Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Delayed Reaction: Open Water

The Pitch: Hey, let's use fear of abandonment and isolation to scare the living shit out of people.

What Took Me So Long: I didn't want to be scared of swimming for a while.

Why I Saw It: It's winter (when I'm writing this). I'm not going swimming any time soon. I had to see what this micro-budget hit was all about. You know, there's few more terrifying thoughts than being lost at see, especially without a boat. No way to be located or to let anyone know you are missing. The movie manages to keep a one note fear interesting a lot longer than I expected and the performances of the two leads (they aren't famous, so I won't bother listing their names) is above average, especially considering they had to be swimming the whole time.

Why I Wish I Hadn't: Ignoring the nightmares about being abandoned at sea that followed (I saw that one coming), I had a couple other issues. For one, I don't see how they remained so calm. They got a little angry and a little panicky. Most of the time they spent uncomfortably relaxed. Perhaps I'm displacing my own feelings but that didn't seem right. In general, I mentioned before, it's a one note premise. Once they've been abandoned there isn't much until when they finally accept that they've been abandoned. I don't know if that's something that could be fixed by a better director or superior camera, maybe a score. You know, a movie only has to be an hour to be considered a full-length feature. This is a case where going for the 90 minutes is excessive.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Monday, May 26, 2014

Movie Reaction: X-Men: Days of Future Past


Formula: X-Men / Back to the Future


Why I Saw It: When these movies click, they can be my favorite in the genre.

Cast: That's the big appeal of this one, right? The best of the old and the best of the new.Hugh Jackman bridges the gap between the two casts and he's never been better (or somehow, in better shape) in the role. For the second time, Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy excel in the unenviable task of playing Magneto and Prof. Xavier, this time with Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart offering direct comparison. It's nice seeing Jennifer Lawrence again although she's weird in this role. I don't get the menace of Raven/Mystique that Rebecca Romijn brought to it, probably because, since it is J-Law in the blue makeup, they give her more dialogue and story than she needs. Nicholas Hoult reminds American audiences that he's still around, waiting for someone a role fitting his talent. Peter Dinklage is, essentially, the villain who they don't bother developing into a rounded out character. Pretty much everyone else in the universe shows up for at least a scene. There's a lot of masters being served (or underserved) in this one.

Plot: Finally, the sentinels! Even as a non-Comic reader I know that we should've seen the sentinels before now. The plot centers around a time-travelling (a power that Kitty Pryde turns out to have. Who knew?) plan that transports Logan/Wolverine back to 1973 to stop a series of events that lead to the creation of the sentinels. From there, it's a matter of getting the gang back together and really, saving everyone from themselves. Meanwhile, the future group (Storm, Ice Man, Kitty Prye, Iceman, Bishop, Colossus, Magneto, Prof. Xavier, and other's I'm forgetting) hold off the sentinels for as long as they can. It's a much more effective blending of the old and the new in the series than I expected allowing Bryan Singer to successfully have his cake and eat it too. The only downside is that it left me wanting a full movie with each cast rather than this 70/30 split with 1973 dominating the time.

Elephant in the Room: Time travel? There's never going to be a good way to do time travel that's going to be scientifically sound (which makes sense since, you know, we can't travel through time), so the best you can hope for is something that  doesn't distract you for too long. Having a world of mutants helps make anything more plausible and they come up with an explanation tailor-made for Wolverine where a person's consciousness is sent back in time to take over the body from the past. It's still not a pretty explanation but it's functional.

Movie Theater MVP (Most Valuable Patron): I'm awarding this to the woman sitting behind me who, whenever they put the name of the city their in at the bottom of the screen, she would repeat it out loud. Normally, this would annoy me, but each time she'd say it with such wonder, like she'd never heard the word "Moscow" before that I had to smile.

Movie Theater LVP: The ass-hat who thought that because he dimmed to screen a little no one would mind if he checks his email for 10 minutes. I was in such disbelief that he was being such a prick that I forgot to say "Hey, dumbass! This is a one screen experience" or something clever like that.

