If there’s one thing that Disney has managed to perfect over it’s long history, it’s being able to bring classic fairy tales to the big screen.  Starting with their beloved first film, Snow White and the Seven Dwarves (1937) all the way up to their recent megahit Frozen (2013), Disney Animation has proven time and again to be the go to people for traditional fairy tale entertainment. And it’s easy to see why.  Fairy tales lend themselves perfectly to the animated medium, which perfectly renders all the flights of fantasy to its fullest potential without having to live by the rules of the real world.  But, given the success of some of Disney’s films over the years, there also comes the pressure of having to top that success with something better. Walt Disney was strongly resistant to creating sequels to his movies, instead choosing to look ahead to the next project, which meant that most of Disney’s animated output was made up of one and done story lines, and not all of them were huge successes right away.  It’s been a practice that Disney Animation has mostly stuck to long after Walt’s time, which has been beneficial for them since it’s allowed them to grow their stable of characters every year, instead of just rehashing the same ones to the point of irrelevance. But, in order to keep some of their old classics still fresh in people’s minds, Disney has also taken the sometimes controversial step of remaking their films, but in the live action medium. This has developed mostly in recent years, and unfortunately the end results have been mixed.  Though the movies have done well at the box office, the quality of the storytelling is usually subpar, at least compared to the originals.  Some are merely just okay, like 1996’s slapsticky 101 Dalmatians, or misguidedly dark and unappealing like 2010’s Alice in Wonderland or 2014’s Maleficent.  Because these movies have done well despite the negative reviews, it has convinced Disney to look to even more of it’s classics to be given over to the live action medium regardless of the outcome.  And this year’s newest entry to the field is a remake of their 1950 classic Cinderella.

Now, if you’ve read my review of last year’s Maleficent, you’ll know that I’m not too happy with these recent remakes of Disney classics. In particular, I hate the way that they’re taking the original stories and try to force some kind of “edginess” into it.  While this was a nuisance in Tim Burton’s Alice remake, it can be seen as understandable given Burton’s style. Maleficent on the other hand made the big mistake of trying to force an action adventure narrative into a traditional fairy tale, and try the not-so-clever spin of reversing the roles of the heroes and villains. That plan backfired with the new takes on the characters never quite carrying the film and leaving the whole picture a disgraceful shell of what had come before.  Mainly the problem with these movies is that they do what is commonly seen as the cliched trope of making the heroines in these stories edgier by putting a sword in their hands. This is an unfortunate by product of the success of movie series like The Lord of the Rings and Narnia, which has led to the mistaken belief in Hollywood that every fantasy film needs to have an epic battle scene in it, whether it’s there in the original story of not.  And Disney is not alone having fallen into this trap; Universal made the same assumption when they released their own “edgy” fairy tale Snow White and the Huntsman (2013).  So, it actually comes as a blessing when watching Disney’s new film Cinderella, because it avoids that cliche completely, and ends up making the story work well on its own merits.

The story should be familiar to anyone who has heard the original fairy tale, or has seen Disney’s original animated version. Young Ella (Lily James) grows up in a happy upper middle class household in a fictional, unnamed European kingdom. When her mother suddenly is taken ill and passes away, she and her father try to cope with the loss in the best way possible. In time, Ella’s father decides to remarry, bringing in the vain and greedy Lady Tremaine (Cate Blanchett) into the household, along with her two ugly daughters Anastasia and Drisella (Sophie McShera and Holliday Grainger).  Not long after, Ella’s father also dies unexpectedly, and Lady Tremaine begins to take charge of the home, forcing Ella into servitude in her own home. In order to keep warm at night, Ella sleeps by the fire and ends up with cinder soot all over her skin, leading the stepsisters to jokingly call her Cinderella.  Soon, all Cinderella has for company are her animal companions, whom she carries on one-way conversations with. But, that changes all maidens in the land are invited to attend a ball at the palace, as a means to help the Prince (Richard Madden) choose a bride.   Lady Tremaine forbids Cinderella from going, but with the help of Cinderella’s Fairy Godmother (Helena Bonham Carter), she manages to go anyway.  The rest of the story is wha you’d expect, including the significance of Cinderella’s iconic glass slippers.

This new version of Cinderella on the surface doesn’t look like anything special. And on paper, I’m sure that’s how it would appear as well. It doesn’t do anything groundbreaking or original with the story.  It just follows the blueprint without deviation. And surprisingly, that’s what makes it work in the end.  This movie is a wonderful retelling of the classic fairy tale, with all the familiar pieces in tact with no needless and distracting additions.  It’s almost so ordinary that it’s revolutionary.  After the boring and needlessly complicated plots of Alice in Wonderland and Maleficent, it’s nice to see Disney actually deliver a worthy remake this time around.  I believe that a big part of why this movie works so well is the combination of a smart and witty script by Chris Weitz (American Pie and About a Boy) and imaginative direction by Kenneth Branagh. Weitz in particular had the daunting task of trying to bring new life into an already too familiar storyline, and he managed to pull it off by not trying to make it too complicated.  It’s a simple retelling that’s avoids the pitfalls of adding too much plot detail, and instead leaves more room for the things that matter in a script, like character development as well as a healthy helping of wit and charm. Kenneth Branagh also feels right at home with this material. Famously known for his lavish Shakespearean productions, Branagh brings a strong sense of visual splendor to his film, while never losing track of the characters or the story either.  Together, the director and the writer make familiarity a great asset with this story and present Cinderella with all the grace it deserves.

Probably the biggest reason why the movie works so well, beyond how well it is written, is its visual extravagance. This movie is a stunning visual treat. It’s not surprising given that Kenneth Branagh is behind this film, since he brings almost operatic grandeur to every production he does, whether it’s his four hour long staging of Hamlet (1996), or his venture into the Marvel cinematic universe with Thor (2011). Cinderella continues that stellar track record with colorful cinematography and eye-catching production design. The ball scene alone is an unrivaled visual feast.  But, even with the incredible work put into the production, it doesn’t overwhelm either. The film manages to keep itself firmly grounded and doesn’t try to distract you with its visuals either. Really, some of the best parts of the movie actually take place in some of the darker settings, like a late confrontation between Cinderella and her step-mother in the attic, which has a nice gloomy atmosphere to it. But, when the film calls for it, the epic grandeur delivers beautifully.  It also takes its cues from the classic Disney version as well, trying to match some of its most standout visual moments in th same way. There’s a scene when Cinderella arrives at the ball which calls to mind the same moment from the animated film.   It’s not trying to copy it shot for shot, but rather invoke the same sense of wonder, and it manages to do it very well.  The production design and costumes were done by multi award winning veterans Dante Ferretti and Sandy Powell, and Cinderella represents the two working at their highest level.

Anoter thing that helps to make the movie work especially well is the performances.  One of the saving graces for most of Disney’s live action remakes has been their castings, especially in the villain roles.  Glenn Close delivered a delightfully over-the-top performance as Cruella de Vil in 101 Dalmatians, while Angelina Jolie’s Maleficent was that movie’s only redeemable feature.  In Cinderella, the cast is top to bottom exceptionally well-rounded, especially with the two leads.  Lily James (who’s been recently seen on Downton Abbey) manages to bring a lot of depth to a character that’s notoriously hard to get right in a performance.  How do you make such a subservient character relatable and complex? In this film, Cinderella is instilled with the lesson of having strength through kindness, and it’s a character trait that Ms. James perfectly brings out in the character.  She remains kind and noble, even against overwhelming hatred, and that’s where her strength as a character comes alive.  But, even she is overshadowed in the movie by a knockout performance by Cate Blanchett as the villainous Lady Tremaine.  Blanchett shows once again why she is one of our greatest living actresses by taking on the role of the wicked stepmother that we all know, but also finding the depth behind that villainy as well.  She chews up the scenery like nobody’s business and commands every moment.  Naturally, she’s a big name that Disney always tries to go for with these important character roles, and it’s nice to see she’s not wasted here. The rest of the cast also is very strong. The two step sisters are hilariously over-the-top, and Helena Bonham Carter manages to deliver a nice subdued turn as the charming Fairy Godmother.  And speaking of charming, Richard Madden (of Game of Thornes fame) is able to make the most of a character who has very often been underwritten in most retellings of the story, including the animated version. His Prince character actually is given a worthy arc to go along with the story that compliments Cinderella’s story very nicely.

If the film has a flaw at all, it might be with some of the visual effects. The grounded visuals of the film, which relies heavily on practical sets, are so well done, that it actually becomes distracting when you see an out-of-place CGI effect put into place. Not all the visual effects are terrible though. Some of the set extensions are stunning to look at, and there is a jaw-droppingly gorgeous moment when Cinderella’s dress is transformed by the Fairy Godmother into the ball gown. But what doesn’t work so well is the animation used on the animal characters, particularly the mice.  I know the mice where important characters in the original film, and their presence her is a nice nod to the classic. But, the film here chooses to portray them as realistic looking mice, animated through CGI. Unfortunately, as hard as they tried, the animators could not pull off the trick. The CGI mice still just look too fake, and unfortunately lack personality.  The animation looks even more distracting later in the film when the animals are transformed into Cinderella’s coach horses and footmen.  The end result just comes off as a bit too rubbery.  Still, I don’t fault the filmmakers so much as just the overwhelming reliance that the industry puts on CGI tinkering. For a film that does so well with practically built visuals, it’s somewhat unnecessary to include so much computer enhanced imagery.  It doesn’t spoil it too much; it just becomes something of a distraction over the course of an otherwise tightly controlled production.

Overall, I am very pleased to see Disney finally get the formula right for a change. After coming up short so many times before, it’s great to see a remake from the House of Mouse that is actually worthy and respectful to it’s source rather than exploitive. A lot of credit should go to director Kenneth Branagh, who brought his usual visual flair to a story that was perfectly suited for it, as well as to writer Chris Weitz who managed to bring a great deal of depth and wit to this retelling; something that the other fairy tale remakes have been lacking. As someone who grew up with the classic Disney versions of these fairy tales, and one who has been incredibly disappointed with the remakes so far, it pleases me enormously to see that Cinderella was given a worthy treatment. The story itself is simple and uncomplicated and it’s a pleasurable experience for all audiences. Clearly it’s targetted towards the young girl demographic, and it hits that target with sniper like accuracy, but audiences of all kinds will still find a lot to enjoy in this movie.  Of course, this won’t be Disney’s last live action adaptation of one of their animated classics.  Some of the adaptations do look promising (like Jon Favreau’s Jungle Book in 2016) while others are not so much (Tim Burton’s recently announced Dumbo remake).  At least now we have an example of how to do it right. So, if your nostalgic for some classic Disney storytelling, or just want to see a lavishly put together big screen fairy tale, then you should defiantly check out this new version of Cinderella.  It’s further proof that assured direction and thoughtful storytelling can indeed deliver something magical.

Rating: 8.5/10

Biopics have often been an awards season favorite for many years.  Considering that the motion picture Academy is made up mostly of veteran actors and actresses, it’s easy to see why they award so many of their peers when they take on a role of impersonating some great historical figure.  Sometimes that actor or actress pulls off the role in convincing fashion (like Daniel Day-Lewis in 2012’s Lincoln) or it can come off as phony and cartoonish (Leonardo DiCaprio in 2011’s J. Edgar). Clint Eastwood has developed a reputation as a director for bringing simple yet elegant techniques into his often very quiet yet endearing films, and some of his recent movies have indeed tackled real life subjects.  Some of his historical films have been interesting windows into both old and recent history, like 2006’s Letters From Iwo Jima and 2009’s Invictus.  But his record with biopics hasn’t been quite as strong.  His J. Edgar, for example, was a messy and convoluted take on the life of the notorious FBI founder, featuring Leonardo DiCaprio’s less than effective impersonation performed through some of the worst old-age make-up ever seen on film. Eastwood’s newest movie, American Sniper, again puts the director into the position of telling the story of a real life and controversial American icon, only this time, the end result is a much more assured and captivating story.  Recounting the true life story of Chris Kyle, a navy seal sniper credited with the most confirmed kills of any American serviceman in military history, Clint Eastwood has managed to craft a compelling account of the life of a modern American soldier, and how his experience is indicative of the world that we live in today and how it will continue into the future.

