The Colony

Jeff Renfroe, 2013

IMDB

2/5

We are now reaching an age where the dystopian film genre is saturated - and there are a handful of just plain shitty ones. The special effects are no longer an issue. They can be created on the cheap. It's the execution of a dystopian narrative. It has to be fresh. The Colony is in no way refreshing. The Colony feels like a film very envious of it's better neighboring films. It even struggles with identity. It's almost as if Renfroe struggled throughout the film on whether or not the villainous forces were cannibals or zombies. Mortal vs. immortal confusion. But both concepts are a lost cause. If he were to somehow make it a zombie film where a virus was released in an apocalyptic Ice Age - we would be sitting here talking about how far fetched and campy the film is. If they are clear cut cannibals, we would probably be talking about how it's a weak premise that never succeeds in its attempt to sustain quality storytelling. But the struggle with what the villains actually are not the only problem with this film. There are many problems. The Colony is misguided, not really using good actors like Fishburne and the late Paxton well. Not so great script here, not such great direction. If you really want to watch a better ominous forces in the snow film, just watch 30 Days of Night. At least there you know you are dealing with vampires and there is no confusion as to WHAT they are.

The Jungle Book

Jon Favreau, 2016

IMDB

2/5

Before I ramble about all of the ways in which the Jungle Book failed to wow me, I need to point out something. I am not a non-believer in CGI-heavy film. Seeing Avatar in IMAX 3D was one of the most memorable cinematic experiences of my lifetime. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is my Star Wars in terms of it's immersive world-building and how I just want to live inside of it. I didn't even have that much of a problem with the copy-and-paste army in the Battle of Five Armies.

So going into The Jungle Book, a movie in an almost entirely CGI constructed world, I went in with an open mind and with open eyes. I am a supporter of Favreau, who has really contributed some solid films in his career. Elf, the first two Iron Man films, Chef are all well-made films. But now he is taking this direction in his career that almost feels Tim Burton like by "re-imagining" classic Disney favorites. After making this film - they are of course going to continue to wring out the proverbial sponge by having Favreau direct a Jungle Book sequel. But they are also employing him to direct a live action reboot of The Lion King. Nothing is untouched these days.

I wanted this movie to be great and impactful, especially being someone that grew up with the original animated version. I sat watching and kept waiting for it to hit me. Waiting and waiting. I realized by the mid-point that it likely wasn't going to happen. For whatever reason I wasn't ever able to make an emotional connection to anything on screen. Was it the abundance of CGI? I am not sure, because the animals all look amazing. But Life of Pi had one CGI Tiger and I was totally on board with the film emotionally.

It was a delight to see veteran actors like Bill Murray, Ben Kingsley and Christopher Walken provide the voices for Baloo, Bagheera and King Louie. But it didn't elevate the movie from more than just good grabs. Shere Kahn left more to be desired in a villain. He wasn't nearly as ruthless as he should have been. He didn't have that despicable nature to him as say, Scar in the Lion King. While Neel Sethi deserves some credit for working hard in front of a green screen, he wasn't exactly the next Jacob Tremblay (Room) with his performance as Mowgli. The best sequence in the film by far is the sequence in The Monkey City with King Louie. But the climax was just underwhelming and it just didn't feel like the stakes were high enough. Like the rest of the movie, it just seemed to run through the motions without ever being too significant.

Spectral

Nic Mathieu, 2016

IMDB

3/5

At first glance Spectral looks as if it's another one of the many 2016 Netflix original offerings that may just slip between the cracks, because of the dozens of films queued up that you feel you will never get through. But actually it was originally produced by Universal Pictures and was pulled from schedule presumably due to fears that it wouldn't perform well at the box office. Netflix stepped in and purchased the distribution rights, giving them the ability to release it in their system. Which is a nice save, because it could have been just another film that sat and collected dust and never saw the light of day. It's more than that, and worth a look if you are a fan of the sci-fi genre. If you are a fan of the sci-fi genre, it means that you are also willing to go into a movie like this with a grain of salt. Because Spectral, while pretty entertaining, definitely fits into a formulaic molding. You need to go into this knowing that you aren't getting a Blade Runner. Hell, you aren't even getting a Starship Troopers which is a better version of a Sci-Fi action movie where soldiers attempt to overcome a seemingly undefeatable enemy force. I read somewhere that it was to be marketed as a "supernatural Black Hawk Down". Which is actually a pretty accurate quick description to throw on it. Black Hawk Down had a group of soldiers attempting to rescue two lieutenants in a completely explosive landscape. The landscape is similar here, as well-trained soldiers attempt to reveal what is behind this mysterious enemy that is taking down scores of their men in the battlefield. Early speculation has them believing it's some kind of enemy cloaking device.

