Log Jam: A Review of THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2

There's a scene early in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 where Jamie Foxx's beleaguered OSCORP electrical engineer Max Dillon pretty much sums up the problem with director Marc Webb's latest installation in the quick and arguably unnecessary franchise reboot. It's Max's birthday and everyone has either forgotten or had no idea in the first place. As he's struggling to make his way into the company's building - the entrance's revolving doors are clogged up with other employees - he complains about people not moving faster and bemoans, "Ugh, we got a log jam here." Unfortunately, unbeknownst to Max, he's part of the problem. Although The Amazing Spider-Man 2 contains some truly compelling emotional work and a few standout scenes, it is sadly the victim of trying to squeeze too many villains, too many origin stories and too many plotlines into one film - a film that itself is part of a franchise that is floundering in its attempt to prove its worth outside of Sam Raimi's already existent trilogy. It's all too much too fast.   

When this story picks back up from the first film, we're again following Spider-Man (Andrew Garfield) as we swings through the city doing various Spider-Man things. It's his graduation day, but instead of hearing his girlfriend (Gwen Stacy, Emma Stone) give her valedictorian speech he's instead chasing a crazy Russian mobster (Paul Giamatti) who has stolen a bunch of some kind of destructive nuclear substance (as opposed to the completely harmless nuclear substances). During this ill-time detour, he ends up bumping into and saving the aforementioned borderline psychotic Max. Soon enough, Max becomes Spider-Man's obsessive number one fan and shortly after that he falls into a tank of eels being experimented on by OSCORP for their bioelectric power. Like most of the villains in Jerry Bruckheimer's Batman films, who all seemingly have a prior connection to their eventual alter egos, Max then becomes Electro! He then makes his way into the city, and is incensed by the fact that Spider-Man doesn't recognize him even though now he's blue, glowing and can absorb the entirety of the city's power. And when the cameras eventually turn from him to his arachnid nemesis, he decides to kill everyone in the world!... You know, because... JUST BECAUSE, OKAY?!

But a raging, tattooed Giamatti and synth-voiced Jamie Foxx aren't the only one's Spidey has to combat! No, there's also Sulky McAngstyPants otherwise known as Dane DeHaan's iteration of OSCORP heir, Harry Osbourne. He has a hipster haircut and wears fancy vests and expensive sunglasses. He's also apparently dying of same unknown degenerative disease that turned his father (Chris Cooper) green and then killed him. The only thing that will save him - he believes - is Spider-Man's spider blood. When Spider-Man tells him that he can't give Harry his blood right now because he doesn't yet know what it'll do to him, Harry completely flies off the handle and vows to destroy the superhero. (The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was written by Kurtzman & Orci, scribes of such gems as Cowboys and Aliens and Star Trek into Darkness and this is the second film of theirs in a row to feature this kind of transfusion nonsense.)

The love story between Peter and Gwen is still the best thing about this franchise. The two struggle with with their relationship, walk and talk and flirt across the New York City streets and are a big pile of adorable together. When they break up, you can feel the pain in their hearts, when they can't stay apart you don't need to be told why and when Gwen is put in extreme danger, Garfield sells Peter's panic beautifully. Having a real life couple portray a couple on screen can cause major problems (just ask Bennifer), but Stone and Garfield show how much actual romantic chemistry can strengthen a film's verisimilitude. 

Honestly, when The Amazing Spider-Man 2 sticks (no pun intended) to being about Spider-Man, it's a pretty solid picture. Apart from his relationship with Gwen Stacy, how he interacts with civilians of all ages and creeds is fantastic. There is a particular scene in the film where Spider-Man saves the lives of a bunch of people that is one of the best superhero movie scenes in quite some time. The scenes of Peter's home life and relationship with Aunt May (the always brilliant Sally Field) as they both continue to grieve over the loss of Uncle Ben are also surprisingly emotional. 

But unfortunately, none of these emotionally resonant moments last for too long. There's no time for it! We've got stuff to blow up! Shit to destroy! Seemingly every emotional moment is undercut by an action scene that doesn't land at all. From the beginning fight scene on an airplane that makes it seem like the cameraman wants to brawl too, to an early chase scene that looks particularly video gamey, especially when the special effects shots cut immediately to actual images of a physically real person in a suit, it's paradoxically too much and not enough at the same time. 

That paradox is really the major issue with story too. Firstly, the whole quest involving Peter's father (Campbell Scott) is uninteresting and serves no real meaningful purpose. Secondly, the script spends way too much time on our villains' backstories even though they really do nothing that couldn't be shown through their actions or one or two lines of simple, expository dialogue. And thirdly, NO ONE'S MOTIVATION MAKES ANY DAMN SENSE! Max Dillon doesn't get enough attention from people and feels a little taken advantage of by his superiors so he wants to destroy the entire world? Spider-Man doesn't recognize him immediately even though he looks nothing like he once did and Spider-Man has to die? I get that maybe his new found electrical powers might have screwed his mind up, but that's never mentioned! We only get long monologues about how no one sees him and how frustrating that is. And Harry? Harry is told that he is suffering from the disease that killed his father and will eventually kill him. Except it's clearly shown that Norman Osbourne developed the same symptoms at Harry's age and lived into his 60s. But Harry has to have the cure right this second! Spider-Man wants to wait until he can make sure his blood is safe before giving it to Harry? Screw that, Spider-Man, I'm going to die in like 40 years! 

What it comes down to, is that The Amazing Spider-Man 2 isn't a complete story. It's a setup, as inelegant a setup as it is, for The Amazing Spider-Man 3 and The Sinister Six. The problem I have with that, though, is that while I can recognize this fact, I can only really evaluate it on its own merits as a standalone film. And, unfortunately, there just aren't that many. Too many characters and poorly written backstories crammed in with ridiculous motivations turn what could have been an emotionally powerful look into Spider-Man's life, relationships and responsibilities (or even an interesting look into how the media can create superheroes as well as supervillains) into something that is ridiculous even by summer blockbuster standards. There are a few gems tucked away throughout, but they are quickly overtaken by another confusing or tedious moment of action or dull origin story. 

