Get On Up

For those who have not yet heard the name Chadwick Boseman and are unaware of the promise that is held by this rising star, Get On Up is the perfect introduction to the skills that he wields.  The film is a biopic about the life and career of James Brown, with Boseman playing the hardest working man in show business.  Last year he took on the mantle of Jackie Robinson in 42, and people may be starting to look to him for more biopics due to the depth of performance he has been able to dish out.

In Get On Up I found myself situated in a two hour and eighteen minute paradox (in perfect honesty, the movie never felt that long).  The contradicting forces within this film came around the pathos, with it being both distancing the audience at arm’s length while also ultimately relying on an emotional connection for us to have with James Brown and his circumstances.

Existing within the performance from Boseman we see a tremendous nuance on display that conveys the emotions of James Brown in scenes of revelation towards inner turmoil.  That is great and intriguing, but the progression of the movie, and the script itself, keeps the film impersonal to show how Brown kept many issues to himself and closed himself off from those closest to him.  However, to properly accomplish this there needs to be elements in the film that lets the audience inside to gain perspective on what lays below his exterior.  This never happens, and the disconnect with James Brown is a barrier that becomes difficult for us to break.  Without context or consequence to the eroding life circumstances of the lead character, the conclusion of the film, one which is designed to show a personal nature, is unable to properly achieve its goals.  

There is one relationship in the film that does feel real and authentic, showing a sincere side to James Brown.  This is between him and his manager, Ben Bart (Dan Aykroyd), who are able to see past the difference in skin colour as well as their business partnership.  Both actors play well with each other, and it becomes both a touching and encouraging angle of the film.  The sad part is that this was not to be the crux relationship of the film, and instead was secondary to everything else.

Playing along with the Oscar worthy (yes, I do believe that his performance was that good) role of Boseman was a wonderful soundtrack that encapsulated so much of the tone and drive of the film.  This is more than a necessary aspect, because to have messed up here would have been a crippling shot to the foot.  The audio is captured to give a live performance vibe that tantalizes the ears and forces foot to tap.  The visuals of the performances, however, were not quite able to keep pace as it never was able to plant the audience within the screaming crowd.  Successful spectacle films are a vehicle to fully transport the audience into another world, to integrate us within the moment and forget that we are sitting in a theatre.

This is a story with a nonlinear narrative, jumping around through different times of the life of James Brown, sometimes chaotic and others feeling organic and well arrived.  It could be an illustration of the drug induced state that James Brown found himself in in the late eighties.  It could also be an attempt to keep the intentional emotional distancing between the audience and the film.  Regardless of director Tate Taylor’s reasoning for it, the format never becomes as much an issue as the lack of understanding and connection to the Godfather of Soul, which keeps this film from truly being great.

Rating - 2.5 out of 4 stars

Guardians of the Galaxy

What more can be said about Guardians of the Galaxy than the fact that Marvel Studios and Disney prove exactly why they are the leaders in comic book movies.  The remainder of the major studios are diligently grasping at what their properties can do to be able to recreate the success that The Avengers had with shared universe concept.  Sony has even been hedging its bets on making spin off movies for numerous Spider-Man villains to follow the concept that has been laid out.  Warner Bros. has turned the Superman sequel into essentially a Justice League film, and Universal is looking at re-inventing its classic monsters of old and creating a shared universe for them.

While each of these studios are setting the ground work to arrive in a few more years where Disney and Marvel landed two years prior, we see what has made them the followers.  Instead of just resting on the success of the films that build into The Avengers, they are pushing the genre even further, creating more ground between them and their competitors.  While the fad is creating superheroes in a ‘realistic’ earth setting, Guardians of the Galaxy ditches that concept completely and takes a fantastical voyage through space with an assortment of locations, aliens, and wonderful colours.

It is such a departure from what they have been previously doing, but the product is top notch and demonstrates that carving a new path can reveal the riches that can be uncovered in the cinesphere.  It is a sprawling space opera that works with the clustering of unlikely travelling companions who each have personal agendas and see the others as a means to their ends.  Writers James Gunn (who is also the director) and Nicole Perlman keep a flowing story of amassing evil on a galactic scale, but also keep it personal and intimate with wonderful and humorous dialogue between the heroes.

