Friday, September 25, 2015

Criticism Concepts: Part 2: Critiquing on the right side of the brain


 


I made a post a few months back outlining what I see as the basic consideration every would-be critic should give when examining a work’s merit - namely, how it affects one on an emotional level.  While the details of our first impressions can get lost in the fog of our mind’s forgotten moments, the emotional impact they have on our thinking usually transcends plain old awareness, so long as the impression is sufficiently strong (and if it isn’t sufficiently strong, well, there you go).  But you’d be wise to ask what, exactly, you’re supposed to do with this new understanding.  You’ve sculpted your gut reactions into something coherent and, dare I say, intelligible; but how do you know what you’re saying is actually accurate in any way?

This is the second pitfall set up to entrap the would-be critic, and it can be the trickiest to avoid. Recognizing it for what it is requires not just a certain degree of work on your part, but also a different perspective than we’re accustomed to using in everyday life.  Let’s say that you’ve just watched the latest blockbuster this weekend, and after two brutal hours, it’s left you colder than a corpse on ice. So, heeding my advice from before, you decide to expand you’re chilly dislike into a solid critique; the film, you now say, is crippled by poor acting, terrible pacing, and a distinct lack of direction.  

So far, so good.  But what does that even mean?  What was it about the acting that made it so poor?  Was the movie paced too quickly, or too slowly?  And if it “lacked direction,” where, exactly, was it supposed to go?  These are legitimate questions, and any director or screenwriter serious about his or her own growth has a right to ask them.  Unfortunately, the answers, even from professional critics, are often vague and discourteous, leaving a sour taste in the mouths of ambitious creators and doing little to adjust the negative opinion most have of critics in general.

It’s not that critics necessarily mean to be tight on the constructive criticism; while there are a few jerks out there who thrive on negativity for its own sake, most critics, in their minds, are simply cutting the chaff to make room for the wheat.  But critics and creators (as well as consumers) see and interpret a work of art in completely different ways. The critic, more often than not, takes the approach of the analyst; their conclusions stem from a process of textual distillation, which can often read like an accountant’s business report.  By about how many degrees of plausibility does this character deviate from “the norm?”  Was this a “proper” setting for the story, or not?  

There’s nothing innately wrong with this, mind you, but the critic should always remember that doing this effectively splinters the work into discrete, measurable quantities that are then evaluated as if they had no connection to one another.  This is completely at odds with how the creator’s vision usually works.  While the creative process may vary among artists and their mediums, “holism” is the one constant through it all; the characters, setting, and other details all swirl together in a tangle that can be very hard to extricate.  The downsides of this are well know, as attested by anyone who’s tried to tell a writer about a pressing weakness in his story he’s just too close to notice.  However, embracing a work holistically enables you to see and measure each segment and each theme with a view towards the bigger picture.  By foregoing needle-point analysis, you gain clarity on how story elements interconnect and simply experience it in a way that touches something beyond the checklist of “proper” story elements.

This is the reason why critics, while often right in their play-by-play assessments, can also be spectacularly wrong on so many fronts.  Quick question: what do Moby Dick, Where the Wild Things Are, and The Big Lebowski all have in common?  They were all originally panned - or at least ambivalently received - by critics at the time of their creation.  If I may paraphrase the great Anton Ego, critics have a tremendous blind spot when it comes to anything new - in large part because “the new,” however it’s defined, cannot be easily analyzed.  Some things can only be experienced, which often involve time and an openness that borders on vulnerability.  It's hard, and takes practice, but your efforts will pave the way for more accurate - and more comprehending - reviews.

So where does the critic go from here?  Keep your analysis at hand, to be sure; but once you get your initial reactions in check, try to step back and piece them together into what you took away from the film as an experienced whole.  A second or third viewing may be desirable, but not necessary; even a first-time blush can offer a wealth of information and kaleidoscopic impressions.  Granted, the movie may still be an absolute stinker regardless of how you look at it, but in placing your analysis in the context of the intended experience, you now understand, at least, where the creator was coming from - and, more importantly, where they may need to go in order to get on the right track.  At the end of the day, the critic’s mission is to illuminate, not pontificate, and setting tentative creators straight should employ more than scornful smugness and a cold, unengaged analysis.

