Paranoia

I had initially decided to join the world's unofficial boycott of Paranoia (the movie made $7 million against a $35 million budget), but then I saw it had a 4% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.  While I find Rotten Tomatoes' ranking system a bit flawed, I felt that something this bad needed to be seen.

Paranoia is not a good movie, but it's not 4% bad.  It's a story about a young man who works for an electronics company.  After a failed software pitch gets him and his friends fired, he is offered the chance (by his recently former boss) to engage in corporate espionage at his former boss' rival's company.  Despite it being highly illegal, he agrees because he's being paid thousands of dollars, is being blackmailed with the threat of going to prison for credit card fraud (which he totally committed), has been threatened with the murder of himself and his family and friends, and also some girl he had a one night stand with a week ago works there.  Using his technological know-how and a hefty dose of hard work and dedication, he must topple both corporate giants and restore our faith in the American Dream.

 

Paranoia tries so hard to be relevant.  The anti-corporate message is incredibly heavy-handed.  The movie beats you over the head with the state of the American workforce.  Every other sentence seems to reference "the American Dream being stolen from us" or "one-percenters."  But the writers weren't done.  They knew they could be even more relevant.  So, they squeeze in a bunch of nonsense discussions about the problems with health care and even a little about how cell phones distance us from other people.  But it's all just words.  None of these "themes" is actually given any importance.  If none of these issues were brought up, it wouldn't change the story in the slightest.

 

Same with the best friend and his girlfriend characters.  They are in this movie only to be threatened.  These roles should've been cut, and we would all be spared some of the film's worst dialogue.  They have zero real impact of the outcome of the movie.

 

Gary Oldman is pretty good in this.  The man is brilliant, and he probably can't help but make a decent performance out of his lines.  Harrison Ford needs to stop being in movies.  He doesn't even try anymore.  Amber Heard is super bland, which is par for the course.  And then there's the star of the movie: Liam "The Lesser" Hemsworth.  He is trying so hard to be a leading man, but I don't think he's got it.  When he and Amber Heard are onscreen together, I felt like I was watching the CW.

 

Paranoia aims to be both a gripping techno-thriller and a message movie about the state of modern America.  Both of these goals are handled about as deftly as one would expect from a director who specializes in romantic comedy.  This movie is directed by the same guy as Legally Blonde, Monster-In-Law, and The Ugly Truth and it shows.  It even has a saccharine, romantic happy ending.  But with a moral: accept being poor and then you'll get rich.

 

I don't recommend it (both the movie and acquiescing to poverty).

 

3 out of 10

The World's End

Let's talk about Edgar Wright.  He's a writer/director who has shown that he can do no wrong.  The World's End draws to a close his (and actor/co-writer Simon Pegg's) Blood and Cornetto Trilogy which began with Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz.  These three movies reflect Wright and Pegg's razor sharp wit and intense, nerd-love of genre pictures and cinematic pop culture references.  This trilogy is essentially a film extension of Wright's amazing TV series, Spaced.  Factor in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World and you can see that Edgar Wright is one of the best filmmakers working today.  (Note: Spaced is currently streaming on both Netflix and Hulu.  So, no excuses.  Go watch it, now.)

The Blood and Cornetto Trilogy are only connected by their heavy genre influences and by the theme of friendship.  Shaun of the Dead is about how strong friendships can spoil romantic relationships.  Hot Fuzz is about finding friendship.  And The World's End is about losing friends.  And robots!  Alien robots!

Gary King (Simon Pegg) has never outgrown one glorious night in the 90s when he and his friends attempted to complete the Golden Mile, which is drinking a pint at all twelve pubs in their hometown.  They failed to complete it and 23 years later, Gary rounds up his estranged former-friends to attempt it again.  Along the way, they begin to suspect that the citizens of their town are robots.  They must sort out their issues, drink a lot of beer, and avoid being assimilated.

While not as good as SotD or Hot Fuzz (Wright's best film), The World's End is still one of the best comedies of the year.  It boasts some wickedly clever dialogue, amazing action sequences, and a real emotional core.  That emotional core is what makes these movies so engaging.  The characters become real people that you really care about.  It's that difference that elevates The World's End beyond a movie about an epic pub crawl.  You're joining in on that pub crawl.

The cast is stellar.  Simon Pegg gives his most nuanced performance yet.  Nick Frost gets to defy expectation by being the quiet one (for a bit).  Eddie Marsan sheds his usual crazy/tough guy persona to be hen-pecked and cowardly.  Paddy Considine (one of my favorite actors) nearly steals the show.  Martin Freeman basically plays Martin Freeman (but he's so good at it).  Rosamund Pike not only holds her own amidst this group of England's finest, she shines.  Throw in an appearance by Pierce Brosnan and a quick cameo from Bill Nighy, and you're looking at a veritable who's who of U.K. awesomeness.

This is the kind of movie that begs to be watched with good friends and good beer (or water).  These Edgar Wright/Simon Pegg movies endlessly reward repeat viewership, so don't just settle for one viewing (or beer).  Despite several other movies this year being technically better (which is impressive because Edgar Wright is a visionary genius), The World's End is one of my favorites of 2013.  Grab some popcorn and Cornetto (or probably substitute Drumsticks) and do not miss this movie.

8 out of 10

We're the Millers

We're the Millers is a comedy about David, a Denver marijuana dealer (not medicinal), who, after being robbed by hoodlums, must bring a large shipment of weed back from Mexico in order to make things right by his boss.  David figures the only fool-proof way to sneak through customs at the border is to hire a family (because happy families are beyond reproach in the movie's world).  He enlists a stripper, an angry runaway, and a sweet-natured teen whose alcoholic mother is never home as his wife, daughter, and son respectively.  Despite a great deal of animosity, they rent an RV and take a road trip from Mexico back to Denver.  Along the way they encounter a myriad of shenanigans that bring them closer and closer to missing their delivery deadline.

