“Love and Mercy” manages to be both sad and uplifting, ugly and beautiful all at once.

Full disclosure. I have been a Beach Boys fan since I was a child. I blame my father as I was born in the early 80s and thus was not even alive yet during the height of their popularity. I found their music to be fun, upbeat and enormously catchy. As I got older, I came across the odd article or piece of information that talked about Brian Wilson’s battle with mental illness. (The Barenaked Ladies’ song “Brian Wilson” to name just one). I didn’t know much about it, but it didn’t surprise me that he had suffered. Many geniuses are known for the inner demons they fight.

I will admit that I do love biopics as well (despite the fact that they are usually ridiculously formulaic). I enjoy seeing a fictionalized tale about how that person “came up” and achieved fame. Usually the messier, the better. Most biopics tend to focus on the drugs, excesses and other extremes that challenged or destroyed the person’s career. If they died of an overdose, you can bet your ass the film will focus mainly on their struggles with drugs, or drinking and little else.

“Love and Mercy” could have gone that route – there is enough drug use and excess in Wilson’s past to warrant it surely. However, this film decided to take a different approach and I thought doing so made it quite brilliant. Instead of the familiar linear approach (we see their childhood, their break into fame, the trials, challenges, drugs, and finally their death), we got to see the struggles Wilson faced through two very pivotal points in his life. One of those points was in the 60s while he wrote the critically acclaimed album “Pet Sounds” and the other was in the late 80s as he was struggling to break free from his controlling psychiatrist Eugene Landy (Paul Giamatti) and mental demons. What makes it even more interesting is that during these two periods, Wilson is played by two separate actors – Paul Dano in the 60s and John Cusack in the 80s.

The film shifts between these two points. It shows us the beginnings of his troubled mind. The earlier part of his life, shows us the frantic need that Wilson seemed to have to “get his music out” and the unique way he approached song writing. It paints him as an artist first and foremost who cared about the music before the hit records (much to the chagrin of his own band). It showed us the beginnings of the voices he heard, the paranoia, the unravelling of his marriage, the difficulties with his abusive father and his introduction to psychotropic drugs.

The second point we see of Wilson is (as said before) in the late 80s. While Dano showed us a focused and very driven Wilson, Cusack’s older version of Wilson is subdued, unsure of himself and almost childlike. We first see him in a car dealership attempting to buy a Cadillac. He attracts the interest of the sales clerk Melinda (Elizabeth Banks), who is drawn to his non sequitors and his transparent need to talk to someone. They have a short and fairly sweet exchange until his psychiatrist Eugene Landy shows up and takes control of the situation. He orders the purchase of the car and whisks Brian away from her, but not before he leaves her a note on a piece of paper that reads “Lonely, scared, frightened”.

The more modern plot revolves around their budding romance and Melinda coming to terms not only with Brian’s mental illness, but also with the fact that Landy is using him and over medicating him. It culminates in her and his close friends launching a lawsuit against him to remove Landy from his life (as he was Wilson’s designated legal guardian at that point).

It’s a beautiful and moving story about two people who fall in love despite crazy obstacles. It doesn’t shy away from Wilson’s battle with mental health problems, and although it largely omits the period in his life where his drug use and issues destroyed his marriage and almost ruined his life, it doesn’t shy away from the fact that there is a darker side to Wilson. He takes responsibility for his earlier mistakes. In a way it seems that his allowance of Landy to thoroughly run his life was a direct response to all the things he had done in his past. As if allowing someone else full control could erase it all.

The Good:

1. The music. There isn’t a ton of it in the film. Most biopics focus heavily on the music of the artist to the point where you might as well have just downloaded their greatest hits rather than watch the movie. That doesn’t happen here. We don’t get full songs, we get clips. Odd bits and pieces of the music that are used very specifically to give us insight into where Wilson was at this point in his head. Most of the clips played come from the “Pet Sounds” album and Wilson’s creation of it. It’s frustrating at times to head only the backing track or a small sample of Wilson singing the song at his piano, but it is also refreshing not to be subjected to a 2 hour long music video. The music chosen is beautiful, powerful or simply happy to listen to. You cannot listen to “Good Vibrations” without smiling (seriously, try it. It’s NOT possible.) Director Bill Pohlad was very particular in what music he chose for the film, and it’s very effective.
2. Two Brians. It’s an odd choice for a biopic. Generally film makers rely on age make up, hair style and clothing changes to show the passage of time. Occasionally they get a different child actor if they are going that far back, but usually they stick with one actor to portray the character. There’s only 20 years between the two “Brians” but VERY different experiences have made them almost completely different men. I was skeptical about the decision, fearing it would take you out of the movie to see two different actors as the same character, but instead it does the opposite. Seeing Paul Dano’s portrayal gives a very interesting nuance to John Cusack’s interpretation. They seem to walk the same way and have the same physical characteristics which helps make both their performances more believable. Each of the actors brings out a different side to Wilson in his portrayal and adds to the beauty and tone of the story.
3. Elizabeth Banks and Paul Giamatti. Both give brilliant performances here. Banks as love interest Melinda comes across as wary, but intrigued, empathetic and compassionate and horrified at the life that Wilson is living. She comes across as someone who doesn’t care about his past fame or wealth. Material possessions are not important in fact, they seem to make her slightly uncomfortable. She cares for Wilson, but doesn’t want to be another person in his life sucking him dry. Their scenes together are sweet and awkward in equal measure. Both are damaged individuals just trying to find something in the other person worth holding onto. Paul Giamatti is also an inspired choice. From the second he appears on the screen we can sense something is deeply off. His outbursts and controlling behavior come across as beyond creepy. He is intense, magnetic and chilling in this role.
4. The Structure. It’s a unique way to tell a story. Two fixed points in time, rather than a beginning, middle and end. It’s simple and uncluttered but tells us more about Brian Wilson than we might have otherwise gotten in a film bogged down by changes in decades, excessive drug montages and other trappings of a biopic. At the heart of the film is its emotional core and structuring it this way allows the director to strip it down to its bare bones.

The Bad:

1. I honestly can’t think of anything. I really loved this movie.

This is one of those few movies that will stay with you long after you come out of the theatre. It will make you said, and happy at the same time. It will make you want to go home and download all of the Beach Boy’s music and listen to it all at once.

Mad Max: Fury Road is pure action packed awesomeness! (and as a bonus, it makes MRAs cry!)

One of the biggest surprise successes of the summer blockbuster season was the film “Mad Max: Fury Road”. Or, as MRAs (Mens Rights Activists) would like to call it, “Mad Maxipad” or “Mad Max: Feminist Road.” I first saw the trailer for this film months ago and although the visuals looked amazing, I wasn’t all that interested in it. I was never a huge fan of the Mad Max films to begin with and the trailer gave nothing away as to plot. I tend to avoid movies that are “reboots” or “remakes” for the simple fact that they usually suck (“Carrie” I’m looking at you) and I mistakenly believed the film to be nothing more than that.

Boy, was I wrong.

On a few things. The first thing I was wrong about was thinking the film was a “remake” or a “reboot”. It’s neither (though given the fact that Tom Hardy had taken the place of Mel Gibson as the titular character, you can’t really blame me for making that assumption). It’s simply a continuation of the series. The actor replacement was something that was done because Mel Gibson would have been too old for the role. Despite the fact that 30 years have passed since the last Mad Max film, director George Miller chose not to show that passage of time.

And then there was the assumption of mine that there was no plot. Again, wrong.

About a week or so before the film came out, I started seeing articles posted on social media about the film. Apparently an article had appeared on a well known MRA website called “Return of Kings” denouncing the movie as “feminist propaganda”. One of the writers for the site had seen the movie and was extremely disappointed in the fact that the movie contained a large female cast let by Charlize Theron’s character and that the narrative of the film was largely centred around her. Further enraging the neanderthalic mindset was the fact that her character was not a damsel or someone in need of saving, but just as strong and capable of Max. They took particular offense to the fact that in some parts of the film he takes his cue from her as well as the fact that director George Miller had consulted Eve Ensler author of “The Vagina Monologues” for help on how to accurately portray women who were victims of sex trafficking.

All of this was betrayal of the highest order. Accusations were made that the filmmakers had “destroyed an American icon” and that Miller and co. had “bowed down to feminist pressure”. They conveniently ignored the fact that Miller is Australian and that the cast for all Mad Max films (including this one) were NOT American. Using this as their basis, they urged a boycott of the film.

Now, normally anything written by MRAs, especially anything that comes from the “Return of Kings” website is immediately dismissed as morons shouting into the wind, and rightly so. For some reason however, this particular article blew up on social media and these idiots received 15 seconds of fame. It was 15 seconds that backfired on them, as their calls for a boycott only made the film that much more popular causing many people to see it who would not otherwise have gone or to see it more than once.

I myself became far more interested when I heard they were so opposed to the film. My interest increased even further when I saw the heaps of praise that the critics were giving it. It achieved a 98% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, which is pretty darn difficult. The film was highly successful on its opening weekend. The theatres were packed to the brim with both men and women and when it ended, people left the theatre raving about what they saw.

Sorry MRAs, but nobody felt “betrayed” by the feminism in the movie, in fact everybody loved how awesome Theron’s character Furiosa was – myself included. The numbers were GOOD for the film. Yes, it came in second that weekend at the box office prompting many MRAs to claim their boycott had “won”, but when you look at the actual amount of money the film took in, it was in fact far more than had been anticipated and that was largely because of word of mouth advertisement and the “scandal” surrounding it.

And what film did the movie come in second to? “Pitch Perfect” – a film written, directed and starring all women.

Most films might cripple under all this hype, but “Mad Max: Fury Road” deserved every amount of hype and more. It was one of the best action films I have seen in a good long while.

The plot centers around a post apocalyptic society ruled by a patriarchal tyrant by the name of Immorten Joe. Society has suffered greatly from nuclear fall out and we see very early on that most of the members of the Citadel including Joe himself are sick and many are dying. There is fresh water there and Joe hoards that water as a means of controlling the population. He keeps five women captive as sex slaves in an attempt to breed out the sickness. It is these women that cause the action to kick into high gear.

Max (Tom Hardy), is captured at the beginning of the film and taken to the Citadel because he is healthy. One of the means of preserving the lives of those living in the Citadel is through blood transfusions from healthy donors. Max is then classed as a “bloodbag” and given to a young, sick War Boy named Nux (Nicholous Hoult).

Charlize Theron’s character is one of Immorten Joe’s warriors named Furiosa. She has a mechanical arm, drives a war rig and conducts raids in order to get supplies for the Citadel. We find out later that she was kidnapped as a child and brought to the Citadel where she was groomed as a warrior. She’s pretty high ranking too, from what we can gather as she is given control of the most powerful war rig with a good number of men under her command. She sets out on what seems to be a routine mission, however we soon find out that she has betrayed Immorten Joe and liberated the five women he was keeping as sex slaves and breeders. This is a mission of redemption for her, and one that Max is soon caught up in as Nux is sent out after her with Max along for the ride.

