Finding the Flaws in FINDING DORY - A Kinda-Sorta Review

SPOILERS FOR "FINDING DORY," OBVIOUSLY, SO DON'T READ UNLESS YOU'VE SEEN THE MOVIE

Before I go any further, I want to admit that I absolutely cried multiple times during Finding Dory. The show was on its first Friday night and the theater was jam packed with not just children, but people my age who experienced Finding Nemo in theaters. 

I genuinely enjoyed Finding Dory. It's Pixar's best sequel since Toy Story 3... even though that's not saying much, given Pixar's fairly recent foray into unnecessary sequel territory with mixed results. Any questions we had about Dory from Nemo are satisfyingly answered in typical crying-your-eyes-out Pixar fashion. 

The literal instant the opening shot lit up the screen, the audience gasped. Tiny, baby Dory. Super adorable, right? As the scene progresses, we can see that Dory was born with short-term memory loss, but her parents were not. As the story progresses, we are treated to brief yet vital flashbacks, memories locked deep within Dory's subconscious. 

In one of these flashbacks, Dory's parents are holding a private discussion as to whether they think Dory can survive on her own when she grows up. For parents with mentally and physically disabled children, this is a real concern. And this is what makes their reunion going into the final act of the film so rewarding. We also learn that Marlin is still constantly frustrated with Dory's inability to remember, and by the end of the film, he's learned that thinking like Dory isn't such a bad thing. Marlin has a fully developed brand new arc that, while touched on in the first movie, feels completely new given the emphasis on Dory. 

Okay, so long story short, Finding Dory is about overcoming disabilities of all sorts and accepting those who may struggle. Much like almost every Pixar film, it's a highly positive message for not just children, but adults as well. I learned a thing or two about overcoming anxiety from last year's Inside Out, and I've been struggling with that for over a decade. 

So what's the problem? Well, there are a couple of scenes in particular, both including a pair of sea lions voiced by Idris Elba and Dominic West. These sea lions lay on a rock and don't do much... other than yell at a third sea lion to stay the hell off their rock. They provide a few (admittedly stellar) laughs while helping out Nemo and Marlin. The third sea lion in question looks ridiculous with his thick, crooked unibrow and what are basically googly eyes. He literally doesn't do anything other than try to get on that fucking rock, but is excluded by the other sea lions. 

So... doesn't that kind of defeat the whole message of the movie? If accepting differences in others is the central theme of the film, then why the fuck didn't they let him on the goddamn rock? Shit, even seeing him accepted onto the rock WITH HIS FRIENDS at the end of the movie would've been better than what we got. Even Ed the hyena from The Lion King was accepted by the others, even though he was just comedic relief. 

I was really loving the shit out of Finding Dory until this came up. I admit that I laughed quite a bit, as did just about everyone else. It's funny, but after the laughter died down, part of me felt uncomfortable laughing at this poor sea lion who, like Dory, just wanted to be accepted. The filmmakers threw in a cheap joke at the expense of the theme. What the fuck were they thinking?

My other, less important gripe with the film: the ending. Not the tail end of the movie when they're back home, but right before that with the truck. You remember, because how could you forget?

It seemed to me that the filmmakers kept digging themselves into this situational hole. One thing after the next goes wrong, but after a certain point it just has to end. The entire sequence with the truck on the highway felt so cartoonish, so unimportant, that I was convinced I was watching a subpar Dreamworks movie. It was such a grand spectacle that unfolded like children playing with their toys. Not since Cars 2 have I seen such an un-Pixar sequence in a Pixar movie. 

In fact, much of the story in Finding Dory jumped over some logic boundaries. I don't call this kind of stuff out much, but it was jarring for a Pixar film. Marlin "knows a guy" who can get them to California, but how did he find Crush if he had been surfing the currents? How did Dory and Hank get into that stroller undetected? It's little things like this, small gaps in logic and time, that really took me out of the movie. Small gripes like these are dismissive coming from just about any studio, but I do expect more from Pixar. It's just not like them to have these small gaps. 

At this point I'm just nitpicking. 

Really, though, I did love Finding Dory. If these gripes, the sea lions and the truck sequence, had been reworked, I would call it one of Pixar's best. 

Instead it just made me cry a few times. 

Even though this isn't an official review, I'm giving a little score anyway, in case you were wondering. 9.2/10 is still pretty damn good. 

BATMAN VS SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE - Review

Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice

Comic book/Superhero, 2016
2 hours 31 minutes

Directed by Zack Snyder

Rated PG-13 for "intense sequences of violence and action throughout, and some sensuality"

Starring
Henry Cavill
Ben Affleck
Jesse Eiseneberg
Amy Adams
Holly Hunter
Gal Gadot

I wanted to like Batman vs Superman. Why wouldn’t I? For several years, I have been reading both of their stories and I have nothing but respect for both characters. Even though I didn’t like Man of Steel (and my frustration for the film has only grown over the years), I had a little bit of hope that this movie would right the wrongs of the past. 

After seeing the trailers for the film, my predictions were as follows: Messy plot, overdone philosophical debate about the role of heroes in society, and nonstop action in the final act. It didn't help that the second trailer gave away the whole story.

What I got was worse. 

Before I get into the heavy stuff, I need to explain something about myself. I know I’ve been doing this critic thing for a few years. But the fanboys are going nuts, getting angry at film critics for simply voicing their negative opinion of the film. Now, I assume that most of the critics have no understanding of these characters. They don’t understand the Justice League teases like comic book fans would, so their views might be skewed. They’re looking at the film from a perspective of, “oh, ANOTHER comic book movie. Let’s see what kind of mess we’re in for this time,” instead of, “I hope this has some sweet references and cool homages to the comics!” 

I’m coming to you from the perspective of the latter. So let’s start with the good. 

There are some nice visual homages to the comics, a few great ones from The Dark Knight Returns (in which Batman and Superman fight in the final act). It’s cool to see that in any comic book movie, but it’s the one thing Batman vs Superman does well. There's also a single, truly great Batman fight that comes towards the end of the film (where Superman is not involved). It was featured in one of the trailers and the whole experience is about as Batman as it could be. Instead of the stiff, realistic martial arts used in Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy, Batffleck uses a multitude of gadgets and soars across the room with comic book-esque fighting moves, like something out of the Arkham video game series. It’s really awesome, and I wouldn’t mind seeing a movie filled with more of that. 

