Passengers

Ill-timed, but well-intentioned is the first thing I have to say about the long-awaited sci-fi film, “Passengers”. Featuring two of Hollywood’s most bankable stars, and a sizzling black list script that has been hotly pursued since first being written back in 2007. I say ill-timed because opening a week after “Star Wars” is a bold move for any big budget flick, but one in the same genre? That’s not the best timing. Well-intentioned? Well, on paper, everything about this film screams “awesome!”. But paper is paper, and a movie-going experience is something entirely different.

Sometime in the unspecified future, the colonial spaceship Avalon is making a one hundred and twenty-year journey to the Homestead 2. Carrying five thousand passengers and three hundred crewmembers in hyper sleep, Jim Preston (Chris Pratt) wakes up alone after just thirty years. A series of semi-humorous events, malfunctions, and shenanigans leads to the awakening of Aurora Lane (Jennifer Lawrence), and the two of them embark on the unlikeliest of whirlwind romances. Then things start to go wrong, and it is a scramble for survival, and protection of the fifty-three hundred unwitting humans on board.

The plot provides opportunity for some interesting suspense and twists, but shies away from capitalizing on any of them, instead, spoiling the film after a mere twenty minutes or so. The story arc is simple and predictable with little payoff at the end. There is also little peril, as there just isn’t much of an emotional investment in the characters, and the five thousand sleeping individuals are nameless and faceless, so their identities get lost due to the film’s time constraints. Instead, we are treated to cutesy technological advancements like a hologram dance game, automatic food dispensers, an autonomous android bartender (Michael Sheen, who actually shines as the best acting portion of the entire film), and a ship that can correct its own malfunctions without any human intervention. Pretty convenient if you ask me.

Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence have zero chemistry here. In a nutshell, he’s boring and she’s helpless. Their personalities are cute, but not really likable beyond the attractive facades, and their attraction to each other is just transparently disingenuous and contrived. To put it in perspective, the third wheel on the ship, Michael Sheen’s android Arthur, has better chemistry with each of them than they do with each other, and that is just sad.

Norwegian Director Morten Tyldum (“The Imitation Game”) is given the keys to his dad’s sports car on this one. A reported $110 million budget can go a long way, but sci-fi is notoriously expensive. There are a few notable action sequences that make the film mildly enjoyable, mostly playing with gravity. But most of what he shows is a tour of an interstellar Carnival cruise line and its many amenities.

Writer Jon Spaihts (“Prometheus”, “Doctor Strange”) is quickly becoming a hot commodity in the genre, but this film won’t do him any favors. It’s not his fault though, the idea is fun and could have been executed stronger if there were more energy put into the thriller or suspense aspects. The romance wasn’t designed to be the focal point of the story, and perhaps if there were lesser known actors, the plot might have emerged more victorious.

I was really looking forward to this one. I’m a huge fan of sci-fi, and I even wrote a fiction book on the subject, but endings are so challenging to do adequately, and I wasn’t impressed by this one in the slightest. “Passengers” isn’t a bad film, just very underwhelming and disappointing. 6/10.

La La Land

"La La Land" is a throwback to films of yesteryear. Carefree, musically absurd, joyful, and most importantly, inspiring. It's been called a love letter to Hollywood, but I would dare say it's more of a seduction. Laid on thick, it feeds the ego-maniacal Hollywood beast with brilliant sequences of glitz and glamour with famous landmarks getting cameos all along the way. Two attractive, young leads doesn't hurt this portrayal of cinematic beauty.

Mia (Emma Stone) and Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) reignite the chemistry that was started in 2011's "Crazy, Stupid, Love". Her big doe eyes, and his "couldn't care less" affect make them the perfect pairing for a film taking us back to the golden age of Hollywood. But it's set in the present, so don't get too caught up in nostalgia. They effortlessly make it look easy and breezy. She is an aspiring actress who has been beaten down by failure. He's a jazz pianist with a dream, but he's reluctant to sell out to get what he needs. They form an immediate bond that is punctuated by various interpretive rounds of song and dance, and at the end, they send out good-looking smoldering vibes to the audience, and it works.

Damien Chazelle's sophomore effort suffers no slump in the slightest. His 2014 gem, "Whiplash" was on top of my personal list for Best Picture, but was ultimately beaten out by "Birdman" for the big prize. Emma Stone gained her first Oscar nomination for her performance in "Birdman" and is a sure thing for a nomination this year, although I think it's entirely possible that she wins a statue if she pulls of the Golden Globe. The direction is outstanding and the thing about the film that stood out most to me. There is clearly some art imitating life with the jazz theme after "Whiplash", and it is very cool. He clearly models Gosling's Sebastian after some sort of fantastical incarnation of himself, but I get it. Ryan Gosling is pretty dapper.

Make no mistake. The real star of the show is Tinseltown herself. She gets the film's titular role, and shows it off proudly. She exposes the realities of the busy bodies behind the ostentation. The night life for artists looking to meet someone who can help them move up the ladder. The debasing day jobs worked to fuel nothing more than the dream of a better tomorrow. You can see that the film has even made me a bit whimsical. there is something nostalgic about the setting. Everyone who's seen a movie in their life has been there, even if they haven't physically set foot on the Walk of Fame or witnessed a film premiere at Grumman's Chinese Theatre. Even if they haven't taken a stroll down the Sunset Strip and looked up at the Chateau Marmont and wondered who might be staying there right that instant.

The irony is that Chazelle will likely win Best Picture for a film that is more publicized, star-studded, and buzzed about than the film that should win ("Manchester by the Sea"). At least Chazelle deserves it, as did Inarritu back in 2014. It goes to show that Hollywood is one narcissistic vixen. A film that romanticizes her charms and devilish guile is sure to find a soft spot in the Academy's armor. Not too serious, lots of well-choreographed original song and dance numbers, romance mixed with a dash of realism and humor? I think he may have struck gold.

"La La Land" is something different when lined up beside the biopics, adapted screenplays, and big budget formulaic fare. It stands out as the film that might find a home with many different audiences, and will likely strike chords close to the hearts of those who make awards decisions. For me, it wasn't the best film of the year, but it was superbly entertaining, and absolutely top five. 8/10.

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

The highly anticipated stand-alone to the beloved franchise has arrived. Brilliantly planned, this film is the second in a six-year sequence of Christmas openings, with Episode VIII in 2017, the Han Solo origin in 2018, Episode IX in 2019, and a yet undetermined film in 2020. I’m no seer, but I don’t think that will be the end of the SWEU (Star Wars Extended Universe).

“Rogue One” follows a briefly mentioned band of rebels from episode IV, who daringly risk life and limb to save the entire republic from the evil empire by stealing the schematics for the Death Star. Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones) plays the heroine who surrounds herself with a band of eclectic characters on a quest for humanity. The line of good versus evil has never been more clear, and the stakes never higher.

The film has a familiar tone, but deviates from some of the trademark “Star Wars” staples, much to the delight of this critic. It has a freshness and is a bit darker, more action-packed, and carries the torch for the next generation, which is a certainty considering the global popularity. The nostalgia is preserved remarkably, while opening the doors of film making technology and new characters that will captivate a new generation as well as satiate the old.

Jyn is an orphan who has a special link to the Death Star, and the fate of humanity hangs in the balance of her choices. I was underwhelmed by her performance, as it seemed wooden and unmotivated. There was little emotional range, and lots of confident quips that attempt to highlight her rebellious nature, but she is really quite dry. It was an opportunity to introduce a new and exciting iconic character, but Jyn Erso will be lost in the mediocrity of memorable but uninspiring players.

Orson Krennick (Ben Mendelsohn) marvelously plays the officer in charge of the Death Star, and he is joined by the CGI presence of Grand Moff Tarkin, played in the original by Peter Cushing. The effects are valiant, but severely noticeable and a bit distracting. With a nearly forty-year gap, his inclusion was vital to the story, so he gets a pass. We get to see the resurrection of Darth Vader as well, though his screen time is adeptly limited to just a few savory minutes.

The rest of the cast is truly the heart of the film, salvaging Jones’ shortcomings. The band of rebels are the most multi-cultural representation we’ve seen yet and we get glimpses of creatures that would make George Lucas proud (and ashamed of episodes I-III). The comic relief, however, is what injects the necessary frivolity and the timing is perfect. Alan Tudyk voices K-2SO, the C-3PO of the group. There is an Eeyore quality that is eerily similar to the golden android we all know and love, but K-2S0 is snarkier and a bit less annoying.

Director Gareth Edwards (“Godzilla”, “Monsters”) fills the chair like a pro, and although surrounded by masters of the universe, has shown that he is capable of greatness and proves to be the right choice. He paces the film brilliantly so there are no lulls in the action. The story isn’t anything original or even very interesting in the grand scheme of things, but his collection of characters, dazzling action scenes, and noticeable homage to the original trilogy makes this film powerful and satisfying. Additionally, after the climax, he uses movie magic to adrenalize the film one last time, leaving the audience in a familiar and excited state.

