Bryan Caron's Blog, page 27

COVER WARS – Vote now for “In the LIght of the Eclipse”

Over at Masquerade Crew, there’s a monthly contest for independent authors called Cover Wars. I learned about the contest via Twitter about a week back and thought I’d check it out. It seemed like a fun little way to boost the visibility of my book across Twitter, and it was only $5 to get my cover entered, so I thought why not give it a shot.

For the next two weeks, you can vote for my novel, “In the Light of the Eclipse” in round one of the Cover Wars. It’s up against a few other amazing covers, so I need your support. If it gets enough votes over the next two weeks, it will move on to the next round, which will last one week before moving into the finals. But for that to happen, I need votes. You can vote every day for as many books as you’d like (up to 40).

Here’s a look at the cover that’s fighting for a spot in the next round:

So far I’ve seen quite a bit of promotion for the contest and my book on Twitter, with quite a few retweets. I’m not sure if this added exposure will translate into any type of sales, but whether it does or not, at least people are seeing it — and that’s a start.

Vote Now and thanks for the support.

Insider Tips: Character Development 101

Characters are the bread and butter of your story, the glue that holds the plot together, the icing on the… oh, you get the gist. The characters are the emotional center of any written work — they are who takes us along with them on their journey. If we aren’t emotionally involved with the lead character (who may or may not be the narrator), or find the supporting characters boring or nonsensical, the reader will quickly become bored and no amount of plot will bring them back. It doesn’t matter if it’s a young boy who discovers he’s a wizard, a group of kids who band together to fight the evil lurking in the sewer, or a man who builds a spaceship to hunt for his abducted wife, if the characters are weak or underdeveloped, the story will suffer. So how do you go about engaging the reader with compelling characters that they’ll want to follow to the end of the world?

Understand the Basics

There are several basic things you must know before developing characters. The protagonist is your hero — they dictate the focus of your story and are who the reader must identify with the most. This character will more than likely change over the course of the story, seeing the world or life one way at the beginning and a completely different way at the end based on the obstacles they must overcome. Opposing the protagonist is the antagonist, or the villain of your story. There can be multiple antagonists, and they don’t necessarily have to be human, or humanoid. Very often, weather or celestial objects, such as tornadoes, meteors or an eclipse, are the main antagonist. But when considering who your protagonist and antagonist are, and what journey’s both will take through the story, don’t be afraid to go against  archetypes, either making the villain your protagonist and the hero your antagonist, or digging really deep and making them the exact same character. Just remember that the antagonist should always be stronger, smarter or suaver than your protagonist, because when the villain is weaker than the hero, there are no stakes.

Get To Know Your Characters

The better you know your characters prior to writing your first word, the more likely you’ll be able to let go and allow them to guide you along their journey. As a writer, you’ll spend a lot of time together with your characters. If you don’t find them compelling enough to want to spend time with, why would your readers? Getting to know them gives you the chance to find out what makes them tick and whether they are important enough to keep around.

Learning who they are. A lot of times, if you don’t understand your characters, they’ll meander about your book like a child with amnesia, changing personalities and acting in contradictory ways from scene to scene. This leads to a lot of continuity issues that will have to be corrected while editing and revising. Writing a paragraph or two about the characters prior to writing, you’ll have a better idea as to how they would act in certain situations and where their emotional journey will take them. Don’t spend a lot of time on this: give them some identifying features, a little bit of backstory (where they like to hang out, who their friends are, a little about their personality) and then decide whether they are in need of an emotional journey and what that might entail.

Make sure they help your protagonist (or antagonist) in their journey. There’s nothing worse than hanging out with a well-drawn character for umpteen pages only to have them be inconsequential to anything going on. It doesn’t have to be a major thing, but at some point, their presence should have consequences to the actions of your protagonist. I hated having to kill a couple of characters early on in Jaxxa Rakala: The Search, however their deaths forced characters to rise up where they may not have otherwise and will continue to effect the relationships between all of the characters throughout the series. To test whether or not a character is needed, tell yourself the story without that specific character. Does anything change? Is their lack of presence felt? If so, then they’re a keeper. If not, no matter how much you might like them, you should get rid of them. They’re just taking up valuable real estate.

Utilize the Theory of Opposites

Always try to pair your characters with their direct opposite. if you have a shy, reserved protagonist, give them a fun, outgoing best friend or mentor. If you have a wily, structured villain, give them a goofy, chaotic sidekick. Personality conflicts are a strong way to develop dramatic tension, wherein your lead characters aren’t only fighting their opposition, but their allies as well. It adds depth to the well of the character and gives you the opportunity to develop the characters in a natural way. Instead of dictating who they are to the reader, you can now show who they are because of how they relate to these other personality types. Not only that, but their presence will give the lead characters skills that they otherwise wouldn’t have without them, allowing for a more genuine transformation.

