Rapid Response: Forbidden Planet

Although seemingly belonging to B-movie sci-fi’s, “Forbidden Planet” is a film with great substance and intellect.

“Forbidden Planet” exists in a peculiar dead-zone for famous Hollywood sci-fi’s. It’s too campy and stilted to be called truly great, but it’s also too grand and philosophical to belong to the McCarthy era B-movies of the period that in some cases have aged even better. It’s an imperfect film on numerous levels, but it works so memorably because “Forbidden Planet” is all about the pursuit for human perfection and the beauty in humanity’s flaws.

Though famous for its ahead-of-its-time special effects, Cinemascope aesthetic, high budget, early Leslie Nielsen performance and lofty ambitions, it’s actually one of the more subtle Shakespeare adaptations of its kind. Based on “The Tempest,” a group of soldiers hundreds of years in the future have ventured to the Earth-like planet Altair, where an entire colony had gone missing and never reported back. The one sole survivor is Dr. Morbius (Walter Pidgeon in a steadied, but high in the clouds performance), who has since fashioned a comfortable life with a talking robot named Robbie and his short-skirted vixen of a daughter, Alta (Anne Francis). Commander J. J. Adams (Nielsen) is tasked with discovering what became of the colony just as his own crew is slowly slaughtered by an unknown, invisible force.

You can see how “Star Wars” and “Star Trek” could be quite literally lifted from moments of “Forbidden Planet.” The pseudo 3-D title card recalls “Star Wars'” iconic opening credits, a cleansing pod on Adams’s ship resembles the transport beams on the Enterprise, and at one point a crew member comments on the natural beauty of Altair’s two mooons. Even the bulbous, slow moving Robbie the Robot seems to be a direct ancestor of Marvin the Paranoid Android and The Robot from “Lost in Space.” Continue reading “Rapid Response: Forbidden Planet”

Jack Reacher

Twists and meaningless McGuffins galore, “Jack Reacher” requires a patience that this pulpy movie doesn’t fully earn.

Look, I get that killing is bad no matter how you go about doing it, but Jack Reacher is a plain thug. Only firing a gun if he’s within point blank range, Reacher prefers to beat the pulp out of lesser opponents, finally getting in a few brutal finishing moves to the crotch, by breaking legs or wrists or finally stomping someone’s face in.

He makes for a disturbingly cold action hero, and the movie that shares his name, “Jack Reacher,” feels much the same.

Blending TV crime procedural talking points with hyper violent vigilante excitement, “Jack Reacher” explores the investigation of a man who went on a sharpshooter killing spree, murdering five random and innocent people, only to frame the attack on an Iraq War veteran discharged for a similar attack. Just before he’s beaten and goes into a coma, he asks for Jack Reacher (Tom Cruise), his former military detective, to come and help him.

Based on Lee Child’s series of novels, “Jack Reacher” has a distinctly literary quality for an action film. It’s labored with a heavy backstory and conspiracy nuance, but all of it in arguably the wrong places. We learn an awful lot about the supposed murderer, the female lawyer, investigator and love interest (Rosamund Pike) and her relationship with her father (Richard Jenkins) and the bizarre mastermind without even much of a reason to be in the movie (Werner Herzog being absolutely sinister and iconic while barely lifting an eyebrow), but very little about the mysterious Jack Reacher. Continue reading “Jack Reacher”

Star Trek Into Darkness

“Star Trek Into Darkness” isn’t overstuffed, but isn’t exactly balanced, and it begs for more innovation.

J.J. Abrams’s innovation on the “Star Trek” reboot was that he managed to take a long-standing institution, play with a very sacred universe’s timeline and still manage to canonize it. If he didn’t manage to impress me, and I was one of very few, it’s that doing so was his only innovation.

Set pieces existed for their own sake, as did stylistic camera twirls and lens flares. Dialogue teetered on being self-serious and self-referential without pausing for breath, and the plot that grew out of it didn’t make as much sense as it appeared. Even Roger Ebert pointed out that in this futuristic sci-fi epic, space battles were reduced to cataclysmic mayhem and sparring with fists and swords.

And although “Star Trek Into Darkness” improves upon that last aspect to the point that I enjoyed everything I saw, part of me wishes the Abrams from “Super 8” showed up, to dust off a cliché, and boldly go where none have gone before. Point being, if you’re looking for innovation here, you won’t find it. Continue reading “Star Trek Into Darkness”

'Sugar Man's' Rodriguez at Arie Crown Theater, Chicago: Concert Review

A review of “Searching for Sugar Man’s” Rodriguez’s beguiling, unique performance at the Arie Crown Theater in Chicago.

Rodriguez, the unexpected star of the Oscar winning doc “Searching for Sugar Man” and the folk legend who never was, is not an entertainer. Now at a “solid 70,” his whole life he has not been an entertainer.

“Two cannibals are eating a clown,” he says dryly in between tunes. “The one turns to the other and says, does this taste funny to you?”

This is how Rodriguez felt he had to keep his audience engaged, by punching it up with lame jokes. And that mentality combined with his performance’s whole nature was what made it so beguiling and unique.

His Friday night set at the Arie Crown Theater jumped from acoustic strummer to ballad to bouncy folk rock on a whim, his voice wavered and slowly softened as his 90 minute set wore on, and the far from sold out audience neither sang nor stood as he worked through his “hits.” So was Rodriguez mediocre and not the surprising legend that “Searching for Sugar Man” made him out to be?

Not in the slightest, because it would be wrong to put this 70-year-old on the same level as Paul McCartney or Bob Dylan. He doesn’t have the experience and iconic showmanship they’ve acquired over so long.

What he does still possess however is that mysterious, wise and even timid quality that neither of those superstars would be able to replicate. Here is a guy being walked out onto the stage by two women just to stand and perform for the next hour and a half. Donning the sunglasses and hat that characterized his album covers, he now masks his glaucoma and a difficulty to see. In between each tune, his lead guitarist leans in as though he were a nurse coming to his side.

And yet here he is, his voice identical to recordings from over 40 years ago, capable of intricate strumming and finger picking on his elegant ballads and out of place Cole Porter and Don Gibson covers he seems to have learned on the spot. Continue reading “'Sugar Man's' Rodriguez at Arie Crown Theater, Chicago: Concert Review”

Mud

Jeff Nichols’s Mud is a true Americana movie that, like a wise elder, has true secrets and wisdom to impart.

Jeff Nichols, along with Ramin Bahrani, is the best director today capturing the spirit of down-south Americana values. His third feature “Mud” follows this tradition by showing just how deeply rooted all his characters are, each with their own deep-seeded histories that guide the film through otherwise rough waters.

Deep in the rivers of Arkansas, two boys named Ellis and Neckbone (Tye Sheridan of “The Tree of Life” and debut performer Jacob Lofland) come across an island, a boat stuck in a tree and a drifter named Mud (Matthew McConaughey) calling it his home. These kids have hard faces and journey out into the open fully aware, yet still wary, of the danger. So when Mud appears and asks for their help, they act on instinct and ingrained country wisdom.

Mud’s a murderer on the lam with only a shirt and a pistol to his name. He explains to the boys that he killed a man trying to defend the love of his life, Juniper (Reese Witherspoon). The two plan to escape together, but Juniper is aimless, uncertain and faced with her own danger.

It’s a thriller in this way, one that turns a bit too Hollywood near the end for its own good, but the intricate subtext surrounding the livelihood of Ellis is what makes “Mud” feel so at home. Continue reading “Mud”

Smashed

“Smashed” is a touching, light, relatable story of a functioning alcoholic, an idea and persona that makes it that much more authentic.

Movies about alcoholism are always pitiful and tragic in nature. The characters in “Leaving Las Vegas” or even as far back as “The Lost Weekend” are at the lowest of low, and drinking is the end-all/be-all of problems.

“Smashed” tells a story about a functioning alcoholic, or someone who has survived this way for a long time. It recognizes that alcoholism is just a catalyst in people’s complex lives; the deeper problems are systemic. In that way, James Ponsoldt’s film feels infinitely more relatable. Continue reading “Smashed”

Somewhere

Sofia Coppola’s “Somewhere” is not as successful at tackling the themes of “Lost in Translation,” but it does gives us a glimmer of hope

Never has a performance of two hot twin nurses spinning on stripper poles to the tune of Foo Fighters’ “My Hero” been as listless as it is in Sofia Coppola’s “Somewhere.” It’s not merely the story of a guy so jaded with these pleasures but of a person with so little going on in his life that this incident feels quite literally like nothing at all.

Coppola first introduces us to movie star Johnny Marco (Stephen Dorff) racing around a track in his Ferrari, an elegant, but obvious way of saying he’s going nowhere fast. In between films and sporting a broken wrist, his life has diminished to pure tedium.

He sits through mindless press conferences, interviews and awards shows and waits motionless as special effects artist smother him in clay. These are the more mundane moments of a movie star, but arguably still exciting enough for some people. Coppola however shoots without much focus in the frame, mismatched colors and a movie free of music that makes it appear as if these moments were non-events. Continue reading “Somewhere”

Ok Cupid: A Normal, Nice, Non-Crazy Guy's Experience

What’s it like really being on a dating website? Find out from a normal guy who actually spent some time with it.

“Hi Brian, what’s your favorite color?”

Here is a unique example of an Ok Cupid message I received about 24 hours after browsing this girl’s profile, writing her a polite message expressing what I found interesting and asking if she would be interested in meeting up.

Now, a couple of things are going through my mind:

1)   This person is crazy. She genuinely wants to know what my favorite color is before she divulges her name, let alone decides if she wants to go out on a date with me.

2)   This is a test. I should be clever in my answer. Funny, if possible.

3)   TROLL! This girl is a troll!

But being a man who has been unlucky enough in love to resort to a dating website, I of course stumbled over my words and responded in none of the ways anticipating one of those responses would suggest.

“Um, blue? Why do you ask?”

Wait approx. 12 hours.

“Well is it blue, or isn’t it? I don’t particularly care, but I like a man with conviction.”

Here’s where I try to save myself:

“Conviction? Sure, got it covered. Blue? Meh.”

Wait 12 hours.

“Right.”

Now, I’m not entirely sure who’s in the wrong here. I am, after all, bad at this. But I would like to presume that the human proposal I sent initially did not return the polite, human response I expected. I don’t understand women. Tell me if I’m wrong.

What I am coming to understand is that a dating website, or Ok Cupid in particular, has nuances in communication just as any other social media platform does.

But what it does additionally is prove that although many people today resort to dating websites out of bad real-life experiences, shyness, rejection, fear, etc., dating online is no less difficult, frustrating or different than dating can be in person.

Continue reading “Ok Cupid: A Normal, Nice, Non-Crazy Guy's Experience”

The Great Gatsby

The parties in “The Great Gatsby” are grand, but does Baz Luhrmann see any similarities between now and then beyond “people were gangsta”?

Part of what has made “The Great Gatsby” so enduring is that F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel is a trim, elegant story with themes that touch on American values old and new. And yet as would be his nature, Baz Luhrmann has transformed “The Great Gatsby” into a long, over-stylized melodrama. Because it lacks Fitzgerald’s resounding tone, it’s a glitzy movie stuffed to the brims that feels strangely empty.

Luhrmann spoke on “The Colbert Report” about how modern the book feels after all these years, and no one is arguing with him there. But what does he see as the similarities between the Roaring Twenties and now? Surely it can’t be the economy, music, fashion or ideas about race.

Luhrmann sees the massive parties and equates them to raves on the wildest scale. He sees scantily clad dancers and choreographs them to hip hop, and for everyone else wearing suits, throwing around money and driving flashy custom rides, he sees them all as gangsta.

Make no mistake; the parties in “Gatsby” are grand. Done up in 3-D and bursting with colors, streamers and floating butterflies, Luhrmann throws a gigantic bash. All the greater then in demonstrating Gatsby’s (Leonardo DiCaprio) unwavering love for Daisy (Carey Mulligan), or something like that.

“What’s all this for,” Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) asks Jordan Baker (Elizabeth Debicki). “That, my dear fellow, is the question.” But Luhrmann is too enamored with his 3-D effects and the celebratory nature of it all to justify how any of this speaks more broadly about our time or theirs’. Continue reading “The Great Gatsby”

Iron Man 3

“Iron Man 3” and its franchise as a whole has resisted a firm genre label because it’s trying to be everything at once and just feels like nothing at all.

How would you put a label on the “Iron Man” franchise? What is it about this franchise that has allowed it to survive reboots, drastic recasting, self parody and made Tony Stark the most likeable character in the complete Marvel Universe?

The popular candidate is Robert Downey Jr., but his on-camera chemistry with Gwyneth Paltrow is part of the reason the franchise has resisted description. These two are screwball comics on par with Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell, and their dialogue mixed with their story in “Iron Man 3” comes across as part comedy, part action movie, part superhero fantasy, part conspiracy thriller and even part social commentary.

“Iron Man 3” and its franchise as a whole has resisted a firm genre label because it’s trying to be everything at once and just feels like nothing at all. Continue reading “Iron Man 3”