The Star Wars universe is in good hands. If the continuity progresses to this standard, the stand-alone films won’t be a threat to the integrity of the legacy or the enduring fondness that most superfans (or regular fans) hold toward the original trilogy. Disney is nailing the rebirth of a beloved franchise, and with no fewer than four more films in the pipeline, they have mirrored the success of Marvel in creating an entire universe and are reaping the benefits. I for one will have a standing appointment every December to see these films for as long as they are made. Those familiar with “Star Wars” will love the nostalgia, those who aren’t will definitely enjoy the action. 8/10.

Manchester by the Sea

Once in a while a film comes along that reminds you just why you go to the movies in the first place. None too often does something this utterly heart wrenching and beautiful unfold in front of your eyes. It’s an immersive tale so simply done, but so complex in emotional range.

Lee Chandler (Casey Affleck) is a handyman with a damaged past, contently living in Boston in squalor. His world is turned upside down and past demons unleashed when his brother, Joe (Kyle Chandler) dies and names Lee as guardian to his sixteen-year-old son, Patrick (Lucas Hedges). We see how a working class family struggles with life’s challenges, and as Lee’s past is revealed through a series of flashbacks, we as an audience begin to wonder, are there some things in life that can’t be fixed?

Writer/director Kenneth Lonergan (2011’s “Margaret”) paints a masterful portrait of working class New England daily life. The subtlety by which he establishes the setting and the character relationships harkens “Good Will Hunting” in equal parts heartbreak and hope. Sweeping shots of the fishing towns and the appeal of a simple life working on the water punctuates the drama effectively with whimsical sentimentality. What tugs at the heart strings more than the direction, which does have some shaky moments when the camera is moving, is the pure realism of the story.

Affleck’s acting is a thing of genius. His resume is quietly becoming more impressive than his better-known brother, Ben (see his unnoticed performance in 2013’s “Out of the Furnace” to see more). His natural and effortless façade is one of the most authentic performances I’ve seen in a long time. His character has buried his pain deep, and we see moments of it bubbling to the surface, but he maintains his composure perfectly. The professionalism is easy to miss if you aren’t paying close attention, but it’s a clinic on acting if you are. He can next be seen as Meriwether Lewis in an upcoming TV mini-series.

The supporting cast of Michelle Williams, Lucas Hedges, Kyle Chandler, and Gretchen Mol do a fantastic job surrounding Affleck and elevating him to what will certainly be the performance for which he will be remembered years from now. Williams delivers a typical Oscar-worthy performance, but her screen time is limited, which upon reflection, is a good move by Lonergan to avoid overshadowing the point of the story. Hedges is a rising star who holds his own opposite the veterans, and he adds some much-needed levity that often gets left out of emotional powerhouses.

“Manchester by the Sea” is a rare cinematic achievement that is completely satisfying, captivating, and raw. Amazon Studios is emerging with some serious competition to the heavyweight contenders, which further proves my theory about the corporate behemoth’s impending global dominance.

As awards season officially begins, I guarantee that “Manchester by the Sea” will receive its share of Oscar nominations, and at this point, I predict it will take home its share of wins, including Best Picture. It sets a nearly unachievable cinematic bar of artistry and emotion that will leave you teary-eyed, and it’s certainly an experience worth the price of admission and then some. 10/10.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

In your local theatres. That’s where you can find them. The Fantastic Beasts. For a film that tends to live more in the realm of mediocre, the beasts are not just fantastic, they are spectacular. They are magnificent and awe-inspiring. They are the whole reason this film exists, except of course to make money and set the table for what’s to come.

What is essentially the ninth film in the Harry Potter franchise serves as a prequel that will spawn (at least) four subsequent sequels of its own. Eddie Redmayne is Newt Scamander, a writer and animal whisperer of a wizard on holiday looking to purchase a rare horse to add to his impressive collection, which he conveniently keeps in a raggedy brown suitcase. He accidentally releases an eclectic group of magical creatures to wreak havoc in 1920’s New York City, and the results are catastrophic and inevitably set into motion a chain of events that may very easily lead to another half dozen books and films.

The wizarding community attempts damage control and risks being discovered by the “nomag” (not magical), or the American version of the British muggles to the Potter initiates. Meanwhile, we’re introduced to new and imaginative creatures and characters, and some familiar names from the stories we all know and love (I say that facetiously).

David Yates returns to the director’s chair after four of the original “Harry Potter” films, and this year’s “Legend of Tarzan”. He is attached to the next four “Fantastic Beasts” films, all of which are in the process of being written, and urgently I would presume. His camerawork is simply average, though I wonder how much time he spent in post-production.

J.K. Rowling may have bitten off more than she can chew on this one. She doesn’t need the money, so I question her motives. She is tinkering in dangerous territory and might want to have a chat with George Lucas. The next few novels she writes could very well destroy her credibility with the masses and for what? To continue her legacy? I would prefer something new perhaps.

The supporting cast of Katherine Waterston, Colin Farrell, Dan Fogleman, and Ezra Miller do little to add substance to the plot or setting. They play their characters convincingly, but they seem like just that; characters. Eddie Redmayne can’t even save the attempt at brilliance that simply comes off as ordinary.

I can’t help compare this legacy to the “Star Wars” canon. Although I’m a huge “Star Wars” fan, I could see how as each new one comes out, there are people who just don’t understand the excitement and fervor. I feel that way about “Potter”. These next five stories are going to drag out the story and dilute the cultural importance and impact of the first seven books. Or eight films if you prefer.
I won’t pretend to know the “Harry Potter” universe very well. I’ve seen the movies and haven’t read the books (blasphemy for a middle school teacher, I know), but it just doesn’t really do much for me. The power that can be wielded by wizards just seems to diminish the tension and drama of conflict. Destroy the city? Just wave your wand and everything goes back to normal. Get caught by a human? Cast a spell and make them forget everything. Encounter literally any situation you don’t want to be in? Say the right combination of nonsense words and you can simply disappear. The rules or lack thereof don’t jive with my sense of logic. Even for fantasy, the narrative seems to make “Lord of the Rings” seem like non-fiction.

I will say this. If you are a big fan of the “Harry Potter” films, you will not be disappointed in the slightest. The special effects are mesmerizing and the creatures are nothing short of breathtaking and beautiful. If you’re just a movie fan looking for something to check out? It might do, but it will most certainly leave you feeling unsatisfied. 7/10 for visual dazzle.

Arrival

The much-anticipated sci-fi Oscar hopeful has finally, well, arrived. Director Denis Villeneuve (Prisoners, Enemy, Sicario, 2017's Blade Runner sequel) has emerged as one of the hottest film makers around, and for good reason. "Arrival" is a refreshingly suspense take on the alien invasion genre. Less lasers and conflict, and more thoughtful looks at the important questions that might arise. Granted, there has to be a story arc, character studies, and the fictional element that simply adds to the mystique of first contact, but this film is unlike so many that have come before.

Within hours of the arrival of the alien ships, Dr. Banks (Amy Adams) and Dr. Donnelly (Jeremy Renner) are brought to one of the sites in beautiful rural Montana. She is a world renowned linguist and he is an unspecified scientist or mathematician. Together, they are charged with the job of deciphering the alien language to uncover their intentions and purpose. The race against time is amplified by the concurrent attempts by other nations around the world to discover the alien agenda for themselves, and there is always a ticking clock of global competition that adds fuel to this mysterious fire.

Adams delivers a spectacular acting performance, boosted immensely by Forest Whitaker's no-nonsense lieutenant colonel Weber. The narrative is driven forward using the genius guise of the unknown. The rules of alien invasion films are pretty loose, but historically have taken few liberties to acknowledge the more realistic response. It's not all machismo and sending in army guys to face something new with force. There is a more cerebral, scientific approach with this film, and it is extremely captivating. Renner's performance is a bit more vanilla, but that's alright. He is clearly the second banana, and is not only fine with it, he wears it nicely. The deference is refreshing as there is a certain amount of recognition in the sparkle of his eye that he's the part of something fantastic and it's just fine.

As the film moves toward its climax and reveal, there are some remarkable directorial moves, and that's the difference between this film and something more pedestrian or banal. Besides the camerawork and music that fit perfectly with the vision of Villaneuve, the slow zoom of the camera into a innocuous, yet completely bizarre frames present something of an illusion to the eyes. He did this type of work in "Enemy" a couple of years ago, and continues to play with the viewer's mind, but in a good way.

I had high hopes for this film from first hearing about its production. I truly felt that Villaneuve could give an alien invasion film its due better than perhaps any other director on the planet, and I was right. The subtlety and attention to detail is astounding and mesmerizing. The story is just fresh enough that a viewer leaves a tad confused, but can put everything together by the time they're home from their drive. That's the mark of a solid film beyond the objective beauty that so many critics can easily identify and define. I appreciate a smart and bold film more an more the older I get.

