Click here to view my review of Beer Wars!
Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman) is less than pleased after seeing the 2014 reboot of RoboCop (image: cinapse.co)
Let’s get right down to brass tacks. RoboCop, the 2014 remake, is not as terrible as you would expect.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement, but when you attempt to reboot a film that needs no rebooting, expectations are going to be understandably low. The original Paul Verhoeven classic is two shades away from perfect, boasting subtle themes of corporate corruption, sensationalist media and the nature of security with exceptional action and some good ol’ 80’s excess. It’s funny, satirical and completely entertaining. The unnecessary modernization is a bi-polar experience who tries its best to pay homage to the 1987 version with limited yet well intentioned results.
NOTE: I am going to write the majority of this review like I’ve never seen the original film. It’s often unfair to compare reboots to their predecessors, especially when the deck is stacked against them, so I’ll be critiquing the movie on its own merits…for the most part.
The story takes place in near future Detroit where technology company OmniCorp has deployed peace keeping robots in every corner of the globe with the exception of their native USA. The Americans have a law against un-manned law enforcement and in attempt to sway public opinion, CEO Raymond Sellers (Michael Keaton), decides to merge man and machine. Enter Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman) who, after a car bomb nearly kills him, is sent to OmniCorp scientist Dr. Dennett Norton (Gary Oldman) and re-built into a lean, mean, crime fighting machine.
RoboCop grabs his gun and takes aim…at irrelevance. (image: screenrant.com)
Bucking the meager expectations, the central theme supporting the story is surprisingly sound. The idea of human choice versus mechanized efficiency runs through the movie, providing a bit more bite than one would expect from a late February release. There is also a heightened focus on the struggles of Murphy’s family (Abbie Cornish, Jackie Earle Haley). While completely unnecessary, it’s a solid attempt at developing the RoboCop character beyond the metal and visor. Kinnaman, along with the rest of the cast, is serviceably average with the exception of Gary Oldman who swings from wonderfully over the top to genuinely affectionate as only he can.
Unfortunately, best intentions can only get you so far. Execution is key and director Jose Padilha is clearly out of his depth. With its PG-13 upbringing, RoboCop spends much of the run time battling robot drones without any sense of tension or urgency. The fight scenes are a confusing mess of visor vision and frenetic quick cuts, making action tracking next to impossible. While this may be a by-product of modern filmmaking, I suspect it was done to mask the horrendous CGI work. While the robo-drones look decent enough, there are some shockingly bad effects. One scene in particular, where we get to see Murphy “disassembled”, is one of the worst effect jobs I’ve seen in quite some time. Mix it all in with a third act that literally disintegrates in front of your eyes, and you have an unsatisfying hodgepodge of poorly constructed ideas.
Note: I am now going to toss out my previous rule and directly compare this movie to the original. Sorry. I can’t help it!
The new attempt at RoboCop tries its best but comes up painfully short. It’s not an unwatchable movie by any stretch. The family work has some life to it, the performances aren’t awful and the plot has some unexpected substance to it. But it all adds up to why bother when stacked up against the exceptional original. Despite the horribly paced action, miserably hammered in fan service and muddy, overdone plot, it never had a chance, even if it was competently done. If the film was titled “CyberCop” or “RoboDude”, it wouldn’t be any better but at least the shadow of a classic wouldn’t be weighing it down. Better than expected but still weak, RoboCop works as a Saturday afternoon distraction but unless you’re 12 and can’t handle the excessive R rated violence of the original, there’s no reason to see the reboot.
Ready for my Rotten Tomatoes quip? “I’d buy that for a dollar…at the bargain bin of my local Walmart!”
Score: 5 out of 10
The brothers O’Donovan watch each other’s backs in The Wind That Shakes the Barley
A combination of the real and surreal await those willing to jump into the wonderful The Act of Killing. (image: venturebeat.com)
What happens when evil becomes accepted? When it’s not only allowed, it’s praised. Celebrated. Spoken of with pride? History is full of crimes against humanity but when an entire country is involved, we all ask, “How did they let that happen”? It’s difficult to imagine the whole of Germany allowing Nazism or the Russian gulags operating for half a century. In the documentary The Act of Killing, director Joshua Oppenheimer examines the phenomenon of accepted atrocities without the need for historical references or archival footage. He goes straight to the people responsible.
The Act of Killing takes place 40 years after fall of the Thirtieth of September Movement, a 1965 coup d’etat of Indonesia. Repelled in just a few days, the incident caused a McCarthy style witch hunt with communists being the prime targets. Over the next two years, over 100,000 enemies of the state were slaughtered at the hands of privately hired death squads. Many of the gangsters involved in the slayings are now boastful paramilitary leaders and well known citizens. They not only admit to the crimes but smile about it, confident in what they did was best for the nation.
Oppenheimer, sensing something in their pride and swagger, gives them the tools to make a movie about their experiences forty years ago. He allows them to tell it their way without any filters. The Act of Killing documents the creation of their movie and serves as a complicated yet eye opening look into the acceptance of evil and the toll it takes on the human spirit.
The star of the show is Anwar Congo, one of the original death squad leaders and founding father of Pemuda Pancasilla, the country’s reigning paramilitary organization. On the outside, Anwar is jovial and light-hearted, even as he talks about his many methods of dispatching political enemies. His happy-go-lucky charm and pride for personally killing over a thousand people undercuts a lingering despair. This central morality question, one of duty of government versus crimes against the spirit, is at the core of the film.
Anwar (middle) and his pals are on top of the world as they cruise down an Indonesian street in The Act of Killing. (image: pastemagazine.com)
Oppenheimer directs it all with control and balance, allowing the now geriatric gangsters to react and even ham it up for the camera. According to Anwar and his crew of now powerful political figures, they did nothing wrong. The communists were a plague that needed to exterminated and not only did they gladly do so, they were rewarded with fame and riches. Oppenheimer never gives an opinion or blinks cinematically, even when they talk of proper garroting technique with a smile on their face.
As the film progresses and they start to shoot their extermination methods, the documentary becomes more surreal. Scenes of feigned ransacking of homes bring real tears to the faces of the local “actors” and simulated moments of torture, gives rise to long suppressed emotions. Anwar’s arc in particular is one of the most fascinating self-realizations in recent history. The doc is also exceptionally well crafted, as Oppenheimer uses the actual film footage to provide the juxtaposition between the group’s perception of the 1965 events and the emotional reality.
When the credits start to roll, there a few big names that pop up. Werner Hertzog and Errol Morris are labeled as producers. The production companies all get a plug. Five editors get mentioned. But there’s one contributor who stands out, one name who makes everything on screen seem more real, more dangerous.
Anonymous.
As the credits scrolls downward, the word rolls by in a stream. Second camera, production manager and recording engineer. Assistant directors and gaffers. All people who’d rather be faceless than risk being involved in a volatile exposé on the country they call home. The Act of Killing is an important, heart-rending view into the world of systematic corruption. It may not answer the question of why the Indonesian killings happened over 40 years ago, but it sheds a harsh, bright light on the men responsible for carrying it out and in turn, tells a haunting story of the cost of wanton brutality. The best documentary of 2013.
Score: 9 out of 10
Marie (Berenice Bejo) confronts Ahmad (Ali Mosaffa) in the latest film from Iranian director Asghar Farhadi. (image: http://www.unifrance.com)
All things crumble. Given enough age and time, everything decays. Buildings fall, bridges collapse, streets crack apart. Without constant maintenance, even the Mona Lisa will flake away until it’s nothing but blank canvas. It takes work to keep things serviceable, at presentation condition. Relationships are no different and never has this been better illustrated than by the work of Oscar winning director Asghar Farhadi. Like his last feature, the exceptional A Seperation, Farahdi swings for the fences again with The Past, a somber and honest look into a disintegrating marriage.
The declining union under the microscope is between Ahmad (Ali Mosaffa) and Marie (Berenice Bejo). Ahmad returns to France after a four year separation to finalize his divorce with Marie, only find things have drastically changed. Marie is living with Samir (Tahar Rahim), a man with a comatose wife, his young son Fouad (Elyes Aguis) and his daughters Lucie and Lea. Originally planning on a couple of days in his old neighborhood, Ahmad finds himself wrapped up in the emotional tumult of an ever changing family dynamic.
Farhadi is an expert at crafting dialogue and directing actors with The Past being no exception. Bejo in particular is masterful as a woman stretched to the brink by new love and old memories. More than deserving of her Best Actress award at last year’s Cannes Film Festival, Bejo is the story’s emotional hinge. The rest of the cast is equally impressive, each with human cracks and complicated fissures. While The Past doesn’t have the explosiveness of Farhadi’s previous work and has a flat tone, the fine acting more than makes up for any lulls in intrigue.
The cast of The Past takes a bow at Cannes. (image: http://www.zimbio.com)
Behind the camera, Farhadi makes genius decisions in his framing of the unfolding drama. Carefully paced and full of long shots through windows, doorways and hallways, the audience jumps between casual observer and active participant. It’s a subtle yet interesting technique, important in a story full of twists and turns. Also serving as the screenwriter, Farhadi again ensures no dialogue is wasted. Every word either moves the plot along or provides character insight.
Asghar Farhadi has his finger squarely on the pulse of human relationships. The more things twist apart, the more they string together in unexpected ways. His work is constantly evocative and with The Past, he cements his reputation as the most interesting Middle Eastern director working today. When I finished the screening, I labeled the film as wonderful yet depressing, a credit to his storytelling prowess. After giving it more thought, there’s a deeper reality. Farhadi’s latest work is startlingly truthful and it’s his near perfect insight into the human condition which strikes deep. It’s a downer because it’s painfully honest. The Past isn’t just a voyeuristic view into a troubled family. It’s a reminder of how much work is required to maintain the connections which matter most.
Score: 9 out of 10
image: ifcfilms.com
Everyone knows the gears of bureaucracy grind along with the efficiency of a mucked up stop watch. For every inch gained, a mountain of energy is expended. Be it civil rights legislation or a new freeway, border patrol or garbage disposal, nothing is achieved without hours and hours of political wrangling. Passing an eco-friendly bill may be one thing but when human lives are at stake, people don’t stop at pushing. They start fighting.
Once such brawl is the subject of David France’s Oscar nominated documentary, How To Survive a Plague. France, one of the original journalists of the 1980’s AIDS epidemic, tells the story of ACT UP, a coalition of infected, mostly homosexual citizens committed to finding treatment for the deadly disease. Plague doesn’t simply document the history of a decade’s worth of protests and policy. It tells the human stories of those involved in the struggle, fighting not only for survival but to ensure the health of those who come after.
Using 90% archival footage, Plague has an immediate visual impact. It’s one thing to read about the horrors of AIDS but to see the gaunt faces of those afflicted and hear the sobs of mourners as they fling the ashes of loved ones onto the White House lawn, is quite another. Apologies to Dallas Buyers Club, which takes place in the same era, but witnessing first hand a protest during a mass in St. Patrick’s cathedral holds far more weight than an emaciated Jared Leto.
image: midnightreview.co.uk
In standard documentary style, the historical portions are intercut between testimonials of survivors of the political struggle. These modern day pieces break up the low-res, grainy look and gives context to the history. While I would have liked more old school footage with narration, it doesn’t detract and puts modern faces to the characters from thirty years ago. The soundtrack is also impressive, swelling and building at just the right moments
Red tape is often stained with the blood of those trapped in it. To the legislative warriors of ACT UP, the fight was for survival in face of oppression, prejudice and a country that didn’t care enough about the “gay disease”. By casting an unblinking eye at the very heart of the struggle, David France sheds light on the humanity behind the protests and puts a face on the unrest. While it’s hard for us imagine a civilized government denying anybody the care they need, How to Survive a Plague reminds us of how apathetic a ruling body can be and how powerful the voices of many can be in moving those mountains. One brutal inch at a time.
Score: 9 out of 10
Joaquin Phoenix continues the rise of his namesake as Theodore in Her, the latest emotional epic from director Spike Jonze.
Can you love what’s artificial?
On the surface, that’s an easy one. People throw around the “L Word” haphazardly. We love our cars, iPhones and clothing accessories. Movies are beloved, music speaks to the heart and a goofy YouTube video of a purring cat makes us feel good. But do we really love them? Last I checked, nobody has written a power ballad for their toaster. Your friends won’t try to fix you up with their Prius. As much fun as it is, none of us are willing to die for our Xbox One.
Maybe. What if our video games knew us personally? Imagine if our car asked us how our day was, Knight Rider style, and we felt like they genuinely cared. What if Siri loved you back.
Spike Jonze (Adaptation, Where The Wild Things Are) attempts to answer this question with Her, a humorous, honest and beautifully made portrait of an unlikely emotional union. And it just so happens to be one of the best films of the year.
Her centers on Theodore Twombly (Joaquin Phoenix), a quiet, melancholy man who spends his working days writing touching hand written letters for a relationship company. His nights are a lonelier affair, spent in seclusion as he struggles to adapt to newly single life. While wrangling with his impending divorce from Catherine (Rooney Mara), Theodore’s only personal attachment is his full of life co-worker and neighbors Amy (Amy Adams) and Charles (Matt Letscher). Enter Samantha (Scarlett Johansson), a brand new operating system designed to learn and interact with its owner on a personal level. Upon installing the OS on his computer, the two embark on a strange and touching journey through an interactive relationship.
Yes, I said “the two embark”. Much of the film is spent watching Phoenix chat with his faceless cell phone and on the surface, I was dubious on how it would work. Like I said in the opening, how can an actor connect with an inanimate object? In the hands of a lesser director, it would have been insufferable, but Jonze makes it work with an excellent script and two dynamite performances from Johansson and Phoenix. Joaquin in particular continues the acting renaissance he started with The Master. His portrayal of the silent sufferer is entrancing and engaging, despite rarely having a physical co-star to work off of. On the other side of the tech, Scarlett Johansson runs the gambit from professionally courteous to sensitive to emotional with perfection. It’s incredible to watch them grow together, exceptional considering one part of the puzzle is trapped in plastic.
Amy Adams and Matt Letscher try to show Theodore what a great couple they are. (image: screenrant.com)
Without some deft direction, the story could have dipped into schmaltz but Jonze’s trademark visual flair and smart decision making keeps things interesting. The near future would of Her seems like a natural evolution of our own with subtle updates. From modern costuming with twenties era flair, to tiny wireless headphones, the postmodern setting provides a realistic, believable background. Her has a love story soul supported by a sci-fi skeleton and if the setting didn’t work, the whole ship would have sank. You won’t find teleporters and spaceships in this version of the future and it’s a good thing.
Biting humor is also a big part of the picture. More than once, I found myself howling, capping off a year full of laughs from unexpected places. From a foul mouthed video game character to some frank late night chatting, the harder edged material prevents the film from turning into a summer rom-com.
In fact, the Katherine Heigls of the world could learn a thing or two from the excellent supporting cast. Adams, who has had a sensational year, continues the streak as Phoenix’s neighbor and emotional counterpart. She’s drab yet engaging, a perfect “friend zone” witness to Theo’s unusual new parner. Rooney is also strong as Theo’s soon to be ex-wife. Important in detailing the other side of personal connection, Rooney is strong willed, on point and surprisingly complex for such a small role.
Her is all about connections and Spike Jonze’s latest and most accomplished effort cements the theme at every turn. The setting fits in with the tech, the cinematography latches to the impressive score and the actors lock in with the exceptional script. Everything clicks along like a finely tuned watch, all powering a fascinating and engrossing premise. Jonze understands love is a complex mystery and rather than overdo the sentiment, he wisely sets the table with good characters and lets the story naturally run its course. The result is an incredible tightrope walk of brash humor, honesty and genuine heart. Maybe we’ll never start dating our stereo or whisper sweet nothings to the Keurig machine in the kitchen but if those devices ever start whispering back, Her may not be as science fiction as it seems today.
Besides, who doesn’t love their coffee.
Score: 9.5 out of 10
thesurrealityproject 