Sep 02 2015
Leave a comment
Reviews

“STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON” Review (✫✫✫✫)

The biography of the boyz in the hood. 

Perception is reality.

That’s a motto my newsroom lives and dies by. That’s also a truth that the boys from Straight Outta Compton live and die by. The only difference between us is that we experience it figuratively: they experience it literally.

We witness this early in Straight Outta Compton; as early as the first scene, in fact. Eric Wright, a.k.a. Eazy E (Jason Mitchell) confronts his cousins, who hasn’t paid him yet for the dope that he sold them a few weeks ago. Suddenly, like an Earthquake striking a town, the police ram into the house and start raiding it, arresting any African-American they can find in there. E slips out of the window and onto the roof just in time. He’s survived. For now.

We switch to a less tense scene. Andre Young, a.k.a. Dr. Dre (Corey Hawkins) is sitting on his bedroom floor, listening to classic funk and R&B records on his record player. Dre isn’t like the others in the streets. He doesn’t want to sling dope or be in a gang. He just wants to produce beats and music: a mozart to his suburbs.

His mother Verna (Lisa Renee Pitts), however, isn’t so enthused about his career path. He has a family and a daughter to care for, and he isn’t going to do it sitting on the floor listening to a record player, DJ’ing for a club at night. Dre, however, has his mind set. His future doesn’t lie in cleaning toilets and taking fast food orders. It lies in a DJ mixer and a pair of headphones. Dre knows what he needs to do.

Meanwhile, on the other side of Compton, O’Shea Jackson, a.k.a. Ice Cube (played by his own son, O’Shea Jackson Jr.) is sitting on a bus waiting to go to school. He sees the white kids in another school yard, all dressed in nice clothes, all with newly-bought school supplies and slick cars. Meanwhile, Cube sits in his creaky bus seat, looking at his clothes he probably wore yesterday, and his worn pencil and notepad, which is the only school supplies he has.

He takes his pencil and notepad and starts writing.

These three men, alongside Lorenzo Patterson, a.k.a. MC Ren (Aldis Hodge) and Antoine Carraby, a.k.a. DJ Yella (Neil Brown Jr.) make up the notorious hip-hop group N.W.A. The last two words stand for “With Attitude.” You can imagine what the letter “N” stands for.

Here is a film that, by any standards, is morally despicable. I go on and on in some of my reviews how movies are either incredibly violent, shamelessly sexual, or blatantly vulgar. This movie is all of those things and more. F-words fly out of their mouths like bullets in an uzi. Nude and scantily-clad women flock to these rappers in herds. In some scenes, they engage in sexual intercourse with many attendants watching, all with drugs and alcohol present. Police and gang violence is also present in the film, with crips, bloods, and officers shoving, punching, shooting, assaulting, and harassing each other in very violent, confrontational fashions.

Do not be fooled. This is not an easy film to watch, and if you don’t have a strong moral compass, you will get lost in the violent, sexual, promiscuous, profane, and blatantly explicit content you will find in this motion picture. If you hate hip-hop, you will hate Straight Outta Compton.

That being said, Straight Outta Compton is one of the most compelling films I’ve seen so far this year. The movie is more than the problems it poses. In fact, I’m happy that the film shows the content that it does in the film. It shows the destructive lifestyle these people experience, both on and off the streets, and they confront very real issues that hits them hard at home and at heart. The most significant issue that the movie covers is, of course, police violence. In one of my favorite scenes from the film, one of the police officers that was harassing these young men was not white, but black. My jaw dropped as he continued to berate these men as they were walking away: “Listen to your master!” he said, referring to their white manager.

What I love most about this movie, though, is that it isn’t biased. It isn’t pro-police or anti-police or pro-gangs or anti-gangs. It shows the ugliness of every side of Compton, whether it exists on a badge or on a bandana. Police cruelty is an obvious focus of the film, because it’s a recurring theme in hip-hop and rap culture. I was pleasantly surprised, though, to find at how much the film delved into hood culture and how damaging it is to these young men’s lives. The biggest instances of cruelty came from record producer Suge Knight, portrayed here by R. Marcus Taylor, whose business tactics include physical intimidation, humiliation, fear, confrontation, and violence. If the movie is anything to go by on how the real events transpired, Suge is a monster. He is painted as nothing less than the Godfather of suffering in this movie.

The parallels this movie draws on is ingenious, and director F. Gary Gray is exemplary in realizing the African-American struggle in a poverty-stricken neighborhood and in their aspiration to escape from it. Jackson does very well in portraying his father, and demonstrates the same snarl and attitude with such accuracy that it made me laugh at how similar he looked to his father. Hawkins is passionate and driven in portraying Dre, and while he physically looks smaller than the real-life Dr. Dre, his performance and his versatility in emotion more than makes up for lacking in physical similarities.

The greatest performance, however, comes from Jason Mitchell. In hindsight, he is the character with the most problems. He’s egotistical, he objectifies women, he betrays his friends, he resorts to violence, and he flourishes in the most destructive lifestyle as he bathes himself in a plethora of drugs, alcohol, and sex. In comparison to his N.W.A. companions, he is the most flawed character. But with his flaws comes his emotions to those flaws, his own moments of self-reflection that makes him think back at his decisions, his career, and the life that he’s trapped in. E goes through many emotions in this film, from fear, to anger, to happiness, to sadness, to heartbreak, and Mitchell portrays all of those emotions perfectly. If he doesn’t deserve the Academy Award for best supporting actor, he definitely deserves a nomination.

But at the heart of this movie is the struggle, the struggle that these five young men go through together, apart, individually, and inseparably. Their struggle being not having enough money. Their struggle being having too much money. Their struggle of not having a place in the world, and their struggle of what to do after establishing their place in the world. Like hip-hop, this movie will stir some major controversy for its content and for what messages it sends to its younger viewers. But it’s important to understand that this movie doesn’t set out to prove who is right and wrong. This movie sets out to show a reality. This movie sets out to show their reality.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Aug 31 2015
Leave a comment
The Scope

No Great Movie

Editor’s note: I wrote the following essay as an extra credit assignment for a film and theatre appreciation class I took over the summer. It’s not everyday you get to write about movies for a class grade. Below is the final draft that I submitted to my instructor. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I have enjoyed writing it. 

“A great movie evolves when everybody has the same vision in their heads.”

– Alan Parker, Midnight Express, Mississippi Burning

If director Alan Parker’s statement is true, then there is no such thing as a great movie. In that same sense though, there is no such thing as a bad movie either. There are only movies that we perceive as good or bad, not movies that are definitively good or bad. Movies aren’t fruit. They don’t spoil as they age. Really, they can last for years if their taste is sweet enough. They can also spoil at the first bite if their taste is rotten enough too. But like fruit, their tastes are also dependent on the people consuming them. There are people who like apples and don’t like bananas. There are people who like bananas and don’t like apples. There are also people who don’t like The Godfather, The Shawshank Redemption, or Toy Story. God forbid, there are also people who like Mortal Kombat, Battlefield Earth, and Gigli. The point, however, isn’t to praise or criticize viewers for liking one movie or another: it is to understand their reasons for their opinions, and come to a consensus they can agree on despite initial reactions.

There are a few items to recognize before digging into a deeper argument. For instance, how do movies evolve into a status of either appraisal or rejection? Sometimes the reaction is immediate, like Inception or Scary Movie. Other times, the response is mixed and takes time for the work to either evolve or dissolve, like Fight Club or Twilight. And at other times, it will take either a decade or longer to truly appreciate a work, or to see it fade into nothingness as many other films do the same thing it does, except better. Psycho and Transformers fit into this category.

Let’s look at the positively reviewed films from this group first, shall we? Those films include David Fincher’s Fight Club, Christopher Nolan’s Inception, and Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho. Unanimously, and without much dissent, these are widely accepted films that have achieved either “cult” or “classic” status that have more or less made their mark in today’s media. Critics and film historians have placed these films on many variations of their greatest “All time” lists. All three of these films have placed in the top 50 of international movie database’s Top 250 All-Time List. All three films have placed at 90% or higher on RottenTomatoes’ audience score. It almost doesn’t matter if you’ve seen these films or not. They’ve been officially labeled by our society as “masterpieces.”

And yet, they also all have one thing in common: they all have received mixed reactions from their initial release.

Let’s start with Fight Club. Before its release in 1999, director David Fincher worked on Alien 3, Seven, and The Game. Good films by standards back then, but not unique enough to set themselves apart or memorable from other films in their genre. Then in comes a film called Fight Club, based off of a novel by Chuck Palahnuik and starring Brad Pitt and Edward Norton. Bam. Instant game changer. Telling a story about a man who met a stranger on a plane who convinces him that this life is a waste and that radical changes are needed in order to live life to the fullest, Fight Club follows themes of morality, reality, survival, human nature, and insanity, observing elements of the human condition and how we relate to them as flawed individuals. It’s writing is fresh, unique, and smart. Perhaps too smart for its time.

At its initial release, Fight Club was among the most controversial films of the 1990’s for its portrayal of graphic violence and disturbing content. Critics at the time called it “irresponsible and appalling.” Comparisons were made almost instantaneously to Stanley Kubrick’s equally controversial A Clockwork Orange. Janet Maslin for the New York Times warned that if not interpreted correctly, the film could be “mistaken for a dangerous endorsement of totalitarian tactics and super-violent nihilism.” The film aimed to get a reaction, and it got one. People were almost unanimously shocked, appalled, and intrigued at this disturbing, violent, morally flexible film.

Let’s look at a more recent film. Inception. The film that many argue to be Christopher Nolan’s magnus opus. Originally conceived as a horror movie, but eventually evolved to be a science-fiction heist picture over the course of ten years, Inception tells the story about an “extractor” named Dom. In this universe, “extractors” are specially trained individuals who can seep into someone’s mind during their sleep, and navigate their sub conscious as they search for secrets solidified as actual objects in their dreams.

Sound complicated? It should be. The movie has been both praised and criticized for its complex narrative and multi-layered plot, with its flashbacks and flash forwards and traversing the subject’s dreams on top of dreams inside of dreams until your head explodes from all of the insanity.

While Inception was mostly praised for its in-depth plot and complex storytelling, it was equally panned for just that exact same thing. Which is a shame, because since when is it fair to call a story “too detailed”? Nevertheless, Inception’s dissenters spoke with ferocity and firmness. Gareth Simms from Platform wrote that Inception is “A film trying to feverishly to spin your head whilst feverishly trying to explain how it’s spinning it.” J.R. Jones from the Chicago Reader wrote that it “sags and eventually buckles under the weight of its complicated premise.” Any O’Hehir hilariously wrote for Salon.com “Nolan’s dreams are apparently directed by Michael Bay.”

Again, a lot of supporters, a lot of dissenters. Notice, however, that their reasons once again revolve around the complexity of the plot and it’s moral fiber. The film’s lovers and haters both cite the same reasons for their opinions.

And now Psycho. Alfred Hitchcock’s labeled masterpiece that is cited by many as one of the greatest thrillers of all time. Starring Janet Leigh and Anthony Perkins, this 1960 thriller follows a woman fleeing from town after stealing a large amount of money from the bank she works at. When she checks into a shady spot called the Bates Hotel, things radically change and impacts the people all around her.

The film is significant for a few reasons. Firstly, filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock refused seating for any attendants that showed up late to the film’s screening, going so far as to hang up doorknob signs saying that people who missed the beginning of the film needed to wait until the film’s next showing. It’s levels of violence and sexuality contrasted with the MPAA’s standards at the time, being allowed to show the film only after multiple clashes with the organization and changes to specific scenes. This film showed a scene of a man and a woman together in bed with undergarments on, one of the few films to do so at the time. Hitchcock even made one of the most daring narrative decisions while working on the script, killing off one of the film’s core characters near the end of the film’s first act.

These multiple controversies, plus the disturbing content of the film, made for a very strong release of mixed views and opinions. Many people loved the performances, while most were just horrified and alienated from the film’s mind-bending plot. Film critic C.A. Lejeune even permanently resigned her position at the Observer because of how much the film sickened her. Psycho’s appreciation only came as time moved on, as censorship codes changed and society’s moral standards shifted.

So, those movies have been labeled with stamps of approval while having their fair share of critics sounding off, but what about the opposite? What about movies that have been almost universally panned, and yet, are also not-so-silently accepted as entertainment from its viewers? These titles come in the form of Scary Movie, Twilight, and Transformers.

Scary Movie (which I wish I could say was the only one), is a spoof film directed by Keenen Ivory Wayans satirizing many iconic horror films into what is essentially a slapstick comedy. These films include the Scream movies, The Sixth Sense, The Blair Witch Project, and The Exorcist.

What’s your gut reaction to hearing that a spoof movie is coming out? Mine is to throw up. In my opinion, little effort is needed to make a spoof. That’s because you’re simply copying the plot from another movie, your actors are typecast for quote-unquote “comedic” effect, and your script is making fun of another movie just because you’re not talented enough to do what other filmmakers did. It’s disrespectful to the original material, and it’s a cheap way to get cheap laughs.

Here’s the thing, though: audiences don’t care to be respectful to source material. We know this because Scary Movie grossed $278 million at the box office, which is more than both Fight Club and Psycho’s box office combined. Yes, dear reader: Scary Movie made more money than Alfred Hitchcock’s horror classic Psycho. If that isn’t one of many examples to show you where society is at, I don’t know what is.

Post-note: To play devils advocate, you would need to adjust Psycho’s box office standards to todays due to inflation. Even then, their box office grosses are relatively close as Psycho’s adjusted $346 million competes with Scary Movie’s $278 million. The fact those movies are $50 million apart is disturbing to me.

Let’s look at another movie: Transformers, i.e. the same action movie you’ve seen over, and over, and over, and over again. Based off of the Hasbro toy line of the same name, Transformers’ premise is based on shifting robots that can transform (screenwriters: “Huh huh, we’re so clever”) into any vehicle they see. This sounds like an interesting idea in theory, and the first film in the series was actually entertaining and fun for a complacent action movie. But then the film did the worst thing some action movies could do: it spawned sequels. Not one, not two, but three sequels, and reports have indicated that more are coming out.

Do you know why more are coming out? It’s because America can’t stop freaking watching them, that’s why. The first Transformers movie grossed over $700 million. That’s okay because that was fun, in-your-face entertainment. The second film, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, grossed over $800 million. That one was just in your face. The third and fourth films, Dark of the Moon and Age of Extinction, both broke $1 billion at the box office, with a capital B. Movies like this gross at least four times its budget, while movies like The Shawshank Redemption struggled to even its budget at the box office. How is it that cheap movies get rewarded, whereas truly unique and pivotal films more or less get shoved under the red carpet?

And now Twilight: the biggest eye-roller out of the whole bunch. Twilight is a nationally recognized vampire love story that told of a teenage girl who falls in love with a classmate after realizing he is a vampire. Question: Is that usually your first reaction to hearing that someone is a blood-sucking animal?

The film is based off of the book series by Stephanie Meyer, stars Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson as the film’s hopeless gothic lovers, and is directed by Catherine Hardwicke, who directed acclaimed drama films Thirteen starring Holly Hunter and Evan Rachel Wood, and Lords of Dogtown starring heath Ledger and Emile Hirsch. Yeesh. Talk about a fall from grace.

What’s so confusing about the Twilight movies is that while they are all recognized as cheapish, insincere, artificially emotional films (not one went past 50% on RottenTomatoes), they still persisted and flourished with their target audience. With the exception of the first film, all movies in the franchise have grossed over $698 million, making the franchise overall worth a total of $3 billion worldwide. The fifth film in the franchise, Breaking Dawn: Part 2 went so far as to be the 50th highest grossing film of all time. Many of the movies have even unbelievably won best picture awards at the MTV Movie Awards, the Teen Choice Awards, and the People’s Choice awards, beating out other contenders such as The Dark Knight and Slumdog Millionaire.

What is our world coming to?

Here’s the thing you need to understand. Moviegoing audiences don’t appreciate film at the same levels as those who have studied filmmaking and storytelling as a profession. They don’t go to movies to study them. They go there to watch them, to have fun with them and to be entertained. I’d like to argue that it is possible to study them while enjoying them, but that’s another subject. Point being, moviegoers are not critics. They like what’s popular: not what is different.

So here’s the penultimate question: are their opinions wrong?

I’m going to answer this question by asking two.

Is the apple spoiled?

And are you wrong if you don’t like apples?

When going into the theater, we have to remember what the movie set out to do. If it set out to make us laugh, you can grade off of that. If it set out to entertain you, you can grade off of that. If it set out to make you sad, happy, angry, or fill you with emotion, you can grade off of that. It’s not what reaction you had to the film: it’s what reaction the movie was aiming to give you.

To argue this point, I reference film critic Roger Ebert’s blog entry “Whole Lotta Cantin’ Going On”, which defended both the supporters and dissenters of Inception and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. He also brought into discussion people’s reaction to the styles of filmmakers such as Orson Welles, Ingmar Bergmann, Yasujiro Ozu, and Alfred Hitchcock.

“If you say you dislike The Godfather or Shawshank, I can’t say you’re wrong,” Ebert wrote. “The one thing you can never be wrong about is your own opinion. It’s when you start giving your reasons that you lay yourself open.”

He then called into question two different negative reviews of Inception: one by David Edelstein of New York Magazine and another by Armond White of CityArts. Edelstein analyzed the feeling and tone of the film and described why he didn’t like it because of the elements. White watched the film and simply wrote his reaction to it. While Ebert praised Edelstein for giving his reasons for his opinion, rather than just his opinion like White did, he noted to both of them that they needed to view the film with Nolan’s intentions in mind.

“Nolan successfully made the film he had in mind, and shouldn’t be faulted for failing to make someone else’s film,” Ebert wrote.

Which really is the word of the day here: intent. What did the movie set out to do? Did it succeed in doing it? Is it technically well made and accurate to the film’s intentions? Are the film’s intentions whole to begin with, or are they just another cash- grabber and not much else?

All of this comes into question when thinking about your reaction to a film. Some movies may be manipulative to its audience, but some people like to be manipulated. Some movies may challenge its viewers and their conceptions and ideas, but some people don’t like to be challenged. And some movies, like Inception, are very smart and integral plots that challenge the viewer’s ability to think and interpret. God forgive them, some people just don’t like to think.

And that’s the problem with film criticism. You have the filmmaker’s intentions clashing with the audience’s idea of the intentions. Is it fair to judge a film through a specific scope when it should have been aiming for another? Does it not fit quite right with the tone that it was going for? Is it going to be accessible to its audience? Is it the audience’s fault if it isn’t accessible? Is it the filmmaker’s?

So, is there such a thing as a best picture? Is there such a thing as the worst picture? Both the audiences and the filmmakers have the power to decide that. They need to come together and realize each other’s intentions before dismissing the other.

– David Dunn

Aug 30 2015
Leave a comment
Trending

Wes Craven passed away

One of Hollywood’s most notable horror icons has left us today.

Wes Craven, 76-year old filmmaker, producer, and writer, died today as a result of brain cancer. The full statement released by his family is below:

“It is with deep sadness we inform you that Wes Craven passed away at 1 p.m. on Sunday, August 30 after battling brain cancer. He was 76 years old. Craven was surrounded by love, in the presence of his family at his Los Angeles home.

Craven is survived by his wife, producer and former Disney Studios VP Iya Labunka, older sister Carol Buhrow, son Jonathan Craven with wife Rachel Craven and their two sons Miles and Max; daughter Jessica Craven with husband Mike Wodkowski and their daughter Myra-Jean Wodkowski; and Wes’ stepdaughter Nina Tarnawksy. Craven was predeceased by his parents Paul Eugene Craven, a machinist who passed away when Wes was 5 years old, his mother Caroline, a bookkeeper, and his older brother Paul James Craven.

One of the most prolific filmmakers of all time, Craven was also a nature lover and committed bird conservationist, serving as a long-time member of the Audubon California Board of Directors. He was born in Cleveland, Ohio on August 2nd, 1939. Craven was a longtime summer resident of Martha’s Vineyard where he moved permanently 3 years ago before returning to Los Angeles for work and health reasons.

In addition, Craven continued to be active as a mentor and producer to newer filmmakers, and is an Executive Producer of the upcoming feature film ‘The Girl in the Photographs’ which will premiere at the 2015 Toronto Film Festival.”

Craven was indeed a large influence to the film industry. He wrote and directed the original Nightmare On Elm Street, as well as writing, directing, and producing the entire Scream series. Craven also directed films such as The Hills Have Eyes, The Last House On The Left, Red Eye, and Music of the Heart, which earned actress Meryl Streep her twelfth Academy Award nomination. He also contributed a short to the anthology film Paris, je t’aime, and served as an executive producer for multiple remakes of his own films, including the 2006 film The Hills Have Eyes, 2009’s The Last House On The Left, and the current MTV television adaptation of Scream.

Craven was not a consistent filmmaker by today’s standards. Hell, he’s had as many failures as he has successes (Don’t look at My Soul To Take or Cursed). But Craven was passionate, he loved what he did, and he inspired other filmmakers to do the same. I think that’s the most important thing to know of any industry, is to do what you love and encourage others to love what they do.

Rest in peace, Wes. Freddy Krueger will haunt other people’s nightmares forever, but he knows to leave the horror master’s alone.

– David Dunn

SOURCE: The Hollywood Reporter, The Wrap
Aug 29 2015
Leave a comment
The Scope

For WDBJ. For Journalism.

Journalism is under attack. The reporters are the soldiers, and our battlefield is the space that we type in.

Well, typing for most, that is. Some are brave enough to put their faces and bodies on a different battlefield: a television screen.

Two reporters did just that Wednesday morning. By that evening, we had two more casualties to report.

WDBJ reporter Alison Parker was 24 years old. She loved Mexican food, kayaking and television. One of her favorite characters was Walter White of “Breaking Bad.” She fell in love with WDBJ7 anchor Chris Hurst, and the couple moved in together in early August. They were saving up money for a wedding. Hurst told his mother “I finally found my teammate.”

Parker was the first to get shot.

Her camera man Adam Ward caught it all on camera. In that moment, everyone watching the television was seeing the same thing Ward was: his colleague and friend getting shot three times as she tried to get away.

Coworkers have described both journalists as good human beings — people with emotions, concerns, quirks and characteristics that made them who they are. They were good reporters, and they were better people.

The violent taking of their lives is, in every sense of the word, senseless. Nobody deserves the fate that these two suffered.

What bothers me most about this case is that, despite how tragic the situation is, it isn’t the only time it has happened.

In the past 10 years, at least 40 journalists a year have died while reporting on a story, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. The largest number of casualties was 74 in 2012.

Some were caught in the crossfire while on the other side of the world in Iraq or Syria. Others were publicly executed as a warning to others who would speak out against evil and violence. You might find it interesting that the area of coverage to suffer the greatest amount of casualties is not crime, but politics.

Whatever the case may be, journalists like Parker and Ward are all over the world doing their jobs. They have families, friends and lives outside of the newsroom just like Parker and Ward did.

There’s only one reason why Parker and Ward’s deaths are getting all the media attention and not others: it was broadcast on national television.

We can’t just care about the reporters deaths that we know about. We need to be aware of all the sacrifices that journalists make on a daily basis and why they voluntarily make those sacrifices. Too many journalists have lost too much for the sake of their jobs.

#WeStandWithWDBJ

Tagged , , , , ,
Aug 26 2015
Leave a comment
Reviews

“MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: ROGUE NATION” Review (✫✫1/2)

More like a city, or a gated community.

I’m really starting to get sick of these action movies. I know, I know, how do I get sick of action? Well, have you ever seen a television episode over, and over, and over again to the point where it frustrated you just to look at it? That’s where I’m at with these action movies that are getting recycled summer after summer after summer.

I was really hoping Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation wasn’t going to be another recycled action pic. Truthfully, I wasn’t expecting it. The film is at a 93% from critics on RottenTomatoes, while users rate it at a 91%. Metacritic users rate it an 8 out of 10. Cinemascore polls it at an A-. Everyone around me seems to be fervently enjoying the action romp that is Mission Impossible. Everyone, that is, except me.

So what happened? Simply put, I think audiences were expecting something different from me. I’ve seen four of these movies now before watching Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, and with each one, I got something different. The first Mission Impossible pitted a younger Ethan Hunt against two opposing spy agencies, along with the gravity of seeing his entire team get killed on a deadly mission. The third Mission Impossible found Hunt breaking out of retirement to rescue his wife, who was held captive at the hands of a cruel terrorist threat. The fourth Mission Impossible found Ethan dealing with his wife’s death after the events of MI3. We won’t count Mission Impossible II, because that’s not a real Mission Impossible movie.

With Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, Ethan Hunt (once again, portrayed by Tom Cruise) is pitted against both his own government and yet another secret spy agency named the Syndicate, comprised of insurgent IMF agents labeled as either missing or dead. That’s it. He has no personal investment in the story, no driving emotional force that focuses on him and him only. At one point in the movie, one of his closest friends gets kidnapped by the syndicate and he starts freaking out about it. Right. How many times did someone get kidnapped in your other movies, Ethan?

His supporting characters includes most of his crew from the fourth Mission Impossible. Ving Rhames is back as Vincent, returning once again to help Ethan Hunt since their first mission in the original Mission Impossible. The comedic relief Benji is once again portrayed by self-employed funny man Simon Pegg. Jeremy Renner returns as William Brandt, acting as Ethan’s voice of reason against all of his crazy ideas of stunts. Considering Cruise does all of his own stunts, I think Renner needs to be his voice of reason off-screen as well.

The first thing you need to know about Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation is that the visuals do not disappoint. The one thing every movie in the series is most known for is its spectacle, and Rogue Nation keeps the tradition going strong. In one fight scene early in the film, Ethan was fighting a swarm of syndicate agents while handcuffed at both his wrists and ankles. In another, he’s quietly struggling against a sniper on top of a German opera production while the performance is still going on. My favorite is probably when he has to hold his breath under water for six minutes in what is essentially an underwater hard drive as he switches out two data disks. It’s important to note, Cruise actually trained with a diving specialist in order to hold his breath under water for three minutes. The sequence we see in the film was actually shot in one take with no edits.

The stunts we see in the film are impressive to say the least. The danger with a fifth entry, however, is that I’ve been impressed four times already. Whatever stunts are to come, I’m already expecting. And since I’ve seen these crazy stunts in four movies now, the effect is dulled before I even see it.

For instance, the big stunt people were excited for in this movie specifically was a sequence where Cruise is holding on outside of an airplane while it is taking off. Impressive as it was, it was the very first scene in the movie. Since I’ve already seen the trailer, I know Cruise survives this sequence, otherwise why would we even have a movie? How am I supposed to feel tension and excitement in a scene where I already know what’s going to happen?

The cast is appropriate, but ineffective. They serve the same roles they’ve done from other movies and that’s about it. How is Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt? The same he’s been for four movies now. How is Jeremy Renner? About as good as he was in Ghost Protocol, except now he’s less interesting because he doesn’t have the investment and guilt he had in Ghost Protocol. Pegg is the same. Rhames is the same. The only characters that are different are the new characters, which includes its baddie played by Sean Harris and its discount Bond girl played by Rebecca Ferguson. Again, what do these characters have to offer that we haven’t seen before? The late Phillip Seymour-Hoffman did a better job manipulating and pushing Ethan past his limits in the J.J. Abrams-directed Mission Impossible III than Harris did in this movie. And Ferguson? Did she not see Emmanuelle Béart in her brilliantly deceptive performance in the original Mission Impossible?

I caught myself saying one thing over and over again during the film: “I’ve seen this before.” For a movie series that’s lasted past five films, that’s not a good thing. Funny, this movie is written and directed by Christopher McQuarrie, who is responsible for writing The Usual Suspects and Edge of Tomorrow and directing Jack Reacher, all films with their own unique interest and personality. Now he has made Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, and like Ethan’s assigned missions, his movie blew up in my face after it gave me what it was supposed to.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Aug 25 2015
Leave a comment
Reviews

“MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: GHOST PROTOCOL” Review (✫✫✫1/2)

Pray for Tom Cruise’s sanity.

There is something seriously wrong with Tom Cruise if he is not pissing his pants while scaling up the world’s tallest building in Dubai. In Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, he shows he’s more daring by stumping a feat that he matched in MI2 where he free-climbed up a canyon wearing nothing but a safety harness. This time, he’s climbing up the Burj Khalifa building in Dubai, which happens to be the world’s tallest building at a whopping 829 meters. That’s the equivalent of three Eiffel towers.

What is wrong with him?

This feat, among others, demonstrates that Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol is by far one of the most visually spectacular of all the Mission Impossible movies. It’s also one of the more entertaining ones as well. Like the other Mission Impossible movies, there is never a dull moment, and never a thrill wasted. There is appeal in every scene of every shot, whether it is a ridiculous chase/action sequence, a precise line of exposition, a humorous exchange of dialogue between characters, or Cruise pulling off yet another stupidly insane stunt that would probably kill anyone else. Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol is the definition of great moviemaking.

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol takes place a few years after the events of the third Mission Impossible. Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise), who was previously happily married to his wife, Julie (Michelle Monoghan), is now incarcerated and in a federal prison in Moscow, Russia. What he’s doing there, we have no idea. Not until later in the movie.

He is broken out of prison with the help of two IMF agents: agents Carter (Paula Patton) and Benji (Simon Pegg), who you would remember as the dorky, but funny, computer geek we saw in Mission Impossible III. They are ordered to break Hunt out of prison for one reason: assistance on an upcoming mission where they have to break into the Kremlin to discover the identity of “Cobalt”, a global criminal who intends to start an international nuclear war in order to issue a new era of peace. His idea is similar to Ozymandias’ in the 2009 film Watchmen: before humanity can be saved, there first needs to be something to save them from. That is, at least, what “Cobalt” believes.

Here is a film where the visual spectacle and design of the film overwhelms the story that is being told. In the two previous Mission Impossible movies, that was a weakness. Here though, I applaud it for its ambition in visual spectacle and for its audacity to impress the audience in sheer spirit and style alone. Besides the climbing of the Burf Khalifa sequence, I can name many other sequences that really impressed me, such as the prison break scene in Moscow, the breaking into the Kremlin, a chase scene between Ethan and “Cobalt” in Dubai, and a final spectacular fight sequence that takes place in a car lot in India. I was so impressed by all of these sequences that I went back to the theater to watch it again just for those scenes alone.

Don’t think for a second, however, that just because the story is secondary to the action, it doesn’t mean it cannot hold up on its own. One thing I was initially worried about with this movie was how it would handle being a sequel to Mission Impossible III, which I thought was a fine way to end the franchise on a happy note. How they tie that movie into this one is brilliant, and there are many moments where we can pick up what happened to Ethan and Julie in between the events of MI3 and Ghost Protocol. This is where the film’s emotional appeal comes from. Ethan is trying to recover from what happened with him and Julie in the past, and as husbands and lovers, we can sympathize with Ethan and his problems. It isn’t tear-wrenching, but it doesn’t need to be. It gets a response from its viewers, and it doesn’t need an explosion and a falling building to get it. As a movie that is action-focused, it impresses me that the movie focuses on all the areas that it needs to: not just the ones that will bring it the biggest bucks.

Cruise, of course, is as slick, cool, and crazy as he always is, and comes back to this movie with the same charm and charisma that made him an icon in the original “Mission Impossible” movies. Paula Patton, who is most known in supporting roles like “Déjà Vu”, “Precious” and recently “Jumping The Broom” plays here yet another supporting role who is just as effective in other movies as she is here. She is smart, ambitious, and incredibly passionate, who puts in everything she can into every shot. And, if I may say so, she looks damn good while doing it.

Two actors who I felt had great presence in the film: Benji, played by Simon Pegg, and a new character named Brandt, played by Jeremy Renner from The Hurt Locker. I loved both of them in this movie. If Cruise and Patton provided the action-packed, exciting moments in the movie, these two provided the comedic relief. I can remember countless lines of dialogue from them both that made me and everyone else in the theater laugh. One especially funny scene was basically a re-enactment of the iconic dangling scene from the first Mission Impossible movie. Was it exciting, suspenseful, and nerve-wracking? Yes, but Benj’s oblivious comments combined with Brandt’s agitated responses culminated for a very funny moment that started off very unnerving and heart-pounding. Few films have the capacity to be able to switch from one tone to another; this film does it with surprising efficiency.

Perhaps the most surprising thing about this film is that this is the director’s first live-action film. Director Brad Bird is famous for animated critical successes such as The Iron Giant, The Incredibles, and Ratatouille, but no live-action films prior to Mission Impossible. How was he able to make this and make it look so amazing? Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol is visually spectacular, sharply humorous, and relentlessly spirited and invigorating. It may not be the best Mission Impossible, but it is definitely the best sequel.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Aug 24 2015
Leave a comment
Reviews

“MISSION IMPOSSIBLE III” Review (✫✫✫)

Your mission, should you choose to accept it. 

Finally, we can forgive Tom Cruise for the disaster that was Mission Impossible II. This is the perfect example of a solid action movie, a film that has suspense, excitement, romance, and intrigue: a Hollywood blockbuster that has a nice balance of everything you can ask for. There is a moment in Mission Impossible III where we feel for Ethan Hunt not as another movie action hero, but as a human being, who has emotions and worries that any other normal human being would possess. The way Cruise portrays him in this movie is very realistic. Think about it: if you were out there, stealing nuclear devices, kidnapping black arms dealers, and saving the world every ten seconds, wouldn’t you be worried about your wife who knew nothing of your double life back at home?

Apparently now retired, we catch former IMF agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) as he is happily engaged to Julie (Michelle Monoghan) a nurse who is studying to be a doctor. For once, Ethan is experiencing a sense of normalcy. He’s experiencing what it is like to be a husband, and what it is like to love. No explosions, no excitement, and no lives at risk. Ethan, for once, is just a normal guy who is in love with a beautiful woman. He is experiencing happiness.

Happiness for Ethan, however, doesn’t last long, and he soon finds himself shoved right back into the profession he wants to retire from. When told by his superior, John (Billy Cudrup) that Ethan’s apprentice, Lindsey (Kerri Russell) was captured and tortured by criminals while spying on black arms dealer Owen Davian (Phillip Seymour Hoffman), Ethan feels that he has no choice but to go back into the field so he can save his friend from certain demise.

This film, like the other Mission Impossible movies, sports strong performances. The cast is just as strong as any other movie, and I think you can argue that they are the strongest in this one. Cruise, for instance, doesn’t play a paragon of an action hero. Here, he plays a human being, flesh and blood, emotion for emotion, merely molded to look like an action hero. Despite his skills and experience, he can’t be everywhere at once. He can’t be with his wife and take care of her and go off to save the world at the same time.

At some point, whether he’d like to or not, he has to leave one world in order to take care of the other.

I however, wouldn’t leave Julie alone with a creep like Davian for a second if I had known he would pay her a visit. This dude seriously scares me. Phillip Seymour Hoffman, who is a very skilled actor, is perhaps the subtlest in this movie, and plays a ruthless criminal who is just plain mean, evil, cruel, and antagonizing. I have met few antagonists who are as patronizing and as threatening as this guy is. Here is a guy that puts many other movie villains to shame, including those in the first Mission Impossible. Here is a guy who scares you just by staring bleakly into your eyes. He doesn’t need to speak to you: his eyes do all the talking, the eyes that say that he’s going to kill the person you love most, and he’s going to do it in front of you while you’re watching.

This film doesn’t go as deep into those politics of things as some may like it to, but I don’t think it is necessary. Mission Impossible III is fun. I say that as a simple statement, but there is nothing simple about this movie. This movie has earned the title of Mission Impossible from the stunts and visuals alone. I can easily name eight scenes on the top of my head that truly impressed me. Perhaps the most memorable moment for me was an assault between IMF agents and trained ex-military assassins on a bridge near New York. This scene was nerve-wracking, exciting, and worrisome for multiple reasons. Perhaps the biggest is because everything was happening all at once.

Cars were blowing up. Pieces of the bridge were falling apart. Innocent people were caught confused and afraid in the crossfire. Agents were getting shot. Assasins were breaking a prisoner out of an armed jeep. And here is Ethan, running around, avoiding gunfire and explosions, trying desperately to grasp the situation and take control of it. The reason this movie is so successful is because, like the other movies in this series, they push the limits of what they can achieve. There is not a single moment in this film where a thrill is wasted. It’s all there, and it is just as effective as it was in the first Mission Impossible.

The action overwhelms the plot a little bit in the third act of this movie, but other than that, the film is almost perfectly balanced. Director J.J. Abrams and screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman have found a nice combination involving stellar action sequences, funny dialogue, memorable characters, and heartfelt emotion. Have I mentioned before how I hate emotionless action movies? I have no complaint with Mission Impossible III. Its heart is in the right place, and it knows its characters as well as its action. That’s a rare treatment for action movies. It’s a treatment that should be given to them more often.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Aug 22 2015
Leave a comment
Reviews

“MISSION IMPOSSIBLE II” Review (✫✫)

So ridiculous, it can only happen in a movie.

I wonder what it would be like to write action scenes in a screenplay. Not briefly, mind you, but over an extended period of time. We are so used to these action movies that contain nothing but wall-to-wall action, violence, exploding, shooting, stabbing, kicking, punching, and body-dropping all over the place. Few of those movies have worthwhile plot or dialogue to them, which are the main tools a screenwriter uses when writing their screenplay. I imagine writing an action movie for them would be a nightmare. There’s nothing interesting to write about except for who dies next.

I feel especially sorry, then, for screenwriter Robert Towne, who is normally known for his smart, driving plots found in movies like Chinatown, The Firm, indeed, even the first Mission Impossible, now stuck to writing about nothing but explosions, gunfire, broken bones, ribs, limbs, and jaws, with a little twinge of intrigue placed somewhere in this muck of explosions and action. Mission Impossible II is not the movie that the first Mission Impossible was. The first Mission Impossible had memorable characters, iconic situations, and an in-depth and mysterious plot that kept your interest for every second of that movie. Its sequel Mission Impossible II has nothing the first one had except for its action. The characters, while likable, are also disposable, and lack any emotional conviction to make me really care for anyone for a long period of time. The plot is utterly pointless. Like this movie, it exists only to provide reason for the action, rather than the other way around.

MI2 follows agent Ethan Hunt’s (Tom Cruise) pursuit of an ex-IMF agent named Sean Ambrose (Dougray Scott), who is impersonating Hunt through the same face-masks from the first film. What is Ambrose after, and what does Hunt’s identity have to do with it? He is after a harmful chemical known as “Chimera”, a terrible virus that infects the host in a matter of hours, takes his cells, eats them, and kills the host as slowly and painfully as possible. The doctor who made this is named Vladmir Nekhorvich (Rade Serbegija), and he has been a close friend of Hunt’s for some unknown period of time now (Although he keeps calling him “Dimitri”, for some  reason).

This film is directed by John Woo, who is mostly known for his ridiculous, overly-long, overly-explosive action scenes in his movies. His action scenes are so ridiculous, that he makes Michael Bay shrivel up in his seat. This movie is no exception. Mission Impossible II is just as explosive, outlandish, insane, exhilarating and visually stellar as any other John Woo movie is, and that includes movies such as Broken Arrow and Face/Off.

On one hand, this is a good thing, considering Woo makes some incredible action sequences at some moments in this movie. I remember one scene where Tom is fighting off countless professional assassins in a chemical building while trying to destroy a sample of “Chimera” in the process. That gunfight was insane. Cruise was fighting off countless assassins with grenades, Uzi-Subs, and M-104’s, and what does Tom have to fight off against them? A pistol. It is these impossible odds that stacks up the action scenes to incredible heights, and makes for very entertaining, exciting moments in this movie.

Unfortunately, Woo focuses too much on the action. The difference between this film and his earlier film Face/Off is that Face/Off had a smart, original, and fascinating plot, while Mission Impossible II just copies elements from other action films. Stop me if you’ve seen any of this before: A) A Bond-type action hero that beats bad guys to a pulp and always gets the girl, all while looking incredibly sexy to the female audience with his long hair flowing freely in the wind, B) The hero falling madly in love with a woman who is just as sexy to the male population as the hero is to the female, C) The hero eventually having to rescue the damsel from distress, D) The sinister villain is introduced and narrates a plan so ridiculous, it can only happen in movies, E) An excruciating length of a 40 minute action sequence takes place, F) The villain dies at the end of the movie, and G) The hero and his lover kiss at the end of the movie and walk into the sunset in a “Happily Ever After” kind of concluding tone.

Could that entire paragraph be technically considered a spoiler? No, it can’t, because we’ve all seen that movie before. Is it really so surprising that the villain dies, and the woman is saved from danger at the end of the movie? Is it really so shocking? You might enjoy seeing the same thing over and over again, but I can’t stand it. I can’t stand movies that have a method to it. I can’t stand movies that follow formulas. Granted, I don’t want a movie where the villain lives and the hero dies with his love next to him, but geez, throw something unpredictable in there. Action without point is no action at all. It is just headaches.

That’s not to say that the strong points still don’t hold up to what we expect them to be. I already said the action is amazing, and it is. The music has definitely improved from the last movie, and Hans Zimmer inserts a nice rock twist to the famous theme that made the series iconic by right. Cruise especially shines in this movie just as much as he did in the first movie. In the first sequence he’s introduced in, Cruise makes an impossible rock climb over a canyon in nothing but a sleeveless shirt and a waist pouch with gripping dust in it. Remember something here: that’s not CGI, and that’s not a stunt double. Cruise is doing his own stunts, meaning he actually free-climbed up this deathly-high slab of rock. I think he secretly has a death wish for pulling off stunts as stupidly risky as this, but I hold my respect to him for having the audacity to even think about pulling off a stunt like that. It is moments like that that really impresses the audience, and what I think, makes Cruise a very credible and successful actor. He’s willing to pull off whatever he can in order to impress the audience.

But the strong points of this film pales to the weaknesses. Mission Impossible II is all style, and no substance. It has plenty of action, explosions, and body counts to overwhelm you with, but it lacks interest and consistency in between the action scenes with its stupid dialogue, and its plot that is as incredulous and predictable as any other action film can be. I’ve said before that I don’t mind action films as long as they are good ones. This is an ambitious one, but it’s too similar to other action movies to say it’s a “good” one. In the end, this movie to me is like a magician trying to con you at the circus. He shows off its tricks to you, but when he’s done, he turns and says to you “Sorry kid, no refunds”.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Aug 22 2015
Leave a comment
Reviews

“MISSION IMPOSSIBLE” Review (✫✫✫✫)

Your mission: survive.

Now this is what an action blockbuster is supposed to be: smart, exciting escapism entertainment that makes its audience think rather than overloading them with special effects. Mission Impossible is pure fun, starting with its intelligent, masterful plot, and carrying itself through with state-of-the-art special effects, credible acting, and relatable characters that have a purpose in the conflicts they are going through. You don’t have that many movies where the characters are as fleshed out as the action is.

Mission Impossible follows the perspective of a young agent named Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) who works for a secret agency known as the IMF. His leader, James Phelps (Jon Voight), is given a mission to capture a fugitive who is after the “Noc List”, a file that categorizes every IMF agent working undercover in the field. If the Noc list ever got into criminal hands, many IMF agents’ lives would be in danger.

That’s where Phelps and his team come in: their mission is to capture this thief on-camera stealing the Noc list, follow him to a meeting with his buyer, and apprehend the both of them.

The mission goes desperately wrong. One by one, Ethan’s team is killed off, and Ethan is the only one to walk away. Now, IMF believes he is a traitor because the thief got away from Ethan Scott-free. Now alone with no backup and no resources, Ethan has to not only recover the Noc list, but also find out who is responsible for his team’s mission failure, as well as clear his name for the crimes he didn’t commit.

Here is a spy movie lived to its fullest. Going undercover in tuxedoes and bow ties while sipping martinis and champagne, these spies use their wits, not their weaponry, to outsmart their foes. And their weaponry itself… dear lord. They utilize such a wide array of complicated spy equipment that would floor anyone who would just take a glance at them. What we have here isn’t just guns, pistols, and radar jammers: we also have trip wires, laser security, balance beams, harnesses, suction gloves, and these latex masks that allow agents to copy the facial features of another person. There is a lot of spy tech and gear for the characters to play around with in this movie, and boy, do they play around with it.

With such tools at a spy’s disposal, you can only infer how good the action looks. They are as explosive and action-packed as a James Bond movie is, and as exciting and surreal as a Tom Clancy thriller. Here is a movie that holds nothing back. It lets loose freely in its field of CGI and special effects, and the result is the most spectacular because of it. I can recall a few moments in this film that can be called iconic by right. My favorite, interestingly enough, has to be one of the film’s most quiet moments: an espionage scene where Ethan is slipping into a room that has motion sensors, pressure sensors, audio sensors, laser sensors, really anything with the word “sensor” in it. This is the scene where the movie earns the right to call itself Mission Impossible, because that’s exactly what this mission is: impossible. Except for the fact that Ethan and his team pull it off.

But action without plot is like frosting without the cake. I’m a picky viewer. For me, there needs to be a reason, and a good reason, for all of the action and explosions to be taking place in the film. Mission Impossible is a different action movie because of this. Its plot is complex, deep, deceptive, weighty, and manipulative, a plot that twists and turns and scurries about in all directions all while maintaining its narrative and purpose in a consistent, healthy flow. I expect many viewers will be confused and irritated by how much writer Robert Towne is making them think. They need to step back and actually analyze the movie they’re watching for a change. Mission Impossible is well worth the analysis. This is a movie that doesn’t cheat, and it doesn’t rob you of anything from this experience.

There are few movies I have seen where the plot and the characters match the appeal already provided by the special effects and explosions on the screen. Here is a movie where the story exceeds the visual effects. Director Brian De Palma utilized this film’s premise to its fullest, and gave actual meaning behind the plot and the spectacular action sequences we see in this movie. Here is a film that is truly one of its kind. It is perhaps one of the best action films I have ever seen.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Aug 18 2015
Leave a comment
Reviews

“FANTASTIC FOUR” Review (✫)

Not so fantastic.

That’s it. I give up. We will never have a good Fantastic Four movie in this lifetime that will do Marvel’s first superhero family justice. We have had four live-action bouts with the Fantastic Four now. The first one was never theatrically released. The next two installments was campy melodrama that should have premiered on SyFy. Now we have the newest reboot, and it’s safe to say this movie deserved the fate that the first movie suffered from.

The Fantastic Four team consists of Reed Richards (Miles Teller), Ben Grimm (Jamie Bell), Johnny Storm (Michael B. Jordan) and his adopted sister Sue (Kate Mara), with the third wheel being Latverian computer whiz Victor Von Doom (Toby Kebbell), who is an anti-social douchebag that is spoiled, rotten, selfish, privileged, and self-obsessed. King Joffrey from “Game of Thrones” is more well-mannered than this POS.

If you know anything ever about Marvel movies, you know the formula. Person X gets caught in an accident. Person X gains super powers. Person X struggles with said powers. Person X eventually learns to control them, fight the obviously-labeled baddie, and then commits himself to a life of fighting crime. The only difference between Fantastic Four and the other Marvel formula movies is that it’s more obvious with this film. And it’s persons instead of person.

In hindsight, Fantastic Four is not easy to adapt into film. For one thing, their powers are so complacent. A rubber man, an invisible woman, a human torch, and a rocky troll is not the ideal superhero team I would line up to see. The other problem, though, is their comic book origins. Compared to other heroes such as Spider-Man, Daredevil, Iron Man, and Captain America, the tone with the Fantastic Four comics is much more lighthearted and even comical. Be honest: can you even keep a straight face with a name as silly as “Fantastic Four”?

All the same though, the concept doesn’t matter as much as the payoff. This movie could have worked. The members of the Fantastic Four have vibrant personalities and character traits that make them both memorable and likable. That’s the reason why Marvel’s first family has survived all these years: it’s because they’re enduring. People relate to them, and despite their meta-human circumstances, their problems and emotions with each other are all human.

We didn’t relate to them as superheroes. We related to them as characters.

That’s a problem for this movie, though, because this movie neither has personality or character. Good lord, where do I begin? When the lineup for this movie’s cast was announced, I was skeptical at first, and I was right to be. Not only can none of the actors hold the screen presence on their own: their chemistry with each other was disastrously non-existent. The cast didn’t even seem to really care about their roles. Every half-hearted expression, every line of dialogue and every motion seems disinterested and bland. Nothing works when these actors are on the screen together.

Teller, for instance, is an atypical and complacent scientist character, a step down from his bravado performance full of passion and drive in last year’s Whiplash. Kebbell is just as forgettable as Teller is, except he’s more of an asshole about it. Mara is beautiful but witless, her character cluelessly wandering about as if she’s there just so the studio can say they’re gender diverse. Michael B. Jordan, who is a standout in movies like Chronicle and Fruitvale Station, appears here just so the studio can say they’re racial diverse.

Side-note: I’m all about racial diversity in movies, but if you’re going to cast two actors as siblings, at least have them be the same race. Saying Mara’s character is adopted doesn’t count as being diverse. It’s an obviously cheap effort to be labeled “racially diverse.” If you genuinely want to be racially diverse, recast everyone as African Americans. Don’t put in a half effort.

But out of all of the actors, I feel the most bad for Jamie Bell. He’s not even on the screen for most of the film: he’s replaced with this ugly gargoyle reject that looks like a combination of John Cena with a pile of rocks. I’m not even kidding, he looks freggin’ horrendous. What were the visual effects artists thinking with this? I get that Ben Grimm is supposed to be this big, ugly figure, but not this ugly. Not the kind of ugly that makes your vomit turn inside out, then go back into your stomach. It offends me to think that Bell was basically thrown into the tracking suit and have his performance replaced by this ugly CGI creation. With the other cast members, they at least have the opportunity to give a convincing performance before they fail. Bell isn’t even given the opportunity to fail. His performance is canned the minute the visual effects artists placed a 3D model over him. You could have cast a stunt double in this same role and get the same result from it: a big, bulky figure that just stiffly sits and stands like he has to go to the bathroom really bad. I haven’t seen a CGI creation this putrid since the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles from last year.

The movie’s flimsy, indistinct plot is just as bad as anything else is. What is the plot of this movie? Four people get superpowers, mope about it for a few hours, then have their final battle 20 minutes before the movie ends. That’s it. There’s no character building here, no heart, no humor, no unique elements or surprises to this film that makes it stand out from the standard superhero fare. The Avengers was just as fun, if not more so, for its characterizations and dialogue as it was with its action. Guardians of the Galaxy was wacky, clever, in-cheek fun that had a blast roasting itself. Shoot, even the original Fantastic Four movies had more charisma than this. This movie was so downtrodden, so serious, and so stupidly depressing that I felt like I was watching gothic fan fiction of the Fantastic Four. If you thought Man of Steel was too dark for a superhero movie, you haven’t seen Fantastic Four.

This is a disinteresting, joyless, illogical, poorly acted, written, produced, and directed experience. The cast must have heard the film’s whimsical title and wondered if they were on the wrong set.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
← Older posts
Newer posts →