Film Review: Avengers: Endgame (dir by the Russo Brothers)

Posted on April 30, 2019 by Lisa Marie Bowman

(Minor Spoilers Below! Read at your own risk.)

So, how long does the no spoiler rule for Avengers: Endgame apply? There’s so much that I want to say about this film but I know that I shouldn’t because, even though it had a monstrous opening weekend, there are still people out there who have not had a chance to see the film. And while this review will have minor spoilers because, otherwise, it would be impossible to write, I’m not going to share any of the major twists or turns.

I will say this. I saw Avengers: Endgame last night and it left me exhausted, angry, sad, exhilarated, and entertained. It’s a gigantic film, with a plot that’s as messy and incident-filled as the cinematic universe in which it takes place. More than just being a sequel or just the latest installment in one of the biggest franchises in cinematic history, Avengers: Endgame is a monument to the limitless depths of the human imagination. It’s a pop cultural masterpiece, one that will make you laugh and make you cheer and, in the end, make you cry. It’s a comic book film with unexpected emotional depth and an ending that will bring a tear to the eye of even the toughest cynic. By all logic, Avengers: Endgame is the type of film that should collapse under its own weight but instead, it’s a film that thrives on its own epic scope. It’s a three-hour film that’s never less than enthralling. Even more importantly, it’s a gift to all of us who have spent the last ten years exploring the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

The film itself starts almost immediately after the “Snap” that ended Avengers: Infinity War and we watch as Clint Barton (Jeremy Renner, returning to the franchise after being absent in the previous film) finds himself powerless to keep his family from disintegrating. After often being dismissed as the Avengers’s weak link, both Clint Barton and Jeremy Renner come into their own in the film. As one of two members of the Avengers who does not have super powers, Clint serves as a everyperson character. He’s a reminder that there’s more at stake in Endgame than just the wounded pride of a few super heroes. When Thanos wiped out half the universe, he didn’t just wipe out Spider-Man, Doctor Strange, and Groot. He also left very real wounds that will never be healed.

When the film jumps forward by five yeas, we discover that the world is now a much darker place. When we see New York, the once vibrant city is now gray and deserted. Our surviving heroes have all dealt with the Snap in their own way. Clint is now a vigilante, killing anyone who he feels should have been wiped out by Thanos but wasn’t. Thor (Chris Hemsworth) drinks and eats and feels sorry for himself. Captain America (Chris Evans) attends support groups and, in one nicely done scene, listens as a man talks about his fear of entering into his first real relationship in the years since “the Snap.” Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) is living as a recluse and is still blaming himself. Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) is now an avuncular, huge, and very green scientist. Only Natasha (Scarlett Johansson) remains convinced that the Snap can somehow be undone. She’s right, of course. But doing so will involve some unexpected sacrifices and a lot of time travel….

And that’s as much as I can tell you, other than to say that the film takes full advantage of both the time travel aspects (yes, there are plenty of Back to the Future jokes) and its high-powered cast. With our heroes — which, along with the usual Avengers, also include Ant-Man (Paul Rudd) and Rocket Racoon (Bradley Cooper) — hopping through time and space, we get a chance to revisit several of the films that led up to Endgame and it’s a thousand times more effective than it has any right to be. Yes, one could argue that the cameos from Robert Redford, Tom Hiddleston, Hayley Atwell, and others were essentially fan service but so what? The fans have certainly earned it and the MCU has earned the chance to take a look back at what it once was and what it has since become.

Indeed, Avengers: Endgame would not work as well as it does if it hadn’t been preceded by 21 entertaining and memorable movies. It’s not just that the MCU feels like a universe that it as alive as our own, one that is full of wonder, mystery, sadness, and love. It’s also that we’ve spent ten years getting to know these characters and, as a result, many of them are much more than just “super heroes” to us. When Tony Stark and Captain America argue over whether it’s even worth trying to undo the Snap, it’s an effective scene because we know the long and complicated history of their relationship. When the Avengers mourn, we mourn with them because we know their pain. We’ve shared their triumphs and their failures. Tony Stark may be a guy in an iron suit but he’s also a man struggling with his own demons and guilt. Steve Rogers may be a nearly 100 year-old super solider but he’s also every single person who has struggled to make the world a better place. As strange as it may be to say about characters known as Iron Man, Captain America, and the Black Widow, we feel like we know each and every one of them. We care about them.

