About As Bad As The Rest Of The Franchise: Transformers: The Last Knight

The Good: Great cast, Most of the special effects
The Bad: Banal plot, Lack of real character development, Terrible lines delivered unconvincingly by great actors.
The Basics: Transformers: The Last Knight is not great, but it is more par for the course than being truly terrible.


Transformers: The Last Knight is out and the press for it has been pretty bad in general. I'm feeling like bucking that trend to argue that the cinematic Transformers has been pretty lousy in general and Transformers: The Last Knight is pretty much what one expects as opposed to being an all-out terrible film. Transformers: The Last Knight is bad, but lately I've seen far worse films.

Michael Bay has not been recreating Casablanca for the past ten years with the Transformers franchise. He makes films for Summer Blockbuster Season filled with explosions, computer-generated special effects, and direction that lasciviously passes the camera slowly over whatever female lead the film possesses. To be fair to Transformers: The Last Knight, there is far less of the camera exploiting women than in the four prior installments of the franchise. Unfortunately, there are more retcons that place Transformers and alien technology on Earth in the past and make the movie fit very poorly into any continuity with the others, despite the fact that more of the cast from the first three movies recurs in Transformers: The Last Knight.

Opening in Briton during Camelot, Merlin and Arthur enlist Transformers to thwart their enemies. Flashing forward to the present, some Transformers have taken refuge in other countries, while in America the teenager Izabella uncovers a downed Transformer in the ruins of a baseball stadium. Izabella is a homeless girl who is rescued by Cade Yeager. The pair are hunted back to Cade's junkyard by the American military. Colonel Lennox has become aware that the Decepticons under the newly resurfaced Megatron are hunting something that they believe Cade has.

Off Earth, Optimus Prime crashes into Cybertron, which is headed toward Earth with the planet's creator, Quintessa. Quintessa reprograms Optimus Prime to wipe out humanity and remake Earth into a new homeworld for the Transformers. The chase of Cade Yeager takes him to England where Sir Edmund Burton has been part of the line of humans working with Transformers to protect the Earth. Burton brings in Vivian Wembley, the last surviving descendant of Merlin, who has access to technology and information that sends her and Cade under the sea to recover an artifact that will allow them to thwart the Decepticons, Quintessa, and the ensorceled Optimus Prime.

Transformers: The Last Knight is exactly what one expects of a Transformers movie. The human characters are mundane, poorly characterized and deliver far more expository dialogue than anything that is clever and defines the characters in unique and interesting ways. Transformers: The Last Knight picks up after Transformers: The Age Of Extinction (reviewed here!), so it begins with the Transformers abandoned by Optimus Prime who flew off Earth at the end of that film.

Blending the main characters from the early Transformers films - Lennox, General Morshower, and Agent Simmons - with Cade Yeager and newer Transformers like Hound, Transformers: The Last Knight just continues the banal franchise with more explosions, more robot on robot fights and an absurd predicament that absolutely defies rational physics. Transformers: The Last Knight asks viewers to accept as credible that there is a scientist who denies the existence of magic and fantasy in a world with Transformers who fails to point out that a planet-sized object rushing toward Earth would completely destroy the Earth long before that object starts ripping apart the surface and extracting massive chunks of technology. Only the least-sophisticated viewer could believe that the Earth could survive in any recognizable way after the events of Transformers: The Last Knight.

Arguably the most disappointing aspect of Transformers: The Last Knight is that Jeff Bridges does not appear in the movie in any form. Astute fans will note that in Transformers: The Age Of Extinction one of the sound clips used as Bumblebee's dialogue was from The Big Lebowski. Transformers: The Last Knight is like a mini-reunion for The Big Lebowski (reviewed here!) with the return of John Turturro and John Goodman (albeit as a voice-only actor in the film) and the introduction of Steve Buscemi as the Autobot Daytrader. And that was the most exciting aspect of Transformers: The Last Knight.

Sir Anthony Hopkins is wasted as Sir Edmund Burton and it seems like the only reason he is in the film to get the venerable actor to call someone a dick and make other remarks that are well-below his usual level of diction. Stanley Tucci's cameo in the film is virtually unrecognizable and newcomers Laura Haddock and Isabela Moner add nothing significant to the mix. Marc Wahlberg is fine as Cade, but it seems like outside his physical performance, the main reason to have him in Transformers: The Last Knight is to pull off a scene where characters act amazed that Cade has been celibate for years.

The Transformers themselves are hapless robots in Transformers: The Last Knight with no clear sense of boundaries or sensibility. Optimus Prime is reprogrammed by his creator . . . but Bumblebee being willing to sacrifice himself and deliver lines in his own voice is enough to change his programming?! And Prime leaps back up to Cybertron with other Transformers not worrying that he'll simply be reprogrammed again and come back murderous again?!

So, Transformers: The Last Knight is just a pretty bad action adventure film that does the usual Summer Blockbuster Season thing that has been done by the franchise four other times and by far better movies many, many more times.

For other films currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
Rough Night
The Mummy
Wonder Woman
Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales
Baywatch
Alien: Covenant
Guardians Of The Galaxy, Volume 2

3.5/10

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

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

Two Laughless Hours Later . . . The Ridiculous 6

The Good: Three lines, perhaps.
The Bad: Wastes the decent cast members, Not funny, Dull plot.
The Basics: Netflix is not doing its subscribers any favors by producing the Adam Sandler-led Western parody The Ridiculous 6.


When it comes to Adam Sandler comedies, I have long known to keep my expectations low. I grew up while Sandler was making his transition from Saturday Night Live to making blockbuster comedy films and they just did not grab me. Until Punch-Drunk Love (reviewed here!), Sandler did not really impress me with his acting abilities. I have also come to have fairly low expectations for Netflix original films as the majority of ones I've seen have left me unimpressed. So, the idea of a Sandler/Netflix film was one I went into with low expectations. The film is The Ridiculous 6 and it is not doing anything to improve my opinion on Adam Sandler comedies or Netflix original films.

The Ridiculous 6 is not Adam Sandler's attempt to make Blazing Saddles (reviewed here!), though Blazing Saddles is generally considered the gold standard of Western comedies. The Adam Sandler parody of a Western film is basically a generic Adam Sandler comedy set in the West. As such, it includes fart and shit jokes mixed in with dry deliveries of ridiculous lines that are hardly unique to the film, like generic baseball jokes. The Ridiculous 6 has bestiality jokes, physical humor and gross jokes involving smearing ointment on humans and flatulent burros indiscriminately. Much of the humor in The Ridiculous 6 falls flat and large chunks of the movie are just gross.

Opening with White Knife, a white man raised by Apaches, going into a nearby town to pick up some flour, he and his fiance are preyed upon by a gang of one-eyed bandits. Tommy "White Knife" Stockburn easily thwarts his adversaries and returns to the tribe that raised him before his biological father, Frank, shows up. Frank Stockburn wants to give his son the treasure he has amassed, but the next morning, the outlaw Cicero appears with his gang and kidknaps Frank for his treasure. Tommy goes off to steal $50,000 to cover the treasure that will not be there when Cicero's gang tries to have Frank dig up his treasure near a singing windmill.

