Tag Archives: spoiler

‘Trainwreck’ a Dramedy That’s Right On Track

Leave a reply

Trainwreck_posterI found it funny that Paul Rudd and Judd Apatow used to make movies together all the time, and now each of them had their own movie come out in the same weekend. Anyone else chuckle? Nope, just me? Alright, well…onto the review.

“Trainwreck” is the latest film from director Judd Apatow, and is the first film he directed that isn’t written by him. Stepping in the writer’s shoes is Amy Schumer, who also stars. When a commitment-phobic working woman (Schumer) meets a sports doctor (Bill Hader), she begins to wonder if she has been living her life wrong. I know that plot sounds like near every rom-com ever, but as you’ll find out (by reading!), the film overcomes that. OK, moving on.

I’m a middling fan of Judd Apatow’s work. I enjoy all of his films about the same, but while they all often scratch greatness, they fail to reach their full potential. “Trainwreck” isn’t going to be a film I remember and reference for years to come, however it may be Apatow’s best film to date.

As I said above, the story of the film is pretty cliché; everything you think is going to happen will happen. So for the movie to succeed, it needed to be able to provide something extra, and “Trainwreck” does just that by having relatable moments, self-deprecation and a surprising amount of dramatic heft.

Amy Schumer, who has been on fire as of late and is being touted as a trailblazer for women in comedy, is very good in her first starring film role. She essentially is playing the version of herself that she jokes about in her standup, being the heavy drinker who goes home with any guy from the bar that she wants. She does a surprisingly tender work in some of the film’s more dramatic scenes, too, and until she becomes Melissa McCarthy and beats us over the head with her presence, I welcome more Amy Schumer in my life.

Doing fine work in supporting roles are Bill Hader (who I always forget how charming his is) and LeBron James, who plays a fictionalized version of himself. Hader does his normal deadpan nice guy routine, and LeBron makes a lot of references to Cleveland and the NBA, which I’m sure were entered specifically for the guys who are dragged to this by their girlfriends and wives (not to say the movie as a whole isn’t full of jokes for everyone).

The biggest problems with the film are the issues found in all Apatow films, in that there are plenty of scenes that exist for the sake of one joke, and if cut wouldn’t change the plot at all. And even though the runtime is two hours, just like with every one of his films you walk out feeling like the film lasted much longer than it actually did. The climax somewhat drags before suddenly ending, but it doesn’t derail the film (ha! “Derailed”! I didn’t even try and make that train wreck reference! I’m hilarious even when I don’t even mean to be…).

I enjoyed a lot about “Trainwreck,” and even if the plot is cliché and the narrative a bit rough around the edges, those flaws are mostly redeemed by charming actors and a smart script. How much fun you get out of the film really depends on how many raunchy jokes you can handle, but seeing as this is Apatow’s fifth directorial effort, you should know what to expect by now.

Critics Rating: 8/10

Variety

Variety

There Are 100 Things Wrong with ’50 Shades of Grey’

Leave a reply

Fifty-Gray-posterWell…let’s get this thing over with, shall we?

“Fifty Shades of Grey” is based off the best-selling novel of the same name by E. L. James (maybe you’ve heard of it?). The film stars Dakota Johnson as Anastasia Steele, a recent college grad who falls for a young billionaire named Christian Grey, played by Jamie Dornan, who has very specific tastes, to keep things PG. Sam Taylor-Johnson directs.

I really had no idea what to expect as I walked into this film. I knew that the novel was controversial (I also heard it was one of the worst books ever written), but that’s about it. Even the trailers of the film didn’t do much to suggest a plot summary. Walking out I now know why the trailers didn’t show much: it’s because this movie isn’t about anything and is just downright awful.

I could probably write a thesis paper on what is wrong with this movie, but let’s start with the two leads, Johnson and Dornan. By themselves they’re both serviceable, but together they have almost an awkward amount of lacking chemistry, and are given some of the worst dialogue in the history of cinema to recite.

