Review: "After Earth"

Green Lantern left such a sour taste in my mouth. Ever since reading the comic issue where Hal Jordan goes nuts and destroys the Corps, I've wanted to see a live action version of the superhero. Based on the trailers, I was expecting something along the lines of The Last Starfighter. Instead, I got a studio controlled product of mediocrity. So sad.

Many things were wrong, but the one that stands out is the reason for Hal's fear. It vaguely has to do with his father's death, but after a very quick flashback, this is never brought up again. All he says is "I'm afraid." Then suddenly, he's no longer afraid. Why? Because the script said so.

Why couldn't Hollywood deliver a heroes journey where fear is confronted and lessons are learned? It's so simple, even M. Night Shyamalan could do it. And he did. Rather well, I think.

In After Earth, humans have migrated from an uninhabitable Earth to a new world. This new world has dangerous animals that can smell fear. In order to fight these beasts, you must be without fear. This is called "Ghosting". A young cadet and his General father go on an expedition, but their ship malfunctions and crashes along the way. Stranded on an abandoned Earth, it's up to the son to activate a distress beacon and fight the unknown, both on the planet and within himself.

No review of an M. Night film should be without something critical (at least nowadays). The movie begins with some appreciated but awkwardly delivered narration, explaining the setting. Based on this, I thought it was going to be some kind of cautionary environmental tale. Scenes later, it's explained that nobody has permission to visit Earth. Will a secret about this new civilization be revealed? Perhaps one that relates to the destruction of the world? Nope. There is no reason for this to be called After Earth, or for the characters to even be on Earth, except for the fact that the audience is from Earth. No deeper meanings about our current society or global warming, just "We're on Earth." This "twist" - the only one in this movie - happens in the first half hour, and it was spoiled in the trailer. Womp womp.

Despite those oddities, there is nothing to be afraid of when watching After Earth. Once they crash land, the story becomes a family drama, where father and son deal with a traumatic past incident while getting through an all new one. As the son travels through the unstable terrain, he expresses genuine fear in stages. His memories haunt him, as animals chase after. His father guides him remotely, making for a nice twist on the weight that a parent can put on a child. Whatever silliness there was in the beginning, goes away by the end. Exposure therapy can be a trial. Imagine adding a family member to the mix!

The theme of fear and the overcoming of it is expressed (and that is a key word here) beautifully. Instead of simply saying that word, situations, set pieces and relationships all are used to emote this feeling. Feeling. Something that is very important when watching a movie. To go from Roger Corman B-Movie sci fi to emotionally satisfying family journey is an almost blissful wonder. Though, if I were Will Smith, I would've made Django Unchained fit in my schedule.

Two different sci fi movies, and the one that gets the theme of fear correct is the M. Night directed one? Yes. Warner Bros and DC Comics - take note. The guy that made The Happening one upped you.

3/5 *s

Review: "Fast & Furious 6"

Over on the official MovieBoozer Facebook page, a question was posed to readers: When does a film cross the line from stupid-fun to just plain stupid? This being the season for big and loud Hollywood blockbusters, it's a perfect time to provide an answer. So many sequels, so much potential money to be made, so much money to burn - and so many fine examples.

What is a "plain stupid" movie? There are many components that are considered; plot, logic, character behavior, etc. But, for me, none of those necessarily equal "plain stupid" by themselves or even together. Movies like The Room and Birdemic may be incompetent technically, and laughter usually ensues from this, but they remain fun to watch. Why? Aside from laughing at the incorrect skills and unusual moments of the film, there is sometimes a genuine effort going on that shines through the screen. Sure, the cast and crew were over their heads, but they at least tried. That's admirable.

"Plain stupid", for me, is when there is no joy or redeemable quality to be had from a film. No effort to attempt to elevate the material from stupid to fun, just a paycheck and a job to do.

The Fast and the Furious franchise didn't start on the right side of the line, but it eventually crossed over.


Fast & Furious 6 finds the team in exile from their last job. But they are soon brought back into action when they are offered a new job - working for Interpol to capture a high level criminal, who has ties to an old friend of theirs. Cars crash, bodies fly and explosions explode. Nothing else matters.

