Kick Ass 2 Review

I’m conflicted when it comes to Jeff Wadlow’s “Kick Ass 2.” On just a pure entertainment level the movie is fantastic and it’s probably the most entertaining superhero movie I’ve seen in quite some time. Why? Because it’s violent and vulgar, two words that aren’t usually associated with those kinds of movies. As of late—especially with all of the Marvel superhero films, like “The Avengers,”--we’ve been subjected to one CGI, PG-13 lite superhero flick after another, and frankly it’s getting tiresome. That’s why it’s somewhat refreshing to see such a ridiculous ultra-violent one like “Kick Ass 2.” There are no blatant uses of CGI, no buildings destroyed, just good old-fashioned ass kicking.

The original “Kick Ass” from 2010 was also fairly violent and vulgar, even causing some controversy, though “Kick Ass 2” takes the violence and vulgarity to the next level. Even being someone who’s seen his fair share of super violent movies, I was a little shocked at how over-the-top it can be at times. But at the same time, considering the fact that Marvel is going to keep churning out the same kind of superhero mumbo jumbo for years to come,“Kick Ass” is a welcome alternative to that. The movie is energetic, exhilarating and it relishes its ultra violence, providing the audience with giddy pleasure.

All that said though, is that enough? Is it enough for a movie to just be purely entertaining? While watching the movie I was never bored but if all it has to offer is pure entertainment then it can never rise to the level of cinematic greatness. And this is where my conflict lies with “Kick Ass 2.” It can be massively entertaining but it does have character and story issues (specifically in the third act) and therefore doesn’t completely work.

I wasn’t as taken with the original “Kick Ass” as a lot of other people were but something I did appreciate about the movie was that it introduced a new subgenre, the Wannabe Superhero. The film’s title character Kick Ass, aka Dave (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) is your typical high school nobody. He can’t score with the girls; he hardly has any friends, and spends most of his time reading superhero comics. However, one day he decides to do something with his life. He makes a superhero outfit out of green and yellow cloth and using two regular sticks goes around town stopping (or attempting to stop) petty criminals and becomes a YouTube sensation. Character clichés aside the thing I like most about Kick Ass is that he wasn’t an actual superhero, just a regular guy (who’s maybe read too many comics) trying to make a difference. Often times Kick Ass was the one who got his ass kicked instead and would end up make a fool of himself.

Wadlow, for the most part, keeps that spirit alive in the new movie. Dave has bulked up considerably since the first outing, making him appear a little less wimpy but he still gets his ass kicked more often than not. This time he joins forces with a group of fellow wannabe superheroes. To name a few there’s Dr. Gravity, (Donald Faison) a fake physics teacher by day, wielder of a baseball bat that’s supposed to be a Gravity Pole by night, as well as Colonel Stars And Stripes (Jim Carrey, in an amusing and completely unrecognizable performance) a born again Mafia hit man. Together, along with all of the other pretend crusaders they form an Avengers/Justice League type group called group Justice Forever to do good in the city. Justice Forever and all of the scenes involving their antics is by far the best thing about “Kick Ass 2” because, again, it embodies the spirit of the original movie. Like Kick Ass the members don’t have super powers and they didn’t train for months in the Mountains of South Asia like Batman did. They’re just regular people wearing shabby homemade costumes (two of the members, a husband and wife team who lost their young son, wear matching track suits and fanny packs) trying to make a difference. Is it silly? Of course it is, it has to be. And during the first half the movie embraces that silliness, like during a scene where the wannabe’s are about to take down a gang of sex traffickers and we’re informed that one of the Justice Forever members isn’t coming along because they have “Book of Mormon tickets.” This self-awareness paired with intentionally the over-the-top violence is what makes “Kick Ass 2” immensely entertaining.

