Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

[dell71]

Dredd
Directed by Pete Travis.
2012. Rated R, 95 minutes.
Cast:
Karl Urban
Olivia Thirlby
Lena Headey
Wood Harris
Rakie Ayola
Warrick Grier
Domhnall Gleeson
Rachel Wood
Jason Cope

I’m quickly losing hope for the future. Yet again, Earth has become mostly an uninhabitable wasteland. The entire surviving population has been herded into what are called mega cities, large stretches of land that once included several major cities now combined into one. It’s no surprise that crime occurs at a ridiculous rate. We’re told that 17,000 offenses are reported each day. The only form of law enforcement are the judges who not only make the arrests, but carry out the sentencing as well, even if it means putting someone to death. They can only respond to about 6% of those reported crimes. We spend our day in Mega City One with Judge Dredd (Urban). He’s the most feared of all the judges and has no problem with executing baddies. That’s pretty much all we get to know about him. He’s tasked with assessing a rookie, Anderson (Thirlby) on her first day in the streets as she tags along with him. She actually failed her test to become a judge but since her psychic abilities are off the charts she’s being pushed through. The pair go to investigate a triple homicide in a 200 story building known as The Peach Trees. Wouldn’t ya know it? The evil wench that runs the whole place, known as Ma Ma (Headey) doesn’t take too kindly to this. She locks the whole place down and beckons every lowlife within the sound of her voice to take out the two judges. A futuristic version of The Raid: Redemption breaks out with ten times more building and ten times fewer good guys.

Okay, originality is not the strong suit of Dredd. After all, it is the second attempt at bringing this comic-book hero to the big screen. The first, made in 1995, starred Sylvester Stallone in the title role. This time around we get Karl Urban. Unlike Sly, but in keeping with the source material, we never get to see his full face. He’s meant to be an emotionless, faceless metaphor for the law itself. It works. Then again, it doesn’t. It works because he’s a perfectly stoic action-hero. We like the idea that our hero is only concerned with right and wrong with no middle ground and that is there is no offense too minor for him to prosecute. It doesn’t because it is a challenge for the audience to connect with him. He’s aloof and inaccessible. While we watch and admire his handiwork with a very special firearm, we’re not particularly moved by this guy.

To help us have someone to root for there’s Anderson. She and Ma Ma are the only characters afforded a back story. Anderson’s is much more believable. She grew up an orphan. We like orphans. She wants to become a judge because she thinks she can make a difference. We really like optimistic orphans. Plus, she does some cool things with that psychic ability I mentioned. Because she actually seems like a human being this becomes her movie despite the title. Dredd is quite literally an instrument of death with very little else to distinguish him from the weapon he carries. Anderson is much more rounded with hopes and fears we understand. Thirlby does a nice job conveying these things.

Regardless of our feelings, Dredd is really about highly stylized violence. Like a lot of action flicks, there are a lot of scenes in slow motion. However, this movie has a very good reason for this. The most popular drug in Mega City One is the aptly named slo-mo. It makes your brain feel like time has slowed down to one percent of its normal rate. This gives us cause for slow motion sequences in which we clearly see
bullets going through people’s faces and whatever other body parts get shot. These are mixed nicely with action shown at regular speed that’s no less graphic, only quicker. I was not kidding when I referenced The Raid: Redemption. This movie really does resemble that one, just trading in the martial arts for even more gunplay.

In its own right Dredd is still a solid watch, truer in spirit to its source material than the Stallone flick. The hokeyness is gone as is any hint of sexual tension between the hero and his female partner. However, it may go too far in the other direction removing almost all sense of humor, including the satire the comic is known for, in favor of relentless bloodletting. The storytelling is extremely straight forward with nary a surprise to be found. If a shoot ‘em up is what you’re looking for, a shoot ‘em up is what you’ll get.

MY SCORE: 7/10

[dell71]

The Way of the Dragon
AKA Return of the Dragon
AKA Bruce Lee vs. Chuck Norris
Directed by Bruce Lee.
1972. Rated R, 90 minutes.
Cast:
Bruce Lee
Chuck Norris
Nora Miao
Chung-Hsin Huang
John T. Benn
Ping Ou Wei
Robert Wall
Ing-Sik Whang
Di Chin
Tony Liu
Malisa Longo

You’re a family of Chinese immigrants in Rome trying to make a living by running a restaurant. There is a major problem, though. The local mob wants your land. Every day, they send goons over to run customers off and rough you up until you decide to sell. What are you going to do? Without any friends in town, you send word back to your uncle in Hong Kong asking for his help. He goes above and beyond the call of duty by sending you a cousin you don’t even know. He sends you Bruce Lee. Pure epicness ensues.

