“EDGE OF TOMORROW” WILL LEAVE YOU ON THE EDGE OF YOUR SEAT.

If you were to ask someone “what would you get if you crossed Groundhog Day (1993) with Mecha Anime[?]”, one of the most unlikely responses you’re liable to get is “a kick-ass Tom Cruise vehicle”; yet that is exactly what you get with Edge of Tomorrow.

 

Based on the Hiroshi Sakurzzaka novel ”All You Need Is Kill”, the story takes place, in what is implied through the use of real life cable news anchor cameos, to be the near future.  A race of aliens, known as “Mimics” (due to their ability to copy and anticipate military battle strategies), have overrun and decimated most of Europe.  However, despite their seeming invincibility, a series of successes effectuated by Special Forces solider Rita Vrataski (Emily Blunt) bolster the war effort to the extent that a final assault to eradicate the threat once and for all is planned.  Self-aggrandizing, cowardly advertising executive Major William Cage (Cruise) is ordered by General Brigham (Brendan Gleeson) to film the battle at the front lines. When he tries to charm his way out of said duty, he is forcefully subdued and sent to the front lines as an infantryman and falsely identified as a deserter, much to the delight of J-Squad infantry unit leader Master Sergeant Farell (Bill Paxton, whose presence, along with the set-up of J-Squad, heavily recalls Aliens (1986)). Terrified and way out-of-depth his depth, Cage is killed within five minutes upon arrival at the battlefront; but not before kills a rare, large blue-alien known as an “Alpha”.  Upon his death, he “resets” back to the present day. The character is well named as he is “caged” in a Ragnarokian time loop as time resets itself upon his death(s).*  It’s not until he saves Vrataski’s life that Cage begins to unravel the mystery of his condition and use his newfound power to aid in the war effort.

 

The advance trailers for the film depicted a bleak dystopian future, filled with the oppressive, hopeless desolation that has become the hallmark of modern sci-fi actioners. However, what sets this film apart is that it balances the proceedings with a healthy sense of humor due in no small part to Doug Liman’s direction and Cruise, who’s given the opportunity to poke fun at his own acting clichés (a scene where he repeatedly flashes his pearly-white chompers is especially amusing) and makes the humorous most of the film’s “videogame reset” conceit (thus preventing the trope from becoming tiresome). Eventually, he defaults into his “dependable action-hero” persona, but he is effective in this playing-against-type turn.  In any event, the film shows that Cruise still has a few more “action hero” years left in him.

 

The film’s true star, however, is Emily Blunt, the resident "Valkyrie" who makes “The Angel of Verdun” a compelling, complex character; she is both dangerous and vulnerable all at once, and Blunt and Cruise share a great give-and-take dynamic. Credit must be given to Cruise in the fact that he knows when to dominate a scene and when to let his costar shine, which Blunt does. In their respective roles, both Gleeson and Paxton are stubbornly gruff, but Paxton is (in a rare case) especially entertaining; almost stealing every scene he appears in. 

 

Both the visual effects and cinematography are top notch; a gritty realism permeates each frame despite the fantastical nature of the elements.  Like last year’s Pacific Rim, it is an anime come to life; however, one that is slightly more convincing and, dare I say, compelling. The aliens are disquieting, tentacled monsters reminiscent of the robots in the Matrix films, and the battle suits are sufficiently convincing. Christopher Beck’s score is by turns pulse pounding and insidious, effectively highlighting both the action and the suspense.

 

The script, by Dante Harper (uncredited), Christopher McQuarrie, Jez and John-Henry Butterworth, is surprisingly clever, catching the viewer unawares with certain revelations via dialogue throughout the film.  If there’s any weakness, it’s in the third act, where the lighting and editing make for a more muted visual experience.  Some might find the ending a bit pat but, given the bleakness in most summer blockbusters to date, it’s rather refreshing.

 

A clever script, heavy action, humor, and solid performances blend to make Edge of Tomorrow better than it should be. It is a highly enjoyable film that carries dramatic heft but does not take itself too seriously, and one that merits big screen viewing. You’ll LIVE through the action, you won’t DIE of boredom, and you’ll want REPEAT viewing.

 

 *Special thanks to Ian Morris for the analogical assist.

DAYS OF SEQUELS FUTURE: “X-Men: Days of Future Past” Guarantees the The X-Men’s Cinematic Future

Admittedly, 20^th Century Fox’ X‑Men franchise (including the spin-offs) has been somewhat floundering in quality since Bryan Singer’s departure from directorial duties after 2003’s X-Men 2. Some have been quite good (The Wolverine) and others…not so much (X-Men: The Last Stand). So much so that a “soft” reboot in the form of Matthew Vaughn’s X-Men: First Class (2011) was necessitated. Bryan Singer himself has taken a few hits, both professionally (Valkyrie, Superman Returns) and (in recent days) personally. However, X-Men: Days of Future Past ushers in a return to form for both the director and the franchise.