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is a log jam of poorly thought out ideas. I just hope The Amazing Spider-Man 3 and The Sinister Six make up for it. Otherwise, we may be stuck in these revolving doors for a long, long time. 

6 out of 10

Writin' Ain't, Writin' Ain't Easy, Man: A Review of A FANTASTIC FEAR OF EVERYTHING

Look, being a writer isn't easy. And being a writer in a work of fiction is even worse. It doesn't matter if you're a Stephen King creation like Jack Torrance, taking a winter job as the Overlook's caretaker only to have its ghostly inhabitants tempt you with booze and try to get you to murder your wife and son. Hell, even Paul Sheldon who pretty much has his act together in Misery gets his cockadoodie ass put through the wringer by his number one fan. And the world of film isn't much better. In Barton Fink, the Coens force their character on a surrealist journey through a Hollywood hellscape and then there's Charlie Kaufman's Adaptation., where his character's writer's block means almost getting himself killed at the hands of a toothless crazy person and some ornery alligator.  What I'm saying here is that if you're a writer in someone else's story, you're probably going to have some messed up shit happen to you. 

Which brings me to Crispian Mills and Chris Hopewell's 2012 (released here in the US this past February) comedy/horror film A Fantastic Fear of Everything - a film that will certainly not be causing an increase in applications to creative writing MFA programs. Unfortunately, that's not simply from all the terrible things that happen to the film's protagonist, Jack Nife (played by Simon Pegg and yes, that's his actual name). No, while first time directors, Mills (who also wrote the film and is primarily known as the frontman for the band Kula Shaker) and Hopewell (who up until this point has made his name directing music videos) display flashes of potential, benefiting primarily from their previous careers, they also demonstrate their inexperience with a film that tries to do so many things that it all ends up feeling clumsy and arbitrary. 

Throughout the film, Pegg has the stage mostly to himself as a successful children's author who hates his career and is attempting to escape the straight jacket he's put himself in by writing a series of screenplays titled Decades of Death and heavily influenced by the lives and heinous crimes of some of Victorian England's worst serial killers. And, of course, being a writer in someone else's story, Jack's research into his subjects' horrific deeds has left him a phobic, panic-stricken, nightmare-suffering mess convinced that someone or something is going to hop out from behind his shower curtain or out of his closet and dismember him. When his literary agent Clair (Clare Higgins) informs him that a hotshot TV producer is interested in Decades of Death and wants to meet with him, the task of putting on clean clothes and venturing across town seems Herculian. This is, after all, a man who spends most of his time in his underwear shrieking at shadows and stabbing at the air with his kitchen knife. Eventually, after a bunch of voice-over worrying and slapstick comedy involving supergluing a his knife to his hand and setting his outfit on fire, Jack finally surmises that the only thing left to be done is a trip to the launderette.  This is when the film introduces us to the fact that Jack actually has a crippling fear of launderettes which he must overcome with great difficulty and-- Wait, what?

Much like the twisted logic of Jack's own inane theories, the storyline of A Fantastic Fear of Everything pretty much goes wherever it wants without regard to anything that's come before it or, you know, anything that makes actual sense. What ends up happening is that you get a movie that feels like a bunch of different writers collaborated on it without actually reading what any of the other writers had written. It's like the Frankenstein monster if there had been a bunch of different scientists who were each allowed to do part of the monster but not allowed to see what the other scientists had done and you ended up with a creation that had the torso of a body builder, the legs of a ballerina and a cat's head - all fine parts, but not a pretty picture when you smash them all together. First, we're shown that Jack is hopelessly dysfunctional, but his voice over suggests that this is a new development. Then at the launderette, it's suggested that his problems are actually lifelong issues based in childhood trauma. THEN in the final act, an up to this point unknown character (Amara Karan) is introduced and the whole thing shifts into an intimate thriller and entirely drops the whole dysfunction angle as if to imply simply identifying the cause of the trauma is an instant panacea. And I could probably even accept this if there was any sort of cohesiveness or emotional resonance to anything onscreen. However, the film bounces from scene to scene, making incomprehensible leaps in narrative and concept. Everything is put towards making each joke or gag the funniest it can be. But without considering how these scenes, jokes and gag connect to one another, it all just falls apart. 

But I don't want to completely shit all over the movie. Even though they may not make much sense in context, many of those individual scenes, gags and jokes are marvelous. Mills and Hopewell have a clear visual sense and much of their use of slow motion, stop motion and slapstick is fantastic. Their ability to block a shot is also amazing. Perhaps the greatest sequence and gag in the movie involves Jack negotiating his way around a local laundromat. The way Mills and Hopewell are able to arrange the camera so that the punchline of the gag isn't revealed until way into the scene is brilliant. And while I know many critics have complained about the use of the music in the film, I think it's one of the film's stronger components. Mills being an accomplished singer-songwriter himself and Hopewell having directed acts such as Radiohead, the Killers, Scissor Sisters and Franz Ferdinand, the pair clearly know what they're doing in this world. That being said, while others may feel that the music is too foregrounded, with the film already being as all over the place as it is, I won't apologize for the fact that I cracked up watching Simon Pegg strut down a London street in a large, hooded overcoat and his knife glued hand in his pocket to the sounds of Ice Cube's "Wrong Nigga 2 Fuck Wit." And any chance I can get to hear Europe's "The Final Countdown" blaring out of boombox in a basement that looks like Freddy Krueger's home, I'll take it.  Mills and Hopewell's taste in things visual and aural are consistently compelling even when their narrative isn't. 

It's hard to talk about anything Simon Pegg's in and not mention his friend and frequent collaborator (and the man who pretty much put him on the map) Edgar Wright, especially with a film that shares so many connections to Wright's material. With Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz and The World's End, Pegg has been given many opportunities to show us all what a charismatic and versatile performer he is. And while A Fantastic Fear of Everything, like all of Wright's films, is visually striking, without Wright's storytelling ability and the cohesion that all of his character's have, it's hard for Pegg to completely come alive here. Sure, when he's running around his home, shrieking and super-gluing things and talking to himself, he fills the screen with a manic energy. And when the script allows him to be truly funny, he is a riot. In the end, however, Jack Nife (whose name should have been a hint) is never given the chance to rise to the level of some of Wright's characters like Shaun or Nicolas Angel or Gary King. Instead, Jack amounts to little more than a caricature. 

Admittedly, I don't like being so negative about a film when the directors are clearly talented and have a ton of ambition to go along with it. However, despite their terrific sense of visual storytelling, it just can't get them out of the hole dug by Mills's script. In such a longstanding tradition of British comedy/horror, A Fantastic Fear of Everything's jokes can sometimes feel too forced and when they don't, they often end up taking away from what few scares the film has. Just as Jack Nife is paralyzed by his association with his new project, Mills and Hopewell might have been better off letting someone else choose their material. 

Like I said, being a writer isn't easy. 

6.5 out of 10

FX's FARGO: Coen Brothers Remix Breaks Away from Source and Shines

SPOILERS for Episode 1 - "The Crocodile's Dilemma" - of FX's new series "Fargo" are within.

I am not special in saying that I love the Coen Brothers. From The Big Lebowski and O' Brother, Where Art Thou to No Country for Old Men and True Grit, the Coen Brothers are responsible for some of the most beloved and outstanding films of the past 20 years. Their distinct style of darkly comedic (often pitch black) character driven pieces populated by complex individuals fond of snappy, over the top, Noir-inspired dialogue has been often imitated but never duplicated. They are two of the most unique, brilliant, consistently fresh and original directors working in Hollywood.

So, it's needless to say that when I heard that Noah Hawley (producer and writer for such TV shows as Bones, The Unusuals, and My Generation) was turning one of the Coen Brothers' most adored films, 1996's arguably perfect Fargo, into a limited series on FX, you might say I was worried. You might also say I was cringing so hard that my neck muscles ruptured and I died. (But if you did, you'd be scary and weird.) Other than the occasional M*A*S*H or The Untouchables, any time a film is made into a TV show or a TV show is made into a film, the results are at best lackluster and at worst steaming piles of "What on Earth were you thinking?!" 

And I must say that during the first part of last night's premiere, I was beginning to fear that my ruptured neck muscles were prescient. Early on, the show felt like Hawley (who also pens all 10 episodes of the limited run) simply mixing and matching familiar elements from the Coen classic just to get a reaction. There's the police officer who's about to have a baby. Except instead of Frances McDormand, it's a male officer name Vern Thurman (Shawn Doyle). When two cops show up at a snow-covered stretch of highway to investigate a crime scene, it's Vern correcting his female deputy Molly Solverson (played by unknown Allison Tolman) rather than Margie Gunderson telling Lou she doesn't 100% agree with his police work there. While Lester Nygaard isn't introduced planning the kidnapping of his wife to extort a million dollars from his father in-law, Martin Freeman imbues the insurance salesman with emasculated desperation that is clearly reminiscent of William H. Macy's Jerry Lundergaard. Even Billy Bob Thornton's assassin and world-class shit-stirrer Lorne Malvo, while not having any direct connections to a Coen Brothers original, has flashes of the matter of fact cruelty of Peter Stormare's Gaear. And when Malvo ends up murdering Lester's torturer Sam Hess without actually getting Lester's go-ahead, it feels as if Hawley is simply watering down the Coens' masterpiece into the boring and overused tropes of the sympathetic loser protagonist roped into a life of crime against his will and the traditional male authority figure investigating the clues left behind. 

But then Lester beats his overbearing wife to death with a ball-peen hammer and Lorne Malvo eviscerates Vern Thurman with Lester's shotgun and things take a turn. 

In some ways, these acts bring the TV show closer to the film - it makes Lester more comparable to Jerry and it places Molly more firmly into the Marge Gunderson role. In others, however, one can never help feeling like something isn't quite right. The episode starts off just like the movie - a shot of a snowy wasteland backed by an ominous score. But this is not the same world we're looking at. The melody isn't building to Carter Burwell's classic theme, but instead something very different. While it looks like Molly (by the way, Allison Tolman is one of the best new talent discoveries I've seen in some time) is going to solely inhabit McDormand's role, by the end of the episode we are introduced to Colin Hanks's Gus Grimley and it seems like Hawley is up to something different altogether. It all makes for an unsettling feeling. Every time you think you have found a one-for-one connection between the film and the TV show, Hawley switches gears on you. Anytime you think you've figured out what he's doing, Hawley changes the score. 

While the sequence that ultimately ends with Vern Thurman and Mrs. Nygaard dead and Lester unconscious is brilliantly crafted and impeccably written and executed, what impressed me most (and what illustrates my above point the best) is how Hawley and company are able to get you to so completely sympathize and identify with Lester Nygaard only to immediately rip that identification away when he brutally bashes in his wife's face. And Hawley (and director Adam Bernstein) does it in a way that is subtly magnificent. When Lester first hits Pearl, Bernstein immediately cuts to a point of view shot of Pearl's shocked visage as blood begins to trickle from her head. Here, Bernstein seems to be suggesting that we've been invited to identify with Lester because at one point or another we've all been harassed by our own personal Sam Hesses or emasculated or diminished by someone we love. He argues that we are the ones who have perpetrated this crime, perhaps by wishing it would happen in this world, that Lester would just go ahead and do what none of us are able to. Then, just as swiftly, Bernstein shifts out to have us watch Lester as he mercilessly beats and beats Pearl with the hammer. We don't even see his face as he does it. So in the span of a few seconds, we go from being Lester to the horror of seeing him at an angle where he appears to be swinging the hammer at us and then it shifts to an angle that completely cuts out his face, dehumanizing him. Bernstein asks us if we ourselves would be capable of an act this heinous, answers with an unequivocal "yes" and then pulls us away from Lester to challenge us to acknowledge the severity and cruelty of what he has done. It's amazing stuff and while Bernstein isn't a Coen, his style feels assured and his skill as a director is clear. 

The show is not without fault, however. Often through its first hour, it makes its status as a TV show too obvious. While there are a few big shocks, much of the time Fargo is too by-the-numbers and easily predictable. Also, where even Coens' minor characters can have immense depth, many key players in the first episode are incredibly one note. Pearl Nygaard is so relentless and passive aggressively brutal with her constant needling that she becomes like a cartoon character. This combined with yet another FX trip to the local strip club imbues Fargo with an uncomfortable air and leaves it open to (justifiable, no FX pun intended) accusations of misogyny. Likewise, the bullies that plagued Lester are handled with less wit than an episode of Dads. Granted, the Coens have not built a reputation for their light touch, but all of their characters are made complex with some strange brew of compassion, melancholy or fascination that Hawley and company have yet to nail down. And, much of the first 50 minutes are spent laying down the groundwork for everything that is to come. While this can be admirable, it also doesn't make for very exciting TV, only hinting at the horror that the show is capable of until the explosive final 20 minutes. 

That being said, Fargo has a spectacular amount of potential. All of the characters that remain are fascinating and from what I've read, that only continues with the introduction of more players in the upcoming episodes. All of these characters feel different from anyone the Coens have created yet feel perfectly at home in the Brothers' universe. It's a small distinction, but one that I think means a lot. That's why the final 20 minutes are the strongest. They establish a tone that feels Coen-esque while doing so in a way that feels organic and confident in its ability to strike out and become its own thing. From what I've read, in the next few episodes things only get stronger (while getting weirder and more original). 

This thing could have easily warped into some weird celebration of masculinity. In a lesser show, Lester would have been a Walter White-type antihero. He could have been our put upon protagonist who gets in over his head and commits a murder, removing the manifestation of everything he hasn't gotten out of life. He could have been a gorilla like the ones Lorne Malvo talks about when he tells Lester, "Your problem is you spent your whole life think there are rules. There aren't. We used to be gorillas. All we had was what we could take and defend." Instead, Hawley and company argue that Lester is just as evil as Malvo. Instead of being a celebration of masculinity, Hawley and company (in the Coen Tradition) seem to be critiquing all of the praises they see around them. They seem to be showing what happens when the idea of masculinity is reduced to simply taking what is yours and doing away with anyone that tries to stop you. 

It's not perfect. It's not the Coens. But it has potential. And I like it. 

It Came From Netflix: 20 FEET FROM STARDOM

Ashamedly, I've been away from writing this blog and have only returned for brief periods now and again. Now, a combination of regret and need to return to it will hopefully spur me into writing on a much more regular basis. I've decided to not really limit myself anymore. Where I used to mainly do reviews of Criterion films or recent theatrical releases, I've now decided to write a little each day about something I've watched - be it a film or a TV episode or a weird commercial or even something I saw on YouTube or Twitch. I need to write more, I want to write more, I am going to write more. And I'm starting right now!

This year's Academy Awards marked a personal milestone for me. Most years I will see maybe all but one of the films nominated for best picture and usually I have a semi well rounded idea about which actors and actresses I think deserve the major acting role wins. However, more often than not because of where I live, I rarely get to see any of the films nominated for Best Documentary or Best Foreign film. This year that was not the case! While the foreign films continue to elude me, thanks to Netflix by the time the red carpet was rolled out for the Oscars, I had seen all but one of the films nominated for Best Documentary. 

That one? Morgan Neville's 20 Feet from Stardom. And guess which film won. 

So, while I stewed in my anger that Joshua Oppenheimer's The Act of Killing didn't win, I vowed that whenever I got the chance to see 20 Feet from Stardom, I would see what all the fuss was about. This month, I was given that opportunity. 20 Feet from Stardom is now streaming on Netflix and though I still don't see how it won out over The Act of Killing on pure quality alone, I definitely think it warrants a watch from anyone interested in music, music documentaries or if you're simply looking for something entertaining with lots of "stand and cheer" appeal. 

In the film, Neville - who is known primarily for his numerous American Masters and Biography entries - shines the spotlight on a select group of African American women - including Darlene Love, Merry Clayton, Claudia Lennear, Tata Vega, Judith Hill and Lisa Fischer - who have spent most of their careers in the shadows of such giants as Michael Jackson, Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder, Sting, David Bowie and Bruce Springsteen. These are the women whose "ooh"s and "lah"s we all tone deafly repeat in the shower. These are the hardworking women who have formed the backbone of classic tunes for decades. They brought depth and soul to some of the most memorable songs of the rock 'n' roll era and for whatever reason never quite "made it" on their own. 

20 Feet from Stardom asks a variety of thought provoking questions. Why have some of the best vocalist of the last half-century remained virtually unknown except to music aficionados? Are there requirements for pop success that these women simply do not have? Or is the system weighted too heavily against them? Lisa Fischer, who is clearly the most talented of all the women featured, is shown to have an otherworldly voice and a winning personality. She sang back up for Luther Vandross and even won her own Grammy for a solo album. Is she simply too nice for the cutthroat business that is music? Or is success based on dumb luck? 

It's a question that occurs again and again with these women from the youngest, Judith Hill, who is still struggling to make her dreams come true to Claudia Lennear, whose solo tracks for the 1970's are presented as unearthed treasures. All of these women are shown to have ample talent. They all made a play for the front of the stage and they all, after after failing to grasp it, retreated to the back once more. 

The story that, in my opinion, forms the backbone of the film however, is a little different. Darlene Love's story (she's the one who sang her thank yous at the Oscars) of exploitation at the hands of record produce Phil Spector (you know, that guy with the ridiculous wigs who is in jail for shooting that one woman in the face) is more of the classic overcoming the odds tale. Before the age of 20, Darlene was singing - and singing lead - as part of the famous "girl group" tracks of the 1960's. However, despite the success of her music, her name was never released to the public. She got screwed so bad legally that she spent years as a cleaning woman despite literally everyone and their grandmother having hummed along to one of her tunes at one point or another. Her eventual triumphant return (thanks in no small part to her appearances on David Letterman at at the now defunct NYC nightclub The Bottom Line) on her own terms marks an emotional high point of the film and one that demonstrates why the film took off as well as it did. 

Neville is no amateur when it comes to musical bio-docs. Having made films - some made for cable or stations like PBS, some made for theatrical release - about Brian Wilson, Iggy Pop, Johnny Cash and many others, he clearly knows exactly what he is doing. As a film, 20 Feet from Stardom sticks mostly to the stylistic basics. For the most part, Neville rests upon tastefully shot interviews slickly edited with some great archival footage. Occasionally, he will add an artistic touch as with how he shoots Lisa Fischer running errands in her everyday street clothes or when he loving shoots Darlene Love singing in-studio with backup vocalists of her own. In a few scenes, we see Fischer simply riffing as the camera, close up, captures all the emotions that crawl across her face as she produces some of the most hauntingly beautiful sounds I have ever heard. 

Despite these occasional touches, Neville's clear strength is as a historian. He is able to expertly sift through a wealth of details to find exactly what pieces he needs to tell a singular, compelling narrative. In 20 Feet from Stardom, he starts with the moment when black singers began to first infiltrate an up until that point segregated industry, liberating backup vocalization from the once drab, sheet music reading of the 40's and 50's. It goes on to document the importance of various figures like Ray Charles with his Raylettes up through the hey day of the 70's and 80's where musicians of all genres were paying through the nose to get that necessary shot of soul into their music. Neville then contrasts that to today, an era where cheap digital recording and auto tune have made specialists less desirable. Why spend money on professionals when a machine bought at Best Buy can transform grandma's hooks and melodies into exactly what you need. 

However, Neville's clear strength as a historian also highlights one of the biggest problems with the film - namely that he isn't much of an investigative journalist or a critic. As I stated earlier, 20 Feet from Stardom raises a lot of pointed and interesting questions - like whether or not the industry will only let a certain number of black artists or women excel; like whether background vocalists have been exploited throughout the years for their sex appeal or their race; and like whether or not an overpowering voice alone is enough to cement one's spot at center stage. Unfortunately, most of these questions are presented and then answered with some mix of shrugging and vague statements about poor timing and bad packaging. Interesting moments like discussions of uncomfortable songs like Lou Reed's "Walk on the Wild Side" with its lyric about "coloured girl" backup singers and of Phil Spector's and Ike Turner's sleazy exploitation of these innocent girls are quickly brushed under the rug. At one point, a trio of backup singers are singing a rendition of "Up Where We Belong" around a table and instead of accenting each other, they all attempt to take the lead essentially killing the song. It's one of the most fascinating and explanatory moments in the film and Neville does nothing with it. As with his focus on young Judith Hill's journey, which he portrays more as heroic than overly idealistic, Neville often strives too hard to remain upbeat. 

But, then again, many of his subjects are upbeat. Many of them come to the realization of what a unique and rewarding job they've had and, after so much time to reflect on it, seem to have grown to appreciate it. And ultimately I think that's the point of 20 Feet from Stardom. It isn't trying to argue that these women should be stars. It's arguing that their significant contributions to the music industry as backup vocalists should be recognized and celebrated. That's why the most interesting person in the film and who I believe is actually the "star" is Lisa Fischer. The lady with mind blowing talent who, after an unsuccessful run at fame, took her ethereal voice back into the shadows. But she isn't bitter in the least. She instead boasts about all the great songs she has gotten to sing and all the amazing people she has gotten to sing them with. 

Yes, the film does get repetitive at times. Yes, it can feel a little too upbeat and maybe a little manipulative. And yes, perhaps it would have been more interesting if it would have went more in depth on some of the more politically charged questions it hints at. (It is definitely a better film when it sticks to telling frank stories.) However, it is a film that is rich in pull-back-the-curtains moments and will introduce you to a world that you probably weren't too aware of but of which you definitely should be. Because in a world where the biggest, richest stars are auto tuned to oblivion, where a leaked, isolated and untouched track of someone reveals they actually sound like a dying cat, we could use more people like Lisa Fischer and all the other women beautifully portrayed in the film. These women deserve recognition. They deserve celebration. And 20 Feet from Stardom is a wonderful starting point. 

7.5 out of 10

"People Want Heroes": Thoughts on the First TMNT Trailer

I don't know about you, but that was pretty gnarly. And while you may be partial to bodacious, bitchin', radical, wicked, or totally tubular, you gotta admit that trailer was a lot of fun, right?

At this point, I'm not entirely sure if I actually enjoyed it, this trailer is our first real look at this year's reboot of Eastman and Laird's comic book classic, or if my expectations have been lowered so severely, plunged into a Mariana Trench-sized pit of sadness with every new reveal, that anything that didn't burn out my retinas upon first glance would have made me happy. And it totally did! Yes, Michael Bay in producing. Yes, the guy (Jonathan Liebesman) who is directing also directed such masterpieces as Darkness Falls, Battle: Los Angeles, and Wrath of the Titans. And yes, Megan Fox is starring as plucky news reporter April O'Neil. But, despite it all, there's a bunch of things to like about this trailer. 

I was initially worried about the tone. As the trailer begins, we get a serious sounding William Fichtner (whose casting I love) talking about the rampant crime and mayhem in New York City. As he does, his words are laid over scenes of destruction and armed police looking scary and then getting manhandled by some unknown force. There is dramatic music, gun fire, terror and menace and while watching it I started to get some serious Battle: LA flashbacks. And then you see them. Then you see Leonardo flip down in front of O'Neil. Then you see them sliding on their shells down an icy slope and you hear Donatello say, "Batter up!" and then woo! and chuckle as Rafael slams into a vehicle. And then you know things might just be okay. 

The tone seems like exactly what I want it to be and what it needs to be. It has the grit and the darkness, the whimsy and the goofiness, and it seems to balance it well. William Fichtner is rightfully austere and intimidating as he attempts to sell April a line and as he later stares longingly, almost smiling at the armor that will turn him into the turtle's greatest foe. Megan Fox has never been Katherine Hepburn or Meryl Streep, but she is asked to do relatively little outside of looking confused and afraid which suits her perfectly (and which I hope is representative of her role throughout the film). And the Turtles themselves are pretty much exactly what I wanted. Are they kind of gross? Yes. Are they off-putting and a little scary? Yes. BUT THEY'RE MUTANTS. They Teenage MUTANT Ninja Turtles. They were common pet turtles who were mutated by some strange green chemical and then taught the ninja arts by a rat named Splinter who has also been mutated. And that's what they look like! Sure, I kind of miss the smooth, rubbery suits from the early '90's, but in the age of CGI, this was the best we could hope for and I for one like it. They're wise-cracking, they sound like surfers, they can kick ass and I'll bet you anything that they have a burning passion for a good pizza. 

I'll come clean though, despite how much I enjoyed the trailer, I wouldn't say I'm sold. Even with all the things to like, we're still dealing with a director whose track record would suggest that even at his best, the most we can expect is "pretty alright" or "I didn't hate it." I also worry about the feel of the beginning half of the trailer. As much as I like William Fichtner, it still looks like a generic CGI-filled meh-fest.  Blue/Green, Orange, Blue/Green, Orange, Destruction Porn, Blue/Green, Orange. Everything changes when the Turtles hit the screen, however. Even though the action is still generic, the quartet's patented silliness and fun-loving nature is more than enough to make up for it. My hope is that they will be the focus from the get-go instead of there being an unnecessarily long build up to their reveal where we follow snoopy April O'Neil as she tries to make her bones with hard-hitting journalism about the corrupt and crumbling City of New York. The film isn't called April O'Neil: Just the Facts or Shredder Origins. It's called Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. That's who audiences are paying to see and that's to whom I hope the film pays paramount attention. 

Do I think it'll be great? No, probably not. I worry that it'll be caught in the dead zone of being too violent/scary/intense for children but too mild and uninteresting for adults. I worry that Michael Bay and Jonathan Liebesman and Megan Fox will find away to screw things up majorly as they have time and time again. I worry that even though the tonal balance in the trailer is great, the finished film will not pull it off nearly as well. And I worry that it will be compared unfairly (and too harshly) to the beloved 1990's film, where even if it's pretty great, it won't be good enough. But despite all my worries, I'll be damned if this trailer didn't get me at least a little excited. I have loved the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles ever since I was a little kid. I've read the comics, watched the movies and the animated series, played with the toys and wore clothes based on the franchise. Hell, I even carried a Ninja Turtle shell backpack all fours years of college. And based on this brief glimpse, this seems like the Ninja Turtles I know and love. Sure it's got that new school look, but the flavor is totally old school. 

"People want heroes," Shredder tells April O'Neil. "They're not born, they're created," he says. They're also not aliens or mute monsters wielding dangerous weapons. What they are, are a group of rambunctious teenage turtles who love to have fun and munch on Italian food, but who also stand up for what's right. What they are, are heroes in a half shell with turtle power. And, amazing as it sounds, that seems like exactly what Bay and Liebesman are trying to give us. 

And to that I say, "COWABUNGA!"

My 15 Most Anticipated Films of 2014: 5 - 1

Following through! Part three of three! In the post-Oscars glow of this fine Monday night, I look at my top 5 most anticipated films of 2014! Will we be talking about any of these films come this time next year? Even with my poor intuition I can't help but think so. Let's see what you think!

5.) Godzilla by Gareth Edwards (Release: May 16th)

If I had a dollar for every time I saw an amazing trailer for a film that ended up being a complete dumpster fire disaster, I would have way too many dollars. And, needless to say, I'm going to be devastated if Godzilla follows that pattern. When it was announced that they were making a new Godzilla picture, I was immediately struck by PTSD flashbacks of 1998 and seeing Roland Emmerich's adaptation in the theatre. When it came out I was 7 years old, about to turn 8. It was the first PG-13 movie I was allowed to see and I remember being so nervous and excited at the prospect of what I was going to witness. It was also the first time I remember being genuinely upset with a film. I remember being struck by how much of a nothing the monster was. Sure, it was big. MONSTROUS! But it was like looking at a skyscraper-sized piece of paper. There was no substance, no personality. It had the size, but lacked the power. But this time, things just might be different. Gareth Edwards is not Roland Emmerich and what he was able to do with only $500,000 dollars in 2010's Monsters was spectacular. This time he's been given 320 times the budget and if the glorious, glorious trailers are any indication, he's making it count. The monster looks and FEELS impossibly huge. With just second-long glimpses in the trailer, the fear of total destruction is already firmly entrenched in my mind. Not only that, but Bryan Cranston is doing some amazing character work and along with the likes of Elizabeth Olsen and Aaron Taylor-Johnson, the cast is much, much stronger on the whole than than it was in 1998. Am I worried? Of course, I don't know if I can handle another heartbreak. But it's impossible not to get excited with the two absolutely stunning trailers we've already gotten. 

4.) Only Lovers Left Alive by Jim Jarmusch (Release: TBD)

I have become, as I'm sure the vast majority of you are, completely exhausted with the ubiquity of vampires in books, film and television. Like zombies, they are literally everywhere. When Wal*Mart has a section dedicated to you, you know it's time to stop. UNLESS IT'S JIM JARMUSCH DOING IT. One of the living gods of independent cinema, Jim Jarmusch has been cranking out sensational and powerful cinema for 30 years. Stranger Than Paradise, Down by Law, Dead Man, Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai, the list goes on and on. He also did a quiet dramedy in 2005 called Broken Flowers in which Bill Murray gets a letter explaining that he has a son and then goes on a cross-country trip tracking down his former lovers in an attempt to find the mother. It's one of my favorite films of all time and is on Netflix and you need to see it RIGHT NOW. 

Being a big fan of Jarmusch's and knowing his filmography pretty well, if you asked me what genre he'd never do, a vampire drama would be near the top. Actually, it wouldn't because what the hell is that? But it looks absolutely incredible with a knockout cast including Tilda Swinton, Tom Hiddleston, Mia Wasikowska, John Hurt and Jarmusch regular and all around amazing (and massively underrated) actor, Jeffrey Wright. Nominated for the top prize at Cannes, Only Lovers Left Alive tells the story of two centuries-old vampire lovers (Hiddleston and Swinton) who... actually that's all I really know about it. And honestly, I don't need anything else. This seems like something that is custom fitted to me in every way. The United Kingdom already has it and it's not clear when we're going to get it in the States, but when we do, don't let this one slip by. It will undoubtedly fly under the radar even with being about vampires and you really aren't going to want to miss it.

3.) Interstellar by Christopher Nolan (Release: November 7th)

Let the McConaughnaissance continue! Fresh off his Oscar win for Best Actor (Alright, alright, alright!), McConaughey looks to keep his outstanding career resurrection going and perhaps bring himself right back to where he stood last night (If you've seen True Detective, you know how much he likes a good circle) with the latest film and first original creation by Christopher Nolan since 2010's Inception - Interstellar. Like Only Lovers Left Alive, not much is known about the film, but essentially scientists discover a wormhole and send a team of explorers to investigate, sending them on a voyage that will push the boundaries of space and time. Christopher Nolan is Kubrick-like in his chilly filmmaking and it is going to be interesting seeing what fruits come to bear from his collaboration with McConaughey who would have to channel Olivier, Brando and Daniel Day-Lewis just to attempt to play "cold." But even with that brief glimpse of McConaughey driving away in his pickup, it already looks like they've created something emotionally resonant. Not to mention, this marks Nolan's first film since 2000 without cinematographer Wally Pfister - teaming with Hoyte Van Hoytema whose work on Spike Jonze's Her was marvelous. Oh, and it's an original sci-fi story from the man that brought us Inception, Memento and The Prestige. So, there's also that. 

2.) The Grand Budapest Hotel by Wes Anderson (March 7th) 

That's right! My second most anticipated film of 2014 and it will be here this Friday! Wes Anderson is easily in my top three of favorite directors. Some people complain that he always makes the same movies and that may have truth to it. But who cares? I can name bands whose songs all sound the same and they're some of the greatest of all time. Granted, around The Darjeeling Limited, his style briefly soured for me. However, he followed that up with Fantastic Mr. Fox and Moonrise Kingdom and all was forgiven. I've finally accepted that Wes Anderson has settled into his aesthetic like one of those elderly people living in a rent-controlled apartment who refuses to leave so some big business can tear the building down to build a mini-mall and my love and respect for it has grown exponentially. This time around, he looks to be at his most Wes Anderson-y as he tells the story of a hotel concierge (Ralph Fiennes) who teams up with one of his employees to prove his innocence after he is framed for murder. As always, the cast is magnificently stacked with talent and from the trailer it seems that there is an organic emotional journey underlining the wacky caper. Every single one of these elements have been aces for Anderson in the past, and I don't expect this time to be any different. Here's just hoping that the Academy won't forget it come next March.

And the moment you've all been waiting for! My number one most anticipated film of 2014! And the award goes to...

1.) Inherent Vice by Paul Thomas Anderson (Release: December 12th)

This shouldn't really be a shock to anyone who knows my taste in film. I mentioned that Wes Anderson is easily in my top three favorite directors. The only people he's behind are the Coen Brothers and my number one - the other Anderson, Paul Thomas. In my opinion, Paul Thomas Anderson is the greatest filmmaker of his generation. No one makes the kind of movies he makes. No one shoots movies like he shoots them. No one does it like Paul Thomas Anderson. This time around, as if I needed more of a reason to be all in, I have a particular interest because of the wonderful source material. The film is an adaptation of Thomas Pynchon's (V., Gravity's Rainbow) 2009 novel of the same name. What is essentially a detective novel, it's a shaggy-dog mystery set in Southern California and centered around a pothead private dick named Doc Sportello who is thrust into investigating the disappearance of his ex-girlfriend and her current lover Mickey Wolfmann, an importance real-estate mogul. Of all of Pynchon's novels, Inherent Vice seems the most tailor-made for adaptation and, in my opinion, there is no one more perfect for handling the novel's sprawling cast of characters and Pynchon's kooky and dense rhythms than Paul Thomas Anderson. Anytime you have this much talent in one place, something magical is going to happen. Inherent Vice may just have that magic and that's why it's my most anticipated film of 2014. Whether or not it ends up being my favorite film of the year remains to be seen. 

And I can't wait to start seeing. 

My 15 Most Anticipated Films of 2014: 10 - 6

Hey, look! I promised something and I'm totally trying to follow through on it! Last time I brought you five of my top 15 most anticipated films of 2014 and now I'm back again to bring you another five. This time it's numbers 10 through 6! So, you know, get all kinds of excited! 

10.) X-Men: Days of Future Past by Bryan Singer (Release: May 23rd)

Like many people when X-Men: First Class was released, I was incredibly nervous. After the travesty that was X3, I was neither convinced First Class A.) would even come close to being a quality film and B.) was even a worthwhile or necessary dip back into the franchise. Thankfully, however, Matthew Vaughn and company were able to create both a compelling period drama and what could be argued as the best X-Men film to date (though I'd still give to the edge to X2). Now, Bryan Singer (The Usual Suspects, X1) has returned, bringing veteran alums (Sirs Ian Mckellan and Patrick Stewart, Hugh Jackman, Halle Berry, et al.) along with him as the original cast must team up with their past selves in order to save their future from a seemingly unstoppable force. Honestly, I remain very hopeful for Days of Future Past, but it's still in the "could go either way" category. Though it's hard to see how so much talent, both behind and in front of the camera, could produce anything short of spectacular, it remains a possibility that the sheer ambition and difficult nature of the story could be its undoing. Still, it's way too hard not to get excited at the possibilities. And really, any movie that gives me Peter Dinklage sporting a flavor-savor to die for gets top 10 by default. 

9.) Foxcatcher by Bennett Miller (Release: TBD)

Bennett Miller may not be a name that most people will know right off hand. He's only directed two films in the past 9 years. However, those two films were Capote and Moneyball. I love his style and his gift for telling narrative stories based on true incidents is nearly unmatched. With his newest film Foxcatcher, he puts Steve Carrell in the shoes of a real-life murder, John Eleuthere du Pont, a paranoid schizophrenic Olympic wrestling trainer that ended up shooting one of his trainees' brother to death. Anytime Carrell gets off of his Michael Scott wavelength (a la Little Miss Sunshine) he is a spectacular actor and as du Pont he looks nearly unrecognizable. Though the casting of Channing Tatum worries me slightly (he much stronger in his comedic efforts), I believe the combination of Miller and Carrell being allowed to exude a pants-shitting level of intensity could make this one of the best films of the year. Don't be shocked to see Steve Carrell all over Oscars talk come this time 2015. 

8.) Captain America: The Winter Soldier by  Joe and Anthony Russo (Release: April 4th)

Of the three main comic book-based films being released this year, Captain America: The Winter Soldier is, for my money, the safest bet. That's not to say it's "safe." What I mean by that is that by trying something new, Marvel is looking like it could create a brilliantly executed superhero movie while garnering if not the largest audience to date (nothing is outdoing The Avengers), at least the most diverse. That something new is what intrigues me the most. If The Winter Soldier succeeds, it's possible that Marvel's efforts to make superhero movies that are also immensely satisfying as entries in other genres will be what keeps superhero movies interesting. What is essentially a political thriller, The Winter Soldier chronicles Steve Rogers' (Captain America, Chris Evans) struggles to integrate himself into contemporary society. However, when a member of the covert organization S.H.I.E.L.D. is attacked, Rogers along with Black Widow and Falcon (Scarlett Johansson, Anthony Mackie) must investigate and uncover a plot involving and unexpected and powerful adversary THAT COULD DESTROY THE WORLD! The first Captain America ended up being one of my favorite Marvel movies and this one is easily one of the more exciting and intriguing films of the year. 

7.) Gone Girl by David Fincher (Release: October 3rd)

David Fincher is one of the best in the business at what he does. And what he does best are gritty and dour, magnificently shot dramas (crime dramas especially). Fincher looks to continue his amazing streak (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo notwithstanding) with this year's Gone Girl. Based on the Gillian Flynn novel of the same name, the film stars Ben Affleck and Rosamund Pike as what seems like the perfect couple. However, when she disappears without a trace, he becomes the prime suspect. Is he the killer? Or is something much more nefarious at play? While the cast is worryingly eclectic (briefly, it includes Doogie Howser, Madea and the girl from the "Blurred Lines" video) and while I would have much rather seen Fincher take on something he created himself rather than a director-for-hire situation, it's easy to give him the benefit of the doubt with his wonderful creative team, patented 50-take shooting style and such strong source material. If anyone were perfect for the job it's Fincher and I couldn't be more excited thinking about what he'll do with the story's tricky structure and unsympathetic characters. 

6.) Guardians of the Galaxy by James Gunn (Release: August 1st)

Last one of this batch is a doozie! Ever since Marvel announced its plans to do Guardians of the Galaxy, I've been psyched. And that excitement only grew with each addition detail. The exceedingly weird James Gunn for director? Andy Dwyer (Chris Pratt) as the lead? Zoe Saldana and former wrestler Dave Batista (THE ANIMAL!) for support? VIN DIESEL VOICING A TREE MONSTER?! ROCKET RACCOON!?!?!?! LET'S GOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! And although Rocket Raccoon ended up being voiced by Bradley Cooper (no doubt a strong choice, but they could have totally nabbed H. Jon Benjamin) and although many of the jokes in the trailer didn't quite land the way I would've liked, I'm still incredibly hyped for this film. For those of you who didn't watch the trailer (shame on you) or for those of you who would like some clarification, the film is about an American pilot named Peter Quill (Star-Lord to you) who finds himself the target of a manhunt after stealing an orb coveted by Ronan (Lee Pace), a powerful Kree warrior and associate of the monstrous Thanos (the purple dude at the end of The Avengers). To avoid being quickly annihilated by Ronan, Star-Lord forms an uneasy bond with a group of misfit mercenaries that include Gamora, Groot, Drax the Destroyer and the aforementioned Rocket Raccoon (Saldana, Diesel, Bastista and Cooper respectively). However, when Star-Lord uncovers the orb's true power and begins to grasp what destruction it could mean for the cosmos if let into the wrong hands, he rallies his ragtag group for one final showdown TO SAVE THE GALAXY! 

As I mentioned with Captain America, there's starting to be a sense that the viewing public is getting superhero fatigue. However, like with Captain America, Guardians of the Galaxy feels like Marvel trying to combat that. It's a bold and risky move putting 200 million into such a bizarre effort and I'm worried that the appeal won't be as large as it needs to be to be successful. However, with this new trailer showcasing the drastically different tone of this film from something like The Winter Soldier, there's hope that Guardians could be just what Marvel needs to stay solidly at the top of the box office. Either way, this film seems to fall directly into my wheelhouse and if Gunn's stellar indie film Super (2010) is any indication of what we can expect, I am literally foaming at the mouth raccoon-style to see what he does with nearly 100 times the budget. And if you're not feeling that, then you're just a bunch of a-holes...

Just kidding, I love you.