Ant-Man

I had the chance to review Ant-Man, the latest entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and you can read my thoughts at BreakPoint! I thought the movie was a lot of fun and Paul Rudd is, as per his norm, pretty delightful. ;-) If you've seen Ant-Man I'd love to hear your thoughts!

The Age of Adaline

Last week I had the opportunity to see The Age of Adaline, and today my review is up at BreakPoint! Check it out if you get a chance - and if you've seen the film (or plan to) I'd love to hear your thoughts!

(Spoiler: Blake Lively is gorgeous, Michel Huisman will make you swoon, but in my view Harrison Ford steals the show.) :)

Exodus: Gods & Kings

This weekend I went to see Exodus: Gods and Kings and wrote a review for BreakPoint, which you can check out here. If you've seen the film, I'd love to hear your thoughts on Hollywood's latest take on the story of Moses!

Big Hero 6

I'm a bit late sharing this, but better late than never, eh? ;-) I got the chance to review Disney's latest animated feature for BreakPoint -- the Marvel-inspired Big Hero 6. If you haven't seen this yet, it is ADORABLE. For the love GO!! You can check out my review of the film here. Enjoy! :)

My Old Lady

I've now seen the film My Old Lady twice (it is SO worth it!) and had the opportunity to review it for BreakPoint -- you can read my thoughts on the movie here. If you get the chance to see this gem, whether in theaters or whenever it releases on DVD (hopefully soon!), I hope you'll add it to your must-see lists...it is SO worth it. :)

The Hundred-Foot Journey

Last weekend I went to see The Hundred-Foot Journey -- if you haven't made plans to see this film yet, for the love GO! It is just exquisite. A lovely, lovely film. I had the pleasure of reviewing it for BreakPoint, and you can read my article here.

Helen Mirren is pitch-perfect (as is her norm). Also, the Manish Dayal? Best. Smile. EVER.

Guardians of the Galaxy

Last weekend Guardians of the Galaxy, one of my post anticipated movies of the year, finally came out and promptly became one of my favorite things ever. If you love superhero movies or space operas or both, this is SO the movie for you.

I was thrilled to have the opportunity to write about the film for BreakPoint. You can read my article HERE.

If you've seen the movie I'd love to hear your thoughts and fangirl in general. :)

The Women

I'm over at BreakPoint talking about The Women for the July installment of their year-long series on The Films of 1939 -- you can check out my take on the film HERE.

Dark Victory

I was thrilled to get the chance to talk about one of my favorite Bette Davis films, Dark Victory, for BreakPoint's series on The Films of 1939. You can read my take on this classic HERE...and if you've never seen it, I hope you'll check it out!

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

I'm over at BreakPoint talking about hope and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 - I'd love to know what you think! :)

Man of Steel

So. WHERE TO BEGIN?! I wasn't sure I'd bring myself to blog about Man of Steel, but it was in my opinion such a colossal missed opportunity that I think I must as some sort of movie-going therapy, for my own sanity. *wink* This post is going to be RIDDLED with spoilers, so consider yourself warned.

It's interesting how times have changed. Growing up I was addicted to the old Justice League cartoons, and thought the likes of Superman, Wonder Woman, Batman, and Flash were the best things going -- though I didn't know it at the time, DC comics creations were, to my seven year old mind, the superheroes of choice, the ones that fired my imagination and play. (Wonder Woman still is the best, just FYI -- and I live in dread of the day a film is produced that just butchers the character.)

But then something happened, and Marvel started to unleash film versions of their own slate of superheroes -- ones I had little to no familiarity with thanks to my childhood obsession with the Justice League, but who nonetheless managed to tap into my love for these colorful character types. Films featuring Iron Man, the Hulk (in the absence of a Mark Ruffalo-fronted Hulk picture I'd go with the Edward Norton film), Thor, Captain America, and Spider-Man have all met with my resounding approval. I love these characters, I love these films -- this type of adventure never gets old.

And so it was with no little anticipation that I looked forward to yet another re-boot of the grandfather of all superheroes, Man of Steel -- particularly considering Christopher Nolan's involvement in the project as producer. Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy stands among my favorite films in any genre -- those stories are near and dear to my heart, notably for their character development, world-building, and extraordinarily meted-out themes of sacrifice and redemption. Clearly I pinned too much hope on Nolan's involvement, as despite its history, the strength of decades worth of source material, and a pretty strong cast, Man of Steel was such a disappointment.

Now, to be fair, it's not like everything about this film was a flop -- it has its moments, story beats or brief character exchanges that hint at the film that could have been, and made the resulting viewing experience all the more frustrating. The pieces are there for what might have been a fabulous Superman origin story, but lacking the strength of a strong script and solid character development, the individuals that should make me care about this story are lost in a never-ending (literally, NEVER-ENDING) shuffle and blur of explosions and action sequences. And with a run time of two hours and twenty-three minutes, containing at best roughly thirty minutes of film resembling anything like a compelling story, does not a gripping film make. =P

Perhaps for me what it most boils down to is that the Superman character just doesn't work "dark," i.e. Batman-dark -- and we don't need him to. Much has been written about Superman's parallels to Christ, from the manner in which he is sent to the planet to the purpose he fulfills -- a purpose Russell Crowe's Jor-El suggests when he tells his son that "he'll give the people of Earth an ideal to strive towards." If you don't want to look at Superman as a savior-figure, consider him then, at the very least, as the hope of one. That, to me, has always been Superman's defining characteristic, and to see a film that suggests that only to deliver an origin story that is ultimately stripped of hope, and is so bleak is disappointing to say the least. Perhaps that is Man of Steel's biggest downfall -- it suggests a "savior," but then strips away everything that would make him someone to unite behind, someone to cheer for, by making him too human.

