Film Review: Lucy (2014)

I could say that Lucy is a film about a woman conned into acting as a drug mule for some very disreputable men, but I'm not sure how accurate that is. The film is actually about the myth that people only use 10% of their brain's capacity and what might happen were we to tap into the other 90%. I think the fact that this myth has been debunked many times over is interesting as it brings up some questions about the amount of science needed in Science Fiction, but more on that in a bit.

As a film, Lucy is OK at best; it's certainly watchable if not fully enjoyable. Scarlett Johansson is wonderful as always, and she does a great job presenting Lucy's progress from a sweet, normal (whatever that means) girl to someone seemingly devoid of humanity or empathy. The suggestion that higher brain capacity and function leads to someone being less human instead of more is certainly interesting, though not very unique or original. Morgan Freeman is also a pleasure, but that's mostly because Freeman is always a pleasure. He does little more here than deliver exposition in his great Morgan Freeman voice. The film also features a diverse group of top billed actors, which is always commendable. But that's about where the compliments end. Spoilers to follow.

The film's cinematic problems include general plot hole and continuity struggles. Early on in her brain activation, the point is made that Lucy is becoming less and less human. The implication being she's starting to lose some basic human empathy. She quickly finds the man responsible for her current state. She effortlessly kills all of his guards, immobilizes him, uses her new telepathic powers to find out where all of the other drug mules were sent so she can start the process of hunting them down, and then she leaves him alive. Why? She has no problem killing the men working for him, and yet when she has this man (who is far worse than his little worker bees) at her mercy, she leaves him alive. The film offers no reasoning for this choice, so I'm left thinking that it happened because the plot required it. They would have been robbed of their big finish showdown sequence had she killed him early on. The movie is full of these head scratching moments.

But these storytelling problems are nothing compared to the films extremely faulty logic and science. I think there's a fair amount of balance that is expected from a Science Fiction film. If there's more fiction than science, I think audiences (or more specifically just me) will be capable of suspended disbelief and just going with it so long as the bad science doesn't ask more questions than it answers. When there's more science than fiction, you run the risk of the story being boring. For an example of this, read Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park which is far more interested in how dinosaurs might be made than it is in telling a story and, therefore, isn't near as good as it's film adaptation. Lucy falls into an odd space where it feels like the filmmakers are more interested in science than story and yet their science is horribly flawed and nonsensical.

Let's say for the moment that we were to suspend our disbelief about the 10% problem; that still doesn't explain why more brain function would in anyway alter the basic physiology of the human body. You can't think yourself into a new hair color just because you've got a bit more brain power. Octopus and Chameleon cells can do that, human bodies cannot and nothing the film posits suggests that that basic physiology would change. Likewise, the chances of the human body morphing into some weird goo to form a super computer is highly unlikely. The film doesn't intend on its viewers asking the questions of how or why Lucy is capable of doing the things she ends up doing. They fully expect you to take them at their word that this is what would happen. In doing so, it feels like the writers heard once that viewers will suspend disbelief but they never stuck around to find out the steps needed to ensure that would happen. I couldn't stop asking these questions and when the film refused to provide answers, I was left being pulled out of the narrative.

I seriously wanted to like Lucy. As a person who's been wanting a Black Widow film since the character was introduced back in Iron Man 2, I thought this might be a nice way to bridge the gap to that film. A female fronted action movie starring Black Widow herself that was successful might lead the people behind Marvel Studios to see just what they were missing by keeping her out of her own franchise. Instead we got a film that seems to want to walk in between genres and doesn't really do one or the other well.

FIlm Review: In Your Eyes

Joss Whedon (who is one of my own personal gods in case you didn't know) had a Q&A panel at 2013's Comic Con in which he mentioned a desire for more original content to come out of Hollywood. You can watch the entire panel here if you like, and if you don't have anything to do for the next hour. It's funny and insightful as Whedon has a tendency to be, but the focus on more original stories struck me as interesting. This is partially because I've been lamenting the various remakes and rehashes and adaptations coming out of Hollywood for the past couple of years, and it's just nice to hear someone I respect and admire so greatly admit to feeling the same way.

