Expendables 3

Four years after Sylvester Stallone paid tribute to the action films of the 1970s and 1980s with The Expendables, the series’ third installment has been released. Directed by Patrick Hughes, the film features returning cast members Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Randy Couture, Terry Crews and Arnold Schwarzenegger with Kellan Lutz, Ronda Rousey, Glen Powell, Victor Ortiz, Robert Davi, Kelsey Grammer, Wesley Snipes, Mel Gibson, Antonio Benderas, and Harrison Ford.

After Conrad Stonebanks (Gibson), former member and co-founder of the Expendables has surfaced and is determined to destroy the team, causing Barney Ross (Stallone) to recruit old and new allies to take him down once and for all.

As with the first two, Expendables 3 is not one of those movies watched for the plot, which is paper-thin. But, while the film has an even larger cast of talented actors offering no small amount of action, Expendables 3 just isn’t fun. There’s far too many characters to care about, which really overshadows Gibson’s somewhat enjoyable villainous performance as well as Banderas’ humorous acting as the manic Galgo. Furthermore, in an effort to top itself over the previous two films, it goes beyond overkill.

Gibson as Stonebanks is moderately enjoyable. He’s one of two new characters the film tries to give depth to with a backstory, by making him the disillusioned co-founder of the Expendables who betrayed the team to sell illegal weapons. He has just the right mix of smugness and insanity to make him an enjoyable villain, such as when he’s acting coy to a buyer for his weaponry about having nuclear weapons but not wanting to sell them. Banderas is the other new character with something of a past as the lone survivor of a botched mission with the Spanish Armed Forces. He joins Ross so he can make peace with his survivor’s guilt. The character is quite humorous and manic in his desire to be part of another team and love for killing enemies. However, with the film having nine new characters alongside nine returning characters, Gibson is overshadowed and Banderas is underutilized. To its credit though, the film does attempt to give Doctor Death (Snipes) and John Smilee (Lutz) pasts, but Death is just a former Expendable who spent eight years in a secret prison, making him a little loopy and Smilee is simply an ex-marine with an attitude problem.

The film also tries too hard to top itself from the previous two, but it goes horrendously overboard. “Expendables” had the team up against a dictator and his soldiers. In “Expendables 2” the team fought an arms dealer and his mercenary group. “Expendables 3” has Stonebanks setting a country’s entire army against the heroes. And they all manage to get through with everyone and everything completely intact. There’s nothing wrong with heroes facing insurmountable odds but when they don’t seem to have too a hard time facing them, the film becomes far less enjoyable. It should feel like there’s more of a challenge when 15 men and a helicopter go against multiple ground troops, tanks and helicopters. Yin Yang (Lee), Drummer (Ford) and Mauser (Schwarzenegger) showing up in the middle of the fight in the helicopter was also telegraphed a mile away and could have been a better moment had the film not shown them coming in two other scenes.

Expendables 3 isn’t awfully terrible. But by no means can it be considered good in any way. It’s one of those movies someone watches when there’s two hours to kill, but really nothing better to do. There’s a few good moments and a couple decent characters, but they can’t really carry the entire film. The first “Expendables” made sense. Stallone wanted to have fun with old action actors by making a pumped up nod to the action films of the 70s and 80s. But two sequels don’t make sense. And neither does a confirmed fourth one that’s expected to have Pierce Brosnan and Hulk Hogan.

Expendables 3 won't drop into the Edge of Dissatisfaction, but it'll barely miss it and come in at #6 under Jersey Boys. 

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

Everyone’s favorite mutant reptiles cut their way back onto the silver screen for a 2014 reboot last weekend. Directed by Jonathan Liebesman and produced by Michael Bay and Nickelodeon Movies, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles starred Megan Fox, Alan Ritchson, Jeremy Howard, Pete Ploszek, Noel Fisher, Will Arnett, Danny Woodburn, William Fichtner, Johnny Knoxville and Tony Shalhoub.

A mysterious organization called the Foot Clan is terrorizing New York, headed by the evil Shredder (Tohoru Masamune). April O’Neil (Fox), reporter for Channel 6 news, has been following them trying to get a scoop and stumbles onto a robbery, noticing a vigilante foiling the deed. Looking for the hero, she finds four life size turtles (Ploszek/Knoxville, Fisher, Howard, Ritchson), proficient in ninjitsu working to bring down the Foot.

