Last Vegas

Last Vegas is an incredibly mean-spirited movie.  I'm not even sure who the market is for this movie.  I'm not kidding.  Who was this movie for?  People definitely went to it.  Last Vegas made back four times its budget!  But I cannot understand which demographic would want to see this movie.  Is it elderly moviegoers?  Maybe.  They could've been enticed by a movie about retirees and just ignored how derisive the trailer is toward people over 60.  Is it for 18-35 year olds?  Maybe.  They could've been enticed by the Hangover-esque bachelor-party-in-Vegas scenario and just ignored the lack of jokes or partying in the trailer.

Last Vegas is a movie about four guys whose age is never stated (they are just indiscriminately old), but they've been friends since childhood.  When Billy (Michael Douglas) announces his engagement to his 30-year old girlfriend, Sam (Kevin Kline) and Archie (Morgan Freeman) round up the grumpy Paddy (Robert De Niro) and set off for Las Vegas to throw Billy a bachelor party.  They meet an indiscriminately old lounge singer named Diana (Mary Steenburgen) who shows them around Vegas and teaches Billy to not have relationships with hot, young women.

There are lots of Viagra "jokes."  Kevin Kline talks about balls a lot.  There several scenes where characters fake infirmity but are really quite spry! (Unless the joke requires the character to actually be infirm.)  Last Vegas is relentlessly unfunny.  That's the worst.  Dramatic failure can be unintentionally funny, but comedic failure is brutally miserable.

I learned a couple of things from this movie about being old.  Number 1: It's horrible to be old.  There is nothing good about it.  People of retirement age have stopped living and are merely awaiting death.  Number 2: If you are going to marry a hot, young girl, that is terrible.  You should marry a woman closer to your own age.  But if you are married to a woman your own age, you should try to sleep with hot, young girls.  I'm not sure if these lessons should be applied to real life, but they were definitely messages sent by the movie.

I guess my big issue is that the comedy isn't jokes about being old.  The comedy is just making fun of old people.  And there's big difference there.  The difference is especially highlighted because there are a few "jokes about being old" in the movie too.  It creates a contrast which makes the parts where they make fun of the elderly all that more shocking.  This movie never lets you forget that old people are gross and dumb and weak.

How does a movie like this happen?  It's all in the script.  That's were jokes in movies come from.  No writer in their 50s or 60s would ever write this.  It would be offensive to them.  Last Vegas could only come from a relatively young person.  And it did.  It is written by Dan Fogelman who is best known for writing children's movies.  Last Vegas has the broad, ugly humor of a modern kid's movie.  Fogelman ought to be ashamed of himself.

But apparently five Oscar winning actors were so hungry for a paycheck and/or attention that they took part in maligning people who're the same age as them (and humiliating themselves in the process).  Michael Douglas (aged 69 with 2 Oscars) comes off as a "dirty old man" and an over-tanned clown.  Morgan Freeman (aged 76 with 5 Oscar nominations and 1 win) comes off as barely alive.  Robert De Niro (aged 70 with 7 Oscar nominations and 2 wins) is portrayed as a grouch and perpetually stuck in the past.  Kevin Kline (aged 66 with 1 Oscar) is unable to function in the modern society and is stymied by any technology produced after the Kennedy assassination.  Mary Steenburgen (aged 60 with 1 Oscar) fairs pretty well but is basically just being used to look good for her age.  To be fair though, as Hollywood actors, they all look good.

I can't recommend you watch something else enough.  Last Vegas is not a good movie.  The film does try to squeeze in a little sweetness in the end, but none of that sweetness concerns the good side of being old.  It's just some trite nonsense about friendship.  If you want to watch something funny about a group of geriatric friends, then go rent a couple seasons of The Golden Girls.  Those gals are awesome!

3.5 out of 10

Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa

I love Jackass.  I just want to put that out there.  I think that not just the movies but also the TV show are brilliantly anarchic.  I am someone who is predisposed to like this cinematic spinoff, Bad Grandpa.  What I'm getting at is that if you're not a big fan of all things Jackass, then you should probably stay away from this movie. 

