Cineplexus

Up ★★★★½

Raised, as so many of us were, on a rich movie diet of Disney's classic animated films, I am just now realizing how intensely frightening most of them tended to be at points. Sometimes, as with Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, or The Lion King, the terror comes somewhere in the middle.  Then there's that select handful of films where the creepiness shows up right away – think of that eerie opening to Beauty and the Beast, or the sad horror of Finding Nemo and, of course Bambi.

I'm waxing philosophical about these super-dramatic moments less because of my own reaction to Up than that of the little boy who sat behind me in the theater. I'd been warned that the beginning of the film was very sad – boy was it – but the child behind me was definitely scared. About 10 minutes into the film, he whimpered in discomfort, reflecting the heartwrenching nature of what was unfolding onscreen in a way that only an innocent could – palpably feeling the unpleasantness without really understanding it. His mother, a wise filmgoer no doubt, informed him that the film hadn't really started yet. She was pretty much right.

The vast majority of Up is more delightful than heartwrenching (though there's some of that, and some more scary, along the way), but those first few sad,painful minutes were absolutely necessary to set up the motivation for the characters throughout. Such a decision – to maintain the integrity of the story even if it's difficult for much of the audience – not only pays off bigtime in Up, but it also reminds us of what these films can be when they're done with care and class. There may be an extra dimension involved, but Disney and Pixar have restored the dark, complex splendor of those animated classics we loved as children, and appreciate as adults.

Thanks, guys.

Transformers ★★★

Yeah, I know. You already decided. Either Transformers 2 sucks hard-core (the general critical consensus) or it kicks ass no matter what those cocky jerk critics say. So why am I even bothering to write a review of a movie that everyone already seems to have an opinion about, regardless of whether or not they've seen it?

Well, the news is good, if surprising: Transformers 2 is not that bad. While there are a handful of scenes that Michael Bay seems to have exploded all over, particularly during the film's marathon parade of endings, and some seriously annoying, Jar-Jar Binks-y Transformers who won't shut up, it also has genuinely exciting action sequences, really gorgeous visual and audio effects, and some pretty funny moments (as in, moments that are funny on purpose). 

The lesson here seems to be all about expectations. Perhaps the first critics to see the film were able to approach it from a neutral perspective; it's possible that some were excited about the much-hyped film. More likely, they expected it to be awful, and were on their guard for anything reprehensible about the film, thus making all the jokes that fall flat, the ultra-short climactic fight, the annoying (but not, in my  opinion, racist) robot twins, that much more heinous. Whether because of high hopes dashed or low hopes self-fulfilled, the storm of harsh reviews led me and my cohort in cinematic guilty-pleasure seeking, Mikey, to expect a truly awful movie.

What we got, however, was an okay movie, with some very thrilling highs in action, technology, and humor, and some chuckle-inducing lows in robot dialogue, slow-running to dramatic music, and…humor. And what more, honestly, should be expected of a film that states clearly at its outset that it's presented by Paramount and Hasbro?

For all the critical abuse the film's been taking, moviegoers don't seem to be too concerned about how potentially bad the film might be after all – in its first week, it's broken several records, including highest-grossing Wednesday opening, highest-grossing non-opening Thursday and Friday, and the second highest all-time 7-day gross.

So there you go. "Not that bad." And a box office smash at that. All movies should be so maligned.

Side note: I can't end this review without mentioning how truly floored I am, once again, by the sound design of this Transformers film. The score may be schmaltzy, but the sounds these robots make, especially while transforming, are mesmerizing and beautiful here, as they were in the first film. If you don't care about these things, I willingly accept your scorn. But you're missing out.

The Hangover ★★★★½

Okay, this is silly. Sometimes I find myself ruminating for days, even weeks, about a movie I've seen, trying to find the right words to describe it. Usually, this happens when a movie is somewhat middle-of-the-road, and I can't really decide whether to hang left or right. In the case of The Hangover, though, I haven't been feeling wishy-washy. I've just been hoping to get the chance to see it again.

This recent work of genius was directed by Todd Phillips of Old School fame. He also directed Starsky and Hutch, a film which I love dearly, but which hardly deserves the acclaim this most recent film has received. The Hangover is a film that manages to be about debauchery and depravity, all while leaving   (most of) the specifics to the audience's imaginations. It is sometimes sweet but never hokey, and showcases performances that are both nuanced and hilarious by each of its three stars - Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, and Zach Galifianakis.

