Irrational Man (2015)

I was joking with a friend over the weekend that people won't realize when Woody Allen has passed on until we go more than a year or two without a new film. He just keeps going and going, like the Energizer Bunny of film. Allen seems to be on a streak similar to the San Francisco Giants though. He's only good every other year (or so). Unfortunately, Irrational Man keeps up that trend.

It's not that Irrational Man is bad in any significant way, it's just so meh. This is especially unfortunate since it wastes a pretty good performance from Joaquin Phoenix, who totally carries the movie. Emma Stone is also very charming, but outside of their two performances, there's just not much there.

The plot actually goes in a different direction that isn't spoiled by the trailers, so I appreciated that. Once that direction was revealed, I was extremely excited to see how it played out. It's probably the only joy I got out of the film. Only that it takes forever to actually get there. Irrational Man doesn't seem to be in any hurry to get on with it. At least it seems that way, since it's so slowly paced. At just 95 minutes, it felt at least 30 minutes longer. It doesn't help that it's not particularly funny or romantic.

That's really all I have to say about it. Irrational Man is very middle of the road as far as Woody Allen films go. Not his worst, but far from his best. Maybe if another director had been behind this I wouldn't have expected so much. Save it for rental, and even then I'd only recommend this to Woody Allen fans, or people that need to see all of his movies.

2.5 (out of 5) Death Stars

Aloha (2015)

Have you ever fallen asleep during a movie, just for like 15 minutes, and then wake up and wonder if you've missed something significant? That's how a good portion of Aloha felt like. Hell, the first 15 minutes of the movie I was wondering if maybe I had missed something. Was I late to the movie?

I can see why Aloha has been getting beat up by the critics. It's so scattered and disjointed. Most of the movie I'm trying to tie things together that the movie should be doing. I have no problem with having to figure things out on your own, but this was a case where it was just too distracting. It felt like large chunks of the movie and character interaction was missing. Left on the editing floor perhaps?

It's also super melodramatic, which is magnified by the fact that you don't have a deep understanding of all the character relationships. It's all forced and felt rushed. It's like when they bring out your entree at that same time as your salad and appetizers. Don't force feed me everything at once.

This also had the distinction of have a fantastic cast, but somehow nearly everyone (except maybe for Rachel McAdams) felt miscast. It's a shame because I felt like the actors were trying, but the direction, or the script, or the editing really let them down. On the other hand, can you imagine Emma Stone or Rachel McAdams instead of Renee Zellweger in Jerry Maguire?

I will admit that I kind of liked the ending. It was surprisingly emotional, but in a better movie where I was more invested, it would have affected me more. I also really liked the music, but that doesn't give the story a pass.

Aloha is one of those films that feels a lot longer than it actually is. I thought I'd been watching the film for well over two hours by the time it was all over (it's a hour and 45 minutes).

It's not the kind of bad where you feel insulted or anything like that, it just doesn't work as well as you'd like. This is a rental. Maybe if we get a director's cut it might flow a little better, so hopefully we'll get something like that. Otherwise, watch The Descendants instead. It's a better movie set in Hawaii.

2 (out of 5) Death Stars

Gangster Squad (2013) - Movie Review

Gangsters shoot about as well as Stormtroopers.

Here's an example of when a movie 'based off true events' misses the mark.  In Gangster Squad we follow a task force created to stop gangster Mickey Cohen's criminal organization.

Set back in the late 1940's, Cohen (Sean Penn) was a ruthless gangster that the LAPD was in danger of losing the city to.  It didn't help that many local police forces were on his payroll, and just as much a part of the problem as the gangsters were. Chief Bill Parker (a super gravelly Nick Nolte), puts John O'Mara (Josh Brolin) in charge of putting together a small, 'off the books' task force to stop Cohen.  O'Mara is an honest, but tough minded cop, and is told that he doesn't simply want Cohen killed, but he wants his organization destroyed to the point where any other gangster would be scared off from trying to swoop in after Cohen is gone.

Normally a movie like Gangster Squad is right up my alley.  It's slick looking, has a good cast, and I generally love stories about gangsters, especially when based off real people.  However, the whole time while I'm watching I can't quite figure out why it wasn't clicking for me.  After a bloody opening, I thought it was going to be the kind of violent crime drama that I enjoy, but it all felt very tame somehow.  Maybe because when I compare it to something like Django Unchained the violence didn't have the same kind of impact to it.

The story itself is also very thin and there's not a lot of depth to any of the characters.  They try to show that some of the squad members are conflicted over the level of violence they are using to stop the bad guys, and is there really any difference between the police and the gangsters, but they don't really go into it too much.  Will Beall's script was based off a book Tales from the Gangster Squad by Paul Lieberman, and neither he or the book have an entry on Wikipedia, so that ought to tell you something about how popular or critically acclaimed that book is.  If you're gonna base your 'based on true events' movie off a book, maybe you should go with one people have heard of.  I'm a little nervous now that Beall is attached to both the upcoming Justice League movie and the next Lethal Weapon.  I hope this isn't a sign of things to come.

There's also a love story between squad member Jerry Wooters (Ryan Gosling) and Cohen's girlfriend Grace (Emma Stone). As much as I like Gosling and Stone, I felt they were both miscast here.  Stone seemed too young and innocent to play the kind of sexy the role needed, not that there was much to the role in the first place.  Gosling's voice had a weird affectation to it where it he sounded like he was sucking on helium in between takes, and his voice wasn't consistent through the film.  I think the biggest missed opportunity between these two was that the great chemistry they demonstrated in Crazy, Stupid, Love was all but gone here.

A movie is only as good as its bad guy, but Sean Penn's Cohen wasn't very effective.  It didn't help that they put him in ridiculous looking makeup and spoke with a overdone accent that made him feel more like a Dick Tracy villain than a real person.  It also doesn't help the realism that even with the makeup, Penn doesn't look anything like Mickey Cohen.

Mickey Cohen, 1949.  The resemblance
 to Sean Penn is uncanny, huh?

Looking at that picture, you'd think that someone like Joe Pesci or even Bob Hoskins would be a better fit.

Gangster Squad is another movie where the bad guys with automatic weapons can't hit shit, but the good guys are all crack shots.  It's like they all went to the Stormtrooper school of marksmanship.  This allows a group of just five people to take on and defeat a much larger force of gangsters.  It's not like they employed any kind of tactics to give them the upper hand either.  The bad guys even make it easy on them by refusing to take any kind of cover when being shot at or just run right up to them as they're being fired upon.

Between the over-the-top performance of Sean Penn and the silliness of his henchmen, I couldn't figure out if this was meant to be a serious drama, or if they were going for more of a humorous angle.  Confusing this further was that this was directed by Ruben Fleischer, who was on more of a comedic track with his previous films, Zombieland and 30 Minutes or Less.  He's still one of my favorite up-and-coming directors, but he probably wasn't the best choice to direct if the intent was to make as serious crime drama.  I do think he did a good job with the look of the film, which was it's strength.

Gangster Squad is an example of a movie that's all style and no substance.  It's normally the type of film I eat up, but I didn't find it all that creative or original.  It wastes a talented cast with a very pedestrian story that can nobody can rise above.  It's ultimately pretty forgettable, but it's not a bad rental when you want to kill two hours.

2.5 (out of 5) Death Stars

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) - Movie Review

The Amazing Spider-Man is the 'untold' story of Spider-Man, except kinda sorta.  Didn't we just get told the story of Spider-Man ten years ago?  Spider-Man 3 was only 5 years ago, but I guess it's time for a reboot already.

If'you're wondering why we are getting a reboot so soon after the previous trilogy, it comes down to one thing: money.  Basically, if Sony doesn't have a Spider-Man movie out or in production by a certain date, the rights will revert back to Marvel/Disney, and they can't let that happen.  The same is also true with the X-Men franchise and Fox, which is why X-Men: First Class was rushed out so quickly. Because of this, we get a totally unnecessary reboot of the Spider-Man franchise just a few years after Spider-Man 3.  After watching The Amazing Spider-Man, I hope Warner Brothers rethinks their idea to reboot Batman after Nolan's trilogy

This review might be a little spoilery, but to be honest, if you've seen the trailer and you've seen any of the other Spider-Man movies, I really won't be spoiling anything to you.  I feel like only minor details have been changed.  Some for the better, and some for the worst.  Also, I'm not someone that's intimately familiar with the Spider-Man comics (I was more of an X-Men and Superman guy), so I won't be making a lot of comparisons there, just the things I've aware of from over the years.  But again, since I'm talking largely about the plot, you might just want to skip to the end if you plan on seeing this soon.

The movie begins by introducing you to Peter Parker's father, Richard (Campbell Scott).  After discovering a break-in to their house, he and Peter's mother scramble into hiding, leaving Peter to be taken care of by his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Field).  We fast forward to Peter (Andrew Garfield) now in high school, who's more of a brooding loner now.  He's bullied by many of the students, including Flash Thompson, and has a huge, borderline stalker crush on classmate, Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone).

When cleaning out the basement, Peter finds his father's old briefcase and documents that link him back his former partner, Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), who works at OsCorp.  Peter goes to OsCorp and is bitten by a genetically modified spider.  Peter almost instantly starts to develop his abilities and becomes Spider-Man.

This part felt dragged out as it's a good hour before anything substantial happens in the movie.  When he does start to develop his powers, they seem to gloss over many details very quickly, like the creation of his costume, and his mechanical web shooters.  Much was made about the fact that in the first Spider-Man trilogy, he has organic web shooters, rather than the mechanical shooters from the comics.  The significance of this was Peter Parker in the comics had a genius-level intellect and invented both the web shooters and the web formula.  However, in the movie, while he invents the shooters, the web formula he stole from OsCorp, so it seems odd that they would go the mechanical web shooter route, but then not have him responsible for the actual web formula.  One of consistent themes in the Spider-Man books has been Peter running out of web-fluid or having issues with his web shooters at crucial times, but they don't take advantage of that in The Amazing Spider-Man either, so again, it just a minor point that they brought back the mechanical web shooters, and then not use them as used in the comics.

As an aside, Peter Parker was always portrayed has having limited financial means, and I believe there was an issue where I think Tony Stark advised Peter that he'd be rich if he would just patent and sell some of his inventions, his web fluid being one of them.

Anyway, back to the story.  When meeting with Dr. Connors, Peter shows him an equation from his father's work that helps Connor's current project.  They are able to regenerate the missing limb of a rat, and this has particular interest to Dr. Connors, as he is missing part of his right arm.  Connors is forced to experiment on himself and becomes The Lizard.

The Lizard is one of the weaknesses of the film.  Once Dr. Connors becomes The Lizard, he has some kind of plan, but they never really go into details about it.  They don't show you much about his motivation and you don't really care.  I didn't find any fault with Rhys Ifans' performance, but there's just not enough of a backstory between him and Peter Parker to make for their fighting to have any weight or significance.  It all just felt like an afterthought. Plus, I thought the CG-for The Lizard looked really bad in parts.  The Lizard's face didn't look menacing at all and kind of silly at times.

I didn't mind Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker/Spider-Man, but I felt his character came off poorly.  Besides the brooding, I never felt like he was the nerdy everyman that you got with Tobey Maguire's portrayal.  Garfield's Parker wasn't as sympathetic and seemed unlikable in many ways.  He was always kind of biting everyone's head off when talking to them, and didn't seem to have much of a bond with his Aunt and Uncle.  When Uncle Ben dies, it just doesn't have the same weight.  Also, Uncle Ben's death is done in a way that's less tragic and Peter really isn't responsible for like he was in the first film.  Peter seems to be motivated solely by revenge for most of the movie, where in the first trilogy this is reconciled much sooner.

I thought Emma Stone was great as Gwen Stacy though. She really carries the chemistry between her and Garfield, where I thought Garfield was too awkward at times.  I do think this is where Marc Webb's direction came into play.  I was a big fan of (500) Days of Summer and I thought he would at least get the young romance right and I feel like he did.  Overall, I think Marc Webb did a good job directing, but I think he was victim to an underwritten script.  The screenplay by James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent, and Steve Cloves (once again, three writers...ugh) is too uneven and misses many of the points that made the first Spider-Man work.  While many of you may be happy that this does feature more of Spider-Man's during-fight banter, the movie as a whole is missing the fun and innocence of the earlier films.

As far as the rest of the cast, I also thought Dennis Leary was good as Captain Stacy, and I really enjoyed Martin Sheen and Sally Field as Uncle Ben and Aunt May.  It seems like it's been a few years since we've seen Sally Field on the big screen and it was good to see here back up there.

Oh, and I hate to keep bringing up 2002's Spider-Man (I'm watching it as I write this review), but did you realize that True Blood's Joe Manganiello played Flash Thompson?

One of the upgrades to this reboot is that technology is better now, so they were able to have a much more realistic and fluid looking Spider-Man.  The action sequences are very good.  Also, they used something called the RED camera, which is a high-end, digital, HD camera.  The colors are super vibrant and you really can see every detail.  Overall, the movie looked great.  I just wish there had been a little more action here to sink my teeth into.  The movie was too slowly paced to tell a story we are already familiar with.  I actually found it kind of boring at times.

Oh, and a friend asked me to count how many times Spider-Man removes his mask.  Here's what I recall:

1 - Removes it while saving a kid to ease the kid's fear.  (Acceptable to me)
2 - Casually removed while waiting in the sewers for The Lizard to show up.  (Lame but at least no bystanders would be able to see him.
3 - Removed voluntarily while in a fight with The Lizard at a school where there are potentially lots of people around still. (Dumb)
4 - Removed by the police when captured.  (Maybe don't get captured next time.  Don't you have, like, super-human abilities?)
5 - Removed by the Lizard during a fight.  (Seemed unnecessary as The Lizard was already aware that Peter Parker was Spider-Man at that point)

Additionally, he reveals to Gwen Stacy almost right away that he's Spider-Man, at then she seems to pursue him more than he pursues her.  So much for using your secret identity to protect those close to you.

The Amazing Spider-Man is a great looking film, with a nice cast, some decent performances and action, but it's just too soon for a reboot.  The characters are underwritten and movie is too slowly paced.  It seems inexcusable to reboot a franchise after such a short period of time, and then not really do anything new or particularly great with it.  If you've never seen a Spider-Man film, it's an okay place to start, but this is not an upgrade over Spider-Man or Spider-Man 2.  I'd say it's worth a matinee if you're dying to see it, but I think this better suited to watching at home on your HD-TV.

3 (out of 5) Death Stars