Kung Fu Panda 3 (2016)

Tags

Action, Animation, Comedy, Dreamworks, Family, Fantasy

Between one parent and one child,
Their love is uncomplicated,
Even if they’re not related
Or may feel somehow exiled.

Will it change, their love compiled,
If a parent is located
From which they were separated
And the two are reconciled?

Some may fear they’ll be reviled
At reunions long-awaited,
Yet how can love be ever faded
Between a parent and their child?
________________

MPAA rating: PG

It may have seemed that DreamWorks was just planning to milk its past success with minimum effort when it released a third Kung Fu Panda in the usually lackluster month of January last year. However, Kung Fu Panda 3 managed to exceed expectations and end the franchise on a surprisingly solid note, building on its prequels with a satisfying conclusion.

After the final scene of Kung Fu Panda 2, where Po’s real not-dead father Li Shang (Bryan Cranston) realizes his son is alive, we get to see father and son reunite early on, only to be threatened by a new adversary named Kai (J.K. Simmons), a yak from the Spirit World who drains others’ chi energy. While Kai builds an army by turning kung fu masters into jade zombies (yes, jombies), Po (Jack Black) follows his father to his home in a distant village of pandas, where Po hopes to train but ends up enjoying the life among his own kind that he never knew.

Kung Fu Panda 3 continues the strengths and weaknesses of its predecessors, including some stellar fight choreography and animation, as well as a lack of character development for Poe’s comrades, the Furious Five, except for Tigress (Angelina Jolie). Where it excels in the character department is Po and his two fathers, adoptive goose father Mr. Ping (James Hong) and his biological father Li. I love how Mr. Ping has grown from an eyebrow-raising gag in the first film to a real source of heart for these movies. Here, he finds himself jealous of Po’s excitement at finding his father and wrestles with how to react to this new monopolizer of Po’s attention. Meanwhile, Li may seem selfish or unwise at times, but it’s easy to sympathize with both fathers. In addition, the fact that Li seeks out Po after realizing he’s alive makes his absence a whole lot more understandable than, say, the willing separation of Hiccup’s mom in How to Train Your Dragon 2.

Kung Fu Panda 3 does a lot to bring the franchise full circle, particularly in the return of the deceased Master Oogway (Randall Duk Kim). True, it sidelines formerly major characters like Shifu (Dustin Hoffman) and bears similarities to the first film, but Po’s family dynamic and the Spirit World villain help it stand apart. The village full of Po’s fellow lazy pandas was also cute and endearing for the most part, where I expected it to be lame and silly. Aside from the action sequences, I especially admired one underplayed sacrifice that was easily Poe’s most heroic moment of the series.

All in all, Kung Fu Panda 3 is a worthy and funny finale for a series I didn’t expect to like when the first film was released back in 2008. DreamWorks has maintained its quality in both animation and story, creating a trilogy where it’s hard to say which of the three is the best, though I’m partial to the second movie. Why it was released in January, I don’t know, but Kung Fu Panda 3 is one of DreamWorks Animation’s stronger sequels.

Best line: (Shifu) “If you only do what you can do, you’ll never be better than what you are.”

 

Rank: List-Worthy (joining the other two)

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
497 Followers and Counting

 

Deepwater Horizon (2016)

Tags

Action, Disaster, Drama, History, Thriller

(Can be sung to “The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald”)

The waves lapped the pipes, the sea’s unavailed gripes,
At the feet of Deepwater Horizon,
And no one on board thought this rig of reward
Would be one to have a surprise on.

The oil down below had had nowhere to go
Till a tube tapped the well of the ocean.
And well it had stayed under instruments made
To ensure there was no upward motion.

Till caution was dropped, and the great bubble popped
And laid waste to Deepwater Horizon,
Where before the rig’s throb, busy men on the job
Never thought they would meet their demise on.

Like ink swiftly bled, the well’s sable soul spread
On the waves of the ocean surrounding,
Although the crew tried as eleven men died
And the fire and spill were confounding.

When the morning sun’s light showed the gulf dark as night
Stretching out from Deepwater Horizon,
No worse oil spill from the maw of man’s drill
Had anyone ever laid eyes on.
_______________________

MPAA rating: PG-13 (for intensity and frequent obscenities)

From The Day After Tomorrow to 2012 to Geostorm later this year, so many disaster movies focus on wildly improbable worldwide catastrophes that it’s easy to forget how visceral a real-life disaster can be. Deepwater Horizon may follow the trend of making a movie about any recent event of media significance (like Patriot’s Day, also from director Peter Berg and star Mark Wahlberg), but it’s far from a cash-grab and uses that genuine intensity to remind audiences of just how bad the 2010 BP oil spill was at its start.

The first half has the workaday detail of a documentary, with much resemblance to the docudrama credibility of Captain Phillips. I can’t speak to how close the film is to the actual events, but the re-creation of the Deepwater Horizon rig is entirely convincing and never once had me doubting the truth of what was shown. There’s not an abundance of character development, but it’s easy to identify with the everyman likes of Wahlberg, Gina Rodriguez, and Kurt Russell as the supervisor fondly called “Mr. Jimmy.” True, the beginning threatens to get dull with all the technical jargon, but there’s the constant threat of what we know will happen. And that culmination doesn’t disappoint.

When the actual disaster starts, the explosions rarely let up, and it’s a thrilling and incendiary experience, of course from the comfort of one’s living room. It never was tainted by easily recognizable CGI, and it well deserved its Oscar nominations for Visual Effects and Sound Editing. Even if most of the casualties don’t have the emotional impact of similar films, the loss of life is stressed by the end, with a rare focus on each and every victim before the credits. After the intensity of the accident itself, I also welcomed the relieved prayer that followed the survivors’ escape; it was a believable religious aspect often lacking from other disaster flicks.

