Bad Teacher
Bad teacher? Yep. Cameron Diaz's Elizabeth Halsey is indeed a bad teacher. (And Diaz is a bad actress so I guess this fits.) Bad movie? Oh yeah. Terrible. There were a few sequences and one-liners that managed to induce a few chuckles. Barely. But beyond that, and Jason Segel's pointless effort to class up the joint a bit (with his acting, that is... the script left no room for class...which I guess is to be expected) the movie had virtually nothing really going for it. Ten, fifteen years ago? This might have been hilarious. But the fact is, this movie's been done before. Maybe not the exact details of the script, but the basic premise. Diaz's Halsey is a materialistic bitch who is only working as a teacher until she can find a rich husband to take care of her. She thinks she finds him in Justin Timberlake's shallow weirdo Scott Delacorte- the school's new substitute teacher...who comes from a moneyed background. Of course there's also Segel's gym teacher with a heart of... silver?, Russell Gettis, who has the hots for Halsey, but not the cash. Add in Lucy Punch's weirdo zealot teacher to compete with Halsey for Delacorte, and the associated complications that ensue from that and you have the basic plot. Add some tired, raunchy jokes - much too much emphasis on, "Yeah, we went there" type humor- and you have the movie in a nutshell. You excited to see it? Probably not. I sure wasn't excited to HAVE seen it by the time I got through.
I could spend the next three minutes going on and on about why the movie sucked and how offensive it was to certain people... namely teachers. But then I realized that I'm just taking it all too seriously. Yes, Halsey does some shitty stuff in the movie and yeah, she largely gets away with it. Should I have a problem with that? Ehhh.... maybe, but then if I did I'd probably be taking the damn thing too seriously. Should I have a problem with how they depict teachers in the movie? (The only pseudo-normal one is Segel's Gettis.. everyone else is neurotic... at best). Probably should just let that slide.. chock it up to close-minded filmmakers (Director Jake Kasden and company). What I suppose bothers me more is how lazy it all is. They reduce every character- with the exception of Segel's Russell Gettis- to a very broad caricatures. Annoyingly broad caricatures. One note to the extreme. But, the thing is, with a little effort, they could have injected some depth to the characters. Even a little would have made the movie seem less tired... and maybe even less dated. Kasden and crew make Halsey out to be such a megabitch that no one really should care or root for her inevitable final act moment of clarity/change of heart. By the end, everyone had proven to be such horrid or annoying people that I was kind of rooting for the way out of left field ending of a sink hole swallowing the entire school on a teacher workshop day. Use some creativity people! Everyone could see where the movie was going. Nothing new was offered and to make matters worse the characters were so awful that no one really cared how the thing got to its inevitable end.
So, it has that going for it. Look, I'm not saying it was the worst movie I've seen this year. It was pretty terrible, but I fully expect Michael Bay to unveil another genuine piece of shit in Transformers 3. I guess what is so bothersome about it is that the filmmakers just didn't seem to try. Mean for mean's sake? Yeah, occasionally funny- not often- but it's been done so. many. times. before. Raunch? Been there done that. One note to the extreme characters/collection of nutty characters? Old news. There just wasn't much effort. The movie had talent. Justin Timberlake is one hell of an entertainer (his role here called for too much.. ummm.. overacting, and he delivered there). Jason Segel is cash money. Lucy Punch probably has had better days or is at least capable of having better days. Cameron Diaz? Eh, she has her appeal, I suppose. (It looked like her sincere scenes here caused her immense pain...I don't mean the pain caused by her character's revelation that she's just a horrible person... it seemed like anything outside of sugary sweet or super bitch caused her pain... that's just not good acting.) So I suppose the seeds were there to have a passable/somewhat entertaining flick. I would say that it was a swing and a miss of a movie. The problem there is that they would have to swing... and that takes more effort than any of the creative team seemed to afford the movie. No, this movie struck out looking... never even trying to take its bat off its shoulder.
Grade: D
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Movie List 2011: 29.) Green Lantern
Green Lantern
Let me just cut to the chase here. Green Lantern was just flat out bad. My favorite cliche to bludgeon my staff at work with is: "you win some, you lose some and right now we're [depending on the circumstance] winning/losing". Green Lantern lost. It was boring. I'm pretty sure a 13-year old with absolutely NO imagination came up with the plot. It looked AWFUL... awful. It was hard to believe how awful it looked. Granted, I saw it in 3D which meant I was saddled with three dimensions of crap; it seemed to magnify how cheesy the special effects looked. (3D is a tired money-grabbing gimmick anyway. The only movie I've ever seen that was enhanced by 3D was Avatar. For anything else it has come off as pointless, hokey, and in far too many instances headache-inducing). Back to taking the proverbial 2x4 to Green Lantern....
The tone of the movie was way, way off. The thing that made Thor so much fun was that the filmmakers didn't take the film too seriously. Martin Campbell should have stolen a page from Sir Kenneth Branagh and company for his Lantern movie. (Wait has Kenneth Branagh been knighted? Actually I think he turned it down... anyway, still, we'll stick with it for now). The movie came off as overly moralistic and preachy and far too often it played out like an after school special or PSA supporting self confidence and the virtues of "good". Yuck. No thanks.
You know what? Let me bounce back to that plot. I typically try hard not to give away much but I'd like to highlight a few of the more rudimentary points in the story. The movie opens by giving the audience a quick overview of the whole Green Lantern universe. The power of will versus the power of fear. Ok, sure, back story could be helpful. Then it sets up the introduction of this story's villain by detailing how one of the most noble Lantern-bearers (there are actually a shitload of Green Lanterns in the universe...Ryan Reynolds' Hal Jordan is just one) beat this evil being down and trapped him on some forbidden planet. He did a horrible job apparently because the thing escapes with less difficulty than it takes me to get out of a button-down shirt. And while I may not be good at much, I can take button-down shirts off like a damn champ. Anyway. So the bad...creature escapes and the shit hits the fan. All of the sudden- it would seem- this thing is unbeatable. All the supposed fearless Lanterns don't want to have anything to do with it. Well... I suppose I shouldn't say too much more... orrrrrr.... (SPOILER ALERT: even though some of the best Lanterns get killed by this thing, and the current best Lantern -who took over when the Lantern that originally trapped the thing was killed by it- want nothing to do with it- to the point where in very un-Lantern-like fashion they are willing to sacrifice Earth while they learn to harness the forbidden power of fear which they are certain will do the bastard in... yeah despite all that Reynolds' Hal Jordan- who by all accounts in the movie is a piece of garbage Green Lantern- [until, that is, he finds that "something" in him that the Lantern ring saw in him...but still nobility will only take you so far, if you can't kick ass- which Jordan most assuredly can't- you wouldn't stand a chance in hell against this fear sucking son of a bitch] decides he will take on the thing alone... which he does... and wins... in one of the most ridiculously anticlimactic fight scenes ever. Nice work guys, that sucked.) Sorry for all the spoilers. I mean, I guess I should say, sorry for anyone who managed to follow that convoluted rant and thus realize the spoilers. Good luck with that. But anyway. Added to that messy beginning is a pretty obviously superfluous bad guy type- Peter Sarsgaard's Hector Hammond- who only serves to underline some of the mushier parts of the moralistic back story. Again, no, thank you. Actually, it's kind of a shame that Hector Hammond was such a useless character. Sarsgaard has always been money in the bank, particularly when he plays complicated or creepy dudes. Hammond is the latter and Sarsgaard brings him to life in a way that few people could.
Actually, the movie's cast was pretty solid. Reynolds plays Hal Jordan as a paradoxically arrogant and insecure fighter pilot/sex machine. Blake Lively proved to be more than up to the task of playing the sultry Carol Ferris. Well, I don't know if she was originally sultry or not, but it's clear that Campbell went to Lively and told her, "Be sultry. Period. I don't want anything else." So she did. And did well. The problem is that she also kind of hinted she do more than that. She could add nuance. For that, I assume she will be cut from the inevitable sequel (which despite all this venom, I will go see... because I'm a glutton for punishment). Tim Robbins brings his considerable acting chops to the table as does Mark Strong who- in the biggest upset/surprise in movies this year- does NOT play the villain... yet anyway. His character's name is Sinestro. Sinestro. I think we all see where this is heading. And they conveniently/irritatingly leave a huge plot point involving him completely wide open... to the point where you kind of think they were just sloppy and forgot about it...except that it is SO glaring that you realize their ignoring it is just their idea of a clever way to set up the inevitable sequel.
Anyway, you get the idea, I imagine. It just didn't work. The story, the effects (anyone who wasn't a human looked stupid. Just plain dumb.), the pacing (the story stalled on boring/preachy elements of the movie and glossed right over the action sequences), the tone. None of it worked. The only saving grace of the movie is that the filmmakers somehow landed pretty considerable talent who- despite what must have been their better instincts- gave it their all and delivered decent performances. Too bad the Campbell and company dialed up such a crappy arena for the performances. Let me put it this way, they did the best they could with a 13 year old's handwritten script. And you know what that amounts to in the end? Not a whole lot.
