Cinematic Considerations

Year: 2015

  • Self/less: Sci-fi thriller lacks requisite thrills

    Self/less: Sci-fi thriller lacks requisite thrills

    Ryan Reynolds is going to make a major comeback in Hollywood very soon, but unfortunately for science fiction fans, it probably won’t be with the uneven — and commercially underperforming — “Self/Less.”

    The notion that a dying Ben Kingsley would approach a company to transfer his consciousness into a younger, healthy Reynolds is a terrific idea, but director Tarsem Singh can’t really make the pieces fit together.

    Once Kingsley leaves the screen and viewers are left to focus on Reynolds, the plot thickens, but neither romantic interest Natalie Martinez of “End of Watch” or vaguely nefarious villain Matthew Goode of “The Imitation Game” can keep viewers engaged enough to root for Reynolds’ success in the action portion of the film.

    Genre-jumping from science fiction to action thriller to romance and back again seems to be too much for Singh and writers Alex and David Pastor, whose overall writing and direction feels bland, save for a scene or two.

    Conceptually much better than the actual execution of the film, the shortcomings of “Self/Less” can’t possibly be laid at the feet of Reynolds, a talented actor with a definite skillset who just can’t find the right vehicle to break out with.

    Reynolds can thrive in the sorts of roles Bradley Cooper perfected before his emergence in “Silver Linings Playbook,” and to a larger extent, “American Sniper.” The borderline cocky smugness that Reynolds can exude so well in comedic settings is what helped Cooper rise to fame with “The Hangover” movies. Odds are in Reynolds’ favor, however, with the early 2016 release of the rated R superhero film “Deadpool,” a Comic Con favorite that will allow Reynolds to snark his way into the hearts of moviegoers.

    In the meantime, “Self/Less” ultimately is one of those films that viewers can either catch on a whim as a matinee or wait until the DVD/streaming release later this fall.

  • Terminator Genisys: Stop destroying San Francisco already

    Terminator Genisys: Stop destroying San Francisco already

    Throw convention out the window if you’re planning on seeing “Terminator Genisys,” the fifth installment in the action franchise that made Arnold Schwarzenegger a household name.

    Though it’s not completely necessary to have seen all four previous films, a working knowledge of James Cameron’s classics “The Terminator” and “Terminator 2: Judgement Day” will be handy, along with pencil and paper to keep track of all the alternate timelines.

    While the original “Terminator” films (excluding the subpar “Rise of the Machines” and “Salvation” entries) operate in a closed loop universe based on singular time travel events, “Genisys” throws almost everything out the window.

    For a while, this leads to some compelling action sequences, including Schwarzenegger fighting a younger, CGI-version of himself and the reappearance of the shape-shifting, liquid metal T-1000 Terminators.

    Once the second time jump happens (and you may lose track of them all after a while), the plot folds in on itself for a disturbing and not entirely satisfying conclusion.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=62E4FJTwSuc
    “Game of Thrones” actress Emilia Clarke shines in an otherwise bland film, acting wise, giving viewers a character worth rooting for as mother of the resistance Sarah Connor.

    The stone-faced Jai Courtney, best known as Eric from the “Divergent” trilogy, muddles his way through a mediocre performance as “Terminator” mainstay Kyle Reese. While not totally ineffective, Courtney often sits third banana while Emilia Clarke and Schwarzenegger do all of the heavy lifting.

    For all his warts as an actor, Schwarzenegger can’t miss as a Terminator — good or bad — and his overly robotic smile is one of the most genuinely humorous moments on screen so far this year.

    As a whole, “Genisys” opts for glitz and glamour over a coherent story at every turn, as if writers Laeta Kalogridis and Patrick Lussier just turned to each other and said, “How can we top what just happened? Let’s flip a bus on the Golden Gate Bridge.”

    As an aside, has anyone noticed that San Francisco and its illustrious bridge get decimated in action films more than any other city nowadays?

    From last year’s “Godzilla” to “San Andreas” and “Genisys,” the city by the bay has been ruthlessly targeted again and again. Apparently, it’s also the main background for the destruction of upcoming films “Ant-Man” and “Pixels.” Where is the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce when you need them?

    Turn your brain off when heading to the theaters for “Genisys,” which doesn’t quite offer the punch or pizazz “Jurassic World” does, but gives just enough hope for a brighter future.

  • Magic Mike XXL: Quality, clothes stripped away in subpar sequel

    Magic Mike XXL: Quality, clothes stripped away in subpar sequel

    Calling something “XXL” implies bigger and better.

    Double entendre aside, the sequel to the 2012 indie smash hit “Magic Mike” was supposed to blow away female audiences over the Fourth of July weekend like a massive fireworks display.

