Movie Review Pearl Harbor

Pearl Harbor (2001)

Directed by Michael Bay 

Written by Randall Wallace

Starring Ben Affleck, Josh Hartnett, Kate Beckinsale, Cuba Gooding Jr., Tom Sizemore, Alec Baldwin

Release Date May 25th, 2001

Published May 25th, 2011 

Movies are not living things; they don’t grow or change or evolve over time. Once a film is completed it will, generally speaking, be as it is forever, Star Wars notwithstanding. What does change? We do. We age and we mature and our intellect and tastes evolve over time. Our ever evolving tastes and growing intellect can change the way we experience a movie.

It is with this in mind that I endeavor to look back 10, 20 and 30 years at some of the most well remembered movies of all time and see how my own evolving tastes effect the way I experience these movies. I invite you to join me on this unique journey and offer your own insights ever changing opinions.

Evolving the human element

The blockbuster Pearl Harbor was released in May of 2001. My first experience with Pearl Harbor was not good. I was in my first year as a full time film critic for a now defunct website called Bikkit.com. The website and my original Pearl Harbor review are long gone but I can recall a scathing, often snide review that may have invoked the words jingoistic and manipulative.

I have always been very hard on director Michael Bay. He has an extraordinary talent for scope and scale and could be fairly considered a modern day Darryl Zanuck or D.W Griffith, filmmakers of the grandest vision. Disappointingly, for all his talent for staging massive productions, Bay has never evolved the human element of his filmmaking.

Disingenuous and insincere

The characters in a Michael Bay film are stick figures weighted down by leaden dialogue and sublimated by large scale special effects. Sadly, Pearl Harbor is no different from any other Michael Bay film. Despite a harrowing historic tale, Bay delivers characters in Pearl Harbor that never resonate and never come to life before our eyes.

So busy is Michael Bay restaging one of the worst days in American history with painstaking detail, he forgets to populate his stage with characters of resonance whose experiences we can believe in. Two false, forced romances and several coat hanger characters--actors assigned to hold up archetypes of real people—leave Pearl Harbor feeling disingenuous and insincere.

Faux romance

The glossy, 1940’s style romance of Pearl Harbor is a cheesy throwback that lacks passion because it’s infused only with nostalgia. Ben Affleck is a terrific actor but teamed with Kate Beckinsale in a series of facile romantic encounters he leaves no real impression beyond his handsomeness and her beauty.

Josh Hartnett brings a soulful quality to the character of Danny and his struggle with falling for his best friend’s girl but Michael Bay has no interest in exploring or allowing these characters to expand upon the difficulty of their situation. Instead, we get scenes of the happy couple swimming and frolicking in the sand as stand-ins for real interaction.

The dual romances appear in Pearl Harbor not because the story was of interest to Michael Bay or screenwriter Randall Wallace. No, the romance exists solely as a marketing ploy, a way to sell a war movie to mass audiences. Instead of being honestly romantic the love triangle subplot cheapens the movie and makes all around it feel hollow.

Undeniably awesome CGI effects

There is tremendous power to be found in the action scenes of Pearl Harbor. I have no honest idea how well Michael Bay and his exceptionally talented team captured what December 7th 1941 was like but the veterans of that day, interviewed on the Pearl Harbor DVD, offer no criticism.

The action, especially an extraordinary dogfight sequence early in the film while Affleck’s pilot Rafe McCawley is fighting with the British against the Germans, is as exciting an action sequence as any you’ve ever seen. The Pearl Harbor sequence is a monotonous onslaught of special effects and CGI but they are very effective special effects and CGI and you are hard pressed not to be compelled by the action.

Gorgeous Cinematography

The cinematography of Pearl Harbor is immaculate. The deep focus and bright colors of Pearl Harbor add to the scope and scale of the story and create some unbelievably beautiful pictures. The gorgeous orange skyline of a scene where Hartnett and Beckinsale go for an unscheduled flight around the Hawaiian Islands threatens to create the romance that the actors never muster.

In many ways Pearl Harbor is a remarkable film. Michael Bay has the vision of Howard Hughes and the limitless imagination of old school directors like Howard Hawks and Victor Fleming. Bay only lacks the human element. Were Michael Bay ever to figure out how to make his characters as compelling as his special effects he would be a rival to James Cameron and Steven Speilberg as a mainstream artist.

In the end, my experience with Pearl Harbor 10 years later was not much different than it was the first time. I’ve dropped the word jingoistic as it seemed a little harsh in retrospect and I have offered a little more praise for the effects than I did the first time but my overall experience of the film is fundamentally the same. I still don’t like it, the flaws that I saw as a young, fiery junior critic are still seen as flaws to the much calmer, measured and professional critic of today.

Movie Review Sense and Sensibility

Sense and Sensibility (1995) 

Directed by Ang Lee 

Written by Emma Thompson

Starring Emma Thompson, Kate Winslet, Hugh Grant, Alan Rickman

Release Date December 13th, 1995

Published May 14th, 2011

Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility helps me get over my childhood fear of period chick flicks.

Movies are not living things; they don’t grow or change or evolve over time. Once a film is completed it will, generally speaking, be as it is forever. What does change? We do. We age and we mature and our intellect and tastes evolve over time. Our ever-evolving tastes and growing intellect can change the way we experience a movie.

It is with this in mind that I endeavor to look back 10, 20 and 30 years at some of the most well remembered movies of all time and see how my own evolving tastes affect the way I experience these movies. I invite you to join me on this unique journey and offer your own insights ever changing opinions.

Period Chick Flick

Were I to ask my 1995 self about Sense and Sensibility he would have dismissed it as a chick flick. I have no doubt that my naïve, headstrong younger self would have no time for period pieces. Choosing to seek out Sense and Sensibility today in all honesty was a random, flighty decision and not the academic pursuit of a mature film buff that I would have liked it to be.

Regardless of my curious motivations I’m glad I chose to watch this film. The story by Jane Austen transformed by the scripting of the intelligent and insightful Emma Thompson and elegantly captured by the astute camera of director Ang Lee is a cinematic feast.

No Place Like Home

The death of Mr. Dashwood (Tom Wilkinson in cameo) leaves his second wife and three daughters at the mercy of their well meaning but cowardly step-brother John (James Fleet) and his domineering wife Fanny (Harriet Walter). The new Mrs. Dashwood is eager to take hold of her husband’s inheritance, the estate on which Mother Dashwood (Gemma Jones) and her daughter have lived all their lives.

Seeing as neither Elinor Dashwood (Emma Thompson) nor her younger sister Marianne (Kate Winslet) have a suitor, or even a prospective suitor, who might rescue the Dashwood women from their circumstances they are quite lucky to have a distant relative who offers them a cottage on his land to live in.

Secrets and Love Triangles

It’s not that the Dashwood women aren’t desirable. Indeed, Elinor had recently caught the eye of Fanny’s brother Robert (Hugh Grant); an attraction Fanny made sure to interrupt. The mutual ardor between Robert and Elinor is something they both seem aware of but neither can bring themselves to speak of it. That Robert also has a secret that holds him back will be revealed as the story unfolds.

Once decamped to their new cottage home, and after they have weathered the good nature of their hosts the gregarious Sir John Middleton (Robert Hardy) and gossipy Mrs. Jennings (Elizabeth Spriggs), Marianne finds herself the object of the affection of two men; stoic and earnest Col. Brandon (Alan Rickman) and the dashing John Willoughby (Greg Wise).

Engaging and Entertaining

Romantic travails are the main subject of Sense and Sensibilities which doesn’t so much offer a plot as a group of characters and series of experiences. There is a good deal of waiting and wailing; horses and carriages; sewing and piano playing. What makes Sense and Sensibility engaging and entertaining is the witty dialogue and the charm of these wonderful actresses.

Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet have a tremendous sisterly chemistry punctuated by quick clever dialogue that sounds authentic to sisters. The fraught romances ring true to a period where feelings bubbled under masks of propriety and societal expectations. Yes, if certain characters were slightly more forthcoming it would alleviate a good deal of anguish but the characters sell the contrivance.

Elegant and Understated

Finally, Ang Lee’s elegant, understated direction perfectly captures the mood and romance of the period. As Roger Ebert points out in his more mixed review of Sense and Sensibility Ang Lee’s background makes him perfectly suited to give life to this material. Many people in Lee’s home country of China still live by a code of conduct very similar to that of Austen’s period.

There is a scene shortly after Elinor has fallen for Edward. He was supposed to visit the family in their new cottage but he does not come. Lee’s camera slowly backs away from Elinor as if to spare her from the piteous glare of the audience. The subtle suggestion of the camera to the audience that we should not witness Elinor in this way is very moving and evocative of a period where emotions were a great deal more guarded than they are today.

There are a number of subtle moments, like the one I just mentioned, throughout Sense and Sensibility. Lee’s direction is expert in its sensitivity and acute observation of these characters. There are flaws here; the film could stand a bit of a trim from the two hours and fifteen minute run time among other things, but that and other flaws are minor compared to the rich pleasures found in Sense and Sensibility.

