REVIEW: The Nice Guys

When I first got into podcasting about movies with Christopher Spicer just over three years ago, he was adamant that Ryan Gosling was someone that I should be adoring as a talent.  I had not seen many films of his, and I was not easily swayed that the former Young Hercules and alum from Breaker High was all that intriguing an acting prospect.  To set me straight, we decided to podcast a noir film staring Gosling called Gangster Squad.  I, with all conviction, can say that my opinion did not change the day that we visually ingested that lumpy and lukewarm dish.

I have to admit that since that time I have been won around on Gosling through films like Drive, The Place Beyond the Pines, and Blue Valentine.  The man can act and throws himself fully into his rolls, but would I find him appropriate in the comedy genre?  That is what The Nice Guys would answer.  Once again, I went to the theatres to see a Gosling noir film and I was hoping that my eyes would be opened to another aspect of his talents.

There was no disappointment with The Nice Guys.  From Gosling's tremendously in-depth and well rounded comedic chops, to the tight script that plays out like an old school mystery, this was a film that happily ate my admission price and made me more than willing to quickly tell others about it as soon as I left the screening.

The film is set in 1977 Los Angeles, with Gosling playing a private detective (Holland March) and Russell Crowe playing the part of an enforcer named Jackson Healy.  Circumstances bring them together as they have to solve the case of a suicide of a famous porn star.  It is the typical place setting for a buddy cop comedy, except these two are neither cops nor are they buddies.  The ground that this film embarks from may feel familiar and comforting, and that's because it is.  It is the type of film that we have seen before in the past, back before everything in the theatres was about reboots and sequels.  The pure energy of this film is the old friend that we have been missing for the past twenty years, and meeting up with them for two hours in the theatre is pure joy.

Much of the enjoyment comes from the interactions between Gosling and Crowe, who play off each other as though they have been in many films prior to this one.  Crowe plays the straight man, and delivers his lines with the steadiness and stone face needed to juxtapose the antics of his co-star.  Not only are they funny together, but they are captivating as well.  From beating up bad guys to talking about Richard Nixon and how he relates to angels, it is entertaining to see the two actors playing off each other.

Behind the two stars, you have a fast paced plot penned by Anthony Bagarozzi and director Shane Black.  There are no wasted scenes to be found in this film as it flows and delivers the unfolding of the mystery at a steady pace.  A lot of times I can predict what the final outcome will be, but that didn't happen in this case until the movie was wrapping up.  It was a breathe of fresh air in today's cinematic climate.

One thing that needs to be mentioned is the great detail that is paid to the wardrobe, hair, and set pieces.  This truly does feel like a well done period piece.  It goes a long way in taking the audience to 1970s Los Angeles, immersing the viewers in the sights and sounds of the location.

The film may not be for everyone.  I found that out when an older couple got up and walked out during the screening I was in.  It is an R-rated film, and movie goers need only look at the plot synopsis which mentions the porn industry to get an understanding of the type of content that will be in it.  There is nudity in the film, but it is not gratuitous in the way that an 80s Jean-Claude Van Damme movie would use it.

If you are looking for something that is geared towards adults and feels like a blast from cinema past, The Nice Guys is just waiting for you to get your ticket, park your arse in the seat, and enjoy the ride that it will take you on.  It is a terrific blend of comedy and action, with Gosling's performance being the standout.  The man can do comedy, there is no doubting that.  And there is no doubting that you will love your time spent with The Nice Guys.

Rating - 3.5 out of 4 stars

REVIEW: Money Monster

George Clooney plays Lee Gates, a charismatic and over the top host of a high energy financial television program.  Sound delightful for a movie?  Maybe not, but things quickly go haywire as the television show is high-jacked by someone who lost all of their money based off of a tip that Gates gave on his show.  Drama is sure to ensue, and the set of the show, named Money Monster, becomes the backdrop for a realtime story directed by Jodie Foster.

The mad-man high-jacker, played by Jack O'Connell, interrupts the live broadcast of the show and demands answers to the sudden failure of a stock that Gates had said was safer than a savings account.  Armed with a gun and an explosive vest for Gates to wear, he wants to keep the cameras rolling so that his voice can be heard and so that people can get an explanation to what happened to $800 million dollars that disappeared overnight.

