Star Wars: Episode Seven-The Force Awakens

Four Stars (out of four)

WARNING: MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD!  Nothing you won't get out of the opening crawl in the first two minutes.  No major plot points ruined.

So, it's finally here.  The big question that most of us had, is it any good?  The definitive answer is a resounding YES!  This is the movie we've been waiting 33 years to see, since Episodes 1-3 sucked so badly.  It is new, exciting and fun, packed with just the right amount of nostalgia combined with a passing of the torch to a new generation.  But, it is not totally without problems...

The Force Awakens takes place in real time, around thirty years after Return of the Jedi.  Forget everything from the Expanded Universe of books, all of that has thankfully been thrown away.  The Empire has been smashed, but from the ashes, the First Order has arisen.  It is the remnants of the Empire's military wing and is ruthlessly trying to take back its position from the New Republic.  What was once the Rebellion is now the Resistance, led by General Leia Organa.  They try to keep the First Order in check.  For some mysterious reason, Luke Skywalker has disappeared, and both sides are looking for him.  This is where we land in the action.

So, yes, The Force Awakens is a really good, if not, great film.  There is a lot to like here. It is wonderful to see the old guard like Han Solo and Leia again.  Han and Chewbacca play big roles in this film, so their legion of fans, myself included, will not be disappointed. Harrison Ford reprising the role he loves/hates is a joy to watch.  But despite the initial reliance on old characters, the new characters of Rey (Daisy Ridley), Finn (John Boyega), and the villainous Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) are all likable in their own ways.  We get just enough information to pique our interest about them, and we are left wanting more, like all good entertainment should be.  J.J. Abrams, who directed and cowrote the movie with Lawrence Kasdan (The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi) and Michael Arndt (Toy Story 3 and the Oscar Winning Little Miss Sunshine), proves once again that it is the script that matters, not the effects. 

Expectations were incredibly high for this film, and these three talents delivered in spades.  If you don't have compelling characters with realistic motivations one can relate to, the movie will not work.  The coldness and stiltiness of Episodes 1-3 was its downfall.  In the end, you didn't care about what happens to the characters.  On top of that, since Lucas is notorious for not being able to work with actors, he doesn't get good performances out of them.  That, combined with an overreliance on admittedly dazzling effects, give Episodes 1-3 a cold, flat, lifeless feel.  Now, before this descends into a Lucas-bashing column, he IS a fantastic producer.  He sees the big picture, and is able to guide it well.  But in the end, it took the grounding of a good story and solid, interesting characters to ultimately save the franchise. In other words, it needed a new set of eyes that could say the emperor has no clothes.

Some good specifics about The Force Awakens.  I like the darker tone of the film.  The First Order has a real sense of menace.  Stormtroopers are not comical tenpins with bad marksmanship.  They are cruel, faceless and ruthless here.  There is a real sense of danger.  Added to that is the character of Kylo Ren, a very powerful Force-weilder prone to fits of rage, giving him a deliciously evil and unpredictable nature about him.  The First Order is dangerous and capable, and could not be bested by a bunch of hyperactive teddy bears.  The new droid BB8 is a joy.  I was never a fan of R2-D2, and it is nice to see a droid with a "real" personality, all the more amazing that it is a real, not CGI robot.

That said, this is not a perfect movie.  There are some problems, albeit minor ones, that hamper the movie's ultimate effectiveness.  The biggest issue I had was that there was not much exposition.  A lot of time and story has progressed since Return of the Jefi, and weare abruptly thrown into a situation we know very little about, and very little was answered as the movie progresses.  I found myself on more than one occasion scratching my head over who this character is, why is that piece of information important?  Why did Luke run off?  Why is everyone looking for him?  On and on this goes on through the whole movie.  Now, I am sure they will resolve most of this in the subsequent episodes, but it is very confusing if you take the time to think about what's happening. Next, this film is essentially a soft reboot of Episode 4: A New Hope.  The movie is not terribly original. Without getting into too many specifics, there are way too many parallels with the first Star Wars movie.  From characters to situations, the entire film has a stale, rehashed feel. I can only hope they don't double down on backward glancing references a la Star Trek: Into Darkness in the subsequent films.  Finally, I said earlier that there is a lot of nostalgia in this film, sometimes which is used to comedic effect.  My problem is that there is too much wink-and-a-nod-type humor.  It IS funny and I laughed, and I realize a bit of comic relief can be helpful, but there was too much self-referential gags.  We need to move ahead with this new generation and the humor took me out of the story at times.

Despite all of these problems, this is a really fun, crowd-pleasing movie that I would dare say is another Willy Wonka moment (a movie that sucks me into the story and totally captivates me).  I honestly felt like I was seven years old again watching Star Wars for the first time. It was thrilling, exhilarating, and an experience that had a profound impact on me, particularly for my love of movies.  Star Wars is where a lifetime love was born, and movies like The Force Awakens remind me once again why I keep going to the darkened theater for another grand adventure.

Legend (2015)

3 Stars (out of four)

I love the gangster flick.  I don't know why, considering they all end the same way, but God help me, they are a lot of fun.  From The Roaring Twenties to The Godfather to The Untouchables to Goodfellas to Scarface and New Jack City, the gangster film is an exciting genre, a dark reflection of the American Dream.  Perhaps because it is the antithesis of the Western, maybe that is the reason it resonates with Americans.  In any case, despite the fact that Legend is about Britain's arguably most famous gangsters, the twin Kray brothers, it has a very familiar feel to it.

Legend is about the infamous Kray brothers who ran gambling and protection rackets in London in the mid to late 1960s.  Tom Hardy plays both roles; the suave and debonair but tough Reggie Kray, and the mentally unstable, volatile and incredibly violent Ronnie Kray.  It tracks their careers when they were becoming a force to be reckoned with to their downfall.  In that time, the Krays worked with the American mafia to make London the Las Vegas of Europe. 

First, I loved the movie in that it was fascinating subject material.  Here in the states, we know all about Capone, Lansky and Bulger, but unless you're a true crime aficionado, our interest doesn't go far beyond our borders.  The Krays were dynamic and charismatic, even getting a mention in Keith Richards' biography, Life.  But I also had a few issues with it.  The first was the film almost needed subtitles.  I missed about a third of the dialogue because of the impenetrable East End accents.  I know they're speaking English, but I will have to watch this movie a couple more times before I get what's going on.  Another issue I had was the movie couldn't decide what it wants to be.  Its tone varies wildly from being darkly comic to avant garde to straightforward gangster.  So it is hard at times to know how to feel about the events we are watching.  Also, for a gangster movie, there is a lot of domesticity in it.  One half is Reggie's pursuit and loss of his wife.  The other half is about Ron Kray's unstable, violent nature and his homosexuality.  The movie drifts in and out of focus a lot.

That said, Tom Hardy is pretty amazing in his performances in the film.  He probably used some prosthetic work, especially with Ron Kray, but he totally disappears into each role.  It is a real tour de force.  He will be robbed if he doesn't get an Oscar nod.  He keeps putting out solid performances and elevates whatever material he appears in.  If he doesn't get the Oscar this time, he will be one of those actors to watch in the future.  He is an interesting guy and I look forward to seeing what else he can do.

Spotlight

4 Stars (out of four)

I have always had a soft spot for the press.  I firmly believe that it is crucial to our keeping a free society and an open exchange of ideas.  Without it, we would be lost.  Yes, many claim it is a liberal pundit ground, overwhelmed by stinking liberals who want to bring society down for the sake of a buck, but I fundamentally disagree with them.  Are there people with agendas?  Of course, and today's AD/HD blog-infested world has only exacerbated the situation, but it is often the press that shines a light into those dark places we don't want to talk about, for better or worse.  It has been said that for evil to flourish, good men need only do nothing about it.  Spotlight is a damning criticism of that indifference, and what it sometimes takes to change it.

The story of Spotlight is pretty simple.  It is the true story of how The Boston Globe broke the story of the Catholic priest abuse scandal in the early 2000's.  Liev Schrieber plays the new editor that directs his investigative team headed by Michael Keaton to push the investigation.  The movie portrays the enormity in scope of the problem and the hurdles the team had to go over to report it.

