Category Archives: Movies

Books/Literature, Movies

Leonard Maltin’s Movie Guides ending…

The 2015 edition of the book will be the final one:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-leonard-maltin-is-ending-his-movie-guides/

I used to really love Leonard Maltin’s movie guide.  So much so that there were several years in a row that I would buy each new edition and hungrily look through it to see what was new and what were the opinions of recent movie releases.

I used to also love seeing the lists presented in the back of the book of directors and actors (an incomplete list, granted, with a focus on bigger names in the industry) and seeing the works they were involved in, particularly earlier in their career.

Of course, this was all before the internet came and, like so many other things, rendered the Movie Guide pointless.

For lists of actors, writers, directors, etc. etc., one has to go to IMDB.com, click on the “search” function, and type in the person you’re looking for.  In a second you’ll have a pretty complete list of all the works said actor/writer/producer/etc/etc. was involved in with links to said movies/tv shows/etc.

The reviews in the Leonard Maltin Guide were sharp, to the point (they tended to be a few sentences long each), and in the case of really bad films, often quite hilarious.  However, what you had was only one review, a review by one “individual”.  Not to sound too snarky, but I couldn’t help but wonder how many of the reviews were actually penned entirely by Mr. Maltin versus those that came from his staff of writers.  Still, I could ignore this and had fun reading these concise opinions.

Now, you have rotttentomatoes.com with its list of critics (and links to their reviews) along with a statistical analysis of the overall critical opinion and the overall audience opinion.

The bottom line is that, for me, two websites rendered the Leonard Maltin Movie Guide obsolete.

The last Leonard Maltin Movie Guide I bought was the 2009 edition.

Until I saw the above article, and much to my surprise considering how much I liked the Guide, I hadn’t given it much thought.

The moral?  If there is such a thing for this, I suppose its the validity of the old adage regarding the “better mousetrap”.  The internet, in this case, left poor Leonard Maltin and his Movie Guide in the dust.  Perhaps he should have invested in this technology and made a website that would have combined the IMDB.com and rottentomatoes.com concepts.

Too late now.

And time marches on.

Movies

Under the Skin (2013) a (mildly) belated review

2 Comments

I first heard about Under the Skin shortly before its release.  I became really interested in seeing it when the theatrical trailer/teaser was shown.

Heady looking stuff, right?

The movie came and went, scoring a super strong 86% positive among critics but a far less impressive 56% positive rating among audiences from Rotten Tomatoes.  Essentially, almost all critics liked it but only half the audiences cared for what they saw.  Looking at some commentary from audiences, it is clear the film has strongly divided viewers and, as the saying goes, they either loved or hated it.  Now, having finally seen the film, which side of the fence am I on?

It’s a harder question to answer than you might think.

On the plus side, Under the Skin is an intriguing, visually striking film that drew my attention while playing out slowly, almost naturally.  The dialogue, what there is of it, is conversational and often (ahem) skin deep.  We are taken through a series of scenarios which in turn form a story about an otherworldly alien predator (Scarlet Johansson) who, like the black widow spider, draws in and then kills men.

Almost from the beginning its clear director Jonathan Glazer is emulating the works of some very well known filmmakers.  In Under the Skin, viewers familiar with the style of directors Stanley Kubrick and Andrei Tarkovsky will see stuff that looks an awful lot like their work.  Likewise, the film’s plot bears some resemblance to the classic Nicholas Roeg/David Bowie The Man Who Fell to Earth.

Unfortunately, when one sees so many familiar echoes to the brilliant works of other artists, one can’t help but compare them to Under the Skin.  Doing so, even more unfortunately, reveals that this film doesn’t quite live up to what came before.  To begin, Under the Skin’s plot is far, far simpler than the works listed above.  In fact, one might well argue this movie’s plot is almost too simple:  An alien predator picks up a series of male victims and eventually (though never clearly stated why) feels empathy for them, then tries to “join” them but cannot.  Tragedy ensues.  The end.

The simplicity of the plot leads me, in turn, to another problem I had: There are story irregularities that are bothersome.

To get into these problems however, I’m going to have to get into SPOILERS, so before I move on let me give you the bottom line:  Under the Skin is a decent, slow moving film that at times will really creep you out (there are, to my count, three absolutely knock out scenes).  Unfortunately, character inconsistencies and a very simple plot may take away from one’s enjoyment.

Now then, what were the problems I had?  I’ll get into them after this warning…

SPOILERS WARNING!!!!!

Still here?  Ok, don’t say that I didn’t warn you.

