Into the Woods

Directed by Rob Marshall. Written by James Lapine (Screenplay/Musical).  Starring Anna Kendrick (Cinderella), Daniel Huttlestone (Jack), James Cordon (Baker), Emily Blunt (Baker’s Wife), Lilla Crawford (Little Red Riding Hood), Meryl Streep (Witch).

Bottom line: Into the Woods is pretty ok, then again, I’m not the biggest fan of musicals but I will add that Meryl Streep is fantastic.

2/4

Into the Woods is a retelling of classic fairy tales: Cinderella, Red Riding Hood, Jack and the Bean Stalk, and Rapunzel. These stories are intertwined by way of a baker and wife who desperately want to reverse the witch’s curse that prevents them from having a family. The baker and his wife have to collect five items (one from each of the fairy tale characters): “the cow as white as milk, the cape as red as blood, the hair as yellow as corn, and the slipper as pure as gold.” The movie ultimately asks what is the cost of their desire? Are they willing, for example, to swindle a poor boy by giving him beans for his cow? Is life “Good versus Evil” like the fairy tales of old?

Into the Woods is one of those movies where your enjoyment is bound to your attitude towards its style. The base value is “good.” If you love musicals add a point. If you merely like musicals add half a point. If you hate musicals subtract half a point.

The cinematography is reasonable. There’s a lot of smooth transitioning between shots making the images flow with the songs. The film’s world feels less like a world and more of a collection of positions in which one sings.

One of the benefits of seeing the film as opposed to the play is the casting. Meryl Streep – must I say more? She’s amazing. She’s always amazing. Emily Blunt plays a wonderful baker’s wife.  She pairs off well with James Gordon who plays her husband. Anna Kendrick’s performance as Cinderella is good too.

Overall, it feels like your standard fair musical. If you saw the play and enjoyed it, you’ll most likely enjoy this rendition. Naturally, if you didn’t enjoy the play, I’d be surprised if you are even reading this far but, just in case, to you, I wouldn’t recommend it. My above number assignment of two out of four is colored (despite my best efforts) by my general dislike of musicals. I think one of the things that bothers me is that a lot of the songs are almost all good. That is, more than half of each individual song I like; one verse might flow in a way that I like but the following verse I don't and the verse that I don't like is the one that gets stuck in my head!

I haven’t seen all of the 1991 Broadway production of Into the Woods but from what I’ve seen it’s really close. That isn’t surprising once I looked at the credits. The writer of the musical also wrote the screenplay. The question I ask is, “does the play translate to the screen well?” Is it even fair to make the comparison between the play and the film? After all, a film is a film and a play is a play. Apples and Oranges and the like. Then again, it might be worthwhile to determine why I have a tendency to dislike musicals.

I believe it has something to do with my early experiences with musicals. The one that sticks out most in my mind is Oliver! (1968). It was a big budget production with singing and dancing. It was a turbulent experience because as soon as you hear the music, strap in – you’re going to be here for a while. Within the first seconds you can probably tell if you are going to like the song and, for your sake, you’d better because after the lengthy song comes a dancing sequence to that music.

It is exhausting.

I am, however, totally down to watch a play and I think it is because it’s a live performance. That is, the actors get tired. The song and dance can’t physically go on forever. In a film, the characters have unlimited endurance so they can sing and dance forever. This threat of song and dance gives me an ever-present sense of dread in movie-musicals.

What do you think? Do you like musicals? Did you see and enjoy Into the Woods? Leave a comment or send me a message; I’d love to talk about it more! Thanks for reading!

2015 Golden Globe Picks!

Tonight is the 2015 Golden Globe Awards Ceremony!

Here is a list of my picks for the winners. I ought to note that I haven't seen the majority of these movies so I'm going on the very little information that I've heard and what little I know about the movies. That's just a disclaimer just in case I'm totally off. I'm also just going to comment on the movies.

Best Motion Picture, Drama

• Boyhood - My Pick, Won
• Foxcatcher
• The Imitation Game
• Selma
• The Theory of Everything

My pick: Boyhood. It's a feat in filmmaking and it's getting 100% on Metacritic, which is incredible.

