Jim's Movie Reviews: Godzilla (2014)

Lemme see...there are 29 feature films produced by Toho Studios through 2004, 30 if you count the US Raymond Burr re-hash of the first classic Japanese film, I think...and maybe if you count Godzilla vs. King Kong, with its 2 endings as 2 films, it's 31...then the 1998 abortion...meaning this Godzilla is the 30th (or so) film with the giant lizard headlining. As items of distinction, it features the direction of Gareth Edwards on a script by Max Borenstein and Dave Callaham.  Contributing acting talent for this go-round are Aaron Taylor-Johnson, CJ Adams, Ken Watanabe, and Bryan Cranston.

The original Godzilla, who hit Japanese theaters in 1954, was a work of science fiction horror.  The monster was born out of the collective consciousness of a nation whose identity was forever changed on August 6th, 1945, and it shows:  He is portrayed as the incalculable response of nature to a humanity toying with destructive forces simply too large to be safely handled.  In subsequent features, he is most often portrayed as a (unwitting?) guardian and protector of humanity against other such nemeses, resulting in a more kid-friendly (and definitely less horrifying) set of movies.

This effort proves an attempt to do both:  Depict the horror and fascination of humanity with a creature beyond their ken AND get audiences rooting for the creature as a hero. It's quite the balancing act they've elected, as they could have had an easier time simply trying to re-capture the horror aspect of the original.

The Good:  This movie understands pacing.  We spend some time exploring the human drama, predictably, the exposition peppered with glimpses of the creature and its trail of destruction before the big reveal. Cranston was the stand-out performer here, bringing just enough skill to the job to carry us over.  The human element, after all, plays second-fiddle in a story destined to reveal their efforts as largely ineffectual. The payoff is huge for the investment in teasing:  The first time the creature is exposed in all his horrible glory, the audience I was with erupted into applause, and it wasn't for the last time during the feature. Godzilla in action is a breathtaking statement of the progress of CG art in the 21st century, giving audiences the creature most likely to stir up memories of what many felt as children, watching much older and less technologically adept efforts.  There are more cues to 'real' biology in the design of the monster than in the original rubber suit.  Nevertheless, the artists give us a creature that just drips the kind of 'King Of The Monsters' badassery that gets audiences motivated.  In 3D Imax, the reveal was awe-inspiring, and may be worth the price of admission, for some, all by itself.  The movie quickly ramps up in the third act, giving us periodic, crowd-pleasing...let's call them 'money shots' designed to tickle the fancy of both long-time fans and newcomers alike.  These moments are doled out with just the right amount of flair to maximize the visceral payoff, and although I could see a few critics jumping off due to obvious audience pandering, count me among those who got into the spirit of it.  A few of these moments are in homage to earlier work with the character, and longtime-fans will be happy to see that elements lost in the 1998 attempt are back in place.

The Bad:  The earlier parts of the film are necessary, to be sure, to give us some human connection to the story.  But the engineered nature of these scenes comes through at times, with questions such as, "How can this be all over the news and I just get a tease?" occurring just a little too often.  The end, so far as the human protagonist is concerned, featured some pretty disbelief-inducing plot elements (maybe another character death is called for?).  It's also a little dry at the beginning, where emotionally charged scenes seem to be filmed and edited in a very controlled manner, lending an almost clinical, "True Stories Of The ER" feel to what should be gut-wrenching fear or pain of loss.  The final act eschews almost all the periphery elements of human drama...once the action starts, the film delivers dose after dose of crowd-pleasing scenes of destruction visited by the monster, with very few cuts to the effects of the embattled Godzilla on the human populace.  Massive, crumbling skyscrapers, etc. are set-pieces in the final act, as opposed to places where people live and work.  There are plenty of scenes of fleeing people and reaction shots early on, but when things really start crumbling, it's all about the rock-em'-sock-em' action, for better or worse.  That, and the "he's our friend, really" element is laid on a little too thick.  It's tough to be critical with so many cheer-inducing moments coming out of the third act, but it might have been nicer to give the horror aspect its due a little more often.