To Sum Things Up:
The X-Men series should be a lot bigger than it is. 2000's X-Men kicked off this superhero craze that have defined cinema for a decade and a half. X2 used the freedom afforded by the success of the first movie to build the franchise into something big, messy, and crow-pleasing. Nine years, one failed re-imagining of the Phoenix saga, 2 disappointing Wolverine stand-alones, and woefully overlooked prequel later, they really needed this movie to finish the story and hit the reset button, giving them their own "Phase 2" like the Disney Marvel movies. In that respect Days of Future Past is a complete success, ignoring individual plot mechanisms that don't entirely follow. Now, the series has the luxury problem of too many good actors to populate a movie with and the freedom to go in whatever direction they want. It's hard for me to talk about the movie on its own because it very clearly is functioning as a "let's get things back on track" story that is needed to setup X-Men Apocalypse as the kind of slug-fest that could bring it to an Avengers level (even if $600 million is a little unattainable). So, as a piece of franchise building, this movie is very effective, and as a stand-alone experience, it is exciting enough to keep you entertain from start to finish while not requiring any sort of deep comic knowledge.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Sunday, May 25, 2014

Delayed Reaction: What's Eating Gilbert Grape

The Pitch: Johnny Depp needs to be brooding more often. Make it happen.

What Took Me So Long: Leo playing a handicapped kid has reached punchline status and actively deterred me for a while.

Why I Saw It: For all the snide jokes, Leonardo DiCaprio is great in this. Had I never seen him before, I'd be surprised to find out he didn't have a little something wrong in his head. I know this is the Johnny Depp period that purists are supposed to love but I like that he smiles these days. He is perfectly equipped to play the angst-filled Gilbert. It was nice seeing John C. Reilly pop up too.

Why I Wish I Hadn't: When it was over, I couldn't help but wonder "what's the point?". I know this was adapted from a book and I have to assume that the book does a much better job explaining what I was supposed to take away from it. A lot of the dialogue is the type of thing that works well in a book, but when it is spoken, sounds like the characters are quoting a book (weird, right?). I'm always bummed out when a movie has a character with a shitty life and it ends with his life now being only bearable. Sure, call me simple-minded. I don't care. I like me a good, happy Hollywood ending.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

Saturday, May 24, 2014

Delayed Reaction: Sophie's Choice

The Pitch: A coming of age story, then a romance, then Nazis being Nazis.

What Took Me So Long: Well, I already knew what the choice was, so it lost a lot of its intrigue.

Why I Saw It: "Sophie's Choice" is almost too much of an idiom for me to not have seen this. Then again, that argument still hasn't gotten me to read Catch 22. Meryl Streep is wholly deserving of the praise she gets for playing Sophie. I kept expecting Kevin Kline to crack a smile at some point and he never did. I suppose that's called commitment.

Why I Wish I Hadn't: I can't say I'm a huge fan of the back and forth between the present and Sophie's past. It's interesting to see what happened to her and the moment when she had to choose between her children is heartbreaking, but I don't always see how it applies to what is going on in her life in the movie's present. I also don't understand the point of the evil of the Nazi forcing her to choose. At times this movie is just a mixed bag of dramatic moments with only a loose larger story in mind.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Friday, May 23, 2014

Delayed Reaction: Madagascar 3

The Pitch: Circus Zebra! Circus Zebra! Zebra with an Afro! Circus Zebra!

What Took Me So Long: That's Circus Zebra trailer got annoying. I needed some time.

Why I Saw It: (Club 50) This is a decent animated franchise. The voice actors are all well-chosen. The story is simple enough for the audience yet deep enough to have a message. The circus element is different enough to keep things fresh. They've left the series open-ended so this could be the last (not likely) or go in nearly any direction they want (I know I'd see Madagascar In Space...) and that has to count for something.

Why I Wish I Hadn't: Relocating to Europe is not an engaging enough change to keep my interest. Mostly though, I found myself writing this a couple weeks after seeing it, by accident, and I can hardly recall details of this one from either of the previous movies. That can't be a good sign.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

Thursday, May 22, 2014

Delayed Reaction: Cars 2

The Pitch: You know what Cars was missing? Espionage.

What Took Me So Long: Mader has to be the most annoying character Pixar has ever come up with and a movie that promised more spotlight on him promised to be a daunting task.

Why I Saw It: (Club 50) It's still Pixar. Even bad Pixar is pretty good, right? There's bits of the humor in this, so I got a chuckle or two. The look of it is pretty too.

Why I Wish I Hadn't: That's as far as I can go with the positive. This was both awful in story and in message. Everything about Mader being mistaken was terrible and lazy story telling that Pixar is normally better than. I also get a little irritated when Pixar tries to sneak in a political message (hence really disliking Wall-E) so the clean fuel cover up is simply cringe-worthy for me. I hope they make enough money from the toys that we don't see another shameless cash-grab like this for many years.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

DVR Purge: 5/15-5/20

Still just enough on TV to give me something every night. That's the last time I'll have that until fall.



