2014: The Year in Film: "Fury" Review

The Second World War is easily one of the top 2 or 3 film settings in the history of film. We've seen WW2 done in just about every conceivable way.. and it's easy to see why. The scale of the war is virtually inconceivable to a modern audience, and the clear morality of the conflict makes it easy to tell re-envisioned or adapted versions of virtually any myth or archetypical heroic story by using the war as a backdrop.

David Ayer, the writer/director of Fury, cut his teeth on gritty LA crime dramas. He wrote Training Day, wrote the first Fast and Furious film, wrote and directed the underrated Harsh Times, and wrote and directed End of Watch, here we see a departure (although he did write U-571) with a World War 2 tank film. Ayer's films are violent, often brutal, and hyper-masculine, so it's exciting to see his take on a well-worn genre. Ayer has also been tapped to write and direct WB/DC's Suicide Squad, kind of a superhero twist on The Dirty Dozen, and I think that's kind of an inspired choice.

Here, we are dropped into Germany in April, 1945. The war is nearly over (indeed, it will end on May 8, although our characters don't know that) and our war-weary characters have fought their way into Germany itself. As they face increasingly desperate German defense in hostile territory, the seasoned tank unit is forced to accept a raw recruit due to personnel shortages. This recruit, Norman, (Logan Lerman) has zero training or experience, which is a bit of an issue for the rest of the crew, who have been together for years. The crew, led by "Wardaddy" (Brad Pitt, in a bleak take on his Aldo Raine character from Inglorious Basterds) finds itself tasked with defending an important crossroads at the main column's rear, and desperately trying to survive the war.

The Good: first, I don't think I've ever quite seen WW2 depicted in this way. It's become commonplace in our culture, already inclined to think of veterans in a positive light, to treat every member of the "greatest generation" in a venerated air of hushed respect. That's simplistic, morally simplistic, and quite frankly disrespectful to the millions of unique individuals who served during this time representing all shades of the human condition. This film treats its characters as flawed, dark, cynical but most of all believable human beings. They aren't trying to be heroes. They're guys who've seen a lot of horrible shit and just want to do their job and go home. The film is gritty, dark, and dirty, with everyone constantly covered in filth, mud, grease and blood, the way I imagine a tank crew in enemy territory in 1945 would have been. The action sequences are tremendously and impressively choreographed, and the film features the single finest tank battle I've ever seen depicted on screen. The narrative is tight, despite the long runtime, and it's not overly grand in scope, choosing to focus on "man on the ground" realism rather than large displays. But most of all, the highlight of this film are the performances, and two in particular. Brad Pitt is, at this point, maybe the most quietly assured movie star on the planet. He eases into his roles with aplomb and brings a truly remarkable depth and humanity to a damaged yet charismatic man who easily could have become a caricature. It's become commonplace to rip on Shia LaBeouf, and the guy is no-doubt a weirdo, but in this film he turns in a legitimately great performance as "bible", the tank's gunner and spiritual leader. He's nearly unrecognizable, missing teeth, scarred, mustached and covered in mud while mumbling most of his lines, but his character feels so incredibly true to life and delivers some of the film's most powerful moments. See below. Jon Berenthal (Shane from the Walking Dead) and Michael Pena are strong as well and Logan Lerman grows up before our very eyes on screen. The combat depicted is brutal, and the gallows humor between the men galling, and in a lot of ways this film feels like a war horror movie - which I suppose is what a good depiction of war should be. The violence and gore is occasionally shocking, but I suppose it probably is pretty shocking to see the things one sees in war. By the time of the film's climatic battle, we have spent so much time with these men so intimately, that we are incredibly invested in every shot... and the battle is infinitely better for it.



The Bad: if anything, it may be TOO gory, which could lead to a legitimate criticism of the film taking relish in its disturbing visuals. I don't think that's what the film is trying to do, but there are some horror-gore level visuals that can be a little upsetting. Additionally, I liked what Logan Lerman was doing by and large, but I don't think his character was interesting or compelling enough to match what Brad Pitt and Shia LaBeouf were up to. Granted, he's an audience cipher and our window into this world, but he's just not that interesting. Additionally, I think it's worth stating that I feel the film ultimately falls a little short of its goal.... there are occasional moments of true... grace? Beauty? And profound humanity.. but at its heart it falls short of greatness, and settles for "damn fine war movie"... which isn't so bad.

Ultimately, this is a poignant, powerful, occasionally upsetting and visually thrilling film. Fans of World War 2 or war movies in any way should not miss this one, as I feel that it's a valuable addition to the war canon. Don't come to see gallant heroes vanquish evil. Come to see human beings cope with hell on earth. And for a few really great actors do some really great work.

8/10.

2014: The Year in Film: "Gone Girl" Review

Gillian Flynn's novel "Gone Girl" was kind of everywhere a few years back. I definitely read it and really liked it, and I think most of the people I know read it. It's a fascinating mix of Americana, noir, murder-mystery and domestic drama all set against the backdrop of the late 2000's economic downturn. Basically a "Lifetime" movie with a twist, the book was a fascinating twist on a familiar narrative, and even if the ending was a controversial one, the book was a pretty massive hit in 2012. The film went into production pretty much immediately thereafter, and once David Fincher's name was attached, I immediately focused on this flick as one to watch. Fincher, the auteur behind films as diverse as Se7en, Fight Club, The Social Network, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, has a visual style all his own, and his willingness to delve into the darkest sides of the human condition in a brutal way made him an ideal choice for the adaptation of "Gone Girl". Throw in the fact that Gillian Flynn, the author, was brought on board to help write the adaptation, and there was quite a lot of buzz around this flick upon its release.

In Gone Girl, we're introduced to Nick Dunne, (Ben Affleck) a handsome, aloof, all-American type of guy whose wife, Amy (Rosamund Pike) has just gone missing.  Through a mix of flashbacks and following the investigation of the disappearance, it becomes clear that there is more to this picture-perfect couple than meets the eye, and as the media circus descends on the sleepy Missouri town, the entire case begins to spiral out of control.

The Good: it's Fincher, one of the most visually distinctive directors of our time, so the visuals certainly do not disappoint. As Fincher has matured as a filmmaker, he's able to convey simmering tension better than just about anyone in the business, and even though the film isn't able to keep the same sense of mystery going that surrounds a first-time reader of the book, the outcome remains in doubt and keeps you glued to the screen. Rosamund Pike and Ben Affleck are pretty-spot on casting, and Pike especially shines, in a role that's not quite like anything else I've ever seen her do. The supporting cast is strong as well, with Neil Patrick Harris, Tyler Perry (?), Kim Dickens and (Ohio native!) Carrie Coon performing admirably as well. Carrie Coon, fresh off of The Leftovers (which I kind of love, btw) shines, and I really hope that she continues to find steady work. The narrative flows and progresses pretty seamlessly, and despite a long runtime the film is pretty tight, without much meandering or wasted space that seems to be a hallmark of many film adaptions of books.



The Bad: The character of Nick is a problem. But he was a problem in the book as well... he's just not interesting, charming or compelling. That's not an indictment of Affleck's performance, because Nick is a big, aloof lug in the book as well, it's just a criticism of the story as a whole. Additionally, the film suffers compared to the book because you, an audience member, never really believes that Nick did it. In the book that remains an open mystery, and the story suffers as a result. Additionally, the ending of the film, even though it's a marked improvement over the ending in the book (I told you the ending was a problem..) still feels abrupt and disappointing. In a film that seems to pride itself on quasi-realism, the ending just... isn't realistic at all, and that is pretty jarring.

In all, if you're a fan of Fincher, a fan of the book, or a fan of neo-noir-ish mysteries, there's a ton to like in this movie. It's dark, it's cynical, it's bleak, but it's also wild and fun in a crazy way. Well worth a watch.

7.5/10

2014: The Year in Film: "Boyhood" Review

Richad Linklater is one of the truly original filmmakers working today. A uniquely American auteur, he came out of the 90's indie movie scene with films like Dazed and Confused, Waking Life, A Scanner Darkly and the Before.... films. (Before Sunrise, Before Sunset and Before Midnight)  Most notably for purposes of discussing Boyhood, his masterpiece, the Before... films, which feature the same actors acting out an extended narrative over the course of decades demonstrate an experimental streak and willingness to play with the usual trappings of film.

Enter: Boyhood. In 2002, Linklater cast a 6 year old boy, Ellar Coltrane (which is a pretty awesome name, btw) as Mason, a boy growing up with a single mom and his sister in Texas, in a film that was to be shot in short segments over the next 12 years until Mason was 18 years old. Rather than a documentary, this was going to be a prolonged narrative that would follow Mason, and with him the other actors cast in the film, over the next 12 years and tell a story that's at once deeply personal and somehow universal in an almost spiritual way.