Movie Review Cabin in the Woods (With guest Reviewer Faith Rogers)

Cabin in the Woods (2012) 

Directed by Drew Goddard 

Written by Joss Whedon, Drew Goddard 

Starring Chris Hemsworth, Kristen Connolly, Anna Hutchinson, Jesse Williams, Sigourney Weaver, Richard Jenkins, Bradley Whitford 

Release Date April 13th, 2012 

Published April 20th, 2012 

Sean: This week, in the very first installment of Faith Hates Critics we watched director Drew Goddard’s comic horror deconstruction “Cabin in the Woods,” one of my favorite movies of 2012 and one, Faith, I assumed you would love. As an admitted fan of horror movies you have likely seen the plot of ‘Cabin’ a few dozen times. Four college aged supermodels and their stoner buddy make their way to a secluded cabin, are warned away by a creepy gas station owner and proceed to die horribly accept for the virgin required for the sequel. It’s practically a song that gets covered and cracks the top 10 repeatedly.

“Cabin in the Woods” takes this plot for a spin and deconstructs it wonderfully by introducing a pair of controllers played by Bradley Whitford and Richard Jenkins who act as comic relief and as jaded, cynical, stand ins for the dozens of horror movie directors who’ve run through this same premise over and over for years. The humor of “Cabin in the Woods” is savagely meta-textual and unrelenting as one horror trope is trotted out, poked fun at and dispatched with enough surprise and gore to satisfy the horror audience, and people like myself who can’t stand the same-ness of most modern horror movies. For me, “Cabin in the Woods” is a refreshing, “Scream-esque” rebuke of the bad horror films that came before it.

Faith: I do love a horror movie they are possible my favorite genre of film.  However, I found “Cabin int the Woods” absolutely ridiculous.  It started off intriguing enough with four kids heading off into the woods, a great set up for your average gore-fest.  Throw in the “controllers” and that was an interesting enough twist.  But Sigourney Weaver where in the F*** did she come from.

My real disappointment comes from the cluster that is “Cabin” if you are going to have a scary movie with a plot then get to it at the beginning of the movie.  Don’t throw it in bits and pieces as the movie goes along and then hit you with what is really going on in the last 10 minutes of the film.  Otherwise, make is what it is frightening, bloody, mindless entertainment.

Sean: Admittedly, Sigourney Weaver was a bit random and unnecessary but she’s such a fun choice that I didn’t mind it. For me, by the end, as Dana, the ‘Virgin,’ and Marty, the stoner, were making their way toward Sigourney Weaver things had grown so outlandish and over the top that I didn’t mind the complete goofball choice to have the whole thing be predicated on monstrous Gods of the old Earth who will rise if they don’t get exactly the kind of sacrifice they desire. If there is puzzlement for me in “Cabin in the Woods” why do they have to build such an elaborate premise just to kill four college kids? Why not just kidnap them and put a bullet in them? That’s a big plot hole; one that’s briefly explained away by the controllers as an attempt to make the sacrifice more entertaining for some unknown audience, but I would have liked the movie more if they had further implied, via the Japan sub-plot, that many modern horror movies are actually real life sacrifices to these Gods and are made as movies as a way of covering up the murders and paying the bills for keeping the Gods fed. That might have made the movie even better for me, even as I love the movie as it is.

Faith: Sigourney Weaver just shows up out of nowhere and there is no explanation for her character.  Who is she?  Where did she come from?  Why show up in the last 10 minutes?  Oh right, so she could explain the plot and beg the virgin and stoner to die…no bueno!  For a horror movie just on its own it wasn’t very good.  There weren’t any memorable moments that made me jump or made my chest tight.  The blood bath at the end with the “gods” was just ridiculous but not in the least bit frightening.  If I am going to sit through two hours of any movie I want to be entertained and if it’s scary I want to be scared.  This movie just didn’t do any of that for me.  I have to ask though would you watch two hours of a movie about 4 kids getting kidnapped and having a bullet put in them?  That seems even less exciting than “Cabin” turned out to be.

Sean: Of course not, that movie likely would not last two hours. Your right about the final battle being ridiculous but, for me, that was part of the film’s charm. Once the movie lets loose with an ocean of blood and guts the movie completely spins out of control. The craziness just keeps ramping up from zombies to a mer-man to a murderous unicorn, it’s all so gloriously goofy. This is needed to get to the big reveal at the end of the hand of one of the Gods reaching out from beneath the surface of the Earth and crushing the cabin, thus beginning the implied end of all humanity. This is such an outlandish and unexpected ending that, for me, it seemed the only possible ending for a movie this out of control. I loved that CGI hand because it was bad CGI, it was played for laughs like the entire movie was played for laughs. After the film has exhausted all other ways out of this scenario, it turns to the kind of bad CGI that the SyFy channel has made famous to end it; hammering home the final cliché of the kind of horror movie ‘Cabin’ was made to destroy.

Faith: Maybe we have blurred the lines a little bit here.  When we sat down to watch a horror movie that’s what I thought we were watching.  Not a silly little movie that was less than scary and absurd.  Maybe my problem is not so much with the silliness of the movie and how over the top it was but with the marketing of the movie.  If you imply you are a horror movie then you need to scare me otherwise, you are not and you misrepresented the entire movie.  Maybe if I had gone into it with a clear perspective I wouldn’t have been so disappointed.  Let me know the movie is on par with “Army of Darkness” and I am glad to watch it that way.  Make me believe the movie is going to scare me then I am going to be disappointed when it turns out silly and awkward. Which I think are the two best words to sum up “Cabin in the Woods” silly and awkward.

Sean: That’s a fair point. The creators of “Cabin in the Woods” were quite cagey about the marketing of the film because they didn’t want the secret to get out. They allowed the film to be marketed as a horror movie so that no one would reveal the movie’s secrets. That likely led a lot of people, like you, to feel misled about the kind of movie they were seeing. I had read enough of the pre-release hype that I was a little more prepared for the kind of movie “Cabin in the Woods” turned out to be. I’m also a big fan of Joss Whedon who co-wrote the script and produced the film. His reputation was built on “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” and the deft deconstruction of both horror cliches and the cliches of modern teen culture and the teen soap opera genre. With Whedon involved I knew to expect far more than just a slasher movie. You make a very fair point however; as there is no question that many people were given the impression of a straight horror movie and wound up in an absurdist send-up of a straight horror movie.

Faith: I very much enjoyed “Buffy” and the fun behind that series.  However, regardless of who had a hand in “Cabin” I would never watch it again and I would never recommend it.  I don’t want to be sold a lie when I see a film trailer and as that is the case with “Cabin” I really can’t get behind it as a good or even average movie.

Sean: And so we begin with a respectful disagreement. I love “Cabin in the Woods” for what it is and you, quite fairly, dislike it for what it pretended to be. In the future, I will expect far more vitriol Faith but for a first outing, Thanks for not punching me.

Movie Review Joyful Noise

Joyful Noise (2012) 

Directed by Todd Graff

Written by Todd Graff

Starring Queen Latifah, Dolly Parton, Keke Palmer, Kris Kristofferson

Release Date January 13th, 2012

Published July 12th, 2012

So much cheese, ugh. "Joyful Noise" is wall to wall cheese from the casting of Dolly Parton opposite Queen Latifah to the awesome cheese of gospel pop music. Camp drips from every line of dialogue and every shouted exaltation in "Joyful Noise." But is it fun cheese? That depends on how much you love gospel music.

Hey look there goes Kris Kristofferson!

In a small Georgia town the economy has taken its toll on local business. With many people out of work or under-employed the hopes of the town are channeled into the local church choir which has competed in a number of national competitions and come close to winning in the past.

Unfortunately, the latest competition was the last one for the choir director, Bernard Sparrow (Kris Kristofferson), who suffers a heart attack in mid performance. Bernard leaves behind his wife G.G (Dolly Parton) who assumes that she will become the new choir director; not only is she Bernie's wife, she's the church's main benefactor.

A Fish Out of Water Story

G.G is surprised when the pastor (Courtney B. Vance) chooses Vi Rose (Queen Latifah) as the new choir director. The fact that Vi Rose is the mother of the choir's young star Olivia (Keke Palmer) and holds a strict adherence to old school gospel standards are likely factors that gave her the edge over G.G.

G.G is not helped any by the arrival of her hoodlum grandson Randy (Jeremy Jordan), a runaway with a criminal past. Randy immediately sets his sights on Olivia and their budding romance is the main subject of the middle portion of "Joyful Noise," in between a whole lot of gospel performance.

If you LOVE Gospel Music...

