By Brett Blake AS ABOVE, SO BELOW is the latest in the seemingly never-ending series of “found footage” (or first-person-perspective, if you like) horror films, a style of filmmaking that has flooded the horror marketplace to such an extent that its visceral, “You Are There!” charms are starting to wear thin. Still, in the right hands, found footage can work quite well, and AS ABOVE, SO BELOW is absolutely one of the stronger examples of the technique at work. It’s a very solid, surprisingly esoteric spookfest that serves up some very chilling moments without overstaying its welcome. The film begins, funnily enough, more in the vein of an Indiana Jones or DA VINCI CODE adventure than an outright horror tale; we follow Scarlett (Perdita Weeks), a very driven (and very young) professor/archaeological explorer on a search for the legendary Philosopher’s Stone (perhaps familiar to fans of the Harry Potter series as the Americanized “Sorcerer’s Stone”). Her quest involves gathering together a motley crew that includes another amateur archaeologist/old friend named George (Ben Feldman), a documentarian called Benji (Edwin Hodge), and a trio of spelunkers/cave experts (François Civil, Marion Lambert, and Ali Marhyar). The group sets out into the hundreds-of-miles-long, labyrinthine network of catacombs beneath Paris in a search for the Stone, and once they get underground, it is not long before some incredibly bizarre and frightening things begin to manifest… On paper, that probably sounds like a very standard, run-of-the-mill horror film, but AS ABOVE, SO BELOW has ambitions that are somewhat higher than that. You start with a pretty unusual and fun premise, and some legitimately neat elements about the lore of the catacombs, archaeological and alchemic myth, and occult practices are layered onto that framework in a way that’s decidedly more sophisticated than you would ever expect. I made the comparison to Indiana Jones (in terms of substance, not tone; the film has a decidedly more dreadful air than any of the Indy adventures), and that’s honestly not too far off, at least for the first half, which features translation of dead languages and runes, secret passageways, booby traps, and even some pseudo-religious discussion. All of this gives the movie a unique flavor that is memorable, particularly in an era in which we seem to get a new found footage cheapie every other week. But this is a horror film, after all, and the scary payoff to all the archaeological setup is refreshingly solid. The movie (for the most part) thankfully eschews relying entirely on major jump scares - there are a few, but not nearly as many as one might expect - in favor of conjuring up an atmosphere of intense unease. The setting of the Paris catacombs is exploited to the fullest degree by director John Erick Dowdle and his co-writer/producer/brother Drew Dowdle; they create a claustrophobic nightmare of dead ends and tight spaces that consistently helps to ramp up the tension. And by the time the supernatural forces in the catacombs begin to make their appearances (in the flesh, so to speak), the movie launches into a quite effective and eerie final section that is one of the stronger third acts to come out of a found footage film. Much of this has to do with the fact that AS ABOVE, SO BELOW actually has an ending that is thematically appropriate and (dare I say) even satisfying, something that can hardly ever be said of other found footage movies. Most tend to end in - more or less - the same way: cameras falling to the ground, the fates of our heroes left ambiguously sinister, and a sudden cut to black. But since AS ABOVE, SO BELOW actually has some thematic ideas on its mind (about confronting regret over past actions or in-actions, which is reflected in the characters constantly venturing deeper down into the depths, as if moving further away from - or closer to - their past traumas), we’re given a proper ending for our protagonists. The acting is uniformly good, and - even more important - the writing for these people is actually solid; this is not an annoying, irritating collection of types, but rather a group of flawed people with their own hang-ups. Perdita Weeks plays a driven lead quite well, and she does a fine job of keeping the character sympathetic when other, less skilled players might have gone all-in with emphasizing the character’s borderline-obsession with finding the Philosopher’s Stone. Ben Feldman and Edwin Hodge do the bulk of the supporting heavy lifting, and both get some moments that are pretty effective. Also effective (perhaps an understatement) is the sound design, which is absolutely first rate. There’s a reverberant, occasionally booming quality to the design, and it’s a detail-rich mix, with every scrape, slam, whispered voice, and flurry of dust adding to a very creepy overall texture. It’s worthy of serious Oscar consideration in the sound categories. The filmmaking pair behind this film - the Dowdle brothers - are kind of interesting guys, in the sense that they’ve quietly constructed a nice little run of movies in the horror genre. 2007’s THE POUGHKEEPSIE TAPES remains one of the most realistic and flat-out troubling serial killer films of recent years, 2008’s QUARANTINE is a serviceable American remake of the foreign found footage hit [REC], and 2010’s DEVIL is a neat TWILIGHT ZONEian yarn that deserved a wider audience than it got. With AS ABOVE, SO BELOW, they fully stake-out territory as horror pros who deliver solid thrills and scares with above average quality. AS ABOVE, SO BELOW is one of this year’s most pleasant surprises in the horror arena.
0 Comments
By Brett Blake The brainchild of Sylvester Stallone, THE EXPENDABLES franchise is an odd one, in the sense that the installments feed on audience nostalgia and affection for old action movies and feature casts comprised - primarily - of actors getting up there in age. Mark Kermode, the respected U.K. film critic, calls these kinds of movies “geriaction” flicks; movies starring aging action stars (some perhaps even bordering on being washed up) that frequently play-up the age factor while attempting to be both a contemporary, relevant film and also a throwback to the kind of 1980’s cheese that most action movies of that era were. The first two EXPENDABLES have their charms, but are fairly flawed; with THE EXPENDABLES 3, however, the filmmakers have perfected the formula, and writer/star Stallone and director Patrick Hughes have delivered a surprisingly (shockingly!) entertaining action romp. The story this time revolves around Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone) and his band of Expendables (comprised of too many actors to name here) doing battle with nefarious arms dealer Conrad Stonebanks (Mel Gibson), a former Expandable himself who has a dark history with Ross. That’s really all you need to know; you’ve seen the trailers (or the previous films), so there’s really no need to go into explicit narrative detail. Good guys murder their way through a ton of henchmen on their way to taking down the villainous mastermind. That’s the story in a nutshell, and the movie makes no apologies for it. The plot - though obviously thin - offers enough gas to keep things exciting, and it shoots from setpiece to setpiece at a fast clip. Buried under the mechanics of that basic plot, however, there’s actually an attempt at some thematic subtext. A pivotal section of the story involves Stallone’s Barney Ross forcibly retiring his old crew (ostensibly to keep them safe) and having to then construct a new, younger team to help him take down Gibson’s Stonebanks. The idea of the old guard being pushed aside for the young guns, but then also having to come to the rescue in the end is a prevalent part of what the script seems to be concerned with, and having a ghost from the Expandables’ past - in the form of Stonebanks - appear and wreak havoc underlines that "past vs. future" idea. It’s incredibly heavy handed stuff, and it doesn’t break any new ground on a thematic level, but it’s nice that the movie tries to actually be about something. The returning cast members don’t have too many surprises to offer in the way of performance, but it’s neat to have them all along for the ride. For his part, Stallone actually does get some meaty-ish material to chew on (by way of the aforementioned thematic stuff), and he sells it well. Stallone - sometimes deservedly - has been an acting punching bag over the years, but I maintain there’s a