We're the Millers

*** out of ****

Here’s something nobody needs: An unfunny evaluation of a comedy movie. We’re the Millers is one of those hit-and-miss lowbrow comedies with enough big laughs to deserve my recommendation. Its far-fetched plot is perfect material for the genre and the players are all on the mark. The writing is the only area where things get a little messy but I've learned to expect this problem from your average comedy movie.

Jason Sudeikis is David, a Denver marijuana dealer who is in a predicament with an absurdly powerful boss played by Ed Helms. He is cornered into taking on a smuggling operation which requires flying to Mexico and moving some product into the states with a giant RV. David, uncomfortable with the risk involved, recruits people to accompany him as a faux family in order to thwart suspicion.

For a wife, there is his apartment building neighbor Rose, played by Jennifer Aniston, who is a down-on-her-luck stripper. For a daughter he finds Casey, played by Emma Roberts as a gutter-punk with nothing to lose. To top it all off and provide most of the film’s laughs, there is Kenny, who doesn't need much to convince anyone he’s the naïve goofball son. Kenny is played by a relative newcomer, British actor, Will Poulter, who has a face that looks as if it belongs in a Norman Rockwell portrait of an adolescent boy.

Sudeikis’ character, David, is an ideal smartass and Jennifer Aniston’s talent for displaying deep resentment with a straight face never fails. Emma Roberts is Julia Roberts’ niece…

Also in the film, are Nick Offerman from Parks and Recreation and comedy fail-safe character actress Kathryn Hahn as a married couple in another RV, whose friendliness gets a little closer than the group of smugglers would prefer.

This film’s setup is a farce that guarantees vulgar screwball situations, many of which are more ridiculous than funny. The movie’s money scene when Aniston shows off her fantastic body to dangerous drug lords in a strip-tease feels rather arbitrary but I’m sure it’s what is selling tickets. I just felt like the same scenario could have happened under funnier circumstances.

As always, I have a problem with loosely-structured comedies that surpass the ninety-minute mark. Thankfully, this one is less than two hours but there is some deadweight it could stand to lose. The screenplay is the culmination of work from two separate pairs of writers. One pair was the team behind Wedding Crashers the other was behind Hot Tub Time Machine. The movie lacks a focused sense of humor but big studio comedies rarely have such a thing. The director is the guy behind Dodgeball, and clearly knows how to work well with big group casts, recognizing each actor’s potential hilarity, including the possible character dynamics that will keep things interesting.

Any ensemble in a movie, whether it’s about a team of superheroes, B.F.F. Manhattan ladies, or male bank robbers, can easily be interpreted as an allegory for a family. The inevitable strength of this movie is that it is about a group of people pretending to be a family, becoming one as a result of the ordeal, and they still remain a group of jerks.

The Way Way Back

*** out of ****

The Way Way Back is a coming-of-age dramedy of the kind that is almost too familiar, too formulaic and too predictable. While these things can normally constitute a mundane movie experience, it is spared such a fate by containing some rather good dialogue and a solid cast that bring the movie to life and give it some serious emotional weight.

Our lead character is fourteen-year-old Duncan, played with convincing insecure Bud Cort-like shyness by Liam James. Duncan has been reluctantly dragged on a trip to a beach house on the Atlantic Coast with his mother and her buffoon of a boyfriend, Trent, played with a deliberately non-comic performance by Steve Carell.

I guess I should point out that once we are introduced to Trent’s vacation friends, we see a lot of normally funny actors such as Amanda Peet, Allison Janney and Rob Corddry follow Carell’s lead in behaving immaturely while resisting the temptation to go for easy laughs. These people are hypocritical drunks whose phony joy only contributes to Duncan’s misery and a sense of no place in life.

His mother, played by the great Toni Collette, is sympathetic and clearly cares about her son but is preoccupied in trying to make her new relationship work. Duncan feels abandoned by her and is regularly questioned by Trent who has very uncreative notions as to what Duncan needs to come out of his shell.

While socially inept around people his own age in the area, including a pretty girl next door (AnnaSophia Robb) who may share his pain, Duncan sets out to seek daily refuge from the unending party at the house. Eventually, he discovers a water park, where he befriends a reckless park manager named Owen, who is a motivational ball of brilliant sarcasm played by Sam Rockwell. This character is almost nothing more than an archetype, but Rockwell sure does make him fun!