"Arrival" isn't the sexiest of alien films, but it makes you wonder and exudes ambition. I am extremely excited to see what Villaneuve has in store for us in next year's "Blade Runner" sequel, and with Harrison Ford and Ryan Gosling starring, it should follow suit with the original and become an instant classic, no doubt. "Arrival" is one of the top ten films of the year thus far, and is worth a second look (think "Inception" or "Interstellar"). It is like a highbrow "Contact" without the bad acting and Carl Sagan mumbo-jumbo. See this if you want to know how a visionary makes a good film. 9/10.

Doctor Strange

A leap of faith is easy when you are the Marvel studios. “Ant-Man” and “Guardians of the Galaxy” don’t sound so absurd now when you look at the former pulling in a global $520 million on a meager $130 million budget, and the latter grossing $773 million at a cost of just $170 million. “Doctor Strange” is a lesser known character that is bringing the dark and otherworldly arts to the MEU and will likely bridge the gap from “Avengers” to the “Infinity Wars”.

Let me preface this review by saying that I’m not familiar with the comic narrative or the origin story. Doctor Stephen Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) is a cocky, brilliant neurosurgeon in New York City with a penchant for expensive things, fast cars, and showing off his superior intellect. His brash demeanor turns off colleagues (and an ex-girlfriend) from the get-go, but his passion for vocational perfection is admirable by all (sound familiar? Tony Stark, cough, cough). After an accident rocks his world, he seeks satisfaction outside of traditional medicine and finds himself in Nepal learning the mystic arts from The Ancient One (Tilda Swinton). From there, he is exposed to the multiverse, both good and bad, that opens up worlds and dimensions of possibilities for the future of the Marvel Extended Universe.

Benedict Cumberbatch may seem an odd choice for a superhero, but just like Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man, he hits the mark. His snide arrogance gives way to humor, emotion, and even a little action in the way that only an actor with range can make possible. I really was impressed with the depth of the character and the way he was captured by Cumberbatch in more than just a one-dimensional portrayal (Captain America, Thor, Hulk, Ant-Man, etc.). Because he will be an integral part of “Infinity Wars”, I am excited to see where he fits with the old and new Avengers.

Danish crossover star Mads Mikkelsen (“Casino Royale”, “Rogue One”) is the primary antagonist, and he nails the tone of the film. Mostly passive, but clearly capable, he throws an assist toward Cumberbatch and company that really moves the pacing along nicely. His villainy is subtle and understated, deferring to the origin story and character development of Strange. He even has some humorous moments himself that fit perfectly with the storyline.

A star-studded supporting cast of Rachel McAdams, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Tilda Swinton, and Benedict Wong are nicely placed around Cumberbatch, but I feel Ejiofor’s character (Mordo) could have been a bit stronger if he had a little more detail in his introduction. I also question the casting of Swinton as The Ancient One and had heard that there was some whitewashing controversy. The bald head look is pretty cool on her, but wouldn’t it make sense to cast someone who’s more, I don’t know, Asian? There are literally billions of women to choose from, and they played it safe and questionable by casting a recognizable Oscar-winning white woman.

Director Scott Derrickson (“Sinister”, “The Exorcism of Emily Rose”) takes a massive step forward with one of the more ambitious projects of 2016. The effects alone require a visionary that is rare, and he does Marvel complete and total justice. The post-film credits hint toward a sequel, but let’s be honest, it’s a near certainty if the other critics and audiences feel the way I do.
“Doctor Strange” is a mesmerizing psychedelic trip into the metaphysical universe that evokes “Inception”, “2001: A Space Odyssey” and even to some degree, “Harry Potter”. Sorcery and mystic arts prevail, but my only gripe is the overwhelming barrage of visual stimulation. At times it is too much and for too long, like a hallucinogenic trip that starts off mind-bending and beautiful, but quickly becomes nearly incomprehensible and therefore easy to tune out. The film makers pulled out all the stops effects-wise, which is remarkable and impressive.

My only other complaint is with the score. I commented to a friend that I thought I was watching “Star Trek” at times, and after some research, realized that composer Michael Giacchino was in fact responsible for both “Doctor Strange” and “Star Trek”. It was noticeable, Michael. Shame on you.

“Doctor Strange” is well done. Entertaining and fresh, a worthy addition to the Marvel family. I don’t have to tell you to go see it, because let’s be honest, you probably will (if you haven’t already), but take it from me; you won’t be disappointed. 9/10.

Jack Reacher: Never Go Back

It’s hard to believe that “Top Gun” was thirty years ago. Tom Cruise is still the gold standard for an action star, despite his questionable personal life. He once again immerses himself in the Jack Reacher character, based on the book series by Lee Child, for the second time since 2012.

Jack Reacher is an ex-Major in the US Army Military Police, a title he reminds us of numerous times throughout the film. He has a distrust and disdain for the military, but maintains his close connections and wields effortless authority when it suits him. He fights crime on his own terms and never seems to stay in one place for very long. He finds himself embroiled in a severely uncomplicated plot involving a might-be-love interest (Coby Smulders) and a could-be-daughter (Danika Yarosh) where they form a severely dysfunctional pseudo-family. He is matched up against a shady, nameless contractor (Patrick Heusinger) who would fit right in if he were in a James Bond film with his sunglasses, black leather jacket, and black driving gloves. Pretty cool, but not very incognito.

Cruise is ageless. Regularly doing his own stunts and brawling with the best stuntmen around, he is impressive be it with a gun, his fists, or his kicks. The action scenes are entertaining as all get-out, and the subtle nod to poorly written action films of the 80’s and 90’s, whether intentional or not, is highly effective. The character is mysterious, but doesn’t leave you wondering or caring. He’s a simple man with an unflappable code. You root for him in all of his unrealistic scenarios where he outsmarts and outpunches everyone in the room and that’s really all there is to him. Despite his over-used blue-steel squint, eye twitch gaze, you know there isn’t much more than a man who is always looking for a fight beneath the surface. Even the big man posture and walk exudes testosterone, and it totally works.

Director Edward Zwick reteams with Cruise (“The Last Samurai”) and seems to be slumming a bit in his choice of project. It certainly must have been a fun film to make, and perhaps there is a relationship between the two that made it appealing, but he is a high quality director (“Blood Diamond”, “Glory”, “Legends of the Fall”) and his efforts don’t go unnoticed. An awkward ending shows some of his trademark dramatic style, but otherwise he captures the action with a veteran’s touch.

The writing is pedestrian, but I’m unfamiliar with the source material, so I can’t speak to the adherence to the novel. It reminds me of so many books written in the genre (including my own) and never achieves any real depth or realism. It is a fun time though.

I was actually surprised that I enjoyed this film so much despite its many weaknesses. It did get a little old during the third act when the twist emerged unceremoniously and predictably, but it was followed by an epic fist-fight, so all is forgiven. There is a tone created from the very first scene that makes you sit back and just enjoy the show. A true sign of a successful film, even if it isn’t the best of stories. This is the type of film you might order on-demand on a Saturday night when you’re in the mood for something exciting, and you will be pleasantly surprised. With tempered expectations comes satisfaction. Love him or hate him, Tom Cruise is going to be around for a long time. 7/10.

The Accountant

Who is The Accountant? He’s an untrained yet highly effective Jason Bourne with autism (or an autistic if you ask someone in the anti-cure camp). Unfortunately, he is a less smartly-written character in a less exciting setting, and a completely stereotypical portrayal of someone with the neurological difference with quite a few blatant irregularities.

“The Accountant” is more of an autism awareness public service announcement and a commendable advertisement for the obvious joy that comes with an exciting career in accounting than it is a thriller, or a real action film. You see, the film lacks real teeth because it gets too bogged down trying to be clever and different. The attempt at character depth overshadows what could be a pretty fun shoot-em-up, or a terse thriller. It inevitably fails quite noticeably at both.

A predictable twist that is as improbable as it is lackluster leading to an ending that will leave you shaking your head, as well as a character shift that is beyond unlikely, convolutes the tone and complicates the message the film makers are trying to send. Is this a character study? A romance? A cautionary tale or a story of redemption? Maybe. Maybe not, and it really doesn’t matter.

Ben Affleck plays Christian Wolff, one of many aliases he smoothly and deftly dons throughout the painful 130 minutes. He is an accountant for criminals, uncooking the books and vanishing with his payment, no questions asked. His constantly mentioned autism portrays him as a savant, trained by his harsh and demanding father to ignore his challenges, leading him to become a stone cold emotionless professional. A bit too cool, a bit too reflexive, and a bit too James Bond for his own good.