You’re probably wondering, what exactly is WRONG with Batman vs Superman? To be perfectly frank, most of it. On a pure filmic level, the entire production is a mess. The first two acts are a jumble of different storylines, most of which serve nothing for the plot. 

Bruce Wayne is attempting to hunt down a criminal we have no reason to care about. Clark Kent is at odds with the government after the destruction of Metropolis in Man of Steel. Lex Luthor is up to something, but again, there's no reason for us to care. Wonder Woman is up to something, but we don’t know what and there is no reason to care other than that we know she is Wonder Woman. Even the intro to the Justice League is presented as a giant piece of exposition dropped like a big turd, serving no other purpose other than set up for the next film. 

This is the perfect example of a movie that was written backwards. The title of the movie itself says enough: Batman vs Superman means the two heroes are going to battle for some reason or another. How does Snyder get them there? Well, he's got a few characters to play a part in a grand scheme which adds up to a bunch of characters doing rather unnecessary work. The final 45 minutes is the culmination of these threads, yet only a couple of them actually matter. 

As soon as one scene from one story ends, a different scene from the next story picks up. It's too chaotic. Nothing leads to the next thing, and there are frequent black outs that fade into the next scene, as though the editor has no understanding of how to cut scenes together. Never before has a superhero film been less focused. 

The visual effects and score are even noticeably worse than the editing. The visual effects, especially during the final 45 minutes, are as bad as a $250 million budget can afford. I guess that's saying something. Much like Interstellar Hans Zimmer fell asleep on his organ once again, and not even Junkie XL (who scored Deadpool) could save him. 

Marketing is somewhat to blame for the failure of the film. In the second trailer we are given quite a bit to dissect, including much of the Batman and Superman fight, Wonder Woman and Doomsday. Here’s the problem: that’s actually the whole movie. If you think this is anything other than Batman and Superman and Wonder Woman teaming up to fight Doomsday (who is so clearly created by Lex Luthor using the remains of Zod) then you are sadly mistaken. Even the "money shots" from the trailer are the same ones they use in the movie, so Wonder Woman's first on screen appearance is identical to what's in the trailer. 

Everything above this point, is my perspective as a critic. This next bit is my perspective as a comic book fan. 

My biggest problem with the movie is the director, Zack Snyder. At one point I was convinced he was a good choice for this project. Man of Steel looked cool until I was in the theater. I thought maybe Batman vs Superman will redeem him. The trailer only confirmed my suspicions. Looks like more of the same. It’s dark and unnecessarily gritty. 

Then I started reading the interviews. 

Holy mother of God, Snyder is one dumb fuck. The incompetence this man has, not just as a filmmaker, but a so-called “fan” of Superman, is astounding. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Snyder said, “I was surprised with the fervency of the defense of the concept of Superman... I feel like they were taking it personally that I was trying to grow up their character.” If Snyder were an actual "student of Superman," as the article puts it, he would know that Superman doesn't need growing up. Batman changed radically once Frank Miller got his mitts on him in the 80s, and that shook up his status quo. The Dark Knight Trilogy works because Batman is allowed to be grown up, to be dark. Regarding Batman's killing spree, I lost track of the body count fairly quickly. He doesn't only blow stuff up, he uses actual machine guns on his enemies. 

But, to be fair, Snyder has gone on record, saying, "A little more like manslaughter than murder, although I would say that in the Frank Miller comic book that I reference, he kills all the time."

You sure about that, Zack? 

From Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns

Although Snyder fucks up Batman, he does give the character a good reason to dislike Superman: He fucked up Metropolis and now we've got a God living among us. That's fine, but I'm not as concerned with Batman's motives.

And then there's Lex Luthor, or more specifically, Jesse Eisenberg's portrayal.

My favorite image of Luthor and Superman is one that has been seen dozens of times in dozens of comics. Luthor stands facing the floor-to-ceiling windows of his immense office, gazing out on Metropolis... and Superman, who is floating just on the other side of the window. Two of the most powerful men on the earth... Luthor, with his intellect, wealth, and arrogance. Superman with his brawn, compassion, and determination to do good. Where was THAT in Dawn of Justice?

Here's the Lex Luthor I know. This quote is taken from Luthor, speaking to Clark Kent (from Superman: American Alien #4, written by Max Landis):  

"People aren't important. Not as a whole. But everyone runs around like they've got a big S on their chest for 'special,' but the actual gift of genius, of work ethic, of aspiration, is rarer than a white tiger. Thats' why you see people throughout history rising above the masses. Those are the changers. Those are the doers. You are not important. You're not. I am... I am one of the chosen few not because someone was nice enough to murder my parents, or because mommy birthed me onto a throne - but because I am truly, actually, indisputably exceptional. I did this all myself, from day one, and that's not braggadocio - that's an empirical fact."

This has been at the core of my favorite interpretation of the character. He has changed over the decades, yes, but he's always been a brilliant and ingenious super villain. Did you get any of this from Eisenberg's performance? Did he come off as being intelligent? There was barely any conflict between the two adversaries. For months, Jesse Eisenberg has been hyping up not just the movie, but his own performance. In one interview (which I'm having trouble finding) he said he had one particular scene which was one of his crowning achievements. I assume he was referencing the remarkably erotic scene in which he force-feeds another man a Jolly Rancher simply because "It's cherry." Luthor was literally just a prop to create Doomsday and to set the stage for the Fight of the Century.

And THEN there's Superman himself.

I can't remember the last time I've seen such a depressed looking Superman. Most of the time, he doesn't even look like he wants to be saving anyone. This is most likely due to Cavill's dull performance. Can't hurt for Superman to smile once in a while, you know? There's no sense of wonder or fun in this movie, heaven forbid Superman cracks a joke once in a while. Even Clark Kent, now a Daily Planet journalist, has nothing to do but brood over nothing. The relationship between him and Lois is nonexistent with the exception of Zack Snyder's idea of a date, which is hopping into the bathtub while still wearing clothes. Superman might represent the cynisism of the modern world, but Jesus fucking Christ, that makes for one God-awfully boring and uninspired movie. When you want to make your superheroes realistic, don't make them assholes who don't even seem to want to do the job they volunteered for.

