Lucy

Dustin: 1 of 5 stars Nick: 3 of 5 stars Average: 2 of 5 stars (Canary on life support)

Dustin: Lucy is the second steaming turd Universal Studios has taken in our theaters in the past year (the other being 47 Ronin). The film features characters the audience doesn’t care about in a ridiculous premise based on a false idea (humans only use 10 percent of their brains) and that by accessing more of our “cerebral capacity” we’ll somehow be able to break the laws of physics.

Nick: When watching Lucy my mind kept comparing it to another science-fiction movie from this year: Transcendence. I understood immediately why I was enjoying Lucy while feeling forced to watch Transcendence. Lucy is molded with schlock. I never took it as wanting to be serious. This made me forgive all the factual errors. It helped even more that early on Morgan Freeman says it’s all hypothesis, not truth. Transcendence, on the other hand, was too serious while just using computer lingo as dialogue. Both movies had Morgan Freeman in common, probably to try and add validity to an idiotic idea.

Dustin: This wasn’t really a science fiction film. It was wannabe sci-fi. Transcendence had a cautionary tale about when science advances faster than humanity’s capacity to deal with it. This movie took a widely believed falsehood and had Morgan Freeman presenting his theories in an academic setting with serious people asking him questions. There was no science, only stupidity.

Nick: I find it amusing so many people can’t look beyond the stupid idea of a premise that is portrayed as true, when false, but can let giant alien robots fight each other on a distant planet while Mark Wahlberg is an inventor living in Texas (born and raised), but having a Boston accent. That you can look past, but this idea (just because some think it’s true) ruins this movie for you and many others.

Dustin: I have to disagree. I didn’t like Transformers either, but it didn’t pretend its premise was true. This movie continues to perpetuate a stupid idea that has long been disproven. The human brain consumes more calories than any other part of the body, we wouldn’t have evolved massive brains if we were only going to use 10 percent of them.

Clearly using more than 10 percent. (source: The Skeptics Guide to the Universe)

But, I don’t think that’s entirely why I couldn’t stand this movie. It occurred to me The Manchurian Candidate is another movie based on a false idea about the brain (humans can be programmed), but why is it that movie is a classic and still immensely enjoyable even knowing the premise is false, while this movie fails?

Nick: I don’t think this movie is saying that it is true. The film doesn't take itself seriously. It might just be asking what if that were the case. It’s an action sci-fi film, not a drama. There was no part in Lucy I took seriously. I also just found an article where Luc Besson is asked about all the people who are complaining about the science behind the premise and if Besson thinks its true that people only use 10 percent of their brains. His response is that it is absolutely not true.

Dustin: Knowing that sort of makes it worse. He’s not really asking, “What if?” Science already has the answer. I just couldn’t accept the movie on any level without agreeing to the premise. The answer to “What if humans used 100 percent of their brains?” Would be, “Normal-ass humans.”

Nick: What if what humans think is using a 100 percent of their brains is actually only looking at the limited potential, but in actuality the brain can be reprogrammed to increase its capacity of knowledge. What if?… Not saying it’s possible but what if?… that is kind of the first thought behind all sci-fi films.

Dustin: I think we have to agree to disagree. I wasn’t willing to ask “What if?” in this instance due to the stupid premise. So I couldn’t participate in the film at all.

But that wasn’t the only issue. What character are we supposed to identify with and root for? It can’t be Lucy. She starts out as a ditz, and then pretty much acts like a robot after she starts using her brain. We don’t have any characters we can identify with. So that also added to my boredom.

Nick: Do you always need a character to identify with? I can only think of one Luc Besson movie where I did and that was The Professional, but that was the only movie that had an real drama. I’ve enjoyed almost every film he has directed. The films are just mindless, fun entertainment with well-worked action scenes. Movies like District B13 and Lucy work for me because the films are less than 90 minutes and don’t try to be anything more than they happen to be.

