Inside Out

4 Stars (out of four)

When I was about four or five, I saw Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory for the first time on TV.  I can chart that as the beginning of my lifelong love affair with the movies.  That movie was the experience that, for the first time in my life, I fell totally under its spell.  It was the first time I realized the possibility of cinema, to be totally transported and transfixed by the story and the world I was entering, to be captivated and enthralled.  Since then, there have been a few experiences like that for me: Star Wars, The Black Hole, The Dark Crystal, Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Breakfast Club, Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, The Matrix, Clerks, Lord of the Rings and Schindler's List to name a few of them.  These are movies, that, in my opinion, rank head and shoulders above all the others for their effect on me.  I call them my Willy Wonka Experiences, and there aren't many of them.  I reserve that title for the movies I cannot rate more highly and would recommend anybody see (age appropriate, of course).  After seeing Inside Out from Disney/Pixar, I now add another in this esteemed list.

The story, without giving too much away, is about a normal, happy, eleven-year-old girl named Riley and the five basic emotions in her head: Joy (the leader), Sadness, Fear, Disgust and Anger.  We see how the emotions help run her life and create tangible memories that are filed away.  One day, she and her family move to San Francisco.  At first, there is the adjustment to her new life that throws the emotions' routine awry.  Up to this point, memories are very binary, (only happy, sad, scared, etc).  Very quickly, we find that whenever Sadness touches a memory, it turns into a sad one.  When she begins to touch the core memories that make up Riley's personality, Joy tries to stop her and she and Sadness get sucked into the inner workings of Riley's brain.  Without Joy at the helm to guide Riley, her world quickly begins to fall apart as Disgust, Fear and Anger struggle to keep her on an even keel with little success.  Joy and Sadness are trying to get back to the helm as Riley's inner personality begins to fall apart, and along the way, Joy and Sadness realize they need to help each other to help Riley.

This film is a marvel.  Those of you that got all angry with me over the DESERVEDLY scathing review I gave to The Lego Movie need to see this film as soon as possible to get a grip on what is great (children's) entertainment.  THIS is what I meant that children's movies don't have to be lazy commercials to be good.  This movie beautifully illustrates the conflict within even a normal person's mind with the average stresses of everyday life.  Many people deservedly praised Up for its beautiful depiction of a love story in less than fifteen minutes that was better than many stories ten times as long.  Inside Out doubles down and ups the ante for the entire film.  

As a child who moved a lot, I was uprooted from several areas and had to go through the stresses of starting all over again with a new house, school, friends and situation.  Every note Riley feels is 100% genuine in this movie.  It not only deals with the pressures of new situations, but of growing up, how you and your personality change with having new experiences and meeting new people.  A very touching side plot in the movie is what happens when we meet Riley's imaginary friend from her very young days, still there in the recesses of her mind.  His final fate one of the most heartbreakingly beautiful aspects of the movie, the necessary discarding of imaginary whimsy, for "older" concerns and realities as our world changes.  The very beloved comic strip Calvin and Hobbes dealt with similar themes, but creator Bill Waterson wisely chose to never have Calvin grow up; to keep that magic whimsy in our minds, to remember the importance of retaining at least some of it, to never become so entrenched in our ways that we stop exploring the beauty of the world around us.  This movie is the natural progression of that storyline.  And in an age of cynicism about the decency of the nuclear family, this movie anchors itself firmly in the belief that a loving family is what can help weather these storms by giving us a safety net.

The best part for me is the end when Joy realizes that she is not an end to herself.  Healthy memories are always a mixture of everything.  We cannot reach the heights of joy without experiencing the depths of sadness.  Healthy doses of fear, disgust and anger help us push through tough situations to achieve fulfillment.  Everything works together in harmony, and as we age and change with life's increasingly complex difficulties, healthy emotions keep us on that even keel.  The movie is an amazing realization and depiction of how our brains work, that we are amazingly complex creatures, and that's a good thing.

This movie affected me on a deep, personal level as I have had many of the same experiences Riley has.  I laughed, but more importantly, I cried during this film.  It resonated on a deep chord within me, on an intensely personal level.  I rarely have experienced such writing like this, that hits on such deep, emotional truths that aren't corny manipulations.  Of course there is sad music and great composition to sell the emotion, but as I said, it's the writing here that is first and foremost.  Riley is all of us, and we care for her because of that.  She's not depressed or in a disfunctional, abusive family.  She's a normal, little girl trying to make sense of her new, changing world and her place in it.  Much has already been made of the stellar cast of voices for this film, but it is those universal truths the story touches on, that make this film so superior.  And no CGI dinosaur can ever top the fundamental universality this message has for anyone.  So, do yourself a favor and see this picture.  I cannot recommend it more highly.

