The characters in this family are so baneful and puerile and lack any remote sense of morality that I have no interest in seeing what happens to any of them. My guess based on the headliner is cousin Greg is the man and somehow does what needs to happen or exacts the justice the audience longs for.
Reviews
9 Reviews
Avengers: Infinity War
(2018)
VERY STRONG 8 OR WEAK 9
28 April 2018
A must see spoiler free. It's a remarkable achievement that so many characters are given something to do and with enough direction and "film" to make us care about it. The Russo brothers top their Civil War efforts, barely, but do indeed manage to bring us a clear story arc that doesn't waste time on unnecessary issues. I will rank this below their efforts in Winter Soldier, again barely. There was more espionage intrigue in that movie that was more satisfying to this viewer. But, in the current culture where superhero movie fatigue is a very real concern, and hype regarding superhero movies tends toward inflation of its true merit for entertainment, this monument should stand as a tight culmination of just about EVERY point raised and debated from the first Thor to last year's Thor. Which I find fitting and I'll refrain from saying more.
Grade: A- Recommend
Grade: A- Recommend
Blade Runner 2049
(2017)
Slow Burning Sequel emphasizes mood and feel over story
10 October 2017
Blade Runner 2049 pays worthy homage to its parent film with use of similar color palettes and mood inducing music that effectively draws the viewer into this dystopian and somber future LA. Ever dark with incessant precipitation properly sets the tone that the earth seems to be mourning its current fate. Replicants, seemingly devoid of a soul, have so populated the landscape that one must sometimes question, "Is that dog real?". I found the world building efforts by set and sound design wonderfully successful. Different places take on unique color tones of black, mustard brown and gray. They represented to me a journey of awareness for our primary protagonist "K", the LAPD officer, established early on as a replicant himself, performing the same role as Rick Deckard from the original Blade Runner. However, in his role, he locates an odd, out-of-place, flower that leads to the discovery of replicant bones and a mystery begins to unfold that sets him on this quest. The quest will lead him to begin to question whether or not replicants can, in fact, have souls. And if so, does he.
It's a simple plot line. Where the movie may lose people, though, is the pacing it uses to get from point A, to B, to C. Perhaps, there are tangential issues being wrestled with by our main characters. If you've seen Westworld on HBO last year, you may think these issues have been explored. I did. And perhaps, the pacing is intended to demonstrate it's never an easy quest. In fact, we are given examples of what, sometimes, must be lost to gain this insight.
I found the sequel worthy to its predecessor. It revisits certain questions the original asked, without tying an obvious bow around them. I liked the imagery, the sound, the characters (and acting). I think Harrison Ford does some of his finest work here. If I were criticize, I'd say choices could have been made for economy's sake to shorten the movie a bit. Some of the methodical and brooding shots of Gossling walking through a set could have been shortened or even eliminated. Sure it builds a picture, but it doesn't have the payoff necessary to justify its place in the film.
Still B+ Recommend to any sci-fi, Blade Runner, PKDick fan. Others? you're on your own.
It's a simple plot line. Where the movie may lose people, though, is the pacing it uses to get from point A, to B, to C. Perhaps, there are tangential issues being wrestled with by our main characters. If you've seen Westworld on HBO last year, you may think these issues have been explored. I did. And perhaps, the pacing is intended to demonstrate it's never an easy quest. In fact, we are given examples of what, sometimes, must be lost to gain this insight.
I found the sequel worthy to its predecessor. It revisits certain questions the original asked, without tying an obvious bow around them. I liked the imagery, the sound, the characters (and acting). I think Harrison Ford does some of his finest work here. If I were criticize, I'd say choices could have been made for economy's sake to shorten the movie a bit. Some of the methodical and brooding shots of Gossling walking through a set could have been shortened or even eliminated. Sure it builds a picture, but it doesn't have the payoff necessary to justify its place in the film.
Still B+ Recommend to any sci-fi, Blade Runner, PKDick fan. Others? you're on your own.