You really have to love the gospel to enjoy "Joyful Noise." Take away the music and the film loses most of its appeal. This is a very by the book movie with predictable arcs and colorful if not all that compelling characters. "Joyful Noise" as a movie is really an advertisement for a soundtrack that includes a gospel take on Michael Jackson's "Man in the Mirror" and a churchified take on Usher's "Yeah" that is outright embarrassing unless you really love gospel.

I can't say that I am a fan of gospel music. The earnestness of gospel makes me uncomfortable and while I appreciate the authenticity of the feelings of these characters their constant sunny-ness while performing is campy but not fun camp; I don't know what to feel about these performers. I'm happy that they're enjoying themselves but I'd be lying if I said I was entertained by them.

One Authentic Scene

There is one scene in "Joyful Noise" that stands out for me. One truly human moment emerges from the molasses of schmaltz and good intentions that is at the heart of "Joyful Noise." It is a scene between Queen Latifah and Keke Palmer as mother and daughter at each other's throat. There is no one in the world that can hurt you as much as someone who loves you and this is a scene about a mother and daughter out for blood.

There is an authenticity to the choice of words; the areas of attack are so very personal that only someone who truly knows you could know to go there to hurt you. It's a very moving scene and in a better movie it would be deeply resonant. Keke Palmer and Queen Latifah are very effective actresses who deserve a better movie in which to showcase their talent.

Sadly, "Joyful Noise" isn't a very good movie. There is a good nature to the film and a likable cuteness to everything but beyond that there isn't much of a movie here. As I said earlier, you have to love gospel to like "Joyful Noise" and if you're not a fan there is no reason for you to see "Joyful Noise."

Movie Review Julie and Julia

Julie and Julia (2009) 

Directed by Nora Ephron

Written by Nora Ephron

Starring Amy Adams, Meryl Streep, Stanley Tucci, Chris Messina, Linda Emond

Release Date August 7th, 2009

Published August 7th, 2009 

Julie Powell did something that I am sure many daily bloggers dream of. Her chronicle of cooking her way through Julia Child's French cookbook earned her national attention and eventually a book and movie deal. The book became a bestseller and now the movie is in theaters with Meryl Streep, Amy Adams and director Nora Ephron.

Whether the movie is successful or even any good doesn't really matter to Julie Powell, she's good.

So what about the movie of her life? Julie and Julia tells the parallel stories of Julie a bureaucratic drone who dreamt of writing novels for a living and Julia Child as she began life as the wife of an ambassador in Paris. Julie failed to find her muse out of college and now sits looking lost as her friends talk of big plans and success. Julia too, is a little lost. With no job and no need for one she is bored.

Thus, both women turn to food for comfort. For Julie comfort comes in the form of successfully adapting one of Julia Child's legendary recipes and deciding to blog about it. For Julia it is the bold move to attend masters classes at the legendary Cordon Bleu despite having no background as a chef.

Will and determination define both women as well as having loving and patient husbands who nurture and support them in whatever they do. The husbands are played by Chris Messina and Stanley Tucci as men just bland enough not to intrude upon their wives spotlights.

Bland is, sadly, an all too appropriate word for the whole of Julie and Julia which unfolds with the tension of a soft, well worn blanket. It's pleasant but there seems to be no real tension. Sure, both women struggle but Julie's struggle is an off-putting battle with her own whiny nature and Julia's battle is never all that well dramatized. We know Julia Child will succeed eventually, the movie merely delays it till the ending.

On the bright side, Meryl Streep brings some joy to the delays. Her Julia Child is vibrant and fun and that voice is simply divine, both homage and parody but never mocking or over played. Meryl Streep has found a joy in performance in the past few years that never seemed present when she was at her dramatic peak.

While other actresses struggle to find a place in the acting world as they age, Streep has transformed herself into a box office star. It's one of the more remarkable under-reported stories in Hollywood: Meryl Streep, box office star. Her audiences love her like they never did when she was the finest actress alive and it is a true joy to behold.

As for Adams, this is a second weak performance following the unfortunate Sunshine Cleaning. At least in that film I didn't feel it was all her fault. Here, well, her Julie is somewhat unpleasant. It's daring for an actress who has built a following by being sweet and spunky to take on such a downbeat, self involved character but that doesn't make it watchable. Julie wears out her welcome quickly and while Streep holds the audience in thrall we endure the Julie portions to get to the Julia stuff.

Nora Ephron has taken a story that was modestly compelling to begin with, Julie Powell's journey in her book is slight but entertaining, and teamed it with Julia Child's biography seemingly because neither story alone was interesting enough to make movies of their own. Both stories lack tension, they lack a real dramatic drive. And thus, instead of one story founding for a reason to exist, we get two.

I admit, I am being a little hard on the movie. I did love Meryl Streep's performance and the movie overall is good natured and breezy. If that is enough for you as a moviegoer , enjoy. If you prefer a story with more meat on its bones see The Hurt Locker or 500 Days of Summer.

Movie Review Jupiter Ascending

Jupiter Ascending (2015) 

Directed by The Wachowskis

Written by The Wachowskis

Starring Mila Kunis, Channing Tatum, Sean Bean, Eddie Redmayne, Tuppence Middleton

Release Date February 6th, 2015 

Published February 5th, 2015 

My cynical 30-something armor can no longer be pierced by the earnest arrows of the artist trapped in commercial hell. Yes, while there is a deep seated part of my soul that wishes for a day I could once again appreciate the trappings of those wounded souls willingly baring themselves before us, as they wring their hands over cashing studio checks but alas, it is for naught. I've been too ironically distanced from my own emotions for too long. 

It is, therefore, impossible for me to appreciate "Jupiter Ascending," the latest work of the wonderfully open and earnest Wachowski siblings. Like their previous effort, "Cloud Atlas," "Jupiter Ascending" is a daringly original piece that attempts to elevate pop to art via pop philosophy with a dash of liberal/progressive politicking. It's an effort I can admire but in a package I can't help but mock ceaselessly.

"Jupiter Ascending" stars Mila Kunis as Jupiter, a house cleaner by trade who happens to be the human replicant of a dead alien queen, destined to inherit the Earth. A mostly shirtless Channing Tatum plays Caine, Jupiter's wolf-like, Spock-eared protector in rocket boots. That's a literal translation of who these characters are and their relationship to one another. How am I expected to take this seriously? 

To be fair, Luke Skywalker was a descendant of an ancient race of spiritual ninjas who fights alongside robots, Wookies, and tiny aliens, but I find myself capable of loving the goofiness of "Star Wars." So why not love the goofiness of "Jupiter Ascending?" Maybe I've reached my “goofy” limit. Or maybe "Star Wars" is simply a superior effort from a more dedicated master of earnest goofiness. 

"Jupiter Ascending" grows only more goofy as it rolls along, picking up the story of three goofball villains. Brothers Titus (Douglas Booth) and Balem (Oscar nominee Eddie Redmayne) and sister Kalique (Tuppence Middleton) hope to trick or kill poor Jupiter in order to usurp her birthright as the owner-operator of the Earth. You see, kids, Earth is really just a farm for the universe, where people are cattle used as commodities to be harvested. If poor Jupiter can't stop them, the Earth becomes the beauty product equivalent of Soylent Green. 

One cannot help but admire the wont of the Wachowskis to create something wholly original. "Jupiter Ascending" is that rare breed of modern movie blockbuster that is not based on a comic book or a young-adult novel. The Wachowskis took great care to assemble this brand-new universe, and their dedication is admirable even as the product of that dedication is incredibly risible. 

"Jupiter Ascending" is not unlike the spiritual cousin of “Avatar,” another overly earnest attempt at pop politics. Like that monstrosity, "Jupiter Ascending" is a massive work of pop art that attempts to smuggle politics under the guise of science fiction. Unfortunately, the politics of both films are so obvious and under-cooked that even as I find myself agreeing with both films’ philosophies, I can't help but mock how simpleminded they both are. 

Modern progressives are growing more open and earnest with each new generation. This is both a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing in that stances in favor of the poor and those affected by the ills of discrimination now have vocal defenders. But it's also a curse as these most vocal progressives tend to run headlong into the buzz-saws of political commerce without the ironic armor that protected generations before. 

My generation wielded humor as a dangerous and divisive weapon against our political foes. We could swing the hammer of cynical humor at our earnest conservative opponents and expose their whiny cores in the process. The more earnest, modern progressive-liberals are far too quick to believe that their opponents can be reasoned with or shown the error of their ways via earnest conversation. This leads to movies like "Jupiter Ascending," where the progressive message is ladled heavily and humorlessly over easy-to-consume-and-destroy pop science fiction. 

For people like me, raised on the misanthropic, self-protective, liberal politics of the past, I feel the need to destroy "Jupiter Ascending" before my opponents get their hands on such an easy and shallow target.

Movie Review Jurassic World

Jurassic World (2015) 

Directed by Colin Trevorrow 

Written by Rick Jaffa, Amanda Silver, Colin Trevorrow, Derek Connelly 

Starring Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Vincent D'onofrio, Ty Simpkins, Omar Sy, Irfan Khan

Release Date June 12th, 2015

Published July 13th, 2015 

"Jurassic World" has been called 'Sexist,' 'Anti-feminist,' and, in one review, was called 'Gendered,' a new-to-me term for calling out a piece of pop culture for not living up to the ideals of modern pseudo-feminism. These accusations are each aimed at the portrayal of the character of Claire, played by Bryce Dallas Howard, a career oriented, driven, Boss of the "Jurassic World Theme Park." 

Claire's character arc finds her not enjoying the company of children, preferring the boardroom and not caring much for dinosaurs as anything other than the products that her company exploits for millions of dollars. These traits position Claire as something of a villain however, they also position her to learn valuable lessons over the course of her character arc, you know, like a movie character. 

As film criticism has evolved away from aesthetic arguments toward easier to write, and to read, socio-political commentary, movies are being held to a more and more impossible standard of standing in for every version of American culture and representing every political perspective so as not to offend anyone or let anyone feel left out. This transition however, threatens to legislate character traits out of characters and limit the ways in which a writer can create unique characters who stand out on their own as individuals with inherent flaws. 

One of the criticisms of Claire that I have read about Claire and her anti-feminist symbology centered on her clothes. Bare in mind, we are seeing one very unusual day in the life of the Jurassic World theme park. On any other day, Claire would spend her time in boardrooms or in her well-appointed office and not in the woods being chased by a dinosaur. The being chased by dinosaurs part is, quite fair to say, not on Claire's schedule EVER. 

And yet, we have critics calling Claire out for being dressed for meeting clients, which, by the way, was her original plan for the day before a massively, unexpectedly dangerous new dinosaur escaped its seemingly inescapable cage. Claire is being considered anti-feminist because she chose to wear high heels and a cream colored top and skirt ensemble on a day when she, as a character in a story, did not know she would be chased by dinosaurs. 

The character of Claire is well established as being somewhat socially awkward. Claire's comfort comes from achieving her ambition which is to be rich and successful. Now, I realize that that is not the kindest character trait but if we require every character in movies to be kind at all times and eschew ambition then where will our villains come from? More importantly for Claire, where will the life lesson come from? If she begins from a place of fully evolved traits perfectly suited for both the board room and a dinosaur attack then what is the dramatic arc? 

Is it anti-feminist to wear heels and a skirt? Is it anti-feminist to not concern yourself with your clothing choices when a dangerous dinosaur gets loose in your dinosaur theme park? Some have asked why Claire did not go for a wardrobe change amid the chaotic escape of the dangerous and deadly Indominous-Rex, maybe some running shoes and khakis. The film answers that question by simply thrusting Claire immediately into the action of first covering up the danger in her pre-evolved state of pure ambition, to then attempting to save lives. My point, she was a little busy for a wardrobe change, there's a freaking dinosaur on the loose. 

I hate to engage in a clichéd argument but I will: If Claire was a man would anyone call him out for wearing a suit to work? Then, when the stuff hits the fan would that man be called out for not throwing on his boots and khakis before dealing with the situation at hand? No, a male character is allowed to have character traits, a female character however has to be a beacon to her gender, a symbol of all that is good, and just and never wrong, out of place, or in the process of learning valuable lessons like, keep a pair of running shoes and dungarees in the office in case a freaking dinosaur escapes its inescapable cage. 

If there is an anti-feminist moment in "Jurassic World" it comes in a bizarre and reductive conversation between Claire and her sister, Karen, played by Judy Greer. Karen has sent her two sons to see their aunt and tour the park and Claire, being a busy executive running a multi-million dollar theme park, shoves the kids off on an assistant for the day, much to Karen's dismay. Here Claire demonstrates an unlikable quality, otherwise known as a character flaw. 

That aside, the anti-feminist statement comes from Karen who instructs her sister that she will understand the fear that Karen feels for her children in the care of some stranger instead of their aunt, when Claire becomes a mother. When Claire states that she doesn't see herself becoming a mother, Karen shoots back pointedly stating that Claire will one day be a mother. The exchange is awkward and Karen's insistence that her sister will be a mother one day plays as if she were saying that all women should be mothers. 

It's a bad scene, indefensible even in context. With that said, one thing that is being quite unfairly neglected by those who wish to make Claire a symbol of anti-feminism or sexism is that Claire never for a moment indicates that she agrees with her sister. Even after saving her nephews from dinosaurs and seemingly becoming more loving and thoughtful in the process, Claire never indicates in dialogue or action that she's changed her mind about being a mother. Yet, in the minds of those who are attacking "Jurassic World" the fact that Claire eventually falls for Chris Pratt's hunky raptor trainer is somehow an indication that she's going to give up her ambitions in favor of being a mother. That's quite a leap of logic. 

So, a female character in a modern action blockbuster cannot meet and fall in love with anyone because it is an indication that she wants to give up her ambition and be a wife and mother? What's the other option? If, as the film establishes, Claire is a heterosexual woman with a typical sex drive then is it not perfectly alright that she's attracted to a handsome man and may in fact want to be with him. Moreover, returning to my previous point, nothing in dialogue or action indicates Claire has changed her position about having children. Yes, she's more loving toward her two nephews but that's because they've all just survived a horrific dinosaur related trauma. 

Context however, is the enemy of those who wish to make a larger point about a piece of pop culture that doesn't perfectly suit the writer/critic's world view. Claire is a character built of context. She is a character who is thrust into the most unlikely, unimaginable scenario, one that she was quite fairly, not prepared for. Taken in context, the actions of Claire the movie character make a reasonable amount of sense but that doesn't matter to those with an agenda as anything that doesn't fit that agenda is simply wrong. 

Look, my fear here is thus, that writers and critics who spend time calling out pop culture for lacking in areas that match their socio-political worldview will eventually legislate character flaws out of existence. In the future, all characters will lack anything resembling a failing out of fear that said failing will be seen as a betrayal of some of-the-moment-important socio-political world view. 

Returning to Claire for just one more point, is there not something to be said for the fact that she is a woman who is in charge of a multi-million dollar dinosaur theme park? Everyone in the park answers to her, she's the second in command behind the billionaire dilettante owner played by Irrfan Khan. She's a strong, successful woman, flawed in her seeming lack of care for the dinosaurs, blind to how her ambition affects those she cares about. Claire is not some sexist/anti-feminist caricature, she's a worts and all character who, over the course of a ridiculously scary adventure will come to realize what is truly important to her. 

That's not a symbol of anti-feminism, that's a character arc.

Movie Review Kids in America

Kids in America (2005) 

Directed by Josh Stolberg 

Written by Josh Stolberg, Andrew Shaffer 

Starring Gregory Smith, George Wendt, Adam Arkin, Malik Yoba, Julie Bowen

Release Date October 21st, 2005

Published October 26th, 2005 

Teens in movies always fall into particular stereotypes. Nerds, jocks, cheerleaders, slackers and pervs. It is the rare teen movie that breaks these well worn types. Kids In America does not completely break the mold but in its ambitious story and passionate advocacy the film breaks more than a few of the conventions of the teen movie.

Gregory Smith from the television drama "Everwood" stars in Kids In America as Holden, a rebel with a cause. Inspired by his film class teacher Mr. Drucker (Malik Yoba), Holden begins a crusade against the schools officious principle, Mrs. Weller (Julie Bowen) after she suspends a student for wearing condoms on her dress to promote safe sex.

That is just one of many injustices that have piled up at the school. There is also censorship at the school newspaper, where Holden's fellow film class student, Charlotte (Stephanie Sherrin), has been butting heads with the teacher Mr. Mumsford (Alan Arkin). Holden and Charlotte Bond over the mutual cause of censorship and fighting injustice and develop a fun little romance.

Holden and Charlotte are joined by fellow free speech warriors Chuck (Chris Morris), Katie (Caitlin Wachs), Emily (Emy Coligado), Walanda (Crystal Celeste Grant) and Lawrence (Alex Anfanger) in a quest that will fight back against censorship and hopefully prevent the principle from being elected state school superintendent.

Each of these kids does fall into a character type. Lawrence is flamboyantly homosexual, Walanda is a black militant, Katie is a cheerleader. Still the young actors are likable enough to overcome their pigeonholes and the story gives them a mission and uniting purpose that helps them at least rise slightly above the typical natures of their characters.

Directed by first timer Josh Stolberg, Kids In America struggles in its structure and plotting. The film plays a little too loose and could use a steadier hand behind the camera. A director with a strong visual sense and a feel for the flow of a narrative might have corralled the film's many ideas into a slightly more coherent and true film structure.

Case in point in terms of problems with the structure of Kids In America is a very good idea that misses in its execution. In developing the romance between Holden and Charlotte the kids act out their favorite movie kisses. The kisses, including reenactments from Say Anything, Sixteen Candles and Fast Times At Ridgemont High, happen in a quickly executed four minute series of scenes and is then disposed of. A more veteran writer and director likely would have developed this idea better and rather than make it a throwaway gag, return to it a few times in developing the relationship between Holden and Charlotte.

That said, what Stolberg and his co-writer and producer Josh Shaiffer lack in narrative chops they make up for it with a strong dedication to the story they are telling and the ambition to take on a number of hot button issues and still have a good time with it all. The issues in Kids In America --free speech, safe sex, privacy, homosexuality-- are treated seriously but the characters remain fun loving teenagers with raging hormones and energy to burn.

Kids In America is a call to arms to teens who have seemingly grown more apathetic and uninvolved every year. In high school I was suspended for a day for wearing a Beavis and Butthead t-shirt. This did not exactly turn into a major demonstration but a few of us did take over the school radio station in protest and won the sympathy of many students, if not the teachers and administrators who suspended me a second time.

In this day and age, however, with far more serious issues, like the growing number of gay students coming out in high school and the continuing erosions of privacy and freedom that have stemmed from the Columbine high school shootings in 1999, students should have something more on their minds than t-shirts. It seems however that kids today-- oh God I feel old just writing that-- kids today seem less and less involved.

At least that is what I initially thought. After discovering Kids In America is based on a collective of true stories (none of the characters are real but the issues and events are), my opinion of this generation and its leaders has changed somewhat and I see there may be hope yet for a new generation of activists and believers. The film's credits feature testimonials from real kids who are working to change the way things are done in their schools and neighborhoods. The film's website also features links to many teen blog sites where activist teens are telling their stories and meeting other activists that could someday become a powerful network of people of passion.

This tiny movie may not be accomplished enough artistically to deserve the kind of dramatic weight that these real life issues give it, but given the lack of ambition of most Hollywood movies, I can't fault a film that has such passion. In a year dominated by awful mainstream entertainment that is melting the minds of many teens, a movie like Kids In America is a welcome respite from the mindlessness.

Movie Review: Everybody's Fine

Everybody's Fine (2009) 

Directed by Kirk Jones

Written by Kirk Jones

Starring Robert De Niro, Drew Barrymore, Kate Beckinsale, Sam Rockwell

Release Date December 4th, 2009 

Published December 3rd, 2009

Filial relations get a thorough going over in Everybody’s Fine in which Robert De Niro stars as the sad, widowed patriarch of a family scattered to the very edges of the continent. Years ago Frank Goode worked extra shifts, overtime, any hours he could to give his wife and children every possible advantage. He was a firm but loving father but work kept him at a distance. Now, retired and mourning the loss of his wife, Frank looks desperately forward to a holiday visit from his four kids. He was destined for disappointment.

One by one Frank’s kids call to cancel. First up is Amy (Kate Beckinsale) who claims work and a sick child will keep her from visiting. She sends along Brother David’s wishes as well, he can’t bother to blow dad off on his own time. Rosie (Drew Barrymore) claims that her Las Vegas review has been called into a last minute performance that will keep her away. Finally, Robert (Sam Rockwell) claims that his duties as Conductor of the Denver Orchestra will prevent him from coming as well.

Since his kids won’t come to him, stubborn and lonely Frank decides to hop a train across the country to visit each of the kids. This is against the wishes of his doctor who tells him he is too sick to travel.Frank’s medical issues are left vague so that they can be employed later in the story.

The first visit is to David whose artwork hangs in a gallery just up the street from his New York City apartment.David isn’t home and after waiting for several hours Frank dashes off to his next location leaving behind an envelope. Next up is Amy, a high powered ad exec. Her troubles are evident right away as the sick kid, Jack (Lucian Maisel) is clearly in fine health. Amy’s husband appears oddly disheveled upon his arrival and a hastily organized family dinner is filled with tension.

Frank is shoved out the door the following morning and headed for Denver to see Robert.

Though warned by Amy of his father’s arrival, Robert doesn’t bother to try and hide his lies; not that he could. Robert is not a conductor in the orchestra but plays the drum. He has some harsh words for Frank about his childhood but little evidence to back up his claims. Robert, like Amy, gives dad the quick brush off and soon Frank is riding the rails again, on his way to Vegas to see Rosie. You cannot possibly be surprised when Rosie’s lies are slowly revealed; the story does little to hide them aside from portraying Frank as dotty and clueless.

Director Kirk Jones’ storytelling choices require not just Frank to be clueless but the audience as well. Every story twist in Everybody’s Fine is as predictable as a sunrise in the east. Poor Robert De Niro is stranded within this morass of slow-witted predictability and does yeoman’s work to keep the audience engaged and not rolling their eyes.

It’s a remarkably subtle piece of work from Mr. De Niro whose work has always been marked by a towering presence well beyond his physical stature. In Everybody’s Fine he is called on to be warm and cuddly and clueless and credit him for giving it all he’s got, it really is a complement to his talent that we don’t buy it for a second. 

We know Mr. De Niro is superior to the material from the first sad, pathetic minutes of Everybody’s Fine all the way to its soporific conclusion. It’s not only Mr. De Niro who is let down by Everybody’s Fine, a terrific supporting cast is set adrift as well. Ms. Beckinsale, Ms. Barrymore and Mr. Rockwell are all talented performers, far more interesting than the whiny, cookie cutter characters they are given to play in Everybody’s Fine.

Each is assigned a particular emotion to play and each does their best with it but they are working at odds with the story. Was De Niro’s Frank a distant slave driver as he is sometimes portrayed or is he a doddering old fool who needs to be taken care of? Each of the supporting performances treats him differently and the picture grows muddier throughout.

That said my biggest complaint about Everybody’s Fine is not in fact predictable storytelling or misguided character work. Rather, my biggest issue comes in a cameo by Oscar nominee Melissa Leo who plays a kindly trucker who gives Frank a lift. There’s nothing wrong with her performance, it’s just not long enough to justify the casting.

Ms. Leo is on screen for less than 4 minutes and leaves you wanting more. Why cast someone this talented and then not make proper use of her? I was left wanting a movie starring her and Mr. De Niro and forgot a good portion of the third act of Everybody’s Fine thinking about the potential of that nonexistent project.

Everybody’s Fine is, for the most part, as benign as its title. Dull and forgettable, the film strands a top flight cast amid a storytelling malaise. If you’re a Robert De Niro fan rent This Boy’s Life or A Bronx Tale to get the true paternal De Niro and forget about Everybody’s Fine.

Movie Review In the Loop

In the Loop (2009) 

Directed by Armando Ianucci 

Written by Armando Ianucci 

Starring Peter Capaldi, Tom Hollander, Chris Addison, Anna Chlumsky

Release Date January 22nd, 2009

Published November 29th, 2009

The inexorable march to war is cataloged with black humor and stinging satire in “In the Loop” a film follow up to the popular British mini-series “The Thick of It.” Chronicling the days leading up to Colin Powell's speech before the United Nations, the unofficial kick off of the war in Iraq, “In the Loop” delivers a devastating satire of the bullies and cowards who pushed and yielded us into war.

Peter Capaldi is the black beating heart of “In the Loop” as Malcolm Tucker, the F-word spouting force of nature, secretary to British Prime Minister Tony Blair. He's a hatchet man who would carry an actual hatchet if he were allowed. When the PM makes a decision it is Malcolm's job to force it into happening.

Blair made the decision to support President Bush's war in Iraq and pit-bull Tucker will move heaven and earth to make it happen. Standing in his way, unintentionally, is a cabinet secretary named Simon Tucker (Tom Hollander). In an interview with the BBC Simon is asked about war in Iraq and says that war is not inevitable.

A rather innocuous quote, it would seem, until a US Diplomat named Karen Clark (Mimi Kennedy) jumps on Simon's quote as an indication that the British government may not support the march to war. Thus begins an unstoppable collision between the bullies looking to start a war and the cowards who talk of opposing war but allow themselves to be pushed along by the tide.

Along for the ride is Simon's new assistant Toby (Chris Addison), a good natured dimwit who keeps stumbling into gaffes of massive proportion and Liza (Anna Chlumsky), an assistant to Karen Clarke who keeps seeing her paper detailing the lack of real intel on Saddam's weapons kicked up the chain of command, much to her apoplectic disbelief.

If the real march to war in ....Iraq.... was anything like what we see in “In the Loop” we are truly doomed. The film posits, not far from reality, that we were essentially bullied into war by bureaucrats looking to polish their resumes by adding the title 'war planner.' The bullies win by simply changing the rules. They make decisions and then change the facts to justify the decision.

The good people stand by and offer comments on the bullies and complain but they are powerless to stop them. James Gandolfini is the most interesting of the opposition. Though he knows the whole war is based on B.S intelligence his willingness to stick his neck out to stop it mimics perfectly the 2007 conversion of real life General Colin Powell.

The factions in “In the Loop” are a perfect corollary to the right and left wings of American politics. The Republicans wanted war and went to all extremes to bring it about. The Democrats knew it was all crap but allowed themselves to be bullied when their patriotism and toughness were questioned.