Seriously.

Justin Lin took over the series with Tokyo Drift, and has done every movie since. While I have not seen those movies, there must be a reason as to why he was given the director's chair all those times. In watching 6, I understood. Lin understands how to present stupid without being stupid. In other words, he is capable of elevating the material given, without alienating the target audience. A perfect director, actually.

Now, don't get me wrong; this is a dumb movie. There are moments when the logic within the story is broken, and characters don't notice. Like when the team is hired. They are brought to a makeshift headquarters to take down this international criminal because, I assume, Interpol has tried and failed too many times. Then, in the next scene, the team is watching as Interpol performs a raid on the bad guys location. If you were going to do a raid with a freaking army, WHY DID YOU NEED TO HIRE THIS SMALL TEAM?

But there were two deeper points being made at that moment: 1. It was to establish the cunning and dangerous nature of the bad guy and 2. The logic doesn't matter. In the scene after, we get a roughly ten minute car chase, featuring multiple crashes. The cinematography and editing was spot on, making me understand and feel what was at stake for the characters, without the premise of the situation even making much sense. Impressive. If the action is done well, you'll be saying "Awesome!" instead of "Boo!"

Lin also understands that we need to care, at least a little, about the characters and what they are going through. Without that, why should we invest in the action? Vin Diesel has a wonderful nighttime stand off with the villain. Both men banter about family, honor and code in a very tense manner. There eyes rarely unlock from one another. If you know nothing about the previous Lin Furious films, you'll learn all you need from that one scene. And, for something big and dumb, all we need is that one scene.

"Stupid-fun", for me, is dumb material that is understood and elevated by the people involved. They are not stupid and are putting in all the effort they can. Out of that, can be something worth eating popcorn to. And don't be embarrassed about joining others on that side of the line - there's plenty of room.

3/5 *s
  

(Almost) Review: "The Hangover Part III"

Have you ever just given up on a movie? I know you have. One time, I popped a DVD of Anchorman into my player for family night, and turned it off about 20 minutes in. It was a chore to watch what we watched. Now, that particular movie aged well, as I gave it a second shot some years later and loved it. Typically, however, once I've made the decision to turn off or walk out, that's it. The movie has lost me forever.

I can stick through just about anything. Heck, Orson Welles' The Trial - unwatchable for some of my friends - is a personal favorite of mine. But it was only a few months ago that I first walked out of a theater midway through a screening, completely bored. It was Taken 2. What could've been a fun Liam Neeson-sploitation flick was just a joyless affair, churned out with the sole purpose of making money based on the success of the previous film. I went to the bathroom after the first half hour, and never returned.

It's sad, because even money hungry sequels are capable of delivering something entertaining. Take Ghostbusters 2: not needed whatsoever, but did a fine job of continuing the story and gave audiences something to come back for. The cast/crew weren't phoning it in and the filmmaker wasn't filled with contempt for his fans. It was a fun movie that I would pay to see, even now.

I wouldn't even scoff at a discounted DVD of The Hangover Part III. It really isn't worth any attention whatsoever.

Honestly, I was surprised that I gave up on this threequel. I haven't seen the other two, but based on director Todd Phillips' previous work, as well as the three leads, I was expecting something at least mildly funny. Breaking from the formula of the previous two, Part III finds the wolfpack in a most dire spot. On a road trip to bring Allen to a mental hospital, they get stopped by a ruthless gangster. He wants them to find their old party acquaintance Mr. Chow and bring him in. Wackiness ensues. The end.

Well, it was the end for me, anyways. One hour was more than enough. In that time, I witnessed Ken Jeong pretending to be a dog, Zach Galifianakis saying silly things and everyone else just trying to get this over with. I felt sorry for them. I bet they wanted to escape, like in The Purple Rose of Cairo. 

