Bridge of Spies (2015) Review

Steven Spielberg is probably the most recognizable movie director in the industry. He made his name on blockbusters like Jaws and Raiders of the Lost Ark in the 1970s and 80s'. Today, He devotes most of his movies to biopics of historical figures. With Bridge of Spies he continues this tradition in fine form even if nothing in the movie is particularly spectacular.

Tom Hanks plays James B. Donavan a highly skilled attorney who soon finds himself being asked to defend an accused Soviet spy. While reluctant at first, Donavan eventually comes to respect the accused and his right to a defense. The climate of the time however puts everybody against Donavan including his family. The plot eventually involves the U2 incident and sees Donavan in East Berlin, how he gets there will be for you to find out.

There's something very old-fashioned about Bridge of Spies. Hanks' character with his lofty ideals and down-to-earth manner is played by Tom Hanks in a way that channels Jimmy Stewart in a Frank Capra film. The pacing and style of the film also evoke a timeless feel. this feeling also pervaded Lincoln. there is some nice sharp humor provided by the Coen's script and moments of intensity are punctuated by moments of levity.

The performances are entertaining and in some cases excellent. Hanks carries the film well and in a way that makes him easy to identify with, again this evokes Jimmy Stewart. the supporting cast turn in fine performances in what really becomes a cold war epic. This epic quality may be the film's strongest point. Through this story Spielberg is able to explore many aspects of the cold war and view the conflict from many angles. The production design helps to bring this point home with its attention to detail.

While all of the above are points in the film's favor this viewer couldn't help feeling that the whole was really good but not excellent. One reason for this is that the script hits the right notes almost too perfectly. In some scenes I could figure out exactly what would come next. This predictability probably won't be an issue for many viewers but with the number of great and unpredictable films I've seen so far this year it was a point against this film for me.

Overall, Spielberg's direction is on form and he tells the story in an exciting and evocative way. He does it so well that he makes it seem as if he isn't even behind the camera. bridge of spies has great direction, good performances and an energetic and witty, if slightly too predictable, script. It's a very good film 4/51

Meru (2015) review

It's been far too long since I have written a blog post. This time of year tends to be particularly busy, but now I plan to be back with a vengeance, beginning with my review of the outstanding documentary Meru.

Meru tells the incredible story of three climbers and their journey up one of the most difficult ascents in the world. To say any more about what happens would be to ruin one of the most exciting stories I have witnessed on film this year, fiction or non fiction.

Meru is filmed in a style that  allows the audience to be both an observer of the climbers incredible feats and right there in the center of the action. It's incredible to think that the film was even made at all. To have to deal with cameras, no matter how small, on a journey of this difficulty seems incredible. But, thankfully, cameras were brought along on this journey every step of the way.

Meru succeeds primarily because of how incredible its story is. To say why the story is so incredible would be to spoil the film. If this had been a fiction film I would have found it unbelievable. The story also unfolds in a way that works on a very emotional level, hitting beats at the right moment. There must have been hours of footage to go through and the editing is expert. Interviews are placed at the right moments and never slow down the action like some interviews in films of this sort can.

The other aspect of Meru that makes it a one-of-a-kind film experience is the way that the story lets us ask questions of what these guys are doing and why they do it. These men are risking their lives for what? that question pervades the film and it will continued to be pondered by anyone who sees this incredible achievement. There is something about this documentary that feels special. It should be experienced on a big screen and with as little about it known to the viewer as possible 5/5!

Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation (2015) Review

This is the year of the spy. More specifically it is the year of the retro-spy, the secret agent personified by Sean Connery on the big screen and by many other dashing heroes on the small one. This will become apparent to anyone who sees this new Mission Impossible film in the theater. Directly proceeding the film at my theater was a trailer for both Spectre (the new 007 adventure) and the Man from U.N.C.L.E. (an update of a classic spy TV show) all three of these properties have their origins in the Cold War with the USSR and the last time that all three were on our collective screens was 1967. In that year You Only Live Twice with Sean Connery was released, the Man From U.N.C.L.E. was in its third season (admittedly its worst), and Mission Impossible debuted. Adding to the retro feel is that all three of these properties seem to be going back to their roots. Bond is resurrecting a villainous organization he hasn't faced since 1971, U.N.C. L.E. is set in the 1960s, and this new Mission Impossible brought the classic organization "the Syndicate" up-to-date. I hope for great new outings for both 007 and Napoleon Solo but what is clear is that in 2015 the new Mission Impossible has set the bar very high indeed.

