Tag Archives: plot

Don’t Have Your Future Involve ‘Tomorrowland’

Tomorrowland_posterFor a movie that is all about trying to succeed, this film sure fails a lot.

“Tomorrowland” stars George Clooney as a former boy genius who embarks on a mission with a teen (Britt Robertson) in order to uncover the secrets of a distant place caught between space and time. Hugh Laurie co-stars as Brad Bird directs.

I really didn’t know much about “Tomorrowland” going in. I avoided trailers, but from what I was hearing even the trailers divulged very little about the film other than it involves George Clooney and spaceships. So I went in with an open mind, and what filled that mind was over two hours of sci-fi guns, robots and other futuristic gadgets, but all leading to very little avail.

Because the trailers don’t give much of the plot away, I won’t do the same here, but just know that it is incredibly simple yet somehow widely convoluted. While things are hinted at throughout, you don’t really get a clear view of what is happening and where our characters are going until the final act of the film, and I for one was not a fan of the mystery.

The film runs 130 minutes and oh boy does it feel like it; the pacing really is poor. It takes a while for things to get going, and Clooney doesn’t really come into play until around the first hour mark. When he finally does show, he is a breath of fresh air in an otherwise mundane “run away from the bad guys who want to catch me for reasons I don’t know why” plot, but that air can only stay fresh so long.

The script, written by Bird and Damon Lindelof, is all about never giving up, thinking positively, and trying to better humanity. Lindelof has never been one to write coherent works (just take a look at “Lost” or “Prometheus”), but the fact that this has Bird’s fingerprints on it is a bit of a letdown. He has two Oscar nominations for Best Original Screenplay (for “The Incredibles” and “Ratatouille,” both of which earned him Best Animated Feature statues), but some of the dialogue and plot points here just really had me cringing or rolling my eyes.

The film is rated PG, and since it makes sure to slap the Disney name on it you know that the film is meant for kids and families of all ages. I’m sure kids will be wowed by the towering future buildings and people soaring on jetpacks, but they also will have to put up with a teenage girl driving a truck and asking a lot of questions that never get answered, as well as images out nuclear holocausts. Fun stuff.

I don’t hate “Tomorrowland” because it is overly opportunistic or because it tries to get political (revealing what about would ruin the film, but it does make some good points). No, I disliked “Tomorrowland” so much because it is conflicting in its messaging and felt like each scene was disjointed moving from one the next.

The underlying message of the film is to think positively, so fine, here it goes: I’m positive “Tomorrowland” is a bad film.

Critics Rating: 3/10

TOMORROWLAND

Variety

‘Edge of Tomorrow’ Return to Form for Cruise

Leave a reply

Edge_of_Tomorrow_PosterIf there was any doubt that Tom Cruise could still carry an action film, “Edge of Tomorrow” makes those doubts a thing of the past.

When Earth is invaded by aliens, a military officer (Cruise) finds himself repeating the same day over-and-over again every time he dies. The only person who believes him and knows how to use this as an advantage is a Special Forces solider, played by Emily Blunt. Doug Liman directs.

Tom Cruise is a movie star, and a dedicated one at that (even at age 51 he is still doing his own stunts), but he has been in some very average films the past few years (here’s looking at you, “Oblivion”). However, “Edge of Tomorrow” returns Cruise to his former glory, and does so in a very enjoyable way.

If you mix “Groundhog Day” with “Saving Private Ryan” and “Elysium”, that’s pretty much what you get with “Tomorrow”. At times the plot sags, but it never gets repetitive or boring, which is a high compliment about a movie that is essentially set in the same 24 hour period over-and-over. The film knows how to use the “live-die-repeat” premise to its advantage, and the audience gets a few chuckle moments thrown in every now and again.

As good as Cruise is, Emily Blunt holds her own, too. Walking into the film it may be hard to picture her as the deadliest killer mankind has to offer, however Blunt quickly sells you on the character, and that she isn’t to be messed with. Her and Cruise have solid chemistry, even if at times her hardened exterior may seem a bit unrealistic.

Most of the action is shot well. It is a PG-13 film, so there are obviously some shaky cam moments and some of the kills are a little too close up, but overall it is very solid direction and cinematography.

There really isn’t much “Edge of Tomorrow” does wrong. The ending may be a little cliché or blah for some people, and the alien’s invasion plot does resemble that of Hitler’s (first conquer France, then Europe, then the world), but in a world of remakes and over-the-top action films that are nothing but one-liners and explosions (*cough* Michael Bay), it is nice to watch something that is at least trying to be original.

If you can deal with the “every time the hero repeats the day he learns a little more” storyline, and especially if you enjoy the idea of Tom Cruise running around in a robot suit killing aliens that look like the robots from the Matrix, then “Edge of Tomorrow” is the film for you. If those things don’t appeal to you… then I think there’s some teenage rom-com about stars that is also playing.

Critics Rating: 7/10

‘Godzilla’ Roaring Good Fun

Godzilla_(2014)_posterRemember how excited (and relieved) you were when “Batman Begins” was released in 2005 because it helped to give you closure after the atrocity that was “Batman and Robin”? Well we now have “Godzilla”, which should put to rest the pain that the 1998 film of the same name left more than a decade ago.

Starring Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Bryan Cranston and Elizabeth Olsen, this reboot is yet another American take on the classic Japanese monster. Gareth Edwards, who directed the 2010 indie film “Monsters”, directs his first Hollywood picture here.

The 1998 Godzilla film wasn’t just bad; it has become a pop culture punchline. Directed by Roland Emmerich, the man known for disaster films, the film itself was a disaster.  It was stupid, loud and dumb, but above all else it did not do the title character justice. Luckily almost all is forgiven because the 2014 adaption had nowhere to go but up.

The 2014 Godzilla design itself is a return to form, and a very cool one at that. It looks more like a reptilian dinosaur, not whatever the heck the other thing was back in 1998. I don’t want to go into too much detail (I personally avoided trailers before seeing the film), but I think fans of the series and the creature will not be disappointed. They brought back the iconic Godzilla roar, and when he emerges from the ocean or through a cloud of smoke you can’t help but have shiver shoot down your spine.

Strangely enough, however, for a movie entitled “Godzilla”, the film focuses more on the human characters than Godzilla himself. Its a lot like how in “The Walking Dead” it isn’t about the zombies–sorry, walkers, its about the humans living in a world that happens to have walkers in it. If a monster movie is going to take that route then you have to be sure that you make the audience care about your characters and they are multi-dimensional. And does “Godzilla” do a good job with this? Well, yes and no.

Aaron Taylor-Johnson, known for kicking ass in “Kick-Ass” (see what I did there? Yah, you get me), plays a soldier who is trying to get back to his family in San Francisco, but gets caught up in the military’s plan to destroy Godzilla. You care about Johnson as a person but you only see him with his family for one 10 minute scene, so it is hard to get an emotional attachment to them. It’s a lot like Brad Pitt in “World War Z”; you are told that he’s a family man and if he fails his mission it will be the end of the world, but in the end you only want him to succeed because he’s the main character.

The direction and cinematography of the film are both really solid, particularly when buildings are getting destroyed by Godzilla, and some of the shots that show one of the main characters locking eyes with the creature are very effective. The film’s biggest problem is pacing, which derives from an excess of subplots. The Army seems to have a few different plans to save the world but never feel obligated to share them with the audience, and then you have Bryan Cranston being a conspiracy nut and Taylor’s wife running around in the rain (seriously, about 80 percent of her screen time is running). If they had shrunk everything down and compacted it, I feel this would have been a much tighter and more enjoyable film.

“Godzilla” isn’t perfect, but it is better in every single aspect than the 1998 film, and is in fact everything I wanted “Pacific Rim” to be. The direction is creative, the acting is solid and the effects and designs are top notch. It may not be the king of the summer movie season, but “Godzilla” does get it off to a roaring good start.

Critics Rating: 7/10

‘Spider-Man’ Sequel as Mediocre as First

The_Amazing_Spiderman_2_posterEvery now and again a film comes along that has a lot of potential but just can’t quite reach the levels it is striving for. “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” is such a film. A follow-up to the unnecessary 2012 reboot, this sequel follows Spidey (Andrew Garfield), as he struggles to deal with his emotions towards Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) while at the same time battling a new supervillain known as Electro (Jamie Foxx). Marc Webb directs.

The first “Amazing Spider-Man” was simply alright. There were a lot of creative ideas and potential, however it was weighed down by numerous similarities to the Sam Raimi Spider-Man trilogy, as well as a very underwhelming villain. This sequel manages to fix some mistakes that bogged down the original film, however many issues still linger.

First things first, Andrew Garfield is a very good Peter Parker. He nails Spider-Man’s sarcastic attitude, even in the middle of conflict, and has solid chemistry with Stone, as well as Sally Field, who plays Aunt May.

Speaking of character chemistry, that is by and far the strong point of “Amazing Spider-Man 2”. Marc Webb, who directed the rom-com “500 Days of Summer”, is very good at directing emotional scenes, making them feel genuine and human. The film has plenty of funny pieces of dialogue, and there are a few lump-in-the-throat inducing moments as well.

Unfortunately, the film did not learn from the first go around in the villain department. The Lizard was underdeveloped and lacked any real motive in the first film, not to mention his design wasn’t too impressive either. Here the film goes 0 for 3, missing with Electro, Rhino (Paul Giamatti) and Green Goblin (Dane DeHaan). All three have no true motives for their actions, are underwritten and not one of them affects the plot; I’m not even kidding, except for the end battle, the movie would be completely unchanged if none of the villains were in the film.

A superhero film should be driven BY the villain, not simply FEATURING one. Look at “Spider-Man 2”: Peter has his own issues and is fighting the choices he has to make, but Doc Ock is featured as a fleshed-out character and is ultimately the reason Peter decides that he has to be Spider-Man. None of that is present here. Rhino is essentially a cameo, Electro is cliché (think of Jim Carrey’s Riddler story arc from “Batman Forever”) and the Goblin is shoehorned in to fill a plot point and set up a spin-off film. I also wasn’t a fan of the design of Goblin and Rhino, but that is purely personal opinion.

The battles are well-shot (although most every action scene is shown in the trailer) and the interactions between Gwen and Peter are entertaining, but “Amazing Spider-Man 2” cannot overcome the cluttered plot and indecisive narrative. I almost feel bad for kids who have this as their staple Spider-Man. When the Raimi films came out, I remember how much everyone in my school loved them, and I distinctly remember seeing “Spider-Man 2” and being blown away (it’ll be the 10 year anniversary next month). Unfortunately there’s just nothing awe-inspiring or memorable about this new series.

“The Amazing Spider-Man 2” is at its best when Spider-Man isn’t on screen, and in a film with the word “Spider-Man” in the title, I’m not sure how much of a positive that is. The film is entertaining, for sure, and I was never bored, but at more than on occasion I was sitting in my seat thinking “why does this movie exist?”. There’s a point in the film when Electro says, “I will show everyone what it’s like to live in a world without Spider-Man”. If only he could actually make that happen…

Critics Rating: 6/10