Friday, August 8, 2014
Just because I’m curious, let’s take a look at my remake rules again and decide if this movie should have been made at all. For a movie to qualify for a remake, the original has to meet these specifications:
1. It didn’t win any Oscars. – Haha. Be serious.
2. It is at least 20 years old. – Check. Released in 1990 (and the sequels were released in ’91 and ’93).
3. It wasn’t great. – It was rated PG because it really was made for kids. It was also produced by an independent film company for just $13.5 million. Roger Ebert said “this movie is nowhere near as bad as it might have been, and probably is the best possible Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle movie.” It supplies, in other words, more or less what Turtle fans will expect.
4. It wasn’t terrible. – See number 3.
5. The new version is really a new version. – There are a ton of similarities, but there are major differences in main plot elements, so we’ll go ahead and say check.
6. It doesn’t feature the flavor-of-the-month actor/actress/US Weekly headliner. – Megan Fox might just be the exact opposite of that sentiment and the rest are people you always forget are still actors.
7. It didn’t make a ton of money. – Whoops. The original was the ninth highest grossing film of 1990, pulling in a world-wide gross just under $202 million on that tiny budget of $13.5 million. Of course, $202 million is less than an opening weekend for blockbusters these days, so this isn’t an egregious faux-pas.
Verdict: I’ll allow it.
Having said all that, I don’t think anybody asked for a remake, especially not one from Michael Bay, who managed to alternate doing great service to Transformers, then following that up by dropping a steaming deuce on that service. I didn’t think he’d be able to make a worse movie than Transformers: Age of Distinction, but I clearly underestimated the man’s abilities. To be fair, Bay only helped produce the movie, so maybe I’m being a little harsh. The real blame for this abomination lies with the director (Jonathan Liebesman) and three (THREE!?!) writers (Josh Appelbaum, Andre Nemec, Evan Daugherty).
On the surface, the movie is essentially what you expect. Ninja Turtles, April O’Neil (Megan Fox), fighting, car chases, the Shredder (Tohoru Masamune), explosions, some sort of ooze responsible for mutating the turtles and their master, Splinter (Tony Shaloub – voice; Danny Woodburn – motion capture), the foot clan, evil plot to take over the city/world. Under the surface, the movie is lazy, poorly written, and miscast in ways both obvious and not so obvious.
(Here come the SPOILERS, but that shouldn’t be a problem since you’re not eight.)
The film begins with April trying to investigate thefts by the foot clan in an effort to prove that she is a real journalist. After two different run-ins with the foot clan and their battles with vigilantes (the Turtles), she has evidence of the vigilantes and extensive information about the foot clan that would make for a great story. But does her editor (the absurdly out of place, Whoopi Goldberg) believe her? Of course not. Does April whip out her pictures of the Turtles that are on her phone? Of course not. Does she have interviews or statements from any of the hostages from her last incident who also definitely saw the Turtles? Of course not. That would have given her credibility as a journalist, but nobody wants that – she’s Megan Fox. Bring on the damn Turtles.
Shortly thereafter, we get the obligatory fight scene where the foot clan has orders to capture the Turtles to get the Mutagen (the ooze) and the following dumb shit happens:
• When the clan and Shredder show up, Shredder gets into a one-on-one fight with Splinter, eventually defeating him. Yet, it never dawns on Shredder that Splinter would also have Mutagen in him and Shredder just leaves him there for dead.
• During the one-on-one, Splinter keeps telling the Turtles to save themselves and even closes a gate on them to keep them from helping them. Two things here. One, why does Splinter think five-on-one and winning is worse than one-on-one and losing? Two, it takes three of the Turtles all of their strength to barely lift a metal gate even though earlier in the film they are flinging shipping containers around like they are nothing and later in the film will hold up the spire of a skyscraper.
After the capture of three of the Turtles, we quickly move to the next big action scene in Sacks’ laboratory where he is draining the Turtles’ blood to extract Mutagen. The only dumb thing here is minor and not worth mentioning, but the ensuing car chase scene down the side of an Everest-ian mountain sure is. Not only is this scene extremely difficult to watch (due to the insipid 3-D and spastic camera and animation work), but it’s supposedly occurring in a mountain range with sewer entrances that lead into Sacks’ building in Times Square. I dare you to think of a lazier, fucktastic plot point than that.
At this point, the movie culminates in the final battle scene in which the Turtles will predictably prevail by using a crane-kick-esque movie to defeat the Transformer/Predator that is Shredder. Just to digress for moment, the Shredder’s armor was definitely concocted by Bay. There are scenes in which you will believe the Turtles and Splinter are fighting Megatron. Anyway, this final sequence brings us one of the most comically bad performances in the history of film in the form of Fichtner firing a handgun. Not only is he waving it around like a high school kid would do in a play, but the gun has no visible muzzle flash. He might as well be yelling “bang, bang” at that point because it wouldn’t be any more absurd than the delivery of his ridiculous final diatribe. In fact, one gunshot doesn’t even sync with his arm motion when he moves it in a firing motion. I’m fairly certain this film had no editor.
