Furious 7
Dir. James Wan
Above all, the Fast and Furious series focuses on the theme of family - I'd argue even over the cars. While the films are extremely stupid, totally illogical, badly acted, and shamelessly panders to its audience, its central cast somehow works well together, and the characters' loyalty to each other (and the hilariously bonkers physics of the car chases), is what holds them all together. When Paul Walker tragically died in 2013 midway through shooting Furious 7, it was unclear exactly how the series would proceed. Ultimately it was decided that instead of re-shooting and re-writing the story to exclude Walker, director James Wan (and Universal) made the difficult decision to keep his character in, splicing in a combination of CGI, unused footage from other films, Walker's brother as a body double, and some re-writes to finish the picture. With all the complications behind the scenes, and with Wan, both a newcomer to the franchise and new to big budget action movies, I was pretty worried this would be a complete disaster. Happily, I can report that Furious 7 doesn't suffer from any issues not already present with the series, and overall is just as loud, dumb, and shut-your-brain-down fun as the last few movies.
The sixth film ended with - SPOILER ALERT - the one and only Jason Statham popping up as the proposed baddie for the sequel. And though he has his badass moments, I have to say I'm pretty disappointed in the general lack of Statham in this movie as a menacing presence. The "crew," comprised of Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Michele Rodriguez, Ludacris, Tyrese, and The Rock, are all after Statham since he killed their buddy Han. So pretty much out of nowhere a covert ops team, headed by Kurt Russell, promises the crew unlimited resources to catch Statham if they assist in capturing a hacker known as "Ramsey," who has the ability to hack into any computer anywhere - an idea not unlike every god damn thriller made today in Hollywood (Eagle Eye, Captain America: Winter Soldier, Blackhat - ok, we get it! We're all being monitored!). But what little there is to go off of there are so many lapses in logic, plot holes, and just pure stupid moments that, to quote a popular Queen song, nothing really matters (at one multiple point[s], Vin Diesel escapes the bad guys by literally driving off a cliff).
Furious 7 also has a huge problem with how it treats women. I don't remember the other Furious films leering so much at random women's asses; even the computer hacker, who happens to look like she came straight off the runway, has a scene in which the camera ogles at her skimpy bikini. And speaking of the camera, James Wan went way overboard with moving that thing around. Basic phone conversations are given the "Michael Bay" 360 degree camera rotation treatment, and none of the hand-to-hand fights are decipherable with the kinetic cuts and rotations. It's kind of a bummer, especially with masters like Tony Jaa making cameos as random henchmen, that the action is next to impossible to read. And then there's the hilariously obvious product placement with Corona (at one point Kurt Russell pulls out a bucket of beers with the 'Corona' label directly on the side of it), and a globe-trotting narrative that - not unlike Transformers: Age of Extinction - seems to exist only to attract international audiences.
My attraction to these movies, though, has always been the glorious eye-winkingly stupid action set pieces, and at least this film delivers whole-heartedly on that front. I don't want to give much away, but this movie further tests the laws of physical plausibility. I was somewhat disappointed in the more obvious CGI used during the car sequences however, especially during the "aerial" scenes (what made Fast Five work so well - like the vault scene - was that many scenes were actually done in real life with limited CGI), which made this entry feel a little less grounded in reality, if that was even possible.
I won't say how Walker's character is ultimately retired, but I will say that his "farewell" really hit me hard. The filmmakers did a wonderful job working around the issue, and Furious 7 provides an emotionally satisfying send-off for him, and I'll admit, it got a little misty in my theatre. Overall, this movie in my mind doesn't quite live up to the fifth and sixth films, but I'd fit it snugly in third place. It's completely stupid and the plot doesn't matter, but it's the type of flick that you'll talk about with friends afterwards saying "Did you see that?!" "I couldn't believe it when...", etc. You could nitpick this to death, but at least it would be fun doing so. Simply verbalizing what you saw in this film makes you sound like a crazy person, and that's what you have to love about it. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to drive head-on directly into another car.
Rating: C+
It Follows
Dir. David Robert Mitchell
Watch Trailer
It Follows, an independent horror film that's been a huge success on the indie-film circuit (so much so that Harvey Weinstein delayed the Video OnDemand release of it to accommodate the box office run), has been touted by many critics as being one of the "best horror films in YEARS." As a long-time horror fan (my room in high school was COVERED with horror movie posters), this certainly grabbed my attention. So, having the privileged position of knowing absolutely nothing going into this (other than its critical praise), I shimmied on over to my local theater, got my usual combo of a bottled water and Raisinets, and readied myself for the "Best Horror Film in Years!" Sadly, I wasn't a big fan. It Follows plays with some interesting ideas, but ultimately (and probably unlike most people) I didn't find it scary whatsoever, I thought the characters were boring and made TERRIBLE decisions, and its central conceit of being followed by a slow moving mysterious "something," is a novelty that wears off quickly into the run time.
The plot couldn't be more simple. Following a strange sexual encounter, a teenage girl (Maika Monroe) has crazy visions and is overcome with the feeling that someone -- or someTHING -- is after her. Of course, the online think-pieces are endless with speculation of what the "following" thing means (some point to it standing in for an STD, some point to sexual trauma), but in the end, the movie mostly just shows a group of dour teenagers running away from an invisible force out to get them. I guess kudos to the filmmakers for making something out of almost nothing, but I think this idea might have worked much better in a short film format. It just drags on and on.
The film looks absolutely amazing though, I give it that; the cinematography lends a level of sophistication that is definitely not present in the dialogue (in my opinion, anyway). And I absolutely adored the musical score by electronic music outfit Disasterpeace, which wears its John Carpenter influence on its sleeve, but hey, it was still pretty damn great - perfect listening if you want a particularly paranoid morning commute. But despite the shiny sheen of this little horror flick, I just never bought into it. Its allegory of sex as being a mysterious force out to "get" young maturing teens provides some interesting insights for perhaps a term paper you'd want to write, but the actual experience of watching the film was a bore for me. I couldn't tell you one aspect of any of the characters' personalities, and like I've stated in other reviews, I tend to dislike "meta" films, especially of the horror genre (like Scream and Cabin in the Woods), because they feel more like dissections of genre than a film I can "lose myself" in. But that's just my taste! Different strokes for different folks.
Rating: C-
Maps to the Stars
Dir. David Cronenberg
Watch Trailer
If I learned anything after watching Maps to the Stars, it's that David Cronenberg probably doesn't have the best relationship with Hollywood. Teaming up with writer Bruce Wagner (who wrote, of all things, Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors), Cronenberg's latest film is a weird, cold, discomforting, and confusing film, not unlike Cosmopolis (though I found Maps much more rewarding). This movie is the definition of "not for everyone," and is a completely acerbic, pessimistic take on actors and Hollywood in general that I found difficult to watch, in more ways than one. Between the many allusions to incest, characters treating each other and themselves horribly, and watching Julianne Moore have a bowel movement, I just felt generally sick once the film was over.
The film follows Agatha (Mia Wasikowska), a mysterious girl with burn marks on her neck and hands, as she enters Tinseltown with her only connection being friends with Carrie Fisher (yes, her - she plays herself). She becomes a personal assistant to an aging actress Havana Segrand (Julianne Moore), set to play a role that her own mother played years ago -- unfortunately, she's also literally haunted by her mother (Sarah Gordon) and her sanity pretty much slips, along with all the other characters to varying degrees. Moore is definitely the MVP here, and her performance, especially in the "Goodbye" scene, was chilling. Also featured is John Cusack playing some kind of author/masseuse/self-help guru, and Olivia Williams as his wife, the "celebrity mom" to her complete dick of a child star son Benjie (Evan Bird). He might be one of the most hatable characters I've ever seen in a film - Bird plays this character so smugly, and with such disdain for those around him, it made me physically angry. And lest we forget Robert Pattinson, playing a limo driver/aspiring actor with the same non-charisma of his blank-slate character in Cosmopolis. All these people are more connected than they first appear, and the movie is making some kind of statement about the destructive nature of Hollywood, but it definitely will not connect the dots for you.
Maps felt to me like Cronenberg and Wagner working out some of their "personal issues" regarding the industry. By the fact that this is a seriously low budget project (get ready for some piss-poor CGI), and that these two have been in the biz a long time, it's no wonder they made such a negative film. They connect the idea of Hollywood and incest in troubling ways (the idea of repeating cycles - remakes, sequels, etc - and seeing the same people over and over). However, this idea of Hollywood as nothing but recycled ideas is - ironically - itself a recycled idea. Even back in 1950 with Sunset Blvd, we've seen this same anti-Hollywood storyline play out many times before, and often in more entertaining, engaging ways than this mood-souring chore of a film. Maps to the Stars is weird and disgusting, but not in the gleefully graphic way as seen in Cronenberg's best films of the 80's (The Fly, Videodrome, Scanners), more in a "I need to take a shower now" kind of way.
Rating: C
No comments:
Post a Comment