Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

[dell71]

G.I. Joe: Retaliation
<strong>Directed by Jon M. Chu.</strong>
<em>2013. Rated PG-13, 110 minutes.
Cast:
Dwayne Johnson
Channing Tatum
Adrianne Palicki
Bruce Willis
Byung-hun Lee
Jonathan Pryce
Elodie Yung
Ray Stevenson
D.J. Cotrona
Ray Park
Luke Bracey
Arnold Vosloo
RZA</em>​

With the first paragraph of my reviews, I try to give the reader a synopsis of the movie in question without spoiling it. Usually, this involves me recapping the first ten or fifteen minutes of said movie, but not telling much of anything about what happens the rest of the way. My line of thinking is that if you want to watch a film, regardless of how I feel about it, I don’t want to be the one that completely removes any suspense you may otherwise have found there.

Sometimes, I can’t help myself.

For certain movies, explaining why I like or dislike them has to include events from later in the proceedings. Even then, I try not to give too much away. For others, there may be a spoiler in the setup, or at least something that lets us know it is not going to be quite what people expect. This brings me to <em>G.I. Joe: Retaliation</em>.

Actually, before we get into this particular flick, let’s take a short trip back to the 1990s, ’96 to be exact. My soon-to-be sister-in-law and her husband wer huge Steven Seagal fans. They made sure to be in a theater on opening night of all of his movies. And so they were on Friday evening, just starting to binge on popcorn, candy, and soda as Seagal’s latest, <em>Executive Decision</em> gets rolling. Prior to arriving in their seats they had seen the television commercials which made it appear that their guy was teaming up with Kurt Russell to take back a plane from some hijackers in an action packed adventure and somehow Halle Berry was involved. Those of you that have seen it know that this isn’t quite the case. For the rest of you…SPOILER ALERT…not only is it much more slow-paced thriller than action flick, but Seagal’s character dies about ten minutes in before he kicks any ass whatsoever. Since my in-laws feet hadn’t even had time to get stuck to the floor real good yet, they promptly got up and left. As far as I know, they’ve never bothered trying to watch the rest of it.

Now let’s bring things back to the present. As unbelievable as it seems nowadays, most people don’t actually research a movie before deciding to see it. Maybe they watch a trailer or two online, or happen to see one on TV. Perhaps they don’t even do that if it’s a sequel to something they like and/or it stars someone they are a fan of. In this case, we have the sequel to 2009’s <em>G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra</em> based on an 80s cartoon which itself was based on a line of Hasbro toys. It raked in hundreds of millions of dollars at the box-office. The star of the show was none other than Channing Tatum. He had been around for years, but this was his first really big movie. It catapulted him to superstar status.

Well, as this one starts up we get way too chummy with Tatum’s character, Duke. We see how close he is to Roadblock, played by The Rock, as the guys talk about lots of personal stuff. He never actually says it, but we get the feeling that Duke is seriously thinking about settling down real soon and maybe starting a family like his buddy. Uh-oh. Astute viewers will notice this sounds suspiciously similar to having less than two weeks until retirement. Sure enough, the boys get sent on one of those missions that turns out to be a setup and guess who doesn’t survive. This causes the movie a two-folded problem. First, they just killed off a good portion of the reason people want to watch this in the first place. This is true not only for people who are fans of the actor, but for Joe fans to whom Duke is an iconic character. Of all the people in this universe to knock off, that’s the one they pick? I wonder how many of those who didn’t know this was coming got up and left the theater.

No matter what, the show must go on. Roadblock gathers up the remaining Joes, which eventually includes Bruce Willis, and decide they have to work off the grid for a while to solve their issue since they easily figure out they were betrayed by none other than the President of the United States. Eventually, this all leads back to Cobra Commander (Bracey) as it must in a G.I. Joe flick. Oh, don’t act like that’s a spoiler. Anyhoo, CC embarks on a plan eerily similar to Dr. Evil’s in <em>Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery.</em> If you’re unfamiliar with that one, just think about most James Bond movies or any number of films where the bad guy as a super-duper powerful weapon that can blow up everything and threatens to use it unless everyone in the world gives him money.

I know. I’m just spoiling all types of stuff for you today.

Okay. So far we have a major star playing a popular character dying in the opening moments and a generic plot. Let’s add in the fact that it is lazily written and has more than its fair share of hammy acting performances. Sounds like a total nightmare, right? Well, not so fast. This movie knows what we’re here for and gives it to us. If you like the first <em>G.I. Joe</em> then you probably appreciated it for being a big movie filled with action and exciting visuals. This installment gives us much more of the same. Everything goes boom real good and there is lots of martial arts goodness. My favorite sequence is a ridiculous mountainside battle.

What makes it work is that it just is. It doesn’t take itself too seriously nor too lightly. It is simply a spectacle. And unlike a Michael Bay movie, thankfully, it resists the urge to hammer us with a barrage of terrible jokes meant for 13 year-old boys or an overly goofy love story. Best of all, it doesn’t keep going for what feels like 127 hours. Therefore, it might not be exactly true to whatever you think a <em>G.I. Joe</em> should be, but it’s fun.

<strong>MY SCORE: 6.5/10</strong>​

 

[JimLeavy59]

:clap:

 

[dell71]

Grown Ups 2
<strong>Directed by Dennis Dugan.</strong>
<em>2013. Rated PG-13, 101 minutes.
Cast:
Adam Sandler
Kevin James
Chris Rock
David Spade
Salma Hayek
Maya Rudolph
Maria Bello
Jason Lautner
Nick Swardson
Steve Buscemi
Colin Quinn
Tim Meadows
Jon Lovitz
Shaquille O’Neal</em>​

If you loved <em>Grown Ups</em>, you’re in luck. The whole gang is back for another comic adventure through their collective mid-life crisis. Well, almost the whole gang. Rob Schneider is conspicuously absent from this little reunion. The rest of the guys are present, though. This time around, big shot Lenny (Sandler) has already moved back to his hometown and spends as much time as possible goofing off with his buddies Kurt (Rock), Marcus (Spade), and Eric (James). They talk tough when their wives are not around and long to be boys again. Lenny is still having problems with an old bully from his school days. James is secretly spending every afternoon watching soaps with his mother. Spade, the only bachelor of the bunch, finds out he has a son who looks just like him but is roughly three times his size. So is the female body-builder he’s been sneaking around with. Rock just kind of shadw Sandler. As a group, they find themselves at odds with the frat jerks from the local college, led by the overly obnoxious Andy (Lautner). The guys, trying to figure out if they can still kick a little ass ensues.

As expected, each storyline is a running gag. Sometimes they work, other times they don’t. It might be better if it weren’t so repetitive. Therefore, what might be funny early grows tired. We start to anticipate, with solid accuracy, what variation of the joke is coming next. It doesn’t help that almost any character that is not part of the big four, or their wives, are walking punch-lines. I’ve already mentioned that Lautner is obnoxious. The female bodybuilder is manly, Stone Cold Steve Austin is boorish, and so on. Since this is an Adam Sandler flick, Nick Swardson is hanging around. The wives all play into the stereotype that the women we marry are really just our second mothers. So as not to upset the apple cart our story is paint-by-numbers, too.