This film favors a non-linear approach to telling Superman's origin story, and perhaps if there'd been a greater focus on developing the actual character it might've worked more effectively. As it stands the time-jumps and flashbacks only served to make it harder to really connect with a pre-super Clark Kent. I mean the movie opens with the destruction of Krypton prologue that WILL NOT END and then immediately cuts to an adult Clark, who has apparently been making a living odd-jobbing it around the country. These scenes further support the Superman/Christ parallels, as we see Clark helping and/or saving others in various settings -- and when it is later revealed that he's thirty-three, close in age to when Jesus began his ministry (Luke 3:23), it's suggestive of the savior characterization. But all of that begins to fall apart for me when through various other flashbacks we're told just why Clark left the farm...

Henry Cavill certainly looks like a Superman/Clark Kent, and given his acting resume it's a shame that he wasn't given a chance to bring more to this role than his not inconsiderable muscles. *wink* Now, I get that as a kid Clark would've had a difficult time wrapping his head around why and how much he was different from his peers. I even rather like how the film explores the human tendency to fear the unknown/misunderstood -- that makes sense (especially when you're talking about alien life, ha!). But for whatever reason Clark seems to get stuck in that mindset, obsessed with his differences, and a large part of that blame can be laid at the feet of his earthly parents -- particularly Jonathan (Kevin Costner) and to a lesser extent Martha (Diane Lane). While they certainly love Clark, Jonathan in particular seems to instill in his adopted son this unhealthy fear of becoming known, of hiding the truth from others because of what they might do. Yes, that is the way to live. =P Is it understandable? Okay, sure, but in fiction of this ilk (and I believe it is inherent in the best superhero stories) I want something that encourages me to rise above natural human tendencies and embrace more, to seek possibility, to live in hope.

Further flashbacks reveal that Clark's fellow students and their parents were prone to freak out about Clark's differences (like when he miraculously pulls a bus full of students from the water), but they're hardly marching on the family farm with pitchforks and torches. So while they may not have warmed to Clark, average people are hardly shown to be an active threat -- which makes Clark's actions when his father is imperiled by a tornado all the more incomprehensible. Jonathan actually signals Clark NOT TO RESCUE HIM because there are witnesses, I guess, and Clark (and his mother?!?!) are actually OKAY WITH THAT, so Jonathan dies. WHAT THE HECK?! There is sacrificing yourself out of love, in the face of a real threat, and then there is sacrificing yourself for stupid -- and this falls firmly into the latter camp.

So Clark goes in search of himself or something and after a few years hits the jackpot when he's hired on as part of the crew investigating the discovery of (what turns out to be) a Kryptonian space ship. I suppose Clark was just "drawn" to the area as he goes exploring the ship in the middle of the night, manages to insert the Kryptonian equivalent of a jump drive into the vessel, awakening a recorded version of his father's consciousness. Blah, blah, blah, he gets a super-suit and suddenly, talking to basically a COMPUTER PROGRAM he finds his purpose in life. Never mind how Jor-El can conveniently interface with a ship that presumably left Krypton years before its destruction, or Zod later in the film -- the whole "bestowing of purpose" on his heretofore angst-ridden son is too conveniently played to possess any real emotional resonance. (There is a nice moment as Clark first learns to fly -- the look of wonder on his face as he realizes his possibilities is a moment of refreshing emotional honesty in a film sorely lacking it otherwise.) Clark's sudden acceptance of his Kryptonian heritage just doesn't fly with me, considering the fact that up until this point -- the age of thirty-three -- he's been angst-ridden and disaffected to a point that rivals a teenager. NOT AN ATTRACTIVE QUALITY IN A THIRTY-THREE YEAR OLD, CLARK. *sigh*

Let me talk about Lois for a second, since the space ship investigation is the moment she's introduced to both the audience and Clark. I was so excited when Amy Adams was cast as Lois -- I think she's a fantastic actress, capable of bringing just the right balance of spark and sass to the iconic role. And with a better script this could've worked. It's a different and potentially effective tactic to introduce Lois to Clark in his pre-Superman days. The script is dedicated to giving Lois a more action-oriented role than she's seen in previous incarnations, but when she loudly proclaims to the most TOOTHLESS, BORING PERRY WHITE EVER (Laurence Fishbourne) that he can't fire her because she's a "Pulitzer prize winner" she lost me (pompous much?). I even like the idea of a dedicated journalist like Lois investigating the mystery that is Clark prior to his work at The Daily Planet. However, the moment Clark decides to "out" himself to Lois, thereby removing any mystery about his identity in the FIRST FILM of the series, all of the tension between these two iconic would-be lovers dissolves. There's no tease, no mystery, no tension between nerdy Clark getting on Lois's last nerve. And here, that reduces most of their on-screen relational development (and I use that term VERY loosely, because it is practically nil) to one of predator vs. prey, if you will -- so when the obligatory kiss comes at the end of the film, there's no spark because there's been absolutely NO RELATIONSHIP DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN THEM AT ALL. Is that not the saddest superhero love story EVER?! =P

The movie's final act -- which seems like approximately two-thirds of its run time -- is devoted to basically bringing the apocalypse to Metropolis. People, it just doesn't END. I can't think of another movie where I left feeling so completely and utterly exhausted. There's no balance, no moments of character development that not only break up the relentless action but actually raise the stakes because we then CARE about the characters. Other superhero films feature some level of mass destruction, sure, but I'm convinced that NOTHING compares to the hell that rains down on the hapless human population -- a hazard-assessment team even did some analysis of the damage. One of the characteristics that's always set Superman apart is that he's always seemed to care about each and every human being, going out of his way to STOP chaos. This is just a free-for-all -- but with Zack Snyder directing I don't know why I expected anything less. =P Which brings me to Superman killing Zod -- I'm sorry, but I don't buy that it was necessary. Superman doesn't have to "kill" to put him off doing it in the future -- that is the one GLARING NEON SIGN IN THE FRIGGIN' SAND that Superman has never crossed (on-screen at any rate, not sure about in the comics). Badly done. (Speaking of Zod, all I can say is Michael Shannon really did a great job chewing the scenery, I guess...)