While Tommy searches for places to rob, he encounters various half-brothers - other sons from Frank Stockburn. Tommy meets Ramon, his Mexican half-brother and Ramon encounters their idiot half-brother Pete while Tommy is clearing out the local bank. They discover an Asian half-brother, Herm; a black half-brother, Chico, and Danny, their white half-brother. Together, they try to steal a gold nugget worth $25,000. After their heist, the brothers sing around a campfire, play the first baseball game, and work together to rescue their father.

The Ridiculous 6 is generally a comedy that fails to inspire laughter. The two-hour film got me to smile three times and none of those smiles even came from Sandler. Given that Terry Crews is able to illicit more of a smile than Adam Sandler in The Ridiculous 6, it is hard to even call the movie an Adam Sandler comedy.

It is tough for me to rate movies with performers like Jorge Garcia (totally wasted as he does not have any lines that allow him to emote!), Harvey Keitel (who proves himself to be a definitively dramatic actor by illustrating no talent for comic timing in The Ridiculous 6) and Luke Wilson, so low, but when a movie just sucks, it just sucks.

The Ridiculous 6 just plain sucks.

None of the actors in the flick illustrate any new range or genuine talent - which is sad given that several of the actors are talented. The Ridiculous 6 is not clever, nor is it funny. It is simply a waste of two hours.

For other Netflix exclusive films, please check out my reviews of:
Mascots
ARQ
XOXO
Tallulah
The Fundamentals Of Caring

0/10

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.
| | |

Unremarkable Sequelland: Hotel Transylvania 2.

The Good: Decent-enough animation and performances
The Bad: Overbearing soundtrack, Not funny, Nothing compelling or original in the plot or characters
The Basics: Hotel Transylvania 2 unremarkably strings together random jokes about monsters to continue the franchise in an unimpressive way.


As a reviewer, I see a lot of movies and one of the real tests of a film's endurance is how well the viewer remembers it when and if a sequel is made. With the release of Hotel Transylvania 2, I got to thinking about Hotel Transylvania (reviewed here!). I know I saw the first Hotel Transylvania, but it was so utterly unmemorable that as the sequel began, I realized I could not recall a single moment from the original. Hotel Transylvania 2 leaps right in, so those not invested in the characters from the first one are likely to find the new movie somewhat inaccessible.

Hotel Transylvania 2 is an odd blend of monster jokes mixed with the non-sequitor of monsters talking about ridiculous or pop-culture things. So, people are supposed to find it hilarious when Dracula kvetches about "good fats" or Wayne the werewolf refuses to hunt because Pop-Tarts make killing animals unnecessary. At the other end, Mavis's journey almost entirely consists of her shock at seeing the mundane aspects of the human world - like the variety of potato chips and 24 hour gas station/convenience stores. The result is a thoroughly lackluster film.

Opening with the wedding of Mavis and Johnny, the daughter of Dracula and her human boyfriend, the Hotel Transylvania is packed with monsters and Jonathan's very unsettled human parents. The wedding goes off without a hitch and a year later, Mavis tells Dracula she is pregnant while the two are out flying as bats. Soon after, Dennis is born and appears to be human. While Dennis is growing up, Johnny tries to get Dracula to use social media and technology like smartphones. Dracula begins to worry that Dennis is not learning how to be a proper vampire and tries to get the boy to activate his powers, to no avail. After Dennis goes to a birthday party for a litter of werewolf pups and loses a tooth there, Mavis suspects that Dennis is not actually a monster and she tells her father that she is thinking of moving away to a place that will be safer for her young son.

Mavis and Johnny head to California to see if it will be an appropriate place to raise Dennis, while Dracula and the monsters take Dennis to try to get him into real monster culture. Unfortunately, the trip to the dark forest reveals that it is now a park filled with suburbanites on vacation. While Mavis is thrilled by exploring the human world with Johnny, the monsters try to teach Dennis how to be monstrous, but they run into adoring fans, physical problems like back spasms, and the monsters' refusal to be truly monstrous. The monsters make it to the camp where Dracula learned to be monstrous as Mavis makes it to the California suburb where both discover that things are not as they remember or want.

Much of Hotel Transylvania 2 is a series of shtick jokes with monster subjects or "values" used to replace the mundane subjects. The concept gets very old exceptionally quickly and given that lines like "stake my heart and hope to die" from Dracula barely elicit a smile the first time around, it's hard to imagine how the studio thought this would perform well. Hotel Transylvania 2 feels like a direct-to-video sequel that has the voice talents from the first project, but predictably lacks a compelling story or jokes that make it a worthy continuation of the characters' journey.

The voice performances in Hotel Transylvania 2 are fine, but nothing extraordinary. Selena Gomez does fine as Mavis, but she's not given any challenges that would allow her to be particularly expressive. Adam Sandler and Andy Samberg play Dracula and Johnny as very minor variations on their previously-established characters. Sandler, especially, falls into a voice that is particularly generic for his shtick.

Hotel Transylvania 2 is marred by an overbearing pop music soundtrack as much as it is by characters who utterly unremarkable. The story is painfully generic and if the characters were not monsters, it's hard to imagine the movie ever would have been made. Within minutes of finishing the film, I realized that there was no defining moment that stuck with me. It is a forgettable sequel for a forgettable film.

Hotel Transylvania 2 is utterly unnecessary; The Addam's Family and The Munsters have done all these types of jokes before and there's nothing so compelling about the characters, animation or plot to make this feel at all worthwhile.

For other works with or by Selena Gomez, please visit my reviews of:
The Fundamentals Of Caring
Revival (Deluxe Edition)
The Big Short
Behaving Badly
For You - Selena Gomez & The Scene
Stars Dance
When The Sun Goes Down - Selena Gomez & The Scene
A Year Without Rain - Selena Gomez & The Scene
Kiss & Tell - Selena Gomez & The Scene
Horton Hears A Who!

2/10

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.
| | |

Classics Of Weird Noir Cinema, Fargo Remains Entertaining, But Not Incredible.

The Good: Decent acting, Mood, Quirky characters
The Bad: Quirky for the sake of quirky, Mood, Most of the characters are unlikable
The Basics: Set in Minneapolis, MN and Fargo, ND, the classic noir film by Joel and Ethan Coen is all about setting and weird characters as opposed to having a truly original or engaging plot.


I’ve gotten to an interesting place as a film reviewer where I get the occasional request from readers with movies they want me to review. I get that there is a value to having a reviewer review a film that one already knows they like; comparing our own opinion to those of a reviewer whose other reviews we’ve read provides us with a baseline of sorts. When we read how a critic evaluates works we know, we can better evaluate how to take their ratings on movies we’ve yet to see. One of the films on the extensive list that one reader sent me that I had been meaning rewatch was Fargo.