It goes without saying that Bruce kicks mobster tail. With two of the most awesome lines of dialogue you’ll ever hear, Mr. Lee explains both his fighting and the movie in full: “Dragon seeks its path. Dragon whips its tail.” Of course, this is all done by his feet and fists. Why don’t the bad guys just shoot him? Rest assured, dear reader, they try. Our hero’s handy little homemade darts, thrown with the kind of accuracy that would make a sniper jealous, takes care of that minor inconvenience. What happens when they send a whole crew of guys at him at once? Are you serious? You know we’re talking about the legendary Bruce Lee, right?

To the bad guys’ credit, they do the only thing they can do and try to fight roundhouse kicks with roundhouse kicks. They call in none other than Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris. Chuck MFing Norris. Yes. Seeing this movie guarantees you’ll witness the most awesome showdown in the history of mankind. The only thing that could possibly make it any better is if they fought in the one place where the very soil beneath their feet is saturated with the blood of gladiators; blood of both those that have fallen and the winners that limped away. I’m talking about Rome’s famed Colosseum. Oh, that’s right. They do. The true miracle of this film, besides it being a landmark moment in the evolution of fight choreography, is that the entire world didn’t spontaneously combust the very instant these two titans clashed.

This is exhausting. Finding superlatives for that which none sufficient exist is difficult work. I must resort to using the one word that works best: perfect. Perfect, as in Bruce Lee movies are perfect. Well, at least the ones he completed while alive. Even the one teeny tiny scene that may cause us to question its flawlessness is perfect even though it is less testosterone filled than the rest of the film. Bruce might seem a little too gentlemanly, or just put off by an overly forward woman, when he turns down a particularly gorgeous and easy piece of Italian hotness (Longo). Then we realize that the life of a truly dedicated martial artist is a disciplined one. Anyhoo, what does all this mean? It means what I’ve already said, damn whatever credibility you’ve ascribed to me, Bruce Lee movies are perfect.

MY SCORE: INFINITY/10

[JimLeavy59]

Olivia Thirlby

[dell71]

Dolemite
Directed by D’Urville Martin.
1975. Rated R, 90 minutes.
Cast:
Rudy Ray Moore
D’Urville Martin
Lady Reed
West Gale
Jerry Jones
Hy Pyke
Vainus Rackstraw
John Kerry
René Van Clief

Dolemite (Moore) is his name. Effin’ up MFers is his game. Just ask him. Actually, you don’t have to. He freely volunteers this and other pertinent information. If you grew up in a black neighborhood, chances are you’ve come across the character a number of times since he’s become a popular cult figure in the community. His later years were marked by guest appearances on TV shows such as Martin and in music videos by Snoop Dogg and others. Along with the rest of us, Moore even referred to himself as Dolemite. If all of this is news to you just know that the character is a kung-fu fightin’, loud-mouthed, super-lovin’ pimp/comedian who often speaks in rhymes. Imagine if Redd Foxx dressed more outlandishly than Superfly and did most of his act in couplets and there you have it. If that doesn’t help then look up Dolemite on YouTube. Go ‘head. I’ll wait, you rat soup eatin’ mutha-sucka! I’m paraphrasing him, by the way.

Our saga begins with our hero in jail on some trumped up drug charges. He’s two years into a twenty year bid. However, the warden and some higher ups have noticed that the drug problem in the ‘hood has actually gotten worse since Dolemite has been locked down. They do the only logical thing and release him with the agreement he’ll help them catch his nemesis and the suspected kingpin Willie Green (Martin).

If any of this sounds familiar it’s because a decade or so later this basic premise made Eddie Murphy a superstar with the release of 48 Hrs. Unlike that movie, there’s nothing in Dolemite that’s remotely as sensible as, oh say, actually working with the police. Our hero is turned loose and works on his own, mostly. By mostly, I mean there is one FBI Agent who knows why our hero is on the streets. His identity is not known to Dolemite but it’s pretty obvious to us. He’s dressed far more conservatively than any other black person in the movie and always shows up at just the right moment. By work, I mean Dolemite gets busy with the ladies, fights off and/or kills the crooked cops that have been trying to put some bullets in him since two seconds after he walks out of prison, gets busy with some more ladies and reclaims his old nightclub from Willie Green, guerrilla pimp style.

Be honest. At this point you think you’re reading a negative review. Nothing could be farther from the truth. This is the type of delicious awfulness for which I mine the depths of the cinematic abyss. As proof, I offer the fact that I’ve returned to this movie a handful of times throughout my life. I had to. All the tenets of Blaxploitation are gloriously represented. Wild outfits in garish colors? Check. Pimpin’? Check. Badly choreographed kung-fu fightin’? Check. 70s slang? Check. Gratuitous nudity? Check. Awful acting? Check. Easily spotted stunt doubles? Double check. Visible boom mics? Oh lawdy, yes! Check that one three or four times. There is only one thing left to say. It’s so bad, it’s awesome!