It's hard to explain exactly what is wrong with this film except to say that it is NOT FUNNY. And, for a comedy to not be funny, that is unforgivable. But, why is it not funny? And, isn't that subjective anyways? Yes, what makes me laugh won't necessarily make you laugh. However, some things are universal. The rhythm and flow, the atmosphere and tone, acting and demeanor - it all speaks louder than a sight gag. Taking all of that into account, Part III is a depressing cash grab that should've been relegated to a fake trailer. 

I provided an image of a promotional poster for the movie. It features a Giraffe. Why? Well, in the trailer, Allen buys a Giraffe, and accidentally knocks its head clean off while driving. It appears at the beginning of the movie only. Now, I'm willing to bet that the writers whipped the script up as quickly as possible, and the marketing team stretched what little they had into an advertising strategy. This represents what the movie is: A poorly conceived and executed ad campaign for itself. 

From what I understand, the first movie was lighthearted, but the second film was pretty dark. It was also the same story, essentially. Did Todd Phillips pull a prank on all of us? He made two sequels to an unexpected success that were dark, uncomfortable and sad. Despite this, they are making money based on bad "jokes" and name recognition alone. And, of course, he'll be given more money to produce something else. Is Todd doing something extremely meta by intentionally making the same movie (Part II) and smearing poo on walls and calling it funny (Part III)? His documentary Hated in the Nation was about infamous punk rocker and performance artist GG Allin (google him) - perhaps these sequels are something like an art piece.

Or, maybe a studio handed him a check, and he said "Whatevs". I can respect that attitude towards making a story and presenting it to an audience, until I have to watch it, of course. Then, it's up to me if I want to make a discreet exit. Respect that choice, please Hollywood. After all, you still have my money. And, you haven't lost me forever. Yet.

@Twitter #Thoughts: "Green Lantern"

Not knowing what to tackle for my next live tweet screening, I asked a friend on facebook to pick something. He chose the Ryan Reynolds starrer, New Orleans shot Green Lantern. I picked the extended cut, thinking it would be an improvement. Was it?

Review: "Star Trek Into Darkness"

I like to think that, when compared to other critics, I'm pretty easy to please. Silly plot holes, odd dialogue, unfinished effects, etc. can be forgiven, as long as I leave the theater thinking and excited. I'm not asking for much; treat me like a mature human being, and I'll treat your movie with respect. A simple request that can be easily met, I believe.

Sometimes one moment - just one - can nearly ruin an experience for me. The movie as a whole might be superb, but this one sequence can stick in my mind and tarnish the good feeling I was having. It's like having a pounding headache with no pain reliever in sight. It. Just. Hurts.

Can such a headache be excused in time?

After watching Star Trek Into Darkness, I'm certain that such a bad feeling can be soothed. Left alone, I rather enjoyed most of what I saw. Kirk and his team get caught up in a manhunt for a former member of Star Fleet turned terrorist, only to uncover a plot to start a war. What unfolds is not exactly the "chess game" that was suggested in the marketing, but a conflict that finds them defending the very core of the franchise. When assigned to a kill mission, the crew of the Enterprise mostly object. Scotty even quits, stating that Star Fleet is not supposed to be militaristic. It's clear that Mr. Scott would not agree with simply assassinating Osama bin Laden. We're better than that, he might say.

A "war time" Admiral creates a highly weaponized ship, meant specifically for a battle with Klingons, with the help of the agent turned terrorist. Comparisons to Donald Rumsfeld / Dick Cheney and the War on Terror are obvious, but in this story (unlike in the real world), the violence monger is actually going against the grain of the society he lives in - trying to force a peace minded world to go along with his one man war. Through this, Kirk and Spock confront their own violent tendencies, and thankfully learn to make the right decisions despite their emotions. In our world, they would probably be reprimanded for going against official orders. But, Star Trek shows us a future interested in the betterment of life. A possible future, I would hope. This is a  classic Trek tale, without being too traditional.

Many have been worried that this new Star Trek would just be about shooting lasers and not the discovery of new worlds and ideas. Into Darkness features action, yes, but what it does is pit a crew that wants to do exploration (traditional Trekkies) against a crew that just wants to fight (Hollywood). The series doesn't "boldly go" yet, but they do "engage" that topic. And, in the end, they will "make it so".

