Wednesday, May 28, 2014

The Longest Yard (1974)


Longest yard 1974.jpg


Released:  August 30th, 1974
Rated:  R
Studio:  Paramount
Starring:  Burt Reynolds, Eddie Albert
Directed by:  Robert Aldrich              
Written by:  Tracy Keenan Wynn
Personal Bias Alert:  saw the remake before the original, loves American football

4.5 of 10







            Well-respected older movies can be hit-or-miss for younger audiences such as myself.  You go back far enough, and it can be like sitting in on a different culture.  The ‘70s especially was an interesting era in cinema, with filmmakers pushing against restrictions and, in the process, often passing into gratuitous territory.  There’s a joke on the Comedy Central show “@midnight” in which the comedians are asked to come up with new Netflix categories.  Jonah Ray responds “Movies That Don’t Hold Up,” which is both a funny response and, unfortunately, a category that “The Longest Yard” would fall into.

            Burt Reynolds stars as Paul Crewe, a disgraced former football player who is incarcerated and forced to lead a team of inmates in a football game against the Warden’s semi-pro team.  The awkwardness starts with the opening scene, depicting a drunk Paul getting into a verbally and physically abusive fight with his girlfriend.  He ends up walking out on her and stealing her car.  Now I went into this film thinking it was going to be a comedy, so I was rather surprised when the film went straight to domestic abuse.  Realizing that this was more of a dramedy, I thought the film would settle into territory I’m both familiar and comfortable with.  A balance between serious observations and humor can make a film easier to digest.

            But the discomfort continues throughout the film, mostly through the insensitive treatment of different groups of people.  I think this is partially a product of the times, meaning that it might not be appropriate to apply a modern lens to an older film.  “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” is a famous example of the kind of film that can overcome this, with the portrayal of Mr. Yunioshi becoming increasingly criticized while still remaining a well-loved film, having been inducted in the National Film Registry in 2012.  I think it’s forgiven largely because Mr. Yunioshi only appears sporadically, and the rest of the film lacks uncomfortable stereotyping.  Unfortunately, particularly ugly stereotyping permeates “The Longest Yard,” especially in the pre-football portion of the film.  It’s partially brought up to critique it, but too often it’s knowingly played for laughs, and that’s hard to get past.

            The saving grace for this film, and what eventually makes it a watchable little movie, is the football game.  It takes up a full 45 minutes of the 121 minute runtime, and that footage looks like a real game.  I’ve watched football my entire life; it’s my favorite spectator sport.  It bothers me when people are faking it, and those wide shots passed my test.  The game builds tension well and settles the tone, bringing some life into an otherwise blasé film.

            Then again, they don’t get everything right.  The game score isn’t always clear, and I swear that the drop kick missed the uprights.  And, of course, there’s more discomfort.  They joke about hurting each other, and they’re not light injuries.  I seriously think they intended for people to laugh when a guy got clotheslined.  It’s yet another instance where the changed culture really doesn’t favor this film.

            It’s been 40 years since this film was released, and I’m very hesitant to write it off because of its poor aging.  I can see why people liked it.  It does broach on some serious issues, Paul is a decent anti-hero, and the football works.  But I saw it in 2014, and there are just a few too many uncomfortable things in it for me to fully enjoy it.

            Other Notes:
Ø  Burt Reynolds definitely looks better with a mustache.
Ø  During the car chase, Paul turns the car around after being “cut off” by a single police car coming in the entrance of a park.  That cop car only took up half of the entrance, and Paul easily could have blown right past the cop.
Ø  “Only a moron would sit and watch two football games, one after the other.”  Then color me a moron, because I’ve done that nearly every Sunday during football season since the early 90s.

Sunday, May 25, 2014

X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)


X-Men Days of Future Past poster.jpg

Released:  May 23rd, 2014
Rated:  PG-13
Studio:  Twentieth Century Fox
Starring:  Hugh Jackman, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Halle Berry, Anna Paquin, Ellen Page, Peter Dinklage, Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart
Directed by:  Bryan Singer                 
Written by:  Simon Kinberg
Personal Bias Alert:  X-Men is my favorite franchise, haven’t read any of the comics, vaguely remembers watching the ‘90’s cartoon

8.5 of 10


            Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine has been the breakout star of the X-Men franchise from the beginning.  He was the conduit for the audience in the first film back in 2000 and served as the anchor for the rest of the trilogy.  He’s the only character to have an individual film (in fact, he has two), and of the seven films in the X-Men franchise, only “X-Men:  First Class” didn’t feature him in a starring role.  No surprise, then, that when the writers chose a time-bending storyline from the comics for the next film, they changed the time traveler from Kitty Pryde to Wolverine.