Base Them On People You Know

Don’t be afraid to base your characters on people you hang out with on a daily basis. Observation is the one of a writer’s most important tools because it allows us to understand different personality traits and the way people speak and act when in certain situations. You can do a lot of this while walking through a mall, or waiting in line at the coffee shop. But it’s the people we’re around all the time that give us our best source of character. I’ve developed characters that perhaps have one small habit of someone I know, all the way up to basically putting that person directly into the book, simply because they’re outgoing nature was the perfect balance to the more reserved characters she hangs out with. But the most important person you should base your characters on is reading this blog right now. That’s right — it’s you. Most, if not all, of my characters have some piece of me within them. It could be their fears, their attitudes, their dreams or their spiritual tendencies, but by putting a piece of myself into each of the characters, it draws me closer to them and helps me relate to them more than if I was separating myself from them, which if I did, would push the reader to separate from them as well.

Give Them Flaws

Nobody likes reading about perfection (unless perfection is the character’s flaw). Unlike old archetypal serials, heroes and villains are never black and white. When a hero is pure good or a villain is pure evil, they become boring. To make them dynamic, each one should have some traits that would normally be represented by the other. In other words, a hero can be good at heart, but continually steal or lash out at society; or the villain can be doing something immoral, but be doing so because he has good intentions. But be careful: if you give a hero too may flaws, or a villain too much heart, it could cause confusion in the reader and keep them from connecting to either.

In summary, characters I write are all based on what the protagonist and the antagonist are going to need to tell the story I want to tell and complete their journeys. I draw from the experiences, quirks, habits and personalities of people I know in order to understand them and care about them, to give them purpose and make sure they have meaning to the characters. But most of all, whether it’s genre fiction or a deep, literary character study, I try to stay true to myself and give represent my own personal vulnerabilities within the characters. Because when you connect with your characters and can’t bear to leave them when you’ve finished your edits, more often than not, the reader won’t want to let them go either.

What do you think? Have you ever gotten rid of a character that turned out to be unnecessary to the hero’s journey? Have you ever based your characters off of someone you know? Have you ever given your villain the qualities of a hero that make your reader cry when they are defeated?

Movie Mayhem – American Ultra

There’s a scene toward the beginning of American Ultra, the new film that once again pairs Jesse Eisenberg with Kristen Stewart, when Eisenberg’s Mike Howell and Stewart’s Phoebe Larson are sitting on the hood of a car in a field, smoking pot and watching the authorities clean up an accident. Mike goes seriously deep as he compares his life with Phoebe as that of a tree stopping a car in its tracks. In essence, he feels he’s a tree, stuck forever in one place, while Phoebe’s the car, and he’s somehow kept her from ever moving on. The scene is a very quiet look into the mind of a man who feels so deeply rooted in an existence of inactivity that he has anxiety attacks when he even attempts to leave the town border. The scene is so well-acted, and incredibly written that it almost spoils the rest of the film, which can’t seem to ever live up to that one five minute clip.

I wasn’t quite sure what to make of American Ultra when I first saw the trailer. I’ve never been at all interested in watching any film that includes the usage of marijuana as a main story thread, but when the trailer’s focus turned to promote the edgy Jason Bourne-esque story thread of Mike being some sort of trained assassin or military experiment, it gave me enough reason to give it a chance. It turns out that although the use of pot is certainly a focus in the first part of the movie, it plays as simply a part of who these characters are rather than focusing on that aspect of their personalities as a main plot point to the story. Eisenberg does a terrific job digging much deeper than just another one-dimensional pot head who gets into some type of shenanigans because of his drug use. In fact, once the action starts, there’s hardly any use of drugs at all, as the story turns to focus on the CIA’s hunt for this supposedly exceptional killer.

But this is also where the movie runs a bit off the rails. The film can basically be torn into two separate halves:

Mike and Eric’s Love Story: Surrounded by an extremely violent plot that finds out heroes running, hiding and fighting for their lives is an interesting little love story between Mike and Phoebe. Eisenberg and Stewart work incredibly well together, pulling off a delightful chemistry that helps us believe the sincerity of their actions. Writer Max Landis paints an intelligent portrait of two very flawed characters who want so much more, but are unwilling to go after it because of a past that can’t be explained (on more than one level). One of the most perfectly captured scenes in the film happens after Mike, having been unknowingly “activated” by his old CIA handler (Connie Britton), kills a couple of hitmen with nothing more than a spoon. Mike’s reaction, both right after the incident and after Phoebe arrives at the scene, are both funny and genuine. I will say the twists involved in the relationship are pretty standard, but it’s in the way Eisenberg plays the character that makes it captivating.

The CIA Hunt and Kill Story: The second half of the film seems to have been written by a completely different person altogether and then thrown in because they didn’t have enough material to fill a full 90 minutes. Topher Grace plays an arrogant CIA honcho who discovers (after how much time?) the whereabouts of Mike and aims to destroy him and the project he represents. In his way is Britton’s Victoria Lasseter, who has a soft-spot for Mike and his abilities. There’s no doubt Grace and Britton are talented actors — when they want to be. Here, they seem to be going through the motions without caring much for anything but getting in, getting out and getting paid. This attitude doesn’t just come across in their presentations, but it accentuates the disappointing dialogue and poorly-crafted characters. I couldn’t help but cringe whenever the film left Mike and Phoebe to focus in on them.

