It's been almost a decade since I last watched the documentary Dogtown and Z-Boys and the subsequent feature version, Lords of Dogtown, both of which chronicle the legendary Zephyr skateboarding group that's largely credited for inventing skateboarding as we know it today. I remember liking both, especially the documentary, so when they popped up on Netflix a few weeks ago I figured now was a great time to revisit the flicks.
The documentary holds up well as an entertaining, if somewhat biased look at the group. Not a huge surprise given the fact that the films director was original Z-Boy Stacy Peralta. Either way, I enjoyed it again and was very curious to see how the feature held up.
And dudes, I was a little surprised at just how terrible it is. Filled with awful acting, hokey cameos and a tone that wants to be a lot edgier than it actually is, Lords of Dogtown is a straight up mess.
As with any adaptation of anything, things are going to change from the original property to the new one. It's just part of the deal, and usually, it makes sense. But Peralta, making his feature screenwriting debut, takes the already interesting story of these kids, and throws in every rags to riches cliche in the book. It certainly doesn't help that Peralta makes himself out to be the angel of the entire group. The only one with any kind of decency or loyalty out of the bunch, with everyone else instantly growing giant egos and seeing dollar signs upon the first sign of fame.
Of course, it's entirely possible that that's how it happened. That stuff wasn't in the documentary, but it still could have gone down that way. And besides, even if it didn't, this isn't supposed to be the documentary. This is the dramatization, meant more for entertainment than anything else. And if it had been done well, it wouldn't have bothered me, but it seems as if Peralta just added that stuff in for the sake of being dramatic as opposed to letting any of the drama feel interesting or organic to the story itself.
Ok, so having Peralta write the screenplay was a big mistake, but having director Catherine Hardwicke at the helm was not, for the most part at least. Hardwicke employed a bleached out effect to the camera work that was extremely popular in the mid-aughts for whatever reason, but it works here. Also, she makes sure the footage of these kids skating is just as accurate and fascinating as the real footage from the documentary, even going so far as to mimic some of the shots that Peralta would become famous for in his Bones Brigade skating videos. Hardwicke even assembled a who's who of young performers to star in the flick, including Heath Ledger, Emile Hirsch, Nikki Reed and Johnny Knoxville, among others. Unfortunately, this is where Hardwicke trips up a bit.
Look, I love Emile Hirsch. I think he can be a great actor. His work in Into the Wild is incredible, I'm a huge supporter of Speed Racer and his most recent work in Prince Avalanche is a hoot. But Hirsch is terrible here. He plays Jay Adams, the youngest and wildest of the bunch. The documentary does a great job conveying Adams' spirit and rambunctiousness, but in the movie Hirsch just keeps making weird faces, leaning his head back and widening his eyes. In other words, he tries really hard to be tough and crazy but just comes off as goofy.
And guys, Heath Ledger is bad in this movie. Really bad. His character, one of the founders of the Zephyr group, is seemingly nothing like he was in real life, at least in comparison to the documentary. Which, again, I wouldn't have cared if it worked in the context of the movie, but it doesn't. Heath simply made a choice and ran with it. He employs some kind of surfer dude accent, says "man" a whole lot and acts spaced out for the majority of the movie.
Now, let it be known that Heath Ledger was great. I know it, everybody knows it. And honestly, I really like it when actors make choices like Heath did here. But sometimes actors need to be reigned in, and this was one of those times. But Hardwicke is pretty absent in this instance. She doesn't seem to be able to give any real kind of direction to these actors. To be fair, a lot of the fault lies in the script. And maybe she thought that letting these kids interpret the lines their own way would help the film feel authentic to the way teenagers really talk. But what was meant to feel authentic comes off as amateurish, and a lot of the fault in that area lies with Hardwicke.
As for the tone of the movie, I get the feeling that it really wants to feel dangerous, something the documentary was successful at conveying as these kids tore though what was believed to be the limits of professional skateboarding. As you might be able to guess though, the feature film does not have a dangerous bone in its body.
Oh, I also mentioned that the film has some hokey cameos, and upon reflection that's not entirely true. A few of the original Z-boys pop up quickly in amusing cameos that only hardcore fans would be able to notice. They're fun and harmless and don't detract anything from the movie. But Tony Hawk shows up in a moment that is so *nudge nudge* *wink wink* that it's cringe inducing. I don't really have anything else to say about it, honestly. I just hated it and I needed you to know.
I haven't even gotten into the subplot about the kid with a brain tumor, and you know what, I don't think I will. Suffice it to say the movie doesn't handle it very well and decides to treat more like a joke than anything else.
Alright, well, I didn't like this movie, obviously. I'm a little surprised to find that a lot of you guys do, though. Have you all watched it recently? I can certainly see how it might have been a draw for some of you back in the day. Hell I even mentioned earlier that I remember liking it ten years ago. It has a great cast and an interesting story, it just turns out that the movie is quite terrible as opposed to good like we all thought. Don't worry guys, this isn't a holy grail film from our youth that we're terrified of ruining, it's just a really bad movie.
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Monday, September 8, 2014
The Iceman
The Iceman tells the true story of Richard Kuklinski, devote family man and notorious contract killer. Richard Kuklinski claimed to have killed over 100 people during his career. But he was a murderer with a code. No women, no children. Even if they witnessed something they shouldn't have. Michael Shannon, an already imposing dude, brings his usual intensity to
the role of the titular character, but the moments where we get to see
the killer as a family man above all else are what help make this bio
pic just a tad more interesting than all the rest.