So, what's the problem?

Well, I can't really get into it without spoiling the movie. What I will say is that, at the climax, we get something that I really didn't expect: a near verbatim recreation of a famous scene from a previous Star Trek movie. I actually threw my hands in the air out of frustration and embarrassment. How could they do this? Who thought that was a good idea? It's lazy fan service and a non creative reference, I thought. Such a shame. Into Darkness was going great, being a fun, well told, sci space adventure. What problems the first movie had regarding that Trek feel, this one fixed. It even confirmed for me that J.J. Abrams was a very good choice for Star Wars Episode 7.

WHY DID THEY INCLUDE THAT ONE SCENE!?

I once suffered a week long headache, that was eventually cured with a medication I didn't even know I had all along. This week, my headache was short, and medicated rather easily. A twitter conversation helped me understand that A) Star Trek has always referenced itself, in one way or another B) The scene made sense in context, and was actually integral to the movie and C) One perceived hiccup shouldn't damper an overall fun event.

Remember how in From Paris with Love, John Travolta made a horrible reference to Pulp Fiction by mentioning the Royale w/ Cheese? Or when in Be Cool, Travolta danced with Uma Thurman? These are the scenes that cause major migraines. These are the call backs that make me mad. When you've made a genuinely good movie, and decided to do a twist on a famous moment from the same franchise in that movie, that's acceptable. Especially for Star Trek.

WHY DID I GET WORKED UP OVER ONE SCENE!?

Indeed, time heals all wounds, sometimes faster than expected. And that only one wound was described ought to be a compliment by itself. J.J. Abrams may not have been a Star Trek fan growing up, but he finally understands that old Trek feel. That is the medication to any one scene that might ail you. Request met, I say.

3/5 - 4/5 *s, depending on how I'm feeling at a given time.   

Review: "The Great Gatsby"

There are many great scenes in Django Unchained, but one in particular stands out for me. After ordering his dogs to tear apart a runaway slave, Calvin Candie stares up at Django, who is on his horse. The two men look into each others eyes, all the while a man is being viciously killed out of frame. They discuss Django’s friend Schultz for a moment, then head on their way to the plantation.

That moment was a cinematic equivalent of a two man poker game. For not even a minute, we learn more about the danger our protagonists face, just how dastardly our antagonist is and more importantly the presence of a power struggle, all without saying much. I love it when what’s unsaid speaks louder than what’s being said.

Imagine that sequence with voice over narration, perhaps from an older Django; does it make you angry?

Now, I don’t want to suggest that the use of a narrator is always a bad move - Sunset Boulevarddid it rather well and Sin City used it verbatim for the source - but I do want to state that it can become your worst nightmare if not used carefully. Have you ever heard the phrase “beats you over the head”? Voice over work can do that to an audience, treating us like we’re undereducated neanderthals. And that’s exactly how I felt when watching Baz Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby.

I never read F. Scott Fitzgerald’s famous novel. In fact, all I know about it I learned from wikipedia and Rodney Dangerfield in Back to School. From what I gather, the classic tale - about the enigmatic rich man Jay Gatsby, his obsessive love for a married woman from his past and his romantic optimism for a life with her - is, more or less, about the excess, carelessness and emptiness of the 1920’s (which, of course, was followed by The Great Depression). It’s supposed to be a book of rich storytelling and wonderful depth.

If all I knew about this story I learned from the movie it’s based on, I would assume it was about, well, how “Great” Gatsby was. That’s all. Did Tommy Wiseau write up the adaptation?

In Baz Luhrmann’s 3D film, we are presented with what could’ve been the best possible portrayal of the decadent 1920’s ever. Champagne in every hand, glitter and fireworks in the air and jazz playing all the time. Visuals and sounds just bursting off the screen and popping right in your face. There's even a wonderful scene where rich white people dance awkwardly to Jay Z like music in a small apartment. That alone expressed the discomforting and shallowness I was looking for.