Snyder has repeatedly referenced Watchmen in regards to having similar themes. He isn't wrong. Watchmen, Man of Steel and now Batman vs Superman all deal with the complex and philosophical issues of heroism and vigilantism in society. After three films of asking the same rhetorical questions, Snyder has yet to find a suitable answer. The second season of Daredevil (specifically episode three) did the conversation better, and in a single hour of television. There's no doubt that Justice League will continue to explore these same themes.

The big argument for this that I've seen so far is that it's a different interpretation. It's a valid argument. So why didn't Warner Bros decide to adapt Superman: Red Son, in which Superman's ship crash lands in the Soviet Union instead of Smallville Kansas? THAT is a different take on the hero. THAT is something different. Soviet Batman is significantly different in THAT because he's a fucking Russian (at least, I think he's a Russian. Either way, it's a different take on Batman) with different ideals. However, when spending millions of dollars to bring 75 year old characters (which are so engrained in popular culture) to the big screen and wide audiences, there's a limit to how much you can change the characters without upsetting those who care more about the characters than the general masses. Batman and Superman used to kill in their infancy (Batman even carried a gun for a brief time), but they've both grown up so much that most people forget. They are known today as guardians of peace and justice who do not kill, and I believe their creators would be proud of how they have evolved over the decades. 

If the core of the characters don't remain in tact, then is it really a story about them?

I think this may be the first time I have been unable to understand the opinion of the other side. I don’t understand. I really, truly don’t understand how anyone can like this movie. There are certain movies that others like that I don't and I can understand why. This, though… I don’t get it. Is there something I’m missing? Movies are supposed to be for entertainment, but isn’t there a line? 

When the cast says "the movie is for the fans, not the critics," it's because they know it's a lost cause. Jesus, that's not even a fair thing to say, and that's coming from a fan AND critic! At the end of the day, no matter how good or bad a movie is, it's subject to the same scrutiny as any other. Those involved in production have put their heart into this movie, but that doesn't mean it will be well received. They made a bad movie, pure and simple.


For many, Dawn of Justice is a dream come true. Assembling the dream team is something I've always wanted to see, and their spats throughout comic history never cease to entertain. But this is not my Batman. This is not my Superman. The Batman I know and trust doesn't commit murder or manslaughter. The Superman I know would never have let Zod level Metropolis. The Lois Lane I know is not incompetent at the moment of truth. The Lex Luthor I know actually despises Superman for reasons other than the advancement of the plot. Hell, even the Jimmy Olsen I know isn't a goddamn undercover agent.

Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice is an insult to superhero and comic book movies. It's an insult to the moviegoers and the comic book readers. It is an insult to every genre it falls under. I cannot remember the last time I watched a comic book movie this horrific. Perhaps if I were not a fan nor a critic, I would think otherwise. But as both, I have to say this film is among the worst of the genre that I have ever seen. We live in a world where Man of Steel is "the good one."

Why is it Batman VS Superman?
Why not Batman AND Superman?

THE HATEFUL EIGHT - Review

The Hateful Eight

Western, 2015
3 hours, 7 minutes (70mm Roadshow Cut)

Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino

Rated R for "strong bloody violence, a scene of violent sexual content, language and some graphic nudity"

Starring
Samuel L. Jackson
Kurt Russell
Jennifer Jason Leigh
Walton Goggins
Tim Roth
Bruce Dern
Demian Bichir
Michael Madsen

"Looks like Minnie's Haberdashery is about to get cozy for the next few days."

This movie almost didn't happen. To recap: A couple of years back, the script, which was sent to some Hollywood executives, was leaked onto the internet. Tarantino was furious and refused to make the film. However, after one critically acclaimed live reading featuring several of his regular cast members, he decided to make the picture. Thank God he did. 

Tarantino's latest yarn is set in Wyoming, many years after the Civil War. A blizzard is approaching quickly, and eight strangers on their way to the town of Red Rock find themselves trapped at an inn called Minnie's Haberdashery. No one is quite who they seem to be, and naturally violence and insanity ensue. 

Oddly enough, The Hateful Eight might be the most Tarantino-esque movie he's released since Pulp Fiction. While the 1994 classic was only the director's second (and still, arguably, his most popular) film, he has come a long way since then. Don't worry; it still has excessive swearing, violence and gore. In fact, the special effects guys get second billing.

The acting from all eight central characters is worthy of Academy Awards, and that's not something I say lightly. Samuel L. Jackson, who has appeared in almost every Tarantino movie (his cameos in Kill Bill and Inglorious Basterds do count), is given a meaty lead role. Kurt Russell and his killer mustache do a fantastic John Wayne impression. Walton Goggins and Jennifer Jason Leigh are also outstanding and deserve a heaping amount of credit for their work. Aside from the cast,  the dialogue is as sharp as a Hattori Hanzō sword. The film is expertly paced, the three hours going by faster than a jack rabbit. 

And all of this takes place inside one little old haberdashery. Don't let the single location turn you away; this is filmmaking and storytelling at its absolute finest. 

The big question right now is why this movie gets a perfect score. Well, honestly, I loved every sick and twisted second, nary an issue or gripe in sight. I expected to enjoy it, but I didn't expect to fall in love with what I think may be a master filmmaker's finest picture to date. Usually I like to give movies a day or two, maybe a second viewing. But, like last year's Whiplash, I just have a good feeling, that kind of feeling I can't shake off. 

The film can be seen right now during the 70mm Roadshow run, which presents the film with an overture and intermission. It is only playing in three Chicago theaters, but will expand to a wide, digital release in a week or two. The cinematography is absolutely gorgeous. The interior shots are just as breathtaking as the exteriors and the detail of the film is unparalleled with perhaps the exception of 70mm IMAX. Most movies nowadays are show in an aspect ratio of either 1.85 or 2.39, but The Hateful Eight is shown in a wide 2.76. Talk about wide.

This is only the second film that I have guaranteed a spot on my Top 10 of 2015 list.