The Good: First, screw good, pretty much everything about this film is great. This film blurs the line between documentary and narrative pretty seamlessly, and rather than punctuate life with highlights and "big" moments the way works of fiction are want to do, the film allows its narrative to meander through Mason's life like a lazy river. Friends, family members, girlfriends, houses, schools and moments come and go, and we're shown the mundane, the everyday, the stuff that makes life worth living through the eyes of a small boy who is becoming a man before our very eyes. Life's big moments (parents getting married, moving to a new town, etc.) happen in the background and aren't the focus, along with major geo-political and world events (the Iraq War, the election of Barack Obama, the housing crisis, etc.), all of which pass without commentary they way they would in a child's life. Their effects resonate, but for Mason and his family, the focus remains deeply personal and focused on the here and now. This gives the film a timeless and a universal impact. Even if you didn't grow up in Texas in a single parent home, you were a kid, in school, who did _____. You drank with your friends. You got your first car. You talked about girls. (or boys) This universality, for me, made me feel at once small and insignificant, because YOUR shit is kind of everyone's shit, after all, and also part of a greater whole. Everyone involved should be commended for how cohesive everything feels. Despite the fact that it was filmed in snippets over a 12 year span, this is a recognizably cohesive narrative, and that combination of documentary-style devotion to its subjects and a cohesive narrative makes this a wholly unique achievement in the history of film. Having never seen Ellar Coltrane in anything else, I can't say how much of himself he's bringing to Mason and how much of Mason comes from the page, but he's a sensitive, likable, charming individual and Mason's quiet likability as the audience's cipher really draws you in to the film. Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke are great as well, and as the film progresses and they age into their new status quo, their character's interactions with Mason progress as well in an organic and natural way... which makes the parent-child relationship really shine through in a way that I don't believe I've ever seen on film before. Lorelei Linklater, the director's daughter, plays Mason's sister, and despite not looking like her on-screen "parents" or "brother" the way that Mason does, she undergoes a similar and equally powerful transformation of her own. Even if this film isn't going for the BIG cry or the BIG resolution in the way that the trailer would have you believe or a traditional movie typically would, it's just as powerful, and more affecting than just about any work of fiction I've ever encountered.



The Bad: there isn't much, if anything that's not to like here. If I had one criticism, it would be a lack of development of supporting characters. I get that 12 years is a long commitment, I do. But the narrative feels sparse at times because it focuses on our primary subjects at the expense of the world around them.

In all, though, this is quite possibly the greatest film I've ever seen. It's definitely the most powerful. Despite being 3 hours long, I was rapt throughout, and the fact that this thing successfully worked despite EVERYTHING that could have gone wrong is an achievement in and of itself. Even if you aren't a boy growing up in Texas, and I've never even been to Texas, there's something universal and timeless about Mason and his family. If the task of fiction is, as I've heard, to comment on the human condition, then we have an undeniable masterpiece here. Technically brilliant, incredibly touching, and with a refreshing sense of universality and awe, Boyhood kind of grabs you and never lets go. Is it my favorite movie ever? Probably not. But it just might be the best movie I've ever seen.

10.

2014: The Year in Film: "A Most Wanted Man" Review

So, the overdose/death/suicide of Philip Seymour Hoffman was one of the truly sad premature deaths of the last few years. One of the truly great and distinctive talents of his generation, he was only 46 years old when he passed... and I'm legitimately still a little sad about it. Other than his crowning achievement, his Best Actor Oscar for Capote, he turned in particularly memorable roles in The Master, Doubt, Boogie Nights, Charlie Wilson's War, and so on and so on. He was the type of performer who left his mark on every single role, no matter how small (hell, he was even pretty great in Along Came Polly) and who elevated otherwise forgettable films into great, memorable works just by the sheer force of his talent. I was, and remain, incredibly sad to see him go, as I feel that his best years may have been ahead of us, but as a small consolation he left us a few more films to remember him by. In addition to the final Hunger Games flicks, which are 'meh' as far as PSH goes, he left us with A Most Wanted Man, an adaption of a John le Carre spy novel. (le Carre, who had worked for British intelligence during the Cold War also wrote "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" among numerous other books)

In A Most Wanted Man, we're introduced to Hamburg, Germany, where a mysterious Chechan man swims to shore and attempts to hide with the local Muslim community. German and American intelligence services take an interest with this man - who may have ties to terrorism - and the spies on the ground struggle to discover the truth before its too late.

The Good: like a good spy novel, quality TV drama or 70's-era film, the plot unfolds gradually, choosing to focus on character points and narrative tension over James Bond-style action and car chases. I'm under the impression that this film paints a realistic picture of what spycraft and intelligence work are really like focusing on the bureaucratic, political elements, although of course I have absolutely zero perspective on what is or is not "realistic" when it comes to such things. Rather than painting its characters as "good" or "bad", more or less everyone exists in a shade of grey, and it remains a legitimate question for most of the film as to whether the "most wanted man" in question is a legitimate target and potential terrorist or a political refugee and victim. Philip Seymour Hoffman is, in a word, brilliant. His Gunther Bachmann is understated, intense, and driven despite the failures of his career, and his posture, mannerisms and every move belie a man determined to fight for his beliefs even as he's nearly been defeated by the demands of his chosen profession. Even though the performance is more subtle than what's typically considered "great", this film is a great encapsulation of what made PSH such a tour de force on the screen. If it's not an ideal farewell, it's a suitable one. The rest of the cast doesn't quite keep pace with him, but Willem Dafoe, Robin Wright and newcomer Grigoriy Dobrygin are bright spots.



The Bad: the plot is at times a bit melodramatic, and some of the character motivations don't quite make sense. Rachel McAdams is miscast, as she's simply not up to the task of matching PSH in a serious film, and her character's motivations seem to miss, as she's simply not believable as a crusading immigration lawyer. Additionally, this film falls into the personal pet-peeve trap of having American actors playing Germans talking to each other in English with German accents. I have always thought that is just absurd, and I know that it's an old Hollywood trope, but I simply cannot abide it and think it's always ridiculous. We're all adults. We can read a movie. Film it in German or adapt it so that it's set in an English-speaking country.

In all, you're coming to this film for one reason and one reason only: to see one of the greats in his last performance as a leading man. Even though the film is subtle and understated, it's done well, and PSH for his part does not disappoint. So if you're a PSH fan, or feel like watching what's basically a very good extra-length episode of Homeland, you'll like what you see.

7.5/10

2014: The Year in Film: "Guardians of the Galaxy" Review

So Marvel, at this point, can do no wrong as a movie studio. Everything it touches has become gold, and it's been so long since they've made an even mediocre flick (hi, Thor!) that when the studio announced that they were making an actual movie based on the obscure, Star Wars meets superheroes sci-fi characters of "Guardians of the Galaxy", everyone's first response was "wow, that sounds really cool!" instead of what it probably should have been, something like "Is Kevin Feige on MDMA?".  Even me, a dude who's been reading Marvel comics for as long as I can remember, had never heard of "Guardians of the Galaxy" prior to Marvel making the announcement that they'd be making a movie based on these characters. Even the fact that the entire endeavor was going to be put in the hands of the goofy guy from NBC's Parks and Recreation and the writer of the live-action Scooby Doo movies starring Freddie Prinze Jr. and Sarah Michelle Gellar didn't seem to do much to hamper the enthusiasm. Personally, I was extremely skeptical, as were many of the media types who care about things like "will _______ movie coming out in 2 years actually be good??". In short, Guardians of the Galaxy was going to be Marvel's biggest test as a studio since it hit the bigtime, an effort to establish wholly unknown characters in a weird space setting. It was destined to either fall flat on its face or be a gigantic success.

So, the Marvel comic universe isn't merely limited to the earth. There are superheroes that stay on earth, others that leave, others that are aliens themselves (like Thor), and still more that stay in space and rarely, if ever, actually come to earth. Marvel has been setting up alien threats in its movies since Avengers, and that part of the universe really gets fleshed out here. In Avengers, we were introduced to Thanos, a character whose villainy and thirst for power threatens everyone in the universe. In Guardians, we learn that this threat isn't just limited to Earth and Asgard, but to other worlds and civilizations as well. We're introduced to a vibrant, Star Wars-esque universe of many worlds and aliens, one where an unlikely human from earth, Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) operates as your standard Han Solo-type charming rogue. Various characters find themselves thrust together against an existential threat, and in the process discover friendship and an unlikely heroism.

