Summer Blockbuster Season Starts With The Hilarious Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2

The Good: Very funny, Good effects, Engaging character moments, Good performances
The Bad: Less distinct music, Imbalance in serving the characters
The Basics: Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2 does a decent job of tying up some big loose ends in the far corner of the Marvel Cinematic Universe with style and humor!


There are few elements of the Marvel Cinematic Universe that have aged as well as Guardians Of The Galaxy (reviewed here!). Comedies, especially, tend to have a shorter half-life than dramatic films, but Guardians Of The Galaxy has held up much better than a number of the Marvel Cinematic Universe origin stories and sequels. Arguably, the reason Guardians Of The Galaxy has endured so well over the years (and many, many viewings) is because it found the right balance of humor and action and paired both with an incredible and memorable soundtrack. So, of course, enthusiasm for Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2 would be very high, perhaps to an unrealistic extent.

But Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2 actually does an excellent job of creating an exceptional sequel and successor to the original film. Instead of having to work to assemble a new super hero (or anti-hero) team and build an entire franchise within the Marvel Cinematic Universe from scratch, Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2 is allowed to play within the established corner that was created in the first film. And the pretty amazing aspect of Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2 is that the entire film is built on an allusion in the first film and a throwaway joke at the end of the film's teaser/first act.

Peter Quill, Gamora, Drax, and Rocket have been contracted by the leader of the genetically-perfect race living on the planet cluster Sovereign to thwart an impending attack from an interdimensional creature. The quartet works to take down the giant alien when it appears, while keeping Baby Groot safe from the conflict. Victorious against the creature, the Guardians go to Ayesha's throne room to receive their payment; Nebula, who was caught by the Sovereign security forces trying to steal the planet's rare and valuable batteries. Ayesha recognizes something in Quill, but in the process insults him and the team. Either because of the insult or simply on a whim of his own, Rocket steals the batteries from Sovereign while Gamora stows the new prisoner.

As the Guardians head to deliver Nebula to collect the bounty on her head, Yondu finds himself excommunicated by the Ravagers for breaking the Ravager code of dealing in children. Ayesha does not take long to realize that the Guardians have taken the batteries and she sets the Sovereign drone fleet against Quill's ship. The Guardians are facing certain death until they are rescued by a previously-unknown alien who destroys the Sovereign fleet right before the ship crash lands. With the ship out of commission on a distant world, the crew is met by Ego and Mantis. Ego tells Peter he is his father and invites him back to his world. Peter, Gamora, and Drax accompany Ego and Mantis back to Ego's idyllic world, leaving behind the angry Rocket and Nebula to fix the ship. Left vulnerable, Rocket falls prey to Yondu and his Ravagers who have been hired by Ayesha to recover the batteries and the Guardians. But Rocket and Yondu soon find themselves at the mercy of the Ravagers and Nebula with only Baby Groot to save them. And on Ego's World, Peter Quill learns his father's origins, his own powers and the destiny his father has for him. While Quill embraces his father's vision, Gamora and Drax learn from Mantis that Ego is not all he appears and they discover a threat to all life in the galaxy!

First off, one of the big aspects that separates the first Guardians Of The Galaxy from Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2 is the music. The first film had incredibly distinct music that resonated and became inextricably tied with the scenes it was in. For all of the apparent popularity of "Awesome Mixtape Volume #2," the film's music is hardly as iconic or memorable as the works from the first movie. In fact, after watching the film, I could only recall two of the songs used in the movie and - unlike the first movie - my mind resonated with the thought that director James Gunn absolutely missed the mark on one of the musical cues. There is a big, key scene in Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2 that features a bit of violence and one of the film's utterly unmemorable songs that would have been made absolutely hilarious and entirely memorable if James Gunn had used "It's Raining Men" in the scene. Seriously, there's arguably no bigger musical misstep in the film than that missed opportunity - and when viewing Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2, with that bug in your ear, it is virtually impossible not to watch the scene and imagine it with "It's Raining Men," laugh at how funny that would have been and then grimace at how the film's big moment there loses something by the musical piece that was worked in.

The only other major flaw in Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2 - outside, perhaps, wasting any time in the film to seed a potential future incarnation of the Guardians Of The Galaxy - is that the story has so many characters to service that in giving each one adequate screentime and story points, the film has an unfortunately erratic flow. Gamora draws the short straw for the major characters, largely because Zoe Saldana's best character moments are reflections of Karen Gillan's Nebula's character growth. Gamora acts as a sidekick to Star-Lord before reacting to Nebula's surprisingly deep realization that her hatred for Gamora is very reasonable. Gamora's bits are peppered throughout Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2 without her actually getting a very strong narrative of her own (though she does have some big action moments and, ultimately, some decent character moments).

Similarly, Drax begins Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2 with an impressive number of the film's funniest lines before the movie gets packed with a slew of other character and plot threads. Drax has almost no presence in the film's middle and he comes back late in the film with retreads of some of his earlier jokes. Rocket is presented as taking the brunt of everyone's ire and lashing out obnoxiously, but his practical joke motivates almost all of the film's action. Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2 devotes a significant amount of time to developing Yondu and utilizing Rocket as a foil for a whole "buddy comedy" subplot within the film. To be fair, Michael Rooker (Yondu) plays off the virtual Rocket amazingly well and Bradley Cooper's deliveries for Rocket have an impressive emotional range from snarky to hurt to goading in the funniest way imaginable.

Chris Pratt does well as Peter Quill, starting authoritative and moving fast into reasonably shaken by Ayesha's remarks about his heritage. Pratt has been thrust into the role of action hero and he rises to the occasion with good physical performances and - in some key moments as Peter learns about his father - acting through his facial expressions alone. Beyond that, Pratt plays to his comedic strengths is familiar deliveries of deadpan and sarcastic lines that made Quill memorable from the first film.