What follows is a fast paced action packed visual masterpiece culminating in Max, Furiosa, the five wives, some bad ass grannies and Nux taking on Immorten Joe to conquer the Citadel and end his reign of terror.

The Good:

1. Charlize Theron. She is AMAZING. MRAs might be all butt hurt by her awesomeness, but pretty much everybody else seemed to love her. She is not your typical “strong female character”. Yes, she is strong character, but she is also compassionate and multi layered. She isn’t there ONLY to kick ass, she is a whole person. Hers is a mission of redemption and she is the one with the hero’s arc. Theron gives such a nuanced performance, it’s hard to walk out of the theatre unaffected by it. The scene in which she finds out the paradise she thought they were escaping to no longer exists and falls to her knees screaming with rage and heartbreak is incredible. Such an amazing performance.
2. Nux. He’s adorable. He starts out as just a War Boy intent on stopping Furiosa in order to gain favour from Immorten Joe. He is dying and takes Max along with him as his blood bag. From this we find out that Immorten Joe has convinced all the dying War Boys that if they die in battle, they will go to Valhalla and this is what Nux intends to do – die gloriously. It’s nothing new as far as storylines go, except somewhere along the way, Nux has the veil lifted from his eyes and begins to see the truth in who Immorten Joe is. He realizes that there is no Valhalla and that his tumours (which he has named Larry and Barry) will take his life no matter what. He further realizes the error of his ways when he interacts with the five wives and starts to see them as human beings rather than the property of Immorten Joe. (Perhaps that’s what the MRAs didn’t like? Seeing women as humans?) He forms a friendship with one of them, and begins to understand that both of them have been victims in some way or another. His storyline also then becomes about redemption. Instead of wanting to die for glory, he dies for those he cares about. It’s through him that we see the War Boys as human as well. They aren’t all evil dastardly villains. Many of them are sick, frightened young men who have been poisoned by a tyrant. He allows us sympathy for them, even as they hunt him down.
3. The stunts and action. Miller has always been a fan of action stunts being as authentic as possible. All the stunts in the first three films were real and in some cases very very dangerous. He could have used CGI for this movie, but instead decided to eschew the use of it in favour of real cars, real stunts and real action. The results are absolutely stunning to watch and made even more so because of how real they are.
4. The visuals. I know this sort of goes hand in hand with the stunts, but for me my love of the visuals goes beyond the sheer mind blowing action. The costumes, the cars, the colours and vibrancy were all meticulously chosen for maximum effect. It’s a beautiful film to look at from a pure aesthetic point of view and that is a triumph in and of itself.
5. The music. Oh my God the music. The entire film is set to an accompanying sound track and by that I mean the soundtrack literally follows them. Instead of it just being background noise, Immorten Joe brings musicians with him in his war party. They travel on a HUGE rig, with drummers, a wall of speakers and a guitarist who is tied to the speakers with ropes playing a guitar that shoots flames out of it. FLAMES COMING OUT OF A GUITAR! The music keeps pace with the action and is always perfectly chosen to reflect the emotions or the intensity of the action taking place. Plus, guitar that shoots flames!
6. The pacing. It’s a two hour chase scene effectively, yet there are still moments of downtime where we get to know the characters. We are allowed these small moments within the greater action of the film to gain insight into their characters, to feel for them and to mourn them when they die.
7. The myriad of female characters. One of the reasons that Miller consulted with Eve Ensler was that she had done some work with women who had been involved in the sex trafficking trade in the Congo. She had insight into the various different ways that women like this responded to being forced into the sex trade and Miller wanted to use that knowledge to help write more realistic characters. The five wives are women who have been forced into sexual slavery and each of them has her own distinct personality and reaction to what they have gone through. One attempts to escape and go back to Immorten Joe because she is scared of the unknown. One sacrifices herself and her unborn child to help save the others. One takes pity on Nux – a War Boy who should be her enemy. The experiences of these women might be the same, but they all feel it differently. The same goes for the women that they meet up with who are what’s left of the “place of many mothers”. These women are not young, beautiful and strong. They are elderly and hardened by all the hardships they have faced and yet in the short time that they have on screen, each of them shows us a part of herself. THIS is why we need more women on screen. Precisely for this reason. Black Widow in the Avengers was criticized because as the only main female character, she was expected to represent all aspects of womanhood. That’s not possible. Instead with this film, we get a multitude of women, all of which are allowed to be human and have their own distinct personalities. We can identify with any of them we choose.

The Bad:

1. Not a fan of 3D ever, so again the fact that I HAD to see it in 3D (or miss out on the visual amazingness of the AVX theatre) did not make me happy.  Can’t wait to see it in Blu Ray though – that will look awesome!

Overall I am so so happy this movie was as successful as it was. Even happier because it means the MRAs of the world will go home and cry big manly tears while more films of its kind get released. Does Mad Max take a bit of a back seat in the film? Yes, but that is nothing new. In both “The Road Warrior” and “Beyond Thunderdome”, Max gets reluctantly drawn into someone else’s problems and agrees to help out. Cry it out little boys, cry it out.

“Avengers: Age of Ultron” is a worthy successor to “Avengers”.

Sequels. One of the toughest types of films to pull off. They truly are a very delicate balance. Their existence is determined by the success of the film before it and thus, they are expected to retain those elements that made it successful. The flaw in this, of course, is that too often they are also criticised for repeating those same elements. Comedies are criticized for using the same jokes, action thrillers for using the same plots, etc. Super hero blockbusters, however are probably the most difficult.

Not only do you have to make the film better, you have to avoid falling into familiar patterns as well as please a rabid fan base who have likely read the original comic source material and will hate the film if it deviates even slightly. Now that IS a generalization and I don’t want to tar all comic fans with the same brush. Still, this illustrates the unique challenges that go into this sort of film making.

Adding to the mix is a growing social awareness of representation in film and *why* it is important to represent characters beyond the stock white male action hero. People are actively voicing their desire to see other types of people on screen in lead roles such as women, people of colour, LGBT characters and characters with disabilities and this is an awesome thing. I am one of these people so I understand the frustration when some of these stories fall short of the mark. I mention this because Joss Whedon, the director of Avengers: Age of Ultron is a man who has made it very clear through his body of work that he is a feminist that believes highly in the importance of strong, well written, and well rounded female characters. His career has been built on this feminism and desire for representation.

The first Avengers was one of the most successful films of all time. Joss’ challenge was then to make a sequel that could top it, stay faithful to his fan base, AND the Marvel Cinematic Universe that was built around him in the previous films, not to mention maintain pace with the television show “Agents of Shield”. Yeah, no pressure there.

As Joss himself said in an interview “the moment you declare yourself politically, you destroy yourself artistically”. I fully understand what he meant when he said this and the reaction after the film’s release shows this statement to be more than true. Amid accusations from fans (as well as people simply with an axe to grind against Whedon), he has been accused of abandoning his “feminist cred” with this film due to how Black Widow’s character was handled (more on this later). A joke made by Tony Stark also received a lot of ire (in which he attempts to lift Thor’s hammer and when doing so declares that if he rules Asgard he will re-institute Prima Nocta). I find this to be particularly hypocritical since most of these criticisms came from social media and blogs. A lot of those same blogs turned around to praise other films that make far worse jokes, such as Pitch Perfect 2 in which a Guatemalan character tells the girls that when she was 9 years old, her brother tried to sell her for a chicken. I don’t know about you, but I have far more of an issue with a joke about sex trafficking than I do about a joke that centres around an ancient rite that may not have even existed.

That being said, the point of even mentioning this is to highlight just how difficult a task Whedon had ahead of him with “Age of Ultron”. In my view, he succeeded with this film. Are there problems with it? Absolutely! There were problems with the first film as well. Despite this, it is a good movie and makes for a highly entertaining two and a half hours.

“Avengers: Age of Ultron” picks up largely where the last film leaves off. The team are fighting together to take down a Hydra base and retrieve Loki’s sceptre. Upon doing so, Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) and Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) ask Thor (Chris Hemsworth) for permission to study the sceptre for three days before Tony’s big party. Mere scientific curiosity  takes a back seat when Banner and Stark discover inside the sceptre lies a super computer more alien and powerful than they have ever seen. What follows is a pretty familiar story – a type of “Frankenstein”-like tale, if you will. In an ill fated attempt to bring about “peace in our time”, Banner and Stark try to use the sceptre to implant an artificial intelligence into one of Tony’s suits as a peace keeping measure. The AI system, upon seeing the task ahead of him, realizes that the only way to achieve peace in our time, is by wiping out all of humanity – starting with the Avengers.

Ultron (James Spader) achieves sentience during a party that Stark hosts, takes them by surprise, thus revealing to the other team members the extent of Banner and Stark’s experimentation. Ultron escapes, and manages to recruit two “enhanced” humans that Hydra had been experimenting on using their axe to grind with Tony Stark as fuel. The twins Pietro and Wanda Maximov (Aaron Taylor Johnson and Elizabeth Olsen), have their own journey in the film culminating in them joining the Avengers along with a second Stark creation called The Vision (Paul Bettany). The final line-up is present in the cinematic battle of good vs. evil.

The Good:

