2015: The Year in Film: "The Martian" Review

Remember that scene where Cersei Lanniser's body double was forced to walk the streets naked while weird pseudo-nuns whipped her and chanted "shame"? That's how I feel about posting movie reviews two months late.

So "The Martian", originally self-published by Andy Weir, was one of the more exciting and nerdtastic books I've read in recent years. Meticulously researched and nerdy to its core, the book tells the tale of a near future where NASA has begun manned missions to Mars. On one such mission, through a horrible accident, an astronaut is left behind and forced to survive on the barren surface while desperately trying to figure out how to get home. It's Apollo 13 meets Robinson Crusoe. So when it was announced that the book was going to be adapted for the screen in short order by none other than Ridley "Alien/Blade Runner" Scott, it was cause for some excitement. Throw in a tremendous cast (Matt Damon, Jessica Chastain, Kate Mara, Michael Pena, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Sean Bean and more) and all the effects and production value money can buy, and you're just about guaranteed a sure thing.

Mark Watney, a botanist, is part of an 'Ares' mission to Mars when a sandstorm results in his being stranded, alone, on the planet's surface. He's forced, through his intellect, know-how and plucky resolve, to figure out a way to stay alive on a planet that's utterly devoid of life.

The Good: The book is already written like a Hollywood blockbuster, so the main challenge here was simply not screwing up the adaptation. And if anything, the film actually improves on the book, both through the gorgeous shots of the immense Martian landscape and by streamlining the narrative. The film, despite a runtime of over 2 hours, feels taut and tense throughout, with the climatic scene especially leaving you on the edge of your seat. The film also, admirably in this day and age, doesn't shy away from the hard-science of what Watney is doing to stay alive. He's trying to make water, preserve oxygen, stay warm and grow food, and the film doesn't hold your hand about any of it, rather taking a chance and treating science as fun and exciting. (Which it is!) They hit the casting out of the park as well. If Watney isn't charming enough to be compelling while he's alone in a dome, the movie falls flat from the jump. Matt Damon is probably the most personable "big" actor working today, and he instills his character with humor, charm and a human reliability. The supporting cast is strong as well, and while this film is Damon's first and foremost, the rest of the cast proves themselves more than up to the task, with Jessica Chastain and Chiwetel Ejiofor especially standing out. The book stumbles a bit through the third act, but the film fixes many of those issues, and I much prefer the film's ending.




The Bad: by and large, the film is otherwise good enough to overcome this shortcoming, which is also present in the book, and that's that this is an engineer's drama. It contains virtually no emotional or psychological depth beneath the ever-present problem facing the characters right in the face. That's not a huge problem, but it is a potential missed opportunity that keeps the film from reaching true greatness.

In all, this flick is the best space movie since Apollo 13. Its realistic setting, likable characters, tremendous production value and science-friendly ethos make it a fun, tense, eminently watchable modern sci fi classic. Damon, Ridley Scott, and everyone involved knocks it out of the part. Check it out, you won't regret it.

8.5/10

2015: The Year in Film: "Ant-Man" Review.

At this point, Marvel studios is just a machine. They're churning out multiple comic movies a year about whatever minor characters they want and every single one of those movies is better than just about every comic book movie that's ever been released by a non-Marvel studio. It's insane. 2 years ago I would have bet you large sums of money that Guardians of the Galaxy would have been a disaster and it turned out to just be the best of the bunch. Enter: Ant-Man. Acclaimed fanboy writer/director Edgar Wright was attached to/worked on this one for years only to leave just before filming began. SURELY that couldn't be a good sign, right? Was Marvel about to finally crap the bed? It's not like Ant-Man is a compelling character to begin with, he's kind of a joke even in the comics. A guy who can shrink in size and control ants? That's just silly.

We're introduced to convicted felon Scott Lang just as he's released from prison and trying to reintegrate into the world and his daughter's life. He finds himself caught up in the scheme of reclusive millionaire and genius Hank Pym to keep the revolutionary technology Pym invented and hid decades ago out of the wrong hands.

The Good: at this point, Marvel can make these movies in their sleep. I know that I've said that before, but they're so good at plugging in characters and situations to their existing format and creating fun, exciting, extremely watchable flicks that there's no reason they can't just continue on like this in perpetuity.  This is especially true since they've begun to abandon the typical "superhero origin" tale in favor of laying superheroes over other genres. They did this with Thor 2 (fantasy), Cap 2 (political thriller), Guardians (space opera) and now Ant-Man (heist). Marvel continues to knock it out of the park with casting as well. Paul Rudd is an extremely likable dude, one who's a perfect fit for this role and he steps right in. The real coup here is Michael Douglas. Douglas hasn't worked much lately, but he knocks Hank Pym out of the park and is easily the best part of this movie. Evangeline "Kate from LOST" Lily does "badass" pretty well, and she stands to have a larger role in the Marvel universe moving forward. I've always been a fan of Michael Pena's, and he stands out as comic relief here as Lang's roommate/former cellmate. The other supporting cast (Bobby Cannavale, especially) are more than up to the task and they really make the flick rise above the silly schlock fest it easily could have been. There are two things this flick does really well, though: 1. comedy. It isn't afraid to be silly and laugh at itself, and given that the main character can control ants, that's kind of crucial, guys. 2. and this is going to sound silly, but everything with the ants is pretty damn great. They're given some solid scenes, have a lot of personality and are pretty damn charming. It sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? But that's just where Marvel is in 2015. They can build scenes around CGI ants and have those scenes be the best part of a pretty good movie.