Jurassic World

2 Stars (out of four)

So, the big boys are finally back.  After 12 years and at least one more Godzilla film and Pacific Rim, the dinos are here!  And spectacularly so.  Don't let the 2 stars fool you.  That reflects how good the film is.  It is spectacularly bad which I'll explain later.  But grand spectacle entertainment?  It's got that in spades, and unfortunately, they will continue to make crapfests like this judging from the incredible box office this film generated in its opening weekend.

The story opens with Jurassic Par...uh...World finally open for business.  Like the last three installments, they make a bigger dinosaur that will threaten everybody when it goes haywire, blah...blah...blah.  Do you really need a summary?  It's the same damn film as the last three with interchangeable stars, cardboard bad guys, and a plodding story that is beginning to look like a slasher film.  We already know by the first fifteen minutes who will live and die and we just wait for it to happen.

So, let's start with what's good.  It is a lot of fun to watch.  The dinos are big(ger than ever), they are fun to watch, and Bryce Dallas Howard and Chris Pratt are very easy on the eyes.  The movie, for me, has one very redeeming factor. It sort of centers on two young brothers whose parents are getting a divorce.  The younger feels it acutely, the older, high schooler, tries to ignore it.  But, due to the circumstances they get thrust into, the older one begins to take on the responsibility of his younger brother and they grow much closer as a result.  Similar to Frozen, I liked this focus on the bond of siblings and how they help each other through stressful times.  This plot line, at the very least, keeps the film from descending into Sharknado stupidity.

Okay, that said, let's tackle the crapstorm this film is (cracking knuckles).  I hate to sound like a bloodthirsty psycho, but these films get tamer and tamer.  PG-13 used to be an indicator that a film was a tad too intense for young viewers, but has now basically become shorthand for "watering down a perfectly good R-rated film to get more people in the theater."  Jurassic World is no exception.  While it is pretty intense in some scenes, it does not hold a candle to the intensity of the original, or even the other two. Probably because the director was much better and the writer actually had an original idea to explore.  The dinosaurs are large, eating machines, and that fact is not covered up in those earlier installments.  When people died, it was gruesome and bloody, lending their deaths some gravitas.  In this film, very few people actually die, and those that do are offscreen or done to make the audience cheer.  Now, I know some of you are reading this and saying, but what about the kids?  That will traumatized them!  What kind of monster are you to advocate bloody deaths in a kid's film?!?  And to those people, I will say, what kind of horrible parent takes their kids to see this, or any of the other Jurassic movies.  They are not, repeat NOT, children's films. I would ask, do you even remember what the first one was like?  That would give kids nightmares for years.  Just because there are dinosaurs in it does not make it for kids.  The first two were about the philosophical underpinnings and unintended consequences of messing with nature.  The dinosaurs are incidental, merely the plot device to find the answers to those questions interesting.  

Next, we never really get to see the Indomitus Rex fully.  While they tried to recreate the slow reveal of both the T. Rex and Raptors in the first movie, Colin Treverrow is just not up to the task of Spielberg or even Joe Johnston.  He is competent as a director, don't misunderstand.  He can visually tell a story fairly well, but he is not a major leaguer like Spielberg.  In fact, he has done only four movies before this:  two smallish features, a TV movie and a short.  It may not have been the best idea to turn the reins of a billion dollar franchise to a rookie.  He mostly just rips off sequences from other, better directors.  There is a particularly egregious, almost shot-for-shot recreation of Cameron's Aliens.  But as the box office will show, never underestimate the audience's stupidity and continue to insult their intelligence by continuing to make this crap.  It would have been nice to see our main dino a little more.  