1. The chemistry between the ensemble cast. A cast this large can be very difficult. Allowing for each character to have enough screen time and fit that into the overall plot arc is hard when you have only a few characters to work with. “Age of Ultron” features at least seven main characters, all of whom have their own personal character arcs. The balance with which this was done is incredible, not to mention the chemistry within the cast itself. It’s no secret that Joss loves a good ensemble cast and while he may not have chosen all his actors personally, he knows what drives each character and how to get the best performance out of them. No team member is superfluous and each has something important to do that fits the overall plot line.
2. The performances. These are grown adults in superhero outfits. Some of these outfits look quite silly and yet unlike DC (whose heroes seem almost apologetic about their costumes), the actors own their characters and bring a seriousness to it as well as a sense of silliness. The fact that they are wearing capes does not take away from the drama of the film or the fun for the audience. The performances are strong, nuanced and in some places quite powerful. Robert Downey Jr. masterfully portrays Tony Stark who manages to walk the line between peace maker and megalomaniac. The effects of the battle of New York in the first film are still with him and they drive his desire to protect the world from the next alien threat they may face. The same is true for Scarlett Johansson who picks up as Natasha Romanov – the Russian former assassin on her own journey for redemption. The first film dealt with Romanov joining the Avengers in an attempt to erase the “red in her ledger”. Whedon only gave us a small glimpse of her character but it was more than enough thanks to his writing and her acting. She may, in the hands of a lesser actress, have come across as your typical “strong female character” ™, who kicks butt, takes names, and shows zero vulnerability, emotion or character depth. Don’t get me wrong, I LIKE seeing female action heroes, but too often they are reduced to the type of character who runs through the movie beating up bad guys in skin tight cleavage bearing costumes, quipping jokes and never cracking a smile. That is not Romanov. Her character is tough, yes, wears tight leather, yes, but is also allowed to be soft and occasionally weak. She is full of pain, regret, and flaws – like any well written character in fiction. Johansson manages to highlight all these facets of her personality within the short time frame allotted. James Spader also did a very good job as Ultron. I was more pleased with him than I thought I would be given that he was playing a crazed robot. I didn’t expect the level of depth that I saw in his character and liked the way that his acting, dialogue and even way of speaking seemed to mirror a darker side of Tony Stark – like the worse aspects of Stark’s personality magnified. Other performances are worth noting, but if I continue to discuss them all, I will take up far too much space. Suffice to say the cast was well chosen and ALL of them hit their mark.
3. The dialogue. Typical, wonderful and Whedonesque, the key reason I always enjoy one of Joss’ projects is the dialogue. He can do wonderful things with the words chosen for his characters. He shows us through his characters words, who they are and what they want. Ultron has a very specific personality that is half Tony Stark and half something else. The twins might not have much screen time, but we are able to feel their pain through the description Piotr gives at the beginning of what Tony has done to him (however inadvertently). Tony’s quips and jokes are spot on, and the dialogue between Widow and The Hulk is touching. He shows the teamwork and friendships the characters have formed through his dialogue as well, allowing us to see how far they have come. The beginning scene is very illustrative of his when Tony says “shit” and Captain America (Chris Evans) admonishes him for his language. Tony fires back with “did Cap just say ‘language’?” which eases the tension. All this is done WHILE they fight showing us the easy comradery the characters have developed as they work as a team. The joke makes its way throughout the film reminding us each time that they are a team at the core and they will get through this. That is the mark of a good writer.
4. The theme of the film. The first film focuses around the team coming together and overcoming their differences in order to work as a team. This film begins with a scene that showcases how they have managed to do that at the beginning with the fight to reclaim Loki’s sceptre. It’s fun to see them having figured out how to fight as a unit, the friendships and easy comradery, but of course that can’t last. While the first film might have been concentrated on how to get them there, this film focuses on the crisis that occurs when they are confronted with a monster of their own creation. This time it’s not just an outside enemy that they have to face, but their own inner fears and demons. A good reason why the inclusion of Scarlet Witch works so well is that her powers cause them to fall apart from the inside. We get an excellent insight into what each of them fear and how that fear affects the team dynamic. This is something Joss has always done very well and this is no exception.
5. The concern that is shown for human life. This is something that continually pisses me off with superhero movies – the big battle sequences often destroy massive amounts of property and kill countless civilians and the heroes don’t tend to seem too concerned about it as long as they get their bad guy. DC is particularly guilty of this (Man of Steel, looking at you!), and it’s frustrating as hell. Not so with Avengers. Both the first film AND the second film make it a point that human life is the priority over all else. The first film showed the team creating a perimeter in New York City and evacuating the civilians to the best of their ability. They made it their goal to confine the battle to that area and contain the damage to minimize casualties. This is heightened in the second movie in several different spots. The scene at the beginning where Tony sends his drones to evacuate the city, the scene where he brings out the Hulk busting armour and scans a building that is about to come down for vital signs and of course the entire battle sequence in Sokovia at the end is entirely built around saving people and minimizing casualties.
6. The scene with Tony Stark’s party. Awesome. Just awesome. It’s one of the few times we get to see them relaxed and having fun. It’s the stuff fanfiction is made of. Is it fan service? Yes, but it’s awesome fan service.
7. The relationship between Hulk and Black Widow. Yeah it got a lot of controversy. People claiming that by giving her a love interest, they are somehow denying the strength of her character and I can see the logic in it to an extent. She IS the only female member of the team and therefore is rather (unfairly) expected to represent all aspects of the female experience. This would be a difficult task for any character. Arguments have been made that by giving her a love interest, the story is then more about her romance than it is about her redemption. Again, I can see it to an extent, but for me, the romance WAS about her redemption. It was about both her and Bruce Banner – both people isolated by society and both people who believe their actions in the past have made them monsters. It makes sense that widow would gravitate to the one person who couldn’t even begin to judge her for what she has done. But it’s more than that. She wants to save him because in saving him, she believes she is capable of saving herself. She is worthy of forgiveness. I thought it was nuanced and very well done. The characters have mad chemistry and I don’t think it diminishes her as a character to fall in love. I think it shows yet another layer that I hope will be explored when (please let it be when), she gets her own movie.

The Bad:

1. The action sequences/3D. I did not feel the 3D was necessary for this film. Some films I can see the justification of it, but for this one, the only justification I could see was the desire for Marvel/Disney to suck more money out of our pockets. I know there are sometimes non 3D showings, but they are few and far between these days and we wanted to see it in the VIP theatre which was ONLY 3D. I get a migraine from 3D and my eyes never quite focus on the image properly. Nothing bothers me more than a movie pointlessly put in 3D. The action sequences felt overly long as well and a bit bloated. That’s something I never expected to say about a Joss Whedon film, as normally I find his pacing to be second to none, but in this case I felt that a lot of the sequences went on far longer than they needed to. One scene in particular that stands out for me as being far too lengthy is the scene in which Tony is using his Hulk Busting Armor (called Veronica) in order to stop Banner from destroying everything. It felt as if this scene dragged on with almost no end in sight and since it wasn’t really all that necessary plot-wise, it quickly became quite boring.
2. The pacing. This kind of ties into the action sequences being far too long, but it is worth mentioning. The scenes I most enjoyed in the film were the scenes that allowed the characters a little downtime between giant bloated action sequences. These could have been placed better however, and I felt that a lot of the movie dragged in places. I know that Whedon’s original cut of the film was over 3 hours long, and while I am glad they cut it down, I do felt that some of the wrong material was cut.
3. The scene with Thor and the mystical pool of holy water or whatever the hell it was. I get it – Marvel wanted this scene there, but it felt REALLY out of place. It felt totally shoehorned in and kind of silly.

Overall this was a solid action/adventure superhero story with great dialogue, characterization and a perfect cast. Is it Joss Whedon’s best? No, not by a long shot, but it IS awesome. While I think it’s a shame that Whedon won’t be involved with future Marvel films, I am excited to see what he can do with his own material as well as full creative control.

“Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” is the sort of film that will be enjoyed only by people desperate to love the franchise or too young to recognize a piece of truly awful film making.

Sound harsh? Maybe, but it isn’t inaccurate. I knew going in that this was not going to be a “good” movie. It’s hard to do that when it is a film about giant talking turtles who fight crime in New York City. The premise alone pretty much promises it will be as cheesy as possible. However, cheesy doesn’t always have to be bad and bad can sometimes be a lot of fun. A good example would be the recent success of the horrifically bad “Sharknado” films. They know they are terrible ‘B’ movies and are working within that sphere, fully aware of their place in the film industry.

No, the problem exists when a bad movie doesn’t know it’s a bad movie and attempts to play itself off as something ‘epic’. That’s when you get the major film flops in history such as “Battlefield Earth” and “Gigli”.

Michael Bay has made a career out of making horrendously awful films that somehow still seem to clean up at the box office. His staples as an ‘auteur’ seem to be lots of explosions, horrendously over-used slow motion shots (especially if there is a large breasted woman running), helicopter shots from the ground with the American flag flying majestically in the background, sexualized female characters that could easily be replaced by a table lamp if not for the ‘necessary’ slow motion running sequences, and horribly long action sequences that cause you to fall asleep (I DID fall asleep twice during Transformer 4, and STILL didn’t miss anything!)

That said, a lot of people had hope for this film as it wasn’t being directed by Bay, merely produced. Still, it is clear that director Jonathon Liebesman and Michael Bay share the same film maker’s “vision” (if one can call it a vision – or even call them proper film makers), as Liebesman’s direction does not stray too far from the Michael Bay staples of ‘blow ‘em up now, explain plot never’. It isn’t so much the fact that the movie is popcorn blockbuster fluff, but rather that so much of it does not make sense plot-wise or is downright offensive in some ways. It isn’t a surprise given its troubled production history (numerous re-writes to the script are more than obvious within the film), but it does come as a disappointment.

And yes, I was disappointed. Even though I pretty much knew I would be unhappy with this ‘rendering’, I am still first and foremost a fan of the “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles”. I watched the cartoon when I was a kid faithfully every day after school. I own the original live action films from the 90s. I enjoyed the Nickelodeon cartoon and even the CGI film that they made in 2007. It’s not as if the bar was set incredibly high either – I mean this is a franchise pretty much tailor made to satisfy your 5-9 year old audience.

Still, too much was wrong with this film or just down right bad to ignore.

It is your standard “Turtles” plot. April O ‘Neil is a “plucky” reporter desperate to be taken seriously but only ever getting “fluff” pieces – that is, until she witnesses an attack by the notorious gang that has been terrorizing the city called the Foot Clan. (They are apparently called so because they ‘step all over everybody’ – a reason so cheesy I am sure my 9 year old nephew could come up with something more creative). It is during this attack that she witnesses a vigilante take on the Foot and stop them. Of course, this means her desire to prove the Turtles exist and “get the story” means she becomes fully ensnared in the plot.

Which as far as I understand it (and details are murky here), is for the Shredder and a man named Eric Sacks, to take over New York City using a toxin that will supposedly kill everyone unless they purchase the antidote that only he has, making Sacks rich (well, rich-er since he is already a billionaire) and give Shredder control of the city. Sounds simple, but actually falls flat when you really start to think about it.