MY SCORE: -10/10

[dell71]

Jeff, Who Lives at Home
Directed by Jay Duplass and Mark Duplass.
2011. Rated R, 83 minutes.
Cast:
Jason Segel
Ed Helms
Susan Sarandon
Judy Greer
Rae Dawn Chong
Steve Zissis
Evan Ross
Benjamin Brant Bickham

Jeff (Segel) is thirty years old, unemployed, lives in his mother’s basement and spends most of his days smoking pot and finding signs of the divine order of the universe everywhere he looks. More than just finding them, he can’t help but chase them to see if they’ll lead him to his destiny. For instance, someone calls his home looking for a Kevin, an obvious wrong number. However, when he later sees a guy on the bus wearing a jersey with that name on the back he just has to follow him. His brother Pat (Helms) is in a troubled marriage with Linda (Greer) and doesn’t have the greatest relationship with mom, either. Mom (Sarandon), a widow, is dealing with her own issues. Most of all, she wants Jeff to fix the broken shutter.

In the titular role, Jason Segel has the lovable lunk thing going on and does a nice job with it. He’s no Daniel Day-Lewis, but it’s one of a few character types he fits comfortably within. Helms, goes the perpetually angry and snarky route while Greer gives us full-blown passive-aggressive. All three are perfectly fine in their roles but none blow us away.

In the mom role, Sarandon is wonderful as the ever-exasperated and lonely lady. The storyline of her having a secret admirer at the office and confiding in her co-worker Carol (Chong) is really the most interesting of the various subplots. It’s the only one that really has any air of mystery (though, not much) and provides the movie’s most heart-wrenching and, conversely, most tender moments.

Most other things are ripped directly from the marriage dramedy and/or the wise man-child sage playbook. This includes the contrived ending that ties everything together. Of course, we arrive there through Jeff’s incessant following of signs. Since it all culminates in such a great thing that tugs mightily at our heart strings we’re meant to ignore the ridiculousness of it all. I’m sure some will, but for lots of us, it’s kind of an eye-rolling finale.

Aside from mom’s workplace ordeal that’s presented independently from the rest of the proceedings, Jeff, Who Lives at Home hardly distinguishes itself from many other pictures of its kind. It is occasionally funny and often melodramatic, but that’s pretty much the genre formula to a tee. It moves at a solid pace and is a fairly short movie so it manages not to drag. Think of it as a more believable and, therefore, better version of Our Idiot Brother.

MY SCORE: 6/10

[dell71]

Arbitrage
Directed by Nicholas Jarecki.
2012. Rated R, 107 minutes.
Cast:
Richard Gere
Susan Sarandon
Tim Roth
Brit Marling
Nate Parker
Laetitia Casta
Graydon Carter
Chris Eigeman
Stuart Margolin
Reg E. Cathey
Bruce Altman
Curtiss Cook

Robert Miller (Gere) is the kind of financial wizard that graces the cover of Forbes magazine. Business is booming and he has his adult children helping him run his ridiculously lucrative operation. He’s just turned sixty and celebrates with some cake and ice cream with the family, including wife Ellen (Sarandon) and then sneaks out to see his mistress Julie (Casta). What none of them know is that everything isn’t really so swell. He’s going broke and has cooked the books to make his business look like it’s standing on solid ground to James Mayfield (Carter), the potential buyer he’s trying to close a deal with. Of course, this isn’t something he shares freely seeing how it may land him in prison for a very long time. Still, something somehow more troubling takes place. He gets himself into an even more immediate bind that threatens to get him into a jail cell even sooner than having numbers falsified which, in turn, puts his deal in jeopardy and the financial future of lots of people who have no clue what’s going on. A very rich man trying to weasel his way out of trouble ensues.

At first, Arbitrage seems as if it’s going to be strictly an economic thriller in the mold of Margin Call. While not as gripping, it was still an interesting. It then has a rather abrupt changing of gears that works excellently, kicking the tension up a couple notches as we wonder if and how Robert will get out of this jam. We watch the world around him crumble. His façade begins to fade away, at least to his family. They eventually find out there is trouble afoot with the business, but still don’t know about his other misdeed. The police do and are desperately trying to gather proof.

