Generic Justice League: How Warner Bros. Limped Across The Finish Line.

The Good: Moments of characterization, The acting is fine, Some of the humor works well
The Bad: Incredibly basic plot, Utterly generic villain, Painfully derivative plot development, Troublesome continuity, Familiar final battle sequence
The Basics: Justice League arrives and it is hard not to feel like it is a missed opportunity on almost every front.


It's tough to sit down to a film that has been built to in an inefficient way when there is such a good example of building a franchise the right way. The DC Comics Cinematic Universe, sadly, lives in the shadow of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. For all of the problems with the Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase 1 (reviewed here!), the franchise was built well over several years. The Marvel Cinematic Universe took a bunch of mediocre super hero films that were focused on (generally) a single character, loosely tied them together and when they were put together in The Avengers (reviewed here!), that movie succeeded largely because the scale was appropriate to the threat. As well, the essential characterization was already done in the foundation films, so The Avengers was able to illustrate just what those heroes could do, as opposed to giving out basic information about who was fighting.

Justice League has no such grace.

Justice League is the DC Comics Cinematic Universe answer to The Avengers and the immediate tragedy of it is that it comes so late to an already-saturated market (doing anything fresh in superhero films is tough these days!), the foundation work was not actually finished, and there were huge issues with the foundation films that go unanswered going into Justice League. Three major characters in Justice League were virtually unexplored going into the film: Aquaman, The Flash, and Cyborg. Cyborg, especially, suffers in Justice League because his backstory is done more or less on the fly and he ends up seeming like a generic super hero who is intended to fill the same functional niche in Justice League as Iron Man did in The Avengers. Indeed, it is hard for comic book and super hero film fans to not wince when Cyborg appears and to show off his evolving abilities, he levitates much like Iron Man.

The failures in the foundation work make Justice League a tougher sell than it ought to be. Wonder Woman (reviewed here!) left the lingering question: If the God Of War was defeated, how the hell do all subsequent wars on Earth actually occur? (Justice League might have been a conceptual smash if the history of the DC Cinematic Universe included a retcon that showed no wars in that universe followed World War I and Earth was left defenseless against the villains in the new chapter.) If the final shot of Batman Vs. Superman: Dawn Of Justice (reviewed here!) insinuated that Superman was still alive or there was still some form of power in his Kryptonian corpse, how did he let the Motherbox problem escalate to this point? [That question, at least, is satisfactorily answered in Justice League.] And if the parademon threat is growing so fast, would this not be the very definition of an "all hands on deck" situation? Where, then, is the Suicide Squad to help out with basic combat/demolition? It seems like they would have been ideal for the Russian front, at the nuclear reactor. And if Bruce Wayne had the vision of Superman being used by the same entities using the parademons, why would someone so smart attempt to resurrect the dead Kryptonian?

So, Justice League begins from a disadvantageous position where the universe of the DC Cinematic Universe is not fleshed out well-enough on screen (comic book fans have a distinct advantage going into the film, obviously) to absolutely invest in the film's threat. The best analogy I have is that it took until the commentary track for Return Of The Jedi (reviewed here!) when it was explicitly stated that the point of much of the dialogue in the final throne room scene was to sell the audience on the idea that Luke Skywalker could actually go over to the Dark Side and join the Emperor. I must have seen Return Of The Jedi thirty-five (or more) times before listening to that commentary track and the moment never once landed where that occurred to me. It was so ineffectively done that the suspension of disbelief did not happen. With Justice League, there is a similar sense of lack of suspension of disbelief to the threat: of course the one character not put into the promotions will show up in the film, of course the team will manage to come together, and there is never a doubt that the invading threat will be repelled. Warner Bros. is building a franchise: of course that reality would not be undone and remade in the first big team-up film.

But, there's Justice League arrived at without all the essential prep work and perhaps the real problem with arriving so late to the marketplace is that the parallels in narrative structure and character beg comparisons to The Avengers. No doubt, someone will soon do a comparative analysis that lines the two films up, side by side, and it would be unsurprising if the rampage in Justice League came about right around the same time in the film as the Hulk smashing through the helecarrier in The Avengers.

So, what is Justice League?

Following the death of Superman, the world has more or less fallen in to chaos. While Wonder Woman deals with street level crimes - terrorists attempting to blow up a bank - Batman is active again in Gotham City, combating a random parademon that arrived in the city. Encountering the alien invader, and having vague information about the Motherboxes on Earth, Bruce Wayne reasons that it is Superman's absence that is drawing the interstellar threats and that it is time to assemble his team. While Arthur Curry rejects Wayne's offer, a Motherbox on Themyscira becomes active. Steppenwolf arrives through a Boom Tube on Themyscira and attempts to wipe out Hippolyta and the Amazons, but the force of numbers causes Steppenwolf to beat a hasty retreat . . . with a Motherbox. Hippolyta lights a warning fire, which informs Diana that the invasion has begun and Diana meets with Bruce Wayne to tell him exactly what they are up against.

While Bruce Wayne easily recruits Barry Allen to his team, Victor Stone (a cyborg altered through a Motherbox and other technology in a scientific accident) reaches out to Diana. When Steppenwolf attacks Atlantis for the Motherbox hidden there, Arthur Curry joins Batman's team. Bruce Wayne believes that the only way to save Earth from Steppenwolf and protect the final Motherbox is to resurrect Superman using the Motherbox Victor Stone brought him. While Diana advises him against it, Wayne and Cyborg agree on the course of action and Barry Allen goes along with them. But when Superman is resurrected, he comes back wrong and triggers Cyborg's technology against Stone's directives. In the ensuing conflict, Steppenwolf is able to get control of the final Motherbox and he takes it to Russia where he begins rewriting reality in order to attempt to make Earth into a primordial wasteland that he can rule.

Within the narrative, Justice League suffers from being That Kind Of Movie. This is a big-budget super hero film and to make a threat worth assembling the biggest DC Universe characters, it requires something incredible. But the name is a misnomer. Justice League is not about justice; there is no higher principle in play in the film. Justice League is entirely preoccupied with survival as all of reality is threatened by Steppenwolf and the power of the Motherboxes. Like its predecessors, Justice League suffers mightily from leaving huge gaps in the narrative for a reasonable sense of continuity: the moment Steppenwolf stole the Motherbox from Themyscira, why didn't Hippolyta reach out to the Atlanteans? There is an allusion that a war occurred between the Amazons and the Atlanteans at least one generation prior to Aquaman's ascendance, but to stop Steppenwolf from getting his hands on the Motherbox in Atlantis, is seems like someone in the know like Hippolyta would have volunteered her forces instead of simply obliquely alerting Diana . . .

