Captain America: Civil War (2016)

What defines a movie versus a mini-series versus a serial season?

I honestly don't know. I've commented before that I have thought certain films would have been better served in a different format -Batman: The Dark Knight Rises comes to mind.

And in terms of Captain America: Civil War (CA:CW)C, here is where I am confused.

• CA:CW was crafted with deference to the needs a story arch contained within
• It has a clear 1st, 2nd, 3rd act and a denouement.
• The main theme CA:CW seems to be "things torn apart". The resolution is a torturous break with no catharsis.
• This is not unique to CA:CW, other films choose to end on chaotic notes -The Empire Strikes Back-, but this is a defined commitment from start to finish to dissolution. It isn't its choice as much as its purpose.
• I know that this is part of an extended Universe of which this movie serves a distinct purpose for future films
• CA:CW is a resounding success in its goals: emotional tension, continuity, suspension of disbelief, etc. 

So, here I am wondering if it is even right to rate and judge CA:CW and other franchise universe films under the same criteria as one-off competitors. I'm not sure I want to have to think about Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds and CA:CW as being in the same class of art. 

I realize now that TV, mini-series, seasons, and films/movies are melding together in a way that I enjoy and find upsetting at the same time. I shouldn't be surprised. I consume electronic visual media in an almost uniform fashion. Others are doing the same. I watch movies, episodes, and series generally from home in longer sessions -binges.  If I do go to the cinema, the experience is only occasionally better than my couch. 

Content is coming together as never before.  The only differences are production time, episode time, and length of audience attention during and between engagements. 

It's a brave new world. 

On a scale of One-Time event to On-Demand, I give Captain America: Civil War 3.657 out of 5 stars. 

Chongqing Hot Pot (2016)

If you are going to smoke, I have to be here. Ok, grandpa? -Liu Bo

*More Chinese movies should be showcased in American first run cinemas.

A tale of two halves.

Act 1:  A delightful Chinese bank caper with goofy/sad protagonists and evil mask wearing robbers. I, knowing nothing about the peculiarities of Chongqing caves, Chinese middle schools, or hot pot, was refreshingly out of my element. But, the filmmakers, translators, and actors do a wonderful job suspending any need for inherited cultural associations or assets.  I thought of the first half as Chinese Trailer Park Boys attempting Oceans 11.

Act 2: Despite an impressive act 1, act 2 looses all direction and disregards consequences, reality, and the audience to conclude with a visceral and almost too real fight scene down the streets of Chongqing. Hot Pot ends as if they were making Jason Bourne, because they could. It was too brutal and negated most of my previous affection. *Side note, it was super unclear as to what were the motivations of the masked bank robbers. What I originally thought of as a mysterious background to be revealed later turn out to just be mindless young male violence -like from a bad manga with a bully.

On the whole, Chongqing Hot Pot is acceptable. I am not likely to (want to) watch it again.

On a scale of jumbalaya to stone soup, I give Chongqing Hot Pot 2.1 out of 5 stars.

Zootopia (2016)

"It's called a hustle, honey." -Judy Hopps

Short:

1. A+ for animation, imagery, voice talent, and CUTE
2. C for storyline, plot, and editing

Long:

Oh my is Zootopia a visual treat. It's plot is difficult to follow and its moralizing about predators vs prey is slightly confusing/reductive......but for children I think it is in the top ten of the last 5 years. Funny, positive, pluralistic, beautiful, and encouraging of reaching for dreams.  The Disney recipe to a tee. 

I chose the above quote because it seemed apt that Zootopia in mind was a hustle. For me, I followed the pretty pictures, laughed at the simple jokes, got caught up in the time-honored plot, and left reasonably happy. And like all true hustles, it was too late once I figured out that it had no real soul.

On a scale of Carrots for 1 to Beets for 900, I give Zootopia, 2.9 out of 5 stars.

The Sound of Music (1965)

-Why am I always last? (Gretl)
-It's because you're the most important. (Max)

Minority opinion holders are by nature capable of resisting peer pressure -assuming they are not just trolling for a fight. The smaller the minority, the more difficult the positive consensus is to push against. Thus, only the devoutly and obstinately foolish hold unpopular opinions as a matter of fact without admitting the possibility of being wrong.

I only admit that I could be wrong when I say: The Sound of Music is not a particularly good movie. (cue pitchforks, torches, angry mobs, and the wrath of the internet)

I admit that I had never seen The Sound of Music before this viewing -Never. I almost held it as a badge of honor.

Here's why I found it underwhelming and contrite. - I accept contradictory feedback in the comments.

1. The songs are over used.
    I expected, as with any musical, that there would be a string of songs for each section of the film culminating in one final song to end the show with aplomb. Unfortunately, The Sound of Music reuses all of it songs in their entirety once, twice, even thrice. They filled 2 halves of a long musical with only enough music for a 90 minute sing-along. I got it. Doe is a deer, A female deer.

2. Choreography
   The exact same blocking and musical routines are performed once, twice, even thrice, without any apology. The same. Over and over. It certainly makes things adorable, but not particularly interesting.

3. Character development
  This is a small point. I sympathize with the challenge of taking a daring family tale from story to musical to movie, but somewhere along this line, the motives and development of the central characters were lost. I got a bit whip lashed from the father's love shift from Baroness to Governess.

On a scale of phrygian to TEE, I give The Sound of Music 2.87 out of 5 stars.

Race (2016)

"Nothing matters. not color, not money, not even hate." -Jesse Owens

I think we've all seen this movie before; an uplifting sports bio-pic that touches on racism, politics, identity, and grit. Race is more of the same.  Obviously, the story of Jesse Owens is inspiring. Talent, hard work, and opportunity will out. If you didn't know the story and accomplishments of Jesse Owens, I thoroughly recommend Race.

If you do know the story and have seen this movie before, there's no need to see Race. It is not particularly original or memorable.  However, Race did have some great points and interesting topics to discuss.

1. Nazis
1. I find it strange that Nazis have been the villains on screen for 70 years. One of the lasting legacy's of the regime will be as heels for eternity. Need a despicable cast of murderous ideologues that are universally despised?  Best make them either aliens or Nazis.
2. Time period
1. There are lots of period dramas. Some of them do the costumes, accents, periodicals, and locations right.  Some of them put just enough shine on these essentials to hope we don't notice. A few think fancy hats make things old-timey. For Race's part, they do a an amazing job with the costumes and locations. I was particularly impressed with the old stadiums, the Olympic venues, and the kits of the athletes. This is how period is done.  
3. Actors
1. Stephan James was spectacular as Jesse Owens. Beyond that, the rest of the performances were completely acceptable. Jason Sudeikis was pretty good in a dramatic role, and I would like to see him in more. I expect Amanda Crew will be getting better roles than Office Girl (Peggy) going forward. Carice van Houten still makes me only think of Mellisandre, but it is good to know that she has dramatic range. 

On a scale of 4X100M relay to 100X4M relay, I give Race, 2.9 stars out of 5.

Hail, Caesar! (2016)

"Would that it were so simple?" -Hobie Doyle
"Would that it t'were so simple?" -Laurence Laurentz

"It's all in the hips and the lips, and the eyes and the thighs." -Carlotta Valdez

"You worship a God who doesn't love anyone." -Catholic Clergyman
"Not true. He loves Jews." -Rabbi (Robert Picardo)

Coen brothers be Coen brothers. They make strange amazing movies filled with beautiful shots, impeccable costumes, and quirky characters. Hail, Caesar! is an extremely average and not particularly compelling movie, but....it serves perfectly as a backdrop for the Coen brothers to just go wild with doing whatever they want. Fantastic! No conventions, no rules, no dynamic plot, just hysterical vignettes, gaudy dance numbers, and over the top Jesus metaphors.

In that tradition, here are some random thoughts I had while watching:

-WHY!? did synchronized water films ever go away?

-Alden Ehrenreich: you are a star.  I look forward to watching you in everything.

-David Krumholtz! You're in lots of my favorite things.  Keep on keeping on.

-Robert Picardo is a far better actor than anyone gives him credit for.

-Big Ridiculous dance numbers are back! Channing Tatum leading the charge.

-If I could just play a bearded fat 49er drunk in a comedic western before I die...

-In 50 years when they make a movie about the cinema business today, will it look so glamorous?

I fully recommend everyone go see Hail, Caesar!. It legitimately has something for everyone.

On a scale of 1:1 allegory to multi-layered metaphor, I give Hail, Caesar! 3.4 out of 5 stars.

Creed (2015)

"Time takes everybody out; time's undefeated." -Rocky Balboa

Hmmmm....Rocky V was so bad, but Rocky Balboa was acceptable. So with yo-yo like expectations I had my doubts about Creed. Boxing movies are generally modeled after the Rocky franchise, and I have become rather numb to their charms. A Rocky: The New Breed knock-off would be novocaine.

Fortunately, for Creed, while it does pay homage to the franchise, Creed employs a new set of dynamics, anger and advanced expectations. I liked it. -Though the dirt bikes and four-wheelers homage sequence was weird and too much.

Anger is a powerful tool for Creed and its director. Each punch is not controlled. They are wild and dangerous. With old, wise, often befuddled Rocky in his corner, Adonis puts more pure rage onto the screen than any boxing movie in a long time. Rage is at the very least exciting.

Advanced expectations is a more subtle texture to any film. At a certain point the narrative flips wherein our hero can meet his goal, but cannot not stand up to his own myth. Then the only thing left to do is fail and my my my is it satisfying to see an icon crumble. The exceptional reverting to the mean is a petty but deeply satisfying moment for the masses. Creed plays with this theme through the application of the "Creed" name to man who does not know if he can handle the aftermath of being judged. That's a story that resonates.

I won't say that everyone should go see Creed, but it was certainly of more value than the price of admission. Sly is a great Rocky, but Michael B. Jordan and Ryan Coogler steal the show. I expect great things from them in the future.

On a scale of rabbit to sucker, I give Creed 3.1 out of 5 stars.