Wrapping this up, I have to give a shout-out to Christopher Meloni as Colonel Nathan Hardy, who was the only character I ended up caring about in this whole mess -- so of course he dies in a blaze of glory. *rollseyes* I also thought Antje Traue as Faora-Ul was nicely villainous as Zod's second in command -- and since she only got sucked into a black hole, maybe she'll return for the inevitable sequel(s).

There's opportunity here, but there is a TON of ground that needs to be made up if any sequels to Man of Steel hopes to restore, oh, I don't know, THE HUMANITY to this character. Cavill could be a good Superman -- if only he had something to work with, instead of merely serving as a prop to be moved around in endless CGI-action sequences. With a character-driven script and a director known for CHARACTERIZATION and STORYTELLING, instead of just elaborate set pieces, a Superman sequel could improve on this mess. But it's got an uphill battle working against it to get me to even marginally care. This cast, but more than that this character and his history deserve better.

Star Trek Into Darkness

People, where do I begin? How can I possibly articulate in a semi-coherent manner how much I ADORED Star Trek Into Darkness?!

If you're worried about spoilers, this is NOT the place to be. Consider yourself warned. 

I mean it. :)

Okay, here we go. :) Prior to Abrams' spectacularly entertaining re-boot of the Trek franchise in 2009, I wasn't a Trek fan in any way, shape, or form. I knew who Kirk and Spock were and that was about it. Any effort to engage with the film's source material previously had ended in apathy. But that film -- what Abrams and his cast and crew did for me then was introduce me to a vibrant cast of characters with a chemistry and an energy that reminded me of my personal science fiction favorite -- Star Wars. So the four year "drought" waiting for a follow-up has been absolute torture -- and to be quite frank, I was beginning to wonder if this movie would ever happen. And when it WOULD finally appear, could it possibly succeed in recapturing everything about the first film that I loved so much? COULD IT POSSIBLY LIVE UP TO THE HYPE??

Amazingly my answer to that question is YES. Yes, yes, and THEN SOME. Star Trek Into Darkness (do you have ANY IDEA how desperately I want to but a colon between "Trek" and "Into"?!) is a thoroughly entertaining, engaging sequel that continues to reinvent the tropes of this world while letting these new cast members, this perfect "Abrams-caught-lightning-in-a-bottle" ensemble make these characters their own.

Prior to this film's release I'd been reading rumors of the identity of villain, and the storyline's relation to what is (apparently?) considered one of the best classic Trek films -- The Wrath of Khan. So the night before I was due to meet friends to see Into Darkness I decided it was time to not just read about Khan online, but to watch the film -- and goodness am I ever glad I did, as I thought it thoroughly enriched my viewing experience and appreciation of everything Into Darkness works to accomplish on-screen.

So much of the success of Star Trek (both new and old) rests on the strength of the ensemble, and in particular New Trek is a positive gold mine of pitch-perfect, once-in-a-lifetime casting decisions and amazing group chemistry. But the relationships between various members of the crew (and I love them all) pales in comparison to the importance of the Spock/Kirk friendship, and here Abrams delves deeply into what friendship between two people who, on the surface at least, should have nothing in common to bind them together in friendship.

Now I can't speak in any great depth to how the classic Kirk and Spock friendship compares to the incarnation Abrams has given us in his re-boot, except to say that I feel New Trek is not only intent on examining how a human/Vulcan friendship works, but is perhaps more interested in how that friendship changes both men irrevocably. And for my money you could not ask for two better actors Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto to bring this legendary duo to life on-screen.

Pine's Kirk is cut very much from the Han Solo-hero mold -- good-looking, brash, and cocky, his Kirk would much rather act than reflect, sieze the day than think through the consequences. And his brash confidence has paid off in spades, bringing him success and command of the Enterprise -- but his success, his willingness to disregard the rules time and again has earned him not only the ire of Starfleet Command, but has arguably instilled in him a false sense of security in life and his ability to lead others.

Quinto's Spock absolutely fascinates me. Not only do we have Spock in a romantic relationship (more on that later), but Spock seems shaded with a touch more transparency, more hints of inner conflict rippling just below the logical Vulcan surface of his persona. And that conflict between his Vulcan and human halves, between the logical, unemotional side of his heritage and the part of him that genuinely wants to understand why he drives Kirk and Uhura insane just plays out brilliantly on-screen (when Kirk finds himself caught in the middle of what passes for a Spock/Uhura "fight" is one of the film's most hilarious scenes). When Kirk flouts convention and returns to save Spock from a volcano explosion at the beginning of the film, he genuinely does not understand why Kirk would be compelled to act so illogically or the potential consequences of his truthful reporting of the incident (which sees Kirk demoted). That gut reaction vs. a measured, intellectual response is the trigger that sets Spock on this inward journey to understand and relate to those around him throughout the film which culminates in a spectacular -- and very un-Vulcanlike -- emotional finale.

For his part, Kirk's character arc through the film not only neatly fits within the beats of Joseph Campbell's definition of the heroic journey, but the hothead must also learn the value of what someone of Spock's experience and perspective can bring to his life. Speaking to the heroic journey -- if the first film covered step one, the separation, than this second installment is Kirk's initiation and trial by fire. Disappointing his mentor, Admiral Pike (Bruce Greenwood -- okay let me just say, I get why this had to happen, but losing Pike was dang near as traumatic for me as the whole Coulson dying thing in The Avengers), and then seeing that surrogate father figure murdered sets Kirk on a path to revenge. This hearkens back to Kirk beating the Kobayashi Maru test in the 2009 film (also referenced in The Wrath of Khan) -- if the purpose of that test is facing a no-win scenario, of seeing how one would act in the face of sure death, having never accepted that as a possibility, Pike's death and the events that follow force Kirk to confront his fallibility. And in doing that, in recognizing that "how we deal with death is at least as important as how we deal with life" is a critical step in Kirk's heroic journey and maturation as a man and a leader.

