The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Misses the Mark.

     "Mockingjay", the third film in the Hunger Games franchise, opens in wide release today.  I attended a preview last night so I could give my readers the low down.  Here's the skinny.   
     "Mockingjay" basically picks up where "Catching Fire" left off.  But be aware or beware, this is a much different film from the first two.  "The Hunger Games" was a violent, surrealistic romp much in the same vein as Koushun Takami's "Battle Royal".  I will assume you are familiar with "The Hunger Games" basics.   A randomly chosen group of teenagers are made to fight to the death in a virtual environment called "the arena".  Every move is broadcast live to the "City".  It's citizens gleefully watch the unfolding drama of sympathetic participants locked in a life and death struggle.  Sounds like must see TV.  "The Hunger Games" had tons of action with the teens doing it: survivalist style. "Catching Fire" was basically a reboot of the first movie, with a deeper plot and a promise of revolution to come. 
     Now we have "Mockingjay pt.1"  which completely down shifts from it's predecessors.  Gone is the arena, the action, the fighting, the struggle, and in it's place we have action at a snails pace!  Brooding expressions punctuated by crying fits!  The acting of Jennifer Lawrence is top notch but wasted much of the time.  The best part of the movie is the actors.  Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Woody Harrelson, Donald Sutherland, Elizabeth Banks reprise their previous roles with Phillip Seymore Hoffman in his final screen appearance. 
     The setting is an underground city, so most of the film is in darkness: Literally.  There is some tension and political intrigue which is basically nothing more than window dressing for pt.2.  And that is a huge part of the problem with this film.  It's a two hour set up for a movie we have to wait until next year to see.  I feel like I'm being held hostage in an underground city!
     A recent development in Hollywood is to take a successful film series and split the finale into two parts.  The main driver is to boost profits.  I find this very distasteful.  It was done with the last films of both the Twilight and Harry Potter film series.  They even took "The Hobbit", which is a short easy read for teenagers, and turned it into a trilogy!  This is great if the plot line supports it and the direction is snappy and crisp.  Instead what we often get is a film with the right cast, the right setting, everything is ready, and nothing really happens.  Or you get long drawn out scenes with characters launching into speeches which end up playing like a Shakespearean soliloquy.   You know, boring.  
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay pt.1 GRADE C +
Bargain Matinee or wait until DVD/Netflix .