    Moviegoers who came out to the Channing Tatum-helmed male stripper fiesta got their fireworks show, but “Magic Mike XXL” feels closer to the premature explosion from San Diego’s 2012 disaster when 20 minutes worth of fireworks went off in about 15 seconds.

    Somehow, someway this film got made as Tatum and writing partner Reid Carolin pieced together a couple of general scene ideas and crammed them into a buddy road trip movie.

    Tatum, whose “Magic Mike” character supposedly rode off into the sunset and left stripping behind at the end of the original, hops right back on the Kings of Tampa bandwagon within the first 15 minutes to join his old stripper buddies for “one last ride.”

    The last ride plot device, most often used at the tail end of fading action franchises, implies that many rides were had prior to the upcoming “last ride.”

    This isn’t yet another double entendre, which is surprising given it’s one of the few times in the film sexual or phallic imagery is subtly on display.

    If “Magic Mike” were to become a franchise, it’s already been crippled by this plot choice. How many more last rides can there be?

    Little of what made “Magic Mike” a surprise hit both critically and commercially remains in its “XXL” sequel.

    The domineering and captivating Matthew McConaughey is gone, taking the most memorable character in the upstart franchise with him.

    His loss alone is enough to cripple any potential follow-up, but things got worse for the sequel when “Magic Mike” director Steven Soderbergh opted not to return for a second go-round in the director’s chair.

    With the original “Magic Mike,” Soderbergh made a gritty, independent drama that just happened to center around the world of male strippers.

    The supersized version, if you will, under the direction of longtime assistant director Gregory Jacobs opts for style over substance, trading quality performances and well written scenes for gyrating hips and overly long dance sequences.

    It’s as if Soderbergh knew the magic of the original film couldn’t be replicated, getting out of the way before the stripper train derails off the tracks.

    Though it’s true Soderbergh is both cinematographer and editor under pseudonyms for “XXL,” it’s easy to tell that his heart’s just not in it.

    For all the progress that has been made over the last six months with powerful performances by women on screen, “Magic Mike XXL” undercuts that step forward with subpar, one-note efforts from a trio of actresses.

    Jada Pinkett Smith, who returns to the big screen for the first time since 2008, is a complete disaster as strip club owner/promoter Rome, who can’t bring substance to a character written for a suave male actor. Taraji P. Henson, rising star of television’s “Empire” would have been a much more worthy choice to fill the role.

    Amber Heard, the film’s obligatory romantic object, isn’t given much to work with, especially when the “meet-cute” scene finds her stumbling upon Tatum while he is urinating on the beach.

    For those wondering where ’90s rom-com star Andie MacDowell has been, look no further than “Magic Mike XXL,” where she drunkenly stumbles her way through an overly long scene as she and a group of aging women lust over the vagabond strippers.

    Everything about the scene — and the film as a whole — reeks of desperation, and not in a good way.

    Without McConaughey to ground the film or a substantive plot to pace it, “Magic Mike XXL” attempts to go big, but ultimately just goes home, where most people will ultimately screen the sub-par effort from the comfort of their couches.

  • Ted 2: Where’s the humor?

    Ted 2: Where’s the humor?

    Comedy requires originality. It’s as simple as that.

    There’s absolutely not a single shred of originality in “Ted 2,” an amalgamation of leftover “Family Guy” setups, hokey premises and half-hearted humor that leaves viewers disappointed from the outset.

    Honestly, “Ted 2” shouldn’t come as much of a surprise to those who’ve followed the career trajectory of Seth MacFarlane, the mastermind (and vocal talent) behind the cult classic “Family Guy.”

    After being left for the television scrap heap, “Family Guy” viewers brought the fledgling, but hysterical comedy back from the dead and vaulted MacFarlane to semi-stardom, where he used his Hollywood connections to make “Ted,” a raunchy and raucous comedy about what happens if a stuffed teddy bear comes to live and basically follows the career path of Justin Bieber.

    The inevitable sequel, released last weekend, goes so far as to outright call Ted out as becoming another Bieber, because with “Ted 2,” subtlety is thrown out the window.

    Within the first five minutes, it seems pretty evident that director/writer Seth MacFarlane and his co-writers Alec Sulkin and Wellesley Wild were probably stoned while penning a subpar follow-up to the 2012 hit comedy “Ted.”

    Like a bad episode of “Family Guy,” “Ted 2” jumps all over the map stylistically, romping its way through musical revue, buddy comedy, romantic comedy and action spoof without any semblance of direction.

