Frank (4/5 Stars)

This bizarre story starts in a quiet beachside community in the United Kingdom. A young twenty-something lad named Jon, played by Domhnall Gleeson, walks the the shoreline, pad and pen in hand, jotting down the various things he sees in a desperate attempt to force inspiration for song lyrics. A woman jogs past him in a red coat. “Woman in a red coat jogging!” He hums to himself. A woman jogs past him in a blue coat. “Woman in a blue coat! Does she know the woman in a red coat!” Terrible just terrible. Upon chance occurrence he comes upon a man attempting to drown himself in the ocean. The paramedics are dragging him away to the ambulance when Jon strikes up a conversation with a few other people on the beach watching. They know the man. He was their keyboardist. They no longer have a keyboardist for their gig tonight. I play keyboard, says Jon. Okay, be at the stage door at 9pm. The group gets in their van and leaves.

Jon shows up at 9pm. He is instructed to play three chords and that’s it. The crowd is non-existent. One bandmate, a surly looking woman named Clara, played by Maggie Gyllenhaal, is playing a theremin of all things. And then there is Frank, played by Michael Fassbender. He walks onto the stage in a wetsuit and a big fake paper mache head. They start in on the first song. It sounds absolutely strange. Frank sings in a deep voice and makes muscular robotic stage moves. Clara’s theremin has an electric short and sparks fly. She becomes angry, pushes over her instrument and storms out cursing. The drummer and guitar player follow leaving only Frank standing perfectly still and staring intently at Jon. Well, maybe, you can’t tell because Frank has a big fake head on. Then Frank leaves the stage too. The entire thing lasts less than a minute. What an act!

There is a concept in stand-up comedy called the ‘Comedian’s comedian.’ This was generally not the most successful or even the funniest comedian on the scene, but it was the type of comedian that other comedians would come out to see because they were doing something really edgy, exciting, and new. And Frank’s band is that. They are on a completely different wavelength and could not care less about connecting with any sort of audience. Jon is invited the next day for something big. He is excited and is picked up by the band. First thing he notices: Frank still has his big fake head on. Apparently he never takes it off, ever. Second: they are not going to a big gig. They are going to a remote cabin in the Ireland wilderness to take as long as it takes to record an album. Jon tries to explain that he told his boring office job that he would be back by Monday. ‘okay,’ is the reaction. Jon stays.

The character of Frank is a fascinating masterwork of acting by Michael Fassbender. The journey of understanding him oscillates from thinking the man is insane to thinking he is a well meaning musically inclined wise and nice person to realizing he is both of those things. Fassbender plays 95% of the movie without any facial expressions but this hardly matters. His physicality and voicework is very expressive not only in his movements, which are of an excited robot variety, but also in his stillness. You do not need to see Frank’s face to understand when he happy, or inspired, or nervous, or really really scared. And sometimes he goes ahead and describes his facial expressions in order to be more helpful. Frank is not the main character of this story (that would be Jon) but it feels like he is the main character. It is an Oscar nomination worthy performance, though maybe it is too far out there to be seriously considered as such.

The main theme of the movie is the education of Jon’s view of musical expression. He is an ambitious young man who realizes the talent of Frank and his band and sets out to raise awareness of this band on his blog and Twitter feed. Jon sees the endpoint of all their work as a vehicle for rockstardom. Through viral videos of the band doing really weird shit in the woods he gets a cult following for Frank and a gig at the South by Southwest music festival. Everybody in the band hates the idea, but Frank is inclined to do it out of a trust he has placed in Jon. All these people want to like and love us, he innocently asks. Yes, explains Jon, they have already seen and liked and will love you. They go to South by Southwest and all goes to shit. What Jon does not realize is that everything Frank does is especially personal and he wears the head not as a self-promoting gimmick but because he is enormously shy to the point of real psychosis. His bandmates understand this and quit the band before the gig but Jon has to figure it out for himself and almost destroys Frank in the process.

Where does musical talent come from? Jon bemoans the fact that he did not have an abusive childhood or a mental illness that would have expanded his mind in artistic creative directions. No, he realizes in a great scene at the end of the movie. Frank grew up in a nice home with nice parents and was always musically inclined. If anything, his illness hinders his artistic expression. But Jon grew up in a nice house with nice parents too. Why doesn’t he have any musical talent?

Jon makes it up to Frank though, he gets him back together with his band and at the end of the movie they make a song together with Jon on the outside looking in again. Some of the lyrics of the song include the phrases, “It’s nice to see you. It's really nice to be here. I love you all.” It is not a rare thing to hear a musician say these words to a crowd, but when Frank does it has a real profundity to it. Frank really means it. And yes it matters that there is no audience and Frank sings it to his band. You can’t say ‘I love you’ to an audience of people you’ve never met before and mean it. There is something to that surely and it may just be the difference between mediocre and sublime expression. 