Perhaps these three actors hold the secret to this films allure, even its greatness. Phillips' past movies have been commercially successful, starring old kings of the Hollywood comedy scene: Will Ferrell, Ben Stiller, Vince Vaughn, Owen Wilson. These are funny guys, but they aren't exactly full of surprises. Of Hangover's stars, the most famous is probably Helms, who comedy fans know from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Office. This is a cast that earns the movie some indie cred, particularly with the addition of Galifianakis, who carries his creepy-hilarious schtick straight from the stand-up circuit to every gut-busting scene in this film.

No film can succeed on its cast alone, and there is much to be praised about The Hangover's unconventional storyline and plot points. One co-worker described it to me as a "funny Memento" and I really like that take. Of course my first thoughts were of my beloved Hitchcock films, like Vertigo or North by Northwest in which no one really knows the secret to why strange events are unfolding until deep into the film. But The Hangover is a comedy, and a great one at that, offering us surprises scene after scene that don't merely perplex, but amuse. Greatly.

Still, it's hard imagining even a unique, fresh script like this one riding so high if, say, Matthew McConaughey had played Cooper's sexy rule-breaker, with Ben Stiller as Helms' henpecked worrier, and (god forbid, though I love the man sometimes) Will Ferrell as Galifianakis' creepy, possibly-insane brother-in-law. With the same lines, the same delivery, it just wouldn't have been the same movie. While I'd love to see these three actors (the actual stars, not my suggested celebrities) in more films together (maybe The Hangover 2, already in development), I should probably be wishing for something entirely different: a whole new slew of comedies starring the unsung, dimmer stars of Hollywood, just waiting to go supernova*.

If this film is any indication, that could be a very good – and lucrative – development.

*Yes, I realize that, technically, "going supernova" would not be an ideal fate, as supernova is the last stage before a star explodes/burns out. But some stars never even get to that point in Hollywood (see: Lindsey Lohan)! Plus, it was just too poetic to pass up. Deal with it.

Early Morning Bulletin...

It's 8am on a Sunday morning, and all I can think about is how I want to see The Hangover again. Watch for my review tonight, once some fun but time-consuming family business subsides. 

Love,
Marissa

Terminator Salvation ★★★½

Confession time: I have a problem. I am essentially unable to visit a movie theater without buying popcorn. I can't explain why, but regardless of what I've had to eat that day or what type of movie I'm seeing, I just can't break the link between Movie Outing and Popcorn Eating.

So, standing in an absurdly long line a the local AMC, I found myself in a pickle. If I stayed in the line, complete with apparently just-hired cashier slowly moving about at the helm, and a family of five buying virtually everything on the menu, I might miss the beginning of the movie. If I left the line, I'd have no popcorn to eat during Terminator Salvation.

I stayed in line. Popcorn would be necessary.

It was the right choice. Not only did I not miss the beginning of the film, but it wouldn't have mattered if I had. Despite the fact that a lot of crazy stuff is going down, Salvation devotes little energy to trying to explain it to the audience. There is one exception right off the bat: the film's opening minutes are devoted to explaining that Marcus Wright, the man who would later be abused by SkyNet's efforts to make human-looking Terminators (no spoilers here; that part was in the trailer) was a condemned murderer in his "first" life. I'm sure the writer or director indtended this to be a motivational device for the character, one that would add a touching, bittersweet humanity to his future-machiney self, but the effort was unnecessary. This was not a movie about motivation and nuance. This was a movie about blowing up giant, scary robots.

If someone buying a ticket for Terminator Salvation is expecting anything more than scary robots and big explosions, well, shame on him. We shouldn't let any film's mega-hype – least of all a sequel's – keep us from considering what its intended goal is. And what is Terminator Salvation trying to be if not the final chapter (okay, no proof if it's actually the final one) in a series of decidedly summer blockbusters? It seems logical to expect more of what people love from the Terminator movies, updated to match modern expectations and for what it's worth, Terminator Salvation does that very well. The film, like its predecessors. Tons of action, a bit of schlock, but with enough excitement and tension to balance things out.

As for the modern expections bit, I think it's safe to say that digital animation and motion graphics has come a VERY long way since 1984 or 1991…hell, even since 2003, when T3 was released! The art in this film reflects that in spades, and masterfully combines a gritty, deserted post-apocolypse with impossibly modern machinery, every item as perfectly rendered as if it had really been captured with the camera.

