Movies Old and New: Zootopia

One Sentence Synopsis: In the city of Zootopia, predators and prey live together in perfect harmony, but when police officer Judy Hopps (played by Ginnifer Goodwin) and sly con-man Nick Wilde (played by Jason Bateman) discover a conspiracy that could put that balance in danger, they must overcome their differences and get to the bottom of the mystery.

---

As I began compiling my thoughts together on Zootopia, I couldn’t help but think back to another hugely successful Disney Animation Studios film, Frozen. I mean, can you blame me? They are quite similar, believe it or not. Both films were box-office gold mines at release, and both garnered massive media attention for their thinkpiece-worthy, progressive nature. And, strangely enough, I felt the same thing walking out of both…

“This is good… but not great.”

Furthermore, the film’s share a key reason as to why I felt this way— story. Frozen’s female empowerment and supposed overcoming of Disney tropes were heralded as this innovative step forward for its storytelling department, but the more I thought about it, the more I saw it as merely Disney finally understanding its audience and their longing for complex, evolved narratives. 

In other words, just because Disney decides to evolve, that doesn’t make them innovative or unique, it just means that they are finally catching up with everyone else.

We find ourselves in a similar situation with Zootopia, except it’s probably worse.

Zootopia is inarguably a film about our current political landscape, despite intention or lack thereof; several moments in Zootopia feel like direct parallels to a variety of conflicts that society is currently facing today: civil rights, racial profiling, post-feminism, police brutality, drug use, and the list goes on…

...but you know this already because everybody has seemed to pick up on that. In fact, the film is being showered with praise for addressing these ideas, and for the record, I am all all in favor of this as well. The dangers of prejudice and stereotyping are very real, and it’s good to expose children to this in a way that they can digest.

However, instead of it feeling like a well-intentioned, mature dialogue, Zootopia’s lack of subtle allegory makes its messages come off as distractingly blatant. One specific exchange in the film involves such a direct, line-for-line corollary to the n-word that I almost did a double take. I am all for good-hearted messages, but if you’re going to have a serious discussion about these themes, then do so with some subtlety and nuance. But that’s just the thing: this isn’t really much of a discussion. Zootopia features clear good guys, and clear bad guys, and unfortunately, that simply isn’t how it works. The kinds of themes explored in this film are not merely black and white; these are topics that can be approached from multiple angles. Alas, this movie doesn’t seem to have any interest in exploring those intricacies. Here, we see another situation where Disney decided to attempt a more complex story in their movie, and are being praised for raising the bar when, ironically, the complexity seems to be absent.

I wouldn’t be spending so much time discussing this aspect of the film if it weren’t so important. This is a defining characteristic of the film that simply doesn’t work. I understand this is a children’s film, but that does not excuse it from mishandling an elaborate topic. It’s also worth discussing at length because, narratively speaking, it’s really the only thing that makes Zootopia stand out from any other Disney film up to this point; you’ve undeniably seen this story before, and you’ve undeniably seen these characters before. Disney Animation Studios does not shy away from recycling with its plot, but thankfully, they manage to make up for this in other departments.

The world of Zootopia is easily one of its best qualities. Of course the animation is gorgeous, as that basically goes without saying when you’re dealing with any Disney production, but it’s really the creativity when it comes to the world-building that impressed me. The concept they are working with, animals acting like humans, is a comedic gold mine in and of itself, but the film goes out of its way to create an entire universe with this idea, and the result is one of the most thoroughly believable locations I’ve ever seen in a Disney movie. It really says a lot about execution when even the simplest of visual gags have you curious to explore the environment you happen to be immersed in, and that is what's accomplished here, with flying colors.

Zootopia’s voice cast is spot-on. A particular standout is Jason Bateman as Nick Wilde, who’s voice almost fits the character all too well. Ginnifer Goodwin is also great as Judy Hopps, and the several different talents sprinkled throughout the film’s minor characters (J.K. Simmons, Idris Elba, Alan Tudyk, Jenny Slate, hell even Tommy Chong) offer fantastic variety. It’s important to stress that none of these characters are particularly inventive, yet they are nonetheless relatable and fun to watch, something that only Disney manages to get away with in the Animation world.