In my rather random and sporadic watching of anything Classic Trek, while I always got the sense that Kirk and Spock were close friends what I LOVED about their relationship in this film is the glimpse we get into the DEPTH of that friendship. It is no stretch in my mind to say that the events of Into Darkness are a crucible through which the bond of friendship between them is solidified and strengthened. And we really see that played out in a powerful manner in how they push each other, how they change each other, and how through their friendship, through how they each take on the other's best qualities, each man is changed, arguably, for the better.

I understand that among some Trek purists Spock's relationship with Uhura (Zoe Saldana) is the subject of some controversy. Personally I think it is one of the best aspects of the new films, and I promise that isn't because I am a total romantic sap. *wink* I don't feel that Uhura fundamentally changes the logical, intellectual, supremely rational being that Spock is; rather she stretches and changes and challenges him in a way that is pure and simple an utter delight to watch on-screen. Quinto and Saldana play this atypical couple with more class and maturity than most film romances today in my opinion. Yes, Uhura gets frustrated with Spock -- but witness the looks she gives him before he's lowered into the volcano on Nibiru and after they survive the incursion into Klingon territory. It's love and acceptance pure and simple, and her ability to be so passionate about their relationship and ultimately so accepting of who he is (even though certain qualities occasionally drive her mad) just BAFFLES him. (And when he tells her that when he thought he was going to die he couldn't think about her because he feels TOO MUCH?! -- I DIE!) And watching Spock puzzle through the nuances of the relationships in his life, that will never get old, especially with an actor as fantastically expressive as Quinto in the role.

We all know I love Benedict Cumberbatch, right? :) Benedict did me proud here, and it was an absolute thrill to see him figure so prominently -- and so well -- in such a big-screen spectacle. In my experience following his career I've never seen him play such a villain. And being the superlative actor that he is, and stepping into a franchise that has grounded itself in the relationships between core characters, it's a testament to his considerable ability as an actor and the material that he was given to work with that his Khan is such a memorable, three-dimensional, terrifying villain. For while his actions -- blackmailing the Starfleet officer (hello Mickey from Doctor Who) into blowing up the archive, attacking Starfleet HQ -- are reprehensible, Cumberbatch never lets us forget that he is driven by a genuine love and fear for the safety of his crew, his family. There was a moment there when Kirk and Khan prepare to board the Reliant that I thought maybe, just maybe, "new" Khan was going to end more heroically -- Cumberbatch did a fantastic job playing painting Khan not in black and white, but shades of grey. And much like he will do anything to achieve his aim, so Kirk must also embrace what it means to be a true leader of his own crew, and come to terms with what he's willing to sacrifice for his family, the perhaps never-considered reciprocity of what he expects of them as their commander. While both men are driven by the same impulse, it's the choices each makes that ultimately defines who they are, for good or ill.

(Side note: Did Benedict perform in the fight scenes? Because that moment in Klingon territory when he saves Kirk, Spock, and Uhura is PURE DEADLY POETRY in motion.)

Where Kirk and Spock and Uhura and BENEDICT would be more than enough, Into Darkness goes above and beyond giving viewers a tremendous array of well-realized supporting characters that steal the show more often than not. *wink* I don't even think I can pick favorites, people, seriously -- I love them all. :) Off-hand I'd say Sulu's (John Cho) wins for most improved over his appearance in the 2009 film, as short but critical scenes give him the chance to test his own leadership potential when Kirk grants him the captain's chair. Please, can we have MORE of his character in the third film? Cho is a badass. ;-)

I absolutely LOVE Chekov (Anton Yelchin), and it was such a treat to see him get stressed out over assuming Scotty's position as chief engineer, when the latter resigns in protest over the presence of sketchy photon torpedoes on the Enterprise. I was seriously concerned about his safety when Kirk ordered him to don a red shirt, but thankfully that temporary transfer didn't blow up in his face (literally). And when he saves Kirk and Scotty I could barely contain my glee. :)

And Scotty! Could anyone else but Simon Pegg be so perfect for the role? I think not. I loved his professional outrage over the whole torpedo debacle, his insistence that he'd never help Kirk with anything EVER AGAIN, and then his own personal entering the Death Star moment when he discovers Admiral Marcus's secret warship Reliant (not to mention his solo heroics in the bowels of the oddly deserted ship). But more than all that, his indignant OUTRAGE at returning to the Enterprise after an absence of like a DAY only to discover she's falling apart around his ears. :)

I like Karl Urban a lot, and I like him as Bones...but maybe this is just a part of the original character that I don't get, but he seemed to spend an awful lot of time telling Kirk or Spock or whoever that he couldn't believe they were doing whatever it is they were going to do, instead of, you know, doing something. And while there's a lot of humor and warmth in his interactions with Kirk in particular, and he gets a moment with a TRIBBLE (!!), and those thirty seconds where he thinks he's going to get blown up by a torpedo, I am always left wanting. Like I just feel like there's more he should be doing than throwing around "dammit Jim's" and being hilariously neurotic. I LIKE it all, don't get me wrong, I just feel like he could play a bigger role vis-a-vis Kirk and Spock...I think that's what I'm getting at is I want more Bones being incredible. :)

While I don't know that I'd call Into Darkness a remake of The Wrath of Khan, exactly, it does borrow and adapt substantially from that film to fit certain story beats into the New Trek world -- and I love that. If the 2009 film established the two separate but similar timelines, this film takes that further by exploring how these new incarnations of the classic characters can take canonical story beats and experiences and make them their own. I think there must always be certain parallels, no? I find that it really enriches my appreciation of the Abrams films as I learn more about the source material.

That said, I LOVE LOVE LOVE how this film takes Spock's sacrifice in Wrath and turns it on its head. In this timeline, Kirk needed to come to the point where he was willing to sacrifice for a cause, for his family. And Spock -- with the insight offered from his counterpart Spock Prime (Leonard Nimoy) on New Vulcan, I truly believe he thought that defeating Khan would require him to make the ultimate sacrifice. So when his friend Kirk sacrifices his life to save the Enterprise he's absolutely gutted. Only then does he understand Kirk's drive to save him earlier in the film and how deep the bonds of friendship run between them, and how when evil threatens something near and dear to one's heart the gut response -- not the logical one -- oft-times demands action. (On a lesser level -- much less, since I didn't find Alice Eve as Carol terribly interesting -- I am looking forward to where the franchise goes with the canonical Kirk/Carol relationship given the characters' history in the show. I DO hope that the scripts up Carol's smarts in subsequent outings, as Eve was barely given enough to work with to raise her above my least favorite female scientist on film of all time, Denise Richards in The World is Not Enough -- that is NOT a mark you want to aspire to.)

