Theatrical Reviews: Avengers: Age of Ultron

I am usually a reasonable reviewer.  I tend to judge films based on their merit and not on my poorly acquired preconceptions.  Yet; all reasonability aside, I hate Avengers: Age of Ultron.  It’s nothing personal, I hate every super-hero movie now; overexposure has made me terribly biased. 

And you know what the worst part is?  There has been scarcely a bad super-hero movie released in theaters over the past 5 years.  It’s gotten to the point that when I do see a legitimately bad Super-Hero flick, I get excited because I can actually give logical reasoning to my hatred, and bash the film uninhibited.

So be warned: I tried as hard as I could to be objective, but I think it’s fair to say that I wanted Avengers: Age of Ultron to be bad when I walked into the theater today.  So if you’re a screaming Marvel fan-boy, you might want to read somebody else’s review.

Avengers: Age of Ultron is a very average super-hero flick; and it’s very below-par for Marvel Studios.  It’s just passable; an entertaining diversion.  Will most people be satisfied with it?  I suppose.  But after the quirky-entertaining Guardians of the Galaxy and the legitimately great Captain America 2; Avengers 2 feels like a failed follow up.

And it’s not just worse than recent Marvel films, its worse then its immediate predecessor, the first Avengers flick.  It isn’t as funny, as entertaining or as emotionally punchy.  Lately it’s seemed like each subsequent Marvel Studios flick has topped the last, but Age of Ultron is a definite step backwards.

By itself, Age of Ultron is a totally passable hero-picture.  It’s got a suitably evil villain, a pseudo-likable cast of heroes, and plenty of high-tension action sequences.  Really the movies biggest problem is that the plot is too thin.

The screenwriters tried to push a lot of elements into this script.  There are three new heroes, a new villain, a subplot for all seven or eight of the original characters, and four or five action sequences.  Also:  the movies plot sets up future Marvel releases, has an obligatory Stan Lee cameo and still finds time to interject plenty of Joss Whedon’s humor into the dialogue.

While all of those things might seem like good things to have in a movie, when you try and put all of them in equally, your movie feels overstuffed and unfocused.  The movie keeps a good pace, and has a fun sense of humor so you’re never bored, but you’re never particularly invested either.  One of the dozen or so main characters dies in the end, and it’ll leave you pretty much totally unaffected.  The movie is all mass with no weight.

If you really want to keep following this whole “Marvel Cinematic Universe” thing that’s going on, then Avengers 2 is clearly a must see;  but if all you want is a diverting action-flick with super-heroes, there are definitely better ones out there.  You’d probably get just as much pleasure out of watching the first Avengers a second time then you would from watching Avengers: Age of Ultron;  They’re practically the same movie.

Theatrical Reviews: Ex Machina

Hollywood has had a proud history of building artificial intelligence, with mixed results.  Sometimes the friendly robot is lovable and friendly, like Short Circuit.  Other times we get an army of Arnold Schwarzeneggers that bomb the planet.

In Ex Machina we are introduced to the latest addition to this robo-pantheon, Ava.  She’s an innocent looking thing who was created by a much more villainous acting tech genius, played by Oscar Isaac.  But is she evil or cuddly?  That Is a plot element I wouldn’t dare spoil.

The true intentions of two characters; the robot and her creator, are the two mysteries that surround the whole film and keep it moving forward.  Does Ava truly like the main character?  What is the mad genius planning to do with said robot?  And what does Gleeson’s character, a surprisingly effective surrogate for the audience, have to do with it?

The film is practically brilliant in its simplicity.  You won’t have any trouble following the plot, and there are only three characters you have too keep track of:  the robot, the genius, and the surrogate for the audience.  Yet the movie may leave you stewing for hours afterwards over the films implications about our future and how our own world seems to be slipping faster than ever into it.

Everything in the movie is about the sci-fi elements; but what really makes the film work are the interactions between the characters and the drama that creates.  By drama I don’t mean that people yell and get mad at each other.  I mean that there is a conflict of wits; and that the audience is only privy to part of it.

It should be said that the acting is fantastic all across the board in Ex Machina.  Gleeson is relatable, Isaac is lovable devilish, and Vikander, who plays the robot, has arguably the most complex performance of the lot.  A movie that was as reliant on character portraits as this one really needed a great cast to work; and I’m happy to say that they did not disappoint.

Ex Machina is one of the batter Artificial Intelligence movies out there.  It’s intriguing, intellectual and even a little heart-breaking all at the same time.  If you like sci-fi or quality filmmaking then this is clearly a must-see.