The lack of an underlying principle or theme in Justice League becomes painfully clear during the Motherboxes backstory. Justice League manages not to simply copy from The Lord Of The Rings (reviewed here!) with how the backstory is related, but the parallels in the stories are pretty obvious. Sauron, having created the One Ring, plans to cast Middle Earth into darkness, but he is repelled by the combined forces of Elves, Dwarves and Men . . . er, strike that, Steppenwolf brought the Motherboxes to Earth where he planned to rewrite reality, but the combined forces of Themyscirans, Atlantians, Gods, humans and Green Lanterns managed to repel him. The Motherboxes were then hidden, not destroyed, and apparently the governments became idiotic (the moment the Motherbox backstory was related in Justice League, my first thought was "the moment the space program began or Superman started exhibiting his powers, why wasn't one of the Motherboxes taken to the Moon?" and "Why didn't the Green Lantern for Earth get one of the Motherboxes off planet . . . the Corps must have known the three Motherboxes were there after they defeated Steppenwolf?").

So, there's no real thematic strength in Justice League and instead of any rhetorical argument, much of the film comes down to, sigh, yet another fist fight. Steppenwolf is an unfortunately generic villain for Justice League. He is characterized as the Destroyer Of Worlds, so what is his preoccupation with Earth? Earth was the site of his first defeat; what has he been doing since he was repelled the last time? If he's been out destroying worlds without his Motherboxes since he was first defeated, why does he rely upon their power again for his second stab at Earth?! And if he has been out destroying worlds, what the hell happened to the Green Lantern Corps? And if he hasn't been out wreaking havoc in the galaxy for thousands of years since his botched attempt to take Earth, doesn't that just make him the biggest poseur villain in cinematic history? The fact that these questions come up after only a moment's consideration of the adversary illustrates how flimsy his construction is within the movie.

And for a DC Cinematic Universe work, the final battle once again feels familiar. Night and darkness are used in Zack Snyder's films to hide details, which makes the special effects easier to execute, but make for far less complicated or compelling battle sequences. It's a pretty sad world where the attention to fine details is greater in video games than in major blockbuster films.

So, what works in Justice League? The snippets of character for the new protagonists all work. Barry Allen is characterized well and the fact that the defining characteristic for him outside his speed is his insatiable hunger is something that instantly sets him apart from the current television incarnation of the character. In a similar way, Cyborg is characterized intriguingly as a young man who is tormented by his own body and is not at all entirely in control of his powers, abilities, and technology. Aquaman delivers a decent assessment of the team before reducing Diana to a sex object (grumble. And, seriously - and I write this as a lifelong Wonder Woman fan! - Curry starts ogling Diana after leaving Mera under the sea; what does Diana have to offer Aquaman that Mera doesn't?!).

Justice League might not be a slam dunk of a film, but it puts its emphasis on far too many of the wrong things. The moment I enjoyed most was a simple exchange between Bruce Wayne and Diana. Wayne explains that he is getting too old for this kind of fight and he implores Diana to make her super hero alter-ego more available to the fights for which she is needed. It's a quiet moment, but a compelling one.

But, that's not what Justice League is about. It's about getting the team together, resurrecting a guy who can punch harder than the others (shouldn't Cyborg's technology have been able to evaluate Steppenwolf's vulnerability to freezing and given him an ice cannon?!), and making a giant effects-driven fight sequence to save the world from someone who never really had a chance to destroy it. The net result is a fast-paced popcorn movie that lacks resonance once it is over.

For other DC Comics Cinematic Universe works, please check out my reviews of:
Suicide Squad
Green Lantern
Man Of Steel

3.5/10

For other film reviews, please visit my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2017 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

As Bad As One Might Suspect: Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice Belabors Set-Up And Spectacle Over Substance!

The Good: Moments of Henry Cavill's performance, Moments of plot concept for the conspiracy
The Bad: Dull, Preposterous, Overlong, Ridiculous characterization, Terrible writing
The Basics: Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice sucks.


When it comes to blockbuster movies, there are few movies I can think of that disappointed me more when I went back to them than Man Of Steel (reviewed here!). Seeing Man Of Steel on the big screen, early, it was a real thrill . . . but time, distance, and rewatching the movie truly lessened the film for me. So, when I first sat down to Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice, I was very concerned that history would either repeat itself (and I would be too lenient on the film) or I would over-compensate and be overly hard on the movie. The latter was a real concern for me from the moment Gal Godot was cast as Wonder Woman, as I have long advocated for Anne Hathaway for the role (check out that article here!).

After watching Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice, I am finally ready to write a review the way my wife has often ask that I do. My wife hates it when I waste my time writing long, well-conceived, complicated analyses of products and events that are very simply bad. Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice is simple and bad . . . but most of it is not the fault of the performers or even director Zack Snyder. The problems with Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice all start with the writing.

Conceptually, Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice tries to do too much, so it does none of it particularly well. The film is a belabored set-up to the forthcoming Justice League film and the scene that features Diana Prince (Wonder Woman) effectively introducing the other three members of the League (Green Lantern is not included!) stops the movie dead. It would have been better as a post-credits scene than a component of Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice.

Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice starts as a potential reflection on the nature of Superman and his role in the world. After Metropolis was virtually destroyed in Man Of Steel, Superman has become a divisive concept; a messianic figure and a potential threat to humanity for his autonomous, unaccountable, nature. That concept is blended poorly with Bruce Wayne's desire to reign in Superman, as he witnessed the carnage in Metropolis 18 months prior and experiences yet another loss in his life as a result. Rather than staying focused on either concept, Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice becomes mired in a painfully simplistic conspiracy put together by Lex Luthor.

Lex Luthor in Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice is, arguably, the worst interpretation of the character ever and while actor Jesse Eisenberg is taking a lot of flack for it, he deserves remarkably little blame. Lex Luthor in Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice is written as The Joker. Eisenberg plays him as appropriately twitchy and unsettled and I just kept waiting for the movie to take a clever turn what would have made it explicit that Lex Luthor was the Joker (elements like the Polaroid photos of Martha Kent seemed like foreshadowing in that regard). That moment never comes and instead of Lex Luthor being a genius who is actually motivated by the desire to save the world from its dependence on Superman, he is just a non-committed, rich version of The Joker.

Lois Lane and Clark Kent's relationship is portrayed as simplistic and bland. When Doomsday finally pops up, it looks like leftover footage of Cave Trolls from The Lord Of The Rings. And it is hard not to imagine Joss Whedon cringing as Wonder Woman finally makes her big screen debut as a half-rate sidekick who ultimately appears as muscle (virtually nothing of her cerebral nature is present)(Whedon having famously written a pitch or spec. script for Wonder Woman more than a decade ago, only to have it go nowhere).

Despite the spectacle (though most of it is surprisingly dark), simplistic and bland is an apropos description of Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice. When the biggest geek-out factor is recognizing actors (on screen and voices) from Watchmen (reviewed here!) in the film, the movie has serious problems. More could be said, but it would be pointless: bad is bad and Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice is bad.

