Review: Edge of Tomorrow

Written by Guest Contributor: Jefferey Pinkos An alien race of unstoppable killing machines has invaded Earth, and yet all we can talk about is a TV weatherman who had one hell of a day back in 1993.  Certainly Doug Liman’s actioner Edge of Tomorrow borrows the language and structure of Harold Ramis’ Groundhog Day, but the concept belongs entirely to video games.

His mission —regardless of whether he chooses to accept it —is to rid Earth of the scourge of these damn bastard alien bugs.  Sure enough, first time out dude gets fragged; respawning instantaneously at his last save-point back at the base he woke up at to get Southerned at again by Bill Paxton.

All of which yields an interesting dramatic dilemma.  Say you’re like me and you’re replaying Dishonored for the umpteenth time.  You have been here dozens of times before.  Now you know the layout, you know who goes where when.  You anticipate reaction, you know shortcuts.  By all intents and purposes you’ve achieved God mode.  (Interesting note: “I’m a god.  I’m not the god, I don’t think.”—Groundhog Day’s Phil Connors.)  This is cheating.  Death loses its dramatic spark once it loses meaning.

Fortunately, the writers have found some interest byways around that.  There’s a fabulous, funny training sequence that embraces the silliness of the concept: broken leg, “no, I’m okay,”death; broken arm, “no, I-,”death; “stop, please, really,”fuckin’death.  Plus, the writers understand that it’s cheating.  The alien beasts are on hard mode — knowing the future before the battle, a handy means of introducing and contextualizing the concept —so it’s fair-ish.

But Blunt reveals she had it previously, and lost it; sure enough, before the boss battle, Cruise loses it, a transparent move to up the stakes.  It’s occasionally interesting, breathlessly paced, transparent a B-level movie but it; ets the concept pull the weight of otherwise unremarkable action.  Put simply, it’s probably the best video game movie out there, something that isn’t that high a hurdle to jump.

---

Score: 3/5

Director: Doug Liman Writer: Christopher McQuarrie and Jez Butterworth & John-Henry Butterworth Studio: WB/Village Road Show Run Time: 113 mins Release Date: 6/6/14

Review: Birth of The Living Dead and The Definitive Document of The Dead

Written by guest contributor Brian Roe

“It was no big thing man. Who knew that we were ever even going to finish this movie? It was just like a bunch of people getting together and we were going to try to make a movie.” ~ George A. Romero

Birth of The Living Dead and Document of The Dead are on the surface both simply documentary love letters to the work of George Romero. But they also show various sides of Romero not only as a hard working, visionary filmmaker but also as a really decent man who wanted his work environment to match his own blue color ideal of society. It’s these collected views of Romero that come together to create a really complete vision of this man, his collaborators, and the works that they created together. If you watch one then watch them both as they complete and heighten the overall effect.

Beginning his career in Pittsburgh shooting beer commercials and short films for Mr. Rogers, Bronx-born George A. Romero was obsessed by the myriad jobs required to make films. Like many independent filmmakers, Romero was forced by practicality to learn these skills but also seems to really enjoy doing them. From directing to writing and editing, he was often required to put huge amounts of effort into his projects simply because he didn’t have the available staff or funds.

This sort of “can do” mentality was pushed to the limit during the shooting of his first feature film Night of The Living Dead. From favors called in by local businesses and TV personalities to a chess game being played for the cost of sound processing, Romero and his collaborators made everything count. And instead of this being a detriment to the film it instead creates a feeling of reality that has rarely been equaled.

Birth of The Living Dead begins by exploring the social and political landscape of The United States during the years that NOTLD was being written and shot. Drawing his initial inspiration from the Richard Matheson novel I Am Legend, Romero re-imagined the concept of the dead returning to life as a revolutionary act, perhaps the penultimate one. One of the many strengths of Birth of The Living Dead is that it places the film perfectly into this world of violent revolution and frustration at the still staggering injustices being perpetrated on various groups during the 1960s. Although there has been a lot of discussion about the various socio-political themes in NOTLD, it is extremely interesting to hear from Romero himself which of those themes were intentional and which were serendipity.

A collection of admirers of NOTLD including film critic Elvis Mitchell and filmmaker Larry Fessenden discuss the challenges and successes of the film without ever going too deep into wide eyed worship. In particular having Mitchell and Sam Pollard giving their take on seeing the film as black men has a powerful resonance and they make abundantly clear how mind-blowing it was to see a strong, intelligent black man in the lead role of Ben. Although Duane Jones was initially cast for the part simply because he was the best actor of the group, it is clear that once people picked up on what his character meant that he was by far the best choice. Jones himself often had misgivings about some of the actions that Ben takes in the film simply because they were going to be seen as shocking to predominately white, middle-class America. But luckily neither he nor Romero backed down from his portrayal and instead created a character that was far more in line with a real person and not some watered down, simpering expectation of what a black man should be.

Birth is a very tightly structured and well paced retelling of the history of the filming of NOTLD. The opinions of the various experts are informative and interesting. And Christopher Cruz’s NOTLD class for junior school students would have been a blast to be in. But the true joy of the documentary comes from the still bright and friendly Romero himself. Talking in a naturally cool and hip voice, Romero comes across as a favorite uncle, the guy who’s been places and seen and done things that make for great stories around the dinner table. There’s a relaxed manner to Romero that is engaging and endearing. He’s in on the joke and knows that your hip enough to pick up what he’s putting down.

The Definitive Document of The Dead is a far messier beast having originally begun as a teaching aid created by Roy Frumkes for a film studies class. It begins during the filming of Dawn of The Dead and shows some great behind the scenes footage while explaining the basic filmmaking process as well as showing the various challenges that Romero’s crew faced during filming in Dawn’s shopping mall setting. Frumkes was given access for a long weekend and he collected a good amount of material not only with Romero but also the producers, actors, and other people responsible for the production. This coverage of Dawn takes up half of the film’s running time and shows us a very different George A. Romero.

Instead of the elderly hipster of BOTLD we get to hang out with the handsome and laid back Romero of the late 70s, a guy who can use the words rap, trip, and man so naturally that they don’t sound like asshole affectations. Romero has always had a killer smile and he flashes it often. You get the sense that he is just a really nice dude who  truly wants to get along with the people around him. In the super stressful world of independent filmmaking this trait must have gone a long way.

The second half of TDDOTD is a strange mish mash of set visits from various Romero films and party shenanigans including a pretty uncomfortable scene of Joe Pilado (Rhodes from Dawn of The Dead) drunkenly flirting with NOTLD’s Judith O’Dea. Roy Frumkes is still walking and talking with Romero but we again see a different side of the director, one that seems tired and a bit put off by all of the hoopla surrounding his work.

Few films of any kind have had the massive social and artistic impact of Night of The Living Dead. It proved that entertaining, thought provoking films didn’t have to be made in Hollywood and actually went a long way towards showing that the Hollywood system makes it damn near impossible to make that type of film. It’s appeal crossed social boundaries and its inclusive style of filmmaking made untold numbers of amateur  auteurs pick up cameras and struggle to make their own films. It was a massive success that made its creators next to nothing and became a bad joke of a copyright issue. It is the single best public domain film ever created and is truly a gift to the world of film.

All fans of horror film owe a huge debt to the cast and crew of NOTLD. They willingly gave their blood, toil, sweat, and tears so that we might have this film and I am grateful to all of them. And I am especially thankful to George Romero, the man who got all of these people together and who inspired them with kindness, leadership, and vision.

Birth of The Living Dead and Document of The Dead go to show that the man at the helm is also a really decent guy and that we’re lucky to have him. Thanks for what you’ve given us Mr. Romero.

---

Birth of The Living Dead is available on Netflix

Score: 4/5

Director: Roy Kuhns Studio: Glass Eye Pix and Predestinate Productions Run Time: 76 mins

The Definitive Document of The Dead is available on Amazon Instant Video

Score: 4/5

Director: Roy Frumkes Studio: Midnight Pulp Run Time: 103 minutes

Review: Interplanetary

Written by guest contributor Brian Roe

“Dying is easy. Comedy is hard.”

In the world of independent and low budget movies it is often far easier to create great horror effects than to create actual comedy. When someone tells you that “You’ve got to see this movie! It’s hilarious!” they’re usually talking about laughter at the expense of the filmmakers or actors, the magic difference between laughing with and laughing at. I found myself laughing quite a bit during Interplanetary, right along with it.

Interplanetary starts with a couple of schlubby spacemen entering a cave on Mars while having a discussion about a recently discovered native fossil. The timing of the scene while Ed (Nick Crawford) tries to convince Wil (Chuck Hartsell) of the importance of the find is a good start to things. Things get bad quickly for our two bubble-helmeted fellows as an unknown assailant comes in. The whole sequence, which take less than three minutes, sets up the overall themes of the movie as well as pointing out just what kind of people are currently living and working on Mars.

This is followed by a clever bit of exposition in the form of a 1950s style corporate training film called “Welcome To Mars Base Two” which again provides a quick burst of necessary technical background about the said base as well as providing some good site gags and forced, stilted acting of the kind found in the majority of industrial films.

With these two bits of exposition to get things started Interplanetary goes right into its odd mix of corporate bureaucracy, ancient evil, and oddly unrestrained sexuality. There seems to be a lot of leeway when it comes to relationships in Mars Base 2 and the implication is that most people are willing to do anything, or anyone, to alleviate boredom.

Several of the characters are worthy of note. There’s Lisa (Mellisa Bush), the bureaucratic Facility Manager who is dangerously clueless about the reality that surrounds her and her overly eager to please Head of Security Kevin (Kevin S. Van Hyning), who crushes on her so badly that even being shoved into a closet at gunpoint seems to make him happy as long as he’s locked up with her. Kevin is a David Cross character if there ever was one, Van Hyning’s performance would have been right at home on an episode of Mr. Show.

There’s also Jackson, the pragmatic and tough cook, who seems to be the only person on the staff with any real concept of the situation the crew find themselves in. And his experiences with “The Texas Mafia” make him the go-to tough guy for Mars Base Two.

Overall Interplanetary is a fun little movie that outperforms its obviously small budget by keeping things in perspective. The majority of the performers are solid, the gore effects are well done, and the action scenes hold together. But the real joy of Interplanetary is the way it shares the feeling that most us wage-slaves have had about where we work and the people we work with. Gone are the days of astronauts as perfect human specimens, the Interplanetary Corporation seems happy enough to have some warm bodies that don’t ask for much and don’t take up too much space, and the banter between the Mars Base Two inhabitants will strike a familiar chord for anyone who’s ever worked a low paying, dead end gig.

---

Score: 3/5

Available on Amazon Instant Video

Director: Chance Shirley Studio: Shock-O-Rama Cinema Run Time: 83 mins

Review: LizardMan: The Terror of The Swamp

Written by guest contributor Brian Roe

We are currently in an era of bad movies. Bad movies that are fun to watch because of their total cluelessness, like The Room and Birdemic, and movies that are just idiotic-stupid-dumb bad like anything that Michael Bay has touched. But Bay has committed a greater sin than making a merely bad movie. He has made his crap by blowing millions upon millions of dollars.

But I’m not here to talk about this sort of waste. I’m here to talk about the true heroes of American independent cinema. The people who make due with minimal budget and rely on tenacity, creativity, and lots of friends and family members to create their cinematic offerings. And honestly to offer them a bit of a challenge and explain why what they do is more important than it’s ever been. But first let’s talk about LizardMan: The Terror of The Swamp.

We begin with this tantalizing bit of info:

The Lizard Man of Scape Ore Swamp (Also Known as The Lizard Man Of Lee County) Is a humanoid cryptid which is said to inhabit areas of swampland in and around Lee County, South Carolina

Awesome! Cryptids and shit! I bet this is going to be a “based on a true story” ride like The Legend of Boggy Creek. Unfortunately I would have lost that bet.

Instead LizardMan: TToTS starts off in an undisclosed time period in an area that seems to be the edge of a normal neighborhood. A boy loses his bike chain and has to walk his Huffy home. Then all hell breaks loose! Not really. A guy in a foam rubber suit knocks him down and waves his hands in front of his face while digital blood splatters appear and disappear on the screen. This is the first shock of the film, shocking in how bad the blood effects look.  Digital blood looks like shit all the time every time. Please for the love of Karo Syrup stop using it. If someone doesn’t want to get bloody and sticky don’t let them be in your movie. This should be known as The Bruce Campbell Clause, if you’re not willing to have 55 gallon drums of Ultraslime poured into your face, then you really don’t want to make a movie.

Otherwise the film looks really good. The transition scenes work well and the overall coloring looks pretty filmic and not like a mid-grade camcorder. This level of image quality runs throughout LizardMan and sets it apart from other low-budget movies that seem to be content to use their mom’s old Kodavision.

Another element that LizardMan handles pretty well is with the actors, especially lead

James Arthur Lewis as Mark Turnbull, the special ops fellow contracted to bring the LizardMan back alive. Lewis has a sense of gravitas with his performance that is improved by his physical presence and good ability to move around like a bad-ass soldier. There’s a quick leap onto a loading dock stunt that is damned excellent even if the possible action scene it could have turned into never materializes. And sadly this seems to be the biggest take-away from LizardMan: The Terror of The Swamp. Instead of using the resources that director Peter Dang had on hand he squanders them in favor of a mixed up movie that is really only a collection of things happening and not a driving narrative story.

I am however not here to mock or overly critique director Dang, the producers, actors, or anyone else involved in LizardMan. Instead I have a question and a challenge for independent filmmakers like Dang.

Why are you making movies?

Answer this question honestly and I think it’ll give you a more intense focus that will help you to create interesting and truly memorable work.

Why are you making movies? To break into “Hollywood”? To make money? To have fun? To meet attractive people? To have something to do with your friends besides getting together to watch other people’s movies? These are all valid reasons to make movies but when they are merely nebulous concepts they only tend to muddy the waters of a project that usually requires intense focus and absolute dedication. Making a movie, any movie of any quality level is damned difficult. Know why you’re doing it before you start so that you’re not depleting the time and money of those involved without at least getting something good out of it.

I don’t want to just write LizardMan: TTOTS off because there seems to be some heart in it and it’s not offensively inept. It just doesn’t seem to give a damn. It doesn’t have the passionate soul of a movie made by someone who loved the genre so much that they couldn’t contain their love and it manifested itself as their own vision. Instead it feels like a copy that no one really gave to much of a shit about. And that’s what makes it disappointing, that parts of it look great but don’t ever hold together long enough to keep the viewer enthralled.

So now my challenge to anyone who is currently or will ever make a low-budget independent movie.

Give a damn about it.

Real world, “Hollywood” movies are currently controlled by six companies. Everything that is released in theaters has to be allowed to be shown by these six companies and the fucking MPAA censors. And it’s pretty obvious that they have some of the shittiest taste in the world. Those of you who are somehow able to get together enough funding and support to create an entire film should take what you’re doing very seriously. Because you’re making the future of filmic art.

The great ideas in film are never going to come from the formulaic, audience-tested, pits of mediocrity in Hollywood. They are going to come from independent creators who actually care about what they’re making as more than a way to generate profits and points. They are going to come from people who want to see giant robots fighting on the moon, zombies crawling out of the ground, and lizard men creeping through the swamps. The great ideas are going to be created because we now have excellent video cameras in our phones and the ability to create and distribute movies throughout the world to audiences who just want something interesting, something that they haven’t seen before. We have online services like Netflix that want more, more, more and are willing to pay for it. Like the drive-in boom of the 50s and 60s and the video store boom of the 80s we have a need and a desire for movies that are dangerous and risky in a way that corporate Hollywood crap can never be. And you could be the person who makes those films.

But only if you actually give a damn.

(Sorry to pick on LizardMan but it was so close to being a decent movie that it pissed me off a bit. There is an overall lack of cohesion to it that made it hard to watch and harder to care about. And the less said about “LizardMan Rock” the better.)

---

Score: 2/5

Director: Peter Dang Studio: Camp Motion Pictures Run Time: 81 mins

Group Review: X-Men: Days of Future Past

Another comic book movie has released which means it’s time for another Comic Bastards group review! Each of the participating writers/reviewers will give their score for the film followed by thoughts on the film. First here’s what X-Men: Days of Future Past is about according to Fox: The X-Men send Wolverine to the past in a desperate effort to change history and prevent an event that results in doom for both humans and mutants.

Samantha: 5/5

I was excited to see this movie, but First Class sucked, and I didn’t want one of my favorite comics to get hit in the balls again. But man I enjoyed the hell out of this movie.

Some things that had me worried that worked. Well first I thought Singer was trying to shove too many characters in this movie. It felt like he was trying to recreate the magic from the first and second X-men.  In DOFP, it was actually pretty awesome. Everything made perfect sense. It looked like the other movies were thought of when making this. The future was visually cool and having all those favs from my childhood made it all the better. There is nothing like seeing Storm glaze her eyes over. The second was pushing back the date for X-Men. It is never a good sign, but having coming out Memorial Day weekend, it gave me plenty of time to decide when to the see the movie. Since I wasn’t that excited I thought I may never get around to it, but having the extra time allowed for more people to give this movie the time of day. And I think this movie deserves that.

Some things that blew my mind. Wolverine’s butt… duh. And Mystique’s body... even bigger duh.

But seriously, it was amazing how awesome Magneto was in the past and future. He has always been a fan favorite. Michael Fassbender brought it! This dude owned Magento and was an equal with Ian McKellen. I couldn’t get enough of it. Quicksilver was pleasantly good too. He didn’t annoy me and added some humor (Probably the funniest X-men yet).

Overall, it was a good movie. The writing worked well. The story added some twists. And the after credit scene will likely lead to another great movie. Thank you X-Men for restoring my belief.

Nick: 3/5

Days of Future Past sort of doesn’t give a shit if its internal logic doesn’t make sense. It knows you’re gonna see it anyway. There’s a lot about sending consciousnesses into past bodies through time and you can only time travel if you’re asleep and for some reason the Sentinels in the future look just like the Destroyer from Thor. It’s another X-Men movie that manages to make itself entirely about Wolverine, the single most overrated comic book character in the history of time and paper, even though the source material made the whole story about a teenaged girl.

It wasn’t a terrible time at the movies. It’s visually impressive, even though Wolverine’s bone claws look insubstantial. It also has a really messy first and second act on the way to a pretty damn impressive third act. You know how you sometimes forget what a badass a villain is until they do something rad? You forget how awesome Dr. Doom is until he becomes Doom the Annihilating Conqueror, and you forget how rad Magneto is until the last half hour of Days of Future Past.

You don’t get much in the theater you wouldn’t get at home, so I can’t in good conscience recommend that you go drop 10 bucks on a ticket. Subscribe to Netflix and wait for it to happen, use the change to buy a comic book.

I will freely admit though, the post-credits scene got me pretty hype. Apocalypse totally rules and he always has.

Erik: 4/5

Someone should write an article about X-Men: Days of Future Past, and call it ‘The Evolution of a Film’. And if you haven’t instantly caught on to my meaning (I can overdramatize things from time to time), what I really mean is that by the end of the movie, an entirely new universe will be created using pieces of an already existing one.

The dictionary defines evolution as “any process of formation or growth”.

That is exactly what this film did. It grew. It found a way to cast off the unnecessary things created in the film adaptations of the X-Men comic books, and gives us something that is completely original. I’ve never been much of a fan of the comic book by Chris Claremont and John Byrne, I just didn’t get what all the fuss was about. If they had made a movie that matched that plot exactly, it would have been boring. A good read, but a boring movie. That’s what comic book fans and moviegoers refuse to understand. Some storylines just don’t make good movies. Which is why comic book movies are so successful. You can be a fan of the movies, not having ever read the comics. And vice versa.

I guess that I haven’t really said whether or not I like it. Well I did. But not for the reasons that I had originally thought that I would. It took a while to really get going, but there is a lot of story to tell here. A lot. But I’m sure Logan would be able to smell the haters coming a mile away.

Carl: 2/5

So far I have read glowing reviews for Bryan Singer’s return to the X-Men franchise.  I went into the film with great expectations, and I was summarily let down.

Bryan Singer made only one good movie in his life.  Every other film has been a rip-off of another story.  X-Men 2 plays as homage (nee plagiarism) of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.  Superman Returns borrows so liberally from Richard Donner’s Superman and other comic book movies that the film is more pastiche than movie.  X-Man:DOFP should be called The Matrix for how it plays off with its conclusion where the Sentinels attack.  Notice how the name applies in both situations?  As a side note, the Beast character Hulks out like the Hulk, so we have another character copied for the sake of the story.

Worst of all, Singer rips off Brett Ratner’s fan and critically maligned X-Men:The Last Stand.  In TLS Magneto picks up the Golden Gate Bridge so the mutants could cross the bay and attack the evil research facility.  In DOFP Magneto lifts up a baseball stadium for no discernible reason other than some half-assed way of trying to impress fans with the lack of logic and distract them from the issues arising.

Granted, the story does an outstanding job of weaving in the two worlds of the X-Men film universes: Singer and Rattner’s triumphantly mediocre first three films and Matthew Vaughn’s exemplary First Class.  While the continuity somewhat follows the last film, the promise of the same theme of X-Men as a period piece as established in First Class falls by the wayside.

My problem with the film is that I never once wanted to cheer due to intense action, smile at smart jokes, nor nod my head in fascination.  The Quicksilver moments come off as tragically comedic and breaks the tone of the film.  Additionally, he has no role or function in the story other than to run fast.  I feel that this was more a shot to steal the thunder from a Flash project than to help out with a key part of a storyline.

Overall, this is a strong film with some good moments.  Nothing about this film, however, is great or new.

Dustin: 1/5

I’m not going to lie, at the time of their release I like the first two X-Men films okay. The action was terrible and I didn’t know why a dramatic director was picked for an action film and then when I saw it I realized it didn’t matter because he turned it into a drama with hiccups of action. It’s been downhill for this franchise ever since.

X-Men: First Class looked promising. It looked like a fresh reboot… but then it wasn’t a reboot, it just mudded up the continuity created by the films and cherry picked from the comics harder than any other comic movie had before or since. I didn’t hate First Class, but I didn’t like it either. After our podcast this week I thought about the last time I watched the film and it was just my original theater experience with it.

Let’s not pretend that Days of Future Past is actually based on the comic book. It uses the premise of an X-Men traveling back in time to stop a dystopian future from occurring and uses the name because any comic fan will tell you… that’s a badass name. That’s it. To compare it otherwise would be pointless.

Days is a film that knew it’s ending, worked backwards from there and every time it hit a snag it made up some bullshit to get past it. The entire “future” aspect of the story is pointlessly show over and over just to remind you of the old cast. They’re not interesting, they don’t do anything and you never fear for their lives. Of all the things I could say and believe me after sleeping on this film for a few days I want to obliterate it for being the piece of trash cinema it is, but instead I will just point out the fact that never once do you sense the danger that the film presents. Not in the future, not in Wolverine’s race against time in the past, not even when Magneto is bringing the White House down. The only real danger is to your bladder due to the run time… I felt that for sure.

Oh and don’t try to piece together the time line of the movies… it’s pointless, this is a reboot so none of it matters.

---

Director: Bryan Singer Writers: Jane Goldman, Simon Kinberg, Matthew Vaughn Studio: 20^th Century Fox/Marvel Studios Run Time: 131 Min Release Date: 5/23/14

Review: Godzilla (2014)

The new Godzilla film has been met with a veil of secrecy that few other films have had. You’d think that it was a comic book movie or something from JJ Abrams it’s been that tight lipped since day one of the production. Even what Godzilla looks like and how tall the King of Monsters is compared to his Japanese counterpart, are again a secret. If you look at the promotional teasers for the film and compare them to trailer you’ll be hard pressed to definitely state anything about the film… until you see it. The film beings in the Philippines where a mining company has discovered the remains of a huge skeleton and in Jurassic Park fashion called for an expert on giant monster remains that arrives via helicopter. This introduces Ken Watanabe’s character and his company that is put in charge of containing and studying the creatures. They crawl around on the skeleton to show its size and find a growth on the bones that shouldn’t be there. Something has hatched and broken free and somehow no one noticed even though it broke through a mountain and destroyed several miles of forest before reaching the ocean and swimming away. I get it though; it was too early to show you the monster.

In a strange twist the story goes to Japan where we find Bryan Cranston’s character in charge of a new nuclear power plant that’s entering its final stage of development. His wife played by Juliette Binoche also works at the plant. Cranston’s character is a key component to plot as his story gives meaning to Aaron Taylor-Johnson’s character and helps ensure that we’re not just watching monsters fight and making up bullshit as to why they’re doing that. I guess I’m the only one that just wants to see monsters fight regardless of their reason.

The nuclear plant begins receiving some strange readings and suddenly there’s a meltdown of sorts. In the process Binoche’s character is killed and we’re left with more questions than answers for the moment.

We flash forward to the future and find Johnson’s character all grown up and back home from serving in the military. After a quick introduction to his wife played by Elizabeth Olsen and his kid, who is about as useful as a puppy, Johnson receives a call that send him back to Japan to bail his father out of jail.

He arrives in Japan and we learn that Cranston has stayed in Japan to figure out what really happened the day of the “meltdown” as there is a huge cover up about it. Father and son eventually head into the contamination zone and discover that there is no radiation. Soon they’re arrested and we get our first glimpse at one of the monsters. It’s not Godzilla and by now we’re a solid half hour into the film just to give you an idea at the level of teasing.

Eventually the monster is born and breaks free and this sets off the plot of monsters versus monsters that eventually ends up in San Francisco where Johnson happens to live.

I would not proclaim to be the biggest Godzilla fan in the world, though I have seen my fair share of the Toho films. That said there is a formula that works for Godzilla and one that doesn’t and both sides of the Pacific have found the formula that doesn’t work. Unlike most fans of the franchise I wasn’t excited at the announcement that Hollywood would be taking another stab at the King of Monsters. Zilla, the name Toho and fans gave to the 1998 version of the monster, is not that far removed from my mind. For its many problems the 1998 film suffered for the biggest mistake any Godzilla film can make… it focused on the people rather than the giant monster everyone came to see.

The new film from Gareth Edwards is a strange beast. It two focuses on the human aspect of story, but it tackles it in a way that’s relevant to the story. In that regards screenwriter Max Borenstein has excelled making sure that for the most part the characters serve a purpose other than staring at CGI monsters and giving Spielberg inspired responses of shock and awe. There is a problem with that though because as the human side of the story becomes interesting, in order to make it that way you need to sacrifice the monsters screen time.

As I said the monsters end up in San Francisco, but it’s incredibly forced. Spoiler, there are two M.U.T.O.’s and one is in Japan and the other is in Arizona and so the middle point is San Francisco, but the film takes the time to explain that everywhere they’re traveling has nuclear that the monsters want.

Because they’re forced to San Fran where Johnson’s character lives, he’s along for the long haul. After being detained and holding important secrets he’s literally just cut loose and given a ticket home. Too bad the monsters are hot on his ass so his trip home continues to be delayed until he volunteers for the mission to deliver a warhead meant to distract the MUTO’s. At one point he attempts to impress the lead officer on the mission and he wasn’t impressed… nor was I. Every bit of Johnson’s journey is forced upon the story and he soon becomes the go to man for every branch of the military and the only capable person in fighting giant monsters.

Cranston’s character isn’t particularly useful, but he does figure out part of what’s going on before Watanabe’s character does. The problem is that Watanabe has been studying the monsters up close and personal for at least 15 years and doesn’t know shit. He quickly becomes the guy that delivers the suspenseful “Godzilla” line. I’m not kidding his dialogue and delivery was bad, not cheesy, but bad. You’ll forget that he’s a doctor by the second time he’s on screen and wonder why they continue to check in with him afterwards. In actuality he's there to deliver the lines fans supposedly want to hear, the ones that remind them it's a Godzilla film.

I still feel like I barely know what Godzilla looks like even after seeing the film. He’s rarely shown full body and up until the final battle the film takes more of Cloverfield approach and shows the monsters from the human perspective. The M.U.T.O.'s on the other hand are shown plenty and actually have a great design.

I gave my best shot at like the design for Godzilla even after seeing leaked photos and action figures, but I still don’t like it. There is nothing iconic about the look, instead Godzilla looks like a snout-nosed T-Rex more than the iconic King of the Monsters. I have read that Japanese fans don’t like the “fat” looking Godzilla and I can’t disagree. In fact I don’t think the design of Godzilla makes sense for what they make the creature do. Godzilla is a graceful swimmer which is fine, but then when you see his legs you have to laugh at the idea of the creature swimming with two whiskey barrel legs the way it does.

The classic sounds and powers are there and when they’re finally used it’s pretty spectacular. Though they kept it sparse it was probably for the best since they had nothing to add to it afterwards.

I do think it’s important to point out that Godzilla is a hero of sorts. Sure Johnson’s character is the protagonist, but Godzilla is the hero. The film takes its time establishing it for the characters in the story, but it was pretty clear from the introduction from Watanabe’s character that he was not a bad guy or something to be feared. It works, but it’s a bit strange since Godzilla has always been impartial. He’s a force of nature still, but he’s definitely in humanities corner.

The cinematography is great and the CGI is what you’d expect from a modern film… pretty. Overall I didn’t have any complaints about the way it looked, but some of the shots were rather annoying. I saw it in 3D on an IMAX screen and while I don’t hate 3D, I’m not a fan of it. It could have worked wonderfully for this film, but as I said there are Cloverfield shots in which we see something from a strange perspective like a crowd or through a window and at times the 3D look more like a hand over part of the projector than part of the movie. And like most 3D movies it forgets that it’s a 3D movie half way through the film so these shots become even more annoying because clearly they were shooting for 2D. I would recommend that if you see the film, see it in 2D.

By now you’re probably wondering if I liked the film or not. I did like it. Even though a lot of the story elements were convenient and others were pointless, I think the film makers did a good job of making Godzilla fit into our world the way it is now and so it works as an updated retelling. The weird thing is that I don’t want to watch it again. It’s one of those movies that one time is enough and the reason is the lack of Godzilla. Because there is so much build up to the reveal there isn’t going to be the same level of suspense with a second viewing. I wasn’t disappointed by the film, but I wasn’t excited by it either and so that’s where I stand with it.

---

Score: 3/5

Director: Gareth Edwards Writer: Max Borenstein Studio: Legendary/WB Run Time: 123 Min Release Date: 5/16/14

Review: Jodorowsky’s Dune

Written by guest contributor Brian Roe

The word seminal is one of those over-used words that sounds great when talking about a subject but rarely means what it’s supposed to mean. Seminal means to act like semen, to impregnate, and to bring new life. Many works of art might be inspiring or help to create new trends but few works are as purely, biologically seminal as Alejandro Jodorowsky’s attempted version of Dune. From the group of highly talented creative people involved to the overall epic grandeur of the concept, Jodorowsky’s Dune set a high bar for future science fiction projects and filmmaking in general and its ideas were truly seminal in the fields of science fiction and fantasy filmmaking.

In 1974 Alejandro Jodorowsky was less of a filmmaker and more of an emerging cinematic prophet. He believed in the power of art to not only create reality but also to force an expansion of human consciousness. His early films were anarchist experiments seemingly designed to creatively shock main stream sensibilities as opposed to telling narrative stories. Building on this background along with a powerful interest in mysticism and mind altering pharmacology Jodorowsky created the surrealist western El Topo in 1970 and the mystically dense The Holy Mountain in 1973. Both films also featured Jodorowsky as an actor in the roles of highly spiritual beings, in El Topo as a wandering outlaw/gunslinger who is on a quest for spiritual enlightenment and in The Holy Mountain as an alchemist who guides the main characters along their path of mystical discovery.

Jodorowsky seemed to be at the height of his own personal enlightenment when he was given the opportunity to direct a film for producer Michel Seydoux and immediately chose to direct Frank Herbert’s Dune based purely on the recommendation of the book by a friend. Jodorowsky had not read the book at the time that he chose the film and it seems uncertain how much he actually read of it at any later time given some of the narrative liberties he took with the script.

Along with the initial script Jodorowsky hired the French artist Jean Giraud/Mœbius to draw storyboards based on Jodorowsky’s descriptions. Along with concept artists Chris Foss and H. R. Giger and special effects technician Dan O’Bannon, Jodorowsky created a massive book that showed not only the storyboards of Dune but also character designs and ship and building concepts. These books were sent to various studios in an attempt to find additional funding were they have been lost over the years after being mined for ideas by the many creative people lucky enough to discover them.

Much of the film-time of Jodorowsky’s Dune is taken up in exploring this massive book, according to Jodorowsky there are only two now known to exist, and having it ably animated and narrated by Jodorowsky himself is a real treat. It’s a shame that not even a digital version of this book is available and something that hopefully will be redressed now that this documentary has been released. But the book and the story of the film’s production are not the only enjoyable parts of this Jodorowsky’s Dune. There is also Jodorowsky himself.

Now in his mid-eighties, Jodorowsky is still a powerful and inspiring speaker, even when he’s saying ridiculous things. His beliefs about the nature of art and the power of the artist are said with a fervor that is rare amongst people even when they talk about their religions. Jodorowsky is not someone who simply mimics currently popular themes or who parrots other’s ideas. He preaches about art with a passion and sureness that creators half his age often have trouble projecting. And even his most bizarre concepts seem to come from a place in his heart and mind that is perfectly and truly real. It is a powerful artist indeed who can communicate that sort of reality to others with the zeal that Jodorowsky manifests. It’s a pleasure to watch him again become inspired on the topic of what could have been his final project and to turn what could have been defeat into a truly spiritual understanding.

See this movie if you love film, fantasy, science fiction, and art. See it if you’re a fan of Giger, Foss, Mœbius, or O’Bannon. Jodorowsky. See it if you’re a fan of Jodorowsky’s earlier films or his many comic book sagas. Or see it if you have no idea who this person is. Either way you’ll soon become a fan of Jodorowsky.

---

Score: 5/5

Director: Frank Pavich Studio: City Film, Snowfort Pictures Run Time: 90 Mins

Review: The Amazing Spider-Man 2

Written by Guest Contributor: Jefferey Pinkos -Dustin:  Jeff, you want to watch The Amazing Spider-Man 2 for us, eh, buddy?

-Jeff:  Dustin, you are a son-of-a-bitch and I love you, but I won’t do that.

-Dustin:  Stop quoting Meatloaf, you idiot.  I know your passion for complaining about the first one —

-Jeff:  That fucking lizard-mouse, what happens to it?  Does Peter dispatch it?  Did he imprison it?  Why include it all?

-Dustin:  Unimportant.  Go see it.  Write up a couple hundred words.  After that, we’re square.

-Jeff:  …’kay.  Hey, do you think I can grow a beard someday?

-Dustin:  Up to Steven.

-Steven:  Absolutely not, you twerp.

Well, here we are, days later and there’s no The Amazing Spider-Man 2 write-up.  Dustin has been sending me daggers online and Steve keeps sending me gratuitous videos of him grooming himself.  I need to get on this.

I outright hated The Amazing Spider-Man (2012).  You might know that if you read the conversation that totally happened above.  I’m no Spider-Man fan-boy, no foot washing pilgrim at the mount of Dunst-Maguire-Raimi.  While the lizard-rat scene irks me, it’s among the lesser offenses the picture commits.  It is violently bland.  The storytelling is as color-by-numbers cynical as anything I have bore witness to.  Need emotion?  Kill someone close to Peter —4 times, it happens 4 goddamned times.  (Maybe, just maybe, the writers think they can kill enough people to make us like Peter Parker.)  There’s so little care put into the pieces of the picture (like the lizard-rat), that when it occurs it’s goofy.  And as charmed as the critics were to the Garfield-Stone nexus of cutesy mumblecore teenage first blush romance hype, it left me chafed and bored.  (Then again I hate the young.)  But enough complaining.  That was then, this is now.  Let’s complain about now.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 picks up where its predecessor left off.  Dr. Curt Connors is gone.  (By the way, this post-credits scene?  Yeah.  Still doesn’t make sense.)  OsCorp is sweeping it and every other man-animal experiment under the rug.  Meanwhile Norman Osborn is dying from some mysterious genetic ailment and warns his erstwhile latchkey heir to the OsCorp fortunes Harry, while the OsCorp board scoffs and grumbles and hatches a plan to unseat the young yuppy upstart.  Gwen is doing great, delivering the most foreboding valedictory speech in the history of high school graduation and on her way to study science stuff in England.  She wants to make it work with Peter, but the disapproving ghost of her father (Denis Leary straight bringin’it, staring, stewing) is cockblocking him with guilt from beyond the grave.  Will those kids work it out?  Buy your ticket like the rest of us schmucks.  (Kidding.  You know she dead.)

Besides Gwen, Peter deals with two other narrative threads: his parents and Harry, both of which end at OsCorp.  For a major motion picture summer tentpole blockbuster there is a surprising dearth of action sequence and a large number of dialogue-driven narrative threads.  Which is fine.  Maybe a little refreshing post-Transformers.  Writers Orci and Kurtzman (formerly of the famed Orci and Kurtzman duo) wove a overlong, convoluted, uninspired web (see what I did thar).  Nothing is as punchy, and I mean that semi-literally, as it ought to be.  The length and the compounded astigmatic focus drains the potency whatever dull-as-ditchwater clichés the two want to hock at us.  You’ll know it when you see it, near the end.

Bet you wonder where Electro fits into all of this.  In fact, the way he figured in Sony’s marketing, you might think he starred in this picture or something.  Electro, aka Max Dillon, aka Jamie Foxx, whose death/transformation is primo golden-age silliness, is a setpiece.  He doesn’t actually matter, plot-wise —a cruel and ironic twist there, Orci and Kurtzman.  That Schumacherian campiness is underscored by the pitiful performance by Foxx.  Here Electro is Jim Carrey’s Edward Nygma (the scene in his apartment is almost a shot-for-shot reduplication of Nygma’s in Batman Forever, I can almost guarantee you that) but with a pathos that’s without any sort of grounding or humanity that, rather than allow audiences to empathize with this obviously miserable, unbalanced man, we are forced to laugh at his experience.  The final fight scene between him and Spider-Man is insane.  Expect a dub-step “Itsy Bitsy Spider.”

What we can take away from ASM 2 is there is always ASM 3.  Let us throw the blame of it on the fact that it takes place in a transitory period in the Spider-Man life.  What happens between his origin story and the origin story of his greatest foes is a lot of nothing.  I mean, what’s her face dies –you know, to make us like Peter —but I mean, he’ll get another girlfriend.  Whom he’ll inevitably be guilt-trip cockblocked by the combined forces of unhappy Denis Leary and unhappy Gwen Stacy.  The real issue is who will they kill off next in order for us to like Peter Parker?  Watch out, Sally Field, your days are numbered.

---

Score: 1/5

Director: Marc Webb Writers: Alex Kurtzman, Alex Kurtzman, Jeff Pinkner and James Vanderbilt Studio: Sony Pictures Run-Time: 142 Min

Review: Son of Batman

When you read the title “Son of Batman” most comic fans will think of the story arc of Grant Morrison’s run on Batman (pre-New 52) called “Batman and Son.” It drew in a lot of attention because Morrison promised that everything Batman was now in continuity and that included Batman: Son of the Demon in which Batman had a child with Talia. Even the name “Batman and Son” was a play on “Son of the Demon” and so any comic reader familiar with this storyline from 2006 is likely to think of it when seeing the words “Son of Batman”… “Batman and Son”… “Son of Batman”… “Batman… and Son.” Sadly the difference in title should be your first warning that Son of Batman is only loosely based off of the “Batman and Son” story arc (in fact Morrison and Kubert aren’t even credited on the film). What’s stranger is that there is a new Batman continuity created with this animated film. I suppose it’s not that strange when you consider Superman vs. The Elite and Superman: Unbound did much the same. The difference being that since those movies releases Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox and Justice League: War. Granted War created its own continuity, but this seemed like the beginning of a united animated front, much like the united comic front that became known as the New 52.

It really seemed as if DC and the WB were finally on the same page and understood that fans want there to be a connection to their universe and not just a made up story for the sake of the animation. Sadly there is a made up story/continuity for Son of Batman.

To begin with Ra’s al Ghul is alive and well and is in fact grooming Damian to become the leader of the League of Assassins. The League of Assassins is more like the league of Ninjas, because they’re all ninjas. They use swords and arrows and frankly it’s strange that as assassins they don’t have or use anything other than the aforementioned weapons… no I take that back they did have catapults that threw fucking rocks. So a mixture of Medieval technology and ninjas, but mostly ninjas.

Their compound is attacked by people with guns. You could say that they’re a league of assassins as well, but the name was already taken. They all have orange skull patches on their arms with one eye so let’s call them “One-eyed Orange Skulls.” They’re led by the villain of our film… wait the villain of our film? Didn’t I already introduce them when I said Ra’s al Ghul was involved? You would think that, but you’re wrong. In fact the film attempts to make the Ghul family look… good. On one hand they run the League of Assassins and on the other hand they are raising a child.

No the real villain of the film is Deathstroke the Terminator… and he has two eyes when we meet him. Eventually he loses the eye, but at this point you should be wondering why a two eyed man would be leading the “One-eyed Orange Skulls”… that’s right folks. In the WB’s infinite laziness they either A) decided to have one of the characters in the film take Deathstroke’s eye after already creating the design for his Crew of Assassins or B) … well B is that they’re still lazy. Either way it was poor planning or laziness.

This opening attack forces Talia to take Damian to his father’s place while she pathetically attempts revenge on Deathstroke. What’s Deathstroke’s motivation you ask? Well he was supposed to take over the League of Assassins until Batman was discovered and offered the job and when he turned it down they were like “we already got his baby batter brewing in Talia… let’s just make him the leader.”

It’s not until Batman meets Damian that he becomes annoying. It was strange because everyone that read his stint as Robin in the comic books knows how annoying this little bastard is and yet at first he’s not. Then he meets his dad… and becomes the most annoying child, character and cartoon persona ever. There is nothing to like about this version of Damian. He’s at his worst for the rest of the film.

Damian doesn’t really respect Batman. He listens to him only when it’s convenient for the story and when he doesn’t it’s also convenient for the story. If I was a small child watching this, the lesson I would learn is that I can do whatever as long as Dad says he’s impressed by me at the end of it. Every cliché between father and son meeting for the first time is used, “I thought you’d be bigger.” That’s verbatim. There are plenty more that were too painful for me to recall, but I’m sure someone out there can turn it into a drinking game.

Batman is reduced to a supporting role for the most part. That’s right he plays second fiddle to Damian who is ahead of him on everything and even hacks the Bat-computer. He’s also voiced by Jason O’Mara who you will recall as the really shitty Batman voice actor in the Justice League: War film. There’s something about his voice that isn’t believable and makes it sound as if he’s in a different film than the rest of the characters.

The worst part of the film comes from the first encounter between Nightwing and Damian. Nightwing is the one and only previous Robin making Damian the second Robin. They meet and we all know a fight is going to break out since Damian is about to kill someone and is seeing red. Instead we see the end of the battle which has Nightwing sporting several (and I do mean several) deep cuts from Damian’s sword. Why this fight was skipped is beyond me, but they chose to show a panel of the fight here and there in the credits… you know when you’re just dying for more from that train skipped scene.

The story is pointless which in my book is worse than bad. Deathstroke’s motivations throughout the film make zero sense and the go-to villains of the Bat-verse are made to look like heroes. All the while you’ll be left wondering what exactly Batman is doing when not on screen.

The voice acting ranges from passable, to meh, to really bad. It’s a shame that they’re mostly just grabbing people off of WB produced TV shows and throwing them in a studio in order to promote the show and the cartoon at the same time. Makes business sense until these animations start flopping like they’ve been doing ever since Geoff Johns forced them to animate three of his stories back-to-back.

The animation is good for the most part. Other than the laziness with the skulls in the beginning and a few weird action sequences, it’s what you’d expect from a WB animation. The action sequences that fail, both involve fast ninja movement. The first is Ra’s doing a no-hand cartwheel to block a bullet with his sword and it looks more like stop-motion animation. The second is a scene with Damian jumping across traffic. Not only is he about the same size as the cars, but his animation cell looks like it was just dragged to one car from the next. What’s worse is that momentum and physics where never taken into account for this scene as he jumps perfectly between cars going different directions at varying speeds.

There’s a sad truth to this film: most people are still going to buy or rent it just to see it. A lot of people grew up during the Bruce Timm era of WB animation and remember the great series that he produced or oversaw. Because of him we crave more WB animation and their characters are the perfect fit for it. Too bad the WB is more concerned with just pumping out content rather than content people will remember or care about in ten or even five years. Even if just money is their focus it’s a short-sighted way of doing business as you will eventually burnout your fanbase. They’re only willing to put up with so much. With Son of Batman I doubt I’ll even remember it by the time DCU Batman: Assault on Arkham releases later this year and would encourage you to not give into curiosity and just skip it.

Score: 2/5 (Animation Only)

Director: Ethan Spaulding Story: James Robinson Teleplay: Joe R. Lansdale Studio: WB Animation Release Date: 5/6/14

Review: Milius

Written by guest contributor Brian Roe

“He doesn’t write for pussies and he doesn’t write for women. He writes for men. ‘Cause he’s a man.”

~ Sam Elliott

John Milius is one of those frustrating creators whose personality often obscures and poisons his great works. As part of the “New Hollywood” movement Milius began his career surrounded by the likes of George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and Francis Ford Coppola. He was an affable asshole, a self-described “zen anarchist” who seemed to relish being the loudest, most brash , and most abrasive bastard in the room. He was also immensely talented and intelligent with an over-sized persona that seemed to draw people to him even as he shoved others away.

The documentary Milius does its subject a great service by giving him plenty of time to use his outstanding storytelling techniques to fill in his own history beginning with his somewhat troubled childhood and his missed chance to go to Vietnam. The sadness that he shows while pining for “my war” gives some clues into what would become frequent obsessions in his filmmaking. It also shows an almost childlike love of war that many people who have actually experienced war might have a hard time grasping. Like Apocalypse Now’s Lieutenant Colonel Kilgore, Milus seems to view war as a a grand adventure and one that he is personally immune to.

Along with an obsession for firearms and grand bravado Milius soon developed into a creative entity that has created or influenced a huge amount of American pop culture. In the films Dirty Harry, Apocalypse Now, and Conan the Barbarian, Milius created tough-guy stories that hit hard and created an ideal of masculinity that was often summed up in omni-quotable lines like “Go ahead, make my day!”, “Crush your enemies!”, and “I love the smell of napalm in the morning.” But he also set these lines within a story that was full of well-developed characters and masterfully told.

Milius made his first impact as a writer on films such as The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean, Jeremiah Johnson, and Dillinger which all seem to have been forgotten by all but the most cultish film buffs. But they also gave Milius a good amount of Hollywood power and led to him becoming a director in addition to writing. Becoming the guy who got to call of the shots on set seemed to inflate Milius’s ego to even more extreme proportions.

“Charlie don’t surf!” but Milius did and as a young man took an almost spiritual satisfaction in the culture and sport of the southern California beaches. This led to him writing and directing Big Wednesday, a surf movie that directly opposed the Frankie and Annette beach movie vibe and instead used surfing as a symbol for life in general. Like many very personal projects Big Wednesday was not well received but seemed custom made to become a lasting cult film. It would not be the last time that Milius created a film that was badly received by critics. And the next time the fallout would be damned near fatal to his career.

I’m going to stop talking about John Milius the man and focus a bit more on Milius the documentary. Overall it’s a competent example of a formulaic style that really doesn’t veer too far from set parameters. We get lightly animated stills of Milius as a young man, talking heads of various famous people talking about him as well as a basic timeline of his career. Luckily we also get a good amount of previous interview material from Milius throughout his career. The filmmakers are no Errol Morris so there really isn’t any sense of there being an attempt to dig deeper beneath the surface to really pull new ideas out of the subject. Instead we get a by the numbers documentary that takes no chances and pulls quite a few punches. This format is made even clearer in contrast to the film’s subject. A powerhouse like John Milius deserves better than the standard format of anything.

That being said Milius is worth a watch if only to listen to Milius himself and to get an idea of his charisma and talent. After being thrown a couple of really shitty curveballs Milius is still fighting and hopefully his warrior’s soul will be enough to come back on more time.

Score: 4/5

Directors: Joey Figueroa, Zak Knutson Studio: Epix

Review: 47 Ronin

47 Ronin is a film that struggles to decide what it is. It is very much so two movies in one; on the one hand there is the story of the 47 Ronin a story so old and well-known in Japan that it has a cliché attached to it that goes: To know the story of the 47 Ronin, is to know the story of Japan. The movie actually includes this saying in their film at the very beginning during an awkward opening that resembled 300 more than it did the rest of the film. This was a mistake as it sets the precedence that the movie is going to tell that story, but so many liberties are taken along with all the changes made to fit the second aspect of our film into the same world. As I said this is a two-in-one film and so now we know the first part, the 47 Ronin, and as for the second… Keanu Reeves. Not only is everything about Reeves’ storyline completely out-of-place, but he is bigger than the movie or at least according to the cover for the home release which has his name floating above the title. I wish I was exaggerating when I say that Reeves is the entire second movie, but I’m not. With the inclusion of his character are all the fantasy elements that never quite fit with the story and fight against the fairly decent tale of the 47 Ronin that’s going on whenever Reeves isn’t on the screen.

What is the story of the 47 Ronin? Well in this version there are two lords: an old lord with a prosperous kingdom and a young lord whose land seems to always be covered in darkness.  The young lord works with a sorceress to shame the old lord in front of the Shogun, the result is the old lord committing Seppuku to retain his and his people’s honor. The young evil lord gets his land and his grieving daughter (after a convenient one-year mourning period). The old lord’s samurai become Ronin (samurai without masters) and their leader is thrown in a hole for the entire year until a few days before the wedding. He gathers the remaining samurai and they plot to kill the young lord and regain their master’s true honor. Oh and possibly return sunshine to the land?

Interesting right? In fact I bet you're wondering why Keanu is even involved in the movie and where they fit all the fantasy elements of the film. And what about that Pirate with the skull tattoo on his face??? What’s up with that guy?!? He’s in the movie for maybe thirty seconds and he just asks what someone is looking for… that’s it.

Keanu plays a half-breed that was raised by Tengu (forest demons of Japanese lore) that escaped after not wanting their life of killing to be the only thing he knew. Well now he’s a bad-ass killer and that’s actually all he does when he's not being beaten by the people he's trying to help. He falls in love with the old lord’s daughter and her with him. He’s treated like shit because he’s a half-breed even though everything he does and I mean everything he does, is for the lord and the people.

Keanu’s story feeds into the main story because they suddenly need him after shunning him for so many years. They use him to get swords which they have to get from the Tengu who look like alien bug creatures dressed like Buddhist monks. This journey to obtain the most powerful swords in the land replaces planning, strategy and money from the original story so you can probably guess how important it is to the overall plot of the film… not very. The swords that can cut through whatever you want are never brought up again except for a joke after their attained.

Here’s the real kicker of the story… the fantasy elements work with the exception of the Tengu. The CG for the film was actually some of the most impressive CG I’ve viewed in a live-action film. The sorceress receives a heavy amount of it when she changes forms, but there’s also a few other creatures shown along the way. Had that been the only addition the film would have been far better.

As it goes in Hollywood everything needs star power and though Reeves has been box office poison as of late, they still mashed him into the film. The silliest part is that they don’t let him act. Say what you want about the man’s performances over the years, he can actually act. Instead they barely let him talk and you could describe his mannerisms as “scared child” they’re that generic. As it stands the only actor to give a decent performance was Rinko Kikuchi (Pacific Rim). Her performance as the sorceress (credited as Witch) was a great addition to the story. She steals every scene that she’s in and continues to do so even after her character’s motivation stops making sense. As for Hiroyuki Sanada, the real star of the film as he has the bulk of the screen time, his performance is slightly better than the one he gave in The Wolverine. The story for his character was devoid of the range that the original tale had for his character which is the real shame. Think of it as if his character was asked only to make pizza and he makes great pizza, but then they come to him and say “okay now make just cheese pizza.” Well he makes a good cheese pizza, but we all know that it really means “safe and for everyone.”

It would honestly be interesting to see a new edit of this film in which Keanu Reeves is mostly cut out thus reducing his role to a minor support role. At that point I think the story of the 47 Ronin would actually pop and the beautiful CG could be appreciated. Somehow I don’t see that happening and so a potentially good movie will remain average at best.

Score: 3/5

Director: Carl Rinsch Writers: Chris Morgan, Hossein Amini Studio: NBC Universal Run Time: 119 Minutes

Review: Frankenstein’s Army

Written by guest contributor Brian Roe

There are times when it is perfectly acceptable to be a film snob. When you’re discussing truly great films or even mediocre films that could have been great in an attempt to peel back all of the layers of symbolism and sub-text to truly discover the exquisite core of shared experience that is only possible through the sublime medium of film, then being a snob is fully justified.

Other times it makes you a jack-ass that is incapable of enjoyment because you’re too busy trying to engorge your own ego because you’ve secretly realized that you’re a jealous, embittered failure.

Frankenstein’s Army needs no great critique. It is a carnival ride that delivers the goods in such a fast paced and constant way that it never stops to allow you to ponder too much on what is actually happening. It keeps moving and that is one of its strengths.

Russian advanced scouts invading Germany near the end of World War 2. You’ve got the kind but tough leader, the noble guy, the rapey guy, the silent but deadly sniper guy, the tough bad-ass barbarian guy, and the kid. And behind a constantly running camera, a documentarian intent on recording all of the action even if it means taking truly ridiculous risks to get the shot. You’ll be looking through this camera for the next 84 minutes so it’s a blessing that it seems to be held steady most of the time.

The Russians soon find themselves in a seemingly abandoned town that has some odd corpses and weird rusting weaponry lying around. Some of the atrocities shock even these hardened fellows but they keep going further into enemy territory in an attempt to help a besieged Russian unit. But all is not even close to how it seems and the soldiers soon find themselves neck-deep in weird war strangeness when they run across a disturbed doctor from the Frankenstein family and his chop-shop menagerie.

First person films can really be a pain to watch but director Richard Raaphorst and cinematographer Bart Beekman keep things moving but not nauseating. The camera view helps to make this an exciting ride in other ways. It conveys a sense of claustrophobia in tight spaces, it creates a sense of detachment from the other soldiers, and it makes the viewer feel that they really have no effect on any of the battle scenes. This isn’t a first person shooter simply because you don’t have a weapon. Another important technique of the camera view is to sweep around a scene and just give a brief flash of a threat and then hide it again, until of course it comes thundering back into frame. It also has the inevitable forward motion of a ride like the viewer is being pulled along by an unseen chain. Instead of this being a distraction it actually makes it easier to just sit back and enjoy the craziness.

And one of the best parts of this craziness is the excellent monster design by Raaphorst  himself that seems to have come from the fevered imagination of a kid with a bunch of monster toys and a box of military models and a lot of free time. Bits are swapped and chopped to create over-the-top creatures that seem both ridiculous and terrifying.  Bits of Nazi iconography are skillfully added to the creations to really send the message that these are the bad guys. Combine these designs with some eerie set pieces and gut churning gross outs and it makes for a fun, practical effect filled horrorshow.

There is something a bit unsettling about Frankenstein’s Army that has nothing really to do with Frankenstein himself or any of his creations. It’s the way that the Russian soldiers, supposedly our protagonists, abuse and dehumanize the German civilians that they come across. For a group of men who seem obsessed with keeping their own families safe they also have no problem being big-huge bastards to everyone they come across. There is a bit of symbolism in all this. Who’s worse, the crazy scientist who chops up people and sews them back together like pieces of meat, or the violent ideologues who use their hatred to dehumanize the enemies of their own country?

Oh well, war is hell. Just sit back and watch the movie.

Score: 4/5

Director: Richard Raaphorst Writer: Miguel Tejada-Flores Studio: Entertainment One/Dark Sky Films Run Time: 84 Minutes

Review: Noah

Written by Guest Contributor: Jefferey Pinkos I know you know the myth of Noah.  Every little Judeo-Christian boy or girl hears it a bunch of , maybe through a Sunday school teacher, maybe through a broad strokes/primary colors cartoon.  And why not, it certain speaks to us at a level we understand.  A six-hundred year old man and his family lived a good, honest, humble existence out in the country, far away from the rabble and sin of the pre-diluvian cities, when the creative deity, fed up with mankind’s dickishness, said, “FINE,” and shook Earth’s Etch-A-Sketch clean.  Then, under divine mandate, Noah built an enormous boat called an ark, and stored two of every animal on earth on board, until the coast was clear and lived a happy uncomplicated existence, minus all the survivor’s guilt and the incest just around the corner necessary for species survival.  You know, grade level stuff.

That is, more or less, Aronofsky’s Noah.  Months ago when Paramount announced the epic of Noah, audience felt more or less baffled.  What more is there to tell?  Aronofsky couched the narrative within the familiar confines of sf/fantasy/the ever popular post-apocalypse cinematic language.  In fact, if I said that the first two-thirds was like The Road and later turned into an orc battle but with Transformers, it wouldn’t feel out of place.  Think less chintzy proselytizing of Cecil B. DeMille and more a metaphor on climate change by way of Cormac McCarthy.

The first two-thirds of Noah is what you might expect from a Sunday school lesson, only with a grimmer thematic and visual emphasis.  As the famous boatbuilder Russell Crowe looks good for six-hundred, a growling bear in his performance — tame and tender with his family, hiding a snarling mean interior.  He remains the final descendent of the lineage of Seth, the mysterious third child of Adam and Eve.  The rest of everyone — read: the dicks who die — are born from Cain — read: the dick child of Adam and Eve who killed Abel, the other child of Adam and Eve — and, accordingly, behave like a bunch of murderous, warmongering, rapemongering, sinmongering, pre-Sodom and Gomorrah dicks.  Don’t worry, though.  They all die.  (“FINALLY, BECAUSE OF GENOCIDE THE WORLD IS SAVED,” the creator said, totally wrong.)

He receives the Creator’s cryptic apocryphal word, confirmed by dear doddering grandpa Methuselah (Anthony Hopkins, who’s a doll).  He and his family begin building with the help of Watchers.  (“Who are the Watchers?” you may ask.  After the Adam and Eve’s expulsion from Paradise, a band of angels fall to Earth to help them out; and because the Creator was so pissed off, cast the fallen angels in the stony earth of their new home, forever doomed to look like that rock creature from Galaxy Quest.)

The day creeps closer and closer.  A band of scavengers led by the thoroughly British Tubal-cain (Ray Winstone) seeks passage on Noah’s party boat.  Denied, they promise to return in legion.  (Cue rain battle straight out of Tolkien.)  It’s about then when we come to Aronofsky’s meat and potatoes of the picture.  Mr. Aronofsky deals in desperation and obsession as currency in his work, and here Noah’s fanaticism sours on his family’s favors. Adoptive daughter Ila (Emma Watson) informs the family, “Ayo, we pregnant up in this,” Noah goes, “Gonna throw ‘em in the sea.”  Whaaat.  What it amounts to is the conviction of Noah’s faith.  Things are cool when we allowed children to drown — a point Tubal-cain rightly mentions — but murder one of our own and it’s weird.  He finally relents.  The rains stop and land is found and he becomes a drunken wreck; but he forgives himself and his family forgives him.  Love and mercy override faith, that’s the message, as the exploding rainbows the Creator issues declare.

Its pacing is peculiar, saving the interesting material for the last third of the movie, beginning with a somber retelling of a familiar myth.  However cool your CGI menagerie looks boarding, it looks silly.  Crowe’s performance is subdued to the point of appearing flat.  His hair delivers half the story.  (Bald : MMA HXC MF :: Harry Carey hair : OH NO WATCHOUT.)  The breakout performance is Jennifer Connelly as Naameh, the faithful wife of Noah and even faithfuller mother of their children.  She plays humility, passion, anger, and fear so well she often speaks on behalf of the plot.  When Noah gets all murdermad / survivor’s guilt, Naameh’s reactions are key to watch for.  It’s not the religious epic we expected, nor the one we deserve.

Score: 2/5

Director: Darren Aronofsky Writers: Darren Aronofsky, Ari Handel Studio: Paramount Pictures Run Time: 138 Minutes

Check out the review for the graphic novel... which fared about the same!

Now On Netflix: Robinson Crusoe on Mars

Written by guest contributor Brian Roe

Perhaps due to buzz surrounding Andy Weir’s The Martian, Netflix has recently added the 1964 film Robinson Crusoe on Mars to its online collection. While Weir’s book is an in-depth, realistic examination of one person attempting to survive alone on the surface of Mars, RCoM at first comes across as a standard mid-century pulp fantasy that plays out on desert sets decorated with vast amounts of styrofoam, papier-mache, and monkey mirkins.

First off don’t bother checking this movie out if you’re one of those CGI-elitists who can’t appreciate a movie just because the effects are more of a suggestion than a true visual representation of reality. But if you dig practical effects and clever use of low budget solutions RCoM has some greatness to it.

First of we’re treated to a very young and handsome Adam West as Colonel Dan McReady, the pilot of a gravity research ship that is heading to the planet Mars. And a monkey in a monkey-sized space suit that offers no practical protection to its simian wearer in any way. We’re also introduced to Commander Christopher 'Kit' Draper (Paul Mantee), a guy who presses some buttons and says some stuff. The opening section really makes it seem like McReady is the main character and will be the Robinson Crusoe of the title. But that’s wrong so don’t even think it.

The fellows have to avoid a meteor by firing retro rockets, always with the retro rockets, and it uses up their fuel and they have to abandon ship in little escape pods. Which never would have happened if they would have listened to the monkey. (Whose name is Mona by the way.)

The escape pods don’t do a very good job and McReady is killed on impact. Luckily Mona and Draper survive which is nice. Draper goes about setting up a cozy little cave home and finding out how to breathe and stuff on Mars. Standard stuff for the Robinson Crusoe/Castaway motif. Most of his equipment looks like old war surplus and although he has a cool nylon space suit and food in squeeze tubes some of his other survival gear is extremely lacking. Like the fact that his only way to start a fire is to use a book of matches from the Kailua Klub in San Diego. Jeeze NASA, I know there were budget cuts but give the guy a Zippo or something.

This was an independent film and although parts of it really suffer for the budget it’s also very clear that a lot of work and creativity went into imagining the various settings and atmospheric effects of Mars. Many of the vistas shown are matte paintings that would make great prog-rock album covers or paintings for the sides of custom vans.

A good part of the movie is taken up by Draper figuring things out and being super patriotic and stuff. He actually whistles Yankee Doodle Dandy and after he takes the time to invent bagpipes, because every world needs bagpipes, he walks around the desert while dragging the poor monkey around and plays (I Wish I was in) Dixie really badly.

Then the mood of the film changes abruptly when Draper discovers a group of space bad guys roughing up a group of slaves by shooting at them with classic War of The Worlds manta ray spaceships. Draper rescues one of the slaves and in a total dick move names him Friday and demands that he learn English. Victor Lundin, who plays Friday, would have been an awesome Conan the Barbarian and also played the first Klingon on Star Trek. He also wrote and performed a charming little ditty about RCoM that he performed at conventions. It’s on YouTube if you want to watch it for extra credit.

Although Draper drags Friday away to safety the bad guys are able to track the slave and seem to take great pleasure in blasting apart the surface of Mars in a vain attempt to destroy him. What begins as a bit of a light hearted romp suddenly has a real sense of urgency and dread as Draper attempts to remove Friday’s tracking shackles, or Trackles™, and Friday works to keep Draper alive.

It’s at this point that RCoM starts to really hit its stride. Unfortunately the relationship that develops between Draper and Friday, and Friday and Mona, happens too late in the film to really reach the depth that it could have. But it’s still a happy ending if not overly satisfying.

The same year that RCoM was released, Gene Roddenberry was pitching Star Trek to Desilu and would go one to create Martin Luther King Jr’s favorite TV show. Fans of the original Trek will appreciate the look and feel of this movie and how it acted as a bridge between the super fluffy space shows of the 1950s and the more culturally aware Star Trek.

This is fun movie and is quite enjoyable for those willing to take off their modern movie goggles and just watch it play out. It made me realize how much the movie Enemy Mine was inspired by RCoM and makes me wonder what the inevitable movie version of The Martian will look like. And other than some casual monkey torture and long range male nudity it’s a pretty safe movie for the younglings. Make some Jiffy Pop and enjoy.

Score: 4/5

Director: Byron Haskin Writers: Ib Melchior, John C. Higgins Studio: Paramount Pictures Run Time: 110 Minutes

Review: Stoker

Written by Guest Contributor: Jefferey Pinkos India Stoker (Mia Wasikowska) spends her birthday shifting uncomfortably at the wake of father Richard (Dermot Mulroney), avoiding the gaze of a stranger who bears a mighty resemblance to the dearly departed, as he chats with the widow Evie (Nicole Kidman). Why, little India, it’s your Uncle Charlie (Matthew Goode). The reason you’ve never met him is because he’s spent years and years globetrotting, going from one exotic climate to another, yeah, yeah, that’s the ticket. And since your father just passed, and this giant ass home feels so empty without him, he will just have to stay here, to help around the house, to less than subtly ingratiate himself into the family dynamic while doing some hardcore perving on you and your mother. One mystery leads to another with Uncle Charlie, and unraveling him means unraveling yourself.

South Korean director Park Chan-wook has a well-documented history with violence. His oeuvre is filled with viciousness and obsession — including his masterstroke Oldboy. In this, his English language debut, he crafts a well groomed vision. Removed from the plot of familial intrigue, incestuous rumination, death and deception, it looks like an H&M catalogue — and depending on how you feel about those is how you’ll feel about the fashionable textures and palette Chan-wook offers here.

Stoker is a nod to Alfred Hitchcock’s Shadow of a Doubt, in which a young woman Charlie suspects her uncle, also called Charlie, of criminal activity. Here suspicion and intrigue gives way to reaction. India (okay, I’ll finally address my feelings toward her name: it’s fucking stupid) discovers early on that Charlie is up to no good, trying to make trouble in the neighborhood. It’s now a matter of how she feels about and addressing those feelings. Does it horrify her? Yes. Does it excite her? Yes. How do you reconcile feeling both desire and repulsion at once? Where’s the demarcation? Chan-wook is so devoted to delving into the theme of introspective discovery that he places the entirety of Stoker onto her discovering her taste for destruction and where it ends.

For any Hannibal fans out there, this is up your alley. India’s relationship with Stoker’s is reminiscent of Abigail Hobbs’s relationship with Hannibal Lecter’s in the first season. Hannibal and Richard both have agendas with their young, female companions — educating her in the path of sociopathic bonding, becoming their respective doting students’ teacher / father / everything else. It’s a relationship of egoism, impressing my personality onto someone else. It helps that Abigail and India are weird to begin with. It’s also reminiscent of Hannibal with a specific vision of violence, rising it to art, or at the very least intermingling aesthetics with repulsion to engage a deeper thematic meaning. And (finally cutting to the quick) both are ponderously dull and self-interested. I am not one for dryness, that much I know. I like Sam Fuller movies, where stories and emotions are big. I find little to cling on to here. Do I care about the intricacies their relationships? It’s all artifice, shallower than it portends. There’s no struggle. Go watch Martha Marcy May Marlene for a story of destruction, control, fear, complicity, and delivered by an engaged, interesting cast.

Score: 1/5

Director: Park Chan-wook Writer: Wentworth Miller Studio: Fox Searchlight Pictures Run Time: 99 min Format: Blu-Ray/DVD

Review: Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Written by Guest Contributor: Jefferey Pinkos

The S.H.I.E.L.D. of the MCU is an interesting organization.  Seemingly limitless funding - in a recovery economy no less.  A massive armory of WMDs that makes Star Wars - Reagan’s, not Lucas’s -  look medieval.  And aside one or two public forays in front of congressional subcommittees, a surprisingly minimal level of accountability.  It is one Emperor Palpatine away from becoming the evil Empire - Lucas’s, not Reagan’s.  So, the obvious logical question is, in the time since its inception during the days of Howard Stark until the first days of the Avengers Initiative, how has this globe spanning policing organization occupied its time.  History - especially that of the twentieth century - is full of horror stories.  S.H.I.E.L.D.’s role in those stories might make an interesting tale, indeed.

Like how Thor: The Dark World is a Loki movie in disguise, looking into his frayed relationships with the Asgardian royals and his next move in his all-consuming quest for power,  Captain America: The Winter Soldier is a S.H.I.E.L.D. movie in disguise, finding the ins and outs of an organization that thrives on deception and secrecy.   The New York incident stirred things up for the Avengers team.  Tony went all PTSD/fallout shelter mad.  The Nine Worlds destabilized, leaving the Asgardians became open for attack, with all of this shedding new light on Thor’s ascendancy and the throne of Asgard.  Captain America appears unfazed by the events, and has jumped back in to S.H.I.E.L.D., to his own distaste.  S.H.I.E.L.D. is spycraft through and through, and this not the best environment for Cap and his unblinking moral code.  In a le Carré-ish universe where bad and good intermingle, Steve needs to reevaluate everything.

Chris Evans shines as Rogers.  A character whose main quality upstanding virtue is a hard-sell in today’s cinematic climate.  But quality writing and Evans’s own ability adds a depth and heart to a character who, in the wrong hands, might come off as hokey.  For most of the movie he is partnered with Black Widow, in the form of Scarlett Johanson, who here is at her most casual and open.  The rapport they have is great; she ribs Steve and he jaws back.  It’s the closest to a buddy-buddy relationship the MCU has thus far (discounting Tony and JARVIS) and it works.  Their clashing moral codes (Nick Fury: “Agent Romanov is comfortable with everything.”) lends some tension to the proceedings, that is, until it’s waylaid by the bond being hunted down together provides.

The other half of the titular team is the Winter Soldier, in the form of Sebastian Stan.  Stan has little to do, acting wise, set across a few scenes here and there sprinkled in the pile of action sequences, but he’s good across the board.  In the action sequences he is the Terminator reborn, a stomping, unassailable mercenary beast.  In his Acting scenes (capital A for emphasis), he glowers with the best of them, giving off an intensity and a clarity.  An electroshock therapy scene — styled to replicate Cap’s transformation scene in The First Avenger, except in a low-rent Saw-inspired basement — watch his eyes, big and angry, as he stares a fucking hole through his caretakers, and just before the screaming, watch him chomp into a mouthpiece with a trained obedience.  In other scenes he’s a robotic mercenary, here he’s a dog.  Apparently Stan’s signed on to do god knows how many other films with Marvel, and that’s a good thing.

Fury excels as always.  Listen to him explain to Cap the new S.H.I.E.L.D. armed satellites with ease and comfort and defends it against Cap’s protests.  Is it his warning of things to come?  To quote Tony, he is the spy, his secrets have secrets.  But we have a new entrant to the proceedings, Alexander Pierce, or Robert Redford, as Fury’s boss.  Pierce is quintessentially Rumsfeldian (apologies to any conservative Bastards out there; please dismiss it as leftist bullshittery / someone who’s anxiously awaiting Errol Morris’s documentary The Unknown Known) in his threatening nonchalance.  Here is a man with an agenda and the means to see it through.

In a spoiler-filled interview with Comic Book Resources, producer Kevin Feige lays out the idea and influence that pervades Winter Soldier.  He and Marvel wanted a ‘70s era conspiracy thriller along the lines of 3 Days of the Condor, All the President's Men, and The Parallax View.  Winter Soldier is a fantastic send-up to that genre of Watergate shrouded control and fear.

Score: 5/5

Directors: Anthony and Joe Russo Writers: Christopher Markus, Stephen McFeely Studio: Marvel Studios Run Time: 136 Min Release Date: 4/4/14

Group Review: Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Welcome to another comic book movie group review. Instead of scoring it, the participating writers/reviewers of Comic Bastards are just going to give their thoughts. We have plenty more Captain America: The Winter Solider for you to experience including an upcoming solo review for the film and our special edition CBMFP that went up earlier today as well. In the meantime check out what Erik, Samantha, Jordan, Dustin and Carl all thought of Marvel’s latest cinematic romp.

--- Erik:

I don’t get excited for comic book movies like I used to, but they’re still primarily why I go to the movies. I don’t seem to spend a lot of time in the theater watching movies about things that could actually happen. I think that I’ve outgrown my independent/artsy/low-budget college film student phase. You probably didn’t know that about me. Yes, I was a film student. I graduated and everything. So I do have a miniscule amount of knowledge and experience in that realm. I also know what it takes to organize and produce a film (crappy student films mind you), but films nonetheless. It’s hard work. And being able to do that and make a good film at the same time? That’s almost impossible. So the fact that Captain America: The Winter Soldier is what it is, is very impressive. This movie doesn’t just rank high on the list of comic book movies, but it will be remembered as one of the best films of a generation. I know that the compliment sounds like a lot of fluff, but I really can’t think of a better way to describe it.

Marvel has impressed me year after year with the caliber of their big budget productions. I was completely sold when I saw Avengers. I think that from then on, I knew that everything would be terrific. Now that they have this incredibly strong foundation built up, they can’t really go wrong. Now if only they could make a decent Spider-Man movie. Of course, that isn’t a Marvel Studios production.

But back to Cap, they did everything right. The evolution of the characters alone was enough to check this out. Black Widow has become an incredibly impressive addition to the team. Nick Fury has grown, and of course, Captain America has become the hero that we all knew he was and could be. The addition of the Winter Soldier storyline was a work of pure poetry. The ad people did such a good job of covering up what the movie was actually about, that I was impressed with every twist and turn. The plot seemed realistic and steady. I couldn’t see any plot holes, and trust me I had every intention of looking for them. Fortunately, there was so much going on that I didn’t really have time to see the negatives. But from an action junkie perspective, there isn’t a better looking movie out there. Captain America: The Winter Soldier was definitely a non-stop adrenaline pumping ride that will leave you wanting more. I wouldn’t be surprised if you get outside the theater and turn right back around. I almost did.

Samantha:

It isn’t any surprise that Captain America had a huge weekend. Also not a huge surprise that Ed Brubaker and Steve Epting’s comic that started it all is selling big this week too. I have to say the movie was pure awesomeness. I loved the new setting of Cap in present day. Chris Evan’s first Captain America movie wasn’t my favorite, but the next installment added everything I was looking for.

Bucky or the Winter Soldier brings in the emotional side of things, and let’s face it; Cap is a pretty emotional dude, so it fit in perfectly to him trying to find his place in the modern world. Sebastian Stan added just the right flare to the Soldier. By far the best side character was Scarlett Johansson though. Not being the biggest fan of her, I am always nervous to see how she plays in each of the Marvel movies. The Winter Soldier proved she can carry a solo one. She was badass with her moves, talk, and style. Just when I thought she wasn’t going to be a huge part of the story, she comes sweeping in giving the audience entertainment throughout. With a strong villain and a strong sidekick, I was impressed with the team the movie created. And of course Chris Evans fits in right where he belongs as Cap. Personally I love him as this character and glad he didn’t get overlooked being the Human Torch and all.

The action, although slow in the middle for some time, was explosive. It delivers on all ends from kick butt car chases to fist on face action. I did cough up the extra money to see it in 3D, only because I saw the matinee, and you could skip that part of the movie. It didn’t need it. The only cool scenes involved Falcon, but even then I would have liked his parts just as much.

All and all, I just hit on the top highlights of the movie. There are some slower parts, and Falcon needs a suit, but other than these two minor flaws the movie rocked! It will go my top list from the Marvel Universe. Oh and obviously the after the credits scene was pretty rad too. Totally stoked to see where the third installment will take us.

Jordan:

Captain America: The Winter Solider is kind of a dream come true. Never in the history of a superhero film have I felt more transported into the tripped-out, life-is-drugs mentality of a kid and his action figures. Not only that, but aside from all the muscle-bound action splendor and high-budget set pieces, there’s a damn good story here, a simple one, but a good one. But, really it’s the characters themselves that shine most in this Cap film. Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely do such a good job in this regard that even weaker roster members of the other franchise movies (be they due to under development or underuse in plot) like Black Widow and auxiliary characters like Falcon are damn likable and honed to perfection here. I`ve never liked Sam Jackson`s Nick Fury this damn much, he finally gets the treatment he deserves as a cold, cunning black ops badass and Anthony Mackie`s Falcon goes from being “that gimmicky looking character with the metal bird wings on the poster” to “yeah, I totally hope he comes back regularly.” This film does it right.

The Winter Solider himself is freaky and intense, being set up first as an urban legend that we don’t fully see until nearly half way through the film, when we do though its full tilt bad as hell and some of the fights between ol` Winty and Cap will make you have to reign back a HOLY FUCK! In the theatre.

I literally can’t think of a major fault in The Winter Solider, it did everything it needed to and a little bit more, surprising me by making its supporting cast some of the most likable characters in the Marvel Cinematic Universe after its 136 minute running time. If you like comics, go and treat yourself to this movie.

Dustin:

I’ll keep it short since you can actually listen to me, Kevin and Erin talk about this on a special episode of the podcast. My thoughts, it’s the best solo character movie in the Marvel Cinema U. That said as much as it was about Captain America, it wasn’t about Captain America and that was fine. Let’s be honest, the most interesting part of his journey is over. He’s in the modern era and now he just needs to fight, fight, fight for what’s right.

Two things that surprised me was Falcon and that other spoilerish thing. I didn’t expect them to engage a storyline that took years to execute in the comics, in just one movie. It’s interesting and shows that maybe the films have more guts to change the status quo than the comics. As for Falcon, wow. Not only did he play a relevant role in the movie, but he wasn’t annoying. He didn’t come across like War Machine in which he’s forced upon the story and never really does anything that Starks couldn’t just do on his own. It was a good angle.

It wasn’t much of a surprise, but the Black Widow rocked throughout the film. Other than her annoying dating gimmick, she became a fully fleshed out character and yet given room to grow in the future. It’s definitely worth seeing at least once.

Carl:

This movie finally made Captain America a significant character.

Chris Evans can be an outstanding actor; just watch Danny Boyle’s Sunshine to get an example of his prowess.  I never thought he was a great Cap, though.  He always came off as flat and stilted.  In The Avengers, Joss Wheddon’s dialogue fleshed Captain America out and gave him more of a leader role akin to the comic character.  But that was the dialogue and not the acting.

The Winter Soldier provided a platform for Evans to make the character more dimensional against a backdrop of some amazing action and intrigue.  And this film sold me on how great a character Captain America can be.

Still adjusting to life after the thaw, Steve Rogers takes time to understand this world while making a few friends along the way.  He will need those friends because Hydra, his mortal enemy from the first film, still lurks in the shadows.

I went in to this film having seen as little about it as possible, save for some trailers.  That made all the difference.  Therefore, I won’t spoil any more of the plot so as to permit you the best experience possible.

What I will say is that this film exceeds the genre of mere comic book movie by being intelligent, well-acted, and excellently paced.

The crux of the plot focuses on the issue of America’s fascination with intelligence gathering and control.  As stated in the dialogue, we gladly sacrifice freedom for safety—and we don’t understand the ramifications of that.

Captain America never comes off as holier-than-thou.  He admits that his generation committed acts that made it difficult to sleep at night, yet those acts were done with the intention of the others.  In today’s world, security seems to be to favor those who wish to use information against us or to claim power, and that is criticism that is true and unexpected from a popcorn film.

As mentioned, Evans brings depth to Cap.  Steve Rogers flirts with his neighbor to awkward results.  When visiting his Army training grounds, his faces emotes the pain/fondness of his bygone era.  And when he acts opposite A-list celeb Robert Redford who chews a little scenery, Evans as Cap holds his own.

I might be the lone voice, but I don’t like Scarlett Johansen as Black Widow.  She seems to prim and proper, and she does not convey Romanoff’s haunted past with her beautiful doe eyes.

Only a few elements of the story made me grimace, and one part of the film was predictable.  While Captain America also slightly suffers from the same malady as Thor and other Marvel films (namely that nothing really changes at the conclusion of the films) the end of this movie felt like a significant course direction for Captain America.

The Russo brothers helmed this film, and the action moves like a Bourne movie.  The writing staff consisted of talent that worked on some of the Narnia movies, yet their script came off as though written by a Ludlum or Clancy.

Please see this film on the big screen.  It is well worth it.  Of all the stand-alone Marvel films, this has been the equal—if not the superior—to the first Iron Man.  While this is no Nolan film it has kicked off the summer movie season in the best possible way.

Chris Evans, I thank you and the crew for making a movie worth the admission price while also giving me a lot to think about.  Kudos and much success to you all. --- Directors: Anthony and Joe Russo Writers: Christopher Markus, Stephen McFeely Studio: Marvel Studios Run Time: 136 Min Release Date: 4/4/14

Review: Grand Piano

Written by Guest Contributor: Jefferey Pinkos If you know about Grand Piano you know some of the following things.  (1)  It’s influenced by either Alfred Hitchcock, Brian DePalma, or both.  (2)  The plot is something out of a James Bond villain’s bottom barrel schemes.  (3)  It’s like Speed, but with a piano; or it’s like Phone Booth, but with a piano; or it’s like a number of movies where the main dude has another main dude pointing a gun at him and making him do stuff, but with a piano.

If you don’t know about Grand Piano it boils down to this.  Tom Selznick, played by Elijah Wood, is the world’s greatest piano-man, and tonight’s his first live appearance after a nervous breakdown five years earlier.  On stage early into the performance Selznick finds a note written into his sheet music, in dramatic red ink: “Play one wrong note and you die.”  A sniper, played by John Cusack, located somewhere in the concert hall’s rafters has pinpointed Mr. Selznick and his piano-manning ability for his nefarious purposes.  Flub a note, dead.  Alert anyone, dead.  Defy Mr. Cusack in any way, dead.  It’s, more or less, that stretched over the length of movie.

That invites some questions.  Who is Mr. Cusack, and what are his intentions with Mr. Wood?  What assassin is that interested in a live orchestration?  Can a premise this outlandish, this Bond villain level craziness, find a treatment that retains the tension for over an hour without losing its muster?

Fortunately, Piano’s strength comes from its director Eugenio Mira and the script from its writer Damien Chazelle.  The film spends its time inside the concert hall, and thanks to Mira’s eye for imagery, it’s never dull.  The colors are vibrant (the glaring red screams danger), and the shots are interesting and point toward some of DePalma’s (whose work this film is reminiscent of) work.  You can see Phantom of the Paradise in Piano’s DNA.  Chazelle’s script has no slack to speak of.  Here he turned a laughable premise and wrung it dry, turning it into, ripping off another critic here, a pulp symphony.

Despite Mira and Chazelle’s best efforts, the premise catches up with them and forces them to make some concession to the plot.  Why this?  Because this.  Cusack’s assassin’s concern with Wood’s performance has a motivation and it’s touched on, but it’s never ever resolved.  Say the piano defused a bomb (not it; just an example), his motivation is tangible for the audience to do what he’s doing has some grounding.  The last shot of the movie issues no resolution.  It’s no miracle piano, except as MacGuffiny as it is, never addressing it renders the tension from the previous hour and change inconsequential.

Its impressive plot and I look forward to more work by Mr. Mira and Mr. Chazelle.  Grand Piano is strong and overcomes the plots mostly.

Score: 3/5

Director: Eugenio Mira Writer: Damien Chazelle Distributors: Magnet Releasing Run Time: 90 min. Release Date: 3/7/14

Review: Cheap Thrills

Written by Guest Contributor: Jefferey Pinkos To my knowledge there aren’t any grand narratives on the Great Recession, nothing that encapsulates what it means to have lived through it.  Other collective economic traumas — the Great Depression, the recessions of the ’70s, ’80s, and ‘90s — pushed people outward, toward the fringes of desperation, and pushed too far, people snapped or folded.  See They Live and Falling Down as examples of desperation cinema.

In Cheap Thrills we get more desperation cinema at its basic.  A chance meeting in a bar reunites estranged high school friends, both of whom live on the fringes of subsistence: Craig (Pat Healy), a recent father who’s newly unemployed and facing eviction, and Vince (Ethan Embry), an ex-con who earns a meager living collecting on loans by doing despicable acts.  The two friends meet a wealthy couple (David Koechner and Sara Paxton), who are looking for a good time.  A game is introduced; perform X action first, get Y amount of dollars.  First is penny-ante stuff:  doing a shot, induce a woman into slapping you, slapping a woman’s ass, punching a bouncer.  Soon, the foursome retreats to the couple’s palatial home, where the game progresses to dramatic heights.  The bonds of friendship dissolve in a survivalist squabble for safety and security.  It’s Bum Fights meets Saló.

Without giving too much away, I can say that it’s an experience.

Cheap Thrills is no great parable for our age.  It never strives to be one.  It’s a mean bastard, unrelenting  and unforgiving. with its neo-Marxist indictment of a codified system of income inequality, implicating the audience in its machinations.  The audience is here for the violence and degradation.  We may not be the ones footing the bill, but we are sitting back and watching.

Oh, and it’s funny too.

Score: 4/5

Director: E.L. Katz Writers: David Chirchirillo, Trent Haaga Studio: Drafthouse Films Release Date: 3/21/14

Review: Veronica Mars

Written by Guest Contributor: Jefferey Pinkos The story is old now.  Rob Thomas, creator/director/writer for the cancelled TV show, opened a Kickstarter account in the hopes of creating a cinematic continuance of our favorite teen sleuth and got blanketed with money.  Now the movie’s available in VOD and in theaters, for your perusal.  To see it, it provides evidence to one of two theories to determine the future of movie financing.  (1) We will be buried with the studio system, no matter how innovative we get, no matter how hard we try.  (2)  “Off with studio execs’ heads!!  Bring back Firefly!!”  So on, so on.

Because it’s such an intriguing financial model, we here at Comic Bastards interviewed someone integral to the process, a donor, Jefferey Pinkos.

-      Hi, Jeff.  Hi. -      Is it more of the same?  Yes.  We get a mystery, we get the Neptune regulars — Veronica, Keith, Weevil, Logan, Piz — -      Piz?  Yeah, I know.  At the beginning of the movie they’re together. -      But later they aren’t.  Well, one, spoilers.  Two, duh.  But I’ll get back to it in a sec. -      Sure.  Sorry for interrupting.  She’s with Piz, she’s a law school grad on her way to becoming a lawyer, he works for Ira Glass. -      For real?  Yeah, I know.  Anyway, Logan is back in the news, because he’s suspected of killing his pop star girlfriend.  She rushes back to Neptune, to get some of that good-good and to, um, publicly exonerate him, too.  She finds him changed; he’s a soldier now — forever solidifying his good intentions to her.  At that moment, it’s counting down to them boning. -      Aww.  Yeah, I mean I shipped them on the show, but for different reasons.  They could never work.  He acted out, she loved and hated it; blah blah blah.  Put simply:  It was interesting because it could never work out, despite everyone’s best efforts.  It helped that every other boyfriend she had was so terribly underwritten.  Take Piz — he liked music, he liked Veronica, that’s all we know — even after the movie, where he came off pretty well, I think,  he likes NPR and he likes Veronica.  Whereas Logan fought and relished in his father’s — by extension his own — fame.  He loves Veronica, and he loved Lilly.  Here, mere days after his girlfriend’s death, we see him lusting.  It feels so inconsequential.  That may be because of the format — he could appear brooding for an episode, ten minutes airtime tops, and we get it.  The plot’s demands don’t have to upend the emotional reality. -      Okay, but do they end up?  Sigh.  Yes, and it’s awkward.  It feels so eventual that when it happens, its muster just dissipates.  Everyone’s sure it’s happening.  Piz breaks up with her over the phone, like, really anticlimactically.  “You like Logan, duh.  I have no agency.  I am only the nice boyfriend.  I have no personality beyond the scope of my archetype.  My name’s Piz.”  Also, it’s like ten minutes after a truck hits her father and kills Deputy Sacks. -      OH WHAT SPOILERS.  What?  You had me spell out all the entire relationship stuff, but when some tertiary character beefs it, you get weird? -      Sorry.  Something in my eye.  Uh, plot.  How’s that?  It’s fine?  Again, the problems of compressing what would be a season-long plot into, what, two hours, is that it feels rushed.  The season-long arc could be brought forefront or relegated to a minor mention in an episode as the plot works.  What the show did incredibly well is create a mystery’s effects on the community.  Look at season three’s serial rapist plot.  It worked because it stuck itself into the firmament of Hearst College and lingered and affected how everyone acted with one another.   Here, all we have is the murder plot and Logan/Veronica’s Inevitable Romance. -      What else is new?  Everyone’s good in their parts.  Veronica is Veronica, Keith is Keith, et cetera.  No one has changed.  Logan slapped on a Navy Uniform of Personality Change which effectively neuters him from his volatile interest.  He’s snarky, but there’s no danger.  He’s an adult now, which I guess is good. -      So any notes for people who want to see it?  It’s incomplete.  The main plot is resolved, but there are two other plots that begin here when they really shouldn’t.  These C- and D-plots (corruption in Neptune constabulary, who hit Keith and Sacks; Weevil got shot and someone forged evidence, why) should have complicated things for Ms. Mars.  But she rightly moves them to the back burner, just like Rob Thomas should have. -      Boom.  Boom. -      Thanks for talking to us.  Any time.

Score: 2/5

Writer/Director/Creator: Rob Thomas Studio: WB Release Date: 3/14/14