What’s most interesting about the movie itself is not the quality of its filmmaking; we already know that Clint Eastwood is capable enough to tackle this kind of material.  No, what’s really interesting is the subject himself.  Chris Kyle isn’t particularly the kind of person that Hollywood usually lionizes as a hero.  Kyle in real life was a staunch right-wing,  gun loving and militaristic Christian conservative; someone Hollywood would usually cast as the villain in their stories.  But Eastwood’s portrayal of the man is much more sympathetic towards the his life and is far more interested in showing the extraordinary things that he accomplished within and outside of combat.  Some more liberal audience members may find this kind of portrayal too reverential and off-putting, but I would argue that American Sniper is not a whitewash of a controversial figure either.  Though Easwood’s own personal politics do lean closer to Chris Kyle’s than to the rest of Hollywood, he still has been sharply critical of both Republican and Democratic administrations with regard to US policy in the Middle East, and some of that frustration comes out in a subtly drawn anti-war message behind this movie.   For Eastwood, the film is less about the combat and more about the side effects, particularly with regard to the psychological consciousness of those fighting in it.  And in this regard, Chris Kyle proves to be an ideal subject for examination and reflection of the cost of war.

Adapted from Chris Kyle’s own auto-biographical account of his war experiences, American Sniper covers nearly fifteen years of the man’s life; from his recruitment into the elite Navy Seals team to his post-war experience and his tragic assassination in 2013.  Chris Kyle (an almost unrecognizable Bradley Cooper) is first shown as a rodeo cowboy who is sprung into signing up for military service after seeing the embassy bombings in Africa and Afghanistan in the late 90’s. Hoping to push himself harder and closer to the front lines, Kyle signs up for the Navy Seals, and proves very quickly to be a reliable marksman shooter; a distinction that earns him the position of combat sniper in his unit. In the middle of his grueling basic training, he meets Taya (Sienna Miller) the woman who would become the love of his life, whom he marries just before heading off to his first tour of duty in Iraq.  While on tour, he quickly becomes a legend amongst his fellow soldiers, amassing a significant body count in his time there.  Once back home, Kyle welcomes the birth of his children, but also reveals to his wife an uneasy amount of bottled up tension.  Kyle, over time, becomes more and more obsessed with getting the job done over in the Middle East, which in turn causes him to feel more isolated and prone to erratic behavior, which puts both him and his units in far more precarious situations.  After four tours, Chris Kyle ends his time in Iraq and tries to settle into a normal life back home, which he soon finds to be increasingly difficult.  And part of that feeling of unease is built upon his belief that all his hard work still did not do enough, which then springs him into becoming an active voice for his fellow wounded soldiers, which in turn helps him to recover a bit of his own sanity.

Like I said before, Chris Kyle’s life is not one you would usually see given such a complex and compassionate treatment.  If given to someone on either extreme on the political spectrum, American Sniper could have become a far less effective biography of an interesting individual.  Either the movie could have been too reverential or too critical for its own good and Chris Kyle would have become more of a strawman for either side’s political agenda and less of a fully dimensional character.  Thankfully Clint Eastwood doesn’t delve into politics with this story, and instead portrays the man as a multilayered individual, warts and all.  Chris Kyle is shown to be an American hero, both on and off the field, and the movie honors the hard work that the man had accomplished in his life.  But at the same time, it also shows Chris Kyle as a vain and stubborn individual, with instances where his arrogance sometimes causes disunity in both his combat units as well as in his marriage.  While Kyle still remains a likable and resilient guy throughout, the movie rightfully avoids the trap of turning him into a saint  The story works because of this complexity and it manages to accomplish what most great biopics should do, which is portray the man and not the legend.  Because of this, we are able to put away any of our preconceived notions of who Chris Kyle was, and examine instead the conditions that made the person that he is.  Overall, it gives the movie a remarkably introspective look into the psyche of an Amercican soldier and what goes through their mind as they face almost certain death during combat.

Mainly the reason why this works so well in the movie is because of Bradley Cooper’s standout performance.  Cooper gained nearly 40 pounds of extra weight and muscle in order to play the physically imposing Chris Kyle, and the transformation is remarkable, especially when you compare the two side by side.  Cooper was attached to this film at a very early state in production, even before Chris Kyle’s untimely death, which probably gave him a very deep insight into the mind of his character.  You can see the hard work he put into the role throughout, not only in trying to look like him, but also getting his mannerisms and Texas drawl down perfectly.  Even with the imitation perfected, Cooper still needed to make the character come alive and compel us throughout the entire movie, and he accomplishes that spectacularly well.  His performance is actually at its best in the quieter moments, where he’s called upon to drop the swagger and show the inner turmoil under the surface.  I especially like the way he shows Chris Kyle’s reserved isolation, as he tries his hardest not to show weakness in front of others, even though it’s taking it’s toll on his mental well-being.  Sienna Miller also proves to be surprisingly effective in her role as Taya Kyle.  She matches Cooper’s subtlty quite well in a part that could have easily been lost in lesser hands.  She also hides her natural British accent very well and makes Taya just as much of a force in the story as Chris Kyle, acting as his anchor to reality.  Eastwood’s always been good at getting subtle and effective performances out of his actors, and this movie continues that strong trend.

The movie is visually a very strong one as well.  It’s remarkable that at the age of 84, Clint Eastwood is still making movies with this kind of scale and complexity.  The battle scenes in particular are all really well staged, and show a side of the director that we haven’t seen before. War movies are nothing new to Clint Eastwood; he acted in quite a few (1970’s Kelly’s Heroes for example) and directed a couple as well (his Iwo Jima duo).  But his direction here is far less about the bigger picture and much more intimate, putting us right in the middle of the action from Chris Kyle’s point of view.  It gives the movie a much more visceral feel, much like how Kathryn Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker (2009) got us up close to wartime combat.  But, even still, this does feel like a Clint Eastwood movie, with the muted color palette and the workman-like approach to framing the shots. It’s distinctively his style, but it’s also neat to see the Hollywood legend flex his cinematic muscles a bit more in order to do what’s right for the scene.  One particularly memorable set piece is a spectacular shootout in the middle of a sand storm, which is grandiose in all the right ways, but never distracts with anything too over the top. And again, this is a Octogenarian filmmaker coming up with this grand vision, showing that good filmmakers always stay strong even into their twilight years.  Eastwood also makes good on the subtext behind the movie, showing the cost of war, without ever getting preachy or too one-sided.  Given strong support from a production crew that he has collaborated with for many years now, all delivering some of their best work to date, American Sniper definitely stands well amongst Eastwood’s whole body of work.

I’m sure this will be one of the most hotly debated movies of this upcoming Awards season, as well it should be.  Some may not like it’s politics, while others may view it to be much more complex than they first realized.  I for one found it to be a very rewarding cinematic experience.  Is it Clint Eastwood’s best movie?  Probably not.  I would have liked there to have been more time devoted to showing Chris Kyle’s pre and post-war lives, especially with regard to his work helping wounded veterans after he returned home; something that actually led up to his untimely death, as he was gunned down by a mentally disturbed veteran he was trying to help.   That part of the movie felt rushed in the end, but it’s not something that spoils the rest of the story.  It’s still a captivating experience and without a doubt the best biopic that Eastwood has ever directed.  I am happy that the movie has already begun to get some Award season recognition, especially for Bradley Cooper’s transformative performance.  It may not be the victor in the end, but it is neat to see that Hollywood still is able to honor challenging films like this with a nomination.  If this movie had come out earlier, it may have ended up on my list for the best films of last year, but since it’s out now in wide release in early January, it’ll probably be the best option available to you right now at your local multiplex.   It works as both an effective documentation of modern wartime combat, and as a multilayered character study, and is well worth exploring if you’re already a fan of Clint Eastwood’s work.   And probably most effectively, it puts the spotlight on a group of individuals that should never be ignored, that being the soldiers returning home from war both emotionally and physically scarred.  Even with an unconventional subject at its center like Chris Kyle, the message at the center of American Sniper will still ring true for all audiences.

Rating: 8.5/10

Oh what turbulent December it has been for this movie.  It’s almost beyond belief that a movie like this could have caused this much trouble, both culturally and politically.  And yet, in the last few weeks we’ve seen a major studio brought to it’s knees by anonymous online hackers acting on the behalf of a despotic rogue nation, all with the purpose of removing this movie from public view.  The totality of all this actually sounds even more far-fetched than the premise of this purposefully over-the-top movie, and yet this is what happened.  Whether writer and star Seth Rogen and his directing partner Evan Goldberg saw this coming or not, their movie now stands as one of the most controversial films of all time, taking a place alongside strange company like Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ (2004), Scorsese’s The Last Temptation of Christ (1988), Monty Python’s Life of Brian (1979), Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange (1971), and even D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation (1915).  Now, on the surface, The Interview probably shouldn’t be mentioned in the same breath as these movies, and yet it has followed in their footsteps by having been censored because of the objections of powerful influences.  In this case, it was the government of North Korea, who objected to the portrayal of their leader Kim Jong-un in the movie, believing that the whole film was making a mockery of him, which is technically true.  Not to mention that the whole plot centers around his attempted assassination.  But, even though a movie causes a stir elsewhere doesn’t mean it’s deserving of censorship here.  Thankfully American cinema is welcoming to most button pushing movies, and any inflammatory film can still find an audience beyond the pressure of outsiders.  This one however seems to have been pushed to the brink.

Unfortunately for The Interview, their target in question is as humorless and unpredictable as you can get in this world.  Sony Entertainment, which is the parent company of Columbia Pictures, went forward with this movie despite the objections of North Korea.  In their eyes, they saw no problem, given that the film-making duo delivered very well on their last project, 2013’s This is the End.  Unfortunately for the studio, North Korea was not bluffing about their threats towards Sony and the United States.  In the last couple months, a deluge of leaked emails and confidential documents from Sony Entertainment have been made public, putting the company into a maelstrom of controversy.  Many of the leaked material purposely puts Sony in an unflattering light, which the news media jumped upon quickly and fanned the flames even further.  Now, previously respected industry insiders like studio head Amy Pascal and uber-producer Scott Rudin are struggling to clear up their public images, and in Pascal’s case fighting to keep her job, after off-color remarks have surfaced in their private exchanges.  Sony’s private payroll breakdowns have also created a PR nightmare for the company, which has left them crippled in the industry due to their loss of trust and credibility.  And then came the threats of public attacks on movie theaters if they were to show The Interview on it’s Christmas release date, which soon led to the choice by many large theater chains to not show the movie as planned.  For a brief window of time, The Interview fell into a movie limbo, with no future plans for release, thereby giving a victory to the hackers working on behalf of the North Koreans.

Thankfully, independent movie theaters across the country stepped in and offered to screen the film as planned, ignoring further threats made by anonymous online terrorists and displaying a strong commitment to freedom of speech in this country.  I for one don’t blame the big chains for pulling out though.  After the massacre in Aurora, Colorado during the midnight screenings of The Dark Knight Rises back in 2012, movie theaters can no longer ignore threats like this anymore, especially when it comes from people who have already caused so much trouble to a major studio.  In this case, the movie theaters did the right thing and put safety over profits.  Sony Pictures, likewise, may have a whole lot of internal issues right now, but I think they deserve credit for sticking by this project for as long as they have, and by allowing a limited showing in select theaters on the planned release date, they are showing a surprising amount courage as well.  If there are any people that have done a disservice to our culture over this whole fiasco, it would be the tabloid news media, who basically gave the cyber-terrorists a power base by regurgitating the leaked material and driving the controversy further with their buzzy headlines.  Seth Rogen himself took the media to task over this in an interview he conducted on Sirius XM’s Opie and Jim Norton Show before the movie’s release, saying that people in the news media effectively did exactly what the criminals wanted them to do and that the news essentially became a “pawn shop selling the public stolen goods.”  Seth pretty much nailed it right there.  The first step the media should have taken was to inform the public about what had been stolen from Sony, and how that could affect our own internet security, but instead they focused only on the scandalous material found in the leaks, thereby emboldening the effectiveness of the cyber-attack.  It’s another sad reality of our media driven culture that the outrage became misplaced and that cyber-terrorism won because our news media didn’t do it’s job.  And yet, with all this controversy surrounding it, and perhaps even enhanced by it, The Interview went from just another movie into becoming a cultural event that could not be ignored.