Bad Grandpa is the first Jackass movie with a plot.  It's not much of a plot, but it does have one.  Basically, Irving Zisman (Johnny Knoxville is his old man makeup from the TV show) is tasked with taking his 8 year-old grandson, Billy, to stay with his father while Billy's mom is in prison.  This requires a road trip and the pair get into trouble along the way in the form of Jackass pranks.

Despite my affinity for Jackass, this movie didn't really win me over.  The big problem is the presence of a plot.  The previous films established that audiences did not require a story to link the shenanigans together.  When the scenes come up in Bad Grandpa that are supposed to progress the story, all they do is bring the movie to a complete stop.  One of the great things about the films is the relentless, manic energy.  In Bad Granpda, that energy is broken up after every stunt/prank set piece.  Not every Jackass stunt/prank is funny, but the movies have a momentum that carries you through them.  You're laughing and/or disgusted the entire time.  Bad Grandpa lacks that momentum and the lesser pranks become a chore to sit through.

Johnny Knoxville is great.  He's been doing this character for a long time and he's mastered it.  Jackson Nicoll plays Billy and he's fantastic.  Jackass has always been good at finding smart ass kids with a quick wit.

There's some super funny parts.  There's some parts that don't really work.  But on the whole, I would tell any Jackass fans to watch it.  Bonus reason to watch Bad Grandpa: It's nominated for an Academy Award for Best Makeup!  It has the same amount of nominations as Prisoners and Before Midnight. 

5 out of 10

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2

There are few sequels that turn out better than the original.  Cloudy with a Chance of Meatball 2 is one of those sequels.

CwaCoM2 picks up right where the first one left off.  The CEO of Live Corp, Chester V., comes to Swallow Falls in order to clean up the leftovers from the island.  The entire populace is relocated for the duration of the cleanup.  After Flint gets a job at Live Corp, he is approached by Chester (his childhood hero).  Turns out that the FLDSMDFR is still creating food.  And not just any food.  It's creating living food!  Chester convinces Flint to go back to Swallow Falls and stop the machine.  Even with the help of his friends, can Flint save Swallow Falls without being eaten by living food?

I really liked the first movie.  The characters were fun and the story was good (despite its deviation from the book).  But with CwaCoM2, we get to skip all the parts where we meet the characters and learn about them.  We already know them and get to dive straight into a super fun adventure with them.  Plus we get a couple great new characters like Chester's orangutan with a human brain, Barb (flawlessly voiced by Kristen Schaal) and Barry.

The design and look of CwaCoM2 is way better than in the first movie.  The food animals are fantastic and really clever.  I really liked the way that the food is practically photo realistic, yet the characters are extremely cartoony.

I thought CwaCoM2 was really funny in very kid-friendly way (which means lots of chuckles for adults).  There's some in-jokes that grown-ups will get but for the most part, this is not a movie striving to provide something for the parents in order to make sitting through it less painful.  CwaCoM2 is a well made movie made solely for kids.

I do have two issues with the movie, however.  First, the lack of rat-birds.  The best part of the original gets almost no screen time in the sequel?  Second, the villain.  This isn't really a spoiler, because the character is pretty openly sinister, but just to be safe for the spoiler-sensitive: SPOILER AHEAD!  Chester is the villain.  And I am sick and tired of kid's movies having the main character's childhood hero be the villain.  I hate this!  We are showing kids that they can't trust their role models.  Every studio should watch the Chuck Norris/Jonathan Brandis masterpiece Sidekicks.  That's how role models should be handled.  Your heroes should be there to help you not try to kill you.

This is a great movie for the kids.  Even an adult can get caught up in the crazy fun of it.  Just be sure to remind your kids that food rots if you leave it out.  These movies seem to forget that.