As we all know, Whedon's star is (finally) on the ascendent. He's gained a lot of success over the past couple years while helming the ship for Marvel's The Avengers adaptation and writing, directing, and producing his own adaptation of Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing. Anyone else sensing a pattern developing here? For a man with specific views on the need for original content, Whedon didn't seem to be putting out much original content. Indeed, even The Cabin in the Woods (brilliant film that it was) seemed to be the brain child of Drew Goddard. So where were all of these original ideas Whedon wanted to see come out of Hollywood but didn't seem ready to produce himself? Apparently sitting in one of his desk drawers for the last decade.

In Your Eyes is the most recent film to be released by Whedon. Given how busy the man is with Age of Ultron, and all of his other Marvel duties, I don't know how much he had to do with the film's actual production, but we do know that he is the sole person responsible for the script.

And what a script it is. In Your Eyes (which can be rented for only $5 here) is the story of Dylan (Michael Stahl-David) and Rebecca (Zoe Kazan), two people who couldn't be more different from one another but who find themselves inexplicably linked and drawn together. The film opens with Dylan and Rebecca as children, him in New Mexico and she living in New Hampshire, on what appears to be just a normal day for both of him. He's going to school and joking with his friends, and she's going sledding with her mother. As Rebecca's getting ready for the pulse pounding trek down the snowy hill, Dylan finds himself seeing things through her eyes, and when she crashes into a tree, the both of them feel it and are knocked unconscious. The film then jumps forward a decade or so to give us Dylan and Rebecca as adults. He's an ex-con fresh out of prison for breaking and entering and trying to get his life together, and she's married to the worst man imaginable living an unfulfilled, upper-class life. Their weird connection has continued in less invasive ways than the sledding incident, but it's kicked into full gear one day for no discernible reason. They find that they can talk to each other (out loud only) and see what one another sees, and also smell and feel what the other is smelling and feeling. What follows is a fascinating and entertaining story about how two people who've never even met find themselves falling in love.

The story works exceptionally well for a sap, like me, who loves romance and watching people fall in love. And for two people who are on screen together for less than five minutes, Michael Stahl-David and Zoe Kazan have exceptionally strong chemistry with one another. It was easy to forget during their scenes that they couldn't actually hear one another and were filming their respective parts in different locations. But deeper than the romance were themes about companionship and never being alone that I found to be really moving. But the romantic story in and of itself is great because these two people make one another better by being together. It's something I've noticed about the best of Whedon's romantic relationships: His characters don't have to change or give up anything about themselves when they get together. When that particular element is missing, the relationships tend to fall flat or not work.

The flaws in the film are nominal. None of the characters outside of the main two are developed as well. Most of them are two dimensional villain types who serve little to no purpose other than to be horrible and create tension for the couple. There are a number of scenes of the two of them talking to each other over their mysterious connection in public and getting odd glances from the people around them who think their talking to themselves. This could have easily been taken care of by each of them simply buying a Bluetooth and wearing it everywhere. Since the story takes place in a world where people seemingly walk around talking to themselves all the time, this is an odd problem for the story to have and never address. And the origin of this connection between them and whatever it is that sparked it into being is never explained in the film. There's a moment when Dylan says he's been thinking about the reasons why it might have happened when it did, and when Rebecca asks him what he thinks, he simply replies "Why not?" It's an exchange that suggests Whedon knew the question would come up eventually and either didn't want to bog down the proceedings with an explanation, or couldn't come up with one himself. As a choice, it feels a little lazy on his part, but I also recognize the potential desire to allow that element of the story to sit on the back burner while we just focus on these two characters falling in love. In that sense, whether this development is a stroke of genius or a deal breaker for the picture is something that I think is totally subjective.