Deepwater Horizon offers a cinematic thrill while also making you dislike BP executives more than you thought you did, personified by the smarmy, corner-cutting manager played by John Malkovich, who’s good as usual but a bit overly snide. Like Wahlberg’s character, I wondered if he was on medication. Thanks to its potent realism before, during, and after the calamity, well-executed from start to finish, I’d say Deepwater Horizon is one of the best disaster films of recent years.

 

Rank: List Runner-Up

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
496 Followers and Counting

 

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017)

Tags

Action, Comedy, Sci-fi, Superhero

 

The galaxy sure has its share
Of foes waging cosmic warfare.
It’s a good thing that you
On the earth have no clue
That extinction is not all that rare.
It’s also a plus
Heroes do fight for us,
Though we earthlings are still unaware.
_______________

MPAA rating: PG-13

My regard for the first Guardians of the Galaxy makes me feel like I’m in the minority. I missed its theatrical run, and the hype was so positive that, when I finally got around to seeing it, it didn’t hit me the same as everyone else. Don’t get me wrong; I enjoyed it, but not like everyone who immediately fell in love with this offbeat surprise among Marvel’s roster. Seeing it again has helped me warm up to it more, but I still don’t quite think it’s one of the best Marvel movies ever like so many others out there do. So I approached Volume 2 from the viewpoint of a fan but not a zealous one, and I don’t think my expectations were too high. Given that opinion, I can say that I think I enjoyed Volume 2 more, at least on my first watch.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 has much of the appeal of the first film, first and foremost its diverse cast of misfits: roguish leader Peter Quill (Chris Pratt), skilled former assassin Gamora (Zoe Saldana), muscle-bound comic relief Drax (Dave Bautista), ornery tech genius Rocket the Raccoon (Bradley Cooper), and lovable tree Groot (voice-lightened Vin Diesel), who after being “destroyed” in the last movie has regrown as the cutest piece of dancing wood you’ll ever see. Their very first scene together is like a snapshot of their group appeal, combining action, humor, and a toe-tapping ‘70s song into one of the most fun opening credits scenes I can think of. From that high point, the film delves into further universe-building as the team manages to anger an alien empire, become a bounty target, and meet Peter’s absentee father Ego, a godlike entity who’s eager to reconnect with his son and looks a lot like Kurt Russell.

Between Volumes 1 and 2, I’m still not decided on which Guardians film is better, but I do recognize one advantage of Volume 2, which is directly owed to its status as a sequel. Even with all the praise you can throw at the first one, you must admit it’s a heavily stuffed caper. People criticize Spider-Man 3 and Batman v. Superman for being overstuffed with plot and characters, but Guardians of the Galaxy does the same thing, throwing together five completely unknown characters and multiple exotic alien locations, with the sole reference point for the rest of the MCU being the barely seen uber-villain Thanos. Guardians blithely sidestepped the usual issues of being so jam-packed with its highly entertaining music and sense of humor, but it’s still a lot to take in, or was upon a single viewing.

Volume 2 has the benefit of building on everything the first film introduced without the potential confusion, like the discussion of getting the stone back from Ronin to save Xandar to give to Yondu while Colonel Mustard uses the wrench in the library. (It’s the same principle that makes me favor Marvel’s tactic of assembling the Avengers from heroes who already had stand-alone movies, as opposed to DC’s throwing together its Justice League characters and then giving them their own stories.) Here, we already know the main five, and they’re broken into two groups, which allows different relationships to develop and the secondary characters to get the much-needed development the first film couldn’t afford. Peter’s lawless adoptive father Yondu is given much more depth and backstory than his first appearance (as well as a stylish action centerpiece) and grows as both a captain among the Ravagers and in his relationship with Peter. Likewise, we get a telling look into the motivations of Gamora’s rival sister Nebula (Karen Gillan), who had little impact at all in the first movie but now actually seems relevant to the team. I also rather liked the naïve newest member, Mantis (Pom Klementieff), who gets some strange bonding moments with Drax. Kurt Russell does well too as Ego, and the uncertainty of his intentions is made clear with what I found to be a shocking reveal.

One common semi-complaint I’ve seen for Guardians 2 is that it’s a little too eager to please, coming on the heels of its surprisingly successful predecessor. I suppose that’s the case, but I felt the same way about the first film, which had several jokes that I thought were trying too hard to be funny.  Volume 2 has the same ribald sense of humor, which is still hilarious more often than not. Rocket’s sense of humor is still a little off, but Baby Groot is an adorable improvement over his adult version, and Drax in particular is a reliable hoot every time he bursts into raucous laughter, even if his original misunderstanding of metaphor has been replaced by wildly inappropriate honesty.

As a follow-up to the original lark that caught everyone off-guard, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is great fun and a winning example of a summer blockbuster, complete with laughs, awe-inspiring visuals, a surprisingly emotional conclusion, and some healthy doses of ELO and Cat Stevens, though I’ll admit I didn’t recognize most of the soundtrack. (It’s still great, but maybe not quite as memorable as the first film’s.) There are still things I would do differently, especially with some of the more off-color jokes, and I am a little bothered by the huge body count of what was meant to be one of the best scenes and by the fact that Rocket, who with Groot has his own Disney XD cartoon for kids, has to be the most sociopathic and foul-mouthed of the group. Even so, I was thoroughly entertained from the awesome opening to the tearful denouement, plus the mid-credits scenes which only the most well-versed comic fans will completely understand (I didn’t). I may be the only one who enjoyed Volume 2 more, but I think most would agree that the Guardians are better developed for their inevitable meeting with the Avengers in Infinity War. That will really be something to see!