Detroit
(2017)
not perfect but still compelling
20 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
The thrust of this movie is contained in the lengthy second act within the Algier's Hotel where the Detroit city police confronted several kids with tragic results. There is a third act that follows the legal consequences of those in charge. However, the power of this film is found within that second act. There are some incredible performances from Algee Smith and Hannah Murray (two of the kids in the hotel) and Will Poulter (one of the city policemen). For those, this movie should receive Oscar attention early next year. In addition, the cinematography in many places effectively puts you as the viewer in the middle of the riots helping to build the tension. No doubt, there is a message being sent by this film.
However, it is not a perfect film. The beginning was sluggish to the point of misdirection. It takes a good 30 minutes to engage a few of our main players in the critical phase at the motel. Perhaps, the intent was to build-up to this. It is true, thrusting us into the middle too soon would be equally disorienting. But if you choose to view this film, recognize that much of what you see early on isn't fully needed to pay off the thrust of the film. Secondly, despite my accolades on the acting performances above, some of the dialogue didn't feel natural, but rather somewhat clichéd especially from our city cops attempting to resolve their dispute with the people in the hotel. And lastly, the slow moving and predictable courtroom drama was more than the movie needed.
I was asked by someone as we left our viewing..."Did you enjoy it?" To which I answered..."No, I don't think I was meant to enjoy it...but it is a good movie." It is riveting. It is compelling. It is sad that this history happened as it did. However, there are many times that we may not enjoy something we need to see/hear. Perhaps this is one of those things.
As a post-script--there are some who will say that Catherine Bigelow shouldn't have been the one to tell this story. I am not going to argue that point. I am glad someone did and I DO think she presented a movie that effectively tells a story of our history. I would entertain a different version should that be given to us in the future. Also, there is likely some question as to the portrayal of some of the key players here. Were they accurate to history? Even if not fully accurate, it may very well present a perception of what some have. And perception can and often does become one's reality. To the person attending this movie, recognize this.
B- Mild recommend
However, it is not a perfect film. The beginning was sluggish to the point of misdirection. It takes a good 30 minutes to engage a few of our main players in the critical phase at the motel. Perhaps, the intent was to build-up to this. It is true, thrusting us into the middle too soon would be equally disorienting. But if you choose to view this film, recognize that much of what you see early on isn't fully needed to pay off the thrust of the film. Secondly, despite my accolades on the acting performances above, some of the dialogue didn't feel natural, but rather somewhat clichéd especially from our city cops attempting to resolve their dispute with the people in the hotel. And lastly, the slow moving and predictable courtroom drama was more than the movie needed.
I was asked by someone as we left our viewing..."Did you enjoy it?" To which I answered..."No, I don't think I was meant to enjoy it...but it is a good movie." It is riveting. It is compelling. It is sad that this history happened as it did. However, there are many times that we may not enjoy something we need to see/hear. Perhaps this is one of those things.
As a post-script--there are some who will say that Catherine Bigelow shouldn't have been the one to tell this story. I am not going to argue that point. I am glad someone did and I DO think she presented a movie that effectively tells a story of our history. I would entertain a different version should that be given to us in the future. Also, there is likely some question as to the portrayal of some of the key players here. Were they accurate to history? Even if not fully accurate, it may very well present a perception of what some have. And perception can and often does become one's reality. To the person attending this movie, recognize this.
B- Mild recommend
Dunkirk
(2017)
Nolanesque War Movie...very good
28 July 2017
"Wars are not won by evacuations..." Words spoken by Churchill after the events depicted in Christopher Nolan's latest film DUNKIRK. Yet, Nolan chooses this backdrop to deliver a war movie that is as immersive as the D-Day landing in Saving Private Ryan. But the similarities end there.
Nolan uses three different vantage points each with a different time-line: The Mole, the rock wall protecting the harbor, over a full week; the Air over the course of only an hour; and the Sea over a full day. All this is presented with typeface near the beginning of the film to help orient the viewer to what's being shown.