The Bad: if Marvel films have a shortcoming, it's that they consistently fail to have memorable or significant villains. I like Corey Stoll, but his Darren Cross is simply another version of Obidiah Stane from Iron Man. Also, at times it's unclear if the movie wants to be a comedy or wants to be a generic superhero film. It's not enough to ruin the flick, but some scenes are weirdly serious in a way that feels betrayed by the general tone of the rest of the film.

All in all, this isn't the best Marvel film by any standard, but it's solid and a whole lot of fun. I'd rank it somewhere in the middle, in the Thor 2/Captain America range, and that's nothing to be ashamed of. Marvel has successfully added another corner to its universe, and it feels like it fits right in. Come for Paul Rudd being charming, stay for Michael Douglas, Michael Pena, and an awesome last 30 minutes.

7.5/10.

2015: The Year in Film: "Jurassic World" Review

So, in the time since I saw this flick on opening night to today, it's somehow become one of the biggest box office smashes of all time, despite solid, but lukewarm reviews and a pretty "meh" trailer. That's pretty remarkable, guys! As a disclaimer, before I write this review and you maybe disagree with what I'm saying: first, I loved the first Jurassic Park... but the sequels were shit. Second, I LOVED dinosaurs as a child, and I know that's a cliche thing for little boys to be into, but I was INTO INTO them, to the extent where my parents will tell you that they were convinced that I was going to be a paleontologist. I think the reason I never pursued it was because Ross on "Friends" was the worst, but I digress. So in this age of movie franchises, maybe rejuvenating Jurassic Park is just what we need.

It's been 20 years since the events of the first Jurassic Park film, where a tropical storm unleashed the horrors of nature on park staff and a tour group. Since that time, InGen, the corporation responsible for cloning the dinosaurs and building the park on Isla Nublar has doubled down on its efforts, and successfully opened a part, Jurassic World, that is a smash hit on the same island. In the face of flat attendance, the corporation seeks to renew healthy growth, and is investing in new dinosaurs to boost attendance. Up-and-coming director Colin Trevorrow follows up Safety Not Guaranteed (which I loved) with his big-budget debut, so color me intrigued intrigued. (He must love working with Parks and Recreation stars, for what it's worth)

The Good: this film does a pretty solid job of capturing a lot of what made the first Jurassic Park film so good. The mix of wonder and terror is kind of what's at the heart of a great summer blockbuster when it comes down to it. The flick takes the interesting approach of treating the dinosaurs like its actual stars, and that makes things a lot of fun. When the T-Rex finally shows up, it's pretty damn awesome. Chris "Star Lord" Pratt, who went from this to ripped action hero in the span of 3 years, is continuing his quest to conquer us all, and brings his roguish charm to this one as well. Bryce Dallas Howard, who I usually hate (NEPOTISM), is decent enough here as a career-obsessed corporate drone. The action sequences are well done and you'll leave the theater feeling like you just had a rip-roaring good time, which is exactly what the movie wants you to feel.



The Bad: I have a few main complaints that ultimately take this flick from the upper tier of recent blockbusters (Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy) to the more mediocre tier. First, and this is a true shame, one of the best parts about the original Jurassic Park is that the main characters were intellectuals, they were scientists who were at once knowledgeable and legitimately interested in dinosaurs. Dr. Satler and Dr. Grant were informing the audience about dinosaurs, and even if a lot of what they were saying was nonsense, it was still a gun-ho attempt by the movie to be more than a monster flick. There's none of that here. No one in the movie is interested or informed about dinosaurs beyond a generic interest in animals, and everyone is just sort of a generic stock action character of the type that you'd find in a Transformers movie. Considering that the original Jurassic Park had Satler, Grant AND Ian Malcolm, that's just disappointing. These dumbed-down characters make dumbed down decisions that create the central conflict in this movie. Where in Jurassic Park a hurricane and a rogue employee bring down the park, here it's just people being dumb. Also, the central plot is DUMB. That's not new for an action/horror movie, but I feel like some adult supervision would have been nice. The very idea that after the horrors that dinosaurs have brought over multiple movies now that ANYONE would think that genetically modified hybrid killing machines would be a good idea is just preposterous. You know how zoos are always trying to create bigger, badder tigers in the lab? Oh yeah, that's never happened. (The military using raptors to kill people? C'mon, man) So not only are the characters dumb and not interested in dinosaurs, we also have two children who are shoehorned in to apparently call back to the first film AND appeal to the kid demographic. That would be well and good if the characters were anything other than generic sitcom characters OR if the performances were worthwhile, but the actors are flat and the writing is "meh" so the kids are just a waste of time. I just feel like this movie was written by dumb(ish) people for dumb(ish) people and that's absolutely not true of the first Jurassic Park so it's ultimately disappointing on the intelligence front. I was also kind of weirded out by the thought-process that goes into a fundamentally anti-corporate message being delivered by a film that's chock full of product placement from front to back.

