Captain America: The Winter Soldier

NOTE: This Review Is Spoiler-Free!

Those who follow this blog probably know that I was not the biggest fan of Captain America: The First Avenger. I am a life-long Cap fan, and that film had all the right elements of what should have made a great Cap movie – but it didn’t quite come together for me. I was disappointed by that, but I felt that everything that misfired in that film could be corrected in a follow-up. Captain America: The Winter Soldier, just released, seem to have a lot going for it. Even though it shares the same screenwriters as the previous installment, this sequel has an exciting directing duo due to them being an outside-the-box choice, the amazing casting of Robert Redford in an important, supporting role, and a narrative based on a popular story in Captain America lore. All that was enough to get me on board!

With all that, I found Captain America: The Winter Soldier to arguably be the strongest outing thus far in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Now, that said – the movie is far from perfect. There is a lot of good in this, but there are also some really questionable filmmaking decisions The Winter Solider took. Let’s just go into this movie, shall we?

In The Winter Soldier, Captain America (a returning Chris Evans) discovers a conspiracy within government agency SHIELD, and, when investigating it, he becomes hunted by the very same organization. With very few allies, including newcomer Falcon (Anthony Mackie), Cap is determined to stop this shadow group before they can launch their diabolical plan. And, unlike some of the other Marvel movies, stuff actually happens with lasting consequences.

Clearly, this is a very different type of movie than The First Avenger was. It is much more of spy story in the vein of those 1970s thrillers (which was, in part, the reason behind Redford’s casting) – but not nearly as much as other news outlets are making out to seem. There is still plenty of comic book goofiness in the movie (which works both for and against it). I really enjoyed the execution of the film, but I do feel that, at times, the narrative became a bit too complicated for its own good.

I feel that some of the movie could have been streamlined a bit, but I am not exactly sure where. Perhaps the film is just too fresh in my mind at the moment, and I need a few more days to fully process it. Because so much goes on during the course of the movie, the pacing really suffered for it at times. I realize that there were a lot of characters to service, but The Winter Solider sort of falters in that area a bit.

The prime example is the titular Winter Solider. For a movie titled The Winter Soldier, I was expecting a bit more of him to actually be in the movie. For most of the film, he works as mostly as a heavy – a thug to be overcome. It isn’t until two-thirds of the film before we get any backstory on the guy, but it is way too late in the movie for me to really care about it. The Winter Solider and his connection to Cap formulate the emotional resonance of the film, but, again, this doesn’t happen until the final act at which point it feels a bit shoehorned in. I suppose these themes can be picked up in a future installment, but as they are here, it doesn’t quite work.

On the other hand, you have Anthony Mackie as the Falcon who is great! He was probably my favorite part of the movie. I also have to give credit to Frank Grillo as a villainous SHIELD agent. Both of these actors really throw themselves into their role, and Grillo in particular is clearly having the time of his life. I hope they find a way to bring him back in a future installment.

The direction by Anthony and Joe Russo was interesting. Known mostly for comedies (You, Me, and Dupree) and TV shows (Arrested Development), this is really their first foray into action spectacle. I am always fascinated when directors change gears like this. Sometimes it is a disaster (such as Marc Forster in Quantum of Solace), but I think the Russos mostly succeed. Their action scenes are crisp, and you can see everything that is happening on screen clearly. Some of their shots, however, were a bit to television-like, but they are new at this genre and will likely improve their technique the more they do this sort of thing.

I have to give a thumbs up to Captain America: The Winter Soldier. It isn’t a perfect film, but it is definitely one of the stronger Marvel movies to be released (and possibly one of the best superhero films of the last five-to-ten years). While it is still nothing more that disposable entertainment (which is not a bad thing), there is a certain weight to the movie that you don’t really get with a lot of superhero flicks. That’s what really makes this movie a cut above the rest.

~N

What Went Wrong?: Vol. 44 – Spectacular Wonderful Failed Remake Edition (Vol. 2!)

For years and years big names in Hollywood have threatened the movie-going public with an updated film adaptation of the James Thurber-penned short story The Secret Life of Walter Mitty. The story had already been adapted for the screen starring Danny Kaye in the 1947 classic film I once sat through in Freshman year English class. But Hollywood heavyweights like Jim Carrey and Steven Spielberg had long wanted to update the property. Their ideas mostly languished in development hell until Sascha Baron Cohen took over (by this point – sometime in the mid-2000s – Owen Wilson was attached to star), but even this project never materialized. In April 2011, some 16 years after Samuel Goldwyn Mayer sold the film rights to a project he expected to see completed in the 90s, it was announced that Ben Stiller would star in and direct the project. So, besides all of this pre-production turmoil, what exactly went wrong?

Ben Stiller is a fine comic actor and an underrated comedy director. He is responsible for some dark gems, including The Cable Guy, a 1996 flop that nearly ruined Jim Carrey’s film career. He also directed (and starred in) Zoolander, a cult classic from 2001 that largely failed at the box office due to the September 11^th terrorist attacks on New York City. In 2008, Stiller directed and starred in Tropic Thunder, a war parody film that was a substantial hit and even garnered supporting actor Robert Downey, Jr. an Oscar nomination. It has long been clear, however, that Stiller tends to overreach as a director at times, and The Secret Life of Walter Mitty is a clear case of this. Additionally, Stiller is a fine comic actor who certainly has the ability to be dramatic, but I’m not sure he was suited for the role of the lead. Stiller is great at playing a neurotic, indecisive Woody Allen-type, but I just don’t see him as the daydreamer Walter Mitty is supposed to be. Stiller can play neurotic, but he doesn’t play pathetic so well (see: Mystery Men) and there’s a certain aspect of Mitty that is innately pathetic.

Additionally, pre-release buzz for Mitty turned negative after a sneak October 2013 preview. The early trailers drew high initial praise for the project, but the sneak peak at the New York Film Festival divided audiences and fostered a mixed critical response. Upon release, the film continued to draw negative reviews to the tune of a 50% Rotten Tomatoes score and 54/100 Metacritic rating. The film, which was expected to contend for Oscars, instead became almost forgotten over its Christmas release platform, as bigger films like The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, Frozen, and more adult-targeted films like American Hustle and The Wolf of Wall Street dominated the box office. The Secret Life of Walter Mitty then fizzled at the domestic box office, accumulating a 58 million dollar gross against a budget of 90 (some say as high as 125) million dollars. Though the film saved some face overseas, it likely will be a long road to profitability for Fox.

Similar to Fox’s hopes for The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, Sony also believed Robocop, their recently released reboot/remake, would click with audiences. Robocop was definitely not intended to compete for a family audience like Mitty, but the PG-13 rated film nevertheless met with mixed critical reception and low domestic box office as well. Robocop also spent a significant amount of time in pre-production. Originally planned for a 2010 release, the film was to be directed by none other than Darren Aronofsky, Academy Award-nominated director of films like Black Swan and Requiem for a Dream. The reboot/remake was then planned for a 2013 release, but pushed back once again to 2014, perhaps to avoid a crowded late summer film schedule. So, besides the pre-production hoopla, what exactly went wrong?

The reboot of Robocop, starring Alex Kinnaman (of AMC’s The Killing), Samuel L. Jackson, and Michael Keaton, was met with disdain by fans online due to its announced PG-13 rating (something that had happened with Live Free or Die Hard several years back). While I typically tend to shy away from and also generally discourage online fandom due solely to principle, on this I must agree. The idea of a PG-13 Robocop is ridiculous. The 1987 Paul Verhoeven/Ed Neumeier/Peter Weller original is gloriously violent and over the top. A PG-13 film would certainly be a neutered, bland, uninteresting thing by comparison. The film ultimately drew in mediocre reviews, garnering a 49% Rotten Tomatoes score. Though the cast was praised for their work, the film suffered negative comparisons to the original, as was to be expected.

The Robocop reboot/remake ultimately failed in the American box office, partially due to is PG-13 rating (there was literally nothing new in the theaters for a more mature audience). The biggest factor in its domestic failure, however, was perhaps the unexpected success and universal acclaim for Warner Bros. The Lego Movie, a film so popular it transcended its target demographic of children and young families and spilled over into adult territory. Of course, opening a futuristic science fiction thriller over Valentine’s Day probably wasn’t a great idea either. In the end, Robocop will gross less than 60 million dollars in domestic receipts, which is even less than last year’s hated A Good Day to Die Hard. It has saved some face overseas, but probably not enough to spawn a franchise like Sony had planned. The Verhoeven/Neumeier/Weller original remains the best in the series and an unassailable science fiction classic.

-Z-

Disappointment Unchained: I Saw Django

I saw Django Unchained over a week ago, and it has taken this long for me to fully absorb the film.  I keep going back and forth on whether or not I liked it.  Truth be told, I am still uncertain.  However, I think that it is fair to say that I was largely disappointed by it.  I think, on the whole, it is a well-made film from a technical perspective, but it is really the narrative decisions that really fell flat for me.

Let’s talk about the good Django had to offer.  First, the acting (mostly).  The entire cast is completely into their roles.  Christoph Waltz as Dr. King Schultz is wonderfully watchable.  His jovial attitude is completely infectious and Waltz well-earned that Oscar nomination.  Also great is Leonardo DiCaprio as the villainous Calvin Candie.  Like the best James Bond villains, DiCaprio delivers a performance which paints the guy as the slime he is, but also comes off as remarkably charming.  Sam Jackson, as well, perfectly plays against type.  And Kerry Washington provides the sweet innocence the film desperately needs.

Everyone largely works.  The only weak link is, surprisingly, Jamie Foxx as the titular Django.  While everyone else is into their characters with the appropriate delivery and accents of era, Foxx seems completely disinterested and acts as if he is from 2012.  I do not know if this was a creative decision or not, but it does not work.

Time to move on to the bad.  The pacing is awful.  The first hours is a case of “when are they going to get to the fireworks factory?”.  Then, when we finally get to the meat and potatoes of the story, it consists of people sitting around talking.  It is not as gripping as it sounds.  The tone is also all over the place.  It goes from serious to overly comedic.  Both work, just not together.

To make matter worse, it feels as if writer/director Quentin Tarantino wrote himself into a corner 4/5 of the way through the movie.  It is as if he realized he gave his title character nothing to do.  The last section of this over-long film consists of Django being a badass killing people.

Like his performer, Django is the film’s biggest stumbling block.  He is not developed enough for me to really care about his journey.  I get that he was a slave and wants revenge.  That might work in real life, but for a fictional character, it makes his character a bit one-dimensional.  I also feel that Django, in some ways, was written as a stereotypical “magical negro” with some trappings of a Mary Sue.  I have gotten some heat over this opinion, but if you look at the movie, Django works as King’s assistant for most of it where he displays these amazing skills (perfect shot, perfect actor, everyone takes a liking to him immediately, etc) without any explanation or context on how he got these skills.  It seems as if Tarantino realized what he did and tried to reverse it in the final thirty minutes.

This, of course, brings up the racial implications of Django Unchained.  I have seen reviews heralding it as bringing a new light to slavery.  But does it really do that?  Here, Tarantino took slavery and turned it into a western/black exploitation hybrid.  That strikes me as being disrespectful to those who were actually enslaved during this ugly time in United States history.  I suppose, though, this is open to debate.

That is Django Unchained.  I do not know.  Maybe I need more time to absorb it.  Perhaps a second viewing would help.  I really wanted to like this movie, but it just did not work for me on the level it probably should have.  And that is too bad.