The subject matter is, quite frankly, some of the most depressing I have seen.  It lays bear the heinousness of the crimes as the church moved predators from diocese to diocese and pressured the families to stay quiet about crimes these priests were inflicting.  The movie takes the time to show not just the damage done by the crime, but also to people's faith in what they thought was an unimpeachable institution.  This movie obviously has a point of view, and sometimes devolves into accusatory criticism of an entire institution that does a lot of good, rather than sticking to the facts of the case.  That said, the movie is absolutely incredible.  It not only takes on the crime itself, it takes on the ubiquity of the church and its culture in Boston to illustrate how difficult it was to find information about the scandal.  In a not-so-subtle continuing motif, every establishing shot, or long shot usually begins and/or ends with a different church in the background, illustrating the collosal presence the church has in these people's lives. It is literally everywhere.  And the sad aspect about the scandal is, everyone knew about it, the facts were there in public sources, yet no one stood up to it and said, "No, this is wrong."  Indeed, as the movie shows, there was a large conspiracy to cover it up.

The performances are straightforward and non-bombastic, injecting a sense of realism not usually present in movies like this.  There is not a stinker in the cast, but standouts include Keaton, Mark Ruffalo as one of the reporters, and Stanley Tucci, playing the defense attorney for many of the victims.  Tucci continually puts out amazing performances, one after another. I have never seen him turn in a stinker, and this movie is no exception.  He is long overdue for an Oscar and has only one nomination for 2009's The Lovely Bones.  He delivers again and again, but unfortunately, I don't think he will be awarded one this year because this is not the type of performance that usually wins.  But his quiet and nuanced portrayal shows a good man who deeply cares about the welfare of his clients, but is hamstrung by the ethics of his profession.  

This is an intensely sad movie, but one that should be seen by everyone.  This is what great movies are.

Trumbo

4 Stars (out of four)

This is a biopic of Dalton Trumbo.  For those of you who don't know, Dalton Trumbo (played by Bryan Cranston) was one of the infamous "Hollywood Ten," a group of mostly screenwriters and directors who were victims of the prosecution of the Congressional House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and Joe McCarthy during the Red Scare of the 50's.  All of the ten were former or current members of the Communist Party USA during the Great Depression in the 30's and the 40's when Russia was an ally.  They were at the top of the infamous blacklist and were not able to work under their names for close to 20 years.  Trumbo was one of the best writer among them, writing two (!) Oscar-winning screenplays (Roman Holiday and The Brave One under pseudonyms).  The blacklist was ruthlessly enforced by Hollywood tabloid writer Hedda Hopper (Helen Mirren) and the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals, originally formed by Walt Disney, but at this time, was headed by John Wayne.  Trumbo was cited for contempt of Congress when he refused to testify before HUAC, served prison time and then couldn't work under his name for close to 20 years.  He was finally vindicated when Otto Preminger hired him for Exodus, and Kirk Douglas publicly announced him as the screenwriter for Spartacus.

There have been other prominent movies made about the blacklist including, Guilty By Suspicion in 1989, starring Robert DeNiro.  But Trumbo is probably the best at demonstrating the fear and paranoia that made America lose its way for some time.  To be fair, history and recent revelations from Soviet KGB archives have shown that there was a very active attempt by the Soviets to infiltrate all prominent institutions in America from the press, to labor unions, to government agencies to the entertainment industry.  McCarthy and HUAC, while their methods were despicable, were not the paranoid kooks they tend to be portrayed in movies like these.

That said, for a congressional committee that had the phrase Un-American in the title, they certainly used unamerican methods to prosecute people without probable cause, based primarily on flimsy allegations rooted in fear.  In the rush to protect America, they trampled the rights of many Americans who didn't deserve the treatment they received; losing their jobs, freedoms and sometimes their lives to root out communism in America.  This movie raises a real warning about the pernicious influence of fear and how it turns us against ourselves by painting groups of people with the same broad brush.  I don't know if it was the filmmaker's intent, but there are real reverberations in today's charged climate, specifically with Muslims.  People today are more and more assuming every Muslim is dangerous and suspicious, and the rhetoric is getting more blunt and accusatory, filled with self-righteousness and fear.  Whenever we as a nation feel threatened, if we can't strike at an outside foe, we turn inward on each other.  Trumbo tries to show the consequences of that kind of behavior through the microcosm of Trumbo's own life.

The movie is superbly written and acted. It is very scary in its implications.  But it is often punctuated with incredible wit and humor that makes it palatable and not preachy.  It is thoroughly enjoyable and thought-provoking. I would recommend every adult in America see it and reflect on what it is saying.  It will probably not change many people's minds as many have made their mind up based on fear of the different.  But hopefully, it can persuade some people to reach for their better angels.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2

3.5 Stars (out of four)

The Hunger Games series is quite possibly one of the most satisfying, albeit a tad predictable, stories to have passed our way during the past decade, both as books and movies.  When I first heard of Suzanne Coliins' young adult story for the first time, it sounded a little too much like the sadistically violent manga, Battle Royale.  But she has managed to create a wonderfully entertaining world and story.

Mockingjay Part 2 picks right up where the last one left off. Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) has been rescued by the resistance and tried to kill our hero, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) because he was tortured and conditioned to become a living weapon.  The resistance is making its last push against the capital and President Snow (Donald Sutherland, exuding oily menace).  Katniss decides to go on a suicide mission to kill Snow and is joined by a team of commandos, including her other paramour Gayle (Liam Hemsworth), setting up a quiet conflict between he and Peeta for Katniss' heart.  But should Katniss succeed in her mission to kill Snow, what insidious menace comes next?

As I said, the whole Hunger Games franchise, and this movie in particular, are very satisfying.  This movie has the right amount of action, pathos, and finally closure.  Every loose thread is tied up well. This story, for a young adult's story, is quite rich in atmosphere and characterization.  It is as complex as it should be without being too Byzantine in its plot arcs.  After I watched this final film, I rewatched the other three and was surprised by how many allusions are in the last movie and how it completely pulls minor or subtle plot points from even the first movie all together at the end.  No story arc is left hanging.  Unlike the horrifying mess of the Twilight series, The Hunger Games is a complexly layered work of art with one of the better female role models for young girls.  It's sad that the "strange" worlds of fantasy/sci-fi are the primary places where strong female characters flourish, almost as if Hollywood is telling us this is the only place they realistically exist.  Katniss is strong, determined and capable, while not sacrificing real emotion and moments of weakness.  And while she is a little too much of a super woman, it comes off convincingly, due in no small part to how good an actress Jennifer Lawrence is.  In less capable hands, the performance would be hokey.  But Lawrence pulls it off with the acting chops she has developed in indie films.

I cannot recommend this series higher, for reading or watching.  It is surprising, funny, sad and ultimately stands for something.  My only complaint (and it's a minor one) is that you have to have the background of the other films to understand this one.  If you don't watch the others, you will be hopelessly lost the further you go in as there is very little exposition.  Each movie depends on the first or it will make no sense.  But, having said that, if you have seen the others, you will not be disappointed with the end here.

Creed

3 Stars (out of four)

I REALLY wanted to like this movie.  The Rocky series has meant a lot to me growing up, and is probably one of my favorite franchises of all time.  So, I was eagerly anticipating this new entry in the Rocky canon, as it promised to take Rocky in a whole new, exciting direction.  Did I like it?  The short answer is yes.  The long answer is that it could have been so much better and was a sadly missed opportunity.