So far in this review I have yet to mention a very important piece of the “Kick Ass” universe and the main reason why the first one was so popular. That piece comes in the shape of a fifteen-year-old girl named Mindy better known as Hit Girl (Chloe Grace Moretz) who, since a very young age had been taught by her father to be a ruthless assassin. Contrary to most everyone else I didn’t care that much for Hit Girl. I wasn’t morally outraged by her character like the late critic Roger Ebert was but I didn’t think she had a lot of substance to her. When I first saw her come on screen wearing her purple leather suit and cape along with a purple wig, I thought “that’s kind of cool” but as the movie went on she failed to impress me beyond that initial “cool” moment. She’s a thirteen-year-old girl that trash talks and can effortlessly beat up and kill people, big deal. To me Hit Girl didn’t embody that Wannabe Super Hero spirit.

In “Kick Ass” 2 Wadlow (who wrote the script, based off of the comic books by Mark Millar and John Romita Jr.) tries to add more depth to her. She decides to give up the leather suit and wig and live a normal teenage life. She befriends a group of shallow popular girls at school (and these girls, by the way, are absolute monsters) and of course they end up humiliating her, so she decides to go back to her old life.

 This is where “Kick Ass 2” starts to run into problems; on the one hand this needs to be in the movie because otherwise Hit Girl would still be one note but on the other Wadlow’s handling of it all is so cliché.

This problem exposes an even bigger flaw associated with the entire “Kick Ass” premise. For how profane and violent it is, the movie still feels geared toward teenagers; after all, the main characters are adolescents themselves. And this juvenility holds it back. Dave is a typical teenage loser who’s essentially going through the same teenage loser problems we’ve seen before. As for Hit Girl? She’s fifteen years old (she’s two years older than she was in the first film) and already a mass murderer. At the end of this film she says she’s killed six people and that’s not including the people she killed in the first movie. You expect me to believe that a fifteen-year-old girl could kill all of these people and commit these acts of violence and then just be able to brush it off and continue on with a normal life? I couldn’t buy her character in the first movie and despite Wadlow’s best efforts I still couldn’t really buy her character in this one.

Now to this you may say: “but ’Kick Ass 2‘ is a ridiculous and silly movie, so what if her character is implausible and underdeveloped?” I would agree with you had this movie kept that silly tone. However in the third act the movie abruptly switches from fun and entertaining to dark and serious. It wants you to take it seriously now and realize that there are serious consequences. “This is not a comic book, people are actually going to get hurt,” Hit Girl says to Kick Ass toward the end. Ah, but Hit Girl, in spite of this sudden mood change the action scenes are still ridiculous and comic book-y. The movie wants to have it both ways but it simply doesn’t work. The movie becomes too serious for its own good, copying other dark and gritty superhero movies like “The Dark Knight”; the wannabe superheroes turn into serious action stars, essentially abandoning the thing that made “Kick Ass” refreshing in the first place.

 If anything “Kick Ass 2” provides hope that the Wannabe Superhero subgenre could be successful in the future, even though there’s still a lot of work to be done. The movie is flawed, that I can’t deny but I also can’t deny that I was entertained during most of the movie and it’s still a nice alternative to all of the Marvel and DC superhero films coming out.

B-

The Butler Review

“The Butler” tells the story of Cecil Gains (Forest Whitaker), an African American man who worked as a butler for over twenty years in the White House, serving the likes of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Ford and Reagan. I find it amusing that the marketing for the picture really emphasizes the many star cameo roles, specifically Robin Williams as Eisenhower, James Marsden as Kennedy, Liev Shreiber as Johnson, John Cusack as Nixon, Alan Rickman as Reagan and Jane Fonda as Nancy Reagan. However, after seeing the actual movie, one could argue that the scenes involving them are the least compelling. With the exception of a slightly amusing scene involving Johnson on the toilet, none of the interactions between Gains and any of the presidents make a lasting impression. In other words, director Lee Daniels (“Precious”) could have cast unknowns (or relatively unknowns) and nothing would change. But, I guess then John Cusack wouldn’t be able to put “played Richard Nixon” on his resume.

