Retirement

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

      I'm officially announcing my semi-retirement.  This blog started to serve as a portfolio should a movie critic position open up and I needed to present sample reviews.

     However, 3 1/2 years and 110 reviews later, it has become more like a chore, an unwanted obligation and any fun has been sucked out of it.  You know what would be fun?  Getting paid.

     I was initially going to hang my hat on the 100th current review (Tomorrowland) mid-July
but with the latest Bond, final Hunger Games and the start of a new Star Wars trilogy all on the immediate horizon, films I thought I might have something to say about, I figured I'd hold on rather than quickly jump out of retirement as soon as I had entered it.

     Now, moving forward, I'll only take to the keyboard if I feel extremely passionate about a film, one way or the other.  Or the movie starts with a "Q", "U", "Y" or "Z", just to fill the alphabet void.

     (June 5, 2012-Dec 23, 2015)

Star Wars: The Force Awakens in IMAX 3D

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

Star Wars: The Force Awakens in IMAX 3D

Release Date:  18 December 2015                                              Runtime:  135 Minutes              

Review Date:  23 December 2015                                               Rating:  4 (of 6

     Well, at least it wasn't The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.  But even so, Star Wars: The Force Awakens took some major missteps.  To elaborate, I'd have to jump into spoilers, so I'll hold off just a moment.

     What can be addressed first is one other issue.  Throughout the beginning, the character of Finn (John Boyega) is one big walking emoticon, looking completely ridiculous.  One almost would welcome Jar Jar Binks back in his stead.  However, it is apparent that Boyega can actually act from the other 2/3 of the film, so go figure.

     What The Force Awakens does have working for it is a good editing pace.  And 2 cool scenes where a Destroyer hangs out into the audience, if you saw it in 3D.  However, while having no basis of comparison, I don't think the IMAX 3D experience is really necessary.

     Everything else has at least a hint of SPOILERS so you've been warned.  If you want to go see the movie with a clean, untainted slate, stop reading now.

 

 

     **SPOILERS:

     While originally the screenplay was promisingly written by Lawrence Kasdan, who also penned The Empire Strikes Back (and Raiders of the Lost Ark), it was then retooled by Michael Ardnt (Toy Story 3 and Catching Fire) and Director J.J. Abrams.  The end product is an installment passing the torch, as I believe was always intended, but I think the fans, after a 30 year wait, were looking more for a continuation or, at the very least, balanced involvement of the old and the new.  Instead, you fuck with the fans by saying you're bringing back the original cast, yet Carrie Fisher has very little screentime, and that could have been easily removed, not helping progress the story forward in any way, her involvement insignificant.  Then in the teaser trailer we hear Luke's voice overlaid the length of that commercial.  Well, that was one big joke, because Mark Hamill only appears in the last 60 seconds and says nothing at all.  NOT ONE DAMN WORD.

     Harrison Ford, did have a sizeable presence.  Though, it appears they only coaxed him into returning by offering what he wanted for the character in the original trilogy.  The way they did it here was kind of dull and lame.  If you want to pull that shit off with an iconic character, maybe you should refer to the playbook used for William Shatner in Star Trek Generations or Leonard Nimoy in The Wrath of Khan.

     Over all, I think ultimately maybe J.J. shouldn't have jumped ships, trading the Enterprise for the Millennium Falcon, because what he did for Star Trek he certainly didn't do here for Star Wars.  (His greatest contribution is reigning in the CGI, opting to return to more practical effects.)  Philosophically, I get it and originally supported his decision--he grew up a fan and dreamed of taking the reins, so when someone offers you your dream, a rare thing most people never are given a shot at, you take it.  But that doesn't always translate into something good (see Rob Zombie's Halloween).

     Then there are the plot holes, the hit your forehead moments, and things that don't ring true (which number too many to touch on all of them).  Let's work backwards.  MAJOR SPOLIER if you haven't already figured it out and haven't heeded my last warning: When Chewie is first reunited with Princess Leia, he gives her a huge, emotional bear hug.  Yet, returning from the mission in which Han Solo is killed, he disembarks from the Millennium Falcon and walks right past Leia like she's a stranger, without so much as a word of condolence (or moan/grunt as the case may be), without so much as even sympathetically looking at her, though he's almost close enough to knock into her.  WHAT.  THE.  FUCK?!  Unless this is some kind of Wookie cultural thing, it is completely unbelievable and thus mishandled.  Yet when Rey (Daisy Ridley), who we've seen have no relationship with General Leia onscreen, gets off the ship, she almost makes a beeline for Leia and the two share a lingering emotional embrace.

     Speaking of Rey, how is it that she suddenly, on her own cognizance, realizes her powers as an adult and is able to control them instantly?  This goes counter to everything we've learned in the past 2 trilogies.  Even an adult Luke Skywalker had to be coaxed into discovering his abilities.  He also had to learn to handle a lightsaber, something non-Jedi, Force void Finn picks up immediately as does Rey.

     Now that we're on to Luke, there's a map to his location?  A map that was broken into several pieces and now there's a treasure hunt for the last piece and him?  Come on!

     On the same footing, Death Star 3?  Really?  REALLY?!  You couldn't come up with a new weapon?  Something original?  Then you even, almost tongue in cheek, acknowledge this goof by explaining it's not the Death Star but the "Starkiller".  If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, even if it is 4 times bigger, it's still a duck.  And if the Empire was pretty much demolished in Return of the Jedi, how would you keep the construction of something of that massive size hidden, especially since the Rebels that had now destroyed 2 of them would surely be vigilantly on the outlook to keep a resurgence of the Empire from forming as well as their deadliest weapon?

     The Emperor had been the evil puppeteer in the galaxy.  So who's this new unexplained super villain, Supreme Leader Snoke, and where did he come from?

     And then there's the new henchman, who's supposed to be Darth Vader incarnate. How exactly did he turn to the Dark Side?  It was shown that Anakin Skywalker began his training later in life than he ought to have and, with the power he had within himself, he had a hard time controlling it when his slave mother was slaughtered before he could save her, sending his emotions and sanity off the charts.  But Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) presumably had two loving parents and a decent home life/upbringing, we have no reason to believe otherwise knowing these characters, so what the hell could have possibly triggered him unless schizophrenia is a thing a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

     We're also told Kylo Ren had too much Vader in him.  Again, Anakin didn't start off evil, and there was a set of extraordinary circumstances that set him off in that path, a manipulative authority figure present in his life coaxing it out of him, but no such glimpse is offered about Ben Solo other than that, after these suspicions were realized, whether this was at 2 or 12, they had Luke train him and he failed.  So he worships Vader's burnt helmet--where'd he get that?  I'm sure Luke didn't save it, if he had wanted it he wouldn't have put it on the funeral pyre to begin with--seemingly totally oblivious that Anakin redeemed himself in the end, turning his back on the Dark Side.  Also, neither Han Solo or Leia knew Anakin, just Vader, so to say Ben had too much Vader in him, Ben must have been some real twisted, bad ass mother fucker of a kid.  However, when he is sans mask, you get the impression of anything but...  (Of course, in the original trilogy, we started off knowing nothing of Vader or the Emperor's origin, and that worked well at the time.  But since we know where Kylo Ren originated from, these questions bear a lot more weight and deserve more consideration.)

     And though the events of the original trilogy only took place 30 years ago, many of the characters say they believed all the elements involved--the characters, Jedis, the Force--were all folklore and legend.  Umm, it was only 30 years ago.  I get this is a huge universe where things may not have impacted people directly, but it's hard to believe that those that populate it would think something so recent was more or less made up.  I don't think if you tell a teenager that in the 80s there were no cell phones or computers that they'd turn to you and say they thought the lack of technology was just a myth.  Or that the Berlin Wall was the stuff of legends.

     Now, maybe all this shit will all be answered down the road but what ever happened to stand-alone films in a franchise, instead of another Lost (which, by the way, you could at least get a little taste of, a little bread crumb thrown at you every week rather than a whole year and a half wait)?  You didn't have to get to Lethal Weapon 4 to understand the first Lethal Weapon or The Last Crusade to grasp Raiders of the Los Ark.  Nor did you need to see Return of the Jedi in the original trilogy to get A New Hope (though Obi-Won essentially committing suicide still doesn't make any real sense.)

 

Hunger Games: Mocking Jay Part 2

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

Hunger Games:  Mocking Jay Part 2

Release Date:  20 November 2015                                                       Runtime:  137 Minutes              

Review Date:  5 December 2015                                                           Rating:  5 (of 6)

      Quite simply, Mocking Jay Part 2 was a satisfying conclusion to the series, Philip Hoffman Seymour's demise fortunately not affecting the film, the writers and director from Part 1 safely guiding the ship to port.