The Good: this flick is, in a word, fun. It's a freaking blast. It manages to expertly hop back and forth from the hilarious to the absurd to the heartbreaking skillfully and breathlessly. Largely on the back of Chris Pratt's charm, the quality of the CGI and the obvious chemistry between everyone involved, what could easily have been a silly waste of time becomes a clever, relentlessly witty, surprisingly smart and occasionally touching sci-fi romp. Bradley Cooper voices a CGI raccoon named Rocket who manages to be one of the most memorable characters of the year, and Vin Diesel voices a CGI 10 foot tree that brings home the most the single most emotionally touching scene in any Marvel movie yet. That's just the type of film that this is.. it's constantly subverting expectations, turning convention on its head, and managing to show that in the right hands, superhero movies can be anything you want them to be. I was constantly reminded of the first Star Wars film throughout Guardians, and I mean that in the most flattering way possible. This is a universe that feels vast and lived-in, and doesn't dwell on exposition or nonsensical explanations, choosing instead to bring you along for the ride. Perhaps most impressively, and uniquely among all of the Marvel films to date, no knowledge of the other films is necessary to enjoy this one, but Marvel uber-nerds and fans will find plenty sprinkled around Guardians to inform and enrich the unique shared universe. WWE wrestler Dave Bautista makes his film debut as Drax the Destroyer, an alien utterly unable to understand sarcasm or idiom, and he turns in a surprisingly charming and often very funny performance. Michael Rooker plays a scene-stealing version of his character from The Walking Dead, and most of all, every single person involved is pretty obviously having a blast, and that sense of joy and wonder really shines through.



The Bad: I have two complaints, neither one of which is a dealbreaker, but both of which slightly annoyed me. First, the film occasionally drifted too far to the side of sacrificing itself for a joke. I'm not sure that it ever necessarily goes that far, but it gets dangerously close at times, and that is distracting. The second is that some great actors appear in tiny roles that appear to waste their talents. I'm not sure if the plan is to save them for the inevitable sequels, but Glenn Close, John C. Reilly and Benecio Del Toro probably appear combined for a grand total of 15 minutes of screentime. That seems like a waste, but I'll withhold ultimate judgment until I see whether there's a larger plan at play.

Ultimately, this is my 2nd favorite Marvel movie (which is saying something, because I love almost every single one of the Marvel movies), and it manages to expertly tread the line between touching, hilarious, smart, and thrilling. As legitimately fun as any movie that I've ever seen, and I can't wait for it to come out on DVD so I can see it again. Say goodbye to Andy Dwyer, guys... Chris Pratt is a freaking star.

We Are Groot.

9/10.

2014: The Year in Film: "How to Train Your Dragon 2" Review

So guys, I don't want to brag, but I'm almost current, only 5 movies to go until I'm all the way caught up. My original goal was to get current in time for Interstellar, which won't happen at this point, but I'm close enough that I'm pretty confident I'll be current in time for awards season and hopefully stay current from that point on. Go me!

So, I know. I have been resolutely opposed to cartoon movies for years now, and have only recently taken a break from yelling at kids from my porch to jump back in to an entire genre of movies. I remain steadfast in my determination that there's a fine line between "legitimately cute" and "disgustingly obnoxious" that a movie explicitly geared towards children must tread, and that 99% of animated fare geared towards kids falls on the "disgustingly obnoxious" side of things, but occasionally a flick will break on through to "objectively good". The first How to Train Your Dragon was, somewhat incredibly, given the nonsensical title, one of the best animated films I've seen in years. Behind a great vocal cast and some fantastic animation (the flying scenes, especially, are the best you'll see anywhere other than Avatar) it managed to be a surprisingly smart and touching look at what could have been a cliche-ridden jokefest. In it, we met Hiccup, a young viking who's a total outcast in his warrior culture. He's bookish, physically weak, and sensitive in a culture that values physical strength and bravery. However, after Hiccup discovers that there's more to dragons than meets the eye and saves the day, he becomes a hero.

Enter How to Train Your Dragon 2. We're reintroduced to Hiccup and friends on the island of Berk. Dragons are now an integral part of Viking society, and the former arch-enemies now share the island of Berk and pretty much everything else. Hiccup and his dragon pal, the endlessly charming Toothless, spend their time exploring the world and seeking new adventures. The discovery that the world is much bigger, scarier, and more exciting for human and dragon alike will test them both, as new friends and enemies raise the stakes significantly.

The Good: visually, the animation is spectacular. Since I'm reviewing this one several months late, you'll no longer have the chance to catch this one in 3D in the theater, which is truly a damn shame, considering that the 3D work is the best I've ever seen in a movie that's not called Avatar. I'm sure it'd still be strong on a home theater, but the pure joy that the film takes in reveling in the flying scenes is worth appreciating. The action scenes are expertly characterized as well, and there's a lot more and a lot bigger action this time around. However, it's the character work that's the draw here. The talented vocal cast (Jay Baruschel, Kirsten Wiig, Jonah Hill, TJ Miller, Gerard Butler and more) brings charisma and life to even minor characters, and Toothless is most likely the most charming silent animated character of all time. This flick goes bigger, bolder and darker than the first installment, and that's a good thing, as all of the character development that's happened to this point makes it feel earned and hard-hitting rather than abrupt and manipulative. Additionally, the flick should get extra kudos for trying to match the sense of joy, discovery and wonderment that the first one captured so well. As a sequel, it's going to be impossible to completely match or surpass the original in that department, but I'm going to give it high marks for even trying.



The Bad: if anything, the flick might be a little TOO dark, and in a way that I'm not sure that the flick intended. I'm not going to spoil it discussing what actually happened, but if you saw this one and what to discuss, I'm happy to... and it's pretty bleak. The flick largely manages to avoid treading into cutesy, funny Shrek type territory, even though it occasionally drifts rather close to that brink.

In all, this one is a wonderfully animated, emotionally touching, charming and effective ride. Despite ostensibly being a film for kids, this one treats its audience and its characters with a complexity, wit and charisma that would feel right at home in a drama geared for adults. I'm not being hyperbolic when I say that the first How to Train Your Dragon is a good kid's movie, and the sequel is just a flat-out good movie.

8.5/10.

2014: The Year in Film: "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" Review

The first latter-day Planet of the Apes flick was one of the more pleasant surprises in recent years. Even with the presence of a whole lot of James Franco, it was still a surprisingly emotionally effective portrait of Caesar, the legendary founder of the ape world referenced in the original Planet of the Apes, and how he came to be so special. Through Andy "Gollum" Serkis' CGI acting, Caesar came to be as fully realized and likable a character as any live human, so the sequel became one of my more highly anticipated movies of the year.

At the close of Rise of the Planet of the Apes, we saw that the virus responsible for Caesar and the other apes' cognitive development was also lethal to humans and quickly spreading across the globe.  Dawn of the Planet of the Apes opens with Caesar and his ape society several years later having built a peaceful society all their own in the forests of Northern California. A chance encounter with some humans scouting a nearby dam sets the human colony and the ape colony on an inevitable collision course.

The Good: First, props goes to everyone involved in bringing the apes to life. Sure they are CGI and don't always look as real as they maybe should - BUT THEY ARE 100% CGI and still look pretty damn great. These are characters who barely speak, if they speak at all, and they are wholly realized, developed, and capable of having emotionally resonant moments with one another and with their human counterparts. Special praise, obviously, goes to Andy Serkis as Caesar, who just might be one of the great characters, CGI or otherwise, in film of the last 10 years, (Not an exaggeration) but Maurice is especially endearing for me and Koba makes a pretty damn great villain. The human cast is strong as well, with the criminally underused Jason Clarke (BIG Jason Clarke fan over here, guys) standing out in a role that sees him interacting at least 50% of the time with CGI apes. Gary Oldman does more with his role than a lesser actor might have, and Keri Russell is more than adequate. The post-apocalyptic cityscape of San Francisco is pretty well done, and reminded me of The Last of Us.  But at its heart, this is a flick that's about humanity and apes battling, when we know that apes are going to win, and it still manages to be emotionally affecting, strangely touching, smart, suspenseful and occasionally Shakespearian. That's no small feat, especially for an effects-driven summer tentpole.



The Bad: some of the human characters were wooden and poorly drawn, which seems odd for a flick that gave so much development to CGI apes. The "bad" human at the heart of the onset of human-ape conflict was a caricature of a movie bad guy who seemed whisked right over from the set of The Walking Dead.  Additionally, Gary Oldman seems largely wasted - it seems odd to have an actor of his caliber in what amounts to a small role. The ape scenes are SO much better and more entertaining than the human scenes that we find ourselves rooting for the apes from the onset - which I'm not sure is exactly the point of the Planet of the Apes series.

In all, this is a surprisingly smart and touching summer blockbuster, one in which the action scenes serve a purpose and don't overwhelm everything else that's going on. At its heart, this is a film about Caesar, one charismatic CGI ape, and the best motion-capture acting happening anywhere right now.  This film has a lot to say, even if it's not QUITE as smart as it thinks it is, and I for one can't wait for the next installment.

8.5/10.

2014: The Year in Film: "Snowpiercer" Review

Confession: I don't watch enough Korean films. Confession 2: I've never watched a Joon-ho Bong film.