The Bad:

1. Where to start? I will start with April. One of Michael Bay’s annoying staples is to tell non-human stories through the eyes of human characters. It can be done if the film maker is skilled, but Michael Bay is far from ‘skilled’ when it comes to film making. The Transformers films were weakened by the presence of the human characters complicating the story and this is no different. I am not saying there shouldn’t be any human characters, but rather that we should see the story through the Turtle’s point of view in order to really understand the world they live in. By seeing it through April’s eyes, we are immediately positioned as outsiders and are not given enough time to get to know the Turtles. Bay and Liebesman are unable to balance the plot with the amount of screen time given to the Turtles to the point where we are 40 minutes into the film before they even make an appearance. And given the weak nature of April’s storyline it is definitely a mistake to do it that way.
2. The sexualisation of April. This was not a shock given Michael Bay’s (and apparently Liebesman’s) view of women. Between the two of them, not ONE has done a film in which a female character is anything more than either a prize to be won, a pair of boobs to stare at, or a victim to be slaughtered. Not one. Not one has made a film in which a female character has any kind of autonomy or agency of her own. Bay is far worse an offender for this for every single one of his films does nothing but sexualize women as objects and nothing more. It is obvious that this is what they intended when they cast Megan Fox, as her previous roles in the Transformers films have shown that Michael Bay enjoys objectifying her. Throughout this film, every scene that April is in treats her this way. She is constantly reminded via every male character she runs into, that she is nothing more than the sum of her body parts. Every scene she is in makes SOME kind of comment to that fact, whether it is Vern’s constant (and rather pathetic attempts) to hit on her, catcalls from random passer-bys, or even the Turtles themselves making rather lewd (and slightly disturbing remarks), we are bombarded with the fact that she is a sexual object over and over again. Michelangelo says something particularly creepy when she first meets them about his “shell tightening” when he sees her body which is beyond disturbing – especially for a film aimed primarily at 8 year old boys. This is the message that is being taught – that women are objects to be “won” or stared at. The film attempts to make it into a joke by having April as a character who is trying to “rise above” this stereotype and become a “serious” reporter, but the message never fully translates for even as she makes the complaint, she is bouncing up and down on a trampoline to film a piece or some other kind of obvious attempt to show off her… ‘assets’. It is beyond disgusting. Previous incarnations of the Turtles have had April flirted with, yes, but never to this degree of blatant sexuality or objectification. She was never simply a sexual gimmick as she is here. The flirting that took place between April and Casey Jones in the 90s version was more playful banter than outright sexualisation and it worked. This was beyond gratuitous. It sends the message to young girls that you can become a reporter – but only if you’re hot.
3. Splinter. His entire character was extremely disturbing for a kid’s film. And before I get the purists commenting and saying things like “well originally the Turtles were meant to be dark and gritty, etc.”, I am going to come right out and say I don’t care what they were originally supposed to be. If you want to make a dark, adult oriented film about the Turtles, then do so. But if you are going to create a lighthearted summer action blockbuster (like this one – there were fart jokes and everything) geared toward children, you cannot have the Turtle’s “father” (for lack of a better term), coming across as a sadistic jerk who abuses and tortures his children. Splinter is not the kind, gentle sensei that he has been portrayed as in the past. He is brutal and cruel in this film and that really sends a horrible message. In one scene in particular after the Turtles return from disobeying his orders and going above ground, they are not just afraid of being caught as a kid would be afraid of a parent, they are terrified. When they are discovered, Splinter then proceeds to attack them with his tail in a very very vicious way that is not in any way the way a parent should treat his children. He then tortures them until they give him the information of how they have disobeyed him and to what extent. I don’t know if the film makers were totally oblivious to the message this was sending, but it gave me the heebie jeebies. Splinter identifies himself as a father figure when he explains to April how he raised the Turtles after they were set free from the lab. So how is it in any way OK for him to repeatedly beat them? Is this part of their ‘training’? Sorry, doesn’t wash.
4. The plot. Makes. No. Damned. Sense. Seriously. Not only have we have seen this whole ‘urban terrorism to make money’ idea over and over and over ad nauseum, but it doesn’t make ANY sense! They go to extreme lengths here to make sure that ALL the characters are connected to each other, in the hopes of making the plot ‘coherent’, but all it ends up doing is getting confusing, and stupid. April’s Dad worked for Eric Sacks, a billionaire scientist who is in cahoots with Shredder. The Turtles and Splinter were lab subjects injected with the mutagen that ended up turning them into giant talking creatures. When April’s Dad found out what the two of them were up to (which it turns out was creating a poison that they had the antidote for via the mutagen), they were forced to kill him by shooting him and setting fire to the lab. They thought their test subjects were gone forever, as April helped her ‘pets’ to escape from the fire. So what doesn’t make sense??? Well the film starts out establishing the idea that the Foot Clan and the Shredder have been terrorizing the city for years. It seems that there is a reason already at play and indeed when Sacks talks to Shredder, they seem to have something prepared and ready to unleash on the city. Only they don’t because you find out later on when April tells Sacks about the Turtles, that they were the only source of the mutagen (and therefore the poison) that Sacks had. After April helped them escape, they thought it was gone forever leaving them with an antidote, but no means to make the poison. So what were their big plans before they found out the Turtles were still alive? Wreck a bunch of stuff until something fell into their lap??? Not to mention that Sacks declares his reason for helping Shredder is so that he can become ‘stupid rich’. Given the fact that he already lives in a GIGANTIC mansion and has billions of dollars, makes you question how rich is ‘stupid’ rich??? Are we really supposed to believe that this guy would go to all these lengths to help Shredder take over the city just to get more money? He is already a billionaire! And April…where to start here? We are told that she helped the Turtles escape when the lab caught fire…which leads us to believe that she was IN the lab with her father when Sacks shot him and set the lab on fire. This begs a number of questions, such as why didn’t Sacks kill April as well? Why didn’t she try to get her father out instead of saving a bunch of lab turtles and a rat? Why didn’t she hear or see the gunshot? How was she not aware that Sacks had killed her father??  Never mind, that’s not important…move along.
5. The action sequences/3D. No secret that I dislike 3D (anybody with eye problems will agree with me that it gives you a massive headache), but added to my issue with it is that it is mostly a money grab that isn’t visually necessary. A few films have been able to truly use 3D in creative ways, but this is not one of them. In fact, the 3D mixed with the extreme rapidity of the action sequences causes a real visual problem for the viewers in being able to make out what is happening on screen – let alone which turtle is which. The fact that their eye masks are colour coded began with the cartoon as a way of distinguishing one turtle from the next. We know that Raphael wears the red mask, Leonardo the blue, etc. However the dark ‘gritty’ aesthetic of the city, mixed with the rapid fire action sequences and the 3D makes it almost impossible to see what is happening or who is doing what. The action sequences in the 90s live action film were a bit clunky, no doubt about it, but at least we knew which turtle was which!
6. Speaking of visuals, this present incarnation of the turtles looks AWFUL. There is NOTHING good here. From the presence of the weird noses that make them look like frogs with shells, to the extremely ‘roided out physiques and terrifying facial features there is nothing positive. People will (and have) argued that this is a return to the more ‘adult’ nature of the comics and how the turtles were originally supposed to look and if they had indeed made a film for adults that would be fine. But again, I point out the abundance of fart jokes and the cartoon violence that says this is definitely a movie for children. So why make the turtles look like something out of our worst nightmares? It doesn’t work.
7. What also doesn’t work is the dialogue. They are supposed to be teenagers, so the dialogue remains consistently juvenile. That’s fine, except that they are voiced by grown men who sound like they have smoked for three decades (with the exception of Donatello who sounds sufficiently teenaged.) The slang they use in the film sounds like something you would see in an extremely stereotypical film about urban gang members. Add to that the hugely muscled physiques and deep, deep voices and there is a huge disconnect with the dialogue (which indicates they are still kids) and the look and sound of the turtles which tells a different story.
8. We never fully get to know them. Because we are brought into the film via April’s point of view, we don’t get any real time to bond with the characters or know anything about them beyond the basic information we know going in. It’s almost as if Bay and Liebesman assumed that because people had a working knowledge of their characters to begin with that specific character development wasn’t necessary. Only problem is, it doesn’t help to define the characters’ motivations when we don’t get to spend any time seeing them in their natural dynamic. The original 90s live action films had a lot of screen time devoted to showing us just how the brothers worked – what their problems were with one another, how they fought and also how they stuck together. We SAW the rift develop between Raphael and Leonardo, and knew the reasons for it. In this film? Raphael just comes across as a jerk with no apparent rhyme or reason to his behavior. We aren’t given any explanation as to why he’s acting as if he has a stick up his butt, so at the end when he delivers his huge speech to Leonardo, it comes across as extremely hollow not to mention completely out of nowhere. The film’s pace is far too rapid and never gives us any downtime to really get to know their characters, or even start to like them.
9. Extreme product placement and what I called the ‘Turtles checklist’. If this were a drinking game, you could take a shot every time a product was blatantly promoted (they ordered from Pizza Hut) or every time they FORCED something into the plot simply because it is part of the turtles lore or the original cartoon. Want to hear ‘cowabunga’? They shoe-horn it in during the fight sequence. Reminder that they like pizza? Guess what April fed them in the lab (as well as the aforementioned Pizza Hut order). Want to see the Turtles van? It shows up at the end (for trying to remain inconspicuous they certainly chose a pretty noticeable van). In-fighting between Raph and Leo? Yep – it’s there cause it was there in the cartoon. No other reason, etc. Each time of these things happened, it did not feel like a nod to the fans, but rather something they had ticked off the list in order to claim it was a ‘Turtles movie’. Thing is, remove the Turtles and put in ANY other action hero, and you would still have the same plot give or take a few details. Just because they order from Pizza Hut, does not a Turtles movie make.

The Good:

1. Umm, the beatboxing scene in the elevator was kind of funny? Honestly I am struggling to come up with anything here.

The sad thing is I could continue going through the many flaws this film has, and it would take up a lot of paper but frankly I don’t have the energy. Suffice to say it was a terrible film, which will make tons of money at the box office by drawing in loyal Turtles fans determined to like it despite its obvious crappiness and kids who like a good fart joke. They will make tons of money off the toys and gimmicks that go with it (already I am seeing cups and masks for sale at the theatre) and Bay and co. will continue to go on thinking they aren’t talentless hacks incapable of making an entertaining home movie.

Such is life, sadly.

Hopefully the next one I review doesn’t suck this hard. My brain hurts.

Guardians of the Galaxy is part Firefly, part Avengers and ALL awesome!

In the past decade, Marvel has shown itself to be a force to be reckoned with. They have made movies that not only perform like mad at the box office, but that also have the quality to legitimize the millions they are raking in (unlike some films that shall remain nameless *coughanythingproducedordirectedbyMichaelBaycough*).

There have been a lot of articles already talking about how Guardians of the Galaxy was a major ‘risk’ for the studio, and I am sure it felt that way for those in charge of green lighting it, given the fact that it didn’t have a known quantity of heroes within the pop culture lexicon to back it up. Oh, sure the Guardians are characters within the Marvel Universe, but most of the film’s target audience (which is everyone) will not know that. These are characters that will be known only to the few hard-core comic geeks and for everyone else to discover.

Which is what Marvel was banking on.

Well, that and their brand which has now solidified itself.

I don’t want to take away from the film’s genuine quality (it is an incredibly well made film), but part of its success (and the reason why I don’t think making it ever entered into the realm of risky) was that Marvel has become known for taking characters that the mass audience may not have heard of (Iron Man) and turning them into house hold names almost over night. They have an incredible team of writers and film makers who know how to craft well told stories and bring these characters to light.

But more than that, they know how to make them FUN. This is something that seems to have been forgotten when it comes to super hero films, and something that thankfully Marvel has held onto all along.

Superhero movies used to be looked upon by the general movie going public with a healthy degree of scorn and ridicule (and for anyone who has ever seen “Batman and Robin”, you can understand why). Films like “Batman Begins” and its ilk may have changed that perception (showing that yes, you can have Oscar-worthy performances in a film about a man who dresses like a giant Bat), but the downside is that then became the formula.