I went into We're the Millers with the lowest of expectations.  So, I was more than a little surprised when I found myself laughing quite a bit and ultimately enjoying it. 

 

It's not a consistent film though.  The first act is really rough and pretty much lived up to my perception of what the whole movie was going to be like.  It's just flat and unfunny and sort of rambles aimlessly.  But once David and his "family" start the drive back to Denver, the movie not just picks up, it feels like it's finally started.  Not every joke works but most of them do.  One thing that helps the comedy is that every one of the "Millers" is a fully fleshed out character.  Sure, they're heavily clichéd, but I'll take that over two dimensional caricatures any day.  As the characters grow and develop, the humor hits home more.  It's as if the script was written from the perspective of the end of the characters' arcs.  Uuntil the Millers start to become like an actual family, the early jokes flounder. 

 

I always find Jason Sudeikis to be a one-note actor.  But in We're the Millers, the material is just right for his delivery.  Jennifer Aniston, however, is quite strong in this movie.  While I don't like many of the movies she's in, I do like her as an actress.  I don't understand what keeps her from starring in better projects.  She can effortlessly balance comedy and drama and her voice and face are incredibly expressive.  She really gives her all for this movie.

 

Despite Sudeikis finally having a script that makes the most of him and Aniston making the most out of the script, the real show stealers are Kathryn Hahn and Nick Offerman.  They play the Fitzgeralds, who are also taking an RV on a family vacation.  They are almost unbearably wholesome, yet timidly reveal their own weird proclivities.  Every second with the Fitzgeralds is super funny.

 

We're the Millers is no comedy classic, but it's a mostly fun two hours.  If you need something to do during the lame first act, you can be baffled by the unrecognizable Denver.  It was filmed in Wilmington, North Carolina, but they just put Denver or Colorado stickers on some of the shop windows, which is the funniest part about the opening.  Make some omelets and give it a watch.

 

6 out of 10

Planes

Let me make one thing absolutely clear: I hate Cars.  I firmly believe that it is the worst of the Pixar films (I have not seen Cars 2 and that may actually be the worst Pixar movie).  The problem is that the Cars films are hugely successful.  So Disney decided to make a spinoff about airplanes.

Planes was originally intended to be released only in European theaters, whereas North America would have a direct-to-video release.  Despite not looking as good as Cars (which is admittedly a very attractive film), Disney opted to see if they could make money in American cinemas as well.  Unfortunately, it worked.  While no where near as successful as the Cars films, Planes made a lot of money.

The movie is about a crop-duster named Dusty who dreams of being a racing plane.  With the help of his friends, he is able to qualify for an "around the world" race.  But can a crop-duster really compete with racing planes?  Can Dusty overcome his fear of heights?  Can an American underdog unite the nations of the world?

Planes is not actually a Pixar film.  It's a fully Disney movie.  Which is good for Pixar, because Planes manages to be worse than Cars.  The only thing that Planes has over Cars is the lack of Rascal Flatts on the soundtrack.  Otherwise, it's just dull.  Cars feels like a Pixar misstep.  Planes, however, feels like a lifeless cash grab.  Here's a couple of odd things that kept me going during an otherwise unengaging experience:

1) The fleeting "eco-message."  The movie never has a larger message.  It's just dumb cliché.  Whereas Wall-E has a fantastic message about preserving our natural resources, Planes just mentions off-hand that the vehicles all use corn fuel.  Also, the crop-dusters use manure/compost instead of fertilizers.  It comes off not so much as an environmental message as it does damage control.  Disney can now deflect any eco-Nazis who complain about gas guzzling vehicles being idolized by kids.  But the vehicles drink oil like crazy and in one scene get drunk on it to drown their sorrows.  I'm not sure what is going on with petroleum in Planes.

2) Crop-duster anatomy.  For Dusty's crop-duster pal, Leadbottom, the sprayer for the fertilizer is his rectum.  Many jokes are made about farting and the smell coming from his sprayer.  For Dusty, his sprayer is his penis.  This is totally a real thing that is in a Disney movie.  He is terrified at the prospect of having it removed (so he can race better).  And once it is cut off, he speaks in a pained higher octave for a while.  I am baffled by the implications of the sprayers.  If the sprayers are distinct parts of the planes' anatomy and not just tools, then what are we to make of Dusty's friend, Chug, who is a fuel truck?  Is his fuel nozzle more than just a fuel nozzle?  And the cars already have mouths with which they consume oil, so what does that make their fuel tanks?  I was traumatized by these questions and trying to wrap my brain around it was the most entertaining thing about this movie for me.

3) Chug.  Disney is trying really hard to create a new Mater for the Planes trilogy (this is actually happening!).  A dumb service vehicle with a distinctive voice.  I prefer Chug to Mater, but the interesting thing is watching such a blatant attempt at a merchandizing opportunity.  This whole movie is just a toy commercial.

4) Or is it a Ford commercial?  The Ford Mustang to be exact.  It's the only branded vehicle in the movie.  I can't find anything to indicate that there's any deal between Disney and Ford.  The Mustang just sticks out.

5) It's definitely a Navy recruitment video.  My dad was in the Navy for a long, long time.  So, I have a bias toward the Navy.  It's just odd to see the military marketed to children.

