LOGAN LUCKY Review

There are a lot of little things that make Logan Lucky as charming as it is. There is the effortless style of it. The breezy way in which director Steven Soderbergh (welcome back, sir) movies from one scene to the next despite the film involving a rather complicated script via new talent and/or what is a pseudonym for Soderbergh's wife Jules Asner or Soderbergh himself in Rebecca Blunt. There is also the ensemble cast of recognizable faces and charismatic personalities that make each and every one of the many plights that each and every one of these characters encounter that much more amusing. And then, and then there is the simple and just subtle enough techniques that deal in the filmmaking side of things that Soderbergh utilizes to make this feel simultaneously as raw as some of the emotional wounds these characters are dealing with while being as authentic as the general air of authenticity that surrounds each of these people. Whether it be in the shooting style that includes these movements or tracks that don't feel overly polished, but are seemingly intentional or the way in which Soderbergh, who serves not only as the director (and possible writer), but the cinematographer and editor here as well, cuts his scenes together to emphasize certain jokes or moments-it all feels rather perfectly imperfect. Bring all of these elements together and what we have is essentially a southern fried heist film from the guy who made all three of the kinetic and flashing Ocean's movies. It has been a decade since Ocean's Thirteen and it's not difficult to see why this genre is as attractive as it is as it offers the always appreciated underdog story, allows for moments of real tension and adventure, while presenting a canvas on which one can paint as many interesting and quirky characters as they like. The characters are the real draw of Logan Lucky as one can certainly layer in meaning that concerns the heartland of the American dream and how now, in our present state, that American dream in its purest sense can only be achieved by those who sell out or inherit their daddy's booming business as opposed to those who are willing to chase dreams and work hard, but Soderbergh's film never feels like an attempt to capture something bigger than that of the lark it actually is. It is largely about these people we don't see in big Hollywood productions often enough and upending the assumptions typically associated with them. There is meaning to be drawn if you so desire, but there is also room to just have a lot of fun-which Logan Lucky is. I guess the fact one could seemingly do both only makes the movie more impressive than it already is.

First Trailer for LOGAN LUCKY Starring Channing Tatum

It has been four years since director Steven Soderbergh has delivered a feature film and while he has continued creating in that time, namely on the HBO series, The Knick, his presence has been sorely missed in the cinema. Worse than this was the fact Soderbergh had more or less stated he'd be retiring from directing or at least taking an extended sabbatical. Thankfully, that time has passed rather quickly as we now have our first look at the first trailer for Soderbergh's return to feature films. Written solely by Rebecca Blunt in her only writing credit on IMDb (can someone tell me how one accomplishes as much?) the film follows two brothers who set out to reverse a family curse and pull off an elaborate robbery during the Coca-Cola 600 race at Charlotte Motor Speedway. Soderbergh has taken this rather rote premise and, by the looks of this first trailer at least, breathed fresh life into it as each of the characters seem to have enough of an individual personality and set of quirks that the heist will be the least of the show-stopping moments in the film seems as the focus looks to be more on the mentality behind why such a scheme would appeal to such a ragtag group of misfits. Besides the fact Soderbergh and his team will no doubt insert lofty goals and ideas into what would otherwise be a seemingly matter-of-fact, mindless piece of entertainment the cast the writer, director, and cinematographer has put together seems to be having a great time. While the focus of the clip centers around Channing Tatum's Jimmy Logan and Adam Driver's Clyde Logan the true highlight is that of the left field performance Daniel Craig seems to have concocted; for his accent alone I can't wait to see the film. Had I really been aware of what this latest from Soderbergh entailed or that it was even being released this August it certainly would have made my most anticipated of the summer list. Logan Lucky also stars Riley Keough, Hilary Swank, Seth MacFarlane, Katie Holmes, Dwight Yoakam, Katherine Waterston, Sebastian Stan, David Denman, Macon Blair, Jack Quaid, Brian Gleeson, and opens on August 18th, 2017.