So, for now I’m going to stop talking about what I thought about the controversy surrounding the picture and actually get down to how the movie stands on it’s own.  Is it really as dangerous as you would be led to believe given all the controversy?  For the most part, not really.  If you have seen any of Seth Rogen’s other films in the past few years, you pretty much know what to expect from this movie.  And in that respect, it actually works quite well.  Though the movie was also made available online the same day that it was released quietly into theaters, I still chose to see it on the big screen, which was thankfully available not too far from where I live.  The audience experience may have helped to enhance my reaction a bit, but even still, I found myself laughing quite frequently.  At the same time, I also recognized that it wasn’t really that scandalous a movie.  For the most part, the film actually plays it safe with their concept, never quite making any inflammatory statements about world politics or saying things about North Korea that we didn’t already know.  It pretty much is just another showcase for Seth Rogen’s sophomoric style of humor, which admittedly he uses well here.  Overall, I’m more shocked than anything that this was the movie that nearly brought down a major studio and made international relations between the US and North Korea further strained.  This.  A movie where one comedy bit involves a character (played by Seth Rogen himself) inserting a metal capsule into his rectum to hide it.  This was considered dangerous.  The movie is absurd by design, but the controversy now, in retrospect, seems even more absurd.  President Obama even had to make a statement regarding the status of this film, which just shows you the full breadth of how far all this went.  It remains to be seen how long lasting the ramifications of all this will be, but from what I saw, it ended up offering a funny diversion on a cold Christmas morning.

The plot, in case you were wondering, involves a successful talk show host named Dave Skylark (a hilarious James Franco), who has become noteworthy for getting his A-list guest stars to spill revealing hidden secrets about their lives on his live air show.  Dave’s trusted friend and show producer Aaron Rapaport (Rogen) unexpectedly gets a call one night from a representative of the North Korean government, asking for Skylark to come to the hermit nation and sit down for a one-on-one interview with their reclusive President Kim Jong-un (Randall Park).  The two colleagues see this as a big opportunity and quickly make plans for their trip.  Before they leave, however, they are visited by CIA Agent Lacey (Lizzy Caplan), who enlists the two men into a secret plan to take assassinate the dictator covertly on their trip.  The two agree to go along with the agency’s plans, but once in North Korea, ego and incompetence start to get in the way.  All the while, Kim Jong-un proves to be a more cunning diplomat than the two men thought, quickly winning over the dim-witted Skylark with his charm and very big and dangerous toys.  Rapaport on the other hand tries to keep the watchful eyes of North Korean propaganda minister Sook (Diana Bang) and Kim Jong-un’s security team from discovering their secret plan while at the same time trying to talk some sense into Skylark before his friend loses himself completely.  As you can see, the movie is less of an examination of US and North Korean relations than just a high concept setting for some ridiculous comedy bits.

Setting an absurdist comedy around such a volatile political situation may seem like a case of welcoming the fox into the hen house, but Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg are not without company.  Indeed, Hollywood has been poking fun at dictatorships abroad for many years, no matter how intimidating or dangerous or genocidal they may be.  Look at all the propaganda films made around WWII for example.  The image of Adolph Hitler in many of our wartime movies contrasts sharply with those in the post war years.  During wartime, Hitler was mocked relentlessly as a mad buffoon who incited nothing more than our ridicule at his pathetic attempts at world domination.  Charlie Chaplin’s classic comedy The Great Dictator (1940) perfectly lampoons the image of Hitler in these early years, showing the absurdity of Hitler’s grandiose ambitions in a sharp satirical way.  However, this kind of practice became less popular once knowledge of Hitler’s true atrocities in the Holocaust came to light.  In the years since, it was seen as a dangerous practice to openly mock sitting foreign governments in movies, because some feared that it might spark international incidents in that volatile peacetime period.  Of course, once counter-cultural New Hollywood started, those old-fashioned notions started to go away as new satirists like Mel Brooks showed that you can make fun of dictators again and more importantly, make it acceptable.  Mel Brooks’ The Producers (1967) not only showed that satire about world politics was necessary, but also that the notion of ignoring it was also absurd.  Since then, mocking dictators has become largely commonplace, from Saddam Hussein in Hot Shots Part Deux (1993) to Kim Jong-il in Team America: World Police (2004).  And it’s mostly become helpful that until now, Hollywood has never received backlash for mocking world leaders.  I guess it only took that one person who didn’t get the joke.

And it’s a shame that politics ended up trumping artistic expression in this case; although I wouldn’t classify this movie as high art.  The movie is mostly geared towards making you laugh at it’s main characters self-absorbed antics rather than the political implications of their situation.  But, even still, it did make me laugh consistently throughout.  The only times when I thought that the movie hit a very introspective point was actually when they made statements about the role of media and public image, which is ironic given what’s happened because of this movie.  I believe there was an intentional connection made in the film’s plot where the attempted shutting down of the titular interview by Kim-Jong-un’s government officials is not all that different from a run-in with a celebrity publicist early on in the movie, making it one of the movie’s sharper observations.  The rest of the enjoyment in the movie more or less hinges on the absurd antics of the main characters, who most certainly do a great job here.  James Franco in particular steals this movie, playing one of the most entertainingly confident idiots I’ve seen in a movie in a long time.  Seth Rogen also gets a few good laughs throughout, even while acting as the straight man to Franco’s zanier performance.  However, special recognition should go to Korean-American actor Randall Park for his surprisingly nuanced performance as Kim Jong-un.  He helps add surprising layers to this real life dictator and actually makes him more than just a generic villain.  His scenes with Franco’s Skylark are definitely the film’s highlights and overall help to make this movie resonate more than it normally would have.

So, in the end, is The Interview this groundshaking-ly dangerous movie that we’ve all been led to believe it is?  No, it’s just a harmless, goofy comedy; but, still one that took some guts on the filmmakers’ part to pull off.  Overall, I’m glad that I took the opportunity I had to go see this.  Is it something must be seen now, given all the controversy?  Well, if you feel like you want to make a statement about free speech and show that you will not be bullied by cyber-terrorists, than you should put your support behind this movie.  But, at the same time, it’s not really a patriotic duty to go see it either.  In the end, I’d say that it’s worth watching just for a good laugh.  Yes there are some moments that make you see why it would draw the ire of international parties (particularly with the ending), but it’s also nothing really worse than most other political satires that we’ve seen over the years.  I think that more focus should be put on how we present ourselves as a culture, and that we shouldn’t let outside forces dictate what we can and cannot watch.  Cyber-terrorism is unfortunately a reality of today’s world and one that we’re still trying to understand.  But, the last thing we need to do is to embolden these attackers by doing exactly what they want us to do and abandoning our freedoms.  In the years form now, the movie may be overshadowed by the controversy that surrounded it, and oddly enough we may even see a movie made based on this whole event itself.  But, until we retrospectively examine this in the future, let me just end by saying that The Interview is still an enjoyable film to watch and worth seeking out if it’s playing at a theater near you.  It’s a well executed and funny presentation of a hilarious “what if” premise, and I’m sure most of you will get a laugh or more out of it too.  You’ll certainly never listen to Katy Perry’s “Fireworks” the same way again after watching it.  It may not be the funniest movie ever made, but it certainly has already left it’s mark as one of the most important, which in of itself is hilarious to think about.

Rating: 8/10

Once again we have arrived at the end of a remarkable cinematic journey that has taken us to the far reaches of the fictional land of Middle Earth.  The place dreamed up in the mind of J.R.R. Tolkein and brought to cinematic life by New Zealand-born director Peter Jackson has become one of the most fully realized worlds ever put on the big screen, giving us all great entertainment as we explore deeper with every new adventure.  When Jackson undertook the adaptation of Tolkein’s novels in the late 90’s, he was heading into an unexpected journey that would not only redefine his career, but cinema as a whole.  The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a monumental cinematic achievement, earning a whole bunch of acclaim and Oscar gold, as well as influencing a whole new generation of tech savvy filmmakers who were blown away by the groundbreaking visual effects in those films.  Given the success of the movies, it seemed logical that a film adaptation of Tolkein’s other works would follow.  Unfortunately, years of legal tie ups with competing studios and with Tolkein’s estate prevented a quick follow up from happening.  It wasn’t until nearly a decade later that we would see the world of Middle Earth back on the big screen.  And of course, the most natural way to follow up the story of The Lord of the Rings is to adapt it’s predecessor, The Hobbit.  Tolkein’s grand vision actually began with this modest sized fantasy tale of Bilbo Baggins, only to be expanded upon in one of the grandest sequels ever concocted with Rings.  And though The Hobbit is smaller in size and scale on the page, expectations were high for a cinematic retelling that could match the grandeur of Rings, and even surpass it.  It was a daunting challenge that director Peter Jackson faced, and in the end, it was one that really showed his best qualities as a filmmaker.

Though originally planned as a two parter, The Hobbit became such an overwhelming project that the decision was later made to expand it out into a trilogy just like The Lord of the Rings.  What’s most interesting about these Hobbit movies is that unlike Rings (which was already structured as a three part story from the beginning) they didn’t have the blueprint for exactly how to split the story.  It was largely determined by Peter Jackson as to how the story should be taken apart and spread out over three separate release dates.  For some, this was a terrible decision, because they saw The Hobbit as just a standalone story, and not something that had to follow the same formula as Lord of the Rings.  But, there were many others, like myself, who found this to be an interesting experiment.  Like Rings, every film in the trilogy has it’s own character and the expanded story-line actually helps to improve upon some things that were missing from the books; namely extra development for some of the secondary characters.  And there is textual basis for many of the additions that Jackson put into his movie.  Tolkein himself was always rewriting and expanding on his previous works, even years after they had first been published.  The Hobbit utilizes many of the extra notes that Tolkein had added over the years to help make this story feel more complete as well as more true to the larger world that the author had created.  And as a result, Tolkein’s original Hobbit has now become a great cinematic epic on it’s own, becoming a worthy follow-up to the enormous success of the Rings trilogy.  Following the success of An Unexpected Journey (2012) and The Desolation of Smaug (2013), we are now treated with the closing chapter, and it may very well be the final tale of this series as a whole; The Battle of the Five Armies (2014).

Five Armies is an interesting entry into this series, because unlike the other movies, it was titled something else for the longest time; being renamed only a few short months ago.  Up until this summer, the movie went under the name There and Back Again, which given the restructuring of the trilogy, really no longer made any sense.  As we learned at the conclusion of Desolation of Smaug, Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) and the band of Dwarves he has traveled with have already made it “there,” so the title no longer had the same significance.  The “there” in question of course is the great Lonely Mountain of Erebor, home of the greatest Dwarf kingdom in Middle Earth.  At the end of the previous film, the Dwarves successfully expel the evil dragon Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch), only to lead him towards destroying the nearby human settlement of Lake-Town.  There Smaug levels the city and leaves thousands homeless, until he is brought down by the skilled bowman Bard (Luke Evans).  Seeking restitution for the loss of their home, the men of Lake-Town travel to Erebor in hopes that the Dwarves would honor their promise of riches.  However, once there, the men are shut out by King Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) who has become consumed by greed after returning to the mountain.  Matters are made even worse when Elven King Thandruil (Lee Pace) arrives to stake his own claim on the mountain’s riches.  And unbeknownst to all is another army of killer orcs coming down from the north, led by the fierce Azog (Manu Bennett).  Caught up in all the fierce fighting is an overwhlemed Bilbo, who only seeks to ease the tension between those who should join together.  Meanwhile, wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellan) learns of an even greater danger that he knows could lead to even worse problems for Middle Earth in the future.  All of this sets up for the titular Battle of the Five Armies, which serves as the climatic completion of this epic story, as well as the bridge into what happens next in The Lord of the Rings.

In the last couple of years, I have enjoyed this series immensely.  The Hobbit may not hit the same cinematic highs as The Lord of the Rings, but I don’t believe it was ever intended to.  Rings is the bigger story, and always has been.  It was colossal by design and was meant to take what was set up in the Hobbit to the next level.  Yes, Peter Jackson spread the story out into a trilogy, but story wise it still captures the same narrow focus of the original book, which is where it should be.  In The Hobbit, we don’t cut back and forth between different factions and different points of view; everything still ties together into Bilbo’s story, and comes to a climatic skirmish that resolves everything together nicely.  What worked in Rings  doesn’t work the same way in Hobbit, and I’m glad that Peter Jackson found an effective medium to tell the story in a way that helped this trilogy work on it’s own.  Not only that, but the movies also work well as standalone films in addition to being part of a larger narrative.  I especially found that to be true with last year’s Desolation of Smaug, which had probably the most interesting story structure of the entire series, being the middle chapter.  The Battle of the Five Armies takes everything that the other movies were leading up to and gives us a spectacular finish that hopes to resolve all the loose ends of this grand epic.  And did Peter Jackson manage to stick the landing?  On the whole, I would say that he absolutely did.  Armies is a spectacular closing chapter to this series that should satisfy anyone who’s been a fan of the series.

