(no subject)
Titles Covered: Batman v Superman, The Nice Guys, The Neon Demon, The Jungle Book 2016, TMNT: Out of the Shadows, The Lobster, The Killing Joke, Krampus.
Batman v Superman (**)
This movie had me hooked for about 10 minutes.
The opening includes a very effective recap of Batman's origin story, which transitions into the climax of Man of Steel, with Superman battling General Zod. The beginning of Batman v Superman is much better than the final fight in Man of Steel, as it shows an on-the-ground perspective that gives a lot more gravity and tension. There's a scene of Bruce Wayne racing through the streets, frantically trying to reach his employees at Wayne Tower, and it's as exciting as anything.
A few minutes later, the movie lost me.
There's a pivotal scene in which Lois Lane is interviewing some terrorist, but Jimmy Olsen is revealed to be a CIA agent. Gee, this might be a cool scene if we knew something about these people and what they were trying to do! Then some bad guys kill some other bad guys for some unknown reason, and Superman shows up to save Lois (and do nothing else), and then Congress blames Superman for killing a village of people. What?! When did that happen? And why did Superman let the bad guys get away? I'm aware that there's an extended cut of this movie that explains things better, but frankly, the film is already way too long and as far as I can tell the explanations are just “Lex Luthor did it.”
Actually, the whole plot is just “Lex Luthor did it.” Lex enacts a series of needlessly complicated and stupid machinations to kill Superman, most of which are irrelevant at the end of the day. That's the entire story of this 2-and-a-half hour movie. Along the way, the story structure is a complete mess, with scenes and montages that are out of place, and a notable lack of transitions or establishing shots to set up each scene. And yet, somehow Zack Snyder saw fit to include a long dream sequence of Batman fighting demons and then getting a cryptic message from time-traveling Flash that has nothing to do with anything.
Character-wise, the only ones who work are Batman and Alfred. I would gladly watch a Batman movie with Ben Affleck and Jeremy Irons in these roles. Meanwhile, Henry Cavil continues to be boring and dour as Superman, and Amy Adams still feels out of place. Jesse Eisenberg is chewing all the scenery as Lex Luthor, over-acting his heart out in a vain attempt to make the character work. And no... the character does not work. Lex Luthor feels like a pale imitation of the Joker from The Dark Knight, a crazy force of motiveless malice. The difference is that the Joker was scary and effective, so the audience could look past the myriad of plausibility issues. Lex Luthor isn't scary; he's just an annoying kid with half-baked philosophies.
Oh, and Wonderwoman is there, even though she doesn't need to be in the movie at all. She does basically nothing of relevance except show up at the end to fight a monster that is also pretty unnecessary. Captain America Civil War had this same problem, but at least most of the extraneous characters had been set up in other movies.
However, there is one late scene that is mindblowingly awesome. Towards the end, Batman fights a bunch of henchmen in a warehouse, and it's the best fight scene in any Batman movie. It's exciting, brutal, inventive, well-choreographed, and way better than the fight between Batman and Superman. Scenes like that make you wish that the movie was all about Batman, with Henry Cavill's mopey Superman in the background.
Batman v Superman is slick enough to be watchable, but aside from a few great moments here and there, it's a badly written mess. Watch The Dark Knight Returns instead, which is based on the Frank Miller comic that inspired Batman v. Superman, and has a much more intricate story.
The Nice Guys (****)
The Nice Guys could be considered a return to Shane Black's roots, as his script for Lethal Weapon became a modern standard for “odd couple” buddy cop action movies. The Nice Guys takes a similar genre, location, and time period, but amps things up with a more inventive plot and sillier characters. It's violent, it's intriguing, and it's quite hilarious.