So, wrapping things up, I basically think this film is pretty much pitch-perfect (just in case you couldn't tell). It's a fast-paced, energetic, engaging, and slickly-produced piece of summer entertainment with heart, thanks to memorable, well-drawn characters. Not only do you have the characters and special effects, but the film is just plain GORGEOUS. From the pops of vibrant yellows and reds on Nibiru to Abrams's apparent love of light halos illuminating the bridge of the Enterprise in space, every frame of this movie is a feast for the eyes. Finally, composer Michael Giacchino returned to score the film, and I think he outdid himself. From the action cues to gorgeous piano solos to his adaptation of the Classic Trek theme, every note of music complements the on-screen action perfectly. Very well done.

If you've seen the film I would (obviously) love to discuss! :) I can't wait to see where this crew takes us next, and I can only hope that the five year mission the Enterprise sets out on at the film's conclusion isn't some sort of sign that it is going to actually take FIVE YEARS for a sequel. Please, for the love Abrams, don't make me wait that long.

*Images copyright Paramount.

Oblivion

I took the afternoon off Friday, and in the mood for a film I went to the first afternoon showing of Oblivion, one of my most anticipated films of the year since I first saw the initial trailers a few months ago. People, this movie did NOT disappoint -- I absolutely LOVED it. LOVED IT!! Epic, twisty, romantic, and GORGEOUS, with a very human heart at the core of its bleak dystopian storyline, Oblivion is one of the best science fiction films I've seen in -- well, I don't know how long! :)

The year is 2077, sixty years after alien Scavengers (or "Scavs" as they're called throughout the film) destroyed the moon, unleashing a wave of devastating earthquakes and tsunamis that left the planet devastated. The survivors left alive fled to one of Saturn's moons (now called Titan) and Tet, a space outpost which oversees the activities of technicians like Jack Harper (Tom Cruise) and Victoria (Andrea Riseborough) stationed on Earth, tasked with overseeing the extraction of the planet's remaining resources for use on humanity's new Saturn-moon home. Jack and Victoria's main purpose is to protect the machines that extract the planet's seawater from Scav attacks, and to maintain the fleet of weaponized drones, programmed to eradicate any remaining hostile alien resistance.

Jack is a drone repairman, who leaves his station home, hundreds -- if not thousands -- of feet above the Earth's surface each day to repair Scav damage to the drones from the night before. Victoria, the team's communications officer (as well as Jack's lover), remains behind to monitor his work via and relay their progress to Sally (Melissa Leo), their contact on Tet with the creepily sugar-sweet southern accent. With only two weeks left in their assignment before the promised evacuation to Titan, Victoria is excited and eager that nothing go amiss, anxious to keep their superiors impressed with their effectiveness as a team. Jack, however, is strangely reluctant to leave the devastated planet, carrying within a secret that he's loathe to share even with Victoria -- he's haunted by dreams of Earth, of a pre-war New York City, and of the face of a woman he doesn't know yet finds himself inextricably drawn to imagine every time he closes his eyes.

One day, a routine drone repair mission goes horribly wrong. Following a drone signal into a sinkhole -- which turns out to be the remnants of a library -- Jack is cornered by a cleverly-executed Scavs trap and nearly captured. His close call with the Scavs causes Jack to start to question everything he's assumed about his enemy and their goals as regards his work. After the unthinkable happens and the Scavs succeed in destroying one of the water collection stations under Jack and Victoria's care, he discovers a Scav signal beacon using the spire of the Empire State Building to send a signal into space. He destroys their device, but not before it does its work, bringing an orbiting spaceship crashing to Earth -- a spaceship containing hibernation pods holding humans, one of whom is a woman with the face that's haunted Jack's dreams -- a woman who knows his name.

Jack is horrified when the drones attack the helpless pods, managing to save only one -- his mystery woman, who turns out to be an astronaut named Julia (Olga Kurylenko) who's been in stasis for sixty years. When he defies Victoria's wishes and takes Julia back to the crash site to retrieve the ship's black box recorder, they're captured by a group of Scavs -- and the enemy turns out to be the last thing Jack ever suspected. The Scavs he's been taught to hate are fellow humans, survivors of the war led by an old soldier named Beech (Morgan Freeman). Beech pushes Jack to look beyond the boundaries of the life he's been living -- the work, the off-limits, allegedly radiation-poisoned areas of Earth -- and see the truth about Sally and the Tet -- that there are no aliens, and that everything Jack thought he knew about the war was a lie.

I'm going to pause my recap of the film there, because for me part of the joy in this film experience was in watching the twists and turns of the plot unfold. But seeing as I have never been what one could call a spoiler-free blog, I'll save a few points that I can't resist addressing until the end of this post. :)

The world of this film, the look, is just amazingly rendered on-screen. The post-apocalyptic scenes of Earth, battered nearly beyond recognition, are made all the more eerie by the glimpses Jack encounters in his daily work of the life that existed before the invasion -- remnants of the Brooklyn Bridge, the crumbled stone facade of a library, etc. The most striking is perhaps the top portion of the remnants of the Empire State Building, at least eighty-percent of the structure buried under rubble, with only the battered remainder of the iconic observation deck and the spire still in view. The familiar, half-hidden by the rubble of a ravaged planet, is at once both frightening and eerily captivating.