For other live-action DC superhero works, please check out my reviews of:
Suicide Squad
The Dark Knight Trilogy
Green Lantern
Jonah Hex
Superman Returns
Catwoman
Batman: The Motion Picture Anthology 1989 - 1997
Supergirl
Superman
Wonder Woman

2.5/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2016 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Agonizing In Between Great Lines, Why Stop Now? Just Doesn't Nail It.

The Good: Decent performances, Some good lines
The Bad: Oppressive mood, Predictable character moments, Direction
The Basics: Failing to straddle the line between comedy and drama effectively, Why Stop Now? is more unpleasant to watch than it is entertaining.


I am a fan, in general, of the recent trend in movies and television that blurs the lines between drama and comedy. The rise of the dramedy - dramas with some truly hilarious lines or comedies with some punchy characters or hard-hitting lines - hit the mainstream with the widespread success of The West Wing (reviewed here!) and nothing proves how hard it is to find the right balance between humor and drama like a work that does not do it well. Why Stop Now? certainly falls into that category.

Why Stop Now? is too awkward and painful to watch throughout the bulk of the film to actually appreciate the hilarious outbursts and funny lines when they do come up. The film is hampered by characters who are (once again) supposed to be smart people, but overlook the most obvious, simple, and intelligent solutions to their problems. After alienating the audience thoroughly, the film transitions into an occasionally hilarious, sometimes heartwarming, but still painfully awkward movie that the viewer has to fight to sit through.

Opening with Eli Bloom arriving, almost late, to a piano audition, the film flashes back to the night before. At a local college party, Eli gets so drunk that when he tries to play the piano, he throws up next to it, in front of the young woman he has had a crush on for years, Chloe. Eli then returns home to his mother. This is the day he is putting her in rehab and after dropping his younger sister off at school, they head to C.A.M.P. to enroll Penny. Penny, however, has a problem; she's not high when she gets to rehab and she does not have insurance. So, she is told to come back with dirty urine and under those circumstances, a bed can be made available to her.

In the quest to get his mother drugs, Eli visits her dealer, Sprinkles. Sprinkles is trying to restock his drug business, but his usual translator is no longer with him. Eli steps in as a translator to help negotiate the deal for the drugs that will get his mother into rehab. However, in negotiating for the drugs, he is shoved and cuts his hand badly, which jeopardizes his one chance to get away from his addict mother and get into the music conservatory of his dreams.

Why Stop Now? is seriously hampered by a fundamental problem that none of the characters seem smart enough to figure out. When Penny is told she needs to fail a urine test to get into rehab, Eli becomes obsessed with getting drugs in her system. Penny does not need drugs in her system; she just needs the urine of any drug user she can find. Or to bribe the admitting clerk to mark that she did fail her drug test. Here the direction of the film works vastly against the plot; we are shown Penny taking her drug test and it would have been absolutely simple for her to smuggle in a dirty urine sample. That this solution occurs to none of the characters is one of the earliest, gut-wrenchingly irksome decisions one of the people on screen makes that pulls the viewer out of the film.

The obscure film is headlined by Jesse Eisenberg and Melissa Leo, both of whom are often far more impressive in their performances than in Why Stop Now?. Eisenberg feels like he is playing his version of Mark Zuckerberg from The Social Network (reviewed here!) without a similar level of diction and while sleepwalking through the part. Melissa Leo is convincing as Penny, which I did not fully realize until I started writing this sentence. Yeah, she's good; she's convincing and she sells the wacky, wacked-out role with her whole body, voice and performance. Perhaps the best contrast to her performance is that of Sarah Ramos as Chloe; Ramos is given an understated part and she seems like she tries to get by by delivering her lines and smiling (as opposed to actually embodying a character). To Ramos's defense, it does not seem like Chloe was given a truly substantive role in the film Why Stop Now?.

What makes Why Stop Now? at all watchable (when it is) is the patter between Sprinkles and Black. Tracy Morgan and Isiah Whitlock, Jr. have absolutely amazing comic timing between them with Whitlock nailing many of the best deliveries with his stern, focused, presentation. Morgan is not playing a ridiculous parody of himself and Whitlock is given the space to both deliver great lines and play off Morgan without simple being a comedic straightman. The result is a few moments of true comedic gold.

It is, however, not enough to justifying sitting through Why Stop Now?. The film is just too inconsistent and dark to be enlightening, entertaining, or evoke empathy.

For other works with Stephanie March, please visit my reviews of:
The Invention Of Lying
Mr. And Mrs. Smith

4.5/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2015 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Brazil 2014: Richard Ayoade’s The Double Is Derivative, But Cool!

The Good: Well-acted, Well-directed, Great mood, Effects
The Bad: Plot/progression is entirely familiar
The Basics: Clearly influenced by Brazil as much as by the Dostoevsky novel upon which it is based, The Double is an engaging, creepy drama film worth seeing on the big screen.


The common adage in modern art is that every story has already been told; now we read new works and watch new movies to see how the already-said/already revealed truths and stories can be retold. There is artistry in the fine retelling of familiar works. This year in cinema, the truth that every story may already have been told but that there is artistry and merit in how the works may be retold or reworked through the film The Double. While The Double is based upon a novel by Dostoevsky (which, in truth, I have not read), it owes a huge debt to Brazil (reviewed here!) for its plot, style, and character arc.

Brazil is my favorite film of all time (though it is tied with another Terry Gilliam film now at the top of my lists), so when co-writer and director Richard Ayoade inserted many familiar elements in terms of plot development and character arcs into The Double, they were instantly recognizable to me. The Double is not the first Brazil-esque film to grace theaters in recent years, but it is the smartest and best-made. Unlike Sucker Punch (reviewed here!), which was a stylish, but stupid reimagining of the rebellious death dream that is Brazil, The Double is much more subtle, moody, and masterfully-reinterpreted version of the struggle of an individual to claim their identity. In fact, The Double is so good at what it does that my wife, who is not a fan of surreal movies, gave up on the film even before the appearance of the title character. While my wife loves complex literature and surreal visual art, it seems she has less patience for surreal film that actually makes a lot of sense. The Double is a thinking person’s film with the rational explanations for events one might appreciate as a fan of Brazil blended with the unsettling surrealism of a David Lynch film like Mulholland Drive (reviewed here!).

Simon James is a low-level functionary working for a mysterious company in a basement office in an undefined place and time (there are photocopiers, 1980s-style video games, and dial telephones and exposed ductwork). Simon has been working there for seven years and wants very much to wow his boss with a proposal, but Mr. Papadopoulos will not give him the time of day. Simon lives opposite Hannah, who also works at the same place as Simon (they are, by far, the two youngest workers at the oppressive company), but he is unable to get up the nerve to even talk to her. Instead, Simon collects Hannah’s discarded artwork and watches her through his telescope. The two are brought together briefly when a neighbor living above Hannah’s apartment leaps to his death.