6) The movie panders to other countries.  Not that a film should pander to the United States (or pander in general), but the race around the world doesn't showcase each place they go.  Iceland, Germany, Nepal, and Mexico are glossed over.  China and India are heavily focused on.  China is a huge market and only allows 34 foreign movies to play in its theaters every year (14 of which must be IMAX or 3D).  So, Hollywood makes a strong effort to get their films accepted in China.  The India stuff was confusing though.  Until I saw the credits.  Planes was animated in India.  I wonder if they tried to use that to break into that huge market too.

Planes makes me cynical and no one wants cynicism from a kids' movie.  This movie had nothing to offer.  I saw it in a theater with children and they did not seem to respond to it at all.  I'm sure plenty of Disney airplane toys will be sold this Christmas, but is it because kids like it or were they brainwashed by a 90 minute marketing campaign?  

3 out of 10

2 Guns

I watched this movie for one reason: Denzel Washington.  He's an actor that owns the screen even when he's not really trying.  Mark Wahlberg is good too (sometimes great) but only occasionally. 

 

2 Guns isn't all that good of a movie.  In fact, much of it is teetering on boring.  It won't put you to sleep, but literally anything can steal your attention during most of the movie.  How did this happen?  Because the story and script are super bland, so the entire movie rests on the actors.

 

Washington and Wahlberg play themselves in 2 Guns.  To be more specific, they play caricatures of themselves.  If you looked at comedian impersonations of these two, they would be indistinguishable from the actual performances in the film.  The fact that Washington and Wahlberg are charismatic screen presences helps, but it's not enough to save this movie.  2 Guns is intensely ho-hum. 

 

2 Guns is based on a graphic novel.  It's about two criminals who plan to rob a New Mexico bank.  After they find way more money than they expected, they also discover that the other is an undercover agent.  Now that they know that they are both "loose cannon" good guys, they team up against the bad guys who want their money back.

 

One of the big problems with 2 Guns is that it wants to deconstruct action movie tropes.  But it also wallows in action movie clichés.  The final result is a movie that never fully commits to being a balls-out, awesome action flick and what action is provided is undermined by the script's self-mockery.  No one bothered to tell the writers that they can't have it both ways.

 

There are some fairly fun action sequences though.  Yet the best thing to watch is Bill Paxton.  He's the main bad guy and he tries so hard to be a cool, scary, iconic villain.  But no one realized in casting that Bill Paxton is not in the least bit intimidating.  It becomes kind of adorable to watch him torture people for information.  It's like watching a high school play wherein teenagers have to play adult characters.  Paxton is trying so hard, but it's never convincing.  It is, however, fun to watch.

 

I would say to wait until this is on cable, but 2 Guns is an R-rated movie that would be empty with its adult content removed.  I don't really recommend 2 Guns, but I don't un-recommend it.  The two leads play off each other extremely well and it has some good action (spoiler: there are more than two guns in the movie).  If you have the cash to rent it and absolutely nothing better to watch, I say go for it.

 

5 out of 10

Zeta One

I can't say enough good things about this supremely cheap, thoroughly trashy movie.  Zeta One (a.k.a. The Love Factor) is exactly the kind of weirdo movie I try to seek out.

The plot (I hesitate to use that word) concerns a collective of space women who aren't actually from space.  They brainwash Earth women into their group.  But they are all brainwashed Earth women... from space.  An agent is dispatched to get information from a woman who knows about this group and its leader, Zeta.  But the informant never shows up.  He finds that she's been kidnapped and is a member of Zeta's group.  He goes to save her, but her fellow "space women" save her first.  The end.

I yelled "what is going on?!" a lot during this movie.  And the answer turned out to be: nothing.  Nothing is going on.  The first 20 minutes of the movie is a man and a woman playing a game of strip poker.  Every hand and every bet is shown.  The zany music playing negates any sexiness that might creep into this scene.  Eventually, the man and woman end up in bed together.  The man is a secret agent and the woman convinces him to tell her about his most recent assignment.  The rest of the movie is a flashback with occasional stops wherein the woman questions the narrator's truthfulness.

And she should question it!  During the vast majority of the events he's describing, he's in bed with another woman waiting for his informant to arrive.  This actor is in bed with a naked blonde for over half of the run time.  His character couldn't know what was happening with almost any of the other characters.  

But don't look for logic in Zeta One.  This is a bizarre attempt to make a James Bond movie with actual nudity.  The problem is that the filmmakers where so busy trying to get the sci-fi/comedy parts right (they fail) plus shoehorn in enough nudity to sell tickets (they totally succeed), that the secret agent ends up not doing anything.  He literally has nothing to do with the events of the story.

I loved this movie.  I love how it blends psychedelia with London in the Swinging 60s.  The influence of Barbarella on this movie is huge (and that is a very good thing).  I love that the "space women" just point their hands at people and they die.  I'm sure somebody thought that was going to be awesome.  "They don't have guns; they shoot with their hands!"  The final result of that idea is hilarious.  Plus, the final payoff is so ridiculously badass that I rewound it twice.  Once because I couldn't wrap my head around it and once because I loved it so much.

This is super highly recommended for lovers of "so bad it's good" cinema.  It's inept and trashy and fun.  A must watch for camp movie viewers.

3 out of 10 (in terms of real quality, but 9 out of 10 for weirdo enjoyment!)

Frances Ha

Frances Ha may be the most engaging and refreshing film I have watched this year.  Any film from writer/director Noah Baumbach is instantly on my must-see list, but Frances Ha rivals (and possibly surpasses) his best works.