In fact, all of the happenings within the White House seem to take a back seat to a much, much bigger story. Daniels’ film is more than a simple human-interest story about Gains’s life; it is a historical and political epic recounting just about every major event and milestone in the American civil rights movement, from the very early protests, to MLK, to Malcom X, to the Black Panthers and on. What we have here is a grand ol’ feel good historical drama with some great moments and a few moving performances while also being bloated and tonally inconsistent at times.

At the beginning we get a quick rundown of Cecil’s early life. He grew up on a cotton plantation, and after witnessing his father get killed he’s taught by the plantation owner Annabeth (Vanessa Redgrave, in another unnecessary star cameo role) to be a house server. Then through a serious of circumstances he gets the call he’s been waiting for and begins his tenure as a butler at the big house. In this time we also meet his family: wife Gloria (Oprah Winfrey) and two sons Charlie and Louis (played in adulthood by David Oyelowo).  Seeing the White House and all of its activity from Cecil’s angle is the most fascinating and refreshing aspect of “The Butler.” As he stays there longer and longer, working his tail off, not saying a word, having brief encounters with the presidents themselves and gaining the respect of each president, Cecil slowly but surely makes an impression.

But, as I said before the movie is much bigger. The central conflict of “The Butler” is between Cecil and Louis. Against his father’s wishes Louis becomes an active member of the Civil Rights movement; participating in the non violent protests, riding the freedom buses, being jailed numerous times and so on. I can see why Daniels decided to make this the central story. He wants to juxtapose two very different but similar acts of revolution, as well as juxtapose two people whose opinions and outlooks on life are shaped by the vastly different time periods in which they were brought up. Cecil was brought up to serve and had to keep his real feelings and opinions to himself. During Cecil’s interview for the gig his employer informs him: “politics will not be allowed in the White House.” So, naturally he’s skeptical about his son (his flesh and blood) getting wrapped up in radical (and also dangerous) acts of protest and rebellion. Whereas Louis was brought up in a time when change and efforts to get equality for all races was just starting to take place and he didn’t want to just sit on the sidelines and keep his opinions to himself.

The movie has an overwhelming sense of history (just about all of the major civil rights events are dramatically reenacted and Daniels uses real photographs and real news footage) and an even more overwhelming sense of appreciation for the subject. Unfortunately, the film has a little too much appreciation and sense of history. Daniels drives home the politics and history with the subtlety of a sledgehammer. Often times the movie is just downright preachy and you feel like you’re in a classroom.

On top of that, the screenplay by Danny Strong (based in part on the article “A Butler Well Served by this Election) tries to cover too much information and include too many events, making the movie feel too rushed at times as well as too slow at others. There are abrupt tonal shifts and dramatic imbalances, quickly going from an intense moment (like when the Freedom Riders bus is destroyed by racist southern folk) to a happy, upbeat scene of the butlers serving.  The movie is two hours and twelve minutes (which is still fairly short for how big the movie is) and yet it feels longer. Daniels’ insistency to show us everything he possibly can and then some (it goes all the way up to the 2008 presidential election) is tedious. And, with all of that Daniels feels the need to include narration that—when it isn’t giving us obvious information—further adds to the moralizing didacticism

Overall, the performances in “The Butler” are solid with only a few reaching the heights of greatness. Whitaker has a face that conveys a sense of history and hardship all on its own. His presence (and face) alone commands your attention. We have no problem rooting for Cecil but Whitaker also injects him with a hint of stubbornness when it comes to his and Louis’ differing views. There are a few scenes where Cecil is outright mean to Louis. Though, the real acting surprise comes from Winfrey. Yes her name and reputation as a mega celebrity does precede her but surprisingly she turns in a genuine and moving performance. On the one hand she’s a loyal and faithful wife, always at Cecil’s side (she even shares some of the same concerns he has when it comes to Louis) but then at other times you can tell she’s unhappy; unhappy with the long hours Cecil works (when he could cut back) as well as his stubbornness and coldness towards Louis. At one point she becomes an alcoholic. Her performance is probably the biggest surprise of the film.

I have a feeling general audiences will love “The Butler.” Sure, there are some serious and intense moments but the movie stays upbeat and celebratory for the most part. And yes, I will admit that “The Butler” isn’t the sappy, Lifetime melodrama it could have been, neither is it a totally bland historical drama. There are some genuinely great moments throughout and I respect Daniels for trying to tell such a grand story. But the movie still tries to do too much and goes a little too heavy on history and politics. I wish I had more to say about the star cameos but they’re just afterthoughts. I was also a little bummed that I didn’t get to see who would play Barrack Obama; I was thinking Will Smith. Oh well.

 C+

The Hunt Review

“The Hunt” is a frustrating movie. Not because it’s bad or poorly made but because its subject matter (and the way director Thomas Vinterberg presents it) is so compelling and absorbing that it invokes a strong emotional reaction while you’re watching it. Part way through I caught myself yelling at the screen in complete anger. That usually doesn’t happen during good movies. However, after you’re done watching and you cool down, the movie forces you to reevaluate what’s actually happened logically and objectively.

“The Hunt” is about how minor incidents can be blown out of proportion. It also shows how impressionable young children can be and how much power they can hold in certain situations. More importantly, “The Hunt” is about how these things can create a chain reaction that can practically ruin a person’s reputation and turn them into an outcast. That person is Lucas (Mads Mikkelson) a lonely man who works at the local kindergarten in his small Danish community. One day, there’s a minor incident between Lucas and a kindergartener named Klara (Annika Wedderkop).

Again, this is minor so nothing serious actually happens. But thanks Klara’s stubbornness, her impressionability and a little lie she tells to the head teacher Grethe (Susse Wold) things get out of control. Grethe thinks Lucas has molested Klara and decides to warn the authorities and the other parents. Without even trying to look closer into the situation the parents and community members shun Lucas. He’s fired from the kindergarten, he isn’t allowed to shop at the grocery store, and even his best friend Theo (Thomas Bo Larson), who also happens to be Klara’s father, threatens him with death at one point.

This is what causes that strong angry reaction. Vinterberg paints Lucas as a good man; we’re on his side. The kids at the kindergarten love him and even though he’s divorced he’s still a good father to his now adolescent son. He didn’t molest Klara (if this is a spoiler to anyone I’m sorry but there’s no real mystery about the incident at hand) and so it’s simply not fair that Lucas is being treated this way. Why are these people not taking a closer look at the situation and are so quick to condemn him? He’s absolutely powerless. This is what I meant when I said how children can hold a lot of power in certain situations. It’s Lucas’ word against the word of an innocent little girl. He hasn’t a chance. So, you can do nothing but sit there, boiling with rage and sadness. “The Hunt” isn’t exactly a pleasant movie to watch.

However, the reason why this movie invokes such a strong response from you is because you’re watching the entire movie unfold from an outsider’s position. You’ve seen the actual incident but the other characters within the film haven’t. You know Lucas is a good man but the others don’t. They’re simply going on either what Klara’s said or what they’ve heard from other people. And this is what causes you to—after you’ve finished watching and have taken a few deep breaths—examine the movie objectively from different angles. Child molestation is a serious issue and there are many instances of actual molestation that go unnoticed and the children are ignored. At first you want to strangle Grethe, for the way she just dismisses Lucas and the way she holds on to the false notion that “children never lie” but you have to look at the situation from her perspective. She’s a kindergarten teacher, it’s her responsibility to watch the kids and make sure they’re safe and so when she sees that something’s wrong with Klara what’s she supposed to do, ignore her? You’re outraged at Theo for how quickly he turns on his best friend but at the same time Klara is his daughter, who’s he supposed believe, her or Lucas?