Simon is alarmed when James, his exact physical duplicate, takes a job at the company, immediately earning the praise of Mr. Papadopoulos and the attention of his coworkers (and easy recognition by the same security officers who keep questioning Simon’s place in the building and revoking his credentials). When Simon and James meet one another directly, James offers to help Simon woo Hannah. When the attempt goes south, James replaces Simon and soon in addition to having success with Hannah (and the boss’s daughter, Melanie), James takes Simon’s report and leaps up the corporate ladder. But seeing his duplicate’s success makes Simon infuriated and he takes steps to take what should have been his all along.

The Double is a Jesse Eisenberg vehicle and while it might not have the press push behind it that Rio 2 did, it is the superior Jesse Eisenberg movie to watch this summer. The Double is substantive and deep; it is a layered film that requires a level of contemplation after the movie is over. Eisenberg plays longing exceptionally well as Simon pines after Mia Wasikowska’s Hannah and he does the unsettled thing nicely when Hannah has a monologue about how creepy the man who killed himself was. The thing is, Eisenberg manages to play the nervous, unconfident version of Simon without his trademark geeky loserishness that has made him famous. At the flip side, Eisenberg makes James confident and smart without the arrogance that defines so many of his characters, like his version of Mark Zuckerberg from The Social Network (reviewed here!).

Mia Wasikowska is given little to do as Hannah, save act as the object of Simon and James’s affection, but she manages to be articulate and interesting in the role (limited as it is). The cast is fleshed out with Wallace Shawn (who plays a part virtually identical to that of Mr. Kurtzman, Ian Holm’s role in Brazil) and Shawn gets some great lines.

The look and feel of The Double is surreal, but in a familiar way to those of us who are fans of Terry Gilliam’s works. Even so, Richard Ayoade makes a film that is surreal like a dream which leaves the viewer with much to contemplate, but little to write about without spoiling or interpreting the film for potential viewers. The Double is smart, well-performed, and has characters that are interesting enough to watch, even if much of what they do in the movie has been done before.

For other works with Mia Wasikowska, please check out my reviews of:
Only Lovers Left Alive
Alice In Wonderland
The Kids Are All Right
Amelia
Defiance

8.5/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2014 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Summer Sequel Showdown: Rio 2 Marks The Season’s First Big Weekend Fight!

The Good: Animation is fine, Keeps the tone and characters of the original
The Bad: Unmemorable songs, Formulaic plot, Dull subplots, Lack of compelling new/interesting characters, No wonderful lines.
The Basics: Rio 2 is an unimpressive, though not unpleasant, sequel that continues the story begun in Rio in a thoroughly mediocre and unmemorable way.


Every year, it seems, Summer Blockbuster Season comes earlier and earlier. Summer Blockbuster Season is a series of big studio-released films that are calculated to blow out the box-office for a weekend (or two, for truly ambitious movies) before the next special effects-laden film takes its place in the public’s limited imagination and attention span. Summer Blockbuster Season is characterized by big studio releases, often sequels, that are not necessarily quality films, but are pretty much guaranteed to put cash in the pockets of studios. It’s also a time that is divided up and charted out by the big studios in a calculated effort to win the weekend boxoffice. This cinematic season usually comes after the studios have divided the weekends out without any real sense of competition and with the potential for a sleeper hit. This year, the peaceful film-release season has ended early with an “anybody’s guess” weekend that pits last week’s big sequel, Captain America: The Winter Soldier (reviewed here!) against newcomer sequel Rio 2.

If Rio 2 was a Dreamworks Animation work, instead of 20th Century Fox, the weekend would not be in dispute (the fact that a Madagascar sequel creamed Prometheus, reviewed here, for its opening weekend in the U.S. pretty much cemented the idea that Dreamworks Animation releases will always bring the cash crowds). As it stands, Rio 2 is a mediocre sequel continuing a fairly unmemorable original film. As I recall, I only watched Rio (reviewed here!) because it had Anne Hathaway’s voice talents and after my wife and I had already fallen in love with Angry Birds: Rio. Rio 2 seemed to be released on the hope that younger audiences would be brought out to see the film before too many critics panned the film to death. As it stands, I could easily have lived without seeing the sequel, even with my love of the works of Anne Hathaway and an appreciation of Jesse Eisenberg’s acting talents.

Opening with New Year’s in Rio De Janero, Blue Macaws Jewel and Blu are forced to quit partying when their babysitters keep revealing that they have pawned off their kids to others and left the ineffectual Tiny in charge of monitoring their kids. Meanwhile, their human scientist companions, Tulio and Linda, are two thousand miles away in the Amazon where they discover a blue macaw feather. Surviving rapids, the pair is interviewed on the news where Tulio postulates there could be an entire flock of blue macaws out there that were heretofore unknown. Seeing the television program, Blu, Jewel, the kids and Rafael, head to the Amazon (despite their fear of snakes that can swallow them in one bite!). On their trip, they fly over a carnival, where Nigel has been imprisoned, forced to work as a fortune teller, giving out prizes. Seeing the blue macaw family, Nigel breaks out of the carnival and vows revenge upon Blu and Jewel for the accident that prevents him from flying.

Accompanied by his lovesick salamander, Gabi, and a sloth, Nigel hunts down the blue macaw family on a boat, but is unable to catch them. The Big Boss in the Amazon tasks one of his henchmen to find Tulio and Linda and get them out of the area he is deforesting. Jewel and Blu meet up with a flock of Blue Macaws, which include Jewel’s long-lost father, who is thrilled to see her and to be a grandfather. While Jewel is excited to rediscover her extended family, including an ex-boyfriend, Roberto, Blu finds himself out-of-place in the wild. Hunted by Nigel as humans encroach into the last safe haven of the Blue Macaws, Blu and his family are threatened on all sides.

Rio 2 is not the worst animated sequel of all time, though it certainly is one that is lacking entirely in spark. The film is devoid of clever lines or memorable moments (the audience I was with only laughed out loud in the first five minutes when one of the kids got smacked against a wall with a blueberry pancake). The movie is very easy to watch even for those who have not seen the original. Having only seen Rio once, I only recalled the movie in the most general terms (as the beginning of a relationship between Jewel and Blu, who were tethered together for an Odd Couple-style relationship). So, things like a flashback to reveal Nigel’s motivations for the sequel were actually helpful and make the movie more accessible.

