Zootopia

Let's get one thing straight: I freakin' love Disney.  Specifically, Disney animation (a major part of my childhood and millions of other '90s kids) has such a fascinating history and important place in pop culture, and its impact on the medium is unprecedented.  How many animation breakthroughs weren't in some way pioneered by Disney or under Disney's inspiration?  Despite a rollercoaster of quality over the past decade, the studio has produced a number of real gems as of late (John Lasseter's influence on the studio undoubtedly driving that).  The Princess and the Frog, Tangled, Wreck-It Ralph, Frozen, and Big Hero 6 are all good-to-great movies that have cemented Disney's place in the feature animation industry and have proven that the studio's pretty much gotten its mojo back.  So how does their newest film, Zootopia, hold up?  Previews made it extremely hard to tell, most of the them focusing on a sloth joke that was funny, but told us next to nothing about how the story.  And honestly, thank God for that, because Zootopia is a movie that should be viewed with as little beforehand information as possible.  The writing is stellar, the characters are instantly lovable, and the animation is as good as CGI can get.  Yeah, that's a double-edged compliment, but more on that later.

In a world that only consists of mammals (except humans and domestic animals of course), there are predators and there are prey.  After millions of years of evolution, the two live together in harmony, but prejudices and stereotypes still plague the likes of each.  A bunny named Judy Hopps (Ginnifer Goodwin) has dreamed of being a police officer ever since she was a kid, despite her parents' warnings that there has never ever been a bunny cop.  But she's not the type to give up, and after training hard and achieving her dream, she moves to Zootopia to start her new life.  In this city, animals live and work together, which gets messy at times.  When tasked with an impossible missing persons case by her chief, Bogo (Idris Elba), she has to team up with the only witness she can find, a con artist fox named Nick Wilde (Jason Bateman).  The two explore the different regions of the city, encountering both funny and scary situations while discovering a larger conspiracy.

Zootopia is absolutely fantastic.  Its characters are strong and well-developed, there's plenty of solid world-building, and the mystery plot is genuinely compelling.  If the script occasionally falls back on a cliche, it often bounces back with something creative or even turns what you thought was something generic right on its head.  What I've seen the majority of critics focus on is the extra layer of depth the film offers in terms of its social commentary, mainly on modern American racism and sexism.  But it doesn't become "Disney's after school special" at any point; it treats the audience with respect and integrates its themes seamlessly into the narrative.  Almost seamlessly, anyway.  In fact, there are probably one too many lines that punch you square in the face with the subtext ("I'm not just some token bunny... It's only ok for bunnies to call each other 'cute..' "), but there are others that are pretty subtle and more thought-provoking.

This bunny and fox duo is all kinds of great.  Judy and Nick have great chemistry, and the side characters are fleshed out as well.  I like that the movie pulls the villain out from under the rug (as did Frozen), and that the motivations were justified and tied into the theme (huzzah!).   The characters have unique challenges they have to overcome that have a real-world parallel, and I like that the film doesn't simplify the problem and act like it has all the definitive answers.  The lesson here isn't that "racism is wrong," a six-year-old could tell you that.  The idea is that racism and stereotypes do exist, and it's how you deal with them that matters when they come your way.  It makes you reflect on social norms and often points at how generally fucked up they are.  But you know, fun for the whole family!

What also makes Zootopia stand out is how hilarious and gag-filled the world is while still being functional.  There are climate zones for the various animals, each more creative than the last.  There's even a detour into "Little Rodentia," a miniature-sized town for rodents.  Tracking down a missing person in this city was a genius move by screenwriters Jared Bush and Phil Johnston, because it gives an excuse for Judy and Nick to explore every part of Zootopia for the benefit of the audience while feeling totally organic.  It's all brought to life using gorgeous, glossy CG animation that astounds and delights with its attention to detail, and the animal fur seems like you could reach out and touch it.  And yet... I really wish it had been done with hand-drawn animation.  I think it would have lended the movie a charm that it almost has, but there's a sterility to CG animation that just comes with the territory.  It worked perfectly for Frozen (I wouldn't trade that ice for anything), but it wasn't really needed here.

Look at what could have been! Concept art by the film's character design supervisor, Cory Loftis.