Boyhood (3/5 Stars)

Another curiousity from Richard Linklater

The story within the movie ‘Boyhood’ is inextricably linked to the story of its making. The project was started in 2002 when director Richard Linklater cast the six-year-old Ellar Coltrane. He shot a few scenes of him opposite a fictional movie family: sister Lorelei Linklater (Richard’s daughter) and divocrced parents Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke. And then Richard waited two years old til Ellar was eight and he shot a few more scenes. He came back two years later and did it again. The movie was finally finished last year when Ellar turned eighteen.

So this movie is a curiosity that comes appropriately from Richard Linklater, Cinematic Laureate of Austin, Texas, and auteur of such quirky movies such as Slacker, Before Sunrise, Waking Life, and A Scanner Darkly. Boyhood takes it's rightful place besides though films. It is intensely interested in the people, the places they inhabit, and the ideas that they share. The most interesting thing about 'Boyood' is that it does not merely reflect the journey of Ellar Coltrane. Sure we see him literally grow before our eyes from a shy introspective boy to a curious almost philosophical teenager, but we also see the journey of his sister who grows up right alongside of him. And we see the journey of his mother who goes through several marriages, gets her master’s degree, gains at least thirty pounds and becomes less or more comfortable with how things have turned out. Perhaps most strikingly is the journey of the father, played by Ethan Hawke, who starts off as a friendly but impossibly irresponsible, chain-smoking, and fast-car-driving presence in Ellar's life. By the time the twelve years pass, however, he has a new wife and kid who make him go to church and drive a mini-van. The irony does not escape him and he treats the changes with good humor. He did not see them coming and neither did we but these things happen.

This movie is hailed as completely unique but that is not entirely the case. Something that closely resembles this type of story has already been done and is actually still happening. That would be the 7up Series of documentaries that started in 1964 when a BBC TV crew interviewed several seven-year-old kids and then came back every seven years since to reinterview them. The last one came out last year. It was titled 56 up. So far all the kids are still live. The documentary series is extraordinary in that it captures the march of time in a way transient movies can't quite capture no how much makeup they apply. More than any other movie or documentary I have ever watched, I became invested in the characters in the 7up series. In fact, at some point I no longer cared whether any of the new installments had any conflict or dramatic events in them. I sort of just wanted everyone to live carefree unstressful lives for as long a time as possible. 

This kind of feeling is almost captured in ‘Boyhood.’ The main difference is the fact that ‘Boyhood’ is a fictional conglomeration of what a normal childhood might be. The one thing the 7up Series routinely ignored and for good reasons is the complete absence of cultural/time related references. The interviewers asked the subjects about their lives. They didn’t ask them about what new music they were listening to or what they felt about the Prime Minister or the war the world was currently engaged in. In contrast, ‘Boyhood’ sometimes feels like an early version of a soon to be coming out VH1 TV Show called “I love the 2000s.” It starts off with Coldplay’s ‘Yellow’ a big hit in 2002 and every couple of scenes you have some other song from the recent past like Lady Gaga or Gotye. Ethan Hawke is into the politics and talks in various scenes about Bush v. Kerry and Obama v. McCain. This is not all that interesting stuff and at some points ‘Boyhood’ feels less like a story about a person and more of a nostalgia tour of the last decade. Not all the time though. There is an especially good scene where Ethan Hawke brings up Sarah Palin’s 17-year-old pregnant daughter, Bristol. He does this to segway into a talk about sex and contraception with his kids. That happens to be a far more interesting topic for him to explore than what he thinks of the Republican Party.

This is the odd movie, which is not so great because the movie is too brief. It is an epic story within the confines of a feature length film. Weirdly, the story may be hurt because it wasn’t exactly planned before they started shooting any of it. It is epic in scope but limited in reach and tone. The boy only has a few scenes at each age. Sometimes drama happens but the character does not make any dramatic choices about them. I remember being weird, angry, and utterly bored at times as a kid. Ellar Coltrane does not have these qualities. He comes off as almost ridiculously mature, chill, and cool for his age, especially given the series of alcoholic step-fathers he experiences. I don’t know, maybe that actually was the experience of most people and I’m the outlier. It would not surprise me. ‘Boyhood’ ends on a very slacker and chill Linklater note. The 18 year old talks about the oddness of the saying ‘Carpe Diem’ which is ‘Seize the Moment’ loosely translated. He reflects on it and muses that it seems that life is more like the opposite way around. That the Moment more often than not Seizes You because aren’t we always in the Moment? I mean think about it man. I think that may be true for this kid and perhaps for most people but I don't know, I couldn’t relate. 

