Lucy

Posted on July 24, 2014 at 6:00 pm

I always enjoy Luc Besson’s stylish car chases and shootouts. I like his use of locations, his strong female characters, and unexpected flashes of sentiment in the midst of mayhem. While I found much to like in this story about a young woman who gains superpowers through a new drug, it was a mistake to have her show less emotion as she becomes physically and emotionally stronger. Instead of sentiment, this time Besson inserts some preachy ruminations on the meaning of life. I’m not opposed to existential ponderings in the middle of a crashes and explosions film. But they need to be a little less silly and a lot less intrusive.

For a moment, I thought we were back on the Planet of the Apes or perhaps picking up some deleted scenes from “Tree of Life” as we returned to the dawn of time with the earliest hominids. But no, this is just some sort of context for what is to come. Our heroine, you see, shares a name with the skeleton of the oldest human remains, thought of as the first woman.

We then meet our present-day Lucy, standing on the sidewalk, arguing with her boyfriend of a week, who is trying to persuade her to deliver a briefcase for him. She may not be very focused, but she is sharp enough to know that he and the deal he is proposing are both very sketchy. But she is not smart enough to walk away before he can handcuff her to the case and shove her toward the door. She has no choice. She walks into the building. The boyfriend gets shot. And she is hustled upstairs but a lot of very scary-looking guys in black suits.

She is soon knocked out, and awakens to find that a pouch of a powerful new drug has been sewn into her abdomen. She is one of four mules to be sent to cities across Europe to deliver the drug. But before she leaves, a thug kicks her in the belly, the pouch opens, and the drug, a synthetic version of a chemical essential in fetal development, goes into her bloodstream and she is suddenly super-smart, super-powerful, and super-mad. Also, she can time-travel, sweeping eras to the side like Tinder rejects.

Meanwhile, all of that brain power has not led her to the obvious conclusion that wiping out all of the bad guys who are in charge of distribution of the new drug is not going to solve very much if there are still people out there manufacturing it.

For a while it is fun to see her think, kick, punch, stab, and, yes, levitate the bad guys. But there are too many returns to Morgan Freeman lecturing a group of students about what would happen if we used more than ten percent of our brains (by the way, that old myth has no more basis in reality than this movie does) and the decision to make Lucy increasingly robotic in demeanor as she gets more cerebrally enhanced lessens the narrative propulsion and emotional heft to the storyline. She also loses a lot of our sympathy when she engages in needless murders of innocent parties. I like Luc Besson. But I think he was using less than ten percent of his brain when he wrote this one.

Parents should know that this film includes extensive action-style violence with many characters injured and killed, lots of guns, knives, surgery, car chases and crashes, fights, threat of sexual assault with some grabbing, explicit scenes of animal and brief human sex and childbirth, sexual references, brief strong language, theme of drug dealing and effects of illegal drugs

Family discussion: If you could access more of your brain capacity, what would you use it for? Why did Lucy become less emotional as she got smarter?

If you like this, try: “The Transporter” and “Limitless”

Related Tags:

Action/Adventure Fantasy

And So It Goes

Posted on July 24, 2014 at 6:00 pm

12 June 2013 Photo by Clay Enos – © 2013 ASIG Productions LLC

A second marriage is, as Samuel Johnson famously said, “The triumph of hope over experience.” And as lyricist Sammy Cahn wrote in the song Bing Crosby sang in “High Time,” “Love is lovelier the second time around.” In this slight but endearing new film, director Rob Reiner and screenwriter Mark Andrus (“As Good as it Gets”) bring us an autumn-years love story. Oscar-winners Michael Douglas and Diane Keaton play two characters with little in common but the experience of great loss, the knowledge that love carries great risks, and the fear that there may not be another chance.

Douglas is Oren, a successful realtor and even more successful misanthrope. He insults people. He is bitter. He shoots a dog with a paintball gun. He does not like anyone and no one likes him, with the exception of his longtime colleague played by the invaluable Frances Sternhagen. Keaton plays Leah, a widow experimenting with singing at a restaurant. She is universally beloved, especially by her neighbors in a fourplex and her loyal accompanist (played by the director himself). Oren lives in the fourplex, too, ironically named “Little Shangri-La,” and is revealed early on to be the owner as well. He hopes for one last big-ticket house sale so he can retire and move away and never deal with anyone ever again.

But life has a way of entangling those who most try to rid themselves of obligations and relationships — at least in movies. Oren’s long-estranged son arrives to inform his father that (1) he is no longer a drug addict, (2) he has a daughter, and (3) he needs Oren to care for her while he serves a prison term.

Oren refuses, saying “I already tried to raise a kid and it didn’t work out.” So Leah steps in and says the girl can stay with her. She is Sarah (Sterling Jerins). And anyone who has ever seen a movie (or read “Heidi”) knows that the girl will charm her grandfather and open the hurting hearts of both Oren and Leah to her and to each other. Oren finally admits to Leah, “I like you and I don’t like anyone.”

Despite contemporary references like “Duck Dynasty” and “Hoarders,” this film has a musty, retro feel, like a script that has been sitting in a drawer for a couple of decades. The plot is predictable and creaky. An attempt to return Sarah to her mother goes exactly the way you think. The caterpillar Sarah collects is exactly the metaphor you think. The pregnant neighbor provides exactly the opportunity for Oren’s showing what he is capable of that you thought but hoped you could avoid. The racial humor is painfully out of date, so you didn’t predict it, but that does not make it a good surprise. Far from it.

What the movie does have, though, is Douglas and Keaton, and they triumph over the limitations of the material, making us believe that the greatest love in our lives may still be waiting for us.

Parents should know that this film includes sexual references, some crude, childbirth scene, some strong language, some racial insults, drinking, drug abuse, references to sad deaths

Family discussion: Why was it so hard for Oren to be nice to people? How did Leah make Sarah feel at home?

If you like this, try: “As Good as It Gets” and “Something’s Gotta Give”

Related Tags:

Wish I Was Here

Posted on July 20, 2014 at 7:21 pm

My intention was to review Zach Braff’s new film without mentioning the controversy he stirred up in funding it via Kickstarter. My view was that what mattered was the movie itself, and the kerfluffle over how it was all paid for was beside the point. But it turns out that it is the point. “Scrubs” star Braff says that despite the success of the first film he wrote, directed, and starred in, Garden State, not one studio was willing to give him the money for this follow-up. So, he went to crowd-funding as a way to give him artistic freedom. To those who said that crowd-funding should not be used by wealthy celebrities, he correctly pointed out that no one who objected had to send any money. Many people did want to support the project. He asked for $2 million. He raised $3,105,473 from 46,520 people.

That’s a good thing for making sure he got to realize his very individual artistic vision. I’m just not sure whether we would not have been better off with a studio persuading him to make this film, as the suits in Hollywood like to say, “more relatable.” The script, written by Braff and his brother, is kind of a mess. Of course, life is kind of a mess, too, and movies don’t all have to be rigidly linear or consistent in tone. But this one does not come across as intentionally messy to reflect the rich tapestry of life. It comes across as undercooked and self-indulgent. Maybe I should say Kickstarter-enabled.

In “Garden State,” Braff played a struggling young actor named Andrew Largeman who returns to New Jersey for his mother’s funeral, decides to go off of his mood-numbing meds originally prescribed by his disapproving, remote father, meets the warm and loving and completely adorable Natalie Portman, and learns to begin to feel his feelings.

While not formally a sequel, in this film Braff plays a struggling less-young actor named Aiden Bloom married to a warm, loving, and completely adorable Sarah (Kate Hudson), and struggling with his remote, disapproving father, Gabe (Mandy Patinkin).

Aiden and his father have agreed that if Gabe will pay the grandchildren’s private school tuition, he can pick the school. So, even though Aiden is not an observant Jew, his children go to an Orthodox yeshiva school. He is frustrated that his daughter Grace (Joey King) has become very devout. And he is even more frustrated when Gabe tells him that he will not be able to pay the tuition any longer because he needs the money for some experimental cancer treatment. “So much bad news all at once,” Aiden says, learning that his children will have to leave school and his father may be dying in the same moment.

Aiden unsuccessfully tries to persuade the school’s principal, an aged rabbi, to give the children a scholarship. Because Aiden is not trying to get a job to support his family, and because they would have to take money from other families who are in need, the rabbi says no, firmly but not unkindly. Aiden haplessly starts to homeschool his children as Sarah struggles with an obnoxious co-worker who insists on making highly sexual and completely inappropriate comments. She gets no help from her boss, who tells her to lighten up.

Aiden also has a brother, Noah (Josh Gad), a brilliant near-recluse who lives in a trailer. He has genius-level analytic skills but toddler-level interpersonal skills.

There are moments in this film that are pure, inspired, and clearly the work of an exceptional filmmaker. Too many of the best of them recall even better versions of themselves in “Garden State.” And too many other moments are spoiled by an unwillingness to trust the audience. The portrayal of Judaism borders on the grotesque (rebbe on a Segway — funny; rebbe on a Segway he can’t maneuver — not). Braff as writer and director makes the mistake we see too often: Jewish actors and filmmakers who portray Jews feel that they have to ACT Jewish so they go painfully over the top. The way Aiden and Sarah handle their daughter’s wish to be more religious is insensitive and unrealistic. The way she chooses to demonstrate her faith is inappropriate for a young girl and makes no sense. Until a moment late in the film when a quiet conversation with a sympathetic young rabbi, the portrayal of the Jewish community is unremittingly negative. And Aiden is not as endearing as his director/portrayer apparently think.

It is a second quiet conversation that makes up for a lot of the missteps along the way. Kate Hudson speaks to a man in a hospital bed, and it is touching and moving. There are some striking images and some choice performances, especially Jim Parsons (who had a similar role in “Garden State,” also in a wild get-up) as another aspiring actor. And, as with “Garden State,” the music on the soundtrack is beautifully curated.

If Braff decides to go back to Kickstarter for #3, I might sign up. Until then, I’ll think of this as a transitional film and hope that Braff will learn from it that sometimes when people say no it’s for a good reason.

Parents should know that this film includes very strong language, some crude, some used by children, explicit sexual references and situations, pornography and workplace sexual harassment, and drinking.

Family discussion: How did Noah and Aiden respond differently to Gabe’s parenting? Was Sarah right to support Aiden?

If you like this, try: “Garden State” and “Scrubs”

Related Tags:

Comedy Drama

Boyhood

Posted on July 17, 2014 at 6:00 pm

A-

Lowest Recommended Age:	Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for language including sexual references, and for teen drug and alcohol use
Profanity:	Very strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Teen and adult drinking, teen drug use
Violence/ Scariness:	Domestic abuse, guns
Diversity Issues:	None
Date Released to Theaters:	July 18, 2014
Date Released to DVD:	January 5, 2015
Amazon.com ASIN:	B00MEQUNZ0

“A boy’s will is the wind’s will/And the thoughts of youth are long, long thoughts.” (Longfellow)

We first see Mason (Ellar Coltrane) lying on the ground, looking up at the sky, and it is clear that his thoughts are very long indeed. We will stay with Mason and — in an unprecedented longitudinal form of filmmaking from writer/director Richard Linklater — portrayed by Coltrane for twelve years, until he leaves for college at age 18. This film deservedly appears on most of the year’s top ten lists and has been selected by several critics groups as the best film of the year.

Linklater has followed characters over the years before. We have seen the romantic relationship of Celine and Jesse in three 24-hour episodes (all involving walking through European cities) in the “Before” films, plus an intriguing segment of the animated “Waking Life.” That series is an extraordinary, and I hope, continuing undertaking, with stars Julie Delpy and Ethan Hawke working with Linklater to create the storyline and script.

Hawke is in this film, too, as Mason’s father, Mason senior. Patricia Arquette plays his mother and Linklater’s daughter Lorelei plays his older sister, Samantha. All are superb. Linklater says that he knew what the last shot would be from the beginning. For the rest, he trusted his stars and the developments of the dozen years ahead of them. As the children got older, they joined Linklater, Hawke, and Arquette in helping to fill in the details.

And it is the details that are the story here, giving it a unhurried yet mesmerizingly enthralling feel and an unexpected power. At first, it seems like time-lapse footage of a flower blooming. Then it feels like watching someone’s home movies. By the end, we are so invested in Mason’s life we feel we are watching our own.

Linklater and his cast met for just a few weeks each year to film a little more. Unlike a conventional narrative, where, as Chekov put it, economy of storytelling means that a gun over the fireplace in act one has to go off by act three, this story is not linear. But non-linear does not mean random. The incidents chosen are not necessarily the high points of Mason’s years, but they are indicators that create a mosaic of the fuller picture. Mason sees his mother, who has gone back to graduate school, talking to one of her professors. But it is unlikely that he understands the meaning of the look they exchange. We are not surprised to find them married in a subsequent scene. And we do not need a slow build-up or full character arc to understand the import of the succeeding conflicts between the stepfather and stepson.

Meanwhile, Coltrane and Lorelei Linklater do something no one has ever done quite this way before on screen. They grow up. And Richard Linklater trusts the audience enough to let that in and of itself be the dramatic arc of the story. There were laughs and hoots in the audience over the antiquated look of the computers at Mason’s school. There are references to the first Obama Presidential campaign and the release of a new Harry Potter book. But these are all organic, as much as his first heart-break, his second stepfather, and new stepmother, and tough words from his teacher. There is no micro-managed re-creation of the past; this is the past, our past as well as Mason’s. It feels real, it feels lived in, and, as he leaves for college, it feels bittersweet but filled with promise.

Parents should know that this film includes domestic abuse, tense family confrontations, guns, very strong language, sexual references (some crude), and teen drug and alcohol use.

Family discussion: Do you agree with Mason’s photography teacher about what he should do? Mason had many different role models for masculinity — which do you think he will follow?

If you like this, try: Richard Linklater’s other films, including “Before Sunrise,” “Before Sunset,” and “Before Midnight” and “Waking Life”

Planes: Fire & Rescue

Posted on July 17, 2014 at 5:59 pm

The visuals are stunning, the details are witty, the 3D effects are splendid, the songs are lively, the voice actors are top-notch, but the storyline feels like an episode of “Thomas the Tank Engine.” That’s when it was still analog and old-school and before it went to animation, but still — especially as the gender politics of this film are uncomfortably old-school as well.

Last year’s Planes added another mode of transportation to the charmingly retro world of Cars. A plucky crop-duster named Dusty (Dane Cook) learned to race and became a champion. As this movie begins, he is an international superstar. But his vintage gearbox has been worn down by the races, and no replacement is available. Dusty is going to have to find something that is as meaningful to him as racing.

When he accidentally starts a fire at Piston Peak National Park, Dusty sees that old Mayday (Hal Holbrook), the fire and rescue truck is not quite up to the task. More important, he is not up to code. The stern Transportation Management Safety Team inspector informs them that they need more capacity if they are going to stay in business. That means some upgrades for Mayday and it also means a second firefighter. Dusty feels responsible. And if he cannot race, he has to find something new to do, to help make up for his mistake. So he agrees to take the training to become a certified fire fighter.

Dusty is welcomed by the team, including the flirtatious Lil Dipper (“Modern Family’s” Julie Bowen), the heavy-lift helicopter Windlifter (Wes Studi), ex-military transport Cabbie (Captain Dale Dye) and The Smokejumpers, a brave collection of all-terrain vehicles who leap out of the planes and parachute down to the fire. But he stern Blade Ranger (Ed Harris), who is in charge of the training facility, is not at all sure Dusty is up to the task.

The action sequences are very well staged and the effects, especially the water and sky images, are truly astonishing. The usual pun-studded, meta humor for the series shows up throughout, from the show business trade news magazine titled “Cariety” to a female vehicle dismissing a lame come-on with a cool, “Pick-up trucks!” The choicest surprise is a videotape with a car-ified version of a classic television series, with that very recognizable series star contributing a character voice. Of course the television show appeared in the late 70’s-early 80’s, so it is likely to be over the heads of today’s children and their parents, too.

The real villain here is the fire, of course, but there is also a comic villain, a pompous administrator voiced by John Michael Higgins. But the movie never works up much interest in him or his schemes, and the post-credits stinger barely stings.

More troubling is the poor treatment of the female characters, despite being called out for that same problem in the first one. At least in the original, the female characters were capable and independent. Poor Bowen is relegated here to a role that recalls the man-chasing stereotypes of television in the 1960’s, often played by Rose Marie or Ann B. Davis. She is constantly trying to tell Dusty that they are on a date and, when he politely says they will be going as a group, dementedly agrees that it is a good thing for her to meet his friends until he reminds her that the firefighting team members are her friends. And a major plot twist occurs when the previously ultra-capable mechanic voiced by Teri Hatcher is casually outdone by a male character. It’s completely unnecessary, it subverts the primary premise of the storyline, and it demeans the female mechanic for no reason. It isn’t Dusty who’s got filings in his gearbox. It’s the script.

Parents should know that this film includes peril, including fire, collapsing bridge, rapids, engine failure, action and some violence (no one irreparably hurt, but a reference to a sad death), and some bathroom humor.

Family discussion: Who in this movie has to decide how to handle it when their plans do not work out? How do you think about your own back-up plans? What does “better than new” mean?

If you like this, try: “Cars” and “Planes”

Related Tags:

3D Animation Fantasy Series/Sequel