Newcomer to the Guardians team, Mantis, is an intriguing addition who is ultimately integral to Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2. Whether the character has enduring value beyond the specific story told in Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2 remains to be seen, but she is utilized well in this film. And, despite being given lines that are variants of her one trick pony, Pom Klementieff delivers them with credible, wide-eyed innocence that plays as very funny. Klementieff and Dave Bautista have great on-screen chemistry as a rare successful comedic pairing of dual straightmen.

While Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2 has a somewhat erratic plot execution as the various threads work to come together in a fairly predictable "stop the super-villain" way, the result is surprisingly satisfying. Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2 finds the right balance between action-adventure violence and humor. Seeing the film in the theater, both my wife and I were shocked by the number of children being brought to Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2; it is not a soft PG-13. Between hilarious lines - "I have famously large turds!" - complex character motivations (are children truly likely to understand the motivation of the Celestial?!), a disproportionately large spider, and a fair amount of action violence, Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2 is not intended for kids.

But Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2 is funny, has clever moments and the characters are motivated by surprisingly deep psychological factors. And for a film opening Summer Blockbuster Season - which is historically known for being vacuous and spectacle-based - it is hard to ask for more than what Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2 delivers.

For other science fiction comedies, please check out my reviews of:
Ant-Man
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
Men In Black

8.5/10

For other elements of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, please check out my Marvel Cinematic Universe Review Index Page for a complete relative listing!

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

Unremarkable Sequel: Mission: Impossible 2 Is Entirely Unimpressive

The Good: Adequately performed, Moments of concept/character
The Bad: Absolutely dull protagonists, Painfully predictable, Horrible dialogue, Ridiculous action sequences
The Basics: Playing one trick over and over and over and over again, Mission: Impossible 2 feels like exactly what it is: a cheap sequel.


As a movie reviewer, there are any number of films that I watch based on its newness, potential popularity and the likely interest of my readers. There are, as an unfortunate offshoot of that, movies that I watch then somewhat out of rote; to complete the gaps in a film series I once began or saw later sequels to. When I sat down to Mission: Impossible 2, it was certainly one of those movies; I saw the two most recent sequels and a few months ago, I saw the first film in the series with Tom Cruise. I saw Mission: Impossible 2 as a nice break from going through the James Bond films (I only have the Dalton and Brosnon years left!), but honestly, I did not “miss” the movie when I did not go see it in theaters fourteen years ago.

My initial antipathy toward Mission: Impossible 2 was certainly appropriate; I cannot think of a sequel in recent memory that was less exciting or interesting than Mission: Impossible 2. Mission: Impossible 2 feels like exactly what it is: a blasé sequel that is more designed for the spectacle of Summer Blockbuster Season than a viewing that evaluates substance. From heavily-choreographed car chases to the opening rock climbing scene to generic long-shots of Ethan Hunt standing on an Australian prairie, everything about Mission: Impossible 2 screams “look, don’t think!”

A plane carrying a Russian scientist, Dr. Nekhorvich, and his bag with a deadly genetically-engineered disease (Chimera) and its cure (Bellerophon) crashes after Nekhorvich believes he has met with agent Ethan Hunt (using the alias Dmitri). The real Ethan Hunt’s vacation is interrupted when he is tasked with recruiting the brilliant thief, Nyah Nordoff-Hall for the mission to recover the Chimera virus. Hunt tracks Hall to a swanky villa where she is attempting to steal a necklace that is going to come up for auction days later. Hunt tests Hall and offers her immunity from international prosecution for her many past crimes in exchange for helping him on his mission. After a protracted race, Hall reluctantly agrees and Ethan Hunt gets his mission: Hunt is tasked with getting Hall close to Sean Ambrose, the man who impersonated Hunt on the plane, so they may recover Chimera.

When the Impossible Missions Forces put out a bulletin that Hunt has been imprisoned in Seville, Nyah is rescued by her old beau, Ambrose. Nyah and Hunt’s Impossible Missions team converge on Sydney, Australia, where Ambrose and his team have taken up residence. But Ambrose is not stupid; his deputy, Hugh Stamp, is suspicious of the timing of her return and performs surveillance on her. Using Nyah, Ethan and his team learn just how lethal the Chimera virus is. They track the CEO of Biocyte, who is trying to buy back the virus and its cure. Ambrose has the cure, but not the virus; so Ethan Hunt ends up in the Biocyte facility at the same time as Ambrose, with both attempting to get the virus. In a game of cat and mouse, Hunt works to destroy all of the virus, while Ambrose tries to get the final sample to sell on the black market.

Mission: Impossible 2 lacks iconic scenes and moments that make it into widespread pop culture. The bungey jumping scene in Mission: Impossible 2 has the feeling of being a cheap retread of the scene from Mission: Impossible where Tom Cruise’s Ethan Hunt does acrobatics that prevent him from touching a pressure-sensitive floor after rappelling into an otherwise secure room. While there are plenty of movies that do not have big moments that make it into the collective consciousness, the fact that Mission: Impossible 2 has nothing that comes close when the first film in the franchise only accents how mundane the movie is.

Fans of spy thrillers will be utterly unsurprised by Mission: Impossible 2. The reversals are telegraphed so far ahead that it is astonishing the writers even bothered with the direction they went. In the Mission: Impossible world, latex masks may be made so precisely that they completely fool intimate inspection. In Mission: Impossible 2, that is established in the first scene and so many characters use that same technology, so when director John Woo continues to use that conceit to “surprise” viewers, it is anything but surprising.

The writing in Mission: Impossible 2 is disappointing in that it attempts to disguise characterization and themes as dialogue in such a clunky way that it makes the viewer wince. When Nyah is rescued by Hunt within the Biocyte facility, there is a particularly horrible line that tries to nail home how the first impression of Nyah is not accurate (or the character has evolved) and it is so inorganic that it feels utterly contrived. Ironically, the character of Nyah is one of the few worthwhile ones in Mission: Impossible 2. I like characters who do not shy away from acts of sacrifice and Nyah rises to the occasion at a key moment, making a somewhat droll film watchable at the very least.

