Knight Owl's Review of Terminator: Genisys; Not enough Bread Crumbs To Get Home

Nostalgia is a funny thing. It has caused Jurassic World to be one of the top grossing films of all time, a title it has no right having. It has sparked this surge in reboots and sequels for franchises old enough to drink. Basically, it's this weird thing that causes people in the film industry to either set money on fire for no payoff or make an unjust amount of profit on films that had no business being made. Still, I love many things from the long ago, and Terminator is way up on that list.

The sci-fi game-changer that is the Terminator series is one of the more infamous genre franchises, for its significant successes and shameful fall from grace. The Terminator introduced the world to Arnold "By God" Schwarzenegger, and T2: Judgment Day is widely considered to be the greatest action movie ever made. The special effects in the first two films were revolutionary for their time, and helped put James Cameron on the map so he can sink boats and remake Pocahontas or whatever. After T2 though, there were dark times. Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines was a terrible low-rent sequel that reminds me of the sad direct-to-DVD fare of Van Damme or Seagal, limping into existence solely on the back of Arnie's good name. It was so bad that Arnie had to find a new job to wash the stink off.

I hear he did OK for himself.

And then there was Terminator: Salvation, which I didn't hate but is in a strange place where it's only watchable if you do not at all consider it in the same context as the rest of the franchise. It's like comparing the 1966 Batman movie with The Dark Knight Trilogy. Same characters, completely different context. The good news is that Terminator: Genisys is the first of the post-T2 franchise to actually fit with the original two films. The bad news is that the bar is set super low, and doesn't mean it makes for a good movie.

The film Looper approached the concept of time travel best in my opinion, in that it didn't. They hand-waved the logistics of time travel and just accepted it as a thing that happens because the way time travel worked wasn't pertinent to the storyline. That's a trap that so many films tackling the subject fall into, whether they know better or not. Star Trek practically owns a patent on wishy-washy time travel arcs. Doctor Who contradicts its own rules almost episodically, which I could see driving people nuts if they took it seriously, but if there's ever been a show not to take seriously its The Goddamn Doctor. Back To The Future and The Terminator both fell into the trap at points, but were forgiven because they were so damn good. For a second, I thought/hoped that Genisys would pull a Looper and shrug away the timey-wimey reasons why the timelines in which the Terminator canon were changed, and it came close but in the end attempted to explain the whys and hows that led to the plot of this new film. By the end, as my title suggests, there weren't enough bread crumbs to get home. I was lost, and currently don't even remember the reasoning behind most of it. In the end, I said 'screw it' and tried to enjoy the movie for what it was, but this is fair warning to anyone who's bugged by such details. I know there are people who will be driven nuts by the overcomplication of timeline overlapping timeline or whatever the hell happens in this movie. I'm just not smart enough to care.

Major props to the casting director for this flick, though, because they knew what they were doing. Every major cast member on screen is a big deal right now, or close to it. First, we have Arnie, who regains the charm and humour he had in T2 and applied his new 'old, not obsolete' attitude making for a fresh but familiar feel to a film that desperately needed to capitalize on nostalgia. Sadly, in my eyes he wasn't featured nearly enough, but then again there's never enough T-800 for me. Sarah Connor is portrayed by Dany Fucking Stormborn and she brings all the badass from Game of Thrones with some to spare. In other words, she does the legacy of Linda Hamilton proud. Jai Courtney is in every action movie under the sun these days, and the exposure has done him good. His showing as Reese was effective for what it was, which is sadly a pretty one-dimensional character which is saying something considering he's sharing the screen with a robot with no concept of emotional complexity. Jason Clarke has also been a genre regular lately, with last year's Whatever of the Planet of the Apes as the most notable example. He had a bit more responsibility handling the role of human savior John Connor not only by holding true to the legend established in the franchise's canon but taking the character in a new direction. Add to that the always awesome JK Simmons of Whiplash fame, Storm Shadow, and Matt 'Geronimo!' Smith and the cast was well stacked. The performances delivered, and the film was so much better for it.

I understand the reasons why this movie was made, but the fact is it shouldn't have been. Really, none of the Terminator films should exist after T2 because, other than a fantastic action movie, it also covers all bases in terms of a conclusion to the story. It was an ending, a damn good one. However, we've now gotten to a point where time has been fucked with to such a degree that you can justify pretty much anything happening, which means bring on the sequels. As an action movie, Genisys delivers as much as any high-budget PG-13 fare does these days: lots of CGI, extravagant chases that defy natural law, explosions fit for Michael Bay's porn collection. What saves the movie for me is the dues it pays to its predecessors, and only the ones that matter. As a fan of the series, there were a lot of nods to T's 1 and 2, and I smiled at every one. It had the pacing of an 80's action flick, with just enough filler to keep you paying attention, but again not enough Arnold. All in all, it's not a great film, but it is the first to pay homage to the great films that preceded it and the first film in over 20 years even remotely deserving the name Terminator. But then again, that could be the nostalgia talking. 