Theatrical Reviews: Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2

I don’t remember much about the first Paul Blart film; and I can only hope that I will eventually remember Paul Blart 2 with as much fondness.  It takes a special level of not giving a crap to make a movie like this.  The only intriguing part about the film is trying to figure out whose fault it is that it was made.

Are these people trying to be funny?  I’m not 100% sure.  I spent the majority of the films runtime with a steel-like un-amused look on my face that only faltered a couple of times.  I was incredibly unentertained

It’s kind of hard to explain how a movie this over the top and goofy can’t be funny just by virtue of its own ridiculousness.  Kevin James plays his part as hammy as one might want, and I’ve liked him in other films.  So why dosnt he come off as funny here?  There are several other decent actors attached to this film as well.  Neal McDonough, who has been in plenty of good movies, plays the villain; and doesn’t come off nearly as threatening or funny as he should.  What is turning these talented actors into obnoxious balls of cheese?

The answer, I have found, is in the script.  It is well known that a good actor is nothing without a good script; and this is doubly true when it comes to comedies.  The jokes in Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2 are abhorrently bad.  They’re not even funny-bad, these jokes just aren’t funny.  Sure every once in a while you might giggle at the pure goofiness of it all; but that can only get you so far.

Part of the stories problem is that it barely has a plot.  These characters and their interactions are so thin that they’d collapse under the weight of a feather.  The only really funny side-plot is the romantic one between Blart and Daniella Alonso’s character.  The rest of the films is filled with corny jokes you will see, often literally, an hour away.

What it comes down to is that Blart is not an interesting or likable character; and there doesn’t seem to be anything Kevin James can do about the fact.  I don’t care about his relationship with his daughter, his dead mother or his raging obesity problem; things that should be taken seriously enough to give the movie necessary weight, but instead are taken so lightly that they might as well not exist.

I do not find the misery, hardships or triumphs of mister Blart entertaining in any way.  Worse then that; he isn’t very funny either.  Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2 isn’t a particularly unpleasant film to watch; but it is a pointless film to watch.  The point of seeing a 90 minute kids flick is to enjoy yourself, but all Blart will do is waste your time.

Theatrical Reviews: Furious 7

When the original Fast and Furious movie came out nearly a decade-and-a-half ago, I can’t imagine that the filmmakers had any idea what the franchise would become.  That 2001 flick was kind of a niche thriller, and not a very good one either; yet its sixth sequel, Furious 7, has grabbed itself one of the biggest openings of all time.  The franchise has seriously ramped-up in popularity and audience appeal.

Furious 7 follows the path of the last couple of furious films in that it is less about car racing and more about a series of unnecessarily complex heists all revolving around a central villain and a small handful of McGuffins.  The action sequences are pretty much just as silly and astounding as the ones in the previous films, and the films plot is nearly as kinetic.

It is fun and entertaining in pretty much all the same ways as the rest of the more recent flicks in the franchise have been, and that is largely due to the direction of Justin Lin. Lin is a name you’ll probably be seeing attached to other projects since he’s almost single-handedly resurrected this Fast franchise from the financial graveyard to one of the highest profile series in Hollywood.  He knows how to take witless brainless material and transform it into high-energy entertainment.

“So,” you, my inquisitive reader, might be asking, “is there anything that makes Furious 7 different from its predecessors?”  Well, there isn’t much; and that is one of the biggest problems with the movie.  Sure there are a few new characters introduced, the McGuffins are different and the villain is new; but there haven’t been any significant changes to how the franchise functions.

Fast Five seemed like a fluke; a movie in a crummy franchise that had somehow stumbled its way into a fun entertaining actioner.  Then when Fast and Furious 6 came out it showed that Lin new what he was doing, and that these much stronger car-heist movies would continue.  Furious 7, on the other hand feels less like a return to form and more like a return to formula.

I’m not going to lie;  I was enamored with Fast Five and Six when they came out;  but Furious 7 is just a little bit too same-y feeling.  As much fun as it was, it just didn’t do enough to separate itself from its predecessors.  There is nothing here to justify its existence. 

So is Furious 7 bad?  No, it’s actually pretty good for what it is.  But if you’ve seen any of the other recent Fast n’ Furious movies then you already know exactly the sorts of things that are going to happen in Furious 7.  I was really hoping that this flick would do more to mix things up, but it ended up feeling kind-of redundant.  Regardless, I’d still recommend this flick to anyone who likes solid action movies; just be warned that franchise fatigue is beginning to set-in. 

Theatrical Reviews: Home

I, for the most part, have a soft spot for animated films.  The process alone is mind blowing, as is the care that is put into most films of the genre.  Add to that a quick pace and colorful visuals, and you’ll be hard pressed to find an animated film that I don’t at least find divertingly entertaining.