The clean, sharp lines of Jack and Victoria's outpost home, all silver and glass and chrome (nicely reflected in Victoria's costuming choices -- where Jack gets dirty and worn in his work on-planet, Victoria remains freakishly perfect, smartly dressed and coiffed, almost eerily reminiscent of the Stepford Wives. As the film progresses there is an eerie sense of inevitability in all of Jack and Victoria's interactions -- every time he questions something about their life or work, she knows just the right word or action to take to refocus Jack's attention, dismissing his questions.

While Jack's station is all clean, sharp lines, the rubble of the portion of the planet they're tasked with overseeing stands in stark contrast to the clean lines of their base -- it's a harsh, inhuman environment, until Jack uncovers more and more of the fragmented rubble of a once-vibrant civilization, especially books. Books are, of course, not the only detritus of humanity that Jack covertly collects during his drone-repair missions, but as a bibliophile myself they are the most meaningful -- records of one of humanity's most precious gifts, imagination, free-thinking. Jack collects his treasures and brings them to his secret woodland hideaway, a pocket of Earth filled with forest and lakes. It is unclear if this is simply a corner of the world that missed the apocalyptic conflict that destroyed most of humanity, or if it is the Earth gradually being re-born -- but either way, the beauty of Jack's hideaway in contrast to the desolation overseen by the drones speaks to the wild vibrancy of pre-war life, a life that stands in stark contrast to Jack and Victoria's very scripted relationship and work.

I've seen some reviews of Oblivion arguing that it's too derivative, the elements that make up the story have all been done before -- or that it's sexist, focusing on Jack's transformation and heroic journey a the expense of the film's two female characters. To address the first point, if previously explored plot elements or sci-fi tropes are presented to me in a new, fresh, glossy package -- I love the twist. To address the second point -- I tend to accept the characters in this film at face value, and this is very simply Jack's story. I don't think he's heroic at the expense of the female characters -- if anything, Victoria is tragically a victim, through no fault of her own, while Julia exhibits a quiet strength that I find in no way diminishes her vis-a-vis Jack's more "flashy" heroics, and Jack's determined attempts to do right by both of the women in his life are arguably admirable. In sum, if I'm taking a simplistic view I'm willing to give the film many subsequent viewings to change my mind. :)

Here's where things are going to get a little spoiler-y. Prompted by Beech's veiled hints that there is more than meets the eye to Jack's work, he and Julia risk an excursion into one of the off-limits radiation zones -- only to discover that there is no radiation, and most shockingly, Jack has a double -- Tech 52, performing the identical drone-repair tasks. This is where things get really interesting in my view, as Jack #1, also known as Tech 49, not only has to process that his work is a lie and his memories of a pre-war life with Julia are real -- but that he is a clone, something that should not be. Everything the Scav survivors believe, everything within Tech 42's slowly reawakening humanity argue that a clone is more machine than human, a pale copy of its source DNA.

And this is what I loved about Oblivion -- it's suggestion that what makes humans human -- free choice, the ability to love, to think -- is a spark that the machine that resides in the Tet, that seeks to strip Earth of its resources, can never truly extinguish. Simplistic? Sure...but Jack is a likeable character here, and I thoroughly enjoyed the world of the film and the way in which Jack's awakening, his sacrifice, unfolds on-screen.

Here Cruise is very much in his element as the man versus the "system," if you will -- and like him or loathe him (and I used to count myself in the latter camp, for some reason I will never understand, as the Mission: Impossible movies are just plain awesome), I have to give him props for turning in a performance that felt both moving and authentic. And I loved seeing Kurylenko on-screen again -- her role here is admittedly a small one, but it's pivotal to the storyline, and I'd argue her character here is a step up from her appearance as Camille in Quantum of Solace (although Camille is admittedly one of the stronger heroines in the Bond series).

Also, since I don't watch Game of Thrones I've apparently been missing out on this incredibly gorgeous Danish guy named Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, playing Beech's second-in-command Sykes. I thought about posting a picture of Nikolaj actually in this film, but then I googled him and came up with this, so you're welcome:

This is only director Joseph Kosinski's second film, but seeing as Oblivion is based on his original, never-published graphic novel concept, if this guy ever directs anything besides Tron films in the future (sorry, I just have no interest in going THERE) I'm definitely interested -- I think he's got a fantastic imagination, and the world-building he oversees in this film is just superbly done. And the score, people, THE SCORE! The music is just GORGEOUS -- sweeping and romantic and tension-filled by turns, it's become a new favorite.

Oblivion happily lived up to all of my expectations and was a thoroughly entertaining, occasionally thought-provoking, GORGEOUS piece of cinematic science fiction. I can't wait to revisit it.

Admission

A few weeks ago Liz and Kaye and I were in the mood for some lighter movie-going fare, and so we settled on a matinee showing of Admission. Based on the previews I expected a straight romantic comedy. And while the film contains several laugh-out-loud moments, the comedic elements of the script take a backseat to the story's unexpectedly poignant exploration of coming to terms with life when it disappoints or shocks or sends you reeling. The humor is subtler, the storyline and themes more serious than I expected -- but I absolutely fell in love with this movie's quiet heart and charm. If one is going to label it a "romantic comedy," Admission fits the bill in the term's loosest sense -- which is, I suspect, why it has such middling reviews. But I'd argue that a more apt descriptor would perhaps be a thinking person's comedy, as this movie grapples with questions of love, loss, fulfillment, and purpose in a very genuine manner.

Based on the novel of the same name by Jean Hanff Korelitz (which I've not yet read), Admission centers on the life and career of Princeton University admissions officer Portia Nathan (Tina Fey). Portia is in line for promotion to the head of admissions, and with Princeton's recent slip to second in rankings the upcoming recruitment season is her chance to shine. Portia is a classic Type A personality -- driven and dedicated, she lives to excel at the job she's given her life to. But unlike her colleagues, when it comes to the applications that cross her desk she actually sees the students, taking the hopes and dreams and work that went into the applications quite literally. I loved how the applications come to life when Portia reads them, the imagined student "appearing" in her office to plead their case. It's a visual device that could have easily been overused, but the film manages to use to just often enough to underscore the heart beneath Portia's desire to live life according to her plan.