Zootopia was directed by Bryon Howard and Rich Moore, who are responsible for many of the movies in this new Disney animation revival.  Their penchant for slapstick humor is here in spurts, but the majority of the film's strength is in its dialogue and its action.  There's a level of maturity in the writing, voice acting, and referential jokes that I really appreciated.  Michael Giacchino provides the score, which is an ambitious with its mix of tribal music with jazz; it creates the perfect sound for a city populated by animals.  I don't know if it's as AMAZING as The Incredibles or Up, but it's still pretty great.

What's not pretty great is the Shakira song "Try Everything," which would be tolerable if it only played once.  But it plays twice; a bland, shallow pop song that maybe I wouldn't think twice about if this been a Dreamworks movie.  But this is Disney, and given their track record for producing some of the best made-for-the-big-screen songs, this is extremely disappointing.  Shakira also feels like a celebrity plug in a film that desperately didn't need it.  And also... Shakira?

Other than that minor gripe, I absolutely loved Zootopia.  The characters are so likeable (and even a little tragic), the story is layered and well-paced, and world is realized to its fullest extent.  There are plot twists that dance on the edge of contrived, but are damn-near genius compared to most other films geared towards kids and families.  But that's the beauty of Disney animation; it's one of the only forms of entertainment that can truly be enjoyed by anybody of any age.  Zootopia purposefully dates itself in terms of its technology and pop-culture references, but its story, characters, and themes are nothing but timeless.

9/10

Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice

I left the theater after seeing Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice with only one thought in my head: I can't believe I never realized that Batman and Superman's moms are both named Martha!  That's not a good sign.  The film is a joyless, CG-heavy, action film that takes two of America's greatest comic book characters and makes them... dumb.  Very dumb.  Characters in this film are not people, they are cardboard stick figures that move from place to place and spout cliche dialogue.  You thought The Dark Knight Rises had plot holes?  Well, it does... but Batman V Superman puts it to shame.  It might actually be easier to count the things that DO make sense as opposed to the things that don't.  This is the kind of event movie that should be the purest form of awesome.  I love Batman.  I love Superman. But I don't love Batman V Superman.  It felt more like Diet Watchmen.  Does it have its moments?  Sure.  But for every good aspect of this movie, there are more than a few groan-worthy ones.

Perhaps some of my greatness will rub off on you...

Eighteen months after the events of Man of Steel, the public is afraid of Superman (Henry Cavill) and the potential power he holds over the entire world.  Sure, he uses his powers to help people now, but what's to stop him from taking over the world if he wants?  This is a particular worry for Bruce Wayne/Batman (Ben Affleck), who bore witness to the horrible destruction and death toll of Superman's fight with General Zod (Michael Shannon) firsthand, which nearly left Metropolis a giant crater.  Meanwhile, the wealthy and powerful inheritor to LexCorp, Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg), seeks a way to kill Superman via the green Kryptonite found inside the remains of Zod's ship, and manipulates the already enraged Batman into doing it for him.  Meanwhile meanwhile, Luthor figures out how to create a beastly alien being out of the now deceased Zod's DNA (known in the comics as "Doomsday").  Meanwhile meanwhile meanwhile, Wonder Woman (Gal Gaddot), under the guise of Diana Prince, has been operating as a secret superhero for decades, and helps to open up Batman's eyes to other meta-humans who use their powers for good.

MARTHA?!

Besides obviously being overstuffed, that doesn't sound all that bad.  There are reasons for a Batman/Superman fight that make sense; we're dealing with consequences from the previous movie, and hey!  Justice League coming soon! Isn't that neat?  But it doesn't feel that way.  Every character is so ultra-serious, and most of their interactions are wooden as hell.  Action scenes are uneven, with the poorest using CG cartoon versions of the characters to dodge obstacles or get thrown around.  The color palette is muted, which wasn't a bad look given the tone, but it's not exactly a pretty film.   Music by the great Hans Zimmer (and by the good Junkie XL) is above average, especially the reprises of the Man of Steel theme.  Wonder Woman also has a kick-ass theme (complete with electric guitar riffs), but if Batman has a theme here, I didn't spot it.  I wouldn't have minded the use of one his classic themes, but different universe blah blah blah whatever.

Na na na na na na na Batman!

The biggest issue here is the script.  There's so much crammed into the film that was unnecessary. The story of how BATMAN meets FREAKIN' SUPERMAN should be enough to make a compelling movie on its own.  But instead we have to establish Wonder Woman, spend time with a Doomsday origin, make it work as a Man of Steel sequel, and set up future movies.  Many dream sequences are self-indulgent, and often result in Bruce Wayne doing the cliche "wake up while jerking up and yelling" thing.  That's never happened to anyone ever in real life, and I'm really sick of seeing that.  In addition, very little time is spent establishing where we are and why things are happening.  Establishing space just isn't a priority.  Some of this could be overlooked if the characters had more meat to them, more defining character traits.   No one sounds like a real person; no one makes a joke (expect for Jeremy Irons' Alfred) and no one talks about anything not plot-related.  It becomes extremely tedious and boring.

Make my monster grow.

I'm going to be talking about the ending of the movie a bit here, so skip this paragraph if you don't want to know.  The climax is very underwhelming.  Doomsday looks like a cartoon character and any semblance of martial arts in what should be a great fight between Bats and Sups is drowned out by poor editing.  We haven't spent the last two hours getting to know these two, we've spent it watching them scowl.  The reasons for the fight aren't exciting, they're contrived.  It's like... a Three's Company-level misunderstanding.  And the reason for the fight to stop?  Horribly executed.  It makes these two icons look like total idiots.  And don't even get me started on the ending, which blows its load way too early in the series on something that should be meaningful but couldn't feel more hollow.  The Super Friends show handled this better.

This is why Superman works alone.

Amy Adams is beyond wasted in this film.  She's a wonderful actress whose Lois Lane had the potential to add heart and humor to the story, but none of that is to be found.  Damsel, damsel, damsel.  There are THREE distinct situations where she only exists to be saved.  You might think, "Well she's Lois Lane! The epitome of the damsel in distress!"  Babe, it's not 1938.  Lois has been tough, smart, and plucky ever since Margot Kidder played her in 1978.  But here, she feels superfluous.   Affleck gives it his all as Bruce Wayne/Batman, but wow does this script let him down.  There seem to be so many missing pieces to his darker turn as the caped crusader, despite his having the most relatable motivations in the whole movie.  Also, if you know anything about Batman, you probably know what his one rule is.  This version of Bats doesn't seem too concerned about that rule, which left my mouth gaping on multiple occasions in shock.  Is that writer/director Zack Snyder telling the fans, "This is MY version of the character! If you don't like it, SUCK IT!"   Not surprisingly, that was my exact reaction to Superman in Man of Steel; neither "heroes" feel like the characters.   But my even my positive opinion of Harvey Cavill in the main role has taken a sharp downward turn.  No life behind his eyes the majority of the time and no passion in his voice.  Can we just watch Superman IV: The Quest for Peace? At least there, Christopher Reeve seemed to care about "THE PEOPLE!!!"

Why so se-he-he-rious?

So in all this darkness, there are bright spots.  One thing I was sure to hate was Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor, and um... I kinda didn't.  He doesn't feel like Lex Luthor, and may have been conceived as an attempt to recapture the magic of Heath Ledger's Joker, but at least he injected a little life into the dullness of it all.  His scenes with Holly Hunter's character (one pretty clever setup and payoff involving Granny's Peach Tea especially) are very well done, adding much needed tension that builds to something morbidly spectacular.  It's the best scene in the movie and one of the few times I was truly invested.  And taken out of context, there are plenty of gorgeously shot moments.  Batman's backstory has been done to death, and frankly I'm getting tired of watching it, but recreated in the style of The Dark Knight Returns graphic novel here, it was very good.  There are a few action scenes featuring Batman that are really well-executed too; not surprisingly, they feature nice wide shots and continuous, unedited fight choreography.  And I know I harp on CGI, but there are moments when it's used to good effect.  But it's overused when it didn't have to be, and that's the real problem.   And while we're on a semi-positive note, I will say that the costume designs for Bats, Sups, and WW all look fantastic.  Might be my favorite on-screen looking versions of the characters.

In your satin tights! Fighting for your rights!

Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice is as clunky as its title, but with Man of Steel as its predecessor, it's hard to be shocked or disappointed.  If this had been the follow-up to Christopher Nolan's trilogy, this would be all kinds of catastrophic.  But as it stands, it's just a dull mess.  This isn't Fant4stic bad (I feel safe calling this some kind of movie), and it's packed with interesting ideas.  However, none of them come into fruition or draw from the endless political ideas and emotional stories that were right there for the taking in the comics and TV shows.  Monotone, obviously incomplete, and devoid of all the things I love about Batman and Superman, this Justice League series is going down a dark (and stupid) path that I'm afraid I just can't follow.