Before I get to the final atrocities seen in the film, we need to focus a bit on the terrible casting choices and putrid dialogue. The casting was just plain bizarre. Megan Fox can’t act her way out of a box, but it’s not surprising to see her in a movie like this. But what the fuck were Will Arnett and Whoopi Goldberg doing in this movie? Goldberg has spent far too much time as a yapping hen on The View to remember what acting actual entails and Arnett is asked to make sexual advances towards Fox as often as possible, which is pretty much the opposite of what anyone wants in this movie (not to mention they ask the same thing of one of the Turtles, which is also not funny; just gross). Even stranger is that they chose to cast voices for Splinter and one of the Turtles, but not the other three. Every time I try to think of a logical reason for that, my brain farts.
On the dialogue front, not only do we get a steady stream of bad deliveries and tired clichés, we get treated to Shredder switching from Japanese to English back to Japanese – because that was the one thing missing from this movie, forced usage of the old catch phrases that don’t resonate even a little bit, and the following lines from Sacks – “Time to take a bite out of the Big Apple,” “I guess April came early this year,” and his motivation “I’m going to be stupid rich.” Dude, you live in a castle and drive a helicopter; you’re just stupid.
It’s time to wrap this thing up, so here are the last three things that inspire jaw-dropping in the name of stupidity.
• In order to save Splinter, they need to get their hands on the Mutagen taken from their blood. Except, Splinter already has the same shit in his blood. I guess Shredder isn’t the only moron in this film.
• The Turtles thank April for not telling the world about them, even though she told her editor in the hopes of telling the rest of the world in the form of a news sotry, told Sacks about them (causing the entire last sixty minutes of the film to happen), and showed themselves to the entire world by standing in the middle of Times Square after falling from a skyscraper in front of hundreds of people.
• In what is the worst and most unnecessary product placement ever, the final scene shows two of the Turtles hiding on a giant Victoria’s Secret billboard by grabbing onto the depicted breasts of model Behati Prinsloo. I’m pretty sure eight-year olds aren’t going to get that joke and if they do, there are some parents who need to be arrested.
Rating: If you spent money to see this movie and aren’t accompanying your small children, you deserve to have your wallet stolen.
Friday, August 1, 2014
Last week, after seeing Lucy, my friend opined that Lucy is fine as long as you don’t think about it. That very well might be the most backhanded compliment one can give to a movie. Essentially, what that statement means is that the film is a flaming turd disguised by an element or two that makes the film tolerable. In the case of Lucy, those elements are good action scenes and Scarlett Johansson walking around in a tight, black dress causing half the audience to drool and the other half to edge ever-so-slightly towards bulimia. But, when you start to think about the plot, the character development, or the various character motivations, you realize you can smell the turd and it’s not pleasant.
The interesting thing about said compliment is it is used almost exclusively by people to sugarcoat their real opinion for a certain audience or because they secretly liked the movie and don’t want to admit they have no idea what a well-written story/screenplay looks like (note: my friend is one of the former). Personally, I use that statement as a veiled insult directed at people who openly like movies that fit the compliment or the people who actually wrote/made the movie. In other words, when I say that Lucy is a tolerable action movie if you turn your brain off, I’m saying Luc Besson – and anyone who claims Lucy is more than a big, dumb action flick – is a moron. I’m not saying you can’t like the film or enjoy it (hell, I enjoyed the shit out of Battleship); I’m just saying don’t make it more than it is. For me, there aren’t many things funnier than people trying to explain the depth and gravitas of poorly written movies like Maleficent.
The converse to said compliment is that it is possible to make big, action flicks that are both fun and non-dumb, which brings me to Guardians of the Galaxy. Based on the previews, I fully expected that I would have to turn off my brain to enjoy the film. If you are in the majority of folks, the only thing you know about the film is that a tree, a raccoon, a green-chick, and two dudes come together on a spaceship to crack jokes and shoot people. That is not exactly the formula for a well-written movie; in fact, it’s essentially Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, but with intentional comedy.
(Side note: how hard are you trying to match up those characters right now? There is no way you are sleeping tonight without figuring that out.)
Where Guardians succeeds and so many others fail is that it delivers a very simple, straight-forward plot, focuses a lot on character development while using it to advance the story, and doesn’t use action just for the sake of action. The entire plot of the film, as you may have guessed, is that the five characters shown in the previews will save the galaxy from something. In this case, they have to save the galaxy from a villain named Ronan (Lee Pace) who is trying to get his hands on an Infinity Stone, which will give him the power to destroy entire planets. Simple, right? The plot advances through various events, bringing the characters together while also telling us more about the characters themselves, including their back stories and motivations for the actions they have taken and the actions they are going to take. There are a couple of minor, unanswered questions like – who is the collector (Benicio del Toro) and why have we now seen him in two different movies? – but those questions don’t make the plot harder to understand or outright nonsensical. In the context of the film, the collector is the guy who promised to pay Gamora (Zoe Saldana) a ton of money for the sphere containing the stone and that’s it. Simple, right?