The film opens in the mid 60s with Kuklinski on his first date with his wife, played by Winona Ryder. The scene itself is pretty familiar, but Ryder and Shannon have a nice attraction to one another that's credible, and we get our first glimpse of how this obviously stoic man can be broken down by a good woman.
Flash forward 5 years. Shannon and Ryder are married with child, Shannon has already killed a guy outside a bar in cold blood and joins the mafia after murdering a homeless man for initiation, all within 10 minutes. I have no doubt that most of that really happened, at least to some degree, but my main beef is that director Ariel Vromen rushes through all this like he only has 90 minutes to tell this story! Which, um, I guess is true. Whatever, my point is that while Vromen is able to create an appropriately grim tone and gets good performances from his surprisingly impressive cast, it just seems that he doesn't have enough time to tell this story they way it should be told.
Kuklinski's story spans multiple decades, and while I don't believe every movie HAS to be 2+ hours, it feels like The Iceman needed at least an extra 30 minutes for it to be able to leave more of an impression. What makes this even more troubling is how Vromen and the screenwriters spend a good chunk of time dealing with crime boss Ray Liotta and his no good friend played by a barely recognizable David Schwimmer(SCHWIMMER?!?). While it's interesting to see Schwimmer doing something so different and it's always nice to see Liotta in something decent, I really don't see the need to spend so much time on the subplot, especially when the main characters story is so interesting.
Even with all that frustration, there's still a lot of stuff that Vromen got right and makes The Iceman worth recommending. Aside from another good Michael Shannon performance, Vromen spends a good amount of time showing Kuklinski's relationship with his family and how he was able to deceive them for almost 20 years. It's easy to think that a spouse would obviously realize something wasn't right in a situation like this, and the film actually alludes to the fact that his wife might have had a suspicion that he was at least involved in something not entirely legal, but she certainly never suspected murder was involved. Kuklinski proved himself to be a loving husband and father, and the film makes a good case as to how he could have hidden his true profession for so long. And of course, it also makes his ability to kill without much remorse all the more shocking.
Special mention must also be made that The Iceman features a GREAT performance from Chris Evans as a fellow hitman Kuklinski partners with. I'm going to be genuinely saddened if Evans really quits acting in favor of directing. Don't get me wrong, it's great that he wants to branch out, but he has gotten better with each role and I for one would seriously miss that charisma of his.
Despite its faults, The Iceman proves to be an entertaining and fascinating look into one of the most brutal killers of the 20th century. But still, with a bit more focus and perhaps a longer running time, it really could have been one of the greats.
The film opens in the mid 60s with Kuklinski on his first date with his wife, played by Winona Ryder. The scene itself is pretty familiar, but Ryder and Shannon have a nice attraction to one another that's credible, and we get our first glimpse of how this obviously stoic man can be broken down by a good woman.
Flash forward 5 years. Shannon and Ryder are married with child, Shannon has already killed a guy outside a bar in cold blood and joins the mafia after murdering a homeless man for initiation, all within 10 minutes. I have no doubt that most of that really happened, at least to some degree, but my main beef is that director Ariel Vromen rushes through all this like he only has 90 minutes to tell this story! Which, um, I guess is true. Whatever, my point is that while Vromen is able to create an appropriately grim tone and gets good performances from his surprisingly impressive cast, it just seems that he doesn't have enough time to tell this story they way it should be told.
Kuklinski's story spans multiple decades, and while I don't believe every movie HAS to be 2+ hours, it feels like The Iceman needed at least an extra 30 minutes for it to be able to leave more of an impression. What makes this even more troubling is how Vromen and the screenwriters spend a good chunk of time dealing with crime boss Ray Liotta and his no good friend played by a barely recognizable David Schwimmer(SCHWIMMER?!?). While it's interesting to see Schwimmer doing something so different and it's always nice to see Liotta in something decent, I really don't see the need to spend so much time on the subplot, especially when the main characters story is so interesting.
Even with all that frustration, there's still a lot of stuff that Vromen got right and makes The Iceman worth recommending. Aside from another good Michael Shannon performance, Vromen spends a good amount of time showing Kuklinski's relationship with his family and how he was able to deceive them for almost 20 years. It's easy to think that a spouse would obviously realize something wasn't right in a situation like this, and the film actually alludes to the fact that his wife might have had a suspicion that he was at least involved in something not entirely legal, but she certainly never suspected murder was involved. Kuklinski proved himself to be a loving husband and father, and the film makes a good case as to how he could have hidden his true profession for so long. And of course, it also makes his ability to kill without much remorse all the more shocking.
Special mention must also be made that The Iceman features a GREAT performance from Chris Evans as a fellow hitman Kuklinski partners with. I'm going to be genuinely saddened if Evans really quits acting in favor of directing. Don't get me wrong, it's great that he wants to branch out, but he has gotten better with each role and I for one would seriously miss that charisma of his.
Despite its faults, The Iceman proves to be an entertaining and fascinating look into one of the most brutal killers of the 20th century. But still, with a bit more focus and perhaps a longer running time, it really could have been one of the greats.