But, I should stress that even though the movie is a rousing adventure that will keep you at the edge of your seat, it is also the one movie in the series that has the most structural problems.  Not that they ruin the film by any means, but this movie unfortunately feels the least defined of the entire trilogy.  My gripe about the structure is mainly due to the fact that unlike the other Hobbit films, this one doesn’t quite stand alone as well. With Journey and Desolation, you could easily come into those two features with little knowledge of what comes before or after and still get swept up in the overall flow of the story.  With Battle of the Five Armies, I think the movie unfortunately becomes the only victim of Peter Jackson’s restructuring of the narrative.  While still engaging, Armies unfortunately feels more like an extended epilogue than a fully realized three act structured film.  Not to mention, the movie leaves nothing left for the viewers other than to see what amounts to one single climatic finale, which of course is the “Battle,” which makes up the majority of the film’s run-time.  This leaves little room for character development and world-building, which the previous films did so well leading up to this.  So, if you’re a casual viewer who has never seen one of these Middle Earth set films before and you go into this one cold, this movie more than the others will leave you confused as to what’s going on.  But, if you’re like me, and you’ve followed the movies from the very beginning, then you’ll still come away satisfied, as this movie works best when combined with the others.  I’ll be interested to see how this movie plays with the other five “Middle Earth Saga” films.  My guess is that it will serve as a perfect conclusion to Bilbo Baggins’ story line, as well as a great introduction into the beginning of the Lord of the Rings.  I just wish the restructuring hadn’t stolen away some of the movie’s identity as a singular piece.

But, even if the story is lacking in some of the elements that made the previous films so engaging, there is still a lot to enjoy in this movie overall.  Namely the performances by the actors, who have really made this series work splendidly over the years.  I actually hold a controversial opinion about this, in that I believe that the performances in The Hobbit trilogy have been stronger and more consistent on the whole than those in The Lord of the Rings.  I know some of you might think different, but there’s no denying that this series has been perfectly cast all around.  This is especially true with actor Martin Freeman, who has been pitch perfect in the role of Bilbo Baggins.  The greatness in his performance comes from the little gestures he adds to character during the quieter moments, showing just how great an improvisational performer he is.  Here he shows even more brilliance as Bilbo stands out as the voice of reason in a growing chaotic world.  And while his performance is great, it is actually overshadowed in this movie by Richard Armitage’s work as Thorin.  Armitage has been good in the series up to now, but here in Armies is where he really shines.  He brilliantly captures the tragic elements of the character, almost to Shakespearean levels, as Thorin falls deeper into madness once he’s gained his crown.  If a character benefits from more development in the crowded film, it’s definitely Thorin, and Richard Armitage utilizes his screen-time to full advantage.  The supporting cast also lends strong support, especially Luke Evens and Lee Pace as the opposing kings in the story.  Returning Rings stars Ian McKellan and Orlando Bloom also shine as Gandalf and Legolas respectively.  If there are any parts of the cast that don’t work, it probably be the underdeveloped Lake-Town characters, like comic relief character Alfrid (Ryan Gage) who feels a bit out of place in this film.  Apart form that, it’s another superbly acted film in the series from a very praise-worthy cast.

Of course, under the direction of Peter Jackson, we expect this movie to feature a lot of eye candy, and it doesn’t disappoint.  However, unlike the last films, this movie doesn’t take us anywhere new, and instead just retreads already familiar ground.  This may be disappointing for fans of the series who were hoping to see more of this amazing world explored, but Jackson still manages to use what he has effectively.  The titular Battle takes place at the very door step of the Lonely Mountain, and while it may not have the same scale as the Battle of Pelannor Fields from The Return of the King (2003) or the tension of the Battle of Helm’s Deep fro The Two Towers (2002), it still is an impressively choreographed scene that keeps you invested throughout  What Peter Jackson does very well here is to break up the huge army clashes with more intimate moments within the battle, like with smaller fights happening within the ruins of the human city of Dale, or the one on one battles between heroes and villains.  Fans of Legolas in particular will be pleased to know that the character once again delivers some more amazingly acrobatic combat tricks in his fight scenes here.  The films prologue, which picks up right where the previous film left off, is also stunning to look at, and gives the character Smaug an impressive sendoff as a perfect starting point for the rest of the movie.  Peter Jackson may not be hitting the same heights as he did with Lord of the Rings, but he’s not trying to either.  Here, I think he accomplished a respectful adaptation of Tolkein’s story by telling it to it’s fullest extant while at the same time improving on it’s potential.  It also helps that he’s maintained the same production team all these years later who also bring their A-game material to the crafting of this picture.  Whether it’s the wizards at Weta Workshop and Digital or Howard Shore’s rousing score, everything works together to create a rousing and beautiful picture.

So, in the end, The Battle of the Five Armies completes what I believe to be a very satisfying trilogy of fantasy films.  It may not be up to the level of  Lord of the Rings splendor, but what else is?  The last decade has been full of plenty of failed franchises that have tried to capitalize on Rings success, so I think Peter Jackson deserves a lot of praise for even trying to go there and back again into Middle Earth and get it done right.  But, even though the series comes to a pleasing end, there is also the unfortunate feeling of knowing that this will be the end of it all.  We will never see this version of Middle Earth realized on film ever again.  I know there are people out there that believe that Tolkein’s further writings about Middle Earth in The Simirillion will make it to the big screen someday, but if it does, it won’t come under the direction of Peter Jackson.  Jackson even wanted to stop his input on the series after Lord of the Rings, instead handing the reigns over to director Guillermo del Toro at one point in development.  But, once del Toro dropped out, Jackson took it upon himself to see this thing through and I’m so very happy he did.  I think these Hobbit movies, along with The Lord of the Rings, make up a remarkable 6 part story-line that will be unparalleled in all of cinematic history.  But, even with all this, I can understand if Jackson chooses to leave Middle Earth behind now.  Sadly, it appears that our journey into this remarkable world comes to a close with Battle of Five Armies, which in the end makes for a stunning final chapter and a great seg-way into what comes later in Lord of the Rings.  Is it the be all and end all of the entire series?  Not quite; The Return of the King is a much stronger climax and of course is the end point for the story chronologically.  Still, it is a superbly crafted film and one of the best experiences at the movies I’ve had this year.  But, if this is where we leave this version of Middle Earth for good, than I view it as a journey well taken.      

Rating: 8.5/10

The vast openness of Space has inspired some of the greatest works of art known to mankind.  Whether it is in paintings, or literature, or film, contemplating the cosmos has driven people to dream big and that ability to dream in turn inspires others to go further.  Jules Verne’s classic novel From the Earth to the Moon conceived of a journey to the moon out of a capsule fired from a giant cannon.  This imaginative story of exploration then inspired French artist and filmmaker Georges Melies to craft his own take on the story with 1902’s A Trip to the Moon, which was one of the early benchmarks of silent cinema.  Melies imaginative film has since become one of the first of a whole new genre that we now know as Science Fiction, and it’s a genre that continues to inspire not just the minds of other like-minded storytellers, but also those in the scientific field who work hard to create fiction into fact.  Jules Verne probably never would’ve believed that only 100 years after his novel was first published that it would become a reality, but that’s exactly what happened when Neil Armstrong took his first step on the lunar surface.  But, even after conquering the achievement of landing on the moon, mankind still has a thirst for further exploration of space that is very much reflected in the art of the 20th century and beyond.  Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) took the boldest step forward in theorizing where mankind would head next in our quest to learn about the fabric of Outer Space, and his movie continues to remain influential to this day.  And just like how Verne inspired Melies to carry the dream of Space travel further, Kubrick’s masterpiece has inspired other filmmakers to look to the skies and imagine even greater tales to tell.  And one such filmmaker who has taken up that challenge is Christopher Nolan with his new grand scale picture, Interstellar.

Interstellar is unmistakably inspired by Kubrick’s 2001, with many references throughout the movie; some blatant, some subtle.  It’s clear that Nolan is particularly fond of Kubrick’s movie, and Interstellar may in fact be the biggest and most expensive fan film ever made.  But, although Nolan’s directorial mark is all over this movie, it actually didn’t start out as one of his projects.  The script was initially written by Christopher’s brother Jonathan Nolan (whom he has shared writing credit with on 2001’s Memento and the films in the Dark Knight trilogy) with Steven Spielberg attached to direct.  Spielberg remained involved in the development of the project for many years, but ultimately he dropped out in order to pursue other projects.  Jonathan hoped to have another prestigious director pick up his ambitious script quickly thereafter, and luckily his own brother became available soon after the completion of The Dark Knight Rises (2012).  After a rewrite with both Nolans involved, the project moved ahead towards completion.  What’s interesting about this collaboration is that it marks a significant departure for both Christopher and Jonathan.  Most of their work up to now has been grounded in reality, with maybe The Prestige (2006) being their only previous work of Science Fiction, and that one still had a very earthbound footing.  Inception (2010) had it’s flights of imagination, but it existed in the realm of dreams, which helped to place the film in a still realistic place and time.  Interstellar departs significantly from previous Nolan films in that it takes us beyond the natural world that we know and understand and explores the unknown, albeit in a very scientifically minded way.  Did this departure create something bold and new for the Nolan brothers or was Interstellar a gamble that didn’t pay off?  Like the movie itself, the answers are not all that simple.

Though the movie has an original story-line, it’s concept is actually based on the writings of theoretical physicist Dr. Kip Thorne, who has become a leading voice in the study of Wormhole and Black Hole physics, and the developer of the “warped space-time” theory.  Thorne has theorized that Wormhole anomalies in Outer Space are capable of transporting matter across great distances, essentially by folding time on itself.  If mankind were to cross through the threshold of a black hole, they would come out on the other side in a part of space that would be far out of reach in the short life-span that human beings exist within.  It’s a theory that opens up many possibilities about what and where human beings in the future may explore and that is the central basis that Interstellar follows through most of it’s plot.  In the near future, the Earth is slowly becoming inhabitable because of climate change, and the remaining humans on Earth are running short on time.  What remains of NASA hopes to explore possible livable worlds that exist in another galaxy that has become accessible to them through a wormhole sitting next to the planet Saturn.  Expert pilot Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) is selected through an extraordinary set of circumstances to lead the expedition.  Accompanying him is physicist Amelia Brand (Anne Hathaway), the daughter of the head scientist (Michael Caine) who conceived the overall mission in the first place.  Cooper leaves behind his life and family in the hopes of finding a way to save the future for all mankind.  The mission takes them to the limits of Space, testing both their resolve and their grips on reality, especially when one visit to a planet cause time to accelerate to the point where one hour to them equals ten earth years.  At one point, Cooper watches the life of his family forward in an instant, and the daughter he left behind has now become the same age as him; played as an adult by Jessica Chastain.

The movie definitely creates the scenario laid out by Dr. Thorne perfectly, making the exploration scenes the real standouts in the film.  Unfortunately, the movie also suffers from an unfocused main plot, as it tries to be to many things all at once.  I think that this is mainly due to the transition between this starting out as a Spielberg project and then turning into a Nolan project.  There’s no doubt that some of the grittier, more information driven moments are perfectly handled by Nolan as a director, but they are interspersed with sentimental moments dealing with Cooper’s relationship with his daughter.  The sentimental moments in the film would’ve been absolutely nailed by someone like Spielberg, who has become a master at sentimentality in movies.  In Nolan’s hands, they seem a little less effective.  Not that he does a bad job with them, but in Interstellar, they feel a little disjointed from the rest of the movie.  I believe that when the movie went from one director to another, there was an attempt to try to preserve what was there before, and unfortunately Christopher Nolan just can’t do sentimental the same way that Spielberg does.  The moment when Cooper says goodbye to his family, in particular, feels rushed and less realistic than it should be, especially given all of Nolan’s attempts to make this movie feel as authentic as possible.  Though none of these moments completely derail the experience, they nevertheless make what could have been a great story feel more like an okay story-line, and that’s somewhat of a letdown for a director like Nolan who has become such a groundbreaking storyteller over the years with unconventional plots found in movies like Inception and Memento.