Best Actress in a Motion Picture, Drama

• Julianne Moore (Still Alice) -  My Pick, Won
• Rosamund Pike (Gone Girl)
• Reese Witherspoon (Wild)
• Felicity Jones (The Theory of Everything)
• Jennifer Aniston (Cake)

My pick: Julianne Moore. I was going to say Rosamund Pike or Felicity Jones but, after looking at their previous work, I'm going to go with Moore. I have heard more positive things about The Theory of Everything than Gone Girl and I haven't heard much at all about Still Alice but we'll see.

Best Actor in a Motion Picture, Drama

• Eddie Redmayne (The Theory of Everything) - My Pick, Won
• Steve Carell (Foxcatcher)
• Benedict Cumberbatch (The Imitation Game)
• David Oyelowo (Selma)
• Jake Gyllenhaal (Nightcrawler)

My pick: Eddie Redmayne. I have heard great things about Redmayne's performance. Steve Carell? Nah. Benedict Cumberbatch or Jake Gyllenhall? Not this time. I haven't heard that much about Selma to pick David Oyelowo.

Best Motion Picture, Musical or Comedy

• Into The Woods
• Birdman
• The Grand Budapest Hotel - My Pick, Won
• St. Vincent
• Pride

My pick: The Grand Budapest Hotel. I loved it…although I've heard a lot of really great things about Birdman.

Best Actress In A Motion Picture, Musical or Comedy

• Julianne Moore (Maps To The Stars)
• Amy Adams (Big Eyes) - My Pick, Won
• Emily Blunt (Into The Woods)
• Helen Mirren (The Hundred Foot Journey)
• Quvenzhané Wallis (Annie)

My pick: I think it will come down to Amy Adams or Emily Blunt. I love their performances in Big Eyes and Into the Woods, respectively. I'm going to go with Amy Adams.

Best Actor in a Motion Picture, Musical or Comedy

• Michael Keaton (Birdman) - My Pick, Won
• Bill Murray (St. Vincent)
• Ralph Fiennes (The Grand Budapest Hotel)
• Christoph Waltz (Big Eyes)
• Joaquin Phoenix (Inherent Vice)

My pick: I'm going to go with Michael Keaton in Birdman. I loved Ralph Fiennes but I don't think the role in The Grand Budapest Hotel quite has all the variety to push him to victory.

Best Animated Feature Film

• The Lego Movie - My Kinda Pick
• How To Train Your Dragon 2 - Won
• Big Hero 6 - My Kinda Pick
• The Book of Life
• The Boxtrolls

My pick: I suspect it will be either The Lego Movie or Big Hero 6. My goodness The Boxtrolls had better not win. I wrote a post about it, if you are interested.

Edit: In retrospect, I realize that I didn't actually make a pick. I suppose it was more an anti-pick against The Boxtrolls.

Best Foreign Language Film

• Ida - My Pick
• Force Majeure
• Gett: The Trial of Viviane Amsalem
• Tangerines
• Leviathan - Won

My pick: I bet it comes down to the WWII Ida or the more currently topical Force Majeure. I'm putting my money on Ida. On another note, are the Best Foreign Language Films always so serious? We've got a WWII movie set in Poland, a woman trying to escape a destructive marriage, the war in Georgia, and corruption. Sheesh. Not that I'm criticizing serious topics or anything, I wonder if it's an indication that the only way a foreign movie might be considered "the best" would be to take the serious route. I think I will go check out previous nominees to see.

Best Supporting Actress in a Motion Picture

• Jessica Chastain (A Most Violent Year)
• Keira Knightley (The Imitation Game)
• Patricia Arquette (Boyhood) - Won
• Meryl Streep (Into The Woods) - My Pick
• Emma Stone (Birdman)

My pick: Meryl Streep. She was wonderful and then there's always the fact that she is Meryl Streep. 

Best Supporting Actor in a Motion Picture

• Ethan Hawke (Boyhood) - My Pick
• Robert Duvall (The Judge)
• Edward Norton (Birdman)
• J.K. Simmons (Whiplash) - Won
• Mark Ruffalo (Foxcatcher)

My pick: I'm thinking Ethan Hawke because Boyhood is allegedly so great and he isn't competing with Meryl Streep. 

Best Director - Motion Picture

• Ava DuVernay (Selma)
• Wes Anderson (The Grand Budapest Hotel)
• Alejandro González Iñárritu (Birdman)
• David Fincher (Gone Girl)
• Richard Linklater (Boyhood) - My Pick, Won

My pick: Richard Linklater because of the orchestration required for Boyhood.