Rebooting a franchise like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles seems like a good idea in theory, but only when it’s done well. Unfortunately, it wasn’t and Michael Bay’s fingerprints are all over this film. It suffers from a lack of focus as well as disrespect to the source material. And while some of the action and humorous moments are pretty good, it feels like a bombardment done in hopes to see if something sticks.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles' biggest flaw is in its focus and how seriously it takes itself. It starts off taking itself incredibly seriously with O’Neil trying to hunt down an untapped scoop on the Foot Clan, but in her quest to find the vigilante, the film seems to grow self-aware and realizes just how insane the idea of fully grown turtles that can talk and perform martial arts is. But right after she meets them for the first time, the film drives back into high gear and starts taking itself seriously again, possibly out of fear that no one would respect it. This happens at least two or three times during the film, always taking itself too seriously when O’Neil is at the center of attention and doesn’t when the turtles are. A film needs to have a focus and decide whether or not to take its tone seriously no matter who’s on screen.

The film also seems to have little to no respect to its source material. The Foot Clan is the biggest offender. In the original comics, original films and for most of the franchises multiple television series, the Foot Clan are a gang of ninjas, using martial arts to do its dirty work. The Asian aspect of the group never felt left out. In this film, they seem to be more like a generic terrorist organization with heavy weaponry and explosives. The group’s backstory, its members and Shredder were Asian, but felt more like an afterthought than anything. Also, Shredder’s armor seems like it had a few too many tweaks. It went from a clawed suit of armor based on that of the samurai to a battlesuit with projectile knives that can also fly back after impact.  

However, the film does have some good moments in some of the action and humor. The scene when O’Neil rescues three of the turtles from getting their blood drained is the best mix of the two. The reaction to an adrenaline overdose, making them extremely hyperactive is pretty funny, which is followed by a chase down a snowy mountain in a semi. All four turtles are given the chance to shine and shows what they’re truly capable of. If the entire film took that tone and mixture of action and humor and kept it steady throughout the movie, then it would have been a great attempt at rebooting the franchise.

With its near oversaturation of action and humor, the kids will enjoy the film and it’ll keep the adults from zoning out. But everyone else that has fond memories of the dark tone of the comics or the lighthearted comedic atmosphere of the films from the 1990s will probably want to skip it. 

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles falls below the Edge of Dissatisfaction and comes in at the new #7

Guardians of the Galaxy

The Marvel Cinematic Universe put out a new addition last week week with James Gunn’s Guardians of the Galaxy. Produced by Kevin Feige and written by Gunn and Nicole Perlman, the film stars Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Vin Diesel, Bradley Cooper, Lee Pace, Michael Rooker, Karen Gillan, Djimon Hounsou, John C. Reilly, Glenn Close and Benicio del Toro.

Peter Quill (Pratt) is an outlaw that calls himself “Star Lord.” After stealing a sphere-like artifact, he finds himself with the unlikeliest of allies: the assassin, Gamora (Saldana), the genetically-engineered raccoon, Rocket (Cooper), the living tree, Groot (Diesel) and the inmate Drax (Bautista). Calling themselves the Guardians of the Galaxy, they must find a way to keep the artifact, which contains a powerful infinity stone, out of the hands of Ronan the Accuser (Pace), genocidal maniac bent on cleansing the universe of all who stand in his way.

A film centering on C-list and D-list superheroes was a bold move for Marvel, considering this is the equivalent of DC putting out a film for the Legion of Super-Heroes. Yet, Guardians of the Galaxy succeeds on almost every level. It maintains a light-hearted humorous atmosphere even when the tone shifts into the serious moments and has great characters that have near flawless chemistry with each other alongside a good villain.

Right off the bat, it’s clear that Guardians is not the average superhero movie when the first thing Quill does as he steps on plane to retrieve the artifact is take his mask off, put on a pair of headphones and a Walkman, start Redbone’s “Come and Get Your Love,” grab a lizard, use it as a microphone and dance all the way to his destination. The humor continues to be prevalent all the way until the climax when, in the middle of the action, Quill challenges Ronan to a dance-off while insulting him.

