Captain America: The Winter Soldier

It is only fair if I let it be known right away that a few years ago I became ultimately tired and weary of superhero movies, sensing that Hollywood was pummelling my head into oblivion with large, foamy, green Hulk hands, smashing puny human.  The only comic book franchise that I cared about anymore was Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy, and I was left to the belief that the other super-powered films that orbited me were just waiting for their chance to strike and knock me down.  If one movie did not succeed, I knew that it was only a matter of years before it was ‘re-envisioned’ and attempted once again.  My battered husk was in need of a hero to save me.

As luck would have it, a new sense of energy towards this genre was pumped into my thanks to Joss Whedon’s efforts with The Avengers, a film which brought both incredible special effects and interesting character dynamics into a film that was an incredibly great waste of my time.  Next it was Iron Man 3, a super hero whom I never cared about, that was able to get the blood pumping in explosive ways.  It became one of my favourite super hero movies of all time thanks to its well-paced story and an insistence to look at the person behind the suit, showing the grit of the hero over their special powers.

I bring all of this to light because it is necessary in establishing my overall thoughts on the genre, and I need to magnify that by admitting my complete boredom with Captain America.  I never really saw any attraction to him at all.  I mean, he is patriotic and has a shield.  Why should I care?  Why is he exciting in any way, especially considering the fact that I am not even American?  The ‘north of the border’ equivalent to Captain America is the McKenzie brothers, who are somewhat patriotic and supplement the lack of having a shield with the abundance of Canadian beer.

As I found my preferred seat in the showing of Captain America: The Winter Soldier, I was expecting to be left at the end feeling the same way that I did after seeing Thor (which was not the most exciting feeling) or worse, the depleted soulless state I faced after seeing The Green Lantern.  There was to be no way on this planet that I would be entertained by a straight laced patriotic feller who chose to use a shield without also carrying a sword.

As it would turn out, I am a fan of Captain America now, at least the version that was presented in The Winter Soldier.  Any issues that I had beforehand were whisked aside thanks to some very pleasurable action sequences at the beginning of the film, as well as a very timeless plot revolving around trusting government and military, their intentions, and the horrifyingly grey line that separates right from wrong in trying to bring order and peace to the populous.

While I had never given a hoot about a silly round shield prior, I was enamored by the choreography that was implemented to show just how Captain America (Chris Evans) used it as an extension of his body.  There were times in the movie, however, when I wanted to scream at the baddies on screen ‘shoot at his feet!’ as he was crouched behind his shield while under fire, with the lower portion of his legs exposed.  But, if one decides to get too nitpicky, any super hero movie will quickly fall apart.

What Chris Evans does with the Steve Rogers character is exactly what one could want from such a film.  Much like the characters of Wolverine are embodied by Hugh Jackman and Robert Downey Jr. has effectively become Tony Stark, Evans jumps into the role perfectly as he portrays appropriately the physical appearance and the reflective nature of a man who strives to assist in fighting evil, putting himself in harm’s way to protect others.  Many movies struggle at capturing all the needed aspects of the protagonist in their actors, which leads to some being rebooted and meddled with many times over (in the past eleven years there have been three people take up the role of the Hulk).

As the film went about unfolding, I did have a difficult time with the reveal of the villainous element.  This more comes down to my personality, with myself struggling with finding the antagonist a little out of place in the universe they were creating, and almost feeling a little too ‘comic booky.’  Perhaps I just am not familiar enough with the source material and may have found more purpose to the history if I was more properly informed.  But, as mentioned, I just never cared enough about the character to look into him, and never even felt the urge to investigate via the incredibly easy (and possibly incorrect) Wikipedia.

They nefarious poster child in this film was The Winter Soldier, an unknown nemesis who shows up on the scene to throw a monkey wrench in humanities desires for peaceful living.  Played by Sebastian Stan, he was a very visually interesting character, exuding an aura of necessary bad-assedness that would become a thorn in the side of the good ole Captain.  A good foil is always needed, and he was constructed in a method that was diligent in challenging Steve Rogers in a number of ways.

I should also mention the appearance of mixed martial arts legend Georges St-Pierre who played the role of Batroc, a secondary villain in the film.  Directors Anthony and Joe Russo showed great intelligence in how they used St-Pierre, limiting the number of lines that he needed to deliver, and focusing mostly on his physical stature and abilities.  The few lines he had were not handled the most smoothly, but luckily there was not a lot of need for them to be.  From a physical standpoint, he was very natural and flowing.  Some people, even if they have larger than life personalities, become rather awkward once in front of the camera, but St-Pierre did not suffer from that at all and was able to blend in with the action of the film.

