Pain & Gain

If you're reading this just to find out if "Pain & Gain" is a good movie, then maybe just skip to the end.  Because I'm going to make a digression into the film's director, Michael Bay, and my feelings about his filmography.  So again, if you're not interested, just skip to the end.  Still with me?  Cool.  Let's talk about Michael Bay.

Michael Bay is an extremely polarizing filmmaker.  His movies tend to make money, yet those very films also tend to be critically panned.  How can movies so bad be so successful?  I don't really know.

But I don't dismiss Michael Bay.  In fact, I feel that he is a true auteur.  The man has a distinct visual style and filmography.  Any scene from any of his films is easily identifiable as a Michael Bay movie.  But is his hyper-stylized filmmaking what keeps people watching his movies?  A little bit.  I think folks seem to like his "chaos cinema" aesthetic but it's also one of the biggest criticisms lobbied against him.

Where I stand is that the man is capable of greatness, but he rarely achieves it.  Bay is responsible for two of my favorite action films: "The Rock" and "Bad Boys 2."  But absolutely not "Bad Boys."  That movie is largely forgettable, although not terrible.  Bay is also responsible for some of the worst things I've had to sit through: "Armageddon," "Pearl Harbor," and "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen."  The rest of his films are mediocre (although the first "Transformers" is better than most of his stuff).

Michael Bay's success seems to have stemmed from his penchant for explosions, babes, over-the-top patriotism, and juvenile humor.  He caters to the worst of American stereotypes.  The worrisome thing is that he may have it right.  "Bad Boys 2" is by far his most "Michael Bay" movie, and I love the shit out of it.  It's a movie that wallows in explosions, babes, and juvenile humor.  And just when you think the movie's over and that we'll just have to forgo some dick-swinging, in-your-face patriotism.  But Michael Bay wouldn't do that.  So, he has his main characters invade and destroy Cuba culminating in a Mexican standoff in a mine field outside the base at Guantanamo Bay.  It's pretty awesome!

Michael Bay is an interesting filmmaker.  Regardless of the quality, I find that I must watch his new films if only to dissect the bizarre thought processes that went into his directorial decisions.  And that is what kept me going through his newest film: "Pain & Gain."

"Pain & Gain" is going to fall in with his mediocre output.  But it's almost as if he was trying to subvert his own image and in doing so, reinforced it.  I'll explain as we go.

"Pain & Gain" is based on a true story about a few Florida bodybuilders who decide to kidnap and torture a man in order to force him to sign over his assets.  Nothing goes according to plan.

The audience is constantly reminded that this is a true story.  The crazier the events get, the more the film insists on its factual basis.  To be fair, the bulk of the events did happen (although less movie-fied), but the declarations of "true story" are not meant to affirm the film's journalistic integrity.  It's all there as a way to poke fun at the people involved.  When the film says "this is a true story," it's really saying "these idiots really did these stupid things."  But the idiots aren't just the criminals, they're the victims too.  So to justify making fun of the victims and the crimes against them, Michael Bay (and his screenwriters) paint them as stupid, mean, and "asking for it."  "Asking for it" meaning being robbed, tortured, and murdered.  It's fairly appalling and my biggest issue with the movie. (Check out the original articles that the movie is based on: here, here, and here.  They're far more interesting too.)

But maybe I'm biased having read the actual true story prior to seeing the movie.  Maybe I would've been less sensitive to the way the events are handled.  Maybe I would've been able to laugh when the bodybuilders run over a man's head with their van and snicker when that man isn't killed (as intended) but horribly disfigured.  Because that's what I was supposed to do.  That stuff is presented as comedy.  I think Bay (and again, his screenwriters) wanted to make a dark comedy and failed.  Because none of them understand comedy.  Bay only understands juvenile humor.  Farts and bodily functions are his métier.  Dark comedies require subtlety and nuance: two words that will never describe a Michael Bay film.

So how did he subvert his image yet reinforce it?  By trying to make something different and showing that he can't.  He just doesn't have it in him to make an intelligent film or even a film with humanity.  I had hoped that he was going to go all out (like "Bad Boys 2") and make something like an R-rated cartoon.  Instead, he tried to scale it down and ended up making a movie that is offensively disrespectful of the "true story" it purports to tell.

He dials back the babes a bit (although Bar Paly is enough for any movie).  But he takes his patriotism and plasters it everywhere.  This is ostensibly a film about the fallacy that is the American Dream, but made by people that do not understand what the words "American Dream" mean.

If you're one of those people that opted to skip to the end, this is your jumping on point.  At the end of the day, "Pain & Gain" is a very well made film.  It looks great (Bay's movies always look great) but it suffers from a lack of likable characters and uncertainty in theme.  It's a film that tries to have its cake and eat it too.  Either the criminals are dumb, loveable heroes or horrible villains.  Just pick one, Michael Bay! 