            There’s actually another good reason for making that change.  Wolverine is a survivor, a man who’s lived an inordinately long life, and because of that has endured more than the rest of them.  He sort of operates as the franchise’s observer; he experiences everything, takes on most of the pain, and lives with the memories.  It’s made him gruff and closed-off, and yet he’s managed to retain some measure of hope.  Given what he’s been through, that hope has weight, and it becomes imperative that he gets that across in “Days of Future Past.”

            At the opening, humanity has turned on the X-Men from the original trilogy and are hunting them down using robots called Sentinels.  Their only hope for survival is to send Wolverine’s consciousness back to the 1970s to stop Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) from killing the Sentinel’s designer and inadvertently giving the humans the key to the Sentinel’s future success:  the ability to take on a mutant’s powers.

            Most of the film takes place in the flashback, with Wolverine teaming up with the cast from “First Class” to stop Mystique.  Wolverine finds everyone reeling from the events of “First Class,” none more so than Prof. Xavier (James McAvoy).  He’s boozy and petulant, despondent over the losses he’s endured.  Wolverine’s main job becomes coaxing Prof. X into becoming the man he knew and the man everyone needs.

            Casting has always been a strong suit for the X-Men franchise, particularly in “First Class.”  Here they get to pick the best of the best, with Jackman, McAvoy, Lawrence, Nicholas Hoult as Beast, and Michael Fassbender as Magneto forming the central dream team.  They play off each other with ease, and the script gives them the opportunity to do some electric one-on-one scenes.  Their backing cast, many of which are listed as stars, include Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, Ellen Page, Peter Dinklage, and Halle Berry, to name a few. 

            A great cast is always exciting, but a poor script can leave you burned.  Hearing about the plot, there were so many red flags that I went into “Days of Future Past” with my guard up.  Time travel?  Mixed-trilogies cast?  Terrible title?  I didn’t see how they could pull off this seemingly bloated concept while retaining the strong character beats that has made the X-Men franchise stand out.  It got off to a rocky start with a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it explanation of why Kitty had to send Wolverine back in time and the nonexistent explanation for why Kitty can do this, even though I thought her ability was to run through walls.  But once Wolverine wakes up in the ‘70s, the story settles into a nicely building arc that feels smoother than most blockbusters.  Once you buy into the central conceit, the plot holds together fairly well, and the character stuff is just as strong as it was in “X-Men” or “X2.”

            I’ve always had a sneaking suspicion with the X-Men franchise that it works so well for me due to distraction.  There’s so many characters with so many different abilities that there’s always something or someone interesting to focus on, and particularly the films with Bryan Singer at the helm are good at knowing when to jump from one thing to another.  With most blockbusters there are three or four main characters, generally all working together towards the same thing.  This makes the plot pretty linear, giving you time to note all the holes.  The X-Men films almost always involves a massive, scattered cast of characters doing all sorts of visually interesting things, so when I start to think “Hey, that didn’t make sense,” I can’t even get the thought through my head before they’ve moved on.  I’m not sure how Singer’s able to do that, but I’m sure some of the credit should also go to Editor John Ottman.

            Ottman also provided the music for the film, which is just one in a long list of smaller things that the film got right.  What I love about the music is how it changes as the characters embark on different tasks.  The jailbreak scene, featuring a great bit part by Evan Peters, has a classic heist score, while some of the large set pieces having a thundering score more reminiscent of “Inception.”  The ‘70s clothes and hair is fitting without being distracting, and the visual effects are stunning.  As always with the X-Men films, I have to give it props for mixing in some solid humor as well.

            The most surprising thing about this film is how little it did wrong.  It goes down easy and remarkably quickly.  It’s not until you leave the theater that you realize how hard it must have been to do so many things so well.

Other Notes (Ridiculous Mutant Version):
Ø  Why couldn’t the portal girl just have everyone huddle together and make a portal surrounding them so the Sentinels can’t touch them?
Ø  Why couldn’t portal girl just create a portal for them all to go through that would take them away from the Sentinels?  Just put Wolverine on a gurney and wheel him through.
Ø  Why did Magneto fling himself so haphazardly onto the train?  He normally moves at a nice controlled pace.