great actor in there, and we get some glimpses of that in this installment. It is with the new blood that THE EXPENDABLES 3 really shines, though. Harrison Ford is probably the biggest “name” to join the roster, and he’s at his most gruff and grumpy as the Expendables’ CIA handler; rather than being a poor acting choice, it actually works for the character, and it’s hard to deny that there’s some weird excitement to seeing Ford share scenes with the likes of Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Kelsey Grammer gets an extended sequence where his character helps Stallone recruit the new, younger Expendables (played in solid - if unremarkable - fashion by Kellan Lutz, Ronda Rousey, Victor Ortiz, and Glen Powell) that is so entertaining and funny I’m now convinced that Stallone and Grammer need to do a buddy comedy where they travel across the country, or something. Their chemistry is immediate, and you really buy that these two characters are old friends. Wesley Snipes is also a welcome addition, and he gets a chance to poke some fun at his own image in a self-deprecating way. Giving what is perhaps the performance of the film is Antonio Banderas as an eager-to-please, searching-for-a-connection recruit; it’s a wonderful role for Banderas, who gets to be charming and goofy and warm. The character is an instant winner, and should there ever be a fourth film in this franchise, Banderas MUST return. At all costs. He steals the film. And then, of course, there’s Mel Gibson. There are few performers working in the industry who carry as much baggage as Gibson (some of it unwarranted, but most of it of his own making). Your personal feelings towards the man may, no doubt, color your perception of his work in this film, and that’s fair. However, I think even the most rabid anti-Mel partisan would have to agree that he gives a legitimate performance as Stonebanks. He gets a couple of great speeches to play, and there’s an undercurrent of angry nuance that hangs over many moments he’s on the screen, just as there are also some lighter moments that fully remind us of why he was - at one time - a megastar. Stonebanks could have been just a generic nobody bad guy, but Gibson makes him highly memorable. The action is a marked improvement on the previous two films. Director Hughes handles the big beats with a decent amount of style and intensity, and there’s a really nice variety to the mayhem: you’ve got car chases, shoot-outs, aerial assualts, and good, old fashioned fisticuffs. There’s perhaps a bit too much (unconvincing) CGI to be found, but the tone of these sequences - never too dark, always with a tongue-in-cheek (but not spoofing) sense of humor - pushes them over the top (to borrow a phrase from one of Stallone’s more infamously bad ‘80s movies). They’re simply a lot of fun. And that sense of genuine fun, coupled with the winning performances from the likes of Gibson and Banderas, make THE EXPENDABLES 3 perhaps the most surprising movie of summer 2014. It’s not high art, but it is solidly entertaining, and there’s nothing wrong with that. By Brett Blake HERCULES, director Brett Ratner’s latest, is one of the more surprising films to arrive so far this summer. It’s surprising not because it’s bad (heck, Ratner’s track record is spotty enough for a person to reasonably assume - in knee-jerk fashion - that anything new from the guy won’t be much good), but because it’s actually a very solid adventure tale with a compelling lead performance from Dwayne Johnson. It’s interesting to think that the character of Hercules has never really gotten his due in the live action realm, and certainly not with the kind of budget and technological tools that were extended to this new version. Director Ratner and company make the most of them, presenting a fairly slick, polished yarn that does justice to the legendary character, if not the actual specifics of his legend itself. Indeed, those looking for a straight re-telling of the classic Hercules myth, complete with lavish, no-expense-spared depictions of his Twelve Labors are likely to be quite disappointed by the film, which posits that Hercules’ legend was something of his own making, and of those who followed him. In fact, the whole story is a commentary on myth-making itself; in a prologue, we see brief glimpses of Hercules engaged in several of his Labors, but the movie makes it clear there was far more going on than any of the myths surrounding the character ever implied. The movie has some fun poking holes in the classical image of Hercules, while still conveying the notion that he’s somebody worth following and fighting for. These ideas are interesting, and the dichotomy between the way people see a hero and who that hero actually is inside adds some compelling elements to the otherwise-standard plotline. Said plot, which involves Hercules and his small band of mercenaries agreeing to train an army to defend a seemingly-in-danger city ruled by John Hurt’s character, is the kind of sword and sandal stuff we’ve all seen before in countless other films (complete with more than a couple twists that anybody who’s ever seen another movie should be able to spot coming from a long way off), but it’s done with no small amount of charm and good humor; the movie knows exactly the sort of film it is, and it has fun with the concept without being tongue-in-cheek or apologetic about it. All that said, one gets the sense that the filmmakers might have been just a little too clever for their own good in the way they’ve reinvented the character of Hercules; a proper “Twelve Labors of Hercules” film could have been a terrific spectacle, so it’s hard not to see HERCULES as a minor missed opportunity, no matter how entertaining the final result is (and it certainly is entertaining). Johnson - who is always highly watchable but would never be accused of having incredible range as an actor - does fine work in the title role; obviously, he’s got a handle on the physicality demanded by the part, but even in the quieter moments, he’s legitimately good. He’s surrounded by a mini Rogue’s Gallery of strong supporting talent: the likes of Ian McShane, John Hurt, Rufus Sewell (in a non-villainous role for a change!), Peter Mullan, and Joseph Fiennes all show up to chew some scenery (to various degrees), and they add some nice color to the proceedings. McShane and Sewell, in particular, get some entertaining moments to play as they bounce off the other characters. The movie often looks very good, complete with seemingly massive and practical sets, and even though it never really shows us anything we haven’t seen before (from a visual perspective), it also never looks aggressively cheap, as so often can happen in the sword and sandal genre. Additionally, the action/fight sequences are legitimately fun, complete with a bit of flair and verve in the choreography and staging of the scenes; these sequences are also - thankfully - edited in a coherent fashion, rather than cut to shreds (in an attempt to be EXTREME! or EXCITING! or CHAOTIC!) as so frequently is the case in modern action films. Though HERCULES probably won’t satisfy die hard aficionados of mythology (I’m not sure how many of those people exist, but still), it is more entertaining than you might expect it to be, and it doesn’t insult the intelligence of its audience (well, not too terribly much, anyway). Director Brett Ratner is often a deserving punching bag in movie buff circles, but when he gets something right, he deserves a little credit, too: HERCULES is a perfectly fine, fun time at the movies. Sometimes a little goofy, sometimes a little familiar, it’s heart genuinely is in the right place, and at a tight 98 minutes, it doesn’t overstay its welcome. It’s a much better movie than it probably should be. By Brett Blake DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES is not only a stirring and engrossing example of science fiction, it’s also a flat-out excellent work of cinema, and 2014’s best film so far. That may sound like hyperbole to some, but DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES easily surpasses even the lofty heights of its predecessor, 2011’s RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, to become one of the great sci-fi allegories of the decade. Picking up ten-or-so years after the previous film, the story again revolves around Caesar (played through “performance capture” technology by Andy Serkis), the leader of a society of abnormally intelligent apes apes living in Muir Woods north of San Francisco. They haven’t seen any humans in years, a byproduct of a global outbreak of “simian flu,” which wiped out most of the world’s human population. Mankind is not all gone, though, as a group of surviving humans have banded together in San Francisco under the leadership of Malcolm (Jason Clarke) and Dreyfus (Gary Oldman); their attempt to restore power to the city brings them into contact with Caesar and his apes, and it is this clash of civilizations and species that forms the backbone of the story’s conflict. The PLANET OF THE APES series - which dates back to 1968 with the classic, Charlton Heston-led original - is often highly regarded for its unbelievably bold narrative choices (the first film features one of the greatest twist endings in all of cinema, for example, while later films routinely gave audiences what can only be described as “downer endings”), and it has always dealt with sophisticated, cerebral, and even quite dark themes. Racial hatred, class oppression, and the fear of nuclear annihilation are all key elements of the subtexts of the original films; even under the cool makeup and the time travel hijinks, those earlier films had big things on their mind. So, too, does DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, which - boiled down - is a thoughtful meditation on the corrupting and poisonous effects of violence and vengeance, an idea that underlines just about every key point in the story. Just having a compelling idea like that at its heart is not what really sets the movie apart, though; it’s the way in which it addresses/tackles that theme that is so intelligent and complex. At the core, one could say the basic premise of the film is “apes versus men,” and one would not be faulted for expecting a simplistic “apes = good, men = bad” kind of approach, but the filmmakers want none of that, for that is the easy (read: lazy) storytelling approach. As presented in the film, neither camp is wholly good or bad, and each have (basically) reasonable intentions. There are noble and virtuous characters in each group, just as there are those who are scared and prejudiced, and it is this prejudice that eventually plunges both groups into violent conflict. Caesar and Malcolm embody the capacity for men and apes to coexist and understand one another, but their desire for a peaceful outcome is constantly undercut by those around them, and while much of the film’s third act is quite thrilling, there’s an air of inevitable tragedy surrounding it. It’s so rare for a blockbuster to even attempt to depict this kind of gray area, but this movie more than makes an attempt. It embraces the gray, and the result is a story that’s as intellectually satisfying as it is emotionally or viscerally. As such, those hungry for a non-stop, action-packed spectacle are apt to be just a bit disappointed. Yes, there are some big action beats (a nighttime assault by the apes on the humans’ San Francisco colony is as harrowing and thrilling a setpiece as there’s been all year), but the movie plays out more like a thriller. There are plenty of exciting moments, but the true thrill of the movie is in its ideas and themes. The acting - across the board - is tremendous. Much has been said about Andy Serkis and his performance as Caesar, and all the praise is justified; he builds on what he did in the previous movie, and his Caesar here is more weary, but he’s still willing to see the best in those around him, be they ape or human. His human opposite number is Jason Clarke’s Malcolm, and he’s a worthy face for the potential decency that humanity has to offer; it’s a sensitive and “everyman”-ish performance from Clarke, and one that positions him to quickly rise to leading man status. As Dreyfus, Gary Oldman is as reliable as always, and his character is (thankfully) nowhere near as one-note as he could have been (a moment where Dreyfus weeps over pictures of his dead family imparts invaluable depth and humanity to a character who is, ostensibly, one of the story’s antagonists). And just as Caesar has something of a mirror image in Malcolm, so too does Dreyfus (well, kind of) in the character of Koba, a scarred, angry, and scheming ape played by Toby Kebbell. Koba is perhaps the most fascinating character in the entire film, and as he allows his hatred of humans to overpower him (and to drive both groups towards war), Kebbell gets some great moments to play, particularly those involving his stand-offs with Caesar. The visual effects used to bring the apes to life are, quite simply, extraordinary. The CGI on display here sets the new gold standard for believability, and the ape characters surpass the likes of Davy Jones (from the PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN franchise), Gollum (from THE LORD OF THE RINGS), and even RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES’ own primates, and are - for the most part - entirely photorealistic. It’s a huge achievement for the talented artists and technicians (in concert with the actors playing the roles) and one that should surely net them Oscars once the Academy Awards roll around next year. Another key component is the movie’s musical score. Composer Michael Giacchino supplied the scores for director Matt Reeves’ previous two films, 2008’s CLOVERFIELD and 2010’s LET ME IN, and he’s on board here, as well. The score works terrifically within the context of the film itself; at times it’s openly emotional, and yet at other times it embraces dissonance and eeriness. It’s an effective mix of tones, and the central theme (though reminiscent of some of Giacchino’s work for the television show LOST) ties everything together in a quite affecting way. Engrossing from its first moment to its last, DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES is a thought-provoking morality tale in the best sci-fi tradition, and it’s the most complete and satisfying science fiction blockbuster since INCEPTION. It’s that good. By Brenton Thom TRANSFORMERS: AGE OF EXTINCTION is the fourth installment (so far) of the franchise. It is also the eleventh feature film from action director Michael Bay. The film is basically three different movies thrown into one, which might be a good or bad thing depending on who you are. Some people think more is better, but others, not so much. This one definitely has a lot going on, and with a run time of 161 minutes, it’s just shy of three hours. The film opens on Earth in the past, specifically the era of the dinosaurs. The planet is invaded by space machines which wipe out the dinosaur species with volcanic bombs, turning organic matter into an ash-like metal. Flash forward to the present - it’s been four years since the battle in Chicago (as seen in 2011's TRANSFORMERS: DARK OF THE MOON), and we see sinister government agents hunting down various transformers (and not the evil Decepticon transformers, but the heroic Autobots) with the aid of a malevolent transformer of their own. This transformer assassin is a bounty hunter called Lockdown. He is working with the CIA, run by Harold Attinger (Kelsey Grammer), to track down Autobots (and the missing Optimus Prime in particular) for their own dark purposes. We then meet Mark Wahlberg’s character, Cade Yeager, and his daughter Tessa. Cade's a struggling, down-on-his-luck inventor who tries to sell scrap parts to pay off the mortgage of his home and also get his daughter into college. His daughter is also secretly seeing her racer boyfriend behind her father's back. This storyline (which echoes director Bay's earlier film, ARMAGEDDON) makes up the primary “human” element of the movie. A key subplot, and probably my favorite part of the story, is about a business tycoon, Joshua Joyce (played by Stanley Tucci), who uses the metal of the transformers to create a new type of matter, a matter that you can program and change. His company basically uses the technology to make their own transformers, which can shape-shift and transform into anything they are programmed to. Now where to begin the analysis of this film? I know one of the big complaints about the past Transformers movies was that people wanted the movies to be about the transformers, not humans, and just to see robots fight. Well, this movie at least makes an attempt at that. The opening scenes with the Autobots being hunted down and killed is a stab in that direction. Also, the movie does have a lot more development for the transformers as actual characters than the previous movies, and a few of them I really liked. I liked how cool the design for Lockdown was, and I enjoyed how the movie handled his secret intentions. He has a lone gunman/bounty hunter feel that's something new for this series. Think of Boba Fett when you see him. Something the movie could have dealt less with, though, was Cade Yeager’s daughter. Granted, we need to get humans in the movie to appeal to audience demographics, but that is the fatal flaw in this movie. There are countless points when the humans could have broken off from all the disaster and destruction. And even if they (the filmmakers) wanted to keep Cade a part of the story, he could have dumped his daughter off at any number of points along the way. But no, we drag her and her boyfriend along for the action. Through the entire movie, Cade's daughter is crying, or in peril. Same with her boyfriend! These two characters do very, very little to advance the plot. While I was watching the movie, I couldn't help but think of ARMAGEDDON, and how I cared more about what was going on with the human characters in that film, which has a similar dynamic as this one: the father/daughter relationship and the father despising the boyfriend. Part of me thought Wahlberg was going to sacrifice himself for her, or to save the world, but that never happens. It should have. The ending to ARMAGEDDON had more of an emotional impact, and I'll admit to getting misty at the end, but TRANSFORMERS: AGE OF EXTINCTION barely approaches that kind of emotion. There isn't enough at stake. Honestly, the movie could have been about the CIA hunting down the transformers to harvest their technology in order to make their own transformers and the Autobots have to fight back. That would have been enough of a cool plot to allow for a solid flick, and it would have given the fans what they wanted. It would allow us to follow the Autobots and grow to care about them, instead of following the humans as they get into these high death-rate situations. The movie's not all bad news, though. There are two characters I think are pretty great. One is John Goodman (in voice form) as Hound, an Autobot from an Oshkosh DMTV Truck who is a commando. He's fixed with a lot of guns, ammo, and quite the mouth, to boot. His witty banter and playfulness made for a memorable, welcome character addition. The other good character is the one played by Stanley Tucci. Tucci steals the show. His character's a smart guy with his own motives, and actually has a arc in the story, which is way more than I can say about the other characters in the film. He learns what he’s doing is dangerous and wrong. But his character is along for the ride and is the most enjoyable part of the film. He has the best banter and lines in the whole movie! I’d bet that most of his lines are ad-libbed or things he came up with on the spot. Being a Michael Bay film, obviously the visuals are fantastic, as are the sound mix and music. Granted, I could care less about the soundtrack in the actual movie, but the score does help underscore the tone and story. Bay's visuals and shot compositions are outstanding. There is a great balance of colors, as well, and we get to see fantastic parts of the world, such as China, which keeps the action engaging. Overall, this movie delivers a lot of action, but if there is action without stakes or emotion, it can get boring. I ended up caring more for the Autobots and Optimus Prime than Wahlberg’s character and family. I found the action was more stimulating when the Autobots where fighting for their lives and their cause than any of the stuff involving the Wahlberg family story. Again, if they focused it on the transformers characters and cut out the Wahlberg family, we could connect with them. I know people might question how can you connect emotionally to a robot or non-human creature, but it's been done plenty of times in the past. You add human emotional elements to them. Give them human feelings. Examples: A.I.: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, THE BRAVE LITTLE TOASTER, and even AVATAR (granted, those were giant blue cat aliens, but you still cared for them). I think with trimming and a script revision (or two) this movie could have been solid: have the Autobots dealing with the Stanley Tucci storyline along with the Lockdown and CIA stuff. Cut out Wahlberg's family entirely. They were the boring parts of the movie and did nothing to advance the story... except to cry and shout in fear and constantly need help from the Autobots. If you enjoy seeing a lot of action or are a die-hard fan of this franchise, the visuals alone will probably satisfy you if you decide to see it in cinemas. If the first part of that last sentence doesn't describe you, you could wait until it’s on home video. Personally, I did enjoy seeing it on the big screen and with great sound, but I did check my watch frequently. To each his (or her) own. It’s probably better to see on the big screen and in 3D if you only care about the visual experience, but if you care about character or story, it’s a movie you could easily wait to see at home with a rental... or perhaps not at all... By Brett Blake It's been a summer packed with (mostly) good movies so far, and while I usually like to give my full attention to one movie at a time, a confluence of events conspired to have me view three movies in a very short time frame. As such, I've grouped them all together here. It's an eclectic assortment, that's for sure. MALEFICENT It’s always a risky proposition to take a classic story (say, in this case, the immortal SLEEPING BEAUTY story presented in Walt Disney’s animated masterpiece from 1959) and update or remake it. You hope for a fresh take on the familiar premise, that both honors what came before while also doing something different. With MALEFICENT, what we get is definitely a fresh take, and it is certainly different. It is also one of the more misguided family blockbusters of recent years. Ostensibly telling “Sleeping Beauty” from the villain’s perspective, MALEFICENT offers some neat visuals in the service of a muddled and confused narrative that makes a complete hash of the classic story in an attempt to turn its villain into a sympathetic anti-hero. It utterly botches the opportunity to tell a tale from an antagonist’s point-of-view, because - quite simply - the filmmakers chicken out and don’t really allow the title character to be much of a villain at all. They want to have their cake and eat it too, by giving Maleficent all of the iconic, dark trappings of her animated predecessor, and yet also making her a wronged woman with a heart of gold. In one of the most baffling of many baffling choices made by the screenplay, she actually spends much of the running time PROTECTING the young girl who is meant to be her nemesis and object of ire. Given that the character is pretty much a mess, it would not have been a surprise to see Angelina Jolie phone it in, but she completely throws herself into the part, and in the few moments where the script actually allows the character to display malevolence, she clearly relishes it. Even in the moments that are supposed to be more emotionally affecting, Jolie sells them. It’s a shame, then, that I found this version of the character to be such a non-starter. If Jolie had played Maleficent in a straight live-action retelling of “Sleeping Beauty,” she would have knocked it out of the park and stolen the movie. As it stands with the film at hand, she’s the focal point, and the character (as written) can’t support that position of importance. The script is also curiously unfocused and structured, as well; we linger on scenes that have no apparent value to the overall narrative, while also racing through moments that should land with more of an impact. Sharlto Copley’s King Stefan and Elle Fanning’s Aurora (the formerly-titular Sleeping Beauty) are given particularly short-shrift, and while the performers do fine work, the characters’ ultimate fates land with dull thuds. The designs for the fantasy world and its various creature inhabitants show off some fun ideas, even if the CGI used to bring them to life is frequently of a more cartoonish variety (particularly evident in the rather hideously unconvincing work for the young princess' three fairy guardians, characters who also provide some egregiously ineffective comic relief). The strongest element of the movie, unquestionably, is the sublime musical score from James Newton Howard; it conjures up an aura of impressive high fantasy and adventure, which makes it one of the year's best musical efforts thus far. I don’t want to oversell the movie’s issues, because MALEFICENT is certainly not an outright disaster, but it's a severely wrong-headed approach to a legendary Disney villain, and it’s one of the more confounding “event” pictures to come from a major studio in recent years. JERSEY BOYS Taste in music is - obviously - subjective. However, there are a few inarguable musical truths, and one of these is that the songs of the Four Seasons are among the best of their era, with memorable melodies and one-of-a-kind harmonies. Director Clint Eastwood’s JERSEY BOYS - a cinematic adaptation of the Broadway hit - tells the rise and fall (and rise again) of the group from the early 1950s through the 1970s, complete with mob connections, familial turmoil, inter-group conflict, and an understated sense of humor, all powered by crisp, sparkling versions of the Seasons’ classic hits. For a good chunk of the early section of the movie, it is something of GOODFELLAS-lite, as we watch young Frankie Valli (John Lloyd Young) and Tommy DeVito (Vincent Piazza) navigate their way through their aspiring music careers under the watchful eye of local boss - and mafia connection - Gyp DeCarlo (Christopher Walken at his most Walken-ish). Soon, Nick Massi (Michael Lomenda) and Bob Gaudio (Erich Bergen) join the ranks, and the Four Seasons begin their ascension to the top of the charts. The story frequently involves the characters breaking the fourth wall and talking right to the audience, a device which might not have translated well from the stage version but actually adds an interesting flavor to the cinematic interpretation; there’s something captivating about an actor speaking directly into the camera, and it gives JERSEY BOYS a confessional, conversational sort of feeling. Eastwood, on the surface, might seem like a curious choice to helm what could be termed a “musical,” (though there are no instances of the characters spontaneously bursting into song; all of the numbers are presented as organic performances by the group itself) but one needs only to look at his background - which includes directing 1988’s BIRD, a biopic of jazz great Charlie Parker, as well as composing the scores to many of his own films - to see that music is a passion of his. His clean and straightforward directorial style pairs well with the more mob-inflected elements, and his handling of the musical numbers, though never flashy, offers some interesting staging. The four leads are all convincing, both on the acting and singing front, though Piazza’s the standout, managing to capture everything quintessential about being an Italian goon in that era without becoming a complete caricature. He also provides a great deal of the movie’s humor, an element that is never in the foreground but is always close by. There are even a few inside jokes and references to some classic gangster films, which eagle-eyed movies buffs should be able to spot. I’ve seen some criticisms leveled at JERSEY BOYS that imply the movie lacks exuberance or flair, that it’s a strangely dark experience. “No fun” is a phrase I’ve seen bandied about in some other reviews, but I don’t subscribe to this at all. Even at its most dark, there’s a feeling of playfulness on Eastwood’s part that is a marked contrast to the dour heaviness of some of his recent films (such as 2011’s J. EDGAR, a film I enjoy but whose tone would have been completely wrong for JERSEY BOYS). Though it tells a kind of story that we’ve seen before, this specific collection of characters (and their specific story) is unique, and coupled with the great music, it makes for an engaging and completely entertaining semi-musical biography. And if nothing else, JERSEY BOYS guarantees you’ll leave the theater with at least one (and probably several) of the Four Seasons’ classic songs stuck in your head, which is never a bad thing. HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON 2 2010’s HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON was the most pleasant of surprises: a thoughtful and exciting family film that didn’t talk down to (or insult the intelligence of) its audience. Four years later, we finally have its sequel, and it follows the solid foundation set down by its predecessor, offering a frequently exhilarating ride along with some thematic heft. The specific plot of this installment (which I’ll not describe here) is not some kind of revolutionary storytelling showcase (indeed, its primary villain is thinly-sketched and lacks really any satisfactory motivation; he’s on a quest to do vaguely-evil things because, well, that’s what villains do, right?), and the first movie was definitely more satisfying on a narrative level, but HTTYD2’s plot is effective enough to propel forward the more interesting singular moments and sequences, and to service a rather sophisticated emotional journey for its hero, Hiccup, and his dragon, Toothless. Indeed, the movie is primarily concerned with the old notion of finding one’s place in the world, and the way in which this movie handles that is compelling and unique, particularly for a piece of entertainment aimed at kids and families. One specific choice made by the filmmakers is almost amazingly daring and complex for most kids to be expected to wrap their minds around, and its worth celebrating when a movie attempts to challenge its audience along with its characters. I found it particularly interesting that the movie is at its weakest when it stops for interludes of comic relief; the humor’s actually pretty enjoyable on its own, but it feels utterly extraneous and unimportant, because when the movie’s playing it straight - with real stakes and consequences for the characters - it’s incredibly effective. Technically, the animation on display here is absolutely stunning. While the first movie had a freshness factor working in its favor, this film’s flying sequences are even more dynamic and arresting, and they’re brought to the screen on a scale that is nothing less than gigantic. Similarly, the dragon characters are rendered with great personality, and the “cinematography,” if you will, of the animated environments is top notch, with atmosphere to spare. One sequence - in which we meet one of the film’s primary new characters for the first time - is particularly striking, and a masterclass in using light and shadow to set a mood. One of the elements that made the first movie so successful was its Oscar-nominated musical score by John Powell, and he thankfully returns to tackle this film. He not only returns, but he tops himself, producing a musical work that stands as the best of 2014 so far. Grand melodies and delicate lyricism combine with explosive, even full-on-swashbuckling moments of action and adventure. With so many contemporary film scores embracing droning ambiance, it’s a real pleasure to hear a composer let loose and soar, and that’s what we get here from Powell. HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON 2 is imperfect, but its aim is high, and it’s packed with great ideas and memorable moments. I still give the edge to the first movie as an overall experience, but this sequel is easily more thought-provoking and interesting. How often can you really say that about an animated (non-Pixar) film? By Brett Blake EDGE OF TOMORROW is not the movie its trailers have been selling. Yes, they’ve communicated the basic gist of the plot, and they’ve given a good idea of the flavor of the action, but they’ve also depicted the movie’s tone to be fairly grim, even dour. It might be a surprise to learn, then, that the film itself is terrifically entertaining, with a healthy sense of humor and an engaging spin on some classic science fiction ideas. The film opens with the world at war with an invading alien race. The conflict is mostly confined to the European continent and - in one of several allusions to World War II - the story begins on the eve of a massive military assault on the aliens’ position in France. Shades of the D-Day invasion are heavily felt, which is appropriate given that this film’s opening weekend marks the 70th anniversary of that historic engagement. Tom Cruise stars as William Cage, a military P.R. officer who (through an interesting plot development) is dropped into the middle of the assault as though he were an ordinary soldier. Having had no combat training of any kind, he is quickly killed, only to find himself waking up the previous day. Now stuck in a time loop of sorts, he relives the invasion over and over, and thus begins his quest to both end the constant resetting of his life and - if possible - cripple the alien forces once and for all, a task that eventually requires the help of war hero/propaganda figurehead Rita, played by Emily Blunt. EDGE OF TOMORROW is the sort of film that I like to call a “blender” movie, where you drop in elements from prior stories, mix them up a bit, and - hopefully - you result in something that feels fresh. Sometimes the component parts are barely-disguised or too obvious, but in this case, director Doug Liman and the screenwriters are able to achieve a blend that, indeed, does feel fresh. EDGE OF TOMORROW’s primary influences are the alien invasion story and the time loop story (the best example of which remains GROUNDHOG DAY), and these two concepts are grafted together in a way that is novel and interesting. The most compelling element of the story is the way it handles Cruise’s character. Being a public relations mouthpiece, we see Cruise early on being a slick, smooth-talking spinner of information, regurgitating the same talking points over and over. He’s also a full-blown coward at the start of the story; it’s great the way in which the movie is unapologetic about this aspect of the character’s personality, and it only serves to set up a compelling and satisfying arc for the man to undergo. The screenwriters deserve credit for efficiently establishing the character in quick-but-meaningful fashion; there’s not a wasted moment to be found in here, something that also aids in the film’s fairly rocketing pacing. Cruise himself is great as our protagonist; he nails the character’s transition from a semi-asshole coward, to a scared-out-of-his-mind reluctant soldier, to - finally - a legitimately good and heroic man. He’s famous for doing as many of his own stunts as he’s allowed, and though there’s certainly no shortage of CGI splashed across the screen, Cruise brings a convincing physicality to the role. As his counterpart in the story, Emily Blunt is also terrific, playing a slightly damaged, closed-off, no-nonsense badass; on the page this could have easily been a one-note character, but Blunt hits all the appropriate subtleties, brings them to the foreground, and sketches out a convincing inner life for her character. Character actor stalwarts Bill Paxton (here at his most Paxton-y) and Brendan Gleeson also pop up and round out the cast in a fun way. And there’s the keyword: “fun.” At its best, EDGE OF TOMORROW is massively entertaining. It has a great deal of fun with the idea of the time loop Cruise finds himself in, deriving a ton of enjoyably perverse humor from the ways in which Cruise gets himself killed (he dies onscreen no less than several dozen times), several of which are certifiably laugh-out-loud moments. The humor never compromises the tone or the stakes of the narrative, but it adds an extra layer of enjoyment to the overall package. In culinary parlance, it’s the movie’s secret ingredient. Additionally, the script plays with the recurring beats that Cruise keeps re-living in neat ways, without ever allowing them to become boring or redundant; each repetition serves a purpose, and each reset takes us closer to the characters’ (and the story’s) ultimate destination. The movie is handsomely photographed, and the staging of the action is really quite good. Director Liman finds the sweet spot balance of being chaotic and visceral while still keeping everything clearly discernible and with a sense of spatial geography. The squid-like design of the alien creatures - slightly reminiscent of the machines from THE MATRIX - is nifty, and although we don’t exactly get to spend prolonged amounts of time in their presence, the lethal quickness and “unstoppable force” aspects they display make them effective villains for the story. The script does stumble just a bit in terms of the ending, but it’s nothing that threatens to bring down the movie as a whole. There’s one last thing I want to say, and it’s in regard to Tom Cruise himself, a celebrity I know some people have an aversion to. Here’s the thing - you can dislike the man’s personal life choices, or his perceived failings as an individual, or his public statements about this-or-that, but there should be no denying that he throws himself completely into his roles, gives a one-hundred-percent effort every time, and genuinely makes interesting choices when picking the films he wants to headline. The idea that some people seem to have written him off as a performer because of things he did nearly a decade ago (and which, I might say, were blown out of all proportion, as detailed in this excellent piece on his career in LA Weekly) is unfortunate. I say this simply to hammer home (to those who might have little interest in EDGE OF TOMORROW merely because Cruise is the star) that a dislike for Cruise personally - misguided though I think that might be - should be no reason whatsoever to avoid what is a really fun and exciting sci-fi/action tale. The quality of the movie should absolutely be able to transcend the baggage that Tom Cruise brings with him in the eyes of certain audience members. It’s the first big pleasant surprise of the summer, and well worth your time. By Brett Blake There are few cinematic monsters as iconic as Godzilla. Even if you’ve never seen one of the older Japanese films, chances are you’re still very much aware of him, his distinctive look, and his penchant for unleashing destruction upon the citizens of Japan. He’s part of a universal cultural fabric. Per the original 1954 film’s American ad campaign, Godzilla is the “King of the Monsters,” and he more than lives up to that title in director Gareth Edwards’ new interpretation of the creature, which is a stylish, intense, and compelling blockbuster that makes the wonderfully old-fashioned choice to invest time in building up a sense of grand mystery before paying that off in spectacular fashion. The story kicks off with a devastating disaster at a nuclear power plant in Japan, the aftermath of which sets into motion a chain of events that eventually culminate in the appearance of a giant monster menace which threatens the world. Into this picture, then, arrives Godzilla himself (that’s right, he’s not the only monster in this film, though I don’t consider that a spoiler, as the advertising has revealed as much), which sets the stage for a major clash. Against this gigantic backdrop is the story of the Brody family, embodied by Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Elizabeth Olsen, and Bryan Cranston. Also integral to the proceedings (and the lone Japanese representative in the cast) is Dr. Serizawa, portrayed by Ken Watanabe. The likes of Juliette Binoche, Sally Hawkins, and David Strathairn (Oscar nominees, all) are also along for the journey as a pair of scientists and a military man, respectively. Chiefly, the movie unfolds for most of its first half with the feeling that there’s some kind of huge mystery unfolding; it resembles Steven Spielberg’s CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND in the way it takes a ground-level, human-scale approach to a massive paranormal event unfolding on a global scale. Characters are constantly attempting to piece together the meaning of what’s happening, which effectively draws the audience in and helps them to invest in the goings-on. Director Edwards demonstrates a remarkable understanding of how to build suspense and then pay that off. There’s palpable awe and wonder (and even terror) in the way Edwards handles the introductions of each of the creatures in the film (Godzilla’s first up-close appearance is particularly, spine-tinglingly great), and the staging of the various action setpieces is incredibly impressive; each scene builds and grows in satisfying and exciting ways. Edwards uses shadows, smoke, reflections, and objects/creatures that are just-barely-in or just-barely-out of the frame, a style that grabs the audience’s attention and makes them desperately want to see more. He wants our curiosity and our imaginations to be ignited, something that makes us more active participants in the movie as a whole than we would be if we were simply assaulted by nonstop mayhem and noise. Edwards is playing an old-school game, here, one not necessarily designed for our attention-deficit culture. The movie’s not quite a slow burn - there are many thrilling and/or suspenseful sequences that appear at fairly regular intervals, including one at a Hawaiian airport which is a masterpiece of tension and leads up to an incredible reveal - but it clearly has no interest in peaking too early, as many contemporary action films do. GODZILLA truly saves its most spectacular moments for its final act, and it sends us out of the theater on a very high note. Some might be put off by the fact that Godzilla himself isn’t really in the film a tremendous amount (he’s not unlike the shark in Spielberg’s other great 1970s movie, JAWS, in that respect; he’s felt as a presence more than he’s actually onscreen), or that the movie constantly teases the audience with the promise of Godzilla battling his foes only to (more or less) save that for the climax, but it’s more than worth the wait. I’ve already brought up Spielberg twice, so I want to say something that I hope director Edwards would take as high praise. The movie feels like 1970s/1980s-era Steven Spielberg directed it (with a bit of JURASSIC PARK and WAR OF THE WORLDS flavoring tossed in), from the inventive staging to the memorable beats and bits of business that are peppered throughout almost every big scene. I know it doesn’t really do any justice to the unique idiosyncrasies that Gareth Edwards brings to the table, and he’s certainly not aping or ripping-off Spielberg in any way; in any case, I mean it as the highest compliment. If this film is any indication, Edwards has an incredibly exciting career ahead of him. The acting is uniformly good. Aaron Taylor-Johson makes for a capable leading man, and he’s matched by Ken Watanabe, who seems to bring a natural gravitas to every role he plays. Watanabe’s particularly effective in this, and he’s the voice of the movie’s sociological/ecological/political thesis: that Godzilla may be a kind of agent of nature itself, coming forth from the depths to restore perceived imbalances. Bryan Cranston also delivers the goods, and he’s key in helping the audience form bonds with both his character and Taylor-Johnson’s. Elizabeth Olsen and Sally Hawkins are both good, though their roles are on the verge of being somewhat thankless. Still, it’s great to have actors of their caliber (and of Binoche’s and Strathairn’s) to lend credibility to what is, ostensibly, a movie in which giant monsters beat the hell out of each other. Speaking of those monsters, the computer effects - while occasionally less than fully convincing - imbue them (Godzilla, particularly) with a great deal of personality. These are not stock movie monsters; they actually emote, and when they collide in a fight, it’s great. Godzilla has some great moments (in terms of his fighting style) that recall the man-in-suit origins of the character, and rather than feeling campy or silly, these moments hit just the right tone of being fun without turning the movie into a goofy cartoon. The effects are aided by Academy Awards-worthy sound design, which adds yet another layer of personality to the monsters, especially Godzilla’s foes. And all of this is underpinned by Alexandre Desplat’s huge, in-your-face score that feels gloriously old-fashioned. It's currently the score of the year. As a total package GODZILLA is everything I hoped it would be, and then some. Could a person nitpick the thing to death? Maybe, but why would you want to do that to a film this effective, this thrilling, and this satisfying? It’s a movie lightyears better than it could have been (see 1998’s misfire Godzilla flick for proof of that), and it immediately takes its place in the pantheon of the great giant monster movies… admittedly, that’s not really saying much, but I mean it in the best way possible. Assuming the movie's successful enough to warrant further adventures, I can’t wait to see where Edwards and company take us from here. By Brett Blake TRANSCENDENCE is not an aggressively awful film, or even one that’s particularly bad. It is, however, not particularly good, either, which is disappointing considering the caliber of talent involved in its creation. It’s also deeply strange and weird, which may or may not be too much for the average viewer to accept. The basics of the plot involve Johnny Depp’s Dr. Will Caster, a brilliant computer scientist working in the field of artificial intelligence. He is shot and killed early in the film by a rogue anti-technology group (led by a character portrayed by Kate Mara), which leads his wife, Evelyn (Rebecca Hall), and fellow scientist Max (Paul Bettany) to upload his consciousness into a computer. They do so, Caster’s intelligence begins to grow and change within the computer system, and then things begin to escalate in a dangerous way. So, just from that basic synopsis - which doesn’t even begin to touch on the really bizarre stuff which starts to happen - is probably enough to get across how willfully, even gleefully silly the whole enterprise is. On the surface, this isn’t too much of a problem for me, personally, as I think there’s something admirable about its straight-faced handling of the absurdity. That’s not to say that the storyline doesn’t turn into a mess (because, boy, does it ever!) but I give the movie credit for not just doing a by-the-numbers kind of tale. Just how weird does it get? Skip down to the next paragraph if you’d like to remain clean, because here’s a spoilerish example: the movie establishes that Depp’s character is cremated upon his death early on, and yet once the third act arrives, Depp’s computer intelligence is able to conjure up a physical version of himself, seemingly from nothing. His explanation for this: “I found a way back.” That’s it. We’re just asked to accept it, and it pushes the film fully into science fantasy, rather than hard science fiction. The frustrating thing is that there is a good, satisfying story buried in here somewhere. The concepts of loss of humanity in favor of technology and the increasingly-plausible notion of artificial intelligence which is indistinguishable from (or greater than) our own are classic science fiction ideas, and ones that seem to be perpetually relevant. While this is a good thing, it also causes the movie to feel just a bit familiar, like about a dozen-or-so other films have been dropped into a food processor. It’s not quite a hodge-podge, but anybody who’s familiar with the science fiction genre will find a ton of recognizable elements. Some of these, I’m sure, are intentional homage, like the desolate research facility where the majority of the movie’s second half is set, which strongly recalls Robert Wise’s 1971 classic THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN in terms of design. There are also hints of the technological concerns found in 1999’s THE MATRIX and even 1992’s (awful) THE LAWNMOWER MAN. There’s nothing in TRANSCENDENCE that feels like a total rip-off of earlier material, but the tale is definitely informed by solid genre foundations. Now, the basic nuts-and-bolts of the story are just fine, and the movie explores them reasonably well… for a while. But once we get into the latter half of the film, any kind of cohesion of tone or theme goes out the window in favor of messy plotting and truly strange - and patently unbelievable - developments (see the spoilery example above). I will say that the actual climax/denouement of the story works quite well from a thematic standpoint, but what leads up to it just doesn’t click, and it’s undercut by an opening sequence that essentially forecasts what the ending is going to be, robbing the specific climax of much of its impact. The film is directed by Wally Pfister, and it’s his first go-round in the director’s seat. Prior to this, he made his name as an accomplished, Oscar-winning cinematographer, best-known for his collaboration with director Christopher Nolan (an executive producer on TRANSCENDENCE) on such films as 2008’s THE DARK KNIGHT and 2010’s INCEPTION. Pfister’s photography has been of an uncommonly high quality, so it’s a shame that his coming out party as director is so scattershot. It’s not a badly-directed film, per se, but there’s a distinct lack of energy and excitement to most of the movie; it’s a pretty inert experience, all things considered. It’s also oddly paced, complete with an overlong midsection that literally skips over years with little sense of an appropriate passage of time. As far as the acting is concerned, Johnny Depp is fine in what basically amounts to a supporting role. Once his character dies, he’s represented mainly by