Saturday, August 8, 2015

Movie Review: Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation

By now, you should have seen the trailers for the upcoming Bond film, Spectre, which is essentially a re-imagining of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, arguably the best movie in the franchise. In short, Bond is pitted against the leader of a world-wide criminal organization. It's super-spy versus a contemporary Moriarty, fighting for the future of the world.

Spectre, whether it turns out good or bad, looks gritty and tense. It almost looks like it's in continuity with Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy.

Rogue Nation feels like the exact same premise got handed to Marvel. And I do mean the exact same premise: the producers dug up "The Syndicate," a criminal organization from the last season of the Mission Impossible TV series, and upgraded them to a world-wide organization more or less indistinguishable from Spectre. Then they created a leader who serves as a stand-in for Blofeld. Oh, and they beat their competitors to the theaters by three months.

But while Spectre looks like The Dark Knight, this has more of an Avengers vibe. It's action-packed, humorous, and exciting. There's very little character development, and the scenes without knife fights, high speed chases, and dramatic stunts are clearly present for pacing.

And that pacing is goddamn meticulous. This movie is astonishingly well constructed. When something exciting isn't happening, the space serves only to offer the briefest of pauses. They're like short breathers between songs on a CD: if you try running to the bathroom when one action scene ends, you're liable to miss two more.

Do not attempt to use the bathroom or buy popcorn during this movie. You are guaranteed to miss something awesome.

The plot makes just enough sense to prevent the audience from feeling like they're throwing a series of random action scenes at them, even when they are clearly just throwing random action scenes at us. There are plot holes, sure, but you will absolutely not care about them.

This is one of those movies that's aimed at the nine year-old in us all that loved spy movies but wished they'd skip past the boring stuff and get to the exploding motorcycles. There is no boring stuff in this movie. None.

Hell, even the theme feels like it's geared towards kids. "Friends are important" is more or less what the movie tells us, the same message you'd get watching My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. Again, will you mind? Not for a minute: anything more complex might have required more than ninety seconds of exposition between gun fights.

This movie features Tom Cruise playing a far better action hero than he's ever managed in his life, all while being constantly outdone by Rebecca Ferguson, who makes a far more compelling argument that she should take over than Jeremy Renner ever has (though he's good in this, too). Ferguson's character is fantastic, though that might have bought them more goodwill if she hadn't been the only female character in the movie (I'm not counting the record store clerk: she never even got a name).

I think there's also an argument to be made this glorifies violence. It features quite a bit, some with rather brutal implications, but absolutely no unpleasant visuals. Depending on where you sit on that issue, you may or may not be bothered. Probably not, though, since it's hard to harbor ill-will towards this one: it's just too much fun to watch.

In short, it's an unapologetic spy adventure that prioritizes excitement over all else. It's mindless summer fun elevated to an art of choreography, editing, and stunt work. Check it out if you haven't already.

Sunday, July 19, 2015

Movie Review: Ant-Man

Miraculously, it looks we're wrapping up Phase 2 on a positive note. After the departure of Edgar Wright, a lot of us were ready to write this one off. But, despite studio interference and script rewrites, the movie delivered a solid, entertaining experience. It was a fun, humorous superhero heist movie.

The movie wasn't perfect by a long stretch. First, it was the wrong movie. Even the filmmakers seemed to acknowledge that a Wasp movie would have made more sense, particularly given the back-story they went with. They redeem this as well as could be expected, short of changing the premise: Evangeline Lilly's Hope Van Dyne is a fantastic character, and the brief allusions and connections to her legacy are among the film's best moments. Rudd does a fine job as Lang, but his character is clearly the least interesting of the three leads.

In addition, the film could have used a bit more style. It plays like a comedy/adventure, and if there was ever an opportunity to deliver an Ocean's Eleven style heist movie, this was it. But it's hard to be too bothered by the missed opportunity when they delivered a solidly entertaining product.