Dustin: I think absent a believable plot, yes, you need characters you can identify with. You need Luke Skywalker and Michael Corleone. Even Taken had Liam Neeson’s character. While I can’t identify with a CIA officer with a thick English accent, I can identify with a father wanting to protect his daughter. That’s something. There wasn't a believable character in this movie.

Nick:  You use two characters from two of the greatest movies ever to make to make a point against an subpar film.

Dustin: OK. Remember that Antonio Banderas movie The 13th Warrior? Of course not, unless you were one of the 13 people (coincidence) who saw it. He was from Baghdad, but we could relate to him in his journey with the Norsemen because he was learned and more civilized. He was the “everyman” through whom we can experience the unfamiliar setting.

Anyone remember this?

Nick: So you are saying if Lucy were an every(wo)man you could relate?

Dustin: If Lucy acted like a normal person for at least a few minutes I could relate. I had nothing to latch on to here. Not even a sympathetic secondary character.

Nick: One of my favorite movies of the year, Under the Skin, which also stars Scarlett Johansson, is such an amazing experience, yet I wouldn’t say I connected to nor had any feelings for any character in the film. For me, having a character to latch onto, depending on the film, can make a movie better, but if the film lacks that I don’t think its necessarily think less of it. Some films don’t have to have a connection. Having said this, I think Lucy would have been better if we could have had more time with 10-percent Lucy rather than 20-to-100-percent Lucy. But if you can’t get past the premise then I don’t blame you for disliking Lucy.

Dustin:  If Luc Besson came out and said, “This movie took place entirely in Lucy’s mind while she was tripping on the experimental drug sewn into her belly,” I would rewatch it with a different frame of mind and might accept it then.

Also, what was at stake here? Yeah, she could die if she didn’t get her fix, but since I didn’t care about the character, that didn’t mean much to me. She is basically invincible by the time she confronts her enemies, so that took away any tension the scenes could have had. What if her genius was only temporary like the movie Charly? Or she lost her power like Edge of Tomorrow, which would have raised the stakes?

Anyway, after being a wet blanket throughout this review, I will say there was one detail in this movie I really liked. There was the scene where they dragged out a human guinea pig to test the drug on. He had somehow fallen captive to the gangsters. This idea was genuinely scary, and in line with Luc Besson’s better ideas from his other films where he shows a part of society decent folk don’t want to know about.

Nick: Although his character wasn’t fleshed out enough, it was nice to see Choi Min-Sik who played Oh Dae-Su in the original Oldboy. I loved what he did with the character he had to work with. He was legitimately scary until the protagonist is able to use 25 percent of her brain.

You are definitely not wrong in your complaints. Far from it. All the problems and questions you have I always ask when watching a movie with any sincerity, but since I could get beyond the premise and understand the tone, then I was able to shut off this old “10 percent” brain and enjoy this mediocre film.

The Purge: Anarchy

Dustin: 2 of 5 stars Nick: 3 of 5 stars Average: 2.5 of 5 stars (Woozy canary)

Nick: After reading Canary Movie Reviews’s review of The Purge the filmmakers listened and gave us something closer to what the premise had promised. It’s the same idea: One night a year crime becomes legal and blah blah blah. The difference is this time around we are out on the streets following, of course, two sets of people who didn’t want to be out there and one guy with a vendetta.

Dustin: This movie is an improvement on the first in that it actually delivers what the trailers promised. The first one had an interesting concept, but didn’t live up to the potential. It was a home-invasion suspense film treated like a paranormal horror film. I went into this one with lowered expectations, admittedly, but I think the feel of the movie and delivering on showing the Purge out on the streets was more in line with what these movies should be.

Nick: A premise like ALL CRIME IS LEGAL FOR ONE NIGHT A YEAR deserves to be out on the streets! In the first one we are forced inside a home of the rich shuckster who sold every one of his neighbors faulty home security. And then they let a black guy inside and the whole white family is scared shitless of him besides the innocence of the kid. This film gets a worse cast and a better storyline, which is exactly what it needed. A B-movie plot needs a B-movie cast. Though the film could have been more in the B movie range.

