Interview with Earth to Echo star and director by Jeff Mitchell

Glendale native Reese Hartwig and director Dave Green reflect upon “Earth to Echo”.  

By Jeff Mitchell

“Earth to Echo” is a sci-fi adventure about three kids - Munch (Reese Hartwig), Tuck (Astro) and Alex (Teo Halm) - discovering an alien in the Nevada desert.  The Phoenix Film Society had a chance to talk to 15-year-old Glendale native Reese Hartwig and director Dave Green about extraterrestrial life, on-screen/off-screen friendships and much more!   “Earth to Echo” opens July 2.

PFS:  One of the film’s central themes is three best friends - Munch, Tuck and Alex - are forced to move apart.  How much of this intentional theme was written in the original script vs. your direction? 

DG: Screenwriter Henry Gayden worked the script after he and I talked out the broad story.  I’m definitely not the writer among the two of us, but I love contributing story ideas. Something I was really interested in was a creating a dramatically charged period of time for these kids where they were going through a transition in their lives.  I remember being in elementary school, having to transition to middle school and say goodbye to old friends.  I remember being in middle school, going to upper school and having to say goodbye to those friends.  The kids are in our movie are being forced apart for reasons out of their control.  Throughout the course of this adventure, they have to learn how to say goodbye to each other and reconcile as friends.  Echo is a great character, but this movie is very much - for me - a story about these kids who are learning to say goodbye to each other.   In the course of saying goodbye, they discover this new friend who is a conduit and helps them go through that process.

PFS:  Reese, you moved from Arizona to California when you were 8, so did any of your own personal story hit home when filming the movie?

RH:  Definitely.  When I was 8, I had all of my buddies here in Arizona.  I went to Highland Lakes in Glendale, so that’s where I made most of my friends.  It sucked (to leave my friends), but it’s alright because - just like the movie explains - distance is a state of mind.  I still keep in touch with them.   It’s funny, at that screening last weekend (June 7), my friends were all there.  So, it was cool to show them what I’ve been working on these past couple years.

PFS: Since you are from here, what are some of your favorite things to do in the Valley? 

RH:  We come here all the time, because my mom’s entire side of the family lives here, and we have three new baby cousins here in Sun City!  When I lived here, we would go to the hotel resorts and swim in the pools during every single one of my birthdays.  It’s Arizona, you have to have a really cool pool area, right?  The gnarliest swimming pools and slides definitely are my favorite things.

PFS:  Munch was very quick-witted, and you delivered your lines with terrific comedic timing.  Did you have a chance to ad lib?  

RH:  Henry is awesome.  He really hooked me up with Munch.  He gave me all the funniest lines.  The main thing about being a child actor is 90 percent of the roles you have to do, you just have to be a kid.  Honestly, the best way to act as a kid is to just be a kid.   Before each take, sometimes Henry and I (or sometimes my dad and I) would talk about something funny to throw in.  There was some improv, and Henry and Dave gave me the power to make it fun, but Henry really hooked me up with Munch.  As an actor, he’s the perfect character I’d like to play.

PFS: “Earth for Echo” did a nice job of blending modern-day communication - such as texting, skyping and presenting youtube videos - into the beginning of the film, but then later, focused on more traditional communication between the lead actors.   Was that a conscious decision?  

DG: Very early on, Henry said, “You know it would be cool if these kids’ cell phones were taken over (by alien technology).”

The idea of the kids on a scavenger hunt from A to B to C with abducted cell phones was an early idea.  Our creature (Echo) crash landed.  He cannot really see through his own eyes, because they are cracked or broken.  Now, as an electronic being, he can, however, hack into these different devices and manipulate the tech around him.  That idea was there from the beginning.  Some of the other tech you see, like youtube, skype and text messages, were not part of the original pass we did on the movie. Some of that came through in post (production).  They served as transitions or as a way for the kids to talk to each other, but I’m so glad it came through.  For us, it was a really big part of what made the movie feel current and honest. (We wanted to present) the way kids actually talk, communicate and live in the world today.

PFS:  Do you think extraterrestrial life exists?

RH:  Well, when I think about it, we all live in The Matrix, so it really doesn’t matter.  Haha!  Thinking about it, since the universe is infinite, there’s definitely a chance there might be another planet similar ours.

DG: Absolutely.  Yes, there is.  We are just a tiny dot in the solar system. I’m not sure life outside of Earth would look exactly Echo, but I’m sure there are all kids of lifeforms that would absolutely boggle our minds.

PFS:  Munch, Tuck and Alex were best friends in the movie, and you seemed like best friends on screen, so how was it like hanging out with them off-screen? 

RH:  Dave had this awesome idea.  We all went to Universal City Walk to break the ice a couple days before filming.  We did this thing where you fly above a (giant) fan so it’s like you are skydiving.  It was so cool and really fun.  We went bowling.  I got destroyed at that, and we went somewhere for dinner.  In the movie, we were supposed to be best friends like we’ve been friends forever.  It was cool to get out the jitters, have some fun and get to know each other before we started filming.  This is a big thing for us, because this is our first movie.  It was very nerve-wracking, but it make it a lot easier.   We are best friends now!

PFS:  Ella Wahlestedt plays Emma, and she joins the three boys on this adventure.  What did her character bring to the movie?  

DG: These boys are on this adventure, and like any group of friends, there is backstory.  There is stuff you see on screen, and there is stuff you don’t know from previous experiences.  We thought it would be fun to see what would happen to this group of friends when a girl (Emma) is thrown into the gang.   It does create this conflict amongst the boys.

RH: Emma definitely had a different angle.  She thought of things the three of our characters didn’t think about.  Alex, Tuck and Much were rushing, and Emma was a little more savvy than us.   If it wasn’t for Emma, the story would have stopped a long time ago because she saved us from the “Construction Guy” in one scene.  The adventure would have been done right there, so she definitely is a huge contributor to the entire story.   You need a girl’s perspective, and she got us all in line.

PFS:  What are your some of your favorite sci-fi movies?

RH: I’m definitely an “Aliens” (1986) and “The Matrix” (1999) fan. My favorite type of movie is Sci-fi, and I’m not saying that just because I’m in one.  I love Sci-fi because it has this sense of wonder I really don’t get from any other types of movies.  It’s so fun to learn about the science, and my character, Munch, would really like that too.

PFS:  Do you have a cell phone and has anything crazy happen to it?

RH:  I do have a phone, and (the only thing crazy is) my phone dies after 13 minutes after a full charge.   No, I haven’t found any aliens just yet.

Transformers: Age of Extinction - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Transformers: Age of Extinction  

Director: Michael Bay

Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Nicola Peltz, Jack Reynor, Stanley Tucci, and Kelsey Grammer

By Monte Yazzie

It’s clear that there are plenty of different explosions Michael Bay can generate in 165 minutes. The fourth incarnation, which forgoes the cast from the past three films, introduces a world where the Transformers are hunted as fugitives and are forced into hiding. Bay, synonymous with the summer blockbuster, throws more narrative into the drawn-out continuing story of the battling robots yet “Age of Extinction” feels the most void of substance in the franchise lineup.

Earth has been saved from destruction but at the cost of a devastated Chicago. In the wake of the battle a black ops government group is reshaping the world with intentions of never needing the Transformers again. Betrayed by the humans they came to protect, Optimus Prime and the Autobots are in hiding. Cade Yeager (Mark Wahlberg) is an inventor living in Texas who finds Optimus’ damaged semi-truck alteration in a rundown theater. The black ops group, organized by a C.I.A. higher-up (Kelsey Grammer) and supported by a tech mogul (Stanley Tucci), is looking for Optimus who is brought back to function by Cade. Optimus and the remaining Autobots must fight for humanity again against an ancient foe and a newly developed weapon.

Bay continues the onslaught of special effects however things seem to be more comprehensive effects wise than the transforming chaos of the past films. Still, the monotony settles in rather quickly as the battle scenes become indistinguishable from each other. Transformers fight, someone retreats, they fight again, repeat. Ehren Kruger, the writer of all but one of the films, adds more narrative developments and side plots than necessary. Characters are introduced quickly, some lost in the mix or simply discarded along the way, though there are noteworthy ones mostly because of the performances from the actors. Stanley Tucci is excellent as an outlandish inventor, supplying the film with humor along with a morality note. Kelsey Grammer demonstrates his intimidation and Titus Welliver barks head shaking tough guy sentiments as the leader of the black ops squad. Wahlberg does his best with the character; amongst numerous issues with the character the most confusing is how to an inventor becomes such a capable combatant.

The Transformers are given numerous foes yet none feel particularly threatening. It’s an issue that flaws many summer popcorn films. Danger is merely a notion without any consequences. There is nothing wrong with simple, easily viewed entertainment. Still, it’s difficult to identify what audience this film is for? It’s too long to hold the attention of young viewers and fans of the franchise won’t find anything different to separate this experience from the past films. If a routine, special effects laden film is what you are looking for and you have the time already set aside, “Transformers: Age of Extinction” might be for you.

Monte’s Rating

2.00 out of 5.00

Korengal - Movie Review by Michael Clawson

Korengal  

Directed by Sebastian Junger

From Outpost Films

Rated R

84 minutes

Restrepo follow-up provides delicate examination of soldiers in war

by Michael Clawson of Terminal Volume

What we don’t understand about battle-born PTSD isn’t that troops want out of the war zone, but they want back in.

That is one of many interesting new insights in Korengal, the sequel and follow-up to the award-winning Restrepo, which featured a platoon of soldiers in Afghanistan’s deadly Korengal Valley, where gorgeous scenery concealed hundreds of enemy combatants and the daily hell they brought to American troops.