While the production design doesn't feel cheap, there are elements of the story that certainly do. Spectral falls victim to some of the typical action-genre tropes. One glaring annoyance is when engineer Clyne (James Badge Dale) determines that the creatures must be made from Bose-Einstein concentrate because of their chemical properties. Well, they need to fight them with plasma cannons and it just so happens that they have everything they need to equip themselves with these weapons right in the bunker that they have hunkered down in. There are a lot of convienent things that are done with the various forms of technology they have. Because of this, at first the enemy force seems undefeatable but that quickly changes in the second half of the film when it seems like Clyne just needs to sit down and stare into space for about 30 seconds and then he can figure everything out.

Ragnarok

Mikkel Brænne Sandemose, 2014

Can I Stream it?

3/5

Archaeologist Sigurd (Pål Sverre Hagen) deciphers an ancient rune that leads him to a remote island on the Russian border. He believes it will guide him to a Viking treasure, but instead leads him to something completely different.

Steven Spielberg is a master craftsman of timing and suspense when it comes to human and beast. He masterfully keeps you on the edge of your seat, with calculated sensory manipulation. Sometimes he's only playing with one of your senses. Sometimes you're just hearing something. Sometimes you're just seeing a shadow, a faint image of something. Sometimes you are just seeing someone else's reaction on their face. Sandemose certainly draws some inspiration from Spielberg's playbook here. Ragnarok provides enough thrills with adequate build up. It combines elements of Jurassic Park, Raiders of the Lost Ark and Lake Placid (and okay... Sharknado too, kind of) all in the backdrop of lushly wooded & rainy Norway. There is family conflict; Sigurd being the single parent father who lost his wife, now married to his job and trying to kill two birds with one stone by having his kids tag along with him on his trip while hopefully getting credit for a vacation. His daughter would rather go to Spain like the other girls at her school. But she has to settle for the remote woods so her daddy can track down what he thinks is a trove of Viking booty. So many times we see the broken father who lost the wife who spends the movie licking his wounds. Sigurd doesn't do this, presumably because he is so obsessed with his work. When they arrive at their destination, it's really when the best pieces of the film are laid out. Ragnarok is a nicely-packed, adventurous monster movie with enough suspense and CGI production (without ever leaning on it too much) to keep you engaged.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

Matt Reeves, 2014

Can I Stream it?

4/5

Dawn picks up some time after the last film ended. A pandemic has wiped out the majority of the human population, the remaining survivors left to start over again. Without power and still heartbroken from losing close family and friends, a group of survivors colonize in the ruins of San Fransisco. When they venture into the forest in an attempt to restore power from a broken hydro-plant, they encounter the apes they blame for the collapse of civilization.

This Matt Reeves (Let me in, Cloverfield) directed sequel to the first and also good Apes film (directed by Rupert Wyatt), is rooted in some compelling story threads between both ape and man. You have leader ape Caesar, now a father and husband. Many years have passed since his days living with the Rodman family, although some of the memories still linger. They have started their own civilization in the Northern California forest. They have assumed all humans have died off, as they have seen no signs of them. But they are surprised to encounter group of humans led by Malcolm (Jason Clarke), a compassionate man who they ultimately form an alliance with. Malcolm is accompanied by his young son Alexander (Kodi Smit-McPhee) and girlfriend Ellie (Keri Russell). Colony leader Dreyfus (Gary Oldman) pushes them to get the power plant up and running in three days before he launches a military strike against the apes.

The tension between the apes and humans is glaring. The humans blame the apes for the world's destruction. The apes consider the humans to be cruel and not trust-worthy, after years of keeping them captive. The film explores family dynamics, diplomacy, perseverance, and the realization that the genetic divide may not be so wide between the two when it comes to behavior (which we all know isn't so vast, but for some reason nobody in the film realizes). Perhaps the greatest feat of this picture is the fact that you become invested in the CGI creations, as invested as their human counterparts. There is some acceptable confusion in terms of rooting for a particular protagonist, but you are able to get behind multiple figures for multiple reasons. Films like this, films like the Life of Pi show a promising future for film. The CGI builds that we are able to create now are so lifelike. They are not only just resolute in image quality, they can be complicated characters. As the technology improves it will become cheaper to produce. It will be interesting in the coming years so see what other filmmakers can do on smaller budgets with computer generated characters. Until then, some of these big budget movies are not bad when they are put into the right hands.

Godzilla

Gareth Edwards, 2014

Can I Stream it?

2/5

Edwards decides to take on the ambitious task of rebooting the 60 year old Godzilla franchise, 16 years after the previous (and awful) Roland Emmerich version. Edwards can seemingly only go up from there, and was coming off the more subtle (and pretty good) 2010 aptly-named monster-film Monsters. He certainly demonstrated some abilities in pacing and build up of tension in that film, which he certainly put to use here. He makes a few good decisions right off the bat, first off with not casting Matthew Broderick (whoever the casting agent that thought it would be a good idea to put him in big budget action film should've probably changed careers, and probably did). He instead takes a chance on lesser-known actor Aaron Taylor-Johnson to play hero Ford Brody, who comes off as sort of a Logan Lerman-type without the charm. The studios continue to force Elizabeth Olsen upon audiences, who is quite unremarkable as Ford’s wife Elle. There is some veteran actingat work, with Sally Hawkins and David Strathairn in supporting roles. None of them really get the opportunity to shine, at least not as much as Bryan Cranston. Cranston is the stand-out performance of the film, and unfortunately when he departs a lot of the momentum goes with him. Cranston is responsible for a good portion of the films build-up, and by the time that the film reaches the destructive climax it feels it drags on until the very end. There must have been a CGI-quota for high rise toppling. Maybe the special effects team was under contract for 28 destroyed skyscrapers, and they weren’t going to stop until every one of them have been toppled by either Godzilla himself or the insipid grasshopper beasts. Maybe beasts like Godzilla or King Kong are better left preserved in history. They certainly had their place in time. There is a certain unwillingness to preserve certain films, and instead of going in a more inventive direction we continue to reboot everything to the point of exhaustion. Maybe there is a certain magic to those gritty black and white versions. Maybe they don’t need multi-million dollar CGI makeovers. After all, by the time our great-grandchildren are in their thirties... is there going to be 25 Godzilla films that were made?

Oblivion

Joseph Kosinski, 2013

Can I Stream It?

3/5

Jack is a Drone Technician that services patrolling drones that defend the remaining habitable portions of Earth that haven't been destroyed by nuclear blasts that won the war for the human race. These drones keep the alien invaders still present at bay while Jack's organization can successfully complete their Nuclear Fusion accumulation mission off of the coast. Jack is told that the work is nearing completion and he will soon join the remaining members of Earth on a moon orbiting the planet Saturn. But he soon finds that the agency that he works for might not have been completely honest with him, and that there may be something more to the visions that he has been having in his dreams.

This Cruise-led Sci-Fi that gives nods to Minority Report, A.I., Planet of the Apes, to the Matrix and Blade Runner. The dystopian landscape is a truly a feast for the eyes, from the Sky-High contemporary pod house that Cruise's character Jack resides in or the multitude of gadgets that they use. These visual elements are the biggest perk of the film, the highlight probably being the spaceship / drone battle about 3/4 into the picture. In fact, the drones could easily be considered characters in the film. You never really get sick of those little sounds that they make as they zero in on a target, and if it's hostile you hear the couple of beeps before the enemy becomes nothing but disintegrated matter. Jack spends the first hour or so of the film showing you the modern planet. Manhattan is submerged under soil, with pieces of classic architecture still protruding from the surface. He even has his little nostalgic shrine that he sneaks off to periodically, where he can listen to rock LP's and read A Tale of Two Cities. Oblivion really feels like it has something going for it, that is until the reveal. At this point, it makes a predictable stroll to the end. By the end you are given a certain amount of closure but wondering why the hell it took so long to get there.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Peter Jackson, 2013

Can I Stream It?

4/5

The second film in the Hobbit trilogy catches up to Bilbo Baggins and his Dwarven companions as they inch closer to Erebor which has been guarded by the legendary dragon Smaug for some time.

The second installment in Peter Jackson's Hobbit trilogy bears quite a bit of resemblance to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and there is nothing wrong with that. Jackson has a great track record of providing great style with great story, albeit it mostly CGI'd. The alternate universe depicted in Desolation is a much less forgiving one than the first in the series. Enlarged insects. The dwarves find themselves running into old enemies. The orcs build strength. There is an ominous build-up of dark energy. Bilbo is finding himself falling victim to his new-found ring's powers. Even the landscape itself is a much more bleak one. Absent of the vibrant colors shown in the first film, this one is decorated with cobwebs and gray tones. Unlike the first film, there isn't a lot of time for all-night feasts in pubs. The clock is ticking. While Smaug has a more mythical presence in the first film, he is certainly a physical presence in this one. The enormous digitized beast does not disappoint.

Now with fifteen hours of film created, is there anything more thoroughly entrancing than Jackson's wide-screen depiction Middle Earth? Of course people could say Star Wars, or Star Trek, maybe the Harry Potter films or any other franchise with hours and hours of material. But they just don't feel as detailed. While some of the other franchises may have a more complex story-line, an argument can be made that they fall short visually. Jackson has put the Tolkien-created world on film in a way that when you sit down and start watching, depending on your viewing environment (and you aren't watching it on your iPhone with no headphones), you are IN his world. Those three hours fly by. You don't want it to be over. They are always a feast for the eyes. Candy for the cortex. Merrymaking for the mind. You can't blame the guy for building himself his own Hobbit house in New Zealand. He did that, right?

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Peter Jackson, 2012


4/5

Bilbo Baggins is surprised to find his normally quiet home suddenly filled with dwarves, at a dinner organized by Gandalf. He learns that his presence is requested on a journey to the Lonely Mountain to reclaim their home that has been overtaken by the dragon Smaug. Hesitant and not so ready to leave his peaceful life, Bilbo realizes that it's a once in a lifetime opportunity that will provide him with a fascinating tale to tell.

Well, it's been ten years since the last film. And Mr. Jackson, you did it again. You once again bring everyone into Tolkien's world. As the camera flies over the Shire, you look down and pick the dwelling that you would want to occupy. When the dwarves surround the thick wooden table with drink in hand and ready for song, you wish you could be there to join in. It's interesting that Tolkien's world becomes so inviting, because when it comes down to it - it's quite volatile. Even Bilbo himself can't escape the conflicts outside of his small community. This film feels largely consistent with the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, and Peter Jackson has a proven track record of meeting and beating expectations with the films. It's more of a micro story than the very macro feel of the Rings films. Martin Freeman seems like he's born to play Baggins, never missing a cue and delivers a great deal of energy. The film is of course a feast for the eyes. The saturated greens of The Shire, the endless plains, the shadowy forests that are just exuding bewilderment. You venture below ground, to the firelit crevices where the Orcs dwell. Everything feels so elaborate. There's some familiar faces, and of course some new ones. CGI Porn at it's best. There is a sense of refinement to the effects. Perhaps it's because of the advances in technology, or perhaps it's been a while since the last viewing of the Trilogy. The sudden shifts in perspective that the camera makes are so fluid and they never take you out of the moment. There's of course not one bad shot in the film. The Lord of the Lord of the Rings does it again, and why wouldn't he? He's had practice. It's just another great story of the underdog. Themes of loyalty, courage, companionship. Not looking back, pushing forward - even if you're homesick. The universal clinging to materialism. Old grudges. Honor. Drunkenness and dwarf songs. It's all there. And it's put together so nicely.

Pacific Rim

Guillermo del Toro, 2013


2/5

As giant alien creatures (known as the Kaiju) ascend from the middle of the earth to destroy humanity, humans join together to mobilize a defense. They decide to fight fire with fire as they create massive robots called Jaeger's that rival the Kaiju in size. These robotic machines are human operated involving two people bound by the mind. They are able to gain a bit of a foothold in the war with their machines but are intent on destroying the crevice in which they emerge from.

A film likely to be adored by thirteen year old boys across America. And only them. Guillermo del Toro proves that he should stick to the Fantasy genre, and not enter the world of big Hollywood Blockbusters. Toro goes from treating viewers to such haunting, imaginative creations in Pan's Labyrinth to removing all layered storytelling and just shoving big budget effects down our throats. Like the monstrous Jaegers in Pacific Rim, the film is bloated, too big for its own good, uninspired, and derivative. The premise itself feels imitative. The look of Iron Man. The interface of Avatar. The utter destructionism of Godzilla. The Transformers-like battles. Yeah, we've seen all of that. It's been done before. 

What is the point of the soldiers proving that they are capable of proving their martial arts abilities? The robots don't even utilize those moves. They slowly punch through the air like soaking wet Rock-em Sock-em toys. Oh, and they can break out a sword in a clutch moment to abruptly end the battle so the film can make one of many erratic cuts in the story? How convenient. The $190M budget was clearly spent on CGI and not on the writing. The dialogue is so elementary and just feels empty and downright lacking. Cliche sayings like "step into my office" or "let me check for a pulse, okay, no pulse". Charlie Hunnam (Sons of Anarchy) does step out of his Jax Teller comfort zone (albeit handcuffed to Ron Perlman), and does come off as a more wholesome figure than his well-known Samcro President role. And poor Idris Elba. The man who will always live in infamy for his role as Stringer Bell deserves more than this. But he probably made the mistake we all did. We all saw Guillermo del Toro's name on it, and thought: "how could this be a bad move?!". He had nothing to work with. The soldiers jump into the Jaeger head and they look like Daft Punk members who couldn't play an instrument. The interpersonal relationships between father and son, or almost-lovers feels rigid. It will be interesting to see how history treats this film. Maybe Guillermo is saying bye bye to his darker days. Clearly at this point he is more inclined to channel Ishiro Honda instead of The Brothers Grimm. 

Gravity

Alfonso Cuaron, 2013

4/5

Novice astronaut & medical engineer Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) and veteran astronaut Matt Kowalksi (George Clooney) must work together to survive after their space mission is abruptly interrupted by a debris storm.

This limited-storytelling picture opens in the infinite landscape of space as astronauts are performing maintenance duties on the station. Rather than being a space-film existing in the comforts of being in a air-locked ship, much of the time is actually spent outside. An almost complete absence of sound creates a very disconcerting feeling. The early sound you hear are some oldies echoing through Matt's headset as he communicates with Houston. Some segments become a white-knuckle fight, trying to grab onto anything secured. The problem is, everything attached seems frighteningly detachable, and from a distance there's no clear indication. Seeing earth from above the atmosphere can go from being a beautiful time-stopping thing to a very isolating feeling. You're stuck in an outside world where the world below is completely unaware of any dilemma that may arise. We all likely believe that the space stations we build are rock solid (probably because they cost hundreds of millions of dollars to build), and can withstand anything. Gravity certainly proves this wrong. And in zero gravity, small objects can cause large problems. And with a communication breakdown, that only becomes more isolating. Audio hisses, and teardrops float. Clooney and Bullock have a complimentary dynamic. Matt Kowalski's carefree demeanor is basically the opposite of Ryan Stone's distressed character. You sort of have to have a character like Kowalski's present, otherwise things would just become so stiff your heart rate would never slow down watching. Both are fine for the roles, with Bullock bringing more to the table. Clooney doesn't really break out of his typical mold. But Bullock has evolved quite a bit from similarly toned Annie Porter in Speed.

You lose yourself in the film. Any thoughts of a green screen dissipate. The camera shifts seamlessly, from long shots of Stone and Kowalski's spacesuits floating to crafty in-helmet shots with a subtle display of illuminated gauge lights. Everything that Cuaron seems to be going for in the film is executed well. It's probably not a film for everyone. The same people who would be bored with similar limited storytelling space film Moon may also be looking at their watches here, and too bad for them. The many 3D cynics will probably be surprised by Gravity. It's done well, arguably the best use of the technology since Cuaron's best friend Cameron's Avatar. Like Avatar, the film is quite immersive and it's probably the bigger-the-better in terms of where you see it (IMAX must be a treat). The eye-candy is certainly built for the big screen, and not for an iPad.

Iron Man 3

Shane Black, 2013


3/5

A more reflective film than the former two, Iron Man 3 follows Tony Stark as he is confronted with enemies new AND old. Not only is he confronted with dealing with new global terrorist "The Mandarin", his new enemy is a person he ignored years before and now that brush-off is coming back to haunt him. Also, some recent events are causing Tony to confront a new foe he hasn't seen before: anxiety.

Iron Man 3 maintains a consistent continuation of the story, but is a much smarter sequel then its predecessors. Tony Stark is in a much more reflective state of mind. He is more vulnerable and less arrogant than in the previous two films. The film focuses more on Tony Stark the person, rather than Tony as Iron Man. He's forced to seek help wherever he can get it. Drew Pearce & Shane Black's script provided some witty dialogue that gives the series a fresh feel. The exchanges between Tony and Harley (Ty Simpkins) were funny and didn't run out of steam. Great acting on all fronts. The regular cast (Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Jon Favreau, Don Cheadle) are all great. The new faces, Guy Pearce and Ben Kingsley, provide a new energy that is different and ultimately effective. James Badge Dale (The Pacific, Shame, The Grey) continues to prove that he has the chops to be in leading roles. The film cleverly calls back to events from The Avengers but doesn't make it required viewing. There a couple of plot-holes in the film, but the film is ultimately satisfying. In the end, it ties up it's loose ends and the climax is satisfying.