Other than that, I honestly thought every aspect of the story worked. As much as I'm looking forward to Age of Ultron, and I can't stress enough how excited I am, I must say that if Joss Whedon continues to lead the charge for original content in Hollywood, then there's nothing more we could hope for. In Your Eyes blends romance and Sci-Fi in one of the best ways I've ever seen. Spend your $5 and watch it now; you won't be disappointed.

Film Review: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

In the interest of full disclosure, I hated the second Hunger Games book. I also wasn't a huge fan of the first film because I thought they tried to stay too true to the book (book purests who, incorrectly,  think the books are always automatically better are hating me right now) instead of focusing on making a good adaptation of the source material. But I didn't hate the first film, and I didn't hate the first book either, so those are the caveats I feel obligated to make before starting this review. I guess logic dictates that my next statement be that I hated The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, but I really really didn't.


Here's the major mistake that I think Collins makes that the films, by necessity, rectify: The First Person, present tense narration. Even though the films (the first more than the second) pull almost all of their dialogue from the book, they were smart enough to avoid the too easy trap of including some kind of voice-over narration from Katniss. I don't know if this is because the film makers know how horrible voice-over generally is, or because, like me, they found the narration of the books to be the weakest element. Being stuck in Katniss' head while she repeatedly and willfully makes the worst deductions and most illogical leaps about the things in front of her face is one of the most torturous experiences I've ever had. Per usual, the films take place in third person, and the difference it makes to Collins' story is tremendous.

The story of the film shouldn't be surprising to anyone at the this point. Katniss (played by the most glorious human being ever, and someone I totally wish was my best friend, Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) have returned home from their defiant triumph in last year's Hunger Games. Now they're in a position to play up their false love (false from Katniss' point at least) for the cameras in an attempt to quell the burgeoning rebellion of the districts that their actions in the games have started. This is complicated by Peeta's (understandable) lack of interest in allowing his very real emotions to be placated by Katniss' farce, Gale (Liam Hiemsworth or, I mean, sorry, maybe this one is better?) starting to make his long standing feelings for Katniss known, and the continued threats from President Snow (Donald Sutherland in a continuously fun and evil performance) that if things in the districts don't get any better, he'll take his frustrations out on Katniss' loved ones. So in an attempt to do his part to eliminate Katniss' status as a symbol of hope, President Snow uses the upcoming Quarter Quell (a special version of the Games that takes place every 25 years) to enact a rule that this year's Hunger Games Reaping will take place from the previous winners of each district. So of course Katniss and Peeta (after he volunteers to take Haymitch's place) find themselves heading back into the games.

(Spoilers follow) As an adaptation, Catching Fire is pretty much everything I look for. The core story elements are there and pretty much unadulterated, some of the things that are a little more implicit in the book are made perfectly explicit in the film (the relationship between Katniss and Gale is one of the things that I feel is being firmly taken out of speculation and the subtext and placed firmly on the screen, and the scene in which Katniss saves Gale from being publicly flogged is one of the more powerful in the film), and the things that are being left out are more or less inconsequential, while the scenes that are added do a lot to add color and context to the story and the characters we don't get to spend as much time with in the books (the scenes between Snow and Plutarch Heavensbee [the constantly amazing Phillip Seymour Hoffman] come to mind).

There are a couple moments in the book that don't make the cut which could be argued as being important, but I'm not sure the storytelling experience is truly lessened by their absence. As for Peeta's amputated leg, while I agree that leaving this out was an oversight, I also think it's a flaw to be held against the first film and not this one, which couldn't have fixed this issue without a hugely problematic retcon. As a result, what you get is not only an intelligent and highly entertaining film, but a rare adaptation that truly surpasses the experience created by its source material.

If I have one complaint about the film, it's that the pacing still feels to be a bit off. Where I think Collins had a tendency to allow the pre-games scenes to take their time and build character and suspense, and for the pace to be picked up during the life and death games, I feel like the films have tended towards the opposite with the earlier scenes flying by while the games lack a more pulse pounding tempo. That isn't to say that the scenes in the Arena aren't exciting, tense, and suspenseful, because they often are, but the general feeling of death coming and passing the characters by in a blink is lesser here than I felt it was in the book.

But in the end, I'm left with one simple fact: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire was an exceptionally entertaining way to spend two hours and twenty-six minutes. I left the theater very excited for the next two films, which is way way more than I can say for how I felt putting the book down.

Film Review: Thor: The Dark World

I finally got around to seeing Thor: The Dark World for a second time and I must say that I found it a lot more impressive upon rewatch than I did initially. The problems I had with it on a macro level (which I'll get to in due time) are still there, but the problems I had with it on the micro level of the sheer storytelling in the moment have vanished. Where I initially thought that the film had eliminated some of the storytelling flare of the previous Marvel Cinematic Universe films in favor of straight action, I now see that the story is a lot stronger than I gave it credit for and the manner in which it is being told is actually rather masterful. I held off on writing my review of the film after my first viewing because I have a lot of faith in Marvel's ability to create good films (at the very least, I have faith in their ability to create good films in this Avengers dominated run. I'm willing to simply gloss over the flaws in some of the X-men and Spider-Man movies and the complete ridiculousness that was Fantastic 4 as anomalies), and so I left the theater acknowledging that if I didn't enjoy the film as much as I should have, then the problem was probably with me as a viewer and not with the film. In the end, I think this proved to be the right move.

The film opens with Odin (played as always by the incomparable Anthony Hopkins) giving a voice over recap of the the beginning of the universe and the war fought between Asgardians and Dark Elves over the elves desire to return the universe to the darkness from whence it came. Malekith (Christopher Eccleston) is the leader of the Dark Elves and he's looking to use a MacGuffin weapon known as the Aether to basically end the world as we know it. Odin's father stops him, hides the weapon somewhere where it'll never be found (because that always ends well) and tells the world that Malekith, who scampered off when the battle was lost, is dead. Fast forward a few thousand years and Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is being locked in the Asgardian dungeon for the rest of his life for the crimes he committed on Earth during The Avengers, and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is fighting to restore peace and balance to the nine realms which fell into chaos after Loki's actions in the first Thor. And of course there's Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), Thor's mortal, earthbound love interest who's moping about since Thor left her two years ago, but who's been spending her downtime using her awesome scientist brain to track gravitational anomalies over London. So things are tough all over for our group and, of course, when the Aether is found in the place no one would ever find it, and Malekith and his elves wake up from their thousands of years of slumber, wackiness ensues.

The movie is fun and entertaining. The story is straight forward and easily comprehensible (something I didn't realize when I watched it slightly drunk the first time around). And, somewhat surprisingly, it's really funny; consistently funny throughout much of it's 112 minute run time. It wasn't that I doubted Marvel's ability to bring the humor, but after spending so much time with the ever refreshing and snarky Tony Stark, it seemed odd that one of their films could pack in so much humor without him. But more than all of those reasons, I was surprised by the film's subtlety in its storytelling on the second watch. A lot of the story progresses without words, relying on the visual to convey the intricacies of what's happening. I found this to be especially true during a major action set piece towards the mid point of the film where the characters allowed to act and react to the situations before them without any real exposition about what was happening. (general spoiler) When Heimdall (the always amazing Idris Elba) moves to raise the protective barrier around Asgard, he doesn't talk aloud to himself about what he is doing or needs to do; he simply does it and there's never any confusion as to what is being done. So while this can leave things seeming a bit murky to the slightly inebriated brain, it makes perfect sense when sober, and I'm sorry for initially thinking the film was cumbersome and convoluted before, Marvel, I was wrong.

But that's not to say that I don't have problems with the film, or more specifically with its place within the series as a whole (significant spoilers and specific story elements to follow). Aside from the extreme lack of scenes featuring a scantly clad Chris Hemsworth (only one shirtless scene? really?), I only have two serious complaints. 1) I feel that Thor is the only Avenger with his own franchise thus far who isn't getting very much emotional development. 2) I think the series would have been much better served by allowing Loki to remain dead. I'll admit, that I'm more capable of being swayed on that second one, but in the moment it kind of irks me.

About Thor's emotional development: While it's clear that Thor underwent a great change in character after the first film, I don't feel as though the same can be said about this one. I'll admit that it's possible that the filmmakers intended the moment when he confronts Odin at the end of the film to tell him he can be the protector of the nine realms but he can't and won't take his rightful place on the throne to be the defining character moment, but if that's the case then I have to say it didn't work for me. First off, I was never under the impression that Thor becoming king of Asgard and ruling from the throne was ever going to happen. Given everything they want to do with the Avengers franchise, that just never realistically seemed to be in the offing to me. Secondly, I never really got the impression that Thor was interested in taking the throne to begin with. Early in the film Odin tells Loki that the plan is for Thor to finish bringing peace to the nine realms and then to become king, but we never hear that aspiration from Thor himself. It's set in stone by way of his birthright, sure, but what reason are we given to believe that all of the fighting and struggling to bring the nine realms to heel is being done, on his part, simply so he can get to his throne sooner? Giving up something someone else wants you to have but that you never really wanted in the first place (and something that would stall the story progression were you ever to possess it anyway) doesn't really count as character growth to me. Furthermore, Thor's mother, Frigga (Rene Russo), dies in this film and it's clearly a moment meant to spark a change in everything, but beyond his grief, I'm not sure I feel comfortable saying that Thor emerges from the incident as a different man than he was prior. Compare him to Tony Stark who underwent a serious progression within his most recent film, and Steve Rogers who appears to be being confronted with the same kind of big character moments in his upcoming film (based on the trailer at least), and you've got a character who seems to be being left behind by the Marvel writing staff.

As for Loki's death, allow me to say that I fully understand why the creative team would want to keep Hiddleston around. Even though I'm not one of the many many fans of the series who thinks that Loki is just the greatest thing since sliced bread, I do understand how invaluable Hiddleston has been in the role and how much fun he's constantly been on screen. I also understand the desire to stay true to the comics the films are based on. But seeing as how the films in most of the MCU have been adapted from Marvel worlds and characters more so than direct stories and comic runs themselves, I'm not of the opinion that the films have to remain as staunchly true to the source material as a Harry Potter or a Hunger Games adaptation has to. I would also point out that between Agent Coulson being returned from the dead in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and Bucky making his return in The Winter Soldier, I'm starting to wonder if the series (and I do view all of these independent films as one whole series in a lot of ways) has the balls to pull the trigger on something as big and important as a major character death. I love Frigga, but sorry she doesn't count. I felt as though the film had the chance to do something significant with Loki's death and the redemptive elements of it in this film and they squandered it with that ending.

With all of that being said, Thor: The Dark World is a ridiculously entertaining and enjoyable film. The performances always seem to toe the line between headstrong seriousness and self-aware camp (or maybe it's just the Elizabethan language that makes it seem that way), the romance between Jane and Thor is crazy moving and fun to watch, and the film is told with a frankness and confidence that still surprises me when I find it in action films. You'd think after so many Marvel films I'd be used to it. Between this and Iron Man 3, I think Marvel's Phase 2 is shaping up to be every bit as good as Phase 1 was.

Film Review: 12 Years a Slave

I watched Steve McQueen's 12 Years a Slave last night and I'm still not sure how to go about processing what I saw. I hope it's not hyperbolic for me to say that not since Roots have we seen such an unflinching portrayal of Slavery in America. But even more important than that (or at least more important within the confines of this blog) very rarely have we seen a more confident and capable filmmaker than McQueen. If this man doesn't finally get his (long overdue) Oscar, a great disservice will have been done by the academy.

The Story (possible spoilers to follow): 12 Years a Slave is based on the novel of the same name by Solomon Northup and it details his experiences in slavery. Northup is a free black man living in New York with his loving wife and their two children. As a talented violinist, he is offered a job playing for two magicians in a traveling circus, and he goes with them to Washington DC in faith and friendship only to wake up one morning after a night of hard drinking chained in a slave market. Without easy access to his papers, and working within a system that clearly doesn't want him to have access to his papers, he is quickly given a new name, and a story claiming that he is a run away slave from Georgia. What follows is an amazing story of a kidnapped black man being sold into slavery for 12 years and forced to try and survive.

The story is powerful and amazing to witness, but the film is really a triumph of excellent direction from McQueen. I honestly don't have words to accurately describe how amazing McQueen's work is here, and somehow that's the most fitting reaction since the most powerful things McQueen does within this film have nothing to do with the words. This is a triumph of visual storytelling. I first noticed this signature from McQueen when I watched Shame in theaters. There are so many moments in that film where McQueen was content to just let Fassbender sit and allow the thoughts and emotions of the character to play across his face. Often during the numerous sex scenes of that film, the camera was trained on Fassbender's face instead of on the bodies of the characters, and the affect of this choice was to bring the viewer into Brandon's head and witness the turmoil of a person suffering from a sex addiction. McQueen brings that same sensibility to 12 Years and the affect is twofold: you get a great human story watching Chiwetel Ejiofor allow Solomon's emotions just bubble up to the surface or forcing them down and out of sight, and you get an uncomfortable experience of witnessing the horrors of slavery.

In one of the more remarkable scenes of the film, Solomon is being lynched after he dares to challenge and then repeatedly strike his first Overseer, Tibeats (Paul Dano in a very understated and ultimately thankless performance). One of the other Overseers saves Solomon's life, but leaves him hanging from the tree, his toes barely scraping the muddy ground and supporting enough of his weight to stop him from suffocating, until the plantation owner, Ford (played by the eternally amazing Benedict Cumberbatch) arrives home and cuts him free. McQueen holds the shot of Solomon hanging from the tree for the most amazing interval. It might have been five minutes, it might have been five hours, I'm not sure, but the impact of it is undeniable. As Solomon struggles in the foreground, life goes on around him in the background. Children play, men and women continue their work, the lady of the house looks on briefly before heading back inside, one woman sneaks up to him to give him a drink of water before quickly rushing off again, no one speaks, no one other than that kind slave woman acknowledges him, and the audience is left with the impression that this is just business as usual. It's nothing short of brilliant.

The film always stays in the moment and never really crosses into judgmental territory. I can't say that the slave owners are ever portrayed as sympathetic, but they aren't unduly demonized either. McQueen presents the situations as they happened and leaves the audience to draw their own conclusions. There are two moments in the film where it feels, however briefly, like the filmmakers are trying to make a message or tip their hands a bit more than necessary. One exceptionally illuminating conversation with Alfre Woodard and the conversation between Fassbender and Brad Pitt's characters. But both scenes work well and fit within the confines of the story. Oddly enough, the resonant moment in the film, for me, was something Ford said to Solomon. "Whatever the circumstances, Solomon, you are an exceptional nigger, but I fear no good will come of it." If you're looking for a line with implications that echo through time to the present, look no further.

12 Years a Slave is not for the faint of heart. It earns its R rating through unflinching portrayals of abuse and sexuality that were as much a part of Slavery as the hard back-breaking work. But for those with the stomach to take it, 12 years is an amazingly powerful and exceptionally well made film. Great direction, breath taking performances from all of the film's stars, and an emotional experience that will move you and open your eyes.