When the other random members of the community start dishing out hatred and shunning Lucas you want to yell “why are you believing the first thing you hear without giving it a second thought?” but even they can’t be completely faulted. When it comes to child molestation it’s gut instinct to take the side of the child.  Furthermore you have to see Lucas from a different perspective as well. He’s a nice, caring non-threatening man who spends a lot of time with young children. In the case of Klara Lucas sort of became a second father to her, someone she can trust. In a lot of real child molestation cases the perpetrators fit Lucas’ profile. People who come off non-threatening and trusting but deep down are sick and twisted. With all of this considered there are no villains in “The Hunt,” just frightened people and people doing what they think is best. The fact that the movie forces you to examine all angles and perspectives in a logical manner is the most fascinating aspect of the picture.

It also benefits from having a strong lead performance. Mikkelson has been in a few American movies (most notably the villain in “Casino Royal) and currently plays the psychopath Hannibal Lector in NBC’s “Hannibal,” and he settles right in to the benevolent and non-threatening role of Lucas. He’s good looking with a full head of medium length blonde hair but he also has a sort of blandness to him that makes him seem like a regular guy. His performance shows a wide range of emotions but isn’t over-the-top and he does a lot of the acting through his facial expressions.

At one point, he gets beat up by employees in a supermarket who tell him he can’t shop there anymore. As he’s limping away, with blood on his face, and with a look of such sadness and defeat on his face (like he’s been pushed to his absolute limit), it’s devastating. Later on, during a Christmas Eve church service he sits on a bench by himself surrounded by the whole town and as he sees them looking at him and whispering to one another he breaks down and causes a scene. It’s easily one of the most moving performances of the year.

Maybe Vinterberg and co-writer Tobias Lindholm made Lucas too decent of a man. Maybe they should have given him some rough spots so we aren’t completely on his side the whole time, but at this point I’m just nitpicking. Any movie that elicits such a strong initial reaction from you and then forces you to go back and examine it more closely, from multiple angles, is rare. And Vinterberg does it all without any melodrama—everything feels natural-- which is even more of a rarity.

A-

Blue Jasmine Review

I’m a Woody Allen optimist. Like Quentin Tarantino or Christopher Nolan or Darren Aronofsky, I eagerly await the next Woody Allen picture and even if it’s not all that great or memorable (which has been the case with most of his work of late) I still eagerly await the next film hoping that it will be better. Now, yes I think at this point in his life and career the 77-year-old director probably won’t have another truly great film like “Annie Hall” or “Hannah and Her Sisters” or “Manhattan” but that doesn’t mean he’s now incapable of making a near great film or at least a good one.

Since 1982 Allen has been writing and directing a film a year, which is a good thing and a bit of a bad thing. It’s good because it shows how much he loves making movies. He doesn’t make them because they’re going to earn large amounts at the box office, he does it for himself. It’s a bad thing because such a short time frame doesn’t give Allen a lot of time to work on his scripts and as a result most of them end up being thin and forgettable. But that doesn’t faze Allen; unlike a lot of great directors he doesn’t feel the need to top himself with every movie. He’ll come up with an idea and go with it and if the movie doesn’t make much of a splash it’s OK, he’ll try again next time. And for every one or two forgettable movies he makes there’s usually one that’s worth talking about.

After two forgettable romps, in 2009 (“Whatever Works”) and 2010 (“You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger”), Allen achieved massive success (both critically and box office) with “Midnight In Paris,” a delightful little movie that was part fantasy, part romance and more importantly his love letter to Paris. Then in 2012 he made “To Rome With Love” and we were back to paper thin, forgettable Woody. But now, with his latest “Blue Jasmine” Allen is back to form and while it isn’t entirely successful it comes awfully close.

 First and foremost it should be said that “Blue Jasmine” is a serious movie. So for those of you who just loved the pleasant and funny “Midnight in Paris,” be warned that this new movie is nothing like it. It’s character driven for sure, but more importantly it’s mostly a tragedy. It’s about a woman’s gradual decline into mental illness and delusion. It has perhaps one of the darkest, saddest endings I’ve ever seen in an Allen film.

At the same time however, that doesn’t mean the movie is completely humorless and cold. There is plenty of humor (through dialogue) but it comes as a result of the serious drama unfolding on screen and this makes the movie very watchable. Allen’s screenplay crackles with energy and hot emotions, his direction like always is minimal but effective, letting the actors and the emotions speak for themselves in each scene.