But as the saying goes, the best laid plans oft go awry, and Portia faces her world unraveling on multiple personal and professional fronts. Her long-time professor boyfriend, Mark (Michael Sheen) breaks up with her DURING the annual faculty lunch she hates to co-host, leaving her for his pregnant (surprise!) girlfriend (double surprise!) and fellow professor, the delightfully witchy Helen (Sonya Walger). Sheen is absolutely HILARIOUS as Mark, delightfully awkward as he finds himself living a life he never wanted -- i.e., one with kids. Getting unceremoniously dumped in so public a fashion is the first blow, and while the awkward dance her colleagues undergo -- the whole "do we/don't we" say anything, do we address the proverbial elephant in the room?? -- is played for laughs, it underscores the very real threat Portia faces (and Fey portrays with such sensitivity) -- how does a control freak survive when one's life spirals into chaos?

Meanwhile, Portia's job proves more difficult than usual as John Pressman (Paul Rudd), the head of a unconventional college readying its first graduating class, hounds her into visiting his school to meet a student he feels would be exceptional Princeton material -- Jeremiah (Nat Wolff), who turns out to be the very definition of eccentric. But John has an ulterior motive -- an acquaintance of one of Portia's college friends, he's aware of a secret Portia's kept hidden for nearly twenty years -- the child she gave up for adoption. He's sure that Portia is Jeremiah's biological mother, and equally sure in his conviction that Jeremiah needs familial roots and the straight-laced admissions officer desperately needs loosening up.

Now, no matter how well-intentioned John may have been in his single-minded quest to reunite biological mother and child, the manner in which in goes about this is, of course, RIDDLED with ethical issues to say the least. He's extremely thoughtless at the very least. But that aside, as a means of forcing Portia to confront the past she's tried so hard to escape -- namely, her prickly relationship with her mother -- it's a masterstroke. Motherhood is a role Portia seems to have assiduously avoided thanks to her issues with her own upbringing (her mother being a radical feminist who repeatedly told Portia she was the product of a one-night stand).

For his part, John has just as many issues regarding his family and future to work through as Portia, though he comes at them from the opposite perspective -- where Portia is conservative, straight-laced, and grounded, John is a free-thinking, devil-may-care liberal determined to go wherever the wind (often quite literally) takes him. The conflict there is in his travels John takes it upon himself to adopt Nelson (Travaris Spears), the orphaned son of friends he made while doing relief work overseas. John is determined to raise his son without the trappings of wealth and eccentricity (to say the least) that he dealt with as a child -- the only catch being that Nelson desperately wants roots and a sense of normalcy, qualities he see's in Portia's "boring" life.

One of the most refreshing aspects of Admission lies in how both Portia and John have to overcome a multitude of past baggage and mistakes for their chance at a happy ending -- in most films of this ilk, the balance toward change always seems weighed toward the female lead, no? Here, both of them have been hurt, both have made mistakes, both have fought with everything in them to escape the self-described stigma of their parents' choices. And while this film doesn't offer easy answers or the perfect happy ending, wrapped and tied with a beautiful bow, I found its ending not only refreshingly realistic but also saturated with grace -- forgiveness and the hope of second and third and fourth chances -- as Portia and John explore their fledgling relationship and experience a renewed relationship with their mothers (especially on Portia's side). Wounds aren't forgotten or glossed over, but rather acknowledged, and those moments of raw honesty hold the promise of forgiveness and healing.

Tina Fey and Paul Rudd are fantastic together with a thoroughly appealing on-screen chemistry (seriously, there's one moment in the film when John calls Portia "exquisite -- you. will. DIE). I just loved Fey here -- she just embodies everything you want a smart and intelligent Hollywood leading lady to be, you know? The supporting cast shines with Wallace Shawn as Clarence (nevermind that the man has a film career that spans over three decades, he will always and forever be Vizzini from The Princess Bride) and Gloria Reuben as Corrine, Portia's professional rival and hilarious office frenemy. But best of all is Lily Tomlin as Susannah, Portia's ex-hippie mother. People, she was absolutely hilarious and stole nearly every scene she appeared in (especially the whole drunk-dialing Portia while riding a bicycle).

This movie was a surprising charmer -- and if you're in the mood for some thought-provoking, subtly humorous movie-going fare Admission is well worth the ticket price or rental. If you've seen (or read the novel) it I'd love to hear your thoughts!

Jack the Giant Slayer

Jack the Giant Slayer opened in theaters a few weeks ago, playing to the current public fascination with retooling classic tales for modern audiences. Growing up, "Jack and the Beanstalk" was always one of my least favorite fairy tales, due primarily to a distinct lack of any sort of romance -- or, at the very least, the presence of any female character with whom I could identify. (The only retelling of this story that I enjoyed at all was the 1967 film version starring Gene Kelly -- PLEASE tell me I'm not the only one that's seen this!) Trailers for this film promised not only a hint of romance but a healthy dose of humor as well -- and as a decent Saturday afternoon entertainment the film (mostly) delivers, even if it falls a bit short in my view of being a truly memorable fairy tale retelling, lacking a certain spark that I look for in film and bookish retellings of this type.

According to the film's Wikipedia page, the script for Giant Slayer was based on two "Jack" stories -- the widely-known "Jack and the Beanstalk" (English in origin, Jack living with his widowed mother, steals hen that lays golden eggs & a harp from giant, NO romance) and "Jack the Giant Killer" (Cornish fairy tale, King Arthur figures into the plot, and there is a lot about Lucifer, magical accouterments, Jack ends up marrying a Duke's daughter, etc.). Personally I think I would've liked Jack a whole lot more growing up if I'd been exposed to the Cornish version of his story -- I mean HELLO?? Jack has loads of adventures, a magic sword, and a CAP OF KNOWLEDGE! Clearly I spent my childhood reading the wrong fairy tale compilation. *wink*

While I enjoyed this film well enough, on the whole I think it was something of a missed opportunity as it felt like it couldn't decide what it wanted to be -- an old-fashioned fairy tale, an epic war adventure with modern sensibilities, or something more...slapstick, and ultimately forgettable. Something just felt "off," and while it is hard for me to pinpoint exactly why this movie didn't work for me quite as well as I'd hoped, nonetheless it gets points for making Jack a winning character on the big screen.

