Ghost in the Shell Review

Whitewashing controversy aside... this movie still isn't very good.

Chappie - Review

It's basically an R-Rated version of Wall-E or Short Circuit. I've heard of crazier premises turned into good movies... just not this one.

Guardians of the Galaxy - Review

I hate to sound all negative here... but is anyone else getting the feeling that Marvel's bubble is about to burst? I mean, since they kicked off their cinematic universe back in 2008, they've churned out hit after hit like clockwork, with movies ranging from good to pure awesome. Even what is arguably their weakest film, Iron Man 2, is at the very least an enjoyable action flick while The Avengers is probably going to be seen as one of the best summer blockbusters to ever hit theaters. Ugh... leave it to me to start out a review for what is easily the most enjoyable movie of the summer (hell, one of the most enjoyable movies of the last decade even) in such a negative way. Really not joking about that folks, I can't remember the last time I've had this much fun in a theater. How fun is it? Let's take a look...

Guardians of the Galaxy opens with Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) aka Starlord (well... at least he calls himself that), a human abducted by aliens when he was only child, stealing a mysterious orb on a distant planet. While his succeeds in his theft, he becomes marked as one of the most wanted men in the galaxy. First, he becomes the target of bounty hunters Rocket (voiced by Bradley Cooper), a genetically engineered raccoon, and Groot (voiced by Vin Diesel) a tree-like humanoid alien, who are attempting to cash in on the hefty bounty placed on Quill's head. Also after Quill is alien assassin Gamora (Zoe Saldana), a skilled killer trained by the evil Thanos, who has other uses in mind for the mysterious orb in Quill's possession. When they all end up in prison after a scuffle for the orb, they meet Drax the Destroyer (Dave Bautista), a vengeful warrior who lost his family at the hands of Ronan The Accuser (Lee Pace). While the group's initially meeting is filled with hate and tension, they all must reluctantly band together when they discover the truth behind the orb and Ronan's thirst for power grows stronger and more dangerous.

Guardians of the Galaxy is easily the strangest film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe... it's also one of the strangest big budget blockbusters to come around in recent memory... and it's just plain awesome! I've mentioned before in previous reviews that with all of the movies I watch and the general declining quality of Hollywood creativity, it gets harder and harder for me to get hyped and excited. Guardians of the Galaxy though peaked my interest from the get-go, not just because I thought it looked good (though it did), but rather because any film that has weird space aliens, a humanoid tree being, and a talking raccoon all fighting some epic war in space is so out there that even if it turned out to be bad, at least it would be interesting or different. Plus, this film also makes the big budget debut of cult film director James Gunn... a mainstay of the Troma school of filmmakers who's worked steadily directing some underrated low budget genre films (go watch Slither if you haven't seen it yet.. because it's awesome). So yeah... obscure comic series, weird space creatures, catchy soundtrack, and a cult filmmaker... that's what it takes to generate some interest.

It's tricky to truly describe what kind of film Guardians of the Galaxy is. It's something of a space opera, but it's also heavily inspired by the sci-fi serials of the 1950s and earlier (the same kind of films that inspired George Lucas to make Star Wars), and it's something of a bromance comedy. It's almost even a live action movie of Futurama... yeah, that's probably the best comparison since it's really more of a comedy than it is an action movie. It finds it's greatest strength in it's characters, and the actors playing them. Chris Pratt as Peter Quill leads the team, playing Quill as something like an 8-year-old's interpretation of a Han Solo like space hero mixed with a douchebag frat boy. Actually, he's basically a slightly more competent version of Phillip J Fry (like I said, Futurama). Pratt's natural comic timing and his better than expected execution of the action scenes all work to his advantage as the reluctant leader to a group of misfits. Zoe Saldana is predictably solid as Gamora... who at this point probably feels right at home in her usual role as the ass-kicking sci-fi heroine. Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel find a surprising amount of range in their voice over performances as Rocket and Groot respectively. It's especially impressive for Vin Diesel when you consider just how much emotion comes through his line readings of the phrase "I Am Groot" (that's all his character knows how to say). WWE superstar Dave Bautista turns out to be the biggest surprise, with a shockingly effective performance as Drax the Destroyer. While I knew he would kick ass in the action scenes (he's a wrestler after all), his believable, funny, and even sometimes moving performance as this vengeful brute is hands down one of the best athlete-turned-actor performances in recent memory. I also have to give a shout out to Lee Pace as the villainous Ronan the Accuser, playing off his role as something like Emperor Palpatine if he was a James Bond villain. Even if the story occasionally stumbles, the cast always manages to keep it afloat.

Based purely on visual terms, this is definitely one of the most impressive looking films I've seen in quite some time. The locals and production design all have a unique look while still paying tribute to the cult sci-fi B-Movies and serials of the 1950s. Plus, the vast array of colorful aliens and creatures all realized through top notch makeup and computer effects are as creative as they are impressive. On that note, the film is also a great example of just how far cgi technology has come in recent years. The effects used to render Rocket and Groot especially are easily the most impressive effects from this summer's barrage of blockbusters. Plus the action is constantly entertaining, whether it be a chase scene, fight scene, space battle... you name it, it's there, and it's awesome. Script-wise, this isn't exactly high caliber screenwriting. The story itself is creative if not fairly generic, in fact most of it's plot points ring a little too close to The Avengers. Fortunately it redeems itself through solid pacing, the aforementioned enjoyable characters, and it's witty sense of humor. The banter between the cast is full of some hilarious laugh out loud moments, plus it's scattered with frequent chuckles throughout the movie as well. It's really more of a comedy first and an action film second, and I have absolutely no problem with that. If nothing else, it was such a relief to see another comic book movie that was so bright, vibrant, diverse, and colorful... I am so sick of the dark and drab aesthetic plaguing so many films these days (I liked Nolan's Batman films too... but seriously it's okay to have some fun once in a while).

So Guardians of the Galaxy... so far the most enjoyable film I've seen this year. It's diverse, it's funny, and it's a blast to watch. If you haven't seen it yet, definitely check it out before it's run in theaters comes to an end.

My Score: 4.5 out of 5!

Star Trek Into Darkness - Review

After Star Trek was rebooted in 2009 by director JJ Abrams, the franchise suddenly found a renewed interest with both fans and non-Trekkies alike. While the film was criticized by some for a substandard screenplay that favored flashy effects over depth, the film nonetheless was considered a pretty huge success. So, to no surprise, expectations for it's sequel, Star Trek Into Darkness, have been running high. Now the film is finally in theaters, and critical reaction has been quite positive for the most part. While I personally had some mixed feelings toward the 2009 reboot, I was overall pleased with the final result and was genuinely interested in seeing where the series would end up going. Now that I've finally seen the film, what are my thoughts? Honestly... despite a few good moments and scenes... Star Trek Into Darkness kind of sucks. I know that's going against the majority here, but the more I think about it, the more I think just how lazy, flat, and uninspired this movie turned out.

The film picks up sometime (a year maybe, not really disclosed) after the events of the previous flick. James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) is still Captain of the USS Enterprise. His loyal friends and crew return as well, including First Officer Spock (Zachary Quinto), Medical Officer Leonard "Bones" McCoy (Karl Urban), Communications Officer Lt. Uhura (Zoe Saldana), Lt. Sulu (John Cho), Ensign Chekov (Anton Yelchin), and Chief Engineer Montgomery "Scotty" Scott (Simon Pegg). Kirk leads the Enterprise with a cavalier attitude, which has lead to many near-disaster occasions and landed him in hot water with his Starfleet superiors. Fortunately for Kirk, his friend and mentor, Admiral Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood), reluctantly continues to bail him out trouble. That all changes however, when a rogue Starfleet officer named John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) carries out a number of terrorist attacks against various Starfleet locations... one of which takes the life of Admiral Pike. Kirk, determined to take down Harrison, volunteers the Enterprise for the assignment. Starfleet Admiral Alexander Marcus (Peter Weller), approves the assignment, and sends Kirk and crew on their way. Shortly after the mission commences, Kirk begins to realize that not all is as it seems and that Harrison may have more than one trick up his sleeve.

First of all, I'm going to preface this review with a disclaimer... I will eventually have to spoil many parts of this flick. I generally try to avoid spoilers as much as I can, but this time I really don't have much of a choice, since so many of my thoughts and critiques center around un-revealed plot details and twists. Honestly, I think most Trekkies have long since figured out (or at least suspected) many of the "big surprises" (sarcasm) so it's probably not a big deal... but since they're technically spoilers, when I get around to revealing them, I will put up a spoiler warning.

So without spoiling anything... what works in this film? Once again, it's a strong technical achievement. The special effects are just as impressive, if not more impressive, than the effects in the 2009 film. They've lost some of their novelty since 2009, but I won't deny that they still look pretty great. There are some really impressive action scenes that keep the film moving at a good pace and continuously entertaining. You have your expected space battles, a few hand-to-hand combat scenes, a chase scene or two, and also a pretty creative sequence involving Kirk flying through space in a space-suit and jetpack-like device. The makeup effects are just as great as always and the cgi is utilized well. JJ Abrams fetish for barraging the audience with lens flares and shining lights can be a bit annoying, but you get used to it reasonably quickly. Once again I also have to commend composer Michael Giacchino for his work on a stellar musical score. There are a few repeat tracks, but the use of original music combined with shout-outs to classic Trek material is always fine in my book. Overall, it's a nice looking and typically exciting movie with some great action and impressive effects. That prevents the film from tanking completely, which counts for something.

Most of the actors from the previous film return, and for the most part, they're all pretty solid. Chris Pine is a bit better this time around as Kirk, giving way to a few bits of dramatic range while still approaching the role with the same intensity and charisma as last time. I won't say he's always perfect, and he still doesn't have that same memorable presence as Shatner, but he does his job. The standout for me once again was Simon Pegg, who brings both some drama but mainly comic relief to the role of Scotty and generally represents Kirk's voice of reason in the flick (a role usually reserved for Bones or Spock. Speaking of Bones, I once again really got a kick out of Karl Urban's portrayal of McCoy. It would be hard for anyone to replace DeForest Kelley but I think Urban's carried the torch. By the way, he does eventually get to say one of Bones' trademark, "I'm a doctor not a _____" lines, that's always nice. Zoe Saldana gets a little more to do this time around but still gets kind of lost in the shadows of the rest of the cast, who are better developed. That's too bad because she's a damn good actor who desperately needs a good role to show off her talent. Zachary Quinto also makes some huge strides, running off with a good portion of the movie as Spock, and is honestly probably one the best choices to replace Leonard Nimoy. On that note, Leonard Nimoy stops by for a brief cameo as Spock Prime... which is good for me. As for Benedict Cumberbatch as John Harrison... well, he's clearly a very talented actor and has a few standout scenes. Unfortunately, he's very much held back by some major issues with the script. In order to discuss them, this is where I have to go into spoiler territory. So yeah, skip the last paragraph if you want nothing spoiled...

MAJOR SPOILER TERRITORY HERE!!! SKIP TO THE LAST PARAGRAPH IF YOU WANT NOTHING SPOILED!!! DON'T SAY I DIDN'T WARN YOU!!!

Okay... so the big twist the studio was so closely guarding, avoiding, and flat out lying about is hands-down the most predictable, annoying, and obvious twist that EVERYONE, either a hardcore Trekkie or casual fan, saw coming... BENEDICT CUMBERBATCH IS KHAN!!! Yes, the worst-kept secret for the 2013 blockbuster film season is the most underwhelming plot twist in years. This annoys me for a couple different reasons. First of all, why bother keeping such a thing secret? This is Khan Noonien Singh we're talking about, Star Trek's most well-known, infamous, and arguably flat-out best villain in the entire franchise. Wouldn't announcing that Khan is going to be in your movie just generate hype and excitement??? That's fairly negligible though, there are bigger problems at stake. For starters, Khan never has a very well-defined character. At times he's simply a pawn for a corrupt Starfleet officer (I won't spoil it, but you'll probably figure it out as soon as he appears on screen), at times a misunderstood anti-hero, and at times a threatening villain. I guess this was supposed to keep you guessing, but honestly, his character beats are one predictable cliche after the other, so he just comes off more as a sloppily-written character than anything else. Worse yet, it really robs Cumberbatch the chance of a great performance, since he's clearly a talented actor, but because his character is so inconsistent, he gets cheated as well. Also... why is a white guy playing Khan? I know Ricardo Montalban wasn't Indian as the name implied, but having a brown skinned actor in a major role in the 1960s was a big deal. What's up with the whitewashing? Very unfortunate! The rest of the characters are let down here as well, since any of the notable character arcs or bits of development are just retreads of the last film. Everything from Kirk's daddy issues to Spock's dual personalities are just revisited as opposed to further explored.

I really wish lame plot twists and underdeveloped villains were the film's only problems, but unfortunately, there's so much more. Responding to the complains that the last film was more style over substance, Into Darkness tries to incorporate some themes and undertones to it's plot. This time, it tries to examine the nature of terrorism, and the role the government may or may not play in such an event. Sadly, it's themes come off as more underdeveloped and/or on the nose than anything, namely because it's characters are so underdeveloped and cliche. My biggest gripe with this movie though... the damn thing is just plain lazy and derivative. How so... THE FUCKING MOVIE RIPS OFF WRATH OF KHAN EVERY CHANCE IT GETS!!! It's annoying that the last three Star Trek films have felt the need to "borrow" certain elements here and there from Star Trek II, but this film is hands down the worst offender. Almost the whole third act (and parts of the first and second for that matter) are shamelessly ripped off straight from Wrath of Khan. It really becomes shameless when the films reenacts the Wrath of Khan's ending pretty much note-for-note (only with a little twist this time). Honestly, how fucking lazy are these writers to just outright steal material? It's just embarrasing when you even consider that they can't even rip off material correctly, as they totally botch Wrath of Khan's emotional themes by attaching an ending with a stupid deus ex machina with a HUGE plot hole that raises way too many question. What a letdown!

SPOILERS END HERE!

So that's Star Trek Into Darkness... not awful but still pretty bad. It has the effects and action you would expect out of a summer blockbuster, but it's let down by a tedious, one-the-nose, and derivative script. Honestly, if you must see this one... I'd say wait for a rental.

My Score: 2.5 out of 5!

Cosmopolis - Review

This movie is... going to be a real challenge to review. Cosmopolis is one of those films that takes a while to sink in after watching, mainly in the sense that I had to try and decipher whether I just watched a profound stroke of genius or a pretentious colossal misfire. After the screening, people would ask me whether I liked it or not, and my response was typically, "I don't know." This was just one of those films that was so weird and bizarre that it forced me to come to terms with what I had just watched. It's been a little over a week now and I feel like I've sat on the film enough to give a proper review. That said, I can't help but feel like this might be one of those films that if I see again, my opinion will probably significantly change (for better or worse). Nonetheless, here are my thoughts on Cosmopolis.

The film stars Robert Pattinson as Eric Packer, a 28-year-old self made billionaire travelling through the busy streets of Manhattan in his stretch limo en route to the barbershop. Along the way, he is visited by an array of colorful characters, who interact with him on a variety of topics ranging from economics, philosophy, death, life, sex, and the list goes on. As he travels, everything about Packer's world and outlook is challenged. How will the day end and how will he react to his discoveries?

I should probably get this out of the way, the movie stars Robert Pattinson, and as you may or may not know... I really can't stand the guy. It's not that I have a vendetta against him per se, it's just that every time I've seen him on screen, the guy has made absolutely no impression whatsoever. It's not just Twilight I'm talking about either, even in other films like Goblet of Fire or Water For Elephants, he has just come off as bland and dull. That said, I think one of the main problems is that in most of his roles, he's generally played dull, dead-serious, straight-man kind of characters (even in the genre films he's been in like Twilight or Harry Potter, the guy's characters have always been dull as dishwasher). You got to wonder if that might change if he was given the chance to star in a more eccentric role, like Jeff Goldblum in The Fly, Christopher Walken in The Dead Zone, or James Woods in Videodrome. Hey, wait a minute! All of those films are directed by David Cronenberg, just like this film here! Yeah, this actually might work! To Pattinson's credit, he actually does an admirable job in the role (I'm as surprised as anyone). While I'm not convinced that he's a "good" actor, his emotionless and borderline-psychopathic kind of traits work to his advantage here, allowing him to thrive in a role that could only come from the mind of an equally messed up nut like David Cronenberg. Maybe Pattinson has found his niche, and once his residual good luck from his Twilight fame runs out, the guy might actually have a career after all. I don't want to overpraise the guy, he's by no means great in this, but this is the only film in which I've seen him that didn't make me want to gouge my eyes out. That's got to count for something.

Ultimately, what made me want to see this flick was the director, David Cronenberg. He admittedly doesn't have a perfect track record, but what ultimately gets me to keep coming back is Cronenberg's unique and bizarre filmmaking style. Even in the films of his that I didn't enjoy, I at least could find something about them that was engaging and different. His style usually consists of sociopolitical or philosophical themes illustrated through bizarre imagery and grindhouse style violence. While this one is by no means as grotesque as some of his previous outings (it's actually pretty tame compared to films like Videodrome or The Fly), it still has that Cronenberg-esque feel. Everything from the surreal production design, creative camera angles, eccentric characters, off-beat dialogue, and bizarre story screams Cronenberg, and I mean that mostly in a good way. The man's direction serves the movie well, and considering the films's flaws (which I will get into next), in the hands of a lesser director, the film would have probably ended up being a huge disaster. While Cosmopolis is by no means Cronenberg's best movie, it nonetheless showcases many of his strengths.

As mentioned, there is a lot in this movie that doesn't work... and I mean REALLY doesn't work. The film's script boasts a promising premise complete with interesting themes and ideas. The dialogue, particularly the interactions between Packer and his many "visitors" is, for the most part, quite well written. Unfortunately, the movie's pacing is quite abysmal. The film doesn't have a traditional three-act structure, but that, in it of itself, isn't really a problem. Many excellent or classic films, like 2001, The Seventh Seal, or Pulp Fiction have broken away from the status-quo of story structure, but those films had their own distinct storytelling structure that followed a certain sense of rythym (as unconventional as they were). Cosmopolis, in some ways, feels just like a string of random events and scenes, held together by just the most basic thread of a plot. There's little sense of development or rhythm, and by the time the movie ended, I was left wondering what the hell just happened or if anything was really accomplished. It can be serious chore to sit through too, as most of the film is basically just long, sometimes dull, philosophical discussions. While many of the interactions are intriguing, they eventually overstay their welcome, and make you wondering when the damn thing will just end. For those that aren't a fan of slow paced narratives, this one will be a challenge to sit through.

That's about all I have to say regarding Cosmopolis. The ideas are interesting, Pattinson is surprisingly engaging, and Cronenberg's directorial skills are in full effect. If you can handle the slow pacing, odd structure, and overly talky scenes, this one might be worth checking out. Be forewarned though, this movie is definitely not for everyone. If you can't stand overly talky movies with cryptic dialogue and a snail's pace, Cosmopolis probably isn't for you. Take that as you will.

My Score: 3 out of 5!

Robot & Frank - Review

Fall is here, so that can mean one thing (well, it actually can mean many things, but given the context of this blog, it has one particular significance), done are the summer's line of high profile blockbusters and in is the line of studio's prestige pieces vying for awards... in other words, it's Oscar season. Actually, I'm not quite sure how the Academy will respond to this one. I can see this one possibly fetching a Best Actor or less likely a Best Screenplay nomination, though I doubt that it has the prestige necessary to get any more, and the chances of it actually winning one seem slim. We'll just have to wait until 2013 when they announce the nominations. But Oscar politics aside, let's talk about the film at hand. Robot & Frank is an interesting sci-fi drama that can best be described as Up crossed with Short Circuit, a story of an ageing jewel thief and his robot companion. How does it fair out... let's look shall we?

The movie opens in an undisclosed time presumably in the not-too-distant future with the aging Frank (played brilliantly by Frank Langella), living alone in his filthy and unkempt house. Years ago, Frank was a master jewel thief, whose life of crime eventually led to him serving time in prison, which in itself lead to a failed marriage and strained relationships between him and his two now grown up children (James Marsden and Liv Tyler). Frank is now on his own, struggling to come to grips with his increasing age and his slowly deteriorating mental health. In fact, his only real companion (and closest thing he has to a friend) is a local librarian named Jennifer (Susan Sarandon). Realizing his father's failing health, Frank's son Hunter presents Frank with an assistance robot programmed to provide him with therapeutic care, housekeeping, and a fixed daily routine. Frank initially wants nothing to do with his new robotic companion, but he eventually starts to warm up to it when he realizes that he can use it to assist him in a new set of heists. He teaches his robot the tricks of his trade, and suddenly Frank is robbing houses again with his technological companion.

The basic plot to Robot & Frank doesn't exactly stray away from a typical formula for the average indie drama/buddy comedy. That said, it does manage to deliver a very well-told version of the familiar narrative, making it into an emotional introspective on aging in addition to being an interesting drama about the depressing results of living a life of crime. With so many movies glamorizing jewel thieves or other Danny Ocean like criminals, Robot & Frank ultimately shows that leading a criminal life leaves you alone, depressed, and bitter. The film doesn't force you to sympathize or even like Frank right away, but it nonetheless portrays him as a person with numerous problems but deep down has a soul. His interactions with his robot (voiced by Peter Sarsgaard) are quite entertaining. The two have some enjoyable comedic bantering but also share a few dramatic moments as well. Fortunately, the movie never comes off as too cute or overly melodramatic either, bur rather hits a near-perfect stride of drama and humor that ensures neither trait overstays it's welcome. Add some great characters, a few stand-out scenes, and some poignant subtext, and it's overall a good story.

The performances are all around quite good, but the stand out, to no surprise, has to be Langella. He really sells the role, downplaying any excessive "cutesy" moments while avoiding any over-the-top melodrama. He carries out both the dramatic scenes along with the moments of humor with his natural presence and dramatic range. It's hard to say right now, but I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Langella score an Oscar nomination for this role. Susan Sarandon's role as Frank flirt and librarian is fairly small, but she sells it quite well. James Marsden brings a believable sense of frustration, obligation, and concern as Frank's son Hunter, who grows increasingly angry dealing with his father's antics. He comes to his aid anyways because he's his Dad and he has to love him. Liv Tyler does another serviceable job as the daughter, Madison, and that's all I really have to say about her. Peter Sarsgaard's monotone line deliveries as the robot were spot on. It takes a talented voice actor to take an inherently emotionless character and manage to give him some kind of a soul. It's all around a well-acted film with Langella stealing the show. No complaints there.

The movie has a very down-to-earth and interesting look as well. One of the complaints I often hear about future-set sci-fi movies is that they often overplay the futuristic elements. Take Back To The Future Part II for example (even though I do like the movie), the scenes set in 2015 predicted that we would be riding in flying cars, dehydrating and re-hydrating the food we eat, and that we would be watching holographic movies (well, considering the resurgence of 3D movies, that one's almost true). Many movies have nobly tried and failed to predict our future technological developments, and sometimes that can make the movie look quite silly. While only time will tell how close Robot & Frank fared out in this department, it seemed to me that the filmmakers did their homework and creating a fairly believable and down to earth vision of the future. This particular future includes evolved versions of the smart phone, home phones replaced by a Skype-like program, and print media being replaced by digital content. Even Frank's robot bares a striking resemblance to Honda's technological marvel, ASIMO. If robot technology ever takes off in any major way, I would imagine most robots would probably have spawned, in some way, shape, or form from ASIMO. Overall, this version of the future seemed like a thought-out and believable depiction. Like I said, we'll have to wait to see how well it will eventually hold up, but for now, I can buy it.

Unfortunately, there are a couple of things to critique here. As I mentioned, this plot is hardly anything groundbreaking, and even though I enjoyed the overall story, it wasn't hard to predict how it would end. There was even a twist in the third act that I won't spoil, but I have feeling most watching will probably figure out. There is also a strange subplot about Liv Tyler's character Madison, being vehemently anti-robot and makes it clear that she objects to her father having a robot aid. It's never explained exactly why, other than that she's something of a humanitarian (she starts out in the film doing some kind of philanthropic work in Turkmenistan). Maybe there's something I missed, but it seemed like an odd subplot, that not only gets resolved somewhat abruptly, but felt like was supposed to have some dynamic subtext but instead felt more tacked on and pointless. None of these were anything major, but worth noting.

Overall, Robot & Frank was a very enjoyable film. It didn't blow me away nor did it do anything that hasn't been seen before, but it's still a very well-acted movie with a predictable though still enjoyable story. It's hard to say whether this one will score any Oscar nominations, but the possibility is definitely there. If it's playing at a theater near you, give it a watch.

My Score: 4 out of 5!