Shauna Anderson bemoans the idea that as a mom, the goal is efficiency, multi-tasking as much as possible to finish all the work in the least amount of time possible. Creating a 14-step plan to take the pressure off this perfectionist mindset, she suggests accepting one's limitations and faults is the best policy. As Anderson puts it, "I am a good mother. I do the best that I can. I pledge that trying my hardest is the best I can do."
"Moms' Night Out" taps into this unattainable perfection, playing up chaos for laughs. Allyson (Sarah Drew) can detect the source of filth or possible disorder within a three-mile radius, analyze the potential risk for salmonella in a finger-sized dollop of pancake batter at a glance, and run through fifty worst-case scenarios of a single action in the time it takes to blink. Allyson is as much a workaholic as her architect husband (Sean Astin); the pressure she puts on herself to be the perfect mother and housewife is driving her crazy. So in order to take a well-deserved break, the idea of a girls' night out is born. Along with her friends Izzy, (Logan White) and Sondra (Patricia Heaton of "Everybody Loves Raymond" fame), they set out to have a fun, relaxing night that devolves into a cluster of shenanigans, all while Allyson tries to come to grips with her imperfections.
The shenanigans are split into two camps: long and dull or absurdly entertaining. For the most part, the comedy lacks the wit or edge to keep my interest; I find myself resting my head on my cheek. However, the movie's second half sets up such a strange concoction of side characters and dilemmas. For ten minutes of a car chase, my jaw never shut; I was bewildered at the scenario presented in front of me. When the movie wants to be weird, it succeeds, man.
The characters are stereotypical and the cast deviates not from their prescribed notes. Kudos to a surprisingly enjoyable performance by Trace Adkins, whom I commend the casting director for: Adkins doesn't have to act at all. If there's anyone who fits the "tough biker with a heart of gold" persona, it's him. The role IS his personality. (What makes it work so well? I think it's the voice: commanding, yet warm like melted butter.)
Allyson's search for inner strength and the trio's shenanigans are separate films; the movie makes little effort to tie both together. The message inspires as much as a 90 minute movie can, but the heartwarming effect falls flat when juxtaposed with a parakeet's death by butt cheek. That's really the main problem: execution. If well-paced with dynamic characters, this premise shows promise. But as is, "Moms' Night Out" is a hokey, unfunny mess. Thank you all for reading; I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.
In a game of word association, my response to 'Bryan Singer' would be 'serviceable.' Excluding "Superman Returns", Singer's films come off as solid. They're not great, but given the strange or silly premises (I'm looking at you, "Jack the Giant Slayer"), they work decently. His "X-Men" and "X2" movies aren't known as phenomenal films, but among most fans, stay faithful to the comics and entertain as their own bodies of work. Singer has stayed fairly close to the series, as a writer for "X-Men: First Class", but now for the sequel, "X-Men: Days of Future Past", he finally returns to the director's chair. So, let's play a game of word association:
"X-Men: Days of Future Past."
"Impressive."
I'm going to get my quote for the back of the DVD out of the way: this is the best X-Men movie to date. It's an epic, high-stakes roller coaster that's grand, emotional, but above all, a ton of fun. It features some of the best performances of the entire series, primarily from James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender, supported well by Patrick Stewart, Peter Dinklage, and Wolverine. Wait, I mean Hugh Jackman.
In the future, the government sanctions robots named Sentinels to hunt mutants and mutant supporters. Created by Dr. Bolivar Trask (Peter Dinklage), they're able to absorb and copy any mutant's powers, making them invulnerable. In 1973, Trask was killed by the mutant Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence), and his death spread anti-mutant fear internationally, fueling the development of the Sentinels.
A ragtag team of remaining mutants, including Iceman (Shawn Ashmore) and Shadowcat (Ellen Page) from "X2", resists against Sentinel attack, able to survive due to Shadowcat's ability to send a person's consciousness back in time. By sending a person hours before the attack, the team can be warned and relocate. After a particularly risky battle, the team comes across the rest of the X-Men, including Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart), Magneto (Ian McKellen), Wolverine (Hugh Jackman), who've taken refuge in an abandoned Chinese temple.
There, the group peruses the possibility of a person being sent back not just hours or days, but years back in time, in hopes of preventing the Sentinels from being built. The effort is dangerous, as it requires not only tremendous strength from Shadowcat, but also a person who can withstand the brain damage such an effort would make. Considering Wolverine is the only one whose regenerative properties can repair the damage as it's being done, he's sent back to 1973 in order to find a young Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and Magneto (Michael Fassbender), and enlist their help in preventing Mystique from killing Trask, and shut down the Sentinel project before it ever starts.
As you can tell from the paragraphs above, the plot is huge, with a lot of content, characters, and subplots crammed in. What I mentioned above is about ten minutes of exposition necessary to understand the story in 1973. My main problem is that the additional info needed to tell the main story rushes by; I wish the movie could've slimmed down on the extra characters and kept the exposition short and sweet. However, while a rudimentary understanding of the "X-Men" movies helps with understanding certain subplots and background intricacies, the movie's plot is self-contained and can be followed with little trouble. Surprising for a movie about time travel, huh?
As in every movie set in the past, the typical period pieces are there, from the technology to the pop culture, politics, and fashion. The style's executed well, makes for some fun jokes and references: a scene where Wolverine walks down the street looking for a car had me humming "Shaft", trying really hard not to crack up.
Notable is the film's humor: from its juvenile moments to its more subtle dialogue, the movie throws joke after joke at the audience, most of them bulls-eyes. The stand-out scenes involve Quicksilver (Evan Peters), a kleptomaniac with super speed. His mischievous attitude is infectious; he steals the show, and I want more of him in the future. (One can also rely on Wolverine's gruff bad-ass attitude to deliver its fair share of chuckles.)
The Patrick Stewart/Ian McKellen bromance has been documented on the internet in hilarious, heartwarming photosets; this charisma carries over on-screen, where Xavier and Magneto regard each other with as much mutual respect as possible. The James McAvoy/Michael Fassbender relationship is no different: these two are phenomenal. McAvoy captures Xavier's internal fear, sorrow, and resilience while Fassbender makes Magneto more menacing than ever, commanding the screen with his presence. The two argue as rivals, enjoy each other as friends, and love like brothers. Their chemistry drives the movie's emotional and ideological undercurrent: the debate between non-violent or radical resistance to prejudice and discrimination.
Of course, all powers are on display: Wolverine's claws, Magneto's mastery of magnetism, Quicksilver's speed, Professor X's telekinesis. The action is fun and unique to each character, allowing each person a chance to shine in the sun as they punch, warp, slash, and phase through enemies. Consistently raising the scale as the climax nears, the tension and weight of these powers work phenomenally, helped by well-designed sets and battles.
"X-Men: Days of Future Past" takes a stagnant series and breathes new life into it, tying all movies and stories together in an entertaining, impacting package. It excels in its performances, comedy, drama, action, pacing, design. Bryan Singer impresses with a well-made blockbuster, and I am unbelievably hyped for what's to come. As "X-Men: Apocalypse" is announced for 2016, I can't wait to see how the movie tackles the series' arguably grandest, most powerful villain. Here's hoping we get another smash hit, but for now, go out and see this film. Thank you all for reading; I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.
Marvel post-credits warning: there's one post-credit scene at the very end of the credits; stick around for a teaser at the following X-Men movie.
"Belle" carries elements seen in many movies: the love triangle, the fish out of water, racial and gender discrimination, all wrapped up in the setting of 18th century England. At first glance, my perception paints this film as unoriginal and watered-down. It's true these elements have been overdone, but can I blame a film who takes all these elements and executes its story well? Absolutely not.
The movie tells the story of Dido (Gugu Mbatha-Raw), a young mixed girl (black mother, white father). After her mother's death, the father (Matthew Goode), a young Navy captain, takes Dido to live with his uncle, (Tom Wilkinson) England's chief supreme justice. Heavily prejudiced, the uncle and family express concern and complaints, but as the father has given the child his legal surname, the family takes her in. Years pass, and the father dies, leaving Dido the sole heiress of a mass fortune. Now, she must learn to accept and balance all facets of her identity, learning more about the realities and difficulties of the world and its society.
This is a lean screenplay: no scene overstays its welcome. It's surprising, considering "Belle" balances not only the love triangle and the main lead's search for acceptance in society, but also a court case drama and a subplot involving Dido's cousin Elizabeth (Sarah Gadon) looking for her own love. The pacing for each piece works well, juggling all these plot devices in a way that feels stimulating, but never overwhelming.
The strength is in the cast: each role is executed well, though the characters seem more like personified themes than actual people. It's a strange feeling, because this shouldn't work, but because the story works so well, I don't ever mind the cast. In a way, it's like watching a high-end soap opera. Sam Reid plays an aspiring abolitionist lawyer and while his dialogue can be single-minded, even preachy, Reid's performance is active enough and memorable enough to give it a pass. Most of the cast works off this tone except for two exceptions: Dido and Elizabeth.
The two women transcend; their relationship with each other is loving and genuine, never privy to a speech about the ills of slavery or the pains of being a woman. The two are sisters, cracking jokes, having fun, consoling one another. Every time the two were on screen, it was fun; I felt I was watching real people, not archetypes.
The duality of a white patriarchy's approach to race and gender as far as determining social status is complex and fascinating. Marriage is the defining status symbol for a woman of this period: the family a woman marries to represents either a move up or down on the social totem pole. Dido has a beneficial surname and dowry: symbols of a high-class woman. However, she's limited because of her mixed blood. Elizabeth has the opposite problem: because she's white, she has no problem fitting in society, appearance-wise, but her lack of dowry proves a disadvantage for attracting a suitable husband. These women feel ashamed for not being able to live up to their society's standards, and the movie cuts to the core of the dilemma.
I think "Belle" disguises its complexities well: elements in this story are familiar and predictable, but under the surface, the film touches on issues such as racial guilt, gender disparities, and representation in a way that's emotional and intelligent. It's an ambitious, lean, well-executed drama, and I recommend it. Thank you all for reading; I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.
It's been 16 years since the last American version of Godzilla was released in theaters, and with the new one finally here, I know people are going to want to compare the two. So, let me get this out of the way. If I can point your attention here:
Shown above is a scene from 2004's "Godzilla: Final Wars" where Godzilla thrusts Zilla (the 1998 American version) into the Sydney Opera House, proceeding to fry him with his atomic breath. Needless to say, it's a short fight. Consider the comparison made.
When an ancient Japanese monster resurfaces, wreaking havoc on the surrounding population, nature calls on the King of the Monsters, Godzilla, to restore balance. A seismologist (Bryan Cranston) and his son (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) lead the way, trying to figure out how to get rid of both monsters, as the creatures chase each other down and duke it out in a battle to end the ages.
I don't recall a recent film so heavily dependent on the power of a theater's sound as "Godzilla". The bass echoes through the seats when Godzilla roars. The orchestra swells like a wave, carrying weight and atmosphere. Alexandre Desplat's score immediately sets a grand and haunting mood; from the opening credits, the tension rises, strong and monstrous.
Taking its cues from the 1954 original, "Godzilla" is dark, less campy than many of the other films. The cinematography plays with perspective, shadow, and light: the monsters are covered in fog, revealed part by part, casting immense shadows over soldiers and civilians alike.
Now, the movie doesn't take itself as seriously as the original; that film was a reaction to the terror plaguing Japan after World War II. They lived the horrors of nuclear destruction, conveying the panic settling in society at the time. The grave tone of the original never found its way across the ocean. When shown in the U.S., the original was seen as just another B-movie sci-fi picture. The new version carries American sensibilities; there are quite a bit of campy moments throughout. I wouldn't say they're welcome inclusions, but I wasn't bothered too much.
The main issue critics, fans, and my friends point out is the buildup. The middle of the movie drags on; we interact a bit too much with the human cast, who in no way, are bad, but given a choice between watching an Olsen sister or a 400 foot monster...you see my point. The comparison I make is to "Jaws".
"Jaws" waited an hour and a half before showing the monster; before then, suspense was delivered in careful doses through fantastic dialogue and performances. The three-man crew carried the movie well, one almost wouldn't mind if the shark never showed up. However, when the shark DID show up, the entire movie's focus shifted from the camaraderie to the shark hunt.
In "Godzilla", the suspense is dealt extraordinarily: Bryan Cranston carries so much passion and conviction, he builds dread perfectly. Every line he says is bought: hook, line and sinker. However, after we see Godzilla for the first time, the movie jumps back and forth, attempting to rebuild suspense for the next battle. Granted, these action scenes are a lot of fun, but the cat has been let out of the bag already. One scene can promise an intense fight between the monsters, and immediately cut away to the humans! Does the film not know where its priorities should lie? This jumping rope between plots is the biggest fault; I would be lying if I said it didn't suck me away from the story for a while.
However, when "Godzilla" delivers, it excels. The monsters are designed beautifully! Of course, the monsters are computer-generated, but their textures look unbelievably lifelike. (It also helps to have a movie mostly shot in shadows.) The creatures have personalities: from their cries to body language, they become their own characters, even carrying some of the more emotional scenes of the film.
Fight scenes are choreographed with both styles in mind: there are moments when I feel the ideas were taken from the motion of two men in rubber suits (like in earlier movies), and others where the creatures swat, hit and bite like real animals would. Each style is subtle and blends well to create exciting, satisfying brawls, resulting in a climax that got my theater clapping and cheering.
For all the boring scenes in the middle, the film's bookends have atmospheric, haunting suspense and payoffs that exceed every expectation. The effort director Gareth Edwards and crew put into this project is immense, creating an exciting, worthy addition to the King of the Monsters' legacy. This is a movie that needs to be seen with a crowd and thunderous speaker system as soon as possible, and I know I'm ready to go right back for a couple more viewings. Thank you all for reading, I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.
I think we've all experienced this moment before: we're in a car, minding our own business, when we look outside and see someone in the car next to us, enraptured by the new Katy Perry song. As the veins in their neck bulge proportionately to the amount of air belted out of their lungs, we think "If only their singing talent matched their enthusiasm," but cheer them on, swayed by their passion.
I find an irony in people's behavior inside cars. Despite the fact a person is in the midst of at least a hundred others at a time, the rolled-up windows create, in our minds, a cocoon. Inside this Volkswagen, I am safe. Inside this Chevy, I can pick my nose. I can sing badly at the top of my lungs. I can be overwhelmed by the world, and I am allowed to cry. There's security and intimacy in our cars, at least until the jerk in front cuts us off.
"Locke" encapsulates this sense of intimacy; for 90 minutes, we are the fly on the window, the only being privy to the knowledge of Ivan Locke's (Tom Hardy) worst night. Of course, it starts out ordinarily; Ivan Locke is an ordinary English man: he works in construction, has a wife and two kids. He's supposed to go home, enjoy a game of soccer with a sausage dinner and his favorite German beer, and wake up early the next day to supervise the largest shipment of concrete ever (outside of military ventures). However, with one right turn, expectations are broken. What ensues is a series of phone calls which tells a story of mistakes, consequences, and the desperate necessity to always do the right thing.
I read a review in New Republic in which David Thomson used about a third to talk about the Welsh voice, referring to its emotional range.To sum it up, a Welshman can soothe any pain and promptly juxtapose with snarling fury. At the time, I was befuddled but as the film plays, Hardy's accent becomes its own character: its gentle coo calms, its hiss spits venom. Despite the gamut of reactions, the single consistency remains Locke's vulnerability, echoing through the car with every word.
As "Locke" ends, the camera overlooks the highway, showing the multitude of cars. I am reminded of the paradox, and I recognize the very real truth that a hundred stories are taking place simultaneously. Many mistakes are being made, some of them are being fixed up. Some people are just on their way home to catch the soccer match. Steven Knight's script manages to present the universal in a small scope. Through one man, a car, and a series of phone calls, we see our errors, our attempts to fix them, our hopes something good can come out of the next day. For ninety minutes, we can be intimate and vulnerable. At least, until the guy in front cuts us off.
If I had not a shift at work after my showing, I would've bought another ticket and seen this film again. Through an intelligent script and a fantastic performance by Hardy and supporting cast, Steven Knight directs a fantastic film. I implore you all, go see "Locke". Thank you for reading, I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.
Can I justify disliking a film that cleans up its own mess? No matter how confusing and irritating the last hour and a half has been, can I shoot it down if it resolves its plot points and most of its issues in a clever, funny matter? For some movies, I could answer positively. "Draft Day" is not one of those movies.
Kevin Costner plays Sonny Weaver Jr., the general manager of the Cleveland Browns, desperate to make the best draft picks to satisfy everyone: from the new hot-headed coach (Denis Leary) to the team's owner (Frank Langella) to the city of Cleveland itself. Who does he choose for his first pick: a quarterback that seems too good to be true (Josh Pence), a running back with a violent rap (Arian Foster), or a little-hyped, but passionate linebacker (Chadwick Boseman)? Obstacles are thrown in Sonny's path as he tries to make up his mind before time runs out.
The low-hanging fruit for criticism is style. While the film's extravagance celebrates the NFL draft in a way fans will enjoy, the quick editing and overuse of split-screen/wipe transition leave me annoyed.
Costner does Sonny no favors: his monotone makes the burdened and frustrated manager seem like a disinterested jerk. His relationships seem forced at best: a romance with his girlfriend (Jennifer Garner) lacks chemistry, and the mean-spirited way in which he interacts with his mother (Ellen Burstwyn) and regards his recently deceased father (explained in exposition) would get me slapped.
The movie attempts to convince us Sonny has some sort of managerial sixth sense which overrules all logic, but chooses to fumble back and forth in an attempt to keep the audience guessing. Sonny spends most of the movie trying to get information about the quarterback, and is given the perfect info early in the film, but what happens? He ignores it, fumbling between unreliable sources. When he, two-thirds of the way, finally looks at it, the movie regards the news as a game-changer. Indeed it is, but did we have to meander for thirty minutes to get there?
"Draft Day" isn't devoid of good performances: Boseman comes off earnestly, Leary, while under-used, brings his sharp-tongued swagger, Griffin Newman gets some laughs as an awkward intern, and Tom Welling gains sympathies as the Browns' current quarterback, threatened by the possibility of the rookie replacing him. They support the movie well; I sigh relief every time any one of them takes attention away from Costner. They're clearly enjoying themselves, trying to make the best of their small roles.
To sum it all up, the movie suffers from a weak lead, an inconsistent plot, and jumbled focus. However, the strong resolution and supporting cast wash the bad taste out of my mouth. Football fans will likely enjoy the technicals and design (as I type this, the draft plays on TV: the movie accurately grabs the tone). However, if you're not a big sports fan, this one won't sway you. I'd say stay at home and rent "Remember the Titans" again. Thank you all for reading, I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.
May has arrived and with it, my favorite time of the year (excluding December 1st- 26th): the summer movie season! It seems Marvel Studios is fully taking advantage, releasing not one or two, but three movies: The Amazing Spider-Man 2, X-Men: Days of Future Past, and Guardians of the Galaxy. Marvel has tossed its hat far in the ring, so they must have a lot of faith in their products right? Well let's look at the fruits of their first labor: The Amazing Spider-Man 2.
Andrew Garfield reprises his role as Peter Parker, or better known, the Amazing Spider-Man! A new villain named Electro threatens to use his mastery over electricity to leave New York completely without power and rule the city. Of course, it's up to Spider-Man to stop him, but not without balancing relationship troubles, his father's secrets, and the return of an old friend.
The first "Amazing Spider-Man" attempted to blend the carefree camp value of the 1960's comic with the serious drama and realism popularized by "The Dark Knight". Its execution felt jumbled; it's kind of hard to buy a giant talking lizard as a product of 2012 New York and not a comic book. The setting and atmosphere tried to be less flashy and more gritty, but when crane operators swing their cranes in a line strictly for Spider-Man's use...the suspension of disbelief takes a bit of a nosedive.
The sequel takes those extremes and stretches them further. The humor, action, and characters feel ripped straight out of a comic book; it's cheesy and hard to believe, but the actors and production involve themselves so much, it's impossible not to enjoy with the same childlike innocence. However, the main story ends up taking itself so seriously that it halts the movie, convinced the story and dialogue alone will carry most of the weight. This is my main problem.
The movie has four writers, and it shows. It tries to stuff so many plot points and characters; this doesn't make for drama, it makes for confusion. We are often reminded of other subplots within a subplot: a scene in a maintenance closet serves as a recap through all the developments of what just happened in the first act. It unnecessarily slows the movie down. The subplots pad the story out, whether it be through romantic cliches or crafting elements to tie up other plots. As a result, we receive boring dialogue, rushed exposition, and dull developments. It made most of the film trod at a snail's pace, leaving me disinterested.
What intrigues is Electro - the mixed bag. His role in the story is pointless: he can be completely cut out of the movie and the basic plot and themes would be untouched. However, without him the movie would be a complete bore! Through him, the movie returns to its comic book roots. The special effects are impressive, the action grand and suspenseful. The design does a great job of keeping the spirit of New York intact while inserting enough detail and change to make the comic-book feel work. The cinematography is crisp and angular, Spider-Man and Electro quip back and forth: the entire package feels just like I'm reading an old-school comic book. Yes, some moments are corny, but the movie is invested in the same way I was as a kid, questioning the world and learning through a simple, silly, innocent, and joyful lens. It's this tone with which I believe the movie works best.
Spider-Man doesn't brood like Batman; Peter doesn't psychoanalyze himself all the time. He just lives as best he can. Intellectual speeches don't create drama, and just because a character affords to be silly and goofy doesn't invalidate whatever struggle he goes through. In fact, it can be harder to remain positive and look hopefully towards the future during times of trouble. It doesn't have to be cheesy to entertain or cynical to be meaningful. I believe the movie understand this: all the cast is having a lot of fun, coming off genuine and invested. (Let me take an aside to praise Sally Field, whose resilient, vulnerable, caring, and sometimes even jealous portrayal of Aunt May fleshes out the character better than in any rendition I've ever seen.)
While the movie lies sluggish in the middle, I enjoy all the effort given by the cast and production team. They create a view of Spider-Man that finally seems comfortable in its own skin. We're still waiting for a knock-out balance of moving story and fun action, but by simple measuring of pros and cons, I recommend "The Amazing Spider-Man 2". I just recommend you keep a healthy supply of popcorn available during the middle. Thank you all for reading, I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.
Daniel's Final Comments
1) I came across people giving epileptic warnings on social media, and I feel it only responsible to say there are a couple scenes where strobe lights and quick editing can become a trigger to those susceptible. Sitting in the middle, these scenes did bother my eyes a bit, so I will offer this warning to those whom it may concern.
2) There is only one mid-credits scene; don't stick around until the very very end.
"The Amazing Spider-Man 2" trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbp3Ra3Yp74