But, I’m afraid that was it. It appears as if Mr. Luhrmann didn’t know how to tell this story without directly using the narration from the book. Was he scared of backlash from fans? If so, he shouldn’t have let that control his direction. There are scenes (dialogue, non 3D ones) that could’ve been told in a more subtle and tense manner. Like the one in the Plaza. Our leads are in a room, sweltering from the heat, trying to have fun with some booze. Gatsby wants Daisy to tell her husband that she’ll be leaving him. What could’ve been an incredibly awkward, uncomfortable and intense moment is undercut by Tobey Maguire (Nick Carraway) telling us what’s happening. Something along the lines of “The tension was high. I could see the anger in Gatsby’s eyes. Daisy just wanted to leave.” Yes, thank you. If you hadn’t told us exactly how to feel and think, we just would’ve sat in our seats wondering why the floor is sticky.

I understand that the movie follows the narration of the book pretty closely, but I stress that my problem is not with the author, but with this director. Instead of interpreting the page, and judging how to present it for another medium, he just takes some glue, squeezes it around, and drops glitter on it. There. A book... with glitter. Perhaps he got lost in the spectacle, and forgot what it was all trying to say. Ironically, much like Gatsby's lavish parties, the 3D and confetti didn't bring Baz any closer to the green light he so desired.  

And the framing device doesn’t help. For the movie, it was decided that it would be told by Nick from a sanitarium, while he’s writing it all in a novel. At the end of the movie, he changes the title of his work from “Gatsby” to “The Great Gatsby”. A movie that punches you with an undercut from a fist made of ham. Wow. Peter Greenway has often said that the cinema has become impoverished because of our value of text over image. Baz Luhrmann can sure make colors pop, can't he?

It’s almost embarrassing to say, but this movie might just represent where we are as moviegoers, or at least where Hollywood thinks we are. The fact that a recent Michael Bay movie is told in a less insulting way than an adaptation of an American classic is a travesty.

We’ll always have Tarantino, right?

1/5 *s (though, 2/5 wouldn't feel wrong)

@NOFS Review: "Upstream Color"

It feels a little awkward to compare a one of a kind film to anything else. Somehow, by putting it side by side with a similar movie - maybe one that is highly regarded - you are putting your knowledge of cinema and ability to express that knowledge on the line. An argument can be made about almost anything, but can you be convincing? Basically, you’ll either be thought of in a scholarly manner, or looked at as a weirdo from Room 237.

With that, I will now make the following case: Upstream Color is the successor to Inland Empire.

This is difficult for me, as David Lynch’s Inland Empire is one of my all time favorite films. On the surface, it is a 3 hour trial of confounding and crazy scenes; beneath all of that, it is an “Alice in Wonderland” meets Sunset Boulevard style odyssey. Lynch started his career by taking 5 years to shoot a black and white film, and may have concluded it by taking several years to shoot with Sony PD150’s. Everything has come full circle.

Along with coming full circle is the end. And, with every end comes a new beginning. Shane Carruth’s sophomore feature Upstream Color might not be as long as Lynch’s digital opus, but it’s a bit more absorbing. Oh, and just as confusing.

The tagline “A woman in trouble” was used to promote Empire, but the same could be said of Color. A young woman is drugged with a parasite, and hypnotized into giving all of her money to a thief. Coming out of her stupor, she forms a relationship with a man that may have also been infected. At the same time, a farmer who makes noize albums puts these extracted parasites into pigs, and observes the memories of former victims. The woman finds that her thoughts and feelings are shared somehow, and looks to solve this mystery.

The female leads in this and Empire share some things in common: both are in the movie industry, both get brainwashed, both experience the emotions of others and both confront their respective villains with a gun. The journey in Color might not be like at the end of a certain rabbit hole, but the stars do go through an Alice type adventure.

Everything is meticulously shot and designed, and executed in a very free flowing manner; scenes that don’t appear to make sense at first, feel as if they must soon afterwards because of the construction. There is a wonderful sequence where the farmer cuts from walking amongst pigs to walking around a married couple. The husband is cold to his wife, and the farmer sees the man’s regret when the wife becomes ill. All without leaving the farm. This is more than just a Body Snatchersadaptation, folks.