Surrounding Affleck is a stellar supporting cast of J.K. Simmons, Anna Kendrick, and Jon Bernthal. All expert actors, Bernthal shines in his first scene, Simmons in his last, and Kendrick doesn’t really have a place in the film at all. I worry that her turn in “Up in the Air” may turn out to be the only critical acclaim of her career, as recent roles have been either trifling or ill-advised. At least she is young, rich, and clearly having fun. Case in point, “Pitch Perfect 3”.

Director Gavin O’Connor (“Miracle”, “Warrior”) had great intentions but just had a terrible script to work with. He manages to make Affleck once again look like a true blue action star, and some of the fight sequences are remarkable. It is however difficult to Ben in front of the camera so soon after “Batman vs Superman” and his public, messy divorce. His upcoming “Live by Night” might be the redemption he needs, a la “Argo” before putting his cowl back on for no fewer than three more Batman flicks. His dirty love affair with Warner Bros. knows no shame.

Writer Bill Dubuque (the abysmally disappointing “The Judge”) does himself no favors by allowing the blatant attempt to capitalize on autism to unfold so organically. Being in the education field, it nearly made me uncomfortable to see inconsistencies that eliminated any sense of respect or reverence for the disorder.

“The Accountant” could have actually been very good. Had the twist been molded a little more expertly and the main character been a little less suave and a little more, I don’t know, accountant? It could have been thrilling and sharp. Better luck next time, Ben. 5/10.

Middle School: The Worst Years of My Life

Based on the book series of the same name, “Middle School: The Worst Years of My Life” follows the travails of Rafe Katchadorian, an artistic introvert who may or may not be the pre-teen autobiographical incarnation of author James Patterson (Maximum Ride, Alex Cross series).

Rafe (Griffin Gluck) is an average kid dealing with average issues; pesky little sister, starting new school mid-year, divorced parents. There isn’t anything particular special about his life except for his imagination and maturity. His drawings come to life a la “One Crazy Summer” circa 1986, but instead of serving as a distraction to express the inner dialogue through crude and cheap trickery, it actually moves the story along nicely as it is a welcome addition to the live action film.

As Rafe enrolls at a new, prestigious middle school because of numerous, untold expulsions, the evil principal Dwight (Andy Daly) cracks the whip and tries to prepare the student body for the BLAAR test (Baseline Assessment of Academic Readiness) in what is a nice riff on the absurd climate of high stakes testing in education. Noticing the ubiquitous oppression and conformity, Rafe decides that rules aren’t for everyone, and he pushes back against the system in traditional heroic fashion.

Director Steve Carr (“Paul Blart: Mall Cop”) creates a nicely balanced caricature of school that is humorous without appearing condescending. There are character archetypes present, but he manages to enrich the story through the quick pace and sharp animation, and adds some refreshingly deep themes to what is on the surface simply a kids’ movie.

Lauren Graham (“Gilmour Girls”, “Parenthood”) stands out as Rafe’s mom, the lone adult who isn’t playing a tightly prescribed role. It’s authentic and emotional, but most of what she does is. Beside her, there is the duplicitous boyfriend and very effective comic relief (Rob Riggle) in an over-blown stereotype of a self-absorbed egotist. The goofy, cool, down-to-Earth teacher (Adam Pally), the wise yet bitter custodian (Efren Ramirez), and the authoritative assistant principal (Retta). None is overwhelming, and in fact, Principal Dwight is perhaps the character that is a bit overdone, and taints what is otherwise a surprisingly well-done film.

The genre of kids’ comedy is rife with duds over the years, and most aren’t even memorable enough to mention here. There are countless attempts to tell the same story; fish out of water who redeems him/herself, learns lessons in the process, and makes friends. “Middle School” is a bit of an exception to this typical story arc. Although typical in nearly every way, there is something starkly different than other films you’ve seen before. There is a depth and execution that usually falls apart when the film enters the third act. The twist adds a bit of an emotional charge, and there isn’t any lingering about in any of the areas during the wrap-up.

I give credit to Carr for this as he assembled a great cast of characters and presented middle school in a way that gives subtle homage to familiar stories while preserving the integrity and pacing of something different and new. I haven’t read the source material, but I have spent a lot of time in middle schools (teacher, not as a failing student). The film isn’t realistic by any stretch of the imagination, but it surpasses most in terms of its charm and upbeat ultimate message.

Rules aren’t for everyone, but this film is. I would recommend this to the masses as a breath of fresh air in what is certainly a down season for film. I haven’t seen a truly impressive film in months, and although this wasn’t what I would call impressive, I was pleasantly surprised. 8/10.

The Magnificent Seven

The story was created decades ago, but it never gets old. From Akira Kurosawa’s “Seven Samurai” in 1954, remade as “The Magnificent Seven” in 1960, we now get a twenty-first century look at good, old fashioned cowboy vigilante justice. But not really. The imagination doesn’t stray far from the Yul Bryner version, complete with a multicultural motley crew, and a helpless town who rely on seven strangers to protect them from the evil violence of capitalism disguised as progress.

Starting off by painting an idyllic picture of a prairie town, we are abruptly shaken by the dynamite explosions and chaos of a brutal gold mining operation. Bartholomew Bogue (Peter Sarsgaard) is an entrepreneurial tycoon who decimates town after town by lowballing the citizens, eventually driving them out through coercion. He is borderline sociopathic, and remorseless in his death dealing if it stands in the way of his financial goals.

Denzel Washington is the man in black as Chisolm, a bounty hunter who stumbles upon the hapless town, and begins to round up his gun slinging compatriots in an act that is simply revenge justified as righteousness. He is typical cool, smooth Washington, but didn’t show enough emotion to create a memorable character.

Homegrown product Chris Pratt (Lake Stevens) manages to easily upstage Washington at every turn, which is no easy feat. He plays the comic relief as the gambler, lothario, and easy-shooting cowboy, Josh Faraday. He is likeable and doesn’t seem to need to act aside from his broken southern accent. He exudes coolness, and although his star has been on the rise for some time, this performance certainly doesn’t hurt.

Hayley Bennett (the upcoming “The Girl on the Train”) is Emma Cullen, the hardened and scorned woman who manages to round up the men, and never quite emerges from the background to present a character of any depth. She’s a Jennifer Lawrence doppleganger and dresses a bit too risqué for the time and place, and the men are perfect gentlemen of course. I get the reason, there needs to be a damsel in distress, and when there’s an opportunity for a corset, I suppose you have to take advantage.

Director Antoine Fuqua presents a disappointingly vanilla take on the genre. Although he conjures the spirit of Sam Peckinpah in what is more “The Wild Bunch” than “Seven Samurai”, the characters are drawn up with a bland sense of anonymity and the bonds created among the seven gunslingers is shallow and unsubstantiated. Even the inevitable connection at the end between Chisolm and Bogue is weak and trite. The archetypes are stereotypical (Asian martial artist, Mexican outlaw, Indian savage) and their willingness to join each other happens far too quickly and easily. There is little explanation for why all seven are willing to selflessly die for civilians and one another. It’s also a bit confusing how they are able to coalesce so quickly and seamlessly, as if they were a special forces unit.

I do feel that it could have used a change of venue as opposed to rehashing or retelling the Old West story. “Training Day” was a gritty and outstanding look at urban police warfare, and Fuqua hit the mark with his vision and realism. In today’s climate of rampant gun violence, a different setting would have been a welcome breath of fresh air and could have been really quite effective and clever, but I get paid to critique, not write screenplays.

Alas, for a western, “The Magnificent Seven” is an action-packed thrill ride that will definitely satisfy the romantic longing for the simple times. Lots of revolvers, horses, saloons, chaps, and hats. Pratt, and to some degree, Manuel Garcia-Rulfo, who plays the Mexican outlaw, Vasquez, evoke an exciting and inspiring aura. The rest tend to simply go through the motions, particularly Ethan Hawke, who overacts and is startlingly haggard as Goodnight Robicheaux, the war hero with an inner-demon, and Vincent D’Onofrio, who is the tracker, Jack Horne.

If you are in the market for some good old-fashioned lead-slinging fun, and don’t want to overthink things, this will certainly suffice while you wait for the higher quality fare of the fall. Fuqua pulls out all the stops with his action sequences and it’s worth it for Pratt alone. 7/10.

Sully

On January 15, 2009, Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger landed a commercial airliner on the Hudson River in New York City, and all 155 people on board survived. Dubbed "The Miracle on the Hudson", it was a remarkable feat that bore eerie similarities to another New York plane crash a few years prior, but had a decidedly more pleasant outcome.

Tom Hanks (Sully) and Clint Eastwood collaborate for the first time, and it's a match made in heaven. The story is incredible, and the tone of a New York miracle adds some magic that wouldn't have quite the same effect if it were anywhere else in the world. As one supporting player says, "It's been a long time since this city has had a good news story... especially one involving an airplane".