What is unique is that Nolan uses non-linear storytelling. By doing so, we become immersed in the events as though we are each of the characters. Similar to Memento or Interstellar, Nolan again shows confidence in the audience and we are rewarded for it. We won't find long lines of exposition to explain things. Neither does he ask for our emotions in conventional ways. Rather by utilizing visual angles, intense sound, and non-verbal cues, he urges us to become immersed in the story with these soldiers, pilots and merchant marines and day fisherman bringing home across the channel. In only one instance did I sense Nolan obviously building a crescendo of emotions at the events on the screen. Despite this, there is much to appreciate in this film.
Where many war movies generally depict impressive battlefield or theater heroism against great odds usually resulting in rescue or victory. Nolan delivers a more poignant look inside war from what Churchill also called a "colossal military disaster." Because of its unique look at war, it is definitely worth a look.
B+
Nolan uses three different vantage points each with a different time-line: The Mole, the rock wall protecting the harbor, over a full week; the Air over the course of only an hour; and the Sea over a full day. All this is presented with typeface near the beginning of the film to help orient the viewer to what's being shown.
What is unique is that Nolan uses non-linear storytelling. By doing so, we become immersed in the events as though we are each of the characters. Similar to Memento or Interstellar, Nolan again shows confidence in the audience and we are rewarded for it. We won't find long lines of exposition to explain things. Neither does he ask for our emotions in conventional ways. Rather by utilizing visual angles, intense sound, and non-verbal cues, he urges us to become immersed in the story with these soldiers, pilots and merchant marines and day fisherman bringing home across the channel. In only one instance did I sense Nolan obviously building a crescendo of emotions at the events on the screen. Despite this, there is much to appreciate in this film.
Where many war movies generally depict impressive battlefield or theater heroism against great odds usually resulting in rescue or victory. Nolan delivers a more poignant look inside war from what Churchill also called a "colossal military disaster." Because of its unique look at war, it is definitely worth a look.
B+
Baby Driver
(2017)
Tightly edited and stylishly presented, but not my cup of tea...
5 July 2017
I found elements of music video sequences, Grand Theft Auto shootouts/robberies, and slick and exciting car chase/escape scenes that appear to be actual stunt work and little CGI in Edgar Wright's opus. It contains impressive performances by Jamie Foxx, Jon Hamm, and Lily James. And Kevin Spacey brought a gravitas that was a little more than OK, but nothing like his Verbal from Usual Suspects; more like Hopper from A Bugs Life (and that isn't a poke). Nonetheless, Elgort's take on the young getaway driver indebted to Spacey's crime boss "Doc" didn't go deep enough for me to really feel for the character's plight.
Wright does many things right in setting up the story and conflict. No scene is wasted; there are no Chekov's guns; there isn't one line of dialogue that comes across as completely unnecessary. Yet, I couldn't get attached to the characters enough to either enjoy the ride or care for the outcomes.
While leaving the theater with my 19yo son, I was reminded of how much I liked Mad Max Fury Road and for what? It was a hell of an action flick with colorful and bold characters but without a compelling story arc. At least Edgar Wright fleshed out a story that carries the film more. But, though my 19yo son really dug this one (he was "eh" on Fury Road though understood my love of it), I just didn't enjoy this cup of tea...or rather cup of coffee.
Still B+ for good editing, action and acting.
Wright does many things right in setting up the story and conflict. No scene is wasted; there are no Chekov's guns; there isn't one line of dialogue that comes across as completely unnecessary. Yet, I couldn't get attached to the characters enough to either enjoy the ride or care for the outcomes.
While leaving the theater with my 19yo son, I was reminded of how much I liked Mad Max Fury Road and for what? It was a hell of an action flick with colorful and bold characters but without a compelling story arc. At least Edgar Wright fleshed out a story that carries the film more. But, though my 19yo son really dug this one (he was "eh" on Fury Road though understood my love of it), I just didn't enjoy this cup of tea...or rather cup of coffee.
Still B+ for good editing, action and acting.