 

The story begins in the not-too-distant future wherein mutants are being systematically slaughtered by giant robots known as “Sentinels”, who were conceptualized in the early 1970s by a millionaire industrialist named Bolivar Trask (Peter Dinklage) for the sole purpose of their eradication. When Raven/Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) assassinates him for his slaughtering of mutants in the name of science, it sets of the chain of events that lead to the true “last stand” of Homo Superior.  In a last desperate bid for survival, the few remaining mutants, led by Professor Charles Xavier (Sir Patrick Stewart) and Magneto (Sir Ian McKellan), devise a plot to send the consciousness of Logan/Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) into the past in order to prevent Mystique from succeeding in her task. However, in order to do so Logan will have to engage the help of the younger versions of Xavier and Magneto (James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender, respectively); no mean feat as, given the events chronicled in First Class (2011), the two men couldn’t be any further apart ideologically or emotionally.

 

In a sense, Days of Future Past is Bryan Singer’s Star Trek: Generations (coincidentally starring Patrick Stewart) as he has to juggle elements and casts from two iterations of the same franchise and balance them out.  For the most part, he succeeds where Generations failed. While Hugh Jackman is the ostensible star, every main character is given equal weight; an impressive undertaking as he served only as a producer of First Class and, thus, had not worked with the new cast in a directorial capacity until now. Yet, the film feels like he’s deftly handled those characters this entire time. Given that the bulk of the film takes place in the past, much of the returning regulars from the previous X-Men films, such as Storm (Halle Berry), Iceman (Shawn Ashmore),  and Rogue (Anna Paquin), get the short shrift in screen time. But in their case, quantity does not equate to quality as their characters, and newcomer to the franchise Ellen Page as Kitty Pryde, are pivotal to the story in their own ways, as is scene stealer Evan Peters as Quicksilver, the fastest mutant alive. A super speedy smart-ass, he practically owns the movie in just one stellarly-rendered scene that borrows from the climax of the animated film Over The Hedge (2006). 

 

As far as the main players go, the performances are indeed sublime. The real life bromance between McKellan and Stewart adds to their characters’ relationship in the future and heightens the contrast of said relationship of their younger selves. The contrast between the young and old is powerful. McAvoy’s Xavier is self-loathing and depressed, while Fassbender’s Eric Lehnsherr, while still duplicitously arrogant, is much more conflicted and unsure. The tension between them, the hurt and longing, is practically palpable. Interestingly enough, Hollywood’s current “It” girl Jennifer Lawrence’s performance makes one forget that she is the second actor to play the live-action Mystique. As the villain of the piece, Peter Dinklage is rather…ordinary; not that that assertion is an indictment. As Trask, he is Americanized Tyrion Lannister in a polyester business suit; a study in charismatic banality, providing contextual logic to his monstrous actions (only in one moment in the film does his performance seem to slip into "Simon Legree" territory; a hiccup in an otherwise interesting turn). Nicholas Hoult’s Hank McCoy/Beast is given much more to do this time around, with the producers having taken a page from Marvel’s The Avengers, to give McCoy the appropriate “hulk out” moments (though not nearly as satisfying).

 

Hugh Jackman has come a long way since he first donned the Adamantium claws. What’s always interesting about Jackman is that despite the amount of times he’s played the character he always seems to find a new facet to explore.  This time, Logan is the guide instead of the guided. He must mentor the self-destructive Xavier. Despite having the experience and knowledge of Xavier’s history, he is as unsure as the young Xavier is. It is a unique and unfamiliar position for the character to take and Jackman evinces this superbly.

 

The X-Men: Days of Future Past screenplay by Simon Kinberg, (very loosely…I repeat, VERY LOOSELY… based on the comic book storyline of the same name by writers Chris Claremont and John Byrne) coupled with the editing from Singer’s partner-in-crime John Ottman allows for a film that is mostly tight. There are a couple of set up scenes that almost Tarantino-esque (meaning, goes way too long), but they are few and excusable. The time travel theories used in the film are plausible for the story logistics (so long as one does not dwell on them too much). Ottman’s score, as usual, does justice to the film but is eminently forgettable out of context. The special effects are top notch, though 3-D does call attention to some of its weaknesses but it’s not too distracting. Some die-hard X-Men fans may scoff at the design of the Sentinels themselves, but as rendered in both the past and the future they are appropriately menacing.

 

Singer plays fast and loose with continuity, both in terms of history in general and the X-Men films in particular.  However, he does have an eye for detail and a sense of pop culture kitsch of the era (one to particularly humorous effect), and does a good job of tying in some subplots from the previous films, thereby placing First Class and this film firmly into the fold. For anyone who had issues with Brett Ratner’s X-Men: The Last Stand (and those numbers are legion), let’s just say that this film offers vindication.