Richard Gere delivers the goods with an excellent portrayal. He makes us understand that Robert is not just a man who believes that money fixes all problems, but he knows there is no truer thing in all the universe. Fittingly, he’s a character we’re not sure we can get behind. Do we see a man who made some bad choices but is really doing these things for the greater good or, is this an evil rich guy throwing around what monetary weight he has left? The answer may depend on your political leanings. No. Politics is never explicitly mentioned. Still, yours may color the goggles through which you view this movie, particularly the ending.

The rest of the movie mixes the two storylines very well achieving suspense without suddenly injecting unnecessary action sequences. It sticks to it’s story in a manner that feels as if it comes from real life. In fact, it seems like the onset of the current recession has been combined with a Kennedy family headline. So this isn’t something that comes at us from out of left field. Though almost none of us have brokered half-billion dollar deals, we’ve seen lots of news of this type. This is where the power of Arbitrage lies. It puts us inside a story we have all heard about in some form or another.

MY SCORE: 7/10

[dell71]

Cold Fish
Directed by Sion Sono.
2010. Not Rated, 145 minutes.
Cast:
Mitsuru Fukikoshi
Denden
Asuka Kurosawa
Hikari Kajiwara
Megumi Kagurazaka
Tetsu Watanabe

Right at the beginning we’re told Cold Fish is inspired by true events. Yeesh. Our trek into the bizarre begins when troubled teen Mitsuko (Kajiwara) is caught shoplifting. When her dad Nobuyuki Shamoto (Fukikoshi) and step-mom Taeko (Kagurazaka) come to get her, they meet store-owner, the fun-loving Yukio Murata (Denden). He’s an exotic fish dealer, same as Shamoto, only much more successful. Instead of calling the cops, Murata offers to give Mitsuko a job and to let her live in a dorm, of sorts, with the other girls that work for him. Since things aren’t exactly great between any combination of the three members of the Shamoto household, and Murata and his wife Aiko (Kurosawa) seem harmless enough, Mr. Shamoto agrees. Besides, Murata drives a shiny red Ferrari. As expected, he’s not all he cracks himself up to be. Sure, Mitsuko is a cute young girl and that’s the road my mind traveled in trying to figure what Murata is really up to. That ain’t it.

In rather short order, things turn down a dark road. Murata traps Shamoto into a shady business deal that includes making him an accomplice to murder, among other things. Don’t worry. That’s only the beginning. Eventually, we get into adultery, rough sex, domestic violence, more murder, rape, exhibitionism, more murder, and lots and lots of fun with really bloody corpses. A great deal of it is in shocking detail. After this, you’ll no longer have to imagine how to properly dispose of a body and not leave any evidence. To call this movie morbid is selling it way short.

That said, things seem to be coming to a logical conclusion. However, just when we think its coming to an end is when it really flies off the rails. The problem is the point that it appeared we were working toward is rendered completely moot. What promised to provide some form of social commentary through its extremes opts to become a gore-fest enamored with its own pools of blood.

Until now, the only movie I’d seen by director Sion Sono was the fabulously disturbing Strange Circus. As weird and twisted as that movie is, it all works. The story and its visuals somehow both manage to be simultaneously repulsive and compelling. Eventually, it all comes together in a “wow” moment. I couldn’t believe what I just saw, but I loved it. Cold Fish is a cruder, and amazingly, more baffling film that reaches for the same qualities possessed by SC but never quite gets there. It just keeps pushing the envelope until it flies off the table then pushes some more. The ending is something far beyond cynical, seemingly just for the sake of being so. To its credit, though, even with all the grotesque and simply distasteful visuals you can’t take your eyes off CF. You may cringe and cover your face, but will probably still watch through parted fingers. This is not a movie you’re likely to forget.

MY SCORE: 6/10

[dell71]

Looper
Rian Johnson.
2012. Rated R, 119 minutes.
Cast:
Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Bruce Willis
Emily Blunt
Jeff Daniels
Piper Perabo
Paul Dano
Noah Segan
Pierce Gagnon
Qing Xu
Tracie Thoms

Our story focuses on Joe (Gordon-Levitt). He’s an assassin known as a looper. His job is killing people sent back from the future by mobsters who live in a time where disposing of bodies is virtually impossible. At some point, whenever they decide they want to completely disassociate with a particular looper, they “close his loop” by sending him his future self to gun down. Needless to say, when Joe fails to kill the older Joe (Willis) who has been zapped back to him, all sorts of problems arise. Young Joe trying to kill his loop, Joe’s boss (Daniels), plus a slew of henchmen, trying to kill Joe and/or his loop and his loop doing some killing of his own ensues.

Despite the focus on shooting people, Looper is a thinking man’s action flick. It disguises that fact pretty well until it’s final moments. Until then it plays out like a wonderful game of cat and mouse and mouse (not a typo). As you might imagine, such a scenario makes it difficult for us to figure out who to root for. This is a good thing. Both the younger and older Joe have compelling reasons for their actions. Since they’re not presented simultaneously our allegiances sway.

