(no subject)
Titles Covered: Jurassic World, Chappie, The Babadook, American Sniper, Insurgent, Being There, and Strange Magic.
Jurassic World (*** and a half)
The original 1993 Jurassic Park changed my life. I'm not exaggerating in the slightest. Let me explain: The premise of Jurassic Park was that dinosaurs are brought back from the dead in modern day. "Woah!" thought 12-year-old Alex, "How could that possibly happen?" The answer involved ideas of "cloning" and "DNA", which were explored in much greater depth in the novel. This got me interested in genetic engineering and biology, as I read more about the possibilities of genetic manipulation and the Human Genome Project. 22 years later, I have a PhD in molecular biology, several published papers, and a position studying the genetics of ovarian cancer... all because of Jurassic Park. I told you it changed my life!
Is there any way that any movie could ever measure up to that? No. I can't expect to be wowed like that ever again. That would be as silly as expecting a new Star Wars movie to measure up to our childhood memories of growing up in the 1980's. But I can hope for a fresh take on the Jurassic Park franchise that entertains and thrills, and Jurassic World pulls it off.
That's not to say that Jurassic World is a great movie. The script probably needed a few more drafts. Characters constantly recite exposition and motivations in a way that feels very clunky and unnatural, such that even Bryce Dallas Howard can't sell her character as a convincing human being. At least her character gets something resembling an arc, which is more than what can be said for the two young boys (Seriously... where was that story going?!). On the other hand, some of the side characters are actually pretty cool, particularly Ihmran Kahn as the idealistic park owner, Jake Johnson as a quirky technician, and B.D. Wong as a villainous version of Dr. Wu from the original movie (who still recites exposition, but at least it kind of works for his character). And then there's Chris Pratt's velociraptor trainer... He might be the wrong type of protagonist for this movie (the more vulnerable Alan Grant made more sense in a survivalist setting), but Pratt carries the character well, and differentiates it very clearly from other famous Pratt characters. He's by far the best of the leads.
One of the things that struck me was how different the setting looked. The fully-functioning park looks drastically different from the wild and untamed jungle of the original movie. There's an amazing amount of detail put into portraying this fictional amusement park. It's not just the attractions and buildings, but the entire organization is very convincing, including a militarized security unit trained to hunt down dinosaurs (they prove to be very effective against a swarm of pteranadons). Actually, the theme park is so cool that I was sad to see it get messed up by loose dinos. Rather then having all the dinosaurs escape again (we already saw that 3 times!), the threat is mostly a single super-dinosaur that exhibits strength and toughness rivaled only by Godzilla. Why would anyone create this nearly-invincible monster? Well, that's eventually explained, albeit in the margins.
Jurassic World has some obviously stupid plot points (detailed pretty well in this spoiler-ish video from How It Should Have Ended), but the overall movie is solid. It's well-made, entertaining, and while the dinosaurs have lost their wonder, the new setting really impressed me.
Chappie (** and a half)
I really hope that Neil Blomkamp isn't going to become the next M. Night Shaylaman. I really do. District 9 was brilliant. Elysium wasn't brilliant (apparently Blomkamp was unhappy with the final result), but it was still a highly entertaining action-thriller. And Chappie... Well, it shows a lot of potential, but it's extremely flawed.
Chappie starts off very strong, presenting a crime-ridden South Africa that's ultimately pacified by a robotic police force of human-like “Scout” androids. The creator of the Scouts (Dev Patel of Slumdog Millionaire fame) wants to test a new AI program to give robots subjective and artistic understanding. Patel gets kidnapped by some low-level gangsters (apparently an Afrikaner rap group playing themselves), and ends up giving them a scrapped robot reprogrammed with a child-like learning AI. Chappie gets a variety of conflicting message from his different mentors: his creator wants him to explore the possibilities of his own intelligence, his “father” figure wants him to steal money to survive, and his “mother” just wants him to be happy and feel special. It's an interesting idea. Patel's relationship with his own creation has explicit theological themes (“Why did you create me to die?”), while the mother-son relationship with Chappie and Yolandi gives the movie its heart. The father-son relationship is the only one that doesn't work, since “dad” is such a toxic and wrong-headed person that he really could have just been the villain. Instead, the villains come from other subplots which work on a basic story-telling level, but seem to distract from the movie's thematic core.
That's the beginning of the film's problems, since it has enough ideas for 2-3 movies all crammed into 2 hours. One of the most perfect movies I've seen recently is Inside Out, a film that took a simple idea and expanded upon it. Chappie takes on a lot of ideas: parenting, AI, post-humanism, drones, crime, and the religious implications of human consciousness as a data set. It all holds together as a comprehensible narrative, but lacks something thematically and emotionally. In particular, Hugh Jackman's villain character really doesn't work: his motivations are much too petty, and it's unclear what he's supposed to represent.
Then, there's the character of Chappie himself, who's a mixed bag. Chappie has some cool lines and I really did feel for him at times, but the constant robot-jabber gets annoying fast. It takes awhile before the robot learns to speak, but once he does, he never shuts up. I've heard him compared to Jar Jar Binks, and as much as I love featuring the hated Gungan in my work, that definitely wasn't the way to go with Chappie. I think if you cut most of Chappie's lines he'd be a lot more tolerable.
The Babadook (****)
When the director of The Exorcist says a movie is terrifying, you should probably pay attention.
The Babadook is another supernatural horror movie about a child being terrorized by some kind of spiritual force, similar to Poltergeist or Insidious. In this case, the monster is called a “Babadook”. In literal terms, the Babadook is never clearly defined. It has no origin story and it plays by no particular rules. It might be a ghost, might be a demon, or might just be in your head. It's easier to understand the Babadook in symbolic terms, as a representation of the mother's grief over her dead husband, and the distance this has put between her and her son. The Babadook is explained in a cryptic picture book, which says “If it's in a word, or it's in a look, you can't get rid of the Babadook.” From this, we see that the Babadook comes from your own actions, ones that you can't take back, which destroy relationships around you .
Horror movies work when they connect with actual fears of the audience. Sometimes this fear can be very simple, such as fear of the dark, or fear of death. But The Babadook deals with something different: the fear that love between a parent and child may not exist. What if you give birth to a terrible child? What if your parents actually hate you? If these relationships are torn apart, can they ever be mended? As the film keeps reminding us, “You can't get rid of the Babadook.”
Holy jeebus is this movie scary! Part of the fear factor is the Babadook's mysterious nature. You never know what to expect from it, because it's so hard to pin down what it is. The movie slowly builds tension, never relying on jump scares, but with long, tense shots that continually build the energy, daring the audience to break down and scream, “Where is it?! Where's the Babadook?!”
I often avoid horror movies, but The Babadook is not to be missed. It's creative, clever, complex, and damn scary. See it!
American Sniper (***)
I guess you can't have an Oscar-bait war movie without attracting some controversy. American Sniper trended on Facebook several times when a few colleges decided to cancel showings of it, saying it was offensive to Muslims. Having seen the movie, I'm rather perplexed by such objections. American Sniper is actually kind of a standard, apolitical war movie. Is that the problem? Are things now “offensive” because they don't stand on the soapbox of the politically outspoken? And is Jerry Seinfeld absolutely right when he says that today's college students are a bunch of coddled hypersensitive whiners?
That's not to say that I'm a big fan of this movie. Out of last year's Best Picture contenders, American Sniper is a bit better than The Theory of Everything, but worse than all the other nominees. There's nothing really bad about it (except for the notorious fake baby prop), but it's just kind of bland.
American Sniper is the true-life story of Chris Kyle, a Seal sniper who holds the record for the most confirmed kills in American military history. Impressively, Bradley Cooper transforms into Mr. Kyle, both physically and vocally, such that you don't even see the famous actor anymore. The character is neither a mass-murderer nor a saint, but rather an unapologetic redneck who simply wants to protect American troops. One one hand, we can salute such a man for doing such a good job of protecting our troops. On the other hand, he has killed at least 160 people, far more than any serial killer I've ever heard of. But can we blame a man for doing exactly what we sent him abroad to do? The film does touch on this moral paradox, though the viewpoint of the simple-minded protagonist prevents the theme from being fully developed.
Aside from that, American Sniper is a competently-directed Clint Eastwood picture, with tense battle scenes. There's also much drama about the main character constantly being absent from his family. One of the better scenes shows a dramatic battle intercut with shots of Mrs. Kyle hearing the explosions and gunshots over the phone. She barely has any idea of what is going on the other end of the line, but can only imagine the worst. Aside from a few moments like that, however, the movie felt very generic to me.
American Sniper is pretty good. Most of what it does had been done much better by Black Hawk Down and The Hurt Locker, but it's a solid (if somewhat formulaic) modern war movie.
Insurgent (***)
Last year I reviewed Divergent, a fairly OK “YA” movie about a futuristic world in which mankind is divided into strict factions a la Brave New World. I felt that the plot was dumb, but the actors were decent, and the action was pretty good. The sequel, Insurgent, is slightly better, mostly because the nonsensical premise about teenagers choosing factions is relatively unimportant, and the movie focuses more on conspiracy thriller hijinks.
I have to give this movie credit for its imagery. While not overly flashy, the ruined world setting is compelling and convincing, especially in the opening and closing sequences. The settings of the different factions are very distinct without being too obvious, and the virtual reality segments have a lot of surreal dreamlike landscapes. The only major weak spot is the costume design, which is similar to every other post-Matrix dystopian future you've ever seen.
The plot is fairly simplistic. Basically, the bad guy (er... girl) has a magic box that can only be opened by a true Divergent, one who has the mental capacity of all 5 factions. Main character Tris is the Divergent, so there's a lot of chase scenes, until Tris decides that she'd actually like to know what's in the box. Most of the characters are pretty one-note, with the exceptions of Tris herself (who still isn't a great character, but benefits from Shailene Woodley's charm) and her shifty frenemy Peter (played by Miles Teller). The dialogue for these characters touches on some interesting ideas, but with a lot of hamfisted and overstated lines. I guess you could see this sort of film as a “bridge” for teenagers to get into more sophisticated films, as it explicitly explains all the political themes and ideas of guilt, forgiveness, and self-discovery.
My biggest problem with this movie is that the plot progression feels very sloppy. Early on, we're told that a group of rogue Dauntless are hiding out in the “Candor” faction. So we assume Candor is plotting against the government, but then it turns out that they're still loyal to the villain, so why are the Dauntless hiding there? There's a lot of little things like that, especially the many last-minute saves that don't make a lot of sense and seem to come out of nowhere. Also, considering that Lionsgate wants to make two more of these movies, it struck me as very strange that the movie ends without a decent sequel hook. The ending of Insurgent seems to pretty much wrap up the story, without any hint of what we should be anticipating in the sequel.
Overall, though, I actually enjoyed this one. It's very cheesy and childish, but also fun and compelling. This series isn't great, but if you're into this of material, it's worth a watch.
Being There (***)
Peter Sellers is perhaps best known for his over-the-top comedic roles, particularly in the “Pink Panther” movies and “Dr. Strangelove”. However, Being There is a much more subtle, nuanced role, one in which he never cracks a joke or does a silly accent. Weird, huh?
The premise surrounds a simple man named “Chance” who apparently lived off the grid his entire life. He served as the gardener for the estate of an older man, and when said older man dies, Chance gets kicked out into the real world. This leads to the movie's best and most surreal sequence. See, Chance is a relic from another time, a proper man from the early 20th century dressed in 1930's era suits. But when he leaves his cocoon for the first time, he emerges in the middle of a downtrodden urban neighborhood in the 1970's, filled with tough African-American teenagers. Against the backdrop of this setting, he looks like a martian, or a confused time traveler who accidentally stumbled onto the set of Shaft. It's really a bizarre sequence, and Chance's brief interactions with other people underscore just how out of place he is.
Then... the plot kicks in. Chance is accidentally hit by a car, and taken in by a wealthy, dying plutocrat who is implied to be a member of a powerful secret society. Chance's simple, direct speech wins him friends among the rich and powerful, and even the President of the United States. I think this is supposed to be a satire of 70's politics.
The problem with Being There is that it tries to extend one singular gag for the entire movie. Basically, Peter Sellers will say something dumb, and other characters will mistake it for humor or complex allegory. The scenes setting this up are sometimes clever, but the gag gets old and really strains credibility. It's like a version of Forest Gump in which nobody figures out that Forest is actually mentally handicapped, so they just continue having really slow-paced conversations throughout the whole movie. The most painful scene involves Shirley McClaine trying to seduce Peter Sellers. He says “I like to watch” while staring right at a TV that's right in front of him and blaring loud. Somehow, she doesn't figure out that he's talking about the TV, despite the fact that he stares at it during the whole scene and never even looks at her.
Being There is a great performance by Peter Sellers, a clever movie, and an interesting satire. However, it's also a bit slow and ridiculous. On the balance, I thought it was a pretty good movie, but not much better.
Strange Magic (** and a half)
Well, they got the “strange” part right...
Strange Magic will likely end up on a lot of peoples' “worst” list for 2015. It's a bizarre movie without a clear target audience. It's very loosely inspired by Midsummer Nights Dream, bears a passing resemblance to Disney's “Fairies” franchise, has a setting similar to Fern Gully (or Epic), and it's a jukebox musical filled with odd renditions of pop songs. The plot takes all kinds of strange, somewhat unsatisfying turns, and the voice acting is all over the place.
Yes, indeed, for many people, this will be one of the worst movies of the year. But not for me. In fact, I thought it was kind of awesome. Not good, mind you, but awesome in its own peculiar way. If you're going to make a bad movie, this is the way to do it: bold, ambitious, and unconventional. I was simply giddy while watching Strange Magic, constantly thinking “Wow, is this a real movie?”
The plot involves some a fairy princess who dumps her cheating boyfriend, so he conspires with a love-sick elf to make a love potion. The quest to make the potion ends up disturbing a fragile truce that the fairies have with the dark cricket-monsters who live next door... and then Puck runs around spraying love potion on everyone and causing the wrong people to fall in love with each other. The plot is actually fine on paper, but it doesn't build. It reaches a plateau about 20 minutes in, and then becomes less involving once it's apparent that the cricket-monsters aren't much of a problem. That said, I will complement the romance between the fairy princess and her eventual love interest. Yes, you read that right: I, the cynical bachelor, am complementing a movie romance. It's not exactly “touching,” but it is interesting, and the dialogue between the romantic leads has just the right amount of subtext.
Other than the interesting 3rd-act romance, the plot is mostly an excuse to string together a lot of admittedly pretty visual sequences and musical numbers. The musical numbers are a bit of a joke (I hope), and include a seemingly random selection of tunes. It's kooky and weird, and probably will just confuse most people. But I enjoyed it (at least enough to give it a passing grade), because I'm weird like that.