Southpaw

There have been countless boxing movies over the years; well done (Raging Bull, Rocky, Million Dollar Baby, The Boxer), well-intended (Ali, The Hurricane, The Fighter), and awful (Diggstown, Gladiator, Cinderella Man). Southpaw falls somewhere in the middle. Not for lack of trying, the lead performance was spectacular, but the story was surprisingly (to me) contrived and formulaic.

Jake Gyllenhaal is Billy Hope, the light heavyweight champ who is on top of the world. He's not the prettiest fighter, as his anger and rage through being pummeled gives him the strength to deliver the knockout blow. Consequently, after forty-something fights, his wife and childhood sweetheart, Maureen (Rachel McAdams) is more than a little worried about his deteriorating ability to take a punch and still speak coherently. After a tragedy that is well publicized in the trailer (more on that later), he spirals into even more self-destructive behavior, jeopardizing custody of his daughter. He hits rock bottom, but with the help of an old, wise trainer, he gets his act together and gets one last shot at redemption. Sound familiar? It should, because it's the basic premise of most boxing movies out there.

That's the rub with this type of film, there are only two paths you can go; win or lose. Either build from nothing to a win at the end, or start on top, fall to the bottom, and claw your way back up. The exceptions are the biopics (not entirely exempt from the formula however), but otherwise, there isn't much you can do with boxing to spice it up. Raging Bull is still the gold standard, and most of the credit goes to the great Robert De Niro for that. Because of the decline in popularity and credibility in the sport, it is hard to imagine that we will see many more films dedicated to this genre. Mixed Martial Arts has surpassed Boxing in popularity among fans and presumably athletes, and there is something nostalgic and romantic about the idea of a dingy gym with the dusty leather gloves, the old speedbags, and the legendary promotional posters on the walls. The owner pushing his own mop and sleeping in the back room. It's romantic, but it's also a dying sport.

Antoine Fuqua has broadened his horizons yet again, tackling a sports film. His bread and butter has been cops, military, and the occasional remake/reboot (The Equalizer, 2017's Magnificent Seven). A quick sidebar, The Magnificent Seven should be just that with Chris Pratt, Denzel Washington, Ethan Hawke, Vincent D'Onofrio, Matt Bomer, Peter Sarsgaard, and Cam Giganet as the namesake band of cowboys. Just saying. Anyhow, Fuqua has seemed to gain the trust of the Hollywood brass, and he keeps churning out profitable fare. For what it's worth, Training Day was outstanding, and everything since has been action fluff. Unfortunately, Southpaw's action scenes fall into the unremarkable category.

Kurt Sutter makes the jump from the small screen, where he was spectacular (The Shield, Sons of Anarchy) for creating gritty characters, violent and graphic action sequences, and compelling drama, to the large screen where he tries to duplicate an abbreviated and toned-down version, through unimaginative writing. If not for the cast, this would have been an epic disaster.

Jake Gyllenhaal is the lone bright spot in the film, even with the incredible Forrest Whitaker in an understated yet cliche role as the too-cool-for-school trainer who humbles the champ. Gyllenhaal is coming off a handful of overlooked performances (Prisoners, Enemy, Nightcrawler), he again shows why he is one of the greatest thirty-something actors in Hollywood. He has two films on the horizon that should be worth watching; Everest, and Demolition. At first glance, it may appear he's just playing a dumb boxer, but when you really look into his performance, the physical transformation aside, you can see the acting. This isn't in a transparent, noticeable way, but if you take what you know of Gyllenhaal, you can see just how into character he has becomes because of the stark differences. I wouldn't go so far as to say Oscar nomination, and a July release almost assures that he will be forgotten, but this is one of the better performances of the year thus far.

There was an article in Entertainment Weekly recently that explained the recent trend of spoiling plot twists in the previews, and how it is what audiences want, much to the chagrin of the directors, writers, and actors. The big plot twist in Southpaw is given away in the previews (and most reviews), and although it is a crucial character change device, I found myself wanting to be surprised as I was watching the film. Spoiler alert. There were absolutely no surprises to this film.

My biggest complaint was first voiced by Oscar De La Hoya. The Boxer archetype is too rigidly portrayed. He's a dumb orphan raised on the tough streets of New York. He made something out of nothing, worked his way to the top only to lose it all through poor decisions, being taken advantage of by his hangers-on, and engaging in self-destructive behavior. It may ring true in some cases, but it (hopefully) is the exception to the rule. Playing the stereotype is supposed to make the viewer feel connected to the character through an understanding of his circumstances, but in this case, it's just a bit trite.

If you're a fan of Gyllenhaal, this is a new look for him, and you might enjoy it. The movie doesn't drag on, which is commendable, and the fight scenes seem reasonably realistic and well done. Other than that, there isn't much redeemable about Southpaw. 5/10.

Why 2015 will be better than 2014

Looking at the upcoming releases for September through December, I was awestruck by the potential in awards-caliber films. The Best Picture race may draw a large crowd this year, but this year’s Best Director ballot will be the toughest call in as long as I can recall.

No fewer than 20 of the most critically acclaimed directors of our generation have films coming out between September and the end of December alone, but I can tell you who will be winning the major awards.

Perennial favorites Steven Spielberg, Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu, Ron Howard, Barry Levinson, Robert Zemeckis, Denis Villaneuve, David O. Russell, Oliver Stone, Danny Boyle, Quentin Tarantino, Ridley Scott, Scott Cooper, Nancy Meyers, Tom Hooper, JJ Abrams, Sam Mendes, Werner Herzog, Gus Van Sant, and Terence Malik all have films coming out over the last three months of the year, and Woody Allen, Michael Mann, and Francis Ford Coppola have films out now. The only A-listers seemingly missing the party are Christopher Nolan, Clint Eastwood, Katheryn Bigelow, James Cameron, David Fincher, the Coen Brothers, Paul Thomas Anderson, Wes Anderson, Ang Lee, and Martin Scorcese, who is on a journey of musical documentaries in between his trysts with Leonardo DiCaprio.

The sheer magnitude of entries into the cinematic landscape this year might be the most ambitious season to date, and although some of the films won’t be the masterpieces of their respective visionaries’ careers, there are a handful that will raise eyebrows and make 2014’s critically acclaimed films pale in comparison.

Ron Howard, Steven Spielberg, Oliver Stone, Danny Boyle, Quentin Tarantino, Alejandro Innaritu, Robert Zemeckis, Ridley Scott, and Denis Villaneuve will present the most likely Best Picture nominees. There is an interesting academy rumor going around, and it has been since 2009, that the Best Picture field will return to five films to increase interest by audiences and lend more credibility and prestige to the award. I support this rumor, and there would be snubs and controversy, but all nominees would be completely deserving. Here are my five Best Picture films of the season:

1.The Martian. Directed by Ridley Scott and based on the bestselling novel of the same name. Ridley Scott is the Master of Sci-Fi, and with a realistic, smart story and a stellar cast, this will be a very popular film with audiences. Matt Damon plays Mark Watney, the lone survivor of an abandoned manned mission to Mars.

2.The Revenant. Directed by Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu, Leo DiCaprio plays Hugh Glass, a frontiersman in the early 1800’s. He’s mauled by a bear and left for dead, only to survive and seek revenge on his betrayers. Expect nothing short of epic greatness.

3.The Hateful Eight. Quentin Tarantino is in a class of his own. Every film is an adventure unrivaled by any other filmmaker in the business, and the entertainment value is always high. His ensemble casts create some of the most memorable characters, and you can be sure there will be some supporting actor (and perhaps actress) standout performances.

4.The Heart of the Sea. Ron Howard is back after the underappreciated Rush in 2013. The Heart of the Sea reunites Howard with Chris Hemsworth once again, this time based on the true story of Moby Dick. Can you say cool?

5.Steve Jobs. Directed by Danny Boyle and written by Aaron Sorkin, this might be a step up from The Social Network in terms of technology biopics, and I loved The Social Network. Michael Fassbender will earn a Best Actor nod for his work, and will help us all forget about Ashton Kutcher’s awful performance in 2013’s failed Jobs biopic.