Grade: D
Let me just cut to the chase here. Green Lantern was just flat out bad. My favorite cliche to bludgeon my staff at work with is: "you win some, you lose some and right now we're [depending on the circumstance] winning/losing". Green Lantern lost. It was boring. I'm pretty sure a 13-year old with absolutely NO imagination came up with the plot. It looked AWFUL... awful. It was hard to believe how awful it looked. Granted, I saw it in 3D which meant I was saddled with three dimensions of crap; it seemed to magnify how cheesy the special effects looked. (3D is a tired money-grabbing gimmick anyway. The only movie I've ever seen that was enhanced by 3D was Avatar. For anything else it has come off as pointless, hokey, and in far too many instances headache-inducing). Back to taking the proverbial 2x4 to Green Lantern....
The tone of the movie was way, way off. The thing that made Thor so much fun was that the filmmakers didn't take the film too seriously. Martin Campbell should have stolen a page from Sir Kenneth Branagh and company for his Lantern movie. (Wait has Kenneth Branagh been knighted? Actually I think he turned it down... anyway, still, we'll stick with it for now). The movie came off as overly moralistic and preachy and far too often it played out like an after school special or PSA supporting self confidence and the virtues of "good". Yuck. No thanks.
You know what? Let me bounce back to that plot. I typically try hard not to give away much but I'd like to highlight a few of the more rudimentary points in the story. The movie opens by giving the audience a quick overview of the whole Green Lantern universe. The power of will versus the power of fear. Ok, sure, back story could be helpful. Then it sets up the introduction of this story's villain by detailing how one of the most noble Lantern-bearers (there are actually a shitload of Green Lanterns in the universe...Ryan Reynolds' Hal Jordan is just one) beat this evil being down and trapped him on some forbidden planet. He did a horrible job apparently because the thing escapes with less difficulty than it takes me to get out of a button-down shirt. And while I may not be good at much, I can take button-down shirts off like a damn champ. Anyway. So the bad...creature escapes and the shit hits the fan. All of the sudden- it would seem- this thing is unbeatable. All the supposed fearless Lanterns don't want to have anything to do with it. Well... I suppose I shouldn't say too much more... orrrrrr.... (SPOILER ALERT: even though some of the best Lanterns get killed by this thing, and the current best Lantern -who took over when the Lantern that originally trapped the thing was killed by it- want nothing to do with it- to the point where in very un-Lantern-like fashion they are willing to sacrifice Earth while they learn to harness the forbidden power of fear which they are certain will do the bastard in... yeah despite all that Reynolds' Hal Jordan- who by all accounts in the movie is a piece of garbage Green Lantern- [until, that is, he finds that "something" in him that the Lantern ring saw in him...but still nobility will only take you so far, if you can't kick ass- which Jordan most assuredly can't- you wouldn't stand a chance in hell against this fear sucking son of a bitch] decides he will take on the thing alone... which he does... and wins... in one of the most ridiculously anticlimactic fight scenes ever. Nice work guys, that sucked.) Sorry for all the spoilers. I mean, I guess I should say, sorry for anyone who managed to follow that convoluted rant and thus realize the spoilers. Good luck with that. But anyway. Added to that messy beginning is a pretty obviously superfluous bad guy type- Peter Sarsgaard's Hector Hammond- who only serves to underline some of the mushier parts of the moralistic back story. Again, no, thank you. Actually, it's kind of a shame that Hector Hammond was such a useless character. Sarsgaard has always been money in the bank, particularly when he plays complicated or creepy dudes. Hammond is the latter and Sarsgaard brings him to life in a way that few people could.
Actually, the movie's cast was pretty solid. Reynolds plays Hal Jordan as a paradoxically arrogant and insecure fighter pilot/sex machine. Blake Lively proved to be more than up to the task of playing the sultry Carol Ferris. Well, I don't know if she was originally sultry or not, but it's clear that Campbell went to Lively and told her, "Be sultry. Period. I don't want anything else." So she did. And did well. The problem is that she also kind of hinted she do more than that. She could add nuance. For that, I assume she will be cut from the inevitable sequel (which despite all this venom, I will go see... because I'm a glutton for punishment). Tim Robbins brings his considerable acting chops to the table as does Mark Strong who- in the biggest upset/surprise in movies this year- does NOT play the villain... yet anyway. His character's name is Sinestro. Sinestro. I think we all see where this is heading. And they conveniently/irritatingly leave a huge plot point involving him completely wide open... to the point where you kind of think they were just sloppy and forgot about it...except that it is SO glaring that you realize their ignoring it is just their idea of a clever way to set up the inevitable sequel.
Anyway, you get the idea, I imagine. It just didn't work. The story, the effects (anyone who wasn't a human looked stupid. Just plain dumb.), the pacing (the story stalled on boring/preachy elements of the movie and glossed right over the action sequences), the tone. None of it worked. The only saving grace of the movie is that the filmmakers somehow landed pretty considerable talent who- despite what must have been their better instincts- gave it their all and delivered decent performances. Too bad the Campbell and company dialed up such a crappy arena for the performances. Let me put it this way, they did the best they could with a 13 year old's handwritten script. And you know what that amounts to in the end? Not a whole lot.
Grade: D
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Movie List 2011: 28.) Super 8
Super 8
I haven't been able to rationalize it... which pretty much means I'm a shitty person... but there is something about J.J. Abrams that I just don't really like. Maybe I'm something of an iconoclast and he's become something of an icon. I don't know. But when ever I see Abrams' name attached to a movie or TV show, the classic OVER-RATED chant starts up in my head. Do I think that Abrams is overrated? I guess, but I really can't justify that. I haven't seen enough signature-Abrams stuff to really know. Yeah, I got sick of hearing about the genius of Lost (I actually have only seen less than a minute of the show). And I can't say I've seen Felicity, Alias, or Fringe (all fan-favorites). But I also can't say that they actually appealed enough to me for me to want to see them. Or at least the advertisements for them didn't. What little of Abrams' work that I HAVE seen... looks like that prior to Super 8, we're looking at the 2009 Star Trek reboot... I've liked a lot. So I guess what I'm saying is that prior to going to see Super 8, I really wasn't that excited. It looked like another typical gratuitously over-hyped, fan boy-drool-inducing potential flop from Abrams. (Not that he's flopped much but then there is "Undercovers" isn't there). That said, I saw it. Mostly because it looked like if it was going to flop, it'd at least be an intriguing flop... and it had Kyle Chandler in it... which is awesome. (Note: I've seen less of Friday Night Lights than I have of Lost, but I did see quite a few episodes of Early Edition... quality, quality stuff there).
So yeah, the verdict? I'm kind of a shitty person... or... at the very least, a hater...if you will. Maybe there is a reason that Abrams' stuff is met with so much hype. It's pretty good. Super 8 makes it 2 for 2 in terms of Abrams' stuff that I've actually come off my high horse to take the time to watch. I liked it a lot. That isn't to say that it was technically great or super-original. But it was good story telling and just a very entertaining flick. The story? A creature...courtesy of the US government- visits a small town... and shit starts happening. Luckily, a plucky group of kids (who happen to be amateur filmmakers) are around to get caught up in the goings-on of the creature's visit. What you get here is the spawn of a sci-fi suspense thriller and... ummm... Stand By Me? The Goonies? The Sand Lot? Yeah, one of those. Pretty cool on the whole. And like I said, it makes for an entertaining movie.
But, that said, entertaining by no means equates to original. In most ways, Super 8 is as formulaic as you can get. Abrams follows the mold of paranormal suspense/thrillers to the letter. Things happen off-camera. Fleeting glimpses of the creature in question. The calm before the storm scenes where shit goes bad (loudly and suddenly) just as the tension starts to ease up. The ubiquitous audience-can-sort-of-see-the-creature-but-the-character-can't type moments. These all make appearances in the movie. Any veteran of suspense/thriller movies would easily be able to tell when something bad/loud/"terrifying" was about to happen. There is very, very little deviation from the established pattern. And yet, the movie works.
I suppose the main reason why the movie works.. and thus Abrams' biggest triumph here... is that he decides to let the story unfold through the lens of the kids witnessing all the madness. He doesn't go for the typical mixture of young, good-looking post-college kids and older authority figures that typically drive these sorts of movies. Well, he does include the authority figures here.. but they really don't drive the story... they- particularly Kyle Chandler as Deputy Sheriff Jackson Lamb- serve as sort of a contrast to the viewpoint of the kids at the center of the story. It's pretty clear that Abrams was shooting for a distinct feel. He wanted that coming-of-age vibe to permeate the movie. And he succeeded. The kids are all in the range of 15 years old. They're starting to approach that breaking point where kids have to stop being kids and start being adults. And yet, they're still able allowed to retain some childishness. It's the perfect way to create a great feel for the movie- which was also enhanced by setting it in 1979. The movie had a bit of a nostalgic feel to it. Abrams encourages the idea that times and people in general were just simpler then... and then he adds all sorts of chaos. The kids have to grow up a bunch- and quickly- but they're still able to hold on to their child-like wonder at what's going on even as they race to combat it. It was a brilliant move on Abrams part to take it this route. The kids are awestruck and terrified at the same time. Abrams allows you- through them- to feel the same way.
