Believe it or not... a modern romantic comedy that I actually really liked.
Titles Covered: Timer, The Good Dinosaur, Cinderella (2015), Pan, Walk the Line, Straight Outta Compton, Battle of the Five Armies, No Escape.
Timer (****)
The idea of Timer is this: someone invents a perfect matchmaking device called “Timer” that can determine your soul-mate (assuming said soul-mate also has a Timer device). Moreover, the device has the means to determine the day you will meet this person, and counts down to that fateful meeting. Thus, most people become fitted with a “Timer” at adolescence, and wait for the day that their life partner gets one as well, causing the count-down to begin. If you get one at 14 and the Timer isn't counting... no worries. Your match is probably younger than you, and isn't in the network yet. But the main character has watched her blank Timer for 16 years, and is wondering if Mr. Right truly doesn't exist.
It's a really interesting and well-realized concept, and the movie explores a lot of angles: how you get Timers, why some people refuse them, a generational gap between the Timer-equipped Millennials and the oldschool Boomers, and how the Timer affects people's behavior. What happens if the Timer tells you that you have to wait until middle age to meet your spouse, or conversely, if you're destined to meet them before you feel ready? All of these questions are addressed in some way, so the film is a fun “what if” premise. It's also a spot-on metaphor for what it's like to be an older single person among a population that considers love and marriage to be inevitable. This is actually a pretty kick-ass premise!
However, the movie almost lost me as it dives into its central romantic relationship, which I found cringe-worthy. I worried that maybe the movie was less insightful than it first seemed, and was going to be a trite reaffirmation of modern dating standards and the “love conquers all” message. But then... the movie does something unexpected. It actually sticks to its intriguing but unromantic premise based on the concept of predestination. No matter what the main characters feel or want, the Timer will never be wrong. Even the film's insufferable romantic says “I don't think we should have them, but I believe that they work.” The story presents a conflict between a rational understanding of what's best vs. a desire for spontaneous, sexy, but ill-advised pairings. That's actually an interesting conflict, and I admired the story for sticking to its guns in that way.
In fact, one of the more heartwarming pairings comes from a subplot in which two 14-year-olds find out that they are destined to be married. They don't know or like each other, and are flat-out embarrassed to be betrothed via Timer in front of their parents. The payoff is small but sweet: the boy makes the girl a genuine promise that he's memorized in her native language. It's an insightful moment, suggesting a very thin line between the Timer's apparent clairvoyance, and a self-fulfilling prophecy. Can love be created simply by deciding to honor it?
One nitpick: why do the Timers have such precision if they count down to midnight the day before one meets their love, not the exact moment of contact? Wouldn't it make more sense to have the Timer display years:months:days, since all the smaller units of time are irrelevant?
The movie Timer falls short in a few ways: the acting is merely average and the plot feels purposely designed to annoy everyone at one point or another. Yet... it's a romantic comedy that's actually inventive and smart, and that's a truly rare find.
The Good Dinosaur (** and a half)
For many years, Pixar could do no wrong. Each movie was met with ecstatic response, and ended up as one of the biggest hits of the year. Pixar was the god of computer animation. In recent years, they've been more inconsistent. Last year we got Inside Out, one of the best movies of the year, but also The Good Dinosaur, a reminder that Pixar is mortal after all.
The premise is this: what if dinosaurs never went extinct? Would the world turn into “Dinotopia”, with dinosaurs and man living side by side? Would dinosaurs evolve into more sophisticated forms? The film opens with a family of Apatosaurus building a farm, using their strength and size to compensate for lack of dexterity. “Clever!” I thought. But... then the film proceeds to do very little with its own premise. Sure, there's some cavemen around, but we've seen that before, especially in cartoons. There needed to be some real world-building here, not just isolated examples of a few dinosaurs doing slightly human things.
Speaking of which, much of the film's elements exist in isolation from everything else. There's a lot of cool parts, but they don't really affect each other. A kooky Styracosaurous with bird friends shows up and is hilarious, but then he adds nothing to the plot. There's also a family of T-Rex cowboys who are really cool, but they're just another stop on the journey. The movie feels very episodic, running from one idea to the next without fully building a great journey.
The Good Dinosaur is decent but unexceptional. I'm sure kids will like it, and there's nothing terribly wrong with the movie, but I don't think it offers much for adults. That said, I liked the realistic backgrounds and the Wild West atmosphere, which is a fairly unique twist for a dinosaur movie.
Cinderella (*** and a half)
After the raging success of Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, Disney's been in a mad rush to adapt all their cartoons to live-action. New versions of The Jungle Book, Beauty and the Beast, and Little Mermaid are coming out in the new future. Any chance that they'll give the Chronicles of Prydain another shot? Anyway, Cinderella is my favorite so far, in part because it takes a more modest approach. Alice in Wonderland turned the nonsensical fairy tale into a sprawling action epic. Malificent turned a fairytale into a nonsensical rape-revenge story. But Cinderella doesn't have any ambitions of being edgy or subversive. It takes Perrault's classic story “Cendrillon,” adds a few references to the animated version, and does it really well.
This means that Cinderella never wields a sword or champions progressive modern-day ideals. Her “power” is kindness, and her crowning moment of triumph is when she forgives her nemesis. The characters retain their archetypal roles, but are all given an appropriate level of depth and nuance. The film develops the relationship between the King and Prince Charming, and presents the prince as a man afraid of falling short of his father's reputation. Meanwhile, the Evil Stepmother is given an actual arc, starting as a sad widow remarried to a man who will always prefer his first wife. You see her vindictive nature develop throughout the film, and how she hates herself and her disappointing children. Towards the end, the Stepmother says to Cinderella, “You are innocent and good and kind and I'm...” She can't even finish that sentence. See Disney, this is the kind of power Malificent needed, not that shouty evil king!
In addition, Cinderella benefits from lavish Oscar-nominated costume design and Kenneth Braunah's flare for the fantastical. The story may be simple, and the aims of the film may be somewhat small, but for what the movie tries to do, it succeeds rather well.
Pan (* and a half)
On of the bigger bombs from 2015, Pan tells the origin story of Peter Pan and Captain Hook. To Pan's credit, it has a lot of cool ideas. The problem is that it can't seem to stick to anything, and thus throws everything at the wall to see what works. And for every cool idea, it's followed up by something really dumb. Pirates jumping down on bungee cords to kidnap orphan boys? Cool! The boys working in a mine, hunting for unobtanium? Lame! Fighter planes chasing flying pirate ships? Awesome! Pirates singing pop songs from the 1990's for no reason at all? DUMB! Young Smee looks and sounds perfect, but Hook is terrible.
Garret Hedlund bears no resemblence to Captain Hook at all, in appearance, dress, personality, or role. If you changed his name, nobody would have a clue that he was supposed to be Hook. The film misses the obvious chance for an actual story, a tale of a Hook who is betrayed and heartbroken. Instead, Peter and “Hook” fight Blackbeard, a historical pirate who reached Neverland somehow. The film has a bizarre connection to history, since it's supposed to be a prequel, but is set decades after the original play, and over 200 years after the violent death of Blackbeard. Actually, shouldn't Peter already know who Blackbeard is, and possibly have idolized him? It may be silly to comment on historical accuracy, but I think Pan missed an opportunity to weave these different stories together.
I'll comment briefly on the“whitewashed” casting of Princess Tiger Lily. Basically, it's a moot point since Tiger Lily in Pan comes from a multi-ethnic fantasy tribe that are never called “Indians” and bear no resemblance to Native Americans at all (either the real ones, or the movie ones). But hey, any excuse to get offended, right?
I'm actually kind of sad that this movie isn't good, because I can see what it was trying to be. There are images that seem to come from an awesome movie: the fleets of flying pirate ships, the giant crocodiles, the glowing mermaids, the colorful costuming of the natives, or the massacre of the pixies (that could have been powerful if the plot had given them more emotional weight!). It's just that none of this comes together to make for a decent story, which defaults on lazy devices involving prophecies and unobtanium and other plot points ripped off from Avatar. That said, I'll give the movie partial credit for the imagery, and the interesting portrayals of Smee and Tiger Lily. Yep, you heard that right: the strangely-cast girl in neon feathers is one of the few parts of Pan that kinda works. Overall, stick with Hook, or the 2003 adaptation with Jason Issacs.
Walk the Line (***)
About a decade ago, Walk the Line was a critical darling. Though it's mostly a standard musician bio-pic, the film won acclaim for its actors, particularly Reese Witherspoon as June Carter. And yes, this really is a role that she disappears into, transforming into a corny country musician. But is the rest of the movie great?
There's an inherent problem with entertainment-celebrity biographies: someone who's a popular singer is not necessarily someone with an interesting life. Other types of historical figures often deal with bigger issues and have interesting stories about how they rose to power and prominence. By contrast, becoming a big hit in an age of mass media is typically a combination of talent and luck, and the payoff is that some people get entertained by fun songs. So the movie Walk the Line actually has little to say about Johnny Cash's music (though one brief scene with a record producer is pretty awesome), and focuses more on his romance with June Carter.
The movie is framed as a love story between Carter and Cash, but it has to walk a thin line (ha ha). On one hand, their love story is central to giving the film a focus and happy ending. On the other hand, they both were married to other people and had children by their spouses when they first met. So we can't really root for them to get together. To be honest, I was never sure how I felt towards the two lead characters, and it's worth noting that Johnny Cash's oldest daughter hated this movie. That said, I will compliment the film's portrayal of Cash's first wife, played Ginnifer Goodwin, who hits the right emotional notes to make herself a strong and very sympathetic character, rather than an obstacle.
Beyond the strong acting and interesting balance for the love triangle, Walk the Line is merely decent. It's a typical Oscar-bait biopic with a few interesting wrinkles.
Straight Outta Compton (***)
I grew up in Los Angeles in the 80's and 90's, so I often heard gangsta rap hits like “Boyz in the hood” playing in the background. This was the music that suburban white kids championed in order to seem tough, culturally conscious, or rebellious. At least, that's how I knew it. In high school, I wrote a parody of “Boyz in the hood” from the suburban perspective, in which the “boyz” consider themselves badass for committing mild pranks and putting off their homework. I appreciate that Straight Outta Compton gave me a different perspective.
To be clear, this really isn't my type of music. I find it very uninteresting. Straight Outta Compton didn't convince me that gangsta rap is high art. But it did convince me that it means something to other people.
The story goes that “Easy E” uses money gained from drug deals to fund a startup record label with his friends, who rap about the violence and injustice they see in their poor neighborhoods. A running theme is that the men are repeatedly harassed by the police based solely on their appearances. They are criticized for promoting violence, but defend themselves as merely speaking the truth. This gets at the split reasons for the genre's popularity: to the intended target audience, NWA's “F*@# the Police!” anthem was voicing pent-up frustration at terrible situations. To the suburban kids, though, it made “gangstas” seem cool and tough. One man's angry protest song is another's glamorization of violence.
Straight Outta Compton certainly has higher stakes than other musician biographies. The movie opens with the police ramming a battering ram into a crack house, and continues to show brief scenes of violence throughout. These guys don't just deal with personal issues... they have some pretty dangerous people to contend with. There's an interesting scene in which NWA's white manager (played by Paul Giamatti) has to talk Easy-E out of attacking a violent rival producer. The real guy said he later regretted that pep talk, and wished that he'd just let Easy-E kill the guy. Damn.
Despite all that, I didn't love this movie as much as the critics did. The focus is divided among a few too many characters, and the movie runs way too long (over 2 and a half hours). Better editing was definitely needed.
Overall, though, Straight Outta Compton is pretty good, elevated by the interesting experiences of the rappers and the strong performances of the actors playing them.
The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies (**)
(There's really nothing to say about this movie, so I'm just going to write a rant.)
Hey Hollywood: Stop splitting books into multiple movies. Just stop it. You've screwed it up every freaking time. And Harry Potter, this is all your fault. You started it. And we should have learned a lesson. People should have said, “Wow, Deathly Hallows Part 1 was dogshit, so let's all skip the last movie.” But nobody except me and five other people did that, so now the movie industry thinks we like dogshit movies. Thanks a lot, Pot-Heads!
Remember when Lord of the Rings was acclaimed and loved by all? Remember when it won all kinds of awards, and was considered a really big deal by moviegoers? Remember how even people who never read the books could name every Lord of the Rings character, and the actors playing them? Nobody gives a shit about the characters in the Hobbit, except for Bilbo, Smaug, and the guys who were previously in the good Lord of the Rings movies. Nobody cares about the romance of Elf-Girl and Dwarf-Guy.
The first Hobbit movie wasn't bad. It wasn't great, but it basically worked as a LOTR prequel. The second movie had terrible pacing, but at least it had Smaug and the funny barrel scene. This third movie has no reason to exist. It's 2 hours of battle footage that could have been cut together from the B-roll of Return of the King. We've seen enough of this! At least get a different director or do the fights in a different style of something!
No Escape (***)
A moderate success from last year, No Escape is a chase thriller with Owen Wilson (of all people) as an American who gets caught in the middle of a revolution. He and his family have arrived in a fictional, unstable South-Asian country, just in time for the country's Prime Minister to be assassinated and the city to be over-run with insurgents killing pretty much everyone.
The backstory is only briefly explained, and a lot of stuff is left to the imagination. Who's leading the rebels? What exactly do they want? How on earth did they get a tank? It doesn't really matter. The movie presents an almost surreal, nightmare scenario in which a peaceful street turns into a pitched battle in a matter of minutes. While the plot isn't amazing, I must compliment the film for its effective use of a chaotic atmosphere. You really believe that the whole world is falling apart into a senseless riot of violence and destruction.
Of course, No Escape has lots of ethnic baddies (also ethnic good guys, to be fair), so the PC crowd has called the movie xenophobic. I can see their point, though it's hard to read too much into the movie, given how far it goes to leave the bad guys vague and mysterious. The story is just “clueless white guy walks into the middle of a war zone” and it could really take place anywhere. Actually, the one scene that tries to provide political context and nuance just comes off as unconvincing. Great movies like Captain Phillips and Three Kings provided a nice balance of politics and action. No Escape would be better if it hadn't tried, and just stuck to the simple stuff.
No Escape is junky B-movie fun. Its appeal is similar to Taken, another visceral thriller with little thought put into it. The emotional manipulation is cheap (Wilson has two innocent daughters who cry the whole time), but I'll admit that it works, so the movie is a mild success.