Home, I’m afraid, is one of those rare un-entertaining animated films.  It isn’t awful, but it doesn’t really have enough going for it to carry its audience through its nearly 2-hour run time.  The basic conceit, characters and sense of humor are all passable for the first fifteen minutes or so, but when stretched to feature-length the film becomes tiresome, and even sort of obnoxious.

Is the movie funny?  A little bit.  Is the movie heart warming?  Sort of.  The tiny little good things that are scattered through-out the movie cannot withstand the childish-stupidity of the rest of the film.  It doesn’t help things along that the score is mostly-made up of half-baked Rihanna songs and that Jim Parson’s alien character brings to the table a Jar-Jar-Binks level of annoying.

Home is a movie that is relatively easy to sit through, but it isn’t the kind of movie that you want to sit through.  I imagine your kids might enjoy the lame humor and lame characters, but why should you have to suffer for their gain?  Especially when you can probably buy much-better alien movies for families at Wal-Mart for $5.  Why would you want to watch Home when you could be re-watching Lilo and Stitch or E.T. The Extraterrestrial?

I seriously feel like the filmmakers were on auto-pilot during the production of Home.  Was there any thought put into the jokes?  Not much.  Was there much thought put into casting?  Nope; I’m pretty sure the casting was actually done by the marketing department, because the woman who recently released the single “Bitch Better Have My Money,” was cast as the innocent little girl.

The movie isn’t really as awful as I’m making it out to be, but it’s also probably not worth paying the money to watch.  Will it be a solid way to get your kids to be quiet for two-hours on a Friday night?  I guess; but it accomplishes this at the expense of your own adult movie-going experience.  If you want to go see a movie with your kids, Spongebob is still in theaters.  If your kids want to watch this movie specifically for some un-godly reason, then wait for it to come out on DVD and save yourself the boredom.

Theatrical Reviews: It Follows

It is rare that horror movies get good reviews from critics, myself included; and when they do I’m always in the theater on opening day.  The only thing that outweighs my hatred for crappy horror films is my love for great ones.  So I was excited as all get-out when I read reviews for the indie horror flick It Follows.

The horror genre is a delicate one.  It requires a certain kind of mood and artistic creativity to get it right.  You can never be predictable, you can never be ridiculous and you must always be credible.  The Exorcist, for example, as beloved as it is, has never been a favorite of mine simply because I was never sold on the fact that the little girl was a demon; she just looked like a girl in make-up to me.

It Follows isn’t quite the horror masterpiece that it’s being made out to be, but it is a really good movie nonetheless.  It’s another in a long line of surprisingly good horror movies that are about sex; and it milks its base premise for all it’s worth.

The second act alone is fervishly captivating.  The concept is well conceived, and wonderfully orchestrated.  We never find out what “It” is, or why it “follows.”  For all we know John Carpenter’s The Thing, The Bodysnatchers and The Invisible Man all had a monster baby.  The mysteriousness of the circumstances adds to the scariness and atmosphere however; so the lack of information is probably a good thing.

The performances are all okay, and the cinematography is passable; but mostly what makes the movie work are the stirring horror sequences and the solid atmosphere that rotate around it’s well conceived premise.

There are a few things that keep It Follows from reaching the heights of any of the horror classics that I’ve name dropped in this review.  The movie is focused on a group of mostly un-interesting teenagers that aren’t too dissimilar from the teenagers in the average stupid horror flick, and they do a couple of stupid teenager things that are kind of annoying.

Also; while the movies first two acts shine, it’s third act falters in comparison.  It’s final sequences add needed meaning to the movies plot; but it comes off as kind of dull and anti-climactic for such a riveting movie.  I wish they had ended the picture with a bit more of a bang.

As a whole I really liked It Follows, and will most likely watch it again.  On the scale of recent horror movie scale it’s bellow new greats like The Babbadoook, or The Guest, but it’s pretty awesome none-the-less.  It Follows is a must see for any horror movie fan with half a brain.

Theatrical Reviews: Insurgent

My adamant refusal to read any more young adult novels may have seriously hindered my powers as a reviewer. 

Most of the times, when you go see a movie, you expect it to meet with you on your own terms man-to-film.  If the film is enjoyable, then it will be enjoyable independently; if the film is obnoxious, then you have no-one to blame but the film itself.  Those are the rules

From what I can tell these new Divergent movies do not play by these standard movie rules; apparently in order to fully enjoy them I must first read the book.  Whenever I’m confused by the nonsensical story?  It turns out it was explained in the book.  Whenever I can’t keep track of or care about the numerous sub-characters?  I’m told they were already really great in the book.  It’s kind of irritating.