Sunday, August 24, 2014
The Expendables 3
The Expendables 3 completes Sylvester Stallone's latest self made franchise. The first film, while gloriously violent, had a surprisingly small amount of action and tricked us into thinking that Bruce and Arnold had more to do in the film than they actually did. However, The Expendables 2 fixed those problems immediately by opening with an action sequence that outdid everything in the entire first movie. The amount of action was probably about the same as the first, but what was there was much better, and then add the fact that we got the three action icons standing side by side shooting machine guns. So, you know, cool. Also, the sense of camaraderie was much more present than it was in the first film, which is surprising given the fact that these are team films. In other words, part 2 was FUN, and what it lacked in Mickey Rourke monologues and extreme violence, it made up with JCVD playing a villain named Vilain and Chuck Norris making Chuck Norris jokes.
Which brings us to The Expendables 3. Thankfully, part 3 keeps the sense of fun from its immediate predecessor while also adding much more action than any previous entry. Actually, part 3 is the most cohesive and coherent of the three, which was a nice surprise. The story is simple, the set pieces are plentiful and pretty easy to follow, and Mel Gibson is in it as the main bad guy. So yea, I had fun with this flick.
But of course, like with most films with this many stars in it, it suffers from having too many people not having much to do. This time out, Dolph Lundgren, Terry Crews, Randy Couture and once again Jet Li get the worst of it. Dolph had a lot to do in the second one, which makes his absence here all the more disappointing. Also, no Bruce this time around. He had a very public falling out with Sly and the filmmakers, so of course there are numerous jokes regarding his absence which are funny enough, but its still a shame because he was one of the few who really understood how silly these movies are and his replacement, Harrison Ford, just doesn't have the screen presence he once did.
Among new additions to the crew are Wesley Snipes, Antonio Banderas, Mel Gibson and a bunch of other young actors, boxers and MMA fighters that I don't know or care about. Snipes acquits himself well enough, though again, he doesn't have much to do. Still, it's good to see him on the big screen again. Banderas actually steals quite a bit of the movie, adding an actual sense of humor to the proceedings that isn't groan inducing or winks to the past that compiles most of the humor in these movies. I was truly reminded how good he can be, and with his awesome sentient robot movie Automata on the way, hopefully a Banderas resurgence isn't far off.
Gibson though. Gibson. I love Gibson. Every movie can benefit from more Gibson. Please, let Gibson be in more movies! His part is pretty minimal here, but he makes every second count, bringing his trademark intensity and humor to the role. He even gets a juicy monologue that rivals Rourke's from the first film. Sadly, the climatic showdown between him and Sly isn't as satisfying as it should have been. Too short and not as brutal, especially compared to his showdown with JCVD in the second one. Either way, Gibson is great in the flick, and I would really like to see more Gibson in the future.
I had wanted this review to be a little more in depth and professional, but the truth is this film isn't either of those things itself, but I will say that I had a good time watching it, and if it is indeed the last one in the series, at least it ends on a high note*.
*Sort of. After two weeks, the film is already on track to be the lowest grossing entry by a longshot, effectively guaranteeing that this is the last film. Hopefully Sly will bounce back again with Rambo V. Seriously.
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
Hercules
There's a scene in Hercules where Dwayne Johnson throws a horse. The horse is running at him, then he picks it up, and he throws it.
It's an actual scene from the movie and normally one such as that would pretty much seal the deal for me. Unfortunately, such gleefully silly moments like that one are few and far between in Hercules, and instead the movie awkwardly skirts the line between campy fantasy yarn and middle of the road sword and sandal adventure.
Dwayne Johnson has a had a pretty frustrating career in film. The man is a charming mother fucker, and he's been great in The Rundown, The Fast & Furious franchise, and of course his amazing performance in Pain & Gain. He's done some family films and comedies in between, all of which vary in terms of quality. But god damn if this guy doesn't know how to look into a camera and charm the fuck out of you. The problem though, is that Johnson has yet to really have that ONE role that really catapults him. He's done great work helping other franchises, but he deserves one to call his own.
To be honest, I never felt like Hercules was going to be the movie or character that did this for Johnson, especially with Brett Ratner at the helm, but that didn't mean it couldn't be a fun time. And what's really frustrating is that the movie often threatens to become fun. Dwayne is such a self aware performer as it is, and there are moments when you can tell he's totally open to going full camp and have fun with it. For example, immediately after he throws that horse, he turns to the camera and says " Fucking centaurs." And don't worry, that line doesn't make sense even in the context of the film itself, but I laughed and wished the film had given him more opportunities like that.
Instead, Ratner and the studio felt it a better idea to deliver a pretty standard period epic. Hercules even comes with a rag tag team included, all of whom are just as bad ass as the demigod himself, at least that's what the filmmakers tell us. We do get a few set pieces that show how their team dynamic works in battle, but it's nothing really special, with multiple shots of our heroes walking through battle and killing an enemy that was running up behind them at the last possible second. Ugh.
I guess I really wanted this movie to embrace the fantasy elements of its story. The film opens with Hercules going on his 12 labors for the gods as he fights a lion, water dragons and a giant boar, or basically all the cool shots from the trailer. Shortly after that awesome opening we find out its all just stories he used to up his street cred. So disappointing.