Enter, "Snowpiercer", an adaptation of a French graphic novel wherein the surviving members of humanity are stuck on a vast and fantastic train driven by a perpetual motion engine traversing the frozen wasteland of earth after an attempt to slow down global warming went horribly wrong. On this train, the surviving members of humanity are separated by social class, with those individuals who were lucky enough to buy a ticket live in luxury near the front of the train while the lower classes who crammed onto the train out of desperation are left in filthy squalor in the train's tail. After years of oppression and suffering, the masses have had enough, and revolution is stirring just beneath the surface.

The Good: visually, this film is stunning. With the gray/brown soot-covered industrial hellscape of the rear contrasted from the bright, surreal and luxurious surroundings of the cars near the front. Impressively, it manages to seamlessly combine numerous influences (Korean, French, sci-fi in the Ridley Scott vein) into a creation all of its own, with larger-than-life and over the top characters (a gun-wielding kindergarten teacher, anyone?), grotesque violence and a horrifying view of humanity existing side by side with surreal beauty and a sense of hope. The film features a great cast, with under-used character actors like John Hurt, Olivia Spencer, Ed Harris and Tilda Swinton chewing up scenery while Captain America himself, Chris Evans, works on some meatier and weightier material, portraying a guilt-ridden and darker version of his typical square-jawed hero. As the film, and our heroes, make an Oz-ian journey from the back of the train to the front and uncover some awful truths, the film manages, like all good sci fi, to make some salient points on our modern society and the human condition.  In our era of rising inequality and the "99%", the film shows that reality taken to its most extreme, and riffs on humanity's darker impulses.



The Bad: at times, the film felt like it was a bit TOO heavily influenced.. and it had a tendency, for me, to feel like a mish-mash of known quantities in a way that went beyond homage into reproduction. Ideas from here, visuals from here, characters from here, etc. By the end, the film manages to rise above this shortcoming to achieve an identity all its own, but it was jarring for me at times. If you're a little bit less of a movie/sci fi nerd, you're unlikely to have that problem, but it's worth mentioning. Additionally, the film treads the line successfully between otherworldly dystopia and bleak social commentary for most of its length, but it does seem a bit TOO unbelievable at points for some of its ideas to be taken as seriously as it may have liked.

Ultimately, this film is a successful entrant into the post-apocalyptic dystopian genre, with a lot to say, and some very cool and interesting ways in which to say it. It's not doing anything that you haven't seen before, but it is wrapping everything up into a bleak yet very cool and ultraviolent package that's very pretty to look at. As opposed to your typical effects-driven sci fi film this one feels gritty and grounded, and that's a good thing. My advice: watch when it's cold outside, as it will really help the atmosphere to sink in.

8.5/10

2014: The Year in Film: "22 Jump Street" Review

So 21 Jump Street, the Jonah Hill/Channing Tatum reboot of the late 80's TV series, was one of the more pleasant movie surprises of recent years. Directed by the awesome Phil Lord and Chris Miller (LEGO Movie), the flick accomplished several things: it continued the resurrection of the action/comedy genre in the style of Beverly Hills Cop, and it revealed that Channing Tatum is secretly an uber charismatic dude with a great sense of humor.

In the sequel, the stars and creators don't even bother with pretending that this one is anything other than more of the same, shamelessly making meta comments on the bigger budget and "more of the same" approach. In the hands of lesser talent, that would be obnoxious and grating, but the filmmakers pull it off here.  After 21 Jump Street, where Schmidt (Jonah Hill) and Jenko (Tatum) successfully brought down a major drug trafficking operation in a chaotic and mad-cap way, the department has decided to continue the undercover operation, only across the street at 22 Jump Street, with Schmidt and Jenko being sent to college in order to investigate another dangerous new drug.

The Good: the "bromance" hetero while pretty damn homoerotic love story between friends should be played out at this point, a solid 10 years after 40 Year Old Virgin, but owing to the chemistry between Hill and Tatum, the film makes it work. This is a story about the enduring bond between friends/bros through the turmoil of new relationships, new places and new friends wrapped in a college film wrapped in an action cop movie. The film never fails to recognize that everything happening is preposterous, but Hill and Tatum are so charming and hilarious in their roles that everything feels funny, smart and fresh. Several supporting characters are given more to do in this iteration, especially Ice Cube, who really relishes the opportunity to play a father, boss and badass police captain in this ridiculous universe. There's an extended post-credit sequence that provides the most LOL's I had in any movie all year.



The Bad: as much fun as everyone involved is clearly having, it's still undeniably lazy to just do the SAME THING over again. This flick is basically a complete rehash of the first one, and while that's a lot of fun, I think there would have been something to be said for letting this one breathe a little more, as it kind of treads the line of tedious and lazy on occasion.

Ultimately, despite being the EXACT SAME movie as 21 Jump Street, and making a ton of lazy bromance jokes, everyone involved is charming and funny enough to still make everything work. The chemistry between Tatum and Hill is palpable, and the flick offers a ton of laugh-out-loud worthy moments. If you liked 21 Jump Street, you'll like this one... and if you didn't, why would you want to watch this one anyway?

7.5/10.

2014: The Year in Film: "Edge of Tomorrow" Review

Guys, yes, Tom Cruise is a weirdo. An unrelenting, utterly strange weirdo with indefensible beliefs and a penchant for acting like a spaz. HOWEVER, he's also really talented and charismatic in the old-school movie star way, wherein every character he plays is just a shade of Tom Cruise rather than a discernible and separate person, and that can be fine and work really well in its own way. I'll say this: Tom Cruise has never been the problem in any of his various movies, no matter whether the flick is good (Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, Minority Report, etc.) or bad (War of the Worlds, Mission Impossible 2), Tom Cruise is going to give you what you signed up for, a workmanlike, dependable, yeoman's effort.  I respect that, and so should you.

So enter: "Edge of Tomorrow", an adaptation of a Japanese book titled "All You Need is Kill" (MUCH better title, btw) where a soldier finds himself forced to re-live the same battle over and over in "Groundhog Day" fashion. Tom Cruise is Major William Cage, a cocky military communications officer who finds himself conscripted into a combat battalion on the eve of a huge and potentially decisive battle with invading aliens on the French coast. These aliens are seemingly unbeatable, and humanity has managed just one victory against them, led by a mysterious (and very badass) woman named Rita. (Emily Blunt) Tom Cruise finds himself living this day over and over again as he struggles to find a way to defeat the alien invaders.

The Good: Despite the video game-esque premise, the film is actually executed pretty darn well, and the conceit of Tom Cruise getting better and better at fighting the aliens with each incarnation is an entertaining and effective one.  Considering that Cruise having chemistry with his co-stars seems to be a hit-or-miss proposition, he gets on with Emily Blunt very well, and they make quite an effective pair, with Blunt as the hardened soldier and Cruise as the novice.  The action sequences are chaotic but well-crafted and visually very impressive, with the film doing a pretty strong job of depicting what a future war with aliens could well look like. The film is surprisingly touching in spots, far smarter and more entertaining than it should be, and has a sense of fun and humor throughout, taking advantage of what could be a limiting premise to really explore and flesh out the ramifications.



The Bad; there is one BIG bad element that honestly knocked this flick down from one of my favorites of the year to merely a smart and effective sci-fi action flick... and that's the ending. I'm not sure who decided that audiences in 2014 are unable to handle an ending that doesn't neatly tie together with a ribbon, but it feels cheap, out of place, and like a lazy deus ex machina. Additionally, the notion that Cruise is a Major thrust into combat as a raw recruit is never explained, and feels like an add-on to explain why a 40 year old guy is battling with grunts. However, these are relatively minor complaints, and the flick is well worth watching if you're a fan of sci-fi action flicks.

Surprisingly smart, well-made, touching and entertaining, this Groundhog's Day with guns and aliens actually manages to be a worthwhile addition to the sci-fi canon. If it wasn't for a cop-out ending, it might just be a classic.

8/10.

2014: The Year in Film: "Godzilla" Review

Godzilla is just one of those things that's REALLY famous because, in all honesty, popular culture 40 years ago sucked, and now that "Boomers" are the only people with money, they get to pretend like everything that was around in their formative is extremely significant and mind-blowing. Don't get me wrong, a giant lizard/dinosaur thing that breathes fire and destroys major cities is pretty awesome in a big, loud, crazy way, and undoubtedly Godzilla is a big freaking deal in Japan, which has its own reasons to be concerned about the nuclear age, but I feel that we're doing the entire endeavor a serious disservice by pretending that Godzilla is a BIG FREAKING DEAL. This is my preface to the entire affair for a reason that I'll delve into a little later on in this post.  1998's Godzilla is an absolutely toilet movie. It makes no sense, it's disgustingly corporate in that awful 90's way, it's horribly acted, worse written, and doesn't even pretend to make sense. Plus, Godzilla looks like a T-Rex because Roland Emmerich likes Jurassic Park, I guess? The 90's was a strange era, one where Jeff Goldblum could headline Hollywood blockbusters, so I understand the motivation behind casting Matthew Broderick, but it's safe to say that the entire affair was an unmitigated disaster. It is weirdly fun to recall, however, that snippet of time in the mid-to-late 90's when movie soundtracks were a THING and sold millions of albums, as the Godzilla soundtrack was pretty damn hyped up and featured that godawful Puff Daddy (with Jimmy Page!) abortion of Led Zeppelin's Kashmir.