The Guardians of the Galaxy (4/5 Stars)

Our Hero, the Awesome Chris Pratt, lands his intergalactic spaceship on a desperate and dangerous alien landscape. He steps into a derelict and cavernous ancient cathedral overgrown with dangerous fauna. Chris Pratt puts on his Walkman and plays his “Awesome Mix Tape #1.” The song, played loud and funky is “Come and Get Your Love,” by Redbone. And to this tune, the opening credits of our movie come on the screen as Chris Pratt dances and shuffles through the many dangers of his archeological mission. That’s when I knew I was watching something new, something interesting, and most importantly something undeniably fun. And you know what, it was.  

Until now, I have not heard of the Marvel comic “Guardians of the Galaxy.” Apparently it is rather recent comic without much of a fan base. There are no recognizable characters. The team consists of a Firefly-esque band of misfits that have come together to do fun outlaw stuff, mostly salvage jobs. The leader is Peter Quill (Chris Pratt), a human who was abducted by aliens when he was a just a little kid in 1988. This particular back-story is a boon to people like me who are somewhat turned off by the complete arbitrariness of most way into the future science fiction. The most obvious perk of the story happening basically in current day even if we never see Earth is the soundtrack. It comes from the Walkman containing his Awesome Mix tape that young Peter was carrying when he was abducted. It has got Marvin Gaye, David Bowie, and even Blue Swede. These songs reflect good taste on the part of Peter’s mother who made the tape for him before she died of cancer. I was surprised and delighted that “Cherry Bomb” by The Runaways got an extended play over one of those getting-for-battle montages. It’s a killer song. Then there is the marvelous pair of digital creations Rocket Raccoon and Groot. They are originally a pair of bounty hunters. Rocket Raccoon is the product of a mad scientist who turned a raccoon into a living, breathing, sarcastic as all hell, and complete with a snarly Napoleaonic complex. Bradley Cooper voices Rocket Raccoon. Admittedly, I could not recognize him in the voice. Groot is, I guess, an Ent, a walking tree. Vin Diesel voices him in what can be safely be said is an underwritten role. All Groot can say is “I am Groot.” Although, he is a bit like Chewbacca in that apparently the Raccoon can interpret his connotations perfectly. These two characters are not muppet sideshows. They are so well conceived and artistically put together that after awhile I realized that I had forgotten that I wasn’t simply watching actual actors. We are at a point in movie technology where these characters are alive. It is an extraordinary to watch and given the progress I would think this might be the last time I comment on how well it is done. From now on, perhaps I’m going to judge these performances just how I would judge a human performance. On a very basic level what has been have achieved is a blurring of the distinction between the two. Joining the party late is the Pro Wrestler Dave Bautista as Drax. He does a very convincing job of being big and dumb and completely incapable of grasping metaphors. Finally there is Zoe Saldana painted dark green this time as a fierce warrior of some sort. She is the serious one of the bunch because you know she’s a woman.

The plot of this story is arbitrary and absurd and quite frankly really comparable to some truly awful movies like John Carter of Mars and the like. There are bunches of people with weird names in weirdly named places you’ve never heard of and they are trying to get this weapon that is going to kill everybody unless Peter Quill and the gang get it first. Motivations come and go easily for the people and not much makes sense in that annoying Science Fiction way you know where because it takes place in a far off place you don’t have to worry about making any of the technology realistic or plausible. But guess what? I did not care. I just did not care. Because what this movie does good it does awesomely great and I could forgive all the absurdity because the movie never really asked me to take it all that seriously. What it asked me to do was have fun and then it provided great music, good jokes, quirky characters, but above all abosolutely stunning things to look at.

The design of this movie is truly Oscar worthy effort. It is hard to assess who is exactly responsible for what. When you look up the crew on IMDB you are faced with the fact that hundreds of people have worked on the movie. But here are couple of names of the people in charge: Charles Wood of Production Design, Ray Chan of Art Direction, Alexandra Byrne of Costume Design, and whoever was in charge of makeup. There has not been a movie so vibrant and fun to look at since “The Fifth Element.” This movie makes use of a comic color palette. The prison jumpsuits are bright yellow. Several characters are of light blue and hot pink and orange hue.  My favorite design has to be the makeup of a character named Nebula (Karen Gillan). Now that is a sexy blue robot (I think she is a robot, maybe). If the makeup and hairstyling of this movie doesn’t win an Oscar I have no idea what I’m talking about. At one point I was looking forward to seeing new characters being introduced just to see what they looked like. What was better about Benecio Del Toro’s part in this movie? His performance or his white suit and hair?