These differences in these two halves highlight the wavering tone of the film as well. On one level, it wants to be (and for the most part, is) a smart, thoughtful action film that connects on various levels, whether that be fear, love, conspiracy or anxiety. On the other hand, it wants to be a pseudo-parody, attempting to milk laughs by turning the “scary” men-in-black into fumbling fools that are more interested in their egos than they are the lives of innocent civilians. By doing so, it weakens the villains to the point of turning them into nothing more than robotic cartoons, eliminating the threat to Mike in such a way that we know they’ll never win. It’s set up early on that Mike, when completely active, is an unbeatable opponent, but by pitting him against such inept foes, there’s no real stakes, which makes the battles a little boring.

That said, the action sequences were still well choreographed. There are a couple of moments when the camera and editing get in the way of the action a little, where it is hard to tell what’s going on, but for the most part, each step is done with orchestrated perfection. The final battle, which occurs in a grocery store is especially thrilling, as the first half is filmed in what seems to be one smooth shot following Mike as he takes down his opponents with nothing more than items he picks up off the shelves. Denzel Washington tried the same thing in The Equalizer last year (substituting a hardware store for the grocery store), but Ultra has so much more energy and enthusiasm, thus making it much more fun to watch.

To round it all out, there are a couple of good turns by John Leguizamo, Walton Goggins and Bill Pullman (that’s Pullman, not Paxton) in supporting roles that I wish would have lasted longer than they did. If Britton and Grace had given as much commitment to the script as these side characters, the CIA half of the film may have been raised to match the bar Eisnberg and Stewart set early on in the film. I don’t know if it would have helped, but perhaps they just needed a little hit to help give them something more to care about.

My Grade: B+

——————————————

Next week, new movies include We Are Your Friends, No Escape and War Room. If you would like to see a review of one of these, or any other film out next week, please respond in the comments below.

Movie Mayhem – Ricki and the Flash

It’s been widely accepted for a long time now — Meryl Streep can do no wrong… at least where her acting skills are concerned (as it’s quite clear there have been a few hiccups along  the road to her legitimate crowning as the Queen of Oscar). Whether she is righteously dramatic, vindictively evil, delightfully funny or surprisingly capable of belting out a tune, Streep always remains fantastically believable as a fully-realized, three-dimensional woman. There are very few actors who can pull off what she’s been able to do in her illustrious career, but unfortunately, even her grandiose talent can’t save every movie. There are limits to her powers, and they come in the form of writers and directors, neither of which Streep has any control over (aside from choosing what scripts she accepts). It’s clear that her presence raises the profile of a film like Ricki and the Flash, but that doesn’t necessarily mean a film will translate to a perfect end result.

Written by Diablo Cody, who has herself fallen from grace ever since her breakout screenplay, Juno, took Oscar by storm, Ricki and the Flash starts out promising, but about half-way through, the meat is stripped from the film’s backbone, leaving it a bit tasteless and empty. Based on what we’re given in the trailer, Ricki (Streep) is a woman living in a past she can’t let go of who returns home when her estranged daughter, Julie (Mamie Gummer), breaks up with her husband. From that, we’re given the idea that the story would be a strong, mother-daughter relationship drama, in which both Ricki and Julie would grow from the bond they share with one another… which it does, for the first half of the film. But then the focus completely shifts away from this relationship to focus on Ricki’s relationship with her band mate and sometime boyfriend, Greg (Rick Springfield), so by the climactic wedding of Ricki’s youngest son (Sebastian Stan), I felt a bit cheated because the weight of Julie’s character arc has been depleted by her absence.

Ricki is played beautifully by Streep as a flawed, yet loving woman who buries her fears under a persona she doesn’t necessarily have control over, and one of the best decisions director Jonathon Demme made was casting Gummer (Streep’s real-life daughter) as Julie to counter-balance Streep’s wild child. The chemistry the two actresses share on screen is evident in every minute interaction, which makes their dynamic as mother and daughter that much more powerful. So when the film decides to excise this growing, fertile bond, it ends up forcing a manufactured reconciliation with a family who all but hates her simply because Ricki finally finds a way to open her soul to a man she’s been fighting hard to keep at a distance, even as she pulls him closer. The script ends up feeling like two different movies that don’t quite fit with one another.

