The Batman

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1

Only Lovers Left Alive

Directed by Jim Jarmusch.

2013. Rated R, 123 minutes.

Cast:

Tom Hiddleston

Tilda Swinton

Mia Wasikowska

John Hurt

Anton Yelchin

Jeffrey Wright

Adam (Hiddleston) and Eve (Swinton) are a married couple who, for some unexplained reason, are named Adam and Eve and live on opposite ends of the Earth. She tools about Tangier while he's holed himself up in his cluttered Detroit apartment. Dude is definitely a hoarder. Eve's thing is apparently listening to men speak. Like, I'm not even joking about that. After speaking to him on the phone, Eve decides she misses her hubby and hops a flight to Motown. Oh, I forgot to mention that they happen to be vampires. However, they no longer go around biting people. Instead, they get their food from blood banks and black market dealers. Mostly, they lounge around and talk art and science. Things change when Eve's sister Ava (Wasikowska) comes around. She's more of a free spirit. Understandably, she turns their world upside down. Something artsy ensues.

Every now and then, a movie comes along that just makes me admit defeat. It makes me confess that there are people in the world smarter than myself. There has to be because they're all seeing something that, for the life of me, I can't. Only Lovers Left Alive is one such film. However, before completely giving up, I try my damndest to find it. And since I don't know any better, I'll start looking in the places where I always look.

This means that the plot is the first place I check. There really isn't one to speak of. We find out some vaguely interesting things about the people involved, though. Adam is apparently responsible for much of the great music of centuries' past, I think. However, other than showing that he's a total recluse who occasionally releases his new material through 'a guy' named Ian (Yelchin). We also see he's a technological genius of some sort. He must be. He rigged a cell phone to connect to a TV from I don't know how many decades ago and uses it like Skype. Let's be honest, if you or I were alive for a couple hundred years we still couldn't figure out how to do that. Despite all this, dude is definitely depressed. He's been contemplating suicide hard...HARD. About Eve, well, she...um...she really loves Adam and...uh...she loves hearing men speak. Didn't I say that, already? Sorry, folks. That's all I got on her. Oh, wait. There is one other thing about her. She can tell exactly how old something is just by putting her hands on it. It's a cute trick, but fairly useless in everyday life. As for Ava, she likes to party and well, occasionally she drinks too much. Yup, she's a vampire so it's possible I've just spoiled the only thing that actually happens in the entire damn movie. Wait, I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's just say that I looked at the plot and found nothing.

My next logical step is to examine the characters. Of course, if you've been paying any attention at all then you know that I've already done that because the plot was missing from its normal spot. If we're keeping count then you know we have a grand total of one mildly interesting character. That's it. Hell, the only other character who matters at all in the whole movie is Marlowe (Hurt), an old dude that, yes, Eve loves listening to. His claim to fame is that he is evidently the one and only Christopher Marlowe that some people allege to have faked his own death and assumed the name William Shakespeare and penned all of those classics. And, of course, he's been around ever since and knew every dead writer you ever read in high school personally. The most interesting thing about him is something that perpetuates the Marlowe/Shakespeare myth. It is implied that, like the real Christopher Marlowe, his human life ended at age 29. However, this Marlowe is an old man and vampires don't age once they've been turned. Hmmm...very clever. Still, that's not quite enough to really give a crap about him. So, yeah, we're still at one mildly interesting character.