Other Notes (Normal Version):
Ø  I liked that there weren’t too many “Hey, it’s the ‘70s!” jokes
Ø  The scene where Prof. X enters Wolverine’s mind is great.  I love that McAvoy’s tear stain was visible in his close-up.
Ø  So in the new future, everyone’s alive.  Even if we didn’t go to war, shouldn’t someone have died of natural causes or a car crash or something?
Ø  I live in Indianapolis, IN, and with the Indy 500 going on this weekend, the movie theaters were remarkably quiet.  Hopefully, that doesn’t hurt this film’s box office.
Ø  I’ve already seen this film twice, once in 2D and once in 3D.  I preferred the 2D.  The darkened picture I got at the 3D showing made several facial expressions less clear, and I always feel like 3D blurs the fight sequences.

Thursday, May 22, 2014

Raging Bull (1980)


Raging Bull poster.jpg

Released:  December 19th, 1980
Rated:  R
Studio:  United Artists
Starring:  Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci, Cathy Moriarty
Directed by:  Martin Scorsese             
Written by:  Paul Schrader, Mardik Martin
Personal Bias Alert:  likes boxing movies, finds Scorsese very hit or miss, hates misogyny


3.5 of 10





            This is a film I was bound to dislike.  We all have a few things that we just can’t stand, that make us lean back in our chair, cross our arms tightly, and do that disgusted scowl.  Misogyny is one of mine.  Now I’m not claiming that anyone involved in the making of this film is misogynistic, including its male-centric director Martin Scorsese.  They are simply telling the story of a man consumed by his own macho ego, who is, yes, misogynistic, but also temperamental and deeply insecure.  Many excellent films have been made about a flawed character’s descent, but this is one I simply couldn’t get behind.

            Jake LaMotta (Robert De Niro) is the flawed boxer whose descent is tracked in “Raging Bull.”  His dream is to win the middleweight title, a goal that’s well within his reach, but his refusal to work with the mob hampers his chances at a title shot.   His brother, Joey (Joe Pesci), works as his manager.  The meat of the film spans Jake’s fifteen year career, although most of the action takes place outside the ring, with Jake and Joey navigating their tumultuous relationships with friends, family, and each other.

            The film is bookended with two scenes of an aging Jake, overweight and puffing on a cigar, practicing a routine he is about to perform onstage.  Much has been made of the impressive weight gain De Niro underwent to film the later portions of Jake’s life.  It helps to see him pant through his lines, but the performance itself is greater than any physical feat.  The brash ego of Jake always shines through, and De Niro plays the part without any concern for good looks.  Pesci works on the same level as De Niro, but the third wheel in this act, Jake’s wife Vickie played by Cathy Moriarty, is stiff.  I read later that this was her first acting role, having been recruited for her voice and looks.  These things don’t make a performance, and her inability to bring anything to an otherwise weak character is a big flaw in the film.

            The cinematography is an often lauded part of the film, and I must agree with the consensus here.  It’s great work; even the unnecessary black and white shtick that I normally find distractingly pretentious didn’t bother me here.  It really conveys the feeling of being in a room with these people, of sitting with their nastiness and madness.  The boxing scenes are visceral, and the repeated shots of water flowing down the boxer’s bodies was almost hypnotic.  Despite the violence of the fights, we understand the appeal of the ring.  It’s the one place where it’s acceptable for Jake to be the raging bull that he is.

            I really can’t fault the film from a technical standpoint.  It’s very well crafted, but the story just didn’t work for me.  The first scene we get of Jake as a young man outside the ring is him blowing up at his wife for cooking a steak too long.  It’s a long verbal and physical explosion that makes Jake’s flaws immediately apparent.  While I hated the misogyny Jake and Joey show throughout the movie, there was still a chance for this film to be interesting if it truly showed Jake’s descent.  The problem is, Jake doesn’t really change throughout the film.  He’s nasty to everyone, and the conversations and conflicts he has with the people surrounding him never change.  His first wife disappears shortly after the aforementioned argument, and Jake quickly picks up Vickie.  Their crumbling marriage is shown, but the film already gave away how Jake’s marriages end.  The other major relationship failure is between Jake and Joey, but that also plays out as an endless repeat of the same arguments.  The movie finally gets interesting once Jake retires, but until then I found the film to be an aggravating slog.

            Jake does show a little self-awareness at the end, settling into a life of small-time performances that pay the bills.  The film ends with Jake reciting the famous monologue from “On the Waterfront,” in which Marlon Brando blames his brother for his life’s failures and laments “I coulda been a contender.”  They’re fitting lines for Jake, serving to reveal how little he’s actually changed.  He’s still insecure and blaming others for his problems, including the person who probably put up with the most from him.  Before taking the stage, Jake does some shadowboxing to pump himself up.  He’s still fighting, but I was simply uninterested in the fight.