Normally the idea of a movie about money does not excite me.  I can be surprised by good ones, however.  I was a big fan of The Big Short, and I quickly became a fan of Money Monster.  Foster does not waste time doddling around before the action begins, foregoing a fully introductive first act in a similar way that Hush did in its home invasion movie earlier this year.  Even the ten minutes or so of set up is interesting to watch as it is done at a fast pace and we get a perspective of what kind of person Lee Gates is.

Gaining this perspective is crucial to the rest of the film, because it sets us up for understanding the character arc that he goes through.  He is a loud mouth who can't keep his words to himself, and he needs to transform to someone who listens when his life is threatened.  Clooney provides a solid performance here, as the character of Gates feels legitimate and authentic.  Adding to the transition of Gates is the show's director, played by Julia Roberts.  The chemistry between the two acting veterans is undeniable and it alone is enough to carry the film.

The first two acts of Money Monster take place in the television studio, and this is where the film shines the most.  Foster keeps the dialogue and scenes flowing, making great use of the dynamic score by Dominic Lewis which fuels the tension that is unfolding.  The small area in which they are confined is used well as showing that there is no escape for Clooney and demonstrating the power that O'Connell has over the situation.

Things do degrade a bit when the third act comes around.  There is a change in the tone of the story, and there is a bit of a leap in Gates' character that feels as though it is rushed and not properly developed.  The movie goes from story telling to making a statement, and while I am not against films making a statement, it did not come off as earned as it was such a change in the voice of Money Monster and feels a tad bit preachy.

With that said, it is a satisfying time in the theatre.  For people who are looking for a thriller that is more adult based, they will find solace in the arms of the Money Monster.  As we sit and watch the movie, we are witness to audiences in the film take time out of their day to pay close attention to the story as it unfolds.  If anything, the movie nails the fact that once the news cycle is done, people go back to their lives as though nothing has changed.  Perhaps that is the biggest difficulty for change, the short attention span of human beings and the clinging to only what is hot and making current headlines.

Rating - 3 out of 4 stars

REVIEW: Captain America: Civil War

Plot, plot, plot.  Sometimes you never even really notice it as a movies leads you through twists and turns, and other times it can really hurt your head.  When you take a second to think about the plot structure of some films it can be like eating every morsel of chocolate from a Snickers that has sat on the dashboard of your car on a hot and humid July afternoon.  No matter how hard you try, you may not be able to get everything off the wrapper, and you will be making a mess of your hands and mouth.

Captain America: Civil War has both of those.  The film moves at a brisk pace with fun action scenes and entertaining dialogue, but if you dare take pause to dissect the story you will end up with the same frustration as trying to solve a Rubik's Cube in the dark.  We are talking about a scale of convolution that is reminiscent of Skyfall.  But, much like the James Bond blockbuster, there is enough of a flow to the film that can distract you from the reality of what you are watching.

In the movie we find our heroes facing scepticism and outrage over the collateral damage of their crime fighting antics, with the world wanting them to be held accountable.  This is not something too crazy to ask, and the team is divided over whether or not it is a good idea.  Scriptwriters Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely do a great job at allowing the audience to see both sides of the argument, which goes a long way in justifying why rifts begin arising between The Avengers.

When a nefarious plot (enter the convoluted nature of the film) begins unfolding, the divisions grow even more.  Captain America (Chris Evans) does not believe events at face value and feels there must be more to what is happening.  Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) is more hard lined about it all, and the team finds themselves picking sides.  Eventually there is a showdown where many super powers are wielded, and audience members looking for a sensible pee break are out of luck for a good long while.

This division among the superheroes was to me the most entertaining and fascinating aspect of the movie, and I felt that it was handled very well.  The increasing tension and stakes at hand played into it well, and directors Anthony and Joe Russo handle the material with precision.  We find that there are personal reasons for each of the heroes to act and behave in the ways that they do, and nothing really felt forced to me.  This is the hallmark of a great film, when we can connect with differing stances.

Captain America: Civil War also marks the re-launching of the Spider-Man franchise.  He is recruited to assist in the happenings, although (thanks to the convoluted plot) we never really know how Tony Stark is able to figure out that Peter Parker (Tom Holland) is the web slinger.  I was ever sceptical over having yet another Peter Parker on cinema screens, but, and this is confession time, Holland may be my favourite Spider-Man yet.  He was nerdy and insecure without the suit, and overly talkative and happy-go-lucky while in it.  It was a bright and colourful addition to the film, and added a lot of humour.