Unfortunately, it does not matter how easy-to-watch Rio 2 is on its own; the film is entirely uninspired. Gone is the adversarial banter that characterized the Blu/Jewel relationship in Rio, which makes sense. But it is replaced by a single catch phrase (“A happy wife is a happy life”) and a predictable conflict that is only resolved through the most generic expression of love as presented in modern cinema. The appearance of Roberto seems to have little consequence within the movie and is only a cheap excuse for Bruno Mars to show off his singing talents. Sadly, for all of Bruno Mars’ talents, there is no song he (or anyone else in the movie) sings that rivals any of the three (now) instantly-recognizable songs from Frozen (reviewed here!). Rio 2 utilizes a more dance-based and hip-hop soundtrack and the original songs are unmemorable and the covers just seem ridiculous in the brightly-colored movie.

Just as the appearance of Robert is an obvious romantic predator to the Jewel/Blu relationship, Rio 2 has a painfully predictable arc for Blu and his father-in-law, Eduardo. Eduardo is the archetype of the father-in-law; stern, loves the grandkids, hates the daughter’s husband, and likes the ex-boyfriend more than the current husband. Eduardo’s arc could have been written by a computer that made an amalgamation of animated family film plots. The fundamental problem on the character front with Rio 2 is that the characters never develop beyond their original premise or archetypes into anything new. Eduardo and Robert’s arcs can be called accurately the moment they first appear on screen.

As for the plot, Rio 2 is packed with plotlines, but none is compelling enough to capture the imagination of the audience. Outside the main plotline of the complications that come from Jewel and Blu visiting the Amazon, there is an entire subplot for Tulio and Linda, Nigel’s revenge subplot, and a series of auditions for the carnival back in Rio that the non-Blue Macaw’s devote time to (which allows a sequence of ridiculous animal performing pop music songs). Blu unwittingly starting a war with neighboring birds over a Brazil nut just muddies an already packed movie.

On the acting front, Rio 2 is unimpressive as well. Jesse Eisenberg, Anne Hathaway, and Jemaine Clement all proved they could do voice acting well in Rio. Like George Lopez, Andy Garcia, Leslie Mann, and Bruno Mars, the primary performers illustrate no new emoting talents with their performances in Rio 2 to make the viewer believe that they are seeing actors doing something other than looking for an easy paycheck. Rio 2 is notably lacking in big emotional moments that might actually stretch the acting talents of those involved. Anne Hathaway, for example, is barely more than a supporting performer in Rio 2 with no memorable moments for her character, Jewel (though the animators did a good job with making Jewel look truly emotional upon being reunited with her father).

In the end, the box office fight for the weekend is almost inconsequential; whether or not Rio 2 can win the weekend race, it is a film virtually impossible to believe that word-of-mouth would be strong or positive enough to give it a second weekend at the top. A dubious sequel to begin with, Rio 2 is a strong-enough argument against making a Rio 3 that anyone needs; if you love Rio, just keep watching the first one. That is a better use of your time than Rio 2.

For works featuring Anne Hathaway, please check out my reviews of:
Anne Hathaway For Wonder Woman!
Rio 2
Les Miserables
The Dark Knight Rises
One Day
Rio
Love And Other Drugs
Family Guy Presents: It's A Trap!
Alice In Wonderland
Valentine's Day
Twelfth Night Soundtrack
Bride Wars
Rachel Getting Married
Passengers
Get Smart
Becoming Jane
The Devil Wears Prada
Havoc
Hoodwinked!
Brokeback Mountain
The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement
Ella Enchanted
Nicholas Nickleby
The Other Side Of Heaven
The Princess Diaries

3/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2014 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Summer Blockbuster Season’s (Potentially) Smartest Film Arrives With Now You See Me!

The Good: Decent acting, Interesting concept, Good pacing
The Bad: Nauseating direction, Falls apart a bit at the end.
The Basics: While Now You See Me does not hinge entirely upon the final reveal/reversal, it is a fairly fresh-feeling heist/illusionist film.


Summer Blockbuster Season – which is my favorite season of the year and the one in which we now find ourselves – is not known for smart movies. Big-budget, special effects-driven, spectacle-over-substance popcorn flicks yes, intelligent, contemplative pieces, no. Summer 2013 is not going to change that. That said, Now You See Me actually manages to put a dent in the usual summer stupidity by creating a piece that is largely satisfying even though it spends an inordinate amount of time trying to dazzle as opposed to developing the characters within the movie.

As a film involving magicians (illusionists) and one that blends with the well-established heist genre, Now You See Me has a seemingly difficult task. It is combining two genres that largely hinge on the power of the reversal, making a clever twist in the end that rewards the viewer with an epiphanic moment that enhances the rest of the film. There are films that do that exceptionally well, like The Usual Suspects (reviewed here!) and given that several years have elapsed since both The Prestige (reviewed here!) and The Illusionist (reviewed here!) graced the screen, Now You See Me had the remarkable potential to shake up that formula and do something smart. And it (almost, mostly) succeeds.

Now You See Me becomes far too preoccupied with explaining itself in literal terms as opposed to either exploring characters or making a grander thematic statement than it does. These two things drag the movie out of extraordinary territory and into the higher average realm.

After being drawn together by invitations to a single location, four magicians are given the plans to an amazing trick that intrigues them all. A year after coming together, in Las Vegas, the magic act called the Four Horsemen is having a meteoric run dazzling audiences, working under their benefactor Arthur Tressler. Four magicians working together on stage to sold-out audiences is unremarkable enough until one night in their act they present a trick that is as criminal as it is dazzling. They seemingly teleport a person to a bank in Paris and they take the contents of the vault and shower the audience with the stolen currency. The Four Horsemen’s trick amuses retired illusionist Thaddeus Bradley, who now makes his living debunking magic acts as part of an Internet program that makes him money. After a second show, in New Orleans, robs Arthur Tressler of hundreds of millions of dollars, Tressler changes his tune. Tressler tries to extort Bradley into assist the FBI and Interpol in exposing the Four Horsemen and getting him justice.

The task of uncovering how the team of Michael Atlas, Henley, Jack, and Merritt Osbourne robbed the bank and then Tressler while they were seen by thousands on stage falls to Dylan Hobbes and Interpol agent Alma Vargas. Hobbes is rational and methodical and he and Vargas follow the clues given to them by Bradley and the Four Horsemen to try do deduce both how and why the Four Horsemen performed their trick. The ticking clock for Hobbes is that the Four Horsemen are promising to create an even bigger trick and Hobbes is tasked with preventing that trick from having severe global financial consequences. So, as he unravels one trick, he tries to extrapolate what is coming next and thwart a team who appears to be trying to make themselves into high-tech, Robin Hood-style thieves!