Needless to say, the cast is huge and one of the great things about the film is that previously underused or underestimated performers — like Jeremy Renner, Scarlett Johansson, Paul Rudd, Don Cheadle, and Karen Gillan — all finally get a chance to shine. As always, the heart of the film belongs to Chris Evans while Robert Downey, Jr. provides just enough cynicism to keep things from getting to superficially idealistic. Chris Hemsworth and Mark Ruffalo get most of the film’s big laughs, each playing their borderline ludicrous characters with just the right combination of sincerity and humor. Of course, Josh Brolin is back as well and he’s still perfectly evil and arrogant as Thanos. But whereas Thanos was the focus of Infinity War, Endgame focuses on the heroes. If Infinity War acknowledged that evil can triumph, Endgame celebrates the fact that good never surrenders.

As Endgame came to an end, I did find myself wondering what the future is going to hold for the MCU. A part of me wonders how they’re going to top the past ten years or if it’s even possible to do so. Several mainstays of the MCU say goodbye during Endgame and it’s hard to imagine the future films without their presence. It’s been hinted that Captain Marvel is going to be one of the characters holding the next phase of the MCU together and, fortunately, Brie Larson is a quite a bit better in Endgame than she was in her previous MCU film. Hopefully, regardless of what happens in the future, Marvel and Disney will continue to entrust their characters to good directors, like the Russo Brothers, James Gunn, and Taika Waititi. (Wisely, Disney reversed themselves and rehired James Gunn for the next Guardians of the Galaxy film. Of course, Gunn never should have been fired in the first place….)

And that’s really all I can say about Avengers: Endgame right now, other than to recommend that you see it. In fact, everyone in the world needs to hurry up and see it so we can finally start talking about the film without having to post spoiler warnings!

For now, I’ll just say that Avengers: Endgame is a powerful, emotional, and entertaining conclusion to one of the greatest cinematic sagas ever.

Playing Catch-Up With The Films of 2017: Churchill (dir by Jonathan Teplitzky)

Posted on December 25, 2017 by Lisa Marie Bowman

2017 is shaping up to be the year of films about Winston Churchill.

For instance, Dunkirk has been an Oscar front-runner ever since it was released last summer. Winston Churchill does not actually appear in Dunkirk but his shadow hangs over the entire film. Whenever Mark Rylance says that he’s doing what the prime minister requested him to do, we know that he’s talking about Winston Churchill.

Darkest Hour, which I hope to see this week, features Gary Oldman in the role of Churchill. For most of the year, a lot of people (like me) assumed that Darkest Hour would be a definite best picture nominee and a probable winner. While the film seems to have lost a little of its luster, everyone still seems to agree that Gary Oldman is not only going to be nominated by best actor but that he also has a pretty chance of finally winning.

However, before either of those films were released, there was Churchill. Chuchill received a very limited release in June. It starred Brian Cox in the title role and it took place in the days leading up to D-Day. It follows Churchill as he struggles with self-doubt. He is haunted by nightmares about the men he lost while a military commander in 1915. He worries that he is being marginalized by the Americans (represented by John Slattery in the role of Dwight D. Eisenhower). He worries that if he authorizes the invasion of Normandy, he’ll run the risk of losing whatever prestige he has left. What if the invasion ends in disaster?

That question right there is the main problem with Churchill. If you know anything about history, you know that the invasion of Normandy was a victory for the Allies, albeit a costly one. Therefore, for this film to maintain any sort of suspense about what ‘s going to happen, it has to be viewed by people who don’t know about history. But people who don’t care about history probably won’t be interested in watching a somewhat stuffy film about Winston Churchill.

Despite a few surrealistic nightmare sequences, Churchill ultimately feels like it belongs more on PBS than a movie screen. It doesn’t surprise me to learn that the majority of director Jonathan Treplitzky’s work has been for British television because Churchill really does feel like a heavily edited version of a 6-hour miniseries. You watch and you’re impressed by the production values and some of the performances but you find yourself wondering if certain have scenes have been cut out. If Churchill had been made for HBO, I imagine that Brian Cox and Miranda Richardson (as Churchill’s wife) would be Emmy front-runners. But, as a feature film, it feels like a decidedly minor portrayal of a major figure.