 

The film, however, is big...nay, epic...in scope; arguably as much as Marvel's Thor: The Dark World. As the film progresses, it gets bigger in visuals, in scope, and in stakes, building to a resounding crescendo. Despite the change in directors, the sense of anything-can-happen begun in First Class is continued here; especially as the film rushes to its conclusion. And what a finale it is. Singer’s direction is so tight that it literally ratchets up the suspense. Many of the people who will view this film will be more than familiar with the story upon which it is based. However, it is a testament to his skill that despite this, the viewer catches their breath waiting to see how these things play out.  If only Singer had brought this sort of deftness to Valkyrie and Superman Returns. Singer’s predilection towards themes of isolation, segregation, and persecution are on display here, but here they’re tempered with a sense of family. At least to this reviewer, for the first time the characters feel as though they are part of a larger family. Without that feeling, this film would not be as potent.

It’s been a while since I have seen Singer’s previous X-Men films but I can say that I was not as invested in these characters cinematically until this particular film. Despite the fantasy, the film is anchored in very relatable, human emotion. The fans will enjoy the little Easter eggs that pepper the film and the game of “name that mutant” that goes with it. For the non-fans, there is enough action, suspense, and emotion to satisfy. In whole, this is a film on par with Marvel’s The Avengers. The torch has been passed between the original and new cast (though expect to see Jackman as Wolverine in a film or two to come), and with this film, the future of the X-Men franchise on film is practically assured.

 

Sorry, Marvel Studios.

OH, WHAT A TANGLED WEB WE WEAVE: "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" Thrills Despite a Disjointed Presentation [MINOR SPOILERS]

When Marvel Comics produced the first issue of “The Fantastic Four” in 1961, it heralded a change in comic book storytelling. No longer did each story exist in a vacuum but, as in real life, events in one story would have consequences in another with subplots being carried over the course of months in myriad issues. This soap-operatic tone was not only perfected in, but was an integral part of, “The Amazing Spider-Man” from the late sixties into and through the seventies (which included the 1970’s introduced companion title, “Peter Parker: The Spectacular Spider-Man”). It was a comic filled with teen angst, mystery, romance, and tragedy (and, oh yeah, super-heroics and costumed super-villains). In this sense, Marc Webb’s The Amazing Spider-Man 2 truly is a comic book come to life. From the manner of storytelling to the character voices and the visuals, the film is a homage to that era of Spider-Man comics even as it tries to work within modern storytelling aesthetics.

 

Coming off the heels of the last film, Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) is standing in sundry crossroads: whether to continue find out what happened to his parents Richard and Mary Parker; whether or not to honor his vow to the late Captain Stacy (Dennis Leary) to stay away from his daughter Gwen (Emma Stone). In the meantime, Peter’s old childhood friend, Harry Osborne (Dane DeHaan), returns from exile and discovers that he is dying from a rare genetic disease inherited from his father, Norman (Chris Cooper). Meanwhile, a quintessential, emotionally unhinged “nobody” named Max Dillon (Jamie Foxx), who was saved by Spider-Man, becomes the victim of an industrial accident at Oscorp that leaves him forever changed. During all of this, Gwen grows weary of Peter’s on again/off again inner struggle and calls off their relationship.

 

If that’s a lot to digest, that’s because it is.  The problem here is that Webb and screenwriters Alex Krutzmen, Roberto Orci, Jeff Pikner, and James Vanderbilt are trying to condense storylines that would take at least a year to tell in comic book form into a two hour, twenty-two minute run time (thus making an argument that what works in one medium may not work in another).  While the film is enjoyable, it's extremely disjointed. Webb tries to balance comic book aesthetic with real life. This film implies that such a balance is indeed delicate because at times the movie strays too far one way or the other. Jamie Foxx, an extremely capable actor, falls way too far into caricature in his first few scenes though he more than makes up for same when he assumes the mantle of the super-villain “Electro”. DeHaan plays Osborne as if someone had saved Jack Dawson from the Titanic, transported him through time to the present, dyed his hair, and gave him crazy pills. This DiCaprio-lite interpretation of Osborne is just as distracting as Foxx’ overacting and takes one out of the picture. The same can also be said of star Garfield at times, as the tics and mannerisms he imbues Peter Parker with are maddeningly overdone. Also in evidence is a German mad scientist caricature reminiscent of Dr. Kaufman in Tomorrow Never Dies or John Glover’s turn as Dr. Jason Woodrue in Batman and Robin. Assuming arguendo that the intent of the film is to homage that era of comic book storytelling, these characterizations are arguably spot on in keeping with that era. However, Webb is also trying to keep things “real” and, as such, the combination of these two styles are discordantly jarring. The script makes a couple of head scratching leaps in logic in order to keep the story going, but for the most part they’re not distracting enough to remove you from the action. Unfortunately, the "too many villains" syndrome in these type of films doesn't help matters here. However, given how broadly drawn (pun intended) these villains are it's almost forgivable; almost.

 

Now, as far as being a comic book come to life, the visuals are just, with perhaps a small bit of pun intended, “amazing”. While a 3D viewing will compromise the integrity of the CGI, the film is stunning to look at.  The cinematography of New York City (where the film was entirely shot) is lovingly rendered.  The web-swinging sequences are a joy to behold, and one scene at the commencement of the climactic battle between Spider-Man and Electro wherein the visuals are practically ripped from the comics.