Mark Wahlberg is good but not great.  Anthony Mackie is forgettable.  The Rock is fun but one dimensional.  Tony Shaloub is fantastically hate-able.  Ed Harris is wasted on this movie.

I can't fully recommend "Pain & Gain," but I also can't tell you to avoid it.  It's a stupid and mean-spirited movie.  It's also fairly action packed and flashy.  Someone out there will like it and it might be you.  But there's only one way to find out.

6 out of 10

The Great Gatsby (2013)

Baz Luhrmann is a director who'll probably always have me as a viewer despite the fact that having made five feature films, I love only two, dislike two, and am lukewarm on one.  The two I love?  "Strictly Ballroom" and "Moulin Rouge!"  I can't get enough of these films (especially "Strictly Ballroom").  The two I dislike?  "Romeo + Juliet" and "Australia."  They both feel like Luhrmann had a vision and just plain failed to deliver on it.  That means the lukewarm one is "The Great Gatsby."

I hate feeling so-so about a movie.  It's a boring response.  And it makes a film hard to discuss, because I just don't care.  But there are a few things to discuss, both good and bad, about "The Great Gatsby."

Good:  The stylization.  Like all of Luhrmann's movies post-"Strictly Ballroom," "The Great Gatsby" is a hyperactive kaleidoscope of CGI and kinetic camera movements.  It's a visually dazzling, jazz-era circus.

Bad:  The stylization.  Luhrmann is too focused on the look of the film to bother with the characters or drama.  This is a movie first and foremost about the crazy, computer generated, Roaring 20s.  The story of Jay Gatsby is third. (The hip-hop soundtrack is second.  Jay Z is a producer.)

Good:  Carey Mulligan.  She is captivating.  Mulligan is the standout performance of the movie.  She brings a depth to Daisy that is not explicit in the script.  Her sadness and turmoil is felt in every word and action.

Bad:  Leonardo DiCaprio.  It's mostly his weird accent.  Otherwise, he's fine.  But jeez, that accent is so strange and awful that it becomes a distraction.

Good:  Tobey Maguire's performance.  He plays Nick as a man of many roles.  He's at times paternal to Gatsby, a confidant and friend, and even a hanger on à la Sal Mineo in "Rebel Without a Cause." 

Bad:  Tobey Maguire's narration.  Ugh.  It's like in high school when the teacher would have people take turns reading passages from a book.  It's slow and monotonous and lacking emotion.  His narration picks up a little toward end, but that's the end.  It should've picked up before I listened to it for 2 hours.

Good:  The movie captures the look of the book.  Crazy, CG art deco aside, this is what I pictured when I read the novel.  Kudos to Baz Luhrmann and it art and costume designers.

Bad:  The movie misses the point of the book.  One of the themes of the novel concerns decadence.  Gatsby's parties are empty and meaningless.  They are wasteful.  The parties aren't awesome.  They're sad.  But that does not jive with Luhrmann's hyper-colorful aesthetic.  Instead, Gatsby throws parties he never attends but it's so romantic because he did it all for Daisy.  So when the movie finally takes a turn toward tragedy, it feel very out of place with the first two-thirds of the film.

This will just have to be another Baz Luhrmann movie that is written off as a failed vision.  I sincerely hope that his next project has a significantly smaller budget.  I think he could benefit from having to work around budgetary constraints.  Luhrmann is a smart director but I worry that his vision is so grand that when given the money, he takes the easy way out: computer effects.  Yet, there are some dreadful looking green screen backgrounds in "The Great Gatsby."  

"The Great Gatsby" is a fine film.  If you like hip-hop, it's a good movie to put on surround sound and crank it up.  It's pretty and well made, but all the effort is put into the spectacle.  But without drama and engaging characters, I just don't care and no amount of spectacle can fix that.  It's like a piñata with no candy in it.  It's brightly colored and I had a good time knocking it around.  But when I realized it was empty inside, I have to admit I was disappointed.

6.5 out of 10

Amour

This movie broke my heart.  I mean that in a good way.  Movies are supposed to make you feel something.  In the case of "Amour," that feeling is intense sorrow and loss.  When I used to work at Blockbuster Video (remember those?), girls would come in fairly often looking for a "movie to cry to."  I wish "Amour" had been out then.

"Amour," which won Best Foreign Language Film at last year's Academy Awards, is the story of an elderly couple.  The focus is mainly on the husband coping with slowly losing his wife to a series of strokes. 

So, let's get one thing out of the way: Yes!  There are subtitles!  Deal with it!

Moving on.  I thought I was going to full on cry.  The full waterworks.  The older I get, the more comfortable I get with getting misty during a movie.  But tears never touch cheeks.  "Amour" got closer than any other movie.  So ladies, grab the Kleenex for this one.  And fellas, don't be afraid to get emotional.  It's good for you.

