Mr. Holmes (2015)

"Have you ever been bitten?" -Rodger
"Stung! Bees don't have teeth." -Sherlock Holmes

"Because when you're a detective, and a man comes to see you, it's usually about his wife." -Sherlock Holmes

Short Review: As character studies go, Mr. Holmes is better than most. But, as movies go Mr. Holmes is very strange, British fan service.  If you are obsessed with Sherlock Holmes then this is a must see, if you are not...you can at least appreciate the, as advertised and expected, excellent acting of Sir Ian McKellan. 2.35 out of 5 stars.

Long Review: I think that a-temporal story telling has its place and use. Many films use flashbacks and flash-forwards to control information to an audience, holding it back when necessary, granting it when appropriate. It's not as common to see mismatched timelines as a story device for aging and disjointed memory. Sherlock is getting old and thus he lives in both past and present simultaneously -interesting narrative device, I liked it. The stories;all tragedies, the old, the recent past, and the present were not to my liking and, honestly, a little boring.  I also think that there must have been a make-up change during the filming, because Sir Ian's make-up varied greatly in each time period, and not for the better.  His old man make-up at the beginning of was considerably worse that his old man make-up at the film's conclusion.  Finally, I had no idea that a glass harmonica was an instrument until I watched Mr. Holmes.  I want one.  More glass harmonicas in films please.

On a scale of royal jelly to royal peanut butter, I give Mr. Holmes 2.35 out of 5 stars.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQemvyyJ--g  -A glass harmonica video.  Check it out.  

Big Hero 6 (2014)

"Get ready to have your face melted." -Aunt Cass
"Diagnosis: Puberty." -Baymax.

Short Review:  Big Hero 6 is cute and fun. It is not particularly innovative or groundbreaking. Pretty good is good enough for a middling thumbs up. See it if you have kids, are a kid, or just happen upon it in the course of random media consumption. 2.8 out of 5 stars.

Long form review:  I might have given Big Hero 6 a better review if not for the extreme appropriation of a Stargate to finish the film. Stargate was great.  More Stargate please. I just would want others to acknowledge Stargate when appropriating its likenesses.  That said I was extremely impressed with the iconographic use of shape within the design of characters in Big Hero 6. I consider this a sign of next level film making and art design.  Most animated features that employee this technique don't try and hide their efforts as making each character a distinctive shape ( circle, square, triangle, etc.) creates easy differentiation for viewers.  Big Hero 6 still used this template, but did a masterful job of softening their work for a smooth believable world.  I appreciated the design team's efforts to include a variety of body types, and forms, both male and female.  I feel that female characters, in particular, have been limited as to what kinds of body types make the big screen.  People come in all kinds of shapes, sizes, and physiques.  Animated people should too. Variety is truer to reality, empowering, and welcome.

Oh and Alan Tudyk can be in anything he likes.

On a scale of Fox Force 5 to the 500 Hats of Bartholomew Cubbins, I give Big Hero 6 2.8 out of 5 stars.

Cinderella (2015)

"Just because it's what's done doesn't mean it's what should be done." -Ella & Prince Charming

Hmmmm...This is an interesting trend within film and Disney specifically. I am aware of Enchanted, Maleficent, 101 Dalmatians, and an upcoming Mulan film. (I am sure there are more in the works.)  Long time readers of the blog know that I am not a fan of remakes. However, the idea to take a successful animated film and remake it live action is intriguing, and I am not opposed out of principle. In fact, given the time between releases, I was curious to look for generational, social, and practical differences between the animated and live action.

With that in mind, OK Disney, you've run out of ideas and some MBAs have instructed you that reinvigorating your existing successful brands to maintain public interest is smart business.  I bet films that have existing brand cache do better abroad too. Boo. Stop making monetary decisions.  Start making new, interesting, innovative, and above all original films. @Disney; you have successfully found a way to reduce the inherent financial risk of film production through volume, aggressive marketing, and great consumer insights that allow you to give audiences what they want. I counter that audiences do not know what they want. They know what they have liked, but are poor poor futurists. Please bring back the risk.  It will help you stay creative and open to the possibly disruptive opportunities of the future. Also as I quoted a moral from your feature. Take your own  advice.

To the film.  Cinderella is OK.  In fact, it's definitely on the positive side of OK. If you bring together an all-star cast of notables and tell a classic tale with a huge costume budget and good cinematography, everything will be just fine.

Acting highlights included: The performance of Cate Blanchett; Sophie McShera in all things; and Derek Jacobi as the Old King -All I could think of was him as Emperor Claw-claw Claudius

Acting lowlights included: Helena Bonham Carter as The Fairy Godmother -I love HBC, I just was turned off by her attacking and aggressive "Bibbity Bobbity Boo".

Other highlights: Competent , but not necessarily inspired directing by Kenneth Branagh; and COLORS COLORS COLORS.  Oh my, did they go wild with the colors in Cinderella.  I think the goal was to promote the fantasy and blur the lines between cartoon color and real life.

On a scale of technicolor to technocolor, I give Cinderella (2015) 2.8 out of 5 stars. 

Woman in Gold (2015)

"If life is a race, you beat me to the finish. But if life is a boxing match, I'm the last one standing." -Maria Altman

The best I can say about the film Woman in Gold is that no one disgraces themselves. All the signs are there of an uplifting story of redemption against Nazis and "the system".  David vs. Goliath. Everyone involved should put Woman in Gold on their resume and feel great about being employed during its planning, production, and release. 

Unfortunately, that is the best that can said for Woman in Gold. It bring nothing new to film. It is basically forgettable.  There are countless movies based on similar premises of small pluckly lawyers that battle impossible odds on the side of right to be finally vindicated through almighty justice.  There is considerably more soul in the painting "Woman in Gold" that in the film Woman in Gold. 

While watching I actually made a connection between Woman in Gold and the Monuments Men. Both films at their core are about art and the power of art to describe times, places, and events in a sublime mastery of color and form. Both films use art as the focal piece of their cinematography and shot selection.  It is unfortunate that neither film fully captured the beauty and impact of their subject(s) on film.  It was if they used stock footage.  Something in the way we, as the audience, are intended to view the paintings makes them seem museum-esque.  Great films make art palpable and blur the lines of distance and location.  We are right there with the piece. I wish Woman in Gold had better accomplished this effect. 

On a scale of 1 lawyer against all odds to a team of 40 lawyers representing a mega corp, I give Woman in Gold, 2.3 out of 5 stars.       

Whiplash (2014)

"It's worse if you don't know."-Terrence Fletcher
"The two worst words in the English language are {good job}." -Terrence Fletcher

So I am not particularly thick skinned when it comes to criticism, nor am I fastidious and obsessive about perfection. I have fun, let fly, and don't really want to hear about or think about mistakes.  There are areas of my life where I do focus, but when it comes to music I have blinders towards fun. This can be extremely frustrating for those around me that are dedicated to continuous improvement and exceptionalism. The same goes for me about them. My side: Why can't you just relax?  Who cares if I wasn't perfect? Why are you so uptight?  Can't we just play? And their side:  Why is he so sloppy?  Doesn't he care about the band?  Does he know he's out of tune? Urghhh, he keeps making the same mistake?  Long ago I learned, to a small degree, to empathize with my more single minded music compatriots. If I hear the tell-tale signs of anger with my priorities, I can meet them half way and for brief periods bring up my perfectionism at the expense of my personal fun. I hope they do the same for by occasionally glossing over my errors and thinking about the positives that I bring to the experience.

Whiplash is a study in passion, determination, and perfection within music.  It was made by Damian Chazelle,who clearly has a passion for music, and made a movie for people who are obsessed with music. The film lives, breaths, and is powered by music. I love jazz and that sealed my approval of Whiplash.

On a darker note, I thought Whiplash did an excellent job of ampping up the pressure to boiling point throughout the movie. The complexity and tunnel vision of Terrence Fletcher put in contrast to the relationship casualties of Andrew Neiman aligned with my understanding of the cost of musical professionalism/perfectionism.  I do not generally perform well under pressure. I would have quit and walked away to have fun in music long before enrolling in Jazz college.  I found long segments of Whiplash to be uncomfortable. Well done.

Finally, @Miles Teller -You keep getting roles and that surprises me.  Yet, you keep getting better in each film that see you in.  I don't know you and am not going to disparage you skills. If you maintain your trajectory, I will likely come to respect your work.  I don't really now, but I see light in your future.

On a scale of quarter note=50 to quarter note=300, I give Whiplash 3.6 out of 5 stars.

   

Glory Road (2006)

"You call that a foul?  I call that a love tap." -Head Coach Don Haskins

Glory Road means well.  It does. It is part of long tradition of historical sports movies that combat social ills.  Sports is the crucible upon which our society is forged- according to Disney related sports movies. And Glory Road fits the mold. It's unfortunate that it has nothing more to offer, but it is what it is.

PROs:
Acting:  Josh Lucas is passable and puts on a pretty convincing Southern drawl. Jon Voigt proves that, with a little make-up, he can basically do anything he wants.
Music: It peaks right when it is supposed to.  The sound track is a groovy mixtape of 1960s hits.  Good on them for including: Ballad of the Green Berret.  A strange schism exists in 60s films that discounts its popularity.  I assume it has to do with that the anti-Vietnam movement has had a more lasting cinematic impact.
Social Commentary:  As I mentioned above, the social commentary sports movie is alive and well in Glory Road. In this particular instance, Glory road makes a points of tackling not just African American and white relations within the team and against society, but also African American and white adjustment to the Mexican/Latino culture of West Texas in the 1960s.

Cons:
There was a very understandable, yet confusing, and kind of unnecessary plot involving the wife of Don Haskins as played by Emily Deschanel.  Emily Deschanel is fine actress and when I saw that she was in the movie. I thought that her role would be substantial.  It was not. It was kind of a waste of screen time and narrative.  What was her role supposed to be?  Did something get left on the cutting room floor?

On a scale of a triple double on the court to a triple double at In & Out Burger, I give Glory Road 2.7 out of 5 stars.

Jurassic World (2015)

"What happened to the sibling?" -Owen Grady
"She ate it."- Claire

"What kind of diet doesn't allow tequila shots?"- Owen Grady

**Contains Spoilers**

Jurassic World has dinosaurs. The dinosaurs are big.  The dinosaurs run amok. Children, tourists, and prissy business ladies are in danger. Different archetypes of masculinity vie to protect them.  That is all. Done and done.

On to a more interesting topic for Jurassic World. As evidenced by the weekend box office, there appears to be no law of diminishing returns on spectacle and WOW!!, financially. The more funding one puts into bigger, meaner, scarier, faster, sexier, destruction causing things the more it pays off. Yet, this is not the moral of Jurassic World. My takeaway was that the writers, director, and producer-Steven Spielberg- feel there are diminishing returns on spectacle.  Bigger, meaner, scarier, faster, sexier, destruction causing things lose their luster instantaneously, do not endure, and have diminishing, if not non-existent, artistic returns. Few movies have ever put forth a thesis so counter to their underlying financial raison dêtre.

Is it possible we are reaching a macro-leveling effect of visual effects effectiveness across the movie industry? Can audiences actually tell and demonstrably appreciate the differences between CGI in 2003 and CGI in 2015?  Or is the difference just less than between say 1988 and 2003? Perhaps the visual effects singularity is near at hand?

Back to Jurassic World. Watching the original T-Rex fight and defeat the new improved Indominus Rex was like watching an updated version of Godzilla 2000. Of course the foam suited Godzilla will defeat the 3D one. I would pick foam suit Godzilla to defeat 1993 T-Rex or even 2015 T-Rex.  No contest.

What do you all think?  Are there diminishing artistic returns on visual effects in film?

On scale of Technicolor to 3D, I give Jurassic World 2.89 out of 5 stars.