Review: Cold in July

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★

Fans of “Dexter” will rejoice upon seeing “Cold in July.” It shows Michael C. Hall taking on a different kind of role than his forensic analyst by day/serial killer by night character from the popular Showtime series. What they’ll be most excited about is that “Cold in July” is a smart and mature film that has at least some semblance of resolution rather than the abomination that was Season 8 of “Dexter.”

“Cold in July” is set in East Texas in 1989. One quiet night, a burglar breaks into the home of Richard Dane (Hall) and his wife Ann (Vinessa Shaw). Attempting to protect his wife and young son Jordan, Richard loads up a pistol and nervously sets out to see who has broken into his home. In a panic, Richard shoots and kills the unarmed intruder.

The local police say the man Richard shot was Freddy Russell, a wanted felon. His father Ben (Sam Shepard) had just recently made parole from a nearby prison. Ben shows up and threatens Richard’s son prompting the police to get involved again in order to catch Ben and protect Richard’s family.

This is about the point where “Cold in July” makes a sudden turn and starts to go down a completely different and unexpected path. Enter Jim Bob (Don Johnson), a private investigator who will help us get to the bottom of mystery wrapped in lies and red herrings. The plot zigs and zags until the shocking and brutal truth is revealed before a violent and bloody third act.

Director Jim Mickle confidently directs this taut thriller. His sharp script, co-written by Nick Damici from the novel by Joe R. Lansdale, is full of cynicism balanced nicely with the right amount of wit and humor, albeit dark humor. The tone and time period in which the film takes place is nicely accented by a great 80s style score by Jeff Grace. And Ryan Samul’s cinematography is reminiscent of some of the 80s best thrillers.

Despite the film being full of mystery and plot twists, there are many holes within the script that leaves several unanswered questions. None of them are quite as ridiculous as, “Why is Dexter Morgan a lumberjack now?” but there are enough to leave you scratching your head.

Hall is great in his new role as an everyman concerned with the protection of his family and the questioning of his own masculinity. It’s a much different role for him than his well-known parts on “Dexter” and “Six Feet Under” but he blends in to it seamlessly. Seeing him struggle with killing someone was something I thought would be hard to get past since I know him so well in his serial killer role, but it’s not. He fits in perfectly here.

Likewise, the supporting roles from Shepard and Johnson are equally great. Both veteran actors bring something different to their roles. Especially Johnson, who is a welcomed addition to this film the moment he walks on screen.  It’s been awhile since he’s been in a role that was more than just a caricature. While this is Hall’s movie, Johnson ends up stealing many of the scenes in the film’s back half.

It’s not perfect, but “Cold in July” is a nice break from all the superheroes that occupy so many movie screens in the summer. There’s plenty wrong here, but its faults don’t necessarily hinder the plot at all. With so many twists and turns, it’s easy for a script and the director to lose focus. But Mickel has a good grasp on the story and the film’s theme to not let all the mistakes of the script diminish what is ultimately a very effective, intense and violent thriller.

Review: X-MEN: Days of Future Past

by. Joe Moss
★★★

There has been a lot of hype, Easter eggs hidden in other Marvel films, movie-teaser trailers...otherwise a TON of money poured into this summer's installment of the widely successful X-Man series. I can tell you this much...Bryan Singer and company do NOT disappoint. "X-Men: Days of Future Past" is over the top, introduces a few newer characters, and even allows for the return of fan favorites long gone. In short...IT IS AMAZING!!

Much as the trailers show, the movie begins 50 years into the future, with mutants being hunted to extinction by Trask Industries Sentinel destroyers. They are able to hone in on mutant blood (and track mutant sympathizers) to capture and destroy. It is a grizzly sequence of film right at the start and paints the future bleak for mutant and human alike. No part of the globe is unscathed by the rampant disregard for life that these AI creatures possess.

In a catch-22 moment within this beginning series of the film, Wolverine volunteers to do the impossible and is transported back through time to juxtapose with his former "1973 self' to stop a crucial event in the early inception of the Trask Industries military Sentinel contract. He must bring together Magneto and Professor X, as well as Raven/Mystique, Beast (Nicholass Hoult), and Quicksilver (Peter Evans) for this plan to have a chance. AND it must be accomplished in 5 days time. Will this crazy plot even work? Seemingly impossible, right...you will just have to wait and see how the movie ends.

Simon Kinberg (X2 and X-Men Last Stand) was brought back to finalize the screenplay (in a story collaboration with Jane Goldman and Matthew Vaughn who worked on X-Men: First Class). This writing team allowed the past decade of X-men films to have some crucial continuity and attempted to fix errors from the past. The story affords the next film (X-Men Apocalypse) to utilize whichever mutants it so desires to fight (you'll have to wait for the Easter Egg at the end of the credits to see the next villain).

While we have all come to expect Hugh Jackman to embody Wolverine 100%, I feel that he gets better with every film as he comes to understand the character--be Wolverine, not just look like Wolverine. Nevertheless, as great has Hugh is, Jennifer Lawrence (Mystique) steals the movie with every scene. Her ability to make the entire audience empathize with the twisted past of Mystique is truly amazing. She is confusing, passionate and lovely all at the same time. I hope that she is around for many films to come..albeit both of their required paychecks may stretch the budget in the future.

While I am a fan of the X-Men. and a fan of a few of the comic series, I cannot say that I have been 100% happy with all of the liberties taken in the films to date. I do feel that this film has attempted to rectify many problems of the original 3 (as well as the horrible Wolverine: Origins), by allowing for a complete reboot of the story-line by the end of the credits. Therein lies the best part of the movie--the final sequence allows for hope for the future of the X-Men franchise. It is a MUST see for this summer!! Go and enjoy with the entire family!

Review: Godzilla

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★

It seems to me that the monster movie genre would be one of the most difficult genres to screw up. Yet somehow Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin managed to do just that with their atrocious 1998 version of "Godzilla." Most of the film made absolutely no sense and paid no tribute to the original source material. Furthermore, it ruined the film careers of just about all those involved. Now, 16 years later, filmmaker Gareth Edwards tries his hand at Godzilla. His result is a vast improvement on the 1998 movie (which isn't very hard to do) but it still doesn't exactly feel very satisfying in the end.

Our main character here is Ford Brody (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), a Navy Lieutenant and member of the Explosive Ordnance Disposal team returning home to San Francisco from a mission overseas. His wife Elle (Elizabeth Olsen) and son Sam are happy to have him back, but their excitement is short lived. Ford is called up to go tend to his father Joe (Bryan Cranston) who has been detained by police in Japan for trespassing in a quarantined radiation zone. Joe is trying to prove that some “thing” caused a meltdown at the nuclear power plant where he worked 15 years ago. Of course no one believes him. 

And of course he's right. A team of scientists, lead by Dr. Ichiro Serizawa (Ken Watanabe) and Vivienne Graham (Sally Hawkins), is hiding a cocoon that feeds off the radiation of the former plant. The creature, which they call a Muto, breaks out and starts terrorizing everything. But something else knows that this Muto is here. A giant lizard from the sea that Serizawa calls Godzilla who only has one purpose: to prey on these creatures. 

"Godzilla" has all the makings of a pretty fantastic old school monster movie, but it ultimately falls short of being that great. It really has nothing to do with the story because the screenplay by Max Bornstein is surprisingly solid. There is plenty of rooting interest in these characters, especially since they dedicate so much time to setting up the back-story of the Brody family. It's pretty dark too with very little humor built into the script.

The problem is there are very few scenes featuring monsters in this monster movie. Isn't that what you want to see in a monster movie? One shot shows two monsters ready to engage in epic battle, but the camera is behind two doors as they shut. The last thing we see are these two creatures inches away from each other but we don’t see them fighting. Two big ugly monsters fighting each other is what makes the old "Godzilla" movies so entertaining. You won't hear me say this often but I think the thing that hurts this "Godzilla" the most is the story.

I find it hard to fault the movie for this, but I have to. The movie's title character doesn't even show up for an hour, and after that he’s never the star. You're paying for monsters fighting, and that's what they should be delivering. But where I'm torn is that the dramatic narrative is actually very polished. I find it very hard to fault anything like that, but this is an instance where “more monster/less story” would have been desirable.

Director Gareth Edwards hasn't done much else before being handed the large budget for this film, and he proves himself to be a success. He handles the well-developed script well and does not go overboard with his use of CGI. Sure, the monsters and the destruction they leave behind aren’t real, but it blends in seamlessly with the organic action in the foreground.

And the monster battles when we do get to see them are great and enormously entertaining. Edwards pays great homage to the original "Godzilla" movies by letting the monsters have at it with no regard to anything around them. Even the score from composer Alexandre Desplat has a nostalgic feel for the monster movies of old. But he doesn't maintain that old style throughout the film. He adds some nice dissonant cues to the more intense moments, which help prove that he's one of the best music composers working today. 

"Godzilla" is more than just a standard monster movie and it’s certainly better than any Roland Emmerich disaster film. There's a lot of depth in this movie, which is nice to see from a big budget studio picture. But that gets in the way of us wanting to see what we came to the movies to see. There's very little Godzilla in "Godzilla." I can't say I loved it because it didn't deliver what it promises by the title. The story is great, don’t get me wrong, but that’s not what we paid to see. It's supposed to be a monster movie, and that's not what this is.

Review: Neighbors

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★

Unlike my movie-reviewing counterpart Joe Moss, I was not involved in any type of fraternity during my college years. Sure, I attended an event or two but I wasn’t a member of that particular scene. I know nothing about the inner-workings of a fraternity, but I do know enough people who were members to know their lifestyle is being exaggerated for the sake of some cheap laughs in Nicholas Stoller’s new film “Neighbors.”

Seth Rogen is about as reliable as the come in Hollywood these days. You always know what you’re getting with him and “Neighbors” is nothing different. He’s good at what he does, but he never seems to branch out to anything else. He played himself in last summer’s hilarious movie “This Is the End.” He plays Mac Radner in “Neighbors” but I can’t tell the difference. I do still like him though and would consider myself a fan of his.

In “Neighbors,” Mac and his wife Kelly (Rose Byrne) have just moved into a beautiful new house in what appears to be a quiet neighborhood. They are brand new parents to the very adorable Stella. Mac and Kelly were hard partiers in their day and are looking to settle down and be good parents. But Mac can’t resist a good joint at work with his pal Jimmy (Ike Barinholtz) and Kelly desperately wants to hang out at raves with her friend – and Jimmy’s ex-wife – Paula (Carla Gallo).

Without any warning, the Delta Psi fraternity moves into the house next door. Immediately fearing that the neighborhood is about to become quite a bit louder, Mac and Kelly decided to head over to the house and come off as the hip and cool neighbors. They think that if they come across as “dope,” they’ll be able to convince their partying neighbors to keep it down. They immediately make friends with the fraternity’s president Teddy Sanders (Zac Efron) and vice president Pete Regazolli (Dave Franco).

Things start off pretty well with Mac and Kelly partying with the college kids all night long (great parents, right?). Teddy tells Mac if he has any problems with the noise to let him know personally and he’ll take care of it. He makes Mac promise him that he won’t call the cops if there’s an issue. But Mac calls the cops the next night anyway. This is a declaration of war in Teddy’s eyes. He’s planning to make Mac and Kelly’s life a living hell. But Mac and Kelly are also out to see the Delta Psi house get shut down as well.

The setting of Nicholas Stoller’s new film is something that resonates well enough with any current or former college kid (member of the Greek society or not) to be a modestly entertaining movie, but its own plot gets in the way of being as hilarious as it could have been. With every new Seth Rogen movie, I always go back to one of his first films, “Knocked Up.” That film came out at a time when audiences were still being introduced to Rogen, and his trademark antics were not as well known. Take the opening scene in “This is the End” when the random fan asks him to do the “Seth Rogen laugh.” Everyone knows that now.

But not only did that movie introduce the masses to Rogen, “Knocked Up” was also one of the best

comedy films made during the last decade. Judd Apatow proved to moviegoers that just because it’s an R-rated comedy film filled with hundreds of expletives and raunchy sex jokes, the movie could still have an enormous heart. Occasionally, you’ll get another movie that comes close to that (“Superbad,” “This Is the End”). So is it wrong of me to expect a raunchy sex comedy to actually be a good movie in addition to be entertaining, especially when Rogen seems to be in many of the good ones?

The problem with “Neighbors” is that it gets so lost in its own plot it almost forgets to push its theme across. My three-paragraph description of the plot above takes up about 25 or 30 minutes of screen time, which is also known as the first act. There’s still two acts and over an hour of movie left to go. At only 97 minutes, you’d think the film was already short enough, but it feels like it runs long.

The movie is filled with Rogen going after Efron, and then Efron going after Rogen, and back and forth. It’s a classic example of a comedic revenge story. One comment I saw online said that “Neighbors” was Dennis and Mr. Wilson all grown up. I couldn’t agree more. And what’s worse, the things these guys do to each other just aren’t funny. Are there moments of humor? Sure there are. Are they moments that leave you gasping for air because you’re laughing so hard? Only one. Just one.

“Neighbors” is filled with one college cliché after another. “Animal House” is still the definitive college film after all these years, and any other movie produced within that genre is an attempt to outdo it. “Neighbors” is a failed attempt. Each scene portrays the stereotype that fraternities nothing but sex crazed, drug addicted, alcoholic party animals. And while that might be the case for some people, those labels aren’t exclusive to fraternity brothers. The film probably could have still portrayed its messages – as vague as they are – without these over exaggerated and overused cliché.

And while “Neighbors” features Rogen doing what Rogen does, the real star of the film is Efron. Admittedly, I have seen very little of Efron’s work up until this point. I am aware of his Disney Channel beginnings and his desire to shed that image. It’s pretty hard to get rid of that image outside of leaking risqué pictures of one’s self to the Internet. Efron has done a lot of independent work to try and show a more grown up side, but this might be his first mainstream adult role.

And he turns out to be the movie’s best moment.  His character has a surprising amount of depth built into it. Efron portrays this role with great ease. This role and movie might very well have spoken to him more than anyone else. He’s a former teen heartthrob trying to move on to the next stage of his life and career, while also working on his own sobriety. This part works for him, and he plays it exceptionally well.

But that’s not enough to save “Neighbors.” It has its moments that make you laugh but its ultimately unsatisfying. I think that if Rogen wants to continue what’s been a very successful career, he should be branching out more to some different kind of comedies that are little further developed. Films littered with clichés will not be very memorable. Which is why this one will quickly fall away from people’s minds and “Animal House” still remains the must see college comedy.

Review: The Amazing Spider-Man 2

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★½ 

Disclaimer: reviewer is not what one would refer to as a “fanboy.”

My only knowledge of how the stories in these comic book movies work is solely based on what the filmmakers bring to the table each time. That and a quick search of Wikipedia before and after the screening never hurt either. I can also say that I’ve never been really big on the Spider-Man adaptations that have been brought to the screen in the past. “Spider-Man 2” in 2004 is the one very big exception. That’s still one of my favorite superhero movies of all time, placing fourth on my Best Ten of 2004 list.

Outside of that, the series has been pretty stagnant. “Spider-Man 3” in 2007 killed Sam Raimi’s interest in it with Sony not even wanting to continue on with him and Tobey Maguire. So they did what any of us would have done: they rebooted it. Also, they had to make another movie pretty quick or else they’d lose the rights to the franchise. That might now have been so bad. The rights would have gone back to Marvel Studios. Then we could have had Spider-Man hanging out with Iron Man, Hulk, Thor and Captain America. Oh well. I bet they really do regret selling the rights to some of their most valuable property now.

“The Amazing Spider-Man” in 2012 was yet another bland telling of the Spider-Man character. This time, Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) was updated to the modern times (since 2002-2007 was oh so long ago). Now we have Spider-Man keeping up with his loved ones via cell phones and searching the Internet for clues with Bing (who uses Bing?). He also seems like a bit of a hipster. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s how I see it. Or maybe I’m just getting old and have nothing in common with the high school kids these films are about.

Nevertheless, “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” opens the summer movie season this year on a weekend that’s been pretty much synonymous with comic book action movies for the last several years. Here we find New York criminals being hunted down by Peter Parker, once again played by Andrew Garfield. One this particular day he’s running late to his high school graduation because he’s trying to stop a mad Russian criminal named Aleksei Sytsevich (Paul Giamatti) from stealing plutonium from Oscorp.

But things aren’t going so well for him and his girlfriend Gwyn Stacy (Emma Stone). He promised her father (Denis Leary) as he was dying at the end of the first film that he’d stay away from Gwyn to protect her and that’s weighing heavily on his mind everyday. Every time he kisses her, he can see her father in his mind, watching him and judging him – literally.

If there’s one problem that too many superhero movies outside of the Marvel Cinematic Universe run into it’s the overuse of villains in their films. We’ve already met Sytsevich. Now enter Max Dillon (Jamie Foxx) and Harry Osborn (Dane DeHaan). We know from the original series with Maguire that Osborn is best buds with Peter Parker who will later resent him and attempt to kill him. Dillon is a new one for us non-fanboys.

Dillon loves Spider-Man. He’s obsessed with him. When Spider-Man saves his life one day, Dillon can’t believe it. When taking a ride up the elevator with the beautiful Gwyn Stacy, he can’t believe she remembers his name. He wants to be liked. He wants to be needed. He wants to be remembered. All this is a bit difficult for him since Oscorp has used his new power grid designs and gave him no credit for it.  Eventually an accident happens which turns Dillon into an electrically charged energy bomb. He calls himself Electro.

It would be rather easy to get the story completely oversaturated at this point with what appears to be three different villains. However, everything is pretty evenly spaced out. Personally, I was surprised with the handling of the story. A script from the likes of Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci and Jeff Pinkner usually spells convoluted disaster (see “Transformers” and their much-loved-yet-much-maligned TV series “Lost” and “Fringe”). Spider-Man only faces one villain at a time rather than all three ganging up on him on different fronts.

But that’s about the only thing they did right. When the film isn’t showing high-octane action sequences of nothing but CGI, the movie is nothing but plotting exposition. We’re treated to scenes of people talking that don’t do much to drive the plot forward. I suppose everything might be trying to set up what will ultimately be “The Amazing Spider-Man 3” or the spinoff series featuring the Sinister Six. But this is “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” and it should be handled as its own stand-alone film. That’s the problem with most of these mega film franchises: they’re always looking ahead to the next film instead of focusing on this film.

 Could you imagine how dull all these movies Marvel Studios have been putting out would be if they only existed to set up the next “Avengers” movie? Sure, not all of them are great, but they all stand by themselves. “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” never feels to be a film all on its own, but rather a piece to a larger picture that might ultimately not be very satisfying.

And maybe that’s what director Marc Webb likes about these scripts. Maybe he prefers to see the characters evolve and grow throughout the entire series, however long it may be. His only other big movie outside of the new Spider-Man franchise is “(500) Days of Summer” which was nothing but growth and evolution of characters. That might work well enough for one movie, but if they keep it up for an entire franchise, that might be rather dull.

Still, “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” pays off well enough when they’re in the midst of action sequences. And that’s really what people are paying for, right?  Webb uses the CGI to lift his action sequences up to a level that’s exciting for every viewer. But who isn’t tired of CGI by now? The climactic battle sequences of this film feel like big screen cartoons. Filmmakers can integrate live action and CGI better than this. We’ve seen it before with Christopher Nolan in his Dark Knight Trilogy or Joss Whedon in “The Avengers.” So it can be done.

It’s hard for me to say this is a bad movie though. The 100 drawn out minutes of muddy exposition are indeed boring, but there are some good moments (especially one great scene in particular between Peter Parker and Aunt May, played by the great Sally Field); the other 40 minutes are quite enjoyable. There are some tense moments and the action sequences are well put together (even if it’s from a team of animators rather than a film crew). Looking ahead at a summer full of unimpressive titles, I guess it’s a good thing that we started out on a half way decent note.