Deus Ex Machina

Today is Domhnall Gleeson’s birthday. If you have no idea who I’m talking about, he is a typical red-haired Irishman. You probably know him as Nazi-wannabe villain in Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens, or from his role as the leader of Leo and Tom’s group in The Revenant. Heck, you may even know that he played one of the many Weasleys in Harry Potter. But for tonight, we look at his starring role in the super slick and smart sci-fi gem Ex Machina.

            This film was the directorial debut for Alex Garland who garnered attention for writing 28 Days Later and Sunshine (and even Dredd). The movie really didn’t get much love at the box office (unlike that fast-movie car franchise), but it rightfully received some Golden Globe nominations for the acting. Even more impressively, it beat out films like Star Wars, The Revenant, and Mad Max for the Oscar for best visual effects. When you look at the aforementioned movies and see their 100 + million dollar budgets, it only makes it all the more impressive that Ex Machina won on a budget of 15 mil.

            All this talk about the awards and talented film crew is fine, but what really matters is what happens when you sit down (you can stand or squat if you want, I’ll only slightly judge you) and actually watch the film.

            This film is 1 hour 57 minutes long. Why should you care? Well, if writer/director Garland wanted to provide crummy backstory and exposition at the beginning, he very well could have. Lucky for us, this man understands story structure and character arcs, and this understanding is why this movie is under 2 hours. So what is the story? Gleeson plays Caleb, a young programmer chosen to visit the remote house of the company’s CEO Nathan (this takes up probably the first 2 minutes—keeps the pace going, the mystery of the story intact, and the ability to fully develop the characters through their actions in the film itself). Nathan, played by Oscar Isaac who was with Gleeson in Star Wars playing Poe (and he’s been in numerous other hits), introduces Caleb to Ava. Ava is a female AI, and Nathan wants to see if she could pass the Turing test, using Caleb as the human element. Very briefly, this test basically has a human interacting with a cyborg/AI/robot. If the human can’t tell that the person they’re talking to isn’t actually human, then the AI passed the test.

            The film essentially consists of 2 elements: Caleb and Nathan’s interactions, and Caleb and Ava’s interactions. Nathan is a peculiar, eccentric genius with a love of women and alcohol, and Caleb is much more innocent and reserved. The scenes with Caleb and Nathan function in many ways; for example, the slightest of foreshadowing is given through their allusions to classic mythology, literature, and philosophy. Also, the talks switch between being inside and out. And both the technologically enhanced house (unlike some sci-fi films, all the futuristic stuff is logically placed and actually is put to practical use) and the isolated surroundings are beautiful in stark, contrasting ways. The house has the slick, clean white look with vibrant, almost neon red and blue lights used throughout; and the world outside takes us away from any claustrophobia and allows the audience to relax in the lush greens, the flowing streams, and the warming sunlight. And in case you started getting lost in all of my explanations, above all, Caleb and Nathan’s conversations are fun, well-written, and smart.

            When the 2 boys of the house are done talking, it’s time to get down to business. Alicia Vikander plays Ava, and her performance is breath-taking. As much as I enjoy Scarlett Johansson, as far as anything related to cyborgs are concerned, Vikander’s performance takes the artificial cake. Caleb and Ava’s sessions start off basic, but as the questions become more relevant, layers upon layers are pulled back—both on an intellectual level and an emotional one. Does Ava’s responses constitute as her consciousness replying? Sorry, ya spoilbrats, you’ll have to watch the film for that answer. And it’s an answer well worth watching for.

            The visuals are outstanding, the acting is superb, and the story structure is brilliant. It all adds up to one of the smarter and better films you watch with an ending that will probably surprise you (for better or worse). Heck, nerdy little me even applauds this movie's sound mixing. Seriously, pay attention any time Ava moves her body-- that noise alone is synthetic supremeness. We’ve seen the dumbed down side of robotics in I, Robot, and we’ve seen cyborgs integrated well in the Alien franchise. What we get in Ex Machina is the cyborg we didn’t know we needed. It’s simply an engaging and interesting movie in general, and for one that flew past the radar of nearly everyone in its theatrical release, it’s high quality stuff. Check it out. And then check out the other films I mentioned in this review. I named a whole bunch of great films. Except that stupid franchise that has Vin Diesel saying “I don’t have friends… I’ve got… family.” Take my advice, Vin. Stick to lines like “Superman” and “I am Groot.”