The villains in Mission: Impossible 2 are unfortunately generic. John McCloy is a greedy CEO whose business is built on creating viruses and cures, Hugh Stamp is the ultimate generic psychopath sidekick to the villain. Sean Ambrose is basically a thug who has exceptional knowledge of his adversary, which makes him interesting for about five minutes out of his entire time on screen. The most impressive aspect of Ambrose is his ultimate plan; instead of a diabolical plan to rule to world or kill a lot of people, he wants to make money the way rich people do: executing stock options. He just needs the seed money to buy Biocyte before the Chimera virus makes the stock price skyrocket.

The generic quality of the adversaries mirrors the blandness of the heroes. Ethan Hunt is granted no distinguishing characteristics in Mission: Impossible 2. He is a standard super spy the likes of which has been seen in every James Bond film ever and virtually every other spy film that prioritizes spectacle over reality in its storytelling. Tom Cruise does an adequate job of running, jumping and shooting guns in Mission: Impossible 2, but he and his co-stars are playing archetypes as opposed to actual characters.

Mission: Impossible 2 is a dull way to waste two hours, but it is not a movie that is in any way painful to watch (wincing from the bad dialogue aside). But when the biggest moment of the film is recognizing that Ethan Hunt’s boss is played by Sir Anthony Hopkins (who is not credited as one of the film’s big stars), as opposed to any of the action sequences, it is hard to say one has a spy film that is successful in any way.

For other Mission: Impossible movies, check out my reviews of:
Mission: Impossible
Mission: Impossible III
Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol

3/10

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

© 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.
| | |

One Iconic Scene Does Not Justify The Lackluster Spy Film Mission: Impossible

The Good: Smart protagonist, Generally good acting
The Bad: Special effects, Obvious plot reversals, No real character development, Dumb peripheral characters, Overbearing soundtrack
The Basics: When Ethan Hunt’s team is burned, he learns there is a conspiracy within the Impossible Missions Force and he is the prime suspect.


With so many reviewers going gaga for James Bond in celebration of his 50th Anniversary and the accompanying Blu-Ray/DVD collection for that milestone, I thought, “Now’s the perfect time for me to review Mission: Impossible.” What can I say? I’m a contrarian at heart. Actually, I have a thing about having sensibility in my reviews and I vaguely recalled seeing Mission: Impossible III (reviewed here!) and being disappointed by how derivative of Alias (reviewed here!) it was. Conversely, I enjoyed last year’s Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol (reviewed here!), so I thought it was time to go back and see the first Tom Cruise Mission: Impossible film.

I am not impressed. Within the film and as a professional reviewer, there were too many conceits utilized by Mission: Impossible that made it problematic at best. As a viewer who understands how Hollywood works (at least in general terms) the fact that the film opens with a shot of Emilio Estevez, whose name does not appear in the opening credits, is a disturbing nod that informs the viewer they should not get overly attached to his character. In the film itself, Mission: Impossible features one of the dumbest criminal masterminds of all time in that the “diabolical genius” who is behind the film’s conspiracy (which he has apparently been planning for some time) stupidly tells the truth at key moments which allow the protagonist to easily reason who is behind everything. Obviously, if one is a mole in a government agency, they should be used to lying and working covertly. The villain in Mission: Impossible does so so poorly that it is hard to believe that the person gets as far as they do.

Following a mission in Kiev, Jim Phelps assembles an Impossible Missions Force Team in Prague. With the stated mission being to recover a disc that has the aliases and mundane names of every IMF operative working in Eastern Europe, Phelps’s team, which includes Ethan Hunt, Claire Phelps, Sarah, Jack and another operative, infiltrates a party. The mission, however, goes sour and everyone but Hunt appears killed. Contacting command, Hunt is put in contact with Kittridge, who happens to be in Prague and is able to extract Hunt. Meeting with him, Kittridge reveals that there is a mole in the IMF and because Hunt’s family farm has suddenly come out of debt, he is the prime suspect.

Evading Kittridge’s men, Hunt makes it to a safe house, where he attempts to find the people who gave the IMF the mission and he discovers Claire is still alive. Claire and Hunt assemble their own team of former IMF agents to get the list which was used as bait to draw out the real mole. As Kittridge closes in on his team, Hunt learns the identity and motivations of the enemies of the IMF.

To the credit of Mission: Impossible, Ethan Hunt is characterized as a realistically smart protagonist. He asks – immediately – one of the key questions of Kittridge when he learns that the other agent is in Prague. Hunt is operating on a level that makes him seem like a credible, realistically-seasoned spy. He might not be a good son (why would he let his family farm stay in debt if he had such a good job?!), but he is a realistically competent spy protagonist.

The acting in Mission: Impossible is fair. Tom Cruise is credible, if young looking, for a superspy action hero Ethan Hunt. On the character front, Ethan Hunt and his family ties make less sense for a spy of his caliber (obvious weakness), but Cruise gets into the role after the opening meeting scene (in that, none of the performers seem to be taking the briefing seriously enough to be actual intelligence agents. The scene is fun, but not at all believable). The only other truly credible actors in Mission: Impossible are Emilio Estavez and Ving Rhames. Jean Reno, who can usually be counted on for a great performance, plays Krieger as clumsy at a moment when the character cannot afford to be and he does not sell the moment. Similarly, Emmanuelle Beart, who plays Claire, is a pretty generic pouty-lipped, Hollywood ideal who has no presence or gravitas on the screen. Henry Czerny, at least, has the excuse that he isn’t given much to do with Kittridge as a generic antagonist.

