Deja vu all over again.

     Have you ever seen an ad for a movie that made you really excited to see the film because it looked too good to miss?  Then when you actually go to the movie it turns out the the film doesn't quite live up to the hype?  Sure you have, it's happened to all of us.  It's lucky that you have me to steer you in the right direction when it comes to cinema from Hollywood blockbusters, indie films, documentaries, or anything in between.  Such is the sequel to the 2010 sleeper hit "Red", creatively titled "Red 2"!  I never did see the original but I was suckered into seeing this film with a slick advertising campaign promising action film staples of car chases, gun play, more chases, beautiful women, foot chases, explosions and the like.   "Red 2" reunites Bruce Willis, John Malkkovich, Mary-Louise Parker, and Helen Mirren from the original "Red".  Then beefs up the cast with Anthony Hopkins, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and a bad ass kung fu assassin, Asian dude, who could have been lifted right out of a John Woo movie.  Only this isn't a John Woo movie.  
     Now don't get me wrong, "Red 2" is a good film, and loads of fun to be sure.  But given the all star cast I expected this movie to be so much more.  Like a non-stop laugh fest from the moment the opening credits fade.  Sorry to report this isn't the case.   I may be nitpicking but with this cast, "Red 2" could have been something of a cult movie.  Instead we are given a rewarmed film that seems all too familiar.  This is because you won't see anything here you haven't already seen before in other films.  As a result, nothing very surprising happens, and the plot line becomes very predictable.  I feel the middle aged Mary-Louise Parker is completely miscast.  Ms. Parker is now 47.  If you double that, it is clear she is in the middle of life, and AARP accepts members who are 50.  I've got nothing against older women at all.  Love em.   What I do have a problem with, is having to watch her pretend to be a woman/child who wears school girl skirts, and delivers all her lines as though she were still playing Nancy Botwin on "Weeds".  Please!!!  Stop already!  There are lots of chuckles and some very funny bits.  As an action movie "Red 2" totally works.  The shame is how, given all its parts, the movie never comes close to it's potential.  If you want to see this film I say go.  Just go with no expectations, and suspend any beliefs.  Better yet, just don't think at all.  
"Red 2"  is a good date movie.  
I give it a grade of a solid B.

Man of Steel is a Supermovie !!

     Action movies based on comic book characters have been around a long time.  But ever since the original Superman opened in 1978 to great financial success, what was once a novel idea, has become an entire genre.  Today some of the most entertaining and thrilling movies every year are based on comic book superheros.  I could write a column on why I think these types of films consistently earn higher box office than other films but I digress.  I need to sing the praises of "Man of Steel".  Opening in wide release this weekend around the country. 

     Comic book superheros, or even characters as dull as "Archie", possess a special relationship with their legions of fans.  Having a built in audience is nice but along with it comes great expectations from said fans.  This brings us to "Man of Steel", the latest installment in the Superman franchise.  This movie is what is called a reboot of the entire storyline.  "Superman Returns" was released in 2006 and earned only 400 million in worldwide box office.  Warner Bros. expected the film to earn 500 million so in their eyes the movie was somewhat of a flop.  What to do if your franchise has an entry that flops?  In football parlance you would punt.  Hollywood just reboots the entire series by starting over from square one.  For long time fans this can be very risky.  We all know the back story of Superman.  Will the fans really want to retrace the story line from the get go?  There are many approaches that can be taken and the "Man of Steel" does it's job perfectly.

     The new approach is to focus a lot more attention on the doomed world of Krypton in ways never shown before.  The film makes clear the issues that led to the painful decision to send baby Kal-El to planet earth.  Particular attention is paid to the trials and tribulations he faces as he adapts and find his place in this alien world.  What we see is a young Clark Kent who is a very tortured soul.  The relationship between him and his father, played beautifully by Kevin Costner, is in the end heart wrenching.  His relationship with his mother, played wonderfully by Diane Lane, elevates her character far beyond anything achieved in previous films.  It shows where much of Superman's humanity comes from.  Dad provided his moral and philosophical compass while Mom nurtured his kind heart.  Sort of the way real life should be, right?  I loved the way they updated and expanded the story line.  More amazing is they remained true to the Superman mythology that has been previously established.  No small feat indeed.  The result is astounding. The story has been elevated to a Shakespearean level.  That may seem like a over the top statement but I kid you not.  I found myself teary eyed often.  They have kicked this franchise up more than a notch.  Probably two or three.