To be fair that criticism sticks better to last years original Divergent then it does to its first sequel, Insurgent.  Does this new movie still try and keep track of a bunch of meaningless sub characters?  Yes.  Do large portions of the movie’s central premise make absolutely no sense?  Yes; but those problems are held at bay, though never remedied. By Insurgent’s organized, well paced, plot and simple story.

Just giving a movie a simple three-part structure and a well established central conflict can do wonders to any movie series, and while those things don’t save Insurgent from the wasteland of boring that is its central characters and premise, it does a great job of making watchable what could have been incredibly frustrating.

“Watchable,” however, is not the same as passable.  Insurgent gives us very few reasons to give a flying flip about its one-note protagonists, much less the seemingly dozens of side-characters.  It also has the potential to stretch an audience’s suspension of disbelief.  Thank goodness this movies story is quick-paced and mcguffin-filled otherwise it might drown in its own ridiculousness.

There is a portion of this film where the strong majority of the films protagonists are strapped to mind control devices; yet they are only used once.  The villains use these devices to make one nameless character kill herself, why didn’t they just do that to everyone?  Problem solved.  There are tons of little annoying plot things like that through out the flick.

In the end I can only muster up so much hate for Insurgent; most of the stuff I don’t like about it is the same stuff that I didn’t like about the first, and for the most part Insurgent is a fair sized upgrade above that.  It’s not good, but if you liked Divergent then you’ll probably like this one even more.  And if you’re a fan of the book, this is obviously a must see.  Just don’t go expecting this to be on par with Harry Potter or The Hunger Games.  As far as movie series go The Divergent Series is a C list-er at best.

Theatrical Reviews: Cinderella (2015)

I really like Disney’s classic animated films; they’re important to me in a big sort of way.  That is why I do not appreciate Disney’s recent streak of live-action remakes of said animated features.  First there was Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland, which was awful; then there was Maleficent, which was worse.  The original films feel timeless, and I resent that these remakes are turning them into something undeniably modern.

Cinderella, which is the first in a new huge group of live-action remakes of Disney’s doing, does something those previous examples do not; It respects the source material.  Not just the animated film that most people think of when they think of Cinderella, but the original story as well.  The movie doesn’t feel like it’s trying to go back and defile a beloved classic, it instead feels like its simply paying homage to it.

Cinderella does not save the princes’ life in this new flick, nor does she learn that being a strong independent woman is more important than any man.  The movie stays true to what the original Cinderella was, a simple fantasy; a love story.  The movie is able to dance around some of the questionable elements from the 1950’s animated pic, while changing the story very little.

Is the live action Cinderella as charming as the other?  No; nor does it have the same narrative energy or lovable cast of animal cartoon characters.  I doubt I will ever say to myself, “I think I’d rather watch the 2015 remake Cinderella today, and not the animated one.”  That said the Cinderella remake did a lot to remind me of why I liked its source material in the first place.  It may not be as charming and fun as I’d like, but my expectations are hard to meet in that category, and I enjoyed the heck out of this movie regardless.

Its faults are large in number but small in stature.  The dialogue is a little forced, the beginning is a little slow and the step-sisters are a little too annoying.  The movie might have seriously benefited from another script draft or two, and the acting is occasionally stale.

The movies faults, however, are widely over encompassed by its strengths.  Cinderella, the remake, is able to get to the heart of the Cinderella story in a very intelligent way; and Kenneth Branagh’s direction is exquisite.  The acting is, with a few exceptions, wonderful; especially from Cate Blanchett whose evil stepmother carries large sections of the film.  The plot, at the same time, does just enough to differentiate itself from the original, while still tapping into the child-like wonder that we associate with Disney animation. 

Cinderella is a corny one-dimensional love story; but leave it to Kenneth Branagh to make the best gosh-darn one-dimensional love story he could muster.  Is the film simplistic and unrealistic?  Of course it is!  That’s why it’s called a fantasy.  What we have here is a fantasy with some beautiful visuals, likable characters and an entertaining plot.  What more could you want from a movie called Cinderella?  Despite all of my belly-aching about this remake not being as good as the original, I will probably check this one out again.  It’s full of fun and wonder, and that is exactly what you want a movie like this to be.  If you’re taking you’re daughter to the movies, I can’t think of a better flick to see than Cinderella.

Theatrical Reviews: Chappie

Neil Blomkamp is not a favorite director of mine.  That may just be due to bad will from all of the District 9 over-hype back in 2009; but that doesn’t make up for the fact that he has given little proof that he deserves his high-profile director position. Every movie I’ve seen from him has been some level of mediocre, and Chappie, his latest, is no exception.

