By Brett Blake Disaster movies are well-worn movie genre, and it’s gotten to the point where there’s very little left to be explored with the subject. For good or ill, SAN ANDREAS may just be the ultimate realization of the genre, complete with a gigantic budget that allows the movie to live up to the promise of its premise. It’s not a perfect movie by any means, or even a particularly good one, but as pure spectacle, it could have been a lot worse. Dwayne Johnson plays Ray, an LAFD rescue specialist who’s in the midst of getting a divorce from his wife, Emma (Carla Gugino), something that has put a strain on his relationship with their daughter, Blake (Alexandra Daddario). This basic family dynamic is the loose framework onto which the earthquake mayhem soon descends, as Paul Giamatti’s Lawrence, a geologist at Caltech, begins to believe that a massive series of earthquakes are about to break out along the San Andreas fault. Sure enough, he’s correct, and we’re quickly plunged into a series of catastrophic and enormous setpieces of destruction. That’s pretty much it as far as the “plot” goes; yes, there are some subplots, including Blake’s attempts to survive the chaos in San Francisco along with a pair of British brothers, but for the most part the narrative is only there to provide the bare minimum required to justify the mayhem. And mayhem is what the movie has in spades. The level of destruction on display is pretty much unprecedented; only Roland Emmerich’s 2012 comes close to depicting the kinds of calamities that befall the west coast of California in this movie. Never before has the screen seen so many skyscrapers topple and crumble, and on a giant screen with a great sound mix, it can honestly be said there are plenty of moments that get the blood pumping and provide thrills… at least for the first half. There does come a point where we can only see so many buildings fall over before it begins to lose some impact, though personal mileage may vary. Although the screenplay does not ask very much of its performers, dramatically-speaking, everybody in the principal cast does fine work, for the most part. Dwayne Johnson is incredibly watchable as the protagonist, and his drive to protect his family makes him a sympathetic and relatable hero. Alexandra Daddario is a strikingly beautiful young woman, but rather than let this be the character’s defining (or only) characteristic, the movie allows her to play a smart and resourceful person who’s able to keep her wits about her in the orgy of destruction that ensues. Carla Gugino and Paul Giamatti get the least to do (Giamatti feels particularly under-served in the classic Dr. Exposition role, a part that almost literally leaves him stranded on a college campus for the bulk of the running time, and which saddles him with most of the film’s more cliched dialogue), but they do as good a job as you could hope for with their characters as written. Now, potential nitpick time. I’m not a scientist, nor do I play one on TV, but I did take two years of geology in college, and I think that qualifies me to say that the supposed “science” behind the mayhem in SAN ANDREAS is pretty much nonsense. And that’s fine! Movies don’t need to adhere to all of nature’s laws as long as the movie overall is solid and entertaining enough in other areas. That said, there are some rather glaring scientific errors/goofs/improbabilities woven into the story, and though I doubt most people in the audience would ever be aware of them, it does lend the movie a much more silly quality for those of us who are even passingly familiar with the subject matter. It’s also worth noting at this point that I’m quite a fan of disaster movies, particularly the classics from the 1970s (such as THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE, EARTHQUAKE, THE TOWERING INFERNO, and THE SWARM, among others), as well as those from the minor resurgence of the late 1990s (DEEP IMPACT, VOLCANO, DANTE’S PEAK, and - of course - TITANIC). How does SAN ANDREAS stack up against the pantheon of great disaster epics? Well, it’s fine spectacle, for sure; there are certainly jaw-dropping images and setpieces of colossal destruction, so purely on that level, it satisfies. It’s bigger, louder, and crazier than just about any disaster movie ever made; for example, THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE’s gimmick revolved around a capsized ocean liner, while SAN ANDREAS features an ocean liner getting wiped out by a giant wave as merely one small component of a much larger sequence. However, it’s lacking in the kind of stunning physical effects found in the original EARTHQUAKE, say, and that leaves SAN ANDREAS feeling a bit more soulless and less charming. The classic disaster flicks are, for the most part, great fun. SAN ANDREAS is a visceral assault, and it does get close to being tiring after a while. That said, it’s a better movie than I was expecting it to be, and if taken in the right mindset, I could see a lot of people feeling like they got their money’s worth… and perhaps then some.
0 Comments
By Brett Blake TOMORROWLAND is a movie with some big, big problems on a script level, but it’s also a movie I find basically impossible to dislike. It’s a powerfully optimistic statement about mankind’s capacity to create a bright future, and there’s an exuberant throwback quality to its visual style that is right up this particular writer’s alley. The film primarily focuses on Casey (Britt Robertson), an idealistic and hyper-intelligent teen who is fueled by curiosity and a love for science. After discovering a mysterious pin which grants her a vision of the wondrous locale of Tomorrowland (a futuristic city in a parallel dimension where scientific pursuits are bound only by the limits of one’s own imagination), she finds herself on the run from villainous robots bent on terminating her. Aided by Athena (Raffey Cassidy), a robot in the form of a young girl, and Frank (George Clooney), a former child prodigy turned jaded cynic who once lived in Tomorrowland, Casey must find a way to visit Tomorrowland and avert a potential catastrophe. On a purely visual and tonal level, director Brad Bird has crafted a top notch entertainment. There’s a level of wit and ingenuity in every facet of the the movie’s style and direction that is impressive, and the construction of the various setpieces found within is of the highest caliber (one sequence, involving Casey and Frank evading robots in Frank’s booby-trapped home is all kinds of fun). Tomorrowland itself, as a physical place, is a fantastic creation of production design, complete with gleaming towers and curving walkways, all clean and white. There’s an upbeat, gee-whiz quality to the depiction of the story’s futurism, with its jetpacks and robots that exist as delightful throwbacks to the utopian science fiction of the 1950s and 1960s. Most importantly, there is such a refreshing sense of optimism to the movie, a feeling that future doesn’t have to be dark and depressing and dystopian (as is often the case in science fiction stories). The ultimate message - though it skirts the line of being too preachy (more on this to come) - is a noble and worthy one: do no let anything limit your imagination, and if you can manage that, you have the power to do great and amazing things. Trite, perhaps, but I suspect it will connect with a lot of people... or at least people who aren’t cynics, anyway. A vital component in maintaining the tone is the musical score from composer Michael Giacchino. A longtime collaborator of director Bird, Giacchino effortlessly taps into the vibe that Bird is shooting for, complete with several big, memorable themes which evoke a sense of wonder, playful and mysterious underscore, and exciting action moments. It’s one of Giacchino’s better scores in recent years (probably since his work for 2011’s SUPER 8), and it's the best of 2015 so far. Britt Robertson proves herself to be more than capable of carrying a film on her shoulders, and she imbues her character with a positivity and sense of intellect that is very appealing. George Clooney, surprisingly, does not get to be his usual, confident self, and instead tackles a bitter and grumpy man who has seemingly lost hope for humanity; Clooney doesn’t dumb it down for kids, or play for the cheap seats, which is refreshing. He treats Frank’s emotional condition and pessimism as though this were a straight drama. Hugh Laurie pops up as Nix, the ostensible antagonist of the story, and while he doesn’t have much screentime, he makes a strong impact, particularly with a superb monologue where the character lays out his motivation in ways that make perfect, frightening sense. The true standout of the cast, though, is young Raffey Cassidy as Athena. Equal parts no-nonsense and wise beyond her years (as well as surprisingly adept at hand-to-hand combat), she’s an unusually strong and captivating presence. What of the movie’s problems, then? The construction of the plot is where the film threatens to fall apart. Frankly, the screenplay is kind of a mess in terms of narrative structure; it is not until well into the final act that the actual “plot” or conflict of the movie kicks into gear. Up until that point, we are treated to a - not at all uninteresting - series of episodic adventures designed to eventually get our characters to Tomorrowland. It’s like instead of the traditional first, second, and third acts, co-writers Bird and Damon Lindelof have given us two first acts - a very extended setup, if you will - followed by a rushed concluding act. By the time we get the revelation of what’s going on in Tomorrowland (and its impact on our world), the movie is basically about to be over. This is problematic for any number of reasons, least of which being that the stakes are established too late in the game for those of us in the audience to really care or to be concerned for the characters. In addition, the grand scheme enacted by the story’s antagonist - though well communicated by Laurie in his aforementioned monologue - feels almost too small. I was left with the thought “That’s it?!” running through my mind. The other chief problem of the screenplay lies in its presentation of its message. Having established that it’s a good message, the issue then is that it is presented in explicit ways MANY times during the course of the story. It rises above subtext to become just-plain-text, with characters literally expounding on the meaning of it all, and the importance of it all. It’s in-your-face stuff, and not particularly elegant writing, to boot, even if it’s in service of a positive statement on (and celebration of) the necessity of imagination and scientific exploration. Despite the movie’s narrative problems, it is that hopeful, optimistic spirit which carries the day and smooths over some of the aforementioned flaws. TOMORROWLAND may be director Brad Bird’s most flawed film to date (and, yes, it is), but what’s good in it far outweighs the bad. There’s a very telling exchange in the opening sequence of the movie. Young Frank has built a homemade jetpack, and when skeptically asked, “What is its purpose?” he responds, “Can’t it just be fun?” Nothing could sum up the movie any better than that. It has strongly-stated ideas, but at the end of the day, it is best enjoyed as an upbeat, fun excursion into a world overflowing with imagination. By Brett Blake It should be said right up front that MAD MAX: FURY ROAD is probably not a movie for everybody. While there are certainly many things about it that are objectively and inarguably great, the overall impression it leaves on viewers will depend on one’s tolerance for the baroque and the bizarre, because those are both present in spades. If you can get past that (or perhaps embrace it), you will find a breathlessly entertaining chase picture that exudes creativity from every frame, and one that is kind of a marvel of action choreography. Ostensibly a sequel to the original films about “Mad” Max Rockatansky (those being MAD MAX, THE ROAD WARRIOR, and MAD MAX BEYOND THUNDERDOME), writer/director George Miller’s FURY ROAD requires no knowledge of the events of the previous films, as an opening voice-over from Max (Tom Hardy) more or less sets the stage for the audience. The storyline, set in a post-apocalyptic future (some unknown number of years from now), sees Max abducted by a strange society in a desolate wasteland, a society lorded over by the sinister, always-masked Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne), a despot who has positioned himself as a deity-figure, worshiped by the downtrodden people he has subjugated. Max soon finds himself aligned with Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron), one of Joe’s prized drivers who has rebelled against him and seeks to transport Joe’s captive harem (Zoë Kravitz, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Riley Keough, Abbey Lee, and Courtney Eaton) to the “green place,” a far off land of safety. Immortan Joe leads a large force to go after them, and a merry chase ensues, putting Max in a position to do what he’s meant for - help the innocent. While the specifics of the plot might sound complex, they’re really not. In fact, there’s only just barely enough plot to support the movie. The characters are vividly-drawn, to be sure, and the narrative gets the job done, but let there be no mistake: easily 70% of the movie exists as a series of protracted chase/action sequences. This will certainly please the action fans in the audience, but those looking for an engrossing plot will probably find it to be somewhat lacking. That is not to say the movie is without substance, however, as there are some great ideas in play, particularly those pertaining to religious fanaticism and the role of women in society. These notions are grace notes, though, not focal points. Tom Hardy tackles the unenviable position of carrying the torch that made Mel Gibson a star, but he more than acquits himself. His Max is a man of relatively few words, so Hardy brings an intense (and even quirky) physical presence to the part. And while his character’s stoicism is a defining feature, Hardy is able to mine some quite potent (though subtle) humor just from his body language and facial expressions. Max may be the titular character, but Charlize Theron upstages him (in a good way), and it is her journey that most people will leave the movie thinking about. It’s a spectacular performance, one that should cement Theron as a viable action badass. She conveys a steely-eyed, tough persona, someone who’s dedicated to her mission to help Immortan Joe’s captive girls, and as the movie goes on, Theron peels back the hard-edged layers to reveal a very human woman underneath. Anybody out there who thinks that a woman can’t be a believable action star (these people do exist, unfortunately) should be silenced by Theron’s work here. The aforementioned action is absolutely worth the price of admission. The scale of the setpieces is kind of staggering; when you consider that director Miller is 70, it’s remarkable that the filmmaking on display is so vital, visceral, and energized. There are shots in this movie where easily twenty vehicles are in the frame, moving at high speeds, and interacting with practical explosion effects and stunt work, and it’s incredible to watch. Of course there are digital elements in play, as well, but the sheer amount of for-real staging and choreography is stunning. Special kudos have to go to the stunt team, because they’ve pulled off something pretty special with their work here. Where - if anywhere - does the movie go wrong? As good as the action is, a case could be made that there’s a little too much of it! The movie barrels along at such a frenetic, nonstop pace (there are few quiet moments between the characters) that there does come a point by the third act where the setpieces - fun as they may be - reach a kind of exhausting level. You will feel put through the wringer by the end of it all; for some, this will make the movie feel all the more satisfying, like stuffing yourself on a great meal, but for others it might be too much to take. The movie also skirts right up to the edge of being a little too willfully weird; the design of Immortan Joe, his people, and their society is decidedly off-kilter, and it could be seen as strangeness just for the sake of it. The performances of Theron and Hardy keep things grounded in a very relatable emotional context, but everything around them is quite unhinged and out of control, to say the very least; this is a film where a caravan of pursuit vehicles is led by a (seemingly?) blind electric guitarist (whose guitar can double as a flame thrower, because why not?) who plays from the top of a tanker truck in the midst of the intense action. If that sounds like your kind of weirdness, you’re all set; if not, at least you’ve been warned. Ultimately, though, the movie is too handsomely made (I didn’t even touch on the outstanding makeup and costumes, nor the saturated and rich cinematography, nor the thundering sound mix), and too engagingly directed and performed to dismiss. You have not seen vehicular mayhem and stunts on this level in a long time (perhaps ever), and it’s an undeniably personal vision from George Miller, one well worth experiencing. By Brett Blake No preamble, no stalling - AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON is a remarkably entertaining blockbuster, one packed with memorable moments, exchanges, gags, and setpieces. It might not fully exceed the standard set by its predecessor, 2012’s THE AVENGERS, but it does - at the barest minimum - meet that standard with flair and aplomb. Beginning with the Avengers team in the middle of an action-packed raid (much like the opening of an Indiana Jones or James Bond film), we are quickly re-introduced to Tony Stark/Iron Man (Robert Downey, Jr.), Steve Rogers/Captain America (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Bruce Banner/Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), and Clint Barton/Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), and we see them operating as the most well-oiled of well-oiled machines. In the aftermath, various circumstances give birth to Ultron (James Spader), a hyper-intelligent A.I. robot whose rapid self-awareness causes him to deem humanity itself a threat to the planet, necessitating their destruction. Added to the mix are a pair of superpowered twins, Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch (Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Elizabeth Olsen, respectively), whose allegiances prove prone to shifting, and the ethereal, otherworldly android known as The Vision (played by Paul Bettany, and whose origin and role in the story I dare not even hint at). On top of that, familiar faces such as Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), Maria Hill (Cobie Smulders), James Rhodes/War Machine (Don Cheadle), Sam Wilson/Falcon (Anthony Mackie), Agent Carter (Hayley Atwell), and Heimdall (Idris Elba) all show up for varying lengths of time. As you might surmise from that rather extensive character roster, there are a lot of moving parts in this story, and it’s a testament to writer/director Joss Whedon that the movie is coherent and tells a gigantic story without allowing it to fly off the rails (for the most part, anyway; we’ll come back to this point below). Whedon’s commitment to character pays off in huge fashion in AGE OF ULTRON; each character gets their fantastic moment (moments, in fact) to shine, and the interaction between them is superbly handled. The banter, the arguments, the tension… it’s all here, and the actors get to really bounce off each other in exciting ways this