     I would be remiss in not mentioning the special effects.  I feel a little sheepish in saying that the effects in this movie are simply the best I have ever seen.  Mind blowing eye candy is about the only way I can describe them.  Sometimes CGI can look a little grainy of faked.  Everything here is seamless.  The technological level of these special effects has given the film a very slick and polished but organic look.  The more I think about "Man of Steel" the more I love about it.  I viewed this film in 3D and I would recommend that process.  I think the effects would be more, well, effective when seen that way.  Dare I say, this is the best superhero movie of all time?  That is a bold statement I know, but this film operates on so many different levels,  it's greatness can't be denied.  I have no problems with a reboot.  Sometimes that is just what the doctor ordered.   "Man of Steel" is a great movie, take a date, go by yourself, heck see it twice.

I give "Man of Steel" a grade of A+ 

                                                                                        

For The Star Trek Generation

 

 

     The original television series, Star Trek, aired only 3 years before being cancelled in 1969 due to poor ratings.  Yet the series developed such a cult following in reruns that Paramount studios decided to reboot the series in film beginning with the 1979 release of "Star Trek: The Movie".  It was a full ten years since original series left the air but hard core "Trekkies" , including me,  could hardly wait.  Since then there hasn't been a time you couldn't see Star Trek in film or on television in one of it's many incarnations.  Opening today in wide release, "Star Trek: Into Darkness" is the twelfth installment in this, the longest running film franchise of all time. Fans of Star Trek are legion and know the mythology established as though it were a religion.  As such, story lines, plots, histories between films should fit together seamlessly or the fans will spot discrepancies almost immediately. 

     Into Darkness is the follow up to the 2009 release simply titled Star Trek, which introduced a completely new cast who play all the principals of the original series in an earlier time frame.  A bit of a prequel if you will.  This approach is a bit risky because the true fan knows these characters as though they are real people.  No small testament to the acting of the original cast in the television series and later in a half dozen films.  Even though Star Trek is technically science fiction, the story lines are by and large character driven.  I think that is what makes this franchise so timeless.  Each character has their own personality traits and over time we come to know each one.  Star Trek introduces us to a young James T. Kirk, Mr. Spock, Bones and all the rest.  What really makes it special is that we get to see how each character develops as a young cadet into the fully functioning crew member we all remember from the original series.  The cast was perfectly picked, especially Mr. Spock.  The intonation of his voice, the look on his face, it all fits together perfectly.  Into Darkness picks up where Star Trek left off.

     Now for the movie itself.  Into Darkness is a rip roaring thrill fest.  From the opening moments to the final scenes there is hardly a chance to catch your breath.  Sometimes there is so much going on at once that it is easy to forget exactly what is going on.  Don't worry, if you wait a few minutes all will be made clear once again.  There are revelations, and references to previous films and television series'.  Heck there is even a tribble!  (The furry little creature comically featured in one of the most popular episodes from the original series: The Trouble With Tribbles)  All of which adds up to a great time for the true Star Trek buff and for those who may not know anything about Star Trek at all.  (is that even possible?)  This is truly a stand alone film so it isn't necessary to be a die hard fan.  You will enjoy the film regardless.  The villain in this movie is much like a terrorist in the world today.  Any great science fiction film requires a great villain.  Into Darkness does not disappoint and when the true nature of the identity of the villain is revealed: it's an "oh I get it now" moment.  It is just so refreshing when all the pieces fall together and we as audience members are treated like we have a brain.  I could go on and on about this film but I just don't want to give too much of the plot away.  I will say this: if you are a Star Trek fanatic you will LOVE this movie.  If you are a science fiction/action movie fan you will LOVE this movie.  If you want to have fun you will LOVE this movie.  If you aren't any of these things you will like this movie.  What does Into Darkness have in it?  It has lots of chases, space battles, phasers firing, explosions, people being sucked into outer space, references to the Star Trek mythology, romance, a tribble, and a lot of humor of course. In case you haven't figured it out yet.  I LOVED this movie. 

