Another mass dump (phrasing)

I"m obviously incapable of maintaining any consistency of posts anymore (Cocaine's a hell of a drug) so here's some quick hits:

Top Five

Generally enjoyed it, but the plot is the least interesting part. The 'Chris Rock does Woody Allen' description that's been floating around is apt (and a good thing)

Birdman

The further I get from it, the less impressed I am. There's some strong performances, and its technically interesting, but ultimately comes off as a biiiit too pleased with itself.

The Gambler

Wholly watchable and forgettable.  But I kept getting thrown by the scenes shot on the USC campus. In particular the placement of a parking lot and bus stop where there is only a pedestrian walkway.

Selma

Well done, though the cameos get out of control.

American Sniper

Meh

Inherant Vice

I would have to be in a very particular mood to get through this, and I ended up walking out 45 minutes in. I'll give it another shot when it comes on HBO, and this is the third PTA film in a row I haven't been that impressed with. On the other, this (and to a lesser extent Birdman) is exactly the kind of thing I would have loved (or professed to love) when I was in college. I was a pretty douchey undergrad.

Jupiter Ascending

A mess, but at least the Wachowski's tried. Actually way more incoherent than Cloud Atlas (which I actually enjoyed) and it seems like quite a bit was cut (not that it would have helped). Still prefer a fiasco like this to something rote and boring. Like your mom.

A whole bunch of stuff

Okay, I've been under a rock the last few months. Here's some quick hits.

Guardians of the Galaxy

Really good, see it.

Gone Girl

Actually saw it twice. I'm still not sure it really makes any sense, but reasonably compelling.

Whiplash

Entertaining and surprisingly funny, and most importantly sticks to its vision, even going as far as sort of taking the side of the main protagonist. It also makes the two leads realistically unlikable and reinforces the idea that obsessed people aren't that pleasant to be around in real life.

My only quibble with the drumming is that it waaaayyy overused someon eplaying so much their hands bled.

Hunger games Mackingjay Part 1
I actually think this book gets a  bad rap. Still not worth making into two films but moves pretty well for what it is.

Interstellar

Really strong opening hour or so that's almost undone by a ridiculous ending and completely unnecessary plot twist involving a cameo. Still ambitious and well worth seeing.

Boyhood/Lucy

The fact that this film exists is pretty remarkable. It doesn't quite live up to the hype but the fact that its essentially plotless and doesn't feel like a drag at almost three hours is quite an accomplishment. The biggest problem is that the actors who play the main character (and his sister) don't grow into their acting ability at the same rate as their physical growth. They're not horrible, but the relative lack of ability becomes more glaring as time passes (particularly as the film casts new friends that are older and better actors). That said I was never bored and left generally impressed.

Lucy, on the other hand, is a completely ludicrous sugar rush that actually sort of works. It's basically Scarlett Johannsen playing a mix of Bradley Cooper's character from limitless, her character from Her (there's a weird sentence), and Leon from the Professional. Director Luc Besson is smart enough to not take the premise that seriously and keeps the whole thing moving at a tight 88 minutes. Look, if you think about the plot at all it doesn't make any sense, but I really appreciate how they acknowledge this fact, ignore it, and keep things moving enough so you don't get many chances to reflect. It's not art, but I admire the economy and self-awareness. I'd be much more likely to watch it again than most of the bloated action films that typically come out in the summer.

Snowpiercer/22 Jump Street

Snowpiercer is a film that has gotten almost universally positive reviews (here's an example) but pretty much fails on every level for me. It's also tremendously odd and constantly veers between trying to be a super-intense action film and a cartoony satire. While there are elements that almost work (particularly on the satire side), the constant whipping back and forth in tone ended up ruining the whole thing. The 'serious' dialog is cringingly bad, and the acting is all over place - particularly in the more 'emotional' and 'intense' scenes. Given how farcical some of the satire is I almost suspected this might have been some big meta-commentary as well, but the last scene indicates that the filmmaker's intent was all too serious.

Obviously I'm in the minority here, but the whole thing is just a fiasco. Cabin in the woods did the mix of action and satire much more effectively. All that said, it is a really weird film, and its sort of amazing that it even got made. As a result I can't completely dismiss it but I can't see ever watching it again. (Though if you see it don't even start thinking about the plot, no part of it really makes sense).

22 Jump Street on the other hand is pretty much what I expected. Overly long, not all the jokes hit, but it works way better than it has any right to. The chemistry between Hill and Tatum is still fun, and the film definitely does not take itself too seriously. I don't need to see any more installments (and thankfully the film seems to agree), but the filmmakers deserve a lot of credit for getting two pretty entertaining films out of a really thin premise.

The Immigrant

Saw this before taking off for a couple weeks (world cup yo) so my impressions are a little foggy. This review calling it the greatest american film in years piqued my interest (especially because the AV club usually hates everything), but ultimately The Immigrant is probably going to end up being a film I respect but will probably never watch again. It looks great, and is impressively committed to sticking to its world, but I did feel that the 'metaphor' sign was flashing a little too brightly by the end (if the acting wasn't so solid it would have tipped into melodrama at around the midway point). Still, its a solidly made, ambitious film that is worth checking out. It may not redefine american cinema, but at least it makes the effort to be interesting.

X-Men: Days of future past

I'm going to be lazy and just link to another review that I think does a nice job covering the big issues in this film. I don't have a lot more to say so I'll continue my trend of laziness and just do bulletpoints.

1) The film is essentially the 2009 Star Trek, using time travel to completely wipe away everything that happened before. It was entertaining enough, but you can't help that feel the whole thing is a little pointless. I'm not sure if I prefer this approach, or the Spider Man tactic of just recasting and starting over (since I haven't watched either of the new Spidey films I guess its this one), but it does get a little tiresome.

2) Whatever enjoyment I get from the X-men films is the exact opposite of what I get from the Marvel Universe. In the Marvel films I really like the main characters, but usually find the plot and action sequences to be a bit tedious. In X-men I don't find the characters to be that interesting on their own (maybe because the films try to hard to make them walking metaphors) so my enjoyment has to come from the plot. Here I'd say it was about 70% successful. Good enough, but not anything I'm going to revisit anytime soon.

3) Most of the auditorium clapped at the end of my screening. I will never understand this.

Godzilla

Script - Meh
Acting - Underwhelming
Monsters - Good

....

....


....

Oh you wanted more? Event though the answer is no, here's three more sentences.

1) The movie is watchable because it really delivers on the giant reptiles hitting each other.

2) Also there's some nice moments of humor with the news coverage.

3) Everybody's using this as an opportunity to rip on Pacific Rim, which I do't think is completely fair, its not like this was great art or anything either.

Fin

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Its getting to the point where I can pretty much write the same review for 90% of these Marvel films. Basically I, for the most part, enjoy the viewing experience but most of them have the same two big issues.

1) Ever since The Avengers, whenever one of the stand alone characters has to deal with a major crisis you immediately wonder why they don't at least place a phone call to some of their super cohort. Iron Man III sort of got around this by barely acknowledging the wider universe, but since Captain America's conflict deals directly with the potential dissolution of S.H.I.E.L.D. it makes no sense that the other avengers wouldn't at least send an inquisitive text. I guarantee Hawkeye didn't have anything else going on.

2) My favorite part of the film is still just hanging out with the characters as they bounce off of one another and just go about their business. The big action set pieces, especially the end, just distract from this aspect (not to mention make me acutely aware of point #1), and end up being a little boring. I'd almost prefer it if the budget were cut and they made the conflicts a little more individualized. It'll never happen, but it would be nice. I guess what I'd really like is for Joss Whedon to make a TV show, with the Game of Thrones budget, to explore the world more deeply (this is part of the reason I'm so annoyed that agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. isn't better).

Still, the fact that Marvel's achieved that hard part and made me enjoy being around the characters more that the action can't be sniffed at. I just hope that some of the future entries move beyond the current format and try something new (even if that means scaling down a bit).

The Grand Budapest Hotel

I'm all in on Wes Anderson so of course I enjoyed the film. Still, I'd probably enjoyed it the least of his recent offerings. Basically it works best as a screwball comedy, but whenever it tries to get serious the pacing really falters, and the stab at the profundity at the end really falls flat and feels tacked on. Its not that I don't think Anderson can effectively mix comedy and emotion (that was a poorly constructed sentence) - I just don't think he succeeds here.

Still, its worth seeing and I'm sure I'll watch it multiple times in the future.

Veronica Mars

Veronica Mars is probably the most flawed T.V. show that I watched regularly (at least on DVD).* The compelling well-drawn central character and witty writing was often offset by supporting acting that ranged from sub-par (piz) to laughably bad (Duncan). Still, the central relationships between Veronica and her father (as well as some great side characters - Dick and Vinnie to name a few) meant that more often than not I really enjoyed the show. The movie, for better or worse, embodies both of these qualities. First the good. It was a lot of fun seeing (most) of the characters again, and the dialogue and relationships settled right into the rhythms that made the show much fun. There are too many in jokes for a non-fan to understand** but anyone who enjoyed the show should have a lot of fun with it.

That said, there are two main problems with the film. The first rolls over from the show, the second is new. The old one is that for some reason creator Rob Thomas thinks that Veronica's romantic life is inherently interesting. The problem is that every one of her major romantic interests (including the two in the film) are decidedly less than compelling screen presences (to put it mildly). As a result its difficult to care much about the relationships.

Second, they've really heightened the villainy to almost cartoony levels. The original show was never a bastion of reality, but it never had anything as blatant as the upper class using the police department to run roughshod over any semblance of rights for anyone else. I get that they want to go big for a film, but still it was jarring.

So there you go. Just like the source material, the film is really flawed but I still enjoyed it. Put that on the poster.

*Fr those of you who will throw One Tree Hill in my face, I can only say - How Dare You
**Seriously someone who hasn't seen the show is going to have no idea of what's going on

The Lego Movie

The film has been universally praised and I can't really deviate from that. Its really clever, has good voice work (will arnett as batman in particular) and actually doesn't come off as overly commercial. Buuuuut, there is still something disconcerting about a well made film that at its core is still a 90 minute advertisement for a toy company. Its not that I think this sort of movie shouldn't be made, or that its corrupting the youth, but I don't know, its a little weird. Whatever, I'll leave you with this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bdWgClU8vk

Wolf of Wall Street

This is an odd film. I'm not really going to get into the controversy of whether or not the film is glorifying its protagonists, Vince over at filmdrunk has a good take on all that. To me the movie was all surface, entertaining surface, but surface none the less. I wasn't really sure how I was supposed to feel about the protagonists (other than that they were incredibly lucky morons), and the stated point, from Scorcese, that the film is all about class and the financial system, was lost on me. I think the biggest problem is the movie just glossed over how they were actually so successful (we were just supposed to assume they were master salesman, what given what was shown wasn't that convincing) and what the actual effect on their victims were. We're told a about how much they stole, but it didn't have much gravity to it. Really it just came off as a a lot of spectacle, without much of a point. It is really funny at times, and well-executed, but its not a classic by any stretch of the imagination.

Also three hours is way too long for this story. Two hours would have been plenty (you can now say 'shut up grandpa').

Her (with a cameo by American Hustle and Inside Llewyn Davis)

Lets knock the cameos out first. American Hustle is a lot of fun and worth seeing (and I'm still impressed how Jennifer Lawrence is able to convincingly play so much older than she looks), and Inside Llewyn Davis is yet another Coen Brother's film that I respect more than I enjoyed. Take that for what its worth.

Her, on the other hand, may be one of the most impressive films I've seen in awhile. This is due to the degree of difficulty it has to overcome. Basically its the story of a man who falls in love with his operating system that's not only believable, but not creepy, without feeling forced. Its the kind of high concept that would be an absolute disaster in the wrong hands, but writer/director Spike Jonze pulls it off. I was so impressed with the execution that I didn't even worry about the film's flaws.* The two main performances are also key to the film's success. Joaquin Phoenix manages to believably play someone who's socially awkward without coming off as a loser, and Scarlet Johannsen uses just her voice to create a fully realized 'character' that you can sort of understand how someone could be attracted to 'her' (the meta-question is if we didn't subconciously know what Johannsen looked like would it be as believable? Whoa dude, deep, I'm so high right now.).

Its also a really clever piece of science fiction, not calling attention to itself, but still painting a nice portrait of what the relatively near future might look like. In particular we are apparently no longer subject to the tyranny of belts:

Every guy wore these pants in ever scene. I approve, belts are for suckers. Anyway, check Her out if you get a chance. Its not perfect, but its incredibly satisfying.

*I'll relegate them to a footnote. A lot of Phoenix's character's writing is kind of trite, and some of the big speeches border on college english major level insights. Also I'm not sure they quite stick the ending.  Still these are just quibbles.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire/The Hobbit, something something something

The Hunger Games

This second installment of the franchise was better than the first. Partially because the new director moved away from shaki-cam, but mainly because the movie at least tried to expand beyond a rote  retelling of the books. Specifically, it at least made an effort to explore the world from other characters perspective (The books, which I love, are told entirely from the main character's point of view) which is the big opportunity the film has to differentiate, and build on, the books. Overall it still hues closely to the main narrative, but I still appreciated the effort to do something different.

Other than that there's not much else to say.  Jennifer Lawrence is still great, the action scenes are a bit long, and its reasonably entertaining. Unlike the next film I saw.

The Hobbit Desolation of Smaug (probably misspelled but I don't care)

It's long.
So long.
So so long.

Look I liked the Lord of the Rings films, but I found the first installment of the Hobbit to be incredibly tedious and boring. However I saw it on a plane so I'm willing to admit that maybe not having the proper visual environment colored my opinion. Nope. This was equally as tedious and drawn out. Yes they spent alot of time and money on the visuals but perversely I found the much hyped 48 frames per second shooting style to be a detriment. Specifically, it makes everything on screen so clear that the falseness of the CGI really stood out for me, particularly in the daylight scenes. Of course had the film not been a slog this wouldn't have been such a bid deal, but at three hours long it was tough not to miss any flaws.

I'm sure I'm being too hard on this, and had it been shorter I probably wouldn't be so annoyed. Its not horrible, simply boring. Which, as I've said before, annoys me more than almost anything.

Oh well since we're in full on awards mode I'm hoping to see the following over the next few weeks to cleanse my pallet:

American Hustle
Wolf of Wall street
Her
Inside Llewyn Davis

Gravity/Thor: The Dark World

If you had told me I would have come out of these films wishing one had more action and less character, and the other less action and more character, I probably wouldn't have guessed the latter would be Thor. Its interesting but in all the Marvel Films the characters (particularly Iron Man) have been so established that I prefer the time spent just hanging out with them, rather than the generically interchangeable fight scenes. This is particularly true in Thor where they try even less than usual to make the villain compelling (or even logical). As a result the best scenes focus inherent goofiness of the character (particularly when its just Thor and Loki hanging out and talking trash), rather than 20 minute fight scenes where you never really believe the world is going to end. Joss Whedon got close to the desired dynamic with the Avengers (in the scenes with Iron Man and Hulk) but even there the action ended bogging down the proceedings. Really I wouldn't mind someone like Kevin Smith getting ahold of one of these films. Someone who would put all the focus on the interactions of the characters, and the incongruity of having them in the world, as opposed to massive set pieces.  Don't get me wrong. I still enjoy the universe, I guess I'm just less impressed by the spectacle.

Gravity on the other hand is a taut 90 minutes of essentially real time space action, and it looks as good as everyone says. Really the only problem with it, and this is the same point Will Leitch made in his review, is the arbitrary attempt to force a back story on Sandra Bullock's character. Its completely unnecessary, and really grinds whats an overall propulsive film to halt. There's plenty of tension already, we don't need a dead kid thrown in there as well. This is only a minor quibble though, and its well worth checking out.

The World's End/Rush

Been busy (busy = napping) so haven't been out to see much.  Anyway I saw The Worlds End about a month ago and like the rest of the Cornetto Trilogy (Sean of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) its really enjoyable. The cast has a nice rapport and the film doesn't beat you over the head with references. Its not going to change the world or anything (which is good because, well, The World Ends) but it has a high rewatchability factor and is one of the funnier films I've seen this summer.

Rush on the other hand is the embodiment of a 'solid' movie, but nothing more. It follows two formula one drivers vying for the 1976 championship, one is a hothead who relies on guts, and the other takes a cerebral technical approach to his work and finds the other to be a 'danger to the sport.' If this sounds a little too generic and cliched to you, you're not wrong.  The weakest part of the film is the overly broad characterizations and on the nose dialog which did have me roll my eyes at times. However, the film excels in the racing scenes. You really get a nice sense of the power and speed of the cars, and just how dangerous it was to race in the relatively unregulated race series in the 1970's.  Really the way the films portrays it I was amazed there weren't more racer, and spectator, deaths. Basically you could just roll right up on the track behind a minimal, or non-existent, barrier and watch the race. Though if this was still allowed I might actually watch a NASCAR race (no I wouldn't).  Anyway Rush is worth seeing for the racing action, and that is worth seeing, but don't expect much more.

The Spectacular Now

TSN (I only did that because I realized the film's initial's were the same as The Sporting News, and makes it sound like a network on The Newsroom. I'm clever) is a generally enjoyable film about a functioning high school alcoholic who ends up falling for a sheltered classmate. The best things the film has going for it are the two leads (whose names I"m  not going to bother to look up). They have the benefit of actually looking like high schoolers (or, at worst, sophomores in college), and do a great job capturing the subtlety of the characters. This subtlety is generally matched by the pace of the film and I appreciated how for most of the first half it didn't feel the need to put an explanation point on the drinking, or the main character's general sense of disillusionment and fear of the future. Unfortunately the last half hour or so devolves into a combination of a PSA and the ending of Good Will Hunting which undercuts the restraint the rest of the film exhibited. Its still worth watching just because the two leads are so good, but I wish it had stuck to the earlier feel and not felt the need to shift tones so dramatically.

Also because I like to appear like a discerning pop culture fan I'm obligated to mention the Bubbles from the wire plays a math teacher. #stuffwhitepeoplelike

Blackfish/Despicable Me 2/Blue Jasmine

Okay got a little backed up here doing other super important activities (video games don't play themselves). Lightning round.

Blackfish

This documentary about deaths of Sea World trainers at the hands (flippers?) of Killer Whales is smart in how it goes about its business. Rather than being the expected "Aren't Orcas beautiful and mysterious, how dare we keep these beautiful spirits in captivity" route (though there is some of that), it focuses on whether or not Sea World (and other water parks) run unsafe work environments. And really, if the very act of working with these animals is asking for trouble (the answer would seem to be yes). The film has amazing footage of whales attacking trainers, and paints a pretty damning picture of Sea world  management ignoring risks and trying to hide all of the attacks from not just the public but other trainers as well.

The film does have two major drawbacks. The first isn't really the makers fault. Sea World refused to participate so there really isn't anyone arguing the other side (though there are few things that seem indefensible). This leaves most of the arguments feeling incomplete. Second, it does verge a bit into the polemical at moments, particularly at the end as former trainers get into the whole 'should we even have zoos' debate. I don't deny there may be a discussion to have about that, but its a much more problematic area then the question of unsafe work conditions (particularly, as my brother likes to point out, we do spend much of our time breeding animals in worse conditions for the sole reason of eating them).  Thankfully this isn't the focus, and the majority of the film is engaging and brings up some interesting questions. Well worth checking out.

Despicable Me 2

Its fine. Ignores the kid characters probably too much, and definitely gets draggy in spots, but inifinitely less offensive than something like Planes.

Blue Jasmine

As I've said before, I'm totally in the bag for Woody Allen.  I'll see anything the guy does, and even with his lesser works I always find something to enjoy.  Blue Jasmine is actually a divergence from his last several, mainly comedic, films.  Its funny, but more like Crimes and Misdemeanors funny as opposed to a farce. It follows a thoroughly unlikable character (jasmine, played by Cate Blanchett) whose life falls apart and then spends the rest of the film popping pills and going crazy. The film actually plays lighter than my description sounds, but its a really interesting choice and pretty dark. Not everything works (some of the supporting characters are, to say the least, broad) but overall another solid effort from the Wood-man (yes I really just called him that. Shut up.)

Pacific Rim

Pacific Rim has ended up being more divisive than I would have expected. As an example check out Will Leitch  (positive), and Vince Mancini's (negative) reviews. While I think all the criticism is completely fair (the characters are generously described as thin, the dialogue is marginal, and story derivative), I still ended up generally enjoying myself. This movie is all surface, but that surface is Monsters vs. Robots as done by the guy who made Pan's Labyrinth, and starring Idris Elba (Stringer lives!), so the surface goes a long way.  Del Toro does a real nice job with fights scenes (you can follow what's going on, and they actually involve some deliberate pacing) which counts for quite a bit. Sure I would have preferred to have there be actual acting outside of Elba (and to a lesser extent Charlie Day and Ron Pearlman), but I'll take what I can get.  And in this case what you get involves a scene of a Robot hitting Godzilla with a tanker ship. That's not nothing.

Much Ado About Nothing

Joss Whedon is one of those guys I'm completely in the bag for, so of course I was going to see his adaptation of Shakespeare, shot at his house in 12 days while taking a break from editing the Avengers.

Overall he does a nice job capturing the playfullness of the original play, and adds some wordless flashback scenes between Benedick and Beatrice which actually gives some context to why  there's so much beef between them.  He also makes the smart choice of having most of the characters spend the entire proceedings hammered. This makes all of the mistaken identities (or at least perceived mistaken identities) more tolerable since its difficult to believe anyone sober could actually believe any of the plot machinations.  Unfortunately he's not able to get rid of the most problematic part of the play. The fact that the central conflict revolves around an idiot plot point that could have been solved with any number of people just asking one relevant question. But whatever, the film is still a lot of fun (even though like every Shakespeare play I see it takes about five minutes to get used to the language) and Nathon Fillion is still the man.