Review: 'Bad Words' (2014)

Focus Features

Bad Words is a comedy that relies on exactly what its title is: bad words. This works at times as there are plenty of laughs in store.  The problem is that, when it comes to the films narrative, it tries to be bigger and more important than it really is. In an attempt in doing this, Bad Words keeps one big secret. This works until this big secret is revealed at which time things go downhill fast. 

Bad Words dives into the world of competitive spelling as Guy Trilby wants to be the National Quill Spelling Bee Champion. The problem is that Guy is age 40 and the competition is for grade school children but after studying the rules and regulations frontwards and backwards, Guy finds a major loophole. Guy is an 8^th grade dropout, making him eligible for the competition. As he easily makes it to the national level of the tournament, he angers parents, Spelling Bee director (Allison Janney) and the Bees founder (Phillip Baker Hall). The question that they are all asking is why Guy is so hell-bent on winning. The answer is something that he refuses to share.

If you are a Jason Bateman fan then you should highly consider giving Bad Words a chance. For the most part, it is all him in several different ways. As the lead, Bateman is in nearly every scene but for the first time in his film career he is also calling the shots as director of the film. Other than the film moving along at an appropriate pace, there is really nothing about his directorial efforts that stand out enough to brag about but on the other side the camera is another story.

Bateman does all he can to carry the film and does exactly that for the first two acts of the film. I have always admired Bateman’s voice of reason, rational approach to a comedic role and a lot of this can be seen in Bad Words but given the crude antics and mind set of Guy there is also a heavy amount of chaos to his performance.

The only thing keeping Bateman from entirely taking over is Rohan Chand (coming a long way since his first film Jack and Jill) as fellow spelling bee contestant Chaitanya. As Guy befriends Chaitanya, Chand pours needed innocence and naivety in to the character, complimenting Bateman’s hardened Guy well.

When it comes to story, it quickly becomes clear that Bad Words is going to live or die by the reason why Guy is competing in the Spelling Bee, something he will not reveal to anyone, not even Jenny (Kathryn Hahn), a reporter who consistently follows and sleeps with him in an attempt to get the truth. This plot strategy works for a while. The idea of not knowing and wondering exactly why he is doing what he is goes hand in hand with the type of goofy premise the film has to offer. You know that the whole thing a bit outlandish but a solid reveal could make for a strong plot.

Just as the humor that comes from the spelling bee setting begins to wear off, this big reveal is made. Unfortunately this is where the audience is robbed of a solid comedy that also happens to be a good movie. It is one of those “that’s it?” moments and from this moment on, the film ends poorly. It is a flat ending that doesn’t really know where to stop, which has a lot to do with the poor plot reveal.

With all of this said tough, it may be important to ask what is Bad Words trying to accomplish? Is it trying to be crude comedy or a compelling drama? It seems like a dumb question to ask but if you tend look at comedy’s plot to closely like I do you will most likely disappoint yourself. Now I’m not saying that because Bad Words is a comedy, the plot gets a total pass and what I explained in the above paragraph doesn’t matter. Every movie should have the goal to be a good movie. What I am saying is that Bad Words entertains with crude humor. This goal of the film can be seen very quickly in to the film. There are plenty of laughs so although it may not be a great movie there is some fun to be had.

Grade: C

Review: 'The Grand Budapest Hotel' (2014)

Fox Searchlight Pictures

Watching a Wes Anderson film is like visiting a strange land. It is like opening a fairy tale book. I imagine it is comparable to stepping in to Wonderland. So feasting my eyes on Anderson’s latest creation, The Grand Budapest Hotel, a film inspired by the writings of Stefan Zweig, is something that I have looked forward to for some time and now that I have seen it, I must say, it is great to be back in his world. The Grand Budapest Hotel is fully Anderson and then some. Anderson signatures such as quirky pacing, set designs, dialogue and characters, one of which worthy of being declared his greatest yet, pleasantly occupy The Grand Budapest Hotel.

The Grand Budapest Hotel begins in present day with a young woman walking up to the monument of “The Author” as she reads his memoirs. Immediately after, the audience is taken to the 1980’s where we find The Author (Tom Wilkinson), as his son pesters him, sitting in front of a camera, speaking about his visit to the Grand Budapest Hotel. The setting then becomes 1968 when The Author (Jude Law), visited the Grand Budapest and sat down for dinner with its legendary owner Zero Moustafa (F. Murray Abraham). It is here that Zero goes on to share with The Author about when he started working at the hotel as a lobby boy under the supervision of concierge Monsieur Gustave H. (Ralph Fiennes). This causes for film setting to switch to 1932 where the adventures of Zero (Tony Revolori) and Gustave come to life. The issue at hand in the older Zero’s story is the mysterious death of Madame D. (a unrecognizable Tilda Swinton), one of the wealthiest guest of the hotel and a dear friend of Gustave’s. Following her death, at the reading of her will, it comes to light that she has left an extremely valuable painting titled ‘Boy with Apple’ to Gustave. Of course this angers her five children which causes for Gustave and Zero to take the painting from Madame D. home before they can keep him from getting it.