At this point, the film’s writer/director team Nat Faxon and Jim Rash (who also play waterpark employees) suddenly turn what feels similar to their 2011 screenplay to The Descendants into something resembling the summer camp movie Meatballs with Rockwell as the Bill Murray character. He’s there give the insecure kid a sense of confidence and direction that the selfish unperceptive Trent could never inspire.

The contrast between these two environments continues through the rest of the movie and while I find it strange, I think it actually works. It’s like watching a character realize which movie he’d rather be in.

Fruitvale Station

***1/2 out of ****

Right now, there is an undeniable future Academy Award contender playing in theaters called, Fruitvale Station, which tells the true story of 22-year old Oscar Grant and the last day of his life. This was the winner of the Grand Jury Prize and the Audience Award at this year’s Sundance Film Festival.

While the opening of the movie impacts us with actual cellphone video footage of Grant’s killing at the hands of a transit security officer, the movie is mainly focused on the life that would be taken, with the taking of the life as the arc of the film. It’s New Year’s Eve, 2008 and a young African American man living in the Bay area goes about his day in preparation for his Mother’s birthday with plans to hit the town with his girlfriend and others at the end of the night.

While embellishments and conjecture are inevitable, the twenty-seven-year-old first time writer/director Ryan Coogler has made a graceful film with the foundation of a tragedy that will remind everyone of recent media events. He cited Gus Van Sant’s Elephant and De Cica’s Bicycle Thieves among his inspirations.

Here's Elvis Mitchell's interview with Coogler.

This movie feels like a reaction to people who choose to disassociate from an unjust death when it is of someone considered “questionable.” People can be very quick to blame the victim when they don’t care to have known the victim. Regardless of racist implications that come with this attitude. This was a living, breathing person filled with flaws and strengths and he is now missed. He didn't deserve to die.

Coogler, who did a great amount of research on Oscar’s life, creates a complex character with actor Michael B. Jordon, who has a different appearance to keep with everyone he meets. His four-year-old daughter (Ariana Neal), his girlfriend (MelonieDiaz), and mother (Octavia Spencer) all know him differently.

With cinematographer Rachel Morrison (Sound of My Voice), Coogler’s film is shot with handheld 16mm cinematography and is steeped in naturalism. This is very empathetic portrait of a man. Regardless of whether or not they capture the essence of the real Oscar Grant, this is a film that gives us a person who, in spite of many shortcomings, we want to see live.

Here's a good discussion on multiple perspectives of the film's value.

The Wolverine

**1/2 out of ****

The Wolverine?


As 20th Century Fox is probably more responsible than anything else for the stupid disappointment that was X-Men Origins: Wolverine, did the drastic change in approach and subtle change in title, make an improvement in the cinematic legacy of this Marvel superhero? While Hugh Jackman has been a trooper at playing this character through good and bad movies, does this one justify all of his efforts?
 
After the prospect of wild and dark art-house antics from this movie’s would-be director Darren Aronofsky were replaced by the traditional professionalism of James Mangold, does this movie still have the solid cinematic tone that Wolverine deserves? Is the Japanese setting helpful in accomplishing such a goal?

Does the on-location realism fit in with the Marvel Universe in a good way? Are the special effects sequences well designed? Do they take you out of the movie’s realistic atmosphere?

Does the fact that this story feels so self-contained and disconnected from all the other X-Men movies have a refreshing effect? Does this allow the plot to feel centered?

Do Wolverine’s dreams of intimacy with Jean Grey (Famke Janssen) work in this movie alone, given that he never got anywhere with her in the previous X-Men movies? Does the mourning of a hot chick feel like a really tired cliché? Does the new love interest, Mariko (Tao Okamoto) have a purposeful function in the story? Does James Mangold continue to handle romance and feminine characters with the same ineptitude as Michael Mann?

Are these questions getting any kind of point across?

Is this movie’s mutant villainess, Viper (Svetlana Khodchenkova), too tacky for the established atmosphere? Does she resemble a Euro-trash prostitute as well? Was I incredibly bored by her antagonism? Was it simply a relief to see a better villain take over the film near the end?

Is Wolverine’s new J-pop sidekick, Yukio (Rila Fukushima), totally kick-ass? 

Is Marco Beltrami’s music score compelling?

Is this movie entertaining?!

Is it fun?!!


Kind of.