One reason for this is adding a subplot highlighting the hatred between Ricki, her ex-husband, Pete, (Kevin Kline) and his second wife, Maureen (Audra McDonald). Kline and Streep are a remarkably subtle pair who work very well together as a couple who clearly still love each other, but know that the love comes more from a kinetic hatred toward what they represent than anything representing love. They don’t try to hide their pain with one another, but they don’t let it get the best of each other either. On the other hand, the vitriol between Maureen and Ricki is clearly evident, no matter how much they try to hide it. Ricki feels betrayed by her because Maureen has all but taken over her family, and Maureen despises Ricki for being a toxic influence on the kids, even though its clear she’s not as bad as Maureen would like to believe. Maureen doesn’t hold back, and in a brilliantly blunt fashion, tells Ricki exactly how she feels, and though this sentiment is the catalyst that forces Ricki to “grow up”, it’s also what rips the heart of the film out of its chest by pushing Ricki away from the main mother/daughter relationship thread.

If only they would have taken the extra step to write more original music for the film, it might have had a more genuine touch. At one point in the film, Julie and Pete are shocked to learn that Ricki wrote a song she sang to them, because it reached deep down within her soul to capture her thoughts and feelings. I won’t spoil too much here, but at a crucial moment in the film, Ricki chooses to sing a cover of a song when an original song, written from the heart based on the experiences in the film, would have had so much more impact and solidified the meaning of the film a lot more than the chosen song (even though it does work for this particular moment in the film). It just highlights a film full of flaws that rises above the material due to a strong cast, led by Streep, that play the emotional strings well enough.

My Grade: B+

——————————————

Next week, new movies include Straight Outta Compton and The Man From U.N.C.L.E. If you would like to see a review of one of these, or any other film out next week, please respond in the comments below.

New Epic Novel In The Works

I have a new novel in the works, and it’s going to be epic! (I know, I’m boasting. But hey, I’m a writer… I give the truth scope!)

Originally written approximately 10 years ago, the novel flowed from my fingertips like luscious honey, and no matter how hard I tried, I could never find a way to close the floodgates. But what writer would, especially when my characters were taking me on such a wild and adventurous journey — one that I now feel is ready to share with the world. Though a release date has yet to be set (because, you know, it has been sitting on my digital shelf for nearly ten years… I need to blow some ones and zeroes off of it before it’s at its best and brightest), I’ve tentatively scheduled it for sometime in November.

More will be revealed in the coming months. But for now, here’s a short teaser trailer to whet your appetite.

Are you excited to know more about the book? Do you have any trailers for novels you’d like to share?

Movie Mayhem – Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation / Vacation

Unless you’re Fast and Furious, when a franchise hits its fifth installment, it usually signifies a last ditch effort to squeeze a few more dollars out of a dead franchise. At best, franchises this long in the tooth feel a bit repetitive and lazy, mostly because there’s really no story left to tell and everyone involved is simply going through the motions. At worst, slapping a five on the end of the title (or hiding the fact it’s a five through other means) turns the effort into a boring and pathetic cash-grab that pisses all over the treasured memories of a time when everyone cared about the film and its characters. And Hollywood isn’t fooling us when they reclassify a fifth installment as a reboot (or in the case of the Amazing Spider-Man 2, a sequel to a reboot), because usually, they still don’t hold a candle to their original counterparts, leading to the boos and hisses of fans clambering for original material or death to the franchise. That’s why this week was a bit of an enigma in the cinema-verse, as two movies marking the fifth member of their respective franchises somehow found a way (on varying levels) to buck the trend of grating antipathy to deliver on the promise of entertainment.

When the Mission: Impossible series started back in 1996, I wasn’t a fan. I felt the original was slow and plodding, while the second was just all over the place and incoherent, prompting me to entirely skip the third film, despite J.J. Abrams at the helm. Then came Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol, which blew me away, partially because I had extremely low expectations. Of course, the decision to enhance Simon Pegg’s role and add Jeremy Renner did wonders, mostly because it forced the franchise to jettison the “Tom Cruise Action Showcase” and focus on creating a complete ensemble, at least where working in the field (as opposed to working behind a computer) is concerned. Hunt now relied on his team being with him in the field to complete the mission, allowing Cruise to give his costars a chance to shine in a variety of ways, leading to a generous performance that transfers incredibly well into Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation.

The energy level couldn’t be higher as Christopher McQuarrie takes over the reigns from Brad Bird and reassembles a stellar cast, including Ving Rhames, who pretty much sat out Ghost Protocol, but is still the only actor other than Cruise to appear in all five films. Rogue Nation begins shortly after the events of Ghost Protocol, as sniveling CIA bureaucrat Alan Hunley (Alec Baldwin) urges a senate committee to shut down the Impossible Mission Force (or IMF) due to their reckless behavior and unorthodox tactics. At the same time, Ethan Hunt is tracking the leader of a terrorist organization manufacturing events to lead the world into a massive war, which he must now do as a wanted fugitive. Hunt’s reliance on his team becomes even greater now, as his life literally depends on it, especially when he joins forces with a British MI6 operative who may or may not be a double-agent… or triple agent… or quadruple agent… can there even be such a thing? The back and forth of whether she can or can’t be trusted is a little dizzying, but it provides some of the more exciting action set pieces, including a terrific chase sequence. I’m not sure I can say Rogue Nation was better than Ghost Protocol, but the energy and creativeness was definitely on par with its predecessor, making it clear that as long as the filmmakers keep this core group intact, I’m on board for more impossible missions that showcase the electric camaraderie and chemistry the actors have parlayed into a solid formula.