It's as if Baumbach and star/co-writer Great Gerwig foresaw the Swedish theaters that are rating films according to the Bechdel Test.  What is the Bechdel Test?  It's a checklist lifted from a feminist comic strip in the 1980s by Allison Bechdel.  In order for a film to pass the test, it must (1) have at least two named female characters (2) who talk to each other (3) about something other than a man.  Very few movies actually pass this test.  Frances Ha aces the hell out of these requirements and yet would not necessarily be considered a feminist movie. 

 

What Frances Ha is is a movie that stylistically borrows heavily from the best of American independent cinema and the French New Wave.  The influence of American indie films comes mostly from Noah Baumbach being, for the most part, an independent filmmaker.  And Frances Ha is definitely in his wheelhouse.  It feels, in a way, like a thematic sequel to his excellent Kicking and Screaming (not to be confused with Will Ferrell's terrible soccer movie).  Baumbach is a master at crafting intelligent characters who are lost and/or unsure of what to do.  In The Squid and the Whale, it's a brilliant young teen lost amidst his parents' divorce.  In Kicking and Screaming, it's a group of new college graduates who are unsure of what they're supposed to do with their lives. 

 

Frances Ha takes a look at a young woman who, as 30 draws nearer, still remains lost post-college.  The thing that makes Frances Ha so intriguing (and keeps it from being a retread of Kicking and Screaming) is that Frances' (Gerwig) friends are leading lives as working adults at various levels of success.  The dynamics of abandonment, envy, and unconscious superiority that come from people who all went through the same education system but came out so differently elevate this movie to something incredible.

 

Frances Ha also portrays something little seen in cinema: a strong female friendship.  The relationship between Frances and her best friend Sophie is almost bizarrely strong.  It's that awkward kind of friendship wherein everyone else feels like a third wheel (including boyfriends).  This intense camaraderie is predominately reserved for "bro-mances."  It's a nice change to see women get along in a movie (and they never fight over the same guy).  It makes the friction that enters their friendship due to changing life directions all the more heartbreaking.  But that friendship is the subject of my favorite line in the movie: "The coffee people are right.  We're like a lesbian couple who doesn't have sex anymore."

 

The script is phenomenal.  Every line is pregnant with meaning and insanely clever.  Plus, it's super funny.  So far, I've been talking about this movie in terms of "abandonment," "envy," "heartbreak," etc.  But Frances Ha is most definitely a comedy.  There's a film by Whit Stillman (like Baumbach, a director whose every film I anticipate) also starring Greta Gerwig called Damsels in Distress.  Frances Ha feels very much like a revisiting of Gerwig's character.  The snappy, clever dialogue is even similar in both films.  Needless to say, Frances Ha may not be a gut buster, but the humor is more satisfying than most comedies.

 

Finally, I mentioned the influence of the French New Wave.  It's all over this movie.  The black and white photography is taken straight from Francois Truffaut's The 400 Blows (the film even features music from that movie) or Jean-Luc Godard's Band of Outsiders (Frances' two male roommates are very reminiscent of the Godard's characters).  Although Frances Ha lacks the subversive or experimental edge of the New Wave directors, it's still great to see a film so reminiscent of those great films.

 

I'll be watching Frances Ha many more times.  It's a film that will probably rise in my esteem over the years.  If you're interested in seeing one of the best films of the year, this is a great way to spend 85 minutes.

 

9 out of 10  

Turbo

What if a snail gained the ability to go really fast?  That's a plot that seems a little too easy and kinda dumb, but it works for a kids' movie. 

 

Turbo keeps the problems of a standard DreamWorks animated film:

1) bland snark instead of actual humor

2) characters who just make loud noises and/or get hurt

3) blaring dated pop music to necessitate "funny" dancing 

and combine them with the emotionally manipulative clichés of sports movies.  Those clichés actually elevate Turbo to a film that is not just watchable but even occasionally enjoyable.

 

Turbo is about a snail named Theo (but call him "Turbo") who worships race car driving and dreams of being speedy.  Trouble is the other snails make fun of him and his brother discourages his fantasies.  Turbo runs away from home and after he is submerged in nitrous oxide, finds himself able to blaze around at speeds in excess of 200 mph (he also can tune in the radio, has an alarm system, and his eyes become headlights).  He teams up his a young taco stand employee (whose brother also discourages his dreams) and the two set off with a rag-tag crew of racing snails and people to enter Turbo in the Indy 500.  Once in Indianapolis, Turbo must battle his inner demons and some race cars.  But can a snail actually win the Indy 500?

 

There's a few things I liked about Turbo.  Despite the snark and sarcasm that plague DreamWorks animation, sometimes it was funny (chuckle funny not a full-on laugh).  This is probably due to Ryan Reynolds' delivery.  He's somewhat of a master of that kind of dialogue and it help keep Turbo from a being a groaner.  I really like the dynamic between the taco stand brothers, Tito and Angelo, but hated the dynamic between Turbo and his brother.  The difference is that Tito's dreams are largely selfless and vastly beyond his over-estimated skills.  Turbo's aspirations , however, only serve himself.  I also liked the look of the movie.  DreamWorks animated films tend to have a very generic look.  While the characters in Turbo still maintain that generic look, the rest of the movie is really of a much higher quality than I expected.

 

Keep an eye out for product placement.  It's not hard to spot.  The Verizon plugs are the most obvious, especially when a video of Turbo goes viral.  The Chevrolet plugs are also pretty blatant.  The only cars with emblems are Chevys and they're also actually Chevy models.  It makes the Chevys stand out since all the other cars are just generic animated cars.  Firestone also gets some good screen time too as well as Sunoco.  If you somehow miss the product placement in the rest of the picture, you'll notice it during the race.  The only cars with company sponsorship are the Verizon, Chevrolet, and Sunoco cars.  I don't hate product placement.  I actually got a kick out of how clumsily it was handled (except the race cars where it felt somewhat natural).