This movie was directed by James Gunn and partially written by him too. I have not seen anything else he has done but given the size of these blockbusters, it is hard to say (and probably shouldn’t be said) that this is his movie. This is a corporate movie and as a corporate movie it has certain plusses and minuses. It does not, cannot have the personal touch that small movies have. But it does have the ability to apply lots of money for the employment of hundreds of artisans and designers. “Guardians of the Galaxy,” is a persuasive argument that summer tent-pole blockbusters can be worth the money spent to make it not just profit-wise but also in artistic merit. Yes, corporate movies can be quirky, original, and fun too. Attidude is all, i.e. the courage to play “Hooked on a Feeling” by Blue Swede in a science fiction movie and have faith that the audience is going to like it enough to ignore how the whole setup is completely absurd. Such courage in very expensive projects is rare but take a look, it exists. 

A Most Wanted Man (4/5 Stars)

“A Most Wanted Man,’’ the last film of actor Philip Seymour Hoffman, is not a spy thriller. ‘Mission Impossible’ is a spy thriller. This is an entirely different animal. It is a spy procedural. Such an explanation is necessary because the movie concept is novel. A procedural is a type of movie that drums up its suspense by curtailing to the Aristotelian ideal of making the representation as real as possible. Among other things, they are great stories for the curious type of person who wants to learn how things work. The most common procedurals are police procedurals (‘True Detective’) and journalist procedurals (‘All the President’s Men’). I do not think I have ever seen a spy procedural. Spies are generally portraryed by the likes of James Bond, Jason Bourne, and Ethan Hunt and they spend far more time seducing, fighting, and stealing secrets than anything else. In this movie we have Philip Seymour Hoffman looking tired, disheveled, and overweight, going about the real business of a spy, that is to find informants through persuasions of incentive or coercion and slowly but surely work up the ladder. “It takes a minnow to catch a barracuda. A barracuda to catch a shark,” he explains. In this movie based on a Le Carre novel and directed with patience by Anton Corbijn we see exactly how it works. Don’t expect gunfights. It lacks in that respect, but as I’ve said, it should be interesting to those curious as to how things work.

The “Most Wanted Man” in the title refers to a Muslim refugee from Russia who shows up in the port of Hamburg, Germany. He may or may not be a terrorist. The Russians say he confessed but that was during a torturous investigation so take it with a grain of salt. He has come to Hamburg for a particular reason. He stands to gain an inheritance from the man who raped and impregnated his mother when she was fifteen. The inheritance is in the millions of dollars. What this refugee, perhaps terrorist, will do with that huge windfall of cash is of most concern to the several intelligence apparati in Hamburg, especially since the most wanted man considers the money unclean and doesn’t want to keep any of it. “You have nothing,” his lawyer (played by Rachel McAdams) reminds him. “I have God,” he explains.

This is an interesting movie for an American audience because it is not our jurisdiction the story takes place in. It takes place in Hamburg and the main spy played by Hoffman is German. The Americans are on the sidelines portrayed by Robin Wright, an intelligence agent stationed in the American embassy in Berlin. Robin Wright has achieved a gender bending feat in transitioning from romantic leads in her early career (The Princess Bride, Forrest Gump) to really dark and interesting character parts that have very little to do with being a woman (House of Cards, A Most Wanted Man). She has a great knack for showing up in a scene and immediately putting on the impression that she is not only better looking and more fashionable than you are but also more effective, capable, and informed. Then there is the late great Philip Seymour Hoffman who more effectively than any actor still alive creates vivid characters for the rest of us. Of great note is his German accent in this movie, which seems less like an exercise in diction but more of a character choice. That is to say it not only denotes the character as German but it also sounds like a tired bueruacrat caught between deadly extremists on one side and the assholes in charge on the other. The most effective scenes are the ones Wright and Hoffman have with each other. Hoffman tries to explain that he knows what he is doing and then there is Wright on the other side. Sure she is polite and hears Hoffman out, but also makes it clear that she doesn’t have to. She’s American and what America wants, America gets. Hoffman brings up that point himself in relation to the most wanted man. She says something about respecting German sovereignty and not acting to capture him on her own initiative. ‘That never stopped you before,’ says Hoffman. ‘We don’t do that anymore,’ smiles Wright. The subtext being of course, ‘unless we wanted to.’ The conclusion of the movie reminded me of watching the paranoid political thrillers of the 1970s. It’s a pessimistic view of American power to say the least.

Hoffman’s death affects the experience of this movie in the same way that Heath Ledger’s death affected watching ‘The Dark Knight.’ Hoffman here looks close to death. He is wan and sickly. He chain smokes. He is more overweight than any other point in his career. His character is disgraced. He has been demoted to Hamburg from Beirut where, through no fault of his own, the Americans blew his network and lot of people who trusted him were killed. As far as swan songs go, this is decent way to go out. It is appropriate for Philip Seymour Hoffman. Both the actor and the character end in a tragedy that only by hindsight seems possible because it is so maddeningly and infuriatingly unjustifiable. It was bullshit. He got a raw deal.

