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.

Woman In Gold

3.5 Stars (out of four)

I love a movie because there is more than what is on the surface.  As I went into Woman In Gold, I was filled with trepidation because I had certain expectations for it.  It looked good by the trailers, but there was a nagging doubt in my head this would fall flat like another Monuments Men because of the similar material.  Turns out I needn't had worried.

Woman In Gold starts off with an older Jewish lady, Maria Altmann (Helen Mirren), an Austrian woman who was forced to flee her country and everything she owned when the Nazis marched into Austria in March 1938 during the Anshluss.  Among the many things stolen from her family were five paintings by the art nouveau master Gustav Klimpt, including a magnificent portrait of Maria's aunt.  It is now 1999 in Los Angeles, and after Maria's sister's funeral, she discovers some papers that reminded her of this painting. Since WWII, it had been hanging in the Belvedere Gallery in Vienna, obtained by the gallery through some very dubious legal means.  The Woman In Gold has since become the pride of Austria, its Mona Lisa.  She contacts Randol Schonenberg (Ryan Reynolds), a lawyer friend of the family and grandson to the great Austrian composer Arnold Sconenberg.  Together, they set out on a multi year quest to get the paintings rightfully restored to her, vaulting over every legal hurdle the Austrian Government can erect, despite its stated desire to return stolen art back to their rightful owners.

I half expected this to be a so-so movie like The Monuments Men.  This movie is saved by two factors: the likability of the two leads, and the greater theme of the picture.  Mirren's Altmann, in particular, is stunning.  She comes across as a bit of a stereotypical uptight German, but with just the right amount of mischievous glint in her eye.  She could have come across as a very unlikable character, but instead, you get to love her very quickly.  This identification with her is critical if you are to get invested in the story.  Reynolds' Schonenberg is the perfect mix of earnestnestness and snarkiness, and their personalities blend beautifully to make a thoroughly lovable couple of people you want to know more about.

But more important, and what the film is really about, is coming to terms with the past.  As Altmann faces her painful past and Schonenberg gets an appreciation for what his recent ancestors went through, the bigger question is what happens when a nation doesn't want to face it's embarrassing mistakes.  Austria, in this case, cannot admit to the crime of not only stealing the paintings, but also upholding a will of dubious legal stature as their chief argument.  An Austrian ally to Altmann tells her frankly that Austria will never part with the paintings; partly because of the social significance to Austria, but, more importantly, if they were to own this particular mistake, they would have to own it all.  That is, Austria did not really resist the Anschluss very much, despite what The Sound of Music would have us believe.  No, Austrians, for the most part, welcomed the Nazis in with open arms as liberators.  They also allowed the systematic robbery and killing of its Jewish population with approving hearts.  It is not easy to have brutal self-awareness of your faults, especially collectively as a nation, and what the implications of those faults may bring.  It also points out that anti-Semitism is still very much alive and well in Europe, despite what many believe is real progress to reconciliation of its shameful past.  This movie looks at that age-old prejudice and lays it bare through Maria Altmann's story.  A great film with a lot to chew on.

The Internship

2.5 Stars (out of four)

Comedies are dangerous things.  What is funny?  That's the problem with having a sense of humor, it's a sense. It can't be pinned down or quantified.  What may be funny for one situation is death for another.  While the scene may be funny, the timing may ruin it.  In today's comedies, they run the gamut, but I get the feeling we have actually regressed to a more coarse time where the audience is stupider. Subtlety is a dying art.  It seems comedies today are flailing their arms in the air screaming, "Look at us!  We're being funny!"  Almost any Will Farrell movie is like this. Luckily, The Internship doesn't really subscribe to this type of humor, but yet still falls a little flat.

The movie stars that very good comedy duo Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson from Wedding Crashers. The movie is fairly straightforward.  Two watch salesmen (Vaughn and Wison) find themselves out of a job when the company they work for goes bankrupt.  They quickly realize they have no usable skills in the high-tech world of the Internet, where personal touches no longer matter.  They decide to try for an internship at Google.  The internship is essentially one big competition over the summer for just a few jobs.  They quickly find themselves too old and untech savvy, but give it the old college try.  They are paired with a group of cast off misfits that no one will work with.  But in the tradition of all underdog movies from The Bad News Bears to Hoosiers, they find a perfect combination between the old and the new to SPOILER ALERT win the competition.

While the film is not laugh out loud funny, it really is hard to resist.  This is due totally to the incredible chemistry that Vaughn and Wilson have together.  They have obviously played in a lot of other movies, but when they get together, they have an unmistakeable charm that is impossible to resist.  There are some movies that work solely because of who's in them and the way they work together (The Hangover, 48 Hours, A Mighty Wind, Young Frankenstein, Lethal Weapon, Coming To America, Silver Streak).  The movie just would not work with anyone else because the stars aligned just right to bring that magic together.  And while The Internship is by no means a comedic classic, it has just enough humor and heart to keep you invested and the story going.  This was a movie made by the sheer will of the leads, and it works because of them. It is not rip roaringly funny or filled with enough pathos, but works just enough to make this a cut above average, and a perfect example of why some people are movie stars.

The Babadook

4 Stars (out of four)

What makes a good horror movie?  I have been trying to answer that for many years now.  A few common elements for me include: an atmosphere of increasing surreal dread, believable and empathetic protagonists, deeply disturbing themes that shred our psyches, originality, and a touch of nihilistic inevitability.  Note I don't say anything about gore, sex, thrills, laughs or a happy ending.  I'm not saying a good horror movie can't have those other elements, but for the last 30-35 years, filmmakers, especially American ones, have been ever falling back to the lazy, sexed-up, gore-filled excesses of the formulaic slasher film.  I also don't mean to infer slashers are inherently bad, far from it.  Some have been quite good, but they are inherently lazy.  But the good news, for those who love horror, is that there has been a resurgence of great horror-telling in recent years, most notably from Asia  Such directors as Japan's Takashi Miike or Korea's Chan-wook Park, or even America's Rob Zombie have been pushing out quality and unnerving in equal measure.  Now, another writer/director can rightfully take a place alongside such luminaries as Argento, Romero, Hooper, Raimi and Fincher, and that is Australian first-time director Jennifer Kent with her singularly disturbing movie, The Babadook.

The movie is about a young, widowed mother Amelia (Essie Davis), and her troubled, seven-year-old son, Samuel (Noah Wiseman).  Samuel was born during a horrific car crash that killed Amelia's husband as he was driving her to the hospital.  Since then, Amelia has tried to move on, but is in a perpetual state of melancholy.  Samuel, for his part, is acting out in other ways, obsessively seeing monsters everyone and lashing out physically.  He is not particularly liked by his friends, and Amelia is similarly ostracized by her peers.  One night, a mysterious children's book appears on the shelf called Mr. Babadook, a story about a monster who will eventually kill the people who let it into their lives.  Samuel immediately sees the Babadook everywhere, day and night, and his personality problems worsen because of it.  Amelia is convinced it is all in his troubled mind, but soon she begins to feel a terrible presence in the house with them.  Is the Babadook real, or just all in their heads?

I hope this is not the only idea in writer/director Jennifer Kent's head.  This movie was so singularly terrifying, it will haunt you for days afterward.  It is extremely disturbing, mostly because of the underlying themes in the story.  In an interview, Jennifer Kent said her hope was, in the end, to deal with what happens when people don't face and resolve traumatic events in their lives, and the cumulative effect that can have on their psyches.  In this case, that stress comes to life through the Babadook, but Kent actually does something very sneaky.  She leaves it up to us, the audience, to decide whether the Babadook is real or not, similar to the ambiguous ending of The Lady or the Tiger? which asks you, the reader, to finish the story.

Various troublesome themes persist throughout the film that are, at the very least unpleasant and unsettling: paranoia, isolation, physical/emotional abuse, fear, distrust.  All these elements are expertly crafted by Kent into a slowly seething stew of insecurity that is unrelenting throughout.  Kent said she was highly influenced by old silent horror movies.  These films were especially notable for their surrealism, most notably in The Cabinet of Dr. Caligary or Nosferat.  Kent deftly weaves these surreal into the tone of her film. It's subtle, but gives the film a slightly stylized look, creating a world that just does not quite feel right or comfortable.  This, combined with the unpleasant themes, push a palpable sense of dread and anxiety throughout the movie.  Rarely have I been so moved and/or disturbed by a movie like this.  But the biggest surprise is that the movie is ultimately about the power of love.  But don't let that fool you into thinking it has a happy ending...or does it?  You have to decide for yourself.

This is one hell of a ride that I cannot recommend more highly, but be forewarned.  It is hard and even cruel at times, and may not be for the taste of people who can't deal with horror, facing the fear of the unknown.  This is the kind of horror film that I dream of, one that sufficiently creeps me by touching on some of my deepest held fears without cheating with piled-on gore.  The promise showed by Jennifer Kent here makes me pray that she doesn't peak early like the great M. Night Shymalan.  I hope she can continue to deliver, because if this is just the intro to her mind, I shudder to think what else could be in there. But I tell you this, I can't wait for it.

HIDDEN GEMS SERIES #2-The Raid: Redemption (aka The Raid)

4 Stars (out of four)

I have already been hearing some people divide the era of action movies pre- and post-Raid.  Now, while it may be a little too early to tell if this admittedly excellent 2011 Indonesian action flick is THAT good,I must say, it has more energy and vitality than any action film I have seen for a LONG time.  Unfortunately, this gem was in and out of American cinemas in the blink of an eye, and it didn't deserve to be.

The plot, like most action films, is not very involved.  A group of 20 elite SWAT police raid a ruthless crime lord's headquarters in Jakharta.  It is a 15-story tenement that is the home to what appears to be every scumbag with a gun or knife in Indonesia, as well as some scattered poor families.  Once the team gets inside the building, all hell breaks loose as just about every tenant in the building is gunning to kill them.

Wow!  What can I say?  Asia has been pumping out some of the most refreshing and exciting action films in recent memory from China (Jackie Chan, John Woo, Chow Yun Fat and Jet Li, need I say more?) to Korea (Tae Guk Gi-The Brotherhood of War) to Indonesia (Ong Bak, Chocolate).  I don't know if it has to do with the fact there aren't as many safety rules for stuntmen in these countries or what, but some of the most mind-blowing and exciting action sequences have come from there.  While all of these films tend to be over the top, especially with the wire work, The Raid strips the action film to its essence; that is, pure, kinetic havok.  I couldn't see a lot of the wire work in the film like the sort seen in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.  The Raid offers just good, old-fashioned, amazing fight choreography.  As corny as it may sound, a well-choreographed fight scene takes on the same asthetic grandeur that the most expressive ballet can provide.  They are basically the same thing, after all.  Talented partners moving each other through a tight pattern of moves to produce a thrilling spectacle.

Now, for me, the great dividing point in action was undoubtedly Die Hard, although I could also argue the same for Raiders of the Lost Ark.  In both, there was just the right amount of humor juxtaposed with white knuckle action that produced spectacles that had never been attempted before.  But The Raid is a different animal.  This is not mayhem and killing for laughs; this is pure action for its own sake.  The movie spends very little setup time before it explodes into action.  That action is relentless and does not let up.  And while American audiences usually hate subtitles, which is probably why they stayed away from this incredible gem, don't let that deter you.  This is one of the most exciting and ruthless action movies I have ever seen.  What's interesting is that the movie Dredd came out a year after this, and is essentially the same plot.  But as good as Dredd is, it doesn't hold a candle to the brutal action scenes of The Raid, and they are brutal.  This movie is a pretty hard R with its violent content, but don't let that deter you. If you like action films, this is the one to see.  While it may not be as satisfyingly entertaining as Die Hard with the added humor, The Raid is a movie that will leave you amped up, breathless, and full of adrenaline, like any exciting action film should be.  It doesn't get much better than this.

Other similar suggested action films in this vein (some of which will also be in the HIDDEN GEMS series):

The Killer

Hard Boiled

A Bullet In The Head

Full Contact

Chocolate

Ong Bak

Police Story 1-3

Drunken Master 1-2

Dragons Forever

Once Upon A Time In China 1-3

Tae Guk Gi: The Brotherhood of War