The performances are the real attraction here.  Nothing against Michael Haneke, who may be the world's greatest living director, but the cast sells this movie.  Haneke seems to realize this and the film is shot extremely simply.  Just the shots necessary to capture the performances.  And music is non-existent.  Again, the actors are in charge of creating the emotional moments not a manipulative film score (although I do love manipulative film scores).

"Amour" is an amazing film.  I'm still in awe of it.  I'd like to watch it again because I was blinking tears back so hard and fast, it was like watching it by strobe light.  Don't miss it.  It's the best movie to hit video so far this year.

9.5 out of 10

Epic

I feel sorry for kids today.  In general, "kid's movies" nowadays tend to suck.  Movies for the child market used to be awesome.  They were made as if kids were fairly intelligent.  They were made to entertain adults too, because mom and dad had to sit through it too.  But something happened in the last 20-ish years.  The studios started making "kid's movies" about bodily functions and loud noises (usually involving goofy singing).  Luckily, "Epic" is a movie that doesn't assume your child is a fart-obsessed idiot.

The movie shares elements of plenty of other movies but never enough that it feels unoriginal.  It's about a city-girl who goes to live with her father (her parents are divorced) after her mother dies.  Her dad believes that little people live in the forest and his work has overshadowed all else for him.  The daughter wanders in the woods and is shrunk down to bug size.  She must help the good little people defeat the bad little people in order to return home.

First off, the issues of death, divorce, and estrangement are not glossed over.  They are major plot points that are handled with incredible sincerity.  I was actually moved by the scenes between father and daughter.  I'm not used to any non-Pixar cartoon eliciting an emotional response from me.

But one emotion I wanted to feel (that older "kid's movies" did really well) was dread.  I never felt that the main characters were in danger.  People get killed by arrows and one villain is splatted on a windshield but I still didn't feel that the main characters would even get hurt (they don't).  Part of that is because they can fall from any height and come out unscathed.  But there is some dark imagery.  The bad guys are creepy.  The rot that they spread (they are agents of decay) can be eerie.  It's not enough to be truly scary but it's a step in the right direction.  At least the movie handles suspense well.

On the flip-side of the rot is the green part of the forest.  "Epic" is a beautiful movie.  Like dazzlingly beautiful at times.  It's definitely made for 3-D and some of those "in-your-face" shots are obnoxious.  But at the end of the day, I enjoyed my time in this world.

There is one odd musical number.  It's very out of place.  So much so, that I cringed during its entirety.  If this had been a musical film (like classic Disney), then I'd have been fine with it.  But it's just jarring.

Last complaint.  This is not even something that affects the quality of the film nor does it apply to only "Epic."  Why are there so many big name celebrities in the cast?  Why are there any at all?  Does that sell the movie?  None of those celebrities are used in the advertising.  All the classic animated movies avoided this (there are notable exceptions).  The animation and story are the selling point.  "Epic" has great animation and a solid story.  How much could this movie have saved by casting nobodies or professional voice actors?  Colin Farrell, Amanda Seyfried, Josh Hutcherson, Beyonce Knowles, Christoph Waltz, Jason Sudeikis, Chris O'Dowd, Pitbull, Aziz Ansari, and Steven Tyler round out this cast.  I love most of these people.  Hell, Pitbull is the entire reason I drink Pepsi. But this kind of casting is just wasteful.

Parents, go rent this movie for your children.  Non-parent adults, you might actually like "Epic."  It's not the best animated film out there but it's better than the vast majority of "kid's movies" today.

7 out of 10

Scary Movie 5

I'm pretty sure this is the worst movie that I have ever seen.  Maybe I've seen a worse one, but I'm really struggling to think of what that movie might be.  

I avoid the "spoof" movies.  It's a genre that was mangled beyond recognition in 2001.  What happened in 2001, you ask?  "Scary Movie 2."  I actually enjoyed "Scary Movie."  It was a fairly solid send up of contemporary horror tropes mixed with sight gags and a healthy dose of crude humor (comedies were still riding the "There's Something About Mary" wave).  In 2001, "Not Another Teen Movie" arrived in theaters and was pretty damn good (I would say better that "Scary Movie" even).  Back to back, quality "spoof" movies?  Could we be so lucky three times in a row?  No.  No, we could not.  Because "Scary Movie 2" happened.

"Scary Movie 2" has some funny bits.  But it's a transition movie.  It's the movie where the "spoof" moved away from jokes toward cartoony reenactments of movies, pop culture references, and bad cameos.  "Scary Movie 3" was so offensively terrible that I didn't bother with the fourth or any other "spoofs."

"Scary Movie 5" (or "Scary MoVie") is relentlessly awful.  Not only that, it's incredibly racist.  I was embarrassed to watch it.  But I had to watch this movie for the column.  I had to watch it for you! (And I hate you for it.)