Dark and gritty superhero + angsty storyline + 3D and a lot of explosions = profit. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Too many of these films have felt like ordeals to be endured rather than something to engage its audience in. Can you remember the last time you ran out of the theatre after seeing a superhero movie and just went, ‘THAT WAS SO MUCH FUN!?’

OK, I can – it was “The Avengers”. And “Serenity”. And that’s what “Guardians of the Galaxy” is able to capture here – a sense of fun, silliness, irreverence, but also of genuine characters facing real difficulties and fighting for something they believe in.

It’s not a bad thing to take inspiration from those who have come before you. Too many times we may dismiss something as derivative (and sometimes it is), but by doing that we fail to see the love that these films may be showing for their predecessors.

“Guardians of the Galaxy” is one such film. It takes the space-opera essence of Firefly and combines it with the teamwork and ensemble strength of the “Avengers” (both coincidentally Joss Whedon films) and adds its own hilarious twist in the form of a group of extremely unique characters and a killer sound track from the late 70s and early 80s.

Chris Pratt plays Peter Quill (or Starlord – a nickname he appears to have given himself). He is taken from his home on Earth by a giant spaceship at a young age right after losing his mother to what we can only presume was cancer. The only items he had with him at the time were his walk man containing a cassette tape titled “Awesome mix volume 1”. This tape is his only connection to home and the music on it forms the sound track, not only for the film, but for the character’s journey as well. It gives us a glimpse into who he is as a person.

As an adult, he seems to have become an outlaw who “finds” items for those that commission them and sell them to the highest bidder. At the beginning of the film, we see him on some distant planet attempting to steal what can only be described as a small metal ball. He is soon confronted with people determined not to let him get away with it. We later learn through his attempts to sell the item that it is far more dangerous than he knew and he is soon the target of an assassin named Gamora who has been hired by her master Ronin (the film’s main bad guy) to get the item back.

As a punishment for betraying those he was working with and intending to sell the item himself, a bounty has also been placed on him causing two other characters – a mutated raccoon by the name of Rocket and sidekick, a tree named Groot – to go after him, determined to collect the reward. When all four are captured by the planet Xandar’s government and thrown in a high security prison we see them start to gell and the plot begin to take shape.

In the prison, we are also introduced to Drax – an inmate who lost his family to the fanaticism of Ronin and is looking for revenge.

As the four characters come to realize how dangerous the orb they have stolen is, they are forced to put aside their differences and work as a team to keep Ronin from using it to destroy an entire planet.

The Good:                                                            

1. The soundtrack. Most often, soundtracks are chosen without much care or attention. Need a sad song? Stick a current pop ballad in there – any will do. Every now and then, however a company comes to realize just how powerful music can be in helping to tell a story. This is definitely the case with Guardians of the Galaxy. The tape cassette that Quill carries around is his most important possession and each song is used at the precise moment where it is needed for maximum emotional impact. From the beginning scene where he is dancing on the planet before stealing the orb, to the juxtaposition of “Hooked on a Feeling” as the guards tazer him, each and every note hits just the right emotional resonance. The use of music is not lazy, and yet they don’t rely on it to completely tell the story either. The songs chosen also reflect the visual scheme of film which helps to create the atmosphere. It is a brilliant balance and extremely catchy to boot
2. The look of the film. In keeping with the sound track, director James Gunn has crafted a film that looks and feels as if we are stuck in the best parts of a 70s space opera. It had the potential to come across as cheesy or cheap looking, but instead manages to hit the perfect blend of nostalgia and beauty to make it work. The colours are rich and vibrant, the costuming gritty and worn. The ships look as if they have been flown through space and back and the set design is incredibly well done – bright and colourful, noisy and chaotic. Again this is where I am reminded a bit of “Firefly” in its use of colour, space and design.
3. The running time and pacing. Something I often complain about is films being given an overbloated running time that ends up forcing the movie to drag on. Usually it’s because of action scenes that take up a good 75% of the movie, while the plot itself occupies about 25%. With films like Transformers 4, that ratio is more like 90% overblown action sequences to 10% actual plot and exposition. It’s difficult to get the balance right between keeping the film exciting and entertaining and giving the characters enough “down time” to get to know them and their motivation. The mistake that is usually made with pacing is to throw the characters in at the deep end and keep them running the whole time without allowing any time for character development. This film keeps the pace frantic, but also gives the cast time to come together as a group. This is especially difficult with ensemble casts and usually results in an extremely lengthy running time. Gunn eschews that here, by keeping the action scenes tightly controlled (not too long, nor too short) and allowing the characters pauses for emotional development. Some of the most moving scenes take place during those moments – Peter’s loss of his mother at the beginning is especially moving as is Rocket’s angry outburst at Drax midway through the film. Doing this allows us the time to actually care about these people and really bond with them.
4. The blend of the ensemble of characters. A big problem with ensemble casts is giving each enough attention to make their story mean something. Arguably, Peter Quill is the main character so in any other action film, his story would dominate the screen. However, in this case, Gunn is able to give equal amounts of screen time and character development throughout the story to really care about each of the characters. Some obviously are given more development than others (I wanted more Gamora), but the balance is so so difficult that I think he manages to do an excellent job here. Each character’s story is interesting, moving and relevant to the plot. We are given enough information on Groot and Rocket’s friendship for example to have our hearts break right along with him when he sacrifices himself to save the others at the end. “We. Are. Groot.” SO moving.
5. Casting. I could write a paragraph or more about each actor and how they are all so brilliantly chosen, but that would make this WAY too long. Suffice to say that Gunn and company knew what they were doing when they saw the talent in Chris Pratt as Starlord. Not only were they launching a franchise of Marvel characters that were barely known to the general public, but going with an actor to helm the franchise who had only been in a handful of films in secondary roles or voice acting. It must have been incredibly tempting not to go with someone more ‘bankable’, but thankfully they didn’t because Pratt has a brilliant sense of comic timing and is able to evoke the perfect balance of emotional pathos and humour that his character needs. Bradley Cooper voicing Rocket was an inspired choice as well as he is probably one of the most realistic CGI characters in a film I have ever seen. I was even pleasantly surprised by Dave Bautista’s performance as wrestlers do not always make reliable or good actors. It’s a big difference between being a performer and being an actor. Bautista managed to have a good sense of comic timing, even if his attempts to be dramatic were a tad over the top.
6. The balance between drama and humour. It’s difficult in films like this to find a consistent tone between dark heavy drama, and light hearted adventure comedy. Often times films lean very heavily one way or another and it becomes easy to forget that people go to see movies to escape. Yes, we want to see emotional depth and drama, but we also want to have fun with it. We want to walk out of the theatre feeling refreshed and energized, not sad and defeated. Man of Steel and other films of this ilk make the movie going experience feel like an ordeal rather than a fun experience. Remember when Superman represented hope? Me either. But these guys do. These guys have brought back the fun and excitement of going to the theatre. There are moments that genuinely tug at your heart (Groot’s death, Peter’s mother’s death, Rocket’s outburst, their ‘circle’ conversation) but they are balanced with moments of humour, fun, and youthful vibrancy.

The bad:

1. To be honest, almost nothing was ‘bad’ about this film. It was an almost perfect movie going experience, but if I was to pick one thing I wish the film had more of it would be Gamora’s back story. Again, this ties into running time concerns and the balance between the ensemble cast, but as the only female within the group, I would have liked to know more about her past. She is introduced as a henchman of Ronin’s and an adopted daughter of Thanos (the big baddie that Ronin is initially working for). Throughout the film we are given bits of information about her such as that she has been working for most of her life as an assassin for Ronin/Thanos. Which is why when she declares her intention of betraying them we as the audience want to know more. She gives us a bit of insight during her conversation with Peter, but we still don’t know what the tipping point was. Why now? Was it just the money the buyer was offering? Was it something more deeply emotional? What kinds of things did she suffer at the hands of Thanos? And what kinds of horrors did she herself commit to make so many hate her? I guess it’s just something they will hopefully address in a coming sequel (please oh pretty please!)

Overall, the film was one of the most satisfying experiences at the theatre I have seen all year. It was brilliantly crafted, beautifully filmed and wonderfully acted. It’s sad that I have to go from reviewing this to my next review – Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles….sigh.

“Tammy” is an uneven film that still manages to deliver the best of McCarthy.

If there was ever any doubt that women could be genuinely funny, Melissa McCarthy’s past few films have proven them wrong. With films like “Bridesmaids”, “The Heat” and “The Identity Thief”, she has managed to carve out a niche in comedy that blends her hilarious quirkiness with a genuine pathos and depth.

In her latest film, “Tammy”, McCarthy teams up as a writer with her husband Ben Falcone directing the film. I wasn’t entirely sure what to expect from this film, as the trailers did not really give much information on the plot, relying instead on McCarthy’s current popularity to drum up interest. This was not the best marketing decision on their part. The film is less of a mainstream comedy like “Bridesmaids” was, and more of an independent road trip film which is only one of the problems with it.

Don’t get me wrong, it is a funny and enjoyable film but only if you look at it in pieces like a series of vignettes rather than as a whole. The film seems to have a bit of an identity crises as well as some pacing issues. The cast however, more than make up for the problems with the film causing it to be another win for McCarthy, though definitely not her best work to date.

The film’s plot is standard road trip fare. McCarthy plays the titular character, Tammy, a woman who has her life fall apart in the space of a day with her car hitting a deer, which leads to her losing her crappy fast food job and arriving home early only to find her husband cheating on her with the neighbour. She decides to leave town to try to start over, but is unable to do so as her mother (who lives down the street) refuses to lend her the car. The only vehicle available to Tammy belongs to her grandmother (played expertly by Susan Sarandon) – an unstable drunk who demands to go with her as payment for use of the car.

What starts out as a humorous road trip, quickly devolves into something a bit darker –less of a slapstick comedy and more of a black dramedy. This wouldn’t be a problem if the film makers had just picked one and stuck with it, unfortunately the constant back and forth causes the film to feel unfocused. Despite this however, the film remains most entertaining when McCarthy and Sarandon are able to just be real, rather than cartoon caricatures of themselves.