As an anticapitalist, my hopes with Now You See Me, based on the initial trailers for the film (which, admittedly, captivated me as a good trailer ought to!) was that the movie would focus more on the Robin Hood type element whereby the magicians of the Four Horsemen seemed to be altruistic in their robberies. No such luck. Instead, it is made clear exceptionally early on that the magicians of the Four Horsemen are not so much champions of the people as they are creating plot-centered distractions (and, because they did not retain the money they allegedly stole, the agencies hunting them have less grounds upon which to hold them!). The film is preoccupied with protecting the assets of the rich (and business) as opposed to a cunning scheme to help the downtrodden.

That said, Now You See Me is pretty solidly entertaining. Mark Ruffalo, whose character of Agent Hobbes dominates the screentime of Now You See Me makes for a compelling protagonist. His character’s methodology is solid and as the film goes on he continues to use reason to explain what appears to be supernatural or exceptional events that he is exposed to. Ruffalo is a good choice for Hobbes as he has the ability to present an inner strength that makes him credibly seem like an FBI agent, but he can soften his expressions to create a façade of bewilderment and frustration that the story demands the character have.

Morgan Freeman (Bradley) and Michael Caine (Tressler) continue their streak of playing powerful supporting characters who are given just enough screentime to justify their salary, but not enough to show the viewers anything truly new from their performances. Their parts are more the product of impressive casting than anything approaching great acting. Similarly, Jesse Eisenberg as Michael Atlas is good casting, but not a great performance. Eisenberg has a history so far of playing smart, articulate, confident young men and in Now You See Me he gives us nothing truly new. If you’re looking for a performance different from, for example, his role in The Social Network (reviewed here!), you are liable to be disappointed. His performance is not bad (assuming he is not so arrogant in real life), but it is nothing new or truly different.

The stand-out for Now You See Me is Isla Fisher. Fisher has been relegated to the ditzy protagonist of numerous romantic comedies and “chick flicks” where she has been more eye candy than playing substantial roles. In Now You See Me, Fisher is given a part that is a chance for her to shine, though she hardly has enough screentime to truly explode. Fisher plays Henley, one of the Four Horsemen. She appears on stage in the film as eye candy, a distraction for the audience. However, in several of the scenes where Henley and the Four Horsemen are making their plans, she exhibits an efficiency and almost quiet power that is impressive. There are moments when she fixes on the others with her eyes and one can almost feel the physical force of her glare!

As for the look and feel of Now You See Me, director Louis Leterrier undermines some of the drama by using the camera like a drunken sailor, spinning around and twisting at irksome angles and speeds. With any story of magicians – or heist films – there is some element of spectacle and reversal. Leterrier works too hard with the camera to land it, effectively saying “Look! Be amazed!” as opposed to creating something truly amazing.

For other works with Michael Caine, please check out my reviews of:
The Dark Knight Trilogy
Inception
Children Of Men
Miss Congeniality
The Muppet Christmas Carol

7/10

For other film reviews, please visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing.

© 2013 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

A Number Of Very Funny People Come Together To Make A Quirky Drama With Adventureland

The Good: Moments of character, Moments of humor/concept
The Bad: No superlative performances, Universally unlikable characters.
The Basics: The more I contemplate the dramedy Adventureland, the more I think I did not like this story of pot-smoking, lying, sexually promiscuous and willfully dumb young people.


Every once in a long while, I let myself be swayed by a movie preview and I suddenly recall a preview for a film where I enjoyed the trailer, yet never actually got around to watching the film it was for, and I make an actual effort to take in the film. Tonight, that movie was Adventureland, a quirky drama whose preview made it seem like it would be a comedy. The Jesse Eisenberg/Kristen Stewart vehicle is one of those equally rare movies that falls apart the more I consider it. So, while I originally considered Adventureland about a 6 or 6.5, the more I wrote about it and thought about it, the less I realized I liked it.

It is also worth noting that while I do not judge the film negatively for the way it was sold to mass audiences (it really appears to be a lot funnier in the trailer and it is actually a much more serious film, like Almost Famous - reviewed here! – than it is a comedy), the more I think about the film, the less impressive its components are. In fact, while it initially reminded me of Freaks And Geeks (reviewed here!), it quickly becomes its own thing and it does a pretty unremarkable job at that.

In spring of 1987, after his girlfriend leaves him and his parents cut him off for the funding for the graduation gift they promised him, which would have allowed him to tour Europe with his best friend, James Brennan discovers he is not qualified for work anywhere. Armed with his Comparative Literature degree, he goes to work for the summer at Adventureland, a local amusement park. Relegated to running a game (which he quickly learns are all scams), James loafs his way through his job with the help of weed, beer and Joel. Rescued one day from a knife-wielding patron by Em (Emily), he finds himself instantly attracted to the young woman.

Despite James being a virgin, Em finds she is interested in James as well, though she is having an affair with Mike, Adventureland’s maintenance man. Playing the field in his own limited way with Lisa P., the rides operator all the guys at the park seem to want, James starts developing real feelings for Em. As the end of summer looms, disaster seems to be on the horizon for all of the workers at Adventureland.

Adventureland, for all of its problems, is not without its charms. James gives Em a mix tape of depressing music and has to constantly hide his erections from her (and her family). As well, there are some decent lines, like Em telling her stepmother that the friend her stepmother is talking up to Em once violated the family cat with a pen. The writing, done by director Greg Mottola, has a decent eye for irony – like the story of Em’s father’s relationships – but he fails to make any of the characters truly empathetic in Adventureland.

On the acting front, Adventureland is the product of decent casting more than anything even close to resembling good performances. The peak of the acting actually comes from Kristen Stewart, who is otherwise utterly uninspired in the film. However, during an early scene as she (as Em) drives James, listening in silence to the song on the mix tape he made, she expressed with her body language a vast depth of turmoil and longing and she nails it. The rest of the time, she is stiff or presents nothing viewers did not already see from her as the angsty Bella Swan in New Moon (reviewed here!).

Similarly, Jesse Eisenberg, whose work I usually enjoy, is essentially playing the same character he did in The Squid And The Whale (reviewed here!). He is uncharacteristically stiff as James and he exhibits little real passion on screen in Adventureland. His on-screen chemistry with Kristen Stewart is very hard to gauge as both seem standoffish on their own and that does not change in the scenes they share. Also surprisingly lukewarm is Ryan Reynolds. Usually charismatic, Reynolds phones in his performance as the lothario Mike. Even Kristen Wiig seems to be off her game as the co-manager of Adventureland.

Adventureland is an inconsistent period piece that never commits to being funny or presenting any of its characters in a light that one really wants to root for them. In the end, Adventureland is like the summer job it portrays; you spend your time watching it, but it doesn’t add up to anything of consequence in the grand scheme of things.

For other works that Josh Pais is in, please visit my reviews of:
Gentlemen Broncos
A Beautiful Mind
Rounders
“The Magnificent Ferengi” - Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
“Business As Usual” - Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

5/10

Check out how this movie stacks up against others that I have reviewed by visiting my Movie Review Index Page for a listing of my films based on ratings!