The only other notable aspect to discuss is the comedy, which has its moments. If you are at all invested in the film’s marketing, you know that the scene involving sloths at the DMV is easily the highlight, and while the film never really gets to that same level of hilarity throughout, there are many chuckles to be had otherwise. As mentioned previously, the world-building gives us plenty of visual gag, and while some are more subtle than others, a lot of them work and that is what’s important.

Again, Zootopia is a good movie. There’s no denying that it’s a well-made film and is very enjoyable to watch. However, because of it’s subtextual problems and it’s overall narrative blandness, I personally see this as one of the weaker entries to come out of Disney Animation Studio’s rejuvenation. While movies like Wreck-it-Ralph or Big Hero 6 aren’t as complex thematically, at least they manage to tell strong stories because they don’t bite off more then they can chew. Zootopia tackles a lot about society and community, and while I implore more animated films to address these themes head-on, it needs to be a conversation, not a lecture; as the film went on, I felt like I was being overwhelmed with an agenda, and that’s the last thing I want to feel like while watching a Disney flick.

Still, it’s hard to deny that I had some fun with Zootopia when I looked past its politics… but something tells me I would’ve had a lot more fun if I didn’t have to.

7/10 - Good

---

Facebook   -   Twitter   -   Website

Movies Old and New: Hail, Caesar!

One Sentence Synopsis: When 1950’s Hollywood star Baird Whitlock (George Clooney) is kidnapped and held for ransom, it’s up to studio “fixer” Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin) to get him back while making sure the scandal doesn’t make the gossip columns.

---

Before I truly dive in to Hail, Caesar!, let me preface the review by saying this: I think the Coen brothers are smart, inventive, and dynamic filmmakers. Based on some of the work I’ve seen from them (Fargo, No Country for Old Men, and True Grit are my personal favorites), I know that they can craft an excellent cinematic experience, but never sideline thematic depth in the process. Their films, as bombastic or stylistic as they may be, always have a lot to say.

It is this particular reason that keeps me from shrugging off Hail, Caesar! as a bad film, because besides for some undeniably good qualities, I’m sure that this love letter to 1950’s Hollywood is an affectionate satire that has a lot to say about that time period and all that historically came with it. Unfortunately, even the best of intentions can’t save a film that has a variety of storytelling problems that spread throughout its every facet, including the structure, the pacing, to even basic concepts of conflict and stakes. The majority of the film’s problems lie solely within its plot, but the problems are so glaring that it is impossible to ignore them.

The film’s main problem lies in its poor organization of conflict and resolution. Based on the trailer (not that it particularly matters pertaining to the film’s quality but nevertheless it was advertised a certain way), you would assume that Whitlock’s kidnapping is the key conflict, and in a certain respect, it is; that’s the conflict that kickstarts the film, rather quickly might I add, and it also has the makings for an engaging story. However, we soon get a variety of extra, seemingly smaller conflicts thrown in, and while they add some “accuracy” to film’s period value, the combination of these various subplots not only make for a messy movie, but it diminishes the value of other, more important/interesting elements. Whitlock’s story ends up being not quite as important as you would think, though this is also because the “big twist” pertaining to the kidnappers is rather dull, uninspired, and explored to no avail. It’s even arguable if all of the film’s events even legitimately connect in any way; I could see how they all play a role in developing Mannix’s personal dilemma sprinkled throughout the film, but then again, that dilemma is sprinkled, as in it barely gets enough screen time to get legitimately hashed out. The worst part about this scattered, muddled sequence of events is that most of them are resolved within one or two brief moments, making the entire investment from minute one worth almost nothing; in this sense, Hail, Caesar! is infuriatingly boring, and with the exception of one interesting twist, wholly unremarkable.

This basic problem causes a domino effect in which several other issues begin to affect the film’s substance: the pacing of certain scenes is far too drawn out to warrant its minimal payoff, every character (aside from Mannix) is a caricature with no dimension (with some even being borderline useless), the dialogue mostly ends up being shallow conversation that doesn’t have enough spark to resonate, and any thematic intrigue is either heavily masked or so deeply subtextual that a liberal amount of interpretation would be needed to muster something up. Hail, Caesar! is just a clear example of how poor storytelling can spell doom for a film.

Now, as I said earlier in this review, there are things to enjoy about Hail, Caesar!, whether or not they are enough to save the film from its pitfalls. The cinematography and production design are easily the standout of the film on a technical standpoint. Both Roger Deakins and Jess Gonchor (long-time collaborators with the Coen brothers) have crafted an excellent look and feel that fully immerses the audience into the era its depicting. Certain highlights include specific genre films being recreated, and it works out of sheer authenticity. It’s colorful, it’s intricate, and it succeeds with flying colors.

Though not particularly revelatory, the cast is full of talented veterans. Josh Brolin is the clear star, giving what is the only visibly three-dimensional performance the film has to offer. Other headliners (Clooney, Ehrenreich, Fiennes, Johansson, Tatum) give solid performances, with none of them being particularly memorable. Some of them are even strangely one-note, with only one or two scenes actually featuring them. It’s a solid cast, clearly, but very few performances end up being exceptional, or even a high point of the film.

Comedically, Hail, Caesar! has a few amusing scenes, and a few chuckle-worthy moments, but to call it a laugh-out-loud comedy is perhaps pushing the envelope. Certain jokes completely miss, other jokes hit bullseyes, and some garner a laugh with a full acknowledgment of how random/idiotic it actually was. I will applaud the film for avoiding any sophomoric or downright vulgar humor in the process, but the film certainly lacks a sort of panache that keep laughs consistent.

Even with all of these elements, Hail, Caesar! just ends up being a disappointing effort from two of the most prolific and accomplished filmmakers in the industry. As previously stated, I’m sure the Coens are saying something, and probably something that means a lot to them, but whatever it is, I couldn’t see it. But even if the theme was clear, and even if the message was strong, I just can’t look past this large of a failure in storytelling, and one that is so fundamentally flawed.

It’s good for a laugh or two, and features a solid starring vehicle for Brolin, an actor who deserves to have the career he does, but in the end, its placement this early in 2016 is absolutely fitting; films released this early (in many instances) lack the quality to compete with the year’s later fare, and something tells me Hail, Caesar! won’t be putting up much of a fight.

4.5/10 - Weak

---

Facebook   -   Twitter   -   Website

Movies Old and New: Spectre

One Sentence Synopsis: With the 00 program on the verge of dissolution, a message from the now deceased M (Judi Dench), sends James Bond (Daniel Craig) and Madeleine Swann (Lea Seydoux) within the depths of Spectre, a secret criminal organization that has more to do with Bond himself than he realizes.

---

The Franchise Age is still alive and well in cinemas right now, more specifically the aspect of creating an intricate world of interwoven characters, locations, and stories. When Marvel shattered records with The Avengers, the culmination of Phase One and several years of hard work and strategic thinking, they proved just how viable the entire idea actually was. If the right amount of time and effort was put into the richness of the story, the depth of the characters, and the scale of the action, a fanbase would emerge, and an entire cinematic universe would find its place in Hollywood. 

Ever since Marvel’s success, studios have been desperately trying to recreate this success, but in a fraction of the time. We’ve seen people try to take shortcuts before in making this happen, and it never works out (I’m looking at you Amazing Spider-Man 2). It’s all too obvious when a studio decides to forget dealing with all of the “hard stuff,” simply shoving in as many details in one movie as they can without taking the time to flesh it all out. These cheap, lazy methods are one of my biggest pet peeves in film, and sadly, you see more and more of it every year.

This is where we find ourselves with Spectre, a film that tries to do so much, yet really only accomplishes so little. In an attempt to connect the past three Daniel Craig outings in this franchise, director Sam Mendes not only trivializes them, but fails to capture anything that made them so interesting as James Bond films: strong character arcs, gripping action scenes with high stakes, brilliant yet complex writing, none of its here, and it’s extremely disappointing.

Sure, on a technical level, Spectre is all well and good, no question; beautiful cinematography, solid camerawork and editing, and a soundtrack that feels right at home with the rest of the Bond saga, with Sam Smith’s original song “Writing’s on the Wall” in particular being a fantastic addition to the library.

But that doesn’t cut it when you have an absolute failure of storytelling such as this. Let’s just face facts: nothing works.

The film’s plot is nothing but a lifeless string of story beats, never really connecting to form anything actually interesting: any even remotely interesting themes or motifs are buried underneath dull and expository dialogue, it lacks any engaging mystery as every plot detail seen through the film’s eyes as “mysterious” can immediately be figured out when the audience decides to read between the widely-spaced lines, and there isn’t a single moment that doesn’t reek of a hackneyed, overdone nature that the James Bond movies usually do a pretty good job of distracting you from.

When it comes to characters, we have a serious lack of any fully developed character arcs as well as any strong writing. Because of this, every talent this movie has up its sleeve is wasted to some degree, ranging from “just underused enough for me not to care” levels (Naomie Harris, Ben Whishaw), all the way up to “oh dear god you blithering idiots of a studio” levels (everyone else, including Daniel Craig).

Unlike its predecessor, Spectre doesn’t seem to give many of its central characters the time of day, and even in times when it decides to, it fails to engage. Daniel Craig, who’s cold, almost aloof performance as Bond is far too indicative of how little he actually wants to play the character at this point, is given an arc that does actually raise some solid questions about Bond as a character (you know, kinda like what Skyfall did?), but it’s given barely any time to actually answer those questions in favor of adding another bland action scene in the fray (don’t worry, we’ll get there).

Lea Seydoux, this film’s token Bond girl, had the potential to be one of the only Bond girls to actually give Bond a run for his money in skills and confidence, as well as be a romantic partner that wasn’t solely a damsel in distress, but, big shock, both of these ideas never end up seeing the light of day. Madeline Swan is just as boring, cliche, and helpless as you’d expect her to be.

But really, my tears in this area go to Christoph Waltz, who, despite being a two-time Academy Award winning actor who was basically born to play a Bond villain, is wasted here as well, with a bland motivation to boot. It’s just a mediocre villain given to an actor who just barely manages to pull it off without staining his career. It doesn’t help that the film’s slow pacing and far-too-patient editing makes his intimidating presence feel like a snail that just won’t get to the god damn finish line already.

As previously mentioned, the writing is incredibly expository, concerned more so with making sure the plot is unraveled rather than the characters themselves. Barely do we ever get a moment to dissect a character’s emotions, discuss the importance of the relationships between certain characters, or perhaps get a sense of why we all should care about what’s going on. There’s no emotional connection we feel with any of these characters, and the film severely suffers as a result.

But what may be the story’s cardinal sin is simply its failure in achieving what it sets out to do; Spectre attempts to interweave the three most recent Bond films, painting them as all singular pieces in a convoluted puzzle. Unfortunately, not only does the film fail to meaningfully connect these important events visually or narratively (like a better James Bond film would’ve done), it also manages to use cringeworthy tropes in doing so, causing the entire film to lack any impact. To go any farther in explanation would spoil the film, but simply put, Spectre’s attempts at “world-building” are not only severely flimsy, but evocative of other films that are arguably worse, yet also fall to the exact same problems.

To make matters even worse, not even the action can make up for the lack in story and character, for even that aspect of the film is fatally flawed. Even with admittedly well shot action scenes such as the opening scene, as well as one specifically fun brawl between Craig and Bautista (who is basically this film’s pair of walking fists), most of the action set-pieces we get lack any serious panache. Perhaps there’s one or two big hits, but for the most, the action lacks any suspense or stakes, mostly due to a lack of anything really happening. It all eventually boils down to just a bunch of punches, kicks, and explosions, no more, no less.

It’s a tragedy, honestly, to see a movie franchise as classic as this one reach new lows. I’m gonna be real honest with you guys; Spectre is a movie that shatters the shiny illusion of the Franchise Age, and almost gives you an explanation as to how it may cease to be. For every polished, intricate cinematic universe that works, we get one or two movies that try to replicate this fortune without actually putting the effort into it. If movies like Spectre keep being made, the Franchise Age will become nothing more than an oversaturated mess of lazily thrown together pieces of garbage that will still make enough money for the studios to pat themselves on the back.

I’m not usually one to stand on a soapbox, but these rebooted Bond adventures have given us some of his best moments, and to see it all collapse is heartbreaking. Spectre really isn’t a terrible film, but its methods cannot be overlooked; perhaps parading it as an omen is a tad too bombastic, but it definitely spells danger for not only the Bond franchise, but for films of this caliber, period.

4/10 - Weak

---

Rule Thirds Review

Facebook   -   Twitter   -   Website

Movies Old and New: Steve Jobs

One Sentence Synopsis: Set during the moments prior to three historical product launches, Steve Jobs tells the story of the titular Apple co-founder (played by Michael Fassbender), his complicated relationships, and how his brilliant yet infamous personality would lead to Apple becoming one of the most successful companies of the 21st century.

---

About month ago, as I sat down to read The New York Times, I couldn’t help but notice a strange foldout that came within this week’s paper. As I took it out and opened it up, I was shocked to find a four page, double-sided advertising spread for the upcoming Steve Jobs film. One side featured the four prominent character posters, and the other featured an extensive quoting of the film’s TIME review, along with another recognizable poster. Needless to say, I was absolutely floored by the sheer lengths Universal had taken to advertise the film in this one newspaper, let alone its efforts outside of them. Forgive me for getting the impression that this film was important, and that I should be excited for it.

To be fair, I didn’t need a newspaper to get me excited for this film, for the talent behind it was enough: a critically acclaimed director, Danny Boyle, a talented screenwriter, Aaron Sorkin, and a leading man who’s proven his mastery of character and conviction, Michael Fassbender, not to mention a supporting cast that can also hold their own, Kate Winslet, Seth Rogen, and Jeff Daniels. This kind of a cast and crew is something any film fan dreams of seeing come to life.

Thankfully, for the most part, Steve Jobs is an excellently made film, without a doubt; everything it attempts to do is, at the very least, a success, and we definitely have one of the best films of the year. However, the way I see it, I find myself stuck in the situation where I found myself wondering how the film could’ve been better in my eyes, thus keeping me from immediately calling Steve Jobs one of my favorites of the year.

My main concerns naturally come from the film’s most unconventional quality: it’s structure. Sorkin goes for an interesting three-act structure, with each act being the events preceding a different presentation given throughout Jobs’ career, each one having a huge effect on his career. I commend Sorkin for taking a vastly different approach and making it work, for this film’s patterns and visual choices practically beg to be dissected and discussed on a thematic level. 

However, for a structure that seems so out there, when translated to film, it feels quite tame in its execution; there’s no incredibly dynamic quality to the film’s movement on a cinematographic level, for it essentially plays out like any act would, only confined into a single space. This begs the question why this structure was chosen if it plays out so similarly to any film, yet keeps it locked within a space, with exceptions few and far between. Perhaps a more real-time, long-take approach would’ve given this structure more of an impact and more of a dynamic feeling, but as it stands, the structure is something that gives the film an edge, but not quite enough to be considered the preferable approach.

Besides for that personal gripe, Steve Jobs is definitely a well-crafted character study from top to bottom, and this is mostly thanks to its on-screen talent. Fassbender once again proves that he can fully immerse himself in any identity he chooses, as he absolutely nails the quick-witted, perfectionist nature of his subject down to a tee. Kate Winslet, his assistant and confidante, is fully transformed both verbally and physically, emerging as a brand new character I’ve yet to see, yet beg to see more of. 

Seth Rogen doesn’t really escape his off-screen persona, instead using his likable, “nice-guy” personality he personally has to aid the character as well. It also helps that when necessary, he can pull off dramatic weight, and rather impressively at that. Jeff Daniels is truly excellent, sporting a sharp delivery with a human emotion; his scenes with Fassbender are easily the best scenes in the film, making me believe that he is one of, if not the only supporting actor I’ve seen so far this year that strongly warrants a nomination in this year’s race.

But when it comes down to it, it’s Sorkin’s script that makes this film shine; as many will tell you, it’s a special style of dialogue that is often imitated, yet barely ever duplicated; few people write sharp, hard-hitting dialogue like Sorkin, and thankfully he has the cast that can pull of the exact pace and delivery that this banter deserves. What’s even better about the dialogue here is that it’s incredibly smart while still keeping a very organic dynamic to it. These conversations feel real, driven by what the characters themselves need to say. This balanced combination of inherency mixed with poignancy is very rare, and deserves to be appreciated, especially in a year where several film lack this quality.

Everything else, simply put, is as well done as you’d imagine: solid cinematography, an intriguing score, flashy but nevertheless colorful transitions, and a heartfelt center that never feels too mushy for its own good. 

It’s hard for me to describe it in any other way guys, Steve Jobs is a well made film through and through. Part of me wants to be slightly depressed that I can’t be more ecstatic about this film, because it’s absolutely worth a watch, and arguably one of the best films of the year. I just can’t find myself falling it love with it as much as I did with The Martian or Inside Out. It’s more of a respect rather than a love, and sadly, movies that I respect don’t usually make it on the favorites list. But the fact that I respect it is something I immediately appreciate in and of itself.

8/10 - Great

---

Rule Thirds Review

Facebook   -   Twitter   -   Website

Movies Old and New: The Martian

One Sentence Synopsis: When Mark Watney (Matt Damon) is presumed dead after a fierce storm during a mission to Mars, his fellow crew members leave for Earth without him, but it turns out that Watney has survived, and now he must find a way to survive until NASA can make their way back.

---

In 2012, Gravity was revered by many as one of the best films of the year. Alfonso Cuarón’s emotional thriller was intense, heartbreaking, and filled to the brim with groundbreaking special effects, so naturally it would garner a lot of praise. Just one year later, Christopher Nolan decided to take his hand at an emotional, intense, heartbreaking, and visually groundbreaking space-centric drama with Interstellar, and unsurprisingly, the results were similar.

It only makes sense that yet another beloved director, Ridley Scott, would see this popular trend and decide to take a crack at it. However, instead of trying to make us cry, he makes us laugh. In other words, he engages us through enjoyment instead of engaging us through fear, and while this change in approach may not seem like a big deal, it actually makes all the difference.

The Martian’s storyline easily lends itself to an in-depth psychological study of the human condition, especially concerning things such as loneliness, isolation, and the subsequent depression. However, Scott sacrifices this for a far more conventional, comedic, optimistic space movie, and because of this, we get a far more engaging one. Nothing about The Martian is particularly complicated, and perhaps this leaves something to be desired in terms of theme and emotional weight, but because of this streamlined approach, nothing gets in the way of having a fun yet captivating moviegoing experience, and in a year for film where that’s not so easy to come by, it’s impossible not to appreciate it. 

This aforementioned fun comes mostly from Matt Damon’s wonderful lead performance. What’s so fascinating about this individual is that we don’t need a tragic backstory to connect with him, nor do we need any overdone “chosen one” build-up. In fact, when you really think about, Damon’s character doesn’t really have much of an arc to begin with, but we don’t care. Damon’s character is so naturally likable and so gosh darn witty that we simply love watching him do things. I’m convinced that Matt Damon could’ve been doing anything on screen, and I probably would’ve enjoyed it. To be fair, one could argue that Matt Damon is simply playing himself in a space suit, but if he has enough character on his own to lead a film (and believe me, he certainly does), then by all means let him work his magic.

As if Damon wasn’t enough, we also have one of the most talented supporting casts of the year. Matt Damon is always the focus, but it’s good to know that whenever we have to leave him in order to advance the story, there’s still plenty of skill to go around. It’s odd, because several of these performances don’t have any specific qualities that warrant such a glowing review; it’s merely their natural, humanistic presence that sells each and every role. None of them fall to archetypal cliches that you’d expect them to given their roles, rather they all feel like real people going through real problems. And while every single big name knocks it out of the park, it’s not so much so that one overshadows another. There’s no specific stand-out, but this is perfectly fine, if not preferable. It only helps the ensemble shine as a whole.

Everything else about The Martian excels as well. The cinematography is gorgeous, especially Scott’s wonderfully shot Mars scenes. Despite it’s one-tone color, Mars manages to be a luscious, vast landscape for Damon to explore, and it never feels tired.

The score is excellent, but what really stands out musically is the soundtrack, filled to the brim with classic disco tunes, specifically the ones that you don’t want to admit that you adore. “I Will Survive” in particular matches the film’s vibe perfectly.

The last third of The Martian is when its more dramatic side finally begins to work to its benefit. As mentioned previously, Scott’s decision to go for a more comedic approach, while a breath of fresh air for this genre, leaves less room for the dramatic moments to hit as hard as they could. Make no mistake, they do hit to a degree, but it isn’t until the third act that the really intensity of the situation starts to toy with your emotions. Even with the comedy butting its head, the inevitable climax is a highlight of the film, even if it isn’t 100% polished.

Walking out of The Martian, I knew that I had just seen one of the best films that this year has had to offer, and though there hasn’t been too much competition, I am more than grateful. Not only that, but after a string of misguided failures, we finally get to see Ridley Scott make a true-blue great movie again, and it feels good to see him back on top. It’s a win-win, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

8.5/10 - Great

---

Facebook   -   Twitter   -   Website

Movies Old and New: American Ultra

One Sentence Synopsis: When Mike Howell (Jesse Eisenberg), a stoner from a small town, discovers that he’s actually a highly skilled government agent, his life is thrown into mayhem when the CIA targets him as a threat that must be eliminated.

---

American Ultra is an ultraviolent action comedy where the two main characters just so happen to smoke pot. Despite what the advertising may have you believe, it’s not a stoner comedy, or at the very least, it’s not a stoner comedy at its core, and there’s nothing wrong with that. I just wish American Ultra understood that.

The film is at its best when it embraces the high-octane action and pure over-the-top nature of its violence, and thankfully, there’s plenty of this to go around. It even features some more meaningful, heartfelt moments every so often, and those hit very well too, thanks to the honest, natural screenplay from writer Max Landis. However, the film begins to stumble when its forced to integrate another wholly separate tone into the mix, that of a stoner comedy. Several scenes, for a variety of reasons, left me scratching my head as to how I should feel while watching them. Whether it was because of the cinematography, the script, or simply the atmosphere, all of it evoked the feeling of a stoner comedy, and it just felt very out of place.

What’s worse is that Mike Howell’s pot-centric lifestyle could’ve easily been replaced by some other running gag, one that doesn’t involve a whole sub-genre dedicated to it, but because of this decision, the film deals with some serious tonal dissonance that holds it back from being a far better film than it is currently.

This is unfortunate, seeing as there’s a lot to like about American Ultra.

For example, its lead should be an immediate draw. Jesse Eisenberg has proven time and time again that he can pull off any character given to him. Whether he’s kicking undead ass in Zombieland, running Facebook in The Social Network, or mastering magic in Now You See Me, I am always impressed by Eisenberg’s sheer ability to simply become another person, and here is no exception. Eisenberg adds a shy likability to Mike Howell, and its that which makes the film’s heartfelt moments work.

While we’re on cast, I think it’s worth noting that Topher Grace is stellar as the sailor-mouthed, pure evil crybaby, and deserves more work as that role and only that role from now on.

And while American Ultra’s plot is nothing new, there is some serious potential within the details. I don’t want to spoil anything, but I will say that if you look closely, and if you really think about it, you can see where the film had the chance to make some brilliant choices regarding character development, thematic structure, and social commentary. But these intelligent moments are few and far between, and not taken advantage of. The film is too busy making sure you see the bullets going through the victim’s chest…

…but hey, I can’t complain. After all, the film’s action set pieces are easily the best part; they are incredibly well shot, and tons of fun to watch from start to finish. There’s a great variety of combat on display here, like gunfights, hand-to-hand martial arts, and even plenty of hilarious weaponry flying around, and it all plays out like a well-paced, stylized thrill ride. Though it’s a tad early, it may rank as some of the best action I’ve seen all year.

I haven’t even mentioned the quirky humor, or the excellent soundtrack, or even the solid dynamic between Eisenberg and Stewart. The makings of a great action film are all here, but I keep finding myself coming back to those moments where I just couldn’t fully invest myself into what I was watching. Even though it all goes away by the final third, I just can’t forgive American Ultra’s serious tone problem.

On a side note, I also can’t forgive it for a very abrupt ending, one that feels as though a decent chunk of its resolution was left on the cutting room floor. 

I can easily recommend this film to anyone who’s looking for a fun time at the theater, no question. I just wish I could recommend it to you more strongly. There is a best film of the year here, but it’s shrouded under its murky stoner comedy vibe. If you can look past it, then you’ll enjoy it, but for now, American Ultra stands as a fun popcorn flick that unfortunately fails to achieve greatness.

7/10 - Good

---

Facebook   -   Twitter   -   Website

An Introductory Post

When I started laying down the foundation for “Larry Fried Presents,” (logo pictured on the right) I knew that having a place to house my writing was a must. I think about a lot of things on a daily basis, whether it be a movie review, an opinionated think-piece, or simply a creative short story, and having this home base for my writing is a good way to jumpstart the process of actually getting my thoughts down in digital writing.

In fact, having a home base in general is really the best place to start, because while I love to write, there have been far too many instances where I will start a project passionately, and then just shove it to the side because I begin asking myself questions like, “where is this going?” or “who’s going to actually see this?” Well, this is where it’s going. This is where people will actually see it.

What will you see? Well, it all depends, really. For the most part you’ll see film-related things, such as movie reviews, or my thoughts on recent film news. Other times I may post a short story if I happen to find the inspiration to write one. And other times, you may see me talk about other interests of mine, such as music or gaming or things of that nature. Believe me, it’ll be an interesting mix.

On another note, I felt an inaugural post was necessary for not only establishing why this blog is here, but also because I feel it’s important to establish that this blog is simply one extension of the “Larry Fried Presents” brand. My work can be found in several other areas, including my website, my YouTube channel, my DeviantArt gallery, and my SoundCloud page. You can also like my page on Facebook, and follow me on Twitter for updates whenever those pages are updated with new material!

I also want to mention that I host a film culture podcast entitled “Rule Thirds” (logo pictured on the left) alongside my friends Max Marriner and Sean Capdeville. We review movies, discuss news, and play some games every now and again, but most importantly, we have a ton of fun each and every week. You can download the podcast for free on iTunes, or subscribe to our YouTube channel if iTunes is unavailable to you. We also have a Facebook page and a Twitter account for you to indulge in.

I’m excited to share my thoughts with you all, and I hope you all enjoy the work that I post here.

I’m certain that we’ll all have a grand ol’ time.