"Fifty Shades of Grey" Review

50 Shades of Grey is the definition of pure hype. The book that the movie is based off of has sold over 100 million copies worldwide and is the highest selling erotic fiction novel of all time. The story of both the film and the book involves the relationship between Christian Grey (Jamie Dornan), an intimidating billionaire, and Anastasia Steele (Dakota Johnson), a college literature student. As part of the relationship, Christian Grey insists that Ana sign a contract that outlines the guidelines of a BDSM relationship, something that Ana is not sure she’s comfortable doing.

The movie has some reasonably decent cinematography, at least. It looks like a movie. The film also uses colors in an interesting manner, with grey definitely being utilized as a motif. None of the actors give particularly bad performances either. I guess as far as positive notes go, that’s about all I have. It’s noticeable that there was minimal effort put into the production of the film though. It doesn’t pay off all that much, but it’s refreshing to know that there was at least some sweat put into making this cash cow.

50 Shades of Grey’s biggest problem as a movie derives from too many different voices adjusting the film’s focus. Trying to get their say, we have the film studio, the producers, the director, the author, and the MPAA. As a result, we have a film split into three parts: One portion of the film is boring, one portion of the film is steamy, and one portion of the film is just plain creepy.

Depending on the age of the report, the number of minutes of sex scenes in 50 Shades of Grey has vastly differed. In early reports, 20 of the film’s 100 minutes were to be devoted to sex. Then, that number was lowered to 15. In the final cutting of the film, the full run-time has been pushed up 2 hours, but the length of the sex scenes have been reduced to 9 minutes. I can only imagine that these changes occurred because of the MPAA’s insistence. In order to make as much money as possible, the film needed to have an R-rating. However, as the MPAA is afraid of sex, there can only be a limited number of sex scenes while avoiding an NC-17 rating. As the original book falls under the category of ‘erotic fiction’, there is around 110 minutes of filler in this film. And nothing happens in that time. The same plot points and character struggles are repeated over and over again. This movie would have greatly benefitted from about 20-30 minutes being cut. This movie would have also greatly benefitted from a new script. And new source material.

9 minutes is still a lot of sex for a movie though. To put things into perspective, Steve McQueen’s NC-17 drama Shame (2011) had only 5 and a half (that movie had Michael Fassbender go full-frontal in the opening scene though). This movie definitely pushes the barriers between NC-17 and R. However, given that the film’s source material is porn, the sex scenes don’t serve any greater purpose, and end up feeling somewhat exploitative.

This movie also demonizes BDSM relationships. The film heavily implies throughout that those who participate in BDSM relationships have had sexual or other traumas occur to them as children. Christian Grey isn’t romantic or sexy, he’s abusive. He regularly makes Anastasia engage in acts that she is not comfortable with; most of the time Christian simply manipulates Ana into doing things under the pretense that she’ll ‘enjoy it’. He is unwilling to compromise for the sake of the relationship, saying that the contract is the only way that they can work. There is no aftercare in their relationship either. This isn’t BDSM, this is abuse. But the film doesn’t seem to have awareness of this fact, as it paints Christian Grey as a tormented man of chivalry. Money talks, I guess.

At the end of the day, this movie doesn’t do anything that hasn’t been done better by other films. Turning a pornographic novel into an R-rated film just doesn’t work. I thought that the film was interesting, but not in the way that the filmmakers wanted me to find it interesting. Again, 50 Shades of Grey is pure hype. Everyone kind of recognizes this, too. Most of the ticket sales and excitement around this film seems to come out of curiosity towards it. I won’t see it for that reason though. It’s not really worth it. 3/10.

"Kingsman: The Secret Service" Review

Following his 2010 deconstruction of the superhero genre, Kick-Ass, Matthew Vaughn directs this analysis of James Bond-style spy films. Kingsman: The Secret Service is based off of a comic book, similar to Kick-Ass, and both books share Mark Millar as a co-writer. The story of this film involves an exclusive group of spies who call themselves 'Kingsman'. When one of the 'Kingsman' is killed while on-duty, Harry Hart (Colin Firth) recruits a promising street kid nicknamed Eggsy (Taron Egerton) to participate in a hyper-intense training program to fill the open spot. While this is going on, tech genius Richard Valentine (Samuel L. Jackson) harvests a plot to indirectly commit mass genocide.

