Hunger Games: Mocking Jay-Part 1

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

Hunger Games:  Mocking Jay-Part 1

Release Date:  21 November 2014                                                      Runtime:  123 Minutes              

Review Date:  18 December 2014                                                       Rating:  5 (of 6)

      I'm not usually a fan of the corporate greed that leads a company to milk the last novel of a series by making 2 films based on it while every other previous entry is condensed into 1.  It was a complete failure, in my opinion, when done with the Harry Potter series, Part 1 of the Deathly Hallows two and a half hours of completely unnecessary exposition, the important elements capable of being more concise and included in Part 2 for one WHOLE movie. So it was a pleasant discovery to find that Hunger Games: Mockingjay-Part 1 was worthy of its own standalone picture.

     They kept with the same director from the last chapter and, though they hired a new batch of writers for the screenplay, the original author Suzanne Collins did the initial adaptation.  Much to her involvement I'm sure, Mockingjay seems to reasonably follow what happened in the novel.  And while I still would rather watch one supersized movie in one sitting than 2 viewings a year apart, I walked away more than satisfied with the final product.

 

Guardians of the Galaxy

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

 

Guardians of the Galaxy

Release Date:  1 August 2014                                                               Runtime:  121 Minutes              

Review Date:  16 December 2014                                                         Rating:  3 (of 6)

      While those that can't get enough of superhero films may bask in Guardians of the Galaxy, it failed to capture my interest.  Not that it was bad, per say, just didn't interest me in the least.  Which is too bad, because I've loved raccoons since I was a kid...

     On a side note, while I think Zoe Saldana is decent enough looking--she made an attractive Uhura--the green make-up job for Gamora made her pretty unappealing (despite the fact, it's worth noting, that green is my favorite color).  I don't know if it's meant for the whole "beauty is in the inside" sentiment or to convey that not all kick-ass warrior women have something going on in the looks department, but I thought it was a shame.  They could have gone more the route they did for Karen Gillian and her minor character of Nebula who was looking quite hot for an alien.  Just saying.

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.

 

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.