Best Screenplay - Motion Picture

• Wes Anderson (The Grand Budapest Hotel)
• Gillian Flynn (Gone Girl)
• Alejandro González Iñárritu, Nicolás Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris and Armando Bo (Birdman) - Won
• Richard Linklater (Boyhood) - My Pick
• Graham Moore (The Imitation Game)

My pick: I'm thinking Boyhood is going to sweep so Boyhood is my pick for this category. 

Best Original Score - Motion Picture

• Alexandre Desplat (The Imitation Game)
• Jóhann Jóhannsson (The Theory Of Everything) - Won
• Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross (Gone Girl)
• Antonio Sanchez (Birdman)
• Hans Zimmer (Interstellar) - My Pick

My pick: I'm going to go with Hans Zimmer, if for no other reason than his previous work.

Best Original Song - Motion Picture

• Big Eyes
• Selma - My Pick, Won
• Noah
• Annie
• The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1

My pick: John Legend and Common's song from Selma. You can listen to all of the songs on this page if you too didn't know them.

All right, there you have it - my picks for the 2015 Golden Globes. I'll come back to this to do a retrospective in the near future.

But, what do you think? Please leave a comment with your thoughts.

Thanks for reading!

Edit: Alright: eight out of fourteen. Not quite spot on at all but I'm content. I believe it was my Oscar picks from last year were all completely wrong. Yay for progress!

The awards made me feel that I should watch Boyhood, Birdman, and How To Train Your Dragon 2. I was particularly surprised by the animated award. I, incorrectly, assumed that a sequel couldn't possibly be much good, let alone Golden Globe worthy. Then again, it wasn't that good but it was marginally better than the other animated movies for this year.

The Boxtrolls

Directed by Graham Annabel, Anthony Stacchi. Written by Irena Brignull, Adam Pava, Alan Snow. Starring Ben Kingsley (Archibald Snatcher), Jared Harris (Lord Portly-Rind), Nick Frost (Mr. Trout), Isaac Hemstead (Eggs), Elle Fanning (Winnie).

Bottom line: The Boxtrolls is a complete disappointment, as a family movie, as a clay-mated movie, and even just as a plain old movie.

1/4

In the city of Cheesebridge, there exist two groups: humans and Boxtrolls. The humans are governed by group of four old white men called White Hates (because they, ya know, have white hats). Meanwhile, underneath the city, lives a group of creatures called Boxtrolls. Each night the Boxtrolls leave their subterranean dwelling to scavenge for junk which they re-appropriate into fantastic inventions. “See they aren’t stealing, they’re taking the discarded junk to make anew.” That’s what the movie wants you to say, anyway.

The Boxtrolls opens with the creepy, ugly, Archibald Snatcher (Kingsley) proposing a deal to the chief White Hat, Lord Portly-Rind (Harris); if/when Snatcher kills every last Boxtroll, he will receive a White Hat. Reluctantly, Portly-Rind agrees.

Snatcher goes on the hunt with three henchmen, capturing every Boxtroll they find. It isn't too difficult to catch a Boxtroll; when startled or afraid the little creatures hide in the boxes they wear for clothes (hence the name Boxtrolls). There is a baby who lives with the Boxtrolls too. His name is Eggs (Hemstead) because the box he wears held eggs. Cue montage of him growing into a teenager. Yadda yadda yadda Eggs must save his family.

This movie provides several layers of disappointment with a varied amount of spoilers. I'll leave the spoiler ones until the end, of course. My first mistake was hoping and expecting the Claymation to be worthwhile: it wasn't. The thing that makes Claymation unique is that it's so physical but, for the life of me, I couldn't really tell how much was CGI and how much of it was Claymation. Is that a testament to how well done it was? No, it's just that the CGI detracts from the Claymation experience. They might as well have made 3D models look like clay and no one would be the wiser.

My second mistake was seeing this in 3D, which has two side effects: it's darker and the animation becomes choppy if it moves too quickly. This choppiness cripples Claymation. The best parts are the colorful characters and smooth animation! Correction, the only thing this movie has going for it is the color and animation.