Enter 2014's Godzilla, a film that brought on acclaimed indie monster movie director Gareth Edwards and a massive budget to redeem the character of Godzilla and the film franchise as a whole. We're introduced to a world where man's entry to the nuclear age awoke some very ancient and very powerful creatures from earth's past who were powered by the now faded naturally occurring radiation produced from the young earth. A disaster at a Japanese nuclear power plant in the 90's and a series of bizarre happenings around the world led a group of scientists to discover mysterious creatures - deemed MUTOs. As these MUTOs begin to ransack the greater Pacific, it becomes clear that another creature is out there. Godzilla.

The Good: This film looks great. It really does service to the massive scale of the production as the effects and scenes of destruction are really convincing and often pretty to look at. The monster scenes are well-done, the destruction convincing, and the climatic battle between Godzilla and the MUTOs is actually pretty awesome. I really appreciate the effort to make Godzilla real-feeling and bring a convincing cinematic treatment to bear, even if it wasn't always effective, I appreciate it. While the acting isn't this film's strong suit, Bryan Cranston (Heisenberg!) is memorable, and really does a lot with the material that he's given.



The Bad: Ultimately, the decision to try to "science-up" Godzilla was a stupid one. You're not going to be able to craft a convincing scientific explanation for an 800 foot tall monster, so why even try? The film goes to great lengths in the first half to explain how and why its monsters came to be, and then throws all of that pretext out the window so they can have a cool battle. If you knew the film was going to end with monsters smashing cities as they fought, (including a scientist actually saying "Let them fight") why bother with the scientific pretext? It's a silly decision that ultimately cheapens the film and makes the whole thing actually feel dumber than if they hadn't tried at all. But this film has bigger problems than science. For its long runtime, there's surprisingly little Godzilla. You see the MUTOs much more than you see Godzilla himself, and while I understand that sometimes 'less is more', it's also undoubtedly true that you should feature the titular character as much as possible. What is in the 2 hours of movie that don't feature Godzilla, you ask? Well, NOT BRYAN CRANSTON. He dies WAY too early, considering that he's the only actor featured in all of the film's marketing. Instead we get generic military dude Aaron "Kickass" Taylor-Johnson who just kind of deadpans everything while playing a humorless bore lacking either the charisma or the gravitas to properly ground a monster movie. And he's not the only boring member of his own family: we also get his wife (Elizabeth Olson) who does nothing at all other than get pointlessly put in harm's way as if we needed an emotional center to have it sink in that an entire city was being destroyed. Guys, the "damsel in distress" ploy went out of style 20 years ago. We aren't going to be emotionally invested just because a random pretty chick who we never even got to know is in peril. This relationship has no stakes because it's never developed, and it's portrayed by two actors who have utterly mailed the entire thing in. The film would have been infinitely better if Taylor-Johnson's scenes all went to Cranston, and Olson wasn't in the film at all. The choice to feature humans OVER Godzilla could have worked if the human characters were developed or interesting at all. They weren't and they aren't. Ultimately, the whole film feels lazy and like an excuse to have Godzilla tear off another monster's head. THAT'S TOTALLY AWESOME, BUT IT'S NOT ENOUGH FOR 120 BORING MINUTES.

If you're interested in boring, poorly-acted characters masquerading as military dudes and nurses, or never paid attention in science class and think a movie is worthwhile if it features a cool monster Mortal Kombat-style "Finish Him" death at the expense of every other element that makes a good film, congratulations, Godzilla is for you. If you're a human being who has a brain and appreciates it when filmmakers don't treat you like an easily-manipulated child who gets amazed by shiny things and automatically sympathizes for a couple with a small child even if they're the most boring people on earth, don't watch Godzilla, unless you're planning on making fun of everything. This film was extremely disappointing for me, because it seriously looked great, and the Godzilla scenes are all REALLY well done, but ultimately it just felt cheap and lazy and thrown together, and it threw away the best character in the film for no reason other than Cranston had to go shoot something else or whatever the reason was. Either make a "serious" Godzilla film, or make a movie where Godzilla rips off heads, but you can't have it both ways. Ultimately, the decision to have this film be the bipolar offspring of a fun action flick and serious sci-fi drama completely torpedoed the whole thing from the jump. Without the benefit of having a memorable or even strong performance at its core, the film just feels lost. Let's put it this way: one of the guys I saw the flick with legitimately thought there were two Godzillas, and I can totally see why he would think that. WHEN PEOPLE CAN'T TELL HOW MANY GODZILLAS ARE IN YOUR MOVIE YOU HAVEN'T DONE YOUR JOB, GUYS.

4/10.

2014: The Year in Film: "X-Men: Days of Future Past" Review

Am I actually ahead of DVD releases yet?? I think I am...

Kind of odd that three consecutive movie reviews here at HOB have featured three separate parts of the Marvel Comic Universe brought to film by three separate studios, but that's just the way that my movie going calendar played out in April and May of this year. It's worth noting that the X-Men are among the most popular comic book franchises on the planet, rivaled only by Batman, and that they feature a rich cast of characters that should be pretty easily brought over to film. Fox's X-Men films have been an interesting ride. First, Bryan Singer's original film X-Men, released in 2000 (!!) kind of kick-started this whole comic book film era that we're still in the midst of. Without the relative quality (it hasn't held up great, but considering that the film was released only a few short years after the horror that was Batman and Robin, its success was a necessity if major studios were going to take chances on big-budget comic book fare again. The sequel, X2, released in 2003, still holds up as one of the better comic book films that we've had. Then Bryan Singer left to go make the snoozefest that was Superman Returns, and professional hatchet man Brett "Rush Hour" Ratner was Sony's choice to direct the horrid and continuity crushing X-Men: The Last Stand, which was nearly the death of the X-Men on film until 2011's surprise X-Men: First Class, which took advantage of a stellar cast (Jennifer Lawrence! Michael Fassbender!) to resurrect the X-Men on film. When watching First Class, if you would have assumed that you were watching a total reboot... no one would have blamed you, as that was obviously the intention at the time. However, Bryan Singer returned to the X-Men franchise.. and the studio made the baffling decision to treat all of the X-Men films as one continuity. No, that doesn't seem possible.

Enter, X-Men: Days of Future Past, inspired by one of the legendary X-Men stories in the comics, where a dystopian future where the world has been decimated by mutant-hunting robots can only be prevented by traveling to the past. The film opens with a glimpse at that future, where the remnants of the X-Men struggle to survive, and desperate plan emerges, to send Wolverine's consciousness back in time. to stop the event that precipitated the creation of the Sentinels, robots that hunt and destroy mutants. Wolverine is sent back to the 1970's, to meet up with the First Class cast, and recruit them into saving the future.

The Good: First Class might have gotten more lucky with its cast than any film I can recall. It successfully signed Michael Fassbender and Jennifer Lawrence to co-starring/supporting roles immediately before they both blew up into huge stars. As a result, Days of Future Past gets Fassbender at the height of his powers as a young Magneto and Katniss Everdeen herself as villain/antihero Mystique. James McAvoy as a young Professor Xavier was perfect casting as well. Hugh Jackman does a pretty great Wolverine, and here he serves as the bridge between the two timelines. The cast, especially Fassbender, elevates the film beyond the simple sum of its parts, adding real heft and gravitas to the 70's timeline. Story-wise, this film is about 10,000X better than it has any right to be. As anyone who has seen all of the X-Men films can attest, unifying the timelines and treating it as a cohesive whole should be practically impossible, and while this film doesn't pull it off perfectly, it comes PRETTY damn close, which in and of itself is an impressive feat. Despite a runtime of over two hours, the film feels tight and tense throughout, with events in one timeline influencing the other in a palpable way. Despite some big, impressive action scenes, this film winds up focused on character in a very subtle and welcome deviation from what has become the superhero movie norm (namely: HUGE action sequence to close everything).  The film looks great, and really pulls off the differing timelines visually.



The Bad: While it overall works pretty damn well, the film's premise (reconciling two seemingly irreconcilable narratives) kind of falls apart the more that you think about it. This is probably more of a problem for me, the nerd, than it would be for a more casual viewer, but some of the events of the last X-Men franchise don't make sense in light of some of the revelations from this one. And that's fine, it shouldn't have worked AT ALL, so the fact that it does mostly work is impressive.  Additionally, the film's "big bad", Bolivar Trask (Peter Dinklage), feels underserved in comparison to the in-fighting among our mutants from varying timelines. The future timeline suffers at the expense of the 1970's one, and feels underserviced in comparison to all of the 70's action.