 

Spectre

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

    

Frederick William Springer III

Spectre

Release Date:   6 November 2015                                                      Runtime:   148 Minutes              

Review Date:  30 November 2015                                                      Rating:  4.5 (of 6)

 

     While I didn't expect it to measure up to the previous installment--Skyfall was something of a masterpiece--Spectre fired blanks.

     After a very convoluted plot, revelations that should have been organic felt forced.  The villain was rather weak overall and considering that we're being reintroduced to an iconic character, that's troubling.

     Since Daniel Craig stepped into Bond's shoes, we've more or less stayed within the confines of reality, at least more so than during any other portrayal.  Here, however, in some kind of henchman throwback, we get one that has seemingly superhuman strength and his first disposal is just weird.  The character was unsatisfying and out of place, just thrown in the mix.  Thankfully confined to one scene, the over the top car gadgets make a comeback as well.

 

     Also, of the 24 007 films in the EON canon (and even including the non-canon Connery Never Say Never Again), Spectre wins the award for worst theme song, ever.  If the franchise is slowly trying to reintroduce elements of the original series, here they might do well to bring back Shirley Bassey, the only singer to do more than one Bond theme song--she did 3!--for the next outing.  At 78 (79 a day before I turn 35 in a month, should you want to send gifts), she's still active, having just recorded a new album last year.

     What was good was the editing, not to mention the cinematography.  The 2 and a half hours flew by, never leaving you looking at your watch counting the minutes, though a lot was dragged out longer than it needed to be.  Also nice was the inclusion of more screen time for the supporting characters, otherwise underutilized in most of the series.

     I've been impressed with the reboot in general so this misstep, while not bad--certainly better than any of Roger Moore's 7 outings--just proves that they can't all be winners.

 

The Intern

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

    

Frederick William Springer III

 

The Intern

Release Date:  25 September 2015                                                 Runtime:  121 Minutes              

Review Date:  26 November 2015                                                  Rating:  4 (of 6)

 

 

      Titled The Intern, the movie is almost equally about his boss.  While the story was alright and it had a good cast (Robert DeNiro, Anne Hathaway and Rene Russo), if you're looking for a comedy about older interns I'd go with The Internship which came out 15 months earlier.



The Man from U.N.C.L.E.

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

 

by Frederick William Springer III

 

The Man from U.N.C.L.E.

Release Date:  14 August 2015                                                             Runtime:  116 Minutes              
Review Date:  1 November 2015                                                           Rating:  3 (of 6)

      Artistically, I loved the color scheme of The Man from U.N.C.L.E. poster.  Unfortunately, you shouldn't use such aesthetics as the basis of choosing films to view.

     On the whole, the movie was just stale.  Here Superman seems like he's doing his best to do a Cary Elwes impersonation which makes no sense because he's playing an American and sounded like one while portraying Clark Kent in Man of Steel.

     This picture is based on the 1964-68 television series of the same name.  Long before my time and not something I ever caught in reruns, I can't say how faithful it was to its predecessor but I can say I didn't have any nostalgia affecting my opinion.  This movie follows the original 2 main characters in a prequel showcasing how it is they became partnered up, apparently something that wasn't really addressed in the TV show.  Holding no enchantment for me, it didn't awaken any interest in the TV series or desire to see any sequels it may spawn.

Ant-Man

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

 

by Frederick William Springer III

 

Ant-Man

Release Date:  17 July 2015                                                                  Runtime:  117 Minutes              

Review Date:  1 November 2015                                                           Rating:  4 (of 6)

 

     Ant-Man isn't the best, nor the worst, in the ever-growing Marvel Cinematic Universe stable.  The story, acting and effects are all decent and there are a few fun moments tossed in.  No need for me to drone on any further.

Sinister II

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

Sinister II

Release Date:   21 August 2015                                                                 Runtime:  97 Minutes     

Review Date:  6 October 2015                                                                     Rating:  2.5 (of 6)

     Lame.

     This time around, we witness firsthand how the type of snuff film home movies discovered in the last installment were created.

     While that description has promise, the creepiness the original contained is lost here, any "scares" manufactured by blasts of sound not even made by objects in the environment but in the score--the cheapest, most empty gimmick a horror film can employ.

 

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...)