I'm unsure whether to applaud or criticize the film's formula. It plays out almost beat-for-beat like the first Iron Man. Laziness or loving homage: it's all in the eye of the beholder.

Less ambiguous was the choice of Michael Douglass as an aged Hank Pym (and while we're on the subject, kudos to the effects team for delivering a near-perfect not-so-aged Pym in the opening scene). This certainly wasn't any version of Pym I know from the comics, but I thought the revision worked beautifully.

In the scheme of Phase 2, this was nowhere near as good as Guardians of the Galaxy or Winter Soldier, but I found it a more satisfying experience than The Dark World, Iron Man 3, or Age of Ultron. That's not to say there weren't elements of those movies that were superior to this, but - taken as a whole - I think this one works better.

This isn't the best of the summer, and it's not going to top fan's favorite Marvel movies lists, but as an installment in the series, it left me entertained and eager for more stories with these characters.

Friday, June 19, 2015

Movie Review: Inside Out

Before Inside Out starts, Pixar screens a short movie, like they always do. This one's called "Lava," and while it's sort of cute at times, over all it's derivative and a little cloying.

This will end the critical portion of this review.

After watching Inside Out, I have no idea whether we're seeing a long-term return to form for Pixar or just a one-off throwback, but I feel secure saying it's up there with the studio's best works. It is hilariously funny and impossibly sad, a complex and thoughtful exploration of depression and emotional turmoil. It is, in short, an absolutely phenomenal movie.

It kind of had to be, because unlike Cars 2 and Monsters University, this one's not likely to make a killing at box office. Sure, it'll turn a profit, but not on the magnitude of their franchise films. And they must have known that when they green-lit it, which means Inside Out is either a labor of love or an attempt to polish the studio's reputation. I don't know or care which: I'm just grateful to have the movie.

Perhaps the most impressive aspect of Inside Out is that, despite being as good as Pixar's established classics, it represents a completely different direction. The story told is much smaller in scope than their usual epics, and it pays homage to entirely different eras and styles than they're typically known for. In addition, it's the second Pixar movie to focus predominantly on female leads, which helps differentiate it further.

That's not to say this doesn't feel like Pixar: the animation retains the studio's style, the music choices, and even the recurring voice talent serves as a fingerprint. But there's something fresh about this one that's been missing from the studio for a few years.

There's a lot more I could go into: the brilliant use of color, the wise choice to forego an unnecessary antagonist, the great voice work, or just the fact they managed to make a movie where the physical incarnation of disgust played a key role without relying on a single cheap gross-out sequence.... You get the idea.

Ultimately, though, I don't have much to say. This one's absolutely worth your time: check it out as soon as possible.

Welcome back, Pixar: we missed you.

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Movie Review: Jurassic World

Like the much maligned Superman Returns, Jurassic World is, first and foremost, an homage to the original. Unlike Superman Returns, Jurassic World just made more than 500 million dollars in one weekend.

The movie is fun, but ultimately redundant. I'm not just talking about the premise being a repeat of part one's, either: a number of elements are borrowed from other installments, and there are quite a few nods to other classic genre films, as well.

But the T-Rex's share of references and retreads were definitely from Jurassic Park. I almost wished they just done this as a reboot: just re-imagine the premise of part one where the catastrophe happens after the park opens instead of before. That's basically the movie they made, anyway.

Ultimately, I left having enjoyed the movie, but I didn't feel like I'd been shown anything new. If this had been a story-driven film, that wouldn't be a big deal, but in a summer blockbuster, I feel like we should be able to expect more surprises.

For what it's worth, Jurassic World does a decent job giving its characters individual arcs. Pratt definitely comes away feeling like the movie's action hero, though it's worth noting that Howard's character actually got a more fulfilling story arc.

The action sequences themselves were well constructed, though artificial. This comes off feeling one step away from animated, and I almost wish they'd just taken that last step. There were quite a few scenes where the disconnect between live-action sets and actors and obviously computer-generated creatures was jarring: why not replace the sets and people and remove the issue?