Dustin: This movie definitely had more of the world building the first one lacked. We both complained about that in the review of the first. I sort of think they should have done this one first and gave the second a more narrow, but sequels always need to be bigger than the first, which is often a shame.

This movie had some nice details in the world building part. For example, they are in the financial district, and our hero mentions, “It’ll be quiet down here tonight. The banks move all the money.” That answered our unasked question of why most people just don’t rob the banks.

Nick: The dialogue between the characters was abysmal! One would say something in the way of, “Did they see us?” How the fuck would the other person who is just as scared and inexperienced as you know any more about tactical questions than you? There are a lot of these moments, and only one that worked.

Dustin: There were definitely a few unintentional laughs with the bad dialogue. In one scene, a man has just been shot and his girlfriend is holding him as his life is slipping away, saying, “It’s going to be OK.” Uhm… no it’s not! Look, he’s already dead! We couldn’t help but laugh at that. But then again, you don’t go into a movie called “The Purge: Anarchy” expecting to hear Shakespearian dialogue.

Nick: For sure. But when I first heard the dialogue I thought it was going along with its B-movie premise, but as the film continued on its journey, it felt more as if the creators were actually taking it seriously. The film sets up so many potential bad guys, and hardly a thing is done with them. The first movie had the better bad guy. His grin is still locked in my memory. Creepy guy.

Dustin: The bad guy in the first was unrelenting, here our focus is divided between baddies, so none of them quite live up to the first. That’s pretty common with sequels when the first had a great villain, the sequels make up for the lack of a charismatic villain by throwing in several villains. The first Tim Burton Batman movie had the Joker--that’s all it needed. By the time Joel Schumacher took his second cinematic turd in the series, they had Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy and Bane, and no one gave a shit.

Nick: You could have just stated the second Tim Burton film had Penguin, Catwoman and Christopher Walken.

The character could still be made as menacing if they are used more and more violently (if we are going B-movie). The only B-movie bad guy was the General, who sits in the back of a semi with some pretty heavy artillery. His accent, look and overall demeanor is classic B-movie, but sadly he was hardly in the film.

Dustin: True. There were also plants in this movie that never paid off. At the beginning we see a sniper on a rooftop. We never see him again. I kept him in the back of my mind, figuring if they show a gun in the first act, it’ll be used in the third. Nope. The female lead’s bitch boss keeps her servers to the last second on Purge night and wouldn’t give our protagonist a raise while knowing she needs money to pay for her father’s meds. I figured she would be purged. But she doesn’t figure in the story after that segment.

Nick:  If you are shown a sniper, then we should at least see one character, whether major or minor, sniped. Even the main character tells his crew to stay up against the wall because of snipers. If he is that prepared for snipers then why were there no snipers. The film was stuck between two ideas: making a serious movie or a B-movie. This could probably work under either standard, but since it tries both it’s ultimately convincing to people who wanted one or the either.

Dustin: I’m convinced this should have been a B-movie. The first one was disappointing because it should have been more serious. This one tried to have some social commentary about class warfare that felt more comical than thought-provoking.

Nick: I will say that I enjoyed Frank Grillo’s character. He does a good job with what he has to work with. He made me think of the Punisher, and I realized later on it could have worked as a Punisher movie. I thought a Marvel credit was going to pop-out and be like, “Got Ya! It’s a superhero film!”

If all crime was legal for one night, you’d figure most people would leave the city and/or country depending on the money you had. This does only take place in America, right? Land of Opportunity, right? Land of the Free, right?

Dustin: I thought the same thing. That could have tied into the world-building segment. Maybe airfare to leave ‘Murica triples for that night. I certainly wouldn’t wait around my house waiting for the producers of all the movies I’ve given a bad review to to come and torture me to death. And why only focus on violent crime? If ALL crime is legal, wouldn’t that mean white collar crime is as well? If you wanted to embezzle money from your employer, that would be the night to do it.