Vacation, on the other hand, isn’t quite able to find its voice. A sequel disguised as a reboot, Vacation is pleasantly surprising — but not enough to rise above its inconsistencies, which puts it at about the same level as the Griswold’s last outing, Vegas Vacation. In other words, it has some terrific moments of inspired comedy, but they aren’t enough to save the film from feeling heavily stale and flat in execution. And this inconsistency begins and ends with one major flaw — Rusty Griswold (Ed Helms).

On the one hand, Rusty is a reincarnation of Clark W. Griswold as portrayed by Chevy Chase, which would be perfect if this was a complete reboot of the original film. Helms channels Chase’s comedy sensibilities to near perfection, delivering a sensible, yet wildly erratic performance. But the film itself makes it incredibly clear that this is, in fact, a sequel, as evidenced by the various references, which include cameo appearances by Chase Beverly D’Angelo as Clark and Ellen Griswold. That means that the representation of Rusty is horribly inaccurate and flawed. Rusty was not meant to be like Clark at all and I had a hard time believing that the self-confident, sarcastic Rusty would eventually grow up to become the same buffoonish, dim-bulb adult. Doing so causes the film to feel heavily repetitive (even when they alter the moments in funny, sometimes sadistic ways) instead of a chance to reinvent the Wally World road trip. If writer/directors Jonathan M. Goldstein and John Francis Daley had infused this trip as a way for Rusty to not only bond with his family, but also make up for the disaster from his childhood, that would have given the plot a little more juice as it honored the original without completely copying it.

Another major issue that keeps Vacation from rising to the greatness that is National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation is the mind-boggling need to be extra raunchy, at least in terms of attempting to milk laughs through the superfluous use of  bathroom humor. There was a pure level of innocence to the original Vacation films. Yes, there were a tremendous amount of sexual references and nudity, some really outrageous dialogue and some shocking moments (anyone still feel for that poor dog?), but it came from a place of respect, simplicity and charm. Clark wasn’t the brightest tool in the shed, but the love he had for his family (and in turn, his family had for one another) was undeniable.

That vibe is sorely missing from this incarnation, making the film feel dirty when it shouldn’t be. When Rusty tells his family he’s taking them to Wally World, he shakes the keys to his newly rented car with pure excitement and runs from the room, expecting his family to follow. They don’t, and in this one simple moment, I saw the brilliant spark of intelligent humor this film needed more of, because when Daley and Goldstein focused on this type of humor, it brought back what I enjoyed so much about the originals. As it is, it’s a decent addition to the franchise, but no amount of Holiday Road can make it worth the trip back to Wally World.

My Grades: M:I – Rogue Nation: A; Vacation: B

——————————————

Next week, new movies include The Gift, The Fantastic Four, Ricki and the Flash and Shaun the Sheep Movie. If you would like to see a review of one of these, or any other film out next week, please respond in the comments below.

Movie Mayhem – Pixels

There’s only one way to say this: I have mixed feelings about Pixels.

Given that I only recently found out that Pixels is actually based on a two-minute short produced by OnMoreProd (and directed by Patrick Jean) on YouTube, when I first read about the feature film, I was extremely excited about the idea of an alien race attacking the planet with eighties arcade games. It’s not only an idea that’s primed for greatness (especially if it could nail the eighties era vibe), but one I wish I had had. And unlike a lot of naysayers and haters out there, I don’t have an issue with Adam Sandler. Have I liked all of his films? That would be a resounding “No!” I didn’t like Little Nicky at all, I wasn’t a fan of You Don’t Mess With the Zohan or I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry, and Jack & Jill was part of my top 5 worst films in 2011. But no one’s ever going to like everything, and because I like a lot of his other films, there’s always the hope that the next one will bring back what made films like Happy Gilmore so good. Add in the awkwardness of Josh Gad (who, like Will Ferrell, I tend to like more as a voice actor), the silliness of Kevin James (who can be super funny if given the right material, which as of late, hasn’t happened much), the awesomeness that is Peter Dinklage, and you’ve got yourself a recipe for success, especially when you have a cook as good as Chris Columbus in control of it all.

I wasn’t disappointed — at least where the effects and action sequences are concerned. When an alien race (who we’re never given all that much information about) misinterprets video footage sent into space in the eighties as a challenge of war, they transmit the rules of engagement using eighties icons, like Madonna and Max Headroom. Like all arcade games of the era, each side will have three lives to defeat the other. When the aliens win a game (including the likes of Galaga, Pac-Man and Centipede), a token of victory (in the form of a human) would be abducted. If the humans win, they receive their own prize in the form of an arcade character. The first to lose all three lives must give up their planet.