           

What truly elevates this film are the leads.  Some would consider their real life relationship an acting “cheat”, but the chemistry between Garfield and Stone is the film's real hook.  Despite various missteps in his performance this time around, Garfield gets the essence of the Spider-Man character; most especially in the quieter moments such as one involving a bullied child.  As Gwen Stacy, Stone proves to be a formidable partner to both Parker and Spider-Man. She imbues Stacy with a subtlety that is, at certain moments, almost heartbreaking to watch. While their dialogue together is more quip than actual heart to heart, it’s what Stone and Garfield communicate behind their words, the energy between them, that sells their relationship (both on-and-off screen); sincerity in a world of fantasy. However, theirs are not the only performances that stick with you.  In one small yet pivotal scene, Sally Field reminds the world why she is an Oscar-winning actress. Dennis Leary, who cameos as the foreboding specter of Captain Stacy, says more with a look than some actors do with five pages of dialogue. And Paul Giamatti has a grand old time hamming it up as the Russian “Rhino”. Yes, another caricature; but he’s having so much fun with what little he’s given to do you just don’t give a damn and go with it.

 

Hans Zimmer ostensibly takes over the musical duties from James Horner, though he leaves the heavy lifting to “The Magnificent Six” (comprised of Pharrell Williams, Johnny Marr, Michael Einziger, Junkie XL, Andrew Kawczynski and Steve Mazzaro). However, to his credit he does continue certain motifs, if not the actual orchestrations, established by Horner: an adaptation of Spider-Man’s theme, quiet piano for the romantic moments between Peter and Gwen, a schizophrenically comical yet dangerous theme for Electro, etc. However, it’s replete with the bombast Zimmer is known for. However, here it’s appropriate. It’s a diverse score that combines modern rock with quasi-classical movie scoring, providing a tone that matches the film in more ways than one.

 

Certain story arcs come full circle. Just like in the comics, this film features themes of the “sins of the father”, duality, identity, super power fantasies made manifest, and tragedy; heaps of tragedy. Those who have followed Spider-Man lore know to what I’m referring.  But there are also themes of redemption, paying it forward, inspiration, hope (hope that is inspired, not deceptively implied in an alien symbol), and most importantly, fun.  For all its strum and drang, despite the tragedy that is a hallmark of the character, the character of Spider-Man is one of fun, and while he’s in costume Garfield captures that essence in quip and mannerism beautifully.

 

This new franchise is a divisive one as it rewrites/reimagines stories and relationships both established in the Raimi and the source material. There will be some who will hate this film simply on that basis. However, on its own merits, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is an uneven affair in terms of performances, story beats, and logic. However, for the most part, its pros far outweigh its cons.  Certain questions are answered, more are raised (for the inevitable sequel). Certain story arcs come full circle. While the details may be debated, the heart behind it cannot be. The Amazing Spider-Man is a mess but a highly enjoyable one and merits a big screen viewing.

 

AMERICA'S WINTER WONDERLAND - "Captain America: The Winter Solider" is a Film That Epically Restores Faith in Fictional Heroism

 

As dusk gives way to dawn, the opening bars of Alan Silvestri’s “Captain America Theme” mournfully yet heroically play as Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) goes on his morning run.  This opening scene acts as subtle foreshadowing of the themes of Captain America: The Winter Soldier, directed by Anthony and Joe Russo, which essentially asks the question: “Whatever happened to Truth, Justice, and the American Way?” Evidently, the concepts jumped ship to Marvel Studios for this film is arguably the best of all the single Marvel action hero movies to date.

 

The story takes place three years after the events of 2012’s Marvel's The Avengers. During that time, Steve Rogers has become a S.H.I.E.L.D. operative under the guidance of Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson). Partnered with Natasha Romanov, a.k.a. “The Black Widow” (a stunning Scarlett Johansson), he is assigned to what he considers ethically questionable missions. However, when Nick Fury is implicated in a conspiracy to compromise national security, Rogers goes rogue. He must try to ferret out the truth while figuring out the mystery of “The Winter Soldier”, a cybernetic assassin who has targeted not only Fury, but the Captain himself.

 

Of all the characters in Marvel’s current cinematic staple, Captain America is the hardest sell to the sensibilities of a modern audience. In terms of what he represents (in scope if not in power), he is Marvel’s analogue to Superman (a character who had to undergo a considerable darkening in order to become palatable to today’s moviegoers). And like Superman, as different as dark is to light, so are the Captain’s Great Depression ideologies regarding trust, honor, and heroism to the realities of modern warfare. In truth, “terrorism” in all its forms has become the default raison d’etre for these types of films. As The Hunger Games, Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy, Man of Steel, and even Divergent can attest. It’s no longer enough for a bank robbery or a mad scientist scheme to be a reasonable call to super-heroic action.  Yet here, the results of those concerns are plausibly presented. All the opposing political rhetoric regarding national security is in bas relief here, with the Marvel Universe’s S.H.I.E.L.D. organization taking the place of the NSA. The film begs the question whether someone as out of time (and touch) as Steve Rogers has a place in this era, and not just in reference to dealing with “the enemy”.

 

Speaking of dealing with the enemy, it is violent endeavor here. The film is all technical spy spectacle; a throwback to the spy thrillers of the post-Watergate 1970s (made all the more apparent by the presence of Robert Redford as head of S.H.I.E.L.D. Alexander Pierce, a character’s whose ideologies run in contrast to his turns in All The President’s Men and Three Days of the Condor), while embracing the violent excesses of the modern spy genre with frighteningly plausible shades of Minority Report thrown in for good measure. However, its presentation cannot be faulted for its excesses. Unlike the aforementioned Nolan Dark Knight trilogy, where the majority of the fight scenes were obscured through camera slight-of-hand, the fight scenes here are beautifully choreographed in such a way as to be distinct, yet somehow seem naturally, brutally spontaneous.  The special effects are mostly done in the “old school” style, with as little CGI as possible, but rendered in such a way as to be “old school” in the best sense of the term; a throwback to the days when the term “star destroyer” was something to be marveled at (no pun intended). The screenplay by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely (who also play S.H.I.E.L.D. interrogators in the film), loosely based on the works of comics scribe Ed Brubaker (who also cameos in the film), is tight and practically uncontrived. The film’s 136 minute running time moves breezily, deftly giving poignant heft to even the quiet moments, of which there are many. This is still, after all, the story about a man who just happens to be a super-hero forced to live in a world he never made, holding on to values and ideals that have become outmoded. This contrast is made especially clear in the film’s score. Silvestri’s theme is only given respectful acknowledgement, showing to lyrically remind us what Captain America stands for. However, when Henry Jackman’s score kicks in, it shows a marked thematic contrast; expressing acoustics more representative of the modern era. But remarkably, unlike his X-Men: First Class effort, this score balances heroism with the discordant sounds he attributes to The Winter Soldier himself (which is somewhat reminiscent of Hans Zimmer’s theme for The Joker in The Dark Knight). The score is in turns claustrophobic, discordant, jarring, yet rousing, emotional, tragic and heroic and used effectively to highlight each scene’s atmospheric intent.

 

I’ll say it here. Chris Evans IS Captain America.  He owns the role the way Sean Connery did James Bond; Robert Downey, Jr. with Tony Stark; and a certain other Christopher who came to epitomize another red and blue clad hero. His body language embodies the character in such a way that one believes what comes out of his mouth, no matter how hokey or schmaltzy it may sound in this day and age from someone else’s.  With two previous films under his belt, he’s made the role his own, making the character as, if you’ll excuse the term, bad ass as any in Marvel’s staple. Of course, his is not the only performance of note. The Russos have managed to make CA:TWS an ensemble piece; each member of the supporting cast are fully realized in their own right.  Samuel Jackson’s Nick Fury is given more depth and pathos than in any previous offering. In fact, he’s the lynchpin to much of the proceedings. Jackson imbues world-weariness upon Fury not seen before; Jackson makes the audience feel his character’s turmoil regarding S.H.I.E.L.D. and his place in it. As Black Widow, Johansson continues to redefine the expectations of the female protagonist. She is Rogers’ equal, in some ways her superior, yet she evidences a vulnerability also not explored before on film; managing to sell it without compromising her character’s strength and integrity.  Newcomer to the franchise Anthony Mackie as Sam Wilson (a.k.a Marvel’s answer to Hawkman, The Falcon) elevates his character from its 70s blacksploitation roots into a force to be reckoned with, being the one individual who still believes in Captain America even when all hope seems lost. The chemistry between Evans and Mackie feels naturally right. You buy it.  In his film performance, MMA fighter Georges St-Pierre makes perhaps one of the lamest characters in all of comicdom, Batroc the Leaper (don’t ask), into a major threat.  Of special note are the aforementioned Robert Redford and Sebastian Stan as The Winter Soldier. To say anymore would reveal too much (if one hasn't read the comics, that is). However, Stan while says very little his body language speaks volumes. The filmmakers understand that all the best villains are used judiciously. For those who want the Soldier to have a lot of screen time will be sorely disappointed. However, what he does when he’s on the screen MORE than makes up for it.

 

To say any more, such as analyzing the themes of identity, duality, and paranoia, would reveal too much of the film and it is with great restraint that I hold back.  Yes, "restraint", because the movie is just…that…GOOD.  It’s a movie that makes pure, unadulterated, and unapologetic heroism epic and “cool” again, continuing the restoration of wonder and adventure that have been a hallmark of Marvel’s most recent films; and it does so with the right blend of pathos, action, and humor. In short, Captain America: The Winter Soldier (or, as Anthony Mackie once humorously put, Avengers 1.5) is a cinematic triumph. It has everything anyone could ever want in this sort of film. In a sense, it serves as antithesis to Man of Steel, showing that one does not have to completely compromise character integrity to fit modern sensibilities. This is one of those rare films I give my highest recommendation.

