Wake Up Dead Man

Word of warning: don’t watch this movie if you’re sleepy. I did, and wound up dozing off about 45 minutes in. Is that a commentary on the quality of the film, or just a product of circumstance? Maybe a bit of both. For sure, this story takes its time getting to the heart of the proceedings. That leisurely pace gives the movie a sense of being—somewhat appropriate for a murder mystery—rather lifeless. The film does eventually get going, and in doing so presents an interesting aspect of the script: some intriguing ruminations on faith and the church and their value and meaning. Plus you get to watch more of Daniel Craig inhabiting the character of Benoit Blanc, which is good entertainment. Still, I can’t help but think that this entry in Rian Johnson’s series is a touch below the previous outings. Whether that marks a death knell for the franchise or represents just a momentary dip remains at this point a question still to be answered. Not dead yet, perhaps, but in need of a little more energy—something you can say about your correspondent as well. 

Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation

Solid but not spectacular. This is the first film in the franchise that feels like it lives a rung down on the ladder. Not to say that it’s bad; this is a fine, workmanlike rendering of the series’ oeuvre, with all the elements that made the previous four outings so successful. There’s just a hint that maybe we’ve seen a bit too much of this at this point. The action is top notch, if not as hair-raising as some of the sequences of earlier entries. This one is a bit thin on the humor that leavened the prior episodes, hinting that perhaps the production has started to take itself a bit too seriously. One thing that does stand out: these movies have a (I don’t know if I’d call it refreshingly) jaundiced view of government -- not just foreign governments or the USA’s institutions, but seemingly every government on earth. In that way, this is a spy franchise that is more plugged into the zeitgeist than, say, the Bond movies have been for a long time. That’s perhaps not something you want to appreciate -- the world was probably a better place when you could actually believe in something -- but it is at least worth nothing, and to some extent respecting. So, in sum, we take a small step down here, but this part of the canon remains high-level action entertainment -- still a mission worth accepting.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

The strength of this franchise? Scenario imagination. The things these people think up are simply outrageously entertaining. The Dubai sequence here, for instance, is remarkable for its inventiveness, in multiple dimensions -- not the least of which is Tom Cruise scaling the Burj Khalifa's exterior, which set my fear-of-falling response into white-hot psychosis mode. And that’s really just the start of it. So much of the spectacle in these films is so over the top that it serves as its own context and raison d'etre; the details of the story, plot and overarching theme are largely irrelevant to whether or not the film succeeds as entertainment. That may not be truly good moviemaking, but it undoubtedly delivers a high quotient of entertainment. Shakespeare it’s not, but a good way to kill a couple of hours and enjoy oneself? Most emphatically, yes.

Avengers: Endgame

Watching this film is like being at a well attended party. There's lots of people present, many of whom are your friends (or at least people with whom you are friendly), and you run into groups of them here and there. But you also get enmeshed with others whom you don't know so well, and who really don't do so much for your enjoyment of festivities. And so this, the ultimate money shot--in more ways than one--of the MCU comes across as exactly that way: chaotic, too big, occasionally fun, maybe even an emotional event now and then, and ultimately a night that leaves you with a certain amount of memories--but also wondering if it was really all that good a time. It's easy to take shots at a piece like this, and that's the kind of whining and nitpicking reaction you get all too often these days--the kind of behavior I really hate. So I'm not here to just dump on what is, mostly, a decent popcorn flick. Suffice to say, this movie delivers what you expect, both good and bad, and that's pretty much that. Whether it's worth it to you or not depends entirely upon who you are (and how well you know yourself). That's not hero work--that's just life.

Wind River

Jeremy Renner is good at these kinds of roles: the tough guy who has unexpected measures of emotional depth. It's largely his performance that makes this movie work; Renner's tracker-cum-reluctant cop provides a lot the dimension and centering in what would otherwise be a fairly routine thriller. Elizabeth Olson tries to keep up, but her presence is a bit too lightweight for what is mostly a pretty heavy affair. But her costar more than makes up for that lack, and that makes this movie worth a look. Warning: this film is recommended, but a lot of it is pretty grim, both in subject matter and presentation. Wilting flowers not advised.

Arrival

Is there anyone out there who doesn't love Amy Adams? She's the current leader in the clubhouse in the chase for "current best American actress," and this movie really shows off her talent to the maximum degree. Adams really owns this thing; she commands virtually every scene of the film--a rarity for a woman on the silver screen--and this work is substantially better than it might otherwise be because of it. The storytelling has some problems: there's trickeration going on with the timeline that doesn't seem to justify itself, and the reveal at the end is pretty obvious after a certain point. On the other hand, the presentation is quite stylish, and is commendable for showing a creative approach to what is, at this point, almost a sci-fi cliche (the muddle of first contact). But, ultimately, this is the lead's show, and Adams makes what might have been an otherwise run-of-the-mill aliens flick into something special.

Captain America: Civil War

I’m not sure they thought this all the way through. If everything plays out as is depicted here, to its logical conclusion--to wit: ultimately, a group like the Avengers is a bad idea--then what the hell was the point of these last seven or eight movies? Are we really, at this point, supposed to take all of this story arc as a cautionary tale about the dystopian present and future of personal enhancement (for instance, AI and robotics) rather than just an expanded presentation of some particular flights of fantasy? Given the reviews at this film’s release, that seemed to work for lots of people...but it rings false for me. Either get real or get fantastic; you don’t get to have it both ways.

Avengers: Age of Ultron

Oh, boy. I warned in the review of the previous Avengers movie that the property was dangerously close to being little more than empty--and not very intelligent--spectacle. It's hard to argue that this entry in the series (there will be a third, per the promise in the credits) doesn't tip over that edge and descend into utter schlock. This is really a baffling outcome; these characters somehow work far better on their own, and the humor that should be a big part of such a "fun" franchise is again largely missing here. Given the inputs--including the very sharp Joss Whedon directing again--it makes no sense that this movie should be the fairly joyless exercise that it is. I suppose, if you're into the genre, you must watch these Avengers flicks, just to keep pace with developments that affect the rest of the individual storylines. But please, don't pay for any more of this nonsense; check it out from the library if you need to get your fix.

The Avengers

Mmm'okay. I guess. So this is what everyone was pissing themselves over last year? Sure, there are likable characters here--Captain Steve Rogers is an emblematic, admirable hero, plus there's that ever-reliable ton of fun, Tony Stark--but this film has too many "star" players to allow for anything like real character and/or storyline development. Plus all the pissy conflict among the team members--in the face of an immediate, known, deadly threat, no less--rings false. And then the climactic battle sequence is just plain dumb: an orgy of mindless destruction at the hands (claws?) of pan-dimensional but apparently mentally retarded aliens, who seemingly just show up without any particular battle plan, and are beaten back by a mere six beings (albeit superior or greatly equipped uber-beings). This is what stands as today's greatness? Joss, you'd better do WAY better with the next one, or you may wind up being known as the guy who queered the entire deal for everyone.

The Town

Apparently, that Affleck boy can make a movie. With the newly crowned Best Picture Argo still hanging in the award-season air, I watched this other, earlier case in point. What the man offered here was a well-crafted film, one with a good visual sense and excellent pacing, both of which served well an otherwise pedestrian story. A lot of what's in that story has already been well covered in other films, though I do appreciate the touch of ambiguity in the ending. One bit of absurdity, or at least a questionable choice: would any Bostonians, even Charlestown bank robbers, actually try to rip off the Red Sox? Seems highly implausible. But that doesn't spoil the movie--it's still worth a look.

The Hurt Locker

I need to be cautious here. This is a good movie. A good movie. But this is not a Best Picture movie. I suspect that award had much more to do with the politics of the award-givers, and what they wanted to say, versus the actual quality of this film. The performances ring true, the direction is well done, and the scenes look for all the world like they really were filmed in Iraq in 2004. But again, this film is less a narrative plot than a series of scenes/vignettes on the subject of war and what it does to people (a.k.a. the Saving Private Ryan effect). I'm starting to think that this represents a trend in moviemaking on the subject of war; why the reluctance to show a real war story, instead of just a pastiche representing feelings about the conflict? Is there something there that filmmakers are trying to hide? Avoid? What's going on here? Answering those questions might eventually yield some real Best Picture war movie material.