Movie Review: The Amazing Spider-Man 2

The Amazing Spider-Man 2/Rated PG-13/Dir. by Marc Webb/Columbia Pictures

For over a decade, an unwritten Hollywood law has been, "every summer must begin with a Superhero movie."  I'm not sure what the penalty for breaking that law has been, but only three summer movie seasons since 2002 have started with something other than men in spandex fighting CGI bad guys.  So here we are.  Another first weekend in May and another superhero movie.  This time it's the sequel to the pleasant, if unremarkable The Amazing Spider-Man, the creatively titled The Amazing Spider-Man 2.  The good news is that it doesn't land in the lowest level of comic book hokum.  The bad news is that it's the weakest summer kick off movie since 2009's X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

The characters in TASM2 are dealing with all the same issues they had to deal with in the Sam Raimi series.  There is still a city-wide debate in New York about whether he's a help or a menace.  Aunt May (Sally Field) is still struggling to deal with finances in the wake of her husband's murder, in addition to trying to figure out why her nephew's door is always locked and he always seems to be out of breath and dirty.  Peter Parker (again winningly played by Andrew Garfield) is still trying to balance loving a girl, in this series it's Gwen Stacy (the always great Emma Stone), and avoiding her so he can keep her from getting hurt by his web-slinging exploits.  Harry Osborn (Dane DeHaan) is still having daddy issues, except this time it's a debilitating disease that turns his skin green that he's inherited instead of severe mental issues.

The villain, Electro (Jamie Foxx), is of the "somewhat off, but nice person falls in a vat of chemically imbalanced (fill-in-the-blank) and somehow fuses with it becoming super-powered and suddenly evil" variety.  This time it's a electrical engineer who is saved by Spidey and becomes obsessed with him, imagining they're best friends.  After an accident involving electrocution and a dip in a vat with genetically altered electric eels, he becomes Electro, sort of a combination of Dr. Manhattan and the Electric Gremlin from Gremlins 2: The New Batch.  (warning:  light spoilers until the end of the paragraph)  The motivations of this character are the most hollow this side of a Joel Schumacher Batman movie.  You see, Electro loves Spider-Man until Spidey's face replaces his on the Times Square jumbo-tron.  Yep.  "You're my hero!  You saved my life and I will be eternally in your debt and.....wait a minute.  You just upstaged me.  Die!  Die!  Die!" 

In addition, there is a lot of film time devoted to uncovering the mysteries of the disappearance of Peter's parents.  The mysteries are solved, including an opening sequence that shows precisely what happened after they left Peter with Uncle Ben and Aunt May, but the answers are not weighty enough to justify the amount of time spent searching for them.

The best thing about this film, much like it's immediate predecessor, is the chemistry between the leads, real-life couple Garfield and Stone.  These two are probably the only thing that is a step up from the original Raimi series (sorry, but Peter and Mary Jane never felt like much more than a couple of geographic convenience to me).  The best dialogue of the movie is reserved for them and they fill the characters with a playfulness that was sorely lacking in the previous trilogy.

Also, the special effects are solid and the action set-pieces are exciting enough to justify the price of admission.  However, the tone and quality of this film is wildly uneven.  There are moments that almost reach the highs of  Raimi's Spider-Man 2 and moments that are as bad as anything in Batman and Robin, in particular the normally dependable Marton Csokas plays an evil German scientist so horribly, grotesquely over the top that he seems like he'd be more at home trading puns with B&R's Mr. Freeze than in a semi-realistic New York City.

Finally, there's a moment toward the end of the film that is clearly meant to get the audience emotional, but it feels rushed (in spite of the endless series of slo-mo shots that precede it).  The actors do their best to give it weight, but much like the rest of the movie, it feels poorly timed and just emotionally off.

As I stated before, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 isn't a bad movie.  The lead performances are terrific and the action set-pieces, which are admittedly the reason movies like this exist, are serviceable eye-candy.  However, it is frustratingly uneven.  Once again, it can't help but have a feeling of deja vu as it clamors over territory so well tread in the Raimi trilogy and at a few spots it reaches a level of camp that even the much maligned Spider-Man 3 never scraped, and yes, I do remember the jazz club scene.

Final word:  The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is a middle-tier superhero film.  No where near as good as the resent slate of Marvel Cinematic Universe films, but still a mild diversion.  However, it is the weakest Spider-Man film to date.  If given the choice, I'd recommend you see Captain America: The Winter Soldier again.

