REVIEW: “Mistress America”

MISS POSTER

Noah Baumbach has a unique fascination with telling stories of high-strung eccentric chatterboxes who aren’t always the most likable people to be around. Some are airy and naive. Others are astringent and self-absorbed. But despite each of their quirks, annoyances, or repellent personalities, I’ve always found myself fascinated with Baumbach’s strange and often self-destructive creations.

Enter “Mistress America”, an unusual amalgamation of all of the above. It features most of the normal Baumbach signatures – neurotic and/or insecure people, a ton of hip rapid-fire dialogue, and a bustling New York City backdrop. As with every other film of his, a big part of your reaction will be influenced by your opinions of the characters and your tolerance levels for them.

MISS1

Baumbach’s favorite muse and girlfriend Greta Gerwig co-wrote the story and gets top billing, but the film is really about a girl named Tracy struggling to find her niche during her freshman year at college. She’s played by Lola Kirke who was very good in last year’s “Gone Girl”. Tracy feels like an outcast and can’t fit in with any of the typical college groups. Even the nerdy intellectuals pay her no attention except for a fellow writer named Tony (Matthew Shear). But even that relationship isn’t without its complexities.

Sensing her daughter’s melancholy, Tracy’s mom (Kathryn Erbe) encourages her to call up and connect with her soon-to-be stepsister Brooke (Gerwig). Tracy is instantly smitten with Brooke’s panache and lively New York City lifestyle (stating in one scene “I can’t imagine the city without you”). Brooke talks a good game and seems to have her toe dipped in many of the city’s coolest waters. But as with many of these characters, there is reason for us to wonder if her life is truly all sunshine and roses.

MISS2

For the most part “Mistress America” succeeds on the exact same level as most of Baumbach’s pictures. The characters are interesting even in their peculiar states and the story could be called a simple platform for their idiosyncratic philosophizing, witty banter, and self reflections. Dialogue is always a focus and most of it works as quirky intellectual comedy and drama. But this also feeds into a couple of the film’s issues. There are moments where the back-and-forths between characters feel too scripted. Other exchanges work noticeably hard to be intellectually cool. I’m also not sold on some of the comedy angles we get later in the film.

Embracing Noah Baumbach means dealing with certain blemishes and minor frustrations. At the same time his unique characters, rich dialogue, and sharp wit is more than enough to make up for them. This particular dive into the fashionable problems of big city millennials may not measure up with Baumbach’s best. Yet it still manages to capture what I enjoy about his films and the uniqueness of his formula is always satisfying.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

3.5 stars

REVIEW: “The Martian”

The Martian poster

Ridley Scott’s filmography has been pretty amazing. A quick scan shows it to be littered with cult classics, blockbuster favorites, and Oscar winners. But over the last several years many have hit Scott’s films pretty hard. Personally I have disagreed with the many. I loved the slower, character-driven approach to “Robin Hood”. I don’t think “Prometheus” was nearly as bad as many do. And despite its noticeable flaws, I thought “Exodus” was a pretty grand spectacle.

But now the 77 year-old Scott has once again caught the attention of his critics with “The Martian”, a brainy and somewhat observational  science fiction flick based on Andy Weir’s 2011 novel. Scott has long enjoyed delving into the science fiction realm, yet with “The Martian” he has managed to create something unique. This entertaining mixture of striking visuals and patient, methodical narrative has little in common with Scott’s past sci-fi experiences. “The Martian” is a much different movie but it still spotlights Scott’s talents as a filmmaker even though it may not sit among his best.

1E2FE3AD

“The Martian” plays out like some type of love letter to science and space exploration. There are A TON of science-heavy back-and-forths between the film’s large cast of characters and science is the centerpiece for nearly every scene. In many ways it was captivating to watch and listen to these people speak 10 light years over my head – bouncing around theories, equations, and analyzing data. At the same time it left two-thirds of the film feeling too emotionally dry. Drew Goddard’s script nails down the science but sometimes misses the human element.

The story hops into gear quickly when the Aries III Mars mission is hit by a brutal storm. They are forced to prematurely leave the surface and in the process astronaut and team botanist Mark Watney (Matt Damon) is presumed killed and left behind. Actually though, Mark miraculously survived and wakes up to find himself alone and stranded on the red planet. Armed with more scientific knowledge than a stack of college textbooks, Mark determines to use his science knowhow to survive. That starts by figuring out a way to communicate back to Earth.

For me Matt Damon is the epitome of the ‘reliable actor’. He is always solid and you know what you’re going to get. Here he handles his alone scenes well often talking to only himself of a computer screen. Many scenes require him to carry them ala Tom Hanks in “Cast Away”. He doesn’t exhibit the charisma or charm of Hanks but he more than gets the job done and you never doubt him or his predicaments.

MARTIAN1

The film’s second setting is on Earth. Upon discovering that Mark is alive, NASA sets out to find a feasible rescue plan. To accomplish this the movie introduces us to a host of characters many of which function solely to toss around their own scientific solutions. An interesting ensemble is put together for the NASA scenes. On the better side of the group is the rock-solid Chiwetel Ejiofor who plays Mars Mission Director Vincent Kapoor. In much more curious casting, Kristen Wiig feels terribly out of place as NASA’s chief spokesperson. And while Jeff Daniels certainly wasn’t “bad”, he was a bit hard to believe as the “Head of NASA”.

But there is a third setting and I would argue that it contains the more compelling and entertaining characters. It takes place aboard the Hermes where Mark’s crew is making the long trip back to Earth after losing one of their own. Or so they think. It’s here that the film gives us a better mix of science and human emotion. The casting is also stronger featuring Jessica Chastain, a reserved Michael Peña, Sebastian Stan, Kate Mara, and Aksel Hennie. I loved spending time with this group.

MARTIAN3

“The Martian” has wonderful visuals but not strictly in the way you might expect. There aren’t a lot of eye-popping visual spectacles. It’s more subtle and calculated, concentrating on gorgeous, slow-moving panoramic shots and unique, strategic camera angles that highlight the spectacular space settings. The storytelling is somewhat similar, at least until the last act. Most of the movie has the feel of a smaller more intimate picture despite its grand size and scale. I really appreciated that. It lasts right up until the finale. The ending felt much more studio polished and traditional.

Many people are heralding “The Martian” as a return to form for Ridley Scott. I would argue that he never lost his form but that is another discussion. Instead I’ll just say “The Martian” is another fine movie on a truly great filmmaker’s filmography. It’s not without its flaws. There is some questionable casting and some characters are woefully underdeveloped. Some of the humor doesn’t quite land (including a 70’s disco gag which never ends), and the ending was a bit too by-the-books. But none of these things keep “The Martian” from being a standout motion picture experience. It does several things we aren’t used to seeing from blockbustery type movies and it does them really well. And for me it is another reason why Ridley Scott remains a top-tier filmmaker.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

4 Stars

REVIEW: “Mortdecai”

Mort poster

Life is full of important questions. Does Donald Trump really think his hair looks good? Will Tom Cruise ever age? Do people actually watch “Keeping Up with the Kardashians”? But perhaps the most perplexing question is this – what has happened to Johnny Depp? And to go a bit further, what is driving him to pick such wretched projects these days? Over the years Depp has chosen a wide variety of weird and eccentric roles. But since his last “Pirates” movie, several of his choices have been…well…suspect.

Simply put, “Mortdecai” is his worst yet. It’s an appallingly unfunny action comedy fueled by lazy humor, juvenile gags, and its absurdly creepy main character. The film is based on a book series by English novelist Kyril Bonfiglioli. There were several books in the series which makes me think there was some decent material there. But screenwriter Eric Aronson doesn’t capture anything interesting or entertaining.

Mortdecai (Depp) is a shady art dealer and charlatan who, along with his high maintenance wife JoHanna (Gwyneth Paltrow), is financially strapped due to heavy tax debt. Inspector and old college acquaintance Alistair Martland (Ewan McGregor) comes to Mortdecai to help find a stolen rare Goya painting in exchange for settling his tax debt with the government. Along with his trusted manservant Jock (Paul Bettany), Mortdecai globetrots around the world, encounters a variety of uninteresting people, and faces plenty of dangers. Whatever.

Yep, that's the face you'll have as the final credits roll

Yep, that’s the face you’ll have as the credits roll

I’ve already mentioned how terribly unfunny the film is. You can only handle so much of Depp’s measly voice and bizarre gap-toothed smile. Humor focused on vomit, dry heaving, and body parts gets old quick. It also doesn’t help that the entire stolen painting mystery is sleep-inducing. It’s dull, lifeless, and smothered out by all of the vain attempts at humor. The movie tries to liven things up by injecting a few comedy-laced action sequences, but they are just as uninspired and forgettable.

I feel as though “Mortdecai” revolves around a continuous inside joke that I was never let in on. Surely a comedy can’t be this anemic, lame, and humorless. I sat stone-faced the entire time watching a talented and wasted cast flounder around with some of the worst material of the year. It could be said that this is a new low for Johnny Depp. The guy has talent. We have seen it in the past. But you see none of it in “Mortdecai”. Instead you get Depp at his most annoying and you have to wonder how much more of this nonsense can his career take?

VERDICT – 1 STAR

1 star

REVIEW: “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.”

UNCLE poster

“The Man From U.N.C.L.E.” debuted on NBC during the Fall of 1964. The campy and stylish spy-fi television series ran for only three and a half seasons but it has left a surprisingly lasting impression. That’s funny because during its short run the show struggled with its identity. It was at its peak of popularity when it was trying to be serious, but once the show started incorporating more humor the ratings dropped substantially.

So here we are, 47 years since the original show’s cancellation, and we have a big screen adaptation. The film embraces both the serious and the silliness that marked “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.” and its interesting television run. Guy Ritchie helms this wacky mélange of action, comedy, spy thriller, and a retro GQ photo shoot. On paper the movie calls for skepticism as it has all the ingredients to be a disaster. Thankfully it’s far from it. Instead Richie gives us a fun and zesty affair that quite exceeds the expectations I had.

UNCLE1

One of my causes for caution was rooted in the film’s two leads. Henry Cavill plays Napoleon Solo – a name so blatantly absurd yet tonally spot-on. He’s an accomplished thief turned reluctant CIA top agent. He’s quite confident and has a penchant for good fashion and even better hair. Then there is Armie Hammer playing KGB agent Illya Kuryakin. He’s a bit of a brute who is a by-the-book operative with a propensity towards fits of anger. Can you see where this is going? Two lone wolves forced to work together and all that stuff? Surprisingly the movie plays with that conceit without going too far.

Brimming with post-World War II and Cold War politics and atmosphere, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.” is set in 1963 where our two good-looking stars meet while trying to nab at target for their respective countries. That target is Gaby Teller (played with sauce and spunk by Alicia Vikander). She’s the daughter of a nuclear scientist believed to be working on a nuclear bomb for a wealthy couple who also happen to be Nazi sympathizers. Solo and Kuryakin are ordered to join forces along with Gaby to foil the nefarious plot despite their differences.

There are several things the film could have done to derail itself. First there is the humor. “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.” doesn’t make the critical mistake of taking itself too seriously. At the same time it doesn’t bombard the audience with dopey, annoying gags and slapstick. Instead the movie relies on a very calculated dry wit. In many ways the characters are the gags with their ultra-serious personalities and corny bravado. We really see this in the film’s bromance innuendo that Solo and Kuryakin are completely impervious to.

Then there is the action. We certainly get a handful of snazzy action set pieces, but those expecting to see normal action-packed summer movie fare may leave disappointed. Ritchie doesn’t drown his movie in endless shootouts, fistfights, or car chases. He uses action but even it is presented with pinches of style and humor. There are a couple of action twists that feel a bit out of place but ultimately it is done well and in the right amounts.

But the film’s strongest point may be the fabulous recapturing of its 196os setting. Guy Ritchie, cinematographer John Mathieson, costume designer Joanna Johnston, and composer Daniel Pemberton all contribute to the film’s stylish and energetic sense of time. Everything including the fashion, the decor, the technology. The period flavored music which hearkens back to so many different 60’s era sounds. The film is very aware of its style and it could be said that Ritchie wallows in it, but certainly not to the point of making it any less impressive.