Fargo was originally released when I was in college and I recall seeing it once before about a year after its original theatrical release. While my peers in the writing program at my college seemed to be universally agog about Fargo, I remembered seeing it and being decidedly more neutral to the film. Watching Fargo again today – for the first time in almost twenty years – what surprised me most about the movie was how I had the exact same ambivalence to it now. Around the same time that I saw Fargo, I watched The Big Lebowski and I did not like that Coen Brothers movie. Last year, I saw The Big Lebowski again and absolutely loved it; so it is surprising with all of the changes in my life and viewpoints that I would see Fargo again and have absolutely no change in reaction to the film. Fargo is good, but not great; it is written to be quirky for the sake of quirky and is supposedly based upon events that truly happened, though they are presented with the Coen Brothers (now) trademark sense of unsettling weirdness. But outside the silly setting and the ludicrous (but accurate) dialect of the northern mid-western American accent, Fargo is a remarkably straightforward crime film. Unlike something like Twin Peaks (reviewed here!) that delivers strange and appears to be set in a completely real world, but has supernatural elements infused with the weird setting, Fargo is just a bunch of lowbrow characters stuck in a barren and desolate place. The result is a violent comedy that is perpetrated by halfwits and solved by a slower-than-average police officer in a film that sets out to be weird and accomplishes that without any sense of whimsy to it.

In the icy wasteland of Fargo, North Dakota, Jerry Lundegaard delivers a car to Carl Showalter and Gaear Grimsrud (two hoods for hire) as part of the payment he negotiated for them to abduct his own wife. The deal he Jerry strikes with the pair is that they will abduct his wife and Jerry will split the ransom with the two criminals, because he is in some financial problems and needs money from his father-in-law (who he won’t ask for the cash). Even as Jerry tries to get the money together to buy a parking lot of his own, Carl and Gaear break into Jerry’s home in Minneapolis to abduct Jerry’s wife, Jean. But Carl and Gaear are pretty inept and between Jean falling down the stairs and the pair running into a highway patrol officer who cannot be bribed by Carl, the abduction does not go as planned. After killing the patrol officer and two passersby who see Carl moving the officer’s body, Carl and Gaear try to lay low with Jean as their prisoner.

The Fargo police officer Marge Gunderson is called to investigate the triple homicide and she pieces together the story of Carl and Gaear without having any idea of the Lundegaard abduction. Following the clues left by the dead police officer, the pregnant Gunderson tracks down the car Jerry used as a down payment to the hoods. As she investigates the crime, Jerry convinces his father-in-law to make the payoff to the ransomers. But things go wrong for Carl when Wade (Jerry’s father-in-law) shows up to pay him off and in the gunfight that ensues, Carl is wounded and Wade is killed. As Marge closes in on Carl and Gaear, the two hoods have a showdown that causes Jerry’s whole plan to come unraveled.

Joel and Ethan Coen are masterful writers and even with Fargo, their direction is solid and the film is executed well. Utilizing minimal soundtrack, quite a few wide shots filled with snow and emptiness, Fargo is a very different-feeling film, even now. But what Fargo is not is exciting. The characters are largely unlikable and in trying to create a very specific time and place, the Coen brothers make a movie that feels like it is populated by mentally challenged criminals and law enforcement agents. The tongue-in-cheek comedy of Fargo comes at the expense of truly caring about any of the characters.

Actress Frances McDormand portrays Marge illustrates her incredible range. Completely devoid of the confidence and authority of her character from, for example, Transformers 3 (reviewed here!), McDormand makes Marge smart but understated and somewhat bland. William H. Macy plays Jerry as a complete loser without the geeky quality or simple lack of confidence with which he played so many of his subsequent recognizable movie roles. Steve Buscemi (Carl), Peter Stormare, and Harve Presnell round out the main cast in a very masculine film. Fargo is not a film likely to sell anyone on the merits of masculinity as all of the men in the film are corrupt, selfish, greedy, or complete milquetoasts. The performances, though, are adequate to make the characters seem like real people in the Coen Brother’s cinematic universe.

Sadly, the result is not enough to recommend. Whatever audacity exists in Fargo, it is undone by the mundane nature of the plot and mood of the film. The acting balances against the lack of interesting characters, though Fargo is packed with characters who have their quirks, but those eccentricities do not add up to anything at all exceptional.

For other works by the Coen Brothers, check out my reviews of:
True Grit
Burn After Reading
No Country For Old Men
O Brother, Where Art Thou?
The Big Lebowski
Miller’s Crossing

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.
| | |

Greatness Out Of Order: Pulp Fiction Holds Up!

The Good: Good acting, Decent characters, Engaging direction
The Bad: Non-sequitor plot/lines do not add up to anything.
The Basics: Pulp Fiction is a delightful mix of funny and violent in a way that remains entertaining even today!


When it comes to modern classics, there are several films that I will grant have real greatness to them. Pulp Fiction is one that I – like many – have accepted as great without having watched it many, many times in order to justify that opinion. So, now that my wife has the deluxe Blu-Ray edition of Pulp Fiction, I’ve been granted the chance to really delve into the film to evaluate it from a well-rounded perspective. And, after rewatching the film three times in as many days (without and with the commentary track on), I’ve come to the place where I can appreciate all of the elements of the film, but I don’t think it adds up to a perfect film.

Pulp Fiction is funny, original, violent, and generally engaging, but so much of the originality of the dialogue does not add up to anything exceptional. In other words, while Samuel L. Jackson’s character, Jules, has a genuine epiphany and character growth, most of the other characters, like John Travolta’s Vincent Vega, might be distinctive or quirky in their dialogue, but they do not develop beyond that. Vincent Vega’s ramblings about Europe are, ultimately, nothing more than musings of a dope fiend and he never evolves beyond that. The point is, while Quentin Tarantino’s mainstream masterpiece has quotable lines, great stars, and an engaging presentation, objectively viewed, the story the film tells, with the characters involved, is hardly as original or as compelling as those in truly perfect films. So, while Pulp Fiction is incredible, it does not have the timeless greatness of, for example, Casablanca (reviewed here!).

Told in three parts, out of order, Pulp Fiction follows the people working for gangster Marsellus Wallace in Los Angeles. Marsellus employs two hitmen, Jules and Vincent, who are sent to recover a briefcase. The briefcase contains a mysterious artifact that belongs to Marsellus and in recovering the briefcase, Jules and Vincent end up in a bind when Vincent’s gun goes off and kills Marvin. Following a pretty terrible day, Vincent Vega is charged with taking Marsellus Wallace’s wife, Mia, out for the evening. When he does, she gets into Vincent’s heroin and has an overdose, so Vincent is in a race to save her life lest his life become forfeit by the gangster, who seems ruthless (as characterized by the rumor that Marsellus Wallace through a man off a building for giving his wife a foot massage).

