Annihilation: Film Review

Alex Garland continues to be one to the more interesting directors out there.  The fact that he seems to focus on the sci-fi genre makes it all the better for me.  While only his third directing position after Dredd, and Ex Machina, his screenplays for 28 Days Later, Sunshine, Never Let Me Go, and The Beach were also worthy mentions to his resume.

Annihilation is likely the most difficult of these to get through.  At points quiet and deliberately paced, it won't find interest among Snapchat aficionados.  This was recognized by Paramount and producer David Ellison who both wanted to change significant portions of the film in order to market it better to gain more commercial success.  Luckily Garland got his way and the film remained unaltered.  This has doomed the film to financial losses however as it appears to be headed for replacement in theaters in short order.  In fact, in markets other than the US, the film is headed straight for Netflix.

So what are most modern viewers missing?  A creepy, bloody, sometimes violent two hours of relatively unexplained weirdness.  Diverging heavily from the Jeff VanderMeer's trilogy, the film contains a complete beginning, middle and end and leaves nothing hanging for sequels.  In fact, beyond just a very basic scaffolding, the film contains little plot or events that are recognizable to the reader.  Ignore any mention of white-washing in the film...I've read the novels and attributing Asian or any other racial identities to the characters is virtually nonexistent and the fact that Garland used Portman as the lead shouldn't bother anyone except the SJW class of dimwits.

In the end our own film experiences are often derived from the histories we bring with ourselves to the theater.  For me, it boils down to a parable about a couple's attempt at recovery from infidelity seen through the prism of a sci-fi quest to discern the reasons behind an alien "shimmer" that spreads from a single point and mutates all it touches.  What comes out the other side are a husband and a wife completely different, down to their very genetic material than what they were before--the film seeming to say that through the prism of infidelity, all that you thought, were and did in the past is to meet a state of tabula rasa in order to function on the other side.

Along the way people are turned to plants, men are cut open and seen to contain giant worms on their insides, albino alligator-shark hybrids hunt the all female scientific team, a bear-something creature howls in a human voice before tearing apart one team member who has gone insane, and a near mirror finish alien-humanoid performs a mimicry dance in imitating Portman's every gesture.

I have a few quibbles...Like if the military was sending in a team to explore this anomaly, could they possibly have equipped this team worse?  No helmets?  No body armor?  And their overall gear looks more like they are out for a girl scout camping trip than a serious expedition.  Additionally...there isn't a single one of the female characters who looks comfortable with a gun...they all look like their skin might be allergic to the feel of metal on their skin and are stiff in their mannerisms in holding the weapons...someone needs some better training to at least LOOK like they know what they are doing...

I enjoyed it far better than the books from which the film came from as it does contain a resolution of its original questions and Garland's artistic voice is stronger and clearer than VanderMeer's who created an thrilling but ultimately empty world.  It took Garland to fill it with a reason to be.

Film Review: American Sniper

As is usually the case, I don't get out to see many films in the theater and only end up seeing the ones that both my wife and I both have an overwhelming desire to see.  American Sniper was one such film.  Having read the biography about two years ago I was well familiar with the background and though some of the film was fictionalized to create a narrative that would provide an arc it was largely in line with the details from Chris Kyle's book.

The film itself was excellent with Bradley Cooper's portrayal of Chris Kyle being spot on.  From Kyle's Texas accent to his physical build, Cooper does a masterful job in imitating his real life model.   In story and direction there isn't much new.  We get Kyle's reasons for entering the SEALs, his time in BUDs, his meeting with Taya (his future wife), his deployments, his actions in Iraq as both a sniper and in more close quarter battles, the deaths of close friends, marital problems, etc.  All of it is well portrayed and Eastwood provides enough context to understand where Kyle comes from and why he views the world the way he does.  Yup, some of it may seem too simplistic for modern audiences but based on his own words, it rings true.

American Sniper is not a "great" film.  It doesn't belong up there with any pantheon of Buzzfeed lists of the best films of all time.  Its a very good film that is exceedingly enjoyable but it isn't Earthshattering in its delivery.  Unforgiven remains Eastwood's high-water mark and by a large margin and Mystic River is also better...

It may, however, be a more important film than any of these for what it brings out of its viewers.  Becoming one of the largest grossing "R" rated movies of all time and already the highest grossing "war" film of all time, American Sniper becomes a Rorschach test for any viewer.  Those on the left see it as gringoism at its worst, transforming the Iraqis into mere meat to be mown down by the hands of an avenging American.  Those on the right see it as an expression of American Patriotism and Texas individualism.  As always with these things, its neither.

As Eastwood has actually stated himself, its more of an anti-war film than either the Right or Left want to portray.  By the end of the film Kyle has been broken down both physically and mentally by the tasks required of him.  We've watched his friends die, his justified but difficult shooting of a boy and his mother, marital difficulties, absence from his children's life, the questioning of the war's purpose by his brother and others around him, watched him piss himself as he stands overwatch, and finally, his own destruction at the hands of someone he had hoped to help.  To view the aforementioned and find that the film is either a white-washing of the American effort there or a purely Patriotic retelling  of a Christian, Texas, good old boy is to ignore what one has just seen.

American Sniper is an honest retelling of an exceedingly brave and capable soldier who served his country to the limits of his existence.  It deserves to be told and seen and understood--properly.

Film Review: Prometheus

As is typical of me, I'm a sucker for a Ridley Scott film.  And a return to the franchise that he began near 40 years ago with one of the best sci-fi/horror films ever done?  Yup, double the sucker...

Its unfortunate then that Prometheus is yet another Scott shortfall.

Prometheus LOOKS like a Scott film--beautifully shot, inky blacks, crisp frames, powerful female characters, etc.  In this case I find less fault with Scott the director than Scott the producer.  Using Damon Lindelof to rewrite a script by Jon Spaits, Scott seemingly failed to actually READ the story before turning it into a film.

PERHAPS someone who hadn't seen the original Alien films would find the material new but anyone who has even a cursory knowledge of the Alien canon would find Prometheus shockingly repetitive and derivative.  We return to the same world we've seen in the original Alien and Aliens and where again we watch a diverse crew of mismatched individuals explore with flashlights a dark and slimy interior with evil things moving around in the dark.  We have something bursting from a female character's belly.  We have something jumping on a characters facemask.  We have acidic blood.  We have flamethrowers.  We have an evil corporation behind the mission.  We have an android with questionable motivations.  Really this is an complete retread of the same elements that made up prior Alien films just thrown up in the air and filmed in their new arrangement as they fell to the floor.

There is nothing here worth viewing and trying to integrate into the existing Alien storyline.  In fact it even ruins part of prior Alien films as (spoiler alert!) it reveals that the giant Elephantine pilots from the first film (who were MUCH larger as presented there than they are here) are merely photo-humans wearing elephant-like space suits.

If you are a Scott fan or Alien fan I suppose you must view this film...and unfortunately, seeing as how they are actually making a Prometheus sequel (really??) I'll have to see further deconstruction of a series I once loved...but otherwise, it neither scares nor wows a viewer and isn't worth supporting.

Film Review: Cronos

Watched this film as I've been interested in director  Guillermo del Toro since watching Pan's Labyrinth a while back.  Cronos is del Toro's first film and is mostly narrated in Spanish though there are significant portions spoken in English from Ron Perlman's character.

The film itself is a twist on your traditional vampire tale.  Here vampirism is caused by an ancient alchemist's device in which he trapped an insect of some kind that has the ability to impart extended life upon an individual through its bite.

The twist here is not only from the basis of your typical vampire tale but in its presentation too.  There is more here to laugh at than there is to be horrified of.  The main characters are not young and beautiful as is the case in most vampire films.  Instead they are old and aging.  They aren't placed in any particularly horrifying situations despite Ron Pearlman's character being tasked with chasing down the elderly Jesus Gris (yes, we have a vampire named Jesus who also rose from the dead) and taking the mechanism that will hopfully extend the life of Pearlman's dying uncle.

Separately but just as distinct from most vampire films is the setting.  We aren't in any sort of aged or gothic landscape.  We're in a modern city and amongst just normal everyday people.

Del Toro shows off some of his later penchant for blood and body horror as the main character transforms and suffers from his new state of living.  Peeling skin, needle piercings, licking of blood off a bathroom floor, mouths sewn shut, etc.  It all works here and it leads the story forward so there's no complaint about any gratuitous nature of any of it but there isn't anything groundbraking like the filmmaker's later work.

I marginally enjoyed the film.  It was an interesting look at a very creative director's early work.  Unfortunately whether due to its foreign language nature (which typically doesn't present any issue for me) or some other factor I was never really hooked.  There is no real item to grab your interest.  Yes its a bit of a novel twist on your usual vampire tale but its not so different to carry the entire film.  Nor are the performances or characters anything that I could latch on to.  If you're a del Toro fan its worth seeing just to compare his early storytelling with where he is now.  Otherwise??  feel free to pass, its not in what I would consider a "canon" of film of any kind.

Film Review: Babel

Third in Alejandro González Iñárritu's films that I've watched after Amores Perros and 21 Grams his films are always contain a wide mix of characters as well as a number of intersecting storylines.

Babel is his most high profile effort with not only his frequent collaborator Gael Garcia Bernal but Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett as well.  The film would ultimately win Best Picture at the Golden Globes and be nominated for the same award and many others at the Oscars for 2006 films.

The film weaves four storylines in three locations that are interconnected for various reasons.  Iñárritu touches on so many themes in modern society its hard to keep track.  Illegal immigration, terrorism, undocumented workers, treatment of the disabled, guns, 3rd world tourism by first world travelers, marriage, etc. are all covered here.  While they are all covered here, none are covered as well as they have in his prior films.

Pitt and Blanchett are a married American couple in Morocco on vacation attempting to reconcile their differences after the death of their third child.  Blanchett's character is shot by a pair of young Moroccan boys who are fighting for the favor of their father and use the rifle given to their father by the rich Japanese businessman who has a deaf mute daughter.  Meanwhile the American couple's two children are looked after by their Mexican housemaid who has to take them into Mexico to attend her son's wedding when Blanchett and Pitt are delayed in returning home after her shooting.

The film is shot beautifully with each location taking on its own personality and color--tan for Morocco, orange for Mexico and grey for Japan and as you bounce between the storylines this helps maintain a sense of consistency despite the frequent transfers.  Each location and storyline carries a separate language as well with much of the film spoken in languages other than English.  Outside of the obvious issues being targeted within each storyline, the language and communication issues are an overarching theme.  Even within our most intimate relationships we struggle to convey our true needs and feelings and the fact that we may share our primary language does little help us down that path.

The film succeeds on most levels but not all.  Its a long film at about 2 and 1/2 hours and could have used a bit of trimming and perhaps an elimination of the Japanese storyline which ends up seeming like a separate film due to its first world placement.  Which gets at the heart of what Iñárritu is good at--digging deeper into America and societies interaction with the issues coming out developing countries and societies is where he thrives and where is best work is done.

Film Review: The Maltese Falcon

This is the third Humphrey Bogart film I've watched over the last year, following Casablanca and Treasure of the Sierra Madre.  I've enjoyed all and while Falcon was a solidly entertaining film, it doesn't carry near the weight of the other two.

Its your standard private detective caper with a number of twists and turns as Bogart's Sam Spade is crossed and double crossed in his search for the jewel encrusted statue.  And, yup, there's a woman (women actually) involved in Spade's ongoing troubles and some themes that seem a tad bit ahead of their time--Spade's philandering with the wife of his partner, an antagonists apparent homosexuality, etc....But none of it is as "heavy" as the issues presented in the two aforementioned films.

The greatest enjoyment I had here was in watching Peter Lorre portray Joel Cairo who has been tasked with getting the Falcon back from either Spade or the female lead of Mary Astor as Brigid O'Shaughnessy.  Lorre is brilliant here and I found myself wishing for his character to receive more screentime.  Unfortunately it is O'Shaughnessy and her "relationship" with Spade that receives the attention instead.

It is here that the film pivots and fails.  By the end of the film when Spade reveals his belief that it is in fact O'Shaughnessy who has killed his partner and proceeds to turn her over to the police the audience is SUPPOSED to care, it is SUPPOSED to feel the same way about their forced separation and Spade's decision as we do about Rick and Ilsa in Casablanca.  The story tries to hit us over the head with the fact that these two are "in love" but we've received none of the benefit of history or context for these characters to exist within as we do in Casablanca.  Instead we are supposed to believe that they have somehow fallen in love at first sight--despite the fact that O'Shaugnessy has been lying and trying to manipulate Spade from the word go.  Not believable.  Not one bit.

So while John Huston's film is good and entertaining...and likely a classic due to its cast and direction (Huston does use the camera with great effect with low, Orson Wells-like camera angles and use of shadows) but it comes off feeling more summer blockbuster than a heavyweight of filmmaking.

Film Review: Zero Dark Thirty

This was one of those many films I wish I had gotten to see in the theater but didn't and was waiting expectantly for to come out on DVD.

Coming into the film I already knew the vast majority of the background behind the search for Bin Laden.  I'd read boatloads of stuff in the media over the years that had been leaked regarding this effort, I had read and reviewed here No Easy Day which recapped the life and efforts of Matt Bissonette who was in line behind the Seal who shot and killed Bin Laden and read the Vanity Fair article with the "shooter" himself.  I would consider the film a historically important work--but is it a good film?

I won't quibble with some of the film's technical inaccuracies pointed out by the "shooter" in his viewing of the film (too much talking by operatives during mission, Belgain Malinois vs. German Shephard, etc.) as they are merely conventions for the film's sake and yet not gross, purposeful, historical, inaccuracies.  In fact "the shooter" doesn't seem to have much in the way of issues with the way the Bin Laden killing was portrayed.

The biggest criticisms of the film came not from those who truly felt it was a inaccurate recall of these efforts but from those (John McCain being one) who felt that its portrayal of torture as conducted by members of the CIA (or those directly/indirectly employed by the US governmental forces) was misplaced in its ability to provide valuable information.  Mr. McCain is not able to be a impartial observer in this instance given his treatment at the hands of the Vietnamese and others leveling similar criticisms are grossly blinded by their political views.  What is inarguable is that torture can be a valuable method of obtaining information.  Is it perfect?  Certainly not, but when you are dealing with murderers and assassins who could kill thousands of your citizens, such ugly methods can and should be employed.  Such vaunted conservatives (please hear the sarcasm) as Alan Dershawitz understand this, particularly when viewing a situation via the prism of Israeli and US concerns with terrorism.

As to the film itself, I did not find the water-boarding scenes nearly as "horrific" as described in the main stream media...truly they weren't uncomfortable to view or wince inducing.  I'm sorry but some water over the head, some choking and gagging on wet clothes and moral embarrassment via being portrayed nude in front of a woman for the captured Al Queada operatives doesn't exactly come close to my personal squeamish meter.

Nor was the penultimate mission to kill Bin Laden as exciting and breathless in nature has been described in most reviews.  Yes, the portrayal is suspenseful but given you don't have any emotional connection to the characters, it just isn't that impactful.  Perhaps some of this is due to the fact that I pretty much knew everything that was going to happen and how it was going to happen from my previous readings.  Certainly reading No Easy Day gives you much more of a personal connection to Matt Bissonette than this film does for any of its characters.

Jessican Chastain portrays the main character in the film, Maya, who is the CIA analyst who, over the course of many years tied enough circumstantial evidence together to track down Bin Laden's location.  Again, cross referencing the info in No Easy Day to this portrayal leads one to believe that both sources accurately depict "Maya" as an intelligent, driven, ball busting, pain in the ass, disliked by her peers, analyst.  Chastain gets this point across despite her somewhat "too high for this role" pitch of her voice which had me wondering if they could have found an actress that sounds less like a whiny college co-ed for the part.

In the end my favorite parts of the film are those that remind the viewer that 9-11 was not a one off, singular event unlikely to recur but instead simply one in a series of attacks on Western citizens around the world over the period of decades.  It reminds one that it was an extended and brutal war we were/are fighting and one that is not covered by rules that in retrospect look as moronic and short sighted as the waves of WWI soldiers sent en mass, shoulder to shoulder into the uncaring maw of fixed machine gun positions.  Thank god for those men and women willing to do what it takes to protect the rest of us.  Hopefully this very good film gets that point across to at least some people out there...

Film Review: The Hobbit--An Unexpected Journey

As we rarely get out to see movies, my wife and I usually reserve it for relatively special films that we particularly want to see in the theater and either not wait for or not experience at home.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is one such film.  Some eleven years since The Fellowship of the Ring came out The Hobbit continues Jackson's connection to Tolkein's works.

Much of the look and creation of the film will seem familiar to those who have seen the prior Lord of the Rings works.  The world created by Jackson looks and feels the same in the Hobbit as it did in the earlier works.

The big change here and unfortunately, what much of this review will focus on, is the addition of a couple technological "wonders" that are supposed to improve the viewing experience.  When those first works cam out 3D movies had last been seen in the 50s and 60s and films were only shown in what was considered the industry standard 24 frames per second.

The Hobbit is being shown in a bothersome array of versions from the simple 2D, 24 fps up to the full 3D, 48 fps while throwing IMAX versions into the mix as well.  With Peter Jackson stating that his personal vision of the film was the 3D 48 fps version (Jackson is the first director to film in 48 fps and the Hobbit is the first film to be shown in this format) this was the version I wanted to see.  Much has been made in the press leading up to the release of the film in this format as early screenings of the film did not receive the greatest of reviews because of it and more ink has been used to deal with the quirks of this format than to the actual content of the film itself.

I'll start off with my views on the content of the film and move on to the technical stuff second.

The film itself at near three hours in length does feel a tad bloated.  Lots of long takes and dialogue take up significant chunks of time.  Jackson has also added a lot of content here that is not included in the book itself.  Some of it good, some of it not so much.

Overall however, its certainly not a bad way to spend three hours.  The characters are well done, Ian McKellan returning as Gandalf is excellent and Richard Armitage as Thorin is fantastic.  While all the other dwarfs are goofy and oddballs--closer to the seven dwarfs of Snow White than grim, hammer wielding miners, Thorin carries a darkness and weight that carries this first film.  Martin Freeman is adequate as Bilbo but I'm not blown away by him.  Andy Serkais as Gollum is even better now as computer graphics have advanced another generation and the other enemies of the film are even more grotesque that before.

The battle scenes should seem familiar to viewers with lots of bloodless hacking and slashing and lots of improbable jumping and rolling.  I do wish it was a tad more realistic but, what can you do...its a fantasy epic.

So if the story was good, the action was good, the characters were good and it hewed fairly close to the line created by the prior fine films it must be a pretty darn good film then right??  Well, yes and no.
I will watch the next two editions of the Hobbit film series (coming in '13 and '14) back in regular old 2D and 24 fps and here's why...

I've always hated 3D and this film doesn't change that opinion for me.  This is the best 3D you will see and it still sucks.  My initial complaint is in the coloring of the film.  The 3D glasses here, as in other 3D films change the color of the movie.  They have a darkening effect as well as a grey-blue tinting effect.  White's are no longer white...they are a steel blue-grey version of white.  This tinting affects all images and scenes, there is no escaping it.  Secondly, the 3D effect is not one that impresses me.  It's never truly a 3D image.  It merely moves cardboard cut out versions of various people and objects into the foreground or background.  This isn't improving upon the 2D image, its distorting it and ripping it apart for the sake of an effect and a "its cool" factor.

Lastly you have the 48 fps issue.  Creating a film with double the images of a regular one does assist greatly with the 3D images making them clearer and more distinct than ever before...but there's an issue with that.  The images can be so clean and clear that you lose the ability to "believe" in the film and instead end up viewing a bunch of men running around in prosthetic noses and wigs.  When you can see that the actors are wearing makeup, that the hair is fake and the weapons not made of heavy, weathered steel it is hard to become lost in a story about an imaginary realm of wizards and dragons.

The second issue with the 48 fps feature is the way in which it makes the characters APPEAR to be moving too quickly.  I did get a tad used to it after a while but right to the end it would appear to me as if some moments of the film had been sped up to about 1.5 times normal speed.  It is a very jarring effect and one that has had people leaving theaters to ask management if there was something wrong with the projectors.

So all this said, why would Jackson choose to release the film in this manner?  Ego.  Back when Jackson was creating the LOTR series he was a relative unknown filmmaker looking to get his big break and accolades.  Now his films have grossed over a billion dollars, he's won Oscars and been lauded as a visionary.  Jackson has always been one to push the technological limits and this is no exceptions.

Jackson got his hands on a couple new toys in the form of 3D film and 48 fps filming and he thought it would be the next greatest thing.  In fact, even in the face of mounting criticism he has continued to claim that the 3D 48 fps version is the superior one and the one he wants everyone to see.  The fact that its not superior in any way shape or form and actually detracts from the moviegoing experience (I've yet to hear ANYONE claim that they think this version is worth the effort, expense or hype) only goes to show how blinded one can be in viewing their own creation.

I would recommend seeing The Hobbit to nearly anyone.  But I'd only recommend seeing it in the old plain Jane, 2D, 24 FPS.  Sometimes more is not more and newer is not better...