I recently read a tweet that mentioned what you would think in 2008 if you heard there was going to be a movie you were anticipating starring Bautista, Chris Pratt, Vin Diesel, Bradley Cooper, and Zoe Saldana.  It made me chuckle because I would not have any faith in it.  It illustrates how much the careers of people can evolve over a few years, and what a skilled director can do with the talent they are given.  The best example is professional wrestler Dave Bautista who plays the powerful warrior, Drax.  He is only given that which he can handle, and is able to deliver comedy as well as he uses his bulk.  If used properly by directors, we, the audience, can be continually be surprised by performances from people who it may have seemed easier to simply write off.

To spend time talking about each character and performance would bog this review down in a sea of words that, while hopefully enlightening, would possibly dilute the sheer joy that I had during the movie experience.  Chris Pratt, the main character (he who desires to be called Star Lord) wields action, comedy, and a humanistic element.  The wonderful treat with this ‘popcorn muncher’ is that each character (even the walking tree named Groot) ushers in all three of those characteristics.  The blending of writing and performances keeps the film, from start to finish, exciting, chuckle inducing, and touching.

There is no profound allegory here.  There is no faltering message that underlies this bit of science fiction.  It is about going to the theatre and having that marvellous experience that reminds us all of why going to the cinema can feel like a  proper event.  It triggers the inner child and it had me already thinking about what I want to see in a sequel before it even concluded.  It may not end up being a genre defining picture (only time will tell that), but it plants a flag on the long desolate planet of wondrous, camp space fun and begs us to return.

Rating - 4 out of 4 stars

Lucy

If nine out of ten times in an action movie we had a female protagonist, we would be lucky.  As it stands right now, one could probably count all of the main stream actioners with female leads in the past five years on one hand.  It is just not something that studios do, because perhaps it is something that the general audiences do not get behind as easily.  Exceptions are there, as Salt starring Angelina Jolie was able to make $36 million its opening weekend.  Compare that to the numbers that heroes of old (such as Schwarzenegger and Stallone) are able to pull in, and it looks like there could be a case to be made for the ladies.

Myself, I like it.  I enjoy my heroes to be of all kinds of personalities and backgrounds, each different in their own unique way but with a singular ability to grow to meet the challenge.  Two of my favourite protagonists have been females in Sarah Conner and Ellen Ripley, who are both distinct but manage to prove adaptable and strong.  To me, they are iconic.

Writer and Director Luc Besson is the man who gave us The Professional, which is as personal and caring as you can get in a movie with explosions and crazy Gary Oldmens.  Besson works to create Lucy as an atypical action film about a woman (coincidentally enough named Lucy) who, through very unfortunate circumstances, begins having more and more of her brain’s capacity functioning.  The normal human brain, we are told, uses only 10% of its capacity, and Morgan Freeman plays a professor who claims wonderful, god like powers await as more of the brain is unlocked.  We may consider him to be the audience’s wikipedia in this film.

Lucy is kicked off by an emotionally intense scene where Scarlett Johansson’s character (she who is Lucy) is unintentionally absorbed into the realm of high level narcotics dealing and is in fear for her life.  As enrapturing as this sequence was, it was numbed by Besson’s insertion of stock footage to symbolize the mood of the situation in relation to evolution.  Does that sound a little bit weird?  It fit from a logical standpoint, but served as a distraction that kept derailing the frantic and emotional scene that was unravelling.  It also became an undertone of spastic nature that would continue throughout the entire film.

The character of Lucy was an interesting one.  She was a typical party girl who was studying abroad before ingesting some drugs that opened her mind, but not in a psychedelic 60s way.  Once she begins utilizing her brain, she is able to kick ass, which is good.  However, she also turns into a murderer which begins to start a disconnect between her and the audience.  On top of that, her character begins losing the element of human emotions, which is an interesting development for the protagonist to undertake, but also highlights the disconnect.  There is a very good reason why in The Terminator movies the cyborg is not the main character, and that is because the movie goers need a surrogate in the film to connect to emotionally.  They need some sort of investment in the lead to care for the outcome, and that disappears further and further into the void as the story progresses.

Lucy essentially becomes omnipotent and omnipresent because of the evolution of her brain, which pushes the limits of suspension of disbelief.  Superman, as powerful as he is, has his kryptonite to prove as a foil.  Lucy had nothing to get in her way, which brought all action sequences to the point of function over purpose.  By the time the end is reached, I had no idea why there was a gun fight even happening if all she had to do was use her mind to disable the weapons.  None of it really mattered… she could do anything she wanted in her emotionless way.