I had pretty low expectations for Hercules, hoping for nothing more than seeing The Rock fight imaginary creatures and yell " I. AM. HERCULES!" every five minutes. Unfortunately the movie couldn't even deliver that, instead leaving Al Swearengen himself to pick up the slack and deliver the films one rousing moment. Such a waste.
Dwayne Johnson is still the shit, though.
It's an actual scene from the movie and normally one such as that would pretty much seal the deal for me. Unfortunately, such gleefully silly moments like that one are few and far between in Hercules, and instead the movie awkwardly skirts the line between campy fantasy yarn and middle of the road sword and sandal adventure.
Dwayne Johnson has a had a pretty frustrating career in film. The man is a charming mother fucker, and he's been great in The Rundown, The Fast & Furious franchise, and of course his amazing performance in Pain & Gain. He's done some family films and comedies in between, all of which vary in terms of quality. But god damn if this guy doesn't know how to look into a camera and charm the fuck out of you. The problem though, is that Johnson has yet to really have that ONE role that really catapults him. He's done great work helping other franchises, but he deserves one to call his own.
To be honest, I never felt like Hercules was going to be the movie or character that did this for Johnson, especially with Brett Ratner at the helm, but that didn't mean it couldn't be a fun time. And what's really frustrating is that the movie often threatens to become fun. Dwayne is such a self aware performer as it is, and there are moments when you can tell he's totally open to going full camp and have fun with it. For example, immediately after he throws that horse, he turns to the camera and says " Fucking centaurs." And don't worry, that line doesn't make sense even in the context of the film itself, but I laughed and wished the film had given him more opportunities like that.
Instead, Ratner and the studio felt it a better idea to deliver a pretty standard period epic. Hercules even comes with a rag tag team included, all of whom are just as bad ass as the demigod himself, at least that's what the filmmakers tell us. We do get a few set pieces that show how their team dynamic works in battle, but it's nothing really special, with multiple shots of our heroes walking through battle and killing an enemy that was running up behind them at the last possible second. Ugh.
I guess I really wanted this movie to embrace the fantasy elements of its story. The film opens with Hercules going on his 12 labors for the gods as he fights a lion, water dragons and a giant boar, or basically all the cool shots from the trailer. Shortly after that awesome opening we find out its all just stories he used to up his street cred. So disappointing.
I had pretty low expectations for Hercules, hoping for nothing more than seeing The Rock fight imaginary creatures and yell " I. AM. HERCULES!" every five minutes. Unfortunately the movie couldn't even deliver that, instead leaving Al Swearengen himself to pick up the slack and deliver the films one rousing moment. Such a waste.
Dwayne Johnson is still the shit, though.
Sunday, July 13, 2014
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
Oof. You guys, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is so good it hurts.
A great follow up and escalation from the previous film Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Dawn digs deep into its science fiction roots and gives examinations on war and violence while also delivering a thrilling and surprisingly emotional movie going experience.
Like the good little movie fan that I am, I revisited Rise earlier this week in preparation (something I strongly advise to help you keep up with the ape characters), and I'm still amazed at how good that movie turned out. Right out of the gate the film ensures that you are on the apes side, opening with an intense sequence showing a family of apes being illegally captured in the wild and sold into experimentation. It's quite a contrast from the original series, which starts with the audience rooting for Charlton Heston to get the hell outta Dodge. Of course, the original franchise ends up pretty much in the same spot where these new films begin, with our sympathy geared toward the apes.
Anyway, Dawn's opening also ensures that the audience is on the apes side, albeit this time with a much more subtle touch. Instead of seeing an ape community being broken apart by man, we see one thriving in the absence of them. 10 years have past since the end of Rise, and Caesar leads hundreds of his fellow apes, all of whom are speaking via sign language and even a few with the capability of speech like Caesar.
In fact, the first 15 minutes or so of the movie are silent, as director Matt Reeves relies on subtitles for the sign language. It seems obvious I know, but for a mainstream Hollywood blockbuster to force its audience to read (READ!) the characters dialogue is a pretty bold move.
I love it though, because when Caesar's son and his friend run into the first humans they've seen in two years, Caesar utters some of the first words in the movie and it sent chills down my spine.Thanks to the insane effects work by WETA, it's jarring every time we hear and see an ape talk. It's something that you just can't get used to in the best way possible.
Alright, I guess it's time for the inevitable "Andy Serkis is a vessel of God" bit that has been in almost every piece written about this flick. So here it goes, Andy Serkis is a vessel of God! Just kidding, God's not real. But Andy Serkis is and I really do believe it's time this guy gets the recognition he deserves because his portrayal of Caesar in Dawn is already one of the very best performances of the year. Caesar's ability to talk is still somewhat limited, so Serkis relies on just about everything else to convey any sort of emotion, and he does so beautifully, making Caesar one of the most complicated and compelling characters in science fiction right now.
Right behind Serkis though, is Toby Kebbell, who plays Caesars' right hand ape, Koba. In the first film, Koba was the seasoned lab ape, covered in scars from years of experiments. In Dawn, Koba's trust of man is next to nothing thanks to his years in confinement, and when he see's Caesar starting to work with them, a slow and steady rift begins to form between the two apes.
I've apparently seen Kebbell in films like Prince of Persia and The Sorcerer's Apprentice, but I have absolutely no recollection of him in those movies probably because I have no recollection of those movies as a whole. Anyway, it doesn't really matter because his work in Dawn is just as remarkable as Serkis'. In one of the best sequences in the film, Koba puts on an act for two armed humans in an attempt to get their weapons. He goes from circus monkey to killer in the blink of an eye, and it's absolutely terrifying.
It should be noted that even though Koba is the closest thing the movie has to a villain, he still isn't a villain in the traditional sense. In fact, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes doesn't have a true villain at all. Koba does what he does because he truly believes it will help his community survive.
Even on the humans side, you might think that Gary Oldman is positioned to be the one guy just jonesing for a chance at a war with the apes. But in fact it's quite the opposite. He doesn't trust them of course, but the last thing he wants is war, and he gives Malcom, played by Jason Clarke, a chance to reason with Caesar.
Obviously, things don't go as planned, but credit must be given to director Reeves and the screenwriters for refusing to paint anyone as the bad guy. The movie has multiple scenes with apes and humans as they discuss the pros and cons of going to war with one another, and both sides are actually coming from a similar place. They just want what's best for their community. I suppose it's a tried and true method of examining war, but still, for a movie that cost $170 million and filled with talking apes to do it so well is pretty insane.
Back to the human cast for a second, I just have to mention my love for Jason Clarke. He's been bad ass in films like Zero Dark Thirty, Lawless, White House Down and Public Enemies, and in Dawn he does solid work as the one person who convinces Caesar there is still some good left in humans. I have to admit that none of the human cast really gets a chance to shine like Serkis and Kebbell do, but I'm just excited to see Clarke get this kind of exposure, as he pretty much rules overall. The same could be said for Keri Russell. She doesn't have much to do in Dawn, but I may or may not have a crush on her, and she's great in the television show The Americans, so again, exposure is her win here.
One final and unexpected thing the filmmakers also did with Dawn was keep the scale of the film fairly small. It takes place primarily in two locations. The human colony in San Francisco, and the ape colony on the other side of the Golden Gate Bridge. I've actually read online that some people are disappointed in this aspect, as they wanted a more epic feeling from the film. I think it's better for it though, as it helps keep the film focused. As each moment passes you can feel the tension grow and the stakes getting higher, and if the film had to maneuver between more characters and locations than it already had then it would have lost a lot of that momentum, resulting in a much more muted experience.
Luckily that isn't the case though, as Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is an incredible entry in the Apes franchise. Thanks to the amazing effects work and even better performances, I found myself completely invested in these characters and I cringed anytime one of them got hurt or killed. I honestly can't tell you the last time that happened with any film that focused on puny humans.
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is great. So duh, go see it.
A great follow up and escalation from the previous film Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Dawn digs deep into its science fiction roots and gives examinations on war and violence while also delivering a thrilling and surprisingly emotional movie going experience.
Like the good little movie fan that I am, I revisited Rise earlier this week in preparation (something I strongly advise to help you keep up with the ape characters), and I'm still amazed at how good that movie turned out. Right out of the gate the film ensures that you are on the apes side, opening with an intense sequence showing a family of apes being illegally captured in the wild and sold into experimentation. It's quite a contrast from the original series, which starts with the audience rooting for Charlton Heston to get the hell outta Dodge. Of course, the original franchise ends up pretty much in the same spot where these new films begin, with our sympathy geared toward the apes.
Anyway, Dawn's opening also ensures that the audience is on the apes side, albeit this time with a much more subtle touch. Instead of seeing an ape community being broken apart by man, we see one thriving in the absence of them. 10 years have past since the end of Rise, and Caesar leads hundreds of his fellow apes, all of whom are speaking via sign language and even a few with the capability of speech like Caesar.
In fact, the first 15 minutes or so of the movie are silent, as director Matt Reeves relies on subtitles for the sign language. It seems obvious I know, but for a mainstream Hollywood blockbuster to force its audience to read (READ!) the characters dialogue is a pretty bold move.
I love it though, because when Caesar's son and his friend run into the first humans they've seen in two years, Caesar utters some of the first words in the movie and it sent chills down my spine.Thanks to the insane effects work by WETA, it's jarring every time we hear and see an ape talk. It's something that you just can't get used to in the best way possible.
Alright, I guess it's time for the inevitable "Andy Serkis is a vessel of God" bit that has been in almost every piece written about this flick. So here it goes, Andy Serkis is a vessel of God! Just kidding, God's not real. But Andy Serkis is and I really do believe it's time this guy gets the recognition he deserves because his portrayal of Caesar in Dawn is already one of the very best performances of the year. Caesar's ability to talk is still somewhat limited, so Serkis relies on just about everything else to convey any sort of emotion, and he does so beautifully, making Caesar one of the most complicated and compelling characters in science fiction right now.
Right behind Serkis though, is Toby Kebbell, who plays Caesars' right hand ape, Koba. In the first film, Koba was the seasoned lab ape, covered in scars from years of experiments. In Dawn, Koba's trust of man is next to nothing thanks to his years in confinement, and when he see's Caesar starting to work with them, a slow and steady rift begins to form between the two apes.
I've apparently seen Kebbell in films like Prince of Persia and The Sorcerer's Apprentice, but I have absolutely no recollection of him in those movies probably because I have no recollection of those movies as a whole. Anyway, it doesn't really matter because his work in Dawn is just as remarkable as Serkis'. In one of the best sequences in the film, Koba puts on an act for two armed humans in an attempt to get their weapons. He goes from circus monkey to killer in the blink of an eye, and it's absolutely terrifying.