Well, what about what these people have to say? You know, dialogue. I'll start by saying this, I generally do not read reviews of movies I haven't seen, if I plan on seeing them in the near future. So even as a lot of my blogging buddies were posting their reviews, possibly including yours, I either clicked off that page or just looked at whatever score you gave and then clicked off. Now that I've watched it, I've gone back and read a number of reviews on it. The dialogue of this movie is getting lots of praise. I'll say this for it, it takes someone with a brain to keep up. That much is for sure. For comparison's sake, I'd say imagine a Quentin Tarantino script that instead of referencing all sorts of pop culture, references historical figures in music and literature. By historical, I mean people who died before the twentieth century. Now strip away all of QT's snark and most of his humor of any sort, and voila, you have Only Lovers Left Alive. Well, that's actually dialogue from Adam and Marlowe. The only other thing Adam really says is "Get off my lawn!" He doesn't use those words, but the sentiment is definitely there. He peeks out of his window and sees a couple of youngsters hanging around and then calls Ian, or wait until he sees him, and orders him to keep those "rock and roll kids" away from his house. Eve mostly just says, "Tell me about ___, darling." Seriously. She does go ape shit when she finds out about teeny tiny thing Adam was hiding from her, but that lasts all of a minute and then its' back to sitting around with her listening ears on until very late in the movie when she finally has to do something. Ian just basically says "Dude, you should get out more." Later, Ava shows up and says "Wooohhh, let's go out!" And, when they get out, she switches over to "Wooohhh, Paaarrrr-tay!" Again, not in those words. Sentiment, people. To sum up the dialogue, we'll say Adam's and Marlowe's is creative, but not riveting and everyone else's is repetitive.

After dialogue, it only makes sense to talk about the acting. Finally, we've reached a strong point. Scroll back to the top and look at that cast again. I don't think anyone of them could be accused of phoning it in. In fact, they are selling it for all they're worth. Tilda Swinton is a phenomenal actress. I've no choice but to give her credit for never seeming bored with her role. She seems genuinely interested in what her mate has to say, even though she's probably heard it all literally a million times before. After all, some of her lines begin with "Tell me again about..." Sigh. Tom Hiddleston gives us his emo-hipster best. We really feel like this is a guy that is more than ready to check out. John Hurt's role is small, but he makes it work. Wasikowska adds what little energy this film has.

The next thing I have to ask myself is what does the movie say? Is there any sort of social commentary or insight into the human condition? Maybe. As far as commentary, we get a drive around a barren Detroit landscape and some lamenting the plight of a once great city. There's also some mumbo-jumbo about it coming back because it's near water. The human condition? There is a nod to the dangers of us constantly consuming junk, the way that we do, and what it's doing to our bodies. I guess you can also say it's a testament to the enduring power of love. Or, whatever the hell else you want. I am so tired of playing this game.

Before I quit, I at least should take a look at more superficial things. I mean, this is a movie about vampires, right? Well, alrighty then. Is it scary? No. Gory? No. Romantic? I guess we can give it that one, begrudgingly on my part, though. Are the action scenes fun? They might be, if there were any. In short, I was bored as shit and struggled mightily to make it through this thing. Going back to our lovebirds, they really started to annoy me, quickly. To make matters worse, I put my finger on the pulse of my dislike for these people. With Adam's rather Cullen...er...sullen attitude and Eve's (I think) misplaced giddiness over just being in his presence really made me feel like I was watching another Twilight sequel, this one set years after the last. Since she's long over Jacob, Charlie has probably collapsed and died beneath the weight of his own mustache, and the Volturi are no longer chasing them, nothing happens. Nothing at all.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Directed by Francis Lawrence.

2013. Rated PG-13, 146 minutes.

Cast:

Jennifer Lawrence

Josh Hutcherson

Woody Harrelson

Donald Sutherland

Phillip Seymour Hoffman

Elizabeth Banks

Jeffrey Wright

Stanley Tucci

Lenny Kravitz

Liam Hemsworth

Jena Malone

Katniss (Lawrence) and Peeta (Hutcherson) are the darlings of the twelve districts after winning the most recent Hunger Games in rather unconventional fashion. President Snow (Sutherland) is quite pissed about it. After all, it was their suddenly blooming love that forced the games to end in such an unorthodox fashion, leaving him and the Capitol looking a bit foolish. This wouldn't be quite so bad if his instincts didn't tell him, correctly, that their relationship is a fraud. He tells Katniss they better play nice for the cameras for the rest of their lives or heads will most definitely, and literally, roll. Those heads belong to her family and friends, of course. Since even that doesn't squash her defiant personality, and the people have made her a symbol of hope, President Snow changes the rules, putting her and Peeta into the next year's games. Their competition this time is made up of prior winners.

