Category Archives: Movie Reviews – G

REVIEW: “Gone Girl”

by

57

GONE GIRL POSTER

There are a number of popular modern filmmakers who are beloved by their devoted fans. Interestingly enough, I often find myself a little more mixed when it comes to these directors. David Fincher is a good example. I didn’t like two of his more popular films “Fight Club” and “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”. But I’ve found that Fincher has made more good films that I have appreciated such as “Se7en”, “Zodiac”, and “The Social Network”. His latest film is “Gone Girl” and it can definitely be grouped in with Fincher’s better projects.

Fincher is no stranger to dark and uncomfortable subject matter. It’s a trait of many of his films that sometimes works but other times turns me off. “Gone Girl” has a bit of both, but for the most part the dark material is very effective. It feels like about three movies put into one and the film ends in a very different place than where it began. I can’t honestly say I found each ‘segment’ of the film to be equally compelling, but I can say the movie never flattens.

GONE1

The story begins on the day of Nick and Amy Dunne’s 5th wedding anniversary. Nick (Ben Affleck) returns to his Missouri home to find Amy (Rosamund Pike) is missing. Signs indicate a struggle and soon Detective Rhonda Boney (Kim Dickens) is leading the investigation. Amy’s disappearance attracts a media frenzy and people become obsessed with the never ending cycle of news about the case. As Detective Boney digs deeper she uncovers inconsistencies and holes in Nick’s story. This combined with the media hype ends up making Nick a key person of interest.

To go into any further detail would be doing a huge disservice to the movie. It’s based on Gillian Flynn’s popular 2012 novel so many people will know how it plays out. But lets just say that the narrative takes a significant shift in the second act and an even bigger one in the final act. As I mentioned above these shifts never flatten the film. It maintains its intensity and intrigue throughout. But I do think the movie starts off incredibly strong only to slowly and slightly step away from what I enjoyed most about it. It’s not that the ending isn’t satisfying. In fact I like the way it ended quite a bit. It just seemed like the story strayed a bit in getting there.

GONE2

But I don’t want to cut this film short because it does so many things well. Fincher employs a fractured style of storytelling similar to several of his past films. Carefully crafted and well placed flashbacks are sprinkled in to give us nuggets of information about Amy’s disappearance. But to make things more complicated the audience is frequently fed small bits of unreliable information. Misdirections and red herrings conflict with the truth and muddy any insight into what actually happened. I loved that. I found myself hanging on every exchange and flashback trying to determine fact from fiction.

“Gone Girl” also dabbles in a number of different themes, some more intriguing than others. One such theme is economic hardship and particularly its effects on a marriage. In fact “Gone Girl” seems to project a very cynical view of marriage as a whole. It seems to be constantly nipping at the concept of a happy and stable marriage. Or is it indicting us for our self-centeredness which often destroys marriages? Perhaps its most effective examination is of the media and the sensationalism that seems to follow these events. Tabloid journalism and the predatory tactics of reporters play key roles in the film. And Nick is shown how to use and manipulate the media and their willingness to exaggerate or stretch facts.

GONE3

And then you have the performances. I like Ben Affleck even though I understand some of the criticisms thrown his way. He is often dry and seemingly emotionless. But I find that his acting style often fits the characters he is portraying. That’s definitely the case in “Gone Girl”. Affleck offers the right tone and demeanor and he constantly has us trying to figure him out. But the real star is Rosamund Pike. She is an actress that I have always loved and have wanted to see get bigger roles. Hopefully this will be the performance that finally gets her the attention she deserves.

“Gone Girl” has many of the signature trademarks of a David Fincher film. And the visual presentation is moody and comfortless yet perfectly appropriate. The music from Fincher favorites Atticus Ross and Trent Reznor creates atmospheres of tension. Also the film sometimes turns me off by pushing its desired edginess a little too far. All of these things scream Fincher. But where some of his other films in the past squander their potential “Gone Girl” capitalizes on it, at least for the most part.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

REVIEW: “Guardians of the Galaxy”

by

23

Guardians poster

I don’t know if anyone expected Marvel’s cinematic universe to be the humongous global success that it has become. The comic book giant’s first wave of films brought most of its heavy hitters to the big screen and millions of people to the theaters to watch them. Most critics have responded positively to these films while also showing signs of growing weary of them. But Marvel has started their second wave of movies which will feature some of their more obscure characters. “Guardians of the Galaxy” is one such film and I truly felt Marvel was overreaching. But an over $90 million opening weekend proved me wrong. But as the Transformers franchise has proven, a big box office take doesn’t always represent the quality of the movie.

“Guardians of the Galaxy” is a very different installment into Marvel’s movie world. It stands apart in a variety of ways including its tone, its setting, and the characters it brings to the table. It’s overall different feel may have been one of the things that has attracted audiences to it. That being said, it won’t take you long to recognize some pretty familiar plot points wrapped in the film’s shiny, CGI-heavy packaging.

At its core “Guardians of the Galaxy” is a story that you’ve seen before. A ragtag group of misfits must overcome their criminal pasts and personal animosities and join together to quell a cosmic threat. It’s that basic and you can see many of the plot angles coming a mile away. But for me a familiar story can be overcome if its centered around good characters. As luck would have it, good characters are one of the film’s greater strengths.

Guardians 1

Chris Pratt continues to deservedly catch people’s attention. Here he buffs up but maintains that lovable goofiness that seems inherent in every character he portrays. He plays a petty space pirate named Peter Quill, a.k.a.Star-Lord. After swiping a mysterious orb, he finds himself being pursued by the henchman of an alien fanatic known as Ronan (Lee Pace). Ronan has made a deal with the ominous Thanos (Josh Brolin) to retrieve the orb in exchange for power to destroy a rival planet.

Peter gets in way over his head and as his circumstances worsen he finds himself joined by a raccoon bounty hunter named Rocket (Bradley Cooper) and his tree sidekick Groot (Vin Diesel), an alien assassin named Gamora (Zoe Saldana,), and a revenge-fueled warrior named Drax (Dave Bautista). The dysfunctional team begin working together each for their own personal reasons, but as you can probably guess, a proper bond begins to form between them as things move along.

Guardians 2

For me the characters are what anchors this film. Each are unique in their own way and each contribute to the undeniable personality of the movie. There are times when the script does them no favors. There are some corny lines and there are times when the jokes fall flat or feel forced. But there are other times where the chemistry between the characters and between the performers just clicks. These are the moments when the jokes work and the camaraderie is entertaining. I also loved the 70s and 80s culture references sprinkled throughout the film. I did find myself wanting more in terms of backstory from the group (aside from Peter). I also thought Ronan, while extremely cool, was an incredibly bland villain who won’t be remembered past the end credits. But ultimately I liked the characters and am interested enough to see them together again (something that is certain to happen).

The effects and makeup are genuinely good particularly with Rocket and Groot as well as the host of alien side characters three of which are played by Djimon Houndou, Karen Gillan, and one of my favorite character actors Michael Rooker. I do wish Marvel would shake up their standard formula for big action endings. It seems that every film ends with a huge 20 minute CGI blowout that leans more on chaos than coherency. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not that the ending of “Guardians” doesn’t work. It just felt a bit generic and almost what I’m starting to expect out of every Marvel movie.

“Guardians of the Galaxy” marks Marvel’s first real foray into their rich cosmic universe. It is in the same universe as the other Marvel pictures yet it feels strikingly different. That is part of the charm the movie possesses. It aims to be unique and features characters that I’m not that familiar with. But how that unfamiliarity influenced my response to the movie compared to other Marvel films is hard to figure out. In fact my response to the film as a whole may seem confusing. There are some glaring flaws and shortcomings but at the same time I was entertained enough through the film’s 2 hours. In that respect “Guardians of the Galaxy” is a success. Yet I can’t seem to shake the feeling that it just barely missed true greatness.

VERDICT – 3 STARS

REVIEW: “Godzilla” (2014)

by

50

GODZILLA POSTER

Last year brought us “Pacific Rim”, an unashamed homage to the old creature features of the 1950s. By all right it should have been terrible but “Pacific Rim” was a decent film. It was far from perfect but it was a fun and entertaining romp. This year we get “Godzilla”, another monster movie that didn’t have me a bit excited at first and that could have been really awful. But it’s actually not. In fact not only is this new incarnation of the well known reptile better than last year’s “Pacific Rim”, it’s one of the better recent blockbusters and it was some of the most fun I’ve had at the theaters this year.

It doesn’t take long to notice several surprising differences in this film from what you might expect. The movie is built upon a very deliberate and methodical story. It certainly has its huge creature-feature action but we are never bombarded with it. The film is also set apart by its spectacular cast. “Godzilla” features a number of great performers that automatically enhance the experience. Ken Watanabe, Bryan Cranston, Elizabeth Olsen, Juliette Binoche, Sally Hawkins, and David Straithairn make up the film’s great supporting ensemble.

GODZILLA1

Cranston plays a nuclear physicist who was present during a 1999 disaster at a nuclear plant in Japan. Fifteen years pass and he is still dealing with the consequences of the disaster while also determined to expose what he believes is a cover up of the true cause behind the event. Aaron Taylor-Johnson plays his son, a military man married to Olsen. Watanabe plays a scientist studying hidden findings at the disaster site along with his assistant Hawkins. Obviously towering monsters come into play as the story unfolds and revelations are made. The inevitable global threat takes center stage but not before an intense and very well conceived buildup takes place.

Almost every character is given their moments. At first I was wishing I had seen more of this person or that person, but each serve the plot very well. A couple of performers don’t get a lot of screen time but I’m okay with that mainly because they work really well within the story being told. Better yet, everyone is really good. Taylor-Johnson is probably the weakest of the talented cast but he is certainly adequate for what he is asked to do despite his moments of blandness. Cranston is fabulous and Watanabe is rock-solid as always. Hawkins is always good although she is reserved to an almost background character. Olsen continues to impress and Straithairn is a really nice fit as a Navy Admiral in charge of stopping this massive scaly threat.

But perhaps what I like the most is how the movie doesn’t cater to preconceived notions. As I mentioned, it very slowly develops its story but I found it to be incredibly intriguing and always tense. This may not impress those looking for a constant barrage of big creature effects, but I found it to be a wonderful approach which made those big creature moments all the more satisfying once they come. Director Gareth Edwards constructs his film well which hearkens back to the fun sci-fi monster movies of the 1950s. He uses their formulas of build up, buildup, slight reveal, buildup, big finale. I loved that.

GODZILLA2

Now an argument could be made that the “big finale” is a bit too big. There is some merit to that. But even during those moments the story is moving in different directions which kept things interesting. Better yet, we had only seen passing glances of Godzilla up to that point so watching him duke it out in the finale was pretty exciting. It also helps that the movie looks great. There is a touch of the disaster genre here so we get several wide shots of massive destruction. They are always in context and they look fabulous. I also loved the look of Godzilla. Clearly there is CGI used, but yet he maintains an undeniable familiarity with the old classic Godzilla models. I got a real kick out of that. There is also a brilliant use of sound through the picture from big earth-shattering roars to perfect moments of ominous silence.

I think it’s safe to say that “Godzilla” is one of the biggest surprises for me this year. I had such a good time with the film and I was surprised at how well made and well written it is. The cast is committed and there’s no winking at the camera at any point. It literally had me glued to the screen for the entire running time and more than once I was smiling as it reminded me of those old monster movies that I still adore. Maybe there is a bit of nostalgia talking but I’m fine with that. I had a great time with “Godzilla” and I can’t wait to see it again!

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Getaway”

by

15

Getaway Poster

I have to start by addressing Ethan Hawke (because I’m so sure he reads this site). What were you thinking? I mean you’ve made some strange and questionable movie choices recently but none as mind-boggling as this. You’re a talented actor Mr. Hawke. Your work in movies like “Training Day” and the “Before” trilogy proves it. But if I may be blunt, your film “Getaway” absolutely sucked. And let me add a quick bit of advice. If anyone on your “staff”, whether it be an advisor or agent, recommended that you take this role, fire them immediately. Trust me, it’s for the good of your career.

Now with that out of the way, “Getaway” is one of these movies that has an obvious ambition but it fails to realize it in practically every regard. It’s poorly written, poorly acted, poorly directed, and poorly edited. Even the likable Ethan Hawke can’t save the film from its sleep-inducing monotony and overall lack of intelligence. It’s no surprise the film wasn’t able to come close to reaching its $18 million budget.

Hawke plays a former race car driver named Brent Magna (gotta love that name). One day he comes home from work to find his wife has been abducted. A mysterious man calls him to take responsibility and to give him a wild assortment of tasks to carry out in order to get her back. The first task leads him to a fully customized Shelby Mustang. It has all the normal accessories: AM/FM radio, power windows, automatic transmission, armored plating, bulletproof glass, and a number of cameras so that the kidnapper can keep up with Brent’s whereabouts. He takes the car and is told to follow the man’s instructions implicitly and if he gets caught by the cops his wife dies.

This way my reaction too after seeing "Getaway"

This way my reaction too after seeing “Getaway”

From there the movie collapses into eye-rolling stupidity. Some of these tasks that Brent is asked to do make no sense whatsoever. They are mainly just reasons to drive the car really fast. That’s really all this film is – an endless parade of high speed chases many of which are some of the worst ever filmed. They are extremely repetitious with little variation at all. At one point I honestly wondered if I was watching the same chase sequence from earlier in the film just from a different camera angle. There is very little creativity to them and practically no thrills. Just a mind-numbing assembly line of wrecked cars and engine roars.

“Getaway” does try to expand its tissue paper-thin plot by throwing in a girl known only as ‘The Kid’ (Selena Gomez). She ends up in the car and her role mainly consists of having a bad attitude and spitting out expletives. She is a terrible character shoehorned in by the dumbest contrivance. In fact, that’s a great way to summarize this movie. It’s one of the (unintentionally) dumbest movies of last year built around one of the worst scripts of the year. And the car chases (which should be the film’s saving grace) are the blandest and most repetitive scenes to endure. This is an awful movie and again I ask “Ethan Hawke, what were you thinking?”

VERDICT – 1 STAR

REVIEW: “The Grand Budapest Hotel”

by

32

Budapest Poster

When Wes Anderson releases a movie it’s almost like an event for me. I’m such a fan of his work and I enjoy each visit I make to his unique and eccentric world. Finally his latest film “The Grand Budapest Hotel” made its way to my area. After a grueling wait the film finally cured my impatience but did it meet my ridiculously high expectations? I’ve come to expect so much from Anderson’s movies and my lofty expectations seem almost unfair. And perhaps those same expectations contributed to my somewhat cold and indifferent reaction to this film.

“The Grand Budapest Hotel” features so many signature trademarks of other Wes Anderson films. We get the quirky period design, an assortment of offbeat characters, a host of stylistic visual flourishes, and a level of expected absurdity. All of those things are present here and they all work to the film’s advantage. These are some of the fingerprints I want to see all over a Wes Anderson movie. But there were other signatures that injects his movies with their own personality and vibrancy that I found missing in this film.

Budapest3

The story is told in a fractured style but the vast majority of it takes place within a fictitious Eastern European country during 1932. We are introduced to Monsieur Gustave H. (Ralph Fiennes), the concierge of The Grand Budapest Hotel during its glory days of luxury and prominence. Gustave is meticulous in his running of the hotel and his love for extravagance is only outdone by his adoration for strong cologne and for his elderly clientele. The story becomes a murder mystery after one of his close acquaintances Madame D (Tilda Swinton) is found dead and Gustave becomes the key suspect. It also becomes a heist film and of course a comedy.

The film is also loaded with a massive number of side characters. Some are like Fiennes and new to Wes Anderson’s world while others are old faithful stalwarts who find their way into nearly every one of his movies. Toni Revolori plays a young lobby boy named Zero who becomes Gustave’s protégé and faithful sidekick. Adrien Brody plays Dmitri, the son of the murdered Madame D. Willem Dafoe plays a grunting snaggletoothed hitman. I could go on and on listing small characters who service the story (some better than others). They are all sprinkled onto stylistic canvases that include an alpine village, a prison, and of course The Grand Budapest itself. There is truly an artistry to the entire visual presentation and all of that worked for me.

But what was it about the film that at first held me at arm’s length? Why didn’t I have the same wonderful experience as I usually have with Wes Anderson pictures during a first viewing? First off I just didn’t find it as funny as I had hoped. Certainly there were moments where I laughed but as a whole the dry humor wasn’t that effective. Even the crowd I watched with had their giggles held to a minimum. This film was also coarse and crasser than most of Anderson’s other pictures. Much of it is played for laughs but I found it to be distracting and it felt as though Anderson, normally known for his creative freedom, was really stretching.

Budapest2

Another missing component for me was the deeper emotional thread that every Anderson film has had. For example in “The Royal Tenenbaums” you have the destructive results that a father’s behavior has had on his family. In “The Darjeeling Limited” you have three separated brothers each carrying the baggage of their father’s death. “Moonrise Kingdom” features two kids with no stable adult presence in their lives. They find their refuge by running away together. The same thing applies to “Rushmore” and “The Fantastic Mr. Fox”. Anderson has always had a knack for presenting a deeper and more piercing subject and effectively surrounding it with humor. Every sense of that is vague and almost absent from this entire film. He does tinker with a few themes via the impending war that lingers in the background, the desires for the nostalgic “better days”, etc. But none of these stood out to me at all.

This is the first screenplay that Anderson has written by himself. Does that play into the things I found lacking? I don’t know, perhaps. Anderson is also often accused of going overboard with his eccentric style. I’ve never found any merit to that accusation but this is the first film where there just might be. Could that be linked to Anderson’s solo screenplay? Again, I don’t know. What I do know is that there were parts of this film that really worked and after a second viewing I definitely began to appreciate the film more. At first “The Grand Budapest Hotel” didn’t fully work for me. It definitely comes more into focus the more times you see it.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

REVIEW: “Grudge Match”

by

37

GRUDGE POSTER

Sylvester Stallone and Robert De Niro have had incredibly successful movie careers. What a shame that they have reached a point to where they would sign on for something as gimmicky and flimsy as “Grudge Match”. The trailer for the film left nothing to be desired. It made the movie look shameless and utterly predictable. Well, after seeing it I can confirm that it hasn’t an ounce of shame and you’ll see everything coming from a mile away. That said, it’s still not as bad as it could have been. But that doesn’t mean it’s good.

Stallone and De Niro have both had big successes with boxing movies – Stallone had “Rocky” and De Niro “Raging Bull”. It doesn’t take a Rhodes Scholar to see this film is clearly milking the whole Rocky Balboa versus Jake LaMotta novelty. Yes these are different characters who have different stories and different personalities. But this is clearly meant to cash in on the two older and superior movies. The big problem is I couldn’t care less about the gimmick.

GRUDGE1

The story is a pretty ridiculous and cliché-riddled. Henry “Razor” Sharp (Stallone) and Billy “The Kid” McDonnen (De Niro) were big time boxers who had a heated rivalry stemming from their two fights where each won one apiece. But right before the decisive rematch Razor retires. Thirty years later Kid is still furious that he was denied his shot at Razor. But as luck would have it a loud mouthed aspiring promoter (Kevin Hart) eventually gets a rematch. It’s first viewed as a big joke but soon, through the power of the cell phone generation, people begin to take notice of this grudge match for the ages (did I really just say that?).

Perhaps the best thing about this film are the performances. Both Sly and Bobby give committed performances even though the material is weak. To be honest I’m not surprised that Stallone would take a part like this, but it’s really sad to see De Niro reserved for such fluff. That aside, each gives all he has to try to make it all work and they are both really good. The problem is you have to wade through endless ‘out of shape’ jokes, over-the-hill gags, and some trumped up drama that is impossible to sell. It has a few funny moments and it is fun watching these two work. But it’s not too much to ask for a smarter and more engaging script.

GRUDGE2

Most of the supporting cast is very good even though they too are hampered by the lackluster material. Alan Arkin is cast as Razor’s crude trainer. Arkin is always good but here is is such a caricature. Kim Basinger also pops up and tries to save a role that is so fabricated and poorly written. We also get Jon Bernthal as a character shoehorned into the story for dramatic effect. He’s actually very good and he’s really proving himself as a better actor with each new role. All of these performances are good despite the narrative obstacles each face. I can’t really say the same for Kevin Hart who seems to be in constant standup comedy mode. Every single scene he’s in features him doing his shtick. Eventually it grew tiresome and annoying.

So how do you summarize “Grudge Match”? It’s a film featuring some good performances, scattered chuckles, and pretty capable direction. But you can dress up the pig all you want and it’s still a pig. When it comes down to it the commitment of the actors and the decent direction can only go so far. At some point you have to have good material and that’s what “Grudge Match” lacks. What we are given is hokey and forgettable comedy that’s not nearly as funny as it wants to be. I was definitely ready to throw in the towel.

VERDICT – 2 STARS