I could not say that I was bored during the film, just that I lost care for everything that was taking place and had no lingering energy for investment by the rolling out of the finale.  I was treated to some disastrous special effects in two instances.  One where men floated in the air by the powers of a 1990s blue screen technology, and another where I got to see a dinosaur that reminded me of the computer animated ones I saw on the History Channel years ago as I skimmed through the channels in search of something to keep my mind occupied.

Rating - 2 out of 4 stars

Hercules

Already this year we have seen a number of sword and sandal films make their way into theatres, each with varying results.  Is it really time for that genre to make a grand presence, or is it mere coincidence?  Clash of the Titans (2010) may have proved to the studios that these movies could rake in some cash, but it also proved to my wife that I should not be allowed to select which movie we see on ‘date night.’  Not long after, we had the mighty warrior Conan sneak onto the screens, and now it is time for the mythical Hercules to do the same.  Oddly enough, this is the second time in 2014.

I was raised on the original Conan the Barbarian and the action packed tales of Sinbad, so I felt no stranger to this style of entertainment.  In the last few years the downside to a number of these sword and sandals is that they really attempt to take themselves too seriously, a feat that their budgets, talent, and crew seem unable to reach.  This goal does not seem to be on the radar for those involved in Hercules.

It stars Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson, former professional wrestler turned actor who has been dedicated to the painstaking process of putting in his time to develop his craft and establish his name.  While the transition into movies proves to be difficult for many cross-platform entertainers, people like Johnson who have a natural presence and charisma can evolve into marquee names if they are willing to get past the growth pains in the early stages.

Hercules, who is the bastard child of mortal and immortals, is a mercenary who travels with a band of loyal followers.  Lured into a job with a big payday, they find out their love for the money may be challenged by internal morals.  Nothing new here.  We have seen this sort of story before, with the stone cold bad ass turning into a feller with a heart of gold through sentimental shifts.  There may be a lot in the plot that can remind audience members of what they had previously seen, but that does not hinder the enjoyment level of Hercules at all.

Director Brett Ratner shows to possess an understanding here that you work around the tools that you are given.  In the case of Dwayne Johnson, that tool is personality and charisma.  Instead of our hero being a too cool for school, unflinching mega-hero (as we had in Pompeii and was boring to a level of anesthetics), we are given a man who smiles, jokes, and is buff enough to do the battle stuff.  There is an emotional back story woven into Hercules’ past, but it never travels to the point of demanding too much range from Johnson.

His gaggle of loyal friends enhances the charm and fun, with each having a personality that is represented both in dialogue and in fighting styles.  My favourite was a bow slinging amazon warrior who would have given Legolas a run for his money, played by Norwegian actress Ingrid Bolso Berdal.  The entourage reminded me vaguely of A Knight’s Tale in how a protagonist’s adventure can be enhanced by surrounding them with colourful individuals.

I will admit that I had my doubts about this film, but they were soon washed away as the movie took a different approach to the story, playing with the question of if the mythology was true or just a legend that was created around a mortal warrior.  The battle sequences also assisted in laying to rest my reservations.  Ratner kept the shots tight and short, keeping the face paced and chaotic feel without devolving into making them so fragmented that it was impossible to follow what was happening.

Swinging his club and taking names, Hercules proved that there can be life in this genre of film if done appropriately.  He is surrounded by interested locations, many of them being interiors where I was unable to discern what were set pieces and what was generated in post production.  This may not be an all time classic, but for those wishing to fulfill their desires for sand swept adventuring this is time well wasted.

Rating - 3 out of 4 stars

Windows: The abusive relationship I have not been able to leave

Perhaps it is the ultimate in geeky nature to get all poetic about a relationship with a computer.  I never would have ventured down such an alley, but a continued time of tribulation can bring someone to that brink.  Just trying to listen to music with one other program running appears too much for Microsoft to be capable of handling.  This, then, drove me to write about the abusive relatinoship that I have had for years.  Even as I prepare this post, my computer dissents and whirls in disgust at having to perform this simplest of tasks.