The story involves a washed-up private detective who's investigating the mysterious death of a porn star in late 1970's Los Angeles. He winds up clashing with a simple-minded bruiser-for-hire, and through strange machinations the two wind up working on the same case. The fun thing about the plot is that it combines so many topical issues from the 70's: the energy crisis, the failing auto industry, air pollution, political corruption, and the rise and fall of the San Fernando porn industry. All of these figure into the plot in some way, and the film does a good job of setting them all up for audience members who may not know all the history. An especially funny scene involves the two detectives trying to interrogate a group of protesters pretending to have died from the Los Angeles smog.
The actors do well. Ryan Gosling plays against type as a sad-sack single dad, while Russell Crowe mocks his own hot-headed image as a guy whose first instinct is to punch everybody in the face. But the real surprise, and ultimately the moral center of the movie, is 15-year-old Angourie Rice as Gosling's precocious daughter Holly. Holly is delightful in every scene she's in, trying to keep the tough guys straight and honest. She's easily one of the best female characters of 2016.
There's nothing too deep or profound about The Nice Guys, but it's a delightful, well-executed action comedy with great characters and dialogue. See it!
The Neon Demon (*)
Nicholas Winding Refn came to many people's attention - mine included - with Drive, a stylish crime thriller that many people loved. I didn't love Drive, but there were things I admired about it, so I sort of understand the following it has. The Neon Demon, on the other hand, is pretty awful.
Oh sure, there are a few cool shots. There are also a lot more shots that are so dark that you can't see what's happening. There are a few dialogues that are actually insightful, but they tend to be very short, while the long dialogue-free segments of the movie drag on for-freaking-ever. The movie teases us with possibilities, suggesting that it will be haunting and interesting. I wondered if it would be like Black Swan, which I love to bits.
Even during the early not-bad parts of The Neon Demon, my attention kept drifting because the movie is so goddamn slow and misguided. Early on there's this long sequence of dark fuzzy strobe shots of the characters doing nothing while boring synthesizer music drones on. I watched in disbelief, thinking “Really? We're doing this?” I hoped such a sequence would be the exception, but it turns out to be the rule.
I would have just given up, but there were brief flashes of inspiration that gave me hope. Maybe this is going somewhere. Maybe it will be cool. Maybe this is all slow build-up to a really cool 3rd act. I pressed on, occasionally whipping out the “fast-forward” button to survive some of the longer non-scenes.
If The Neon Demon had simply stopped about 80 minutes in, I would have let it slide with 2 stars. It would have been lame and pointless, but also stylish and occasionally interesting. But the 3rd act is so bad and incoherent that I simply couldn't believe it. I'm sure it all symbolizes how shallow and cut-throat the modeling industry is, but that's all for naught unless done within the context of a decent story. I don't even know if I can spoil the ending, because it's just a bunch of nonsensical shock value. Seriously, Mr. Refn, what the hell is wrong with you?
The Jungle Book 2016 (***)
Disney's been in a mad rush to make live-action versions of their cherished animated catalog. We've seen the good (Cinderella), the bad (Malificent), and the mediocre (Alice in Wonderland). I can only assume that eventually we'll get a live-action Three Caballeros, an animated Apple Dumpling Gang, and a remake of Mary Poppins in which the people are cartoons and the dancing penguins are real. In any case, I hesitate to call The Jungle Book “live action”, since that description applies to Mowgli and basically nothing else in the movie.
Indeed, The Jungle Book is a testament to how far CGI has come. It's an animated film that makes you forget that it's an animated film. Even the talking animals seem less like Disney animals and more like live critters with voice-overs. Well done, special effects team! But what about the story?
This new version is closer to Kipling's original short stories than the Disney animated version, though I'd argue it's still missing Kipling's depth and political allegory. The movie seems to be serving two masters, remaking the animated movie while also being a new adaptation. This results in disjointed scenes, such as Kaa's cameo, or Christopher Walken's rendition of “I wanna be like you.” Look, I love that song as much as anyone, but I don't buy that Walken's serious Gigantopithecus is a goofy musical type (for those wondering... yes, that giant ape is real, but went extinct long before recorded history).