Now I don't want to rest blame solely on the director.  It's a lazy and hackneyed story, which the director did have a hand in. The 5+ screenwriters miss the central issue of storytelling: that you need to ground a story, particularly a science fiction story, in good characters, not make them fodder for the next bite, or more insultingly, play their deaths for laughs or cheers.  It helps us relate to the otherworldly events happening around us.  There has to be motivations, sympathies, powerful emotions to propel the story onward and peril to our heroes to keep us engaged.  What was important in the first two movies was the philosophy and interplay of the characters behind it.  There were no evil bad guys; merely misguided optimism that spirals out of control, anchored by the Alan Grant/kids subplot.  The characters had arcs, they learned and grew.  That is why, as the franchise moves on and it becomes less about people and more about the dinos, it's quality steadily declines.  Why should we care about the people?  They no longer really matter.  The movie no longer has emotional punch, just empty thrills.  And while they are undoubtedly fun, the movies are no longer satisfying on any tangible level.  They are disposable entertainment, to be watched and forgotten just as quickly.  That is what separates a great movie like Jurassic Park, that will takes its place in movie history as compared to Jurassic Park Iii.  Quick, can you tell me who starred in it and what it's about?

You can tell the movies have been going off the rails for awhile now because there are fewer and fewer threats.  In all three previous movies, the raptors and T. Rex were forces of nature to contend with.  But like Godzilla over the years, they are becoming "the good guys."   Where they were once something to be feared and avoided, they are both used as weapons against the bigger threat in Jurassic World.  Once the threat is done, they saunter off into the sunset.  This doesn't make a lot of sense in the film considering the 22,000 park attendees are snacks on a stick sitting in one place and the dinos inconceivably (conveniently?) ignore them.  The bad guy is dead, nothing more to see here.  And on that note, scores of pterodons that were released earlier magically disappear when we no longer need them.  And in one of the worst deus ex machina moments since Deep Blue Sea, the Indomitus Rex is ignominiously killed in a very abrupt (and stupid) manner.

So, all in all, the movie is lazy, sophomoric and insulting to anyone over the age of twelve.  You can tell Hollywood is getting arrogant in what they are serving.  This goes way beyond the crass commercialism that was the abysmal Lego Movie.  This movie was on autopilot, with execs content that people will watch any old crap as long as it's bigger.  This is not exactly new, but listen to how execs explained how they cast Chris Pratt.  They say they cast him because of his great turn in Guardians of the Galaxy and that he was the voice of Emmet in The Lego Movie.  Ask yourself, have you ever said to yourself, "I REALLY need to see that next movie now.  The guy who voiced Dilbert is in it!"  No, he is just the hot, new property of the hour.  I like Pratt, and he's fine in the film.  I resent Hollywood execs trying to justify his existence over any other attractive male actor.  Ask yourself when you see it (you know you will despite this bad review), would the movie be any different if they cast Channing Tatum, Matthew McConaughey or even Brad Pitt in the role?  Of course not.  This is just another cynical money grab from the studios.  The movie was supposed to have been originally directed by Spielberg and the whole original cast was supposed to return in one way or another. I really would have liked to have seen that one instead.

Entourage

2.5 Stars (out of four)

Before Game of Thrones and Orange Is Thé New Black, Sunday night was ruled by The Sopranos, Sex and the City and Entourage.  All part of HBO's new golden age of television, the latter two were essentially the same show set in different locations; that is, they were shows whose fundamental cores were about the vital importance of the bonds of friendship and how they insulate us with dealing with situations in our lives that can become pretty surreal.  Based loosely on show producer Mark Wahlberg's life, Entourage was the story of four friends who came from poverty in Queens, New York to make their mark in Hollywood.  It has Vincent Chase (Adrian Grenier) the young, hot new star, Eric "E" Murphy (Kevin Connolly), his best friend cum manager, Turtle (Jerry Ferrara) a fast-talking, pot-smoking semi-con artist, and Johnny "Drama" Chase (Kevin Dillon), Vince's brother, who had a minorly successful TV show and is now a struggling actor.  Together with Ari Gold (Jeremy Piven), Vince's superstar, foul-mouthed agent, we follow Vince's career throughout the show from hot new actor off a successful action film, to worldwide superstar after a huge comic book film, then getting Indie cred after a great small picture, to disastrous vanity picture and actor jail where he is virtually unemployable.  Then he falls into descent into drug-fueled, out of control behavior until redemption with another great film