It should be noted that even though Koba is the closest thing the movie has to a villain, he still isn't a villain in the traditional sense. In fact, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes doesn't have a true villain at all. Koba does what he does because he truly believes it will help his community survive.
Even on the humans side, you might think that Gary Oldman is positioned to be the one guy just jonesing for a chance at a war with the apes. But in fact it's quite the opposite. He doesn't trust them of course, but the last thing he wants is war, and he gives Malcom, played by Jason Clarke, a chance to reason with Caesar.
Obviously, things don't go as planned, but credit must be given to director Reeves and the screenwriters for refusing to paint anyone as the bad guy. The movie has multiple scenes with apes and humans as they discuss the pros and cons of going to war with one another, and both sides are actually coming from a similar place. They just want what's best for their community. I suppose it's a tried and true method of examining war, but still, for a movie that cost $170 million and filled with talking apes to do it so well is pretty insane.
Back to the human cast for a second, I just have to mention my love for Jason Clarke. He's been bad ass in films like Zero Dark Thirty, Lawless, White House Down and Public Enemies, and in Dawn he does solid work as the one person who convinces Caesar there is still some good left in humans. I have to admit that none of the human cast really gets a chance to shine like Serkis and Kebbell do, but I'm just excited to see Clarke get this kind of exposure, as he pretty much rules overall. The same could be said for Keri Russell. She doesn't have much to do in Dawn, but I may or may not have a crush on her, and she's great in the television show The Americans, so again, exposure is her win here.
One final and unexpected thing the filmmakers also did with Dawn was keep the scale of the film fairly small. It takes place primarily in two locations. The human colony in San Francisco, and the ape colony on the other side of the Golden Gate Bridge. I've actually read online that some people are disappointed in this aspect, as they wanted a more epic feeling from the film. I think it's better for it though, as it helps keep the film focused. As each moment passes you can feel the tension grow and the stakes getting higher, and if the film had to maneuver between more characters and locations than it already had then it would have lost a lot of that momentum, resulting in a much more muted experience.
Luckily that isn't the case though, as Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is an incredible entry in the Apes franchise. Thanks to the amazing effects work and even better performances, I found myself completely invested in these characters and I cringed anytime one of them got hurt or killed. I honestly can't tell you the last time that happened with any film that focused on puny humans.
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is great. So duh, go see it.
Sunday, June 29, 2014
Transformers: Age of Extinction
It is with a heavy heart that I tell you Transformers: Age of Extinction is Michael Bay's most disappointing movie since Pearl Harbor.
This is especially disheartening considering Bay's last movie, Pain & Gain, was so great. I realize the two movies have absolutely nothing to do with each other, but I hoped that P&G had given my man enough of a rejuvenation to make a fourth robot flick feel worth it.
Turns out it didn't, as Age of Extinction's biggest problem is that Bay seems more bored with this world than anyone else. Which is weird because I've never gotten that feeling from any of his movies. I could always feel 100% enthusiasm from him even in his worst movies, which at their worst delivered awesome action and/or ridiculous visuals.
The first three Transformer movies are no different. I find the second one, Revenge of the Fallen to be my least favorite of those three, mainly due to an insane amount of non action and exposition scenes in the film that even I couldn't make myself care about despite my love for everything Bay. But the first one is a lot of fun and the third has an entire hour of Bay demolishing Chicago that ranks among the best action the man has put on film.
But Bay's lack of enthusiasm for Age of Extinction just oozes off the screen. It's baffling really, because there is a lot of stuff in this fourth film that would seem to be an upgrade from the previous installments. For example, he has an entirely new human cast here. I'm not the Shia hater a lot of you seem to be, but it's hard to deny that Mark Wahlberg is a step up in the leading man department. The dude gives 100% every time, no matter how good or terrible the movie might be, and his previous collaboration with the Bay was a career highlight for both men.
Also gone is a lot of the silly and out of place gross humor that was a big part of the first three movies thanks to Shia's on screen parents and other random characters. Don't get me wrong, there is still a lot of silly and out of place humor in the film, just not as much. This stuff never really bothered me though, because the human characters were never a strong point of the franchise. It's called Transformers, after all, not Humans. Anyway, I digress.
My point is, it seemed like Bay was trying to keep things interesting, at least for himself, in order to keep him from doing the same ol' thing he had been with this gigantic robotic franchise.
It doesn't work though, as the movie is boring. Along with his general disinterest in the movie, it also feels like Bay wasn't even interested in trying to top himself action wise, which propels a lot of the fun I get from most of his movies. For instance, if I could put it into a dialogue of how Bay challenged himself on the first three films, I imagine it would go something like this:
"Oh, you like my action movies huh? Well check this out, I've added giant robots!"
"Oh you liked that, did you? Well check out part 2 where I destroy one of Earths' greatest monuments with giant robot balls!"
"Can't get enough, can you? Alright you fuck, watch me murder thousands of people and lay waste to an entire city while I'm at it!"
But with the fourth one, Bay just says,"Here's some more."
So disappointing.
In the end, I don't dislike Transformers: Age of Extinction, but compared to other Bayhem flicks, this one has a tough time reaching the high/low standards I've come to expect from the man.