There is one funny bit in the middle.  For some reason, the movie becomes very "Black Swan"-centric.  So the filmmakers decide to parody the (awesome) lesbian sex scene from the original movie.  But "Scary Movie 5" is rated PG-13.  What to do?  Keep cutting to scissors, tacos, hot dog buns, etc. rubbing on each other.  In many old movies involving trains (before sex was allowed to be shown), the filmmakers would cut to a train entering a tunnel to imply sex was happening.  This Freudian trick became a cliched, comedic innuendo over the years.  But the scene in this movies involves two women.  So instead of a train, a tunnel drives along the track until it crashes into the other tunnel.  It's incredibly funny.  But that's the problem!  Don't tease me that there's still funny left in this series.  It just got my hopes up to dash them on the rocks again.  Fuck this movie.

I really have nothing more to say than that.  I'm sure that if you show "Scary Movie 5" to another person, it's considered assault.

1 out of 10

After Earth

"After Earth" is not the worst thing M. Night Shyamalan has directed.  That may be the highest praise I can give it.  "The Last Airbender" and "Lady in the Water" are much worse.  It's on par with "The Happening," but without that movie's failed potential.  "After Earth" has no potential.

"After Earth" is a movie about a future wherein mankind had to leave Earth due to something bad (I don't remember what).  1000 years later a stern military commander has to transport a dangerous monster that hunts by sensing fear.  So, he decides to take his cowardly son with him.  Their ship crashes on Earth, killing the entire crew, breaking the father's legs, and freeing the monster.  In order to summon a rescue, the son must journey several miles to the tail of the ship (which broke off in the crash) to utilize the distress beacon.  Along the way, he'll have to stop being a disappointment to his father, come to terms with having stood by and watched while his sister was eaten alive, and defeat the monster that is hunting him.

I have some issues with this movie, but the biggest one is that it's kinda boring.  It's hard to get worked up about something boring.  I spent most of the running time looking around the theater at the walls, other patrons, my shoes.  Anything was more interesting than the adventures of Smith & Son. 

 

I'm going to try to muster up some indignation and break down some of the problems with "After Earth." (I'd hate for my review to be as dull as this movie.)  Here we go:

 

1) Jaden Smith.  Dear God, he is just awful.  Why make him the star of a movie?  He can't act.  It's so awkward that I felt bad for him.  Also, he can't speak.  He opens his mouth but ends up emitting some sort of nasal mumbling.  Jaden is a talentless kid who apparently struggles with enunciation and a stuffy nose.  If that's what you're looking in a leading man, then "After Earth" may be the just movie for you.

 

2) Will Smith is not the main character.  If you've been waiting for Will Smith to take a role where he sits in a chair and speaks in a Cajun/British/African accent, then you are in luck!  This is that movie.  I wonder if Will was just trying to not act circles around Jaden.  He fails.  Did I mention how terrible Jaden Smith is?

 

3) There's a line in the movie (it's in the trailer too) about Earth: "Everything here has evolved to kill humans."  There haven't been humans on Earth in 1000 years.  Not only does evolution take more than 1000 years, but it also requires the prey to be present for the predator to adapt to killing it.  I usually don't try to dwell on plot holes, but this one is pretty major.  The murderous animals provide all the action for the entire movie, so it should make sense for them to exist.  This movie would've faired better with Creationism.  Seriously.  Humans ruin Earth, then abandon it.  God is so upset with mankind that he turns the animals into human killers.  It could've been like a parallel to the angel with the flaming sword denying reentry to Eden.  Sure, it's not a very good analogy.  But this is an M. Night Shyamalan movie.  No one expects it to be good.

 

4) The computer effects are terrible.  The animals are especially bad.  CGI never looks totally real, but it should be at least good enough to not be distracting.  The animals in "After Earth" look like cartoons.  If I want to watch a boy interact with a cartoon monster, I'll watch "Pete's Dragon."

 

There are some good things about "After Earth."  For example, the movie is only 99 minutes long.  Also, the set design is really good.  I liked the weird workings of the ship.  It's kind of a mechanical/organic hybrid.  That's it though.  Did I mention how terrible Jaden Smith is?

 

4 out of 10

The Place Beyond the Pines

Look at that poster!  Doesn't that look badass?  "The Place Beyond the Pines" is badass.  Kinda.  For a little bit.  Much like director Derek Cianfrance's last movie, "Blue Valentine," the movie is sold as something it only partly is.  "Blue Valentine" was marketed as a love story.  The poster and DVD cover both say "Blue Valentine: A Love Story."  But if you watch it, you'll find that the movie is about a guy who loves a girl.  But the girl doesn't love him.  She just needs a nice guy to help raise her baby.  She eventually resents him so much that the relationship becomes two miserable people screaming at each other.  It's a good movie, but not a love story.  "The Place Beyond the Pines" is marketed as an exciting action movie about cops and criminals.  It's not really that at all.  I'm convinced that nobody would go watch a Derek Cianfrance movie if it was presented accurately.  You have to be tricked into watching a good movie!

And "The Place Beyond the Pines" is a good movie.  But it has a couple of big flaws.  I'll get to those soon enough.

The title of the film is the translation of Schenectady, the town in New York where the film takes place.  The movie is told in three parts.  The first part is the closest the movie comes to the advertising.  Ryan Gosling is a motorcycle daredevil who, upon discovering he has a son, begins robbing banks to support the child.  Part two is about a cop played by Bradley Cooper, who discovers corruption among the Schenectady police force.  Part three is about the sons of these two men and how troubled those boys have become.

OK.  My two issues with the movie:

1) Having a movie told in three parts is not a bad thing.  Having a movie told in three incomplete parts is.  It feels as if each part is incomplete.  The first two parts lack a satisfying conclusion, in fact part two ends just when things start to happen.  The result of this half baked trilogy is a loss of momentum.  Each time a section ends and new one begins, all that story progression is lost.  The movie is clunky.

2) Some of the acting is bad.  For the most part, the performances are great.  But in several scenes, in a vain attempt to make dialogue seem naturalistic, the dialogue is improvised.  The problem is two-fold.  First, the actors in this movie are not very good at improv.  They end up just awkwardly repeating each other and coming off like they don't know their lines.  Second, this is not the acting style for all, or even most, of the movie.  As such, it feels incredibly out of place.

Otherwise, "The Place Beyond the Pines" is entertaining enough.  It's a great looking movie.  Cianfrance knows how to make a pretty picture.  I would recommend it, but it's best to know what the movie actually is.  It'll keep you from feeling lied to.

6.5 out of 10

Mud

Wow.  "Mud" is exactly what I wanted to see.  No.  Needed to see.  Writer/director Jeff Nichols provides one of my favorite movies of the year (he also did that in 2011 with "Take Shelter").  The man seems to be making movies just for me.  His films are well written, exquisitely filmed, thoroughly engaging drams.  They all star Michael Shannon.  And his brother, Ben Nichols (front-man for Lucero who should definitely be listening to), always provides some music.  I am helpless against the siren song of Jeff Nichol's films.

"Mud" reminded me so much of "Stand By Me" that it's scary.  Of course, "Mud" is a much more adult film but the romanticism of young boys and their sense of adventure are contagious.  Any movie with kids in major roles is always cause for alarm.  Many child actors are not very good and the ones that are tend to be more like small adults (which doesn't make for believable kid performances).  Couple that with many screenwriters being incapable of writing authentic sounding dialogue for kids and you start to notice that children can practically ruin a movie. 

Well, apparently Jeff Nichols can write the hell out of a script for 14-year old boys.  But he can also cast the hell out of 14-year old boys.  Tye Sheridan and Jacob Lofland deserve a lot of praise for their performances.  These boys are incredible and as much as Matthew McConaughey is used to sell the movie, Sheridan and Lofland are the leads.  But that's not to say that McConaughey is not a strong presence.  Something happened in 2011.  McConaughey had been in serious movies before but never really proved himself as a great actor.  He was just a guy that the ladies liked to look at.  But then he starred in "Bernie," (hilariously awesome!) "Killer Joe," (his greatest performance) and "Magic Mike."  He's got me convinced.  Matthew McConaughey is a great actor.  And yes, he takes his shirt off in this movie.

But what is "Mud" about?  The title is the name of McConaughey's character.  Two boys who live on the river in Arkansas seek out a boat that's stuck in a tree in the woods.  They find the boat but also a fugitive named Mud who enlists the boys' help in evading the law.

"Mud" manages to be a nearly flawless movie.  Not a single shot is out of place. Not a single edit mistimed.  The score, while minimal, is perfect.  The script juggles action, humor, a teenage coming-of-age story, and divorce drama effortlessly.  I just want to watch it, and Jeff Nichols' other films, again.  He can't make another movie fast enough.

9 out of 10

On the Road

"On the Road" is not an un-filmable book.  The events in it are pretty straight forward.  It's easy to take things that happen and film them.  It is impossible, however, to capture the magic of the words on the page.  It's not the "story" in the book that makes it an important classic.  It's the stream-of-consciousness, jazzy prose.

The result of this film adaptation is a rambling road trip movie.  Now, it's not a bad movie.  It's actually a pretty good movie, but it does not compare to the poetry of Jack Kerouac's book.  But that's it for book talk.  Let's look at "On the Road" as a movie alone.

Director Walter Salles has a loose style of filming.  Very rough but not amateurish.  I'm sure that this "raw" directing was thought to be a perfect match for the "raw" world of Kerouac's travels.  I would've preferred something a bit smoother.  I also think the success of his Che Guevara road trip movie, "The Motorcycle Diaries," helped secure him this historic figure road trip movie.

Most of the quality of "On the Road" is in the performances.  Sam Riley is good as Sal Paradise/Jack Kerouac.  His raspy voice is great for the copious voice-over.  Kirsten Dunst is phenomenal as Dean Moriarty's second wife.  I usually like Dunst but her turns in "On the Road," "Melancholia," and "Bachelorette" have rekindled my enthusiasm.  Viggo Mortensen and Amy Adams appear briefly as Bull Lee/William S. Burroughs and his wife respectively.  They are marvelous in their limited screen time, especially Mortensen.  Please, someone make a Burroughs movie and cast them!

But two actors deserve special mention (for very different reasons): Garrett Hedlund and Kristen Stewart.  Let's start with Hedlund who plays Dean Moriarty/Neal Cassady.  I never felt one way or the other about Hedlund.  He was just some guy in some movies I saw.  Not anymore.  Here he delivers an incredible Oscar caliber performance.  Hedlund gives his all to the role without hamming it up.  Moriarty is the embodiment of the enthusiasm for life and freedom that Kerouac was seeking, yet he is a lost, sad, broken child.  Every note Hedlund hits is flawless and he almost single-handedly elevates the film.  "On the Road" loses a lot of its energy when Hedlund is not onscreen.

Now for Kristen Stewart.  She's awful.  In every film I've ever seen her in, she's little better than a mannequin with a pained expression on its face.  Not much changes for "On the Road."  She does appear to be trying a little harder, but she still can't seem to muster up the range necessary to convey the myriad emotions her character is experiencing.  In the hands of a better actress, her role could've been the most heartbreaking role of the year.  Instead, you forget her character every time she's not on camera.  I think Stewart realized that she needed to take a serious role to be taken seriously.  But she can't act so she just takes her clothes off.  This is the opposite of what makes people take you seriously.  I'm not complaining.  I'm just baffled by the whole thing.

Ultimately, I really enjoyed "On the Road."  It's a quality film that showcases some great actors (and Kristen Stewart too).  It's awkwardly sexual at times but never unnecessarily so.  If you're in the mood for a look at the counter culture of the late 1940s, then this is a pretty good way to spend a couple hours.

7 out of 10

To the Wonder

Terrence Malick movies aren't for everyone.  His meditative style (especially in his more recent films) alienates some viewers.  He doesn't make movies to tell a story so much as he makes movies to get you thinking.  Using a largely handheld camera to linger on beautiful images and sparse voiceover, he presents the viewer to themes/ideas that he's pondering.  He does not make films with engaging narratives or characters.  You don't watch his films to be entertained.  You watch them to be offered questions that you must find the answer to after the film concludes.

For some people, this seems like a miserable way to spend 2 hours.  I, however, love the films of Terrence Malick and "To the Wonder" is no exception.

"To the Wonder" is the most dispassionate film about passion I've ever seen.  The plot is basic and merely serves as a framework to hang the thematic musings of the director.  Essentially, a Ukrainian/French woman meets a man in Paris and they fall in love.  She and her daughter return to America with him.  The passion cools.  He seeks out an ex.  She returns to France.  Later, they reunite.  Also, a priest is lonely.

The point?  It all works as a study of loneliness within a relationship and the nature of passion.  A woman is promised love and companionship.  She marries the man but the promise is never fulfilled.  The priest is also promised love and companionship (this time by God).  He enters the clergy, basically marrying God, but he feels that is not receiving what he was promised either.

There's plenty more to mull over in "To the Wonder" than bad relationships.  And that's part of what makes a Malick movie so intriguing.  There's always something more.

The performances are intentionally wooden.  The actors don't portray characters; they portray concepts.  The exception is Olga Kurylenko.  She gets to bring some emotion to her role.  But her emoting is presenting in what almost amounts to caricature.  Her emotions are concepts too.  It must be difficult for a cast of such accomplished actors to turn off their skill. 

I could ramble on about "To the Wonder" all day.  The photography is glorious.  The presentation of ideas is captivating.  But many folks will hate it.  If you've never seen a Terrence Malick movie, I don't suggest you start here.  Start with "Days of Heaven" or "The Thin Red Line" and work your way up to this one.  For those who like Malick or films as philosophic meditation, please go experience "To the Wonder."

8 out of 10

Antiviral

Are you in the mood to feel really, really gross?  Then I have just the film for you!

Now, a movie that makes you feel gross may not sound like something you should watch.  But believe me, you want to watch this one.

"Antiviral" belongs to a subgenre of horror known as "body horror."  "Body horror" is not scary in the sense of jump scares or screams.  It is a genre designed to make your uncomfortable.  To make you feel gross. 

"Antiviral" is written and directed by Brandon Cronenberg.  If you love classic horror movies, then the name "Cronenberg" should ring a bell.  He is the son of the king of body horror, David Cronenberg.  And while David may have moved on to more mainstream (but staggeringly incredible) films, Brandon has made a movie worthy of his father's horror legacy.