In all, this is a fine flick and a smart, thoughtful, surprisingly effective entrant to the comic book film collection that's somehow still not played out. Welcome back, Bryan Singer, and holy hell is Fassbender good. The main draw is the past/future versions of Professor X and Magneto - with some serious acting chops on display, and they do not disappoint.

8.5/10. If you like the X-Men at all, this just might be the best X-movie yet.

2014: The Year in Film: "The Amazing Spider Man 2" Review

The first Amazing Spider-Man flick was a pleasant and much-needed surprise. I am among the small but vocal population of nerds who didn't like the Sam Raimi Spider-Man flicks one bit, so it was refreshing to get a cinematic treatment of the character that was more in line with what I felt Spider-Man actually was all about. I won't get into it too much, but Tobey McGuire's dopey Peter Parker, the decision to have him actually shoot webs from his wrists and the setting of an all-white, cheesy 1940's esque New York City all combined to ruin the whole thing. The action in ASM was solid, but what really sold me on the film was Andrew Garfield and the film's treatment of Peter Parker and his relationship with Gwen Stacy. (Emma Stone) That shouldn't come as a huge surprise given Marc Webb's prior film, 500 Days of Summer, but in my honest opinion, ASM features some of the strongest and most honest character work of any superhero flick to date. The Spider-Man scenes were strong, but the draw of that film was certainly the human element, and the chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. (Who, surprise, surprise, got together after filming ASM) Compared to the possibly developmentally delayed Peter Parker played by McGuire and his complete lack of chemistry with Kristen Dunst, it was a revelation for true, old school spidey fans like myself.

Enter, Amazing Spider-Man 2. Prior to this flick's release it had been announced that Sony Pictures, the studio who owns the film rights to the Spider-Man portion of the Marvel Universe, had intentions to greatly expand their film treatment of Spider-Man and his villains and supporting characters in a clear effort to duplicate the success Marvel Studios has had in creating a cohesive film and TV universe.  ASM2 would be the film that would jump-start this effort, meaning that in addition to being a straight sequel to the first ASM film, ASM2 would be tasked with laying the groundwork for future films and greatly expanding the universe. ASM2 opens where the first film left off, with Peter Parker keeping New York safe as Spider-Man as the nefarious OsCorp continues to conduct the same type of biomedical experiments that led to the accident that gave Parker his powers. Another accident at OsCorp results in another person gaining superpowers, and Electro threatens New York as new threats bubble beneath the surface.

The Good: Andrew Garfield is pitch-perfect as Peter Parker (if way too old for the age that the character is supposed to be), and Garfield and Emma Stone simply crush all of their scenes. The treatment of Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy's relationship by Marc Webb and the ASM series rescues these films from being mediocre, and are a million times better than anything involving Peter Parker from the Raimi Spider Man movies. The visuals and effects are pretty damn great, and all of the action sequences are well choreographed.



The Bad: unfortunately, because I love and have always loved Spider-Man, this flick is sort of an over-stuffed mess. The narrative is bloated and unfocused, and in an effort to drastically expand Spider-Man's world the film rushed way too many characters in, doing every single one of the new characters a disservice. The strongest part of the first ASM film was how-developed every single character was, from Gwen's dad to Dr. Connors and Uncle Ben, every character felt like a realized person. Here, we have a completely wasted Chris Cooper as Norman Osborn, and are immediately rushed into a criminally underused Dane DeHaan as Harry Osborn, who becomes the Green Goblin approximately 9 minutes after he first appears. Jamie Foxx is a caricature as Electro, who exists mainly as a featureless menace to create cool action scenes. We are introduced to the Rhino for no reason other than they want to put Paul Giamatti into a future film, and all of the scenes featuring a nefarious conspiracy involving Peter's parents are utterly useless. This plot is bloated and wasted in the same way that Iron Man 2's was, only worse. Hell, the most (in)famous scene in all of Spider-Man's history feels like a thrown-in afterthought a midst all of the madness that is the film's third act.

Honestly, the only thing keeping this film from being as bad as something like the Ryan Reynolds abortion that is Green Lantern is the treatment of Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy, and the utter joy that the film takes in depicting Spider-Man web-slinging through NYC. It's a shame that such fine performances and a great treatment of one of comic's best characters is stuffed into a film that from a narrative aspect, is simply a mess. If you like Spider-Man, you'll dig this one, but you'll find yourself shaking your head at what could have been. There's a great movie in here somewhere, it's just wearing a fat suit full of OsCorp nonsense.

Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone make it worth watching, but ultimately, this is a huge step backwards for Sony's attempts to build a worthwhile Spider-Man film universe.

6/10

2014: The Year in Film: "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" Review

I think that anyone who knows me at this point probably knows that I'm a big, big fan of the grand experiment that is Marvel's Cinematic Universe.  I was a Marvel comics fan growing up, and what the studio has managed to do, creating an overarching and interconnected movie universe is unparalleled in film history.  It's also worth noting that it's all the more impressive considering that Marvel doesn't own the movie rights to what would have been, pre-Robert Downey Jr. becoming the king of everything, their three biggest properties, in Spider-Man, the X-Men and the Fantastic Four.  Marvel is calling all of their movies through Avengers "Phase 1" of their endeavor, meaning that Iron Man 3, Thor 2, and now Captain America 2 comprise what is now "Phase 2".  I know, needlessly complicated, but I wanted to give a quick primer for those who may be newcomers to the MCU or to this blog.  The flicks aren't direct sequels to one another, except within their own franchises (i.e., Captain America 2 is a sequel to Captain America, but not a direct sequel to Thor 2 or Iron Man 3 for example), but they are related in the same way that the overarching comic book universe is, in that large events reverberate throughout all of the stories and the characters occasionally meet up to take on a large threat. (i.e., Avengers)

Captain America may have been the biggest surprise of all of the first round of Marvel flicks. I was never a huge fan of Captain America as a character, and generally found him to be a kind of a corny cliche of what a "good guy" might be, However, the decision to set the first film almost entirely in the 1940's really played up Captain America's stronger elements as a character, and as he was ripped from his own time and brought to ours the character took on a fundamental naivete, sadness, and heroism throughout Avengers.  Consider Captain America's scene where he saves a building full of civilians and gets them to safety, while coordinating an evacuation of the city with police in Avengers.  It was probably the single biggest moment of pure heroism in any superhero flick to date, and sums up perfectly what Captain America can be when he's done right.

In Captain America: The First Avenger we meet Steve Rogers as he's recruited and given the super-soldier serum that made him into the superhero known as Captain America. After ditching his role as a propagandist and war bonds salesman he becomes America's greatest soldier, leading the battle to defeat the Red Skull and Hydra, the rogue secret Nazi science division. In the sequel we see what Captain America is up to in the modern day, running secret missions for S.H.I.E.L.D. and becoming increasingly troubled by the lack of moral clarity in the modern day geopolitical landscape. It becomes clear that more is going on at SHIELD than anyone was letting on, and Captain America finds himself forced to unravel the conspiracy while on the run from dangerous forces that plot against freedom everywhere.

The Good: the film is as smartly written and concise, from a narrative standpoint, as any film that I can recall from the last several years. It's not just smart for a 2 hour Hollywood blockbuster, it's smart for a story, period. As Marvel moves deeper into its cinematic universe, it's taking more chances with its films, and The Winter Soldier really has the feel of a political/spy thriller at its heart, with all of the big action sequences you'd expect from a superhero flick. The "don't trust anyone" atmosphere really adds a palpable tension, and as Captain America finds his allies few and far between, the character development really ratchets up. Chris Evans is perfect as Steve Rogers/Captain America, combining a wholesome "aw shucks" naivete with a steely determination that just nails everything we're supposed to admire about the character. In an era where militarized police and NSA surveillance dominate the headlines, this film proved to be as spot-on and thoughtful on the topic as anything else I've come across. Framing it as a shoot-em-up superhero flick was a stroke of genius, and the film somehow manages to flawlessly wed a cautionary tale on police state style surveillance with an effective Marvel superhero film. I felt that Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow was the weakest link in Avengers, so it was reassuring to see that she was pretty effective in a large role here. Robert Redford (!) was great, and brought and earnest and refreshing gravitas and real-feeling villain to the whole endeavor. In many ways, a professional bureaucrat can be as much of a villain as a theatrical superhuman in a mask. Newcomer Anthony Mackie wasn't given a ton to do, but the fact that his Sam Wilson/Falcon doesn't feel like a patriotic cornball is a credit to the writing and his performance.