However, if the field stays with its current model, expect Bridge of Spies, Snowden, Sicario, and The Walk to fill in the final four candidates, with Black Mass getting an outside shot. As is evident by these films, there is a noticeable void of lead female actors. This may be a boon for Jennifer Lawrence, as she is headlining David O. Russell’s biopic on Joy Mangano, but Emily Blunt may make a run in her Traffic-esque role in Sicario, and you can never count Meryl Streep out, though her Ricki and the Flash might be too loose with her character.

For the men, take your pick. Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hanks, Michael Fassbender are my locks with Joseph Gordon-Levitt (either of two roles may lead to a nomination), Chris Hemsworth, Matt Damon, and Johnny Depp following close behind. I think and hope this is DiCaprio’s year.

Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu will become the first director to win consecutive Oscars since Joseph Mankiewicz in 1949 and 1950. His film, The Revenant will be both riveting and innovative. If audiences aren’t turned away by the gritty violence, it should be a lock for Picture, Director, and Actor. This may seem a bold prediction in the face of such stiff competition, but as was the case with Birdman, Innaritu has adopted original and clever film making tactics making him the hardest working director looking to innovate his field besides James Cameron. For The Revenant, he is using absolutely no unnatural light which must prove to be a challenging film shoot following the lunar cycle, but ultimately, it will pay off huge dividends in the end.
In the face of such remarkable competition, 2015 will be the best crop of films since 2010.

Trainwreck

This aptly titled romantic comedy from writer Amy Schumer and director Judd Apatow follows a vapid, selfish woman in her early thirties as she takes the scarring life lessons from her deadbeat father and translates them to her own bedroom, where her fear of commitment is not only poached for its humor, it's also given the old role-reversal. As in all rom-coms, there are situational comedy scenes set up to precipitate a life-altering change in behavior, and the crowd is supposed to cheer for the happy ending, but Trainwreck is a bit off key.

Amy is a writer who is slaying men in the bedroom like they are going out of style. Then, while on a job working on a column for her unforgiving witch of a boss Dianna (Played flawlessly by Tilda Swinton), she meets Aaron (Bill Hader), a sports doctor who has a heart of gold. They fall in love, while the background stories around her pointlessly ebb and flow with unnecessary dramatic storylines. Amy and Aaron have their peaks and valleys, then ultimately reach the cliche climax that everyone saw coming, but for those who peered deeper into the characters, didn't exactly want.

Amy Schumer is hilarious, but I wonder if starring in her own writing hit a little too close to home. Everything is pushed a little too far, with an unbelievably shallow and self-centered character. From her alcoholism, to her relationship with her sister, and her few friends. She is dysfunctional in a way that most people would mature out of. The film delves beyond funny to kind of sad. Not in the typical romantic comedy type of sad where you are rooting for the couple to make it in the end, but sad in the "what is wrong with her?" kind of way where you wonder what anyone sees in her as a person. She makes terrible choices, and it's prefaced with the daddy issues, but there simply aren't many redeeming qualities in her, even after her acceptance phase. The character would be great in a stand-up routine, but doesn't stand a chance as the headliner in a major motion picture.

Judd Apatow is a comedy king, and has been cranking out box office hits for the last decade. The problem is that nothing he has done in the last decade has measured up to the 40 Year Old Virgin. Kudos to him for riding this tidal wave of success despite continually declining quality being written, produced, or directed. I think he is having a lot of fun and making a lot of money, but I think the well may have dried up for him. Sorry Judd.

Some bright spots do appear though. There are some very funny moments, most of which are delivered by supporting cast members. Particularly the handful of scenes with Pro-Wrestler turned Action-Star John Cena (Think a poor man's Dwayne Johnson). He delivered the type of comedic performance that nobody saw coming. He reminded me of Channing Tatum in 21 Jump Street, where you are watching and all of a sudden think "This guy is freakin' hilarious!" He will be in this Christmas' comedy Sisters with Tina Fey and Amy Poehler, and I am looking forward to seeing what he does. The pro athletes put up impressive turns as well; LeBron James as the stingy penny-pincher, and Amar'e Stoudamire as Bill Hader's patient show that they aren't afraid of cameras, and Tilda Swinton absolutely steals the show as Dianna.

The good news is that there is enough humor scattered throughout to carry this film to its conclusion, but it's contributed by wholly pleasant yet unexpected parties. It should also be noted that the irony isn't lost on me, that Trainwreck is as accurate as it could be when describing the main character, but she just doesn't translate to a successful traditional romantic comedy.

There is little to no chemistry between the two leads. And how could there be? It's hard to see what anyone could see in Amy Schumer's character besides her being fun and funny. It's like Mindy Kaling in the Mindy Project. The character isn't believable enough to be seriously pursued by truly good guys, which Bill Hader happens to be in this film. Sorry, just speaking the truth.

I guess in the end, I laughed out loud a bunch, but left the theatre wishing there wasn't the heavy family drama, or the feeble attempt at the traditional romantic comedy. Amy Schumer and Judd Apatow had the opportunity to do something genre-breaking, but they simply conformed to the old industry standard in the end, and it truly didn't work for this film. 5/10.

Ant-Man

Marvel’s next step in its separation from the Avengers takes the form of an obscure superhero with a ridiculous name (acknowledged even by the protagonist of the film). He has the power to shrink to the size of an ant, but the kicker is that he retains power, communicates with and controls the little insects, and can shrink and grow with the push of a button on his gloves.

The story starts as most Marvel ones do; at the beginning. It’s 1989 San Francisco, and we are introduced to Dr. Hank Pym (Michael Douglas in some fantastic anti-aging visual effects making him 25 years younger). He refuses to compromise his morals after making a breakthrough scientific discovery and locks it up to protect humankind. Basically, it’s a serum to separate the space between atoms that is controlled through the Ant-Man suit. Fast forward to present day, and Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) gets caught up with Pym and his onetime protégé, Darren Cross (Corey Stoll), who has some naturally sinister motives involving the technology to miniaturize soldiers.

The story is slow to get off the ground, but when the action starts, the effects are incredible. Because the audience needs to be brought up to speed, there is a bit of a stall in the action in lieu of character development, but I never really thought Hank Pym was given quite enough of an explanation as opposed to the less interesting characters surrounding him. Paul Rudd gives some great dialogue deliveries, which add to the humorous feel that is a bit more refreshing than some of the more mainstream Marvel films of years past. Evangeline Lilly plays Hank’s daughter, Hope, and will surely be part of the next generation Avengers herself, along with Ant-Man. The best contributions to the film however, are the underrated Michael Pena, who might be a bit over the top here, but provides some great comedy, and the obligatory Avengers cross-over cameo of Anthony Mackie’s Falcon.

Director Peyton Reed (Yes Man, The Break-Up, Bring it On) is yet another peculiar choice on Marvel’s part, but it pays off. The scenes of miniature Scott are slightly reminiscent of Honey I shrunk the Kids, but they are much, much more fun.

Paul Rudd is an interesting casting choice for the protagonist, but, like Iron Man’s Robert Downey Jr., he is an everyman. His back story is a bit less glamorous, and without superpowers, it’s a hero that audiences can root for. Where I found myself a bit torn is in the evolution process from nice guy thief who is just the victim of his own circumstances, to the one man who can save the world with his skills and intellect. It’s just a bit unbelievable.

By the climax of the film, Darren Cross becomes the Yellowjacket with his own miniaturized suit, and I just didn’t quite buy the two of them doing battle as anything more impressive than a couple of kids fighting over toys (which they literally do near the end). There just isn’t enough real peril for this film to be anything more than an action comedy that is entertaining once you get through the build-up and back story.

Marvel has the genre on lockdown at this point. Finishing phase 2 with Ant-Man, and moving into phase 3 with next year’s Captain America: Civil War, and no fewer than eleven more films lined up over the next five years, this will likely become the most successful movie studio in town for the foreseeable future (until James Cameron’s Avatar 2, 3, 4 come out). They are bringing Spider-Man back into the Avengers universe, and have the parallel X-Men, and Fantastic Four franchises that offer an interesting opportunity for some more character crossovers.

I am impressed with the studio’s patience and vision. Sending Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, and The Hulk out to pasture in deference to the next generation of heroes will keep things fresh and interesting. We are seeing just about every actor around given the opportunity to play a superhero, and until audiences tire of it, I don’t see this trend stopping anytime soon. The question is; when will Marvel try something more critically ambitious, like Chris Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy?

Ant-Man might not be the best of the bunch, or even near the middle of the pile, but he will be a fun addition to the New Avengers, and shrinking and growing and controlling ants is nothing short of fun. 6/10.

Terminator: Genisys

He told you he'd be back. But that line is getting so old, it's almost embarrassing. So to continue the trend of unoriginality, the fifth Terminator film has arrived. The third and fourth were so bad that the franchise enlisted James Cameron (the original and T2) to publicly endorse this one and say that this is the one that should have been the third in the trilogy. Smart. But not genuine. And not quite consistent enough with the outcome to believe.

Genisys starts off with a monologue by Kyle Reese, the character that was sent back in time by John Connor to protect his mom, only to impregnate her and then die saving her life. If you have been away from media since 1984, Terminator is a time travel franchise where killer robots go back in time to kill a select few individuals in an attempt to protect the future that has been created out of artificial intelligence. Not a far cry from other dystopian stories, but Terminator is past its prime. More on that later.

The timeline of the films are concurrent, so this one doesn't actually pick up where any of the others left off. It's more of a narrative showing one of the other possible outcomes. John Connor (Jason Clarke) is the resistance leader after robots have destroyed Earth. He has intricate knowledge because of his upbringing, because his mother, Sarah Connor (Emilia Clarke, no relation) was privy to futuristic intel. John sends his lieutenant, Kyle Reese (Jai Courtney) back to protect her, which isn't anything new in these films, but the twist is that there is another Terminator already there (Arnold Schwarzenegger) in all his post-Gubernatorial, geriatric glory. The twist this time around is that the past isn't how the future Kyle Reese expects, and there is an opportunity through Arnold's eloquent explanation of quantum physics, a multi-path timeline via nexuses and pivotal historic moments that cause Sarah, Kyle, and Pops (Schwarzenegger, naturally) to avert the apocalyptic crisis before it occurs. Genysis being the pseudo-Apple product that connects all devices to the Cloud, thus giving the machines the access they need to launch Skynet. It's really a repeat of episodes two, three, and four.

The thing about time travel movies is that they are impossible to create convincingly or realistically. If you can stop your mind from thinking about the logic or sequencing and consequence, you might enjoy the film. The problem is that the Terminator franchise used up its cleverness in 1991. There is a staleness that comes from a fifth incarnation of the same basic story. We've seen John and Sarah Connor facing or allying with the Terminator four times already, and it might seem sneaky to make Kyle Reese the protagonist, but the lack of originality is very obvious.

Written by Laeta Kalogridis (Alexander, Shutter Island) and Patrick Lussier (nothing good), this story could have used a bit of writing talent, as it's a high profile franchise revitalization. I can't overstate how much potential this franchise has with the general public, and how disastrous the past three endeavors have been. I will say that this film, Terminator: Genisys, truly might be the third best of the five, but that isn't saying much. Anything short of James Cameron coming back would be a disappointment, so although Terminator: Genisys is destined to be a box office success, it is also resigned to be considered the afterthought of the genius original story no matter how well they craft the story or the delivery of performances.

Directed by Alan Taylor, who is coming off of a pretty successful television run (Sex and the City, Sopranos, Deadwood, Boardwalk Empire, Mad Men, Game of Thrones) and the recent Marvel smash, Thor: The Dark World, it is safe to say that he has moved on from quality television to blockbuster film.

Basically, it's hard to either rave or pan this film. They do a nice job of summer entertainment with some spectacular special effects and elaborate action sequences, but the story is recycled and stale. I completely understand the need to resurrect the franchise with Arnold Schwarzenegger reprising his role as the iconic robot, and a fresh, new take on the chronology of events complete with characters that make us forget about Edward Furlong, because let's be honest, it's time travel, so really anything can happen. What I can't respect is the lack of originality of story. Give me a million dollars, and I'll write the Terminator story to end all stories, without using material that has already been used.