The Good:

1. Melissa McCarthy. She is brilliant, both as a comedian and a dramatic actress. She is at her best when she is allowing her vulnerability to show through. Don’t get me wrong, there are moments of laugh out loud hilarity. The opening scene where she is fired is the perfect embodiment of the fantasy we have all had of telling him off, throwing condiments and generally just having a tantrum. However, it is not here where she is at her best. The more her character suffers, the more we see a real person underneath. She has a brilliant way of making her protagonists come to life with real quirks, real fears, and genuine humanity. She is the perfect embodiment of the every woman – with real insecurities and real weaknesses. Despite this, she projects strength of character, purpose and genuine likability.
2. Susan Sarandon. She is always brilliant, but here she manages to give an almost perfect performance. Again the film itself may be uneven, but the reality of Sarandon’s character never changes. We start off thinking she is funny. She is the trash talking, hard drinking, crazy living grandmother and it seems like she would be a blast to party with. However, it isn’t long before we see that she is in fact an alcoholic and her actions, while amusing, are also incredibly cruel and hurtful. Sarandon has this way of making her character come off as funny and also incredibly awful. She genuinely cares for her granddaughter, but is unable to remove herself from her own toxicity. If the film had simply been a black dramedy it is the scenes between her and McCarthy that were the most touching and the most effective.
3. The lighting and framing of the shots. The film’s visuals are very well done. It feels more like a documentary than a fictional story which is what they were going for. We are literally following these characters on this road trip, rather than feeling like a fictionalized perfect Hollywood adventure.
4.  The romance between Tammy and Bobby (Mark Duplass). It starts out as a joke played for laughs when Tammy comes on to him in the bar, and indeed Melissa McCarthy has frequently made jokes about her own physical appearance in other films. She knows she is not a Hollywood starlet by the conventional standards and most of her roles are very self deprecating in that respect. It’s almost as if she knows that critics and others might make fun of her looks so she does it first. The scene between her and the US Air marshal in “Bridesmaids” is proof of that, as is the scenes in “The Heat” when she constantly runs into old lovers who have been jilted by her character. The scenes between her and Bobby start out much the same way in this film as well, however over the course of the storyline a real connection is able to develop and they genuinely begin to see one another for who they are. It is an extremely touching story and the ending at Niagara Falls will truly make you smile.
5. The darker parts of the storyline. When the film is not following the slapstick silliness we saw in the trailer (Tammy knocking over a Topper Jacks, for example), the film has something genuinely unique to offer. It’s touching when it is at its darkest moments. The moments between Tammy and her grandmother are interesting when they are being the most real and the most raw.

 

The Bad:

1. The pacing. This ties into the uneven feeling of the overall film, but there are some scenes that feel like they go on far too long, or the content of them just takes you out of the story itself. There are various scenes in the film which either drag on or just don’t fit the tone of the film, and that is never quite addressed.
2. The scene at the beginning where she discovers her husband with the neighbour. It is unclear whether they were going for slapstick comedy or something with more depth, but neither one quite works. The scene drags on far too long, and the characters don’t really seem to gel at all. The whole thing feels off and one cannot help but wait for it to end. It feels like there is something missing with that entire plot that is never quite addressed. Tammy’s character never seems to quite fit with the life she supposedly had, and since the husband barely speaks two words throughout the entire film, it’s difficult for the viewers to see it as real. At the end of the day it is obvious that the subplot of her marriage breaking up is meant purely as a plot device meant to compel the narrative which only ends up doing it a disservice.
3. The casting of Tammy’s mother and her involvement in the film. The first problem is with their ages. Susan Sarandon is 68 years old, and Allison Janney is 55. Melissa McCarthy is 44 years old. Doing the math on that, Sarandon’s character Pearl would have had to have been 13 years old when she had Tammy’s mother, and Tammy’s mother would have had to have been 11 years old when she had Tammy. That means there is a total of 24 years between McCarthy and Sarandon. Unfortunately the lack of difference in their ages is obvious and causes a real problem with believability. It also seems like one relative too many in the film, since her mother doesn’t really have any real purpose within the narrative. It would have worked far better if Sarandon had been her mother instead of her grandmother, as it would have allowed the family dynamic to really settle in as well as cause the ages of the characters to appear more realistic.
4. The wacky slapstick humour. While perfect in her other films, this one never seems to be sure of what it wants to be and therefore never really appears to fit properly. It’s disappointing because McCarthy is hilarious when she wants to be, but the tone of the film is at odds this time with the brand of comedy she is used to.

 

Overall, the film was enjoyable despite its flaws. It was still miles away better than a lot of the schlock that is in theatres right now and extremely refreshing to see McCarthy consistently playing female leads with genuine substance. I am glad to see her paving the way for more films of this kind.

“Edge of Tomorrow” is a smart, funny, hero quest narrative that is quite enjoyable as long as you don’t think too hard.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like many of Tom Cruise’s sci fi efforts lately, I went into this film not expecting much. Almost all of his recent films have had promising concepts but have ultimately fallen flat for one reason or another. It’s not even that they are necessarily bad films, but rather ultimately forgettable. Last year’s “Oblivion” was so lackluster, I couldn’t even be bothered to review it.

 

Part of it is Cruise himself. Most of his projects are ego boosting, explosion laden, action epics with little or no actual substance to propel them. Cruise chews his way through the scenery stopping to pause and wink at the camera before blowing up the next bad guy. That can be fun for a while, but eventually it gets old. Cruise passed his sell-by date for those types of films in the early 90s so it’s no surprise that audiences are growing increasingly bored with the action hero shtick. It’s slightly baffling to watch studios repeatedly throw money at Cruise with these Vanity projects only to have the box office reflect the audience’s ambivalence.

 

The numbers for Edge of Tomorrow however, tell a different story and it’s not difficult to see why. The film is fun. Unlike “Oblivion”, it doesn’t make aspirations at high concept sci fi. Rather, it takes a familiar plot device and twists it into a ‘man vs. aliens’ hero quest that is a witty and enjoyable two hours, despite the problems with plot and Cruise.

 

The films succeeds not because of Cruise, but despite him which is rather par for the course with anything he does these days. It is the writing, and the supporting cast that keeps the film fun and fresh, especially Emily Blunt.

 

The plot is your standard humanity vs. aliens sci fi action film. Humanity has been attacked by an alien scourge called Mimics. They are able to anticipate mankind’s actions and have won battle after battle spreading across Europe. It all looks pretty hopeless, except for one small victory at Verdun which has given them cause to hope that victory might be possible.

 

Tom Cruise’s character is William Cage. He is a major in the US army who has not seen a single day of combat. His job is to be the PR guy and “sell” the war, and it is one he is apparently quite good at. When a high ranking General asks him to go to the front to record humanity’s victory Cage attempts to run, an act of cowardice that gets him busted down to the rank of Private and shipped off to the front as a deserter.

 

His first taste of battle ends with him being killed by a mimic much larger than the others and it is this death and the mixing of their blood, that gives him the power to tape into their power and “reset” the day a-la ‘Groundhog Day’.

 

However that is where the similarities end. Through a series of trial and error he eventually manages to save the life of Sargent Rita Vrataski, the soldier responsible for the victory at Verdun. Her own experience being able to reset the day causes her to instruct him to find her when he “wakes up”. In doing so, he discovers that the mimics are all connected to one giant organism called an Omega, which has the power to reset the day every time it feels threatened and therefore ensure their own victory. Vrataski had that same ability until she received a blood transfusion after the victory at Verdun, so she is the only one capable of understanding what Cage is going through.

 

What results is a fairly standard hero’s journey storyline in which she trains Cage and prepares him for the final battle in which they must destroy the Omega and stop the cycle from repeating.

 

It’s a fairly standard plot with no real surprises, and yet it still manages to remain entertaining. Blunt is impressive as Sargent Vrataski, and the humour of the day repeating itself keeps it from getting old.

 

So what worked and what didn’t?

 

The Good:

 

1. Emily Blunt’s character Rita Vrataski. I am simultaneously heartened and disappointed with the way her character is handled in this film, but I will start with the reasons I enjoyed her. Emily Blunt gives an excellent performance as a war hardened soldier who refuses to sit back and watch. Despite the fact that she dies in almost every incarnation, she resists the cliché of becoming the damsel that Cruise must save. She could have easily been reduced to the role of simple love interest, but the film gives her something to do. Even when Cage has made the transition from coward to hero, she maintains her own sense of agency and power. It may be ‘his’ story, but she doesn’t allow herself to simply be Cage’s cheerleader.
2. The humour. The only thing that keeps this film from becoming the typical Tom Cruise action pic is the wit that is infused into the script. Director Doug Linman is able to write a script that not only utilizes a clichéd plot device but manages to make it funny enough that it doesn’t get old or tired no matter how many times he repeats the day. In some ways it’s cathartic to watch Cruise get killed over and over again.
3. The pacing. Though the ending is a bit weak the film is nicely paced overall. This is especially difficult given the concept which has all the potential to become very tired very quickly. The film has a somewhat lengthy running time but never feels too drawn out which is surprising.
4. Tom Cruise as a coward. This really only works for the first half of the film, but it is a refreshing enough departure from his normal roles as action stud that it makes it tolerable to watch.

 

 

 

The Bad:

 

 

 

1. Emily Blunt’s character. Despite how progressive the film is in terms of her narrative, it is somewhat disappointing that her character never really goes anywhere. She exists solely to drive Cruise’s character forward in his quest. She is better trained, stronger, and far more capable than his character and yet it is ultimately his story that takes precedence. It would be nice for once to see a film in which the opposite were the case and I would quite happily watch a film about her own story prior to the film at Verdun as I feel it would make a far more compelling narrative. As a character she is more interesting to watch and as an actress, Blunt is clearly more talented.
2. The ending makes no sense. It’s one of those time travel paradoxes, but the final solution to the film doesn’t make complete sense. It really only matters if you are super picky about plot, though so the best thing to do is not think about it too hard.

 

 

 

Overall it is an amusing action adventure film in which Tom Cruise isn’t horribly insufferable. That alone is worth the $11.50.

 

Despite the ‘teen’ story line, there are no faults in “The Fault in Our Stars”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The other night my husband and I found ourselves in an hour long line up to get into a film surrounded by scores and scores of pre-teen and teenage girls. No, it wasn’t “Twilight” or “The Hunger Games”, but it was a film that has just come out adapted from a young adult novel – a trend that is making a LOT of money.

Like both of these film franchises (as well as “Divergent” and many others), the film featured a young female protagonist. Unlike those aforementioned film franchises, this one did not deal with dystopian futures, revolutions or sparkly vampires. Instead, this film (and the novel that sparked it) dealt with the topic of cancer in a way that was both new and as timeless as it gets.

Let me say that I enjoyed the film immensely, and for more reasons simply than the fact that it tugs on your heart strings (more like rips them out and stomps on them actually). So few directors and producers it seems know how to properly adapt a novel into a film that it is a breath of fresh air when it does happen.

The plot is very simple. Hazel Grace Lancaster is your typical teenage girl, except for one thing – she has terminal cancer. The cancer takes the form of various tumours in her body and she carries an oxygen tank around with her to help her breath as he lungs are frequently filling up with fluid.

The fact that she is dying is apparent right from the start. Although the doctors have found a drug to help keep the fluid in her lungs at bay for a while, there is no doubt within the narrative that the cancer will eventually claim her and cut her life very short.

The characters in the film (including Hazel herself) are all operating under the umbrella of this impending future (or lack thereof), so it is no surprise that she appears depressed at the start of the film. Against her wishes, she is forced to attend a support group in the basement of a church in which she meets a boy her age named Augustus Waters.