Seriously, within the first 10 minutes of the film I was cringing at some of the writing, and my friend even leaned over to me and said that the dialogue was awful. I can’t even repeat most of the lines because they’re hilariously intentionally vulgar, but I’ll give you an example of a scene that had me shaking my head.

After having met Christian Grey on two occasions combining for probably about 25 minutes of together time, Anastasia Steele drunk-calls him while out celebrating having just finished college. He gets all upset and mad at her, a 25-year-old woman, for being at a bar, and then somehow (never explained how) he finds her and brings her home. And then the next morning she’s all impressed and they begin their relationship. Like, no. I know Grey is supposed to be a control freak, but no one is that uptight about people they just met.

The pacing in this movie is also an atrocity; I saw people checking their phones every 10 minutes. Every scene consists of essentially the same arc. Christian and Anastasia do their “Fifty Shades of Grey” thing, Anastasia wants Christian to open up to her, he yells and says he can’t, she cries, rinse, repeat. It’s so mundane and repetitive that it makes this two hour runtime feel like an eternity.

It’s also worth noting that there are three scene transitions that burned my eyes. It goes from inside a dark room at night to a bright Seattle skyline instantly, and everyone in the audience exclaimed at once.

Let’s get to the positives. …I mean… director Sam Taylor-Johnson used to be an artist, so the film looks nice. Some of the scenery and tonal colors work well together…that’s actually all I can think of.

I was bored out of my skull watching “Fifty Shades of Grey”, and it isn’t even like the graphic and racy parts live up to the hype (I’ve seen way worse in movies). The whole movie is about Christian Grey tying up and torturing Anastasia, yet I felt like the only one trapped and abused. This isn’t a “so-bad-it’s-good” movie. This is a “so-awful-I-actually-feel-dumber” movie. The actors have no chemistry, the writing is cringe-worthy and the plot is pointless.

There’s a part in the film when Christian is talking about a disclosure contract he makes Anastasia sign, and he says, “forget the contract, it’s getting redundant”. I just rolled my eyes and thought, “this movie is getting redundant…”

Critics Rating: 2/10

fifty-shades-of-grey-berlin-film-festival

Variety

‘Gone Girl’ Powerfully Acted, Capably Executed Thriller

Leave a reply

Gone_Girl_Poster                Do you smell that? It’s the smell of Oscar Season returning to grace us with its presence, and it is brought upon by director David Fincher’s newest film, “Gone Girl”.

On the morning of his fifth wedding anniversary, Nick (Ben Affleck) arrives home to find his house in shambles and his wife (Rosamund Pike) missing. When the media begins to put the spotlight on him, the police and American public start to wonder if Nick is an innocent victim, or a killer? Neil Patrick Harris and Tyler Perry also star.

It is hard to say why “Gone Girl” is a good film without spoiling anything. In fact it is hard to really talk at all about this film without giving away one of its many twists. But it’s my job, so here we go.

The always reliable David Fincher, who directed films ranging cult classics “Fight Club” and “Se7en” to the fantastic “Social Network” and American version of “Girl With the Dragon Tattoo”, directs “Gone Girl” in such a stepped-back, impartial way that at times you forget you are watching a movie. It is almost like you are simply watching events unfold, and you do not know who to trust.

Gillian Flynn, who wrote the novel on which the film is based, as well as penned the screenplay for the movie, has such a way with words that she is able to work in moments of dark humor that just feel natural. Sometimes in movies characters are deadly serious all the time and it almost takes you out of the film, but never with “Gone Girl”. It makes sure to have a little strategically placed bits of humor or lightheartedness just when a moment may be getting too serious or stale.

If you hear anything about the film, it will likely be one of two things: Rosamund Pike’s performance, or the twists. This film has more twists than a pastry from Cinnabon. At first they are small things, like the police finding a clue, but as the film goes on, they get more and more elaborate and hit harder and harder, until the ultimate punch to the stomach in the film’s final moments.

As for Pike, there is so much that could be said but I’ll keep it brief. As she narrates the film via her diary passages and flashbacks, we see at first the fairytale marriage that she and Affleck have, but then how they begin to become more and more distant, until finally she begins to fear her own husband. It is a multi-layered performance that is sure to earn her award talk.