That said, there is a certain amount of charm to the movie. For all of their flaws and immaturity, these are likable guys. Okay, that’s debatable in Spade’s case. Even though they play out in way over-the-top fashion, their problems are not terribly different than many in the target audience. Plenty of us forty-somethings have moments when we attempt to recapture our youth by trying to do “guy” stuff without our wives knowing. Plenty of us seek an innocent reprieve from them on occasion. Oddly, Sandler himself is a huge help in this regard. Despite the fact his character is wealthy and married to Salma Hayek (drool), he manages to give off a regular joe vibe. In essence, he speaks in his normal voice and gives us his subdued routine. The others make fools of themselves while he generally plays it straight.

Like with all Sandler movies, use however you feel about his other work as an aid when deciding whether to watch this or not. It would be wise to ignore the ones where he speaks with a kooky voice with a dumb accent and/or wears a wig such as <em>That’s My Boy</em> or <em>You Don’t Mess with the Zohan.</em> Instead, focus on your thoughts about those movies where he is more generic and family friendly like <em>Bedtime Stories, Click,</em> and of course, the first <em>Grown Ups</em>. If he is tolerable to you in this guise then you might enjoy <em>Grown Ups 2</em>. Personally, I didn’t hate it and honestly found myself laughing more than I expected.

<strong>MY SCORE: 6/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Escape from Planet Earth
<strong>Directed by Cal Brunker.</strong>
<em>2013. Rated PG, 89 minutes.
Cast:
Brendan Fraser
Rob Corddry
Ricky Gervais
Jessica Alba
Sofia Vergara
Sarah Jessica Parker
Jonathan Morgan Heit
Paul Scheer</em>​

Scorch Supernova (Fraser) is the most famous astronaut/explorer/hero on Planet Baab. His devil-may-care attitude has gotten him into a lot of tight spots. Luckily for him, his brother Gary (Corddry) works back at Mission Control and always knows what to do to get him out of a jam. Of cours, there is no glory for running the show almost anonymously from your desk. Accolades are reserved for the star of the show. Gary is also a good judge of what missions might be too dangerous. Scorch is give one such assignment and decides to accept it against his brother’s better judgement. When Gary expresses his concern, the powers that be shout him down. Frustrated, he quits his job. However, after learning that Scorch has indeed been captured on “The Dark Planet,” Gary sneaks into a spaceship and takes off in hopes of rescuing his brother. If you couldn’t tell by the movie’s title, “The Dark Planet” is Earth.

The flip side of all those alien invasion flicks plays out. Almost. What if we were the bad guys in the close encounter? Not necessarily “we”, but definitely a human. It’s a nice turn of the tables that serves the movie well. More important, however, is the relationship between the two brothers. The big, strong, handsome hero having to be saved by his scrawny sibling is what the story hinges on. It gets lots of mileage out of their differences. The relationship between Gary and his son Kip (Heit) is also given ample time. Our focus here is on the boy’s image of his dad as compared to how he feels about his uncle. Combined with the sibling rivalry we witness, this becomes a nice little commentary on hero worship and who our idols should really be.

In addition to watching those relationships play out we are treated to some sight gags, pop culture references and other jokes that mostly lean ever-so-slightly further on the intellectual side of things than many kiddie flicks. We also get some lively visuals and solid action sequences. There are also a number of recognizable voices who all handle their roles well. One drawback is that the plot plays out without much surprise, even for the little ones. Another, and bigger one is that it doesn’t quite connect on an emotional level the way it seems to want. Therefore, this is a perfectly acceptable movie aimed at kids that is fun to watch, but doesn’t really stand out from the crowd.

<strong>MY SCORE: 6/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Mud
<strong>Directed by Jeff Nichols.</strong>
<em>2013. Rated PG-13, 130 minutes.
Cast:
Matthew McConaughey
Reese Witherspoon
Tye Sheridan
Jacob Lofland
Sam Shepard
Ray McKinnon
Sarah Paulson
Michael Shannon
Joe Don Baker</em>​

Bestest buddies Ellis (Sheridan) and Neckbone (Lofland) are a pair of fourteen year olds who spend most of their summer days exploring their surroundings when they’re not working with someone in their families. On a small island near their homes, the boys discover a boat lodged in a tree. They surmise it got that way due to the recent flooding in the area. With no one around, they claim it as their own. However, they quickly learn that someone has beat them to the punch. Someone has actually been living in the boat. That person is the scraggly looking and aptly name Mud (McConaughey). He appears to be practically coated in a layer of the stuff. Immediately, he begins bartering with the boys to bring him things from the mainland. Eventually, this evolves into running errands pertaining to the girlfriend he says he is waiting for. Meanwhile, we see that Ellis’ houme is not all that stable as his mom and dad appear to be on the verge of breaking up. For him, hard lessons in life and love ensue.

We like Ellis right away. He is adventurous, sure of himself, curious as all get out, and yet, still very naïve about the way relationships between men and wome work. He thinks it’s all black and white. Even when he’s shown it is not, he clings to his most romantic notions. This is the part of him we like most. It’s the part we want to protect. It is also the part that makes us want to shake him enough for him to realize things are not so simple. Tye Sheridan gives a wonderful performance to bring all of this across. He never feels too old nor too young. He feels fourteen.

We are not quite as fond of Ellis’ trusty sidekick Neckbone. It’s just a bit tougher to figure him out. As bits and pieces of his story are revealed, we certainly empathize with him. This stems from the fact that we realize his guardian, his Uncle Galen (Shannon), has very questionable parenting skills.

In that light, it almost becomes easy to see why two seemingly head strong young boys would become enamored with Mud, the homeless guy they bump into. He’s a man by all outward appearances, but he shares many of their same ideals. Mud is a hopelessly romantic man-child hiding from something. Of course, we eventually find out what that is, but even then his problems are revealed to be multi-faceted. We want to hate him, not so much for any harm he’s caused as for his potential to do so. However, his romanticism is so strong we can’t help but feel sorry for the guy. He doesn’t charm us like a number of McConaughey’s other characters. Instead, he comes off desperate and pathetic. This may be what draws the boys to him. Even though Mud is ultimately pulling their strings, he does it in such a way the boys at least feel like they have some measure of control over their interactions with him.

What we are and are not able to control is ultimately the dilemma most of the characters deal with, both emotionally and situationally. This is at the root of nearly every struggle. It is certainly that way with Mud, Ellis, and Ellis’ dad Senior (played wonderfully by Ray McKinnon). It’s interesting to note that the person who seems most in control is Ellis’ mom (Paulson), one of only two adult females in the cast. Arguably, she is the only one. As the movie progresses, she seizes more and more control of her own life.

On the other hand, there is Juniper (Witherspoon), the object of Mud’s desire. She is a complete and perfect mess. What it is that she and Mud see in each other is essentially the same thing. They each look at the other as the one that has already and will continue to save them. Starting with these two and permeating the rest of the movie are these delusions of the heroism of oneself and of others. Even the relationship between Ellis and Neckbone is affected by this.