Eventually, we meet Sara (Blunt) and her little boy Cid (Gagnon). They figure heavily in the proceedings, but we’re not sure what to make of them, either. Again, this is good. It’s good because we’re never confused, just conflicted. Our confliction adds to the tension between chase scenes and shootouts. We find ourselves on the edge of our seats as pending danger for one person or another creeps closer. The trick is through more character development that we had any right to expect from a shoot 'em up sci-fi flick we become vested in these people. We really understand why each of them feel their actions are the only way to deal with the issues at hand. This is used to much greater effect than rushing us off to the next action sequence, or trying to dazzle us with special fx. Even though, like I said, at it’s core it is science-fiction, Looper is not about showing off whatever futuristic gadgets the filmmakers can dream up or giving us a laser and lights show. It’s a rather human tale that happens to contain time-travel.

Humanity not only drives the movie, but ends it as well. One character makes a decision many of us would like to believe we’d make but I’m not sure how many really would. Once it happens, Looper instantly becomes a parable addressing several issues pertaining to current-day society. I choose the word parable because it is not terribly different from some religious stories. Still, that’s not why it has the immediate impact it does. It has that because it poses a simple question you can debate with your friends. Would you do it?

MY SCORE: 9/10

[dell71]

Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days
Directed by David Bowers.
2012. Rated PG, 94 minutes.
Cast:
Zachary Gordon
Steve Zahn
Robert Capron
Devon Bostick
Rachael Harris
Peyton List
Karan Brar
Laine MacNeil
Grayson Russell
Melissa Roxburgh
Philip Maurice Hayes

Our favorite wimpy kid Greg (Gordon) is back for another adventure. This time, school’s out and he hopes to spend the summer perched in front of the TV playing video games. After his dad (Zahn) nixes that idea, he pals around with his bestest buddy Rowley (Capron) at the country club of which Rowley’s family are members. There, he pursues his other favorite pastime, Holly Hills (List). Early teen hijinks and shenanigans ensue.

Much of our time is spent at said country club with Greg and Rowley. We also get to spend plenty of time with Rowley’s family. This is where the movie excels. Most of us have gone to stay for awhile with friends or relatives only to discover they do nothing the way we do things in our own homes and had to suffer through it. Dog Days takes great pains to convey the feelings we had when that happened and even how hurt our hosts are when they find out we’re not exactly enjoying ourselves. Weaved into this we see how the dynamics of the two boys’ friendship works and is strained by these events. During this time we see such other things we remember from our own youth, or will surely experience if you’re a member of the actual target audience, such as sneaking off to do things we’ve been forbidden to and being bullied by our older siblings. These, combined with Greg’s fawning over Holly and willingness to do just about anything to be near her ring truest of all the situations presented. Thankfully, big brother’s antics are scaled back a bit from the previous movie except for his show-stopping number late in the proceedings.

This installment again fails in the department of parent-child relationships. While the things I mention in the previous paragraph has an authentic feel to them even when they’re over the top, what happens between Greg and his dad does not. It’s too broadly stroked sitcom stuff with a lazy moral. The difference between this and part two (Rodrick Rules) is that it’s mom who is mostly a sideline player while Greg and dad try to bond. The other thing about this is that it feels disingenuous. There are no such efforts made toward Rodrick who is very apparently wasting his life and is at a much more advanced age than Greg. While Greg is made to get off his keester and stay off the video games, nothing at all is said to Rodrick who literally sleeps all day and plays in a marginally talented band. Finally, Greg’s other friends are once again relegated to slightly more than cameo appearances. They helped make the first movie feel like the real life of a pre-teen. In the two movies since they generally show up for a scene that could probably be cut from the picture without us missing anything.

Dog Days is better than Rodrick Rules but not quite as good as the original. It does some things very well and others not so much making it a very uneven watch. In other words, it basically vacillates between being a funny, highly nostalgic sitcom to an unfunny one filled with jokes that come with pre-ordained punchlines. If you’re a fan of the series, this will be another welcome entry. If not, it won’t ruin your day.

MY SCORE: 6/10

[manchild24]

Actually just watched again yesterday when my son was home from school sick. Good movies for the kids and watchable for the parents.