The best testimony of the movie is the fact that I enjoyed it.  The fact that I feel no attraction at all to the concept of Captain America and yet was still smiling throughout the film shows its true ability to pull in an audience of outsiders and make them happy.  Whereas before I had rolled my eyes at the fact that he had his own movies, I now find myself looking forward to the next Avengers and Captain America 3.  A good meal leaves a lingering taste in the mouth and causes a craving for more, and a great movie is able to do the same thing.

Rating – 3 out of 4 stars

Transcendence

Yep, I have been away for a while.  There was a personal flu that I had the last few weeks as well as a family member in the hospital that captured my focus.  This is no excuse, however, as the point of the blog was to try and write daily to keep my mind busy as well as forcing me to think creatively and analytically.  So, from some time away I now return to a star studded science fiction movie that popped out in theatres just this past weekend.

After establishing himself as one of the industry’s best cinematographer, Wally Pfister took to the director’s chair to quarterback the sci-fi film Transcendence.  Pfister, an Oscar winning cinematographer, has shown an uncanny ability to magnify the ethos of a movie through spectacular framing and lighting.  The main question that I had prior to the film was, ‘does someone who has the ability to show a story naturally have the ability to properly tell a story?’  The answer to my question was a very definitive, ‘no.’

The movie revolves around the concept of the creation of artificial intelligence, as Dr. Will Caster (Johnny Depp) finds himself dying and through asinine development and lack of character development he agrees to have his brain structure integrated into a computer.  While this happened, I was treated to an unemotional wife Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) and flaccid best friend Max (Paul Bettany) wasting their last few moments with the dying Caster.  The whole while Pfister made sure to insert shots of the sunlight hitting inanimate objects as well as loads of water drops in an over use of symbolism.  By the time the film came to an end, there was a mild payoff for the water drop imagery, but it never fully connect to create any emotion.  As well, whenever it was placed throughout the film it was done so in a distracting way that never bolstered the development of scenes but simply stood out in an abrupt nature.

This is essentially what was wrong with the film, and it was on every single level.  Attention was paid to the visual presentation, but there was a lack of humanity and understanding as to how the story should unfold.  As the story progressed and characters were lead to make key decisions, no effort was spent on showing why or how they came to their choices of action, leaving a vague and impersonal feel to the entire proceedings.

This was quite baffling for me, because the casting of the film was incredible.  Outside of the talent that I already mentioned there were actors such as Morgan Freeman, Kate Mara, and Cillian Murphy, all of whom have the ability to no just deliver lines but to capture and present deeps levels of emotion and complexity.  In Transcendence I continually was left with the idea that no perfection was chased by Pfister to harness the skills of the people who he had access to.  Lines that were supposed to be building a sense of the characters and personalities were delivered flat and without meaning, as though they were never perceived to be of importance to the tale.

The only interesting thing about the movie was the concept itself.  Many science fiction films have tackled the idea of artificial intelligence and the dangers of computers becoming too powerful and self-aware, and portions of this film brought the concept home in a fresh light.  If told in an extremely different way this movie could have built upon the creepiness of its plot and created a true sense of uneasiness about human exploration into technological development.  But it didn’t.  It took the idea and presented it in phone book fashion, just putting the information up on the screen in a way that is about as uninteresting as it gets, leaving no desire to revisit it ever again in the future.

You know a film is bad when the audience floods out the exits the moment the film is done, with no lingering whatsoever and no desire to talk, sit, and digest what they just saw.  Within a minute of being told it had reached a finale, there was nothing left but empty seats, mine included.  I almost always sit through the credits and chat with a friend about the highs and lows of the ride that we had just been on, but by the point the final credit was rolling my car was already warming up.  This is just another one of those films that comes and goes, wasting its opportunity and not surviving in public consciousness when all is said and done.

Rating - 1 out of 4 stars

Noah

Over the past few months, a lot of talk has emerged over the movie Noah, which is helmed by director Darren Aronofsky (Requiem for a Dream, Black Swan).  Most of the conversation was not centred around the typical anticipation and hype that a star-studded film would receive, but rather from different camps of faith over the style of the film and its accuracy to the Bible account in the Old Testament. 

