The Grand Budapest Hotel (movie review)

      Having no context of The Grand Budapest Hotel, I assumed much of this film, in regards to the  source material that is typical of a Wes Anderson film. Usually, his kind of protagonist would have some odd goal of obtaining an affection for a high school teacher (1998’s Rushmore) or Foxes settling a score with Farmers (2009’s Fantastic Mr Fox).  I’ve always thought of his movies to be strange, but inventive; so, when I was about to see this particular film, I left it all to the context of the film and no other outlets for a synopsis. I mean, I knew minor details here and there, but I went into the film cold and, whether it was low expectations or otherwise, I enjoyed this film a lot, because the film has a nice flow with sold writing, great direction from Anderson and its sublime cast. 
       
       The movie starts off with a woman heading to a graveyard to pay respects to a writer and then opens the book from “The Grand Budapest Hotel,” written by the deceased writer, who’s never given a name other than just “The Writer.” The film is set in the fictional Euro state of Zubrowka, we’re given a look at the writer’s story of the hotel from his younger self in 1968, played by Jude Law, when he’s overseeing it with the aid of Zero Moustafa, played by F. Murray Abraham, The original owner of the establishment, Monsieur Gustave H, is played by Ralph Fiennes. Moustafa is an integral part of this story with his history with Gustave, because he was once one of his lobby boys during 1932 (his younger self is played by Tony Revolori, by the way). He grows up witnessing the hardships of poverty, war, and his owner’s love for the octogenarian crowd, which I swear; he had to have been some adoration of his when he was growing up as kid in the late 1800s; the reasons for his deep infatuations with the elderly isn’t thoroughly explained, aside from it being a random detail, it’s one that’ll raise your eyebrow once the Fiennes character admits as such. It never dawned on me why his first name is Zero until I was able to figure out until midway through the movie, but, I’ll let the readers of this article figure out the metaphor for his/herself. 

       Otherwise, the basis of the film is a character study on their identities and how the inevitable events transpire from the film, do shape them for better or worse.  There are moments when the film does tend to drag, since, some of the bits can be lost on those who don’t watch a lot of Anderson’s films, but that’s really a small complaint for a well-structured film. It has a fair running time (100 minutes) and it surprised me a lot, especially with Fiennes, who’s not known for his comedic talent, but his devotion to this character and the film’s script serves him well here. Besides his mention about his thing for old folks, his oddball candor was quite hilarious. All in all, the film is a definite good time.      

RoboCop (Movie review)

   

     

"I think Omnicorp has you it its grasp for control, sir." (Picture courtesy of behance)

       Running on the potential of recapturing the fun of the 1987 original, this new Robocop film is decent enough on its own film without being in the former shadows of the 1980s. The plot, itself, is similar with Detective Alex Murphy being transferred into a project for severely injured police officers in the line of duty, except the bevy of shotgun blasts that sheered the body of the character from the original is replaced with an explosive planted in his car. All that remains is little of what used to be of Murphy's charred body replaced with a body suit. My impressions of the suit is that it's vastly superior compared to its bulkier predecessor and allows for more mobility, faster reflexes, has two firearms and is equipped with a visor for different functions.

      Story-wise, it's fine enough, which is as good a time as any, it seems, to bring up the debate on whether or not, we should have machines and surveillance be the new way to have order compared to police officers. comparing this one to the '87 edition, the story is more fleshed-out compared to the first one, since a good bit of the original parodied the future and desensitized the violence but there were moments where I got tired of the preachy nature of this narrative, especially when an amendment goes to congress to be voted upon during a crucial part of the film. Alex's story has some nice tender moments, when his wife and son discovers him in the suit for the first time. More lengths seemed to have been made to flesh out the back-story of the main character to add more depth.

      The performances aren't spectacular but are effective given what they have to work with for the film. Joel Kinnaman, who plays Alex Murphy/Robocop, is respectable enough. Michael Keaton & Gary Oldman display good chemistry throughout their simultaneous roles together in their moments. Samuel Jackson, throughout portions of the films plays Patrick Novak, a talk-show host who's really big into the militarization of law enforcement. Also, he's the best thing about this movie.

     There's nothing great or bad here that is bending the action genre, but if you want to see a revision of an old-school character brought back to life on screen, Robocop is just a guilty pleasure, yet I doubt there will be a sequel if it ever comes up for discussion.

       

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit (Movie Reviews)

           

           

Captain Kirk stole Jack Ryan's clothes during his rendezvous in Moscow, Russia 

           

The newest installment of the Tom Clancy film series is a reboot of sorts. Since 2002’s The Sum Of All Fears starred Ben Affleck as Jack Ryan, eventual attempts to bring back the series didn’t as hoped for movie studio Paramount. Sam Raimi, who once helmed the original Spider-Man film series from 2002-2007, was tapped to direct the newest installment to give his fresh take on the series, but nothing turned up, because he was working on a potential fourth Spider-Man film, which, we now know as The Amazing Spider-Man, sans all of the Raimi-isms.

Chris Pine, who plays Captain James T Kirk in the Star Trek movies was on tap to be in the next version of this series in 2009, but had to commit to that film. Before Pine ever stepped foot into the shoes of the CIA fable, Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford and the aforementioned Affleck portrayed the character. So how’s Pine in relation to his predecessors? Good enough for me. Frankly, I was surprised that he handled the weight of this person with care. I won’t say it was a transcending performance, but he was very good overall.  Some of the geopolitical stuff did go over my head a little and so did some of the book references, like when he and Cathy, played by Keira Knightley, meet for the first time, when Ryan is recouping from his severe injuries from a plane accident in Afghanistan. When witnessing the rebirth of a high-profile character like Ryan, especially, when you haven’t read the books, confusion is to be expected when you’re trying to figure out this universe. It wasn’t that the entire franchise was unfamiliar to me, I was just a little unaccustomed to some stuff here.

The plot, itself, has to do with Ryan working in a covert role at a stock exchange in New York. His job is to keep tabs on financial transactions from various parts of the world to make sure that the system isn’t being gamed from someone on the outside. Then, it’s discovered that a geopolitical partner goes in a different direction from that of the United States, Ryan realizes that the money from Russia (yeah, they’re in the news, a lot, these days) is being hidden from plain site. It’s an interesting angle that I wish went further in the closing minutes of the film, but it did its job. Kenneth Branagh and Kevin Costner play important roles here, with Branagh (who also directed this film) playing Viktor Cheverin, the person in control of the funds, while Costner plays a father figure type to Ryan. The acting is top-notch by entire cast. It’ll take time getting used to the actors playing these characters, if you haven’t followed the novels or  films, considering it took a while for this film to be developed, unfamiliarity is sure to be abound. It runs at a solid pace with some nice plot twists throughout the movie. In a time where the suspense genre needed something different, Shadow Recruit is the movie for you.

The Wolf of Wall Street (movie review)

     

"Dwarf Throwing" is a sport, as proven in "The Wolf of Wall Street"

     

     In just 8 minutes, I was locked into the crazy world of The Wolf of Wall Street, all three hours of it. Kind of crazy, that a movie like this flows, regardless of its ponderous length. People will probably complain about the time, but knowing the material it’s based on, there was probably no other way to convey this tale.

      Based on the book (and true story) of Jordan Belfort, who used to be a stock broker, was a mild-mannered man who wanted to have his own piece of Americana, even if it’s in the corrupt world of junk buying. His gift was selling people on the idea that if he sold people crap, customers would fall for his con so much, that they would have no choice but to buy what he sold to them, because he could. It earned him a lot of money, as well. To add to his legend, he was a womanizer, took copious amounts of drugs, committed numerous fraud counts, embezzlement, and was absorbed by the very thing that broke him, literally and figuratively: Greed. Aside from it bringing him all of the vanities and vices that it brought him, it eventually shattered his life, cost him his firm Stratton Oakmond, his family and his friends. 

      Leonardo DiCaprio does an amazing job as Belfort. Every time he lights up the screen in what seems like a comedy routine, but, really, it’s to showcase his lack of self-awareness as a human being. It should be noted that, this is the fifth pairing between Dicaprio and director Martin Scorsese since 2002’s Gangs of New York. Scorsese is still at his best when he’s getting the best out of the entire cast of this film and, it shows in the direction of every scene. The same credit should be shared for Jonah Hill as Donnie. Merely is he trying to make us laugh, as he is pretty much acting so well in a role that I wouldn't expect out of someone who’s this funny. He’s a wannabe dirt bag, like Belfort, and you can’t help but respect, how good he and DiCaprio are together as a tandem. The rest of the cast is excellent, as well, including performances by Matthew McCough Rob Reiner, Kyle Chandler, Jon Favreau and others. The shocking part about this movie is that it feels like a three hour sitcom combined with dramatic elements. Now, I doubt that was the intention here, but it’s honestly a poignant description for this movie and serves as to why this man lived the life that he did, really. If Wolf of Wall Street was merely a drama, it probably wouldn't work as well, since, melodrama has a tendency to be overbearing in moments. Wolf has these moments, but it's hardly noticeable.

The writing here is exceptional. So detailed and smooth in how many of the actors are reciting their lines in the movie.  There’s just too much excellence here for me to find anything bad here, really. So, I guess if I were to come up with one complaint for this movie, is that I wanted more, EVEN after the three hour trip. It’s just that good and it wouldn't surprise me if Scorsese, DiCaprio or even Jonah gets an Oscar nominations for their respective positions. Hopefully, the Oscars won’t snub another Oscar for Scorsese for something else, because it's not "serious" enough, but, 'oh well', if he doesn't get one.

You either go out a champion, or you live long enough to let narrative become your defeat.

After breaking the record for the most touchdowns in a season, Peyton Manning and the Denver Broncos eye another shot at a Super Bowl run. But, despite an unbelievable regular season, the bowels of playoff perception are still around.

   
        55 Touchdowns by 37 years old Peyton Manning, regardless of whether the range of the throws are short or intermediate is patently ridiculous. After four neck surgeries and questions about his arm strength, 2013 has been an amazing year for Peyton and the Denver Broncos. Once again, the venerable legend has qualified for his record 13th playoff berth. Last year, things didn't quite work out for Denver, as the Baltimore Ravens had other plans for them, like winning 38-35 (in Overtime) thanks to Jacoby Jones's heroics with a 70-yard throw from Joe Flacco with 0:31 seconds left in the 4th Quarter (Yeah, thanks Rahim Moore). Manning was possibly on his way to his 10th playoff victory until that moment put the game into overtime, which included an interception to Corey Graham, as Manning threw his body on 2nd & 6 for a pass meant for Brandon Stokley. That loss was about as painful as the one in Pittsburgh, when his Indianapolis Colts were a 1 seed that year, as well.

     In his 20 playoff starts, Manning is 9-11, with eight one-and-dones, but, here's the thing when mentioning about such a stat like that when you say it over-and-over for added gravitas: What does that mean, exactly? Because, people seem to know that number while not looking into said performances of the individual while not looking into the circumstances of the result; because, it’s just hard to explain. In his 11 losses, his teams have averaged 16 points in those defeats. So, of course, here's another blogger who'll lazily write or opine on the perception that Peyton is indeed a choker, right? Well, simplicity is hardly a good indicator for a straight answer, but the question was never an easy one to answer, so, I pretty much don't respond to "he doesn't show up in big games," unless, he loses said big game, yet plays well in big game, do it in the playoffs or Super Bowl. I can't really explain why that's his output in those losses, and, there are fair questions to ask without attaching the choker tag. Despite the running narrative, he played a lot better than his record indicates, but things like tipped interceptions, dropped catches or a right-guard forgetting what the hell a snap count is, when you needed a crucial first-down, has dealt him that absurd tally.

     Now, this isn't to say that he not without blame, considering he was pretty bad against the Patriots in 2003 when he threw for 4 interceptions (Ty Law nabbed 3 of them, that day) and the year he eventually won in 2006, he wasn't exactly "special," as if the playoffs required someone to be that for a maximum of 3 to 4 games. I can only name 2 or three times when he "didn't show up" or "choked" per se? 2003 AFC Championship, Super Bowl XLIV; and the Ravens loss last year, but where else, really? See, it's hard to be exceptional in the playoff; because, there are endless degrees that have to happen just like it's hard to throw 7 interceptions and win a Super Bowl; but, of course when you're as highly profiled athlete like Peyton, things like that will come up.  

     This playoff year, the stakes for history are steep for this man, for a variety of reasons: 1.) If Manning were to lose to Cousin Eddie (Actually, Philip Rivers, but, man, he looks like Randy Quaid from Christmas Vacation) and the San Diego Chargers, and not play well this Sunday? The "choker" tag will reach to the highest levels of banality ever. 2.) If the Denver defense lays an egg on Sunday, yet Manning gives them a 4th quarter lead, in which, then, that Defense blows again? "Choker" tag & "legacy" questions. 3) Combination of both? you get the idea. So, once again, Peyton encounters a San Diego team that's getting good at the right time and knows how to stop the high powered offense by basically running the clock out and limiting Rivers attempts at passing. It's a formula that San Diego has used against Manning and a pattern that has been successful in the past. If Denver can limit that and, perhaps, get a better flow on all sides of the field, this game won't be competitive as advertised, but, you know, randomness is always around mess stuff up.

     So, what must Peyton do to change the narrative around him for this nonsense to end? Simple, win (and be great). LeBron James was in this position before and was criticized for playoff performances, for better or worse, and people were so close to define him in the closing stages of game 6 of the NBA Finals against San Antonio, where LeBron and company led his team back from a 12 point deficit to take the lead in 4^th Quarter. Then, the narrative monsters were near, as LeBron committed three turnovers late in the period and everything seemed set in stone for him to be considered a failure....again.  By the way, the Heat beat The Oklahoma City Thunder for the title in 2012, mind you; so, it was very curious to see where the doubters or pundits were going to do if Miami were to lose to San Antonio, but it didn’t happen. A couple of crazy bounces and shots when Miami’s way as they won game 6 and LeBron had a superb Game 7 with 37 points and, of course, LeBron acquired another MVP and championship to his already stacked mantle. My title has a bit of "Dark Knight" symbolism here, as this Sunday’s game has the feeling of a harsh cliffhanger or successful finality, so here’s my explanation: At the end of The Dark Knight, Batman took the fall for the death of District Attorney Harvey Dent, because he felt Gotham City wasn't ready for him to be its "watchful protector" as Commissioner Gordon uttered to his young son. Batman unselfishly took the fall for attorney for Dent to remain a “symbol” despite his criminal acts. When Peyton won his only Super Bowl in Miami back in 2006, the doubters left for a while, but came right back after that pick-6 in SB44 (2009) as some sort of poetic justice, because he “always does that” in big games. It's been 4 years since 18 won a playoff game, and, if he suffers another one here, narrative will determine his place amongst the greatest ever to play the position of Quarterback, not rationality. Every article that’s meant to explain his losses won’t do enough for this legend.

   

   


   

Anchorman 2 (film review)

    

Why don't y'all go back to your homes on Fools Island

     Having seen the original a day before the inevitable sequel on Dec. 23rd, I had no expectations for its sequel, knowing that it's a bigger, louder version from its predecessor; and, well, I was correct on the louder part. Sequel number 2 is set in the 1980s, where Ron Burgandy (Will Ferrell) and Veronica Corningstone (Christina Appelgate) are married with a new news job in New York City as a duo tandem for WBC. Of course, ego gets the better of the two, causing a rift in the relationship. Veronica ends up as the first female anchor and Burgundy is searching for a job. Of course, Ron ends up back on his feet, and becomes an anchor for a 24-hour news station, though, alas; it's for a bad time slot.

     Clearly, the film has been promoted heavily to establish the brand to more than the core Anchorman fans that awaited 9 years since the original film. Burgandy has been making the rounds on ESPN, Dan Patrick's radio show, Chrysler, and so on. Yet, when you're promoting a character such as this, you'd expect laughs to come easy, right? Nope. Aside from a crack joke (I mean, it's the 1980s & Ronald Reagan was president, so, of course crack would be a subject here) and some subject matter concerning the state of media, much of Anchorman 2 attempts to rekindle all of the lore of the original, but there's just too much bad here for me to care about here. The new characters don't do much, either, not because they aren't convincing, they don't do enough to change the movie at all. Nothing here requires any reinventions of comedy, but so much of it tries too hard to impress. Speaking of which, there are so many cameos sent to save this film; but, at least, that what it felt like to me, anyway. They’re constant, and take away too much from an already tapped-out formula.

      The main characters seem to be going through the motions, which left me in a state of deja vu. The rest of the cast does it part and there are a bunch of cameos to keep people invested into the film, but, after that, not much else besides a comedy that's too formulaic for its own good. Also, the attempts at racial humor pretty much fall flat because the jokes aren't that funny. Anchorman 2 is pretty much for the devotees of Ron Burgandy's glorious mustache; otherwise, it's so damn bad and that waiting nine years was, simply, a bad choice.

 

Man of Steel (Movie Review)

    

     Clearly, I was the one who needed X-ray vision after my first viewing of the latest Superman viewing back in June. Back in June, I didn't enjoy Man of Steel pretty much for the same reasons why certain critics and fans loathe it: People thought it was too dark, too violent and it had too many 'plotholes'. Some of the blame stems from the perception that the film was an exercise in nihilism for some audiences, with people feeling it resembled nothing of the older Superman movies starring Christopher Reeves with the direction from Richard Donner (and, to a lesser extent, Richard Lester, who directed parts 2 & 3). Admittedly, I went into this film with heavy expectations expecting something along the lines of a Donner-esque vision from this production; alas, I thought much of problem with Man Of Steel relied on character depth, mostly with side characters Lois Lane & Perry White. Basically, I though neither of them had much to their character, thus, giving them a feeling of worthless to their individual subplots. This isn't to say that I didn't know enough of their back stories, but, something felt a little off with that part of their screenplay. Even General Zod was a bit of a letdown, as it seemed Michael Shannon overplayed his role, compared to Terrance Stamp's “god-complex” like portrayal of the General. As for Henry Cavill's role as Superman, I felt he was fine, despite some objections (Example: he likes to scream, a lot), he was capable enough to fill the criteria. Guess I was asking for too much "meh" here, rather than the adventure. Whether, it was the sound woofer behind me of my midnight screening at Regal Sawgrass 23 in Sunrise, FL or my irrational expectations, I had a lot riding on this movie only for it to meet my potential (this was after I enjoyed the film once I left, admittedly). I wasn't letdown, necessarily; though, I was hoping for some consistency here or something old-school. Then, as recent as last week, I received a digital copy of the film via iTunes & ended up watching the movie into Wednesday morning and, just like that, my opinion completely changed. Everything changed. Before I touch on my epiphany, I'm not a comic book reader. I haven't indulged in any of the older or recent entries in the DC universe. Before this film came out, I watched a lot of the DC Animated Universe shows that gave me enough background on these characters. From Batman to Zatanna, a lot of the knowledge that I've acquired over the years, is how I've known these characters and what they do for a living. However, I do recognize that a 30 minute episode from Justice League or from Superman: The Animated Series, doesn't grant a lot of context into the mythology of a typical DC character. Man of Steel covered more ground on the origin story of Kal-El and company than any other entry, it’s just true. Given the array of Superman movies dating back to 1978, it’s a lot harder now to relate to the older movies because the Donner/Lester/Bryan Singer method is abhorrently hokey now. Their movies were these "tug at your heart strings" films, due to the character being subjected to American idealism, as we're supposed to identify with him because he's "American," even though, he's an orphan from a doomed planet. All 5 of these films felt like this: "Hey, it's Superman saving the world from another environmental calamity." How boring. Once upon a time, the first two were cinema hallmarks, now; they’re just decent films with banal special effects. What Man of Steel managed to do was flesh out Krypton in a manner that none of the originals could ever achieve (I mean, for Christ sake, Jor-El fights in this one. Who knew Russell Crowe could hit people like that). The planet is expansive, filled with plight, totalitarianism, and is sovereign. You sense the impending doom of Kal-El's home, while in the original, a few words were said by Marlon Brando’s Jor-El & Lara-Van-El, as Kal is sent on his way to earth on some terrible looking crystalized ship. In Man of Steel, Jor-El and Lara say their goodbyes to their newborn and give him the tools to be Earth's savior (The very reason he’s embedded with ‘The Codex’) as the end near for every citizen on Krypton; then, he fight's his old friend, Zod, to protect his son and wife's honor only to be impaled by him in defeat.  Now, if you think that doesn't qualify as some form of drama, then, I have no other words for you. Other apologies go out to Amy Adams's version of Lois Lane & Zod's apprentice, Faora, played by Anjte Traue. Margot Kidder's version of the character felt dumbed-down in comparison. She figured out that Clark Kent & Superman are the same person, yet, because of Deus Ex Machina, let's have Clark erase her memory by kissing her;  yeah, pretty lazy, if you ask me. Lane in MOS takes her job seriously, and doesn't make her seem like a dumb blonde. Her smart-ass behavior is wonderfully displayed in this version. As for Shannon's Zod? Simply incredible. The one from Superman II couldn’t touch his motives or purpose. One of the many problems with Stamp's Zod is that, he didn't have a reason for his transgressions only to just rule over Earth and have Superman “Kneel before Zod”. Otherwise, they just belittled the people of Earth. In this one, the goal is clear: take back the Codex and create a new Krypton on Earth. Simple, yes; but, there’s a reason, at least. Faora, to a point, is as goal driven as Zod, but cares little for the ideals that Superman learned during his 33 years on his newfound planet. You never got that immersion in the older flicks, ever. Visually, the palette is distinctive; it can be a bit drab in some sequences but not enough to deter from the action. This was also criticized by some, because some thought the color was low on contrast. Having looking at it for a second time, I’m further convinced that was the point of the cinematography was to have a more modern layout. I mean, it’s not completely dark that it distracts the viewer, but, it’s rather distinctive; and, that was the intention of the color use, I think. It also demonstrates the directorial style of Zack Snyder, which he manages to pull off well, especially in the fight scenes. Hans Zimmer has already surpassed the score used by John Williams relying on an array of guitars and electronics tempos to set up the themes. Gone are the sweeping violins, now replaced by modernized music with a dash of Junkie XL, who is credited with elaborating some of the rhythms used throughout the film. People, including myself, will have to come to grips that this is the best Superman movie ever and older movies can’t withstand the fixes made here. I learned more from this movie than I did compared to the originals. Honestly, ask yourself, if you learned anything from Glenn Ford's brief performance as Jonathan Kent in the 1978 original? Because, I didn't. Kevin Costner did that role justice than anybody else, and same goes to Diane Lane's Martha Kent. This movie has a lot of development that none of us could imagine in our minds. Man of Steel not aspires to something greater, but it shows what else lies at the hands of Snyder, Christopher Nolan and company. This film has a strong foundation for years to come.