[Houston]

The Sessions
Directed by Ben Lewin.
2012. Rated R, 95 minutes.
Cast:
John Hawkes
Helen Hunt
William H. Macy
Moon Bloodgood
Annika Marks
Adam Arkin
Rhea Perlman
W. Earl Brown
Robin Weigert
Jennifer Kumiyama
Blake Lindsley
Rusty Schwimmer

Numerous movies are made every year about getting laid. Excluding porn, the mechanics of the actual act are often left out or only briefly touched upon with the focus on the romance that will culminate in love-making. In The Sessions, how sex is actually performed is a major plot point. The issue is that our protagonist, Mark (Hawkes), was stricken with polio at a very young age. He cannot move anything except his head and is a virgin. Now, at age 38 and after being contacted for a story about sex and the disabled, he finds himself really wanting to gain some experience in that area. Of course, finding a partner is no small feat. Eventually, he begins seeing Cheryl (Hunt), a sex surrogate who agrees to work with him. Together during their weekly sessions, they try to figure out the physicality of the doing the wild thing when one of the participants is immobile.

Needless to say, Mark, who has only experienced rejection by those he’s interested in, becomes emotionally involved. This is where the movie really grabs hold of you. We wind up badly wanting two things for him. First, he’s so sweet and innocent we wish we could shield him from the seemingly inevitable crushing blow that will come. Second, we want to see him fulfilled. After all, shouldn’t everyone feel the joy of sex at least once in their life? Our two motivations don’t always work with one another. Through an astoundingly charming performance by John Hawkes, Mark is worthy of both our sympathy and empathy. Even though he literally lies still throughout the movie, he still manages an impressive range of emotion. Incidentally, given the graphic nature of the film, I imagine lying still wasn’t such an easy task. He’s becoming one of my favorite actors, having quietly built an impressive resume filled with powerful portrayals.

The flip side of Hawkes’ restraint is the unshakeable bravery of the work done by Helen Hunt. Not least of the reasons it has to considered courageous is because most of her screen-time is spent naked. Lesser movies use nudity as a tool to keep our attention, or to objectify. Even here, her character’s job description is pretty much being a sex object. The genius of the directing, the writing, and finally, Hunt herself, is they all refuse to let that be all there is to her. She’s a fully formed being grown from the Hollywood archetype of the hooker with a heart of gold, but is so much more.

Before sitting down to watch this, I had a vague idea of the subject matter and that Hunt was often in her birthday suit. Only a few days prior, I watched 50/50 so I was somewhat ready for a heavy drama about sex and illness. What I was totally unprepared for was just how funny this movie is. Though I’d not heard that it was a comedy, I laughed as hard at this as any 2012 movie I’ve seen, so far (I know it’s now 2013, but I’m still working on it). The possible exceptions being The Man with the Iron Fists and The Expendables 2. However, I laughed at those for entirely different reasons. Much of the credit for the hilarity goes to two people: William H. Macy and Moon Bloodgood. Macy plays the priest who befriends Mark and listens to his confessions. This has to be done out in the open because the gurney Mark travels on obviously won’t fit in the confessional booth. As you might imagine, there is much talk of sex which leads to some uncomfortable moments for both the priest and parishioners who happen to overhear. Macy’s timing is impeccable and his reactions are priceless. Bloodgood plays one of Mark’s attendants. In contrast to Macy, she performs her role in a perfectly understated manner. Her matter-of-factness about everything is the stuff deadpan comics dream of. All of this fits easily into the narrative. Humor and drama combine to make The Sessions a poignantly human experience.

MY SCORE: 9/10

Have to agree this movie was pretty damn funny. Loved the exchanges between Bloodgood and the motel worker.

Two questions. Did you ever see "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" from 2007? If so, did you like it more or less than The Sessions?

[dell71]

Have to agree this movie was pretty damn funny. Loved the exchanges between Bloodgood and the motel worker.

Two questions. Did you ever see "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" from 2007? If so, did you like it more or less than The Sessions?

I did see "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" and enjoyed it very much also. I have to give the edge to "The Sessions", though. The humor makes the difference for me. "Diving Bell" was beautiful and touching but the tone was so serious it could be overbearing at times.

And yup, the exchanges between Bloodgood and the motel worker were hilarious.

[dell71]

The Campaign
Directed by Jay Roach.
2012. Rated R, 85 minutes.
Cast:
Will Ferrell
Zach Galifianakis
Jason Sudeikis
Dylan McDermott
Sarah Baker
Katherine LaNasa
Dan Aykroyd
John Lithgow
Brian Cox
Karen Maruyama

Cam Brady (Ferrell) is so popular he is about the elected to his fifth term as Congressman for the 14th district in North Carolina. Until he places an errant and sexually explicit phone call, that is. Sensing the end of Brady’s career, the billionaire Motch brothers (Aykroyd and Lithgow) set up the naïve Marty Huggins (Galifianakis) as a puppet candidate to run against him. Hijinks and shenanigans ensue.