Of course, action, suspense, and motion graphics alone do not a great movie make. They make a fine movie, as in "just fine," and in this case, a fun one. Call me a pushover, but I'm not looking for more from this Terminator or any other.

Coming Soon...

Hi, blog! In just over 24 hours, I'm going to be the proud user of the 3.0 software for iPhone. Why is this important to Cineplexus (and PopSent)? Well, it's going to make posting from my phone a lot easier. I like to review and revise my posts, which are typically kind of long, before publishing. I've also been burned 2 or 20 times by composing these long posts online or in a somewhat hazardous environment like the TypePad iPhone app (sorry TypePad!). The new software will allow me to write my posts in the relative safety of Notes and then port that writing over to the TypePad app through the mysterious magic of...COPY/PASTE!!!

I can't wait to share my thoughts on Terminator Salvation, the Hangover, and maybe even the midnight screening of Labyrinth or the double DVD feature of Desperado/From Dusk Till Dawn I took in last week. But I will wait. Until Wednesday.

Then it's on.

2 Movies About…Making Bank: The "Summer's" First 2 Blockbusters

X-Men Origins: Wolverine ★★½

Star Trek ★★★★½

In the movie industry, as in so much of retail-based society, seasons start a little early. Christmas season starts at Halloween, Oscar season starts in the Fall, and Summer, the season of the Blockbuster, starts in early May. Summer season 2009 is off to a rollicking start with two hugely anticipated films, each with a very long franchise history to back it up and bring it fans. Wolverine and Star Trek are both examples of mega-budget, sci-fi epics that movie fans love, even those who don't care much about the source material, and they both have already made major bank, thanks in large part to months and months of hype. The films have this in common, and little else. 

Actually, for me, there were some other similarities. I saw both films on the day they opened, at the same theater, where in both cases I had to show the ticket I just paid $10.50 for to a diffident but unyielding usher before entering the theater itself, despite the fact that tickets were already torn on an entirely different floor. Oh, summer blockbusters. We get so excited for you, only to be put through hell for the opportunity to be disappointed by you. At least, this was the case with Wolverine. 

The X-Men franchise has been quite successful at the box office over the years, but scripts and plot development have seen their ups and downs. Wolverine has all the flash and careful art design of previous films, but in terms of editing and storyline, we can mark it in the "downs" column. Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time in the history of Cineplexus, I'd like to issue a SPOILER ALERT.

Now, perhaps you already know that Wolverine (Hugh Jackman, of course) and his ilk (i.e., mutants) are practically immortal. This is made crystal clear to us in an opening montage that finds James Logan (Wolverine-to-be) and his half-brother (the future Sabertooth, played by Liev Schreiber) fight in pretty much every American War ever (nevermind that they're Canadian). But after some funny business in Vietnam, some fun with other mutants (a hit-or-miss bunch that includes some characters that will be familiar to comic book fans, but not to anyone else), and starting a new life as a lumberjack, a man named Stryker offers to make Logan "indestructible."  X2 already introduced Stryker to us as a military madman, and as Wolverine's creator. 

Indestructible. It's not an equicovating kind of word. What's more, the man who uttered it, Stryker, has devoted his life to the study of mutants (and how to take advantage of them). So why, Gavin Hood, why, David Benioff and Skip Woods, why, Nicolas DeToth and Megan Gill, is the entire second half of the movie about Stryker trying to destroy Wolverine? Moments after the newly-minted adamantium-infused Wolverine esapes from the laboratory of his creation, Stryker utters the following words to his #2 man: "Blow his brains out." You JUST coated his skull in unbreakable metal, jackass! Sure, a military higher-up points this out a bit later in the film, but it's too little, too late at that point. No matter how many cool fights, awesome mutants, or fabulous special effects can make up for such a mind-boggling backwards plot "twist." 

I'm not saying I didn't enjoy the film. I'm just saying that I spent several minutues of it yelling at the screen from the audience. Literally. No one heard me. It was loud in there. In a way, I have to thank X-Men Origins: Wolverine for giving me some perspective with which to critique the following week's big blockbuster, Star Trek.

Now, I'm no Star Trek lover; in fact, in my younger years I was one of those Star Wars nerds who's so devoted a fan that she actually stands against the very idea of Star Trek. In college, however, I became close friends with Mary, who I credit with getting me excited about things like comic books and superheroes…and with bestowing upon me a working knowledge of Star Trek: The Next Generation. That said, one hardly needs more than a tenuous grasp on 20th century pop-culture to follow along with this film. After all, it's an origins story – OMG, another similarity to Wolverine! How did I miss that one? – and we're carefully, if quickly, introduced to all the heroes from the original Star Trek throughout the film. While they aren't all fresh out of Starfleet, they are all new to the Enterprise, rocketed into key roles by happenstance and quick thinking, and there's something truly exciting about that.

Come to think of it, what's not exciting about the new Star Trek? I expected some thrilling fight scenes and fast-paced chases. I expected crazy effects and fancy explosions. Check, check, check. super-check. For many, that kind of flash will be enough to brand Star Trek a successful endeavor. But how was I to imagine, based on the fast-paced, hype-tastic trailer pumped through the Web and on to television for the past year, that this film would actually have a carefully developed, extremely complex story? The folks behind Star Trek might have devoted as much care to character development as they did to their Enterprise sets and interstellar motion graphics. Furthermore, they managed to totally rewrite the future of the Star Trek universe; one friend of mine was appalled by this fact, but only one. Personally, I think it's a move of pure brilliance, one that could help this film become a sci-fi classic. And who could forget how super-hot all the main characters are? I, for one, can't stop thinking about it.

Both films obviously spent tons of time and money on development and details, but one of them just gave up when it came time for the script and the editing.  Not so fast, Hollywood; therein lies the difference between a frustrating Pre-Summer Blockbuster and an excellent one. Giving a crap about making your movie good, instead of just about your movie making money.

AS SEEN ON DVD: 2 Movies about loser duos ★★★

Role Models and Pineapple Express, both from 2008, both 3 Stars, both available in "Unrated" DVD editions. 

In the life of a film critic, there occasionally arises a kind of inner conflict between the entertainment lover and the film snob within. Sometimes a film is so entertaining that the snob approves; sometimes a film is so unpleasant that both sides disagree. But occasionally, for healthy, well-rounded critics LIKE MYSELF, a movie comes around that is really enjoyable without actually reaching the filmic level of "good."

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you two such movies.

These pictures, Role Models and Pineapple Express bear nothing in common other than the trait just mentioned and the one I brought up in the title of this post. They're both about pairs of total douchebags who are sort of friends as the films start and best friends when they end. How two movies with such a core value in common could be so vastly different is, I suppose, a testament to the power of human storytelling.

One difference between the two is what they appeared to be aiming for. The former was your traditional, hard-cracking buddy comedy, gunning for laughs and sometimes winning them. The latter film aimed for nothing higher than the designation of "stoner comedy," and, á la Cheech and Chong, threw in some raucous action, blood, and gunfights. It aimed low, and it hit the mark. But where Role Models seemed to be trying too hard to make us laugh with old antics like crude sex jokes, naked body parts, and kids saying "boobies," Pineapple Express suffered a bit from its own laziness. Perhaps that could be considered a virtue for a movie about potheads, but I couldn't help but imagine entire sections of the script reading "The two run around screaming. Continue until everyone has forgotten why they are doing so, which is, in fact, for no reason at all." 

Then we have the characters. I waxed poetic in a recent post about how lovable Paul Rudd makes every character, but even I had trouble liking Danny, the total jerk he plays for the first half of Role Models. Down on his luck and fed up with the world, this guy actually had me wishing that Seann William Scott had more lines. And that's saying something. Luckily, things picked up when the kids were introduced. The true stars of the film, Christopher Mintz-Plasse (the infamous "McLovin" from Superbad) and Bobb'e J. Thompson (see him slay as Tracy, Jr. on 30 Rock) make their characters so fantastically comical that it only emphasizes what jerks their older counterparts are playing.

On the flip side of character issues, we have team Rogan-Franco smoking their way through Pineapple Express. While Seth Rogan's character, Dale, is definitely a loser, it's at least possible to relate to him – he's not a total asshole, he just lacks ambition. Then there's James Franco, who conjures up one of the most amazing stoner-pot dealers cinema has ever seen in Seth, who spends the entire movie in his pajamas. Here is a character that couldn't be more of a loser, and yet he's all the more likable for his occasionally-enlightened confusion. These aren't just any two stoners; they're made unique by their quirks and some spirited acting. Yet again, Pineapple Express manages to meet and exceed its clearly low goals.

So, if one film aimed high and faltered, while the other aimed low and succeeded, doesn't it follow that the two should even out? And so we have two enjoyably average comedies. God Bless America.

Earth ★★★1/2

Happy Earth Day, everyone. I consider myself part of the whole "Earth Day is Everyday" crowd, but I think it's great to really focus in our planet every April, especially now when we have so much work to do. But, hey, we're not here to get political; we're here to talk about Earth, DisneyNature's first big release, which is in theaters today.

Earth, which was released in 2007 in the UK, albeit in a slightly different form, and with a different narrator, is actually made up of footage culled from the groundbreaking hours-long special Planet Earth, which aired in 2006 on the BBC and in 2007 on the Discovery Channel. The British voice of Patrick Stewart was replaced with a slightly lower and more American one, that of James Earl Jones. The film, like the miniseries, has been distributed in other nations with other narrators as well.

If Earth's one goal was to portray a vast array of wildlife as beautiful and elemental, it succeeds. This is not surprising when you consider the astonishing and moving source material. But the film's big failing lies in its desperate aversion to anything that might seem political. Despite frequent mentions of the planet's changing climate, and how it is causing glaciers and rqunforests to shrink while deserts grow ever larger, Mr. Jones' booming voice is never heard naming humans, pollution, or dirty energy as the cause. One stray mention of mankind, injected into the middle, is the movie's most painfully didactic line: "This is the circle of life, that most of us in out urban lives have lost touch with."  

Spare me. If the film's editors truly wanted to keep things so tame, why keep bringing up the subject, only to drop it immediately? Decisions like these made the voice over, silken-toned though it was, seem heavy-handed. The gorgeous imagery speaks for itself; theres no need to be preachy.

Speaking of the gorgeous imagery...wow, is it ever gorgeous. While I didn't love every minute of Earth, there are parts of it I could watch over and over again for their stirring, often frightening beauty and rarity. The time-lapse video of blooming flowers is astonishing, the slo-mo footage of a great white shark is horrifying, and I found myself wishing the footage of birds of paradise would go on forever. Chances are, parts of the movie will strike every viewer that way. As such, the film creates an up-and-down montage of animal life which proves partly great, but only that. In fairness to the film, it seems to be aimed mostly at children and the impatient; anyone with an attention span would likely do better to stick with the original Planet Earth in all its 530 minutes of glory.

I Love You, Man ★★★★

Remember the sweet, studious step-brother from Clueless? That was Paul Rudd. The hunky mega-jerk from Wet Hot American Summer? Also Paul Rudd. The ultra-cool but slightly disfunctional brother-in-law from Knocked Up? You get my drift. Paul Rudd has been around, shining a little light on his films from whatever role he's playing. Paul Rudd forces you love him. He has some kind of magic.

The many faces of Paul Rudd

I Love You, Man finds Rudd in a rare position for the actor: leading man. While billed as a kind of buddy-comedy (it has, alas, brought the term "bromance" into fairly regular use), the film really stars Rudd in the primary position as Peter Klaven, a good-natured but dorky real-estate agent and serial-monogamist who has never really had any close, male friends.

Enter Jason Segal. Remember the talk goofy guy from Freaks and Geeks? Okay, okay, I'll spare you the reminiscences of Segal's past roles, but once again, here is someone whose mere presence on screen can produce a smile. I can't think of a pair of actors I'd rather see in a light-hearted comedy. Even if it means I have to say "bromance."

I think it's fair to say that this film is part of the lovable-loser comedy revolution that Judd Apatow seems to have revived several years ago with 40-Year-Old Virgin. Compared to other films of that ilk – Superbad, Knocked Up, Forgetting Sarah Marshall – the majority of I Love You's dialogue and subject matter feels a little tame, but it has so much more comedic bang than your average romantic comedy that it seems unfair to group it with that latter genre. Sure, there's no full-frontal nudity, but this is hardly Fool's Gold. The film also greatly benefits from a stellar supporting ensemble; in addition to Rashida Jones (The Office) as Peter's fiancee, the film casts Jaime Pressly (My Name is Earl) and Jon Favreau as a hot-tempered couple, and Jane Curtin, J.K. Simmons, and Andy Samberg as the Klaven family. They even have Daily Show great Larry Wilmore in a cameo with only one line, and the list goes on. 

I Love You, Man is a funny, happy movie that revels in its own weirdness, just as its stars love to revel in theirs. It may not be the movie of the year, but there's no doubt you'll have fun watching.