Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
2.5 Palms trees out of 4
by Manuel Reynoso

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is a 2017 superhero film based on superhero team Guardians of the Galaxy, produced by Marvel Studios. The film is written and directed by James Gunn and stars an ensemble cast featuring Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Vin Diesel, Bradley Cooper, Michael Rooker.

When tasked by The Sovereignty to protect an energy source from an intergalactic terror, the team finds themselves being hunted down by the same group when Rocket decides to steal the energy source for himself. After being rescued by a mysterious man, Peter Quill, Drax, and Gamora travel with this man to learn more about Peter’s origins.

School’s out, the days are getting longer, and Hollywood is starting to pump out their quarter of a billion dollar movies again. It’s summer blockbuster time and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is ready to print money like it’s nobody’s business, but if you were to ask me if it was worth your money, I would say… maybe. The movie checks all the boxes of a good summer blockbuster: huge set pieces, great acting performances, and some genuinely good laughs. But there was also a lot of missteps along the way. From overly expository dialogue, some questionable green screen work, and just way, way too many jokes. However, you are bound to have a great time with GotG 2. It really is one of those movies that makes you want to have Home Cinema Installers in your house so you can sit down and witness this kind of epic action we’ve come to expect from Marvel whenever we please.

Don’t get me wrong, I had lot of genuine laughs throughout the film, I can’t take that away from the film. But Guardians 2 went overboard with the amount of jokes they threw at you. For every good joke, at least 2 fell flat. It’s pretty painful when a movie makes a joke that you can tell they really banked on being funny, and the crowd just stays dead silent from start to finish. But the main issue is how badly it clashes with the rest of the films dialogue.

Guardians 2 was pretty good at poking jabs even at itself, but the film was painfully unaware of how expository it gets. I could feel the movie’s writers really want me to care about the emotional turmoil these characters are experiencing on the inside. But when you have a cast of 6 or 7 characters and every single member just has to have their somber, emotional scene, it gets a little old. I’m sorry wise cracking raccoon, but when I just had to sit through 20 minutes of your friends “opening up”, I kinda stopped caring about all of your feelings and just want to see things blow up.

But I have to say, The Guardians definitely know how to blow stuff up. Huge battles, unique fight scenes, and a great soundtrack did not disappoint. This movie is fun. The action made up for any downtime I felt during the movie’s slower moments. Battles ranged from hand to raccoon-paw combat, huge space battles, and everything in-between. This is what will likely be the deciding factor on whether you think it’s worth your money. If you’re in the mood to start your summer with a bit of action, then I think Guardians is worth the watch in theaters. But if you are looking for something a bit more rounded and well written, you really aren’t missing anything too special. You’ll get some laughs. You’ll have some fun. You won’t get anything more than that.

PG-13 2h 18m

The Circle
Review: by Manuel Reynoso

The Circle is a 2017 thriller film directed by James Ponsoldt and written by Ponsoldt and Dave Eggers, based on Eggers’ 2013 novel of the same name. The film stars Emma Watson, Tom Hanks, John Boyega.

Mae Holland lands an entry level position at the largest tech company in the world, The Circle, but soons finds herself working on some of the most privacy intrusive technology ever devised.

I always feel guilty for ogling at car wrecks on the side of the road, but we all know that we humans tend to be drawn to disasters. That little bit of mayhem and chaos that seems to feel satisfying at almost a deep, primal level. So when I turned to my girlfriend 30 minutes into The Circle just to remark how much of a train wreck this film is, we both knew we had to see this through to the end. And much like a freeway pileup, It’s kind of amazing how this disaster just stretches on and on.

The Circle is a flawed film in many different ways, it’s funny where it shouldn’t be, has shoddy visuals, and has acting performances that felt completely phoned in. But Ignoring all that, this movie has a fundamentally flawed script and terrible editing. If contrived character motivation, poorly written characters, and being built on a foundation of conflicting morals wasn’t the nail in the coffin for this film, broken continuity and random jump cuts destroys this film.

