocula mixed with Lucky Charms onto a piece of paper and decided to sell it to excitable 12-year-old girls….

REVIEW: LOOPER

LOOPER (2012)
Starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt, Jeff Daniels, Noah Segan & Paul Dano
Directed by Rian Johnson
Written by Rian Johnson
Produced by Ram Bergman & James D. Stern
Cinematography by Steve Yedlin
Music by Nathan Johnson
Edited by Bob Ducsay

That’s one of the shittiest playing cards I’ve ever seen.

   I just need to take this opportunity to express how thankful I am for the talented filmmakers. There are a million movie directors out there, and many of them succeed or fail at executing their craft in varying degrees of talent or ineptitude.  And lately, it seems like there’s been a slew of unoriginal and uninspired movies coming out…don’t get me wrong, 2012 has actually been a pretty good year for movies, despite some of the horrible crap we’ve already seen thus far…and it’s a hell of a lot better than 2011 was, I can tell you that. But what I’m saying here is, sometimes there are filmmakers whom you know you can rely on. There’s nothing better than going to see a movie from a particular filmmaker whom you already respect and admire and having your already high expectations completely skyrocketed to the next level. True filmmakers like this are few and far between.

   Rian Johnson is one of those filmmakers. Although his career has only started fairly recently, Johnson has already set a respectfully high standard of quality for himself at this point in his limited filmography. His debut movie, 2005’s indie film-noir high school murder mystery Brick, received widespread critical acclaim for its unique vision and execution, and pretty clever screenplay. In fact, I’m pretty certain that it’s one of my personal favorite movies, if not my #1. (It varies, but usually it’s up there.) Brick was such a memorable and original film, lifting the character archetypes from a Dashell Hammet pulp novel and dropping them into an average high school setting – a truly unusual idea, but one that Johnson pulled off to a T. Brick succeeds as a motion picture, and honestly, I find it to be one of the strongest and most surprising debut films ever made. Strong performances, strong storytelling, strong characterization and a great visual look…it just knocked it out of the park. His next film The Brothers Bloom in 2009 wasn’t as well received by critics, and was kind of looked over by audiences…to be quite honest, I haven’t even seen this film yet, despite the loving praise I just heaped upon its director. (Although I certainly plan to see it!) But Brick still rules, and once I heard about Rian Johnson’s next project, a sci-fi time travel film by the name of Looper, I knew for sure that we were in for a treat.

Physics be damned.

   And what a treat it is: Looper is an absolute thrill, a truly exciting and thought-provoking time-bender of a chase story that certainly lives up to any high expectation you could throw at it and then some. It has so much energy, a unique visual edge, and such thoroughly creative ideas that you can’t help but smile while watching it unfold before you. I can certainly say it’s one of the most appealing movies that’s come out this year, and most definitely my favorite movie that’s been released in 2012 so far. It’s a movie one can really wrap the mind around, exploring all of its meanings and implications on an intimate and self-aware level. I just love seeing a movie that is aware of its universe, of its logic and rules, and illustrates how those rules can be bent in different ways. This is a movie that illustrates why going to the movies is fun, and as we all know, THOSE are the best kind.

   Looper is a film about a mob hitman named Joe (masterfully pulled off by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, in face-altering makeup and doing a pretty good young Bruce Willis impression) who specializes in a special kind of target: those sent from the future to be executed in the past…or rather, the present. The film takes place in OUR future of 2044, where Joe regularly deads victims of the mob sent back in time for these hitmen – known as “loopers” – to dispatch of in the past. You see, in 2074 when time travel is a reality and thus severely outlawed, getting rid of bodies is not as easy due to the technological advancements of the time. Therefore, the crimelords of the future send their “waste” back into the past, where all trace of it can be literally wiped out of existence. Seriously, HOW COOL IS THAT?! Typing that sentence ALONE was a shitload of fun, and the film delivers on all the dramatic possibilities of its premise. Joe lives a pretty lavish lifestyle, getting paid extremely exorbitant amounts of silver that are strapped to the backs of each of his kills. He goes to clubs, he does drugs, he has sex with strippers…he’s pretty much livin’ the contract killer high life.

   So where’s the drama? It turns out that the mob bosses of the future have only one loose end to tie up: the loopers themselves, once they reach their would-be retirement years. In order to do away with any ties they might have to illicit time travel and über low-maintenance body disposal, the mob bosses pull a sort of dirty trick on the loopers: at some point, when it’s decided that an old ex-looper has to go, the mob bosses capture and send back that particular looper’s future self, thereby ridding any trace of affiliation with said looper from the future by ensuring a bizarre form of forced suicide in the past. After this, the looper in question is relieved of duty and allowed to live the rest of his life in complete luxurious freedom until the time comes when the mob decides to send him back to time to his own self-inflicted death. This is called “closing the loop.” It’s a pretty shitty deal, but it’s just part of what comes with the job – a job which provides a near limitless lifestyle with as much capital needed to ensure a stable and comfy existence…you know, aside from all the killing. What’s more, this process of closing the loop has started to become more and more frequent – Joe is seen “celebrating” a friend’s loop closing at a progressively frequent rate. Rumor has it this is because of a new crimelord running things in the future – a man known as The Rainmaker.

Bruce’s kung fu is coming together nicely, but something still has to be done about that scared shitless face he consistently makes.

   See what I’m saying? The creative standard of these ideas alone are simply through the roof! Rian Johnson’s carefully plotted script is definitely the result of some homework – even just time travel movie viewing type of homework. I’m sure Rian Johnson studied time travel of course, but the influence of many time travel movies are definitely laced throughout this film. I’ll talk a little more about that later, but for now, on with plot!

   One night a looper friend of Joe’s named Seth (played with at zany, nerdy punching bag, Paul Dano-esque gusto by Paul Dano) arrives at his apartment in a worried frenzy. It seems that Seth’s had come to close his loop earlier in the day, but he couldn’t bring himself to do it and let his older self escape. I think it should go without saying that this is BAD – Lord knows what kind of universe-bending shitstorms the timeline would get into if you let a person who isn’t supposed to be there running around affecting things. Having made the biggest mistake a looper can make, and with his life on the line (in two senses), Seth seeks shelter in Joe’s apartment [oh man……….I can’t believe that actually just came to be due to circumstance]. Joe hides his buddy just as the syndicate thugs arrive there, and he gets taken into the office of his boss, Abe. Jeff Daniels fills this role, and he plays it with such a laid-back yet authoritative and assured styling that you can’t help but like the guy, even though he’s trying to kill our protagonist’s best friend. Abe is from the future himself, and acts as the mob’s representative in the past. He manages to coax Joe into giving up Seth’s location, and we are shown the grim consequences for looper who gets captured when he lets his own future self escape. There’s no way I’m gonna spoil what it is, but I will just say that is has to be seen to be believed.

Joe sees his favorite spot on the ceiling to point at and, sure enough, acts accordingly.