So yeah, don't expect gratuitously naked chicks to meet their gratuitously grisly ends here. There wasn't a ton of blood and gore at all actually. Yes, things do go bump in the night and in all the ways you would expect, but the way you see it is just a little different. It just feels different. And to me, right. I should probably also mention that the movie would feel different... and awful... had Abrams left the movie in the hands of typical all-looks, no-ability child actors. Somehow, he managed to find youngsters that could actually act...and who looked the part. Big ups especially to the three kids at the very center of the movie- Joel Courtney as the Deputy-Sheriff's kid, Joe Lamb; Riley Griffiths as Joe's best friend, (and the amateur director shooting the zombie movie within this movie) Charles; and Elle Fanning- yes Dakota's little sis- as Alice, the unattainable girl that Charles somehow snags to star in his flick. These young actors were easily able to inject the heaping helping of heart into this effort that most suspense/thrillers utterly lack.
This isn't to imply that there weren't problems with the movie. There were almost unwieldy layers of back story crammed into the plot. The movie also included a few characters that suffered from a lack of development. And there was also the fact that due to the formulaic nature of the story, some aspects were really easy to predict. You knew who was going to bite it and when. But really, these issues fell into the background and hardly took anything away from the movie. What was more apparent was just how spot-on the movie seemed. And how much of a prick I was for categorically disliking J.J. Abrams without the least bit of justification. The dude's got talent.
Grade: A
I haven't been able to rationalize it... which pretty much means I'm a shitty person... but there is something about J.J. Abrams that I just don't really like. Maybe I'm something of an iconoclast and he's become something of an icon. I don't know. But when ever I see Abrams' name attached to a movie or TV show, the classic OVER-RATED chant starts up in my head. Do I think that Abrams is overrated? I guess, but I really can't justify that. I haven't seen enough signature-Abrams stuff to really know. Yeah, I got sick of hearing about the genius of Lost (I actually have only seen less than a minute of the show). And I can't say I've seen Felicity, Alias, or Fringe (all fan-favorites). But I also can't say that they actually appealed enough to me for me to want to see them. Or at least the advertisements for them didn't. What little of Abrams' work that I HAVE seen... looks like that prior to Super 8, we're looking at the 2009 Star Trek reboot... I've liked a lot. So I guess what I'm saying is that prior to going to see Super 8, I really wasn't that excited. It looked like another typical gratuitously over-hyped, fan boy-drool-inducing potential flop from Abrams. (Not that he's flopped much but then there is "Undercovers" isn't there). That said, I saw it. Mostly because it looked like if it was going to flop, it'd at least be an intriguing flop... and it had Kyle Chandler in it... which is awesome. (Note: I've seen less of Friday Night Lights than I have of Lost, but I did see quite a few episodes of Early Edition... quality, quality stuff there).
So yeah, the verdict? I'm kind of a shitty person... or... at the very least, a hater...if you will. Maybe there is a reason that Abrams' stuff is met with so much hype. It's pretty good. Super 8 makes it 2 for 2 in terms of Abrams' stuff that I've actually come off my high horse to take the time to watch. I liked it a lot. That isn't to say that it was technically great or super-original. But it was good story telling and just a very entertaining flick. The story? A creature...courtesy of the US government- visits a small town... and shit starts happening. Luckily, a plucky group of kids (who happen to be amateur filmmakers) are around to get caught up in the goings-on of the creature's visit. What you get here is the spawn of a sci-fi suspense thriller and... ummm... Stand By Me? The Goonies? The Sand Lot? Yeah, one of those. Pretty cool on the whole. And like I said, it makes for an entertaining movie.
But, that said, entertaining by no means equates to original. In most ways, Super 8 is as formulaic as you can get. Abrams follows the mold of paranormal suspense/thrillers to the letter. Things happen off-camera. Fleeting glimpses of the creature in question. The calm before the storm scenes where shit goes bad (loudly and suddenly) just as the tension starts to ease up. The ubiquitous audience-can-sort-of-see-the-creature-but-the-character-can't type moments. These all make appearances in the movie. Any veteran of suspense/thriller movies would easily be able to tell when something bad/loud/"terrifying" was about to happen. There is very, very little deviation from the established pattern. And yet, the movie works.
I suppose the main reason why the movie works.. and thus Abrams' biggest triumph here... is that he decides to let the story unfold through the lens of the kids witnessing all the madness. He doesn't go for the typical mixture of young, good-looking post-college kids and older authority figures that typically drive these sorts of movies. Well, he does include the authority figures here.. but they really don't drive the story... they- particularly Kyle Chandler as Deputy Sheriff Jackson Lamb- serve as sort of a contrast to the viewpoint of the kids at the center of the story. It's pretty clear that Abrams was shooting for a distinct feel. He wanted that coming-of-age vibe to permeate the movie. And he succeeded. The kids are all in the range of 15 years old. They're starting to approach that breaking point where kids have to stop being kids and start being adults. And yet, they're still able allowed to retain some childishness. It's the perfect way to create a great feel for the movie- which was also enhanced by setting it in 1979. The movie had a bit of a nostalgic feel to it. Abrams encourages the idea that times and people in general were just simpler then... and then he adds all sorts of chaos. The kids have to grow up a bunch- and quickly- but they're still able to hold on to their child-like wonder at what's going on even as they race to combat it. It was a brilliant move on Abrams part to take it this route. The kids are awestruck and terrified at the same time. Abrams allows you- through them- to feel the same way.
So yeah, don't expect gratuitously naked chicks to meet their gratuitously grisly ends here. There wasn't a ton of blood and gore at all actually. Yes, things do go bump in the night and in all the ways you would expect, but the way you see it is just a little different. It just feels different. And to me, right. I should probably also mention that the movie would feel different... and awful... had Abrams left the movie in the hands of typical all-looks, no-ability child actors. Somehow, he managed to find youngsters that could actually act...and who looked the part. Big ups especially to the three kids at the very center of the movie- Joel Courtney as the Deputy-Sheriff's kid, Joe Lamb; Riley Griffiths as Joe's best friend, (and the amateur director shooting the zombie movie within this movie) Charles; and Elle Fanning- yes Dakota's little sis- as Alice, the unattainable girl that Charles somehow snags to star in his flick. These young actors were easily able to inject the heaping helping of heart into this effort that most suspense/thrillers utterly lack.
This isn't to imply that there weren't problems with the movie. There were almost unwieldy layers of back story crammed into the plot. The movie also included a few characters that suffered from a lack of development. And there was also the fact that due to the formulaic nature of the story, some aspects were really easy to predict. You knew who was going to bite it and when. But really, these issues fell into the background and hardly took anything away from the movie. What was more apparent was just how spot-on the movie seemed. And how much of a prick I was for categorically disliking J.J. Abrams without the least bit of justification. The dude's got talent.
Grade: A
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Movie List 2011: 27.) Bridesmaids
Bridesmaids
I actually saw this one nearly a week ago... just now getting the chance to ramble on about it....
So Bridesmaids? Yeah, the female version of The Hangover? Hmm, no, actually it really wasn't (though The Hangover Part II probably wishes it was this good). That's all I heard about the movie prior to seeing it myself- "it's hilarious, it's like The Hangover...with chicks!!!". The problem with that is, that it's not really true. Yeah the movie revolves around a central group of people- in this case, ladies- looking to have a good time before one of their number gets married. And yeah, the movie specializes in dirty/potty humor... to a degree... (it also has a heaping helping of heart to it... not that The Hangover didn't...but it's more evident here)... but that is where the comparisons really end. Bridesmaids isn't nearly as original as the first Hangover movie, and it isn't nearly as shitty as the second. In truth, Bridesmaids isn't really original in the least. The only novel spin on it is how much dirty/raunchy/potty humor there is. Otherwise, it's kind of the typical female-centric...or wedding-centric comedy- viewed through the lens of the maid of honor who just can't seem to find Mr. Right... or in this instance do anything particularly well... due to her habit of self-destruction. The themes on display? The meaning of friendship, female rivalry/insecurity, and what it means to grow up/move on. Nothing really novel there.
Doesn't mean it's bad though. Where Bridesmaids does well is that it takes a familiar concept, adds enough spice to mix it up a touch, and then goes and kicks the crap out of it. And by that I mean, it does it really well. True, it does fall into typical chick-flick pitfalls: the jilted maid of honor? General female cattiness? Prince charming being so apparently right for jilted maid of honor that she- of course- blows it/he's unavailable/other over tired hurdle that makes Mr. Right Mr. Wrong? It doesn't do so to a fault. The movie isn't about, for example, the perpetual maid of honor whose sole ambition in life is apparently to become a bride. No, Kristen Wiig's Annie has a lot more depth and ambition than that. For starters, her ambition of the moment is that she just wants to get her life back on track... and hold onto some pride while doing so (as well as her best friend). She wants to figure out why everyone else has everything so worked out while she toils away after blowing her shot at her dream job. And you know what? That's a damn universal feeling. Many, many people have felt that way, and Director Paul Feig, Wiig, and company capture that just-below-the-surface despair and dread expertly.