The Bottom Line:  Godzilla is a fine effort, and worth seeing (especially in 3D Imax) for those who aren't there to critique it on plot structure and human dramatic elements alone.  Although not a perfect movie, fans of the monster as well as casual fans of visceral summer popcorn entertainment will want to check it out.  8 out of 10, if for nothing other than the "HOLY SHIT"s frequently uttered in theaters everywhere.

Fun fact:  In 1984, North Korean dictator Kim Il-Sung decided he wanted North Korea to make a Godzilla movie.  In true batshit-crazy fashion, the North Koreans kidnapped South Korean film-maker Shin Sang-Ok, then forced him to make Pulgasari, no doubt the strangest Godzilla rip-off, ever.

Jim's Movie Reviews: Amazing Spider-Man 2

 Amazing Spider-Man 2 is the latest super-hero sequel for 2014 release.  Most of the cast, including Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker, Sally Field as Aunt May, and Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy, have returned from 2012's Amazing Spider-Man, also directed by Marc Webb.  However, we have new writers for this installment in Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, who you might recognize from the 2009 Star Trek and its sequel.  Also new to the franchise are Jamie Foxx as the villain Electro, Dane DeHaan as Harry Osborne/The Green Goblin, and Paul Giamatti as The Rhino.  In the film, our hero battles the trio while uncovering the mystery surrounding his parent's death and attempting to keep it together with Gwen.

The worry for many fans with the sequel was that it would repeat the mistake of 2007's Spider-Man 3, where including three antagonists diluted the narrative.  Previews made it clear that this installment would also include three, count them, three super-villains, a move sure to spark controversy.

So, how does it rate?  We've had this year's opening salvo from Marvel Studios in Captain America: The Winter Soldier, another financial success from what has become the de facto model for productions of its ilk.  Does Sony's latest effort deserve a seat at the table, or has the "more is better" bug bitten once again?  Sadly, it's more like the latter...but not exactly.

The Good:  Garfield and Stone, in their respective roles as Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy, are perfect.  Much ado has been made of their off-screen romance, but their on-screen familiarity is palpable, especially in the out-of-costume moments between them.  Foxx does a passable job, lending credence to a set of not-so-convincing character motivations.  DeHaan, as Harry, is a welcome addition as well.  Given only scant screen time to establish the Harry/Peter (hur hur) friendship, he manages a natural-feeling connection. Even Giamatti, with the least screen time of all, hams it up perfectly for the material he's given.


As far as over-crowding is concerned, I don't think it was the problem.  At least, not the main problem.  More on that later.  Distilled to its essence, the movie had a decent rhythm: The battle sequences were staggered throughout, and out-of-costume time was peppered in with enough opportunity to keep the plot moving and the character motivators in focus.  On balance, characters are given as much or as little screen time necessary to flesh out the plot.  Rather than share screen time equally, Goblin and Rhino are (correctly) regulated to the back burner for much of the film.  Editing was accomplished pretty well, too, especially in the action sequences. Special effects varied wildly in quality, but on balance, character animations were incredible, even for a movie awash in Sony dollars.  The way Spider-Man moves is a revelation that the Rami movies don't have the monopoly on animating or choreographing one of the toughest characters to get right.

The Bad:  Hmmm...where to start?  Tone.  At times, it's a love story, with Peter and Gwen hashing out a direction for their lives in the midst of some incredible opportunities for Gwen's career as a student.  Then, it's a quick gear-change to an over-the-top Electro origin story in an overtly funny-book style that might have worked well in another movie.  Then, another grinding of gears while Harry enters Peter's life once again, and the two wax nostalgic for off-screen times gone by.  Then, back to the Peter/Gwen thing for more tortured romance.  And so on.  Throw in Peter's parents, some tension between May and Peter, and the whole Goblin arc, and you've got a full plate.