Now as much as the film wants to front itself as a brilliant Oscar contender, there are some glaring flaws. The first act of the film, when police are collecting initial clues and samples and Affleck is doing interviews, can drag a little, as we aren’t really learning anything new or earth shattering, but still are sitting through it all. It is a little like watching a behind-the-scenes, paperwork-only edition of “Law and Order”, just with more awkward pacing. The film may also leave some viewers, including myself, craving a better delivery of the climax.

“Gone Girl” is a perfectly cast, capably directed film that just suffers from some narrative and pacing issues, as well as a possible weak finale. That being said, it is an engrossing, dark and intelligent, and may leave your brain hurting when the credits start to roll. Is “Gone Girl” as entertaining or memorable as it wants to be? No. But that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t come close.

Critics Rating: 7/10

‘Guardians of the Galaxy’ Zany, Brilliant Fun

Leave a reply

GOTG-posterImagine “The Avengers” and “Star Wars” had a child and it listened to nothing but music from the 1970’s and 80’s. That’s pretty much what “Guardians of the Galaxy” is, and it’s about as awesome as you imagined when you read that description.

Directed and written by James Gunn, “Guardians of the Galaxy” is yet another film set in the Marvel Universe. It stars Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Vin Diesel and Bradley Cooper as the Guardians, a group of rag-tag intergalactic criminals who set out to save the world from a radical tyrant.

The first time I saw the trailer for “Guardians”, I thought it was a joke; like a parody skit from a late night show. It was so sarcastic and over-the-top and self-referential that it couldn’t be an actual film. But it was, and the final product is as entertaining as that first trailer implied it to be.

Everything about “Guardians of the Galaxy” has been done before, yet the film manages to be fresh and new all at the same time. The heroes in the film, despite ranging from a walking tree to a talking raccoon, are more relatable than the average superhero. They curse, get drunk, and debate not saving people because it would endanger their own life. You know, people stuff.

Gunn, who directed “Super”, a film where a regular guy becomes a vigilante hero, has written a script that doesn’t forget about its hero’s humanity, as well as their humor, and it is what makes “Guardians” such a fun ride. Honestly, this is one of the funniest films of the year. All the Marvel movies have their share of wit and humor, especially “Iron Man”, but “Guardians” is different. It’s just plain zany. Characters will say things that on paper shouldn’t work, or may seem awkward in a superhero film, but on screen it turns to gold (“I have a plan! I have…I don’t know, 12% of a plan!”).

The only true flaw in “Guardians of the Galaxy” is the use of filler scenes. While I was never bored, and at times was having the most fun I had had at a cinema all year, there are a few scenes that just felt unnecessary, and created some pacing issues. If the film had been an hour 45, instead of pushing it to the two hour mark, I think it would have been perfect. But hey, I’m not complaining I got an additional 15 minutes of seeing a raccoon shooting a machine gun.

The villain was also very Darth Maul-ish in that he looks cool, but in actuality has a cliché plot and is just a puppet for the main villain of the series. But that’s neither here nor there.

“Guardians of the Galaxy” is like everything you’ve seen before in superhero and science-fiction films, yet unlike anything you’ve ever seen. It’s stupid, cliché, and over-the-top all while being brilliant, original and relatable. I honestly had a blast with this film and feel no guilt saying that it is just as good, and slightly funnier, than “The Avengers”. In a month of the year that normally has studios dumping out trash, “Guardians of the Galaxy” is anything but.

Critics Rating: 8/10

‘A Million Ways to Die’ Funny but Messy

Leave a reply

A_Million_Ways_to_Die_in_the_West_posterIt’s becoming a larger and larger problem in Hollywood: trailers, particularly comedies, give too much away about a film, and when it comes time to watch it there is little surprise left. That is one of the flaws about “A Million Ways to Die in the West”, the second live-action film directed by Family Guy creator Seth MacFarlane. The film features an ensemble cast, including Charlize Theron, Amanda Seyfried, Neil Patrick Harris and Liam Neeson.

The trailer paints an entirely different plot than what the movie is actually about, and I’m finding it somewhat difficult to give a plot synopsis, but really all you have to know is the film is two hours of Seth MacFarlane, a sheep farmer, learning to fire a gun from Theron and complaining about how the Wild West is a terrible place.

I’ll make one thing clear: the film is funny. There were a couple times I think I missed a joke because I was laughing at something that was just said. And there is no doubting MacFarlane’s ability as a writer; he once again has some very clever and very funny envelope-pushing jokes that you laugh at, even when you know you shouldn’t be laughing. There are also a half-dozen cameos which are chuckle-worthy, and there is one that is brilliant…if you haven’t seen the trailer. Unfortunately for me, I did see the trailer and the surprise was ruined, which actually made me upset. I don’t know why they needed to ruin such a great thing, and they didn’t even start showing the cameo in the trailers until two weeks ago. Trailers, man…

The largest problem with “A Million Ways” is that, much like Peter Jackson or Quentin Tarantino, MacFarlane the director keeps most things he shoots in the final cut of the film. The running time of this movie clocks in at 116 minutes, and there are probably three faux endings before it finally abruptly ends. There really is no excuse for such a long running time with a comedy.

Much of the movie feels like an inside joke and rightfully so; the entire concept started as joke among MacFarlane and the film’s other writers Alec Sulkin and Wellesley Wild that the Old West must have been a deadly place to live. Much of the film is so awkwardly stitched together and there are so many random subplots that it just feels like a bunch of random scenes from a Family Guy episode just played back to back. They just threw a lot of jokes against the wall in hopes something would stick.

Each of the cast members brings something to the table (except Amanda Seyfried, who is in here simply to put one more big name on the cast list) and MacFarlane has his funny moments, but he just seems out of place as a live-action leading man. Some of his deliveries are awkward, and other times he just can’t hold up the scene with Theron or NPH (that’s what we cool kids call Neil Patrick Harris). I also have to imagine that Liam Neeson was cast as an American cowboy simply because Family Guy once made a joke that “nothing would sound more out-of-place than Liam Neeson trying to play an American cowboy”.

“A Million Ways to Die in the West” is messy and overlong for sure, but it is also funny. It isn’t on the same level as “This Is the End”, or even “Ted”, but it is still a fun time at the movies. I think MacFarlane should stick to making movies set in present day because he thrives off of pop culture references and lampooning American culture; not making a joke about tumble weeds.

Critics Rating: 6/10

‘Godzilla’ Roaring Good Fun

Godzilla_(2014)_posterRemember how excited (and relieved) you were when “Batman Begins” was released in 2005 because it helped to give you closure after the atrocity that was “Batman and Robin”? Well we now have “Godzilla”, which should put to rest the pain that the 1998 film of the same name left more than a decade ago.

Starring Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Bryan Cranston and Elizabeth Olsen, this reboot is yet another American take on the classic Japanese monster. Gareth Edwards, who directed the 2010 indie film “Monsters”, directs his first Hollywood picture here.

The 1998 Godzilla film wasn’t just bad; it has become a pop culture punchline. Directed by Roland Emmerich, the man known for disaster films, the film itself was a disaster.  It was stupid, loud and dumb, but above all else it did not do the title character justice. Luckily almost all is forgiven because the 2014 adaption had nowhere to go but up.

The 2014 Godzilla design itself is a return to form, and a very cool one at that. It looks more like a reptilian dinosaur, not whatever the heck the other thing was back in 1998. I don’t want to go into too much detail (I personally avoided trailers before seeing the film), but I think fans of the series and the creature will not be disappointed. They brought back the iconic Godzilla roar, and when he emerges from the ocean or through a cloud of smoke you can’t help but have shiver shoot down your spine.

Strangely enough, however, for a movie entitled “Godzilla”, the film focuses more on the human characters than Godzilla himself. Its a lot like how in “The Walking Dead” it isn’t about the zombies–sorry, walkers, its about the humans living in a world that happens to have walkers in it. If a monster movie is going to take that route then you have to be sure that you make the audience care about your characters and they are multi-dimensional. And does “Godzilla” do a good job with this? Well, yes and no.

Aaron Taylor-Johnson, known for kicking ass in “Kick-Ass” (see what I did there? Yah, you get me), plays a soldier who is trying to get back to his family in San Francisco, but gets caught up in the military’s plan to destroy Godzilla. You care about Johnson as a person but you only see him with his family for one 10 minute scene, so it is hard to get an emotional attachment to them. It’s a lot like Brad Pitt in “World War Z”; you are told that he’s a family man and if he fails his mission it will be the end of the world, but in the end you only want him to succeed because he’s the main character.

The direction and cinematography of the film are both really solid, particularly when buildings are getting destroyed by Godzilla, and some of the shots that show one of the main characters locking eyes with the creature are very effective. The film’s biggest problem is pacing, which derives from an excess of subplots. The Army seems to have a few different plans to save the world but never feel obligated to share them with the audience, and then you have Bryan Cranston being a conspiracy nut and Taylor’s wife running around in the rain (seriously, about 80 percent of her screen time is running). If they had shrunk everything down and compacted it, I feel this would have been a much tighter and more enjoyable film.

“Godzilla” isn’t perfect, but it is better in every single aspect than the 1998 film, and is in fact everything I wanted “Pacific Rim” to be. The direction is creative, the acting is solid and the effects and designs are top notch. It may not be the king of the summer movie season, but “Godzilla” does get it off to a roaring good start.

Critics Rating: 7/10

‘Inside Llewyn Davis’ is Slow and Gloomy

Leave a reply

Inside_Llewyn_Davis_Poster

There are some people in the movie industry whose films you just can never seem to like. There people like Adam Sandler who are understandably disliked because they are lazy and consistently put out subpar products. However for me, the person, or persons, whose films I can never seem to enjoy, no matter how hard I may try, are Joel and Ethan Coen. And their new film, “Inside Llewyn Davis” does not help change my opinion very much.

The film follows folk singer Llewyn Davis (Oscar Issac) and the struggles he faces as he tries to make it in 1961 New York City. Carrey Mulligan and Justin Timberlake also star. The Coens wrote the script and direct.

The movie is just about a lot of depressed, angry and/or confused people struggling to make it in the world. There is no real joy to be found, and by the end of the movie Llewyn is no better off than he was at the beginning of the film. If you are going to make a movie that follows one main character, some sort of development, characterization or at the very least resolution is expected. But instead the Coens just travel from scene to scene in an effort to include as many of their trademark abstract characters as they can.

That is one of the reasons I don’t like the Coens. With the exception of “No Country for Old Men”, every one of their movies is about characters who have these quirky or dark personalities, a lot of which are unlike any person you would find in the real world. I just have never been a fan of their awkward and dry humor.

Not everything about the movie is negative, however. The main actor, Oscar Issac, is great. He is the only reason the film is watchable, to be honest. We aren’t sure if we should be rooting for Llewyn or not, because for as sympathetic as we feel for him, we also come to realize he may have dug his hole for himself, but Issac has a sense of charisma that is just too much to overlook.

But my favorite part of the film is John Goodman. In his ten minutes of screen time he has some very funny lines of dialogue and when he showed up I thought maybe the movie would get better but nope. They just abandon him and move on with the film; literally.

The music in the movie is very good; I have to give them that credit. I’m not the biggest folk song fan in the world but my foot started tapping whenever a character would pick up a guitar and start to play. All but one of the songs was recorded and sung live (Les Mis style) and it showed; it didn’t feel forced or fake.

I really cannot recommend “Inside Llewyn Davis”. One great performance and some catchy songs were not enough to overcome a dull script and a plot that doesn’t go anywhere. The highlights of Oscar Issac’s performance will be all over the place come Oscar season and you can look up the songs on iTunes or YouTube, so there is really no reason to see the movie.

I wish the Coens had broken their form and made a coherent, enjoyable movie about music, and instead of this depressing and gloomy picture. There is the patented Coen ending that will leave you confused and rethinking the movie, but unlike their other films, you don’t care if you figure out what it all means.

Critics Rating: 5/10