When we meet her, Ms. Johansson’s alien is presented as an emotionless, cold and calculating predator whose eyes are always looking, looking, looking for their next victim.  Once spotted and when confronting said potential victim, she turns on the charm, speaking perfectly well while luring said victim.  Eventually, she gets them into her car and, eventually, her lair.  We also find she has an assistant, a mysterious man (perhaps even more than one!) who rides around on a motorcycle and cleans up after her.

Given the fact that these aliens know how to use vehicles and are smart enough to know how to blend in with society and, even more importantly, clean up any potential messes after themselves, one can reasonably assume they have a decent, if not great, understanding of how people “tick”.

And yet the seductive predator appears at times confused and/or oblivious to what happens around her.  In one of the film’s most effectively terrifying moments, she meets up with a swimmer in a very remote location and witnesses a double drowning.  She gets her victim in the end but leaves behind the drowning victims’ crying infant, oblivious to the fact that by doing so the child will likely die.

As effectively creepy as this scene was (this would be my favorite scene of the film, by the way), I was left with questions.  If our aliens “feed” of men/people, why leave behind a potential source of nourishment in this infant?  Secondly, after she’s gone her motorcycle assistant goes to the beach to “clean up” the scene and take away any evidence they were there.  It is now dark and the poor child is still there, crying.  The assistant ignores the infant yet takes away towels and any other evidence of our victim’s presence.  Once again: Why leave the infant behind?  Isn’t that something that one would want to clean up as well?

Later still, the seductive predator meets a deformed man and attempts to seduce him.  This scene, another of my favorites though I will freely admit the coincidence of finding a deformed man is somewhat hard to swallow, nonetheless plays out well because our alien seductress is unaware the man’s severe facial deformities make him a pariah to society.  Despite my problems with the scenario, it was a fascinating scene but unfortunately it leads to the movie’s concluding act: By being near this deformed man our alien seductress comes to some mysterious resolution.  She ultimately, allows him to get away while deciding she no longer wants to be this black widow.  She wants to join humanity.

Does she feel sorry for this man?  If so, why exactly?  When she meets him she doesn’t see him as anything more than another victim yet in their very brief time together she decides to renounce her entire being and decides she wants to be human.  Again, why?

I truly don’t know and the film frustratingly doesn’t offer viewers a clear answer as to why.

What follows is the film’s climax, wherein the motorcycle assistant tries to find his now missing mistress while she walks the lonely countryside alone, first trying to eat human food (she cannot), then trying to find actual love (she cannot love because, she finds, she has no vagina.  Not to sound like a smart-ass or anything, but didn’t she notice this before?), then becoming the victim of a human predator.  This resolution, unfortunately, proved as difficult for me to swallow as the coincidence of her finding an incredibly deformed man.  An alien predator becomes victim to a human predator?  Oh the irony!

It was following the movie’s conclusion that I really began wondered what Under the Skin would have been like had Stanley Kubrick made it rather than Mr. Glazer.  Mr. Glazer has made good films in the past and while Under the Skin is not a bust by any means, I can’t help but think that in other hands -or perhaps with a little bit more time to develop the story- this pretty good film might have been absolutely great.

Take of that what you will.

Movies

8 Things You Learned From Movies…

…That Are Actually Lies, according to Todd Van Luling for The Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/11/8-lies-from-movies_n_5666578.html

All are true, all are interesting, but I would like to add a couple of “lies” that I see over and over again:

First up, the human fall.

Seems simple enough, right?  In real life if you fall over a story in distance and onto hard ground, odds are you will hurt -if not kill- yourself.  Yet its something movies like to use nowadays, the hero leaping/jumping long distances, hitting the ground and either rolling or shaking off the fall and getting on with their superheroic business.

The movie Fast and Furious 6, a franchise that, granted, doesn’t always deal with “real world” physics, was spoiled, to me, in large part because of this.  In the movie’s early going, Dwayne Johnson’s character leaps from a very fast moving car, falls some three or so stories straight down and into a vehicle he and his partner were pursing.  Johnson’s character is uninjured from that fall and tries to stop the car’s driver, then falls off said vehicle (which, let me reiterate, is moving really fast) after a scuffle, and absolutely nothing happens to him.

Later, toward the film’s climax, we have Vin Diesel’s character leaping from his car, flying through the air like Superman, grabbing Michelle Rodriguez’s character while she’s leaping in the opposite direction for a hundred feet or so, then the two of them smash into another car and this somehow lessens the impact of their fall.

They too suffer no serious injuries, though I believe Vin Diesel did frown a little.