Stellar In Nearly Every Way

     Perhaps the most anticipated film of the year, "Interstellar", opens in wide release this Friday, November 7th.  I attended a preview last night so I could review the film in a timely manner.               
     Stanley Kubrick's  masterpiece, "2001 a Space Odyssey" was released in April of 1968.  Now considered one of the very best science fiction films ever made, it gave audiences a lot to think about.  I won't go into the plot of the film because most people have seen it and it defies any description less than a paragraph.  When first released, the film was either loved or hated by the critics.  Negative comments usually complained about the film length and as such became tedious and boring.  These are the same people who don't read books, just magazines with lot's of pictures.  But with time it took it's rightful place in the pantheon of the best movies ever made, of ANY genre.  The release of "2001" became the bellwether moment that it really was.  A watershed by which all space oriented films would be judged from that time forward.  So the question begs; How does "Interstellar" stack up?
Close but no cigar.  
     Don't get me wrong.  "Interstellar" is a superlative film based on it's own merits.  While flawed, it's scenes of space travel, flying through a worm hole, a black hole, and the like takes this film to the outer reaches of human imagination.  Also known as the "Twilight Zone".  
     "Interstellar" is divided into sections much like many of Kubrick's films are.  The first part begins on an Earth that is in ecological collapse.  What could make our planet inhospitable for humans?  Mammoth dust storms, crop failures that increase every year, and magnetic anomalies that cause electronics to malfunction.  Basically it's bad and getting worse by the day.  If humanity is to survive it has to escape.  
     The first warning I need to give is about the length of the film, 2 hours 49 minutes!  No matter how you slice it, that's one long movie.  If a film is as engaging as "Avatar" or "The Godfather" then three hours passes by quickly.  The flaws I point out may seem rather nit picky but they effect the final cut and can't be ignored.  The first hour of the film is grounded solidly on planet Earth. This is for character development but it also has a tendency to bog down the pacing.  This is a space movie and I don't want to be down on the farm.  
      Matthew McConaughey plays Coop, a father and farmer who was a test pilot before the world started falling apart.  Matthew has become one hot commodity lately and he is great as Coop.  His daughter is Murphy, played by Mackenzie Foy, with skill that belies her age: 13.  The relationship between father and daughter is one of the driving themes in this movie.  Mackenzie Foy is a gem of a young actress and is a real discovery.  I predict she will receive an Oscar nomination come years end. The movie boasts big stars in little parts.  Anne Hathaway,  Michael Caine, Matt Damon, Casey Afflek. Ellen Burstyn, and William Devane all pop in and then pop out.  John Lithgow as Coop's father, and Jessica Chastain, ("The Hurt Locker") as a grown up Murphy are integral to the film.   
     The film really blasts off with the space scenes.  The only problem here is that we are presented with what I would call Sci-fi cliches.  When they get to the space ship and you see the crew you just KNOW who will be killed off first.  Like the throwaway officers in "Star Trek".  There is always one cynic cracking wise and in this case it's a robot called TARS.  TARS gives us some much needed comedic relief.  His voice eerily sounds like HAL.  Reflections of control panels on the helmet shields are a direct rip off from Kubrick.  No worries, reflections would be normal, so for me it was like a comfortable familiarity.  All I am saying is that visually "Interstellar" is fantastic, but not completely unique.  
     "Interstellar" is a story about humanity disguised as a space movie.  Director Christopher Nolan, "Memento", "Inception", and the "Dark Night" trilogy, makes films that are extremely interesting and creative, with very little heart.   This isn't just me.  One critic noted that the most heart warming scene in a previous film of his was with Bruce Wayne and his butler, Alfred.  Nolan is a cerebral film maker who has stated his goal is to make films that just don't make people think, but make them think WHILE they are viewing the film.  Certainly he achieves this but we may not be thinking what he wants us to.  The final act, no spoiler, is more mysterious and crosses the event horizon between possibility and the unbelievable. The Epilogue seems like a tacked on Hollywood ending than authentic to the story itself.  
There is nothing wrong with "Interstellar" that a good film editor couldn't fix.  A tighter film is a better film in my estimation.  I still LOVED this movie and I will see it again sometime next week.  
I grade "Interstellar" out at A-.  
Probably a good date movie unless your date hates science fiction.

Don't mess with John Wick

     I tried to attend a preview of "John Wick" on the 21st of October, three days before the official opening,  but twice as many people showed up as the theater could hold.  I was disappointed because the film has garnered much critical buzz in recent weeks.  A check I conducted found that more than 90% of film critics had given it good reviews.  So of course it had to be a great movie, right?  Wrong!  I think most critics see so many bad films that when they see one that is mediocre it seems much better than it really is.  

     Such is a case in point for "John Wick" the movie as well as the character.  Mr. Wick is a retired hit man who once worked for the Russian mafia, basically as a one man wrecking crew: verging on superhero.  A plethora of action film cliche's are included. So of course he lives in an opulent home, and is haunted by demons from his past, both psychological and real.  We see John going through the motions of life while, through a series of flashbacks, the reason for this shattered person is revealed.  I do have to say that in one particular scene Keanu breaks down emotionally and I found it extremely realistic and heartbreaking to watch.  Great acting chops.

     The action in the film is unrelenting and eventually reaches a point of being nearly ridiculous. The body count reminds me of Uma Thurman defeating the Crazy 88 in "Kill Bill vol 1".  In that movie the violence was cartoonish in nature.  "John Wick"; not so much.  It takes itself just a little too seriously.  For example; you think Rambo is tough? John Wick is tougher.  Clint Eastwood is a great shot?  John Wick is better.  Jackie Chan an awesome fighter?  John Wick is awesomer!  Getting the picture yet?  "John Wick" takes the genre and kicks it up a notch or three.  (Pun intended) If you are looking for a mindless shoot'em up/beat 'em up movie then this is for you.  Sometimes that is good enough.  I like a little more meat on the movie bone, a shade more believability in the story arc, and a lot less cliche'. This is a good date movie for twenty somethings, hardcore action picture fans, or Keanu Reeve's fans.  Otherwise....wait for the DVD.

I give "John Wick"  a grade of B-.

Not Your Daddy's Godzilla!

     I am a child of the sixties and I was pretty much raised on what I call monster movies.  So for me, Godzilla is not only very familiar but is like reconnecting with a grumpy old friend.  The original was released less than ten years, 1954, after the bombing of Hiroshima.  At that time there was great anxiety in Japan about, radiation, radioactivity, just about anything to do with nuclear technology.  Godzilla, or Gojiira in Japanese, is a reflection of that fear in a very specific way.  He eats radiation, was born of radiation, heck he even has radioactive halitosis.  Any Boomer worth their salt "knows" to stay away from the radioactive breath.             Since he first lumbered out of the sea, there have been 28 Japanese movies, and 4 incarnations here in America.  This is what is defined as a "franchise".  Trivia tidbit: Two years after the original Godzilla, the film was reedited for the American market, adding narration and additional scenes with a new actor, Raymond Burr.  It was retitled "Godzilla, King of the Monsters"  and henceforth, "king of the monsters" became it's tag line.
     Flash forward to 2014: we are now being presented with the 32nd installment of the franchise.  It could make one wonder if there is any new ground to cover or fresh views to renew the series.  But this is a MONSTER MOVIE!  Who cares?  I want to see buildings ripped apart, cars and buses tossed like toys, cities demolished, and mayhem like only, well, Godzilla can deliver.
     The $64,000 question is, after some fifty years can Godzilla still deliver the destructive chaos we have come to love?  Short answer is an emphatic YES!  To up the ante instead of one mega monster, there are two others besides the beast from the east.  Lest not forget, in addition to being hell on urban areas, Godzilla loves to fight other mega monsters.  Once he hits this mode he suddenly goes from destroyer to protector.  This happened in many films over the years.  In the final analysis, Gojiira is a sympathetic character in film.  Least ways that's my take.  
     What's wrong with the movie?  Instead of less being more I think they should have gone with more being more.  More screen time for Bryan Cranston, in his first role since "Breaking Bad", more eye popping special effects and definitely a whole lot more Godzilla.  In an effort to create mystery the director, Gareth Edwards, has chosen to take the approach of playing weird music and hardly ever showing the creature.  Showing a  foot here or and arm there is supposed to create suspense.  The creepy music and the fact I couldn't get a good look at Godzilla only made me annoyed.  I wanted to yell out "it's a dang Monster Movie....show us the freaking monster"!!
But once the big guy gets full frontal, it's "look out"!  It's more like a full frontal assault; on Waikiki Beach, on an island in Japan, Las Vegas, and San Francisco.  Godzilla does what he wants to do and time sure flies when you are watching "monster mayhem"!  This is a really fun movie, not too deep, and a good popcorn cruncher.  I would say a good date movie.  If she gets scared she will hug you and hold your hand.  :)
I give Godzilla a grade of a solid: B    

Feet of Fire!

     The title of the film,"Cuban Fury", did little to clue me into what the film is about.  Then I watched the preview and I immediately recognized comedic actor Nick Frost, of "Shaun of the Dead", "Hot Fuzz", and "The Worlds End".  If you aren't familiar with his work let me fill you in.  

     Nick Frost is a large man, okay, he's fat, and he would be the first to admit such.  A lovable, overweight, every man who you can't help but root for.  In "Cuban Fury" he plays Bruce Garrett,  living a solitary existence as an engineer, and longing for love in his life.  But Bruce has a secret.  As a young teenager he was a champion salsa dancer with his sister, Sam, and qualifying for the championship.     On his way to Nationals, he is jumped by a gang of bullies and pummeled into the ground.  Needless to say he never makes it to Nationals, gives up on dancing, and basically gives up on life.  All this plays out during the opening credits so when the film actually begins we jump forward twenty five years.  

    Now we see a fat, forty year old Bruce riding his little wheel bike to work.  When he gets there he finds out that there is a new boss and, OMG, he's a she!  Julia, as played by Rashida Jones, is the love interest between tubby Bruce and the office slime ball Drew (Chris O' Dowd).     I had trouble picturing her as an upper management type.  But her sweet cuteness would motivate any man to learn salsa dancing.  So Bruce, and the office Lothario, Drew (Chris O'Dowd) vie for her attention.  The cast is truly wonderful and the film is a hoot.  When Bruce and Drew have a dance off for the right to date Julia,  it's comedic gold. The supporting characters are like little treasures.  Kayvan Novak steals the movie as Bejan who becomes Bruce's unlikely gay/best friend.  Silly situations to follow.

"Cuban Fury" is a good date movie.

I give this feel good film a grade of B+ 

Screwball Pharmacist

     Opened on March 14th, "Better Living Through Chemistry", is a quirky, offbeat, dark comedy unlike any film you have ever seen.  Maybe I should say that it's like about twenty other movies you've seen.  Starring Sam Rockwell, Olivia Wilde, and Michelle Monaghan, the movie starts with an entire town in miniature and the credit titles embedded into the scenery.  A very creative way to present credits and one of the high points of the flick.  
     The plot concerns one Doug Varney, played wonderfully by Sam Rockwell.  Varney is a defeated, shell of a man, because nothing in his life seems to be in his control.  His wife Kara Varney (Monaghan) is an athletic trainer who "motivates" her students with drill instructor zeal.  Of course she has her husband completely dominated.  So we see Varney sleepwalk his way through life.  I was saddened to see how hopeless this character is.  Very well acted by Rockwell.                                          Enter chanteuse Elizabeth Roberts, played by Olivia Wilde, as a pill popping, boozing, blonde bombshell trapped in a loveless marriage.  A chance meeting between the boozy trophy wife and the straight laced pharmacist opens Doug up to all sorts of fun.  Can you predict what happens next? They have a torrid affair, drink alcohol like a couple of college kids and, at Elizabeth's suggestion, "enhance" their lives with pharmaceuticals from Dougs drug store.  Of course someone comes up with the idea to kill Elizabeth's abusive husband an viola'!  Match made in Hollywood heaven!  Laughable, to be sure, but in between the chuckles a certain guilt came over me.  Should I be laughing at people behaving in what seems like reprehensible ways?  Chemistry is played so over the top it is farcical in nature.  As such it works, but just barely.  I liked this film and I love Sam Rockwell.  It just could have been a whole lot better.  This film is in theaters right now but also can be watched at home by renting it through Comcast, I-tunes, or Amazon.  It is an enjoyable movie but it tries so hard to be funny and in the end it just misses the mark. I suggest renting and making popcorn.
I give this film a Grade of: C+   

86th Annual Academy Awards

     It is hard to believe that a year has passed since the Oscars and that means time for my predictions.  Whereas last year many front runners were somewhat obvious, this year is just too close to call.  
     Knowing that sometimes my reviews get a little wordy, I will try to keep this as brief as possible, listing my predictions for each category and keeping my comments to one or two sentences. I hope you enjoy this blog post and make your own list of predictions. See if you can beat me.  To give my predictions more credibility I want you to know I have viewed every film in with the exception of "Captain Phillips, Philomena, and August: Osage County. I apologize for not reviewing every film, I will do better this coming year.     
     Best Picture: It's a three way tie between "American Hustle, Gravity, and 12 Years a Slave".  Science Fiction rarely wins so "Gravity" is out.  It could go either way but I believe "American Hustle" will win.
     Best Actor: Personally I loved Bruce Dern in "Nebraska".  Once again everyone in this category is awesome.  I predict that Matthew McConaughey will win for "Dallas Buyers Club".  Chiwetel Ejiofor, could win as this can go either way. I am sticking with Matt. 
     Best Actress:  Cate Blanchett is the odds on favorite for her portrayal in "Blue Jasmine"  She has swept every major award this season and I would be shocked if she doesn't take home Oscar.  (Blue Jasmine is highly recommended. Grade/A)
     Best Supporting Actor:  Jared Leto is a shoo in for "Dallas Buyers Club".  His characterization is an amazing transformation.  He has also swept all the major awards this season. (Buyers Club grade A)
     Best Supporting Acctress:  This comes down to two, Jennifer Lawrence from "American Hustle" or Lupita Nyong'o of "12 Years a Slave".  This is Lupita's first nomination so I have to go with Jennifer who won the Golden Globe this year and best actress last year.  I think the academy is smitten with her.  Jennifer!
     Best Animated Feature:  My pick is "Frozen" which I just loved.  I predict this will be a Broadway musical within five years. (Grade A)
     Director:  It is basically a three way tie with Alfonso Cuaro'n for "Gravity, Steve McQueen for "12 Years a Slave", and David Russell for "American Hustle" in a dead heat.  I guess Russell for Hustle!
     Best Original Song: "Let It Go" from "Frozen"  This is an astounding song and I still remember thinking how much it sounds like full on Broadway production.  Then I researched further and discovered it is sung by Idina Menzel who starred on Broadway in both Rent and Wicked.  She will perform on the telecast and she will bring down the house, no doubt.

Quickie predictions.

     Original Screenplay: Spike Jonez for "Her".  (Pulling for Seattle native Bob Nelson)

     Adapted Screenplay: John Ridley for "12 Years a Slave".

     Documentary Feature:  "The Act of Killing".  Despite the title it is well worth watching.  Currently on Netflix, in Indonesian with English subtitles.  Grade/A

     "Gravity" will win:Best Sound and Film editing, Cinematography,  and Visual Effects.  

     "The Great Gatsby" will win Best Costumes and Production Design (sets)

     "Inside Llewyn Davis" will win for sound mixing. 

That's my story and I'm sticking with it! 

Thought provoking and unique: " Her"

     "Her" is the latest offering from director Spike Jonze, whose previous films include "Adaptation", and "Being John Malcovich".  The movie is extremely hard to peg down or describe.  It really doesn't fit comfortably into any one film genre.  I have seen it described as a sci-fi /romantic comedy/drama and it succeeds on all levels.  As such, I am finding this to be one of the most difficult reviews I've ever written.       
      Joaquin Phoenix plays Theodore Twombly, a man who is going through a rough patch.  
His impending divorce from his childhood sweetheart isn't something he is ready to accept.  Theodore exists in a time and place that is not too far off in the future making "Her" very compelling.  It doesn't take a futurist to see that many of these technologies, while not available currently, are just over the horizon.  
     One new technology is a personal Operating System (OS) with Artificial Intelligence.  The user loads the system into their computer to get started.  Once the OS is uploaded the user chooses their settings and viola!  you have a virtual friend.  The user wears an earpiece so the computer can speak directly to the user with a human voice.  The user has a mobile camera unit that allows the OS to "see" the surroundings.  Of course each OS has it's own gender based speaking voice and can fully interact with the user.  Having conversations, telling jokes, composing music are just some of the functions an OS can perform.  At first the concept seems a little far fetched and really not that believable.  But as the story unfolds, I really began to buy into the possibility that this could be reality someday soon.  The more a person interacts with their OS the more it learns and evolves.  Just like a human mind and psyche.  
     Theodore is asked if he wants a male or female OS.  He chooses a woman and upon initial boot up he hears her voice for the first time.(Scarlett Johansson) Is it really a her or is this just a very advanced computer program?  He asks the OS her name and she answers "Samantha".  Thus begins a relationship between Theodore and Samantha.  Friends at first and later something much more.  
     One statement I think the film is trying to make, or show, is how technology effects human interaction and relations.  That social media, and texts, and cell phones widen the gap between people and prevent them from face to face interaction.  I found myself asking myself deep questions.  What is an emotion?  Are they biologically connected to the function of the mind and brain or something more? Could a person really feel some sort of fulfillment interacting with an OS?  Are people really ready to let technology fill in the gaps between solitude and lonliness?      
   "Her" is a movie that had me literally laughing out loud, clapping during different plot twists, all while providing me with a sense of wonderment.  I would call that hitting the cinematic trifecta.  "Her" is not like anything I have ever seen. If you like unique, off beat, funny, thought provoking movies I highly recommend this film.  
"Her" would probably be good for a date.
I give this movie a grade of: A 