 

Turbo isn't a great movie, but it's not bad either.  Rent it for your children.  They'll like it and you won't spend the movie thinking back to the times before you had kids.  Plus you can have a long discussion about why Samuel L. Jackson's snail is black but Snoop Dogg's and Maya Rudolph's aren't.  In fact, no snail except Jackson's matches the actor skin tone.  Turbo can help introduce your children for the minefield that is racial issues.

 

5.5 out of 10

White House Down

Two "White-House-under-attack-and-only-one-man-can-stop-it" movies came out this year.  They were both the results of the "high concept" pitch of "Die Hard in the White House."  Of the two, White House Down comes the closest to nailing that concept.  The troubling thing is, despite feeling more like Die Hard, White House Down just isn't very good.  It suffers from several problems that seem to hamper the enjoyment of it.  Let me tell you what they are:

1) Channing Tatum.  Hollywood, stop giving this guy the lead role in movies!  He's just terrible.  White House Down is yet another example of how poor his acting is.  He spends a large amount of the screen time talking to himself in what is clearly adlibbed dialogue which is intended to be funny.  But Tatum is not funny (exhibit A: 21 Jump Street).  He's basically in movies because the ladies like it when he takes his shirt off.  Well, the shirt stays on the entire time in White House Down thus negating any reason why he should be in this film.

 

2) The pacing.  This movie is over two hours long and the White House doesn't go down until almost an hour in!  Once the mercenaries seize the White House, the action goes by so quickly and erratically that often times you can't even tell what happened.  Also, the movie feels over when there's still nearly an hour left.  That makes the remainder feel like a chore.

 

3) Padded action sequences.  It is obvious that the filmmakers had tons of "cool" ideas about how to destroy iconic White House things, but the natural flow of a well-told story would have resulted in many of those action sequences being cut.  Well, that won't stop a big budget Hollywood filmmaker!  The President is saved, then Tatum abandons the President to save his daughter, then the President is captured, so Tatum has to go save the President again, but now his daughter's in danger again, so he must leave the President to save his child, but that results in the President getting into trouble, etc., etc.  It's extremely tedious and no amount of explosions or landmark destruction can fix that.

 

4) It gets worse as it goes.  Some movies are quality (whether good or bad) from start to finish.  Some movies get better as the story progresses.  White House Down belongs to that special third category: the movie that gets worse and worse.  This is that tedium grinding all the enjoyment out of the film.  It's like having a sick grandparent.  They started out so full of life but with age they just keep falling apart and you're kinda relieved when the pain stops and it's finally over.

 

5) The end.  It's one thing to have a film wherein the happy ending is that one man beat the odds to rescue the President of the United States.  It's even OK to have that man repair his damaged relationship with his daughter.  It is asking a bit much for the nations of the world to be so impressed with the President's fortitude when under attack, that all the world governments call him up to declare world peace.   But that's not all, the President has also just finished shutting down the military-industrial complex.  And not just a shut down, the heads of the military-industrial complex are going to prison!  Instead of flying off in a helicopter at the end, they all should've just hopped on a passing herd of unicorns which would sprout wings and fly them to the land of kittens and lollipops.

 

6)  The script.  The dialogue in particular.  It hurts to listen to this nonsense, especially the one-liners.  It's worse than an Expendables movie.  Plus, the writer appears to either know nothing about the workings of Washington or not care.

 

7) The special effects.  For a movie that cost $150 million, the CGI looks ridiculously cheap.  Like direct-to-video cheap.  I laughed out loud at most of the action sequences.  I've seen better effects from broke teenagers on YouTube.

 

White House Down tries to be good, but it just fails completely.  A lot of this is due to a terrible script and the retched direction of Roland Emmerich (surprise, surprise).  If you didn't watch Olympus Has Fallen yet, watch that instead (it's streaming on Netflix!).  If you did watch Olympus Has Fallen, just watch it again.  White House Down is just not worth your time.

 

4 out of 5

Passion

Brian De Palma is a director who is responsible for some of cinema's greatest films.  The thing is, he hasn't directed a real masterpiece since The Untouchables back in 1987.  Since then, De Palma's films have been inconsistent (that's putting it nicely).  But I keep watching his new movies hoping that one of them will live up to the legacy De Palma built from 1973-1987.  While none of his films since 1988 have been on par with his earlier output, there are occasional blips of quality that keep me hanging on (Carlito's Way, Mission Impossible, and Femme Fatale).  I'm pleased to say that Passion is one of those blips.

Despite waiting eagerly for about a year to watch this movie, I had no idea until the opening credits that Passion is a remake.  Not only that, but an English-language remake of a French film from 2010.  I rarely watch English-language remakes without seeing the original first.  Turns out that the original film is streaming on Netflix (it's called Love Crime).  So if you'd like to see the original first, it's there for you.  I'll be watching it very soon.

This movie is about a pair of women, Christine and Isabelle, who work for an advertising firm.  They engage in back stabbing and one-upmanship all while juggling a shared homoeroticism and sleeping with the same man.  Eventually Isabelle has a nervous breakdown and is placed on medication.  She awakes one day to find herself in jail accused of Christine's murder.  All signs point to her, but can she prove her innocence?

Passion is Brian De Palma embracing the two things he is most known for: the erotic thriller and Hitchcock-ian style/themes.  Neither of these things reaches the level of his previous efforts.  The eroticism is fleeting and the Hitchcock-ian elements don't begin to manifest until the finale.  Regardless, the film is pretty good.  The tone of the film shifts abruptly multiple times.  De Palma films usually embrace various tones, but Passion doesn't juggle them very well.  The tonal shifts coupled with the break neck pacing (with minimal information given to the audience) gives the film the feel of being an over edited release of a three hour movie.  I hope there is a director's cut floating around.  Passion would benefit from a little breathing room.

The erotic thriller part is a bit over sold.  Knowing what I know about De Palma movies and based on the marketing, I thought I was going to watch a steamy lesbian murder mystery.  To be sure there's some very sexual elements to this movie, but don't watch it because you hope to see some hot girl-on-girl action.  And maybe that's for the best.  If Rachel McAdams and Noomi Rapace (two big Hollywood crushes of mine) actually got hot and heavy, my brain would probably short out.

The finale is the major draw of this movie.  The first hour is pretty clunky.  But once the murder mystery kicks in, Passion really takes off.  The Hitchcock and noir influences become intensely apparent (the film is also at that point a very Hitchcock-ian "wrongly accused" movie).  The score, which is really good the entire film, becomes a loud, driving force that almost feels lifted from some classic film noir.

It's nice to see a modern Brian De Palma movie that I like.  I don't think it will be a film that gains appreciation as the years pass (like Femme Fatale has), but it's a worthwhile way to spend 105 minutes whether you're a De Palma fan or a casual moviegoer.

6.5 out of 10

Grown Ups 2

Whenever I need to review a sequel for which I haven't seen the previous installment, I seek out and watch the earlier movie too.  As of a week ago, I had not seen Grown Ups.  I found a copy and watched it, then the next day watched Grown Ups 2.  As a result, I spent most of my free time on the phone with a suicide prevention hotline and almost didn't get this review written.

 

Both the Grown Ups movies are about a group of guys who are terrible human beings and grotesquely awful parents.  They never become better people nor do they become better parents.  They just try to relive their childhoods.  Eventually, their selfish, immature behavior is justified and the movie ends with these jerks feeling that they can be even more terrible in the future.

 

I can say that Grown Ups 2 is a better movie than Grown Ups.  I did not laugh once during the first movie, but I distinctly remember that I did chuckle once during the sequel.  I can't remember what I chuckled at, but it did happen.

 

The problem is that there are no jokes in these movies.  They are just a montage of "funny things."  And by "funny things," I mean bodily functions, people being hit in the balls, random "comedic" violence, and racism/homophobia.  It's appalling what they package as comedy, especially the hatred.  These movies base a lot of the "comedy" on making fun of people who are different.  The main characters are so awful to other people that the characters that are intended to be the villains come off as sympathetic.  Sandler and crew are just bullies all while complaining about being bullied.  Eventually, the bullies cave and tell Sandler and his friends how awesome they are.  Then Sandler and his friends make fun of the defeated bullies.  It's baffling.

 

Grown Ups 2 is a mean-spirited, laugh-less movie.  I cannot recommend enough that you DO NOT watch it.  But I know that my sage advice will go unheard.  Grown Ups 2 made even more money than the first, so Adam Sandler is planning to release another installment in 2015.  It's a strange feeling to know that I have less than two years to live...

 

2.5 out of 10

Monsters University

What happened to Pixar?  It seems as if the company peaked with Up (and what a peak that is!).  Since then, the quality has dwindled to a point where the little resemblance to the films that built Pixar.  I remember a time when A Bug's Life was the bottom of the barrel for Pixar.  Now that looks like a masterpiece! (It kinda is a masterpiece.  It's Seven Samurai with bugs and a strong moral lesson.) 

The beginning of the end came with the extreme success of Cars.  I'm going to put this out there: Cars is awful.  It's one of the better looking films from Pixar, but the story and characters are terrible.  But it made a boatload of money and Disney got greedy.  Then came the sequel mania: Cars 2, Monsters University, Planes (not technically Pixar but a Cars cash grab), and the forthcoming Finding Nemo sequel.  Stuck in there was the lackluster Brave.  It seems as if Pixar lost their heart and soul.

The thing about Pixar movies though is that, even at their worst, they're still better than most of the kids fare coming out.  Monsters University is no exception.  I love, love, love Monsters Inc.  While Up and Wall-E are my favorites from Pixar, Monsters Inc. gets rewatched the most.  The characters are infinitely enjoyable and the moral is so impressively important while still being understandable to a child.  Monsters University takes the same moral from A Bug's Life and makes it heavy-handed and clichéd.  It also takes the lovable main characters and makes them selfish jerks. 

The plot is about Mike and Sully's first year in college.  Their egos get them kicked out of the "scare program."  Despite hating each other, they must recruit a rag-tag group of monsters to win the annual Scare Games.  If they can pull it off, they'll be reinstated in the "scare program."  If not, they'll be expelled from Monsters University!  Can our heroes overcome their differences and win the day?

It's a pretty dull movie.  The look is bland.  The characters are lame.  The plot is overdone.

The worst aspect is how the filmmakers treat the film as if Monsters Inc. never happened or, at the very least, you never saw it.  It's especially bad with the "toxic children" aspect.  We know from the first movie that kids aren't actually toxic, but this movie uses that to create tension.  Since the audience knows that contact with children will not hurt our heroes, we don't have any suspense in any of those scenes.  We also know that Mike and Sully become best friends, so we get to spend the entire movie wondering when they'll stop being so mean to each other and start being enjoyable characters.

If Monsters University will occupy your kids and give you 100 minutes of peace, then I say rent it.  But don't watch it yourself.  It's boring.  There's better things you could be doing while your kids are distracted.

5 out of 10

R.I.P.D.

This may be the most derivative movie I've seen this year.  The film is based on a pretty cool comic book.  That comic is obviously inspired by many influences yet manages to feel fresh and original.  The film, however, just feels like a lesser version of other films.

The plot involves a young cop who is killed in the line of duty.  His spirit is brought to the Rest In Peace Department (RIPD), an organization of ghosts who hunt down fugitives from the afterlife.  He is offered the chance to bypass judgment in exchange for 100 years of service in the RIPD.  Upon accepting this offer, he is partnered with a cranky, old cowboy.  Together they save the world from supernatural shenanigans.

The "supernatural organization/fish-out-of-water-with-an-older-crotchety-partner" storyline is very similar to Men in Black.  Even the scenes where the RIPD is explained and ground rules established are so similar to Men in Black that it borders on plagiarism.  But RIPD does a terrible job of establishing things.  Several times in the movies, a character has to explain what's happening while it's happening!  Otherwise, you'd have to try to piece together theories based on minimal data.  Maybe this route would've been better.  Then there'd at least be people talking about the possible meanings of the events in the movie.  RIPD would've become like a David Lynch film.

The look and tone of the movie, however, is straight out of Hellboy.  The problem there is that RIPD lacks a distinct style.  Hellboy is elevated by director Guillermo Del Toro's keen eye for design and camerawork.  RIPD's director is Robert Schwentke whose films lack any sort of personal stamp.  He directed Flightplan, The Time Traveler's Wife (a very creepy film), and Red (a fun comic book movie with no distinct style).  None of these films share anything that would make a viewer say, "This is a Robert Schwentke movie."

The visual effects are terrible.  Everything is done via CGI.  But it's super crappy CGI.  The result is a movie that looks like Who Framed Roger Rabbit?.  It's really distracting and super ugly.

Ryan Reynolds is bland.  He seems like he's not even happy to be in this movie (I can't blame him).  Jeff Bridges, however, is completely unhinged.  RIPD is almost worth watching just for his weird, over the top performance.  The facial hair, the accent, the crazy eyes.  So many bizarre choices were made by this Academy Award winning actor.

Don't watch this movie.  Unless maybe you're sick at home in a year or two when it shows up on cable and you've got nothing else to watch.  Otherwise, just watch Men in Black or Hellboy. 

4 out of 10

Only God Forgives

If you're a fan of Ryan Gosling or Drive, this may not be the movie for you.

Only God Forgives is a film about a man (Julian) in Thailand whose brother is killed.  When his gangster mother arrives to claim the body, he is pushed to enact revenge for brother's demise.  Sound like a fun time?  It's not.  It's a great movie, but it is certainly not fun.

Ryan Gosling fans will be disappointed because he is very stoic in this movie.  Gosling has maybe ten lines of dialogue in the whole movie.  His expression is best described as blank stare.  And he looks that way through the entire movie.  And ladies, he keeps his shirt on the entire movie.  Plus, he gets beaten so badly that his face is covered in bruises (and his eye swollen shut) for a large chunk of the run time.  This isn't a Ryan Gosling movie.  It's a movie that just happens to have him in it.

If you are a fan of Drive but have not sought out (and enjoyed) director Nicolas Winding Refn's previous films, you may not be prepared for Only God Forgives.  The stylish cool of Drive is intact, but hyper-stylization is a trademark of Refn's.  What you may not know is that Refn's films are also disturbingly violent, weirdly sexual, and divisive.  Not only is Only God Forgives his slowest moving film, but it is also one of his most gross and unnerving.

Julian and his mother have a borderline (but maybe more) incestuous relationship.  Their interactions are bizarre.  Every action and word they exchange is loaded with awkward, sleazy sexuality and the camera really plays it up.

Now you might be the kind of person that has no problem with Oedipal relationships (to be fair, Kristin Scott Thomas looks really good), but what if I told you that Ryan Gosling plays a man whose hands/fists are analogues for his penis?  Yep.  And if you watch Nicolas Winding Refn movies, that is not even slightly weird.  Once you realize that that is the case, all the long, fetishized close-ups of Gosling's hands become kinda disturbing.  When you dissect the motives for his fights (to impress his mom, feelings of inadequacy, etc.), the violence takes on a crazy edge.

The standout performances are by Kristin Scott Thomas and Vithaya Pansringarm.  Thomas' deranged, gangster mother is amazing to watch.  She's manipulative and broken and heartless.  She is given clunky and offensive dialogue and makes it sound completely natural.  Vithaya Pansringarm plays the cop whom Julian is supposed to kill.  He lives by a very strange and cold code of justice.  The result is usually torture and/or dismemberment for those who wrong him.  Then he sings karaoke.

There's plenty of other disturbing weirdness going on in Only God Forgives.  This is the exactly the kind of gruesome art house film that I cannot get enough of.  But it is not for everyone.  Most movies require the viewer to meet them halfway.  Only God Forgives will not meet you at all.  You must accept the film for what it is.  I personally loved it and look forward to hearing people complain about having watched it.

7.5 out of 10

The Conjuring

I have already written a letter to Warner Bros. requesting that they replace the pants I pooped as a result of watching The Conjuring.  This is one of the best straight horror films to come out in a long while.  And it's all thanks to director James Wan.

Wan seems to understand what makes horror scary.  It's all atmosphere.  He creates creepy worlds with horrible things in the shadows and sound design and score designed to put your nerves on edge.  All of his horror movies are sterling examples of the best of contemporary horror.  And despite kickstarting the Saw franchise, his films are fairly light on gore effects (watch the first Saw, the gruesomeness is all in your head).  He knows that blood sprays and dismemberments are to be used conservatively in order to make that violence have greater impact.