The Bad: unfortunately, the downside to the shared cinematic universe is that sometimes it doesn't make sense when other characters are absent. In this case, a conspiracy involving SHIELD and threatening the entire world set on the east coast requires at least an explanation as to where Tony Stark/Iron Man is. I'm not asking for a lot. A 5 second scene where Black Widow explains that they can't trust Stark or they can't get a hold of him or whatever would do the trick, but Iron Man's absence simply doesn't make sense from a narrative perspective. There isn't a lot to criticize in this flick, but that's a biggie. Additionally, I know that this film was right on the edge of being too long and had a lot stuffed in, but it would have been nice to get a little more development on the Winter Soldier himself. It's fair to say that that will be saved for Captain America 3, but I feel like considering the title of the flick, he doesn't get a lot to do other than serve as a foil.

Make no mistake, though, when it comes down to it, this is a great example of what superhero movies can be, and why they're likely going to endure as a key part of the cinematic landscape for years to come. This film is at once a key part of the Marvel universe and one of the more effective political thrillers in recent years, It's a true achievement, and one that everyone involved should be very, very proud of. Full-disclosure, and other downfall of the MCU: knowledge of at minimum Captain America and Avengers is going to be required to enjoy this one.

8/10.

2014: The Year in Film: "Grand Budapest Hotel" Review

It's not exactly a secret that everyone (by everyone, I mean, of course, me) over here at HOB is a big Wes Anderson fan. I can honestly say that I like every single one of his films, and he's the only moderately prolific director of whom I can say that I own all of his works.  Rushmore is my least favorite, but mostly that's my own personal cross to bear because I loathe the secret Coppola Jason Schwartzman and not due to anything intrinsically wrong with the film itself. (For what it's worth, my favorite is The Life Aquatic by a long shot)  His films are wholly unique, with an intimate feel and undying sentimentality underlying the often saccharine aesthetics and occasionally silly bordering on twee feel of the entire affair. I totally understand why someone wouldn't like Wes Anderson's films, but you'll have to take your gripes elsewhere, because I've wholly bought in.

For the record, here's the official HOB ranking of all of Wes Anderson's films (maybe I'll do a whole post on this someday, if I can ever get ahead of my movie reviews...):
8. Rushmore
7. The Darjeeling Limited
6. Fantastic Mr. Fox
5. Bottle Rocket
4. The Grand Budapest Hotel
3. Moonrise Kingdom
2. The Royal Tenenbaums
1. The Life Aquatic

In The Grand Budapest Hotel, Anderson attempts his most complicated narrative yet. In the present, a young girl opens a memoir written some years prior. We then flash to the more recent past, where the writer of the memoir (Jude Law) beings narrating from his work.  Some years prior, we flash to the hotel itself, where the author speaks with the owner of the once-proud hotel over a series of meetings, wherein the owner regales the author with the tale of how he came to own the hotel and the hotel's famed past in the period between the wars in the fictional alpine nation of Zubrowka.  We are then taken to the 1930's and introduced to the eccentric staff and visitors of the Grand Budapest Hotel at the height of its glory, first and foremost among them the famous concierge, Gustave H. (the criminally underrated and underused Ralph Fiennes)

The Good: after the 1960's aesthetic of Moonrise Kingdom, Anderson continues to explore his visual aesthetic with a journey into the 1930's, and he does not disappoint. The costumes, sets, buildings and world of Europe between the wars feels wholly realized and recognizably period-appropriate while also being vintage Anderson. This is no small feat, and if you appreciate nothing else about Wes Anderson, please recognize how hard his attention to detail and wholly immersive worlds are to pull off convincingly.  The plot, while more complicated than anything he's attempted before, flows seamlessly, and the film manages to successfully toe that patented Anderson line between melancholy, funny, silly and sweet.  Despite the rather absurdist events and scenarios, the danger, feelings and touching humanity of the characters shines through.  As such a unique and respected filmmaker, Anderson always manages to assemble great casts, and the cast here is no exception. In addition to the always great Ralph Fiennes and relative newcomer Tony Revolori, the cast features Adrien Brody, Edward Norton, Tilda Swinton, Willem Dafoe, Harvey Keitel, Jeff Goldblum, Jude Law, Bill Murray, Saoirse Ronan, and Tom Wilkinson, among others. The cast does not disappoint, and Fiennes and Revolori especially are terrific. Fienne's Gustave is especially memorable, playing the lovable scamp to a T.



The Bad: I know that "zany yet touching" is Wes' M.O., but if anything, this film could have gone darker and been better for it.  In a film that features beatings by state police, murders, an extended prison sequence and several chase sequences, some of the sillier elements occasionally feel out of place.  This isn't a major criticism, but it's something I noticed about the film.

In all, it really is remarkable that a film THIS stuffed full of narrative and characters in addition to Anderson's patented quirks comes off as this cohesive and effective. In the hands of a lesser filmmaker, this could have become a total disaster, but Fiennes' performance and the pacing, visuals and writing turn this film into a surprisingly touching and thoughtful madcap romp. Part murder mystery, part heist film, part love letter to a lost time and place, this film is squarely in the top half of Anderson's output as a filmmaker, which means it's one of the finest films of the year.

8.5/10.

2014: The Year in Film: Everything is Awesome: "The LEGO Movie" Review

Yep. Late. But guys, I've finally reviewed every movie that I saw in 2013, so we've officially moved into 2014 once and for all, and it's only September. So, win?

So I'm pretty jealous of Christopher Miller and Phil Lord, guys.  These two young-ish dudes managed to leapfrog from "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs", which, meh, to 21 Jump Street and its sequel, which are some of the more enjoyable comedies of the last few years. Next they get tabbed to write and direct "The LEGO Movie" with a star studded cast, which is basically the nerdy childhood dream of an embarrassingly large portion of the male population aged 20-35.  As a disclaimer for purposes of this review, my brother and I spent inordinate amounts of time playing with/building LEGOs as youths, so that sentimental afterglow is absolutely going to shine through in this review. So if you don't like LEGOs (first, what are you, an asshole?), this review probably isn't for you. Also, I wandered into the LEGO store while walking around a mall the other day (my phone was being repaired, I haven't willingly stepped into a mall for non-Apple repair-related purposes since at least 2008) and let me say that if I was a child today all I would do is want Legos. Star Wars? Lord of the Rings? Marvel superheroes? Ridiculous. I know that Lego started producing licensing sets after losing a lawsuit against Megablocks in an effort to differentiate themselves and justify their higher pricing, but still. Awesome. All we had were cops, space ships, pirates, knights/robin hood and generic "town" sets in my day, kids. Count your Han Solo blessings.

So I went through a long phase in my life where I didn't watch animated movies, guys. I'd written them off as kiddie schlock (and most of them are!) but Wall-E is the one flick that brought me out of my prematurely curmudgeonly ways. Since that time, I've gained a begrudging respect for the occasional animated flick, even if it is a complicated calculus at making something smart and complicated enough for adults while still pleasing to the simple minds of mewling babes.

Enter: The LEGO Movie.  Here we're introduced to everyman Emmet, (voiced by the rising king of everything, Chris Pratt) who's blissfully content in his dull, lonely existence filled with corporate speak and conformity until he finds himself dragged via a case of mistaken identity into an epic struggle for the survival of his world.

The Good: This is a smart flick. It's funny, clever, incorporates the fact that nearly the entire thing takes place in a LEGO world brilliantly in spots, and is one of the very few movies I've ever seen that managed to clearly be geared towards kids yet still be funny for my cranky, cynical, postmodern quasi-hipster tastes. The star-studded cast (Pratt, Morgan Freeman, Elizabeth Banks, Alison Brie, Nick Offerman, Charlie Day, Will Arnett, Will Ferrell and Liam Neeson among others) is clearly having a blast, and Arnett as Batman steals every scene. The fact that Fox News and other conservative media outlets were slamming a movie that is, for all intents and purposes, a commercial for a massive toy multinational for being "anti business" speaks to how the flick rises above what could have easily been nothing but an advertisement for LEGO products to be a sweet, fun, surprisingly smart time at the movies. The computer animation really makes the LEGO environments shine, and the differing worlds that make up the universe all feel distinctive and look great.



The Bad: There isn't much here. This flick is one of the best-reviewed and most beloved of the last year, and there's a reason for that. If anything, the movie is TOO referential and TOO clever for its own good, but it's a PG rated cartoon for kids... I'm not sure I'm prepared to slam it for making audiences laugh.

All in all, the LEGO Movie is a really fun time.  It's hilarious in spots, surprisingly touching in others, and ultimately thoughtful and much more than the sum of its parts. I'm a childless 30 year old dude and I loved it, guys.

8/10.

2013: The Year in Film: "Nebraska" Review

Not as late but still really late!

BIG Alexander Payne fan, you guys. His last two films have been Sideways and The Descendants, (he's directed About Schmidt and Election, as well) both films that break the mold of what American indie dramedies are and can be. Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with an indie movie, but the trend towards undying quirk and cuteness is an obnoxious one, and the bulk of indie "dramedy" films are coalescing into one black hole-like mass from which there is no escape, only utter annihilation.  Payne's films exist alongside your traditional indie flick (Think: Juno or Little Miss Sunshine) but tend to feature less on the cutesy quick-witted dialogue and quirky "uniqueness" with stock melancholy and more on the average, everyday doldrums of life. It's a fine distinction, but it is certainly a distinction.