So, pay no mind to the time travel and you'll be fine. I promise. 

Trust me.

 Also:

Owl be back. 

(Had to do it)

Knight Owl

Knight Owl's Review of Jurassic World; Smart People Doing Stupid Things

Well, I expected nothing, and that's what I got.

Like every child of the 90's should, I love Jurassic Park. I think that I can objectively say that it's one of the best films ever made, certainly one of Spielberg's greatest works, and it changed the way movies were made and seen. The combined use of practical and computer generated effects hold up to this day, which is remarkable considering CGI was still in it's infancy. Yes, Jurassic Park is a great and important film to myself and pop culture as a whole. But it's also 23 years old, so it must be time for a sequel!

I knew how I was going to feel about this right after I saw the trailer, and I wasn't optimistic. There are few film franchises old enough to drink that can effectively be reintroduced into today's audience. An example of such a success would be Mad Max: Fury Road, which was a damn near perfect film for what it was. Jurassic World is...not that. I understand the desire to cash in on aging films by repackaging them as fresh ideas, especially considering when we ask for original genre films we get Jupiter Ascending, but the fact that many efforts to do so fall flat saddens and confuses me. But for whatever reason, the magic that these original films once had cannot be conjured up again a couple decades down the road, and Jurassic World is another card carrying example of that.

Now that I've sufficiently buried the lede and given up my general feelings towards the film at the same time, let's actually talk about the damn thing. We jump to a time in a world where Jurassic Park was a thing, and the park actually becomes a success despite multiple instances where horrible death and mayhem proved this to be a bad idea. In and of itself, a huge problem solely based on the lack of common sense possessed by what appear to be even remotely intelligent people. At some point between the events of Jurassic Park III (shudders) and Jurassic World, a group of smart, resourceful and obviously wealthy people got together and decided to throw a fuck ton of those resources and wealth at a project that has claimed literally dozens of lives. And you can't tell me that no one died horribly while this new theme park was being constructed, but that's not important.

So we have this new park, and it's a hit. But as the market is wont to do when your attraction is hundreds of miles from literally anywhere, the popularity fades. The solution, as concocted by said smart, rich people, is to INVENT A NEW SUPER DINOSAUR. In this, I find two glaring problems. The first is that Jurassic World is, for all intents and purposes, a zoo full of creatures that this one place in the entire world has rights and access to, because they have been extinct for however many millions of years. That's pretty bad ass for a zoo. I don't know if you've been to a major zoo lately, but they're still pretty popular. There's no way that the money and time you'd need to dedicate to creating a brand new species of life could be justified by bring up the average number of visitors per day.

"Sure looks dead to me." - An idiot.

The second problem is mostly a reiteration of an earlier point that any progress made on this island up to this point has been bought with the blood of many, many people, and that was just from plain jane Raptors and Tyrannosaurs. They didn't have the benefit of being genetically altered or created from scratch. My point is that we obviously have a hard enough time dealing with the bastards that we've known about for 20+ years without adding a new challenger appearing at our own behest. But I guess this all falls under the genre trope of “smart people make bad decisions” leading to the plot of a movie. It's been done before, it'll happen again, and that's fine. Just, the fact that it happened once in this context 20 years ago, on this same island, AND THEY KEEP MAKING THE SAME MISTAKES. Somewhere, Jeff Goldblum is awkwardly laughing at these asshats. 

 

It doesn't help that 99% of the characters in the film do not inspire a whole lot of sympathy or respect. Many of the characters exhibit the stupidity I remarked upon above throughout the events of the film, making it hard for me to not root for Rex and co. But there's a silver lining to every lackluster film out there, and it's clear who that was here: God Damn Star Lord. If the only thing that comes of this film is the further rise in stock for Chris Pratt, then I'm willing to shut the hell up and see it again. If you enjoyed his performance in Guardians of the Galaxy (be real, who didn't?), then by all means go see this. He basically transfers the same attitudes and inflections over to Jurassic World as local badass who trains Raptors for what I can tell is literally no reason. He is the funny, brave, handsome prince who is also somehow the voice of reason that no one listens to. He's, like, an ensemble cast all by himself and it's amazing. It's just sad that he absolutely has to be, because everyone else sucks and is stupid. Truth.

