Review of The Jungle Book

Jon Favreau's The Jungle Book may be the first live-action version of Rudyard Kipling's classic tale, but such a label might be a misnomer. Aside from Mowgli (Neel Sethi) and a few glimpses of live-action humans, this gorgeous motion picture was crafted entirely on a computer. And while it's a pastime of critics and movie buffs to bemoan the appearance of "too much CGI," it's impossible for anyone not to be awed by what Favreau, cinematographer Bill Pope, and the FX team have accomplished here. This is how you do it. The lush widescreen environments, impeccably rendered characters, and thrilling action sequences can compete with the most lavish summer blockbusters out there. But this Jungle Book wouldn't work as well as it does without a compelling storyline, near-perfect pacing, and a successful juggling of dark and jovial tones.

This isn't Mowgli's origin story, although we do receive a brief flashback during a scene when he stares into the eyes of the seductive python Kaa (Scarlett Johansson). The movie introduces us to Mowgli's life of literally being raised by wolves, including father Akela (Giancarlo Esposito) and mother Raksha (Lupita Nyongo). The panther Bagheera (Ben Kingsley), who found Mowgli long ago, tries his best to teach him discipline (consider him a Jedi Master of sorts), but the young boy is very impetuous. One day, during a "water truce," where all manner of animals gather at a watering hole during a drought and refuse to hunt one another, complications emerge. The bengal tiger Shere Khan (Idris Elba) seethes at the presence of a boy in the jungle, fearing that he will grow up to be as barbaric and bloodthirsty as most men. He will accept nothing less than the boy's death, but Bagheera nonetheless helps Mowgli escape. However, instead of the "Man Village" Mowgli is supposed to run toward, he falls into company with the wisecracking bear Baloo (Bill Murray).

What a cast! The Jungle Book boasts a hugely distinctive cast of vocal performers, all of whom work to perfection. This isn't a mere case of "spot the star" but well-defined, clearly-motivated characters brought to even greater life. Who would be a better match for Baloo's laid-back, jokey personality than Bill Murray? A more authoritative tone for Bagheera than Sir Ben Kingsley? A more menacing bass voice than Idris Elba for the villainous Shere Khan? And though the character only appears in one extended, thrilling sequence, Christopher Walken turns out to be an inspired choice for King Louie the orangutan. The actor's quirky mannerisms shine through as this version is a little more sinister and mafia-like than we're used to seeing (although not so much that he'll frighten kids). As for the only live-action actor in the cast, newcomer Neel Sethi is mostly convincing, though there are times when his delivery of lines is stiff. It's much more difficult than it looks for any actor, let alone a child actor, to interact entirely with special effects.

The Jungle Book pushes the limits of the PG-rating; it's unafraid to show animal-on-animal violence and death when need be, but it's by no means a joyless slog. The movie finds extra character dimension in Shere Khan, whose motivations and hatred of human hunters/colonizers we understand even though his plan would mean the death of our hero. The openly comedic scenes featuring Baloo are extremely welcome, and the movie retains two songs--albeit abbreviated-- from the 1967 animated feature ("The Bare Necessities" and "I Wanna Be Like You"). It is, after all, impossible to imagine The Jungle Book without these tunes, but Favreau integrates them with such success into this mostly serious adventure tale that we don't feel whiplash in the movie's change in tone.

The movie's vibrant, exciting brand of storytelling very much feels like a storybook come to life that its title implies. It can make us laugh one moment, make us shudder the next, and endlessly fuel our imaginations around every corner. From an awe-inspiring time lapse showing the change between seasons, to Shere Khan's memorable entrance (animals cower toward the sides of the frame as he appears in the center), to the amazing rendering of the chase and fight sequences, The Jungle Book represents the true power of CGI spectacle. And its message, that man and beast can exist in harmony by compliment one another with their unique talents while still holding respect for one another's customs, will resonate well with both children and adults. Whether this Jungle Book inspires a franchise is left to be seen, but for now, we have a thrilling adventure that moviegoers can savor with or without families in tow.