The battle scenes, in particular, make several mistakes with dialogue and action for Spider-Man.  Audiences can expect an over-dose of ham from what should be weighty encounters, with pageantry normally reserved for character appearances at conventions and birthday parties.  I'm all for a s***-talking but kid-friendly Spider-Man, and I understand fully that he needs to connect with his city in a unique way.  But folks, you gotta pepper that stuff in.  At one point, Spidey dons a fire helmet and joins a hook-and-ladder crew to the delight of a cheering crowd, because, you know, they're the real heroes of 9/11 and whatnot.  This, during a scene that called for tension as the hero squared off with his nemesis for the first time.  Instead, Spidey plays to the Times Square crowd like he's guesting on Good Morning America, and it sucks the tension right out.

Electro having the majority of screen time spent on villains, you'd think he'd be a cornerstone of tone for the film, but not so:  Although his origins are tied into the same Oscorp research projects as all the other hero/villain characters in the franchise, his motivations are right out of the Electric Company Super-Villain Origin Story Handbook, and the deep commitment brought by Foxx to the role only drives it home.  Design-wise, he's the star of the movie, with his every vein, nerve and muscle lit from within as his power over electricity asserts itself.  He LOOKS amazing, but his every line of dialogue is right out of Schumaker Batman.   Oh, and while we're at it, his theme in the score is full of 80's-sounding synth and wailing electric guitar (you know, because the villain Electro is all about electricity and...never mind). Although the score knows what it's about in terms of mood, it only tends to drive home how these scenes just aren't crafted like they should relate.  The movie wants you to take Electro seriously as a threat, but it's tough when he's set to a tune better suited for 80's action television, expressing all the depth available to a kid's show parody of the character, and combating a Spider-Man who's tap-dancing for the New York crowd.

Harry Osborne's character arc differs wildly in tone from Electro's.  His connection to Peter is handled in a reunion scene where the actors successfully play to each other's strengths, but there just aren't enough of these. Although the reasons for the Harry/Peter conflict are fairly valid, and their exchanges well-handled individually, the character gets short shrift in terms of screen time.  His arc completes in a forced manner better suited for exploration in a sequel.  It would have been just fine to leave it for next time, but instead, he swoops in (pun intended) at the end as a sort of reverse deus ex machina.

The toughest character arc to watch conclude, hands down, is Gwen Stacy's.  (SPOILERS AHEAD - skip this paragraph if you plan to see it)  For what it's worth, Stone smashes it out of the park for much of the film, giving us a convincing, lovable Stacy that's devoted to Peter, but hangs onto her own priorities.  Nevertheless, the final act is all about tying Stacy to the tracks so Spider-Man can agonize over her death.  The excuses to even have her in the same scenes as Spider-Man, at this point, sound bovine.  Something about "resetting The Grid" and being "the only one who knows how."  Nevertheless, Spider-Man begrudgingly drags her to the scene of her own demise at the hands of the Green Goblin, a character whose own 'arc' only exists to kill Gwen in time for end credits.  Both Goblin and Stacy are cheapened as a result of this ham-fisted rush to conclusion.  I'd have thought there was ample time for some Sony bobble-head to remark, "Hey, that Stone/Garfield thing is killing it on and off screen, why don't we keep her around for a while longer?", but apparently keeping a good thing going and fixing your movie are business practices lost somewhere in the giant movie-making structure. There's also an entirely unnecessary story line involving Spidey's web-shooters that provides, transparently, an opportunity for Gwen to chime in with a fractured science solution right out of the Insane Clown Posse School Of Physics.  Thus begins Gwen's completely contrived ride to vengeance-fueled heaven, all so we can provide the second of the film's three endings, and get her out the way for the third installment. 'Because next time, it's personal!' and all that.
      
Lurking behind the scenes, only to jump out and crap all over tone and gravitas when you least expect it, is the sound track, where the latest in pre-fab music announces itself like an over-loud 80's K-Tel commercial.  Now available on Sony records and tapes, folks!  I thought we got past musical montages as a movie-making culture (outside of Disney) somewhere around Rocky IV. I was almost certain Sony as an organism would be self-conscious about Peter Parker and musical montages after the fiasco witnessed in Spider-Man 3, but I digress.

