Monday at the Movies - April 28, 2014

Welcome to another edition of “Monday at the Movies.” This week, animated movies that don’t have the word “Batman” in the title!

Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox (2013) – The Flash (Justin Chambers) wakes up in a world he doesn’t recognize, where Aquaman and Wonder Woman are at war, where Thomas Wayne is Batman (Kevin McKidd); suspecting his nemesis Professor Zoom (C. Thomas Howell), Flash sets out to restore his powers and the world he knows before this one destroys itself in war.  While I greatly enjoyed the original comics by Geoff Johns and Andy Kubert, I felt a little underwhelmed by the film adaptation for two big reasons: its ambition and its animation.  In terms of ambition, this 80-minute film tries to embrace the scope of the entire comic series, a summer crossover spanning more than sixty single issues.  Add to that the film’s attempt to adapt a Flash-centric comic into a Justice League adventure, and you’re looking at a heavy dose of Easter eggs that don’t really advance the plot.  Having said that, the way that the filmmakers recount the brilliant Batman: Knight of Vengeance (by Brian Azzarello and Eduardo Risso) in about ten seconds is genius, highlighting the clever twist Azzarello brought to the alternate-world story.  My second grievance is the animation style, much looser and anime-inflected than some of the more polished recent entries from the DC Universe Animated Original Movies studio.  While this aesthetic is probably appealing to some, it feels choppy and bargain-bin, far from the caliber I’d expect from the DC studio.  It’s a diverting enough film, told capably if briskly with a few memorable sequences, but it’s so incredibly dark (one character is shot in the head, in extremely graphic detail, more than warranting its PG-13 rating) and so poorly animated that it’s hard to imagine anyone who isn’t a diehard DC devotee lapping this one up.

Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008) – Hard to believe I’ve never reviewed a Star Wars film on here, isn’t it?  This is a bit of an odd place to start, a midquel made three years after Episode III but set before it as a backdoor pilot for a television series of the same name.  A classic gripe about the prequel trilogy is that we never see the much-heralded Clone Wars, which begin in Episode II’s climax and end in Episode III; this film and its progeny attempt to bridge that gap.  In 3D modeling reminiscent of a video game, Anakin Skywalker (Matt Lanter) and Obi-Wan Kenobi (James Arnold Taylor) defend the Republic from the Separatist forces that threaten to tear it apart; amid the chaos of war, Anakin takes on a Padawan, young Ahsoka Tano (Ashley Eckstein), as they liberate planets and the kidnapped son of Jabba the Hutt.  Though I’ve heard good things about the television show that followed, the fact is that The Clone Wars is not much better than the prequel trilogy that preceded it – but it is better by virtue of stronger dialogue and better characterization, safely away from the pen of George Lucas.  The real gem is the character of Ahsoka; the thought of Anakin taking on an apprentice is not exactly appealing, but Eckstein gives the character a spirited persona with an infectious eagerness to master the Jedi ways.  If I end up watching the show, it’ll largely be to see what comes of her character.  Unfortunately, while The Clone Wars improves on Lucas’s apparent inability to write character with personalities, it suffers from the prequel trilogy’s over-cluttered nature, with way too many subplots, double/triple-crosses, and characters dropped in solely for fan service.  For example, I’ll never really complain about Samuel L. Jackson’s presence, but his voiceover as Mace Windu accomplishes literally nothing.  Ditto for the surprisingly offensive homophobia in the effete character of Ziro the Hutt (think Jabba by way of Truman Capote in garish drag).  If such a thing exists, The Clone Wars is a misstep in the right direction, rectifying a few of the prequel trilogy’s errors but committing a few of its own.

That does it for this week’s edition of “Monday at the Movies.” We’ll see you here next week!

Transcendence (2014)

While I spend a lot of time on this blog heralding the innovative vision of Christopher Nolan, I’ve never mentioned the name Wally Pfister, Nolan’s chief cinematographer and a key guiding hand in the creation of that aforementioned vision.  The shadow of Nolan looms large over Pfister’s directorial debut Transcendence, though the end result feels more like the work of an impressionist than a disciple.

Transcendence stars Johnny Depp as Dr. Will Caster, an artificial-intelligence scientist shot with a radiation-laced bullet by anti-tech terrorists.  During his last weeks, Will’s wife Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) works to digitize and upload her husband’s consciousness, to the dismay of their friend Max Waters (Paul Bettany).  Max fears that the program Evelyn activates isn’t really Will, fears that take on weight when “Will” quickly advances beyond the realm of the possible.

Transcendence clearly rides the post-Inception wave of high-concept science fiction, a wave dominated by the technical achievement of Gravity.  With Transcendence, Pfister and screenwriter Jack Paglen tackle the issue of the singularity, a post-human digital environment epitomized by the idea of “living long enough to upload.”  The film poses a number of important questions about this technology – how much of a personality is changed during the dehumanizing process of uploading?  What are the upward limits of “transcendence”?  And at what point does AI surpass our understanding of conventional morality?

Unfortunately, Transcendence never really answers those questions, stopping short at presenting them.  What’s frustrating, though, is that the film presents these questions as though they will become important plot points, as when anxiety arises about whether “Will” is really Will; though at least one scene teases an answer to the question, it’s never revisited until the conclusion, which takes the answer for granted.  To be fair, this is Paglen’s film debut as well as Pfister’s, and he’s already offered something smarter than most science fiction does, but it is only half the battle.

Just as the script only takes us halfway there, the rest of the film never quite emotionally engages.  Depp and Hall have genuine chemistry together, playing the quirky-scientist-couple brilliantly in the one scene they have together before Will is shot, and Hall proves herself the actual star of the show with a commanding lead as the increasingly-distraught Evelyn.  As for Depp, he acquits himself rather well, playing a subdued performance that you won’t believe comes from the same man as last summer’s Tonto.  The rest of the cast, though – Morgan Freeman and Cillian Murphy among them – are basically interchangeable, which is a shame given the range they’ve displayed elsewhere (and largely in Nolan films).

This, then, is the larger weakness of Transcendence – its inability to pass the Plinkett test,¹ which requires characters to be distinct beyond physical appearance and function to the plot.  Will and Evelyn for all intents and purposes pass the test, though none of the other characters do.  The result is a fairly uneven film, in which two out of three running plotlines proceed purely on the requirements of the narrative itself.  The film needs an antagonist for its central AI-based protagonist, so a thinly characterized terrorist group (RIFT) is created, with oblique gestures at their motives.  Common sense suggests that the US government might object to the existence of “Will” on their soil, so a team of government agents chases the plot wherever it goes.

I’ve never fully understood why some moviegoers have difficulty connecting emotionally to Christopher Nolan’s work.  Despite the overtly cerebral nature of his films, they’re anchored by very human stories, such that the very ending of Inception cares more for how its protagonist acts than whether what’s happening is actually real.  (The same can’t be said for twist-ending flicks like The Sixth Sense, where the revelation is all.)  With Transcendence, though, I feel like I’ve approximated that sensation; Will and Evelyn aside, I couldn’t engage emotionally with any of the characters on screen and indeed found several of their decisions – mostly shifts in allegiance – to be baffling beyond the necessity of the plot.  I have no idea, for example, how Freeman’s character goes from desk-jockey scientist to FBI analyst, or why (potential spoilers ahead) Paul Bettany’s character joins up with RIFT – beyond, that is, the need for characters in a film to move toward the conclusion of the plot.

At the core of Transcendence is a very moving, very meaningful science-fictional take on a hetero-organic marriage between a woman and her computer – the dark response, I suppose, to Spike Jonze’s Her.  Orbiting that compelling story, though, is a series of narrative false steps and mechanical storytelling that make Transcendence more of a disappointment than Pfister’s promising career to date would have foretold.  One wonders what would have come of “Christopher Nolan’s Transcendence” had a more deft filmmaker been at the helm.  Transcendence is just shy of a failure, feeling more like the training wheels on Pfister’s bike were taken off a bit too soon.

Transcendence is rated PG-13 for “sci-fi action and violence, some bloody images, brief strong language and sensuality.”  There are a few shootings with a fair amount of blood (mostly seen as bloodstains on clothing), and some viewers might be ooked out by the moments when machines augment human bodies via healing or implantation.

---

1 Plinkett dismantles the Star Wars prequels in a series of YouTube videos for many reasons, most prominently its failure to create characters as rich as the ones from the original trilogy. A focus group in his Phantom Menace review is able to describe with great precision the personalities of Han Solo and C-3PO but is unable to do the same for Qui-Gon Jinn and Queen Amidala.^↩

Monday at the Movies - April 14, 2014

Welcome to another edition of “Monday at the Movies.” This week, two spooky offerings on tap.  Coincidentally, both feature a character named Annabelle/Annabel – one a creepy doll, the other Jessica Chastain.

