Category Archives: Reviews

The World’s End

Posted on by

worlds end

Director: Edgar Wright

Writer: Simon Pegg, Edgar Wright

Starring:  Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Martin Freeman, Paddy Considine, Eddie Marsan, Rosamund Pike

Tomatometer: 90/88/80 (all critics, top critics, audience)

Spoiler-free Summary: Gary King is a drunk man-child.  His happiest memory involves a somewhat legendary, yet unfinished, pub crawl that took place 20 years earlier.  In an attempt to recapture his glory days, Gary rounds up his four former mates for a second stab at the “Golden Mile”.

Two Cents: There are two types of comedies in Hollywood.  Most comedies fall into the lowbrow bin (Happy Gilmore, Old School, Caddyshack, etc.).  A few can be considered highbrow (just about anything from the Coen brothers, Wes Anderson, or Woody Allen).  Somehow, Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright have managed to carve out a third category – hybrow, a hybrid of the two brows.  I could have gone with “unibrow“, but that’s already taken.

Sure, if we discussed it for a few minutes, we’d come up with a few other films that could be considered a perfect cross between low and highbrow humor, but I’d argue that most of those films, more likely, are either low-end highbrow or high-end lowbrow.  In the interest of saving time, let’s get back to the task at hand.

It takes a true genius to turn a debaucherous pub crawl into a piercing look at middle age.  Luckily, this movie had a few geniuses pulling its strings.  Simon Pegg is probably most recognizable for his supporting role in the two most recent Star Trek movies and the last two Mission: Impossible installments.  However, that’s just a watered-down and Hollywoodified version of the British actor.  The real Pegg only comes out to play when he’s teamed up with his pals Edgar Wright and Nick Frost.  In three films together, this trio has reached a level of writer-director-actor chemistry that is extremely rare in today’s Hollywood landscape.  DiCaprio and Scorsese have it, Burton and Depp have it, but there aren’t many others.  (Note: Technically, The World’s End is part of a trilogy, which also includes Shaun of the Dead  and Hot Fuzz, but each of the three movies can stand firmly on its own.  I prefer to look at them as separate films, simply because I want more!)

No matter what ridiculous scenes might show up in a script, the most humorous part of any comedy is its dialogue.  If the dialogue doesn’t feel natural and witty, a comedy has no chance at being truly funny.  Dialogue is what separates a movie from a YouTube clip.  The World’s End is oozing with clever and hilarious lines layered with boatloads of subtext, the mark of truly gifted writers.  Still, the movie never gets bogged down in being funny.  The 12 pubs on the crawl serve as a spectacular device for briskly moving the story forward and creating believable opportunities for the introduction of supporting characters.

I don’t want to give away any plot points, so I’ll keep this review brief.  The acting is great, the jokes are top-notch, and there’s even a surprise visit from Bill Nighy’s voice.  What more could you want?

Should I/Shouldn’t I: You may feel ill-equipped to watch The World’s End, if you haven’t yet seen Shaun and Fuzz.  Rest assured, that won’t make much of a difference.  If you’ve been waiting for a truly funny comedy that doesn’t rely exclusively on “toilet humor” and the f-word, but still makes you long for your teenage years, this is it.  

Sundae Rating: Two scoops with whipped cream

Lee Daniels’ The Butler

Posted on by

butler

Director: Lee Daniels

Writer: Danny Strong

Based On: Article (A Butler Well Served by This Election) by Wil Haygood

Starring: Forest Whitaker, Oprah Winfrey, Terrence Howard, Cuba Gooding Jr., David Oyelowo, Lenny Kravitz

Tomatometer: 72/79/83 (all critics, top critics, audience)

Spoiler-free Summary: Cecil Gaines leaves the cotton farm on which he grew up to become a butler at The White House.  Through eight presidential terms (1952-1986), he witnesses history from the front row.

Two Cents: Oprah Winfrey has not acted in a live action movie (non-animated) since 1998’s Beloved, for which she also served as a producer.  Oprah’s extended hiatus from acting is just one reason she was a curious choice to play Gloria Gaines in The Butler.

Lee Daniels’s latest film is already somewhat famous for having 41 producers.  In essence, that means over 40 individuals contributed some portion of a $30 million, in order to get this movie made.  Surprisingly, Oprah was not one of those people.  Sure, it can be surmised that Oprah didn’t believe in the movie enough to sink her cash into it.  However, I don’t buy that.

I’m not one to spend other people’s money, but $30 million (or any portion of it) is rather insignificant to Oprah.  Plus, with the cast the Daniels was able to assemble, this movie was never going belly up.  My guess is Oprah wanted this opportunity to prove that she can truly act.  She didn’t want to be the kid whose parents donated a library, so he could go to Harvard.  Undoubtedly, Oprah’s commitment to appear in the movie was an important consideration for investors, as her presence all but guaranteed decent box office numbers, but we won’t hold that against her.