In game mode, the concept takes on a new life. The way Columbus brings the games out of the arcade and into the real world is executed perfectly. The humor is just right, the level of action feels authentic and natural, and the visual effects, combined with the editing, is done with great precision and attention to detail. Best of all, Columbus utilizes these action sequences to not not only advance the plot, but allow his characters to grow. The moment Sandler’s character, Brenner, a man-child or sorts (it is what Sandler does best, now isn’t it?) who works as an installation “nerd” for an electronics company, decides to go against military orders and take up arms to help “win” Centipede is terrific in the way it evolves the film. The beats of the plot are precise in how and when they happen without fail, and shows us the potential the movie has. It’s a shame Columbus, Sandler and the rest of the cast and crew didn’t put as much care or passion into the scenes and story between the games, which unfortunately, take up the bulk of the film.

It’s not only the pace and the jokes that are heavily hit-or-miss during these moments of downtime, the chemistry between the characters (which shines during the battles) feels as if they built a strong chemistry together in rehearsals, but when it came time to shoot, were all filmed at different times and superimposed together. In this way, it feels as if Columbus is deliberately keeping everyone from going all the way in their performances. The biggest offender of this phenomenon is Dinklage, who gives an incredibly natural tone and personality to Eddie, one of the stand-out characters in the movie, but isn’t ever given the grand opportunity his character deserves to evolve past the cover of his persona. Because of this, Eddie’s ultimate comeuppance and redemption fall dreadfully flat due to lack of connection to his characters. And he’s not alone, as all the main characters don’t truly earn the growth or the resolution they’ve been given.

On a routine installation, Brenner meets Violet (Michelle Monaghan), a woman who just separated from her husband after cheating on her with a nineteen-year-old bimbo, a light plot point that initiates the romantic subplot of the film, but is utterly forgotten or left unexplored minutes after the initial meet-cute when they each find out they are both part of the President’s inner circle (in far different ways). Coincidences aside, I liked this development enough to forgive Columbus for catering to the lowest common denominator when it came to the military side of the film, and wasting some terrific talent in the process. Everything about the government, from the head-scratching choice to allow James to be cast as the President to never following through on the potential of Brian Cox and Sean Bean, is so heightened as to a level of goofiness that tears away at the tone Columbus originally sets up. Instead of grounding the military in a much more realistic way to counter-balance the absurdity of the premise, he takes them in the opposite direction, turning the supposed esteemed generals into dim-bulb cliches of previous hard-nosed generals.

Columbus also tends to skip over some of the rudimentary aspects that make up a film like this, such as getting to watch Brenner and his crew receive the uniforms for the first time, or a quick montage of the team putting together the mini-cooper ghosts at the last minute, which, along with a handful of other minor scenes, seem as if they were simply cut for time or pacing reasons. Unfortunately, no matter how good the high notes of the film are, without these smaller details, it feels like something is missing, so much so that even though the film clearly had the potential for being high-octane fun, Columbus remains too reserved in his choices, leading the film down a path to good, but failing to reach the pinnacle of greatness.

My Grade: B+

——————————————

Next week, new movies include Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation and Vacation. If you would like to see a review of one of these, or any other film out next week, please respond in the comments below.

Movie Mayhem – Ant-Man

When I think of Paul Rudd, I don’t think superhero. With his average-guy personality (and looks, for that matter), combined with his lovingly awe-shucks attitude toward life, Rudd has built a career playing the ordinary everyman with a childish maturity. In other words, Rudd is normal — there isn’t a whole lot that makes him “super.” Trying to picture Rudd running alongside (and/or fighting) any of the Avengers seems outlandish on its face. He’s too gentle to be a fighter; too plain to be a god; too kindhearted to be a badass. But it turns out, those qualities and more are exactly what’s needed to give Ant-Man its voice.

While the Avengers are busy “dropping cities from the sky,” Ant-Man grounds itself in the ordinary, even as it explores and builds upon the extraordinary. The last few films in the Marvel cannon have expanded their world through universal outreach, by which I mean, anything goes when it comes to tapping into outer space, extraterrestrials and new worlds beyond Earth’s borders. But with Ant-Man, we’re given something much smaller (pun intended? Maybe…) — a real world problem. Geneticist Hank Pym (Michael Douglas), having once worked for Howard Stark (John Slattery, reprising the role he originated in Iron-Man 2) as one of the possible founders of S.H.I.E.L.D., created a serum that would allow a man to shrink to the size of an ant. Hank refused to give the formula to Stark, knowing that the power of such technology was too dangerous if it ever fell into the wrong hands. So when an ex-protege, Darren Cross (Corey Stoll), cracks the code to the formula, Hank must find a way to stop him from selling it to Hydra — represented here by super-slimy agent, Mitchell Carson (Martin Donovan).