            Other Notes:
Ø  This film is based on the real-life Jake LaMotta’s memoir “Raging Bull:  My Story.”
Ø  As much as I liked the cinematography, I really didn’t like the slow-motion shot of Sugar Ray Robinson about to pummel Jake.  It evoked the same weirdness I feel when I see a picture of someone mid-swing in baseball or tennis.  They always look laughably ridiculous.
Ø  I feel sheepish giving this film a bad review.  It’s like I’m committing film lover blasphemy.

Sunday, May 18, 2014

Godzilla (2014)


A giant god-like lizard towering over a blazing cityscape engulfed in an inferno of death and doom.

Released:  May 16th, 2014
Rated:  PG-13
Studio:  Warner Bros.
Starring:  Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Ken Watanabe, Elizabeth Olsen, Juliette Binoche, Sally Hawkins, David Strathairn, Bryan Cranston
Directed by:  Gareth Edwards            
Written by:  Max Borenstein
Personal Bias Alert:  anticipation was high, was very tired when I went to see it


7.3 of 10




            For the record, if Godzilla or something like him ever really attacked a city, I would want to be there to see it.  Preferably I’d also live, but I understand the risks.  It would be worth it.  It would be unique, a singular experience in all of human history.  I can imagine myself standing there, watching him use a building as a crutch, and being terrified and awe-inspired and probably paralyzed.  That aspect of my personality is probably what made me so excited to see “Godzilla” even though I had never been very interested in the other Godzilla films.  It’s a spectacle, and I’d much rather see massive creatures battling it out than massive machines.

            You would think the titular character would be the main focus of the film, but instead the story revolves around a Navy officer named Ford (Aaron Taylor-Johnson).  Ford’s mother (Juliette Binoche) died when he was a child in a nuclear plant accident, which Ford’s father, Joe (Bryan Cranston), is convinced was anything but an accident.  When Joe trespasses on the quarantined fallout area in order to continue his investigation, Ford must travel to Japan to retrieve him.  While in Japan, a MUTO (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organism) awakens and triggers a battle between two love-struck MUTOs and Godzilla himself.  Ford finds himself balancing his Naval responsibilities and his desire to get home to protect his wife and child, all while avoiding getting squashed by the gigantic monsters.

            There’s many more human characters in this film, including scientists played by Ken Watanabe and Sally Hawkins and a US military admiral played by David Strathairn.  The result is a long and convoluted first and second acts which tease the finale battle to come.  They try to fill the time with character development and explanations of where Godzilla and the MUTOs come from, but none of it is ever very interesting.  The explanations about Godzilla and the MUTOs never adds up, and the character development is shoddy.  Elizabeth Olsen as Joe’s wife and Sally Hawkins are woefully underused, and Strathairn and Taylor-Johnson do little else but grumble about plot exposition.  Cranston and Binoche get some good scenes at the beginning of the film, but without Binoche, Cranston falls into a slightly over-the-top angry lunatic mode.

            While the focus on characters bogs down most of the film, it is a well-used device when it comes to the cinematography.  Many shots of the creatures are from a human’s perspective, resulting in quick glances of these massive creatures as they pass by.   It gets across scale and awe remarkably well and saves the full view of the creatures until the big finale. 

            Another saving grace of the film is its strong sense of humor.  Themes of man’s arrogance is played up, and we often look pretty silly as the creatures tear through our cities.  In my favorite example, we see Ford’s wife busily cleaning up the kitchen and telling her child to get ready for bed in the background, while in the foreground the boy stares at a news program showing astounding footage of one of the MUTOs wreaking a city.  That one made several people laugh out loud in the theater I was in.

            When the final act eventually arrives, we get the big Godzilla vs. MUTOs fight everyone was waiting for, and many inadvertently smashed buildings to boot.  The previous acts set up Godzilla as the one to root for, and even though that never made any sense, having something to root for does make it more satisfying.  When Godzilla finally stomps out of the ocean, in all his CGI grandeur, I couldn’t help but get excited.  He really is rendered beautifully, and I think we might as well call the Oscar race for visual effects right now.  No one’s going to beat that.

            Despite the problems I had with the film and the physical exhaustion I felt after a long week, I was constantly entertained.  The anticipation is like a cinematic shot of caffeine; there’s no way you won’t get excited.