But, what the movie lacks in story, it more than makes up with it’s visual experience.  Nobody out there right now does epic scale better than Christopher Nolan, and Interstellar is a visual experience that is unlike no other.  Believe me when I say that you will be taken on a ride with this movie, especially if you watch it in IMAX.  Christopher Nolan has been a long time champion for large film formats, and Interstellar is no exception.  Filmed in true 70MM IMAX, Interstellar must be seen on the biggest screen possible in order to get the full experience.  When you see the vastness of the outer reaches of space depicted in this movie, it will take your breath away.  And Christopher Nolan deftly handles the huge scale of this production with incredible precision, whether it is the quiet cruising past the orbit of Saturn (which feels very Kubrickian) or the harrowing perils that the explorers face as they investigate each new world.  The scale of the movie is as massive as you would expect it to be, and really only the IMAX format can capture the true experience that Nolan was trying to convey with this picture.  If you thought the city-scape folding in on itself in Inception was breathtaking, than wait until you see tidal waves the size of mountains or clouds frozen in midair, which Nolan vividly brings to life here.  Even if the plot is lacking in some areas, there are going to be very few complaints about the visuals in this movie, and it will deservedly be up for many technical awards at the end of the year.  What’s more amazing is that Nolan tried to use as little digital effects as possible, instead shooting as much as he could with physical elements.  This is very impressive work, especially in the scenes within the cockpit of the space ship.  The aural experience of the movie also helps to heighten the overall film.  Believe me, many theaters across the world better have a good subwoofer in their auditoriums, because it will get a workout with this movie.  Pretty much everything you can say about the look and feel of this movie can be summed up as massive.

But at the same time, the movie does manage to give us characters that we can care about.  Apart from Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy, his movies haven’t been really driven by the characters that exist within them, but were instead defined by the actors that portrayed them.  Interstellar is no differently, featuring a well-rounded cast of A-List stars all holding their own against the vast scale of the production.  Coming out of his recent Oscar-winning past year, McConaughey continues his recent resurgence with a very restrained performance as the main protagonist Cooper.  Within this role, McConaughey makes Cooper more than just a good pilot, but also a very thoughtful and intelligent human being who is more than capable at getting the impossible done.  It may not be Christopher Nolan’s most standout character, but he doesn’t need to be.  He doesn’t have many demons to overcome and his strength is more in his unwillingness to give up, which McConaughey delivers perfectly.  One particularly powerful moment that the actor nails is when he watches videos of his family captured over the last 20 years that he had missed during the exploration.  There were very few dry eyes in the theater that I was at when this scene played.  Even better though is Jessica Chastain’s wonderful performance as Cooper’s daughter Murph in adulthood.  The character is a tiny bit underwritten, but Chastain makes the most of her time, delivering a performance that really in fact balances the whole movie.  Showing us what’s going on back on Earth, her story works perfectly in conjunction with what’s going on in space.

There are also a pair of robots that help Cooper’s team on their mission, both of which were clearly inspired by Kubrick.  Sort of combining the artificial intelligence of HAL 9000 with the stark rectangular shape of 2001‘s enigmatic monolith, the robots are interesting characters of in of themselves.  The most notable one is named TARS, and he is programmed with a sense of humor setting, which makes him a much needed comic relief in the movie.  Voiced by actor Bill Irwin, TARS is the exact opposite of HAL 9000, being resourceful and good-natured as opposed to homicidal.  The other robot CASE (voiced by Josh Stewart) is less defined, but works off of the wise-cracking TARS perfectly.  Nolan regular Michael Caine is perfectly fine in his limited role, and actress Ellen Burstyn delivers a memorable moment in the film as an elderly Murph near film’s end.  There’s also an appearance from a big A-List actor half-way through the movie that took me by surprise, as this person remained un-credited through most of the production.  Unfortunately, the actors who seem to get the short-end of the stick are Cooper’s fellow crewmen.  Anne Hathaway does her best, but her character is the most thinly drawn of the whole film.  The same goes for the other members of the team, who are obviously being set up as the casualties.  But I think the fault is more in the writing and less in the actual performances, as every does the best they can.  Overall, the performances are excellent and help keep the movie grounded, which is impressive given the scale of everything.

So, the movie overall is a solid effort, if not an absolutely perfect one.  I still had a extraordinary experience watching this movie, and I strongly recommend it for that alone.  But the movie is already starting to have it’s detractors out there, and I would be lying if I said that they weren’t making some valid points.  The story-line is a little shaky and it is less assured than some of Christopher Nolan’s other movies.  I still view Inception as his masterpiece, and his Dark Knight trilogy is still a monumental achievement.  But even if it is B-grade Nolan, that still means that it is far better than most other movies out there.  I think that Nolan has just become a victim of his own high standards and for some good enough is not nearly good enough anymore.  But even still, the movie is a visual wonder and is still an expertly crafted piece of cinema.  Like Alfonso Cuaron’s Gravity, it portrays the emptiness of space better anyone had before, and perfectly portrays mankind’s tinniest controls over it.  Whats more, it also inspires that same sense of wanting to explore further that has also inspired the likes of Verne, and Melies, and Kubrick.  Space is definitely the final frontier for mankind, and hopefully a film like Interstellar inspires other to take that next step forward as well.  It’s amazing to think that a dream imagined on cinema could become a reality in the span of less than a century, but we  saw men walk on the moon, so hopefully Christopher Nolan’s Interstellar will inspire the explorers of tomorrow as well.  If that can be possible, Interstellar could end up being Nolan’s most important film in the long run.  Regardless, it still stands as an impressive, albeit imperfect, cinematic experience that has to be seen to be believed.

Rating: 8/10

Taking on an adaptation of a runaway best-seller novel can be a daunting task for any filmmaker.  On the plus side, you are bringing something to the big screen that already has name recognition, but the downside of this is that the same audience is going to hold the material up to high standards, putting a whole bunch of extra pressure on your translation.  That almost certainly had to be the case with David Fincher’s recent adaptation of author Gillian Flynn’s 2012 novel Gone Girl.  The novel was a smash hit when it first was published, spending eight weeks at #1 on the New York Times bestseller list.  And while the novel itself certainly has been branded within the mystery thriller genre, it has also often been praised by fans and critics alike for it’s unexpected twists and unconventional plotting.  Naturally, this instant success led to an immediate acquisition of the film rights by 20th Century Fox, who quickly moved the adaptation of the novel into production.  Flynn herself was hired on to adapt her own work into a screenplay.  Naturally, for such a high profile adaptation of the novel, Fox would want to get someone on board who could do the material justice, without alienating too much of the built in audience.  Fincher is already a well respected filmmaker, but Gone Girl seems like a departure for the man who brought brilliant oddball features to the big screen like Seven (1995) and Fight Club (1999).

And yet at the same time, Fincher is actually perfect for the film.  For one thing, he has become the go to guy for bringing almost un-adaptable novels to big screen and making them work.  That was definitely the case with the gonzo Chuck Palahniuk novel Fight Club, or the oddly themed F. Scott Fitzgerald classic The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008).  These two novelizations almost defy any filmmaker’s notions of trying to make them into a coherent movie, but Fincher managed to find a way.  He has also proven himself to be qualified to take on popular best-sellers as well, as he did with The Social Network (2010) which was based on the popular Ben Mezrich novel The Accidental Billionaires, as well as his 2011 adaptation of Stieg Larsson’s The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.  But, unlike these other novels, Gone Girl is far more conventional and less flashy.  Some would say that Gillian Flynn’s novel is more or less an “airplane read;” good for passing the time, but nothing that really defies conventional standards otherwise, like the majority of Fincher’s adaptations usually do.  But in the hands of David Fincher, audiences will soon learn that there is more under the surface in Flynn’s novel than meets the eye, and it shows how one artist can actually elevate the work of another, and bring out the best of both worlds.  Indeed, Gone Girl may seem like another conventional thriller on the surface, but in the hands of some truly talented people in front and behind the camera, it becomes anything but conventional.

The story involves a failed writer named Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck) and his wife Amy (Rosamund Pike) as they try to make life in small town America work after Nick has lost his cushy job in New York City.  Naturally this has put a strain on their marriage.  One day, on the eve of their fifth year anniversary, Nick comes home to find his living room in shambles and his wife nowhere to be seen.  He contacts the police and is soon visited by Detective Rhonda Boney, who quickly begins an investigation into the disappearance of Amy.  The investigation quickly gains traction in the press, due to Amy’s status as a quasi-celebrity, being the inspiration for a protagonist in a series of childrens’ books written by her mother titled The Adventures of Amazing Amy.  Nick remains cooperative with the authorities and the media, but after a couple of days, he soon discovers that the focus has shifted away from finding Amy and more towards pointing the finger at him.  Soon accusations start to fly at Nick, which he is unable to shrug off, and dark secrets about his marriage start to come to light.  Even his twin sister Margo (Carrie Coon) begins to believe the worst.  It all leads to where you might expect a typical missing person scandal would go, but as readers of the novel know, all of this is just half of the story.  From the point where Nick seems to hit a wall and appears to be the untrustworthy psycho that the whole world believes him to be, the story suddenly shifts focus and we soon learn that there’s a whole other side to the story that I can really get into without spoiling some of the most unexpected plot twists.  Suffice to say, there’s a reveling exchange that sums up the whole story when Det. Boney is told by her deputy that “The simplest answer always seems to be the right one” to which she answers, “Actually, I’ve never known that to be true.”

So, as far as adaptations go, was David Fincher the right man for the job here.  Though the material may be more conventional than the typical Fincher flick, he still managed to make this film adaptation work for him.  There are plenty of Fincher touches throughout, though he seems to have abandoned the flashy camerawork that defined most of his early career.  Here, his style comes through in the editing and the composition of shots, which are all exquisitely done.  Fincher has achieved that rarefied place in cinema where his style can work with just about any story-line, and Gone Girl is no exception.  Indeed, if any other director was tasked with adapting this novel to the big screen, I don’t think that it would’ve gone over as well as it does here.  Probably one of the most helpful elements in the adaptation was having the author around to help shape the story to fit Fincher’s vision.  Gillian Flynn started out as a television critic for Entertainment Weekly, so she already knows the game about taking material from one medium to another, so it probably led to fewer conflicts of interest that usually plagues many big screen adaptations.  And indeed, both director and author have managed to work together well here.  Fincher gets to satisfy his cinematic intentions while Gillian Flynn’s story is maintained with all of the memorable twists and turns preserved.   And when those twists come to light, it is exploited perfectly by the film.  The third act in particular is where the movie really crosses over into Fincher territory, with some truly unexpected flourishes that helps to make this movie stand apart from other mystery thrillers.  Some may be put off by where the left-field turns this movie makes, but I for one felt that it was what ultimately elevated the movie as a whole in the end.

If there’s one thing that Fincher’s adaptation manages to improve upon in his adaptation, it’s the commentary about the media.  Flynn’s novel also touches upon the abuses of tabloid journalism, but Fincher brings those themes to new light by presenting the full extant of their impact on the ordinary citizen.  Indeed, the harshest criticism of the movie is saved for the vultures in the media who exploit crime investigations for ratings and those who pass judgment on a case without taking in all the facts, which anyone who has seen the cable news networks in the last couple of years will know what I’m talking about.  In fact, there is a character in the movie named Ellen Abbott (played perfectly by Missy Pyle) who is obviously supposed to be a very thinly veiled representation of notorious media vulture Nancy Grace, complete with Southern drawl, which helps to relate this movie with the media’s disgraceful current state.  While the plot has it’s own intrigue to it, it’s the underlying message that really resonates in the end, and for a movie made by a studio owned by a giant new conglomerate itself, that’s a very bold position to take.  But it’s not just the media that the movie points the finger at; it’s us the audience as well.  The brilliant part of the movie is that it shows us that there are multiple sides to every story, and by showing us only parts of it at a time, through some truly brilliant story-editing, we soon realize how easy it is to be swayed by our own prejudices.  It’s the kind of manipulation that the media preys upon, giving us only the side of the story that they want to satisfy their own agendas.  Overall, I’m very glad that someone like Fincher took the opportunity to take that aspect of the novel and bring it too it’s fullest potential.

Another aspect that has always characterized Fincher’s films is his exceptional choices in casting, and Gone Girl continues that trend.  Ben Affleck has had a hard time convincing people of his skills as an actor, given that his early career was plagued by a lot of bad choices in roles.  But in recent years, he’s been reversing that characterization very effectively, and Gone Girl may be his best role to date.  Let’s face it, he’s perfectly cast here, as someone who is hounded by the media and judged unfairly due to his celebrity status.  Affleck has lived in this world for a long time, and he draws from that perfectly to create a memorable performance as the heavily-scrutinized Nick.  But, an even more revalatory performance comes from Rosamund Pike as Amy.  The British actress has been around for a while, appearing in supporting roles from 2009’s An Education  to Edgar Wright’s The World’s End (2013).  Here, she is elevated to lead status, and she manages to give a knockout performance as the always mysterious Amy.  The brilliance of cutting between Amy and Nick’s stories, and seeing the crime from both points, is that it shows how unreliable they are as protagonists in the film, and both actors brilliantly exploit the flaws and quirks of each character.  Rosamund Pike especially creates a truly memorable and strange character in Amy, and ultimately it’s her performance that sells the movie’s twisted plot and makes it work.  The supporting cast is also great here, especially Kim Dickens as Det. Boney.  And Fincher managed to do the near impossible by getting a good performance out of Tyler Perry (creator of the Madea films), who is actually perfectly cast as high-priced celebrity lawyer Tanner Bolt.

If the movie has a flaw at all it would be in some of the pacing.  It’s something that usually plagues films that are told in non-linear ways, and while it’s not too distracting and doesn’t hurt the movie as a whole, it does detract the film a little in the beginning.  By going back and forth between the past and present in the opening hour of the film, we the audience are bombarded with a lot of information and misinformation, which does lead to a lot of intrigue in the story-line, but it also lags the film as well.  And that can be a problem for a film that runs 149 minutes.  While the first act is interesting, it isn’t until we reach plot twist #1 that the movie starts to find it’s footing, and indeed, the movie becomes a fascinating roller-coaster ride from there.  Not a huge problem, but it does make the film feel just slightly disjointed and makes this film just a little less than perfect.  It does come very close to being perfect however, especially when the movie goes into some truly out-of-left-field places, but when stretched out to 2 and 1/2 hours, there’s bound to be a little flab in the way.  Again, it’s the only flaw that I could see in an otherwise astounding presentation.  Taking a best-selling novel, even a conventional one, and making it work as a film can be hard work, and Fincher’s skills as a filmmaker really come out to shine here, particularly when it comes to staging.  Other directors may have played it too safe or would’ve gone way overboard with adapting something like Gone Girl.  Fincher finds that right balance between reigning in the flourishes at crucial times in the story, while at the same time letting loose when it absolutely needs to go there.  And it’s that balance that ultimately helps to iron over some of the more notable flaws in the overall story.

It may not be perfect, but I can think of few other movies out there right now that will really challenge it’s audience to think as well as Gone Girl does.  Like the mystery at it’s center, there’s more to this movie than what’s on the surface.  And indeed, I do think that this was a great exercise for David Fincher.  It may not be as flashy as something like Fight Club or The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, but that’s only because the material here needed to be brought to the screen with a subdued tone.  I actually look at this movie as Fincher’s Hitchcockian film.  It’s got the languid pacing, the unexpected twists, and even a mysterious blonde at it’s center just like most Hitchcock films.  And like Hitchcock, Fincher is a director who loves to play around with it’s audience.  The best part of the movie is that it’s unafraid to take it’s audience through all sorts of different emotions.  At some points you’ll feel un-eased and horrified by what’s going on in the plot and then by the next scene you’ll be laughing hysterically by the wild turns that that the plot takes.  That certainly happened in the audience that I watched this movie with.  Again, the wild third act may throw some people off, but judging by the audience reaction that I saw, it looks like Fincher managed to tap into something good here.  I admire a filmmaker who can do that to an audience and that’s why I continually put my trust into David Fincher’s cinematic choices.  Gone Girl may not be the kind of movie you would expect from a director of his caliber, but after seeing the final results, it’s clear that there was no one else better for the job.  And that’s no mystery.

Rating: 8.5/10 

The Marvel Comics’ cinematic universe has grown by leaps and bounds over the last couple of years, and with the new Guardians of the Galaxy opening this weekend, it is hitting celestial heights.  But what is most remarkable about what Marvel has done is that while everything works as a whole, each new film can stand on it’s own as self-contained story.  There’s no need to have seen every other Marvel movie to date to enjoy each movie; except for maybe the Avengers films, which ties everything together.  What’s definitely become apparent is that Marvel, as well as parent studio Disney, have taken their success and made work towards the benefit of these franchises.  As these films have become more and more grandiose, it has reflected back in huge box office numbers, and it has led the studios to invest more and more into every follow-up.  Starting off with Jon Favreau’s Iron Man (2008), we’ve seen the Marvel Universe grow to include films for The Incredible Hulk (2008), Thor (2011), and Captain America: The First Avenger (2011); working together to establish their individual heroes with plans to team them all up for the big crossover that was The Avengers (2012).  These origin films, along with Iron Man 2, marked the Phase 1 stage of Marvel’s ambitious “Avenger Initiative”, and in the last two years we’ve seen the fruition of Phase 2, leading up to next years Avengers sequel: Age of Ultron (2015).  It started off with the established characters, with the disappointing Iron Man 3 (2013), followed by the much better Thor: The Dark World (2013) and Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014).  This week, however, brings us probably the biggest gamble of Marvel’s Phase 2, with a set of all new characters in Guardians of the Galaxy.

Guardians has had a varied and complex history that makes it quite an unusual choice for such a prominent place in the Marvel universe.  The Guardians made their first appearance in print around 1969, but that original team of superheroes doesn’t matter so much here, because none of them are used in the movie.  Instead, Marvel chose to adapt from the 2008 reboot of the team in the comics.  This modern team is made up of a human space scavenger named Star-Lord (aka Peter Quill) and his rag-tag team that includes an assassin named Gamora, a ruthless maniac named Drax the Destroyer, a gun-totting foul-mouthed raccoon named Rocket, and a giant plant monster named Groot.  The reason why this specific team was chosen over the other classic team is probably because they have far many more connections with the current Marvel universe, and are probably being set up for future involvement in the Avengers franchise.  And indeed, some of the plot does revolve around elements that exist within other Marvel films, but not enough to make the film reference heavy.  Indeed, this is without a doubt the right group of characters to center a franchise on.  But, even still, Guardians of the Galaxy isn’t as widely read as some of Marvel’s other big names, so investing a lot of money into a film with an unproven brand is certainly a gamble on Marvel’s part.  In addition, you’ve got a film that’s built around an ensemble rather than a key central character, which makes it even harder to sell to a larger audience, especially when some of those characters are still fairly new and unknown (only Star-Lord has been around for longer than a decade, and he’s only appeared briefly since his debut in 1976).   And yet, it was a gamble Marvel was willing to make and it appears to be one that has produced some incredible dividends for the studio.

The plot is fairly straight-forward, which is good given the complexity of the universe that it exists in.  Star-Lord (Chris Pratt) steals an artifact from an abandoned sanctuary and hopes to sell it for a handsome reward.  Unfortunately, he soon learns that the artifact he stole belonged to a crazed alien overlord named Ronan the Accuser (Lee Pace), who had designs on using the artifact to accomplish his evil goals of world destruction.   What’s more, Ronan is also working in league with the mad Titan, Thanos (Josh Brolin), a key villain in the whole Marvel cinematic universe.  Thanos sends one of his daughters, Gamora (Zoe Saldana) to capture Star-Lord and retrieve the artifact, but she has plans of her own to undermine both Thanos and Ronan.  Gamora finds Star-Lord, but is thwarted when two bounty hunters, Rocket and Groot (voiced by Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel, respectively), get to him first.  The four of them are imprisoned deep in a maximum security pen deep in space, and only manage to break out thanks to the help of the super strong mercenary Drax (Dave Bautista), who has his own bone to pick with Ronan.  The reluctant team of outlaws use all of their best skills to work together and soon they discover what lies within the mystical artifact, and what both Ronan and Thanos want to do with it.  What follows is a harrowing adventure through the cosmos with encounters from many strange and bizarre characters along the way, like Star-Lord’s fellow artifact hunter Yondu (Michael Rooker)and the very eccentric Collecter (Benicio del Toro).

It’s pretty safe to say that the movie is very jammed packed with characters.  I didn’t even mention that some of the roles are also played by notable actors like Djimon Hounsou, John C. Reilly, and even Glenn Close.  But, what is even more amazing is how well everything works together.  In it’s whole 2 hour running time, I don’t think that a single frame of film was wasted on anything that didn’t need to be there.  It’s a real testament to the talents of director James Gunn, who managed to pull off a huge, complex production like this and make it feel effortless.  In many ways, I think that this movie is actually the best example of Marvel’s house style at work.  It’s adventurous, but done with a sincere sense of humor that helps to give the whole thing a very comic book feel.  This contrasts sharply with DC and Warner’s more hard-edged and darker superhero movies like The Dark Knight (2008) and Man of Steel (2013), which is a good thing.  Marvel has perfected their style over several films now, and Guardians is the culmination of all that hard work.  It’s fresh, funny, but also knows when to drive home the action-packed moments.  In many ways, I actually think that this movie has a lot more in common with the Avengers films than any of the other standalone films in the Marvel canon.  Instead of relying on a central hero, Guardians devotes it’s story towards building a team of misfits, all who work well off of each other.  That team dynamic helps to boost the fun factor of the movie, and like The Avengers, it’s a helluva lot of fun watching these characters bouncing off of one another.

Probably the film’s biggest strength is the absolutely outstanding cast.  The Guardians themselves could not have been better selected in their roles, and each actor should be highly commended.  First of all, Chris Pratt absolutely nails the charisma and humanity of Star-Lord.  It’s the kind of role that will turn him into an A-List star overnight, and I have no doubt that this will happen after audiences see this movie.  And he manages to carry forward the heart of the film without ever outshining his equally adept co-stars.  Zoe Saldana is no stranger to ambitious space operas (Avatar and Star Trek), but she manages to show us even more sides to her talents as a performer with her role as Gamora; another in a growing group of strong, female heroes in the Marvel canon.  Dave Bautista gives surprising depth to the character Drax, making him both intimidating and lovable, all at the same time.  Drax’s failed attempts at eloquence are especially hilarious to watch and are perfectly delivered by Bautista.  And then there are the two CGI-animated team members; both of whom are fully-realized by the effects team and by the actors voicing them.  Bradley Cooper is almost un-recognizable as Rocket, but his work here perfectly matches the personality of the spunky raccoon.   I’m sure Rocket will be a fan-favorite for most of the audience, since he gets most of the best lines, and Cooper actually manages to bring out a lot of humanity in his performance.  And then we have Vin Diesel as Groot.  It really is remarkable how one actor can give such an indelible performance with a character who can only say three words: “I am Groot.”  But then again, he managed to do the same thing with the limited vocabulary of the titular character in The Iron Giant (1999), so as a result, he is perfectly cast here as well.  And considering the limitations that the character presented for the cast and crew, Groot may very well be the film’s greatest triumph.

If there is anything that is underwhelming in the movie at all, it could be the villainous characters.  None of them are bad per say, but neither do they carry the same weight that the main heroes do.  Lee Pace’s Ronan is pretty stock as far as comic book villains go, but he does manage to still make him an intimidating foe.  The look of Ronan is also unique and overall, he still does work as a central villain in the film.  We also finally see a full-bodied Thanos in this movie (after he was teased in the closing credits of The Avengers), but his time on-screen is unfortunately short-lived, and I wonder if it would’ve been better if Marvel had held off showing him for a bit longer.  Ronan’s accomplices unfortunately are given little to do, and in the end seem wasted as characters, particularly in the case of Djimon Hounsou’s role.  But, thankfully, these are minor character problems in a film that works surprisingly well as an ensemble.   Michael Rooker (of Walking Dead fame), in particular steals nearly every scene he is in as the tough-as-nails Yondu.  And Benicio del Toro is very welcome here as The Collector; a character that I’m sure will affect the Marvel universe in big ways in future installments.  Also, John C. Reilly and Glen Close fill their brief roles surprisingly well as part of the Nova Corps that fights Ronan alongside the Guardians.   And what I like best about the cast in this movie is that each of them is allowed enough time to make an impression on the audience without disrupting the momentum of the plot.  Every character gets their moment and by the end of the film, we are fully invested in each of the character’s story arcs.  Usually a superhero movie puts all the focus onto it’s main protagonist, but here we benefit from a story that spreads the wealth around.

In addition to the stellar cast, we also get a movie that is stunningly beautiful to look at.  A lot of praise should go to the production team that created a space adventure that feels unique and of it’s own universe.  Again, this movie is a Marvel film stylistically, but you don’t have to have seen any of the other films or have read any of the comics to feel fully immersed into what’s on display here.  I wouldn’t be surprised if this film becomes hailed as one of the greatest sci-fi movies of all time in the future; taking a place alongside Star Wars (1977) and Avatar (2009), because it certainly shares it’s sense of scale with those particular films.  Director Gunn manages to give us just enough eye-candy on display without getting us overwhelmed, and every new world feels unique and real.  Contrast this with Michael Bay and his Transformers movies, which seem to believe that every second on screen should be taken up with CGI wizardry and mayhem, as opposed to letting the atmosphere build.  Indeed, Gunn is going for more of a lived in universe, like what Star Wars presented, where every world is unique, along with all of it’s inhabitants.  Little things like the way Star-Lord’s ship sails through the cosmos or how Groot smiles at the audiences goes a long way towards giving this movie a personality, and it makes it all endearing to fans.  The cinematography also gives this movie a grand, epic feel, but still with enough restraint to let us know what is going on.  And also there’s the excellent soundtrack throughout.  The epic score is provided by composer Tyler Bates, but what I’m sure most people will remember is the collection of classic tunes from the rocking 70’s that punctuates several scenes.  Not only do they contribute to the personality of the film itself, but they are actually integral to the story as well, and I’m sure that many people who see this movie will be walking out of the theater humming a couple of them by the end.

Overall, Guardians of the Galaxy is an absolute triumph, and a perfect representation of how to do a comic book adaptation right.  What Marvel should be especially proud of is the fact that they took one of their more obscure titles and managed to make a movie worthy of the brand name that stands up against any of their other blockbusters.  The larger, non-comic book reading public audience may not have known about the Guardians before, but they certainly will now.  I for one had never heard of the characters until this movie was announced.  Now I am eagerly awaiting to see what is next for Star-Lord and his team.  And indeed, you can enjoy this movie either as part of the larger Marvel “master plan” or as it’s own self-contained story, and still get the same out of it.   This is largely thanks to an exceptional cast doing their absolute best work coupled with an excellent production that utilized the best minds in both visual design and construction.  This film, all together, proudly shows off what is best about the Marvel house style and as it exists as probably Marvel’s best stand-alone film to date; only the more ground-breaking and ambitious Avengers stands above it.  This movie is certainly one of this summer’s best films; if not the best.  Just keep in mind, if you’re looking forward to any tie-in with next year’s Avengers: Age of Ultron, you won’t find it here.  The movie more-or-less stays within it’s own self-contained world and does not try to tease the next film in line like some of the other Marvel movies do; although there is a hilarious stinger at the end of the credits that I won’t spoil for you, but it’s still worth sitting through to see for yourself.   Hopefully I have removed any doubt for many of you about seeing this movie with this review.  It is absolutely worth watching, on the biggest possible screen if you can, and it represents all the best things about the Marvel cinematic universe that we’ve seen up to now.

“I…am…Groot!!”

Rating: 9/10

There are few popular franchises out there that feel as peculiar as the Planet of the Apes series.  Those “damn dirty apes,” as Chuck Heston so famously called them, have become the stars of one of Hollywood’s longest lasting and profitable franchises.   Just by looking at the premise on it’s surface, it’s any wonder why this series has become so influential.  In essence, it’s a campy sci-fi series that once relied upon actors wearing monkey masks, but when looking closer, it’s clear that there is so much more to these movies.  The original Planet of the Apes was based on the novel of the same name by French author Pierre Boulle, and was quite an ambitious and gutsy undertaking at the time.  Instead of using the source material as a basis for an exploitation action treatment, 20th Century Fox decided to do an earnest adaptation and retain all of the social commentary and underlying themes contained in the original text.  Couple that with assured direction from Oscar-winner Franklin J. Shaffner (Patton) and a cast of quality actors like Heston, Roddy McDowall and Kim Hunter, and the result was a critically acclaimed action thriller that served as a touchstone film for American cinema at the time.  The success of the original was probably due to the fact that it wasn’t a dumbed down treatment, and it actually challenged it’s audiences, dealing with key issues like civil rights and nuclear proliferation, which were on people’s minds at the time.  Also, there was that memorable and bleak twist ending that people still talk about today; which came courtesy of Twilight Zone scribe Rod Serling.  Overall, Planet of the Apes proved to be a monumental film because it was far more intelligent and challenging movie than you would be led to believe, and the ability to preserve that trait in the series is what has made or broken every film thereafter.

Indeed, it’s whenever the series dumbed itself down that it has faltered.  Sometimes when new filmmakers come in, they see the Ape costumes and makeup as the main appeal of the story for audiences, but that’s not the case.  It’s seeing our world reflected back at us through this alternate version that we find so intriguing.  What’s frightening about the concept of the story is that humankind loses it’s freedom and identity when a new dominant species rises above them, and it makes us look at ourselves and how we’ve unwisely used our own power to subjugate other people.  That’s the true terror behind the story; that apes have become so human in the worst ways, and that humans are now the ones suffering.  Whenever the series strayed from this idea, it lost much of the edge that the franchise is known for.  The series continued through Beneath the Planet of the Apes (1970), then Escape from the Planet of the Apes (1971), and then it concluded with a saga that introduced the character of Caesar (played by Roddy McDowall) with Conquest of the Planet of the Apes (1972), and Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973).  It was a rapid fire series that remarkably sustained it’s popularity until the G-Rated Battle under-performed.  It wasn’t until 2001 when Tim Burton made his reboot that we saw the apes on the big screen again, and it proved to be a huge misfire.  This is mainly due to Burton’s lack of insight into what made the original so effective, and instead the movie is filled with more action set-pieces than actually social commentary.  It would take 10 years before the series would be given a second life thanks to a refocused attempt at bringing the franchise back to it’s basics.  Instead of returning to the very beginning, the new reboot instead looked at the Caesar saga for inspiration, particularly drawing from Conquest’s story-line, and the result was the surprisingly successful Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011).  Rise helped to reinvigorate the dormant franchise and it continues again with this year’s newest entry, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.

Dawn takes place 10 years after the events of Rise, following the outbreak of a deadly virus that has wiped out almost all human life on the planet.   This same virus, which has been dubbed the Simian Flu, was used in the Rise story-line as the thing that gave the Apes their human-level intelligence.  Caesar (played in both Rise and Dawn by Andy Serkis) was the first successful test subject and with his extraordinary intelligence, he led all the other Apes in revolt against the humans.  In the years since the virus took it’s toll, the Apes have thrived under Caesar’s leadership, while the remaining humans scramble for what’s left of their society.  At the beginning of Dawn, a group of human explorers  stumble into Caesar’s camp.  Led by a peaceful engineer named Malcolm (Jason Clarke) the humans only wish to restart an old hydroelectric dam in the middle of Ape’s territory, so that they may have the power to contact the outside world.  Caesar doesn’t trust them at first, but reluctantly allows them to do their work in order to avoid further conflict.  Taking the diplomatic approach works well for both camps as Caesar and Malcolm learn a mutual respect for one another.  This harmony is broken, however, when a vengeful ape named Koba (Toby Kebbell) wishes to start an all-out war with the humans in order to wipe them out for good.  Meanwhile, in the nearby human colony, housed in the ruins of San Francisco, the colony leader Dreyfus (Gary Oldman) is resorting to ever more drastic means to keep order within amongst his people.  All this leads to a powder keg that is ready to erupt, which will test Caesar’s ability to lead his community and bring the humans and the apes to an inevitable conflict.

What I like about this film, and the movie that it follows up (Rise), is that they both keep to the original spirit of the first film in the series, without having to retread old ground.  Instead, they expand on the universe by filling us in on how Apes came to conquer human beings and become the dominant species on the planet.  It follows the same evolution of the saga that Conquest of the Planet of the Apes delivered, but shown in an entirely different way that builds perhaps a little more believably than those early films did.  In fact, the best thing about these new films is that you don’t need to see any of the other entries in the series in order to understand what is going on.  They stand on their own as fully realized narratives, although it might help to have seen Rise before Dawn, especially when it comes to understanding where the virus came from.  Other than that, Dawn does what all great sequels do and that’s to expand the world that’s been set up before and take it in a new, unexpected direction.  Indeed, Dawn works in many ways that Rise had failed to do; although there were a few things that Rise did better, but I’ll get to that later.  What I liked best about this movie was that it kept the intelligence that the series is best remembered for.  It doesn’t resort to cheap plot twists and mind-numbing action.  It actually uses most of it’s run-time to build character and atmosphere, which both brings out the best elements of the franchise and also makes this movie feel like something new as well.  Indeed, it does still feel like a Planet of the Apes movie, but one that is less inclined to reference anything else from the series.  Really, the only references I can remember to other movies was seeing Caesar and his fellow apes riding horses in a few scenes, and also giving one of the Apes the name Maurice ( a clever nod to original Dr. Zaius actor Maurice Evans).

But if you want to look at what really makes this particular film notable, it’s the performance given by Andy Serkis as Caesar.  Serkis has pretty much become the master of motion-capture acting, gaining notoriety over everyone else in this particular field.  Probably best known for his motion-capture and voice work as Gollum in the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit series, Serkis has taken his expertise with the process and used it to create a truly memorable protagonist with Caesar.  It’s amazing how advanced this kind of animation has progressed over the years, becoming increasingly more capable of capturing an actor’s full performance in a digital character, and Andy Serkis has taken full advantage of that.  Caesar really commands every moment he’s on screen, and Serkis deserves all the credit in the world for finding the humanity in the character and bringing it out through all the layers of performance.  The animation team should also be commended for picking up all the little gestures and subtlety in Serkis’ performance, because it all helps to make Caesar feel absolutely real.  I’m glad that the Apes franchise has served as a great platform for Andy Serkis to expand his talents as a performer, and indeed here he is the film’s primary star.  The same care with the performance capture also extends to the other cast members playing apes as well.  I particularly like the way that each ape interacts with one another, with body language playing an integral role in the establishing character.  I also like how speech is used sparingly between the different apes, making it’s usage feel all the more powerful when it happens.  Serkis (who also provides Caesar’s voice) came up with an interesting way for the apes to speak that feels natural and unlike anything we’ve seen in the series before.  It may come as unusual to see digital apes replace the costumed ones that the series was known for in the past, but when the end result works as well as these do, it’s hard to argue.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said with the human cast.  Indeed, one of the things that Rise of the Planet of the Apes did better than this film was to build up it’s human cast of characters; which is understandable considering they were much more important to the plot.  In that movie, we had James Franco’s scientist motivated by his drive to cure the Alzheimer’s disease in his dying father (played by John Lithgow) as well as his conflicted dilemma when he grows too attached to lab monkey Caesar, whom he helped raised; both of which drove his character development in the movie.  In this film, the human characters are more or less just defined by their purpose in the plot and nothing more.  None of them are really unlikable, though; there’s just nothing to define them.  Jason Clarke does the best that he can, but in the end, his character is just forgettable in comparison to Caesar.  Gary Oldman gets even shorter shrift in the movie, reduced to little more than an extended cameo.  I felt that it was a waste of an actor of his talent, and I wished they had used him more.  His character’s motivations also don’t make much sense in the movie; with him starting off as a reasonable leader in the beginning, then becoming an almost zealous antagonist by film’s end.  It’s a whiplash in character motivations that I wish had been better explained.  Now while the apes’ story-line is effectively drawn throughout the 130 minute run-time, it’s the human characters that suffer.  This may be a rare case where I think an even longer cut may have helped a movie, just so that we can better understand the human characters, much like how Rise was able to.  There was some of that there in the film, like when Oldman’s character reacts to seeing pictures of his long dead family for the first time in 10 years in a beautifully acted scene, but it was too few and far between.  The movie just needed to have a little more balance, and that’s all.