On top of all that, there are smaller things that make the movie more entertaining than just about any movie this summer. For one thing, the movie is aware of itself. Another thing you hear people sometimes say is that a movie took itself too seriously or isn’t aware of itself. What that usually means is that the mood of the movie does not match the content of the movie. Not to harp too much on Lucy, but it definitely takes itself too seriously (after the first half, that is) in that it treats its own premise with far too much weight. The idea that a human gains multiple superpowers through expanded brain capacity by ingesting a large quantity of a drugs sewn into her stomach is absurd and should be treated as such (obviously, this is not how Lucy handled its own premise). Guardians is a comic book movie in which one of its characters is a genetically engineered, sarcastic raccoon named Rocket (Bradley Cooper) and another is a tree named Groot (Vin Diesel). The mood you would expect is fun action and comedy dressed in special effects and that’s exactly what you get. That’s how you know Guardians is aware of itself.
Of course, the movie isn’t without its flaws. Chris Pratt gives an uneven performance – sometimes he’s really good and sometimes he’s soap opera bad. There are a bunch of thieves led by Yondu (Michael Rooker) that are superfluous and could easily be lifted from the movie without impacting the story. There are some really bad performances put forth by Karen Gillan as Nebula – who spends the entire movie screeching – and Pace, who over-delivers nearly every line he utters. Perhaps the most glaring flaw is best put like this – what the hell is Glenn Close doing in this movie?
The point I’m trying to make is that the movie doesn’t ask you turn off your brain, but also doesn’t ask you to think about anything either. It’s simply asking you to come along for a fun ride for a couple of hours and enjoy yourself. I’m not saying Guardians of the Galaxy is the best movie of the summer, but it might just be the most entertaining.
Rating: Don’t ask for any money back. This movie turned out far better than even Marvel could have predicted.
Friday, July 25, 2014
When I saw the first trailer for Lucy, I was a little blown away. It promised Scarlett Johansson becoming super smart and telekinetic and looked like a high-concept action flick, revolving around the mythological concept that humans only use 10% of their brains. Then, I saw that Besson was responsible for writing and directing Lucy and suddenly, I was blown back to where I started. At first, I tried to convince myself that maybe Besson was getting back to his strength – writing a movie exploring characters (like he did in those early three films) and judiciously inserting action scenes. Lucy seemed like the perfect character to explore and I thought the movie might be akin to a superhero origin story. You know what I mean – a character suddenly has super powers and must learn how to deal with them. Unfortunately, Besson was having none of that, writing a screenplay composed mostly of forced action sequences and scant character motivation, wasting a chance to go all Professional on us like we’d hoped.
(If you are one of the many people looking forward to seeing this movie, stop reading now or skip to the rating at the bottom. Then, go see the movie. Then, come back and the following SPOILERS will not be spoilers.)
The two comparable movies to Lucy that immediately sprung to mind were Limitless and The Lawnmower Man – both of them employing the same concept as Lucy in enabling a person to use more of their brain or enhancing their intelligence with a magic serum. Limitless was a complete waste of a movie, telling us that no matter how smart a person is, they must always resort to killing someone to solve whatever problem confronts them. The Lawnmower Man did a much better job of exploring the evolution of the main character, though it turned a lot of people off with its incorporation of virtual reality and Job morphing into a digital murderer. Lucy falls much closer to Limitless, though Lucy is at least entertaining as an action vehicle and doesn’t feature the artist formerly known as Robert De Niro.
I’d love to tell you Lucy features an interesting and complex plot, but it’s basically the standard Besson cliché of the main character being hunted and chased by drug dealers. Kang (the drug lord) kidnaps Lucy (Johansson) and three others and has a bag of drugs sown into the abdomen of each victim so that they can pass through airport customs safely. For reasons that don’t make any sense, Lucy is locked in some room and gets beaten up by one of her captors because she won’t let him rape her. The captor inadvertently ruptures the bag, the drugs are absorbed into Lucy’s body, and she becomes Spider-Man. Just kidding. She actually turns into the mom from Poltergeist for a minute, sliding up the wall and onto the ceiling while her body is being racked by seizures (I was simultaneously laughing and shaking my head during this ridiculous scene). Considering we’re told earlier in the film by Professor Norman (Morgan Freeman) that telekinesis doesn’t occur until at least 30% brain usage, this scene makes absolutely no sense other than to be an embarrassment for everyone involved. After Lucy recovers, the movie starts using her current brain usage (in convenient 10% intervals) as chapter transitions, and we see that Lucy is now at 20%. The rest of the film is nothing more than Lucy killing people and being chased by Kang and his men until the movie is over. I told you it was close to Limitless.
One of the most common things you hear about summer popcorn flicks is that they’re decent movies if you don’t think about them and that’s easy enough for the vast majority of moviegoers. I mean, how else do you explain the box office receipts for movies like Ironman 3 or Maleficent? My problem is that I do think about them because I actually give a damn about good storytelling. And, I’m not the only one. As my friend and I stood outside the theater after the film concluded giving our initial thoughts, another member of the audience walked up and asked what I thought of the film? After I responded with “It’s at least a decent action flick,” he said that he hated it and proceeded to tell me why. The best part about what he said – he sounded like I do after movies like this, but he got there a lot quicker.