From a technical standpoint, there is a lot to praise with this film.  The sets looked great, the action sequences were tight and fun to view, and the score went a long way in building the excitement.  While I was a big fan of how it looked, I would have preferred to see it in 2D.  There was not a lot of reason for the 3D screenings in this one, as it did not use the third dimension as a story telling technique, relegating it to the ranks of many other films that seem to do it just because.

With all of the enjoyment, come the end I could not help but realize just how messy that damned Snickers was.  In the final climax that had been masterminded by the villain Zemo (played well by Daniel Bruhl) I could not help but continually think of just how silly it was that the plan worked out and the coincidences that got us there.  I should not have been thinking about it, but there I was with chocolate all over my hands and/or face.  It really was a mess and I found that I could not get into the climax in the way the filmmakers intended me to.

Still, that's not a huge drawback from the film.  The rest of it was golden goodness.  You just really need to shut your brain off to enjoy this movie.  Even with mine working at full speed, it was still well worth the price of admission.

Rating - 3 out of 4 stars

PRE-REVIEW: Batman V Superman - Will It Be Everything That I Have Been Dreading?

Movies like this one don't come along very often.  By saying that, I mean movies that I really don't want to see because I am sure that I will hate it, but at the same time I really want to see it because I am hoping that it will prove me wrong.  There was very little that I liked about Zack Snyder's Man of Steel, and the over bloated cast and run time of Batman V Superman makes me wonder just how coherent the story is going to be.  If we add on the fact that Warner Bros and DC Comics are years behind where Disney and Marvel are in terms of super hero shared universes, this film could be looking to cover too much distance to allow for some catch up.

With all of that in mind, and the fact that I have been having nightmares about watching this movie (this is not a joke or hyperbole.  I have been having literal nightmares.  The most recent one was a few nights ago when I was forced to watch this film), I have decided to write a review of it without having even seen it.  That's right, sight unseen, and a full review.

I will throw out a few disclaimers, however.  After I have seen the movie tonight, I will write another review tomorrow.  This means if I have to eat crow, I will gladly do it.  As I said earlier,  I am hoping to be proven wrong about this movie.  Secondly, I have read no reviews for Batman V Superman.  I have also read no synopsis for it and my only knowledge of the film is what I have seen in the trailers.  I will base my review on what I know of Snyder's film style, the direction that they seem to be taking with this universe from Man of Steel, and what I believe the studio will be attempting to gain from the launch of this film.

So, here goes nothing.  Let's see just how correct I will be with my crystal ball of scepticism.

What can I say that's positive about Batman V Superman?  Well, the fact that it is over and done with is about the best that I can do.  Sure it wasn't all bad, but the fact that I won't have to relieve this over bloated, CGIed beast ever again is the ray of sunlight that never was to be seen in an overly gloomy and grim movie.

When Christopher Nolan made the Dark Knight trilogy, he focused it on being real world and dark.  It was absolutely perfect, considering the fact that Batman exists as an ordinary man (not needing to come from a world where gamma radiation causes appendages to become all elastic and spiders bite people giving them super cooties).  Thus, the real world application works.  He is also a tormented man, and less of a super hero.  He is a vigilante, which means the dark tone allows the character to toss and turn over the lines that should and shouldn't be crossed.  Just because it worked in that wildly successful franchise does not mean that it is the solution for everything.  It worked because it was true to its narrative, and that is why Batman V Superman fails.

There is nothing here that is true to its narrative, because it fails to have a proper and streamlined story.  At its barebones, there is something here that could have resembled a quality film.  The opposites that are the Caped Crusader and the Man of Steel lead to some fascinating quandaries, but the scope of that is lost in the screenplay which wants to be nothing more than a spring board for an entire universe of franchises instead of focusing on the title characters.  The script is messy and jumps around way too often, a bi-product of trying to get people all the way down the list to Aquaman in there.

The really frustrating part of this experience is that Snyder seems to have learned very little from the criticisms that came from Man of Steel.  What that movie missed was heart and personality.  It chose to use CGI massiveness over character.  It also kept actors from being energetic.  How the hell do you have Amy Adams in a movie and her performance come across as bland?  That is a question I will be asking myself for many years, as I never thought that this enchanting talent could ever be forgettable in a role.  Lastly, Man of Steel opted for having a forty minute battle at the end that wasn't used to tell any story, but merely existed to allow buildings to get smashed in enormous ways (which would have killed millions of people in the process, something that Snyder and Superman seemed oblivious to).   'Bigger is better' seemed to be the motto of that film.