The story finds some strength in Mowgli's character arc. Called “the man cub,” Mowgli isn't quite sure what he is. He lacks human examples to lead him, but can't keep up with the animals either. His attempts to use basic tools are dismissed as “tricks,” unbefitting a creature bound by the Laws of the Jungle. Of course, Mowgli's identity crisis is given urgency by the omnipresent Shere Kahn, forcing him to learn about Fire, which is presented as both the source of Man's power and obligation for responsible management. OK, so I guess there is some depth to the story after all.
Deviating from the source material, Shere Kahn is not a crippled tiger (he has a burned face instead), which is probably for the best since the movie wrings a lot of mileage out of Kahn as a physical threat. A mid-point plot twist establishes the tiger as a force to be reckoned with, which works well for keeping the stakes high. I also enjoyed the portrayal of Baloo. He's neither the law teacher of the Kipling stories nor the goofball of the animated musical, but instead finds a nice balance between mentor and friend. Otherwise, the characters didn't make too much of an impression on me. They're fine.
The Jungle Book 2016 is solid. It seemed to be less than the sum of its parts, but for what it's worth, I enjoyed it. It's certainly much better than the live-action Jungle Book movie from the 90's.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows (** and a half)
The hit 1987 Ninja Turtles cartoon show (i.e. the reason TMNT became a big deal) had a large cast of colorful characters, most of which never made it into the movies. Instead, the movies often introduced original villains, all pretty lame (with the exception of Tatsu from the first movie). Then, someone had a brilliant idea. “What if we made a movie with all the most popular characters, including Bebop and Rocksteady?” Yes, it took a quarter-century and 6 TMNT movies to overcome legal issues and fragile egos in order to do the obvious. And the end result? Eh... It's decent.
If you're not expecting much, you'll probably enjoy this movie. It does have everything a Ninja Turtles movie should have, including a storyline that is similar to the overall arc of Season One. I wish I'd seen this movie 25 years ago. 10-year-old Alex would have loved it. However, while the creators made good decisions with regards to content, most of it isn't done particularly well.
For starters, the villains are underwhelming. Shredder does practically nothing, and mostly just stands around looking scary. Krang has an interesting design, but is awkwardly shoe-horned into the story through contrivance. There is a scene that's basically just Krang shouting the plot at Shredder. Then there's Baxter Stockman... I feel that Tyler Perry was onto something, playing a goofy ego-maniacal mad scientist. However, the character is badly written, such that I never understood his motivations or allegiance to Shredder.
On the other hand, the movie nails Bebop and Rocksteady, both in human and mutant form. Both actors do a fantastic job at playing crazy over-the-top personalities, effectively embodying live-action versions of the Saturday morning cartoon characters. Also, the four turtles themselves are all done pretty well. I think their visual designs have been tweaked since the 2014 movie, since they look brighter, and all of their personalities seem more natural and convincing.
If you're a Ninja Turtles fan, I think it's worth seeing this movie just to watch our favorite “heroes in a half-shell” fight Bebop and Rocksteady. Actually, a lot of the action in this movie is pretty cool and inventive, surpassing the more straightforward fight scenes in the beloved 1990 original movie. There's a car chase with the turtle van, a crazy fight aboard an out-of-control airplane, and some impressive martial-arts moments with the foot soldiers fighting police officers.
The Lobster (*** and a half)
Wow, this is a strange one. Wikipedia describes The Lobster as “absurdist.” The setting isn't realistic, nothing in this movie is believable, and nobody acts like a human being. You just have to run with it.
The premise is that everyone is required to be married, and single people are sent to a re-education camp where they have a limited period of time to hook up, else be turned into a wild animal (the main character chooses a lobster, hence the title). You'd think that such a mandate would ensure that people match up quickly, but this is an absurdist satire, so it doesn't work that way. Everyone waits around for someone with a completely arbitrary matching characteristic rather than saving their own skin. Oh, but what if you find a match, but then start fighting? The Administrator proclaims “We'll assign you a child. That usually works.” Wow.