Restrepo is the name of the sandbagged outpost perched high up on a mountain in Korengal. It’s named after a soldier who was killed there. The way the soldiers talk about their mountain fortress reminded me a lot of Apocalypse Now. Restrepo was their Kurtz compound. But instead of a long ponderous journey down a river to get there, they’re airlifted there in a day. There’s no acclimation. One day they’re somewhere safe; the next they’re in the maws of the mountain, a death zone that will torment them throughout their tour.

And yet, when the soldiers talk about it, Restrepo is their home. They feed off the danger, the rush of firing that massive 50-caliber machine gun, the crack of bullets over their head, the solidarity of their weary band of brothers. Sebastian Junger’s documentary benefits because it doesn’t have to say anything; it lets the soldiers speak. And we have the opportunity to listen.

Of course, it helps if you’ve seen Restrepo, though that’s certainly not mandatory. Some of the footage will look alike; Korengal is essentially B-roll from the earlier movie. But where Restrepo was more about the perils of war, this movie is more ponderous and concerned with the details of the day-to-day living and fighting. Korengal Valley is home to an Al Qaeda highway, but it “looks like Colorado Springs,” one soldier says. He walks us through the nicknames of some of the pre-sighted hills — Spartan Spur, Nipple Rock, Honcho Hill. Personalities start to come out heavier. One soldier romanticizes his machine gun in a way only other soldiers will relate to.

The troops confirm something that Americans might be unsettled by: they love the firefights. Injuries and deaths were always awful, but the occasional skirmish lets them blow some steam off. And their weapons become extensions of their souls, screaming to release. One man is asked what he’s going to miss. “Shooting people,” he says.

The firefights serve an important purpose beyond their obvious catharsis — they are proof the enemy is still there. Silence and boredom have been known to wage wars of attrition in Korengal. On slow days, the troops lounge around, the weight of the world grinding against them. If only they had something to shoot, or kill, or blow up. When the enemy doesn’t come to them, they go to the enemy on patrols to nearby villages, where villagers greet them. “That guy accepts our 10-pound bag of rice during the day. Fires RPGs at us at night. And then the next day he smiles and waves. Fuck his heart. Fuck his mind,” a soldier says, quoting LBJ’s mission in Vietnam to win “hearts and minds.”

The movie has some absurd imagery right out of a Joseph Heller novel: soldiers firing their machine guns wearing only their military-issued boxer shorts, soldiers playfully holding hands on a patrol, and a scene of a guitarist smashing his guitar at Restrepo so it can’t be played anywhere else. War might be hell, but it’s also surreal and strange.

Junger filmed Korengal and Restrepo with photojournalist Tim Hetherington, who was later killed while covering the Arab Spring in Libya. His camera work is exceptional because he focuses on what matters most — faces. It’s a personal touch from which the movie benefits greatly.

Korengal might be a slight rehash of Restrepo, but it gives us another chance to listen to soldiers tell us their stories. We should never stop listening.

Night Moves - Movie Review by Michael Clawson

Night Moves  

Starring Jesse Eisenberg, Dakota Fanning, Peter Sarsgaard and Alia Shawkat

Directed by Kelly Reichardt

From Cinedigm, Maybach Films and RT Features

Rated R

112 minutes

Suspense is the star of Kelly Reichardt’s cold eco-thriller Night Moves

by Michael Clawson of Terminal Volume

The opening moments of Kelly Reichardt’s hauntingly bleak Night Moves re-establish the director’s brand of proto-realism: characters wander, stare, skulk, sit, stand, lean, ponder, mumble and drive, though no two at the same time. To find comparably one-tracked, and terminally silent, characters we have to reach back to 1968, when men in monkey suits did a 20-minute cold-open for 2001: A Space Odyssey.

This is an excruciatingly nuanced method. Slow and agonizing, and yet also perceptive and whisper-soft. This methodical pace and volume is the hallmark of Reichardt, whose work was first widely seen in Wendy and Lucy, in which Michelle Williams camped around a Northwestern town with a dog. Williams returned for Reichardt’s next film, Meek’s Cutoff, a period piece about settlers and their clueless prairie guide. The film’s tone and half-muffled dialogue baffled audiences and critics alike.

In Reichardt’s Night Moves, which she co-wrote with frequent collaborator and Mildred Pierce writerJonathan Raymond, the director doesn’t stray too far from those flat, realistic performances that have marked her previous pictures. The film opens on Josh (Jesse Eisenberg) and Dena (Dakota Fanning) as they bop through an Oregon town running some errands, including one at a nude day spa, a suburban home to buy a boat, and to an organic vegetable farm. As things start getting pieced together, a shocking plot develops: Josh and Dena are eco-terrorists and are planning to blow up a dam that, in their minds, represents America’s energy dependence.

They are helped in their endeavor by Harmon (Peter Sarsgaard), a fellow True Believer, who seems to have hyped up his own intelligence by simply saying it out loud over and over again. The three eco-terrorists have their target, their delivery device and their window of opportunity, but not the bomb, which requires a visit to a nearby fertilizer plant. Dena, her innocent face and blond locks hardly threatening, is elected to go make the purchase even though the sale of 500 pounds of ammonia nitrate — the primary compound used in the Oklahoma City bomb — would likely send up some red flags. It’s this scene, as well as several others, that reveal a secondary motive for Night Moves: it’s a suspense thriller. An effective one, too.

Reichardt’s pacing does wonders to the thrills. Even scenes of Josh towing the boat, it’s hull overloaded with explosives, through a recreation area left me jittery and ready for pretty much anything. Later, after the bomb’s timer has been started, as the trio are paddling away from the dam, a car blows a tire on a dam overlook, forcing the driver to get out and change the tire with the bomb-boat in clear view over his shoulder. The rules of suspense require this scene, which allows the three leads to tremble in their boat while the tire-changer struggles with his lugnuts. And remember what Hitchcock said about suspense: bombs exploding are less suspenseful than bombs not exploding.

Later in the film, as Josh, Dena and Harmon separate, the film becomes a meditation on trust, guilt and the adage “honor among thieves.” Night Moves is seen entirely from the perspective of the Eisenberg’s Josh character, who seems to have no personality whatsoever. He does have ideas, though he’s a victim to their results. Josh lives on a family farm run by some hippy types who have more balanced principles. “I’m not interested in statements. I’m interested in results,” the main farmer says after the terrorist act. Someone asks: You don’t call the destruction of a dam results? “No, I call that theater.” Later, this same farmer learns of Josh’s involvement in the dam explosion and the single human death it caused. He kicks him off the farm, which provides one of the subtle visual wonders of Night Moves: Josh driving a gas-guzzling truck past a bank of electrical boxes. Another razor-sharp image can be seen from inside an RV, its passengers watching the Price is Right while supposedly “camping.”

The movie isn’t really interested in the environment, sustainable water usage, marine biodiversity, organic farming, or other ideas from the granola belt. It’s an examination on the choices people make and the repercussions from those choices. The performances are slow and tedious, but that’s no slam on Eisenberg and Fanning, both of whom do what all actors in Reichardt movies do — they underplay everything. A looser, more ambivalent film might unravel under those conditions, but Night Moves is wound as tight as its characters. That allows for an interesting experiment in acting, story and suspense.

Transformers: Age of Extinction - Movie Review by Michael Clawson

Transformers: Age of Extinction  

Starring Mark Wahlberg, Stanley Tucci, Kelsey Grammer, Nicola Peltz, Jack Reynor and Titus Welliver

Directed by Michael Bay

From Paramount Pictures

Rated PG-13

165 minutes

Transformers 4 looks a lot like Transformers 1-3

by Michael Clawson of Terminal Volume

Michael Bay is just trolling critics now.

When it was announced he was making a fourth Transformers movie with a new cast and new storylines, there was a suggestion in the tone of the press releases and other news that the quality and style of the film might change. People were batting around the word “reboot,” which is a word that intrigued me after the painfully awful first trilogy, in which Shia LaBouef spent nearly 8 hours bathed in digital calamity.

But after seeing Transformers: Age of Extinction, it’s obvious Bay has no desire to tinker with his formulas. Really, though, it’s not about desire, because I don’t think Bay really cares. It’s more about ability: Michael Bay can’t make a better movie. It’s beyond his talent and scope. He’s the Walmart of film directors. He makes expensive stupid movies that appeal to people who can be suckered into paying for the same thing four times. He’s settled on that career path. It’s time we all accepted this as well.

That’s a hard thing to do, though, especially when you’re three hours deep in a movie filled with what is essentially the same exact imagery over and over again. How many times can you watch low-angled shots of a hero Transformer shooting at an enemy Transformer? Here’s a whole movie to determine your breaking point.

Starring in this Transformer outing is Mark Wahlberg as Cade Yeager, a name that is supposed to conjure the spirit of adventure and bravery that is Chuck Yeager, the test pilot that first broke the sound barrier. Cade is a penniless tinkerer and inventor in the most wholesome town in America, where screen doors, windchimes, rocking chairs on wooden porches and American flags are seen so prominently they deserve below-the-title billing. It’s as if a Toby Keith song vomited all over a Cracker Barrel.

Trucker-hat-wearin’ ‘Murican patriot Cade — whose oblivious customers actually pay $20 for Discman repairs — makes a trip to a local condemned theater to scavenge for invention parts. He meets the theater owner’s son, an effeminate man with a wobbly handshake (gay joke?), who sells him an old 35mm projector and a demolished big rig that turns out to be Optimus Prime, the Transformer leader who has gone into hiding after the destruction of Chicago in Transformers 3. Later, because the plot demands it, a CIA strike team descends on Cade’s farm to search of Optimus.

And then the movie delivers its first double rainbow of awfulness: Cade tells a government goon he doesn’t have a warrant to search his farm. The agent points at his nose and says, “My face is my warrant.” What does that even mean?! Was his face drafted by a lawyer and signed by a judge? Or does he mean that his face is so mean-looking that doors just open for him? I’ll buy you tickets to a better movie if you can explain this line in a reasonable manner. Anyway, Cade’s daughter Tessa — wearing an outfit only worn by exotics dancers on Western Night at strip clubs — turns up so she can be threatened, kidnapped and thrown into danger only to be saved by men. To Bay, women are useless sex objects that would cease existing without male heroes. But don’t take my word for it; watch his movies. Any of them.

Optimus and his human companions eventually escape using a five-story rally car death-drop that is so implausible it makes the transforming robots seem kind of pedestrian and normal. They drive 20 minutes or so, from Texas to Arizona, to meet up with other Transformers including a fat one (voiced by John Goodman), a samurai (Ken Watanabee) and Bumblebee, the yellow one who talks using clips of other Michael Bay movies.

A plot starts coming together, but it mostly resembles the other films. The CIA has aligned itself with a Transformer, whose face literally turns into a gun, to hunt down all the other Transformers for some kind of space zoo. In the deal, the humans get alien technology that will allow them to make their own transforming robots in the style of Megatron, the villain who has been killed in three movies, yet still lives on. The metal used in Transformers is revealed to be Transformium, which is inexplicably dumber than the Unobtanium of Avatar. Kelsey Grammar and Stanley Tucci have minor roles, including a kung-fu break with Tucci as he waits for an elevator that never comes. Seriously, someone should check that elevator because it made this scene really awkward, especially when the female kung-fu warrior just stood there, as if she forgot her lines and Stucci had to mouth her dialogue to her off camera.

All of the action is mostly identical to the action of the other movies. Someone could make a game show out of that premise: Which Transformer Movie? You’d have better luck looking for differences in two versions of a Merriam-Webster’s dictionary. My point is proven perfectly in a battle scene here in Age of Extinction, when a Transformer ship destroys the top of the exact same building similarly crunched in Transformers: Dark of the Moon. I guess the CGI artists already had a composite for that building built, so why not reuse it. Every scene is vaguely similar to something already done in previous Transformers movies, be it Gunface and Optimus sword fighting, Bumblebee swooping ragdolled human bodies out of the air, or of Transformers blasting their armguns in heated battles. I will say Wahlberg’s gunsword was new, and also ridiculous. But still new.

All this eventually leads up to many, many product placements, including an Oreo and Waste Management Transformer, more Chevy’s than have ever (or will ever) exist in Detroit, an exploding Victoria’s Secret bus and a shameless scene involving Tucci turning some Transformium into a Beats speaker. As if that weren’t bad enough, Wahlberg can’t even finish a major battle sequence until he swigs from a Bud Light. The biggest product placement, though, might be its final location, China. Remember when Iron Man 3 shot China-specific scenes to help promote the film to that huge market? Here we are again with the final act taking place entirely in the most populated country on the planet. This isn’t cultural outreach; it’s money seeding.

Oh and dinosaurs. There are dinosaurs. Transformer dinosaurs. Nothing more be said about this.

Transformers: Age of Extinction is a terrible movie. All the Transformers movies are this bad. But you know this already. You either know it and don’t see them, or you know it and see them anyway. No one is arguing that these are great or important movies. Bay has his apologists; they’re anyone who buys a ticket. If these movies thrill you and excite you, then I’m glad a film has that power on you. Movies have that power over me — just not these movies. I don’t want to spoil your fun, but I do ask you to consider how many times you would pay for the same thing.

Because Michael Bay is trolling. And your wallet is the victim.

Transformers: Age of Extinction - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

Transformers: Age of Extinction  

Starring Mark Wahlberg, Stanley Tucci, Kelsey Grammer, Nicola Peltz, Jack Reynor, Titus Welliver, and T.J. MIller

Directed by Michael Bay

Rated PG-13

Run Time: 165 minutes

Genre: Action/Adventure

Opens June 27th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

Transformers: Age of Extinction acts as a reboot for a franchise that was best left dead. As the Transformers films grow bigger and more expansive, they become increasingly inconsequential. The latest chapter puts character development to the side in favor of bombarding every one of our senses (except common sense, oddly enough), something that’s all too common in the franchise. It’s an unpleasant, grotesque display of commercialism mixed with ambivalence toward making a film worth seeing. It’s a callously empty effort on all fronts, from the misogynistic and sexist creations that come standard in these actioners to the stereotypically vapid, boring human characters to go along with the inherently cold, bland robotic ones. It’s as if Michael Bay and Paramount know the formula to making their films: create more action, make a longer running time, add more locales to sell globally, and have as much optimal product placement as possible. It’s genius!

To describe the plot of the film would probably work better than what plays out on screen, so I’ll attempt to put it as simply and thrillingly as possible: Cade Yeager (Mark Wahlberg) is an automobile mechanic that is struggling financially after his inventions fail to reach their potential. His daughter, Tessa (Nicola Peltz), is introduced as all Michael Bay females are: by her bombshell looks and the way she can wear short shorts. Tessa wants to party and go out with boys, cannot wait until school is out, but also wants to go to college to ensure a future for her and her father. Cade’s business partner, Lucas (T.J. MIller), goes with him to a run-down movie theater to buy parts, discussing the uselessness of much of the old media and how things have changed. Oh, how right they are. They find an old truck that Cade can strip and sell for quite a bit, a steal in his eyes. He soon finds out that it’s Optimus Prime, one of many Transformers that the government has been hoping to find after the battle in Chicago a few years ago.

Remember all the destruction from that battle in Dark of the Moon? Well, C.I.A. man Harold Attinger (Kelsey Grammer) wants to track the robots down and coordinate with Joshua Joyce (Stanley Tucci), an inventor who can create Transformers-like technology, to expel those harmful aliens from this Earth. While that undoubtedly sounds like more than enough plot for the common viewer, there’s more: the opening scene establishes that all that we know about a meteor wiping out dinosaurs is wrong because the Transformers were totally behind it. At this point, it’s as if Michael Bay and Co. know that they are trolling all of the United States and want to get away with as much inane narrative as possible. Did I also mention that Tessa has a boyfriend, Shane (Jack Reynor)? So naturally Cade has to be the protective father figure and berate Shane while simultaneously understanding that he makes his daughter happy and therefore shouldn’t interfere with love. I mean, this stuff practically writes itself.

The first Transformers was respectably campy fun that took a hokey premise and turned it into a fun, engaging spectacle. The second and third films wore the premise thin and added even more nonsensicality to the growing visual assault. The newest in the series amps everything up: the last 100 minutes of its bloated 165 minute running time are filled with non-stop special effects that pummel every shred of visual engagement; there are characters talking about “important” things like past nights when Shane might’ve snuck into the house to be with Tessa; villains deliver monologues before attempting to kill the protagonists; and the Michael Bay Misogyny™ we know and love comes into play. Peltz and Reynor simply can’t act, with the former being defined by her Barbie-like looks and the latter being asked to be a hyper-masculine, seemingly perfect male presence. Just another movie reminder, girls, you’re only good if you’re pretty. Even Stanley Tucci’s character falls in love with an Asian character only to point out that he thinks “she’s hot,” failing to point out that she can kick ass and command her own.

Mark Wahlberg works hard for a paycheck, I’ll give him that. He’s a good actor that couldn’t be more out of place; he stands in front of an American flag multiple times in a ten-minute span, seeming to signify his narrative importance as the all-American, hard-working individual that deserves to succeed in this country. There’s an effort in Ehren Kruger’s script to communicate something about American culture here, but it never comes together to make anything other than an incoherent mishmash of scenarios that allow for things to blow up really well. The special effects are undeniably impressive and lavish, but they’re numbing and fail to complement the story. When the story asks to move to China, it feels like a maddening ploy to grab a global market to make the film more successful. Finance is all that matters nowadays with these big blockbusters. It’s a shame, because we’re stuck with films that recycle old ideas rather than move them forward, and perpetuate stereotypes that should no longer linger in a medium as advanced and sophisticated as film.

Violette - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

Violette  

Starring Emmanuelle Devos, Sandrine Kiberlain, Olivier Gourmet, Catherine Hiegel, and Jacques Bonnaffé

Directed by Martin Provost

Rated NR

Run Time: 138 minutes

Genre: Drama/Biography

Opens June 27th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

Violette, a biopic about the French feminist writer Violette Leduc, opens with the title character discussing beauty’s importance to women and her fundamental disagreement with that notion. It’s an effective introduction to a forward-thinking woman in a society that devalues women and their opinions. The film is divided into six distinct parts, each defined by the characters that interact and matter to the protagonist; most biopics would focus on big events, but Martin Provost’s film emphasizes the emotions surrounding the central figure and her increasing loneliness. Her solitude allows her to write honestly and without a filter, a rarity in that day, and her topics lead into compelling arguments surrounding female rights’ issues in today’s world. Abortion and bastardizing children are two heavy concepts embraced as important to understanding feminism and its emergence during that time, illustrating the necessity of this story both in its time frame and the socially evolved, modern world.

Violette Leduc (Emmanuelle Devos) is introduced through her tumultuous relationships, most immediately with her passionless lover. He leaves her to head to Germany to support the war effort as Violette finds her world growing more difficult to sustain. She needs to work but doesn’t know what occupation to take; her partner was a writer who never seemed to write about her, so she uses that creative fuel to try writing herself. When she finishes her book, she tracks down a local feminist writer, Simone de Beauvoir (Sandrine Kiberlain), to present her work. Simone likes the book because of its honesty and recognizes that Violette has the potential to write about things never mentioned before in French culture. They aim to work together on helping each others’ works and providing the country with a new wave of female writing that handles sexuality and love from an innovative perspective.

The film explores Violette’s lesbian affairs and her desire to find love despite her propensity to fall in love quickly and passionately. The first twenty minutes of the narrative are driven by loud outbursts from characters and rooted heavily in characters that we are not familiar with; it sets up a story that feels more empty than it becomes. There’s a grating nature to the manner in which Provost presents those moments, as if the film can only drive forward with characters exchanging abrasive moments of emotional realization. But the majority of the film’s 138 minutes revolves around the quiet, methodical nature of its protagonist and her colleagues. There’s an understated nature to almost every scene after those numbing opening moments, a sign that the characters become properly defined and the performances work in accordance with each other.

Devos is marvelous in the title role, allowing Leduc to transform into an emotionally sheltered woman that hopes to find truths about herself within her works. The film is a character study above all else, not particularly caring about Leduc’s achievements until the final moments; instead, the narrative is more concerned with the emotional devastation and creative frustration Violette faces. The supporting performances are strong and similarly visceral, with Kiberlain in particular using the subtleties of the script to accentuate the romance underlying every action. Provost and his cinematographer use lush, long takes to let the actions speak for themselves, and they provide mostly naturalistic scenes dependent on outside light and nature. Violette is deliberately quiet and understated throughout, a strikingly beautiful feature that demonstrates how the most impassioned, important creativity can come from pain.

Jersey Boys - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Jersey Boys  

Dir: Clint Eastwood

Starring: John Lloyd Young, Erich Bergen, Vincent Piazza, Michael Lomenda, and Christopher Walken

From Warner Bros.

134 Minutes

Rated R

By: Monte Yazzie (www.thecodafilms.com)

The Broadway smash “Jersey Boys” has been dazzling audiences for nearly ten years. The musical, getting the big screen treatment from the capable hands of director Clint Eastwood, is based on the tumultuous life of Frankie Valli and The Four Seasons. Known for standards like “Sherry” and “Walk Like A Man”, Valli grew up in rough neighborhood with equally rough friends but was always guided towards music. Eastwood shaped “Jersey Boys” into a film that unfortunately lacked the flair and energy of the stage performance but instead added some character depth for a nostalgic experience.

Eastwood is an avid fan of music, which can be seen by the numerous music documentaries he has produced and the addition of composed music he has created for his films. The 84-year-old icon has done nearly everything in film, recently his directorial catalog has been filled with character driven films within a specific time period. The common thread however has always surrounded people making difficult choices in a complicated world. While the decision for Eastwood to direct a musical for the first time may seem odd, the narrative themes in “Jersey Boys” are all right up Eastwood’s alley.

Francesco Castelluccio (John Lloyd Young), who would later change his name to Frankie Valli, grew up on the mean streets of Belleville, New Jersey. Getting in trouble with the mob or joining the military, as narrator Tommy DeVito (Vincent Piazza) explains, were the only two occupations for Jersey youth in 1951, unless you were a talented singer like Frankie. Tommy, a handsome con artist looking for a quick turn, is the leader of the band known as The Four Lovers. Frankie, who has found some singing cred with a local mob boss (Christopher Walken), is brought on as lead singer. With the addition of clean-cut songwriter Bob Gaudio (Erich Bergen), the band finds fame. Though the road to success for the newly christened Four Seasons is filled with struggle.

Eastwood striped “Jersey Boys” down in musical numbers and included more character depth than the stage version. These changes were complimentary for the screen, unfortunately for those familiar with the stage version the alterations in pacing and mood will be sorely disappointing. Eastwood’s mix of gangster film tropes and commentary on the “American Dream” were interesting and worked well when the film shifted into more serious territory. Having many of the stage actors reprise their roles, which included live singing performances on camera, gave the film exceptional musical quality. Still, the film had difficulty changing gears from feel good musical to focused drama and some of the deliberate pacing choices strained the film from scene to scene. For a musical there was a significant lack of score, which was unusually considering there was so much to utilize. It was the music, both the familiarity of the classic hits and moving performances, which has kept the stage production alive for so long. Eastwood, moving the focus away from those qualities, struggled to find an identity for the film.

“Jersey Boys” on screen may not have the audience dancing in the aisles like the stage production but it did bring about the love and nostalgia music invokes. Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons may not be as identifiable as they once were, but their music featured in this film is still recognizable and uplifting.

Monte’s Rating

3.00 out of 5.00

The Grand Seduction - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

The Grand Seduction  

Starring Brendan Gleeson, Taylor Kitsch, Liane Balaban, Gordon Pinsent, and Rhonda Rogers

Directed by Don McKellar

Rated PG-13

Run Time: 113 minutes

Genre: Comedy

Opens June 20th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

The Grand Seduction is a charming independent film that puts the mind at ease and engages the audience with eccentricities. It’s a rarity in cinema nowadays to see a film as strangely grounded as this, a throwback to a simpler time of filmmaking where character-driven stories dominated the landscape. The humor is wry and flows with ease, the drama is deeply felt, and the plot meanders around aimlessly as it navigates these characters’ blocked paths. The film centers on the small harbor of Tickle Cove, a fishing haven that is in dire need of a town doctor to help them convince a company to build a factory. The town is ravaged by the economy and has felt the effects of a changing world landscape, with jobs being destroyed by the lessening demand for their blue collar jobs. Small towns and companies simply cannot thrive the way they used to, considering the story starts with a flashback to the 1950s when people felt financially stable and secure. It feels like a myth when played out on screen.

The film’s protagonist, Murray French (Brendan Gleeson), had a strong fishing father but is on welfare now and sees his wife leave for the city to support them financially. These are straining times, as emphasized by the nature of the stereotypically domestic household being torn apart. The wife, who in the town used to stay at home and prepare meals while the men were away for 13 hours a day, is now working more than the husband and attempting to provide the financial support needed for the family. Murray comes up with an idea: a manufacturing or environmental company could move into the town to provide everyone with the jobs they need, yet the town needs to become appealing and have a living doctor to ensure that protection is provided. These are people adjusting to the new world and finding out that they must effectively lie to survive. In comes the help of Dr. Paul Lewis (Taylor Kitsch), a newly graduated doctor who is tricked into coming to their town for a month.

The town has to lie in order to convince him to stay, since their harbor isn’t the most exciting: they tell him that they love cricket (the doctor’s favorite sport), they tidy up the trash-ridden harbors and streets, plant money so he finds it everyday when walking home, and ultimately make him believe that their town is the place for him to be. The story is largely contrived and formulaic when breaking down the elements that traditionally come around in whimsical, light-hearted comedies, as characters aren’t seen doing things when they obviously should, but the framing makes it seem like everyone is oblivious; dialogue is vague and obviously giving away that the characters are lying, but people like Paul believe the liars because they are saying what he wants to hear; and pacing relies on putting drama right after comedy in virtually every scene, making for an uneven mix tonally.

Yet the film shines because of its acceptance of the pessimistic elements of its story. There’s a character in the film who works as a bank teller for a major corporation who knows very well that his job is trivial; he could be replaced by an ATM and it wouldn’t make a difference to the company. The central conflict lies in the fact that these renewable resources that the incoming company is creating are not glamorous, but rather harsh and demanding for workers. The company is led by greedy, seedy individuals that Murray and Paul know are deplorable but the only way this town can survive. Where there should be optimism in a standard comedy, The Grand Seduction asks the characters to accept that their lives will move on, even if their dignity is a bit lost by having to succumb to such low economic standards. Gleeson is excellent in the lead while Kitsch is asked to be charming and not much else, but the film isn’t about performances so much as story. It’s funny, charming, pleasant, and full of just enough commentary that we forgive its flimsy plot.

The Rover - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

The Rover  

Starring Guy Pearce, Robert Pattinson, Scoot McNairy, Gillian Jones, and David Field

Directed by David Michôd

Rated R

Run Time: 102 minutes

Genre: Crime Drama

Opens June 20th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

The Rover is cold and distant, an unforgiving venture into the heart of economic collapse and personal despair. Writing about the film is one of the more difficult reviews I’ve taken because this opening paragraph has been writing multiple times, each with different takes on the material. There are narrative faults that I find unforgiving and a general set-up that lacks payoff, but the film remains one of the more thematically involving, dense works to reach cinema in quite some time. I found the film empty and calculated and myself wanting more of an emotional connection with the extraordinarily introverted protagonists. But the film’s final half hour does something remarkable: it allows the audience to see everything the film has to offer emotionally while at the same time numbing the audience with senseless violence and pitiless human interaction. It’s as if the filmmakers aimed to desensitize the audience throughout the entirety of the picture and then provide them with a punch to the gut. Instead, they graze the side and give us a bruise.

Set ten years after a global economic collapse, the story centers on the deserted Australian outback where people fight for survival and kill remorselessly. Eric (Guy Pearce) is seen in the film’s opening moments as a silent, ruthless man hunting down his stolen car. Three men hop in while he’s sitting inside a nearby abandoned bar and he insists on getting his car back. Obviously there’s something important in there because he can find another functioning car…so what makes this one so important? That’s the central motivation for Eric throughout the film, with the reveal being teased until its explanation in the final scene. Eric’s journey leads him to discovering a brother of one of those thieves, a young man named Rey (Robert Pattinson) who was left for dead amidst a military battle. He has a gunshot wound to his stomach, and when Eric discovers him he knows that Rey needs help. He also knows that Rey can lead him to his brother and therefore his car.

When dissecting the plot like that, it makes the film seem trivial and simple. At times, it certainly is. This isn’t a narratively complex work when we get past the central premise of economic despair; there are hints at how it could have happened, with everyone insisting on using American currency over anything else, but there’s never a sense of what happened. There are talks of Eric being a farmer while Rey used to live on a farm when he was a kid and everything was overgrown and lost. This world hates them and gives them nothing in return. I find those elements of the film the most affecting and engaging, yet director David Michôd seems to spend more time focusing on the brutality of the world and its uncompromising violence. The film never shies away from gory details, showing a man’s slit throat after a battle and the aftermath of a child being shot dead, amongst others. One horrifying scene shows the men driving by electrical posts that have men tied to them as if they were being crucified. There’s a callousness to the protagonists and their surroundings.

Guy Pearce and Robert Pattinson sell that perfectly, for they are the reason you will get something out of The Rover. Pattinson fills Rey with a tenderness and an endless string of regret and guilt; subtlety exudes from his every action. It’s a remarkably great performance from an actor I have always found grating and insincere. He mines this work for gold. Pearce allows Eric to be a generally unlikable and stubborn man, but the film asks for the audience’s forgiveness on his part in the film’s final moments. He’s always been an outstanding actor and his work here is exemplary. The film uses these performances to explore complex themes, from military presence to economic ruin to violent depravity to using art as a means of connecting to an older, simpler time. But as I reach for understanding the film’s purpose, I cannot get past the hokey, contrived reveal at the conclusion and the meandering nature of the narrative. The Rover is a lofty, beautifully desolate film, but it’s also an emotionless, unreachable enigma.

Obvious Child - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

Obvious Child  

Starring Jenny Slate, Jake Lacy, Gaby Hoffmann, Gabe Liedman, David Cross, Polly Draper, and Richard Kind

Directed by Gillian Robespierre

Rated R

Run Time: 83 minutes

Genre: Romantic Comedy

Opens June 13th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

Obvious Child is being labelled as an abortion comedy, and I find that assessment simplistic and a bit unfortunate. The film is a strong, affecting character study about a young woman that hasn’t quite grown up yet. It’s unique in its demonstration of a strong female protagonist and its emphasis on issues that don’t usually get discussed in our media. More specifically, abortion. The film centers on Donna Stern (Jenny Slate), a Brooklyn comedian who often channels her personal life into her work, leading to a break-up with her boyfriend leaving to be with her best friend. They’ve been seeing each other for months and even have a dog together, so she knows it’s real. She finds out the next day that her job is going out the window due to a store closure. Basically everything that could possibly go wrong does.

She does stand-up at a bar regularly, but one night after her break-up she goes on stage drunk and makes a fool of herself. One of her best friends, Joey (Gabe Liedman), encourages her to drink more because she deserves it, which leads to her meeting Max (Jake Lacy). He’s a young, successful student that latches onto Donna’s style, probably because he likes the prospect of an easy one-night stand. They end up having sex, Donna leaves in the morning, and assumes they’ll never see each other again. She’d be wrong. A couple weeks later she finds out that she’s pregnant and plans to get an abortion after telling one of her friends, Nellie (Gaby Hoffmann). Nellie reveals that she’s had an abortion before, and treats it like it’s not a big deal. It’s a rare representation to see how candidly the characters talk about such a touchy subject in our culture, but in reality twenty-somethings treat abortion as a reality of our times, a dramatic turn from the previous generation.

There’s an honesty to Gillian Robespierre’s film and the way it handles real-life issues with a striking intimacy. The film is a prime example of comedy emerging out of pain, with Donna facing constant turmoil and using her stand-up (and alcohol, often) as a catharsis. Yet there’s also the way that abortion doesn’t define these characters. Many women in the film are seen talking about abortion, either because they had one themselves or they know of people that have. It’s not the taboo topic that many believe it to be. The film explores these elements through a solid mix of affecting scenes: a hilarious discussion of how Jewish Donna is in comparison to Max’s Christianity, a muted conversation between Donna and her mother about their 20s, and a biting, frustrated rant from Nellie about women’s rights in today’s world, to name a few.

I’ve seen the film twice, and I love engaging with these characters and their ways of life. There’s a subtlety to every interaction and the script’s confidence in expressing exactly what’s on its mind. Donna has no understanding of filtering her words, and it makes the film much more brutally honest than expected. Obvious Child also proves that Jenny Slate should be leading a lot of raunchy comedies; she commands the screen and helps bring out the nuances of Gillian Robespierre’s script. The film is atypical due to the way the conflict and ebb-and-flow of the story do not follow the abortion, but rather Donna’s everyday struggles with romance. It’s refreshing to see a romantic comedy about something more complex and important than random strangers falling for each other. In tackling a wholly unique topic and handling it with care and grace, Obvious Child is hilarious and daring.

Obvious Child - Movie Review by Michael Clawson

Obvious Child

Starring Jenny Slate, Max Lacy, Gaby Hoffmann, Gabe Liedman, David Cross and Richard Kind

Directed by Gillian Rebespierre

From A24

Rated R

83 minutes

Jenny Slate laughs, cries her way through Obvious Child

by Michael Clawson of Terminal Volume

Obvious Child will forever be known as the “abortion rom-com,” which is a shame because it aspires to be so much more than the one unremarkable scene that everyone is talking about.

First and foremost, it’s a character study about a hopelessly endearing hipster — or millennial, pick your poison — flailing through life on a whim. It’s also a frank and honest romance that reveals the pitfalls of dating in a major city. The movie stars Jenny Slate as Donna, a stand-up comic whose routine is far better than the club she performs it in. Her opening routine had some roaring lines, including one about “commando crawling through cream cheese” that had everyone retching. After one of her sets, Donna’s boyfriend breaks up with her. More humiliating is the location the dumping occurs: the co-ed graffiti-covered bathroom where, presumably, someone was eavesdropping on the public breakup while they were pooping.

Donna, heartbroken and self-destructive, lets herself go in her next performance as she drunkenly staggers around the stage in self-pity. It’s not a good look on her, which doesn’t seem to faze Max (Jake Lacy), the software developer who is schmoozing clients in the Brooklyn comedy club. They buy each other drinks and before long they’re arm and arm, peeing in the alley. He accidentally farts on her head mid-pee, and she’s not grossed out all — really, she’s honored that he would embarrass himself so early in front of him. The scene culminates into a sexual encounter, but not before a lovely bedroom montage set to the Paul Simon song that the film has named itself after.

You’ve probably guessed that Donna gets pregnant. She decides to get an abortion in a scene that can be summed up like this: Donna decides to get an abortion. There is little debate, or arguing, or soul searching. She just makes a choice. Obvious Child doesn’t debunk abortion myths so much as it demystifies the controversial act by presenting us a pregnant woman and then letting us watch as she goes in for a procedure that, in her mind, might as well be a teeth cleaning. It doesn’t provoke controversy, preach, or belittle the opponents. It just exists as a testament to one woman’s right to control her body. When the film finally gets to the procedure, Donna cries a little, but the movie suggests her decision was a simple one, and that might be it’s strongest argument: the debate rattles on in Washington, D.C., but in the minds of women, their minds have already been made up.

Slate is the right performer for this material. She’s intelligent, fiercely witty and her nasally voice gives Donna a whiny presence within the film’s Brooklyn setting, where everyone has money for $20 drinks but seemingly no jobs to earn that money. She has a funny way of delivering the most devilish of lines with a brand of innocence that comes with a halo and glowing aura. She’s so sweet, and petite, and childlike. But then she drops her bombs: calling something “softer than angels’ titty skins,” or telling her friend that she was playing “Russian roulette with her vagina.” She has one abortion gag that’s so self-aware and prescient that it explodes in your face. Slate, a bratty cross of Bridesmaids and Bikini Kill, comes from the Lena Dunham school of acting: just throw it all out there and let the audience sort it out.

As the film strives for realism, though, I found it unfulfilling. The relationships, pregnancy and abortion are handled in honest ways, but almost nothing else is. When the woman at the abortion clinic tells her the procedure is going to cost $500, Donna hardly blinks and plops down the money. How? She works part-time at a failing bookstore, and she lives in a notoriously expensive city, one she seems to enjoy without limits. A pregnant woman’s financial stability might be a factor in any decision she makes, so it’s curious that this film would gloss over that issue.

That aside, though, Obvious Child is an important comedy, if only because it is by women, starring women and aimed at women. The abortion might be its foundation, but there is so much more to see, namely Jenny Slate in her first starring role.

22 Jump Street - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

22 Jump Street  

Dir: Phil Lord and Chris Miller

Starring: Jonah Hill, Channing Tatum, Ice Cube, Peter Stormare

From Columbia Pictures

Rated R

112 Minutes

Sequels, especially to great first films, are difficult to accomplish effectively. Creating new conflicts, coming up with fresh comedy, or allowing the characters to change are all reasons for failed second films. The team behind “22 Jump Street” ignored these suggested sequel stumbles, instead making a completely self-aware and consistently self-referential film that indulged in the “why mess with a good thing” sentiment.

The undercover team of Jenko (Channing Tatum) and Schmidt (Jonah Hill) are assigned with infiltrating a university and bringing down the organized drug dealings. They again pose as brothers each working into different social groups, Jenko becomes fast friends with the star of the football team Zook (Wyatt Russell) while Schmidt finds himself separated from his partner and instead meeting an art major named Maya (Amber Stevens). The partners find themselves in a broken relationship of sorts and not one step closer towards solving their case.

The winning chemistry between Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum kept the film funny and interesting as it began to falter throughout. Even though the jokes between the two weren’t much different than the comedy in the first, the rapid-fire banter of the two, like during a drug-induced stakeout or the deadpan emotion when participating in a hilarious couples therapy scene, made the repetition have grinning charm. The two actors also handled the physical comedy well, playing to their respective physical attributes in chase and fight scenes that found Channing Tatum in full action hero maneuvers while Jonah Hill reservedly favored the stairs instead of jumping off buildings like his counterpart.

From the start of the film there was a consistent reminder, blatantly so, that this was a sequel and nothing was going to change. A few characters even forwardly predicted plot details and character changes familiar in these films. This self-nodding joke to the perpetual staleness of sequels was initially quite funny. In one instance the partners, referring to the location of their new headquarters at 22 Jumpstreet, address the construction of another building across the street at 23 Jumpstreet. This device was a clever strategy that allowed new ways of telling the same joke and knowingly pointing out the many traits found in sequels. Unfortunately the film began to suffer from a simple redundancy of jokes and the dragging “bromance” of Jenko and Schmidt, both of which prevented the film from growing into something more memorable.

While it’s hard to blame the filmmakers for sticking to an effective formula, where it was much easier to play it safe for success, it did form a line between an average and good movie. The laughs were much better than expected, due in large to Hill and Tatum, and although “22 Jumpstreet” may be treading mediocrity the sequel boldly played originality against itself with mostly fun results.

Monte’s Rating

3.00 out of 5.00

22 Jump Street - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

22 Jump Street  

Starring Jonah Hill, Channing Tatum, Ice Cube, Amber Stevens, Peter Stormare, Nick Offerman, and Jillian Bell

Directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller

Rated: R

Run Time: 112 Minutes

Genre: Comedy/Action

Opens June 13th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

It’s rare to find a mainstream comedy sequel as progressive, character-driven, and self-aware as 22 Jump Street. With those going for it, the film didn’t even need to be funny. But it is, hilarious even, demonstrating that buddy cop films can offer something new and insightful while still thriving on their inherent absurdity. The film’s central characters, Jenko (Channing Tatum) and Schmidt (Jonah Hill), are still as inept and unready for their work as ever, failing to catch black market dealers in the film’s opening scene. It’s preceded, of course, by a montage of them handling guns and parading them as their prized possessions. They are idiots. But they are lovable, compassionate ones that need to work together undercover to be successful. If you think Lethal Weapon and Rush Hour put twists on buddy comedies and action, you haven’t seen anything yet.

The 21 Jump Street remake was never meant to work, as we’re often reminded by Deputy Chief Hardy (Nick Offerman), whose meta approach to life feels like he’s the direct link to the audience’s pulse. He tells the main characters that their failures are okay because the department decided to give them more money to do the same thing they did before; changing up the formula too much would ruin their success. There are references to Tatum’s past career choices, the basic premises of sequels, and the budding bromance between the two. Jenko and Schmidt are being assigned to a community college to find out about a drug known as “Whyphy” which recently killed a student. They need to “find the supplier, infiltrate the dealer,” a line uttered by Captain Dickson (Ice Cube) that is identical to his mission in the first film. The two friends befriend various people in fraternities and art clubs that lead them down different paths, straining their budding partnership and leading to countless jokes about their romantic ties.

The film is keenly aware of the tropes of the buddy comedy and pushes its dichotomies to extremes. Schmidt becomes highly feminized, latching onto a girl after a one-night stand and insisting that they be more. He’s even seen making the famous walk of shame across campus with his shoes off. The girl he’s interested in, Maya (Amber Stevens), is independent and has a roommate named Mercedes (Jillian Bell) that constantly mocks Schmidt’s age. There are role reversals all-around, with the strongest emphasis placed on the main bromance’s intimacy. These are two men that clearly love each other and have the makings of a romance under every definition of the word. It’s a hilarious pursuit because of the way they still desire women and don’t seem to have success. Hill and Tatum are terrific fits in the leads because Hill plays the deadpan, emotionally driven Schmidt with ease while Tatum plays the affably stupid and charming Jenko with a great comedic presence. Their chemistry is remarkable.

Perhaps most importantly, 22 Jump Street is driven by its strong set of supporting characters. Female characters are given room to talk and gain power, something often reserved for men in comedies, and directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller tackle the subplots with a surprising balance. The film handles serious relationships with a comedic bite. The writing is a bit drawn out at times, and the running time is too long (over 110 minutes, a staple of many comedies over the past few years), but the film moves through its busy plot swiftly. The story often acknowledges how similar it is to the first film; for those that didn’t care for 21 Jump Street, there won’t be much that will please here. The subversive look at modern college life and the making of films themselves leads to a strangely distanced yet universally approachable work. It’s hilarious, heartfelt, well-acted, and features the best end-credit sequence I’ve encountered all year. 22 Jump Street delivers a sufficiently developed story with a promise for many more to come.

How to Train Your Dragon 2 - Movie Review by Eric Forthunn

How to Train Your Dragon 2

Starring the voices of Jay Baruchel, Cate Blanchett, Gerard Butler, Craig Ferguson, Jonah Hill, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, America Ferrera, and Kristen Wiig

Directed by Dean DeBlois

Rated PG

Run Time: 102 minutes

Genre: Animation/Action-Adventure

Opens June 13th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

How to Train Your Dragon 2 is an improvement on its predecessor, a sequel that focuses on advancing character and plot rather than rehashing ideas from the previous film. The first film in the series established a relationship growing between Hiccup (Jay Baruchel), a timid Viking going against the norm, and Toothless, a dragon that Hiccup wounds during a battle between the humans and winged beasts. The Vikings misunderstood the dragons only to learn that they are protective, caring creatures that were threatened by man’s inability to show them compassion. Humans were cast in a generally unforgiving light until the whole island of Berk accepted the dragons and bonded peacefully with them. Now, five years later, the two species are thriving together and living amicably. The opening scene reaffirms that by showing a packed house watching dragon races where riders guide the animals to different colored sheep worth points. Things are running smoothly without a hitch.

Now that they can coexist peacefully, Hiccup and his friends use their dragons to explore the rest of the world around them and chart out the lands. They discover a secret ice cave that houses hundreds of dragons and is overseen by the famous Dragon Rider, a force that promises to help maintain the peace that’s been newly established. A force like Drago Bludvist (Djimon Hounsou), however, poses a threat since he hopes to gather an army of dragons to take control of the lands. He enlists the help of dragon trappers, led by Eret (Kit Harington), who do not understand the kindess of dragons like the people of Berk. They are more open to learning their ways, though, and aim to work with Stoick (Gerard Butler) and his men to purge the world of this malevolent force. Other returning faces include armor-making Gobber (Craig Ferguson) and competing love interests for Ruffnut in Snotlout (Jonah Hill) and Fishlegs (Christopher Mintz-Plasse).

There’s a lot happening in How to Train Your Dragon 2, but the film moves forward without losing sight of necessary dramatic action. Every action and motivation is established and grounded within the film’s narrative, allowing for the traditionally cutesy elements in animation to exist more quietly and effectively. The film’s weighty and lofty in its ambition: at its heart is the desire to communicate the importance of animal rights and the necessity to better understand every animal that exists on the Earth. The aimless killing and subjugation of animals (and to an extent, individuals) that we do not understand is a mandatory message even in today’s world with extinction facing many species. But most importantly, the film furthers the relationship between man and animal with Hiccup and Toothless, turning into something akin to a man and his famed best friend, a dog. Most of the dragons have the kindhearted, free-wheeling spirit of dogs that makes them perfect companions, and the emotion within this relationship is impressively unique.

The film is the most stunning animated film ever made, a visual wonder that capitalizes on 3D perfectly and understands how the scope of a scene can be visually represented. That’s a huge testament to legendary cinematographer Roger Deakins acting as a visual consultant on the film, providing the necessary mix of background and foreground action within stunningly captured scenes. The action has meaning and is genuinely exciting because of the way it is captured; the 3D pops off the screen in the flying sequences and allows for the dragons and humans to coexist peacefully in the viewer’s eyes. There’s a beauty to the film’s enhancement of the narrative through its visual effects. While the developments in the film may not be perfect, like a love interest for Ruffnut that makes for an aggressive competition for her attention, the address of love, loss, and loyalty is a deliberately heavy topic that writer-director Dean DeBlois handles with intimacy and care. This is a lovingly crafted sequel that advances characters and narrative with ease and integrity.

The Signal - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

The Signal  

Starring Brenton Thwaites, Olivia Cooke, Beau Knapp, and Laurence Fisburne

Directed by William Eubank

Rated PG-13

Run Time: 95 minutes

Genre: Sci-Fi/Thriller

Opens June 13th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

The Signal is a flashy, ambitious piece of science fiction that forgets that character development and narrative coherence make a story more compelling. The film is writer-director Will Eubank's second feature, an effort that demonstrates his passion as a director but also his knack for inconsistency in writing. The film centers on three hackers: Nic (Brenton Thwaites), his girlfriend Haley (Olivia Cooke), and Jonah (Beau Knapp). Nic suffered an injury to his legs in a race that left him with forearm crutches and daily struggles, yet his passion for his work remains. Haley is heading to college, the purpose of the three gathering for a road trip, but Nic knows that she will have countless opportunities, both professionally and romantically, that he doesn't want her to miss. Essentially, he breaks up with her. Jonah joins for the trip because him and Nic are best friends, and they code and hack together. They face a familiar threat, though, when a genius computer hacker demonstrates his power by messing with their technology and leading them to a random place in Las Vegas.

They discover a creepy, abandoned house that they soon found out to be a trap. When everything goes dark, Nic wakes up in a laboratory room shaded with all things white; for much of the film's second act, the characters are surrounded by white, bright colors and primaries like blue and red. Here, the protagonist encounters men in hazmat suits, with their representative being Damon (Laurence Fishburne), a man who speaks mostly to confuse Nic and further his psychological torment. Nic wants to know where his friends are, what's happened to him, why he's in a wheelchair, and where the hell he is. He has a lot of questions that they are just not willing to answer. The film sets up this premise with intrigue and paranoia, a tonally compelling build that allows the audience to constantly struggle with what they are seeing in attempts to understand the central premise.

Every bit of information doled out, however, seems to further the convolution of the plot and emphasize the one-dimensionality of the characters. Nic is largely developed through flashbacks that are emotionally triggered and mute; they are seen as memories that he revisits often. Thwaites is a talented actor when the script allows him to dig into Nic's emotional torment, but much of the film asks him to be concerned and confused without the audience knowing much of the context. Nic's relationship with Haley is defined by their break-up, since that's the starting point for the audience, but Cooke is a genuine non-presence. Her character is mostly silent and submissive, a love interest without much direction or purpose other than to aid the protagonist. And Jonah is given some emotional heft if there were any context for his outbursts and crazed mannerisms; the characters are so thin that the audience has nothing to grasp onto. When characters cry and seem distraught, I could care less.

The Signal has ambition, though, aiming to address themes of technology, mental instability, and the presence of otherworldly beings. Yet they never mesh coherently into a singular narrative. A scene where Nic and Haley wander the corridors of the lab feels like they are the luckiest people in the world, only to have that squandered as their despair knows no bounds. It's a dark, manic look at their struggle to persevere, but there's nothing really at stake when watching most of the film. Eubank is a tremendously talented director, though, since his film is beautifully framed and shot, visually evoking an early Kubrick and Lynch with his deliberately negative camerawork. The last scene makes the audience think rather than explicitly laying out the themes, a testament to strong science fiction that attempts to show rather than tell. The problem is, there has to be context to show the audience the meaning of the film. The Signal remains distant and thin despite a promising and lofty premise.

Edge of Tomorrow - Movie Review by Michael Clawson

Edge of Tomorrow  

Starring Tom Cruise, Emily Blunt, Bill Paxton, Brendan Gleeson and Noah Taylor

Directed by Doug Liman

From Warner Bros. Pictures

Rated PG-13

113 minutes

Slick sci-fi premise sends Edge of Tomorrow sailing

by Michael Clawson of Terminal Volume

If The Edge of Tomorrow were just the sum of its parts — its internal mechanisms being Saving Private Ryan, Groundhog Day and War of the Worlds — then it would be a perfectly acceptable action blockbuster. But the film excels past its formula, soaring into the lower tiers of sci-fi greatness.

At the center of Edge of Tomorrow’s mech-suited bombast is Tom Cruise, who — no surprise, here — knows his way around a bonanza of futurist ideas and concepts. Few actors seem very interested in experimenting with science fiction, but Cruise is fearless at the genre, from Steven Spielberg’s one-two punch of Minority Report and War of Worlds, to last year’s fascinatingly ambitious, though hammy, Oblivion. Here in Edge of Tomorrow, Cruise plays Cage, a PR flack for the United States military. The opening moments show us a Starship Troopers-like flip-through of cable news, where we learn that an alien race has hijacked a comet and crash landed in Europe to breed like a bacteria. And there’s Cage, grinning like only a public relations geek can, as he analyzes the alien invasion with Wolf Blitzer.

In a slithery little PR move that reeks of bureaucracy, Cage is sent to the front lines of the alien invasion, where he’s fatally mangled during a gruesome D-Day-inspired beach-storming that turns out to be an ambush devilishly orchestrated by the sinewy tentacle-strewn aliens. But Cage doesn’t die, at least not permanently. He wakes up in the previous day, and only he’s aware of it. It’s as if the world reset back 24 hours just for him — and indeed it did. This is where Tomorrow’s intricate construction begins to shine: now in the second version of the same day, Cage makes tiny changes to his original delivery, which reveals different outcomes and permutations to the events of a day he’s already lived (and died) through. A complacent Cage yields one scenario, while an ambitious Cage gets another one entirely. Those familiar with Groundhog Day and Bill Murray’s oft-repeated routine — “I Got You Babe,” coffee in the lobby, Needlenose Ned, Punxsutawney Phil — will find Tomorrow’s version of the same concept to be a riot, including when Cage tirelessly attempts different stunts through several weeks worth of catastrophic deaths. I especially enjoyed Bill Paxton, playing a commanding officer, who is often perplexed at Cage’s apparent clairvoyance.

The finale to each of Cage’s days is the European invasion, which he can never survive — like a difficult video game level, but with unlimited lives. He’s crushed, impaled, shot, blown up, drowned, set on fire, eaten, chewed up, ground into a chunky paste … death knows no bounds as he re-lives the same day over and over again. He eventually teams up with Rita (Emily Blunt), who had her own neverending day a couple months before. She relived her day for so long that she eventually became a badass super soldier that earned her the nickname Full Metal Bitch. But her day ended, and now she latches onto Cage to try to crack this alien enemy, which uses time travel and forever-days as a tactic to refine their strategy. When she realizes he’s in the middle of one of the déjà-vu days, she tells him to “find me when you wake up,” and then promptly shoots him, starting another rebooted sequence. Later, they hunker down over topographical maps and sketch out their plan of attack; after each failure they make new annotations to their notes. The maps get quite cluttered.

Edge of Tomorrow works so well because its inventive with its concepts. I especially appreciated how the script assumed we would understand the material. When Cage finds Rita for the first time, he doesn’t have to spend 30 minutes convincing her. She knows what he’s going through, and the film doesn't torture us with his long explanation of it to her. And like Bill Murray’s weatherman in Groundhog Day, Cage dramatically goes through all the stages of grief as he wanders through the same day over and over again, whether its months or 10,000 years. The first week is spent in denial, trying desperately to win the invasion. Then he goes through anger and a nasty bout of depression, including when he lets a fellow soldier get repeatedly squished by a falling deployment chopper. And then comes acceptance, where the film kicks into overdrive as Cage finally learns how to crack the day. This isn’t as philosophical or spiritual as Groundhog Day, but it has its charms.

It also has its special effects, which are abundant and cleverly used. The big one is the mechanized suits worn by the soldiers. These hydraulic war costumes — kinky lingerie for cyborgs — seem too clunky and silly to wear into battle, but the plot builds much of every action scene around their overpowering ferocity. Although, Rita’s suit brings up a point I last brought up on the first Transformers movies: why would someone use a sword when they’re body is essentially one big gun? The other big special effect is the aliens, who move so quickly they’re hard to see until later in the movie. They achieve locomotion by spinning their squid-like arms around and rolling forward, like dust bunnies or tumbleweeds. They’re rather terrifying, with jump scares to prove it, but they’re generally harmless, if only because no one really stays dead in the movie.

Edge of Tomorrow is a fascinating and remarkably well-equipped science fiction film, one that allows Cruise to shine in a genre he has cornered for himself. The action and special effects are largely impressive, but the core science-fantasy mechanic bundles everything up nicely. That and the subtle chemistry of Cruise and Blunt, the latter of which is more than capable as an action heroine. It also embodies all that a summer movie should be: action, drama, romance, comedy, special effects, as well as some lesser-known pieces, like invention, wit, mystery and some light philopsophy. It’s doesn’t overdo or neglect any one element. It just finds a nice balance for all of it, and then snaps it all together in what might be the most worthwhile blockbuster of the summer.

The Fault in Our Stars - Movie Review by Michael Clawson

The Fault in Our Stars  

Starring Shailene Woodley, Ansel Elgort, Laura Dern, Nat Wolff, Willem Dafoe and Sam Trammell

Directed by Josh Boone

From 20th Century Fox

Rated PG-13

125 minutes

Woodley turns in lovely performance in Stars

by Michael Clawson of Terminal Volume

The Fault in Our Stars is a compendium of dying-people clichés. You’ve seen and heard all its parts scattered throughout other films, but here they are all together in one place — a junk drawer labeled “cancer.”

This isn’t meant as an insult, just an observation of the film’s inclusion, and then re-tooling, of all those sick-people scenes that other movies perpetuate, from the first ominous cough to the agonizing funeral. But that’s why John Boone’s film, based on John Green’s hit young adult book, is a deeply moving and beautifully written piece of humanity: it’s not just a strummer of heartstrings, but a delicate examination of young people as they maneuver through the final chapters of their lives.

We begin with teenager Hazel, our narrator and star. She’s cancer-free thanks to an experimental drug that has permanently eradicated the cancer, but rendered her lungs terrifyingly fragile. She must breathe from an oxygen tube that snakes around her ears and under her nose, an accessory she wears well. The oxygen tank is in a cute little rolling backpack she tows at her heels, her life-giving trailer. Although her health is good, Hazel is a broken soul: her sickness has made her cynical and depressed, and she’s slowly spiraling into a void. When she stands up at a survivor support group, she tells everyone that “oblivion is inevitable.” Her doctor wants to prescribe her an antidepressant. She resists: “Depression is a side effect of dying.”

Hazel is played with astounding confidence by Shailene Woodley, an actress who seems to have no limitations. Fault in Our Stars shows her simply and exquisitely: her hair is short and simple, her makeup is minimal, her actions are muted and hushed. But there is never a single moment that Woodley does not own the screen. Her Hazel meets Augustus (Ansel Elgort), an eccentric older boy who was robbed of one of his legs by cancer. Gus, as he’s called, is the opposite of Hazel: confident, bright, smiling, and eternally hopeful. In an unfortunate quirk serving as a metaphor, Gus walks around with a cigarette in his teeth. He doesn’t smoke it, just chews on it, because by not lighting it he’s taking away its power. (Nevermind that he funded big tobacco for that privilege.) He’s especially kind to his best friend, who’s about to lose his eyes to cancer. When the friend is dumped by his girlfriend, Gus gives him his basketball trophies to smash in a cathartic rage.

Gus and Hazel meet at their support group — colliding in a trademark Meet Cute — and they start dating. “I fell in love with him the way you fall asleep: slowly and then all at once,” she says. His infectious smile seeps into her life, and before she knows it, she’s happy and invigorated — her outlook brightens. Aside from her failing health, and his upbeat spirit, the film spends a great deal of time worrying about author Peter Van Houten, who wrote Hazel’s favorite book, An Imperial Affliction, about a cancer patient. After Gus and Hazel start an online correspondence with Van Houten (Willem Dafoe), they travel to Amsterdam to meet him and get answers about his cryptic novel, which ends mid-sentence, signifying the character’s sudden death. Of course, they show up and Van Houten isn’t what they thought, which sends them on a detour through the Anne Frank house and other gorgeous locations.

This is what happens in The Fault in Our Stars, but this is not the core of the movie. Within the scenes, and the loosely thatched plot, is a dialogue to young people about their mortality, their love and their fragile hearts. Hazel and Gus ponder their existence, the eternities, cancer … they seem to be struggling through a thoughtful analysis of the entire universe, stars included. The dialogue is smart and engaging, and the characters are informed and intelligent. They act and talk like adults, a believable aspect to young people who have encountered adult-sized illnesses. This might all sound very existential and ambiguous, and it is because the film wants you to sort out what it all means — life, love and death.

The movie has a grim style of comedy; gallows humor is probably the right classification. At one point, someone says the word “cancertastic.” Later, Hazel and Gus take a blind friend to an ex-girlfriend’s house so he can chuck eggs at her convertible. Van Houten is awkward and awful, even as he blasts Swedish hip-hop for his new guests. Cancer seems to hang over everyone, yet they have to smile and push forward under that gloomy cloud. Such is life.

The Fault in Our Stars is not a reinvention of teen dramas — it’s certainly no dismal Nicholas Sparks book — but it does take great care in trying to understand teens and their hopes, dreams and fears. Teens aren’t the idiots that movies make them out to be. They yearn for smart movies as much as adults, if not more so.

Edge of Tomorrow - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Edge of Tomorrow  

Dir: Doug Liman

Starring: Tom Cruise, Emily Blunt, Bill Paxton, and Brendan Gleeson

Rated PG-13

 113 Minutes

By: Monte Yazzie  from www.thecodafilms.com

Tom Cruise knows how to make an entertaining film and director Doug Liman understands action film storytelling. Combine these two consistent artists in a film and you are bound to have one entertaining experience. “Edge of Tomorrow” is a smartly designed and skillfully constructed science fiction thriller, with good performances from the two leads.

Major William Cage (Tom Cruise) is a high level recruiter for the military and the new war against alien invaders known as mimics, who have the ability to reset time, giving them the advantage of being a step ahead in warfare. Cage, a non-combat officer, is stripped of his rank by an overzealous General (Brendan Gleeson) and placed in a ragtag group known as “J Company” for frontline defense in the impending first assault. Cage doesn’t make it very far on the battlefield, dying within minutes but in the process killing a mimic that bleeds on him and gives him the ability to reset time. On a learning curve with his new power, Cage enlists the help of a respected soldier named Rita (Emily Blunt) in an effort to defeat the mimics.

Cruise was good throughout the film, starting the story as a privileged officer in the military who had an aversion to blood and had never used the weapons he promoted. But by the end he was a hardened expert of combat, motivated by the needs of humanity over his personal fears. It was a shift that Cruise handled with ease. Emily Blunt was enjoyable to watch, wielding a massive combat sword with an attitude that challenged most manly military stereotypes. She was best when paired with Cruise; mostly kicking him around during training sessions and repeatedly killing him so she could reset the day, it became fairly humorous after awhile.

The narrative was complicated, but not confusing. Liman kept the story nicely paced up to the final act, which changed tone and unfolded too predictably. The battle sequences were in the style of Liman’s past films, a mix of frenzied handheld perspectives awash with a grey color palette. Liman constructed a maze-like battlefield with explosions from nearly every direction that was an impressive display even with the unneeded 3-D gimmickry. The initial battle, that would again be replayed more than few times, was dizzying and exciting.

The CG aliens were in a constant state of hyper movement, reminiscent of the chaotic transition seen with the conversion from machine to robot in the “Transformers” series, and it became cluttered when mixed with Liman’s distinct action design in some parts. The artistic design of the futuristic weaponry was reminiscent of the first person shooter game “Unreal Tournament”, though the gore was much less. The restraint, in regards to violence and the many deaths of the lead character, were handled subtly with a camera pan or an intentional edit.

While the movie incorporated elements from some familiar sources, most notably “Source Code” and “Groundhog Day”, director Doug Liman kept the story easy to follow and the action exciting to watch, making “Edge of Tomorrow” an unexpected summer surprise.

Monte’s Rating

4.00 out of 5.00

Edge of Tomorrow - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

Edge of Tomorrow

 

Starring Tom Cruise, Emily Blunt, Bill Paxton, Brendan Gleeson, and Jonas Armstrong

Directed by Doug Liman

Rated: PG-13

Run Time: 113 minutes

Genre: Action/Sci-Fi

Opens June 6th

 

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

Edge of Tomorrow is intelligent, fun science fiction. Like a demented blend of Groundhog Day and Source Code, the film emphasizes the humor in repeating a single day from the former while also demonstrating the seriousness of solving a mystery with only a limited amount of time before things reset from the latter. It’s more original than that, though, due to its terrific use of gender role reversal alongside its kinetic, character-driven action. The film centers on a futuristic Earth that’s ravaged by an alien invasion, starting in Europe and leaving most global countries decimated. Officer William Cage (Tom Cruise), a spokesman for the war effort, insists with others that deliberate action and strategy against the aliens will lead to their success, yet they continue to fail. Cage is approached by General Brigham (Brendan Gleeson), a leader of the United Forces that guides the world’s concentrated effort against the aliens. He tells Cage they are planning an attack tomorrow, and Cage will be leading the charge. He’s never been in battle, let alone led an army. After attempts to blackmail and escape Brigham, Cage wakes up in handcuffs at the battlefront.

Cage is a man who sells things, working for an advertising agency and participating in ROTC in high school. He can sell what the military does. Officers in the field, though, are not impressed by his actions, with Master Sergeant Farell (Bill Paxton) even saying that Cage would attempt to escape if given the chance and is a deserter. When he is forced into battle, he is ill-equipped and sees a coordinated attack go to waste when the aliens thwart their every move. It’s as if they knew what was coming, a soldier says. Cage is killed in combat after executing an Alpha, which sprays acid over his face and body, ending his life quickly. Then Cage wakes up. Again. He keeps entering the battle, more and more confused, leading to his death and their loss every time. He’s in a time loop, which a Special Forces officer named Rita (Emily Blunt) notices, using this opportunity to prepare themselves for victory every time he wakes back up. Yet the aliens are smarter than they can imagine, and the familiarity of the situations and increasingly difficult circumstances take a toll on Cage’s psyche.

Cruise is playing a role largely devoid of action hero stereotypes, which is refreshing in the landscape of similar summer blockbusters. He has always been a charming screen presence, one that has had his public image torn apart due to personal affairs left for the media to judge. But that doesn’t take away from his talents on screen, where he can sell a plot much like his character and make an audience care about the situation at hand. The film shines even more, though, when Rita controls the action. She is affectionately coined the “Full Metal Bitch,” which Cage sees every time he wakes up, often to increasingly comedic effect. Blunt is outstanding in the role because she shows that she is made for any genre, so long as the role is strongly written and orchestrated. She fits the action heroine perfectly because the film provides her with stronger development than most traditional leads. She is masculinized in every way: the story provides her with the troubled emotional backstory usually held for stoic men; she is the more experienced warrior that knows how to survive in battle; and she even has her wounds tended to by a man, something usually reserved for passive romantic interests.

The plot is fairly straightforward for a time travel science fiction tale, although the ending leaves a bit to be desired in terms of dramatic impact. The film succeeds when it grounds the characters in the context of the story and surrounds them with action, not the other way around. That’s a testament to the writing as well as Doug Liman’s direction. In previous efforts like The Bourne Identity and Mr. and Mrs. Smith, he develops strong scenarios in which the characters logically exist. He doesn’t provide mindless action without context. Edge of Tomorrow also stands as an allegory, however basic, for the way war trivializes human life. Cage is put into battle without preparation and it leads to his death; he’s lucky to have a chance to relive the battle, because plenty of soldiers never come back from concentrated war efforts. The film isn’t made to be a staunch metaphor for militarization or anything of the sort. It’s made to blow stuff up really well. Which it does, alongside a twisty plot, well-developed characters, and effectively paced action. It’s a surprisingly exciting actioner.