By the time we get to the end, all the various strands are swirling about but pulled together in a hail of bullets. My first though was that this is taking the easy way out of a story that spends lots of effort to complicate itself. It even sets up what at first glance is your run of the mill happy ending. Studying it a bit more in depth makes me thing the movie ends on an incredibly dark note. True, the main characters are all smiles and the sun in shining when the end credits roll. Still, I’m left with the sinking feeling that I’m merely seeing how the next repetition of a pair of vicious cycles starts. Worse yet, one of these cycles is the same as the other, just at an earlier stage. Therefore, <em>Mud</em> is a movie that allows you to believe everything is neatly tied in a bow, if that’s what you want, but also makes clear the possibility of a not-so-bright future.

<strong>MY SCORE: 9/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

30 Minutes or Less
<strong>Directed by Ruben Fleischer.</strong>
<em>2011. Rated R, 83 minutes.
Cast:
Jesse Eisenberg
Danny McBride
Aziz Ansari
Nick Swardson
Dilshad Vadsaria
Michael Peña
Bianca Kajlich
Fred Ward
Brett Gelman</em>​

Dwayne (McBride) isn’t nearly as smart as he thinks. To boot, he is a slacker at odds with his wealthy dad (Ward). Really, he’s just waiting for the old man to die so he can inherit everything. When he lets this bit of info slip to Juicy (Kajlich), the stripper giving him a lap-dance, she tells him she knows someone who could expedite the process for a hundred grand. Of course, he doesn’t have that kind of money. With his sidekick Travis (Swardson), who happens to be good at making explosives, he decides to kidnap someone and force them to rob a bank for him. This is where Nick (Eisenberg) comes in. He’s a pizza delivery guy with problems of his own. He just had a fight with his best friend Chet (Ansari) and he’s attracted to Chet’s sister Kate (Vadsaria), but won’t tell her. He is also the unlucky chap who makes a delivery to Dwayne and Travis. He is quickly knocked out when he gets there. When he wakes up he finds he has a bomb strapped to his chest and is told he will rob a bank today, or else he’s going to go boom. In case you aren’t quite sure, this is a comedy.

Most of the movie consists of us, along with Dwayne and Chet, following Nick around as he decides what to do and figures out how to go about doing it, with Chet’s help, naturally. On both sides of this coin, we get lots of bickering between two guys. There is less where Dwayne and Travis is concerned as the former is mostly in charge. If you boil down all the yelling they do it equals one guy coming up with an idea and the other calling him stupid. Eventually, a course of action is agreed upon which doesn’t go as planned and the cycle starts over. This repetition lends itself to the theory of diminishing returns. The jokes yield fewer and fewer laughs as the movie goes on because they really haven’t changed since the beginning. The only real variation being how inventive the guys get with their swear words, of which there are more than enough.

To the movie’s credit, the plot hurtles forward with a kinetic energy. It rarely slows down, knowing it has to jam everything into an hour and a half. Those brief occasions are to set up our romance, but that’s about it. Most exposition is taken care of during those shouting matches I referenced. The rest of the film is made up of some form of action. Though they lack any real tension, they are occasionally entertaining.

More than any other genre, whether or not we like a comedy depends on how we feel about its stars. You either find certain people funny or you do not. I like Eisenberg okay, but can’t say I think he’s hilarious. I am also lukewarm on Danny McBride. Generally speaking, Ansari and Swardson both annoy me far more than make me laugh. When you add all that up, you get a movie that I believe has some funny moments, but mostly falls flat. The other aspects, like the story and action, are also rather hit-or-miss. Give it an additional demerit for reducing Michael Peña to a total stereotype. Now rewrite sentences three through six of this paragraph to better reflect how you feel about this movie’s stars.

<strong>MY SCORE: 5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Temptation: Confessions of a Marriage Counselor
<strong>Directed by Tyler Perry.</strong>
<em>2013. Rated PG-13, 111 minutes.
Cast:
Jurnee Smollett-Bell
Lance Gross
Vanessa Williams
Brandy Norwood
Robbie Jones
Kim Kardashian
Ella Joyce
Candice Coke</em>​

Judith (Smollett-Bell) and Brice (Gross) first met when they were six years old. Now in their mid-twenties, they’ve been married for six years. Things are looking up for them. She has just started her job as the in-house counselor at a dating service while he is pursuing his dream of owning his own pharmacy. Like lots of couples they’ve settled into a routine. It works, but it’s not necessarily thrilling, so she is feeling a little down about the whole thing. Brice has also forgotten his wife’s birthday which adds to her sadness. In comes fabulously wealthy, handsome, and young Harley (Jones). He’s looking to invest in the company Judith works for. The two have been paired together as he also works on a computer program that can assess compatibility between clients. Doesn’t every dating website already have this? I digress. Point is, Harley takes an immediate liking to Judith and begins to woo her with the finer things in life.

That simple premise, maybe tweaked a bit on the details, has been the starting point for numerous movies. We have all seen at least a few of them. However, as writer/director Tyler Perry has consistently shown, he can never leave well enough alone. He insists on stacking the odds much higher than needed against his protagonist. This could have been a thorough, mature examination of the two relationships involved, both Judith’s with Brice and Harley. Instead, we get very easy markers that are never dealt with and heaping helpings melodrama. Then there is always another problem to add to the pile. Each one is not just an emotional issue, either. These are potentially fatal problems so intently focused on our heroine the movie renders itself a farce rather than the engaging character study of a woman in flux. Other similar movies have subplots, occasionally lots of them. However, they generally concern other characters. They don’t bury the lead beneath an avalanche of earth-shattering dilemmas. It gets to the point where we realize the movie itself doesn’t like her. This is most evident in its harsh and cynical conclusion. Admittedly, this fits with his typically southern Christian viewpoint. Breaking the sanctity of marriage is cause for swift and eternal damnation.

To try and deal with all those issues raised, the movie simply shifts into hero vs. villain mode. This exposes another Tyler Perry trait. His bad guys are so over the top they cease to seem human. They are hissing, seething balls of rage. Harley is no exception. Robbie Jones is not a bad actor. The material leaves him no choice but to play it with both fists gripping ham and a mouth constantly full of scenery. This further adds to the feeling we’re watching something comical in nature. This wouldn’t be an issue if the movie didn’t so obviously want to be taken seriously. The mismatch of tone and content wreaks havoc on the film.

If there is one thing Mr. Perry usually gets right, it is wringing heartfelt performances out of his female leads. More than the zany antics of Madea (thankfully not present here) or the sermonizing of his elder characters, these ladies ground his movies. They provide an emotional core for the audience to latch onto. Though she’s not yet the same caliber of actress as Perry alums Kimberly Elise and Angela Bassett, Jurnee Smollett-Bell more than holds her own and shows great potential. She’s been in front of a camera since she was very young, but this is her first grown up role, as far as I know. Hopefully, she’ll have more in her future.

Conversely, Perry could not coax even one convincing line out of supporting player Kim Kardashian. She is just painful to watch. The few lines she had were far too many as it sounds like she’s reading them for the very first time. Also, the normally solid Vanessa Williams was equally as bad. Her faux-French accent was distractingly horrendous. It also doesn’t have to be there at all. It is merely used to set up an unfunny one-liner late in the movie. As the husband, Lance Gross is bland, but likable. This is actually high praise since the character exists to be precisely that. The only strong performance in the movie beside our leading lady’s is given by singer/actress Brandy Norwood. Unfortunately, her character occasionally appears to be in a horror movie all by herself. She eventually joins the rest of the cast in this movie during the third act.

<em>Temptation</em> is a movie that wants to be a mature portrayal of a marriage in crisis and how it might play out in biblical terms. In actuality, it is steeped in so much melodrama, its like the actors are performing a difficult trapeze act sans net. Since what it tries to be and what it is don’t line up it all becomes laughable. It’s also heavy-handed with an over-simplified conclusion. All grays are removed from this world in favor of easily contrasted blacks and whites. Judith ceases to be a woman and becomes a blatant scare tactic used against all women.

<strong>MY SCORE: 3.5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

The Central Park Five
<strong>Directed by Ken Burns, Sarah Burns, and David McMahon.</strong>
<em>2012. Not Rated, 119 minutes.
Cast:
Antron McCray
Kevin Richardson
Yusef Salaam
Raymond Santana
Korey Wise
Rev. Calvin Butts
Raymond Santana Sr.
Natalie Byfield
Ed Koch</em>​

Way back in April of 1989, I was a high school senior in Queens, NY counting down the days until graduation. Having already enlisted in the U.S. Army, I was going to be on my way to New Jersey for basic training shortly after that joyous event. It was then that news broke of The Central Park Jogger Case. A woman was found unconscious in the famed park, having been savagely beaten and raped. Back then I was in the habit of reading the newspaper every day and followed the story this way, as lots of New Yorkers did. Within a few days a group of five teenage boys, ranging in age from fourteen to sixteen, were arrested and charged with the crime to which they confessed. In my seventeen year old eyes, this was pretty much the end of it. There was coverage of it daily which certainly went on well past my July departure from the city, but it appeared to be an open and shut case. Indeed, they were all convicted and sent to jail.

Turns out, there was lots more to the case than I thought. There was never any evidence against any of these kids. They happened to be in the park that night, with as many as twenty-five boys all total, but nothing linking any of them to the rape. The state’s case against them was based solely on the strength of the separately video-taped confessions of each of the boys. Never mind that each of their stories was wildly different than the rest. The point is, they said they did it. The only question was whether these confessions were coerced or not. They were. That might seem like a spoiler, but it’s not. The important part is the odyssey it took to bring this to light. <em>The Central Park Five</em>, co-helmed by documentary god Ken Burns, explores the case from the night the jogger’s body was discovered by some people passing by up to the present.

One thing I did know back in ’89 was that this was a racially charged media sensation right from the start. It had to be. True, New York is as diverse a city as we have in the world. However, at least back then, it was operating under a form of segregation the citizens imposed upon themselves. Every ethnicity had their own neighborhoods. As is the American way, blacks and hispanics were pretty much lumped together. Often, crossing the color lines was met with violence. I have personal friends who were actually chased out of White areas. One such chase ended with the young black male very near my high school. I haven’t lived there since leaving for the Army so I’m not sure if it’s still this way. On top of all that racial tension, crack cocaine had hit the city only about five years prior and brought with it new levels of addiction, money, and violence. Here, we have a case where the victim is white and her alleged assailants are black and hispanic.

The documentary does a wonderful job of capturing the atmosphere of the city at the time. We get the sights and sounds of the day. We see a bleak urban landscape, and occasionally some late 80s hip-hop to go with the soliloquys of the various people involved and others who studied the case. We also see many headlines and snippets of newspaper articles, including editorials damning the boys to the lowest realms of hell. For me, this is a harsh reminder of how fractured and volatile a place New York was.

The boys are all grown now and the ordeal still brings tears to their eyes. The all speak about it with unbridled passion, this being their first reach chance to tell their side of the story. Surprisingly, for guys who had a large chunk of their formative years taken away, they come across as bright, reasonable, and mostly articulate men. None of them exhibit the bitterness they might be expected to harbor. Granted, they have now had some time to cope with it, but it’s still commendable. Their family members alo shed a few tears. Thankfully, these eventually become tears of joy and/or relief as things finally turn in their favor fourteen years later.

The one thing this movie lacks is something it could never have. From archived footage, we get news clips of then New York City Mayor Ed Koch, prosecuting attorneys Linda Fairstein and Elizabeth Lederer, plus various police officers involved in the original investigation. Of these people, all but Koch declined to appear currently. He is the only person interviewed for this documentary on record proclaiming the guilt of these kids back in 1989. Even knowing the facts as we know them today, he is still reluctant to say he was wrong. However, give the man credit. He shows up and speaks about how the entire thing played out from his vantage point in the mayor’s office. Still, he was never actually a part of the proceedings. How could he be? He had a city to run. Many of the people who were involved still have much to lose by an admission of wrong-doing and/or negligence. I fully understand why the would refuse to appear in such a film. That doesn’t stop me from badly wanting to see them and hear them speak to the matter at hand.

<em>The Central Park Five</em> is a movie that reveals a certain truth. That truth is that guilt and innocence are easily manipulated perceptions. Perception gives us the ability to ignore facts. After all, as the old saying goes, perception is reality. On a more grounded level, it is a horrifying tale about gross abuses of power, both illegal and incompetent police work, mob mentality and racism. It details a justice system run amok, one swift to punish those perceived as offenders and hesitant to correct itself when proven wrong, if it does at all. The scariest part of all this, the part left unsaid, is that we know similar things have happened in other cases and continues to happen. Powerful does not even begin to describe this movie.

<strong>MY SCORE: 10/10</strong>​

 

[Bane]

Was waiting for your Mud review. I found it to be an amazing film.. Those two young boys played their parts pretty well, shockingly well.

 

[Palooza]

just for dell even though nobody should ever see this film ever

 

Dell is that the Tyler Perry movie where the chick cheats and gets AIDS?

 

[dell71]

Dell is that the Tyler Perry movie where the chick cheats and gets AIDS?

Spoiler tag for those who might still be interested in seeing it...

 

Yes

 

[dell71]

2 Guns
<strong>Directed by Baltasar Kormákur.</strong>
<em>2013. Rated R, 109 minutes.
Cast:
Denzel Washington
Mark Wahlberg
Paula Patton
Edward James Olmos
Bill Paxton
Robert John Burke
James Marsden
Greg Sproles
Fred Ward</em>​

We meet Bobby (Washington) and Stig (Wahlberg) <em>Reservoir Dogs</em> style, sitting in a diner having a fun conversation and planning a bank robbery. They also go to see Mexican Cartel boss Papi Greco (Olmos) in order to make an exchange of fake passports for cocaine. That doesn’t go quite as planned. Quickly, we find out that Bobby is not who he seems. He is a DEA agent and all of this is part of his plan to take down Papi. In his grand scheme, Stig is just collateral damage. He is to be arrested after the bank robbery. In reality, the robbery goes off without a hitch, because Bobby’s people fail to show. Additionally, what was supposed to be three million dollars, at most, turns out to be forty-three million. $43.125 million, to be exact. And everyone is trying to get their hands on it. Then, there is the little matter of Stig’s actual identity. Or who anyone is, for that matter. Basically, everyone trying to kill everyone else over this money ensues.

