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