So, Creed opens with the illegitimate son of Apollo Creed, Adonis Johnson (Michael B. Jordan), a young black man who has been fighting adversity and his personal demons his entire life.  The film opens with him as an unknown boxer in Tijuana, making a name for himself with several wins, mostly on his raw talent alone.  When he goes to his father's old gym in L.A., he unwisely challenges the reigning middleweight champion and is quickly thrashed in a sparring match.  Adonis realizes he has a lot to learn, so he goes to Philadelphia to convince Rocky (Sylvester Stallone) to train him.  Rocky, after some persuasion, reluctantly agrees, and soon, Adonis wins his first real middleweight fight.  Adonis was fighting under his mother's name because he wanted to make his own way, but this wouldn't be much of a movie if the Creed name didn't get leaked.  Meanwhile, the current middleweight champion 'Pretty' Ricky Conlan (played by real-life 2x champion Tony Bellew), is under several scandals that threaten his boxing career, so of course, a fight is set up between the two.

As I said, this movie is a mixed bag of nuts.  On the one hand, it is entertaining and fun, though not particularly original.  On the other hand, none of the original makers have anything to do with it.  Stallone didn't write or direct, Bill Conti didn't do the music.  And while I applaud the filmmakers' gamble to try a new stylistic feel, it is curiously flat and undramatic in all ways.  Say what you will about Stallone, he is a fantastic writer, as his 1976 Oscar nomination for the original Rocky can attest.  Stallone himself says that he uses Rocky to be able to preach certain values he has, a worldview of hard work, determination, plain common sense, and decency.  And through his admittedly tortured diction, he created a character that is the Everyman.  Rocky is us and our best aspirations.  Creed feels like a rehashed story of cliches, which brings me to what I think is the film's almost fatal flaw...

Now, I have not seen Michael B. Jordan in anything else for comparison.  I don't know if this is a fair representation of his true acting ability.  But, if his performance in Creed is an indication, his wooden portrayal of Adonis almost ruins the story.  His look is perfect, but there are a lot of youngish, African-American actors like Corey Parker or J.D. Williams who would have done a much better job.  There is a lot in the story to like.  There is pathos, conflict and joy, yet they all fall curiously flat with Jordan's performance.  I don't know if this was a limitation on his part, or a fault on Ryan Coogler, the director.  Either way, what could have been a great character is sadly lacking.  But aside from that, the movie is entertaining.  If you are looking for a fun time, go see it, but don't set your expectations too high.

Spectre

3 Stars (out of four)

We continue the story of the relaunched James Bond, and it is good, but still a tad odd.

Spectre continues wher Skyfall let off.  In another direct sequel, this movie opens in Mexico City, where Bond (Daniel Craig continuing a singularly satisfyingly intense portrai of our favorite spy) assassinates a man and picks up a mysterious ring with an octopus on it.  We find that it belongs to the shadowy organization, SPECTRE, a group that profits on anything horrible in the world and the primary author of everything bad that happened to Bond since Vesper Lynn's assassination in Casino Royale.  Bond pursues the group until he finds its leader Ernst Stavro Blofeld (Christoph Woltz in a deliciously evil performance).  Blofeld and Bond appear to be connected in some way, which Bond discovers as he tries to save London from another big attack.

So, considering this is one of the most action filled franchises in cinema history, there is not a lot of action.  This particular installment is long on story, and appears to be suffering from post-production cuts like its predecessor, Quantum of Solace.  For parts of the movie, I found myself lost, like I came in 39 minutes late to a two-hour movie.  It's also pretty long, clocking in close to 2.75 hours. The movie is not particularly exciting, with only a couple of major action pieces.  All the familiar characters show up and are a lot of fun.  I love the new M, Q and Moneypenny.  I like the fact the movie has nor succumbed to the temptation to put more gadgets in, because this inevitably results in overkill, like the battle of the super cars in Die Another Day.  This relies more on good old fashioned espionage and skullduggery.  Another element I particularly liked about the film is its dark and very cruel, evil undertones.  This is not a happy-go-lucky movie like the Roger Moore set.  It is very serious and somber, and therefore very interesting to watch.  Despite the plot holes, the intense tone makes this film very interesting.  It gives Bond a more "real" feel, rather than being an indestructible superman.

Real or not, however, it may be disappointing to some Bond fans.  It is a totally different tone and feel with the possible exception of License To Kill.  As I said, it is a totally different tone than a Bond film.  It is deadly serious.  This is not a movie to be taken lightly, but this is the direction Bond needs to go.  I hear many fans criticizing the film, that it sucks or it's too long, but no real criticism other than they don't like it.  Very serious takes are needed in this franchise to keep it from slipping into Three Stooges style dreck like Diamonds Are a Forever, Moonraker, A View To A Kill, or Die Another Day.  Please, when you go see this film, remember the depths these films can sink to when fans start whining about "Where's Q?  The gadgets?  The supercar?"  Etc, etc, etc.  please do not let these uninformed people take Bond away from this leaner, meaner, post-Bourne Bond which will require another reboot.  I like the direction has been going with the Craig series, despite some misfires, and I, for one, want to see it continue.

Steve Jobs

3 Stars (out of four)

Steve Jobs is a fairly complex movie about a very complex person.  It is pretty darn good, but, in the end, may have bitten off more than it can chew.

Steve Jobs tries to tackle most of the issues of Steve Jobs' life through three of his most iconic product launches: the MacIntosh, the NeXt and the iMac.  These three products encapsulate the first (and arguably most dynamic) half of Jobs' fascinating life and career.  This period of time was the most complicated of his life, covering his repeated denial of his first daughter's paternity, his famous firing (and subsequent rehiring) at his company Apple, and hints at the beginning of the second (and arguably more successful) part of his life where Apple redefined the world with the iPod, iPhone and iPad (upon which this review is currently being written).

Icon.  Arrogant.  Visionary.  Petty.  Artist.  Cruel.  Genius.  Stylistic talent.  Machiavellian manipulator.    Horror of a human being.  Dreamer of a better, kinder world.  Denier of his own child.  Loving father.  Jobs was all these things and more.  At one point in the film, Jobs says, "I am not well-made."  That sums him up quite well.  As with all things in life, things are much more complicated than they first appear.  Aaron Sorkin tries to make sense out of a very complicated man in a very short amount of time.  Drawing heavily on Walter Isaacson's great biography of the same name, Sorkin ingeniously uses the famous product launches combined with flashbacks to illustrate the events that happened up to that point.  The problem is that Jobs is so complicated, it is almost required to have a little foreknowledge of the man and the events in his life to make sense of the plot.  Newcomers to Jobs will be a little lost.  However, the movie boils down to three main stories: the relationship with his coworkers (illustrated by Steve Wozniak, played incredibly by Seth Rogen); the father-son dynamic of the fatherless Jobs (Michael Fassbender) and father figure John Sculley (Jeff Daniels); and centrally, the relationship between Jobs and his daughter.

The whole cast is incredible and the visuals by Danny Boyle interesting and creative.  For people who have an enduring fascination with the man, this is a great film.  For all others, it may fall a little flat.  Myself, I loved it.

Crimson Peak

2.5 Stars (out of four)

We can all thank Guillermo Del Toro for having such imaginative bad dreams, because they always materialize as sumptuous, visual feasts for the eyes.  Unfortunately, as time goes on, the stories are getting less imaginative.  Too bad you can't have everything.

IMDB says "In the aftermath of a family tragedy, an aspiring author (Mia Wasikowski as Edith Cushing) is torn between love for her childhood friend (Charlie Hunnam as Dr. Alan McMichael) and the temptation of a mysterious stranger (Tom Hiddleston as Thomas Sharpe).  Trying to escape the ghosts of her past, she is swept away to a house that breathes, bleeds - and remembers."

Whoooo!  Scary stuff.  Or is it?  The previews promised a fairly scary, gothic haunted house story.  But, in reality, is a fairly stock ghost story written for the post-feminism audience.  I actually encourage strong, female characters, but I hate it when they are stereotypes of modern women stuck in an age that holds their aspirations down and the female protagonist is a misunderstood lion that people just "don't get."  Everyone else around her is either loved but hopelessly stuck in another time, stupid or evil.  This movie plays every Harlequin romance trope out to a nauseating degree.  Without giving too much away, Edith Cushing leaves a perfectly nice guy she grew up with and actually likes (and likes her back) to go away to England with Thomas Sharpe, a mysterious good-looking English landed gentry but penniless lord and his equally mysterious sister, Lucille (Jessica Chastaine).  Edith does this because Sharpe reads and likes her story she is writing and that most everyone else dismisses (thus obviously making him more evolved and intelligent than everyone else around him).  She finds herself in a beautiful, huge, but disintegrating manor house built in the middle of nowhere.  Ghosts start showing up for a reason I won't get into.  Things go bad.