I guess my main gripe is that action movies of late (and perhaps not so late, see the 1985 movie Commando and Arnold Schwarzenneger’s escape from an airplane!) push the limits of what a falling human body can withstand.  Someone I casually knew, for example, was on a ladder working on a ceiling light or fan in his house (I’ve been to the house, the ceiling was not terribly high).  He was perhaps on the second or third step of the ladder and somehow lost his balance and fell, landing very awkwardly on his right arm.

The result?

He broke multiple bones in that arm and was rushed by ambulance to the hospital, where he underwent extensive surgery.

The breaks to his arm were so extensive that doctors later told him they almost had to amputate his arm above the elbow.  After considerable physical therapy and recovery, the arm remained very fragile and, according to him, could not withstand any other injury.  He lamented the fact that he couldn’t use it to lift anything heavy nor could it deal with any great amount of force.

This is the reality of what can happen to a human body after a fall, even from relatively small distances.

Another gripe, though one I didn’t find all that bothersome in my youth -and at least tangentially related to Fast and Furious– is what a car is capable of withstanding after it makes a long jump.

Back in the 1970’s and 80’s and shortly after the success of Bullitt (with its magnificent single car chase sequence), there came a whole host of movies featuring progressively greater amounts of car stunt work.  The floodgates really opened after the 1977 success of Smokey and The Bandit, which featured some very impressive stunt work for that time.  Ron Howard’s directorial debut, Grand Theft Auto, released only a month afterwards, was little more than a movie featuring one car crunching bit of stunt work after the other.  As a kid, I loved the hell out of that film…

But one thing I realized was that whenever a car went airborne in a jump, it always landed…badly.

Yeah, yeah, I know, I was a child savant.

Seriously though, every time you were shown one of those stunts, the camera would often follow the car through the air and, when it landed (and depending on how well covered the landing was), you couldn’t help but see a frame or two of the car hitting the ground and almost always noticed the car suffered -sometimes mightily!- from that landing.

The tires might be twisted, the front end might stick up, the body would warp, and pieces -sometimes whole chunks!- might fall off.  Yet if the stunt involved the “good guy’s” car, you could always rely on a cinematic quick cut, usually showing our heroes hootin’ and hollering at the sheer fun or outrageousness of their stunt, and the next shot would reveal that their vehicle -presto!- was completely intact.  Sometimes better than new.

The below compilation of stunts for the Dukes of Hazzard TV show provides plenty of such examples.  See how many times the General Lee looks absolutely totaled after she lands…

Anyway, it is fantasy and perhaps, like the list of 8 Things You Learned From Movies That Are Actually Lies, this sort of stunt work should be taken for what it is, fantasy.

Movies

Movie Stars 10 Biggest Flops…

…according to AOL:

http://www.aol.com/article/2014/07/27/movie-stars-10-biggest-flops/20937644/

I’m familiar with pretty much all the movies mentioned, but have only seen four of them: The Marlon Brando version of The Island of Dr. Moreau, the George Clooney Batman and Robin, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Last Action Hero, and Denzel Washington’s The Mighty Quinn.

I felt that The Island of Dr. Moreau was close to being a good “weird” movie.  Like many, I was familiar with all the rumors of on-set problems during the film’s production, perhaps most notorious being the feud between actor Val Kilmer and replacement director John Frankenheimer (the original director, Richard Stanley, was booted from the project).  Still, I didn’t think the film was a total disaster and I felt Val Kilmer’s creepy Montgomery just about stole the show.  Lest I sound like I feel the movie is actually some “lost treasure”, I would hasten to add that this version of the H. G. Wells story is nowhere near the classic of the original deeply weird (but in a very good way) Island of Lost Souls.

Similarly, Batman and Robin, I felt, while not all that good, wasn’t all that much different from the far less criticized Batman Forever (coincidentally enough starring Val Kilmer in the title role!).  Joel Schumacher took over the Batman franchise after director Tim Burton left and, as mentioned, his first whack at it, Batman Forever, came and went without as much gnashing of the teeth as his George Clooney starring follow up.  To me, both films carry just about the same level of silliness/outrageousness.  I suppose the big difference are the “bat-nipples”, which were exclusive to the later film.  Ah well, neither of them rates all that high for me, though as with The Island of Dr. Moreau, I found Val Kilmer’s presence in the film interesting despite the at times awful dialogue his character spouts (examples can be found the trailer below).  Mr. Kilmer made for an intriguing Bruce Wayne/Batman and it would have been interesting to see him in a more “serious” version of the film.