The Conjuring is "based on the true case files of the Warrens."  Basically, it is true that the Warrens had case files.  The plot is so far from the actual events (factuality of the "actual events" is up for debate too) that this could've been advertised as an original concept instead.  But what is the plot?  The story involves a family that moves into a farmhouse and begins to suffer from increasingly scary and belligerent supernatural activity.  They finally call in Ed and Lorraine Warren to investigate.  The Warrens were actual people who claimed to be "demonologists."  They had no formal training or education and Lorraine's job consisted of being a clairvoyant and medium.  Basically, they were bonkers.  But the movie makes them look awesome (personality-wise and physically).

Despite the dubious nature of the "true story" aspect (do people still assume that films are even remotely accurate portrayals of real world events?), this is an incredible film.  The Conjuring is a creepy movie.  The world it presents us is full of shadows and unnatural noises and places where ghouls could be lying in wait.  All of this serves to place the audience on edge.  If there was not a single jump scare in the entire film, you'd still be frightened and anxious.  Luckily, The Conjuring has some of the best jump scares I've ever seen.  The tone and atmosphere are so unnerving that you'll jump at the slightest provocation.

The actors are pretty good.  No one stands out either way.  But you're not watching The Conjuring for the acting.

I'm sad to see that James Wan is leaving horror behind for awhile to helm Fast and Furious 7.  But until he returns to scare the daylights out of us all, we'll have The Conjuring, Dead Silence, Saw (just the first one not the retched sequels), and Insidious.  Thank you, Mr. Wan. 

8 out of 10

The Internship

If Scary Movie 5 hadn't come out this year, The Internship would be the worst movie I've seen all year. 

Usually, I would compile a list of wrongs about this movie and spend paragraph after paragraphs dissecting how terrible it was.  I can't do that with The Internship.  The movie already brought me 2 hours closer to my death (that's right, it's 2 hours long!!!!), so I won't waste the remainder of my existence devoting a long diatribe to it.

In short, it is horribly unfunny.  There are almost no laughs in this entire film (which is 2 hours long!!!!).  You are being duped by the vague promise of the hilarity of The Wedding Crashers into paying to watch a 2 hour long (2 hours!!!!) Google ad.  Don't do it.  Don't make the same mistake I did.

Every scene is just people rambling for about 5 minutes longer than the scene should be.  Nothing about the plot or character motivations makes any kind of sense.  Even worse, this movie is so bad that I couldn't even enjoy the presence of Rose Byrne! 

The plot is essentially The Bad News Bears but with Google.  But it's like someone ate a worn out VHS of The Bad News Bears, shit it out, respooled it, and made me watch it.  It was so relentlessly terrible that I started hemorrhaging and was briefly hospitalized.

This movie should be changed from The Internship to The Internment Camp.  That's what it felt like.  I was a prisoner of this movie (for 2 hours!!!!).  Anything else you could possibly spend your time and money on, spend it on that. 

2 out of 10

Before Midnight

This is the third film in a trilogy.  If you didn't see the previous installments, Before Sunrise and Before Sunset, you should really do yourself a favor and buy/rent/borrow them.  But don't feel like you can't watch Before Midnight because you missed out on the first two movies.  Those who have seen the first movies will probably have a larger connection to the characters, but the film is structured in such a way as to make even the uninitiated emotionally invested in the lives of these characters.

So what is Before Midnight?  The series follows the lives of an American man, Jesse, and a French woman, Celine.  During the first film, they meet and wander Vienna for one night falling in love knowing that they'll probably never see each other again.  In the second film, they meet again and spend a day rekindling the flame during one day in Paris.  But what if they had ended up together, instead of just having a few romantic hours every few years?  Before Midnight answers that question.  Jesse and Celine are parents to twins and are coping with aging and maintaining romance in a prolonged relationship.  They are in Greece this time and, like the other films, spend much of the runtime walking, talking, or walking and talking.  And it's captivating!

Writer/director Richard Linklater has many incredible films.  Slacker and Dazed & Confused are classics.  Bernie, Waking Life, and A Scanner Darkly are underseen masterworks.  Even School of Rock is one of the great children's movies of the 2000s.  But for my money, Linklater's Before trilogy is his crowning achievement.

The success of this series is only partially Linklater's.  He directs the hell out of this movie.  He engages in long, loving shots of Jesse and Celine.  His camera lingers on them as they pass through Greek ruins or drive through the countryside.  These intensely long takes are juxtaposed with fleeting images of casual, everyday beauty.  Before Midnight is a strong contender in my book for Best Director and Christos Voudouris' cinematography is among the best this year. 

But the real magic of these films lies in the natural and easy chemistry between stars Julie Delpy and Ethan Hawke.  And that chemistry is better than ever in Before Midnight.  These are my favorite performances in the series.  The extra baggage that marriage and parenthood bring to the characters results in more nuanced performances. 

The bickering, veiled resentment, and explosive arguments of the married Jesse and Celine stand in stark contrast to the sweet romanticism of the first two movies.  That's not to say that Before Midnight is the portrait of an unhappy couple.  It's just the portrait of the highs and lows of a couple.  There are plenty of films that tackle only the lows (Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolff?, Revolutionary Road, and Blue Valentine) but this movie is more even-handed.  Jesse and Celine are a loving couple and that's why the fights hurt so much.  At least in Revolutionary Road, the couple hate each and are terrible people.  Watching love fade is hard and that makes us root for their reconciliation all the more.

Before Midnight is one of the best films I've seen this year.  It's sure to be on my Top 10 for 2013.  It's a nearly perfect film.  Interestingly, each of the films in the Before trilogy are spaced 9 years apart.  I can only hope that 2022 sees the release of another installment in the lives of Jesse and Celine.

9 out of 10