In comes Scott Lang (Rudd), a charming thief (excuse me, burglar) who seeks to leave his life of crime behind so he can share custody of his daughter, Cassie (the precociously adorable Abby Ryder Fortson), with ex-wife Maggie (Judy Greer, who seems to be popping up a lot in big, tent-pole movies these days). It turns out to be harder than he thinks — with a criminal record (for having hacked into a former employer’s database to release millions of dollars to the general public), not even Baskin-Robbins will hire him. So in order to get the money to pay the child support he owes and earn his chance to be the father he so desperately wants to be, he reluctantly takes a job breaking into a millionaire’s safe, only to find out there’s nothing in the safe but an odd-looking suit. This particular sequence is terrific in showcasing Scott’s ability as a burglar, as well as his intelligence in Jerry-rigging solutions to problems on the fly, MacGyvering several techniques in order to get to and inside the vault, proving to  Hank (and the audience) just why Rudd is perfectly cast to put on the suit and become a superhero.

For any fans of Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, the first time Scott uses the suit are fantastically nostalgic. It produces the same fun, imaginative concepts while remaining true to its own voice. It might be a bit jarring at first to accept how easily Scott survives most of what happens, but it’s explained (though very subtly) after Scott finally meets Hank and his daughter, Hope van Dyne (Evangeline Lilly), who each have a different attitude toward Scott’s usefulness — Hank believes Scott is his only choice to destroy Cross’s yellowjacket suit (and the information behind it), while Hope feels she’s better suited to the task, having not only infiltrated Cross’s team by pretending to be a loyal ally, but she’s been training to use the suit all of her life… or at least since her mother died in a mysterious plane crash and was subsequently abandoned to boarding school. But as we soon find out, there’s more to Hank’s reasoning than he’s letting on, which dovetails nicely into the scheme of the plot, as well as the characterization of all three characters and why they belong as part of the Marvel universe.

And don’t think director Peyton Reed skimps on the Marvel tie-ins. Beginning with the initial meeting between Pym, Stark and Hayley Atwell’s Agent Peggy Carter, the rest of the film is full of subtle to not so subtle nods to previous films. The most exciting is a scene in which Scott is asked to break into an old abandoned S.H.E.I.L.D. warehouse, which so happens to be the same warehouse S.H.E.I.L.D. recently converted into the new Avengers headquarters last seen at the end of Avengers: Age of Ultron. Instead of aborting the mission, Scott decides to try his luck and ends up squaring off with an actual member of the Avengers, a beautifully choreographed fight sequence that solidifies Ant-Man’s capabilities of joining the team of ultimate superheroes. (Well, the B-Team, at least… we’ll have to wait until Captain America: Civil War to see if he can truly stand toe-to-toe with the big boys).

As for the rest of the film, there is a somewhat ridiculous subplot that involves Maggie’s boyfriend, Paxton (Bobby Cannavale), a cop in hot pursuit of Scott after he’s arrested for trying to return the suit and subsequently skips out of his holding cell when the ants give the suit back. It’s not ridiculous in the fact that Paxton is chasing him (after all, he despises Scott for his past career as a burglar and his inability to take care of his family — and more importantly, his daughter), it’s that Reed for some reason makes Paxton a bit of a doofus, bordering on cartoon silliness. It deviates from the tone Reed has set up based on the original concept and script by Edgar Wright, whose name is still all over this movie, and whose influence certainly hides in the shadows. So much so that I have to wonder how much different the film would have been had Wright not exited the project. But as it stands, Reed does a fine job balancing the absurd with the ordinary, and though some of his choices can be hit-or-miss (especially when it comes to Scott’s best friend, Luis (Michael Peña), who can’t help but recount almost every detail, whether pertinent or not, when telling Scott how he obtained information from his sources), the essence of Marvel and the continuation of its grand design remain intact and prove that you don’t have to be a god-like warrior to be a solid superhero — you simply need to be a devoted father with a kind, warm spirit.

My Grade: A

——————————————

Next week, new movies include Pixels, Paper Towns and Southpaw. If you would like to see a review of one of these, or any other film out next week, please respond in the comments below.

Sarah, Alison, Cosima and Helena (& Rachel!) Finally Get Their Due

Congratulations to Tatiana Maslany, who received her very first (and long overdue) Emmy nomination today for her killer portrayal of not one, not two, but nine separate clones (so far) in BBC Ameirca’s Orphan Black. Each character Maslany plays is incredibly crafted so as to keep them all very distinctive, whether it’s with the voice, the hair, her cadence or all of the above — to the point that when you’re watching her play multiple characters in the same scene, you usually forget it’s the same actress in each role. Not only that, but Maslany has been able to craft incredibly diverse personalities that keep you engaged no matter who she’s playing, turning in a variety of nuanced performances that allow each one to be someone’s favorite. (For the record, my favorite is Alison!)

Maslany should have earned at least a nomination back in 2013 for the first season, but I guess “better late than never” applies beautifully in this case. Here’s hoping now that the Emmy voters have acknowledged what a tremendous talent Maslany is, they also award her a well-deserved trophy come September.