Most of the typical tried and true themes and conventions of the chick-flick genre (if you want to call it that) are played here for pretty good comedy. Which is nice to see because it could have gone so so so wrong. Among the things that Bridesmaids does well is make you feel the awkwardness of the awkward situations it shows. When Annie does something you know she'll regret, you can really feel her pain. Which, like I said, is a nice touch. But again, if you're looking for a truly original film, you won't find it here (other than a particularly awesome gross-out humor sequence involving the titular bridesmaids at a dress fitting... funny stuff). And yet, like I said, it wasn't as though the movie was particularly bad. It was actually pretty good. Fun at least. I think the reason it was so much fun was the chemistry between Wiig's Annie and (Wiig's real-life friend) Maya Rudolph's Lillian. They really seemed like they were friends (because, I suppose they are) and that easy chemistry made it easy to follow the movie where it was taking you. Actually, Wiig established pretty good chemistry with everyone in the movie. Nathan O'Dowd's cop with a heart of gold, Officer Rhodes, Matt Lucas and Rebel Wilson's brother-sister roomies Gil and Brynn, and of course, Rose Byrne's so uppity...so super perfect Helen. All good stuff. In a way, Wiig really carries the movie (other than the scenes that Melissa McCarthy absolutely steals as super...aggressive... bridesmaid Megan), which given how much of an underrated talent she is, is not a bad thing in the least (if only MacGruber would have let Wiig shine more). In lesser hands, I imagine the movie would have fallen completely flat. But Wiig makes it more than watchable, she makes it pretty damn enjoyable. In fact, had the movie not ended on such a ridiculously corny note, I might have really, really liked it. As it was I thought it was a good time and a lot funnier than some of the movies Hollywood has trotted out recently.
In the end, I suppose, aside from Wiig, what the movie has going for it is that it did what it did really well. And while it wouldn't typically be my type of movie, I'm definitely glad I saw it. As I've said before, there's really nothing wrong with doing something familiar...so long as you do it really well.
Grade: B+
I actually saw this one nearly a week ago... just now getting the chance to ramble on about it....
So Bridesmaids? Yeah, the female version of The Hangover? Hmm, no, actually it really wasn't (though The Hangover Part II probably wishes it was this good). That's all I heard about the movie prior to seeing it myself- "it's hilarious, it's like The Hangover...with chicks!!!". The problem with that is, that it's not really true. Yeah the movie revolves around a central group of people- in this case, ladies- looking to have a good time before one of their number gets married. And yeah, the movie specializes in dirty/potty humor... to a degree... (it also has a heaping helping of heart to it... not that The Hangover didn't...but it's more evident here)... but that is where the comparisons really end. Bridesmaids isn't nearly as original as the first Hangover movie, and it isn't nearly as shitty as the second. In truth, Bridesmaids isn't really original in the least. The only novel spin on it is how much dirty/raunchy/potty humor there is. Otherwise, it's kind of the typical female-centric...or wedding-centric comedy- viewed through the lens of the maid of honor who just can't seem to find Mr. Right... or in this instance do anything particularly well... due to her habit of self-destruction. The themes on display? The meaning of friendship, female rivalry/insecurity, and what it means to grow up/move on. Nothing really novel there.
Doesn't mean it's bad though. Where Bridesmaids does well is that it takes a familiar concept, adds enough spice to mix it up a touch, and then goes and kicks the crap out of it. And by that I mean, it does it really well. True, it does fall into typical chick-flick pitfalls: the jilted maid of honor? General female cattiness? Prince charming being so apparently right for jilted maid of honor that she- of course- blows it/he's unavailable/other over tired hurdle that makes Mr. Right Mr. Wrong? It doesn't do so to a fault. The movie isn't about, for example, the perpetual maid of honor whose sole ambition in life is apparently to become a bride. No, Kristen Wiig's Annie has a lot more depth and ambition than that. For starters, her ambition of the moment is that she just wants to get her life back on track... and hold onto some pride while doing so (as well as her best friend). She wants to figure out why everyone else has everything so worked out while she toils away after blowing her shot at her dream job. And you know what? That's a damn universal feeling. Many, many people have felt that way, and Director Paul Feig, Wiig, and company capture that just-below-the-surface despair and dread expertly.
Most of the typical tried and true themes and conventions of the chick-flick genre (if you want to call it that) are played here for pretty good comedy. Which is nice to see because it could have gone so so so wrong. Among the things that Bridesmaids does well is make you feel the awkwardness of the awkward situations it shows. When Annie does something you know she'll regret, you can really feel her pain. Which, like I said, is a nice touch. But again, if you're looking for a truly original film, you won't find it here (other than a particularly awesome gross-out humor sequence involving the titular bridesmaids at a dress fitting... funny stuff). And yet, like I said, it wasn't as though the movie was particularly bad. It was actually pretty good. Fun at least. I think the reason it was so much fun was the chemistry between Wiig's Annie and (Wiig's real-life friend) Maya Rudolph's Lillian. They really seemed like they were friends (because, I suppose they are) and that easy chemistry made it easy to follow the movie where it was taking you. Actually, Wiig established pretty good chemistry with everyone in the movie. Nathan O'Dowd's cop with a heart of gold, Officer Rhodes, Matt Lucas and Rebel Wilson's brother-sister roomies Gil and Brynn, and of course, Rose Byrne's so uppity...so super perfect Helen. All good stuff. In a way, Wiig really carries the movie (other than the scenes that Melissa McCarthy absolutely steals as super...aggressive... bridesmaid Megan), which given how much of an underrated talent she is, is not a bad thing in the least (if only MacGruber would have let Wiig shine more). In lesser hands, I imagine the movie would have fallen completely flat. But Wiig makes it more than watchable, she makes it pretty damn enjoyable. In fact, had the movie not ended on such a ridiculously corny note, I might have really, really liked it. As it was I thought it was a good time and a lot funnier than some of the movies Hollywood has trotted out recently.
In the end, I suppose, aside from Wiig, what the movie has going for it is that it did what it did really well. And while it wouldn't typically be my type of movie, I'm definitely glad I saw it. As I've said before, there's really nothing wrong with doing something familiar...so long as you do it really well.
Grade: B+
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Movie List 2011: 26.) Midnight in Paris
Midnight in Paris
Woody Allen, Woody Allen, Woody Allen, what to make of Woody Allen. Generally, I like Woody Allen. At their best, his films are exceptionally well written, thoughtful, thought-provoking, funny, touching, and above all else, interesting. That said, at their worst Allen's films are overly preachy, redundant, lecturing, and above all else, boring. Still, for the most part I like Allen's exploratory nature. One given in most of his films is that he will pose a central question and then spend the movie exploring answers to the question. Again, when he's at his best, the exploration is seamlessly integrated into the storyline... when he falters a bit, the movie comes off as a lecture, "Woody Allen's Guide to Life and All its Mysteries"... now appearing in your philosophy 101 curriculum. I think, more often than not Allen's films have proven to be more of the former characteristic. Lately though, Allen has had a few missteps such as Melinda and Melinda where the whole movie was overly lecture-y. Even the very enjoyable Whatever Works didn't try too terribly hard to hide the fact that this was a movie produced solely so Woody could indoctrinate audiences with his views on life and love. That said, other recent..ish entries including Hollywood Ending, The Curse of the Jade Scorpion, and especially 2006's taut thriller, Match Point ranged from very good to exceptional. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that I wasn't sure which Woody would make an appearance on the silver screen this time... but you obviously hope for the seamless inquiry approach... especially, for me this time, because the subject matter he turned his lens on- the effect of/need for/purpose of nostalgia- is something I find particularly interesting. (If I were going to snag a PhD, I would really like to study popular culture and one of the aspects of popular culture that I most wanted to explore was the effect of nostalgia on popular culture and vice versa).
But anyway... how did the Wood-man do this time? Welllllll.... welcome to Woody's Thoughts on Nostalgia, Allen's latest offering in his philosophy 101 series. There was a BUNDLE of lecturing going on- mostly through Allen's essentially Allen character (formerly always played by Woody himself) played with heaps of nervous but genuine excitement by Owen Wilson. That said, the movie definitely had its moments (anything featuring the electric Marion Cotillard). But in the end, the film comes off as a tired lecturers last stand of a lecture. It's not so much that he's just going through the motions, but despite the best efforts of his cast and the brilliant shooting of the gorgeous Parisian setting, the movie carries a "last legs" sort of feel throughout. If the feel of the movie means anything, Woody just didn't seem to be excited about this particular exploration. Maybe it's because it would stand to reason that this was a very personal subject for him and he came to some unsettling conclusions (I don't know... one of the main criticisms of some of Allen's latest stuff is that it comes off more as an homage to his earlier stuff... and that he's overly focused on trying to reclaim that spark from his earlier masterpiece years- think Hannah and Her Sisters [my personal Allen favorite] or Annie Hall among others- rather than to try and branch out to something new...and.. I dunno...flashier... is all this apparent focus on his best work the trappings of nostalgia? Is that why this particular subject fascinated Allen enough to make this flick? Hard to say...but it is possible). Whatever the reason, Allen's movie comes off as tired...and a tad preachy or lecture-y. (Maybe it's tired because the Wood-man is tired... this is, after all, his 42nd directorial effort since 1966... including one movie- or more- a year since 1982). In the end, Allen borrows the Paul Haggis Sledge Hammer of Subtlety to get his ultimate point across... and while subtlety may not have been a particular strong point- after all, he used to cast himself and now casts his doppelgangers expressly to explore and ultimately make his point in the movie- this effort is more blatant than usual. It's a good point, though, his ultimate conclusions on nostalgia... just not earth-shattering or clever in many ways (though he illustrates it in an amusing and clever way).
