Planes Review

The new Disney animated film “Planes”—which takes place in the world of “Cars,” which as you remember was made by Pixar, but Pixar is not involved in this new film. Make sense? --was originally going to go straight to dvd but Disney was so impressed with some of the completed sequences they decided to release it theatrically. I think I can guess a few of those sequences they were impressed with but that doesn’t change the fact that “Planes” (directed by “Simpsons” director Klay Hall) still feels like direct-to-video fare. The story is paint-by-the-numbers and the characters are paper-thin. On a whole the movie is astonishingly average. No surprises, hardly any thrills and superfluous 3D. It’s not bad by any means but it doesn’t even attempt greatness, or even goodness for that matter.

The story is essentially the inverse of the “Cars” plot. Instead of a cocky young racer from the big city who has to slow down and learn how to race again in a small nowhere town, we have Dusty (Dane Cook) a scrappy little Crop Duster from a nowhere town. Dusty aspires to be a racing plane one day but he’s not built for racing and he’s afraid of heights. There are supporting characters but as I said in the previous paragraph they’re so paper thin that I don’t even have the energy to describe them. Just think of the supporting characters in “Cars” with slight differences. At 92 minutes “Planes” is brief, it wastes no time getting started and it never meanders off course. The humor consists mainly of puns associated with the fact that this is a world of vehicles (“a vehicle interest story” a car reporter says at one point) some of which are worth a chuckle. And the animation is decent but doesn’t even come close to the immense detail seen in “Cars.”

And…yeah that’s it. The movie is extremely underwhelming but it strives for such mediocrity that I can’t bring myself to pan it. Plus it’s a harmless kids’ movie, what’s the point? I guess kids will like it although a majority of the ones who attended my preview screening were antsy, there was one girl sitting down near the handicap seats who practically spent the entire movie standing up, grasping the hand railing.

C

Elysium Review

Neill Blomkamp’s latest dystopian future film “Elysium” has a good concept and is well made but in the end Blomkamp doesn’t take it anywhere very interesting or refreshing. It’s not a bad film by any means, I was never flat out bored, though I couldn’t help but feel a little let down by its outcome. This is the same way I felt about Blomkamp’s 2009 feature film debut “District 9.”

 The setup is solid. The year is 2154 and Earth (from what we can tell) has been reduced to slums full of crime and poverty. That’s where ninety nine percent of the population lives. However, not too far from Earth there lies a floating space sanctuary known as Elysium. This is where the one percent live perfect lives; no crime, no sickness (there are machines somewhat reminiscent of tanning beds that heal all diseases), nobody gets old.  

“District 9” was an allegorical look at South African Apartheid, except instead of the Afrikaners being oppressed it was an extraterrestrial race known as Prawns. This time Blomkamp is targeting the upper class. The Elysium residents are neatly dressed unsympathetic robots, while the Earthlings are oppressed. One of Elysium’s prominent residents, a politician named Delacourt (Jodie Foster) is especially unsympathetic towards the Earthlings and takes harsh measures when they try to sneak into the sanctuary. In an early scene, Delacourt calls on the help of a mercenary Kruger (Sharlto Copley) to shoot down three ships full of Earthlings desperate to get into Elysium. Forty-six people are killed and she doesn’t even bat an eye. She’s bad news.

So, enter Max (Matt Damon) our lower class everyman turned hero to set things right. One day while working at his menial factory job (where they build the very robotic police officers that keep them down) he’s exposed to a deadly amount of radiation and is given five days to live. His boss, John Carlyle (William Fitchner), a resident of Elysium sent down to supervise, couldn’t care less so Max decides he needs to get to Elysium and heal himself. Of course it’s not that simple, it never is. In order to get an illegal ticket and I.D. he and few other criminal types (but they’re part of the oppressed Earth population, so they’re the good guys) must hijack John and extract information from his mind containing a plan that could possibly bring equality to both the populations. But the mission won’t be easy, not with Kruger and his cronies on his tail. As cool as the mind hijacking is (they extract the information using a flash drive type device which they can then plug into a computer) it’s one of those science fiction-y ideas that warrant its own movie. Blomkamp has enough here already, so it’s not entirely necessary.

As I said before, “Elysium” is well made. Blomkamp’s direction is sleek and moves at a comfortable pace. On just a simple sci fi/action movie level “Elysium” can be quite entertaining and I’m sure fans of “District 9” will like this one just as much, or maybe more. The production design by Phillip Ivey is spot on, capturing the neat cleanliness of Elysium and the rugged, dirt covered slums of Earth. There are plenty of cool gadgets and futuristic technology (bullets that explode before they hit you, flash drives that can be inserted into human heads) that general audiences will eat up. And Damon is always a reliable actor for these everyman-turned-action-hero roles. He plays Max with unshowy honesty, yet he doesn’t take the role too seriously, sprinkling in some humor here and there. Like with Denzel Washington’s recent performances, Damon can play Max in his sleep and that’s not a bad thing at all.

My main problems with “Elysium” have to do with the way Blomkamp approaches the concept. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with doing it from the point of the view of the oppressed lower class but at the same time it’s too easy. The Earthlings are the victims and the Elysium-ites are cold, heartless monsters. I would have liked to see Blomkamp approach it from a different angle, maybe from the point of view of someone on Elysium, or at the very least bring some more dimension to the orbiting sanctuary. We never really get to see how the world works and how its residents interact with one another and what they do everyday. They can’t all be bad, right?

Aside from her character being a one-note villain, Foster’s entire performance feels phoned in. It’s not to say she’s all-bad but it didn’t seem like she was putting much effort into it. Maybe that’s a result of under writing, but I hardly got anything out of her except for a predictable (and slight) feeling of anger because of how bad she is. As for Copley? The man is no doubt a talented up and coming actor that will keep on getting talented. In the three movies he’s been in, “District 9,” “The A Team” and this he plays completely distinctive characters. Too bad the character of Kruger doesn’t give him much to do except to be menacing bad guy.

Which is a shame because there is potential there for a better-developed character. In fact, I think Blomkamp could have made him the hero (or antihero) of the story. Even though he’s bad he’s also just a hired gun for Delacourt, he too lives in the slums with the rest of the oppressed. Making him the protagonist would have added some additional grittiness to the picture and would have made a more nuanced hero. As good as Damon is, Max is too clean (even though he has a criminal history). Right away when we see Damon we know we’re going to like him and root for him. Kruger on the other hand is scummy and repulsive (sporting long hair and bushy beard, with scars on his face) he’d have to earn the audience’s trust and respect as a hero.

I respect Blomkamp as a filmmaker. After only two films he’s shown that he has talent and I appreciate that he’s trying to bring ambition and intelligence to a big budget summer sci fi actioner (in the same way Ridley Scott did with “Prometheus” last year and Christopher Nolan with “Inception” in 2010) but with “Elysium” he isn’t ambitious enough. It’s easy to make villains out of the wealthy and victims/heroes out of the poor but I would have liked to see a more nuanced view of these coexisting worlds and their inhabitants.

C+

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-