Rest in Peace.

22 Jump Street (4/5 Stars)

The same exact thing but bigger.

According to Urban Dictionary the term ‘meta’ refers to something, generally art, that is characteristically self-referential. The most cliché example ever is the writer who has writer’s blcok that ends up writing a story about a writer who has writer’s block. I have seen this movie plenty of times and it has taken up residence in the shameful corner of my movie critic heart. The reason for this is that the idea seems clever but it is not. Cleverness contains an element of originality and creativity. If the idea has already been done before it cannot be original or creative. There is a caveat to this of course and ’22 Jump Street’ is a particularly good example of it working (at least the first time). ’22 Jump Street’ admits that its meta-ness, i.e. the fact that it is a sequel to a movie that itself was a remake of an old TV show from the 1980s, is not clever.

This is made explicit in the form of the police chief, played by Nick Offerman (the great anti-government crusader Ron Swanson from ‘Parks and Recreation’), who starts off each movie with an explanation as to why this lame excuse of a mission exists at all.  In the first movie with his trademark grouchy annoyance he explained that the 21 Jump Street mission existed because nobody in the police department had any new ideas so they just keep on rehashing old things in hopes that people won’t notice. In ’22 Jump Street’ he explains that nobody cared about 21 Jump Street when they redid it but they got lucky with success, so the department invested a whole lot more money into 22 Jump Street under the stupid impression that maybe if they spent a lot more money they could get that much more success. This influx of new money spent on arbitary shit that has no connection to the success of the mission becomes a running joke in the movie as the sets and gadgets become much more elaborate than they really need to be and characters start drinking espressos for no other reason than because they are more expensive than coffee.

But even this kind of admittance gets kind of exhausting after awhile. Or at least it should be. This is the type of movie that makes fools of movie critics with all their general theories as to what should be better than other things. It’s like a way overpriced tech price that refuses to fall to earth. For my money the reason is that it is genuinely funny and even though it uses a lot of self-referential jokes about sequels, there are plenty of new good one-liners, some great physical comedy, and actual twists in the story that are not predictable. The makers are especially adept at throwing reality to the wind in order to make the whole thing more bright and colorful. For no particular reason the bad guy, Peter Stormare, has a pink backpack. I thought that was funny and applaud such initiative. In other words, this movie like the first one is a much better movie that it should be, and all of these jokes that make fun of the fact that you are watching something that should not have been made seem less like that a writer with writer’s block and more like a cry of help from some seriously competent people that could be doing much better things with their talents.

And they have. The two buddy cops, Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum are very good actors. Jonah Hill has just wrapped up his second Oscar nomination. Channing Tatum has become a Steven Soderbergh favorite. Ice Cube, once a gangster, is now firmly typecast on the other side of the law. He has done well in both cases. The two directors, Phil Lord and Chris Miller, have so far made a career of taking cynical ploys of studio executives and making actual art out of them. Their last movie was ‘The Lego Movie’ something I did not see but was also praised by critics. ’22 Jump Street’ was too. These movies makes one wish they branched out into an original story just to see what it would look like. I am convinced that they could deliver it if they were allowed to and the epilogue of this movie, at least to me, comes off as a desperate plea to the audience and the studio to do just that, i.e. please please please no ’23 Jump Street.’

I haven’t spent a lot of time talking about the movie itself, but then again I don’t have to. It is the same movie. There is a drug dealer on a school campus and the two cops have to find out where the connection is coming from. You saw this movie already! Most of the jokes are based off of that, just far more expensive this time. 

p.s. Rob Riggle’s jokes went too far again. Everything else was generally funny. My favorite had to be the weightlifting part. 

p.s.s. I failed at college. Well I learned a lot of stuff, but cinematically speaking I muffed it. 

Edge of Tomorrow (4/5 Stars)

or: All You Need is Kill!

Roger Ebert once caused an Internet firestorm by declaring that video games can never be art. Boy did he get hell for that. He had a point though and it was that video games because since they had rules, points, objectives, and an outcome that is preordained. Of course, this all denies the massive amount of artistry that generally goes around whatever is the actual game. For instance if you took out the game elements of a superior video game and kept the visual design, the story, and the characters, perhaps what you would be left with was art in the Roger Ebert definition. And what would such art look and feel like? Perhaps like the new Tom Cruise science fiction action flick, “Edge of Tomorrow” is such an example.      

