★☆☆☆

One of my favorite film critics is Roger Ebert. Of course I have to share my adulation for the first film critic to get a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame with other film buffs. Reason being he used prose that the layman could understand and he pretty much communicated his thoughts in all candor. I like that. What I don’t like are film critics that suck all the fun out of the movie-going experience (ergo the pompous John Simon of the “National Review” whose attacks Siskel and Ebert had to defend on ABC News in 1983 when Simon blasphemed “Star Wars” as “dehumanizing” and “stultifying”). From that very interview Siskel states “I do not think a film should be rewarded for aiming low and hitting that mark.” Alas I think I’ll don my Pauline Kael suit for this review considering there is something about a bad movie that can’t even meet the mild expectations I originally had for it that makes me very upset.

When great movies do well in the box office everyone is happy. When great movies flop the moviegoer is still happy. When bad movies do well (e.g. “Jurassic World” which I admittedly liked) only Hollywood is happy. But when poor movies flop, no one is happy (think “The Lone Ranger”). Well “Fantastic Four” falls into the latter category with a solid Rotten Tomatoes score of 12% which is pretty terrible considering some of the worst movies I have ever seen have gotten scores of 80 to 90%–even “Ant Man’s” rating was 80% fresh tomatoes. So what to make of this dismal display of light and sound that without a doubt does not reach the level of art all movies should strive to reach? Well first when you throw an old, tired genre like the superhero movie at an audience that continues to go see these god-awful flicks and completely drop the ball…I’m sorry to say but our free market economy just will not tolerate let alone reward this kind of ignoble failure, at least in the case of the blockbuster movie. I mean the most intelligent line from the movie that I can recall is Dr. Storm (Reg E. Cathey) preaching that his “generation’s mistakes are your generation’s [the millennials’] opportunities.” Boy was that vapid. Second maybe the producers shouldn’t have gone through with the idea for a sequel considering those of us who are millennials, which is essentially who the American film industry is catering to these days, (ever since the jarring beginnings of the “New Hollywood” starting out in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s) saw this movie a decade ago. Trust me, I was nine and I still remember Jessica Alba as Sue Storm. Anyway all this to say we need more movies that mean something to someone, anyone other than as a product that falls somewhere on the economic spectrum between a good and service for the sole purpose of generating box office sales. (Except for the special effects used to create Doom’s head. Those were sick and we need those for the upcoming “Star Wars Episode VII,” which by the way they can make ten more of and I will be at every theater showing).

★★☆☆

Don’t get me wrong. I enjoyed “Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation.” I just wasn’t moved by it. There are so many intuitive avenues a movie centered on the dissolution of a government agency the filmmakers could’ve taken, yet the plot for this particular installment was very simple like a naïve child. (Let’s just get on our knees for a minute and thank God it wasn’t as bad as “Avengers: Age of Ultron” because Lord knows it could’ve been). Don’t misread me though. I don’t mean the movie is immature because of the low comedy—which was admittedly pretty funny. No, I mean the movie was unsophisticated even as they chose to select a femme fatale that was, which is very much in the vein of Alfred Hitchcock—more on that later. The intellectual underpinnings of the movie are just as important as its content. Ilsa Faust’s (Rebecca Ferguson) leap-into-the-air-and-scissor strangles, motorcycle grand prix, and a lot of bullet fire do not make up for a weak and unsatisfying story. Indeed what is a beautiful edifice if its architecture is flawed in more one ways than one?

I will concede however Alfred Hitchcock’s influence in the film is very apparent. The close shots of Ilsa’s coming betrayal when Benji (Simon Pegg) remarks he misjudged her is plucked from the master’s own oeuvre. Then when director Atlee (Simon McBurney) forces her to commit more acts that go against her morality halfway through the movie, we really see the Professor (Leo G. Carrell) from “North by Northwest.” This revelation is interesting because apart of what made North by Northwest such a remarkable film was the fact that Hitchcock played against the audience’s expectation in the desert scene by planting the main character Roger Thornhill (Cary Grant) in the heart of an abyss away from the city and his technology. But in this fifth rendition, the climactic ending is shrouded in fog and darkness. This is one reason why I find the film unrewarding: it doesn’t make me think very much. With an action film of this nature, naturally the filmmakers are supposed to made good on some of the conventions a genre promises its audience. But that is not necessarily an excuse for a lack of ingenuity or creativity. Simply put director McQuarrie could’ve done better.

Once again Tom Cruise places himself in considerable danger that other actors would’ve pleaded a stuntman to perform. Cruise is a man who knows no boundary. As the film was winding down (when it should have been building up to a climax might I add), Ethan’s luckiness, his disposition to play God, and the efficacy of his past missions being attributed to pure luck is hammered down our throats. But I felt these insults were leveled more at Tom Cruise the man, rather than Ethan Hunt the character. Hanging onto to the outside of a mammoth plane for a couple of shots that we will soon forget about in the cacophony of Vienna opera houses and scripted fight scenes, Cruise as gone from dauntless to megalomaniacal.

Anyway I loved Rebecca Ferguson. She isn’t like the typical American lead actress who flaunts her sexuality in such a provocative way, you feel uncomfortable if you went to see this movie with family members. She is an elegant lady in my opinion and her grace is subtle yet entrancing. The very kind of woman Hitch searched for in his movies: think Eve Marie Saint or Grace Kelly. Sean Harris as Lane was also pretty terrifying. If you enjoyed playing in the sandbox as a little one, you’ll probably enjoy this movie too. After all it’s just child’s play.

★★★☆

            Last night “Southpaw” opened to a packed theater house and ended to an initial patter of clapping that grew into a resounding ovation, quite an anomaly in today’s movies. Indeed the ending was a humbling resolution to a character study that was quite emotional.

“Southpaw” is more of a modern day rendition of “Raging Bull”—a kind of Jake LaMotta meets Floyd Mayweather and all the grandeur that comes with contemporary boxing matches. The allusions and similarities are quite apparent in the opening moments of the movie. Though the beginning fight isn’t fixed, Billy Hope (Jake Gyllenhaal) is nonetheless the incarnation of the masochistic fighter played by Robert De Niro. In the words of Paul Schrader’s script “no matter how hard [Billy] is hit, no matter how often, he always staggers forward — like a bull.” Even in the corner of the ring, Billy’s trainer criticizes him just as Jake’s younger brother Joey (Joe Pesci) did. Jordan Mains (50 Cent) is the slimy manifestation of Salvy (Frank Vincent). Characters make a handful of heavy-fisted references to Hell’s Kitchen, the location of Raging Bull and Martin Scorsese’s hometown.

The choreography of character movement in the film is the most notable distinction between “Southpaw’s” earlier companion. The punches are timed to perfection, and they land with visceral delight. The final uppercut that planted Miguel Escobar firmly on his keister catalyzed a salvo of hoots and hollers from the audience. Additionally, the dance between Billy and the opposing fighters in the ring is something of a primal waltz.

The movie takes an original spin on the use of diegetic and non-diegetic music to evoke mood and themes just as Scorsese plucked songs from his youth to garnish his movies. The movie expertly uses Frank Ocean’s “Wise Man” to signify a number of different ideas like the fact that Maureen would be proud Billy changed his ways after her death and repaired his absent relationship to his daughter. (I would like to note that the ambience created in the theater when this song came on in the background to Billy’s loving embrace of his daughter was nothing short of romantic and tender). The Weeknd also makes an appearance, albeit an auditory one, in Billy’s consummation with Maureen. It seems like no one knew who he was a couple of years ago and now his music is ubiquitous.

The personal touches that have made what would have been good movies classic ones in the past are what make “Southpaw” such a satisfying movie. When Jordan makes a command to his security detail to walk out with Bill following a disagreement to ensure he doesn’t “break shit on the way out” was very clever. The scenes between Billy and his new trainer (Forest Whittaker) are some of the best in the movie. Also the shots of Billy roaring into the camera lens was primordially gratifying.

Even now Maureen’s (Rachel McAdams) death continues to haunt me. I just wish her death was on terms that would have criticized society in a bigger way than just another insufficient reason as to why we need gun control reform. All in all Billy’s relationship to his daughter resonates with me the most (just like Jake and Joey’s) and may even show a few of us the importance of cherishing the few people in our lives that mean the world to us…because they may be taken out of our world at any moment by something as arbitrary and as little as a bullet round.

★★★☆

“All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the Lord weigheth the spirits.”

“Ex Machina” is quite cognizant of Hollywood’s predisposition to incorporate memorable lines into its films for creative reasons or otherwise more financially motivated ones. (Does “I’m gonna make him an offer he can’t refuse” come to mind? Oh, no? How about “Toto, I’ve got a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore?”) In spirit with the industry and, of course “Ex Machina,” I decided to throw in a line of my own from Proverbs 16:2. I admit I have my own monotheistic leanings, but I nevertheless feel it brings the film to a full 360-degree circle.

Ex Machina is one of the best sci-fi films I have seen. The ultimate measure of how well any film holds up under both critical and the general movie-goers’ reception is whether or not it resonates with them on a personal, emotional and logically satisfying level. Ex Machina does. The entire movie with its many original renditions of conventions plucked from the genres of mystery, sci-fi, drama and monster-in-a-house is much more complex than your typical run-of-the-mill version of cat-and-mouse. Though the ending is a bit trippy and shocking, it is indeed the logical conclusion of the film’s central dramatic question that Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson) asks of Nathan Bateman (Oscar Isaac) at one point during the movie: what purpose does AI (short for artificial intelligence) serve? Honestly, I don’t have an answer. Frankly I don’t think it needs one just as Stanley Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey” leaves its meaning open to interpretation. But there are some particularly attractive ideas that the movie ponders.

(Spoiler) Nathan dies. His death is particularly unfortunate and was not exactly expected. Considering his uber-intelligence and seemingly ubiquitous understanding of both people and machines it comes as a surprise because his death follows a scene in which he very convincingly led us to believe he was very much in control of Caleb and Ava (Alicia Vikander). But he failed to see the imminence of his own death that ironically came by the hand of one of his own creations. Maybe it was hubris? Perhaps Nathan had one too many drinks and it impaired his ability to think? Pretty dubious if you ask me. I took his death to mean that not only do immoral men of every stripe always receive their comeuppance but that also when men are left to their vices they consistently and unfailingly undermine and bring about the undoing of themselves and the people closest to them. Humanity is connected by a common umbilical cord, and every decision we make affects another person. This is the very reason why the Dalai Lama advocates compassion more than anything. If you look closely at Jesus’ teachings, He also believes in treating others as they would like to be treated. The problem is that an idle mind is the devil’s workshop. Admittedly Nathan’s life looks a lot more like one of hard work and dedication. But in those very candid moments in which he opens up to Caleb, his responses are always vapid and picayune, contributing very little to Caleb’s search for truth. Nathan personifies the existentialism and disillusionment that has come to personify our times. Bored with life and vaguely believing in the importance of his work he decides to build AI to serve his own bestial needs, rather than simply going out and finding a nice woman or better yet making friends. Wealth and material possession can never take the place of personal fulfillment and discovering one’s friends and family. Simplicity and contentment is not enough for men like Nathan and only in the end do they realize at what price their vanity and avarice has cost them.