            I’m tacking on an extra paragraph here, because I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the strange cultural appropriation going on here. Godzilla is a Japanese invention, a metaphor for the devastating effects nuclear bombs have had on Japan’s history.  That we as Americans (the ones who dropped the bombs on Japan) have embraced this creature, and now made our own film, is peculiar to me.  I can’t put my finger on precisely why, and I’m as guilty of liking this creature and everything it stands for as anyone.  But seeing Ken Watanabe, one of the most successful Japanese actors to transition into American films, inform the otherwise American/European characters that Godzilla is king of the monsters seems strange.  You see, king of the monsters was the tagline given to Godzilla in the Americanized version of the original 1954 film.  So a Japanese actor staring in an American movie based on a Japanese property that was created as a response to the actions that America took against Japan in 1945 is informing the largely American actors of a title America gave to the Japanese creature.  Do you see the appropriation rabbit hole this film is?

      Other Notes (Ridiculous Monster-Movie Version):
Ø  Does the main character have death repellant, because he should have died
Ø  Godzilla waits to use his blue fire power until he’s almost lost.  You know, because he likes to fight fair
Ø  Nobody notices the massive hole in the side of the mountain
Ø  Nobody notices that Godzilla’s still breathing?
Ø  Nobody notices a MUTO carrying a submarine walking out of the ocean and into the forests of Hawaii!?

Other Notes (Normal Version):
Ø  Why doesn’t Godzilla eat nuclear stuff too?  Why is he just hiding in the ocean instead of causing a bunch of harm?
Ø  Did you recognize that one army officer that had a few lines?  I did:  hello Richard T. Jones
Ø  This film has a weird fascination with children:  the girl that sees the water receding before the monster shows up in Hawaii, the boy in the train station, young Ford seeing the nuclear plant being destroyed.  The list goes on.
Ø  Mmm…nukes

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Touching the Void (2003)


Touching the Void.jpg

Released:  January 23rd, 2004
Rated:  R
Studio:  Universal
Starring:  Brendan Mackey, Nicholas Aaron, Ollie Ryall, Joe Simpson, Simon Yates, Richard Hawking
Directed by:  Kevin Macdonald         
Written by:  David Darlow
Personal Bias Alert:  have read the book, fascinated by mountain climbing

8.5 of 10





            The current news coming out of Nepal makes this seem like a perfect time to talk about a mountaineering film.  For those of you who don’t know, the single deadliest day on Mount Everest occurred on April 18th of this year.  An avalanche killed 16 Nepalese guides and injured 9 others.  The guides are now on strike, sighting low pay and dangerous working conditions, essentially shutting down the entire climbing season on Everest.  That’s a massive amount of money lost considering a summit attempt costs at minimum $30,000 per climber.  That’s $30,000 for the opportunity to stand on the tallest spot in the world, and $30,000 for the opportunity to join the over 250 people who have died on the mountain.  There’s something crazy about that, to risk so much to attain one fleeting thing.  It’s a craziness that I think pervades all of mountaineering and certainly plays a large part in “Touching the Void.”

            The documentary tells the story of Joe Simpson and Simon Yates, two young British climbers who, in 1985, successfully climbed the west face of Siula Grande in Peru.  This feat had never been done before, but the climb was even more complicated than they had anticipated.  Exhaustion and lack of water plagued the men when, on the way down, Joe fell and broke his leg.  Unable to climb down the mountain on his own, Simon was left as the only person who could get Joe to safety.  A valiant effort was made to get him down, but eventually Joe was left to either save himself or die.

            The format of the film is a mixture of talking-head documentary, with Joe, Simon, and camp-watcher Richard Hawking telling their stories, and reenactments by actors.  The reenactments add some great visuals, really getting across the scope of the situations the men were in in a way the talking heads couldn’t do.  The greatness of this film, though, lies in the unfalteringly honest way that the three tell their story.  They explain why they made the decisions they made, even when it shows a callousness or weakness they aren’t particularly proud of.  This prevents the film from falling into the trappings of a sappy inspirational film, which it easily could have been.

            In case you hadn’t gathered, Joe does make it down the mountain.  This isn’t a spoiler given that Joe is there talking you through the events, but the film never needs the added tension of a will he or won’t he live scenario.  It plays almost like a horror film, where a series of increasingly desperate situations force the characters to make more and more difficult decisions.  It’s easy for the viewer to imagine themselves in these situations and to wonder if they are capable of doing the things Joe does.  I doubt many people are.  He’s rather, pardon my pun, cold, unforgiving, and determined to make it out alive.