Well, here we are almost three years later and very little has changed.  Jesse Eisenberg attempts to bring some personality into his role, but there are few people beyond him that appear to be allowed to attempt such treachery to what should be such a somber film.  Remember, it is all about being gritty and dark.  This leads to a lot of soap opera-ish looks from our on screen talent as they stand under dim lighting.

The special effects do look quite nice at times, but the problem here is that we are exposed to them for way too long.  Snyder once again decides that there must be an exorbitant amount of action, and that it must be big and destructive.  Once again (boy, I am getting tired of saying that), it looses its appeal and effectiveness.  The key is that you don't want sensory adaptation to set in on the audience. You want things to last just long enough to pack the punch and then put them somewhere else.  With Batman V Superman, eventually numbness sets in and each sequence begins feeling like the last.  Buildings are destroyed, civilians must be killed, and there is a complete lack of awareness for the fact that story trumps action.

I bash on it, yes, but it is not the worst movie of the year.  It is simply a movie that is trying to be all things to all people to set up all franchises to make a lot of money.  It is complete studio meddling here, much like what killed Spiderman last go around.  If they kept it as just a story about the two title characters, it would have been a lot more palatable.  You may as well just walk out on the ending.  Spoiler alert, it only functions for the purposes of making more movies, not for satiating the audience.  Oh, and Wonder Woman is barely in the movie.

Rating - 1.5 out of 4 Stars

REVIEW: The Little Prince

I have fond memories of watching the television show of The Little Prince when I was a child.  There is not a lot that I remember about it, other than the fact that it was something that I put time aside for and enjoyed greatly.  It was this childhood energy that got me very excited the first time I saw the trailer for the feature film, and it was the same energy that I took into the theatre with me.  The big question was, could it recreate the magic?

The movie tells the story of The Little Girl (voiced by Mackenzie Foy) who is applying for the Werth Academy, a school that will be the stepping stone to a productive future.  Her mother (Rachel McAdams) will do anything and everything possible to see that it happens.  This includes relocating herself and her daughter to a drab neighbourhood and planning the studious activities that the little girl must spend her summer vacation undertaking.  Even the best laid plans can go awry, as their new house is situated next to that of The Aviator (Jeff Bridges).

The world of The Little Girl is one of structure and routine, the paths and roads that lead to the life of the adult, which is represented by her mother and the dronish lifestyle of the people in her neighbourhood.  Everything is straightedges and muted colours, a drab view on the lack of imagination and fun that can overtake life as one ages.  The house of The Aviator, however, has curves and colours, with many vibrant and happy birds living in the overgrowth of his backyard.

It is the story telling of The Aviator who introduces us to The Little Prince, a story of an encounter that he has written down on paper and shares with The Little Girl.  As the story is told, the movie transforms from digital animation to stop motion that is done in a style to make it look like the pages of the story come alive.  It is incredibly effective in creating that feel, and the narration by Bridges brings me to a spot of sitting on the floor of the library as a child, sitting on the carpeted floor during story time.

This film is incredibly philosophical.  It is not just a story of keeping hold of imagination and joy through the transition to adulthood, but deals with different perspectives that have been laid out by her parents.  It looks at the confinement of the super-structured life that is imposed upon her by her mother, and the confined view of the world that is represented through the symbol of snow globes that she receives yearly from her father for her birthday.  The movie also looks at dealing with loss, dealing with true love, and the importance of friendship.

The strengths of The Little Prince are most notably in the voice acting as well as the quality of the two animation styles.  The combination of the two, in conjunction with the great script from Irena Brignull and Bob Persichetti, make it a heartfelt journey that leaves a lot of introspection for the mature viewer.  The younger audience may still enjoy it, but this film is less about the visceral element that is needed to keep their attention.

Rating - 3.5 out of 4 stars

REVIEW: 10 Cloverfield Lane

For those movie freaks who are hoping for a direct sequel to 2008's Cloverfield, you could be disappointed.  Producer J.J. Abrams has long stated a lack of ambition for creating sequels, but it does not take long in watching 10 Cloverfield Lane to understand why it is that he has returned to this universe.  Instead of working immediately off of the events of the first film, this movie is less of a sibling and more of a doppelgänger.  Well, that may be a little misleading in of itself.  The point is that it is not related, but there are similarities.