Leading up to its premier, the avalanche of marketing reminded me The Boxtrolls is "from the makers of Coraline & ParaNorman." Coraline was really good and ParaNorman was lame so they had one out two. What I failed to realize is that "makers of" was not "directors of." So these guys worked in the Art Department of those films or were assistant directors. If you read my review John Wick, you'd know that the first time directing a feature length film, doesn't have to be bad. If you haven't read that review, do, but in the mean time, let me paraphrase. If Annabel and Stacchi had Claymation experience, they could've just put nearly all of their eggs into that basket. What I was hoping to see was really good Claymation. I didn't care about some convoluted, problematic (for reasons I'll discuss later) story. Consider this:

There is so much life in this little fifteen-second clip. I’d be game to watch a basic story if they supported it with incredible animation. Now, I don’t mean a bad story, but a basic one.

Even if you love Claymation, heck, even if you mildly enjoy Claymation don't see The Boxtrolls. It isn't like a fun type of bad it's just a waste of time type of bad. This isn't something from which you learn or grow it’s a waste of time and money.

Instead of watching this, check out Grendel, Grendel, Grendel (1981). It’s an animated movie directed by Alexander Stitt. In the same way that the play Wicked takes the Wizard of Oz from the Wicked Witch's perspective, Grendel, Grendel, Grendel is the retelling of the epic poem Beowulf from the perspective of the monster Grendel. It’s such simple late 70's, early 80's style of animation. It reminded me of The Beatles Yellow Submarine. It is a fascinating movie that warrants its own post, but, in the mean time, skip The Boxtrolls and see Grendel, Grendel, Grendel. It’s even on YouTube. I’ll include a link at the bottom of the page.

I didn't get too too much into the story or thematic problems with the movie yet, so in the coming paragraphs mind yourself of spoilers. But wait, if you won't see the movie if you know what happens...

As is sometimes the case with "family movies," bad = ugly = evil = death. Recall my summary of introduction, when Snatcher makes a deal with Lord Portly-Rind. Snatcher wants to be part of the Aristocracy. It isn't like Snatcher was doing anything particularly villainous or at least anything more villainous than Portly-Rind. It's not like he is holding Portly-Rind hostage. Portly-Rind is acting out of fear of public outcry - not for the public’s sake but because he may lose his status. What ultimately happens to Portly-Rind? Nothing. He loses his white hat but at least he doesn't (literally) explode.

Thus Portly-Rind's character is established as one obsessed with cheese and power, and treats his daughter, Winnie (Fanning), as a far third. Even at climatic fight, he acts this way. Snatcher (because of a cheese allergy) has turned into a hulking mutant (another reason he should die). He holds Winnie by the throat saying, "Give me your hat or she gets it!' Portly-Rind hesitates, not once but twice! Winnie yells at him and he reluctantly provides the hat. It was a situation built up to be the standard redemptive situation. To save his daughter, the father gives us what he thought he held most dear. But because he’s so reluctant to give it up, it really feels unsatisfying. Maybe it's a failed attempt at humor, but with ten minutes of movie left, it isn't the time for lame jokes! We've got loose ends to tie up. And, of course, he goes unpunished for this.

Now that we're speaking of fathers, let’s look at Eggs. Eggs’ backstory is that he was the son of an inventor. One day, Snatcher comes to the inventor and says, "Build me something evil." Egg Sr. refuses; Snatcher supposedly kills him but not before Eggs is given to the Boxtrolls for safekeeping. I was kinda pumped because a father was killed.

The doesn't sound right. I mean that it was remarkable that the film would do something that bold. It's much darker than I expected. But, wouldn't ya know it, the father wasn't killed, he was held captive by Snatcher, in solitary confinement, held upside down and fed jelly for a decade. When he is re-introduced, he is a lunatic.

I wasn't sure how the movie would handle that emotional dilemma. The Boxtrolls raised Eggs, after all, but now his biological father is back albeit without sanity. Don't worry about that though! As soon as Snatcher is killed, Eggs Sr. gets a shave and a haircut and is back to normal. The movie ends with Eggs and his father in the front seat of a carriage, with the lead Boxtroll behind them. You see, Eggs Sr. is the biological father and, more importantly, a human so naturally he supersedes the Boxtrolls.