Also working for Marsellus is the washed-up boxer, Butch Coolidge, who is paid by Marsellus to take a dive in the fifth round of his prize fight. When Butch resists, he flees with his girlfriend, Fabienne, who accidentally left his father’s watch behind. When recovering his father’s watch, Butch gets into a conflict with Wallace that results in them imprisoned by two male rapists who want to have their way with them. Given all they see and experience, Jules is put to the test when he and Vincent are out at a diner and the restaurant is taken hostage by two petty criminals.

The thrust of the character growth in Pulp Fiction comes in the form of Jules and to a lesser extent Butch. Jules is a trained killer who has had no trouble working for Marsellus until this particular day. After musing on how ruthless Marsellus is, Jules sees how fragile life is, has an epiphany and pledges to go in a different direction with his life. Writer and director Quentin Tarantino puts the story out of order, at least in part, to illustrate character development in Jules’s storyline.

It is somewhat ambiguous if Butch actually develops – certainly in a positive way – in Pulp Fiction. Butch is characterized as a generally decent guy who simply is blooming late and may have missed his chance to be a contender. When asked, he admits he has never killed another person, but when he refuses to take a dive, he accidentally kills his opponent. In the hours that follow, Butch consciously kills at least three people (one only over a watch!). While fans of the film might argue that Butch develops as a character because he goes back into his captive’s lair, but that fits with his initial characterization of being a good guy who is just trying to make his way through the world.

Unlike many of Tarantino’s works, Pulp Fiction is laugh-out-loud funny in many places. Instead of just being gory or disturbing (though the rape scene in Pulp Fiction is quite disturbing, though it leads to a very Tarantino catharsis), Pulp Fiction is actually funny. A lot of the humor comes from straightlaced tough guys talking about ridiculous and mundane topics and the odd nonsequitors they experience enforcing the will of the gangster.

Tarantino stacks the deck by populating Pulp Fiction with pretty incredible actors. While John Travolta is delightfully goofy as Vincent Vega, Samuel L. Jackson and Ving Rhames are completely badass as Jules and Marsellus. Jackson is a credible killer going through an enlightenment, just as Bruce Willis is entirely believable as a prize fighter who might have peaked too late in his career to be taken seriously. Willis and Maria De Medeiros play off one another to be a credible couple who might run off with each other after all other hope is gone.

Ultimately, Pulp Fiction is enjoyable and different and it showcases some impressive acting talent. Even as the lines amuse and the situation intrigues and the actors perform, it becomes difficult to become invested in how the characters will resolve their various problems. That makes Pulp Fiction more entertaining than substantive.

For other works by Quentin Tarantino, please visit my reviews of:
Kill Bill, Volume 2
Kill Bill, Volume 1
Jackie Brown
Reservoir Dogs

9/10

Check out how this film stacks up against others I have reviewed by visiting my Movie Review Index Page for a listing of movies from best to worst!

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

An Uninspired Prequel, Monsters University Disappoints.

The Good: The voice acting is fine, Animation is all right
The Bad: Dull and predictable story, Not funny, Not clever, Exceptionally formulaic character progressions
The Basics: Pixar’s latest box office triumph, Monsters University is likely to lose its staying power fast as audiences realize it is a movie utterly lacking in sparkle or originality.


When one watches a lot of movies, one quickly becomes attuned to the conceits of the various genres. Horror and science fiction movies have become such fodder for comedic parody because they have, largely, become so formulaic as to be unsurprising and utterly predictable. So, it is somewhat surprising when Disney/Pixar releases a new film that utterly defies the conventions of the genre. I’m not talking about the college buddy movie genre; Monsters University is so utterly formulaic in that regard that the premise could be written by a college freshman with just the basic line “We want to do a prequel to Monsters, Inc. that puts Mike Wazowski and Sully in college, where they are not initially friends. Seriously, a high school student could probably have pounded out the exact film Monsters University given that working premise. It is that predictable. No, I’m talking about the Disney animated movie genre. Monsters University certainly defies that, but not in a good way.

Sadly, Monsters University is without charm, humor, memorable music (it is not a musical), heartwarming moments or moments of visual spectacle. Unfortunately, Monsters University defies the traditional Disney conceits by creating a movie that is neither timeless nor significant, not original or even particularly memorable. And, it is worth noting that I enjoyed Monsters, Inc. (reviewed here!) and purposely did not rewatch it before taking in Monsters University so I would not be burned out on the characters or traditional issues I have with Disney’s animated “wonders.” This was a very pure viewing of Monsters University and as close to a review unbiased by the original as one could have while still knowing who the principle characters are.

Smaller than his peers at Frighton Elementary, Mike Wazowski nevertheless determines on a field trip that he wants to be a Scarer and attend the prestigious Monsters University. After sneaking into a child’s room from the scare floor on a field trip, he is given an endorsement by one of the scarers and is determined to make it in the future as a scarer. Years later, he successfully enrolls in Monsters University and enrolls in their scaring program. He hits it right off with his roommate, Randy, who is also training to be a scarer. One night, while Mike is studying, his dorm room is broken into by a giant blue monster chasing down a monster pig, the mascot of one of the other monster schools. He is James P. Sullivan and he instantly derides Mike for being in the scaring program because he is convinced that Mike does not have what it takes to be a scarer.

Sullivan’s trek through Monsters University hits a snag pretty quickly, though, when he tries coasting through Professor Knight’s Scaring class on his family name (he’s a legacy at the university). While Mike is booksmart, he cannot get any of the major fraternities to recognize him or his abilities, so he falls in with the outcasts. In order to prove himself worthy of remaining in the scaring program (and for Sully to get back in the good graces of Dean Hardscrabble), Mike and Sully team up with Squishy, Don, Terry (and Terri), and Art to try to help Oozma Kappa win the monster games. In the process, they become friends, Sully hedges his bets, and they all learn a very important lesson, blah, blah, blah.

Seriously, blah, blah, blah is part of the plot because the actual plot is so thin and short that the writers and director had to flesh the movie out with an extended sequence wherein Mike arrives on campus, a pointless twist near the end, and an adventure that follows the bulk of the plot (which is the monster games, which dominates the screentime of the film). As a result, the movie feels like a remarkably thin idea stretched out to reach just over a hundred minutes (probably because it would be virtually impossible to get people to pay for a 3-D movie at today’s ticket prices for the forty-five minutes worth of actual substance the film might have). The padding does not make a better movie. Instead, Monsters University presents one college cliché after another. In fact, the only one that comes to mind missing from the movie is the romantic subplot that would have pit Mike and Sully against one another for the affections of a woman.

There is nothing audacious on the character front. As a prequel, viewers already know that Mike and Sully will end up as friends. There is nothing incredible in Monsters University that illustrates the way they became friends was at all unique or compelling.