The last of the film's transgressions I'll list is the poor CGI set design and opaque story mechanics. "The Grid" is as The Grid does, being an electrical fairy-land tied into one of the loosest excuses for a "threat to the city" in recent memory. It's very mention early in the film suggests that it will host the climactic battle sequence at the end, and it does. As a device, we're told it generates all the power for Manhattan, but it really exists to provide a fantastic setting for Spider-Man to battle in, and later, to endanger Gwen via her expertise in all this 'science'.  It's realized in cartoony, sterile CGI without the detail touches that anchor such things in the name of suspension of disbelief.  If the Times Square scenes come off like a musical or a talk-show appearance, then the CGI-laden Grid is most akin to a video-game cut sequence. One minute, we're on figurative Broadway, the next, we're stuck in Tron.

Conclusion:  This movie would have been relatively easy to fix early in the production.  Move the meat of the Goblin arc to the third installment, revamp some of the action sequences to strike a better balance between comics fun and tension-building, fire the committee that forced those god-awful musical montages into the mix, re-vamp the score (or don't, if you go for a more comical, lighter tone for the movie), and do something better with Gwen. Gwen's arc would have worked better across three installments, but here it's too close to Peter's origin story to keep from cheapening both.

It's a mess of a movie, but often highlights the skill of a cast that manages, at times, to rise above it all.  5 out of 10.





          

"Like" My New Haircut!

Good news, facebook fans!  We can once again post decapitation videos!  Facebook has reversed its policy against users posting video decapitations, instituted last May.  That is, so long as users who post beheadings to facebook include a proper amount of condemnation of the practice of beheading people.  This is not to be confused with condemnation of the practice of posting beheading videos to facebook; let's not get these confused.

facebook says we also need to make sure we're posting our beheadings and such to an age-appropriate audience, responsibly. I assume this means having no under-aged friends?  Is "the internet" an age-appropriate audience?  Judging by some of the things I manage to find, I'd say the internet is a pretty worldly bunch.

You also need to have warnings, and I don't know if spoiler tags count.

What I do know is you can't just post a beheading video and be like, "haha no need to lose your head over it" or make some other lame pun.  Comments should say, "Disgusting!" or "I am appalled!" or something similar so people know you object to actually watching the video murders you post to facebook. Or maybe you object to the murders themselves, and you feel it's your civic duty to speak out about human rights issues in a forum usually reserved for Grumpy Cat and funny pictures of that Dokes guy from Dexter ("Supplies, motherfucker!"...LOL that gets me every time).

My suggestion:  Make sure your follow-up to the video comment has plenty of righteous indignation. Like,  "I'm so disgusted that you would post this, self." or "I really didn't need to see this, me!"  That'll give it the air of seriousness such issues deserve, and let the censors at facebook know you're serious about beheadings.

By the way, I hear you get more hits if you post a picture of the beheading in the original post, then link to the actual video in the "comments" section.

Don't ask me about the "like" button in these instances, I don't know if it counts for or against beheading.  Maybe you clarify by adding a "'Like' if you hate trivialized violence!"

facebook says they figured out the morality of it all during the Boston Marathon bombing, or at least that's what their representative told Gizmodo.  Apparently, there was video of a man whose legs were blown off.  And what type of news service would facebook be if they denied you video of a guy with his legs blown off?  Why, they'd be no news service at all, I reckon.  Without up-to-the-minute coverage of beheading and dismemberment to attract real, useful advertisers, they'd probably have to resort to selling ad space hocking pay-to-play games about farming and gambling.  People would have to look to other sources to form their opinions on graphic depictions of murder and acts of terrorism.

It begs the question:  If not for facebook, how many victims of the Boston bombing would have been left wandering the streets, yearning for some other way to communicate their terror? Twitter would have been my suggestion, but imagine having to express all that shell-shock, arterial spray, abject misery and confusion in 140 characters or less...it just doesn't work out, does it?  Unless your fingers are blown off.  Then, I'd guess 140 characters (or 3, maybe?) would be fine.

