EX MACHINA Is a Riveting Robot Frankenstein Story

EX MACHINA Review:

- If you're into dark, psychological, head-trip-inducing sci-fi (and who isn't?), then EX MACHINA is a must-see. This is the movie Chappie wishes it could have been - a clever, ultra-intense Frankenstein-inspired fable about sentient robots, man vs. machine, and about what it means to be human. Written and directed by Alex Garland - the man who wrote the scripts for genre-film fan favorites like 28 Days Later, Sunshine, Never Let Me Go, and Dredd - EX MACHINA firmly establishes Garland as one of the canonical voices doing sci-fi films today. The guy is the real deal, and he brings the same sort of visionary skill to directing that he does to writing. Tension-packed and mind-expanding - while still focusing on character - EX MACHINA is a first-rate mind-%$#& that I can't recommend enough.

In many ways, the film has the trappings of a stage play. It takes place in a single location, and focuses almost entirely on three main characters (though a fourth eventually becomes a significant factor in the story). The plot sees a brilliant, slightly geeky young coder for a huge, Google-like corporation whisked away to its CEO's remote, top-secret underground compound - after being chosen in a company-wide lottery granting its winner rare access. The coder, Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson), is unclear of what his purpose is as the guest of his enigmatic tech icon boss. But when he meets Nathan (Oscar Isaac) - the man behind the curtain - he soon finds out. Hidden away from prying eyes, Nathan has been conducting groundbreaking research into AI and robotics - and in doing so he's created the remarkable - and remarkably human-like - artificial being known as Ava. Nathan wants Caleb to test Ava - to spend sessions with her determining just how high-functioning her AI really is. Is there still an uncanny valley between Ava and a real human woman? Or has Nathan successfully erased the line between natural and artificial life?

The movie takes plenty of time to just let Caleb and Nathan bounce off of each other, ruminating on all manner of philosophical issues. But with actors the caliber of Gleeson and Issac, it works. Both are fantastic in the film, but what adds an extra layer to every scene of the film is the obvious tension that underlines their dynamic. Isaac's Nathan is clearly a bit off his rocker, but we're never quite sure just *how* far. Is he a well-meaning, brilliant inventor, or a dangerous Doctor Frankenstein? Whatever the case may be, he's clearly a wild-card, and his unpredictability - and Caleb's nervousness around him - keeps you on your toes. But the movie's most mesmerizing aspect is most definitely Ava. Played by newcomer Alicia Vikander, Ava is as fascinating for us to observe as she is for Caleb. Vikander plays her to perfection. Ava's movements are measured and deliberate - robotic at times. But there's also a spark of life in her eyes that is undeniably more-than-mechanical.

I've got to give a ton of credit to the movie's f/x team. In a decidedly non-flashy, stripped-down movie, Ava is nonetheless a next-level revelation, and a miracle of art/costume/character design. A mix of human flesh, mechanical limbs, and exposed mid-section wiring, Ava's artifice is on full display, yet so is her all-too-human face and expressiveness. That odd, can't-take-your-eyes-off-her allure is on full display in her scenes with Caleb. At first, the two engage in standard sorts of AI limit-tests. But soon, their relationship becomes less about AI patterns and more about much more human concerns. Is the developing friendship between them genuine? An AI-aided illusion? Or is it, in fact, a manipulation by Ava in order to create an ally for herself? The same sort of psychological tension that's present in the Noah/Caleb scenes is also there in the Ava/Caleb scenes. And that sets up a gripping cat-and-mouse game between the three leads. Who can trust who? What's real, and what's illusion and/or deception?

At times - with its atmospheric lighting, pulsing synth score, and constant sense of bird-on-a-wire tension - EX MACHINA almost feels like a horror movie. And sometimes, in its most genuinely disturbing moments, it straight-up is one. The film doesn't skimp on science or science-fiction trappings, but it is above all else a dark, Frankenstein-esque parable about humans playing God and Creator vs. Creation.

Garland proves himself here as a director - making the most of a confined location, but still giving the film a big, sweeping feel. The exotic locale in which Nathan's compound is hidden feels suitably epic - it's surrounded by waterfalls and soaring mountain ranges. The inside of the compound feels eerily claustrophobic and mysterious - a corridor-filled maze of locked rooms and real and metaphorical skeletons-in-the-closets. But to me, Garland still truly shines as a writer. There are obviously some familiar elements in the story of EX MACHINA, but Garland does a great job of keeping things unpredictable. There are certainly nods to the likes of Blade Runner and other genre classics, but the movie never copies those stalwarts. The film is filled with jaw-dropping twists, but Garland wisely eschews some of the more overdone tropes of this sort of film, while still acknowledging them as possibilities and having some fun with audience expectations. This is the rare twisty movie where the big revelations feel appropriately huge, yet never forced. And Garland brilliantly continues to escalate things throughout the film. By the end, the movie is just gloriously, giddily insane - but, again, in a way that makes sense given what's come before.

EX MACHINA is an instant contender for the sci-fi movie cannon. It's one of the best films about AI and robots and man vs. machine that I've seen. It's thought-provoking, scary, cool, and even darkly funny at times (actually, surprisingly often). Ava is an instantly-iconic robot, and Vikander kills it in the role. Isaac and Gleeson nail their parts as well - a good sign for Star Wars given that both star in future installments. But this ain't Star Wars. EX MACHINA is a does of real-deal, old-school, Twilight Zone-esque sci-fi. A dark parable that deserves to be seen by many.

My Grade: A-

IT FOLLOWS Is a Retro Horror Gem

IT FOLLOWS Review:

- The recent indie-horror renaissance continues - and IT FOLLOWS is the new standard-bearer. Paying homage to the classic John Carpenter-style horror movies of the 80's, IT FOLLOWS feels like a spiritual successor to recent cult-favorites like House of the Devil and The Guest. And it joins those films - plus The Babadook, You're Next, etc. as proof that we are in a new golden age of thoughtful, genre-bending thrillers. But this isn't just a me-too horror flick. On the contrary, this is a film that genuinely blew me away with its ingenuity and cleverness. In a world that still feels a bit too saturated with cheap jump-scare horror, this is one that more about creeping-dread atmosphere than stuff jumping out at you and loud noises. That's the kind of horror I love. And if you like old-school creep-fest horror, then you absolutely have got to check out IT FOLLOWS. It's the sort of movie that effortlessly sticks it to the more slickly-produced, bigger-budgeted blockbusters and says "actually, *this* is how it's done."

IT FOLLOWS establishes the rules of its nightmarish premise with elegant simplicity. A spectral force is out there, haunting its chosen victim. It's invisible to all except its target, and it can appear to that person in any form it chooses. It could look like a random person, or like a friend or family member. But it follows its target with methodical precision. It walks, and walks slowly. But it never stops. And if it reaches you, it will kill you. The other wrinkle is that one becomes the creature's prey when it is passed on via sexual intercourse. In turn, the only way to stop being stalked by the creature is to pass it on to someone else. It's the ultimate STD. Sleep with the wrong person, and you become the target of an unwavering, unstoppable invisible killer.

After an absolutely harrowing opening, the movie shifts focus to its protagonist, Jay - a nineteen year old girl who becomes the creature's latest target. Jay is played by Maika Monroe, who is quickly becoming the new queen of indie thrillers, after starring in both this and the seminal The Guest. Monroe is fantastic here. She is the perfect actor for these throwback films, as she's got a knack for capturing just the right left-of-center, subdued (but, eventually, wide-eyed and creeped-out) tone that gives her performances that vintage 80's feel. She's the kind of actress that you'll willingly follow into any sort of down-the-rabbit-hole weirdness. But she's also someone who has an inner spirit that makes you believe she just might be able to turn the tables on whoever or whatever is after her.

And that's part of what makes IT FOLLOWS so fun. Jay and her friends aren't just passive victims. In grand 80's fashion, the kids band together and try to come up with ways to outsmart and outmaneuver their invisible stalker. It all culminates in an insanely fun climax that sees Jay and her friends making a ballsy last-stand against her tormentor.

Writer/director David Robert Mitchell is clearly one to watch. He shoots IT FOLLOWS in a vintage, evocative style that is an incredibly refreshing change of pace from most of what's out there today. Rather than quick cuts and lots of sound-and-fury, this film is all about creating an ominous atmosphere. Mitchell seems to inherently get how to do creepy right - and he fills IT FOLLOWS with a number of memorably disturbing shots - often lingering rather than cutting away from the object of dread. The dread and intensity becomes even more heightened thanks to the awesomely moody synth score, which only adds to the overall Carpenter-ness of the film. It's funny, the movie seems to be set in the modern day, but if not for the presence of a few modern touches, the overall setting (think 80's-style suburbia) and set-design would make you think we'd traveled back to 1985. So if, like me, that sort of thing floats your boat, get ready for a film that - aside from just being awesomely atmospheric and creepy and intense - is also a bonafide bit of retro goodness.

On that note, IT FOLLOWS is indeed a horror movie, but it's also got a real coming-of-age film vibe as well. Geeky crushes, first loves, and sexual trauma are all in there. Sex in this movie is scary in more than just the usual adolescent ways. And you can debate what if any significance the nature of the movie's premise has. Regardless though, there is certainly an overall theme of creepy-suburbia - that staple of 80's teen flicks. The idea that behind a facade of bland normalcy lies untold, barely-contained terror. And there's also loss of innocence. These latch-key kids are at once not-quite-prepared for adulthood yet also forced to grow up fast. They have to come to terms with certain truths on their own, and all they really have is each other. I don't think it's an accident that there are no real adults in the movie. IT FOLLOWS is unabashedly a movie about teenage wasteland turned upside down.

IT FOLLOWS is the sort of creative, passion-filled movie that, as a writer, is downright inspirational. Seeing how much David Robert Mitchell does on a low budget makes you want to sit down and make a movie in a similar vein. This is one that gets the job done with a great premise, boatloads of atmosphere, and a clear and genuine affection for the genre and its tropes - but with a desire to have fun with convention and be innovative. This is also one of the flat-out best, creepiest, coolest horror movies of the last several years. It's quick cult-status is well-deserved. If you haven't seen it yet - get to it.

My Grade: A-

-

WHILE WE'RE YOUNG A Funny But Narrow Take on Gen X vs. Gen Y

WHILE WE'RE YOUNG Review:

- WHILE WE'RE YOUNG is the latest entry in Noah Baumbach's apparent quest to chronicle all the various phases of adulthood. I've been on sort of a Baumbach high ever since 2012's seminal Frances Ha, which to me is arguably the director's finest work to date. Co-written with GenY girlfriend Greta Gerwig, Frances Ha was a funny, moving, all-too-real-feeling ode to post-collegiate angst. But While We're Young takes Baumbach squarely back to documenting his own generation, the now-in-their-40's, increasingly crotchety members of Gen X. This one treads very similar ground to 2010's Greenberg - and not only because the two Baumbach films share a star in Ben Stiller. The two films both deal heavily with generational conflict, with once-cool Gen X'ers coming to terms with the fact that they've kinda-sorta become the actual adults they vowed they'd never be. Luckily, Baumbach still has a lot of comedy to mine from these types of stories, and he's got a great cast that really embodies the types that the director seeks to skewer. The problem, of course, is that the movie takes place in such a specific universe that it falters when trying to make broad statements about Gen X vs. Gen Y. But as a character study - and as an honest look into what's going through the mind of Baumbach these days - the film is funny and entertaining.

Ben Stiller is Josh - a mid-40's filmmaker in New York who has been stumbling around for ten years trying to complete an ambitious (and thematically vague) documentary project. After a promising early career start, Josh's perfectionism and fear of failure has led him into a certifiable rut. Additionally, stubborn pride has prevented him from asking for help or advice from his father-in-law (Charles Grodin), a revered documentarian. Josh's wife, Cornelia (Naomi Watts) seems to have her professional life more in order. But she shares Josh's seeming disconnect with their square-ish lifestyle. Both Josh and Cornelia (who tried to have kids, but couldn't) are weary of their friends' endless talk about their children. They see their friends' lives becoming boring and predictable, and they see that despite not having kids, they are being pulled into that by osmosis. It's why both become oddly intrigued by Jamie (Adam Driver) and Darby (Amanda Seyfried) - a young twenty-something hipster couple who meet Josh at a college lecture. Jamie - an ambitious would-be filmmaker - claims to be an admirer of Josh's, and Josh is flattered to have someone who looks up to him rather than down on him. The new friendship leads Josh and Cornelia down a rabbit hole of weird, spontaneous, hipster activities - from sewer hikes to acid trips. And for a while, they feel better and more alive than they have in a long time. But are Josh and Cornelia just playing at being something they're not? Are Jamie and Darby really what they seem?

The movie smartly grapples with a lot of questions about authenticity. Josh sees himself as a perpetual struggling artist, but he lives a life of domestic comfort, and seems to have lost a lot of the artistic spark that once drove him. His never-to-be-finished movie seems more like a last connective thread to his younger days rather than a still-breathing project. It's only fitting that Josh's uber-domesticated, longtime friend Fletcher is played by the Beastie Boys' Adam Horowitz. Seeing the rebel-rap icon now graying and in cardigans is sort of emblematic of Josh's existential crisis. At the same time that he bemoans the state of his own generation, Baumbach also seems to take some satisfaction in sniping at the next one. He paints Jamie and Darby as outwardly carefree hipsters who are actually coldly and nakedly ambitious and cut-throat. Their interests seem quirky, but their goal is all about hitting it big and cashing in - and they get that in a way that Stiller's 40-something Josh still refuses to acknowledge to himself with regards to his own muddled ambitions.

Baumbach has some really fascinating observations. In a socially-networked world where anyone is just a click away, are there any more barriers between us? Josh has years of pent-up frustration that prevents him from sitting down for an honest chat with his father in law. But Jamie approaches him without a care, and pours out his hopes and dreams - networking disguised as earnest admiration. For Jamie and Darby, the world is one giant mash-up of Tumblr and LinkedIn, and the insincerity of that - the self-promotion of it all - slowly begins to turn Josh against them.

Still ... whereas Frances Ha felt like a spot-on depiction of post-college twentysomething-ness, the young hipsters of WHILE WE'RE YOUNG feel a little too much like a forty-something dude's idea of what those younger than him might be like. Again, none of this would be at issue if the movie was *only* about Jamie and Darby as specific characters. But Stiller's interactions with them are colored by numerous declarations involving the pair as emblematic of everything right and wrong about their entire generation. And that makes it feel like Baumbach can't see beyond a certain bubble of privileged white urban hipsters as being somehow representative of their entire generation (see also: Girls Season 1). A minor but telling example of that tunnel-vision: Josh's declaration that the younger generation fills their homes with all the stuff (i.e. records) that his generation tossed in the garbage. Sure, there is the odd music fanatic that collects records, but really, is an entire generation of Millennials embracing old-media? Um, no. Small example, to be sure. But a baby boomer checking this movie out would have a very skewed and not-very-accurate idea of what today's twenty-five year olds are into.

Stiller has long been the posterboy for Gen X, so it feels fitting that he is again Baumbach's star in a movie where generational themes are front and center. Stiller has the ability to pull off earnest observational comedy, but also to get broader and more physical laughs, so he excels here in a role that demands both. The good thing about Stiller - and the movie in general - is that despite Josh's high horse attitude, the joke is still almost always on him. He, ultimately, is the asshole. Watts is also really good as Cornelia. She's always really good. And sure, the effect of growing older and being uncool is somewhat diminished when you're Naomi Watts. But Watts nonetheless makes us believe in her as someone eager to reclaim her inner free-spirit. Meanwhile, Driver and Seyfried are very well cast. Driver is the quintessential hipster bro - but there's also something slightly sinister about him (which should serve him well in Star Wars) that makes you always a bit suspect of his true motives. Seyfried is a walking modern-day flower-child, a manic pixie dream girl of the highest order. She does a nice job of making Darby a character whose whimsy hides some legit pain. Oh, and Charles Grodin is fantastic as a Boomer who is altogether above the fray.

WHILE WE'RE YOUNG has some really interesting things to say - and it's a fascinating peak into Noah Baumbach's mind. It does go a bit off the rails at times, but what keeps it honest is the fact that for every moment that feels preachy, there's a counter-moment that shows how, really, we're all full of $&%# regardless of generation. And perhaps there are far worse concerns for Gen X than those pesky Millennials. There's an absurdist, hilarious coda to the movie that underlines the idea that as much as pundits and older generations malign those born in the 80's and 90's, we've yet to even really consider what kind of world those born today are arriving into - a world that their Gen X and Gen Y parents have created for them. We like to pick apart ultimately inconsequential differences between age-groups. But what if we are truly the last ones born before a seismic shift in the way people behave? Kids born in 2015 won't know a world before iPhones. That's pretty crazy. WHILE WE'RE YOUNG can laugh at itself for the relative smallness of its characters' neuroses. And that's a good thing, because at times it does seem like Baumbach can get too caught up in the minutiae of it all for his own good. But I remain curious to see where this train of thought takes him as he documents the trials of the young and the formerly young.

My Grade: B+

The End Comes For JUSTIFIED

The End of JUSTIFIED.

"In the deep, dark hills ... of eastern Kentucky ..."

- There are those TV shows that dominate the pop-cultural discussion, and there are those that live just outside the mainstream, somewhere on the fringes. Each week, my social media feeds are dominated with discussion about the Game of Thrones of the world - but for several years now, the TV drama that's been at or near the top of my personal must-see, must-discuss, can't-wait-for-more list has been JUSTIFIED. Each season of the F/X neo-Western has upped the stakes, pitting our trigger-happy hero Raylan Givens against all manner of would-be crime-bosses, kingpins, and outlaws who mean to stir up trouble in Harlan County. The show began to hit its stride midway through its first season, and has never looked back. The show became increasingly serialized, and increasingly fleshed out its universe so as to populate it with the greatest, most eclectic, most memorable cast of characters of any series I've seen. JUSTIFIED is plain and simply the most badass show on TV - and with tonight's final episode, I can't help but feel that there's going to be a void in the TV landscape that's hard to fill. Even in the middle of a TV renaissance that has flooded our screens with great content, few series can match JUSTIFIED pound for pound. The writing, acting, direction is second to none. And the pulpy, Elmore Leonard-inspired tone is unlike anything else currently airing, and unlike anything we're likely to see again anytime soon.

There was a time where the highest of high art in TV seemed to be artlessness. Endless procedural series and would-be gritty dramas in the 00's subscribed to the idea that dialogue had to be short and terse, that characters had to be ill-formed, that direction had to have a you-are-there immediacy in order to resonate with the modern audience. We went from Bond to Bourne, from The X-Files to CSI, from David Mamet to Damon Lindeloff. But a decade later, shows like Breaking Bad and JUSTIFIED helped to usher in a new pulp renaissance - an era when pop-culture again felt free to get moody, stylized, and evocative rather than immediate. JUSTIFIED - based on a series of novels by Elmore Leonard - quickly distinguished itself as existing in a pulp-fiction world of modern-day gunslingers and outlaws. Sure, there are elements of the show that count as recognizable to us. In particular, whenever the action shifts to the more modern world of Lexington, Justified takes on the trappings of a more straightforward brand of crime drama. But when we enter Harlan, we enter a twisted world where, for all intents and purposes, the Old West yet lives.

The two diametrically-opposed forces in Harlan - Raylan and his nemesis/frenemy Boyd Crowder - are, like many great foes, two sides of the same coin. Both see themselves as of another era. Raylan the pistol-packing cowboy, Boyd the rules-don't-apply outlaw. It's fitting that the show's final season finally re-focused the plot on their rivalry, as the two have been circling each other for the series' entire run. There was a great line said about Raylan early on in the show's run: "you're the angriest man I've ever met." To me, that succinct description colored my perspective on the entirety of JUSTIFIED. At first, I couldn't understand the sentiment. As played by Timothy Olyphant, Raylan seemed downright jovial at times. His default mode was to be wearing a sly grin, with a twinkle in his eye. And yet ... beneath that smile there was, indeed, rage. And it revealed itself in small ways - as when Raylan's grin soured into a scowl - and in larger, more disturbing ways - as when, so often, Raylan would seem to take a strange joy in facing down death and in inflicting it. The kind of comfort that a man content with his lot in life likely wouldn't enjoy. Time and again, Raylan has seemed to welcome life-or-death stand-offs. Time and again, he's been drawn back into lonely and dogged pursuits of vengeance masked as justice - when he could have taken refuge with his family. In this final season, we are left wondering if Raylan really can find peace if he were to finally take down Boyd, or whether all that can really satiate him is the dance of death. Hard to believe that a character like Raylan can ever really settle down. And that's the film-noir of it all - the sense of being trapped by existential forces, unable to escape a doomed, repetitious fate. "You'll never leave Harlan County alive," says the song - a mournful ballad that's played in more than one of the show's season finales. And that may very well be true for Raylan. Certainly, it's proven true for any number of the show's less lucky characters. It may well be a prophetic statement for Boyd as well. Boyd has narrowly escaped death numerous times - but he's never escaped Harlan. This season has seen Boyd's pride and outlaw spirit keep him from making an easy exit and cashing out when he had the chance. Now, he's headed for a collision with Raylan that likely won't end well. But Boyd trapped in a corner has proven resourceful. Still ... he's never been this much in a corner - with even his steadfast best-gal Ava having turned against him.

A lot can be said about the performances of Timothy Olyphant and Walton Goggins on JUSTIFIED. Both have consistently killed it for years now. The lack of Emmy recognition is shameful. Olyphant was a guy I knew from a few movies, pre-Justified (don't worry, I later saw Deadwood). But he was the perfect Raylan - absolutely embodying the character and making him into a full-fledged TV icon. Walton Goggins has, over the years, become one of my favorite actors. You can't take your eyes off of him as Boyd. He's snake-like, unpredictable, cold-blooded, and yet oddly likable. When Boyd rallies the people of Harlan to whatever his pet cause of the day is, you get why they side with him. The man may be a criminal and a liar, but by god, he's Harlan through-and-through, and the Crowder roots run deep.

And roots have long been a pet theme of this show. Raylan has long been tormented by the Givens name. His father, Arlo, was a scheming, rotten bottom-feeder. And when Raylan wasn't actively dealing with his still-up-to-no-good dad, he was dealing with the long shadow that his family's bad reputation cast. But good or bad, family roots are like currency in Harlan. It's why its people are apt to trust a Crowder over an outsider. And indeed, a recurring theme of Justified has been the battles among Harlan's clan-like factions for power, as well as those clans' unlikely alliances when faced with a common, alien threat. This season gives us a classic example of the outsider entering Harlan and unwittingly biting off more than he can chew. Sam Elliott's Avery Markham is a big fish in a small pond - he should be able carry out his land-grabbing schemes relatively unopposed. But the rules work a little differently in Harlan County. If you don't have the homefield advantage, well ... like the song says. As is happening to all of America's hidden hideaways and enclaves, the forces of modernity are indeed closing in on Harlan. But that encroachment only seems to make the natives restless and feisty. They ain't going down without a fight.

This season has been a who's-who of badass character actors coming in as recurring villains. Sam Elliott - so often the noble elder statesman, is here the serpent-like, devilish Big Bad. And as Avery Markham, he's absolutely killin' it. Garrett Dillahunt and Jeff Fahey have been fantastic. And that's just the guest cast. So much can be said for the regulars. Aside from Goggins and Olyphant, special mention has to be given to Joelle Carter as Ava Crowder, the tough-as-nails, shotgun-toting antihero of the show. Carter's work this season has been phenomenal, and JUSTIFIED has become as much Ava's story as it has Raylan and Boyd's. Then there's the show's cult-favorite Wynn Duffy, played with smarmy, shady perfection by Jere Burns. Wynn is the show's human cockroach - a pervy, seedy, RV-dwelling slimeball who seems to be the show's single character immune to death. Burns has won fans by making Wynn the ultimate survivor in a ruthless world - a man who crawls away from scrapes by the skin of his teeth, but who never fails to get right back to the business of being a scuzz-bucket. Nick Searcy as Raylan's U.S. Marshall mentor Art has been one of the show's secret weapons, and delivered some of its greatest moments. Same goes for the uber-badass Tim, played by Jacob Pitts. He, Raylan, and Erica Tazel's Rachel have long formed a U.S. Marshall trifecta-of-awesome, cleaning up Harlan one lowlife at a time. Kaitlyn Dever is a real scene-stealer as young crime-boss-in-training Loretta McCready. Introduced in the standout season in which the Emmy-winning Margo Martindale played the Big Bad, Loretta has blossomed into a fan-favorite, gaining more gumption as she's aged, and becoming a surprisingly important player in the show's final season. 

For years now, JUSTIFIED has taken us to a heightened, pulp-noir, neo-Western world where modern-day cowboys and outlaws wage a neverending battle for the soul of Harlan County, Kentucky. The show has served as an ongoing tribute to the great Elmore Leonard - never shying away from bringing his pop-snap dialogue, outlandish characters, and grim morality plays to television in a way that always seemed to honor the spirit of the writer and his source material. In a world of written-by-committee scripts, JUSTIFIED had a singular voice, a singular style, that few shows ever have. That voice was Leonard's. And we saw it embodied every week in the darkly-humorous witticisms, soliloquies, and whip-sharp banter of Raylan, Boyd, and the rest of the show's larger-than-life denizens. The series took us to ramshackle hillbilly enclaves, Noble's Holler, Boyd's seedy bar hideaway, and any number of other distinctly unsavory locations. But most of all, it took us to Harlan. It took us down a road fraught with death and gunpowder, with backstabbing and feuding and square-dancing and booze and drugs and the ghosts of days gone by. These characters may never leave Harlan alive. But we'll have left Harlan the better for having visited. 

CHAPPIE Is B-Movie Silliness Disguised as High-Concept Blockbuster

CHAPPIE Review:

- Please don't suck. Please don't suck. Please don't suck. That is the rallying cry and internal monologue of film geeks as a much-anticipated movie begins - especially one in which the quality of the movie is far from guaranteed going in. CHAPPIE was a movie that I really wanted to be good. Really wanted to be *great*. I still will go to bat any day of the week for District 9. That movie blew me away back in 2009, and it seemed to send a strong message that its co-writer and director, Neill Blomkamp, was a major new voice in blockbuster filmmaking - here was a guy who was here to stay. Suffice it to say, the expectations for Blomkamp's follow-up, Elysium, were sky high. And the movie was ... meh. Blomkamp's visual flair was still evident, but the story felt flat and uninspired. With that in mind, CHAPPIE had a (possibly unfair) feeling of make-or-break for Blomkamp. Would it be a return to form, or another stumble? The stakes felt even higher with the news that Blomkamp would be directing the upcoming Alien sequel. Fans (myself included) wanted reassurance that that beloved franchise was in good hands. So ... here's the thing: I'm still pretty confident that Blomkamp can and will deliver the goods when it comes to badass sci-fi visuals and hard-hitting action scenes. At the same time, Chappie *really* makes me want to see Blomkamp teamed with some great writers on Alien and whatever other projects he tackles subsequently. CHAPPIE has some really cool visuals, but overall it's the weakest film Blomkamp has done to date. It's got script problems - big ones. And the result is a movie that ends up being jaw-dropping, but in all the wrong ways.

There are a lot of things in CHAPPIE that I admire in theory. I dig the basic concept - that of a police robot destined for the scrap-heap, salvaged by his creator and implanted with an upgrade that allows him true sentience. I like the visual aesthetic of the film, and the design of Chappie. In general, I'm a big fan of Blomkamp's gritty, 80's sci-fi-inspired design sense. I even like, in theory, the concept of casting the punked-out members of South African rap-rave band Die Antwoord as principle characters. I mean, why not? The whole film has an 80's sci-fi aesthetic, and a lot of beloved 80's genre movies have memorable appearances from musicians trying their hands at acting, from Bowie in Labyrinth to Isaac Hayes in Escape From New York. In theory, it's a bold, sorta cool movie. In theory.

But in practice, in the execution, so much of CHAPPIE ends up eliciting eye-rolls rather than fist-pumps. The story has numerous beats that feel off. Sometimes the film feels like it's straight-up ripping off Robocop. Witness Hugh Jackman as Vincent Moore - a loose-cannon engineer whose war-machine robot is pretty much just the ED-209. Sometimes, the movie seems tone-def about its characters. Die Antwoord's Ninja and Yo-Landi (playing odd alternate-universe versions of themselves) essentially go from being the movie's villains to its heroes without any real narrative arc driving that turn. And sometimes, as with the film's bat$%#&-crazy ending, the plot twists feel less like the work of a visionary and more like the fevered fan-fic of an overstimulated ten year old.

The underlying problem here is that Blomkamp seems to constantly be thinking about how best to deliver big, ain't-that-cool moments while also trying to infuse his films with legit social commentary and meaning. But the two halves do not form a cohesive whole. Without spoiling anything, I'll just say that, for example, I get how the movie's ending perhaps seemed cool - could have been cool - on paper. But in practice it's laughable, because there's no semblance of human emotion driving it. Stuff happens, and we - and the characters - are asked to just go with it without the slightest hint of dramatic weight or emotional resonance. It's the same reason why Ninja sort of sucks as an antihero. There's no depth to his character - nothing to make us find it in our hearts to root for him when all we know of him is that he seems like a relatively heartless tool. But he's punk and named Ninja, so I guess we're supposed to embrace him? Yo-Landi is at least a little more sympathetic - she seems to genuinely care for Chappie. But that's all there is to her. How did she end up with Ninja? Are they supposed to be a band in the movie? Why does she stay with him despite him seeming to be an abusive maniac? The characters here all feel like cardboard cut-outs. Hugh Jackman's Vincent is similarly confounding. I'm all for having a crazy, over-the-top badguy in this sort of film. But Vincent just does stuff without any discernible motivation. He wants his ED-209-esque war-bot to get approved for mass-production and deployment, and he tries to accomplish that - and quell fears that it's dangerous - by taking it on a joyride of mass-destruction? This is a movie largely devoid of recognizable human behavior. At one point, an enraged Vincent pulls a gun on his office-mate in the middle of a crowded cubicle farm -- and everyone seems pretty unfazed.

The office-mate who has the gun pulled on him is Dev Patel's Deon - who is initially set up to be the movie's main hero. But it shows how structurally broken the film is that Deon ends up disappearing for long stretches of the movie - letting the increasingly aimless Ninja and Yo-Landi take center stage. Deon is the young robotics rock star who created the line of police-bots that spawned Chappie. And a movie primarily about Deon teaching a newly-sentient Chappie about morals and humanity in order to fight off a soulless robotic force guided by Vincent could have been a fun sci-fi premise. But the movie gets so bogged down in everything else - in the Die Antwoord stuff, in endless scenes of Chappie learning to be gangsta (which often come off as just silly) - that by the third act we're not really sure *what* this movie is or what it's trying to be.

The one thing that CHAPPIE really has going for it is Chappie. The visual f/x around Chappie are honestly some of the best and most seamless motion-capture CGI I've ever seen in a film. At most points in the film, you'd be hard-pressed to say with certainty that what we're seeing is CG and not some sort of practical f/x work. Chappie looks fantastic, and a lot of that also has to do with the amazing mo-cap work done by Blomkamp regular Sharlto Copley - who voices and gives life to Chappie. Copley kills it. He not only makes Chappie feel real and alive, but he makes him likable despite a script that does him no favors, and that makes him grow from simple and child-like to omniscient super-being in a span of minutes.

CHAPPIE has some pretty solid action, but nothing in the same league as District 9. The big difference, of course, is that District 9 had a ton of emotional weight behind its big action set pieces. CHAPPIE - tone deaf as it is - more often than not fails to get the ol' adrenaline pumping. The basic building blocks of good action are there - Blomkamp knows how to stage some kick-ass asskickery. But the plot and emotional arcing of the movie is so all-over-the-map that it's often difficult to discern a.) character motivations, and b.) filmmaker intentions. Is a scene meant to be disturbing or fun? Are these characters supposed to be kewl or off-putting? And, oh ... couldn't the film have found a better use for the great Sigourney Weaver than just having her play a generic hard-ass CEO?

The more I think about CHAPPIE, the more I begrudgingly admire some of its weirdness. I mean, the fact that Blomkamp gives so much screentime to the (admittedly sort of fascinating) Yo-Landi and Ninja, the fact that Hugh Jackman's villain is a complete nutcase whose actions make no sense, the fact that the ending is so completely bugnuts insane - all of it sort of endears me to this movie. And if CHAPPIE were some weird midnight-movie oddity, then it might be easier to enjoy as just a strange B-movie in the vein of so many nutty sci-fi B-movies from the 80's-era golden age that Blomkamp clearly has an affection for. But this film clearly aspires to more than B-movie novelty. Like each of Blomkamp's movies to date, it wants to say things about society and class, and to have deeper thematic texture than your average sci-fi shoot-'em-up. And CHAPPIE - even more so than Elysium - just sort of falls apart as anything other than B-movie action. It goes to show that you can have the best f/x in the world - and the biggest of ambitions - but without a smart script and great characters, you're left with a dud. CHAPPIE, sadly, is a dud. You've got to give it credit for daring to be weird in certain ways, but you've also got to dock it points for being generic and brain-dead in too many other ways. Robocop this ain't. I've not yet given up on Blomkamp, and I remain hopeful that he can evolve into a visual stylist who helps breathe life into great scripts from other writers. But CHAPPIE is seemingly damning evidence that the guy can't do it all on his own.

My Grade: C

KINGSMAN: THE SECRET SERVICE Is Another Kick-Ass Action Flick from Millar and Vaughn

KINGSMAN: THE SECRET SERVICE Review:

- KINGSMAN is one of those everything-and-the-kitchen-sink action movies that, if you're of a certain geeky sensibility, is a guaranteed crowd-pleaser. Like many, I've become a big fan of director Matthew Vaughn over the last several years. And I think that the creative partnership of him and comic book writer Mark Millar is a winner. Millar is a guy whose books always interest me. He is one of the best premise people out there - his comics always stem from a great high-concept idea, and yet, Millar always puts character first. The one issue with Millar is sometimes that of tone. His comics sometimes, quite simply, go a little overboard in terms of delivering shock value - and the shock value can on occasion undermine the story he's trying to tell. Enter Vaughn, who is a perfect ying to Millar's yang. Vaughn has a knack for distilling Millar's stories down to their core themes - he keeps the gonzo action and over-the-top sensibilities, but tends to cut out the stuff that distracts from the big-picture storytelling. So here's the thing: I really dug Millar's comic miniseries The Secret Service, on which KINGSMAN is based. But I freaking loved the film. It's got incredible action, tons of self-referential wit, insane action, humor, and a number of incredibly entertaining performances. After a long delay and an underhyped theatrical release dwarfed by the behemoth that was 50 Shades of Grey, it might have been logical to assume that KINGSMAN was a dud. But - good news! - it's actually one of the most fun and flat-out entertaining action films in quite some time.

The basic premise here is that a London street kid called Eggsy (Taron Egerton) is recruited into a top-secret international spy organization by Harry Hart - aka Galahad (Colin Firth) - a veteran spy who once worked with Eggsy's deceased father. The members of said organization - The Kingsmen - are mostly recruited from the upper crust, and the standard agent is a James Bond-ian blend of dapper, suave, and impeccably posh. Suffice it to say, the lower-class Eggsy doesn't quite fit in, and seems a longshot to make it all the way in the group's series of recruitment challenges, designed to narrow down the field of rookies to a select few. But the Kingsmen will soon need all the help they can get: a mad man named Valentine (Samuel L. Jackson) - who happens to be the head of one of the world's largest communications companies - is formulating a plan that would cull the world's population, by mind-controlling regular people (via their cell phones, of course) and turning them into crazed, homicidal lunatics.

I was sort of blown away by KINGSMAN's script. There's a ton of plot, character work, and action packed into the film's running time, but nothing feel's overly rushed or truncated. I will say though, in an era of action movies in which plot is so often just "Big Bad trying to steal all-powerful item", it's pretty refreshing to see an action movie villain with a.) a well-thought-out scheme, and b.) actual conviction. Samuel L. Jackson's Valentine is a great villain - not just because Jackson is funny and fully committed to the part, but because there's a lot of thought put into his plans. It's not just the plotting that's impressive though. The character work is razor-sharp. The dialogue zips and zings. The characters each feel distinct and full of personality. The humor works. There's great quips and memorable lines aplenty. Good stuff all around.

Colin Firth kills it as Galahad. Many seem surprised at how well Firth adapts to action. But really, the Galahad character is sort of an extended riff on Firth's gentlemanly persona. And a big part of the fun of KINGSMAN is seeing Firth kick all kinds of ass in gentlemanly style. "Manners maketh man" is Galahad's credo, and that extends to everything from sipping tea to taking out a roomful of thugs. Firth really is fantastic though - it's one of the most fun and memorable action movie performances in a long while. He nails every quip, but also brings a lot of heart to the role - especially as pertains to his father-son relationship with Eggsy.

Taron Egerton is a huge find. He makes Eggsy anything but generic. Rather, the movie's protagonist is a street-smart, big-hearted hero-in-the-making who adapts in My Fair Lady fashion to the Kingsmen's ways, but who also holds strong to what he learned from the ol' school of hard knocks. I really admired that the film seemed to pull no punches with respect to the theme of class and class warfare - instead going all-in and making it a driving force of the film's plot and characters.

There are many additional noteworthy turns in the film. I'll mention Mark Strong, because he's just generally awesome, but also because he makes the Kingsmen's resident trainer and mentor figure Merlin an all-around badass. I'll also mention Michael Caine, as senior Kingsman. Caine is on point here, and has some surprising moments that are key plot drivers. And then there's Sofia Boutella, who plays Valentine's chief henchwoman - a fierce and fiercely loyal assassin with gleaming razors for legs. Yep, you heard me. Boutella is a villain for the ages - a pulp-fiction femme fatale who destroys in several action scenes that leave you on the edge of your seat.

The overall vibe here is reminiscent of Vaughn's Kick-Ass, but even more amped up - with a Tarantino-esque genre-mash, anything-goes feel. And again, the fact that the film has a few things on its mind - class, wealth, etc. - gives it a bit more meat to chew on than your average over-the-top action-fest. But action-fest it is. The movie is pull-no-punches violent and gory - but in a mostly cartoonish way that fits with the film's comic-book tone. Vaughn goes big - and he retains Millar's fanboyish sense of merry-prankster glee at giving the audience a little something extra with the action and gore. But there's also an almost Spielbergian optimism to the film that is not necessarily drawn from the comic. Despite the uber-violence, the big set-pieces and action beats are just plain fun, and almost entirely character-driven in nature. It's how the movie is able to pack so much in - every big action set-piece is jammed with great little character moments that advance the story while also being decidedly awesome.

KINGSMAN: THE SECRET SERVICE is one of the best cinematic surprises of 2015 so far. I hope the Vaughn/Millar collaboration continues, because the two definitely seem to bring out the best in each other. And while we're on the subject, I wouldn't mind seeing a KINGSMAN sequel. The characters and universe that the film introduces us to are so fun and likable that I was left wanting more. And that, to me, is the sign of an action movie's job well done. Manners maketh man, and Millar and Vaughn maketh another movie that kicks some serious ass.

My Grade: A-

JUPITER ASCENDING Is Flawed But Visually-Stunning Sci-Fi

JUPITER ASCENDING Review:

- It's funny ... back in the days when The Matrix ruled pop-culture, I never really counted myself as a huge fan of the franchise, or of the siblings who directed the film and its sequels. Only later, when the Wachowskis' work became less commercial and more esoteric, did I fully appreciate the duo's status as some of the last original voices working in blockbuster filmmaking. Speed Racer was the film that converted me. An ahead-of-its-time anime-come-to-life, the movie was a sugar rush of visual splendor matched with the giddy storytelling sensibility of classic animation on acid. Then came Cloud Atlas. That movie divided audiences, but won a passionate fanbase - myself included - for its unbridled ambition and go-for-broke mentality. Coming right at a moment in which blockbuster filmmaking felt more by-the-numbers than ever, Cloud Atlas was the rare film that melded next-gen visuals with big ideas and real thematic substance. Now, the Wachowskis continue to push limits with JUPITER ASCENDING. It's big, epic, uber-detailed space opera. It's the kind of story that, these days, might feel more at home in videogames or comic books - because it doesn't hold back on any of its inherent geekiness. To that end, the movie feels overstuffed and, often, hard to follow. But I refuse to jump on the bandwagon of those deriding it as out-and-out bad. No movie with this much visual brilliance or sheer spark of imagination could be called bad. As someone who finds it admirable that the Wachowskis are steadfastly sticking to original stories, I for one support the movie - and urge open-minded fans to give it a look.

JUPITER ASCENDING gives us a fairy-tale spin on space opera, casting Mila Kunis as the aptly-named Jupiter Jones - a hard-working, down-on-her-luck cleaning lady who discovers that her destiny lies not in cleaning well-off people's toilets, but in the stars. As it turns out, Jupiter is actually the reincarnation of an interstellar monarch. Since the original died, her god-like offspring battle for control of the family's holdings - namely, planets (including earth) that are used as harvest grounds for resources. Feeding off the populations of their planetary conquests, the intergalactic one-percenters kill and destroy as a means of maintaining their own power and immortality. So rather than play nice with her power-hungry quasi-family, Jupiter instead sides with a scrappy group of rebels looking to bring down the evil regime. Chief among them is Channing Tatum's Caine - a genetically-modified soldier who finds star-crossed romance in the maid-turned-monarch.

There is A LOT going on in this movie. It feels like we're seeing one small slice of a vast universe, and the result is a lot of disorientation. Some of that, I think, is cool. There's a sense of wonder I got from the movie bombarding me with random side-dishes of concepts and characters that, in some other film, would have been the main course. Oh, this movie has lizard people? And androids with video-faces? And soldiers whose DNA is spliced with that of animals? This movie sometimes comes off like the sci-fi equivalent of one of New York's hottest clubs as described by SNL's Stephon - there's a little of everything, and tons of weird $#%&. All of that would be all good - even sort of awesome, if it didn't seem to come at the expense of the story. For a space opera, the opera part feels a little soft. There's so much stuff jammed into the movie that the big character beats end up feeling glossed over, and the movie rarely has the emotional punch you want from a movie of this nature. Jupiter seems to take most things in stride, and Tatum's Caine is too stoic to give the film the sort of Han Solo-esque badassery it sorely needs.

Part of the problem is the casting. Kunis is good as the girl-next-door, but less so as the would-be Chosen One who helps to take down an empire. She handles the action ably, but never quite gives us much in the way of gravitas. Tatum is okay as Caine, but sort of bland. The boyish, All-American Tatum seems miscast as a brooding badass. Sean Bean seems more at home as Caine's grizzled mentor, but his character is one of the film's weakest - going from friend to foe with lightning speed and not enough dramatic weight behind his decisions. The real MVP of the movie is Oscar winner Eddie Redmayne as the angry-whispering despot Balem Abrasax. Camping it up to the extreme, Redmayne is a lot of fun as the film's pulpy Big Bad. He's one of the few in the cast that goes big.

But really, the star of the movie is its incredible visual f/x work and world-building. In IMAX 3D, the film is a stunner. In a world where so much of what we seen in blockbuster filmmaking feels like stock footage pulled from other genre flicks, the worlds of JUPITER ASCENDING are truly things of beauty. There's so much coolness going on here - the sets, the character design, the costuming - all of it is absolute eye candy - especially if you're into painterly sci-fi visuals (and I am). In turn, the action sequences in the film are pretty spectacular - with some fantastically-choreographed set pieces that remind us why the Wachowskis are among the best in the biz at creating unique and memorable action scenes.

JUPITER ASCENDING has so much raw potential. This is the kind of fictional world that feels well-suited to be a multimedia creation, that could and should be further explored in comics, videogames, etc. But there's just too much world-building stuff going on in the movie, and as presented in the film, it rarely feels coherant, or built on a solid foundation. I think the Wachowskis actually tell us too much. There's a power in these sorts of movies to letting the audience fill in the details. Think about Star Wars, and how a simple mention of "The Clone Wars" fueled fanboy imaginations for decades. The Wachowskis could have focused a bit more on the big, iconographic elements of their world and less on cramming in everything and the kitchen sink. At times, JUPITER ASCENDING has a surreal, Alice in Wonderland through-the-rabbit-hole quality. At times, it takes on the social commentary aspect of comedic dystopian sci-fi - think Terry Gilliam's Brazil (there's actually a lengthy sequence that is a direct riff on Brazil, and even features a Gilliam cameo). At times, it's pure blockbuster pulp in the vein of Star Wars. It's a pastiche of influences, to be sure. But it's all sort of a hazy jumble by the film's end. I wanted to see more of the world, but I still wasn't quite sure what this world was to begin with.

Still, there is so much imagination on display in this movie. I'd gladly take more JUPITER ASCENDING's and less cynically-made sequels or reboots. I say: shame on critics who call artfully-made films like this "bad." Open your mind and recognize that movies can have good aspects and less-good aspects, but that if they present you with something you've never quite seen before, then hey, that's something that's praiseworthy. Story-wise, JUPITER has some issues. But there's enough that's interesting and unique - even mind-blowing - in the film that sci-fi fans owe it to themselves to at least give this one a look - preferably on the biggest screen possible.

My Grade: B