The film takes place in an underground shelter that has been created by Howard (John Goodman), who has taken in Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) and Emmett (John Gallagher, Jr.) as the world seems to have come to a brutal end.  There is not a great deal that is explained about Howard, and it is clear right from the start that we should not have the most trust for the man.

The weight of the unease is put on the shoulders of Goodman, who sadly has never been nominated for an Oscar.  You may think that I am silly for putting John Goodman and Oscar in the same sentence, but look far past his films like King Ralph and The Flintstones.   His career in film is full of supporting roles that have been more than worthy of the nod, and this movie is the perfect showcase of that talent.  He brings the tension brilliantly in a way that keeps the audience from never feeling completely settled, expecting that anything could happen at any point in time.

This suspense is played on well through the directing of Dan Trachtenberg.  This is his directorial debut with feature films, but he handles himself well.  There is a real trick to this movie, and that is to make a reveal of aliens far from silly.  It's not a spoiler that there are aliens in the film, it has Cloverfield in the title.  It would be a spoiler if I said there were no aliens in the movie.  It would also be a lie.  It is a tricky thing to transition from the grounded portions of the script to the extra terrestrial, but it is managed well, and the viewer should not be knocked from the flow of the film.

Ultimately it is a movie that focuses on isolation and claustrophobia, unanswered questions and not knowing who to trust.  In a way the feelings that resonated with me were similar to John Carpenter's The Thing, in that there was very little throughout the film that I felt I could believe.  This was what made the experience of 10 Cloverfield Lane a thrilling and entertaining journey, finding out the dangers in the dark at the same time as the main character and bewaring the motivations of Howard at all times.

Rating - 3.5 out of 4 stars

REVIEW: Eddie The Eagle

Eddie the Eagle took centre stage at the Calgary Olympics in 1988, not to fly the farthest, but to merely compete.  And that, in a nutshell, is the same feeling that one could get from the recently released biopic, Eddie the Eagle.  This film, directed by Dexter Flesher, is no champion amongst other sports films.  It bobs and weaves to all of the familiar beats, with a script that fits in almost every cliche of the genre.

However, it did leave me smiling at the end.  We get a very honest performance from Taron Egerton, whom,  I am assuming from his ripped physique in Kinsmen: The Secret Service, added on a few pounds to get the proper shape of the title character.  Egerton works for nuance with the character, and it goes over well for the most part.  Unfortunately, it is the script that keeps a lot of what Egerton is doing at the surface level.  There are very few glimpses of anything more than an unending spring of optimism, and, especially given the skills of Egerton, making Edwards feel more realistic would have gone a long way in creating a protagonist that there could be more connection with.

While the movie unfolds, there are many moments where it is easily spotted that reality must have been deviated from as it is over reliant on cliches of sports dramas.  One of the most atrocious offenders is the over-done person who is out of the game and doesn't want any part of it, only to be sucked in by the personality and the ambition of the hero.  This role is played by Hugh Jackman, an alcoholic former ski jumper who wants nothing to do with the sport, and especially nothing to do with training Eddie Edwards.  But, wouldn't you know, he is finally brought out of retirement to help the underdog pursue his dreams, the whole while battling his own inner demons.

Along the way, there are plenty of doubters and haters that Edwards has to deal with.  These are the most cartoonish elements of the film, as any antagonistic character is as thin as a playing card and as ridiculous as the rendering of the king or queen that inhabits it.  There are plenty of straight edged suits and snide ski jumpers who will mock Edwards and attempt to discourage him along the way.  I understand that you need some tension in a film, but let's not have it come from the sports film equivalent of a Bond villain in a ski jumping unitard.

It can be a mess at times that you swear you have seen many times before.  And you probably have.  Luckily there is the fun and vibrant score from Matthew Margeson.  It focuses on using instrumental elements from the 1980s while still having a modern touch to it.  It is probably the most unrestrained aspect of the movie, and does well to add to those moments when we are to cheer for The Eagle.

I did mention previously that it left me smiling at the end, but the journey to get there was not a smooth one.  There was a lot of fractured narrative that got spoiled by the script just blazing along to portray a typical underdog story with everything that has been used in the past.  The script, and the director's adherence to it, feels like the ultimate issue in Eddie the Eagle.  Cliche can work in a sports film, as we saw in Creed.  There just needs to be a personalized energy to it, and Eddie the Eagle had little of that.

Rating - 2 out of 4 stars