Star Trek: Into Darkness is a great date movie and I give it a grade of.....A

Gatsby: the first Great Film of 2013

     Stanley Kubrick, one of my favorite directors once said of "The Shining", that he wanted to create a film that would be like "watching a dream".  If that film was a dream it was a nightmare!  Baz Luhrmanns'  "The Great Gatsby" is like watching a beautiful dream.  Based on F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel of the same name, "The Great Gatsby" has been turned into a movie no less than four times.  The most memorable being the 1974 release starring Robert Redford in the title role.  The film was very successful and makes one wonder why in the world would one more movie even be necessary.  This film takes the story to new heights with the Luhrmann treatment.
    Baz Luhrmann is also one of my favorite directors.  He is a love it or leave it type, whose films the critics either love or hate. His signature is gaudy, over the top productions, bursting with color,  and soundtracks updated with contemporary music reworked to fit the period of the film.  I find this very amusing.  There is no middle ground here.  His 2001 release of "Moulin Rouge!"  is a case in point.  I myself loved the over the top nature of his direction and bought the DVD as soon as it became available.  But there were plenty of people who hated it.  Gatsby delivers the Luhrmann treatment in spades although I am sure it will have plenty of detractors.  According to the "Rotten Tomato"  roughly half of all critics give this a positive review and half....not so much.  But what do critics know anyway?  (The Rotten Tomato is a great website dedicated to compiling statistics on reviews for all films.  A great research tool or a way to kill a couple hours.  Check it out.)  I find him to be one of the most unique and creative film makers of our day.  His films bring a new meaning to the term "eye candy".
     So what about the movie?  This is a great movie and the first best film of 2013.  The story is set in the rip roaring twenties.  A time of intense debauchery and general all around craziness.  You thinks the '60s and '70s were loose?  Take a look at the twenties.  Sorry, I digress.  If I were to boil the plot down to one theme I would say it is about a mysterious wealthy man who yearns for a lost love.  Isn't it terrible when falling in love defines a person, even years after the relationship has ended?  I hate it when that happens.  
     Nick Carraway, played by Tobey Maguire of Spiderman fame, is an erstwhile writer, who lands in a sanitarium for being a morbid alcoholic.  Many people who partied hearty in the 1920's ended up like that or worse.  Carraway relates the story as a remembrance of the most "remarkable" person he has ever met.  While he tells the story it comes to life before our eyes on the big screen.  But in a dream-like effect rather that a literal one.  When people think back on life there is a tendency  to romanticize our memories.  That's just human nature, and his respect and affection for Gatsby is clear right from the start.  Leonardo DiCaprio plays Jay Gatsby with much aplomb turning in what I consider an Oscar worthy performance.  Yes you heard it here first.  Leo will be nominated for his portrayal.  It will be a crime if he isn't.  Now that DiCaprio has finally grown into a mature man and no longer the pretty boy his acting chops are coming to the fore.  And an excellent actor he is.  He creates a three dimensional character that I think anyone would like to know.  Sinfully handsome, cool as a cucumber, and internally a tortured soul, Gatsby is a complex and conflicted character.  Oozing a smooth charm and ease that hides inner demons, Jay Gatsby is one of American literatures' classic characters.   DeCaprios performance is a slam dunk.  I never want to give too much away in my reviews but the major demon is a lost love, Daisey Buchanan, played by Carey Mulligan.
The beautiful Mulligan plays Daisy with style and grace.  It is easy to see why Gatsby is haunted by her.  
     Everything about Gatsby is beautiful.  The people, the costumes, the sets, and the telling of the story.  Of course conflicts arise and subplots abound but at the core is Gatsby yearning for the love he lost five years prior.  Oh yes, the music for this film is also great.  In keeping with the Luhrmann effect the soundtrack is updated with new original music by contemporary musicians.  Gotye, Jay Z, Beyonce Knowles, Florence + the Machine and others make contributions to the soundtrack.  If you haven't figured it out yet......I loved "The Great Gatsby".  
This would make an excellent date movie.
I give "The Great Gatsby" a grade of a solid: A