Hoping to gain the same sort of audience that The Passion of the Christ was able to attract, Paramount went about screening their own cuts of the movie to faith groups, a move that is far from normal in the land of movie making.  What ended up happening was a battle between the studio and the director over which version would end up making it to the big screen, with Aronofsky coming out the champion.  Paramount then made sure to include in its advertising that this film was meant to be an interpretation of the events and that the themes from the story were still held within the final product.

When there is so much discussion from different camps around a movie, from Glen Beck railing against it even though he had never seen it, to the Vatican inviting Russell Crowe to meet with the Pope in the run up to the release, it can become hard to audiences to enter into the experience without preconceived notions on what the film will end up being.  While the groups that were focused on bringing negative attention to the film were very vocal, it also proved a bit counterproductive as it raised the unaided awareness of the film greatly.

So many times there are movies that are ‘based on true events’ or ‘inspired by true events’ that basically end up using the original source as a mere launching point.  Peter Benchley’s Jaws is a great example, as it was inspired by the true story of a shark attacking swimmers on the Eastern coast of the United States, but took no more similarities into the book or even the film.  Other movies attempt to depict a story very close to the source material and take painstaking efforts to get them right.  In the end, is one more right than the other?  Should they both be held up to the same level of scrutiny or should we accept that they are made into a story with their own artistic interpretation and goals?

For myself, I am fine with a movie going in whatever direction it wants as long as it serves a purpose to the greater story that it is trying to tell.  Documentaries are meant to be real life experiences, whereas feature films allow for different narratives to come forward.  The only time I have felt at opposition with a movie’s claim to be true events was in Pain and Gain, where the action was frozen in the middle of a scene and text was added to assure audiences that this actually happened (even though the depicted scene had a fictional character in it).  In that case, adding the basis of real life truth into the story became a part of the movie itself and that is a ground that should be treaded lightly on if you do not want people to glare at any mistakes you had made.

While Noah is not taking steps to stay completely within the confines of the Biblical account, it uses a wide range of themes to stay true to the concept and the heart of the tale.  We see the family of Noah (played by Russell Crowe) as one who is committed to the stewardship of the earth, showing great respect and care for what The Creator has given them.  They are the last of a line who see this value, and come into opposition of those who view the world as something to rule over, devouring resources, destroying the land for their own needs, and then moving on to consume the next locale.  It creates the backdrop of the character of Noah, a man who refuses to live in a way that is out of harmony with what was given to him by the divine.  In one way, people can take this theme and transfer it to our mentalities today about pollution and resource consumption, and it is presented in a way that can remind us that we may be out of tune with where we are living.

Aronofsky uses visuals and symbolism throughout the film to serve his task of delivering the heart of the matter.  It is not all about the death and destruction of the world, but about commitment to faith and beliefs as well as the human nature to possibly succumb to temptation when faced with it.  While it is about people horrifically drowning, there is plenty of time given to show the argument over whether people are good or not, and just how both poles of the righteous spectrum can live in everyone. 

A person, such as Noah, can be able to stick to his task in an unwavering way, but still be able to find himself off course at times.  This aspect was perhaps one of the most interesting sides of the movie, as we get to see the toll that Noah’s obligation takes on him both emotionally and mentally.  We may think upon the well-known story and see a man who serves perfectly, but Aronofsky shows the human side of Noah.  He is a man who is warned about the destruction of the world, the death of almost everyone, and in the carrying out of such obligations it would only be natural to assume that there would be a personal cost to enduring an event such as this.  Russell Crowe portrays the title character with art, depth, and skill to take the character out of cartoonish pictures that we may have seen in Sunday School and show the agony and turmoil that staying true to faith can take on someone, even to the point of not acknowledging when behaviours have reached an extreme and that they are no longer in line with what was intended.

The visuals of the film were one spot that felt a little weak at times, where computer generated animals had the ability to look fake, as well as getting some blurring effects on panning camera shots.  For the most part, it held up well, but the moments here and there where it fell below par felt enough to take me out of the moment.  Perhaps this was because of the size of the budget and the worries that the movie may not be attracting the audience it wanted which lead to stricter spending of money.  I am just not well informed enough to say anything other than speculation, but it did have the feel as though everything was not touched up as neatly as it should have been.

The main aspect of the film, the destruction of the earth from a deity who had seen the evil of men and had a desire to set things right, was pulled off really well.  Because of the various other themes at play in the movie, there was a lot more weight to this movie that made the flooding prove to be an important measure to take.  God (or The Creator, as the film refers to Him) is never shown without mercy, care, or the ability to provide for the few who stood apart from society to live in right standing.  We are shown that the heart of forgiveness is prominent, and that The Creator accepts those who may have once turned their backs but now attempt to serve.