Rating: ***1/2 (out of ****)

Review of Hardcore Henry

If you're looking for-- as the ads promise-- an experience you've never had before in a movie theater, Hardcore Henry is it. But that doesn't necessarily qualify as a ringing endorsement. Director Ilya Naishuller has created a 90-minute action movie filmed entirely from a first-person perspective so that we see everything our mute protagonist sees, from every punch and shot fired to every frenetic jerk of the camera. If it reminds you of a video game, that's obviously by design. As uber-violent as its title implies, Hardcore Henry slides proudly into the "style over substance" category, but it can't fully overcome two key problems. It lacks any identifiable characters whatsoever and a little of the first-person craziness goes a long way.

The story's basic outline, that of a person waking up from a deep sleep with no memory of who he is or any idea of the power he's capable of, is always an intriguing science fiction concept. It begins with the human/cyborg Henry waking up in a lab to a doctor named Estelle (Haley Bennett), who claims to be his wife. Mere minutes later, the lab is raided by a warlord named Akan (Danila Koslovsky), who's more than eager to show of his telekinesis powers. Henry and Estelle escape the lab and end up in the streets of Moscow, where Akan's henchmen promptly ambush him and kidnap Estelle. Now, with the help of the ubiquitous Jimmy (Sharlto Copley), who has a seemingly endless supply of avatars of himself, it's up to Henry to take down the bad guys videogame style.

The plot is paper-thin, rocketing from one action set-piece to another, but that's fine (arguably preferred) for an action movie. It lets us concentrate on other things. But Hardcore Henry's problem is the complete absence of a relatable protagonist. Henry is a voiceless, faceless avatar who has no defining characteristics beyond his physicality. This works well when playing a video game, where a mute main character serves as an extension of the player, but a passive experience like Hardcore Henry needs some form of characterization. Without that, it's up to the supporting players to give us something to latch on to. Sharlto Copley certainly goes all out, firing away with gag after gag the way other characters fire bullets, but his zaniness can only do so much without a compelling main character. Haley Bennett and Danila Koslovsky fulfill their roles of damsel-in-distress and over-the-top bad guy, but aside from an intriguing late-game twist, there's not much to chew on regarding them, either.

And so we arrive at the million-dollar question: how does the first-person viewpoint hold up for an entire action movie? On the plus side, this approach sidesteps the trap of fast, incoherent editing (though the movie isn't shot all in one take; Naishuller makes small cuts here and there). Since we see everything from one man's perspective, we always know where the combatants are in relation to their environments. The unfortunate downside is that the spastic camera movements will give more than a few viewers motion sickness. Compared to this movie, popular "found footage" flicks like The Blair Witch Project and Cloverfield might as well be playing AA-ball. A few people left my screening and didn't come back. Even I had to close my eyes for a few seconds at a time to re-adjust.

Naishuller is acutely aware of the first-person-shooter influences in Hardcore Henry. The movie calls upon many tropes of the popular gaming genre, sometimes in very funny ways. The way Henry quickly switches from unarmed combat to an opponent's AK-47 is amusing, as is Jimmy's glib advice to Henry (consider him the fairy to Henry's Link). There are also some effectively bizarre touches, like the subtitles of two yelling women overlapping one another and an impromptu performance of Frank Sinatra's "I've Got You Under My Skin" performed by all off Jimmy's avatars. Another musical moment tops even that when Henry injects himself with adrenaline and goes on a rampage to the tune of Queen's "Don't Stop Me Now." In a way, Hardcore Henry reminded me of Crank 2, where the filmmakers throw everything including the kitchen sink at us to compensate for the slim narrative and characters. Like that movie, it almost works. Almost, but not quite.

As a technical exercise the likes of which you probably haven't experienced before, Hardcore Henry fits the bill as long as you're not prone to motion sickness. But for me, I need a little more besides pure style to give a movie an unqualified recommendation as opposed to a so-so one. The movie lives up to the first word of its title, alright; it's graphic violence takes no prisoners. And as mixed as the results on screen are, I have to give Naishuller credit for trying something different. But perhaps it would play better as the video game it emulates after all.