Beyond these central issues, there are some other difficulties with the film...mostly in how some characters were written. Rachel McAdams stars (and does a damn fine job) as Owen Wilson's Gil's fiancee, Ines, who has come with Gil and her parents to visit Paris as part of her father's business trip. I think Ines is supposed to represent a solid ideal of modern/detached (and shrill) culture. Ines is constantly harping on Gil about his silly ideas about the past (Gil is a screen writer who is trying to write a novel the revolves around the subject of nostalgia... he also sorely wishes he could have lived in Paris during the 1920s...a time and place he views as the apex of artistic creation) and how cheap he is. Which is all well and good to provide a contrast to pie-in-the-sky Gil... the problem is that these two are supposed to be engaged... and you never get a feeling for why these two care for each other... if they ever did actually care for each other. They just are so obviously wrong for each other. So when Gil travels back to 1920s Paris (as he does each night at midnight after accidentally discovering how to do so during a drunken walk one night) and meets the girl of his dreams (played by the aforementioned and radiant Marion Cotillard) there's really no drama about the situation...other than that Gil isn't of her time... if he's actually really visiting her time at all and not hallucinating... all that kind of takes the fun and slight danger out of the encounters. The spark is still there, but it doesn't quite burn as bright as it would if Gil faced a real dilemma.
Beyond that, there are the artistic luminaries that Gil meets on his nightly visits to 1920's Paris. Folks like Hemingway, Zelda and Scott Fitzgerald, Cole Porter, and so on and so forth. For the most part, Allen writes these characters to be utter caricatures of their real selves. Sometimes, this tactic results in some of the more entertaining aspects of the movie such as the one- MANLY MAN- note persona of Hemingway (a spot on Corey Stoll) or the utter bizarreness of Salvador Dali (a delightful Adrien Brody). In other cases, the caricatures seem self-serving and fall flat...such as Kathy Bate's Gertrude Stein and Marcial Di Fonzo Bo's Pablo Picasso. Actually, even though they are entertaining at times, the one-dimensional characters- especially Hemingway- did eventually start to wear on me. Some depth would have been nice... that or smaller doses. I suppose these were self-serving to the movie by design...after all, they were probably manifestations of Gil's imaging of what these folks would be like... or were they? Allen never fully explains. Either way, the parade of name dropping and the lack of depth these names displayed eventually became tedious for me... despite their finer moments.
By the end, the tiredness, predictability, and preaching of the movie started to wear on me and I left hoping that Woody would hopefully find that familiar Good Woody spark by his next effort. And that's really what the movie was missing. The Woody spark. Sure some of the old and comforting Allen stand-bys were present here: the nervous fella (as Ned Flanders called him when discussing the latest Woodsy Allen movie on the Simpsons some years ago), the absolutely no-frills approach to film making, the simple opening and ending credits, the jazzy score, the beautiful filming, and the... how should I put it... intellectually-heavy-but-somehow-entertaining dialog... but the spark? The excitement? Somehow, it was missing. Which is a bit frustrating...but then again... there's always next year. We'll just have to wait to see if he finds that essential Woody spark again.
Grade: B-
Woody Allen, Woody Allen, Woody Allen, what to make of Woody Allen. Generally, I like Woody Allen. At their best, his films are exceptionally well written, thoughtful, thought-provoking, funny, touching, and above all else, interesting. That said, at their worst Allen's films are overly preachy, redundant, lecturing, and above all else, boring. Still, for the most part I like Allen's exploratory nature. One given in most of his films is that he will pose a central question and then spend the movie exploring answers to the question. Again, when he's at his best, the exploration is seamlessly integrated into the storyline... when he falters a bit, the movie comes off as a lecture, "Woody Allen's Guide to Life and All its Mysteries"... now appearing in your philosophy 101 curriculum. I think, more often than not Allen's films have proven to be more of the former characteristic. Lately though, Allen has had a few missteps such as Melinda and Melinda where the whole movie was overly lecture-y. Even the very enjoyable Whatever Works didn't try too terribly hard to hide the fact that this was a movie produced solely so Woody could indoctrinate audiences with his views on life and love. That said, other recent..ish entries including Hollywood Ending, The Curse of the Jade Scorpion, and especially 2006's taut thriller, Match Point ranged from very good to exceptional. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that I wasn't sure which Woody would make an appearance on the silver screen this time... but you obviously hope for the seamless inquiry approach... especially, for me this time, because the subject matter he turned his lens on- the effect of/need for/purpose of nostalgia- is something I find particularly interesting. (If I were going to snag a PhD, I would really like to study popular culture and one of the aspects of popular culture that I most wanted to explore was the effect of nostalgia on popular culture and vice versa).
But anyway... how did the Wood-man do this time? Welllllll.... welcome to Woody's Thoughts on Nostalgia, Allen's latest offering in his philosophy 101 series. There was a BUNDLE of lecturing going on- mostly through Allen's essentially Allen character (formerly always played by Woody himself) played with heaps of nervous but genuine excitement by Owen Wilson. That said, the movie definitely had its moments (anything featuring the electric Marion Cotillard). But in the end, the film comes off as a tired lecturers last stand of a lecture. It's not so much that he's just going through the motions, but despite the best efforts of his cast and the brilliant shooting of the gorgeous Parisian setting, the movie carries a "last legs" sort of feel throughout. If the feel of the movie means anything, Woody just didn't seem to be excited about this particular exploration. Maybe it's because it would stand to reason that this was a very personal subject for him and he came to some unsettling conclusions (I don't know... one of the main criticisms of some of Allen's latest stuff is that it comes off more as an homage to his earlier stuff... and that he's overly focused on trying to reclaim that spark from his earlier masterpiece years- think Hannah and Her Sisters [my personal Allen favorite] or Annie Hall among others- rather than to try and branch out to something new...and.. I dunno...flashier... is all this apparent focus on his best work the trappings of nostalgia? Is that why this particular subject fascinated Allen enough to make this flick? Hard to say...but it is possible). Whatever the reason, Allen's movie comes off as tired...and a tad preachy or lecture-y. (Maybe it's tired because the Wood-man is tired... this is, after all, his 42nd directorial effort since 1966... including one movie- or more- a year since 1982). In the end, Allen borrows the Paul Haggis Sledge Hammer of Subtlety to get his ultimate point across... and while subtlety may not have been a particular strong point- after all, he used to cast himself and now casts his doppelgangers expressly to explore and ultimately make his point in the movie- this effort is more blatant than usual. It's a good point, though, his ultimate conclusions on nostalgia... just not earth-shattering or clever in many ways (though he illustrates it in an amusing and clever way).
Beyond these central issues, there are some other difficulties with the film...mostly in how some characters were written. Rachel McAdams stars (and does a damn fine job) as Owen Wilson's Gil's fiancee, Ines, who has come with Gil and her parents to visit Paris as part of her father's business trip. I think Ines is supposed to represent a solid ideal of modern/detached (and shrill) culture. Ines is constantly harping on Gil about his silly ideas about the past (Gil is a screen writer who is trying to write a novel the revolves around the subject of nostalgia... he also sorely wishes he could have lived in Paris during the 1920s...a time and place he views as the apex of artistic creation) and how cheap he is. Which is all well and good to provide a contrast to pie-in-the-sky Gil... the problem is that these two are supposed to be engaged... and you never get a feeling for why these two care for each other... if they ever did actually care for each other. They just are so obviously wrong for each other. So when Gil travels back to 1920s Paris (as he does each night at midnight after accidentally discovering how to do so during a drunken walk one night) and meets the girl of his dreams (played by the aforementioned and radiant Marion Cotillard) there's really no drama about the situation...other than that Gil isn't of her time... if he's actually really visiting her time at all and not hallucinating... all that kind of takes the fun and slight danger out of the encounters. The spark is still there, but it doesn't quite burn as bright as it would if Gil faced a real dilemma.