So I've said a lot of not nice things about this movie, but for what is clearly an attempt to cash in on nostalgia and the 3D gimmick, there are far worse out there. Jurassic World is a shameless high-intensity popcorn flick designed for a generation that can't possibly appreciate the original because they weren't alive. And normally I can look past the flaws in films like this objectively because I understand who these films are designed for. It's how I got through the new Ninja Turtles movie. If there's one unforgivable element that Jurassic World has for me, it's that last week I watched a film that is 23 years old with the premise upon which Jurassic World was based, and it looked SO MUCH BETTER. 23 years have seen a lot of advances in visual effects in film, many of which started with Jurassic Park, so there's no reason on this earth that Jurassic World should look so much worse than its predecessor. It's weird, but as you watch the Jurassic Park series of films (I don't recommend it), the visuals seem to get worse and worse. The practical effects that were used were few and far between, hardly making up for the heavy use of CGI that I've come to expect these days. Another mark for Fury Road over this.

Clearly, I'm in the minority in not gushing over this movie, as JW is destroying records left/right/centre. That's fine, it's not the first time the majority disagrees with me, but even objectively this film is not good enough to be making the money it's making. And because of this, we will surely see JW2 before long with T-Rexs dual-wielding shotguns or some shit. And I'll see that too, because 1) that sounds awesome, and 2) pure nostalgia. Nostalgia is a monster in pop culture right now. It's why nothing is original. There are less and less original films in the top 10 grossing films each year. Nintendo hasn't had to make an original game in years because they're on Mario Kart 17 or something. Sony just announced the re-release of Final Fantasy VII, a game nearly 20 years old in its own right, and it's breaking the god damn internet. I get it, things were better then and our generation is more and more able to make that which is old new again. Just make better movies with it is all I ask.

Or maybe I'll just shut the fuck up and watch some dinosaurs.

Knight Owl

Knight Owl's Review of The Avengers: Age of Ultron; The Wonderful Future

First, some Real Life Stuff,

I've gone two months without posting anything on here, and it's seemed like so much longer than that. It's happened before, and never without good reason notwithstanding my lack of motivation. Being a grown up is tough sometimes, even if I'm admittedly not all the way there yet despite being on the precipice of 30 years old. Your priorities change without your permission. The money and time you used to spend on awesome things like movies and action figures now go to silly things like healthy eating and going to the gym (not that I go nearly as much as I should). And you only realize this when you get a second to sit down and think about the past weeks. My schedule doesn't help, in that many of the things I want or need to do can't be done in my waking hours. We did get ourselves a puppy though, which unfortunately coincided with my Mandi's health taking a turn for the worse, an example of the 'bad' of life arguably outweighing the 'good'. The weeks spent in adjustment to a new rebalancing of resources and priorities have exhausted me on different levels, but I find myself rallying now, not just because I have to but because I can. I don't mean for this to be any kind of complaint against life, just an inner monologue put into words. Hopefully I haven't scared off the 20ish people good enough to read my humble thoughts.

Enough of that though, let's talk about a guy with a bow and some arrows fighting an army of robots.

The Avengers may not be considered the greatest film of all time by most, and in my opinion Marvel has done better things since then. but it would be ignorant to say that The Avengers wasn't a milestone in the history of genre film making. The unifying of several marquee characters under one feature film with a cohesive plot, mesmerizing action sequences, and a generally smooth and light presentation was thought to be, and should have been, impossible. And yeah, a lot had to happen for it to work. A handful of films used as a foundation, a stellar cast of primary and secondary characters, a production company with the balls and resources to pull it off, and a director with the vision and the skill to put it all together. We watched, and we were grateful. However, when The Avengers came out, I wrote at length about the problem Marvel now had: How in the blue hell do they follow it up without being a disappointment?

Short answer: They don't, I'm afraid.

I said I'd wait and see what happens. Turns out, a lot happened. Iron Man 3 sent me on a love/hate spiral that I still haven't quite landed on. Thor 2 was what it was, a fine film that lost the magic of its predecessor. The Winter Soldier is in my mind the greatest film that Marvel has released. And then there was GOTG, which is pretty much The Princess Bride for a new generation. The three years in between Avengers assembling weren't hard to suffer through thankfully, but the sequel still had to live up to the original. It made a valiant effort, but like many sequels before it, the first one was better.

I will say this: just because the first one was better doesn't make this one less good. Avengers AOU is a good popcorn flick and one of the better Marvel films to date, with a direct, intriguing plot, effective use of established and new characters, surprises, nerdgasms, and one of the most charismatic evil robots you'll ever meet. The new additions of Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver were fresh and welcome, as were the cameos made by several characters established in previous stand-alone films (but I won't say who, it would spoil the surprise!). The cast was just as spot-on as they were in Avengers (heretofore known as A1, like the sauce), keeping what could be a very dark setting entertaining and easy to watch. The chemistry between so many major characters is surprisingly great, proving that the first film wasn't a fluke in that regard. And of course, the lead was taken by force by Robert Downey Jr., chewing up scenery like only he can. However, it says a lot when RDJ's spotlight could be taken from a guy's voice alone, but it happened here with James 'By God' Spader voicing the antagonist Ultron. Alan-fucking-Shore took this role and made it his by basically taking every trope that applies to evil machines, from the monotone voice to the humourless disposition, and tossing it out the helicarrier window. I may have truly disliked this movie if it weren't for Spader drinking Tony Stark's milkshake.

Another shout out goes to Joss Whedon for putting together a second film that should be impossible to do, more so with the added characters and side plots. From the cold open into a tracking action scene to the logistical nightmare that turned into a thrilling climax, this was another accomplishment under the belt of the patron saint of nerds. If he truly is done with the franchise then I will be sad to see him go. That said, there is a big slow point in the dead centre of the film that takes things down a peg. I understand the need for it, as it is well over two hours of movie, but when you have so many characters and so much potentially going on, it almost seems wasteful for, well, nothing to be going on. The film also does one thing that so many shows and films featuring ensemble casts pull that infuriates me to no end: it separates the group for no reason. Characters disappear to do their own thing, to accomplish basically nothing while hindering the group as a whole. Again, no details given for the sake of spoilers, and I know this is borderline nitpicky bullshit, but I see it all the time and it drives me nuts. Next thing you know, Cap's serum will wear off or Thor will lose his hammer, rendering him useless. I see the neutering or straight up writing off of characters a lot, and it just seems lazy to me. It's 'The Dresden Files' approach to supporting characters: you've got a legion of superpeople on your team, but 90% of them can't help you when you definitely need them to. With friends like that, no wonder Cap and Stark are about to get into a bitchfest.

And there's the big problem for me. I know what's going to happen next, and it's not even my fault. Last year, if not earlier, Marvel went out and released every intended movie project from here until forever like a bunch of jerks, and with additional thanks to the internet, the proverbial cat is out of the bag. Now, this wouldn't be much of a problem, except that AOU spent a good amount of time doing not much but setting up future events. Sure, there are a great many things that happen within the context of the movie, and are important to that context without looking outside of it. And like A1, it took from that which came before it to build on that context. But there was a lot of importance put on things that had no impact on what was happening in the film. From little things like the mentioning of a person or place that might make the ears of the comic faithful perk up, to whole scenes and subplots dedicated to those same people saying 'oh, that's gonna be good in Captain America 3' or 'that was a big deal in Guardians of the Galaxy, I can't wait until Avengers 3 in another three fucking years!' It took me out of the movie and turned it, if only for a minute, into a trailer for another movie we're at least a year away from seeing. That's what the stinger scenes at the end of credits are for. You've seen this movie, thanks for the money, now here's a taste of what's to come, see you next year. It's exciting, and it's worked for however many films that have been put out since 2008. Marvel is just too excited and has so much on the plate that they had to spend maybe 20% of a film people were already excited for...well, getting people excited for movies that were not this one. I'd have the same complaint about GOTG if it weren't so goddam great.

When I wrote about my feelings of dread in regards to the world post-A1, I mentioned the Superbowl Syndrome (TM), resulting from "sadness after witnessing the culmination of a significant amount of time and investment", basically a state of melancholy set in after Avengers wrapped up, and we had to start the hype machine all over again for AOU. The good news is that we don't have to start over again now. The bad news is that we should. Instead of being a culmination or conclusion to anything, Age of Ultron is just an extension of the hype started when the credits to Avengers rolled and our heroes had those shwarmas. We are in a holding pattern that will last at least another year until Captain America: Civil War comes out (AND I WONDER WHAT THAT WILL BE ABOUT /sarcasm), if not until 2018 with Avengers 3, which will only be part one of a film in two parts so really we'll have to wait until 2019 to get any kind of real resolution. At least I'll have Batman v. Superman to tide me over.

And hey, we've gotten some good times while we're waiting. Here's to a few more.

Knight Owl

Knight Owl's Review of Kingsman: The Secret Service; Give Me A Far Fetched Theatrical Plot Any Day

In my opinion, this is the first great film of 2015, for better or worse.

As a director, Matthew Vaughn has done no wrong for me. Layer Cake was an excellent British crime film in the vein of Guy Ritchie's best. Stardust is one of the most underrated fantasies around. Kick Ass is still one of my favourite Graphic Novel adaptations, and X-Men: First Class is easily my favourite X-Film. So I've been looking forward to Kingsman: The Secret Service for a while with high expectations. The excitement increased knowing that this film was an adaptation of another Mark Millar novel, the writer of Kick Ass. So yes, I was expecting an ultraviolent satire on the apparent turn on old school spy flicks. For the first time in 2015, I was not disappointed.

