PopSpective_net Reviews

Morgan (2016)

Good movie but misses out on potential

[7/10 · 2 September 2016]

Morgan starts with a simple premise of the moral and ethical implications of genetically crafting a biological being from scratch. Even if such a being looks and acts human, is it? Is the being a "she" or an "it"–and does the being have rights or autonomy, or can it be owned like a pet, or an iPhone?

Based on nothing more than the trailers, the movie struck me as a sort of biological / genetic mirror of Ex Machina. That turns out to be true to an extent, but Morgan doesn't do as good a job of exploring the philosophical question or examining the humanity of the being. The question is sort of posed, and then quickly falls aside as Morgan turns into more of a blood and guts action flick.

There is a twist at the end that I actually didn't see coming. My son says it was obvious early on, but the first hint I got was only moments before the truth of the twist was revealed.

I enjoyed the movie–and I recommend you go see it. I just feel like there was much more potential there to really dig into the philosophical issues and ethical debates of creating a genetic hybrid.

I had a chance to speak to director Luke Scott after seeing Morgan, and we dove into those issues a bit further. Scott told me that in his opinion the basic premise of Morgan is entirely plausible. "A lot of the background science–of course it's a fantasy that we made–but a lot of the background science is rooted in truth."

We talked some about the similarities and differences between the premise of Ex Machina and the premise of Morgan–a cybernetic android being versus a genetic hybrid biological being. Scott shared his belief that the technical possibility of creating something as advanced as the android in Ex Machina is far beyond our abilities, but Morgan, and the ability to create a biological being, is within our reach.

"The science is there," explained Scott. "The only thing holding us back is a moral question."

It is a valid and important moral question, too. If a company like Monsanto can create genetically modified seeds to produce healthier or more bountiful crops and own a patent on that seed, would we allow a genetic engineering company to craft healthier or more capable gene pools and own a patent on those genes? Could we create a society where those with the financial resources are able to purchase superior genetics–thereby artificially widening the gap and creating a population of genetic "Haves" and "Have Nots"? Or, would we deem a genetically modified or engineered being to be less than human–a thing or creature that can be owned, rather than a sentient being with rights?

Those are all great questions to explore, but Morgan really just scratches the surface of them.

I asked Luke Scott what's next on his horizon, and he let me know he's working on a project that also comes with a moral and ethical dilemma, but this one is based on a true story. Scott told me he is working on a script based on a book describing the story of the Donner Party–a group of homesteading pioneers that got caught in bad weather and stranded on a glacier and had to resort to cannibalism to survive.

The Principle (2014)

'The Principle' Uses Pseudo-Science to Challenge Understanding of Universe

[5/10 · 19 August 2016]

Let me start by saying that I like 'The Principle'–it's just that I don't like it for the reasons the writer and producer would prefer. In a nutshell, the movie is supposed to be an enlightening look at current science related to cosmology and the origins of the universe, calling into question the idea that Earth is not necessarily special and is not the center of the universe. As far as I'm concerned, the premise and conclusions are nonsense, but the way the information is presented gives it an air of credibility and authenticity that prove to be a valuable lesson in how pseudo-science can appear legitimate at face value.

Nerve (I) (2016)

Nerve is an intense thrill

[9/10 · 19 August 2016]

Are you a Watcher or a Player? My wife and I had a chance to see a pre-release screening of Nerve at the Alamo Drafthouse, followed by a live-streamed Q&A with Dave Franco.

The premise of the movie revolves around an online game called Nerve. The game website describes it like Truth or Dare…without the truth. I would say it's more like Fear Factor and Amazing Race, combined with Periscope live streaming and a splash of 4Chan. Basically, you can join the game as either a "Watcher" or a "Player". The Watchers pay money and propose dares for the Players. The Players have to complete the assigned dares in order to win the money. Simple enough.

As we have witnessed with things like Taylor Hicks winning American Idol, or "Boaty McBoatface" winning an online contest to name a polar research ship—the anonymous masses on the Internet have a sadistic sense of humor when given enough latitude. You can just imagine what sorts of dares you might be challenged with if you opened it up for the whole Internet to crowdsource a dare for you.

Nerve was pretty awesome. I don't get off in the weeds much about cinematography, lighting, or other things like that. I base my reviews and recommendations on one thing and one thing only—"Was I entertained, and do I feel like the movie was a worth my time and money." With Nerve, the answer is an emphatic "Yes".

Granted, the movie isn't without its plot holes, and events that defy belief. Suffice it to say that I don't feel like those things take away from the experience of the movie. I mean—it's fiction. The story and events are almost supposed to defy belief by definition. I still highly recommend that you go see Nerve. If you want to talk about issues with the plot after you've seen it, drop me an email and we can have that conversation.