a disembodied voice and a face on a computer screen; not demanding work, surely. Rebecca Hall does a very impressive job despite being saddled with a character whose actions frequently defy logic, rationality, and common sense. It’s really kind of amazing that she comes across as positively as she does given the material she has to work with. Paul Bettany contributes the performance of the film, giving his all in the service of a truly conflicted man trying to do right by both his friends and society at large. The likes of Kate Mara, Cillian Murphy, and Morgan Freeman all feel kind of stranded by the screenplay; it’s nice to have them along for the ride, but the characters mostly feel extraneous when it comes to the main plot. From a technical standpoint, the movie’s solid enough. The cinematography is rich, and it strongly echoes director Pfister’s own work as a cinematographer. The production design (which I alluded to above) is also strong; there’s a sleek, white aesthetic to things that’s very much in line with the look of sci-fi films from the late 1960s through the 1970s. Additionally, Mychael Danna’s score provides an ambient and effective counterpoint/support system to the story. Again, I want to stress TRANSCENDENCE really isn’t a terrible film, despite what other reviews might claim, but it is a disappointing one because the pieces were here to do something really interesting. Instead, we have a messy sci-fi melodrama that never lives up to the promise of its premise. By Brett Blake There may come a time when the films from Marvel Studios begin to run out of gas, either creatively or commercially. They’ve had a terrific run of success going all the way back to 2008’s IRON MAN, the film that launched what has now been coined as the “Marvel Cinematic Universe,” and even after the monumental success of THE AVENGERS and IRON MAN 3 (and last fall’s THOR: THE DARK WORLD, to a slightly lesser extent), it can only be a matter of time before the company hits a bump in the road. That time has not yet arrived, however. CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER is a tremendous entry in the franchise, offering blisteringly exciting action anchored by a topical, timely storyline that positions the character of Steve Rogers/Captain America as the new focal point of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The movie nicely functions as a follow-up to both 2011’s CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER and 2012’s THE AVENGERS. The bulk of the plot revolves around a sinister conspiracy at the heart of S.H.I.E.L.D., the government agency for which Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), and Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) fight crime and evil. A series of assassination attempts perpetrated by the shadowy Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan) force our heroes to examine exactly what they’ve been fighting for, and how best to protect the innocent. To say anything more would be criminal; though the plot doesn’t exactly feature major plot twists, there are significant narrative turns that would be better left discovered for yourselves in a darkened cinema. Primarily, the film feels heavily influenced by the paranoid and political thrillers of the 1970s in the way it deals bluntly in the idea of government corruption (elements of the plot seem to particularly recall 1974’s THE PARALLAX VIEW and 1975’s THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR, but not in a way that feels like they’re being ripped-off) and the dichotomy between freedom and security. In an age where our government conducts drone strikes and collects data about American citizens’ technology usage on a widespread scale (ostensibly for the purpose of keeping us safe), the movie is tremendously “of the moment.” The appeal of putting a character like Captain America into a moral grey area is that it allows the filmmakers to showcase his unwavering sense of right and wrong, and his commitment to fighting for liberty. The best thing about this element of the movie, though, is the fact that it never feels preachy, or like there’s an agenda being forced upon us. There’s no “message,” here, other than to suggest that we could all think a just bit more critically about what governments claim to do in the name of protecting their people. Alright, I’m stepping away from the soapbox, now. Chris Evans continues to impress as Steve Rogers and his patriotic alter ego; he completely sells the character’s innate decency, and he also makes him a man the audience can fully pull for. He also finally gets a chance to play up the “man out of time,” element of his character (he had been frozen in ice since 1945, after all), which adds some nice moments of levity in what is otherwise a pretty intense film. Scarlett Johansson and Samuel L. Jackson each get a lot of stuff to do this time around, which is welcome; Jackson, in particular, actually gets some legitimate character development, and I think a case could easily be made that the strongest character arc of the story belongs to his Nick Fury. Anthony Mackie is a great addition to the cast as Sam Wilson (A.K.A. Falcon), and he and Evans have a palpable buddy chemistry that makes their interactions a lot of fun. As the villainous Winter Soldier, Sebastian Stan remains kind of a cipher for a good chunk of the movie (by design; he’s more a ghostly presence than a character), but once we get a chance to see some of the pathos behind the man, he totally sells it. The supporting roster is rounded out by the likes of Cobie Smulders, Frank Grillo, and Emily VanCamp, and they each do fine work bouncing off the rest of the ensemble. Then we have Alexander Pierce, the character played by Robert Redford, who is the living embodiment of the movie’s thematic subtext, and while I can’t fully discuss where the story takes this character (you know, spoilers and such), I can say that he’s vitally important in bringing the “political thriller” elements of the movie to the foreground. While one would probably never have imagined an actor/filmmaker of Redford’s stature would ever appear in this kind of movie, he is actually fantastic; he never winks at the camera, or lets on that he might feel that being in a superhero/comic book flick is beneath him. It’s a real-deal performance full of conviction and complexity, and the movie is much richer for his involvement. Technically, the film is absolutely top-flight. The action scenes provide the requisite visceral thrills, and they’re peppered with great little beats; Cap’s hand-to-hand combat-y moments are particularly effective. The movie builds to a climax involving many characters in many different locations, and this section is tremendously staged and edited to near-perfection for maximum impact. Directors Anthony and Joe Russo deserve a lot of credit for pulling off a movie of this scope without it turning into a disjointed mess. Perhaps the most interesting element of the entire film is the way it paves the road for the future of the Marvel Cinematic Universe in some incredibly unexpected ways. Avoiding spoilers as much as possible, I’ll say that it’s clear the Marvel team has no interest in just doing things “by the numbers,” and seem eager to shake up the status quo as often as they can. By the end of CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER, events have taken place that will almost certainly have aftershocks in upcoming films, particularly next year’s AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON, and that’s an exciting prospect to ponder and look forward to. I hesitate to make the following comparison, but screw it, I’m going to anyway: I honestly think that WINTER SOLDIER is to the first Captain America film what THE DARK KNIGHT was to BATMAN BEGINS. Not in terms of tone or plot, but in the way both those films expand on the ideas of their respective universes. Just as THE DARK KNIGHT is a film that ups the ante and the dramatic stakes in a big, big way relative to BATMAN BEGINS, so too does WINTER SOLDIER push the Captain America character (and, really, the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe) into much more complex and interesting areas. It may even be a better overall film that THE AVENGERS, but further study is required on my part to truly decide. And by “further study,” I mean “I’ll have to re-watch them several times.” It’s going to be tough work, but I’m sure I’ll manage… |
Archives
January 2023
Categories
All
|