But, other than it’s under-drawn human characters, the remainder of the movie is exceptionally well crafted, if not particularly groundbreaking.  Indeed, the movie stays true to formula, but it’s done so effectively that you don’t mind it so much.  The pacing of the movie is excellent, never feeling bloated or rushed at all, and it does lead up to a very satisfying conclusion.  Again, the apes are definitely the film’s highlight, and the attention given to establishing their society really makes this movie feel unique.  I commend the production design team for making the post-apocalyptic setting feel natural and not at all overdone.  There’s an interesting contrast in seeing the organic and thriving Ape village juxtaposed with the decaying human world in this movie, and it establishes perfectly how the story is going to play out without ever stating the obvious.  I also loved the musical score by Oscar-winning composer Michael Giachinno (Star Trek, Up), because it pays homage to the late Jerry Goldsmith’s iconic themes from the original film’s score, without ever copying it directly.  It also helps to make this film feel right at home with the other movies, especially in helping to drive the mood of the scenes.  The cinematography also gives this movie a nice epic feel, even when working with a narrower frame (this is the first film in the entire series shot in the 1.85:1 aspect ratio, whereas all other entries were in the scope 2.40:1 format).  It’s an interesting creative choice made by director Matt Reeves, who makes the film feel both intimate and grandiose in a well-balanced way.  The movie takes some creative risks, but they pay off and work to the film’s advantage, and honestly, that’s what a Planet of the Apes movie should do.  In that respect, it’s staying true to it’s legacy.

As far as summer movies go, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a film that is well worth your time and money.  Is it a perfect film?  Not exactly.  It’s flawed in some of it’s character development and plotting, but not in a way that hurts the overall film.  I certainly recommend seeing the movie just to take in the absolutely masterful work that Andy Serkis has done as the ape Caesar.  If anything, I think it probably stands as the best acting work that this series has ever seen; better even than heavyweights like Charlton Heston and Roddy McDowall.  He’s truly become the best at what he does, and this movie gives us a great showcase of what he’s capable of doing.  The rest of the film is also worth checking out, especially for all the well choreographed and shot action set-pieces.  Honestly, if your only other option at the movie theaters was to watch Transformers 4, you have no excuse not to watch this movie over that piece of junk.  It does what a great action movie should do which is to keep you engaged and on the edge of your seat and it does what a great sequel should always do and that’s to build upon what’s come before.  It really is amazing that nearly 50 years have passed since the first Planet of the Apes, and we’re now seeing the franchise not only alive, but thriving.  Not only that, but the Apes series is also staying true to the intellectual spirit of the originals, and is still delivering thought provoking movies all these years later.  Let’s hope that Apes continues to stay true to it’s source material, and not resort to dumbing itself down to reach a broader audience.  At least for now, it doesn’t need to.  And again, it’s amazing that you can get quality and thought-provoking entertainment from a movie about a world run by “damn dirty apes.”

Rating: 8/10

Michael Bay is a difficult filmmaker to explain. His films are notable for being loud, bombastic, and sometimes very aggressively crass.  What is even more peculiar is the fact that his film career has been a very successful one, even with all the criticism his films have received.  He’s just been surprisingly good at making a lot of money.  And does he deserve it all?  While I can’t say that I particularly like his style of film making, I can’t deny that the man does have some talent behind the camera.  In fact, you could say that Mr. Bay has a style all his own, and that’s something that’s hard to come by in an industry as homogenous as Hollywood.  The only problem is that he has seemed to have wasted that same talent on what could be usually referred to as trash.   I don’t know if he chooses the films he makes through artistic motives or economic ones, because most of his recent work makes me think that he just doesn’t care what he does.  He’s shamelessly cashing in and relishing it at the same time.   His filmography has turned into the cinematic equivalent of fast food, and himself being it’s Ronald McDonald.  But even though Bay’s films are nothing but excuses for the director to indulge his cinematic excesses, every now and then he has managed to churn out something  special.   I for one really enjoy one of his earliest action thrillers called The Rock (1996), and his surprisingly smart 2005 thriller The Island.   Unfotunately, if there are films that do not fit into that quality category, it would be his series of Transformers films.

When the first Transformers was released back in 2007, it became a surprise hit and launched what would eventually be one of the biggest moneymaking franchises in movie history.  Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean that the films are any good.  Based off of the popular toy line and 1980’s animated series of the same name, Transformers was basically a dumb but entertaining movie that was certainly geared towards being a crowd-pleaser.  And honestly, to bring a story of giant, transforming robots to the big screen proved to be a perfect match for someone of Michael Bay’s talents. The storyline of the first film may not have retained the charming cheese of the earlier animated series, but it did deliver in the visuals, delivering some really impressive CGI effects along the way.  Unfortunately, it seemed like Michael Bay’s ego took over in the follow-ups in the series, and the resulting films were an absolute mess.  The second film was rightly derided for its lack of story and for it’s indulgences into sex appeal (particularly when it came to female lead Megan Fox) and racial stereo-typing.   The third film tried to make up for the faults of the second, and the result was a movie that just felt like a bland retread of the first two.   This slow devolution of the Transformers series represents a strong example of a franchise becoming the victim of its own success, and it’s a decline that really only seems to affect those of us who wanted to see more out of this franchise.  Fans of the original series don’t even seem to recognize their beloved characters anymore, because Bay’s films have become something else entirely.  Casual fans, however, seem to still be eating this stuff up, which is beyond me.

Now, after two critically derided films, we get the fourth installment of the series; Transformers: Age of Extinction.  To Michael Bay’s credit, he has chosen this opportunity to shake things up a bit, possibly in order to bring some new focus into the series.  Gone is former male lead Shia LaBeouf, who himself had become something of a joke in the series, along with pretty much every other recurring cast member.  This is a good thing, in a way, because it puts more focus on the characters who should be the main characters, that being the Transformers themselves. Unfortunately, the new movie still puts way too much focus on it’s less interesting human cast.  Thankfully, the balance between the two is much less of a problem.   Overall, Age of Extinction is a step up from it’s predecessors, but not much of one. It works best as a reboot than as a continuation of the overall story, although the movie keeps reminding you of the previous movies at different points, so it makes the attempt at a reset pointless.   And though it may have changed things up, it didn’t necessarily make the series any better; only a little less offensive.  We are still a long way from making Transformers anything more than just a dumb action franchise.

So, how does this film build upon it’s predecessors?  In the years following the events of the previous movie, both races of the Transformers (Autobots and Decepticons) have been hunted down and exterminated by humans in a genocidal revenge mission conducted by the CIA, led by their director, played by Kelsey Grammer, as a response to the carnage caused by the wars between the bots.   All remaining Transformers have gone into hiding, hoping that salvation will come their way.  Meanwhile in Texas, a barnyard inventor named Cade Yeager (Mark Wahlberg) comes across a rundown truck that he believes to be a hidden Transformer.  When he awakens the dormant Autobot, he soon learns that he’s no ordinary Transformer, but Optimus Prime (voiced by Peter Cullen) the Autobot leader.   Optimus helps Cade and his family escape the pursuing CIA task force, and rendezvous with his remaining crew, including the ever helpful Bumblebee.  Unfortunately for them, they soon learn that they are being hunted down by more than just the CIA.   A demented Transformer bounty hunter, named Lockdown (voiced by Mark Ryan) is also on their trail.   Working together, Cade and Optimus become more aware of the stakes they are faced with, especially when they learn of the destructive force that Grammer’s agent character is after, and the means to which Lockdown will go to claim his trophies.   What follows is a globe trotting adventure that takes the characters from the American heartland all the way to the cityscapes of China.

There isn’t much to the story as you can already tell.  It’s just a series of events strung together for the purpose of bringing us from one action set piece to another.   And there in lies the primary problem with this movie.  Like the other films before it, there’s no real drama.  The movie never gives us any real character depth and instead spends most of its time showcasing just how awesome it’s action scenes are.  When that’s all your movie amounts to, it feels really hollow as a result.  And given that this film runs at a very bloated 165 minutes, the action scenes become very tiresome after a while.  Also,  without the necessary character depth needed, we grow less interested in rooting for our main heroes, because there is little in them that we find interesting or redeeming.  I think, in this case, that’s more of the fault of the writer, Ehren Kruger, than Michael Bay’s.  He actually holds up his end by making the film look good, but that means little when the final script lacks anything worthwhile.   It’s been the fundamental flaw of the series since day one, and unfortunately this new film has only made baby steps in trying to improve it.

If there’s something that does work in the movie’s favor, it’s that it doesn’t give into some of the series more obnoxious pitfalls from the past.  Getting rid of Shia LaBeouf was a good move, as his character was never deserving of a central place in one movie, let alone three.  The character of Sam Whitwhicky, played by LaBeouf, is one of cinemas most insufferable douchebags, and the fact that more screen time was devoted to him than a more deserving character like Optimus Prime was a real insult to the legacy of the original series.  At least this time around,  Bay has given Optimus more of the spotlight to work with, and something resembling a character arc.  Also, a lot of the obnoxious comic relief is missing this time around, which is another benefit to this movie. There’s no annoying parent characters eating pot brownies; no Stepin Fetchit level racist stereotype Transformers; and no moments where we see the Transformers either defecating or letting their robot balls hang out.   That being said, the movie doesn’t really add much to this story either.  It’s sad to think that the most offensive elements of the series has also been what has defined it.  Take all that away, and the result is just another generic action flick.  What I would’ve liked to have seen is more of the Transformers universe explored in this movie; maybe even a film set entirely in another world other than our own.  But, then again, that approach probably would’ve alienated it from the general audiences that produced the big grosses for them in the past.  In that case, playing it safe may have been a poor decision on Michael Bay’s part.

Beyond the story, the remainder of the film is generally a mixed bag. Some of the film surprisingly works, but the rest is pretty much what is expected of the series.  One thing that I did like in this movie, surprisingly, was the lead actor.  Mark Wahlberg is a huge improvement over Shia, and he does make the most of a character that, again, is poorly written.  Wahlberg kind of has the same gift as Nicolas Cage, where he can be entertaining and have a presence on screen, even when the movie and character itself is terrible.  Another thing that I liked in this film was the collection of villains.  Kelsey Grammer, of all people, actually brings a lot of menace to the film with his performance; very far removed from his days on Frasier.  Lockdown is also a very effective villain here; far more intimidating than any other Transformer villain in the past.  And part of the reason why the villainous characters work in this movie is because they are restrained in their characterizations.   It’s a prime example where the movie benefits from a more subtle approach. Also, there are welcome additions to the Transformers team (voiced by the likes of John Goodman and Ken Watanabe) and they actually contribute to the story, rather than work as distractions.  Unfortunately, the human characters, apart from Wahlberg, are just as generic as ever.  The romantic couple (played by newcomers Nicolas Peltz and Jack Reynor) are particularly useless in this movie.  It’s putting the human story ahead of the Transformer’s one that makes this film feel like a chore.  Either Michael Bay is too stubborn to commit to a fully alien storyline, or he’s bound to a formula that he can’t escape from.  In any case, it derails any chance this film has at making any change for the good in this series.

So overall, regardless of all the hard work that has been done to change course in the series, the results are still just the same.  The best thing that I can say about the movie is that it at least tries to do things a little more subtly than the more excessive films in the series.  It’s not obscene or crude, but it’s not interesting either.   It’s the film that probably best represents the fact that this franchise is stretching itself thin, especially at almost 3 hours in length.   Will audiences go for it?  Probably.  It doesn’t do anything that will make its base group of fans suddenly reject it. It may even win a few people over with it’s more low key approach. As for me, I’ve never been a Transformer fan before, and this movie did nothing to change that.  At the same time, I do appreciate the fact that Michael Bay finally recognized that something needed to change in this series, and even if he made a half-assed attempt to change course, it was still aimed in the right direction.   I only wish he had committed more fully and make a true Transformers film.   We do still get ladies in short shorts and brief uses of gay and racial stereotypes, but to a smaller degree, so I guess that’s some kind of effort on his part.  And like many other mega-hit franchises, the movie does leave room for a sequel, so I’m sure Michael Bay will be returning to the world of the Transformers again for the fifth time.   Honestly, I wish Mr. Bay would consider handing the franchise over to others and get back to films that fit his style better; movies like The Rock.   For now, unfortunately, Transformers: Age of Extinction is another film that is less than meets the eye.

Rating:  5/10