(no subject)
Titles Covered: Inside Out, Paddington, Tomorrowland, The Raid 2, Selma, Into the Woods, Annie, MockingJay Part 1.
Inside Out (*****)
When you buy your ticket for Inside Out, the theater should really give you a box of tissues to go with it.
It's no secret that Pixar had been on a bit of a "losing streak", producing decent films that lack the heart and innovation of their earlier work. That's maybe a bit harsh, since I don't believe they've ever made a bad movie (Cars 2 is close, but even that is a serviceable kids film). Still, there hasn't' been a Pixar film that I've been really impressed with since Toy Story 3.
Enter Inside Out, which reminds us how ridiculously good Pixar can be when they're running on all cylinders. The story takes place inside the mind of a little girl, whose neural circuitry is represented as a colorful whimsical world populated by personified emotions. Riley's brain is initially presented as being very simple (literally just one button operated by the emotions of Joy and Sadness), and evolves to become a complex command center supported by a massive infrastructure of working-class neurons. This high-concept story leads to a journey of inner turmoil that's filled with serious emotion and lots of laughs. Joy and Sadness largely lead the main plot and poignant moments. And boy oh boy does this film have its poignant moments! I'm not sure how kids will react to this, but Inside Out seems designed to turn adults into weeping wrecks (Yes, I cried...). Meanwhile, the supporting characters of Anger, Fear, and Disgust fill very effective comic-relief roles. Anger, voiced by comedian Lewis Black, is especially hilarious. I especially loved how he's constantly looking over a newspaper with headlines like "Experts Agree Dessert is the Best!"
All of that would make for a good kid's movie. But Inside Out goes beyond that, and is a remarkably honest and intelligent film. Its messages are edifying and challenging, and ultimately ring true. Moreover, the film is filled with funny and spot-on metaphors depicting memory, dream theory, psychology, human reasoning, and philosophical concepts of how we define ourselves. My jaw dropped during the "abstract thought" segment. It's such a weird, ambitious scene that's flying high above its target audience's heads... but still manages to keep the kids engaged in imaginative and funny ways. Pixar says they consulted neuroscientists and psychiatrists when developing the script, and it really shows.
(Oddly enough, Director Pete Docter was an animator for "Cranium Command" at EPCOT. Coincidence?)
Flaws? Um... The closest I can come up with now is that the plot is similar to Toy Story (childhood influence gets replaced, then exiled with rival, and ultimately must return home with the help of said rival). Also, I guess the film could have used a few more minutes more falling action, showing the reconstruction of Riley's psyche.
Inside Out is flipping fantastic. It's cute, it's funny, it's creative, it's emotionally weighty, and it's very smart. Seriously, this summer kid's movie is smarter than most Oscar Bait!
(There's also a short film in front of Inside Out called Lava, which is OK. Just OK.)
Paddington (*** and a half)
There's been a streak of family movies that combine live-action actors with CGI cartoon characters: Smurfs, Garfield, and several different "Chipmunks" movies. I have to admit I haven't seen any of these, due to their unappealing trailers and extremely poor reviews. Paddington uses the same format, but with much better CGI, and a movie that actually won over critics.
The film starts in "Darkest Peru", where a British explorer meets a rare species of hyper-intelligent bears capable of learning speech. Decades later, the bears speak English, and one young orphan bear migrates to England to find a family. What follows is basically the plot of the movie Beethoven (90's kids will know what I'm talking about), in which mom and kids want to adopt the cute furry friend, but Dad is hesitant to accept a newcomer. And just like in Beethoven, there's also a villain who wants to capture Paddington. To be honest, the plot isn't much to speak of, so a lot of character dynamics and moral messages feel very cliché.
However, the film still grabbed my attention with its rambunctious sense of fun, visual ambition, and great humor. There's a lot of slapstick based around Paddington and his misunderstandings of the human world, and it's all done phenomenally well. In particular, a chase scene involving a London pickpocket is a hilarious and frantic action bit (bonus points for referencing "Exit, pursued by a bear"!). The film also does well at illustrating the characters in creative ways. The family members who adopt Paddington are introduced as figures in a dollhouse, while the explorer's guild is portrayed as a steampunk world of contraptions and pneumatic tubes. One of the most striking scenes is a very simple one, showing the Dad transform from carefree wildman to paranoid father in the course of a few minutes.
Paddington won't leave you with much to reflect on, but the sights it offers are so dazzling and comical that I have to recommend it. It's definitely more for kids than adults, but it's a good kid's movie, and still worth some laughs for adults.