I still love Michael Bay though, and I hope he's done with this franchise. Here's wishing that his next movie is something more along the lines of Pain & Gain. Small, insane, and filled with depravity. That or Bad Boys III.
Oh, sidebar. I also just realized how insane the cast of every Michael Bay movie is except for the Transformer films. The dude got people like Nicolas Cage, Sean Connery, Will Smith, Martin Lawrence, Ewan McGregor, Scarlett Johannson, Bruce Willis, Steve Buscemi, William Fichtner, Billy Bob Thornton, Ben Affleck, Michael Clarke Duncan, Owen Wilson, Peter Stormare, Ed Harris, Liv Tyler, The Rock. INSANE. I know there were some great actors who popped up in the robot movies too, but none got to have as much fun or be as memorable as they were in his other movies. Here's also hoping he can get back to amazing casts as well.
This is especially disheartening considering Bay's last movie, Pain & Gain, was so great. I realize the two movies have absolutely nothing to do with each other, but I hoped that P&G had given my man enough of a rejuvenation to make a fourth robot flick feel worth it.
Turns out it didn't, as Age of Extinction's biggest problem is that Bay seems more bored with this world than anyone else. Which is weird because I've never gotten that feeling from any of his movies. I could always feel 100% enthusiasm from him even in his worst movies, which at their worst delivered awesome action and/or ridiculous visuals.
The first three Transformer movies are no different. I find the second one, Revenge of the Fallen to be my least favorite of those three, mainly due to an insane amount of non action and exposition scenes in the film that even I couldn't make myself care about despite my love for everything Bay. But the first one is a lot of fun and the third has an entire hour of Bay demolishing Chicago that ranks among the best action the man has put on film.
But Bay's lack of enthusiasm for Age of Extinction just oozes off the screen. It's baffling really, because there is a lot of stuff in this fourth film that would seem to be an upgrade from the previous installments. For example, he has an entirely new human cast here. I'm not the Shia hater a lot of you seem to be, but it's hard to deny that Mark Wahlberg is a step up in the leading man department. The dude gives 100% every time, no matter how good or terrible the movie might be, and his previous collaboration with the Bay was a career highlight for both men.
Also gone is a lot of the silly and out of place gross humor that was a big part of the first three movies thanks to Shia's on screen parents and other random characters. Don't get me wrong, there is still a lot of silly and out of place humor in the film, just not as much. This stuff never really bothered me though, because the human characters were never a strong point of the franchise. It's called Transformers, after all, not Humans. Anyway, I digress.
My point is, it seemed like Bay was trying to keep things interesting, at least for himself, in order to keep him from doing the same ol' thing he had been with this gigantic robotic franchise.
It doesn't work though, as the movie is boring. Along with his general disinterest in the movie, it also feels like Bay wasn't even interested in trying to top himself action wise, which propels a lot of the fun I get from most of his movies. For instance, if I could put it into a dialogue of how Bay challenged himself on the first three films, I imagine it would go something like this:
"Oh, you like my action movies huh? Well check this out, I've added giant robots!"
"Oh you liked that, did you? Well check out part 2 where I destroy one of Earths' greatest monuments with giant robot balls!"
"Can't get enough, can you? Alright you fuck, watch me murder thousands of people and lay waste to an entire city while I'm at it!"
But with the fourth one, Bay just says,"Here's some more."
So disappointing.
In the end, I don't dislike Transformers: Age of Extinction, but compared to other Bayhem flicks, this one has a tough time reaching the high/low standards I've come to expect from the man.
I still love Michael Bay though, and I hope he's done with this franchise. Here's wishing that his next movie is something more along the lines of Pain & Gain. Small, insane, and filled with depravity. That or Bad Boys III.
Oh, sidebar. I also just realized how insane the cast of every Michael Bay movie is except for the Transformer films. The dude got people like Nicolas Cage, Sean Connery, Will Smith, Martin Lawrence, Ewan McGregor, Scarlett Johannson, Bruce Willis, Steve Buscemi, William Fichtner, Billy Bob Thornton, Ben Affleck, Michael Clarke Duncan, Owen Wilson, Peter Stormare, Ed Harris, Liv Tyler, The Rock. INSANE. I know there were some great actors who popped up in the robot movies too, but none got to have as much fun or be as memorable as they were in his other movies. Here's also hoping he can get back to amazing casts as well.
Thursday, June 19, 2014
Edge of Tomorrow
I promise I'll do my best to not make this post one giant love letter to Tom Cruise, except that I promise nothing and that's probably what's going to happen.
Really though, Edge of Tomorrow is great and Tom Cruise is a big reason as to why.
In the film, Cruise plays an officer in the U.S. Army whose job it is to sell the current war on an invading alien race to the public. He's a PR man plain and simple, with not a soldier's bone in his body. And when a British General hires him to sell an upcoming surprise attack that wold require him to be front and center during the battle, Cruise panics and his attempts to get out of the job get him marked as a deserter. Before he knows it, he's been shipped off and getting prepped for battle 24 hours before the big invasion.
Oh, and after dying within minutes of crashing ashore on the battlefield, Cruise discovers that every time he dies he wakes up in the same spot exactly 24 hours before before the attack.