One final note: all films about the British government during World War II are required to feature at least one scene with King George VI. Colin Firth, in The King’s Speech, remains the best George. Laurence Fox in W.E. was the worst. In Churchill, King George VI is played by James Purefoy. He doesn’t have a big role but he does a good job with it. To be honest, I wish that his role had been bigger because he and Cox are entertaining to watch when they’re acting opposite each other.

A Movie A Day #109: Where’s Marlowe? (1999, directed by Daniel Pyne)

Posted on April 26, 2017 by Jedadiah Leland

Two documentarians (Mos Def and John Livingston) decided to make a film about two real-life private detectives, Joe Boone (Miguel Ferrer) and Kevin Murphy (John Slattery). At first, Boone is skeptical of the two filmmakers. He watched their last documentary, a three-hour epic about New York’s water supply, and was disappointed by the lack of sex. However, as the two filmmakers follow him around, he warms up to them and they discover that the tough and sarcastic Boone is actually a soft-hearted idealist who can barely pay the bills. When Boone discovers that Murphy is sleeping with the wife of one of their clients, their partnership dissolves. It looks like Boone is going to have to shut down his agency, unless the two filmmakers can help him solve his latest case.

Where’s Marlowe? starts out strong by focusing on Miguel Ferrer’s performance as Joe Boone. Ferrer did not get to play many leading roles but he was perfectly cast as Joe Boone. He is completely believable as an old-fashioned private investigator struggling to survive in the modern world. During the movie’s less interesting second half, the attention shifts to the filmmakers trying to help Boone. Mos Def and John Livingston are good in their roles but the film’s focus should have stayed on Ferrer. Unfortunately, the main mystery is never as interesting as Miguel Ferrer’s solid lead performance.

Where’s Marlowe? started out as a pilot and it is easy to see where it would have gone if it had become a television series. For all of its flaws, it is worth it just to see Miguel Ferrer in a rare leading role.

Playing Catch-Up: Spotlight (dir by Tom McCarthy)

Posted on January 10, 2016 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Earlier today, I finally got to see Spotlight, the film that is currently the front-runner to win the Oscar for best picture. Spotlight tells the story of how the Spotlight team, a group of journalists working for the Boston Globe, investigated the shameful history of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests in the Archdiocese of Boston. Starting with charges against one priest, the Spotlight team eventually uncovered sexual abuse by at least 70 priests and also revealed that the revered Cardinal Law was involved in covering up the crimes.

Having now seen Spotlight, I can say it’s a good film. It’s well-made. It’s well-acted. The script contains some memorable lines. I’ve talked to a few friends of mine who have actually worked as journalists and they have all assured me that Spotlight gets the details of their profession correct and that it’s pretty much an authentic look at what it’s like to be a reporter at a major newspaper. There’s a lot of good things that can be said about Spotlight.

And yet, I’m not particularly enthusiastic about it. I think my main issue with the film is that it’s just such an old-fashioned and rather conventional film. It’s a throw back of sorts, an earnest exploration of a real-life outrage. (Even the fact that the heroes are journalists makes the film feel as if it was made a decade or two in the past.) On the one hand, you have to respect that director Tom McCarthy had the guts to tell his story in the least flashy way possible. But, occasionally, his by-the-book approach is not as compelling as you want or need it to be. Spotlight is a good film but it’s not a particularly challenging film and it’s the films that challenge us that truly stay with us after the final credits conclude.

Yes, it’s a good film but some are declaring that Spotlight is the best film of the year and I’m afraid that I just don’t see it. There are a lot of 2015 films that will probably still be fondly remembered 5 years from now: Ex Machina, Mad Max: Fury Road, Inside Out, Sicario, and others. When compared to those films, Spotlight feels more like an admirable made-for-TV movie. It feels more like something that should sweep the Emmys than the Oscars.