To be clear:  I don’t dislike Chappie; In fact I think it may be the best movie Blomkamp has made so far.  Chappie, like most of Blomkamp's movies, is visually entertaining, intellectually stimulating and, at the same time, horribly written and almost offensively brainless; but unlike his other movies, Chappie has a decent amount of characterization and intriguing plot elements to help keep it on track.

Chappie himself is actually a very endearing character, and the movie focuses mostly on him.  The other characters may seem one dimensional and lame, because they are, but that doesn’t matter as much when they aren’t the focus.  It’s truly heart melting watching Chappie age from robo-childhood to robo-adulthood, and his voice, which is provided by the talented Charlto Copley, adds a lot to what makes him work.  The movie is kind of like a  robot version of Boyhood in this manner, and while that doesn’t work great; it does indeed work. 

What mostly brings the movie down is the script.  The majority of these characters are absolutely ridiculous and unbelievable; and many of the plot elements are laughably ridiculous. 

Hugh Jackman’s villain character is particularly bizzare, and many of his motivations are never made clear; he just sort of seems like a psychopathic jerk.  The character isn’t awful, but that’s not because of the writing; it’s because Hugh Jackman is a good actor.  Overall though, his character feels tacked on to the story.

Almost as bad as the villain; their are two characters played by a couple of famous South African rappers.  Who's characters are a couple of criminals who's names are the same as the musicians who play them; and also they wear their own band T-shirts in the film, decimating the fourth wall, and making me want to puke a little bit.  These guys must be big in South Africa, because they're featured more then Hugh Jackman or Sigourney Weaver.  Fortunately the two of them are passable actors, so it isn't too distracting; but their casting is still baffling to me.

So with all of these bad bits and complaints one might think that Chappie was just as lame as Elysium or (I know this isn’t a popular opinion) District 9, but this time the sci-fi morality tale isn't at the center of the story, A likable character is.  Chappie contains a lot of the moral and social commentary that its predecessors did, but now those things are in the background of an enjoyable story, not at the forefront.  It is encouraging to me that Blomkamp is now trying to put ideas into stories and not the other way around.

I don’t love Chappie, but I do like it, and I’m glad I got t see it.  It’s got flaws coming out all of it’s apertures, but it does a lot of things right to counter balance those flaws.  Is it a good movie?  It might be; I’d recommend buying a ticket and deciding for yourself.

Theatrical Reviews: Focus

People seem to love watching comedic crime-thrillers.  The box office gross on last years Now You See Me should be evidence enough of that.  People like snarky masterminds, thrilling plots and sudden plot twists; and what better ways to get these things than to watch a con-man, thief or gangster go all in for one last score.

So don’t be surprised when Focus, the new crime-thrillers on the block, takes #1 at the box office this weekend.  It has all the ingredients necessary for a surprise hit.  It has a popular cast, a mysterious plot, style and humor.  But unfortunately, despite its marketability, Focus is a pretty lame movie.

Does the movie have snark and humor? Yeah; and the twists are as surprising as they come.  But what Focus, like the majority of commercial films, is essentially trying to is create a captivating story; and at that it ultimately fails.

The film is all over the place.  Is Nikki, Will Smith’s character, a villain?  Is he really in love with Margot Robbie’s character or is it all a scam?  Is she scamming him?  I honestly have no idea; the movie, even at its conclusion, shows no promise of letting the audience know what is going on.  The whole point of a movie like this is that, at the end, all will be illuminated and your mind will be blown; but for some reason Focus never gets to the big finale, it never illuminates anything.  I watched the movie all the way through, and I still have almost no idea who these characters were or why we should care about them.

The actors don’t really help all that much either.  Will Smith isn’t a bad actor by any means, but he doesn’t exactly show a Fresh Prince level of charisma.  Margot Robbie does a decent job as well, but she isn’t fantastic.  These performances are serviceable, but they do nothing to alleviate the messy script above its original messiness.

Plotwise Focus is all over the map.  It establishes one plot then switches to another;  creates a central premise then abandons it completely.  This is all done in an attempt to make the story twisty and exciting; but it mostly just renders the film pointless.  And worst of all?  Many of the plot twists render previous sequences completely impossible.  The twists don’t make any sense at all.

Focus is a movie with a scattered plot, unenthusiastic characters and a terrible ending.  It never really grabs onto a good protagonist, antagonist or central arc.  It fails to be an interesting thriller, but worse than that, it fails to tell a sensical story.  It pains me to say it; but Focus lacks all focus.

Theatrical Reviews: The DUFF

I have almost no reason to ever bother watching High-school Teen-girl movies.  I am not a girl, I am not a teen, and I’m constantly trying to forget that I was ever in High-School.  In other-words: This genre of movie is not really meant for me.  I’ve seen a solid hand-full, but as a rule I don’t have much use for them.