   Guilt-ridden yet steadfast, Joe goes back to work. One day he’s waiting for a target to arrive so he can blast it, when suddenly, POOF – a man appears, but he’s not wearing the trademark bag over the head. Joe can see who it is perfectly – it’s HIM, 30 years older. His loop has come back! And his loop is played by none other than Bruce Willis, action star extraordinaire, showing everyone that there is a reason he is revered as the badass he truly is. No sooner than 10 seconds after appearing onscreen do we see him pulling badass moves, escaping from his death as his younger self tries to kill him, and tearing out into town to achieve some unknown end. Now Young Joe is marked for apprehension at the hands of his employers and he is set out on the run in the attempt to avoid his would-be captors and hunt down his future self and kill him.

   I’m going to end my plot summary here at the juicy part, because there is NO WAY I’m going to spoil what happens next. I feel I’ve already said too much, quite frankly, but this set up is only part of the entire story. Looper is able to weave a compelling and entertaining tale using all the little threads at its disposal, and it is truly a memorable experience. It’s paced incredibly well, giving us spurts of genuinely thrilling action as well as softer moments for balance, plus throwing in the occasional mix of humor to make the twisty sci-fi elements feel much more human. I want to give a hat’s off to the entire cast of this movie, since everybody pretty much kills it in their performances. Rian Johnson definitely knew what he was doing when he cast his previous Brick star as the lead in this movie. Joe Gord-Lev has quickly become one of the best actors working today, and is currently experiencing a stratospheric rise in his star power. He gives a cold-hearted yet charismatic sheen to Joe, getting us to like him even though he’s kind of a bastard who kills people for money. Then there’s Bruce Willis, looking far more badass here than he does in that friggin’ Expendables 2 movie by playing a time-hopping future version of our protagonist who’s intent to change some future shit for the better…no matter what the cost. Watching these two actors interact with each other – as different versions of the same character – is an absolute blast, and they nail it in terms of performance. I also want to mention Jeff Daniels as Abe, Joe’s boss from the future: Daniels totally grounds and humanizes this character, making him one of the most interesting antagonistic characters I’ve seen in a while. He’s just a guy doin’ his job, pretty much – the way Daniels fills the role with this lazy sternness on a guy from the future packs a few layers into every scene he’s in.   I don’t want to give away too much, but there are a couple other things worth mentioning: Emily Blunt makes a pretty strong appearance as a farm-owning mother to a child in danger, and her plotline kicks in during the 2nd half of the movie. Her and her child play a very important role in the film that I won’t delve into, but they both deliver killer performances that drive home the themes of the movie solidly.

T’aint wise to mess with a momma witta shottie.

   There are a lot of cool sequences in Looper. It’s the kind of movie that you can get wrapped up in and excited about, the kind of movie that gets you talking about it as you leave the theater and thinking about it on the drive home. Things flow into each other naturally, and circumstances play out in a matter we can easily follow – I hate to bring this up again (kind of), but in comparison to a movie like The Dark Knight Rises, which had a million things going on that didn’t really tie together into a cohesive story, Looper shows what it is to tell a deft yet complex story in a manner that doesn’t leave the audience struggling to keep up. It’s high praise, because there’s a lot of information being doled out for us to be aware of. Another thing worth mentioning is that the movie is surprisingly brutal too – fans of gory action will be pleased with Looper. Not to say that it’s a blood ‘n’ guts fest – cause it’s not – but there are moments where you can see how well the squib guy on the movie got paid. It serves to add to the intensity of the already brutal chase scenes the movie features, some of which are unlike anything you’ve ever seen in other movies.

   So here’s the thing: we’ve all seen a jillion time travel movies before. Let’s face it, it’s been DONE.  But Looper is a smart enough movie – and Johnson is a smart enough filmmaker – to understand, and even reference this fact in the movie. The movie kind of steers clear of any real logical debate on the logistics of the time and memory consistencies being altered, and for good reason. There’s a great scene in the first half of the flick when Young Joe first meets face-to-face with Old Joe in a diner to discuss the state of their…uh, “lives”, and why all this is happening. Young Joe starts asking logic-testing time travel questions and an annoyed Old Joe shouts in frustration, “I don’t want to talk about time travel SHIT!” It’s a hilariously self-referential yet totally believable exclamation delivered perfectly by Willis, and it drives a solid point home. The point is, Looper is smart enough to know that it’s the time travel itself, not the logistical details of the time travel, that make the idea fun. The focus is set very heavily on story, and character, with the complicated scientific logic/laws of physics aspect of it largely remaining secondary. There have been enough time travel movie elements that have seeped into the public consciousness so much by now that we as an audience can pretty much put the logical pieces together ourselves – Looper is a classy enough movie to take this into consideration, rather than feeling the need to have everything explained to you all the damn time. Plus, there are references to past time travel classics sprinkled throughout the film – the most obvious one to me being Old Joe’s knack of looking at a picture of his murdered wife to keep his mind focused on his goal, similar to how Marty McFly had a picture of his siblings in Back to the Future which he checked frequently to remind us all what the stakes were. It’s a stylistic choice of Johnson’s to have a time travel movie that doesn’t primarily focus on the time travel itself – it’s a story element to the max, but the movie is about these people in this particular situation, and that is why the movie works.

You can tell that Heat is his….or, uh, is it “their”?….favorite movie.

   The blood of every great time travel movie is oozing throughout Looper. It’s a movie that neatly trims the best attributes of these time travel classics from their source and blends them together into something that feels fresh and genuinely exciting. It’s one of the best post-Matrix action movies I’ve ever seen, one that infuses similarly heady notions into a smartly paced, well-thought out action thriller.  It brings into question the idea of self, the way our choices and decisions affect our own timelines, and the repercussions of drastic actions on the way things turn out. Basically, it’s a smart movie that knows how to get around its own cleverness and provide something truly entertaining. I really love movies like that, and Rian Johnson is the kind of filmmaker who delivers movies like that. I highly recommend Looper to anyone interested in checking out what a truly compelling and expressive movie looks like. After a summer chock full of mindless and pandering drek (Battleship, anyone?) it’s certainly a breath of fresh air to see a movie that both takes its subject matter seriously and respects its audience enough to tell an engaging story while delivering the emotional goods. And I really can’t say enough good things about it because of that. All that’s really left for me to say is….GO SEE IT!

REVIEW: BRANDED

BRANDED (2012)
Starring Ed Stoppard, Jeffrey Tambor, Max von Sydow & Leelee Sobieski
Directed by Jamie Bradshaw & Alexsandr Dulerayn
Written by Jamie Bradshaw & Alexsandr Dulerayn
Produced by Jamie Bradshaw & Alexsandr Dulerayn
Cinematography by Rogier Stoffers
Music by Edward Artemyev
Edited by Michael Blackburn

And you thought being a marketing executive would be a nice little boring desk job, didn’t you? Bet you didn’t even know the gun and axe are standard issue, punk.

   In all honesty, I didn’t even know this movie existed until about 5 days before it was released. It’s actually kind of strange, because it seems to have literally come out of nowhere. I’m usually very good at keeping up with what coming attractions are gonna be popping up within the upcoming months, and I go to movie sites and read about movies all the damn time…so I’m not really sure how or why this movie seemed to slip past my radar. ESPECIALLY since the premise of this movie is not only incredibly topical in this modern day world of corporate economics, but incredibly ridiculous and outlandish as well. It’s not even being advertised extremely well…I mean, I saw a commercial for it on TV which made me aware of its existence, but it’s definitely not in the mass public consciousness regarding films. As of this writing (the day it was released), it doesn’t even have any ratings at all over at rottentomatoes.com. So what the fuck is the deal? What the hell is the story with this movie?