Enter: Nebraska, a film that's very much in the same vein as Payne's last two, but also very different in its own right.  Here we meet a family, which moved from Nebraska to Montana years before, and one that's struggling through the same malaise as the entire region. The patriarch, Woody Grant, is falling into senility and alcoholism and Woody's wife and children (June Squibb, Will Forte and Bob Odenkirk) are struggling to keep up, at turns treating Woody like a child and trying to help where they can. So when Woody is determined to claim his publisher's sweepstakes million-dollar prize by any means necessary, even if it requires walking from Billings, Montana to Lincoln, Nebraska, it falls to his son David to help his ailing father.

The Good: Bruce Dern's performance is, in a word, remarkable. Every fiber of his being goes into creating this otherwise forgettable elderly resident of the plains, and the body language, shuffling gait, mannerisms and cantankerous gruffness overlying a sweet sincerity employed in imbibing Woody with a pitiable, but recognizable charm and humanity is the performance of a lifetime. Will Forte is inspired casting, as he remains charming and personable behind sad eyes and a defeated demeanor. June Squibb is tremendous as the frumpy, foul-mouthed family matriarch and serves as the film's moral center. But the real star here is the setting and the very real and fully-formed residents therein. As Woody reunites with family and begins bragging about his "prize" in his hometown he becomes a minor celebrity and source of excitement, and as someone who grew up in rural northwest Ohio in a place not so different than Nebraska, the depiction of the small, fading town felt uncomfortably spot-on. The decision to shoot the film in black and white was an inspired one, as it really makes the film feel even smaller and more intimate than it already would, and really emphasizes the cold, stark beauty of the terrain. The sweeping shots of the plains would have been beautiful in color as well, no doubt, but the decision to do the film in black and white makes everything feel smaller and that does the story justice.



The Bad: there's not a lot, and I'm generally in favor of Payne's treatment of the characters, although there was quite a bit written at the time of this film's release about his mockery of his subjects. At times things can get a little silly, but I'm not sure that it ever rises to the level of legitimate shortcoming of the film. My main criticism is that the film and the characters feel a little underdeveloped. We're dropped into these people's lives and other than a few moments, we don't necessarily get to know them as much as we'd like. Again, that's a minor criticism, but it made me feel detached from the goings-on.

In all, I think it's become a cliche to think of everyone from Indiana to Colorado and in-between as wholesome, hard-working, god-fearing folks who just want to live in peace and quiet.  I feel that does a disservice to millions of individuals, and obviously, so does Nebraska native Alexander Payne, who paints a picture of these people who most of the "enlightened" internet commenter class would consider to be bumpkins as morally complex and highly flawed people in their own right. For that alone, this is a noteworthy work, and when you throw in a performance like the one Bruce Dern turns in here? You've got a great piece of Americana.

8/10.

2013: The Year in Film: "Her" Review

 

LATE LATE LATE!

Spike Jonze, former music video wunderkind and hipster auteur extraordinaire, is one of the truly unique voices in American film today. His films, of which Her is the fourth, following Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, and Where the Wild Things Are, are, in a word, different. Even the adaptation of the Maurice Sendak children's book is heartfelt, visually distinctive and features a wholly unique voice. So enters his newest flick, which he both wrote and directed, Her.  

Her is set in an imagined near future Los Angeles where technology and gadgets have continued to advance an isolate us to the point where the newest OS for mobile devices is a sentient artificial intelligence. Our protagonist is a lonely, introspective letter writer (ugh, I know) going through a divorce who decides to buy the new OS... and finds himself drawn into a surprising and confusing relationship with Samantha, his new OS.

The Good: this film is both fanciful and grounded in a very recognizable reality, and that's not easy to do. Jonze's visuals are soothing and bright, evocative of the kind of future we should all hope for. At the same time, the film draws on interesting philosophical questions on the relationship between man and the technology we've created, a line that becomes increasingly blurred with every passing year.  The scenario envisioned in Her is virtually a foregone conclusion at this point, and the speculation on the issue in this film is a unique and emotional one.  All of this is grounded in the quality of the central performance. Joaquin Phoenix, as strange as he is, and as goofy as he looks in this role, is one of our very finest actors, and he imbibes Theo with a tender sadness, sensitivity and humanity.  The film's central relationship, between man and machine, would have fallen flat on its face in the hands of a lesser actor.  Scarlett Johannson's voice work is tremendous as well.



The Bad: Ultimately, I'm not sure that this film rings that true for me on closer examination.  I feel like truly sentient AI as depicted in this film would likely completely revolutionize human existence on a scale that this film ignores. That's most likely my own nerdiness getting in the way of the story at hand, but it seems likely that mega corporations and governments would likely use AI to their own ends before releasing it as a consumer product, and this initial use would render our society unrecognizable.  With that being said, I'm fine with the film as a fable of sorts, but it seems odd that the city of LA is THAT nice in the future. Theo lives in a million dollar loft on... a letter writer's salary? That seems like a cushy gig. Ultimately, these are relatively minor quibbles, but they were very distracting for me.

Ultimately, this is a smart, tender, emotional flick with a lot to say about human relationships with ourselves, with one another and with our technology, and it features a tremendously acted and tender love story at its heart.  It's a little hipsterific, but I don't really mind. I feel like this is a vision of the future and the larger human condition worth sharing, and one of the more unique and worthwhile films of the last few years.

8.5/10.

2013: The Year in Film: "The Wolf of Wall Street" Review

Late? YOU BET.

Let's talk The Wolf of Wall Street, guys, as this one caused quite the stir upon its release.  First: Martin Scorsese is an absolute legend of the silver screen. The guy is 71 years old, has been releasing meaningful, crucial films for more than 4 decades now. Taxi Driver is 40 years old! Most filmmakers who were releasing classics in the 70's are either dead or have long ceased to be relevant in a creative sense. As Spielberg has long passed into bloated sentimentality and Coppola has faded into irrelevance, Scorsese is releasing kinetic, controversial, mad cap romps that display the confrontational irreverence of a man 40 years his junior. In Wolf, he's re-teamed with his new De Niro, Leonardo DiCaprio, for the 5th time now.

Wolf of Wall Street, titled after a memoir of the same name, follows a young stockbroker named Jordan Belfort as he seeks to break into the big time by any means necessary.  Through hubris, greed, innovative practices, and an uncompromising desire to do whatever it takes for success, Belfort builds an empire from nothing, exploiting, stealing, breaking the law and abusing whoever gets in his path all the way.

The Good: the enthusiasm of all involved in this production is infectious. The film is kinetic, engaging, and almost manic in its unyielding nihilism in the service of the true American religion: the almighty dollar.  Everyone is having so much fun that at times its tough to remember that what they are doing is despicable, giving financial scammers the same treatment afforded to mobsters in Scorsese's classic Goodfellas.  DiCaprio's performance is infectious, as he imbibes the persona of the sleazy Belfort. Jonah Hill is electric as his friend and business partner, Donnie Azoff, and I quite enjoyed Jon Bernthal's depiction of sleazy drug dealer/sometimes associate Brad. Matthew McConaughey is in this film for roughly 15 minutes, and steals every damn one of them.  The film is often funny, just as often revolting, and electric from front to back. It's a three hour film that has more uses of the F-word and its derivatives than any film in history, and I couldn't take my eyes off the screen.



The Bad: if anything, everyone is having so damn much fun that it's easy to lose sight of the deeper message, and that's what led to the bulk of the criticism of the film on its release. In this way, it's also not unlike Goodfellas.  The sex and drug use and good times are relentless and occasionally gratuitous, and I can see how that would be distracting and/or disturbing for more squeamish tastes.

Ultimately, this film is a joy to watch, but ultimately more important for what it represents: a time-capsule type view of a corrupt institution and the kind of people who inhabit this world, who also happen to be the wealthiest and most powerful people on the planet.  To me, my biggest takeaway was that Belfort and Co., despite their scumbaggery, aren't even that big time. They were dealing in hundreds of millions in a circle where billionaires are oddly common. (Yet another similarity with Goodfellas)  In the end, this film becomes the white collar Goodfellas, and one that will stick around for decades, so that we can (hopefully!) look back on the outlandish decadence of the height of Wall Street's power with disbelief after we, as a society, have brought the financial industry to some measure of reasonable control. If Wolf of Wall Street seems unbelievable, it's because the wealth and power of Wall Street truly is unbelievable.

A fun flick that ultimately has a lot to say about the power structures and incentives of our society, and ultimately paints an unflattering view of the role of greed and material wealth in America today. I kind of loved it, but I'll acknowledge that it's not for everyone.

8.5/10.