What Monsters University does have is a decent cast. The voice acting talents in the film are top notch. Led by Billy Crystal and John Goodman, the cast includes Helen Mirren, Steve Buscemi, Nathan Fillion, Alfred Molina, David Foley, Joel Murray and, very briefly, Pixar mainstay John Ratzenberger. All of them perform fine.

The only other note I have on Monsters University is on the animation. I recall being impressed when I saw Monsters, Inc. at the quality of the animation. I marveled at how every hair on Sully’s fur was rendered and appeared to move independently. Monsters, Inc. left me impressed. Monsters University did not. The animation did not seem as vibrant or spectacular somehow and the 3-D did not pop either.

In short, Monsters University, like Cars 2, seems to illustrate that Pixar needs to think long and hard about revisiting its most successful properties; not all of them are the cash cows they appear to be.

For other Disney animated films, please visit my reviews of:
Frozen
Wreck-It Ralph
Brave
Tangled
Toy Story 3
A Christmas Carol
Up
Ponyo
The Princess And The Frog
Bolt
WALL-E
The Incredibles
Lilo & Stitch
Atlantis: The Lost Empire
Mulan
Hercules
The Lion King
Beauty And The Beast
The Little Mermaid
Lady And The Tramp
The Sword In The Stone
The Aristocats
Sleeping Beauty
Fantasia

3/10

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

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

A (Mostly) Amusing Animated Film, Hotel Transylvania Is Not Great.

The Good: Moments of imagination, Much of the voice acting
The Bad: One-hit humor, Predictable character arcs and plot
The Basics: An amusing concept, Hotel Transylvania has a decent set-up that fails to evolve in an interesting or unpredictable way.


There are, these days, very few films that I miss that I feel like I have actually missed. When a movie is important enough to me, I tend to find a way to get out to see it. So, I was not feeling any great deficit in my life when I uprooted last year and moved from New York to Michigan when Hotel Transylvania came out. It was not a film I prioritized checking out after my move and, having seen it now, I am glad I did not make the effort (getting to the movie theaters out here can be a real pain!). Hotel Transylvania is not bad, but it is hardly as funny, audacious or even interesting as one might hope.

That is not to say that Hotel Transylvania is bad. However, it does not take long for the initially fun-feeling animated feature to turn into pretty much what one expects from an Adam Sandler movie. In addition to utilizing the voice talents of virtually all of Adam Sandler’s old Saturday Night Live buddies – Jon Lovitz, Molly Shannon, David Spade – Sandler’s initial voice performance as Dracula soon slips into his familiar timbre. The result is that the film slowly becomes one of Adam Sander’s feel-good comedies, though this one has a pretty low rewatchability factor because the jokes might illicit a smile the first time around, but not much more than that on subsequent viewings (rewatching even the trailer after seeing the film, I found myself unfortunately unamused).

As her 118th birthday approaches, Mavis – the vampire daughter of Dracula - begs her father to honor his word to her and let her leave their monster sanctuary hotel as he promised her she could at that age. To her surprise, Dracula does let her go – starting with a visit to a nearby village. There, Mavis is horrified to find villagers with torches who want to eat her toes, exactly like her father warned her about. As Mavis flees back to the hotel sanctuary, Dracula has the zombie bellhops from the hotel – who were disguised as humans for the show – strike the village set he created to freak Mavis out. The ruse has the desired effect and Mavis expresses no further desire to leave the monsters-only hotel.

Unfortunately, the show Dracula puts on for his ignorant daughter has an unexpected consequence; a human hiker follows the zombies back to the monsters hotel. While Dracula works to conceal young Jonathan’s humanity (a real difficulty considering the hotel chef, Quasimodo, has a rat with a nose like a bloodhound) to insure his guests will continue to stay at his monster’s hotel and get the young man off the grounds, Jonathan meets Mavis and the two have an instant connection. Forced to keep Jonathan around when he explains to Mavis, Frankenstein and the others that Jonathan is a party planner (and the Frankenstein monster’s cousin), Dracula struggles to keep Jonathan and Mavis from getting closer while keeping his human identity from the guests and chef!

Hotel Transylvaniaquickly abandons its sense of originality – the whole premise that classic gothic monsters are actually fun-loving, misunderstood, and still exist in this day in age is fun – in favor of a predictable plot so obvious and formulaic that only children will be surprised by it. Mavis and Jonathan hit it off, but Dracula is the classic disapproving parent. So, much of Hotel Transylvania is his journey toward a modern, tolerant viewpoint when he realizes just how much Mavis likes Jonathan.

In fact, Hotel Transylvania is so canned and predictable that virtually every formulaic plot point for this type of romantic comedy occurs. Dad disapproves, has a moment of understanding where he comes to like the potential suitor, sees the daughter and suitor together and freaks out, encounters an obstacle that forces him to rely upon the suitor and the boy and girl bond. But, to keep the suitor safe, he must reject the girl (which hurts both young people) and only then does the father realize that the story of these two youth in one form or another mirrors his own romance with his dead wife and he comes to a position of tolerance, which forces him to pursue the suitor to bring about a reconciliation, at great personal peril.

That fact that the main characters are monsters and a human does not make the character journey or plot any more original.

On DVD, I was caught by how much of the animation is clearly oriented toward the 3-D thrill aspect. Seeing it only in 2-D, I was largely unimpressed, but given that spectacle is only 1 point in my reviewing standards, this is not a dealbreaker. That said, the animation style is fun and Hotel Transylvania looks good. Director Genndy Tartakovsky makes Hotel Transylvania look good with a decent sense of motion and color vibrancy that feels fresher than the story does.

As for the performances in Hotel Transylvania, they are generally average. The cast is led by Adam Sandler (Dracula) and Andy Samberg (Jonathan) and they play off one another very well. Considering Sandler and Samberg are working with talents they are familiar with, it is unsurprising that Hotel Transylvaniasounds good. Given that none of the stars in the film are particularly adept outside comedy (save Steve Buscemi), it is unsurprising that things like Adam Sandler’s accent slip occur as the film progresses.

On the flip side, Selena Gomez does surprisingly well as Mavis. She emotes well using her voice and makes Mavis sound like a fun young woman eager to experience life outside the walls of Hotel Transylvania. On DVD, the film comes with minimal bonus features and we only watched the trailers for other films soon to be released and none were particularly thrilling. Then again, neither was Hotel Transylvania, so the DVD is par for the source material’s course.

For similar animated films, please visit my reviews of:
ParaNorman
Coraline
The Nightmare Before Christmas

4.5/10

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

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

One Hundred Laughless Minutes Later . . . The Incredible Burt Wonderstone!

The Good: Jim Carrey’s performance
The Bad: Not funny, Boring and predictable plot progression, Canned character arcs, Derivative performances.
The Basics: A rare miss by Steve Carell, The Incredible Burt Wonderstone is not funny or clever or worth anyone’s time.


When I first saw the movie poster for The Incredible Burt Wonderstone, I was a bit miffed; the poster said Steve Carell, but it sure looked like Will Arnett (in his magician role from Arrested Development, no less!). And where I saw Collin Farrell, it turned out the film had Jim Carrey. Beyond that, I don’t think I gave the flick much of a thought . . . until today when I saw it.

That’s an hour and a half of my life I will never get back.

The Incredible Burt Wonderstone falls into the rare category of dismal films that leave me with remarkably little to write about because there is not much to them to begin with. Billed as a comedy, I kept waiting for The Incredible Burt Wonderstone to actually land a joke. Unfortunately, it only hits one or two in the entire film and the ones that are cute, are cute, not actually laugh-out-loud funny. Fans of Steve Carell are bound for disappointment with The Incredible Burt Wonderstone.

Opening in the early 1980s, Burt is bullied on his birthday and neglected by his mother (he has to bake his own birthday cake). He takes solace in watching a video of magician Rance Holloway and the next day, he befriends Anton. Burt and Anton grow up together as best friends doing magic tricks and eventually becoming a hit in Las Vegas. In Las Vegas, though, Burt is bored with performing the same old act thousands of times over and over again. Relentlessly hitting on his assistant, Jane (whom he constantly, insultingly, calls Nicole), Burt is somewhat relieved when Anton is injured out on the street.

Burt’s feelings of liberation quickly turn into horror when he realizes that he cannot do the familiar banter and tricks without Anton’s help and that there is a hot new magician on the scene, doing more painful and gross tricks than actual magic. Feeling threatened by the magic of Steve Gray, Burt finds his work for Doug Munny ending abruptly. When the only gig he can really get is doing magic at a nursing home, he thinks he has hit an all-time low. Fortunately, he is performing magic at the very home Rance Holloway ended up in and between a pep talk from him, a heart-to-heart with Jane, and the offer of performing at Doug Munny’s ten year-old son’s birthday party, Burt has reason to try to get back in the game. But, with Steve Gray vying for the same opportunities, Burt’s attempt to reclaim the top will be harder on his own.

There was only one truly positive aspect of The Incredible Burt Wonderstone and that was, so help me for saying this because I never thought I would in my life, the acting of Jim Carrey. Jim Carrey’s acting talents usually seem to slip into his familiar niche of manic and ridiculous, but he keeps his performance unusually tight in The Incredible Burt Wonderstone. Instead, he manages to be flamboyant without ever seeming like the familiar Jim Carrey. There is not a moment where his performance of Steve Gray seems like something from one of his sketches from In Living Color.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the other major performers in The Incredible Burt Wonderstone. Steve Carell performs like the egotistical magician Tony Wonder, Ben Stiller’s character, from Arrested Development, more than anything unique, interesting, or compelling. Olivia Wilde, in a somewhat unfortunate turn, seems like she is trying to be Gwyneth Paltrow in the role of Jane. I swear, several times during The Incredible Burt Wonderstone, I closed my eyes and just listened and Wilde sounded – beat for beat – like Gwyneth Paltrow! Steve Buscemi does not play Anton with his familiar slouch and buggy-eyed weirdness, but he is not given a lot of opportunities to actually be funny, either. In fact, his best jokes come late in the film when Anton goes on a mission to bring magic to the starving people of the world (who, as it turns out, would rather have food and clean drinking water).

Ultimately, The Incredible Burt Wonderstone is a predictable buddy comedy that starts off early with the best friends breaking up, forcing one of them to realize just how good he had it and there is nothing remarkable about the way the film tries to tell the story. In fact, it has been a long time since I saw a film where so many wonderfully funny people failed to make me laugh . . . or even remotely entertain me.

For other works works with Jim Carrey, please check out my reviews of:
A Christmas Carol
I Love You Phillip Morris
Yes Man
Fun With Dick And Jane
Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind
How The Grinch Stole Christmas
The Truman Show
Batman Forever

1.5/10

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

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

A Quirky Blend Of Bowling And Hostage Negotiations, The Big Lebowski Is Rightfully A Cult Classic!

The Good: Funny, Decent acting, Interesting characters
The Bad: Too often weird for the sake of weird (lack of purpose)
The Basics: Delightfully odd, The Big Lebowski is the film Thomas Pynchon would have made and has a visual style that helps define the greatness of the Coen Brothers.


I was clearly too young when I first watched The Big Lebowski. I know I saw it back after college, but I had no particular affinity (or even memory) of it. So, when the opportunity came for me to watch The Big Lebowski today, I leapt upon it. I think it might be ironic that the day I panned one of Thomas Pynchon’s latest novels, Against The Day (reviewed here!), the highest compliment I can give The Big Lebowski is that this film has a Pynchonesque quality to it. Thomas Pynchon is known for being quirky and meandering and in writing and directing The Big Lebowski, Joel and Ethan Coen create something distinctive that is the most Pynchonesque film I have yet seen.

Like a comedic, less violent version of Payback (reviewed here!), the Coen Brothers blend the story of a man looking for far, far less than others want or expect out of him (like Porter in Payback going through his ordeals for vastly less than most of the gangsters expect, the Dude is really just out to get his rug replaced in The Big Lebowski) with a ransom which may or may not be real. Including dream sequences, quirky characters, and surprisingly good characters, the only real problem with The Big Lebowski might well be that there are so many different collectible versions of the DVD/Blu-Ray and it is sometimes weird for the sake of being weird as opposed to being a cohesive story. It is, honestly, not much of a problem at all.

The Dude (Lebowski) returns home from buying half and half to get his face shoved in his toilet by thugs who demand to know where the money is. One of the thugs urinates on his rug and when they realize that he is not the millionaire that they are trying to shake down, they leave. Inspired by his bowling buddies, the Dude searches for the real Lebowski to get compensation for his rug getting urinated upon. After taking a rug from Lebowski’s house and going bowling (where his rule-bound friend, Walter, draws a gun on an opposing player), the Dude is summoned back to the Lebowski mansion.

Mr. Lebowski’s wife, Bunny, has been kidnapped and Lebowski wants the Dude to act as a courier for the ransom. When talking with Walter, the Dude posits that the rich girl has not even been kidnapped, which Walter decides must be true. Walter throws a false bag – without the ransom money – to the kidnappers, queering the deal. The Dude quickly finds himself threatened by Lebowski, Lebowski’s daughter (who is older than his new wife), a pornographer who Bunny owes money to and, in a completely different context, a pedophilic bowler named Jesus. In hunting down the money, which has been stolen, the Dude is tailed, menaces a fifteen year old and does battle with corrupt cops.

Like a Pynchon novel, The Big Lebowski is populated by ridiculous characters who represent archetypes and agendas that allow the ridiculous plot and plot turns to seem entirely plausible. The Dude is a former hippie, conscientious objector, whose big accomplishment is being an occasional bowler. He essentially becomes a detective due to the apparently wealthy Lebowski and works for a cut off three different people with agendas for the return of Bunny Lebowski. Walter is a psychopath who claims to observe the Sabbath and plays up his status as a veteran.

