Lucy (2014)

Ever since I first saw the trailer for Luc Besson’s Lucy, I knew I was going to have a tough time swallowing the premise. The theory that we use only ten percent of our “cerebral capacity” is utter nonsense and even if it weren’t I find it hard to believe that gaining more access to our brain power would grant us the ability to change hairdos on demand. However, I decided that if I can accept (for the sake of a movie) that apes can leapfrog us in evolution and take over the world, then I could go along with this premise. Well, I tried, but after watching Lucy, I’m pretty sure apes being our ultimate demise makes more sense than anything in this film.

Luc Besson himself described this movie as having three parts: the first, his very own Leon:  the Professional. The second part is supposed to be Inception (other than one zero gravity sequence, I’m not sure where that part comes into play), and finally, the third part is 2001: A Space Odyssey. This definitely helps to explain the film, but unfortunately it does nothing to make it better. In fact, it explains why the movie seems like it’s always aiming for something more, and missing.

Admittedly, some of the sequences in this picture are interesting, but none of them seem to add up or make any sort of sense, and Scarlett Johansson’s portrayal of Lucy does nothing to help. Apparently, gaining more control of your “cerebral capacity” not only makes your more aware of (and gives you control of) radio waves, electrical waves, all the waves really, but also causes you to be distant and rude… for some reason. She goes from being a real person, who is initially terrified of being killed, to a soulless zombie, mumbling nonsensical things and predicting the color of pens next to people on the other end of telephone lines (because increased brain power, I guess).

Of course, all of these powers that Lucy discovers throughout the film are totally explained by none other than Morgan Freeman, the ultimate explainer. In a completely superfluous role, Freeman plays a professor that Lucy must impart her newfound knowledge to, because the movie demands it. He also explains to us how this is all completely plausible, because dolphins have sonar. Seriously, I’m not making this up.

That’s another thing about Lucy, no one’s motivations make any sense. Why is Lucy so desperate to reach 100% brain capacity (whatever that means)? We’re led to believe that she must because she can (no word on why no one else can try and Get Smart like her). Of course, the only way she can do this is by taking all of the drugs, but these aren’t just any drugs, they’re special synthetic fetus drugs, or something like that; and the movie just wouldn’t be complete if there wasn’t an Asian drug cartel chasing after her, shooting up airports, hospitals and schools, because they must really need those four bags of drugs back badly. Personally, I might have tried a more subtle approach, but to each their own.

I understand this is just a sci-fi film, and of course it’s not really saying that any of this could ever happen (at least I really hope not), however, I feel like this film simply throws us into its plot, daring us to question it. Everything that happens is explained (or not explained) because of more brain power, but the more the film went on the less brain power I felt in my own head (maybe that’s where Lucy was gaining all her power, by sucking it from the minds of the audience). At one point, Morgan Freeman urges Lucy to “pass on” the knowledge she has gained; I wish this movie could have at least attempted to do the same, but then again, maybe it just has nothing to pass on in the first place.

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 4.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2872732/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Hercules (2014)

This is the second Hercules movie to come out this year, and it is certainly by far the best, though admittedly that isn’t saying a whole lot (I couldn’t bring myself to finish The Legend of Hercules, it was that bad). In this more recent take, Dwayne Johnson fills the title role, and he definitely makes for a much more imposing and interesting version of the legend.

Make no mistake, this is very much a swords and sandals type of movie and if that isn’t your sort of thing, you probably won’t care much for this one, but if it is, you could definitely do worse than Brett Ratner’s Hercules. It’s loud and fun and kind of dumb, but it seems fully aware of this and simply invites you to relax and enjoy some brainless action (and the action is pretty satisfying and well done).

 Of course, there’s plenty wrong with this movie, the fact that Brett Ratner still has a career,  the names are horribly confusing and impossible to remember, and the accents are all over the place (seriously what’s with all the varying British accents in Greece)? However, the movie did manage to win me over in the way it decided to tell a new version of the legend. Rather than pretend like Hercules really was a demi-god and tell the story as if the legend were actually true, the film takes a different route, showing how Hercules and his group of misfits carefully forged a mostly fictional reputation, which nearly all of the random Greek citizens in the film end up believing.

I also have to give a shout out to Ian McShane, who took what easily could have been a boring and cliché narrative role and made it fun and added just the right amount of glib; his were the only “funny” lines that managed to make me chuckle.

Again, if you’re looking for something more than just dumb entertainment, you’ll most likely want to look elsewhere; however, if some brainless action is just what you’re looking for, Hercules could be right up your alley.

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 7.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1267297/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Now You See Me (2013)

Now You See Me is one of those high concept, star-studded, heist films with a “twist” and is this film, that twist… is magic. Make no mistake though, this isn’t Harry Potter, think more of Ocean’s 11 (although this movie is more on par with Ocean’s 12) only with intense card tricks, and of course other really impressive magic tricks, like stealing all of a bank’s money.

It’s a shame that this movie doesn’t work very well, because it has an interesting idea and a very star-studded cast, but it leans too heavily on the whole “we’ve been robbed by corporate so we’re taking it all back” Robin Hood type of concept.

Just like a real magic show, this film tries to create an illusion, and the illusion is that this movie is fun and exciting, and a real mystery, however, just like a real magic show, if you look away from all the loud noise, you’ll notice it’s just a trick. The film lacks substance, we never really know why these characters are doing what they’re doing; for a minute here and there the movie tries to dive into some backstory, but it’s poorly done and fleeting as well. When the film finally does try and explain the reason for all of these seamlessly well-executed heists, it fails miserably (more on that later).

A little aside on the soundtrack: it’s ridiculous; the score feels like it’s urgently trying to pump up the intensity, but in all the wrong places. There’s simply no reason for epic music to play while the characters pile into a cab, then again this whole movie tries way too hard so it shouldn’t be a surprise.

As is often the case with magic tricks, once the film finally explains how our “Four Horsemen” (this is the rather cliché name the magicians have for themselves) pull off all of these tricks, the reality is rather mundane. Essentially, the real reason these heists are pulled off is because of movie magic, editing and CGI have more to do with these tricks than anything else, and it’s rather obvious. Of course, we have Morgan Freeman to tell us how it all works, in yet another “let me explain the movie to you” role (it seems to be all he does these days).

Back to the ending, it’s horrendous. It’s one of those twists that hasn’t earned the right to be a twist it’s just something the writer tacked on to make things more “exciting.” The twist doesn’t even blow your mind, or even leave you head-scratching; it’s simply disappointing, much like this movie.

Random side note: I know Dave Franco’s character is supposed to be really awesome at sleight of hand or something like that because he can lift wallets and such, but how exactly does that give him the magical ability to fight like Jason Bourne? Also he knows parkour for some reason? None of it really makes sense and the film doesn’t really appear to try and make sense of it either; the film tries to play this approach off as “magic,” and pretends like it’s doing something new, but in the end we’ve all seen this bag of tricks before.

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 5.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1670345/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Snowpiercer (2013)

Pay attention Hollywood, because this is the type of movie you should be copying. Epic in scale, high on concept, but still just down-to-earth enough to make you root for it, Snowpiercer has to be one of the best action films of the year yet, I’d say the best but I have yet to watch the Raid 2 (I’m waiting for a non-dubbed copy).

The film definitely has an excellent cast, boasting Chris Evans of Captain America fame as the lead, with co-stars Jaime Bell, Octavia Spencer (turning in a very satisfying role), Ed Harris, John Hurt, and wonderfully wicked (as always) Tilda Swinton, and Kang-Ho Song (his lines are completely without subtitles and somehow that makes his character all the better); however, it isn’t the cast necessarily that makes the film, nor is it really even the story, which is a simple enough apocalypse tale, albeit with a unique twist; rather, it is simply the way the movie flows seamlessly, as if it truly believes and revels in itself, and it’s inviting us to join the fun.

Honestly, I can’t remember the last time I truly just enjoyed the ride while watching a film like this, I literally cried out in dismay as characters died, and some moments that could have easily had my eyes rolling on the floor had they been under different direction, instead had me nodding and grinning with giddiness.

All of that aside, this movie actually presents a very interesting dystopian world and within the space of one absurdly giant train they manage to pack in more to this universe than the Hunger Games and Divergent combined. It seems that each train car holds something new and interesting, whether it’s the answer to where the food supply for the less fortunate comes from (it’s not pretty) or an eerily brainwashed classroom full of kids.

I suppose the real praise here should go to director Joon-Ho Bong, he has taken what could have easily been another overblown, over-budgeted action film and turned it into something with heart and soul. That’s not to say that the movie doesn't have a wealthy amount of kick ass moments (it certainly does), and it definitely hits all the right beats that a film of this sort is supposed to do, but the way in which it does is unique and is what makes this movie memorable. 

Seriously, if you love action, see this movie; if you love unique dystopian apocalyptic universes, see this movie; hell, if you love movies, see this movie. You could definitely do a lot worse (I’m looking at you, Transformers).

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 9.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1706620/?ref_=nv_sr_1

The Purge: Anarchy (2014)

Well, it's better than the first one... That's about the best I can say about this film; it wasn't bad, which the first one definitely was, but it's still disappointing, although not as much as the original. Thankfully, we actually get to go outside for a change in this amped up version of the Purge, but in the end when the sirens sound and the bloodshed is over, I still left with a feeling that opportunities had been missed. 

The idea of the Purge is kind of intriguing, and the high-concept idea is the whole reason people flocked to go see the low-budget Ethan Hawke, Lena Heady version, but neither films seem to fully capitalize on this proposed scenario. The first film does a lot of uninteresting world-building (what a relief that we aren't forced to suffer through the same in this sequel) before turning into a run-of-the-mill home invasion flick. In the sequel, the filmmakers decide to toy with the idea of being stuck outside during the Purge, which admittedly makes for a lot more fast-paced, and action-packed film. 

However, the characters are neither likable or smart, rather they are simply annoying, and for the most part, rather useless. This does not include Frank Grillo's role, of course, the bad ass of the movie, who (for some unknown reason) decides to help only these specific four people caught outside on the worst of nights. I'll be honest, I like Frank Grillo (he was great in Captain America 2) but his character's main goal is rather cliche and ends in a confusing climax. That being said, I want to see him in more action roles, maybe not always as the lead, but he looks good kicking major ass on screen, that much I can't deny. 

One part of the movie I did really enjoy has to do with the subtitle "Anarchy." The poor and mistreated people, who are constantly being targeted for these purges by the rich (read: white), rise up and form their own army; the scene where they finally fight back and take revenge on the bureaucrats by beating them at their own game is very satisfying. Sadly, the movie doesn't focus enough on this and the whole political aspect is mostly botched, with people constantly spitting out clearly canned nonsense about the purge being their "American right." This is frustrating, because the whole time I couldn't help but think that in better hands this whole franchise could be so much more, however, at this rate, it's not even on the same level as the Hunger Games, a film that makes a lot of the same points, but in a more sophisticated manner.

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 6.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975578/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Life Itself (2014)

 A real fitting tribute to one of the greatest critics ever, and certainly (in my mind) the greatest film critic I've ever read. As a teenager I remember being obsessed with reading his reviews, religiously devouring them each week as they were published in the paper. That being said, I can't say that I really knew too much about the man himself at the time; I watched a bit of his TV show (the one with Roeper, which strangely is never even alluded to in this film), and I recall the moment he announced his ultimately terminal disease, but other than that the written word was all I knew of the man. 

I feel as though this film is perfect especially for people like me, who were big fans but never really knew Roger Ebert as a person. The movie does a great job of painting a picture of Ebert as a human being, not just a critic, and although it is very lovingly made, I appreciated that it didn't shy away from his faults either (such as his ego, which is mentioned a few times); this of course doesn't take away anything from Roger Ebert at all, the best of men have faults and who could really blame a Pulitzer prize winner for having an ego? 

I also really enjoyed the focus on his relationship with Siskel, a classic "enemies become friends" tale, that sadly ends rather tragically, but I think really changed Ebert for the better in a lot of ways. 

Ultimately, this is a very well-made documentary and one that is clearly a passion project put together by people who really care about Ebert's legacy. As far as I'm concerned, they did a fantastic job and I'll miss his reviews even more now (I actually went back and reread some of his old ones after the movie). Here's to you Roger Ebert, you may not be able to see us at the movies anymore, but we'll feel you there in spirit.

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 8.5.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2382298/?ref_=nv_sr_1