© 2013 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Rio Is Fun, But Not Overly Substantial.

The Good: Decent voice acting, Great animation, Cute, DVD bonus features
The Bad: Utterly predictable plot and character arcs.
The Basics: Rio is a fun animated film that is diverting, but not superlative in any way but the animation.


My wife frequently accuses me of having an unhealthy attachment to actress Anne Hathaway. Actually, she smiles wickedly and says "You loooooove her!" in an obnoxious voice. My argument was weakened when she found Rio on my library interlibrary loan list. The reason this was an anomaly was that I seldom watch animated movies and even less frequently watch movies that are rated G. I tried to pass off my interest in Rio as a result of the Angry Birds game we first played together - Angry Birds Rio - and my appreciation of Jesse Eisenberg's talents, but if the movie had not had Anne Hathaway providing the lead character's voice, I probably would have just waited until chance put Rio in front of me, as opposed to requesting it from the library.

Rio is superlative in no ways, but is a fun film. It looks good and makes a strong argument against bothering to invest in 3-D, but Rio is utterly predictable in its plot progression and character development. Usually with animated films, there are catch phrases that resonate or moments that pleasantly surprise me. Rio had nothing that was distinctive, though it was not unenjoyable. Instead, Rio was simply fun.

Blu is a blue macaw who is separated from his captors en route to being sold. He grows up domesticated with Linda, who grows up herself to own a bookstore that she runs with Blu. Blu does not fly, but he is very happy with Linda. One day, Tulio arrives and begs Linda to bring Blu to Rio de Janero to mate him with the last female blue macaw in captivity. Against their better judgment, Blu and Linda go down to Rio. There, Blu meets Jewel, who is not as interested in him as she is in escaping from her habitat.

Unfortunately, Blu and Jewel are captured by poachers. Chained together at the ankles, Jewel must put up with Blu's inability to fly and Blu does his best to teach her how to run. Advised by Rafael, the pair works to get to Luiz to try to get their chains cut. Blu works to get back to Linda while Linda and Tulio get closer as well while searching for the birds. Pursued by smugglers and the vicious bird Nigel, Blu and Jewel overcome obstacles and grow closer.

On DVD, Rio looks incredible. More than any other film in recent memory, Rio is animated in such a way as to make a 3-D version of it almost pointless. The film looks three-dimensional already and it looks good. Like a hyperactive game of Angry Birds, Rio is filled with lush colors, fluid movement and a raucous sense of depth. Rio's character design is fun and cool, at the very least.

Unfortunately, outside the style, Rio has very little going for it. The songs are infrequent, so they come up surprisingly abruptly and stand out more than present a fluid storytelling experience. Nigel's song is amusing when he is tormenting Blu and Jewel, but outside that one song, the music is unmemorable.

Sadly, Rio is so formulaic only the youngest children will be surprised by it. The chase narrative has been done ad nauseam and Rio offers no real variations on the theme. Blu and Jewel are thrown together, overcome obstacles and grow closer as a result. But the way the movie does it is almost insulting in its simplicity, especially in regard to Blu, whose big initial character element comes from the fact that he never learned to fly as a baby. Because that is repeated so very much, viewers come to expect that to be defied before the end.

As for the voice acting, Rio is fine, but also not superlative. Anne Hathaway is fine, but Jesse Eisenberg as Blu and Jemaine Clement as Nigel steal the show. They are funny and emote exceptionally well.

On DVD, Rio comes loaded with bonus features. There are several Angry Birds featurettes, which are cute and sell the game very well. There is a single animatic scene that did not make it into the movie. There are a couple of featurettes that are interesting. But ultimately, Rio looks good but is otherwise strikingly average.

For works featuring Anne Hathaway, please check out my reviews of:
Anne Hathaway For Wonder Woman!
One Day
Love And Other Drugs
Family Guy Presents: It's A Trap!
Alice In Wonderland
Valentine's Day
Twelfth Night Soundtrack
Bride Wars
Rachel Getting Married
Passengers
Get Smart
The Devil Wears Prada
Hoodwinked!
Brokeback Mountain
The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement
Ella Enchanted
Nicholas Nickleby
The Princess Diaries

5.5/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

Another Awkward Family Falling Apart: The Squid And The Whale Is Troubling And Real.

The Good: Great dialogue, Good acting, Good direction.
The Bad: Predictable plot points.
The Basics: Very difficult and true, The Squid And The Whale is less esoteric and more of an increasingly common experience as a family moves toward divorce.


The modern family, with its complexities has been the source of fodder for movies . . . pretty much forever. I think the angsty family reached its critical peak with Kramer Vs. Kramer (reviewed here!). Lately, it seems the movies about families I enjoy most are the ones that focus on eccentric families, like The Royal Tenenbaums (reviewed here!). After accidentally subjecting my wife to The Other Woman (reviewed here!), we were out and she saw the DVD for The Squid And The Whale and thought that we might enjoy that film more.

The Squid And The Whale is a surprisingly stark film about people and the awkwardness of relationships. There is a surprising number of references to semen and the sexual elements alternate between the utterly creepy (the youngest child wiping ejaculate on the locker of a girl he likes), the stiflingly realistic (the teenage child cumming remarkably quickly when his girlfriend first tries to touch him) and the completely predictable (a student coming on to the father). Despite the moments of predictability and awkwardness, The Squid And The Whale is enjoyable and captures a sense of reality that those who have gone through an awkward divorce are destined to recognize as true.

Starting with a tennis match wherein Bernard and Walt take on Joan and Frank, the Berkman family is in the process of torquing apart. In 1986 Brooklyn, Bernard and Joan are having a difficult time raising Walt and Frank. When Joan is published in a literary journal, Bernard's jealousy begins to rear up. It is not long before Bernard and Joan separate and are moving toward divorce very rapidly. Joan begins dividing the family by hiding books she claims are hers and Bernard has Walt steal books back for him.

The family is pretty much doomed the moment Bernard tells Walt that the marriage was dead when Joan had an affair with a shrink named Richard and some other men. Frank begins to assert himself by claiming he wants to be a tennis pro and Bernard continues to find it difficult to get his next work published. While Joan uses the separation to grow and experiment, Bernard becomes more mired in his patterns and the family seems to get further from the potential of staying together.

The Squid And The Whale very realistically captures the angst of a family in the process of a divorce. Many of the characters are awkward and troubled. Frank, the youngest of the family, swears the most and he is the one most curious about what explicit sexual acts his mom might have done with the men she had affairs with. The film is abrupt and troubling in many portions, especially when Frank masturbates in the library and calls his mother ugly. He begins to drink and discovers his budding sexuality on his own, which causes more problems at school.