6.5 out of 10

Rush

Rush is Ron Howard's best film in nearly a decade.  It may even be one of his best films (despite having an extremely uneven filmography, that's still saying something).

This is the "true story" of James Hunt and Niki Lauda, two Formula One racers that held an intense rivalry during the 1970s.  Most of the movie focuses on the races during 1976, but there is plenty of time devoted to their rise through the lower Formula Three.  Basically, they are both assholes (and they say as much to each other several times).  Hunt is a womanizer with plenty of charisma to make up for his devil-may-care attitude.  Lauda is so dedicated and clinical that he is not well liked, but he has so much talent that his skill supersedes his cold exterior.

This is a pretty great movie.  I think that it could've faired better from focusing on one man or the other.  In a perfect world, we'd have seen two films about the same events from each man's experience.  It just feels as if the movie is a bit rushed (*rimshot*).  Not enough time is given to what made these men who they are.  They talk about it a little, but good storytelling is showing not telling.

That's not to say the film is lacking character development.  The rivalry is established and the men grow in respect for each other.  They each have a pretty decent arc.

It's the performances that fuel this film.  This is especially true with Daniel Brühl as Lauda.  He's kind of incredible.  He plays Lauda as a man who cares about nothing but winning.  He's there to race not to be liked.  Yet, you can always see that he does want to be liked.  He wants to be accepted.  Chris Hemsworth plays Hunt by doing what he does best: being super charming.  But he also wants to be like Lauda.  He craves that control that Lauda has.  Bonus for the ladies: Lots of Hemsworth's nude butt in this movie.

Ron Howard is good with actors.  Regardless of the movie, he gets people to act well (although even he can't get a decent English accent out of Olivia Wilde).  But this is a rare time when his film has some visual style.  It's very kinetic.  The races are shot extremely well with plenty of wide shots to establish the drivers' positions on the track as well as shots so close up that the camera is inside the helmet.  Rush is at the very least an exciting movie.

I really got a kick out of this movie.  What could've been a soft PG-13 snore-fest turned out to be an R-rated, ass-kicking race car movie.  I doubt that it'll convert any Americans to Formula One fans (you should watch some though), but it is like an island in the sea of Nascar movies.  If you need a break from the perpetual left turn of Nascar, check out Rush (or Grand Prix or Fast Company or Le Mans).

7.5 out of 10

In A World...

This movie has almost everything I like.  It's about the world of movies.  It's funny.  It's a really sweet romance.  It represents a strong female voice.  All it needs are dinosaurs and it'd be perfect.

In A World... is about voice-over actors.  These are the men who provide the soothing baritones that sell us products and entice us to watch movies.  One of these men has a daughter, Carol, who is looking to break into the business too.  Sexism, family troubles, and relationships will all get in the way of Carol securing her place in the world of voice-over.

This film marks the directorial debut of Lake Bell (who wrote it and is the star).  She has crafted a marvelous little movie.  How often do we get to see a feminist comedy?  And In A World... is definitely feminist.  Somehow, Bell manages to make this an explicit element of the film without ever resorting to preaching.

There's not a single false note struck in the movie.  As I've said before, I just want sincerity from my movies especially the romances.  In A World... is brimming with that sincerity.  Is it cliché at times?  Sure, it is.  It's a rom-com.  But the film always earns its emotional beats.  There's also plenty of moments where the conventions of the romantic comedy are subverted in completely dorky and relatable ways. 

I loved this movie.  In A World... would make a killer date movie.  Fellas, listen closely.  Rent this movie and watch with your lady (single people are encouraged to watch it too).  When it's over, light some candles and cook up sandwich bar.  Trust me.

8 out of 10

Machete Kills

I often talk about how I support films by people who aren't white men.  I like that I've been seeing more movies made by women lately.  I love that a couple of 2013's better movies were made by black filmmakers.  So, I was very excited for a movie made by a Mexican-American filmmaker about kick ass Mexicans.  After watching Machete and Machete Kills, I must say to the Mexican community, I'm so very sorry.  You deserve better.