I think that Inland Empire was more than an expression of wacky ideas - it was a challenge for someone to one up it. An open invitation to grab the torch, if you will. It took some years, but Upstream Color did it. Where Empire was a horror showing a traditional hero tale, Color is a sci fi that depicts connections between people, environments and emotions. Both are similar in their creative obtuseness, but only Color can be said to have loftier goals. Success has been achieved.

Don’t be afraid to put yourself out there with movie discussions, but do be careful and elaborate as much as possible. Now, I pass this next case onto you: Shane Carruth is the successor to David Lynch.

5/5 *s

The New Orleans Film Society will be presenting Upstream Color from May 19th - 21st at Chalmette Movies. Click here for more information.

Review: "Iron Man 3"

The idea of an extraterrestrial life visiting Earth and making contact with humans has been expressed many times over. I remember spending a lot of energy on the subject, to the point where it caused me anxiety. It got so bad, my parents decided NOT to take me to see Independence Day, until I calmed down. Of course, I’m a bit more collected now, but I still wonder; how would we respond to the knowledge of intelligent life beyond our planet?

In Independence Day, we fought against an attack. In District 9, we impoverished an entire species. And in Marvel’s The Avengers, we assembled our best to protect us and send a warning. The options appear to be either A) Fight them or B) Control them, at least in the examples provided. In the case of Avengers, we get a series (the Marvel Cinematic Universe) that shows our world prior to, during and now after alien life has been exposed to all. How does the world move on in the follow up film Iron Man 3?

Better than you’d expect, actually.

No riots, no mass suicides, no political coups. From what we can gather, all that has happened is people are now massive fans of Earth mightiest heroes, and just gush that we fought off aliens. A worldwide nerdgasm, basically. However, the burden of not only having fought off these creatures, but the possibility that more could come back, can be too much for one man.

Tony Stark may be Iron Man, but even his suit can’t defend him against panic attacks. The mere mention of the events of Avengers brings him to a shaking and almost crying state; even superheroes can suffer PTSD. He spends every waking moment building suit after suit, technology after technology, in an obsessive and manic frenzy to not only be prepared for the worst, but to protect his love Pepper Potts.

In this post alien Earth, terrorism STILL exists. I guess that isn’t surprising, but you’d think something as heart stopping as new intelligent life would bring about a worldwide peace, at least for a few months. Terrorist leader The Mandarin makes several threats to the U.S. President, and his bombings get the personal attention of Stark. A challenge is made, and Tony is put on a path that will not only save the day, but teach him how to cope, and ultimately better himself.

Stark has now been featured in 4 movies, including his own trilogy. And, to my surprise and delight, has shown depth in each film. He starts as a cocky bastard who could care less about his actions, to confronting and understanding what his inventions have done, has a figurative and literal change of heart, and dedicates himself to using his skills for good. In one of the boldest moves for any wealthy character, he declares that he will give up his military contracts, and openly admits to being Iron Man. He’s egotistical enough to give himself the spotlight, but repentful enough to grasp the weight of what he has done in the past. What a guy.

It’s amazing how this series can move from the comic book movie side of the spectrum to superhero film. “What?” In my opinion, flicks featuring superheroes can be distinguished as either comic book movies or superhero films. For example: Captain America: The First Avenger is a comic book movie, and Spiderman 2 is a superhero film. One is more about the action, while the other is concerned more with the character. Iron Man 3 succeeds because it delivers the personal conflict AND the thrilling moments. Tony Stark gets to complete his hero arc AND be smarmy to a little kid. Avengers gave Hollywood the blueprints, Iron Man 3 roughs out any edges. Improvements can still be made, but Marvel has the right formula.

Would our world change much after the announcement of alien life? Probably slowly. I’d like to think that it would lead to an era of progress and enlightenment, like in Star Trek: First Contact. Do we have a Tony Stark equivalent to make use of the new ways of thinking? Now I’m stressing out.

4/5 *s