<em>2 Guns</em> hastily becomes one of those movies where all the good guys are dirtier than the bad guys, providing no safe haven for our heroes. The tougher task for the viewer is figuring out who isn’t crooked. The various angles from which the characters approach things plays out in elaborate fashion. Every few minutes gives us a new reveal which sends the movie careening in another direction. This is interesting for a while, but gets to be a bit much.

On the plus side, the movie recognizes where its strength lies. It is within the personas of our two leads. Denzel does Denzel and Wahlberg does Wahlberg. Turns out, the two have great chemistry. Together, they are just fun to watch. We laugh often at their exchanges and wonder why it has taken so long for them to work together. Because of them, as I am sure it was intended, the whole thing has a <em>Lethal Weapon</em> or <em>Bad Boys</em> vibe that works really well. Regardless of the plot’s machinations, we can enjoy watching two guys who appear to be having a blast.

The other major strength of <em>2 Guns</em> is something true to the title. Between all the cheeky banter of the good guys and sinister posturing by everyone else we get lots of action. Things go boom real good and at fairly regular intervals. The best sequence, in my opinion, actually features our heroes squaring off against one another via car chase. Somehow this includes fisticuffs between them while both vehicles are moving. Please do not try this at home.

When all is said and done, <em>2 Guns</em> is a fun movie that rides its two stars to whatever success it enjoys. We are spared their life stories in favor of the chatter that entertains us pretty well. As mentioned, this chatter is aided by the action. It all works to mask its over-populated and convoluted story and does a good job. If ever a movie could breeze by on charm and personality, this is it.

<strong>MY SCORE: 7/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Frida
<strong>Directed by Julie Taymor.</strong>
<em>2002. Rated R, 123 minutes.
Cast:
Salma Hayek
Alfred Molina
Geoffrey Rush
Valeria Golino
Diego Luna
Antonio Banderas
Mía Maestro
Edward Norton
Saffron Burrows
Ashley Judd</em>​

The life and times of real life Mexican artist Frida Kahlo (Hayek). We meet her as a young woman spying on an extra-marital affair by Diego Rivera (Molina), her country’s most famous artist. A short while later, Frida is badly injured when the trolley she is riding in has an accident. Doctors tell her she may never walk again. Of course she does, and it indeed affects her the rest of her life, but this isn’t the story. The story actually begins with her discovering her passion and ability for painting while confined to her bed. Soon, she seeks the counsel of none other than Rivera whom, if you couldn’t tell, is as renowned for his womanizing as he is for his artwork. The two embark on a tumultuous lifelong love affair.

In the titular role, Salma Hayek is an unstoppable force of nature. She emanates an irresistible flame that torches the screen. Aided by a prominent unibrow, Hayek is simply impossible to look away from. It is a magnificent performance starting with the very first time we see her. Since one great turn deserves another, what Hayek accomplishes is certainly complemented, and might not be possible, without the work of Alfred Molina as Rivera. He is essentially the perfect trampoline for her to bounce off. Seemingly everything she does is in reaction to him, even when he is not in the scene. To his credit, Molina doesn’t wither in her storms. He plays Diego as a large man, both literally and figuratively, with enormous pride and appetites. This isn’t a guy who curls up fetally when his woman is on a tirade. He constantly reminds her, and us, that she knew who he was right from the start.

Along the way, director Julie Taymor adds some very nice touches that are nods to artists in general, and these two in particular. At times, characters themselves fade in or out of a painting. Other times, Frida’s work literally comes to life. On a few occasions, even less conventional things happen. It’s a wonderful way of adding layers to the film without endless exposition. Showing is more powerful than tells. The film does a great feel of showing this way and manages to do so without subtracting from the idea that we are watching a movie about real people.

One are where the movie doesn’t do enough showing or telling is in regards to how she came to be so important to the Mexican people. We’re told often how good her work is, but just piles up in a back room of her house. Diego often lets well connected people give it a look. Eventually, this lands her a gig in Paris. Next thing we know she’s suddenly an icon in her native land. We never see any growth in her status. We are just told it is.

Even if the movie could have done a better job at explaining the public side of her life, it so thoroughly and zestfully goes over the private side, we can’t help being enthralled. Here is a woman with so much passion it rubs off on everyone around her, including us in the audience. We lover her regardless of whether or not we are into art or agree with her politics. This is the towering achievement of <em>Frida</em>.

<strong>MY SCORE: 8.5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

The Incredible Burt Wonderstone
<strong>Directed by Don Scardino.</strong>
<em>2013. Rated PG-13, 100 minutes.
Cast:
Steve Carell
Steve Buscemi
Olivia Wilde
Jim Carrey
James Gandolfini
Alan Arkin
Jay Mohr
Michael Herbig
Mason Cook
Luke Vanek
David Copperfield</em>​

As a kid, Burt Wonderstone (Carell) receives a “magic kit” for a birthday gift and eagerly learns every trick in it as fast as he can. He soon amazes Anton (Buscemi) and the two bond over their love of magic and grow up to be wealthy and world famous magicians. However, after ten years of headlining a Las Vegas show together, things have gotten stale. The passion is no longer there. Worse yet, ticket sales are dwindling as their dated act has been marginalized by a popular, and possibly psychotic, street magician named Steve Gray (Carrey). Think Criss Angel mixed with David Blaine. After a stunt to reclaim their relevance goes horribly wrong, Bert and Anton break up. Anton travels the world doing humanitarian work. Sorta. We focus on Bert who is not only out of work, but also broke and trying to figure out how to get back in the game.

Steve Carell is the absolute perfect person to play Burt Wonderstone. He embodies the character to such a degree we totally buy into this guy’s plight. He manages this while simultaneously ensuring we don’t really like him that much. There is no denying that Burt is a class A jerk. However, we always understand him to be a guy who has lost his way. This is what keeps us invested in the movie. We want to see if our hero can find himself again.

Burt’s quest is greatly enhanced by the surrounding characters. Most notable are Jane (Wilde) and Steve Gray. They function as the angel and devil on Burt’s shoulders. Wilde is solid as a love interest and really isn’t asked to do much, but does ground Burt. Jim Carrey more than makes up for her as Burt’s big competition. He plays Gray as a totally unhinged parody of “modern” magic. Not to be outdone, Alan Alda shines as the yoda-like Rance Holloway. No, he is nothing like the master jedi in demeanor or personality, but his status in this world is similar. Alda plays it with his trademarked gruffness. Somehow, he is simultaneously dismissive and caring. This makes him lovable. As Burt’s partner-in-magic, Buscemi is much tamer than usual which serves the movie well. The same could be said for the late James Gandolfini.

None of this would matter if the movie were not funny. Personally, I laughed quite a bit. A good deal of the jokes are double entendres. Others are pop culture references. Those dealing with tricks performed by Steve Gray are disgusting. Even the people in the movie recognize this. That self-awareness adds humor to them so they work. As a matter of fact, the movie is aware of all of its own absurdity. This knowledge of self adds an all-encompassing layer of sarcasm to the proceedings. In any event, most things are at least worthy of a snicker. This helps things move smoothly.

That it moves so fluidly is a huge plus in favor of <em>The Great Burt Wonderstone</em>. It knows that it is shallow and light and doesn’t pretend to be anything different. As long as you don’t go searching for something deeper, you will have an enjoyable time.

<strong>MY SCORE: 7/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

The Hangover Part III
<strong>Directed by Todd Phillips.</strong>
<em>2013. Rated R, 100 minutes.
Cast:
Bradley Cooper
Zach Galifianakis
Ken Jeong
Ed Helms
Justin Bartha
John Goodman
Melissa McCarthy
Jeffrey Tambor
Heather Graham
Mike Epps
Jamie Chung</em>​

There is a scene in <em>The Hangover Part III</em> in which a bunch of characters wake up from a night of debauchery in a strange place, wondering what they did and how they got there. Sadly, this happens at the end. Before this, you may spend a lot of time thinking you’re watching the wrong movie.

Let me explain.

Right away we know things are going to be different this time around. Instead of starting with a scene such as the one described above, the way the first two installments did, we kick things off with a prison break. It’s Mr. Chow (Jeong) escaping from a Bangkok jail. We quickly transition back to the USA where Alan (Galifianakis) is spiraling completely out of control due to the sudden death of his father. After some convincing, he agrees to enter a treatment facility, provided he is driven there by his buddies in the Wolfpack. Together, they hit the road, but they never make it. They get run off the road by Marshall (Goodman) and his goons, including Black Doug (Epps) from the first movie. Marshall informs them of Chow’s escape and that Chow stole $21 million is gold from him. He then kidnaps their Doug (Bartha) and demands the rest of them find and bring Chow to him. The boys trying to do precisely that ensues.

Rather than another joke-a-minute recap of the night before we get a clunky hybrid crime thriller and dark comedy. Our heroes feel like they are way out of their element. In fact, Phil (Cooper) and Stu (Helms) take a back seat most of the time to whatever is going on with Chow and Alan. Almost none of this is funny. The biggest reason is that these two characters are the least able to support a movie. Truthfully, none of them are which is, in part, what makes the first two movies work. They are a true ensemble effort where each contributes equally to the overall cause. Here, two of them are forced into the lead and wind up exposing their own flatness. This is especially problematic with regards to Chow. We have always been told he is an internationally wanted criminal. This is one of those rare cases where showing instead of telling backfires. When we were only told of his nefarious life, it works okay. When we’re shown this, it fails to hold water. Everything about him is simply too ridiculous.

As a whole, <em>The Hangover Part III</em> feels like an overreaction to criticism of Part II. Conventional wisdom says that its predecessor was too similar to the original. Truth told, it is a carbon copy. As blatant duplications go, however, it’s still a winner in my book. I didn’t laugh quite as often as I did the first time around, but I still laughed an awful lot. At the end of the day, that’s all I really want from my comedies. Sitting through the third installment yielded very few chuckles. I fully understand that comedy is highly subjective. What is funny to me might be deplorable to you, and vice-versa. Therefore, had the humor simply been of a different brand I would better understand the effort. It feels like this movie didn’t really try. It’s as if the powers that be thought that these characters were so great that they could effectively carry any story and stepping away from the franchise’s bread and butter wouldn’t be much of an issue. Turns out they can’t carry any old plot, particularly this one. Fish out of water tales can be wonderful. They usually focus on one fish trying to gain his/her footing in a new environment. In this case, all of the fish are out of water and we just watch them flop around for an hour and a half.

<strong>MY SCORE: 3/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Baggage Claim
<strong>Directed by David E. Talbert.</strong>
<i>2013. Rated PG-13, 96 minutes.
Cast:
Paula Patton
Derek Luke
Jill Scott
Adam Brody
Taye Diggs
Jennifer Lewis
Boris Kodjoe
Trey Songz
Djimon Hounsou
Lauren London
Christina Milian
La La Anthony</i>​

When Montana (Patton) learns that her younger sister Sheree (London) is getting married soon, and before she is, her world is sent spiraling out of control. Not only is Montana not married, she doesn’t have any prospects. This is a big problem. She’s been raised to believe that she simply is not a lady if she’s not married by thirty. That her sister will tie the knot first is a travesty of epic proportions. At the very least she wants to find Mr. Right in time to escort her to the wedding which is a mere thirty days away. Obviously, this is a daunting task, but it helps that she is an airline stewardess. However, rather than meeting men as she normally would in her profession, her work buddies talk her into what they think is a genius plan. They will track down her ex-boyfriends as they travel to see if any of them has developed into the man of her dreams since they broke up.

Let’s just get this out of the way, first. That is an astonishingly dumb idea. Setting aside the fact that these are guys that she’s already found out were not “the one” for one reason or another, the execution of this plan is idiotic, at best. It involves her dropping everything the second her pals call her to let her know one of these guys is on a flight, high-tailing it to the airport to make said flight, and trying to instantly rekindle the flames. Yes, she always makes it to the plane just in time, but as you might imagine, these guys have the same problems that caused their break-up the first time around.

In the midst of all the chaos that is her life, she has one stable relationship with a straight man. She grew up with the guy who lives across the hall. In fact, they are best friends. His name is William Wright (Luke). Hey, wait a sec…let me just repeat his name in case you somehow dodged that sledgehammer. William Wright. WRIGHT. Uh-huh.

The overwhelming majority of romantic comedies are inane, predictable affairs. This is certainly no exception. The next moment is always precisely what you think it’s going to be. It simply runs down the rom-com checklist in order and on time. This strict adherence to the formula drains the life out of most jokes. It’s hard to laugh when you already know the punchline.

Likewise, it is difficult to get wrapped up in the dilemmas on the screen when the performances of them are so plastic. Paula Patton normally does solid work. Here, I can see her ‘acting’ which is empirical evidence that the performer is doing a bad job. Her voice has the fake quality of a person trying but failing to prove that they are honest. The rest of the cast seems to be in a contest to see who can be the most photogenic. They take turns reciting their lines through the pearly whites of their megawatt smiles, just like in the pic above. Don’t get me wrong, it’s an impressive looking group of people and an accomplished bunch of actors, but to this particular production they bring all the depth of a cookie sheet. The only characters with any spunk whatsoever are Montana’s partners in romantic crime: Sam (Brody), her gay male friend, and Gail (Scott), her busty and perpetually horny gal pal. Sam is a walking stereotype, but at least he gets most of the movie’s best lines. Gail gets the best gestures and is the most interesting person in the movie. Love her or hate her, she has a zest for life and an independence sorely missing from the protagonist. A better movie could probably have been made about her.

Everything I’ve mentioned thus far makes Baggage Claim a bad movie. Regardless of how terribly they go down, all of these elements are rather innocuous. They are things that render this fit for the skyward reaching junk pile of rom-coms, all of which are indistinguishable from the rest. However, right from the start this is a potentially damaging film. It repeatedly and explicitly pushes the idea that a woman absolutely, positively must have a husband or she is a failure at life. Sam impotently tries to dissuade Montana from this notion once or twice. When Montana herself comes to understand the fallacy of this ideal, the movie’s own finale completely undermines her. Honestly, it’s baffling that she believed this in the first place given the fact that marriage hasn’t actually worked for her own mother (Lewis), the one pushing this whole mindset. Mom’s been married five times, and even Montana understands she marries simply for the sake of being married. This is not a model to live by. The entire thing is an exercise in archaic thought. Sure, we all want someone to grow old with. Branding someone worthless for having yet found that person is backwards, at best, and anti-feminist, if not downright misogynist, at worst.

To blame for this atrocity we have writer/director David E. Talbert, or Tyler Perry 2.0, as I like to call him. He’s taken essentially the same path to Hollywood as Mr. Madea. Talbert wrote and directed his own plays which he successfully toured around the nation targeting African-American female audiences. His work, that I’ve seen anyway, has a similar mix of Christianity and secularism, is thematically similar, but tends to be a bit more risqué. This holds true as their work translates to the big screen. Unfortunately, Talbert fails to realize that the time for labeling single women near (or in) their thirties as barren old maids has long since past. It’s also a terrible message for the young ladies in the audience. I’m not normally a cinematic moralist. I don’t need movies to have positive messages for me to enjoy them, but I don’t like to be brow-beaten, either. This is so persistent with its assertions, it galls me to no end.

<strong>MY SCORE: 2/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

The Wolverine
<strong>Directed by James Mangold.</strong>
<em>2013. Rated PG-13, 126 minutes.
Cast:
Hugh Jackman
Will Yun Lee
Tao Okamoto
Rila Fukushima
Hiroyuki Sanada
Svetlana Khodchenkova
Brian Tee
Hal Yamanouchi
Ken Yamamura
Famke Janssen</em>​

During World War II, Wolverine (Jackman) was a POW in Japan and was kept in a covered well near Nagasaki. How he let this happen is a mystery since it truly does appear that he’s letting them hold him. He shields a young Japanes soldier named Yashida (Yamanouchi) who jumps down into the well with him, thus saving his life after an Atomic bomb has been dropped on the nearby city. Yashida witnesses our hero’s self-healing powers and the two get to know each other a bit while waiting for it to be safe to leave the well. When they do, they go their separate ways. Fast-forward to the present and the young soldier is now a wealthy old man on his deathbed. He arranges for Wolverine, who of course doesn’t age, to come to Tokyo, presumably so he can thank him one last time for what he did all those years ago. In reality, he’s found a way to usurp the man’s healing abilities for himself and wants our hero to agree to the process. Wolverine doesn’t, Yashida dies and the old man’s goons come after our hero anyway. They are also after Mariko (Okamoto), the old man’s granddaughter whom he left everything to. Of course, she’s on the run with Wolverine.

As expected, this is a movie with lots of action. Wolverine is definitely not shy about using his claws, either. This makes it about as brutal as a PG-13 flick can get. It has all the violence of an R-rated feature with almost none of the blood. All of it is shot very nicely and perhaps the best part is that our hero is not some perfect fighter. He takes his lumps during some spectacular sequences. My favorite of which is an amazing battle on top of a moving bullet-train.

Honestly, the action is the easiest part of the movie to deliver on and it does. The trickier part is what happens between fight scenes. Thankfully, the movie manages to pull it off. The story holds together pretty well and dives into our hero’s psyche. For his part, Jackman presents Wolverine as compelling a figure as he has ever been on the big screen. The real genius of the movie is its simplicity. The last solo feature for our hero, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, as well as the ensemble movie before it, X-Men: The Last Stand suffered from overload. There were way too many mutants and just as many plotlines. This time things are pared down so that it really is about one guy. This keeps us engaged in the movie, instead of pulling us in thirty different directions.

I must say that I was pleasantly surprised by this film. I didn’t come into this one expecting much at all. My apprehension was completely the product of my feelings about that first Wolverine movie. This time, the powers that be found the right balance between action and drama, making it an engrossing tale. It doesn’t go as deep metaphorically as a full-blown X-men movie, but it is intriguing and fun at the same time.

<strong>MY SCORE: 7.5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

<b>Pacific Rim</b>
<b>Directed by Guillermo del Toro.</b>
<i>2013. Rated PG-13, 131 minutes.
Cast:
Charlie Hunnam
Idris Elba
Rinko Kikuchi
Ron Perlman
Charlie Day
Burn Gorman
Max Martini
Robert Kazinsky
Clifton Collins Jr.</i>​

If you believe that there is life somewhere besides Earth then you probably also think that if/when they reach us, they will first appear in our skies after having traveled many light years to get here. Makes sense, right? Well, you would be wrong. Turns out, they come through a fissure located at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean that is really a portal between their dimension and ours. And since we live in a big-budget movie, they most certainly don't come in peace. By the way, these are not little green men with over-sized bulbous heads and football shaped eyes. These are monsters the size of skyscrapers with really bad dispositions. In an apparent nod to Godzilla flicks we have taken to calling them kaiju - the Japanese word for monster. To combat them, we develop the jaegers, the 'j' makes a 'y' sound, German for hunter. These are gigantic fighting robots controlled by a pair of human pilots located in the head. So yeah, someone took one of my favorite things of all time, Voltron, and one of my least favorite, The Power Rangers, put them in a blender and poured the concoction onto the screen.

That someone would be none other than Guillermo del Toro. He is the mastermind behind some outstanding movies like Pan's Labyrinth, Blade II and the Hellboy films. Whether he is practicing patient story-telling as in Pan's, or delivering an action-packed blockbuster as in the Hellboy pictures, his work is often visually stunning. He continues that trend with Pacific Rim. Both the kaiju and the jaegers are excellently rendered and give the whole movie a larger than life feel. This is evident right from the start when one of the kaiju slams itself on The Golden Gate Bridge. The battle scenes make the movie fun. They give us what we have come for: giant robots fighting giant monsters.

The issues come when our main attractions are not on the screen. The overall story is bland and predictable. Individual subplots hold slightly more intrigue, but fail to generate the emotion they seem to be going for. Worse, they also leave plot-holes as they go. For instance, there's "the drift." The drift is a portal where our two pilots must link mentally in order to properly operate a jaeger. Basically, it couples two people's brains together. The first time we meet Raleigh (Hunnam), he's piloting a jaeger with his brother who is literally ripped out of the machine and killed while the two were still mentally connected. We're made to understand that Raleigh now has to not only carry around his memory of what happened to his brother, but his brother's own memory of what happened, as well. Imagine having a loved one brutally killed in front of you and also being able to actually see the event from their point of view and feel what they felt at the moment. Sounds traumatic, doesn't it? Of course, it is. That's why Raleigh quits the jaeger program and disappears from the radar for five years. In desperate need of capable pilots, his old boss Stacker Pentecost (Elba), what a name, finds him and re-recruits him. So what's the problem? The problem is we soon meet Mako (Kikuchi), a young lady who has aced every test there is to become a pilot. Stacker won't let her anywhere near a jaeger because of something in her past. He tells her point blank, "You can't take that level of emotion into the drift!" Excuse me? Did you not just bring back a guy with at least "that level of emotion," if not more? There is no evidence of Raleigh ever receiving any therapy or dealing with his brother's death in any way other than stewing over it since it happened. Therefore, we have no choice but to conclude that how the drift works is subject to the needs of the plot making it a not self-contained entity. The sad part is it's a great idea and further exploring what our hero is going through would probably have generated the empathy this movie needs. We spend much more time on Mako's story. Her history is somewhat interesting, but too obvious for us to really get worked up about.

I know, it's a guy flick. Guys don't care about all that touchy-feely stuff. It's all about robots and monsters. Monsters and robots. I'm a guy. I get it. Except guys who say that are either lying or fooling themselves. Even for the ruffians among us, the story is what draws us into the movie. When this happens and we love or hate the people on the screen, we have a vested interest in what happens to them. We actively root for or against them. Action can do this if it's of a brutal, particularly visceral nature and...AND...seems realistic, not some stylized Matrix fantasy stuff. Even then, the movie has to give us sufficient reason why we should care. No matter how good it looks and how much of it there is, this can't be achieved simply by ridiculously large beasts taking on equally gargantuan machines. Therefore, even as we enjoy watching it, we remain distant from what we are seeing. That distance means Pacific Rim is okay, probably a good choice for a fun movie night, but ultimately forgettable.

<b>MY SCORE: 6.5/10</b>​

 

[dell71]

Turbo
<b>Directed by David Soren.</b>
<i>2013. Rated PG, 96 minutes.
Cast:
Ryan Reynolds
Paul Giamatti
Samuel L. Jackson
Michael Peña
Snoop Dogg
Maya Rudolph
Michelle Rodriguez
Luis Guzman
Bill Hader
Richard Jenkins
Ken Jeong
Mario Andretti</i>​

Ironically, Turbo (Reynolds) is a snail. He loves Formula One racing, especially his hero Guy Gagné (Hader) and wants nothing more than to go really fast. As you might imagine, being a snail makes this rather difficult. Still, a boy can dream. Unfortunately, that dreaming makes it hard for him to perform the mundane tasks of daily life. This includes doing his job for which he is under the supervision of his much more cautious brother Chet (Giamatti). Frustrated with life, Turbo finds himself looking over the freeway. Somehow he finds himself on it, barely surviving the harrowing ordeal. When he comes to, he discovers that his shell is suddenly a high-powered engine that enables him to travel at ridiculous speeds. One thing leads to another and Turbo and Chet wind up in the care of Tito (Peña), a taco salesman/snail racer with big ideas. Trying to get Turbo into the Indy 500 ensues.

Following Turbo on his quest is a fun adventure that is well paced and breezes by easily. The racing scenes are all exciting and should bring the youngsters to the edge of their seats as a decent amount of tension is created by them. The story between them holds together pretty well, also. As nonsensical as it sounds, we buy into it. We get caught up in whether or not this little snail can do the impossible.

Helping to sell all of this to us is a remarkable cast. To me, this begins with two wonderful actors doing superb voice work, Paul Giamatti and the incomparable Samuel L. Jackson. Both are just plain amazing. Giamatti provides a persistent naysayer who makes his opinions clearly known. Jackson brings his familiar persona to the role and somehow makes it all the way through the film without dropping F-bombs. Between the two of them, they get most of the movie’s best lines. However, they are not alone. Michael Peña, Bill Hader, Snoop, and Ken Jeong are all excellent, as well. Luis Guzman shines in the very nearly thankless role of Tito’s big brother Angelo, but not given nearly as much to do. All of them overshadow leading snail Ryan Reynolds. It’s not that he is bad, it’s that they are so good.

By the end, we have an easily graspable film about chasing your dreams and never giving up. This message is telegraphed pretty far in advance so that might lessen some of its potency, but it still works. Best of all, it’s not something we have to dwell on. Things are kept lighthearted enough so the kids don’t feel brow-beaten when it’s over. It stands a bit ahead of most animated kiddie fare, but is not quite special.

<b>MY SCORE: 7/10</b>​

 

[dell71]

The Place Beyond the Pines
<b>Directed by Derek Cianfrance.</b>
<i>2013. Rated R, 140 minutes.
Cast:
Ryan Gosling
Bradley Cooper
Eva Mendes
Ray Liotta
Dane DeHaan
Emory Cohen
Rose Byrne
Ben Mendelsohn
Mahershala Ali
Bruce Greenwood
Gabe Fazio
Olga Merediz</i>​

Luke Glanton (Gosling) is a stunt motorcycle rider in a traveling carnival. When he finds out he has an infant son in one of the sleepy towns he breezes through, he quits his job and settles down there. Things are complicated because the child’s mother, Romina (Mendes) has moved on. She’s living with another man and doesn’t really want Luke’s help with the kid. Being the caring guy he is, Luke wants desperately to provide for his boy and at least give it a go with Romina. At the encouragement of his buddy Robin (Mendelsohn), he takes up robbing banks. And I’ll just leave it at that.

Narratively, this is a movie split into two equal halves. The second half deals with police officer Avery Cross (Cooper). I won’t say much more about him to keep from spoiling things. I will share that this part of the movie flows directly from the first half. Both parts are just gut wrenching. This is possibly the most emotional crime-drama in a decade. All of thoses feelings are stirred by the fact that the film focuses intently on father/son relationships and/or the effects of not having a good one. For us dads, this is like a horror flick.

To assist in pulling our heart strings, we get some excellent work out of our cast. Ryan Gosling continues to blow me away as I just feel so bad for Luke. Gosling makes it a very hard thing to watch a man with good intentions go down such a dark path. Bradley Cooper is just as good, but for different reasons. We love him early on when he is clearly a guy who wants to do the right thing. We admire his courage to go against the grain. As things progress, we see Cross is a man of ambition. That ambition does not lead him astray, but it obscures the most important things. This is when we start to dislike him.

Two more who makes us hurt for them are Dane DeHaan as Jason and Eva Mendes as Romina. We see how not having certain things has made Jason’s life difficult. At the very least, we sense that he feels incomplete, often powerless. It’s not terribly different from his role in the surprisingly good Chronicle, but once again he pulls it off very nicely. Mendes brings a depth she’s never before shown. However much we agree or disagree with her actions, we know she thinks she is doing what is right. In a nod to subtlety, her best moments are the ones in which she’s asked a direct question and says nothing.

In smaller roles, Ray Liotta, and Ben Mendelsohn also shine. Liotta has a delightfully nasty turn as one of Cross’ fellow officers. He brings his GoodFellas sensibilities to the proceedings and it works perfectly. As Robin, Medelsohn is not only Luke’s buddy, but something of a mentor. He gives us a perfect local yokel who seems to lighten the mood whenever he’s on the screen. In reality, he is stirring things up and is responsible for a couple turns of the plot.

Most intriguing, and mysterious, of all the supporting players is Romina’s guy, Kofi, played by Mahershala Ali. What we see of him works wonderfully. Like many guys, he measures his actions against what his lady thinks. He may even stop to ask how she feels about a situation, just to be sure, before he acts. Early, he seems to have a bit of an attitude problem, but it comes with good reason. Later, he is revealed to be a genuine and caring man. The one drawback here is on has to wonder if he knows everything we know.

In truth, the relationship between Kofi and Romina is not a focal point of the film and probably should not be. It is just a place where expansion is possible. That said, the rest of the movie is thorough in its exploration of subjects it has chosen. Therefore, expansion is not really necessary. The Place Beyond the Pines works marvelously as a multiple character study and does not let any of them off the hook. When it ends, we have much to try and wrap our heads around. Not least of these things is trying to figure out what will happen next to these people.

<b>MY SCORE: 9/10</b>​