He too was a “cancer kid” but has been cancer free after having his leg removed 14 months previous to the narrative. He immediately becomes interested in Hazel, and although she is extremely flattered (and clearly interested back) her hesitancy is tied to the fact that she knows she is dying, and will only end up hurting those around her when she goes.

Obviously being a teen film, the two of them fall in love despite those odds. And obviously being a film about cancer, the plot revolves around death. The twist comes with it being Augustus who succumbs to his illness leaving Hazel behind to cope with the loss of her first real love.

The narrative is one that isn’t new, however it does manage to touch on some issues about illness and death that don’t always get a lot of visibility in film or in print. This review is going to be an overwhelmingly positive one, as I fully believe it was a nearly perfect film adaptation to a popular novel. Here are the reasons:

The Good:

1. Shailene Woodley: Like Jennifer Lawrence this girl has TALENT. She may have got her start on one of the worst television shows on the planet, but she has since managed to prove herself in roles that have allowed her to demonstrate the full range of her ability. I don’t even like comparing her to Lawrence as the two are very different, however the successes of their two teen franchises ultimately invites those comparisons. She manages to give Hazel Grace Lancaster a maturity and gravitas that does not let us forget throughout the film that she is dying, while still maintaining the voice of a teenage girl experiencing her first love. Her performance in the film is extremely nuanced, as she is able to portray through thought, feeling and expression her fears and doubts about what will happen to those she loves around her when she dies. She does this with sensitivity and humour which avoids getting too schmaltzy, even when the plot might go that way.
2. The sub plot concerning “An Imperial Affliction”: In the novel (and film), Hazel’s character starts out depressed and unable to bring herself to participate in the world. The only thing she does take comfort in, is a novel called “An Imperial Affliction” which is narrated by a girl her age who is also dying of cancer. It might seem obvious that this novel would appeal to someone with the disease, but Hazel is quick to point out that the book she loves is not a ‘typical cancer book’. We soon learn that what she means by that is that it doesn’t talk down to the reader about the illness, nor does it offer up a happily ever after ending. It simply ends abruptly (presumably when the narrator herself dies). It might be odd to imagine how a young girl dying of cancer might take comfort in such a story, but this helps us to understand who Hazel is as a person. It gives us insight into how she deals with the reality of her illness –and that is by not shying away from it. She takes comfort in the way “Anna” the character faces up to her illness, and learns to live with that kind of honesty – even when the others around her cannot. It also shows us that the thing Hazel truly fears is not dying, but rather what will happen to those she leaves behind. When Hazel finished the novel, she confesses in the film that she wrote to the author of the novel (a character by the name of Peter Van Houten) numerous times trying to find out what happened to the rest of the characters (Anna’s loved ones) that are left behind after her death. Although Van Houten never responds (until Gus manages to get in touch – more on that later), it is Hazel’s need for closure that helps us really understand her. It is this sub plot that really adds depth into what might otherwise be a pretty clichéd story. When Gus eventually does get in touch with Van Houten and they travel to Amsterdam to meet him, Hazel is excited to finally get the answers she has craved. It is clear she feels that these answers will help her to reconcile her own feelings about leaving behind those she loves, but unfortunately (as with the novel and life itself) those answers and that closure never come. Instead, Van Houten turns out to be a miserable angry alcoholic man who verbally attacks the children when they press him to find out what happened. We later find out it is because his own daughter died of cancer. It is Hazel’s response to this (and Woodley’s performance) that really brings out the ugly truth of cancer. People die and those they leave behind are sometimes emotionally destroyed by it and sometimes not. Van Houten is the thing that Hazel most fears – the person she is afraid her parents will become in the wake of her death. He is the reason she is reluctant to let Gus in in the first place (well not him specifically but the fear of what he represents). It’s brilliantly done because in the end when Van Houten attempts to make amends for his actions, Hazel rejects him, realizing she will never have the answers or the assurance she needs. It’s a beautiful part of the story and one that is adapted brilliantly by the director.
3. Isaac’s eulogy: I know that Hazel’s eulogy for Gus is supposed to pack the most emotional punch – and don’t get me wrong, it should come with a tissue warning, but it is Issac’s (Gus’ friend who loses his eyes to cancer) speech that is truly touching. It could be because of the circumstances of it. Maybe it’s the performance from Nat Wolff, or the fact that his character has already been through so much, but this particular moment in the film was one I found truly genuine, touching and thoroughly heartbreaking
4. The actual adaptation of it: Most films that are adapted from novels suffer in the process. A novel is a very different medium from a film, and many times you get film crews or writers that can’t properly translate that written story into a visual story. The Harry Potter films are an excellent example of that with some films being done very well, and others leaving out crucial plot and character development for the sake of “action” or special effects. This film however managed to maintain the pace as well as to keep the needed character development and plot development that allows us to get to know these characters and fall in love with them. Are there things left out? Yes, absolutely. But the film is so deftly interwoven, that you truly don’t notice what isn’t there until you actually have to give some thought to it which is the mark of an excellent adaptation.
5. The scene where Hazel climbs the stairs in the Anne Frank house. Simply brilliant. Again Woodley demonstrates her talent here. We can see Hazel experiencing a myriad of emotions. This is right after they discover how horrible a person Van Houten truly is and although it isn’t explicitly stated, it is obvious that Hazel desires to see the Anne Frank house because she relates to her tragedy. Her determination to surmount that barrier in spite of her illness is a direct reaction to the helplessness she feels at the hands of Van Houten. It is wonderfully done here – understated yet very clear.

The Bad:

1. Pretty much nothing, but if I had to point out one scene I would have liked to see, it would be the scene in which Hazel is approached by a young child who inquires about the oxygen tank and the plastic bits in her nose that help her breathe. It is a beautiful moment that really highlights what Hazel has to deal with on a daily basis. She is polite to the child – even taking the time to explain her illness, but it very much showcases how divorced she is from the normal teenage experience. I know this was shown in deleted scene format during the Thursday pre-screening, but I would have liked to see it added. 

Overall it was a beautiful film and the fan experience within the theatre was also quite unique. It is films like this that truly show that women are indeed an audience that is worthy of making films for, and I hope to see more of them.

 

Despite problems with the third act, ‘The Amazing Spiderman 2’ lives up to its name!

 

I will admit upfront that Spiderman has never been my favourite super hero. He’s kind of in the middle. I like him far more than Batman (SO sick of gritty angry antiheroes and Spidey is FUN damn it!), but not quite as much as Superman (my absolute fave).

That said, the previous Spiderman films were never huge draws for me. I respect Tobey McGuire as an actor and love a lot of what he has done, but his Spiderman films were (to me) just too cheesy. Don’t get me wrong, there can be good cheesy – that’s the kind that KNOWS it is cheesy and works with that, but the problem was those films seemed to take themselves too seriously.

This has not been a problem with the reboot, however. That’s not to say they don’t have serious storylines in them (like many superheroes, Spidey is “orphaned” and has to deal with issues of guilt over the loss of his Uncle), but there is also a high degree of unabashed cheese. They KNOW they are campy and they have no problem embracing that camp.

At its heart, Spiderman is the story of a kid leaving adolescence and entering into adulthood. That is the real story here. Not the villains and the webslinging, but the pains and difficulties in leaving childhood and entering into adulthood. It is there that makes Spiderman different from his other two main counterparts. Batman and Superman are by and large stories about grown-ups. They might have the odd flashback or two, but there adolescence has made them the men they are. Peter Parker has yet to become the man he is meant to be and yet he is having to deal with a lot of very adult problems.

These installments have managed to keep that teenaged sense of fun about them, while at the same time weaving into the film some very real stories with very real consequences. The cast is fantastic and the villains first rate. However, despite the brilliance of it, it suffers a bit in the third act.

My usual break down (complete with Spiderman 2 drinking game!)

The Good:

Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone: Not only is the chemistry off the charts here, but these two actors are truly at the top of their game. Garfield has a perfect mixture of ‘aww shucks Aunt May’ boyishness and teenage angst. He is conflicted without being melodramatic. He is angry without being whiny. He is funny without appearing cruel. While Tobey McGuire came off as goofy more often than not, Garfield is more believable as a teenager (even though neither actor was in their teens). Stone as well does a fantastic job as Gwen Stacey. She has FAR more to do here than fawn over Spiderman or let herself be rescued constantly. In fact, in many ways she is facing the same demons as Peter (through the loss of her father in the first film). Both are dealing with it in different ways, however she does not exist solely to dote over Peter or bug him about being Spiderman. She insists on coming with him at the end of the film as only she has the knowledge of how to reset the power grid. She tells Peter how to keep Electro from destroying his web shooters. In short, she is integral to the plot – not just there to kiss him upside down in the rain. This is something most superhero movies fail to do well – specifically DC whose female cast members tend to exist only to be moved around as the plot dictates.

The Supporting Cast: Particularly Sally Field as Aunt May. We are almost 100% certain that she KNOWS what Peter is up to and Field plays it beautifully. The scene where she breaks down and tells Peter that she has been keeping information about his father from him because he is HER son is too brilliant and heartbreaking for words. It is probably the most moving scene in the film. She is so genuine and his reaction is perfect. She raised him from boyhood and as such considers him her son. It is a perfect adoption metaphor – often times children of adopted parents want to learn about their birth parents and the pain the adopted parent might experience letting go is very real.

Jamie Fox as Electro: Just done really really well. He manages to show us a character who is isolated and mentally unstable. A man who truly longs for someone to notice him and when that someone happens to be Siderman, develops an obsession that takes over his life. It’s a metaphor on the obsession society has with celebrity and how some vulnerable individuals can end up becoming dangerous stalkers when that object of fixation disappoints them in some way.

The Humour: This movie is FUNNY. It is sad, and exciting as well, but at the heart of it, it is FUNNY. It really encapsulates the exuberance of youth. Even though the premise is entirely unrealistic (a teenage kid being bitten by a radioactive Spider and becoming a Superhero), how Peter responds to it is very true to how I think most teenage kids would respond. Let’s face it, most of them would think that it was just SO COOL. They would have fun with it. They would revel in it. They would show off. They would mock their foes. They would be cocky and assured – convinced of their own immortality. All of that is here. And it makes it a hell of a lot of fun.

 

The Bad:

The 3D: It’s no secret that I am not a fan of 3D at the best of times. Occasionally it is used well, but most times it is there as a money maker and this film is no exception. I could see no practical use for it and the constant slow-mo shots of him swinging through the streets of New York got real old, real fast. (More on that later with the bonus drinking game!)