The Conjuring (2013) – Though the words “from the director of Saw” might give viewers pause, the truth is that James Wan actually turns in the strongest work of his career with this retro-exorcist horror film that both unsettles and goes for the full jump moment.  Ron Livingston and Lili Taylor play a married couple who move into a seemingly haunted house; as the supernatural occurrences grow more dire, they contact paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren (Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga) to banish the malicious spirits possessing their home.  Usually typecast as milquetoast, Wilson musters up instead a stalwart and defensive skeptic pushed beyond his expertise.  Farmiga, who’s doing career-best work over on AMC’s Bates Motel as Norman’s loopy mother, plays a very convincing empathy who connects with the demonic spirit in frightening ways where the disquiet is superbly evident on her face.  Fortunately, The Conjuring suffers from none of the overacting or hacky clichés that often plague horror films; while the film does venture into moments we’ve seen before, the execution really sticks the landing in terms of genuinely unnerving the audience.  I’ll be honest and disclose that the exorcism subgenre of horror freaks me out more than most (second only, perhaps, to home invasion narratives), and the success of The Conjuring is that it’s immersive in the way of the best horror films – that is, it successfully eclipses your surroundings to the point where you’ll forget there’s a real world outside the film, allowing the mounting dread and inevitable punctuations of fright to pervade into your soul.  While I’m not sure that lightning can strike twice in these cases, I’ll be in line for The Conjuring 2 (2015).

Mama (2013) – Hitchcock famously said that the true terror is in the anticipation and not in the bang; by his logic, Mama is a highly successful horror film, but the rest of us will likely find ourselves disappointed by the way Mama handles “the bang” in the last twenty or so minutes of the film.  Jessica Chastain and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau star as the adoptive parents of two girls found in a feral state five years after their father abducted them, though it quickly becomes apparent that the girls’ invisible friend “Mama” has sinister intentions for the new parents.  Where The Conjuring crafted a compelling climactic possession sequence, Mama fails maintain its momentum at its narrative summit, in part because it discloses too much about the supernatural goings-on.  Mama is at its best when the spidery phantoms are unexplained, when the film’s visual language tells us that something is viciously awry (as in one brilliantly directed moment depicting what seems to be the girls at play – until we realize that one of the figures in the playroom isn’t human).  I even forgive the film its disclosure of who/what Mama really is, though what it does with that reveal leads it into some bizarre territory that takes a hard left from deft horror into something more at home in a Guillermo del Toro fantasy tale.  Chastain is gifted as Annabel, playing against type as a wannabe punk rocker; she’s suitably distressed by the haunting happenings, and her burgeoning affection for the girls is engaging.  But Mama forsakes its scarier moments when it sprints toward a conclusion that conforms to its own internal logic but is, beyond the borders of the film, likely to leave audiences asking, “Whaaa?”

That does it for this week’s edition of “Monday at the Movies.” We’ll see you here next week!

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)

If Skyfall was the closest to Christopher Nolan’s James Bond we’ll ever get, Captain America: The Winter Soldier is the Marvel film that most clearly embraces that Nolan-level realism and its accompanying political significance.  For this reviewer, that’s a good thing – melding the financially successful Marvel method of filmmaking with the style of the most creatively successful comic book films (the “Dark Knight” trilogy) means a film that is considerably darker than Thor: The Dark World or even the retro fun of Captain America: The First Avenger but one that is no less compelling.

The Winter Soldier stars Chris Evans as Steve Rogers, better known as Captain America, the country’s leading super-soldier coming to terms with the world after being thawed out from 70 years on ice.  Captain America is partnered with Natasha Romanoff, the Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), but he’s growing suspicious of the secrets she and SHIELD are keeping.  After ghost-story assassin The Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan) attacks SHIELD director Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), Cap faces life on the run from Alexander Pierce (Robert Redford), a SHIELD exec who’s convinced Cap is keeping secrets of his own.

Taking its cue from Ed Brubaker’s immensely popular run on the character, The Winter Soldier runs in its own direction without adhering slavishly to the source material.  There are a ton of fun shout-outs to the comics, but Winter Soldier continues the Marvel process of realigning classic stories for the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  Here SHIELD plays a much larger role than in the comics (which, really, I can’t recommend highly enough), opening a gateway to very exciting territory once Avengers: Age of Ultron rolls around.

On that note, one senses that the film suffers just the tiniest bit – as did the first Captain America film – from establishing plotlines for use further down the road, be it in Avengers: Age of Ultron or a third Captain America movie.  The difference between this and Prometheus (still the gold standard for audience frustration), though, is that Winter Soldier gestures toward future installments in the “to be continued” tradition of comics without failing to resolve its own central issues.  There’s one significant plot thread that doesn’t quite wrap up as neatly as it ought to – you’ll know it when you see it, since it’s right at the end – which I think is to the film’s detriment, as it deprives two members of the cast from having a very emotionally charged moment.

That’s all in the film we didn’t get, though (and, I’m sure, in the sequel we will).  The film we did get is anchored by another convincing performance by Evans as the soldier out of time, wrestling with fish-out-of-water issues and the more standard superheroic fare.  Meanwhile, Johansson continues to become a better actress after getting stronger material in The Avengers, and newcomer Anthony Mackie is a welcome addition as The Falcon.  The action sequences stand out as being first-rate, especially in a power-packed franchise like the Marvel Cinematic Universe; driven by Henry Jackman’s killer score, the shoot-em-ups and explosions crackle off the screen, especially in 3D.