What crime would you commit if you had one night to do it without repercussion?

Nick: Jaywalk while smoking crack.

Dustin: I’d tear the tag off a pillow.

Snowpiercer

Nick: 3.5 of 5 stars Jenius: 3.5 of 5 stars  Average: 3.5 of 5 stars (Live canary)

Nick: In 2014, countries unite to experiment and counteract global warming, which causes a new ice age and almost the extinction of the human race. All but for those who boarded the Snowpiercer, a train with a perpetual-motion engine that travels around the world. A class system is formed on the train where the rich ride up front eating well and staying in comfortable quarters, the working class who live reasonably well, and the poor are stuck in the tail end, where they are fed protein bars and have no privacy. The train has been running 17 years, and the poor have revolted and failed a couple of times, but this time Curtis (Chris Evans) and Gilliam (John Hurt) learn one of the train’s former engineers Namgoong (Song Kang-ho) lives in the compartment next to theirs. If they can get to him then he would be able to open any compartment door they come up against, hopefully all the way to Wilford, the eccentric billionaire who created the train.

Jenius: I enjoyed this movie. I thought it was a neat concept (even though the idea of a snowpacoplypse has been done before). The addition of it being on a train was kinda neat. It reminded me of those old sci-fi movies where there is an “us versus them” attitude, like Logan’s Run. It had really good action scenes, and the funny parts were funny, although I didn't realize that was Captain America until about halfway through the movie.

Nick: Chris Evans is a solid actor and was quite good as Captain America. Though I didn’t feel he was right for this part. When he gives his speech about the horrors he’s been through on the train and breaks down, I was left unmoved. I’ve read different reviews today after watching the film for a second time, and critics either don’t mention him, praise him or say he was the worse part.

Jenius: He didn’t feel like the lead, no. I mean he was, but then he wasn't. I think the train itself was the lead. The spectacle and the symbolism and thinly veiled message of class struggle was the main part. He was in no way the best part of the movie. Actor wise, I think that title is a toss up between Tilda Swinton, who played Mason, the voice of the first class, and the team of Kang-ho Song, mention earlier, and his daughter Ah-sung Ko, who plays his daughter. They were also in the director's previous film, the absolutely awesome The Host. (The movie about the monster, not the shitty alien invasion Twilight knockoff.)

Nick: The fact that Joon-ho Bong directed the film was the main impetus for seeing it. His films always deliver, including Memories of Murder. Snowpiercer is his first American film and the most enjoyable if comparing it to the other two South Korean directors invited to make a film in our lovely country: Chan-wook Park’s Stoker and Kim Jee-woon’s The Last Stand. Both those films are good in their own way, but Snowpiercer is an ambitious film to make and will live long in my memory.

Jenius: I’m glad you brought up the director like that. Yes, it was a high selling point for me too to see that Joon-ho Bong was directing an original movie for ‘murican audiences. At this point, readers, if you have yet to see The Host or Memories of Murder, turn off the computer and see them.

I digress. I was excited to see this. Many times foreign director’s ideas and style don't translate well or worse they just remake something they already made with American actors, I’m looking at you Takashi Shimizu and your Ju-on/Grudge fiascos. But I thought this was a solid, entertaining movie.

Nick: It’s a very entertaining film. Whether in a disturbing, hilarious or action packed way, it always stays entertaining. When the lower class fight in the dark against the working class who are wearing night-vision goggles and then one of the lower class, in a brilliantly shot sequence, run forward carrying a torch to salvage their people. Looked gorgeous. Another scene, which was hilarious, was in the education compartment where a teacher (Alison Pill) gives a lesson to students North Korean style about their great and wonderful inventor, Wilford!