The Length: This isn’t so much a complaint about the length as it is about the third act itself. The film’s pacing was absolutely perfect up until the defeat of Electro. If the film had ended there with Peter supposedly agreeing to go to England with Gwen (and the possibility of Harry Osborn out for revenge as a cliff-hanger) it would have been a perfect film. As it was, the film had already hit the 2 hour mark so ending it would have felt right. Instead, there is a second climactic battle in which Gwen is killed and Peter is left mourning the loss. So much is made in the film of his fear of losing her (as well as the guilt he feels for not being able to save her father) that this could have been a really interesting storyline if it were its own film. How does Peter cope with the loss of the first woman he ever loved? How does that guilt weigh against all the others he failed to save (Gwen’s father, Uncle Ben, etc.) How can he ever be Spiderman again? I know they tread that same ground in the McGuire films, but I feel that the Garfield franchise would have done it far better justice. Besides which, instead we get a poorly paced final 20 minutes in which he angsts about her death for a little bit until some moron kid puts himself in the path of some random villain forcing him to come to his rescue. And just like that, Spidey’s back in business. To me, that was not only a bit of a cop-out, but not a very good send off for Gwen who I feel deserved a bit better. That said, the first two thirds of the film more than make up for it for me.

Bottom line: The film was FUN. It was sad, it was exciting, it was just fun. You came out of the theatre HAPPY, which is something it seems like DC is afraid to do for its audience. Despite my enjoyment however there are a few other little mini nitpicks that I had that didn’t exactly detract from my enjoyment, but certainly are something I could affectionately mock. With that in mind I present to you, my own bonus:

The Spiderman 2 Drinking Game:

Instructions: Take one shot every time the following occurs on screen –

1. There is a slow-motion 3D shot of Spidey flying through New York City.
2. Someone says the word ‘amazing’ (referencing the title ‘The Amazing Spiderman’).
3. The Spiderman theme can be heard (either on Peter’s cellphone, being whistled, etc.).
4. The SONY logo appears SOMEWHERE on the screen (you would be drunk probably after the scene in Times Square, but hey….)
5. Peter breaks up with Gwen “for her own good”, then gets back together, then breaks up…
6. Aunt May makes a sly reference to knowing that Peter is Spiderman
7. Someone discovers his true identity
8. Down your drink when Stan Lee appears.

Kimberly Pierce’s remake of “Carrie” proves ultimately pointless in its modernity and underwhelming in its execution.

 

Re-makes are an interesting cinematic phenomenon. A film gets made, that ultimately becomes enough of an icon in cinema history that other directors want to take a crack at and thus the remake is conceived. Occasionally, these attempts to update or modernize older films do quite well for themselves. I can think of a few examples – most notably the 1990s version of “The Thomas Crown Affair” that well surpass the original in their vision and scope. This is not always the case and many times (as is the case with “Carrie”) the remake falls completely flat.

What then, is the appeal of re-doing something that has already been seen as a classic work of cinema? Is it hubris to think that you can do better than the likes of Hitchcock and others? Is it because the name alone will draw in crowds no matter how bad it is? Is it the money? I assume it is many of the above, and most of the time, these poor remakes are done by unknown directors looking to cash in on the film’s already existing fan base. After all, many of these people will see it anyway – if only to find out how bad it is.

I held out hope that “Carrie” would be different, if only for the fact that the director was Kimberly Pierce who expertly crafted the film “Boys Don’t Cry”. Given her perspective as a female director and the underlying issues of emerging womanhood in the film, I thought it only logical that “Carrie” should have a director with a uniquely female gaze.

Brian DePalma’s original film was incredibly well made, no doubt about it, but the male gaze that permeates the film is hard to ignore – especially in that beginning shower sequence. I have difficulty watching that opening sequence because it puts you in the position of a voyeur and given that these girls are meant to be teenagers in high school, it feels incredibly perverse. That is likely the reaction he meant to instill in the audience (either that or he was just one pervy dude himself), yet still it disturbs me. Pierce cuts the time of the scene down and does not show as much (likely because of that first reason as much as the fact that the lead actress is a minor) but very little else is done to alter the film from its original format.

And that is the key problem here. A remake (in order to be good) has to bring something new to the table – a fresh gaze, a new way of telling the story. The only real difference to Pierce’s remake is that it has been updated from its original 1970s setting to 2013. Unfortunately, that is a change that only hinders, rather than helps.

The plot is the exact same as the DePalma version (though she incudes some things not originally addressed in his version). I haven’t read Steven King’s original novel so I can’t speak to how much of that is part of the source material (though I am told much of it is – including Sue Snell’s pregnancy).

The basic plot remains the same and focuses around Carrie White (Chloe Grace Moretz), a senior in high school who has been isolated and secluded her entire life by her religiously fanatic mother (Julianne Moore).

At the very beginning of the film, we see just how different Carrie is when she gets her period in the shower and, because she has never been taught what it is, freaks out. The other kids taunt and make fun of her, throwing tampons at her in the shower and further adding to her trauma. It is only when their gym teacher Miss Desjardin (Judy Greer) arrives and breaks it up, that she is able to explain to Carrie that what is happening is completely normal.

What isn’t normal, however, is the telekinetic abilities that Carrie begins to develop as a result of her emerging womanhood coupled triggered by heightened emotion and fear. The bullies are punished, but their ringleader – a spoiled rich girl named Chris (Portia Doubleday) – refuses to admit any wrongdoing and further blames Carrie when she is banned from attending the Prom. Some sympathy is shown towards Carrie in the form of popular girl Sue Snell (Gabriella Wilde) and her boyfriend Tommy Ross (Ansel Elgort). Sue attempts to make up for what she did to Carrie by forgoing her prom and getting her boyfriend Tommy to take Carrie.

Just as Carrie begins to believe that there is hope for her to fit in and have a normal teenage life, a cruel trick is played on her at the Prom resulting in a disastrous, bloody and deadly climax.

Although the performances are decent for the most part, this film never fully reaches its potential for a few key reasons.

The Bad:

1. The fact that it is set in 2013. This in and of itself is not a problem – many older films are given the modern update and work quite well for it. The problem with updating the time period, is that much of what happens in the original film (and novel I suspect) is very much a product of the 1970s atmosphere. The shower scene is a perfect example of that. I could believe that in the 1970s it was possible for a young girl not to have much information on her body or what changes it was going through. Lord knows, sex education was not exactly common place in public high schools and that sort of information was generally up to the parents to impart to their kids. Knowing what Carrie’s mother is like, we can understand why she had no clue what her period was or what was happening to her. Her fear makes logical sense – anybody who didn’t know better would think they were dying if they started bleeding from the genitals and didn’t know why. I assumed there would have been some changes to that scene or an explanation as to how Carrie could have gotten that far without knowing what her period was in 2013. The closest they got was the hint that she had been homeschooled for a time. That doesn’t work for me. Yeah she might have missed out on it being homeschooled, but it is quite obvious in the beginning of the film that she has been in the public system for quite some time and yet she has no knowledge of her period? In a modern day high school in 2013?? Even if her Mom demanded she be removed from sex ed for religious reasons, she would not have been able to avoid that information. Not in 2013. In 1976 maybe, but not now. I had hoped that Pierce would offer some logical reason as to how or why she didn’t know and/or changed the scene all together, but instead we get a half-hearted home school comment and that’s it. Also, in that same scene in the DePalma version, Miss Desjardin slaps Carrie in order to get her to come out of her hysteria. In the 70s, I can see this making sense but in 2013 there is no way a teacher could get away with slapping a student (for any reason) and not be severely reprimanded and/or fired. I can see why Pierce attempted to keep the shower scene as it is crucial for plot development, but the slap wasn’t necessary and did not make sense in a modern context. It might seem nitpicky, but the solution would have been to keep the film’s original time setting or change the beginning completely to something that might have made more sense. The only real “update” she makes to this scene is that she has the girls film themselves tormenting Carrie and puts the video on the internet (no doubt an attempt to comment on the trend of cyberbullying).
2. Carrie’s discovery of her powers. In the original film, Carrie’s powers only manifest themselves in times of great stress or emotional difficulty. The same is true for Pierce’s remake, with the exception of the fact that Carrie starts to recognize that she is the one responsible for these outbursts and not only begins to research her powers, but to develop and learn to control them as well. By doing this, it completely changes the tone of the final scene as well as the way we view her character. It is clear towards the end that Sissy Spacek’s “Carrie” knew what she was doing to an extent, but did not really have control over it. This is because the powers came from a place of anger, fear, rage and humiliation. They were born out of these emotions and took on a life all their own. Chloe Grace Moretz’s Carrie on the other hand, practices with them until she has complete control over them. She uses her powers to physically subdue her mother and as the final scene unfolds, the death she rains down on her classmates is completely deliberate and emotionally detached. Spacek’s destruction during the infamous Prom scene came from a purely organic place – a place of rage and hate and swirling emotion too large for her to handle. This updated Carrie on the other hand knows exactly what she is doing which takes away some of the impact that scene has and definitely does not allow us to feel any sympathy for her later on when she showers and cries and expresses remorse for her actions. They were originally a crime of passion – a metaphor for the monstrous coming of age that all young girls go through. The horrors of puberty multiplied by a million. All that metaphor and subtlety is gone from this version and when Carrie breaks down afterwards we aren’t sure what to feel. Her actions were too deliberate and her intent too cold and calculated to warrant the sympathy that the film asks of us. So we are just left to sit there, waiting for the inevitable conclusion.
3. The almost identical screenplay. There is very little that has been changed or altered from DePalma’s original screenplay. It is shot for shot almost completely identical with one or two minor alterations (such as Sue Snell’s pregnancy) and of course the cyberbullying element. Unfortunately, if you are going to remake a film like this, you need to be able to bring something unique otherwise it is just a carbon copy without the magic of the original to hold it in place. Pierce does not give us any new perspectives which is a shame because she is a good film maker. I read somewhere that she attempted to change how the story was told by giving it to us from Carrie’s perspective as opposed to the original which told the story from the perspective of how the other kids saw Carrie. This was intriguing, but never really followed through on. I never once got the sense that I knew any more about what Carrie was thinking or feeling, except for when she was practising the use of her telekinetic ability.
4. The performances – some of the actors I felt were miscast here notably Judy Greer and Portia Doubleday. Doubleday’s Chris comes across not as a selfish spoiled bully, but as a borderline sociopath which I don’t think is what they were going for. And Greer’s portrayal of the gym teacher is too sympathetic. The original Miss Desjardin attempted to help Carrie, but you could tell (especially at the beginning) that she was somewhat annoyed and disgusted by her as well. There were scenes where she demonstrated visible annoyance at Carrie’s lack of awareness of the world, which made her death make some degree of sense. Greer’s portrayal came across as too genuine and caring causing us to wonder why Carrie would deliberately kill her, but let Sue Snell escape.

 

The Good:

1. Some of the other performances such as Julianne Moore. She is probably the only performance in fact that was spot on and excellently done. The added scene at the beginning of Carrie’s birth gives further insight into a character that was mentally ill, and psychologically warped. We have far more of an understanding of where Margaret White comes from and some of the added touches from Moore (such as the cutting/self harm) added a new level of depth to the character. We actually see a genuine bond between mother and daughter (despite the evil things she does to her child).

 

All in all however, the film was rather underwhelming and the direction slightly disappointing. I don’t think I will watch this version again.