If you’re looking for a razor sharp political satire, look elsewhere. What we have here is the political process taken to its most absurd extremes. That the two candidates play dirty goes without saying. The depths to which they sink are the things we imagine possible if the people who ran for office were allowed to really engage in a no-holds barred campaign. For instance, the commercials they put together go far beyond the limits of good taste. This isn’t to say there are no merits to this approach to the material. Even through the zaniness we can catch glimpses of the situations that obviously inspired the movie. And perhaps it is stinging commentary that there is absolutely no difference in how the two parties are portrayed.

Your political leanings aside, what will really inform whether or not you like this film is how you feel about its stars. After all, they’re both on full blast right from the start. Cam Brady is nothing short of former Senator John Edwards crossed with Ferrell’s Ricky Bobby. Huggins is a true Galifianakis creation: an odd, naïve man who really wants to do the right thing but often has trouble pulling off the trick. To be sure, both men have their moments. That said, you already know if you find either, neither or both of them funny.

MY SCORE: 6/10

[dell71]

Savages
Directed by Oliver Stone.
2012. Rated R, 142 minutes.
Cast:
Blake Lively
Taylor Kitsch
Aaron Taylor-Johnson
Benicio del Toro
Salma Hayek
John Travolta
Emile Hirsch
Diego Cataño
Joaquín Cosio
Sandra Echeverría

Every successful operation, especially those of a criminal nature, needs both brains and brawn. Ben (Taylor-Johnson) provides the former while Chon (Kitsch) handles the latter. Together, these two grow and distribute some of the world’s best weed from their house on Laguna Beach. They also share a girlfriend. Her name is Ophelia, but she goes by O (Lively). She’ll explain the whole sharing bit if you decide to watch. The point is, the boys are so successful they’ve attracted the attention of a Mexican cartel run by the brains of Elena (Hayek) and lots of brawn, mostly provided by Lado (del Toro). They want to partner with our heroes who don’t exactly cooperate. Of course, this means Elena and crew respond by putting their damsel in distress and kidnapping O. Oliver Stone ensues.

If you can’t already tell, Savages sets a frenetic pace from the get-go relenting occasionally to let people yell at each other. This comes complete with lots of quick cuts and a blaring soundtrack. To Mr. Stone’s credit, he uses them to great effect. They aid his story-telling in a way that’s not quite as intrusive when used in lots of other movies. There is also some pretty vivid violence which is what people watching this movie have come for.

There are two things that detract from Savages in a major way. First is how the leads are handled. Second is letting one of them, O, narrate. She makes a tremendous effort to be profound but comes off as a babbling pot-head trying to justify what we’ve seen or will see. This makes perfect sense seeing how that’s what she is, but this is annoying to the viewer who is not necessarily under the influence. Her preposterous first line sums up what I mean. She opens the movie with “Just because I’m telling you this story doesn’t mean I’m alive at the end of it.” Trust me, when I heard this I couldn’t possibly roll my eyes any harder.

As far as the two leads they just don’t quite work. We meet Chon first. He’s an ex-Navy SEAL. We’re fed some malarkey about how his time in Iraq has scarred him but it really means nothing other than his solution to any problem is shooting people and he has a bunch of other former SEALs available to do his bidding whenever he needs them. He stands around with a stern look on his face and disappears from the movie for stretches at a time.

The bigger problem is Ben. The first thing we notice is he has the wrong name. With his white faux-Rastafarian look, smoking habits and “We Are the World” exploits he should have the more hipster name, Chon. That the guys’ names are misplaced is too clever by half. The important thing to note is that they are opposites. O explains this in the first few minutes after we meet Ben and the movie as a whole makes the point repeatedly. His peace-loving ways are supposed to inspire empathy. However, it has the reverse effect. I spent most of the film wanting to punch him in face only to settle for yelling at the screen for him to “man up and grow a pair”, calling him a dirty word that begins with ‘p’ for emphasis. The script going overboard to make us understand he’s a sensitive guy is partly to blame. Also at fault is the performance of Aaron Taylor-Johnson. Half the time he sounds like he’s reading his lines and the other half he’s whining. As a result he has little presence, if any. Whoever he shares the screen with blows the poor guy away. This is a major issue considering we focus on his character more than any other.

Don’t go blaming the supporting cast for Taylor-Johnson’s lack of pizzazz. They actually redeem the film. John Travolta is great as the corrupt FBI agent in cahoots with our boys. He seems to be having big fun with the role and lights up the screen whenever he’s on it which isn’t all that often. Perhaps better than he, certainly with more screen time, is Salma Hayek. She dominates her scenes aptly conveying not only an evil villain but a compassionate mother. For my money, it’s among her best portrayals of her English speaking roles. Better than them both is Benicio del Toro. A bad wig (I’m assuming it’s a wig), 70s porn-stache, a too cool approach and oozing confidence all help him make Lado a menacing figure. He’s the kind of guy that unnerves less by the heinous acts he commits than the manner he goes about them. If the others help the movie, he makes it.