The first thing he (I stupidly did not catch his name, so let’s just call him Bob) pointed out was the villain’s motivation was completely irrational. Lucy originally gets mixed up in the ordeal when her friend tricks her into delivering a case to Kang for him. Kang doesn’t know what’s in the case and, even after discovering what’s inside, doesn’t know what the drugs actually do. He just forces some junkie to snort one of the drug crystals, then shoots him in the head when the guy can’t stop laughing. Bob wanted to know why Kang was so adamant about chasing down Lucy, even though she spends most of the movie with a French cop; even though Kang knows what she’s capable of; even though Kang has no idea that the drugs are responsible for her condition. In fact, Bob correctly asserts that all of the characters in the movie, besides Lucy of course, are irrelevant, which leads us to Morgan Freeman.
Freeman’s Professor Norman’s entire purpose seems to be specifically to narrate. Seriously, that’s not a poke at Freeman – his entire job is to explain the theory of what a human is capable of if they can access more of their brain (during the first ten minutes of the film). The rest of the time, he just gawks at Lucy (and not just because she’s Scarlett Johansson) and makes surprised faces. Bob also hated that Freeman’s explanation was logical and thorough for the first 20% of brain usage, but turns to absurd fantasizing for the rest and a big “I don’t know” when asked about 100%. See what Besson did there? Clever, no? Yeah, you’re right – no.
Bob also noted that most of the action sequences were completely unnecessary. There’s a car chase scene in which Lucy is causing cars to flip and crash and explode in order to clear her path, even though she could easily have just pushed them aside and not injured or killed dozens of people. Then, in the climactic scene, she (feels? Echolocates? Professor X-es?) twenty-five men, including Kang, and tells the cop to hold them off because she has to concentrate. Okay – two questions: 1) concentrate for what and 2) why can’t she just take care of them first and then go concentrate? The answer to both questions is so that Besson can stage a pointless shootout between the cops and Kang’s men while Lucy turns into a mass of black tentacles in order to absorb all the technology in the lab and create the Construct from The Matrix (the place where Neo and Morpheus stand that is all white).
That all actually happens.
As Bob and I agreed on everything he and I were pointing out, we both realized that the real problem with the movie was the severe lack of development. Besson spent no time in developing Lucy, putting any thought into how she would react to the changes (in fact, he waives it all away by having her tell us that she’s lost all emotion), or the changes themselves. Of course, with a running time of 89 minutes, Besson sure as hell wasn’t going to cut the all-important car chase scene. Even the tension was artificial, as Lucy says she only has twenty-four hours to live and that the remaining bags of drugs are exactly the right amount she needs to get to 100% brain usage. To top it all off, the last line of the movie is probably one of the most confusing, nonsensical lines ever uttered in a film – “We were given life a billion years ago. Now you know what to do with it.” If by that, she means not wasting it watching movies like Lucy, then sure, we do know what to do with it.
After Bob left, my opinion of the film had been knocked down at least seven dollars. Bob helped to crystallize the feeling I had during the credits – that Besson might have actually been calling the entire audience stupid. The lack of development throughout the film and accelerated pace through Lucy’s evolution gave the impression that Besson was in on a secret, but didn’t want to share it with us. He even emphasizes that point via the closing line I just shared with you and with spliced-in nature scenes used as analogies, delivered with the subtlety of a stick of dynamite. At this point, the secret isn’t whether or not Besson is smarter than us; it’s if Besson is even using his full 10%.
Rating: Ask for all but a dollar back (or three back if you only care about action). Lucy’s as entertaining as 3 Days to Kill, but 90% disappointment.
Friday, July 18, 2014
If you are hoping to find out what happens next to Hawke and family, you will be sorely disappointed, as Anarchy wisely acts as if the first film was just some random anecdote or never happened at all. The title itself is disappointing (and wildly uncreative), not seeming to refer to anything in particular since the Purge, by its very definition, is sanctioned anarchy. As Kevin Pollack once joked about the titling of Grumpier Old Men – “A think tank from Mensa came up with that name.”
(Obligatory SPOILER warning. I won’t reveal who dies, but I will reveal the more interesting components of the movie, because that's what makes this movie both good and bad. If you only care about watching people murder each other, you won't care anyway.)
Anarchy begins by introducing us to five people who are going to be our subjects of interest, though only one of them is actually interesting. There’s Eva (Carmen Ejogo) and her daughter Cali (Zoe Soul), living together with Eva’s father and struggling to get by. There’s Liz (Kiele Sanchez) and her boyfriend Shane (Zach Gilford), a yuppie-ish couple having relationship issues and mulling over a separation. Finally, there’s Sergeant (Frank Grillo), a guy who meet gearing up for the Purge with a corkboard full of newspaper clippings on the wall over shoulder. Guess who the interesting one is? I don’t want you to think that only 20% of this movie is interesting, quite the opposite in fact. Each of the three groups of people is a vehicle for an interesting component to the overarching theme that is the Purge and is displayed through the way in which they each end up on the streets during the Purge. As a bonus, none of them end up on the streets because of the typical stupidity displayed by victims in slasher flicks (though, it’s not without those clichés – one of the female characters will trip over nothing while being chased by a baddie).
To begin with, Liz and Shane get caught out on the road when their car breaks down. They quickly discover that someone sabotaged their car and those someones are chasing them (and wearing those pointless masks I mentioned). Liz and Shane could literally be anyone, which is why they are so uninteresting. Their relationship strife is just a weak attempt at development, but, again, doesn’t matter to the plot at all. They could be the happiest couple ever and it wouldn’t change anything they do or say throughout the rest of the night. What is interesting is the saboteurs are chasing them because they are being paid by rich people to catch and deliver victims for said rich people to hunt in a game-like arena. If you’ve ever seen the film Surviving the Game or read the story it is based on (The Most Dangerous Game), you know how interesting it is to delve into how far humans will go to get a thrill from hunting. Incidentally, the best scene in the film is related to this concept.
Then, we have Eva and Cali, again two people who could be anybody. We’re supposed to feel sorry for them and root for them to survive because they’re poor and using all their money on medicine for Eva’s dad, except that becomes moot when dad sneaks out of the house having sold himself to some rich people to quench their need to Purge, simultaneously providing a large sum of money to the girls. In completely unrelated news, they are forced out of their apartment building by apparent paramilitary troops who drag them in front of a semi to be mowed down by what looks like a butcher with a minigun. As you can see, the back story we get has literally nothing to do with any event for the rest of the movie, and again, the guys in paramilitary garb and minigun wielding butcher are far more intriguing than the two women.
At this point in the film, the five people come together. Sergeant sees the two women and decides to intervene and Liz and Shane take refuge in Sergeant’s car while he is saving the women. After the action, Sergeant tells them he will take them to Eva’s friend’s house as long as he gets the friend’s car to take care of whatever revenge business he appears to be on. The rest of the film is the five of them running through the death trap that is Los Angeles on Purge night, but again, that’s not what’s interesting. What is interesting (that the last film completely lacked) is that we finally get to explore some of the things that people do when there are no repercussions – revenge and vigilantism (and not just for Seargeant), the rich paying poor people for the right to kill them, government conspiracies to cull the population in conjunction with the rich, powerful, and elite, and…wait, what? Ahhhh – now we’re getting somewhere.
Early in the film, Cali is watching a web video of Carmelo (Michael K. Williams) ranting about how the Purge is exactly what I just said it was – a subversive way for the upper class to keep the lower class in its place and he and his followers were going to fight back on this Purge night. Unfortunately, this thread is barely pulled at all, as you will only see them one more time in the entire film and keeps this film from being better than just an okay movie. Demolition Man walked the same path, but did a much better job of developing and integrating it into the world created by the film.
If I was going to describe this movie in one word, it would be prologue. All of the small stories were compelling and made for great scenes, but seemed more like teases to a much larger story that movie only hints at. Who is Carmelo really and who is pulling the strings and coordinating those troops? Who really is benefitting from the Purge? Who is that old lady auctioneer at the hunting facility? Wait, scratch that last one; I got carried away a little bit.
The film itself is a much better movie that its predecessor, though the acting and dialogue this time around were on the level of one of the SyFy monster movies. What’s kind of funny is that both were written and directed by the same guy – James DeMonaco – and deserves as much kudos for making a good film this time around as he does ridicule for making a waste of a film the last time. Hopefully James is thinking the same thing I am – best two out of three?
Rating: Ask for three dollars back as no prologue is worth full price.
Friday, July 11, 2014
The film begins with a montage of news reports overlaid with a map depicting the spread of the virus Franco’s character created around the globe over a period of ten years. When everything finally goes dark, we are greeted by our old ape pal Caesar (Andy Serkis), dressed in war paint, and signaling his troops for an attack. If you’ve seen any of the trailers, you’ve seen this scene and it’s not the impending attack on the remaining humans like you are led to believe. They’re hunting elk. Yeah – I know; I was baffled too. It’s a very misplaced scene in which Caesar gets a chance to teach his kid a lesson about patience and we all immediately ask the question “since when are apes carnivores?” I get that evolution would probably push them that way, but in only ten years? Am I already thinking too hard about this movie?
After an introduction to the apes’ home and society, a couple of the apes stumble across two humans in the forest and one of the apes is shot and killed by the panicky human, Carver (Kirk Acevedo). Caesar quickly responds and surrounds the larger group of humans that will become our main characters outside of Caesar and his advisor, Koba (also returning from the first film). The humans consist of Malcolm (Jason Clarke), his son Alexander (Kodi Smit-McPhee), his wife Ellie (Keri Russell), Carver, and Kempt (Enrique Murciano) and were on a mission to restart a hydroelectric plant when they ran into the apes. In an effort to avoid conflict (and for the film to further establish his humanity), Caesar releases the humans and sends them home (to San Francisco). Koba argues that they must show force, so Caesar leads an army of apes to the city and warns the humans to stay out of the forest. At this point, we also meet the leader of the humans in Dreyfus (Gary Oldman), who insists that they cannot survive without the dam. After Caesar leaves, Dreyfus immediately begins preparing for war and Malcolm convinces him to give him three days to speak with Caesar and convince him to compromise and let them restart the dam. This is also where the story kind of falls on its face.
