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.

Man of Steel/World War Z

Going in my interest in seeing both of these could be described as moderate at best.  I just don't find Superman to be that interesting of a character, and as for World War Z, do we really need more zombies (given the box office success probably yes)? But, I found myself out of town for the weekend with some time to kill in a city that was 100 degrees, so here we are.

As for Man of Steel, Vince over a Filmdrunk had a pretty good review of this most recent entry to the Superman series, and I think he hits most of the big issues with it.  I agree with people who say the first half has some interesting ideas but the second half just degenerates into a pretty generic action thriller with some glaring, to say the least, plot holes.  I even like Zach Snyder (an opinion that seems to be in the minority, at least among 'serious' film fans). I thought 300 had a manic energy to it that was a lot of fun, and had be able to infuse some of that energy into Man of Steel then the film could have avoided turning into slog most of the last hour plus ends up being.  But whatever, its a solid C film. Not horrible,but nothing I feel any desire to watch again.

A couple of other random thoughts:

-This is probably a spoiler but the way Pa Kent dies is just idiotic. Basically he goes back to save the dog and waves off Clark so he can keep his abilities secret. I like dogs as much as the next guy (editors note: That is a lie, Eric's interest in dogs could be described as ambivalent at best), but when a tornado is bearing down I think its time to let little Sparky try to make it out himself. He had a good run.
-Its an old comment that these superhero films (or action films in general) just ignore the collateral damage that our ostensible protagonist unleashes in the name of 'justice' but Man of Steel turns it up to 11. Easily millions of people die while superman is doing his thing, and nobody really seems to notice. If the film exhibited any sense of humor I would almost think they were making a commentary about action films, but it shows no indication of self-awareness at all.
-Michael shannon just isn't that good as General Zod, but since he's usually excellent I'm going to assume  a lot of that has to do with how dumb the plot surrounding him is.

Now the one big advantage World War Z has over Superman is that its a half an hour shorter. I mean that as  a compliment. Besides the relative brevity Z is a compentently paced action film with a few interesting ideas interspersed with a lot of A-B-C action. Its not boring,but its also not all that compelling. Really the best way to describe it is that I entered indifferent, and left indifferent. Not bored, just kind of 'meh.' Basically its not worth seeking out, but if you run across it on cable one day you could do worse.

Now you See Me

So yeah, magicians as bank robbers, but not really. Whatever, I liked the cast and after a day of reading labor migration research I didn't want to watch anything that caused me to have to think too much. And it definitely met that bar. Its watchable, mainly because of the cast (Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Isla Fischer, the Franco bother who was on Scrubs, Melanie Laurent, Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, Mark Ruffalo), but also needlessly complicated (not in a you can't follow way, but in a 'if you think about what's actually happening for more than a second the plot doesn't hold up at all' way) and takes itself a little too seriously for what should have been a pretty light heist movie (it needlessly revolves around this idea of what 'true' magic is).

But whatever, the most fascinating part of the experience was this guy about three rows back. He could not have been more entertained. He was busting up at the film's couple of half-hearted attempts at a one-liners, and at the big 'twist' ending he about lost his, pardon the vernacular, shit all over the theatre. I worry  if he saw a film that was actually clever and surprising, like say The Usual Suspects, he may actually have a heart attack.  So I guess its good that middle of the road, immediately forgettable, films like this exist. There's a certain segment of the population who wouldn't be able to go to the cinema and come out alive otherwise.