”In the ..Loop” is at once entertaining and appalling. Tom Hollander is riotous as the bumbling under-secretary who is kind of against the war but doesn't have the backbone to make a decision. He and Chris Addicott are an effective comic team along with Gina McKee, the secretary's other more practical assistant who simply rolls her eyes and covers her ass.

Pete Capaldi offers what may be the best performance of the year. Malcolm Tucker is a fearsome character who seems coiled toward violent rage at all times. His use of the F-word is as effective as a dagger. I'm told Tucker has become something of an icon in England where his bile spitting image is on t-shirts due to the popularity of the mini-series “The Thick of It” where the character Malcolm Tucker originated.

The old saying about liking sausage and not wanting to know how it's made applies well to “In the Loop.” This is allegedly how the sausage that was the Iraq War came about and it is an appalling vision. The bullies triumph while the good people sulk to the finish line and plot press releases for ass-covering purposes. “In the Loop” is stunning, sad and darkly absurd, and one of the best movies of 2009.

Documentary Review ESPN 30 for 30 June 17th 1994

ESPN 30 for 30 June 17th, 1994 (2010) 

Directed by Brett Morgan 

Written by Documentary

Starring O.J Simpson, Mark Messier, Marv Albert, Bob Costas, Chris Berman 

Release Date June 16th, 2010 

Published June 17th, 2010

ESPN Films has turned out remarkable documentaries under the banner 30 for 30. The death of Len Bias, the story of the USFL and the unique life of running back Ricky Williams are just some of the subjects that some of the finest documentary filmmakers working today have tackled with astonishing success.

The latest filmmaker to tackle a sports subject in documentary form is The Kid Stays in the Picture director Brett Morgen. His esoteric subject is one of the more remarkable days in sports and American cultural history, ..June 17th 1994... The date will always be remembered for O.J Simpson's bizarre slow speed chase but this strange worldwide theater encompassed more than just that famed white bronco.

On ..June 17th 1994.. the New York Rangers celebrated an amazing Stanley Cup Victory with a parade in New York's famed canyon of heroes. Ticker tape was thrown and thousands of New York fans gathered to cheer for their hockey heroes as they were feted by New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani.

That same morning Arnold Palmer teed off for the final time at the US Open after 41 years. In Chicago Oprah and President Bill Clinton welcomed to the world to the United States for the opening games of the World Cup. That night the scene was to shift back to New York where the New York Knicks and Houston Rockets played game 5 of the NBA Championship series.

I say that it was supposed to shift because that evening as the Knicks and Rockets tipped off in Madson Square Garden the world's attention was aimed at the 5 Freeway in Los Angeles as O.J Simpson, with a gun to his head and his friend Al A.C Cowlings at the wheel held police at bay.

Brett Morgen brings these stories together in a non-traditional documentary fashion, minus talking head interviews and canned narration. Instead, Morgen uses news footage from that day and archive footage of the man O.J Simpson was to craft the story of this remarkable day in a way that brings it stunningly back from the depths of our collective memories.

Among the most striking memories for me was Police Commander David Gascon's announcement that the Los Angeles Police Department was actively searching for O.J Simpson. More forceful and better remembered are the words of former L.A County District Attorney Gil Garcetti's famed statement, nevertheless powerful today, "Mr. Simpson is a fugitive from justice right now."

These scenes were burned into our memories. Director Morgen returns to these scenes the context of that day and the emotion that so many felt in seeing a man who had been a positive presence in so many lives from sports to commercials to film and TV. O.J Simpson was not a huge star but certainly the most well known ever to be accused of murder. Morgen's style, no modern interviews or narrator, takes us back to that day and the confusion and horror of those stunning moments come rushing back.

With crisp editing and tremendous orchestral scoring Brett Morgen and his editing team cut gracefully between the stories that developed that day around the country and the ways those stories that on any other day could lead the news headlines, were effectively rendered meaningless by a slow moving white bronco carrying a football legend to his seeming doom. 

The story of ..June 17th 1994.. is, as director Morgen says in an interstitial interview, a turning point in our culture. Reality TV and our celebrity obsessed culture was born on this date. The chase, capture and eventual trial of O.J Simpson began a media and cultural obsession with the private lives of public figures as we salivated over finding the next scandal, the next murder, the next blood in the cultural waters. 

Morgen cleverly makes my last point with a pair of moments that most might not have taken note of. During a Royals-Mariners baseball game that day an announcer callously jokes "Did you hear O.J Simpson is at the US Open? He already has 2 under." Later that night as Knicks coach Pat Riley was taking questions about his teams Game 5 win another diseased member of the media asked a perplexed and appalled Riley if O.J would have gotten away if he had not 'cut to the left.' 

Our cultural civility has long been a myth, ruptured, in my opinion, in the wake of Vietnam and Watergate when cynicism born of the Kennedy, Kennedy and King assassinations finally boiled over into outright hostility and festered into the 80's with Jim and Tammy Faye Baker, Jimmy Swaggart and others. 

This festering finally found full disturbing bloom when it melded with the birth of modern media in the O.J Simpson murders. A culture tortured by cynicism met a perfect storm of media and technology and a hellmouth of ugliness and obsession was born, it's spawn being the resurgence of the tabloid, TMZ.com, Perez Hilton and the ability for the average American to engulf themselves in the ugliness with reality television. 

It is strangely poetic and darkly humorous that standing amid the media storm ..June 17th 1994.. was a little known Los Angeles lawyer named Robert Kardashian. Preening for the camera with his perfectly coiffed pompadour and carrying what was believed to be O.J Simpson's suicide note, Kardashian relished the glare of the media on that day and in the ensuing trial days in the same way his daughters Kourtney, Khloe et al seek the glare of the modern spotlight. 

The strange, dark, ironic humor doesn't end there as director Brett Morgen caps the doc with the wonderful Talking Heads song "Heaven." The chorus repeated by David Byrne as O.J finishes the day in police custody and Pat Riley faces down that reporter and Rangers fans begin to sober up and Arnold Palmer finally gets a moment to rest, says "Heaven, heaven is a place, a place where nothing, nothing ever happens." 

Something happened that day and we've never been the same. Brett Morgen and ESPN Films have stunningly recreated a cultural landmark and in doing so have created one of the most fascinating documentaries of the year.

Movie Review The Woman in Black 2 Angel of Death

The Woman in Black 2 Angel of Death (2015) 

Directed by Tom Harper 

Written by Jon Croker 

Starring Phoebe Fox, Jeremy Irvine, Helen McCrory, Leanne Best 

Release Date January 2nd, 2015 

Published January 2nd, 2015 

If the ghost villain of “The Woman in Black: Angel of Death” can kill at will then why didn’t she just kill the hero characters when she had the chance? The answer to that seems to be that if she had simply killed the people attempting to thwart her plan to kidnap a little boy, there would not have been a movie. That, to me, is the worst possible answer to that question.

“The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death” is a sequel to 2013 film that starred Daniel Radcliffe which was legitimately creepy and compelling. The sequel is set in the same rundown haunted mansion and is equally dark and foreboding as it was in the Radcliffe movie but the resultant film is far less compelling.

Unknown Phoebe Fox stars in “The Woman in Back 2: Angel of Death” as Eve Parkins, a teacher in World War 2 era England. With bombs falling on London children are being evacuated and Eve, along with veteran schoolmarm Mrs. Hogg (Helen McCrory), have been tasked with accompanying a group of children to a home in the remote countryside.

Unfortunately, the home located in the midst of rising and falling tides surrounding a barren island and muddy road, is already inhabited by the dangerous specter of a dead Governess. The evil presence in the home quickly chooses Edward (Oaklee Pendergast) as her target and thus begins a battle for the child between the ghost and Eve. Along for the ride is a World War 2 pilot, Harry (Jeremy Irvine) who provides Eve with a love interest and protector.

The only thing “The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death” accomplished in its 98 minute runtime was to convince me to watch the first “Woman in Black” again. That film was filled with surprises including Daniel Radcliffe’s unpretentious starring performance. I went into “Woman in Black” referring to him as Harry Potter and came out respectfully using his actual name; a minor symbol of newfound respect.

The central issue I have with “The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death” is that it never justifies its own existence. On top of being an unnecessary sequel, the plot fails to create a believably frightening scenario. The villain as established about midway through the film, can kill at will but does not do so because the plot needs her not to.

There are no rules established for this ‘Angel of Death.’ The ‘Angel of Death’ has a back story but the plot seems to assign her a child to fixate upon instead of giving a solid, logical reason for her choice. And then there is the simple matter of why the ‘Angel of Death’ allows Eve and her love interest to get in her way. Why doesn’t she just kill everyone? She clearly has the power as demonstrated by the modest body count on display.

The ‘Angel of Death’ doesn’t kill the plot protagonists simply because the muddy plot requires her not to and that is simply bad plotting. Even if the filmmaking had been more dynamic, the characters more memorable or the production design more ominous looking, the lack of a well reasoned plot would doom “The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death.” Taken all together and you have a truly shoddy effort.

Movie Review Witness

Witness (1985) 

Directed by Peter Weir 

Written by Earl W. Wallace, William Kelley 

Starring Harrison Ford, Kelly McGillis, Lukas Haas, Danny Glover 

Release Date February 8th, 1985 

Published February 8th 2015 

Directed by Peter Weir, “Witness” stars Harrison Ford as Detective John Book, a Philadelphia homicide cop who stumbles into a corrupt conspiracy. While investigating the death of an undercover narcotics officer, Book becomes the protector of an Amish woman, Rachel (Kelly McGillis), and her son, Samuel (Lukas Haas), who witnessed the murder and eventually identifies a police detective named McFee (Danny Glover) as the killer.

After informing his superior, Chief Schaeffer (Josef Sommer), Book discovers the dangerous depths of the conspiracy and takes Rachel and Samuel into hiding, back to their family in the Amish country. How will Book unfold the conspiracy and protect Rachel and her son while conforming to the Amish way of life as protection against the outside world? That is the dramatic crux of “Witness.”

What is striking about the performance of Harrison Ford in “Witness” is the lack of star polish. Ford is without pretense toward stardom, he see’s no need to command scenes and instead allows the scene to settle around him. Ford doesn’t appear until a full 15 minutes into the film, time spent establishing Rachel as a widow and setting up for the murder that will drive the plot.

Once Ford enters the picture his character is more of a force of workmanlike dedication to the law rather than the hard charging, charismatic detective types favored by big stars. There is nothing showy or demonstrative about Book, he’s a guy doing a job who happens to find himself in an uniquely dangerous situation; one with an unusual set of options that play out in a highly compelling fashion.

The scenes set among the Amish while Book is hiding out and forming a plan to fight back against his conspirators, are quiet and thoughtful and proceed with their own force of plot. Convention tells us that Book and Rachel will fall in love but the ways in which that bond forms seem organic rather than by the force of what’s expected of a movie. I love the chemistry between Ford and McGillis which is expressed almost entirely in looks and gestures.

30 years later “Witness” is a testimony to the true talent of Harrison Ford, his ability to become an everyman instead of a superhero. Before he descended into a caricature of a growling, grouchy, senior citizen action hero, Ford was a true everyman hero who happened to be clever in a pinch and capable of selfless sacrifice in pursuit of what was right. It’s what made his Jack Ryan such a great character, he wasn’t always prepared for what was about to happen, he was just capable and a little more daring than most.

That’s the charm of Harrison Ford and it is the charm of “Witness.” Other stars would have made each moment about them and how smart or tough they are. Ford gives himself over to the moment and in the character of John Book he immerses himself in what is happening while failing as anyone might to actually prepare for the bad things that are on the horizon because, truly, who could be prepared for such a thing.

“Witness” is available for streaming now on Netflix or for rent via Amazon Prime streaming.

Movie Review: Exodus Gods and Kings

Exodus Gods and Kings (2014) 

Directed by Ridley Scott 

Written by Adam Cooper, Bill Collage, Jeffrey Caine, Steven Zaillian

Starring Christian Bale, Joel Edgerton, John Turturro, Aaron Paul, Ben Mendelsohn

Release Date December 12th, 2014 

Published December 11th, 2014 

Ridley Scott's "Exodus: Gods and Kings" is a dull slog through a Bible story too familiar to be of much interest. Putting aside, for a moment, the awful casual racism involved in the film's casting, "Exodus" just simply isn't a very good film. Despite the special effects that render the seven plagues of Egypt in spectacular fashion, the grim story and wooden characters make "Exodus" a dreadful movie-going experience. 

Christian Bale stars as Moses and Joel Edgerton is Ramses, the Egyptian pharaoh, soon to be king. When we first meet them, Moses is Ramses' right-hand man. The two were raised as brothers by the Egyptian King Seti (John Turturro). Moses' origin story, however, is a lingering mystery that will become a definitive part of his life. He is an Israelite, and not an Egyptian. 

In fact, Moses isn't merely Jewish. He may be the Jewish savior who leads his people to freedom in Canaan, which will later become Israel. But first he and Ramses have to go to war. Moses has to prove that he is the greater warrior and more worthy heir to the throne of Egypt than the sniveling Ramses, who will poison his father to make sure his ascension to the throne happens without interruption. 

Ramses' paranoia eventually extends to his feelings for his brother Moses, whom he suspects will usurp his throne. When Ramses is informed by spies that Moses is, in fact, Jewish, he banishes Moses from the kingdom. Nine years pass, and Moses has begun to raise a family. Then he has a vision: A child, a stand-in for God, orders Moses to return to Egypt and lead his people out of slavery. 

If you don't already know this story then you have likely lived under a rock since birth. It's among the most familiar Bible stories in history, thanks to the violence and death unleashed by God in seven plagues. The plagues are the main reason why "Exodus: Gods and Kings" exists. Special effects have advanced so much in the past two decades that making the Nile River run red with blood, the arrival of millions of frogs, and an attack of locusts now can be rendered realistically in CGI.  

There is no denying that the special effects are impressive, especially late in the film, when God parts the Red Sea and then un-parts the Red Sea in even more spectacular and deadly fashion. But special effects alone are not enough to overcome the grim story, dour performances and general tedium of sitting through nearly three hours of this. 

And then there is the racism at the heart of the film. Both director Ridley Scott and 20th Century Fox owner Rupert Murdoch have weighed in on the casting of Scottish actor Joel Edgerton, saying that it was a business decision to cast a white actor as an Egyptian king. Scott claims that an actor with a name like Muhammad would not sell tickets, as if the name of Joel Edgerton ever has sold a ticket anywhere outside his Scottish home town. 

Bale, at the very least, has the powerful presence and charisma to render a Moses we can appreciate. Edgerton's sneering, sniveling Ramses is an over-the-top bore who is completely overmatched opposite Bale's imposing performance. Of course, even if Edgerton had delivered an Oscar-worthy turn, it still would not justify his casting over that of an actual Egyptian actor in the role. 

Scott's attempt to mask this racism as a business decision only makes it more insidious and cynical. It's impossible to watch "Exodus: Gods and Kings" and not see the casting of Edgerton – and, to an extent, Bale and Turturro -- as the latest example of Hollywood's historic offhand bigotry that dates back to Al Jolson and D.W Griffith. Nearly 100 years after Griffith, one might think we've evolved, especially with Hollywood's well known leftist politics. Yet here we are with white actors imitating Arabs and Israelites while wearing brown-face. 

In the end, even if "Exodus: Gods and Kings" hadn't been an overly familiar slog made solely to exploit modern special effects, the film still would have stunk because of its blasé’ attitude toward its own bigotry. 

Movie Review King of Kong A Fistful of Quarters

King of Kong A Fistful of Quarters 

Directed by Seth Gordon

Written by Documentary 

Starring Billy Mitchell, Steve Wiebe 

Release Date August 17th, 2007

Published November 17th, 2007 

What kid, alive and aware in the 80's doesn't remember Donkey Kong. Arcades all over the country teemed with kids lining up to run Mario over those barrels, up those ladders and finally all the way to his girl on that platform where inevitably Kong would snatch her up again and the game would start again. The next rounds would feature killer springs, tiny fireballs, elevators, pulley systems and more ladders. When the game was made available for the original Nintendo system my friends and I would spend several frustrating hours playing that stupid game, my frustration should tell you how well I ever did at it.

That said, I do recall a friend of mine who made it all the way to the 21st screen, scored over a million points and the game stopped because there was no further to go. According to the documentary The King of Kong A Fistful of Quarters what my buddy did was set a world record. Of course, when we played it rarely seemed like anything more than a diversion, not something you took the time to document or even remember accurately. The stars of this documentary however, consider my words blasphemy. They have spent their lives keeping track of scores on video games, documenting them on videotapes shown to men who call themselves judges or video game referees.

One sad soul spends days at a time watching videotapes of people playing videogames in order to authenticate what he believes is an important world's record. As condescending as I'm sure I sound toward these men, and indeed they are all men, what is stunning about this documentary from director Seth Gordon is how compelling and even fascinating these characters become.

Billy Mitchell has long been the all time Donkey Kong champion. His high score has sat at the top of the rankings for more than a decade. Yes, there are video game championship rankings, documented by an Ottumwa Iowa arcade owner named Walter Day. Mitchell has lived this accomplishment for most of his life. Kong along with his perfect score on Pac Man in the mid-nineties, are the defining moments of his life. The undeservedly arrogant, mullet wearing Mitchell is also a successful businessman in Florida who still plays Donkey Kong, longing to break the million point barrier.

Steve Wiebe, on the other hand, didn't pick up his Donkey Kong obsession until he was laid off from his job as a high school science teacher. Long a man with an obsessive personality, Steve's family has long suspected he may have obsessive compulsive disorder or may even be slightly autistic. Whatever Steve's issue it drives him to do things like play Donkey Kong for days on end in hopes of breaking Billy Mitchell's record score. As Seth Gordon documents in King of Kong Steve does break the record but it's not nearly as simple as one might imagine.

Controversy erupts, was his machine that he plays in his garage, street legal or modified. Was the videotape of his game used to authenticate his score tampered with? If these questions sound inconsequential, director Gordon does an amazing job demonstrating how much they matter to this oddball collection of humans spread literally across the country from Steve in Redmond Washington to Walter in Ottumwa, Iowa to Billy Mitchell in Hollywood Florida. As goofy as it sounds I guarantee you will be riveted by Steve's reaction and what happens next.

Seth Gordon adopts just the right level of skeptical distance and non-judgemental humor. You sense that Gordon is on our side in thinking how goofy this competition is. However, as he indulges these strange personalities, you must admit that a compelling story of rivalry and obsession emerges that for 84 minutes keeps you fascinated and wanting to see what happens next. Mock if you must but I recommend you take a look at King of Kong A Fistful of Quarters and try not to be sucked into the war between Steve and Billy and Donkey Kong.

Funny and fascinating, King Of Kong A Fistful of Quarters is one of the most unique and compelling documentaries I've ever seen. A must see.

Movie Review Knowing

Knowing (2009)

Directed by Alex Proyas 

Written by Ryne Douglas Pearson, Juliet Snowden, Stiles White 

Starring Nicolas Cage, Rose Byrne, Liam Hemsworth, Ben Mendelsohn

Release Date March 20th, 2009

Published March 20th, 2009 

I feel I may owe Nicholas Cage a modest apology. In rereading a few past reviews of his films I find that I have spent an inordinate amount of time commenting on his hair. In my defense, Cage's hair has seemed like a separate entity all its own in many of Cage's films. That receding, patchy fro from in Adaptation, the wild out of control hairline from Bangkok Dangerous, and the utterly criminal use of extensions and plugs in various Cage efforts. The man's hair is often as memorable as the movie he's in.

That said, Cage's personal appearance is a matter for his stylist not a review of the quality of the film he is in. Of course, makeup and hair are departments on a film set. Awards are given for great designs in both fields. When you think about it; actresses are constantly judged by their looks in movies whether consciously or otherwise.

Why should Nic Cage be excused? Why should he have a separate standard? Just because he has chosen to look so utterly bizarre on screen I as a critic of film am supposed to pretend I don't notice? How is that at all fair? You know what? Modest apology rescinded. In Knowing, Nicholas Cage's unyieldingly bizarre hairline comes second to the bizarre plotting of director Alex Proyas in a biblio-scientific melodrama about the end of existence.

Knowing stars Nicholas Cage as an MIT professor whose son brings home a piece of paper that had been buried underground for 50 years. The long ago students at his son's primary school buried the time capsules filled with their visions of the future some 50 years ago. When it was opened and his son was given a particular drawing from the capsule, all it had on it was a series of numbers.

Bored and slightly drunk, Cage begins examining the numbers and thinks he sees a pattern. The number 091101 2388 happens to correspond to the date of the World Trade Center attack and the number of people who died that day. Further investigation finds that most of the numbers are also dated and the number dead in every tragedy for the past 50 years.

Worse yet are numbers that correspond to future dates including several in the near future. The idea of determinism vs randomness has been the professor's field for a very long time and his conflict is well founded until he begins trying to alter the future and finds nothing but futility. Rose Byrne plays the daughter of the woman who wrote the numbers 50 years earlier. She now has a daughter who, like her grandmother, is hearing strange voices and numbered warnings. Strangely, Cage's son is also hearing these warnings and eventually unconsciously scribbling numbered warnings.

Director Alex Proyas is a master of this kind of supernatural oddity. His Dark City and The Crow are underrated epics of the macabre and dangerous. Head trips into the souls of people whose souls are questionable at best. Unfortunately, with Knowing he has found his M. Night Shyamalan-The Happening moment.

Ok, Knowing isn't nearly the abomination that The Happening was, but in the context of the two filmmakers, the parallel of the visionary artist finding his absolute nadir, the comparison is apt. Proyas's commitment to the absolute oddity of tone and utter lack of interest in crafting a competent narrative perfectly mirrors Shyamalan's unbelievable commitment to his bizarre meta-environmental parable.

Knowing's milieu is the kind of end of the world prophecy that the religious right oriented Left Behind movies have cultivated for years. Except, replace god with aliens. Yes, ET is somehow woven into this plot along with theology, numerology, Cosmology and even cosmetology as once again Cage's follicles cry out for attention as they hold on for dear life at that place he wishes were his real hairline.

As goofball plots go, Knowing is a doozy of goofball elements from aliens to car chases to the end of the world to moments of family reunion hokum. Director Proyas throws a whole hell of a lot of stuff at the screen. Not much sticks. There is an almost joy in the film's heedlessness of convention and willingness to be so earnestly cheeseball. The appreciation fades however in the final hockey moments.

Knowing is a disaster for director Proyas and yet another bizarre signpost in the career of Nicholas Cage. Add Knowing to Bangkok Dangerous to Next to The Wicker Man and you actually begin to see a pattern of complete disregard for convention that makes Knowing seem perfectly logical for Cage, even as it is a disaster for director, co-stars, producers and subsequent audience.

Movie Review Land of the Lost

Land of the Lost (2009) 

Directed by Brad Silberling

Written by Chris Henchy, Dennis McNicholas 

Starring Will Ferrell, Danny McBride, Anna Friel, Jorma Taccone

Release Date June 5th, 2009 

Published June 4th, 2009 

Land of the Lost was and is a bad idea for a movie. It's based on a Saturday morning kids show from the early 1970's with only a modicum of cultural cache from a group of hipster doofus types who love the cheesetastic sets, the wooden characters and slow moving rubber suited alien reptiles. There are those who have nostalgia for this but it is not a genuine appreciation, it's ironic. People loved how cheesy it looked. Cardboard sets and rubber costumes. Making a big budget Land of the Lost COMPLETELY misses the point. 

The core of Land of the Lost's existing fanbase was never going to go for anything involving the over the top antics of a mainstream pratfaller like Will Ferrell? In the mind of the hipster LOTL fan the only remake that could come close to capturing this cultural landmark is directed by Tarsem or Michel Gondry, whichever director would make the whole thing as some cardboard and cloth acid trip. The Land of the Lost movie we have in front of us is a confused hybrid of family movie adventure and adult targeted humor aimed just below the waistline. Not quite family friendly enough for the kids and not quite edgy enough for adults, Land of the Lost could not be more indicative of its title.

Will Ferrell stars in Land Of The Lost as Dr. Rick Marshall. As a scientist he has staked his career on a theory that wormholes to other dimensions could discover renewable sources of energy. Unfortunately, an ill-advised visit to the Today Show to tout his theory ends in a viral YouTube moment and Dr. Rick is labeled a buffoon.

Four years later, Dr. Rick Marshall is a lowly tour guide at the La Brea Tar Pits. There, he is visited by Holly (Anna Friel) a grad student from Cambridge who is the one person ever to take his theories seriously. Holly claims that she has crunched a few numbers and found some striking evidence that Marshall's theories aren't as crackpot as they seem.

Together, Rick and Holly visit a cheesy tourist trap cave ride where a tour guide named Will (Danny McBride) joins them in what turns out to be a successful test of Dr. Marshall's multi-dimensional device. In Marshall's words 'Matt Lauer can suck it'. Telling people to 'suck it' is about par for the course of the humor in Land of the Lost. 

That's the set up. The payoff includes non-sequiturs about time travel, dinosaurs, exceptionally large poop, a man pouring urine on himself and a giant blood sucking insect. Oh and the music of A Chorus Line. Why? Random! Land of the Lost wants to be all things to all audiences and tries just about every avenue in search of a punchline and while there are undeniable laughs in the movie, mostly it's just people throwing jokes at the screen and hoping one or two stick. 

On the bright side, Anna Friel brings a unique and endearing feminine energy to the boy-centric adventure. She is a fantasy figure who strips her jeans down to short shorts and doesn't seem all that bothered by all the groping, far too much groping. Yet, she is also portrayed as a strong, centered character who manages to leaven out the crazy energy of Ferrell and the Larry the Cable Guy-esque riffing of Danny McBride.

Scattershot is an understatement in describing the humor of Land of the Lost. The movie is all over the place with Ferrell and McBride each flailing for a punchline while Friel desperately clings to her dignity amid the bathroom humor and randomness. There are laughs in the movie but certainly not enough to justify a nearly 2 hour big budget comedy. Mostly, the result of Land of the Lost ranges from indifference to mild annoyance.