This movie sort of annoyed me for the reasons stated above.  Wasikowski is basically annoying and Hunnam phones it in, turning in the most wooden performance since Pinocchio or Showgirls.  But all is not lost.  This is, after all, a Del Toro movie, and it's the visuals that matter most.  He delivers them in spades.  The scenes in the Crimson Peak manor are incredibly atmospheric and a joy to watch.  A collision a harsh colors and dark shadows, hinting at evil lurking around every corner.  This melange of elements guarantees I will never tire of what Del Toro can do.  He is a singularly gifted director of the visual, from Cronos and The Devil's Backbone to his masterpiece Pan's Labyrinth.  His style uplifts even mediocre material like Pacific Rim, Blade Ii, and the Hellboys.  His films are always interesting and enjoyable to watch, the sheer joy and horror of the visuals are a symphony for the eyes.  Hiddleston and Chastaine play the most gleefully evil characters, and they are clearly having a ball with it.  They are so much fun in these roles.  Go for visual, but check your brain at the door for the story.

Bridge of Spies

Four Stars (out of four)

So, this is a movie I have been eagerly anticipating.  It's funny how things can work out sometimes.  A movie that is about the Cold War; and with the way current events are shaping up in Syria and Ukraine and with Putin pushing a very nationalistic agenda, we may be seeing a return to those days much earlier than any of us thought.  I grew up during the Cold War, long after these events took place, but not so much so to remember and appreciate the context this movie was steeped in.  And, it is dead on.  To younger audiences that were born in the 80's, it may seem inconceivable how the geopolitical dynamics played out then, but the movie perfectly captures these dynamics perfectly.

The movie is based on real events.  After Soviet spy Rudolph Abel (played very mensch-like by Mark Rylance), is arrested, an insurance lawyer, James Donovan (Tom Hanks), is appointed as his attorney to demonstrate to the USSR that Abel will get a fair trial, thus showing our moral mettle.  After taking the case to the Supreme Court, Abel unsurprisingly gets a very stiff sentence.  Meanwhile, U2 pilot Gary Powers is shot down over the USSR and gets a similar stiff sentence from the Soviets.  People from both sides are screaming for blood and the mood on both sides of the world is tense.  Donovan is sent to East Germany as a private citizen to negotiate a trade.  Since the trade can't be acknowledged by either government, there is a lot of skullduggery going on.  In the meantime, a US graduate student is arrested in East Berlin, further complicating the matter because the German Democratic Republic (the GDR or East Germany) wants to score points with the USSR by getting their man back and by stressing to the US that the GDR is not a doormat for the USSR.  Donovan decides to get both US citizens released and eventually does.

The reason I gave the ending away is that it is all a matter of historical record and isn't what the movie is really about.  It is about the context of the events in question, public sentiment on both sides, and most interestingly, the geopolitical power dynamics at a crucial point in world history.  It was incredible to watch, particularly in regards to the GDR.  The movie takes place just as the Berlin Wall was going up, and for those of us born later in the Cold War, it is easy to forget that Germany was caught in the middle of all this, shortly after losing WWII.  They didn't necessarily like the Soviets, but they had little control over their fate because of the war they started recently ended in defeat.  While they had to accept their lot in a much grander drama that overshadowed them, they would not go quietly.  The GDR makes the negotiations difficult until the movie implied that the Soviets leaned on them.  In this, we see the beginning of the real subjugation of East Germany under the Soviet yoke.  Essentially, we see the Soviets telling the GDR they are no longer a sovereign nation.  As Orwell said after the uprising in his book Animal Farm, "Of course all animals are equal.  Just some are more equal than others.". All of this is played out in microcosm through this spy exchange, and would establish a new world order that arguably still exists today.  It is a brilliant, yet understated presentation on how the Old World order died, a final casualty of WWII and marked the ascension of the US role in world affairs from then on.

But the movie is more than that.  It also brilliantly portrays the US/USSR battle of ideas/moral codes and our mutual distrust.  It is also quick to point out the hatred between us was very real, but both sides understood the consequences of missteps.  It portrays the mutual animosity and the quid pro quo nature that dominates our relationship even today.  And considering Russia's new-found belligerent ambitions to reclaim the prestige they lost in the 1990's, we may be traveling down the road portrayed in this film again for a new generation.

As I said, this is not a particularly dramatic film, but one of subtlety and nuance.  At first, I was underwhelmed, as Spielberg's movies tend to be bombastic.  But as I think more and more about what I saw, the more I see that it is fantastic story, penned by the Coen brothers of Fargo and No Country for Old Men.  The fact the story is true is icing on the cake.   This movie is measured, takes its time to highlight the details.  The details are all-important here, so it is not required for the movie to lambaste us.  This is truly an adult, intelligent film; a species of growing rarity in Hollywood.  It is movies like this that remind me as to why I still love  them.  Vacuous crap like The Lego Movie makes me despair, but movies like this restore my faith in the state of today's storytelling.  Leave the kids at home and see this.  Or bring them to learn something about where we have been and maybe where we are going.

The Martian

3.5 Stars (out of four)

And so the new crop of good movies for Oscar season continues.  Many people have said The Matian is Director Ridley Scott's Apollo 13 or a love letter to NASA and science, and those people are not wrong.  This movie could not have come at a better time for beleaguered NASA, and I am pretty sure the recent discoveries on Mars were timed to coincide with it.  Now, I can't tell you if the science is perfect in this film, but I can tell you it is one hell of a ride.

The Martian begins with our fourth manned mission to Mars.  After a week into a month-long mission, the landing site is hit by a huge storm and the crew is forced to abort.  As they are trying to get back to the ship, astronaut Mark Whatney (Matt Damon) is struck by debris and disappears into the storm.  He shows no life signs so the crew takes off without him.  It turns out, though, Watney did survive and after the storm, makes it back to the habitat.  He is injured, but manages to pull through.  He then has to figure out how to make supplies for six people for 30 days last for five years until a rescue mission can come and get him.  That is, of course, if he can find a way to communicate with Earth since the communicator dish was destroyed...

So, the movie is a bit like Apollo 13 meets Castaway.  But is is so much more than that.  Like Apollo 13, it stresses that none of this is possible without a great amount of teamwork; this time, on a global scale.  Scott shows why he is such a great director here by ratcheting up tension, injecting humor in all the right places, keeping a breakneck pace, showing the enormity and complexity of the problems quickly, and makes you want to go hug your old science teacher all at once. It is immensely entertaining and not to be missed.  There are no good guys and bad guys, no nefarious agendas, just a bunch of very smart people who are working toward common goal.  And it is a massive advertisement for NASA, still the coolest and nerdiest government organization that really knows how to sell itself.

The Martian is one of those great movies that is a testament to the human will to survive.  It is an acting tour de force for Damon, since he is alone throughout most of the film.  He delivers most of his exposition through a series of video logs that allow us to take stock on his personal situation at important points.  It is actually an ingenious bit of storytelling to keep us grounded in Whatney's psyche.  It brings real emotion and a human element to his situation that is critical for us to care what happens to him.  It connects us in a very real way, whether you see him clowning around, updating us on his progress and plans, or venting his frustration.  In the end, it comes down to Damon and his performance in these oddly intimate moments that make this movie work so well.  

The only real complaint I have is actually not with the film, but the source material.  It is a little too convenient what jobs Whatney has. He has precisely the set of skills he would need to do everything.  He is a botanist and engineer, meaning he sits at the perfect intersection of growing things and fixing everything on the ship physically.  He's Superbrain!  But, while the movie does come up with some limitations he has that are overcome later, I ultimately felt it was a little too neat.  I realize that all members in NASA are crossed trained in other missions as well, but Whatney seems to have every conceivable skill he would need to survive his ordeal.  But in the end, this is a very minor criticism to what is an excellent movie.  See it as soon as you can.  You won't be disappointed.

The Intern

3 Stars (out of four)

It is nice to see a comedy come along that don't insult or condescend to its audience or demean its characters.  The Intern is not broad or farsical entertainment, just a very sweet look at a bunch of people with their own set of problems trying to make it in the world.

The Intern starts with Ben (Robert DeNiro), a genuinely nice widower and retiree at a bit of a crossroads in his life.  He has learned what many retirees learn, the boredom of retirement.  He has already traveled the world, picked up hobbies and spends a lot of time with his children and grandchildren, but still cannot find enough to fill the time or hole in his life that was left without his wife and job.  One day, he finds an Internet company that is advertising for an internship program for senior citizens.  He obviously gets ithe job and quickly ingratiates himself on everybody with his laid-back and very friendly attitude.  He ends up working for the company's founder, Jules (Anne Hathaway), a very driven young woman trying to keep the company vibrant and profitable.  She has a reputation of being hard to work for as she is very peculiar how things have be.  While they initially don't mesh very well, Ben begins to break down the walls she has and they eventually become a great team.

This movie is a joy to watch because it is fun, but never really insults any of its characters.  Yes, personal quirks are sometimes the butt of some jokes, but those jokes are more sweet than mean.  Instead of being a sardonic satire like The Office or Office Space, The Intern is more of a lighthearted look at making your way in the world in today's new business environment.  No character is cruel or mean.  Even though Jules is very hard to work for, she is not the Glenn Close she-devil in The Devil Wears Prada (another Hathaway film), but merely a driven, detail-obsessed woman used to getting her way because her way generally works.  She deeply loves her company and vice-versa, but it has grown too fast and she is overwhelmed.  Ben, meanwhile, could come across as the sage old guy, like Yoda in a tie, but it doesn't do that either.  He is instantly likable because he is a hard-working, genuinely good guy who sets an example that everyone sees and is drawn to.  It is after they know him that he touches everyone with advice that comes from experience.

But the winning element for me is that the movie never condescends to anyone.  The people are real people with real problems.  There are no broad caricatures or mean depictions.  There is no one talked down to.  This movie could easily degenerate into simple, easily digestible pigeonholes, but it never does that.  What is particularly nice is the relationship Ben and Jules have.  It starts warily, but not antagonistic.  As they grow to know and understand each other's problems and quirks, a genuine friendship develops.  Nothing is too over the top or unbelievable.  This is just a genuinely fun and warm comedy that is thoroughly enjoyable.

Sicario

3.5 Stars (out of four)

In preparation for this review, I looked back at my review for Prisoners, the first film I had seen from Dennis Villeneuve (who is rapidly becoming one of my favorite directors), and I was struck by how similar I felt about the themes of both movies, reflections on the consequences of morally questionable actions when you are reasonably sure about the reasons for those actions.  If it's possible, Sicario is even darker than its little brother in terms of scope and tone and took me to very unpleasant places.  It is also disturbingly and unflinchingly accurate in its depiction of the drug war raging on our border.

The movie opens up in a small town outside Phoenix, where FBI Special Agent Kate Macer (Emily Blunt) is on a team to investigate a kidnapping.  After a brief shootout and bombing, it is discovered there are 42 bodies wrapped up in the house's walls.  She is then selected to be part of a special task force to go after the drug lords behind it.  She agrees, and thus becomes our eyes and moral center for much of the rest of the film.  Throughout the movie, we are then taken on a brief tour of the enormous scope of the drug war on both sides of the border in an operation that becomes increasingly dark and illegal.

It's interesting they chose a woman to be the center of this film.  She unfortunately doesn't do very much but watch and become increasingly appalled at the lengths and methods the task force is running.  Perhaps they chose a woman to be the antithesis of every man in the film, who, apart from her partner, are all complicitly evil at various levels?  In a way, this is very effective as the film's moral ambiguity needs a moral center.  This movie is being compared a lot to Steven Soderberg's multiple Oscar-winning film Traffic, not the least being their similar themes.  But while Traffic was more of a wake up call based on its timeframe, this movie finds us smack dab in the middle of a war in all but name (i.e. our military fighting the drug lords).  The only thing that kept me from giving this four stars is that it degenerates into a little bit of wish-fulfillment, similar to Clear and Present Danger, where we strike at drug lords, but there is no real retaliation or consequences.  This smacks a little bit of unreality, but otherwise, everything leading to the climax of Sicario is dead on.

This movie took me to some very unpleasant and dark places I don't normally like to think about, which tells me just how effectively presented this material was.  As good as Prisoners was as far as suspense, Sicario makes it look like a garden party.  I have rarely seen such a perfect mix of music, angles and subject matter to keep the viewer totally rapt. This film never lets up the tension, and it is both disarmingly blunt in its depictions of the atrocities of the Mexican Drug War and subtle in its use of beautiful composition mixed with evil intent.  Every scene is claustrophobic and suffocating, filled with low angles, low lighting and tight spaces to make you subconsciously feel trapped.  As I listened to people afterward, that was the recurring element over and over again, the non-stop tension.

I have seen enough of these movies in my life and know the craft enough to know when I am being manipulated, as all movies expressly do to their audiences.  So, it is a mark of excellence, to me, when I find myself really being really affected by the events I see on the screen.  This movie is excellent in every way, other than it ends a little too cleanly for my taste.  However, from what I have seen, there is already a sequel in the works that deals with the outcome of the events set forth in this movie, again to be directed by Villeneuve.  I can only hope it is as good as this one.  Be warned, this is not the normal actioneer or suspense movie.  It hits really close to the bone and will disturb many who see it who are unaccustomed to real violence.  There is nothing glitzy about this film.  It is exciting, yes, but very cruel an unrelenting, just like its subject matter.

Black Mass

3 Stars (out of 4)

Well, Oscar season is now upon us and our first major contender is here with Johnny Depp in Black Mass, and it opens with a bang.

Black Mass is a story about the South Boston gangster James "Whitey" Bulger, played with a steely menace by Depp.  It is actually a pretty straightforward biopic depicting a point in time when he went from a small-time neighborhood boss to one of the biggest gangsters in Boston.  The trick was that a childhood friend, John Connolly (Joel Edgerton) ended up working for the FBI, an organization that at the time, was trying to bring down the Italian mafia.  So, the ambitious Connolly naïvely suggests to his bosses the use Bulger as intelligence asset against his rivals and protects him.  Bulger, like the wily criminal he is, sees this as an opportunity to force out his enemies and take over their businesses, which he does with gusto under the full sponsorship and protection of the FBI.  Connolly then cajoles, obfuscates and even threatens colleagues and criminals alike to help Bulger no matter what, until their mutual downfalls.  Another complicating fact is that Bulger's brother, Billy (amazingly played by Benedict Cumberbatch, no hint of his British accent, ever), is Massachusetts' senator and arguably one of the most powerful men in Boston, if not the entire state. The film is ambiguous about whether or not Billy actively helped his brother at any time, which helps the tension.

While Martin Scorsese's multiple Oscar-winning film The Departed was a remake of the great Chinese potboiler, Infernal Affairs, the setting, and in particular, Jack Nicholson's character, was primarily based on Whitey Bulger.  The interesting thing to me about Black Mass is that gangster films usually depict both sides of the criminal life, the danger and the glamor.  In this case, there is nothing glamorous about Bulger's life, setting. or the man.  Depp plays him as a very cool, but angry menace that could snap into murderous intent instantly.  Depp's makeup, sunglasses, and generally dour expression throughout the whole film make him look like a living skull, which I am sure was deliberate.  At times, it is almost distracting as he goes through the movie more like a coiled snake, ready to strike anybody or anything without a trace of emotion except anger.  The movie makes the point that his son and mother's deaths left him an angry shell, but it is almost as if he is in a red haze for the whole movie.  

Edgerton is also very good as Agent Connolly, in a role that I think will be overlooked because of its extreme unlikeability.  He is so desperate to make a name for himself, so driven to prove that he is not "Southie" gutter trash, that he unleashes this menace on Boston and protects him at all costs.  Now, one of the double-edged issues of using criminal sources is that they are criminals and will continue to do criminal things.  But they are a necessary evil for the bigger picture.  This movie, however, demonstrates a particular problem, how far should you go to protect a source?  The movie suggest Bulger strung the FBI along for some time before he gave them any actionable intelligence.  But when he did, it was a gold mine that allowed Connolly, and by extension, the FBI, to take credit for major arrests that effectively ended the mafia influence in Boston.  But as a result, they got a worse devil in Bulger, who Connolly thought he could control.  The movie doesn't explicitly say whether or not this case is why FBI agents are not allowed to work in areas they grew up, it certainly seems plausible this is why.  In any case, the movie is good and a fine entry into the gangster genre.

No Escape

3 Stars (out of four)

The previews held some promise that this would be  a good thriller, and it was, but it was kind of run-of-the-mill.

So, No Escape has Owen Wilson and Lake Bell playing a mother and father with two girls moving to an unnamed Asian country (but looks a LOT like Thailand) to work for a water company.  On their way there, the country is beginning an extremely violent coup.  By the time Owen and family check into their hotel, events are already in motion.  The next morning, he goes to buy a newspaper and gets stuck literally on the middle of a violent street confrontation with police and protesters.  He manages to get back to the hotel just in time to find a mob pulling out foreigners and killing them on sight.  He quickly manages to get in the hotel, get his family, and what follows is one of the worst two days imaginable as they try to escape the country without being killed.

Now, the reviews have been savaging this film because of its extreme bloody nature, and I think this demonstrates how naïvely sheltered Americans can be.  Rarely have we experienced the kind of upheavals many countries have, and even then, they tend to be very contained.  Maybe it's the unflinching look at what being inside not just a riot, but a real revolution, is what critics don't understand.  Maybe it's because there are two endangered children in the story?  Maybe it's due to Lake Bell's attempted rape.  In any case, it is harrowingly real as to the level of brutality.  It is a little over-the-top as far as how murderous these guys get, especially with their own people, but recent history has given us such orgies of violence from the Khmer Rouge to Syria to El Salvador to Burma to pick your conflict in Africa.  But in this case, these guys appear to be everywhere and an unstoppable force, wiping out everyone wherever they go.  It struck me a tad unrealistic, but then again, I've never been in the middle of a revolution, either.

Maybe people are having such visceral reactions because they don't want to see very realistic depictions of violence in their popular entertainment.  There has always been a sanitization of real violence in American movies, and this movie, for the most part, sticks to those sanitized rules, except when violence is done to other Asians. I once read a movie review (I think for Executice Decision) that said the indications a movie is racist is when the villains are interchangeable with each other, ie Asian, black, whatever with no consideration to their motivations.  I would hold its rather the treatment of the victims is the yardstick.  We are obviously seeing this from the disoriented view of our white family.  On the other hand, the Asian victims in this film are not just meat for the grinder in increasingly horrible ways while the white family is "safe" because we Americans need a happy ending where we don't die.

The circumstances are very conventional cat-and-mouse dodging of bad guys.  There is nothing particularly original about the film other than this is a typical family thrown into a chaotic situation.  In any case, it is very exciting, albeit tough to watch at times.  For the most part, this movie was really good outside of the omnipresent killers, and a really odd plot twist with Pierce Brosnan that is a little deus ex machina.  But all in all, I really liked it.

Train Wreck

1.5 Stars (out of four)

Oh, I so wanted this to be good.  Amy Schumer's comedy can be brutally funny at times.  But, much like suppositories, this movie proved that she is only good in SHORT doses, and the longer it goes on, the more painful and humiliating it gets.  I admit, I like her a lot. Her internet shorts "Inside Amy Schumer" consistently make me laugh until I hurt.  That said, there is some stuff I don't get about her.  Now, I'm no prude, but what is up with her wine-swilling, barely functioning alcoholic persona mean?  Is she lampooning younger women today who drink way too much wine, or is she trying to be hip?  It really isn't clear sometimes.  This weird persona of hers is on full display in her movie, written with Judd Apatow, Train Wreck.

The story starts with two young girls being told by their father that monogamy is unrealistic and you should only live for yourself.  Flash forward an undetermined number of years and she is a writer for a Maxim-type men's magazine and she is essentially screwing her way through New York City.  For an assignment, she interviews a sports doctor who has revolutionized joint replacement, and works for Doctors Without Borders.  After being dumped by her boyfriend for her philandering ways, she begins to fall for this doctor, but she is so screwed in the head with misconceptions about relationships in general and men in particular, she doesn't know what she wants.  Hilarity ensues.

Now, I am not saying this movie isn't funny, because it is very funny in parts.  The stereotypical feminine relationship between her boyfriend and Lebron James is particularly hilarious, especially Lebron.  Normally, the kiss of death is to let athletes act (Brett Favre, Michael Jordan, Shaq and Mike Tyson ring a bell?  They're not funny.  You're not laughing with them, but AT them.  It's sad), but in this movie, Lebron is so earnest, it's impossible not to love his performance.  Amy herself, despite all the stupid stuff in this movie, is absolutely fearless in her eviceration of everything, including herself.  Which makes what I'm going to say next, so tragic.

You know how you broads hate it when we (men) tell blonde jokes and women-are-bad-driver jokes?  Why is that?  Because it shows an absolute idiocy in understanding women and reduces them to negative stereotypes that go for the lowest common denominator.  News flash!  All women are different.  They're not dumb, stupid, forgetful, flighty or crazy.  Now ladies, I know you don't want to hear this, but here goes: all men are not dumb, muscle-bound brutes who are totally clueless.  "But," I hear you shrilly yelling at me, "you men have been doing this for years!  What's good for the goose...etc, etc etc.."  To which I reply: this dumb stereotype has been going on in almost every female-based comedy or rom-com in the past thirty years.  Enough!  It gets old!  Get some new material!  This joke has played out a loooong time ago.  Be more clever than the knuckle-dragged so and prove us wrong.

Another thing I don't get with today's comedy is the very brutal and unimaginative takes on previous taboo subjects.  For instance, there is a scene where Amy wants her muscle-bound boyfriend to talk dirty and it gets more and more pathetic.  It ends with him getting almost gay when he compares her ass to another dude's.  I have said it time and again, anything for its own sake is gratuitous and lazy.  The same goes for crudity.  Just because you show an escalating argument where one guy keeps getting more and more graphic about how he will anally rape another guy (See?  The non-gay guy is saying more and more gay things to another guy. He must be a closeted gay!  Isn't that funny?) doesn't make it funny.  And dwelling on it after the rule of three doesn't make it any funnier.  This modern tendency to focus on the obvious and drag it to uncomfortable lengths (starting with Austin Powers and brought to new heights by the incredibly unfunny TV show, The Office) isn't funny.  Crudity for its own sake is a cheat and it's lazy. It's the same reason I hate Andrew Dice Clay's comedy.  I don't mind the occasional dick and fart joke.  In the right place, they can be quite funny.  In Train Wreck, it was the opposite.

And that's too bad because Amy is a great comic.  But in this movie she comes off as selfish, oafish, stupid, blind, arrogant and ultimately pretty unpleasant.  The cast of Seinfeld were the same way, but they had that magic sauce that Train Wreck lacked: cleverness.  Anyone can make a joke about hanging a towel off a guy's dick (as they do in this film), but that's a lazy cheat.  This movie's premise was great and could have been comedic gold, but came out mostly as sludge with moments of real brilliance in it.  And that is the final tragedy, because Amy deserved better than this.  She is crass, but incredibly witty.  In here, she's just...sad.

