American Controv—I mean—Sniper

I’ve really fallen behinds on my movie reviews, but today you have a special treat: a review about a “controversial” film. American Sniper has been causing waves ever since its debut on Christmas day of 2014. People have been giving both the man and this dramatization an excessive amount of attention for reasons that aren’t clear to me. I understand that “deadliest sniper in American history” isn’t a title bestowed on many, however, why all the polarization?

With veteran director like Clint Eastwood, it’s no surprise this film was well received despite its arguably conservative tones. War is tough translate onto the silver screen for several reasons. First, realistic battle scenes are difficult to present without looking similar to a normal action movie. Second, political bias from director or production team creeps into war films. Third, the plot and characters often take a secondary role to presenting actual fights scenes. Either its masturbation towards America or a fierce dismissal and critique of this country’s actions around the world. Few movies actually capture the horror of war without analyzing it. Thankfully, American Sniper isn’t technically about war.

Rather it’s about how the Iraq War affected Chris Kyle. Given the U.S.’s partial blame for creating foundational circumstances that lead to ISIS and it’s generally poor foreign policy decisions since 2000, temptation to use this film as a vehicle for criticism existed. Combat scenes are presented without partiality. Chris’ first kills involve a boy and his mother, one right after the other. American could have sentimentally lingered, trying to force audience sympathy; however, Chris is visibly shaken and the scene abruptly ends. Soldiers don’t have time or the luxury to contemplate moral consequences of their actions. Certain battle scenes bleed tension, elongating minutes into hours, while others disappear in a blink. Moral superiority isn’t given to either side, excluding the soldiers’ personal opinions. Similar to John Wick, the violence displayed leaves its audience uneasy. American Sniper only says, “war is terrible.” We don’t see this in Chris as much as his brother. The two meet briefly on an air base in Iraq. Despite his growing PTSD, Chris handles the war pretty well. Juxtapose that with his brother Jeff, who is distressed, broken and summarizes his war experience with, “fuck this place.”

Despite a myriad of visible characters, only two are significant: Chris and his wife Taya. In many ways this film tells their story versus just Chris’. I did want to see more exploration of Chris’ comrades during his four tours, however, time constraints probably stymied this, assuming any effort was taken at all. Focusing solely on Chris and his family was an excellent decision. American Sniper barely tops two hours which is a reasonable length for this story. Audiences are immersed into struggles and triumphs of Chris and to a lesser extent, his family. Bradley Cooper kills his role as Chris Kyle. His performance captures Chris’ simplicity and desire to protect his fellow soldiers. Sienna Miller also does an excellent job as Taya. Their intimacy seemed legitimate and genuine, disregarding the obvious. By the end, I cared about both of these characters. Speaking of PTSD, let’s look at some failing aspects.

It’s a shame because this film was doing so well until Chris returns from his last tour in Iraq. A major rift exists between him and Taya. Chris’ PTSD keeps his mind away from the present reality, causes unusual actions and sometimes violent outbursts. The war traumatized this soldier, yet he’s unwilling to acknowledge it until his son’s birthday party. Instead of showing the probably painful recovery and rebuilding their marriage, a time lapse occurs. As a viewer, I felt slighted. We get the horrors of war, but seeing Chris overcome a mental condition which resulted from his service and repost war life are not worth screen time? I understand that movie length would have become an issue, however, a simple montage with a few scenes would satisfied me. I’ve heard actual soldiers claim this movie accurately represents combat. A soldier’s tale involves his battles on the field and at home. This story needs both portions told, otherwise it’s disingenuous. One random thought: Taya gives the marine who kills Chris a stink for at least twenty seconds and it’s hilarious.

American Sniper will be remembered in the future for a plethora of reasons. Great acting and effective dramatization of an already compelling story create an emotional experience. After my first viewing, feelings of admiration and respect for our military men and women swept through me. Folks who sacrifice for western freedom shouldn’t suffer Chris’ end. It also reminded me that there are no winners in war, only those who lose less. Clint Eastwood was brave enough to keep political messages out of this film. I definitely recommend a viewing. Unfortunately, everyone else seemed to polarized by it.

I shouldn’t be surprised about the controversy this film created. People in the United States or western society are polarized over practically every social and political issue. Since soldiers and war are involved, radical liberals and extreme conservatives emerge from the shadows. Many Hollywood elites didn’t like American Sniper because it glorified a “murder.” A Muslim student claimed it was racist against Iraqis, Muslims and encouraged violence against Arab people (my paraphrasing). Human stupidity truly transcends gender and cultural boundaries. Many in the west espouse similar opinions. Here’s a response from an Iraqi who served with Chris. Turn the coin over and we find people who seem to deify this man. I saw a meme on facebook proposing to make his death anniversary a national holiday. I’ve seen Kyle “defenders” shout down other people who bring legitimate criticism against some of his post war actions. I think Chris is hero, not for the number of people he killed, rather for the lives he saved. Yet, I question some post war claims mentioned in his memoir because no one verify that those events ever happened. Chris Kyle was an honorable soldier who did his job, but he was still susceptible to the temptations of fame. So let’s stop perpetuating this “controversy” and get on with our lives. 

Find me on Facebook or Twitter

Exodus: Let's Rip-off Superior Fiction

IMDB
Rotten Tomatoes
Genre: Historical Fiction, Epic, Disaster, Adaptation, Fantasy

Winner of 2014's "Most Deceptive Movie Poster!"

Exodus was stunning and left my expectations shattered. How could a movie, with Ridley Scott at its helm, be wrong on so many different levels? From the same mind that conceived Blade Runner, Alien, and Gladiator, comes a tramp dressed as a baroness. This film genuinely boggles my mind. A few positive elements surface in a sea of awful. Scott still knows how present a grandiose ancient world. The Plagues, Memphis and other cities in Egypt look awesome. CGI wasn’t intrusive and augmented my viewing experience. Egyptian suffering was visceral and uncompromising. The morning after God kills all the first born children was harrowing. Maria Valverde plays a gorgeous Zipporah (Maria wherever you are, let’s go on a date). Moses’ conflicted identity and the film’s portrayal of God challenge traditional interpretations. Those summarize the positive elements.

The ethnicity of actors usually doesn’t bother me, but Exodus is supposed in ancient Egypt. All of the main cast are white except for two characters: Bithia (Hiam Abbass from Israel) and Nefertari (Golshifeh Farahani from Iran). Really, that’s it? Ridley couldn’t find any other Middle Eastern actors and actresses? Bullshit. It was 2014, Ridley could find people of proper ethnicity and still get his movie funded. Or maybe Hollywood is full of horrifically racist people who claim to be otherwise, but that’s ridiculous *cough*. Seeing Sigourney Weaver as Tuya is beyond hysterical. Speaking of bad casting, let’s talk about Moses.

I understand directors and actors forming friendships that will influence who gets a leading role, see Johnny Depp and Tim Burton. However, Christian plays the worst Moses I’ve ever seen on screen. Bale whispers and mutters all of his lines. He slips into the “batman voice” when the script calls for Moses to project. He broods for the entire film, even when he’s happy. However, the totality of blame can’t be placed on Bale’s sub-par acting.

Rarely, have I seen a director blatantly rip-off their own films and Ridley takes the cake this year. Imagine Exodus as a B-list version Gladiator with less awesome and plagues. The character dynamic between Pharaoh, Ramses and Moses is a literal copy from Gladiator. Moses is favored over Ramses by Pharaoh and despite the two being raised as brothers, conflict eventually emerges. Ramses is heir to the throne, but Pharaoh wishes that Moses was his actual son. The only difference manifests in Moses and Ramses having a positive brotherly relationship. Unfortunately, it doesn’t play a significant role after Moses’ exile. I didn’t need a Maximus clone either. In the source material, he’s the worst choice for leading a large group of people: no leadership skills, can’t speak well, and no charisma. Moses as a general in Egypt’s army removes everything compelling about him. His military background doesn’t matter at all.

Exodus was a good opportunity to play with God’s portrayal. This wasn’t aimed at a Christian audience, so the possibilities were limitless. Weird cyclone being, pillar of fire, imagery from the book of Danial, shadowy figure, a thunder storm, a sparkling unicorn with grenade earrings, a fat black woman or anything besides a bald English child would’ve worked for God’s physical form. They could have rotated different forms every time Moses encountered Israel’s savor. A child representing God is cliched and lacks any originality.

A good adaptation will stay true to the spirit of its source material. Noah, despite it’s severe departure from the Biblical narrative, succeeded by keeping to fundamental events. Ridley is a far better director, but he could taken some hints from Aronofsky. Exodus also covers key events, but fails in execution. Any Exodus story needs epic, truly world shattering, plagues. While awe inspiring, the film throws needless amounts of realism for no reason. The Nile turning to blood is probably my favorite plague. Instead of having the water simply turn into blood, all the creatures in the river kill each other to turn the river red. The drama of water physically becoming blood becomes non-existent. It should be supernatural, like space mag—I mean—the Force in Star Wars. Anyone else see a problem here? If the blood wasn’t bad enough, they screwed up the Red Sea parting too. The parting should be sudden because that properly illustrates the awesomeness and drama. Worse, instead of the sea crashing down on Ramses’ entire army (favorite part of the story—does that make me a bad person?), most of them fall off a mountain road. Bull-hockey! Ridley’s taking the “awe” out of awesome.

Ever read a book where the main character exists, but has no impact? Look no further than Twilight. Strangely, Ridley’s Moses and Bella share similar purposes: they lack agency. Moses’ agency wouldn’t be an issue, but it’s emphasized early in the plot. Bald English man-child God has to essentially convince Moses about freeing the Hebrews. Making God’s chosen a skeptic was poor character development. It doesn’t make sense—everyone believed in gods back then—and he looses the necessary connection to Hebrew culture. This is probably the most confusing writing decision. Never once was I convinced that Moses considered himself a Hebrew, even after a decade in Midian. Moses’ struggle should emerge from being child of two worlds. He grew as an Egyptian, but learns about his origins and finds his wife during exile. Confrontation emerges when his genuine concern for his people grinds against the culture he once considered his own. Exodus conveys none of this struggle due to absurdly poor execution. A majority of screen time is spent on the Egyptians and almost none is devoted to the Hebrews. I wasn’t sure where to place my sympathizes, especially when the plagues occurred. If that was a “clever” reversal by the film writers, then it completely failed. Moses seeing Ramses again would be a great source of drama, but both men act like they were always enemies. Maybe Moses only went because he feared one of English child God’s tantrums.

Exodus doesn’t make sense and wastes our time. At least fifteen minutes of film is devoted to military training montages and supply raids. That’s irrelevant and exists only because Moses was a general. What was God’s expectation? “Tell Pharaoh to free my people and I expect you to do it via your military experience. You got this bruh!” The opening battle with the Hittites establishes nothing, giving the illusion that more battles are to come. Moses confronts Ramses two times about releasing the Hebrews: first at night in the stables and second just before the last plague. On both occasions, Moses sneaks in off screen. I didn’t know God trained him to be a ninja. This also gives the plagues no real narrative occasion. Another time where the source material should have been followed. By performing the snake miracle in front of the Egyptian court, Moses shows the power of the God who sent him. In the film version, Moses doesn’t provide Pharaoh with that clarity. Killing every Egyptian first born is an event someone who cared for Ramses would clearly warn him about. Instead, Moses vaguely mentions “something” might happen to his son. For reasons unknown to me—probably to lengthen screen time—Moses and other Hebrews on horseback ride back into the Red Sea to meet Pharaoh’s army while walls of water are closing in. In addition to be a general, Moses wasn’t very smart either. God giving Moses the Ten Commandments is five minute after thought which is insulting.

This movie is half-ass at every turn, excluding set design and CGI. Thankfully, I saw it for free. Exodus shares a fundamental problem with Prometheus: a lack of direction. Ridley could have made a film recasting Moses as a rebel to Egyptian authority, axing the plagues all together. That would have pleased me more than what I witnessed. What to see a great modern adaption of an iconic story? Watch The Prince of Egypt.


Alternative to watching this movie a second time: a being a crew member in Alien. 

Find me on Facebook or on Twitter

Keanu's Surprising Come Back

Curiosity can be a terrible burden, sometimes ignored, but never ceasing. Jubilation and lamentation punctuate the landscape as two possible destinations to a journey that inquisitive nature began. I share this joy and affliction with you, dear readers. My viewing of John Wick was one occasion where curiosity lead to a rather unique experience. Ratings sparked my desire to watch this film. Excluding documentaries, Keanu hasn’t been in a well received movie since The Matrix: Reloaded, . Disbelief, confusion and cybernetic unicorns clouded my mind as John Wick stayed above eighty percent on rotten tomatoes even after its theatrical release. I thought, “how is this possible? An action movie with Keanu as lead that doesn’t suck? Can’t be done.” Yet, people like this movie. I’ll try to unravel this mystery.
IMDB
Rotten Tomatoes
Genre: Action, Drama, Thriller, Dark Fantasy, Revenge
Concept:

My limited research revealed no adapted source material which is surprising considering the caliber of John Wick. Narrative complication or superb story-telling don’t lend their rare support this time around. This is a bare-bones revenge flick and that’s ok. Folks tend to bash on simple narratives because skeletons make worse dates than people with flesh and skin and who are alive, but I digress. Narratives need meat (complexity, richness, characters, etc) in order to be compelling; however, basic stories can achieve the same goal, but with different methods. Quentin Tarantino has built a directing career off these methods. Movies that lack narrative can balance out with stylization, visual effects, cinematography, engaging characters or a myriad of other methods. Unfortunately, endeavors involving these methods end in failure or film makers rely on one gimmick, disregarding narrative entirely (looking at you, Michael Bay).

At surface level, John Wick appears another generic action movie. An assassin leaves his profession because he fell in love. Times passes and through a series of events, the assassin is dragged back into an underworld of villains and lies. Dozens of modern movies have this plot enough times to form a sub-genre of action movies. However, two elements separate John Wick from its peers. First, his wife (Helen) is not the vehicle for his return. Second, the setting goes Legion of Doom style. Action thrillers, non B-list ones anyway, tend to be unrealistic in their action sequences, but not the background. A separate and secret society of assassins is presented through the Continental: a hotel where assassins can stay while working and provides them with a myriad of services. Gold coins specific to the assassin trade are used as currency. The Management decrees their hotel is neutral zone, thus no fighting can occur on the premises. It’s not plot-centric and a little stupid, but I like it. Characters:

John Wick (Keanu Reeves)“The man you call to kill the boogey man.” A man so effective at ending human life that the entire underground world fears him. John seems like our typical action hero: silent, brooding, stoic and able to kick major amounts of butt. Yet, aren’t action heroes good people? An evil man falls in love with a woman, yet his evil is not erased. He didn’t kill for country or to protect his loved ones. In fact, it’s never established why John was as a hit man at all. Wick’s character is compelling for these reasons. Usually, anti-heroes start out as heroes and slowly depart from that role. John’s back story is never explored and it’s intentional. By keeping his past vague, the audience is presented with a protagonist they won’t resonate with. Keanu was prefect for this role because Wick doesn’t emote often or have an excessive amount of dialogue.

Dasiy (the puppy)A young dog with the saddest back-story ever written.

Viggo Tarasov (Michael Nyqvist)A Father and Russian mob boss who loves his stupid son despite certain death. I haven’t seen Mr. Nyqvist in many films, but he played this role well. Viggo has a charismatic fatalism. Honestly, he’s probably the most sympathetic character in the film. Viggo is well aware of Wick’s monstrous proficiency at killing people, yet he defends his son with every available asset. Disregarding his family business, he partially fills the role of hero. Yet, he’ll save his own life before anyone else.

Marcus (William Defoe)Friend and fellow assassin, Marcus is an anomaly in the assassin/hit man sub genre of actions movies. Wick doesn’t seem to have many friends in the underground or outside it. Protagonists in revenge flicks rarely have actual friends. Usually, their companions boil down to love interests and/or other assassins with similar goals. Despite killing for living, Marcus and Wick developed a friendship off screen, but the depth of that relationship remains ambiguous until relevant points in the plot occur. Unfortunately, Marcus is used to move the plot forwards which bothers me.

Iosef Tarasov (Alfie Allen)Stupid, spoiled, sporadic and simple describe Iosef; “shit-head” is an acceptable alternative. His actions basically start the plot. Wick’s initial target is Iosef for stealing his car and killing his dog. Beyond being a macguffin and supplying different motivations to Wick and Viggo, this kid has no purpose.

Story:

Concept, characters and story amalgamate together into a successful film. However, that hasn’t always been the case. John Wick challenges my criteria for an excellence in films. I’ve always acknowledged that solid foundations can be built on non-traditional elements, but irregularity kept me from seeing real world examples. John Wick fails in traditional criteria while benefiting from stylization, atmosphere and proper execution.

Let’s tackle atmosphere first. Great action movies must have good pacing. Transformers Four took pacing and sacrificed it on the altar of Cthulhu. Thankfully, this film doesn’t make that mistake. A concise montage, less than fifteen minutes, provides a chronology for how Wicks’s wife passed away. Scenes include when she falls ill, her death and the funeral procession. It ends with Wick and Marcus having a brief exchange of dialogue. Prior to Wick seeing Marcus, there was silence. Yet, all the relevant emotional depth is displayed. We know Wick cared for his wife and her death has destroyed him. Death by disease adds an extra dimension because terminal illness is often accompanied by severe pain. This montage establishes atmosphere for the remainder of the film.

Iosef’s actions probably wouldn’t rattle a man like Wick under normal circumstances; however, throw unbearable grief into the cauldron and poop will collide with the fan. The former hit-man doesn’t lose his mind, rather as Amon Amarth says, “Only vengeance will set my spirit free.” Iosef becomes the target of Wick’s inevitable revenge. Prior association among most characters creates a heaviness that lingers through the film. It’s established that Tarasov used Wick’s talents to solidify his control of the city. Viggo granted Wick a way out by giving him an “impossible” task. Every act of violence Wick enacts on Tarasov’s organization feels personal, nameless guards and other personnel become victims in a titanic blood feud. Violence isn’t celebrated. I am incredibly desensitized to fictional violence, yet John’s actions made me uncomfortable. It would have been easier handle if John took pleasure in killing Tarasov’s men, but his cold and distant aura when ending human life was unsettling.

Notice that I and others have labeled John Wick a thriller. There are better thrillers like Argo or Gone Girl. However, this film builds tension and releases it properly. In the beginning, Wick is mourning for his loss. A puppy is delivered to house to be physical companion and last gift from his wife. Just enough scenes are show for a developed emotional connection between Wick and Dasiy. I almost thought the synopsis for the film was wrong due a lack of action. Then Iosef and his buddies break in and steal Wick’s car and kill his puppy. Tension is still building because Wick doesn’t immediately go after them. He buries Daisy in the back yard mulls around a little more. Iosef tries to sell Wick's mustang to Aureilo (John Leguizamo) who turns him down. The chop boss then informs Viggo of Iosef’s actions. Keep in mind, tension is still building. Viggo explains to his son who John Wick is and his actions were foolish. While he’s speaking, we cut back to Wick using a sledge hammer to break the floor of his garage open. This execution is excellent.

Thrillers make deal with their audience: eventually this tension has payoff, a promise fulfilled. Where other films like Jack Reacher or Godzilla (2014) failed, John Wick succeeds. Every character, excluding Iosef and Ms. Perkins (Adrianne Palicki), show visceral fear and/or respect for Wick. The film promises: Wick is going to make a sea of carnage, but you got to wait first. I waited and this movie delivered; Wick destroyers the crime empire he helped build . That’s proper thriller execution in a nut-shell.

Stylization might be paramount to John Wick’s success. A combination of lighting, sound effects and long camera shots build on what on atmosphere created. Dark visual tones dominate the color scheme. Wick wears an entirely black suit looking like a slick undertaker. While the color symbolism is obvious, it works to make death and John Wick synonymous. Scenes that have light in them are often still bathed in darkness and gloom. All the gun shots thud and resonate. It’s almost like the audience can feel Wick’s hatred every time he fires his gun. The soundtrack augments the atmosphere by playing the relevant genre depending on where Wick is; it’s almost too synchronized. Sometimes the music is slow and menacing, others times it’s unhinged and psychotic.

Yet, lighting, music and sound effects aren’t enough me, until I consider the camera work. Most modern action films use that choppy-shifting to different angles quickly style (clearly I’m a film student *cough*) to give fight sequences urgency and the illusion that the fighters are moving faster than the audience’s eye can perceive. John Wick utilizes traditional long shots where the action is seen from a sedentary position. Fights seem slow, tortuous and drudging which is perfect for this film’s atmosphere. John can kill a man quickly, but he’s not Bruce Lee fast in melee combat. This feature genuinely separates this movie from its contemporaries. Awesome Has an Expiration Date

Like all other films, the flaws can’t be ignored. Marcus’ fate is most problematic to me because it’s contrived, like the writers were saying, “Oh, we need a reason for Wick to kill Viggo. Let’s use Marcus!” From a narrative perspective the decision makes sense, but fails aesthetically. Marcus is reduced from a character to a plot device which is half-assed and stupid. He’s portrayed as a senior to Wick, not just in age, but in experience as well. Surely Marcus realized Viggo would come after him. Where’s the batman style contingency plan? I feel like a veteran of the assassin world would have an escape in case clients got rough.

Poor Daisy provides another problem. One hand, a revenge tirade starting at the death of puppy is awesome, but hard to deliver. To the film’s credit, Daisy is present from his wife and an embodiment of hope for Wick as he grieves. However, not enough of Wick’s relationship with Helen is shown for Dasiy’s death to really mean anything. A simple solution would have been a few flash backs at different periods in their past. One is briefly shown, but no characterization is accomplished.
Score: 7/10

Ultimately, John Wick is a well executed revenge flick and nothing more, otherwise I would score it higher. This film surprised me and turned my expectations. I understand why people liked what they saw. I definitely suggest watching this at first convenience. As a bonus, we get to experience Keanu actually showing emotion. However, if extreme violence disturbs you don’t bother and don’t let children near the dvd. They could have done better in certain areas, but those can be ignored for viewing pleasure. 

Find me on Facebook or Twitter

Strike the Meh

Before we get going, definitions need to be addressed. Anime of multiple genres involve vampires, but few actually focus on them as main characters or focal points of the plot. I’ll definite a “vampire anime” as a show which has vampires in the main cast or a narrative structured around vampires as a concept. With my narrower definition, finding vampire anime is arduous and good ones are even more elusive. When Strike the Blood started airing in 2013, I was reasonably excited. It’s a shame my expectations are always higher than they should be.

My Anime List
Anilist

Genre: Shounen, Science Fiction, Vampire, Action, Comedy Ecchi, Romance, Magic

Concept:

When I saw ecchi as one of the genre classifications for this anime, my expectations plummeted. My experience in this genre can summarized with one word: shit. Complete and total garbage. However, strangely the excessive fan service does play a small narrative role. In this mythos, Kojou’s (our protagonist) vampire powers are triggered by sexual desire. Normally a cheap gimmick like this infuriates me, however, it provide purpose beyond getting Japanese boys to buy it. A plethora of vampire literature places taboo desires or sexual practices the reader would find disturbing on vampires. The act of consuming another’s blood falls into either of those categories. Thus, what I would perceive as useless fan service actually makes some sense in the anime. Sadly, it also accomplishes the prior as well. Since Kojou is a vampire, a mythos that intertwines sexual desire and the need to drink blood is fine in my book.

Strike the Blood’s world is very similar to Dance in the Vampire Bund. A man-made island where super-natural creatures co-exist with humans, know as the Demon District. It’s not original because many science fiction anime are set on man-made islands, however the setting is utilized well. Vampires are placed at the top of the magical food chain, but they exist within a board range of magical beings including: witches, beast people, and familiars. While I prefer vampires without the context of other supernatural creatures, Strike develops the vampire’s place properly. Four Progenitors remove the “one royal bloodline” cliche found in some modern vampire iterations. This anime’s world building leaves a myriad of potential narrative plots to traverse down.

Characters:Since this anime is twenty four episodes long and a relatively complex cast, I’ll only list “main” characters.

Kojou Akatsuki is the inheritor of the Fourth Progenitor’s blood and our main protagonist. Honestly, Kojou’s character frustrates me. So often shounen heroes are apathetic to their circumstances and wish “to live a normal life with friends and family.” In other settings that works, but there was wasted potential in this mythos because of Kojou’s apathetic tendencies. His romance with Himeragi suffers the most from this poor writing decision. His progression is surface level and only deepens in regards to Himeragi.

Yukina Himeragi is a sword shaman from Lion Heart Organization which specializes in exercising demons. Her orders are to observe Kojou, to determine if he is a threat to the world. Again, not an original premise, but one that makes sense within the established world. Kojou and her make a great pair because she exhibits opposite character traits. She worries, gets reasonably jealous, and genuinely seeks to protect Kojou. Their romance is a boon for this anime. It’s real romatnic tension that only Kojou and her share.

Natsuki Minamiya  is a teacher at Kojou’s school and an attack mage who knows of his true identity. I’d describe her as a distant parent in regard to Kojou. Her role is sigificant both to plot and other characters in the show. Natsuki isn’t explored even when she’s the focai of an arc. Fight scenes involving her are awesome and she’s a crazy powerful witch.

Dimitrie Vatler/Lord Ardeal is a high ranking vampire from the Warlord’s Domain (First Progenitor). He’s probably the most interesting character, but his actual role consists of a pseudo-villain and plot device. Openly gay, transgendered or cross dressing characters are not uncommon in anime; however, rarely do they reside in the main cast. Vatler represents a traditional vampire. His attraction to Kojou is the same regardless of the fourth’s gender. A long existence has warped Vatler’s perception of morality, leaving only a desire to be entertained. The safety of Itogami Island and it’s habitants mean nothing to him.

This anime is full of one dimensional characters who could be flushed out more. The four listed above are what I consider “relevant” characters. If I had a section for each character in Strike, the list would be at least fifteen points. Thankfully, my laziness superseded that desire. The other characters either move the plot forward, provide convenient escapes, give harem-esque romantic tension or a combination of the three. If the writers had retained focus on a few characters versus trying include the entire cast, less of the viewer’s time would be wasted.

Story:

I’ve noticed that Japanese light novel adaptations divide the anime into arcs. Anime adapted from manga will use story arcs as well, but adapters seem to be more liberal with the source material. There are seven story arcs of varying length (the light novel continues to be published). Each arc is stand alone, each with it’s own villain. Only characters, establishment of new abilities and setting connect these arcs together. While a central plot or villain isn’t necessary for excellent story telling, Strike needed a centric plot. The last two arcs are two episodes each, as if the writers were just trying to fill space. In other anime, arcs tend to build on one another and culminate at the end and Kojou’s story needed a bombastic climax. However, ending given seemed half-assed, but more on that later.

Disregarding the last two arcs, pacing inside the other arcs are excellent. Characters and conflicts are established succinctly. None of the episodes felt like filler and drew me in as a viewer. As the story progresses, Kojou learns more about the world he’s been thrust into. Truths about what Itogami Island is and how it sustains itself are revealed as one arc finishes and another begins. It was refreshing to see such a complex world.

Strike also keeps subtle ambiguity about Kojou’s past and the Lion Heart Organization’s intentions which was awesome. Mysterious elements ensure further story development, but this anime suffers from “Lost syndrome.” I realize the light novel isn’t finished yet so maybe a second season is coming; however, don’t introduce questions one has no intention of answering. Kojou has some prior connection with Avrora (previous fourth), but can’t remember due to a memory block. Unfortunately, we learn nothing about this connection. Other elements and characters seem privy to this information, but remain silent. I’m not asking for an explanation about every little detail, just hints. It’s frustrating because Strike sputters out; copping out to the point where the audience sees a glimpse into the future, but receives no on screen action. The Ecchi

I’m not a prude; mild nudity or fan service doesn’t bother me. If either of those serve as a device informing the audience about an anime world, then I’ll let it go. To a small extent, fan service in Strike does a service a narrative purpose; but it’s far too gratuitous. Is it titillating? Sure, I like a female body as much as the next guy. Female members of the cast will strip most of their clothing off for almost no reason at all. Kojou will pull the typical “fall and land on top of girl while holding her breast by accident.” I’m sick of that shit. For reasons unknown to me, the Japanese find sexual humor hilarious; a sentiment I share to a lesser extent. Gratuitous fan service doesn’t create a better viewing experience and disrupts descent story telling.

A vampire exerting their power through familiars is an engaging re-imagination that breaks from traditional vampire mythos. I enjoyed Kojou’s task proving himself to Avrora’s familiars, but the techniques infuriated me. Essentially, it boils down to Kojou drinking the blood of a spirit medium. Apparently, it’s not the only way, but it expedites the process. Cue almost every other female character in this anime. Every new arc comes with a new supporting female, another vessel for Kojou to “level up” his power. This angers me for two reasons 1) those female characters don’t have any purpose which is kinda sexist. 2) Kojou’s agency is reduced to almost nothing. I wanted to him gain control of a familiar through a different method; one that showed his strength, not the convenience of having three or four spirit mediums hanging around. This shit is taken straight out of the “harem anime” play book, yet it doesn’t technically fall into the genre. Enough harem elements exist to distract from an awesome world with so much potential. Animation

Strike is superbly animated. None of the cg is intrusive or invokes a cringe upon viewing. Fight scenes are awesome and one aspect that initially sucked me into this anime. Thank God Gonzo didn’t get their hands on this one.

Score: 6/10

What a waste. Strike the Blood shares a remarkable number of similarities to Campionie. The prior dominates the latter, but both suffer from a boring formula. Conceptually, Strike had a great start and stopped halfway through. It’s possible the light novel is to blame rather than anime studios. Either way, don’t go into this anime with high expectations. 

Find me on Facebook or on Twitter

Another Teen Movi...I Mean Flick

For almost a decade teen fiction resurged to dominate popular conscience. One could argue that the Harry Potter franchise raised a generation of readers who are either still reading or encouraging their own children towards reading teen fiction. Twilight, The Hunger Games, Percy Jackson and Divergent are visible results of this dominance. The Giver seems to be the next recipient of Hollywood’s lack of imagination. Honestly, I saw this movie on whim. Like many people my age, I read the novel in high school. My expectations resided in limbo, but my viewing left me dissatisfied. This review will differ from my previous work because the source material will remain as a point of reference. Most of my criticisms can be applied to both the film and novel.

IMDB
Rotten Tomatoes
Genres: Post-Apocalyptic, Dystopia, Action, Drama

Concept:

Timing is a fickle creature wielding a double-edged sword. Time a movie release correctly and people’s wallets are your oyster. Bad timing leaves producers fighting for scraps and premeditating the director’s death. While The Giver hasn’t been received as a cinema disaster, critics were not kind. One problem is this film’s predecessors. The Hunger Games and Divergent don’t wade deeply into political philosophy or definitions of the human condition. Dystopia seen in those worlds are surface level, therefore more entertaining. Despites its massive flaws, Divergent held my attention better than the Giver. The source material provides complications which are summarized in a well known phrase, “the book is always better than the movie.” This rule isn’t set in stone, but analytically consistent. The Giver(book) deals with abstract ideas and concepts that translate well in a written medium. Adapting those concepts to film is a rather daunting task and The Giver suffers for it. Details used in the book to enrich the world must be removed due to time constraints. Sadly this movie is boring. An unoriginal Armageddon narrative doesn’t help either.
Characters

Jonas (Brenton Thwaites) is our main protagonist and chosen as the next Receiver of Memories. From the moment we see him something is different. Unlike his friends, Jonas fearfully anticipates the upcoming assignment ceremony. Yet, he is assured these fears are normal. Jonas’ character doesn’t break any archetypal boundaries. A protagonist in a teen film will feel misplaced or alone because most teenagers feel that way. However, Jonas’ demeanor changes as the story progresses. Compared to his parents and peers, he seems energetic and happy due to the Giver’s memories. I enjoyed watching this transformation. Mr. Thwaites did an excellent job acting his role.

The Giver (Jeff Bridges) is Jonas’ predecessor and current Keeper of Memories (not a title used in the film). Bridge’s acting fits an old teacher so well it’s a little unbelievable. His performance really sells the Giver on screen. Jonas’ inquisitive nature immediately allows the Giver to build a strong relationship with the boy. Personal tragedy fuels the Giver’s actions. He passively stood against the rest of Elders. His position gives him unique perspective and a painful burden. All other people in the Community have lost something fundamental to their natures and the Giver must bear the collective memory of humanity. The temptation to share is great, yet he remains silent until Jonas comes under his care.

The Chief Elder (Meryl Streep) controls all decisions made in the Community. She is the final arbiter of authority and correctness, not even the Giver can usurp her power. Her character represents an institution rather than a person, an idea versus a character. Some scenes provide small amounts of insights, but she’s not prospective giving character (literature talk). I wanted to see more of her life because it seemed like her memories remained intact as well, but the movie never explores this possibility.

Fiona (Odeya Rush) is one of Jonas’ childhood friends and pseudo-romantic interest. Besides the Giver and Gabe (a small baby Jonas shares his knowledge with), Jonas tries to share some his emotions with Fiona. While confused and reluctant at first, Fiona does start to understand Jonas’ transformation. A small glimpse of real emotions causes her to help Jonas escape the community as the risk of her own life.

Story:

There’s nothing exciting about the plot in its entirety, but certain moments radiate emotional power. Jonas’ experience of emotions lead to the entire community receiving their emotions. Once he passes that barrier, tears start flowing from everyone’s eye. It’s powerful scene and other moments provide The Giver with a unique pathos. Jonas’ relationship with the Giver is natural and organic which carries the audience through a majority of the movie. A strong pathos doesn’t carry enough of its own weight.

The Giver’s basic format parallels other well known dystopian novels. A status-quo is established as a Utopia. The protagonist discovers a world beyond the Utopia causing a revelation of dystopia. Conflict emerges as the protagonist tries to change the status-quo and new found freedoms embody a resolution with destruction of the dystopia. In 1993, dystopian political concepts weren’t seen in young adult fiction. Critics were impressed with Lowry’s ability to write a story that engaged young people while simultaneously introducing fairly complex political ideas. Unfortunately, the plot was formulaic then and almost cliche now. Too many young adult novels set in a post-apocalyptic world have been written since the book came out. The films seems half-assed and preachy compared to its more trendy contemporaries. What is “the ruin”? It’s never explained at all.

Colors cause people to generate different emotions, thus the Elders decided to remove colors to further enforce conformity. A large portion of The Giver is filmed in black and white. This reminded me of Pleasentville which wasn’t a very good film and the effect is cheesy. Their so devoid of emotion that color doesn’t exist, cue the profuse weeping and gnashing of teeth. “Removing color” and a barrier which blocks memory enters the realm of weak pseudo-science. I understand this story was built on abstract concepts to illustrate the importance of diversity and individualism, but good pseudo-science needs some kind of logic. One can’t remove color unless all people physically become color blind. Simply removing names and concepts would not be enough. The barrier of memory bothers me even more, but a larger question emerges: How or who built this community? If the world was ravaged, how did people have to technology to build a barrier that literally seals memories? A little of explanation would have been nice.

Strangely enough The Purge and The Giver suffer from a similar problem: audiences already know the status-quo is bad. In The Purge, a new government eliminates crime by having one night where everyone can commit any crime without consequence. Putting inherent stupidity aside, some characters defend the purge and the following chaos shows the audience what they already knew: the purge doesn’t work!!!!!!! The Giver’s utopia doesn’t convince me that the Community is actually perfect. No forms of human depravity are shown, but their robotic mannerisms and speech already indicated wrongness. Something about these people didn’t add up. Its dystopic elements offered no revelation or surprise.

Lastly, the ending threw me over board during a stormy night at sea. The book has a fairly ambiguous ending, I wasn’t sure Jonas survived his journey. The movie goes a different route. Revealing narration and improbable circumstances expected me to suspend my belief far too much.
Score: 5.5/10

I blame the timing of this adaptation and poor translation from source material. This film could have been better, but it would have been difficult. Go see this movie if you have nothing else to do. 

Find me on Facebook or on Twitter

Marvel Madness

Comic movie fatigue sweeps across the nation as I type. Super Hero culture saturation afflicts a majority of actions films. Folks were pining for new blood, something besides another super hero block buster. Guardians of the Galaxy steeps itself in familiar territory, yet remains distinct from other marvel films. My first impression was not high, especially considering the first trailer. As months passed, it began to grown on me. Thankfully, Guardians exceeded my expectations.


IMDB
Rotten tomatoes
Genres: Action, Science fiction, Space, Comedy, Marvel

Concept:

An Avengers comparison is unavoidable because both films have almost identical formulas: a team of individuals (super-powered and/or normal) must unite to defeat a giant threat. However, Guardians isn’t a clone or spin-off. Due to their similarity, Guardians doesn’t get many points for originality. Almost all first phrase marvel movies build a foundation: story threads and concepts that intertwine to be build upon in sequels. Characterization, compelling heroes/villains and plot can be sacrificed—to lesser or greater extents—for prolonged universe building. Unfortunately, Guardians is in its first phase. However, humor favors this film. I could count on my hand the number of action movies that maintain comedic elements. From Quill to Groot, the main cast has a plethora of funny jokes and circumstances that keep the mood merry.

Characters:

Peter Quill/Star Lord (Chris Pratt) is our protagonist. Some might argue all of the guardians are the film’s main protagonists, however, Quill’s story is followed with closer proximity. Other characters are interjected into his story versus separate character plots merging together. On my first viewing, Peter reminded me of an adolescent Han Solo and (dare I say?) a cooler Captain Mal. Sometimes he is Ravager who steals from others with little conscious, other times confusion about his identity and sadness from the loss of his mother show vulnerability. Above all else, a good man hides underneath his quirky exterior.

Gamora (Zoe Saldana) is an orphan turned deadly assassin by Thanos. Her deeds in Thanos’ name are renown throughout the galaxy, garnering hatred from people she encounters. Gamora is akin to a sword with a soul. She’s been wielded against her will by a being whom she hates. Out of all the Guardians, her back story piqued my interest the most. There is some romantic tension with Quill, but the film doesn’t explore it or any more of Gamora’s origins which disappointments me.

Drax (Dave Bautista) is a warrior whose family was killed by Ronan. His vengeance drove Drax to kill many of Ronan’s minions hence his title: “the Destroyer.” His race has no concept of metaphor causing Drax to take everything literally. Combine that with no verbal filter and you have comedic gold. Despite fabulous comic relief, Drax’s character left me wanting. His back story isn’t particularly engaging or original; however, his growth as the film progresses warmed my heart.

Rocket (Bradley Cooper) is a genetically enhanced raccoon. If that isn’t funny to you then some screws are missing. Rocket is the primary source of comic relief, a token asshole who happens to be a small fury rodent. Similar to Gamora and Quill, Rocket’s back story enters stimulating narrative opportunities. He laments his creation, viewing himself as an abomination. Sarcasm, insults and aloofness hide Rocket’s real feelings about living. Sadly, the film’s time constraints don’t allow exploration into Rocket’s story either.

Groot (Vin Diesel) is a tree-like alien who acts as a body guard for Rocket. His exchanges with Rocket are some of the funniest moments in film, the two make a wonderful comic relief tag team. Among the Guardians, Groot resides uniquely as a character with no depicted past. Major concepts and ideas are grasped by this living tree, but a certain “innocence” dominates his personality. Often Rocket’s voice of reason personifies itself in Groot. Due to a language impairment, Groot can only say, “I am Groot.”

Yondu Udonta (Michael Rooker) is the leader of a mercenary fleet called the Ravagers. He isn’t a major character in this installment, but I expect his role to increase in later squeals. His relationship with Quill both intrigued and confused me. Yondu acts as a surrogate father for Quill, yet neither really trusts each other. Quill is willing to incur Yondu’s wrath and does so multiple times in the film. Despite Quill’s trickery, Yondu seems to go easy on him.

Ronan the Accuser (Lee Pace) has cool name and that’s about it. He is a Kree fanatic who seeks the destruction of Xandar for their crimes against the Kree Empire. Mr. Pace was a great choice of actor because he sells Ronan as a villain. Sadly, our destroyer of worlds isn’t compelling. He’s a step up from Electro in The Amazing Spider-man 2, but a small one.

Story:

Narrative structure doesn’t offer much defense for Guardians, but a hero’s tale traces back to the earliest echos of human story telling. The plot isn’t bad just not original. However, narrative warms the bench while comedy becomes the super star. It’s strange concept for me because I think story is paramount to all successful movies. Credit where credit is due, Guardians doesn’t force a still-born narrative on its audience. Characters motivations and actions are established effectively. There’s logical progression to events, but problems slowly arise which brings us back to comedy.

Clever little people worked on this film with their clever little minds. I’m conflicted because Guardians has problems, objectively (as much as I can be) Avengers is better film, but I loved watching this film more. The dialogue personifies awkward. During my first viewing, I saw this as a problem. There a few scenes where character dialogue transitions poorly, but those can be overlooked because I think/hope it was intentional. Peter and his crew are all awkward and dysfunctional in unique ways. It makes sense that Peter couldn’t deliver an inspiring speech instead he stumbles through it. My second viewing shifted the awkward dialogue to a positive.

Action-Comedies are as rare as a German who doesn’t wear socks with his sandals. Usually, one genre consumes the other. A myriad of scenes stretching from beginning to end had me laughing out loud; however, this film can be serious when it desires to be. At one point Rocket is interpreting Groot’s dialogue, creating a one-sided conversation for the audience. Only Groot’s tone gives any indication of different meaning. It’s so funny. Near the end Peter dances in front of Ronan to distract him. Gamora, Peter, Quill and Groot have a silly chase scene on Xandar. Situational humor and character flaws cover Guardian’s blemishes.
Faults

Unfortunately, the voices reject my potential silence. I’ve beaten the “Guardians flaunts itself as a first phase marvel movie” point like a step-father beats a ginger step-child. Summary: there wasn’t enough time. Barely two hours of time captures Peter’s adventure and the friends he makes along the way. A small window of time to fit a literal universe content. You have to be a severe comic connoisseur for impact from characters, names, and places. Ronan rages about one thousand years of Kree justice that Xandar deserves.
My reaction:

A) What’s Kree?

B) What’s a Xandarian?

C) What’s Kree Justice?

D) Why should I care?

Some these questions were answered, but nowhere near satisfaction. I wasn’t invested in the main conflict at all. If I had know, as I do now after 5 days of intense marvel wiki-ing, I would have supported Ronan all the way. “Hell yeah, guy! They killed your daddy and your daddy’s daddy? You kill those Xandarian bastards with your infinity stone. Planetary genocide? Not a problem, they had it coming because Kree Justice is where it’s at.” But, I wasn’t in the loop, thus my investment was with the Guardians. Played me like a fiddle. Film makers had to assume their audience knew about the comics. I realize this criticism has no alternative. They couldn’t possibly give us all context and instead only gave necessary context. Otherwise Guardians would have lasted five hours and no one wanted that.

Another flaw manifested through excessive expository dialogue. Exposition comes in various forms, the most common are dialogue, narration (3rd person) or shown through action (i.e. a character reads a history book). My tolerance for exposition, especially in science fiction or fantasy, is high. Yet, Guardians devotes entire scenes and conversations to enlighten the audience. Peter and the crew are processed by Xandarian officials in preparation for transportation to a prison colony. The whole scene easily lasts five minutes and Corpsman Dey (John C. Reilly) verbally describes each person. Despite fitting logically into event progression, it was unnecessary because most of the Guardians give a compressed origin story through dialogue later on. Exposition is fine, but redundancy reeks of poor writing. Speaking of other plot holes, let’s talk about Xandar’s defenses.

So the Nova Empire and the Kree Empire have been fighting for one thousand years. That’s a long time. One would assume that Xandar, the capital planet of Nova, has epic level defenses to neutralize threats. For example: a fleet of space carriers, an orbital defense system/orbital shield, Huge-ass plasma canon that can erase threats from afar, basic anti-space craft cannons in case small fighters attack your capital city, or Unicorns who ride honey badgers that shoot death-rays out of their eyes. Does Xandar have any these? Nope. What they have is better: cute little fighters that can interlock to form an energy shield. Don’t misunderstand me, those fighters are cool. But the Nova Core has nothing else. How did Xandar survive one thousand years of war if one Kree battleship with an awesome name (Dark Aster <— nomenclature genius) can wreck through all of their defenses? An infinity stone is some crazy good kit, but seriously stopping Ronan would not have been hard. I imagine this plot hole was allowed to bring the Guardians and Ravagers a role of necessity; without them Xandar was screwed. All the writers needed to do was show Ronan using the infinity stone to destroy Xandar’s formidable defenses. Instead we get little fighters getting crushed by Dark Aster.
Score: 7/10

Faults aside, Guardians is worth watching. The CG impressed me. Maybe one moment in the film looked a little cheap, but everything else was fabulous. What movie technology can now create is mind-boggling. The stellar sound-track keeps the mood light and augments the humor. It brings to life some classic songs that deserve a listen from this generation. I look forward to future Marvel films especially Guardians 2.

Find me on Facebook or Twitter

The Dawn Arrived

Planet of the Apes was an interesting movie in 1968, despite it’s rather silly premise. The following sequels were generally awful, Escape from Planet of the Apes being the only exception. Burton attempted recreate the original film, but failed. In 2011 a successful reboot took flight. While Rise of the Plant of the Apes didn’t capture my attention, it was a laudable effort in restarting an iconic film franchise. 2014 marks the year of successful sequels because Dawn of the Planet of the Apes blows its predecessors away and eviscerates Transformers: Age of Extinction.

IMDB
Rotten Tomatoes

Genres: Action, Drama, Post-Apocalyptic, Science Fiction

Concept:

Without research, I would have concluded that Dawn’s concept resides in some semblance of originality. Dawn takes a myriad of narrative circumstances from Conquest and Battle. Normally this bothers me, but these elements are woven together with enough new content to disavow any labels as a remake. Like most post apocalypse worlds, humanity has been reduced to near extinction and their survival hinges upon circumstance X. Caesar and his apes throw in the extra complication needed to establish uniqueness.

Characters:

Caesar (Andy Serkis) continues as our protagonist for the apes. In the years following the end of Rise, Caesar has cemented his leadership. He believes apes have a greater resistance to evil deeds and teaches his people accordingly. Family and non-violence are valued above everything else. Caesar’s genuine desire to build a better society than humans makes him my favorite character of the film. His desire arises from his previous teacher (James Franco) and the mistakes of humanity. Realistic naivety colors Caesar’s decisions causing conflict to arise under his rule. Character stupidity transforms me into a rapid dog, hence my undying hatred for Shakespearean tragedies. However, Caesar’s naivety adds a refreshing depth. A leader willing to stand by his principles even when common sense would state otherwise.

Koba (Tony Kebbel) is Caesar’s second in command. Due to animal testing, Koba’s hatred for humans runs as deep as Caesar’s love for peace. Koba’s loyalty to Caesar is strong, but not unshakable. When contact with humans occurs, Caesar’s unwillingness to return violence for violence infuriates Koba. Slowly his loyalty shifts to insubordination, becoming the ape version of Brutus. As antagonists go, Koba compels me. His motivations change naturally and never crosses the “ludicrous” line.

Blue Eyes (Nick Thurston) is Caesar’s eager and stubborn son. Compared to other apes, Caesar deals with complex quagmire of emotion towards humans. His son doesn’t understand and a rift forms between them which Koba uses in his machinations. Blue Eyes’ presence solidifies the family struggle needed to make Caesar’s character transcend compelling.

Malcolm (Jason Clarke) is a co-founder of a colony in San Francisco full of genetically immune humans. Like Caesar, he believes that human and ape coexistence is possible. This belief gives him admirable boldness to barter peace with Caesar and potentially sacrificing his life for the greater good of both races. I realize Malcolm resides in the “good guy” cliche, but he stands with few others in defense of the apes. A human willing to betray other survivors for peace without appearing synthetic.

Dreyfus (Gary Oldman) is the other founder of the colony. Unlike Malcolm, he refuses to believe that apes are intellect and after that is debunked, doesn’t believe that coexistence is possible. His person represents old world views, that put the entire colony at risk. Ultimately, Dreyfus disappoints me. His actions seem to lack the logic and cognitive processes of a leader.

Story:

Despite higher education criticism etiquette, I’ll start negative. Predictability always frustrates me no matter the context, thus reboots often irritate my critic sensibilities. We all know how this movie was going to end; humans and apes can never coexist. Knowledge of inevitable is the greatest flaw of Dawn and that’s awesome. Other flaws crop up, but I’ll get to those later.

Most movies have plot driven narratives, meaning events happen outside of the characters’ control; this is especially true of action films. Dawn’s narrative is primarily driven with character actions with the exception of background circumstances. Between the two, character driven narratives provide more dynamic stories. Both supporting and main characters deepen and actions have extra narrative force. It’s a refreshing change from normalcy. The main conflict, potential war between Apes and humans, derives from no external circumstances. One action causes everything to fall apart.

Good versus evil doesn’t seem to engage audiences like it did in the past. Personally, wonderful stories have been mused on such a premise; however, modern viewers seek characters who don’t reside in moral absolutes. Post-Simian Flu earth exists in mists of moral gray. Ten years of chaos have molded people within the San Francisco colony. Fear of a return to that time fuel their desire to find stable electricity. Caesar, with Maurice’s advice, rule over their fledging ape nation, unaware their location is near an old dam.

Dawn builds tension like a master builder and generates (unintentionally it seems) two astute observations about modern society.
1) Electric production is fundamental for modern society to function.
Almost everything runs off of our capacity to create electricity. Humankind’s ability to communicate quickly relies on a power gird, most modern technology require electricity to run. In industrialized nations, people don’t realize the entire world continues to reside in an energy crisis and if we lost that capacity, society would collapse. Dreyfus and Malcolm agree: once the salvageable fuel runs out their colony will descend into chaos. I appreciated the writers putting logical thought into how the conflict develops. Too often science fiction cobbles together piss-poor exposition that breaks under surface level criticism.
2) Hatred transcends reason.
Good science fiction displays a observable truth about the world, a statement about the human condition. Dawn does not disappoint in this area.

Koba takes the show in this regard. In lesser films, humans would have caused the war. They are the aggressors, but it makes sense. Given actions of apes in Rise and the devastating virus that almost destroyed humanity, certain people (Carver) tend to be trigger happy. Koba immediately wishes retribution with slaughter of humans. Caesar agrees to a show of force, but not to war. To the film’s credit, Koba’s betrayal ( Koba sneaks into the colony and steals an assault rifle. Using the weapon, Koba shoots Caesar and blames the deed on Malcolm’s group.) isn’t presented as a surprising plot twist. It’s pretty obvious Caesar’s second in command would be a problem. After the war ends and Caesar— with the help of Malcolm and Ellie—is once again leader of the apes, Malcolm warns that Dreyfus contacted a military base for help and troops are inbound. While the two share a bond of understanding, Caesar can’t stop further conflicts. He knows the apes will never trust humans again. Despite dethroning Koba, the damage is already done. A depressing, but appropriate ending.

There’s a refreshing amount of depth for the apes. My interest always drew back to Caesar and his companions. Dreyfus, Malcolm and other humans aren’t nearly that compelling. Thankfully Dawn rewards the viewer by focusing on the apes. They are the narrative glue that holds this plot together.
Minor problems:

San Francisco’s colony seems poorly written in certain particulars. Excluding my previous statements, Dreyfus and Malcolm are the only visible leadership among surviving humans; no council of officials, no evidence of elections or a system to delegate people’s skills and labor. The film glosses over these details and if it didn’t feed into other criticisms, I’d leave it alone. Conjecture: the writers left the colony’s structure ambiguous because it gave the apes an easy invasion. Their armory is overtaken allowing the apes to arms themselves. Why wasn’t the armory moved to a location thats harder for potential enemies to access or heavily guard it at all times. Any person with half a brain would do that. Granted these arguments could be deflated with background circumstance, but a little more effort in world building and I never would have mentioned them. A small blemish on a great story.

Score 8/10

Watching Dawn was awesome. I had to ponder and dig to find problems with the movie. Cosmetics don’t bring any extra favor to movies, but the computer generation is impressive. All of the apes look natural and don’t seem out of place. Hopefully this success will continue into the third installment.

Find me on Facebook or on Twitter

Animated Film Fever Continues

Animated films seem to be coming back with a vengeance and success this year. I’ve only been reviewing movies for about a year, but my eyes have always been on the ratings. I’ve stated before that Rotten Tomatoes is my comparison point for my own ratings, a digital wall of other opinions. Never have I seen a non-documentary film reach almost one hundred percent until How to Train Your Dragon hit theaters in 2010. That movie was alright, but it’s sequel is far superior. Both movies rank above a 95% (top critics), only ten negative reviews for the second installment. A mystery has unfolded before me because neither film is a 9/10. It’s baffling how in love critics and audiences are with How to Train Your Dragon 2.

IMDB
Rotten Tomatoes

Genre(s): Fantasy, Animated, Dragons, Action, Comedy

Concept:

Trilogies seem to be the desired movie format of the moment; thus this installment sets up for another sequel coming out in 2016. Yet, How to Train Your Dragon 2 does hold against severe criticism. Ultimately, this is kids movie that adults can enjoy as well (sounds familiar right?). Three narrative threads interweave to form the story, thus I had trouble articulating the core concept. However, Hiccup and his family remain at the center. This sequel accomplishes two objectives:
1) Hiccup’s personal struggle is resolved, resulting in him maturing.
2) The world is expanded. New enemies and bigger dragons appear. With a bigger world, more plot opportunities can be seized and explored as long as it stays canonized. To be honest while the movie is fantastic, I feel a little cheated. Conceptually, the original and it’s sequel can’t be distinguished from each other because they are the same. Vikings fighting other dragons with their dragons. That’s not far off from Vikings fighting dragons.

Character:

Hiccup (Jay Baruchel), Stoick’s son and future Chief. Similar to Peter, Hiccup’s character remains static. He is brave in a non-traditional way and intelligent. His circumstances and reactions change, but these do not constitute character development. The only noticeable growth comes when Hiccups’ naivety is fundamentally challenged. Yet, the film doesn’t give Hiccup an appropriate amount of time for this change to manifest.

Stoick (Gerald Butler) is Chieftain of Berk. He plays a surprising and fundamental role in showing Hiccup what it means to be a leader, a positive force for his son. It’s rare for parents to be present in children’s movies. Most conflicts a child protagonist faces would never exist if parents were alive/in their lives. Self-empowerment and familial obedience don’t coexist well. Yet, Stoick’s presence works. Hiccup and his father have a meaningful relationship while the kids retain their independence. He’s one of my favorite characters.

Toothless (Randy Thom) the black streak in the sky. His relationship with Hiccup is nothing less than adorable and the main appeal of the franchise. Despite sharing a majority of screen time, hes not much of a character. Loyalty and friendship are what define Toothless, thankfully there is nothing wrong with that.

Valka (Cate Blanchett) is Hiccup’s thought to be dead mother. Her character was particularly interesting, and the most compelling. Stolen from Berk when Hiccup was young and stayed away due to the circumstances that followed. She is unsure, emotionally troubled and socially awkward when the family reunites. Living between worlds, never knowing which one you belong in creates a fascinating character. Valka and Stoick together reinforce forgiveness, furthering the family dynamic that synergies in this film.

A Plethora of other characters could go in this section, but the story doesn’t focus on them enough to justify effort.

Story:

This sequel doesn’t shift the basic story structure. Hiccup goes off exploring, finds something or someone; and brings the news back to his village, usually shocking the entire village. Despite the expanded world presented to me, basic structure tainted that experience for me. We see more dragons and step a bit into their origins. There are in fact greater dragons than a queen from the previous movie. While generic, a few elements caught my attention. Drago Bludvist lands far down on the list of “compelling villains”, however, his dragon army presents the critical dynamic. Not all people will live in peace with dragons; some will choose to enslave their power for evil. How will Berk deal with those people? One could read events in this film as an analogy for a couple relevant social issues. That’s pretty deep for a kids’ movie.

Speaking of adult themes in a film for children, death comes uninvited.

Stoick’s death was unexpected. I have pride in my ability to predict events in a narrative. My guard was down this time around. Once the scene was happening, I saw how it would play out. That’s like watching a bird fly towards a window and right before impact someone says, “hey that bird is going to die.” Stoick is a major franchise character and writers were brave enough to kill him. They have my respect.

Scenes involving Hiccup and Valka are the best part of the movie. Dragons become more than pets, becoming majestic beasts—or as close as Dreamworks animation can manage—that should be respected and protected. I fell in love with How To Train Your Dragon 2 because it reinforces the value of a family and not just a figurative “family” consisting of close friends. Stoick always tells Hiccup, “We protect our own.” There’s wisdom in that oath. Hiccup grows into the role of chieftain by his father’s actions and words. Humor carries this movie to success as well. It’s subtle enough to never disrupt important scenes, but presents amusing bits in the chaos. Throughout events, Snotlout and Fishlegs fight for the affections of Ruffnut who falls in and out of love with Eret. These moments break the tension of otherwise intense action sequences.
The Nitpicks

The whole story was paced at a little slower than Sonic’s ring runs. Progression is swift, not leaving much time for characters to be introspective and properly deal with emotional interactions. However, I am lenient because of the target audience’s age. Toothless’ “power-up” when fighting the Alpha dragon comes too suddenly and with great convenience. Besides Hiccup, none of the other characters get much attention which cause them to appear one dimension. I was excited to see Hiccup and Astrid progress in their romance, but it never happened.

Score: 8/10

This is one of the few truly family friendly movies parents can take their kids to see. Apart from small amounts of kissing, objectionable content doesn’t exist. That alone already boosts my rating. Problems can be seen, but nothing big enough to damage the merit of this film. As sequels go, one couldn’t ask for a better movie. Take the family to movies and you won’t be disappointed. Let’s hope number three will as good if not better. 

Find me on Facebook or on Twitter