I could go on but nah. The Boxtrolls now exists in my memory alongside a terrible meal. In any case, thank you for reading! I would normally say, “leave a comment and let me know if you agree or disagree with my assessment” but I hope you might have persuaded you not to see it. That said let me know if you've seen any good movies recently. Have you seen the new Hunger Games or Interstellar?

Oh, I almost forgot to provide a link to Grendel, Grendel, Grendel

John Wick

Directed by Chad Stahelski, and David Leitch (uncredited). Written by Derek Kolstad. Starring Keanu Reeves (John Wick), Michael Nyqvist (Vigo Tarasov), and Alfie Allen (Iosef Tarasov).

Bottom line: If you like action movies, I’d highly recommend John Wick because it’s really fun, refreshingly simple and does so many little things correctly; it’s the little things with movies like this.
3/4

First things first, a coworker of mine said that the trailer describes the movie perfectly. I hadn’t seen the trailer before going to the theater so I thought it might behoove this review if I could respond to my coworker’s comment.

Don’t watch the trailer.

Don’t watch the full 3:02 Official Trailer, at least. I beseech you not to see it mostly because it spoils (in my opinion) an important part of the movie. Just stay with me and I’ll give you enough of a summary for you to get a good feel of the movie.

John Wick (Reeves) was a hit man of mythic status but after falling in love with someone, he retired, or he tried to anyway. Retiring from this type of position never seems to work out. So, the movie opens with John attending the funeral of his wife and, shortly afterwards, he’s attacked by some punks with Russian Mafia connections (small world - it’s the same Mafia which employed him). Cue John Wick going after the punks and as a result, taking on the mob as a whole.

This is one of the first times these directors have had a feature length film. They both were assistant directors or stunt coordinators on movies like 300, V for Vendetta, and The Matrix. How are they able to take their stunt experience and translate it to a full movie? By getting rid of nearly everything else, that’s how.

We meet a cast of colorful characters who all know each other. There is a hotel that acts as a universal safe house for hit men. How did that come to be? How did John Wick become to be the best hit man ever? We don’t know and we don’t care. We are here for the action and these other characters are just there for some flavor. I can’t emphasize how relieved I was when the movie didn’t feel the need to give me backstory.

Now, on paper, John Wick is a simple movie. Well, actually, it’s not just on paper. It is simple. But, tell me, what do you need for an action movie? 1) Justification for violence (so maybe a sympathetic enough protagonist) and 2) Violence (of course). That sounds so minimal, right? And yet, most action movies mess that up and it’s usually because they overcomplicate things.

“Alright, we have a father and he has a son. Let’s show a birthday party for the kid, and then we’ll have them on a merry-go-round. An assassin will shoot at the father and the bullet with go through him and kill the son. That’s gotta persuade everyone to root for the father!” They shoulda called it Convoluted, not Collateral Damage Kindergarten Cop. Am I right? (The joke worked better in my mind but you get the idea.)

The justification is one of my favorite parts about John Wick. He’s a guy who is just trying to mourn the death of his wife in peace. He has had a very bad day, understandably, and then these punks destroy what little he has left. It isn’t about what they did it’s the principal of the thing.

It’s like if you are driving home after a long, miserable day of work. You just want to go home and this guy cuts you off. It’s so frustrating. You just want everyone else to get out of your way so you can confront the villain directly. You’ve got some choice words to say to him but as soon as you try, people deliberately get it your way. John Wick captures that frustration beautifully. I’ll talk a little more about it with spoilers later but I’ll leave it at this for now.

Now that we have justification, we need some violence. And violence we get: John Wick is relentless and takes its violence very seriously. In every action movie that I can think of, when the hero shoots a guy, he shoots the guy once and then move on. As Leon explains in Leon: The Professional, you shoot a guy twice,” the first shot takes him out of order, and the second finishes him off.” It’s an interesting detail to which John Wick actually adheres; no matter who the guy is, whether he is a major villain or a nameless thug, he shoots everyone at least twice. It makes a great starting point for a discussion about the aesthetization of violence.

We don’t really care who he is killing and, moreover, we want him to kill more. It just looks cool. It’s like a dance almost. It’s like a not stupid version of Gun-Kata (from that Christian Bale movie, Equilibrium). But is this ok? I mean, sure he had a bad day, but these are people with friends and presumably families. One might say that this is just a movie, that it isn’t real, but the sentiment is real and our interactions with the violence are real. It’s desensitizing. At the same time, I was so surprised by the movie as a whole; I could overlook the issue of violence.