We don’t know anything about the human colony other than they live in San Francisco and there are more than twenty people and less than a million. Dreyfus says that they will run out of fuel in a couple of weeks and the way the way to survive is to reconnect with other pockets of surviving humans. In other words, they need the power in order to make a phone call. Um, what? Other than communications, how is the power so necessary that they are using all of their fuel on it? And why are they still living in a city instead of closer to farmland? And what nuclear power plant is Dreyfus talking about when he says they “used up all of their nuclear fuel years ago” (the closest nuclear plant to San Francisco is roughly two hundred miles away)? And how many people are living there that they managed to consume the equivalent of 2.2 million people’s worth of electricity (per year)? These are questions you start wondering when the film gives electricity as the sole motivation for humans willing to go to war, but failing to give any rational explanation for using that electricity. In fact (SPOILER ALERT), when the humans do get their power back on, they all start dancing in the streets as if grocery stores are going to start magically spitting out Lean Cuisines and Fanta. Whatever.
The rest of the movie is incredibly predictable – humans and apes will try to get along for as long as needed, but certain apes named Koba would rather just kill all the humans because he hates them for experimenting on him pre-apocalypse. Even though the film was predictable, I found myself drawn in by the continued (from the first film) look into the shitty side of humanity; this time, taking shape in the enhanced-intelligent apes. It’s not subtle and probably explains the tepid applause by the audience when the film concluded (conversely, the enormously crappy Tammy received a resounding ovation, much to my chagrin) because people generally don’t like facing truths about our own shittiness.
Maybe my real problem with the film is that it didn’t try to break any new ground, as its predecessor did, and doesn’t even come close to telling a compelling a story. The actors were given very little to do, with the exception of Jason Clarke, who seemed slightly out of his depth. I’m not advocating for the deadpan Franco or the wildly inconsistent Mark Walhberg, but Clarke just wasn’t very convincing as a counterpart to Caesar. None of the humans were developed to a point that we should actually care about them, plus, Caesar is the hero and because humanity is so sucky, we’d actually prefer to spend less time with the humans and more time with the apes. In fact, a far better movie would have shown us two groups of apes having to deal with each other through their newfound intelligence rather than the well-trampled ground of ape vs. human that we’ve seen throughout the franchise.
Rating: Ask for two dollars back. It’s an entertaining movie and looks as good as the first, even though you can predict everything that’s going to happen well before it happens.
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Men in Black
Wild Wild West
Scary Movie 2
Men in Black II
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines
War of the Worlds
With the exception of Scary Movie 2, every one of the those movies screams blockbuster (!!!). Then, something inexplicable happened in 2009, and the big releases were Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs and Public Enemies. A cartoon and a Johnny Depp movie that didn’t feature pirates? Was Hollywood changing their thinking, hoping that the holiday weekend would provide a boost to two movies they weren’t very confident in? Were they hoping to squeeze extra money out of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen by opening it the week prior? Were they blackmailed into opening lesser movies by people who wanted to be, you know, outside during the summer time?
2010 got even weirder when the two major releases were Twilight: Eclipse and The Last Airbender. Why would they release a movie aimed specifically at teenage girls on a day known for blowing things up? More importantly, why was M. Night Shyamalan being trusted with the most important weekend of the summer after previously releasing the atrocious Lady in the Water and nearly-as-bad The Village? Did we (the audience) do something to upset Hollywood that they would ruin National Explosion Weekend?
They seemed to realize their mistake and attempted to fix it by releasing Transformers: Dark of the Moon in 2011, The Amazing Spider-Man in 2012, and The Lone Ranger in 2013. Unfortunately, the damage seemed to be done. While Dark of the Moon was exactly what we were expecting, The Amazing Spider-Man was a disappointing and unnecessary retread, and The Lone Ranger was just short of a complete disaster. At this point, Hollywood has completely confused themselves and, in 2014, we’ve somehow ended up with a trio of less-than interesting movies that scream anything but “Today we celebrate our Independence Day!” : Deliver Us From Evil – a random horror flick; Earth to Echo – a movie that hasn’t even been advertised; and Tammy – the next installment of insisting Melissa McCarthy is actually funny. Transformers: Age of Extinction may have been a complete disaster in the story department, but at least things explode. If only that had happened to McCarthy’s completely unsympathetic Tammy, the weekend might have been redeemed.
If you saw any of the trailers for Tammy, you probably voiced the same question I did – what is this movie actually about? After seeing it, I can confidently tell you that it is about absolutely nothing. Seriously, it has no plot. It doesn’t even have a premise. Typically when I say a movie has no plot, what I’m saying is that there was a plot but it was either poorly developed or made no sense. In Tammy’s case, I’m being literal. The movie has no plot. The closest comparison it has is to a biography, but Tammy isn’t telling someone’s life story, just an event from a person’s life. Tammy isn’t even an interesting person. She’s just a fat, stupid slob who runs away from home after getting fired from her job at a fast-food restaurant. That’s not me being mean; the character is purposely written that way. She blames other people for her problems, misuses words throughout the film, she can barely read (mispronouncing “Twain” – as in Mark Twain – while reading a sign), and cheated on her husband (who, in all fairness, was cheating on her as well) with the ice cream man. The best part is that she co-wrote the film with her real-life husband (Ben Falcone), who also directed the film. I’d call it self-deprecating humor except the movie isn’t funny (in fact, Kathy Bates’ character, Lenore, asks Tammy’s grandmother if Tammy even has a sense of humor).