UNCLE3

Back to Cavill and Hammer. Some have criticized their performances and the lack of chemistry between the two stars. I actually enjoyed them particularly Cavill and his suave, cheesy overconfidence that is clearly spoofing early Bond. There are moments where Cavill seems to be posing more than acting and Hammer feels as stiff as a board on occasions. But as for their chemistry, it’s a bit hard to judge since they are playing two characters who actually have no chemistry. That’s kind of the point. Overall I think they pull it off. And then you have Vikander who is a lot of fun playing the roles the men visualize for her while being smarter than any off them think. I also really liked Elizabeth Debicki giving a playfully exaggerated performance as one of the film’s villains.

So what to make of “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.? There is a smugness to the whole proceeding that sometimes shows itself in the self-indulgent style and in Ritchie’s infatuation with how good his actors look. But there is also an undeniable allure. I loved the realization of the setting, the controlled but effective humor, and the well utilized smattering of action. Most importantly I had a lot of fun, something we don’t always get to say with these types of projects. Sadly the film’s unique flair hasn’t drawn big crowds at theaters, but I found it to be a welcome retreat that may not be flawless but is certainly entertaining.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

4 Stars

REVIEW: “Minions”

Minions_Revision_PROOF

There is such a thing as shamelessly milking a profitable idea for all its worth. There is also such a thing as a guilty pleasure. These two ideas collided for me in “Minions”. Maybe I’m being a bit unfair. Perhaps these mischievous yellow pills haven’t reached the point of being “shamelessly milked”. But there is no doubt Universal Pictures sees profit in these silly little creatures. There is also no doubt that I have fallen victim to their charm. I find them funny. They are a guilty pleasure of mine. But do they have enough to carry a feature film on their own?

We first saw the minions on the big screen in 2010’s “Despicable Me”. A sequel followed and now they have their own spinoff. “Minions” starts off with a brilliant telling of the creatures’ history narrated by Geoffrey Rush. We learn the minions have been around since the prehistoric times and they exist only to serve villainous masters. Their masters have included cavemen, Dracula, and Napoleon just to name a few. The problem is their waggish incompetence constantly lead to the deaths of their masters and eventually drives them to start a new life in solitude. This early sequence is easily the film’s funniest. From there things get pretty inconsistent.

Minions1

Many years pass and the minions fall into a deep state of depression. A determined minion named Kevin realizes the only way for them to survive is to find a new villain to serve. Along with minion pals Bob and Stuart, Kevin sets put to find a new master and save his kind. It’s a truly noble task. Their quest takes them around the world until they eventually land a job with the world’s most famous villain Scarlett Overkill (Sandra Bullock). She and her eccentric husband Herb (Jon Hamm) head to London where their new minions are to pull of the grandest heist of them all.

While the opening is easily the funniest part, there are still laughs sprinkled throughout the rest of the film. This is mainly because I find the minions inherently funny. They offer several funny fish-out-of-water moments, lots of good-hearted ineptitude, and plenty of quirky sight gags. But the question remains – are they capable of carrying a full movie? “Minions” makes it hard to say yes.

Minion humor can be really funny, but this film shows they need other good characters to work with. Unfortunately they don’t get them. There isn’t a single non-minion character who is the slightest bit interesting or entertaining. Bullock’s Scarlett isn’t funny and much of her dialogue consists of long, drawn out ramblings. Herb is a throwaway character who offers nothing other his weird appearance. Most of the other non-minions basically run around, yell a lot, and act crazy.

Minions2

So that leaves the minions to their own devices and neither they nor Brian Lynch’s script has enough to carry the film. While funny in doses, the normal minion routine runs its course. Eventually we need more than their chirpy, unintelligible chatter and their cute and lovable incompetence. Eventually we need more than a seemingly endless stream of slapstick. But the movie does fall into this rut and the smattering of good gags aren’t enough to keep it afloat.

The youngster target audience will probably love every minute of “Minions”. I was with them to a point, but once the story abandoned the quest to find a master it bogged down and the humor grew inconsistent. I guess it makes sense. In the “Despicable Me” films minions exist to serve and support other characters. Maybe that’s why they were so good in those films but struggle here. Or maybe it’s the script that fails them and leaves the minions to fend for themselves. Whatever the case, these are still funny creatures and we see it in “Minions”. They just deserve better characters to work with especially if you’re making them the centerpiece of a feature length film.

VERDICT – 3 STARS

3 Stars

REVIEW: “Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation”

Mission poster

After a couple of shaky early installments the “Mission Impossible” franchise seems to have found its stride. Personally I’ve never considered any of the films bad, but a couple definitely showed a dip in quality. But 2011’s “Ghost Protocol” gave the series a new and stable identity. It was an action-packed blockbuster anchored by an entertaining story and an almost self-deprecating sense of humor. Now we have the fifth film “Rogue Nation” which embraces everything right about its predecessor and then elevates it.

Say what you want about Tom Cruise but he is an actor who has redefined himself and he remains successful because he knows who he is at this stage of his career. His Ethan Hunt character in “Rogue Nation” perfectly encapsulates his current state. Gone are the cheesy “Top Gun” grins, the “Risky Business” dances, and the “Jerry Maguire” flamboyance. In this film Ethan is still an IMF super agent, but he is also overmatched, fragile, and often dependent on others. It’s a refreshing approach that makes Ethan less of a superhero and more of a human being.

The story begins with two separate battles taking place. The first is before a Senate oversight committee. CIA Director Alan Hunley (Alec Baldwin) is seeking to shut down IMF due to their reckless and damaging tactics (see the Kremlin from the last film as an example). Agent Brandt (Jeremy Renner) defends the group but to no avail. IMF is shut down and all field agents are to be placed under CIA control.

MISSION1

But Ethan Hunt is involved in another battle – a covert operation intended to expose a global crime consortium known as the Syndicate. Ethan is lured into a trap and captured by the Syndicate’s mysterious leader Solomon Lane (deviously played by Sean Harris). But an equally mysterious British operative named Ilsa (Rebecca Ferguson) helps Ethan escape without revealing her reasons or motives. Convinced more than ever that the Syndicate must be stopped, Ethan sets out to stop Lane while avoiding the hounding CIA and determining which side Ilsa is fighting for.

Cruise has a lot of input into these films and he wisely surrounds himself with quality filmmakers. Christopher McQuarrie directed, wrote the screenplay, and is a regular collaborator with Cruise. You may remember he won an Oscar for writing the brilliantly verbose “The Usual Suspects”. Here his script features the adrenaline-fueled action sequences, but it also services its characters with good dialogue and smart humor. Then there is the wonderful cinematographer Robert Elswit, an Oscar winner for his work on “There Will Be Blood”. His camera never frames a bad shot and it never lands in a bad place. His action scenes may be the biggest treat particularly an exhilarating car and motorcycle chase through the streets of Casablanca.

Mission2

Getting back to the story and particularly Cruise’s Ethan Hunt, I can’t say enough about how refreshing it is to see this type of lead character in this type of movie be so dependent on others. So many cliches and overused tropes are tossed aside to give us a more human Ethan Hunt even amid his crazy stunts and top-notch spy work. We repeatedly see him being rescued or him relying on the strength and wisdom of others.

This is mostly seen in his relationship with Ilsa. So often she bests him and at other times she saves his life. He’s no knight in shining armor. Actually I think it could easily be said that Ilsa is the toughest character in the film. Cruise’s performance often highlights her strengths. Plus it helps to have such a great performance from Rebecca Ferguson. What’s best about their relationship is that McQuarrie and Cruise don’t force a run-of-the-mill romance on us. I kept waiting for the movie to strike that all-too-familiar note. After all this is Tom Cruise, right? Instead the film deviates from yet another overused story development which was so satisfying.

There are so many other things I could say about “Rogue Nation”. I could talk about the beautiful locations and the global feel. I could talk about the rest of the supporting cast and the strong work they do. I could talk more about the story and its aversion to cliches while still being a big budget blockbuster. Instead I’ll just say “Rogue Nation” is a very good movie from a franchise that doesn’t always get the credit it deserves. It definitely rises about most of the other summer tent pole pictures we’ve seen. Now bring on MI:6.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

TEST star