50 Shades of Grey

in ,

First Hit:  This film was 50 shades of boredom.

I didn’t read the books and I make it a point to not read books that may turn into a film. The experiences are very different and in the world of comparing things, it is generally a no win situation - either the book is better or the movie is better.

What was wrong with this film? No character development. The attempt to develop Christian Grey's (Jamie Dornan) character has him sitting on the edge of Anastasia Steele's (Dakota Johnson) bed and saying that he was raised by a crack head while Anastasia sleeps.

This is not character development. Anastasia saying she was a virgin and that she loved her stepfather is not history. Both of these items say something about the characters, but it isn’t enough to help the audience understand why they act and respond the way they do.

As the film progresses neither character evolves. Additionally, we know nothing as to how Grey makes his money. He seems to work very little because there are only a couple scenes where you think he’s suppose to be working. What you see is him telling someone on the other end of the line that what they are saying is unacceptable and to fix it. Was there chemistry between these lovers? I could sense Johnson doing a better job than Dornan in showing something, but Grey was virtually a desire-less slug.

The worst thing about this film, was that after about 45 minutes to an hour, I was looking around and away from the screen because I was bored stiff. I couldn’t wait until it ended.

Johnson was best in the first 30 minutes of the film, but she didn’t evolve very well. The only sign of growth was the scene of her sitting and negotiating the contact with Grey. Dornan was about as exciting as a doornail. He seemed stilted, out of place and without any depth whatsoever. There were other actors in this film but when the main characters are dull and lifeless, it takes someone doing something extraordinary to have me acknowledge it. Nothing in this film stood out. Kelly Marcel wrote a tired and lifeless screen play. The direction by Sam Taylor-Johnson was worse than the screenplay and acting because he got nothing out of any of those things.

Overall:  Its funny that the first week out this film did phenomenal business and when we were in a very large theater a week after the opening, there were maybe a dozen people. It is falling fast and justly so.

Kingsman: The Secret Service

in , ,

First Hit:  Tongue in cheek fun while being oddly good.

I didn’t know what to expect when the lights went down. The previews had me believing it was more serious than it ended up being.

That’s not to say it was a comedy, but there are times when either the visuals (heads exploding into a colorful fireworks display) or the lines the actors said (“this is my gun”) were spot on funny.

The film is about a group of wealthy gentlemen who decide they can make things right in the world through intervention, usually armed. The group makes it clear they are not part of any government and have only allegiance to what they believe is right. Michael Caine (playing the group’s leader Arthur – think King), gives each member a historical nickname such as Jack Davenport is “Lancelot”, Mark Strong is “Merlin”, and Colin Firth is Harry Hart AKA “Galahad”.

The opening sequence has a terrorist group holding a global warming expert Professor Arnold (Mark Hamill) hostage. A Kingsman comes in to save the day but gets killed by Gazelle (Sophia Boutella) who is an agent for Valentine (Samuel L. Jackson). Valentine decides that he cannot fix global warming and because people are the issue, if he gets rid of most the people on the planet global warming can be reversed.

The Kingsman are out to stop him and with the death of a Kingsman, they have to recruit a new one. Here is how we meet the next generation of Kingsman, Eggsy (Taron Egerton) and Roxy (Sophie Cookson). I liked having the front for their organization being an English haberdashery in London. The fighting scenes were well choreographed and it was fun to watch Firth be so agile, yet sophisticated in his actions.

Firth was excellent as the prime Kingsman and mentor. Caine was good as Arthur. There is a sophistication he brings that works for this film. Egerton was very good and strong as the young street kid who learns what it takes to become a Kingsman. Jackson was great and embodied the role as the guy who wants to kill (although indirectly) most everyone on the planet. Hamill was fun to see again – it has been years. Boutella was very good as Jackson’s henchman (woman). Jane Goldman and Matthew Vaughn wrote a fun and amusing script and Vaughn directed this strong cast and story with surety and fearlessness.

Overall:  I enjoyed the film when I saw it and it still resonated the next day. It was violently fun.

Academy Awards - The Oscars

in , ,

Each year I share my predictions and provide a few thoughts about the selections and choices. This year is no different so here are my thoughts:

  • Best Actor – Nominees are: Steve Carell (Foxcatcher), Bradley Cooper (American Sniper), Benedict Cumberbatch (Imitation Game), Michael Keaton (Birdman or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), and Eddie Redmayne (The Theory of Everything). Another very strong year for best actor nominees. In fact this is probably the strongest in the last 5 – 10 years. All the roles were wonderfully deep and complex and each actor had to have range in their roles. My vote would be for Michael Keaton because he always seemed on the edge of reality and or ignorance. However, Eddie Redmayne and Benedict Cumberbatch were almost as strong. But anyone who is selected here is worthy of the award.
  • Best Actress – Nominees are: Marion Cotillard (Two Days, One Night), Felicity Jones (Theory of Everthing), Julianne Moore (Still Alice), Rosamund Pike (Gone Girl), and Reese Witherspoon (Wild). This group is not as strong as the Actor’s list. However there were two performances that stood out to me: Julianne Moore who is my 1st choice because I fully believed her – she was that person. Rosamund Pike is my 2nd choice playing an unlikeable character but was so clearly strong that it is amazing. Given those choices, my 3rd choice would be Felicity Jones because of the subtle strength she brought to the character.
  • Best Supporting Actress – Nominees are: Patricia Arquette (Boyhood), Laura Dern (Wild), Keira Knightley (The Imitation Game), Emma Stone (Birdman or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), and Meryl Streep (Into the Woods). The top three here for me are Keira Knightly, Emma Stone, and Patricia Arquette. I think Stone did an amazing job of making the character real, strong and with possibility. Knightley was exceptional as the attractive girl genius and friend. Arquette’s transformation over 12 years was amazing.
  • Best Supporting Actor – Nominees are: Robert Duvall (The Judge), Ethan Hawke (Boyhood), Edward Norton (Birdman or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), Marke Ruffalo (Foxcatcher), and J.K. Simmons (Whiplash). Another very strong group, but here I have to select J.K. Simmons because he was mesmerizing each moment he was on the screen. One never knew what would happen or how he would react. However, both Norton and Hawke were very strong as well. What I liked about Hawke was how he became a good father. Any of these three can win.
  • Best Cinematography – Nominees are: Birdman or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance (Emmanuel Lubezki), The Grand Budapest Hotel (Robert Yeoman), Ida (Lukasz Zal and Ryszard Lenczewski), Mr. Turner (Dick Pope), and Unbroken (Roger Deakins). There is no question in my mind that the mind-blowing cinematography of Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) is the winner. I was enraptured with the camera movement throughout the entire time.
  • Best Adapted Screenplay – Nominees are: American Sniper (Jason Hall), The Imitation Game (Graham Moore), Inherent Vice (Paul Thomas Anderson), The Theory of Everything (Anthony McCarten), and Whiplash (Damien Chazelle). This category is difficult. These are very strong and divergent screenplays and I loved them all. To me it is a toss-up as there are extraordinary moments of dialogue in each of them.
  • Best Original Screenplay – Nominees are: Birdman or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance (Alejandro G. Inarritu, Nicolas Giacabone, Alexander Dinelaris and Armando Bo), Boyhood (Richard Linklater), Foxcatcher (E. Max Frye and Dan Futterman), The Grand Budapest Hotel (Wes Anderson), and Nightcrawler (Dan Gilroy). First off although I thought the screenplay for Nightcrawler was brilliant, I don’t think it will win. Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) and Boyhood are probably the best bets and I’d pick Birdman.
  • Best Director – Nominees are: Alejandro Inarritu (Birdman or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), Richard Linklater (Boyhood), Bennett Miller (Foxcatcher), Wes Anderson (The Grand Budapest Hotel), and Morten Tyldum (The Imitation Game). Strong candidates – all. However for me it is a toss-up between Inarritu and Linklater. Although very different films, both did an amazing job of presenting their amazing stories.
  • Best Picture – Nominees are: American Sniper, Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), Boyhood, The Grand Budapest Hotel, The Imitation Game, Selma, The Theory of Everything, and Whiplash. Each of these films, except Selma had very strong acting by principal characters. Selma was an overall very good film but without an exceptionally strong lead I don’t see it winning. I think it will come down to the same contest as identified in the Best Director category. Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) is my choice, although I would not be unhappy if the winner is Boyhood.

Jupiter Ascending (3D)

in , ,

First Hit:  All this film has going for it are a few interesting visuals.

Before I knew it, this film descended into the realm of “are you kidding me?” Not only was the premise stupid the execution of this premise was almost as bad.

The only thing that saved it were some of the visuals. Really:  People owned planets in our galaxy? They were divided up amongst 3 people whose job it was is to harvest human specific DNA stuff to make themselves live longer. Their stated goal - to live as long as one can - even unhappily. The planet owners claimed the only worthwhile commodity that exists is time? Titus Abrasax (Douglas Booth), Kalique Abrasax (Tuppence Middleton) and Balem  Abrasax (Eddie Redmayne) owned planets and did the harvesting.

Each wanted the prize planet Earth (of course where most the human type people live). Kalique and Titus live on spacecraft and Balem lives in the red eye of Jupiter which is protected from the gases by some structure he’s built. With Earth being the most desired planet, each of the Abrasax’s kids are trying to find and entice the rightful owner of Earth to give it up to one of them.

Earth is unknowingly owned by earthling Jupiter Jones (Mila Kunis), who also happens to be their reincarnated mother. When she learns that she owns Earth… OK you may start to get my drift. This story is so far-fetched, complicated and convoluted that it just doesn't (read as "can’t") work. Oh heck, I forgot there is also a hero Cain Wise (Channing Tatum) who flits about on shoes that allow him to skate through life and space at outstanding speeds. Mind you no one else in the film has these skate shoes.

The visuals of the different worlds, of the red eye of Jupiter and the space vehicles are good to very good but that is about it. The dialogue was stilted, the premise undefinable, and the execution miserable.

Kunis was OK, and given the level of story-line, script and direction this is a complement. Booth was bland. Middleton was barely OK. Redmayne was disastrous. The difference between this role and the one as Stephen Hawking is like night and day. Tatum was very disappointing. However for all of these people it wasn’t their acting that brought this down, it was the concept, script and direction. I wonder how they all got bamboozled into taking these roles. Andy and Lana Wachowski did the producers a disservice by actually pitching and making this film.

Overall:  Don’t waste your time. It is bad even in 3D.

Red Army

in , ,

First Hit:  Very strong film about the Soviet’s system for developing their famed “Red Army” national hockey team.

Elegance and dance like are words to describe the way the Soviet national hockey team played hockey. Watching them skate in a hockey game was beautiful. Their weaving pattern was amazing.

This was very different than the smash brutish game as played in the USA and Canada. This film focuses on Slava Fetisov a defensemen for this team. He discusses how they were coached and developed to be the world’s premier hockey team.

The filmmaker mixes political discussion, old stills, old film and current interviews with the famed team members. The mirroring of their teams progression and the changing of the political climate when the country changed from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic – USSR to Russia under Gorbachev.

The regimentation of their practicing and isolation created a level of brainwashing which rears its head as Fetisov speaks. The unfortunate circumstances by which they kept him in Russia was typical. He eventually (along with his teammates) comes to the west, make some money and then after his hockey career is over, becomes the Minister of Sports under Putin.

Fetisov was interesting to watch as he suppressed emotions and feelings when certain subjects were broached. Seeing him watch footage of the USA college team beat his team (Miracle on Ice) at the Olympics in their heyday was difficult. Gabe Polsky wrote and directed this amazing documentary.

Overall:  This film directly reflected the times and the USSR during the 60s – 80s.

googleaa391b326d7dfe4f.html