            Mountaineering is a dangerous sport, and many people may rightly point out that Joe and Simon put themselves in this situation willingly.  This may lessen the effect for some viewers, but that never bothered me.  I’m oddly fascinated by mountain climbing, and the fact that Joe recognized that he was in danger of dying while pursuing a wholly personal goal makes his motivations all the more interesting.

            It’s a tough story, which at times seem to go on forever.  I’m sure it seemed that way for all involved, but it does at times make the film seem a bit bloated.  Richard’s contributions add very little to the story, and too long is spent watching Joe stumble over rocks.  The repetition of Joe’s pain eventually numbs the viewer to it, at least until the next trial starts up.

            This isn’t a fun story.  It’s not an inspirational story.  It’s not a man triumphing over nature story.  It’s a hypnotically realistic look at what caused one man to push himself to the brink of death in order to live, and the tremendous amount of luck it also took for him to make it out alive.

            Other Notes:
Ø  Based on the book “Touching the Void,” written by Joe himself.
Ø  Some of the shots of the two men climbing the mountain are actually Joe and Simon.  They returned to the mountain for the shooting of this film.
Ø  Director Kevin Macdonald is a very prolific director, working in both documentaries and in scripted films.  Some of his other films include “One Day in September” and “The Last King of Scotland.”
Ø  “I thought I would be tougher than that.”  ~Joe Simpson. 

Sunday, May 11, 2014

Neighbors (2014)


A man carrying a baby, standing beside a younger man holding a beer, in front of a picket fence.

Released:  May 9th, 2014
Rated:  R
Studio:  Universal
Starring:  Seth Rogen, Zac Efron, Rose Byrne, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Dave Franco
Directed by:  Nicholas Stoller             
Written by:  Andrew J. Cohen, Brendan O’Brien
Personal Bias Alert:  not a fan of crass humor, not a Seth Rogan fan (do those two things go hand in hand?)


6.5 of 10




            When I saw the trailer for “Neighbors,” I never thought the film would actually be about something.  I went in ready for a silly, gross-out gag fest with a loosely constructed story to give the whole thing some semblance of direction.  Yet once the movie got going, I found that I was as entertained by the plot as I was by the gags.

            “Neighbors” stars Seth Rogan and Rose Byrne as Mac and Kelly Radner, a young couple with a baby who are settling into adult life.  They’ve bought a house and are anxiously awaiting to find out who will move in next door.  When a frat shows up, with Zac Efron’s Teddy as president, they are justifiably concerned.  As the noise level increases next door, the couple become desperate to defend their turf and end up engaging in all-out war with the young frat members.

            This is a film made predominantly by 30-somethings, and it shows in the film’s central theme.  I know, talking about themes in a movie like “Neighbors” seems ridiculous, but I swear it’s a prominent and interesting aspect of the film.  Each of the main characters are at a transitional point in their lives:  Mac and Kelly have started a family and can no longer consider themselves young adults, and Teddy and Dave Franco’s Pete are in their senior year of college, that weird time when you know that real life is about to hit you in the face.  Each are struggling with the inevitable changes, and the central conflict of family vs. frat acts as a perfect metaphor for their internal struggles.

            It’s an emotionally honest film, and that results in well-formed characters.  They all react to the changes in their own ways, and even wife Kelly gets her own agencies (I love that they didn’t sideline her as a nagging wife).  Efron, Rogan, and Byrne all play well off each other and generate some solid laughs.  Some of the other actors (Franco, Christopher Mintz-Plasse) weren’t on the same level, but it’s never too detrimental.

            Alright, I’ve gone on enough about this plot and character stuff, now to the humor.  I found the movie to be funny despite focusing on my least favorite styles of humor.  I just don’t find people getting thrown into a ceiling that funny, but there’s a decent enough mix of physical, gross-out, and situational humor that everyone should find jokes they can laugh at.  Some of the gross-out jokes were drawn out, which I didn’t enjoy, but that’s to be expected from this Apatow-based group.  I can’t say I laughed out loud much, but I was amused the whole way through.

            I may be in the minority, but I found the plot and the situational humor of this movie to be more entertaining than the improv bits and crass jokes that these guys are known for.  I have to give it credit for mixing it up, though.  I think this is a film that can appeal to a wide audience, and normally word of mouth would help a film like this stick around in theaters a long time.  Unfortunately, the coming weeks are chock-full of massive releases, with “Godzilla,” “X-Men:  Days of Future Past,” and “Maleficent” all coming out in the next three weeks.  I’m hoping this little comedy delight won’t get lost in the shuffle.

