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.

Captain America: Civil War

The Marvel train continues rolling with the latest popcorn action blockbuster; “Captain America: Civil War”. It is less about Captain America (Chris Evans) and more a vehicle to introduce some new characters (Spider-Man, Black Panther), develop some lesser known ones more strategically (Winter Soldier, Ant-Man, Falcon, Scarlet Witch, Vision), and have some fun with our old friends Iron Man, War Machine, Black Widow, and Hawkeye. That’s a lot of characters. Not quite as many as the rumored 67 who will be in the two “Avengers: Infinity Wars”, but it presents a challenge for even the most experienced film makers to wrangle the ensemble and give them adequate screen time without making the film seem disingenuous. More on that later.

The film divides the Avengers into two camps in the wake of another calamitous event which causes possibly preventable civilian collateral damage: Team Iron Man, who support a United Nations oversight committee in all matters that might call for the use of super powers. Team Captain America on the other side, doesn’t feel that they should answer to anyone because they know what is best for the people of the world and their judgment is pure and noble. Sounds like super delegates, not superheroes. I digress. I’m team Iron Man by the way.

A nefarious subplot, hatched by the mysterious Zemo (Daniel Bruhl) keeps the audience wondering what is driving the film besides big names with big muscles in lycra, spandex, face paint, tight pants, short skirts, or CGI, but in reality, it doesn’t matter. The hostile interactions of good guys and other good guys is the brilliance in itself. I was thinking midway through the film that there wouldn’t even need to be a bad guy. This film is just that much fun, and the directors nail the tone with sharp dialogue, fast-paced action, and great humor.

I have to admit, I had some doubts as to the success of such an ambitious venture, especially after the last “Avengers: Age of Ultron” as well as the recent disappointment, “Batman vs Superman”. It seems like superhero films are getting too big, too fast, with too many moving parts. This couldn’t be further from the truth. I commend Marvel for their long-range planning and the cogs that are fitting together nicely leading up to what is surely going to be the cinematic event of the decade (“Avengers: Infinity War”) This is assuming of course that James Cameron’s “Avatar” sequel takes another couple of decades to come to fruition.

Directors Joe and Anthony Russo (“Captain America: Winter Soldier”) have adroitly taken on the challenge of amassing such a mixed bag of personalities. Particularly well done is the reimagining of Spider-Man, played by Tom Holland. His wit, agility, and especially humor is welcome as a Yang to Tony Stark’s Yin. Less wry and more awestruck and awkward. I genuinely look forward to the new and improved version of this character. Even Ant-Man’s Paul Rudd is a welcome sight as the excitement reaches a fever pitch and the royal rumble begins. Kudos to the Russo brothers for choreographing and moderating the chaos, which turns out like a well-orchestrated masterpiece.

“Civil War” is essentially Avengers part 3, but more importantly, it’s a farewell of sorts to the old regime, and a glimpse into the next generation. With so many simultaneous stories, it is difficult to keep track, so let this be your guide. “Doctor Strange” fills the Thanksgiving slot this year, while “Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2” comes out next year along with “Spider-Man: Homecoming”. Then we see “Thor: Ragnarok” in November of 2017, followed by “Black Panther” and “Infinity Wars Part One” in 2018. Also in 2018, we see “Ant-Man and the WASP” as well as another Spider-Man animated film (unconfirmed). Finally, we get to “Avengers: Infinity Wars part 2” in 2019 followed by speculation of a Captain Marvel and Inhumans franchise. Throw in the Netflix television universe contributions of Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Punisher, and Luke Cage, and there are more than enough characters to keep this train rolling indefinitely.

You know you’ll see “Civil War”. You’ve seen all the others, and if we’re being honest, you’ll see the rest of them too, probably even “Doctor Strange”. This may well be the best of the lot if you can forgive Captain’s undying loyalty to Bucky Barnes. He even gets to kiss a girl this time around. Nice work, Cap. 9/10.

Green Room

Every so often, a film comes along that knocks your socks off. It is usually a fresh film maker, a debut creation, and something that blends the suspenseful simplicity of steady-cam pans, bare strains of music just inching the viewer toward a reaction, and raw, understated acting. It is a piece of art. Well, Jeremy Saulnier’s 2013 gem “Blue Ruin” fits that description. His sophomore effort, “Green Room” not so much.

It’s not that it was poorly done or even a bad movie, it just lacks the magic that an unexpected critically acclaimed piece of work has. There is too much pressure to perform on a follow-up with a larger budget, bigger named actors, and a compelling story. Just ask Neil Blomkamp or Duncan Jones.

“Green Room” follows an amateur punk rock quartet on their final dimes. They reluctantly accept a shady gig in the back woods of Oregon, only to find out it is a Nazi skinhead bar led by the adorable Patrick Stewart. There has been much praise for his performance out of type, but I’m here to tell you that he lacks the screen time, dialogue, or action to warrant that praise. He does a fine job, but I would call it just average, and moreover, a wasted opportunity to play a memorably despicable villain.

Anyhow, the quartet stumble into a series of unfortunate situations, and they must fight their way back to civilization. The film preys on the ordinary fears much in the way that Eli Roth has done with his gore porn variety (“Hostel”, “Green Inferno”). It is a voyeuristic glimpse of torture and violence which compounds the tension and fear, and that is where the film goes a bit off the rails.

The suspense, music, direction, acting, and even dialogue are fantastic up until the blood begins to flow. It gets really dark, really quickly and the violence tends to dilute the artistic integrity of the film. Anton Yelchin plays Pat, the bass guitarist and moral compass of the group, but as the situation becomes direr, he devolves into a primal beast himself, which is fascinating, but doesn’t entirely fit the tone of the first half hour of the film.

Macon Blair (“Blue Ruin”) is tremendous as Gabe, the manager of the Nazi bar. He effortlessly conveys his discomfort, his doubt, his fear, and his own conflicted morality as he finds himself embroiled in a situation beyond his control.

What made the film difficult to admire was how although the methods of the skinheads’ angry violence make sense when the conclusion finally comes, it is nonetheless disturbing and unnecessary. Dogs, box cutters, shotguns, and machetes. Jeremy Saulnier clearly wanted to shock audiences with this effort, and he definitely accomplished that. It is visceral, gritty, and most importantly, creepy. Very creepy.

I’m not much of a punk rock fan, but I can appreciate this story. I can appreciate just about any original story for its effort. What disappointed me most was how much buzz has been surrounding Patrick Stewart’s character. It simply wasn’t anything close to what I was hoping to experience.

This experience definitely delivers a jolt of panic and claustrophobia. If you choose to see what the buzz is about, maybe skip the popcorn; the violence will wrench your gut and make you nauseated. It will definitely satisfy the gore junkies out there though, and might even impress them with the creative use of makeup and prosthetics, but to say it is gratuitous would be an understatement. Come for the buzz, enjoy the story, and leave feeling a little bit ickier on the inside. 6/10.