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.