It is no secret that Anderson has called on particular players often in his career but The Grand Budapest Hotel is one big alumni event, as it seems that everyone that has participated before comes out for this one. Small appearances from Anderson faithful’s such as Bill Murray, Owen Wilson and Jason Schwartzman are scattered throughout the film. In a slightly more memorable role is Harvey Keitel as a wise prisoner named Ludwig, who is very well written for small amount of lines he is given. Adrian Brody is highly entertaining with the free range he is given and his brother in the film, Willem Dafoe, always taking on the quirkiest of Anderson’s characters, is also memorable.

It is the new comers though that are the focus. Tony Revolori as Zero is a solid compliment to Fiennes. Zero is a very familiar character. Anderson often creates characters that have a certain subtlety to them. These characters are not particularly flashy in anyway but you can’t help but listen when they speak or act because they have so much to do with the effectiveness of the plot and other characters. Zero is that character in The Grand Budapest Hotel so Revolori’s reserved but confident approach is spot on. Like I said though, Revolori and the character are a compliment to another character.

That character is Gustave and boy, what a character he is. Whether it be him referring to nearly everyone as ‘darling’, his relationships with older blonde women or his interest in poetry, Gustave mesmerizes with ease. His antics as concierge of the hotel cause for him to be one the most memorable characters that have come from Anderson. This is saying a lot considering the how great nearly every character of his is.  Of course though, with every memorable character is a memorable performance and Ralph Fiennes’s is no exception. Fiennes in the role makes sense especially when considering how wildly entertaining he was as Harry in In Bruges and how his quirkiness in that film is exactly what is needed for Gustave. I can say now, after seeing Fiennes in the role, I don’t believe there would be better choice.

Like any Anderson adventure though, the real star of the show is Anderson himself. It is only fitting that his latest film takes place in an extravagant, oddly located hotel due to the way that watching an Anderson film is like entering a place that is nothing less than strange but at the same time offers so much to discover and enjoy. A lot of this can be contributed to how many, if not all aspects of his films have quirky foundations that cause for them to support each other so well. Maybe the most bizarre element of them all is the backdrop for everything that is happening, the set design. The Grand Budapest Hotel’s set design, a character in its self, stands out in a strange way as it offers little light with its dark shades due to its heavy use of warm colors including Gustuve as he is always seen in a royal-like color.

It is the unique pacing along with its use of dialogue that sets an Anderson film apart from others. It is a slow developing sort of progression but at the same time has an urgent feel to it. There is never a lot of flashy movement or emotions but instead the dialogue is given the driver’s seat as it moves everything forward and keeps things so entertaining. I guess the best way to describe all of this is as Anderson’s style. It is a style that has become expected in a film of his. It is also a style that is thick in The Grand Budapest Hotel. The Grand Budapest Hotel verifies that Anderson, as a filmmaker, has not only fully embraced this style but has ensured himself that his style is his and why not stick with it. In doing so the audience cannot help but feel the same way and will willingly return to The Grand Budapest Hotel for years to come as well as look forward to any adventure from Anderson. 

Grade: A-

Review-'Captain America: The Winter Soldier' (2014)

Walt Disney Studios

The recipe for a Marvel films has always included humor and action. These two ingredients have always been the most noticeable of any of the others but they both seemed to be used in larger amounts each time the recipe is re-used. As of late, the humor and action have become not components in the final product but the final product. With Captain America: The Winter Soldier though, it appears that the people over at Marvel and Disney realized that the recipe needed tweaked a bit. Captain America: The Winter Soldier uses respectable plot points and characters to focus on the bigger picture rather than sticking with heavy slap stick comedy and mindless action sequences that past Marvel films have over utilized.  

In his third go around, we first find Steve Rogers a.k.a Captain America (Chris Evans) stationed in the nation’s capital, working for S.H.I.E.L.D. Quickly into the film, Captain America is called to sea in an attempt to stop a group of pirates taking over a ship that belongs to S.H.I.E.L.D. While Rogers has his hands full, agent Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson), also on board, is found downloading data from a computer on to a flash drive. After it becomes unclear what exactly the data that Romanoff acquired is, trust among everyone involved at S.H.I.E.L.D. becomes an issue, even with senior official Alexander Price (Robert Redford) and S.H.I.E.L.D. director Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson).

With the first scene of Captain America: The Winter Soldier featuring Steve Rogers using his enhanced physical abilities to pass Iraq war veteran Sam Wilson (Anthony Mackie) as both are jogging around the National Monument in D.C., saying ‘On your left’ each time, I could not help but think that this was just going to be another attempt at being a full out comedy. I’m thrilled to say that I was wrong. In fact the ‘To your left’ joke actually pays off as it is properly referred to again later in the film. One of the problems with Iron Man 3 and especially Thor: The Dark World was that it seemed like weak humor was around every corner and that every other character was comic relief. This is not the case it with The Winter Soldier which is refreshing to say the least.

