Movie Review: "Batman: Assault on Arkham" (Jay Oliva and Ethan Spaulding, 2014)

THE DIRTY HALF-DOZEN by Mo Shaunette

Above: The Joker returns in DC's latest

 

DC Comics’s Suicide Squad is one of my favorite concepts that, sadly, hasn’t made much impact beyond the panels of its books.  It’s essentially “The Dirty Dozen,” but with comic book villains: a group of super-powered convicts are recruited by different government agencies to do off-the-books black-ops missions with high fatality risks.

While the characters’ loose moralities and conflicting natures make them interesting to read about, they also limit what the Squad (a.k.a. Task Force X) can do in franchises that are mostly aimed at younger demographics.  Case in point—the Squad has made it to television all of three times: once in an excellent show (“Justice League Unlimited”), but twice in lower-quality programs (“Smallville” and “Arrow”). However, with “Batman: Assault on Arkham,” the Squad has, for the first time, a movie all to themselves, and they make the most of it.

            Set in the same continuity as the popular “Arkham” video game series, “Assault” begins with the Riddler (Matthew Gray Gubler) betraying federal agent Amanda Waller (C.C.H. Pounder) and stealing files on all of the Suicide Squad members.  In response, Waller assembles a new Task Force X to break into Arkham Asylum to retake the files.  However, an ulterior motive from Waller and another face-off between Batman (Kevin Conroy) and the Joker (Troy Baker) threaten to put the mission and our leading bad guys in harm’s way.

            “Assault” is, as I stated before, a Suicide Squad story through and through, with the Squad in this case made up of Deadshot (Neal McDonough), Captain Boomerang (Greg Ellis), Black Spider (Giancarlo Esposito), Killer Frost (Jennifer Hale), King Shark (John Dimaggio), and Harley Quinn (Hynden Walch), plus KGBeast (Nolan North) acting as the requisite red shirt.  And the interactions between the convicts are what make the movie, from Shark and Frost’s odd friendship to Spider’s disdain for his compatriots to Deadshot and Boomerang’s bickering.  They’re a diverse group and it’s their well-defined and explosive personalities that keep the momentum of the film going.

            Also, the cast is uniformly good, with all of the principle actors being veterans of DC Animated work.  Mr. McDonough brings an icy professionalism to Deadshot, Ms. Pounder plays up a certain viciousness to Amanda Waller that we haven’t seen before, and Mr. Baker continues to shine as the Joker, doing a good impression of Mark Hamill’s take on the character (while still making it his own). 

The film does have some flaws.  One weak link in the cast is Ms. Walch as Harley Quinn, less so because of her performance and more because the character’s high-pitched Brooklyn accent can grate after extending listenings.   Even less welcome is the change in the music; while most of the movie flows with the operatic score often heard in other DC products, some segments feature an ugly dubstep beat that breaks the flow and doesn’t fit the mood.

            Luckily, you can more or less ignore these shortcomings since the action in the movie is strong, albeit quite a bit more brutal than some fans may be used to.  The Suicide Squad is a group of hardened killers, after all, and they don’t hold back against the Arkham staff—they shoot and behead guards without restraint.            

Beyond that intriguing change of pace, “Assault on Arkham” is a disposable popcorn movie; the kind of story that would typically start with the phrase, “Wouldn’t it be cool if…?”  But it’s still a fun film, an action/adventure black comedy led by some interesting bastards.  If you’re a fan of DC comics or just the “Arkham” games, give it a look and enjoy the madness.

Movie Review: "Ida" (Pawel Pawlikowski, 2014)

***½ (THREE AND A HALF STARS) by Patrick Belin

 Above: Agata Kulesza in "Ida"

 

I went to see “Ida” with very little expectation; all I knew was that it was a simple story of a young nun coming of age post-WWII.  But though this story is intriguing, while watching the film I discovered that its real strengths lie in its overall presentation.  I don’t mean to suggest that the movie’s worth is skin-deep; quite the contrary.  What I mean to say is that the simplicity of “Ida” is distinctively complemented by its visual format, and that elegant fusion is what makes it worth seeing.

Without giving too much away, the film is the story of its heroine trying to understand her identity in the aftermath of the Second World War (a time when Europe, too, was significantly coming into a new age).  And because Ida is an Ashkenazi Jew (Jewish of European ethnicity) who has been lied to about her heritage for most of her life, this journey is considerably complicated.

The circumstances of this story might appear straight-forward on the surface.  Yet what’s truly interesting is the film’s lack of superfluous creativity in its cinematography and screenplay.  In fact, director Pawel Pawlikowski’s technique is determinedly subtle, resulting in a well-crafted and sophisticated aesthetic vision in which Ida’s journey unfolds. 

Without going too far into the technical jargon, let’s just say that “Ida” was shot in the “Instagram ratio”—black and white, and with very minimal camera movement.  And even without the benefit of color and the expansiveness of the more popular widescreen ratio, Mr. Pawlikowski has been able to truly emphasize the subdued tenor of the story and Ida’s personal demeanor beautifully.

Ironically, this was my single problem with the film, and by ‘problem’ I mean a very minimal gripe: I felt that the movie’s story could have been portrayed with greater emotional depth.  Because if “Ida” has a flaw, it’s that you often feel like the acting is over-powered by the production—that the actors don’t quite have the full freedom to express the emotions the narrative demands.

But I don’t pretend that my opinion is definitive; I’m sure that the entirety of “Ida” worked for many others in the audience.  And on some level, it actually makes perfect sense that the film’s portrayal of Ida should lean towards the stoic, considering her life as a nun in the making.  I do think the film could have been improved by some slight script alterations in the closing scene, but it’s water under the bridge at this point, so enough of my rant.

Seen 11 August 2014, Living Room Theatres, Portland, Oregon.

Movie Review: "Boyhood" (Richard Linklater, 2014)

AGING OUT by Bennett Campbell Ferguson

Above: Ellar Coltrane in the final scene of "Boyhood"

 

There is a moment, early in Richard Linklater’s coming of age movie “Boyhood,” when two kids sit in a diner with their father.  They listen; he lectures, excitedly.  “Who are you voting for in the next election?”  He answers his own question: “Anybody but Bush!”

            As you can probably gather, that scene takes place in the early 2000s.  But “Boyhood” stretches far beyond that—before, we see a mother reading her children “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets” (when that phenomenon was still fresh); later, someone jokes about the omniscience of the NSA, reminding us that the narrative has progressed to the present.

            Mason (Ellar Coltrane), the film’s young hero, anchors this journey (which takes place in Texas).  Through all those pop and political allusions, we see him grow from a young boy to a college-bound photographer, which is possible only because Mr. Linklater shot the film over twelve years (starting in 2002), allowing Mr. Coltrane and rest of the cast to age naturally.  And it’s an intriguing experiment—the breadth and intimacy of the project makes it a multi-pronged time capsule, reminding you of where (and who) you were during the various points of Mason’s life. 

But beyond that, I don’t think “Boyhood” works.  Yes, it’s a worthwhile film (and certainly a conversation-starting one at that).  Yet in its simple, generic makeup, the movie feels odd and formless—a bland, drifting ode to a character who never solidifies.  That’s partly because in the film, Mason is still forming his identity; he’s discovering who he is just as we are.  But it’s also because Mr. Linklater never fully develops Mason’s personality—he just pummels him with emotional trauma and boredom, all of it rendered in a dully unobtrusive fashion. 

There is, of course, a story.  When the film begins, Mason is about six, and still overshadowed by the rift between his parents (played by Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette).  But time passes and soon, Mason’s father reappears; so too do stepfathers.  Both of them turn out to be violent and alcoholic fear mongers, but though Mr. Linklater dwells (queasily) on the threat of child abuse, he’s not really interested in cinematic theatrics; he prefers to just check in with Mason, whether he’s at sitting at his desk in school or chatting and drinking into the night with his friends.

In other words, “Boyhood” is not a particularly distinctive (or imaginative) portrayal of adolescence.  Yet as underdeveloped as Mason is, he does feel familiar; Mr. Coltrane’s deep voice and (later acquired) thin facial hair reminded me of some of my own boyhood friends. 

But relatable doesn’t equal worthwhile.  Mr. Hawke’s poignant, volatile energy not withstanding (he makes Mason’s father seem unstable but tragically eager to please), “Boyhood” dies under the weight of its own bleakness.  Remember those abusive fathers I mentioned?  Whenever they’re onscreen, they dominate the film.  And the promise of violence that hangs on their every move infests the movie with excruciating, utterly real terror.

For me, this was simply too much.  I don’t ask that every movie be an optimistic fanfare, but I at least expect to find some beauty.  Otherwise, why bother buying a ticket?  Why bother taking the time to invest a few hours of your life in a fictional world?  To be challenged, of course, but also to be rewarded.  After all, what would Terrence Malick’s “The Tree of Life” (another movie about an abused Texan boy) be without its soulful shots of dark seas and skyscrapers?  Just another colorless chronicle of pain.

In the end, that’s what “Boyhood” is.  Yes, it’s impossible not to be drawn to Mr. Coltrane’s stoic sincerity, but he never seems passionate.  Mason, we are told, cares deeply about his photographic ambitions.  Yet never seems truly excited by them; the prospect of picking up a camera never visibly thrills or moves him, and he doesn’t seem to want to express anything in particular through his pictures. 

Hence the moment towards the end of the film when we find Mason standing by a gas station, photographing a fire hydrant and then a traffic light.  As he looks at each one, we begin to see how they might make elegant shots—their bright colors make them shine in the desert.  But they don’t have the vibrant life of real world objects; they look like they’ve been dryly captured for a dull art film. 

Life, good or bad, means more. 

Movie Review: "Guardians of the Galaxy" (James Gunn, 2014)

SEE YOU, SPACE COWBOYS by Mo Shaunette

Above: Zoë Saldana plays the alien assassin Gamora in "Guardians"

 

“The Guardians of the Galaxy” seems like one of the more unexpected Marvel properties to be adapted to cinema.  Iron Man, Hulk, and Captain America faced their own hurdles when jumping from comic panel to big screen, but at least they were names people had heard.  By contrast, the Guardians of the Galaxy began in 1969 as an obscure team of 31st Century aliens, only for the title to be repurposed in 2008 and applied to a group of modern interstellar characters that Marvel wasn’t doing much with.  

The modern team gained popularity in comic circles but didn’t quite break through into the mainstream.  Yet here we are, with a $170 million-budgeted “Guardians of the Galaxy” feature hitting theatres.  And I’m glad it is, because it’s completely hilarious and an absolute blast.

            Stop me if you’ve heard this one before.  Five people meet in an intergalactic prison: abducted human outlaw Peter Quill (Chris Pratt), formerly evil assassin Gamora (Zoë Saldana), revenge-fueled bruiser Drax (Dave Bautista), strong but serene living tree Groot (Vin Diesel), and genetically-altered raccoon Rocket (Bradley Cooper).  The five all have different end goals involving a mysterious and valuable orb (and a bounty on Quill’s head), but find a common cause in stopping warlord Ronan the Accuser (Lee Pace) from committing genocide against the peacekeeping Nova Corps.

            Within this maelstrom of plot, “Guardians” seamlessly finds its focus—spectacle and character.  Director/writer James Gunn and co-writer Nicole Perlman make sure each character’s weaknesses are highlighted as much as their strengths, from Drax’s obsessiveness to Groot’s simplicity to Rocket’s insecurity (yes, the movie wants you to feel for the CGI raccoon with a Jersey accent.  AND YOU DO). Despite coming from across the stars, these characters feel real, and it’s their interactions and their humor that makes you want to see them succeed.

            But the people, be they white or green or made out of wood, are only half of a story that is also devoted to the spectacular effects and production design (by Charles Wood).  In terms of imagery, critics have described the movie as “‘Star Wars,’ if the whole thing took place in the Cantina.”  And that’s fairly accurate; the galaxy in need of guarding is grimy, crowded, and brimming with possibility.  It’s also intrinsic to the personalities of Quill and company—each location (including Knowhere, a colony built inside the severed heard of a space giant) enhances the film by making our protagonists blend in or stand out as needed (while spaceship combat and hand-to-hand fights keep the whole piece energetically entertaining).

            It’s a shame that this world doesn’t include a compelling villain.  With certain exceptions (Loki, the Mandarin, maybe Abomination or Red Skull), Marvel’s antagonists have largely been one-note evildoers who aren’t nearly as interesting as the heroes.  Thus, while Mr. Pace brings the same “go hard or go home” attitude he used in “The Hobbit,” he can’t change the fact that Ronan is just a big ball of villainy flying through the universe.  

            However, this concern is a minor one.  Not only is “Guardians of the Galaxy” a fantastic film, but it also crafts a unique identity for itself, beyond its connections to the larger universe established in “The Avengers” (and a particular purple-skinned alien).  Like Rocket says, “Ain’t nothing like me, ‘cept me.”  That’s true and it’s also why “Guardians of the Galaxy” is funny, dazzling, heartfelt, and easily one of the best blockbusters in recent memory.