  That, my friends, is what I’m here to try and clear up. For when I first saw the TV commercial for the movie Branded, I was not quite sure what to make of it. At first, I thought it was a regular commercial done up in a mock-movie trailer style, and it was about to sell me some stupid product. But as I kept watching I was shocked to see established actors and VERY strange footage, coupled with equally strange dialogue about corporate brands being alive. I kept asking my friends I was with – “IS THIS MOVIE REAL?!” Because ladies and gentlemen, the premise of this film is that a corporate conspiracy is actively participating in some kind of scheme involving living, conscious, largely invisible  life-sucking creatures that live in the brands of the biggest, most successful corporations. I was absolutely stunned at the footage – and not necessarily in a good way. I just couldnt’t believe that this is an actual fuckin’ movie!

Seriously, I can’t believe this is an actual fuckin’ movie.

   However, I have to say, I was genuinely intrigued. The footage from the film looked absolutely ridiculous, and unlike anything I had ever seen before. I found the premise, and its thinly-veiled parody on corporate excess, to be flimsy at best, but it was still at least interesting. It’s an original idea at least, and in a market such as today’s, where anything that has been in the public consciousness at some point before can and will be exploited for a quick buck, an original idea is HIGHLY appreciated. So, I made the decision to see this strange, out-of-the-blue film I had never heard of before. And the results are, eh…..a bit underwhelming.

   So, before I get a little deeper, I just want to emphasize that I figured this movie would probably be a little bit less than wonderful. To me it was worth the price of admission alone just to see how anyone could even try pull off such a wacky, perplexingly absurd idea in a coherent and cinematically pleasing way. Did they achieve it? Well…….not really. In all honesty, Branded is a pretty forgettable film all around. But it’s not for a lack of trying! There are some genuinely interesting ideas in this movie, and a couple cool moments that I’ve definitely never seen in a movie before. But, unfortunately, the overbearing flaws in the script and the on-again/off-again performances from all of the actors involved makes Branded a pretty trite and confused experience. Not confusing, in that it’s hard to follow what’s going on, but confused in that the movie just doesn’t seem to know how to stick all its contorted notions together and ends up seeming boneheaded because of it. It’s a prime example of a movie simply overstating its case to a point of unfortunate detriment.

   So this trippy-ass flick starts out in Russia in the early 1980’s. A little kid is lying on his back looking up at the night sky, and for a moment he seems to catch a glimpse of a moving cow head constellation in the night sky when his number is called for….something. Maybe I’m a little behind in my Russia history lessons, so I’m gonna give this scene the benefit of the doubt, but for some reason there’s a whole bunch of people standing in line for something and somebody calling out numbers. I’m sure there’s some factual reason for this, but I don’t know what it is and the movie just doesn’t clarify it for us in the slightest. The boy hears his number, and comes running up the line to claim…something…when suddenly, HE GETS STRUCK BY FRIGGIN’ LIGHTNING!!!! But, it seems in Moscow in the early 1980’s people get struck by lightning with relatively abundant frequency since NOBODY even flinches or acts surprised when the kid gets struck down! A few people do crowd around, and one woman goes over to check on the boy, who is frazzled but otherwise unharmed. She asks the boy if he’s alright, and when he replies she tells him that he is “going to have a very strange life.” BOY, YOU SAID IT LADY! That’s when the title of the film pops up and I guess our story is underway.

Ed Stoppard ponders if it really is all about the burger.

   Soooo, this opening scene already has problems out the ass. Why are all these people waiting in line, and why are numbers being called off for something? Like I said, I’m sure there’s some legitimate reason, but the fact is it’s never made clear why. It doesn’t really matter cuz it doesn’t have any bearing on the rest of the plot whatsoever, but I still don’t like it when events aren’t explained to us – especially when it’s at the beginning of a film, and the main character is actively participating in said events. The little boy is excited and obviously intent on getting whatever his number has been called for, so it DOES have bearing on the scene…anyway, he inexplicably gets struck by lightning, and seriously, NO ONE REACTS! It’s pretty mind-boggling, actually…again, this is nitpicky territory, but c’mon, everything that happens in the frame is important when you’re making a movie. If you don’t have people react to something as intense as witnessing someone getting struck by lightning, it just seems jarring and unrealistic! This is ESPECIALLY bad at the very beginning of a movie, when everything is being set up and the audience is getting a feel for what the rest of the movie’s gonna be like.

   But it seems that weird, unemotional and unresponsive people really is what the movie’s about, so I guess it makes a little sense in that regard. Seriously, the characters in this movie are appallingly bland, and their reactions and choices throughout the movie are downright befuddling! I’ll get into it more in a little bit, but watching the normally great Max von Sydow cliché his way through an establishing board meeting scene and the tepid responses from other people in it really sets an awkward tone for the movie. Max von Sydow plays a sort of corporate head honcho, this dude who is calling all the shots of the plot. Pretty much instantly we’re told what the big plan is: to make sales better for fast food companies, the powers that be are going to orchestrate the public re-acceptance of being fat. That’s right, the plot of the first half of this movie is making the public think that being fat is cool, so that everyone will go to fast food chains more and fill their guts up. How will they accomplish this, you ask? Through incredibly contrived and conspiratorial actions, that’s how! This is where our protagonist comes into play: Misha Galkin, portrayed by Ed Stoppard, is that lightning-struck little boy all grown up and now a very talented marketing executive. Misha has just won a high-profile marketing award, which is jointly accepted by his boss Bob Gibbons (portrayed surprisingly hollowly by Jeffrey Tambor…I don’t really blame him though, his whole character is pretty damn hollow), and because of this, he lands a great gig producing a new reality show in the style of Extreme Makeover. Along for the ride on this show is Abby, the bangin’ American neice of Bob Gibbons played by Leelee Sobieski. Abby and Misha strike up a close friendship which quickly grows into a full-blown relationship, and Misha’s boss Bob ain’t too happy about it. In one of the film’s funnier yet highly inexplicable scenes, Misha and Abby are gettin’ down and dirty in the middle of stagnant traffic. We cut to the interior of Bob’s car, also stuck in traffic, as he makes a phone call to Misha. Too busy with sex to answer, Misha ignores the call, and then Bob feels the need to roll down his window to find….you guessed it!…Misha and Abby having sex in the very car next to him.  Hilarity then ensues, and it is a pretty humorous scene, but it’s one of the many moments in the film that just feels a bit lazy and a little rushed. Seriously, he’s sitting in the car next to them? Don’t get me wrong, while it’s a perfectly plausible scenario, I just find it to be a little convenient and squeezed in…like they needed Tambor’s character to find out what was going on, so they conjured up this entirely circumstantial traffic encounter. It doesn’t feel clever to me, it just feels a bit…lazy.