Several of the shots in Mission: Impossible do not work in a rational sense. Coming off the iconic scene in the record’s room, Ethan Hunt catches a bead of his own sweat to prevent it from setting off the alarm. The shot looks marginally good, but it is so obviously an insert shot that it is distracting to the seasoned viewer. In other words, there is no way the hand could be at the angle and placement it is shot in, especially catching the sweat, in the reality of Hunt’s body position in the shot. In fact, the movement needed to make it work would have caused the suspended character to pinwheel.

Director Brian De Palma sacrifices rationality for the cool look in several key moments. The finale of the film involves Ethan Hunt laying inches away from a helicopter blade and he looks mildly startled. That helicopter blade should have been exceptionally hot; regardless of it missing slicing open Hunt’s neck, he should be pretty uncomfortable from the heat. De Palma hopes the viewer will not notice this. Furthermore, he uses an incredible reliance on the soundtrack to telegraph the emotions and tension the viewer is supposed to feel.

They do not.

As well, De Palma makes several obvious cuts - most obviously with Jack's demise - where he is obviously laboring to keep the film PG-13 and it looks and feels sloppy at those moments.  The result is a spy film that strives to be even average, but is so preoccupied with creating the next “surprise” twist that the viewer is left bored for much of the movie.

For other spy thrillers, check out my reviews of:
Skyfall
The Bourne Identity
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

3/10

Check out how this film stacks up against others I have reviewed by visiting my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

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

A Surprisingly Adult Premise Makes Lilo & Stitch An Intriguing Disney Film!

The Good: Set-up, Moments where it commits to the premise, Character work, Decent character design.
The Bad: Predictable plot and character arcs, Sacrifices its mature elements for safety, Surprisingly violent for a children’s movie, Erratic animation quality.
The Basics: When an alien falls to Earth and ends up adopted by a Hawaiian girl in need, she finds family and the viewers find Lilo & Stitch unable to commit to its own premise.


I can admire when an established studio takes a real risk with its fan base. Disney certainly took a big risk with Lilo & Stitch, which was a science fiction animated Disney adventure that had a number of elements atypical to a Disney animated film. I find no small irony in the fact that the night after my wife sat me down to watch Lilo & Stitch, a film with a number of comparative elements to the Star Wars Saga, for the first time was the day before Disney bought Lucasfilm. If Lilo & Stitch is any indication, future Star Wars films will be troublingly safe, formulaic and problematically rendered. Come to think of it, that’s pretty much what most people say of the Star Wars movies now!

Lilo & Stitch is a science fiction story, though, with the character of Stitch being an alien. The film has a number of familiar elements, especially in the basic plot structure and character types, but the film opens with a comparatively audacious opening that is exceptionally engaging for Disney and science fiction fans. The Disney fans who do not give up on the film for how far from the norm it begins, are rewarded by a movie that develops into exactly like what one expects of a Disney film. As one who was impressed by the strong opening for the film, I ended up a bit more disappointed by the direction in which Lilo & Stitch went.

Experiment 626 is the creation of Jumba, a mad scientist who is incarcerated by the Grand Council of the galaxy. When the measures used to contain Experiment 626 fail, the small creature with two legs, four arms, giant ears and eyes and a mouth full of deadly fangs escapes and ends up crashing on Earth, on one of the Hawaiian islands. There, the creature comes into contact with Lilo. Lilo is a young girl, being cared for by her older sister, Nani, and getting into quite a bit of trouble. After biting a dance classmate and nailing shut the front door on Nani, Lilo’s family life is menaced by former CIA-turned-social-services-agent Cobra Bubbles. Agent Bubbles wants to make sure Lilo is adequately cared for by Nani and he is not at all impressed by their first meeting.

Given three days to shape up her family, Nani allows Lilo to buy a pet from the local animal shelter. There, she adopts the blue alien Experiment 626, whom she names Stitch. As Stitch is hunted by Jumba and his dimwitted police guardian, Pleakley, he causes Nani to lose her job and Nani goes on a quest to find a new job to keep her family safe and secure. While outrunning Jumba, Pleakley, and Captain Gantu of the space fleet, Stitch begins to bond with Lilo and come to understand that his destructive actions have consequences.

In the age of ADHD, Lilo & Stitch would seem to be exceptionally relevant. Unfortunately, the film fails to truly stick with its own premise. Jumba defines Experiment 626 as the ultimate destroying machine. Fast, strong, and destructive without remorse, Stitch is characterized initially as an agent of chaos. However, the simple lack of cities on the island seem enough to reform the creature from unstoppable evil to just periodically annoying. For sure, writers Chris Sanders and Dean DeBlois might well be making a comment on how children who suffer from ADHD simply need a change in their environment. However, that does not work. Neither does Lilo’s approach which seems to be to try once, then guild the alien into doing what she wants.

I am, by no means, saying that Lilo & Stitch would be a stronger film if the main character never developed, but the speed of the development utterly undermines the premise of the film. Jumba, Pleakley, Gantu, and ultimately the Grand Councilwoman herself all arrive to do what they can to stop Stitch because the threat of him being out of their custody is perceived as so great. And yet, stuck on the island, there is remarkably little trouble the creature can get into and, more importantly, less it appears inclined to. So, Lilo & Stitch seems an overblown response to a significantly overstated problem.

As one expects from a Disney animated film, Lilo & Stitch is intended to show the strength of family, in this case a broken, small, Hawaiian family. Lilo is easy to empathize with; she lost her parents relatively recently and the film take the time to make some really perceptive comments on such situations. While Bubbles is initially characterized as a monolithic antagonist, his goals are always honorable; to make sure that Lilo is being cared for in the best possible way. When Lilo notes that she likes Nani better as a sister than a mother, it opens a complicated range of emotions and discussions. It is easy to empathize with Lilo, who has lost her parents, and equally easy to empathize with Nani, who is not much older than Lilo (there is a perception that she is in her late-teens, early twenties compared to Lilo, who is in (I believe the film said) first grade). Nani has lost her parents and been saddled with a child at a time in her life when she was very much ready to move on. It is hard not to empathize with that.

Lilo & Stitch opens with the threat of a big villain, who is easily pacified, and epic space battles and a lot of sound and fury that make the film seem like it will be intense and engaging throughout. Unfortunately, it settles pretty rapidly into very standard Disney fare and Lilo and Stitch bond and the alien learns the importance of family. It is very much the Disney formula, with the inclusion of the usual conceits, like the all-powerful authority figure that sits most of the film out (Grand Councilwoman) and the wisecracking sidekick (Pleakley).

The voiceovers in Lilo & Stitch are one of the superlative aspects of the film. All of the vocal talents, from Daveigh Chase (Lilo) and Tia Carrere (Nani) to David Ogden Stiers (Jumba) and Ving Rhames (Bubbles) are clear, emotive and distinctive. Lilo & Stitch benefits from having a decent caliber of actor performing the lines for the occasionally obvious and sometimes action-packed animated film.

But for all the leaps Lilo & Stitch takes to be audacious, clever, and interesting, it rapidly degenerates into exactly what one expects from a Disney animated movie. With a soundtrack of Elvis songs instead of characters singing, Lilo & Stitch makes the fantastic seem credible before it abandons the attempt, making a film more average than audacious.

For other Disney animated films, please visit my reviews of:
Tangled
Toy Story 3
A Christmas Carol
Up
The Princess And The Frog
Bolt
WALL-E
The Incredibles
Monsters, Inc.
The Lion King
The Little Mermaid
Lady And The Tramp
The Sword In The Stone
Sleeping Beauty
Fantasia

6/10

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

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

Won’t Back Down Stumbled Into The Start Of Oscar Pandering Season.

The Good: Decent concept/message, Moments of character
The Bad: Unimpressive acting, No new information/approaches, Nothing at all superlative.
The Basics: Won’t Back Down has good intentions and a lot of heart, but is essentially a reform story that most viewers have already seen before.


Each year, there are two seasons I look forward to as a film critic. I love Summer Blockbuster Season, even with the schlock, because it is so delightfully mainstream and sometimes a truly great film slips in between the massive budget popcorn flicks. And then there is Oscar Pandering Season. Oscar Pandering Season is what I call the movie releases that have – in the last few years – been dropped in September and late November/all of December. If you look at the history of Oscar nominations from the past three or more years, you might note that the majority of the films nominated for Best Picture are released then because, apparently, Academy nominators are too stupid to remember great films they saw earlier in the year (at least, that appears to be what the studios believe). Oscar Pandering Season is marked by serious dramas that use impressive actors and actresses in roles custom-tailored to get them an Oscar nomination. After a summer of vacuous special effects films, followed by a brief lull populated by all the horror and comedy movies that could never compete with the massive advertizing campaigns of Summer Blockbuster Season, the studios push forth the films they hope will earn them a Best Picture nod and Oscar.

The first such film for Oscar Pandering Season is The Words, but I wasn’t able to get into a screening of that! Instead, last night I attended a screening of Won’t Back Down, a pseudo-controversial education drama that will only open the eyes of the truly ignorant or utterly misinformed. In other words, for those who work in education or who advocate for their child in the public education system, Won’t Back Down offers no new information or approaches.

Malia is a girl who is failing in school because she is unable to read. Her mother, Jamie, is convinced that her daughter can learn, but that the school she attends is not taking the time to actually educate her. When she learns how Malia is being isolated and punished for falling behind, instead of being given opportunities to catch up, Jamie takes matters into her own hands. Her complaints lead her to Nona Alberts, a teacher who spends much of her off-time teaching her own son because the school is failing him as well, despite Nona's marriage falling apart over education-related issues.

Together, Jamie and Nona team up to remove the worst teachers from Adams in an attempt to transform Adams. As they try to unite the neighborhood parents, they run into resistance, though it is nothing compared to the hostility they find at Adams among the teachers, administration, and school board. Fighting for change takes a toll on Jamie personally and Nona professionally, but the pair works to change one failing school in Pittsburgh, against all odds.

Won’t Back Down is not bad, but it is marred by being That Kind Of Movie. From the moment Jamie begins her quest to change Malia’s school – as opposed to giving up and moving Malia to a different school, which is not really an option for the poor mother - Won’t Back Down trends into territory that is far more obvious than audacious. This is not going to be the type of movie where halfway through the film, Jamie gets hit by a tractor trailer truck and the film turns into a euthanasia debate. It’s not the type of movie where the protagonists are going to try, fight the good fight, and fail with no results.

What is frustrating is that Won’t Back Down dilutes its focus with Hollywood clichés. There is a very minor romantic subplot that puts Jamie and one of the teachers in a near-relationship that seems pointless. Won’t Back Down has many of the clichés of the buddy drama as the common struggle between Jamie and Nona leads them to take risks together that are atypical for two people who have known one another so briefly.

On the character front, the title says it all. Won’t Back Down is the story of determination with two women who overcome their frustrations to take on an unjust system. Jamie’s working class background makes her a slight foil to Nona, but makes her determination that Malia will have a better life than she does make sense. Won’t Back Down does this without any real flavor or pizzazz. In other words, Jamie is a pretty generic determined single mother, without any quirks to make her different. Nona is a similarly determined woman whose only real differences from Jamie are the gender of her child and her education level.

Both Maggie Gyllenhaal (Jamie) and Viola Davis (Nona) do a decent job of balancing the two halves of their characters. They are supposed to be both determined and beleaguered and Davis, especially, utilizes her body language to convey exhaustion exceptionally well. Gyllenhaal sells the spunk and determined aspects of Jamie, but does not so much land the gritty qualities one might expect out of a woman of her socioeconomic status. Too often while watching Won’t Back Down, the viewer is aware they are watching Maggie Gyllenhaal as Jamie, as opposed to Jamie. There are moments when Gyllenhaal smiles, for example, that seem oddly out of character for a character as single-minded and focused as Jamie usually is.