....just keeps getting better.

     I know that I am a little late in getting this review out, seeing how this film opened last weekend.  I figure that it is better late than never.  I went to a 3D showing Thursday afternoon and I loved it.  First of all there were only four other people in the theater besides me which I LOVE.  I had a whole row to myself.  OK, enough of the small talk, on to the review.  

     Opening seven days ago, this film is the third installment in the Iron Man franchise.  Iron Man 2 was better than the first Iron Man, and keeping with that, Iron Man 3 is better than the first two.  This movie really has it all.  Humor, special effects, bonding with a boy, a terrorist threat, romance and Robert Downey Jr.  Can anyone in the world play the cynical smart ass better?  I think not.  However in Iron Man 3, Tony Stark is toned down a bit.  Suffering from anxiety, probable depression, he seems bored, and thus spends his time building dozens of Iron Man suits.  Downeys' acting is a little understated and spot on for the Tony Stark character.  Things have changed since the first two films and the characters have grown, giving them a lot of added depth.  Which is much more than your typical offering in this genre.  Pepper Potts is played again by Gweneth Paltro and is no longer Starks' assistant but the CEO at Stark industries.  Stark and Potts are committed to each other as they now live together and act much like any other couple with the usual squabbles and tiffs.  Even though this man IS a superhero, he is a superhero with many of the same failings we normal guys possess.  Refreshing.  Don Cheadle reprises his role as James Rhodes, Stark's best friend, and liaison between the air force and Stark industries.  There is a ton of good natured jocularity between the two.  Rhodes helps to keep Stark grounded in ways that Pepper just can't.  In a comical turn, Sir Ben Kingsley plays the evil "Mandarin".  Spoiler alert, he isn't a real terrorist, he's a fake terrorist.  When the truth is revealed many chuckles ensue.  Of course all leads up to the epic final battle which is required for any movie of this genre.  I don't want to give too much away but I promise you will not be disappointed.  This film is filled with all the usual cliche's you would find in a super hero movie.  What raises Iron Man 3 above the rest of the herd is the character development and the ensemble cast which is perfectly balanced by judicial use of CGI effects.  This genre has a formula to follow and Iron Man 3 follows right in step.  Iron Man 3 even introduces a boy, Harley, who ends up helping Tony Stark.  The two bond and as such helps to give the film a heart warming ending.  Ever see that before?  

I thought so.  Iron Man 3 is a very good movie and would make a great date movie.

I give this film a grade of: A-

Cold War Neurosis

 

 

     Opening this weekend is the indie film Ginger and Rosa, described as a coming of age story set against the backdrop of 1962 and the claustrophobic mindset of the Cold War.  Starring Elle Fanning (little sister of Dakota) and director Jane Campions' daughter Alice Englert, Ginger and Rosa are life long best friends who navigate perilous waters of impending womanhood.  Along the way their relationship becomes strained as the process of growing up has a way of pulling people apart.  Each character is very different but held together by the love they have for each other.  This film really brings nothing new to the coming of age film.  They experiment with smoking cigs, picking up boys, skipping school, and many other behaviors that you have seen time and time again.  Rosa's mom was abandoned by her husband early on and is a single mother who struggles to raise her daughter. Ginger has a mother who tries as best as she can given her husband is a professor/intellectual who is vastly flawed as a man. A womanizer who it is related, contiunually leaves, then re-enters the home depending on which student he can lure into his seedy little web.  I found this particular character extremely unsympathetic and sort of hated the guy.  Why does Ginger and her mother keep forgiving him and taking him back?  You know he is just going to do it again.  The rest of the cast are basically throwaways.  The film is an awesome showcase for the acting talents of Elle Fanning.  Without which this movie would be boring and very nearly terrible.