The movie's exciting, though not really scary. I'd have preferred if they'd pushed the boundaries of PG-13 a little more aggressively: the film has a tendency to shy away from darker elements. The most egregious example is the magically disappearing children: early on, we're shown that about 50% of the park's guests are minors, but everyone under the age of 30 is conspicuously absent when the dinosaurs attack.

I kind of wish I'd seen this before learning that this beat out The Avengers for the highest grossing opening of the past 13.82 billion years. It's not really fair to expect it to live up to those kinds of numbers. The movie accomplishes what it sets out to do: deliver a fun, family-friendly adventure homage to Jurassic Park. That should probably be enough, but I certainly wanted more.

Maybe we'll see them step up their game in the sequel. I'm still holding out hope for Jurassic World War: let's stop playing around on these islands and take this concept global already.

Saturday, May 30, 2015

Give Us Your Worst, Part 26: Tank Girl

Welcome back to the twenty-sixth installment in our never-ending series looking through the back issue bins at some of the least respected, least loved comic book adaptations of all time.

I was in high school the first time I watched this, and I remember thinking it was pointless and idiotic. But that was a long time ago, and I certainly don't trust my memories or taste from that era. Besides, I've seen quite a few defenses of this movie since then, so I decided to see if it was better than I remembered.

I went in with an open mind, which ended up being a big mistake.

The premise is pretty straightforward post-apocalyptic fare. Governments crumbled, the world went crazy, evil corporate stand-ins run what remains of civilizations... you get the idea. Success or failure in this genre almost always comes down to the skill and vision of the director. Six String Samurai managed to deliver something great with one tenth Tank Girl's budget.

Tank Girl is, of course, based on a comic series from the late 80's and early 90's. I've never read an issue, but my understanding is that it's more or less built on punk sensibilities from the era. That's certainly what they tried to put on screen. The titular character is spastic, angry, and rebellious, though it's not actually clear what she's rebelling against or why. That's... pretty much inline with what I remember about the punk movement in the 1990's, actually.

The movie's villain is a ludicrously evil stand-in for the cruel, corporate stereotype once unironically referred to as "The Man." There's no rhyme or reason for his sadism, which is cartoonishly excessive. Oddly enough, there actually isn't any indication the world would be better off without him. If his company is generating water for this civilization, isn't its existence a net positive?

There's no depth or exploration of any of this here. Excluding slave labor, his company is staffed almost exclusively with expendable men in order to remove any lingering moral qualms over their deaths (he employs at least one woman, but he has her killed to demonstrate just how evil he is). Oh, and the men are extremely prone to threatening sexual violence against enslaved women. They're not alone, though: almost every male character - including allies and protagonists - attempts to exploit or sexually assault the two lead women, but when good guys do it, it's played off as clever banter.

I think they somehow wanted this to feel empowering, but it just comes off as exploitative.

A lot of the movie's apologists focus on the fact it's centered around two female characters who exercise agency and push the plot forward. While technically true, it's worth noting that, on their own, they're not particularly effective. Really, the movie's plot is resolved by a half-dozen male mutants, who are all stronger and faster than Tank Girl.

The movie tries to be subversive, but it's not clear what it's trying to subvert. Any environmental or anti-capitalist arguments come off as childish whining: if anything, sitting through this makes me more likely to go buy a bottled water.

Gender stereotypes? Tank Girl is given free range to psychotically kill her enemies without repercussions, a role typically reserved for male action heroes, so there's something to that. But this loses any real impact due to the movie's refusal to take anything seriously. The main character's friends and loved ones are killed before her eyes, and the sequence still plays out comically. She's threatened with rape and assault, but she seems to find the situation amusing. I suspect they were trying to invert the dynamic on who retained power, but the final result feels more like they're making light of these things.