time out. Downey, Evans, and Hemsworth are as charismatic and compelling as they’ve ever been in their roles, and there’s an ease and playfulness they bring to the characters now that is truly endearing. Ruffalo gets some terrific material that allows him to show off Banner’s brilliant scientific mind, as well as his concerns about losing his tenuous control over his Hulk alter-ego. Johansson receives some nicely understated moments of emotion and vulnerability which flesh out Black Widow in the most complete way so far. Taylor-Johnson and Olsen do some very fine work as a pair of angry outsiders trying to make peace both with their powers and with which side of the “good/evil” demarcation line they might fall, and Bettany makes for a fascinating embodiment of Vision (one of the weirder comics characters) with a performance filled with unique physicality. Then, of course, there’s the titular man of the hour, Ultron, and James Spader makes a meal out of the material Whedon gives him. One might expect a robot character to be a bland automaton, but Spader’s Ultron has snarky personality to spare, as well as a kind of bitchy, catty presentation which makes him a delightfully quirky and funny villain. But honestly, the true scene-stealer this time out is Renner’s Hawkeye. His character got the short end of the stick last time out (by virtue of the fact that he was mostly a mind-controlled zombie under the command of the villainous Loki until that movie’s third act), but Whedon has made it up to him here, providing him a fully-formed and complex character worthy of Renner’s talents. Some of the movie’s funniest moments (arguably the funniest moment) are provided by Hawkeye, and a heretofore un-alluded-to backstory turn him into the heart and soul (if you will) of the team. The action is flat-out extraordinary, operating on a scale which is huge, with action beats unfolding in the most grand way possible. The big finale alone is an extraordinary sequence, a joyously gigantic and thrilling setpiece that has now established the new bar for superheroics on film. It’s outlandish and comic-booky in the best way possible, and it represents a truly deft juggling act on the part of Whedon. The praise thus far might sound effusive, so I’ll attempt to temper that with the one primary flaw (if you can call it that) the movie has. On a structural level, Whedon’s screenplay for the film is hugely ambitious in its intentions, and this is both an attribute and a fault. On the plus side, there’s a vast sense of scope to the story, and it feels like a proper escalation of the Marvel Cinematic Universe up to this point; it’s globe-trotting in every sense of the phrase, and as described above, the staging of the third act is as massive as you could imagine or hope for. At the same time, however, the script feels needlessly overstuffed, both with characters and with sequences seemingly designed only to set-up future films in the MCU. Thor, for example, has a completely extraneous subplot which basically sends him off on his own side journey for an almost-literal preview of coming attractions, and which serves no function to the narrative of this specific film (it feels like material that would have easily been deleted from the final cut… if the result wouldn’t have meant essentially editing out 20% of Thor’s screentime), while characters like War Machine, Agent Carter, Heimdall, and Falcon appear for what are - pretty much - cameos. Sure, it’s fun to see them (and it’s another way the movie emulates its comic book origins, where characters frequently pop up for cameos in each other’s stories), but the time we spend with them could have been better spent on the core group, or on further building up the new characters of Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, and Vision. In the grand scheme of things, though, those are fairly minor issues. The movie is too entertaining and too rocket-paced to dwell on them. Joss Whedon once called himself “the Tom Hagen of the Marvel Universe,” a reference to the Corleone crime family lawyer/consiglieri played by Robert Duvall in THE GODFATHER and THE GODFATHER PART II. And just like Duvall’s Hagen, Whedon is not making it to PART III of this particular saga (directors Joe and Anthony Russo will be at the helm of the next AVENGERS films). As such, we have to look at AGE OF ULTRON as his final statement, his closing argument for his time in the MCU. On that basis, how does the film stand? Simply, if this is his last entry in the world of Marvel, it’s an incredibly high note on which to go out. With its humor (for all the talk of this somehow being a “darker” tale, it really isn’t), action, and character work, AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON is an embarrassment of riches, and it’s as exhilarating an experience as any of the Marvel movies have been so far. |
Archives
January 2023
Categories
All
|