Best line: (Drax) “There are two types of beings in the universe: those who dance, and those who do not.”   (Peter) “I get it, yes. I am a dancer, Gamora is not.”   (Drax) “You need to find a woman who’s pathetic, like you.”

 

Rank: List-Worthy (joining the first film)

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
495 Followers and Counting

 

Alien: Covenant (2017)

Tags

Action, Horror, Sci-fi, Thriller

When choosing to visit a faraway planet,
Some strange world never examined by man,
Those who can claim to be smarter than granite
May favor caution as part of the plan.

Instead of just landing and waltzing around,
Content to breathe air you know nothing about,
Perhaps wearing helmets would seem rather sound
Or keep parties small, if you have any doubt.

If common sense fails and you go out exposed,
With most of your redshirt crew ready to fall,
You’ll wish you’d seen all that this movie proposed,
Though you may have feared then to leave Earth at all.
___________________

MPAA rating: R

Earlier this year, I made up a Top Twelve list of 2017 movies I hoped would be good, and this is the first of the twelve I’ve gotten to see. I hesitated to give it a watch after hearing of the increased violence and mixed reviews, but my curiosity and loyalty to the Alien franchise won out. So, is it good? Well, sort of and no. It’s a thoroughly mixed bag of a follow-up to 2012’s Prometheus and the first chance Ridley Scott has gotten to directly sequelize one of his own films (since Prometheus was a prequel).

Unlike many, I quite liked Prometheus, especially upon a rewatch. It’s a different animal than the first Alien, more concerned with thought-provoking philosophical questions than extraterrestrial jump scares, though there are still enough of those for me. Alien: Covenant does indeed return to the dominant horror of Scott’s original film, but it feels more indebted to its predecessors, even if it does spice up some of the familiar beats. For one thing, it’s as if the story of Prometheus has started over, just instead of scientists seeking out humanity’s origins, we have a ship full of colonists headed for a distant new world, again all in stasis and again monitored by a Michael Fassbender android, this time the American-accented Walter. When a Passengers-style space wave damages the ship and kills the captain (James Franco, barely), the remaining crew who awaken pick up a signal from a closer planet and investigate its source as a new potential colony site. As you might imagine, the planet’s infection of alien DNA is out to get them from the start, and there’s a good deal of death and dismemberment, as well as the return of David, the other synthetic Fassbender from Prometheus.

If you liked Alien and Aliens, you’ll enjoy all the scary survival stuff that reminds you of those two, but Scott is still bent on explaining his alien mythos, with David as the creative force behind the biological set-up for the aliens we all know. In doing so, Scott’s bound to divide opinions on what David does and why. In fact, he’s far more interested with David than with the human characters, who are all couples for this colony mission and at least earn token sympathy when their spouses inevitably bite the dust. Katherine Waterston is the prominent Ripley of the group and does a reasonably good job at remaining sane while others make poor decisions out of panic. The acting is secondary, though; where the film excels most is in the dark visual wonder of the planet and the frightening intensity of the action. The double climax at the end may be suspiciously similar to that of Aliens, but it’s ratcheted up to even more thrilling levels. Those two scenes alone were worth seeing on the big screen.

Yet, two awesome scenes don’t quite make up for the fact that the rest adds up to an unsatisfying mess. (Moderate spoilers in this paragraph!) I had really hoped for more, considering the open questions at the end of Prometheus, where Noomi Rapace’s Elizabeth Shaw took off with David to search for the Engineers. Shaw is sadly only a memory here, with David’s actions toward her only slightly clearer than his intentions, and unless a future film provides another perspective, it’s a frustrating letdown for a character who deserved more. Likewise, casting David as a sort of Frankenstein figure obsessed with creation at all costs is more than a bit perplexing. Fassbender plays him well with a coldly self-righteous zeal, but I wish I knew why David is so enamored with these grotesque alien spawn. He clearly admires human art and music, so why does he see creative humans as unworthy next to these mindless killing machines? And then there’s the end, the twist I easily saw coming which follows a trend in horror movies I dislike where the villain gains the upper hand. It’s chilling but not a way to end a movie, especially when these Alien films aren’t reliable in picking up the plot threads and characters of what came before. It’s like the beginning of Alien 3 tacked on to the end of Aliens; if Aliens had ended like that, it wouldn’t nearly have the same respect it does.

On top of all the disappointing plot developments, Alien: Covenant has far more profanity and gore than its predecessors, which might please fans of those things but are inevitably a turnoff for me. The first two Alien movies may have had their notorious shock scenes, but the rest of the film usually thrived on the terror of what you didn’t see (Dallas in the tunnels, Burke opening that door), which is the kind of tension I prefer over the gruesome sort. I’m also not sure what to make of the film’s religious overtones. Billy Crudup as Oram, the insecure first officer who takes command after the captain’s death, is “a man of faith” and is intent on proving himself reliable and clear-minded, even if it also makes him cruel and unpopular. The trouble is that this early character point goes nowhere. I liked the simple but sincere and unbroken faith of Shaw in Prometheus, but considering what happens to her and Oram, I’m not sure why the subject of faith is even broached.