Beyond that, there are the artistic luminaries that Gil meets on his nightly visits to 1920's Paris. Folks like Hemingway, Zelda and Scott Fitzgerald, Cole Porter, and so on and so forth. For the most part, Allen writes these characters to be utter caricatures of their real selves. Sometimes, this tactic results in some of the more entertaining aspects of the movie such as the one- MANLY MAN- note persona of Hemingway (a spot on Corey Stoll) or the utter bizarreness of Salvador Dali (a delightful Adrien Brody). In other cases, the caricatures seem self-serving and fall flat...such as Kathy Bate's Gertrude Stein and Marcial Di Fonzo Bo's Pablo Picasso. Actually, even though they are entertaining at times, the one-dimensional characters- especially Hemingway- did eventually start to wear on me. Some depth would have been nice... that or smaller doses. I suppose these were self-serving to the movie by design...after all, they were probably manifestations of Gil's imaging of what these folks would be like... or were they? Allen never fully explains. Either way, the parade of name dropping and the lack of depth these names displayed eventually became tedious for me... despite their finer moments.
By the end, the tiredness, predictability, and preaching of the movie started to wear on me and I left hoping that Woody would hopefully find that familiar Good Woody spark by his next effort. And that's really what the movie was missing. The Woody spark. Sure some of the old and comforting Allen stand-bys were present here: the nervous fella (as Ned Flanders called him when discussing the latest Woodsy Allen movie on the Simpsons some years ago), the absolutely no-frills approach to film making, the simple opening and ending credits, the jazzy score, the beautiful filming, and the... how should I put it... intellectually-heavy-but-somehow-entertaining dialog... but the spark? The excitement? Somehow, it was missing. Which is a bit frustrating...but then again... there's always next year. We'll just have to wait to see if he finds that essential Woody spark again.
Grade: B-
Friday, June 10, 2011
Movie List 2011: 25.) The Hangover Part II
The Hangover Part II
You remember when America's Got Talent had those quick-change artists on and everyone loved them the first time and then they came back and kept doing the same damn routine over and over only changing minor details and finally Piers Morgan had enough and asked if they were deaf or dumb (thus voicing-harshly-what I imagine everyone was thinking)? No? Me either. Caught it on YouTube some time later. But it's true. The first video I saw the quick-change artists in, I was floored. How the hell did they do that? Then I saw it again and still couldn't figure it out but wasn't as impressed (then Katy Perry pulled the trick out during a recent tour stop and I was floored again... how could she pull it off?). ANYWAY, The Hangover Part II? It was kind of like that but without my being impressed the second go-around. I mean, it was exactly like the part where it was the same routine with changes only to minor details (the locale, the missing person). All the core aspects? The EXACT same. Exact. Dudes go out for some pre-wedding shenanigans (this time Ed Helms' Stu is the lucky soon-to-be-former-bachelor). Someone drugs their stuff. They black out after an unseen night of rowdy shenanigans. They wake up to one member of the group missing (Mason Lee's Teddy... the young prodigy brother of Stu's fiancee...). Then scrambling, shrieking shenanigans ensue as they struggle to put all the pieces of the previous night together, find missing person (though with Mason Lee's acting ability, I would have preferred he stay lost... at first I was sure he was related to a producer or something. There had to be some reason they'd let this wooden puppet play a crucial role... best I can figure is that Warner Brothers is looking to snag Ang Lee's next picture and to seal the deal, they cast his kid as a main character). Oh yeah, they also decided to include original Hangover scene-stealers Ken Jeong (the flamboyant gangster Mr. Chow) and Mike Tyson (former boxing champ Mike Tyson) in on the "fun". Because there's no such thing as too much of a just right amount thing. By about the fifth minute of the day-after shenanigans, you come to realize that the outcome of the movie is never in doubt. Again borrowing from the predecessor, all will work out in the end, the wedding will happen, and missing puppet...errr... dude, will be found. Getting from point A to point B (in the straightest of lines) will include Alan being a complete weirdo (only in heavier doses), a ton of raunchy jokes, male nudity, and annoying talk of the wolf pack. Eventually, our heroes get to point B and the end credit rolls... all the while you're thinking to yourself, you know what, I've seen this before. Because you have...
I know the lack of originality is the main and consistent knock on The Hangover Part II, but damn it, it's true. I suppose an original movie kind of deserves an unoriginal review. So I suppose I have nothing to apologize for there. But, you know, it wasn't just that the one-trick pony came out on to center stage and did his one trick again... it's also that they tried to improve that one essential trick by force feeding the audience one element of the trick that was particularly cool. I mean, let's just say that The Hangover was like a pony that did a series of back-flips and then did the splits on the final landing. And damn it, that's the only trick that pony knows. So, the next time the circus comes around, having nothing else to do the ringmaster trots out the back-flipping pony. Same-old, same-old, right? No, because the ringmaster knows that the audience loves them some splits, so he just piles the splits on. After every landing, there's a quick pony-split. Awesome right? ... Actually in this case probably, but still, it's the same essential trick, they just added more splits. And for the sake of my incredibly dumb analogy, we'll just say that after the fifth splits, it kind of gets old, but man, that pony is just a back-flipping, splitting fool. I guess what would have been a better analogy would be if as the back-flipping pony landed it ripped ass loudly. Then the ringmaster decided the pony should fart every flip... even manufacturing some piped in fart-noises in case the pony was up to the gassy task. That, actually is a lot more apt. Still lost? Me too. What I'm trying to say is that The Hangover II quickly devolves into the Alan being weird/shitty/dumb show...paired with the Mr. Chow being present/more flamboyant/more naked show. In other words, they took two of the elements of the first movie which really took the audience... and then heaped it on the sequel to a point of blatant excess... even manufacturing scenarios for the two characters to be their essential selves. Ugh. It's like when The Simpsons discovered Homer, not Bart, was the most popular character and the reason was his wise-beyond-his-dumb ways. So they made him the focal point of the series, made him dumber and whinier and proceeded to watch the series sink like a stone. Of course the writers who tanked the show seem to think otherwise, but that is neither here nor there... the fact is, The Hangover Part II follows in the same mold. And it is indeed much to the film's detriment. What worked in the right amount in one scenario, does not work in excess in another.
I suppose I should probably point out that I wasn't among the folks who thought the original Hangover was among cinema's greatest gifts to comedy. I did think it was decently funny, and refreshingly...well... fresh in it's approach. Where a lot of movies focused to a fault on the debauchery we were left to watch the process of essentially good guys coming to grips with a bad, bad night. Fun stuff. Here? It's the exact same. Fool me once...shame on... shame on you...Fool m twice...shame on... shame.. on.. uhhh... I won't get fooled again. (Or something like that). IT'S THE EXACT SAME STORY!!! And that's why everyone thinks Hollywood has run out of fresh ideas... because they have. For their part, at least the folks in the movie repeatedly referenced that it was all happening again. (Presumably while envisioning sacks of cold hard cash falling through their roofs again). But as that wore on, it actually became more grating.
Look, this routine may play well with the drunken frat-boy crowd. (Probably not though... if they stop to think about it). But for me? I needed something different. Even just moderately different. But nope, they went samesies on their predecessor. No way in hell I'm going samesies on the grade...
Grade: D
You remember when America's Got Talent had those quick-change artists on and everyone loved them the first time and then they came back and kept doing the same damn routine over and over only changing minor details and finally Piers Morgan had enough and asked if they were deaf or dumb (thus voicing-harshly-what I imagine everyone was thinking)? No? Me either. Caught it on YouTube some time later. But it's true. The first video I saw the quick-change artists in, I was floored. How the hell did they do that? Then I saw it again and still couldn't figure it out but wasn't as impressed (then Katy Perry pulled the trick out during a recent tour stop and I was floored again... how could she pull it off?). ANYWAY, The Hangover Part II? It was kind of like that but without my being impressed the second go-around. I mean, it was exactly like the part where it was the same routine with changes only to minor details (the locale, the missing person). All the core aspects? The EXACT same. Exact. Dudes go out for some pre-wedding shenanigans (this time Ed Helms' Stu is the lucky soon-to-be-former-bachelor). Someone drugs their stuff. They black out after an unseen night of rowdy shenanigans. They wake up to one member of the group missing (Mason Lee's Teddy... the young prodigy brother of Stu's fiancee...). Then scrambling, shrieking shenanigans ensue as they struggle to put all the pieces of the previous night together, find missing person (though with Mason Lee's acting ability, I would have preferred he stay lost... at first I was sure he was related to a producer or something. There had to be some reason they'd let this wooden puppet play a crucial role... best I can figure is that Warner Brothers is looking to snag Ang Lee's next picture and to seal the deal, they cast his kid as a main character). Oh yeah, they also decided to include original Hangover scene-stealers Ken Jeong (the flamboyant gangster Mr. Chow) and Mike Tyson (former boxing champ Mike Tyson) in on the "fun". Because there's no such thing as too much of a just right amount thing. By about the fifth minute of the day-after shenanigans, you come to realize that the outcome of the movie is never in doubt. Again borrowing from the predecessor, all will work out in the end, the wedding will happen, and missing puppet...errr... dude, will be found. Getting from point A to point B (in the straightest of lines) will include Alan being a complete weirdo (only in heavier doses), a ton of raunchy jokes, male nudity, and annoying talk of the wolf pack. Eventually, our heroes get to point B and the end credit rolls... all the while you're thinking to yourself, you know what, I've seen this before. Because you have...