            Other Notes:
Ø  There’s a lot of shaky cam in this movie, and sometimes it was distracting.
Ø  I couldn’t find much information on screenwriters Andrew J. Cohen and Brendan O’Brien, but HitFix has a good article on them.  Read it here:  http://www.hitfix.com/motion-captured/the-screenwriters-of-seth-rogens-neighbors-say-the-star-is-not-what-he-seems/2
Ø  The set design on this film was really strong.  Those two houses felt lived-in and age appropriate.
Ø  I apparently don’t understand accents, because I thought Rose Byrne’s Australian accent was a bit shaky.  Turns out she’s Australian, and that’s her natural accent.

Thursday, May 8, 2014

A League of Their Own (1992)


League of their own ver2.jpg

Released:  July 1st, 1992
Rated:  PG
Studio:  Columbia
Starring:  Geena Davis, Tom Hanks, Rosie O’Donnell, Madonna, Lori Petty, Jon Lovitz, David Strathairn, Garry Marshall, Bill Pullman
Directed by:  Penny Marshall             
Written by:  Lowell Ganz, Babaloo Mandel
Personal Bias Alert:  pro feminism, likes funny Tom Hanks

6 of 10





            “A League of Their Own” is one of those movie I always knew of, but it wasn’t until I was in college that I realized I’d never actually seen it.  There’s something comforting about coming to a film this late.  Its legacy and the fates of the people involved are set in stone.  Tom Hanks will continue an outstanding career, Geena Davis’s star will falter, Madonna will continue selling records, Penny Marshall’s directorial clout will fade, and the film will live on.  It’s earned a place in the National Film Registry for being “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant.”  Let’s not mince words here; it’s there for its cultural significance.  It’s a perfectly fine film, but it’s no work of art.

            Set in the 1940s, “A League of Their Own” follows Dottie Hinson (Geena Davis) as she becomes a star in the first ever professional women’s baseball league.  She’s not actually that interested in baseball, and only goes because her younger sister Kit (Lori Petty) is desperate to go.  Small crowds, demeaning outfits, and a drunken, disinterested manager named Jimmy (Tom Hanks) makes it clear to the talented girls that they aren’t going to be taken seriously.  Dottie and the others are smart enough to figure out the game, both on and off the field, and work to ensure that their league will survive.

            Plot summaries of this film always makes it seem more seriously feminist than it is.  Keep in mind, this film also stars Rosie O’Donnell and Madonna (who isn’t bad).  Its charm is in its broad comedy, in its insistence on laughing at the absurdities the women go through instead of condemning them.  That they were expected to leave their homes and families to play a professional sport, but do it in a dress while taking charm classes on the side, is ridiculous.

            While it’s a good story, the movie tries to cram in too much for one film.  It follows the women through tryouts and an entire season, with subplots involving sibling rivalries and war-torn families.  It drags on and on, and would have been better off with a runtime closer to 1 ½ hours verses it’s final 2 hours.  I think that this is one of those movies people remember as being better than it is.  You’ll think you had a great time, but when you sit down to re-watch it you’ll remember all the clichés and unnecessary stuff that drag it down.

            For younger people like me, it’s easy to forget that Tom Hanks is as strong a comedic actor as he is a dramatic actor.  “A League of Their Own” stands as one of the last in his string of comedy hits from the late 80s to the early 90s.  Over the next two years, Hanks would win back-to-back Oscars for “Philadelphia” and “Forest Gump.”  Here, he delivers a line that’s taken on a life bigger than that of the film itself.  “There’s no crying in baseball” is a phrase I’ve seemingly known my entire life, long before I ever saw the film.  Having now seen it, it’s a fitting phrase to pull out.  It’s funny but pointed, bringing up issues of gender expectations without making it uncomfortable.