10/10

STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS - Spoiler Free Review (Finally)

Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens

Sci-Fi/Action Adventure, 2015
2 hours, 15 minutes

Written by JJ Abrams, Lawrence Kasdan and Michael Arndt
Directed by JJ Abrams

Rated PG-13 for "sci-fi action violence"

Starring
Daisy Ridley
John Boyega
Oscar Isaac
Harrison Ford
Carrie Fisher
Mark Hamill
Lupita Nyong'o
Andy Serkis
Domhnall Gleeson
Anthony Daniels
Peter Mayhew

"That's not how the Force works!"

I love the phrase "the magic of movies." It's old and cliche, but I believe in that magic. Over a year ago, when the first Star Wars trailer dropped, I cried when the Falcon appeared. The trailers after that made my heart soar like an X-Wing through space, especially the last one that was released about two months ago. The hype surrounding the film can be overwhelming and the expectations are massive. 

A majority of the film left me speechless. The latest episode in the Star Wars saga was hugely satisfying and did not disappoint. Oh my God. It was so much fun. 

Sure, there are issues. Enough to discuss, but not enough to hate on. It's easy to nit-pick and it can be fun, especially with a movie of this scale and legacy. 

Humor comes from several unexpected places. Look closely and you'll find tons of easter eggs from the old trilogy. Several of the jokes are little throwbacks as well. There are a few new and badass Force moves we've never seen before. The dogfights are gorgeous and spectacular. The lightsaber fights are gripping and intense as they can possibly be. 

It's so hard to describe my feelings about a movie like this. From the moment the LucasFilm logo shimmered on screen to the final wipe to the credits (with the original score, obviously), I was so enthralled by the magic, the nostalgia, the Force. 

So go and see The Force Awakens. Hell, go and see it twice. I know I will. There's no better feeling than when a movie lives up to the hype-Falcon (no, not hype-train).

I'm trying to be spoiler-free right now, and just coming off of my first impression, this is my score. After seeing it at least one more time and letting it sit, I'll write a more detailed review filled with my full thoughts and feelings. For now, I'm just enjoying the high. 

9.6/10

SPECTRE - SPOILER FILLED Review

Spectre

Action/Adventure, 2015
2 hours, 28 minutes

Written by John Logan, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Jez Butterworth
Directed by Sam Mendes
Rated PG-13 for "intense sequences of action and violence, some disturbing images sensuality and language"

Starring
Daniel Craig
Christoph Waltz
Ralph Finnes
Léa Seydoux
Dave Bautista
Ben Whishaw
Andrew Scott
Monica Bellucci
Naomie Harris

SPOILERS AHEAD - YOU'VE BEEN WARNED

Over the last couple of weeks, the one movie that seems to come up more than anything else is Spectre, the new James Bond film. Because I am becoming increasingly annoyed with the discussion, I'm going to write a damn review, since ya'll are basically asking for one. 

The story is as follows: A bad guy does some stuff and Bond has to go and stop them... Okay, I don't totally remember the entire plot because there's two and a half hours of stuff going on. Basically, Bond is trying to learn what he can about an evil organization named Spectre. Back in London, a guy with the codename C is developing a global surveillance program that will halt the need for a "00" program, for whom Bond works for. Obviously the two are related. 

Admittedly, I didn't hate Spectre. Hate is a strong word. Although I found several problems, I didn't shake my head in disgust as I watched, but I wasn't too impressed. Coming off of my favorite Bond film, Skyfall, I had my expectations pretty low. Unfortunately, there was enough wrong that pissed me right off. 

The one thing I LOVED about the movie was Mr. Hinx, played by Dave Bautista of Guardians of the Galaxy fame. It's a great throwback to the silent, muscle-bound henchmen of the Connery and Moore days. His battles with Bond are exceptional and exciting, even if they defy the laws of physics. It's a damn shame he's killed halfway through the film, and as such is underutilized. 

Hinx may have just been a pawn; the king is Franz Oberhauser, played by the immaculate Christoph Waltz, who is just as good as you would expect him to be. He is later revealed to actually be Blofeld, the most iconic villain in the history of James Bond. Bond fanatics had a hunch that this was happening, considering Blofeld was the head of Spectre in the old films. The surprise here was how poorly it was handled. Yes, he gets the scar on his face with the glassy eyeball and he's got the cat, but that's as far as it goes. Oberhauser is played up as someone from Bond's past who has organized everything in Craig's past movies: Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and Skyfall. It's a cool idea and mostly works, considering Spectre is a huge villain organization... However, it lacks almost all of the impact it should have had. Remember when Bond villains wanted to blow up the moon or some other crazy shit? Whatever happened to that? I guess the Brosnan movies ruined the far-fetched plans like that since everyone wants a "serious" Bond movie now. Blofeld's intentions are to get the surveillance program in development by C, but that's all. Yes, the implications of that goal are horrific, but not enough to sustain the movie. Oh, and Blofeld doesn't know how to torture for shit. The scene is fairly painful to watch, but he gets back up after all of that shit and easily dispatches all of the bad guys around him and blows up the place like the last 10 minutes didn't happen. What a waste. 

It wouldn't be a Bond movie without gorgeous women. There are two in this one: Monica Bellucci and Léa Seydoux. One is an older Italian bombshell while the other is a young and generically sexy French blonde. Unfortunately, Bellucci is barely in the movie and Seydoux is the actual love interest. This sucks because when Seydoux says something like, "I love you, James," my first thought is, "No you fucking don't." When that's the immediate response, that's a problem. And it's not like her saying it and he's against it, and their relationship is in trouble or some rom-com crap like that. The interaction isn't believable at all, yet it carries throughout the film. 

Surprisingly, Bond's talented backup team plays a significant role in the film. Ralph Finnes, who plays the new M, has a weighty role (much like Judi Dench's M in Skyfall). Mendes definitely utilizes the supporting cast of good guys, and even if what they're doing is kind of lame, it's still immensely enjoyable watching him run around and doing action things. 

For all of it's shortcomings, Spectre isn't the worst Bond movie out there. It's a fun homage to the Bond films of old and it's a decent sendoff for Craig if he chooses not to return. All four of his films are intimately interwoven, unlike most of the other movies. I was hopeful that the return of Sam Mendes would make for another great outing, but the directing is much less inspired than Skyfall. He seemed to show up, do the work and pick up his check. Most of the other people probably did the same. Oh well. At least the movie is watchable. 