I have mentioned the themes of this film many times, because that really is where the movie is strongest.  Yes, there are some wonderful acting performances from Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Ray Winstone, and Anthony Hopkins, but they worked to add colour and flavour to the greater story.  One of the best things about a movie experience is being able to talk about it afterwards with others, picking through various aspects of the film and attempting to see the larger picture of a well-crafted tapestry.  Noah succeeded at this, offering my wife and I different points of entry in conversation to digest and process what we had seen.  Most importantly, everything in the film is easily translated to current day living.  It does not just contain itself to the distant past, but rather delivers its message in a relatable fashion that merges with the realities of the world we live in, making the lessons of the film and the story timeless.

Rating – 3.5 out of 4

Hannah's Pick: The Fighter

Well, I had a fairly good streak going on the blog, running the Monday to Friday life and getting reviews posted.  And then, all fell flat.  I wish there was a great reason for this.  I wish I could come up with a grand explanation as to why I was absent for the last few days.  Sadly, I have nothing other than a video game addiction that overtook me, which lead to a complete inability to track time.  I think I may have had a bug as well, but it was more so due to my desire to crush, kill and destroy pixelated villains in the name of good.

While many people look to this year as being the career renaissance of actor Matthew McConaughey, 2010 was the turning point in career of director/writer David O. Russell.  He had not directed a movie since 2004’s I Heart Huckabees and returned with The Fighter, which started off an incredible run of three movies in four years that would all earn Oscar nominations for best picture, best director, and a slew of acting nominations and wins.  I believe it is the first time in history that a director got such big recognition for three consecutive movies, and, as a pick from my wonderful sister-in-law Hannah, I thought it would be a great idea to travel back and take a look at the film.

One thing that Russell has managed to excel at in his films is the ability to draw captivating performances from his actors (Silver Linings Playbook and American Hustle both got nominations in all four acting categories).  These performances, combined with great script and direction, quickly create people who we are invested in and we become quickly wrapped up in the story.

The Fighter, a movie about the life of boxer Micky Ward, follows brothers Micky (Mark Walberg) and Dicky Eklund (Christian Bale) as Ward finds himself in a battle between his own best interests and those of his dysfunctional family.  Managed by his mother Alice (Melissa Leo), the attention is never on what is most appropriate for Micky, but on the former glory of Dicky, who is battling drug addiction.  Micky soon meets a local bartender named Charlene (Amy Adams) and finally has someone in his life who puts his needs ahead of his brother’s.

A typical boxing movie can be a great thing, as we get to cheer for the underdog as they claw their way up the ranks with grit and determination.  The story of Micky Ward is indeed one of the underdog, but it plays out so differently than most other films.  The real focus in this film is the relationships that surround Ward, the support (or lack of support) that he gets from different people, and the choices that he must make regarding career and family.  The pugilistic elements is just a backdrop for a deep story of human connection that hits a head and shatters, needing to be either swept away forever or put back together.

Because the boxing is secondary, the action scenes are not the strongest to exist in a boxing flick.  There is little sense of the crowd and environment (except for a wonderful scene as Micky is preparing to walk out to the ring), which may have been an intentional decision to make it more about Micky and those who were ringside.  The voice over commentary of the action also felt a little lifeless and forced at times, which detracts from the emotional experience of the boxing event.

That aside, there is very little that can be criticized about this film.  The acting was a collage of performances making a piece of art, instead of simply one or two stand out roles that compel the audience.  The characters are such a part of each other in this movie that the majesty of the ensemble’s efforts propels the story to another level.  It is especially the chemistry between Walhberg and Bale that plays well on the screen, giving so much history and context of their relationship simply through their body language and how they interact together.

Ward’s life was one of blue collar upbringing, and that essence comes across in perfect clarity thanks in equal parts to the hair, wardrobe, and locations.  It is easy to forget just how far those aspects can go in immersing the audience in the tale set before them, and the attention to detail that each received in The Fighter increased the tone of the film and took it to the next level.

I may be more than a bit of a David O. Russell fan, but his style of storytelling is right up my alley.   I get really geeked out about movies that focus on creating deep and interesting characters, put them in a situation, and have them have to play off of even more deep and interesting characters.  Some people may think that to be a bore, but I would take that any day over run-of-the-mill special effects and explosions.  Russell is one of the modern masters at this craft, and The Fighter is an excellent case study of how impactful a story can be when we actually care about the choices of the people on the screen.

Rating – 3.5 out of 4 stars