Grade: C+

Best of 2013

The credit lists have been published, the award nominations have been announced, and the also-rans have begun to slip into memory.  Therefore, it seems a bit anticlimactic for me to publish my top ten of the year.  Of course, the official reason is that I waited until a) I had time and b) I had a chance to see a few more of the "Oscar"-y movies.  There are still several that I haven't seen (12 Years a Slave, All Is Lost, The Book Thief and others), but I can share my thoughts on the ones that I did see.  So, here ya go:

HONORABLE MENTIONS:  Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase Two (AKA "Iron Man 3" and "Thor: The Dark World") - The more I think about what Marvel Studios has managed to do with its "Cinematic Universe", the more I think that the films are a significant as the Harry Potter films in terms of success to risk ratio.  In addition, both of the newest additions to their library manage to entertain and surprise, which is very difficult for a superhero sequel to do.  I can't wait to see this year's contributions, "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" and "Guardians of the Galaxy."

"Monsters University" - Not the best Pixar movie, but sure a lot of fun anyway.  As much as I enjoyed "Despicable Me 2", "M.U. was far more deserving of an Oscar nomination, if for it's thoughtful message alone.

"Pacific Rim" - To quote the "Honest Trailer" treatment of this film, "It's either the dumbest smart movie ever made or the smartest dumb movie ever made.  Either way, man, I can't wait to see it again."

"The Croods" - Do not underestimate the talent of director Chris Sanders.  He's directed three films.  None of them were expected to be much of anything and all three surprised audiences and critics alike with their heart, intelligence, and ability to find depth in seemingly shallow plots.  "Lilo and Stitch", "How to Train Your Dragon", and now "The Croods."  This is a streak of great films almost the equal of those of Brad Bird.  Here's hoping it continues.

"Enough Said" - The plot of this film could've come from the most stereotypical romantic comedy.  An awkward meet/cute, the quirky best-friend, the ridiculously contrived obstacle designed to separate our heroes, they're all there.  However, what this film has that escapes the vast majority of rom-coms is a one two punch of great, realistic acting and thoughtful, understated dialogue.  Even the side characters, which are usually the most grating aspect of these types of films, are richly developed and relatable.  Of special note is the chemistry between the late James Gandolfini and Julia Louis-Dreyfuss.  Both performances are career cappers, especially that of Louis-Dreyfuss, who not only demonstrates a realistic ease with the comedy, but gracefully, heartbreakingly, and deftly handles the drama as well.

"The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" - Haven't read the books, but I was far more invested in this film than the first, as it switches from a less-grisly American take on "Battle Royale" to the revolution story it always wanted to be.

"The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" - Yeah, I know it's different from the book, but.....Smaug.  SMAUG!  Quite simply, the most captivating villain of the year and the best looking dragon ever put on screen.

Now, to the top ten......

10. "The Way Way Back" - On the surface, "The Way Way Back" is just another quirky independent coming-of-age comedy, but more than most, this one has a fully committed cast (including the terrific Sam Rockwell, the always dependable Toni Collette, and the uncharacteristically heinous Steve Carrell), plus a sharp and witty script written by Nat Faxon and Jim Rash, both of whom built careers as comic actors, but became Oscar winners because of their writing skills.  Loosely based on Rash's own youth, "The Way Way Back" is an entertaining look at the moments in life when we realize adults aren't perfect and we're capable of far more than we ever imagined and it stays with the viewer long after the closing credits roll.

9. "42" - This may not be the best sports movie ever made, but it's a solid biopic about one of the greatest sports figures in history, Jackie Robinson.  This isn't the first, nor will it be the last film about the great baseball hall-of-famer, but it boasts two fantastic performances.  One from Harrison Ford as the Dodger's owner Branch Rickey, who has his own personal and poignant reasons for wanting to desegregate professional baseball, and another from Chadwick Boseman, who brings a noble humanity to his portrayal of Robinson, a role that could have easily just been a reverent lionization.

8. "Philomena" - While "Philomena" doesn't have the lasting emotional impact of director Stephen Frears best films ("The Queen" still packs a wollop whenever I see it), but it does contain one of the best performances in Dame Judy Dench's career, which is saying a heck of a lot.  Also, comic actor Steve Coogan delivers a solid portrayal of the reporter who helps Dench's Philomena Lee locate the son that was taken from her in her youth.  A thought-provoking and moving film.

7. "Lee Daniels' The Butler" - This film was ridiculously and undeservedly shut out of the Oscar nominations, which is a shame.  It's contains some of the best performances in recent  memory, especially Forest Whitaker as the strong, long-suffering title character, a man who uses his skills as a humble butler to slowly change the world in the service of U.S. Presidents from the 50's to the 80's.  

6. "Frozen" - The song score of "Frozen" isn't the insta-classic kind like that of "Beauty and the Beast", but the music is certainly fun and the story one of the most innovative, yet traditional takes on a fairy tale film that Disney's come up with in decades.  Changing from a standard "true love's kiss" kind of story to a tale of female empowerment and sisterly bonding, "Frozen" is a film that will be treasured by many for ages.

