Draft Day (2014)

"How is it that in the most macho sport ever invented the prize at the end is a piece of jewelry?" -Ali

Here is the way I hope the meetings and pitch for Draft Day went down: A man walks into the room and says "you know what we need...we need a movie about the true drama that is the NFL draft."  "It's got everything.  The sitting. The picking.  The waiting.  The analyzing. The self congratulations. The insults. The football. The dreams. It will appeal to fantasy football junkies and those guys that actually watch the NFL draft religiously. Arm chair Monday morning quarterbacking meets the movies. Boom."

But the pitchman probably said, "Let's find a way to put Mel Kiper in a movie."

Draft Day is the single worst film I have seen this year.  It begs to be turned off.  And the thing that I hate about it most is that it violates my rule that drama and action should involve real people in the same room talking to each other. 75% of Draft Day takes place with people talking on the phone. Ughhhhh!!!!!!!!!! It reminded me why guys in their basement who have their friends over to yell at a live draft parties shouldn't get to just write a movie brah.

I think the only way that this movie might have been saved from its inglorious fate as an unwanted dvd in the 1 dollar bin at an estate sale is if Aaron Sorkin had written it.  At least then it would have been shorter and snappier.

Finally, I gotta hand it to the writers for not resolving any of the true conflict they established throughout the movie. The only major plot point I understood to be meaningful was the question of "Why didn't Bo Callahan's teammates attend his 21st b-day bash?" I would have gotten a lot more resolution and satisfaction out of even a brief glimpse into the future where either A. Our protagonist was right and won several superbowls, or B. Our protagonist is out of a job on the street because all of his predictions turned out false or C. a future where none of this mattered at all.

On a scale of two 1st round picks to my next two future ores, I give Draft Day 1.7 out of  5 stars.    

Edge of Tomorrow (2014)

"Battle is the Great Redeemer.  It is the fiery crucible on which true heroes are forged." -Master Sergeant Farrell

I went into Edge of Tomorrow expecting to Tom Cruise die -a lot. If that is your only goal. See this movie.  He dies -a lot.  Unfortunately, there is a plot and a supposed point to this Run Lola Run with aliens on an Axis and Allies board. If I had the technology to go back and do my day over, I would not watch Edge of Tomorrow.

On a positive note, I usually detest Emily Blunt, but I must give adulation where it is due.  She is a far better actress then I give her credit for.

Now to the time loop gimmick: I was about to applaud the editing department, the director, and the continuity team of Edge of Tomorrow...right up until the last 15-20 minutes.  It was reasonably seamless the way they made repetition, consequences, and mis-matched timelines work together. I was happy. I was impressed.  Then, they just decided they didn't care any more and ended the movie with a unexplainable timeline inversion from the death of "Mother Brain". After effects from an event in an alternate neo-future do not have consequences on the past before they don't happen. Understood?

On a scale of a very small light weight dagger to a FF7 buster sword, I give Edge of Tomorrow 3.2 out of 5 stars.

Aladdin (1992)

"why...the Royale Vizer..." (Jafar)

As a kid, I saw Aladdin so many...almost too many times.  And as I happened to wake up early on a Saturday to find it on a channel above 200, I said "alright" and proceeded to have a very lazy morning.  It felt awesome.

Quick review: Aladdin is one of the Top 10 Disney movies ever released and is a wonder for children and adults alike.  It features great songs that everyone knows by heart and the prodigious talent of Robin Williams. As I have aged I also give more and more respect to the voice actor of Jafar, Jonathan Freeman.

Now onto a topic of more substance; story compression and movie length.  I understand that movies are bound by certain immutable factors over which they have no particular control: the attention span of 8 year olds, the size of an average movie goers bladder, the size of big gulp, the number of usable hours in a day, the number of screenings that can be scheduled per day, and more.  In old movie days it was not uncommon to have an intermission ,just like a real theater production, and a standard movie might be a three hour experience. I have no particular data to back this up but my hunch is that movie executives know that for a children's movie, targeted at those 12 and under, their product cannot cannot cannot cannot exceed 110 minutes total with the goal to have the product under 100 minutes. That's about the longest any child can sit still and the maximum a parent feels comfortable plopping their child down for distraction to watch a DVD.

This time sensitivity leads to story compression.  Characters must make decision quickly. The plot must move swiftly. Time must pass in flash, and resolution must be complete and final.  (So long, denouement!)

As I watched Aladdin, I couldn't help but think about how much plot is stuffed into its 90 minutes.  If you didn't know the story and left for the bathroom you would be lost.  The inner cinophile in me would want to see multiple formats of Aladdin and see which one is actually the best.  Would a mini-series of 10 episodes of an hour (HBO style) give more time for bedazzlement, or how about an Aladdin where 2 hours was the goal?  For some ideas less is more.  For others, the more we see the more we love.

On a scale of a baseball game condensed to the pure 20 minutes of action to a natural baseball game, I give Aladdin 4.0 out of 5 stars.

RIP Robin Williams
    

Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)

"I am Groot." (Groot)

"What are you doing?" (Starlord to Rocket)
"I'm building a bomb." (Rocket to Starlord)
"In the middle of the living space!?" (Starlord to Rocket)
"Well I was going to put it in this box.." (Rocket)
"WHY!? would that make it better? (Starlord)

"I will not succumb to your pelvic sorcery." (Gamorra to Starlord)

Hmmmmmm chalk another one up for Marvel and Disney. They seem to understand how to get the most from their directors and actors.  They ask for some fiscal and business minded constraints....they give a great deal of artistic liberty with regards to theme, style, narrative, and more.  ( I assume they take a firmer hand when it comes to costly action sequences.)  It is this long term partnership between Marvel/Disney and those involved with production that has allowed for the creation of blockbuster after blockbuster.

Guardians of the Galaxy director James Gunn deserves all accolades for his bold choice to make the music of the movie the central connective tissue that will bind together millennials/gen-xers to an otherwise irrationally outlandish story. If it wasn't for the thorough musical grounding of Peter Quill in hits from the 70s, this whole movie would have been kaput.

Beyond that, I did not find the Guardians of the Galaxy to be anything special.  A good time? Totally. Worth my money? For sure. Worthy of a sequel? No doubt. Well written and acted? Super thumbs up. But a great movie? not really.

On scale of StarDuke to StarCount, I give Guardians of the Galaxy 3.7 out of 5 stars.

Oh and Lee Pace.  You are shortly becoming one of my favorite actors of the last decade.       

The Expendables (2010)

"My life is difficult.  I need more money." -Yin Yang (Jet Li)

So.......yeah I watched this.  It was everything I expected.  It was still bad.  It was not meant to be good...so EXPECTATIONS MET!!

It is unfortunate that I would have rather watched any old bad classic from any of these actors ( Especially Red Scorpion with Dolph Lundgren) than watch The Expendables ever again.  It is not a waste of life to see it....but it is a waste of time.  If you can be multi-tasking, The Expendables may have more value for you. In that scenario, you could see it as a bundled movie with all your favorite action stars.  It is still not good.

On a scale of damsel in distress to heroine in need of an all male commando team, I give The Expendables 2 out of 5 stars.   

Fiddler on the Roof (1971)

"But on the other hand..." (Tevye)
"What's wrong with being rich?" (Tevye)

Given its status as a cultural touchstone, it seems strange that I had never seen Fiddler on the Roof until now. But, this was my first experience.

So as newb, I learned 3 things about Fiddler on the Roof. 1: The script and jokes of Fiddler are awesome.  "May god bless and keep the Czar...far away from us."  2: The songs are beautiful. "Drink, L'chai-im to life!" and 3: Fiddler on the Roof is really really sad.  The larger meaning that I took away from the film was that Tradition is Tradition is Tradition and changes with time.  

I would like to see the full musical theater production someday.  I assume it might be very similar to the movie version.  

On a scale of lutefisk to gefilte fish, I give Fiddler on the Roof 4.0 out of 5 stars.     

Belle (2014)

"You are..You are...YOU ARE....illegitimate!" -Lady Elizabeth Murray

As period dramas go, I find that the story's success will be inversely related to the amount of time spent hammering out 'the would be obvious" and explaining that there is dramatic tension.  Thus, excellent period dramas explain very little and simply take their surroundings as fact. Poor period dramas spend vast amounts of time explaining relations, the issues of power, and the intricacies of then current politics/social issues over and over.  I also content that the relationship between exposition and success is even more divergent for a British period drama.  Propriety would insist that exposition is tacky.

With this in mind, I consider Belle to be on the poorer end of the period drama spectrum.  Its plot and script are written with extensive elements of heavy handed exposition.  Additionally, I found the word choice and syntax of the script to be jagged and below English high society elegance.  However, there were some positives to Belle.  1. The actors were professional and performed remarkably given script limitations.  2. The costumes and sets were superb.  I wish the script had taken the time to be written with the same care and attention to detail that went into hat selection.

I have two additional notes on the film.  Why is it titled Belle?  The main character is referred to throughout the film as Dido, which is her first name.  I'm only curious as to if the marketing department felt that a film titled "Dido" might not perform as well as one with a more elegant and fairy-tale-esque name?  Additionally, as a note for Mr. Tom Felton, AKA Draco Malfoy, I appreciate that you can play spite and malice as well as any actor, but please be careful as you are in danger of becoming typecast.  I would like to see you take on more diverse roles.

On a scale of The House of Commons to The House of Lords, I give Belle 3.2 out of 5 stars.