Tomorowland (***)
If you've been to Disneyland, you probably remember Tomorrowland, a section dedicated to optimistic visions of the future. Though it has some of the better rides ("Star Tours" and "Space Mountain"), the theme of Tomorrowland has struggled to remain relevant, since it reflects an older, mid-20th-century view of futurism. This clash of viewpoints has more to do with the movie Tomorrowland than any attractions at the actual theme park. The movie imagines an alternate utopian dimension ruled by the great scientists and inventors, which resembles what people in the 60's may have thought the year 2015 would look like.
This utopia is forgotten, until a present-day teenage girl finds a mysterious pin that shows her this alternate reality. From there, she goes on an adventure to find out where "Tomorrowland" is, and what happened to it. Though the main character is Britt Robertson's teenage optimist, the plot is really driven by George Clooney's bitter, aging inventor and an ageless mysterious girl. 13-year-old Raffey Cassidy steals the show, portraying her surreal character with believable nuance. Actually, all the characters are generally likeable, and they have some pretty exciting adventures. There are giant robots, lifelike androids, portals, time-distortion fields, crazy inventions, and rocket ships. The visual style is appealing, and the action scenes are a lot of fun, particularly one in which androids invade George Clooney's house. So... why isn't this movie a big hit?
Tomorowland is entertaining enough to watch once. But does it succeed as a story? Frankly... not really. Most of the movie relies heavily on not explaining its own plot, riding on a promise that all the big mysteries will be revealed in the end. And yes, they are explained, but in a very underwhelming way. The rise and fall of Tomorrowland itself (which owes much to Bioshock and Atlas Shrugged) occurs off-screen, with only brief explanations stated or implied as to how it was created. The strongest sections of the movie involve rogue robots and a great cameo by comedian Keegan Michael Key. Yet by the third act of the movie, these robots have become irrelevant, and it's not clear that they were important in the first place. The premise of the movie is fine, and everything lines up on paper, but the story ultimately relies on vacuous sermons of optimism and hope.
As far as Tomorowland's view on futurism goes, let me put it this way: If you've become disappointed in the future and ever asked "Where's my jetpack?" the answer is another rhetorical question, "What have you done to earn a jetpack?" But Tomorowland isn't about the challenges or costs of realizing futuristic dreams. It's about the special specialness of special people who deserve jetpacks because they're so gosh-darn special. Thus, Tomorowland feels like a shallow Disneyfication of its own ambitious ideas.
(On the other hand, the final montage is a nice touch. It doesn't make up for how wrong-headed the rest of the movie is, though.)
For as much as I've ripped into Tomorowland, it is not a bad movie. It's a perfectly entertaining, masterfully-directed adventure that's a lot of fun. It's also preachy, problematic, and nowhere near as smart as it should be. It's Brad Bird's worst movie, but that doesn't make it bad.
The Raid 2 (**)
A few years ago, we were introduced to a martial arts thriller called The Raid: Redemption. It took a simple plot (cops trapped in a building filled with violent criminals) and featured over-the-top action and crazy stunts. I liked The Raid, but didn't love it. It was too long for what it had to offer, and ultimately didn't stick with me.
For its credit, the sequel is a much different movie than the first. Whereas the first movie was pretty much a straight-up martial arts movie, the sequel is more of a crime drama with a lot of martial arts scenes. The only problem is that it's not a very good crime drama. The movie starts on the wrong foot, assuming the audience remembers every character from the first movie and thus neglecting to set up the intro scenes. The plot really isn't very complicated, but it's made needlessly obtuse by bad writing that fails to communicate key details or introduce (and reintroduce) the characters when needed. As a microcosm of the film's problems, there's a late scene in which a character sees a tattoo that reminds him of something earlier in the film. There's a quick flashback, but it's SO quick and zoomed in that you can't actually place what scene the flashback is from. It's a small detail, but such an obviously terrible editing mistake that it illustrates how uninterested this movie is in telling its own story. And the movie has two and a half hours to tell this story!
The fight scenes are much better than the plot, largely because they're completely bonkers. The fight choreography is exciting, fast-paced, and extremely varied. Its extremely impressive how much the film manages to squeeze into each scene, often capturing a lot of action in single, uninterrupted takes. In one of my favorite moments, there's a fight inside a rather small car, all while the car is also part of a chase, and another car ramming the first car is also battling a guy on a motorcycle while the driver is frantically reloading his weapons. It's nuts!
However... as much as I wanted to love the exquisite fight scenes, there's one nagging problem: this movie is way too violent. I know I sound like an old fougie for saying this, but The Raid 2 pushes its violence past the point of being fun. It's not a problem with the number of fight scenes, or even the body count. It's a more subtle issue: the fight scenes display way too much suffering. The action movies I loved in the 80's and 90's used occasional shocking, gory moments to punctuate their scenes. These moments were meant to make the audience wince and scream "Ouch!" The Raid 2 is a nonstop barrage of "Ouch!" moments, and it quickly becomes overwhelming.
I know I'm defying the chorus of the Internet here, but The Raid 2 really isn't a very good movie. Sure, it has crazy fight scenes, but there are so many better movies with great fight scenes out there.
Selma (*** and a half)
One of the also-rans during last year's Best Picture race, Selma was highly acclaimed for its nuanced and relevant portrayal of Martin Luther King. I say "relevant" because there have been several controversial incidents involving racial violence. It may be tempting to look at all the violence on the news and say "Gee, I wonder if things were better when good ol' MLK was leading the charge?"
The film opens with a terrorist bombing of a black church (a disturbing parallel to the recent attack on a black church), and follows MLK through his campaign to end voter suppression in Alabama (oh hey, another current political issue!). MLK is portrayed as a real person, not a saint. He has insecurities, needs to practice his speeches, is more controversial than you might imagine, and yes... the film also briefly discusses his infamous infidelity. Notably, MLK is also portrayed as a tactician. He deliberately stages protests in areas where the local sheriffs are violent idiots, letting people get hurt, because he knows that police over-reaction will get him the national coverage he needs.
On the other hand, the film's depiction of Lyndon B. Johnson rings completely false. Not only is it historically dubious, but the character arc simply doesn't work. LBJ is first portrayed with nuance, as an earnest but unreliable ally. In later scenes, he becomes outright villainous, until he suddenly decides to be a good guy again. The whole ordeal feels like manufactured tension, in which the president acts erratically according to the needs of individual scenes.
On the whole, the movie is interesting and effective, though only a few moments really grabbed me. A scene on a bridge in which police attack protestors is an especially horrifying and emotional scene. I recommend Selma for such moments, and for its thought-provoking take on MLK's legacy.
Into the Woods (** and a half)
Has it become a tradition for every Christmas to have an Oscar-bait musical? We had two last year: an unnecessary remake of Annie (I'll get to that one in a bit), and a film adaptation of Into the Woods. The original play features a notable score by Broadway legend Stephen Sondheim, and tells the story of a baker and his wife who keep running into famous fairytale characters. I've seen recordings of the original Broadway version, and come to the conclusion that the play actually isn't that great.
The premise of uniting many fairy-tale characters in a crossover adventure is a fun one. However, it's also been done quite a lot recently: the TV shows Grimm and Once Upon A Time, the videogame Kingdom Hearts, the graphic novel Fables, and its recent videogame adaptation The Wolf Among Us. In addition, there have been a lot of recent revisionist versions of fairytales, including Snow White and the Huntsman, Maleficent, and Red Riding Hood. My point is that what originally made Into the Woods fresh and new has now become a tired trend. The movie adaptation is a bit late.
That's not to say that the movie is a complete waste. The singing is generally quite good, casting a few big-name actors who actually have good voices (unlike Les Miserables), and everyone manages to articulate Sondheim's fast-paced lyrics. The lyrics are easily the strongest part of the script, deftly merging plot and character explanations with clever rhymes and sharp wordplay. The music has its own unique style to it, which is kind of hard to explain. It's not pop, but it's not quite classical Broadway either. Overall, the movie adaptation successfully translates the musical and lyrical aspects of the play, despite removing several songs and reprises.
There was some controversy surrounding changes to the plot, and Disney "cleaning up" the original play's dark and sexual narrative. However, I'd argue Disney should have changed more. Can we all agree at this point that the plot of the stage musical is terrible? Yes, we all love Sondheim's lyrics and music, but the story is a mess. The first half is an arbitrary fetch quest, and the second half is an unrelated battle against an off-stage giant, during which events just seem to happen randomly. The movie fixes some of the play's problems, by using editing to connect the disconnected subplots, and portraying the second-act antagonist with CGI. However, the flow of the story still doesn't work, and the break between the two acts is more jarring than ever. Also, Red Riding Hood should have been a bit older, and the Witch should have been played by someone younger, to make her transformation more dramatic (as it is in the original play, when the old hag turns into 30-something Bernadette Peters).
In summary, Into the Woods is about as good as the play. The wordplay in the libretto is fantastic, the music is good (especially "No One is Alone"), and the acting is generally solid. Special mention goes to Emily Blunt for her excellent grasp of nuance and subtext. Meryl Streep is OK, but her Oscar nomination proves yet again that the Academy will nominate her for almost anything. However, the play is dreadful Grimm fanfiction, and the movie adaptation didn't fix its glaring story problems.
Annie (** and a half)
2014 was apparently not a great year for musicals...
To their credit, the creators of Annie 2014 seem to have realized that the world didn't need a 3rd movie adaptation of the beloved stage musical. So they changed pretty much everything. The setting, time period, plot, characters, and a lot of the music have been severely rewritten. While much has been made about the races of some actors, such casting choices are probably the least consequential change to the story.
In this version, little orphan Annie has an accidental run-in with a workaholic cell phone tycoon named Will Stacks, who is running for mayor of New York. Stacks is encouraged to take Annie in to improve his ranking in the polls, and Annie becomes a social media darling. I give the writers credit for re-inventing the story, though it seems to lack conflict. Annie's original foster mom, the mean Miss Hannigan, seems perfectly content to let Stacks take Annie off her hands. Thus, nothing really happens until the very end of the movie, when a bizarre political gambit brings in two villains who kidnap Annie and run from the police because... actually that part didn't make any sense now that I think about it.
For what it's worth, the movie is cheesy fun. The plot is feel-good fluff, and most of the characters are likeable. Quvenzhane Wallis gives a charming performance as the lead character (a pleasant surprise, given that all she did in Beasts of the Southern Wild is scream every line), and Jamie Foxx brings nuance and humor to the role of Will Stacks. But the real standout performance is Rose Byrne as Stacks' assistant; she is absolutely adorable in every single scene she has.
On the other hand, Cameron Diaz is so bad in this movie that I'm going to spend a paragraph discussing her. She overacts in every scene, making weird faces and screeching constantly. Even when she has a funny line, it's killed by the delivery. What's especially weird is that the character of Colleen Hannigan is actually more complex than her play counterpart. She has a backstory, a lot of revealing lines, and a redemptive character arc. With a different performance, the movie could have really made us feel sorry for her. Instead, I just feel embarrassed for the actress.
The songs are a lot different from the play, and are given a more electronic, modern feel. In general, I liked the musical scenes, but didn't feel that any one song really knocked it out of the park. "Hard Knock Life" has good choreography, but drowns its melody in loud hip-hop beats (didn't JayZ already ruin this song back in the 90's?). "Little Girls" has a great musical arrangement, but the auto-tuned singing doesn't seem to be coming from Cameron Diaz. "Tomorrow" probably fares the best of the musical numbers, and has some interesting staging.
I didn't think Annie was as bad as critics made it out to be. There's stuff to like here, but it's ultimately a pretty mediocre movie. Some of the musical and character choices are interesting, so I respect the attempt to make a modernized version of the play. Still, I think you'd be better off with the 1982 version.
The Mockingjay, Part I (***)
America's sweetheart, Jennifer Lawrence, does some singing in Mockingjay, Part I. Apparently she doesn't like singing, and it's clear that her voice is nothing special. Yet... her awkwardness and thin tone actually works in the context of the scene and the character, and the song became a huge hit on the Internet. Huh.
Mockingjay moves away from the actual games, and focuses more on the rebellion against those who host the games. One thing that surprised me was the level of nuance in the movie's political content. The plot of the movie concerns Katniss being used as a propaganda tool for the rebellion, while Peeta is used as a propaganda tool for the Capitol. In other words, both are being played by greater powers, with words put into their mouths. And it's not clear that the Rebel Alliance is actually worth supporting. Though not directly stated, it seems that its leaders are just wannabe dictators. They only seem like the better option because the Evil Capitol is just as stupid and evil as always. It always struck me that their politicians are really terrible at winning the people over (i.e. they are politicians who suck at being politicians). In Mockingjay we learn that their military is also run by complete idiots.
This movie is a bit slow, but I actually found it to be more interesting than the previous movies. This movie isn't better than Catching Fire, but I was actually really curious where the story was going (I still haven't read the Hunger Games books, and probably won't, to be honest). But then, just when things are starting to ramp up, the movie ends.
At this point, we should all agree on one thing: unnecessarily splitting books into multiple movies is a bad idea. For what it's worth, Mockingjay is probably the best recent example of a "Part I." At least Mockingjay is a very different movie than those that came before, so it doesn't feel as nearly pointless and redundant as the Hobbit and Harry Potter movies. It's a solid movie that feels incomplete, for obvious reasons.
Inside Out (*****)
When you buy your ticket for Inside Out, the theater should really give you a box of tissues to go with it.
It's no secret that Pixar had been on a bit of a "losing streak", producing decent films that lack the heart and innovation of their earlier work. That's maybe a bit harsh, since I don't believe they've ever made a bad movie (Cars 2 is close, but even that is a serviceable kids film). Still, there hasn't' been a Pixar film that I've been really impressed with since Toy Story 3.
Enter Inside Out, which reminds us how ridiculously good Pixar can be when they're running on all cylinders. The story takes place inside the mind of a little girl, whose neural circuitry is represented as a colorful whimsical world populated by personified emotions. Riley's brain is initially presented as being very simple (literally just one button operated by the emotions of Joy and Sadness), and evolves to become a complex command center supported by a massive infrastructure of working-class neurons. This high-concept story leads to a journey of inner turmoil that's filled with serious emotion and lots of laughs. Joy and Sadness largely lead the main plot and poignant moments. And boy oh boy does this film have its poignant moments! I'm not sure how kids will react to this, but Inside Out seems designed to turn adults into weeping wrecks (Yes, I cried...). Meanwhile, the supporting characters of Anger, Fear, and Disgust fill very effective comic-relief roles. Anger, voiced by comedian Lewis Black, is especially hilarious. I especially loved how he's constantly looking over a newspaper with headlines like "Experts Agree Dessert is the Best!"
All of that would make for a good kid's movie. But Inside Out goes beyond that, and is a remarkably honest and intelligent film. Its messages are edifying and challenging, and ultimately ring true. Moreover, the film is filled with funny and spot-on metaphors depicting memory, dream theory, psychology, human reasoning, and philosophical concepts of how we define ourselves. My jaw dropped during the "abstract thought" segment. It's such a weird, ambitious scene that's flying high above its target audience's heads... but still manages to keep the kids engaged in imaginative and funny ways. Pixar says they consulted neuroscientists and psychiatrists when developing the script, and it really shows.
(Oddly enough, Director Pete Docter was an animator for "Cranium Command" at EPCOT. Coincidence?)
Flaws? Um... The closest I can come up with now is that the plot is similar to Toy Story (childhood influence gets replaced, then exiled with rival, and ultimately must return home with the help of said rival). Also, I guess the film could have used a few more minutes more falling action, showing the reconstruction of Riley's psyche.
Inside Out is flipping fantastic. It's cute, it's funny, it's creative, it's emotionally weighty, and it's very smart. Seriously, this summer kid's movie is smarter than most Oscar Bait!
(There's also a short film in front of Inside Out called Lava, which is OK. Just OK.)
Paddington (*** and a half)
There's been a streak of family movies that combine live-action actors with CGI cartoon characters: Smurfs, Garfield, and several different "Chipmunks" movies. I have to admit I haven't seen any of these, due to their unappealing trailers and extremely poor reviews. Paddington uses the same format, but with much better CGI, and a movie that actually won over critics.
The film starts in "Darkest Peru", where a British explorer meets a rare species of hyper-intelligent bears capable of learning speech. Decades later, the bears speak English, and one young orphan bear migrates to England to find a family. What follows is basically the plot of the movie Beethoven (90's kids will know what I'm talking about), in which mom and kids want to adopt the cute furry friend, but Dad is hesitant to accept a newcomer. And just like in Beethoven, there's also a villain who wants to capture Paddington. To be honest, the plot isn't much to speak of, so a lot of character dynamics and moral messages feel very cliché.
However, the film still grabbed my attention with its rambunctious sense of fun, visual ambition, and great humor. There's a lot of slapstick based around Paddington and his misunderstandings of the human world, and it's all done phenomenally well. In particular, a chase scene involving a London pickpocket is a hilarious and frantic action bit (bonus points for referencing "Exit, pursued by a bear"!). The film also does well at illustrating the characters in creative ways. The family members who adopt Paddington are introduced as figures in a dollhouse, while the explorer's guild is portrayed as a steampunk world of contraptions and pneumatic tubes. One of the most striking scenes is a very simple one, showing the Dad transform from carefree wildman to paranoid father in the course of a few minutes.
Paddington won't leave you with much to reflect on, but the sights it offers are so dazzling and comical that I have to recommend it. It's definitely more for kids than adults, but it's a good kid's movie, and still worth some laughs for adults.
Tomorowland (***)
If you've been to Disneyland, you probably remember Tomorrowland, a section dedicated to optimistic visions of the future. Though it has some of the better rides ("Star Tours" and "Space Mountain"), the theme of Tomorrowland has struggled to remain relevant, since it reflects an older, mid-20th-century view of futurism. This clash of viewpoints has more to do with the movie Tomorrowland than any attractions at the actual theme park. The movie imagines an alternate utopian dimension ruled by the great scientists and inventors, which resembles what people in the 60's may have thought the year 2015 would look like.
This utopia is forgotten, until a present-day teenage girl finds a mysterious pin that shows her this alternate reality. From there, she goes on an adventure to find out where "Tomorrowland" is, and what happened to it. Though the main character is Britt Robertson's teenage optimist, the plot is really driven by George Clooney's bitter, aging inventor and an ageless mysterious girl. 13-year-old Raffey Cassidy steals the show, portraying her surreal character with believable nuance. Actually, all the characters are generally likeable, and they have some pretty exciting adventures. There are giant robots, lifelike androids, portals, time-distortion fields, crazy inventions, and rocket ships. The visual style is appealing, and the action scenes are a lot of fun, particularly one in which androids invade George Clooney's house. So... why isn't this movie a big hit?
Tomorowland is entertaining enough to watch once. But does it succeed as a story? Frankly... not really. Most of the movie relies heavily on not explaining its own plot, riding on a promise that all the big mysteries will be revealed in the end. And yes, they are explained, but in a very underwhelming way. The rise and fall of Tomorrowland itself (which owes much to Bioshock and Atlas Shrugged) occurs off-screen, with only brief explanations stated or implied as to how it was created. The strongest sections of the movie involve rogue robots and a great cameo by comedian Keegan Michael Key. Yet by the third act of the movie, these robots have become irrelevant, and it's not clear that they were important in the first place. The premise of the movie is fine, and everything lines up on paper, but the story ultimately relies on vacuous sermons of optimism and hope.
As far as Tomorowland's view on futurism goes, let me put it this way: If you've become disappointed in the future and ever asked "Where's my jetpack?" the answer is another rhetorical question, "What have you done to earn a jetpack?" But Tomorowland isn't about the challenges or costs of realizing futuristic dreams. It's about the special specialness of special people who deserve jetpacks because they're so gosh-darn special. Thus, Tomorowland feels like a shallow Disneyfication of its own ambitious ideas.
(On the other hand, the final montage is a nice touch. It doesn't make up for how wrong-headed the rest of the movie is, though.)
For as much as I've ripped into Tomorowland, it is not a bad movie. It's a perfectly entertaining, masterfully-directed adventure that's a lot of fun. It's also preachy, problematic, and nowhere near as smart as it should be. It's Brad Bird's worst movie, but that doesn't make it bad.
The Raid 2 (**)
A few years ago, we were introduced to a martial arts thriller called The Raid: Redemption. It took a simple plot (cops trapped in a building filled with violent criminals) and featured over-the-top action and crazy stunts. I liked The Raid, but didn't love it. It was too long for what it had to offer, and ultimately didn't stick with me.
For its credit, the sequel is a much different movie than the first. Whereas the first movie was pretty much a straight-up martial arts movie, the sequel is more of a crime drama with a lot of martial arts scenes. The only problem is that it's not a very good crime drama. The movie starts on the wrong foot, assuming the audience remembers every character from the first movie and thus neglecting to set up the intro scenes. The plot really isn't very complicated, but it's made needlessly obtuse by bad writing that fails to communicate key details or introduce (and reintroduce) the characters when needed. As a microcosm of the film's problems, there's a late scene in which a character sees a tattoo that reminds him of something earlier in the film. There's a quick flashback, but it's SO quick and zoomed in that you can't actually place what scene the flashback is from. It's a small detail, but such an obviously terrible editing mistake that it illustrates how uninterested this movie is in telling its own story. And the movie has two and a half hours to tell this story!
The fight scenes are much better than the plot, largely because they're completely bonkers. The fight choreography is exciting, fast-paced, and extremely varied. Its extremely impressive how much the film manages to squeeze into each scene, often capturing a lot of action in single, uninterrupted takes. In one of my favorite moments, there's a fight inside a rather small car, all while the car is also part of a chase, and another car ramming the first car is also battling a guy on a motorcycle while the driver is frantically reloading his weapons. It's nuts!
However... as much as I wanted to love the exquisite fight scenes, there's one nagging problem: this movie is way too violent. I know I sound like an old fougie for saying this, but The Raid 2 pushes its violence past the point of being fun. It's not a problem with the number of fight scenes, or even the body count. It's a more subtle issue: the fight scenes display way too much suffering. The action movies I loved in the 80's and 90's used occasional shocking, gory moments to punctuate their scenes. These moments were meant to make the audience wince and scream "Ouch!" The Raid 2 is a nonstop barrage of "Ouch!" moments, and it quickly becomes overwhelming.
I know I'm defying the chorus of the Internet here, but The Raid 2 really isn't a very good movie. Sure, it has crazy fight scenes, but there are so many better movies with great fight scenes out there.
Selma (*** and a half)
One of the also-rans during last year's Best Picture race, Selma was highly acclaimed for its nuanced and relevant portrayal of Martin Luther King. I say "relevant" because there have been several controversial incidents involving racial violence. It may be tempting to look at all the violence on the news and say "Gee, I wonder if things were better when good ol' MLK was leading the charge?"
The film opens with a terrorist bombing of a black church (a disturbing parallel to the recent attack on a black church), and follows MLK through his campaign to end voter suppression in Alabama (oh hey, another current political issue!). MLK is portrayed as a real person, not a saint. He has insecurities, needs to practice his speeches, is more controversial than you might imagine, and yes... the film also briefly discusses his infamous infidelity. Notably, MLK is also portrayed as a tactician. He deliberately stages protests in areas where the local sheriffs are violent idiots, letting people get hurt, because he knows that police over-reaction will get him the national coverage he needs.
On the other hand, the film's depiction of Lyndon B. Johnson rings completely false. Not only is it historically dubious, but the character arc simply doesn't work. LBJ is first portrayed with nuance, as an earnest but unreliable ally. In later scenes, he becomes outright villainous, until he suddenly decides to be a good guy again. The whole ordeal feels like manufactured tension, in which the president acts erratically according to the needs of individual scenes.
On the whole, the movie is interesting and effective, though only a few moments really grabbed me. A scene on a bridge in which police attack protestors is an especially horrifying and emotional scene. I recommend Selma for such moments, and for its thought-provoking take on MLK's legacy.
Into the Woods (** and a half)
Has it become a tradition for every Christmas to have an Oscar-bait musical? We had two last year: an unnecessary remake of Annie (I'll get to that one in a bit), and a film adaptation of Into the Woods. The original play features a notable score by Broadway legend Stephen Sondheim, and tells the story of a baker and his wife who keep running into famous fairytale characters. I've seen recordings of the original Broadway version, and come to the conclusion that the play actually isn't that great.
The premise of uniting many fairy-tale characters in a crossover adventure is a fun one. However, it's also been done quite a lot recently: the TV shows Grimm and Once Upon A Time, the videogame Kingdom Hearts, the graphic novel Fables, and its recent videogame adaptation The Wolf Among Us. In addition, there have been a lot of recent revisionist versions of fairytales, including Snow White and the Huntsman, Maleficent, and Red Riding Hood. My point is that what originally made Into the Woods fresh and new has now become a tired trend. The movie adaptation is a bit late.
That's not to say that the movie is a complete waste. The singing is generally quite good, casting a few big-name actors who actually have good voices (unlike Les Miserables), and everyone manages to articulate Sondheim's fast-paced lyrics. The lyrics are easily the strongest part of the script, deftly merging plot and character explanations with clever rhymes and sharp wordplay. The music has its own unique style to it, which is kind of hard to explain. It's not pop, but it's not quite classical Broadway either. Overall, the movie adaptation successfully translates the musical and lyrical aspects of the play, despite removing several songs and reprises.
There was some controversy surrounding changes to the plot, and Disney "cleaning up" the original play's dark and sexual narrative. However, I'd argue Disney should have changed more. Can we all agree at this point that the plot of the stage musical is terrible? Yes, we all love Sondheim's lyrics and music, but the story is a mess. The first half is an arbitrary fetch quest, and the second half is an unrelated battle against an off-stage giant, during which events just seem to happen randomly. The movie fixes some of the play's problems, by using editing to connect the disconnected subplots, and portraying the second-act antagonist with CGI. However, the flow of the story still doesn't work, and the break between the two acts is more jarring than ever. Also, Red Riding Hood should have been a bit older, and the Witch should have been played by someone younger, to make her transformation more dramatic (as it is in the original play, when the old hag turns into 30-something Bernadette Peters).
In summary, Into the Woods is about as good as the play. The wordplay in the libretto is fantastic, the music is good (especially "No One is Alone"), and the acting is generally solid. Special mention goes to Emily Blunt for her excellent grasp of nuance and subtext. Meryl Streep is OK, but her Oscar nomination proves yet again that the Academy will nominate her for almost anything. However, the play is dreadful Grimm fanfiction, and the movie adaptation didn't fix its glaring story problems.
Annie (** and a half)
2014 was apparently not a great year for musicals...
To their credit, the creators of Annie 2014 seem to have realized that the world didn't need a 3rd movie adaptation of the beloved stage musical. So they changed pretty much everything. The setting, time period, plot, characters, and a lot of the music have been severely rewritten. While much has been made about the races of some actors, such casting choices are probably the least consequential change to the story.
In this version, little orphan Annie has an accidental run-in with a workaholic cell phone tycoon named Will Stacks, who is running for mayor of New York. Stacks is encouraged to take Annie in to improve his ranking in the polls, and Annie becomes a social media darling. I give the writers credit for re-inventing the story, though it seems to lack conflict. Annie's original foster mom, the mean Miss Hannigan, seems perfectly content to let Stacks take Annie off her hands. Thus, nothing really happens until the very end of the movie, when a bizarre political gambit brings in two villains who kidnap Annie and run from the police because... actually that part didn't make any sense now that I think about it.
For what it's worth, the movie is cheesy fun. The plot is feel-good fluff, and most of the characters are likeable. Quvenzhane Wallis gives a charming performance as the lead character (a pleasant surprise, given that all she did in Beasts of the Southern Wild is scream every line), and Jamie Foxx brings nuance and humor to the role of Will Stacks. But the real standout performance is Rose Byrne as Stacks' assistant; she is absolutely adorable in every single scene she has.
On the other hand, Cameron Diaz is so bad in this movie that I'm going to spend a paragraph discussing her. She overacts in every scene, making weird faces and screeching constantly. Even when she has a funny line, it's killed by the delivery. What's especially weird is that the character of Colleen Hannigan is actually more complex than her play counterpart. She has a backstory, a lot of revealing lines, and a redemptive character arc. With a different performance, the movie could have really made us feel sorry for her. Instead, I just feel embarrassed for the actress.
The songs are a lot different from the play, and are given a more electronic, modern feel. In general, I liked the musical scenes, but didn't feel that any one song really knocked it out of the park. "Hard Knock Life" has good choreography, but drowns its melody in loud hip-hop beats (didn't JayZ already ruin this song back in the 90's?). "Little Girls" has a great musical arrangement, but the auto-tuned singing doesn't seem to be coming from Cameron Diaz. "Tomorrow" probably fares the best of the musical numbers, and has some interesting staging.
I didn't think Annie was as bad as critics made it out to be. There's stuff to like here, but it's ultimately a pretty mediocre movie. Some of the musical and character choices are interesting, so I respect the attempt to make a modernized version of the play. Still, I think you'd be better off with the 1982 version.
The Mockingjay, Part I (***)
America's sweetheart, Jennifer Lawrence, does some singing in Mockingjay, Part I. Apparently she doesn't like singing, and it's clear that her voice is nothing special. Yet... her awkwardness and thin tone actually works in the context of the scene and the character, and the song became a huge hit on the Internet. Huh.
Mockingjay moves away from the actual games, and focuses more on the rebellion against those who host the games. One thing that surprised me was the level of nuance in the movie's political content. The plot of the movie concerns Katniss being used as a propaganda tool for the rebellion, while Peeta is used as a propaganda tool for the Capitol. In other words, both are being played by greater powers, with words put into their mouths. And it's not clear that the Rebel Alliance is actually worth supporting. Though not directly stated, it seems that its leaders are just wannabe dictators. They only seem like the better option because the Evil Capitol is just as stupid and evil as always. It always struck me that their politicians are really terrible at winning the people over (i.e. they are politicians who suck at being politicians). In Mockingjay we learn that their military is also run by complete idiots.
This movie is a bit slow, but I actually found it to be more interesting than the previous movies. This movie isn't better than Catching Fire, but I was actually really curious where the story was going (I still haven't read the Hunger Games books, and probably won't, to be honest). But then, just when things are starting to ramp up, the movie ends.
At this point, we should all agree on one thing: unnecessarily splitting books into multiple movies is a bad idea. For what it's worth, Mockingjay is probably the best recent example of a "Part I." At least Mockingjay is a very different movie than those that came before, so it doesn't feel as nearly pointless and redundant as the Hobbit and Harry Potter movies. It's a solid movie that feels incomplete, for obvious reasons.