5. "Saving Mr. Banks" - The biggest oversight in the Oscar nominations this week, for me at least, was the lack of recognition for Emma Thompson as P.L. Travers in "Saving Mr. Banks."  Ms. Travers, a character that, as written, is cold, aloof, and completely off-putting, is given a complexity by Thompson that makes her seem positively heroic as she fights against Walt Disney (terrifically played by Tom Hanks) to protect her dear Mary Poppins.  Some of the suppositions about Travers real-life inspirations may not be grounded in verifiable fact, but it makes for engaging and inspiring film making.

4.  "Blue Jasmine" - I've never made a secret of the fact that I find most of Woody Allen's early work to be over-rated.  However, between "Midnight in Paris" and "Blue Jasmine", his later work is winning me over.  While "Midnight in Paris" was a fanciful look at the myth of nostalgia, "Blue Jasmine" is a heartbreaking take on the myth of happiness in wealth.  The commercials might have made it look like a sharp, comedic look at the battle of the classes, "Blue Jasmine" is far darker, with a devastating performance by Cate Blanchett as an intelligent woman losing her mind thanks to memories of a failed marriage and a dependence on medicated escape.  With Emma Thompson out of the Oscar race, this one has Blanchett's name written all over it.

3.  "Star Trek Into Darkness" - You might disagree, and that's your prerogative, but the oddly titled "Star Trek Into Darkness" was an ideal follow up to JJ Abrams 2009 franchise re-boot.  Sure, he could have easily taken the cast into a totally new direction with new aliens, but by revolving the story around characters well-known to fans of the original Star Trek cast, Abrams continued to explore the complex consequences of starting up a new timeline, most interestingly the changes in character found in Kirk and Spock as a result of their changed lives in the previous film.  Now that Abrams has been handed the keys to a "galaxy far, far away" too, it may be the first time that I've enjoyed a Star Trek film so much that it makes me beyond excited to see the next Star Wars movie.

2. "Captain Phillips" - Let me be clear.  This is not a film I'll watch every weekend.  It's gut-wrenchingly emotional and almost unbearably intense, but it's an amazingly taut look at the real-life kidnapping of a freighter captain by Somali pirates.  The final 15 minutes contain the best acting ever in Tom Hanks career.  Let that set in.  Truly an outstanding film.

1. "Gravity" - Quite simply, "Gravity" is unlike any film I've ever seen before.  Sure, it has moments similar to "2001" and "Apollo 13", but as directed by Alfonso Cuaron and terrifically acted by Sandra Bullock, it almost feels like there just happened to be a camera floating in space that fortuitously captured the extraordinary events depicted.  In addition, there was no film that stayed with me longer after the viewing this year.  Truly, a film that through the dedication and vision of its makers reminds us all the type of rare magic that can happen on the big screen.

So, that's 2013.  As a look ahead, here are the ten movies that I'm most looking forward to in 2014:

10. Muppets Most Wanted - because....Muppets!

9. Big Hero 6 - Disney animation takes on a Marvel property.  Should be interesting.

8. The Monuments Men - I was bummed when this one was moved from 2013, but I love the cast and the true-story premise.

7. The Hobbit: There and Back Again - As much as the 2nd film differed from the book, it did set things up perfectly for a hugely eventful final chapter.

6. Captain America: The Winter Solder - The elevator scene shown in the preview was the best action scene I saw last year.  Can't wait to see if the rest of the movie matches up.

5. Into the Woods - Though I'm a little nervous about this one, if they hit it out of the park it will be one of the best movie musicals ever.

4. Interstellar - Christopher Nolan does sci-fi.  'Nuff said.

3. How to Train Your Dragon 2 - A sequel to one of the best non-Pixar animated films of the last 20 years.  Lots of potential here.

2. Guardians of the Galaxy - Marvel does sci-fi/comedy, plus one of the most unique casts for a big-budget tentpole film ever.  Great or horrible, it certainly won't be boring.

1. X-Men: Days of Future Past - Every bit of info that comes out just feels epic.  Also, it's about time that Bryan Singer had another mega-hit.

Thanks for reading.  Here's looking forward to another great year at the movies!

Movie Review: Frozen

"Frozen"/Walt Disney Pictures/Dir. by Chris Buck an Jennifer Lee/108 min./Rated PG (for some action and mild humor)

Many believe that Disney animation went through a catastrophic decline in quality in the early to mid 00's. While there's no arguing the fact that "Home on the Range" and "Chicken Little" were no classics, I tend to think that this period was less a creative bankruptcy and more a severe identity crisis.  For decades, Disney was the animation monopoly.  From 1939 to the early 80's, most non-animation buffs would be hard pressed to name any feature length animated film that wasn't Disney  (such films do exist, but you probably haven't heard of most of them).  In 1979, one of Disney's key animators, Don Bluth, left the company to start his own animation studio, taking a good chunk of the Disney animation staff with him.  This sudden loss of talent not only lead to the studios' biggest flop, "The Black Cauldron" (the first PG rated Disney animated film), but it also lead to the first major competition the studio had ever faced.  Bluth directed two of the biggest animated hits of the decade, "An American Tail" and "The Land Before Time."  "Tail" was especially challenging to the house of Mouse because it was a success at a style that Disney seemed to hold the trademark for.  Namely cute critters breaking out into delightful song and dance.