Terminator: Genisys is a nice farewell to a beloved character (hopefully), but it is so blatantly unoriginal that I almost fell asleep in the process. Kudos for the action, and the efforts of Clarke, Clarke, and Courtney are commendable for a large-scale action film. I would be lying to you if I said this was going to be the last we see of the Terminator, even if, for the love of mankind, I wish it were true. 5/10.

Magic Mike XXL

I remember leaving the theatre back in 2012 after seeing Magic Mike, and although I was thoroughly entertained and admittedly, amazed at the dancing ability of Channing Tatum, there was a sort of hollow sadness as well. I didn't think much of it until I walked out of Magic Mike XXL, and it dawned on me; The character depictions of these ambitious, fit, good-looking sex symbols makes you cheer for them in all their dancing glory, but when the music stops, each one of them is lonely and broken in their own way. When your life's work amounts to making a room of women cheer and throw dollar bills in the air, is your life really enviable? Maybe it's the adult me talking, and not the twenty-something me that may have signed up for that lifestyle if I had the rhythm and abs required. Magic Mike has much deeper themes once you take off the first layer. And then the next, until there is nothing by a thong covering the last shred of dignity.

We pick up three years after Magic Mike, and Channing Tatum (Magic Mike) is running a floundering furniture design and deliver business in South Florida. He gets a call from Tarzan (Kevin Nash) telling him he needs to meet up, so he obliges. In the most indiscreet way possible, Matthew McConaughey, Alex Pettyfer, and Cody Horn are all written out of the script, but Big Dick Richie (Joe Mangiello), Tarzan, Ken (Matt Bomer), and Tito (Adam Rodriguez) all reprise their roles as the traveling troupe of strippers dubbed the Kings of Tampa. The premise is simple this time around. The crew is looking for one last ride before they hang up their g-strings. They make their way to the stripper convention in Myrtle Beach. They run into some trouble along the way, so they stop in Savannah and call in a favor from an old friend, Rome (Jada Pinkett-Smith), who bears a striking resemblance to McConaughey's Dallas in the original. She's a flamboyant Madame running a house of ill repute that only serves the purpose of introducing us to a few new dancers including Michael Strahan, Steven Boss, and Donald Glover, who's more of a crooner than a stripper, which to me seems a little cheesy. Anyhow, we finally get to the convention, and the guys find their inner-Elizabeth Berkeley, and put on the show of their lives.

Interesting facts; Matt Bomer was supposed to be Superman while Brett Ratman was attached to Superman Returns before Brandon Routh snuck in with Bryan Singer, and Bomer and Mangiello graduated from Carnegie Melon together in 2000. The entire cast and crew seems to be an incestuous romp down memory lane, but it makes sense. The guys seem to be having a great time dancing, grinding, flirting, and the girls obviously love it. You can't help get behind the good nature of the crew, particularly Tatum's Mike, whose legendary status seems to span the entire eastern seaboard. Amber Heard is the completely unnecessary object of Mike's affection, as she adds negative energy and value to the film, but this one is much tamer than the first. It's not about sex, it's about going out with a bang before returning to pipe dreams, and inevitably Magic Mike 3.

Veteran assistant director, Gregory Jacobs takes the helm from Steven Soderbergh as director (they have collaborated regularly), and Channing Tatum's buddy Reid Carolin delivers a pretty mediocre script considering the potential in material and starpower. The dialogue seems natural at times, particularly when Tatum is speaking, but seems forced by most of the other actors throughout the film. If I were judging based on writing and directing alone, this film would be a miserable failure. But, I'm a sucker for talent. Tatum has talent.

Tatum's dancing is inspiring, and from a guy's perspective, intimidating. I can see why he was People's Sexiest Man Alive in 2012. He and Chris Pratt (inevitable 2015 sexiest man alive) are the present and foreseeable future of Hollywood sex symbols, you heard it here first. The film however, carries a heavy and depressing truth to the world of exotic dancing. It's a trap that is difficult to escape, and the lifestyle is only superficially satisfying. I appreciate what the film is trying to do, and with the monstrous success of the first one, I don't blame them for green-lighting and executing the sequel, but I couldn't quite fully enjoy it because it seemed a bit too true to life. 6/10.