Cinephiles would generally associate the concept of ‘Edge of Tomorrow’ with such great movies time-loop movies like ‘Groundhog Day’ and ‘Source Code,’ but the original manga comic book that this movie is based on, ‘All You Need is Kill!’ is unabashedly a lover of video games and it is possible to argue the movie has more in common with Super Mario than the former. The movie follows the exploits of Cage, played by Tom Cruise, as he is placed in the front lines of an invasion of Europe against an alien foe named the Mimics. Through a freak accident on the day of the invasion, Cage kills an Alpha Mimic and gains the ability to relive each day if and only if he is killed on that day. This is how the Mimics are winning the war in the first place. They can rewind the day of the battle until they learn exactly what the enemy will do. Once they know how the day goes they can plan accordingly the next time they play the game, I mean movie.

This is a video game. You die. You start over. You keep doing it until you get it right. The whole world is at stake. There is a particularly dangerous pitfall to this type of story in that it at some point should get boring if the whole thing just keeps on repeating. This problem is deftly avoided by the director, Doug Liman, the writer Christopher McQuarrie and another great action performance by Tom Cruise. The art in telling this story is knowing what parts to skip. After all, by the story’s logic everything is always the same; so each time Tom relives a day, and the movie suggests that number is in the thousands if not more, we are only shown some of it and most of the time none of it. There is a running joke in the movie where the audience is actually not entirely sure whether Cage has gotten this far into the day or not. Plenty of times you will see a scene for the first time before realizing that Cage has been there one hundred times before and knows exactly what will happen. Other times, he is continually surprised by the day’s developments. The movie keeps the audience out of the know as to what situation it is at most times in the movie and thus retains a sense of suspense as to what will happen further into the movie than one would think is possible.

Another ingredient that helps the movie ride along smoothly is the character of Rita, played by Emily Blunt. Rita’s nickname is “Full Metal Bitch.” She is the army’s best soldier having killed over 100 mimics in her first day of battle. How did she do that? Well, because what happened to Cage, happened to her and she was able to relive the same day over and over again. After Cage goes through the obligatory scenes of trying to explain things to disbelieving army personel it is with a sense of relief that when he gets to Rita, she knows exactly what is going on and sets about training Cage for combat immediately. Nothing really needs to be explained to her, although every day is completely new no matter what. So in plenty of scenes we see things for the first time through her eyes, even though Cage has been there before. In this way, the movie gets away with the former conceit of not needing to show the first time Cage sees something to the audience. In that case, we can follow Rita who knows as much as we do.

This is another great performance by Tom Cruise who, dare I say, is one of the most underappreciated actors of the last decade. It has been almost ten years since Tom Cruise had his Oprah Winfrey “meltdown,” which wasn’t really a meltdown but a crash collision between old media (the interview was 43 minutes long in front of the craziest audience of Tom Cruise fanatics the show could possibly shove together into the same room) and new media (the YouTube clip was about 16 seconds long and completely devoid of context). New media destroyed Tom Cruise’s image in a way that has made it impossible for him to do what made him one of the most admirable movie stars in the 80s and 90s, that is to say take on edgy roles in small ambitious movies like Born on the Fourth of July, Rain Man, Magnolia, Eyes Wide Shut, Vanilla Sky, etc. But what is extraordinary now is how he is using his image as a hated celebrity to his advantage in his current action hero bent. “Edge of Tomorrow,” is perhaps the best example of this so far. His character is introduced not as a soldier but a marketing spokesman for the army. He sits in TV stations and sells the strategy to the public. He is suave and charming and utterly superficial with that classic/cliché Tom Cruise smile. He is then called to the general’s office and informed that he will be part of the invading wave. Tom Cruise’s reaction is just utter conniving cowardice. This is a man who can go in front of TV cameras and with 100% certainty declare that they will win the battle but is going to do everything he possibly can to get out of actually fighting. If you think Tom Cruise is full of shit, you will enjoy like hell the first half hour of this movie. But that’s just the thing that is so extraordinary about Cruise. He seems to know everyone thinks he is full of shit and so is deliberately taking roles that exploit that image in the best way to tell whatever story he is trying to tell. Cruise is such a strange example of humanity. That this guy, an ardent believer of Scientology, one of the most ludicrous religions ever invented, can also side by side possess a brilliant ability to communicate with an audience is amazing to me. How is that kind of compartamentalization even possible? Anyway, another thing that is generally underappreciated is how well a physical performer Tom Cruise happens to be. This movie is stunt heavy and though I’m sure Cruise did not do all of his stunts, some he obviously done plenty of them and that particular type of skill takes a level of dedication and coordination most actors are simply incapable of. I wouldn’t go so far as to say his performance here deserves an Oscar Nomination like I said of his performance in “Mission Impossible IV: Ghost Protocol,” (a position I still hold to) but it is definitely worth noting. Try spreading the word about how good of an actor he still is because I miss the Tom Cruise that could, between larger blockbuster movies, help smaller stranger movies get made. I like this Tom Cruise too, yes, but I want my old Tom Cruise back as well. What I’m trying to say is I miss my Tom Cruise.