Wonder Woman
(2017)
Best DCEU film to date
25 June 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I should preface this review by admitting (or rather confirming) I was one of the few who actually liked and would recommend Man of Steel. I appreciated the flashback look at the origin story. In addition, I found the darker thematic elements more akin to the Dark Knight trilogy of Nolan. While I wouldn't agree it hit on all cylinders like those did, I found it a good take on Kal-El of Krypton. And in Wonder Woman, we are again treated to an idyllic origin story that involves an island of beautiful Amazonian women. I'm just not quite sure it could get any better than that. Right?
While the movie does earn the title to this review, it unfortunately did not "get any better than it's 'origin'. The peak of the movie does happen within the first 30min with an impressive beach battle scene involving these Amazons against the Germans of the first World War. It's thrilling, well choreographed and has consequences. It sets the table for a good movie to come, and in some respects, may have raised expectations too high for some.
I stand by my title, that this is the best of the DCEU films, but let's face it, other than the Nolan Batman trilogy (not counted in the DCEU here) it doesn't have a significantly high bar to win that award. But it does entertain with humor, action and a message of believing in what's right. There are some heroic moments for our protagonist. And there is a bit of a plot twist that might surprise. It isn't all bad. But, it also isn't "all" good. It has some plot contrivances and missteps that hinder a glowing recommendation from this reviewer. Having offered that up, I will still add it to my collection. Gal Gadot, though not the strongest actor on the screen, did enough to earn the tiara she wears. But she is overshadowed by stronger talent around her both on Themyscira (Connie Nielsen & Robin Wright) and in London (Chris Pine).
It is the talent around Gadot, the wonderful cinematography early in the film, and the steady progression of the story to its end that helps me recommend this movie.
Grade B-
While the movie does earn the title to this review, it unfortunately did not "get any better than it's 'origin'. The peak of the movie does happen within the first 30min with an impressive beach battle scene involving these Amazons against the Germans of the first World War. It's thrilling, well choreographed and has consequences. It sets the table for a good movie to come, and in some respects, may have raised expectations too high for some.
I stand by my title, that this is the best of the DCEU films, but let's face it, other than the Nolan Batman trilogy (not counted in the DCEU here) it doesn't have a significantly high bar to win that award. But it does entertain with humor, action and a message of believing in what's right. There are some heroic moments for our protagonist. And there is a bit of a plot twist that might surprise. It isn't all bad. But, it also isn't "all" good. It has some plot contrivances and missteps that hinder a glowing recommendation from this reviewer. Having offered that up, I will still add it to my collection. Gal Gadot, though not the strongest actor on the screen, did enough to earn the tiara she wears. But she is overshadowed by stronger talent around her both on Themyscira (Connie Nielsen & Robin Wright) and in London (Chris Pine).
It is the talent around Gadot, the wonderful cinematography early in the film, and the steady progression of the story to its end that helps me recommend this movie.
Grade B-
Entertaining but not as surprisingly good as Vol 1
10 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Is this movie entertaining? Absolutely. The color-palette is gorgeous. The action is easy to follow. The story is as well. It deepens our understanding of the characters that we met in the first movie. And it's funny. In fact, from the beginning of the movie, we're fed the information that this film is going for fun, laughs and action. It is no surprise, therefore, that that's all we get. A 137 minute (and you better stay for all 137 credits and all, you don't want to miss any of the 5 post credit scenes) romp through 700 galaxies (or at least a few of them) to get to know the meaning of who your family really is.
What was a surprise was that this movie pushed significantly harder against the PG-13 rating than most of the other films. I found some of the violence against bad-guys a little harsh. Additionally, I thought the references to sex-bots, fornication on a universe scale, and the references to a god's (little "g") manhood a little out of place, unnecessary even to the overall plot of the film. It seemed the deliberate marketing of Baby-Groot and the "Disney-fication" of the MCU would entice 12, 10, perhaps even 8 year old to the seats. I didn't find these to be easily pushed aside for those ages in post-movie discussions. In addition, I thought the reach for sentimentality at the conclusion of the movie, while effective in many ways, lost its edge for me in light of the cantankerous and callous treatment of the above issues by the script and characters within.