Rating: **1/2 (out of ****)

Review of Eye in the Sky

Drone strikes. From the outside, it feels like a cleaner, less brutal form of warfare, where missions by way of machine result in fewer casualties. But in reality, just like as Gavin Hood's Eye in the Sky informs us, these type of missions are fraught with logistical issues, moral quagmires, and emotional turmoil. Despite featuring very little "traditional" action sequences, this is as intense and suspenseful a film as you're likely to find in theaters right now. Eye in the Sky sets up a straightforward situation, introduces the inevitable complications and proceeds to dig into every angle. Terms like "rules of engagement," "collateral damage," and even "the propaganda war" play huge roles, where every decision comes down to managing risk versus reward. And it does all of this with a clear, apolitical yet enormously complex stance.

As the movie opens, a group of terrorists have settled into a safehouse in Nairobi, Kenya. Among them are three individuals, one American and two British, who have joined an extremist faction. The United States, British, and Kenyan governments are all working together to track and capture the suspected terrorists. Colonel Katherine Powell (Helen Mirren) runs the military operation and reports to Lt. General Frank Benson (Alan Rickman). Primary characters on the American side include drone pilots Steve Watts (Aaron Paul) and Carrie Gershon (Phoebe Fox). And Jama Farah (Barkhad Abdi) handles the stealth work for the Kenyans at the ground level, operating a remote-controlled beetle with a camera. What initially starts out as a capture mission quickly changes course when surveillance footage reveals the terrorists have suicide bomb vests and are readying for a strike. To further complicate matters, a little girl selling bread to provide for her family enters the blast radius.

The movie's basic plot may seem simple, but the endless debate around what to do is anything but. The approval of a hellfire missle strike requires multiple approvals on the British side, some of whom are so indecisive that they keep "referring up" again and again. Lawyers must agree on whether or not it's okay to kill American and British citizens without them seeing their day in court. The mortality rate of any innocent civilians caught in the blast radius has to fall below a certain level for everyone to feel comfortable, but even that is just an estimate. And what about the dilemma of taking one life to save 80? Would an eventual strike by terrorists killing many innocent people look better for propaganda than a US/UK strike killing one? Eye in the Sky delves into all of this and more.

The action which drives the most debate, that of a little girl potentially dying, at first glance seems contrived. The American pilots observe her casually playing in her backyard, and her later appearance in the blast zone puts a lump in the throat of both them and us. But it's where the movie takes this coincidence that matters most. Even from thousands of miles away and with full support of one's superiors, the thought of pulling the trigger and ending an innocent life is enough to cause significant psychological hangups in the drone pilots. All of this plays out in real time, at times cranking up the suspense to nail-biting levels.

No awards will be handed out for acting; these are mostly low-key portrayals a la Spotlight. But they work to perfection. Helen Mirren is superb as a tough officer whose six-year obsession with tracking these terrorists results in her desperately trying to find loopholes in the situation. Equally strong is Aaron Paul, who's confined to one seat for most of the movie but speaks volumes with his facial expressions as well as his dialogue. Barkhad Abdi makes his first motion picture appearance since his Oscar-nominated breakout in Captain Phillips, and it's great to see him back. Finally, the late Alan Rickman (in his final live-action performance) reminds us that while he's best known for genre projects like Die Hard and the Harry Potter series, he gives his all in smaller, character-based movies as well. Eye in the Sky is a fitting swan song for him (as is his character's final, stinging line about the cost of war), and I imagine anyone seeing this movie will miss him even more.

Eye in the Sky blends powerful drama and suspense into an immensely satisfying whole. Director Gavin Hood has taken on the hot-button political arena before with Rendition, an entertaining thriller revolving around the mortality of torture. But this is a stronger movie; it's more confident, more nail-biting, and it devotes equal time to all sides of the issue. Regardless of your stance on drone warfare, Eye in the Sky is worth seeking out. It doesn't stack the deck in favor of either viewpoint, but instead lays out the pros and cons and trusts viewers to be intelligent enough to come to their own conclusions. It's only April, but this one has a good chance at making my year-end Top 10 list.


Rating: ***1/2 (out of ****)