We now just sort of exist in an empty relationship

I look at you, you gaze deceitfully back at me as though you have something to say

But you don’t

At least nothing that I want to hear any longer

Is it possible that the flame has died?

That could only be said if a true spark ever existed

At the beginning, I had tried desperately to make things work

In all honesty, you showed some desire as well

But in the end you just kept pulling yourself further and further from me,

Constantly claiming you were improving,

All the while making my life more difficult

I look at myself and my hypocrisy in pointing this out, but you have let yourself go

Once you were quick and eager to participate

Now you linger while you hum and haw about the easiest decisions

This is nothing new

We have restarted the relationship many times, each to the same inevitable conclusion

A sluggish beast, you are

You should still be in your prime of your life,

But you process events with a slow calculation that betrays the improvements you have claimed

Am I burdening you to the point of exhaustion with my simple requests?

You ask me if I want you to seek solutions to your problems, and I have long given up that path

Your attempts meander for minutes on end and not once have ever provided explanation

Most days my coffee grows cold as I wait for you to respond

If I turn my back for fifteen minutes you threaten me with shutting yourself down,

Not really allowing my full input

I ask you to keep going, to journey with me

I will give you the rest you need if you properly communicate your need to upgrade your thoughts

But you keep silent until seizing up to a point of shutting me out completely,

Not even allowing me the opportunity to relieve you of your burdens

On our best days, when it feels like we have understanding, you stop listening to me

Once again, just like the million times before, I wait for you to respond

I attempt to make your life easier by removing the two or three responsibilities that must surely be aggravating you

In my efforts to make your life easier, your clouded mind stands still, not responding

Don’t you realize I am trying to help you out? Why won't you respond?!

Is not removing responsibilities something that should give you more energy?

Regardless of my motions to bring your needy complexity ease,

You still do not respond

A relationship should be a two way street, one where both parties have a say

Such a back and forth does not exist

You dictate when we can and cannot communicate

I am perhaps a fool for having stayed with you for so long,

But you are easier on my wallet than others

Through foul circumstances of life, I have been scraping the bottom

Each day is a struggle of anticipation and unknown outcome

Feeling the ground beneath my feet has taken months, and now there is motivation for life

A hopeful future in self-employment eases the days,

But I know that you will be there with me more than ever, and that fills me with dread

I have battled with you for three months to create an opportunity for some income

That is simply the first step in the journey.

A novel written and many more in the works amidst personal anxiety,

And the entire time you have conspired against me.

Should we not all deserve a new beginning?

I have given you five new beginnings, and five times you showed your eventual surrender into lethargy

Another cannot happen

I am not a stallion of physical appeal, so I feel out of place commenting on your appearance,

But you have become uglier than I ever thought you could

You are horrendously blotchy and covered in colourful makeup that tries to hide the fact that you have changed for the worse

I refuse moving forward with you

You don’t let me even listen to my music when I want to, let alone keep me calm and free from my crippling anxieties

I have long desired a much more appealing relationship, and I have spent many hours online dreaming of different options

My commitment to you has ended

I just need to find a way to obtain the Apple of my eye

Maleficent

Ah, the nostalgia of going and seeing a movie based on a memorable viewing experience from childhood.  This can usually go to a drastic extent of the pendulum swing.  It can be modernized replica that reminds you of all the joy of first viewing, creating the adult into their child-like state of marvel and wonder, capturing perfectly all of the wonders remembered.  This was the case with Godzilla, which came out a few weeks ago.  The other extreme could be that the movie is empty and emotionless, an experience that leaves the audience feeling like the Hollywood system was purely looking for a way to make a new movie to bring in some cash without having to think of new story ideas.  They bring super special effects, superficial storylines and characters, and can make general audiences happy.  Such as how I found last year’s Man of Steel.

And then, there are times when people attempt to travel a new direction.  They see a well-known piece of source material and it brings into their head a new way to interpret it, staying true to the basic structure but bringing out the microscope to heighten elements that have not before been explored.  A good example of this recently was Darren Aronofsky’s Noah.  The problem with films like this is that they can exist in almost a ‘no-man’s land’ where audiences can assume that it will be landing on either extreme of the spectrum.  Some can feel alienated as it was not what they expected, while others revel in being surprised by a film that takes chances and brings out fully developed and rich characters.  There is hardly ever a ‘right way’ to view a film, which is what can make these off the beaten path films polarizing, as they are not able to fully satisfy either camp.