One way to motivate yourself at work is to hang a bunch of fake & terrible corporation names behind your desk. The desire to not suck so hard increases your output nearly 80%!

   Anyway, on to conspiracies and whatnot. So the idea of this Extreme Makeover-ish show is to take a fat person and surgically “fix” them to become a skinny person. Misha and his team go through the process of picking the perfect, most loveable fatty woman to play guinea pig for the entertainment of millions. How does this play into Max von Sydow’s brilliant scheme of convincing everyone to become fatasses? Reverse psychology, my friends – the show becomes an instant hit, and all of Moscow loves the fat woman (whose name I can’t recall) who will soon be lipo’d. But, the day of her surgery comes, and after it’s complete, Newly-Skinny Woman doesn’t wake up – she’s in a coma. The public, outraged by this turn of events, turns on the network executives who put her in her unfortunate position, demanding that those responsible be brought to justice…leading to the arrests of both Misha and Abby.

   You noticing anything strange about plot here? Mainly, how it’s all completely circumstantial and blatantly manufactured to get to the next plot point? Now seriously, I know the whole point of this movie is to emphasize the effect marketing and advertising has on public consciousness, but do they really want us to suspend disbelief enough to accept that people in the public would be this stupid? I know that’s kind of an iffy question, since this shit does happen in real life, but C’MON! Everything is hinged on the public accepting this shitty reality show that Misha is the producer of – what if nobody fuckin’ liked it? And then people get morally outraged when the star goes into a coma – something that is ostensibly beyond anyone’s real control? It’s kind of ridiculous to think that the public would be so outraged and willing to say things like “what was wrong with her in the first place?” (something actually said in the movie) when they were the very ones supporting her body-altering surgeries by loving the show so damn much. That’s the one thing that really bugs me about this movie – the public are portrayed as complete morons, incapable of one critical thought of any kind. Now, again, I know some of you reading this may find that this idea hits pretty close to home in the world, but the way this movie portrays people makes it feel like some cold, barely relatable universe. Public opinion is swayed on a whim simply to benefit the story – things keep happening, and the public just goes along with it, because if they didn’t, there wouldn’t be any damn plot. This isn’t considered to be great writing – things move along simply to serve the plot, rather than serving the characters.

   And wow, the CHARACTERS – here’s another sore point in the movie. This is purely a plot-driven movie, not a character-driven one. Sometimes, when done correctly, this is a good thing, but this movie tries to make us feel like it’s a movie about people when really it’s a movie about ideas with a plot there to tie them all together. Every character in this movie is pretty flat and one-dimensional, simply there to do their part in the story rather than being fleshed out as real-feeling human beings. It’s definitely a big detracting factor in a film that is hypothetically about real-world scenarios and situations…or at least, trying to comment on real world scenarios and situations. You see, it’s much easier and effective to get these anti-corporate ideals across when the people being affected by what’s going on feel like real people, but we’re forced to endure this sort of distant-feeling universe full of raving idiots. Seriously, the only thing more unbelievable than this convoluted scheme is the fact that it actually works.

   So Misha is released from jail because it’s determined by the media that being induced into a coma has nothing to do with the people who put on the show (no fuckin’ shit) and he confronts Bob in his office. Bob tells him that the only reason he’s out of prison is because it was the only way he could get his niece to leave peacefully. Then for some reason they go to a bar or something and have drinks, and Misha tells Bob he’s out of the ad game. Then Bob has a heart attack or some kind of shit, and drops dead on the ground. Ummm…okay? Now that that character has been effectively written out of the story we can focus on Misha, who evacuates the increasingly fat-obsessed populace of Moscow to be a cow herder in the countryside (no, really). Abby tracks him down and tries to get him to come back, but he’s not having any of it, convinced his “talent for marketing” is nothing but evil. She leaves, but not before Misha has a dream-within-a-dream which tells him to carry out some act we slowly begin to see. This would probably be a good time to mention the Narrator, who is voiced by some robotic-sounding woman and who tells us all kinds of information as we see it happening onscreen. Seriously, there’s nothing I hate more in a movie than a useless narrator, and this one definitely qualifies. Why don’t you just TELL us the entire movie while it’s happening? Yeah, that’ll make us care more about this illogical plot.

Max von Sydow toasts to the 1-2 days he worked on this flick and the nice paycheck he’ll be receiving later in the week. The man’s a professional after all, people.

   So Misha builds this sacrificial pyre and somehow turns a cow red through voodoo magic or something, then brutally murders it with an axe before setting the entire pyre on fire and mixing the ashes in a jug of water to pour upon his naked body. I shit you not, this is what he actually does in the movie. Then he passes out in the field, and suddenly he wakes up in the back of Abby’s car…apparently, she “couldn’t leave him out there”, so she went and found his naked body in a field, picked him up and drove him back to Moscow so the plot could move forward. BUT! Something is not right upon this return to Moscow…apart from the fact that everybody is fat and every advertisement exclusively features fat people, Misha can now see hideous and amorphous creatures attached to everybody. What’s more, these strange creatures sit atop the headquarters of massive corporations, and seem to live off the life energy that people give by purchasing fast food and other manufactured goods.

   So NOW, about an hour into this thing, we’ve finally arrived at the selling point for the whole flick – brands are actually monsters themselves, and are involved in some kind of strange symbiotic relationship with all of mankind. And who’s the only one who can do anything about it?!…well it’s Misha, because he’s apparently the only one who can see them. Indeed, no one else can see or hear these creatures who are living off of them. Misha tries to tell Abby, but she of course doesn’t believe him. She’s also busy introducing Misha to his…SON?! Yeah so apparently Misha has a son that’s never met named Robert, and he’s a spoiled little fat kid with no manners. Robert tells his newfound daddy that he doesn’t like him in what may be one of the most rushed and awkward-feeling father-son meetings in cinematic history. They kind of just look at each other, acknowledge their existences, and then get on with things. This movie’s TOO BUSY for things like character development or meaningful connections!

That burger monster sure knows how to make a meaningful connection, YA KNOW WHAT I MEAN? Ahahahaha! Oh man, I kill me.

   So Misha tries to live life normally, pretending that these creatures don’t exist, but he finds it impossible. He repeatedly tries to tell Abby that the creatures are real and they’re part of some huge conspiracy to make people fat and stuff, but she’s not really feeling it. She asks him what he’s gonna do about it, and after a very awkward scene that ends with Misha pushing Abby over in the street because he was trying to shoo a creature attached to her, she takes Little Boy Plot Point and ditches Misha. That’s pretty cold, lady. So it’s at this point that Misha joins forces with an Asian health food company and begins to enact a conspiracy of his own to do away with these evil companies and their literally life-sucking forces.

   I’m not gonna ruin how it ends, but at this point you’ve already decided if this movie’s for you, I think. Frankly, this flick is a big damn mess. While the plot does chug along at a relatively brisk pace, we’re constantly being thrust ahead into the next plot point to further the action. There’s very little explanation for things, and we’re expected to take a lot of stuff for granted as the plot keeps throwing ideas at us. It’s kind of like The Dark Knight Rises if everything sucked a whole lot more. And what’s more, the characters’ choices and actions are pretty mind-boggling at some points. This is mainly because the characters aren’t there to serve any real purpose, they exist to further the ideas the plot is trying to convey. And while there are certainly many cool ideas in this movie, the script doesn’t do a very good job of keeping them all together.

