Maniac (2012)

If you've never seen the original Maniac, you really should.  It inspired Michael Sembello to write the song "Maniac" which Flashdance made famous (obviously the lyrics have little to do with the horror movie).  The plot of the original and remake are essentially the same.  The difference is in the execution.  The original is gritty.  It feels dirty and greasy and wrong.  The remake is arty and even kinda pretty.  The same could be said of the leads: Joe Spinell in the original and Elijah Wood in the remake.

On the left, dirty and greasy and wrong.  On the right, arty and even kinda pretty.

The plot(s) are about a serial killer named Frank who scalps young women and uses the hair to top a growing collection of mannequins.  The mannequins serve as temporary surrogates for the man's prostitute mother.  After meeting a young woman named Anna (who Frank begins to fall for), Frank's schizophrenia begins to get worse.  Each version ends in a slightly different but similarly bizarre finale.

Enough about the original Maniac though.  It's an incredible example of crazy/sleezy New York exploitation cinema.  The remake, however, tries to be something else entirely.  That something else hinges on a gimmick: the entire movie is from Frank's point of view.  The camera is literally Frank's eyes and the audience only sees Frank in occasional reflections.  This is not the first movie to try this.  Gaspar Noe's Enter the Void (which is streaming on Netflix!) did it back in 2009.  It should be said that while Enter the Void is an amazing film, it is also not for the feint of heart or weak of stomach.  Maniac is fairly tame by modern horror standards.  This is weird being that the movie was never submitted to the MPAA.  This movie would easily score an R-rating.  The movie has plenty of bloody scalpings and a couple nude scenes but don't be fooled by its "unrated" status.  It's not a very hardcore movie.

My biggest complaints is the sound design.  Every knife cut sounds intensely wet.  It's as if the foley artists (the guys who create sounds effects for movies) only had a tub of pudding and a guy who eats with his mouth open at their disposal.  The result is a movie wherein I see killings and mutilations but all I hear are slurps and splats.

The thing that didn't offend my ears was the score.  It's gloomy and electronic and perfect.  It reminded me of a new score that was composed for Tod Browning's silent horror classic The Unknown (which is also streaming online here).  I loved the music.  It creates a flawless, creepy ambience for the story to play against.

The remake of Maniac isn't going to supplant the original as a classic of horror.  It is worth a watch, and it's especially nice to have good new horror movies out in time for Halloween.  But please, please, please watch the original.  Depending on your level of squeamishness, you'll thank me or hate me later for it.

7 out of 10

The Heat

I was terrified to watch this movie.  The trailers looked kinda funny.  The marketing pushed Paul Feig's connection with Bridesmaids (a movie that is great because of its script, which he did not write).  Despite these signs that The Heat was probably watchable but nothing great, people kept telling me how crazy funny it was.  I felt like I was going to have to go through the same thing I went through with the release of 21 Jump Street.  That movie turned out to be intensely unfunny and I had to spend the next few months letting the people who assured me that it was hilarious know how misguided they were.  Luckily, The Heat is not going to put me in that position.  It lived up to its promise: it is watchable but nothing great.

 

The movie tells the tale of an FBI agent who is overly dedicated to her job.  She feels that she is looked down on by her male peers and overcompensates for insecurities making her both highly effective and incredibly unlikable.  While on a case in Boston, she must team up with a foul mouthed detective who is also despised by her co-workers.  The two ladies fiercely try to one-up each other until they realize that until they work together, they'll never catch the bad guy. 

 

The ladies in this film are played by Sandra Bullock (FBI) and Melissa McCarthy (Boston PD).  They very charming and talented actors, but they should not be forced to ad-lib off each other.  Bullock can deliver a funny line with precision timing, but she lacks the chops for riffing.  McCarthy, however, is incredible at improvisation.  The problem is that she requires someone equally skilled to bounce quips off of (in The Heat, she just resorts to excessive cursing).  As such, much of The Heat is awkward.  And not in an intentional sorta way.  I was embarrassed for them.

 

Also, there are many scenes that are purely filler.  They do not progress the story or develop the characters.  I'm sure this script came up short on run time and the writer inserted random scenarios that she thought would be funny.  This results in the film having unfunny bits that also manage to trip up the pacing.

 

But the film does get better.  In fact, the last act is fantastic!  Once these gals settle their differences (by realizing they have no differences), the movie really takes off.  When they're at odds with each other, they're obnoxious.  When they join forces, Bullock and McCarthy are really fun.  If The Heat wanted to be a truly great comedy, the gals would've been friends much sooner.  Like 30 minutes in;  not 30 minutes from the end.

 

One last complaint, all the male characters are shitheads.  Well, all but one and even that guy just wants to hook up with Sandra Bullock.  I don't care that the message is basically "girl power" and "anything a man can do, a woman can do," this was ridiculously heavy-handed.  It made me hate the filmmakers not the chauvinist characters.

 

I would barely recommend The Heat.  It's the kind of movie you watch on basic cable because it happens to be on and there's nothing else to watch.  It may actually be funnier on cable.  There's plenty use of the word "fuck" and hearing the words they substitute to appease the FCC could be hilarious.

 

5.5 out of 10

Pacific Rim

Whoa.  It's as if writer/director Guillermo Del Toro woke up one day and said, "I'll make a movie just for Doug."  This isn't the first time this has happened.  Shane Black made Kiss Kiss Bang Bang for me and John Carpenter made me Big Trouble in Little China (which required incredible foresight seeing as I was only 3 years old when he started filming it).

Pacific Rim takes place in the very near future wherein giant monsters periodically crawl out of the ocean to attack the coasts.  In response, humanity has banded together to build several equally large robots to fight the monsters.  What ensues is 2+ hours of pure awesome.

Del Toro has taken two of the coolest (and hokiest) things from old school Japanese movies and made them vaguely realistic.  The first is the kaiju movie (the monsters in the movie are even called kaiju).  Kaiju movies are basically Godzilla movies.  Any film with a city destroying beast falls under the kaiju banner.  Let it be noted that Gamera is the greatest of Japan's kaiju.  The other Japanese movie genre is mecha, which are large robots piloted from the inside (i.e, Power Rangers or the incredible Japanese Spider-Man show).

Pacific Rim wastes no time getting started and never slows down for a second.  The audience is forced to meet the film halfway.  The most important things are quickly explained, but much of the details are left to the viewer to piece together.  It's refreshing that a big, dumb movie about robots punching sea monsters would assume that its audience is not stupid.  I can see how a viewer could feel alienated watching the movie though.  The audience is thrown into this alternate future from the first frame.  If you can't suspend your disbelief at the drop of a hat and get behind the over-the-top premise, you may find yourself wondering what is so great about the film.

In order to achieve its breakneck pace, Pacific Rim engages is a lot of dramatic shorthand.  Clichés are openly embraced and the story is wildly melodramatic.  It's the cast of incredibly talented, lesser-known actors that makes that shorthand feel human.  Only Del Toro regular Ron Perlman plays his part like a caricature (but he makes it work).  Idris Elba is awesome as always (have you guys watched the BBC series Luther?!).  Even Charlie Hunnam (whose terrible, forced American accent gives fellow Englishman Jim Sturgess' a run for its money) is a fine leading man.  But the standout actor in this crew is the movie's sole Academy Award nominee: Rinko Kikuchi.  She's equal parts demure, ambitious, broken, and strong.  It's a performance that instead of feeling all over the place, feels like a fully realized character.  She's fantastic.

And I hate to make early predictions but here it goes: Pacific Rim has the best visual effects I'll probably see all year.  So many summer tentpole films cost $200+ million.  Yet, those films look terrible.  The designs are generic at best and the CGI is cartoony.  Pacific Rim takes its $190 million budget and puts it gloriously up on the screen.  Not only are the computer effects incredibly life-like, but massive sets and props were used to provide much of the movie a tangible feel.  Not matter how good computer effects are, the mind knows that it's fake.  Using practical effects and sets has the benefits of actually being real (again, the mind knows) and giving the computer guys something real on which to base their digital models.

 

The summer cinema season long ago became a breeding ground for sequels and prequels and remakes.  It's so refreshing to have an original concept with a sizable budget get greenlit.  We need new ideas on our cinema screens.  We need more Guillermo Del Toro. 

 

8 out of 10

The Hangover: Part 3

I find "The Hangover" series baffling for two reasons:

 

1) There should've never been any sequels.

2) The sequels highlight the worst aspects of the original film.

 

I'm going to get into some of this in the review as well as discussing the individual quality of this third entry.

 

Let's just start with reason #1.  "The Hangover" is a brilliant movie.  All the elements come together to make a comedy that will last the ages.  A true classic.  The problem is that, unlike many films that become classics, "The Hangover" was hugely successful.  With a budget of $35 million, "The Hangover" took in over $450 million worldwide.  I hate to break it to you, but Hollywood is a business.  There are people who are trying to make art, but only if that art stands to make a profit.  Making another "Hangover" movie seemed a sure thing.

 

With a budget of $80 million, "The Hangover: Part II" disappointed the world in 2011.  We were essentially tricked into seeing this movie.  The trailers promised more wacky hijinks from the characters we love.  This was a scam.  "The Hangover: Part II" proved to be a remake of the first film.  But it was a remake wherein all the fun was removed and we had to spend half the movie with Ken Jeong's screeching portrayal of Leslie Chow.  That's reason #2.  The worst parts of "The Hangover" were how the story was just a pointless series of things happening (but it was so much fun!), the minimal screen time of Justin Bartha, Leslie Chow, and how Zach Galifianakis' portrayal of Alan could be viewed as belligerent and mean instead of innocently oblivious.  Those four things are amplified for the "The Hangover: Part II."  But the scam worked.  The sequel made nearly $600 million worldwide.  A third installment was inevitable.

 

With "The Hangover: Part III," the decision was made to strip away not only the fun but also the hijinks.  The story would revolve around the characters being blackmailed into committing a robbery.  Alan (everyone's favorite character in the first movie) would be horrible, unfunny, and mean-spirited with no redeeming qualities.  And 75% of the screen time would involve Leslie Chow.  These horrible ideas were given a $103 million budget!  The returns would not be so sweet this time, however.  The third film grossed $350 million worldwide.  No slouch, but the law of diminishing returns helped ensure that "The Hangover" trilogy would remain a trilogy.

 

I do consider "Part III" superior to "Part II."  But that's like saying vomiting is superior to diarrhea.  what gives "Part III" the edge over "Part II" is that the story is different.  I never wanted a repeat of "The Hangover" when the first sequel came out.  At least, "Part III" tried to take the characters in a new direction.  But that raises the question of "why call it a 'Hangover' movie then?"  Why not just make comedies involving the same actors and capitalize on their chemistry together?  That way, the film is not beholden to story or character expectations.  The run of comedies starring Gene Wilder and Richard Pryor are a prime example of how this can work.  So too are movies produced by Judd Apatow. 

 

If you're one of those people who were smart enough not to go see "The Hangover: Part III," there's no reason to join those of us who didn't learn our lesson with "Part II."  Just stay away.  You'd be better off spending the weekend getting blackout drunk and causing mischief. (For legal reasons, the author does not actually condone excessive alcohol consumption or "causing mischief."  Maybe try drinking some hot cocoa and writing a letter to your grandma.  She misses you.)

 

4 out of 10

The Croods

I wish movies like "Clan of the Cave Bear," "Quest for Fire," and "Caveman" (with Ringo Starr!) were appropriate for children.  So what's a parent to do when their kids want to watch a movie about prehistoric man?  Put in "The Croods," I guess.  It's not great, but there are worse things that your kids can make you sit through.

The movie is about a caveman family that lives by the philosophy that fear keeps them alive.  They stay in their cave as much as possible except for the daughter who wants to explore the world around her.  After their cave is destroyed, the family is forced to make a trek into uncharted territory in search of a new home.

I take notes when I watch a movie.  The notes didn't seem all that strange when I was I was taking them.  But when I reviewed them afterward, I laughed out loud at how ridiculous this movie was.

1) The family motto is "Never not be afraid."  The Croods violate this immediately and whenever convenient.  It makes for the characters' motivations seem false, because they can't be consistent.

2) What's with the animals?  It is established that this is prehistoric Earth, so why are all the animals (except a sloth) bizarre chimeras?  It's as if the creators had a bowl full of plant and animal names.  They'd draw two or three and create some hybrid creature.  What's wrong with mammoths and sabre-toothed tigers?  I don't need cow-whales or frog-flowers (actual animals in the movie).

3) The owl-cat looks like when Michael Jackson becomes a werecat in "Thriller."  Not a complaint: more of a distraction.

4) The baby of the family acts like a dog.  There is not a scrap of humanity in this character.  She's a dog that a person birthed.  The family even treats her like a dog!  Why write that character?  Just give the family a dog.  Well, they do find a dog (a dog-alligator actually).  The son trains the dog to roll over.  The problem is they're in a tree and the dog rolls out of the tree to it's death.  It's been in the movie for two minutes.  Oddly enough, after the death of the dog, the baby starts acting like a human child.  I'm not sure what to make of this.

5) The family finds an abandoned torch and (being as they've never encountered fire) are hypnotized by the sparks swirling about on the breeze.  All I could think was "wildfire."  You may say, "Just give in to the wonderment, Doug" or "You're looking too much into it, Doug."  But the next scene is the Croods causing a massive, comical wildfire!  This is not cool.  This movie is anti-fire safety.

6) This one is a little dark.  The daughter's behavior (a desire to leave the cave and explore) should've resulted in her father's death.  She should've needed to reconcile her father's restrictiveness with her own recklessness to arrive at a philosophy that combines the best aspects of her father and herself thus showing an appreciation of her father (even if only in death) and growing as a person.  Instead, her harmful behavior is justified and she ends the movie the same as when it started.

7) The dad "sacrifices" himself three times in the conclusion.  Why the quote marks on "sacrifices?"  Because there are literally no consequences to his sacrifices.  He is not killed, injured, or even in much emotional turmoil.  Just cut those sections out of the movie.  Any action that does not result in consequences and therefore does not affect or forward the story should be left out.

8) The father hates his mother-in-law.  It's insane how much this man loathes the old woman.  He not only actively fantasizes about her death, he actually performs acts that he believes will result in her demise.  The irrational, intense hatred he has for the mother-in-law reminded be so much of Al Bundy's feelings about his wife in "Married With Children."  This is also not a complaint.  It was just a baffling decision for a kids movie.

9) All the animals become pets.  Literally.  Every critter that has more than 3 minutes of screen time will become a family pet.  This includes the carnivores that the Croods lived in fear of their entire lives.  It's such a terrible, artificial, happy ending to a movie that already had an artificial happy ending.  It may be my least favorite thing that happens in the entire movie.

Now you may be thinking, "It's just a kid's movie."  I will not accept that.  That kind of reasoning is basically saying that because a film is for children that it can't be well thought out or intelligent.  If I can't tell you that your kids are stupid, you shouldn't tell me they're stupid either.

Despite that list above, I didn't hate "The Croods."  It's very pretty and the design of the world and creatures are fun.  The cast is pretty good with Nicolas Cage reveling in his role.  I just feel like the opportunity existed to make "The Croods" a great movie.  Instead, it was just a kinda OK movie.

5.5 out of 10

This is the End

This movie should've sucked.  The idea of making a film wherein some of cinema's biggest, contemporary, big-screen comedians play caricatures of themselves against the backdrop of the biblical Apocalypse sounds completely masturbatory (and it very much is, in every meaning of the word).  But this exercise in Hollywood navel gazing is anchored by an incredibly touching emotional core: friendship. 

Jay Baruchel and Seth Rogen are best friends who are working through a rough patch in their relationship.  James Franco is the new friend who is jealous of the Rogen/Baruchel bond.  Jonah Hill is a friend of Rogen who tries to maintain civility despite the fact that he and Baruchel hate each other.  Danny McBride is the hanger-on, and Craig Robinson is the guy whose torn apart by being everyone's friend.

All these actors are funny and charismatic on their own, but throw them all together and they're incredible.  Their real life friendship makes their performances very natural.  Even the emotional moments seem like they are culled from the experiences these guys have had in Hollywood.

Padding out the first act of the movie are tons of comedian cameos.  It's fun enough to see all these comedians riffing and hanging out, but the real fun comes in watching them all meet hilarious and gruesome deaths when the Apocalypse begins.

This movie could've been about these guys coping with any kind of disaster, so them choosing the Apocalypse is important.  The discuss many times how the simple fact that they did not ascend during the Rapture means they are bad people.  So, not only does the film already have a strong emotional core but the characters are now given a goal, a chance at redemption, and a reason for introspection.  Basically, "This is the End" is a film with a greater understanding of drama and story than 90% of movies you'll see this year.

But don't think this is some sappy, dude-love movie.  In true male fashion, every moment of heartfelt openness is deflected with a quip or aggression or (usually) both.  "This is the End" is a film that really earns its R-rating.  The MPAA gave it that rating for "crude and sexual content throughout, brief graphic nudity, pervasive language, drug use and some violence."  What's funny about that is that there's a ton of intense, gory violence not just "some."  Also, there's only about 10 seconds of human nudity.  That "brief graphic nudity" refers to a couple of scenes involving cartoonishly large demon penises.  Basically, this is not for kids.

I was really impressed with "This is the End."  It's a movie to watch sooner rather than later as it will be horribly dated within a couple years and completely incomprehensible to new viewers in a decade.  The entire premise is built around the current public perception of actors who are big right now.  Even the nostalgic references are based on what is popular in nostalgia right now.  But if you seize the day and watch this movie while it's still relevant, you will not regret it.  The ending alone is totally worth the rental price.

7 out of 10