Cloverfield and its Sorta Kinda Not Really Sequel

Following the release of The Blair Witch Product, there was a brief lifespan where found footage films were new and hip. This technique takes the perspective of a character of the film deciding to film everything going on, and it’s through this lens that the audience sees. This is the style of Cloverfield—it’s horror like the low-budget witch hunt film above, but this is all about normal young adults living in New York that get caught up in an attack from a giant monster thing.

            If you’re sitting there thinking that a blend of found footage and giant monster flick sounds like something that belongs on the SyFy channel, don’t discredit it immediately. Using both the strength of a strong marketing campaign before the release of the film and the fact that J. J. Abrams was a producer, this movie gained traction.

            Besides being found footage, the film is known for one other interesting aspect. The plot revolves around an attack from a giant monster, and you get glimpses throughout the film, but you don’t get a good look at it. And this is by design to keep the audience grounded in the characters’ perspectives. Basically, a lot of the film rides on it being found footage. So does it work? Well, I will say that there’s a bunch of running around that causes shaky camerawork to a nauseating effect. And I’m sure just with that witch in the forest film, the handheld cam is supposed to entice more suspense and horror from the film. There’s a couple moments from the film where I thought to myself “Huh, that’s pretty cool.”… But that’s it. There’s a scene in a subway tunnel obviously meant to be scary, but I really don’t think the movie was scary.

            Ultimately, it’s a monster flick with boring characters trying to upgrade itself with a fad. I guess I enjoyed watching the movie, but it held no impact on me otherwise. Well, that’s not totally true because the ending is the most preventable ending I have ever seen. You know what’s going to happen a minute (this is actually a long time when you know what I'm talking about) before it actually happens, and it makes you realize how dumb either the characters were or the screenwriters were because they needed more tension at the end. It’s stupid and dumb and I don’t like it.

            In the words of J. J. Abrams, let’ move on to the blood relative movie! Let’s move on to the movie that wasn’t even written in the same universe until Abrams’ production company bought it and reworked like probably a page worth of material to make it tie in to Cloverfield! That’s right. I’m talking about 10 Cloverfield Lane. After a car accident near Lake Charles I think, Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is “rescued” by Howard (John Goodman) and taken to his bunker next to his farmhouse where she also meets Emmett (John Gallagher, Jr.) who had a track scholarship to Louisiana Tech but decided not to go because he thought he was too dumb. Which he really probably is. The bunker they’re in is fully equipped and prepared for an apocalyptic situation that Michelle is skeptical about but Howard is adamant towards; it’s a good thing it’s well equipped, too, because we spend the majority of this film in this bunker listening to Howard’s eclectic taste in music and watching fictional films like Cannibal Airlines.

            Just to be clear, this film doesn’t use the found footage format. And that’s a good thing for this film. But the camerawork is not what I’m concerned with here. I always talk about story and characters, but this film has a unique situation on how these 2 critical elements are intertwined with each other and the success and failure of each.

            I wouldn’t say the characters are boring like they are from the previous film. You get your surface characters and they each tell stories designed to make you care about them more later in the film and whatnot. They aren’t poorly written, but I didn’t fall in love with anyone—but character arcs are so critical in a confined movie like this with 3 principal characters. Never really cared about Michelle—I always found her rash and quick to jump to conclusions. Emmett tries to bring humor, and I laughed on occasion, but he is a bit more of a filler character. The interesting one is Howard. John Goodman is downright incredible. He’s supposed to be a character that wavers between moral father figure and possible pervert kidnapper. And I’ll explain some of the problems with this from the story perspective in just a bit, but the characterization itself by Goodman is scene-stealing.

            I have multiple problems with the story, so let’s see how much I can get out. This movie doesn’t know what it wants to be. It hints at a drama focused on the characters, but then it’s like the movie thinks to itself, “Wait a minute, I’m supposed to be a horror film!” and then makes characters think or act irrationally. Like when we first meet Howard, he is this mysterious character that doesn’t explain anything and only leaves a plate of food while Michelle is tied up to her mattress, so this makes her jump to the conclusion that he kidnapped her. I swear in the first 20 minutes Michelle stabs Howard and hits him over the head with a bottle; the very following scenes to both of these incidents is Howard explaining his backstory which provides rationale as to the way he acted. It’s plot convenience for the sake of unnecessary tension, and I will have none of it!