The supporting cast in Won’t Back Down is good and Holly Hunter’s antagonistic role might be one of the only ones I have enjoyed her in. The child actors Emily Alyn Lind (Malia) and Dante Brown (Cody) hold their own well in a cast of seasoned adult actors. As Malia struggles with literacy, Lind is convincing with her eye movements and body language in addition to the delivery of her lines.

But ultimately, Won’t Back Down is unremarkable and unsurprising and the struggle in the film is one far too many people live day to day as it is. Like Blood Diamond or V For Vendetta (reviewed here!), Won’t Back Down might be extraordinary if it had the ability to wake up the sleeping masses. But, unlike the characters in the film, I have lost the faith that movies in the United States will actually accomplish real change, or else this problem would have been solved by Waiting For Superman years ago.

For other films about educators, please check out my reviews of:
Here Comes The Boom
Finding Forrester
Easy A

4.5/10

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.
| | |

Another Inane Comedy With A Simple Premise: The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard Stinks.

The Good: It’s always nice to seek David Koechner getting work…
The Bad: Not funny, Not clever, Predictable plot, Universally unlikable characters
The Basics: Not funny, not clever and utterly predictable, The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard, is another dumb comedy with sex-crazed men who are unethical idiots learning lessons most people get in first grade.


One knows they must seriously be in love when they go to see what their partner wants regardless of how little they themselves want to see it. For me, that is the realm of inane comedies which I’ve pretty much had my fill of in this life. And yet, my partner loves the comedies and when we see a preview that I groan over or a movie poster that leaves me feeling no real sense of intrigue, these are the films I know almost instantly my partner will want me to take her to. In this case, it was The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard and we didn’t even see a preview of it. Instead, we just saw the movie poster and after our disastrous screening of District 9 (reviewed here!), she wanted me to take her to it.

In the case of The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard, I actually had a selling point; Jeremy Piven. Piven is a man whose work I’ve enjoyed since pretty much the moment he first popped up in the third season of Ellen as cousin Spence. He was funny with a cold wit and a strong knack for irony. While he seems to have achieved a lot of recognition now on Entourage, I’ll always think of him as Spence because the role was so very distinctive. Unfortunately, as he returns to films – he has never truly left, but it has been a while (if ever) since he has been top billed – he comes with a role that is so much less distinguished as to have the opposite effect. I suspect an entire franchise of films could be made out of Don Ready, but Piven would never truly be associated with this role.

When used car salesman Dick Lewiston goes off the deep end with some customers at Selleck Motors, lot owner Ben Selleck grudgingly admits to his staff that they need to bring in a gun-for-hire to turn things around or else the showroom will go bust. Don Ready, known in such circles as “The Goods” is given a call by Ben and he goes from Arizona to Temecula (CA) to help turn things around for Selleck Motors. Don and his team of mercenary car salesmen – Brent, Jibby, and Babs – arrive to try to sell as many cars as they can for Ben over a single weekend. The goal is two hundred cars over the Fourth Of July weekend and Don and his team seem up for the challenge.

Complications almost immediately ensue when “The Goods” (Don) begins to fall for Ivy, Ben’s daughter who is predictably smoking hot. Can Don give up the lifestyle of drinking, casual sex and fast talking to become an actualized adult who might be worthy of her attention? Well . . . who cares?

The fundamental problem with The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard is that none of the characters are terribly likable and most of the humor is so generic as to be either overdone or have nothing to do with the somewhat unique setting the film is set in. Sure, there are plenty of jokes that can come out of being a used car salesman, but when the movie opens with jokes about “coloreds” and a man randomly punching a customer and is followed by a less-than-clever bit about a car being bought using stolen funds, the chance to capitalize on the setting is almost immediately lost. Instead, the humor treads toward the drunken fratboy type humor that characterizes many adult comedies aimed at men these days. Here is yet another posse of smarmy men who have no emotional depth and take no responsibility for their actions.

So, Don is more of an archetype than an actual character and the lines that come out of his mouth are just that; lines. Don is less a cohesive being than he is a series of one-liners which flop out of his lips and garner a smile at their best. Add to that, there is no real resonance between him and his associates. So, why Brent and Jibby hang out with Don is as much a mystery at the end as it is at the beginning. They work together, but given their individual strengths at swindling potential customers, the need for a team effort is minimal and one suspects that they are only together because it is that type of buddy comedy and they are the buddies.

As far as the plot goes, there are no real surprises there. After the set-up and the arrival of Don and his men, the film quickly takes a turn into foul-mouthed humor and coke snorting, like some demented Kevin Smith film absent the social commentary or the charm. So when Ivy enters and Don becomes almost instantly attracted to her, there are no surprises. It is That Kind Of Movie where what we think might happen does. And the obvious plot questions like “Does Don save Selleck Motors?” and “Does Don get the girl?” become inconsequential amid the rapid-fire of jokes. We don’t even care about the plot – though this is a remarkably predictable film in that regard – because the plot is almost an accessory to the cinematic murder we are witnessing where random lines are thrown around.

Truth be told, there are some funny moments in the movie, but they are the non sequitors, like the cameo appearance by Will Ferrell. The humor that comes from the random elements is good, but the bulk of it could have been done in virtually any other comedy. Still, the movie has a few moments that garner laughs (sadly almost none of them involve Piven speaking).