That said, Spotlight does feature some excellent performances. In fact, the entire cast does such a good job that it’s difficult to really single anyone out. They come together as a nearly perfect ensemble. (That said, I’m a bit torn on whether Mark Ruffalo came across as being passionate or merely mannered.) Michael Keaton, especially, does a good job, embodying everyone’s ideal image of a journalist with integrity.

Spotlight‘s a good film but my favorite Tom McCarthy movie remains Win Win.

Quick Review: Marvel’s Ant-Man (dir. by Peyton Reed)

Posted on July 18, 2015 by Leonard Wilson

*** Wait a minute! Before checking this out, be sure to read TrashFilmGuru’s thoughts on Ant-Man and then if you like, double back here. Two opinions are better than one! ***

I walked into Ant Man with a bias.

As a fan of Edgar Wright, his departure on the film due to creative differences left me wondering if it was worth seeing. Mix that with the idea that Marvel diverged from the character’s comic book origins for a better fit into the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and it all seemed like a recipe for failure. This was going to be the Cars 2 of the MCU, I was sure of it.

Ant-Man isn’t as large a tale as Captain America: The First Avenger or as star spanning as Guardians of the Galaxy. At times, it feels like it the story would be better suited for an extended Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Crossover or a Netflix one shot instead of a big screen event. It actually reminded me of Jon Favreau’s Iron Man in many ways, back when all of this was so small that audiences weren’t searching for tie-ins to next film in the line up or homages to The Story So Far. Ant-Man comes with the MCU connections (and comic book ones too), but if you walk in expecting revelations as big as Captain America: The Winter Soldier, the film may be a disappointment. It’s just a hero, and idea that even small actions can have big effects. It’s easily the film’s greatest strength, that it’s so personal. The film’s best components are it’s casting (particularly in House of Cards & The Strain’s Corey Stoll and Fury’s Michael Pena), and the effects themselves. It’s a movie that’s well worth the 3D treatment, if you can catch it that way.

Ant-Man focuses on Scott Lang (Paul Rudd), a former thief who is just trying to spend more time with his daughter, or at least be a hero in her eyes. Scott ends up meeting with Dr. Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) and his daughter Hope (Evangeline Lilly) who brings him on board for a job that just happens to cover his particular skill set. The job comes with a special suit that allows Lang to shrink down to about the size of an Ant, while at the same time allowing him to be much stronger. When Pym’s protege and rival Cross (Stoll) discovers another way to possibly make the shrink ability work, it’s up to Lang to try to stop the progress.

The film had 4 writers during it’s creation. It had Edgar Wright, who many moviegoers know from the Cornetto Trilogy (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, The World’s End) and Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. Adam McKay worked with Rudd in the past on the Anchorman films, and was responsible for Talladega Nights & Step Brothers. Both McKay and Rudd had a hand in writing Ant-Man. Finally, Attack the Block’s Joe Cornish was on board. The end result of all this is a film with a great deal of comedy influences in it, though not all of them hit the mark. I felt there were at least 2 moments in the film where Rudd’s character had a one liner that just didn’t hit the mark, or elicit a response from the audience. This isn’t a terrible thing, at most it’s just nitpicking. Overall, you could consider Ant-Man a comic caper with superhero moments.

Additionally, the writers had to also figure out how to make the character of Dr. Hank Pym useful in a storyline where one of his biggest arcs in the comics – creating Ultron – was already handled in a previous story. I like to think this was handled pretty well, as comic readers will already recognize Scott Lang as being the 2^nd Ant-Man – or least this is what I learned from the Marvel Encyclopedia. They’ve managed to keep familiar storylines in place while still anchoring it to the larger tale at hand.

The performances in Ant-Man are good, though it’s the co-stars that potentially steal the film from the leads. Lang’s heist buddies, played by David Dastmalchian (The Dark Knight), Cliff “T.I.” Harris (Takers), and Michael Pena (Fury) were indeed funny in this. Pena in particular stood out as someone who gets ahold of information through some pretty wild sources. Michael Douglas was a strange pick for me when I first heard about it, but he’s actually a fantastic fit for the whole story. Evangeline Lilly looked like she had a lot of fun with this, though her character served as a second mentor for Lang. I wanted to see her do a bit more in the film, actually. Bobby Canavale (Chef, Third Watch) and Judy Greer (Jurassic World) both have nice supporting roles in this.

Corey Stoll has played an ass so much on-screen that I’m not entirely sure he isn’t that way off camera. Between Non-Stop, House of Cards, Midnight in Paris and now Ant-Man, he’s plays the kind of characters that were historically set aside for character actors like Jeff Kober or Michael Ironside. Honestly, they couldn’t have made a better choice here. Cross comes off like a variant of Iron Man’s Odebiah Stane, resentful, evil, and maybe a little crazed. Rudd, on the other hand, handles the Hero’s Journey with ease, bringing his own sense of comedy that works almost as well as it did for Chris Pratt in Guardians of the Galaxy. It’s not perfect, but the character’s lighthearted nature is a good contrast from the serious gloom and doom that most of the Avengers are going through these days, and I feel Rudd did well here.

That’s another aspect of Ant-Man that needs to be recognized. The story in this may have a larger impact in things to come, but it felt really compact. Since the focus on the story involves Lang getting back to his daughter and stopping this one small thing, it takes a step back from the escalation we’ve been getting in previous MCU films. To me, since Phase Two started, every film’s been a stepping stone with at least one huge revelation somewhere that shows this is all much bigger than any one hero can take on. Discovery of the Infinity Stones, the big reveal of S.H.I.E.L.D. In the Winter Soldier and the events in Age of Ultron cover a large area. Maybe it’s better to say that they have an impact that’s covers a wide distance. With Ant-Man being the first film of Phase Three, it feels almost as if a step back it taken to something more personal. It’s not bad, but it’s different. It has the potential to leave viewers with a bad taste in their mouths if they were expecting something grand.

The effects in Ant-Man are good, really, really sweet. Quite honestly, it may be one of the first times where I haven’t found myself annoyed by what I call “The Zoic Effect” – that technique used in almost every film these days where you’re watching something and the director decides “Hey, let’s do a maximum level quick zoom on that target right there!”, because there’s a chance the audience might not see the subject. I believe Zoic Studios were the first to do that with Firefly and Battlestar Galactica, though I could be wrong. In Ant-Man, that rapid intense zoom is almost a welcome requirement when watching a little figure run and leap up and over objects. Add a 3D effect to all that, and I found myself enjoying that on the big screen. From a directing standpoint, it’s all very straightforward and you get an idea of the influences from all of the writers involved. Still, Peyton Reed (Down With Love) keeps from the film from straying too far away from it’s intended focus. Additionally, though the help of CGI, Disney/Marvel was able to digitize a younger Michael Douglas, and the look of this was even better than what they accomplished with Jeff Bridges in Tron: Legacy.

Overall, Ant-Man is a great addition to the MCU and on it’s own, it’s strong. I suppose Thor will still have to stay as the Cars 2 of that movie library. Note to viewers: If you’re planning to see this, be sure to stay until after the end credits. There’s a mid scene during the credits and one at the very end.

Ted 2 Sucks!

Posted on June 27, 2015 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Well, I think the title of this review pretty succinctly sums up my reaction to Seth McFarlane’s latest film, Ted 2. Thanks for reading and have a good…

Oh, really?

Okay, I’ve been told that I have to try to think up at least 300 words to say about Ted 2. Otherwise, in the eyes of Rotten Tomatoes, we’re not a legitimate film blog.

*sigh*

Okay.

Anyway, Ted 2 is the story of a talking teddy bear (voice by Seth McFarlane) who likes to smoke weed and … well, that’s about it. He’s just gotten married to Tami-Lynn (Jessica Barth) and they’re having trouble because Tami-Lynn wants a baby but Ted, being a teddy bear, doesn’t have any reproductive organs. So, he and his friend John (Mark Wahlberg) decide to give Tom Brady a handjob so they can still his sperm. But, it turns out, none of that was important because the state of Massachusetts claims that Ted is not even a person. Instead, he’s just “property.” So, now, John and Ted and their lawyer, Sam (Amanda Seyfried), are fighting the courts to win Ted his civil rights. And then Giovanni Ribisi wants to kidnap Ted and Morgan Freeman shows up and says a few words. And the film is narrated by Patrick Stewart because it’s funny to hear Patrick Stewart curse and…

Oh! And Liam Neeson shows up. He’s a customer at the store where Ted works as a cashier. Liam wants to know if Trix are only for kids. The joke here is that it’s Liam Neeson and he’s asking about cereal. Ha ha.

Oh! And there’s two guys who shows up at New York Comic Con so that they can beat up “nerds.” During every scene set at Comic Con, they’re in the background beating people up and insulting them. And the two guys are gay! See, they’re bullies and they’re gay! And they’re beating up random people at Comic Con, just because they can! Hilarious, right?

Ted 2 spends a lot of time trying to convince us that Ted’s struggle to be recognized as a person is actually meant to be a metaphor for the American civil rights movement. But, honestly, I get the feeling that McFarlane relates more to the bullies than he does to any oppressed minority. As he previously proved with his TV shows and A Million Ways To Die In The West, McFarlane is only interested in going after easy targets. He’s your typical white male hipster who thinks that, because he voted for Obama, he can get away with telling racist jokes.

And, before anyone misunderstands, I wouldn’t mind McFarlane’s humor if it was at least funny or original. But instead, it’s the same stupid jokes that he always tells. Seth McFarlane’s comedic technique is to basically drag things out until viewers laugh from pure exhaustion. Is it effective? Well, there are people who continue to praise and defend him and Seth certainly has made a lot of money off of his act. So, obviously, there are people who respond to this. But to me, Seth McFarlane’s humor just feels lazy.

Ted 2 lasts 128 minutes. That’s over two hours devoted to a concept that feels more appropriate for a five-minute skit. Interesting enough, the first Ted was tolerable because it focused on Mark Wahlberg’s Johnny. Ted was just a supporting character and he worked as a metaphor for Johnny’s struggle to choose between growing up or being a happy slacker. (The first Ted was all about Johnny falling in love with Mila Kunis, whose character is rather cruelly dismissed at the start of Ted 2.) In Ted 2, Ted is the central character and once you get over the fact that he’s a teddy bear who drops multiple F bombs, there’s really not much to the character. It helps, of course, that we only have to listen to McFarlane. We don’t have to look at his imminently punchable, oddly lineless face. But, to be honest, even McFarlane’s voice has become grating. It’s just so self-satisfied and smug.

I saw Ted 2 with the blogger also known as Jedadiah Leland. Over the course of 128 ~~hours~~ minutes (it just felt like hours), we each laughed once. Not surprisingly, both laughs were inspired by Wahlberg’s dumb-but-sweet performance. Now, I will admit that the rest of the audience laughed a bit more than we did. But still, there was a definite atmosphere of resignation in the theater. You could literally hear the people thinking, “Oh, Ted just made a joke about black people. Better laugh now so everyone knows that I get whatever the Hell this is supposed to be. After all, those tickets weren’t free…”

What’s the word count now?

758?

Cool.

That’s enough words for me to say, “Ted 2 sucks!”

Ant-Man Keeps the Marvel Train Moving Along

Posted on April 13, 2015 by Arleigh

Will Marvel Studios have it’s first misstep when Ant-Man arrives in theaters this July? Or will it surpass many people’s expectations the way Guardians of the Galaxy did when it came out late summer of 2014? These are questions that fans and critics alike have been pondering since the rather underwhelming teaser trailer which was released earlier this year.

Now, with Avengers: Age of Ultron just weeks away from bulldozing over everything in it’s way it looks like Marvel and Disney have turned their attention to getting the Ant-Man hype train up to speed. If any film needs some fueling up it would be this one which has had a more than contentious production. It loses it’s original director in Edgar Wright after he and the heads at Marvel Studios (Kevin Feige) disagreed on how to proceed with the film. The search for a director to replace Wright became a game of which comedic filmmaker would pass on the project next (Peyton Reed finally was the last man standing).

When the teaser finally came out the tone it gave seemed too serious for a film that was being billed as a sort of action-comedy or, at the very least, an action film that included more than the usual comedic beats than past films in the MCU.

Today we see the first official trailer for Ant-Man and gone is the super serious tone of the teaser and in comes a mixture of action and comedy. It’s a trailer that actually gives us an idea of the sort of powers the title character has outside of being just being tiny. Then we get more than just a glimpse of Scott Lang’s main antagonist with Corey Stoll in the role of Darren Cross aka Yellowjacket.

Maybe this film will still end up giving Marvel Studio it’s very first black-eye, but this trailer goes a major way in making sure it doesn’t happen.

Ant-Man is set for a July 17, 2015 release date.

Shattered Politics #81: Charlie Wilson’s War (dir by Mike Nichols)

Posted on February 8, 2015 by Lisa Marie Bowman

I hate to say it but Charlie Wilson’s War did not do much for me.

I hate to say that because this 2007 film is fairly well-acted, well-directed, and well-written (by Aaron Sorkin, whose scripts usually get on my last nerve). And it deals with an important subject. Taking place in the 80s, the film details how a Texas congressman (Tom Hanks), working with a profane CIA agent (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and an eccentric socialite (Julia Roberts), managed to create popular and political support for giving weapons to the Afghan rebels who were fighting the Soviet invasion of their country. By doing so, Wilson helps to weaken the Soviet Union but, when his efforts to provide humanitarian aide to Afghanistan are less successful, he also contributes to the subsequent rise of the Taliban.

It should have been a film that I would normally rave about but … I don’t know.

I watched Charlie Wilson’s War. I laughed at some of Tom Hanks’s facial reactions. (Hanks is playing a womanizer here who may, or may not, have been high on cocaine when he first learned about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and it’s obvious that Hanks really enjoyed getting to play someone who wasn’t a traditionally upright hero.) As I watched, I again considered what a loss we suffered when the brilliant Philip Seymour Hoffman died. And, as I watched Julia Roberts, I again wonder why, despite the fact that she’s from Georgia, it is apparently impossible for Julia to sound authentically Southern.

(Of course, I’m sure some would argue that Julia wasn’t playing Southern here. She was playing a Texan. Well, I’m a Texan and I’ve never heard anyone down here sound like that. Tom Hanks, meanwhile, actually managed to come up with a decent accent. Wisely, he underplayed the accent, whereas I don’t think that Julia has ever underplayed anything in her life.)

And, at the end of Charlie Wilson’s War, I knew I had watched a good film but it was also a film that left me feeling curious detached. To be honest, I almost think the film would have been better if Hoffman’s CIA agent had been the main character, as opposed to Hanks’s congressman. Hoffman’s character, after all, is the one who nearly lost his job over his belief that the Afghan rebels should be armed. All Hanks really has to worry about is whether or not he’s going to be indicted for using cocaine in Vegas.

However, I do think that Charlie Wilson’s War does deserve praise for one very specific reason. Excluding the films made by native filmmakers like Richard Linklater and Wes Anderson, Charlie Wilson’s War is one of the few films that I’ve ever seen that actually portrays anyone from Texas in a positive light. Even more shockingly, it’s a positive portrayal of a Texas politician!

(I know it must have been tempting to change history and pretend that Charlie Wilson was originally elected from somewhere up north…)

But, overall, Charlie Wilson’s War didn’t do much for me. But, if you’re into military history and all that, you might enjoy the film more than I did.

(Plus, all you boys will probably enjoy Emily Blunt’s scenes….)

At the very least, you can watch it for Philip Seymour Hoffman.

Trailer: Ant-Man

Posted on January 6, 2015 by Arleigh

First they said that Guardians of the Galaxy will be the first misstep in the rolling juggernaut train that is the Marvel Cinematic Universe. How could a film adaptation of a comic book that even hardcore readers barely know ever hit it big with the general public. Yet, it more than shot down detractors and nyasayers to become the biggest hit of 2014 and help usher in a major change in how people will now look at the MCU.

So, Guardians of the Galaxy wasn’t the first mistake. Then it has to be 2015’s Ant-Man starring Paul Rudd and a film already known for being the one where Edgar Wright was forced to leave as director. Yes, this will be Marvel Studios first misstep and it will show that Kevin Feige’s producer-driven plan will never trump the creative-driven director tradition.

So, during the season premiere of Agent Carter, we finally have the first official trailer for Ant-Man. Time will tell if this does become Marvel’s first bump in their road to world domination or will it surprise everyone the way Guardians of the Galaxy did this part summer of 2014.

Ant-Man is set for a July 17, 2015 release date.

Film Review: The Adjustment Bureau (dir. by George Nolfi)

Posted on March 7, 2011 by Lisa Marie Bowman

This weekend, I saw The Adjustment Bureau, a film that I’ve been looking forward to ever since I first saw the trailer back in November.

In The Adjustment Bureau, Matt Damon plays a New York politician who loses a race for the U.S. Senate and falls in love with Emily Blunt on the same night. Inspired by some advice from Blunt, Damon gives a concession speech which, to me, sounds kinda whiney but apparently, the voters of New York find it to be amazingly compelling. You should understand, of course, that this is a mainstream Hollywood version of the American political system. What that means is that Damon’s character, of course, is a Democrat who would have won that election if not for the fact that apparently, a newspaper ran a photo of him mooning some people in college. Now, seriously, consider that. Not only does this movie start out by asking us to believe that a Democrat could lose a statewide election in New York but it also asks us to believe that he would lose for that reason. Meanwhile, in the real world, Massachusetts (one of the few states more Democratic than New York) is electing a Republican who used to be a Playgirl centerfold to the Senate. Anyway, the film continues to show its political sophistication by having Damon give a speech in which he says that political consultants have too much influence in the American political system and apparently, every voter in New York goes, “Oh my God! He’s right!” I don’t claim to be an expert on politics but seriously, all of the “political” scenes in this film just ring so amazingly false.

Anyway, Damon’s speech is apparently so amazing that his career is revived and soon, he’s being spoken of as a front-runner for the other senate seat (apparently, this film takes place in a world where New York would not only elect one Republican to the Senate but two). In fact, some people are apparently talking him up as a future President. But Damon doesn’t care about that. All he cares about is winning the heart of Emily Blunt.

The Adjustment Bureau, however, has other ideas. What is the Adjustment Bureau? Well, the movie tries to keep it all ambiguous and mysterious but essentially, the members of the Adjustment Bureau are angels and the Chairman they answer to is God. And God has already mapped out Matt Damon’s destiny and Emily Blunt is not meant to be a part of it. (How Calvinistic.) However, Damon insists on pursuing her until eventually, he finds himself being continually pursued by three members of the Adjustment Bureau — the blandly corporate John Slattery, sympathetic Anthony Mackie, and finally the cold and intimidating Terrence Stamp. The whole thing finally culminates in an Inception-like chase through the streets of New York City with Damon insisting that he has free will and the Adjustment Bureau insisting that no, he does not.

What a frustrating film! The plot is intriguing and potentially thought-provoking but the film doesn’t bother with following any of its themes to any sort of real conclusion. In the end, all of the questions raised simply turn out to be an excuse to film Matt Damon being chased across various New York landmarks. Don’t get me wrong. I’m always more than happy to spend money to watch Matt Damon get chased. He looks good running for his life. But still, it’s hard not to look back at the movie and think, “After all that set-up, that’s it?” The Adjustment Bureau is like Inception without that spinning dreidel.

Still, I enjoyed The Adjustment Bureau despite myself and I can’t exactly say that I’m proud of that. With each of its vaguely New Agey themes and its rather simplistic emotional content, this is the type of film that invites me to be cynical. However, I enjoyed the movie even if I did find myself rolling my eyes during some of the more “sincere” moments. A lot of this had to do with the chemistry between Matt Damon and Emily Blunt. They made a likable and cute couple. As well, Mackie, Stamp, and especially Slattery were well-cast as members of the Adjustment Bureau. Director George Nolfi comes up with a few striking images and, if nothing else, he knows how to film people being chased. Then again, it may have just been the fact that I saw this film with a special someone and therefore, I didn’t feel like I had to be cynical. I could just embrace all the emotional silliness in all of its simple-minded glory and as a result, I had a good time.

That said, I don’t think I’ll be seeing The Adjustment Bureau a second time or buying it on DVD. Unlike 0ther guilty pleasures, I don’t imagine this is a film that’s going to hold up well on repeat viewings.