To be fair, much of the audience was laughing at the screen, so there are some people out there that think she’s funny. And that’s okay – there are things I find funny that other people don’t. My problem with the writing is that the things that are supposed to be funny have no impact because there isn’t a story to give them any context. All good comedies (and even bad comedies) rely on the premise and plot to give the jokes a base to launch from and something for the audience to relate to. Office Space is funny because anyone who has worked in an office understands the situation. Horrible Bosses is funny because everyone has had a boss they’ve thought about murdering. Super Troopers is funny because we can all imagine bored cops inventing silly games to keep from shooting themselves after pulling someone over for speeding for the umpteenth time.
The closest thing Tammy gets to as a plot is a road trip with her grandmother (Susan Sarandon) because her grandmother just wants to get out of the house. They aren’t going anywhere in particular or for any reason, so when something written as comedy occurs it usually just comes off as uncomfortable. Examples include: her grandmother being an alcoholic – so drinking is supposed to be funny; her grandmother being a diabetic – so swollen feet are supposed to funny; and her grandmother being kind of slutty – so Tammy sleeping outside of the door of their motel room while her grandmother nails Gary Cole is supposed to funny. The only times I found myself chuckling (and there were very few) were at a couple of Sarandon’s lines and a couple of Bates’ lines. If you start to think about those things, you start to think that maybe this movie is actually a tragedy.
Compounding the terrible writing is the terrible casting. While the movie is filled with very good actors, the roles they fill are not good fits. Allison Janney plays Tammy’s mother and I’ve already told you that Sarandon plays Tammy’s grandmother. The problem is that McCarthy is 43 years old, Janney is 54, and Sarandon is 66. I know that casting often asks us to believe in bizarre age differences, but this one was too much to take because we have eyes and this isn’t radio. McCarthy and Janney look the same age (plus, McCarthy looks like a very old 43) and Sarandon doesn’t look even close to old enough to pass for her grandmother (not to mention the makeup and styling crew barely even tried to make her look older, giving her some grey curls and calling it a day). Janney also has so little screen time that it would have made far more sense to just cut her out completely and make Sarandon Tammy’s mother. I also thought Bates and Sarandon’s roles should have been switched. Bates’ Lenore is a successful, hippie lesbian – a role that seems right up Sarandon’s ally, though Bates gave the best performance in the film by far. Bates would have made a much better mother/grandmother because has the same body shape as McCarthy, she could pull off mean, drunk, and crass without even trying, and has a better comedic delivery than Sarandon. Toss in a pointless cameo by Dan Aykroyd as Tammy’s father (who is Sarandon’s age, no less) – and the severely unfunny Sandra Oh and Toni Collette in bit roles – and you can at least understand where I’m coming from.
As you might have guessed by now, I’m not a fan of McCarthy’s films (or her television shows, for that matter). Bridesmaids was one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen (my wife hated it more than I did), Identity Thief was miserable and unwatchable, and The Heat was unable to crack a smile on my face even though I was borderline delirious on an international flight when I watched it. I was hoping that if I saw Tammy in a crowded theater, I might be more inclined to laugh along with everyone else, but that didn’t work either. Instead, I left the theater missing Will Smith and wondering who decided to replace explosions, special effects, and absurd car chases with a woman who is typecasting herself as a disgusting, crass, dumbass with no comedic timing. Ugh. Happy Fourth of July.
Rating: Ask for all your money back, unless you find McCarthy funny, in which case you are on your own.
Friday, June 27, 2014
Age of Extinction begins the same way the stupendously asinine Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen begins – by showing transformers screwing with Earth in the distant past. This time around, a fleet of ships is dropping bombs and killing all of the dinosaurs and most of the life on Earth. See what they did there? Yay for pseudo-history. This is supposed to provide us with information needed to explain what’s going to happen later in the movie, but I promise you will only be more confused later on. In present times, a hot blonde chick shows up at an arctic mining site where a dinosaur made of metal has been unearthed. Since we know from the previews that Optimus Prime will ride a Dinobot (if you aren’t familiar with Transformers toys or the animated television show, they are exactly what you think) into combat at some point, you would think maybe this is that Dinobot but you’d be wrong.
Cut to Texas, U.S.A. (the movie actually prints “Texas, U.S.A.” on the screen to make sure we don’t confuse it with, say, Texas, Russia), where struggling inventor Cade Yeager (Mark Wahlberg) buys a wrecked semi-truck from a dilapidated movie theater. Yes, that scene is as ridiculous as it sounds and yes, the character’s name actually is Cade. Yeager. At this point in the movie, if you aren’t drinking already, you should start.
Anyway, Cade’s character is given the standard character treatment for any character you’re not really supposed to give a shit about – he’s broke, widowed, super-smart, and has a ridiculously hot seventeen year-old daughter who “takes care of him” (incidentally, this is one my wife’s biggest hatreds when it comes to character tropes – kids who are smarter or more practical than their parents). On that note, his daughter Tessa (Nicola Peltz) is constantly on his case that they are broke, is hoping to get a scholarship to go to college, and is secretly dating a rally-car racer even though her father has forbidden her from dating. Does this matter at all? God, no. Her only job in this film is to be hot (usually wearing what can only be described as denim underwear with long pockets), scream, and run. Cade’s job is to “fix…ahem” Optimus Prime (that old truck he bought) and run around firing a sword/gun thingy (this happens much later) while cracking jokes in the form of embarrassingly unfunny one-liners.