WOMAN IN GOLD Review

Woman in Gold is a perfectly fine film. It is as competent as it is generic. The issue with the film though is that it so clearly wants to be more than that. It has a sense of needing to feel important based on the origins of its story when, in reality, the fashion with which it's told and the narrative structure it's delivered through make it appeal as little more than light, afternoon fluff with only a slight edge in existing over something that is purely melodramatic. There is nothing wrong with being no more than an afternoon distraction or even a slight piece of information that serves to highlight little known aspects of major events we've heard about time and time again, but Woman in Gold, while recognizing a number of themes dealing with mortality, isn't the heavy handed drama it seems to want to be or thinks it is. And so, while director Simon Curtis (My Week With Marilyn) and first-time screenwriter Alexi Kaye Campbell may or may not have been aiming for one thing by casting Helen Mirren in a role so perfect for Helen Mirren it's almost cliche to have her actually play it and doing the opposite with Ryan Reynolds as he plays against type while dealing with a story that involves Nazi's it would of course seem one would have the perfect formula for a pre-packaged Oscar contender. What Curtis and Campbell have actually delivered though is ironically something largely opposite the heady and often too artsy for mainstream movie-goers the Academy does nominate in delivering a by the numbers account of a true story that both rouses the human spirit and will no doubt be appreciated by older audiences for its clean sense of class and respect for history. More times than not it is the straightforward, fluff-type films that serve ones interests better and for that, Woman in Gold has nothing to be ashamed of simply because it doesn't reach the heights it seemed manufactured to scale. I'm not necessarily saying this is a film worth seeking out, but it definitely isn't a bad option if you're looking for something to take your (grand)parents to this weekend.

THE GIVER Review

I somehow managed to make it through all of middle school, jr. high and high school without ever cracking open a copy of Lois Lowry's The Giver. This wasn't due to the fact I was trying to avoid the work; I can remember seeing other kids reading it all around me in my seventh grade year and the cover with the old man and his wiry beard is an image that will always strike me as intriguing, but for one reason or another I was never made to sit down and read it and by the time I was in high school it was a distant memory. Why a feature film adaptation hasn't been made before now is quite curious, but with the recent wave of young adult adaptations it is also pretty clear why we are getting a version of this story now. Unfortunately, despite the fact Lowry tapped into exploring the themes and ideas present here in a way that younger audiences might understand first this doesn't automatically mean the film version will be as appealing or revelatory. Today, we live in a world of Harry Potter and Twilight where books that teens actually read are turned into massive franchises ultimately marginalizing the literature. In this world every quasi-popular series has been taken, given the Hollywood treatment in an attempt to launch a franchise and if they fail they're never heard from again. It is a vicious game won only if you have a large enough, pre-determined fanbase. There have been some unfortunate casualties (Beautiful Creatures) and some that were dead on arrival and deserved to be (The Mortal Instruments). Still, as the pack exists right now it is The Hunger Games and everything else. There is an air of earnestness about this version of The Giver though from the construction of its aesthetic to the performances given by actors that would widely be considered above this material that it doesn't have to be the big kid on the block. Sure, it is another cautionary tale set in a dystopian future (though the Chief Elder would have you believe it's a utopia) where one young person who has grown accustomed to a certain, strict way of life is declared different and breaks the societal rules that eventually lead him/her to discovering what the adults couldn't, but there is something sincere trying to be said here. There is an honesty to the production and a conviction in its story and ideas that is hard to shake while completely satisfying as a movie-going experience.

First Trailer for THE GIVER

The Giver was the 1994 novel that I never made it around to reading despite the fact everyone around me was talking about it in my seventh grade reading class. I don't know how it slipped by me and feel really bad about having never caught up with it, but I guess the fact there is now a movie adaptation heading our way is as good a motivation as any to finally dive in. As I said yesterday when posting the first trailer for The Maze Runner, the race to find the next big Young Adult franchise spun from the pages of hit novels is in full speed, but while this initial teaser trailer wants you to believe The Giver is some kind of companion piece to Divergent (which opens this Friday and where you'll likely see this playing prior), the nature of the novel itself feels very different than the dystopian trilogies that have saturated the market as of late. This is a single novel that only recently received a sequel, but still, not in the common sense of the word and one that studios might find both difficult and rather pleasing to adapt into a straightforward film series. As for this first look at the footage though, I'm impressed with what scope the film seems to take on, but as we've seen so many versions of the "perfect futuristic society" lately they are all beginning to blend together and this trailer does nothing to say that The Giver has anything new to offer. I want to believe the narrative and the characters alone will be enough to set this apart and that the rumors about major changes being made when adapting the book for the screen are false as the original novel was a slim work and one I am definintely keen on diving into before August. The Giver stars Jeff Bridges, Meryl Streep, Brenton Thwaites, Alexander Skarsgard, Katie Holmes, Cameron Monaghan, Taylor Swift and opens August 15th.

BATMAN BEGINS Review

Looking back on Christopher Nolan's first venture into Gotham City it does show us how far he has come as a filmmaker. His confidence alone in what he can accomplish and what he can control to the point he can put it on screen in an organized fashion is stunning. When going into Batman Begins though, we had no impression of what was to come and so we took it for what it was at the time: the best Batman movie that had ever been made. I've always been a huge Batman fan, and like anyone from my generation, a child of the 90's, they likely gained their fondness for the character through the animated series of that decade. What was odd about the correlation between that series and the live action films coming out at the time was that there really wasn't any. The Tim Burton films painted an eccentric and somewhat dark picture of the caped crusader. Certainly, to that point they were the closest thing anyone had to the original comics of Bob Kane. Still, after Burton and Keaton retired from the series it crashed and burned under Joel Schumacher who turned the live action adaptations into more of kids entertainment than the 1992-1995 animated series. This cartoon series, partially inspired by the success of Burton's films gave my generation a better idea of what Batman really was.  With Batman Begins Nolan and writer David S. Goyer delivered the extension of that series to the kids who grew up watching it every day after school. Begins gave a darker and more realistic tone to the gritty world of Gotham city and the rich boy who in one act gained fear and despair for what his world truly was. It didn't simply deliver the superhero in a suit fighting bad guys, but it gave us the motivation for a man to cover his face and force out the evil.

Ducard (Liam Neeson) trains Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale)
in the ways of the League of Shadows.

What I found particularly appealing about Batman Begins was the fact tn filled in those gaps that had always been left out of the Batman origin story. Anyone who has ever seen a Batman movie knows the part where Bruce watches his parents be murdered at a young age. We know this is what motivates him to fight for what is not necessarily revenge, but justice. How though, did such a young boy decide to take on the persona of a bat? Where did he learn to fight? Where did he gather his theories and divulge the psychology of the criminal mind? What made him any kind of authority to try and stop those who threatened what he desired to salvage? The questions are endless yet somehow Nolan and Goyer were able to blend this analysis of a hero into the story of Batmans coming to be and his first face-off with the mob and a criminal mastermind. Beginning with and going in a non-linear fashion to reconstruct the struggle of a boy through his young adult years and on into manhood the film does a wonderful job of painting a full picture of who Bruce Wayne is as a man. In doing this, Batman Begins was able to do something few superhero films had accomplished before. The audience was not simply counting the time until the man put on the suit, but instead we became just as engaged in the story of what was psychologically going on underneath that mask. When Wayne leaves Gotham after seemingly closing a chapter in his life dealing with the death of his parents he carries the sorrow and spark of a realization from mobster Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson) around with him as he explores the criminal mind. He is searching to find a way to avenge the guilt he feels for his parents death by ridding the world of the filth that took his parents from him.

Batman watches over and protects the city of Gotham.

In doing this, he comes across a man who presents himself strictly as Ducard (Liam Neeson) a recruiter for a  mysterious group of vigilantes known as the league of shadows, who at first glance seem to have the same goals in mind as Bruce. When it becomes clear that Ducard and his leader Ra's al Ghul (Ken Watanabe) do not view the way in which a criminal should be treated with the same ideals a rift is formed between the billionaire and the boys in black. Wayne fights back and seemingly makes his way back to Gotham, a lesson well learned. Despite their differences in theory Bruce has taken a few cues from his teacher and implied the use of theatrics into his plan to rid Gotham of those that have torn down everything his idealistic father worked to build. Thus we are now given the complications of corrupt cops and officials in nearly every office in Gotham. Using long time friend Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes, later to be replaced by Maggie Gylenhaal) and reaching out to new ally Sgt. James Gordon (a flawless Gary Oldman) Wayne begins the revolution to clean up the corrupt. It also helps that he has the family butler Alfred (Michael Caine) at his side to guide him and serving as a kind of father figure as well as Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) a Wayne Enterprises employee in the applied sciences division that provides the cool gadgets Wayne uses as his alter ego. In one of my favorite aspects of this film though, we were given a live action interpretation of what I always found to be one of the creepier batman villains. As personified by Cillian Murphy, Dr. Jonathan Crane is at the same time what brings this first installment out of its strictly grounded reality while also assuring the audience that such an outlandish kind of villain can fit into Nolan's world as well.

Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) summons Batman when a
crook with the same flair for theatrics shows up in town.

Besides the story though, it is everything about the film that consistently captivated me. Never has the music felt so integral to the actions that are taking place on screen. Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard set the tone for the entire series with this score by giving this Gotham a completely different feel than we had ever related to it before. The look of the film was integral, the orange and yellow tones tinted with shadows in each shot. The imagery, how Bale and Nolan made a point to get stoic shots of Batman and truly bring to life that persona of Batman from the comics. There was the reinvented batmobile aka "The Tumbler" and the way in which each actor complimented that tone the script gave off. It all falls into place and creates a coherent picture where while still having a few flaws, made it clear that director Nolan took this superhero stuff seriously and we were in for something we had not seen before. The complaints are few, though after seeing the renovated batsuit for The Dark Knight I wished that they might have discovered it a few yeas earlier so that our first introduction to bale's Batman might not have been the clunky, stiff hero we have here. There is also the case of the final act slightly desolving into standard action movie stuff. The plot becomes slightly predictable when a ship is hijacked and a Wayne enterprises tool is stolen. I remember thinking the first time I watched the film that the pacing had been perfect up to the point when it became evident how much they were trying to accomplish. Early on, despite having so much going on and placing so many implications for later in the story in front of us we were unaware of it. The script gave us what we needed to know in the most subtle of ways. As we neared the climax of the film though it simply felt more of a mess and not as smooth. Still, it could not take away from the excitement Batman Begins roused in me by seeing the Bruce Wayne/Batman story get the treatment it had always needed, what it had always deserved. If I only knew what was to come.

BATMAN BEGINS Review

Looking back on Christopher Nolan's first venture into Gotham City it does show us how far he has come as a filmmaker. His confidence alone in what he can accomplish and what he can control to the point he can put it on screen in an organized fashion is stunning. When going into Batman Begins though, we had no impression of what was to come and so we took it for what it was at the time: the best Batman movie that had ever been made. I've always been a huge Batman fan, and like anyone from my generation, a child of the 90's, they likely gained their fondness for the character through the animated series of that decade. What was odd about the correlation between that series and the live action films coming out at the time is that the only correlation had already passed in the Burton films. The Tim Burton films painted an eccentric and somewhat dark picture of the caped crusader. Certainly, to that point they were the closest thing anyone had come to the original comics of Bob Kane. Still, after Burton and Keaton retired from the series it crashed and burned under Joel Schumacher who turned the live action adaptations into more kid-centric entertainment than the 1992-1995 animated series. This cartoon series, partially inspired by the success of Burton's films gave my generation a better idea of what Batman was supposed to be (not you, George Clooney!). With Batman Begins Nolan and writer David S. Goyer delivered the extension of that series to the kids who grew up watching it every day after school. Begins gave a darker and more realistic tone to the gritty world of Gotham City and the rich boy who in one act gained fear and despair for what his world truly was. It didn't simply deliver the superhero in a suit fighting bad guys, but it gave us the motivation for a man to cover his face and force out evil.

JACK AND JILL Review

If you have been an Adam Sandler fan for any length of time you have come to expect certain things from his films. They usually feature tons of cameos, a ridiculous premise, fart jokes, and in the middle of it all is our level headed protagonist that looks, talks, and acts like Mr. Sandler. It has been obvious since about "Mr. Deeds" that Sandler no longer had to really try in order to bring in the crowds and meet the box office goals. He lumbered through film after film while occasionally putting in the extra effort to be ridiculous (I am one of the few who really enjoyed "Don't Mess With the Zohan") but it was his side projects that really showed what a flourishing career he could have if he looked outside his Happy Madison production company. Whether it be "Punch Drunk Love", "Reign Over Me", or the one that applies best to examining Sandler's current situation, "Funny People" (I don't care for "Spanglish") it showed a Sandler that could really act if he wanted to, a Sandler that given good material and innovative people to work with he might actually leave a legacy as a credible comedian and not the farcical joke of a comic actor he has become today. With "Jack and Jill" though Sandler continues to cement himself as a one note kinda guy that doesn't mind going for the cheap laughs, enlisting his buddies in every film and in this case, dressing like a woman to play his main characters twin sister. If you go see this, you can't be mad because it delivers everything you expect it to, and the fact is most people won't. This is exactly what they are hoping for.

Jack and Jill (Adam Sandler) share their birthday together
for the first time in a while.

The one thing you can give "Jack and Jill" that separates it from Sandler's last two outings, "Grown Ups" and "Just Go With It" is the fact Sandler actually does something other than play himself. The guy deserves props for dressing up like a woman (though it looks like it didn't take much as many jokes are made about Jill's masculinity) and trying to pull a Robin Williams a la Mrs. Doubtfire, but the sparks dull as soon as we get to know Jill and learn everything her brother has said about her is actually true. Jill is a loud, lonely woman from the Bronx who loves her brother dearly, if not a little too much, but knows how to push buttons and overstays her welcome. Jack (regular Sandler) works at an advertising company in LA (oh, how convenient) and has a beautiful wife (Katie Holmes this time) and two children one of which is adopted and enjoys tape so much he gets a running gag of having different objects taped to his body. The wife, the children, they don't really matter though. All the film really cares to focus on is all the damage Jill does in trying to fit in and find a man. The focus doesn't even stay close to the brother/sister relationship that gives the film its title. We see Jack trying to get what he wants by using his sister and Jill playing oblivious to her actions trying to find a family so she doesn't have to bother her brother every year. In a twist that makes you wonder if this is even real, Al Pacino makes an extended cameo as himself who immediately falls for Jill and also happens to be Jack's ticket to saving his ad company (oh, how convenient).

Jill and Erin (Katie Holmes) along with the kids are
excited for the on set vacation, I mean cruise scene.

I hate to sit here and write this even because we all know critics will and do hate "Jack and Jill" but that folks will still turn up to see it. In its opening weekend it came in second place with $25 million and will no doubt continue to do well throughout the holiday season as it is marketed as a PG-rated family film. In the theater I saw the film it was more crowded with families and young children rather than teenage boys or younger adults which I for some reason still expected to show up to Sandler comedies. What is interesting still is that no matter what the topic or premise for one of his "comedies" turns out to be I always seem to be going back to the fact that the man is now a parody of himself. That he truly has become the George Simmons character of "Funny People" but without the incentive of a life threatening disease to make him stop and take a look at what he has become. Sandler no longer seems interested in genuinely making an audience laugh or raging against the movie factory machine, no, instead he has become an integral part of it. It is as if after "Funny People" a film where he had to put in long days, and dig deep into the psyche of his character to get to that place where the thought of death was immanent, he became exhausted by the effort it took to pull off and has since resorted back to his safe zone. A place where he can slum through a role, get all his friends a paying gig, and still make plenty of money. Actually, he makes more money by doing what he is doing, "Little Nicky" is his lowest grossing film and probably considered his most awful critically as well and it still made more than "Punch Drunk Love" and "Reign Over Me" combined. There is no incentive to face what he has become, but this is surely incentive to continue the trend he has now perfected.

Al Pacino and Jack discuss the latest commercial for
Dunkin Donuts in which Pacino appears.

Sorry to stray so far from the film at hand, but in seeing a move like "Jack and Jill" as compared to his earlier juvenile comedies it makes me yearn for that kind of Sandler if not one that has matured into something more than what we are currently seeing. We all know he has it in him, we have seen it, but Sandler faces a rare circumstance where the easier road is the more fortunate one (in terms of money anyway) and he has chosen that road. There is no reason to even comment on how mediocre or bad "Jack and Jill" really is because you have already heard that a million times if you read film reviews. To be honest with you, it has a few good laughs; the best coming when Sandler himself seems to just improvise on the fly and we see that spark of imagination trying to sneak its way in. Sure, there are plenty of stereotypical religious and racial slurs and more than enough fart and poop jokes, but the movie is more than tolerable and simply playing spot the celebrity in this movie would make it more fun. Why Al Pacino agreed to do this I will probably never understand, I mean the guy has been in bad movies before, but he knew what he was getting into here going in. Oh, and a bonus: Pacino raps! Which is swiftly followed by a scene where he says "No one can ever see this." I sometimes wonder how Sandler doesn't say that about some of his own films, but no matter, there is no escaping them. Let's just hope his pairing with Andy Samberg in this summer's "Donny's Boy" will prove a stimulating experience that might help him step back and see not only how far he has come, but what he has become. Fingers crossed.

 

JACK AND JILL Review

If you have been an Adam Sandler fan for any length of time you have come to expect certain things from his films. They usually feature tons of cameos, a ridiculous premise, fart jokes, and in the middle of it all is our level headed protagonist that looks, talks, and acts like Mr. Sandler. It has been obvious since about "Mr. Deeds" that Sandler no longer had to really try in order to bring in the crowds and meet the box office goals. He lumbered through film after film while occasionally putting in the extra effort to be ridiculous (I am one of the few who really enjoyed "Don't Mess With the Zohan") but it was his side projects that really showed what a flourishing career he could have if he looked outside his Happy Madison production company. Whether it be "Punch Drunk Love", "Reign Over Me", or the one that applies best to examining Sandler's current situation, "Funny People" (I don't care for "Spanglish") it showed a Sandler that could really act if he wanted to, a Sandler that given good material and innovative people to work with he might actually leave a legacy as a credible comedian and not the farcical joke of a comic actor he has become today. With "Jack and Jill" though Sandler continues to cement himself as a one note kinda guy that doesn't mind going for the cheap laughs, enlisting his buddies in every film and in this case, dressing like a woman to play his main characters twin sister. If you go see this, you can't be mad because it delivers everything you expect it to, and the fact is most people won't. This is exactly what they are hoping for.