One of the things this movie does better than its predecessor is get to the point. That first flick took forever to actually get to the Hunger Games. I understand that in the first movie of a franchise, the setup typically does take longer than it does in sequels. However, in that first flick, it feels unnecessarily long. Like a dog dragging a broken leg, it limped along slowly while we watched Katniss is wardrobe, practicing, and being a talk show guest. Repeatedly. Thankfully, we spend much less time in talk show mode. Generally speaking, I love watching Stanley Tucci perform. In this series, as the host of said talk show, he's just an annoyance. I understand what is trying to be accomplished with this character. It's just not working for me.

Tucci aside, another plus for Catching Fire is the acting of its supporting cast. This more mature group gives us more interesting characters and better portrayals of them. The two standouts being Jeffrey Wright and Jena Malone. Malone gives us someone we're not sure how to take. Wright does what he normally does and disappears into his character. Another newcomer, the late Philip Seymour Hoffman, is his usual excellent self as the Game Master. Among the returnees, Woody Harrelson and Donald Suther land are again very fun to watch. Surprisingy, so is Elizabeth Banks, once more in full drag-queen regalia.

Unfortunately, once we get to the games, it's the stretches between action where this movie, and the series as a whole, continues to fail. These are the times when Katniss and her allies plot the next move and get to know each other a little better. It should also be the time during which the tension is building until that next burst of excitement releases it. Instead, that tension dissipates as the scenes drag on, trying and failing, to establish emotional bonds between the characters. Part of this is due to Katniss herself. We know she cares about her friends and family. However, she comes across so coldly to everyone else that no one else's plight seems to resonate with her until it becomes an imminent part of her own survival. In other words, if she doesn't really care about them until the very moment her life depends on their ability, why should we?

Finally, where the first movie positions itself as social commentary, Catching Fire seems to lack any such aspirations. This is partly due to it being the second movie of what we know will be a quadrilogy. What it is trying to say may become more transparent after subsequent installments are released. No, I didn't read the books and please, do not explain it to me. Another reason is this movie's focus on being a "bigger" movie than its predecessor. It does more, but says less. Still, it is the doing more that makes this a more enjoyable movie than its predecessor. By breezing through the setup quicker, we get a more concise effort, even though it's actually a few minutes longer than the first film. We still hit some snags, but fans of the first should be pleased.

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

Directed by Stephen Daldry.

2011. Rated PG-13, 129 minutes.

Cast:

Thomas Horn

Tom Hanks

Sandra Bullock

Max von Sydow

Viola Davis

John Goodman

Jeffrey Wright

Zoe Caldwell

Oskar (Horn) is a happy little boy who does everything with his father Thomas (Hanks). Much of their time together is spent on fanciful excursions like looking for New York’s “lost sixth borough.” Dad uses these to bolster the boy’s confidence and develop his social skills since it seems the boy suffers from some form of autism (the movie half-heartedly kinda sorta rules out Asperger’s Syndrome). The two get along swimmingly. However, bliss is not eternal and Thomas dies during the tragic events of 9/11. A year later, he finds a key his father had hidden in a vase. Oskar then embarks on his own expedition all over the Big Apple to find out what it unlocks.

Though we hardly see her, Oskar does have a mother. She’s played by an appropriately worn looking Sandra Bullock. Nearly every word she says is laced with a defeatist attitude. Neither she nor her son are taking her husband’s death well. Basically, she lies in bed while he traverses the city trying to dig up remnants of his dad. Eventually he gets some company on his daily treks from the old guy known only as The Renter (von Sydow). The Renter doesn’t talk but rents a room from Oskar’s grandmother who lives across the street.

There are some interesting things going on in Extremely Loud. Oskar encounters some interesting people on his travels. The relationship between he and the old man is endearing. All thanks for this is due to the wonderful Max von Sydow. He expresses so much without ever uttering a sound. His is a remarkable piece of work. A couple other performances also shine in the brief time they’re allotted. I’ll not divulge any further details as this may give too large a hint about the outcome.