The DUFF, the latest high-school teen-girl movie to be released in theaters, could have easily been another in a line of pointless unfunny comedies, but instead it works thanks to a great cast, and decent filmmaking.

Now before you rush off to IMDB to see what famous comedic geniuses are starring in this film, I’ll let you know that there aren’t any.  The movie is mostly made up of actors who you’ve either never seen before, or only maybe seen once for a minute.  The group however do a perfect job with the borderline-obnoxious material, and often manage to render funny things that have no business being funny.

On paper the DUFF is somewhat frustrating, but on screen it is surprisingly enjoyable.  This is mostly due to the fact that the characters aren’t soulless caricatures of puberty, but instead mostly-likable characters with identities.  It’s the great cast that brings this flick to life; The DUFF would have probably been a disaster without the talents of Mae Whitman and Robbie Amell to keep things going.

The plot itself is a little juvenile, and has been kind of beaten to death.  A new dress and a make-over are the cure-all for the protagonist’s insecurity problems, and the two leads start out as friends then slowly develop feelings for each other as the film progresses.  The female lead is an average looking teen in a world full of apparently more attractive teens (you can tell that the other girls are more attractive because they wear more lipstick,)  and the most beautiful of them all is, of course, a psychotic jerk to the others.  There is a lot of annoying paint-by-the-numbers tropes in The DUFF.

I’d say that the movie is just a lame girly teen-movie with a stellar cast; but I think there might be something lying under the skin of The DUFF that its genre predecessors do not have.  The movie is about dealing with your own inadequacies and insecurities, and it talks about this matter in a surprisingly mature way.  Everyone has to find a way to cope with the fact that there will always be someone better than them around the corner; and while The DUFF doesn’t create a particularly sane way of dealing with this problem, at least it admits that there is one.

At its core The DUFF is an escapist wish-fulfillment picture for a demographic that I am in no way a part of.  I have no desire to go shop for new outfits, tell that jerk girl at school what’s coming to her or date the muscular school jock;  yet I still found the movie fairly charming and enjoyable thanks to its smart-ish script and fantastic cast.  I can only imagine that the films target audience will enjoy it 10 times more then I did.  It shows the kind of life that can be breathed into a tired sub-genre when the filmmakers actually care about what they are putting on-screen.  Good show.

Theatrical Reviews: Hot Tub Time Machine 2

You know what movie I didn’t see?  The first Hot Tub Time Machine.  That’s right I saw the sequel, and not the better-liked original.  That means that I had almost no expectations going into this flick; and the result?  I kind of enjoyed myself.

                            

This movie makes very little sense.  The plot is nonsensical and the character motivations are highly questionable.  It’s a mess, but the jokes and bizarre plot threads are just eclectic and disgusting enough to make the movie entertaining.

Hot Tub Time Machine 2 is not trying very hard to be . . . an actual movie.  Its storyline has been prioritized behind the jokes, the set-ups and pretty much everything else.  If you want a film with a cohesive plot, and a lovable cast of characters then look elsewhere; Hot tub time Machine 2 is pretty much just in it for the gags.

The cast will not become popular leading men in Hollywood anytime soon; they do not seem to have a talent for crafting likable characters.  Craig Robinson’s character is the only one in the cast who could pass for a passable member of humanity.  I get the feeling that the presence of John Cusack, the star of the original, would seriously help this Cusack-less sequel along.

What the remaining cast do excel at, however, is being funny.  In the hands of another cast all this pointless gross-out weirdness could be obnoxious; but these guys put their all into it, and for the most part it works.  This cast hams it up; having so much fun that it’s kind of hard not to have fun with them.  Rob Corddry in particular goes manically haywire with his character; and it’s a blast to watch.

You can go ahead and add this one to the long list of Atchley-O-Saurus guilty pleasures.  I cannot give this movie the pass based on its over-all quality.  But, on the other hand, the movie has gross out humor and time travel!  How can you go wrong?

“HTTM2”, as I’ve already mentioned, just doesn’t work on a story level; and it’s a shame.  It has some good comedic skin, but they didn’t bother to put any bones underneath.  It’s not the best gross-out comedy I’ve ever seen by a long shot, but it’s the only one in the marketplace right now. So if you’re in the mood for borderline offensive debauchery; as of this writing, Hot Tub Time Machine 2 is probably your best shot.

Theatrical Reviews: Fifty Shades of Grey

The whole point of Fifty Shades of Grey is sex.  That tells me that it’s basically just glorified pornography; but that is hardly the case.  Never before have I thought it possible for a movie to both contain way too much sex, and simultaneously be totally sexless.  Despite it’s erotic subject matter, Fifty Shades of Grey has no pulse.

