Godzilla

** out of ****

In 2010, Gareth Edwards impressed the filmmaking world with his disaster sci-fi movie, Monsters. The film isn’t outstanding but the facts surrounding its production of an incredibly limited budget, and Edwards’ resourcefulness proved that he was passionate and competent enough to be trusted with a well-funded reboot of one iconic monster.

His version of Godzilla revisits the theme of atomic destruction and its unknown consequences by rewriting the history of nuclear testing by the US government in the 50s and 60s. In this case, all that “testing” was a cover for a bombing campaign against a terrible monster rising out of the Pacific Ocean. At the beginning of the 21^st century, things of terrible destructive power are surfacing.

The monsters and their path of destruction are realized with excellence but the characters - who dominate most of the film - are D.O.A. This is a disappointment for me, as I expected a cast of such particular selections to have something fun or interesting to give us (Please don't tell me that dull characterization is a time-honored tradition in this franchise. It's no excuse.).

Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Elizabeth Olsen, Ken Watanabe, Sally Hawkins and Bryan Cranston are all introduced as disaster movie caricatures. It is funny that I normally get bored with action scenes that get in the way of potentially interesting characters. In the case of Godzilla, I found the characters to be so boring that they inhibited my enjoyment of the action.

I think people may be annoyed with Bryan Cranston in his small yet overblown performance. Cranston furiously yelled and cried through one of the greatest TV shows ever made. Now it’s time for him to shake off Walter White. He’s still a fine actor when playing a character in a calm and composed fashion. I’d like it if he took a break from hysterical roles for a while.

Edwards got decent performances from his two leads in Monsters but that film had the benefit of improvisation. This film may indicate that scripted direction is not his forte. None of it is awkwardly bad. The fine actors of this film deliver the clichéd dialogue with as much naturalism as they can muster. There’s just no disguising the dull simplicity of a handsome soldier trying to save the world so that he can get home to his sexy wife and cute kid.

On a technical level, this movie is pretty awesome -but not much more than other monster movies that have attempted to frame the terror from relatable handheld point-of-view cinematography. This was honorably attempted in Steven Spielberg’s version of War of the Worlds and mastered in Matt Reeves’ underrated Cloverfield. If any Godzilla fans are interested in seeing the King of Monsters recreated (without a man in a suit) through the best CGI available, this is the movie. He looks real good. I don’t care what the Japanese are saying. He should get moral support from Jennifer Lawrence.

Another perk of this film can be found in Alexandre Desplat’s score. This excellent composer keeps up his reputation for versatility with music that is primed for a full-powered monster movie. Only a few months ago, his whimsical music for The Grand Budapest Hotel sounded as if it were from an entirely different source.

The new 2014 Godzilla is probably as good as it’s going to get for this creature in reboot land. For me, this movie is a glass half-empty. I didn’t have my hopes terribly high. I’m not a big Godzilla fan. I’m just a fan of the idea. This is why I loved Pacific Rim, a movie that had an equal amount of fun with its originality, homages, and clichés. Godzilla is at the proper length of two-hours but it carries too much uninspiring deadweight for me to recommend it.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

* out of ****

What is so amazing about the "Amazing Spider-Man" movie reboot series, is not just Sony's ability to retain the rights to a popular franchise, but also Peter Parker's dependence on Adderall. Parker has a lot of responsibilities with his great powers. So much, that I would say not even a superhero could balance them all.

In Sam Raimi's 2003 film, Spider-Man 2 author Michael Chabon contributed to a screenplay where Peter Parker was bogged-down by un-rewarding hero work to the point that his personal life had fallen apart. The lack of Adderall in Spidey's life was a clear problem and may have prevented the relatable struggle which made that film so weak.

In this new "amazing" film, the now-split, highly paid screenwriting duo -and Adderall snorters- Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci continue the mystery of what happened to Parker's parents. Like in the last film, the story element has no consequence but they managed to fit it in anyway right before cutting to Spidey double-dosing as he pursues a high-speed police chase. He even takes a cell phone call from his girlfriend, Gwen Stacey (Emma Stone) who is waiting for him to show up to his graduation as he's thwarting the thugs. He beats them and leaves them in the hands of the law, making it to the ceremony just as his name is called. What a multitasker! 

After graduating, Peter starts to have anxiety side-effects when he starts getting visions of his girlfriend's dead father (Denis Leary) and realizes that people close to him are often put in danger, so he pushes her away. I know we've seen this kind of relationship trouble in just about every Spider-man movie before, but this time it's "amazing"!

Somehow the story moves forward, Peter pops another pill and he wants Gwen back again until he has to do battle with a glowing blue fish from "In Living Color." After the blue enemy destroys Times Square, Peter pops another blue friend, listens to Mumford and Sons and feels inspired to investigate the disappearance of his parents from ten years ago. The room is filled with a web of investigative leads that I'm sure, only make sense to him.

Later, Peter's childhood friend, Harry Osborn (Dane DeHaan), unaware of Pete's secret identity, asks if there's any way of obtaining Spiderman's blood to cure him of Chris Cooper's disease. Pete knows this would kill Harry -or turn him into something worse (for the sake of expostion). After these sad thoughts, he finds a little legalized amphetamine inspiration to show up at Harry's house later in the form of Spider-Man, just to tell him the bad news! What are friends for?!

A lot of stuff happens and a villain dies. While I was stupid to even look at my watch after all the blue adderall-laced eye candy had cleared the area, a green villain, which represents Oxycontin shows up. Spidey downs the entire pill bottle. When he's done and the tragedy expectations of all Spider-Geeks is fulfilled, the movie is really ready to wrap-up -but wait! There's a giant steroid-high Paul Giamatti Rhinocerous ready to do battle! This movie is amazing. 

It's even more amazing that all the pill-popping in this movie happened offscreen. The implications are undeniable. It's the only way the movie makes sense!!!!!!! 

The Other Woman

* out of ****

The Other Woman opens with a sexually-charged, yet PG-13 commencement of a relationship between Carly, played by Cameron Diaz and Mark, played by Game of Thrones’ Nikolaj Coster-Waldau –one of those super-Danes who can speak English in any accent pretty well. She is a high-powered attorney and he is some kind of New York businessman. This relationship is shown in the form of a montage like many things in the movie, which is always a Hollywood-friendly alternative to actually developing justification for how something forms.

In this case, the montage is supposed to show us that Carly has found the right man. What we are shown, however, is that he is a good-looking rich guy who takes her to nice places and satisfies her in bed. Not much else. We then discover that Mark hasn’t told Carly about his wife named Kate, played by Leslie Mann, who is needy for attention and oblivious to Mark’s deceptions.

When Carly finds out where Mark lives, she drops by one night only to have Kate open the door. Mark is out and Carly unsuccessfully attempts to play off the visit as a simple case of a mistaken address. Carly is soon stalked by Kate -on the grounds that she feels a kinship through their being duped by the same man. Carly is resistant to this naïve and manic woman, but they soon bond.

After discovering Mark to be out of town on “business” they embark on a mission (because a big New York attorney like Carly has a lot of time on her hands) to spy on him. They discover him to be dating two gigantic breasts, played by swimsuit model Kate Upton. Her character’s name is Amber and after secretly informing her of Mark’s serial deception of women, the three ladies plot revenge.

Some of the music choices in the movie are pitiful. There’s a sequence where the girls are all having fun and they play Girls Just Want to Have Fun. Not kidding. There’s also a part where Kate is so excited at the prospect of spying on Mark that she wears all-black and brings a grappling hook with a rope as the theme to Mission: Impossible plays. I was under the impression that this music cue lost its comic potency after the nineties.

But I digress. I’m losing touch with the meaning of the film. Mark’s presence throughout most of this movie is meaningless. He’s no Don Draper when it comes to the character depth of a cheating husband and the turmoil these women eventually put him though doesn’t feel rewarding. Putting a face to the wrongdoer who affected these women early in the film is a distracting mistake because the story is about the sisterhood formed by three females based on the typical (although outdated) manipulations of a man. There’s just about no need to see who this man is.

Maybe I’m missing the point entirely. This movie is supposed to be funny… right? Well it really isn’t. It’s pretty lame. The comic potential of Diaz and Mann is diminished pretty early when the shallow dialogue and pitifully contrived comic set-pieces seem outrageous for the sake of being outrageous. There are also quite a few scatological gags in this film, which belong in a Farrelly Brothers movie and break its chances in having the respectability of a traditional farce.

It must be a real burden for director Nick Cassavetes to be the son of John, who brought realism to US cinema through independent simplicity and raw emotion. Nick seems to have formed a career of cheap laughs and manipulative drama in spite of his father's work. The Other Woman is condescending and barely triggers a gut reaction in terms of its comedy. It met all my cynical expectations associated with chick-flicks when all I wanted was a little redeeming surprise here and there. 

I only hope that its first-time screenwriter, Melissa Stack, can grow from the success of this film and write another story about female empowerment that actually has some real social commentary and hilarity. It wouldn’t be a major achievement though. Someone did that thirty-four years ago with 9 to 5, a movie that feels years ahead of this one.

Ernest & Celestine

**** out of ****

The American release of France’s Ernest & Celestine is currently in theaters somewhere in this country. This Oscar-nominated hand-drawn animated film from last year is about a friendship between a bear and a mouse. It is creative, silly, heart-warming and it must sound appalling to most families because when it played at Baxter in Louisville KY, Rio 2 buried it. 

The color scheme is wonderful. It's filled with the energy and life of a nearly-dead animation style which seems like the best option for replicating the illustration-style of its original children's book source. I understand that Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs was supposed to be a funny movie but I was very irritated when its trailer debut revealed run-of-the-mill computer rendering with zero resemblance to the beautiful etchings of the original book.

Ernest & Celestine has a flawless English dub and was also made available in original french at a special showtime. I was genuinely delighted by this movie and its alternate storybook universe. Maybe I could say more but I'm too peeved by the lack of support this movie saw in the American Box Office. Just thinking about something sweet, entertaining and positive being given a cold shoulder leaves me in a state of cynicism that is totally compatible with seeing Under the Skin again.   

Transcendence

** out of ****

Christopher Nolan’s regular cinematographer, Wally Pfister, makes his directorial debut with Transcendence. It is about a dying technological genius played by Johnny Depp, who has his mind uploaded to a computer in an attempt to preserve his soul and continue his work. The program he becomes is an infectious superpower accumulating endless knowledge, which leads to the creation of advanced nanotech cells that can cure people of illnesses. The program quickly becomes regarded as a deity inspiring followers and an already-active anti-technology militia to act against the movement.

   

Pfister sticks to his guns when it comes to preserving the beauty of a movie shot on film, so it looks good. The movie, however, is an unsuccessful blend of high-concept sci-fi with mindless obligatory conflict that generates action scenes. It has great ideas, which are cheapened by conventional formulas and technophobic attitudes. The constant amount of expositional dialog is also a condescending aspect of the film. Morgan Freeman contributes to this. It’s his job after all.

Transcendence has a lot of famous talented people with Johnny Depp as the top billed star. His name is bigger than his contribution to the character he plays. I can imagine so many other actors who may have elevated this material. Depp is a good actor who doesn’t seem in the mood lately, to take on roles that offer the challenges he’s suited for.

The film held my attention with bold concepts but just kept embarrassing itself. After last year's Her offered such an original take on the subject of artificial intelligence, this movie feels kind of like a lame step backwards.