Friday, September 11, 2015

Indie Review: Wool 100%


 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/67/Wool_100%25_DVD_Cover.jpg/220px-Wool_100%25_DVD_Cover.jpg



 
Movie: Wool 100%
Directed by: Mai Tominaga.
Starring: Kazuko Yoshiyuki, Kyōko Kishida, Ayu Kitaura

Verdict:
Japanese animator Mai Tominaga’s psychedelic comedy-fantasy debut smacks of the type of incomprehensible “art” film scorned by so many casual moviegoers around the world.  But while the plot is unashamedly experimental and near impenetrable at times, this hidden gem of a modern fairy tale comes equipt with some innovative and beautifully-structured cinematography, as well as a cool soundtrack and a surprising dose of heart that will leave you feeling as warm as a wool sweater by the end.

In depth:
Mention “art film” to any random confection of movie buffs and you’re likely to be blown back by the shear force of every expressed opinion on the extreme "love it or hate it" scale.  As in any creative medium, movies leaning towards the experimental and the obtuse can open floodgates to introspection and existential musings...but are just as apt to illicit no greater thought than “Huh?” from its befuddled audience.  This always bothers me, for despite my personal sympathies towards the dense, the obtuse, and the philosophical, I usually lay the blame for any miscommunication between audience and creator at the feet of the latter.  Art is a forum of personal expression, true, but once exposed in the open, it transforms into a medium of communication, and a filmmaker’s failure to get his or her point across at conception can’t merely be hand waved with a snobbish “they just don’t understand…!”  But Wool 100% avoids this pitfall; as an experimental indie Japanese film, it occupies a convoluted set of nested doll niche markets to the Western viewer, but has a feel and vibrancy that transcends its seemingly avant-garde wrapping.

Summarizing this story is a Herculean task at the beginning, but becomes surprisingly easy once you understand the core message of the film.  Elderly twins Ume (Kishida) and Kame (Yoshiyuki) live alone in their little house surrounded by walls and walls of junk they’ve collected over the years through daily treks of dumpster diving in the local community.  This odd schedule continues on as “normal,” until the moment they discover a basket full of balls of red yarn laying out in the middle of nowhere.  Being the ever-compulsive pack rats, they took it home - unaware that in doing so, they unintentionally throw their front door wide open to the unusual owner of the skeins: a creepy, naked little girl -  played by talented newcomer Ayu Kitaura - who continuously knits the yarn into a lopsided sweater, which she always unravels in the end to start all over.  At first, Ume and Kame treat her as a nuisance who constantly disrupts their daily lives with her mindless knitting, destroys their scavenged property, and keeps them up at night with her random bellowing whenever she needs to knit her sweater again.  Over time, though, the twins get used to her, if nothing else, even naming her Aonamishi (“knit again,” after the despairing, house-quaking cry she emits whenever she “finishes” her project) and treating her more or less like the junk they collect.  Soon, Aonamishi proves to be much more than an unwanted house guest, breaking down the barriers the sisters have erected over the years between themselves, the outside world, and even their past.

If the above reads a lot like a fairy tale, that’s because it is; underneath the artsy exterior is a modern, Grimm-esque rendering of two lives unlived and the catalyst to shake them out of their decades-long stupor.  The brilliance of the film is that, with this singular objective in mind, it winds the entirety of the story around its chosen template.  From the opening narrative, with its misty, almost evanescent  exposition of the sisters’ lives that conceals more than reveals; to the inexplicable Aonamishi, who remains a cipher at the heart of the movie throughout its full run - the flow and direction are all completely airtight and under the control of director Tominaga, whose background as an animator clearly shows in the way she maneuvers the actors and props around the film screen in order to suit her vision.  The movie's fabulous pacing and keen timing of nearly every event is nothing short of laudable, and if nothing else, Wool 100% is a testament to a strongly structured, lock-step plot that doesn’t leave the viewer wanting for much, even as it avoids giving direct answers to it cryptic story.

Besides the dreamy plot and surreal characters, Wool 100% draws strength from a simple but effective soundtrack that enhances the overall experience to a remarkable degree.  Tominaga has appreciable respect for silence and white noise as a storytelling medium - a recognition all too uncommon beyond the arthouse label - and periodically punctuates the lull with a few upbeat, jazzy riffs that never feel out of place.  Aonamishi, for example, has a slick little leitmotif that roars in whenever she’s about to metaphorically kick in the teeth of her long-suffering housemates, and the poignant melody that lifts whenever Ume and Kame recall the shattered fragments in their past reminds you that, behind everything, this “artsy” film has a substantial amount of emotional weight. But Tominaga isn’t just an audio magician; as an animator, she doesn’t shy away from experimenting a bit with media genres as the film progresses - like presenting Ume and Kame’s past with their mother through an eerily upbeat dollhouse show, or using stark, line-heavy, flip book-like animation as Aonamishi wages her personal war on the twins' semi-sentient piles of junk, who protect them from the past just as surely as they guard against present intruders.  These sequences differ from the usual congratulatory self-indulgence of many an art film; they have a directed purpose and relevance to the plot, either to conceal as much information about Ume and Kame’s early lives while still providing exposition, or sparing the audience any overexposure of Aonamishi as she storms through the house fulfilling her private agenda with the sisters.  Future filmmakers would be wise to heed Tominaga’s attention to detail, and the efficient way she brings all elements of storytelling together.

No movie is perfect, of course, and Wool 100%’s one major flaw is ironically tied to its greatest strength: Tominaga’s tight rein on her story’s structure leaves little wiggle room for the characters themselves.  Aonamishi, of course, is fun to view, and the twins have enough quirks and curiosities to keep them mildly interesting; however, all three have little to show in the way of presence, and seem to be going through the motions at points.  This isn’t unique to Wool 100%, since most indie abstract films tend to skimp on the characters in favor of the filmmaker’s arc-wide “vision,” but as I’ve said time and again, characters - even shallow, “stocky” ones - are (or should be) the centerpiece of any narrative.  The three actresses instead feel more like pieces moved across a predefined board, with very little variation at all.  Again, this might tie back to Tominaga’s animation background; when you’re used to working with characters who are literally made for your story, getting a full grasp on how flesh and blood actors interact can be tricky to peg down.  That said, this minor gripe is just that - minor, and in no way really subtracts from the overall movie experience.  The characters are enjoyable enough, and having their personalities on the down beat permits us the full view of the plot’s unfolding charms and mysteries.

The key thing to always keep in mind when watching Wool 100% is that it is, at heart, a fairy tale - a rather dark and obtuse fairy tale, but one with a strong plot, interesting characters, and a surprisingly clear moral that’s told with heart and subtlety.  Despite Tominaga’s hazy and uncertain character direction, her three stars grow quietly closer over the course of the film, and as the climax approaches, the intention behind Aonamishi’s behavior - and what it ultimately means to the sisters - will leave you with a surprising amount of warmth after the end.  For the non-Japanese audience, an understanding of the implied but apparently unexamined cultural idiosyncrasies - like the sentient trash in the house, or the significance of certain colors - may pass over completely, but the dream-like story grants the necessary suspension of disbelief that Wool 100%, thankfully, never enforces among its audience as so many other movies do in need of faking coherence.  As a recommendation. catch it on DVD if at all possible.  It demands multiple viewings - not only to further understand the plot, but because it really is very hard to peg down, even if the movie gods bless you with full comprehension on the first go around.  Finding this little foreign jewel might be tough, but it truly is a diamond in the rough.

Grade: A

Tuesday, September 1, 2015

September Releases


September Releases






Hello, folks!  Sorry for the long absence; I've been working on a story that's commandeered my attention for the last month or so.  But rest assured that the reviews will be back on schedule real soon, but until then, have a look at Fall's early offerings:

Movies

Television

Games

Music

Books

See you at the movies!

Friday, July 31, 2015

August Releases


August Releases






I'm getting a head start on the premieres this month, since it's probably the most positive action I'll be seeing for a good while.  August is a notoriously slow time in the annals of popular culture, with few major headline draws save for the controversial Fantastic Four.  With the snooze fest extending across media boundaries, it's likely this month will retain its well-deserved reputation as the entertainment siesta of the year.  Still, a cool, cozy theater is a welcoming escape from the summer heat, and who knows?  There might be a few gems awaiting our discovery.  Truth be told, there are quite a few interesting debuts in the music and anime worlds this late summer, so we should keep an ear out:
Movies

Television

Games

Music

Anime



See you at the movies!

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Movie Review: Terminator Genisys

 http://www.mangaforever.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Terminator-Genisys.jpg


Movie: Terminator Genisys
Directed by: Alan Taylor
Starring: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jason Clarke, Emilia Clarke

Verdict:
Terminator Genisys tries to undo the damage wrought to the renowned sci-fi series by Salvation, but while the Governator adds a surprising charm to his tired role of mechanized guardian, the unwieldy time travel plot, mechanical acting, and a serious case of continuity lockout almost had me longing to hop in a time machine and reclaim my lost 126 minutes.

In depth:
I’ve long admired The Terminator for practically codifying the type of dark Cyberpunk that would eventually become such a cliche a decade or two later, so it’s no surprise that I had a strong, visceral reaction to the news that they were coming out with yet another sequel.  Like Jurassic World, Genisys has been smothering box office premieres for the past few months with a cascade of teasers that offered plenty of visuals, but very little story.  I learned well from the god-awful train wreck that was The Last Airbender to be skeptical of any preview that follows this formula, and I certainly wasn’t fond of any attempt to resurrect a franchise that may have served its purpose admirably in the past, but was now better off resting in peace.  But, then again, I had said the same thing about Jurassic World, and while I’d hardly call it a masterpiece, I was, nonetheless, pleasantly surprised.  Unfortunately, I can’t quite say the same for Genisys, for although it works reasonably well as a mindless action flick, even this meager fun is dampened by the stale acting and mind-bendingly convoluted plot.

Like its predecessor, Terminator: Salvation, our story begins in the future, where John Connor (Clarke), the ever crucial leader of the Human Resistance Movement, was set to launch the final offensive against the drone army of the homicidal A.I. system Skynet.  With him as always was a contingent of Red Shirts and the his ever-faithful right hand, Kyle Reese, played this time by actor and living crash test dummy Jai Courtney.   Admittedly, these early battles and the obligatory exposition they embodied were quite enjoyable; as a Terminator fan, I’ve always wanted to get a glimpse at the final few days leading to the future destruction of Skynet, and the time travel plot that set the mythos in motion.  Plus, all of its other soon-to-be discussed failings aside, Genisys doesn't skimp on the action one bit, and proved remarkably proficient at building tension - a key action ingredient many modern movies tend to neglect.  Jason Clarke was perfunctory as the legendary figure, his typically lazy and understated method of acting for once actually adding character by nailing down Connor as a weary, prophetic old soldier.   

On the other hand, I had an...unpleasant reaction to seeing Courtney step up as Kyle Reese. The time-traveling soldier is arguably the great cipher in the Terminator franchise, as he is pretty much the Adam to Sarah Connor’s Eve in terms of root importance to the fate of the future, and yet receives little recognition in comparison - not counting the laughable travesty that was Salvation.  However, I didn’t believe for one second that Courtney could do Reese any justice.  His acting is notoriously wooden, and I predicted that he would likely fade into the background as soon as the plot really kicked off - and sure enough, Courtney didn’t disappoint.  Throughout the first fifteen minutes or so he was barely a presence on screen, being overshadowed by Jason Clarke (yes, really) and filling more the role of a spectator than a participant.  While you may make excuses in the beginning as this being Connor's way of keeping Reese out of the action in order to preserve his own existence, this becomes impossible as the movie drags on and Courtney's stiffness and general lack of charisma grates like nails on a chalkboard.  Michael Biehn may not have been the world’s best actor, but Kyle Reese felt alive in his hands - tense, militarized and unsociable, but still very much alive.  Courtney offers nothing but a pretty face and a well-built physique, and I was both astounded and disappointed by how very little I had to think of him over the course of the film.  

Fortunately, Jai-doll’s co stars were there to help pick up the slack, though just barely.  Emma Clarke was an odd choice as Sarah Connor, but eventually an acceptable one nonetheless, storming in like a bat out of hell soon after Reese and the T-800 are deposited unceremoniously on the streets to inform the good soldier that everything he (i.e., we, the audience) was expecting is wrong.  I was displeased at what I initially thought was a shallow bid for “grrl powa,” the kind of janky, “I don’t need you to protect me!” mindset that seems tacky in a cinema climate that’s far more accepting of strong female characters, even if there’s a long way to go still.  Thankfully, the filmmakers steered her in another direction, giving a sensible reason behind her attitude and even linking it to the series-wide theme of fate and predestination - something the rest of the movie apparently forgot.  Still, Clarke plays a recovering child soldier with little depth or conviction, stifling the desperately needed level of gravitas that had always been a staple in the series, but yet seems mostly absent here.  

There was one star that didn’t fail to slap a smile on my face - and ironically, he was the one I least expected.  There was a lot of buzz both before and after Genisys’ release centered on Mr. Schwarzenegger and his status as a box office draw; his performances since his retirement from politics has been a thoroughly mixed bag in the strictest sense, with a few enjoyable surprises and a lot of trash.  To be honest, I err on the side of the neighsayers, especially since Schwarzenegger hasn’t been the engine of any big movie publicity since, and I’m being very generous here, End of Days. That said, Genisys, much like The Last Stand, shows that the aging action hero still has a certain charm and appeal that will never truly fade.  Although the Terminator character, affectionately named “Pops” in this incarnation, doesn’t allow much in range, the veteran actor knew how to exploit every cranny to either get a good laugh, like his hilariously creepy attempt to fit in by smiling, or to convey the film’s few moments of well-executed pathos. It’s sad to say that he’s the only character who evoked genuine concern over his survival from me.

So far, what I’ve described seems like the makings of a kinda fun if thoroughly "meh" movie.  So what went wrong?  It wasn’t Courtney woodenness, or Clarke’s uneasy grasp of a legacy role she can’t quite fill; it wasn’t Schwarzenegger’s faded Hollywood star, or audience apathy in the wake of yet another Terminator sequel.  In fact, it was all of these things, but wrapped in a convoluted plot that ties itself into an incomprehensibly tight knot, leaving little room for anyone who has not been following this series from the beginning.  I got my first warning sign right at the start; everything immediately after Reese followed the original Terminator through time - where both he and the killer cyborg landed, the reactions of the bystanders, and even the encounter with the hobo in the alley - mirrored the original Terminator sequence of events to the tee.  The problem is that we aren’t quite sure of the purpose for all this: is it a homage to the original film, a little inside treat for the series’ long-time fans?  Or was it a stamp of recognition, letting the viewers know that this wasn’t their parents’ Terminator?  I suspect that it was all of the above, but the execution was so clumsy that the likely result for most newcomers to the franchise was a great deal of confusion.  This, of course, is a serious problem, as a sequel - and most definitely an alternate remake - should stand on its ability to draw in new viewers who need not be versed in the series’ past lore.  Unfortunately, Genisys ignores this basic cinema principle, and I can only imagine how the rare Terminator newcomer must have felt watching it, as I know I would have been completely baffled by the inside references and their annoying prominence on the screen had I no familiarity with the franchise.

If the continuity lockout wasn’t enough, the movie's extraordinarily confusing take on the time travel plot renders any attempt at reaching clarity totally futile.  This is rather sad, as one of many boons of the Terminator series as a whole is the relative simplicity with which it approached time travel; not particularly realistic, but at least it didn’t require a Masters in Physics just to keep up.  Taylor and Co. threw all of that out the window, stacking on the temporal paradoxes like a snow fort, but leaving the foundation just as flimsy.  Just in case you missed what the plot was throwing at you at every second, a brief summation: Reese is sent back a la the original timeline, but the surprise ambush of a new Terminator model, that may be Skynet incognito, on John Connor throws a depth charge in the time stream that apparently, somehow, allows Reese to simultaneously recall memories from both his original timeline, and an alternate timeline where Judgement Day hasn't happened and he’s a sheltered teenager firmly in the bonds of puberty.  He encounters Sarah and "Pops," who apparently exemplify this new change not only by departure of characterization, but by the fact that “Pops” had actually been sent back to protect her from a Terminator attack ten years earlier.  So now, all three of them are hitching a ride to the future through a makeshift time machine - not to the 1997 ground zero of the original timeline, but to the alternate future found in Kyle’s time travel brain haze a few decades after.  Got it so far?  Good.  Makes any kind of sense?  Probably not, and it only gets more complicated from there on.

The sheer unwieldiness of the plot is problematic in itself, but what’s particularly troublesome is the intent behind it.  This film is the first in a planned series aimed at retooling the franchise, a fact so painfully obvious as to render the studio’s confirmation after it’s release unnecessary.  Reboots, in my eyes, are generally a bust, but can be pulled off if done with care and respect to the conventions of storytelling.  Here, though, it's like the filmmakers wanted to clean house as quickly as possible, throwing out much of what constituted the old mythos (i.e., John Connor mythic hero status, if I'm allowed to spoil for a bit) for no other reason than the fact that it's not needed anymore in the wake of this new "vision."  In fact, watching this unfold reminded me of an X-men storyline a few years ago called House of M, which without going into too much detail ended in the termination of a large majority of the comic's known mutants in one form or another.  Such an extreme plot in a beloved major franchise is bound to be controversial no matter what, but what really ticked off most fans was the later admission that its prime reason was to reduce the number of mutants to a more "manageable" level.  While the sentiment enmeshed in House of M is understandable, and it'd be foolish to claim that no fictional storyline had ever been influenced by the pragmatic demands of extra-textual limitations, to have it conducted in such a hamfisted and instrumental manner does justice to no one and nothing, least of all the story.  While Genisys doesn't wear its intent to anywhere near that level of provocation, it can still be quite jarring to anyone perceptive enough to see it.


Genisys is, to a certain extent, a fun film; I didn't come into it expecting to have my mind blown in any way, and Schwarzenegger and the special effects were good enough for an evening's distraction.  I'd even go so far as admit that it contains within the seeds for a better sequel in this inevitable new series.  However, they need to learn from the mistakes of this first foray (and maybe think about getting a better Kyle Reese) if they want the next film to be met with anything other than groans of indifference and confusion.


Grade: D

Saturday, June 20, 2015

Movie Review: Jurassic World

 http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/jurassic-world-own-raptors-poster.jpg



 Movie: Jurassic World
Directed by: Colin Trevorrow
Starring: Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Nick Robinson

Verdict:
Jurassic World breathes new life into a presumably extinct franchise that’s been left cold for nearly fourteen years, and while the cardboard-thin characters and somewhat shallow plot leaves much to be desired, the smart humor, acceptable action, and willingness to engage in a bit of self-depreciation are what makes this sci-fi thriller worth the price of admission.

In depth:
If you’ve walked into any movie playing in the last - oh - 9 months, then you’ve probably been hit in the face with a Jurassic World preview.  Heralded as the long-awaited(?) resurrection of the thrilling, dino-ripper sci-fi action franchise sparked way back in ‘93 with the now-revered Jurassic Park, I must admit that I was already experiencing  hype burnout without really knowing anything about it.  I mean, dinosaurs?  Again?  With the wave of truly terrifying monsters that had graced the silver screen in the 22 years since the first movie’s release, the prospect of sitting through another dino flick hoping to be scared witless seemed a little underwhelming.  It didn’t help that the previous pair of mediocre Jurassic Park sequels appeared tailor-made to poison any fond thoughts I had for their glorious progenitor.  I knew that the franchise needed a new direction - needed, in fact, a reason to limp along in its rather extraneous existence.  I just wasn’t convinced from the spotty information conveyed through the previews that Jurassic World would be this series’ second wind.  It turns out I was mistaken, for while I found nothing in Jurassic World that captured the awe-inspiring terror that was Jurassic Park - a feat, I imagine, not to be matched by any dinosaur movie in the near future - the film does, in fact, point to a possible resurgence built not on thrills and chills, but rather on good, solid action and a willingness to poke clever fun at both the franchise itself, and the wider circus that often hovers over the entertainment industry.

The story kicks off with a surprisingly quiet and down-to-earth look at Zach and Gray Mitchell, two brothers played by Nick Robinson and the young Ty Simpkins, as they’re packing their bags and gearing up to go on a trip together.  This is a far departure from the other films, which usually hits you in the face with a jump scare, or some unfortunate schmuck having a sudden lapse in common sense and becoming dinosaur feed as a result.  While a seemingly trivial detail, this quite literal change in pace not only introduces two important main characters, but also keys in the viewer to the stylistic swerve Jurassic World takes with respect to the previous movies.  If you went by their parents’ lackadaisical attitude and Zach’s generic teenage boredom, you would think they were going to a petting zoo or an aquarium, instead of the titular island-wide theme park stacked full of creatures that have been given a 65 million-year stay of execution.  But dinosaurs, it seems, are familiar enough so as to lose their “magic” for all but the most enthusiastic neophytes, like Gray. With the expectation of either imminent threat or wonder neutralized at the very start, our minds are left open on any assumptions with this new movie - a rather smart move by the filmmakers.

And sure enough, they capitalized on this by immediately taking us to Jurassic World and introducing Bryce Dallas Howard as Claire Dearing, the Mitchell brothers’ aunt, who is not an archaeologist, not an adventurer, but the park’s operation manager - a bored bureaucrat who looks at the dinosaurs and sees neither wonder nor fear, but mere dollar signs.  That the corporatization of a dinosaur theme park would be a major plot point was unanticipated, but completely logical; with so many people seeing so many dinosaurs, it’s no surprise that a certain crowd apathy which always accompanies familiarity would set in.  In fact, the park itself has been on a bit of a backslide lately as, if I can paraphrase Dearing, the average child on the street looks at a Stegosaurus in the same manner as they would an elephant at the local zoo.  In order to bring the numbers back up, they have to unveil a new “attraction” in order to reel the fans back in, which usually entails cooking up a Mesozoic abomination in the park’s genetic laboratory.  Meanwhile, across the island, Owen Grady (Pratt) demonstrates his remarkable degree of communion with a pack of Velociraptors to a group of onlookers.  Vic Hoskins, InGen’s head of security played by Vincent Philip D'Onofrio, alerts Grady that his services will be needed to test the latest genetically-modified Franken-saur, the ridiculously named Indominus Rex, but not before discussing the possible military applications of the somewhat-controllable raptor pack.

The brilliance of these particular plot nodes is in how they provide a subtle but necessary commentary on the state of both the Jurassic Park franchise in public mind, and how the general media demands for bigger and flashier effects leads to the commodification of nearly anything.  Dearing literally sees everything as commercial gain or loss, and in the beginning is never seen far from the swarm of corporate sponsors itching to learn the latest return on their investment.  On the more cynical side, Hoskins’ military ambitions for raptor foot soldiers might seem a touch silly on first blush, but plays quite well into how these scenarios have played out historically - especially when he applies the cold logic of “we made them, hence we own them.”  In fact, nearly everyone in the film represents to some extent the deadening effect mass commercialization can have on even the most spectacular of visions: Dearing and Hoskins’ views; Zach’s constant “so-over-this” attitude, even before the spectacle of a Mosasaur chomping on a great white; and the myriad of park employees who couldn’t look any more apathetic if they were handing out tickets to the local carnival.  About the only ones who have a sufficient sense of awe or at least respect for the un-extinct beasts are Gray and Owen Grady - even Simon Masrani, the flamboyant and enthusiastic owner of Jurassic World, while less concerned about the bottom dollar than about the sense of wonder and enjoyment his customers experience, corrals the commercial disaggregation with his demands for bigger, badder, and more dangerous dinosaurs.  The parallels to the entertainment industry are obvious, and require little further elaboration as they’ve been showcased in many movies since the year dot; however, it’s hard to miss the gentle poke at the Jurassic Park series and its finicky fan base.  After the major coup d'etat of the first movie, we were left in demand for more thrills that the sequels, lackluster as they were, couldn’t fulfil.  It’s true that we often weigh the mettle of any monster flick by how much bigger and scarier it is compared to the one last week, and Jurassic World lampoons this notion with surprising subtlety even as it forms the basis of its story.

Accompanying these stealth digs was an unexpected wealth of humor pervading throughout the entire film.  While cheeky, dark humor has always been a mainstay in the series, the filmmakers seemed to kick it up a notch this time around, and with a keen eye to the self-referential and self-depreciating.  Lowery Cruthers, the park’s operations overseer, is a virtual fountain of in-jokes, puns, and snide remarks to this end.  Played by comedian Jake Johnson, the tech-savvy snarker is first seen sporting an original Jurassic Park T-Shirt - apparently a hefty buy online - and while fully admitting it’s bad taste, defends his fashion choice by expressing had admiration for the “legitness” of the original park.  These reference could easily be driven to the point of annoyance, but Jurassic World generally avoids that pitfall - partly by keeping Cruthers’ appearances succinct and relevant, but also by displaying a knack for comedic timing completely atypical for a sci-fi thriller.

This surprising feat for a supposedly “meat-headed” action movie somehow comes about without distracting from its designated genre, though here, ironically, is where it fell off for me.  Don’t get the idea that there is anything terribly innovative about Jurassic World as a whole; the details around the I. Rex’s escape and rampage, as well as the course of the action, were predictable in the absolute sense.  To be fair, the same could be said for Jurassic Park, but its characters felt much more compelling, especially the two siblings Lex and Tim, who instantly drew in the viewer with their strong acting and delightful blend of vulnerability and moxy.  In contrast, the Mitchell brothers are relatively flat along the rest of the cast.  That said, while strong, 3-dimensional characters are by personal preference the apogee of any story for me, I must contend with the reality that characters can be tools for plot progression just like anything else, and while they may have been flat, they certainly were not weak; I can’t say that there was a single unintentionally unlikable person in the whole shebang, and the pervasive humor went a long way towards humanizing them.  I suppose “economical” is the best way to describe everything in this film, from the flat but believable characters, to the judicious pacing and just-right action that all made Jurassic World feel pleasantly shorter than its 124 minutes, with some highlights including Owen Grady's general badassery and Dearing's very admirable showing in this department herself, saving the day on more than one occasion despite the prim, by-the-book girly-girl exterior.

Jurassic World could have been just an average, popcorn thriller with the obligatory special effects “magic” that fails to compensate for its many other shortcomings.  But while the film was in many ways generic - though the special effects DID pull their fair share - it stands out for those subtle jabs at the film industry in general and the Jurassic Park series specifically.  No matter where you stand on it - as an “awesome” big-budget thrill ride, or as another lame addition to the canon that will never live up to the original - there is something or someone in this film to mirror your views, ensuring that even we the moviegoers cannot escape its well-executed satire anymore than we can its genetically-altered saurian antagonist.  I’m not sure how much of this was intentional, but the pieces fell into place too well to be a complete accident.

Rating: B

Tuesday, June 2, 2015

June Releases


June Releases





I may have missed last month, but I'm back with June's releases, and boy it's a doozy.  Some much-anticipated movies are coming out this month, like Jurassic World and Inside Out, so be on the look out for upcoming reviews.

Movies

Games

Books