“Blue Jasmine” is about Jasmine (Cate Blanchett), a woman who--after enjoying a life of wealth and security while being married to a real-estate investor named Hal (Alec Baldwin)—suffers a midlife crisis. As it turns out Hal was into some shady dealings and through circumstances explored throughout the film Jasmine loses it all. She’s forced to move in with her sister Ginger (Sally Hawkins), who works in a grocery store and lives in a cramped apartment with two kids in San Francisco. It’s a big adjustment for Jasmine and to say that she’s a mess is an understatement. At first she comes off neurotic, uptight, bitter and kind of a spoiled brat. When she isn’t outright mean to Ginger--telling her that she’ll never achieve anything better than what she has now and criticizing the working class stiffs she dates or has dated in the past --she’s putting on a false grateful act while further degrading Ginger under her breath. In other words she‘s not exactly likeable and you’re ready to detest her for the rest of the movie. But as the film goes on and you learn more about how her life of decadence came crumbing down (through flashbacks) you see that there is something mentally wrong with Jasmine. This crisis has knocked a screw loose in her head. She’s taking pills, has violent mood swings and there are a couple of instances where she’s seen talking to herself. This is where most of the humor comes from; she’s so pathetic at times that you can’t help but laugh.

So you begin to feel sorry for her. The reason why she’s so nasty to her sister is because she’s trying to find some way to cope with her crappy situation. She’s resentful that she has to go to her sister for help. And, despite all of her unpleasantness she does try to put her life back together. She gets a menial secretary job and takes a computer class so she can get an online degree in Interior Decorating. She meets another wealthy man named Dwight (Peter Sarsgaard) and the two sisters do share a few pleasant moments together. But at the same time it’s not like her condition just magically goes away--like it would in a more conventional Hollywood movie--and it gets progressively worse as the movie goes on.

It’s a fascinating character brought fully to life by Blanchett. Her performance is one of tremendous highs and tremendous lows (that’s a positive thing), one minute she’s petty and nasty, the next she’s a babbling mess, then she’s confident and ready to get back on her feet and then she’s back to being petty and nasty. It’s a performance that highlights Blanchett’s immense range and talent. She’s the main reason why the character works and why you remain so invested in the film. If there’s anything in “Blue Jasmine” that’s going to be talked about (especially as we get closer to awards season) it’s Blanchett’s performance.

Jasmine is the center of the picture and so everything else sort of revolves around her, which is fine, but it also doesn’t allow for additional characters to fully blossom, particularly Ginger. Amidst all the trouble involving Jasmine, Ginger is having her own troubles. The two sisters are adopted and we learn that Jasmine was favored over Ginger by their parents. Ginger’s never had a lot of luck with money and men and the one opportunity she had to do something more with her life financially she got screwed over by Hal and his shady dealings. At only 98 minutes and with Jasmine being the center focus there just isn’t enough time to really develop Ginger’s character and as a result the stuff she goes through --involving her current relationship with a loudmouth mechanic Chili (Bobby Cannavale) and her fling with another man played by Louis C.K—feels trivial in relation to Jasmine’s story.

I’m not sure general audiences will react as strongly to “Blue Jasmine” as they did to “Midnight in Paris.” The movie is not light comedy but instead drama with some humor thrown in. And the ending is not happy which I realize will turn a lot of people off. Furthermore, audiences may find Jasmine too deplorable to get behind and that’s perfectly fine. But it’s these aspects that give “Blue Jasmine” a strong sense of authenticity. There aren’t always happy endings in life, people aren’t always sweet and likable and furthermore people don’t always learn their lesson and change their life for the better. Sometimes—as in the case of Jasmine—they just get worse and worse. Allen’s unpredictability—going from such a light and fantastical film like “Midnight in Paris” to such a heavy and tragic film like this one—is the main reason why I still eagerly anticipate his next picture.

 B+