Alas, no matter how good the supporting players are we have to focus on the main characters and their story. This is where things fall apart. As avant-garde as it wants you to think it is, it comes off as a bit goofy and a lot sloppy. It’s also a bit disappointing it doesn’t seem to want to be anything other than an ultra-violent shoot ‘em up, given the director. That’s probably a “me” problem. Since I knew going in it was an Oliver Stone flick I was looking for some political and/or social statement that I didn’t find. Enlighten me if I’ve missed it. That said, I didn’t find Savages to be a terrible film like most seem to have. I found it fun, but very uneven.

MY SCORE: 6/10

[dell71]

The Human Tornado
Directed by Cliff Roquemore.
1976. Rated R, 85 minutes.
Cast:
Rudy Ray Moore
Lady Reed
Gloria Delaney
Herb Graham
J. B. Baron
Barbara Gerl
Ernie Hudson
Jimmy Lynch
Jack Kelly
Howard Jackson
Lord Java

Our favorite rhymin’, kung-fu fightin’ pimp is back in this sorta-sequel to Dolemite. By that I mean that even though our hero is the same and a few other characters return there really is no continuity between the two stories. This time around, Dolemite (Moore) is living the straight life. Kinda. He’s a successful comedian, Moore’s real life gig that started his movie career, with a big house on a hill in Alabama. However, aside from rocking the chuckle huts and donating money to help build a boys’ home, he tricks himself out to the local sheriff’s wife. Of course, this is unbeknownst to Sheriff Beatty (Baron). Lo and behold, during one of Dolemite’s sessions with the local first lady which just happens to occur while there’s a celebration going on at Dolemite’s house at the same time, the sheriff shows up with some deputies. All of them have their guns drawn. By the way, from the outside you can barely hear a peep out of these folks. No loud music, no fighting, nothing. So why did the cops show? It’s rather simple really. He doesn’t want any black folks having a party in his town. I’m not joking. Anyhoo, imagine his surprise when he walks in on his old lady knowing Dolemite in the biblical sense.

Needless to say, Dolemite makes a daring butt-naked escape from certain death and decides to head back home to Los Angeles with a few of his guys that also got away. Yes, with their clothes on. By the way, this crew includes the man who would go on to a long acting career, most notably playing the only black Ghostbuster, Ernie Hudson. Since this is only his second big-screen role, I guess we owe Dolemite a bit of gratitude. Thank you, Dolemite.

Welp, once back in LA, our hero gets another unpleasant surprise. His good friend Queen Bee (Reed) has had her nightclub forcibly shut down by local mobster Cavaletti (Graham) who also makes Queen and all her girls work at his own establishment. He ensures their cooperation by tying two of them up, throwing them in his basement and threatening to kill them. And you just know Sheriff Beatty makes his way to LA at some point. Somewhere in this mad mix is a rather hilarious theme song performed by Mr. Moore himself. Dolemite to the rescue ensues.

Since our hero hasn’t changed since the first movie, whatever he does only comes after some good hot lovin’. And whatever comes after lovin’ includes kung-fu fightin’. There’s also some shootin’ and yellin’ for good measure. New additions for our viewing pleasure include a sadistic witch who messes with the two kidnapped babes through some mild torture amounting to little more than bondage fetish scenes. Here, instead of some middle-aged dude dressed in leather dishing out the punishment it’s an unbelievably wrinkled old lady and some mafia dudes.

Fear not good citizens, there is even more wackiness. Let’s not forget that this is a sequel. By law, as established in Scream, it has to be bigger and badder than its predecessor. This means everything is amplified to nth degree, for better or worse. The best part is we know we’re in for it right from the start. Remember, that butt-naked escape I mentioned? It includes a jump off a balcony about halfway down a very steep hill. Pretty standard action stunt, right? Wrong. Before he even finishes rolling down the incline we get a freeze-frame as he exclaims in a voice-over (paraphrasing) “You MFers don’t think I really jumped. Watch this!” Yup, we get an instant replay. Still, far and away the best new development is in the kung-fu department. During fights the footage is often sped up a ridiculous rate making all the combatants look like Keystone Kops. If this isn’t downright hilarious your funny bone must be broke. This is even better, or worse, or worse-better, than Dolemite. Yes friends, The Human Tornado is so bad it’s awesome!

MY SCORE: -10/10