Straight Outta Compton

3.5 Stars (out of four)

1987 was a big year musically.  Two groups exploded on the scene that both had comparatively short life spans and yet profoundly altered their respective genres with a very nihilistic but urgent attitude, and oddly enough,with almost identical messages.  They both spoke of hellish urban life, dangerously twisted lifestyles focusing mostly on the destructive power and allure of drugs, and systemic harassment by law enforcement and authority figures.  The first was Gun 'N' Roses with the seminal metal album Appetite for Destruction.  The other was N.W.A. with their explosive debut album, Straight Outta Compton.  I once read a review that said Straight Outta Compton was hip-hop's Appetite for Destruction.  In a sense, that is a fair comparison.  Both albums immediately branded their respective groups as the most dangerous in America, both were acerbic and resonated with a real street authenticity, and both laid the groundwork for a much harder style of metal or rap, respectively.

While historical revisionists like to say hip-hop began in the 70s with groups like the Sugarhill Gang, I don't remember hearing the term until N.W.A. and their equally important contemporaries, Public Enemy came on the scene, and back then, it was called rap.  By the time N.W.A. showed up, rap had become sort of acceptable family entertainment with the likes of Young MC, The Fat Boys, Tone Loc and Dz Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince reigning the charts.  And while music historians will debate the birth of hip-hop, Gangsta Rap unquestionably started with N.W.A.

So, how is the movie?  Pretty good as far as music biopics go.  The movie starts quite stylistically, but very quickly becomes a by-the-numbers rise and fall story. In fact, this may be the best-produced and most expensive episode of VH1: Behind The Music.  That's not to say the movie isn't interesting or entertaining, because it is.  The subjects are very compelling and in the case of N.W.A. alums Dr. Dare and Ice Cube, both have had a big influence on American pop culture for decades.  This is a very important story to tell because of the very reason N.W.A. existed in the first place.  Both Public Enemy and N.W.A. spoke about issues tearing apart the black community.  But while Public Enemy seemed to focus on larger philosophical explorations of race and injustice, N.W.A. were, as Ice Cube says, reporters for what they saw every day: more personal stories of the death, destruction and hopelessness prevalent in inner-city communities that caused and still causes a very nihilistic, "live today-die tomorrow" ethic for many young people living there.  After N.W.A., these sentiments are just repeated over and over again: the ghetto sucks, life ain't nothing but bitches and money.  But N.W.A. was talking about this long before anyone else and created a new gangsta style and attitude that has been ruthlessly copied ever since.

The movie does not tread any new ground as far as themes go.  The music business is crooked and the young artist tends to get screwed in the end.  The movie makes an interesting contrast with N.W.A.'s manager Jerry Heller and Death Row Records founder Suge Knight.  They are essentially identical in all ways except their methods.  While Suge Knight is a brutal thug who robs artists of their money through intimidation and violence, Jerry Heller does the same, through shady business practices of the shady music business.  My biggest complaint is the movie relies too much on the viewer having some previous knowledge of the subject.  In the beginning especially, it glosses over the importance of characters like Alonzo Williams or of the LA hip-hop station KDAY.  They are mentioned briefly with no context to their importance for the nascent group.  The movie also deals primarily with the famous guys. Ice Cube, Easy E and Dr. Dre.  This is probably a necessity for time, but other N.W.A. alums MC Ren and DJ Yella barely warrant a mention and Arabian Prince isn't mentioned at all.  Finally, this being a biopic financed by Dr. Dre and Ice Cube, it feels they are whitewashed a bit, that they could do no wrong and that the world was out to get them.  But like their music, this movie isn't about objectivity, but rather how they saw the world.  It's not really an objective documentary, but an understandably biased autobiography.

So is the movie good? It sort of depends on your attitude going in. If you hate hip-hop and gangsta rap's attitude and don't want to try to understand where the frustration comes from, this movie will not change your mind, and may even strengthen your perconceptions.  But it has a point of view, a valid one, and one more important than ever as U.S. race relations are going through rocky times again.  If one understands where the animosity comes from, real progress can be made to address it, which makes N.W.A.'s art arguably more important now than it ever was.

Spy

3.5 Stars (out of four)

Boy, I love to be surprised, and that usually happens for me in comedies based on how mind-bogglingly stupid the state of comedy has become lately.  From the scene-chewing hammy crap of Jim Carrey that passes as slapstick, to overly-sensitive parents who don't want their darlings to hear the words boobs and butts, much less see one, to overly pansy, politically-correct liberal-types who don't understand the concept that effective humor tends to be brutal and will offend, to the lazy producers who churn out a never-ending stream of fart jokes; humor has definitely taken a hit in the last 15 years.  It's become so bad that Will Farell playing a pan flute for an extended sequence is considered funny AND repeated in the sequel.  My god, what happened to the funny?  With the occasional sublime comedy like The Hangover, Bridesmaids or Ted occasionally slip through the cracks, a good, rip-roaring adult comedy is difficult to come by lately.

And then Spy came along.

I admit, I went into this movie sorta under protest.  As much as I liked Bridesmaids and Melissa McCarthy did make me laugh in it, to me, she was not the strongest element in that film.  Most of her movies lately have appeared to be retreads of that comedy template, the fat person with no sense of self or propriety.  But as in similar cases with Dumb and Dumber, American Pie, and The Forty-Year-Old Virgin, I must apologize to the filmmakers.  This movie was FANTASTIC!

When the CIA's top spy (Jude Law) is killed on a mission, his partner at HQ, Susan Cooper (McCarthy) is activated into service to track a ruthless arms dealer (Rose Byrne, also from Bridesmaids).  Along the way, a hell-bent-for-revenge CIA operative Rick Ford (Jason Statham at his unhinged best) keeps almost blowing Cooper's cover because he feels she's not up to it.  Hilarity ensues.

Now this could have gone off the rails if they would have made Cooper to be the stereotypical bumbling fat person played for laughs.  But instead, the filmmakers go the exact opposite way and play her totally straight, which works beautifully.  Cooper is a natural talent for the work, but is a little unorthodox in her appearance, which makes the comedy juxtaposition so much fun and interesting.  They play her realistically, lacking in confidence in herself and her abilities.  This has held her back as other people push her aside because they underestimate her.  Many overweight people will understand this, that this tends to be a truism in real life.  Most people don't respect overweight people for whatever reason, and that is why overweight people are the last safe group to make fun of.  Look at any comedy.  Who is the lovable, clumsy, dorky loser?  The fat guy/gal.  Lately, Hollywood has been overcompensating for this by making fat people strong, but incredibly crude, devoid of any sense of decency or decorum.  In either case, the end result is the same, the fat people are a freak show in every sense of the word.  Don't believe me?  Look at any fat person in any comedy over the last 20 years.  They are either gross, stupid, unaware or clumsy, or a combination of all four.  But Spy turns this trope on its head, that the overweight person is quite capable and the stereotypical beautiful people don't know what to make of it.

While the F-bomb is thrown around a LOT, the movie relies mostly on the subtle for its comedy.  The jokes are sharp jabs grounded in reality, with such acidity in some cases that I felt my skin burning.  That's not to say it isn't over the top.  Jason Statham is a comically deranged version of every character he has played in the past, and he is absolutely brilliant.  Many times, he rants about how all his loved ones were killed and the horrible things that happened to him.  The funny thing is, each of these rants are basic plots to every one of his previous films.  The end result is hilarious.  Louie C.K. has been making the rounds in the last few years with his brand of the wickedly perverse wrapped up in the banal.  You feel almost guilty laughing at his jokes.  The humor comes from a VERY dark place and you don't see it coming.  Spy has that same quality for me.  This is NOT an Austin Powers-flirting-with-the-dark-side-but-still-PG-13-family-friendly-type of film.  Nor is it a Borat or Bruno-let-it-all-hang-out-type of film.  This is not for kids. Leave them home.  Don't be cheap and spring for the babysitter, or send them to that mutant hellspawn atrocity, The Lego Movie.  Spy is pure adult, guilty pleasure.  Don't question it.  Just enjoy it.

