2013: The Year in Film: "Oblivion" Review

Tom Cruise is an interesting character, to say the least. Undeniably talented, incredibly charismatic, he's at once one of the last true movie stars and one of the single strangest people in all of entertainment. As an unabashed movie enthusiast I can say that I at once respect Tom Cruise's talent, shake my head at his oddball behavior and Scientologist beliefs, and wish he had the guts to take more chances with his career. He seems to only play traditional Hollywood "heroes" and leading men (with a few notable exceptions), eschewing riskier, more hard-boiled fare in favor of playing it safe, Will Smith style. There's not anything necessarily wrong with this. it's just that when your filmography consists of nothing but traditional box office draws it's tough to really gauge you as an actor.  Enter 2013's "Oblivion", a sci fi flick written and directed by Joseph Kosinski, who previously directed the great-looking but vapid Tron: Legacy.

It's 2077 and Earth has been decimated by an alien invasion and subsequent war. The moon was destroyed and most of the earth's surface is irradiated wasteland. Jack Harper (Tom Cruise, proving his career goal to play characters with only the most dull of names) is part of a two-person cleanup and maintenance along with his girlfriend/partner, Victoria. (newcomer and sure to be movie star Andrea Riseborough) Their day to day existence consists of maintaining and repairing the armed drones that protect the power stations seeking to transport energy to earth's population on an off-planet colony from the remnants of the alien invasion force. All is not as it seems as Jack continually has dreams of a mysterious woman and encounters other human survivors. The plot thickens.

The Good: this film plain and simply looks incredible. The sky tower, ships and futuristic technology is innovative and stunning. For his shortcomings as a filmmaker, Kosinski is certainly capable of some stunning visuals, which were the best part of Tron: Legacy as well. There is an interesting world and mythology created here that left me wanting more exposition. The flick also benefits from a strong lead performance from Tom Cruise and some great action sequences. A solid 2/3rds of the film consists of Tom Cruise on screen alone, either communicating with someone via headset or all alone and he manages to give his character a strong presence and really dominate the screen. Risborough is strong as well and serves as a solid counterpoint to Cruise. In addition, there are several twists that will surprise you if you manage to avoid spoilers and really drive the plot along. Nikolaj "Jaime Lannister" Coster-Waldau makes a welcome and unexpected appearance as well.

 The Bad: Former Bond girl Olga Kurylenko is pretty to look at but offers very little either as a revelatory character/plot device or love interest to Tom Cruise. She just sort of stumbles along with a dazed look on her face. Morgan Freeman is cast as the leader of the human survivors but is similarly given very little to do. Either the vast majority of his role was cut or he's hard up for money because his role is simply unbefitting an actor of his talent and stature. The plot, while smart in its own way, borrows heavily from sci fi tropes and classics and feels like part Planet of the Apes, part Terminator, part video game, part Wall-E, part Matrix and generally feels like something we've seen before with an M. Night Shamalan twist.

 Ultimately, this is a great-looking flick with a vintage Tom Cruise performance. However, the lack of strong character to match Cruise (and a total lack of chemistry between him and supposed love interest Kurylenko) leaves the flick feeling unfulfilled. The plot after the twists ultimately feels flat and the film is just too derivative to be anything special. Worth seeing in the theater for the visuals, but nothing memorable.. this can be added to the middling ranks of the sci-fi genre. Cruise certainly gives it his all though. 6.5/10.

2013: The Year In Film: "Spring Breakers" Review

So I saw this flick 2 weeks ago, but hey, life gets in the way sometimes. Tragically, I sit down to write this "review" (such that it is..) on the same day that Roger Ebert, movie critic and blogger extraordinaire, was taken from us all too soon at age 70 by the same cancer that long ago robbed us of his voice and television presence. Growing up in a tiny town where "good" movies consisted of whatever blockbuster was at the multiplex, Siskel and Ebert on network TV was one of my early forays into film as an art form. This was pre-internet, as hard as that may be to fathom, pre-IMDB, pre-Rotten Tomatoes, pre-every idiot blogger with a keyboard waxing poetic on why they don't like so-and-so or so-and-so.  As I became a movie-obsessed adult with at least somewhat ok taste, I discovered that Ebert had completely re-made himself into an internet titan.

Ebert was always a voice of wit, of sanity, of progressive politics and clever and always entertaining commentary on society in general but film specifically. After the disease that would ultimately take his life robbed him of his voice and his lower jaw, he doubled down on his online presence, becoming a prolific blogger and social commentator while also managing to be a top 5 Twitter follow. Ebert, more than any other single individual, influenced my decision to blog on movies. Despite the fact that he was deeply knowledgeable and possessed an insider's knowledge of the industry, his reviews were never possessed with the sort of puffy pseudo intellectualism that makes so much of our postmodern cultural criticism utterly inaccessible to lay people. (That's a discussion for another day) Through it all, Ebert managed to almost always straddle the line between fan and critic, and though I didn't always agree with his personal tastes and prejudices (in particular, he often was unable to look past his liberal politics in his later years) I respected the hell out of his everyman approach to writing. In this way, he pre-empted the blogging movement by decades. History will be kind to Roger Ebert, and me personally, I tip a nod of my cap to you, sir. May you rest in peace in whatever peace you believe in.  

Harmony Korine is one of the stranger characters working in American film today.. after rising to infamy as the writer of "Kids" he went on to write and direct "Gummo" and has continued to put out artistically adventurous and challenging films ever since. "Spring Breakers" represents a deviation from his career thus far, a mainstream Hollywood picture with a wide release and starring known actors. Interestingly, Korine brings in James Franco and former childhood/Disney stars Vanessa Hudgens, Selena Gomez and Ashley Benson to star in this bizarre, manic Spring Break party cautionary tale.

Four friends (Faith, Cotty, Brit and Candy) at an unnamed university somewhere in the American south find themselves caught up in the kind of malaise that often afflicts young people of privilege. They simply MUST go on Spring Break, but, being broke college kids, they can't come up with the money to fund a decadent week on the beach.. enter armed robbery. The party comes to a screeching halt when the cops bust a party, and the gals find themselves in troubling, criminal circumstances.



 This is, in short, one of the strangest flicks I've ever seen. The strange mix of high production value, A-List cast, artful shots and gritty, bizarro art-house plotting and pacing makes for an odd theater viewing experience. Korine, of course, is aware of this and intercuts stylized visuals with nonsensical (and often hilarious) dialogue or preposterous action. What this film is trying to accomplish is anyone's guess. It's clearly a chance for James Franco to ham it up as a ridiculous white rapper character and for child stars to make their hard-R debut. but I like to think it's a parable of sorts. Using over the top events to dramatize the possible negative effects of debauchery and lampooning the role of violence in American culture. (But it's quite possible that I'm giving everyone involved too much credit) It's bizarre, it's great to look at (certain scenes have an almost Michael Mann feel to them), it's often hilarious, but it's also a total mess.

 Ultimately, this isn't something I'd call "good", in the least. It's strange, and worth watching, but it's so over the top and silly that in the end it feels hollow. (There are increasingly hilarious sound cuts of gunshots and James Franco creepily whispering "Spring Break" that successfully cross the line from nonsensical to high comedy) Weak characterization abounds, although Franco turns in a yeoman's effort, and Gucci Mane should be ashamed of himself for phoning his villain in. Often hilarious, often dumb, but I still couldn't look away. If you're in the mood for something strange, give it a go. Franco's take on a south Florida rapper alone makes it worth checking out.

6/10.