            Other Notes:
Ø  This film has a ridiculous amount of montages.
Ø  Seriously Hans Zimmer?  You could try not doing the music for every film in existence.
Ø  “You think there are men in this country who ain’t seen you bosoms?”  That line is directed at Madonna’s character, which is some nice meta-humor.
Ø  Did they just film Rosie doing improve on third base between takes and insert parts into the movie?
Ø  Cast roster:  nice touch in the credits

Sunday, May 4, 2014

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

4.5 of 10

Personal Bias Alert:  Haven’t read the comics, haven’t seen “The Amazing Spider-Man,” likes the cast

            “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” feels like a film battling between what it wants to be and what it’s expected to be.  Modern superhero movies have become dark, character driven affairs with interspersed explosions.  Even the relatively lighthearted Avengers universe is rough around the edges, making their characters prickly and troubled.  Gone are the days when a superhero traded quips with a villain, vanquished him, and went home happily ever after.  The problem is that’s exactly what “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” wants to be, but it exists in a world where audiences would be disappointed by such a simplistic story.

            This lighter tone is especially prevalent in the filmmaker’s interpretation of the Spider-Man/Peter Parker character.  He’s a laidback, friendly hero, which is refreshing in this era.  Other modern superheroes are cool loner types that audiences admire from afar, but this Spider-Man is someone you could fist bump, trade jokes with, and, if he was older, have a beer with.  Andrew Garfield is the perfect choice for this version of Spider-Man.  He’s good at being breezily affable, and it’s hard not to like him.  The other characters are old-school superhero stock:  either sweet, good people or crazy bad guys.  Dane DeHaan’s Harry Osborn is the only one with any sort of arc, but even he’s pretty messed up from the beginning.

            The main baddie is a goofy, derivative character named Max/Electro played by Jamie Foxx.  As Max, he was a lonely, underappreciated Oscorp employee with a crazy obsession with Spider-Man.  As Electro, he’s a glowing blue humanoid with power over electricity.  After an accident turns him into Electro, he stumbles around in a black hoodie trying to figure out what has happened to him, occasionally send out bolts of electricity from his hands.  This I referred to as his “Blue Emperor” faze, because he greatly resembles the Emperor from “Star Wars.”  His obsession with Spider-Man survived the accident, and when he first encounters Spider-Man as Electro, the needy fellow thinks they will be close friends.  Unfortunately, the encounter goes south, and Electro’s love turns to vengeful hate.  His power and control increases, and from then on he becomes a needy version of Dr. Manhattan from “Watchmen.”  All of this would have been fine if there was something about him that was menacing, but ultimately he just felt like a whiny annoyance there to distract Spider-Man from his other more pressing issues.

            These other issues are where the movie falters, overcomplicating the plot and trying to mix in some broody elements that never fit with the rest of the film.  Peter, you see, is having relationship troubles with girlfriend Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) and best friend Harry Osborn.  He’s also still confused about why his parents abandoned him with his aunt and uncle.  These subplots seem to be there to add in those dark tones audiences have come to expect, but they play out at such different speeds that the tone of the film changes back and forth from scene to scene.  One minute Spidey is bantering with a bad guy, and then two minutes later he’s having a heart-to-heart with his dying best friend.  The shifts started giving me tonal whiplash, and it undercuts what I think the film’s main goal is:  to be a fun Spider-Man movie.

            Considering I’ve spent most of this review complaining about tone, it should come as no surprise that the writing gets pretty shaky.  Writers Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, and Jeff Pinkner, all alums of J. J. Abram’s various television series, get the story across clearly, but sacrifice quality in order to do so.  Some of the plot points are simply absurd (Harry supposedly never looked up his father’s illness?), some of the dialogue is pedestrian (“I’m really excited about England!”), and the tone issues have already been discussed ad nauseam.  These guy’s careers have been shaky, but this is among their worst work.

            “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” battles with itself throughout, and the end product is a messy, unsatisfying affair.  It’s neither a fun Spidey film nor a modern superhero epic. Hopefully, the filmmakers pick one direction over the other for the inevitable Spider-Man 3, or they will end up with another waste of good talent.

            Other Notes:
Ø  Let’s break down the absurdity of the Harry Osborn subplot even more:  When Harry’s dying father tells him of his hereditary fatal illness, he says that Harry should start showing symptoms soon.  When he does, Harry goes off the deep end and thinks he needs treatment immediately.  Harry’s father made it into his 60s, so I think Harry had some time to come up with a cure.
Ø  Harry’s assistant tells him about a secret department of Oscorp that is off the books.  Harry finds out more about this secret department by pulling up files about it.  Not so off the books, huh?
Ø  Gwen thinks she has this special knowledge about the backup power grid when all she has to do to turn it on is flip the labeled switch.
Ø  Peter refers to Harry as his best friend.  They haven’t seen each other in eight years.  Peter needs better friends.
Ø  This movie would have gotten a much lower score if not for the ending twist.  It’s effective, but probably not good for the rest of the series.