Thus, despite my high hopes, Alien: Covenant was a disappointment, even with its high-quality production, a few truly awesome scenes, and some perceptive literary references. Yet I had a similar initial reaction to Prometheus too, so maybe a rewatch will help, though I doubt it. Scott has stated that he’s willing to keep making Alien movies as long as fans want them, a prospect that doesn’t hold much hope for me anymore since, as much as I want more of this franchise’s strengths, its weaknesses are becoming more and more plain.

Best line: (Walter, with a naïve sentiment the film doesn’t support) “I think if we are kind, it will be a kind world.”

 

Rank: Honorable Mention

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
491 Followers and Counting

 

2017 Blindspot Pick #6: Saving Private Ryan (1998)

Tags

Action, Drama, History, War

They ran up the hills and across hostile plains.
They learned from their drills and embarked on campaigns.
They slogged through the mud and up bullet-chewed shores.
They spilled others’ blood while they dropped by the scores.

These teachers and writers and miners supplied
Their service as fighters for duty or pride.
They risked life and limb, often lost one or both,
And faced dangers grim that weren’t part of the oath.

They left homes and holes to attack assumed foes.
They charged foolish goals they were told to oppose.
They braved likely death where the angels don’t tread
And gave their last breath with both courage and dread.

Some died on the field, and some died in the tent,
And some made survival their cause to repent.
And most dwell, years past their first sojourn to war,
In graveyards amassed for the ones they fought for.

They stormed into hell, not for heaven’s demand,
But blistered and fell for their nation to stand.
And though you and I fathom not their nightmares,
How deep our thanks lie for the gift that is theirs.
_____________________

MPAA rating: R

Of all my Blindspot Picks this year (I know this one for June is a couple days late), Saving Private Ryan was the one I was most nervous about watching. There’s a reason I hadn’t yet watched this widely acclaimed classic from Steven Spielberg, namely its reputation as one of the more graphic war movies, which as a rule, I usually try to avoid. Yet after enduring the harsh battle scenes of Hacksaw Ridge and still loving it, as well as the current patriotic timing between the D-Day anniversary (June 6) and July 4, now seemed like the right time to finally give Saving Private Ryan a chance. I’m glad I did.

Most of what I’d heard of Saving Private Ryan centered on the first thirty minutes, the brutal re-creation of the Normandy invasion. Indeed it’s an impressively intense experience to sit through, even if it’s still only a fraction of what the soldiers involved actually had to endure, among them my own paternal grandfather. It also feels fiercely comprehensive in its depiction of the battlefield, following Tom Hanks’s Captain John Miller from the assault boats up the bullet-riddled beaches under constant enemy fire. The men’s reactions to the nightmarish setting range from terrified and dazed to angry and vengeful, particularly as the repeated attempts to save the wounded prove horrifically futile. There are no cuts away to generals talking or planning or anything to take the viewer out of the moment, and it’s epic and immersive. As for the notorious violence, it’s comparable to the battle scenes of Hacksaw Ridge, though perhaps a bit less constant in its bloodshed than the worst Hacksaw Ridge scenes.

Yet, even beyond the intense opening, the rest of the film has plenty of strengths as well, the strongest of which has to be Tom Hanks. Hanks has always been good in everything I’ve seen of his, and he gives an outstanding performance here, easily worthy of an Oscar, for which he was only nominated. As Captain Miller, he’s a competent leader willing to fulfill his duty, even when his superiors send him on a foolhardy mission into enemy territory to retrieve the titular Private Ryan (Matt Damon), whose loss of his three brothers in battle has earned him a sympathy ticket home. Yet Miller isn’t as tough as nails as he tries to act, sometimes amused at hearing his men guess at his mysterious past, sometimes letting his desperation and grief amidst all the violence show through. Hanks is the touchstone for the whole film, which is important when the rest of the men under him aren’t as distinguishable, at least at first. The film’s long runtime of 2 hours and 49 minutes helps the other men under him stand out a bit, such as Barry Pepper’s praying sniper or Edward Burns’ hothead who rebels at risking lives for the sake of one man. (Until the end credits, I really thought Burns was Ben Affleck for some reason.) Even if I couldn’t keep up with most of their names, all the actors do an excellent job, including Damon, Burns, Tom Sizemore, Giovanni Ribisi, and Vin Diesel. Speaking of characters, I was especially delighted to see a very young Nathan Fillion (Castle, Firefly) as a different Private Ryan and (major Lost alert!) Jeremy Davies as timid interpreter Upham, which is such a strong role for him that I’m surprised this film didn’t make him a more sought-after star.

Along the cross-country search for Private James Francis Ryan are individual encounters that convey so much of the horror, callousness, and sacrifice. At one point, Miller’s men rummage through dog tags of the deceased, joking and bantering as if they’re playing cards, only to be reminded that they’re essentially sorting through men’s stolen lives. Later, Upham defends a German prisoner whom the others want to kill, only for his naively righteous motivations to be starkly challenged by the ruthlessness of war. (The way this subplot plays out is like the opposite of a similar aspect of the 2003 film Saints and Soldiers.)  And through it all is the question of whether Private Ryan is worth all the trouble of saving. Does offering Ryan’s mother a little comfort in her grief warrant putting other men’s mothers through the same? How can one man live up to the sacrifices made to rescue him?

Saving Private Ryan is undoubtedly one of Steven Spielberg’s greatest achievements, yet oddly enough, while the film runs through a range of emotions, one of the strongest for me was anger. Why? Because how on God’s blue marble did Shakespeare in Love beat this for Best Picture?!?!?! I mean, really, there is no contest as to which film is grander, better told, and all-around more significant. In my opinion, that has to be the worst Best Picture decision the Academy has ever made, worse even than the La La Land debacle from this past year. I’m sorry, but Saving Private Ryan is clearly the true Best Picture of 1998. At least, Spielberg won Best Director, alongside Oscars for Cinematography, Sound Mixing, Film Editing, and Sound Effects Editing.