            But the plot convenience is not the biggest insult this movie makes. That would be relating itself to Cloverfield. So much of this move depends on Michelle believing that the air outside will kill her just because Howard said so. That’s an interesting idea that could make any plot reveal interesting if it weren’t for the fact that anyone who knows anything about the previous film will know exactly what the situation is exactly like. This also means that we know the inevitable. What I mean by this—and if you consider this a spoiler, then you don’t watch movies enough and probably won’t ever see this film anyways—is that we’re going to see the outside at some point and there’s going to be monsters. That only leaves the question throughout the film of how we end up outside. And that’s a much less interesting question when the best character is the sort of antagonist.

            Probably the biggest similarity between these 2 films is the fact that I didn’t like the endings. You can give me somewhat valid reasons for the monsters in 10 Cloverfield Lane, but I still see a huge disconnect between those things and the giant creature from the first film. And I just think the ending is stupid. If you want me to give a spoiler reason why, feel free to ask me about it. Because it’s also stupid and dumb. Not as atrocious as the garbage ending from the first film, but still pretty offensive.

The story creates innate flaws within Goodman’s character, but he is talented enough to overcome these to give a still excellent performance. Oh, and this is the first film directed by Dan Trachtenberg. For a first outing, I’d say he gives pretty strong directing, and that’s no small feat with a film like this. If you’re still curious about these 2 films, I have 2 recommendations. If you’re bored one night, at the very least you can call these films somewhat enjoyable. Or if you are simply curious at the outcome of both films, look up a quick summary. That might bring as much joy as actually watching the films. 

Ghost in the Shell

If I were to summarize my opinion of this movie to a hypothetical audience, I’d tell them that Ghost in the Shell essentially has 3 acts: a promising start, a flat middle act, and then a somewhat redemptive final act. If you’ve read any other reviews for this film, you know that the critics would flip flop what I said about the second and third acts. And critics are idiots, so that’s why I’m here.

*Before I go any further, I need to put in this sidenote. I won’t be addressing the controversy of this film about whitewashing for 3 reasons. 1) It’s a claim made my idiots that made up their minds about the film well before it ever reached theaters. B) It’s actually a really easy claim to refute and prove wrong. And 4) I’m simply here to discuss the merits of this film and give my recommendation on whether you should watch it or not or hopefully provide a different way of seeing the movie if you already watched it.*

            As I said from the beginning, this movie has a strong start. There’s a bit of reading at the beginning to introduce cybernetics—basically telling you to be prepared for cyborgs; after that, however, it jumps right into this futuristic world without trying to explain things too much. It wants the audience to accept what’s happening and learn as the movie goes along. It’s a smart approach that really elevates this film. What obviously also stands out are the visuals. But it’s not just that you get a shot of the futuristic Japan and all the digital billboards and upgraded technologies that gives this movie its impressive visuals, it’s the fact that they make sense. When Section 9 (all you really need to know is that Scarlett Johansson is a really powerful cyborg with a human brain and she’s working for a company that built her, and her and her coworkers are part of Section 9) analyzes a crime scene using virtual red laser technology, it feels like an approach that is both convenient and useful—something that isn’t always seen by the overuse of holograms in other films. Throughout the movie, ScarJo experiences what are called glitches when going through the real world because it’s like repressed memories from her life as a human coming to the forefront. I’ll discuss the merits of the plot later, but I added it in here because the glitches are a clever way to have shots of the real world and incorporate visuals directly into it, and they are one of the more intriguing mysteries of the film.

            The biggest issue of Ghost in the Shell is how one-note it gets. The digitalness of everything is really cool at first, but it loses a little appeal after awhile. What ends up being criminal in this film is the score and background noise. It’s the same droning sound the entire time, and it takes its toll on you. And in the middle is where a lot of exposition is given with a “twist” as to whom the actual villain is. The thing about it is that lots of the characters are essentially cyborgs, so there isn’t a whole lot of inflection in their voices. When you pair cyborg voices with the annoying score, it creates a muddled middle where you should paying the most attention but instead are at your most distracted.