I mentioned the tone at the top of this review, because it seems to be what sets Winter Soldier apart from its forerunners.  The humor here is certainly more restrained, surprisingly so considering that directors Anthony and Joe Russo are perhaps best known for their work on sitcoms like Arrested Development and Community.  But rather than paint the comedy broadly as in Thor: The Dark World, Winter Soldier opts for a more restrained tone in line with the conspiracy thriller genre to make a shrewd political point about the tradeoff between security and freedom.  It’s this venture into more substantial terrain that indicates, I hope, a shift in Marvel’s approach.  While some of the other Marvel films have been criticized for being insubstantial or mere teasers for future films – not from me, mind you, I love these things, even Iron Man 2 – Winter Soldier’s willingness to tackle pressing issues in current events might mark a sea change toward greater cultural relevance beyond merely making a literal ton of money.

As long as these movies keep being as entertaining as Captain America: The Winter Soldier, make mine Marvel.  (At least, until Batman vs. Superman lands.)

Captain America: The Winter Soldier is rated PG-13 for “intense sequences of violence, gunplay and action throughout.”  Plenty of gunfire, car chases, explosions, fistfights, et cetera.

The Living Daylights (1987)

If nothing else, thank God the reign of Moore has ended.  I can’t tell whether I like Timothy Dalton yet or whether it’s just ABM (Anyone But Moore) syndrome, but The Living Daylights is a welcome return to serious form, a bit like For Your Eyes Only both in that sense and in the sense of being ultimately underwhelming.

After saving a Russian defector’s life from cellist/sniper Kara Milovy (Maryam d’Abo), James Bond (Timothy Dalton) finds his head spinning after said defector is apparently abducted by KGB agents out to kill all spies – “Smiert Spionom.”  The head of the KGB, though, denies any involvement, which puts Bond and Milovy on the trail of loony arms dealer Brad Whitaker (Joe Don Baker), whose plan is honestly a bit of a headscratcher.

There’s no denying that The Living Daylights is meant to return Bond to his pre-Moore incarnation; he’s grimly sardonic, ruthless in dispatching his enemies, and even occasionally violent to women.  Basically, he’s Sean Connery circa From Russia With Love, and indeed The Living Daylights – on the 25th anniversary of the franchise – recalls its predecessors with more attention to international espionage, even amid the cooling tensions of the Gorbachev era. 

Dalton acquits himself well as a sterner Bond, gruff and distrustful of the move toward global peace.  He has his moments of chivalry – as when he spares the life of a female sniper early on – but most of his time is spent growling at the baddies, especially in a fun precredits sequence.  Fortunately, though, he’s not above a good one-liner, and even more fortunately the script knows not to toss them at us rapid-fire (as in one of the better scenes of The Spy Who Loved Me).

The rest of the script, though, is reminiscent of For Your Eyes Only in the sense that I really couldn’t tell you much of what it was about.  The plot is quite thin, usually an excuse to move from one rousing action sequence to another, and furthermore it’s unnecessarily complex; Bond aside, every character double-crosses another at least once, and by the time we get the expository monologue from the main villain it’s really not clear how each of the moving pieces contributes to the plan – which I’m still unclear whether it was about weapons, embezzling, drugs, or human trafficking.  It’s a bit silly to go into a James Bond film looking for logical consistency, because this is a movie that otherwise ticks the boxes quite nicely – Bond sleeps with a lot of women, blows a lot of things up, and stops the Russians in the end.  I just don’t know what he stopped them from doing.

But as I said, the rest of the film plays pretty well.  There’s a nice supporting role from John Rhys-Davies as the bewildered and beleaguered head of the KGB, though Joe Don Baker’s role as the villain comes off a little too campy, his gee-whiz obsession with military conquest more like a holdover from a Roger Moore film.  d’Abo is a competent Bond girl; one senses that she’s not just playacting at playing the cello or at aiming her sniper rifle, though it’s a shame that the movie kind of forgets about her halfway through, reducing her to arm candy and bedsheet occupation.

All of this is coming off negatively for The Living Daylights, but I didn’t actively dislike it, as has been the case with some of the more recent entries in this review series.  Maybe it’s due to the John Barry score, or maybe it’s just Moore fatigue, but I’m actually kind of excited to see more Timothy Dalton.  Even if no one else in the film production crew is, at least Dalton seems to be taking it seriously.

The Living Daylights is rated PG.  Surprisingly for a Bond movie, there are two shots of a topless woman and one of male rear nudity.  The violence is what we’ve come to expect – occasionally bloody shootouts and explosions.

James Bond and The Cinema King will return in a review of Licence to Kill (1989) on May 7, 2014!  Meanwhile, stay tuned to The Cinema King later this morning for Captain America: The Winter Soldier!