This is the exact category that Disney’s Maleficent fits into.  While it tells the story of Sleeping Beauty audiences should be warned ahead of time; this is not a fairy tale, it is a character story.  The film follows one of the most evil villains in Disney history (played by Angelina Jolie) and adds a backstory and history of love and innocence before she became corrupted by the harshness, greed, and deception that lived in the world around her.  Her turn into bitterness and vengeance makes sense, and as she wavers on her decisions throughout the film I always had an understanding of why.  It never felt as though the Hollywood Shoe Horn was coming out to force story elements without cause (see The Amazing Spider-Man 2 if you like that sort of thing).  As Maleficent travels through her emotions, we are right there with her, feeling the sting of her pain, and hoping for her to recover from her emotional and physical wounds.

The film becomes very dark at times, which some may say a little too much so for an all ages movie, but the use of the horrible elements of humanity is never too graphic and serves to propel Maleficent through all of the twists and turns of her life.  It could get perhaps a tad scary for children at times, but most likely no more so than the terror I had when I was a young, curly haired lad seeing Sleeping Beauty for the first time.  Visually, as well as tonally, the contrast of light and dark are in integral point to properly allowing this character we view as evil to become human and redeemable.

The visual component is utterly stunning.  From creating the fanciful land where Maleficent comes from, to a fire-breathing dragon, it is a treat through and through.  My absolute favourite visual is the recreation of the green coloured evil magic from the animated film, which really added an element of geek love for me.  Director Robert Stromberg is a well credited and Oscar winning visual effects artist, and he brings that craft with him to Maleficent which is his first directorial effort.  Transcendence showed that some people do not travel well from the visual realm to the director’s chair, but Stromberg shows an innate understanding of character development and storytelling.   

Screenwriter Linda Woolverton’s script fits seamlessly with style of movie that Stromberg was creating visually.  It felt as though writer and director were one person, as they shared vision for the movie which brings down the walls of the typical fairy tale portraying the helpless woman who is ultimately useless without a good-looking prince to show up on a shimmering horse and kiss her.  Because the princess is useless, all it takes is a token act as such by a man to help her out, thus leaving little girls everywhere anticipating that they really need a man to save them if the world gets a little dark and scary. 

If I can side rant for a minute, this is not just an issue that occurs in fairy tales, but so many films that it becomes rare to find a movie about a competent and complex female character that does not either need the help of a man, or strive for the love of a man.  In ‘female driven’ movies, it can still feel as though the theme is ultimately revolving around the Y chromosome.  It is sad, and it is pathetic.  Women get the complete shaft both on screen and off screen in Hollywood, and thank goodness for movies like Maleficent that show there is so much more to the mind of a female than just the want for a handsome mate.

Angelina Jolie is perfect in filling this role.  She is able to bring to her stone-faced character emotions from all across the spectrum, from compassion to malice, all through nuances in her facial expression, while still maintaining a face that looks cold and heartless.  Opposite her is the cursed child Aurora (Elle Fanning) who is magnificent in capturing a love for life, being entranced by the beauty around her, but still being able to feel hurt, sad, and angry.  How I would right now love to go into spoilers and talk at length about the part she plays in the story, but I will refrain from that out of respect for your viewing experience, should you decide to see it.

There is a spinning wheel needle, there is a prince on a horse, but they are not the real story here.  The focus is on a complex character who is dragged through the harshness of life and becomes something evil because of it.  We are given a perspective of the story that does not line up with the ends of the pendulum swing, but choses a bold approach to venture into a change of perspective that is full of richness of character emotions and development.  It is a refreshing dip into what a movie could be if you present female roles that have emotions of their own and lack a reliance on men, and is aided by the female writing perspective of Woolverton.  Remember, this is not a fairy tale.  It is a character story, and one that leaves you hoping and begging for the ‘happily ever after’ genre trope.

Rating – 3.5 out of 4 stars

X-Men: Days of Future Past

Last week I sat down to write about Godzilla and found that a minor hurdle that I had to enjoying it was getting past a very mundane plot that occupied the first thirty minutes of the film.  And, like a virus coming around for a second go at a drained and exhausted human body, X-Men: Days of Future Past took plot issues to a whole new level and gave me my second assault from within the past week.  If audiences spend the entire film thinking too much, stocks in Tylenol would see a significant jump as thousands of movie goers would attempt to quell their brain-drain headaches.