So, ultimately, this film is big, loud, dumb fun. The dinosaurs in the Jurassic Park series are beloved by this point, so you could do much worse than seeing raptors and t-rex's rampage on the big screen. Pratt is one of the most likable action stars we've had in years, and the movie delivers tons of dinosaur mayhem for your consumption. Ultimately, though, it's dumb and silly in a disappointing way, so I can't give it a glowing review.

6.5/10. Eminently watchable and fun, just don't think too hard about it, or try to figure out why NO one involved seems to give a damn that they're surrounded by miracles.

2015: The Year in Film: "Mad Max: Fury Road" Review

So, as a bit of a preliminary discussion to reviewing this awesome, adrenaline-filled flick... I'm not overly familiar with Mad Max and the mythology of the character. I've seen The Road Warrior, but it's been a long time, and I've watched Beyond Thunderdome on cable, but I can't say that I have a working knowledge about either. The Road Warrior is pretty awesome in an early 80's kind of way, and young Mel Gibson was an incredibly charismatic dude, but it's undoubtedly cheesy to a modern audience. To make a long story short, society has fallen into disarray due to a shortage of resources and resulting war. Max was once a lawman of sorts who lost his family and humanity in the chaos, and is now a lone wolf badass who roams the irradiated wasteland.

But, I want to talk about the state of filmmaking today in a minor digression from my typical movie reviews. When I think about the films in recent years that are the craziest, that push the envelope the most and have a unique voice and vision, Wolf of Wall Street and this one are two of the foremost in my mind. Why is it that we, as a generation, as a society, are fixated upon imitating and paying homage to what Scorsese and George Miller did 30+ years ago while those septuagenarians are creating kinetic, innovative, envelope-pushing and occasionally shocking art?  I can only hope that the lessons that we learn from legends are to take chances and CREATE instead of paying homage. (Here's looking at you, David O. Russell)

So, enter, Mad Max: Fury Road, which appears to exist within the same continuity as the other Mad Max films although the timeline isn't made explicitly clear. It is clear, however, that society is even farther gone, with there being almost no memory or semblance of the world before the fall remaining. Max is the lone figure in the wilderness, haunted by what was and his perceived failures, when he's captured by a roaming band of "war boys" who bring him back to their citadel. Here we see that a figure named Immortan Joe rules over a sort of rough feudal state with an absolute and iron fist - and Max becomes a forced blood bank for his sickly soldiers before fate would have him join up with a band of revolutionaries.

The Good: quite simply, this is maybe the most insane action movie of all time. It's certainly the most insane one I've ever seen. The action is nonstop and dialed up to an intensity that's only seen in spurts in flicks that would ordinarily compete for this title. (see: everything Michael Bay has ever done, the Fast & Furious series, Crank, etc.) But it's not just the intense and over the top action that's the draw, it's the artful and hauntingly beautiful way in which its shot. Amidst scenes of high-octane chaos there are sweeping shots of the desolate landscape that really lend the film an epic, larger than life feel. Additionally, there's very little CGI here, and the practical effects really give the film a tangible, grounded brutality that is miles away from the robot destruction found in say, the Transformers series. The world Miller has created is at once completely recognizable (the "war boys" are obsessed with cars and chrome, and do battle to massive guitar solos) and horrifically foreign, and this attention to detail really lends the in-film universe an authenticity that emerges without the need for endless exposition. The first 40 minutes or so is maybe the most intense 40 minutes of any action movie in the history of film, and really has an insanely kinetic feel to it... the theater let out a collective sigh once the first extended action scene drew to a close.  But more than just mindless action, this is a film with a lot to say. A message of hope, of equality, of perseverance and an oddly feminist message emerges from the nonstop chase, and really gives this film a thoughtful core to go along with the insane action sequences. The cast, especially Hardy and Charlize Theron, rise to the task of carrying a film with almost no dialogue as well. Hardy's Max is practically non-vocal for much of the film, communicating mainly through grunts and body language, and in the hands of a less talented and charismatic actor Max would have felt like an empty suit. Hardy makes it work, and Charlize Theron, who has managed to turn herself into just maybe the best actress working today under the age of Meryl Streep, is every bit as good as the rebellious Furiosa. Rising star Nicholas Hoult really sells out as "war boy" Nux and turns in a memorable performance as well.



The Bad: there isn't much to complain about here - but if there's anything, it's that the sparse dialogue, lack of a voiceover outside of the opening scene and constant, balls to the wall action doesn't leave much room for character development. It works in the context of the film - these are damaged, broken people in a damaged, broken world, but it runs dangerously close to making it hard to relate to the people involved.

In all, this is a unique, fresh, truly insane take on the overcrowded "post-apocalypse" flick. One of the original masters has come back to show us all how it's done, and delivered one of the most intense, heart-pounding action flicks in the history of film in the process. See this one, you won't regret it.

9/10.

2015: The Year in Film: "Avengers: Age of Ultron" Review

So, if you're new to this blog and/or the idea of me, let me inform you: I'm a Marvel nerd and have been since at least 1990. I'm a Joss Whedon nerd. (I have a "Firefly" art print hanging in my living room) The first Avengers is one of my favorite movies and I feel one of the more watchable flicks of recent years. So, I'm pretty much this flick's target audience. If you don't like the Marvel Cinematic Universe (in which case, quit being such a spoilsport), Joss Whedon, or the first Avengers, you should bear what I just told you in mind while reading this review, and my review of all things Marvel. ("Daredevil" is awesome too guys!)

So, the Marvel Universe is one of the great successful experiments of our time. They've managed to, through 11 movies now and counting, (The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3, Thor, Thor 2, Captain America, Captain America 2, Guardians of the Galaxy, Avengers) create what we would have thought just 10 years ago was impossible - a cohesive comic book-style universe through a number of related and interconnecting movies. They've done this by hiring a number of talented filmmakers and by hitting home runs with all of their casting decisions. (they grabbed Robert Downey Jr. off of the scrap heap and turned him into the biggest movie star on the planet) Above all, they've done it through a commitment to quality. Even the worst Marvel movies (looking at you, Iron Man 2 and Thor) are better than your average superhero fare, and they remain pretty darn watchable, despite their flaws.

Enter: Avengers: Age of Ultron. We're shown that our heroes have been kicking ass and taking names off-screen since their last adventure, as they are clearly much more of a team now than they ever were in their first go-around. The Avengers are hunting Hydra and searching for Loki's staff around the globe as they strive to keep the world safe.

The Good: Marvel can make these movies in their sleep at this point, and Joss knows how to write his way around an ensemble. The leads are so charismatic, RDJ and Evans in particular, and the characters so well-established and rounded after multiple movies that everything just sort of rounds into place. New characters are effectively introduced (Vision is especially memorable) while existing characters continue to have their development moved forward. (except for Thor, who really gets the shaft in both Avengers movies) The film's villain, Ultron, an evil artificial intelligence voiced by James Spader, is a better villain than most of Marvel's villains up to this point, and Spader fleshes out Ultron with a gleeful menace that really brings a sense of desperation to the plot. The action sequences are impressive, and the presence of a menacing villain really ups the stakes. (Let's be real, as fun as Loki is, he was never a match for the Avengers once they got together) This film is darker than any Marvel film to date - but still manages to poke Zack Snyder and DC in the eye by having the Avengers go out of their way to save as many civilians as possible.



The Bad: This flick is totally and utterly overstuffed and you can tell significant cuts were made in spots to keep the runtime manageable. As a result, parts of the film feel rushed and the plot jumps around in spots. I blame Iron Man 3, and here's why: Ultron is created by Tony Stark in an effort to keep the world safe. That's KIND OF what the plot of Iron Man 3 was, but it's also not, really... and Stark developing AI that would ultimately become Ultron would have 1.) made Iron Man 3 all the better in the grand scheme of the MCU and 2.) meant that this flick wouldn't have needed so much background to create its villain. Since the first third of the film is setting up Ultron, the rest of the plot (introducing new Avengers, saving the world, etc.) feels rushed and under-served, and there just isn't enough of the meaty part of the film. Somewhere there's a 3 hr. plus director's cut of this film, and that's the one I want to see. Additionally, this flick kind of feels like a placeholder. It doesn't significantly advance the "infinity gem" storyline that had gained so much momentum through Thor 2 and Guardians of the Galaxy and as a result it feels like it's Marvel treading water before the main event comes in a few years.

Ultimately, this is a well-done, fun, quality, if flawed, addition to the Marvel Universe. It's not the crowning achievement that its predecessor was, but that would have made Joss Whedon an all-time legend, so I'm happy with what it is - a fun time at the movies with a lot of fun characters, cool moments and quality actors. As a Marvel superfan, I'm happy, but not thrilled.

8/10.

2015: The Year in Film: "Whiplash" Review

Yes. Late.

So, there are movies galore released every year, but the vast majority of these fall into safe, reliable categories. Action. Horror. Romantic Comedy. Period Piece. Indie "dramedy". Biopic. So on and so forth. What there seems to be a dearth of in today's movie landscape, particularly since the writer's strike of 5 or so years ago, are truly unique and original films that exist for a purpose. Films with something to say beyond "inspiring" are sadly few and far between.

Enter: Whiplash. First time director Damien Chazelle (He's younger than I am. I hate him.) wrote and directed this look at a drummer in a fictional elite music conservatory and his pursuit of musical excellence. I know, that sounds incredibly dull and like bait for the NPR crowd, but would you believe me if I told you that this film was one of the more kinetic and exciting films of the year?

The Good: This film is incredibly small in scope - 99% of the screentime is occupied by the two leads, and in the capable hands of J.K Simmons (heretofore most recognizable as the guy from those insurance commercials and the dad from Juno) and Miles Simmons (he'll be playing Reed Richards in the Fantastic Four reboot this summer, guys) the quasi-abusive, quasi-fatherly relationship between Andrew and Dr. Terrance Fletcher becomes something great. Not unlike a jazz ensemble, the two feed off of one another, with Simmons bringing an intense physical presence and Teller matching his manic energy nearly step for step. The film is shot and plays like a thriller - with the performance scenes possessing a thrilling, kinetic feel that's unlike anything I can recall in recent years. Simmons' Fletcher is a sadistic bastard, but he's a charming, if maniacal one, and you simply can't keep your eyes off of him. His Best Supporting Actor award was certainly most deserved. Teller nearly matches him - and even though Andrew is a little bit of a prick, you find yourself rooting for the guy.



The Bad: there isn't much, truly, but the film does suffer slightly from its laser-sharp focus. You never get the idea that any of these people actually LIKE music. Maybe that's accurate from a music conservatory - lord knows I wouldn't have the slightest idea, but from what I know about jazz, I'm not sure that rote memorization is quite the route to excellence. That's a piddly critique, though. This film is great, even if Fletcher is occasionally hard to watch.

In all, this isn't just one of the best movies of the last few years, it's a perfect example of why movies have such value as an art form and storytelling medium. Through the power of film, we're able to experience a story about a jazz drummer that plays like a terse crime thriller.... and that's amazing. Come for the performances, stay for the kinetic film-making.

9.5/10

2015: The Year in Film: "Selma" Review

Yep. This one is REALLY late.

Martin Luther King, Jr., is, obviously, one of the great figures in American history. His dignity and steadfast stewardship of the Civil Rights movement led to, in just over a decade, the complete demolition of the legal structures of American apartheid and the realization of much of the (on paper, at least) ambitions of the drafters of the 14th and 15th Amendments. Obviously, the battle for equal treatment under the law remains an ongoing one, but it goes without saying that MLK, Jr. was one of the truly inspiring and monumental figures of the last century. Dealing with such a giant of history in film or any work of art can be a tricky proposition, so bringing MLK and the Civil Rights movement to the screen is a decision fraught with risk. The wrong touch or wrong decisions could result in a disaster as likely to offend as to inspire.

Directed and written by relative newcomer Ava DuVernay and starring British actor David Oyelowo (who first caught my eye as the human villain in Rise of the Planet of the Apes), Selma makes the (in my estimation), wise decision to focus on one small period in MLK Jr's life. Rather than a sweeping biopic covering the entirety of his life, we focus on the push by King and the SCLC for voting rights in Selma, Alabama in 1965.

The Good: Oyelowo's performance is simply tremendous. It's hard to imagine anyone ever doing a better job of portraying MLK on film. His portrayal is touching, believable, powerful and rousing. Equal parts inspiring and believably human, the film paints King as a somewhat reluctant figure, run ragged by the what must have seemed endless struggle for dignity and equal treatment under the law he personified. The rest of the cast is mixed, but Tom Wilkinson, Carmen Ejowo (as LBJ and Coretta Scott King), Stephan James and Oprah were bright spots. James' depiction of John Lewis, a young SNCC volunteer, stood out among the crowded ensemble. I really liked the film's decision to focus on a particular struggle and a snapshot of a particular time, as it made the film's narrative concise and focused on the human beings involved. The tension and violence of the time is palpable, painting a picture of a time at once recognizable and yet incredibly foreign.



The Bad: at a certain point, someone involved in the production of this film made the decision that the systemic, violent apartheid racism of Governor Wallace's Alabama and the Jim Crow-era deep south wasn't enough of an obstacle for King and his movement to overcome, and that President Johnson needed to be brought into things as a cartoon villain as well. I find this unfortunate, because it's incredibly distracting, and I believe not at all true to history. This film paints LBJ as, at best, slightly hostile to the Civil Rights movement and at worst, openly opposed to King. I don't believe that's reflective of history, and I'm not sure why the film felt the need to escalate the momentousness of King's achievements. Additionally, there are parts of the film that feel cheaply done and like they'd be at home in a Lifetime "Movie of the Week".

In all, this is a powerful, well-made film with a brilliant performance and depiction of an all-time great American at its core. Its flaws hold it back from true greatness, but it's an inspiring story of one of the great figures and great triumphs of American history. High school students should be shown this film, and I'm sure they will be.

8/10.

2015: The Year in Film: "Furious 7" Review

The evolution of the "Fast and Furious" franchise from "throwaway 90's schlock" to "best non-superhero action series" is legitimately one of the more preposterous developments in the history of film. It may be THE most preposterous moment outside of when people let Birth of a Nation happen and rekindle the worst elements of neo-confederacy. Read more about my journey of discovery of the joys of this series here: Two Fast, Two Curious. Whatever the series was a decade ago, 5 and 6 were legitimately good, and a hell of a lot of fun, so Furious 7 immediately became one of my most anticipated movies of the year, especially in light of 6's post-credits sequence. The death of Paul Walker mid-shoot immediately cast a pall over the film, but it did lend an air of finality to the proceedings. It's safe to say that Furious 7 will be the end of the road for our heroes.

Furious 6 saw our heroes working on the side of the angels, working with Hobbs (The Rock) and the government to bring down a former British special forces soldier turned mercenary and his crew. After winning the day in ridiculous fashion, it's revealed after the credits that Tokyo Drift TAKES PLACE AFTER FURIOUS 6 and Shaw's brother (Jason Statham) is on the warpath for revenge. Down Han and Gisele, Torretto and co. find themselves hunted by a very, very bad man. They'll need to join forces for "one last ride" to stop the bad guy and win the day.

The Good: Vin Diesel's performance in 5, 6 and 7 is one of the great movie star turns of our time. I truly mean this. His Dominic Torretto barely speaks, and is the epitome of the "strong and silent" type. Brad Pitt in the Ocean's series and Vin Diesel in the F&F series put on a clinic of how to do more with less. The rest of the cast settles into their established roles, (newcomer Kurt Russell, especially, just chews up scenery) and they are clearly so comfortable riffing with one another that their chemistry and clear affection for one another is magnetic. It doesn't even matter that Paul Walker (RIP) was flat and boring, because everyone clearly likes each other. At its best points, these films are about close friends hanging out, and that's just fun to watch when it's accompanied by some of the more absurd action sequences ever put on film. Ludacris is enjoyable and Tyrese's character is ridiculous as always. The flick continues the trend established in 5 and 6 where our heroes, once small-time criminals, are now basically elite special forces, able to take on military and international terrorists without much of a problem, and I'm strangely comfortable with that. There's been a change behind the camera, with James Wan taking over for Justin Lin (who directed 3-6), and his action choreography is nearly as impressive. There's a sense of grand scale behind the action scenes in these films that's unlike nearly anything else that's being done today. The film embraces its absurdity and runs with it, encouraging the audience to laugh along with its ridiculousness. Plus, I won't spoil anything, but the film does a hell of a send-off for Paul Walker that's legitimately heart-wrenching.



The Bad: whether this is because Furious 6 was so good or because this film is relatively lacking, but it feels like a step down from 5 and 6. It's still big, and crazy, and a lot of fun, but the film misses Han and Gisele a lot, and we aren't given anyone to replace them really.  This flick also suffers from showing so many awesome moments in the trailer. Look at that trailer. Those scenes are ridiculous... and completely spoiled. Since we already know that's happening, it takes away from the "wow" factor in the movie itself. I mean, cars parachuting from a plane? Paul Walker running up a bus? Those are awesome and I wish I didn't already know they were coming. This film also suffers from a lack of the Rock compared to 5 and 6. The Rock is sidelined for most of the flick, which makes sense from a plot standpoint, it's hard for anyone to be outgunned when The Rock is on your side, but we need more Rock, guys. Also, this flick suffers from the absence of Lin's steadying hand. It feels juvenile in comparison to 5 and 6 in parts, and there are some gratuitous shots that honestly made me feel like a creep. WAY too many lingering shots on sexy ladies, which feels jarring in a series that legitimately had strong and well-rounded female characters in 5 and 6.

So, in all, if you like 5 and 6, you're going to like this one, even if it's not QUITE as good. The film really does a great job sending off Paul Walker, and honestly was a bit of a tear-jerker. I hope that his family appreciates the gesture, because I'm not quite sure that anyone has ever gotten as great of a send-off as the one this film gives him. He did legitimately seem like a good dude, so I'm glad that the flick saw fit to honor him in that way. A good, really fun, but not great conclusion to the most ridiculous series of all time.

7/10.

2014: The Year in Film: "Foxcatcher" Review

The story of John E. Du Pont and the Schultz brothers is one of the truly bizarre tales of our time. I distinctly remember watching SportsCenter when the stand off between du Pont and police was taking place. (Wikipedia says this happened in January, 1996) Filmmaker Bennett Miller (Capote, Moneyball) next set his sights on this strange modern American tragedy, focusing on the eccentric multimillionaire and one of the heirs to the famed Du Pont fortune and his relationship with Olympic wrestlers Mark and Dave Schultz.

The Good: the cast is simply great all-around. Steve Carell, nearly unrecognizable in prosthetics and makeup, is creepy and twisted as the truly strange character of John E. du Pont. At turns manipulative, creepy, charming, childlike and charismatic, Carell turns in a career-changing performance. Honestly, I never would have thought that he had this type of performance in him, and I'm truly excited to see where the next act of Carell's career takes us. Former model and pretty boy Channing Tatum continues his evolution into serious and quality actor, as his depiction of Olympic wrestler Mark Schultz is brooding and simply great. As du Pont manipulates this great and underappreciated athlete into his personal lemming and whipping boy, we see the change reflected in Tatum, as Schultz's brooding turns self-destructive. But the true highlight of this film is Mark Ruffalo as Mark Schultz's brother, Dave. The more self-assured and successful of the brothers, Dave Schultz was the star of the U.S. wrestling program, and Ruffalo's performance is understated, charming, and completely anchors the film. If he would have won Best Supporting Actor for his performance, no one would have batted an eye. The plot meanders, with Bennett clearly preferring to "show" rather than "tell", and while that may seem random at times, I feel it makes the entire enterprise feel unsettling and adds to the impending sense of dread underlying the film. This is basically a horror movie masquerading as a drama, and as such, Bennett Miller makes a lot of interesting choices with the color and tone of the film that really make the whole thing feel like a modern American noir. (Not unlike Capote in that way)



The Bad: Carell's makeup and prosthetics aren't great, and were frankly a little distracting at times. His performance was outstanding, but it seems odd that in 2015 we aren't able to make better makeup to create the illusion of a person looking differently than they actually do while also still like a human being. The film is a little longer than I'd have preferred, and tends to jump around in ways that can be a little confusing. For instance, it's difficult to tell that years have passed between the '88 Olympics and the crime itself. While it's not necessarily difficult to follow, it can be a little jarring.

Ultimately, this is the tale of a modern American tragedy told through three central performances that all rise above the typical work of the actors involved. For Carell and Tatum, this film represents a significant step forward in their work as actors, and for the always quality Ruffalo, this film represents a career highlight. The best word I can use to describe this film is creepy. It's unsettling, and uncompromising in the way it depicts mental illness, manipulation, and the tragedy of this story. You're definitely going to feel like you need to take a shower afterwards, but for the quality of its performances, the artistry of the filmmaking and the genre-bending and unique story, it's wholly worth watching. How many other prestige true-crime wrestling dramas would someone have the guts to turn into an Oscar contender?

8/10

2014: The Year in Film: "Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)" Review

Alejandro Gonzalez Inarrito has been one of the more interesting rising writer-directors for quite some time now. A native of Mexico, his films thus far, like Amores Perros, 21 Grams, Biutiful, and Babel have been ponderous, thoughtful, and often brutal ruminations on the human condition.  He's been a director to keep your eye on, but none of his films thus far has been a whole hell of a lot of fun to watch. Beautiful? Absolutely. Fun? Hell no. So I'm excited to see him move in a different direction and bring his talent to something a little different and less likely to end in the viewer wondering if they should take a hot bath and open a couple of veins.

His latest project, Birdman, focuses on a struggling actor, Riggan (Michael Keaton, in a role that surely hit very, very close to home), who is struggling to put his career and his life together some 20 years after leaving a role as an iconic superhero. Riggan is starring-in, writing and directing an adaptation of a Raymond Chandler story on Broadway in an ambitious last-ditch effort to redeem what have been, at this point, a decades-long series of regrets and bad decisions.

The Good: the way this film is shot is truly invigorating and immersive. Using long tracking shots, the film gives the illusion of being one long shot. There's a manic, subversive energy underlying the entire film, and a lot of that is due to the way that the film is put together and presented. Incredible cinematography from Chivo Lubeski. (who also shot last year's Gravity)  Accompanying this occasionally off-putting and raw energy is Antonio Sanchez's score, consisting merely of drums. The script is often hilarious, and in a dark and meta way. Keaton's character has a "devil" over his shoulder in the character of Birdman, and this conceit is used in dark and funny ways. The cast is great, led by Keaton and Edward Norton. Naomi Watts, Emma Stone and Zach Galifinakis are all strong as well. Keaton's performance is raw, darkly funny, and deeply personal, and he rises to the occasion, even if that occasion requires him to spend an inordinate amount of time in his tighty-whities. Keaton isn't the only character existing on a meta leval, as Norton's brilliant yet impossible to work with and deeply meta character hits close to home as well. This film is smart, dark, and touching, hitting all the right notes on something that feels at once like a deeply personal character study and an occasionally whimsical or even silly exploration of the creation of a piece of art, performance art in particular.



The Bad: This may seem like nitpicking, but it really distracted me. Riggan is supposedly the director of the play in question... but all he ever does is hang out in his dressing room and doesn't actually direct anyone ever. I mean, it's fine, it's just a movie, but it distracted the hell out of me. If I have a legitimate criticism, it's that it isn't QUITE as smart as it thinks it is, masking a lot of it behind a smooth, quirky and funny veneer.

In all, this is one of the very best films of the year, and one that's an absolute joy to watch. If you're a fan of Michael Keaton, Edward Norton, Innaratu or film, this is a can't-miss. It won't win best picture, but it's certainly quite the achievement.

9/10.

2014: The Year in Film: "Interstellar" Review

I think it goes without saying that I'm a pretty big Chris Nolan fan, readers and followers. From Memento to Batman Begins, Inception, The Dark Knight, The Prestige and The Dark Knight Rises, literally every single one of his films has been memorable, visually stunning, and utterly singular.  He's been called the second coming of Stanley Kubrick, and while I'm not sure that's accurate, the fact that the comment isn't absurd on its face kind of says it all.  While his take on Batman has its detractors, most notably among certain members of the hipster online commentariat, there shouldn't be denial among rational, adult members of society that his Dark Knight trilogy is a watershed moment in modern culture that honestly shaped the decade. We've also seen over the last two years a renaissance of sorts, a McConaissance, even, which has seen one of the more disappointing and underachieving members of the Hollywood A-list, Matthew McConaughey, turn himself into a legitimately great actor. From Mud to True Detective, Wolf of Wall Street and Dallas Buyer's Club, McConaughey had a stretch like no one else in recent memory.

So when it was announced that Nolan and McConaughey would be teaming up for their next film, Interstellar, a film that was shrouded with the typical Nolan secrecy prior to its release, the internet could barely contain its excitement. Add in a strong cast that includes Ann Hathaway, Nolan regular Michael Caine, Matt Damon and John Lithgow with an imaginative hard sci-fi premise, and I was sold from the jump.

Interstellar introduces us to an indeterminate point in the near-future when disease, blight and environmental degradation has nearly rendered the earth uninhabitable. Repeated crop failures have made the situation on earth desperate, and what's left of NASA seeks to send a mission to the stars in a desperate attempt to ensure humanity's survival.

The Good: As should be expected from Christopher Nolan by now, the film combines stunning visuals with an ambitious and thought-provoking plot. The story, of a very real human catastrophe forcing humanity to turn to the stars, is the sort of high-minded science fiction that we don't see much of any more. As America's greatest achievement, its space program, becomes an underfunded afterthought, this film can and should serve as a reminder of the hope, wonder, and species-uniting progress that space once represented and could again. Far from a fanciful futuristic story set more in fantasy than reality, this is a space saga that's very much grounded in reality, with technology and space travel that feels all too real. The film makes significant efforts to ground its space travel and voyage of exploration in scientific reality, using relativistic time as a plot device, for example, and relishing what far off worlds may in fact look like. The combination of racing against the clock to save humanity and voyaging through the endless void of space creates an interesting blend of suspense-style pacing and an explorer's sentimentality. All of this is grounded in its characters, as the film focuses on two father-daughter pairs, Cooper (McConaughey) and his daughter Murph (played as an adult by Jessica Chastain) find their bond tested, strained, and ultimately redeemed by the endless distance between them, and the incredibly high stakes are given a human dimension through their relationship. The cast is strong, and even if character isn't always Nolan's strong suit, McConaughey and Chastain both turn in moving and powerful performances. Despite the long runtime, the pacing is strong, and if anything, the film felt TOO short.




The Bad: For all of its efforts at making an intelligent and scientifically sound version of what mankind's first voyage into interstellar space may look like, at times the film falls into sentimental nonsense. I'm not docking the film TOO much for this, because I don't believe Nolan set out to film a hyper-realistic look at space travel, but it was jarring. There are times the science and the implications therein take a backseat to the plot, and while that's not always a bad thing in and of itself, at times it felt almost lazy, which is really unfortunate. I would have liked to have seen the ending fleshed out more as well, although the film already had a 3 hour runtime. Finally, everyone has criticized it, so I must mention it, the sound mix is bizarre. There are times that it was literally impossible to hear what was going on because of the combination of score and space craft noises. I respect the desire to demonstrate the inside of a spacecraft, but maybe don't have actors trying to give dialogue overtop of a booming score AND rocket engines?

In all, this film represents, while not perfection, certainly an exceptionally ambitious vision that is to be commended. At a time when Hollywood studios take fewer and fewer chances and focus their attention on established properties, big-budget original stories are important and valuable. This film joins the pantheon of great sci-fi films, and is honestly a must-see, despite its flaws.

8.5/10.