\

Next War? Send Politicians!

     The latest film from director Peter Berg is "Lone Survivor", a true tale based on the book of the same name.  This film is an all too realistic and up close look at war and the ultimate sacrifices paid by many.  As such, it is a gut wrenching roller coaster ride from which there is no escape.  In the opening credits actual footage of Navy Seal recruits going through basic training is shown.  In a voice over, the title character Marcus Luttrel (Mark Wahlberg), describes what is happening, and why these men subject themselves beyond the breaking point.  Unfortunately for me, Wahlberg comes from the mumbling school of acting.  I found myself straining to understand what he was saying.  I do have some hearing loss so that doesn't help.(other mumblers include Brando, DeNiro, and Duvall)  
     The story is the recounting of an ill fated mission in Afghanistan, undertaken by four Navy Seals, called Operation Red Wings.  The goal is to capture or kill a notorious Taliban leader; Armad Shah.  As a "war" movie there are a lot of scenes that seem familiar; and why not?  The "war movie" genre has been a staple since WWI.  (The Big Parade 1926, All Quiet on the Western Front 1930).  Usually about half the running time is spent developing the characters.  For a film to have a true impact it is necessary for viewers to care about at least one of the characters.  Unfortunately scant time is spent on developing the characters of "Lone Survivor".  Not to say that I didn't care about our boys in uniform.  I just think that my emotions could have been heightened with the proper set up.  The more people you care about in a movie the more visceral your reaction to the film. Make no mistake, "Lone Survivor" is as visceral a film as you will ever want to see.  Once they come under attack "Lone Survivor" is as unrelenting and dire as any movie ever made.  The violence is sickening but the part that is really disgusting is that it is very real.  Unlike the cartoonish violence of say a Tarrentino film, all the action in this film is depicted as accurately as possible.  The director used autopsy records and incident reports from the Seals, as well as hiring Luttrel for technical advice to insure accuracy.  The result is the most accurate and realistic warfare scenes since the storming of Normandy in "Saving Private Ryan".  
     I did not realize it but Afghanistan has terrain which looks very similar to the North Cascades of Washington State.  It is on wooded mountain slopes and over cliffs that the fight takes place.  This really ratchets up the tension level.  The sound editing and stunts are pretty incredible.  You feel as though you are crawling through the underbrush with limited visibility. Suddenly you hear twigs break, branches crackle, and bullets whizzing by your head.  The action happens so fast it barely gives one time to think.  Only watch and experience.   Like "Saving Private Ryan" or "Schindler's List"  there is some difficult viewing here.  Still it is worth watching and I would even say necessary.  Only when we all see the horrors of war can we truly appreciate our service men and women.  And hopefully motivate the powers that be to avoid war at all costs.
This is probably not a good date movie.
I give this film a grade of: B+