Past Purges 

Big Bang Theory "Tha Status Quo Combustion"
The Big Bang Theory is one of the most obvious shows when it comes to buying time over the summer. They've had trips to Antarctica, boat voyages, and missions to outer space to buy time. These always revert back to business as usual within an episode or two of the premiere, so it's hard to watch Sheldon leaving as little more than a way to burn off a couple months in the timeline, which, let's be honest, with no character in school by a traditional timeline and a setting that's eternal sunshine, there's no need to have a sense of time passed, but whatever. It's their prerogative. The episode itself? Eh, whatever. Nothing special. BBT isn't much for buzz-worthy finales. Last week was the "big episode". This was a fine episode and does a nice job summing Sheldon's experiences over the season. I'm curious to see how much they loosen him up at the beginning of next season.

Hannibal "Tome Wan"

This is the first episode I can say was hard for me to watch. Mason eating his own face is one of those images that only Hannibal can pull off and even still it almost seemed like a stretch. While I hope that's not the last we see of Margot and Mason, there's no need for them in the finale. I feel like there's going to be enough positioning needed with Will, Hannibal, and Jack get us to that fight scene without them dominating the story. I can't believe there's only one episode left.

SNL "Andy Samberg/St. Vincent"
I'm glad when the finale (or premiere) is a former cast member because these things are an excuse to bring back familiar faces for cameos, so you might as well get someone used to being a team player. Let's see, tonight had Samberg, Kristen Wiig, Bill Hader, Seth Meyers, Maya Rudolph, Fred Armisen, Jason Sudeikis, Paul Rudd, and I'm probably forgetting someone. That's a lot, and it's fine because Samberg wasn't going to level the live segments anyway. The regular cast took a slight backseat as expected. Now it's all about wondering who will be back next year. You can't feel good about everyone coming back given how large the cast is and how few departures are known already (just Nasim Pedrad, I think). Regardless, this is a strong core cast right now and I'm felling good heading into next season. If I was a better man, I'd say John Milhiser and Brooks Wheelan are gone.

Mad Men "The Strategy"
I love Don and Peggy getting along. They are my favorite thing and it's so rare to see them loose around one another that it makes episodes like these that much sweeter. You know, it's also been a while since we saw some good work on a pitch for a company. And, this in an episode that also has the return of Bob Benson and Trudy. Mad Men, you spoil me. There's a lot I could go on about that this episode did so well, but I'll stop with that.

Louie "Elevator Part 2 and 3"
This is turning into quite the epic story. It feels so much like a piece of a larger whole that I'm struggling to pass any judgment on it yet. I certainly won't be talking about these as separate episodes. It's been a while since I've seen Pamela Adlon in anything so I wasn't ready for her rapport with Louie. Has it always been that abusive? I hope that's not all we see of her. Then again, I think Louie, the character, has outgrown her to some degree. There are times when I don't know if Louie or Jon Favreau from Swingers is more awkward about women. Pleading with Amia not to go after spending one day with her, telling Pamela that he's already in a relationship, bringing up his girl problems with Dr. Bigelow. I squirmed during all these things. There's no way all this ends any better for Louie than a moral victory but I'm certainly curious to see how he gets there. Apparently, we are only at the halfway point of the story.

Fargo "Buridan's Ass"
In terms of how the story plays out, this episode has most relied of chance more than any. Malvo relied on the SWAT team going all-in against Don in the frame job (How did they no there weren't any hostages in there? They went guns blazing which is the only way the plan works for Malvo). Lester happens to get a bunkmate with a bandaged face and who is passed out the whole time and no one bothers to check on Lester the entire time he is gone. The only way Malvo survives the shootout is the white out (well, probably. I've stopped questioning his limitations). I'm not even sure what to make of Semenko, Dmitri, and the fish (Is that something that happens in that area or is it meant to be as weird as it seems?) but it works into the final biblical plague. So, yeah, the episode isn't all that tight. This is a messy show though and it bothers me less than it would with other shows. This is so darkly comedic that I simply don't care. That shootout was so muted and excellent. I sure hope Molly is ok, although I can see a version of the show where her death is used to fuel other characters, most notably Gus.