We should, as responsible citizens of the blogosphere/cube, always be on the lookout for dismemberment and beheading news to post to facebook, especially with Halloween right around the corner.  Make sure your phone understands gestures if there's any chance you yourself are about to be dismembered: You may only have seconds before you pass out, and you don't want to spend those last moments helplessly hammering your bloody stumps into a touch screen.  Remember, there's an entire internet that needs to know.

It really makes you think:  What if just one sword-wielding nutbag had seen just how many "likes" an anti-beheading video of a beheading was getting? Could that have stayed his hand?  I have a hard time believing a tweet could make the difference, but when you add the embedded video and open-concept facebook floor plan...

Oh, and no nekid boobies during the beheadings.  I mean, c'mon folks: That would be offensive.

Jim's Movie Reviews: Rush

Rush is the latest film from director Ron Howard and screenwriter Peter Morgan (Frost/Nixon, The Queen).  It tells the (true) story of the intense rivalry between Niki Lauda (Daniel Bruhl) and James Hunt (Chris Hemsworth), two Formula 1 drivers with extreme personalities whose on- and off-track battles were the stuff of sports legend in the 1970's. In a sport where a significant percentage of drivers is killed, on average, every season, the two figures rise to dominate the track, each fueling the other's desire to win, regardless of risk and personal cost.

The Good:  The personalities on display here are extreme, almost to the point of caricature, but neither the script nor the direction can be faulted for it.  To put it simply, the film does a good job of conveying the truth:  To take up this sport required a certain fearlessness not present in your average person.  To win, one must have been more than a little insane.  The dialogue conveys this, including some word-for-word quotes from interviews and other recorded footage, as if to let the audience know that the personalities on display here are extreme, but aren't "amped up" for cinema.  The subjects needed to be that way, or it wouldn't have been their story being told decades later.  Hunt did show up for interviews with multiple models on his arm. He did speak as if the world was his playground. He did take chances on the track that resulted in both wins and critical injuries. Lauda did walk onto one of the most storied racing teams of his time, blackmailing them for a spot by first building a faster car and then demonstrating that he could beat their best driver in it.  It's one of those situations where narrative truth could have taken a back seat, and personalities could have been toned down to make it seem more real or believable to audiences.  That, and events could have been re-arranged or edited for a more pleasing arc...but it wouldn't have been the truth.

Cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle gives us some of the best work of his career. The 70's muted Kodachrome color palette was perfect, especially where integrating stock racing footage was necessary to tell the story.  The camera work both on- and off-track was thrilling, and edited to perfection.  I gotta say, this is a contender for "Best Editing", with cuts paced to build intensity during race sequences, and communicating to-the-point personalities outside the track very, very well.

I don't know who to credit with this, but this film needs to win several awards for sound, especially the way the foley work was integrated with the music.  Although there were some missteps and hokey-ness off the track when it came to chosen songs for montages, on the race track was perfection:  Engine noise overwhelms, then gives way to announcers, whose voices in turn echo seemingly right on beat with the music, and it all blends to a seamless whole.  I was thrilled with the race sequences in general, and due in no small part to the craftsmanship evident in what I was hearing.

The bad:  The film may cause feelings of inadequacy, especially among middle-aged males.

Oh, and some of the CG wasn't absolutely perfect.

The verdict:  Probably the best racing film I've ever seen...but that doesn't say much, as, let's face it: Most racing films are stupid.  If you like action and drama, go see it.  9 out of 10.

Jim's Movie Reviews: Kick-Ass 2

Kick-Ass 2, as many of you know, is the sequel to 2010's Kick-Ass, a film adapted from the Mark Millar/John Romita Jr. comic of the same name.  Both Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Kick-Ass) and Chloe Moretz (Hit Girl) reprise their good-guy/gal lead roles, along with alum Christopher Mintz-Plasse (Red Mist/The Motherfucker) returning as this film's nemesis.

I'm going to keep this one short:  Kick-Ass 2 tries really, really hard to be as subversive and entertaining as the original, but frankly, it's a concept that's played out.  It's a shame, because screenwriter/Director Jeff Wadlow is under the scrutiny of comics fans everywhere for this effort, as well as for being on tap to produce a screenplay for, and possibly direct, a feature X-force film with a tentative 2016 release. Although the shtick of it (a "normal" kid simply decides one day to be a super hero, but he has no powers, no partners, and no comic-book back story/origin to compel him) was perfect for a 2-hour introduction in 2010, it's simply a re-tread on display here, and a bad one at that.

Chief among the film's failures is saying nothing new.  To be honest, I haven't read the second entry in the comic series, so I don't know how much of the blame to lay at Wadlow's feet for it.  There's what passes for a super-villain origin story (although as a character he's re-heated from the last film), and the cast of heroes is slightly expanded (but none of the new are fleshed out), but nothing of note along the lines of change.

Looking back to 2010, the allure of the first film wasn't in the quality of the narrative, to be sure:  It was the fact you'd never really seen anything like it.  It was at once an homage to the genre and a deconstruction of it. These characters live in a mundane world, and with the simple act of stepping into costume and facing the world as super-heroes, you begin to see a sort of magical twist to the rules of reality.  It was as if what they were doing was so extreme, the universe had to back off a bit. Things had to get comic-book-y.  Situations became more and more twisted, personalities became focused and amplified, lines were drawn, costumes were sewn, chaos ensued. The fun of it wasn't limited to watching the characters grow into some sort of archetype, as in most conventional stories of its ilk: It was in watching the world around them change to fit their weirdness.

In 2, however, with the magic spell cast in the original entering its third year, we must look elsewhere for original concepts. Sadly, Wadlow (and perhaps Millar before him?) wallows in the feel and conceits of the original.  The only marked difference is the frequency of toilet humor, really.

I wouldn't have known where to go with the story, either, but then, I'm not asking for a portion of your ticket price. Yeah, I do think Wadlow gets the spirit of it, which does come through on occasion, and I think he does a competent job pulling performances from the actors, and maybe it's just that they're staying true to the original print material. There are a few competent chase and action sequences (as with the first, anything involving Hit-Girl in an action sequence is well done). But for the most part, what was once shiny and new is now...I'll call it boring. Colorful and somewhat random, but boring overall.  Pointless would be another word to use.

At least wait for the rental.  It's a 4 out of 10 stars for being mildly entertaining on occasion.  

Jim's Movie Reviews - Elysium

Elysium is the second major studio release for director Neil Blomkamp, perhaps best known for his work on District 9, another gritty sci-fi/social commentary piece. District 9 made waves for (among other things) its seamless visual effects, done on a rather shoestring budget but to incredible visual success.  No surprise, then, that Neil's background is entrenched in the world of 3D visual effects on a budget, having supplied them for such television fare as the CW's Smallville.  With this new effort starring Matt Damon and Jodie Foster, one would believe that any budgetary concerns are in the past.

Although I wouldn't call it a "follow-up", Elysium does tread a lot of the same thematic elements as District 9, although the set of metaphors in this movie tread much more familiar-looking territory.  The two movies both portray a stark separation between the haves/have-not's, the presence of baseless prejudice in the human collective psyche, and a sort of entrenched nationalism on the part of the elite in our societal structure. In District 9, the prejudices being illustrated were a little more in the abstract, as the object of hatred and mis-understanding was an insectoid alien culture.  Elysium, on the other hand, tells a thinly-veiled story of the US/Mexico border, only "Mexico" in this metaphor is the hopelessly polluted and over-populated planet Earth. The United States is represented by Elysium, an orbiting satellite filled with the mansions of the one per-centers looking down on the planet with the same predilections as Ozzy Ozbourne had for fans beneath his hotel balcony way back when.  Lest you think there might be some less specific metaphors in play, especially given Blomkamp's South African nationality, the movie is set in Los Angeles, and almost the entire supporting cast (at least where the "hapless denizens" are concerned) is Latino.

Matt Damon plays an Earth-bound worker (Max) given a terminal prognosis after a lethal exposure to radiation at his incredibly unsafe and exploitative workplace, and his only hope for a cure lies (of course) in the advanced medical facilities aboard the satellite...which, besides being in space, are zealously guarded by its citizens.  Max must enlist the aid of the 22nd century's equivalent of the coyote, and get his ass to Elysium. Oh, and along the way, fight for equality and bring hope to the masses and all that.