As we inch nearer that outcome things fall apart. The movie becomes too transparent in its attempts to manipulate. It tries to play on our inherent sympathy for children and soon has Oskar bursting into tears every so often in hopes that we’ll do the same. Some of us will. For the rest of us, however, Oskar’s proven to be kind of a jerk. We’ve humored him out of sympathy for his quest, but we’re not ready to sob with him. To combat this, we’re next hit with a seriously contrived and overly gooey conclusion that somehow excuses mom’s highly questionable parenting tactics. It’s clearly meant to have us bawling at the notion of sweetness and enveloped by the warmth of closure. Instead, I merely felt violated as it kept trying to touch my sensitive areas without permission.

MY SCORE: 5/10

The Ides of March

Directed by George Clooney.

2011. Rated R, 101 minutes.
Cast:
Ryan Gosling
George Clooney
Philip Seymour Hoffman
Paul Giamatti
Marisa Tomei
Evan Rachel Wood
Jeffrey Wright
Max Minghella
Michael Mantell

Stephen (Gosling) is a young hotshot in the world of campaign managing. He’s trying to help Governor Mike Morris (Clooney) win the presidential nomination of the Democrats. At this task he’s second in command to Paul (Hoffman). Together, they work against the force of evil known as Duffy (Giamatti) who manages their opponent’s campaign. The reason they get to be the good guys is because their candidate is not just a good guy, he’s a great guy. Even Duffy acknowledges this on several occasions. Stephen is so smitten, he’s sure the governor will “take back the world” should he become commander-in-chief.

Don’t worry, things aren’t all so black and white. A major conflict in the story is whether or not our young jedi will turn to the dark side. After all, you’re not really good at your job if no one else wants to hire you. Of course, there’s also a love story. Or, is it a lust story? Either way, like the rest of the movie, things start innocently enough and eventually get very messy.

The various messes are handled nicely. Strangely, the twists and turns that create them aren’t of the totally unexpected sort. In fact, we can kind of see them coming. The intrigue comes from seeing how the people on the screen will handle the curves their lives throw them. We say “I knew it” to ourselves when circumstances change. After this, we’re fully vested in the answer to our rhetorical question: Whaddya do now?

Many of us are jaded enough to believe there are no heroes in politics, only villains. We think the people in all aspects of the game are all relentlessly pursuing their own best interests under the guise of working for the betterment of society. They’re constantly hiding things because they need us to believe the words coming out of their mouths. Their livelihood depends on it. Never is this more true than in a presidential election year. Jobs are won and lost. Fame and infamy are gained. The direction of the nation is swayed. This is true whether we’re talking about the politicians themselves, the people who run and work for their campaigns or the journalists who cover them. The Ides of March drags us into the muck with fantastic results.

Source Code

Directed by Duncan Jones.
2011. Rated PG-13, 93 minutes.
Cast:
Jake Gyllenhaal
Michelle Monaghan
Vera Farmiga
Jeffrey Wright
Michael Arden
Cas Anvar
Max Denoff
Brent Skagford
Gordon Masten

Colter Stevens (Gyllenhaal) finds himself aboard a commuter train in Chicago and he has no idea how he got there. He really freaks out when he makes his way to the restroom and sees a face different from his own in the mirror. He returns to his seat where his behavior disturbs Christina (Monaghan), whom he doesn’t know but who appears to be his traveling companion. Of course, she thinks he’s whoever that was in the mirror and has no clue about what’s happening. In a few minutes, the train explodes, he blacks out and wakes up in a capsule talking to Cpt. Goodwin (Farmiga) through a monitor. By the way, he doesn’t know her, either. Shortly, we’re let in on the plan. Through an invention/discovery called Source Code the last eight minutes of a person’s life can be retrieved to be relived by someone who is a close enough match. Our soldier is a match for the man in the mirror. His mission is to find out who blew up the train. He can go back into the matrix…er…Source Code numerous times, but he always only has eight minutes before he’s kicked out. Back and forth Colter is tossed apparently through time and/or space to conduct his investigation 480 seconds at a time. He also pursues other curiosities on his own since it seems he was volunteered for this mission without his knowledge or consent.

