Jurassic World

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

Jurassic World in 3D

Release Date:  12 June 2015                                                            Runtime:  124 Minutes              
Review Date:  25 August 2015                                                         Rating:  5 (of 6)

     Jurassic World was the invigorating shot in the arm that the franchise needed and it didn't surprise me at all to see it was provided by the same writing team that successfully launched the reboot of the Planet of the Apes series.

     Technology coming a long way in 22 years, the original really being one of the first to use it, the CGI looks less like CGI and makes the story more seamless.

     For die-hard fans of Jurassic Park (and its sequels), there are enough Easter eggs and throwbacks peppered throughout for reminiscent nods, much as Rick Jaffa & Amanda Silver did with Rise of the Planet of the Apes.  The cool thing about this duo, besides being talented, is that they're fans too and it shows.

Mad Max: Fury Road

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

Mad Max: Fury Road in 3D

Release Date:  15 May 2015                                                          Runtime:  120 Minutes              
Review Date:  6 August 2015                                                         Rating:  4 (of 6)

     The cinematography is great.  The story is alright.  If you're an action junkie, the practically non-stop pacing of Mad Max: Fury Road will scratch your itch.

     I must say the band was ridiculous.  And awesome.  Everyone should have one on their travels.

Tomorrowland

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

 Tomorrowland

Release Date:  22 May 2015                                                                Runtime:  130 Minutes              
Review Date:  14 July 2015                                                                  Rating:  3 (of 6)

     Lackluster is a good description of Tomorrowland.  The whole first hour until the main characters finally begin to interact with one another onscreen is dull, only becoming a little more interesting once they do.  If this serves as any kind of indicator, I think writer/director Brad Bird ought to stick to computer animation with fare such as The Incredibles.

     I do appreciate the minor social message, that people have within their power the ability to make positive changes rather than seeing the negative as inevitable and doing nothing at all.  However, I do think that's over simplifying the issue as most people more likely have ostrich syndrome, not even realizing a problem exists or ignoring it if they do, sticking their head in the sand.  Or they see negative repercussions or positive restructuring as something that takes too much time with the payoff being too far down the road for them to care beyond themselves in the moment NOW.

Avengers: Age of Ultron

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

 

Avengers: Age of Ultron

Release Date:  1 May 2015                                                                   Runtime:  141 Minutes              

Review Date:  7 July 2015                                                                     Rating:  4 (of 6)

      If you want your audience to feel as though it's witnessing someone else playing a video game rather than watching a movie, than, by all means, load the first couple minutes of your film with as much CGI as Avengers: Age of Ultron.

     Past that, this installment was generally better than the last because it actually had a feasible plot--the team falling for Loki's transparent trap last time around absurd.  But, at the same time, we feel the absence of Loki's fun character.  Another missing element that had worked in the last was the playful give and take between Stark and Banner, present only in a diminished capacity here.

     Writer/Director Joss Whedon was able to nicely weave in cameos by other characters from each of the standalone films--Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America--which was a nice touch, tying them altogether beyond just involving the titular characters.  However, even though we did dig just a little deeper into some of the characters this time round, particularly with Hawkeye and Black Widow, and even with Samuel Jackson finally bringing his A-game after underwhelming and unconvincing performances in the others pictures in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the piece as a whole still felt a little flat. 

     (As a side note that may be of interest to some, I saw the original Avengers a month before I started writing movie reviews.  I immediately thereafter mused that I should have begun earlier with that film, as I had a lot to say about it at the time, mostly negative observations.  I have since lightly ribbed it in 7 other reviews over the past 3 years, still not fully covering my distain but at least broaching it.  Here's a taste:

     "The Dark Knight Rises delivers where Avengers did not--story."

     "If I could only pick one superhero movie to see this summer, it would still be The Dark Knight Rises but in a distant second, I just might pick The Amazing Spider-Man over the overrated Avengers."

     In Robocop, "...Samuel Jackson's Pat Novak, a satire of cable personalities purporting to represent the news, falls flat just as his Nick Fury does in all the Marvel movies, particularly in The Avengers."