Here I’ve been talking about the movie in general terms, I haven’t talked about the specifics. The music is fun, it reminded me of the club scenes from The Matrix, or maybe that was Keanu Reeves that was doing that. The cinematography is solid. The camera is slowly, steady, and positioned to watch the action - none of this shaky camera nonsense. The art style is gray and dark which fits the hit man world. The dialog is as complex as it needs to be which, again, is a pleasant surprise. The acting is great too. How can you go wrong with Keanu and William Dafoe? Keanu Reeves is always so stiff and it works here really well.

Alright, as if you couldn’t have guessed (and aside from the fact I said it in the bottom line), I highly recommend John Wick. It’s really refreshing in terms of action movies. There are so many pitfalls to action movies (too shaky camera, trying to take itself too serious, too much fluff, etc.) and John Wick navigates them almost flawlessly. Don’t get me wrong this is an action movie; it’s not going to blow you mind or anything so if you aren’t a fan of action movies fo sho pass on this. I’d also hesitate to recommend this if I wasn’t a fan of Keanu Reeves but, really, who isn’t?

Now, on to the spoilers...

There isn’t too much that I want to talk about that I haven’t already mentioned but one thing I found funny is the Russian. I’ve been learning Russian the past couple months so I know some phrases and I took some Russian history courses in college so I know some cultural information. The Mafia boss calls John Wick “Baba Yaga,” which supposedly means the Russian equivalent to the Boogeyman. That’s kinda true if by "Boogeyman," you mean a potentially malevolent Old Woman who lives in the woods.

The other thing I wanted to talk about is the adorable beagle puppy that Wick’s wife got him. As soon as the dog was introduced, I thought,” Whoa, man. If they kill this puppy, Imma be so ticked.” My wife said the same thing. We almost decided that if they killed the dog, we’d leave. It feels like such a cheap move to kill off a cute little puppy. But here is where is gets interesting. They keep the dog alive long enough for us to say, “Ok, John Wick, have at ‘em,” but short enough where we don't build an emotional attachment to it. When it dies, we are drawn to John Wick rather than out of the movie. It’s something I had never really thought about.

If they gave John Wick a child, and the punks killed the kid, the movie would have a completely different tone. Wick’s quest would be about revenge - because you can’t be killing kids without punishment. Because they have a cute puppy, the guys aren’t to be punished because they killed the puppy, because the puppy is just a symbol. Wick explains this at one point. The dog was his last glimmer of hope to mourn alone in peace.

Sheesh, what a fun movie. That’s a sign of a good movie too, even after drafting out thoughts, procrastinating, drafting, redrafting, writing, then editing a review, it’s still fun. In fact, I think I’d like to turn this into a video review to get back into that.

Thanks for reading, let me know in the comments what you thought about this review or the movie. Did you like it? Where would it rank with respect to other recent action movies?

Guardians of the Galaxy

Directed by James Gunn. Written by James Gunn, Nicole Perlman, Dan Abnett and Andy Lanning. Starring Chris Pratt (Peter Quill), Zoe Saldana (Gamora), Dave Bautista (Drax), Groot (Vin Diesel), Bradley Cooper (Rocket)

Bottom line: If you want pretty graphics and comic book, sci-fi action, and tickets are cheap than maybe give it a try, otherwise, I would suggest you pass.

2-3/4

You might wonder why I have the range of 2-3/4 for the star rating for this film. I hesitate to assign a star value to Guardians of the Galaxy. My feelings when leaving the movie theatre were pretty positive; good 3D effects, good action, funny at times, good graphics. These are the things that might lead a movie to have a 3/4 but I distinctly remember feeling this way when leaving the theatre the first (and second) time I saw The Avengers. The thing is, The Avengers does not hold up -at all.

I think the reason I rated it so highly on the initial pass was because I was starved of movies. I hadn’t seen anything in a while, let alone a blockbuster CGI-fest in 3D. Even though my bar was set low, I wanted to be amazed and so I was. I’d like to wait a couple weeks or months before assigning an official star value to Guardians of the Galaxy because I’m curious to see how it holds up. Now, that said, I’d still like to talk about my initial thoughts.

Guardians of the Galaxy’s big selling points are the graphics and action. The graphics are really good and the 3D effects (I saw this in 3D) are well done. Even though I saw this in 3D, I don’t think the experience would be all that different in 2D. The action sequences in 3D movies can sometimes be hard to parse. They can be too choppy. That was a major qualm of mine with The Hobbit. What is the point in shoveling money into the steam engine of CGI if you can’t see anything? Fortunately, the action in Guardians of the Galaxy is, for the most part, easy to watch. A great example of this comes with the opening credits.

Peter Quill (Pratt) is listening to a cassette tape while dancing around ruins on an alien planet. The credits share the screen with him and the tempo matches the music. I’m usually not one to enjoy dancing sequences but it set the stage for the rest of the movie; I just had to relax and have fun.

Now, this credit sequence isn’t quite the introduction to the film. We first see a young Peter Quill in a hospital listening to his cassette tape entitled “Awesome Mix Vol1.” His grandfather tells him to come and see his mother. His mother, dying of cancer, gives him a letter and a plot device birthday gift. She tells him to open it when she is gone. She holds out her hand to him but he can’t look at her let alone hold her hand and she dies. He runs out of the hospital to a misty field where an alien spacecraft appears and abducts him. We jump forward in time to see the dancing-credit-sequence.

The characters, much like the alien worlds, are pretty good overall. First, we have Peter Quill, who reminds me of Chris Pines’ Capt. Kirk. He’s cool, smooth, funny, male, and white. We have Gamora (Saldana), a highly trained/bioengineered assassin/love interest. She’s fine. Rocket (Cooper) is fine too. He’s the spunky, tiny, bombastic, intelligent, Han Solo to the Chewy that is Groot (Diesel). His feistiness is the general source of humor. Was he funny? Sure, at times. The humor overall is sophomoric but, it’s a comic book movie – whadaya expect?

I think the casting of Bautista as the large warrior Brax and Diesel as Groot were marvelous (no pun intended).  Groot is a large, strong, tree character whose only vocabulary is “I am Groot.” Brax is more oratorically capable though only to the extent of being another comic relief. Brax’s people, Rocket explains, have no such things as metaphors; they go right over his head. Brax retorts, “Nothing gets over my head…my reflexes are too fast…I’d reach up and catch it.” It’s a simply joke but the timing is right on and they take it one step longer than I expected. Knowing this was a comic goldmine they dig this well until it’s dry.

If you are in the mood for sci-fi graphics and comic book action, The Guardians of the Galaxy, might be worth watching but only for a matinee. I would not recommend paying full price for this.

Snowpiercer

Written and Directed by Joon-ho Bong. Written by Keey Masterson. Starring Chris Evans (Curtis), Kang-ho Song (Namgoong), John Hurt (Gilliam), Ed Harris (Wilford), Tilda Swinton (Mason).

Bottomline: Snowpiercer walks a fine line between humor and horror (the horror of war-type, not the monster-movie-type)

3/4

In the future, an effort to quell global warming accidentally resulted in freezing the Earth. The last survivors of mankind have survived for 17 years aboard a train that continuously travels around the planet.

From that introduction, you might suspect that there is an environmental subplot… There is also an equally subtle class struggle theme. As Tild-og’s (Tilda Swinton’s) character Mason explains, ‘there is a hierarchy and everyone should know their place.’

That statement goes over well with the impoverished passengers at the back of the train…so they hatch a plan to release, from the prison car, the security engineer/drug addict Namgoon (Song) who can open doors all the way to the head of the train. Led by the brooding but attractive Curtis (Evans), they fight to overthrow the totalitarian Wilford (Harris).

The cinematography is really great. Speaking about this with my wife, she convinced me that the action-sequence shaky camera is appropriate and well done.  The camera and characters are on a moving (therefore bumpy) train. The camera is moving with the characters that are running along fighting, which is also a bumpy activity. It’s not like in Batman Begins, where the action is hard to parse; the shaky camera is an artificial way to heighten the excitement.

The music is good enough, I think. To be honest, I saw this movie last weekend and I can’t really quite remember the music, so take that for what you will. What I do remember distinctly are the sound effects. Snowpiercer is a perfect example of how to make a chilling effect without having to actually show anything. As a friend described, the sound effects are “disturbingly visceral.” The sound of bone crunching under the weight of a hammer or the strike of an axe leaves a lasting impression. This is a really violent movie so you’ll get a lot of these of sound effects.

This is a mildly, stylized film. It’s not Sin City (Miller, 2005) stylized but more Hannah (Wright, 2011) stylized. That is, the movie has characters who could be in a comic book but the movie overall retains a general sense of realism. Its touch of theatrics is strange at times (and kinda creepy) particularly with Mason (Swinton). In her first monologue, she explains that the people in the back are like a shoe, during which, she places a shoe on the head of a man whose arm is sticking out of the train (so it freezes solid – it’s a punishment). It’s bizarre and funny but, at the same time, really dark.

I am a huge proponent of films showing instead of telling. It is a movie, after all. Snowpiercer tends to be on the telling side of the spectrum, unfortunately. It talks about interesting things, sure, but I would’ve still liked to see more instead of sitting through monologue after monologue.

At first I thought I really enjoyed this movie but after thinking about it and talking about it, I began to see some issues. First: plot holes. Massive plot holes and unanswered questions. I usually don’t knit-pick when it comes to movies, especially when the movie is science fiction. But you get to a certainly point… I hesitate to get into many of the issues because of spoilers. But I will mention one. How does the train run? We learn that the train drives through ice and purifies it to make the water but what fuels the engine? If there exists some super engine, why didn’t the world use it to combat global freezing?

A second major issue that I have is the take away feeling. When I rate a movie, I really great movie reminds why I love film and it gives me a new perspective or a new lens through which I can view the world. When all is said and done, Snowpiercer doesn’t tell me anything that I didn’t already know. It sets all this stuff up but it doesn’t give me something to chew on. We get a lame ending that doesn’t provide any sense of closure.

Would I recommend Snowpiercer? Maybe. If you are in the mood for something dark and gritty and violent and have already seen Oldboy, then sure but don’t go out of your way to see it though. Now, if you haven’t seen Snowpiercer, then mind yourself of spoilers in this next section. I’d like to discuss some details about the movie, particularly the ending.

After a long painful journey, Curtis finally meets Wilford. Harris explains the whole plot. The rebellions (there were several in the history of the train) were a conspiracy to lower the population on the train to preserve the ecosystem in the train. Willy Wonka Wilford now wants Curtis to run the train. It seems like Curtis is almost on board until he sees the use of child labor. Meanwhile, Namgoon and his daughter have placed an explosive on the door of the train. The bomb goes off, the train crashes and Namgoon’s daughter and a child laborer are the only survivors. They leave the wreckage and look up on a snowy mountaintop to see a polar bear. They make eye contact with the bear and the movie ends.

First off, bears. Why bears? Why bears? Clearly it’s possible for a child laborer and a seventeen-year-old drug addict to survive if a polar can. Alone. In a still frozen planet, with no food or supplies. Great! How am I supposed to react to this? Am I supposed to feel relieved that humanity has survived…for maybe a day or two longer? I would’ve much preferred if everyone died in the train explosion. The camera could’ve floated away to do a close-up on a plant that blooms.

Even before this ending, the big reveal of the child laborers rubs me the wrong way. Thematically, I get it. Yeah, child labor is the pinnacle of evil. Wilford explains that the parts of the train break after a while and they use children as cheap replacements. How do they expect this train to last any amount of time if they are duct-taping it together with children? Maybe I’m being knit-picky. Perhaps the children and bears exist as nothing more than symbols so the logistics should be ignored.

In a similar way, one might ask what is the purpose of the people at the back of the train? From what I saw, they provided absolutely nothing. They weren’t forced to work they just sat in the back and waited for their food. One of the big plot twists (a predictable one at that) was that the rebellions were planned events of population control. Why were the poor people allowed on the train in the first place if they were going to be used for no purpose? Unless their purpose was to be future allegorical figures…

To a certain extent, I can just go with the flow and accept these quirks in a symbolic way but just like with my suspension of disbelief, it has its limits. I think I would be more sympathetic if the end result drew me to some deeper question but it didn’t. After the arduous journey, I am left with an image surrounded by a disappointing haze of ambiguity.

What do you think about Snowpiercer? Did you find it satisfying? Did you want it to end differently? I mentioned that I wanted the train to just crash but part of me wanted Curtis to take control of the train. Leave a comment with your thoughts and, as always, thanks for reading!