It’s really difficult to write good dialogue. Even in some of the best films, characters can come off as a bit stilted or over expository. But The Circle’s dialogue was so unnatural and so overly preachy, I’m still not even sure if this was intentional or not. Characters seemed to only communicate to each other in plot dumps or irrelevant quirky banter. There is no subtlety, and no natural rapport being built between the characters during the film. It’s like watching robots come on screen, regurgitate their lines, then walk off once the job is done. Some of the most important characters in this film get no time to build relationships and grow, but instead serve to be nothing more than plot to move the film along.

The poor writing doesn’t just end at the characters, no, it runs deep in this film’s screenplay. The trailer portrays The Circle to be a high concept piece about the dangers of one corporation having too much information on its users. There was so much potential for effective social commentary about the dangers of losing one’s privacy to a single mega corporation. Instead, I walked away from that film with absolutely no idea whether the writer believed a lack of privacy was a good or bad thing. It’s one thing to have a stance I don’t agree with, it’s another to have no stance on the issue your film was based around. At no point do we get the payoff of reaching some epiphany on what the writer of trying to convey. I walked out asking myself what the point of the movie even was.

I wish I could stop bad mouthing this movie here, but even the physical act of watching the film itself was a chore. Dozens of times throughout the film the editing breaks basic continuity. Scenes change with no warning, and the positions of the characters would change seemingly at random. This film’s over use of the jump cut was also very jarring. Multiple camera angles and cuts for something as simple as a character speaking felt jarring and unnatural. This films only saving grace is it might be an interesting study on bad editing, but unless that sounds interesting to you, move along and ignore this train wreck. PG 13 1

Family Bonds Prevail in Mullingar
by Shirley Lorraine

The Irish countryside provides a lush and laid-back setting for this play about family ties, love, persistence and obligation in Outside Mullingar now on the main stage at Santa Paula Theater Center.

Oscar, Pulitzer and Tony award winning author John Patrick Stanley of Doubt and Moonstruck fame penned this charming and introspective work full of wisdom and true-to-life situations. He has created characters who plow through many of life’s little regrets to find the fertile soil that remains, proving that it is never too late to bare your soul and bury any hatchets that may hinder the next generation. They cover misgivings, misunderstandings and even love with blame, blather and blarney, resulting in sharp repartee delivered with a twinkle of the eye.

At the stories’ center are Anthony (Ron Feltner) and Rosemary (Jessie May Stevenson), neighbors since children, who are reluctant to recognize their mutual long-standing attraction. Anthony’s father, Tony (Cecil Sutton), and Rosemary’s mother, Aoife (Rosalee Calvillo) fuel a long-standing feud through wry wit and Irish wiles.

The four seasoned actors, under the expert guiding hand of SPTC Artistic Director David Ralphe are relatable and authentic. Sutton and Calvillo as the two elders, play off each other with the practiced ease of old friends. Feltner and Stevenson, a couple in real life, deliver strong and determined characterizations as the offspring left to cope with myriad issues stemming from the past. Ultimately time erases the years gone by as a new beginning is forged. While actions and reactions between Feltner and Stevenson are particularly mesmerizing, the performances and portrayals from all are riveting.

The Irish accents vary ever so slightly and all the actors carry theirs well. Slowing the pace in the opening scenes may help the audience acclimate to the verbal rhythms so that clarity is maximized. In a few sections, additional volume would assist the audience in catching all the lyrical nuances in the poetic piece. The verbal lilt is so compelling and charming throughout that one might find themselves unconsciously searching for their own inner leprechaun on the way home.

Adding to the visual beauty are vintage appliances and set pieces such as an old country home may still use. The first act setting emphasizes the state the widower and the bachelor endure as they struggle to hold their farm together, while the second act reveals a Spartan but definite woman’s touch to the neighboring home.  Subtle lighting changes and incidental music heighten the effects required, particularly in the quiet moments of reflection.

Outside Mullingar is a well presented and important piece of theater. Filled with truly human characters, the work offers glimpses of many people we may know in various stages of life. There is recognition in every situation, reminding us all that our struggles, inner and outer, are universal and timeless.

www.santapaulatheatercenter.org/805-525-4625
Friday & Saturday eves 8 PM, Sundays 2:30 PM through May 28
Adults $24, Students and Seniors $22

Your Name (Kimi no Na wa)
By Manuel Reynoso
4 palm trees out of 4

Your Name, or in Japan Kimi no Na wa, was written and directed by Makoto Shinkai. Based on the novel by the same name also written by Makoto Shinkai.

As streaks of blue and red cascade past a crimson horizon, gentle streams of light backdrop the roaring entry of a meteor as it approaches a tranquil little village nestled against a great lake. And just like that, one minute into the film, both the theme and tone has been set for the rest of the movie. At its core Your Name is a film about a budding romance between the bored country girl Mitsuha and the lively city boy Taki. While the two have never formally met, through forces beyond our understanding, the two will occasionally find themselves in each other’s bodies. Your Name is a film with powerful themes of love and fate, with gorgeous hand drawn visuals that deserve to be seen on the silver screen. Writer and director Makoto Shinkai’s tale rivals the quality of work by animations giants such as Disney or Studio Ghibli, both in writing and animation quality.

If I was to sum up Shinkai’s writing style in one world, I would describe it as efficient. As I alluded to in the beginning, Shinkai’s use of action to convey things such as plot, themes, and character development allows plot to move forward, rarely impeded by exposition. When dealing with the characters body swapping antics, the plot moves quickly enough that by the time the audience realizes what is happening, the characters have already grown accustomed to this life. While this does leave the possibility of getting lost in the details, the rare instances of exposition allows one to catch right back up. I always advocate for films to tell their story through action, and Your Name is a masterclass in this regard.

The last traditionally animated film I’ve seen in the theaters was The Wind Rises back in 2013-2014. It’s been too long since I’ve had to pleasure of seeing beautiful hand drawn visuals on the silver screen, and Your Name was easily the most visually stunning animated film I’ve seen to date. A bright palette and immaculately crafted backgrounds make each scene come to life. While the character animation is not on the level of classic American animation, the character designs are great and well detailed.

Unfortunately the film’s theatrical debut here in the US is somewhat limited, so by the time this review hits, the availability in cinemas will be scarce. But any effort expended to see this film in theaters is well worth it. I just hope this films commercial success can pave the way for more traditionally animated films finding their way back into American cinemas. Even if Japanese animated films aren’t your cup of tea, this film is very much worth seeing. There are few instances of Japanese tropes that don’t quite translate well in America, but if you look past that, we have a unique love film with a twist of fantasy. If subtitles are not your thing, the English dub is serviceable. PG 1h 52m

by Shirley Lorraine

Romantic Repartee Rules Engaging Shaw at Elite

Can two self-confessed “anti-romantics” find ultimate happiness in marriage? In the period drawing room comedy Engaging Shaw now onstage at the Elite Theatre, this relationship quagmire is explored, dissected, challenged and delightfully portrayed.

The tightly written two-act play by John Morogiello incorporates bits of Shaw’s own writings as well as the Webb’s writings on the Fabian doctrine.  It delves into confirmed bachelor George Bernard Shaw’s views on convention, institution, politics and conformity, among other themes and offers explanations clarifying his complicated relationship with Irish heiress Charlotte Payne Townsend.

Set in 19th century Britain, Shaw’s path to a brilliant writing career is given scrutiny as well as his involvement, along with the Webbs’, in the Fabian Society, a British socialist organization whose purpose is to advance the principles of democratic socialism via gradualist and reformist efforts in democracy. But it is his views on women, relationships and marriage that take center stage.

Several elements set this production apart. Multiple award winning director Steve Grumette has created a visual delight in the physical setting depicting 19th century vintage. Incidental music is beautifully timed to accent verbal points and pauses to excellent effect. Costuming by Sheryl Jo Bedal is on point and flattering.

All the technical elements are top notch, producing a smooth result. Drawing room setting plays have a commonly difficult blocking task with inherently static action. In this production, a minimum of random movement from all but the Shaw character keeps the focus on him throughout.

The four actors in this play are all uniformly outstanding, bringing with them long lists of stage and other acting credits. The experience clearly shows in their tightly orchestrated portrayals.  After a few initial moments of acclimating to the finely-tuned accents, the audience quickly becomes enamored by the ease with which they have assimilated themselves into their roles. At least I did.

George Bernard Shaw himself is played by Buddy Wilds. He easily conveys Shaw’s detached, self-absorbed and self-assured approaches to relationships and to life. His unconventional viewpoints are both endearing and frustrating to all he encounters.

