Film Review: Spy (2015)

Copyright: 20th Century Fox

With Spy, its director Paul Feig delivered a great comedy which elegantly erases the elements of masculinity and bravado from the James Bond type of films. This simple action then reverts the entire narrative into its truer form of completely ludicrous comedy. 

In the film, Melissa McCarthy plays Susan, a desk officer in the CIA tasked with protecting her designated field agent Bradley, played by Jude Law. When Bradley gets killed in a strange encounter with a beautiful woman, Susan decides to leave her computer and become a field agent herself, in the hope of finding the persons� responsible for Bradley�s death.

In a fantastic cooperation with Feig, Melissa McCarthy unleashes a tour de force of comedy, where she quickly shuffles between physical gags and a really aggressive type of verbal humor (better said, verbal insults). The second element demonstrates some excellent writing with jokes that are both smart and unpredictable. As the plot develops further, Feig drops McCarty�s character into every deeper waters of intrigue, danger, and suspense, where Susan�s actions also need to become bolder and even more insane. 

In one moment, the spiral of lies and moronic improvised stories becomes so convoluted that there is no way of remembering who began lying about what. Throughout this, Feig never loses direction or control of the plot, showing his rich experience with comedy content. 

Aside from these McCarthy, Jason Statham also worked diligently to create a parody of his previous roles, in this case, a macho killer with a less than impressive intellect. Statham, who is apparently looking to diversify his acting portfolio but without straying outside of this beloved action genre, just like he recently tried with Wild Card, really chose well when he decided to join the cast of this movies.

A fun comedy, Spy is one of the better parodies on the 007 films in recent years. It, along with Kingsman: The Secret Service, clearly show how many super-serious thriller plots are actually comedy gold.

Current Shortcomings of True Detective Season 2

Copyright: HBO

I was trying to figure out what feels less than right in the new True Detective season. Like practically everyone, I really loved the Season one. From the first moment, it had that synergy of place and characters that was just magnetic in a sweaty, sticky, wrong way, but didn�t leave me feeling uncomfortable for a long time (maybe this is its only shortfall from being a truly groundbreaking show like The Wire).

Of course, I had big expectations from Season Two, especially because Collin Farrell (ever since I saw Tigerland, I am certain that the man is a great but underappreciated actor). But, at the same time, I knew that replicating the formula from the first seasons would be impossible, so I was just hoping for something interesting. 

For the first couple of episodes, I wasn�t even sure that anything feels wrong or inadequate. After all, just a year later, I forgot what happened in the first season�s episodes (for example, what exactly takes place in episode 3 in the first season?), so I told myself that this is a normal buildup process of the Pizzolatto type.

But after the episode five, I think I finally managed to transform vague feelings into words. It turns out that Season Two of True Detective simply misses many key moments from Season One, but fails to add other elements that could replace them when it comes to the pure factor of engagement found in the show. On the other hand, its characters do not succeed in hooking the audience with one major hook but try throwing many smaller ones, which don�t connect that well. Here are some of the key points of the current Season Two lack of engagement:

Season One had the Yellow king, a ritualistic murder and creepy drawings which were all powerful but unclear symbols. Season Two has none of these and even the main murder mystery is easily forgettable.

Season One had that strong idea that something in the show might be supernatural. Rust Cohle had his visions, the Yellow King had its presence and these blended into an atmosphere of eerie, dark wonder. Season Two has highways and illegal immigrants looking sad.

Character relationships are deeply undeveloped because of lack of screen time and too many character threads. For example, why would Ray Velcoro and Paul Woodrugh care about each other? In the first 5 episodes, they had like 5 minutes of mutual conversations.

Season One used direct narration to foreshadow and intrigue, without giving anything away in any meaningful form. Granted, the same pattern was a one-time trick, but Season Two didn�t try to pull its own trick so far.

Finally, Season One didn�t have Vince Vaughn, which was, in retrospective, a huge plus. Let�s face it, the man is just saying his lines and there�s none of that �I�m changing my career here� fire. Imagine him smiling a lot more and he could walk right into the set of Wedding Crashers 2.

This all does not mean that True Detective Season Two cannot become something great. But the window of opportunity for that is becoming smaller and smaller, while at the same time, the narrative turn that might be coming has only to become bigger and bigger so that it could really impress us.

Film Review: Jurassic World (2015)

Copyright: Universal Pictures

Jurassic World is a film that just hits its mark dead center. It delivers fast and hard, seemingly fully liberated from the pressure of huge production and a cast that did not spend decades in blockbuster films. First, here is the director Colin Trevorrow, who was before of this film, known only for Safety Not Guaranteed, a really clever and interesting film, but microscopic when compared to the mammoth production of the Jurassic World.

A similar situation occurs with main actors as well. Chris Pratt became huge with the smash success The Guardians of The Galaxy, but others, like Bryce Dallas Howard, Vincent D'Onofrio, and Jake Johnson (who is still typecast as the comedy guy, even though he can do more, like he showed in Drinking Buddies), sure can act but did not exactly made hundreds of millions by being in popcorn films. But, maybe just because of this, Trevorrow glides through the story and ridiculously expensive sets like a pterodactyl (I couldn�t resist this corny pun). 

In the fashion of great child adventures, Jurassic world is unburdened and clear of all the subliminal 21st-century anxieties, dark Nolanisms and dull catering to �being edgy� or too adult. Instead, it unleashes dinosaurs, throws around a few jokes and plays with the destruction of a park that was one again poking mighty nature in the wrong DNA hole.

The simple story of two brothers visiting the new, safe and secure Jurassic park quickly goes astray with a single new, genetically engineered dinosaur. At the same time, Owen, one of the park�s trainers, is trying to make a personal connection with a pack of Raptors, while outside interests try to gauge them as a potential means of weaponizing nature for a military purpose. Using this plain, but refreshing character dynamic (Owen and Raptors vs. the new dinosaur Menace) Trevorrow shows his quick and out-of-the-box method of reasoning. Here, it works like a charm.

Also, Pratt gives his best in the role. After a few minutes of his on-screen time, it is clear that he is equally comfortable as funny Owen and dead-serious Owen. Also, the transition between them it seamless and lightning fast because, I believe, Pratt plays one complete, believable person he envisioned and constructed in his mind. In this regard, the man reminds me of a young Harrison Ford and is undoubtedly one of the future male mega stars, which will be a title (I hope) he completely continues to deserve, role after a role.

Jurassic World is a film that pushes all the right buttons for a thrilling adventure with no unnecessary baggage. For that, Trevorrow, his writers, cinematographers and cast should be sincerely congratulated.

Film Review: Maggie (2015)

Copyright: Lionsgate Films

We didn�t realize it, but a zombie apocalypse is an apparently full of depressive potential. Sure, the plots often grazed depression in these types of films, but mostly while their primary emotions are based on anxiety and the need to stay alive. In Maggie, however, the focus is exclusively on depressive shades of a deadly virus outbreak, which turns people into flesh-craving monsters.

To add to the unexpected weirdness of this idea, the film introduces Arnold Schwarzenegger as Wade, the bewildered father of the main character, a girl called Maggie, who gets infected with the virus and has only weeks before she turns into a zombie. On their secluded farm, father and daughter prepare for the inevitable while Maggie says goodbye to her memories and everything around here.

When Henry Hobson directed this film, I�m certain he wanted to make something original above everything else. He managed to do this, but also to cram some nice melancholic tones in this primarily depressive story about loss and change.

At the same time, I�m sure he enraged many people and will enrage others in the future who will be expecting to see Arnold blowing away zombies. In the film, Schwarzenegger is a quiet, truck-repairing type of guy who is preparing to put his dead daughter into the ground or do something even worse. He runs with this notion neither too badly not exactly excelling in his role. Instead, he does okay, which can be said for the entire movie as well.

Hobson obviously has some ideas and Maggie shows this, but as a whole, it keeps an aura of casual meekness which stops it from making some serious emotional impacts, unlike, for example, The Retrieval, which shares its toned-down narrative approach and bleakness. Abigail Breslin is really sharp as Maggie, but the film somehow is not. It�s good that Hobson did not try to say anything about the genre of zombie movies as a whole and simply drove the plot a personal story. It might not have Schwarzenegger raining destruction, but at least it is trying to destroy our emotions by showing a really horrible few weeks for a single family.

Film Review: The Lazarus Effect (2015)

Copyright: Relativity Media

Like the recent horrors which were both low budget (Spring) and really AAA level (Poltergeist) this film is also significantly uneven. From the basic story of a lab team that developed a cure for death, The Lazarus Effect quickly slips into a thriller of demonic possession and personal hellscapes. The speed of this transition is not only narrative, but also quite literal, because the entire film lasts well under 90 minutes.

The cast of the film, mainly Olivia Wilde as the lead actress, glides through the action smoothly. With a couple of short stops on the regular horror path of �everything is just fine� to �we�re losing our budget� and �the short-sighted administrators put a stop to our brilliant research�, to the final �OMG we killed our colleague�, the film presents the expected milestones.

Then, the reign of terror commences and fills the really small space of the laboratory (the film practically stays in 100 square meters of lab rooms). Here, Wilde brings most of the frights (the strongest suit of the plot), but this is still no enough to help director David Gelb in making anything more than a modern TV version of Flatliners.

On the other hand, like the film Devil from 2010, The Lazarus Effect does pretty well for a film where special effects and locations did not cost the production very much. Instead, Gleb used the actors and a fast tempo of the plot to make an average, but enjoyable horror on a 3 million dollar budget. Not counting the recent and brilliant It Follows, which also had a miniature budget, this is really low for a film with famous Hollywood actors.

While it is not great by any account, it is too short to really be bad, which is a solid result for a not very ambitious horror and also a production lesson for anyone looking to make financially successful films (The Lazarus Effect made 10 million during its opening weekend).