     The underlying tension of this film is Gingers' very real fear of nuclear annihilation which peaks during the Cuban missile crisis.  Ginger seems to be slowly sinking from understandable neurosis to becoming seriously disturbed.  I kept wondering if this poor girl is ever going to find a slice of happiness in life.  An ambiguous ending leaves it all up in the air.  One can be hopeful but I found little to be hopeful about.  Of course we all know now that the Cold War never did turn hot, thank goodness, but that doesn't lessen the unspoken horror of the era.  So maybe eventually she does what everyone else did back in those days.  Just didn't think about it too much.  If you didn't, going crazy with worry could have been very easy.  In the final analysis, Ginger and Rosa is a character study that could have used more interesting characters.  Beautifully filmed with a breakout performance by Fanning this movie is interesting.  With more focus on delivering a message,  believable supporting characters, and normal reactions to bad behavior: Ginger and Rosa could have been elevated from a good movie to a great one.  This is an OK date movie. 

I give Ginger and Rosa a grade of:  B



This Wizard Comes Up Short

 

 

     Before I begin my review I have to say that on My list of all time great movies, the original Wizard of Oz, is on my top five.  Of course to try and expand on a near perfect story would be nearly impossible which is why it will never be remade.  To avoid obvious pitfalls, this prequel tries to fill in the back story of how the Wizard got to the Land of Oz in the first place.  The promotion for this film began months ago with spectacular trailers highlighting the CG special effects which are, well, pretty spectacular.  So I made a mental note that I would "have" to see this film on opening day.  You can view this film in 2d, 3d, and IMAX 3d.  If you want to save a few bucks, 2d is just fine.  (a little cinema trivia:  The very first IMAX film was introduced at the World's Fair in Spokane back in 1974!)

     Now on to the movie.  In a nod to the original, the film opens in black and white, at a small travelling circus in Kansas.  (is Kansas really that drab?)  Oscar Diggs is the resident magician and erstwhile conman who's specialty is stealing women's' hearts.  He has a routine whereby he makes a present to a woman of a music box that belonged to his dear departed grandmother.  In actuality he has dozens.  These opening scenes should be very funny but James Franco, who plays Diggs/Oz, just can't pull it off.  It's not for lack of trying but the harder he tries the less humorous it becomes.  I think that may be the underlying problem with Oz, it just tries too hard.  Through a series of events he ends up being chased by the circus strongman and makes his escape with the help of a hot air balloon.  Of course he gets sucked into a twister because that is, after all, the only way one can get to the Land of Oz.  Oz is a world of incredible color and surrealistic beauty thanks to the computer graphics. 

     I think that may the be the real star of the film.   I found all the actors to be flat and miscast.  The evil witches, not very scary.  Glinda, while beautiful, boring.  Even the Wizard himself, not very wonderful.  This made the movie plod along as if it were following the yellow brick road.  The final third of the film really picks up the pace but by then I really didn't care.  It was just too late to elevate the movie beyond it's eyecandy status. I also found the story to be just too simplistic as an attempt to fill in the back story. The broadway musical Wicked does a much better job of that. I don't want to spend time comparing this to the original but what really made that film a classic was the characters and the songs.  This film really has none of that going for it.  With flat lifeless characters, one song that lasts about a minute, and a sagging script: the most compelling points of the movie are the special effects and the animated characters.  That is sad considering the potential to make a memorable movie.  With a more engaging story arc Oz should leave the viewer with a sense of joy, hope, and wonder.  Instead I thought it was a fun experience but in the end disapointing.

Not a bad date movie.

I give this film a solid: B