Tatiana Maslany as Rachel, Alison, Sarah, Cosima & Helena — Orphan Black

Movie Mayhem – Minions

Despicable Me was one of those films that took me by surprise. I wasn’t quite sure what to expect from the film, having gotten a rather mediocre vibe from the trailers. Basically, I didn’t think it would be much good — just another so-so entry in the animated cannon. But then magic happened and I was won over by Gru’s carefully crafted transformation from incredibly despicable (yet lovable) villain to devoted father and hero to his adopted little girls. One of the reasons for the film’s success were Gru’s yellow pill-shaped creatures in blue overall’s who meant well, but were crazily prone to accidents and were far more cute and fun than nefarious. The little guys, known as minions, were so popular, they eventually became Illumination Entertainment’s (the animated studio behind the Despicable franchise) mascots. It was only a matter of time before the little runts got their own movie. But is Minions a smashing success story, or is it missing something important in its formula?

As everyone probably knows by now, Minions is a prequel exploring the minions’s roots prior to becoming Gru’s lovable lackeys. Who are they? Where did they come from? How many villainous masters did they follow (and eventually kill in unfortunate mishaps)? These basic (albeit, non-essential) questions are answered when we meet the minions as some sort of protozoa-type amoebas trading masters like they were going out of style (and mostly because a bigger and fiercer fish would eat their previous master), eventually evolving to walk on land to find the biggest, meanest master to serve. After spending centuries trying to find the right fit, they find themselves exiled to a snow-riddled cave where they spend their time building a community and having fun. But because they have no purpose without the ability to serve a master, they quickly become despondent. It’s then up to Kevin (voiced, as all minions are, by Pierre Coffin) to head out and find them a rockin’ villain. Joining him are the reluctant Stewart and the excited Bob, who venture out into the big, wide world of adventure.

All of this happens in a swift twenty minutes or so, all narrated by Geoffrey Rush. But I can’t help but wonder if it would have been more engaging had we been allowed to invest ourselves in the plight of the minions without being told what was happening. Yeah, the minions speak in a smorgasbord of different languages, but there are creative ways to get the information across without a narrator (most of which are already evident), and I feel I would have been able to relate to the minions more deeply if I was forced to pay more attention to what was happening. One reason I believe that is because the narration does end once the minions hit New York City, and there’s no denying the film becomes much more enchanting at that point.

It’s at this point that the trio hitch a ride to Orlando (with a family of villains who definitely needed more screen time than they were allowed) for the annual Villain-Con, a terrific parody on conventions that also isn’t allowed much time to breathe, but will most definitely need a couple of viewings to catch all of the details littered throughout. It’s at the convention that the minions are introduced to Scarlett Overkill (Sandra Bullock), the supposed queen of villainy who wants to become the actual Queen of England. To help achieve this goal, Scarlett ignites a contest for the chance to become her new minions, a challenge that Kevin, Bob and Stewart will inevitably win in gloriously accidental fashion. Appropriate (and some not so appropriate) shenanigans ensue as they group is whisked off to England.

While there is some terrifically clever laughs and situations that will almost certainly go over the heads of most kids (but will remain hilarious because of the joviality of the minions), I couldn’t help but feel something was missing. I wanted to like Minions much more than I actually did, partially because, as is normal for a lot of films these days, the best jokes were already part of the trailer, so if you’ve seen that (and unless you’ve been hiding under a rock the past year, you have), there aren’t many more surprises awaiting you. However, after the movie was over, it dawned on me that the root of my overall disappointment was because of one glaring omission — Gru and his daughters. That relationship is the heart and soul of Despicable Me, so when the filmmakers are forced to remove that element, we’re left with little more than the coincidental and accidental nature of the minions themselves. This immature aspect of their characters certainly works in small doses, pulling off tremendous laughs when done in reservation, but when given the spotlight, those jokes that are at first insanely endearing become a bit repetitive.

I don’t think it would have been quite as bad had the human characters been given the same care that Gru and his family were provided. Scarlett turns out to be a typical, cliché-riddled supervillain who is more bark than bite, failing to give the film any power. Her husband (Jon Hamm) is also a bit of a letdown, throwing out some decent quips that add nothing to the soul of the film. They both end up as mere plot devices, whereas Gru and his girls gave us a reason to care for what happened throughout the film. Do I care what happens to Kevin, Stewart and Bob? Of course; I’d hate to see anything bad happen to them, and for the most part, their adventures can be quite fun, especially when Kevin turns into a Godzilla-sized minion, or when Bob fortuitously pulls the famed sword from the stone. But other than the small doses of juice these events add to the proceedings, the film as a whole comes off as a silly, passive form of entertainment rather than an engrossing piece of cinema. Where what was once surprisingly giddy fun becomes an overdose of craziness that doesn’t allow for the same joy I got when the stars were simply supporting players in a much larger world.

My Grade: B+

——————————————

Next week, new movies include Ant-Man and Trainwreck. If you would like to see a review of one of these, or any other film out next week, please respond in the comments below.