Jenius: Hell, yeah! Those two scenes took my breath away. They were wonderfully shot and executed. The director made sure you felt what he wanted you to feel. The school scene was both funny and creepy at the same time. The way kids moved as they shouted their allegiance to their glorious leader. Another funny thing that hit me is the way the lower class looked as they saw a cigarette for the first time in 13 years. The comical look of desperation and wanting.  Like a cartoon where a hungry wolf eyes a young lamb. Joon-ho Bong is a great storyteller. The movie hit every emotional mark it was going for. It was funny when it was supposed to be funny, action packed when it needed action. The only flaw was sometimes you didn’t feel for Chris Evans. I think they went for “star power” as opposed to acting prowess. But I did enjoy the junkie daughter. But who doesn't enjoy the comical shenanigans of a teen junkie in a futuristic setting?

Dustin: I don’t.

Junius: Shut up, you! You’re not even reviewing this movie.

Nick: Wait, have you been here this whole time? Hello? Dustin? Hello?

Anyway, her father was also the one giving her drugs, which is always a good way for a father and daughter to share their time.

Jenius: A good bonding experience?

Nick: I’m going to have to ask my dad why he never smoked me up.

Jenius: Where did you learn to do drugs? I learned it from watching your dad!  OK then, let’s fire some up!

Nick: Joon-ho also does a good job with shaky cam. Though of course this is a setting where that technique would work wonderfully. The camera subtly shakes from side to side. The camera also uses a lens that makes the frame feel tight, which is great because it even made me feel claustrophobic as if I was one of these people.

The one tone that never hit right for me was the seriousness. Like you said, Chris Evans could possibly be to blame. So much of the serious parts are played through his character. If something happens Curtis is the one closest to the situation and will get the saddest by it. But with Evans’s let’s say limited acting range the sadness and seriousness never came to me. By the end, I really couldn’t care who lived or died beyond the silent-action dude who carried that torch I mentioned before.

Jenius: You hit the nail on the head, or the ax in the chest in case of this movie. You felt bad for the people, not because of a rousing speech and heroic actions of Cap’n Murica, but for the life they lived as shown in Joon-ho’s imagery and the situations the characters are thrusted in. You felt as if you were on that train with them. You felt for them because maybe in some deep primal level, you can relate to them. They are on this nonstop moving train, passengers, survivors, but with no hope or chance to move up in life/the train. They want a better life for themselves and their family and a chance  to move to first class, but The Man keeps bringing them down. I think we all felt this way at some point in time. Instead of occupy Wall Street, this movie was occupy first- class seating. It was a definate us versus them, 99 percent versus 1 percent-type of movie.  Wow... that’s heavy, man. I think I just blew my own mind.

Nick: Snowpiercer will live long in my memory, for its almost perfect combination of what makes a Hollywood film great and the high-concept plotting of a lesser budget film.

Anything else to add, Jenius?

Jenius: No... I’m still trying to recover from my last comment…  I think I need to sit down and have a drink… in first class.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

Dustin: 4 of 5 stars Nick: 3.5 of 5 stars Average: 3.75 of 5 stars (Live canary)

Dustin: Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a sequel to the Planet of the Apes prequel, Rise of the Planet of the Apes. A decade after the events in Rise, the apes have multiplied while most of humanity has been wiped out by the “simian flu.” The super intelligent apes fear the human survivors and attack the nearby human city of San Francisco--and the term “gorilla warfare” takes on a chilling reality.

Nick: The motion capture acting by Andy Serkis as Caesar and Toby Kebbell as Koba is something to behold. The look of those two apes is some of the best CGI ever represented on film. There is life in their eyes which is something my brother (who works with CGI) thinks is the most amazing thing he has seen with the technology.

Dustin: Agreed completely. Caesar’s eyes were lifelike and sympathetic. You never felt like they were creepy or lifeless. Has CGI come out of the other side of the uncanny valley? (Granted, Serkis played an ape and not a CGI human, so there was less room for uncanniness.) Serkis is great in his third outing as an ape (the first being the title role in Peter Jackson’s King Kong).

Nick: By contrast, the human characters register as flat. Beyond Jason Clarke as Malcolm (the lead human role) no human gets any introspection. This shows the difference between the old films and the new. Although the old films had kind apes, the sympathy and understanding lies with the humans. In the new films the sympathy lies with the apes.

Dustin: This film made you feel a bit odd rooting for the apes (most of the time). You’re like, “Wait… who’s side am I on?” But I think that is a strength of Serkis’s performance (as well as the intention of the film). You’re right Malcolm, who is sympathetic toward the apes, was the only human who got a lot of attention. There were the apes on one side, the humans on the other, and Malcolm in the middle. I don’t really remember the other humans, just that there were a few interchangeable bad ones, and Gary Oldman played a small, but important role.

Nick: The reason the film doesn’t rate so high for me is that a lot of the story is driven from misunderstanding. This doesn’t make the film bad in any way. Many films and other forms of media are like that, but it’s something that has always irritated me. The humans let the guy who is obviously scared shitless of the apes and hated them lead them at the beginning of the film to where the two species meet once again. This moment begins the film, and the whole film constantly turns the sequence into something that makes no sense.

Dustin: What didn’t make sense about it? I think at the beginning they weren’t really expecting to run into too many apes. And they had a reason to fear and hate them: the “simian flu” had wiped out most of humanity. So they figured any contact with apes was dangerous.

Nick: Why was the character all alone? The other humans were all together, but away from him.  For some reason they seem to have known that guy for a long time, but when he mentions later about his hatred for apes they all act in disgust towards him. Like how could that guy possibly be so hateful towards apes?

Dustin: I didn’t they they were too disgusted with him. I think they treated him like he acted rashly, but his speciesism didn’t seem to bother anyone other than Malcolm.

Nick: Why was the character alone? He seemed so afraid to let himself get separated from the group.

Dustin: I don’t think he was alone, I think he just walked ahead. But I don’t think this was such a huge deal that it ruined a good movie.

Nick: In the context of the scene he is alone. Walking ahead is being separated from the group. Why would someone who is so afraid be separated? The fact he had to call for the group when he ran into the apes means he was alone. I didn’t say it ruined it, but that there are many moments of misunderstanding that drive the film forward. It’s something that just gets to me.

Dustin: You’re right that all the conflict comes from misunderstandings rather than real problems. You want to tell the characters, “Just sit and talk about it.” But then, the movie would be over and it would be very boring.

Nick: The film made the misunderstandings half-right though. If a misunderstanding from the humans was cleared up, then one human would have a misunderstanding of the apes. Then once one apes cleared up the misunderstanding, Koba would whisper in Caesar’s ear and there would be another misunderstanding. All I’m saying is that a film can be entertaining without misunderstandings.

Dustin: One detail in the film made me roll my eyes. Once the apes get their hands on the guns, they go ape shit and start shooting up everything. I wondered how the apes learned so quickly how to use military-grade weapons. And the way they were wasting ammo, they would deplete their supply pretty quickly, and that would be the end of their “rise.” They literally shot at everything, even when there were no humans about. I think the filmmakers just wanted loud noises. Before long, the apes would have to go back to throwing their own poop (which I would have liked because it’s more realistic--the producers can have that idea for free).

Nick: Especially when one ape shoots one single bullet from quite a distance right into another ape’s heart. Bullseye! It’s weird how much the apes and humans wasted bullets. The humans waste so many bullets while training they won’t have any for the war.

Dustin: Those details aside, I think this was a well-made movie that was entertaining without being insulting to the audience’s intelligence.

Nick: The franchise made a right move by hiring director Matt Reeves (Cloverfield, Let Me In), who seems to like films showing one species against another. Reeves has a great eye for shots. The opening of the film is a shot focused on a close up of Caesar’s face. Which is immediately showing how much attention they put to that detail. Another great choice is axing James Franco and bringing in Jason Clarke, who has such a great emotional range even when all he is doing is looking at something (which he does a lot).