Despite all this praise for Saving Private Ryan, I’m left divided on how exactly to rank it on my Top 365 List at the end of the year. As with Hacksaw Ridge, I loved the story, acting, script, patriotic message, and production values, but the violence is a big drawback for me, mainly in diminishing its watchability. While the violence is important for effectively re-creating the savagery of battle, I still feel that sprays of blood and severed limbs are unnecessarily gruesome tools in a filmmaker’s arsenal. At one point, someone is literally blown apart by a bomb they don’t throw away for some reason; I couldn’t tell who it was or why they didn’t chuck the explosive, making the scene unnecessary except for shock value. I just feel that this would have been a slightly more accessible film if it had been edited to avoid some of the gore; I know my aversion to violence puts me in the movie-watching minority, but there must be others who avoid films like this for the same reasons I did (like my VC, who still refuses to see it). Ultimately, though, its strengths far outweigh that personal negative, so I’ll have to figure out later where exactly on my list such a film deserves to be.

I have no hesitation in confirming that Saving Private Ryan really is among the best war films ever made. The cinematography and explosive battles augment its epic storytelling while never ignoring the human cost and casualties, and it captures the complicated mess of war, such as casting a disapproving eye at the vengeful cruelty done by Americans while reminding us that self-righteousness is rarely rewarded in battle. The strongest performances by Hanks and Davies should have earned them both Oscars. I can’t say I’d watch Saving Private Ryan often, due to its length and intensity, but few films are better suited for July 4 viewing.

Best line: (Captain Miller, to Private Reiben, who wants to kill a prisoner) “You want to leave? You want to go off and fight the war? All right. All right. I won’t stop you. I’ll even put in the paperwork. I just know that every man I kill, the farther away from home I feel.”

 

Rank: List-Worthy

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
491 Followers and Counting

 

Wonder Woman (2017)

Tags

Action, Drama, Fantasy, Superhero, Thriller, War

I wonder what wonders the world has beheld:
More than seven, no doubt,
More than those learned about,
But must they be spectacles unparalleled,
Gloried feats unsurpassed,
Or more simply contrast?

A light among shadows, a gem among stones,
An unshakable stand
Against failure’s demand,
A rare certainty in a world of unknowns,
An encouraging word
That despair hasn’t heard,

A dream among cynics, a float in rough water,
Shooting stars overhead
When all hope was thought dead,
A lamb among wolves with no worry of slaughter—
The world’s wonders don’t last,
But the weak and steadfast
Can find hope in contrast.
_______________________

MPAA rating: PG-13

I honestly never thought I’d see a DC movie on its opening weekend, but a half-planned trip to the theater left Wonder Woman as the most convenient show time available, and the positive reviews I’d heard convinced my VC and me to give it a try. I had come to the conclusion that the DC Extended Universe (DCEU) is a lost cause, with Man of Steel, Batman v. Superman, and Suicide Squad being either unwieldy, joyless, or overblown. Yet here at last is Wonder Woman, helmed by Patty Jenkins, the first female director of a major superhero film, and DC finally gets a movie that can hold its own against Marvel.

I’ll admit I don’t know much about Wonder Woman from the comics and only ever saw her as a member of the animated Justice League on TV, as well as her animated origin film from 2009. The latest live-action movie begins much like its cartoon counterpart, with the Princess Diana (Gal Gadot) of the Amazons residing on the hidden island of Themyscira, training to be a great warrior, until the crash-landing of American pilot Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) awakens her sense of duty and interest in the outside world. Unlike the animated version set in the modern day, 2017’s Wonder Woman has the key difference of taking place during World War I, making its retro setting more than a little reminiscent of Captain America: The First Avenger. (Her origin apparently took place during World War II in the comics, so I guess the change was intended to avoid being too similar to Cap’s first outing.) There are plenty of parallels, from an evil German antagonist (Danny Huston) with a diabolical scientist (Elena Anaya) under him to a climactic sacrifice involving a death-carrying plane, but there’s enough originality here that the similarities never detract from the story.

The best thing Wonder Woman has in its favor is Gal Gadot. Neither an overly familiar face nor a struggling newbie, she’s an effortlessly perfect fit for the role, her slight Israeli accent giving her an exotic touch while she nails the assertive and noble appeal of the character. She’s also attractive no matter what she does, whether in secretarial incognito or in the heat of battle. And speaking of battle, her first moment of truth fighting against the German army is spectacular, taking ownership of “No Man’s Land” with feats that Lynda Carter could only dream of. Alongside her, Chris Pine is his usual likable self, and while he can’t compare with Diana’s abilities, I liked that he was still an active and valiant match for her rather than a weakling to make her look better. Plus, in contrast to Batman and Superman of late, there’s actually some humor, perhaps not at Marvel’s levels, but it’s refreshing that DC seems to have learned something from the competition. (Suicide Squad may have had more jokes, but it’s a barely connected oddity as far as I’m concerned.)

As much as I enjoyed what is clearly DC’s best film to date, it’s not above a few nitpicks, such as stereotypical villains and one scene with some cynically feminist jabs as Steve and Diana awkwardly discuss sex and marriage. Most of the climactic battle has the same excessive bombast as the end of Batman v. Superman, which I guess is only a negative if you disliked it then. The strongest criticism for me is the muddy mythology that comes to a head toward the end. Wonder Woman has always drawn freely from Greek mythology, which works for the loose backstory at the beginning, and Diana understands Zeus to be man’s creator and Ares to be the corrupting god of war, roles that here distinctly echo the Christian God and devil. She’s convinced with apparent naiveté that Ares is controlling mankind to wage this Great War, and while her understanding is challenged and widened, it’s left in doubt by the end just how right she was and what that implies for history and religion in general.