   All right, so I’m going to talk about the only big selling point this movie has, and that’s the brand-name hidden monsters floating around everywhere. Quite frankly, apart from being a visual metaphor and a pretty cool looking special effect, I have no idea what purpose they serve in the story. It’s established that these monsters are living off the energy provided by people consuming the goods these companies sell, but literally the only person we’re shown to even be aware of it is Misha! It’s never mentioned or even remotely addressed what role the creatures play in the plans of the corporations – or if the corporations are even aware of their existence. We never learn WHERE they came from, WHY they’re doing this, or WHO even benefits from their existence. So this logically could mean that Misha is just hallucinating, or making it all up in his head, right? Well, I have a tough time buying that because there seems to be this whole divine intervention theme going on throughout the entire movie – Misha is struck by lightning at the very beginning of the movie. He has a dream that tells him to sacrifice a red cow, and after said ritual, he’s able to see these terrible creatures. And THEN there’s a scene Misha even looks up the “Red Cow Ritual” online, where he finds all kinds of information about this seemingly ancient ritual which cleanses the spirit of the Sin of the Golden Calf, meaning that the person carrying out the ritual can see things other people cannot. Judging by the scene alone there’s all kinds of information documenting this ritual, which means that other people on the planet should be aware of these monsters in SOME form, right? Well, maybe – again, Misha is the only one who is shown to know of the monsters in any way. So, what purpose do the monsters serve in the grand scheme of everything? WHY are they even there?!?!

The towering pillar of invisible ooze-beast wants to pilfer your capital gains. And EAT YOUR BRAIN.

   I’m pointing this out because this whole idea of brands being alive – which is a genuinely interesting idea that separates this movie from any other and is the primary focus of the ad campaign – is a pretty inconsequential addition to the film overall. The big conspirators, the corporations behind all the bad shit in the movie…they don’t even seem to be AWARE of these creatures’ existences! So that begs the question, WHERE did these monsters COME from?! What came first, the monster or the corporation? Now, I’ll tell you what I expected going into the movie – I expected Max von Sydow to be the top conspirator dude running everything (which he was) and that at the end of the movie Misha, after working his way up the ranks, would finally confront him and learn the truth about these unusual beasts. Instead, von Sydow’s character inexplicably disappears from the film about 20 minutes before it ends in one of the strangest scenes I’ve seen in a long time and we’re left to just ponder what the hell the monsters are doing there. Are they real? Are they a hallucination? Quite frankly, I don’t think the filmmakers even thought about it that much. I don’t think it’s supposed to be left open-ended for audience interpretation or whatever, I just think that shit wasn’t properly explained. There are a couple redeeming factors here and there that tie the creatures to the plot a bit more substantially – at one point, Misha is able to create a new monster that flies out and kills another corporation monster, specifically of a chain called “The Burger”. This drives the stocks of “The Burger” down and eventually they go bankrupt. So…I guess if you kill the monster, that frees people from their desire to consume at its corporation, therefore leading to shitty sales and bankruptcy? Or maybe the monsters themselves are linked to the stocks somehow…? You see, things just happen in this movie but they’re never properly explained…how the fuck are we supposed to know what purpose these creatures serve if nobody ever tells us?

   And hey, speaking of the actual brands in the movie, let’s talk about that shit for a second. One important thing to note is that no real-world companies have lent their names to this flick…and I really don’t blame them in the slightest. I mean, it’s a movie about giant corporate monsters sucking the life force out of people’s skulls, I really don’t think any company would want to be associated with that. So because of this hangup, the filmmakers are forced to come up with hilariously sub-par impersonations of name brands we know and love – “Apple” becomes “Yepple”, every burger joint ever gets condensed into “The Burger” (gee, what a creative name), there’s “Soda Soda” which is obviously modeled after Coca-Cola…I’m gonna stop here because these replacement names are starting to hurt my brain. You get the idea anyway, there ain’t any real name brands in the picture, aside from one scene where Misha talks on the phone to some guy about Paramount not liking a commercial they’ve made…I’m pretty sure that’s the only real company mentioned in the entire movie, and only at one fleeting moment. I don’t know about you, but I think it kind of takes away from the biting satire the filmmakers are obviously striving for when you replace all the names you wanted to use with cheap, barely-creative imitation brands. What’s more, it distances the events of the film from our universe even more, making everything seem like some make-believe version of Earth when it’s supposed to be directly commenting on stuff happening in the real world. I know it’s all supposed to be a metaphor or whatever, but I just feel like that’s an excuse for not being able to get real-life name brands to back your obviously anti-corporate film, and it alienates the already disconnected audience that much more.

Subtlety, we hardly knew ye.

   Branded is a confused movie – one that wants to slap you in the face with a political message while at the same time trying to masquerade as an entertaining sci-fi flick. Unfortunately, neither of these goals really work effectively. The fact is, we get the whole anti-corporation thing pretty much from the get-go. We’re instantly shown that the corporations are conspiring against the public, making them instantly bad to us, and we’re shown the effects they have on the community as a whole. We just keep being fed things we’re already aware of. And THEN an hour into the movie they decide to kick in this half-assed sci-fi/horror angle with the corporation creatures to visually show what these corporations do, but they serve no real purpose. The nature of their existence is never fully explained, their effect on the public is only perceived by one person, and their influence on the plot as a whole is trivial at best. It’s really not a good thing when the whole selling point of your movie has no real influence on its story other than an elaborate visual metaphor. The characters are cardboard, and the actors try their best to fill their roles with some kind of depth, but the script they’re forced to recite keeps pulling the rug out from under them. It’s a damn shame because I feel like this movie could have been SO much more – there’s a lot of fertile ground here idea-wise, and maybe in the hands of more competent filmmakers it would have been something more memorable. The movie is a joint Russian/American production, and has two directors and writers…perhaps this is a reason why the movie feels disjointed and lacking a solid core. Directors duos only work when a vision is agreed upon and shared, and usually when the directors are related. This movie feels like the ideas of a bunch of people were thrown in and strung together by some kind of meandering corporate plot. It just don’t work, people.

   So final thoughts? Branded is a pretty forgettable film, sorry to say. It has a lot of visual imagination, which earns it some points, and I can definitely say that there’s never been a movie like it before…which is both a good and a bad thing. Despite all the bad things I’ve said about it, I’d still recommend it to someone looking for something visually stimulating and generally original…just don’t make the same mistake I made of shelling out a full ticket price at the theater. I’d say wait until it’s on Netflix or something before checking this one out. It’s a simple-minded movie trying to masquerade as an intelligent satire with a sci-fi edge, but it’s so disjointed and poorly thought out that it just comes across as incompetent. The movie swiftly changes in tone halfway through from a corporate thriller to a special-effects laden sci-fi satire that doesn’t really gel properly. But hey, I certainly appreciate at least the effort to produce an original idea. I just hope its failure in execution doesn’t scare investors away from other original ideas in the future….or maybe it’s all a conspiracy to sell the public more thoughtless remakes and rehashes!!! OMG I FIGURED IT OUT!

REVIEW: THE DARK KNIGHT RISES

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES (2012)
Starring Christian Bale, Tom Hardy, Ann Hathaway, Marion Cotillard, Michael Cain, Gary Oldman, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, & Morgan Freeman
Directed by Christopher Nolan
Written by Johnathan Nolan & Christopher Nolan
Produced by Emma Thomas, Christopher Nolan & Charles Roven
Cinematography by Wally Pfister
Music by Hans Zimmer
Edited by Lee Smith

Batman ponders if his latest act of destructive vandalism really justifies itself at the end of the day.

(This is a SPOILER ALERT. It’s alerting you to SPOILERS, so be cautious as you read into this review if you don’t want anything….spoiled. If you ain’t afraid of no spoilers, READ ON and ENJOY!)

   Movie trilogies can be tricky. It’s often quite a feat to maintain the same level of quality and presentation throughout three separate films which, when combined, create a singular ongoing story. Ever since the original Star Wars trilogy left a mark on the popular consciousness all those years ago, movie trilogies have been popping up left and right – we got the Back to the Future trilogy, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the Godfather trilogy, The Matrix, Pirates of the Caribbean, Evil Dead, Jurassic Park, Men in Black, and Spider-Man trilogies…hell, even the Toy Story movies became quite an epic trilogy. And, because of the difficulty in maintaining a giant story throughout three films, these movie trilogies have often been executed with varying levels of success. It’s just really challenging to keep a strict eye on the overall story being told when it’s stretched out over three full-length movies! It takes a very focused filmmaker or group of filmmakers with a solid vision to keep a level-headed hold on things, without letting too many excess details getting in the way of the overall goal. This is especially hard when you get to the final installment of a franchise because wrapping everything up with a nice little bow is often a daunting task…especially when all of the details won’t fit perfectly inside the box. The Spider-Man trilogy had this problem, The Matrix trilogy definitely had this problem, and The Godfather Part III is almost begrudgingly accepted as part of that epic film franchise. Even the great Return of the Jedi is generally viewed as the weakest chapter in the original Star Wars trilogy. It’s just hard to do a final, conclusive third installment that provides the appropriate sense of closure so desperately needed. Now, what I would REALLY like to say is that the third installment of Christopher Nolan’s epic Dark Knight trilogy, The Dark Knight Rises, gets all of these factors right and is a successful conclusion to what has been one of the best film franchises in recent memory…but unfortunately, my friends, I just don’t find that to be entirely the case.

   Let me just say this: I REALLY wanted to like this movie a lot more than I did. I absolutely love Nolan’s previous forays into the Batman universe, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. I find them to be intelligently made, greatly entertaining and thematically sound exercises in film escapism, and they paint a truly defining portrait of the character of Bruce Wayne/Batman. There are definitely flaws in both of those movies, but on the whole, they’re genuinely great works of cinematic art. They brought the superhero movie out of childish abandon and re-established Batman for a new generation, grounding his character in reality and achieving a new level of emotional complexity that no superhero movie had ever accomplished before. Christopher Nolan is a very competent director, even if his projects can – at times – be overly complicated or ridden with trivial details. I’ve been a fan of his stuff ever since I saw Memento, which is still one of my favorite films of all time. And after Inception, a movie I absolutely loved, I was under the impression that Nolan could do no real wrong. Well….I may have spoken a bit too soon. The Dark Knight Rises isn’t a terrible film, but unfortunately, it isn’t a very monumental or effective one either. It’s kind of just….okay. It certainly isn’t a strong note to end this previously triumphant Batman trilogy on, and in all honesty, its grandiose epicness is actually kind of a detracting factor in its overall scheme. There’s just too many new characters flying around, too many subplots and storylines intersecting and evolving, and too many loose ends desperately in need of being tied up that it actually begins to work against the fluidity of the movie. Plus, there are some genuinely boneheaded decisions being made here and there, and they feel blatantly out of place in this otherwise well-written film series. The movie just feels like it’s trying oh-so hard to fit in all this excess story into a neat little package and to get quickly to the next scene, so much so that none of the individual scenes have any time to breathe – we’re just constantly being thrust into the next event without any time to consider what has just happened.

“You know, with that mask and those little ears, you look just a little bit like a Catwom…..oh shit, I’m sorry, I forgot we aren’t saying that.”

   So where to begin? Well, I suppose we should begin at the beginning – The Dark Knight Rises picks up 8 years after the events of The Dark Knight have transpired. Gotham City is experiencing an unprecedented era of peace and tranquility, thanks in part to a bill called the Dent Act which was passed shortly after Harvey Dent’s death in the last film. The city also dignifies Dent with a Harvey Dent Day, which takes place on the anniversary of his death – clearly, the city is still gaga over Harvey Dent, and is completely unaware of the fact that he became a depraved, cold-blooded murderer named Two-Face who tried to kill Commissioner Gordon’s entire family shortly before his demise. Blame for Dent’s death is still placed on the Batman, who hasn’t been seen since the first “Harvey Dent Day” 8 years ago. Coincidentally, Bruce Wayne hasn’t left his mansion in that time either. Right off the bat, this peaceful era in Gotham’s history makes for a pretty boring first act of the film – nothing is really happening. At the beginning of The Dark Knight, we’re instantly drawn into a tense, visually stimulating action sequence that establishes the tone and intensity of the movie in a way that never lets up throughout its entire running time. At the beginning of Rises, we just get….a bunch of people indulging in upper-class pleasantries and talking about how peaceful everything is. Yeah, lots of excitement there.

   Now, to be fair, the movie does begin with a pretty cool looking action sequence aboard an airplane which introduces us to Bane, portrayed with calm and collected brutality by Tom Hardy. But, as visually interesting as this sequence is, it doesn’t really give us a ton of information, or any bearing on who (or what) Bane is or what he’s doing on this plane. I mean, he’s there to kidnap this scientist guy or something, but I don’t know why this whole plane exercise was even necessary. It’s said at the beginning of the scene that Bane and two other companions were apprehended while trying to capture the scientist (named Dr. Pavel), but it was Bane’s plan to be captured. …Why? Because he wanted to show everyone how cool he is? Why couldn’t he just capture Dr. Pavel before, without even dealing with being picked up by the CIA and going through this whole convoluted air-hijacking plot? Bane does say he wanted to find out what Pavel told them, but it’s perfectly clear these guys don’t know jack shit about Bane or his plan, and Pavel quickly shouts he told them nothing, therefore rendering the point of this plan irrelevant. I guess he knows now! Couldn’t he have just intimidated that information out of Pavel after capturing him? I dunno, it just felt flimsy to me. Everything happens extremely quickly, and it’s shot with this sort of rushed feeling that we don’t really have a good established feel for what’s happening. There’s even this weird part where they take blood from Dr. Pavel and put it into the body of some corpse in a bodybag, as the plane they’re in is being destroyed and tethered by another plane. I guess the point of this was to make it look like Pavel died in the plane crash, but honestly, I didn’t even pick up on that while I was watching the movie. It isn’t explained in any way, and honestly, it just left me feeling confused. I guess it’s a smart move, but wouldn’t the CIA have been able to tell it wasn’t Pavel by his face? Or maybe the body would get so horribly mangled in the destruction of the plane after they drop it that it would be indeterminable anyway? And furthermore, why should Bane and company care if they know Pavel is dead or not? Bane kidnapped him, and it’s doubtful the CIA would be able to locate him from that point on. I just didn’t really see the point of the whole blood transfusion thing – or the plane hijacking, for that matter – and it already left me with an uncomfortable, disoriented feeling just 5 minutes into the movie.

Staring into Bane’s eyes, Batman recalls his earlier dance with Selina Kyle and realizes this probably isn’t the time or place to be thinking about such things.

   Anyway, back to the slow, boring first act. Right away it’s established that not much is going on – the characters even talk about it with semi-awkward expository dialogue. Bruce Wayne is hosting a Harvey Dent Day party at his mansion, but isn’t showing his face at it. Commissioner Gordon begins to give a speech, where he intends to tell everyone the truth about Harvey Dent, but decides not to for some reason, and awkwardly tells everyone that they’re “not ready for the truth yet.” Um…that’s kind of a weird thing to tell a large group of people gathered to celebrate someone’s life and death, especially since it implies they’re being lied to about something regarding that very person. But, of course, nobody finds this strange at all and goes about their regular business. It might just be me, but if somebody pulls out a pre-written speech and then hastily puts it away while telling us we’re not ready to hear the truth about it, I might just get a little suspicious. But anyway, soon it’s shown that one of the servers working Wayne’s party is not who she appears to be as she sneaks into Bruce Wayne’s private quarters and begins snooping around. Wayne confronts her, and it’s revealed he’s suffered some type of injury that limits him to the use of a cane. It becomes apparent that this mysterious woman is Selina Kyle, aka “The Cat”, a burglar who’s been quite popular in the news lately. She’s there to steal Bruce Wayne’s mother’s pearl necklace, as well as his fingerprints for an unknown client. After some witty back-and-forth, Selina kicks Wayne’s cane out from under him and he collapses, allowing her to escape. At the same time, she “kidnaps” a somewhat willing United States congressman, leading to a city-wide manhut. One thing I definitely like about the movie is Ann Hathaway’s portrayal as Catwoman – although she’s not referred to as Catwoman at any point in the film, which is pretty interesting. At first I was a little iffy about Nolan’s decision to cast her in the role, which I was pretty much used to seeing fulfilled by blonde bombshell actresses (or, in worst-case scenarios, Halle Berry. But we won’t talk about that). But I promptly put my foot in my mouth once I saw the sexy sassiness Hathaway brings to the role. She nails it perfectly, giving Seling Kyle a mixture of devil-may-care sassiness as well as a brutal killer instinct. She’s probably the strongest new character in a film that has a vast overabundance of new characters.

   So Bruce Wayne is crippled and out of the superhero game, even though we’re never told how or why he injured his leg in the first place. I guess in the long run it doesn’t really matter, but honestly, I would have really liked to know how a dude like Bruce Wayne, with all his physical gusto, got reduced to the status of cane-wielding recluse. This lack of information sets up an unfortunate precedent for the movie: it doesn’t really establish things very well. The absence of a proper grounding plagues the entirety of the film throughout its nearly three-hour running time, and eventually it’s nearly impossible to ignore the numbing sensation going on in your seat. Now honestly, I have a feeling if I go incredibly in-depth on this one I’ll be sitting here typing for years and never get this review finished, so I’m going to go a bit easier from here on out, simply for time and sanity’s sake. But almost everything in this movie just feels a little…off to me. There are so many little factors, so many little details that just feel unnatural or ill-advised that it starts to bring the movie down for me. Things like overly expository dialogue, and strange editing in regards to time and where characters are. At one point, we’re jumping back and forth between two events that seem to be happening at the same time, but when Batman finishes saving people in scene A, he immediately appears in scene B to save the guy in danger there too! Does Batman have a transportation device I’m not aware of? Is scene B happening at a later time? What the hell is going on? You see, there’s just a bunch of weird and confusing stuff like that happening that really shouldn’t be in a high-profile film of this magnitude.

Speaking of weird and confusing, at one point the film suddenly becomes one of those schlocky woman-in-prison movies from the ’70s for about 20 minutes. WHY, NOLAN, WHY?!

   Let me just state this again: this is not, by any means, an atrocious film. There’s definitely exciting action sequences, some great character development for the characters that actually matter (and, unfortunately, some develophment for ones that really don’t), great performances from most of the people involved, and competent direction from Nolan himself. I liked that the story, while jumping all over the place and never really focusing solely on one detail, compellingly displays an entire society falling apart at the seams. It represents a low point for many of our established characters, and raises the stakes to a near apocalyptic level fitting for an epic conclusion such as this. At the very least, it gave a substantial role for Bruce Wayne to play. After the Joker sort of stole the show from Batman in The Dark Knight, it can truly be said that Rises is actually a movie about Bruce Wayne/Batman, and his relationship with the world. We see him go through a lot of shit in this movie, and watch a pretty harrowing character arc unfold. Ironically, the highest point in the movie is also the lowest point in the movie, when Wayne is imprisoned by Bane in a deep, cavernous prison which is readily escapable if you are physically adept enough to scale a gigantic wall and climb to freedom. After a very tense and admittedly one-sided fight with Bane, Batman suffers a back-breaking loss and is tossed helplessly into this horrible prison. Bane punishes Bruce Wayne by making him see the downfall of Gotham society through a TV set that is somehow installed in an ancient prison made entirely of stone. I guess Bane had a really long extension cord? I know this is getting into nitpicking territory, but seriously, how the fuck did Bane install a TV set in that prison for Bruce Wayne to watch? Little details like this just made Rises feel illogical and empty-headed, when it’s trying oh-so hard to tell a deep, detailed story. Oh, and then Bruce Wayne receives a hallucinatory vision of Ra’s Al Ghul, portrayed once again by Liam Neeson in a nice cameo. In this hallucination – taking place entirely in Wayne’s mind – he receives some actual information that motivates Wayne to get his ass in gear and get the fuck out of that prison cell. Now, this sort of strikes me as odd, because…how can somebody receive useful information, information that is both beneficial to the character and to the audience from a damn hallucination? Isn’t that, like…a contradiction? Now, I understand that maybe Wayne had the mental fortitude to figure out the information relayed to him through Ra’s al-Ghost by himself, and the whole scene might be some sort of visual metaphor of Wayne’s brain piecing it all together. But, even if that’s true, it still shows that Bruce Wayne got his mojo back (so to speak) from a goddamn mirage, something which can usually be defined as an “unreliable source” to say the least. I just think it sort of reveals clumsy writing when the scribes feel it necessary to have a drastic character turn that sets everything up for the remainder of the movie hinged on a prison-psychosis hallucination.

   Seriously, there’s suspect stuff like this happening all over the place in the movie. I’m almost perplexed by the fact that a movie this huge, this grandiose and epic, so obviously crafted with attention to eye-popping cinematic detail by competent filmmakers could have so many logical fallacies and head-scratching “What?” moments. But I guess when you’re telling a needlessly intricate, multi-faceted story with an overload of disposable and necessary characters doing all kinds of crazy shit, it’s easy to overlook the little details. And the things that bother me about this movie really are little things in the overall view – but there’s enough of them to drag the movie down from being truly entertaining to me. Towards the end of the movie, there’s a scene where a big, nuclear bomb that could decimate the entire city and has been established as drastically unstable is being frantically driven throug the streets in a big truck, with Batman in hot pursuit in his cool flying contraption. At one point, Batman starts shooting missles at this truck in an effort to stop it. The entire time, I was just thinking to myself – “WHY ARE YOU SHOOTING MISSLES AT A TRUCK CARRYING AN UNSTABLE NUCLEAR BOMB?!?!” I couldn’t help but think that if Batman happened to hit the right point in that truck and hit the bomb, he would be directly responsible for the destruction of the entire city he’s trying to protect. It just felt so…DUMB! And then the truck stops extremely abruptly by falling from one level of road to the one below, which kills the driver (whom I won’t reveal) but somehow doesn’t kill Commisser Gordon, who was standing unrestrained in the back of the truck with the nuclear bomb in question. I think he definitely would have been tossed around in a grisly, neck-breaking fashion when the truck violently crashed to the city street below. And THEN, when Batman makes the decision to tow the bomb out to the ocean where it can safely detonate, he drags it on the ground a bit, and knocks it into a building or two by mistake. Why is that shit in the movie?! I mean, this is a highly unstable and ready-to-blow nuclear weapon – shouldn’t we be treating it with the utmost care and caution? I seriously want to tear my hair out thinking about it – the whole sequence was just so unbearably dumb that I was taken right out of the movie and questioning the logic of everyone who created that scene. But, in a way, that just applies to the whole movie – there’s a variety of “what the fuck were they thinking” moments that truly effect this otherwise grandly entertaining movie as a whole. And I’m sorry, I REALLY can’t look past them!

One can always count on Batman to be there when the desperate need arises to charge an iPhone.

   At the end of the day, The Dark Knight Rises is a big, loud, clunky, sporadically entertaining action film that focuses a bit too much on spectacle rather than telling a cohesive story. It’s as if Christopher Nolan, in his effort to construct an epic, emotionally satisfying, catyclysmic finale to his highly popular Batman films, let the truly important filmmaking details slip away from him in the process. What we really need is a solid, strongly grounded story – I don’t want to say “easier to follow”, because that implies that the film is overly complex or beyond understanding – but certainly something less muddled, and a bit more streamlined. This is a Batman film for chrissakes, not The Odyssey. To illustrate my point, let’s just take a quick look at Nolan’s last film, Inception. While Inception is usually perceived as a sort of convoluted and complex film, it’s actually not that hard to follow the story if you just pay attention to what is happening. Sure, there’s all kinds of dream-hopping and fast-paced action happening, but for the most part the story keeps things pretty straightforward. Everything is laid out for the audience, and we’re given enough information to keep up with the crazy, mindblowing adventures that the cast embark on. What’s more, Inception follows a streamlined and legible plot, one that sticks with the protagonist and follows his story through to its conclusion. The same can’t be said for The Dark Knight Rises, with its criss-crossing plots and subplots, its barrage of characters to keep track of, its jarring time jumps and murky editing. The reason why Batman Begins and especially The Dark Knight work so well is because those movies tell grounded, logically sound stories that take us from one place to the next, while allowing scenes to breathe and find identities of their own. The idea of confusion or disorienting experiences even plays into Inception‘s conceit, because the characters are actually doing things that would generate such confusion – they’re infiltrating different levels of consciousness, impersonating other dream characters, going into other people’s minds, and so on. The intricacy employed by Inception actually works to its benefit, because it inherently imbues the film with a sort of otherworldly, dreamlike feel that compliments the subject matter appropriately. The Dark Knight Rises is essentially a movie about the good guy trying to stop the bad guy – it simply doesn’t need the same level of confounding plot twists and turns. (For the record, I know there’s deeper things going on in Rises than just Batman punching Bane in the face; the themes are mature, developed and relevant to the story. What I’m saying is, this is a goddamn Batman movie. It doesn’t need to be ridiculously complex.)

   Now truthfully, I’m not against shaking things up a bit and doing an epic tale that covers all kinds of ground, jumping from one character to the next – but that’s a bit harder to do competently without letting a bunch of extraneous details fall to the wayside. There’s all kinds of shit in this movie I haven’t even mentioned yet – Joseph Gordon-Levitt gives a pretty decent performance as Blake, a Batman-friendly cop who somehow manages to figure out who Batman really is. Well…I guess if you really think about it it’s not that hard to decipher. But in a universe where no one has ever really been able to piece together who Batman really is, it’s just kind of odd to have this one character just figure it out all on his own…pretty much through guesswork. At least the little shit who figured out Batman’s real identity in The Dark Knight actually had some solid evidence to back his claim, and he actually worked for Wayne Enterprises! I haven’t mentioned the role played by Matthew Modine as stand-in Commissioner when Gordon is injured – they seriously could have cut that entire character from the movie and not missed a damn thing, his character was that pointless. I haven’t mentioned the curious decision made to make Alfred (always well-realized by the great Michael Caine) something of a over-emotional, crying baby in this movie. Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with the act of crying itself or anything like that, but seriously, did they really need to have Alfred bursting into tears in nearly every friggin’ scene he’s in? I think he’s in like…5 or 6 scenes in the movie, and he bursts into tears in three of them! We get it, he’s emotionally affected by what’s happening, it’s no doubt some heavy shit – but he doesn’t need to turn on the waterworks every time something emotional is happening! It’s just ridiculous! But anyway, I digress.

Joe Gord-Lev and Gary Oldman try to contain their excitement at being shoehorned into this review somewhere.

   While The Dark Knight Rises certainly wasn’t a bad movie – I was genuinely entertained and impressed by its scale and production value – it just felt like a lackluster, soulless and dimly thought-out one. Chalk it up to the trilogy-ending stigma, I guess. Christopher Nolan’s Batman Trilogy is certainly one of the most cinematically satisfying film series to exist in modern times. I’m definitely glad to have been around to see them unfold and effect the populace the way they have – they’re just really fun, well-made movies than people can relate to. And I will always appreciate his brilliant decision to ground the movies in reality and make them a bit more believable in terms of character – that is what the superhero genre desperately needed. But, sadly, I cannot in all fairness deem The Dark Knight Rises a wholly effective entry into the series, and it certainly ain’t no masterpiece, like some publications have been frantically exclaiming. It’s a truly confounding film, one that tries so hard (and often succeeds) to entertain you on a visually spectacular level, but fails to find a solid base on which to tell a truly compelling story. I was disappointed with The Dark Knight Rises, but in all honesty, it could have been a lot worse. It’s just a shame it couldn’t fully live up to its predecessors.

But seriously, it’s still WAY, WAAAAY better than Batman & Robin. Fuck that movie.

Now that’s what I’m talkin’ about.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.