This is all information given within the first 15-20 minutes of the film. That's a lot of set up, not to mention the number of characters we meet in that short period as well. Of course, that's part of the beauty of Edge of Tomorrow. The flick moves at an amazing pace but it never sacrifices quality to do so. Everything and everyone is set up and introduced in an exciting and easy to remember way. Even the squad that Cruise is 'assigned' to has a moment of some sort to be remembered and recognized. Even if you can't remember their name, at least they stand out in some way.
Also, the movie has to do a lot of information dumping, which can usually slam the breaks on any momentum a film has going. Not Edge of Tomorrow though. The film uses it's time loop gimmick to drop those pieces of information little by little so that as a viewer you're never feeling like you're listening to Basil Exposition, instead making the discovery part of the fun.
The thing that surprised me the most about Edge of Tomorrow though, was it's sense of humor. I had heard that the movie was funny, but I was still taken aback at how early and often the humor was displayed, and the flick is all the better for it. Director Doug Liman ( Swingers, Mr. & Mrs. Smith) takes extra enjoyment in killing Cruise in every way imaginable. There is one particular gag involving Cruise attempting to sneak under a moving truck that almost had me in tears.
Granted, the film is not a comedy, and it somehow manages to balance the fun tone with some actual stakes.
And this is where Cruise and Emily Blunt shine. The film has one goal. Stop the invasion. Simple as it might sound, Cruise and Blunt both give a sense of urgency to the proceedings and completely sell it to the viewers. Blunt in particular is a bad ass here, continuing to build her Sci-Fi credentials with this and the amazing Looper.
And this is where the Cruise love fest starts. His character, Cage, is the first time in a while where Cruise gets to play a bit of a doofus, at least in the beginning. He perfected the bad ass persona long ago, but here he gets to start off as a corporate loving coward and he relishes the chance. His enthusiasm for any role is always infectious, and even more so here as we see him die so many times and in so many different ways and it feels like a great comeuppance for his cowardice in the beginning. Also, it's hilarious and Cruise knows it.
Seriously though, Cruise is such a good performer that puts everything into every role and Edge of Tomorrow is no different. Who else can go from PR slime to ultimate bad ass hero within 20 minutes?
Look, Edge of Tomorrow is great. It's smart, funny, filled with exciting action and has two lively lead performances from its stars. SO GO SEE IT ALREADY!
Really though, Edge of Tomorrow is great and Tom Cruise is a big reason as to why.
In the film, Cruise plays an officer in the U.S. Army whose job it is to sell the current war on an invading alien race to the public. He's a PR man plain and simple, with not a soldier's bone in his body. And when a British General hires him to sell an upcoming surprise attack that wold require him to be front and center during the battle, Cruise panics and his attempts to get out of the job get him marked as a deserter. Before he knows it, he's been shipped off and getting prepped for battle 24 hours before the big invasion.
Oh, and after dying within minutes of crashing ashore on the battlefield, Cruise discovers that every time he dies he wakes up in the same spot exactly 24 hours before before the attack.
This is all information given within the first 15-20 minutes of the film. That's a lot of set up, not to mention the number of characters we meet in that short period as well. Of course, that's part of the beauty of Edge of Tomorrow. The flick moves at an amazing pace but it never sacrifices quality to do so. Everything and everyone is set up and introduced in an exciting and easy to remember way. Even the squad that Cruise is 'assigned' to has a moment of some sort to be remembered and recognized. Even if you can't remember their name, at least they stand out in some way.
Also, the movie has to do a lot of information dumping, which can usually slam the breaks on any momentum a film has going. Not Edge of Tomorrow though. The film uses it's time loop gimmick to drop those pieces of information little by little so that as a viewer you're never feeling like you're listening to Basil Exposition, instead making the discovery part of the fun.
The thing that surprised me the most about Edge of Tomorrow though, was it's sense of humor. I had heard that the movie was funny, but I was still taken aback at how early and often the humor was displayed, and the flick is all the better for it. Director Doug Liman ( Swingers, Mr. & Mrs. Smith) takes extra enjoyment in killing Cruise in every way imaginable. There is one particular gag involving Cruise attempting to sneak under a moving truck that almost had me in tears.
Granted, the film is not a comedy, and it somehow manages to balance the fun tone with some actual stakes.
And this is where Cruise and Emily Blunt shine. The film has one goal. Stop the invasion. Simple as it might sound, Cruise and Blunt both give a sense of urgency to the proceedings and completely sell it to the viewers. Blunt in particular is a bad ass here, continuing to build her Sci-Fi credentials with this and the amazing Looper.
And this is where the Cruise love fest starts. His character, Cage, is the first time in a while where Cruise gets to play a bit of a doofus, at least in the beginning. He perfected the bad ass persona long ago, but here he gets to start off as a corporate loving coward and he relishes the chance. His enthusiasm for any role is always infectious, and even more so here as we see him die so many times and in so many different ways and it feels like a great comeuppance for his cowardice in the beginning. Also, it's hilarious and Cruise knows it.
Seriously though, Cruise is such a good performer that puts everything into every role and Edge of Tomorrow is no different. Who else can go from PR slime to ultimate bad ass hero within 20 minutes?
Look, Edge of Tomorrow is great. It's smart, funny, filled with exciting action and has two lively lead performances from its stars. SO GO SEE IT ALREADY!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)