Tonally, the movie is an incoherent mess. It's clearly trying to be surreal and funny, shocking and bizarre. Once or twice, it even succeeds, but the rest of the time it just feels sloppy and immature. The film clearly thinks it's hilarious that bad guys always miss and good guys always hit their targets: I think that joke was dead by the end of the 80's. Instead of coming off as clever, it sucks any tension or suspense out of the fights. When they try wedging in more outlandish gags (i.e.: Tank Girl grilling sausages in the middle of a gun fight), it just falls flat. When cartoon characters pull antics like that, there's pacing and a sense of the absurd. Here, they knew what they wanted to accomplish, but clearly didn't understand how to make it work.

Speaking of cartoons, there are a few short animated bits interspersed throughout the movie which actually are fun to watch, but mostly they beg the question why the whole movie wasn't made that way. There's also a random musical number stuck in the middle of the film as a joke reminiscent of the similar number in The Mask (which came out the year before, by the way). Only it worked in The Mask, and here... it was just embarrassing. Again, they wanted zany but got idiotic.

All of this is despite the two leads, Lori Petty and Naomi Watts, who clearly tried their best to deliver a worthwhile performance. Petty, in particular, attempts to own the twisted tone of the film and make this into something worth watching. If the director, cinematographer, and designers had a fraction of her skill and dedication, I think it could have been a very different movie. The movie had some real talent in front of the camera: it's a shame those behind the scenes squandered it.

Thanks to Petty, Watts, and the animated interludes, this is actually just barely in the better half of the twenty-six movies I've sat through for this series. It's also the second-best theatrically released superhero film with a female lead, right behind Halle Berry's campy Catwoman, but that's only because the other three were abysmally bad.

It'd be easy to say this was an overlong music video masquerading as a movie, but that's not quite right. This wanted to feel like an hour-and-half music video; but frankly, it couldn't pull it off.

Friday, May 15, 2015

Movie Review: Mad Max: Fury Road

It wasn't that long ago I predicted this would fall somewhere around 45% on the Tomatometer, based on the amount of time that's passed between Beyond Thunderdome and this, as well as the ominous mid-May release date. I assume I don't need to tell you the film's more than doubled that with 98%. That's got to be some kind of record: I can't think of another R-rated 3rd sequel to a sci-fi movie which is that universally respected.

The film is, of course, pretty great. A sort of heavy metal return to classic epic filmmaking. A nuanced blend of a cartoonish setting that inexplicably retains more weight and substance than any recent film I can think of. A movie that trusts its leads to build complex characters through quiet reflection while cars blow up and bodies fly.

A film franchise named for and built around a male power fantasy that turns its attention to a female lead and makes us wonder whether Max was even real.

It's about damn time Theron got a chance to headline a science-fiction action movie that wasn't Aeon Flux. Given solid material, she demonstrates that she's in the absolute top-tier of this generation's action stars. Somebody get her a goddamn comic book franchise or something stat. She is badass in this thing, and yet she retains her humanity.

Hardy was pretty good as a stand in for Gibson, though the character's instability felt more forced. Structurally, his role was almost comic-relief, though that's a misleading description tonally. He was more a catalyst than agent, an innovative direction that served the film well.

The remainder of the human cast was comprised of a fascinating and bizarre assortment of mutants, sociopaths, and fanatics. They had some serious competition from the vehicles, though, which deserve equal billing.

Structurally, the film's plot was more constrained. Really, you're watching a sequence that would have taken maybe twenty minutes of an earlier Mad Max movie stretched into two hours. It never once felt long, though: the decompression allowed them to explore the world's depth rather than its breadth. The film never dwells on the religious, political, or cultural ideas it raises, but wisely weaves these throughout the run time. By the time the end credits roll, you have a broad sense of how these people live and what it means, but it's tough to point to individual sequences and credit them with the insight.

It's a beautiful movie full of action, comedy, and thought. Throw Speed Racer into a blender with Conan: The Barbarian and the previous three Mad Max films, and you'll get a sense of what they were going for here, though I don't really think that covers it.

Obviously, you need to see this on the big screen, if for no other reason than to see for yourself how the hell a 70 year-old director returns to the property that made him famous three decades after his last attempt and pulls off a critical response that would make Pixar envious.

In Australia, apparently making a movie like this is what passes for retirement.

Saturday, May 2, 2015

The Issue with Age of Ultron

At this point, I think there's more or less a consensus on Age of Ultron. As a collection of action sequences and jokes, it was a lot of fun. But as a cohesive story, it falls flat. That was certainly my take, and - based on a quick glance at the blurbs on Rotten Tomatoes - it seems to reflect what most critics thought.

Since I saw the movie, I've been thinking a lot about where it went wrong, and I've come up with a surprising conclusion. The way I see it, the main problem with Age of Ultron wasn't actually in Age of Ultron. I think it started in Iron Man 3.

Age of Ultron was too busy. It had too many characters and plot points to introduce, and it wound up stuffing two movies' worth of content into a single film. The thing is, they had a lot more than two movies to work with. Phase Two of the Marvel Cinematic Universe consisted of five movies (six, counting the upcoming Ant-Man), two seasons of Agents of SHIELD, and mini-seasons of Agent Carter and Daredevil.

Building an interconnected world on this scale requires multi-dimensional story telling. A Marvel movie needs to work as a self-contained chapter, as well as a part (or, in the case of Age of Ultron, a culmination) of one or more larger stories. Ideally, Age of Ultron would have worked on at least three different levels: a stand-alone story about established characters, a conclusion to "Phase Two", and the middle chapter of the Infinity War story. Oh, and might as well wrap up an arc encompassing Phase One and Two.

I'd argue it was a better cap to Phases One and Two than two alone, and it didn't really deliver a satisfying self-contained movie. Whether it works as a chapter in the Infinity War Saga remains to be seen, but it certainly seems to have pulled its weight in terms of set-up.

But if they'd played their cards right from the start, I think the studio could have managed it all. They had plenty of space to develop the concepts they wanted to tell without it feeling cramped, but they didn't use their screen time to its fullest.

Iron Man 3 was the biggest missed opportunity. Without changing anything substantial, they could easily have used that film to introduce Ultron as a concept, simply by replacing the small army of AI suits with a small army of AI Ultron units. Change the "House Party" protocol to him activating a swarm of Ultron bots, and you could have set up the concept - and even the character - of Ultron two years before he turned on Tony. The whole Ultron thing wouldn't have felt nearly as rushed, leaving them with more time to expand the twins and Vision.

In their defense, Marvel was making Iron Man 3 before Avengers came out, so they can be forgiven for wanting to hedge their bets on the strengths of their shared universe. The first movie that started production after Avengers's success was Winter Soldier, the one movie in Phase Two that integrated qualities of both the shared universe and stand-alone movies. Based on what we've heard about Phase Three, Winter Soldier is probably going to be the template for stand-alones based off of established Avengers characters.

There was another missed opportunity, and that revolves around Agents of SHIELD. After a rough first season, the series has hit its stride. The episodes are pretty consistently fun, the characters are strong, and the writing is sharp.

This is a good show, but it's kind of wasted. I can understand why Disney didn't want them giving away the Hydra reveal before Winter Soldier came out, but for the life of me I can't fathom why Baron Strucker wasn't the season 2 villain. His bit part in Age of Ultron could have carried some weight if he'd been used in the show. Instead, he came off as an Easter Egg.

There's a lot of potential in Agents of SHIELD: the team clearly has the talent to turn out great work. Marvel should let them play a bigger part in the connected universe.

Phase Three's in a good place, even with the issues at the end of Phase Two. This is all new territory for film, and Marvel is still ahead of the curve. I just hope they learn from their mistakes, because they've certainly made a few.