So, yeah, it's really preachy.  But does it work as a movie?  Short answer: Mostly, "Yes."

The Good:  Matt Damon plays a convincing every-man in Max, and the desperation and determination of the character's everyday life as a cog in the machine is convincingly focused and magnified through the lens of the more immediate conflict.  Sharlto Copley(The A-team)'s performance was the standout, however, as his intensely violent and determined portrayal of Kruger, revealed as Max's more direct nemesis, was incredibly well done.  Although Jodie Foster's portrayal of Delacourt hasn't enjoyed much by way of critical acclaim, I thought she did a fine job with the ballsy, ruthless defense minister of Elysium, charged with keeping the riff-raff off the station.  She plays a lion among lambs, and I thought it was a wonderful effort on her part.  Overall, the story is competently delivered, and the pacing excellent:  This writer/director knows how to pressurize before he lets the steam out in the more violent scenes, which I think is lost on a lot of the current crop in Hollywood.  Visually, the movie is very well done, as expected, but there were one or two scenes where the effects became overt.  I liked the camera work overall, especially during fight sequences:  It's not steady-cam-centric, as one might come to expect in a Matt Damon action vehicle.  Rather, it is both experimental and elegant in the way the camera, for example, exactly follows the sweeping arc of a thrown punch, all with the fist at center.  It is is focused and on-point without being clinical, and without losing detail in the action.  In certain scenes, the view switches between standard and helmet-mounted cameras, giving the audience a less omniscient perch that serves to anchor to the character's experience of combat.  The sets are excellent, and the textures used (dust, scabs, tears, decay, or the distinct lack thereof) are consistent visual reminders.

The Bad:   I'm all for metaphor in my sci-fi, and I think one of the best aspects of the genre is illustrating the concerns of mankind and how the future addresses them (or ought to address them). However, the best science fiction, in my view, boils the issues down to their essence, and doesn't need such direct and obvious metaphorical links to current events.  Such overt metaphor cheapens whatever message is being conveyed. The parallels drawn in this movie are simplistic caricatures, and it nearly ruins the narrative when you can practically hear the author's voice throughout:  "SEE how the closed borders inevitably result in human trafficking and exploitation of the huddled masses?  SEE how the blind nationalism results in exploitation and the loss of human compassion across borders?  SEE how the use of drone aircraft results in a disconnect between the soldier and the consequences of combat?  Oh, and Universal Health Care!!!" If you've ever thought to yourself, "You know, George Clooney should teach a class in how to portray the ethics of US foreign policy in a blockbuster movie, I'd sign up right away!", then this is the movie for you. Also, much of the movie's plot depends upon minutiae that doesn't stand up to examination, like the security systems surrounding the government of a space colony being remarkably easy to subvert, and machines capable of DNA coding that can re-build a person atom by atom, but are fooled into dispensing care to non-citizens by a forged brand on the skin.  These little things are beside the point, but then, the enjoyable aspects of the movie are ALL beside the point: Everything slaved to "the point" ends up being about as thought-provoking as the PSA at the end of every GI Joe cartoon.  If you disregard the "message" of the film, you'll end up looking elsewhere for stuff to think about, and it's an easy leap to start dissecting the film for plot holes (which invariably appear).

 

The Conclusion:  This is a good sci-fi action film, having a skilled director that knows how to construct good drama, and its intentions are in the spirit of the best science fiction. However, it falters where the specific and unabashed metaphor for current US politics is concerned, being altogether transparent and detracting from the film's supposedly future setting.

The Rating:  A solid 8 on a 10 scale as a sci-fi action/drama, but only rates a 3 in terms of social commentary.  Too transparent, too simplistic, too "now" to provoke anything in terms of conversation on the issues at hand.

Jim's Movie Reviews: 2 Guns

Director Baltasar Kormakur's second major studio release featuring Mark Wahlberg,  2 Guns, opened last Friday and proceeded to secure the number one spot at the box office, albeit for a relatively slow weekend.  Based on the Boom! Studios graphic novels by Steven Grant (which I have not read, yet), the film is the latest in a long list of comics adaptations in recent memory, yet seems to tread territory more familiar to the action films of the 80's than the tights and capes films of the last decade.

When I bought my ticket, I was looking for lite action fare, but with comics personality and panache.  The action movie genre as a whole, in my humble opinion, has been taking itself entirely too seriously lately, and the previews seemed to indicate a lighter treatment of the buddy cop motif, which looked to be something I'd enjoy.

The film concerns the exploits of two secretive "good guys", Bobby Trench (Denzel Washington) and Mike Stigman (Mark Wahlberg), each working undercover for a different entity, and each unaware of the other's true disposition.   What starts as a bank robbery caper quickly turns into a sort of ground war between various factions, including a number of corrupt government agencies (5, maybe  6?), drug cartels, and those working multiple angles.  Both characters begin the movie wholly convinced of the way things ought to work, and only by throwing out the rule book, so to speak, can they succeed.  

Let's get straight to it:

The Bad:  Personality the film has, in spades, although I hesitate to say what type:  It's all over the map.  The action is played too straight and certain dramatic moments are too intense to belong in a farce/parody, but the plot is simply too outlandish to belong in either straight-up action drama or even buddy cop territory.  The worst part is the way the film switches personality and tone from scene to scene:  There are about 6 intense gun battles, for example, that are played completely straight by the camera, the editing, and the direction, but these are predicated by grab-bag action movie plot devices that go to outlandish extremes and dialogue that's anything but serious. Seriously, every government agency mentioned in the movie, from the Border Patrol to the US Navy, the ATF, the DEA, the CIA, etc., is involved in drug smuggling, has its own Snidely Whiplash corrupt official, shadow organization and/or black ops hit-squad that initiates broad-daylight gun battles with impunity.   Sometimes, the movie seems to be heading for the dramatic intensity of something like Drive or Dog Day Afternoon, other times it seems to want a more comedic or stylized approach akin to a Troublemaker Studios effort, and yet other times, it feels like a shallow buddy cop flick similar in tone to (insert Eddie Murphy buddy cop movie here).  The trouble is, the style elements are so diluted by the schism that it's hard for the film to succeed in any one of its many aspects.  In this regard, Washington's Trench character is played a little too straight, and has some elements of plot attached that are a bit too dramatic to fit:  There are those moments where you know he's phoning in his typical Washington "seasoned rogue" gig you're likely used to from previous efforts.  He does have his moments, but he's out-shined by his counterpart in just about every scene (more on that below), and he is his most successful playing off Whalberg's superior lead.

The Good:  There are indeed some well-filmed action scenes in the movie, and there is a good amount of fun to be had if you check your mind at the door.  Whalberg seems to know exactly what to do with his character, who goes from doe-eyed believer in the system to "I don't give a shit" rogue during the course of the film. The character arcs are basically the same between the two main draws, in that fundamentally each hero must become their cover, and Whalberg's Stigman is the most apt, delivering one-liners and little personality ticks that get you believing early on that he is polarized along those lines, but could make the leap between wheelhouses easily. He gets the most entertaining of the two main sets of dialogue, and delivers every one-liner and insult to great effect.  My only complaint was that he didn't, or maybe wasn't allowed to, go farther with it.  If it were my film, I'd have written/directed his character as a straight SNL parody of himself, complete with "Do you like Entourage?" fourth-wall-breaking debasement, but that's just me.

The Conclusion:   This film would make a solid rental, good for a weekday night or a slow Saturday.  I don't know that the cinematography or action merits the big-screen treatment, and there's little else here to justify a "go buy a ticket" recommendation.  Perhaps for this last weekend and the next couple, it could scratch that itch for a movie buff that just has to have a movie to go to.

The Rating:  It's a 6 on a 10 scale for theater-viewing, but perhaps an 8 or a 9 as a rental.