Whereas films by minority filmmakers tend to try to dispel stereotypes (especially when the subject is their own group), director Robert Rodriguez has chosen to make a movie that reinforces every negative stereotype about Mexicans you can come up with.  If these movies had been made by the Texas rednecks who serve as the films' bad guys, you'd probably end up with a more enlightened portrayal of Mexico and immigrants than what actually ended up in theaters.

In Machete Kills (which is a far worse movie than the already abysmal Machete), Machete must stop a nuclear missile from being fired from Mexico into Washington D.C.  I'll stop there, because other than that sentence, the plot makes no sense.

Danny Trejo is awesome.  He should be given a heroic lead role.  He's got an iconic look and the man is a for real badass.  If you want to see just how awesome he is, go watch the documentary Champion.  He's incredible.  What he's doing here is not awesome.  He's the butt of a joke.

The whole movie is a joke and not in a good way.  Rodriguez claims that the Machete films are throwbacks to exploitation films.  If that's his intent, then he has failed.  Exploitation films may have had some wacky elements, but they were limited.  And that wackiness was endearing because the filmmakers were sincere.  Machete Kills is not sincere.  Exploitation films were limited in budget and distribution which forced them to exploit whatever elements they had available be it a car or a monster or a naked lady.  Machete Kills is not exploiting any elements to compensate for its production value.  The film revels in its awful production value. So is Rodriguez making fun of exploitation films? Maybe.  But if that's the case, then he's really bad at it.  If you need to see how to mock exploitation cinema, go watch Black Dynamite.  If Machete Kills is exploitation, then it is only exploiting Mexicans.

Run from this movie.  It's dreadful.  It is riddled with horrible computer effects that make the SyFy channel look like Avatar.  The only thing I liked about it was the casting of Chilean action star Marko Zaror.  That guy is incredible.  Go watch some of his films instead.  They're way better than the garbage you'll have to endure with Machete Kills.  When they promise a third installment before the movie starts, it just seems like a bad omen for the movie you're about to watch.  When they promise it again at the end too, it seems like a threat.

2 out of 10

Blue Jasmine

Blue Jasmine marks the best performance of 2013 that I've seen (and admittedly, I've missed quite a bit).

This is a movie about a woman, Jasmine, whose husband's wealth was amassed by him engaging in illegal finance.  After he is arrested, Jasmine finds herself broke and is forced to move in with her sister.  The stress of her fall from grace starts to take a rather serious toll on her.

Woody Allen usually makes really good, if not masterful, movies.  This is one of the masterful ones.  Blue Jasmine is not a comedy.  Sure, there are some funny bits.  But don't let the presence of Louis C.K. and Andrew Dice Clay fool you.  Not a comedy.  It's more of a psychological melodrama. 

Cate Blanchett is the movie.  Without her incredible performance, there is no Blue Jasmine.  A viewer would never believe the story.  Her facial tics, her arrogance, her despair.  It is all there.  Blanchett goes through physical transformations in the film and it's all just her face.  No makeup.  No CGI.  She just transforms.  It's like watching John Barrymore in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (hopefully someone reading this knows what I'm talking about).

The rest of the cast is stellar too.  Obviously, Sally Hawkins is amazing (obvious because she and Blanchett are Oscar nominees for this movie) as Jasmine's sister, Ginger.  She has her own pride despite feeling inadequate next to the wealth that Jasmine has.  Whereas the role of Jasmine is a woman who falls, Ginger goes through many ups and downs.  Hawkins plays as a woman constantly torn between two forces: her sister and her boyfriend, her boyfriend and her lover, or her current life and the life she covets.  She's the human element of the movie.

It's not a flashy movie, although it is well filmed.  Allen lets the actors (and his Oscar nominated script) carry the film.  He's a smart filmmaker and he knows that that's all the movie needs.  There's no need to gild the lily.  Blue Jasmine is not to be missed.  A real "must see" movie.

9 out of 10