p.s. ‘All You Need is Kill’ is a much better title than ‘Edge of Tomorrow’

X-Men: Days of Future Past (5/5 Stars)

The Great 20^th Century Mythos

X-Men: Days of Future Past is the seventh X-Men film and like nobody has ever said before, the sevent movie finds the series really hitting its stride. It is made special not only because on its own particulars but also because it feeds off the goodwill of several previous good films and because it seems to completely ignore (as if it didn’t even exist) the worst movie in the series, “X-Men: The Last Stand.” I actually wrote a review for X-Men: The Last Stand in 2006. Here is what I wrote then, “This movie, the third installment of the X-Men series, literally killed the franchise. I mean seriously, everyone's dead.”

What an astute observation, Max, because in that movie several very main characters died amongst them Cyclops, Jean Gray, and Professor Xavier. So many died in fact that the next several movies either focused solely on Wolverine while he was not part of the X-Men or took a trip back in time to when everybody was still alive. Now ten years after that fateful movie, Bryan Singer, the original director of the very good first two X-Men films, has presented the audience with a bit of revisionist history. “Days of Future Past,” simply pretends that “The Last Stand” never took place. There is Professor Xavier still alive and breathing as if he wasn’t torn to a million pieces ten years ago. Does anybody care? The answer: a resounding no. “The Last Stand” has faded like the general multitude of inferior movies into the world’s collective amnesia unmourned. This is a hopeful thing. I think we can all think of a couple of movies in our favorite series that were just plain bad and should never have existed in the first place. And now “The Last Stand,” doesn’t. Thank you Bryan Singer.

The Last Stand’s inferiority stemmed from its assembly line of mutants and lack of depth. It had plenty of special effects but had no moral weight. It broke the promise of the X-Men series made when Bryan Singer decided to open the first X-Men movie in Auschwitz during the Holocaust. Magneto, as a young child, realizes his powers for the first time at the moment his parents are taken away to the gas chambers. He reaches out to his parents and the metal concentration camp gates between them twist and bend to his budding mutant power of magnetism.  That scene is strong serious stuff and it is also acts a promise that the following movies will be good enough to deserve such drama because if they turn out to not be very good movies it is a dishonor to the memory of the Holocaust.

“Days of Future Past” makes good on that promise. That even though it is a action blockbuster with plenty of special effects and extraordinary mutant powers, it is also a sober metaphor for intolerance whether it be racial, religious, or class. The mutants are beset with persecution by the outside world for their differences. They are viewed as dangerous threats to humanity. Professor Xavier, in a wheelchair like FDR, has a mentality of Martin Luther King Jr. and works pragmatically to heal the divisiveness of the world. Magneto, using terms that parallel Malcolm X, speaks of doing whatever is necessary to achieve protection for mutants even if that means violence with humans. Mutants line up on either side, some attending and teaching at Professor X’s academy and others arming themselves and joining Magneto’s army. Take away all the boyish dazzle of a comic book blockbuster and you have a great 20^th century mythos tackling the most important questions of the last 100 years. How do we live peacefully with people who are different from us?

Of course this is a boyish comic book blockbuster so we also get to have lots of fun as well. There are outlandish spectacles based on mutant powers, big action pieces, and at least one Nixon impersonator. But at its heart ‘X-Men’ is great because it is a series that focuses on character. The mutations work like all great science fiction as an exploration into what regular people would do faced with extraordinary decisions. A person has character and now they are presented with these powers usually upon puberty that expose them to a hostile world. Almost none of the powers are welcomed. In the first movie, Rogue realized her mutant power of power absorption by almost killing her boyfriend with a kiss. Wolverine’s power of regeneration basically makes him immortal, not necessarily a good thing.

Because the characters are so strong and the movie is so big, we are treated to some of the best actors in the world all in the same movie. The movie covers two time periods. One in the future where a Sentinel army with mutant powers are covering the world in epic darkness and one in the past (1973) when the events that brought on the bleak future come to pass. This actually brings together the cast from the first two X-Men movies and the last X-Men movie that took place in 1963. Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan, giants of great dramatic parts, are the elderly Professor X and Magneto now facing extinction and united in remorse of past choices. With the help of Kitty Pryde (Ellen Page) they send Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) to the past to stop an assination. It has to be Wolverine because he is the only one that could survive such a trip. His mission is to pull together the young Professor X (James McAvoy) and Magneto (Michael Fassbender) at a time when could not have been further apart to stop Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) from assassinating a scientist named Bolivar Trask (Peter Dinklage) whose work would lead to the Sentinels.

Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, and Peter Dinklage are some of the most interesting actors to watch on screen for the past five years. They exude screen presence, i.e. the ability to draw your eyes to their part of the screen by simply being there. Mystique larger role in the story comes from perhaps the rising star of Jennifer Lawrence in general who has become in recent years the largest female star in Hollywood not only by being annually nominated for Oscars (winning one) but also by being a box office heavyweight with the “Hunger Games” series. Perhaps no actress since Sigourney Weaver in the 1980s had this kind of streak and I’m pretty sure it is okay to say Jennifer Lawrence has eclipsed even that example. Unlike many other actresses that have their day and fade away, J-Rentz has a dangerous edge to her. In fact, I don’t remember the last time she played someone who wasn’t desperate or veering off in some wild direction. Like Meryl Streep, she seems to have monopolized most of the great roles in her age group and some outside of it. Her normal state is a skin of blue scales, cat eyes, and wild red hair. Her mutant power is her ability to transform into the likeness of anyone she sees. This makes her perfect for anarchy and at heart Mystique is an anarchist.  

One last thing needs to be about Peter Dinklage but not necessarily about him. Peter Dinklage is a little person but is in this movie playing a character that was not a little person in the comic books. That is to say, the part did not call for a little person to play it but Peter Dinklage got the part anyway. Moreover, upon the presence of the Peter Dinklage in the movie there is not the ubiquitous quip or joke or surprised reaction of another character that generally coincides with the presence of a little person in a movie. Peter Dinklage is simply in this movie as this character, period. As far as I know, that is the first time it has ever happened in a movie before. I remember watching the DVD commentary of the “Manchurian Candidate.” The director, John Frankenheimer, was especially proud of this army psychiatrist that was not written as a black person, but for which he decided to cast a black person in the role anyway. Nobody in the movie pays any attention to the man’s race. Frankenheimer said he was proud because never in a Hollywood movie had a black person been cast in a role that wasn’t specifically black. I think Bryan Singer can be proud of casting Peter Dinklage and yes it fits perfectly into the X-Men mythos of tolerance for those of us who are different. 

Night Moves (3/5 Stars)

I would have a hard time explaining why I go to Kelly Reichartdt movies. There is a reason you can only see them in New York City (a few select others) and then maybe only in one theater. They are tiny movies. The pace is slow. The plot bare-boned. The direction is simplistic. This may remind you of other low budget auteurs. Perhaps the dudes in the French Wave, or Ingrid Bergman, or an early David Lynch film. But I hate those other guys. Why did I pay a ticket to see Kelly Reichardt?

I think it might be because Kelly Reichardt lacks pretension. There is very little that is abstract about her movies. Her movies are small not because they are metaphors about larger things. They are small because the subjects are small and Kelly is interested in small things and that’s it. Her best movie, Wendy and Lucy, is about a woman and a dog that takes place over a couple of days as her car breaks down and she tries to get it fixed. The remarkable thing about it is the combination of how specific it is about its subject combined with how little it seems the movie wants you to feel a specific emotion toward the subject. Kelly Reichardt seems to be a competent enough director to make bigger movies that have more to say but her scope stays restrained and her purpose ambiguous to the point where her art achieves a sort of rarefied quality to it. These are serious dramas, sometimes about life and death issues, but they are handled in the complete opposite of a heavy-handed manner.  I always feel especially comfortable watching a Kelly Reichardt film.

“Night Moves,” concerns the simple plans of three environmental terrorists in Oregon, played by Jesse Eisenberg, Dakota Fanning, and Peter Sarsgaard. Jesse and Dakota live on separate organic farms. Peter is a contact Jesse has that used to be a marine and lives in the woods. He can make a bomb that will blow up a little dam. It won’t really matter because there are 10 other dams on the river but it seems to them that something must be done and blowing up this little dam may just get people talking about I don’t know taking down the others. The movie concerns itself the most with Jesse Eisenberg who probably at the beginning thinks he is in charge of this operation. But little by little his idea of being in charge becomes more and more marginalized to the point he seems to be acting randomly by the end. And maybe the point is that this would be world changer was just acting randomly the entire time, lashing out more in chaotic frustration as opposed to purposeful planning. I don’t know. Kelly refuses to lecture me. I won’t give away what exactly happens other than to say that true to form Kelly has the bomb explode offscreen midway through and throws a rather unexpected wrench into the ending.

Jesse Eisenberg’s performance is at once granularly specific and mostly opaque. It’s not that he doesn’t have feelings and thoughts. He just has nobody to speak about them with. More ambiguous is the characters of Dakota Fanning and Peter Sarsgaard. Their most dramatic moments are kept offscreen for the benefit of profoundly confusing Jesse’s idea of what was his life’s narrative. At one point he stands in the woods staring at his trembling hands. Boy, wouldn’t you like to know what he is thinking.

What was it all about? Is this really how these terrible things happen?