This film positions Jack from childhood as a boy with a longing for a life bigger than his father's farm, one in love with the legends of his kingdom -- particularly Erik the Great, the king of Cloister who defeated an army of invading giants by crafting a magical crown that allowed him to banish them (as long as the crown remained safely in his keeping). Now right off the bat this movie loses a ton of points with the gosh-awful CGI flashback of the giants and Erik. It was BAD...I mean like ten years ago, in a video game, this maybe, maybe would've been cutting edge. So I'm immediately predisposed to think of the giants as ridiculous instead of fearsome...but clearly that is something the filmmakers were conflicted about as well, given how things play out.

But back to earth, for a moment...the script makes the smart decision to introduce a female lead early on, juxtaposing the young Jack's fascination with his kingdom's history, an interest unbeknownst to him that he shares with the current king's only child, the Princess Isabelle. Years pass and Jack grows up under surly uncle's care, having lost his father years earlier -- a loss he shares with Isabelle, left struggling against her father's desire to be the "perfect," protected princess after her mother's untimely death.

Even though this film hasn't been loved by critics or the box office, one cannot deny that as Jack, Nicholas Hoult is having a pretty good year. Following his turn as R the zombie in the charming (yes, CHARMING) zombie-romantic comedy Warm Bodies, Hoult tackles more traditional Hollywood fare here with this throwback to classic Hollywood adventure spectacles of yore. He's adorable as the poor boy longing to make good, and has an appealing chemistry with Eleanor Tomlinson as Isabelle -- but both tend to come off as a shade too...sincere, is perhaps the word I'm looking for (though I tend to blame the script rather than the actors...they don't have a great deal to work with here).

The absolute best thing about this film is its stellar supporting cast, particularly Ewan MacGregor as the dashing and PERFECTLY COIFFED Elmont, leader of the king's guard. According to Buzzfeed, MacGregor's hair was the best thing about this movie, and I've got to say I'm inclined to agree with that assessment -- only I'd take it a step farther. MacGregor seems to be the only one having any real FUN here -- he knows he's in an absurd film and clearly relishes every opportunity he's given to ham it up for the camera (i.e., when he's about to become a human "pig in a blanket" in the giant's kitchen -- his bravado is hilarious). I really rather wish that if this movie was going to be made, it had been given the greenlight five or so years ago, when perhaps MacGregor would've had a shot at playing Jack instead of stealing the show in a supporting role.

How did I get in this movie?

Me and my awesome hair, totally responsible for any and all ticket sales.

Eddie Marsan (Lestrade in the Guy Ritchie Sherlock films) plays Elmont's ill-fated sidekick Crawe. He doesn't have quite as much fun as MacGregor (considering the end he meets at the hands of the giants' general, that's the understatement of the year), but I love any opportunity I'm given to see him on-screen. The always adorable Stanley Tucci plays the villainous Sir Roderick, who first strives to conquer Isabelle's kingdom through marriage, and failing that, brute -- GIANT -- force. Tucci chews the scenery as Roderick in very much the same fashion he does as Caesar Flickerman in The Hunger Games, only with measurably less biting wit. *wink* As a point of reference, Roderick reminded me quite a bit of Cary Elwes as Edgar in Ella Enchanted. That.. *ahem* ...ridiculous. :P

Ooooohhhh, SHINY.

Last, but certainly not least, Ian McShane plays Isabelle's father, King Brahmwell. Now I love McShane. L-O-V-E him. But I kinda want to weep if this is what he's doing now...I just hope he didn't take this job and turn down the Gabriel Byrne role in the new Vikings show on the History Channel...because goodness THAT would've been a mistake. If you're interested in seeing McShane being AWESOME watch the all-too-short-lived series Kings, where he plays a memorable Silas -- and for a taste of Ian in his younger years, check out Gypsy Girl. It's a weird, WEIRD movie, but oh my WORD is McShane hot in it. :) As the embattled king, McShane exhibits a lot of strum und drang, but the second he turns out in gold-colored armor he loses all credibility. I don't know WHAT it is about gold armor, but it is SUCH a buzzkill for me. True story. I mean who can own THAT?

Seriously, WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?

Bill Nighy, phoning it in...

The vocal talent behind the giants is much more impressive than the actual giants themselves, sad to say. Led by Bill Nighy as General Fallon (seriously, BILL NIGHY...disguised as a cartoonish giant...what. a. WASTE), the giants skitter between moments bordering on menace and bathroom humor stupidity. While the CGI that brought them to life was better than the "flashback" at the beginning of the film, it still didn't quite work for me...too cartoonish, too much of a rip-off of the Ents from Middle-earth.

While this movie is a decent enough popcorn flick, as a "classic" fairy tale retelling it misses the mark in too many respects for me to truly love it. Throughout I felt as though it was struggling with a split personality -- wanting to either be a silly, kid-friendly flick or something more epic in scale and scope, as evidenced by the battle scenes in the final act. And while there is plenty of likeable talent to be found, the script and therefore the characterizations are either a mess or colorless caricatures. This latter point is what makes me most concerned about director Bryan Singer's return to the X-Men universe next year. I was thoroughly impressed with Matthew Vaughn's handling of the First Class universe and it's sprawling cast of characters, and I really wish he'd been given the chance to test his mettle with the sequel. (At least he's on board as producer.)

The end of this movie is the icing on the cake of COMPLETE RIDICULOUSNESS, but maybe that's just me. I mean I don't mind exploring folk and fairy tales as part of history but this movie took things a little too literally IMO. But John Ottman turns in a fun score for this hot mess! And any script/story problems aside, this is totally worth renting for Ewan's hair alone...it should be classified as a certified wonder of the filmic world. If you've seen the movie I'd love to hear what you thought!