The movie takes place in the near future and, like the best of horror movies, has something to say about modern society.  "Antiviral" is a scathing satire of the West's obsession with celebrity.  In this future, companies harvest viruses from sick celebrities and render them inactive.  Fans can then have themselves injected with these viruses thus providing them with a connection with that celebrity.  Syd, one of the technicians who administers these "treatments," also deals in black market viruses, using his own body as a transport system through security checkpoints.  After a popular celebrity dies of an illness, Syd realizes that he is transporting that very virus.  His attempts to find a cure lead him into a rabbit hole of corporate espionage, needles galore, and pseudo-cannibalism.

Caleb Landry Jones turns in a stellar performance as Syd.  He looks like he is on the verge of psychosis in every frame.  Every word that passes his lips is a raspy whisper that manages to be vaguely sexual and distressing.  The world he inhabits markets perversion and Syd embodies that while being equally dismissive of it.

The look of this future is also of note.  There's a focus on blinding, clean white.  It's a set design that perfectly reflects the obsession with "perfect" people and contrasts the people's fondness for gossiping about celebrity flaws.

So if you're in a mood to feel awful, not just in your own skin but about society, check out "Antiviral."  To few horror films are as smart, poignant, and imaginative.

8 out of 10

Oblivion

As previously stated in my "Jack Reacher" review, I am a big Tom Cruise fan.  So, I was really excited to see Cruise headline a big sci-fi movie from the director of "Tron: Legacy" (a flawed movie that I still really enjoy).  I was not let down.  "Oblivion" turned out to be an incredibly enjoyable movie. 

"Oblivion" is an amalgamation of nearly every classic science fiction movie.  No kidding.  "Planet of the Apes" and "2001: A Space Odyssey" are the biggest influences.  For hardcore film fans, this could be distracting or even infuriatingly derivative.  I, however, really got a kick out of picking out all the bits of other movies.  And I can appreciate a filmmaker loving those movies enough to make an "ultimate" science fiction movie that combines them all.  It's not the best sci-fi flick you'll ever see, but it deserves to be including in the list of really good ones.

So the plot is pretty basic, but I hesitate to give away too much as there are plenty of opportunities for spoilers.  Again, for film nerds (or folks well versed in sci-fi movies) the plot is pieced together from other films.  This can result in knowing what's going to happen long before it does.  I won't ruin anything.  Here's the gist of "Oblivion:" Earth was attacked by aliens.  In order to defeat the invaders (called Scavengers or Scavs), the humans nuked Earth to... OBLIVION!  Jack Reacher... I mean Jack Harper (Cruise) is stationed on the Earth's surface to maintain and repair robots that protect giant energy stations that power the off-world human colony.  But when an old spaceship crashes containing human passengers, Harper begins to suspect that something may not be right on Earth.

The performances of the lead actors are good nothing spectacular, although Andrea Riseborough is probably the standout among them.  The real magic, what really makes "Oblivion" work is the direction of Joseph Kosinski.  He uses the same formula that he employed for "Tron: Legacy."  Take an OK script and flesh it out with clear, classically influenced camerawork and music by a French electronica band.  "Oblivion" trades out Daft Punk for M86 and the result is another powerhouse soundtrack that (like "Tron: Legacy") may outlive the film.  But music, regardless of the quality, does not make a movie good.  Making a film that has dazzling visuals and a clear sense of action makes a movie good.

Speaking of which, is it too early to declare my choice for Best Visual Effects?  "Oblivion" combines stunning computer work with gorgeous sets and landscapes.  Too many movies take the lazy way out, opting for green screen and CGI over real locations and props.  Kosinski understands that CGI is there to supplement your visuals not dominate the visuals.  Real locations/sets/props provide a sense of tangibility to a film. 

Also, I complain about shaky camerawork in action films all the time.  There's nothing wrong with handheld camerawork, but that loose form of photography should never obscure the images.  Also, the chaotic style of modern action extends to the editing.  Shots are reduced to fractions of a second.  And the shots that are long enough to make out are a hodge podge of random angles.  Where are the characters?  Where are they going?  These questions are important, yet they seem to go unanswered in far too many movies.  Kosinski knows how to film action.  His camera actually follows the characters.  You'll always know exactly what is happening at any given time.  Clear, interesting, motivated action?  "Oblivion" is light years ahead of 90% of the action movies being made today.

"Oblivion" is just a solid movie.  Sure, it has issues.  It's more plot focused than character focused and as such, the actors are left without much to do.  The ending, while appropriate, is a bit unsatisfying.  But at the end of day, I can't recommend it enough though.  It's a movie I look forward to revisiting.

7.5 out of 10

G.I. Joe: Retaliation

Let's get one thing out of the way before I get too far into this review: "G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra" makes me want to punch myself in the balls. I don't know why director Stephen Sommers decided to stop making good movies.  "The Mummy" is one of the best American action movies of the 90s.  But while Y2K may have not affected our computers, it short circuited Sommers' brain.  He then gave us "The Mummy Returns" and the soul-crushing abomination that is "Van Helsing."  So when I heard that he would not be back to make another unwatchable "G.I. Joe," I was relieved.  But who would they hire to save this franchise?  Some up and coming action director?  A director seasoned in mega-budget, Hollywood blockbusters?  Or maybe a guy who directed two "Step Up" movies and a Justine Bieber documentary?  I'm sorry to say the answer is John Chu, director of "Justin Bieber: Never Say Never."

It should be stated that "Retaliation" is better than "Rise of the Cobra."  That is feint praise.  "Retaliation" is barely watchable and had it exceeded two hours (it comes close), I may have attempted to disembowel myself with my remote control.  But what makes "G.I. Joe: Retaliation" so bad? 

1) My biggest issue is that the G.I. Joes are terrible at their job.  For a team that is comprised of super soldiers, a ninja, and a foxy lady that are then given James Bond-ian, high tech gadgets and enough firepower to destroy a mid-size city, one would expect them to be more efficient than regular soldiers.  That is not at all the case.  If the government had sent in Rangers or Special Forces or Navy Seals instead, this movie would've been 30 minutes long and actually exciting.  A great example of the supreme incompetence of the G.I. Joes is the opening.  They are sent to Pakistan to steal Pakistan's nuclear warheads.  They sneak up to the simple, chain-link fence that protects the nuclear missile facility (step up your security, Pakistan!) and use some sort of palm-mounted torches to cut through the fence.  This is the middle of the night and they're trying to be sneaky.  So the obvious way to get through a fence is to use bright red torches that throw sparks when in contact with metal and leave behind glowing, red hot holes in fences.  Those lame Navy Seals would've probably used wire cutters which make no sound, don't throw off sparks, or light up.  But the G.I. Joes are lucky enough to not be noticed.  Once inside, one team must signal to the other.  In the name of G.I. Joe stealth, they proceed to flash red lights at each other.  Those dumb Rangers would've probably used infrared lights which can't be seen by the naked eye, but are visible to night-vision goggles which dumb Rangers might use in a stealth night raid.  But the Pakistani guards are apparently blind and/or unconscious.  So, G.I. Joes decide they need a distraction.  A distraction is a thing that happens in one place so you can do something elsewhere.  I figured the G.I. Joes would throw a grenade somewhere so that the guards would investigate, then sneak in the weapons facility.  Instead, a G.I. Joe shoots the teacup out of a guard's hand (not shot the actual guard).  A full scale firefight ensues and the G.I. Joes have to punch and shoot their way in.  Those idiot Special Forces guys would've probably silently disposed of the guards before casually walking in the front door.  After stealing Pakistan's nukes, the G.I. Joes are accused of stealing Pakistan's nukes.  They are shocked by this.  This is G.I. Joe?  The Real American Hero?  I'll take Special Forces.

2) This movie tries really hard to be funny.  Lots of attempts at one-liners.  Lots of attempts at zingers.  Yet, not one funny thing is said in the entire film.  Have you ever met one of those people who think everything they say should be funny (if not, you may be that person)?  But as a result of always striving to be funny, nothing they say is funny.  It'll drive you crazy.  I blame this behavior on bad sitcoms.  People have watched enough of these that they feel like that's how life should be.  It's not.  "G.I. Joe: Retaliation" is a bad sitcom with no laugh track to try to trick you into laughing.  Give me nails on a chalkboard.  Give me a room full of kindergarteners with violins.  It's be less painful to hear than these "jokes."

3) Poorly filmed action.  I complain a lot about this.  It's especially bad when martial arts are involved, and a movie who's best characters are rival ninjas has plenty of martial arts.  If I can't see what's happening, how can I care about what's happening?

4)  Everybody's acting is terrible with the exception of two people.  The Rock (sorry, Dwayne Johnson) has maybe never been worse.  Bruce Willis is sleepwalking through this movie.  Channing Tatum returns to the acting of his early films.  It's like a church play.  It feels like a bunch of non-actors who barely know their lines.

But no movie is purely bad.  Every film has something good.  For example, "Retaliation" has real explosions.  This is a big deal in big budget movies.  Instead of CGI, there are several real explosions that throw real stunt people around real locations.  It's a nice touch that helped me get through this ordeal.  Also, I said two people weren't terrible actors in this movie.  Those two are Jonathon Pryce and Byung-hun Lee.  Pryce plays the double role of the president and the disguised Zartan.  As Zartan, he goes way over the top.  Then as the president, he is just repulsed by himself.  It's fun to watch.  Byung-hun Lee reprises his role as Storm Shadow and actually gives some weight to his conflicted feelings.  He's a great actor and I highly recommend you check out some of the movies he's made in South Korea (especially "Ride With the Devil").

That's it though.  "G.I. Joe: Retaliation" is terrible.  I can't say that it's boring though.  Rather, "Retaliation" is like cleaning out the cat's litter box.  It may not be boring, but it's still an unpleasant chore.

3.5 out of 10