The live-streamed Q&A after the movie was pretty cool, too. Dave Franco seems to be very likable and funny, but also a bit quiet—possibly even shy. He definitely portrayed his personal life as something that is both a tad boring and mundane compared to what you might imagine for a Hollywood star, as well as private. Ironically, given the premise of the movie, Franco says he essentially does not engage online or in social networks.

It was interesting to listen to Franco talk about making the movie and some of the things that challenged him. I don't want to give anything away, but you can see in the trailer that Franco's character rides a motorcycle. Franco said he did not previously know how to ride one, so the directors gave him a motorcycle and a couple weeks to learn before letting him loose on the streets of New York and trusting him to drive co-star Emma Roberts around.

Someone also asked whether or not there is any concern that someone will now try to create a similar game in real life. Franco described the movie as being "five minutes into the future"—meaning that it's feasible something like Nerve could exist. Again—we already have shows like Big Brother and Fear Factor, and people live streaming their own exploits and adventures on Periscope, Facebook, YouTube and more. It's not a huge stretch to imagine tying all of those things together into some sort of crowdsourced daredevil online game.

Franco replied, "I hope that more good comes from this than bad—like I really hope a game like this never exists," adding, "But, if it does—don't blame us." I like to think I'd be a Player. After watching the movie, though, I may think twice about that and just kick back and watch some more crazy YouTube videos.

The Purge: Election Year (2016)

The Purge: Election Year Pokes Horrific Fun at 2016 Election

[7/10 · 19 August 2016]

My wife and I are fans of The Purge movies, so as we were winding down a weekend getaway staycation I decided we should go see The Purge: Election Year.

The Purge series is a different type of horror movie–almost more thriller than horror. When I think of truly scary horror, I think of things like Poltergeist (the original one), or The Conjuring 2. That's just me. Movies that deal in the semi-plausible world of the supernatural and unexplained are far scarier than movies dealing with gratuitous homicide for me.

That said, The Purge seems to walk a thin line between reality and the absurd. It seems like something that should be pure fantasy, and yet when you look around you can sort of see signs of how we–as a society–could actually embrace something like this. It's sort of how the movie Idiocracy should just be a dystopian Dumb and Dumber, yet it eerily resembles what the United States could possibly turn into depending on how the election goes this November.

The second Purge movie was OK, but not nearly as good as the first. In my opinion, The Purge: Election Year is also not quite as good as the original, but it's much closer. It also took the franchise in a slightly different direction, though, because it's sort of like a mashup of The Purge and Olympus Has Fallen. It still has all the brutality and gore that makes The Purge great, but this one is built on a premise of a candidate for President being targeted on Purge Night because she has vowed to do away with Purge Night if she wins.

The similarities between the protagonist and Hillary Clinton, and the primary antagonist and Donald Trump are apparently not entirely on accident. Director James DeMonaco told Entertainment Weekly that the current election cycle influenced the movie: "Little things drip into you when you're writing or you're on set — you're grabbing from the ether or what's out there in the press. I think there's a lot of representation of everyone who's in the game right now, from Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton to Bernie Sanders to John Kasich. I'd like to the audience to play with it and see who they feel is representative of the actual candidates in the real world, without me saying who's who. I think the audience will have a lot of fun saying, 'Oh, that reminds me of something Donald said!'" Ultimately, I feel it was a good movie. I definitely feel like I got my money's worth and that it was worth my time to see it. I will be curious to see if they continue trying to stretch this premise further, or if this will be the end of The Purge franchise.

If you've seen it, let me know what you thought in the comments below. If you haven't, go check it out and share your thoughts as well.

Bad Moms (2016)

'Bad Moms' Will Make You Laugh

[8/10 · 19 August 2016]

My wife and I went to see 'Bad Moms' on Friday. The movie came in third in the weekend box office–only slightly behind Star Trek Beyond, but a distant third to the new Jason Bourne movie. You couldn't tell that by our experience, though. Our first choice theater was sold out all night and the theater we went to was pretty well sold out as well.

The cinema was apparently running some sort of promotional special for 'Bad Moms'. There is a bar in the lobby, but I have almost never seen anyone use it at all–and I've definitely never seen someone bring a drink into the movie. In 'Bad Moms', on the other hand, I think my wife and I may have been the only two people who did not have a drink. Most of the patrons had wine in special, limited edition 'Bad Moms' wine glasses. Let me just say that a theater full of inebriated moms is actually a tad worse than a theater full of teenagers. There was a lot of chatter and giggling, but I digress.

This was the funniest movie I have seen in years. In my opinion, 'Bad Moms' would be hilarious for any audience. But, for obvious reasons it resonates more with moms. The production team did its research with real-life moms to identify the events and scenarios that come up in day-to-day parenting.

The movie has an all-star cast of females, including Mila Kunis, Christina Applegate, Kristen Bell, and Jada Pinkett Smith–but the one that brought the most laughs for me is Kathryn Hahn. If you have children–especially if those children go to public school and you've had the pleasure of dealing with the "PTA Mom"–this movie will make you laugh so hard you cry.

I expect the Jason Bourne movie to be awesome and plan to see it this weekend, but if you're looking for laughs instead of action you need to go see 'Bad Moms'.

Side note: I don't want to give away any spoilers, but make sure you stay through the credits. Trust me. You're welcome.

Sausage Party (2016)

'Sausage Party' – Finally an Animated Feature for Adults

[8/10 · 19 August 2016]

As a parent, I see more than my fair share of animated features. To be honest, I love movies so I don't really mind. Still, 'Sausage Party' is a refreshing–and long overdue–change of pace. Finally there's an R-rated, full-length animated feature for adults. OK, maybe it's for adults with a somewhat juvenile sense of humor–but adults nonetheless.

I spoke with the directors--Greg Tiernan and Conrad Vernon--about the experience. As I suspected, the initial concept was pitched by Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg. I imagined Rogen was high and started pondering how the food on the shelves feels, and then BOOM! Artistic genius. It was interesting to learn how much raunchier the movie COULD have been, and how they had to cut scenes to bring it down to rated R.

War Dogs (2016)

'War Dogs' Proves Life Is Often Stranger than Fiction

[9/10 · 19 August 2016]

Holy crap.

That is my summary of War Dogs. The movie was produced by Todd Phillips–director of the Hangover movies–and Bradley Cooper. The truly crazy part, though, is that War Dogs is real-life. It's a story based on actual events, but if you didn't know that it wouldn't seem much different than one of the Hangover movies.

The movie focuses on a two twenty-something friends in Miami Beach who become international arms dealers. Their company–AEY–leveraged a federal website to find and land lucrative contracts with the Pentagon. Efraim Diveroli (Jonah Hill) and David Packouz (Miles Teller) eventually landed a $300 million contract to arm the Afghan military, but government corruption and some illegal decisions on their part proved to be their undoing.

All of this went down only a few short years ago. Diveroli and Packouz–as AEY– were able to take advantage of an initiative implemented by the Bush administration to expand federal contract opportunities to small businesses. In 2011, however, the two were convicted of multiple counts of fraud. Diveroli was sentenced to four years in federal prison, while Packouz was sentenced to seven months' house arrest.

If you want all of the salacious details, read the lengthy feature article in Rolling Stone written by Guy Lawson. It was this article that first caught Todd Phillips attention and led to the War Dogs movie project.

In a Q&A following the screening I saw, Phillips and Cooper shared some of the back story and their experiences making the movie. Phillips said the project was built around the idea of Jonah Hill starring in from the beginning. In fact, Phillips said that he had actually been trying to work with Hill for years–revealing that he originally tried to get Hill to be in The Hangover as the younger brother. The role was eventually re-imagined as an older brother and given to Zach Galifianakis instead.

It seems like a brilliant choice. I don't know how Efraim Diveroli acts in real life, but Hill seems like a natural in the role. Miles Teller also does an excellent job as Packouz–the character through whose eyes the movie is told.

If you've seen the Hangover movies, you know how that group of friends manages to get into a lot of trouble resulting from a series of comical errors and bad decisions. That's pure fiction, though. Phillips relayed the story of how he first learned about and became interested in this story. "I remember, I was literally flying to Bangkok–we were shooting Hangover 2–and I read it in Rolling Stone just like anybody. I just couldn't–the thing that attracted me is I couldn't believe it was real, honestly. It just felt like it was one of those, um–you know, if it was a piece of fiction in The New Yorker I would have said, 'Oh. That's a cool story. Cool characters. But, it's so unbelievable it kind of doesn't work.'" The Q&A moderator asked, "Bradley, when you found out about the story, was there anything that really surprised you? Where you were just like, 'This couldn't be true'?" Cooper replied, "Oh my God. Where do we start?" Granted, this is a movie that is "based on a true story", which means that there is some artistic license and embellishment for the sake of entertainment. Phillips stressed that this is not a documentary, but also shared that Lawson–who is more familiar with the story than just about anybody other than Efraim and David themselves–expressed that he was pleasantly surprised with the journalistic integrity of the film.

War Dogs is an excellent movie. The acting is exceptional and the story is engaging. It is 114 minutes of entertainment that will be worth every penny you pay to see it. The fact that it is somehow a true story of two anonymous young men doing something extraordinary is just icing on the cake.