    MacFarlane, taking his third turn behind the director’s chair after “Ted” and “A Million Ways to Die in the West,” continues to prove why early “Family Guy” and the original “Ted” seem more and more like comedic flukes than the norm.

    Stoner comedies often work, but as proven time and again by Seth Rogen, James Franco and the rest of Judd Apatow’s merry band of misfit actors, originality is key.

    There’s no mad rush to make “Pineapple Express 2” or “NO, This Is The End.”

    These top comedians go out of their way to make something new and original, — Rogen with his role as  Wozniak in the upcoming Steve Jobs biopic, Apatow directing the Amy Schumer-led “Trainwreck” and Franco with no less than six independent films coming out in 2015 — because that’s ultimately what’s best for audiences.

    Mark Wahlberg, who consistently proves he’s more than game to handle his fair share of comedic roles, takes a large backseat to Ted, a visually stunning teddy bear lacking in character development.

    Watching Ted struggle with the concept that he’s property not person feels like a chore because the arrogance of MacFarlane prevents viewers from actively engaging in the storyline.

    It’s as if MacFarlane is telling audiences what is funny while sticking out the proverbial middle finger at the same moviegoers who made a “Ted” sequel possible.

    Mila Kunis, the voice behind longtime “Family Guy” punching bag Meg, wisely opted to sit out the second installment of “Ted,” with “Les Miserables” actress Amanda Seyfried filling in as an out-of-her-league, pot-obsessed lawyer assigned to help Ted get his life back together.

    The role is beneath Seyfried in every way, though the same could also be said for Wahlberg and certainly for Morgan Freeman, who phones in a lackluster performance as a big-shot civil rights lawyer.

    Watching “Ted 2” gives audiences a similar queasy feeling to the one moviegoers left experiencing about Melissa McCarthy after suffering through the road-trip comedy “Tammy.”

    Sequels like this don’t need to be made.

    In fact, the poorest ones — this film included — actually lessen the original film.

    There’s a reason it took 25 years and a lot of re-writes to finally come up with a “Jurassic Park” sequel that stands on its own two feet.

    Instead of waiting for the right time and smashing a home run, movie studios seem all too content to lean into the first inside pitch they see and take their base, opting for quick cash over quality.

    With the exception of a 30-second clip of Ted singing improvised lyrics to the “Law and Order” theme song, all the jokes are in the trailer.

    Viewers know that everyone involved can do better, though no one seems willing to admit it.

  • Inside Out: Pixar returns to animated genre with maturity

    Inside Out: Pixar returns to animated genre with maturity

    If Christopher Nolan made a children’s movie, it might end up something very similar to “Inside Out,” the latest Disney/Pixar blockbuster to hit theaters.

    The ultimate thinking man’s kids’ film (both figuratively and literally), director Pete Docter’s third feature film is incredibly layered and cerebral in much more complex ways than his other features, 2001’s “Monsters, Inc.” and 2009’s “Up.”

    On the surface, “Inside Out” focuses on the emotional states (Joy, Sadness, Fear, Disgust and Anger) of a pre-teen girl named Riley, whose family moves from Minnesota to San Francisco abruptly and without warning. Much of the film is viewed from inside Riley’s brain, with Riley herself reduced to nothing more than a secondary character. Visually, the difference between the real world and the one in Riley’s head is defined by brightness, with real world scenes more tampered down than the vividly bright world of her mind.

    While not exactly on par with Pixar’s upper echelon features like “Toy Story” and “Finding Nemo,” “Inside Out” does mark a much needed return to the big screen for one of animation’s top studios, whose last release, “Monsters University,” came out in 2013. Thankfully, Pixar is back in a big and bright way with “Inside Out” and viewers will get a second helping of Pixar later this year with the release of “The Good Dinosaur.”

    The journey itself doesn’t provide anything new or extraordinary, but what sets “Inside Out” apart from more pedestrian children’s movies is just how inventive the film is conceptually. Animation usually deals with the surreal and unbelievable on an external scale — i.e. What if all my toys came to life when I’m not around?

    Turning the camera around and looking internally within oneself is something generally left up to high concept science fiction films.  While Docter’s film is certainly not without its flaws — running time being a major concern as “Inside Out” tends to drag in the middle — it does reflect a major step forward in animation and family-friendly films in general.

    Visually, the film is one of Pixar’s better works, dynamic and vivid inside Riley’s mind, while at the same time, the real world feels authentic to the eye in a much more realistic way than your average animated films. There’s two distinct animation styles at play in the film and both stand out on their own while working in harmony with each other.

    For as good as the directorial and animation work is, “Inside Out” doesn’t click in quite the same way without the dynamic and rich vocals of lead voice actress Amy Poehler, whose glee as the emotion Joy evokes much of the high energy character that Poehler became famous for as government worker Leslie Knope in TV’s “Parks and Recreation.”

    So much of the success in animated films is getting the lead voice actors right, from Tim Allen and Tom Hanks in “Toy Story” to Ellen DeGeneres in “Finding Nemo” and Idina Menzel and Kristen Bell in “Frozen.” A good vocal talent can elevate animation beyond the visual and bring the cartoons to life, whereas poor, miscast voices just clutter things up.

    Poehler, who’s lived on high-energy performances, is ideally suited to play the perpetually perky Joy, leading a rag-tag group of emotions voiced by comedic all-stars like Bill Hader (Fear) and Mindy Kaling (Disgust). Comic Lewis Black, who humorously yells through much of his standup, fits like a glove as Anger, the best animated emotion, drawn flame red, stocky and evocative of the stereotypical newsroom editor, complete with a thick mustache reminiscent of Mike Ditka.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k1oXx4delIY
    It should come as no surprise to fans of the American version of the hit television comedy, “The Office” that Poehler’s main counterbalance, always gloomy Sadness, would be voiced by Phyllis Smith, who perfected the role as a Debbie Downer cubicle worker. Smith brings all the fervor from her classic television performances to the big screen and is a refreshing new voice to animation, one to stick around for a long time.

    Veteran character actor Richard Kind stands out among the vocal talent in a secondary role as Riley’s imaginary best friend, Bing Bong, slowly being forgotten as she gets older.

    “Inside Out” forces younger viewers to ask difficult questions like “Why is sometimes being sad a good thing?” and “How do I best deal with change?” While conceptually geared more toward pre-teen and teenage audiences, younger viewers will still find a great deal of enjoyment following Joy and Sadness as they fight to make their way back home.

    Audiences are seeing Pixar grow up as a studio with “Inside Out,” a more mature offering that still keeps in the overall mold of classic animated hits, but shows more depth and deserves multiple viewings to understand all the film’s subtle complexities.

    ‘Lava’

    Following an ongoing Disney trend for family-friendly entertainment, a short film entitled “Lava” is screened prior to the start of “Inside Out.”

    Basically a music video drawn out a tad too long at six-plus minutes, “Lava” follows the story of a lonely volcano looking to find his volcano soulmate.

    The effort is cutesy and just slightly over the top, not really living up to the much higher standards of “Inside Out,” though the song itself is memorable and catchy.

    Don’t fret if you’re running behind at the concession stand, however, as “Lava” isn’t the must see that its feature partner is.

  • Jurassic World: Nostalgia at its finest in action adventure

    Jurassic World: Nostalgia at its finest in action adventure

    Sequels that genuinely work, or even come remotely close to living up to the original film, are few and far between.

    While last weekend’s smash hit “Jurassic World” isn’t exactly a modern carbon copy of Steven Spielberg’s 1993 masterpiece “Jurassic Park,” so much of what made the original feature awe-inspiring, terrifying and innovative is preserved in what very well may be the summer’s best blockbuster film.

    Brash, loud and in your face, “Jurassic World” gives viewers everything they could possibly want from a return to Isla Nublar, scene of the original film’s theme park turned prehistoric demolition derby, but cranks everything about the original up to 11 while expounding on what might happen if the doomed park actually opened for business.

    Besides the big, bad dinos, the first thing that jumps out on screen is the unabashed product placement throughout the film for everything from Hilton hotels to Samsung to the Jimmy Buffett Margaritaville restaurant on the main plaza (look out for Buffett himself in a mid-film scene running from loose pterodactyls.) “Jurassic World” subtly pumps out an ironic anti-commercialization sentiment, where everything’s for sale to the highest bidder. A great short scene featuring Jake Johnson of “New Girl” hammers home this point to humorous effect, wondering when Pepsisaurus is coming.

    Director Colin Trevorrow hasn’t done much in his Hollywood career, with only the Aubrey Plaza-led indie dramedy “Safety Not Guaranteed” to his credit, but the young filmmaker proves incredibly adept in the world of big-budget blockbusters, revitalizing a major film franchise in a way that hasn’t been done since “Casino Royale” breathed new life into the James Bond franchise.

    Properly paced and well conceived on a shot-for-shot basis, Trevorrow’s film moves along at a steady clip, keeping viewers on the edge of their seats throughout.

    However, “Jurassic World” lacks the quieter moments the original film thrived in, softer scenes in between the chaos of the park’s decimation. Instead, the fourth iteration ramps up the spectacle, adding bigger, badder, cooler dinosaurs and genetic hybrids to the mix, leaning on 20-plus years of advancements in computer generated imagery and cinematography to do much of the heavy lifting. As a result, each of the film’s 15-plus dinosaurs are more dynamic and captivating, upping the ante for the inevitable sequel(s) to come.

    While the dinosaurs — especially the anti-hero velociraptors returning from “Jurassic Park” and the monstrous water-locked Mosasaurus — are the film’s primary stars, Trevorrow’s blockbuster benefits from a top performance from one of Hollywood’s next generation of leading men, the charismatic Chris Pratt.

    Best known for his roles on “Parks and Recreation” and Marvel’s “Guardians of the Galaxy” franchise, Pratt combines his trademark wit with a cool, calm demeanor to bring a modern version of the Indiana Jones character to life in a franchise that needs his unique kind of gravitas to bring the film together.

    On the other hand, Bryce Dallas Howard lacks the requisite star power to keep up with Pratt, both in the physical and emotional stakes of the film, leaving viewers wanting an Anne Hathaway-type actress to help develop and fully round out her park leader. Her park manager character Claire seems to be written to have served a dual role as a hybrid femme fatale/damsel in distress, but Howard never seems to truly grasp either side.

    She opts to play the role like Sandra Bullock, circa 1995, flightly, neurotic and slightly manic in a way that takes a step back from all the progressive roles and performances viewers have seen from female actresses this year. Within the context of the film, the performance generally works, but it’s a mild disappointment nevertheless.

    Because “Jurassic World” follows its parent film almost to the point of remake, much of the feature’s emotional stakes are tied into Claire’s teen and pre-teen nephews, played by relative newcomers Nick Robinson and Ty Simpkins. The younger Simpkins gives a more consistent performance throughout the film and helps younger viewers identify with the film in much the same way that Timmy, original park owner John Hammond’s grandson, does in “Jurassic Park.”

    Strong supporting performances from veteran character actors Vincent D’Onofrio and B.D. Wong, who returns from the original film, help to provide foils for Pratt, and to a lesser extent Howard, play off of during those few and far between scenes not to feature the film’s dynamic dinosaurs.

    Ardent fans of the 1993 original film in the franchise will delight in multiple viewings of “Jurassic World” as Trevorrow takes great care to sprinkle “Jurassic Park” references, both obvious and subtle, into the film. Everything from the expository cartoon character Mr. DNA to the famed spitting dinosaur Dilophosaurus to smaller line callbacks are peppered throughout “Jurassic World,” helping to give the modern film a more classic feel.

    Breathtaking at times and heartpounding at others, “Jurassic World” is the sequel that “The Lost World: Jurassic Park” should have been, but wasn’t quite. This must-see cinematic thrill ride offers a little bit of something for both viewers new to the franchise and those intimately familiar with Spielberg’s classic original installment.

  • Spy: Melissa McCarthy makes comedic comeback

    Spy: Melissa McCarthy makes comedic comeback

    Sookie St. James is making a comeback.

    The warm, kind-hearted neighbor character played to perfection by comedienne Melissa McCarthy in TV’s “Gilmore Girls” has been largely missing from the rising star’s film credits, while McCarthy has made her name mucking it up in less than savory roles.

    Her latest adventure, the spoof film “Spy,” is by no means family-friendly entertainment, but continues a step in the right direction for the actress, who needs to continue to display versatility on screen.

    Since McCarthy broke out in 2011’s “Bridesmaids,” nearly every single role she has taken on — from her hilarious turn in the buddy cop film “The Heat” to more lackluster roles in “Identity Thief” and “Tammy” — has been some iteration on the bumbling, intentionally fat and ugly bridesmaid Megan.

    Her career revitalization — oddly mirroring the resurgence Zach Galifinakis has seen following a supporting role in “Birdman” — began last year with a secondary role in the dramedy “St. Vincent” and continues with “Spy,” by far the best film in McCarthy’s career.

    Unlike prior films, “Spy” doesn’t make simpleminded assumptions about how to utilize McCarthy in comedic roles and refuses to simply poke fun at her weight. In fact, McCarthy’s Susan Cooper is a character that might have been played by Sandra Bullock 10 years ago or by Kristen Wiig today.

    It’s obvious that director Paul Feig, who teamed with McCarthy on “Bridesmaids” and “The Heat,” knows how to bring the best out of the actress and does the best job writing for her after bringing other screenwriters’ vision to life in their previous pairings.

    Every detail in “Spy” is perfectly and painstakingly woven together in a fresh and original way from the crisp dialogue and fast-paced plot to the Bond-like opening credit sequence featuring the Ivy Levan song “Who Can You Trust” that evokes Tina Turner’s belting vocals for the “GoldenEye” title track.