The movie makes fun of you married folks who kicked all your single friends to the curb, as well as those of us who squandered our prime reproductive years waiting that perfect match. Oh, and there's also a rebel group of bitter singles who are just as insufferable as the totalitarian society they fight against. It's a biting satire of dating, but you also can't read too much into it since the movie is clearly just trying to be super weird.
It's a little bit hard to explain the appeal of this movie, as it's not terribly funny or emotional. The Lobster also runs a bit long. It's just a weird but intriguing film with solid performances and good directing. It keeps you curious, it amuses you, and makes you think. That's a good film in my eyes.
The Killing Joke (**)
There's actually a lot of DC animated movies, most released direct-to-DVD. I've seen and enjoyed a few of them, especially Mask of the Phantasm, Under the Red Hood, and The Dark Knight Returns. The Killing Joke got a lot of hype and a theatrical release largely because it's based on a famous Alan Moore book, and marked another return of the original voice actors from the animated series.
The Killing Joke is an odd beast. The first half is an unrelated story about a mafia guy who has a weird sexual obsession with BatGirl. Oh, and Batgirl and Batman hook up, and Batgirl has a sassy gay friend who is weirdly obsessed with her love-life. It's not a great story, but some of the action is decent. None of this was in the graphic novel, so I guess it's supposed to set up the Joker story that we eventually get in the second half of the movie. The problem is that it doesn't actually set anything up. All it does is provide more screen time for Batgirl, so that she can not be Batgirl in the second half of the movie and then go into a coma. Seriously, what's the point?
But even after you get to the actual adaptation of the Killing Joke book, it's not that great. The story seemed very simple, and ultimately doesn't have much substance. Part of the problem is the Joker's origin story, which I feel was done much better in the 1989 Tim Burton movie. The movie Joker was already a high-ranking mafia figure before his transformation, which explained his extremely violent behavior and his ability to run a criminal empire. The Killing Joke instead gives him a sympathetic backstory that makes less sense. The animated series did a great job with sympathetic villain backstories, but they were wise to never do so with the Joker, because the character is a completely anarchic force of motiveless malice.
All that said, there are some strong points to the movie. The action is pretty brutal, and the voice acting is solid. I liked the visual designs of the Joker's henchmen, and the last few scenes between the Joker and Batman are actually somewhat profound. These are the sorts of touches that could make a good movie great, but in an otherwise-weak plot, they just feel like promises of an amazing story that we never quite get.
Krampus (*** and a half)
I somewhat instinctively write off horror movies, assuming that they will be bad. However, one of my youth group kids convinced me to check out Krampus, a goofy Christmas-themed horror movie. And indeed, Krampus is pretty delightful and accessible to audiences who don't always like this genre.
The movie has an element of satire, presenting the Christmas season as a stressful time in which people act like jerks and are barely able to put up with their relatives. As a result, the demon known as “Krampus” is summoned. He's essentially the anti-Santa, who comes to punish the naughty instead of rewarding the good.
Krampus is sort of a nostalgic movie, avoiding the modern slasher killers and CGI supernatural forces. Instead, the movie uses puppets and costumes to create goony monsters similar to those seen in Gremlins or Labyrinth. Also similar to Gremlins, the human characters are actually able to fight back against the monsters, which makes the struggles more exciting. Oh, and there's an animated flashback sequence reminiscent of stop-motion Christmas specials like Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer. And a timeline-altering ending that comforts the kids just enough to avoid the horrifying implications of earlier violence, much like Jumanji. And all of this is done pretty well!
If there are major flaws in Krampus, it's largely in the genre. The movie is still just a cheesy horror movie, and never completely transcends that. But it's a good cheesy horror movie that's a lot of fun to watch.