 

P.S.  Be sure to look closely for a particular tombstone. Not all Easter eggs are Marvel related. ;)

DIVERGENT Does Not Diverge From Formula

The first thing that one notices about Divergent, directed by Neil Burger, is how similar it is in framework and plot to The Hunger Games. The story revolves around an in-over-her-head heroine who exists in a post-apocalyptic, dystopian landscape populated by citizens who are grouped off in some fashion. Said heroine must fight for survival against a fascistic system. While the comparison is arguably inevitable, it is hardly a fair one; especially since Divergent is alternatively superior and inferior to the other.

 

Based on the first of the Veronica Roth series of novels, Divergent tells the story of Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley) a resident of the walled off city of Chicago whose populace is divided into five "factions": Abnegation, Amity, Candor, Dauntless and Erudite. A person’s place in said society is determined at the age of 16 by a battery of hallucinogenic tests, though each person does have a choice as to which faction they wish to belong (though once the choice is made there is no going back). Those that are cannot meet the faction requirements become “factionless”, or society’s refuse. However, there exist those rare individuals known as “divergents” who cannot be typed into any faction. These beings are a danger to a society whose very existence is predicated on one “knowing their place”. Tris is one such “divergent”. As the story progresses, Tris tries to conceal her divergent nature even as a war between the factions begins to brew.

 

Quest for identity, distrust of authority, and fear confrontation…these are all unifying themes across the young adult storytelling spectrum. However, what separates Divergent (in film, at least, since I have not read the source material) from other similar films is how personal these themes are explored. Though she does face external foes, Tris’ conflicts are more internal and personal, more human than super-human. The physical challenges she faces are simply extensions of the conflicts within her.  Unfortunately, the bulk of the film’s two hour, twenty minute running time is devoted to her training and not enough of the greater conflict regarding faction war. Despite the film’s version of the “Wall of the North” and the blitzkrieg aesthetic, any sense of danger or oppression is oddly muted given the subject matter. This is not to say that the film doesn’t deliver emotional hits. This film has plenty of rousing highs and emotional lows (and “squeal” moments for the tweens) that are deftly directed for visceral heft; but sporadic moments of brilliance do not make for a complete whole.  The film, while still somewhat entertaining, is narratively disjointed. There is very little by way of surprises with certain story beats predictably foreshadowed. On the plus side, there is an impressive attention to even the smallest details wherein nothing seems discordant or out of place.  The special effects are, in one of those rare cases, virtually flawless.  The score by Junkie XL works well in conjunction with the requisite pop offerings these types of films are peppered with.

 

 

Shailene Woodley gives a credible performance as Tris, going from unsure ingénue to capable, if not confident, warrior. She anchors the film quite well, though it doesn’t give her much to work with on an emotional level until rather late in the story, and the film suffers for that. As her instructor/love interest Four, Theo James is eerily reminiscent to a very young Billy Zane, charmingly imbuing his character with a smoldering taciturnity belying secret pain that simmers beneath the surface. One of the most laudable aspects of this film, and rare to find in modern cinema, is the sense of true equality between their characters. While Tris is the protagonist, she is not a “messiah” figure.  Both she and Four take turns in supporting and saving each other.  Neither one is either a “Lois Lane” or “Steve Trevor”. The partnership between the two is a true one; each one aids and compliments the other and both characters are the stronger for it.

 

Jai Courtney portrays instructor Eric with hard but wry sadism. Ashley Judd appears as Tris’ mother, and the casting predictably telegraphs the character’s fate. Lastly, Kate Winslet portrays Janine, leader of Erudite faction and requisite “big baddie”, with detached banality; which is perhaps the point. This story is a cautionary allegory for where our society may be headed and, as such, makes it a point to show that evil rarely comes with hands wringing or mustaches twirling.

 

 

Ultimately, Divergent is definitely a film for the pre – to – teen set.  However, there is much within the film for adults to enjoy but not enough to make it a wholly rousing experience. While the film does leave enough open for the inevitable sequel (currently in production now), it works enough as a somewhat satisfying, stand-alone movie. While Divergent is a good film, it’s not as good it could have been. Yet, because of it's emphasis of Tris' attempts to overcome her own inner doubts and fears in her quest for self-actualization, the film has more weighty depth, in my opinion, than The Hunger Games. While adults will like it, teens will love it.

 

 

NO GRUDGES HELD: “Grudge Match” is Disappointingly Disjointed.

I wanted to like it. I really did. 

 

It sounded good on paper: a faux sequel to “Raging Bull”  and “Rocky”, starring Robert DeNiro and Sylvester Stallone (who hadn’t shared the screen since Stallone’s legitimacy-questing film “Copland”) playing rival light heavyweight champions Billy “The Kidd” McDonnen and Henry “Razor” Sharp, who had won one title match each against the other. However, hopes of a definitive final “grudge match” between the two were dashed with Sharp’s sudden and unexplained retirement from professional boxing; an act which became an obsession with McDonnen for over thirty years despite his own professional financial success since.  Added to this volatile mix is the fact that Sharp’s girlfriend Sally (Kim Basinger) had a much-regretted one night stand with McDonnen that resulted in both a son, B.J. (Jon Bernthal) and the end of her relationship with Sharp. When Sharp finds himself in need of money, he takes an offer from wannabe promoter Dante Slate, Jr. (Kevin Hart, playing a role that must have initially been envisioned for Chris Tucker) to perform motion capture for a video game which leads to his being ambushed by McDonnen and invariably leads to the long awaited grudge match between the two war horses. 