3/10

American Sniper (minor spoilers)

Clint Eastwood is one of the few people in Hollywood who went from being an icon in front of the camera to an icon behind it.  The films he directs are often thought-provoking and stunning in their their visual presentation, and American Sniper is no exception.  The story of an old-fashioned "man's man" living in the 21st Century is a fascinating one, built on themes like blind patriotism, PTSD, and war as a drug.  That last one may remind you of a similar little movie, The Hurt Locker, and comparisons to that film are inevitable.  I'll get to my feelings on how they stack up against one another.

Based on the auto-biography by Chris Kyle, the "most lethal sniper in U.S. military history," the story follows Kyle (Bradley Cooper) from his beginnings as a rodeo cowboy to becoming a Navy SEAL sniper in Iraq after the events of 9/11. During training, he meets and falls in love with Taya (Sienna Miller), who soon after becomes his wife.  Following the 9/11 attacks, Kyle spends the majority of his time in combat, proudly protecting his country and his fellow soldiers.  Using shooting techniques his father taught him as a child, his long-range shooting skills are unmatched, and he earns the nickname "The Legend."  He becomes involved in a manhunt to find the al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi through his right-hand man The Butcher (Mido Hamada), an equally deadly enemy sniper.  His home life becomes a strange other-world; his affections for his wife and young children have been drained, ignorance of the war angers him, and he becomes awkward in social situations.

What works in the film works tremendously well, especially with Cooper's performance at the forefront.  He portrays Chris Kyle as a man with a good heart but also a child-like naivety about the nature of good and evil.  His black-and-white view of the world is challenged time and time again in Iraq, and whenever he returns home to see his family, he becomes further and further disconnected from them.  When he realizes just how much gray areas there are in life, he doesn't know how to handle it.  After a while, he uses his previous intentions to protect and serve his country as an excuse to go back to the the war over and over, even after his wife tearfully threatens to leave him if he keeps it up.  It's a fascinating character study about a man who experiences dehumanization caused by war, and Cooper's portrayal of him couldn't be any better.

The film's minimal usage of music and emphasis on sound design creates a tension-filled atmosphere that hardly lets up once Kyle goes to Iraq, even in the civilian life scenes.  Disorienting shaky-cam isn't an issue for action scenes, color is muted and suitably melancholy, and the editing is sharp and efficient.  At first I found the sudden jumps in time periods jarring, but afterward I realized that it puts you in Kyle's shoes in a sense; suddenly his children are years older and are unrecognizable from the babies they used to be.  It strengthens the disconnect he has between his home life and his army life in a subtly and effectively.  Visual effects are top notch (sparse as they are), as is the production design.

Something holds American Sniper back, and similarly to this year's The Imitation Game, it happens in the last few crucial minutes of the film.  I won't say exactly what happens, only that it doesn't come to terms with the theme it's been setting up for the ENTIRE FREAKING RUNTIME: the dehumanizing effect that war has on a person and how that person deals with it when they are thrust back into society.  I'm not necessarily saying that I  enjoyed The Hurt Locker more overall, but its ending shines in comparison; it makes a the gutsy move to conclude with, "War is a drug, and the people who become addicted to war ultimately sacrifice what makes them human. "  American Sniper seems to conclude with "War fucks you up, so get some help when you get out and you'll be fine!"  That's not to say the film ends happily, and if you know the story of the real Chris Kyle, you know what happens to him. Could a few less scenes in Iraq and a few more scenes at home in the last act have helped fix this issue?

Suffice it to say, the ending DOES NOT ruin the movie.  I didn't gush for four paragraphs to end this with "it sucked."  American Sniper is a still a powerful, fascinating, and very emotional movie thanks to outstanding performances, excellent writing, direction, and good pacing.  It's really remarkable that Sniper is currently competing against two mega-franchise films (Hungers Games: Part 11 of 45 and Guardians of the Galaxy)  for top-grossing film of 2014.  Maybe people are getting tired of CGI explosions and sequels to sequels to sequels?  Whatever the reason for its success, it makes me very happy.  A solid and non-pandering anti-war film if there ever was one, American Sniper is a must-see.

9 plastic babies out of 10

Better Call Saul (first impressions)

I'm not alone in calling Breaking Bad one of the most addicting, mind-blowing, and ridiculously intense television shows of all time.  When it ended about a year and a half ago, I was deeply satisfied and content for the story to end exactly where it did.  So as you can imagine, I was skeptical when I heard about a spin-off series featuring the supporting character Saul Goodman in the starring role.  However, I'm happy to report that (judging strictly from the two-episode premier) Better Call Saul is made with the same level of craftsmanship and loving care that its predecessor was.

That comes as a relief more than a surprise; after all, the series is still helmed by creator Vince Gilligan, without whom I'm sure the show wouldn't have that wonderful, darkly comedic tone that Breaking Bad perfected.  Still, there was plenty of room to be disappointed.  What if Saul's character became irritating when given the spotlight?  What if the show becomes too comedic?  Will any of this be as interesting as the story about the rise of Heisenberg? I think it's best to go into this show with Breaking Bad in the back of one's mind instead of the forefront.  I foresee cameos and references to the original show without outright parody or excessive character mishandling IF the opening two episodes are any indication.  Because, damn--these episodes were just great.

The show begins with a "where Saul is now" sequence that seems to take place after the events of Breaking Bad.  For people who haven't seen the original show (I know a few of you poor, unfortunate souls are out there), nothing is spoiled or even said about what happened to Saul.  For around ten minutes of screen time, there's hardly a word of dialogue amidst a dreamy black-and-white sequence that depicts Saul as a man living in fear, loneliness, and intense depression.  He reflects back on his life, seven years before meeting Walter White, and thus the real show begins.  Saul, whose actual name is Jimmy McGill, is a failing layer desperately looking for a break.  He supports his brother Charlie (Michael McKean), who once worked in a successful law firm but has since developed a mental illness.  After nearly being conned out of $500 by two fraudulent brothers (Jeremy Shamos and Daniel Spenser), Jimmy gets an idea that could save him from poverty.  However, the plan backfires when the two brothers get involved with a certain insane someone you might recognize.

I won't go to deep into the following episode for spoiler purposes, but I really like what I've seen so far.  Bob Odenkirk plays the same layered and intelligent character he did in the original show, but now he's given so much more to do.  It occurred to me right from the start how interesting it's going to be to see this "nobody" become the improbably powerful Saul Goodman we know and love.  I'm more interested to see that than I was to see C3PO being built by a young Darth Vader, anyway.  Man, the prequel pool is really shitty, isn't it?  The rest of the cast is great as well, with a nice recurring presence from Jonathan Banks (Mike from the original show) that should prove to be very promising.

All in all, I can't express how excited I am for the rest of Better Call Saul.  AMC's quality control is astounding, as they seem to be focused on creating smart and creative television as a priority.  Yes, spinoffs generally have the unfortunate connotation of being a cash-grab by nature, but thankfully this particular cash-grab is artistic in its endeavors.  Will it ultimately be as good as Breaking Bad? I suppose it's possible, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.  I'll just be happy to go along for the ride, which I can predict will be fun and intense in equal measures.

9/10

Godzilla Raids Again (English Version)

Ah, banana oil! I was desperate and worried and anxious.  I'm not brave at all.

While I get my fair share of guilty pleasure from watching Japanese monster movies, I must admit that I haven't seen all that many of them.  I've only ever seen the Gamera movies through episodes of Mystery Science Theater, and that's just about the only way I'll ever watch them.  Much of the fun of watching these movies comes from making fun of them, especially when we're talking about the American versions.  I've seen even fewer dubbed versions of these movies, because A.) I know they're all almost exclusively terrible and B.) up until recently, they were a bit hard to find.  Well there's a snowstorm, I'm stuck inside with nothing but Netflix to comfort me, so by God, it's time I started watching some Godzilla movies to pass the time.

I love the original Godzilla movie.  I love it unironically.  It's a dated movie, but also an endlessly interesting one, both for reasons that are present in the film (the nuclear holocaust subtext) and for its enormous impact on pop culture both in Japan and in the U.S.  When it premiered in 1954, its box office success was so tremendous that Toho immediately made a sequel.  When I say immediately, I mean like Godzilla was released in November and Godzilla Raids Again was released in April.  The American cut of the first film was a pretty successful as well, which of course meant that U.S. would get a special version of the sequel as well.  A very special version.

I'd normally say you should never watch an American dub of a Japanese monster movie without having seen the original first, but I've realized now that going into the butchered version blind can be a very strange and enjoyable experience.  The original title of the film was Gigantis: The Fire Monster. You might think that title refers to the Ankylosaurus-looking beast in the poster, but oh no. Gigantis is the big lizard that looks like Godzilla.  What's so baffling about the American dub of Godzilla Raids Again is that it presents itself as a new movie that has nothing to do with Godzilla.  That's just astonishing.  The first film is even referenced through stock footage as if it's a different movie, where "Gigantis" devastated a city and is still on the loose! Was this done to avoid continuity issues, since Godzilla dies in the first film and then shows up here without explanation?  I really don't know, but it sure is weird watching a Godzilla film that refers to Godzilla by a different name.  In fact, I'm pretty sure the characters call him Anguirus a few times by accident.  This caused title issues down the line when it came to home video releases.  Apparently Toho had the video distributors change the title to Godzilla Raids Again despite the dubbing remaining inaccurate, which is made only more hilarious by the ultra-cheesy title graphic that zooms in at the beginning of the movie.  You know when you can just tell when something is a cheap '80s graphic?  Like "middle school home economics instructional video" cheap?  That is the very first thing you see in this movie, and I wouldn't have it open any other way.

Unlike the first film, whose American version included newly-shot footage and an added character for the English-speaking audience, Godzilla Raids Again is almost exclusively dubbed-over footage of the original actors.  Dubbing an animated film is difficult to do well, but it can be done.  However, dubbing a live-action film convincingly is just not possible.  Not now, and especially not in 1957. The dubbing for Raids is actually really good, all things considered.  But really good Godzilla dubbing is still really bad dubbing, and it just cannot be helped.  The dialogue is stilted and the actors are emotionally inert, rendering any non-action scenes hopelessly boring. I give them massive amounts of credit for making a lot of the lip movement match what the English actors are saying, but sometimes they say things that can't help but make you laugh. Also, characters and story?  They just aren't present here in any shape or form.  The original Godzilla had a thin story and characters to be sure, and while I can't speak for the Japanese version yet, this sequel has absolutely nothing going for it to keep the audience invested.

It hardly feels like a real movie at all; it opens with newsreel-style exposition dumps and hurries through scenes at light speed, with forced lengthy bits of voice-over by the main character Shoichi (Hiroshi Koizumi).  It's fascinating that the dub has the same problem that many children's anime dubs have; they fill atmosphere-building silence with dialogue, jokes, and needless explanations for things that are happening onscreen.  Except Raids adds no jokes, at least not intentional ones.  The only moments of silence we get are during the monster fight scenes, which thank God, are at least sort of fun to watch.

The "plot" involves Shoichi, a Japanese pilot, discovers an icy island where Gigantis and another creature known as Anguirus (Godzilla's first VS. matchup).  Then the two monsters find their way to Osaka and brawl their way through model buildings until one comes out on top.  A fellow pilot and friend of Shoichi, Kobyashi (Minoru Chiaki) must survive the monster attack, even though all hope seems lost.  I should also note that George Takei (yes, really) is one of the voice actors in the dub.  That's just... amazing.

I did admire that the film at least tries to recapture the horror-movie tone of the first film. I'm sure it's even more present in the Japanese version, but the little darkness that bled through the American dub's netting was much appreciated (it also helps that the film was shot in black and white).  It references the atomic bomb metaphor that Godzilla symbolizes enough to resonate, but not enough to make up for the emptiness of the rest of the film.  Never mind that the dubbing puts a wall between the audience and what's happening because of the uncanny valley effect, the characters simply have no personalities and the story is not focused.  There's an entire scene devoted to prisoners escaping from a holding truck that has nothing to do with anything else in the movie, for instance.  Why couldn't the movie have been about them!?

Even though the fight scenes are the only spots where there's any kind of attempt to let the picture speak for itself, I still can't call them great.  In the first film, there was an attempt to make Godzilla seem larger than life; big, slow movements and a grand presence.  Raids has a tendency to speed up the film during fight scenes, giving the creatures' movements a stop-motion quality that purposefully emulates King Kong.  It's jerky, awkward, and shatters any illusion that what you're watching is anything other than two men in bulky costumes wrestling with each other.  Hastily assembled as it was, at least the model work remains nicely detailed.  It's not filmed convincingly most of the time, but there was clearly much attention paid to the design.  However, some dinosaur puppets in a certain flashback scene are bizarrely conceived, and definitely provide some good laughs.  I'm not nuts about Godzilla's foe here; Anguirus leaves something to be desired, although my heart goes out to the poor suit actor.  It must be hard enough playing the upright Godzilla, so I can't even imagine doing the same thing as a quadruped.

So the American dub of Godzilla Raids Again is pretty terrible.  I do look forward to watching the original cut, but in all honesty, I can predict that it won't be anywhere near as good as the first film.  I'd actually be surprised if I come across any Godzilla films that actually are, which I don't necessarily mind so long as the fights are creative and the energy is up.  Raids has its fair share of ironically hilarious moments, and the dark themes of the original are trying to claw their way to the surface, but there's ultimately not much value in the film at all.   Calling Godzilla "Gigantis" was a huge mistake, as was changing his signature roar, but the way it's been covered up in the current version is positively hilarious.  The American dub is wall to wall exposition and no character, painstakingly dubbed in vain, and completely lacking the soul of the original.  A strange experience to be sure, but not a very rewarding one.  If you're a huge tokusatsu fan, you've probably already seen this movie and have made up your mind.  If you're just looking for a good movie, or even just a fun monster brawl, you have plenty of other options to choose from.

2/10

Birdman

What an incredible experience watching Birdman is.  It's funny, gritty, timely, and above all, beautiful.  A technical accomplishment that dazzles as well as emotionally stirs, Birdman features fantastic performances from all its lead actors, who are given a script that allows them to become characters who are trying to figure out what it means to be an actor in the age of the internet while still clinging to their childhood expectations in spite of all they've beaten down with in the industry.  I was prepared for a two-hour Michael Keaton "acting" reel that uses a lot of CGI cuts to make the whole movie appear to be one long take.  What I got was a cinematic thrill ride.

The story follows Riggan Thomson (Keaton), a former Hollywood action star of a series of films called Birdman from over twenty years ago (obviously, and perfectly, as a reference to the Batman films Keaton himself).  He's currently living at a theater on Broadway, where below he is in the process of writing, directing, and starring in a new play that will hopefully bring him back to relevance since his acting career has been waning.  The rehearsals have been a disaster; his new actor Mike (Edward Norton) is ego-driven and unpredictable, his lead actress Lesley (Naomi Watts) is having self doubts, and his supporting actress and girlfriend Laura (Andrea Riseborough) may be pregnant with his child (and may also a bit insane).  His daughter Sam (Emma Stone) works for him behind the scenes as a personal assistant, but as a former drug addict, she's constantly on the edge of slipping back into her old ways.  Riggan's lawyer and best friend (Zach Galifianakis) does what he can to help Riggan out, but there seems to be too much chaos for him to get a handle on it all.  At the center of all this drama is Riggan's story of discovering self-value in unorthodox ways, many of which involve talking to his alter ego Birdman inside his head while he performs feats like telekinesis and levitation.  But that's all in his head, right?  Right?!

Birdman is about so many things, and to really explore them all would take up two reviews at least.  At its core, it's about staying relevant in a quickly changing world.  This isn't necessarily a new concept, especially when it comes to ex-Batman players *cough* Adam West *cough*, but the way the concept is presented is so creative that it feels fresh. It captures this point in time so well it's staggering, summing up the 2014 generation's obsessions with social media, online videos, blockbuster superhero movies, and jaded attitudes.  I find it very interesting that Emma Stone, a star of the new Spider-man films, was chosen to star in a movie that criticizes them, but I wouldn't have it any other way.  The film doesn't stand up on a soap box to tell you this; the theme is weaved throughout the narrative seamlessly and never gives easy solutions to how we're supposed to live our lives.  This is a character piece first and foremost, and it delivers due to its incredible script and valuable cast.  I can't say enough good things about this cast; it's absolutely perfect, especially considering the nature of the film's camerawork (i.e. that the entire film is made to look like one, continuous shot).  Some of these takes go on for what seems like 20 to 30 minutes, and the timing of the choreography is spot on.  The way the actors play off each other (captured through the continuous, gliding camerawork) is not just a joy to watch; it's like watching a miracle.

Director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu and director of photography Emmanuel Lubezki have created something I just can't wrap my head around... how did they do this? While some of the cuts may be obvious (going through a dark corridor), some are mind-blowingly discrete.  Like, how did they light this film? The camera is constantly swinging in all directions, whizzing through the theater, outside the theater, and hovering over rooftops like a character itself.  I imagine color correcting this film was like trying to tame a rabies-invested lion.  Don't even get me started on how lived-in the world feels, with set design (if it even is a set) that transports you to this grimy world and makes sure you stay there.  It's commendable work all around, and is without a doubt one of the most technically impressive movies I've ever seen of this type.  And I've seen Timecode.

Everything about Birdman works perfectly in synch.  The richly layered script, the rounded characters, the perfect cast, and the ground breaking direction... it's all too much to take in from having seen it only once.  I'll be damned if this movie doesn't get a nomination for best picture, or hell, wins best picture at the Oscars this year, with Keaton taking home best actor for good measure. It's an ambitious character piece as well as a glorious technical achievement, and seeing those two aspects married together so beautifully is a rare sight to behold.

10/10

The Imitation Game (Spoiler Free)

The lives of many of the people behind the scenes of World War II remain a mystery, but few are as fascinating as the life of Alan Turing.  A brilliant mathematician with intense psychological pain, Turing helped crack the Nazi's Enigma Code, which was instrumental in helping the Allies win the war.  Loosely based on the biography Alan Turing: The Enigma by Andrew Hodges, The Imitation Game is a powerfully acted little movie that tells a very heartbreaking story.

Alan Turing (Benedict Cumberbatch) is an outcast in many ways; for those that don't know the real-life figure, it appears at first that Turing is just not a people person.  He pretends not to understand sarcasm, intentionally irritates people with word games, and keeps to himself almost exclusively.  Due to his own persistence, he becomes the leader of a group that concentrates on cracking the Nazi's Enigma code.   Initially, the film appears to be about Turing's development from being a loner to "one of the guys," but it takes twists and turns that give more insight into his character that go far beyond "nerdy guy learns to relax."  To give away much more would likely ruin important plot points, so I plan to review the film in a spoiler-heavy fashion very soon.  This means that this review won't really delve into my major, MAJOR problem with the film's ending, but c'est la vie. 

The screenplay by Graham More is excellently penned, especially considering it's the first feature film he's ever written.  The characters are excellently developed and the story moves along at a leisurely but effective pace. While many of the details are, I'm sure, dramatized for the film, it's still one hell of a true story.  Such an important man in the history of technology (with his Turing machine being dubbed the very first computer), Turing had a very difficult and unfair life.  Despite having Einstein-like scientific and mathematic brilliance, many people are completely ignorant of his accomplishments.  The film paints Turing as a very flawed person, never some kind of superhero.  He doesn't show much compassion for other people, likely due to an incident from his childhood (portrayed in the film), and even makes the difficult decision to let innocent people die so that the code-cracking operations can remain secretive from the Germans.

Benedict Cumberbatch channels a bit of his award-winning Sherlock character into his portrayal of Turing, removing some of that character's joy and replacing it with deep-seeded pain.  It's a fantastic performance to be sure, proving that Cumberbatch is one of the best actors working in TV and movies today.  Keira Knightly is likable as Turing's only real friend Joan.  She's quick-witted, charming, and almost as brilliant as he is.  The other cast members gel very well, but there's not much more to speak of about their development that wouldn't, once again, spoil the plot.  The code-breakers grow into a sort of family, and they genuinely want to make a difference in the world, not just do their jobs well enough.

The film's tone balances the lighthearted with the traumas of World War II very nicely, never jerking from a serious scene to a humorous one.  Rather, each scene is played straight, but may have some underlying comedy that comes from the characters.  I don't know if it's Argo or The King's Speech levels of good, but it's a film that's full of heart as well as emotion amidst the period setting. The score by Alexandre Desplat (who most notably did the music for Gravity and the final Harry Potter films) is excellent as well; chilling and somber without being intrusive.  Take notes, Hans Zimmer.  Apparently, Desplat wrote the score in less than three weeks, which I just can't even conceive.

As the Oscar season wraps up, it's clear to see that many films we all thought would be Oscar contenders turned out to be total washouts.  It's nice to see that The Imitation Game not only turned out to be a good movie, it might just be one of my favorite movies this year.  It's not perfect, or even close to it; it's final act is just bad enough to hold it back from greatness without turning the movie into some kind of train wreck. Let's just say it has the same problems as the last shot of Thelma and Louise, if you know what I'm saying.  Cumberbatch and Knightly really shine here, and I would be lying if I said I didn't learn a thing or two about the behind-the-scenes happenings of World War II while watching an entertaining period piece.  Well made and full of heart, peppered with sadness that may effect many people on a personal level, The Imitation Game is well worth the watch.

8/10