This film's greatness begins with King Colin Firth. Given his filmography, there's a good reason to disbelieve anyone saying he could be a badass but this movie proves his versatility. He serves his purpose both as the lead in an action film and a walking throwback to the spy films of old. On top of that, he brings a respectability and sincerity to the film that it would miss if Firth wasn't there. The perfect contrast, of course, is Samuel L. Jackson at his overacting best. He brings the gravitas that only he can to a role meant to be simultaneously overly theatrical and legitimately dangerous. Again, not unlike the Bond films of old (you see the theme here?). Add in some British mainstays like Mark Strong and Michael Caine, and newcomer Taron Egerton as co-lead Eggsy, and the cast is strong enough to carry the film alone. Thankfully, it didn't have to.

The plot of the film is fairly simplistic, but effectively tells two stories in one. The film splits time between following King Colin leading an investigation into the acts of Sam Jackson trying to take over the world (because of course he is), and the training of Eggsy as the potential new member of the spy organization that Firth's character is a part of, the Kingsmen. It's always tricky spliting up stories like this, but it's a common occurrence and this film is more fluid with it most times. The two storylines intersect often and in a way that makes sense. It's easy to follow, light hearted (for the most part), and so much fun.

If there's a problem, it's that the silly, fun feel of the film contrasts with the shocking violence of the film. This was something I expected after having seen Vaughn's past work and after reading the source material. But with the way the film is marketed, it would be very easy to be misled. The language and violence of the film seems out of place a lot of the time. Kingsman is very reminiscient of Kick Ass in this way, but differs in that most marketing for Kick Ass featured teases of what was coming. No one was caught off guard. Don't get me wrong, the action was very well done, with a fast, hard hitting pace that fits the chaotic presentation of the film, and I thought the ultraviolence added effect to the satirical elements of the film, but it could easily rub people the wrong way if the audience isn't expecting it.

What really endeared me to this film, though, is the open shots it takes at the modern action film. Spy films in particular have taken a very dark, earnest turn over the past decade or so. Comparing a Connery-era Bond film with Skyfall is like putting the Dark Knight Trilogy up against the Marvel films. Similar content and source material but nearly polar opposite tones. While I certainly like a lot of the new generation of films such as the Craig-era Bond films, the Bourne movies, etc., Kingsman reminds us of another time. In more ways than one, since on top of being stylistically similar to the spy films of old, Kingsman calls the modern films out on their shit. The characters have open discussion about the old spy movies and how they are missed when compared to the darker, more serious films of the new age. All done with sting that only British humour can pull off. When Skyfall came out, I expressed my displeasure with it for essentially shitting on the horse that brought it. The backbone of James Bond is the legacy of cheeky one-liners, femme fatales with ridiculous names, and overelaborate and easily escapable death schemes. Kingsman not only remembers that, but points the finger at those that don't but should. It's basically Kick Ass meets Austin Powers, but in the best possible way.

Just remember not to expect a carbon copy of your favourite Bond movie. It's not that kind of movie, bruv.

Knight Owl

Knight Owl's Review of Jupiter Ascending; Must Love Dogs

I asked for an original genre film. Be careful what you wish for.

I'm not sure why, but I had hopes for this movie. I guess there are a couple reasons. Firstly, my hope for original work is everlasting, and Jupiter proudly brandished the claim of originality. The look of the film as per the trailers was unique and beautiful. I'm a big fan of Channing Tatum, or at least a certain version of him. Mostly though, I want to believe that the Siblings Wachowski are more than a one-trick pony. Their reputation are built upon the back of The Matrix which was a renovation of sci-fi/action films, and equally tainted by that film's sequels. They've done some things since the facepalmingly bad conclusion to the Matrix Trilogy, such as the screenplay for the amazing V For Vendetta and directing 2012's artful but never fucking ending Cloud Atlas, but the siblings will forever be known for the adventures of Neo and company, for better or worse. I legitimately hoped that Jupiter would, in one way or another, be the next big thing for a couple of talented film makers only held adrift by a 15-year old Keanu Reeves vehicle.

I was wrong. Very wrong.

Instead of getting the original, groundbreaking film I was promised/hoped for, I was given two hours of recycled material on an unfamiliar background. I could have told you how this film ended before the opening credits finished, but I wouldn't have to because you've seen this movie before. Everyone was. It's Space Opera 101, the same fantasy film formula that emerged from the 1980's with Star Wars, Willow, Labyrinth and the like. Only less interesting (because those movies are over 30 god damn years old), failing to hide behind a pretty presentation, and has more bestiality jokes. Seriously.

"I have more in common with a dog than with you."
"I love dogs."
"NOPE."

One thing I don't think the Wachowskis can do, talented as they might be, is conjure a good performance out of their actors. If ever there was an overwhelming example of this, it's Jupiter Ascending. Mila Kunis is so bland in this, which is tough to say because she is damn charming most f the time. There is a spark of that in her performance, but the words she is forced to say in this film choke the charm out of her. I felt bad for her character right out of the gate for being named Jupiter, and that feeling worsened as I realized she's a god damn idiot.

And then we have Eddie Redmayne, currently nominated for a Best Actor Oscar for the Stephen Hawking biopic, overacting his ass off. I really hope the decision makers behind the Academy awards don't watch this movie until after the Oscars, just to give this poor asshole a fair shake. He was SO BAD. Just, Nic Cage in Wicker Man territory level of bad.

But my buddy Channing got me through this movie. Not on purpose though. More often than not, it's the version of Tatum I hate: sullen, overdramatic, unnecessarily serious. Like Kunis, all charisma was torn from him by this horrendous screenplay. But every once in a while, he'd have this look on his face like he just couldn't believe he was doing what he was doing, saying what he was saying. They must have tied his arm to his waist to prevent him from facepalming himself to true death.

Claiming this is an original story is a stretch, but I am more than willing to give credit where it's due. First, I said it looked pretty, and it sure did. The many glory shots of slow moving spaceships and elaborate alien cities might have extended the film unnecessarily but were a welcome breath of fresh air that weren't accompanied by the film's ridiculous script. Second, while the story is far from original, there are many elements of the background, the setting of the film that are attempts at originality that I did like, absurd as they may be. For the sake of spoiling the film, I won't go into the particulars but I would have been much happier with this film if the setting provided accompanied a better story. I'd much rather see more of what was going on behind the scenes of the universe the film has built than sit through the attention deficit plotline we were given.

It took a minute for me to realize what this film reminded me of, and it hit me. Jupiter Ascending is Avatar. It's a superimposition of a tired story on a shiny new look with blue catpeople, or pointy eared dogpeople in Jupiter's case. It's a film bad enough that it can't even be enjoyed ironically, and that kind of bad movie breaks my heart. The storyline attempts to do too much, moving from one place to the next in a rushed fashion, almost scared to run long. The movie's script was irredeemable, just fucking ridiculous, and at least one of the film's stars seemed to know it. We know that films in this vein can be done well, even great. Guardians of the Galaxy proved it just last year. But Jupiter Ascending has more in common with Twilight than it does with GOTG. The only hope I have now is that this shit heap doesn't make enough money to justify a sequel. I will continue to hope for more original genre films, because this just wasn't one. Not even close.

Knight Owl

Knight Owl's Review of American Sniper; The Further Adventures of Rocket Raccoon

It's Oscar season! A time where movie goers are finally told by people we assume are smarter and better than us what films were actually 'good' from the past year. If you're someone like myself, you either haven't heard of many of the titles nominated, don't live in a place important enough to see the nominated films in a theatrical release, and/or are just pissed that The Lego Movie didn't get nominated for Best Animated Film or whatever. As a film buff/movie geek, I feel a responsibility to make an effort to see the films nominated for the oh so prestigious Academy Awards. Sometimes, my opinion differs greatly from that of the Academy (there's no way 'movie about boy growing up' is better than 'talking raccoon with tree sidekick') but thankfully this is not the case with American Sniper.

Over the past decade or so, the world has been treated to several films and television shows addressing the real world trouble that was the 'war on terror'. Being a fairly oblivious person, I only really know the Coles Notes of the whole thing but I get the gist of it. As it always goes, real life tragedy makes for compelling storytelling, and nothing's won acclaim in film notoriety like films on the war. The Hurt Locker put Jeremy Renner on the map as a mainstream star, and won a bunch of awards including Best Picture and Best Director in Kathryn Bigelow. Her follow up to that was Zero Dark Thirty, a film telling the true story behind the hunting and killing of Osama Bin Laden and was nominated for a good number of Oscars itself. Those are only the most notable examples, of which there are many, and American Sniper looks to be the next film of its kind to gain such high standing. Good, the film deserves it.

The film is based on the true story of Chris Kyle, an American veteran who holds the impressive title of most lethal sniper in 'Mericuh's history. At first, I was hesitant to see the film, as I have gone into films such as this one expecting something along the lines of Hurt Locker or Platoon and being thoroughly disappointed in one way or another. This film was anything but a disappointment. American Sniper is well enough put together that it tells a compelling and empathic story of a normal guy with a natural talent and a self-imposed responsibility to use that talent, while still able to feature some gripping and tense action sequences. And in a world where the last Transformers film was damn near three hours long, to be able to do what American Sniper did in just around two hours is truly remarkable. Kudos to Clint 'Get Off My Lawn' Eastwood for bringing his A-game.

Speaking of A-game, let's talk about Bradley Cooper for a second here. This guy is incredible. Easily one of the most versatile actors we have going right now. He's gone from the asshole in Wedding Crashers to Rocket 'By God' Raccoon, and has been picking up Oscar Noms on the way. This is the third straight year he's been nominated for an Oscar for acting, and if he loses this one not only will I be surprised, but he will be reaching DiCaprio-level status of Oscar denial. The Academy loves a good drastic body change, and Coop pulled off some bulking up for the role of Kyle.

And his everything grew three sizes that day...

What I don't understand about this film is the kind of attention it's getting these days. American Sniper has been plagued with political controversy over the past few weeks, mostly overlooking the movie altogether and jumping into the issue of whether Chris Kyle is a hero or a monster for his actions. It's become very ugly, as these things often do thanks to Twitter and the like. Here's what I think: when I say that this is based on a true story, it should come with an asterisk because in fact it's based on Kyle's autobiography because no film in this world is original anymore. Of course the film is going to paint Kyle in a certain light, and whether it's 100% true or not should be a moot point because a more accurate and detailed look at his experiences and life would 1) be a shitty, hard to follow story; and 2) be long as fuck. As a quiet but opinionated person, I can appreciate either side's approach to the man whose life is reflected in this film, but not liking a man or his actions should not impact an opinion of a film which is at best an adapted truth. It's like how I feel about Tom Cruise: yes, he's batshit insane IRL but does that mean I'm not going to see Edge of Tomorrow a bunch of times? NOPE. At the end of the day, it's a fucking movie, people. And a good one. 

Knight Owl's Review of Taken 3; It Ends Here (Thank God)

This movie makes me sad.

One of my New Years resolutions is to see more movies and write about them. I'm starting out strong, but already behind. It doesn't help that the first movie of the new year that I sit down to see is what I can only hope is the last of a franchise unable to live up to its first entry.

I can gush over Taken all day, so I'll keep it short by saying that the film was an unexpected hit and, in my opinion, a perfect action movie. Short in length, simple plot, heavy on the violence and threat thereof. It also gave new life to the career of a man I've always been a fan of but never clicked with the mainstream. Taken is inarguably one of the best action films in recent memory, and possibly one of the best ever. But as with any other moderately successful film these days, it just had to have a sequel.

Taken 2 was a shadow of its predecessor, neutering both the main character and the franchise itself as quickly as possible. The change in director was evident and not for the better. What should have been an easy path into a franchise became a sad extension of the first film, much like Quantum of Solace was to Casino Royale. I was willing to forgive Taken 2 if the third installment gave me what I wanted out of the second. Needless to say, Taken 3 failed spectacularly.

In my mind, the logical path that the Taken franchise was simple: Liam Neeson's work in the first film earns him a spot back on his old team, also established in the first film. They then go off on hijinks involving rescuing highly valued captives from shady individuals with broken wine bottles, threatening phone conversations and general badassery. Instead, Taken 3 becomes a far too convoluted whodunnit mystery a la The Fugitive with not so much action as there is a whole bunch of people on cellphones.

The plot we are given is as such: Old man Liam is framed for a murder and must go on the lam using his very particular set of skills to both evade capture and uncover who set him up and why. Even this synopsis sounds simple, but there is layer upon layer of unnecessary subplot that makes the film seem hours longer than it was. Also would have been fine, had there been as much action as the previous films. There wasn't, and the action we do get is over-edited and choppy. Extremely hard to watch. And with at least 30 minutes without the only reason to see the film (Neeson) onscreen, it's easy to forget why you're even there.

The big problem I have with this movie is simply that it falls into SO MANY TROPES, and everyone's the worse for it. First off, when I said Neeson had to 'evade capture', what I meant was that he beat the everliving crap out of every cop that crossed his path. Now, this has been a bit of a problem for me in every 'the hero's been framed' action film I've ever seen (which is an approximate fuck ton). So, you're innocent. That's great and all, but laying smacks down on every cop in line of sight might not be the best way to make your case. Now, even if your innocence for the murder is proven, you're going to jail forever on a billion counts of resisting arrest and assaulting officers. And that's after you get many batons and tazers shoved up unpleasant places.

And hey, while we're at that, you might not have to run so fast if you didn't make yourself seem so god damn guilty. Neeson makes every innocent-man-finds-crime-scene mistake you can. He fondles the murder weapon, he disturbs the body, he tries to talk the cops out of taking him in, and wraps it all up with a bunch of THROAT PUNCHING. This, ladies and gentlemen, is a man with a very particular set of skills which, I imagine, involved him being even the slightest bit covert. If anyone should have an understanding as to what's going on, it's him. Setting stuff like this up was his job, and the past two films were spent establishing that it was a job he was pretty god damn stellar at. But here he is, doing a fine job of being an asshole to the people trying to find a killer. You're losing your touch, Liam.

I know that this review has been living on the negative side of the film, but there's good reason. At the end of the day, a film franchise that was once razor sharp has completely lost its edge. Everything that I liked about Taken 3 was a direct callback from the first film (ie. Liam hiding under a body to surprise oncoming bad guy). I truly hope that either this is the true death of the franchise, or that new life is somehow breathed into it. Trust me, if you're looking for an action film on par with Taken...well, just rewatch Taken. It's still great.

Knight Owl

Knight Owl's Most Anticipated Films of 2015

So, 2014 happened.

Like most years, it had it's ups and downs but was better than the shit heap that was 2013 by leaps and bounds, so I'll take it. For me, though, one of the bigger disappointments was in the overall releases in film over the year. Just not a lot to talk about. There was an unlikely Marvel movie that had a talking tree, a talking raccoon, and a likeable Dave Bautista that obliterated the box office. That, and a bunch of sad sequels and reboots. And so, I threw myself into TV and Mass Effect, both of which are awesome. You can see this lack of interest in my posting here, as I barely put out one post a month. Sorry to my 20-ish loyal readers, but good news: 2015 is going to be so much better on this front.

New Years' Resolutions are a thing, and one of mine is to be more reliable with my bloggity-blogs. And this is the first step of that mile. The following is a collection of reasons I'm looking forward to the year to come. I hope to bring some gems to light to some, while being painfully obvious about others. There are also some notable films not on the list (cough*Jurassic World*cough), simply because I'm not convinced they'll be any good. I'm ever willing to be surprised though. So yeah, these are some films coming out in the next year that I look forward to, with a short reason behind each because an opinion is only worth the 'why' behind it. Drink it in, folks, and get used to it. I'm back.

February 6: Jupiter Ascending

Why?: This is a hopeful return to form for the Siblings Wachowski from their work on The Matrix, as it is their first original screenplay since then. It is also a rare original genre film in a world flooded with adaptations and sequels. It looks like a healthy blend of Sci-fi and Fantasy a la Star Wars, and I'm totally on the Channing Tatum bandwagon. Even if he's playing a blond, jacked-up elf.

February 13: Kingsman: The Secret Service

Why?: Director Matthew Vaughn opted out of guaranteed money with X-Men: DOFP to do this movie. There's got to be a reason for it. He's also responsible for my favourite X-film (First Class) as well as Kick-Ass and the incredibly underrated Stardust. The British spy film looks like the Bond film that the world has been missing since 007 lost his sense of humour, and Colin Firth is a damned genius.

March 6: Chappie

Why?: The Neill Blomkamp/Sharlto Copley combo hasn't failed me yet. District 9 is still one of the best genre films of the past decade, and Elysium was proof to me that Blomkamp wasn't the one hit wonder that so many others have proven to be. Where Chappie differs is in the film's apparent light-heartedness. The synopsis is essentially Wall-E as a live action film, but also with violence. Sold.

May 1: Avengers: Age of Ultron

Why?: Do I even have to write anything here? Avengers seemed like an impossible thing to pull off, and then it happened. It can't not happen again, especially now with so much behind it. The only problem is keeping expectations reasonable Avengers 2, and not just assuming it will be much lots better than its predecessor. But seriously, I'd be happy with maintaining the status quo and not have a “Revenge of the Fallen” situation on our hands.

May 15: Mad Max: Fury Road

Why?: The sheer look of it. Watching the trailer on youtube does not do it justice. This film looks god damn insane. Tom Hardy doesn't hurt, either. I'm usually very critical of sequels/reboots coming out so long after the last installment, as Beyond Thunderdome came out 30 years and several Mel Gibson breakdowns ago. But I'm pretty sure that I'm not going to give a shit while watching this movie.

June 19: Inside Out

Why?: It's Pixar, man! My blind faith in the Disney/Pixar collaborations has faded over the past few years since Brave came out, and I'm hoping that this adorable sounding film about the personifications of a child's emotions brings me back. Also, it stars Amy Poehler as 'Joy' and Lewis By God Black as 'Anger'. Best casting ever.

July 17: Ant-Man

Why?: Guardians of the Galaxy proved that a ridiculous concept for a comic book can be turned into a great, if not worth while and lucrative film. Ant-Man will be the lay-up to Guardians in this category, because it too is a goofy concept that only works in comics. Until it doesn't only work in comics.

October 16: Crimson Peak

Why?: Guillermo Del Toro is a genius with the supernatural/horror genre, and Crimson Peak is right in that wheel house. Pacific Rim was not the smash hit I think it deserved to be, but Del Toro's reputation in the genre world speaks for itself. Now that he's done helping out with the Hobbit films, I'm hoping to see more Pan's Labyrinth-like stuff, and Crimson Peak is a step in that direction.

November 6: Spectre

Why?: I didn't love Skyfall, but do like the Craig regime of Bond films. As stated earlier, I think the franchise has ditched the funny for the sake of the violence, and it's made me wishy-washy on my opinions of the films but they are still so fun to watch. Casino Royale is easily my favourite Bond film, and with Christophe Waltz in as the big bad my hopes are high for a similar parkour-laced action flick.

December 18: Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens

Why?: JUST YES.