            The third act is able to pick itself back up a bit. I’ll talk about movie comparisons later, but this is really where the movie tries to find its most humanity and philosophy. Although it doesn’t stand up to the deep thinking of other films, it’s still more refreshing from all the exposition and subpar story development from the middle act. Oh, and don’t expect the most tension or action from the climax; the action is there, but it’s just a by-the-numbers climax scene.

            Inevitably, this film is going to draw comparisons to Blade Runner—emphasis is on the humanity behind the cyborgs and not the action itself. The difference is that while Blade Runner cleverly toys with morality and what it means to be human; Ghost in the Shell feels more like an empty shell than anything else. The ideas are presented, but it gets lost through the high budget effects. There’s nothing wrong with having a large budget, but if characters aren’t properly developed, it nulls any meaning. This issue is more apparent in this film due to the poor writing. In particular, a couple one-liners are thrown around that are groan worthy ("I wasn't built to dance!"). Overall, the ScarJo main character Major is fine, and I have no issue with her human’s background story that is gradually revealed; my problem comes with both the supposed and actual villain. Neither of these characters are well-written, and they both have motivations and arcs anybody who has seen a movie can guess right from the start. The worst offense Ghost in the Shell makes is one that will probably be overlooked by most.  It succeeds on many levels of creating an interesting world; however, this world is populated by dull characters. There isn’t a distinction made on why we should pay attention to who is a cyborg, who has cybernetics, and who is purely human. It doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things, so why should we care? And the answer is that we don’t really care, and we won’t be very compelled to hold any discussion of this film after watching it. This movie isn’t a bad watch—in fact I kinda liked it—but there are so many obvious mistakes that could’ve easily been fixed that makes me upset by the final product. Oh, and to end on a properly irrelevant matter, if you’re like me (which you most likely aren’t), then you would’ve noticed that the Asian guy from The Dark Knight that’s all like “As I said, I’m good with numbers” makes an appearance in this film. 

Give Twilight Another Chance

Having never read the books, I’ve always found it easier to be a fan of this series. What truly works for this film is the acting. Seriously, hear me out. Yes, I admit, you can get more emotions out of emojis, but there’s something about the subtlety in the facial expressions. It gets to the point where you’re on the edge of your seat in anticipation of the next time you might see a hint that Edward’s face will give a twitch.

            I guess you could call me a mix of a traditionalist and an innovator. So if you’re going to give me vampires, you better respect their origins while updating them to keep things fresh. Which is exactly what Twilight does! Never before have I been so enthralled by such a twist that has vampires sparkle in sunlight.

            Now if you’re like me, you’re a bit bored of Twilight already. So let’s take a break and talk about something more interesting. Baseball season starts in just a couple days! I think I’ll take this time to help people out by giving pro tips on how to swing a bat at a baseball. The most important aspect isn’t the swing itself; rather, it’s the approach to the plate. You gotta have the right walk-up song, so here are a couple of my top picks: “Stuck in the Middle With You,” “Tik Tok,” “Pumped Up Kicks,” “Can’t Stop the Feeling,” “Yesterday,” “Theme from Schindler’s List,” “Strangers in the Night,” and my personal favorite “La Marseillaise.” Before stepping into the batter’s box, retighten your batting gloves, spit into your right hand, then left hand (order is very important), and rub them together. Kick the bat with your toes, step into the box, and touch the plate with your bat. Now that you’re all set to hit a 3 pointer, let’s go over the basics of the swing. If you’re a righty, right hand goes on bottom with left hand over it. If you’re a leftie, it doesn’t matter because you’re striking out. Now if you can imagine a lumberjack chopping wood, it’s the exact same swinging motion. I think you’re good to go!

            Anyways, Twilight stars Jennifer Lawrence as Tris and the entire cast of Glee for the supporting roles. In a shocking and controversial move, the studio didn’t hire a director because they had complete faith in the cast to give it their all. Rumor has it that due to budget cuts, one-third of the film was shot on the iPhone 4. Definitely a bold strategy, Cotton.

            The film was almost completed in post-production, but due to unforeseen circumstances, the editor had a heart attack and died. The scenes he wasn’t able to cut made it to the final film, drawing praise for the avante-garde plot structure. After the red carpet premiere, Taylor Lautner’s mom herself gave the film a raving 3 ½ stars, stating, “Obviously, this movie is groundbreaking. I would have given it 4 stars, but like I always tell my son, there’s always room for improvement.” Reportedly, after hearing this review, Taylor Lautner went back to gym to hit the shake weights—convinced the half-star loss was due to his underwhelming physique.

            If you’re looking for a jolly good time, going to see a movie is the perfect way to do so. I’m not saying this movie needs to be Twilight, but if it is, watching at 9:30 p.m.  on a Saturday night by yourself cuddled in a snuggie is definitely the ideal way to maximize viewing pleasure.

The Ides of March

It’s that time of year again. That’s right, today is the day you can stab your Caesar salad with a fork and not feel guilty about it. It’s also the name of the movie George Clooney wrote, directed, and acted in. It’s based off the off-Broadway Farragut North. You may have known that it stars Ryan Gosling, but you might not have known that it was originally set to star Leo Dicaprio; he dropped out, but he remained on as executive producer.

            What seems to be one of the most relevant questions of today is would you take Ryan Reynolds or Ryan Gosling? Especially after Deadpool most say Reynolds in a heartbeat. Personally, I’ve been more of a fan of Gosling ever since Drive. So I was excited about this movie. I also remembered that it would have Philip Seymour Hoffman (who I will abbreviate as PSH) which can only ever be a benefit, and the film was rounded out by the likes of Jeffrey Wright and Paul Giamatti. Right off the back this movie is built to be a dramatic powerhouse aiming at the Oscars.

            Ryan Gosling plays Stephen, a man just under the campaign manager (PSH) for George Clooney’s democratic campaign in the primaries; the political aspect focuses on needing the delegates from Ohio’s primary as the ticket to the White House. Giamatti comes in as the rival campaign manager, and Wright is a representative who has dropped out but has plenty of delegates and support to give to the candidate that promises him a cabinet post. All of this is good, smart stuff that is just asking to have a plot twist happen somewhere. You can just feel that there’s going to be some kind of punch that drives the film through.

            But it totally falls flat. Gosling plays an optimistic staff worker who sees the best in his candidate, but as the movie goes on, he starts seeing the darker side of politics. This eventual darker turn is supposed to work well; however, without giving away any spoilers, the movie has a plot twist about an hour in and sticks with it through the remainder of the film. The problem is how basic the twist is. It feels like such a cop out. There’s a bunch of political intrigue to dive into, but instead the movie takes a clichéd personal route where the characters all relate to each other in some “meaningful” way to tie it all up. And it’s just lame. It’s formulaic, and anyone who watches movies will be neither surprised nor interested in the plot twist.

            Okay, so the story and intensity let me down. “How about the acting?” you may ask. Well, good question, devoted readers. Overall, Gosling’s character is pretty simple. It doesn’t call for him to really do much besides be charismatic in the first half and darker in the second. It’s a good performance, but there isn’t much depth. Clooney limits his own screen time to focus on the directing, but what we do see of his character is pretty interesting. Again, the twist is lame, but that doesn’t take away from his performance. Giamatti and Wright are always strong supporting characters. The real hero is PSH. I swear, this late actor was the actor of our generation. He has a very distinguished style in his acting, but every single character he has in every movie he does he makes his own. They’re all different, interesting, and scene-stealing.  It seriously hurts knowing that he died well before his time was due, but every movie I’ve watched with him is only ever elevated by his performance. The same goes for this movie. He may not carry the same kind of gravitas you see with A list actors, but the subtlety in his expressions and vocals is some of the greatest work I have ever seen. This by far isn't his best film, but it still brings me so much join watching PSH do his work.

            Honestly, I’d say stay away from this film. It’s not a drama that will bore you by any means, but it won’t have any effect on you at all. Except maybe that there’s dirt in every profession, there isn’t really a message to take away, and there was zero intensity necessary to make a true drama work. And it all stems from the plot twist an hour into the film. It’s a shame to see a mistake like that basically ruin a decent film. I knew I should’ve watched Beauty and the Beast instead of this film…

Wick, John

January was a rather slow month for movies. Nevertheless, yesterday marked the release of John Wick Chapter 2, The Lego Batman Movie, and all the shades of everyone’s favorite color. So tonight we take a look at John Wick, the surprising hit of an action flick from a couple years ago.

            Keanu Reeves will always be known for The Matrix, and this movie reunites him with his stunt double from those films who takes a shot in the director's chair. The film basically has 2 directors (and one is scheduled to direct Deadpool 2 so there’s that), and since both come from a background of doing stunts from dozens of your favorite action movies, this film gets boiled down to its essence. They aren’t going to try wowing you with a special plot; no, they’re going to deliver high-octane action. And really it’s quite successful.

            Keanu did some major training for the highly choreographed scenes and performs most of his own stunts, and the result pays off. Expect a high body count, and expect many of them to have some really cool kill shots. This film knows its goal is to entertain with cool, quick action, and that’s exactly what it does.

            I will say, however, one of the best and worst parts comes from the beginning. The film honestly almost takes an Up approach of giving the audience all the exposition it needs in a small time without much dialogue at all. And I love that. But it—along with just a few action moments—gets heavy-handed. Like at one point Keanu is grabbing all his guns and gearing up, and the movie blares a rocking song about guns and killing and it feels a bit too obvious.

            I wasn’t going to talk about the plot because, well, who cares for this film, but it leads to my other critique. The film gets a nice supporting role from Willem Dafoe and gives way too little screen time to John Leguizamo, but the plot gets going after a mob boss’s son steals from John Wick and leaves him for dead. This son, Iosef, is annoyingly stereotypical. He’s brash, arrogant, and above all else, completely inept. He fits the bill of all the stereotypes, and it just makes you wonder how long it will take John Keanu Reeves Wick to hunt him down.

            It’s been awhile since an action film has had this much style to it. It overcomes typical shortcomings by thoroughly delivering in well-executed action scenes. And it really makes me want to go to the theaters and watch the sequel. If you do go to the movies, just please don’t see the darker shades of grey. Like why would you do that to yourself?

Forget it, Jacob. It's Chinatown.

I was trying to find an excuse to review this movie, and the Chinese New Year is close enough for me. What we have here today is truly a powerhouse of a film. Chinatown is a drama about a private investigator Jake (Jack Nicholson) who gets hired by a Mrs. Evelyn Mulwray (Faye Dunaway) because she believes her husband is having an affair. Jake quickly gets to work, but when Mr. Mulwray turns up dead and Evelyn not possibly actually being Evelyn, the movie starts messing with you in the best possible way.

            Before I discuss anything further, I have to talk about the script. It’s truly amazing just how good the writing is. It kills me not to discuss any spoilers, and I won’t, but you learn just the right amount of details from every scene as the depth to the complexity of the story and the characters slowly unwinds in metaphorical wonder. If there aren’t classes that already do this, then scriptwriting classes should always point to this movie when discussing how to essentially write a perfect script. No joke, as experienced of a writer I am, this script is almost as well-written as these reviews.

            Anyways, Roman Polanski directs this film, and one of his most notable contributions is the tone. The dude had a rough past, especially with where they shot the film, and admittedly this is a formula that does not equal out to a rainbow and smiles kind of movie. And this has got to be the most normal character Jack Nicholson has ever played, and the best thing to say is that it’s just a joy to watch an actor take the protagonist and make it his own. The supporting cast shines—I shouldn’t even have to say it, but this obviously includes the brilliantly complex performance from Faye Dunaway.

            Obviously, the most famous line is the one I reference in the title; however, that’s not actually my favorite line of the film. What’s so much fun is that I actually can’t tell you what it is because it’d be too much of a spoiler, so all I will say is that the line is a big reveal I did not by any means expect in the latter half of the movie. It’s some deep subject matter, and I say with a smirk that you have to watch the film to understand what I’m talking about.

            I understand that some movies I review and recommend will not exactly put you in a good mood after watching them… And yeah, this movie isn’t different. But if you’re prepared for a slow-burner that will shock and entertain you (but not put a smile on your face), then watch Chinatown. Well, that’s all from me. Now that you’ve read this review, go out and celebrate with your roosters.