The movies physical failings are only a small part of what makes it suck.  If I had thought the movie would just be a series of sedate sex sequences I wouldn’t have bothered; but based on the nation-wide success of the book from which it is based, I made the assumption that there was some kind of intriguing story behind all the hullabaloo.  People like me, who are curious for some unique controversial storytelling, will be sorely disappointed.

Fifty Shades of Grey is boring.  I have no idea how they made a movie about taboo sex boring, but they found a way.  The two leads are as awkwardly un-intriguing as humanly possible, and their plot and conflict barely exist.  This movie could be summed up without losing any nuance in five minutes; yet it’s runtime goes well over two hours.  It has zero stakes, zero conflict; and the result is that it elicits zero interest from its audience.  It isn’t even offensive or shocking; I at least expected this movie to be offensively bad, but it’s just endlessly dull.

And did I mention the script?  Because the script is awful; cartoonishly awful.  Imagine a giant corn baking corn inside of an oven made of corn, and you may get an inkling of how corny the Fifty Shades of Grey dialogue is.  Imagine a flat-line and an obnoxious beeping noise, and you’ll get an idea of how ineffective and annoying the Fifty Shades of Grey plotline is.  I hear tell that they cut out large chunks of the book for the film adaptation, and thank goodness that they did; I don’t think I could have withstood anymore of this terrible movie script.

When a movie has a bad script and dreary direction only one thing can save it:  The acting.  Yet Fifty Shades of Grey has some Razzy worth performances.  They could have replaced Jamie Dorman, the guy who plays the male lead, with a board of wood and some great abs and I wouldn’t have been able to tell the difference.  The other actors hardly knock it out of the park either.  Dakota Johnson admittedly had her good moments; but she also had some really crummy moments, especially when she was trying to pretend like she had any chemistry at all with dumb and dull Dornan.

The only way I can think of even attempting to enjoy “50 Shades” is ironically.  Bring some friends, make some jokes and you might have a jolly old time.  That, however, was not how this movie was intended to be viewed; it was meant to be taken seriously.  So it fails.  I cannot think of a less romantic, less appealing romance for anyone to watch.  It’s basically just a Twilight remake but with BDSM; and that is just as painful as it sounds.

Theatrical Reviews: Kingsman: The Secret Service

Kingsman: the Secret Service is going to be a bit polarizing to the general audience.  People will be thrown off by the excessive violence, the rude humor and general lack of taste.  Mathew Vaughn, the director of this picture, polarized audiences in a similar way with 2010’s “Kick-Ass,” and he doesn’t seem to have changed his cinematic stripes since he directed that surprisingly entertaining super-hero flick.

This brand of subversive, unique and almost exploitative action movie could have easily been annoying or abrasive, but Vaughn is a brilliant story teller.  With Kingsman he has taken a movie plot that easily could have spawned another unmemorable February flop; and transformed into an incredibly entertaining ball of lovable cheese.  There are a lot of things that are wrong with Kingsman: the Secret Service, but it has so much energy and character that it’s difficult not to be charmed by it.

There are really only a few things a big dumb action movie like this needs to be entertaining; and the filmmakers know how it’s done.

Big soaring memorable score: Check

Likable cast of characters:  Check

Plenty of momentum and energy:  That’s a check

Entertaining action sequences:  That’s a big check

The movies plot is pretty by-the-books, and its ending is very predictable;  but when a story, no matter how juvenile, is told this well through the film medium you’ve got to appreciate it.   The movie never lags, it’s always fun and it occasionally surprises; what more could you possibly want.  Kingsman: The Secret Service may not be about anything deep, nor does its plot go anywhere particularly interesting, but the ride that we take getting to nowhere special is a great one, and I’m glad I took it.

All the actors, set pieces and plot points work incredibly well.  Even the training sequences, which threaten to bog the movie down, are used to keep the movies adrenaline high.  Egerton, who plays the lead, is especially impressive performace;  I could definitely see him getting more leading man roles in the future.  The movie is to good for any one actor to carry it;  but Egerton certainly pulls his weight.

This is the movie that I wanted Guardians of the Galaxy to be; but it never quite got there.  That movie felt just a little bit awkward and plodding to be as entertaining and lovable as it should have been.  Kingsman taps into your inner id in ways that very few movies can.  I left the movie with a big smile on my face, and I bet that you will too.  If you want a solid helping of brainless escapism this winter, I can’t imagine a movie that could top Kingman: The Secret Service.

Theatrical Reviews: Jupiter Ascending

Jupiter Ascending is lame.  It’s another entry into a long string of Sci-fi/fantasy flicks that totally misunderstand why people love Sci-fi/fantasy in the first place.