Hanks carries the film on his shoulders with an aged look; white hair and mustache, and an intentional maturity that absolutely captures the real man behind the story. He has a calm, almost banal demeanor. He isn't a flashy man by any means, and is reluctant to smile or boast about his brilliant display of piloting and heroism that saved hundreds of lives. He's a humble man who is caught up in his own guilt, wondering if he made the right decision because it certainly could have ended differently very easily. Aircraft water landings are historically tragic, and as he was over the Hudson, there were other options for attempts at airport landings that he refused in the heat of the moment. 208 seconds. 3 minutes and 18 seconds from birds destroying his engines to safely landing on a river in the middle of one of the most densely populated cities in the world. It's a heavy decision, and even though everything turned out alright, it's the type of situation he must still be going over in his mind. Sully, not Hanks, to be clear. It's difficult to imagine that Tom Hanks hasn't been nominated for a Best Actor Oscar since 2001's "Castaway". He has had six films according to my count that either could have or should have led to a nomination, if not a win ("Captain Phillips" should have been his third win for the final scene alone, to not be nominated was a travesty). "Sully" will likely be his sixth nomination, but the performance might not be quite enough to capture a win. The character is a bit to bland.

Eastwood once again creates a conflicted sense of brilliance or mediocrity in my mind. The sequences of the airplane in flight and event itself are outstanding. Seeing the plane gliding through the skyline of the city with flaming engines is beautiful and frightening simultaneously, but the supporting cast and dialogue exude typical Eastwood. In an attempt at emotional appeal, supporting characters come off as wooden and disingenuous. He again creates his own musical score, but this time, it just doesn't seem to fit with the theme. I would have preferred something subtle and moody. Something inspiring yet tense. Maybe I'm being too picky. I admire what Eastwood attempted, but aside from the obvious, I wasn't impressed.

The film is heavy on the theme of heroism, but with any story with a strong protagonist, there has to be an antagonist, and this is where Eastwood might play a little fast and loose with the facts. An airplane can't take on that role, nor can a flock of helpless birds, so the burden falls on the investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board. They criticize Sully's actions and put him under a microscope in the inevitable investigation that follows the incident, but it truly feels like a witch hunt and a commentary on what's wrong with post-disaster criticism. It diverted attention from the amazing human interest story; New York City still recovering from 9/11, the ferry crews, first responders, flight crew, and even passengers who contributed to an improbable survival story. The captain and co-captain who did all the right things in spite of impossible odds. Instead, Eastwood chose to vilify the agency in hopes of amplifying the greatness of the story. I didn't like it. Of course, it wouldn't have been much of a film without some conflict, but maybe it isn't the type of story that should have been a feature length movie in the first place.

I suppose I can't knock Eastwood too much, as the event itself was a mere 208 seconds. It is captured from multiple perspectives, and replayed at least twice, including some nightmares of what might have been, which adds to the drama of the story and is harrowing in its own right. I just feel like the event was stretched out a bit too long. This is a fantastic story and a heroic character study, but it simply didn't have enough meat to keep my interest until the predictable, and vindicating end. That said, Hanks has rarely been better. As he enters his sixties, the youthful Hanks of old is a fading memory, but we have the elderly Hanks to look forward to in the coming years. Don't be surprised if he is the next man to win a third Best Actor Oscar within the next decade. "Sully" soars, but can only glide for so long without engines. 7/10.

Don't Breathe

There come moments in life when you are forced to make an important choice. Like should I rob the blind war veteran’s house while he is home? The answer to that is usually going to be a firm no. “Don’t Breathe” follows three young hoodlums who pick the wrong victim in their attempt to get rich quick. Living in economic squalor, the film makers chose a dying neighborhood in Detroit as the setting, and it definitely helps to set the mood of isolation.

As a fan of vigilante justice, I was giddy after hearing about the premise of this film. Yes! Victim’s revenge is gratifying when you hate home invasions as much as I do. I would have to classify this as more of a thriller than a horror movie though; the distinction being that horror generally would be somewhat (or entirely) implausible. Thrillers are sometimes more frightening than horror because you could see yourself in the situation, but most films in the genre fall apart when they try to fabricate tension and delve into the realm of unlikely. “Don’t Breathe” toes that line nicely for most of the movie. It falls over the line during the third act, and a plot twist destroys credibility, losing the beautiful momentum it had slowly built to that point.

What works very well is that through the first two acts, Stephen Lang’s (“Avatar”) blind man is larger than life. He consumes all of the attention in any scene he is in. He is an elderly man, physically imposing, and plays visually impaired and helpless extremely well. His brief back story is not overly elaborate, but satisfactory in placing him in the mix. But what he excels at is that his character changes right before our eyes over the course of the ninety minutes, and I only wish he was given more lines, his low, gravelly voice is haunting.

The three criminals (Jane Levy, Dylan Minnette, and Daniel Zovatto) have bland personalities and back stories, and their archetypes are so typical that it’s a bit embarrassing. What is supposed to be a scare-fest loses some of its crucial emotional appeal by portraying just about everyone in an unflattering light. What I just couldn’t get on board with was figuring out who to root for. Do I root for the criminals, or the victim? Depraved all around, I just didn’t feel the visceral connection to any of the characters, which severely diminished the return on my anticipation. I suppose that as the film progresses there is supposed to be a shift in allegiance, but I found myself a vacant bystander.

Written and directed by Fede Alvarez (2013’s “Evil Dead”), what it lacks in creativity, it makes up for in execution. Creaking floorboards, little or no music, lots of great jump-worthy moments, and utter simplicity are the foundations of any good thriller. Although it goes a bit off the rails near the end, probably aiming for that epic climax, I was impressed at the camera work and way that Alvarez induced a sense of claustrophobia in the cramped house.

What failed to impress me was the use of a Rottweiler in an attempt to close loops and stretch the chase. It is sloppy writing, and come on, who is actually scared of dogs? Just smack it on the nose and scratch its belly. At the conclusion of “Don’t Breathe”, I did find myself a bit sore from being tensed up for over an hour, so that’s a sign of captivating entertainment. Kudos to Alvarez and Lang for that. If you can handle a bit of moral ambiguity and are a fan of thrillers, you might get a thrill out of “Don’t Breathe”, but if not, don’t bother. I was really hoping for better. 5/10.

War Dogs

Jonah Hill and Miles Teller are both pretty hot property right now in Hollywood. Teller was snubbed for an Oscar nomination for 2014’s “Whiplash”, and Hill has shined in “Moneyball” and “Wolf of Wall Street”. A noticeably obese Hill is showing his range once again as Ephraim Diveroli, a loud, crass American who is equal parts stupid, brilliant, and ambitious. Miles Teller is David Packouz, a floundering kid who just wants to be successful enough to raise a family and feel respected. Together, they exude a juvenile, yet tenuous friendship and stumble into a gray area of success more than they earn it. They are hustling their way to the American dream, according to the film’s tagline.

The improbable true story of two twenty-something friends who earned untold millions through lucrative US military arms contracts in the wake of the second Gulf War is presented in a very fresh, hip way. Like last year’s “The Big Short”, the absurdity of the premise brings out the natural humor in the situation and everyone involved capitalizes to ramp up the energy and action until you are earnestly wondering how is it going to end? For a film that is really a gonzo buddy action comedy biopic, it has a surprising amount of tension.

The dramatic story would be ruthless if wasn’t funny. The two lead characters do a fantastic job of showing wide-eyed inexperience. It’s almost as if a couple of kids find themselves at the adult table at Thanksgiving. They don’t quite know what to do, but they are happy to be there, and are relishing the respect that comes with the opportunity.

Bradley Cooper injects some seriousness into what could easily go off the rails as a true comedy as the notorious arms dealer and public enemy Henry Girard, a role that he seems to be enjoying despite his lack of any noticeable expression.

Director Todd Phillips, who struck gold with his Hangover trilogy, shows promise for more than just raunchy comedy franchises. He’s evolving into something a bit more dramatic, and for that I admire his choice of project. He allowed just the right amount of comedy to endure the political, possibly anti-American message, sort of an exploitation of government procurement process. Much the way “The Big Short” dealt with the banking crisis with humor, “War Dogs” is a sharp and complete movie because of the soft edges.

Something that many films of this nature do well is using familiar classic rock songs, often with oddly relevant lyrics (Blue Oyster Cult’s Don’t Fear the Reaper being played in a retirement home). This is notably a Richard Linklater or Cameron Crowe move, but Todd Phillips nails the music. It really adds another level of fun to this movie.

The equalizer for me, regardless of genre of film is if it makes me really want to know how it ends. I hadn’t heard much about the story prior to screening, and although the previews definitely give a good impression of what to expect, I found myself really needing to find resolution as it was building to a climax. Beyond that, I thought Todd Phillips ended it very well; on a high note, a very satisfying conclusion.