The Last Action Hero, on the other hand, deserved every ounce of scorn it received upon its original release.  One has to understand that back in 1993 Mr. Schwarzenneger was at the very height of his popularity and it seemed he could do absolutely no wrong.  Add to this the fact that he was again pairing up with his Predator director, John McTiernan, and movie fans such as myself were absolutely dying to see what new action film they could concoct.  But leaked early pre-release word was that the film was, quite literally, a bomb, and whatever enthusiasm many felt was tempered.  In this case, the rumors proved correct. The Last Action Hero was a lame dud of a film, a supposedly funny “movie reality intruding on reality” minus any real humor mixed with action setpieces that were curiously lifeless.  Watching the trailer below, one can feel the mix just ain’t working.  Still, the movie had a pretty decent heavy metal score…

Finally, I remember very little about The Mighty Quinn.  Saw it in the theater when it was originally released in 1989 and I vaguely recall thinking it was an “ok” movie at best and could have featured a more intriguing mystery.  Apart from that, I don’t remember all that much else.

Perhaps that’s for the best?

Movies

The White Buffalo (1977) a (very) belated review

If you’ve watched as many films as I have, you’ve certainly stumbled upon some that were stranger than others.  Perhaps some of them weren’t just strange, but off-the-wall bizarre.  Usually, those type of films register on my radar for all the wrong reasons.  Bizarre usually equals “not very good”.

Usually.

There is at least one big exception to that rule, and it is the Charles Bronson starring film The White Buffalo.  Released in 1977, the film features Mr. Bronson as Wild Bill Hickok, presented as a man who is suffering mightily from bizarre, nightmarish dreams of confronting a, you guessed it, white buffalo.  Only this white buffalo seems larger than life.  Mythic, in fact.

So disturbed by the dreams is Hickok that he returns to his old stomping grounds in the far west.  This, we find, is a place where Hickok is no longer welcome.  Hoping to avoid confrontation, he adopts a fake name, James Otis, and works his way through a couple of small towns while heading to the high country where the white buffalo, he knows, awaits him.

Meanwhile, an Indian village is attacked by the white buffalo and many of its people are slaughtered.  The village’s leader, Crazy Horse (Will Sampson), cries at the loss of his daughter and, in an interest parallel with Hickock/Otis, is forced by tribe elders to renounce his name and be called “worm” until he hunts down and kills the white buffalo.

Meanwhile (part deux!), Hickok/Otis’ journey to the high country proves a somewhat difficult one.  He alternately finds deadly enemies and friends in the towns on his way out, including an old army officer, Tom Custard (I couldn’t help but think they were hinting at this actually being General George Custard, but for whatever reason they didn’t call him that), who very much wants him dead and Poker Jenny Schermerhorn (a still stunning Kim Novak), who hopes to rekindle their old fire.

Later still, Hickok meets up with Charlie Zane (played by Jack Warden), an old time tracker with a glass eye and together they confront Whistling Jack Kileen (a very menacing Clint Walker) before heading out to the high country.

It is there that Crazy Horse/Worm and Hickok/Otis eventually join forces to take on the white buffalo.  Their union isn’t an easy one.  Hickok is forced to keep his alias as he is hated by the Indians for murdering one of their most respected peacemakers years before.  It is implied in the early going that Hickok still has no love for Indians, but in working with Crazy Horse, he comes to realize the mistake of his ways.

As I said before, The White Buffalo is a damn strange film.  Coming a mere two years after the release of Jaws, it is clear the film is, at least thematically, going for a similar vibe.  The fact that the buffalo the hunters are after is white makes you think this movie also pays tribute to Moby Dick.

However, the first 2/3rds of the film are clearly meant to be a “mythic” view of the wild west, complete with dingy border towns, larger than life characters (some based on real people, some not so much), trains, Indians, gunplay, etc. etc.

When the final confrontation between our heroes and the buffalo arrives, it is, frankly, a bit of a dud.  The effects for the white buffalo aren’t terrible, but they aren’t exactly wonderful either (check the trailer below).  On the plus side that final confrontation has a wonderful, almost dreamlike element to it, which is very much in keeping with it being a manifestation of Hickok’s own dreams.

As for how this now thirty seven year old film works “today”…well, I suspect modern audiences might find it hard to sit through the movie.  While there is action and suspense, compared to the hyperkinetic action found in more modern films, this one might play too slow.

Regardless, for those who want to take a walk on the weird side, The White Buffalo has its pluses.  Where else can you find a western with such a large, recognizable cast that features a story as strange as this one?  If you’re in an adventurous mood, give it a try.  You may be surprised by what you find.

Movies

No One Lives (2012) a (mildly) belated review

A while back, while about to watch a film on DVD, I was intrigued with one of the movie previews presented at the start.  It involved a couple (they sported British accents so I assume it was a British film) driving through very dark woods and getting lost.  This being a horror film, all hell breaks loose.  The trailer stated the film was very well received at movie festivals and several critics made note, if memory serves, of its “ingenious” and “surprising” plot.

I’m a fan of genuinely suspenseful horror films, and the trailer to this film looked to be right up my alley.  Having said this, I’m not a huge fan of the over the top “gory” horror films.  I’m old enough (*hack* *wheeze*) to recall the first wave of such “gory” features, perhaps started with The Exorcist and continued with the original The Omen (two films I like quite a bit) but rendered progressively sillier in the 1980’s with the Friday the 13th films and their like.

I know there are those out there who love gory films and revel at the “creative kills” featured within them.  That’s not me.  It’s not that I’m squeamish.  Gore in a horror film is fine, especially when it adds to the overall suspense/tension weaved by a strong story, good acting, and good direction.  However, when the gore becomes the only thing, and it seems all the film wants to do is showcase bloody special effects, I tune out.

Anyway, I have the trailer I described above in mind when I spot the description of the film No One Lives on the Netflix list:

Robbers run a couple off the road and discover a kidnapped heiress in their custody.  But they’re all about to face something even more dangerous.

While I couldn’t remember the name that belonged to that horror film trailer, this description sounded close enough to what I saw that I thought it might be it.

I was completely wrong.

To begin, this is clearly not a British film as the couple we meet at the start do not sport British accents (nor does anyone else! 😉 ).  It was pretty clear pretty quickly that I had picked out the wrong film.

Nonetheless, I gave it a try.

Long story short?  Remember what I said above, that I get bored of horror films that are essentially gore showcases?  No One Lives is pretty much a gore showcase.

Yes, there is an interesting twist at its start (this twist is almost completely given away in the brief synopsis I’ve transcribed above and most certainly given away in the trailer below), but the film’s plot is barely worth bothering with: A bunch of for the most part unpleasant cardboard characters meet their grisly end at the hands of a “super” killer (Luke Evans), who looks kinda like Errol Flynn.

There’s really not all that much more to it, unfortunately.

Perhaps one day I’ll find that film I was actually looking for.  In the meantime, I can’t recommend No One Lives to anyone but the gore hounds.

Movies

Sex Tape (ahem) underperforms…

So last weekend we had the release of the Jason Segel/Cameron Diaz comedy Sex Tape and, not too surprisingly to me, it wound up placing fourth in terms of box-office draw:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/20/dawn-of-the-planet-of-the-apes-box-office_n_5603792.html

It isn’t too often that I get a chance to head out to theaters and actually see a film during its initial release (hence my many *belated* movie reviews), but for whatever reason this summer I actually found time to see several new releases.

I believe it was when I went to see the Tom Cruise/Emily Blunt sci-fi film Edge of Tomorrow that I first saw the theatrical trailer to Sex Tape.  Now, I distinctly recall none of the theatrical trailers that I saw were all that memorable or made me want to see the films they were peddling.  But while those film trailers are for the most part forgotten, I remembered the trailer for Sex Tape.

For all the wrong reasons.

When the trailer was done, I turned to my wife (she usually is up for romantic comedies) and the look on her face reflected my sentiments: This film looked awful.

Much has been talked about how John Carter was a victim of poor promotion, but in the case of Sex Tape, I couldn’t help but feel the promotion for this film probably was likely a good reflection on the film itself.  As such, I repeat: It looked awful.  Judge for yourself:

Where to start?  Jason Segel has obviously lost weight and, while sporting a toned body (I’m envious!), his face is gaunt to the point of distracting.  Cameron Diaz…well, she’s doing what looks to be her typical Cameron Diaz romantic comedy stuff.  She remains a very pretty woman and looks game for the shenanigans.

As I re-watched the above video, I couldn’t help but notice the time counter on the lower left side.  At about the one minute mark of the trailer we reach the point where the studios behind the film identify themselves.

And I realized that a whole minute had passed in a two minute thirty seven second trailer for a comedy and I hadn’t even cracked a smile, much less laughed.  It wasn’t until the 1:21 second mark, when Cameron Diaz offers a (cut) vulgar reaction to hearing about the “cloud” that I first smiled.  Didn’t laugh, but I enjoyed her reaction.

At about the 1:45 second mark we have the “Nobody understands the cloud” lines.  Again I smiled.  Amusing, but far from hilarious.

Finally, 2:19 seconds in we have the “Siri” joke.  This was, to me, the only really amusing part of the trailer and actually elicited a chuckle.  I seem to recall that the others in the theater also laughed.  I believe it was the only time anyone did during the trailer.

So, in sum: Two smiles and a laugh during a two minute, thirty seven second trailer.

Is it any wonder the film isn’t doing all that well?

Movies

Edge of Tomorrow (2014) a (very mildly) belated review

Count me among the very few who are not big fans of the Bill Murray film Groundhog Day.

Blasphemy, you say?

I suppose.  Mind you, I like the movie’s concept and the fact that it presents a potentially fascinating story about how a self-centered person, through the magical repetition of a single day, becomes a better man.

But the film, for whatever reason, just didn’t do all that much for me.

In Edge of Tomorrow, we have Groundhog Day’s essential plot transposed into a sci-fi/action milieu.  In fact, the less charitable might say this film pretty boldly rips off Groundhog Day’s essential story to an almost alarming degree, and that its surprising lawyers aren’t swarming the studios for compensation.  I don’t know how closely the movie adheres to the novel it was based on, though my understanding is that the central conceit remains the same.

But that, in the end, didn’t bother me all that much.  In fact, as I sat back in a pretty empty theater and watched the film, I was pleasantly rocked by what may be the best Tom Cruise sci-fi films of them all.

By my count, Tom Cruise has starred in, including Edge of Tomorrow, five sci-fi films: Vanilla Sky, Minority Report, War of the Worlds, and Oblivion.  I consider Interview With A Vampire a “horror” film and Legend a “fantasy” film, thus do not include them in this list.  But even if you were to do so, Edge of Tomorrow still pulls ahead of the pack.

I liked it that much.

Tom Cruise is Cage, a military officer who is often found on the news “rah-rah”ing the military’s victories against a vicious alien menace that has taken down almost all of Europe, killing millions in the process.  In London, he meets up with the allies’ commander on the eve of a second Normandy Invasion.  If the allies successfully get a foothold into Europe, they can start the long process of kicking the aliens out of this world.

If they don’t…

Thing is, regardless of the outcome the Invasion occurring the next day will be heavy in casualties.  That’s why the commander wants Cage to be on the front lines (albeit in an area less fighting is expected) filming what’s going on.  If the beach landing fails, the commander will obviously be crucified, but it won’t matter as Earth, and humanity, will be decimated.

But the commander also knows that if the landing succeeds he may very well be crucified because of the expected amount of casualties.  So he wants Cage to document the events in a positive light and show that his decision to invade was a good one.

Only problem?  Cage is a sniveling coward.

He has no problem going in front of cameras and building up the military for the masses.  But he absolutely, positively, does not want to be anywhere near actual life-threatening danger.

He tries to sweet talk his way out of the assignment and, realizing this isn’t working, makes the mistake of trying to blackmail the commander.  Sure, Cage says, he can “rah-rah” the commander’s invasion from the front lines.  But he can also present the commander’s decisions in a far less pleasant light, so wouldn’t it be better if he weren’t there at all?

The commander, understandably, isn’t too happy to hear this.  He has Cage arrested and boots him down to a squad involved in the invasion’s first strike.  Most of the people he will fight with are not expected to survive.

The next day the barely fight-ready Cage is rigged to a metallic battle suit and dropped into the heart of the new Normandy Invasion.  He survives for a while out of sheer luck as his fellow soldiers are brutally cut down.  He even sees Rita (Emily Blunt), the allies’ almost mythical soldier who against all odds won a battle against the aliens, before seeing her also killed.

Cage huddles with the remains of his group but one particularly nasty alien appears in their foxhole.  It kills the rest of his fellow soldiers and sets its sites on Cage.  Trying to defend himself, Cage grabs a directional mine and holds it to his chest.  It explodes, killing the alien creature instantly but not quite killing Cage.  As he dies, the alien’s blood flows into him and…

…he awakens at the moment he is about to join his squad and the day before the deadly beach assault.  He comes to realize that every time he “dies”, he awakens at that moment, over and over again.

What follows is an at times riveting film where Cage slowly learns from each relived day and, in the process, discovers the secret as to why he’s reliving this experience over and over again.  The science of it may be hockey, but there is no denying the excitement generated.

But what is the most exciting, to me, was the evolution of Cage’s character.  When we first meet him, he is the walking definition of an empty suit.  He may look handsome on the outside and has a charming, camera ready smile, but he’s a coward and not a very pleasant character at all (shades of Groundhog Day).

It is his evolution into something else that is the heart of the film.  His interactions with the battle tested Rita further add to the fun as her character, we find, also has hidden layers and is a great foil to Cage.

In the end, Edge of Tomorrow is an easy recommendation.  No, it is not a “perfect” action film as there are a few minor things here and there that make no sense (I would point them out, but we might get a little too spoilery…well, without getting into too many details, one of the biggest issues is that the aliens should probably be a little more careful with the units they send into battle.  I’ll say no more.)

Ok, quibbles aside, check the film out.  It is a great piece of entertainment.

Movies

The Lego Movie (2014) and 22 Jump Street (2014) a (mildly) belated two-fer review

Why put these two films together in one review?  The common denominator, for those unaware, is that the directors of both features were the duo of Phil Lord and Christopher Miller.  In the case of The Lego Movie, these two very gifted individuals were also involved in the screenplay.

I suppose that last statement above gives away what I think about both films, but let me nonetheless elaborate a little.

When I first heard of The Lego Movie, I scoffed.

Seriously?  A film based on Lego toys?  How cheesy.  How corporate.  Just what the movie going audiences need: Another commercial for a toy line disguised as a kid’s film.

Yet once the film was released, I was more than a little surprised by the wealth of very positive reviews.  When I investigated the film some more and the people behind it (again, Mr. Lord and Miller), I was intrigued.  Not enough to catch the film during its theatrical run, but enough to give it a look when, and if, the opportunity presented itself.

While sitting on the very looong flight to England (if you get a chance to go there, take it.  Lovely place!) last week, the film was one of many available to be seen through the passenger entertainment system.  Opportunity, present!  I gave The Lego Movie a whirl.

Frankly, I wasn’t sure what to expect.  Would the film be as good as others had said, or was this a case of mass exaggeration?  I had gone through that once before, with the first Charlie’s Angels movie.  It seemed every review was something along the lines of “It was actually good!  I expected total crap and it was actually very good!”  By the time I saw the movie, my expectations were high and, I found, the movie was a disappointment.

In this case, thought, I’m happy to say the critics were right on target.  The Lego Movie proved to far, far better than my low to cautiously optimistic expectations.  The film is a creative ball of wonder, one that uses astonishing lego scenery for just about everything frame of the film and every character within.  But astonishing visuals alone a good movie does not make, and it is the creativity in the script that really counts.

The story goes as follows: In Legotown, a worker drone (essentially a nobody) gets involved in the reality behind the scenes of his seeming placid world.  Evil doings are going on and, after bumping into the more than capable of defending herself WyldStyle (voiced by Elizabeth Banks), our reluctant would-be hero finds he might just be the savior of the entire Lego world.

I know, I know…if you think about it, the plot sounds suspiciously similar to that of The Matrix.  I’ll grant you this is indeed the case, but you’re in for so very much more.  The film takes you through delightful comedic stretches and worlds, bumping into an astonishing array of copyright characters while providing a healthy dose of laugh out loud moments.

But back to the characters encountered!

Where else do you have a film that features, I kid you not, Batman –THE Batman- along with several other superheroes (I won’t mention who as I don’t want to spoil things)?  Granted, Batman is a Lego version of the character, but he’s there.  Along with other superheroes are a host of well known and surprising characters.  How the studios managed to fit them all here in this one film (albeit in Lego form) is yet another thing of wonder.

So to those like me who scoffed at the idea of a Lego Movie, scoff no more.  If you still can’t believe this feature is as good as others say, give it five minutes.  If that doesn’t convince you to watch the rest, I don’t know what will.

So the ever active Mr. Lord and Miller followed up the impressive The Lego Movie with the sequel to their better than I thought it would be 21 Jump Street with… 22 Jump Street.

Now, mind you, I wasn’t in rapture with 21 Jump Street.  I thought it was a decent movie with some very funny humor but, overall, I thought it was a “good” but not “great” film.

Well, the boys behind that film probably felt the same -and decided to one up themselves- because 22 Jump Street is far, far better than the original film.

Years ago the movie Airplane! absolutely destroyed every cliche and situation regarding both disaster movies and airplane disaster movies in particular.  22 Jump Street does the same thing…but its focus is not only on buddy cop action films, it is on the very concept of movie sequels!

And what a skewering movie sequels get in this film!

From the sign next to the old 21 Jump Street church to the closing credits that effectively wring every last laugh on what sequels are like, 22 Jump Street hits every note and makes a meta-commentary on all it is to be a sequel, from the far larger budget to the fact that “you were lucky the first time”.

“How do we solve this crime?” one of the characters ask.  “How did we do it the last time?” the another deadpans.

And so it goes.  Self-referential and with tongue firmly in cheek, the hilarious 22 Jump Street might be one of the best comedies I’ve seen since the golden days of Zucker/Abrahams/Zucker.

Seriously, its that good.

Both films are highly, highly recommended.

Movies

RoboCop (2014) a (mildly) belated review

Count me among those who were damn near horrified to learn a remake of Robocop, the classic 1987 film directed by Paul Verhoeven and starring Peter Weller and Nancy Allen, was in the works.

There were those that managed to temper their negative feelings a bit after the remake’s cast was announced.  You had Micheal Keaton.  You had Gary Oldman.  You even had Samuel L. Jackson!  Big name actors and an interesting bunch.  Then it was announced that Jose Padilha would direct.this remake.  While not a huge name in America, he had directed some fine works in his native Brazil and those in the know felt that, at the very least, he was an intriguing choice for this remake.

So some fans had their fingers crossed and hoped for the best.  Eventually, the film was released.

I think its fair to say that the general reaction to the 2014 version of RoboCop was something along the lines of “It wasn’t as bad as it could have been”, which is as backhanded a complement as you can probably get.  Looking at the hard numbers, Rotten Tomatoes has the film scoring a mediocre 49% positive among audiences and a not all that much better 55% positive among critics (In comparison, the original Robocop scored a far more impressive 88% positive among critics and an 83% positive among audiences).

For my part, I wasn’t exactly dying to see the film.  Even after learning who was in it and who directed it (I remain unfamiliar with all his previous works), I was certain whatever was produced wouldn’t hold a candle to the original.  Yet when the opportunity presented itself to see RoboCop 2014, I gave it try.  As best I could I put my mind in neutral.  I didn’t expect much, but was hoping for the best.

So…was the film better than I thought?

In a word, no.

I didn’t like the film.  I didn’t like it much at all.  Yet before I go into what went wrong, I need to give the creators behind this movie credit as it certainly appeared they took the time to try to come up with a new, somewhat unique, and interesting “take” on the whole RoboCop concept.

The movie begins with U.S. armed forces in some unnamed Arabian country.  Over there the U.S. is using robots to “protect” the peace, a not so subtle jab at the current drone wars, only these forces are actually patrolling the ground (and obviously making the locals very nervous).  The company behind the robots, OmniCorp, wants to increase their profits by expanding the robot program into the United States as an aid to fighting crime.  But while we can use terrifying robots “over there”, politicians are far less inclined to allow their use within U.S. soil.

The company, headed by Raymond Sellars (Michael Keaton) figures out an end around to the politicians: It will create a man/machine hybrid and hopefully its success will allow them to convince the politicians to fully implement their profitable robotic forces on our soil.

All they need to do is find a police officer severely injured enough to put these robotic parts on what remains of his person.

Enter Alex Murphy (a very bland Joel Kinnaman) who is the proverbial “honest” cop in a den of dishonesty.  He is pursuing illegal gun sellers who are apparently getting their weapons from the police themselves.  His investigation creates too many waves and Murphy is dispatched with a car bomb.

Now severely injured, our two stories intersect as OmniCorp deems the fallen officer prime material for their RoboCop program.

And off we go.

Again, I like the fact that the creators of this film decided to use current events to fashion their movie’s concept.  I also like the fact that when RoboCop is created, they question just how far a human being can be cut down and “augmented” with artificial components before he is no longer a human.  These prove to be surprisingly weighty issues…but unfortunately tackling interesting concepts alone does not a good movie make.

The original RoboCop also dealt to some degree with the issues of man and machine interaction.  Unlike this remake, it gleefully presented itself as an ultraviolent comic book (I say that in the best way).  We had high level emotions and strong action sequences.  We had suspense, we had humor.  Like it or not, the original RoboCop moved.

Something that, unfortunately, cannot be said of the remake.

The first major mistake the film makes, ironically enough, goes back to its biggest strength.  The movie winds up wallowing a little too much in the questions of what makes a man and at what point is he a machine.  Worse, we’re given no strong villains for RoboCop to fight against.  Sure, we know two of his fellow officers are corrupt, but they’re for the most part in the background doing very little.  The head gun seller and man who was behind Murphy’s near death is also presented in only a couple of scenes and never merits much thought before he’s dispatched.  There are two other villains who appear later in the film, but one is meant to be a total surprise so we can’t root against the character and cheer her fall.  The final villain reveals his villainy only in the film’s last ten or so minutes, also making that character someone hard to root against.

What we’re left with is a film that Rottten Tomatoes’ score hits perfectly.  RoboCop 2014 is certainly not a terrible film, but neither is it particularly good.  In the end, it winds up being little more than mediocre.  And that winds up frustrating you all the more.  With a little more effort, RoboCop 2014 might have been memorable in its own way.

Too bad.