Wilds is well matched by Anna Kotula as Charlotte Payne Townsend, both in determination and demeanor. Their spirited dialogue creates a virtuoso game of cat and mouse, with rapid-fire repartee and lively debate. Kotula certainly holds her own as her character goes toe-to-toe intellectually with Shaw.

Beatrice and Sidney Webb, close friends with whom Shaw resides much of the time, are played to perfection by Lee Ann Ivy and Paul Sulzman. As a happily married couple, they create an ideal counterpoint to Shaw’s arguments against the convention of matrimonial union. They embody the partnership which Shaw appears to eschew, and at the same time are role-models for the Shaw-Townsend relationship in the end.

Engaging Shaw offers a humor-filled glimpse into the mind of one of the worlds most celebrated playwrights. It is a delightful intellectual exercise for players and audience alike.

Engaging Shaw runs through May 21.
Friday & Saturday eves 8 PM,
Sunday matinees 2 p.m.

General admission $20. Seniors/Students/Military $17.
Reservations are encouraged.  483-5118
Elite Theatre Company,
2731 Victoria Avenue,
Fisherman’s Wharf,
Channel Islands Harbor
www.elitetheatre.org
 

Ghost in the Shell
1 Palm Tree out of 4
by Manuel Reynoso

Directed by Rupert Sanders and written by Jamie Moss, William Wheeler and Ehren Kruger, based on the Japanese manga by Masamune Shirow. Starring Scarlett Johansson, Takeshi Kitano, Michael Pitt, Pilou Asbæk, Chin Han and Juliette Binoche.

It’s very difficult for me to judge this film in a vacuum when it’s tied to one of the most prolific animated films of all time. While it is important to judge a film on its own merits, I do believe direct comparisons to the original film are still worth making. But I can confidently say, whether we compare the two films or not, Ghost in the Shell (2017) was not a good movie. Poor writing do an ample job of tearing this film apart before any comparisons to the original even need to be made.

When it comes to creating a film based on a pre-existing property, the first decision made has to be how faithful do we stay to the original. Normally I see two paths the creators take: follow the source material as faithfully as you can, or create an almost entirely new piece. Both paths have their strengths and weakness, but Ghost in the Shell (2017) decides to go straight down the middle and is absolutely worst off for it. We’re left with something that feels like a Frankenstein’s monster of a film as some scenes are faithful down to the shots, and others are entirely original. The transitions from scenes based on original material to the scenes created for this film was jarring, to the point where they felt like entirely different movies spliced together. These scenes did not mesh well and took it originals views on philosophy down a different, and much weaker path.

The philosophical themes discussed in the original film was what really gave the original piece it’s significance. Dialogue discussing the idea of what it means to be human and how easily we can blur the lines between life and simulation was what made it stand out. While the writers of this film clearly grasped that concept, it’s execution was sloppy and ham-fisted. The constant spoon-feeding of anything vaguely philosophical gave me the impression the writers had no confidence in the audience’s ability to understand these concepts. Seeing Scarlett Johansson having an existential crisis every other scene not only got old quick, but never went as deep as I would have wanted either.

And the poor writing unfortunately does not end there. Multiple times do the writers commit one of the cardinal sins of writing. Too many times characters are being thrusted into impossible situations, with no way for them to get out, yet by forces unseen make it out unscathed. This doesn’t just come off as bad writing, but lazy. Which honestly comes across as even more offensive than it just being written poorly. And the tragedy in all this was production wise, the movie was beautiful. The city skylines are bleak and dystopian but contrasted with giant neon advertisements, towering higher than the buildings themselves. There is some substance here, but not enough to even justify cheap seats on a tuesday night.

I can’t help consider that perhaps in some alternate world, this wasn’t a Ghost in the Shell movie but an entirely original film. The scenes not based in the Ghost in the Shell universe were stronger than the scenes that were, and there was enough original content to create something entirely new on top of that. But instead we are left with a poorly written script calling itself Ghost in the Shell and pretending to delve into philosophy. There cannot possibly be a universe out there where I can recommend this film, when the original 1995 version still holds up as one of the most defining works of anime. Do yourself a favor and skip the 2017 remake and dive straight into the original. PG13 1h46m

Logan
3 Palm Trees out of 4
by Manuel Reynoso

Directed by James Mangold and written by Scott Frank, James Mangold, and Michael Green. Starring Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Boyd Holbrook, and Dafne Keen.

Sick and retired, James “logan” Howlett lives day to day as a chauffeur in texas while caring for Charles Xavier, who is suffering from a severe neurodegenerative disease. But tasked with guiding a young Laura to a mysterious location known only as Eden, Logan finds himself being hunted down by a team of men looking to capture Laura.

It’s my understanding that Hugh Jackman fought hard for the film Logan to retain it’s R rating. As someone who is burnt out on the PG-13, kid friendly, buddy superhero movies, Logan reminded me that superheroes can be interesting, nuanced characters. For too long quirky one liners and holier than thou superheroes dominated the silver screen. Violence and more importantly, heavier themes for superheroes to grapple with are finally being embrace, thanks in part to Hugh Jackman’s commitment to the script.

Now while the screenplay for Logan was in no way perfect, I have to commend it for what it tried to be. Logan was as much about the violence as it was about the man. Logan was a gritty and broken shell of his former self, and watching that mess unfold on the screen was engrossing to the end. Seeing the human experience told through the life of a superhero was exactly what these movies needed to feel fresh again. I want to see superheroes that struggle with alcoholism, depression, or a loose sense of morals. Seeing a little humanity in these larger than life characters makes them somehow feel more super to me. However, some of the decisions the characters made seemed a bit out of left field, and at times, dialogue that felt heavy and emotional seemed to end just before strong emotional payoff. But it was a definite move in the right direction in regards to making a mature, adult oriented superhero movie.

And to be honest, as much of a fan of drama, I was definitely in the mood to see some extreme violence, and Logan does not disappoint. Not restricted by a PG-13 rating, Logan did not have to skirt around showing blood and gore and instead embraced it. Fight choreography was solid and every slash, punch, and tackle had some serious impact behind them. While I was only expecting a mindless action flick, Logan was backed up by a compelling plot but more importantly, fully realized characters.

Shot for shot, Logan looked great. Some of the CGI was a little weak at times, but the movie was definitely a treat visually. The costume and makeup for each character was great, and combined with Hugh Jackman and Patrick Stewart’s acting prowess, created the foundation for great characters. My main worry was of young Dafne Keen’s portrayal of laura. I’ve always been very cynical of child actors, but thankfully Dafne Keen’s performance was at the very least convincing. (Thanks in part of a lack of dialogue for the vast majority of the film.)

We’ve been in the post Iron Man era for almost ten years now, yet we are still following that same superhero formula to this day. But Logan can be the catalyst to set in motion a different style of superhero movie, a more mature take on the superhero’s tale. Logan is the superhero movie for those who hate superhero movies and I for one look forward to seeing the more ugly side of superheroes in the future.

Gender bending with the Bard
by Shirley Lorraine

Imagine being given the chance to play what is considered by many to be the greatest role ever written – Hamlet. But what if you are a woman – and too young for the role?  These scenarios and others are put under the microscope of thought in Ojai Art Center’s current production of Women Playing Hamlet by William Missouri Downs.

A West Coast Premiere performance filled with a cadre of more than capable actresses playing all roles (female as well as male), Women will delight Bard fans in its scrutiny, analysis and revelations. One does not have to be a student of Shakespeare or even a fan to understand all the references although the puns are even more amusing if one has at least a passing familiarity.

Billed as a Comedy about a Tragedy, the two-act performance brings forth laughter, questions, answers and a preponderance of ponderings amidst a background of reality colliding with downright absurdity. Instead of men playing all the roles, in Women, ladies get to embody all the parts, fully embracing the opportunity to poke fun at the opposite sex.  No doubt Sir William would have approved.

Enhancing the action further is the employment of power point presentations to clarify characters, history and specific points of interest. Set in the present and complete with current vernacular and attitudes, things move along swiftly and smoothly.  The audience is frequently involved as well, encouraged to contribute comments and responses.

The cast is led by Cecily Hendricks as Jessica, a young actress led into theatrical waters over her head. In her quest to embody the classic role with intellectual understanding, she interacts with characters of all walks of life who offer advice, cautions, introspections and fresh perspectives. Hendricks gives a clear, strong performance with an air of confidence and vulnerability that is endearing throughout.

A delightful ensemble of quirky characters play significant roles in Jessica’s journey. The myriad colorful personalities are portrayed by Peggy Steketee, Shelby Sandefur, Angela DeCicco, Tracy Sutton and Sindy McKay, all to hilarious stereotypical perfection. Part of the enjoyment, for me, was wondering what character, male or female, each would present next. Adding to the merriment is that all the actors appear to be having a marvelous time in their often outrageous (and most probably way out of personal character) portrayals.

Director Larry Swerdlove, set designer Steve Provonost and costumer Tracy Sutton also are fully immersed in the playfulness and intellectual grandeur of the material, presenting fanciful visual accents throughout. Minimal set movement gives the actors even more ways to shine. Ms. Sutton’s creative costuming touches add character definition and dimension as well.

Note the 7:30 curtain time – you will not want to miss the first critical thirty minutes of this production.

Women Playing Hamlet was an excellent choice for the Art Center’s 2017 season.   It offers a new work, a stellar cast, much laughter, thought-provoking material and Ojai in the springtime. Put this one on your must-see list.

Ojai Art Center Theater, 113 S. Montgomery Street, (805) 640-8797  www.OjaiACT.org

All seats $18, Seniors/Students/Art Center Members $15  Fridays and Saturdays 7:30 p.m., Sundays 2:00 p.m.

Get Out
4 Palm Trees out of 4
by Manuel Reynoso

Written and Directed by Jordan Peele, starring Daniel Kaluuya, Allison Williams, Bradley Whitford, Caleb Landry Jones, Stephen Root, LaKeith Stanfield and Catherine Keener.

Black photographer Chris Washington (Daniel Kaluuya) travels to the suburbs to meet his white girlfriend’s affluent parents. What starts as an awkward family get together quickly becomes far more insidious.

Jordan Peele’s directorial debut was stronger than I would have anticipated. To be blunt, I was never huge fan of the sketch show Key & Peele. So coming into Get Out slightly skeptical, I was pleasantly surprised how strong of a debut Peele has made with Get Out. It’s funny, scary, provocative, and at times, far too real. As difficult it is to swallow, Get Out brings to light the struggles of being a black man, in a white world.

For his first major motion picture directorial debut, Jordan Peele clearly already has a distinct style that lends itself very well to the thriller genre. He’s set up how ominous an otherwise docile suburban white family was in very clever ways. While letting striking imagery lead up to a very intense climax. Jordan Peele has definitely shown he has the chops to direct a major motion picture.

Peele’s Screenplay is where is strongest talents lie. Incorporating the black experience into an engaging mystery thriller with equal parts horror and comedy is absolute gold. The film twists and turns, terrifying us one moment, and making us laugh at loud the next. But Get Out’s biggest strength is in its pacing. The constant feeling of escalation and tension is so organically paced you will not notice yourself inching ever closer to the edge of your seat the whole time. Despite the constant escalation of dread, the comedy aspect never breaks this tension. Instead it is welcomed respite, saving you from becoming fatigued from the continuous tension.

The political nature of the screenplay was provocative and edgy, sadly I do believe it lets up on the political side of the film towards the end. Peele opted to have the climax be more intense and action packed, which while has its own strengths in the film, just left the political nature of the film feel a tad glossed over.

Outside the wonderful script, I would sum up the rest of the film as solid. Nothing else stood out as exceptionally praiseworthy. Daniel Kaluuya performance as the lead was definitely good but nothing I found all that exceptional. Cinematography was utilitarian, while the camera work presented the scenes nicely, I felt it could have better complimented the film’s striking and engaging imagery. I’m not putting down the film with these observations, just noting the film was not particularly exciting in these other aspects

Peele has made his intentions to create more films based on social demons loud and heard. And I for one am looking forward to these films very much. Get Out was very clear in it’s purpose to add a black perspective to the thriller genre. So if Get Out accomplished anything at all, it showed the power of storytelling from a perspective frequently ignored in mainstream media. And I for one want to see more.

1H44M rated R