The Winter Soldier stays focused on being an actioner not a comedy. Never is the audience allowed to question the genre they are experiencing. The Winter Soldier does not rely solely on humor as its primary approach to entertaining but instead uses nicely constructed, interesting action sequences to keep the audience in. I’m not saying that past Marvel films have not featured respectable action scenes; it’s just that The Winter Soldier uses these same type of scenes to actually move the film forward.

Discipline when using humor is a plus when evaluating the value of The Winter Soldier but it is it’s character focus that makes it one of Marvels better entries. Take a second to think about what Captain America has to offer when to comes to characteristics and behaviors. Why it didn’t really dawn on me until I was watching The Winter Soldier, I’m not sure but Captain America/Steve Rogers has possibly the most interesting back story of any character currently being used in the Marvel saga. Of course, with Steve Rogers, you have a guy who has to live with the results of being genetically enhanced but also someone that has to adjust to a world he has been absent from for nearly 70 years. Life at age 95 (the age he says he is in the film) is either non-existent or at its end but not for Steve Rogers. His life is just beginning again. This is all briefly brought to light in a compelling moment with an elder Peggy Carter from the first film. Unfortunately, this issue that Rogers has to deal with is really not explored any more than this one scene.

            

             The mystery that is given to other characters in the film is also noteworthy. The second title character, the Winter Soldier, involves plenty of mystique. Although, he is nothing special when it comes to villainous qualities, his back story allows him to be character to follow. It is continually hinted at that the past life of agent Natasha Romanoff is something that can be harmful if revealed so the fact that it is never truly explained gives the audience something to wonder about which is needed for the bigger picture.

            

             What is that bigger picture? The bigger picture is the foundation plot for the Marvel film universe and unlike past Marvel films, it’s something that The Winter Soldier keeps in mind. This movie is about S.H.I.E.L.D. and how its future could be affected. This plot point is connected to themes from the first Captain America film which makes for a solid plot and works in the entire sagas favor. Also strengthening the plot is the focus on trust. Even though Nick Fury makes mention of it way too much, this theme adds a human element to an unrealistic concept.  

            

             One negative aspect regarding The Winter Soldier’s plot is that sometimes it moves too quick while also packing a lot in causing for things to get a little muffled at times. This is small problem though as the more respectable aspects of the plot along with strong characters over shadow it. It is also because of these aspects that The Winter Soldier is so encouraging. Going in, it was easy to think that the mega successful Marvel Universe was just a sinking ship. The Winter Soldier not only assures that things are on the up but that the Marvel product can actually match the financial gain.

Grade: B+

Review: 'Noah' (2014)

Paramount Pictures

Note: The scripture used in this review comes from the New International Version of the Bible.

It is in the first book of the Bible, Genesis, that the life of Noah and how God used him is shared. Chapter five of Genesis is the first mention of Noah as it explains is family line. Why God flooded the earth and how he used Noah in this event becomes the focus of chapters 6 through 9. So can a feature length film be adapted from just 5 chapters? Whether it can be or not, whether it should be or not, Darren Aronofsky does exactly that with his latest film Noah. So with this, the question becomes how much of Noah is the Bibles account? How heavy is Aronofsky’s account? Going hand in hand with these questions are audience expectations and how artistic license plays into those expectations. Of course this is a review of Noah but it is hard to explore the films effectiveness without digging into these questions.

Noah begins with the introduction of sin into the world and is concluded with Cain killing Abel. This then leads to a brief explanation of the behaviors of the descendants of Cain and his brother, Adam and Eve’s third son Seth. We first encounter Noah (Dakota Goyo) as a young boy, witnessing Tubal-Cain (Finn Wittrock) killing his father Lamech (Marton Csokas). Lamech’s death is really the first event in the film that is not explained in detail in the Bible, making it Aronofsky’s account. Verses 30 and 31 of chapter five read “After Noah was born, Lamech lived 595 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Lamech lived 777 years, and then he died.”  In this scene is also the introduction to Tubal-Cain, a descendent of Cain which can be found in Chapter 4 of Genesis. In this same chapter, in a description of Tubal-Cain, verse 22 says that he “forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron” which is also made clear in the film.

The film then fast forward to Noah (Russell Crowe) as a father of Shem (Douglas Booth), Ham (Logan Lerman) and Japheth (Leo McHugh Carroll). This is when the film begins to get into Noah’s place in God’s plan to flood the earth. Genesis chapter 6, verse 9 reads “Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God”. The same chapter goes on to say in verse 13 “So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them”. In Noah, God, referred to as ‘the creator’ in the film, communicates this to Noah in the form of dream-like sequences. These sequences really aren’t an addition to what the bible but more an artful approach or interpretation by the filmmakers of how God spoke to Noah. In a second dream sequence Noah is told to build an arc and how many animals should go with him and his family on to the ark. One thing to note about these dream sequence in the film is that it can be perceived that Noah interpreted these dreams rather than God telling him what to do.  