I respect Oprah’s attempt at proving her acting legitimacy, but, unfortunately, the queen of daytime television falls short in her role.  Many people believe that talent elevates talent.  For example, a great quarterback can make mediocre receivers look like hall-of-famers.  In many cases, though, talent can differentiate itself like water floating on oil.  In The Butler, the lead roles are inhabited by incredibly talented actors.  Of the three male leads, two have won an Oscar, and the third was nominated for one.  That’s intimidating company for anyone, let alone a woman who’s been sitting on a couch for the last 15 years.  Oprah does a decent job, but she is so outmatched by her screen partners that she overreaches, at times, and comes across as amateurish.

Let’s spend some time talking about the good actors!  Forest Whitaker was mesmerizing in The Last King of Scotland.  Without question, he is one of the most skilled actors of his generation.  In this film, he portrays such an extensive range of emotions, it’s impossible to imagine a role he couldn’t play.  His performance, though understated, is remarkable.

Cuba Gooding Jr. is a tragically underused actor.  Despite an Oscar for his performance in Jerry Maguire and stellar performances in Men of Honor, Radio, and others, he only seems to pop up every so often, and almost exclusively in roles that demand an African American male.  He’s too good to spending so much of his time on straight-to-DVD garbage.  Plus, he plays ice hockey!  On the regs!

One of the highlights of this movie is the parade of presidents that wafts through the story.  The performances are, as a whole, pretty darn good.  Liev Schreiber as Lyndon Johnson and John Cusack as Richard Nixon are the most impressive, but the cameos are all fun.

I’m hoping for an Oscar nomination for Debra Denson, the head of the makeup department.  I won’t bet on it, but she deserves one.  She did a superb job with all the characters, especially Oyelowo’s Louis, Robin Williams’s Dwight Eisenhower, and Schreiber’s LBJ.

I recently criticized the lack of realistic racism in 42.  While watching Daniles’s film, I specifically kept my eye out for his treatment of our country’s embarrassing history of prejudice.  As strange as it sounds, Daniels nailed it.  While 42 made me feel bad for Jackie Robinson, having to put up with a few morons, The Butler made me feel disgusted, exhibiting racism as the grotesque, widespread hysteria it truly was.  There’s no question, it was far worse in real life, but Daniels’s depiction of American racism and segregation seems incredibly authentic for a movie with a PG-13 rating.

Should I/Shouldn’t I: The Butler is not a top-flight biopic, and it’s not a thrilling work of historical fiction.  It is, however, a (generally) superbly acted feel-good movie that provides an unprecedented glimpse into the most famous residence in the Western Hemisphere.  The unique view of American presidents offered here is fascinating, if not surprising, and Cecil Gaines’s front row seat to history is reminiscent of Forrest Gump’s.  The script is unremarkable, but the story is quite the opposite.  If you enjoy American history, you’ll appreciate this journey through one of its more dynamic eras.

Sundae Rating: Two scoops with whipped cream

Elysium

Posted on by

elysium

Director: Neill Blomkamp

Writer: Neill Blomkamp

Starring:  Matt Damon, Jodie Foster, Sharlto Copley

Tomatometer: 66/67/70 (all critics, top critics, audience)

Spoiler-free Summary: In 2154, Earth is overpopulated, poor, and in ruin. Floating somewhere between Earth and the moon is Elysium, a secure paradise inhabited by what used to be Earth’s upper class.  Once Max, a blue collar factory worker, is exposed to a lethal dose of radiation, he makes a deal with a smuggler who promises to get Max to Elysium and into one of their cure-all medical chambers.

Feel free to enjoy this aptly titled song from one of my favorite movies while you read.

Two Cents: With the NFL season fast approaching, this is an appropriate time to discuss the phenomenon known as the “sophomore slump”.  In football, it is widely believed, players who breakout as stars during their respective rookie seasons have a tendency to underwhelm the following year.  One great recent example is Carolina Panthers quarterback Cam Newton.  During his rookie year, Newton amazed fans, and even set a plethora of rookie records.  In his sophomore campaign, though, Newton’s statistics actually declined in a variety of important categories – passing yards, completion percentage, passing touchdowns, rushing touchdowns, and more.  Loads of players have experienced similar declines.