If you don’t think about that too hard, though, Wonder Woman absolutely fulfills its potential as the first superheroine blockbuster, and my VC quite enjoyed it as well, even without having seen the previous DC entries. (Coincidentally, the very day I saw it, I came home to find the old 1970s TV show with Lynda Carter on, and compared with that cheese, the film is a masterpiece.) Aside from Gadot herself, I most appreciated the fact that this is a genuinely heroic tale of a warrior discerning why she defends mankind. Not many superhero movies tackle that topic so directly, and especially considering how DC has loused up even the most iconic of heroes, Superman, Wonder Woman’s experiences of both the evil and the noble that man is capable of provide her with a persuasive reason for her defense of the world, beyond the idealistic zeal that she and Captain America had from the start. Her gallantry and girl-power status as a role model are a far cry from the broody skepticism of Batman v. Superman or the psychopathic half-villainy of Suicide Squad, and this “light among shadows” seems to indicate that there might actually be hope for the DCEU yet, though I undoubtedly still prefer Marvel. Wonder Woman may not quite be an unqualified success, but it’s a welcome success nonetheless.

Best line: (Hippolyta, as Diana leaves the island, echoing many parents, I’m sure) “You are my greatest love. Today, you are my greatest sorrow.”

 

Rank: List-Worthy

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
488 Followers and Counting

 

2017 Blindspot Pick #5: Blade Runner (1982)

Tags

Action, Drama, Sci-fi, Thriller

Darkly do the raindrops fall
Upon society’s withdrawal,
No innocence on which to land,
A wet and distant reprimand
On social rust and moral dusk and nobody who cares to feel.

Remember purer days of light?
They pale to darkness’ appetite,
For dark is omnipresent here
And only dreams escape the drear,
Mere memories that spark unease when we mistrust if they are real.
__________________

MPAA rating: R

There’s always bound to be movies out there that others hail as classics and you just don’t see the appeal. That’s Blade Runner for me. I picked it as one of my Blindspots this year because it’s been hailed as one of the greatest science fiction films of all time and its sequel Blade Runner 2049 is due out this October, returning Harrison Ford to one of his many iconic roles. Yet I found the story of Rick Deckard’s hunt for human-like replicants immensely lacking in both pacing and human interest, even as I recognized why it has become so well-respected.

Based off a Philip K. Dick novel and directed by Ridley Scott following his hit with Alien, Blade Runner is often cited as a touchstone and forerunner for the cyberpunk and neo-noir genres, thanks to its grimy rain-soaked visuals of a future Los Angeles. With flying police cars traversing the neon-lit cityscape, I could clearly see this film’s influence on the likes of Minority Report, Ghost in the Shell, and The Matrix. Ghost in the Shell is perhaps the clearest borrower, also boasting a cerebral plot about man-made androids questioning their humanity, so there’s no denying Blade Runner’s impact on the style of much modern sci-fi. The non-digital effects hold up remarkably well, and the cinematography really heightens the bleak otherness of this particular dystopia.

If only this adeptly stylized world were worth spending time in. For all its technical finesse and shadowy cinematography, the strangeness of this future was a turn-off for me, with some of the surreal posturing of its characters reminding me of Dune from two years later. Whereas Dune was dragged down by a surplus of exposition, though, Blade Runner could have benefited from more, with far too many drawn-out scenes left in tedious silence. (I saw Ridley Scott’s Final Cut, but I understand the original theatrical version has a noir-style narration. Honestly, my curiosity about that difference is probably the only thing that would get me to watch Blade Runner again.) It’s a highly visual film, but the visuals weren’t enough to overcome a lackluster story.

The actors are all decent for the most part, with Harrison Ford playing a good tenacious policeman but never making much of an impression. Likewise, Sean Young as the femme-fatale love interest fills her role in the noir plot, but there’s not much to her thinly written character or to anyone else’s for that matter. Rutger Hauer is perhaps the most memorable as the main villain, Roy Batty, a murderous replicant who seeks to lengthen the programmed four-year lifespan for himself and his fellow rogues (Brion James, Joanna Cassidy, Daryl Hannah). Yet we never get to know the replicants any more than the human characters, and their plight is only half-felt with any sympathy by the end. Batty’s final scenes are also bizarrely anticlimactic after he chases Deckard like Hannibal Lecter on crack.

I recognize a lot of potential depth to the story, with themes of what makes us human, the unreliability of memories, the moral questioning of doing one’s job, and the despair and anger toward the arrogance of a creator (which Scott also incorporated into Prometheus). Yet none of these themes are compelling or explored with any depth, and the intentional ambiguity of several scenes only heightened their underdeveloped potential. Blade Runner is a film such that I can see how critics could watch it repeatedly and wring profound merit from its narrative, but its reputation as a masterful classic is more merit than this slow story deserves, in my opinion.