I will recommend the film. But I'm a bit disappointed it didn't effectively reach a higher bar standing on the shoulders of its predecessor. It should have in my opinion. And I'm afraid it won't hold up as well to repeat viewings. It's in the top third of the MCU of movies with CA: Winter Soldier, CA: Civil War, Iron Man, and the first GotG. I was kinda hoping it would've been in the top 3.
What was a surprise was that this movie pushed significantly harder against the PG-13 rating than most of the other films. I found some of the violence against bad-guys a little harsh. Additionally, I thought the references to sex-bots, fornication on a universe scale, and the references to a god's (little "g") manhood a little out of place, unnecessary even to the overall plot of the film. It seemed the deliberate marketing of Baby-Groot and the "Disney-fication" of the MCU would entice 12, 10, perhaps even 8 year old to the seats. I didn't find these to be easily pushed aside for those ages in post-movie discussions. In addition, I thought the reach for sentimentality at the conclusion of the movie, while effective in many ways, lost its edge for me in light of the cantankerous and callous treatment of the above issues by the script and characters within.
I will recommend the film. But I'm a bit disappointed it didn't effectively reach a higher bar standing on the shoulders of its predecessor. It should have in my opinion. And I'm afraid it won't hold up as well to repeat viewings. It's in the top third of the MCU of movies with CA: Winter Soldier, CA: Civil War, Iron Man, and the first GotG. I was kinda hoping it would've been in the top 3.
Star Trek Beyond
(2016)
Good, but not spectacular
4 August 2016
Solid in many ways as a fun action oriented Star Trek movie. My biggest problem was with what I perceived to be a lack of credible motivation for the villain. Idris Elba is a presence on screen that typically commands my attention. He oftentimes brings a gravitas to roles that supersede the writing. But here, he struggles through a less than satisfying explanation for why he's doing what he's doing. Nevertheless, this doesn't altogether detract from a fun time.
Jaylah, played by Sofia Boutella (from Kingsman: Secret Service), was a welcome addition to the cast, yet peculiar in the sense she serves mainly to explain the rules of the narrative conflict and helps assist our protagonists through their struggle. But she was formidable as a strong female action star and I found her unique look to have a sexiness I didn't expect. Saying that, I was very happy they did not draw an obvious romantic involvement with any of our regular crew members.
Finally, I think it was interesting that the script included some real world connections. Nimoy's death was handled poignantly especially given that Yelchin also lost his life prior to this movie's premier. I even thought I noticed a subtle nod to this fact when the crew is toasting each other and those that had been lost, the camera quickly shows Yelchin's character, Chekov lifting his glass. Finally, Sulu's character is given depth when he greets his family on a space station. A real world connection to Takei (the original Sulu)? Perhaps it wasn't necessary to do this, but I value the effort to build character.
Overall, the story gave each crew member a vital role to play, satisfying one of the themes--"we are stronger in numbers when we work together". It was fun, fast, and (dare I add) furious in its action.
Worthy effort Grade B #recommend
Jaylah, played by Sofia Boutella (from Kingsman: Secret Service), was a welcome addition to the cast, yet peculiar in the sense she serves mainly to explain the rules of the narrative conflict and helps assist our protagonists through their struggle. But she was formidable as a strong female action star and I found her unique look to have a sexiness I didn't expect. Saying that, I was very happy they did not draw an obvious romantic involvement with any of our regular crew members.
Finally, I think it was interesting that the script included some real world connections. Nimoy's death was handled poignantly especially given that Yelchin also lost his life prior to this movie's premier. I even thought I noticed a subtle nod to this fact when the crew is toasting each other and those that had been lost, the camera quickly shows Yelchin's character, Chekov lifting his glass. Finally, Sulu's character is given depth when he greets his family on a space station. A real world connection to Takei (the original Sulu)? Perhaps it wasn't necessary to do this, but I value the effort to build character.
Overall, the story gave each crew member a vital role to play, satisfying one of the themes--"we are stronger in numbers when we work together". It was fun, fast, and (dare I add) furious in its action.
Worthy effort Grade B #recommend
Tell Your Friends