Percy Jackson: The Sea of Monsters Review

The fact that I can’t remember much about Chris Columbus’ 2010 “Percy Jackson and The Olympians: The Lightning Thief” (based on the young adult book series by Rick Riordan) isn’t exactly a good sign. Even when I went to IMDb and read through the plot synopsis my mind went blank as to quality of the picture. It also isn’t a good sign that the sequel, “Percy Jackson Sea of Monsters” (directed by Thor Freudenthal) came out two years after the first one, and in August. You’d think that if Twentieth Century Fox had a lot of faith in this “Harry Potter” knockoff (instead of wizardry and magic, it’s Greek mythology) they would have made the sequel right after the first one and released it in prime summer movie time like June or July.

With all that considered, it’s not like I went into “Sea of Monsters” with high expectations, but I thought it could be, at the very least, an entertaining and funny fantasy movie. Plus it has “The Perks of Being A Wallflower” star Logan Lerman in the title role of Percy Jackson (a regular teenager who finds out he’s the son of Poseidon) and he’s proved himself to be legitimate actor capable of carrying a movie. But alas, this film shows that “Percy Jackson” is destined to be nothing more than a C grade “Harry Potter” knockoff. “Sea of Monsters” is a miserable attempt at capitalizing on a young adult book series and earning box office dollars. The screenplay by Marc Guggenheim fails to craft an interesting story and create convincing characters and relies too heavily on its Greek mythology hook. It’s utterly pointless and much like the first film it will quickly evaporate from my memory.

Following the events of the first movie, young Percy now lives at Camp Half Blood, a secret camp deep in the woods where all of the young demigods (half god half human) can live in peace. After saving the world the first time around Jackson is in a bit of a sophomore slump. He’s worried he’s going to be a one-quest wonder, even though there’s this prophecy (there’s always a damn prophecy) that says he’s going to do great things. Anyhow, the safety and tranquility of Camp Half Blood is threatened when the special tree (don’t ask) that creates a protective barrier around the camp is dying. So Jackson and his two friends Ron and Hermi —I mean! Annabeth (Alexandra Daddario) and Grover (Brandon T. Jackson) — embark on a quest suspiciously like The Odyssey to retrieve the legendary Golden Fleece (see the Greek mythology angle there, eh? Eh?) In order to save the tree.

If that storyline isn’t riveting enough for you, there’s also a subplot involving the character of Tyson (Douglas Smith), Jackson’s half brother and the newest resident of Camp Half Blood, who comes along with them. And get this, Tyson is an ugly Cyclops so of course he’s the bumbling outcast freak who messes everything up and has to prove his worth to his attractive teen demigod comrades. Annabeth is particularly nasty to him and takes every opportunity she can to talk down to him. Real positive message that’s sending to the kids in the audience. Oh yeah, there’s also this demigod Luke (Jake Abel) the son of Zeus, who’s bad and stuff and wants the Golden Fleece for himself so he can bring back Cronos from the dead to destroy Mount Olympus. There you go, a movie that has absolutely nothing new to bring to the young adult fantasy table and hopes that you’ll overlook that on account of the Greek mythology stuff.

After the quick setup and the demigods embark on their epic journey the movie becomes one boring action set piece after another and it plays out exactly how you expect it to. Within 30 minutes I was squirming in my theater chair ready to go home. If I hadn’t been on assignment I might have walked out. To go along with that the film tries too hard to be funny. Now, I don’t have a problem with Freudenthal and Co.’s decision to go for a comedic tone, it is a family movie after all and not everything has to be dark, but every line of dialogue intended for humor in “Sea of Monsters” feels forced and almost sitcom-y. An especially terrible example comes in a scene towards the end when Percy and his lads are tied up and when Percy goes to cut Grover’s hands free Grover says: “hey don’t cut off my hands, I’m kind of attached to them.” Sometimes, it’s like Guggenheim doesn’t even make an effort.

 The sad part about all of this is that I could probably overlook some of this stuff if the characters were just a little better, but they’re all either one note or have little or no reason to be there. Percy is just your typical mopey “chosen boy” with a case of the chosen one blues who doesn’t think he’s capable of saving the world again. Cry me a river. Lerman’s talent is practically wasted in the role. As for the supporters: Grover is there to provide comic relief (although he doesn’t do a very good job) and Annabeth is there because a female friend is needed for the hero. Also, the fact that she’s so mean and disgusting towards Tyson makes her annoying. As for Luke? Well, Voldemort he ain’t. I don’t think I’ve seen a more bland and forgettable movie villain this entire year.

There are some positive aspects I could spend a paragraph or two on, like the CGI or whatnot, but what the hell’s the point if the story and characters aren’t there? I realize I haven’t read any of the books but I shouldn’t have to. A movie needs to build strong characters and tell a compelling story on its own and “Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters” doesn’t even come remotely close to doing that.

D-

We're the Millers Review

Rawson Marshall Thurber’s  (director of the 2004 comedy “Dodgeball”) “We’re the Millers” is a raunchy comedy that offers a slight twist on the family vacation comedy subgenre, and while there are some laughs to be had the movie isn’t particularly innovative or memorable. As the title suggests, there is in fact a Miller family but (and here’s the twist) they’re not a real family, and instead of going on vacation they’re going to Mexico to smuggle weed.

The Millers consist of all your typical comedy movie losers and outcasts. The ringleader is Dave Clark (Jason Sudeikis) a small time weed dealer who gets his stash stolen from him. To avoid getting whacked by his drug dealer Brad Gurdlinger (an immensely underused Ed Helms), he must go to Mexico, pick up a shipment of weed and bring it back. This is a risky task and a beaded longhaired loser like Dave won’t be able to get the weed across the border by himself, so he needs to pretend like he’s a straight laced, dweeb father bringing his straight laced, dweeb family on vacation. He enlists the help of Rose (Jennifer Anniston), a stripper who’s not happy with her life, to be his wife; Kenny (Will Poulter), the dorky virgin nineteen year old who lives in the same building as Dave, to be his son; and Casey (Emma Roberts), a runaway living on the street, to be his daughter.

The rest of the movie plays out pretty much the way you’d expect it to. There’s an awful lot of bickering between the artificial family members (some of which is amusing). There are a few close calls (one at the border and one involving a creepy Mexican cop) and of course their already risky task of bringing the weed back over becomes even more dangerous when they find out that they’re actually stealing from a vicious drug dealer named Pablo Chacon (Tomer Sisley). And, of course they have a couple of encounters with a nutso family whose actually on vacation (led by “Parks and Recreation’s” Nick Offerman and Kathryn Hahn, who end up being the two funniest people in the entire film) and of course they get into some funny and awkward situations.

The movie’s much funnier than it should be. To his credit, Thurber doesn’t let a majority of the major comedic set pieces go on too long (to the point where they’re not funny anymore). For example, there’s one amusing scene that involves the two sets of parents swinging that could have been absolutely terrible (if it had gone on longer) but Thurber knows how long to keep it going and not letting it overstay its welcome. Sudeikis (of SNL fame) is a solid comedic lead that fits right into his slacker character. Anniston and Roberts also make the best of their characters even though they’re not given much to work with. The female characters are by far the weakest in the picture. And Poulter has his moments even if you can see his character arc a mile away.

Speaking of that, you can practically see every plot point, every turn, coming from a mile away; the constant bickering, the close calls, the love interest for Kenny, the falling out between the “family” members followed by their making up. That’s the major problem with “We’re the Millers.” There aren’t any surprises, which might not have been such a problem if the movie was funnier, but even the laughs are inconsistent. For every funny set piece there’s one that falls flat. In addition, the bad guys are completely bland and exist only because the story calls for bad guys.

“We’re the Miller’s” is much better than it looks, although that’s not saying much. I’m not entirely sure if it’s worth the price of a ticket, it may be better to just wait for Redbox. You won’t have a miserable time by any means but it will fade quickly from memory.

C

2 Guns Review

Baltasar Kormakur’s “2 Guns” is one of those movies that are just ripe for nitpicking. It’s based on a series of graphic novels by Steven Grant, but unlike most comic book adaptations these days, it’s not gritty and hard boiled, like the recent Batman and Superman films, nor is it PG-13 lite, like all of the recent Marvel movies. It definitely deserves its R Rating (there’s plenty of violence and swearing, along with some nudity) but it’s also extremely silly and over the top. It’s essentially light action entertainment for adults; all logic and plausibility within normal bounds is thrown out the window and there aren’t any serious consequences.

It has such a casual, “screw it” attitude. Here’s a movie where the main characters (played by Denzel Washington and Mark Wahlberg) don’t think twice about breaking into a navy base (and they do it by simply driving through the gate and outrunning the guards), make sarcastic comments as they’re about to be tortured by a Mexican drug cartel boss, and very casually go into a police station and lock the cops up in the holding cells so they don’t interfere right away with a nearby bank robbery. So, with all of this, it’s easy to simply role your eyes and tear this movie to shreds.

But even in a movie as silly and unbelievable as this, authenticity can be found if the filmmakers can get you to believe in the characters and if the right actors play those characters. “2 Guns” succeeds in doing this and therefore the movie works…somewhat. Wahlberg and Washington are really the only legitimate reason to see this. Wahlberg plays Michael Stigman, a navy Intel officer hired to infiltrate a Mexican drug cartel. Washington plays Robert Trench, a DEA agent hired to do the same thing. They’re also supposed to bust one another in the process. But of course things go wrong, forty-three million dollars goes missing from a bank, and both guys are double crossed and framed by their superiors. (Speaking of double crossing, there’s so much double crossing and betrayal in this movie that you could make a successful drinking game.) Now they have to work together to…well, I think you get the idea.

Right away in the opening scene (where we find the two undercover agents in a diner scoping out a bank where supposedly the cartel is keeping money) we get a buddy comedy vibe, one that carries through the duration of the film. To my knowledge this is the first time the two actors have collaborated but based on this early scene alone it feels like their fifth or sixth; their back and forth comedic banter being so entertaining and believable. It’s nice to see an action movie like this that values dialogue.

Both roles play to the actors’ strengths. As I said in my review of last year’s “Safe House,” Washington can usually make the best of his role, even if the movie isn’t entirely there to support him. Robert Trench isn’t foreign territory for him; he’s wise, manipulative, charismatic and fearless. Most of the time he’s in control and when he isn’t he has no trouble getting out of a bad situation. In other words this is the sort of role Washington can play in his sleep, but that doesn’t make it him any less fun to watch.  

As for Wahlberg, he once again showcases his almost flawless ability to do comedy. Stigman is confident and ambitious but kind of dumb and reckless, who seems to act mainly on instinct and split second decisions (it is his idea to break into the navy base by just driving through the gate) and he’s also a loud mouth. As with Washington, Wahlberg is a natural in this role and together the two play off each other wonderfully. A lot of times with these kinds of films the casting can make all the difference and having Wahlberg and Washington gives this movie a major boost.

It also helps that the movie doesn’t take itself too seriously. For how familiar the story is, why not have some fun with it? And it helps that the movie keeps that comedic tone intact. The major problem with Kormakur’s last directorial effort “Contraband” (also with Wahlberg) is that it wanted to be a gritty, hard-boiled crime film as well as a loose and silly action film; as a result the two dueling tones undermined the whole picture. In “2 Guns” the tone stays consistent.

Despite all the praise I’ve given this movie, I’m not going to tell you that “2 Guns” is any kind of great movie, it will be forgotten in a month or two. Without nitpicking it still has flaws, notably the fact that most of the supporting characters don’t have a lot to do. Like Paula Patton, who plays a rather dull love interest for Trench or Edward James Olmos and Bill Paxton who both play one-note cartoon villains. They can be entertaining yes, but you wish there was more for these two talented actors to do.

Even so, Walberg and Washington are a lot of fun to watch and keep the movie from collapsing in on itself. I hope they work together again in a better movie.

B-

The Bling Ring Review

GRADE: C-

Sofia Coppola’s (“Lost in Translation,” “The Virgin Suicides”) latest cinematic outing “The Bling Ring” is a shallow movie about shallow people robbing other shallow people.

Based on the true Vanity Fair article “The Suspects Wore Louboutins” by Nancy Jo Sales, the film revolves around a group of five high school teenagers living in Calabasas California who decide one day (out the of the blue, apparently) to rob celebrities (Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan, and Megan Fox, to name a few) by breaking into their Beverly Hills mansions while they’re out of town. There’s the ringleader Rebecca (Katie Chang), Marc (Israel Broussard), the sole male of the group. They start off by robbing a family that Marc knows, and then soon enough step up their game, robbing Paris Hilton’s house. This attracts the attention of Nicki (Emma Watson), Sam (Taissa Farmiga) and Chloe (Claire Julien), three anxious and promiscuous gals.

These are restless wild teenagers who live life from one day to the next. They don’t seem to have any long-term goals or aspirations except to party and own nice things. Then they rob celebrities (that they admire) in order to keep fueling this hollow lifestyle. They’re spoiled, snobby, self-centered, careless and most of all annoying teenagers that make complete and utter fools of themselves. When I wasn’t hanging my head in shame and embarrassment (I’m nineteen, after all) I was laughing uncontrollably at how stupid and ridiculous they acted. I assume Coppola meant for at least some of this to be funny.

So OK, these guys are supposed to be antiheroes but even with antiheros (the good ones, that is) you can usually find something to like about them and if not they have depth to keep you involved. But these teens have neither. I could find nothing likable about any of them and hardly any depth. They’re empty shells that I grew to detest within the first twenty to twenty-five minutes. Therefore I found it difficult to care about anything else they did during the remainder of the picture.

What’s even worse is that everyone else in the movie is just as hollow. You can’t sympathize with the celebrity victims, because they’re setting terrible examples; they’re the reason why these teenagers act the way they do. On top of that they’re careless (leaving their houses unlocked, so the teens can just walk in) and initially they’re not even aware that their possessions are gone. As for the parents of these burglars they’re either non-existent or, in the case of Nicki’s mom (Leslie Mann) completely oblivious. The only characters I could get behind were the police when they finally arrest the group.

And, since every character is practically empty, the entire movie is…empty and pointless, for the most part. Coppola (who also wrote the screenplay) doesn’t have enough material to sustain the brisk 87-minute running time. After awhile it gets repetitive: the gang robs a house, then goes out and parties, then tries on clothes, robs another house, parties some more and so on, leading up to an underwhelming conclusion that you already know is going to happen.

On top of that, the themes and social commentary the picture puts forth (our celebrity obsessed culture and the artificiality of celebrities rubbing off on American youth) becomes apparent fairly quickly and for the rest of the movie we’re constantly hit over the head with them. At one point I wanted to stand up and shout “we get it already!”

I hate to bag on the movie completely; the cinematography by Harris Savides and Christopher Blauvelt is simplistic but effective. Most of the time the camera quietly tracks and observes the gang as they go about their partying and thievery, and all of the performances are spot on; accurately portraying celebrity obsessed and superficial teenagers.

Having liked Coppola’s previous filmmaking efforts I wanted to like ‘The Bling Ring.”  It’s OK to make a movie about shallowness and artificiality, pertaining to youth and celebrities; it’s an interesting and relevant topic. But the characters can’t also be shallow and artificial (especially considering this movie relies mainly on characters); they need to grow and develop and give us a reason to stay invested in them. As it is right now, “The Bling Ring” doesn’t give you much to invest in.

World War Z Review

GRADE:  B

In some ways Marc Forster’s “World War Z” (based on the book by Max Brookes) marks the return of the zombie film. Something that’s long overdue. These days the only real talk associated with zombies has to do with AMC’s immensely popular “The Walking Dead.” We haven’t had a full on zombie horror film (I’m not counting comedies like “Warm Bodies,” which came out earlier this year) since George A. Romero’s (often considered to be the “Grandfather of the Zombie Film”) underrated “Survival of the Dead” in 2009.

And I suppose that’s not surprising; the zombie film has been done and redone so many times that the stories have become stale and the characters usually don’t go beyond cliché--even “Survival of the Dead” is one of Romero’s weaker efforts (he made the groundbreaking “Night of the Living Dead” in 1968 and the masterpiece “Dawn of the Dead” in 1978).  And the only reason why “The Walking Dead” works and is so popular is because it’s a television show and there hasn’t ever been a TV show about people surviving a zombie apocalypse.

So then, I suppose “World War Z” comes at the perfect time and despite all the trouble surrounding the production (involving script rewrites and reshoots) the movie does work. In fact it does more than work; it breathes new life into the subgenre, mainly because Forster and Co. choose to tackle the issue of a zombie apocalypse on a grander scale, a worldwide scale to be precise (hence the title “World War Z”), something that’s never been tried before.

While most zombie pictures focus on small bands of survivors holding up in shelter of some kind (in a house, or in the case of “Dawn of the Dead” a shopping mall) or trying to move and find other survivors in a small radius, “World War Z” goes all around the world.  It’s probably the most proactive zombie flick to ever come out; instead of the protagonists simply trying to survive and find safety, the characters in “World War Z” are actively trying to seek out a solution the zombie outbreak, whilst putting themselves in harm’s way. There’s more of a goal in this movie and it also manages to reverse the typical zombie movie storyline.

The story begins at the…well, the beginning of the outbreak; in a cliché and superfluous opening scene we’re introduced to Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt), a former UN employee, his wife Karin (Mireille Enos) and his their two daughters (who wake them up by jumping on their bed). Luckily Forester doesn’t linger too long on this sappy moment and takes us right to the action; while Gerry and the family is stuck in a traffic jam in downtown New Jersey everything suddenly erupts into chaos. I don’t think I need to say anymore about that.

Eventually Gerry and family find safety on a navy ship and while they’re about to settle down Gerry is called back into action: the UN wants him find a way to combat the infestation. This leads Gerry on a worldwide search, going from South Korea, to Israel and India with plenty of zombie carnage along the way. And there is a lot of carnage. “World War Z” probably has more zombies on screen at one time than any other zombie movie; in one exhilarating scene a massive swarm of zombies use each other to scale a colossal wall protecting survivors, or in another instance where zombies literally throw themselves like ragdolls off of buildings to attack survivors running away on the ground.

 After the initial action in Jersey the screenplay by Matthew Michael Carnahan, Drew Goddard and Damon Lindeloff settles into a nice rhythm: Gerry and whoever happens to be with him at the time go to one place, learn some information about the outbreak, zombies attack, Gerry and Co. get away, they go onto the next place. And so on. This may sound repetitive but I never felt that once during the entire film. Each scene and each development in the plot adds on to the previous one and keeps it going. Forster moves the picture along at a steady pace, never meandering off track or losing sight of its end goal.

My only major problem with the movie is the fact that Forester et al. could have gone even bigger with the story. Since the film is trying to portray the zombie apocalypse on a worldwide scale, it would have been better if they had brought in multiple protagonists and multiple storylines from all around the world, instead of just showing the outbreak from Gerry’s point of view. There’s nothing wrong with Gerry’s point of view (and Pitt settles into the role with ease; never bland but also not over-the-top) but providing multiple viewpoints and multiple main characters would give the audience a more complete picture of this global catastrophe, much like Steven Soderbergh’s “Traffic” did for the Mexican drug war.

 There are other little quibbles I could list but that would be nitpicking and I don’t want to do that. There’s no doubt that the movie could have been even better but as it is right now it still works and it gives me hope that the zombie horror film will endure.