Owing its R rating to only two scenes (one with nudity, one uncomfortably violent), Blade Runner was quite the disappointment, especially because I typically love science fiction. (I’m not alone too; my equally sci-fi-loving VC was bored and uninterested by the halfway point.) I just don’t understand how a style-over-substance film like this is labeled a masterpiece, when far more entertaining tales, like In Time or Surrogates, are written off as sci-fi hack jobs. The letdown has also spoiled much of my interest in the upcoming sequel, though I’m still curious to see Denis Villeneuve’s take on this world, after the intellectual emotion of last year’s Arrival. Blade Runner is a grittily surreal blending of future and noir, with admirable effects and cinematography and an unmistakable impact on science fiction to come, but it’s also proof that just because something shapes a genre doesn’t necessarily make it a masterpiece.

Best line: (Tyrell, Roy’s designer) “The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long, and you have burned so very, very brightly, Roy.”

 

Rank: Dishonorable Mention

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
487 Followers and Counting

 

VC Pick: Moonraker (1979)

Tags

Action, Comedy, James Bond, Sci-fi, Thriller

(Best sung to “Moon River” because, as Bond says at the end, “Why not?”)

Moonraker,
Where did you go wrong?
You started off so strong, and yet….
Your sense of humor
Became a tumor
When Jaws in his folly
And Dolly first met.

Filmmakers
Learned from your mistake:
Don’t go, for humor’s sake, too far.
It’s just not the same James Bond style,
Veering juvenile.
Still you make me smile,
Moonraker,
Low bar.
___________________

MPAA rating: PG

I certainly hope it’s mere coincidence that Sir Roger Moore died not long after I watched Moonraker, especially considering that I saw Rogue One the day Carrie Fisher passed. This had better not be a trend for me. Moonraker is easily Moore’s weakest outing as Bond (though also his highest-grossing), but my VC enjoys it and I thought it appropriate after seeing his name in the headlines for the last time recently.

Like most other entries in the franchise, Moonraker follows all the familiar story beats of Bond surviving enemies, confronting a clearly shady industrialist with an accent, seducing beautiful fellow agents, and narrowly saving the world. This installment, though, was clearly meant to capitalize on the growing public interest in space and science fiction, since Moonraker was released just two years after Star Wars and incorporated space shuttles into the plot, predating actual shuttle flights by a couple of years.

Moonraker benefits from the natural charm of Moore, who remains my and my VC’s favorite incarnation of Bond himself, and the explosive escapes and elitist villain played by Michael Lonsdale are perfect fits for this kind of movie. There’s even a nice bit of continuity in the return of the seemingly unkillable henchman-for-hire Jaws (Richard Kiel), who previously appeared in The Spy Who Loved Me. For most of its runtime, Moonraker is an all-around solid Bond flick and then…oh, where to begin?

I never minded the campier elements of Moore’s Bond and always thought he found the right balance of humor to match the debonair action, like when he and Jaws merely smile at each other every time they face off. Yet Moonraker takes it too far, extending beyond good fun into unabashed parody. Whose idea was it to give Jaws a random pig-tailed girlfriend named Dolly and back their love-at-first-sight gaze with the theme from Romeo and Juliet? Likewise, I was willing to stomach the villain’s Noah’s Ark-style space station, but I was left speechless when the U.S. sends a shuttle to investigate and a host of space-suited astronauts quickly engage in a laser battle. Really??? Sure it looks impressive for the time and even earned an Oscar nomination for Visual Effects, and I realize Star Wars was popular, but this is just ridiculous!

I’m not alone in rolling my eyes at the absurdity of Moonraker’s second half, and mixed reviews at the time thankfully led future writers to reel in their overactive imaginations to more reasonable levels of silliness. Even so, Moonraker remains as entertaining as its Bond brethren in most other respects with some impressive stunts and an excellent score by John Barry, and its outlandishness somewhat works as a so-bad-it’s-good advantage. As long as you aren’t looking for Bond to be grounded in reality, it’s a campily fun episode, and Moore, as always, looks like he enjoyed himself as Bond. Even in his weaker efforts, he’ll always be the best Bond for me. RIP, Roger Moore.

Best line: (Drax, with typical Bond villain panache) “Mr. Bond, you defy all my attempts to plan an amusing death for you.”

 

Rank: Honorable Mention

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
485 Followers and Counting

 

Independence Day: Resurgence (2016)

Tags

Action, Disaster, Sci-fi

One day when aliens arrive, I wonder how they’ll be.
We’ve seen it all on film and page,
From sudden, savage wars to wage
To peaceful coexistent folk
We must take care to not provoke,
Though they’re the rarer sort we see.

More often, they’re the hostile type, who simply want a fight,
For resources or new terrains
Or guinea pigs to harvest brains.
And when the flying saucers land
For real, we won’t know what they’ve planned,
But likely most will fear the sight.

We’ve taught ourselves suspicion of the sky through new releases,
For not all otherworldly guests are charmed by Reese’s Pieces.
__________________

MPAA rating: PG-13

Well, I finally got around to seeing one of the most maligned films of last year, a follow-up to the alien invasion/disaster favorite Independence Day that has been widely derided as a wholly detestable flop of a sequel, but contrary to popular opinion, I liked it all right. True, coming twenty years after the 1996 original, it’s not as good as the first, but it’s not an affront to the original either, thanks to the return of director Roland Emmerich and most of the original cast members, with the key exception of Will Smith.

One thing I liked is the appealing way that the world has risen from the ashes of the first movie’s events. Thanks to remnants of alien technology, it’s more of a sci-fi world with moon bases and flying vehicles, and after facing potential annihilation, the political tensions have subsided in favor of utopian cooperation between countries. Sure, it’s probably wishful thinking, but I found it believable that the Independence Day invasion has become a shared 9/11-style memory for the world. Yet, there are still scars, from the mental trauma of former President Whitmore (Bill Pullman) to the constant worry that there might be an even more insidious “resurgence.”  And guess what? There is, and mankind isn’t the only race to prepare for a rematch!