Now, I told you all that to tell you this, the movie is simply a continuation of the story.  It is bigger, more stars, but basically picks up where the show left off.  Pretty much everybody is back, and for fans of the show, there is a lot to like, particularly Jeremy Piven's antics as Ari Gold.  The show was one of the biggest shows on TV at the time, but the movie seems oddly detached, probably to facilitate newcomers to the story by starting fresh.  But there is a lot it gets right. The movie is pretty funny, spectacularly so with Drama's ever-increasing desperation to be a star in his own right.  Drama, in particular, is a very brave role as he provides some of the most cuttingly honest humor (and commentary) about what a meat grinder and soul-crushing place Hollywood can be for an actor.  The indignities heaped upon Drama, partially by his own crazy actions, to situations that are totally out of his control, are legion.  Many of them are hilarious, most packed with the blackest and iciest satire of Hollywood celebrity culture.  While his younger, more successful brother is having sex with every beautiful woman and roles just fall into his lap, Johnny continues to lose out every time, to the point where he has to beg his brother for parts in every movie he's in, even a commercial.  In the hands of a lesser comedic actor, this would come off as sad, even pathetic.  But Keven Dillon plunges into the role with such aplomb, you can't help but love the guy.  So it's satisfying that in the film, he actually gets a happy ending of sorts.

As for the rest of the film, it glosses over significant events that the show finished on.  The show left on a very happy ending, and almost all of it has been wiped away to start the film.  It is very abrupt, and I think newcomers will wonder what E and Turtle really have to do in the cast, because they don't really do anything.  And while that is almost forgivable to start the film, in some cases, huge plot lines introduced within the film just end or cut off abruptly.  The selfish person in me hopes this is because another sequel will follow, but I'm not so sure.  As far as Vince goes, he's just there to move the plot along.  The movie is interesting, dealing with a jumpy financier who hijacks their $100+ movie with unreasonable demands, with Haley Joel Osmet coming back in spectacular fashion now that he is no longer a child star.  I hope to see more of him because he was great in the film, showing the same actorly prowess and chops he demonstrated in The Sixth Sense and A.I. His instincts are dead on and I think he could have a great career with some careful planning.  So, all in all, Entourage has some very funny moments, but is best left for fans of the show.  While it is nowhere near as disappointing as the two Sex and the City movies were, it was a tad disappointing in the end.

Mad Max: Fury Road

3.5 Stars (out of four)

Well, it's finally here.  After 30 years, we finally have the next installment of the Mad Max series.  There are two big questions to answer.  First, was it worth the wait?  Answer: Definitive YES!!!  Second: Does it live up to the original? The answer: Pretty much.

Mad Max: Fury Road starts with us seeing our (new) hero, Max Rockatansky, now played by Tom Hardy.  Not much has changed for our hero of the wastes, he's still a loner and still haunted by the murder of his family in the original Mad Max.  Although he has inexplicably got his V8 Interceptor back (destroyed in Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior) and gotten a LOT bigger (courtesy Tom Hardy's fairly massive frame).  Life out in the wastes seems to agree with Max in that sense.  He quickly gets overrun and taken prisoner by a cult of people suffering from what appears to be cancer.  Max is held because he is a Type O Negative blood type, and is being used as an involuntary donor to this cult's warriors called War Boys.  When one of their best battle leaders, Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron), steals their leader's, Immortan Joe, (Hugh Keays-Byrne) favorite wives (breeders, held captive to produce more War Boys), it sets off a full-octane chase to bring Furiosa and the women back.

First, I do have to say, I really do miss Mel Gibson in this role.  He would hint time and again he would reprise the role before he got his Passion of the Christ screw-you money and a few indelicate phone messages that has made him a radioactive pariah among Hollywood elites.  The same elites that want to pardon a child-raping Roman Polanski and have excused a child molesting Woody Allen, but I digress.  While Hollywood has never been consistent in its shaming of whatever celebrity, I do believe Gibson would have been better in the role and should have done it 20 years ago.  That said, Tom a Hardy is a fine replacement.  And truth be told, Max really hasn't even been a significant part of the last two flicks.  His are just the eyes with which we take the story in.  So just about anyone could step into this role and do it.  And Tom a Hardy was very entertaining to watch in it.  The movie also has a lot of rewards in Easter eggs for devoted fans that reference earlier films, from Immortan Joe being played by the same actor who played the original bad guy, Toecutter, to visual references big and small that call up the earlier films.

But the film has two secret weapons.  The first is Furiosa.  Theron gives her an anger and determination that seems perfectly realized and abilities that are not hokey at all.  She plays, in effect, one of the best badasses I have seen in some time with both strength and weaknesses.  She is not a superwoman, nor a shrinking violet.  Indeed, all of the women are great in this film.  A lot of hoopla had been raised by some knuckle-dragging Neanderthals that this movie was "feminist propaganda."  I don't know if these groups were real or manufactured, but they are totally off-base.  Does the film have strong women?  Yes.  Do they fit into this particular world?  Yes.  It is a harsh world where you are either a victim or a fighter.  These women choose the latter, and that decision gives the movie some real gravitas.

The sevond weapon this movie has is its writer/director, George Miller.  He has directed all the Mad Max films.  This guy is a master at imagining a world gone crazy and carrying out some of the best stunt work and exciting camerawork ever done for an action movie.  As over-the-top as this movie gets, and it gets really insane, nothing seems out of place.  Everything is plausible; crazy, yes, but believable.  Also, there are not many directors that can stand up with Miller when it comes to action.  Watching this film is like taking a master's class in action filmmaking.  His angles, tension, and crisp editing keep the action constant and exciting, and never lets up.  This movie is essentially a big chase scene, and Miller pulls out all the stops to realize it.  On top of his technical expertise, Miller insists on as much practical effects and stunt work as possible.  Almost everything is done in camera with as little CGI as possible, further adding to the "Holy Crap!" factor of the film.

So if you want to be thoroughly entertained, go see this. It is one of the best action films I've seen in years, and it actually has something important to say as an added bonus.  I have seen both the 2-D and 3-D versions.  While the 3-D is fine, it doesn't really add that much value.  The 2-D is just fine.  But really, do yourself a favor and see this in a theater.  It will lose a lot on a smaller TV screen.

Ex Machina

4 Stars (out of four)

Okay, I'll say it.  With no sense of hyperbole whatsoever.  I have seen my first masterpiece of the year.  In fact, in several years.  Ex Machina is the type of deep, thoughtful movie that I continually pray for and when it occasionally happens, gives me hope that originality and daring is NOT dead in Hollywood, merely beaten severely, robbed and left gasping for life in a muddy, bloody ditch, tenaciously holding onto life against all odds, but very much alive.

Ex Machina takes place in the near future, where the greatest programmer in the world has created a truly sentient AI (artificial intelligence) and put that brain in an automaton, creating a truly sentient being.  He selects a great programmer to have several tests with the AI, named Eva. The goal of the tests, a series of interactions with Eva, are to determine whether she is truly sentient or merely the world's greatest chess program; that is, only responding based on a confluence of related variables that will bring about the best result based on odds.  But like all great sci-fi, it is much more than that.  It asks deep philosophical questions on what is sentience?  What is a person?  What are the ethics of creating and/or destroying a unique sentience?  What are the consequences of creating an artificial life?  Ultimately, what makes us...US?

All great scientific achievement or leaps forward create inevitable ethical questions and consequences, both intended and unintended.  The lawyer in the play Inherit The Wind sums it up well when talking about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and the inevitable demystifying of the Bible, "I think there is a man up there saying, 'Yes, you may have a telephone.  But you will lose privacy. The charm of distance.  Yes, madam, you may vote.  But you lose the privilege of hiding behind a petticoat.  Yes, mister, you may conquer the air.  But the birds will lose their wonder.  And the clouds will smell of gasoline.'"  With each leap forward, something inevitably changes.  And that change is not necessarily always good.  As I watched Ex Machina, I realized I read this story before, in a book written 197 years ago in 1818.  Ex Machina is a modern retelling of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein: The Modern Prometheus.  In it, Shelley asks what are the consequences of dabbling in God's domain, both to the dabbler and to his creation.  What happens when the dabbler cannot contain his creation?  What are the unintended consequences of a myopic pursuit of a seemingly noble goal that was not thought all the way through?  Ex Machina goes even one step further: what happens to the inventor who believes he is not answerable to human ethics, taking the role of God?

