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.