Meanwhile, transformers – Autobots and Decepticons alike – have been deemed illegal aliens (because, of course they have!) and are being hunted and killed by the CIA, and sold off to a defense contractor for research and materials. Harold Attinger (Kelsey Grammar) heads up the operations, declaring that “the age of transformers is at an end.” Okay, what the fuck is going on? Not only have we already gone through blaming the Autobots for everything in Revenge of the Fallen and they have saved the Earth and the human race three times, but “age of the transformers?!” Were we ever told it started? And, at this point, could you blame the Autobots if they teamed up with any remaining Decepticons and just slaughtered the entire human race? Could you?
Anyway, Attinger has secretly made a deal with a transformer called Lockdown – who can transform his face into a cannon and is some kind of intergalactic assassin/bounty hunter – because, apparently, Boba Fett was busy. Seriously, we don’t know anything about Lockdown other than he wants to capture Optimus Prime on orders from “the creators” and because “the balance of the universe must be restored.” If you want to know who the creators are or what is out of balance, you’re shit out of luck because this movie wasn’t about to waste a couple of minutes (out of 165; yeah, that’s two hours and forty-five minutes) explaining itself when there are things to blow up.
In exchange for capturing Optimus, Lockdown will give Attinger a seed, which when detonated, will turn organic matter into Transformium – programmable metal that the transformers are made from (these are the bombs that destroyed the dinosaurs). You see, Attinger also has a deal with the CEO of that defense contractor, Joshua Joyce (Stanley Tucci), to build their own transformers and they need the seed to create more material because they are running out of transformers to kill and the arctic-metal-dinosaur supply is also exhausted. What does all this have to do with the Yeager family? Take a drink.
The Yeagers exist solely because director Michael Bay and writer Ehrun Kruger insist that audiences give a fuck about humans in a movie about giant transforming alien robots fighting an intergalactic war. Newsflash: we don’t. Considering how pointless they are to the, er…plot, Bay and Kruger don’t either. If we gave a shit about the human story, we’d be watching The Fault in Our Stars.
Since we’re on the topic of plot, this movie didn’t have one. Is the movie about a perceived fight for the Earth between humans and transformers? Is it about the poor plight of a genius who thought the best place to build a robotics company was in the scientifically-retarded Texas wilderness? Is it about some unknown galactic creators who built knights, including Optimus, that did something somewhere and they were mad enough to send cannon-face after them? Is it about dinosaurs? Illegal immigration? EVERYTHING IS BLOWING UP AND NOBODY WILL TELL US ANYTHING AND THIS MOVIE IS REALLY REALLY LONG AND REALLY REALLY LOUD!!!!
I know movies like this are not best-described as cerebral, but it would have been nice if anything had made any sense. This is the fourth movie in the franchise; plenty of time to have developed a coherent narrative spanning the four films. Instead, we’ve had a hodgepodge of nonsense piled on top of the very good original film so Bay could try to one-up himself each time around with bigger, louder, and more inventive transformers and effects.
On the bright side, Age of Extinction isn’t the worst movie in the franchise, but it is the second worse. Like the rest of the films, the special effects are top notch and the film provides more action, explosions, and car chases than you can imagine possible in a single movie. Tucci and Grammar appear to be having fun, but they are the only humans given roles that ask them to actually act (also a nod to T.J. Miller who plays Cade’s assistant and provides the only comic relief in the entire film). On the flip side, John Goodman and Ken Watanabe must have needed money or been really bored, providing voices for two of the Autobots and delivering dialogue that must have been written by the same brain-damaged monkeys that wrote Revenge of the Fallen. They also made the same mistake Revenge of the Fallen made by stylizing transformers with beards, samurai garb, trenchcoats, and pot bellies, even though that makes no sense at all (even in this ridiculous fantasy world). Even the transforming got incredibly lazy, as the human built transformers’ transformations were depicted as a flying snake of squares looping through the air. Yes, it was just as stupid as you imagine.
And, what about those Dinobots? Aside from only appearing in the last fifteen minutes of the film, they are just as unexplained as Lockdown. After freeing them from Lockdown’s ship, Optimus fights with the Tyrannosaurus, keeps referring to all of them as great warriors, then rides the Tyrannosaurus into battle after defeating him in combat (yes, that is as funny in the film as it is in the previews). Why were they prisoners in the first place? Why do they transform into dinosaurs? Why is Optimus able to grant them freedom? Ah shit, I’m thinking again. Sorry.
As much as I’d like to say Age of Extinction isn’t a bad movie, it’s not a whole lot better than The Amazing Spider-Man 2, which was awful. Being a story guy, I am obliged to say Age of Extinction’s story is a big pile of bullshit that would have been far better off just leaving the humans completely out of it and running with whatever caused Lockdown to hunt for Optimus. Instead, we get two hours and forty-five minutes of 3-D, IMAX action porn. If that’s your thing, you’ll love this movie.
Rating: Ask for all but two dollars back. The unintentional comedy of Optimus Prime riding a robot dinosaur, even though he can fly, is worth a couple bucks.