When Noah begins to build the ark is where the film really takes close to full artistic licenses. How do Noah and his sons build such a massive boat? They accomplish this with the help of ‘the watchers’, angels condemned to earth by ‘the creator’. These rock-like beings not only help Noah and family build the ark but also protect them from Tubal-cain’s people stopping them from getting on the arc. Of course Noah and his family are able to get on the arc but who exactly makes up this family? Genesis chapter 7, verse 7 says “And Noah his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood”. In the film, Noah, his wife Naameh (Jennifer Connelly), there three sons and Shem’s wife Ila (Emma Watson) enter the ark. Also entering the ark, the biggest stretch of the film other than the rock angels, is Tubal-cain (Ray Winstone) who gets on the side with an axe.

Once in the ark, family issues and feeling towards one another and being the last humans on earth become the focus. Ham, mad at his father for not letting a love interest of his enter the ark, discovers that Tubal-cain has broken into the ark. Tubal-cain quickly uses this anger Ham has towards his father and tries to convince him to kill Noah. While this is happing, Noah is in constant question about why his family is allowed to live. He comes to the conclusion that they must die as well and the family line must not continue. This affects the family when Ila discovers she is pregnant. Noah declares that if the child is a boy, he will be the last man to live on earth but if the child is a girl, Noah will kill her.

Of course audiences will have trouble with the events mentioned above that take place throughout the film due to how they are not a part of the scripture or vary from the scripture. This is why audience expectations and how Noah should be viewed is important to discuss. First and for most, Noah has to be seen for exactly what is. Noah is a film, nothing more, nothing less. As basic as it sounds, a film is a form of art that usually has a primary goal of entertaining (making money over anything else is probably number but that’s an issue for a different write up). In order for Noah to do this, for it to entertain as many people as possible, it has to take artistic license. Which leads to the question, should there be certain things that film should not touch? Should artistic license be taken when it comes to the Bible? While the Bible features direct words from God, it also requires some interpretation. For films sake, interpretation can be related to conflict. Of course the Bible focuses on conflict but is it conflict suitable for film?

Noah for example creates conflict not in the scripture. The scripture doesn’t go into what happens with the family when on the ark. A film has to have something happen, it needs some kind of issue so of course, Noah creates some type of conflict. The thing to remember here that this is a interpretation from man for the purpose of film. It is important to keep this in mind or one will not be able to see the film in a fair manor. The debate on whether or not scripture should be adapted into film could and will go on forever. Scripture wasn’t written to be adapted into film but that doesn’t mean that adapting into to film isn’t all that bad. Of course, a film could twist scripture to where it is completely disrespectful and detrimental and although there is no question that it takes major artistic license, Noah still has some amount of respect for the scripture. Because of this, a film such as Noah, bring a discussion about scripture and the word of God which may not be case if a film doesn’t put these things into focus.

Noah also allows for thought to be put into how God speaks to someone and how that person perceives it. The scripture never really says that Noah questioned God or his faith wavered when God told him that he was going to flood the earth. Again in a way of interpreting how Noah reacted to God’s orders, the film does show that Noah has trouble fully accepting God’s word. Nobody’s knows what Noah actually thought, but him being only human, it is possible to believe that Noah would struggle some with God’s word. I do not question that Noah was a man God but faith isn’t always an easy thing to digest. Imagine God telling you that he was going to flood the earth, killing everyone but you and your family. Think of all thoughts that would be racing through your head. God had a plan for Noah, he had to trust that but as a human he was still going to have fears and doubts. Although Noah could be more up front about Noah being a strong man of God and that Noah and his family being saved from the flood was solely Gods decisions and not Noah’s, it at least is somewhat realistic about how as human and sin being a natural part of the human condition, questioning God is natural.

Like I said Noah is a film. It has to be taken that way. It’s neither a visual version of scripture nor a piece that totally disregards scripture. As a film it is technically hard to take your eyes off of it. Visually, Noah is beautiful as well has engaging. Whether it be a great portrayal of the sin that had taken over God’s earth, a gigantic forest sprouting out in front of your eyes or even a story about God creating the earth, Noah will have your attention. Mix this in with the thought that Noah provokes and the film becomes very difficult not to think about long after you leave the theater.

Grade: C+

Quick Take: 'Divergent' (2014)

To some extent, Divergent is a combination of The Hunger Games and Inception. Anything that resembles Inception has to be good right? First of all it would be difficult for a film by Scorsese about the mob and their involvement in dreams to be as good as Inception.  Secondly, Divergent’s quality is tee ball compared to Inception. The fact that Divergent was adapted from a book series and its futuristic feel from the tiring futuristic setting is where it draws comparison to The Hunger Games. Of course, also there is the young female protagonist who is way out of her comfort zone but must overcome difficult odds. It is here that it is important to note that, although she never knocks it out of the park, Shailene Woodley is respectable in the ‘fish out of water’ role as her performance can easily be digested by target audiences. The reason I even bother to mention Inception is the physically induced dream/fantasy like sequences in Divergent. There is scene where Theo James’s character Four comes face to face with his abusive father that is very Inception like and is really well done but quickly becomes far less interesting. It is these types of decisions that keep Divergent from going anywhere. Although arguably unoriginal, there are decent foundations built in the film but when it could be something with actual emotional value, these situations just become messy and boring action scenes. Eventually they all add up to a drawn out, vision-less ending.  

Grade: D+

Noteworthy: Martin Scorsese's Direction in 'The Wolf of Wall Street' (2014)

             Martin Scorsese’s approach and execution in The Wolf of Wall Street is comparable to driving a car with warp speed backwards against heavy traffic with nothing short of full control and confidence. From minute 1 to 180 (Yes, 3 hours but don’t worry, it feels like 1), Scorsese’s latest film is as much an energetic high as the one experienced by the characters on screen. The best way for me to describe The Wolf of Wall Street is “controlled chaos”. Scorsese never takes his foot off the gas not just for entertainment reasons but also to make his point.

Some would argue that Jordan Befort’s actions are romanticized in The Wolf of Wall Street but that’s not how Scorsese presents the stock broker’s actions in the film. Constant drugs, prostitutes and an arrogant Belfort all while the FBI is hot on his tail doesn’t just make up a large majority of the film, it is the film. Sure, none of this sounds all that pleasant on paper but it is no secret that the power of film can make these things look like hell or it could look better than a day at the beach. So the question is what approach does Scorsese take?

Before I answer that, it may be important to briefly address the entrainment value of the film. Is Scorsese’s take on the rise and fall of real life stalk broker Jordan Belfort entertaining? Yes and I can say that with absolute ease. I haven’t read the book by Belfort that the film was adapted from but from what I have heard it is presented in a humorous manner so the overall mood of the film could very well just be following its source material. With this said, getting to the question concerning Scorsese’s approach, the director never really allows you to honestly say that you want the life that Belfort and associates are living on screen. This has a lot to do with the confrontational, high speed pace that will have your head spinning uncontrollably.

While each scene is clean cut and nearly perfectly constructed, the mannerisms and actions of the characters in the film are far from it. The paranoia, the trouble, the suffocating holds and just loudness in general that is happening to these characters is amped up just enough by Scorsese to come off as a complete circus of a life. Belfort, when focusing on the presumed feelings of the character, appears disturbed to say the least. He comes right out and speaks about his paranoia but to Scorsese’s, Writer Terence Winter’s and Leonardo DiCaprio’s credit, Belfort appears to be tortured with in by his own actions and power. He uses his talents in a way that help him but harm him twice as much. This is ultimately what you take away from the film.

Of course, the actions and activities of Belfort in his downfall are much more undesirable than those of his rise but his downfall is a direct cause of his rise which forces the audience to ask the question: Was it all worth it? Scorsese’s approach only makes this question even more unavoidable. His approach also makes it easy to answer. Again, this is seen in the films darker second half but there is a scene at the end of the film that features the FBI Agent Patrick Denham (Kyle Chandler) that was belittled and underestimated but at the same time secretly feared by Belfort. This scene shines light on the person that is reasonable and humble in their actions. As it relates back to something Belfort says to the agent, it is the most powerful scene of the film and nicely wraps all the chaos up and pulls everything together.

At this point in his career I couldn’t think of a more appropriate approach for Scorsese to take. Seen as a master of his craft for decades now, with The Wolf of Wall Street, Scorsese, depending on how one saw him before, prove or reiterates that as a filmmaker, he knows exactly what path to take when telling a story and is more than capable of fully relaying his message through that chosen path which puts in him in complete control of the cinema he immerses himself in. Because of this, he can gain an audience member’s full trust, a goal of any good filmmaker. 

Review- Thor: The Dark World (2013)

              Currently the most interesting thing about the intertwined films making up the huge marvel universe is the difference in approach between the studios phase one (films introducing characters that were included in The Avengers) and phase two. Phase one featured plenty of humor and overall was light hearted but the last three films in the mega franchise, beginning with The Avengers, have gotten away from character depth or growth and have not only displayed extended action sequences but have amped up the humor as it seems like nearly every character is now primarily comic relief.

Marvel’s latest phase two installment, Thor: The Dark World, easily follows this trend as it is hard to tell at times if it wants to be an action film or a full out, slap stick comedy but this is not whats so frustrating about the film. Thor: The Dark World actually begins to focus on the emotions and complexity of its characters (most notably Loki) and by doing so, lays the grounds work for some of the most compelling moments of not just the Thor Franchise but the entire Avengers franchise. Unfortunately, these moments are quickly thrown away as decisions are made that go against all logic due to underdevelopment of the situation created.

Thor: The Dark World takes off where both Thor and The Avenger ended. With Thor (Chris Hemsworth) destroying the Bifrost (the bridge between realms) at the end of Thor, war has broken out between the nine realms. Because of this, the Thor led Asgard warriors must restore order by going to battle with other realms. While this is taking place, Thor’s brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) has been imprisoned for his action in New York (the focus of The Avengers). On earth, astrophysicist Dr. Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) becomes reunited with Thor when she falls into some kind of super natural teleportation hole. It is here that she comes in contact with the Aether, a highly dangerous weapon that was hidden years ago so that the Dark Elf Malekith (Christopher Eccleston) would not use it for destruction. This actually awakens Malekith which causes even more problems for Thor, Jane and all of Asgard.

Unlike Iron Man 3, when it comes to plot, Thor: The Dark World plays more like a sequel to its predecessor Thor than The Avengers. As one can see from the brief plot description given, the events that transpire in Thor are addressed in The Dark World. Even Loki’s motives to take over Asgard are revisited. If it can be looked at as only a part of the Thor franchise, than it works but other than a cameo by Chris Evans as Captain America and constant mentioning of New York (setting of The Avengers), Thor: The Dark World does very little to move along the Marvel film universe. However, when it comes to the massive amount of energy that allowed for humor, Thor: The Dark World is shares more similarities with both The Avengers and Iron Man 3 than Thor.

Since The Avengers, it has been obvious that Marvel wants to make an already light hearted franchise, into a 50/50 blend of action and humor. Thor: The Dark World not only continues this approach but takes it to a whole new level as it seems a like it wants to be a full out, slap stick comedy at times. Nearly every character is used as comic relief. For example, even though she plays a much larger role this time around, Natalie Portman’s Jane is rarely given any dialogue or moments that does not involve humor. This could be frustrating for those looking for deeper characters but I do know that in a scene where Thor hangs his hammer on a hook for a coat, the audience members in the sold out theater I was in absolutely erupted in laughter.

            

             One of the biggest differences between Thor and Thor: The Dark World is Director Alan Taylor taking over the helms from Kenneth Branagh. Under Taylor’s direction, action sequence possess an appropriate pacing that matches the urgent moments they depict unlike the slow motion, out of place sequences featured in the first film. In fact, for the most part the film moves along smoothly as transitions from Asgard to earth or different realms may not be seamless but work to say the least. Also helping this is the grand feel that film has at times. Even the though Thor: The Dark World can easily be described as corny, the music used along with these moments works very well at times. With that said though, like Thor, it is the special effects and back drops that get in the way at times. There is nothing seamless about it as actors stick out in front of it in such a way that it becomes a distraction from what is really going on. Because of this I couldn’t help but think a resemblance to the Star Wars prequels. Not only the fake look but the overall design along with some of the sounds used are very similar to Episode II and III.

            

               Maybe one of the most disappointing aspects of Thor: The Dark World is the little use of the title character. Chris Hemsworth as Thor was arguably the most entertaining character of Thor but in this sequel is given little to work with here as he is basically used as merely the films protagonist (really not even that at times). In scenes featuring Thor and Jane, Jane does the up staging. In scenes with Thor and Loki, Loki is the one you are supposed to focus on. Is this any real surprise though? Thor and The Avengers made it clear that Loki is an important part of what Disney and Marvel are creating but Thor: The Dark World goes beyond this to say that he is the center piece which is where things start to get a little overwhelming.

            

               Clearly Loki has been established as a villain in both Thor and The Avengers but in his latest appearance a more vulnerable Loki is found. There is nothing to complain about here as this causes for arguably the most emotionally appealing character since Iron Man. In a scene immediately following the death of Thor and Loki’s mother, Loki is clearly emotionally drained, giving more layers to the character and making for a really good scene. Not soon after this, Loki is seen helping Thor, adding even more to the character. All of this though proves to be nothing due to multiple unearned plot twist.

            

            With these twists and the final scene of the film, it is made clear that Marvel wants Loki to stick around and wants him to be true villain. Who can blame them? The last time I checked, a jealous brother and son filled with powerful rage can be chalked up as a respectable villain. To go along with this, Tom Hiddleston only enhances the character as he brings both a high level of energy and eeriness to the table. So why not let him go full out villain instead of using him as comic relief like he is a majority of the time in Thor: The Dark World.

           

             Why not go as far as giving Loki his own film? With the way he is used in previous films, it has been made clear that he can carry a film on his own. With the help of Hiddleston, Loki is a respectable character that may just make for a movie that would be a fresh addition to a Marvel franchise that has and will be releasing third and fourth installments. With that said though, does appear that Disney is attempting to bring new elements and characters it’s this Marvel universe. Who knows if the upcoming Guardians of the Galaxy along pre-production of Dr. Strange and Ant Man films will work but from what has been revealed, it is clear that it is a fresh attempt to bring new to series that has been taking somewhat of a ‘phoned-in’ approach.          

Grade: C+  

Review: Mr. Peabody and Sherman (2014)

DreamWorks Animation

Mr. Peabody and Sherman is one those films that doesn’t fully reach the two sets of audience members in attendance. For kids, there are a few small minded jokes that may go over well but the overall pace is not fast or goofy enough to keep them interested.  For parents, the historical references may be amusing along with feelings of nostalgia (this may apply more to grandparents) but the story is just too weak and messy to care. Mr. Peabody and Sherman is not a total disappointment but as the film moves along it becomes more and more clear that it would work better in the medium it came from: television.

In the most entertaining sequence of the film, Mr. Peabody and Sherman opens with Sherman (voiced by Max Charles) and his adoptive, genius, canine father, Mr. Peabody (voiced by Ty Burrell), finding them self’s in the midst of the French revolution after using the time traveling machine that Mr. Peabody invented, the WABAC machine to get to the time period. With things reaching such a drastic level, Mr. Peabody has to quickly escape the fatal slash of a guillotine blade before he and Sherman can return to present day.

Believe it or not, real trouble arises when the summer ends and Sherman has to go back to school. Not long into the new school year, Sherman bites classmate Penny (voiced by Ariel Winter) after she continues to torment him about his dad being a dog (yes, considering the circumstances, not the smartest thing for Sherman to do but the film makes it perfectly clear and will not let you forget that he is not the brightest). So in an effort to, patch up things between Sherman and Penny, Mr. Peabody invites Penny and her parents (voiced by Stephen Colbert and Leslie Mann) over to the house. Everything is going well until Sherman and Penny do the one thing Mr. Peabody says not to: use the WABAC.   

The most enjoyable aspects of Mr. Peabody and Sherman are the historical references. I already mentioned my admiration for the opening scene that is set in the midst of the French Revolution but the involvement of some of history’s most prominent figures and moments not only adds smarts to an extremely outlandish concept but also makes for the films largest source of energy and entertainment. Leonardo da Vinci (voiced by Stanley Tucci), Mona Lisa (voiced by Lake Bell) and Albert Einstein (voiced by Mel Brooks) all make for entertaining appearances but it is King Agamemnon (voiced by Patrick Warburton) and his army in the middle of the Trojan war that’s makes for the most memorable character in the film. Yes, this could be completely contributed to the pure joy I get from hearing Warburton’s voice (his voice work in The Emperor’s New Groove should be experienced by EVERYONE and NEVER forgotten) but it is a voice that is perfect for the tough guy role not to mention the humor he and the character brings to the table hits on all levels.    

Mr. Peabody and Sherman is one of those movies that can filed in the “thanks for trying” category as it clearly makes an effort to be more than just cute movie for kids but doesn’t quite pull it all together. This is not because this is a story about a brilliant dog who fathers a human boy. It’s not like we haven’t been moved before by the unreal. If living, breathing toys, wooden puppets and toasters can invoke emotion and care, then there is no reason that Mr. Peabody raising Sherman as a son can’t do the same. The problem isn’t believability of the concept, it’s how the concept is handled. The issue at hand in Mr. Peabody and Sherman is that the school that Sherman attends does not believe that Sherman can behave like a human if he is being raised by a dog. It easy to see how this would be a real concern but the problem is that the only way that it is tied into the time traveling concept is with a brief monologue about making mistakes from Sherman at the end of the film. The story may work better if the fact that a dog raising a human is seen as normal by the characters in the film and a different storyline is used to better accompany the time travel concept. In all honesty the story would work better if it only focused on time travel. The perception of Mr. Peabody and Sherman’s relationship would not be needed.

Given that the best parts of Mr. Peabody and Sherman is the historical references and that time travel storylines are over used, it is easy to come to the conclusion that this idea may be better in its original format: a television segment titled Peabody’s Improbable History. With a television or short story format, education and humor can be executed without having to wrap it into a film by tying on unrelated moral values and unneeded characters. If you really want to revive Peabody, why not bring back the television show or maybe even some kind of program that can be used in school systems. It’s not that a film version can’t work, it’s just that Mr. Peabody and Sherman is unable to pull everything together while failing to fully appeal to both children and adults.    

Grade: C-        

Review: 300: Rise of an Empire (2014)

Warner Brothers

When it was officially announced a few years ago that there would in fact be a sequel to the wildly successful 2007 film, 300, I couldn’t help but think that essentially a remake of 300 would be the end result. When trailers, posters, photos and any type of marketing started to surface, I was not convinced otherwise that the sequel to 300, 300: Rise of an empire, would not dare to wonder too far off the same path its predecessor took. When I saw the final product, the actual film 300: Rise of an Empire, I walked out of theater feeling, with really no disappointment or surprise, that I had just watched a remix or version 2.0 of 300. Other than the new players, an actual antagonist and 3D blood, 300: Rise of an Empire is not much more than a retelling of a film released seven years ago and I’m sure if I was seventeen like I was back then, I would have been blown away.                                                                                                                                        

