I'm Amazed By The Sheer Scope Of Jupiter Ascending...

...if only The Wachowskis could've kept up the same level of complexity with the plot.

I heard a rumor that the original screenplay for Jupiter Ascending was 600 pages long... no you didn't read that wrong. That's the word on the street anyway. So how the hell did that translate into a two hour film?? I have simply no answers for you. I could try to make something up, like half of that page count went into describing the insane world that The Wachowskis were creating. And believe me it is insane! Don't believe me?

A Mog (obligatory Spaceballs reference) wearing anti-gravity rollerblades fights a dragon with a laser gun over an imploding factory that exists (I don't really know why) within the noxious atmosphere of a gas giant. Still don't believe me? Well I don't know what else to tell ya.

Jupiter Ascending is a brave film. And an expensive one. And while the final picture lacks much in the way of suspense or real character development, the world building is second to only perhaps JRR Tolkien... Yeah, it's that well detailed. The locations and overall concept for the Galactic force that currently exists there all feel really well constructed. The ideas are simply awe-inspiring. But Mila Kunis (for as much as I like her) just doesn't sell it. She can't get the job done in a film like this, or perhaps she needs a director as skilled as Darren Aronofsky. And while I loved The Wachowskis' Cloud Atlas and will defend Speed Racer to any critic that comes along, I am very much aware that they are not actors' directors. Their MO is FX. And that's perfectly alright by me.

Look, we need bigger than life films from Hollywood... films that change the game and set new bars. So we need to allow mistakes and films with growing pains like Jupiter Ascending to exist. If we let flicks like this fail, we may never get another chance to see something as groundbreaking and original as Star Wars (the first one) or The Matrix (also the first one). I know it seems unfair to ask this of the film community, but this is a movie you really should see just to keep the studios honest. I promise there's more than enough here to keep you in your seat. And even if you don't like it (there's a good chance you'll have some disagreements with the filmmakers), Jupiter Ascending sure is an excellent conversation piece... and the kind of project that ultimately paves the way for stronger, more creative films to come.

It's kind of up to us guys... just saying.

Where Did The Angriest Man In Brooklyn Go So Wrong?

As a kid growing up, I used to love watching Robin Williams movies. He really is a great actor. And he's always had my support. But for the last decade or so, it's been really difficult to stay on his side. Because the majority of films he puts out are just plain awful. Then came World's Greatest Dad. It was a surprise light in a dark tunnel of never ending bad films. It was just creative and different. Then came the announcement of The Angriest Man in Brooklyn. On the surface, it felt like an attempt by Williams' team to recapture that strange magic. Unfortunately, it did not succeed. So what went wrong?

From the very start, things seemed to be going down hill fast. Poorly placed narration against what honestly looked like pathetic home video footage left my tongue completely dry. Then things somehow got worse. Mila Kunis may have given the crappiest performance of her career... and as the instigator of the story and the female lead, this was really difficult to swallow (especially since, I usually like Mila Kunis). Robin was trying to do his stuff, but it wasn't enough. Even Peter Dinklage seemed to be struggling to figure out what to do, because his character really didn't have a character and only popped in here and there in an attempt to "advance the plot"... something that never happened. And Richard Kind's hopeful cameo scene was ruined by an outrageously bad fat suit.

So let me break it down as simply as I can. This movie felt rushed. It felt underbudgeted. And I don't think Phil Alden Robinson cared much about the property... to me it feels like he just took a pay check and went along his merry way. That may sound harsh. I mean, he directed Field of Dreams... twenty five years ago! And his last movie was the colossal failure The Sum of All Fears back in 2002. At this point I think its safe to say, Field of Dreams was a surprise positive for a director without much to offer. Sorry, that really was mean. But I can't ignore history.

Ignore the poster, Melissa Leo wasn't in this movie.

Still, the writing could have been better, as could the editing, as could the acting, as could the cinematography, so at the end of the day, it isn't JUST Phil Alden Robinson's fault... though as director, one can still argue that he should have been able to fix at least one of those problems. Basically, The Angriest Man in Brooklyn is just a complete and utter mess. I can keep hoping for more good Robin Williams movies, but as the years pass, that's looking more and more like a forgotten dream. C'est la vie.

Third Person Was Sort Of Kind Of Okay

I was iffy walking into the latest Paul Haggis film, Third Person. To be honest, I've never been a huge fan. I enjoyed the work he was doing on the Daniel Craig James Bond films, but that's really the only positive I've ever pulled from his career. Crash is legitimately one of the biggest jokes of the last fifty years and I will never get over the statement (or lack of one) the Academy made when they gave it best picture. But let's talk about this new movie. Third Person had a pretty bad title, but the cast still intrigued me, so I had to give it a chance.

The basic concept is, Liam Neeson's a writer at a point in his career where he's pretty much lost all of the joy in his life. He's practically a robot just droning on. So he sets out to write a bunch of weird stories that loosely come from his own recent experiences. And those stories are what we're forced to watch...

It's odd because I actually got into the "drama" for a little bit, there was something intriguing about trying to understand all of these different characters, but the extensive run time kept pulling me out (a hazard of these "ensemble" concepts). Somehow Third Person managed to go over the two hour mark. Why? There were so many unnecessary scenes. And, in fact, entirely unnecessary plots.

Adrien Brody's story (though the only "positive" one) probably could have been left out completely. But then I guess they had to keep it in to give us an example of just how petty a writer Liam Neeson had become. When I think about the overall concept... something that Liam Neeson states in the first fifteen minutes or so... I just don't understand why someone thought this was a movie. It certainly would never have made a book as the film tries to make us believe it would.

The performances, however, were pretty great. Liam Neeson carried this cold neediness that felt just perfect. Mila Kunis dropped a bomb with a similarly needy, rather crazed, overemotional character...

something I hadn't seen from her before. I appreciated the work she clearly put in. Likewise, Olivia Wilde nailed her own schizophrenic character. And I did think Adrien Brody was pretty good despite having the weakest... and awkwardly, most fleshed out story.

If you want to see a bunch of solid character performances, that's probably a good enough excuse to go see a weird, insecure, and rather petty movie like Third Person. Paul Haggis certainly doesn't get it right, but I think he got really lucky with such an entertaining cast. At least you won't be bored the whole time...