Truth On Cinema

Is there anyone in America who did not lower their expectations for this film as soon as it was released? Or at least as soon as mermaids were so prevalent in the trailers? You four people are in for some disappointment. But honestly, after Pirates of the Caribbean: Save Us, Giant Crab Lady (also known as At World’s End), I’m not sure there was really that much room to get worse. And On Stranger Tides does a manageable job of at least staying on course.

If you ever found yourself thinking “wow, Pirates is a bit dark for a Disney flick…” then this installment of the franchise will do wonders for you. Everyone seems to have cleaned up: even Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp continues to rock this roll) seems less edgy and cuddlier—a word which spell check both assures and insists is a word. Barbosa is now a privateer, something history nerds like me will enjoy, and let’s face it; Blackbeard is no Davey Jones. And why is there a random—but thankfully sincere and less stereotypical—missionary on the ship? This franchise is starting to feel like it has been strapped to a cannon and thrown overboard. But it’s still got a little bit of air in its lungs.

The Captain begins his journey in London, where he makes yet another daringly lucky escape from British custody only to discover that his name is being used by another pirate to gather a crew. Several necessary motivations and cameos later, we find Captain Jack on the Queen Anne’s Revenge with Penelope Cruz, being chased by the competing Spanish and British factions. Somewhere along the line, the project must have passed hands from a storyteller to a fan of stories. The build-up of Blackbeard and his mythology is lackluster, especially in comparison to the complexity of the previous films, but there has been painstaking effort to make this film fit into the scope of history, making statements about modernization in a manner similar to the third installment.

Also, there are mermaids and the fountain of youth. Apparently they are interrelated. Mostly they serve as glue to bind all of the gimmicks together. This film is by no means bad. It’s an interesting enough story, but lacks the excitement and originality of the previous three films, of which the first remains the stand-out. It’s a fun little voyage, but it’s more like a wholesome family cruise than the epic journey we’d like.

For enjoyable knitting together more excuses to take our money (and setting up yet more sequels), I give Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides a 7 out of 10.

Written by: Steven Jones

Marvel seems to be slowly introducing us to the heroes we never knew. They started us out with Iron Man, Marvel’s King of Cool. Then they followed up with the Hulk, a classic we had sought to forget after a disastrous 2003 effort to revive him that was fortunately atoned for in 2008. With Captain America on the way, it seems that we will be seeing each Avenger alone before we get to see them all together. Good luck making money on Ant Man and Wasp (Hawkeye makes an uncredited appearance in Thor, but only geeks and imdb-users would notice or care). In all actuality, I feel like Thor represents the line at which the average American can be made to care.

I’m a fan of rebooting old myths. I think it can be done well (see Gaiman’s American Gods). But a comic book adaption of an old Norse myth makes me skeptical. If you’re in the boat with me, let me encourage you to climb out and pillage your local movie theater. Because Thor is worth the trip. I won’t lie to you and say that it’s incredibly clever or unpredictable: it’s a superhero movie. Those tend to be pretty by-the book. It lacks the wit of Iron Man and doesn’t quite reach the narrative value of Hulk, but it’s far from a waste of two hours.

Thor is your typical hero. He has a lot of power, which is important because it helps him hold up his giant ego. He can fly and summon lightning and he carries the mythical Mjolnir (shout out to HALO fans who now understand the moniker of Master Chief’s armor): an incredibly heavy but relatively unimpressively-looking hammer that can pull off boomerang-like maneuvers and summon lightning. I now have to point out the difference between Thunder and Lightning and wonder why they seem to be synonymous in pop culture. I blame Pokemon.

I know this review seems harsh. Mostly that’s because it’s easier to be funny if you’re being a bit mean. In all honesty, Thor has its moments. Every actor and actress pulls their weight, there are several scenes that are breath-taking to behold (shout out to people who aren’t yet sick of 3D), and comic-book fans are sure to enjoy the incredible effort at referencing everything the Marvel universe has to offer.

So, for bringing the Thunder but not the Rain, I give Thor a 6 out of 10.

Written by: Steven Jones

In a summer full of worn-out franchise films, superhero flicks and sequels, Source Code is the equivalent of finding fish amidst the beef and chicken in your fridge. It can be quite refreshing. If you’re into that sort of thing. It is most certainly an acquired taste.

Source Code mixes things up in a pleasant way. It follows your standard Sci-Fi Time Crime format: helicopter pilot Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal; probably the only name you’ll recognize) is inserted into the mysterious titular “source code,” a program that allows users to relive an eight minute window in the memory of a specific subject. The film does a good job of explaining the concept without overdoing it: convincing us that this is viable but not requiring us to work through every piece of theory involved. It deviates from the formula, however, in constantly reminding us that there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to change the course of events depicted. For some reason, Stevens can do things differently every time in. I suppose small holes in theory are preferable to watching the same eight minute scene fifteen times.

If this movie has a flaw, that’s the main one. The acting is passable rather than phenomenal but doesn’t really get in the way. The only real problem is that we have to endure the classic “this is going to happen every time” intro sequence every time Stevens is reinserted into the Source Code. It feels a bit cliche to watch him say and do the same few things every time, but the sequence is blessedly short and seems to be creatively cut every time. The real magic, however works in what we will call the “Present.”

As the film progresses, we see more and more of the mysterious Beleaguered Castle organization and their operation as Stevens interacts with them. These scenes are wonderfully cut: driving us into the confusion Stevens experiences as a result of the Source Code but guiding us through his startling revelations as he discovers more and more of the truth. It might not be the most original, but it carries enough fresh ideas and solid thought to keep the audience engaged. It’s short, sweet, and just cool enough. It’s a shame it flew under the radar so long, but it seems Gyllenhaal is cursed with Secret Awesomeness (see Prince of Persia).

For breaking some fresh ground in an old field, I give Source Code an 8.5 out of 10.

Written by: Steven Jones

Confession: I saw Suckerpunch the day it came out. And you are just now hearing about it. That is because I honestly still don’t know what to think. In a world where female empowerment consists of objectifying and sexualizing women and then giving them guns, Suckerpunch seems to be on track to empower plenty of women. It aims to engage themes of feminine oppression and masculine dominance, but goes about it in a way that honestly pleases pig-ish men more than it pleases confident women.

We follow Baby Doll (Emily Browning) as her stepfather seeks to silence her by locking her up. She seems like a strong protagonist at first, standing up to her abusive stepfather in the opening scene. I’d like to note that this scene is beautifully arranged. If nothing else, this film brings it on the soundtrack and visuals. And there might be nothing else. For some reason, Zack Snyder decided that the whole thing needed to take place in a brothel. I honestly can’t see why. What’s wrong with the classic orphanage setting? Maybe it’s a little cliché, but given the number of clichés we have to endure throughout the film (dragon-slaying, robot-Nazis, giant rock-samurai… okay, maybe these don’t sound cliché, but if you’ve played video games in the last decade you know that the only thing missing here is some form of undead), you’d think they could’ve spared us all the painfully raunchy bits. I mean, if you’re going to use the evil step-parent, you’re pretty much committed already. I liked the idea better than the follow-through, something I feared from the beginning.

The trailers made this film seem like it was going to be Calvin and Hobbes if they were 20, female, and a little more violent. Make no mistake; the imaginary sequences are breath-taking. When our protagonist enters her imaginary world we are treated to incredible stunts, vibrant effects, and fascinating situations. It makes us wish that we could live there. And maybe that’s the point; the idea that her real world is awful and her imaginary one is wonderful. But Snyder promised us that these worlds would converge. And when they finally do, we get little more than a disappointing and stale monologue that is nearly incomprehensible. And not in the Chris-Nolan-Blew-My-Mind way, either. More like This-is-My-Eighth-Time-Through-Fight-Club-and-I’m-Starting-to-Understand-Why-Nobody-Talks-About-It.

This is possible the fault of some poor cinematographic choices. I’ve been thinking about it for weeks and I’m still honestly not sure what happened in the Real World. All I know is that I was at points insulted and at even more points disappointed. I think the director’s cut of this film should be the first in history to actually cut things out.

For making promises and going back on them, I give Suckerpunch a 3 out of 10.

Alright: let’s go ahead and talk about the giant elephant in the room. Yes, there are some striking similarities between Battle: LA and Independence Day. I mean, if Halo and Independence Day suffered a freak accident that irreversibly combined them with elements of StarCraft it would look a lot like this movie. But only a handful of nerds like me would really notice. And that handful of nerds really wouldn’t care.

Battle: LA follows a group of Marines fresh out of training as they make a desperate stand against a seemingly impregnable alien invasion force. Of course, these Marines aren’t the only ones out fighting… they just seem to be less likely to explode than the rest of the global defense forces. As the film unfolds, one has to wonder how this single platoon fares markedly better than every other armed human on the planet. That is not to say that they fare well. Merely that they seem to die at a rate of a few per half hour rather than a few per second. Heads up: try not to get attached to too many characters. It’s like caring about the unnamed people in Jurassic Park. Or the guys in red shirts who stand next to Captain Kirk. Or the attractive girl in a horror flick. You get the idea. Many of the characters seem to be here for the sheer purpose of blowing up to remind us that, no matter what victory our men have won, the situation is still just short of hopeless. (I have to ask… is there an action movie law book that demands the explosion of a helicopter full of defenseless people?)

There are several almost overly-masculine moments in which the protagonist, SSgt. Nantz (Aaron Eckhart) must deal with these issues by shouting at them until they go away. The film has an unfortunate tendency to portray its protagonists as Jarhead-types with testosterone and adrenaline hard lined into their brains, but it still pulls off some touching moments. Particularly once the Marines encounter a small group of civilians in need of rescue, the humanity of the men begins to show. Eckhart delivers a solid performance, including an episode of post-engagement psychological trauma that pulls the viewer into the film. And this is where Battle: LA shines.

The intent of this movie was clearly to put us on the front lines of a seemingly endless conflict (do I have to make political references here, or can you do that without me?). The film opens in medius res and practically never looks back. I’m tempted to make Cloverfield comparisons. Aliens invade a major city, tearing it to shreds, and we follow along in a shaky-camera adrenaline fest. Except this time we have guns. Which makes it suck even more that we’re getting our butts kicked. As the soldiers tear through empty houses, pursued by an all-but-invincible enemy, we receive updates via television broadcasts cleverly if not subtly placed along the way. The battle is not going well. In fact, it’s probably a good hour before the first confirmed kill of an alien. It takes four Marines several clips and a grenade to kill it. Hopelessness? Check. Fear? Check. Intensity? Most definitely. All of this is packaged well, with the locality of LA being the strongest contribution to the realism of it all. Maybe it’s not the most original film we’ll ever get, but what it does differently it does well.

For raw intensity and a sense of victory against all odds, I give Battle: LA a 6.5 out of 10.

Written By: Steven Jones