The film also has mostly great characters that have near flawless chemistry with each other. This is especially notable in certain interactions, such as two between Quill and Drax. It’s established that Drax is extremely literal and doesn’t understand the concept of metaphors, thinking the slicing gesture means a literal finger to the throat, and Quill has to explain to him what it means. Near the end, Drax is about to kill Korath the Pursuer (Hounsou) and repeats to him the meaning of the metaphor rather than making the motion. It’s his glee towards Quill about how he used a metaphor and Quill’s reaction that sells it. Rocket and Groot also make a great duo, which is cemented in their first scene when Rocket berates Groot for drinking from a public fountain. He looks back and Groot’s still doing it.

As a villain, Ronan is pretty good. He’s menacing and twisted, with a bizarre sense of strength and weakness. His first scene is him smashing someone’s head in because he hates their race and it only goes on from there, killing Thanos’ vizier (Alexis Denisof) because he didn’t like what he was hearing and proceeds to double cross Thanos (Josh Brolin) when he gets his hands on the Infinity Stone. He’s not a great villain, but that’s not entirely a bad thing as this film was mainly about establishing the heroes.

However, the film isn’t entirely perfect. Some characters were underused, like Nebula (Gillan). All her scenes are great, but she really needed more screen time. Drax and Gamora are also a little underdeveloped. Billed as “the Destroyer,” Drax very unevenly loses his one-on-one fight with Ronan, even though he should be on equal terms with him. And Gamora is known as a living weapon, yet she isn’t able to take care of a small group of prison thugs without Quill intervening. However, the development they have is still pretty good and the great interaction between all the characters does well in masking it.    

Marvel hasn’t lost any speed since it started building its Cinematic Universe in 2008, while DC continues to stagnate. Afraid that audiences would be confused with a Wonder Woman movie, the decision was made to throw her into the Batman/Superman movie scheduled to be released next year. Meanwhile, Marvel threw audiences a raccoon with a machine gun, who was welcomed with open arms.  

Guardians of the Galaxy launches up to #1 for 2014 New Releases. And it'll take a lot to displace. 

Lucy

French director Luc Besson’s new film, “Lucy” found its way into theaters last week. Produced by Besson and Europacorp, it stars Scarlett Johansson, Morgan Freeman, Amr Waked and Choi Min-sik and was shot on location in Taipei, Paris and New York City.

Lucy (Johansson) is a woman living in Taipei who unwittingly delivers a packet of new synthetic drugs for the Taiwanese Mafia and soon finds herself as one of their drug mules. However, the drug finds its way into her system and allows her to tap into more than 10 percent of her brain. She can absorb knowledge instantly, move objects with her mind and change her physical features on whim. But time is running out for her and she must reach Professor Samuel Norman (Freeman), a noted neuroscientist, to pass on her knowledge.

Based off the faulty notion that humans only use 10 percent of their brain (we use 10 percent similar to the way we only use 33 percent of a stoplight), “Lucy” can best be described as “Transcendence” meets “The Matrix” meets “2001: A Space Odyssey.” While the film has great acting and visuals, the story itself leaves a lot to be desired, especially in the final third.

Normally, actors are praised for being able to give life to their roles and giving their characters a wide range of expressive emotion. And Johansson does so very well in the early parts of the film, becoming a blubbering mess when she’s ordered by the mafia to open a package with unknown contents. However, after the drugs have entered her system, she becomes an unemotional stilted block of wood. And that’s actually a good thing. It’s established that by unlocking the extra brainpower, Lucy cannot feel pain, discomfort or fear. Johansson is able to pull off a bland, robot-like persona without emotion very well. But she can also slip back into emotive with ease. There’s a point where the drug starts to wear off and she’s literally falling apart and evaporating. Her ensuing freak out is acted greatly. And of course, there’s Freeman and his voice. The man could read the White Pages and there wouldn’t be any complaints.

The film has impressive visuals as well. After Lucy has ingested the drugs and garnered the ability to unlock the untapped portions, she is able to look into her roommate’s innards and see everything going on with her body. The visuals make it into a very fluid X-ray and don’t obviously telegraph what Lucy finds wrong with the other person until she mentions it. There’s also a point where she can see the satellite threads of every mobile phone call going on in the area and pick one out of all of them. On the other hand, the cutaways can get a little distracting. Early on in the film, Norman is giving a lecture, which is interspersed between what Lucy’s going through, and some of his points cut away to scenes of nature that describe what he’s saying. One of them is humorous, but they really feel out of place.

However, while the visuals and acting are great, the story is lacking and it really unravels near the end. The trailers marketed the film as a sci-fi action thriller where Lucy is able to use more than 10 percent of her brain and do a whole bunch of crazy things while being chased by the Taiwanese mafia. However, almost all the action scenes were shown in the trailer and while it certainly is that type of film, the action just feels like it lacks a sense of urgency since Lucy can do anything with her mind. Also, the whole action thriller plot unravels during the last third when Lucy meets Norman and his peers. While the mafia is still trying to get to her, the film shifts and centers on the meaning of life and the universe.

“Lucy” feels like Besson wanted to recreate the meaning behind “2001: A Space Odyssey” while being able to attract as many people as possible. The only problem with this is Stanley Kubrick made nothing uncertain that his film was a dramatic journey of discovery through time and space. Besson attempted a sort of bait and switch, promising an action thriller about a woman who can use her mind more than possible, but delivering a lesson on the necessity of sharing knowledge and learning more about the universe. It’s an anvil that needs to be dropped, but not like this. 

I put Lucy at #6 for 2014 New Releases, just under the Edge of Dissatisfaction. It's at least better than Tammy. 

Planes: Fire & Rescue

The sequel to “Cars” spinoff “Planes” touched down into theaters a couple weeks ago. Produced by Disney’s secondary animation studio, DisneyToon Studios, “Planes: Fire & Rescue” stars Dane Cook, Stacy Keach, Brad Garrett, Danny Mann, Teri Hatcher, Julie Bowen, Ed Harris, Wes Studi and Dale Dye. It was directed by Roberts Gannaway, known for his work on various Disney cartoon series.

After world famous air racer Dusty Crophopper’s (Cook) learns he may never race again after his engine becomes damaged, he shifts gears and flies into the world of wildfire air attack. Joining forces with veteran rescue helicopter Blade Ranger (Harris) and his team, Lil’ Dipper (Bowen), heavy lift helicopter Windlifter (Studi), ex-military transport Cabbie (Dye), mechanic Maru (Curtis Armstrong) and the Smokejumpers (Regina King, Corri English, Bryan Callen, Danny Pardo and Matt Jones). The team battles a massive wildfire, leading Dusty to learn what it takes to become a true hero.

“Planes: Fire & Rescue” is a pretty decent film. The animation is quite good with more than a few well done shots, fun characters and an engaging climax. The humor is also done well, able to entertain the kids and make adults laugh with jokes that will go over the kids’ heads.

The film is animated fairly well and has many good shots and angles, mostly involving the rescue team doing their job. One example is a scene that’s been built up the entire movie, which involves Dusty going under a bridge and pulling up on the side of a waterfall. Each time, he pulls up before reaching the bridge out of fear of pushing his engine too hard. During the climax, he finally pushes himself, reaching the waterfall to fill his tanks and the shots do well in conveying the intensity of the situation. On the other hand, some of the backgrounds aren’t exactly up to par with the rest of the film, lacking the depth other backgrounds have. The scene where Dusty is starting his trip to reach the base stands out the most. It’s not badly done, but the quality is different than other spots and it really sticks out.

While most of the characters are one-sided and defined by their quirks, they’re still quite fun to watch. Blade is the rough leader with a past, Dipper is the overexcited, stalkerish fan to Dusty, Maru is the eccentric mechanic, Windlifter is the stand-in for the mysterious American Indian and the Smokejumpers are the team daredevils. The park superintendent (John Michael Higgins) is the weasel that cares more about his travel lodge than the work the fire vehicles do. On the other hand, Dusty is quite a well-rounded character. He wants to prove himself as a good aerial firefighter, but the problems with his gearbox make him afraid to push himself. It’s not until he realizes that people depend on him does he understand that he has to push himself despite the possibility of engine failure.

The film’s climax is done well. While an element of it can be seen coming almost a mile away, that’s only a part of the whole. The film’s version of Yellowstone National Park becomes almost entirely engulfed in flames, endangering the travel lodge and threatening two old RVs recreating their honeymoon (Jerry Stiller and Anne Meara). Despite it being a kid’s film, it’s quite intense and provides Dusty’s finest hour.

There’s also some good music, including “Thunderstruck” by AC/DC and a song by Brad Paisley written for the film.

As the sequel to the spinoff of the sequel to one of Pixar’s less popular films, “Planes: Fire & Rescue” is fairly decent. It’s not better than “Cars” but it’s entertaining. It’s an enjoyable film for the kids and can keep the adults from getting too bored. But if you hate Dane Cook, then this might not be the film for you. 

#81

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

The sequel to 20^th Century Fox’s reboot, “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” has finally hit theaters. The eight film in the franchise, “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” Andy Serkis, Jason Clarke, Gary Oldman, Keri Rusell, Toby Kebbell and Kodi Smit-McPhee. It was also directed by Matt Reeves, who also directed “Cloverfield” and “Let Me In”

Set 10 years after the first film, human civilization has collapsed from the first film’s virus and the apes have created a community outside the remains of San Francisco. However, some humans have survived, immune to the virus. In order to restore power to their fragile colony, the humans make a fragile peace with the apes which could shatter at any moment.

The film is very well made and succeeds in very nearly every possible way. The production value is incredibly high, with fast-paced action, well-maintained tension and understandable characters.  

The cinematography and lighting are done incredibly well. The shots and angles work well to immerse the viewer into the broken world of the humans and the civilization of the apes.  One shot early on has Maurice (Karin Konoval) and Caesar (Serkis) in the foreground with the forest in the background talking about how they haven’t seen a human in two years. It does well in showing how overgrown the vegetation of the world has become. Also, after Malcolm (Clarke) and his group get the power working, the shot with them getting the PA system in a dilapidated gas station to work works to present how it’s run down, but can still work. The beginning of the film also has some great cinematography, even though it’s mostly recycled news clips over a CGI map of the world. It recaps how the virus overtook the planet and fallout, which nicely sets up the rest of the film.

How great the action is can be surmised in only four words: monkeys with submachine guns. Towards the end, the apes full on attack the humans with their own cache. It’s fast-paced and gives a tremendous sense of urgency for the humans. The battle also constantly one-ups itself, with Koba (Kebbell) going guns akimbo on horseback and eventually taking over a tank. It’s enough to make the audience to stay on the edge of their seat without going overboard and exhausting them.

The action is also a great complement to the tension. The peace between the apes and humans is incredibly fragile and almost breaks a couple times before it really does. And even after it goes to pieces, it still remains when the apes break off into factions. This also helps make every major character relatable and understandable.

The tension and action is also quite well balanced out with some humor, but not too much to make it annoying. One great example is when Koba discovers the massive weapons cache. He is made, but obfuscates stupidity by blowing raspberries and miming.

Every character in this film has justifiable actions and the only thing that amounts to a true villain is Koba. He loathes humans and hates how Caesar is willing to make a partnership. But his hatred is understandable as he was a test subject and only saw the brutality of humans. Caesar, who remembers the goodness of Will (James Franco) towards him in the first film, is willing to make peace. And, then there’s Carver (Kirk Acevedo) who also has a rational hatred of apes because of the virus and Dreyfus (Oldman) who is willing to do whatever it takes for the survival of the human race.

However, the film does have some pacing problems, dragging in some areas. But it doesn’t happen too often and it’s not enough to be too noticeable.

“Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” is very well done and a great continuation of the franchise. Clears the Edge of Satisfaction and becomes this year's #2

Tammy

Melissa McCarthy returns to the screen to star in the road trip comedy “Tammy.” Along with McCarthy, the film stars Susan Sarandon, Allison Janney, Toni Collette, Sandra Oh, Mark Duplass, Gary Cole, Dan Aykroyd and Kathy Bates. McCarthy also co-wrote the film along with her husband, Ben Falcone, who directed it as well.

Even with its talented cast, “Tammy” suffers from McCarthy’s overbearing domination. Its comedic quality consists of either cheap humor that hits the audience like a sledgehammer or jokes that could work, but get exhausted by the amount of time spent on them. It also strains itself in presenting a positive message which completely changes the overall tone of the movie and inserts a forced and unnecessary romantic subplot.

The film starts throwing its attempts at humor from the beginning, when Tammy (McCarthy) hits a deer with her car and gets fired from her fast food job. While there’s great comedic potential to be had from these two instances, they’re promptly wasted by her attempting to give the deer mouth to mouth by blowing at its face, licking hamburger buns and throwing trash at her ex manager.

There’s also jokes concerning Tammy’s personality that fall flat by going on for too long, such as when she’s robbing a different fast food restaurant so she can bail her grandmother, Pearl (Sarandon) out of jail. It’s a ridiculous concept that could have been executed really well, it had been short and concise. But the scene goes on forever with Tammy trying three times to get over the counter, rambling about pie and how she and the clerk could have been friends in different circumstances and struggling to lock them in the freezer. And then a few scenes later, it continues with her trying to give the money back. All these scenes do are establish what the audience realized in the first few scenes: Tammy has a gruff exterior and short temper, but is actually quite kind-hearted.

Pearl is also an alcoholic addicted to OxyContin, which the film also tries to give a humorous spin. But after the third time she gets blackout drunk, it ceases to have any sort of humor.

But with the humor comes a strained positive message. At one point, after Pearl has again gotten herself drunk and insulted Tammy, Pearl’s cousin, Lenore (Bates) gives her a lesson in tough love, telling her to stop complaining and allowing herself to be a victim. And while that’s a great message for audiences to learn, it feels completely out of nowhere. And after this message has been brought to Tammy, the film takes a complete turn in tone. While that shift could be attributed to her fully understanding what Lenore told her while she spent 38 days off screen in prison, it still feels jarring. It’s also lazy writing.

The romantic subplot was also completely unnecessary. Tammy leaves her husband early on in the film after he cheats on her. When she and Pearl arrive in Louisville, she meets Bobby (Duplass). The two continue to run into each other three more times during the course of the movie and each time the two grow closer. Unfortunately, it seems quite forced and done only so Tammy can meet someone new. While the character is a good idea in an effort to help Tammy grow as a character, he doesn’t need to be a potential love interest.

On the other hand, there is one redeeming quality the film has: Don (Aykroyd), Tammy’s father. He picks her up from prison and offers to kill Tammy’s ex-husband. It’s Aykroyd’s delivery, deadpan tone and making a shotgun motion when she goes to pick up her things from her old house that do his portion justice. Unfortunately, he’s in the film for about 10 minutes.

Melissa McCarthy has made decent films in the past, starring alongside Sandra Bullock in “The Heat” and Jason Bateman in “Identity Thief.” The problem here is the effort she took in writing this film with her husband, allowing her to completely dominate the leading role, made possible by the direction of her husband. Melissa McCarthy needs a director to reel her in and co-stars to provide pushback to keep her from going overboard.

#4 for 2014 New Releases

2014 New Releases Rundown

1. Guardians of the Galaxy
2. Edge of Tomorrow
3. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
4. Planes: Fire & Rescue
5. Jersey Boys
6. If I Stay
7. Expendables 3
8. Maleficent
9. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
10. Lucy
11. Tammy

Jersey Boys

Clint Eastwood brings the Tony Award winning Broadway musical “Jersey Boys” to the screen nine years after its initial debut. Starring John Lloyd Young, Erich Bergen, Michael Lomenda, Vincent Piazza and Christopher Walken, the film centers on the formation, success and eventual breakup of the rock ‘n’ roll group The Four Seasons. Each member of the band also takes on the role of narrator at different parts of the film.

Despite its tremendous success as a stage performance, “Jersey Boys” is quite underwhelming as a film. The transition from stage to screen is not as seamless as it could have been, even with its good soundtrack and acting.

Everything and everyone seemed too neat and tidy, which brought the feeling of watching a stage production on a screen. This can be seen early on in the film where mob boss Gyp DeCarlo is getting a shave. But he doesn’t need one as he has no discernable facial hair. Every other character just looks like they walked out of the production too, making them look out of place in a film. Also, the sets were arranged too perfectly. The streets of New Jersey don’t look right and look too much like a backdrop or a set. The snow in one scene also looks incredibly fake and doesn’t act like actual snow. The ending is also extremely out of place. It’s a massive curtain call that would be a great idea to end a stage musical. But not a film.

There’s also some issues with camera work and editing.

While quite a bit of the film is shot well, there were a few times where some of the choices seemed odd or out of place. This is most obvious in areas where the shot lingers too long. For instance, there’s a scene where Frankie (Young) is sitting in a diner. The shot lingers for a little too long before someone else shows up.

On the other hand, the film isn’t all bad. Since it’s based on one of the most influential bands of the 50s, most of the music is from The Four Seasons and songs that aren’t are also from that era. It helps to immerse the viewer in the setting. However, it’s odd that not one other band is even given a mention. Not one person in the film talks about other influential bands of the era like The Beach Boys, The Beatles, Bob Dylan or The Byrds.

And although the production itself seems too clean for film, the acting is quite good, especially with Young, who played Valli on stage as well. He’s good in portraying the guy who sticks out for his fellow bandmates, but can’t stop his relationships from failing. The four also have good chemistry with each other, doing well in narrating their respective parts and portraying the initial excitement in stardom and the eventual animosity.

“Jersey Boys” is fun to watch, but just feels like it should have gone through more changes before coming from the stage to the screen. It could have been much better and is far from Eastwood’s best works.

I put it at #2 in the New Releases Category, but it doesn't pass either edge.  

Update

Recently, I've been going through a crisis. Just what am I going to do after I finish the Disney animated films? I said in my review of Seven Samurai that I was going to wipe out the categories as a whole and just do movies and rate them on my enjoyment of them. 

But sooner or later, I'm going to be stuck in a cage holding myself in a vice grip headlock while my I pound me over the head with a steel chair so I can pin him for the title and I think I got carried away with the analogy. 

Basically, sooner or later I'm going to be arguing with myself whether I not I think X movie is better than Y and put it at #1056 or worse than it and put it at #1057.

There's a lot of movies out there. A lot of movies I enjoy and love. Seven Samurai, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, The Empire Strikes Back, The Great Mouse Detective, Sailor Moon R: The Movie : The Promise of the Rose.... 

When I set out to do this blog, I knew my favorites would change. What I didn't know is that I would eventually realize the error of favoritism. Since I begun, I've gone through a few Best Picture Winners, tons of Disney films, a milestone, and started reviewing new releases. So many of these movies I've enjoyed immensely. 

When I did Seven Samurai, I decided I was going to throw away the old Top 10 and start from scratch, putting the film at #1. And I furthered it with the new releases. I said I was going to do away with categories after Disney. 

I rescind that statement. 

I'm not only going to keep doing categories, I'm going to go further. 

Seven Samurai is now #1 in the Milestone Category

Edge of Tomorrow and Maleficent are #1 and #2 in the New Release Category 

The other two categories remain the same. 

I'll give myself a Top 10, based on whatever is the top film in the category. But right now, I've got a Top Four because there aren't ten categories. And after I pass that number, it'll just grow to reflect how many categories I have. And they'll all be equal. 

I won't tell you I have a favorite movie. 

I'll tell you my love of film is too great to have a favorite. 

The categories that are coming after Disney Animated Films:

Sergio Leone

Disney Channel Original Movies

Studio Ghibli

Other Anime 

Watched for the Hell of It

Edge of Tomorrow

Groundhog Day meets Starship Troopers as Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt star in Edge of Tomorrow. Based off the Japanese Light Novel, All You Need is Kill by Hiroshi Sakurazaka, the film centers on a war between Earth and alien invaders. Cruise is Major William Cage, a public relations officer roped into combat with the first wave of an invasion to drive them back. He soon finds himself reliving the same day over and over again, joining war hero Rita Vrataski (Blunt), a war hero who knows what is happening to him.

Despite what would normally be a bizarre pairing, Edge of Tomorrow is self-aware enough to prevent itself from being taken too seriously. Combine that tone with good writing, story and characters, the film is quite solid. At least for the most part.

The film seems to recognize the absurdity of people in mech suits fighting tentacled aliens while making use of a time loop. It’s just serious enough to suck the viewer in and make them care about the characters. Beyond that, it has fun with the story. There are a few cheesy moments, but they don’t detract from the overall quality, nor do they distract from the story.

The writing is also quite clever in a lot of areas. There are many times where the film shows Cage going through an event multiple times, such as battle or training. But there’s also a few times where it’s not quite as obvious. There’s one scene in particular where Cage and Vrataski are trying to get information. It’s the first time we’ve seen an attempt, but their fluid motions show they have been there many times before. This scene also has some of the best dialogue, with the two casually mentioning specific things they couldn’t possibly know beforehand to a general.

As stated above, the story is a bizarre pairing, using an oft borrowed trope. But it’s told well and not executed in a cliché manner. The reason Cage is experiencing the time loops is also quite creative, fitting well with the one way they can be stopped. And with any good Chekhov’s Gun, that one way comes to fruition, requiring him to survive on everything he’s learned throughout the film. This also gives Cage quite the character arc.

Cage starts off quite the coward. He’s a public relations officer who’s never seen combat, going so far as to try illegal methods to get out of covering the front lines. By the end of the film, not only has he undergone what could only be months of training, but he’s grown to be courageous and self-reliant. Vrataski also has a good character. She’s tough, battle-hardened and doesn’t suffer fools, while being foolishly stubborn herself many times. She also understands what Cage is going through and tries to help him make sense of it.

The film also has some good music, written by Christophe Beck, who also wrote the music for Frozen and three seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

However, no film is perfect. And Edge of Tomorrow has a glaring flaw with its ending. The last minute or so is in stark contrast with the rest of the film. It could be possible the director didn’t care for the ending to the original light novel and ordered someone to write a new ending. Unfortunately, the result seems hurriedly written, quickly shot and feels like it was designed simply to give it a happy ending. Make no mistake, there’s nothing wrong happy endings. The problem is when the ending doesn’t match up to the rest of the film in terms of quality. 

Despite it's ending, Edge of Tomorrow passes the Edge of Satisfaction and finds itself at #2. 

Maleficent

After a week leave of absence to gather my thoughts, I return with exciting news. I have started writing film reviews for a portion of my work. As such, reviews of the new releases I see will be posted Sundays. However, my ranking system is not part of the work I do as a reporter, that is exclusive to this blog.

Fifty-five years after Eleanor Audley gave a voice to one of Disney’s most iconic villains, Maleficent returns to the screen with Angelina Jolie portraying the Mistress of All Evil. Or so it would seem. Disney’s “Maleficent” presents viewers with the story of “Sleeping Beauty” through the perspective of the titular villain. However, where the film succeeds in cinematography and setting/set design, it falls flat in regards to its characters and plot.

“Maleficent” is quite amazing to look at. It’s dark, beautiful and grand, with quite a few well done camera angles, especially during the latter half of the movie.  

 Maleficent’s magic expresses her purposes: taking a malevolent green glow when being used for evil and a lighter, yellow glow for her benevolent side. And the magic of the three fairies is also customized to their personalities, other than just the red, blue and yellow glows from the original.

There is also good juxtaposition between the Moors (home of the magical creatures), which is almost always portrayed as a colorful, vibrant place, with the human kingdom, which is foreboding, dark and gloomy.

But while that juxtaposition is done well, it only furthers the problems with characterization. Every character is given an alternate interpretation, becoming the polar opposite of who they were in the original story. It doesn’t work very well, mainly because it feels like it was done simply for the sake of doing so. This is most obvious in King Stefan and Maleficent herself.

King Stefan is not a reasonable authority figure who misses his daughter. Instead, he’s incredibly paranoid and waging a war for his own pride and ambition. He has no interest in the well-being of his subjects and when Aurora shows back up, he’s rather indignant and shows zero affection. In the same vein, Disney’s most famous chaotic evil villain is turned into a misunderstood lawful neutral anti-hero. Rather than the Mistress of All Evil, she is a betrayed lover who desires revenge and eventually recants. She is also given an unexplained weakness that has varying degrees of effectiveness depending on the scene.

The other characters don’t fare very well either. The three fairies become neglectful morons, Aurora is considerably bland and Prince Philip feels hurriedly written into the story as an afterthought. The only somewhat likeable character is Maleficent’s raven, Diaval, who is given human form and is the main source of the film’s sarcasm.

As for the story itself, the entire second half of the film changes every single plot point from the original story and seems completely unnecessary. The film rushes itself through the first half, where Maleficent becomes a villain in the blink of an eye to get to the second half, which has a gradual build into the aforementioned anti-hero who eventually saves the story by deconstructing the meaning of true love.

Despite all its problems, the film is very well acted, especially with Jolie. She is able to take the inflection and mannerisms Eleanor Audley gave the original Maleficent and make them her own. And even though Aurora’s character is quite bland, Elle Fanning at least tries to make her a likeable character. Sam Riley also was able to do very well in giving character to a raven magically turned into a man.

This film could have been so much better had it focused on the first half, giving Maleficent a more gradual descent into villainy instead of having her take a diving leap off the slippery slope. Unfortunately, the second half is something we’ve all seen before and it brings nothing new to the table.

With the revamped system, Maleficent comes in at #2, but doesn't pass either edge.