One thing that might turn off some viewers is just how immature and brash Jonah Hill’s character is portrayed. The term ugly American comes to mind, and although it’s a compliment to his craft, it is a bit despicable on screen and leaves a bitter taste throughout.

With a slim variety of enjoyable films in wide release right now, I would definitely recommend checking “War Dogs” out. Especially if you’re looking for a cool place to get out of these hot summer afternoons. 8/10.

2017 Oscar Preview

It's a bit early for an Oscar prediction, right? Never. There are more than a handful of films over the coming three months that will likely enter the discussion for the coveted gold statues, but I am here to offer my pre-release prognostication, sight-unseen. Now, there have been a handful of valiant performances, and even a few good films so far in 2016. I'd like to reserve top ten status until a bit later in the year, but thus far none of them will command recognition come next March. What stands on the horizon are a fairly impressive docket of films from thespians and directors new and old. Some may sound familiar, some won't, but here is my fall preview.

August

August is typically a wasteland reserved for iffy blockbusters, some franchise tentpoles, and films that aren't easily classified. Two such films are "War Dogs" and "Don't Breathe". The former will likely break boundaries as an artistic action comedy biopic. At best, it will be on par with "The Big Short" and at worst, well, let's just say it could definitely be disappointing. The premise is intriguing, as is the director (Todd Phillips), and Miles Teller and Jonah Hill are exceptional actors when given the right project to work with. The latter might be the scariest film of the year, or it might just be another cliche gimmick. However, with a good director (Fede Alvarez) and one of my faves, Stephen Lang, I have high hopes for some edge-of-my seat scares. Gus Van Sant's long-gestating "Sea of Trees" is another one to keep on the radar, but the premise is depressing as hell. Walking into the woods to commit suicide? Wow. I could miss it, but with McConaughey, Van Sant, and Naomi Watts, it might turn some heads.

September

The Oscar buzz begins. "The Light Between Oceans" has gotten some attention, but again, depressing. I think it will fall off the radar after early praise. "Sully" might be the only September film to go the distance with perennial Best Actor darling Tom Hanks (Inferno won't do it), and Clint Eastwood behind the camera. I see this as what "Flight" could have been, and everyone loves a hero. Which is true except when it's mixed with action. "Deepwater Horizon" will be deeply entertaining, but Mark Wahlberg leaves much to be desired and Peter Berg is still hung up on action over real quality. Three other films pique my interest; "American Honey", "Denial", and "Goat". All for different reasons, I could see "Denial" sticking around on critics' top ten lists if it reaches its potential.

October

The real quality films begin coming out. October brings us "Birth of a Nation", "The Accountant", "American Pastoral", and "Moonlight". I could see "Birth of a Nation", which is a semi-true account of the Nat Turner rebellion, gaining some serious looks both because of the content, and as a pendulum swing in the aftermath of the uber-white Hollywood debacle last year. Think "12 Years a Slave". Its problem may be the whole written/directed/starring problem, and Nate Parker's current rape allegations from when he was in college. "The Accountant" gives me pause. I have high hopes, but the director is Gavin O'Connor. "Miracle" and "Warrior" were great films, but I see him as more of a lightweight film maker. I hope I'm wrong, it looks very entertaining.

November

I will be very busy in November. I count four potential Best Picture Oscar films: "Loving" is my current number two. An interracial couple is sentenced to prison in 1950's Virginia for their marriage, directed by Jeff Nichols ("Midnight Special", "Mud", "Take Shelter"). He's flying under the radar as a high quality writer/director, but "Loving" will change that. "Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk" is Ang Lee's new baby. The story and acting may not be the most compelling this year, but Ang Lee always has some tricks up his sleeve; this time filming with a frame rate of 120 frames per second. For reference, "Avatar" was filmed at 24 fps, and "The Hobbit" trilogy broke new territory with 30. This film has been hailed as the dawning of a new era of film making from a technical standpoint, so I would highly recommend 3D IMAX on this one, which I don't do very often. It will be a worthwhile cinematic experience. "Manchester by the Sea" is another one I'm hearing good things about. Still a bit mysterious to me (fly me to special screenings already, Hollywood) it stars Casey Affleck as a man who inherits his brother's son after he dies. It should have the acting covered with Michelle Williams and Kyle Chandler co-starring, and is directed by Kenneth Lonergan, who is a bit inexperienced, but ironically won the "most overlooked film" award among others in 2011 for "Margaret". Rounding out the quality, there is "Bleed for This" which will likely land Miles Teller in the Best Actor grouping, "Hacksaw Ridge" which is a bit of a sleeper, but has potential, "Elle", "Nocturnal Animals", "Rules Don't Apply", and "Allied" all are on my radar as well.

December

Besides "Star Wars", I am probably most interested in "Passengers" with Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt. The film has been on the Hollywood Black List (hottest scripts that haven't been done yet), and it has potential for a "Gravity" amount of success, certainly it will do well at the box office. Its biggest problem is opening the week after "Rogue One", but that shouldn't be too much of a problem around Christmas. "La La Land", "Collateral Beauty", "Fences", "Gold", and "20th Century Women", and "Silence" are all going to be potential contenders, but I'm calling it now. The Best Picture of the year will be "The Founder" and Michael Keaton will bring home the coveted gold after just narrowly missing out with "Birdman". This will mark his third year in a row being one of the leads in the Best Picture winner, and will solidify him as a viable if not exceptional leading man. I've always liked him anyhow, but it's really nice to see him getting his due. The Weinsteins have pushed it back from August to December because of the possibilities for awards, and with Nick Offerman and John Carroll Lynch playing the McDonald brothers, and Keaton as Ray Kroc, I think a lot of people will frown upon McDonalds after seeing the real story.

Best Picture Nominees

The sure thing nominees in my eyes are "The Founder", "Loving", "The Birth of a Nation", "Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk", and "Manchester by the Sea". The second tier contenders will be "The Light Between Oceans", "Sully", "Allied", "La La Land", "Moonlight" and "Nocturnal Animals". The winner will be "The Founder".

Which films am I most excited to see? Easy. "Passengers", "Arrival", "The Founder", and of course, "Rogue One". I like to make my predictions early for plausible deniability of accuracy, but also to say that I called it back before anyone else. Like the Mariners winning the World Series this October. And the Seahawks in 2017. Good luck to all, and email me with your thoughts, I'd love to hear them.

Suicide Squad

DC and Warner Bros. find themselves in a mad scramble to catch up with the Marvel juggernaut, and I for one thought that “Suicide Squad” would help them in their efforts. It didn’t. In fact, this can only set them back farther after the disappointing “Batman vs Superman” in the spring. We have to hold out for next year’s “Wonder Woman” for any hope of superhero salvation, and by that time, the pressure will be very high.

For those who haven’t heard, “Suicide Squad” is a team of little known bad guys who are pulled out of prison and forced to work together under the most dangerous of circumstances. Presumably these are missions that the US military can’t handle, but I’ll get to that in a bit. Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) is the brainchild of this proposal, and no sooner than she pitches the idea does it become almost critical that they assemble.

Writer/Director David Ayer (“Fury”, “Sabotage”, “End of Watch”, “Training Day”) was given the keys to his daddy’s Porsche in this $175 million film that doesn’t even have a mainstream character, and he wrecked it going 20 miles per hour. Shame. Batman makes a brief appearance in a couple of inconsequential scenes, including the mid-credits interlude that is becoming all the rage in superhero flicks, but the highlight of “Batman vs Superman” couldn’t even save this film. Ayer even let Jared Leto forge a new Joker, but the iconic performance by Heath Ledger sadly haunts any effort on Leto’s part. It was doomed from the start. Besides over-acting, and being more thuggish than insane, the Joker’s role in this film is far too peripheral anyway. It’s gimmicky, but he isn’t given enough screen time to be effective.

This assortment of villains has a range of abilities, or non-abilities, which made the movie pointless right off the bat. Captain Boomerang, Slipknot, Killer Croc, and Harley Quinn bring absolutely no value to a fight against anyone or anything that is armed. Rick Flagg and Katana are the minders of the squad, and even they aren’t impressive, even when the bullets start to fly. I guess I was expecting more interesting characters from a character-driven vehicle.

Will Smith highjacks the film as Deadshot even though there are more interesting characters lurking in the shadows behind him. He is given almost as much screen time as Margot Robbie’s backside in tight shorts, which are the true star of the bunch, but Smith just doesn’t play well with others, so I assume he needed to be playing the anti-hero.

The real problem is the identity crisis that the film has. Billed as a group of bad guys, they kept having to remind us who was good and who was bad because they just became too nice and likable over time. They even started working as a team, and growing consciences. It is a team flick, but it wasn’t supposed to have a happy vibe. The second problem I had with the film is the story. It is terrible. Like really, really bad. Let’s just march these characters down a street and let them fight whatever comes up. Baseball bats, boomerangs, crocodile hands. Don’t worry that the US military could just send in a Seal team and handle this, let’s take a big risk on this group of bad guys with no experience and really bad attitudes. And just to remind you, they are really bad. The plot saddened the superhero movie fan in me even more than Brandon Routh’s “Superman Returns” back in 2006.

What I would have done differently for starters is to make this an R-rated film. Marvel’s “Deadpool” broke the mold in the spring with the not-so-family-friendly film, and it worked out great for them; critically and at the box office. Suicide Squad was supposed to be DC’s answer to a more violent superhero movie, which would be great given the natural tone of DC comic films anyhow. Give it a try, the target audience doesn’t shift much when you go from PG-13 to R, and there would be much more leeway for David Ayer to create the film he probably wanted. Violence, nudity, language. It would have fit in this case. If it made hundreds of millions (which it would have and will anyway), try it again, something different. My inkling is that Will Smith, DC, and Warner Bros. had a bit more skin in the game than Ayer did, and so they won in the end. It’s a shame. Ayer is a talented writer, but I’m not sure his directing is on par with his contemporaries.

In the end, there was too much nonsense going on to warrant enjoyment. The film started too fast, progressed too slowly, and ended painfully. Will Smith had to drop his Will Smith one liners. Jared Leto is no Heath Ledger, and let’s just say Batman, Superman, Aquaman, The Flash, Cyborg, and Wonder Woman (no Green Lantern?) don’t have to worry about these clowns causing too much havoc. 3/10.

Jason Bourne

Matt Damon returns for the fourth time as the twenty-first century James Bond, Jason Bourne. The commercial success of the franchise demanded a return, and I will tell you, Bourne is back in a big way.

Discounting 2012’s “Bourne Legacy” which starred Jeremy Renner in the titular role, it has been nine years since the icon of modern espionage has graced us with his screen presence. The subtle master of cat and mouse has come out of hiding to find answers to his own questions in the midst of a global Wikileaks-sized security breach.

The CIA is hot on his tail, led by Tommy Lee Jones as the director of the covert agency. He is the latest in a long line of distinguished actors who have gone up against Damon in this franchise, and things haven’t gone well for any of them. Vincent Cassell also joins the cast as “The Asset”, a cold-blooded assassin with reasons of his own for hunting Bourne.

The whole gang is back together behind the scenes. Paul Greengrass directs his third entry, Tony Gilroy writes his fifth (he also directed “Legacy”), and Doug Liman is back on board as an executive producer (he directed the first film and produced the others). As you can imagine, there is a lot more of the same. The character is the draw and always will be, so we see high-tech espionage, exotic European locations, and lots of backstabbing and double dealing. Of course, Jason Bourne is above it all, outsmarting every single person on the planet. But that’s the fun, isn’t it? Seeing how he’ll get out of jam after jam.

Greengrass is a natural for this type of film, and he has a prior connection to Damon in 2010’s “Green Zone”. He was the director behind “Captain Phillips” and “United 93” both films I would highly recommend as well done bio-pics. His trademark handheld camera style can be a bit unsettling at times, particularly when there is a lot going on on-screen. That is really the only gripe I have with the direction.

Gilroy delivers a story that picks up right where the last one left off in terms of tone and pacing. Two incredible chase sequences bookend what is the most linear and simple entry in the series yet. I found the complex nature of the first three a bit frustrating when trying to enjoy the film without necessitating reflection, but this one is ripe for immediate consumption and enjoyment.

Two problems I had with the film, and neither is overtly damaging of an enjoyable viewing experience. First; Oscar-winning actress, and Hollywood’s hottest female Alicia Vikander plays the CIA Head of Cyber Surveillance, Heather Lee. Would a twenty-eight-year-old who looks like she is twenty really find herself at the top of an intelligence agency at that young of an age? It didn’t work for me, and played into the commentary and criticism that as Hollywood leading men keep aging, the leading ladies stay the same age. There is some credence to that.

The second problem I had was the need to parallel Apple’s battle with the NSA using implication that shady government is recruiting the private sector to do their dirty work with the intention of destroying privacy, all in the name of security. It’s a little too soon after the San Bernadino shooting to bring that piece of non-fiction into the narrative.

Assuming Damon is interested in taking on the role for a fifth time, you can count on another installment within the next few years. With a nearly $5 million Thursday night opening, and projected $50-60 million opening weekend, it will be a worthwhile investment for the team of Greengrass, Gilroy, and Limon as well. It is a bit redundant, but If you are looking for action, and a bit of a trip down memory lane without the multifarious names, places, and black ops files to remember, you will definitely enjoy Jason Bourne. Again. 8/10.

Ghostbusters

Some call it sacrilege. Some call it a feminist ploy. Some say that the hallowed original from 1984 has somehow been tarnished or desecrated as if it were some work of art held to a higher level of reverence than say, “Total Recall”, “Robocop”, or “Judge Dredd”. We live in a cinematic age where originality isn’t profitable unless a name like James Cameron is attached. Reboots, superheroes, young adult fiction adaptations, sequels, and disaster films rule the roost. Incredibly, eighteen of the top twenty-two highest grossing films of all time are franchise sequels, reboots, or spinoffs (boxofficemojo.com). “Titanic”, “Avatar”, “Frozen”, and “Jurassic Park” are the exceptions by the way (and a whopping sixty-eight of the top one hundred are sequels, reboots, or spinoffs).

The fact that “Ghostbusters” is an all-female cast, and comes thirty-two years after the original in no way diminishes its value. Set as a true remake with familiar plot, archetypes, and spooky, comedic spirit as the original, I see it as capitalist homage; an opportunity to take a cherished and beloved brand, and bring it in to the twenty-first century with a fresh, new look. There will be sequel(s).

Erin (Kristin Wiig) and Abby (Melissa McCarthy) headline as the Aykroyd and Ramis characters, while Patty (Leslie Jones) and Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon) are Hudson and Murray. If you didn’t follow that last sentence, you probably aren’t a fan of the original, in which case you might not get the numerous references and cameos that further pay tribute to the original. “Ghostbusters” is a who’s who of “Saturday Night Live” and “MADtv” alumni that add what must have been a good deal of improvisation to the witty and sharp dialogue and physical comedy.

Wiig and McCarthy sadly have had their fifteen minutes of fame. They rely on the same old shtick, which has its moments, but is a bit overdone and took away a little from the real joy; McKinnon and Hemsworth. McKinnon’s character is ripe with Bill Murrayesque lines and idiosyncrasies. She is the beating heart of the team of ghostbusters and keeps this film on its game even though on paper this is the Wiig and McCarthy show. Hemsworth is hilarious as Kevin, the beefcake receptionist. His idiocy is so absurd that it is laugh-out-loud funny and shows a side of him that we haven’t really seen before. He shouldn’t quit his day job (Thor), but has more range than I would have given him credit for, although the writers and director certainly had a lot to do with that.

Director Paul Feig (“Bridesmaids”, “The Heat”, “Spy”) has a successful relationship with McCarthy vehicles since her scorching foray on the scene in “Bridesmaids”. He is squeezing every last drop of comedy out of her, and I would say she’s just about dry. As long as her films make money, I am technically wrong, but her humor is getting a little stale for my taste. His films will likely find the audiences shelling over their cash, but I would like to see him step out of his wheelhouse and try something a bit less predictable.

Written by Feig and Kate Dippold (most notably “Parks and Recreation”), the plot is cookie-cutter, but as a remake, the job is mostly done for them already. The dialogue and characters are the meat of the film and with quick pacing, iconic cameos, and a fun atmosphere, it was a recipe for success.

We get to relive the glory days with some pretty awesome cameos, but the one I was hoping to see just didn’t make his appearance. I’ll give you a hint; he’s the key master and he accidentally shrunk his kids once upon a time. Anyhow, you will be pleasantly surprised at the comfort and familiarity of the story. I found myself smiling quite a bit, and although it did go on a bit too long, the visual effects leave the original in the dust. There is something to be said about nostalgia, cheesy effects and all, but the new “Ghostbusters” truly is improved in many ways. I loved the original, but I was pleasantly impressed with this new look. 7/10

Independence Day: Resurgence

Twenty years ago, on the 4th of July, Earth had to fight for its independence against an alien invasion. I was a high schooler, and remember the awe of the special effects mixed in with some pretty cool one liners; Will Smith in his early glory, Jeff Goldblum and Bill Pullman showing that you don’t necessarily need an A-list actor to carry a blockbuster, and the ushering in of a new genre of film that has left a massive impression on the film industry.

Director Roland Emmerich is who I would consider the Godfather of next generation disaster films. Since “Independence Day”, he has treated us to a variety of earth-shattering experiences, but none were quite as epic and ambitious as the alien invasion that started it all (besides “Twister” which opened about two months earlier, that really started it all).