In this way, The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard makes good use of its setting. Like some vastly superior comedies, this film utilizes the parade of new faces on screen – in this case the potential customers who come looking at cars – as a medium to make jokes. The humor is largely comprised of jokes spoken to whomever is passing through and they are non sequitors that have little to do with the rest of the film and only serve to show how funny Andy Stock and Rick Stempson are (or imagine themselves to be). But what the writers fail to do is string together an even remotely interesting narrative in the process and as a result, the movie seems more like a visual jokebook than anything else and it falls flat.

In addition to the pathetic lack of original plot, The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard suffers because the characters are generic as well and the acting is mostly typecasting of the performers. Jeremy Piven plays Don like a smarmy version of Spence with much of the same banter-like delivery of dialogue as his Entourage character. Having just recently seen Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy, it is easy to see how David Koechner ended up in this cinematic trainwreck; his character is remarkably similar to the one he played in the other film and he is used almost identically in this as he was in that (and other movies). It is one thing for an actor to be used well for his comic sensibilities, but Koechner is used to deliver his lines with a strange combination of dryness and over-the-top with the occasional bugging out of his eyes and we get that that is within his range. Give us something new. Unfortunately, this movie does not do that with any frequency.

Similarly, Ving Rhames, Craig Robinson, and Tony Hale are all similarly misused as simply thrust into their roles with little other than prior performances respected. Most of the performers here are simply performing “The Best Of ” as opposed to showing us something new from their repertoire. But given that most of the jokes are centered around the supposed shock value of swearing and the idea of matching people with cars – most of which are defective in one way or another – instead of anything specific or interesting having to do with anything new, simply recycling their performances works.

The result is one of the last summer comedies that may be safely avoided by all adults looking for something – anything – interesting to watch on screen this year and another film that can still be avoided on DVD.

For other works with Kathryn Hahn, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Step Brothers
Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy

3/10

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

© 2012, 2009 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.
| | |

Aiming For Humor, Piranha 3DD Is Still Gross.

The Good: Some of the acting, 3-D effects
The Bad: Absolutely ridiculous plot and execution, No character development, The acting from the secondary characters.
The Basics: Absurd and graphic in all of the worst possible ways, Piranha 3DD is little more than a gory porn flick that fails to satisfy on any level.


There are torturous aspects of being a film reviewer. During Summer Blockbuster season, audiences are inundated with slews of films and while that usually is a thrill, not all of the movies released as summer fare are even remotely worthwhile. Piranha 3DD is one such film that is so bad, it makes one wonder how anyone can justify spending millions of dollars to make movies like it. To its credit, Piranha 3DD is so absolutely, unbelievably ridiculous that it does not even try to take itself seriously.

As a sequel to Piranha 3D (reviewed here!), Piranha 3DD is not campy; it is a parody of itself and more often than not it is obvious. When it is not utterly ridiculous, it is nauseatingly gross. Piranha 3DD plays in hyperboles; the characters are almost universally dumb, the nudity is in-your-face in a way that only a teenager might find it enjoyable and the gore is so excessive that Piranha 3DD, despite being light on plot and character and high on special effects, cannot be considered a “popcorn movie.” In fact, the only reason to have any sort of snack with you while watching Piranha 3DD is so you have a container in which to vomit . . . because the need is likely to arise, except for those who have been desensitized by such films as this in the past.

Near the now-(mostly)deserted Lake Victoria, killer piranhas resurface from eggs, despite the locals being aware of the piranha problem. As the local waterpark reopens with an adult-themed section – Big Wet – the owner of the waterpark, Chet, is looking to have a profitable go of the business. But Chet’s hopes are dampened some when his step-daughter, Maddy, returns from college for the summer. As a co-owner, she has real issues with the management of the waterpark. She is shocked when two of her friends are killed at the nearby lake. After determining that the waterpark is not at risk from the piranhas, Maddy’s friend accidentally wounds her boyfriend when a piranha that swam into her vagina bites his penis while they have sex.

From there, the situation gets even worse. Chet is illegally pumping water from an underwater river into the waterpark and that gives the new swarm of piranha the access they need. Bursting into the waterpark, carnage ensues – diminished some by the return of Deputy Fallon and celebrity lifeguard David Hasselhoff. As Maddy fights for survival, Big Wet gets very bloody.

Piranha 3DD is an exceptionally easy film to write off; the studio more or less did that when they released it digitally simultaneous with the theatrical release. The advantage of the digital release is that you can pause or turn the film off without feeling like you are out a whole lot (unlike walking out of a theater after paying 3-D film prices, which is a tough thing to do). The advantage of seeing Piranha 3DD on the big screen is the 3-D effects. To be fair to Piranha 3DD, the effects are pretty impressive. So, for example, because the film was shot in 3-D, big, bouncing breast shots actually feature giant, round breasts, as opposed to two layers of flat-shots, as one gets when a film is made into 3-D in post-production.

The only other positive noteworthy aspect of Piranha 3DD is the reappearance of Christopher Lloyd’s zany fish expert Goodman. Lloyd seems not to take the material he is given too seriously and that makes his melodramatic deliveries even more funny. Similarly, David Koechner is appropriately funny for his part in Piranha 3DD. Chet might not be the defining role of his career, but David Koechner is good in Piranha 3DD.

Beyond that, Piranha 3DD is universally bad. And to make the distinction; as a reviewer, I am subjected to a lot of bad movies. There are bad movies that bore me, bad movies that I find unpleasant and movies that I could not be paid to watch again because they are so terrible. Piranha 3DD is, in every way, the latter. From almost the first frames of the movie, Piranha 3DD works to establish itself as a movie that is more bloody, nudity-filled and preposterous than the original. In that way, it succeeds.