This all sounds terribly overblown and pretentious, but I assure you, it's not.  It asks all these questions and more, in an interesting and ultimately terrifying way.  But this is an old story and an old question humankind continues to struggle with.  For instance, the movie asks the question that if Eva is truly sentient and you disconnect her or erase her thoughts, are you killing a life?  Is it ethical to do this if you make a mistake, or for any reason?  What rights do an artificial life form have?  Are they the same as people?  Why or why not?  Today's modern society has been wrestling with several similar moral conundrums.  When is it, if ever, moral to abort a baby?  What are the consequences of cloning body parts?  Whole humans?  Should we use stem cells harvested from fetuses?  Are people born or bred gay or transgendered?  Big Bang or Intelligent Design?  Should we alter genetic code in fetuses to avoid debilitating diseases?  To choose race, eye/hair color, intelligence?  Should we create AI?  I'm not suggesting one or the other, merely pointing out these are very important conversations to have.  

Now, other films have touched on this in recent years from Divergent, Jurassic Park, A.I., The Island, Gattica, The Sixth Day, Star Trek, THX 1138, Westworld, The Terminator, her, to Aliens.  I could go on and on.  They all share a common theme, where is the line drawn?  But Ex Machina approaches that question both skillfully and entertainingly, and takes a stand.  This movie blew me with its intelligence, it's thoughtfulness, it's curiosity to explore, and its unambiguous judgement.  Whether or not you agree with that judgement it is not the point; rather, that you think past your prejudices and beliefs and seriously ask yourself, and others, these questions.  It is important in order for a society and an individual to progress that we have these moral inventories from time to time.  Otherwise, you end up like much of the Middle East, or more specifically, ISIS-stuck forever in a vicious loop where you are convinced you are correct and everyone else is wrong, longing for a past that grows more beautiful with each passing year and inevitable revisionism while the future is a dark, terrifying unknown.  As naïve as it may sound, it is imperative that stories like this are told and that people discuss them.  That's how ideas happen.  As I stated before, I unequivocally think this movie is a masterpiece: Entertaininly told, masterfully thought out.  Please see it and show Hollywood that content does matter, that thoughts are important.  There is nothing wrong with Michael Bay-esque fast food occasionally.  But sometimes, a sumptuous feast should be partaken as well.  So adults, see this on your next date night and leave that damn Lego Movie to the kids under 8.

Avengers: The Age of Ultron

3 Stars (out of four)

Well, Joss Whedon does it again.  I continually find it amazing how well he handles ensemble action pictures.  He usually has the perfect combination of character (to keep the story on a higher level) while infusing great action sequences (to keep it interesting).  Marvel Studios has been very astute in keeping him on both Avengers movies because it could have devolved into mindless claptrap in less capable hands (yes, I'm looking at you, Michael Bay and George Lucas!).

The Avengers: The Age of Ultron is essentially picking up the pieces from the events of the first Avengers, Iron Man 3, and Captain America: The Winter Soldier.  After the near annihilation of NYC after the alien invasion the Avengers thwarted, and reeling from the dissolution of SHIELD, Tony Stark and Bruce Banner ask Thor if they may study Loki's scepter before Thor takes it back to Asgard.  They find it has one of the immensely powerful Infinity Stones in it.  Through deciphering the science behind the Infinity Stone, Stark mentions they could use some of its properties to build a sentient machine to prevent the next alien invasion before it happens.  It works only too well, creating a sentient program named Ultron that inserts itself into the Internet so that it becomes part of all all things.  It begins to build copies of itself to wipe out humanity.  Stark and Banner then build the artificial life form The Vision, which they will use to battle against Ultron.  The end is a mindless melee of thousands of Ultrons and the world is saved once again.  There's a lot more to it, but I don't want to give everything away, and in some cases, doesn't make a lot of sense.

Frankly, just because the movie doesn't make a lot of sense doesn't mean that it's no good.  It's a hoot.  The magic element for me in this outing was the development of all the characters, particularly the Black Widow and Hawkeye, who up to this point have essentially been background eye candy.  This movie goes behind these two shadowy figures and really gets underneath who they are.  There is an interlude in the movie at a farm that some people have complained about, (most notably Disney and Marvel execs-see article: http://www.avclub.com/article/corporate-drone-joss-whedon-fought-pure-artistic-i-218967?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1:Default) because they felt it's boring and slowed the movie down.  Well, it sort of does, but the movie needs this exposition to humanize their characters.  Basically, anyone who hated it is either nine years old or has not progressed past nine.  This exposition is the point of excellence to the film that it lacks otherwise.  It gives some much-needed depth to the characters and story, giving us a reason to like Johannson's Widow other than her fabulous tits.  This is what separates good movies from great movies, sparks like this.

Unfortunately, this fairly good, but somewhat insensical movie gets ruined by its last, epic 15-minute fight scene.  I realize that's how all these movies need to end, but there needs to be a better way to do it.  Captain America: The First Avenger, Guardians of the Galaxy, Iron Man 3 and the first Avengers all suffer from this malaise.  It seems that the final clash has no real reason to be there other than ending on a high note.  The fights are too big and impersonal and unillustrative of a greater theme. Instead, the point seems to be shoving as much fake-looking CGI visual information in the frame as possible, which ultimately takes us out of story.  We feel we are watching an unreal comic book.  It no longer engages, but rather pounds us into submission.  Filmmakers have become overly dependent on CGI to tell their stories, it has made them lazy.  Like any other tool or spice, CGI should be used sparingly, to support the greater themes rather than being the point unto themselves.  That's why The Winter Soldier's final act works so well.  Yes, it was busy, but in the end, it was about Steve Roger's moral compass fighting against the seemingly inevitable compromises and corruption that he felt SHIELD represented. That's what works there. In Ultron, it's our heroes fighting a bunch of little Ultrons, but doesn't really go anywhere beyond that.

The movie was fun, very entertaining and enjoyable on several levels, and only goes off the rails at the end.  I hope Marvel learns from it (according to the article above, I'd say they didn't), but I will not hold my breath.  In any case, see it.  It is good fun and worth the watch.  And don't bother with the 3D.  It doesn't really add anything other than $3-$5 to your ticket price.

Safety Last!

3.5 Stars (out of four)

There were three great geniuses in the early days of silent comedy.  You probably know, and have seen, something from each.  The first is the little tramp, Charlie Chaplin, who was one of the definers of early cinematic language.  It is said he is one of the five universally known characters throughout the world (the other four are Superman, Sherlock Holmes, Mickey Mouse and Tarzan in case you were curious). The second was Old Stoneface Buster Keaton.  The third, while you may not know his name, you definitely have seen his most famous picture:

His name was Harold Lloyd, and most people have largely forgotten him.  This is unfortunate, because unlike Chaplin and Keaton, whose characters were essentially a dancer and acrobat respectively, they really aren't like anybody you knew.  The were archetypes and fairly unrelatable.  Funny, no doubt, but not real in the conventional sense.  Indeed, Lloyd started his career as a Chaplin rip-off called Lonesome Luke in several two-reellers:

But once he put on the glasses, boater hat and suit, he became The Boy, a Joe Everybody, and that suited him perfectly, and was probably a better transition.

Much better, don't you think?  With this new look, his character became a normal person, and with the character, he was less over the top as Chaplin and Keaton were, so it come off much more endearing and believable.  Now this is not to knock Keaton and Chaplin at all.  Far from it.  They were geniuses in their own right.  But Lloyd was a new type of comedian for a new type of age; one that didn't ham it up (as much), and therefore makes me like him more. He reacts how I think I would react in the situations he's in from talking to a woman to hanging 10 stories above from a clock.

So, Safety Last!, like most silents, is pretty simple.  Lloyd plays a small town guy who moves to the big city to seek his fortune so he can marry his girl. He works as a clerk, but has lied to his girl that he is a big manager, so she decides to surprise him with a visit.  Lloyd arranges a publicity stunt to win a $5000 prize his manager has put up to bring in new shoppers.  His roommate, a consturuction worker, will climb the outside of the 12-story building.  Unfortunately, a cop is looking for him, so he is constantly dodging the cop and tells Lloyd to climb the building himself to the first floor, go in a window, and he will put on Lloyd's coat and hat and finish.  Unfortunately, he can't dodge the cop so he tells Lloyd to keep climbing floor by floor.  Hilarity ensues.

Lloyd did several thrilling movies like this, and while he was never in any real danger, they look fantastic.  See setup below.

It's an in-lens camera trick with a forced perspective.  Yes kids, this is what they did before green screen, and it was revolutionary.  Lloyd is at his charming best in this film, utterly irresistible to watch, and yet very funny.  Not knockabout comedy in the conventional sense, but very funny nonetheless.  If you have never watched silents before, absolutely start with Chaplin in Modern Times or The Gold Rush.  But take some time and catch this gem, too.  It is a hoot and great fun.