Well, twenty years later, the next generation, armed with space alien technology has arrived to once again protect the masses from the calamity of an even bigger, badder invasion. One can only imagine what “Independence Day 3” has in store for us (spoiler alert?). Humans have come together in a global effort to fight back, planning for the inevitable return ever since Randy Quaid rammed his jet up the mothership’s tailpipe. Technology is humming thanks to the incident; we have a Moon base, a global satellite defense system, enhanced transportation, and a stronger military. Alien technology seems to make progress move faster.

Will Smith is noticeably absent this time around, but nearly every other survivor from the first film is back, including Vivica A. Fox. Adding youth to the cast are the other Hemsworth (it’s hard to take him seriously knowing he’s going to marry Miley Cyrus), Maika Monroe (“It Follows”) as the former First Daughter, and Jesse T. Usher as Captain Hillard (Will Smith’s progeny). Sela Ward ruins a ripe role as the current President with wooden and emotionless dialogue, and William Fichtner tries his hardest to keep the audience engaged and caring as General Adams, but his efforts are fruitless.

Jeff Goldblum and Judd Hirsch continue their father/son routine, but it is much less playful and more obligatory. The survival and peril seems to take on an almost comedic vibe that ruins any sort of tension that may have existed in the first place.

What I did enjoy about the film is the duplication of the tone and mood of the first film. The dialogue is light and the action is virtually nonstop with absolutely no pretense of any sort of seriousness. Come for the popcorn and action, leave feeling a little bit patriotic. I suppose that’s the goal.
What makes it more difficult to digest as an adult, however, is that the characters aren’t developed even a smidge. For some reason, everyone is an excellent pilot, but beyond that, they are terribly shallowly written. Each scene is rushed just a tad too much so there is no time to savor the visual effects that are feeding a constant stream of ocular sugar into your eyes. The alien ships are fantastic, and the battles must have cost a fortune at the digital effects lab. There’s even a pretty cool destruction scene that although would have killed tens of millions of people, looks pretty cool on the screen. I know you’re not supposed to think about the collateral damage, but I can’t help it.

The writers (Nicolas Wright and James Woods), who will be collaborating again with Emmerich on the upcoming “Stargate” reboot (don’t even get me started) seem to have wanted this to be bigger than it really needed to be, and bigger than it had the capacity for. It is overflowing with stand-alone scenes that set up incredible trailers and feed a fantastical imagination, but I found myself unable to immerse myself into the story because of the lack of focus.

You can bet it’s a mish mash of recycled attempts at emotional pull, and to be honest, the 11-15-year-old crowd will go crazy for it. It’s great to see some of the old faces back in harm’s way twenty years later, but in the end it just wasn’t very satisfying for me. Go see it if you liked the first and are in need of a blockbuster fix, but don’t expect an improvement on the original. 5/10.

Warcraft

The film based on the global massively multiplayer online role playing game (MMORPG) of the same name, “Warcraft” is an ambitious project on the scale of something like “Lord of the Rings”. The budget, writing/directing experience, and source material drastically lowers expectations, but even so, what unfolds on screen is a bit of a mess.

Let me preface this by saying it’s never a good sign when you doze off in the middle of the movie. It’s also not a good sign when you doze off and don’t miss anything important. Part of the problem with “Warcraft” is that one who isn’t familiar with the game is completely lost. There is no attempt to convey any insider information to the viewer, we just jump in and get to the story, which doesn’t fuel intrigue one bit.

Fortunately, (and unfortunately), there isn’t much to the narrative. Giant Orcs cross dimensions through a portal that is fed by the souls of battle-captured foes. The unsuspecting humans (and I think there were some other creatures in this realm, but we’re never really explained much in this regard) take up arms and do battle to preserve their kingdom, following the warrior/King’s brother-in-law, Anduin Lothar, played by Travis Fimmel, into an all-out rumble for terrestrial supremacy. Throw in some mystical powers that are a bit cliché and misguided in Ben Foster’s Medhiv and Ben Schnetzer’s Khadgar, and there is utter confusion about the extent of rules of this particular universe. Paula Patton plays the eye candy as the half-breed, Garona, who doesn’t really fit anywhere, and thinking about the two species breeding makes me wonder “How?” even more than “Why?” Was the male an Orc, or the female? I’m not sure which is worse.

Director Duncan Jones (“Moon”, “Source Code”) gives a valiant effort for his first true big budget blockbuster, and his choice of project is paying dividends in spades internationally, particularly China. I suspect that given the ending of the film as well as the reception, we will see a series spawn from the film, although I won’t be participating in viewing of any subsequent films.

Despite all of its very noticeable problems, I greatly admire the CGI and the vision of the Orcs. The giant beings with toothy upward-pointing fangs are meticulously rendered, looking like a bunch of Incredible Hulks running around flexing their oversized muscles with their knuckle-dragging testosterone. Toby Kebbel gives Andy Serkis a run for his money as the best motion-capture actor around as the Orc chieftain, Durotan. After his performance in the “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” back in 2014, he proves again that he is more than capable of bringing to life the emotions of a hybrid Neanderthal-simian creature.

Beyond the Orcs, the acting was pedestrian and the rest of the creatures and landscapes seemed rushed and done on the cheap. There were scenes that just seemed sloppy. A flying Griffin was kind of cool, but I felt like I was brought back to 1984, watching Atreyu riding Falkor through the clouds in terms of cinematic quality. I wasn’t impressed. Likewise, with the Orcs riding giant wolves. Or dogs? Whatever they were, they weren’t nearly as seamless or detailed as they could have been.

Essentially, “Warcraft” is an opportunity to capitalize on a global video game phenomenon and nothing more. It clearly lacks creativity or originality, but I suppose that’s part of the challenge that Duncan Jones faced in the first place. The market is already established, and it was inevitable that it would become a film at some point in time, so I can’t blame the studio for trying. At the height of the game’s popularity, this may have been a stronger film, but for the uninitiated, it just lacks the quality to be enjoyable a la carte. Skip the film unless you’re a veteran Warcraft player and even so, you will probably be disappointed. 3/10.

The Nice Guys

Shane Black knows a thing about buddy action comedies. After all, he is the writing force behind the Lethal Weapon franchise, and has “Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang” and “The Last Boyscout” on his resume. “The Nice Guys” however, is his first foray into the 1970’s.

“The Nice Guys” is a buddy action crime caper of sorts with Ryan Gosling playing the drunk, sometime bumbling private investigator, Holland March, and Russell Crowe playing the strong, silent type, Jackson Healy. Angourie Rice steals the show as Holland’s daughter, Holly, who upstages her father in investigative skills and maturity at every turn. After a series of suspicious murders, they find themselves working together in an attempt to locate a young woman before it is too late.

Black does a nice job setting the tone for the film, and the set and costume designs are remarkable. The 1970’s never looked so cool, and I don’t know about you, but I’m always a sucker for the Hollywood scene in film. The humor certainly takes front seat to the action, but the pacing and intrigue is just enough to keep the film from stalling. Witty dialogue and shallow but familiar generic characters amplify the tone, but Black never was one to make a film realistic or emotional. There’s a reason they are called action-comedies, and to be honest, he is a master of his craft. He knows that it’s about the bullets flying, humor in the face of danger, and implausible situations that result in elaborate stunt work.

The story is a bit weak, with a valiant attempt at tying together the setting, the porn industry, the auto industry, and the Department of Justice. The shortcomings in plot development don’t really matter though. The real draw is the buddy chemistry and Shane Black knows it (and so should the audience). March and Healy are given just enough back story to gain our admiration and curiosity, and although they may not be likable as humans, they shine brightly as a duo.

Gosling shows his comic chops once again, and really drives this film forward. He finds that critical balance of humor and acting that is often missed in films of this nature, and when the actor does miss the mark, it leads to buffoonery (Will Ferrell, Adam Sandler, Kevin Hart), which flips the entire tone. Gosling has great comedic timing, but he also has the sex appeal and pedigree of more serious fare. He nails Holland March in a way that I suspect makes Shane Black proud.

Russell Crowe’s Healy shows a paunchier side we haven’t seen in a while, and coasts through his performance, offering sage, gravelly advice to Gosling’s more cavalier March. I was pleasantly surprised that he was the Murtaugh to Gosling’s Riggs (“Lethal Weapon” reference) and not vice versa. He is brutish, but flawed, and it takes the full film for us to understand him and really trust his character. It’s a nuanced performance, but well done considering the lightness of the movie.

John Boy (Matt Bohmer) and Blueface (Beau Knapp) are especially sinister as the villains, although both of their screen time is sadly limited severely. They relish in their over-done characters, but alas, there isn’t enough substance for them to partake in this movie.

Overall, considering the expectations, I was impressed. Two A-list actors, a 70’s Hollywood film noir setting, and the best buddy action-comedy writer/director of our time? It’s a great combination worthy of your viewing. 8/10.