That said, Piranha 3DD is unpleasant to watch on virtually every level. Maddy’s character is initially sympathetic, but quickly becomes boring. In a film filled with utter nonsense, like a young woman who does not seem to notice she is carrying a piranha around in her vagina for a whole day, Maddy seems mundane and straightlaced in a way that simply does not work. It is almost like the writers and director John Gulager postulated that if one character seemed normal, all of the rest of the absurdities would be overlooked by the audience. Instead, Maddy comes to appear almost as unreal as Fallon’s use of a prosthetic shotgun for a leg in that she starts out smart and rational, but never breaks down sufficiently amid the ensuing carnage. In other words, if she were truly as smart and real as she appears at the outset, she should have been far more of a mess as her world collapsed around her.

The rest of the characters in Piranha 3DD are vacuous, corrupt and just plain stupid. Maddy is surrounded by young women who are pretty easy, which makes her outrage at Chet’s creation of Big Wet seems all the more forced, and men who are abusive or dull. Maddy’s ex-boyfriend, Kyle, is pretty much a douchebag in a uniform and it is utterly unsurprising when it is revealed that he is getting kickbacks from Chet. The fact that Barry is established as a man who does not know how to swim, yet comes through as the obvious hero character for the climax is head-shaking bad.

The acting in Piranha 3DD is pretty terrible, even though the effects are good. It’s hard to imagine what enticed Katrina Bowden to spend her time away from 30 Rock shooting this piece of crap. This marks only the second work I have seen Danielle Panabaker in – the first being Friday The 13th (reviewed here!) – and while she might have more screentime as Maddy, she is no more memorable. Her reactions are often stiff and she too-frequently delivers her lines as if she is struggling to remember them (or, conversely, without emotional realism because the lines are memorized and being delivered as if by rote).

It is the minor roles – the cameos like David Hasselhoff and the reappearance of Ving Rhames as Fallon – that overshadow the young cast. They give a moment’s joy for the viewer that is far too short. In the end, that is nowhere near enough to make Piranha 3DD worth recommending or watching, now or on video.

For other works with David Koechner, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Paul
Extract
The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard
Sex Drive
Get Smart
Let’s Go To Prison
Farce Of the Penguins
Thank You For Smoking
The 40 Year Old Virgin
Waiting . . .
Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy

1/10

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

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

The Predictability Of The Last Dream: Jacob’s Ladder

The Good: Some genuinely horrifying images, Decent acting, Interesting story
The Bad: Very predictable plot, Characters are hard to get into
The Basics: As a man wanders through the world that has suddenly become filled by nightmares, the viewer watched and enjoys watching Jacob's twisted journey.


Jacob’s Ladder is a movie I recall seeing previews for on television when I was still too young to go to see rated R movies in the theater and I somehow managed to never get around to seeing it until I bought my new television. I decided for the inaugural movie on my high definition television, I would pick up and watch Jacob’s Ladder finally and overall, I am quite glad I did.

Reading the back of the DVD case, however, is enough to almost ruin the supposed surprise twist of the end of the movie. In truth, fans of psychological horror or most fans of science fiction (the good stuff) will see the end to Jacob’s Ladder coming a mile away. Even so, I found myself enjoying the movie even though it went in exactly the direction I knew it was headed.

Jacob Singer, a Vietnam veteran, lives in New York City where he begins to suddenly experience waking nightmares. He has anxiety attacks, then sees faceless beings, demons, and even his son, who died years before. Unfortunately for Jacob, his reality continues to fracture and he finds himself waking up with his ex-wife Sarah and alternately waking up with his new mistress Jezebel. As his week goes on, Jacob finds himself plagued by greater and more horrifying demons and finding other veterans in a similar predicament.

Jacob’s Ladder is essentially a character study without any real significant character development. More than being about Jacob, the film is an exploration of the situation Jacob finds himself in. Ultimately, his decisions do not matter and who he allies himself with becomes inconsequential. The movie is actually more of an experience about circumstances.

It's hard to discuss Jacob’s Ladder without giving away the end or the fundamental premise. It's a movie that you need to trust the reviewer you're reading to simply take their word for it. If I'm that reviewer for you, thank you. Jacob’s Ladder is not a rational movie and it's not supposed to be. It is supposed to be a movie that freaks you out. It does so not by creating a horrifying set of circumstances or some sort of twisted villain, but rather by placing a fairly normal guy in a recognizable world and then twisting reality around him.

So, Jacob Singer is never a terribly compelling character. But, in truth, the movie works because he is not interesting. Because he is pretty much the everyman, Jacob becomes far less important than the things that surround him. And because of what the movie is truly about, this makes the film work. If Jacob were more interesting, if he were a superhero who could do extraordinary things, it would gut this movie.

Jacob is ably played by Tim Robbins who does an excellent job playing befuddled. Half the time, Jacob does not understand what is going on or why. Tim Robbins adequately portrays that. Robbins falls back from giving a performance that rules the movie and instead lets the environment take over by keeping his acting on the side of understated. Again that works quite well for the movie. And when Robbins needs to strongly emote, as he does in the final moments of the movie, he's there to give the performance what it needs to work.

The movie's special effects are actually impressive, even now. They create a truly creepy mood and the photography and intensity of the visual images is memorable, even more than the story being told.

I give a lot of credit to director Adrian Lyne for Jacob’s Ladder. This movie hinges a lot on the director's vision and it asks a lot of its audience in terms of suspension of disbelief. Lyne pulls it off by taking a script that is not filled with impressive dialogue or interesting characters and creates a movie that effectively manipulates the mood of the viewers through frightening imagery and ideas. Lyne does what is required in order to make the movie work and that's extraordinary in this case.

Ultimately, without giving anything away, Jacob’s Ladder is best described as a dream or a nightmare that the viewer willingly subjects themselves to. We follow Jacob Singer through the nightmare his life has become and as we are simply along for the ride, we are able to immerse ourselves in the terrifying place he finds himself and enjoy being frightened by the imagery as Jacob falls apart.

For other films that bend reality in a similar way, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Brazil
Sucker Punch
Inception

7/10

For other film reviews, please check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the movies I have reviewed!

© 2012, 2006 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |