American Sniper

American Sniper - 132min - R

Sitting in the theater with the soundless credits rolling I had time to collect my thoughts and put down on paper some of the things that were going through my head. This movie focuses on one person's journey through the war from his perspective. We see his transformation from idealistic young kid to hardened war veteran. We can see the price that our service members and their families pay for their service. But I have to ask myself: what does this film inspire me to do? What does it tell us about the war that we didn't already know? This film is a yellow light. As a biography it highlights the man Chris Kyle but only the events during the war and his death. They are selecting only the history that supports the narrative of Chris Kyle, American Hero.

Chris Kyle (Bradley Cooper) is a sniper for the US Navy Seals. The story takes us from recruitment, to deployment and even him marring his wife (Sienna Miller), though his struggle with multiple deployments and his personal life when he returns home. After the deployments he uses his experiences to help veterans acclimate back into civilian life.

I was pleased at how much they focused on just the main character's achievements and how he helped people when he got back. His journey is fascinating and it's important to tell it. His struggles illustrate how hard it is on our veterans and even if the story ends in his death it shows how hard it can be to re-assimilate onto civilian society.

I wonder if the director (Clint Eastwood) will tell this story from the other end as well. In war there are two different perspectives. Watching the story of the other sniper, an Olympic medalist returning to his home only to be recruited in the war, would be a great companion to this film. His films Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima told the war from two sides. Those films did a great job of give us a well-rounded perspective of each side of the war.

I don't think the other movie will ever be made because of the director's politics and because the viewing public would never be ready for it. Our wounds are still too raw to be objective enough to see any other side.

This movie is a political rorschach test. Those who are very right wing are going to see this as a pro American film in the war. The left wing crowd will use this as another example of how bad the war is. But the movie itself does a good job keeping to the middle of the road. Taking no side on the events surrounding the main character gives it a sterile feel leaving the viewer to fill in the motivations that speak to them.

The few nitpicky things that took me out of the moment were the use of CGI to give the blood more of an effect. It unfortunately looks poor and didn't enhance anything but my feeling like I was at a movie. The baby dolls that they used also took me out of the importance of the dialog that was being said. It was again something that took me out of the story at what should have been some very engaging material.

What do you think about the film? What did you walk away with?

Guardians of the Galaxy

Guardians of the Galaxy – 121 min – PG13

This movie is based on a comic book that started in the sixties, then had a revival in 2008. I know this because I had to look it up. I never followed this title so going into this movie I was a blank slate. I enjoyed the ride this movie took me on. It was something that tied into the Marvel universe but it was like nothing I have seen before. It’s not my favorite film from Marvel Studios but it is good enough to make the top 5. I gladly give this movie a green light.

Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) is a human from Earth who was abducted by aliens as a child. He was raised by raiders and has grown up to become Star Lord, a notorious thief, at least in his mind. He steals an orb that an evil warlord, Ronan (Lee Pace), wants for himself. Gamora (Zoe Saldana), an assassin, is sent to retrieve the stone for Ronan. Before Peter has a chance to sell the stolen artifact he is attached by Rocket and Groot (Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel) a couple of bounty hunters. They all get arrested for causing a fight in the middle of the city. In prison, they meet Drax (Dave Bautista), a criminal who is seeking revenge on Ronan for the death of his daughter and wife.

This crew joins forces for financial reasons to start out with but as they work together they develop a relationship that builds the team. And thus the Guardians are born. Their friendship is tested as they try and unload the artifact and find out that it is really a weapon that can destroy worlds.
The most enjoyable part of this film is the pop culture references that completely baffle the aliens who Peter comes in contact with. Some of the colloquialisms that we don’t even think about would be completely alien to beings form a different planet.

A friend of mine said this reminds him of a live action Heavy Metal. I would agree, aside for a lack of sensuality it was a completely fitting the gritty science fiction setting that you would find in that magazine.

I did feel the length of the movie at times. It could have been tighter, but it’s easy to see why the filmmakers would have a hard time cutting things out. The story itself could be trimmed, but visually, each scene looks great. This is an origin story so we need to do some slogging through exposition and exploration of the characters. Now that’s done we can go straight to new story arc in the sequel that has been announced.

It will be interesting to see how they tie in this section of the universe with the heroes that we have already seen. There are a few items that cross over like the Tesseract and Thanos (Josh Brolin). Where we go from here is going to be spectacular. It is wonderful to see movies being made by people who are creative and know how to tell stories. This film is another example of the business model of studio heads just running a business and the creative people telling the stories.

Guardians of the Galaxy is this generation’s Star Wars. This is an epic space story that has heroic acts and exotic locations. It’s not the retelling of the hero’s journey but it has a lot of similarities to the themes and flavor.

James Gunn directed this film and his bawdy humor is watered down but still apparent. For Marvel films this one has the most questionable language of all of the films. It’s a fine line between just the right amount to give the environment depth and being offensive. He picked the right amount.

Like any Marvel movie you need to stay until the end. You will see an old face that we have not seen since he was managing Beverly Switzler’s band. Seth Green performed as this character in the end stringer and I am guessing that Marvel is going to try and pretend that the other film this character was in never happened.

One thing we do know for sure is there will be another movie and like everything else we are seeing from Marvel I know it’s going to be big.

What should Marvel do next?

The Hangover Part II

The Hangover Part II - 102min – R

This movie was a pale rehash of the exact same story from the first movie. Yes, it takes place in Thailand. Yes, there are new shenanigans. No, it’s not original or clever or humorous. One bright note I did get to see this movie free of charge, but there was a high price for seeing this film, it was 102 min I will never get back again. I think I got gipped. I am at a loss for words on how bland this movie was. The only character I thought was entertaining was the monkey (Crystal). I think it was Penn Jillette who said it best “there is nothing funnier than a smoking monkey.” Unfortunately, this comedy gold is wasted on an extravagant waste of time. Don’t get me wrong: I truly enjoyed watching the characters get the tar beat out of them but I don’t think it was for the reasons that the filmmakers intended. If you liked the original, just re-watch it. Do not waste your time on this half-assed retread. I am obviously going to give this movie a red light, for failing to do anything more with the characters or the storyline.

The movie starts out with some friends Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms), Alan(Zach Galifianakis) and Doug (Justin Bartha) getting together to have a little bachelor party, things get out of hand and they have one wild night in Vega…excuse me Bangkok. They lose a member of their happy band and spend the next few days trying to find him before they have to get back to the wedding. After a long chance though the city uncover clues as to what happed, they gather the lost friend and get back to the wedding on time and then stumble on a camera that has pictures of what really happed on their wild night of fun. Oh wait did I just give you the synopsis of the first one or the second one? Meh it doesn’t matter.

I think the fault here lies in the fact that they thought they could skate the same movie by with a different set. I place the blame on Todd Phillips. He seems to think that this kind of churn and burn sequel will be fine. He has done some really good comedies in the past… well, ok, really he has done this kind of film before with different people and setting but it’s the same kind of thing. It might be a case of “hey guys, I just got a budget to take us all to Thailand, let’s go do The Hangover Part 2.”

It could also be the fault of the writers. Craig Mazin is known for his work on ultra spoofs like Scary Movie 4 and Super Hero Movie. Scot Armstrong who has worked with Phillips before also took part in the creation of this film. Todd Phillips also has a writer’s credit on this film. I can’t even cut him a break of, “look, he was just the director he did not know what he was doing”. Nope his hands where on this steamer from start to finish.

From a filmmaker’s perspective there was nothing wrong with this film. It did a good job of putting the film together and making it work as a travelogue. But the big problem that holds this movie back is that they seemed to be resting on their laurels and coasted in on the back of the success of the first movie.

Here are the only funny parts that got a few laughs out of me.

WARNING!! THERE BE SPOILIERS HERE!!

When they take the monk back to the monastery and the younger monk beats the hell out of them because they will not stop talking, I found myself laughing that that. It had a fairly reminiscent feel of the scene in Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe.

I did like how Teddy (Mason Lee) made sure that the monk was ok during the street riot, which stood out to me. Not a funny scene but it was the only connection I had with any of the characters that were of my species.

Stu’s rendition of Billy Joel’s Allentown was good, and it was well done where Alan did not realize how pointed the song was.

Did you see this movie? On purpose?(Gasp)is someone holding you against your will? I want to know if you really liked this film or not. Post your response. Why did you like it or why did you not.

Limitless

Limitless – 105m – PG-13

Warning! Do not go see this movie under the influence of alcohol. There are some seriously cool camera shots that will completely blow your mind. This movie made great use of blending the reality of what we see with what the character sees. I felt dizzy at times with the way the film was shot but it added a certain thrill. It’s a great what-if movie with a rollercoaster feel.

Limitless gives us a glimpse into what it would be like to have unlimited access to our minds. The premise of the movie is that we only use about 20 percent of our brain. With the help of this wonder drug a person can access and use 100 percent. On a side note that 20 percent thing is a myth here is a link to an article in the Scientific American. Reality aside, this pill takes Eddie Morra (Bradley Cooper) from an unmotivated, unthinking lout and turns him into an intellectual titan. He now has the ability to recall every memory of everything he has ever seen. He finishes the book that he has taken forever on in four days. He gets into Wall Street and makes millions in two weeks. The things that he could not manage in social activities he can now manipulate. He reconnects with his ex-girlfriend, Lindy (Abbie Cornish), and becomes a rising star in Carl Van Loon’s (Robert De Niro) company. This does not come without a cost, and we see some typical drug addict story elements.

One really great thing about this film is its use of camera shots strung together to illustrate how Eddie lives his life. Neil Burger did an excellent job of relaying that aspect through this film. This movie captures a lot more from his range than his previous films: Illusionist and The Lucky Ones. Burger did a wonderful job on his previous films, but this one is by far the best out I have seen from him. On two specific instances we have single long continuous shots of zooming camera angles that link together so it looks like you are zooming from one end of New York to the other. They are seamlessly tied together to look like one shot. Also some effects with a camera lens that show how his brain works that are truly brilliant, ratcheting up the lighting and color for after the drug is taken also make the audience feel like they are with Eddie when he juices up. From film makers stand point I really like how they did this movie, I so want to geeking out about some more shots but I don’t want to spoil the movie for people who have yet to see the movie. So if you see this film and want to talk further please send me an e-mail. My e-mail in in my profile.

One subtext to this movie that I think is under explored is the fact that Eddie’s powers are not earned, but given. The story misses the opportunity to expand this concept further. This under used point does not take away from the overall experience of the film and it’s a fun ride. It also bugs me a bit that this movie might be glorifying the use of drugs to better the mind. There’s a striking parallel between this drug and steroid use. I am still really just learning to look at films with more of an analytical point of view. Maybe my film classes have me thinking too much about subtext. Sometimes, there is no subtext -- just fun stories that are told.

This week’s question has to be if you had access to this wonder drug that made you smarter, would you take it?