The Giver

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

The Giver

Release Date:  15 August 2014                                                          Runtime:  97 Minutes              

Review Date:  9 November 2014                                                       Rating:  5 (of 6)

     It's probably been 20 years since I read the book upon which the film is based, so I can't say with any certainty how closely The Giver is to the source material--there seemed to be some differences to my recollection--but as a movie it was solid.  As was the acting.

     (There even was an unexpected cameo, leaving me thinking, "Is that Taylor Swift?".  It was.)

 

As Above, So Below

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

As Above, So Below

Release Date:  29 August 2014                                                           Runtime:  93 Minutes              
Review Date:  9 November 2014                                                        Rating:  2 (of 6)

      A creepy movie set in the Parisian catacombs.  I was ready for a good horror flick, something I hadn't seen in sometime.  Unfortunately, when it comes to As Above, So Below, time keeps passing me by.

     What the trailer* both cleverly and deceptively hid was that this movie is all handheld (or headband held, 6 pin cameras in place in addition to a singular handheld).  That choice was a very poor one as the story was different and might have been somewhat entertaining if you could actually see it unfolding.  It doesn't work as a device either because, though this is supposed to be being recorded for a documentary, we know the lost cameras will never be recovered so how is it that we're viewing the footage from them? 

     Because of the God awful shaking, I'd be bestowing my first ever 1.  But I'll give the story a 3 and average it out to a more generous 2.  Either way, still not worth your time.

     *I went back and rewatched the trailer to be sure.  The clips are only seconds long and they chose the most steady, inserted freeze frames and added time lapses not in the movie to give the appearance of a regularly shot film with no mention at all that this was a "documentary" or any other indication that the viewer is in for shaky content from start to finish.  Shame on you Universal Pictures and Legendary Pictures!

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

  TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

 

 by Frederick William Springer III

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

Release Date:  08 August 2014                                                             Runtime:  101 Minutes              
Review Date:  21 October 2014                                                             Rating:  5 (of 6)

    As an adaptation of the original 1987 show (I admittedly haven't seen the later 1997, 2003 or 2012 incursions or the initial 1984 comic book source material), Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is pretty decent.  The elements and the essence are all there.

     Here the origin story of the turtles and Splinter are again altered, as they were in the 1990 film, but it doesn't differ too greatly.  (Though, the mutagen being as powerful as it was, it seems odd that Donatello would need to wear corrective eyewear). 

     However, linking April to the backstory à la the new Peter Parker backstory is not only unbelievably coincidental but becoming overdone theatrically, at least in this very parallel way.  How Splinter learns ninjutsu is a little farfetched and the delivery method coming into his possession highly coincidental again.  Megan Fox doesn't strike me as a natural fit for April O'Neil.  And the Foot Soldiers are kind of lame.  But, as parts of the whole, these things can be easily overlooked.

     The writers, Evan Daugherty and partners Josh Appelbaum & Andre Nemec, were able to implement things from the cartoon without them feeling forced or overly corny, as well as sow the seeds for the future of the franchise in a very subtle fashion.  For instance, in a throwaway line that could be missed if one wasn't paying attention, the word "alien" was uttered in a context which could imply Kraang.

     With (weakly) introduced science entering into the picture, I do question the creation of the Sacks character.  I believe Daugherty, Appelbaum & Nemec could have taken things a step further by replacing him with another character from TMNT canon beginning with that letter "S"--Stockman.  Baxter Stockman.  After all, both are scientists and Sacks says that one of his motivations for his nefarious plans for the future is to become "stupid rich"--judging by his mega mansion and huge property, this feels hollow as he already appears just that--which can easily be passed off on anyone, the link between Sacks and the Shredder not really that important.  This way they could have smoothly built to his transformation down the road, rather than force it in one film.

     I was pleasantly surprised to see Will Arnett finally growing just a little as an actor.  In the past, it seemed he couldn't shake his Arrested Development persona, every character from the center piece in Running Wilde to Brent in The Increasingly Poor Decisions of Todd Margaret a Job redux, making him seem like a one trick pony.  But not here.  (Granted, it's no Academy performance either, but just enough of a change from the old.)

 

     The only real disappointment here was that they opted to turn my favorite turtle as a child, Michelangelo, into this hip hop dude.  While he maintains his comical sense, I wasn't really digging his new musical sensibilities or lifestyle.  I got over it though and, perhaps over zealously, award this flick a 5.

 

Lucy

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

 by Frederick William Springer III

Lucy

Release Date:  25 July 2014                                                                    Runtime:  89 Minutes              

Review Date:  14 October 2014                                                              Rating:  3.5 (of 6)

     "Life was given to you a billion years ago.  Now you know what to do with it."*  Um, stop seeing Luc Besson movies?

      While I always enjoy watching Morgan Freeman perform, his role is limited and not worth watching Lucy for.  Scarlet Johansson, while she can act, usually does nothing for me on screen (though, interestingly, I did enjoy her voice as the operating system in Her).  As she is the title character here, that's problematic.

 

 

     The story is a little different, though I wouldn't call it all-out weird, which was enough to hook me into giving it a try but not enough to keep me interested.  Luckily, the pacing and editing were good, so while my interest did wane, there was never a lull for me to actually get bored.

     Luc Besson fans are going to see Lucy regardless of what I think, but the rest of you can skip this one.

 

     *Oh, by the way, primates can only be traced back 65 MILLION years, not a BILLION.  Single-celled organisms can be traced back 3.8 Billion, but life forms we're more familiar with only began to appear 570 million years ago.  Again, not a BILLION.  So, if you're trying to build off science fact for your film, which all things suggest, than maybe you should take 10 minutes and actually get the facts straight!

      (On a related side note, a neat graphic of life on earth can be viewed here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Geological_time_spiral.png)

The Purge: Anarchy

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

The Purge: Anarchy

Release Date:  18 July 2014                                                              Runtime:  103 Minutes              

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

 

 

     As speculated after the first, the basic concept paved the way for numerous possibilities and paths for future sequels to follow.  Here, rather than choosing 1 (or even 2 or 3) of these, The Purge: Anarchy opted to cram too many different directions all in one.

 

 

     Instead of one set of protagonists, we have 3 sets that come together, their plight unraveling across a downtown city landscape.  Other than you average, run of the mill Purgers, we have antagonists in the form of 2 specialized groups (and a minor 3rd).  And, just for good measure, we also have an underground rebellion movement taking place.

 

 

     While all these components may have been able to work together, I never gave a shit about any of the characters and didn't much care what happened to them.  The way this film was executed left the novelty of the franchise's premise wearing off and nothing otherwise engaging me.

 

 

     While I bestowed writer/director James DeMonaco accolades on the first film--"...give a lot of credit because, with a very simple premise, he's managed to set up a potential, never ending franchise..."-- here I take them away, demerits in their place.  DeMonaco could have just killed his potential cash cow, other than it still having been, relatively, dirt cheap to produce at 9 million, recouping almost an additional 21 million it's opening weekend alone. 

 

 

     So, though I'll choose to part ways here, I'm sure another installment will be in the works.

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.