When you’re telling a story, simplicity is often your most viable weapon.  Star Wars, which is what I think Jupiter Ascending is trying to be, had many of the same quirky world building elements that Jupiter Ascending has. But Star Wars was built upon a very simple plot.  Jupiter Ascending does not have that kind of simplicity to add clarity to its bizarre world; creating something of an indeterminable cinematic mist for its audience to parse through.

The movie is all over the place.  Plot elements jiggle around this bureaucratic universe, and simply refuse to come together into a singular vision.  It becomes difficult to figure out what the movies point is.  Is it a hero’s journey like Star Wars or The Matrix?  Maybe.  Is it a morality tale about the preciousness of human life?  Sort of.  Is it an intergalactic Game of Thrones between three villainous siblings?  I guess.  Yet if the movie was truly about any of those things there would be a stranglehold on it, yet the themes can’t seem to connect to the plot or each other in any real way.

What’s worse is that the movies central conflict, which is a romantic one, falls totally flat.  The two central characters, played by the equally beautiful Mila Kunis and Channing Tatum, have absolutely no chemistry on camera.  Their relationship feels forced and unnerving, not natural. 

Many, if not all, of the movies issues could have been fixed with a less bloated script; or possibly a shorter running time.  The result of the filmmakers compromise of breadth and length is that the movie feels over-long and nonsensical at the same time.  They could have easily made a trilogy of much better movies out of the plot of Jupiter Ascending, and we all would have been much happier because of it.  Alas this is not the case.

The movie is semi-watch able just because of the beautiful sci-fi visuals and a few wonderful casting decisions.  Eddie Redmayne, who plays one of the films villains, is particularly entertaining to watch; as is Sean Bean, who is almost always proficient at playing cool auxiliary characters.  The movie looks and feels great; complete with some fantastically original science fiction images, but that’s really the movie only plus.

I’d have trouble recommending Jupiter Ascending to anyone.  It’s loud, confusing, pompous, and watching it is much like having a stoned cultist explain to you his religious beliefs.  The movie is pretty look at, but that will only get you so far; you have to get the script and storyboarding right too.  Unfortunately Jupiter Ascending fails, more then anything, to tell its story correctly.

Theatrical Reviews: The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water

I’m not going to lie; I’m pretty biased when it comes to the realm of Spongebob, I grew up on it.  I watched the first several seasons up to the original Spongebob Squarepants movie with a religious fervor, and I occasionally go back and watch those classic episodes to this day.  A full-fledged Spongebob initiate am I, so you Spongebob fans can trust me when I say the following.

The Spongebob Movie: Sponge Out of Water is not as bad as the trailers make it look.  The movie was worked on by the series creator Stephen Hillenburg and was directed by Paul Tibbit who has been directing episodes of the show sense the beginning, so the material is in good hands.  I know that the CGI characters that look like superheroes appear to be the worst thing ever, but they aren’t, and they’re only in the movie for a couple of minutes.

Talk about false advertising:  The majority of the movie takes place under-the-sea and in traditional 2D animation.  The movie only features Spongebob and friends in there CGI superhero get-ups for the very last bit of the film.  For the vast bulk of the movie Spongebob isn’t fighting an evil pirate on the surface; he’s going on a post-apocalyptic time travel adventure and trying to teach Plankton, his arch-nemesis, the power of team work.

The film begins with a whimper, with a rather un-enamoring intro scene; and ends with the surprisingly uninspired super-hero sequence.  Yet the movie shines bright between the first and third acts.  There are some supremely weird and bizarre shenanigans that go on as our characters try and find the Krabby Patty secret formula, and it very rarely stops being hilarious.  Among the bizarre is a human sacrifice to the sandwich gods, a time-traveling dolphin named bubbles and a place called the “Taco Haus” that is plentiful in both Mexican and German cuisine.

Even when the movie kills all of its surreal momentum to turn our heroes into the CGI abominations from the trailers, the movie is still plenty entertaining.  Antonio Banderas hams it up in the best possible way, and the CGI is actually kind of impressive if you can get past the fact that it’s ruining your childhood.  It's good to know that after all these years the makers of Spongebob can put out a perfectly childish product that is reminiscent of the best episodes from my youth.

The Spongebob Movie: Sponge Out of Water is definitely not as good as its 2004 predecessor, but it’s still pretty good.  Its fast flying humor, and its bizarre references are always charming if not always hysterical.  The movie never outstays its welcome.  If you have kids, but don’t like Spongebob, then go see the superior Paddington.  But if you live in a full-on Spongebob family, or just have fond memories of the show from yester-decade; then this new Spongebob movie is unlikely to disappoint.