Source Code lost me pretty quickly. Though the movie tries its best to confuse you early on, that wasn’t it at all. I followed just fine. Perhaps I followed too well. I say this because the one thing that ruins a movie built on suspense happened. I knew who the bad guy was within eight minutes of being told what our hero was supposed to do. That’s roughly fifteen minutes of real time. It was pretty simple, actually. I looked at the only person who struck me as a viable candidate, said to myself “That’s who did it,” and waited to be proven right. Unfortunately, I was. There was no mystery for me. Watching him accost person after person in hopes of hitting the jackpot felt like a pointless exercise. It was similar in feel to an episode of CSI. Yes, what’s going on is vaguely interesting but I know the person they bring in at 15 after the hour and 30 after aren’t the killer. It’s always the one they start chasing at 45 after.

Once you’ve figured out the villain it’s easy to sit around looking for other things. Not one to resist this particular temptation, I mapped out how I thought the story would play out in my mind. Sadly, I got almost all of it right including the emotionally manipulative finale. It’s the type of ending I’d normally be okay with because my energy would’ve been spent guessing the identity of the killer. To make matters worse, it spends its last few minutes of screentime breaking every rule of its own movie science without sufficient explanation.

So far I’ve been relentlessly bashing SC but take it with a grain of salt. The truth is if you don’t know who the terrorist is this is probably highly intriguing sci-fi. Even though the protagonist relives the same eight minutes repeatedly, it manages to not be boring like the similarly styled Vantage Point a few years ago. On top of that, some will fall hook, line and sinker for what’s intended to be a tear-jerker climax. It just failed to grab me. Each time it threatened to do so I dodged it by finding something else to nitpick. If it manages to get a hold of you, you’ll probably enjoy it. If it doesn’t, welcome to my world.

MY SCORE: 5/10

Cadillac Records

Directed by Darnell Martin.
2008. Rated R, 109 minutes.
Cast:
Adrien Brody
Jeffrey Wright
Columbus Short
Beyonce Knowles
Eammon Walker
Emmanuelle Chriqui
Cedric the Entertainer
Gabrielle Union

Plot: The history of Chess Records, home to Rock and Roll Hall of Famers Muddy Waters (Wright), Little Walter (Short), Howlin' Wolf (Eamonn Walker), Etta James (Knowles), Chuck Berry (Mos Def) and label owner Leonard Chess (Brody). It was also known as Cadillac Records because Chess would often buy his artists brand new Cadillacs.

The Good: This is a lively affair that merrily bounces along. The movie effectively uses music to create wonderful scenes and to bridge one scene to the next. That music starts with Muddy's down-home blues, moves on to Berry's pioneering Rock and Roll sound and James' heart-wrenching ballads. The acting is a major plus. Jeffrey Wright continues to make me believe he's perhaps the most underrated actor working today. He fully inhabits his characters and does the same for Muddy Waters. Brody is solid as ever. Columbus Short (of Stomp the Yard and Quarantine), whom I was losing faith in, delivers his best performance as does R&B superstar Beyonce Knowles. She ably portrays James as a woman who attempts to mask her fragility with tough talk and tough drugs. The cast also includes Gabrielle Union (as Muddy's wife Geneva) and Emmanuelle Chriqui (as Chess' wife Revetta).

The Bad: It's way too fast. It keeps the accelerator to the floor and rarely lets up. That's fine for an uproarious comedy or a thrill-a-minute action flick. For a drama that's trying to recreate larger-than-life personas and obviously wants us to feel their joy and pain, it's not. Instead of us really identifying with these people and going through the highs and lows with them, it often feels like old-school newreel journalism. We get a bunch of quick scenes in chronological order as we're told in a cold, clincal manner "this happens, then this, then this and this and this, the end." We never get attached enough to be happy or sad for them. For a movie about people who reached deep into their souls to create beautiful music, it has surprisingly little soul of its own.

The Ugly: Little Walter making sure no one steals his name.

Recommendation: CR is a fun little movie because it showcases the music and has some great acting. If it weren't so hell-bent on getting to the end as quickly as possible and really digging into the emotions that went into making the music, it would've been a real winner. As it is, it's decent but forgettable.

The Opposite View: Christopher Tookey, Daily Mail (UK)

What the Internet Says: 6.7/10 on imdb.com (9/8/10), 67% on rottentomatoes.com, 65/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 6/10


Sidenote: Separate movies on any of these people could be great but I would particularly like to see one about Chuck Berry.

Quantum of Solace

Quantum of Solace
2008. Rated PG-13.
Director: Marc Forster. Starring Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Olga Kurylenko, Mathieu Amalric, Giancarlo Giannini, Gemma Arterton, Jeffrey Wright, David Harbour.

Plot: An attempt on M's (Dench) life by the mysterious Quantum organization leads Bond (Craig) to Haiti where he meets the beautiful Camille (Kurylenko). She in turn, leads him to Quantum's leader Dominic Greene who is of course, trying to take over the world in some form or fashion. Action ensues. Or re-ensues, since it starts with a car chase, but nevermind.

The Good: The action, duh! These sequences will flat knock you on your butt. It amplifies the Bourne-style in splendidly brutal fight and chase scenes with amazing stunts. However, it's careful to never get into the gizmo heavy cheesefests that marred the Pierce Brosnan 007 flicks. This Bond also has another thing in common with Bourne, he's ruthless, in fact moreso. He's piling up quite a body count. To pull this off, Daniel Craig is perfect. Whether or not he's the best Bond is a matter of opinion. What isn't open to debate is the fact that he's given us by far the most athletic version of the character. Aside from the physical stuff, we also notice that for the first time, a Bond movie isn't a stand-alone adventure. It's actually a real sequel that often refers to it's predecessor. This further humanizes our hero, even as he's performing unbelievable feats. He often has thoughts of revenge and can't sleep due to the events of the prior movie. The relationship between Bond and M continues as it did in Casino Royale as well. That is, it provides a solid foundation and seems to grow during the movie. It helps that Judi Dench has been wonderful in the role.

The Bad: The story is convoluted and rushed. This seems to be a constant Bond problem as the bad guy has to go through a whole lot to take over the world and Bond has to go all over the world, quite literally, to figure things out. As a result, he seems to discover a lot of things either by accident or unintentionally implied psychic ability and we are left scrambling to catch up. The movie is also formulaic. In CR, there were long sections of the movie devoted to us getting to know the new Bond. Here, those sections are stripped away and we just follow the same leftover steps. As far as Bond villains go, Dominic Greene and the evil general we meet later are a bit bland. If the Bond reboot needs anything, it's "a better brand of criminal" to quote The Joker. Oh, and what happened to the creative names for the bad guys and the Bond girls. Hearing the outlandish and sometimes racy names of these characters was part of the fun. I realize they wanted to get away from some of the more silly aspects of the franchise but they could lighten up just a tad. Dominic Greene and Camille? Where's the fun in that?

The Ugly: He keeps tearing up my Aston Martins!

Recommendation: As with any of the Bond movies over the course of 40 years, it's a must-see for fans. It's also a must-see for action fans since it may be the genre's best film of 2008 that doesn't include a costumed hero (unless you consider a well-tailored suit a costume). It's also not as good as CR. While, it's certainly a fun ride, the movie between the action scenes is lacking. Fortunately, those action scenes come early and often and are all dynamite.

The Opposite View: Mike McGranaghan, Aisle Seat

What the Internet Says: 7.0/10 on imdb.com (4/6/09), 65% on rottentomatoes.com, 58/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 6/10