However, thanks to an infusion of talent, including amazing animators and terrific collaborators like Broadway's Howard Ashman and Alan Menken, Disney came out on top.  With the quadruple threat of "The Little Mermaid", "Beauty and the Beast", "Aladdin", and "The Lion King", Disney claimed their rightful place on top of the pack.

Then Pixar happened.  In 1995, with the release of "Toy Story", the world's first full-length computer animated film, audiences were treated to a style of animation that not only had the joy and fun of traditional animation, but the visual wow factor of major special effects films.  Plus, Pixar did it without a single character singing about their feelings.

Then Disney animation head, Jeffrey Katzenberg, left to co-start DreamWorks, which made an empire out of amazing computer generated images and more hip and ever-so-slightly naughty humor.  Pixar and DreamWorks began to flourish, while each Disney film seemed to make less and less money.

The first sign that Disney was questioning themselves came in 2000 when they released a major animated film in the middle of December (they normally opted for the high-profile months of June and November).  The film was "The Emperor's New Groove" and while it was a hit with the critics and had long legs at the box-office, it wasn't the event film on which Disney had built their reputation.  In fact, what was originally envisioned as an epic musical update on "The Prince and the Pauper" placed in South America became a non-musical (unless you count Kuzko's theme song) slapstick comedy that owed more to Bugs Bunny than to Belle and Ariel.

Disney continued to play catch up with Pixar and DreamWorks, trying adventure ("Atlantis: The Lost Empire"), sci-fi ("Treasure Planet"), and even sci-fi/comedy/Hawaiian (the delightful "Lilo and Stitch", which was the studios' biggest hit from this period), but the fact remained that they were floundering.  They fought to become like the other studios.  Fortunately, when John Lasseter, the head supah-genius at Pixar, became the new head of animation at Disney, he reminded them that they weren't like the other studios, nor should they be.  He brought back hand-drawn animation and the fairytale/musical style of story that Disney does like no one else.  First with "Princess and the Frog", then with the superior "Tangled", and now with "Frozen", which is a Disney fairytale unlike any they've done before, yet somehow distinctively, delightfully Disney.

Loosely based on the Hans Christian Anderson fairytale "The Snow Queen", "Frozen" tells the story of two sisters.  Elsa (Idina Menzel) is fiery and fun and was born with the power to create flurries of snow and ice. The younger sister, Anna (Kristen Bell) is a bundle of energy and loves spending time with her sister.  However, after an accident, Elsa avoids Anna, leaving their relationship strained and unresolved.  When the two are grown and Elsa is of age to become queen of the kingdom of Aradell, another incident occurs and Elsa flees the kingdom, unknowingly causing a constant state of winter on the kingdom.

To tell you more about the plot is to deprive you of the surprises, suffice to say that this story does a fantastic job of honoring the tradition of fairytales while subverting the cliches that are found in most of them.  There are genuine twists and turns that show that the filmmakers were committed to creating full-rounded characters that act on motivations more noble than finding someone cute to smooch.

The animation on display here is simply stunning.  There's a beautiful scene in "Tangled" when the aura of a flower sprouts out toward the screen.  "Frozen" is filled to the brim with scenes that install the same sense of wonder.  Ice and snow dance and flourish with a vitality and life I've never seen in a film before, made even more exciting by the filmmaker's exceptional use of 3D.  Most impressive is during the song "Let It Go" when Elsa creates her ice castle while fully unleashing her powers.  It's the strongest song in the film and combined with the breath-taking animation makes for a masterful center piece.  

Which leads me to the one draw back to the film.  The songs, written by the Broadway husband/wife team of Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez, are simply not as consistently good as previous Disney musicals.  Yes, "Let It Go" is a stunner, but that's as much to do with Idina Menzel's acrobatic vocals as it is with the song itself.  Other highlights include "In Summer", a delightful rumination on warmth from Olaf (Josh Gad), a snowman that doesn't know what happens to snow when it gets hot, and "Do You Want to Build a Snowman", a wistful tune that follows the girls from childhood to becoming young adults.  However, both of those songs beg to be longer.  "In Summer" could've greatly benefited from a little "Be Our Guest" style expansion, especially since it takes place in the imagination of a snowman.  There was so much that should have been done.  The rest of the song score is less memorable, replacing the complex wordplay of the Howard Ashman and Stephen Schwartz with songs that are clearly more interested in simple rhymes than wowing audiences.  In fact, a couple songs could've been taken out completely and not missed one iota.