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

Delayed Reaction: Rush Hour 3

The Pitch: Same as the first two. This time, in Paris.

What Took Me So Long: I hadn't seen the first two movies until recently, so that held me back.

Why I Saw It: (Club 50) Despite Chris Tucker getting on my nerves and Jackie Chan being unable to rise above the material he is given, these movies are still fun to watch. It's light-hearted comedy with cleverly choreographed fight scenes. The plot is secondary. It sticks to formula in a way that I appreciate.

Why I Wish I Hadn't: It's a formula that only goes so far in its ability to entertain me. I like this movie. I don't love it. The comedy is chuckle-worthy at best and the action isn't especially thrilling. Granted, I don't think anyone believed they were making Die Hard. However, comparing it to Die Hard with a Vengence is apropos.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

Monday, May 19, 2014

Movie Reaction: Godzilla

Formula: (Cloverfield * Pacific Rim) / Battleship


Why I Saw It: Legendary Pictures + Big Monsters = Something I'm going to see.

Cast: Do not be fooled, Aaron Taylor-Johnson is the "lead" of this movie. By that, I mean he's on the screen the most. The movie almost goes out of its way to not make him a character. I don't know if I should blame Taylor-Johnson for lacking charisma or the script for giving him NOTHING. Brian Cranston, despite being all over the ads, is a supporting character. He tries his best to make something of the character but mostly has to lean into over-acting. Elizabeth Olsen, the talent she is, only gets slop minutes as the damsel in distress. Ken Watanabe has a good sized role that consists of telling everyone they are being idiots. Sally Hawkins has a smaller role that requires her to do nothing but agree with Watanabe. The humans in the movie aren't given much to do, which is not an accident. Godzilla and the Mutos are understandably the focus of the movie.

Plot: I'd hardly call this movie spoiler-y but if there is something to spoil, this is it: Godzilla is a good guy. That means, the plot of the movie is that two monsters start ravaging the earth. Humans keep trying to stop them but only make things worse. Then, Godzilla shows up and handles things. In short, it is exactly what you should expect from a Godzilla movie. From the human perspective though, this is an atrocious script filled with coincidence after coincidence that stack up to an absurd degree. The simple fact that Taylor-Johnson spans continents to be repeatedly in the exact right place is almost too much to handle. That is, if you care about the human element. And that's why the movie may get more mileage with some than others. The movie is about the monsters but is told from the human point of view. If you accept that, then the ridiculous positioning of all the humans is forgivable.

Elephant in the Room: What about Godzilla? I regret not seeing this on a bigger screen. After the success of Pacific Rim last year, I should've known they would do Godzilla, the creature, justice. He (and the other monsters) are BIG. The sense of scale is impressive and the restraint in showing Godzilla is impressive. There's glimpses throughout the movie, but it makes you anxiously wait to see what it can do.

To Sum Things Up:
I can't stress enough that there are two ways to watch this: as a disaster movie or as a monster movie. If you watch this as a disaster movie, which is how it's been sold in the ads (and if you are expecting a lot of Cranston), then I'm not sure how you come away feeling good about this. If you watch this as a monster movie, it's an impressive movie that delivers. Either way, this is a vast improvement over the 1998 Godzilla and does a much better job capturing the spirit of the franchise.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Friday, May 16, 2014

Delayed Reaction: In the Line of Fire

The Pitch: Clint Eastwood is an old lawman trying to save the day...yeah, another one of those.

What Took Me So Long: This didn't look markedly different from a lot of other movies from this time period (see Blown Away or No Way Out to name two).

Why I Saw It: I like Clint Eastwood and he has been playing the "I'm getting too old for this shit" game since before Danny Glover had a gray hair, so this is a good part for him. John Malkovich is clearly having a good time as the villain (a little shocked that he pulled off an Academy Award nomination for it though). It's an interestingly subdued thriller in that it doesn't rely on a lot of action to keep it going. I liked that but, I'll admit, as someone who is on three screens while watching a movie, it makes it harder to pay attention to. That's my problem though. Not the movie's.

Why I Wish I Hadn't: In movies like this, there's always the risk that the villain outdoes the hero. Sometimes, that works in the movies favor (The Dark Knight). Other times, it highlights how underdeveloped the hero is (The Rock comes to mind). The latter is the case here as I found myself fairly bored by Eastwood's old but effective agent when put up again Malkovich's mastermind seeking revenge.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend