Review: Jason Bourne

            

HUGE SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!!

           I honestly wished I expected more from Jason Bourne. To be quite frank, the Bourne franchise is probably the least need of a rebootquel, since every other action franchise clearly aspires to it now. Therefore, I was not the least convinced that we needed to reunite Paul Greengrass or Matt Damon or anyone who has since moved on to better things, and after actually seeing it... I’m probably even less convinced. See, the original Bourne’s were great because they were great at their time and standards, and watching this latest installment constantly reminding me of that makes it look more blatantly dated than it ever was. While by no means Bourne Legacy level bad, this movie is just an airless action movie made less boring solely by the virtue of Greengrass being so passionate of this reunion to a huge fault.

For those living under a rock and has never seen a Jason Bourne movie before, well… neither did I, so don’t sweat it. But for what I can gather after a week of catching up, the Bourne franchise widely regards itself as a “thinking man's” action movie both in design and theme, as the series blends intricate, real-life spy thrillers with ass-kicking action movies. The movie revolves around Matt Damon as Jason Bourne, a super soldier in an effort to find out his true identity while under constant surveillance by a CIA company Treadstone, who manufactured his crime-fighting powers in the first place. He engages in car chases, hand-to-hand combat, tactile cat-and-mouse scenarios, more car chases, occasional and unravels twists and turns until in Ultimatum (of course it’s the best one. Get over it already) he cracks the biggest component of his identity, thus the whole franchises’ subtext in general. After which he fakes his own death and goes into hiding, realizing that all of his efforts aren’t worth putting more people in danger.

            So, of course, being allegedly a reboot, Jason Bourne opts to erase all that completely by dragging Bourne out of hiding in order to resolve some hidden agenda by his father. Yep, the new Bourne movie, out of a franchise that otherwise broke the barrier for storytelling in spy action movies in the last decade, now trots out the ever-so-tired “daddy’s research” storyline. In 2016. Matters worse, the girl who got Bourne out of hiding – Julia Styles, one of the returning cast who somehow looks less game for this series than grumpy face Damon – gets the duty of also serving extra motivation for the hero as she’s assassinated by a new Asset (Vincent Cassel) who, big shock, may or may not be involved in the dad’s murder. So once again Bourne goes through yet another cat-and-mouse game, this time against the new company Ironhand run by Tommy Lee Jones and Alicia Vikander, to solve yet another mystery about his past.

            Outside of that, the movie just retreads the series right down to remaking set piece moments. Bike/car chase: check! Needle in a haystack scenario with a gratuitous police riot: check! Lady Treadstone character teaming up with Bourne who may or may not betray him in the end: check! Bad guys looking at tracking monitors while Bourne kicks ass: check!

Even though I adore Paul Greengrass’ shaky-cam aesthetic more than anyone, and to be fair the action remains his films highlights by a country mile here, he can’t seem to find a better angle of which he could tackle that doesn’t sacrifice credibility. Even past the naked box-checking of the structure, the whole setup feels obligatory; There is absolutely no reason why Bourne should get out of hiding and even though the stupid father mystery is the driving force of the story, there’s no point for Bourne to care outside of giving extra motivation to beat the bad guys. It’s as if Styles should never have died to bring Bourne back in the first place. I’d see anything from Greengrass since he’s the one who perfected this series, but this feels like such a weak turn from him.

  

Weak also extends to the film’s treatment to its subtext that serves as their lasting weight. Referring back to the “theme” part of the series – having the Bourne movies stand as an anti-Bush allegory after 9/11 was herculean at the time – the payoff of the series was that Bourne signed up to be Bourne because he wanted to. He wished to serve his country and be part of an advance organization while risking his identity, only to realize that his new masters were the real bad guys. Not only was that a highly unique twist of its time, it was also a gut-punching deconstruction of post-9/11 soldiers during the Iraq war; “Who is the real enemy” and all that. In Jason Bourne, they try to go further into that twist and it ultimately falls apart, reverting Bourne’s motivation into a revenge story because the SAME guy who killed Styles also killed his dad. UGH!!

Despite all that, the film is just too stale and behind the times for me to warrant any more hatred. I appreciate Greengrass for implementing relevant issues like an otherwise gratuitous subplot with Jones trying to recruit a Snowden-esque hacker and then threatens to kill him if he spills the beans, but the rest of the movie feels so dated. They literally play the exact same old Moby song at the end for crying out loud! For a series that revolutionized the way we think of action spy movies, this is such a wasted effort even when everything else topped its game long before this even happened.

Jason Bourne is exactly what I expected: just another bland reboot. If you like the classic Bourne action/spy espionage stuff revised twofold in 2016 then go right ahead, because this is only what this film is concerned with. The action, the performances, and Greengrass’ classic action chops remain as big as ever, but everything else stumbles. See it and judge for yourselves, but I wouldn't bother. 

Rating: 5/10

Review: Star Trek Beyond

            Short version: AWESOME!! Instantly better than the last two, and easily the second best summer movie this year. Keep reading, but BE WARNED FOR SPOILERS.

The Star Trek reboot series was the most frustrating series out of a franchise I’ve ever got familiar with. Looking past the grand spectacles and brilliant casting, the series cannot help but fall short in capturing the true spirit of the original shows. The first one cripples its visual flourish and charismatic leads with a multitude of plot conveniences and the insistence of appealing to the average movie crowd. Doubly so with Into Darkness, which tries and fails to implement political infighting and the series original lore. With plenty respect to Abrams and no respect from his bumbling screenwriters, all their efforts of emulating the same intelligent charm of the original series taints this reboot series, making them what extents to bloated, stupid action movies.

So who would’ve guessed that the series saving grace amounts to just being an action movie, stripping all the convoluted pretense and tedious self-referencing in the process? That is probably the biggest secret to Star Trek Beyond’s greatest success: executing a straightforward, small-scale, surprisingly character-driven piece of action movie devoid of any extra weight. The result is not only the most action-packed movie of the summer but one that pays true to Gene Roddenberry’s original vision of space exploration and monster-fighting.

The story picks up after the Enterprise crew depart from Earth after the events of Into Darkness as Kirk, Spock and the gang set off to find new life in the outer world. During this mission, they come across a new species of aliens, led by Idris Elba as Krall (who is easily the best use of a great talent as a villain in this series EVER!) that threatens to attack if they don’t comply to give them what they want. So once they refuse, the Enterprise crashed and burned in a nearby remote planet – yeah, get used to seeing that shit happening all the time now – which separates the crew. So it’s up to the scattered crew to find themselves once again, save the rest of the crew, and stop Krall. Along the way, Scotty (played by Simon Pegg, who still rocks!) finds a new alien companion who just so happens to inhabit a working Starfleet called the USS Franklin, which may or may not hold deeper information about Krall’s past.

So if any of that sounds more or less like a filler episode rather than a grand scale third entry, that’s because it mostly is, but by no means to a fault. The hidden genius of this film lies in how much its invested in finding compelling ways to keep its small scale reminiscent of the classic pulp adventures of the show. Which means fist fights are more upfront and abundant, character drama gets more of a focus – which is a breather since we don’t have to be reminded constantly of how important Kirk is for a change – the science is utilized to the best of its abilities when it comes to encountering danger, and there is not a hint of the plot bending over backwards to heighten the stakes with bloated bullcrap. It’s the type of deceptively simple approach I thought I never get in a Star Trek movie in this decade, and I’m glad we get it now than not at all.

The actors are all terrific once again. Simon Pegg’s script strips out all of Kirks personal baggage and just have him be a full-fledged commander, which allows Chris Pine to finally shine. Zachary Quinto finally convinces me that he’s the OG new Spock, Pegg and Karl Urban are still the films comedic charmers, and Zoe Zaldana can still remind us that, even after the shitty Nina movie, she can have real screen presence. More impressive in this series is the more credible yet menacing villain in Krall, who sole motivation stems from his depleted faith in his commanding officers who failed to find him, thus descending him to physical madness.

All that is due to new director Justin Lin, who honestly deserves more credit than what he gets. Sure it seems sacrilege to have a guy from the Fast & Furious movies taking the helm of a smarter series (which is honestly not much the case. See the original series) but his love for the material, joint with Simon Pegg’s script, shines through more than Abrams in two movies. The leads finally get some well-deserved banter as they crack jokes and attempt to fix their issues rather than ponder on them while at the same time we can enjoy some inventive camera-swooping space combat. The type of character dynamics mixed with over-the-top action that defined the Fast series could not befit this series more than what we could expect.

Which ultimately comes with a crutch, although not as big as the last movies. There’s probably too much action and not enough downtime, most of the connective tissue - although still effective - feels undercooked, there is still familiar story beats (like another McGuffin) and some might not like the smaller scale. It’s not much of a deal breaker as this is a blockbuster, which pretty much comes with the territory, but credit where credit is due.

Still, this is probably the Star Trek movie I always expected would happen yet never thought we get. One that stays true to its simplicity and makes the most out of it rather than failing from doing too much. Who would’ve thought we needed three freaking movies to get to the good stuff. Overall, I recommend this!

PS: The tribute to Leonard Nimoy will make you cry!

Rating: 8/10

More Mini-Reviews

Sorry for being absent (again) but Pokemon Go became one hell of a drug! :)

Anyway, here's a bunch of mini-reviews of films that I forgot to see earlier.

Free State of Jones

A part of me really wants to give Free State of Jones a more positive review. Viewed only on a technical critique, the environment looks beautiful, the acting screams Oscar caliber, and the underrated Gary Ross offers his boldest and grittiest angle for a film to date without cowering to obnoxious shaky-cam like last time. Viewed on the subtext, Ross also tackles his noblest of ideas. Setting during the American Civil War, the film draws parallels in the real world, inasmuch as the Confederate army leeching off the poor countries in the false pretense of “winning the war” calls back to the modern paranoia about the rich leaders leeching off our benefits. Even though it’s been done before, doubly so with the added dose of racism, the film takes a fresh new angle, even if it boils down to Matthew McConaughey’s real-life character resorting to more like Robin Hood than a more complicated figure. Adding multiple other commentaries on racial suppression that spans to almost a century on top of that, and this film would almost take care of itself.

           

Viewed as a functioning story, however, it just doesn’t work. For all its willingness to go headfirst into these ideas, the movie struggles to find any focus or any coherence. You see, the film occasionally cuts back and forth between huge gaps of time in order to view many ways the corrupt “white Confederates” horribly harass the working class, but without any strong rhythm to do so. More troubling, the film gets too relaxed with itself and doesn’t supply enough enjoyment, issuing way too much downtime with only a few sprinkles of tension in order to advance the plot. And once said plot already resolves itself once the “Free State” has been obtained, we still have an extra half hour of meandering. I get that they want to transition to life after the war, (that court case, KKK burning houses, retrieving a lost son from outside of the state) but the way they arrange these events so haphazardly leaves very little investment.

This, in hindsight, would work if said connective tissue allows us to flesh out McConaughey’s character outside of a clearly glorified “steal from the rich” archetype, but there’s not much else to chew on with this character outside of a weirdly offensive speech that claims that his bankrupt status is on the same level of slaves dealing with lynching and whipping. I don’t know how unaware Ross is with that self-centered claim, but the way this character plays as a blank slate savior of the oppressed makes his ulterior motives so uncomfortable.

            Despite the film's noble intentions intertwined with ultra-real set piece battles, Free State of Jones is way too clumsy and inert for me to recommend. It takes the racial issues and the One Percent parallels without any consideration to adding anything connecting to all of it. It inspires itself as both a Confederate war epic and a Robin Hood tale but doesn’t have enough steam to go all the way with it. I appreciate this film and it’s by far the most original out of the summer schedule, but that is as far as this film offers.   

Rating: 5/10

The Purge: Election Year

            Here’s what I seem to get out of the Purge movies up at this point, on account of not being a fan of any of them. So far, the whole point of The Purge trilogy is to construct an alternate world that allows one night to commit any crime they want without penalty in order to commentate on real world tendency to go full anarchy mode at any moment. That’s fair enough, but here’s what I don’t get: these movies constantly make it clear how BAD it is – even go as far as to blame the Purge on the One Percent making money out of the working classes insurance – yet they have no problem glorifying it either? Seriously, for all its jabs aimed at the demonized right wing rich guys profiting off murder, it all feels like an excuse to show director James DeMonaco’s tendencies to film what should be classified as flashy montages of music videos saying basically “LOOK HOW AWESOME YET AWFUL THIS LOOKS!”

At that point, it's wise to explain how contradicting all that is, but this honestly seems like it’s the series lasting charm, however, odd it may be. In the case with The Purge: Election Year, it’s a film that clumsily tries to mix political allegories with gratuitous money shots of murders and carnage straight out of a Michael Bay-produced playbook, but with an extreme passion for doing so that it gradually sustains itself into being its own fascinating hybrid. This time around, it immediately draws parallels to the current presidential nomination, to which a blond woman runs for in order to discontinue the Purge. This doesn’t bode well for the rest for the rest of the city – after all the Purge proves to deplete crime – as they vote an unsubtly sketched Republican evil-doer with a hidden agenda with the Church (I forgot to say that this isn’t subtle, right?) that plans an assassination against his opponent. Thankfully, she is aided by Frank Grillo as the Punisher Who Could’ve Been, who teams up with her and an army of rebels in order to survive the Purge and ultimately end it soon.

            I utter this again, guys, this movie is not subtle! You could practically paint the face of the running mates as both Clinton and Trump and it would not make one bit of difference, the dialogue exchange offers more hammer-to-the-head allusions, and the aforementioned carnage porn the film keeps throwing at us is about as on the nose as anyone could expect. But it’s also oddly enjoyable, mainly because of how much action and over-the-top sequences the film keeps throwing at us. Sure anybody can point out the implausibility’s and roll their eyes in its aloofness, but I’d like to refrain from that on this movie alone. Bottom line, it's airless but screams guilty pleasure.

Rating: 6/10

The BFG

            At this point, I’m about as sick and tired of people shit-canning Spielberg simply by the fact that he never made the next E.T.  “What happened to Spielberg?!” on one side, “He’s gone soft!” on the other. It’s annoying, mostly because Spielberg, arguably the most influential of geek filmmakers, is doing just fine! But all these constant articles keep telling me that he’s in the “washed-out” phase like he’s freaking Metallica when all I can think of this argument is “well, what do you think? He can’t make Jurassic Park all the damn time!” And besides, since this is the same guy who made Close Encounters, Indiana Jones, Jaws, Schindler’s List, Lincoln, and Minority Report, and pretty much shaped the blockbuster landscape decades ago, I believe he has all the rights in the world to put out at least one middlebrow film like this for a change!

            All that venting aside, calling The BFG “middlebrow Spielberg” isn’t so much a criticism as much as it is a reminder that whatever this movie achieves may not bode well for those that either want more or less of it. In this case, the film strips most of Roald Dahl's classic tale into a lean and child-friendly adventure flick that lacks the complexities and or many adult undercurrents like his last films. But even as minor of an effort from the master of whimsy, the film is still a delightful, gorgeous, if a bit flawed, film that achieves much of what it wants to be to some extent.

           

            One of the said achievements is the major cog in this machine: Mark Rylance’s facial motion capture of The BFG himself. Even though a lot would dismiss this type of animation as some type of “uncanny valley” gimmick, I believe it’s used quite well, mostly due to the physical actor involved. Credit is due to the little girl playing Sophie (who is just adorable!) Rylance, in particular, breathes life into this character, while the filmmakers walk a fine line between too realistic and too cartoonish without tipping on either side. Speaking of the CG, this is one of those films that breaks free of Spielberg’s real-life limitations and just swoops the camera wherever it wants, issuing a new standard for CG photography. Say what you want about Spielberg, even most of his shortcomings are about as good as this.

            That isn’t to discredit what’s not working, though. For all the downtime the film offers to grow the friendship between the Giant and Sophie, it also has too much going on in the second act that it almost loses itself from the plot. And not to disrespect the late Melissa Mathison, but it’s not particularly her best-written effort, as it does skew too much for kids. Speaking about children, even though I don’t mind the details of explosive farts as it was in the books, I doubt people would find it appealing.

            Even those minor issues aside, this goes to show how much even the slightest of a genius’ efforts can still turn out better than anyone else. There is no denying the disappointed faces of those that expect the next E.T., but I believe that we can still appreciate the same level of heart and wonder that remains. Overall, recommended.

Rating: 7/10

Review: The Legend of Tarzan

UGH! Not one of these again

…

Okay, look. If you’re attempting to remake a more faithful Tarzan movie – notwithstanding the VAST abundance of other Tarzan movies – you better go all out with it. The original stories by Edgar Rice Burroughs may hold a huge influence of decades-old adventure stories, but one cannot help to notice its largely uncomfortable racial issues, especially in an age where our literary society grows more sensitive by the day. I mean if you think about it, it's inescapable: A white hero representing a total embodiment of powerful, Anglo-Saxon race fighting unusual enemies in uncharted territory. Yeah, I’m sure THAT won’t turn some heads, to say nothing of the unpleasant Colonizing that came with it. Yikes! But what made these stories hold their lasting weight lies in their fun, pulpy adventure style in wacky scenarios.

So call it compensation: “Sure this sounds racist, but it’s also about a guy fighting bad guys with his Jungle friends, and that’s awesome enough!”

So with that in mind, there are angles to get around this for a modern update on Tarzan. On my money, the best angle is the 1999 Disney version, where they keep the action and the human races simplified in order to develop a man-vs-nature story that actually develops the hero as a character. The other movies went for broke and just became silly action adventure romps. The Legend of Tarzan, on the other hand, decides to take this subtext into the main thrust of the movie, whereas Tarzan is tasked with stopping Colonialism in Africa. Sadly, since the Warner Bros company clearly comforts itself with the gritty reboot template, any speck of goodwill from this otherwise exciting premise gets sucked out in an utterly dull, bloated, occasionally phony, carcass of a movie.

The story takes place after the whole shenanigans in the Jungle and Tarzan has made a name for himself in Britain where he takes a new persona as John Clayton. After a meeting with George Washington Williams (Samuel L. Jackson), he persuades the former ape-man to aid him in his efforts to abolish King Leopold’s slave efforts in the Belgian Congo. Little did they know that he and Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz) are in cahoots with each other in an uninteresting villain plot with diamonds and mines. Jane (Margot Robbie) eventually tags along because she misses her homeland and the movie really needs a good excuse to get captured for a third-act rescue. So yeah, it’s up to Tarzan and his reunited animal buddies to take down the interlopers, rescue Jane, and despite trying their best to reduce the materials racism, inexplicably take credit from Williams in abolishing black oppression in Africa. Really.

Apart from being overstuffed yet simplistic, the biggest problem with the movie lies on how much it blunders on its own intentions. The film constantly emphasizes the horror of colonizing Africa at this time period for little reason other than to address the race issue, yet couldn’t find ways to go further with it other than a “great white savior” story. Whether or not they couldn’t conjure another angle with the whole “Belgian Slavery but with Tarzan” or they just thought we would think it’s noble, but the result ultimately makes him the hero while Samuel Jackson's character gets stuck as a wacky sidekick. It’s like trying to fix a wine-stained tuxedo with splashing more wine onto it.

           Outside of this irony, the rest of the film befalls into boring and half-baked. The writing consists of lazy exposition and awkward comedy, the characters are paper-thin, and the few CGI action scenes – save for a third act animal stampede – lack so much punch and scope it's borderline bizarre. I know Warner Bros hired director David Yates to helm this because he banked a lot of money with the gloomier Harry Potter movies, but most of his blockbuster panache and overall dreary aesthetic falls limp here. (Or maybe he’s saving his energy for Fantastic Beasts) Most of the performances are all wasted but try to bring charisma, save for Skarsgard who couldn’t even hold the medal in appeal against Jai Courtney. Most damming, the movie tries to fill up Tarzans origin story via flashbacks, which serves little more than rush the character development and set up one needless plot points after another.

  Admittedly, the movie brings itself up a few notches during the aforementioned third act stampede. It all looks straight out of a pulp adventure romp detached from the rest of the movie, but rarely does a film benefit from that. I mean, why can’t a Tarzan movie stop refrain from gloomy pretense for once and actually becomes a Tarzan movie?

  However, in the end, this movie left me conflicted on who this movie is for. It fails to be a historical piece by adding fictional ape brawling. It fails at being aimed for old Tarzan fans by its “gritty reboot” style and the fans of said style would get zoned out by the rest of the tedium. Most damning, though, the movie admirably faces the racial implications but winds up biting its own ass. Credit is due for intentions despite the fact, but sometimes that just isn’t enough.

Rating: 4.5/10

Review: Swiss Army Man

Watching Swiss Army Man feels like watching a high-wire stunt performed by two clowns while juggling bowling pins and rubber chickens. Not only does this act look absurd and devoid of conventional, but looks dangerous. A bizarre mixture of Cast Away and a Looney Tunes episode couldn’t not stumble by the weight of its own ambition, either by being too obnoxious or too sappy. At any minute, this films could fall apart completely, and watching it succeed gracefully had me cheering after it’s over. And while I’m aware that calling movies stunt shows proves little more than banal and gratuitous bullcrap straight out of any pseudo-prestigious factory, the films real secret to greatness is how much it gets away with hidden meanings and poignant themes. That along with the gonzo lunacy of the films mechanics easily makes Swiss Army Man one of the boldest and the most meaningful movie of the year.

And yes, we’re still talking about the movie where Harry Potter plays a dead corpse farting across the ocean like a jet ski.

The story centers around Paul Dano as Hank, a depressed shell of a man who, after being shunned by society, is now stranded on a deserted island and attempts suicide. He then stumbles across dead body (Daniel Radcliffe) that somehow has super powered farts and decides to ride him across the ocean. Once they make it to another island, Hank befriends this corpse (named Manny) and realizes that the more he comes to realize every aspect of life – like making friends, being weird, masturbating (really.), and asking girls out – the more the corpse can perform an array of bodily functions; ones that range to basic like speaking, and other on the weird spectrum like vomiting fresh water out of your mouth and shooting bullets from your mouth. Realizing the potential of this mechanic, Hank grows accustomed to Hank so that he could have enough superpowers to get him home.

Now there is LOADS of things to cover on how ridiculous this sounds, but the way the film straight up goes with it is part of the charm. No matter how silly it gets with Hank using Manny as either a karate-chopping wood cutter or a pebble-shooting gun, the movie finds a lot of moments of introspection and emotion at the piece. We see both of these broken people both coping and ultimately aiding each other with their issues (Hank being a depressed dweeb with his whole life kicking him around and Manny being, well… dead) and finding ways to either work around their issues or embrace them to their advantage. It all culminates to of the films beautiful revelations, that everyone is either broken and weird and all we can do is either face, or live up to, these ailments, all while not having to drench itself with too much twee sensibilities to pull it off.

Paul Dano and Daniel Radcliffe are both amazing in their roles. Their chemistry feels real, not just considering their more “passionate” physical acting (though those shouldn’t be passed up either) but by sheer matter-of-fact friendship, as they both come to terms with both of their uncanny status. While it’s easy to pull out the “Nobody Does a Dweeb Better Than Dano” card, the real treat is watching him create this shallow, creepy character into something palpable. I’ve been watching this guy perform for years, and this is easily the best role he ever agreed on. Radcliffe, on the other hand, is nothing short of revelatory, instantly making a dead guy feel so full of life. From his head dangling on one side in every scene while he tries to form words with his barely-functioning mouth to the way he executes deadpan humor flawlessly, this proves that Radcliffe’s indie career trajectory after the Harry Potter movies finally pays off.

But it’s even more than that still, believe it or not. While merely any average Joe walking into this movie can enjoy the many nonsensical scenarios with human appendages straight out of the “Turn Down for What” music video playbook – which is what, coincidentally, is the directors of this movie was responsible – the more outside-the-box audience can think of many of the films subtexts and get a kick out of that too. It could be how a child comes to grips with the strange world we call Earth. It could be about how a man tries to explain what life really is about while also understanding the details that he didn’t realize. It could be about how two worlds of grounded cynicism and absurd optimism coalesce as one. It could be about how we accept our oddities in a world full of dreary conformity.

Heck, that last part could metaphorically be one of the main reasons why I love this movie so much. In the recent summer deluge of uninspired sequels, dull remakes, and manipulating adaptations, here’s Swiss Army Man coming straight out of the Film Festival scene walking in the rain with a bright raincoat and a clown face, begging for the world to get over their baggage and greet the unique creation with open arms. That is pretty much Swiss Army Man in a nutshell: a unique creation with everything opposing the predictable. Silly yet earnest, smart yet playful, meaningful yet consistently so, bold yet simple. Whether or not you believe me when I say this, but notwithstanding this gonzo mechanics, this is perfect in the way it wants to be. Definitely worth a watch.

Rating: 10/10