However, in the long run, "the songs aren't as memorable" is a small complaint in a film that has so much to wonder and dazzle.  It's funny, it's engaging, it's beautiful, and, even if all the songs aren't equal to the task, at least "Let It Go" stands proudly with the best songs in the Disney animation canon.   As films targeted towards family become more and more inane (my wife and I groaned a lot during the previews before the film started), "Frozen" stands head and shoulders above the lot.  It's not only the best animated film of the year, but the most complex and engaging Disney film since their heyday in the 90's.

Grade: A

Movie Review: The Wolverine

"The Wolverine"/Rated PG-13/20th Century Fox/126 min./Dir. by James Mangold

Director James Mangold is a difficult talent to get a read on.  Of course, many directors love to genre hop, but Mangold has never even repeated genre.  He's done cop drama ("Cop Land"), western ("3:10 to Yuma"), horror ("Identity"), biopic ("Walk the Line"), action comedy ("Knight and Day"), and rom-com ("Kate and Leopold").  One thing that connects all of his films, however, is focus on character.  While he often shows a unique visual flair, it is clear that he's more interested in the motivations of his characters than he is in massive special effects.  That focus continues, for the most part, with his latest film "The Wolverine".

It's been a difficult cinematic life for Logan, a.k.a. Wolverine (Hugh Jackman).  Amnesia, manipulation, mutilation, forced servitude, and the tragic deaths of loved ones have all been a part of his experience. Chronologically, the last time we saw the character was in 2006's "X-Men: The Last Stand", when he was forced to stop his beloved Jean Gray (Famke Janssen) from destroying half of San Fransisco by ending her life.  As we meet up with him again, he's separated himself from the other X-Men, living as a recluse in the woods of Northern Canada.  Constantly haunted by nightmares of his lost love, he's angry and avoiding any situations that would require him to use his powers to hurt anyone.  However, he's brought out of hiding by a young Japanesse woman named Yukio (winningly played by Rila Fukushima) who, besides showing up to bust up a bar, is there on behalf of her employer, a man whose life was saved by Logan during WWII.  She says that her employer is dying and wanting to say good-bye to his old friend.  Of course, it's Wolverine, so it's bound to be a lot more than a simple meet and greet.

At this point, "The Wolverine" becomes a pretty traditional Samurai movie, which a powerful stranger coming into a volatile situation and becoming the self-appointed protector of innocence.  The plot is very deliberate about how much information it gives as it progresses, but it does a great job of leaving interesting little tidbits of mystery throughout.  However, it is the aforementioned dedication to character that makes it an enjoyable ride.  Logan's occasional conversations with Jean give real insight into how he has dealt with the tragedy of her death and, unlike his previous outing "X-Men Origins: Wolverine", it connects with the world of X-Men without feeling like a standard X-Men film (however, make sure you stay through the first part of the credits because it sets up the next X-Men movie in a big way).

It goes without saying that Hugh Jackman is the most energetic aspect of the film, because he usually is in any film in which he appears.  I can think of few other actors that throw themselves physically and emotionally into every role the way he does.  However, most of the rest of the cast does their share of heavy lifting, especially Fukushima and Tao Okamoto as a heroine equal parts grace and power.  Unfortunately, there is one character that is ridiculously mishandled.  I don't want to get into spoilery detail, but the character starts out laughably obvious and ends up in full-blown "Batman and Robin" ridiculousness.  Plus, there's really not a single plot point in which this character proves to be vital.  I would have found the film far more enjoyable had they been written out entirely.

Mangold handles the action sequences with the same deftness that he demonstrated in "3:10 to Yuma", with many breathtaking Samurai-style fights and a stunning set-piece set atop a bullet train going over 300 mph.  The stakes in these scenes are far higher than they've ever been in a Wolverine fight for reasons brought out throughout the film, suffice it to say that there's more a sense of concern than there was in the city shattering fight climax of "Man of Steel".

"The Wolverine" may not be the complete revitalization of the franchise that the studio was hoping for, but it's an expertly directed Samurai adventure that finally gives a little resolution and solace to one of the most tragic heroes in modern cinematic history.  Also, I meant it about the credits.  Don't leave.  You'll be sorry.  Bring on "X-Men: Days of Future Past"!