6/10

STEVE JOBS - Review

Steve Jobs

Biographical Drama, 2015
2 hours, 2 minutes

Screenplay by Aaron Sorkin
Directed by Danny Boyle
Based on the book Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson
Rated R for "language"

Starring
Michael Fassbender
Kate Winslet
Jeff Daniels
Seth Rogen
Michael Stuhlbarg
Katherine Waterston

"Coach lands on the runway at the exact same time as first class."

You can put any actor in a movie and people will be skeptical. Michael Fassbender as one of the biggest tech giants in history? Could work. Seth Rogen as the real brains behind the computer? Um... Maybe? Throw in Kate Winslet and Jeff Daniels and you've got a stellar cast. What about a director... How about Danny Boyle? He's a bit of an odd-ball, but he's won some Oscars and we like him, right? Yeah, that works. But I'm still unsure. And THEN you find out the movie is being written by none other than Aaron Sorkin, and now you've got a fuckin' movie. And what a fuckin' movie it is.

Sorkin has taken a different approach to Jobs' story. The film takes place in three distinct time periods: 1984, 1988, and 1998. Everything happens in real time, and it all occurs backstage, mere moments before Jobs introduces the next big thing to the world. Jobs is faced with tech demo problems, past demons, and irate superiors, and his daughter, who is the real crux of the story. It is far from a straightforward biopic, but this picture is more of a character study than anything else. 

Everyone is already comparing Steve Jobs to Sorkin's The Social Network, considering they're both loosely based on prolific tech billionaires with massive egos. It's a reasonable question, but they are different beasts. The Social Network was focused mainly on Zukerberg's ego blinding him from building a company from the ground up and the roadblocks in the way. Steve Jobs, on the other hand, focuses on the man's demons and personal problems first. Yes, he is obsessed with his products, believing they are just as significant as the Allies winning World War II. Steve Jobs has a much different ending as well, which was almost perfect... But it lingered for just a minute or two too long for my taste, and it shapes how Jobs is ultimately perceived, which clashes with how the film portrays him throughout the two hours. 

I've mentioned Aaron Sorkin several times because he's the real mastermind behind the film. Danny Boyle did a stellar job taking on his script, just as good as Fincher did on The Social Network. Boyle's direction only stands out in a few key moments, utilizing some Dutch angles and tight editing. The rest is all for Sorkin, and his sharp and witty dialogue is as brilliant as it has always been. Characters have distinct voices, all managing to keep up with one another in the chaotic world Sorkin has created. 

Anyone can write a good script (in Sorkin's case, a truly great script), but it takes actors to bring it to life. Skeptics need no longer be skeptic: Fassbender completely delivers on virtually every level. He's ruthless, genius, and a jackass. Winslet, who plays Joanna Hoffman, his "work wife" and close confidant, is the only person who can penetrate her boss' cold exterior. Rogen is incredibly sympathetic as Steve Wozniak, an old friend of Steve's and original engineer and designer on the early Apple computers. He has maybe three scenes total, and watching Jobs shut him down repeatedly is heartbreaking. Rogen could actually get an Oscar nomination this year. 

Now, most people who want a biopic will be sorely disappointed. Considering it only takes place in three parts, much of the history is condensed into these moments. It's obvious that not all of this drama happened as is, and there is questions regarding the validity and intent of actions of certain characters. Was Jobs the jackass that he is portrayed as? Maybe. There was similar controversy regarding The Social Network. If you really can't get past the historical inaccuracies, you might not like the film. 

Steve Jobs, at its core, isn't even about the technology. It's the story of how Jobs failed to connect with his daughter, Lisa. She is well played by all three actresses and she helps Steve change throughout the film. She starts off as a cute little kid who doesn't know any better, but grows to resent her father for being, well, Steve Jobs, and even she must find some solace with her father. It's a touching story for the two of them, and it's a welcome surprise. 

Those looking for a definitive biopic of Steve Jobs may as well watch the Ashton Kutcher film from a couple years back. I've heard many audience members disliked it because of what they expected, which is a shame, because Steve Jobs is definitely one of my favorite movies this year. It's expertly crafted, tightly written, and impeccably performed. Just go into it knowing what you're paying for.

9.5/10

Fun Fact: One page in a screenplay is (roughly) the equivalent to one minute of screen time. The runtime for the film is 123 minutes, but the screenplay is... 177 pages. Pages and pages of dialogue... And it truly is brilliant. 

THE WALK - Review

The Walk

Biopic, 2015
2 hours, 3 minutes
Screenplay by Robert Zemeckis & Christopher Browne
Directed by Robert Zemeckis
Based on the book To Reach the Clouds by Philipe Petit
Rated PG for "thematic elements involving perilous situations, and for some nudity, language, brief drug references and smoking"

Starring
Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Charlotte Le Bon
Ben Kingsley
James Badge-Dale
Ben Schwartz
Steve Valentine

"The carrots are cooked!"

I'm gonna keep this one short and sweet.

The Walk is based on the story of Philippe Petit, a French wire-walker who dreams of one day performing on a wire strung between the Twin Towers in New York City. Doing this, however, is incredibly illegal. So he and a rag-tag team of misfits go and do a bunch of illegal stuff to make it happen.

That's the gist of the film. It's also the gist of the masterful documentary Man on Wire, which won the Oscar for Best Documentary in 2008. It's almost impossible not to compare the two films. Even though The Walk gets most of the story beats right, including a few dramatized and probably fictional events, it has one key flaw: it's not inspiring.

When I saw Man on Wire, and every time since seeing it, inspiration strikes. It's the kind of movie that makes me want to go and do something with my life. I've thought to myself, if a man can walk between two towers on a wire over 400 feet above the ground, then I can do... well, I can do anything. The man accomplished his dream, and his dream was unbelievable in scope. It was an impossible dream. The story itself is inspiring, but Zemeckis turns Petit's story into a flat two hours.

The wire-walk itself (which is actually GREAT in 3D) is drawn out. The effect loses its appeal quickly, despite being a cool visual effect. There are moments with very little tension. Petit's narration (which is sometimes treated like an awkward talking head) interrupts the otherwise suspenseful moments.