With Queen Gorgo (Leah Headey) narrating, 300: Rise of an Empire begins by explaining that Athens General Themistocles (Sullivan Stapleton) earned is place among Greek war legends by killing the king of Persia, Darius (Yigal Naor). Shortly after this, the audience is informed that Darius’s son Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro), now the king of Persia, was pushed by Persian naval commander, Artemisia (Eva Green) to become stronger or to become God like so he is sent across the dessert to a cave where he emerges as a “God-King”. This is the same Xerxes that is seen in the first film. When he returns to Persia, Xerxis, with his new found abilities and status, declares war on Greece. This makes way for the rest of the film to be devoted to a showdown between Greek and Persian armies at sea led by Themistocles and Artemisia.

If director Noam Murro is attempting his best Zack Synder impression with 300: Rise of an Empire, he absolutely nailed it. The pace, cinematography and chorography is nearly an exact replica of 300 but did you expect anything different? Given the script and Synder’s involvement as a writer and producer, Murro probably wasn’t given much of a leash. However, this doesn’t mean that there are not any added aspects. The battles scenes take place on ships at sea. This could offer endless opportunity but with the aquatic battle field, ships crashing together time and time again are really all the environment has to offer when it comes to these scenes.

Due too little involvement, Xerxes, the main antagonist in 300, could barely be described as a villain (which is a shame because of he is arguably the most interesting character of the franchise). In the form of Artemisia, 300: Rise of an Empire offers up more of a chief villain. Do not get me wrong, she is no Nurse Ratchet but the character is somewhat interesting and Green is respectable in the role. Artemisia, originally from Greece, saw her mother killed by Greek solders as a child. She rose to the top of the Persian military by killing for King Darrius. This is all seen in brief montage and in some of her actions and characteristics throughout the film. This can be credited to Green who does all she can with a sub-par script and brings confidence and control to the character.

The most satisfying aspect of both Artemisia and Greens performance is her interactions and involvement with Themistocles. It is never revealed but it becomes clear that there is a history between Artemisia and Themistocles through not just what is said but also with actions and expressions. There is a moment in the final 10 minutes of the film that is easily the most compelling moment of the film due to Greens non-verbal actions and a line delivered by Stapleton. Both Green and Stapleton also play well off one another and because of this, the film is at its most entertaining and tense when the two are on screen together.    

When it’s all said and done though, when Black Sabbath accompanies the credits, like many sequels, it becomes clear that 300: Rise of an Empire is not a sequel that adventures to far from what 300 did seven years ago. This is interesting not because it resembles its predecessor but the time frame. 300 became somewhat of a cult classic but seven years is more than enough time for the flame of a film phenomenon to soften or even go out. It’s also enough time for an audience member to personally change. So why not factor this in when making a film so many years after the first? With a rough, opinion infused estimate, I would say the target audience for 300 is age 14 to 22 males (not factoring in genre preferences) and given that the majority of this target demographic is no longer in this group, why not target the old and new? Use some the same (keyword being some) aspects that attracts the 14 to 22 age range and then put more focus on characters and story for the now older, more mature target demographic of the first film.

Sure, a year or two after the first film something very similar to the first film may be just fine. In fact, given that the events of 300: Rise of an Empire takes place during the same time frame as the events in 300, a sequel could be at its most successful if it was released 6 months to a year after the first. Seven years later may be the perfect excuse to step outside the box a bit. It’s interesting how the age old expression ‘if it’s not broke, don’t fix it’ applies to the film industry in that sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t so it is never easy to decide what needs fixed and what doesn’t. 300: Rise of an Empire certainly doesn’t make it clear that the 300 style is broken but given that its best features are the few (underutilized) things that 300 doesn’t have, the style definitely does not have the same bang it once had.    

Grade: C

Quick Take: 'American Hustle' (2013)

It seems that David O. Russell has somehow flown under the radar over the past few years despite pumping out The Fighter and Silver Linings Playbook, two of the more entertaining (extremely entertaining for that matter) films that the given time period has offered. Both The Fighter and Silver Linings Playbook have a highly energetic pace but Russell’s latest, American Hustle, is nearly absent of this which is a real shame considering that a faster, sporadic pace would nicely complement the sting operation plot and the characters that come with it. The story it’s self is flat but that could largely be contributed to Russell wanting the focus to be on the characters involved. Aiding in this is a more than capable cast in the form of Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence and Jeremy Renner that take on these already solid characters, causing for the films issues to be easier to look past. Each of the main characters is interesting in their own right due to not just what is revealed but what isn’t. There is depth to these characters and if one can dig deeper than the upfront entertainment value that each has they become even more special. American Hustle is a film that looks at how easy or how difficult it can be to deceive or create a perception of a situation for someone else and how human relationships and personalities can get in the way of this. This is carried out the only way it can be, through the characters that make up the film.         

Grade: B