I know the lack of originality is the main and consistent knock on The Hangover Part II, but damn it, it's true. I suppose an original movie kind of deserves an unoriginal review. So I suppose I have nothing to apologize for there. But, you know, it wasn't just that the one-trick pony came out on to center stage and did his one trick again... it's also that they tried to improve that one essential trick by force feeding the audience one element of the trick that was particularly cool. I mean, let's just say that The Hangover was like a pony that did a series of back-flips and then did the splits on the final landing. And damn it, that's the only trick that pony knows. So, the next time the circus comes around, having nothing else to do the ringmaster trots out the back-flipping pony. Same-old, same-old, right? No, because the ringmaster knows that the audience loves them some splits, so he just piles the splits on. After every landing, there's a quick pony-split. Awesome right? ... Actually in this case probably, but still, it's the same essential trick, they just added more splits. And for the sake of my incredibly dumb analogy, we'll just say that after the fifth splits, it kind of gets old, but man, that pony is just a back-flipping, splitting fool. I guess what would have been a better analogy would be if as the back-flipping pony landed it ripped ass loudly. Then the ringmaster decided the pony should fart every flip... even manufacturing some piped in fart-noises in case the pony was up to the gassy task. That, actually is a lot more apt. Still lost? Me too. What I'm trying to say is that The Hangover II quickly devolves into the Alan being weird/shitty/dumb show...paired with the Mr. Chow being present/more flamboyant/more naked show. In other words, they took two of the elements of the first movie which really took the audience... and then heaped it on the sequel to a point of blatant excess... even manufacturing scenarios for the two characters to be their essential selves. Ugh. It's like when The Simpsons discovered Homer, not Bart, was the most popular character and the reason was his wise-beyond-his-dumb ways. So they made him the focal point of the series, made him dumber and whinier and proceeded to watch the series sink like a stone. Of course the writers who tanked the show seem to think otherwise, but that is neither here nor there... the fact is, The Hangover Part II follows in the same mold. And it is indeed much to the film's detriment. What worked in the right amount in one scenario, does not work in excess in another.
I suppose I should probably point out that I wasn't among the folks who thought the original Hangover was among cinema's greatest gifts to comedy. I did think it was decently funny, and refreshingly...well... fresh in it's approach. Where a lot of movies focused to a fault on the debauchery we were left to watch the process of essentially good guys coming to grips with a bad, bad night. Fun stuff. Here? It's the exact same. Fool me once...shame on... shame on you...Fool m twice...shame on... shame.. on.. uhhh... I won't get fooled again. (Or something like that). IT'S THE EXACT SAME STORY!!! And that's why everyone thinks Hollywood has run out of fresh ideas... because they have. For their part, at least the folks in the movie repeatedly referenced that it was all happening again. (Presumably while envisioning sacks of cold hard cash falling through their roofs again). But as that wore on, it actually became more grating.
Look, this routine may play well with the drunken frat-boy crowd. (Probably not though... if they stop to think about it). But for me? I needed something different. Even just moderately different. But nope, they went samesies on their predecessor. No way in hell I'm going samesies on the grade...
Grade: D
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Movie List 2011: 24.) X-Men: First Class
X-Men: First Class
I'm not really sure what it is about origin stories/prequels that bother me so much. Maybe it's because they are typically too self-reverential, too overly serious, too.. well... full of it. I don't know. Maybe, it's because they are generally boring. It's all about building the mythology. Not that I think mythology is unimportant or anything, it just isn't so important that I'm going to crap my pants over it. Rarely have I enjoyed these movies... Iron Man was boring. Batman Begins was incredibly full of an over-inflated sense of self-worth. Star Wars Episode I was just plain dumb.
So I suppose by this point, it is needless to say that I was not really looking forward to X-Men: First Class. The concept was certainly ripe for overbearing self-referentiality. After all, the very mythology of the X-Men revolves around philosophical differences between the two main protagonists: Magneto and Professor X. The vibe generally has mirrored that of Malcolm X vs. Martin Luther King during the civil war movement (and yes, that might sound ridiculous, but I'm fairly sure that's where Stan Lee's head was when he was plotting the original comic books... well, maybe not the original comic books, but the ideology that grew from there.). So yeah, the potential for this to devolve into an over-bloated philosophy-fest- where every word has such...meaning... was, indeed, high. And you know what? It wasn't horrible. At least in that sense. It did carry a slightly, needlessly serious tone. Self-serious, that is. But there was some genuinely good action too. The problem here really wasn't with the usual prequel pitfalls, it was more just plain sloppy writing/plot and character development. Many of the weighty philosophical issues were presented in the film but they may have actually been addressed too fleetingly. I know that sounds hypocritical, but in this case, it fits. The whole story of Professor X and Magneto revolves around how close their friendship was before real- understandably real- ideological issues pulled them apart. I never got any sense of the true connection between the two characters here. Sure Erik (later Magneto- played with a demagogue's flair by Michael Fassbender) claimed to be Charles' (later Professor X- played in a solid turn by James McAvoy) friend, but they never felt that close. And there really wasn't much ideological sparring going on. It seemed like Erik was tolerating Charles until he could get what he wanted. Actually, most of the relationships in the film seemed rushed and/or jumpy. Maybe the pacing was off. Maybe they were concerned with being too damn boring, I don't know. Really, yeah, I just don't know exactly what it was, but the film seemed to be lacking a degree of depth. I was hoping for more of the type of ideological interplay that was presented in-say- The Dark Knight... though portrayed in a far less caffeinated way. And just wasn't there... or at least in any kind of intriguing way. And actually that's to the movie's detriment.
Add to that the irksome detail of having mutants playing a main role in the Cuban Missile Crisis (just too iconic an event really... this isn't like a whole movie being played as an Onion-esque farce of history like Inglourious Basterds.. this is one detail of the story and it just seemed too inorganic, I guess) and really the best I could feel was that this was an ok-to-pretty-good-at-best movie. I will say that each actor- particularly McAvoy, Fassbender, Nicholas Hoult (as Beast) and Jennifer Lawrence (as Mystique)- played their roles really well. So it had that going for it. But on the whole... sadly... there was just something a little off about the movie. But still a lot better than I had expected.
Grade: B+
I'm not really sure what it is about origin stories/prequels that bother me so much. Maybe it's because they are typically too self-reverential, too overly serious, too.. well... full of it. I don't know. Maybe, it's because they are generally boring. It's all about building the mythology. Not that I think mythology is unimportant or anything, it just isn't so important that I'm going to crap my pants over it. Rarely have I enjoyed these movies... Iron Man was boring. Batman Begins was incredibly full of an over-inflated sense of self-worth. Star Wars Episode I was just plain dumb.
So I suppose by this point, it is needless to say that I was not really looking forward to X-Men: First Class. The concept was certainly ripe for overbearing self-referentiality. After all, the very mythology of the X-Men revolves around philosophical differences between the two main protagonists: Magneto and Professor X. The vibe generally has mirrored that of Malcolm X vs. Martin Luther King during the civil war movement (and yes, that might sound ridiculous, but I'm fairly sure that's where Stan Lee's head was when he was plotting the original comic books... well, maybe not the original comic books, but the ideology that grew from there.). So yeah, the potential for this to devolve into an over-bloated philosophy-fest- where every word has such...meaning... was, indeed, high. And you know what? It wasn't horrible. At least in that sense. It did carry a slightly, needlessly serious tone. Self-serious, that is. But there was some genuinely good action too. The problem here really wasn't with the usual prequel pitfalls, it was more just plain sloppy writing/plot and character development. Many of the weighty philosophical issues were presented in the film but they may have actually been addressed too fleetingly. I know that sounds hypocritical, but in this case, it fits. The whole story of Professor X and Magneto revolves around how close their friendship was before real- understandably real- ideological issues pulled them apart. I never got any sense of the true connection between the two characters here. Sure Erik (later Magneto- played with a demagogue's flair by Michael Fassbender) claimed to be Charles' (later Professor X- played in a solid turn by James McAvoy) friend, but they never felt that close. And there really wasn't much ideological sparring going on. It seemed like Erik was tolerating Charles until he could get what he wanted. Actually, most of the relationships in the film seemed rushed and/or jumpy. Maybe the pacing was off. Maybe they were concerned with being too damn boring, I don't know. Really, yeah, I just don't know exactly what it was, but the film seemed to be lacking a degree of depth. I was hoping for more of the type of ideological interplay that was presented in-say- The Dark Knight... though portrayed in a far less caffeinated way. And just wasn't there... or at least in any kind of intriguing way. And actually that's to the movie's detriment.
Add to that the irksome detail of having mutants playing a main role in the Cuban Missile Crisis (just too iconic an event really... this isn't like a whole movie being played as an Onion-esque farce of history like Inglourious Basterds.. this is one detail of the story and it just seemed too inorganic, I guess) and really the best I could feel was that this was an ok-to-pretty-good-at-best movie. I will say that each actor- particularly McAvoy, Fassbender, Nicholas Hoult (as Beast) and Jennifer Lawrence (as Mystique)- played their roles really well. So it had that going for it. But on the whole... sadly... there was just something a little off about the movie. But still a lot better than I had expected.