The film's opening tells you everything you need to know about this series in its current form. An airplane carrying some weapons is about to take off and it has to be stopped. There's a whole team trying to stop it but their technology is failing them. Coming to the rescue is Tom Cruise who jumps on the plane just before it takes off and has to hang off the side of the airplane while it takes off. The fact that this stunt was done for real only adds to the entertainment factor and before we know it we're passing the popcorn and the classic theme song is playing. Mission Impossible moves at the break-neck pace that the best blockbusters do. Its twisty plot is woven through impressive stunts and lots of fun. Like its 1960s counterparts no one here will win an award for acting but that's not the point, it's pure entertainment.

One of this new Mission's strongest assets is its strong female character. Ilsa is given complex motives and is never allowed to become marginalized by being "just another love interest". Simon Pegg also excels with both comedic gravitas as well as a good character arc. The action itself is well shot and the stunts are sometimes jaw dropping.

If I have to nitpick it is that the film may be slightly too long. This seems to be a problem with many action films these days. It all works to bring great entertainment though. Forget Mad Max, this is the best action film of the summer so far 4.5/5

Ted 2 (2015) Review

Comedic sequels do not tend to be good. I think there are many reasons for this. One of them is that part of what makes something funny is that it is different. I mean different both in the sense that something can differ from other things of its type, but also in that it can differ from what one was expecting it to be. This uniqueness is strongest when that comedic concept is done for the first time. Not only is it difficult to come up with new ideas and jokes for a sequel but the freshness of the original will not be present. Ted 2 suffers from everything bad comedic sequels suffer from and then some.

I have never been a big Seth MacFarlane fan. I wasn't allowed to watch Family Guy as a kid so when I finally saw that show for the first time I had a lot of other comedy which I had seen, I found it quite underwhelming. I saw the first Ted in a college dorm and was surprised that it was actually pretty funny considering the low opinion I had of Family Guy. Unfortunately, Ted 2 is not only worse than Family Guy, it may be less funny than late period Family Guy.

There are jokes galore here but many fall flat and some don't even make sense. There are also plenty of pop culture nods but they are just that, nods. It's like we're being told  "see how many famous movie scenes I remember". This isn't bad in and of itself but when those homages contain nothing clever or the hint of a joke they become shallow and frustrating.  Also unlike many directors seem to think, watching people smoke marijuana does not by itself constitute a funny joke.

Amidst all of this is a strange plot about Ted trying to gain civil rights. It's played as some sort of allegory for the recent court challenges to gay marriage but it just came off as both ridiculous, in a bad way, and boring to me. Comedic sequels are not easy projects but you have to do better than this 1.5/5

Inside Out (2015) Review

When Walt Disney set out to create the first feature-length animated films he was not merely trying to make colorful films that kids would enjoy and which parents could gleam some slight humor from, rather, he wanted to use animation as a tool that could tell stories live-action couldn't. This spirit of experimentation is visible in the earliest Disney films but as profitability concerns began to play a factor the experimentation was done away with. In its place came quality stories which are fun to watch but which lack the adventurous spark of the earlier efforts. This spirit wouldn't be regained until the 1990s. The studio that would bring it back was not the studio Walt started but rather PIXAR. Regular Disney movies were getting better in the early 90s but Pixar with its CG animation really stepped things up. They made movies from the perspective of toys, a family of superheroes, a rat that could cook, and an elderly man. It felt like Pixar had taken up Walt's legacy and wasn't letting go. Then, a string of mediocre films made us doubt whether animation would ever reach that original glory ever again. I am very pleased to report that with their latest, Inside Out, Pixar had ended their losing streak and achieved one of their most decisive victories.

Inside Out tells the story of the emotions inside an 11 year old girl's head. These emotions are each embodied by a character and run her brain from a control room. When the girl, Riley, moves from her hometown to San Francisco the action begins. I don't want to spoil what happens for anybody that hasn't seen the film, but needless to say the plot will involve new challenges for all of the emotions as they deal with the move.

The plot of this film is outwardly simple and inwardly intricate. It's a riveting piece of storytelling that allows for the audience to get an all access tour of Riley's head. The film excels in detailed symbolism which is so good that I almost chuckled at how clever some of it was. There are explanations given for how dreams are made and why songs get stuck in our heads as well as an exploration of abstract thought. All of this scenery propels the story forward, but it also adds depth. Sure, kids will find it colorful and exciting but the deeper significance of the locations in Reilly's brain will only be gained by older kids and adults. There's so much here that it could be worth a second viewing.

Aside from the setting, the plot is an emotional roller-coaster. It's full of highs and lows and twists and turns. some of these moments are so profound they may have you in tears. Most importantly, the finale is fulfilling in a way that few endings in mainstream film are. What's even more impressive than this film's profundity is its humor. There are plenty of great jokes in this film that are more than just cheap pop culture references.

The voice cast is uniformly excellent but Amy Poehler's joy is of particular note. This is animation telling a story only animation can tell and thus it is not only vintage Pixar but vintage Disney. Inside Out is also the best film I've seen so far this year, I'm sure that somewhere Mr. Disney is smiling 5/5!

Jurassic World (2015) Review

Jurassic World was a movie engineered to make money at the box office. Its a film about running away from dinosaurs, starring one of the most popular leading men right now and it was based on a beloved franchise from the 90's. The plot is also easy to follow and there is no real thinking necessary on the part of the audience while watching it. Jurassic World was destined to be summer gold but how does it stand up as a movie?

To me watching this film was like watching a 1950's Universal Studios monster movie. the plot is simple, the characters are cliché, and the dialogue sometimes unintentionally funny but the overall effect the film has is that it is fun. Fun is what I would describe Jurassic World as. It's not great, but it isn't trying to be. It was fun and I was never bored. This may seem like faint praise but with what I've seen from blockbusters this summer the fact that I was not bored is praise indeed.

Chris Pratt continues to cement himself as a movie star and in terms of acting he's the best thing here. That's not to say the other actors aren't good it's just that there isn't much written for their characters. As stated above the plot is simple and I think that works in this film's favor.

Overall, this was a fun summer movie experience that wasn't anything earth-shattering but that was a lot of fun. If you haven't already, go to your local theater, put on the ridiculous 3D glasses and enjoy a fun dinosaur spectacle for 2 hrs. 3.5/5

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) review

I wasn't a huge fan of the first Avengers film. It lacked a really menacing villain and it fell apart in the third act. Despite those criticisms, it did have some brilliant moments, particularly in its first half, when we just got to see the characters act like real people who just happen to have super abilities. The thrill of the first film was that we got to see the characters on screen in a way that felt so natural and was so entertaining that it was nearly irresistible. It was in those quieter moments that Whedon, the director, took what could have been an overblown Transformers movie and turned it into something enjoyable. I wish there had been more of this brilliance in the first film but the film managed the rest of the less alluring parts well enough that the thing flowed together. The same cannot really be said for the second film. While Age of Ultron has a better villain and some of the best individual moments in all of the Marvel film universe it fails to fit all of its moving parts together.

Age of Ultron feels like a brilliant superhero film squashed under the weight of bad editing. This doesn't mean that the individual cuts of the film are bad but rather that what we have in terms of a story feels like its missing something. While the story is missing some beats, it seems as though every bit of every action scene that was shot was left in the film. What results is a frustrating film with moments of Whedon brilliance marred by an even more action-heavy third act. Apparently the first cut of the film was 4 hours. I don't want to see four hours of this film, but I do wonder whether the disjointed nature of the plot comes from leaving some stuff out. It feels as though, for whatever reason, too much of the action was left in. It's not as drawn-out as the third Hobbit but it really hurts a film that's already seemingly missing some plot points. It feels as though in the last two acts the film never really had a good rhythm.

On the positive side, Ultron is a great villain and better than Loki. Spader's performance is menacing in a way Loki wasn't. Ultron poses a real threat, it's just a shame that the plot's disjointedness dulls his impact. As mentioned above, there are several sequences of character that could easily rank amongst the best stuff to come out of the Marvel studio. Whedon can write incredible dialog between these characters and that dialog is delivered by actors who embody their characters. Robert Downey Jr. is the stand-out. Never before has an actor and a superhero been more perfectly meshed.

Apparently this is Whedon's last stint in the directors chair for Marvel. This seems a shame since I feel we didn't ever see him sustain his brilliance for a whole film. Whether it be the moments when he shows us human carnage or the snappy and natural dialog found in the film, Whedon brings brilliance to the table but it is weighed down by the repetitive action. Age of Ultron is a frustrating film, but I believe that just enough brilliance shines through to make it worth watching. 3.5/5