Resurgence does its best balancing the return of original cast members (Jeff Goldblum, Judd Hirsch, even Brent Spiner, whose Dr. Okun apparently wasn’t killed by that surgery scene gone wrong) with newer faces like Liam Hemsworth, Maika Monroe, and Jessie Usher as fighter pilots who have grown up in the wake of the alien invasion. Playing the son of Smith’s character, Usher doesn’t have the same swagger or sense of humor, which instead go to the less memorable Hemsworth, and the ensemble doesn’t really leave room for much depth for any of the characters, with death scenes and the like being such quick tragedies that they leave little impression. Moreover, the higher-tech action tries to exceed the first film for explosive bombast and extensive but barely seen loss of life, just as the alien mother ship here dwarfs the ships from the first invasion.

And for those who hated this movie, everything I just said in that paragraph is a negative, but does it have to be? I tend to think that many have forgotten just how cheesy, rambling, and overblown the first film was; it’s not great filmmaking, but that cheese factor is its appeal. We get to see a wide swath of mankind facing off against alien invaders, with nerds, Air Force pilots, and Presidents banding together to save the world. Resurgence does more or less the same thing, along with many self-conscious tributes to the original formula, from a comment about destroying landmarks to a narrow escape that just has to save the dog.

Don’t get me wrong; there’s plenty to criticize, like character changes (both Smith and Goldblum’s wife are written off as dead from the start, and Okun is revealed as gay for some reason), unoriginal plot developments (another giant alien queen), and a final scene that’s begging for a sequel I doubt will happen. Then again, who thought this sequel would happen? I just feel that there’s still effects-heavy fun to be had for those who don’t expect much. You don’t watch this kind of movie for drama, characters, or emotional involvement, though what there is of those is decent. It’s watchable because it’s a disaster, perhaps in more ways than one, and some people just want to watch the world explode.

Best line: (former President Whitmore) “We convinced an entire generation that this is a battle that we could win. We sacrifice for each other no matter what the cost. And that’s worth fighting for.”

 

Rank: List Runner-Up

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
482 Followers and Counting

 

In Time (2011)

Tags

Action, Drama, Romance, Sci-fi, Thriller

(Today’s NaPoWriMo prompt was to explore a small, defined space, so I chose the inescapable meaning of the inside of a clock.)

 

Consider the crevices closed in a clock,
Where gears in their constant cacophony grind,
So sealed in their space,
Yet they turn the clock’s face,
As all the world runs, lest it be left behind
While the gears click the future away.

A tiny black hole occupies every clock,
To suck in the seconds and minutes and years.
Mankind put it there
In that pocket of air
And lives with the ticking of time in his ears,
While the gears we encased
And the fears of life’s waste
Even now click the future away.
_________________

MPAA rating: PG-13

Oh, I do love science fiction! I love how it creates worlds that take social or technological change to a futuristic extreme that would be very unlikely to happen but is still fascinating to think about. I love how it makes absurd what-if scenarios believable and relatable. And lastly, I love the fact that I seem predisposed to like it, even if critics were not so kind. A prime example of all these points is In Time, a dystopian thriller about a world where time has become currency and everyone above twenty-five years old has stopped aging but also has a clock on their arm counting down their remaining lifetime.

Proving again that he’s not just a singer, Justin Timberlake plays Will Salas, a worker in the poorest “time zone” called Dayton, who may eke by with less than 24 hours on his clock each day but has a natural inclination toward helping others. (Like The Hunger Games, there are twelve zones or districts, with 12 being the poorest.) When a chance encounter with a rich 105-year-old from New Greenwich leaves Will with over a century on his arm, Will sets out for both some enrichment and revenge, later joined by a wealthy magnate’s rebellious daughter Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried).

The film is conceptually cool from the start, literalizing throwaway phrases like “living paycheck to paycheck,” “don’t waste my time,” and of course “time is money,” but the idea is also well executed, such as the visual oddity of everyone looking twenty-five, even mothers and grandmothers. The ever-present arm clocks are always counting down, lending an urgency to quite a few last-second close calls, and time-stealing gangsters and Cillian Murphy as a Javert-like devoted policeman keep the plot unpredictable, even as it leans from straight sci-fi to a sort of heist film. Will and Sylvia also remain sympathetic in their Bonnie-and-Clyde style stick-ups by becoming time-reclaiming Robin Hoods against the none-too-subtle big bad elites.

I can’t speak to the alleged copyright infringement on a certain Harlan Ellison story or the supposed similarities with director/writer Andrew Niccol’s past work Gattaca (which I’ve yet to see), but In Time is yet another sci-fi film that I seem to have enjoyed far more than its Rotten Tomatoes score of 36% would indicate. One touchstone I can point to is 2009’s Surrogates, another critical failure with a brilliant premise about a massive social evolution that is left in doubt by the end. Neither film is perfect, but both were disparaged by critics for reasons that I simply don’t understand. It can be easily read as a rebellion dream against the one-percenters, but with ideas aplenty, good performances, and some memorably thrilling scenes, In Time is an underrated sci-fi that may one day get the notice it deserves as a cult classic.

Best line: (rich man Philippe Weis) “In the end, nothing will change, because everyone wants to live forever. They all think they have a chance at immortality, even though all the evidence is against it. They all think they will be the exception. But the truth is: For a few to be immortal, many must die.”   (Will) “No one should be immortal, if even one person has to die.”

 

Rank: List-Worthy

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
474 Followers and Counting