A final word to 20th Century Fox's promotions department.  Despite this movie making a boatload of money despite your best efforts to ruin it, you really need to hire some new blood.  The commercials were dull, the movie poster campaign unimaginative (see the first two below for the dull, dumb, boring posters for this campaign), and as a whole, lazy except for the third poster on the right.  THAT is a great poster for this movie, and yet I see it nowhere.  Poster design used to be great art, now it's just dull, boilerplate pictures of the cast with a tagline and a title.  The ad campaign did this movie a great disservice.  I almost missed this amazing gem based on that alone.

Ant-Man

3 Stars (out of four)

Dammit, Marvel has done it to me again.  From the Avenger you cared the least about (if you knew him at all, but was part of the original Avengers lineup), comes Ant-Man.  Like Guardians of the Galaxy last year, when Ant-Man's production was announced, I was so underwhelmed about this new entry into the Marvel cinematic universe.  And yet, like last year, they pull another rabbit out of the hat and blow away all my expectations.  With the exception of the incredibly perfect casting but pretty dumb Thor series, Marvel is batting near 1.000.  We will give Iron Man 2 and 3 a pass because the first one is so good.  Marvel is really hitting its stride and it seems to be just getting warmed up.

Paul Rudd plays Scott Lang, a self-professed cat burglar (not a thief, there is a difference) who is released from a three-year stint in prison for robbing ill-gotten profits from a nameless corporate CEO (the bad-guy du jour of today's obscenely rich Hollywood that acts like they're salt-of-the-Earth types) Robin Hood-style and redistributed the booty back to the swindled customers.  Now he is an ex-con, an electrical engineering genius who can't find a job in San Francisco, home of the high-tech industry that might have an opening for an electrical engineering genius.  Anyway, he is trying to get his life together when he is approached by Michael Douglas' Dr. Hank Pym (the original genius and Ant-Man in the comics) to destroy a formula and suit that will cause humans to shrink down to ant size (don't ask).  This will involve a complex heist to get into a highly sensitive facility and destroy it using ants.  Trust me, it makes a lot more sense in the movie than on paper.

Like Guardians of the Galaxy before this, Marvel Studios (and more specifically, original writer/screewriter/director Édgar Wright) wisely chose an adventure-comedy to lessen the blow of the unfamiliar Ant-Man to make it more approachable for people new to the material, and they succeeded brilliantly.  There is just enough humor for great entertainment and yet enough pathos to keep a story about a guy who can shrink to the size of an ant grounded in a pretty realistic universe.  You actually care about all the characters, even when they are played for laughs.  There are no cheap shots, no over-the-top bad guys like Justin Hammer in Iron Man 2, just out-and-out fun all around.  The reasons the movie rates three stars are there are some plot holes so big you could drive a truck through and it is a tad formulaic in the final confrontation/extended fight scene.  I also felt like I was watching an update to Honey, I Shrunk The Kids a little too much.  But in the end, the reasons don't detract from some good old-fashioned fun.  This is why we go to movies, grand entertainment.

Also like Thor and the first Captain America, this movie is a placeholder, setting up the pieces for next year's Captain America: Civil War.  With the introduction of Hank Pym, who hates the Starks and distrustful of SHIELD's motivations, as well as some key scenes at the end (stay all the way), Civil War is shaping up to be a universe-shaking movie.  This is the second piece of genius to the Marvel cinematic strategy.  Every one of these movies exist in their own microcosms, and can be viewed as such.  Marvel has such a rich mythology to refer to, and they have been deftly linking all their movies into a seamless universe from the beginning.  They have been patient and methodical, and they take their subject matter seriously, never descending into Batman & Robin buffoonery.  For the most part, the movie company has wisely stayed out of the visions of the filmmakers, despite what news reports say.  Artists are always a prickly lot, and will never be satisfied without total creative freedom.  Many times, they are also disdainful of the art versus commerce debate.  But they should never be fully trusted with the keys to the kingdom.  Otherwise, they end up with a bloated, indulgent, but incredibly beautiful vision like Heaven's Gate.  This is a great movie that I highly recommend for all ages.

Terminator: Genisys

3.5 Stars (out of four)

Normally, I'm pretty hard on sequels and reboots.  They tend to be formulaic, predictable and in some cases, insulting in their condescension to recreate the lightning in the bottle that made the original great.  They are overthought, overworked and distilled (read: dumbed down) in a ham-handed attempt to make a hybrid, improved film that is all the good stuff and more; but normally, they turn out to be a hideously deformed mutant that takes on a life of its own, strangling everything that was good and prescious into a pale reflection of what it once was (see Jurassic World for a recent demonstration of this phenomena).  I went in expecting the same from the newest entry into The Terminator series, which has been veering off the rails (with a couple interesting side journeys) ever since the second movie in 1989.  Thè bad news is that Terminator: Genisys is far from perfect, but the good news is that it is a LOT of fun and a worthy entrant into the series.

Terminator: Genisys starts off in the future where John Connor (Jason Clarke) and Kyle Reese (Jai Courtney) have smashed the world-ending Skynet and now have to deal with historical issues.  That is, Reese has to go back in time and save Sarah Connor (Emilia Clarke-no relation to Jason) from the first terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger-for those of you living under a rock for the last 31 years) sent to kill her in 1984.  Without giving away too much, there is some very creative storytelling that explains why another terminator has aged so much.  It works perfectly to bring Arnold back in the fold.  The time in 1984 is a fanboy's dream, and for me, the most interesting part of the movie.  The timeline has skewed and some changes have now happened, so we are not seeing quite the same story.  It is a very interesting "What if?" diversion.  There is a lot of time travel involved in this movie, and for this timeline, Skynet becomes active when the corporation Cyberdyne (which made Skynet) introduces a new worldwide computer app called Genisys in 2017.  It is a revolutionary communications system that will connect everybody and everything online.  Reese and Connor have to go to 2017 and stop it.  Mayhem ensues.

So, if the movie movie is so great, why did you only give 3.5 stars, Thombat?  Well, it's not perfect.  But it's close.  It manages to retain many little details intact to include characters (even minor ones) and storyline do from the first two movies to keep Genisys interesting and from falling apart.  The movie wisely pretends the last two (Rise of the Machines and Salvation) never happened and sticks with the good story of the first two films as its source material.  The time jumping schtick is a tad overused and is a little too cute.  It's essentially a lazy deus ex machina to fix the finality of the second film to make room for this new one.  This creates some minor plot inconsistencies if you think too much about it.  But that said, if you can accept an unstoppable killing machine surrounded by skin sent back in time to kill someone to change the future once, why not a few more times?

The biggest issue I have with movies like Jurassic World is that they stray from their original premise to create an inferior copy.  It breaks its own rules to go in a new direction.  Jurassic Park is not a story about dinosaurs.  It is a story of unintended results of tampering with things that shouldn't be tampered with.  Jurassic World is a Godzilla movie.  Interesting bad guys become good guys, small things become bombastically big, more and more elements have to be added.  These are the fundamentals of what I call sequel-itis.  Star Trek (Khan, Klingons and Borg become good guys), Star Wars (Boba Fett shows up, Greedo shoots first), Indiana Jones (Salah and Brody come back for no particular reason), Batman movies (more and more villains, sidekicks), James Bond (more gadgets and stupid jokes and outrageous plot situations occur-Diamonds Are Forever, Moonraker, A View To A Kill, Die Another Day) and even the terminator becomes a good guy in T2: Judgement Day.  But in Genisys, these issues are very few and the movie goes off in a whole new, interesting direction.  Unfortunately, they left it open for a sequel, as well.  Genisys would have been a satisfying ending point.

So, one last observation, PARENTS: Just because it is PG-13 does NOT mean you should take your kid to see this, and if you do, you are horrible parents (Yeah, I said it!) and people and growing the next generation of serial killers.  Is it any wonder why kids seem to be more and more disconnected from empathy and more violent?  A steady diet of this type of film at such an early age will almost guarantee they will be little monsters. I must have seen at least 10-12 families with children as young as 5-9 in the theater.  The Terminator is one of those perfectly good R-rated films that has now been dumbed down to a PG-13 rating to get precisely this, more butts in the seats. (Another issue I have with the film.) Parents, please heed the 13 in the rating and don't take your kids to this. It really isn't appropriate for them.