    “Spy” doesn’t need to be a comedy to work as a film —  it stands surprisingly well on its own as a light action flick — but the comedy works in concert within the rest of the feature to elevate “Spy” beyond B-rate action or comedy for that matter.

    Jason Statham — whose comedic chops should have been apparent to anyone who’s seen “Snatch” or “Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels” — continues to impress in a hilarious turn as the dimwitted operative that’s good, but not great at his job. His delivery of Feig’s pitch perfect jokes is second to none in “Spy,” not even McCarthy herself. Only a handful of actors could pull off a now infamous “Face/Off machine” joke and hit it out of the park.

    Jude Law is slightly underutilized within the film, though it makes sense, given the script. An expanded role for the James Bond-esque Brit would be wise in the inevitable sequel sure to be coming in a few years.

    The film also boasts impressive supporting performances from an always game Allison Janney, “Neighbors” star Rose Byrne in a pivotal villainess role and Miranda Hart as McCarthy’s slightly manic best friend/coworker.

    Comparisons between “Spy” and the Austin Powers spy spoof trilogy have become unavoidable, especially with the recent resurgence of the James Bond franchise placing an increased level of importance on quality spoof films. If we can consider Austin Powers to be the Roger Moore, then “Spy” is the Pierce Brosnan, breathing new life into the comedic knockoff genre made popular by the Powers films, Leslie Nielsen’s “Spy Hard” and the Chevy Chase-Dan Aykroyd classic “Spies Like Us.”

    The best thing about “Spy” is how little it tries to be an actual spoof and just attempts to be a funny action spy film, which is so refreshing in the relative sameness of most comedies these days. Hopefully, a female comedic renaissance, teased in both “Bridesmaids” and “The Heat,” will continue to build momentum with “Spy” that “Pitch Perfect 2” failed to live up to. With TV comedy princess Amy Schumer’s “Trainwreck” on the way — a film that dominated South by Southwest earlier this year — things are looking up for both McCarthy and the comedic genre.

  • Aloha: Why Crowe’s latest film paid the ultimate price for sins of another film

    Aloha: Why Crowe’s latest film paid the ultimate price for sins of another film

    Dead on arrival.

    Angered by a Seth Rogen-James Franco buddy comedy that saw the duo attempt to assassinate Kim Jong-un, North Koreans hacked emails and threatened war if 2014’s “The Interview” was released into American theaters.

    Despite their best efforts, last year’s email hack of Sony Entertainment executives didn’t kill the raunchy buddy comedy, released video on demand to widespread support from celebrities and First Amendment activists alike. In fact, controversies surrounding the film likely helped “The Interview” do better than it would have with a regular theatrical release.

    North Koreans helped get the ball rolling to kill a major Hollywood film, but it just wasn’t the one they intended.

    The romantic dramedy “Aloha” — directed by famed auteur Cameron Crowe and starring multiple Academy Award nominees — has actually taken the brunt of the fallout from last year’s incident, falling flat on its face in its opening weekend thanks in large part to mismanagement by a Hollywood studio.

    Emails from former Sony exec Amy Pascal released to the world via WikiLeaks months in advance of last Friday’s premiere doomed the film from the outset, letting moviegoers across the nation in on the fact that studio execs had zero confidence in the quirky Crowe offering.

    Sony’s lack of commitment to the project — then labeled as “Untitled Cameron Crowe Project” or simply “Hawaii” — continued through the film’s marketing¸ which consists of one poorly designed poster and one incredibly misleading trailer. Ultimately, this strategy was felt at the box office, where the film opened at just over $10 million — well behind the new disaster film “San Andreas” starring Dwayne Johnson and at least four other films released in prior weeks.
    Hollywood didn’t believe in “Aloha,” so why should viewers?

    To be fair, “Aloha” is a little messy in the script and frayed around the edges, but a solid effort from two-time Academy Award nominee Bradley Cooper is worth the price of admission alone. There’s no transformative performance like when Cooper melted into the role of Chris Kyle for last year’s “American Sniper,” but Cooper’s honest portrayal of a man in turmoil paces the layered storylines and gives weight to a dramedy in a genre where gravitas is at a premium.

    Emma Stone, on the other hand, gives an uneven performance as Cooper’s primary love interest, which feels incredibly out of place with the charming Rachel McAdams waiting in the wings as his ex-girlfriend. Crowe could have returned to the “Almost Famous” well and pulled another compelling performance out of Kate Hudson, who did her best work under Crowe’s direction.

    But this nitpicking at relatively minor flaws — especially given strong supporting work from Alec Baldwin, Danny McBride, John Krasinski and Bill Murray — feels superfluous when the biggest naysayers of the feature are the studio executives charged with putting a good movie on screen.

    Never has a film cried out for a director’s cut release more than “Aloha,” which could not possibly reflect Crowe’s true vision. When studio execs spend more time “quality controlling” one of Hollywood’s most enigmatic directors than keeping lesser films like “Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2,” “Chappie” and the upcoming inevitable flop “Pixels,” audiences are in trouble.

    The public narrative of Crowe’s failure as a writer/director since the release of “Jerry Maguire” in 1996 is entirely overblown. His films — with multi-layered, complex writing and more genuinely authentic then 95 percent of studio-released features — can’t be easily labeled, which makes things complicated for studios who try to oversimplify movies with big name stars in the quest for the almighty dollar.

    Obsessed with the bankability of its stars, studio execs failed to produce “Aloha” as a high dollar independent film — a prestige piece, if you will, where movie quality trumps financial profit. Their failure to do so toned the death knell of what could have been Cameron Crowe’s comeback as a writer/director. We moviegoers have missed out as a result.

    Sony fundamentally misunderstood what “Aloha” was intended to be — a slice of life dramedy where real life situations are played out in an authentic fashion — and instead tried to cram a homage to Cooper’s “Silver Linings Playbook” down Crowe’s throat in “quality control” discussions.

    Ultimately, Amy Pascal — now pushed out of her executive’s chair and shockingly given creative control over the future of the “Spiderman” film franchise — ruined “Aloha” for viewers by not allowing Crowe to function as a more independent director under the studio’s Sony Pictures Classics
    division.

  • San Andreas: Destruction provides unintentional comedy

    San Andreas: Destruction provides unintentional comedy

    While “Aloha” can be considered a flawed movie, there’s no such redeeming for the latest disaster movie starring Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, “San Andreas,” a film which asks the question no one was asking: What happens if the San Andreas fault tries to rip apart half of California?

    The screenplay, written by Carlton Cuse, plays to every basic stereotype B-rate action and/or disaster movies have, making every character action and interaction predictable to the rate of complete boredom.

    Imagine a script that actually includes a scene where The Rock skydives out of an airplane with Carla Gugino strapped to his chest, lands on second base at AT&T Park in San Francisco and immediately makes a sophomoric joke about feeling his soon-to-be ex-wife up. That’s everything you need to know about “San Andreas,” the lowest common denominator of disaster films.

    Paul Giamatti is there, of course, in order to rant and rave — stirring the pot as a seismologist who lost his partner in an earthquake and has to yell at audiences to make his points now. It’s hard to believe that the emotional center of a film like “Sideways” has fallen this far from cinematic grace.

    If there’s any saving grace in “San Andreas,” it’s that the film continues Hollywood’s trend toward dynamic, powerful female characters on screen. While Gugino’s damsel in distress character leans more on the side of stereotype than innovation, Alexandra Daddario’s Blake is able to traverse through the crumbling ruins of San Francisco with a tad bit more panache, leading a pair of bumbling British boys to safety.

    “San Andreas” may be worth a look for fans of Johnson or those who simply want to completely turn off their brain for two hours. Beyond that, this disaster of a film should be passed in favor of much better work.

  • Tomorrowland: Up-and-down family film worth taking a chance on

    Tomorrowland: Up-and-down family film worth taking a chance on

    Disappointing. Underwhelming. Lackluster.

    Three words that easily describe how Disney executives this week feel about their latest feature film, the George Clooney-helmed “Tomorrowland.”

    The film, well on its way to becoming a commercial failure due to its $180 million budget according to Variety, is generally believed to be a mistake, which is the best thing that could possibly happen to this family friendly sci-fi, action adventure film.

    How would things be different today if “Tomorrowland” was raking in the dough at a rate Disney was comfortable with? We’d already be talking about “Tomorrowland 2” less than one week after the film’s initial release.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lNzukD8pS_s
    Disney’s last foray into original storytelling based off a part of their world-famous parks, 2003’s “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl,” was a critical and commercial hit and now three installments later, diminishing in quality with each iteration, filming has already begun on the all-but-unnecessary fifth film, “Dead Men Tell No Tales,” due for release in 2017.

    Thankfully, “Tomorrowland” won’t be headed down the franchise path, despite an ending ripe with possibility for franchise expansion.

    How Disney has approached the Brad Bird-directed “Tomorrowland” illustrates a growing problem with Hollywood — studios just don’t know how to package and promote large scale original films to audiences. Heading into the feature, based off trailers alone, viewers only knew three things about the film: touching a pin can make you see things that may or may not actually be there; George Clooney is an eccentric scientist, possibly mad; and there’s a clock slowly counting down to something. That’s it.

    It’s difficult to get excited about a film like “Tomorrowland” in the way that viewers did about “Gravity” or “Interstellar” — films Disney is clearly trying to emulate stylistically — without the help of big name stars to draw from. Clooney, while popular with older audiences, isn’t well known by pre-teen and teenage audiences, the exact audiences the film is targeted for.

    Britt Robertson, the real star of the film, isn’t enough of a draw to pull in audiences. In fact, hidden in a NASA hat for most of the movie, she’s nearly unrecognizable as the same girl fawning over Scott Eastwood in the Nicholas Sparks novel turned feature “The Longest Ride.” Disney, and to a large extent, Bird as director, had no idea what to do with this movie and it shows both on screen and at the box office.

    To be sure, “Tomorrowland” is an incredibly flawed film from its opening sequence, where Clooney and Robertson verbally spar over who will narrate the introduction into the world of “Tomorrowland.” It’s exactly this sort of awkward duality that permeates the whole film from start to finish, never allowing the viewers to get fully engaged.

    At its core, the script from Bird and co-writer Damon Lindehof is a watered down, light hearted riff on the Christopher Nolan-helmed space odyssey “Interstellar,” with the distinct touch of the Mickey Mouse corporation oozing all throughout the feature, which also reads as a lengthy advertisement for its Disneyland and Disneyworld theme park facilities.

    Clooney does a solid performance in a role it feels like he realizes halfway through filming should have gone to someone else. His charm and gravitas, well served in a much darker feature like “Gravity,” feels slightly out of place in the world of “Tomorrowland,” but perfect for the dystopian real world portrayed in the film’s outset. It’s as if the film evolved beyond him or he beyond the film.

    Robertson, on the other hand, is the perfect choice to play the young dreamer Casey, who uses her Disney-mandated altruism and pureness of spirit to become one of the best role models for young girls to come out in theaters over the last several years, despite a penchant early in the film for criminal destruction of property (but only for the right reasons).

    At well over two hours, there’s no shortage of time on screen for Clooney and Robertson to develop fully-formed characters, but aside from a strong performance by Raffey Cassidy as the instigating android ambassador (aka robot), Athena, there’s no one else of consequence in the film.

    There’s Hugh Laurie as a James Bond-esque villain who follows every single stereotypical bad guy trope mocked by the “Austin Powers” franchise; Tim McGraw as the inspirational father figure that viewers will only get five minutes with; the talented and much underutilized Judy Greer as the apparently deceased mother figure who only gets a brief expository mention early in the film and is then forgotten by screenwriters and Robertson’s Casey for the rest of the narrative.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2gpgQQ7PqR0
    The four hour director’s cut version of “Tomorrowland” — which may or may not actually exist and will definitely never see the light of day — is likely filled with all the key gaps in plot continuity and structure Bird’s finished product lacks.

    While not perfect, “Tomorrowland” is an important film for audiences beyond its original plot wading in the world of franchises and endless sequels. Family friendly films — especially of the live action variety — are becoming fewer and farther apart as Hollywood continues to venture away from the G rating, pushing the envelope into PG and PG-13 in the quest for the almighty dollar.

    While the same could be said of “Tomorrowland,” which artificially inflates its rating thanks to a couple of unnecessary and unfinished “son-of-a” lines and the occasional mild peril, the film on the whole is a light PG leaning on the edge of a G rating. More families, especially with children old enough to understand the complexities of some of the doomsday elements offered in the film, need to see “Tomorrowland.”

    There’s a reason that this film hasn’t taken off like it should have. No one — not critics, not audiences, not even the studios and director — knows what to do with “Tomorrowland.”

    Some portions of the film evoke “Race to Witch Mountain” or even “Percy Jackson: The Lightning Thief,” but then large segments of the film veer into the social mechanics of world building reminiscent of Christopher Nolan’s cinematic masterpieces “Inception” and “Interstellar.” In fact, “Tomorrowland” would be a terrific introductory film for young film fanatics to be introduced to the concepts and critical thinking required by audiences of Nolan’s work, a PG starter kit to wean youth onto one of Hollywood’s best directors.

    The failure of “Tomorrowland” to be a benchmark commercial success will ultimately prove to be best for the film’s future. Bird takes ardent strides forward in visual storytelling within the family friendly genre, continuing a trend he started with 2004’s “The Incredibles.”

    Audiences need to do exactly what the film ultimately asks of its leads — take a chance on a dreamer.