Oblivion review

               Science fiction has always been a hard sell. For all its potential entertainment value in special effects, creature design, and production creativity, it is essentially a genre based on visually and dramatically enhanced ideas. Because of this, it often ebbs and flows with current trends in politics, sociology and advancements in technology—both inside and out of the film industry. Perhaps brought upon by success of films such as “Inception” and “District 9”, it would seem like we are currently in another one of those creative wellsprings of science fiction output.

                In 2010 Joseph Kosinski helmed the enormous responsibility of directing a re-launch of the 1982 cult Disney film “TRON”.  While the story of “TRON: Legacy”, the belated sequel, may have lacked substance, visually it was an impressive first effort and it managed to use 3D in a creative way that actually had a narrative purpose. Following up that massive hit, Kosinski has now released his own sci-fi brain-child, “Oblivion”, a twisting psycho-thriller that tries to encompass all kinds of ideas about the nature of technology, the nature of war, and the search for truth in identity.

                 “Oblivion” tells the story of a professional and romantic couple, played by Tom Cruise and Andrea Riseborough, who are responsible for monitoring the remaining life on earth after a nuclear war with an unknown alien force has desolated our planet.  Despite the relative danger of their jobs—occasionally encountering a stranded alien soldier—they have a pretty sweet life with each others love and cooperation, living peacefully in their steel-blue, tech-heavy, future-condo. However, this is all challenged when Jack is doing some routine drone repair and he discovers an attack on innocent human survivors by the robots that are supposed to keep him safe. Adding to the confusion is a female survivor (Olga Kurylenko) who looks just like the fantasy wife of Jack’s faded dreams.

                The art-direction, lighting and cinematography in this film are nothing short of breathtaking. Like “TRON: Legacy”, Kosinski knows how to create a haunting tone and even when the plot slows down to curious crawl, you are still able to soak in all the impressive surfaces. But like many visually oriented directors Kosinki sometimes struggles with his actors.

                Tom Cruise, who’s been enjoying something of a late swell in his career, does what he is paid to do here and carries this film well enough, but I couldn’t help but wonder how the story might have benefited with an actor who brings less distracting star-power. Because his character’s arc deals so heavily with his existential wellbeing, Cruise’s Hollywood air of confidence and action bravado keeps Jack’s interior dilemma at a frustrating distance—and the same could be said about the underused Morgan Freeman.   Andrea Riseborough however, gives a graceful performance as the willfully ignorant, and enigmatic, lover in charge.  Kurylenko as the other female counterpart has almost nothing to do and unfortunately her character is reduced to a hollow macguffin.

                It will not go unnoticed that this movie refers to many other films in its science fiction tradition. Some scenes might remind you of “2001: A Space Odyssey”, another might recall “Silent Running”, others might bring to mind “Wall*E” and there are even moments that reference more action driven flicks like “The Matrix” and “Star Wars”. While it would be easy to see all of this pastiche, hodge-podge as a lazy attempt at building a film out of the parts of better movies, I choose to view it as love-letter to the genre as a whole. Either way, does it ever eclipse or even match the quality of its preceding influences? Usually it doesn’t, but I couldn’t help but be taken by this film’s ambition, atmosphere and it’s sparse but dynamic visual sense.

                 “Oblivion” is a bulky genre exercise and as it hops from one cinematic evocation to another, it occasionally stubs its toe. But unlike many other movies that employ big special effects and Hollywood A-listers, its heart is in the right place and it exudes a love and enthusiasm for the kind of science fiction it’s trying to live up to. Though it’s not without its action moments, it’s never racing to get to them and while the pacing is sometimes a little awkward, I enjoyed the quiet intensity and brooding style that Kosinski builds throughout.  In short, I can appreciate an imperfect film when its mistakes are made with good intentions.

Grade: B - 

Originally published in the Idaho State Journal/April-2013

42 review

                 It might seem easy for younger people to feel like systematic racism is only a thing of the past.  As a culture, over the past few decades, we have made huge social leaps into becoming a fully integrated society. Unfortunately, obvious remnants of America’s ugliest history are still evident, as was recently observed in the shocking news of segregated proms in Georgia.  With all of this in the background, Hollywood has released a warmly-lit, carefully phrased, historical biopic about the legendary Jackie Robinson, the first African American professional baseball player.

                Written and directed by Brian Helgeland, “42” aims to be a crowd pleasing sports picture, a nicely dressed historical time-warp and an inspirational message movie, all at the same time. In crossing these paths the film sloshes all it’s the sugary goodhearted intentions together, resulting in a sometimes entertaining, but ultimately edgeless, high budget, TV-movie syrup, sporting a good cast that barely has anything to do.

                The story of Jackie Robinson, as it is presented in this flick, chronicles the first few years of his time with the Brooklyn Dodgers and how he was treated during the 1940’s when segregation was nationally institutionalized. Branch Rickey (Harrison Ford) hires Robinson (Chadwick Boseman), knowing full well that he will be subjected to ever-present hate and prejudice. Early on, when he first offers the job, Rickey warns Jackie that he will have to turn the other cheek and to be ‘strong enough to not fight back’. With the emotional support of his wife (Nicole Beharie), he struggles to keep his cool and succeed as he’s pushed around by the competition, the fans and even some of his own teammates. 

                Having directed movies like “Payback” and “The Order” and written slightly better movies like “Mystic River” and “LA Confidential”, Helgeland is the type of guy who knows how to entertain people, even if he thinks of the audience as a simple minded, sentimental sponge that still requires their thematic carrots to be finely mashed and spoon-fed. However, despite the fact that every movement of this by-the-numbers biopic is calculated and sometimes painfully heavy-handed in its obvious moralizing, there’s an easy going breeziness in this movie’s-movie that’s agreeable and acceptable.

                In support of a somewhat corny melodrama, the cast is actually well selected and used to good effect. Newcomer Chadwick Boseman brings a lot of brooding interiority to his portrayal as Robinson and actually shows more restraint and nuance than this movie displays anywhere else. The rest of the cast features some nicely pitched character actors. Allan Tudyk, as the vulgarly racist manager of the Phillies, brings some of the needed heaviness that this movie severely lacks, even if his performance reeks of judgment against his own character. Lucas Black and Hamish Linklater, as some of the other members of the Dodgers, are also pleasant little additions and their natural charisma helps make their thankless, underwritten parts memorable and screen-friendly.

                Friendly is the word I would use to describe “42”. It continually stands up for its subject (Jackie), it gives us all the wanted glory of a bighearted sports movie, and it’s romantically shot in soft-light and sunsets. The problem is, racism, then and now, isn’t friendly. The movie memorializes Robinson and it gives him what essentially plays like a two hour Oscar clip to chastise those who might have crossed him at that time, and like similar films, such as “The Help” and “The Blindside”, the I-told-you-so tone of the picture feels naively dishonest and white-washed (pun completely intended). But if you can ignore all the saccharine political correctness, there is something in its grandstanding, cheesy simplicity that’s kind of sweet and earnest and it’s easy to cheer along to, even if those cheers are mechanically contrived.

Grade: C

Originally published in the Idaho State Journal/April-2013

Evil Dead review

               In the last decade we have rummaged through a littering of horror movie remakes. Most of them have capitalized on the fact that the majority of modern day horror ‘classics’ were once seen as geek-films with a niche appeal. However, through the decades, the unassuming, low budget splatter flicks of yesteryear are now being revaluated as game changers and genre defining masterpieces. 

                In 1981 student filmmaker Sam Raimi (“Spiderman”, “Oz the Great and Powerful”) went out with a few of his college friends and made a cheap gore movie called “The Evil Dead”.  The story was thin and the acting was amateurish but it was full of audacious camera techniques and striking visual quirks, inventing a new style of cinematic language that combined slasher schlock with intentional humor. With two beloved sequels and a die-hard cult following, it wasn’t going to take long for an unnecessary remake to surface.  But unlike many of the regurgitated reboots, this one has the blessing of the original’s creator—Raimi now taking the producers seat—and for months, early buzz from the SXSW festival has been tingling the imaginations of excited horror fans with stories of unbelievable nastiness.

                Like the original, this film starts with a small group of friends going out to a cabin in the woods, far away from cities or technology. What changes is that this group doesn’t have any plans to kick back and have fun. Instead, they have settled into this isolated location to support their good friend Mia (Jane Levy) as she tries to kick heroin, cold turkey. While her brother David (Shiloh Fernandez) is trying to keep her hopeful, their other friends find some disturbing things in the basement, including the bodies of dead animals hung from the rafters and a flesh bound, satanic text wrapped in barbed wire. Of course, because these characters live in a horror film, the supposed ‘smart one’ of the group (Lou Taylor Pucci) reads aloud an evil spell, releasing a dark force that enters the cabin and Mia. In what is briefly mistaken by her friends as drug withdrawal, Mia begins to perform grotesque and sadomasochistic torture upon herself and the others.

                Viewers should be warned; this is not a film for the faint of heart. Though I was never really outright scared or terrified by this remake, I was genuinely shocked and disturbed by its viscous depictions of slaughter and self-mutilation. I winced at scenes such as our main heroine boiling her own flesh with scalding shower-water, nail guns turning faces into pincushions, and tongues being bifurcated with razorblades. I winced, I gagged, I repulsed and by the movies end, I cheered.

                Though this movie does pay some homage to Raimi’s aggressive camera style, wisely it makes no real attempt at surpassing or even trying to replicate the imagination of its predecessor. Instead, director Fede Alvarez uses the simple structure of Raimi’s film as a canvas to paint his own vision of terror. But if this movie is a painting, it’s not the usual by-the-numbers remake. The interpretation here deviates from the 1981 version like a brush-flinging, splattering, free-form Pollack.  It doesn’t include the now-iconic character Ash (as played by Bruce Campbell), it doesn’t have the same sense of silliness or slapstick, and its ending is a total departure—and in some ways better. 

                I won’t say that “Evil Dead” is without its faults; the first act is too slow and somber, most of the performances are unremarkable, and the opening backstory is unneeded and unresolved. However, what makes it work is Alverez’s anarchistic delight in the movie’s own escalating depravity. It’s not safe and it’s sure to profoundly gross out most of its viewers and sometimes l can admire a horror film that takes joy in antagonizing the audience.

Grade: B -

Originally published in the Idaho State Journal/April-2013

G.I. Joe: Retaliation review

               It is uniformly agreed that the first attempt at making a live action GI Joe movie—2008’s “GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra”—was, shall we say, less than agreeable. Many fans were outraged by its shoddy script, wooden acting, and fakey special effects; all of which were valid and unavoidable criticisms. Having only recently seen the first film to review this new sequel I have to agree that “Rise of Cobra” wasn’t a good movie and many things about it, most of all its general execution, didn’t work. However, watching it long after its original release date, it’s fascinating to experience a bloated piece of studio summer merchandise that was intended to be seen once, bought on DVD, never to be regarded again.  It’s like watching an old commercial for Chrystal Pepsi or the first generation Blackberry, and knowing that despite how impressed the voice-over copy sounds, we already know the fate that will befall that product.

                Is “GI-Joe: Retaliation” any better than its predecessor? Sure, in a lot ways it is. It’s looks better, the tone is consistent, the action-violence has more heft and the script is actually funny in a way that was intentional. But does that mean it is all together a better movie or any less throwaway? Most certainly it does not. After all, this is still a movie that’s based on a toy—which I was reminded of when they apologetically displayed that big Hasbro logo, just before the opening credits.

                So now that Cobra has risen, this film jumps a few years later and we notice early on that half of the cast of the original movie are now inexplicably gone. We do still have Channing Tatum as the team leader “Duke”, and now, instead of the slightly miscast Marlon Wayans, we have Dwayne (The Rock) Johnson as Roadblock.  Early into the picture many Joes are killed in a military attack at the GI’s base of operations. It is then up to Roadblock and his companions, Flint (D.J. Cotrona) and Lady Jaye (Adrianne palicki), to figure who is at the bottom of this attack. Come to find out, Cobra has infiltrated the white house with a decoy president, who plans to unleash a satellite super weapon that’s effects are worse than the atomic bomb, but without all the messy nuclear fallout—and thank heavens that our movie terrorists are finally figuring out ways to be maniacally destructive AND environmentally conscious!

                Even though this film employs the highest technical standards of a modern blockbuster, I couldn’t help but be reminded of the cool-for-cool’s-sake, brainless badass cinema of the 1980’s.  Like those films, this movie celebrates big guns, big muscles and small plots—complete with a cold-war analogy involving Jonathan Pryce as the evil president, enacting world war three at a UN conference.  It’s absolutely stupid and jingoistic and barely anything it is makes any sense. Characters die for no good reason, people are switching sides and switching identities, and there’s a whole subplot involving ninjas fighting on a snowy mountain that practically belongs in a different movie all together…and it’s all pretty digestible and fun to watch.

                In trading in director Stephen Sommers (“The Mummy”, “Van Helsing”) for Jon M. Chu (“Step Up 3D”), this sequel facilitates what Chu is good at; making disposable pop-culture junk food, embracing it’s stupidity and exploiting its base satisfactions. It also helps that this time around we are treated with a crackling, sardonic screenplay written by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick, of “Zombieland” fame. It’s still a movie based on a toy and it’s inexcusably ridiculous, but is has ninjas, high tech gadgetry, The Rock saying mouthy one-liners, and Bruce Willis making a superfluous cameo! As bad as I know it is, it’s harmless and enjoyable, in that Saturday morning cartoon way.

Grade: C+

Originally published in the Idaho State Journal/Apr-2013

Spring Breakers review

                Everyone from advertisers to educators say that our young adult years are supposed to be the best times of our lives. Many of us have already started to deal with the daunting reality that this assumption is rarely the case. However, this cliché still exists and many films have capitalized on the American belief that youth is equal to a kind of universal freedom of expression. Whether it’s party films such as “Animal House” and “American Pie”, or the snap shots of suburban decadence like “Dazed and Confused” and “Risky Business”, Hollywood erroneously reinforces the notion that if you are young, you have the right to explore your desired excesses and you will be exalted for your bravery and exempt from any serious repercussions—“Project X” I’m looking at you.

                Harmony Korine is a writer/director who has never let his youthful characters off the hook. This is probably best exemplified with his first screenplay for “KIDS”. Directed by Larry Clark in 1995, “KIDS” was a dark coming of age story about young, urban New York teens who indulged their sexuality without any precaution, amidst the AIDS epidemic of the early 90’s. With his own directorial features, Korine has spent much of his career exploring the darkest depths of ugly America and the oppressed lives of the underprivileged, often showing his characters in depraved and hideous situations, some of which are frankly hard to watch.

                 In “Spring Breakers”, Korine follows four college girls while they search for the perfect escape from their dull, small town lives.  Together they collect their limited resources and plan a trip to Florida’s spring break hot spot. When they realize that they won’t be able to afford the venture on their own, they violently rob a local diner and make off, scot-free with their reward. After a few days of sex, drugs, and booze fueled partying, they get busted with some cocaine by the police and thrown in jail. Lucky for them, a local rapper/drug dealer, who goes by the name Alien (James Franco), bails them out and decides to show them a different side of the beach-side party culture; a side that includes semi-automatics, drug deals gone wrong, and viscous gang rivalries.

                Some may be taken aback by this film’s seemingly weird stunt casting. Two of the four lead females are played by the teen-beat, ex Disney queens, Salina Gomez and Vanessa Hudgens.  The other two are played by television’s Ashley Benson and Harmony’s wife Rachel Korine.  They all look exceptionally young and impressionable and Harmony uses their squeaky clean reputations in order to subvert the audience’s expectations of what their celebrity represents, as well as emphasize their vulnerability in the face of the narrative threat. Franco too gives a daring and layered performance as an aging gansta-wannabe who takes advantage of the girl’s susceptibility to temptation. In fact, once I was able to look past the sun bleached corn-rows and the silver plated dental work, he brought to mind the world-weary and wounded depth of Harvey Keitel’s portrayal in “Taxi Driver”.

                After some thought, I came to like this movie but despite the fact that this is Korine’s most mainstream output yet, this is not the kind of film that many people will groove on.  The tweens who enjoyed Hudgens and Gomez on the Disney channel, or Franco in “Oz the Great and Powerful”, are going to be shocked and made uncomfortable by the raw sex, the non-linear editing and moody atmosphere presented. Fans of Korine’s grimy, gritty indie work may also be surprised by how subdued and ethereal his direction is here. While his past work always reveled in the grotesque and visceral, with “Spring Breakers” he is more interested in the quiet interiority of his characters and the cinematography is purposely gorgeous and colorful. Many of the repetitive party scenes are shot in slow motion and the music is often played in ironic juxtaposition with the images, sometimes as a direct parody of, or a critical commentary on the music video and advertisement style. The ugliness here isn’t in its setting or actors, or even the way it’s shot—as it was in Korine’s more disturbing films like “Gummo” and “Trash Humpers”—the ugliness is in its depiction of youthful debauchery and its acceptance and perpetuation in the mainstream culture.

                Make no mistake about it; despite its wide release, its dance-rap/dubstep soundtrack, the Disney-girls-gone-wild, or its seemingly innocuous title, this is art house movie. While the plot suggests an exploitation, Scarface-esq design, the genre elements of the film are really only used as a framework for Korine to investigate his themes and his tonal landscapes. With that said, as genre movie, it doesn’t really pay off but as a character-study and a critique of mass-celebrated frivolity, it’s refreshing, original, and strangely hypnotic. 

Grade: B

Originally published in The Basic Alternative/April-2013