 

Like I said, it sounded good and had this film been made a decade ago, it probably would have been.  However, as directed by Peter Segal (“50 First Dates”), the film is long on time and short on cohesiveness. The expected meta-textual commentary and “jabs” at the roles the leads were famous for are in evidence (including a common sense take on the famous “Rocky” meat locker scene), and the story itself is solid enough.  While the film is definitely hilarious in spots, its humor comes mostly from Hart’s Slate  and the “Mickey” stand-in Louis “Lightning” Conlon (Adam Arkin playing the age card for all its worth to hilarious results). The humor regarding the leads stem mostly from their age; while expected, it gets overplayed. Worse is the fact that the scenes keep going even after the humorous points have been made, almost like a bad comic who has to explain a punch-line after its delivery. As B.J., Bernthal provides DeNiro’s “palooka” character with some humanity and is, in general, likably sympathetic. Basinger is as radiant as ever and does have a humorous moment of her own. It is understandable how the two men could hate each other so thoroughly given the characters’ backstory; if it only wasn’t undermined by the two leads. 

 

Stallone and DeNiro almost have great chemistry together, but something’s missing. These days, Stallone seems almost too mellow on screen (including his “Expendables” series, but not including the recent “Escape Plan”) and in his most recent films, DeNiro seems to be coasting for the paycheck.  While there are moments of poignancy and pathos between the two (most predictably in the film’s final act), there’s not much in terms of enmity between them or the hunger to finally settle scores, a condition which sabotages DeNiro’s “impassioned” speech about the two of them not being dead yet. LL Cool J, Anthony Anderson, and Rich Little also appear in the film, with Cool J having the most screen time of the three as a trainer who refuses to train McDonnen.  

 

The frustrating thing about a film like this is that the potential is in evidence.  Had it been made in the 90s or early 2000s, it would have carried more weight. Both Stallone and DeNiro were still trying then. Ironic that the sponsor of the fight in the film is “Geritol” given that the performances of both actors really needed a vitamin shot. Like the grudge match that takes place, this film comes years too late. It’s an okay film to watch on cable, but it could have been so much more.

THE DESOLATION OF TOLKIEN: Peter Jackson Creates a Derivative Mixed-Bag in The Desolation of Smaug.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug opens with director Peter Jackson appearing in costume in the city of Bree. Staring directly into the camera, he takes a loud chomp off of a carrot (bookending a similar seen from The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring), and marches off. While this seems on its surface to be a tongue-in-cheek homage to Alfred Hitchcock, his manner and presentation takes on a meta-textual feel as if declaring "This is MY house". The rest of the film seems to cement this assertion.  

 

The first entry in this bloated trilogy (more on that momentarily), The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012), served as an entertaining, if very uneven, prologue. With all the particulars out of the way, Desolation moves at an almost frantic, though uneven, pace. Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) is still journeys with Gandalf the Grey (Sir Ian McKellen) and The Company of Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) to enter the Lonely Mountain and reclaim their kingdom from the terrifying dragon, Smaug (a sublimely evil, motion-captured Benedict Cumberbatch). Along the way, Gandalf separates from the companions in order to investigate a familiar, growing evil and the troupe must overcome obstacles, including escaping imprisonment from wood elves, and skulking about the city of Lake-Town which lies at the edge of the Lonely Mountain, to attempt to regain the Arkenstone, which would cement Oakenshield’s claim to rule.  

 

The film is sumptuous to look at. While the film's vision is distinctly Jackson’s, it is somewhat filtered through the unique lens of Guillermo Del Toro, who brought his Pan's Labyrinth and Hellboy sensibilities to the film particularly in the setting of Lake-town (and quite possibly Erebor itself). Whereas the previous film returned to locations first seen in the original trilogy, cinematographer Andrew Lesnie and conceptual designer (and noted Tolkien artist) Alan Lee, the world of Middle-Earth is expanded and feels like a real world in and of itself. The visuals do capture the mythological epic nature of Tolkien's fantasy world... 

 

...that is, if Tolkien's world was fully represented. 

 

Jackson's Tolkien-based films have always been a source of division among the fans of the source material, mostly due to his penchant for embellishing upon, or outright straying from, said works. Of all these films, The Desolation of Smaug may be the most divisive to date. Jackson’s additions not only give new motivations and angst for existing characters where originally there were none, he goes so far as to create a completely new and prominent new character that never existed in Tolkien’s books. Before 2001, one of the arguments against a film adaptation was the belief that the books were, as written, "unfilm-able". In order to make the original LOTR film trilogy, many liberties were taken to entertain and attract the non-Tolkien masses. Some of those changes were controversial, but on the whole, the essence of Tolkien's work, if not the details, remained relatively intact. In this film…not so much.  

 

The question becomes how much does one change the source material before it becomes virtually divorced from it? For example, “The Hobbit” is presented from the point of view of Bilbo Baggins. However, in this film Bilbo is the focus for part of the first third and is practically invisible until it is time for him to enter Erebor. The problem with inserting material from corresponding tales from "The Silmarillion" and "Unfinished Tales" is that Bilbo is no longer the story’s focal point and, as such, is relegated to background. This lack of one cohesive protagonist confuses as well as diffuses the power of the film's narrative. It's not to say that the other characters are uninteresting. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. All of the actors acquit themselves rather well with on one performer being a standout (including newcomers Lee Pace, Luke Evans and Stephen Fry as “King Thandruil”, “Bard the Bowman” and “The Master of Lake-town”, respectively, among others). However, this film is titled The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug; one would expect to follow the events from that character’s point of view for the majority of the film.  

 

Further, without going into spoiler-ish details, there are instances of scenes where Jackson contradicts the first trilogy, particularly where the elves are concerned. Then there's the problem of Evangeline Lilly's "Meredith"...er… "Tauriel", a character created by Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh. She exists because (since as far as I remember, there were no female characters in “The Hobbit”) modern day storytelling practically necessitates a female presence (which is not a chauvinistic judgment call, but merely a statement of fact). Her character is Middle-Earth's Katniss Everdeen; sure of bow, strong of character and stout of heart. Her presence, however pleasing to the eye or sympathetic to the viewer, is virtually unnecessary as she neither detracts nor adds to the proceedings. Due to studio decree, a romantic triangle was added after completion of principle photography in order to create a love triangle between her, Legolas (Orlando Bloom, reprising a character who, like Frodo Baggins, Galadriel and Saruman, was not in the book) and the dwarven Kili (a soulful Aidan Turner). This romance poses a problem in the fact that both the LOTR books and films establish that the first rekindling of peace between the dwarves and elves came about from the friendship forged between Legolas and Gimli (John Rhys Davis). However, the portions of Howard Shore's moving score that pertain to Tauriel hint that all may not end well for anyone involved in this triangle. Nevertheless, her inclusion does add some added context for Legolas' behavior in the LOTR film trilogy but, again, it isn't a necessary addition to begin with.

 

Is this addition emotionally moving? Yes. Is it necessary? Perhaps for the film, if one were to take these films as their own separate entity from the books. And it has to be, for Peter Jackson takes liberties that changes not only whole climatic sequences in order to enhance dramatic effect, but completely changes the motivations of some characters to have them resonate to a 21st century audience. In many ways, he rewrites Tolkien (and not always for the better). As previously asserted in other reviews on this blog, changes deemed necessary for cinematic translation of literary works are acceptable so long as the filmmakers get the essence of the characters and story right. In many ways, this time Jackson doesn't. One of the most egregious (and most likely to incite ire amongst the purists) is during Bilbo's fateful confrontation with Smaug, practically changing the antagonist's character and thus transforming the entire dynamic of the scene. Unfortunately, it doesn't improve matters. 

 

Despite the fact that in terms of pacing and action this film far surpasses its predecessor, it is filled with bloat. Some action sequences take far longer than required and it is painfully obvious that it is for the purpose of stretching the running time. On the whole, the film tries too hard to add gravitas to such an extent it almost calls attention to the fact that this film is mostly padding to get to The Hobbit: There and Back Again. Of all the films thus far, this may be the weakest of composer Howard Shore's offerings. His music is still powerfully evocative, but it is as uneven as the film itself. He eschews use of the dwarves' theme, so prominent in the previous film, favoring a recurring elvish motif that is not quite as distinct. The "One Ring" theme does present itself in this film, albeit in short bursts. In terms of music, this is Shore's Star Wars: Attack of the Clones.

 

Unfortunately, the CGI is also uneven.  A sequence involving the dwarves escape from the elven kingdom is almost no better than an Xbox game. The main focus of the digital special effects must have been Smaug the Dragon, who is rendered so realistically he almost seems too real.  Never has a dragon been so beautifully represented in terms of size, scope, and menace. 

 

The film is extremely, though frustratingly, enjoyable; in some ways, more so than the first. However, it pales next to The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, which is generally considered to be the weakest entry of the previous trilogy. It also ends in a very visceral cliffhanger, making one very frustrated in having to wait an entire year for the finale.  

 

Essentially, this film is a mixed bag. It tries too hard to have the same weight and import as The Lord of the Rings.  For people who haven’t read the book(s), the inconsistent characterization might be overlooked and the ride enjoyed for what it is.  For Tolkien purists, just roll with it.  The film is based on the book(s), and should be taken for what it is…Tolkien-lite. Just remember going in that this is Peter Jackson's house; we're simply guests in it.

 

>Chomp<