Other than the somewhat dull wire-walk itself, the worst part of the movie (by far) is Petit's voiceover. They have him standing on the Statue of Liberty with the towers and the New York skyline behind him while he speaks charismatically to the audience. It's an okay way to start the film, but it quickly becomes a nuisance when they repeatedly cut back and forth from the action to his talking head. The talking head even interrupts during the most suspenseful moments, explaining every thought that crosses through his mind. This was something Man on Wire was able to get away with, because Petit tells the entire story verbally, and more is told than shown.

The real Philippe Petit on August 7th, 1974, before walking the wire.

Honestly, it's just boring. The storytelling in Man on Wire is actually suspenseful when narrated by Petit himself, and there's no more Hollywood flair or visual effects than there have to be.

It's not all bad. JGL's performance is strong, as he matches Petit's charisma with a decent French accent... But he fails to help the audience understand exactly why he needs to accomplish his dream and what it means to him. Ben Kingsley shows up for a bit, but doesn't do much other than have an untraceable accent.

To explain just exactly how I feel about this film, I want to quote a good friend of mine (he's a stellar filmmaker, too), Matthew Sadowski:

"So you're saying that if offered to see "The Walk", we should walk? Take a hike to "A Walk in the Woods" instead? Or go rent "Walk the Line"? Heck, maybe I'd get "Walking Tall" if I'm at the video store anyway. You don't want to spend too much time there; you just end up stumbling around like "The Walking Dead." Spend too much time there, the staff gets angry and calls security. Get pissy and they could take you on "A Walk Among the Tombstones." That would make it "A Walk to Remember."

The Walk: 5/10

Man on Wire: 10/10

Seriously. Watch the fucking documentary!

THE MARTIAN - Review

Hey everyone! It's now October, so you know what that means... AWARDS SEASON IS FINALLY UPON US! Well, it's been here for the last couple weeks or so, but with The Martian and a few other big movies coming out this week, it finally feels like we're getting in the swing of things. Since there are a lot of films coming out, there's going to be a lot more double feature reviews and maybe some that are missing. I wanted to write a review for Sicario, as it's easily one of my favorites this year. Absolutely worth seeing, it's a tremendous thriller and one of Benicio Del Toro's best roles. 

I've got a lot on my plate in the next few weeks, so I might condense some of my reviews and do more shorter ones than fewer long ones. We'll see how it works out. 

Anyway, I whipped this one up for you pretty quickly while I had some downtime. I know a lot of people are really into this movie, and I was too. 

=======================================================================

The Martian


Sci-fi, 2015
2 hours, 21 minutes
Screenplay by Drew Goddard
Directed by Ridley Scott
Based on the novel The Martian by Andy Weir
Rated PG-13 for "some strong images, injury images, and brief nudity"

Starring
Matt Damon
Jeff Daniels
Chiwetel Ejiofor
Jessica Chastain
Michael Peña
Benedict Wong
Kate Mara
Sean Bean
Sebastian Stan
Aksel Hennie
Kristen Wiig

"...Fuck..."

The past three years have brought us three high-concept, huge budget space movies. Gravity was the first, brought to us in 2013. Last year brought us Interstellar, and now, The Martian. All three films were critically acclaimed Oscar bait, using A-list stars and directors to create epic and intimate films about the dangers of outer space. However, Gravity disregarded actual gravity (and you can disregard my old review of that one), Interstellar was a pretentious and somewhat boring waste of time. The Martian, on the other hand, is a finely tuned story that succeeds on every level. 

The crew of the Ares III is on Mars. Their mission is compromised after 19 days by a dust storm. The entire crew manages to escape safely with the exception of Mark Watney (Matt Damon) who is swept away by a piece of debris and shrouded by the sandstorm. He awakes the next day and must "science the shit" out of what he has in order to survive and make contact with NASA to tell them he is alive and well. Back on Earth, NASA struggles to find a way to safely secure Watney's return. 

It's a fairly simple premise that provides tremendous conflict. Thankfully, screenwriter Drew Goddard managed to make it simple. The story has a huge amount of science involved, which is, to my knowledge, accurate. Better yet, the complexities are explained in the simplest ways possible. For example, Watney needs to grow food. He explains it in detail to his video logs, but it is complemented by tightly edited visuals that help the audience understand what he's doing. The complex science is made simple enough using tightly written dialogue which is never overly expositional because it is all relevant to Watney's survival. Everything, no matter how uninteresting, is do or die. The showing is much more effective than the telling. 

The Martian does a great job of balancing multiple storylines. Between Watney's trials on Mars, NASA's struggle to get him home, and the Ares III's desire to rescue their friend, the story is tightly written. Watney may disappear for a small chunk of time in the second act, but everything going on in every region of the story is riveting, and surprisingly, the lighthearted yet gripping tone is consistent. Watney, in particular, has a sense of humor about his situation. When he is down to meager rations of potatoes, he crushes up an Ambien and dips the potato in it, telling the video log, "I ran out of ketchup seven days ago." The humor remains consistent throughout, but it's not overbearing. Just enough to keep up spirits. The only issue of having so many stories is that there are moments, especially in the middle, when it drags. Just a hair. 

Like any Ridley Scott film, the visuals are spectacular. Instead of using CG landscapes, Scott opted to shoot in the deserts of Jordan, utilizing striking orange backdrops. For the most part, the sets, like the rover Watney drives, looks as real as it can be. But across the two hours and twenty minutes, everything is tightly edited and shot, and there's a lot of scientific ground to cover in this movie. The production design may not stand the test of time unlike Alien and Blade Runner, Scott's other sci-fi masterpieces, but it's a realistic and strong approach. 

The cast is enormous, but Matt Damon is definitely the star of the show. He's got a great sense of humor, but in his darkest moments, he brings the fear of certain demise with him. One moment in particular comes to mind, when Watney is counting his remaining rations after an accident destroys his crops. He uses a tarp and duct tape to create a seal so he can survive inside, and when the dust storm whips up, he is at the whim of, well, a tarp and some duct tape to hold. It's a powerful and subtle moment that keeps the audience white-knuckling their armrests. I mean, Matt Damon may be the protagonist, but let's be real: the real heroes of the film are tarps and duct tape. I'm not even kidding. Whenever those come out in any capacity, he goes from being a joking optimist to a serious scientist. 

Ridley Scott has certainly outdone himself. Two of his older sci-fi films, Alien and Blade Runner, have become cultural icons over time. Although The Martian is more science than fiction, it is an inspiring movie that will not be forgotten over time. 

Oh, and it has the single best use of "fuck" in a movie that I have ever seen. You'll know it when it happens. 

9.5/10

BLACK MASS and PAWN SACRIFICE - Biopic Double Feature Review

Hello, one and all! This week, I am proud to present another Double Feature review. This one is about biopics featuring actors with fake American accents! I did my best to keep these both brief, and thus they are a bit rushed. Like, really rushed. It reads like it was rushed. Goddamn. Re-reading this now, like, jeez. I'm running on fumes here. And awards season is coming up, so a ton of reviews are about to drop in the next few weeks, so long as I have time to write about them all. 

Anyway, enjoy these rushed reviews!

===============================================================


Black Mass


Gangster Drama/Biopic, 2015
2 hours, 2 minutes
Written by Jez Butterworth, Mark Mallouk
Directed by Scott Cooper
Rated R for "brutal violence, language throughout, some sexual references and brief drug use"

Starring

Johnny Depp
Joel Edgerton
Rory Cochrane
David Harbour
Benedict Cumberbatch
W. Earl Brown
Dakota Johnson
Jesse Plemons 
Peter Sarsgaard
Julianne Nicholson

"You said to me this was a family secret. And you gave it up to me, boom. Just like that."

Johnny Depp is no stranger to prosthetics and makeup. The dude is barely recognizable in most of his movies. However, his performances are almost always outstanding, even when he barely looks human. Or sane. Depp's latest role comes in the form of one of the most notorious gangsters in American history: James "Whitey" Bulger. Unfortunately, the results are mixed. 

The film chronicles Bulger's life as a gangster from the mid 70s through the 80s. With his small crew, he runs the Winter Hill Gang in Boston. John Connolly (Joel Edgerton) is an FBI agent who grew up with Bulger as a kid. In a nutshell, Connolly gets Bulger to be an informant for the bureau, which has its consequences. Connolly gets a little too friendly with the Winter Hill Gang, which obviously has its consequences. Consequences everywhere. So Things kind of... happen. It's a biopic, so they're supposed to happen, I guess. That's storytelling in a nutshell. Things happen. 

I say "things happen" so nonchalantly because the movie is a little unorganized. All of the above is set up early on and then it just kind of... goes. Bulger and his men kill people and do illegal things, some of which are more shocking than others. I mean, it's pretty much every other gangster movie. Other than Depp's performance, there's no real hook. Some things that happen are more compelling than others. Stylistically, there's nothing that special going on. Depp is given a ton of great set-piece moments. Give the guy more than twenty seconds to say anything and it's both chilling and compelling. That's all I really have to say about his performance. Oh man, I'm saying a ton of things all at once. This review is too unorganized. Fuck it. 

Although Black Mass is a subpar gangster film, it's compelling nonetheless. Unlike other gangster films, such as The Godfather: Part II, it's easy to follow. At no point did I say, "wait, what's going on right now?" On top of that, the cast is really outstanding. Like, too outstanding. The movie cost $53 million to make and it's obvious that at least half of that was to pay salaries. Aside from a couple of relative unknowns, larger stars come in to fill the gaps. Adam Scott, known for his hilarious role on Parks and Recreation, shows up as the guy whose entire job is to say "what the fuck are you doing" to Edgerton's FBI character. He has nothing else going on for him. You can look the cast up yourself and be impressed with the amount of stars they have. Even if they're not A-listers like Depp, they are certainly recognizable. 

Here's the real issue with the film: Bulger is called the most notorious gangster in history, right? So why the hell don't we see that as much? Yeah, he kills a few people, sells some drugs, does bad shit, whatever. He got away with a bunch of stuff and he's really menacing. But nothing in the film quite suggests that he deserved to be so high on the FBI's most wanted list for so long. Joe Pesci in Goodfellas deserves it. Not so much Whitey Bulger. Much of the film is spent in the FBI offices with Connolly trying to cover his tracks and keep Bulger on the streets without compromising himself. I genuinely wonder who has more screen time...

Black Mass may be a little too run-of-the-mill for a gangster flick, and it certainly does not live up to the hype of its first trailer. But when all is said and done, it's a fun movie that is worth seeing at least once. Depp's performance is absolutely worth the price of admission, but isn't it always? I just don't think I'll remember much about the film years down the line. 

Oh, and if the rest of the review didn't sell you on it, Benedict Cumberbatch plays Bulger's brother, so he's got a thick Boston accent instead of his usual terrifying British one. 

7/10

===============================================================

Pawn Sacrifice

Drama/Biopic, 2015
1 hours, 56 minutes
Written by Steven Knight
Directed by Edward Zwick
Rated PG-13 for "brief strong language, some sexual content and historical smoking"

Starring
Tobey Maguire
Liev Schreiber
Michael Stuhlbarg
Peter Sarsgaard 

"Bobby won't crack. He will explode."

Ever wanted to see Spider-Man and Sabretooth fight in a superhero movie? Well, this is probably the closest we'll get. Starring Tobey Maguire (Sam Riami's Spider-Man) and Liev Schreiber (X-Men Origins: Wolverine), Pawn Sacrifice is the story about a crazy guy playing chess with a Russian. Let's get into it, shall we?

Open in Brooklyn, some year in the past. Early Cold War era, is what Wikipedia tells me. Anyway, our hero is a young Bobby Fischer (Tobey Maguire), a chess prodigy who wants to do literally nothing but play the game. He's too good. He beats everyone... Except the Russians. One, in particular, named Boris Spassky (Liev Schreiber) who is literally the greatest chess player in the world. He's proven it. Bobby has some serious issues, paranoia, schizophrenia type stuff. And now he wants to do all of this and play the greatest chess master in the world? Yeah, he's going for it. 

The performances are a mixed bag. Well, most of them are actually great. A couple stand out as being so awful, like the kid who plays a teenaged Fischer. He sounds like a kid with a natural Brooklyn accent trying to do a really good Brooklyn accent. Normally, I wouldn't care, but it really did pull me out of the film for a few moments. The scene in particular didn't help much either. He yells at his mother for having sex in the next room with some guy and he wants her to be quiet, so he asks her to get the fuck out of his house. He literally says something along those lines. It's weird, it doesn't fit, and even if it did happen, there are better ways to present the conflict with his mother, even though it only lasts for a few minutes. There are also a few moments of incredibly awkward humor that comes out of left field, and it makes the actors look silly, as though they know what they're saying is weak. But I guess that's bad writing. 

Maguire is as good as anyone expects him to be. I am personally not a huge fan of his, but I have to admit he did a pretty good job. But the real star of the show is Schreiber, who barely says a word throughout most of the film. Most of his dialogue, which comes toward the end, is in Russian. He has a powerful presence, from the first moment he is on camera to the final games of chess. Other great performances come from Peter Sarsgaard and Michael Stuhlbarg, both of whom I had no idea were in the movie. So that was a nice surprise. 

Overall, Pawn Sacrifice is, like Black Mass, a movie worth seeing even if you won't remember it down the road. It's enjoyable for the most part, but stumbles along the way. The final twenty minutes or so, when he actually faces off against Spassky, is unbelievably cinematic for a chess game. And it all really happened! In real life! So maybe that's worth seeing it, I guess. 

7.5/10

TURBO KID earns its name with a boost of retro ultra-violence - Review

Turbo Kid 

Action/Adventure, 2015
1 hour, 33 minutes
Written and Directed by 
François Simard, Anouk Whissell, & Yoann-Karl Whissell
This film is unrated.

Starring
Munro Chambers
Laurence Leboeuf
Michael Ironside
Aaron Jeffery
Edwin Wright 


"Around here, we like to do things with a little more... joie de vivre."


Science fact: the human body contains 4.7 liters of blood. That's one and a quarter gallons, which I suppose doesn't seem like much. The filmmakers behind Turbo Kid obviously misread that decimal point, mistaking it for 47 liters of blood, or 12 gallons, because whenever someone gets killed in this movie, blood spurts for days on end. Death by flying saw blade, intestinal removal via bicycle chain, laser beam... Allow me to explain. 

Remember when the apocalypse happened in 1997? Yeah, neither do I. But Turbo Kid sure does. Set in an unspecified area of the word, supposedly America, we are introduced to The Kid (played by Munro Chambers). He lives alone in an underground bunker surrounded by enough knick knacks, relics of the old world, to impress even Wall-E. The Kid has certainly earned his namesake, as he has an ever-growing obsession with an old comic book superhero - Turbo Rider. One day, he randomly meets an overzealous girl named Apple (Laurence Leboeuf) who begins to follow him around. The two bond quickly until Apple is captured by the land's ruler, Zeus (Michael Ironside). While on his way to rescue his new friend, The Kid stumbles upon a mysterious ship and the suit of the actual Turbo Rider. He takes the suit and becomes Turbo Kid. Armed with his trusty Turbo Glove and aided by a tough-as-nails armwrestling cowboy named Frederic (Aaron Jeffery), Turbo Kid sets out to save Apple and defeat the evil Zeus. 

Munro Chambers and Laurence Leboeuf 

The filmmakers behind Turbo Kid set out with one thing in mind: to make a love-letter to Grindhouse films of the 1980s. The genre is still practiced today in smaller circles of the film community, but Turbo Kid shatters the bar for what the genre has evolved into. Today, Grindhouse films are more like homages to films of old, and only a specific audience acknowledges them. Unfortunately, the same will be said for Turbo Kid, as its release does not send it to many theaters. Even casual moviegoers might get something out of the film. It's goofy without being stupid, gory without being scary, and heartwarming without being cheesy. 

Actually, I take back what I said about it being cheesy. This movie is so cheesy it makes Chicago style pizza jealous. But in a 1980s kind of way. The score is all synth pop and the opening credits song sounds like it should be played over a training montage. Some of the visual effects, like exploding bodies, look incredibly fake, but it works with the amount of blood shed across the entire film. Costumes are varied, as the central characters wear colors that pop and villains wear makeshift garb of the wasteland. Zeus' henchman wears a creepy skull-like mask made of metal while slinging a gun that shoot saw-blades, and his only other protection is football pads. Even Zeus carries a golf club instead of a cane! And it's probably worth mentioning that instead of cars or horses, everyone rides BMX bikes. Not regular bikes. Small and awkward BMX bikes. So yes, it sounds cheesy. It's supposed to have a retro feel with a splash of ultra-violence, and it wouldn't work any other way. 

Edwin Wright as Skeletron

Like the first paragraph alludes to, it's gratuitously bloody. Remember in Kill Bill when Lucy Liu decapitates that guy and blood spurts like a fountain? Yeah, that ain't got nothing on Turbo Kid. A dude gets his hand chopped off, he's spurting red stuff like Niagara Falls.  A dude gets sliced with a saw blade and his body falls apart in chunks. It's almost unbelievable. My personal favorite: Frederic rips off a dude's jaw with his bare hand and stuffs it in his eyes. Like, what? I had to rewind to make sure I got that right. And I did. Absolutely brilliant stuff, and that's just a couple of creative kills among dozens. It's all in good fun and it adds to the pulpy and moody atmosphere. 

Yet through all of the chaos, Turbo Kid has a lot of heart. You can make a movie as goofy as you want, but what is it without a thick layer of emotion spread over the toast that is character? The Kid has a tragic past, and by the end of the film, he is no longer a Turbo Kid; he is a Turbo Man. Apple manages to keep The Kid grounded, giving him a greater purpose than just existing in the wasteland and an even greater purpose for donning the Turbo Rider suit. When all is said and done, before the credits roll, The Kid has completed his journey as successfully and with as much loss as he requires for his story to be complete. 

Turbo Kid is a movie that will be overlooked. It deserves better. I can only hope it achieves the deep cult status that it deserves. It's pulpier than freshly squeezed orange juice, and I'll be damned if it's not one of the best glasses of OJ I've ever had the pleasure to drink. But instead of Vitamin C, it's filled with retro nostalgia and enough ultra-violence to make Alex DeLarge shit his knickers. Even though some may be off-put by the excess, you can't deny it's not quite like anything you've seen before. 

If you're on the fence, I'll tell you what I tell people going into Mad Max: Fury Road: "Don't overthink it. Just sit back and enjoy it for what it is." 

9.3/10