Every movie, especially time travel movies (which this one is), will have plot holes in it, and action films such as this require an expected suspension of disbelief.  The issue with this movie is that the suspension of disbelief needed does not come from having to allow for the fact that there are mutants with crazy powers, but that everything you have been told from previous X-Men movies may or may not fit with the tale you are watching.  X-Men: First Class was a wonderfully fun film which had the appearance to be a reboot over a direct prequel, as elements were introduced that did not fit with the previously established trilogy.  That is fine and good, but X-Men: Days of Future Past links the two together, meaning that all anomalies from the past versions should somehow fit with the future version, and it is just a mess of mental catastrophe wading your mind through the maze of inconsistencies.

Let me now pause to enjoy the aforementioned Tylenol…

Alright, I am back on track.  If you were to spend all of the running length of this film straining to put all of the pieces together of what you are being told by director Bryan Singer and writer Simon Kinberg then you would miss out on a visually stunning and fun adventure.  I won’t downplay the inconsistency factor, but the film is good enough that you are able to look past it.  If you look at the Batman trilogy by Christopher Nolan you will find a massive amount of improbabilities and plot holes, but the experience is engrossing enough that it is easy to pass them by.  It is very similar with X-Men: Days of Future Past, which relies on a stellar cast of talent playing mutants, all of whom have their own personal battles that they are trying to get through.

The future of mutants and humans is in jeopardy in the future, and the X-Men use the powers of Kitty Pryde (Ellen Page) to transport Wolverine’s (Hugh Jackman) mind into his body in the year 1973.  He then must find the young Professor X (James McAvoy) and his old friend turned enemy, Magneto (Michael Fassbender).  Along the way we get to see new mutants and ones we have already met as they attempt to track down Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) whose actions may lead to the bleak future that they are trying to avoid.  It sounds a bit like Terminator, but instead of Kyle Reese naked and with no weapons landing in the past, we Wolverine, naked and with temper… this sort of thing bodes well for entertainment.

Just like the first film, I felt the largest strength to be the performances and relationship between McAvoy and Fassbender, both of whom play their characters perfectly and exhibit full, powerful emotions, as well as Fassbender being able to show strength and danger using only facial expressions an posturing.  Magneto really has to be one of the most cinematic villains in history, because there is so much you can do with him that creates a sense of awe when seen on the big screen.  Bryan Singer crafted numerous magnificent moments with Magneto that alone are worth seeing the film for.

One aspect that I was very happy with in X-Men: First Class was their use of the F-word.  This may sound very silly for me to bring up, but in a PG-13 movie they are only allowed one use of the word.  Just like any other aspect of the visceral and storytelling experience, language means a lot.  So many times when studios only have one opportunity to use a strong word that sums up many emotions it is just inserted in a throwaway moment.  First Class used it at an appropriate time, with appropriate characters that created a great deal of humour, but was so true and sincere to the moment.  X-Men: Days of Future Past ties in its use of the cuss word with the previous film, not for humour but for an understanding of character.  I do applaud them for making the most of the one shot they had at using that word, because it made an impact in the story.

The action scenes were a visually stimulating experience, and one in particular included an enormous amount of humour.  While it was not an overly funny movie, the humour fit perfectly with the character and situation involved without being out of place and overly slap-stick (even though it was rather slap-stick).  Once again, Singer showed an awareness of what works, with whom, and when.  One downside to his choice of visuals was at times inserting grainy perspective shots from bystanders to the action who had cameras.  I do understand that the intent was possibly to instill the understanding that the mutants were now caught on tape, but it had a tendency to work against the flow of what was unraveling.

If you are an X-Men fan, or just a fan of solid summer action flicks, you will most likely get all of your money’s worth out of X-Men: Days of Future Past.  Or, if you are like me, you are sitting on a stock pile of Scene points and will have the option of seeing it for free.  But, if you completely act like me, you will not figure out how to redeem the points and, for the second week in a row, pay full price for a movie you could have gotten for free because you don’t understand tech.  I am not completely blaming this on Bryan Singer, but I am considering writing a strongly written letter.

Rating – 3 out of 4 stars