Walt, like Frank, is awkward, though his relationship issues are much more common. He feels pressure based on how he tries to live up to his father's intellectual pretenses. Walt is trying to live up to his father's expectations, but in the process he skates by without actually developing. One of the most interesting aspects of the writing of The Squid And The Whale is how writer and director Noah Baumbach takes time to develop the ideas without making them painfully explicit. So, for example, Walt listens to his father's opinions on the great books and movies and as a result, he seldom actually reads the masters. This is heavily implied when his girlfriend, Sophie, asks him a specific question about Kafka's The Metamorphosis, which he glosses over. The writing for The Squid And The Whale is excellent.

In addition to being an interesting character, the angst-filled Walt is masterfully played by a young Jesse Eisenberg. Sure, he's still young now, but even in The Squid And The Whale he illustrates a strong talent and the ability to deliver complex lines. He has wonderfully expressive facial expressions and he delivers with an understated way that helps maintain the reality of the character. It is easy to see how Jess Eisenberg had a meteoric rise following this film and he plays off Anna Paquin well in her few scenes with him as Lily.

The surprise for me was how good Jeff Bridges was in The Squid And The Whale. Usually, I would champion Laura Linney, but as Joan she is woefully underused. Bridges, on the other hand, is stunningly good as the pretentious Bernard. With his overgrown beard and mustache, Bridges immediately sets himself apart from every other role he has taken. Instead, Bridges plays Bernard as both erudite and pretentious. Bernard is a complex character who is both metaconscious and annoyingly unethical, which Bridges is able to play that with his body language. In one key scene, he makes his eyes look more lazy and tired and that sells the sense of emotional fatigue his character has.

The Squid And The Whale is not for everyone. As my wife noted at the end, "I hate independent films!" there is little sense of resolution to the film. Instead, Baumbach opts for a slice of life wherein the characters are put into problematic situations, the situations are brought to the attention of the others and then nothing happens as a consequence. That can be irksome for those who want a real strong story, but for those looking for a movie with both odd characters and the problematic realism that independent films often embody, The Squid And The Whale delivers.

For other works with Anna Paquin, be sure to check out my reviews of:
True Blood - Season Three
True Blood - Season Two
True Blood - Season One
X-Men: The Last Stand
X-2: X-Men United
X-Men
The Piano

7/10

For other film reviews, be sure to check out my index page on the subject by clicking here!

© 2011 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

Just The Right Mix Of Humor And Violence: Why 30 Minutes Or Less!

The Good: Funny. Decent character development, Action is entertainment.
The Bad: The acting is nothing to write home about.
The Basics: 30 Minutes Or Less is a very simple premise that works because it is funny and has enough action to be engaging.


The last few years, there have been a number of disturbing trends in cinema. The first, for me, has been the combination of graphic nudity and sex and explicit gore/violence. I don't see the point in getting turned on only to get so repulsed to the extent that one might want their genitals to just shrivel up. The other disturbing trend is the mix of humor and violence. I don't mind the concept of mixing humor and violence, but so often the movies I have seen, like Observe And Report and Pineapple Express (reviewed here!) are far more disturbing in their violence than they are funny. So, with the concept of 30 Minutes Or Less was one that had limited appeal for me. I mostly went to the preview screening because I enjoyed Jesse Eisenberg in The Social Network (reviewed here!) and director Ruben Fleischer impressed me with Zombieland (reviewed here!).

30 Minutes Or Less worked, though. It was funny and there was enough action and suspense to balance it well. The balance was enough to make me care about the characters, even though the acting was nothing extraordinary. Still, it had some decent lines and it was enjoyable to see Jesse Eisenberg yet again. He plays Nick and Nick is a nice change from prior characters I have seen him play. But the film is far from flawless and while it goes quickly, after preview screening, I realized that because the premise was so simple, there was actually remarkably little to write about the movie.

Nick speeds around Grand Rapids, Michigan working for Vito's Pizza. Their motto is "30 minutes or less" and when he fails to make a run, he swindles the kids who scammed him out of their money with the promise of beer. Nick sees those in his life moving on, his best friend Chet has become a teacher at the elementary school and Chet's twin sister Kate has just gotten a job at the Four Seasons in Atlanta. Dwayne and Travis are lowlifes who have no real ambitions, Dwayne living with his millionaire ex-Marine father. One day at the strip club, Dwayne tells Juicy that he wants his father's last million and Juicy tells him that he has a way to kill the Major, but it will cost him $100,000. Innovating, Dwayne decides to "think like a millionaire" and he and Travis have Nick deliver a pizza to them at the scrapyard.

Nick awakens with a bomb strapped to him and the directions to rob a bank for the hundred thousand dollars Dwayne wants for his "tanning salon." Despite the serious falling out that Nick and Chet had the day before, Nick goes to Chet's school and begs him to help him. Chet and Nick realize that the vest will not come off without Nick losing his arms, at the very least. So, they prepare to rob the bank, as Dwayne works to line-up the killer needed to put the Major down.

One of the serious problems with 30 Minutes Or Less is that the plot is predictable. When Nick has the chance to tell off his boss, he runs to tell Kate good-bye. When the heist takes a turn for the violent and Nick messes up the money transfer with the killer, that decision to visit Kate comes back to bite him in the ass. The thing is, this move was telegraphed when Travis follows Nick during the rendezvous.

Moreover, the acting is nothing to write home about. Aziz Ansari is amusing as Chet. Ansari's entire routine as the sidekick seems to be raising the pitch of his voice and bugging out his eyes. It works, but the longer the movie goes on, the less impressive the performance seems. And while Jesse Eisenberg embodies - well - a character unlike any he has ever played, Danny McBride is well within his safe zone from his performance in Pineapple Express (which is the only other movie I have seen him in), as is Nick Swardson as Travis. The acting is mediocre at best for the bulk of the movie.

That said, 30 Minutes Or Less is funny and it is entertaining enough to recommend. There is a cute Facebook reference that allows Jesse Eisenberg to deliver one of the movie's best tongue-in-cheek lines. And the introduction of Chet is punctuated with the memorable line, "The alcohol should wash the taste of you out of your mouth." Michael Diliberti and Matthew Sullivan craft a script which is actually very funny and has some wonderful lines.

But the movie also has some decent action moments or moments atypical to a comedy. For example, after the car chase, Chet has a piece of the car embedded in his back. As Nick has to pull the shrapnel out, I sat and considered that I had never seen a moment like that in a comedy or action film. Sure, war films and doctor shows, but not an action comedy. And it worked.

30 Minutes Or Less is an entertaining film and one of the funniest moments is after the credits. But it's definitely a movie worth only one viewing.

For other works featuring Michael Pena, please check out my reviews of:
Battle Los Angeles
Everything Must Go
Million Dollar Baby
Crash
Homicide: Life On The Street - Season 6

6/10

For other movie reviews, please be sure to visit my index page on the subject.

© 2011 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |