Maleficent

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

Maleficent

Release Date:  30 May 2014                                                                  Runtime:  97 Minutes              

Review Date:  23 September 2014                                                          Rating:  4.5 (of 6)

     They say not to judge a book by its cover and this certainly applies to Maleficent, the bookends here pretty atrocious.  It doesn't behoove anyone, does your credibility a great disservice in fact, to open your film with really fake looking CGI.  It ran rampant the first couple minutes and you'd think this was some newfangled technology, that this was still the 90s.  That jarring.  Listen, if you get your story started first, introduce us to the characters, get us involved and THEN want to throw some bad CGI in our face, we might accept it in the confines of the story, the story propelling our imagination and thus forgiving the faux pas, turning a blind eye to it.  But when you don't even have dialogue or characters yet, not excusable.

     The end--I'm talking the start of the credits, not spoiling the final scenes (though, there will be spoilers ahead in this review)--then had a really hurt-the-ears awful rendition of  "Once Upon a Dream" sung by Lana Del Rey.  Don't get me wrong, I can dig moody covers--Marilyn Manson's version of the Eurythmics' "Sweet Dreams" for the House on Haunted Hill remake comes to mind--but do us all a favor and never hire this chic again. 

     Now, in between these pages, if you will, was an alright story.  The narrator explained from the start that this would be a different version than we're accustomed to, so I could accept the changes made in the tale.  While not anything extraordinary, it was an interesting take.

     However--and here is where the ***SPOILERS*** come into play--there was 2 major points of contention and also a moment of coming to the table too late.

     The first, the 3 fairies, who had been friends with Maleficent, go to give gifts to the newborn Aurora.  From the tale this yarn was spinning, this doesn't jive in the least.  You mean, with the fairy world and human world kept separate because of the human propensities toward greed and power, the previous king attempting to start a war with you for no reason other than wanting your treasures and land, a war that was only averted by Maleficent, you're going to bear gifts to the newborn of the new king, the man that not only betrayed Maleficent but maimed and disfigured her by hacking off her wings?  Really?  REALLY?  Shame on you.

     Second, the curse was changed.  Here, Maleficent has strong motive to curse Aurora with death as she did in the original cartoon and fairy tale.  But instead, rather lamely, she curses her with eternal sleep here.  After all that was done to you, the anger evident in everything about you, exuding from every pore, why bother?  Even with the disclaimer that this wasn't a version we've heard before, this change still falls flat after the preceding build-up.

     As for coming too late to the table, this relates to their interpretation of "true love's kiss".  If it hadn't been done before, it would be fresh, unique, perhaps even surprising.  However, you're 2 years too late, a similar interpretation played out on television's Once Upon a Time at the end of their first season, leaving us to easily guess what's going to transpire here.

     In its favor, Elle Fanning as Aurora does look more suitable for someone gifted with beauty than Kristen Stewart looked "fairest of them all" in Snow White and the Huntsman.  That being said, Juno Temple who played fairy Thistletwit would have been more suitable in the role regarding that chracteristic, even if she was 24 in real life when it was filming rather than 15.

 

Boyhood

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

Boyhood

Release Date:  16 August 2014                                                             Runtime:  165 Minutes              
Review Date:  1 September 2014                                                          Rating:  4 (of 6)

      Hearing about the concept, a movie that follows a family of characters over 12 years filmed over an actual 12-year period, I was intrigued.  I also admired the ambition and the fortitude Writer/Director/Producer Richard Linklater possessed.

     The editing was superb, the transition year to year very natural.  And at nearly 3 hours, Boyhood never seemed long.

     Story wise, it was nothing special, just going through the motions.  But still worth checking out for the decade plus seamless time-lapse.

 

X-Men: Days of Future's Past

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

 

X-Men: Days of Future Past

Release Date:  23 May 2014                                                                Runtime:  131 Minutes              

Review Date:  31 August 2014                                                            Rating:  4.5 (of 6)

     Days of Future Past is another film I'm not jumping on the bandwagon for.  Yes, it was good, but not as great as it's been heralded as.  In that arena, it pales in comparison to First Class.  In other words, not as first class as First Class.

     The trouble here really is the originators set in the future.  The scenery is dark and grey, which is an attempt to set the mood for the dystopia transpiring--I get that--but at the same time seems naturally off.  Fake.  Perhaps fabricated too much in the realm of the computer than in reality.

     And some of the originators serve no purpose.  In contrast to Kelsey Grammar's fun 2 second cameo, Halle Berry just seemed out of place.  Sure, there are a lot of people that would argue that her performance was always such, especially in the first film, but here, though given a decent amount of screen time in comparison with the others of the original trilogy, she only had like 2 lines (of no significance or poignancy at that), had little physical movement and when she did it was either wooden or unintentionally comical.

     They say the inclusion of the original cast skyrocketed the budget and name that as a factor of why there will never be another movie centering on the original cast (scheduling also an issue).  This blows my mind.  While I get that they can all command higher salaries now on the whole, they were in so little of this movie that I don't see how or why a big chunk of any budget would be heading their way.

 

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

 

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 in 3D

Release Date:  2 May 2014                                                                  Runtime:  142 Minutes              

Review Date:  29 July 2014                                                                  Rating:  3.5 (of 6)

      As I sat watching The Amazing Spider-Man 2, I often found myself thinking I could be better spending my time.

     What little charm the initial reboot had was missing from this outing.  The beginning (and some other parts) felt very corny.  The appearance of the Harry Osborn character felt inorganic, suddenly thrust in the story, the filmmakers literally saying, "oh, by the way, Peter knew him when he was younger."  (And James Franco was better in the part in the Raimi trilogy.)  I think it would have worked better if there had been no previous relationship, though that would screw with other plot points in the story.

     ***POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT (I don't remember how much of this was revealed in the first installment)*** I also find it quite absurd that Peter Parker's father was a scientist that created the radioactive spiders and that, coincidentally, 10 years after his parents' death, Peter happens to be visiting the corporation his father had previously worked for and then bitten by one of those spiders, spiders that are specifically programmed to only interact with Parker DNA.  Way too convoluted and unrealistic that these stars would all happen to happily align.

     On the other hand, the physical parameters of the Green Goblin make more sense.  I think I would have preferred to have seen more of him--the film did a really slow origin story with his character--rather than Electro.

     The downfall of the narrative may or may not have something to do with the writers of the last film being pretty much ousted in favor of the (now former) writing duo of Alex Kurtzman & Roberto Orci along with their buddy Jeff Pinkner.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

Release Date:  11 July 2014                                                                  Runtime:  130 Minutes              
Review Date:  13 July 2014                                                                   Rating:  5 (of 6)

     Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a worthy installment in the franchise, though not as succinct or poignant as its predecessor.  There, chimpanzee Caesar really was the focus; it was his story and we often found ourselves in his shoes.  Here, it feels like more of a human story and none of these humans are as well developed as those in Rise of the Planet of the Apes, a disconnect between them and us.  It's not till we get closer to the end that it becomes more of a movie about the titular apes.  (However, to be fair, the focus of the first 2 movies in the original series were the humans, the apes taking a back seat.)

    The lack of a strong emotional connection with either side is probably how the marginal magic was lost, but where along the lines it fell by the wayside in this outing is anyone's guess.  The writing team of Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver, who single-handedly resurrected the franchise, returned, though it appears a new writer, Mark Bomback, was brought on board to do rewrites.  The original director, Rupert Wyatt, was set to return but bowed out when Fox set a release date he found to be too soon to do a competent job.

     (Now this new director, Matt Reeves, and writer are set to helm the next installment, Reeves pulling double duty as a writer, too.  Meanwhile, Jaffa and Silver who had originally envisioned a trilogy for their reboot won't be on board for the third outing other than in the capacity of producers, currently entrenched in the Jurassic Park and Avatar franchises.)

     Neither here nor there, the titles should be reversed, the "Dawn" being the beginning and here the ape population growing or on the "Rise".

     RANT: Unfortunately, my viewing was impaired by a major distraction and therefore my enjoyment, perception and rating may have been affected.  I had read that this was one of the rare movies that were supposed to be really good in 3D, receiving really high marks (I recommend using http://www.cinemablend.com/3d yourself), so that's the route I went.  By the time the film called for glasses, the theater was pitch black dark.  I opened the package and put them on.  Something wasn't right, the picture often looking blurry or objects were doubled, except in the close up (but sometimes even then).  I didn't know if this was the actual movie, this particular projection or a problem with the glasses themselves.  I noticed if I closed my right eye when the focus got really bad, it would rein the picture in a little but this was no way to watch a movie!  However, I couldn't go out to Customer Service because then I'd miss what was going on and the next viewing wouldn't be for another 5 hours, time I didn't have.

     I was rather astounded because the 3D had gotten a rave review and here I wasn't experiencing it at all.  When the film concluded and the house lights came on I discovered the problem when I removed my glasses--THEY WERE MISSING THEIR RIGHT LENS!!!  I was rather annoyed as I had been waiting a long time for this film's release, the only one I'd been anticipating since the disappointing Lego Movie.       

     But more annoying is this whole scam with the $2 or $3+ surcharge for 3D movies' accessory glasses.  I have a 3D TV, I have my own glasses that I take good care of and know that work, why do I need to buy glasses every time I go to the theater?  It's an absurd rip off, especially when you take into consideration that they then expect you to return the glasses at the end of the film so they can "recycle" them.  If you have your customers doing that, why not give them their deposit back, like some states do with bottles and cans?  I don't want to wear someone else's repackaged glasses, thank you, and then be ripped off by being charged each time.

    (For more insight into this practice, read: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/01/are_these_3d_glasses_dirty.html.)

  

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

 

Captain America: The Winter Soldier in 3D

Release Date:  4 April 2014                                                          Runtime:  136 Minutes              
Review Date:  6 July 2014                                                            Rating:  4 (of 6)

      Captain America: The Winter Soldier is better than its predecessor, though that doesn't necessarily say much as I found the original to be the worst entry in the Marvel Studios' superhero films.  Here the story is improved as is the pacing.

     Other strengths are that the new character of Falcon (played by Anthony Mackie) is enjoyable, Robert Redford's performance in his role as Alexander Pierce is top notch and Samuel Jackson's acting in this installment seems a little more believable than it had in his latest Marvel appearances.  In contrast, I still don't buy Cobie Smulders (of How I Met Your Mother) as an agent.  Standing there, yes, okay.  But once she speaks, it's all over.  However, other TV actors jumping on board, Revenge's Emily VanCamp, Lost's Alan Dale and Community's Danny Pudi, were all welcomed additions (the latter's cameo probably a nod from the directing brothers--Anthony and Joe Russo--both being Producers on that show, one having also directed).

     Surprisingly, this installment was written by the same guys that wrote The First Avenger and, for better or worse, they're on board for the next one, too.  As are the Russo brothers to direct again, hopefully to help continue steering the ship in the right direction away from the wreck of the original.

     Neither here nor there, while not too distracting, it is very apparent that Chevrolet it a sponsor of the film.  The 3D isn't distracting either but, that said, it does very little to enhance the experience and warrant that particular format.

     The chosen title is a little misleading because the movie in no way revolves around the Winter Soldier.  To be sure, he is present but in very small quantities.  I could easily pick a half-dozen better suited subtitles, some of which would give more of the plot away than I wish to do, others more subtle but still more appropriate.

     Take from that what you will.

Noah

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

 

by Frederick William Springer III

Noah

Release Date:  28 March 2014                                                              Runtime:  138 Minutes              

Review Date:  3 June 2014                                                                    Rating:  5 (of 6)

      It's always good to see Odin and the Frost Giants!  Oh, wait.  This isn't Thor: The Dark World?  Hmmm...

     The acting here is superb, you won't get any finer.  It was definitely nice to see Russell Crowe and Jennifer Connelly reunited as husband and wife, 13 years since A Beautiful Mind.  It's due to their performance and those of others that I give Noah high ratings.  That and if you've never heard the story of Noah before, you're walking in with a clean slate much like God was making a clean slate of the Earth, then you may want to jump in.  If you are familiar with the story of the ark, than maybe you'll want to see this version as a curiosity.  It is totally rewritten--really, Darren Aronofsky is taking a 6 page story at best and transforming it into a 2+ hour epic here--with so much to comment on, all spoilers, so don't read on if you would rather be as shocked as I was.

***

     Whether you go by the Old Testament standard, or one of the other similar stories found in many other religions and cultures, I'm pretty sure Rock Monsters were never part of the narrative.  Apparently there was also magic abound by human hands as well, most notably performed by Noah's grandfather Methuselah, portrayed here by Anthony Hopkins.  There's sleeping gas that conveniently works on animals (putting them into long-term hibernation, not needing any food or water) but has no effect on the unprotected humans wielding it.  Though gun powder was only discovered in the 9th century, here firing weapons were available.  And, seemingly, a female being stabbed in the stomach as a child makes her positively, unquestionably a barren adult; an adult that is never conclusively said to be betrothed to Shem, Noah's son, yet engages in sexual intercourse with him.  I somehow don't think the Creator would take too lightly to that.

     All these things would have Noah turning over in his grave, I'm sure, and condemned as outright blasphemous by the religious ilk.  But, then again, for these religious zealots, I remind them that Noah was supposedly 500-years-old when he had his 3 sons and 600 when the floodwaters came (so his kids in this movie should have been 100-year-old men, not teens and pre-teens).  Noah also lived another 350 years afterwards, so there's that...