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.

The Conjuring

Vera Farmiga in The Conjuring

*** out of ****

“Based on true events."

(Sigh)

The Conjuring is a new horror movie from director James Wan (Saw) that takes inspiration from a case handled by famous paranormal investigators, Ed and Lorraine Warren, whose claims of witnessed supernatural phenomena have inspired other horror films like The Amityville Horror. In this film, they are played by Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson who both make a fun attempt in making such a profession seem credible.

Let me stop for a minute and say that this movie’s only real annoying flaw is one that comes attached to many supernatural horror films: The implication that this B.S. really happened. Trust me, without that condescending suggestion, this movie would be just as terrifying.

The film is set in 1971 in a rural section of Rhode Island where strangely no character has a New England accent. When the title drifts into the frame and dominates the screen with sharp serifs, there is a definite sense of homage to many great horror films of the seventies. When we see the haircuts, wardrobe, and imagery often captured with a slow zoom lens, we feel a good sense of the period.

The atmosphere Wan creates here reminds us that the scariest American films were made around this time. There were still no cell phones, no internet and a lot of repressed religious fear in the hearts of an adult generation that was trying to maintain a sense of liberation. Throw that all into a secluded setting and you have a lot of room for terror.

As we learn about the Warrens and the disturbing things they regularly encounter, we are also introduced to the Perron family, moving into a creepy old house in the middle of nowhere. Roger and Carolyn are played by Ron Livingston and Lili Taylor. The two have several daughters whose giddy joy and playfulness possibly plays a role in awakening the evil spirit that looms in the home.

As the situations of incredibly nerve-racking suspense unfold, the film keeps us up to date with the Warrens and their work elsewhere but does not allow the two groups to cross paths until nearly an hour in to the film. This is one of many elements that seem similar to The Exorcist, but it gives this movie an engaging sense of pace. We’re forced to watch this tortured family but are reassured when we see the Warrens who will understand what they are experiencing.

The entire cast does a wonderful job with this hokey materiel. The sound and its use of very deep rumbling bass, is quite effective. The gore factor is rather minimal. So are digital effects of the obvious variety. There are a few cheap instances of startle tactics but they are thankfully outdone by the segments of growing nightmarish dread where all the fear is in knowing that something is around the corner. Also, characters make the effort to turn the lights on when they hear something creepy in this movie, which makes them sympathetic.

There is only one big, “Oh come on!” moment for me, which is when the girls are all shown asleep into their beds following a night when one of them screamed bloody murder after seeing a demon! Like that kid would go back to bed in there anytime soon!

This is very much a conventional horror movie that borrows from others, but like Pacific Rim is to other giant robot movies, it does a way better job in entertaining you. To call The Conjuring an innovative horror film would be a big lie, but it sure conjures up a lot of intense scares. If you don’t see it in theaters, keep it in mind for a dark night at home this October!

World War Z

Enough is enough! I've had it up to here with these...

**1/2 out of ****

Here's World War Z, an entertaining and intense thriller that seems as if it could have been so much more. It was probably supposed to be. When I first heard that this highly-regarded property would be in the hands of director Marc Forster, I was only compelled to chuckle at Paramount's failure to note that this guy has proved to be good at everything (Stranger Than Fiction, The Kite Runner, Finding Neverland) except for action movies (Quantum of Solace). So I was surprised to see that his Paul Greengrass-inspired handheld kinetic action mostly worked with a zombie movie that aimed for realism.

Brad Pitt plays a former U.N. agent spending the day with his wife (Mireille Enos) and two little girls, when the Zombie Apocalypse starts. After a long struggle to get them to safety aboard an aircraft carrier, he is recruited by his former employers to go on a dangerous mission around the world to find the origin of the zombie outbreak.

It occurred to me while watching, that Forster may have been much more the man for the job than I gave him credit for. If there is something he successfully imposes on this materiel, it is his sense of worldliness, which is obvious when you study his career in film. Right off the bat, this epidemic is suggested to be an international crisis and unlike other zombie movies, this one is about a guy with the resources to give us a globe-trotting perspective on this all-too-familiar genre. 

For the light-on-blood PG-13 movie that a two-hundred-million-dollar horror movie is required to be, I will admit that it is very intense and often scary. Like The Dark Knight, it's a PG-13 that gets away with murder, so don't let little kids see it.

The movie is based on Max Brooks' (son of Mel) bestselling book, and from what I'm told, the adaptation process left very few of his ideas intact. It was said to be in the form of several spoken-word transcriptions of zombie-attack survivors. Making a movie about one of these characters would be understandable, but making up a whole new one and changing the nature of the cataclysmic event makes it obvious that they only cared about a title that would sell tickets.    

The only part where it collides, is in the digital-effects driven set-piece in Jerusalem when the zombies form an ant-hill of people climbing over one another to spill over the wall. There are only a few shots when this effect is convincing. In all the others, it is a beautiful and terrifying image but not something that fools the eye. This would work in another movie. One more escapist in nature. In this one, however, everything up to this moment has seemed terrifyingly naturalistic and serious. All of this hard work done by computer-animators in a troubled industry seems so unnecessary.

That goes for the rest of the movie, which never finds a purpose as deep as atmosphere it creates. It just finds excuses to move from one set-piece to the next with its sense of story on the back-burner. Good entertainment, but was it worth all the effort? 

Pacific Rim

**** out of ****
 
THANK GOODNESS!!! Just when I was doubtful that I would ever have fun seeing a mega-budget summer movie again, here comes Guillermo del Toro’s, Pacific Rim, a loud explosion-filled CGI show that’s over two hours, and get this: It’s FUN! When it reached the point of two hours, I wasn’t ready for it to end. When it kept going, I felt nothing but gratification.

This is Del Toro’s love letter to Anime, Kaiju movies… or anything that ever involved a robot fighting a lizard. In spite of a brief history included in the film’s prologue, we as an audience are dropped right in the middle of a bleak future where a war between mankind and giant inter-dimensional city-destroying creatures continues. The monsters have been coming through a portal at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean at an exponential rate as the years have passed. The last efforts are being made to assemble a worldwide coalition of man-driven giant robots to combat the invaders. 

The lead-character pilots and their commander, played respectively by Charlie Hunnam, Rinko Kikuchi and Idris Elba are amusingly melodramatic. The comic relief mad scientists assisting the mission played by Charlie Day and Burn Gorman, actually succeed in simultaneously being funny and essential to the story. When Del Toro regular, Ron Perlman shows up late in the game, as a bizarre black market kingpin, the movie gets even cooler. I also like that this movie has no super-stars - only a few well liked character actors. I find this refreshing. 

While this has been a movie summer hell-bent on mass destruction, Pacific Rim is the only one (aside from the hilarious This Is The End) that doesn’t take the apocalyptic atmosphere too seriously. It doesn’t try very hard to sell us on the plausibility or practicality of what we’re watching. It’s simply steeped in the fun of the genre and for that, the loss of lives implied doesn’t have the depressing effects of a film that aims for realism.

This has always been the case with Del Toro films. He creates a stylized reality where the invading supernatural elements seem to fit. Whether it’s his vampire-like cursed man in Cronos, the magical realism creatures in Pan's Labyrinth, or the various trolls and demons in the Hellboy films, the guy is in love with destructive monsters! A lot of boys are and we never grow out of it.

The other thing that makes this movie so enjoyable is the creativity that went into it. The concept of the giant fighting machines having a neural link with the human pilot may be familiar, but in this movie, two pilots are required to guide the right and left hemispheres of the big guy’s brain (If done solo, it is implied to be overwhelming). The challenge is that they need to be compatible with one another when a bond is formed in the sharing of their minds.

Please understand that my high praise is not meant to imply that this is high-art. It doesn’t aim to be. It aims to be a grand-scale live-action anime movie and it succeeds with flying colors. This is great entertainment. Why it’s failing at the box office, is an injustice that mystifies me. As far as the rest of the summer goes, I don’t think it’s getting better than this. Pacific Rim is my salvation.