Grade: B

Movie Review: Turbo

Turbo / Rated PG / DreamWorks / 96 min. / Dir. by David Soren

Sometimes crafting the plot of a movie is a result of months, even years, of thoughtful, intricate planning. Sometimes it's a matter of building something around the toys you're hoping to sell (I'm looking at you "Cars 2").  Other times, it's a matter of simple addition.  For example:  "The Incredibles" + "Harry Potter" = "Sky High"  or "Transformers" + "Top Gun" = "Battleship".  Sometimes the addition works ("Sky High") and sometimes it doesn't ("Battleship").  Sometimes, the addition can be pretty ridiculous ("Jaws" + "Twister" =......nah, no one would try that).  In the case of DreamWorks' new film "Turbo" they've done some cinematic math that isn't an obvious fit, but on execution works just fine: "Cars" (itself a combination of NASCAR and "Doc Hollywood") + "Ratatouille" + "A Bug's Life".  As you watch the film, the plot points and emotional beats that are gently used hand-me-downs from these Pixar movies are pretty obvious, but they don't feel like blatant forgery as much as creative mathematics.

"Turbo" stars a garden snail named Theo (affably voiced by Ryan Reynolds).  Theo is a forward thinker in a garden filled with stay-the-course workers.  He doesn't understand why everybody around him moves so slow, a question that infuriates his older brother, Chet (voiced by the terrific Paul Giamatti), because the answer is so obvious:  they're snails.  They move slow because moving fast is a physical impossibility.  

Theo fuels his need for speed by gulping down energy drinks while watching high-octane car racing.  His favorite racer is Guy Gagne (Bill Hader), a Frenchman who can't help but evoke "Ratatouille's" Chef Gusteau when he spouts his catchphrase, "No dream is too big, no dreamer too small".  However, after a showdown with a lawn mower, Theo begins to wonder if his dreams really are too big.  

"Turbo" definitely embraces the higher level of reality suspension afforded animated films with its central plot conceit: after a late night encounter with a tank of nitro, Theo is transformed into a car that merely looks like a snail.  He has turn signals, his eyes are headlights, and he has an inner radio that is inexplicably drawn to rock anthems and hip-hop.  Of course, for him, the highlight of this transformation is he can now zoom around up to and over 200 mph, leaving a neon blue trail in his wake.

Along his journey he ends up in Radiator Springs, er, I mean Starlight Plaza, a run down strip mall consisting of a few dying businesses including a Taco stand run by two brothers, Tito (Michael Pena) and Angelo (Luiz Guzman).  Theo, who now prefers to be called Turbo, is determined to work with Tito to use his speed to help breathe life back into the strip mall and save the day.

As I previously mentioned, "Turbo" has one of the most derivative plots I've seen in a film in ages.  One can almost see the seam lines where sections were dropped in from other movies.  However, it's so good-natured and optimistic that it's easy to chuckle off the similarities and just move forward with the story. Sure, the central theme turns out to be the overused "just be yourself"  that seems to be the theme of one out of every three modern animated films, but it uses these familiar tropes in such a pleasant and genuinely uplifting way that one doesn't mind their familiarity.  

Like most DreamWorks' animated films, it has a stellar voice cast filled with A-list talent (in addition to the stars already mentioned, it includes Samuel L. Jackson, Snoop Dogg, Michelle Rodriguez, Maya Rudolph, and Ken Jeong)  However, unlike some of their films (such as "Shark Tale"), these voices are all perfectly suited to the characters,  with the one exception possibly being Jeong playing and elderly and highly stereotyped female Asian caricature, who is, thankfully, less prevalent in the film than the commercials have implied.

Technically, "Turbo" is a knock-out with every frame.  The characters, especially the snails, as fascinating to look at and the film's color scheme and visual sensibilities are pure eye candy.  I'm reminded of a recent article that I read that pondered why computer animated films are among the only "four quadrant" films (a "four quadrant" film is a movie that is equally appealing across age and gender lines).  It's these types of splendid visuals that, I believe, explain the extreme popularity of the art form.  Animated films have all the visual flair of a big-budget special effects movie, but are also more family-friendly, making the better computer animated films entertaining across generations.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying "Turbo" is among the best of its genre.  As I mentioned before, it's derivative and it never engages the viewer in the way that the best of animation does, but there was never a moment that I didn't enjoy on some level.  If you're on the line about choosing this for an outing with your family, my advice would be this:  If you can, it's a fun and pleasant way to beat the heat, but if you're watching your budget, it will be just as delightful on the small screen.

If you do choose to see "Turbo" in the theater, though, let me tell you that the 3D is not necessary.  There are three or four times during the movie that the images really pop off the screen, but for the most part it doesn't add a lot to the experience.

Overall grade: B+

Movie Review: Pacific Rim

Pacific Rim/Rated PG-13/Warner Bros./132 min./Dir. Guillermo Del Toro

Guillermo Del Toro has carved a unique place out for himself in the annuls of genre film.  With films like "Pan's Labyrinth" and the "Hellboy" films, he has shown a flare for highly poetic fantasies/fairy tales that veer jarringly, yet organically from light to dark and back again.  His films have a reputation for being praised by critics, worshiped by movie geeks, and utterly ignored by the general movie going public.  His newest film, "Pacific Rim", is for better or worse the least "Del Toro" feeling film on his filmography.  That doesn't mean that it's a bad film by any means.  While it lacks the visual poetry and the quirky atmosphere of his other films, it takes one of the most juvenile of sci-fi sub-genres, the giant robot destructopalooza, and injects it with a heaping helping of humanity.  No, the biggest surprise about "Pacific Rim" isn't its groundbreaking special effects, but that it's actually about people as opposed to hardware.

In a well paced prologue, we're told about a group of skyscraper-sized aliens called the Kaiju that have been waging a war against Earth after having coming through an inter-dimensional rift in the Pacific.  When it became clear that the monsters were not going to stop, the countries of the Earth put aside their differences, pooled their resources, and created the Jaeger program, which involves giant robots that are connected to the cerebral functions of their pilots.  At first, it seemed that the humans would fairly easily win this war, but the Kaiju kept coming, kept getting bigger, and started coming more often, which depleted the world's supply of Jaegers.  Now, as the Jaeger program faces discontinuation and the human race faces extinction, the final group of brave pilots come up with a final plan to stop the end of the world.

Contrary to what one would believe from the commercials, "Pacific Rim" is not a two hour Godzilla-type battle scene.  There are a few stunning action set pieces, but Del Toro spends the bulk of the time building back stories and character-based motivations that get us to root for the pilots, not the robots.  It also helps that he has assembled strong actors even in the lesser roles.  Granted, they're not required to do any Oscar-level emoting, but they all approach the film with commitment and sincerity, which is a huge ace up the movie's sleeve.  A sci-fi film with uncommitted or untalented actors will fail to engage the audience on an emotional level, regardless of how lavish the special effects.  For an example of this, just look at the "Transformers" movies.  In those films, the abilities of the actors were uneven, with some fully believable and others simply laughable, and not in a good way.  Here, however, the cast is all on equal footing, making it easy to buy into their characters and into the more implausible aspects of the plot.

Del Toro has never directed an event film of this magnitude before, but it's clear that he's been inspired by some of the best.  The film has the grit and militaristic flair of the best of James Cameron's sci-fi efforts without the occasional horrible writing (I love "Avatar", but I can't hear the word "unobtainium" without bursting into fits of giggling).    Also, while the plot sounds like Godzilla vs. Transformers, it actually feels like a much more thoughtful version of "Independence Day", displaying a similar humor (particularly in the form of Charlie Day, who between this and his role as the scene stealing Art from "Monsters University" has made the leap to big-budget movies with great success), and hitting similar emotional beats to the 1996 blockbuster.

Visually, the film is spectacular.  In fact, it's one of the rare live-action films where I think the 3D is worth the extra-money.  Del Toro shows an understanding of how to connect the technology with the story telling in such away that the 3D technology actually feels fundamental to his overall directorial vision.  "Hugo" and "Life of Pi" also did a wonderful job with the 3D format, but an action movie hasn't used the technique with this level of success since Cameron's "Avatar", which is especially impressive when you consider how many scenes take place in the bark and in the rain, both of which are notorious for minimizing the 3D effect.

On the negative side, "Pacific Rim" is, in what is becoming the standard for big-budget tentpole films, about 20 minutes too long and it occasionally goes for the obvious joke or plot development (it won't take you long to figure out which characters will be around in the final frames), but when compared to other films with similar plots, it's thoughtfully created into something resembling art.  How many times can you say that about a giant summer special-effects extravaganza?

The last word is that "Pacific Rim" is thoughtful, fun, and exciting.  It is also a little overlong and a little predictable for its own good.  Overall, though, it's an easy recommendation and I hope that it will be financially successful if only to encourage Hollywood to give their giant sci-fi films a head and a heart as well as a love of explosive special-effects.

Grade: B+

The Blind Passion of the Fanboy

Believe it or not, it took me a while to recognize the symptoms of Fanboydom in myself.  I've collected movie posters, "Art of" and "Making of" books, toys, and soundtracks since I was in middle school, but I didn't see myself as a mega-movie geek (the term Fanboy did not exist back then).  In college, I decorated my apartment with Disney movie posters and action figures of all kinds, from "Star Wars" to "Jurassic Park" to "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" (yes, I own a Quasimodo action figure).   

It was recently that I was faced with my own super-fandom in the form of setting up my office in our new home.  I decided I'd pull out all my memorabilia in a fantasmagoric explosion of coolness.   So, I start pulling out the boxes.  And more boxes.  And more boxes.  I soon realized that over the course of 40 years I had collected enough stuff to decorate an entire megaplex movie theater rather than a small-sized home office/recording studio.  So, I've had to choose which posters and toys to keep out for display.  I think it was about the time that I took this picture.....

....that I realized I was a fanboy.  Not just because I owned all of these very disparate toys, but because of the perverse glee I got at combining them.  The idea of Superman in a battle with Marvin the Martian while riding a velociraptor is just waaaay to joyful to me.  In fact, right now, this epic battle is being observed by a little yellow minion, Pluto, and Crow T. Robot and Tom Servo from MST3K.  Yes, I fully own up to my movie nerd tendencies. 

However, there is one critical area in which I tend to differ from others of my ilk....blind passion.  Not to say that I don't at all suffer from this condition, but I would like to think that I'm more aware of when this passion is effecting my objectivity.  You see, this blind passion tends to cause a difficulty in objectively judging the quality of films, specifically of genre franchise films.  If a fanboy has been anticipating a  new chapter in a favorite franchise, expectations grow and grow, often to the point where a mere movie could not possibly live up.

The most notorious example is "Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace."  No, I'm not going to argue that TPM is a great movie, or even an above average one.  The dialogue is pedestrian at best and the performances feel universally held back, as if the actors were directed to not emote (I could almost picture George Lucas yelling "Natalie!  Everytime you emote, attention is taken from Jar Jar!").  

However, I am going to say that it's still a victim of F.A.S. (Fanboy Anticipation Syndrome).  A 16 year span between films had made the original trilogy, especially "Star Wars" and "Return of the Jedi", take on a reputation of perfection that was quite exaggerated.  After recently revisiting the original trilogy, it was clear that, while Uncle George was a genius at inventing new worlds and characters, he was not the best at dialogue and, being the sole screenwriter of Episode I, he was clearly going to bring this flaw to the prequels as well.  

The prequels did, however, manage to build a genuine sense of dread and they were, each and every one, triumphs of special effects, creative designs, and fantastic set pieces.  Not perfect, but not horrible either, but "not horrible" is not enough to overcome almost two decades of expectation.  There wasn't a child that grew up with the originals that didn't wonder how Darth Vader became Darth Vader.  The fact is, even if TPM had been perfect, it would still have been likely to be viewed as a disappointment.

I believe that the most maligned film to suffer from F.A.S. was "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull."  Sure, the CGI monkeys were awful and belief is called upon to be suspended on multiple occasions, but the same could be said of the original sequels (I don't include "Raiders of the Lost Ark" in this comparison, because it is pretty close to being a perfect film).  There were moments of weak special effects in those sequels and the character of Willie Scott from the 2nd film is 50 times more annoying than anything in KotCS.  Plus, the argument that the sci-fi elements found in the film's ending weren't faithful to the spirit of Indiana Jones doesn't hold water because Indiana Jones is inspired by the action/adventure serials of the 50's, which often incorporated similar elements in their plotlines.  If anything, it was highly faithful to the source material.

I think the problem comes down to this:  When you're passionate about something and you put it on a pedestal, any level of disappointment seems devastating, but it's important to remember that that disappointment is not as much a commentary on the quality of a film, but on the level of expectation associated with it.  These films, as well as reviled sequels such as "Spider-Man 3" (too many villains), "X-Men: The Last Stand" (too many deaths), "Shrek the Third" (too few laughs), or "Cars 2" (more disappointing when compared the whole of Pixar films rather than the original "Cars"), are remembered as being among the worst films ever made, but they weren't.  They were just disappointing.  Recently, I heard a film critic refer to "Cars 2" as the only Pixar film universally considered bad by critics.  Really?  According to Metacritic.com  (http://www.metacritic.com/movie/cars-2)  there were only four out of 38 reviews from top critics that were negative.  In fact, there were more positive reviews than there were mixed.  However, "Cars 2" is remembered as truly awful because it was the least sparkling film in Pixar's crown.  

F.A.S. can lead to misinterpretations to the positive as well.  I was recently called out by a reader for saying that last year's delightful "Brave" was a bad movie.  I never said that (here's the original review for reference ).  I said it was disappointing when one considers how great it could have been.  I gave the film a "B+" grade.  As a school teacher, I can assure you that a B+ does not indicate horrible work.  Possibly slightly below the capability of an exceptional student, and that was what "Brave" was for me: slightly below the capability of the most creatively electric film studio around.

None of the films I've mentioned actually received mostly bad reviews.  Most of them received largely mixed reviews, aside from Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, which actually received mostly positive reviews. 

So, it is with a sense of professional integrity that I promise I will try not to let my status as a self-proclaimed Fanboy lead me to bouts of F.A.S., neither positively or negatively.  Plus, I'll try to post picture of my new nerd lair (a.k.a. home office)  once it's done.  :)