Spy (2015)

Here's a story. I actually 'watched' Spy a little over a month ago. The night it came out, in fact. Why didn't I write about it? I fell asleep about 15 minutes into it and woke up with about 5 minutes left. Not really a good place to write a review, right? It wasn't Spy's fault though. Normally I don't fall asleep during films, but the moral of the story is, don't go to an 11:30 PM screening on a work night when you're already pretty tired. I'm too old for this late screening shit.

Anyway, so I finally gave it a shot again over the weekend and I'm glad I did. I've been hard on Melissa McCarthy films recently, which is deserved because Tammy sucked and Identity Thief sucked worse. I was optimistic about Spy though since this was also a Paul Feig helmed film, and I hoped that their collaboration would work similarly as it did for Bridesmaids and The Heat. Spy is a genuinely funny film.

It seems that McCarthy is best when she's adlibbing and hurling insults, but she needs someone like Feig to reign it in and refine it. Some of the best moments of the film are when she's just berating the hell out of somebody. They even played on the way she's normally used in physical comedy and made it work. Whoever McCarthy's stunt double was, she kicked ass.

Surprisingly, one of the other funniest people in Spy is Jason Statham, who plays this hyper-macho version of every character he's ever played before. At every opportunity he spews an increasingly improbable list of feats and it's hysterical (he even throws in a direct reference to Crank). The whole cast is great really. Rose Byrne, Jude Law, Miranda Hart, and especially Peter Serafinowicz.  This is the kind of film where you get the feeling that everyone got along and had a great time making the film. You can feel that in the chemistry of it all.

At it's heart, Spy is a pretty good spoof of the spy film genre, in general. It doesn't take itself too seriously, while occasionally taking jabs at some of the more ridiculous parts of spy films. There's even some good action sequences.

Spy's winding down it's theatrical run, but if you haven't seen it yet, and it's still playing near you, I highly recommend checking it out. Totally worth it.

4 (out of 5) Death Stars

Side Effects (2013) - Movie Review

You're going to want to make sure you're sufficiently caffeinated before seeing Side Effects.

That's not to say that Side Effects will make you sleepy, but while it does have a slow build up, if you aren't paying attention, especially in the second half, you might find yourself a little lost.  There are so many twists and layers to Side Effects you may need another viewing to capture them all.  In fact, I just watched a clip of the film again that has a totally different subtext to it now that I've seen the whole film.

Emily (Rooney Mara) has been anxiously awaiting the release of her husband Martin (Channing Tatum), who's been in prison several years for insider trading.  One thing I appreciated right away was that it didn't go into too many details about what Martin did or setting him up as good or bad.  He did what he did, and now he's just interested in getting back to his life and working again.  Bogging the plot down with a bunch of financial mumbo-jumbo probably wouldn't have been the best way to start your film.

It turns out that Emily has been a long sufferer of depression, and with all the stress of her husband's release and concern about their financial future, it triggers again and she attempts to kill herself.  She sees a psychiatrist, Jonathan Banks (Jude Law), who in the process of helping her prescribes a series of anti-depressants, but none seem to work.  In fact, most of them make her feel worse.  After seeing Emily's original psychiatrist (Catherine Zeta-Jones), she suggests he prescribes a newer, experimental drug.  This is the drug that finally works for Emily, but there's a side effect, she begins to have bizarre sleepwalking episodes.  Something happens, and I won't spoil it, but it is setup by the opening scene of the film.

I was thinking about why the opening telegraphs such a big event in the film, but then I thought without that opening, would you have kept watching?  Normally, I'd be upset at the spoiler, but I think it worked here.  Otherwise, you'd just be watching kind of a drab, but well acted, story about a couple dealing with depression.  Even knowing that something's on the way, it still catches you by surprise and there was a collective gasp from the audience.

Due to the publicity surrounding these events, Jonathan's life is in turmoil and many aren't convinced he prescribed the right treatment to Emily.  Even he has his doubts, so he does his own investigation and what he finds leads him down a completely different path.  That's part of the fun of Side Effects.  It beautifully sets up many things, and has you going in one direction, but then smacks you in the face from another.  There were a few times where I thought the movie was going to play out much differently, only be surprised by what happened next.  It isn't too twisty for its own good though, or gets confusing.  The twists play out very linearly, as opposed to stuff you see in the Ocean's films where it jumps around a little.  However, lose focus for a scene or two, or pick the wrong time to go to the bathroom, and you can miss something pretty vital to how it concludes. Screenwriter Scott Z. Burns seems to have a knack for writing smart, complex stories, as shown in his previous Steven Soderbergh collaborations, Contagion and The Informant!  Side Effects is his best work yet.

It's not just the writing that's smart either, Soderbergh's way of setting up scenes through use of music or the way a scene is framed it what really makes this stand out from just being a standard thriller.  These small details are why multiple viewings may be necessary.

What is it about Steven Soderbergh and how he manages to release great films at typically slow times of the year?  Maybe that's been part of his strategy to make his films look even better by comparison (I'm kidding).  The timing of the release is a double edged sword, as it's finally the first really good film of 2013, but was it released too early in the year to still get any Oscar consideration?  If this has been released in December, I can imagine there'd be a huge amount of buzz around it. There's also lots of talk going around that this may be Soderbergh's last theatrical film, while others are saying he may just be taking a sabbatical.   If this is really Steven Soderbergh's last film, all I can say is that at least he's going out on a high note. As I fan, I have to plead with Mr. Soderbergh to please not retire.  He's been one of the most consistently good directors in the past 25 years, tackling many different genres and almost never disappointing.  Hell, he was the reason I actually wasn't dreading watching Magic Mike, and I ended up enjoying that film.

Speaking of Channing Tatum, Soderbergh seems to always get the most out of his actors, and Tatum wasn't bad again.  It's a smaller role, so he's not asked to do much, and I even noticed he seems to have cut back on his 'twang' a bit.  Catherine Zeta-Jones is also fine in her role, but Side Effects was really a two-man game between Jude Law and Rooney Mara.  I had once written off Jude Law as just another generic, pretty-boy from the UK, but he really has evolved into an good character actor, and this may be his finest performance to date.  You genuinely root for his character, and that's a credit to Law's performance. Rooney Mara in her short career has proven to be a bright actress with a brighter future.  As much as I liked her in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, I think she was even better here.  There's more nuance to her performance, but I can't say too much about it without spoiling her character arc.

It's only February, but Side Effects is easily the best film of 2013 so far.  Smart, complex, thrilling and carried by two great performances.  It may not be Steven Soderbergh's best film, but it's still a very good one, and I really hope it's not his last.  I highly recommend seeing this as soon as you can, but again, you might want to down some caffeine beforehand.

4 (out of 5) Death Stars

Anna Karenina (2012) - Movie Review

When I try spelling Anna Karenina, I always want to add another 'na' to it.  I have the same problem when I spell bananana.

I have to admit that I've never read the novel by Tolstoy (some dead guy...kidding), or have much familiarity with the story. Sure, I've heard of it, but who hasn't?  Looking at the history, you could call Anna Karenina the Halley's Comet of movies, as it seems to get remade every 10 to 13 years.  Yes, I know Halley's Comet doesn't come that often, but I couldn't think of another occurrence in nature that happened with the same frequency.  Maybe a day will come where people will mark the ages by which version of Anna Karenina they identify with.

Even if you've never seen any of the previous adaptations of Anna Karenina the basic story is one that should feel familiar.  Anna (Keira Knightley) is married to a wealthy politician Alexei Karenin (Jude Law).  He's a little cold, but not abusive, and Anna seems to love their son more than she loves him.  While travelling to help a friend, Anna meets Count Vronsky (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), and it's love at first sight.  They have a passionate affair, but Alexei is no dummy and learns of it.  He wants a divorce, but Anna knows the disgrace this will cause her and that she won't be able to see her son any more.  Everyone becomes aware of her behavior and affair, which makes her an outcast.

After watching Joe Wright's adaptation of Anna Karenina, I have to wonder how faithful it is to the book.  I say this because I'm never given any reason to like the title character.  It didn't seem like her affair with Vronsky was triggered by anything more than making goo-goo eyes at each other at a dance party, which I have to admit the party was the highlight of the film.  Vronsky was even expected to propose to another woman, but one look at Anna and those plans are out the window.  He's this creepy looking guy with a bad mustache, and I just didn't get any chemistry that made me understand why they fell in love so fast.  Plus, Anna came off to me as selfish for wanting to continue her affair, but refusing to get a divorce because of what it would cost her.  I'm not sure if something got lost in the adaptation, or maybe it's that I don't think this kind of material holds up anymore.  Love as first sight seems to be something that you only see in old stories, and getting a divorce really isn't as big of a deal as it used to be.  I mean, when someone gets a divorce, you don't see everyone around her shunning her or ignoring her.  Adultery still isn't cool though.  How's that for taking a stand?

I just didn't connect with anything, and as the movie went on I found it boring.  There were many subplots and characters I cared nothing about, maybe with the exception of Levin (Domhnall Gleeson) and Kitty (Alicia Vikander).  The problem is that they are never the focus of the story, so when the the film comes back to them, it's too infrequent for me to have become that invested in it. Another thing that took me out of the movie was that they open it by telling you that this takes place in Russia, but everyone spoke with a English accent.

It's not all bad though.  It's a well-acted film.  I've always liked Keira Knightley, and I think it's funny how she's become the go-to girl for costume drama's.  She gives a good performance, and I actually think she's an underrated actress, but roles like this don't seem to be much of a stretch for her anymore.  I'd like to see her step out of her comfort zone a little more.  The performance I got the most out of was Jude Law's.  I get the feeling that his character's cold demeanor was meant to make him unlikable, but I could only sympathize with him.  I found him to be very reasonable considering the circumstances.  As much as I liked Aaron Taylor-Johnson in Kick-Ass, I think he might have been miscast here.  He seemed too young to be paired up with Knightley, and maybe a more mature presence might have helped me buy into their romance.  Plus, that mustache bugged the hell out of me, but I know that's not really his fault.

As you'd expect with most period pieces, it's visually striking and the costume design is very detailed.  Many scenes are set on an actual stage, and the sets are built around them as the scene progresses and even transitions to other locations.  You'll see walls and objects move in and out seamlessly.  It was a very interesting way to shoot the film, but at times I found it distracting, especially when you'd see pulleys and ropes as part of the scene.  The set design was great though, and I can't imagine the amount of work that went into setting up shots done in the film.  I can see why they didn't do the whole movie in this style, and I think it would have detracted from it if they had.  In fact, perhaps it was Wright's focus on the visuals that made it so hard for me to connect with any of the characters.

Anna Karenina is a beautiful costume drama, and features some strong performances by the cast, but I came away from this with a cold feeling.  I didn't care about any of the characters, and couldn't connect with it.  I think it's worth watching if you like this type of film, but it's something best left for rental.

2.5 (out of 5) Death Stars

Rise of the Guardians (2012) - Movie Review

I never knew Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny were such bad asses.

We meet Jack Frost (voice by Chris Pine) as he tells us how he got his name and power.  He's been alive for hundreds of years, but feels a little empty because nobody can see him or believes he exists.  The only joy he seems to get out of life is using his powers to mess with everyone (he actually comes off as kind of a jerk at first) or create a snow day for the kids in town.

At the North Pole, Santa Claus finds that Pitch Black, a.k.a. The Boogeyman, has returned.  Pitch's plan is to bring back fear to the children of the world.  Santa rallies the other Guardians of legend, the Sandman, the Easter Bunny (Hugh Jackman) and the Tooth Fairy (Isla Fisher) to stop Pitch.  However, the Man in the Moon tells the Guardians that he's picked Jack Frost to be their newest member.

One of the things I liked about Guardians is that it didn't follow into the familiar troupe of the reluctant hero. Sure, Jack's a little resistant about joining the Guardians at first, but joins the action almost immediately once he realizes how serious the threat is.  They don't have to twist his arm to join their cause, and that was a refreshing change.  His primary dilemma throughout the story is finding out what his purpose is and what it will take for people to believe in him.

I've heard more than a few people compare this to Avengers, and I didn't draw that comparison until I heard that.  It's totally true though.  You're watching a movie about a bunch of super-powered mythical figures throw down against a common threat.  On that level, I thought the action parts of the film were very entertaining.  When there's action in the movie, it doesn't feel too cartoon-ish.

The overall story felt a little thin to me though.  There isn't a ton of depth, and the story is pretty fundamental.  It's not a bad story at all, but it's message and humor is definitely geared towards kids.  There are a few clever things they do, and there are some twists to the familiar mythology that I really appreciated.  However, it was lacking that something extra to put this in that upper tier of animated stories.

The animation is fantastic though.  The character design was great, and each even had their own realm that had it's own life and uniqueness about it.  One of the cooler characters was the Sandman.  He has no spoken dialog in the film and communicates through 'thought bubbles' and facial expressions.  It was really interesting and effective. I did see this in 3D, and while it didn't detract from the film, I didn't think it added too much to it either.  Overall, it's colorful and gorgeous. Even if the story doesn't totally work for you, the animation and visuals will keep you interested.

Matching the animation was the great voice work.  I mention this a lot when reviewing animated films, while the voices might be familiar, they aren't distracting or take you out of the story.  You have familiar voices like Hugh Jackman, Isla Fisher and Chris Pine, and all their voices fit their characters nicely.  I was really impressed with Jude Law's voice acting for Pitch Black.  His voice fit the character perfectly, and he wasn't over-the-top with his delivery. Equally impressive was Alec Baldwin as Santa.  He plays Santa with a Russian accent, so I had no clue it was even him until the credits rolled.

This was Peter Ramsey's feature directorial debut, and I thought it was a great first effort.  From his IMDB page, his background as a illustrator and artist really lent itself to the visuals and action here.  Guillermo del Toro was an executive producer on this, and you can see his influence on the visuals as well.  This was based on William Joyce's The Guardians of Childhood book series.  As it's a book series, I've already heard there are potentially going to be some sequels and I have to say that I'm really looking forward to what they do next.  There are a lot of different areas and characters they can bring into the series and I think that'll be a lot of fun to see.  I only wish David Lindsay-Abaire's script had just a little more edge and wit to it.  That was the only real weakness of the film for me, and the thing that prevented it from being great.

Rise of the Guardians is a great family-friendly, holiday movie.  The story and message are great for the kids, and the top-notch animation will provide entertainment for those not that into the story. This is another movie that I think your kids will want to watch over and over once it comes out on DVD and I think it will help keep their belief alive in things like the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. Totally worth a matinee.

3.5 (out of 5) Death Stars