Grade: B+
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
New to Me 2011: 4.) Your Highness
Your Highness
I was thinking about just writing a one word entry (no) and submitting the letter grade (F+), but then I thought that might be taking the easy way out... and it would be way out of character for me to do something easy. So, let's cut to the chase... this movie sucked. Not just plain sucked. Far worse. It was a soul-crushingly bad movie. To say it was a strike-out or a flop would not do it justice in the least. I'm not sure I can remember a supposed comedy that was less funny. I think I might have chuckled once during the film... and that was probably just to keep from crying and/or destroying the TV in my mom's hotel room. (Rented it from the onDemand menu in my mom's room while my family was here visiting... yes, it cost a lot to rent this waste of time... and I was really hoping the price would turn into a credit on my mom's bill for having made it through the movie without doing damage to the room. Sadly, no, not the case.)
Here's the thing, too. Both my brother and I thought it was going to be bad. Awful even, but we both hoped for some cheap laughs. We were too tired to try to invest ourselves in any of the heavier dramas- most of which were surer bets to be good movies. It came down to The Dilemma (which my mom had seen) or Your Highness. Never has an act of consideration (didn't want to make my mom re-watch what might have been a marginally better movie) turned out so horribly wrong. At least for me. I know I owe my mom more than an apology, but I can't give her the wasted time back... oh well, at least she had the common sense to fall asleep through the bulk of it. I had no such luck.
Having established that the movie was- to put it generously- terrible, I guess it's time to play the blame game. Who's responsible for this piece of garbage? I suppose, ultimately, it's Danny McBride. His fingerprints are all over this flaming turd of a movie. He helped write it, he starred in it, and, if I'm not mistaken, he got a friend (David Gordon Green) to direct it. So, Danny McBride? This one's on you. And, I suppose then, that the fact that it sucked should not have come as a surprise. At least to me. I haven't seen much of McBride, but what I have seen hasn't been good. To me, he was ok and barely so in Tropic Thunder and far less than that in Land of the Lost. I'm not really sure how he has become the next big thing in comedy... is it East Bound and Down? The Foot-Fist Way? I don't know... why do people think he's so funny? Granted, I haven't seen either of East Bound and Down or the Foot-Fist Way, but right now, I have to imagine that all the praise for McBride's comedic prowess is more than a little bit misguided. From what I've seen, there is nothing fresh, edgy, or funny about him. Just another chubby, raunchy, red-neck-y schlub delivering crude jokes with the flair of a 15-year-old. Way to go Danny, way to add another notch in that belt with Your Highness.
OK, enough dumping on Danny McBride. I just realized I haven't explained why I thought the movie sucked...other than to say it wasn't funny. But hey, for a comedy, do I need to explain it more? Maybe not, but I can say this: the movie is just a long string of sex jokes, gay jokes, and jokes involving anachronistic language. (Knights that say "Fuck that, bitch). Dumb. Just plain dumb. And not funny. And you know what? None of the jokes/gags were particularly original. We've seen it all before... and we've seen it done better. I can't imagine that even the 13-15 year old boy audience would have much use for this dumpster fire. I was going to say that the only redeeming factor was Natalie Portman who played ass-kicking quester, Isabel, with much more dedication and effort than anyone else in the cast had invested in their characters (most of the folks in the movie seemed happy to regress to the worst/most immature 13 year old self). I'm not so sure that Portman's dedication to such a shit script (one that pretty-well ruined her character in the end...why in world would Isabel ever fall for/need McBride's schlubby Prince Thaddeus??? She wouldn't, but then again, McBride is the man in charge here anything idiotic is fair game) is much of a redeeming factor. She probably should have just said no...but then I suppose it would have been hard for her to say no to the inevitable pile of cash she was offered to slum it with the boys... especially with a baby on the way (although truthfully I'm not sure she knew a baby was on the way when she was filming the movie... I'm not sure of the chronology there...but I would find it amusing that something so dumb could eventually help pay for the kid's schooling). In the end, I suppose it was better to have at least one performer who was dedicated on at least some level to a nuanced performance. Too bad no one else seemed to be paying attention... is it enough to elevate the movie from a solid F (or even F-) to an F+ as I originally thought? Hard to say... let me think about that for a minute..
Anyway, I've spent waaaaaaaaaay too long writing about such a worthless movie. Let me put it this way if your idea of funny is watching the two heroes (McBride's Thaddeus and James Franco's vapid Prince Fabious) give a grating, stereotypically "flamingly gay" Kermit the Frog/Yoda mash up of an old wizard creature a hand-job, then this is the movie for you. As for me? No, thank you.
Grade: F+ (if for nothing else than the ridiculousness of giving anything an F+)
I was thinking about just writing a one word entry (no) and submitting the letter grade (F+), but then I thought that might be taking the easy way out... and it would be way out of character for me to do something easy. So, let's cut to the chase... this movie sucked. Not just plain sucked. Far worse. It was a soul-crushingly bad movie. To say it was a strike-out or a flop would not do it justice in the least. I'm not sure I can remember a supposed comedy that was less funny. I think I might have chuckled once during the film... and that was probably just to keep from crying and/or destroying the TV in my mom's hotel room. (Rented it from the onDemand menu in my mom's room while my family was here visiting... yes, it cost a lot to rent this waste of time... and I was really hoping the price would turn into a credit on my mom's bill for having made it through the movie without doing damage to the room. Sadly, no, not the case.)
Here's the thing, too. Both my brother and I thought it was going to be bad. Awful even, but we both hoped for some cheap laughs. We were too tired to try to invest ourselves in any of the heavier dramas- most of which were surer bets to be good movies. It came down to The Dilemma (which my mom had seen) or Your Highness. Never has an act of consideration (didn't want to make my mom re-watch what might have been a marginally better movie) turned out so horribly wrong. At least for me. I know I owe my mom more than an apology, but I can't give her the wasted time back... oh well, at least she had the common sense to fall asleep through the bulk of it. I had no such luck.
Having established that the movie was- to put it generously- terrible, I guess it's time to play the blame game. Who's responsible for this piece of garbage? I suppose, ultimately, it's Danny McBride. His fingerprints are all over this flaming turd of a movie. He helped write it, he starred in it, and, if I'm not mistaken, he got a friend (David Gordon Green) to direct it. So, Danny McBride? This one's on you. And, I suppose then, that the fact that it sucked should not have come as a surprise. At least to me. I haven't seen much of McBride, but what I have seen hasn't been good. To me, he was ok and barely so in Tropic Thunder and far less than that in Land of the Lost. I'm not really sure how he has become the next big thing in comedy... is it East Bound and Down? The Foot-Fist Way? I don't know... why do people think he's so funny? Granted, I haven't seen either of East Bound and Down or the Foot-Fist Way, but right now, I have to imagine that all the praise for McBride's comedic prowess is more than a little bit misguided. From what I've seen, there is nothing fresh, edgy, or funny about him. Just another chubby, raunchy, red-neck-y schlub delivering crude jokes with the flair of a 15-year-old. Way to go Danny, way to add another notch in that belt with Your Highness.
OK, enough dumping on Danny McBride. I just realized I haven't explained why I thought the movie sucked...other than to say it wasn't funny. But hey, for a comedy, do I need to explain it more? Maybe not, but I can say this: the movie is just a long string of sex jokes, gay jokes, and jokes involving anachronistic language. (Knights that say "Fuck that, bitch). Dumb. Just plain dumb. And not funny. And you know what? None of the jokes/gags were particularly original. We've seen it all before... and we've seen it done better. I can't imagine that even the 13-15 year old boy audience would have much use for this dumpster fire. I was going to say that the only redeeming factor was Natalie Portman who played ass-kicking quester, Isabel, with much more dedication and effort than anyone else in the cast had invested in their characters (most of the folks in the movie seemed happy to regress to the worst/most immature 13 year old self). I'm not so sure that Portman's dedication to such a shit script (one that pretty-well ruined her character in the end...why in world would Isabel ever fall for/need McBride's schlubby Prince Thaddeus??? She wouldn't, but then again, McBride is the man in charge here anything idiotic is fair game) is much of a redeeming factor. She probably should have just said no...but then I suppose it would have been hard for her to say no to the inevitable pile of cash she was offered to slum it with the boys... especially with a baby on the way (although truthfully I'm not sure she knew a baby was on the way when she was filming the movie... I'm not sure of the chronology there...but I would find it amusing that something so dumb could eventually help pay for the kid's schooling). In the end, I suppose it was better to have at least one performer who was dedicated on at least some level to a nuanced performance. Too bad no one else seemed to be paying attention... is it enough to elevate the movie from a solid F (or even F-) to an F+ as I originally thought? Hard to say... let me think about that for a minute..
Anyway, I've spent waaaaaaaaaay too long writing about such a worthless movie. Let me put it this way if your idea of funny is watching the two heroes (McBride's Thaddeus and James Franco's vapid Prince Fabious) give a grating, stereotypically "flamingly gay" Kermit the Frog/Yoda mash up of an old wizard creature a hand-job, then this is the movie for you. As for me? No, thank you.
Grade: F+ (if for nothing else than the ridiculousness of giving anything an F+)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)