2013: The Year in Film: "Gravity" Review

Writer/director Alfonso Cuaron is undoubtedly one of the great artists working in film today. His last film, Children of Men, was one of the best science fiction films of the last few decades, and is as finely crafted as any film you'll ever see. It's visually stunning, with a jarring narrative and tense, real-feeling action sequences. We've been hearing whispers about an astronaut film for years, and various delays pushed his next film back several times.  The first trailer was incredible, and Cuaron's name alone makes any film a must-see, so let's check it out.

Doctor (??) and first time astronaut Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) is on a mission to upgrade the Hubble Space Telescope with software that she designed. While on a seemingly routine spacewalk (her first) with veteran astronaut Matt Kowalski (George Clooney), the unthinkable happens, and the two astronauts find themselves stranded outer space, low on oxygen, and desperate to survive.

The Good: First, this film is incredible to look at. Visually, it's an amazing achievement and one of the 2 or 3 best-looking films I can recall. It manages to perfectly convey the fine line between awe-inspiring beauty and certain death that is a fact of existence in the incredibly hostile environment of space. Despite the fact that the film portrays what would be the worst disaster to ever befall humanity's brief forays into space, the film still finds plenty of time to portray a real sense of awe and wonderment. Impeccably crafted, amazing to look at, and well-acted, this film is a real achievement. The narrative is tight and moves at a breathless pace - moving through naturally depicted space environs as all hell breaks loose. Considering that the entire film takes place over a few hours and features just a single scene on earth, it's pretty miraculous that this film works at all. The fact that it actually works pretty damn well is a testament to the quality of the artists involved.


The Bad: there are some scientific errors. I won't get into them, but if you're curious, look up Neil deGrasse Tyson's thoughts on the flick. So that is distracting on further evaluation, especially when the film obviously attempts to do so much right. I would never hold a film like say, Prometheus, to a requirement of a realistic portrayal of space travel, because it would never purport to exactly duplicate the settings. Gravity, however, attempts to get as much right as possible, which makes the errors particularly glaring. My biggest problem with the flick, and ultimately the single thing that prevents the film from truly being an emotionally powerful flick, is the casting. Not so much the acting, because she tries her best, but the casting. Let me explain. For a large chunk of the history of film, people were much more interested in the stars themselves than the films. You weren't seeing a movie, you were seeing a John Wayne movie, a Cary Grant movie, a Jimmy Stewart movie, etc. The 70's changed that, and acting became more about losing yourself in a role in a Shakespearian way than it did about a likable star hamming it up. There are exceptions, of course, and Sandra Bullock and George Clooney are the two biggest offenders. They are always just playing shades of Sandra Bullock and shades of George Clooney. Depending on the flick, that can work just fine. In a flick that's attempting to be an incredibly intense story of survival and perseverance, it's distracting, because I never lost sight of the fact that it was Sandra Bullock pretending to be an astronaut. At a certain level, that sounds silly, but I'd wager you know exactly what I'm talking about. I feel the casting did a disservice to the film and what it was trying to do, and I like Sandra Bullock fine, she can do all the rom-coms she wants, but I'm never going to believe her when she's crying about her daughter alone in a space capsule. Sorry, Sandy. One of the downfalls of being America's sweetheart, I suppose. Is that fair? Maybe, maybe not, but it really prevented me from going all-in on Gravity.

With that being said, Gravity is still an extremely effective and intense thriller that's incredible to look at. The visuals alone make it well worth seeing. Ultimately, the fact that the main character fell short for me prevented the film from breaking through to true greatness, but it remains a gorgeous piece of filmmaking.

8/10.

2013: The Year in Film: "Prisoners" Review

Late late late. I know, you know, we all know. I'm catching up, you guys! First, a disclaimer... I secretly love neo-noir crime/mystery stories of the Dennis Lehane, George Pelecanos, James Ellroy variety. You know the ones, where no one is what they seem, everyone is a shade of grey, and red herrings abound. "The Killing" tried to be this in a television format, but that's a tale for another day. So I suppose what I'm trying to say is that my opinion for this flick was directly influenced by my general affection for the genre, read on with that in mind.

From a new writer (his only other credit is "Contraband" starring Mark freaking Walhberg) and a director making his first English-language film, and not adapted from any source material that I could find (rare in a world so chock full of mystery/crime novels), the flick features a great cast. Hugh Jackman, Terrance Howard, Paul Dano, Melissa Leo, Viola Davis and Maria Bello all exist in various states of being underrated, and Gyllenhall has proven that given the right material, he can be more than a pretty face. This story of a Thanksgiving kidnapping of two young girls promises to bring a small town to its knees and push two families to the edge.

So how is it?

The Good: The cast, as mentioned above, is stellar. Jackman is tremendous, and far more savage in this role than he ever was as Wolverine. (Seriously) Dano does "creepy" as well as anyone in Hollywood, and brings a sense of unsettled malaise to every scene he's in. Gyllenhall is great. He manages to bring a quiet intensity and quirky believability to a character who very easily could have been one-note. The atmosphere in this flick is top-notch as well, as the flick is extremely intense and effective, despite a long running time. The fact that this flick doesn't seem as long as, say, Zodiac (sorry, Jake!) is a testament to the effectiveness of the filmmaking and cast. Despite a number of Red Herrings, the plot never seems to be wandering for wandering's sake, and the resolution was a surprise, which is always the point of a mystery, isn't it? The best compliment I can pay this movie is that it feels like a good book of this genre, despite being a wholly original story. That's hard to pull off. Kudos.



The Bad: Gyllenhall's character suffers from a lack of characterization, which is a shame given the strength of his performance and the fact that on the surface, his character may well have been the most interesting in the whole movie if given a chance to be fleshed out. I think a few more Gyllenhall-centric scenes at the expense of the plot could have made his Detective Loki into a legitimately great movie cop. Additionally, the crushing dread and despair of the movie, which jumps right into the mystery with very little set up or framing, is really a grind, given the long runtime. You'll feel taxed at the end of this movie, and while it's not necessarily a bad thing, it is on the edge of being too much. This maybe would have been even better as a TV miniseries on premium cable?

All in all this is a bleak, intense mystery that stands up as a solid example of the genre. It's not SAYING anything that hasn't been said, but what it is doing is letting some great performers work on some meaty material and putting together an all around movie experience that pretty effectively duplicates the experience of reading a novel. That's not easy to do. The performances are the main draw here, but the atmosphere is pretty damn effective as well.

8/10. A very good, if not great flick for grown ups. If you haven't noticed, those are kind of rare, you guys.

2013: The Year in Film: "The Butler" Review

Late, yep. I'm not even going to talk about it. Sometimes there are movies that are so clearly just award bait that you almost want to deduct them points for being SO clearly desperate. But then again, surely there must be a reason for this film to exist beyond "AWARDS", right? In this case, the true story of Eugene Allen, an African-American White House butler who served 8 Presidents, inspired a work of fiction to provide a Forrest Gump-ian trek through the Civil Rights era and the evolution of race relations throughout the turbulent decades of the postwar era. I'll discuss whether this is a good idea later on.

The always great Forrest Whitaker plays Cecil Gaines, the fictional version of the actual butler. In a surprising return to acting (she's actually a talented actress, guys!) Oprah Winfrey plays Cecil's wife. The main draw of this one was the bevy of A-listers brought in to portray the various Presidents, though: with a nearly unrecognizable Robin Williams as Dwight Eisenhower, James Mardsen as JFK, John Cusack as a surprisingly convincing Nixon, Liev Schrieber as LBJ and Alan Rickman as Ronald Reagan. For some reason the film skips completely over the Ford and Carter administrations. Gaines sits as a literal witness to history, rising from sharecroppers son to the White House and dutifully filling his responsibilities at the White House as his family and the world convulse with the social upheaval of the times.

The Good: The leads are, in a word, great. Whitaker is a shoo-in for a best actor nomination and Winfrey turns in an inspired performance. Terrance Howard is always likable, and Lenny Kravitz and Cuba Gooding, Jr. are strong as other White House butlers. The other supporting players are more or less effective, but Schrieber, Mardsen and Richman stood out for me. Additionally, the story is moving (if occasionally emotionally manipulative) and the main characters at least are well-drawn and complete.



The Bad: Let me start by saying that I don't have an issue with fictionalizing history in and of itself.  What I do have an issue with is presenting something as a true story and focusing on authentic-feeling depictions of real historical figures while inventing a story wholesale. I don't understand the motivation there. There was a REAL butler who served American Presidents for decades, surely his life was interesting enough to make a movie of, right? If you want to make a Forrest Gump-type movie about the Civil Rights movement, by all means, do so, but I don't understand the motivation of fictionalizing things that took place in living memory when a real story is available. Maybe that's a hang-up that I shouldn't hold against the movie, but I really felt cheated when I found out that most of the narrative is completely made up. It feels false, lazy, emotionally manipulative, cheap and forced. History is interesting enough, we don't need to make it up, do we? Why make up a son who was personally close with MLK, Jr. and have him elected to congress when one didn't exist? That's about as subtle as shouting CIVIL RIGHTS HERE, and really cheapens the real people, Presidents included, who were part of that time.

In all, despite a manipulative narrative and some questionable decisions, this flick is worthwhile because of the performances at its center. Whitaker and Winfrey really create a believable, loving couple through two fleshed out and powerfully played characters. This flick is worth watching for their performances, but ultimately falls short of what it intended to do, by virtue of being misleading and overly broad. Sorry guys, I just couldn't overlook it.

6/10. 

2013: The Year in Film: "The World's End" Review

Guys, it's football season. Accordingly, my free time is wrapped up in football-related activities and I'm seriously behind on this movie review business. But look at me, catching up!

Writer/Director Edgar Wright, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost have (of course) collaborated on what's become called the Cornetto trilogy - with three different flavors of the British ice cream featuring in Easter egg style in each of the Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz and the last entrant: The World's End.  Edgar Wright wrote and directed all three films, and in doing so has expertly spoofed/paid tribute to three very different genres while simultaneously making damn fine examples of the genres. (In a very British way, of course) Wright has one of the most unique voices and eyes in film today, and can do as much with a quick cut as some other directors can with an extended scene. Compared with most comedies today, which basically consist of letting funny people riff off of one another, Wright's crisp filmmaking is refreshing and occasionally jarring. As a result of the 2012 Mayan apocalypse nonsense, we got two end times comedies in 2013, the very funny This Is The End, featuring Franco, Rogen, Hill and co., and now the British take. So let's take a look.

Simon Pegg (Gary), Nick Frost (Andy), Martin Freeman (Oliver), Paddy Considine (Steven) and Eddie Marsan (Peter) are long-lost childhood friends (maybe mates is more applicable here) who have long since gone their separate ways and moved on from their small town childhoods which basically consisted of raising hell under the spell of man-child rabble rouser Gary. Gary, now a middle aged alcoholic, decides to track down his long lost friends 20 years later in order to complete "the Golden Mile", a 12 pub crawl in their hometown that was attempted but never completed by the friends on a magical night as teenagers.  Several deceptions later, the old crew is reunited in their quiet hometown, ready to give the Golden Mile a whirl. Shenanigans ensue.


The Good: Wright, as mentioned above, is an exceptional and unique filmmaker. His direction, writing style and clear chemistry with his actors makes for a fun, madcap style. His films at once manage to be effective spoofs of the genre(s) in question while also being pretty damn effective examples of the genres themselves. Not an easy task, to say the least. Pegg is extremely likable and charming in yet another distinct character under Wright's direction and he really plays up his sad sack character for all of his faux-confidence glory. Nick Frost plays the straight man here, and after you get over how silly that is in retrospect, he does a darn fine job. The rest of the cast exists in their orbit, and the gang rather convincingly plays a group of estranged long lost friends.

The Bad: the film remains wedded to the central pub crawl conceit for far too long... as at a certain point it really strains credibility that these people would be sticking to a pub crawl with all of this madness going on. The idea of wedding a film's plot to a pub crawl is a good one, but some of the cleverness doesn't translate to the screen. In being an homage to classic sci-fi, the sci fi plot winds up being rather nondescript, and falls apart on further look. It's just not enough to fill up an entire film.

In all, like all of Wright's films, this one is a lot of fun to watch. Unfortunately, of the Cornetto trilogy, this is undoubtedly the weakest entry. (Note, when compared to Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz that's not necessarily a bad thing) In fact, I'd say I enjoyed "This Is The End" more than this one. It's fun, and full of laughs, but it ultimately it falls just short.

7/10.

2013: The Year in Film: "Fruitvale Station" Review

Yet another movie review that's at least a few weeks late, sigh.

Unfortunately, it's all-to common for people of color, young men especially, to face harassment and harm from the police forces that ostensibly exist to serve and protect us. There are a number of socioeconomic, racial and cultural issues at play in this, but the fact remains that if an unarmed person is killed by police in the United States of America, there's an overwhelming likelihood that the victim was a black man. Tragically, it just happened again. One such victim in a widely publicized case was Oscar Grant, a 22 year old man who was tragically killed in the early morning hours of New Years' Day, 2009 by BART officers in Oakland. 

The film purports to put a human face on this news story by dramatizing and depicting the last day of Oscar Grant's life. Written and directed by Oakland native and first-time director Ryan Coogler and starring rapidly rising star Michael B. Jordan (who most memorably played Wallace on season 1 of the Wire and quarterback Vince Howard on seasons 4 and 5 of Friday Night Lights) Fruitvale Station features some promising young talent, so how is it?

The Good: Jordan, as you know if you're at all familiar with his work is incredibly likable and really brings charm and humanity to a role that required all of his significant talents. Considering that 90% or more of the film takes place with him directly on screen, if the lead actor isn't up to the task, this is a project that's going to fail, quickly. Luckily, Jordan proves up to the challenge and then some, proving the type of chops that only a few actors working today readily display, and showing why this 26 year old is one of the rising stars I'm watching most closely. In addition to Jordan, Octavia Spencer and Melonie Diaz do fine work as Oscar's mother and girlfriend. First time writer-director Ryan Coogler shows a great eye, and demonstrates the kind of talent that could keep him working for a long time. Additionally, despite the fact that everyone knows how this one is going to end, the story moves briskly, interweaving changes of scenery, other characters, flashbacks and a great use of natural sound and techniques to give the film a small, intimate feel. This film sets out to humanize a tragic event, and does so masterfully, if occasionally in a manipulative fashion, making it so you'd have to be the world's biggest curmudgeon to root against this guy. A lot of this is due to Jordan's portrayal, but there is something to be said for a story that inspires the kind of passion that Grant's has.


The Bad: Oscar Grant was a drug dealer and had spent time in prison, and while that in and of itself doesn't make someone a bad person, obviously, the true picture of Oscar most likely had more shades of grey than the film's rosy portrayal offers. I feel that Jordan is a good enough actor that a more nuanced version of Grant could have still won audiences over, but this is a relatively minor complaint, as everyone is going to come up rosy in the eyes of their loved ones, who were likely Coogler's primary sources for his picture.

In all, this is a touching, artfully crafted, and ultimately devastating look at the human cost of tragedy and social injustice with one of the year's great performances (thus far) at its heart.  Well worth a watch, even if you're likely going to be feeling down in the dumps for a bit afterwards and find yourself reading a bit more Slate.com than usual. These aren't bad things! One of the year's best, so far.

8.5/10.

2013: The Year in Film: "The Wolverine" Review

Yet another movie review that's several weeks late, and extra late in the big picture, considering I didn't even see this one until it had been in theaters for a few weeks. Go me!

Fox's treatment of the X-Men franchise has been a mixed bag. The first X-Men film is solid enough and the second is pretty damn good, but the third X-Men film and first Wolverine film are straight-up garbage. (X-Men: First Class is good though, you guys!) I will, however, argue until my last day that Liev Schrieber made a pretty damn strong Sabertooth and came kind of close considering how bad everything else was to redeeming X-Men Origins: Wolverine. The one constant through (almost) the entirety of Fox's X-Men run has been Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. While Jackman isn't a perfect Wolverine (I have my issues with him, but that's a topic for another day) he's pretty damn good, and brings a certain haunted intelligence and sensitivity to the character that has been lacking in certain iterations. He was done no favors by the writing and tone of the first film, so let's see if things get better the second time around, shall we?

Wolverine's time in Japan is the subject of one of the more beloved arcs of the character in the comics and was for a long time the rumored focus of a film by Darren Aronofsky. (of "Requiem for a Dream" and "Black Swan" fame)  Continued conflicts and problems led to Aronofsky's exit, so enter James Mangold (of "Walk the Line" and the underrated "3:10 to Yuma") to try to save Fox's Wolverine franchise by taking Marvel's fiercest character to the Far East.

Following the events of the shitty Brett Ratner X3 film that Fox for some reason didn't write completely out of continuity, Logan is doing what he does best - brooding about lost loves in the Canadian wilderness. He's a man haunted by a exceedingly long lifetime of violence, and largely broken. Into this scene comes a mysterious Japanese woman, who convinces Logan to accompany her to Japan, where her employer offers him thanks and a gift. Logan finds himself embroiled in a quasi-noir family/dynastic/corporate drama, and finds himself vulnerable in a way he's never been. So how is it?

The Good: Jackman is, as always, solid as Wolverine. He's clearly determined to treat this beloved character with dignity and respect, and his performance is testament to his skill as a performer. Personally, I've always thought that his Wolverine is too restrained and no where near savage enough (where is the beserker rage, Hugh?) but you certainly can't say that Jackman sells his character short. He brings a physical menace that immediately ups the gravitas of what could very easily be a silly enterprise. The direction is solid, and the plot is much improved from the muddled nonsense of the first Wolverine film.


With that being said, the film struggles to establish itself as something of any significance. Other than Jackman's Wolverine, there are no memorable characters or performances. The villains are cartoonish and seem to menace for menace's sake. I understand that Fox views its X-men franchise as a serious moneymaker for all ages, but Wolverine is a savage murderer who isn't done justice by cartoonish action and a PG-13 rating. His power is a healing factor that in and of itself suggests serious gore and unbreakable bones including 18 inch razor sharp blades. He kills DOZENS of people in this film, and blood is nowhere to be found. The only death that seems to concern him is Jean Grey's. I would be fascinated to see Wolverine given a darker treatment by someone like Aronofsky or Nicolas Winding Refn. (Imagine Jackman as Wolverine given the "Drive" treatment? That movie could damn well contend for awards) The plot is largely pointless and basically serves as a mechanism to get Wolverine back in the game for the next X-Men movie.

So ultimately, while this film is a serious upgrade from the first Wolverine film, that's not saying a whole lot rather than that it's rather middling as far as quality comic book adaptations go. The special effects look cheesy, the plot tries too hard to surprise, and other than Jackman, who gives it his characteristic all, there isn't a memorable character here. It's worth watching if you're bored on a Saturday. Wait for DVD/Netflix, guys.

6/10

2013: The Year in Film: "Elysium" Review

Guys, I'm officially the worst at reviewing movies now. I've officially got a four-movie backlog going on and am a solid 3 flicks behind, but I'm going to buckle down and make this happen. Bear with me here. South African writer/director Neill Blomkamp hit the scene in a huge way with his 2009 debut, the apartheid allegory and xenophobia/immigration cautionary tale District 9. The distinct look and feel of District 9 with its gritty, industrial technology, secretive and dangerous government and compelling story, along with the allegory, established Blomkamp as a name to watch, not just in sci fi, but in film. District 9 was an independent film with an indie budget that managed to achieve the feel of a much bigger studio film with a cast of unknowns. That's a testament to the talents of the people involved. (And make a healthy profit to boot) Let's see how Elysium stacks up.

It's the year 2154 and the discrepancy between "have" and "have-not" has become even more pronounced. The great mass of humanity lives on a poisoned, polluted earth, which has been destroyed by overpopulation, pollution and exploitation. The privileged few live on a space station, the titular "Elysium", where all diseases have been cured and the inhabitants accrue vast wealth while living in abject comfort. This situation obviously leads to some tension, and the powers that be on Elysium are all-consumed with keeping the mass of humanity away from their orbital paradise.

The Good: if there's an actor who's better at playing the "everyman" than Matt Damon, I don't know who it might be. He's the heart and soul of this flick, and your affection for his character will keep you interested through some of the flick's sillier and more nonsensical stretches. Much like District 9, Blomkamp's gritty, dirty, industrial view of science fiction gives the film a unique feel that's simply a lot different from most of the visions of the future we're given in contemporary sci fi. Blomkamp also shows his chops as a filmmaker and visual artist, as the action sequences and special effects are terrifically done, and really help this flick stand apart. As far as the plot goes, we're given a moderately believable dystopian view of the future, one that gibes with immigration and class divide headlines we read daily today.



The bad: other than Damon's character, no other character feels richly drawn enough to really keep your interest. In addition, there are some rather serious logical flaws and I have some issues with the vision of the future. (apparently, people will no longer have cell phones or mobile technology in 2154, but will return to pagers and still drive GM cars) The topical, allegorical plot feels much more forced this time around, and the view of geopolitical reality seems overly simplistic. Generally, the world doesn't feel all that richly drawn or believable this time around. If that seems unduly harsh, it's simply because Blomkamp's proven himself to be so good with District 9, that he deserves a higher standard than your typical sci-fi action fare.

In all, this is a watchable, and generally enjoyable flick, albeit one that fails to live up to the promise of the talent involved. There are some serious logical flaws, a world that feels underdeveloped and a general lack of interesting characters. If it wasn't for Damon's unquestioned star power, this one would have been much worse. Also, can someone tell me what accent Jodi Foster is supposed to have? It's obnoxious.

6.5/10. A great core performance and some outstanding visuals help this one rise to slightly above-average status.

2013: The Year in Film: "Pacific Rim" Review

Guillermo Del Toro is one of the oddest, most distinctive, and most undeniably talented filmmakers working today. If you've seen Pan's Labyrinth or either of the Hellboy films, you know that the man can create creepy, otherworldly creatures like no one else working in film today and also direct a hell of an action scene. He's also rather notorious in Hollywood for biting off more than he can chew - it's not at all unusual for Del Toro to have his name attached to 4 or more projects at once, with everyone under the full-blown knowledge that there's no way that 3 of those 4 are actually happening. He was attached to the Hobbit for a long period of time and actually began pre-production prior to leaving due to delays associated with other projects, for one particularly glaring example. At any rate, we've been hearing whispers of his long-gestating passion project "Pacific Rim" for a long time. We knew it featured giant monsters vs. giant robots, but beyond that, Pacific Rim remained a mystery until footage started leaking out last year. And well, it looked silly. A lot of that is due to the concept itself, but putting together a boldly, proudly ridiculous premise based on an entirely new mythology is a bold move in today's Hollywood climate where every summer franchise is based on existing, adapted material. The reviews started hinting that this one may be more than meets the eye, and Del Toro at this point should have our trust, so how is it?

It's the near future and giant inter-dimensional monsters called Kaiju have been rising from deep beneath the Pacific ocean, wrecking havoc on coastal areas and cities. In response to the increasing stream of attacks, mankind came together to fight the threat by pooling resources and building gigantic robots called Jaegars, hundreds of feet tall, that are controlled via neural-link by two pilots.  As the war begins to turn southward for humanity, a small group bands together to try to stop the attacks.

The Good: To say that this flick was a pleasant surprise might just be the understatement of the century, as there isn't much that this flick doesn't do well. The plot is presented in probably the least silly way this material could possibly be presented, and there are legitimate stakes on battles that easily could have become destruction porn in the hands of someone like Zack Snyder or Michael Bay. This is material that's rationally explained and presented in a plausible way, something many action flicks have been want to do in the last decade. Entirely due to Del Toro's involvement, the monsters and robots are all distinct, with different attributes and designs that turn them almost into characters themselves. We are really given the impression that this is a worldwide effort, and that's something that's often lost in apocalypse movies. The cast, while not Oscar-worthy by any means, is solid, and plays well-drawn characters who have cohesive motivations and arcs. Idris Elba, Rinko Kikuchi and Charlie Hunnam are the highlights, although surprisingly Charlie Day (of Always Sunny fame) does not seem out of place. It's interesting to note just how rare wholly original big event pictures really are. Over the last 5 years or so we've had Avatar, Inception and now Pacific Rim... and that's about it. And we often lose something in the translation.. there's certainly something to say for developing a mythology and world all your own for the big screen and going in fresh, it makes for a fun time. Worth noting is that this flick, despite ostensibly featuring the most destructive set-up of all recent action flicks, actually features significantly less destruction than say, Man of Steel. We never cross the line into disaster porn, and that would have been EXTREMELY easy to do. I can't praise the CGI and the action sequences enough. They are crisp and intense without being too long or ever giving the impression of being gratuitous. THIS is how you direct an action scene, guys. Something this flick does well that's often an underrated part of a great movie is a strong score. It's never distracting, but adds to the entire aesthetic and really fleshes out the flick.


The Bad: my primary complaint is that all the battles take place either underwater or in the rain at night. I understand that this makes CGI cheaper and makes it look better, but sometimes it can be a LITTLE hard to follow what's going on. Besides, who doesn't want to see a 50 story robot fight a 250,000 ton monster in broad daylight? Come on. In addition, some of the supporting characters tend to slide over into stock characters and caricatures, but with a relatively short running length (just over 2 hours), there isn't a lot of fat here.

In all, this is a damn good time at the movies. The plot is straightforward and not overly convoluted with backstory or jargon, there are some great primary characters, an enjoyable and unique mythology, and terrific action sequences that leave you wanting more. I personally promise you won't regret watching Pacific Rim, this is the best action movie of 2013 so far. You're up, Elysium.

8.5/10.

2013: The Year in Film: "Kings of Summer" Review

My interest in this flick was piqued primarily because of two things: a pot-fueled youtube video where Allison Brie and Nick Offerman talk about their next movie, and the fact that it was shot outside of Cleveland, Ohio. (Ohio forever, you guys) I'm always intrigued by new filmmakers, and this flick features a first-time director and screenwriter, played to solid reviews at Sundance and was filmed and set in Ohio.. so count me in. As an aside, I'm not sure what it is about the summer of 2013 and "coming of age stories featuring teenage boys dealing with girls, snakes and building shit in the woods" but the writer of "Mud" (which is MUCH better and the best movie of 2013 thus far, btw) and the writer of this one had some kind of weird mind-meld going on when it came to subject matter.

Freshman year of high school has just ended for friends Joe and Patrick, and their parents are driving them insane. A chance escape through the woods with class goofball Biaggio sparks an idea, and the friends decide to run away to live in the woods. They bring varying degrees of competence to the endeavor, but along the way they find out that they aren't little kids any more, and growing up is much harder than it looks.

The Good: The characters are richly drawn, and best friends Joe and Patrick are convincing and charming, playing friends of that age with wit, authenticity and charm. Nick Robinson (Joe) and especially Gabriel Basso (Patrick) are actors to keep an eye on. Basso, who I recognize from Super 8, falls into his role with a convincing nonchalance more befitting much more experienced actors. Biaggio, played with aplomb by Moises Arias, is an absolutely bizarre and often hilarious human being, and provides many of the flicks funnier moments. Nick Offerman and Megan Mullally (they're married in real life, you guys!) provide Joe and Patrick's parents with some much-needed humanity and charm, as they bring some inherent likability to their roles, which aren't necessarily written with much nuance.  There are some beautiful shots, and the film really makes the most of its beautiful natural setting.

The Bad: the film, ultimately, feels scattered and brings a sitcom sentimentality to something that would have been better suited being played more seriously. The film backs off of mining serious emotional material from its story, opting instead to play it safe or back off entirely. There are situations that are potentially very serious that are immediately turned into jokes (Biaggio at one point says that he doesn't see himself as having a gender - it's never followed up on) and that feels cheap in something that clearly wants us invested in what it's trying to do as a film. I got the feeling that the film was going for a Wes Anderson-esque level of quirk, but the filmmakers here don't get the benefit of Anderson's otherworldly aesthetic so it feels more serious by default. There is a potentially great film buried here, but some curious choices by Galletta and Vogt-Roberts ultimately rob the film of its emotional punch. I can appreciate a quirky indie comedy as much as anyone, but this film absolutely suffers by the decision to back off of the serious emotional material it ends up dancing around.



Ultimately, this is a fun movie that features some very funny moments, strong performances from the leads and some extremely likable comedic moments. It does a great job of capturing that awkward man-boy stage where you aren't really aware that your entire world is about to come crumbling down around you, but ultimately sacrifices real emotion for a quick joke or quirky scene. I have a feeling this flick will ultimately be known for Gabriel Basso's coming out party (the kid's a future star, I'm telling you) and the debut of some clearly talented filmmakers. It's well worth watching, and beautifully done, but in the end, the film falls short of its potential, which is really a shame.

6.5/10. Wait until it's on Netflix/Redbox, and definitely watch "Mud" first.

2013: The Year in Film: "World War Z" Review

If you guys are looking for something that's somehow incurred more nerd rage than Star Trek Into Darkness, here's your target. Some day I'll write a post theorizing about the calculus that goes into nerd group think and whether or not they'll accept an adaptation of a widely beloved work, but for now let's just say that the reaction is often swift, completely illogical, and irreversible. "World War Z"was first a novel by Max Brooks (Mel's son!) that detailed an oral history of a worldwide zombie pandemic. It was written as a collection of individual accounts that together shape a global tale. It's seriously worth a read, as it touches on the international and geopolitical scale of a zombie apocalypse that is so often seen only through the eyes of a small group of survivors in zombie fiction. This film is not that book. Other than the title and the fact that the main character works for the United Nations and trots the globe, it bears only surface details with the book - and that's fine! The disparate characters, multitude of settings (and genres!) and fact that the book exists as a series of first-person narratives would have made straightforward adaption all but impossible. The film instead chooses to do zombies bigger and differently than we've seen on film to this point.. and I'm cool with that.

This film faced some legendary obstacles to production - surely associated with the difficulty adapting the book to a 2 hour movie, but there were issues with multiple re-writes and issues that required several weeks of re-shoots. In all, the film's budget ballooned and it began to risk a reputation as a disaster in the making. Mark Forster (Quantum of Solace) directs a screenplay that 75% of the writers in Hollywood have touched, and Brad Pitt stars as former UN investigator Gerry Lane. The film opens as Gerry is at home with his family when the worldwide zombie outbreak hits the Eastern US. After a tense escape and rescue, Gerry finds himself aboard a flotilla of ships that serves as UN headquarters and is tasked with investigating the virus so that a cure may be found. His investigation takes him around the world as he seeks to uncover clues about the disease among widespread destruction and mayhem.  

The Good: this film looks great. The CGI and effects are seamless and we are given zombie mayhem on a scale that we haven't seen in movies before. The disparate locations give a taste of what a worldwide zombie outbreak/apocalypse might actually resemble - as that's something that's typically depicted on a much smaller, more intimate level. There are some extremely tense and thrilling scenes, including a few of the most effective thriller set pieces I can recall. It's highly reminiscent of Alien, Aliens or 28 Days Later in that way. The way that this film created its world and its zombies, these zombies are much more terrifying that the traditional variety, and that makes for some thrilling and high stakes set pieces. The film really hits the ground running (there's no boring 20 minutes of exposition here) and that sets the stage and the stakes for what follows. In sharp contrast to the majority of action/sci fi films that have been released in ohhh, the last decade (looking at you, Man of Steel), World War Z is not 20 minutes too long, and if anything feels a little abrupt. In addition, Brad Pitt is (as always, or at least as always since the late 90's) very good. He's not your traditional action here in this one, but he's believable as a humanitarian investigator and grounds what could have been an insane destruction fest in a modicum of humanity.



The Bad: on further evaluation, the film kind of falls apart, but then again, it's about zombies, and I'm not sure there's a plausible explanation that doesn't just involve vampire-style magic. In addition, other than Pitt, no one else is given a lot of characterization, so we're really just rooting for "humanity" vs the zombie horde rather than any specific people. Also, rather than represent a revolution in zombie storytelling, this flick sort of borrows a bit from here and a bit from there (a little 28 Days Later, some Dawn of the Dead, a little Contagion, and boom.), and it feels a little TOO derivative at times.

In all, this film brings enough to the table and features some legitimately great and incredibly tense scenes to be a whole hell of a lot of fun to watch. It will probably fall apart when you're driving home and discussing it, but that doesn't change the fact that while it was going on you were probably a little scared and pretty damn enthralled. World War Z is much, MUCH better than anyone was giving it credit for a month ago.

7.5/10.

2013: The Year in Film: "Man of Steel" Review

It seems odd in this present era where comparatively minor superheroes like Iron Man, Thor and Captain America are the stars of hit movies that the original and arguably greatest superhero of them all, Superman, hasn't had a successful film in more than 30 years. Bryan Singer left the X-franchise to make the stinker that was "Superman Returns", which was too concerned with the past to really make any narrative strides with Superman, and in the meantime Batman was the center of one of the best movie trilogies of all time while Marvel built a cinematic dynamo around Robert Downey Jr. and the Avengers properties. Enter Zack Snyder, the guy behind the somewhat disappointing (but visually stunning..) Watchmen and 300. That alone is not all that promising, but when you throw in that the film was produced by Chris Nolan and written by Nolan writing partner David S. Goyer things become a bit more promising. Throw in a potentially great cast: Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner, Amy Adams, Diane Lane, Michael Shannon, and a compelling trailer, and this movie became a "must-see".

This film serves as a "Batman Begins"-style origin story and reboot/reinvention of the character of Superman/Kal El/Clark Kent.  We open with a fascinating, innovative and compelling look at Krypton in its dying days and get a powerful look (through a mix of flashbacks) at Clark's childhood and life in Smallville and his quest to become Superman. When a Kryptonian menace threatens life on earth itself, Clark is forced to become Superman, confront his past, and save humanity.

The Good: the cast is spectacular. Kevin Costner and Diane Lane are completely believable as Ma and Pa Kent, and all of the flashback scenes to Clark's childhood are simply great. Similarly, Russell Crowe is better than he's been in years as Jor-El.. this is the multiple Oscar nominee we all know and love. (Slimmed down, too!) Henry Cavill as Superman/Clark Kent is tremendous, and really brings an inner turmoil to the character that we haven't seen before. The always good Amy Adams brings a believable journalistic drive to Lois Lane, something that has often been lost in older iterations of the Superman story. Michael Shannon as Zod is suitably menacing and relentless, while not completely evil. By focusing on the character and growth of Clark Kent, the first hour of the film is as good as anything I've ever seen in a superhero movie. I'd really compare it to Batman Begins in that way, but instead of Batman's darkness and obsession we get Clark's sense of wonder and discovery. That's a good thing. The film also wisely (and in stark contrast to Superman Returns) marks a complete break from the Richard Donner/Christopher Reeves mythos of the past. New look, new score, new story. A Superman for our time, and that's definitely a good thing. Since it's Zack Snyder, we know that the visuals and the effects are going to be tremendous, and they don't disappoint. There are some spectacular (of course) action sequences, I especially liked the fight on the streets of Smallville, and the villains are sufficiently powerful to challenge Superman on his own terms. In addition, I particularly enjoyed the film's depiction of Krypton. These weren't just humans in funny costumes, this was a foreign feeling culture and society, and the film really does a good job establishing that Superman is indeed a child of two vastly different worlds.

The Bad: the final action sequence is at least 15 minutes too long. The film has a rather relentless final hour, that coupled with Snyder's shaky-cam can be rather exhausting. There's also the issue of the mindless destruction. Yes, Earth is under attack from Kryptonians, but at times it feels like Superman is making no effort to limit the damage. This is troubling, both from the perspective of what Superman has historically been presented to be, and from the implication of a Superman who doesn't care that his actions result in massive destruction. Think back to Avengers, there are multiple scenes of the heroes saving civilians or making an effort to lead the battle away from civilians. Great power, great responsibility, etc. Along the same lines, there is some sketchy, if sensible, advice from Jonathan Kent. While undoubtedly a great man and a great father to Clark, Pa Kent also advises him to keep his power a secret. There seems to some middle ground there. [insert secret identity here]

In all, this is a fine film, and is the best Superman movie ever made. With the strength of the cast, I'm optimistic for the Superman franchise moving forward and hopefully the creation of a wider cinematic DC universe. On the quality of the performances and the greatness of the film's first hour, this is a fine, if ultimately flawed (mostly morally) film. Well worth seeing, but brace yourself for massive and often mindless destruction. 

8/10.

2013: The Year in Film: "This Is The End" Review.

You may have (and probably should just go ahead and do it if you haven't) forgotten about all of the hoopla surrounding the supposed "apocalypse" that was all over the internet last year. Well, it spawned a pair of comedies from some of the funniest people in Hollywood - "This Is The End" from the people who brought you Superbad and "The World's End" from the people who brought you Shawn of the Dead. This one had the benefit of coming out first and featuring a large number of extremely funny and well-known comedic actors from the Judd Apatow orbit. Featuring actors playing ridiculous versions of themselves, this flick focuses on a funny group of friends as they deal with a world-ending calamity.

Old friends Seth Rogen and Jay Baruchel (most recognizable for me from "Tropic Thunder" though he also played Danger in "Million Dollar Baby") have a pot and video game filled reunion weekend in LA planned. Jay, who doesn't like LA, begrudgingly agrees to accompany Seth to a celebrity-filled party at James Franco's house. (Among the celebs in attendance: Jonah Hill, Franco, Craig Robinson, Emma Watson, Michael Cera, Rihanna, and more) After what appears to be an earthquake hits LA, a small group boards themselves up in Franco's mansion to await what they think will be inevitable rescue. They soon discover that the calamity that has befallen LA may be much more than a simple earthquake and seek to survive and keep their sanity among the madness.

The Good: this flick at once features some very funny people who clearly get along quite well sharing whip smart barbs over preposterous and often terrifying situations. There is enough reality in their performances and interactions to really give the film a fun and intimate feel. Don't get me wrong, it never really feels like a documentary, but there's enough of a personal vibe that you really get a glimpse at what hanging out with this group might be like. Much of the film is obviously improvised, and the cast has hilarious interactions with one another based on real or fictionalized relationships. The cast is put through some preposterous and occasionally gruesome situations, but the script and cast is quick-witted and smart enough to find the humor in just about every situation. I found Jonah Hill, James Franco and the entire early party scene to be especially funny, and this group of people has a way to write real-feeling dialogue that you just don't find all that often. [See: Superbad] In addition, some of the more horror-y elements, while always remaining funny on some level, can result in some legitimate low-level scares. This apocalypse feels legitimate, and it's never completely laughed off.



The Bad: it drags a bit in the middle section, and doesn't become clear where exactly the film is going immediately leading up to the sprint to the close. If anything, the film could have benefited from pushing the actual event back a little and letting the party scene breathe more. Many of the film's funniest scenes happen in quick succession by using the available star power, and a movie could have been made from the party alone. In addition, there's a rather abrupt turn from one character in particular that feels unearned. Minutes prior the whole group was hanging out as friends and shortly thereafter one is trying to murder the others? It doesn't feel legitimate and feels a lot more like a device to push the plot along.

In all, this is an extremely enjoyable movie with a lot of solid laughs. There are hilarious sight gags and characterizations that take the interactions between these well-known and well liked actors to ridiculous places. Well worth seeing in the theater for the laughs alone. Ultimately, this one isn't as funny as Superbad (though very few comedies are) but it definitely works on a Pineapple Express (which is heavily referenced throughout) level. A solid time at the movies.

7.5/10

2013: The Year in Film: "Mud" Review

Let me start by saying that this movie completely flew under the radar. Despite the fact that there were rave reviews following it being screened at Cannes and Sundance, it got lost in the Iron Man 3/Star Trek 2 shuffle for me and I kind of completely forgot it existed. Sorry, Mud! A cursory glance at the movie listings revealed that it had a nearly unheard-of 99% on Rotten Tomatoes, so I decided I should give Mud a whirl. A friend and I decided to check it out, and boy am I glad that I did. The follow-up to 2011's "Take Shelter", (which I've heard is good but have never seen!) also written and directed by Jeff Nichols, "Mud" is an indie coming of age story in the vein of "Stand By Me".

"Mud" features two 14 year old friends Ellis (Tye Sheridan - who I recognize from "Tree of Life") and Neckbone (newcomer Jacob Lofland) who live on a river in rural Arkansas. One day they come across a boat in a tree and mysterious, charming, charismatic drifter named simply "Mud". (Matthew McConaughey in his best-ever performance) Mud needs help and brings the boys into his orbit with fantastical tales of a lost love and sinister forces conspiring against him. As Mud's mysteries unfold and Ellis faces challenges at home the two grow closer and form a real friendship.

The film is shot in an almost cinema verite style, and the use of gritty, rural settings and hardscrabble depictions of river life really gives the film an authentic feel. If it wasn't for the presence of known actors, it would really feel like a naturalistic depiction of a way of life that's not likely to be long of this earth. It's a cousin of last year's "Beasts of the Southern Wild" in that way. The sleepy town, turns of phrase, chivalrous yet violent characters and romance of it all gives the happenings a southern gothic Faulkner-esque feel. This is a film that feels distinctly southern and very real and that seeming authenticity gives it a real charm.




The cast is stellar from top to bottom, highlighted by great performances by McConaughey (shoo-in for a Best Supporting nod, I'm calling it right now) and young kids Sheridan and Lofland, who give the sort of convincing, charming and deeply felt performances that make this film feel like more than a work of fiction. Reese Witherspoon is almost unrecognizable as Mud's long-lost love Juniper and Michael Shannon, Ray McKinnon, Sam Shepard and Joe Don Baker are all completely believable as inhabitants of this forgotten place.

Simply put, this flick is a gem. A pseudo modern American fairy tale that is inhabited throughout by charm, humor, mystery and above all the bonds that friendship and family can provide. Some convincing performances by two kids and masterful work by McConaughey propel it to greatness. See Mud, you won't regret it.

8.5/10.

2013: The Year in Film: "Fast & Furious 6" Review

As you may or may not know, I explored the highs and lows of this franchise by watching the entirety of the series over the past-few weeks. [See Below] From the depths of "2 Fast 2 Furious" to the height of "Fast 5", the characters of Dom Toretto and company have made an ABSURD amount of money and quite a mark on the last decade or so. In fact, as I write this post, Fast & Furious 6 has set a record for the largest Memorial Day opening weekend of all time, which is utterly preposterous. Over the span of 5 movies, a crew of rag-tag street racers have become master criminals and masters of combat... and I'm 100% cool with that. In the realm of movies in 2013, there simply aren't a lot of outlets for old-school, tongue-in-cheek, over-the-top action in the realm of its 80's and 90's heyday. Flicks in the spirit of Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, The Rock, Face-Off and the collected works of Arnold Schwarzenegger that existed as a sort of testosterone-laden escapism full of quips, one-liners and a winking acknowledgement that yes, this is preposterous, and yes, we're laughing too are largely extinct, driven the way of the dodo by superhero flicks and serious-minded effects driven works along the lines of the Matrix flicks and asian imports. Somehow a film series that began with a blatant rip-off of Point Break with a hip hop soundtrack and street racing became maybe the finest example of the action genre in movies today. It's insane, and I think I just might love it. So let's check out part 6, shall we?

First, the film opens with a "previously on Fast and Furious"-style montage that is both amazing and entirely apropos. We absolutely need more of this in sequels. If you're going in to watch Fast & Furious 6, I would recommend watching the trailers to 1-4 on youtube, renting Fast 5 and then going in and enjoying some absurdly awesome action madness if you haven't seen the series to this point. You'll be all caught up and have managed to save yourself from the crapfest that is flicks 2 and 4. After the events of Fast 5 the crew finds themselves chilling in style.. until they are approached by Hobbs (The Rock) to help catch a former British commando who is robbing military equipment across the globe in an effort to sell advanced weaponry on the black market. He's a master strategist, always one step ahead of the authorities, and he and his crew just might be the best... so the best need to stop him. Here, the best apparently is a crew of street racers who started in LA. After Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) is spotted riding with Shaw and his crew, Dom and his crew are convinced to help Hobbs stop his plot in exchange for full pardons. Enter some insane (and tremendously done) action sequences as our heroes try to outsmart a man who has a plan for everything.

The Good: This flick features 3 or 4 of the most insane non-superpowered (allegedly...) action sequences you will see in this or any year. It's not just car chases anymore (although of course we have plenty of fast cars..), as the spectacularly assembled and choreographed fights, chases, battles and heists are all great fun. I'm prepared to say that Justin Lin is in the top tier of action directors today when it comes to putting together an action sequences. The scenes are clean, easy to follow, and pack a serious punch. Those last few sentences are completely unironic and without snark. Lin knows how to put together an action scene. Also, at this point the actors are all comfortable in their characters which allows the film to have an easy flow with plenty of comedic quips. The bromance between the Rock and Vin Diesel is straight up homoerotic magic. There are at least 3 scenes where they WOULD kiss if they weren't just too hardass for it. I love it. Whoever decided to bring in the Rock and just make him the ultimate badass in this series is my actual, real-life hero. He actually has superhuman attributes, (there is a scene where he throws a fully grown man around a room, completely destroying it that is pure magic, and another where he jumps 40+ feet onto a moving vehicle) drives a gigantic truck, and plays the unabashedly competent straight man while everyone romps around him. It's ridiculous nonsense. At this point, Vin Diesel IS Dom Toretto, and he's turned the character into an almost reserved and understated alpha male. The cadence of his lines, absolute firmness of his convictions and unreserved badassery ALMOST makes Dom a member of the Greatest Generation or something like it.  Tyrese and Ludacris really play their "class clown" roles with aplomb, and lovers Han and Gisele (I think they aren't actors and just really ARE these people...) are competent and quite compelling, if underused. The villains in this film, almost mirror images of our heroes, are menacing in that they are not merely overmatched villains to be outsmarted and outdriven but actually the equal of Toretto and crew. It makes for an interesting dynamic. Newcomer Gina Carano provides a little badassery on the female side of things and has an epic throwdown or two with Michelle Rodriguez that seems destined from the stars.

The Bad: Paul Walker, while he's certainly better (just in that he has a smaller role to carry, his #2 position having been supplanted by the Rock), is still pretty useless. Jordana Brewster, in a flick (actually!) full of strong and competent women, is a joke. The plot involving the return of Michelle Rodriguez and explanation thereof makes little sense and the flick doesn't even pretend that it does. If anything (and this will sound silly...), the flick goes a LITTLE TOO far. I almost feel like it jumps the shark at times. There are a few scenes that go over the top even from Fast 5, and not that that's necessarily a bad thing, it just feels TOO big, TOO ridiculous, in that it goes beyond suspending disbelief into "these people have super powers, right??". Again, you come into these things knowing what you're getting, but it's just a little too much on occasion. There's a fine line here.

In all, on the strength of some outstanding and over the top action sequences, some strong characterization, a tight plot and strong character acting, this is a fine action flick. We've got heyday of action era bromance and ridiculous action scenes going on, what's not to like? There are some weak links, and some scenes that are simply TOO absurd for me to give it the straight-up "great" label, but it's a lot of fun. If you're in the mood for a fun time at the movies, you could do much worse than Fast & Furious 6... and dare I say that I'm actually looking forward to 7? There is a credits scene that's a straight teaser for 7... and I won't spoil it, but it's awesome. Especially if you've seen Tokyo Drift.

7/10. I like Fast & Furious now. Damn you, Rock, you charming bastard.

... P.S., after 3 whole movies of wondering "HOW THE HELL IS HAN ALIVE????" while he teases us with "maybe I'll go to Tokyo..." we finally get an answer: FAST AND FURIOUS: TOKYO DRIFT IS IN THE FUTURE!!!?!?!?!. That is so awesome/insane that only the Fast and Furious flicks could pull it off. Here's hoping that they bring back 35 year old Lucas "Fake Channing Tatum" Black to play his 19-years-old-in-Fast and Furious-continuity character. The timeline of the series actually and legitimately goes: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 3, 7. That's incredible.

The Fast and the Curious, or: how I learned to stop worrying and love the Diesel.

From humble begininngs...

One of the great curiosities of our day is how, in the name of everything that's holy, did 2001's "The Fast and the Furious", the type of disposable action drivel that populated the summer seasons in the late 90's and early 2000's (think flicks like "S.W.A.T." - with Jeremy Renner!, "Gone in 60 Seconds", "The Transporter", "The Italian Job" and "xXx") spawn a long and successful series that has arguably gotten better with age? Why in the world are we getting more Vin Diesel and Paul Walker while some of those equally successful and often better brethren have long been relegated to the scrap heap of Saturday afternoon's on TNT, USA and FX? Of course, a lot of it has to do with the fact that none of the actors involved have managed to have much success outside of the series (although I would argue that Vin Diesel at least deserves it), but it's a strange quirk of history that we're seeing a relatively well-reviewed 6th installment of a seemingly throwaway franchise. I've gotten a lot of mileage off of ripping on this series in the past (and will continue to do so, believe me), but I decided to do something a little different for this blog and check out the "Fast and Furious" series as a whole... so let's do it. I spent a long weekend (between Thursday and Sunday I watched the entire series, including watching 3, 4 and 5 in one sitting..) checking out one of the more preposterous series to ever reach the 6 mark (that's a post for another day..) killing brain cells and getting good at impersonating car engines in the process, so let's take a magical journey through the life of Dom Toretto and Co. ...

 The Fast and the Furious (2001)

This car is SO fast it's blurry...

This was the only one of the series that I'd seen prior to starting this cycle of self-abuse/project, and what I mostly recall about it was seeing it at the drive-in (yah, NW Ohio!) and my friend driving more than 80 miles an hour all the way home. I remembered that it starred Vin Diesel, Michelle Rodriguez and Paul "Lance Harbor" Walker, featured street racing, and had some sort of plot involving criminals and police, but beyond that, I couldn't remember any details. 2001 was a long time ago, folks. On re-watching, I noticed a few things. First: Paul Walker is a miserable actor. He's just a blank slate, without charisma, range, or any discernible talent besides being good looking.. the homeless man's Keanu Reeves if you will. Second: Vin Diesel is actually a pretty good actor. He manages to imbue what could have easily been a throwaway character with a magnetism and complexity that is the simplest single explanation for why this series persists. Third: speaking of Keanu, the plot of this flick is basically a straight rip-off of Point Break. In Point Break, Keanu Reeves is an FBI agent who goes undercover with surfers because it's suspected that a string of bank robberies have been perpetrated by surfers. After making friends with one group, falling in love and busting another, it becomes clear that his new friends and their charismatic leader were behind the crimes all along. Sound familiar? Yeah, it's basically THE EXACT SAME THING. There are some exciting driving sequences, and in general, I'm amused by the world in which illegal street racing crews are public enemy #1 such to require an FBI task force. It's also quite confusing, given that his Dominic Toretto is generally a likable and honorable guy, as to his motivations for committing the highway highjackings. Doesn't he make money from racing? Seems off. At any rate, undercover cop Paul Walker/Brian O'Connor reveals his identity as a cop in order to save his new friends, and winds up letting Vin Diesel go free. The flick proudly embraces the absurdity of its premise, going all-in on this world of street racing, and is helped along by a (now horribly dated) high-energy soundtrack consisting of Ja Rule (who briefly is featured in the flick), Limp Bizkit, and other long-gone late 90's rap/rock artists. All in all, a solid if forgettable little action flick.. largely saved by the characterization and charisma of Vin Diesel's character and some kinetic action sequences. 6/10.

Number of times Vin Diesel displays super powers: 1. (After narrowly missing destruction by a train, he gets t-boned by a cement truck at approximately 70 miles an hour.. after 5 plus flips he walks away from the accident.)
Number of women who exist as actual characters: 2. Michelle Rodriguez as Letty, Vin's love interest and Jordana Brewster as Dom's sister Mia, who for some reason falls for the utterly charisma-less and obvious cop Brian O'Connor. 


2 Fast 2 Furious (2003)

2 years after the release of the first film, and in the midst of Vin Diesel's brief flirtation with superstar-dom, he clearly passed on the sequel, which instead features disgraced former cop Brian O'Connor. (Paul Walker) I had never seen this flick in its entirety before, despite the fact that it's on TNT at least once a month. O'Connor, on the run to avoid charges linked to the events of the last film, has immersed himself in the world of illegal street racing and is now in Miami. After a brush with the law, his old FBI contact from the first film recruits him to help bring down a local drug lord who is using street racers to help run his operation. The brutal drug lord (for some reason played by a white guy but clearly not supposed to be white) brings on O'Connor and his old friend Roman (Tyrese) while undercover FBI agent Eva Mendes gives them help from within. This flick is clearly going for a Miami Vice feel, which distinguishes it from the first Fast & Furious movie, but is hurt bigtime by the lack of a compelling lead character. Tyrese tries his hardest to make up for the fact that Paul Walker is the least interesting man in the world but he can't make up for the fact that at its best this film feels like brainless, stakesless fun, and at worst it's obnoxious, unwatchable dreck. Paul Walker and Tyrese call each other "bruh" and "cuh" a hilarious 3,000+ times, and the only thing saving this flick from a solid "0" is a pretty smartly assembled final action sequence. If sane people were running this franchise, this would have been the end of the road, but we've only just begun. If it wasn't for the contributions that Ludacris and Tyrese make in the actually good movies in this series it would be even lower than it is. 2/10, and a rather miserable effort all around.

Number of times Vin Diesel demonstrates super powers: 0. Vin Diesel is nowhere to be found! Super powers are in rare supply here, except when Paul Walker drives a car onto an escaping yacht and it actually works.
Number of women who exist as an actual character: .5. Eva Mendes is supposed to be a character, but she never gets developed and shares exactly zero chemistry with any of her co-stars. (Not blaming her!) She gets .5 because she's not PURELY there for sex appeal, but she also serves no real function.


The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006)

This is where shit REALLY goes off the rails.  Where "2 Fast 2 Furious" only brought back Paul Walker from the first installment, this flick brings back NO ONE. WHOLE NEW CAST. At this point, you're just throwing "Fast and Furious" onto random movies featuring cars to make extra money, right? Well, let's hold on. "Tokyo Drift" features clearly 10-years-older-than-his-character Lucas "Fake Channing Tatum" Black as an American high schooler who moves to Tokyo to live with his serviceman father after getting kicked out of too many US schools for getting into racing shenanigans. (He destroys multiple cars and a subdivision with an insane race vs. the bad guy from "Accepted" in the opening sequence) In Tokyo, he finds out that (surprise!) everything's different, and has a hard time fitting in at first. After meeting the local race scene and making an embarrassing first effort, Sean is taken under the wing of a local criminal with a heart of gold (sound familiar?) named Han, who shows him the ins and outs of the Tokyo racing underworld. (Again: high-stakes racing underworld, hilarious) Lil Bow Wow is a fellow American who fills the resourceful/goofy friend role. Going into this experiment, I thought for sure this would be the one movie that I hated the most... but the crazy thing is: I kind of like it. Where 1 is a straight "Point Break" rip off with cars instead of surfing, this is a "Karate Kid" rip off with cars instead of karate. Outsider gets embarrassed, gets trained by wise, kind-hearted master, takes on bully, wins the day and the girl. Han's death is actually one of the 2 or so most resonant moments in the entire series. The simple, classic plot and insane Tokyo visuals and racing sequences make this a somewhat memorable, if very goofy, detour from the rest of the series. Han fills the Vin Diesel role and interestingly, this is the one entrant to the series that in no way features any law enforcement work, although it does feature the Yakuza - exciting! Fun series fact: director Justin Lin made his series debut with this one, he would go on to direct 4, 5 and 6 and bring some cohesiveness to the series. 5.5/10

Number of times Vin Diesel displays super powers: 0. He's not in this flick until a last-second cameo!
Number of women who exist as an actual character: 1. Sean's love interest Neela has some hopes and aspirations - despite being caught up with the dastardly "DK". (Why, in movies, are protagonists always interested in girls who are dating the villain? Doesn't that reflect poorly on her character, dude?)


 Fast & Furious (2009)

At some point between 2003 and 2009 Vin Diesel's non Fast and Furious career fell apart, and Paul Walker never had a career aside from this franchise (and Varsity Blues!), so the old gang returns for the fourth installment, which in actuality is a pretty direct sequel to the first Fast and Furious flick. Plus, it has one of the more nonsensical sequel titles in recent memory.  In the opening scene, we see what Vin Diesel and crew have been up to since we saw them last: hijacking fuel in the Dominican Republic, as Toretto is a wanted international criminal. Plus - HAN (HOW IS HE ALIVE??!?!?) is rolling with Dom and co. Brian O'Connor, now an FBI agent (didn't you guys know that the FBI is REALLY interested in guys with long criminal rap sheets?) is working a case to take down cartel boss Braga, who uses street racers (of course!) to transport heroin across the border through secret tunnels. After Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) is murdered by Braga's crew, Dom comes to LA seeking to bring down Braga for revenge. Dom and Brian inevitably end up joining forces and rekindling their friendship despite Brian's earlier betrayal and total lack of any interesting characteristics, and Brian and Dom's sister rekindle their romance. After some moderately interesting double crosses and a few harrowing and well-done action sequences, our heroes bring down the Braga cartel, and Vin Diesel decides to face justice. The flick ends with Brian going full villain and hijacking the bus transporting Vin Diesel off to prison in by far the flick's best scene. This flick is more interesting as the means that brings narrative cohesion to the series than anything else. It also preview's Lin's trademark taste for big, loud, preposterous action sequences. However, neither Braga nor his driver are compelling villains and the plot itself is rather paint-by-numbers and dull. Despite having many of the elements of a better movie, this one falls short, although it's great to have Vin Diesel back. 4/10

Number of times Vin Diesel displays super powers: at least twice. He and O'Connor are the only survivors from a firefight that kills dozens of other people, and he takes an absurd amount of punishment while driving through walls, fireballs, other cars, support beams and a rockface before impaling Braga's right hand man with his car.
Number of women who exist as an actual character: 2. Even though Jordana Brewster displays questionable judgment in taking back a guy that betrayed her, she has a sizable role, and the flick introduces Gisele, who will be a member of the crew moving forward.

Fast 5 (2011)

So after the return of the original cast what had been a fragmented collection of movies turned into an actual series again. After the events of Fast & Furious, Dom, Brian and Mia find themselves international fugitives on the run. The crew is in Rio, taking jobs to survive when a job gone wrong results in the deaths of DEA agents and a double cross by a Brazilian crime boss. Dom decides the group will get revenge by stealing the crime boss' entire fortune as the US government sends in their top man to apprehend the fugitives. Their top man, of course: The Rock, and this is where the series really finds its legs. Up until this point the series has featured various protagonists facing off against uninteresting villains of varying competence. Now, Hobbs (the Rock) is presented as a mirror image of sorts of Toretto, a physically imposing, competent figure who our heroes can't simply outsmart and outrun. To pull off this job, Brian and Dom decide they need a team, and they summon Ludacris and Tyrese from 2 Fast 2 Furious, Han (who is somehow not dead) from Tokyo Drift, Gisele from Fast & Furious in an effort to unite the franchise. It's actually a pretty clever conceit. The strength of this flick is its ensemble, and every character is given a moment or two to shine. Our heroes try to stay one step ahead of Hobbs while plotting their heist, and the film proceeds at a rather breakneck pace. To be honest, this is one of the better straightforward action films I've seen in quite some time. It has a great sense of fun, developed characters who have chemistry together, elaborate, ridiculous action sequences and an Ocean's 11-style heist plot. Of course, this being a Fast and Furious flick, we feature fast cars, although interestingly, this is the first flick to completely abandon the illegal street racing thread that had run through the rest of the series to greater or lesser extent. Even Paul Walker seems to have a little pep in his step, maybe because he's tasked with shouldering less of the load with a larger ensemble. The Rock and Diesel have their inevitable showdown, and it's as epic as anything in Avengers (and possibly as super-powered...) and end up inevitably joining forces to take down the crime boss who happens to own most of Rio's police. Due to the absurd ridiculousness of the whole affair and the flick's proud embracing of that ridiculousness, this flick is simply a ton of fun to watch. 7.5/10, and by far the best of the series.

Number of times Vin Diesel displays super powers: well, he successfully jumps many times to and from moving vehicles, punches and throws the Rock through walls, glass and any other "breakable" object for 10 minutes without lasting injury. At least 5 times.
Number of women who are actual characters: 2.5. Jordana Brewster's Mia is now pregnant, so she has that going on, the Rock has a Brazilian cop working with him who takes an interest in Dom, and Gisele is a half of a character, who takes a liking to Han (HOW ARE YOU ALIVE, HAN?????)


In all, I gained a new appreciation for Vin Diesel as an actor (seriously, I did), and though the series has its ups and downs, it certainly gets to a high note with 5. 2 Fast 2 Curious.
 

2013: The Year in Film: "Star Trek Into Darkness"

There are two great universes in sci-fi. With all due respect to the myriad of contributions made by franchises like Battlestar Galactica, Firefly, Halo, Alien and The Matrix, but when you're talking spaceships and outer space, for the world at large you're talking Star Trek and Star Wars. By some insane accident of history (or the fact that Joss Whedon is tied up with Avengers), JJ Abrams managed to score the first post-Lucas Star Wars flick after successfully bringing Trek back to life after the Next Generation films ground to a screeching halt and we saw an extended period of time with no Star Trek anywhere. And his first Trek was, in a word, great. If it's more action-oriented and sillier than Trek usually is, I'll take those relative negatives if they go along with a great cast, outstanding production values and a spirit of fun and adventure that gets right at the heart of why people love Star Trek in the first place. 2009's "Star Trek" is on a short list of movies along with Iron Man and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade among movies that I just straight-up don't trust you if you don't at least acknowledge that those are really good, fun and entertaining movies.  It's been a long 4 years since Abrams' first Trek brought Kirk and Spock back to life for a new generation, hell, the last movie is on FX already, but let's check it out. It's unclear whether Abrams will be back for any future Trek flicks with this cast, I'm betting that given the demands likely to go along with the Star Wars gig, he'll probably be gone, but the important thing is that Trek has been brought back to the public consciousness... more Starfleet and the Federation is never a bad thing. 

*BONUS*
Ranking the Trek flicks:
12.) Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
11.) Star Trek: Insurrection
10.) Star Trek: The Motion Picture
9.) Star Trek: Nemesis
8.) Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
7.) Star Trek: Generations
6.) Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
5.) Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
4.) Star Trek Into Darkness
3.) Star Trek: First Contact
2.) Star Trek (2009)
1.) Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

- All of which brings me to a brief aside: take a look at that list. JJ Abrams' flicks are undoubtedly among the strongest that Star Trek has had in the 30+ years of the franchise - so why are we hearing so much complaining about them from the very people who should be the most thankful? Do we not remember the crap sandwich that was the end of the Next Generation movie run? Are Abrams' flicks more action-oriented and less overtly philosophical? Yes. Do they feature great effects, tight storytelling and strong acting from a great cast? YES. What do we care more about? Philosophical nit-picking or watchable movies? Stop complaining, nerds... this is why we can't have nice things.

After the last flick, which saw a time-traveling villain create a new, alternate timeline to the Star Trek we know and love and destroy Vulcan in the process, Kirk, Spock and the rest of the crew of the Enterprise (NCC-1701) are off on their voyage of discovery, exploring new worlds and boldly going. Kirk and crew get into a bit of trouble for disregarding Starfleet regulations around the same time that Starfleet finds itself under assault from a mysterious terrorist. As the Enterprise is tasked with hunting him down it becomes clear that all is not as it seems, either with the terrorist himself or with Starfleet, as Kirk, Spock and co. find themselves racing to save themselves and prevent catastrophe.

The Good: Abrams can direct action, no doubt about it. Lens flares aside, this is a flick that looks great and features some breathtaking action sequences. This cast is great top to bottom and the film really conveys the sense that the crew of the Enterprise has grown together in the time that's passed since the last installment. This is Kirk's film, and he makes serious steps forward as Chris Pine is given many moments to advance the character past the brash and often overeager captain of the last film into the more self-assured and heroic character so beloved by Trek fans. Quinto absolutely owns the role of Spock and is looking and sounding more like Leonard Nimoy than ever. Simon Pegg as Scottie is terrific and provides many memorable scenes. John Cho, Zoe Saldana and Karl Urban are all great as Sulu, Ohura and Bones as well. Along with Chekov, all of the primary members of the crew are given at least one moment to shine. Benedict Cumberbatch is compelling, chilling, and occasionally more than a little sympathetic as the primary villain, as always, he's outstanding. The plot, while not perfect, is tight and manages to call back to a classic Star Trek tale. Abrams has by and large waved goodbye to the more cerebral Trek of old in favor of more straightforward action fare, but when it's as fun and well-acted as this, one viewing of "Nemesis" convinces me that was the right move. If an action "Trek" is what we need to have a Trek worth watching, that's a sacrifice well made in my book. Oh, and there are Klingons, so that can never be a bad thing.



The Bad: The plot is, at points, full of holes and really shreds the "canonical" Trek timeline. Given that this is an alternate timeline, that's not all bad, but it really does leave the Trek we know and love far behind. Some of the moves and motivations don't seem to make a lot of sense except to drive the plot forward. In all, given how damn fun this film is to watch and the strength of the cast, I'm willing to overlook the film's shortcomings.   Some of the secrecy surrounding the identity of certain characters doesn't make a lot of sense in retrospect and the "reveal" served as more of a distraction than anything.

Ultimately, though, this is a fun, well-acted, beautifully shot summer film. It captures the spirit of Trek perfectly, if it leaves some of the traditional trappings of it behind as did its predecessor. Well worth seeing in the theater. Worth paying the IMAX upcharge as well. Do it, I liked this one better than Iron Man 3.

8.5/10