Thugs and nihilists go up against the Dude and Walter in a caper that includes ransom demands when there is no hostage, a person who cuts off a toe, and a fight that involves one man biting off another man’s ear. Impressively directed by Joel (and, in an uncredited capacity, Ethan) Coen, The Big Lebowski includes dream sequences complete with big dance numbers that have a trippy feeling that is fun to watch. In fact, outside David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive (reviewed here!), it is hard to recall a film that so purely captures the blend of drug trips, reality, and dreams as The Big Lebowski. Unlike something like Mulholland Drive, though, The Big Lebowski actually tells a story and in that way, it makes for a eminently satisfying film.

In other words, outside the simple visual styling and the quirky characters, The Big Lebowski is enjoyable because things happen and there is a story to be pieced together. Like the best of Pynchon’s novels, there is substance and themes in The Big Lebowski presented in a way that has a sense of poetry. It is easy to see how the film became a cult classic.

Julianne Moore has a wonderful supporting performance as Maude Lebowski, where she is unlike any other performance she has had. Similarly, the exceptionally brief appearance by John Turturro as Jesus (who the previews might make one suspect has a substantial role in the film) performs with a wonderful sense of physical comedy, a looseness that makes him ridiculous in a way that he plays nowhere else. Steve Buscemi (Donny, the other bowling partner of the Dude), David Huddleston (Lebowski), and Philip Seymour Hoffman all have decent supporting roles that help play off the ridiculousness of Jeff Bridges as the Dude.

John Goodman is predictably wonderful as Walter. The real surprise, though, is Jeff Bridges as the Dude. Bridges, who frequently takes serious roles where he is able to play dignified, is incredible as the slacker, the Dude. Slouching through most of the movie, he presents the character as smart, but also incredibly able to reason at key moments and makes the whole role seem plausible. Bridges has a great physical presence and his expressions of surprise and disappointment are well-played.

The Big Lebowski is funny, clever, and well-presented and well worth watching for anyone who has an appetite for quirky and surprisingly smart.

For other works with Sam Elliott, check out my reviews of:
Marmaduke
Did You Hear About The Morgans?
Ghost Rider
Thank You For Smoking
Hulk

9/10

For other film reviews, be sure to visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Here It Is, Scarlett Johansson Proves Her Worth In Ghost World!

The Good: Decent acting, characters, mood, pacing
The Bad: Utter lack of a plot
The Basics: Understated and quietly rebellious, Ghost World presents two intelligent, though disaffected social outcasts trying to find their way after high school.


Scarlett Johansson, like Kirsten Dunst before I saw Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind (reviewed here!), is an actress I've seen in a lot of movies but has never once impressed me. I can see - physically - her appeal, but I've never seen a performance from her that utilized any genuine acting talent. In short, I've seen her in many things without being able to justify her presence in so many movies. Following one of my reviews, a comment was left encouraging me to give Johansson another chance and the person leaving the comment listed several movies (many of which I had already seen and been underwhelmed by Johansson's performance in) with Johansson and I was surprised to see Ghost World on the list. Ghost World has been on my list for years. So, I picked it up and after watching it, I'm pleased to say I get how Johansson was put in so many other movies; directors saw her in this and were impressed. Johansson's performance in Ghost World bought her a career. I get it.

Enid and Rebecca are social outcasts who have just graduated high school (more or less) and find themselves without direction with the rest of their lives ahead of them. They harass a local boy, Josh, and hang out complaining about just about everyone they see. Enid stumbles upon a middle aged man who is socially awkward and she develops a relationship with Seymour, the record collector. Enid and Rebecca begin to move in different directions as Rebecca becomes motivated to get an apartment and hold down a steady job. Enid finds herself not truly fitting in with life and she drifts through her friendship, jobs and family life lost.

Ghost World is one of those mood movies where nothing so much happens and that's what the movie is about. It's quirky and weird and it was easy for me to see why this film has a cult following. This is like the slacker/outsider's film festival. There are too few movies that celebrate young adults who are on the fringe and make sense (I found Napoleon Dynamite, reviewed here, to be an extraordinary disappointment). Indeed, in my recent cinematic experiences, only Dreamland stood up as a worthwhile endeavor with empathetic young characters. Ghost World does many of the same things by simply presenting two people who are more or less on the outside and letting them do their thing.

This is mostly accomplished through the character of Enid, a sarcastic artist who is disaffected with the world as she finds it, though she is not as joyless as her affect projects. Instead, Enid wants to live in the world, but she wants it to make sense. She seems baffled by the success of the phony faux-preppie wannabe's and her quest to connect with someone is real and interesting.

Arguably, though, Ghost World is about Rebecca stepping out from behind Enid's shadow. Rebecca, just as outside the mainstream as Enid, becomes focused on following HER dreams, which include getting an apartment in an good neighborhood and holding down a job to pay for it. Rebecca is constantly controlled by Enid at the beginning, who talks over her and essentially dominates her interactions with new people. When Rebecca begins to follow her dreams, she takes a stand - subtle as it may be - against Enid speaking up for her. It is only when Rebecca takes her stand that Enid's security line truly snaps, casting her adrift in the world that does not accept her.

What makes the film's characters work so well in establishing the mood of the movie is the acting of the principle actors in it. Illeana Douglas and Bob Balaban give supporting performances that use their understated talents quite well. Douglas plays Enid's art teacher and is so convincing that the moment she appears on screen, the viewer knows exactly what type of teacher she will be, so able is she to emote just by her presence. Balaban is in very few scenes, but he connoted such a complete and understated sadness that he is worth mentioning. Fans of the "Red Hot Chili Peppers" will recognize Dave Sheridan (the crazy cab driver from the "By The Way" video) as the slacker Doug.

Steve Buscemi plays Seymour and the role is one of the characters that he was perfectly cast for. Seymour is sad, sweet and the archetype of the aging geek. Buscemi plays Seymour with such a commitment to the character, defined partially through his broken, slouching body language, that it is only when Seymour has to put on his girdle and look awkwardly rigid that the viewer realizes just how committed Buscemi has been to the role.

Scarlett Johansson finally gives a performance where she has a substantial role and illustrates she can act. Awkward and jaded as Rebecca, Johansson projects an air of indifference while maintaining a strange undertone of angered dignity. Rebecca never confronts Enid about how she feels about Enid talking over her, but the tension that is palpable comes from Johansson's performance. Watching Johansson as Rebecca simply close her mouth when Enid starts answering questions directed at her established a strong, if subtle performance that deserves some serious attention.

It is actress Thora Birch who dominates Ghost World as Enid, though. Not a far cry from her innocent suburban role in American Beauty (reviewed here!), Birch makes Enid distinctive for her disaffected affect that screams "Outsider!" But Birch lends some wonderful quirks to Enid and her dancing that opens the movie creates a character that may be disaffected, but is still very much alive. Birch is responsible for making the viewer care about Enid and her place outside the mainstream and she succeeds with a gripping, if sublime, performance.

Sublime is a great word to describe Ghost World. It is a movie where the performances rely on understatement to create a world where those on the outside feel disconnected, emotionally and physically. Director Terry Zwigoff does an excellent job of creating this world and it's certainly worth the time of anyone who likes offbeat, quirky dramas where the characters do not necessarily fit our expectations of young people.

My final remarks on this DVD is the presentation on DVD is a little disappointing. While including the full dance scene from the 1965 movie that opens Ghost World (very quirky and weird to see now), there are a number of things lacking from the DVD. There is no commentary track and the deleted scenes do not include moments that were cut from the film that are in the trailer. For such a good film, it's disappointing not to be able to see or hear more about it.

Otherwise, this is as solid as a movie can be when it is about people who don't fit in and are at a stage in their life where they have to figure out what they are doing with it.

For other films with Bob Balaban, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Capote
Gosford Park
Best In Show
Cradle Will Rock
Midnight Cowboy

8/10

Check out how this film stacks up against others I have reviewed, by visiting my Movie Review Index Page where films are organized from best to worst!

© 2012, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

Disappointing, But Still Enough Good To Recommend, I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry.

The Good: Moments of humor, Ultimately a pro-tolerance stance, Moments of acting, DVD bonus features
The Bad: Pulls punches, Pacing, Predictable plot
The Basics: Funny, but hardly a timeless comedy, I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry has a basic premise and ultimately promotes tolerance of gay and lesbian civil rights.


Lately, I have found myself watching a lot of movies to keep my partner happy, though I am generally glad to do that. The other day, she had a rough day at work - she works at a pet store and a puppy had to be put down because another worker administered the dog a pill, which ended up in the animal's lung! - and she wanted a movie to take her mind off her day. So, we went to our library and I let her pick out a film. The one we ended up watching was I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry and it served its purpose, to distract her from what was going on.

The problem with I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry is that once one hears the title, they pretty much get the entire concept of the movie and the execution of that concept offers few surprises or laughs. The movie is entirely predictable, is unimpressive in terms of scope or even the delivery of its message. For those looking for a pro-gay rights film, the comedy makes jokes that are often too awkward to be considered truly open minded and the movie takes no real risks in terms of storytelling. In many ways, it becomes a very typical Adam Sandler film.

Chuck and Larry are New York City firefighters who are best friends. They wisecrack as they put out fires and perform rescues and their lives seem generally content. Chuck is a womanizer who is happily promiscuous and untied to any one woman, while Larry is a widower raising two children. When Chuck nearly plummets to his death during an investigation of a burnt-out building, he is rescued by Larry. Larry, in the process, comes to realize that his children are not protected by his benefits package, which still names his dead wife as the beneficiary. Because of an administrative error, the benefits cannot be transferred unless Larry gets married.

Larry, then, decides to call in Chuck's promise of doing anything for his friend in gratitude for being saved by him; he asks Chuck to be his domestic partner so his if he dies, Chuck could take care of his kids. After a patent reluctance, Chuck agrees. Soon after they become domestic partners, a special investigator - Clint Fitzer - is dispatched to look into the partnership, alleging fraud. Chuck moves in with Larry, their boss finds out about the partnership and subsequent marriage and soon all of the firehouse is disturbed by Chuck and Larry being "out." As the two men work to save themselves from jail, Chuck finds himself attracted to their lawyer, Alex, who is eager to defend the two men and their right to their marriage.

I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry is a pretty standard Adam Sandler vehicle, including appearances by Sandler's Saturday Night Live alums Rob Schneider - in an utterly insulting role as the Asian priest who marries Chuck and Larry in Canada - and David Spade. This means that Adam Sandler plays yet another generally mild-mannered guy who speaks abrasively with a sense of innocence about him. Sandler as the womanizing Chuck has little real difference from his character in Mr. Deeds (reviewed here!), save that Chuck is smarter. As is his (apparent) trademark, there is also the requisite scene of extreme violence where Sandler beats the crap out of someone with a supposedly comedic flair. Sandler's characters almost always have an angry outburst and Chuck is no exception. This is disturbing more for what the screenwriters are apparently saying about women - virtually everyone who looks at Chuck and Larry as a couple suspects Chuck takes a traditionally feminine role in their relationship - than it does about gays.

Kevin James plays Larry and this might be the first role I've actually seen James play that is a major film role. He seems pretty much like he appears in the few clips of King Of Queens I've caught which suggests that his presence as a good, generally happy guy is the result of good casting as opposed to any form of inspired acting. The problem here is that Larry has moments when he has a melancholy that James seems unable to play. He does not carry the emotional resonance of a man pining for his wife who has been dead for two years. Instead, he slouches through the role alternating the comedic and dramatic moments with little differentiation in his performance.

Supporting roles by Jessica Biel, Ving Rhames and Dan Aykroyd all outshine Sandler and certainly James. Biel plays the lawyer, Alex, and while she and Sandler might have only minimal on-screen chemistry, she plays the role with an earnest innocence that makes her part funny and believable. She plays Alex as educated in her field, but somewhat ignorant outside it, which works. Similarly, Aykroyd's supporting role has him as a believable gruff leader and he pulls the part off quite well.

I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry is alternately funny and offensive and this is a movie where it largely gets away with its gay jokes because Chuck's use of an anti-gay slur change by the end of the movie. As well, the ultimate message of the film is one of tolerance, that homosexuality ought not to be a limiting factor to one's quality of life or experiences and as a result, there is still some social value to the movie.

Realistically, that value is somewhat limited and there are much better movies about actual gay or lesbian love, like The Incredibly True Adventure Of Two Girls In Love whereas this explores a legal loophole in domestic partnership law which few gay and lesbian activists care about (i.e. we'd rather have domestic partnership and actual marriage laws that heterosexual couples might abuse as opposed to being denied them entirely). The plot is entirely predictable, as are the character arcs. Because the "rightness" of freedom and the rights of all people to be married and be happy are so strong, the viewer knows that Chuck and Larry will not get away with their deception (it's that kind of movie where an absolute right must be preserved for any suspension of disbelief to be maintained). As well, because Chuck is a womanizer, the viewer pretty much figures that he will grow by the end and lo and behold, he does.

The DVD presentation of I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry includes about ten minutes of deleted scenes, one of which answers the question of how a guy like Chuck manages to go so long without having sex with a woman once he is married to Larry. There is a commentary track and a featurette and these are pretty much standard for a comedy of this type. They are not bad, but they are hardly exceptional.

But that is pretty much how best to define I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry; it is remarkably average, but not superlative in any way.

For other works with Nick Swardson, please be sure to visit my reviews of:
Jack And Jill
30 Minutes Or Less
Just Go With It
Bolt

6/10

For other movie reviews, be sure to visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the films I have reviewed!

© 2012, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |