MR. HOLMES is a Master Class in Acting From Sir Ian McKellan

MR. HOLMES Review:

- MR. HOLMES is both exactly what you think it is and not quite what you're expecting. Yes, Mr. Holmes is a stately, magnificently-acted showcase for Sir Ian McKellan as an aging Sherlock Holmes. But no, it is not an intricately-woven, mind-bending mystery in the vein of the current BBC series. MR. HOLMES does have a mystery at its center, but the focus here is really on Holmes the man. And in telling that story - about an ailing legend looking to settle affairs while he still has time - McKellan delivers a mesmerizing turn. This isn't a rollicking adventure or a twist-a-minute mystery, but it is a meditative, artful film that invites you to sit back and just soak in its central performance.

Director Bill Condon has had an interesting and varied career - he's made small-scale dramas like Gods & Monsters and Kinsey, musicals like Dreamgirls, and even directed two Twilight movies. But MR. HOLMES is squarely in his wheelhouse - a small movie that focuses on a central, iconic protagonist. I found the structure of the film interesting. The bulk of the film gives us a ninety-something Holmes living in 1940's England. Holmes has moved away from his beloved Baker Street, now residing in a seaside home where he lives in relative isolation - save for his housekeeper, Mrs. Munro, and her son Roger. But the film also flashes back to twenty years earlier, when Holmes was still active as a detective. The focus in these flashbacks is on Holmes' final case, one that sent him into premature retirement. Without spoiling anything, the interesting thing about the case is that it's not an epic clash with an arch-nemesis or a dangerous investigation into criminal activity. Instead, it's a very small, very human case that exposes something about Holmes' character - something that makes him question the man he's become. But now, ninety-something Holmes has forgotten the details of the case - a problem complicated by increasingly worse memory loss. And yet, Holmes - whose career was long documented and sensationalized by his old partner Watson - now seeks to write down his own life story, in his own words, while he can.

There's so much to say about McKellan's performance here. He is so convincing as a very elderly, memory-addled Holmes that it's almost a relief to see him playing the slightly younger, much more spritely version in the flashbacks. But as the older Holmes, McKellan is masterful. Still possessing of a keen intellect and sharp wit, it's a joy to see the flashes of the world's greatest detective emerge. It's also a joy to see the relationship between Holmes and his housekeeper's son Roger. Roger, nine or ten years old, idolizes Holmes and is eager to learn everything he can from him - even if most of Holmes' adventures now consist of beekeeping and taking an occasional dip in the ocean. Even as Roger forms a bond with Holmes, his mother disapproves. Increasingly having to act as a nursemaid, Mrs. Munro talks of leaving Holmes' employ for greener pastures. Laura Linney is excellent in the role - while we as an audience can't help but sympathize with McKellan's Holmes, it's also easy to see why tending to him would be frustrating. McKellan, all the while, is funny and likable - but also often heartbreaking. As Holmes vainly searches for cures to help with his memory loss - even traveling to Japan because of the rumored potency of weeds from the Hiroshima blast-zone - you can't help but feel sad at seeing this fading legend struggle to come to terms with his own mortality. When we flash back though, we get to see a still-nimble, even cocky Holmes at or near the height of his powers. Now a verified living legend, it's pretty amusing to see Holmes' bemusement at his celebrity status - he even drops in on movies about his life and smirks at the inaccuracies.

The greatness of MR. HOLMES is almost entirely tied to the greatness of McKellan's performance. The small tics, the annoyed grunts that symbolize a man who's seen it all, the flashes of recognition and genius that shine through a clouded mind. It's a master-class in awesome acting. Condon knows enough to keep the focus on McKellan, and he further adds to the proceedings with gorgeous shots of the English countryside, as well as evocative scenes of Baker Street and 1920's London. The only thing that really keeps the movie from being a classic is that the story feels too slight. The details of Holmes' final mystery are mostly beside the point - but still, it would have been nice for the mystery to have a bit more bite to it. I did also like all the references to Holmes lore - there's a lot of fun stuff here, from brief glimpses of Mycroft to mentions of various classic Sherlock cases. At the same time, it would have been nice to get a bit more detail about relationships - like that between Holmes and Watson - that are more hinted at than fully explored.

MR. HOLMES isn't necessarily the epic "one last adventure"  story I'd envision, if you told me that there'd be a movie about the last days of Sherlock Holmes. But that's okay. This is a quiet and contemplative film, but it's also a powerful one - an elegy to a great man who, in his last days, finds the humanity in himself that he'd thought to be long-lost. McKellan does Oscar-worthy stuff here. Highly recommend this one to anyone who wants to see one of the greats at his best.

My Grade: A-

TERMINATOR GENISYS Turns Heavy Metal Into Pop

TERMINATOR: GENISYS Review:

- Maybe it's just the times we live in, but man, I really wanted the new Terminator to be good. We're living in an infantilized age, where as adults we are spoon-fed the same PG entertainment as kids, and we tend to lap it up. So in the age of the PG tentpole movie, I occasionally yearn nostalgically for the glory days when movies like Terminator 2 provided R-rated carnage that, to a generation of kids and teens, put some proverbial hair on their chests and showed them that action movies could deliver more hardcore thrills than whatever sanitized, family-friendly funtimes Disney happened to be peddling. And so, there's something existentially sort of depressing about getting a new Terminator flick that on one hand tries to pay homage to the original James Cameron films, yet on the other hand feels very much like a product of our PG-ized, four-quadrant tentpole times. This is the heavy-metal Terminator franchise as pop-song remix. And not a very good one at that.

TERMINATOR: GENISYS has some elements that could have made it a worthy entry in this franchise. The smartest thing the movie does is it brings back Arnold Schwarzenegger as an aged Terminator, who in this film's timeline has been protecting Sarah Connor since she was a girl. It's a clever way to bring Arnold back to one of his most iconic roles, but in a way that takes into account his advancing age and plays off of it in a fun way. Arnold is the best thing about the movie - the man has always had a gift for spouting off droll one-liners, and his performance here is vintage Arnold. He's got a fun father dynamic with Sarah, and Schwarzenegger seems excited to be back playing a cyborg. But even the mighty Austrian cannot save the film's convoluted and ultimately silly script.

Time travel on film is always tricky business. But what makes it work is the usage of solid internal storytelling logic. GENISYS is severely lacking said logic. Without spoiling anything, the main characters seem to use time travel in a way that fundamentally makes no sense. Not in a nitpicky way, but in a blatant way. Like, why are characters in a hurry to time-travel to the future when the very act of time-traveling makes time relative? Why are they traveling to a specific point that is so close to doomsday that our heroes are now encumbered with a self-imposed countdown clock to save the day? They could have traveled literally days - or months - or years! - earlier and saved themselves the headache.

If the wonky time travel stuff was the movie's only issue, it wouldn't be a total loss. But the time-travel problems are indicative of a script that is just way too careless and hokey and not in keeping in the spirit of Terminator. This is a franchise about evil-as-crap looking robots who want to kill us all. So when we meet the ultimate manifestation of Skynet - the movie's big bad - it's hard not to feel underwhelmed.

The cheesiness also extends to the movie's romantic subplot between a younger-than-we're-used-to Sarah Connor and her sent-from-the-future, would-be savior Kyle Reese. The original Terminator movie did a great job of showing the two's blossoming, apocalypse-tinged romance. Here, there is little chemistry between the two leads, and the predetermined nature of their hook-up is more of a box to tick than a genuinely interesting part of the film. I'm a huge fan of Emilia Clarke as Daenerys Targaerian on Game of Thrones (who isn't?). She's solid here, but even the biggest Emilia Clarke fan has to admit that she seems a bit miscast as badass-female icon Sarah Connor. Ably played in the past by Linda Hamilton - and then by Clarke's GoT castmate Lena Heady in an underrated turn - Clarke's version of the character is more comic-book fantasy version of female hero than the tough-as-nails, legit-badass warrior that Hamilton played. But Clarke still comes off a lot better than Jai Courtney as Kyle Reese. I'm not a total Jai hater - he's been good on occasion. But this is Jai at his most Jai - bland, charisma-less, and utterly forgettable as a hero. Jason Clarke also feels somewhat miscast as messianic John Connor. Unfortunately, previews spoiled the movie's big twist about Connor, but ultimately it doesn't matter that much because this version of Connor is quickly reduced to the part of sneering villain. You've got to feel bad for Clarke, because his role is totally thankless. At one point, he moves in to attack Sarah and Kyle, and they pointedly mention that he can't kill them, or else he'd cease to exist. His response is something along the lines of "it doesn't work that way!" Um, okay. I've also heard some reviewers give praise to JK Simons as a loopy cop who witnessed the first Terminator time-travel incident way back when. It's another instance, to me, of the movie taking a great, very likable actor and giving him a pretty poorly-written role. JK does his best with it, but I found the character to be sort of a waste of time within the context of the film - more comic relief when what the movie really needed was more legit badassery.

As much as I've been ragging on GENISYS, it is occasionally enjoyable. There's some fun action, and watching old Schwarzenegger kick-ass, take names, and even square off with a younger version of himself is pretty fun. When I wasn't thinking about things like plot, character, or justificatoin for this movie's existence, I found myself enjoying some of the movie's more visceral thrills. I love the whole Terminator universe, so sure, part of me was happy just to visit it once more. If nothing else, this one is faster-paced and more dumb-fun entertaining than the Christian Bale-starring Salvation misfire from a few years back. This is a cast you want to like (well, Jai Courtney excepted, perhaps), and director Alan Taylor gives the film a sleek (if somewhat bland) look, with some of the future-set scenes in particular being pretty legitimately eye-popping.

But as a franchise re-starter, TERMINATOR: GENISYS is a near-total bust. The film left me with little interest in future sequels, and gives little to chew on after first viewing. What's funny is the the film tries to do the whole Marvel big-post-credits-reveal thing, but the big cliffhanger reveal is very forgettable. Interestingly, the cancelled-too-soon Sarah Connor Chronicles series on FOX was able to explore the Terminator mythology with a lot more depth and darkness than this movie does. It really does feel like the candy-colored little sibling to the original films - Terminator for the whole family! But in creating this slick, CGI-filled beast, they've lost sight of why Terminator was a sensation back in the day. It was dark, grim, badass, rock n' roll. And it was surprisingly smart in its storytelling. This one tells you what you need to know in its title. Not because it's the genesis of a Terminator revival. No, it's because they spelled "genesis" with a freaking "y."

My Grade: C

DOPE is, In Fact, a Super Dope Movie

DOPE Review:

- Dope is the kind of movie that has "breakout" written all over it. It's got several performances that - if there's any justice in Hollywood - will be star-making. And it's a movie that should put writer/director Rick Famuyiwa on many more people's radars. The film - a potent blend of comedy and drama - is a Big Lebowski-esque neo-noir set in the rough neighborhood of Inglewood, CA. It tells the time-honored story of a regular guy getting in way over his head, getting roped into a crime story that he had no intention of getting roped into. But what's unique here is that Famuyiwa brings an amazing sense of authenticity to what is also a stylized and over-the-top film. The characters and setting all feel real and lived-in - as much a legit and vibrant slice of Los Angeles culture as Lebowski.

If The Big Lebowski was a stylized look at Los Angeles' middle-aged hippies, stoners, and burn-outs, DOPE is an almost-as-stylized look at a group we haven't much seen in pop-culture until now: the urban geek. DOPE's hero, Malcolm, is an African-American, inner-city nerd. A smart dude who eschews trying to be gangsta for a look that pays homage to his 80's and early-90's-era retro hip hop and rock heroes. He's in a nerd-rock band, he reads comics, and he looks like he walked out of a Kid n' Play movie. He runs with a group of other inner-city outcasts - including Diggy, a brash lesbian, and Job, a shy, mixed-race geek - who also serve as his bandmates. Malcolm is a good kid - he's trying his hardest to graduate high school, get into a good college, and get out of Inglewood. But things take a turn for the not-so-great when he and his friends decide to attend a party thrown by a local drug-dealer. The reason, of course, boils down to a girl who Malcolm is crushing on. But the result is that gunfire breaks out, a drug deal goes bad, and the dealer ends up stashing his drugs in Malcolm's backpack. Suddenly, Malcolm is caught up in a conflict that he wants no part of. And things only escalate from there. Malcolm - a quiet guy who usually keeps to himself, is now caught up in an insane world of drugs, sex, violence, and people who want to kill him.

Malcolm is played by Shameik Moore, and it's a fantastic central performance. Moore totally sells the comedy of the film, but he also gives Malcolm a lot of heart. We really root for the guy, because we are made to understand just how precarious his future is - if something happens that jeopardizes his college admission interviews, he's potentially seriously screwed. Later on in the film though, we see Malcolm grow. He becomes more assertive, more take-charge, and even a bit ruthless in his dealings. In the Big Lebowski, The Dude is the Dude and always will be. But in DOPE, Malcolm is a character that does change a lot over the course of the film. Meanwhile, there's an equally knockout performance here from Kiersey Clemons as Diggy. A loyal friend and take-no-crap individual, Diggy is a great character, and Clemons completely shines in the role - threatening to totally steal the movie. Tony Revolori is also really good as Jib. The three as a group have a great chemistry. The movie has some other strong supporting performances, and some familiar faces pop up, including Zoe Kravitz and Blake Anderson of Workaholics. But the three leads really make the movie.

DOPE is bursting with energy, and Famuyiwa really does a great job of blending tones and styles to create an effective genre mash-up. The movie is often very funny - with some really strong, memorable dialogue. And it's dense - it's the kind of movie that packs a lot in, and that can only benefit from re-watches. There's also some really kinetic action, and a lot of intensity as Malcom increasingly finds himself a target for all manner of shady types.

My one issue is that the movie's ending, to me, falls a little flat - in particular, with a fourth-wall breaking scene that feels like too much of a departure from what we've seen before. The movie goes down some interesting roads that make Malcolm and his friends a little less likable than they start out - and I also wonder if the movie goes a little too far, and perhaps doesn't realize how Malcolm's actions will cause shifting audience sympathies. Regardless, there are a couple of points in the film where I think the movie could have ended, and it would have provided a more effective exclamation point to the story.

But man, DOPE is one of the must-see indie movies of 2015 so far. Its characters and its setting are brought to life with such vibrancy that it inevitably will stick with you. And there's a humor and intelligence and energy to the movie that really makes it pop. This is a unique voice being given a forum to speak, to tell a story - and in today's world of cookie-cutter films, that to me is pretty damn dope.

My Grade: A-

ME AND EARL AND THE DYING GIRL Is the Emo Teenager With a Good Heart of Movies

ME AND EARL AND THE DYING GIRL Review:

- This is one of those tough movies to review. A blatant tearjerker, ME AND EARL AND THE DYING GIRL is very effective at tugging at the ol' heartstrings, but it does so in a way that occasionally feels a little emotionally manipulative and a little too self-consciously indie-emo-quirky for its own good. That said, strong performances, unique presentation, and a general likability elevate it above standard teen melodrama fare. This is a movie aimed squarely at the awkward, gawky, slightly-pretentious teenager inside all of us.

Thomas Mann plays Greg, a high school loner who's decided to avoid conflict as best he can by staying under the radar and keeping human connection to a minimum. His one friend (who he refers to as his "co-worker") is Earl (RJ Cyler), a truth-spouting fellow outsider who shares Greg's love for classic movies. Together, the two make an endless series of knowingly quirky film parodies - but their movies are a secret from everyone but Greg's eccentric college-professor dad (a winning Nick Offermann). One day, Greg's Mom (an equally winning Connie Britton) urges her son to hang out with Rachel (Olivia Cooke), who's recently been diagnosed with leukemia. She sees it as an act of charity, and Greg sees it as an annoying obligation. And Rachel, upon first meeting Greg, is in no great hurry to spend forced hang-out time with a random guy who's never previously been all that friendly to her (her mom, played hilariously by Molly Shannon, is much more excited about the whole thing). But Greg and Rachel hang out, and slowly but surely, they form a close bond - with Earl in the mix as well. The three become an unlikely trio of friends, but the specter of Rachel's increasingly debilitating illness looms over them.

The central trio of Mann, Cyler, and Cooke are all extremely likable and turn in some really excellent performances. Cooke in particular has been impressive of late in everything she's been in, from her role on Bates Motel to the underrated The Signal to this film - she always brings a lot of unexpected depth to the characters she plays. And she really wins you over as Rachel. Cyler too is really great as Earl. He comes from a rougher neighborhood that Greg, and doesn't wallow in the same sort of self-pity as his emo friend. Cyler is really funny, and Earl's straight-talk style provides a lot of the movie's best moments. Now, Mann is quite good as Greg. But his character is the hardest to really like of the main three. Greg feels too much like an amalgam of every high school movie geeky-protagonist cliche. He's got his high-school mapped out into easily-definable clicks? Check. He's got a pop-culture reference for every occasion? Check. He's got a cute girl that seems super into him but for some reason he ignores her because clearly he's not even in her league even though he's basically just a normal if slightly-awkward dude? Check and check. Greg can be annoying at times, but to Mann's credit he does layer in some genuine acting and emotion beneath the obligatory layers of quirk.

And as I alluded to, the movie's supporting players are fantastic. Offerman, Britton, Shannon - all excellent as Greg and Rachel's parents. Jon Bernthal also does very solid work as a sympathetic teacher.

Director Alfonso Gomez-Rejon also does a lot to elevate this one above the teen-drama competition. Greg loves classic movies, and although it feels slightly cliche-ish, Gomez-Rejon makes it work by infusing this film with a palpable sense of fun and genuine affection for the films that its protagonist is so obsessed with. Seeing Greg and Earl's many film parodies could have been tedious, but they are presented with such a sense of whimsy and creativity that you can't help but dig 'em. Throughout the movie, Gomez-Rejon pays tribute to and slyly plays with classic film conventions as well - in the way that he shoots certain scenes and in the way he occasionally subverts expectations with the story. Credit also to writer Jesse Andrews (who adapted the screenplay from his own novel) for crafting a story that makes an effort to be a bit different.

Still, I do think that the movie is occasionally too movie-like and self-referential for its own good. The film tries at once to be authentic-seeming and slice-of-life, but also cinematic in a clearly-this-is-a-movie way. A lot of scenes - including the film's affecting but far-fetched climax - feel overly-contrived in a way that can undermine the film's stab at capturing authentic teenage life. By that same token, I think that Cooke helps elevate the role of Rachel, but there is still an element of manic-pixie-dreamgirl-ness to her that at times makes her feel like the classic only-in-the-movies dorky guy's dreamgirl. 

Overall though, I liked ME AND EARL AND THE DYING GIRL, and its charms won me over despite some of my reservations about the film's slightly-trying-too-hard quirk-factor. The movie is indeed a charmer, and it successfully choked me up a couple of times thanks to a fearlessness at going all-in with its premise and not shying away from sadness and pain. Through it all though, the film balances out the melancholy with wit and humor and likability. Yeah, it's heightened and emo and a little *much* ... but what teenager isn't?

My Grade: B+

INSIDE OUT Is a New Pixar Classic

INSIDE OUT Review:

- To distill complex ideas and concepts into easily-palatable art that can be enjoyed and appreciated by all ages is no easy feat. And yet, with INSIDE OUT, the geniuses at Pixar do just that. They create a film so thematically rich and resonant that I have to say - it left me somewhat floored. This isn't the first film or TV show to look inside someone's head and anthropomorphize emotions. We've seen it in works from the old sitcom Herman's Head to Epcot Center's defunct ride Cranium Command. But never has a look inside a person's head been realized - visually or thematically - with this much thoughtfulness and artistry. INSIDE OUT is not just the best Pixar movie in years, it's right up there in the top two or three films that the storied studio has ever produced.

INSIDE OUT takes us inside the mind of young Riley, a girl who's been uprooted from her life in the Midwest to hilly, hippy San Francisco. The trauma of the move, combined with all of the normal preteen anxieties and awkwardness, means that a lot is going on inside Riley's head. And the film shows us how all of that plays out by going all in - showing us the inner workings of Riley's mind via personifications of Joy, Sadness, Fear, Anger, and Disgust.

The movie brilliantly conveys how these core emotions develop from infancy and through childhood, to the point where, in the preteen years, they once again begin to evolve and change. Watching the film from an adult perspective, there's an undeniable sense of nostalgia-tinged sense of loss in seeing Riley slowly stray from childhood innocence into pre-adult hyper-awareness of reality. Wonderment and imagination is supplanted by stress, social anxiety, familial frustration, and all-too-acute self-awareness. The effect is like watching a band make intricately composed music out of a few basic notes. It helps that the emotion-characters are so amazingly realized. Their designs are perfect - totally embodying - simply yet effectively - what each represents. And the voice-acting is similarly fantastic. Amy Poehler is award-worthy as Joy - spunky, caring, determined. But what's really interesting here is the interplay between Joy and Sadness. Sadness, voiced in a memorable and at times heartbreaking performance by The Office's Phylis Smith, is perhaps the film's most stand-out character. In part because Smith makes her both painfully reflective of the way in which we actually feel sadness, but also because the movie emphasizes just how important Sadness is in order for a person to experience Joy. The two characters are companions in the movie, just as the two emotions are intertwined in Riley's brain. It's a powerful idea that's at once both simple and incredibly layered - that in order to be well-rounded, empathetic people - we need to be able to experience and understand sadness.

There's a deep sense of nostalgia for childhood innocence in the film - it will likely have you thinking back to formative moments of your childhood in a way you likely haven't in a long while. But INSIDE OUT is also an incredibly fun and funny film. Louis Black was a standout to me as Anger. As with the other emotions, Anger seems to perfectly embody the way in which our own rage-meters actually get triggered. But man, Black is also hilarious in the role, serving as a red-hot rage-machine counterpoint to the sullen Sadness and peppy joy. Meanwhile, Mindy Kaling's snarky Disgust and Bill Hader's neurotic Fear round out the movie's comedic trio. When Joy and Sadness leave Riley's control center on a mission to prevent catastrophe, the scenes of Disgust, Fear, and Anger left to haplessly hold down the fort are consistently off-the-charts funny and entertaining.

What's also interesting is that, even though we get such a complex look at what's happening inside Riley's head, that fact never really undermines how great of a character Riley herself actually is. Riley could easily have felt like a walking puppet whose strings are being pulled. But instead, she feels fully-drawn and someone that we really, really root for. We just want her to turn out okay, and we cringe whenever Anger or Sadness or Disgust takes over and seems to derail her from being happy and her best self. Similarly, we can't help but feel a sense of loss as we see her growing up at the expense of childhood flights-of-fancy, like her almost-entirely-forgotten imaginary friend Bing-Bong (voiced amusingly by the always-great Richard Kind). But again, what's great is that while Riley's emotions are universal, she herself is still a very specific character. That means that the movie can have some real fun when it shows us fleeting flashes of other people's heads. The results are often really funny, but it's also sort of poignant to see how we can all be so different and yet so uncannily alike. This is a film that espouses empathy, and it does so in a deceptively smart and nuanced way.

INSIDE OUT would be an impressive film just by virtue of how spot-on it is in its representation of our memories, thoughts, and emotions. From the way our unconscious mind creates dreams and nightmares, to the way that an earworm ad jingle can get lodged in our brains, INSIDE OUT feels dead-on with its incredibly well-thought-out depiction of the human mind. Visually, Riley's mindscape is gorgeously rendered, with every aspect seemingly thought through to the last detail. At the same time, we never care about Joy and the rest of the emotions at the expense of Riley.

I could rave about INSIDE OUT for many more paragraphs, but I'll just compliment by saying that the film itself works in the same way as Riley's emotions do. This is a film that goes to some surprisingly dark and somber places, but in doing so it rewards us with true joy and heartfelt emotional connection. It's Exhibit A of what separates Pixar's best from the rest of the animation pack - they don't take shortcuts to get us emotionally involved in their stories - they don't hold back or pull punches, and that makes the payoff that much more meaningful. INSIDE OUT is a movie that will tug on the heartstrings of even jaded adults. But more importantly, there is an important and brilliantly-realized message here about understanding ourselves, and in doing so understanding and empathizing with others.

My Grade: A

SPY Is the Best Melissa McCarthy Vehicle To Date

SPY Review:

- I've been a fan of Melissa McCarthy for a long time now. I loved her on Gilmore Girls way back when (yes, I'm a "Gilmore Guy"), and thought she was hilarious in early breakout movie roles in Bridemaids, This Is 40, etc. But I've also been weary of this multifaceted comedic actress being typecast repeatedly as the blue-collar slob who falls over a lot and gets the easy laugh. Not that there's anything wrong with that, per se - but too many movies have forced McCarthy into one-note, one-joke roles that quickly wear thin. But SPY is perhaps McCarthy's best starring movie role to date - she gets to play a multifaceted character who is smart and capable, but still funny and flawed. She also gets to play a part that not-so-subtly takes jabs at the actress' prior film roles, and the Hollywood system that to an extent forced her into them. It speaks to the fact that SPY is a much smarter movie than the marketing perhaps let on. It's also much funnier. It's a testament to McCarthy, to the strong supporting cast, and to director Paul Fieg - a guy who knows how to portray likable underdogs as strong, fully-fleshed-out, subversively funny characters. So don't write off SPY until you've seen it - it's deceptively good.

In SPY, McCarthy plays Susan Cooper - a CIA agent stuck with an unglamorous desk job, providing support and intel to Jude Law's James Bond-like Bradley Fine. But when things go wrong on one of Fine's missions, McCarthy is forced to go into the field to identify the mysterious badguys who took him out. And suddenly, the woman who everyone underestimated and condescended to gets a chance to show that she can handle herself like a boss.

It could have been cheesy and groan-worthy, but SPY handles its premise cleverly and with a keen sense of self-awareness. McCarthy's Cooper is still goofy and self-effacing, but we also get to see a side of her that is at times downright badass and not to be trifled with. A lot of the fun comes from the great dynamic between Susan and Jason Statham's would-be super-agent Rick Ford. Statham is basically playing a parody of the typical Jason Statham character ... and he's absolutely hilarious. We know that Statham has comic chops - witness the Crank movies as a prime example. But he himself has never really been the butt of the joke like he is here, and it's an unexpected turning of the tables. Law is also a standout here, as is Miranda Hart as Susan's more-awkward desk-jockey CIA friend. Hart and McCarthy have a really fun best-friend chemistry going.

The film works on a lot of levels. It's got some really fun action scenes, and functions well in general as a parody and homage to the spy genre. But it's also got an upbeat, positive message about defying stereotypes and breaking out of the cycle of being "typecast" in life. Some of the jokes don't land, and there are elements that feel a bit clunky (Rose Byrne gives her all as the villain, but her character is all over the map). But Feig (who also wrote the film) again proves himself as someone who can take ideas that seem generic on the surface, and really give them an added layer of depth both from a comedic and thematic perspective. SPY is one of the big, pleasant surprises of Summer 2015.

My Grade: B+

TOMORROWLAND Espouses Optimism, Causes Cynicism

 TOMORROWLAND Review:

- There's a strong underlying message to TOMORROWLAND, and there's a lot, on the surface, that makes this a likable, easy-to-root-for film. This is a movie 100% designed to appeal to our sense of nostalgia for the future that never was, and for me - and I suspect many of you - that is a pretty easy button to push. It's funny - I think my generation may have a unique perspective on the all-too-quick evaporation of the utopian-future dream. Growing up on the east coast, trips to Disneyworld were a once-every-four-years, super-special occasion for me and my family. And with that sort of gap between visits, it was easy to spot - even as a kid - the way in which Disney's original vision of the future was changing in relation to how we saw it in our popular consciousness. Sure, the original vision of Disney and its utopian Tomorrowland was born of a post-war society - with visions of jetpacks and robot maids ingrained in the hopes and dreams of young Baby Boomers. But growing up in the 80's - raised on re-runs of The Jetsons and countless other new and recycled utopian visions - that World's Fair dream still felt very much alive. As a kid, even a passing familiarity with the darker, apocalyptic futures becoming popular in more adult sci-fi fare didn't faze me. That seemed like pure fantasy, with the utopian, robot-maid vision of the future seeming to be where we were actually headed. That was reaffirmed when visiting Disneyworld: Tomorrowland was still named as such in a very literal sense. That is, until it wasn't. A few years later, and Tomorrowland was re-branded as "the future that never was." Suddenly, as if almost overnight, the once-wondrous visions in Tomorrowland and Epcot Center seemed outdated and quaint. Flying cars, friendly robots, and colonies on the moon? In the emerging world of the internet, such flights of fancy seemed, sadly, obsolete. 

But man, the pull of that once-promised world is strong. And TOMORROWLAND, the movie, zeros in on that same feeling that many of us dreamers have had for a long time: where did it all go wrong? How did we go from a world where technology promised us an incredible, utopian tomorrow to a world where, at best, each new tech innovation seems only to amplify the worst aspects of our society? TOMORROWLAND argues that the original vision of Disneyland, Disneyworld, Epcot - and the whole post-war utopian dream - is not quaint or silly, but still valid, and possibly more vital than ever. And in a world that seems to yearn for hope and change, the timing seems apropos. It's a powerful, timely message, and on the surface a movie that beams that sort of positivity out into the world is one that I want to get behind. 

The problem is that TOMORROWLAND is 100% surface-level. It hammers home what's on its mind in excruciating detail, in the most unsubtle, on-the-nose way possible. There's almost zero subtext here - the film is heavy-handed and, I'm sorry to say, pretentious. It too often feels like watching a college freshman's essay on everything I said in my opening paragraph play out in movie-form, unedited and unfiltered. And I hate to say it, but this sort of thing has, by now, become a recognizable trademark of screenwriter Damon Lindelof. We saw it with the final season of Lost, we saw it with his follow-up series The Leftovers, we saw it with his scripts for Prometheus and Star Trek: Into Darkness. By now, a sci-fi script from Lindelof follows a clear structural pattern: 

a.) The premise of the film is introduced in a vague, mysterious (some might use the term "mystery box") manner. Even though there's nothing inherent to the plot that demands it be presented as a mystery. Everyman characters are introduced who are thrust into a situation they don't understand.

b.) The main characters ask a bunch of questions trying to solve the mystery, probably because they've met an all-knowing character (of mysterious origins) who soundly refuses to answer any of their questions. Repeat ad nauseum.

c.) The mystery is built up over such a prolonged period that whatever the "answer" is, it can't possibly live up to our expectations. Suffice it to say, the "answers" are revealed far too late in the story, and ultimately prove vague and unsatisfying. 

d.) This leads to both the creators and some ardent fans claiming that the story was never *about* the mystery, even though the vast majority of the movie/TV show was spent setting up said mystery. Since so much time was spent on mysteries, unanswerable questions, sketchily-defined mythology, etc. - this means that the endgame will undoubtedly contain either huge info-dumps or very hasty character reveals. 

TOMORROWLAND is incredibly Lindelof-y in just about every way possible. It's frustrating, because I think Lindelof does have a knack for stories that do a fantastic job of setting up their own premise and that create an intriguing sandbox. But seeing this movie only a week after the bar-setting Mad Max: Fury Road, it was hard to stomach TOMORROWLAND's contrivances. Fury Road so elegantly set up a rich fantasy world, told a powerful story, and layered its action and characters with thematic depth. But TOMORROWLAND is both a structural mess and thematically confused. Let me try to explain.

Okay, so here's the first thing about TOMORROWLAND. It's ostensibly about a bright, utopian vision of the future. Its premise involves an enlightened society created by scientists, visionaries, and dreamers - a real-life Tomorrowland - hidden away in another dimension, full of wondrous inventions and general awesomeness. But TOMORROWLAND, the movie, is actually pretty dark. We barely glimpse the movie's fictional Tomorrowland, at all, throughout the movie's entire run-time. Our main character, Casey (a really great Britt Robertson), is a teen girl who lives in a bleak, perpetually grey world - our world, America, 2015. She spends her time finding ways to foil the shutdown of various NASA locations - because in our dark and gloomy world, there's no place for a space program. Most of the movie takes place right here, in our world. So imagine The Wizard of Oz, except you actually see Oz for about ten minutes, and the rest takes place in black-and-white Kansas. We don't meet any of the dreamers who founded Tomorrowland or who eventually populated Tomorrowland. The only real remnant of Tomorrowland that we do spend time with is George Clooney's Frank Walker, who for 95% of the film is an insufferable grump. I meant it when I said this movie has structural problems. It spends so long on the "mystery" of the movie that it pretty much never gives us the good stuff - namely, the thing that's in the movie's title. It's why, despite the movie's final message of hope and optimism, I found it to be, in actuality, a pretty cynical-seeming film. By spending so much time showing us how much *our* world sucks, TOMORROWLAND actually undercuts its own intended message, and is dominated by a bleak tone that's contrary to what the movie actually seems to *want* to convey.

A lot of the issues here come back to the structure of the film having major problems. The movie starts and ends with an expository wraparound that feels completely extraneous - not a great sign. Then, the movie opens - for reals this time - with a very over-long prologue showing a young Frank first discovering the secret of Tomorrowland, after a detour at the 1964 World's Fair. Then we meet Casey, and a mysterious girl named Athena who's recruited Casey for a special mission. Early on, we get glimpses of Tomorrowland, when Casey finds a pin that, when touched, shows visions of the otherdimensional utopia in its space-age prime. But mostly, we get a road trip movie - following the mismatched trio of Casey, middle-aged Frank, and Athena - trying to get back to Tomorrowland while on the run from mysterious pursuers. Why are they being pursued? Why do they have to go back to Tomorrowland? Why did Frank leave in the first place after discovering it as a boy? What's up with Athena? All of these questions are dealt with (or not dealt with, to be precise), in an endless string of non-conversations that see Casey asking a bunch of questions, Frank doing the grumpy, I-just-want-to-be-left-alone, but oh-wait-I'm-actually-a-good-dude schtick, and Athena playing the Obi Wan role. This all leads to an eye-rolling third-act scene in which Hugh Laurie, as the ominously-named uber-villain Nix, monologues the entire plot, premise, and themes of the film after about two hours of "mystery box" storytelling. It's the info-dump to end all info-dumps. But what's worse, it's not just an info-dump, but as I said (to borrow a phrase I've seen in some other reviews), it's a theme-bomb. Hugh Laurie spells out, in no uncertain terms, exactly what the movie is about. 

It's a shame that Tomorrowland itself isn't more prevalent in the film. When we do see it in full - in the prologue and later via Casey's pin - it's pretty spectacular. And this brings me to director Brad Bird. Like many, I'm a big fan of Bird and think he's a pretty incredible (no pun intended) visual stylist. So it's no surprise that TOMORROWLAND is at its strongest when Bird has the opportunity to really let loose and go big. In particular, Casey's first full-on foray into Tomorrowland sticks out to me as a highlight, and as a demonstration of the promise of the film's premise. Brad's vision of Tomorrowland is a sugar-high realization of that utopian world that Disney promised us way back when: gleaming spires, jet-pack stations, hovering monorails, cascading fountains, space-age design, colorfully-clad citizens. It's a place buzzing with visual marvel and eye-popping innovation. Brad gives us a hyper-speed tour of Tomorrowland in a dazzling sequence, and it's worth the price of admission just to see this on the big-screen.

The film's other most dazzling effect is actually the fantastic performance of young Raffey Cassidy as Athena. I don't want to spoil too much about her character, but Cassidy is 100% believable as a girl who is older and wiser than she looks, and who is uber-competent and capable yet also supremely charming. Cassidy quite frankly steals the show as Athena. As mentioned, Britt Robertson is also a standout. Bird and Lindelof (and co-writer Jeff Jensen, of Entertainment Weekly) clearly wanted to make her a young-adult heroine in the Spielbergian mold. Single-parent household, precocious younger sibling (ironically played by Pierce Gagnon - who played a robotic boy on the TV show Extant), NASA hat that she has at all times, handy with technology? Check, check, check, and check. But hey, I'm a sucker for Spielberg kid-protagonists, and Robertson is great in the role - carrying a lot of the weight of the movie on her shoulders. 

But here's the other thing - and again, it's a question of weird structural issues: Robertson's Casey very quickly becomes a largely passive hero. And by the film's end, she's completely sidelined. It's indicative of how broken the movie's entire third act really is. But it's also a shame, because Casey is really who we're set up to root for the entire film. Not only that, but over and over, we're told (flat-out told) that she is special. She is "the one" who will save Tomorrowland from Nix. But other than just being generally plucky and idealistic, Casey is never given the chance to really do much of anything to live up to that claim. Meanwhile, Clooney's Frank hogs a lot of her spotlight, but his character's arc feels entirely forced. Because Frank's backstory is kept a mystery for so much of the film, his late-game about-face from grumpy cynic to world-saving hero is pretty unsatisfying, and feels unearned. Chalk up some of it to Clooney being miscast. The guy gives great intensity, but whimsey isn't really his strong suit. I kept thinking what a Tom Hanks or the late Robin Williams could have done with this role. Clooney doesn't seem well-suited to portray a guy who rediscovers his inner-dreamer. But the script also doesn't do him any favors. 

Clooney's oddly-intense performance also speaks to the general tonal weirdness of the movie. Like I said, much of the film feels oddly bleak for a story that espouses the virtues of utopianism. It really could have used some fun characters to make this feel like more of the swashbuckling, Spielbergian sci-fi adventure movie that it at times wants to be. It almost seems like Brad Bird is grasping at straws to mine whatever Spielberg-esque moments of real fun and adventure that he can from the dour script. That gives us moments like Casey's action-filled encounter with two over-the-top badguys (played by Keegan-Michael Key and Kathryn Hahn) who run a sci-fi nostalgia shop, Blast From the Past. Or her and Frank's daring escape from Frank's tricked-out house, as they face off with creepily-fun robotic adversaries. Both of these set-piece action sequences are fun as hell, and Brad Bird totally nails 'em. But the fun and humor of those scenes feel like they belong in some other, better movie. And both happen early on in the film. Ultimately, that sense of fun and adventure becomes drowned out by the script's dourness and pop-psychology preachiness. At its highest points, TOMORROWLAND is a rip-roaring, nostalgia-tinged adventure that feels like a mash-up of the best live-action Disney and Amblin films of the 80's. Which makes it all the more frustrating that so much of the film is a heavy-handed slog.

I've seen some people who enjoyed TOMORROWLAND lash out at those who didn't - the haters, it would seem, are in fact the same sorts of doom n' gloom naysayers that the movie lambasts. But that generalization is unfair. I love the *idea* of TOMORROWLAND, and I wholeheartedly dig the message espoused at the film's end - a sort of call to action for we as a a society to dream big and work together for a better future. I can get behind that. And certainly, I've long been inspired by the Disney version of the future, even once it resigned itself to merely being the future that never was. I mean, there's a vintage Tomorrowland travel poster hanging above my desk as I write this. But a nice message doesn't automatically make for a good movie. And this is a movie that repeatedly undercuts its inherent possibilities, by dwelling too much on all the things that it *didn't* actually need in the text. All the mystery-box stuff. All the heavy-handed thematic reinforcement. They ultimately seem to just get in the way of telling a good story that fully delivers on the movie's premise. The result is a film that actually feels cynically-made, in contrast to its purported message. 

So for now, at least, the best way to feel the magic inherent in the idea of Tomorrowland is still, I think, to go to the theme parks. There, the nostalgia-tinged, retro-cool vision of the future that Walt Disney and others envisioned can still be experienced firsthand, without all the other baggage that the movie brings to the table. And if it upsets you that the film's vision of a future run by idealists and dreamers is somehow being marred by critical reviews, I say take comfort in the fact that us dreamers and idealists will still be here dreamin'. One movie's quality isn't going to change that.

My Grade: C+