At its core, the sophomore slump phenomenon revolves around the belief that the element of surprise is a significant factor in success.  Newton spent his whole life preparing for his first season in the NFL.  When he finally made it, all that work paid off.  (This aspect is similar to what many musicians go through with a second album.  The first album consists of all the best material the musician has written up until that point.  The second mostly consists of material form a span of a year or two.  Consider Alanis Morissette’s career after Jagged Little Pill.)  However, during his second season, once his opponents knew what to expect from him, Newton had to spend much of his time learning new ways to complete old tasks.  Performance builds both high expectations and heightened resistance.

That concludes my unnecessarily wordy tangent.

When Neill Blomkamp directed District 9, his first feature-length film, he was, for all intents and purposes, a complete nobody.  Lucky for him, he had two aces in the hole – a whopping spoonful of talent and a rich, influential PR department in the form of Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson.  While no one expected much from the South African whiz kid, Blomkamp directed (and co-wrote) one of the most critically acclaimed sci-fi films in recent memory (90/89/79 on Rotten Tomatoes, for what it’s worth).  He both raised the bar for original sci-fi entertainment and brought in over $210,000,000 in worldwide ticket sales, all without a single famous actor.  Needless to say, a lot was expected from Blomkamp’s second feature film, Elysium.

With megastars like Matt Damon and Jodie Foster along for the ride, Elysium certainly has more of a Hollywood feel than did District 9.  Unfortunately, Hollywood has a spotty record when it comes to making things better.  Damon is good, but not great.  We’ve seen so many great performances from him in the past, and this time he seems to let the special effects do most of the talking.  Jodie Foster is terrible as Elysium’s defense minister.  Her performance is nearly as uncomfortable as her rambling Golden Globes Awards speech.  Supporting roles from William Fichtner and Diego Luna are somewhat wasted and underwhelming.

Sharlto Copley shines as military contractor Kruger, even though he feels a bit scrawny for the macho role.  The surprise of the cast is Wagner Moura, who plays Spider, the smuggler.  Moura’s gravely voice and perfected limp contribute to a complex and admirable character who steals a number of scenes.

Elysium is such a blatant Occupy Wall Street homage that Blomkamp loses sight of his (presumed) goal of telling an original story.  There’s not enough development of the two worlds – Earth and Elysium.  Blomkamp seems to assume that the viewer “gets it”, as if he can simply say, “There are poor people and there are rich people; let’s move on”.  This story could have benefitted greatly from a deeper dive into how the 99% and the 1% are actually living in 2154.  In addition, that development should have included an explanation as to why the rich are keeping their medical advances from the poor.  They’ve already created their own planet; do they really need a monopoly on medicine?  There are some plot holes, as well.

The good news about most sophomore slumps is that they are just that, slumps.  There’s no reason to think Blomkamp’s third movie, Chappie, won’t be a gem.  He’s still got loads of talent, and, with Elysium under his belt, he’ll likely have a much better handle on building a movie Hollywood style, the second time around.  Heck, in two weeks, I might even pick Cam Newton for my fantasy team.

Should I/Shouldn’t I: Don’t get me wrong.  Elysium is a good movie.  It’s got a decent plot, great visual effects, and, generally, solid performances.  It just won’t blow you away like District 9 did (I hope you’ve seen it).  It’s still exciting to see some original sci-fi material making it onto the silver screen.  Some of the sci-fi reboots in recent years have been pretty impressive, but the genre is in desperate need of an influx of new blood.  Blomkamp is certainly talented enough to provide that infusion, but Elysium probably won’t get much mention in his lifetime achievement award speech.  

Sundae Rating: Two scoops

The Spectacular Now

Posted on by

spectacular

Director: James Ponsoldt

Writer: Scott Neustadter, Michael H. Weber

Based On: Novel (The Spectacular Now) by Tim Tharp

Starring: Miles Teller, Shailene Woodley,

Tomatometer: 90/95/82 (all critics, top critics, audience)

Spoiler-free Summary: Sutter is a high school senior floating through life in a drunken stupor. After he passes out on a random front lawn, Sutter is rescued by a shy classmate, Aimee, whom he’s never noticed.  Sutter spends the remainder of the school year trying to help Aimee break out of her shell.

Two Cents: Have you ever seen Reign Over Me?  Don’t worry, barely anyone has.  It’s a movie with Adam Sandler.  You’ll notice, I didn’t call it an Adam Sandler movie. ROM is nothing like Jack & Jill.  It’s about a guy who loses his wife and children in a plane crash and, subsequently, goes a tad nuts, understandably.  Starring opposite Don Cheadle, Sandler gave an incredible performance that was unlike anything he’d done previously. The most impressive part of Sandler’s performance was the fact that no one saw it coming (except for director Mike Binder, I guess).  Sure, Sandler has wasted his time with some awful comedies, but his remarkable performance in ROM forever altered my opinion of his acting abilities.

