Southpaw an acceptable boxing flick with bizarre title

You know what? No. This guy is clearly right-handed. Photo courtesy the Weinstein Company.

In boxing, a southpaw is simply a left-handed boxer. Having seen Southpaw, the question remains — is Billy Hope (Jake Gyllenhaal) left-handed? It’s never addressed in the movie. He even signs a contract at one point, but I don’t remember which hand he used. It’s the title of the movie, someone has to think it’s important. Right?

Hope, a punch drunk boxer of questionable handedness, is on top of the light heavyweight world, entering the film as the 43-0 world champion. However, his world is turned upside down when his wife, Maureen (Rachel McAdams), is killed by a stray bullet when a fight breaks out with Miguel “Magic” Escobar (Miguel Gomez), an upstart boxer who crossed a line taunting Hope into a bout for the title. Hope quickly loses the title to another boxer, then his career after headbutting the referee, then his daughter after driving himself into a tree while actually drunk. With no income, Hope falls into poverty and resorts to training under Tick Willis (Forest Whitaker) in an attempt to clean his act up, get his daughter back and reclaim his title.

That synopsis? What was revealed in the trailer? That was more than half the movie. It isn’t unnecessary in terms of story flow, but the 123 minute movie feels like a lot more when you’re waiting more than an hour for the second-billed actor to hit the screen. This is Southpaw’s biggest problem.

Continue reading →

Posted in Entropy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Paper Towns tears down long-disavowed trope

Another reason the film succeeds is it’s easy to get the obsession. Delevingne lights up the screen as a mysterious, throaty teenage dream. Photos courtesy 20th Century Fox.

Like last week’s Trainwreck, Paper Towns isn’t any kind of genre trailblazer, but it’s charming enough to make up for all the things you’ve seen before. It even throws in some things you may not have.

The movie is narrated by Q Jacobsen (Nat Wolff), who, in elementary school, witnessed the miracle of Margo Roth Spiegelman (Cara Delevingne) move in across the street. They share adventures early, but Spiegelman moves on quickly because of Jacobsen’s aversion to taking risks. Now, in their senior year of high school, she suddenly reappears at his window, needing his help in her revenge plot against a cheating boyfriend. The next day, she vanishes, and Jacobsen becomes determined to find her.

Paper Towns will satisfy viewers with short attention spans because of this narrative shift. It’s really two movies in one — a traditional love story and a coming-of-age bromance road movie. It accomplishes this odd four-act structure deftly, without shifting tone at all. This narrative, as well as the first-person perspective, allows the movie to explore its subject — deconstructing the Manic Pixie Dream Girl trope — in newer, greater detail than before.

Continue reading →

Posted in Entropy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Pixels is tolerable, not great, everybody calm down

President Paul Blart? There are a lot of things about Pixels’ premise that are hard to accept, but that is by far the hardest. Photos courtesy Columbia Pictures.

Critics are going absolutely apeshit about Pixels, and it’s a gigantic overreaction.

The movie follows Sam Brenner (Adam Sandler, who also produces), a competitive arcade gamer in 1982, into the present day as an abject failure — divorced, installing other peoples’ entertainment systems for a living. However, the 1982 world video game championships were sent into space as part of a package on global culture from that year intended to communicate with alien life. Aliens had found the probe and mistook it for a declaration of war — and, somehow, the terms of engagement for said war. Every couple of days or so, the aliens send down a squad to play out a life-size arcade game, and the first planet to win three games gets to destroy the other one. Brenner’s life-long friend Will Cooper (Kevin James), now President of the U.S., recruits him to fight off the invasion, alongside fellow childhood friend Ludlow Lamonsoff (Josh Gad) and rival Eddie Plant (Peter Dinklage).

One would ask how they think humans will destroy their planet, but these invaders are clearly not big on any kind of communication.

Continue reading →

Posted in Entropy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Trainwreck a reminder why rom coms were popular in the first place

Amy Schumer explodes onto the silver screen in Trainwreck. Photos courtesy Universal Pictures.

Trainwreck isn’t the shot in the arm that will reignite our flame with the formulaic American rom-com, but it will remind us why we fell in love with it in the first place.

Written by and starring Comedy Central upstart Amy Schumer, the movie establishes her as an incorrigible tramp who spends her days working for a men’s magazine and her nights drinking heavily and tearing through the New York City hookup scene. But that all changes when her editor assigns her to profile a sports physician, Aaron Conners (Bill Hader), whom she promptly falls for.

The movie is, for the most part, hilarious. Schumer and Hader deliver sterling, subtle performances in lead roles, and LeBron James and John Cena are adroit in sizable, fantastically written parts. Daniel Radcliffe and Marisa Tomei also put on a show in bit roles.

Continue reading →

Posted in Entropy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Reely understanding It Follows

Photos courtesy RADiUS-TWC

With It Follows’ DVD release last week, it’s time to go into a little more depth on the film’s titular creature and what it might mean.

It Follows is an infuriating film to analyze because it’s all supposedly based on writer/director David Robert Mitchell’s nightmares, simply a cool movie idea that he thought up and not necessarily his treatise on the problem with journalism in the age of Twitter, or whatever. He’s not Kubrick. There’s not an endless pool of meaning hidden in every shot.

Or maybe there is and he’s been lying about there not being. That’d be a very Kubrick thing to do.

The point is, no matter how many patterns a viewer identifies, there’s not necessarily a deeper thing to be understood here. There is no silver bullet for this movie. There is no grand explanation. But because the creature is so easily spotted from a distance, so easy to outrun and so easy to pass on that it’s a hard thing to be scared of if viewers must take it at face value, the only way to be afraid of this movie — and it is a deeply terrifying movie — is if the creature represents something deeper, if there is a grand explanation.

So, in an effort to better understand the film, we’ll try to go through some common interpretations and their supporting details. Heavy, detailed spoilers below.

***

Continue reading →

Posted in Reel understanding | Tagged | 3 Comments