The great thing about this movie is that it takes certain preconceptions about how a scene is supposed to go and it turns these expectations on their heads. A lot of the humor of the film is derived from the movie simply acknowledging certain clichés of the spy genre and choosing to avoid them. While these meta comments aren't exactly subtle, the film is nonetheless self-aware. The jokes are often broad and occasionally too juvenile, but these flops are met with numerous successes coming from the movie's tendency towards the unanticipated and the extreme.

About midway into the film, Hart comments to Valentine that he 'always felt that the old Bond films were as good as their villain'. The movie seems to take this into account, as Samuel L. Jackson's character is one of the most interesting characters in the film. Talking with a lisp and turning his charm level up to 11, Jackson chews up the scenery with the help of Sofia Boutella, who plays a paraplegic assassin/assistant named Gazelle. The training program sequences are entertaining, but they generally feel a bit like filler to delay the reveal of Valentine's master plan. Colin Firth is charismatic as a master spy and mentor to Eggsy, and Taron Egerton shows a lot of promise holding the film together. The supporting cast, including Michael Caine, Jack Davenport, and Mark Hamill, adequately fill in the remaining intentionally simplistic roles.

Utilizing both descriptors in the term 'action-comedy', the action scenes in the film are all very well put together. One in particular, taking place in a church, is worth the price of admission on its own. Similar to the comedy presented, the violence in this film tends to the extreme. Unfortunately, the violence seems to be done without justification. That said, it’s always refreshing to see a movie that doesn’t censor itself in attempt to fit into a PG-13 rating.

The biggest problem that I have with this film is that it's not really saying anything. It dissects the spy genre and comments on some of the common tropes, but it doesn’t really give anything more than a basic acknowledgment of the genre. Scream (1996) was a great movie if you were a fan of the slasher movies of the time, but as of present day it comes across as a little dated. Cabin in the Woods (2012) seriously analyzed a genre of horror while commenting on what made it great and what limited it. Even though the ‘cabin-in-the-woods’ horror cycle had passed by the time the film was released, Cabin in the Woods still felt relevant and worked whether or not you had any prior knowledge of the genre that the film was talking about. Kingsman is more akin to Scream than it is to Cabin in the Woods. With Kingsman, the minimal commentary provided is already so embedded in our culture that the film’s shelf life is probably pretty limited. That said, the movie is incredibly fun to watch from start to finish. If nothing else, the film is worth a serious viewing simply to marvel at the insanity that it presents. 7/10.

"Spongebob Squarepants: Sponge out of Water" Review

2004’s The Spongebob Squarepants Movie is a spiritual experience. Okay, that’s a bit of an overstatement. It’s a spiritual experience to me though, because I was seven years old at the time of its release and I’ve watched it more times than I have any other animated film. Still, the original film is a great encapsulation of everything that is great about Spongebob. A lot of people even say that Spongebob lost its appeal after the movie. Personally, I stopped watching the show partway through the season following the film, however that may have been due to the fact that I was getting older. That said, I still watched the movie numerous times after I stopped watching the show.

Spongebob Squarepants was created by Stephen Hillenburg, who ran the show for the first three seasons. The movie was released shortly after the third season. Hillenburg wanted the movie to signal the end of Spongebob, due to fears that the show would “jump the shark”, but the show’s popularity caused Nickelodeon to order a fourth season. Hillenburg resigned from the showrunner position and staff writer Paul Tibbitt took over. However, Hillenburg returned to the show as a writer with The Spongebob Movie: Sponge Out of Water.

The story of the film follows Spongebob and the crew after the ‘Krabby Patty’ formula disappears and ‘Krabby Patties’ can no longer be made. The town becomes ravenous and everyone looks for an explanation of where the formula went. Similar to the original film, a small portion of the story also takes place above ground, where live action and animation merge. Antonio Banderas plays a pirate named Burger-Beard who obtains a magical book that can alter reality.

This movie is fun the entire way through. The animation is colorful and full of life, and the mixed live-action/animation sequences are handled wonderfully. The film is a kids movie, and it definitely manages and maintains it’s frenetic energy the entire way through, which is pretty impressive given that the movie is eight times the length of a normal episode. There is also a level of surrealistic absurdism to the movie that makes it entertaining to adults as well.

Even though this movie does recapture the essence of Spongebob, I would still argue that the original film is still superior. The original movie explored complex themes and felt like it told a story that couldn’t have been told as effectively on TV. The themes explored in this film feel muted in comparison (Teamwork is the only one that really stands out), and the various extreme shifts in the focus of the story make the movie feel like a bunch of extended TV episodes combined together. This is still a great kids film, though. 7/10.

"Jupiter Ascending" Review

The Wachowskis are ambitious filmmakers. From the seemingly ubiquitous Matrix trilogy to 2012’s Cloud Atlas, none of their films can really be described as ‘safe’ or ‘simple’. Even with their misfires, the Wachowskis invest fully in their projects. Jupiter Ascending is one of such misfires, but the movie doesn’t apologize for its inadequacies. Its lack of self-awareness is made so much more attractive when met with its complete passion.

The story of Jupiter Ascending follows that of Jupiter Jones (Mila Kunis), a housemaid transformed out of her average life when aliens attempt to murder her. After being rescued by Caine Wise (Channing Tatum), a wolfman and ex-military hunter, Jupiter discovers that she is of genetic royalty. Traveling between worlds, she must deal with mortality while also struggling to stop various villainous forces in her way.

This movie manages to do something amazing. It manages to make the city of Chicago look boring. Opening the film in a very familiar setting allows for a much more astonishing juxtaposition when the audience is shown a variety of fantastical environments, though in this movie the effect is somewhat muted by several scenes containing alien worlds that interrupt the Chicago sequence early on in the film. Since all of the worlds showcased in the film are so unfamiliar, the locations tend to blend together, despite all being so unique. Nonetheless, the different environments are fascinating to look at, even if they add ambiguity to the movie’s continuity. That also seems to be a general theme with this film. There is lots of exciting action and the colors are enjoyable to look at, but there tends to be a lack of emotional weight.

Throughout the film there are various interesting concepts introduced. And I mean throughout. Well into the third act of the film, new ideas are still being brought forward. Most of these concepts aren’t really utilized in the film after they are mentioned, they are just kind of created and then ignored. The Wachowskis appear as if they thought up a bunch of really cool ideas for the film, but were too excited with other light bulbs to figure out how to reincorporate the original ones. The result is a screenplay that appears to jump all over the place without a serious center of focus.

Steadfast to many other films in the genre, the actors in Jupiter Ascending tend to blend into the scenery. They serve their purpose, but seem artificially created, as if they were just a visual effect. None of the performances, and it’s tenuous to call them that, are memorable, but they don’t hinder the movie either. With one exception. Eddie Redmayne (Redlionmane, Redmayballine, Readmaine, there’s just so many options) gives one of the most hysterically awkward interpretations I’ve seen in a while. He delivers his lines with a combination of mumbling and screaming (90% mumbling, followed by an abrupt 10% screaming) and no in between. It’s hard to imagine how the character was decided upon and approved. Redmayne is a fantastic actor, and while total commitment to his characters has lead to some great performances, without proper guidance it is easy for them to come off as dumb. Mila Kunis’s Jupiter Jones is very much used as a lense for the audience to experience the new worlds, so consequently there is not much dimension to her character. However, as time goes on, Jupiter breaks from her initial development as a prop, and makes decisions for herself independently, which is refreshing for a movie like this.

It probably seems as though I’m defending this film. I guess I am, to some extent. I like ambitious films. The Wachowskis make ambitious films. I like the Wachowskis. When there’s a lot of energy and fervor behind a movie, I tend to forgive it of some of its more serious problems. Jupiter Ascending is really stupid. Logic does not work in this film’s favor. Yet, I wasn’t seriously bothered by this. I recognize a lot of the movie’s faults, but I couldn’t bring myself to hate it. However, I have a feeling that a lot of you will.

Given Hollywood’s increasing desire to tap into foreign markets with big, special-effects driven blockbusters, it would seem as though Jupiter Ascending was created so international audiences could marvel at exciting visuals. However, the film is far too exposition-based for this to be a completely valid argument. While only a small percentage of the movie’s gross is coming from the domestic box office, these numbers are about average with the Wachowskis track record; their films are just generally received slightly better overseas (Nearly 80% of Cloud Atlas’s revenues came from foreign audiences, partially explained by the fact that a majority of the film was funded by foreign investors). Given the large production budget for Jupiter Ascending and the apparent lack of financial incentive, the question is begged: Why did this movie come into existence? Because the Wachowskis wanted to make it. And that’s what makes them so endearing as filmmakers. 5/10.