Miles Teller doesn’t possess the data sample that Sandler did before 2007, but, based on his previous work (Project X, 21 & Over, Footloose), his performance in The Spectacular Now is almost as surprising as Sandler’s was.  Teller’s Sutter starts out as a fun-loving, drunk high schooler you might encounter in any other teenage romance.  As the movie plays out, though, Teller reveals more and more about Sutter’s troubled past and the tension that’s constantly bubbling below his calm and freewheeling surface.  Teller is the kind of actor who seems so natural that you don’t quite believe he’s really acting at all.  If he didn’t seem so nice, I’d hate his guts.

I’m embarrassed to say it, but I must admit that someone from ABC Family has some serious acting chops.  No, it’s not Joey Lawrence.  Shailene Woodley escaped obscurity (unless you’re a female tween) with her breakout performance in The Descendants.  In that Oscar-winning film, Woodley played a teenage girl fighting to prove her adulthood.  In Spectacular, she plays a teenage girl timidly assessing hers.  Although the characters sound similar, they are markedly different.  She was really good in the former, but she truly nails it in the latter.

The chemistry between the two leads is not of legendary status, but it’s natural enough that you’ll want to see more movies with these two stars together.  (Sweet!  I just found out they’ll be starring in Neil Burger’s Divergent, in 2014.)  I’d argue it’s just a few hairs short of Noah and Allie’s in The Notebook.  I’d probably lose pretty quickly, but I’d still make the argument. Okay, now, I’m debating it in my head.  This has taken a sad turn.  Back to business!

The beaten-down-by-life performances from Jennifer Jason Leigh and Kyle Chandler, though small, are the perfect complements to the youthfulness exhibited by Teller and Woodley.  Ponsoldt does a marvelous job of capturing the very moments when teens begin to realize that teens are depressingly close to becoming adults, who are lightyears away from being teens.

There are a few problems with this film, but they mostly revolve around the unsettling ubiquity of armpit sweat stains.  I have to assume those were included on purpose.  Either that, or they were filming during an unprecedented, Georgian heatwave.  I didn’t love the film’s attitude toward drunk driving, but I grew more comfortable with it as the movie played.

Should I/Shouldn’t I: Teenage romance is one of the most important experiences in any person’s life.  Unfortunately, these days, it’s refreshing just to see a movie about one that doesn’t involve an immortal or a superhuman.  This movie’s got a whole lot more than that going for it.  The plot is realistic, the characters are deep, and Teller and Woodley (who shared a Special Jury award at Sundance) are worth the price of admission.  Sadly, I’m not sure either Teller or Woodley possesses the necessary “look” to become a bona fide Hollywood star, but they’ve each certainly got the talent (by far, the less important ingredient, unfortunately).  God, I hope I’m wrong!  I’ll put ten bucks on Teller becoming the next John Cusack.

Sundae Rating: Two scoops with whipped cream

Blue Jasmine

Posted on by

blue jasmine

Director: Woody Allen

Writer: Woody Allen

Starring:  Cate Blanchett, Alec Baldwin, Sally Hawkins, Andrew Dice Clay, Bobby Cannavale

Tomatometer: 85/80/79 (all critics, top critics, audience)

Spoiler-free Summary: Jasmine has lost everything – her homes, her jewels, and her Ponzi scheming husband.  Desperate for some stability, she moves in with her formerly estranged sister.

Two Cents: I don’t think I could name a director, nor a writer, with a more distinct style than Woody Allen’s.  If I showed you E.T. for the first time, would you be able to name Steven Spielberg as its director, without hesitation?  I’d counter with Saving Private Ryan, and you’d have to rethink your position.  Would you bet your life on the assumption that Martin Scorcese directed The Departed?  Not if Hugo were the only other Scorcese movie you’d seen.

Even when he’s not acting in his movies, Woody is still very much the star.  Each line of dialogue drips with Allen’s trademark wit and sarcasm.  I am not, by any stretch, a Woody fanatic, but I’ve seen enough of his films to know what a Woody Allen film is.  And, Blue Jasmine is undoubtedly a Woody Allen film.

As one of my friends put it, Woody Allen is played by Cate Blanchett.  Her Jasmine is the broken and scorned widow of a financial schemer.  Plainly, Jasmine is Allen’s version of Ruth Madoff.  Her husband, Hal, a WASPy version of Bernie, is played by the brilliant Alec Baldwin.

Blanchett, like Woody often does, moves effortlessly between cynicism, self-loathing, and preachiness.  Though Jasmine’s own life is a complete mess, she always knows best how to fix the lives of those around her.  She is the paradigm of what everyone thinks would happen to a billionaire who loses everything.  She’s completely lost her bearings, she has no plan of action, and she’s been shunned by her “friends”.  However, because she once had a house in the Hamptons, she believes she’s still more intelligent and righteous than everyone with whom she interacts.  In a way, Blue Jasmine is a revenge fantasy for anyone who’s ever secretly (or not so secretly) craved the downfall of a person of means.  Let’s be honest.  How badly do you want to see an episode of Keeping Up with the Kardashians after Kris loses all her money?  Sure, it sounds cruel, but that would get a better rating than the Super Bowl.  

As he always does, Allen put together a stellar cast for this film.  Each performance is commendable, but Blanchett’s stands out.  Sally Hawkins was good enough that, from now on, I’ll actually care if Sally Hawkins is in a movie.  Andrew Dice Clay was surprisingly convincing as the representative for The Working Man, and I only wish he had more screen time.  Bobby Cannavale did a nice job as Hawkins’s boyfriend, but I don’t think I’ll ever be impressed with Cannavale again, after his phenomenal performance on the 2012 season of Boardwalk Empire.  Louis C.K. was fine in a small cameo, but that’s really all it was.

Should I/Shouldn’t I: You’d think that, after 49 films, all with a very similar and distinct voice, we’d be over Woody Allen.  Apparently, we’re not.  This past Sunday morning, I arrived early to the theater, which is a rare occurrence.  To my surprise, there was a line around the corner.  I’ve never seen such a long line for a movie that was not about a superhuman.  Granted, the average age of the line’s inhabitants was north of 70, but that only proves Allen’s staying power even more.  These people have already seen the other 48!  No, Blue Jasmine is not a great movie, but it’s a good movie that will certainly satisfy Woody’s fans.  Blanchett is the story, but since she really is just playing Woody, she only gets partial credit for her performance.  If you like Woody Allen, in general, you’ll enjoy this one.  If you’re unfamiliar with his work, this film will serve as a fine introduction to his portfolio.

Sundae Rating: Two scoops

Fruitvale Station

Posted on by

fruitvale

Director: Ryan Coogler

Writer: Ryan Coogler

Starring:  Michael B. Jordan, Melonie Diaz, Octavio Spencer

Tomatometer: 92/90/87 (all critics, top critics, audience)

Spoiler-free Summary: Oscar is a 22-year-old African American man living in Oakland.  He’s got a girlfriend, a daughter, and a criminal record.  Oscar lost his job, so he’s back to selling drugs, but he’s doing his best to become a better husband, father, and man.  He’s really just some guy.  Unfortunately, for a black man, that’s a problem.

Two Cents: There are good movies, there are bad movies, and there are important movies.  Important movies are the ones that tell stories that are difficult to tell, stories that don’t lend themselves to entertainment, stories to which most people would rather turn a blind eye.  Making an important movie takes guts, determination, and investors with no expectation of a return.  It takes a whole lot more than that to make an important movie a really good one, too.  

Fruitvale Station is the true story of Oscar Juliuss Grant, III, a young black man who was the victim of police brutality.  Thanks to social media, his story became a national headline.  This is not a horror film, yet it is most definitely horrifying.  Ryan Coogler (27), in his first feature-length film, does a masterful job of representing Grant as a real and regular person.  By depicting Oscar in many mundane and unspectacular situations, Coogler forces the viewer to root for Oscar, not because he’s special, but because he’s (in many ways) the everyman.  He’s remarkably unremarkable.

Of course, there will be questions about whether Grant really was the person he’s made out to be in this film, and that’s understandable.  I don’t know the answer, and I don’t think it matters.  Police brutality and intolerance are important issues, and this is just one situation that involved both.  It wasn’t the first, nor was it the last.  It probably wasn’t even the first or last on that day, within a two-block radius.

I’m not a political commentator, and this isn’t a political blog.  Still, whether you fall on one side of the discussion or the other, this is a movie that needs to be seen.  Kudos to Coogler and his collaborators for bringing it to life.

Although Grant is the real story here, I can’t understate the power of Michael B. Jordan’s performance.  This young actor is making all the right moves.  He has yet to be less than awesome in any role.  Octavia Spencer is a true pro, and Melonie Diaz continues to build a terrific résumé as a talented character actress.  This film has already won awards at Sundance and Cannes, and I expect it to wrap up a few more before the post-2013 awards season comes to a close.

Should I/Shouldn’t I: Go to a theater, wait for the DVD, or order it on demand – it makes no difference.  Just make sure you see Fruitvale Station.  

Sundae Rating: Two scoops with whipped cream and hot fudge

The Way, Way Back

Posted on by

way way back

Director: Nat Faxon, Jim Rash

Writer: Nat Faxon, Jim Rash

Starring:  Liam James, Steve Carell, Toni Collette, Sam Rockwell

Tomatometer: 85/91/92 (all critics, top critics, audience)

Spoiler-free Summary: Duncan’s mom is dating an a-hole named (what else?) Trent.  Imprisoned at Trent’s beach house for the summer, Duncan attempts to make the most of his predicament by taking a job at a local water park.

Two Cents: Malone and Stockton.  Simon and Garfunkel.  Abbott and Costello.  Dean and Jerry.

It has been said that, behind every great man, there is a great woman.  No disrespect to the superior gender, but I have to disagree, somewhat.  Often, the individual behind one great man is an equally great second man.

Throughout the history of American entertainment, good men have been teaming up to create legendary duos.  The duos mentioned above prove this in spades.  For some reason, however, this phenomenon has been largely absent from American film direction.  Sure, there are a few well-known pairs who have made ripples here and there, but the only truly famous examples that come to mind are three pairs of brothers – the Wachowskis, the Farrellys, and the gold standard, the Coens.  (The Duplass brothers are doing some terrific work, as well, but no one really knows them by name.)

Why aren’t there any big-name directing duos in Hollywood who don’t share one surname?  Allow me to venture a guess.  Hollywood is an industry driven by two things, above all others – money and ego.  (And, the money is really only a barometer for egos to measure themselves against other egos.)  Naturally, humans have a hard time sharing success.  We aren’t programmed to admit how much other people’s efforts and intelligence have influenced our achievements.  We’re always trying to differentiate our work from that of others, while still taking some credit for their work, too.  With an artform such as film direction, however, differentiating one person’s work from that of another, is extremely difficult. (We don’t know which Farrelly decided which sound was the most annoying in the world, and we can’t begin to guess which Wachowski decided to put Neo in a leather trenchcoat.  You could ask them, but could you count on their honesty?)

In an industry where ego is king, each director wants to prove he can do great work on his own.  The quest for individual achievement tears countless successful partnership apart.  When is it easier to enjoy the success of a partner nearly as much as your own?  When is it more difficult to leave a partner in the dust, in hopes of hanging up your own shingle?  When that partner is your brother.

Perhaps, I’m correct.  Perhaps, I’m way off.  Either way, I believe the value of a great duo is often far greater than the sum of its parts.  For that reason, I pray that Nat Faxon and Jim Rash will continue to create introspective, heartfelt, and hilarious movies TOGETHER.  When they accepted their joint Oscar (from Angelina’s right leg) for co-writing The Descendants with director Alexander Payne, I couldn’t believe that Rolf (second from left) and Dean Pelton were responsible for one of the best-written screenplays in years.  I couldn’t help but wonder whether they had another masterpiece left in them.  After all, The Descendants was quite different from the work each had done in the past.  Alas, my dreams have come true!

As co-writers, co-directors, and co-producers, Faxon and Rash have soared to even greater heights with The Way, Way Back.  They wrote an outstanding script with realistic and punch-in-the-gut poignant dialogue, assembled a stellar cast of understated stars possessing immense talent, and directed the crap out of it all.  

Steve Carell is fantastic as douchebag Trent, and his condescending tone is one of the highlights of the movie.  You’ll wonder how you ever liked Steve Carell, in the first place.  And, that’s exactly what he was going for.  Toni Collette plays an incredibly real divorced woman caught between her child’s happiness and her own.  Sam Rockwell shines as the damaged, yet optimistic, antihero to a young boy in need of one.  The supporting cast, which includes Allison Janney, Rob Corddry, Amand Peet, AnnaSophia Robb, River Alexander, Maya Rudolph, Faxon, Rash, and others, is top-notch.  Although many of the roles are small, each plays a significant part and is played with tremendous skill, yet another tribute to the co-directors’ talent.

Liam James is so good, I’m shocked he doesn’t have any new projects lined up (according to IMDB).  His timidness and awkwardness are so authentic, you’ll be mad at yourself for laughing at his expense and not rushing to his aid.  I expect he’ll be popping up quite a bit over the next few years.  Think of him as Topher Grace mixed with Emile Hirsch, but only 17 years old.

If former Groundlings Faxon and Rash manage to stay together for the long haul, we are all in for a treat.  The ability to create microcosmic stories with powerful lessons and a healthy dose of humor is extremely rare, but this duo proves that such stories can, at once, be inspiring and entertaining.  At this moment, I’d be hard-pressed to think of a writing or directing team I love more.  Let’s raise a glass.  Here’s to many more happy years together!

Should I/Shouldn’t I: No matter what you’re doing today, tomorrow, or the next day, or this weekend, I promise none of it is more important than rushing to a theater for the next showing of The Way, Way Back.  Faxon and Rash are superstars-in-the-making, and a front row seat will cost you less than popcorn and a soda.  If you’ve recently proclaimed that there are never any great movies, you’re about to eat your hat.

Sundae Rating: Two scoops with whipped cream and hot fudge

The Lone Ranger

Posted on by

lone ranger

Director: Gore Verbinski

Writer: Justin Haythe, Ted Elliott, Terry Rossio

Based On: Radio show (The Lone Ranger) written by Fran Striker

Starring: Johnny Depp, Armie Hammer, Tom Wilkinson, William Fichtner

Tomatometer: 25/11/68 (all critics, top critics, audience)

Spoiler-free Summary: John Reid joins his brother, Dan, and a group of Texas Rangers on a manhunt for outlaw Butch Cavendish.  After Cavendish’s gang kills the group of Rangers, John, the lone survivor, teams up with a wise (possibly insane) Native American and becomes a vigilante.

Two Cents: Remember when Michael Jordan played for the Washington Wizards?  How about when Madonna performed at halftime of Super Bowl XLVI?  Few things are more uncomfortable than watching a former legend attempt to relive the glory days, only to fail miserably.  Okay, Jordan was still pretty good with the Wizards, but you get the point.

Gore Verbinski, Ted Elliott, Terry Rossio, and Johnny Depp once joined forces to create one of my favorite films of all time – Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl.  Not only was the first Pirates movie intelligent, funny, action-packed, and original, it was completely unexpected.  Verbeinski hadn’t yet directed a mega-budget blockbuster, Elliott and Rossio had mostly worked on animated features, and Depp hadn’t played such a unique and transformation-necessitating character since Edward Scissorhands, 13 years earlier.  No one knew what to expect from the movie, and no one could have predicted that a Bruckheimer/Disney production would lead to an Oscar nomination for a vulgar, yet lovable, pirate.  After three more Pirates movies, however, the world knows what to expect from this quartet (sextet, if you count Bruckheimer and Disney as part of the team, as you should).

When this band gets together, we know there’s going to be inventive action, a healthy dose of Deppian weirdness, and a couple of long hours in between.  I love the Pirates movies, and I even love the Oscar-nominated Rango, another Verbinski/Depp project that was surprisingly fantastic.  Still, even I have to admit that the character development, plot twists, and witty dialogue that made those movies so entertaining have been on a steady decline since 2003.

Sadly, The Lone Ranger is the most glaring proof, to date, that this team of former all-stars is grasping at straws.  There’s some of inventive action involving horses and trains, but it works only as bookends to an otherwise dull story.  Depp’s Tonto is more awkward than funny, the dialogue is atrocious, and the other characters are barely one-dimensional.  The crime of wasting Tom Wilkinson, Barry Pepper, and Depp on such worthless roles should be punishable by 5-10 years of watching this movie play on a loop.  The one bright(ish) spot was a dark and creepy performance by William Fichtner, which only seems more impressive when considering the overwhelming ineptitude surrounding him.

Armie Hammer.  Armie freaking Hammer.

Hey, Johnny, it’s Jerry.  Good news.  We picked a Lone Ranger.  And, we only had to go to the 46th name on the list.

Is this a joke?  I admit I’m not very familiar with the Lone Ranger radio show or television program, but there’s no way George Seaton, Earle Graser, Brace Beemer, and Clayton Moore were this vapid.  If Verbinski had asked Depp to hold a broomstick with a mask stapled to it, it would have put Hammer to shame.  Note to casting directors: When searching for a talented actor who can do a legendary role justice, carry a two-hour, franchise-launching blockbuster, and successfully share a screen with Johnny Depp, your best bet is to steer clear of someone who got his start on Gossip Girl.  Do you remember who starred opposite Depp in the Pirates movies?  That’s right, Geoffrey Rush, a man who is one Grammy away from becoming the world’s twelfth EGOT winner.  There’s got to be someone somewhere in the middle.

I am a huge fan of most of the key players here, and that’s precisely why this flop hurts so much.  We can only hope the dubious (and Verbinskiless) Pirates of the Caribbean 5 (and 6) will turn this sinking ship around.

Should I/Shouldn’t I: The plot is flat, the twists are predictable, the acting is weak, the dialogue is laughable, and the action is sporadic.  If that sounds like a winning combination to you, be my guest.

Sundae Rating: Empty cup

The Heat

Posted on by

the heat

Director: Paul Feig

Writer: Katie Dippold

Starring:  Melissa McCarthy, Sandra Bullock

Tomatometer: 62/69/78 (all critics, top critics, audience)

Spoiler-free Summary: Sandra Bullock is a superb FBI agent, and she knows it.  Melissa McCarthy is the ultimate rule-breaking cop, and she knows the streets of Boston better than anyone else does.  Forced to work together to track down a druglord, these two know-it-alls become locked in an epic battle of one-upmanship.

Two Cents: Just as an actor can often fall into a specific niche role, never to find a way out, so, too, a director can become the go-to guy/gal for a specific genre.  For example, Christopher Nolan did wonders for Batman, so DC Comics made sure to get him heavily involved in a Superman reboot.  Do you have a weak script that’s going to need a transfusion of explosions and humor, in order to survive?  Michael Bay is your man.

After the incredible success of last year’s Bridesmaids, people finally believe that chicks are sort of funny.  However, only Paul Feig seems to have Hollywood’s blessing, when it comes to betting actual dollars on that belief (something that will probably only happen once or twice a year for the foreseeable future).  Paul Feig is 50 years old, but Bridesmaids was his first silver screen hit.  Still, he found a formula that works, and that’s exactly why he’ll be directing female comedies like The Heat for years to come.

The Heat is nothing new, but it’s certainly entertaining.  There are even a few laugh-out-loud moments, which has been rare the last few years.  Lucky for Feig, he had the privilege of working with Bridesmaids‘s breakout star, Melissa McCarthy, once again.  McCarthy owns this movie the way Eddie Murphy owned the Beverly Hills Cop movies.  Even with a star like Bullock beside her, and a bounty of well-known and talented comedic and character actors filling out the smaller roles (and some decent cameos), McCarthy demands attention in every frame.  She’s obnoxious, lovable, grotesque, and hilarious.  Bullock is very good, as well, but she knows it’s not really her show.

The real issue is whether McCarthy’s act (which isn’t far off from the characters she played in Bridesmaids and Identity Thief) will get old after another movie or two.  It happened to Zach Galifianakis, it happened to Jim Carrey, and the list goes on.  Feig and McCarthy are both riding high, right now, but one can’t help but wonder whether they should quit while they’re ahead.  Surely, each of them is talented enough to try something else and achieve incredible success.  Right?  Well, I guess time will tell.  (It’s worth noting that McCarthy’s tame sitcom, Mike & Molly, was 2012-2013’s 37th-highest rated show.  Not great, but surprisingly respectable.)  But, one thing’s for sure; we should all enjoy it while it lasts.

Should I/Shouldn’t I: Melissa McCarthy is a rare breed – an actress who is actually getting lead roles!  Not only that, but studios are even writing lead roles with McCarthy, specifically, in mind.  That just doesn’t happen, these days.  She is a star, and she deserves her success.  That’s even more rare.  Eventually, she’ll be replaced in the Hollywood hierarchy by another comedic actress, so, make sure you catch her while you can.    

Sundae Rating: Two scoops

World War Z

Posted on by

11171734_det

Director: Marc Forster

Writer: Matthew Michael Carnahan, Drew Goddard, Damon Lindelof

Based On: Novel (World War Z) by Max Brooks

Starring: Brad Pitt, Daniella Kertesz

Tomatometer: 67/71/86 (all critics, top critics, audience)

Spoiler-free Summary: Brad Pitt’s family witnesses the beginning of the zombie apocalypse.  Luckily, Brad used to be a secret agent for the UN, so his family is rescued by the Navy.  Of course, there’s a catch.  Brad must help the government track down the source of the outbreak and develop a cure.  Brad is extremely good-looking, throughout.

Two Cents: As is stated in Ecclesiastes 1:9, there is nothing new in the zombie genre.  That’s a direct quote.

If I told you I were writing a zombie movie, you’d know the plot before I finished my sente.  There are zombies, they’re eating humans, humans need a cure, and someone finds a cure.  Warm Bodies added new life (pun intended) to the genre by telling the story from a zombie’s point of view, but that’s about all the innovation we’ve seen in some time.

Sadly, World War Z, doesn’t break the mold.  Yes, there’s some superb action, and the zombies are more terrifying than those in many other movies, but the overall product is far from unique.  That being said, it’s still an entertaining movie, and Pitt’s Gerry is a likable (though, slightly bland) character.

Forster has done a better job than most at showing the zombie apocalypse on a global scale.  Gerry does quite a bit of traveling, finding new clues and helpers along the way.  Forster also gives plenty of well-deserved props to female Israeli soldiers, the paradigm of human badassery.

Should I/Shouldn’t I: Of this year’s highly anticipated blockbusters, World War Z is one of the best, so far.  The zombies are scary, the action is solid, and there’s enough suspense to keep you entertained for 115 minutes.  If you’re looking for something groundbreaking, you won’t find it.  However, you will appreciate the care and skill that went into making one of the most entertaining and visually stunning zombie films.

Sundae Rating: Two scoops with whipped cream