     "I will say that 3D technology has seemingly improved over the past year, the action sequences in The Avengers (which were a large part of that movie) blurry and hard to follow, whereas here [G.I. Joe: Retaliation] they are more crisp and clean (but not quite perfected yet)."

     "I can also say it's more enjoyable watching Loki (Tom Hiddleston) here [Thor: The Dark World] than it was in The Avengers."

     "Here [Django Unchained], my faith in Samuel L. Jackson’s ability to act has been restored.  His brief appearances in the Marvel movies culminating in a main role in The Avengers all fell flat to me.  Worse than flat—phony."

     And, "Iron Man 3 returned the franchise (and Marvel) to the quality level it should be, surpassing the misfire that was Iron Man 2 (as well as The Avengers--I didn't get on that bandwagon, thought it was pretty bad--and Captain America for that matter, too--the worst in the whole series).")

CHAPPiE

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

 by Frederick William Springer III

CHAPPiE

Release Date:  6 March 2015                                                                Runtime:  120 Minutes              
Review Date:  28 April 2015                                                                 Rating:  3.5 (of 6)

      There has been talk about Short Circuit getting the reboot treatment for some years now.  While that project seems to have stalled, the closest thing to be released in the meantime is CHAPPiE, having the same major elements of a unique self-aware robot, originally made for law enforcement, learning and growing as a conscious individual.

     This film better explores the nature vs nurture element of a sentient being's upbringing, Chappie beginning with a clean slate but being taught by criminals, not knowing that what he is doing is wrong, perhaps trying to open the world's eyes, through its viewing audience, that by and large some criminals may simply not know what they're doing is wrong, a victim of circumstance.

     Here, I think we have CGI at its best.  Though I doubt robots were actually used, those on the screen appear 100% authentic not appearing fake in the least.  This IS how CGI should be used.

     That all being said, even with Hugh Jackman and Sigourney Weaver among the cast, I didn't find this movie to be overly compelling.  This may be, in part, because at many times what is supposed to be the background music is drowning out the actual dialogue, which is a disservice to the story and nepotism at that because much of the soundtrack is comprised of the rap/rave music of Die Antwoord, two of the main characters members of this band and the film actually using their real stage names.  (As a side note, weirdly there is a character that has English subtitles even though he is speaking English.   This would have better served Bane in The Dark Knight Rises than it does here, his speech discernable.)

     All-in-all, this isn't much a step up from writer/director Neill Blomkamp's Elysium and probably about just on par with his District 9 which leads me to the conclusion that I'm just not a Blomkamp fan and that I don't have any favorable thoughts about him taking over the Alien franchise, his next project.

50 Shades of Grey

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

50 Shades of Grey

Release Date:  13 February 2015                                                                    Runtime:  125 Minutes  

Review Date:  29 March 2015                                                                         Rating:  4 (of 6)

      For being based on "erotic" subject matter, 50 Shades of Grey is rather tame.  Sure, there may be a little more nudity than other films but it doesn't come across as sexy in the least --you probably get steamier fare with a whole host of popular TV programs on cable.

     Also, movies usually have climaxes and even mini-crescendos, tension and anticipation building, drawing in the audience and getting them involved.  This film is rather even-keeled, just is, droning on, no highs or lows, towing the middle for 2 hours.

     Speaking of climaxes and lack thereof, one of the main parts of the book is Anastasia Steele's sexual awakening.  Yet on film, not once is she seen or heard having an orgasm. 

     Which brings us to how the movie fares as an adaptation.  Anastasia's orgasms and her sexual anticipations, in general, were a HUGE part of the novel so their absence here is felt and mystifying.  (Additionally, she is a very inexperienced virgin who is overwhelmed by how big she perceives Grey's penis, it mentioned several times over the course of the novel and not mentioned at all here.)  The movie also downplays Christian Grey's overwhelmingly controlling personality.  In the book, he's constantly hounding Anastasia to eat and her diet is part of the contract he presents.  It's a point of contention, going back and forth throughout.  His gifts usually demonstrate his controlling nature as well but in the movie they are also glossed over.

     In the novel, when Grey discovers her mode of transportation he, over-reacting, freaks out and insists she not drive her Volkswagen Beetle.  They argue about it.  Then he goes ahead and gets her a new car anyway, the argument continuing when he goes behind her back against her wishes.  Here, he just buys her a car as a graduation gift with little protest.  In the novel, Grey makes Anastasia so confused and unhappy that she cries and cries, prompting her to go visit her mother across the continent to get away from him.  Here, there's no upset, she just, out of nowhere, decides she's going on the trip.  And, in the novel, while there, she starts drunk texting Grey, causing him, to once again, admonish her for drinking before the reveal that he is there, too.  Here, there's no drunken back-and-forth, just an "another Cosmo?" to serve as his suave introduction of being on the premises.

     The other major problem on the adaptation level is the casting, all the way around.  Grey is pretty much supposed to be the living embodiment of Adonis--it's not just a character flaw of Anastasia, the whole female population melts over this guy's looks.  While I don't think Jamie Dornan is a bad looking guy, he falls far short of his counterpart's description.  Anastasia is supposed to be an attractive girl who doesn't realize her own beauty, uncomfortable in her own skin--imagine Rachel Leigh Cook's character in She's All That.  Sorry, Dakota Johnson, your portrayal is that of an average Plain Jane, far missing the mark.  Her roommate and best friend Kate is supposed to be quite the looker, someone you might expect to find on the arm of someone like Grey to compliment his perfection.  Here Eloise Mumford is little better than average herself.

     Overall, though, other than these sticking points, as an adaptation 50 Shades of Grey is actually quite faithful.  Taking a 500 page novel and condensing it to 2 hours is not always an easy feat but is nicely done in this case by Kelly Marcel.  The other cuts were probably a good thing, a lot of her internalized thinking that can't be shown on screen, her incessant and annoying "oh mys", her talks with her "inner goddess", her confounded repeated reference to her genitals as "my sex"--I get the character is studying English Lit and maybe she thinks using that phrase makes her sound sophisticated, but what American woman uses that?  She'd say pussy, plain and simple.  Vagina if she was uptight.  Cunt if she was a little vulgar.  Lips or clit.  But not "my sex".

     I had caught headlines that mentioned a problem with the ending of the film and I can attest there were those in my viewing audience that found it problematic, too, but I wasn't one of them.  It's abrupt to be sure, but it is a final solid conclusion.  And, pretty spot on with the book, so kudos.  I guess those making a stink didn't actually read the novel and it came as a surprise.

     For my part, I wouldn't necessarily recommend the novel.  I had no inclination to read it myself but knowing that my girlfriend would eventually drag me to this movie, I opted to be versed in the source material.  After the annoyances I mentioned 2 paragraphs back, I had no desire to continue the trilogy and that feeling crosses over to the cinematic world should they move forward with future films.  (And, who are we kidding?, the vampires will milk it for all they can...)



Taken 3

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

 

by Frederick William Springer III

 Taken 3

Release Date:   9 January 2015                                                           Runtime: 109 Minutes              

Review Date:  24 March 2015                                                             Rating:  4 (of 6)

     Unlike with the previous installments, I wasn't very taken with Taken 3.

     Nor does the title really live up to its name.

     Here we have the nice addition of Forest Whitaker to the cast.  However, his Franck Dotzler is a very, very mellowed out version of the Tommy Lee Jones character in The Fugitive and U.S. Marshalls.  So mellow in fact that he's almost like an absentee dad.  Unfortunately, he's not too commanding a presence when he isn't.

     While there is action to be sure, that almost seems laid back, too.  The formula in the past films was a kidnapping, plenty of action and a foreign locale all nicely edited together.  This time around, even the foreign locale is absent, everything taking place in L.A.  And at 109 minutes, this has the longest runtime in the franchise.

     To their credit, they've kept the same writers on the entire series (though that's probably because one of them is the producer).  While this is something I'd normally applaud, here it may have been more of a hindrance, their idea stale.

     The only real bonus here is the appearance of Jon Gries, limited though it was, me always happy to see him since his days on The Pretender.  (In fairness, Leland Orser was also in The Pretender guest starring in several episodes but I didn't much care for his character there, though I enjoy him in Taken.)