Day 233: Killing Season

"My country has beauty but there is an invisible layer of blood caked over everything. Most people cannot see it, but I have special eyes. Everywhere I look, I see red."

When trailers began popping up earlier this summer for Killing Season, I foolishly thought the film would get some manner of theatrical release. After all this was a film that featured respected actors Robert DeNiro & John Travolta in some sort of cat & mouse thriller. DeNiro's coming off an Oscar nomination for Silver Linings Playbook, & Travolta was arguably the best thing about last summer's Savages, so the newly rejuvinated actors seemed poised to headline a late summer thriller. Instead the film was scuttled onto home video this week, which can't possibly mean anything other than the film is a world class stinker, right? Read on to find out...



Opening with a ridiculously low-budget sequence that depicts the horrors of the Bosnian War of the mid-90s, Killing Season quickly jumps into the thick of its plot, wasting very little time. Kovac (Travolta) is a Serbian former solider who survived the conflict only to seek revenge against the Americans who intervened in the conflict and killed his men. One of these men is Benjamin Ford (DeNiro) who has exiled himself in the woods of the Appalachian Mountains.

When Ford's car breaks down on his way into town, Kovac appears out of nowhere and offers to help him fix the car. The two men hit it off and become fast friends, or so Ford thinks... The next morning when the men go out for what Ford thinks is some deer hunting, Kovac reveals his true intentions.



The film apparently first took shape as Shrapnel, and was supposed to be directed by John McTiernan and star Nicolas Cage instead of DeNiro; But rather than a Face/Off reunion from the director of Die Hard, we get the watered down version, from Mark Steven Johnson, the director of Ghost Rider. For the record, I don't think there's any way to make a good film from this material, but at least with Cage, the film would have been knowingly bad, even a guilty pleasure kind of thing that DeNiro can't quite pull off. It's borderline ridiculous to say something like this, but DeNiro is actually too serious an actor to realize he's playing scenes with obviously unintentional comedy. His early scenes with his co-star are ultimately disappointing because Travolta's ridiculous accent and spray-on hair makes it impossible for me to believe the filmmakers were ever trying to take this film seriously.

The entire film is pure cinematic nonsense, meaning that having Kovac attempting to hunt Ford with a bow and arrow was done only to prolong his revenge plot to feature film length. Ford even challenges him by saying "why don't you just shoot me," and Kovac's reasons for not doing so are absurd even by film standards. Antagonists like Kovac exist only in the movies because their convoluted revenge plots seem designed to give the default protagonist a chance to gain an upper hand on their enemy.

By the time Ford is waterboarding Kovac with homemade lemonade, you'd be forgiven for throwing your hands up in despair and just abandoning the film altogether. This is the kind of film that's not above having close-ups of acclaimed actors with arrows being shot through their calves or cheeks. And please, don't even get me started on the most ridiculous metaphorical deer appearances this side of The Queen.



Both Travolta & DeNiro are magnetic screen actors when given proper material, but it almost goes without saying that they weren't given much to work with here. I can't help but marvel at how they even ended up in drivel like this in the first place. Travolta at least was on board when this seemed to be going for something that bordered on farce, and his performance, fortunately, still contains trace elements of that film. DeNiro on the other hand has almost no reason to appear in a film like this, especially coming off his best work in decades. This sort of thing is right in Nic Cage's paycheck cashing wheelhouse, but DeNiro, while never above appearing in a film for an easy payday, doesn't really seem to even be enjoying himself on screen.

It certainly doesn't help that the film's script by Snow White & The Huntsman writer Evan Daugherty, is riddled with plot contrivances and ham fisted dialogue. Ford is mocking Kovac's tendency to talk too much one minute, and then monologuing up a storm himself the next. Things just literally make no sense, such as the constant use of Johnny Cash's "Don't Take Your Guns To Town," which tells me that they either couldn't afford to pay for more than one Cash tune or wanted to get their money's worth after having paid for the rights to that one.



I wish I could tell you that Killing Season is worth your time to see these two cinematic heavyweights go toe-to-toe in grade-A schlock, but it can't settle on a tone long enough to make any of it worthwhile. Much like other abandoned Nic Cage projects, we can only lament at the camp classic that could have been, but as it stands now, Killing Season isn't even worth sitting through for fans of DeNiro or Travolta. After about the fifth power reversal, you might begin to think the film will never end, but mercifully it does, just not soon enough. Give this film a wide berth, it's not even worth the dollar and change you could get it for at a Redbox.

GO Rating: 1/5


[Photos via RottenTomatoes]

Day 232: Lee Daniels' The Butler

"Everything you are, and everything you have is because of that butler."

As we learned earlier this summer with The Lone Ranger, it's hard for a film to divorce itself completely from negative pre-release publicity (though I think blaming film critics is hardly a tactic that makes any sense, considering film critics haven't been able to stop anyone from seeing Adam Sandler or Michael Bay films). The days of any press is good press are long gone, and films are often forced to fight an uphill battle just to have their film seen free from distractions caused by any negative press leading up to the film's release. Sometimes, however, such press is completely avoidable, and is often ridiculously drummed up by the head of a studio just to get his film in the headlines.

Such is the case with the absurdly titled Lee Daniels' The Butler, which came to have that title due to a nonsensical and completely avoidable legal battle between aforementioned studio head Harvey Weinstein & Warner Brothers. So did the film have any hope of standing on its own two legs, free from the distractions caused by this frivolous lawsuit? More importantly, could it overcome its own director (and namesake)'s tendency to turn virtually any film into maudlin, overwrought, melodramatic dreck? Read on to find out...



Lee Daniels' The Butler tells the story of Cecil Gaines (Forest Whitaker) a man who witnessed the rape of his mother and murder of his father while being raised on a cotton plantation in the early 1920s. He's taken in by the matriarch (Vanessa Redgrave) and taught to be a servant in the house. As a teenager, he leaves the plantation and is given further instruction by Maynard (Clarence Williams III) which leads to a job at an upscale supper club in Washington DC. From there, he is given the opportunity to become a butler at The White House, during the administration of Dwight Eisenhower (Robin Williams), where he stays on as a butler for over twenty years.

His job serving the uppermost of the upper crust is juxtaposed with his home life, in particular his sometimes rocky marriage to Gloria (Oprah Winfrey) and his contentious relationship with his oldest son Louis (David Oyelowo). Louis attends Fisk college in Tennessee and joins the Freedom Riders, trying to affect change in the pre-Civil Rights America, a country he views his father as a sellout to the ideals of. The film spans virtually every major event in the Civil Rights movement and then some, packing a walloping nine decades into 132 minutes.



And that is where the film's biggest weakness lies. It can't help but feel reductive, trying to sum up so much in one film. It suffers from wanting to give equal time to every major milestone from sit-ins to freedom bus trips to marches, riots and even the beginnings of the Black Panther movement, and it all goes by in a blur. One thing that no one can accuse the film of is not being ambitious. It's too ambitious, if such a thing is possible, trying to not just cover all of these incidents and issues, but look at them from both sides. It ends up being the Cliff Notes version of history, feeling both overstuffed and underdeveloped as a result.

One thing I am happy to report is that Lee Daniels has managed to put his more melodramatic sensibilities to rest for 132 minutes. While the earliest scenes from Cecil's childhood feel like they're going to end up in the melodramatic territory of the worst parts of Precious, he very quickly skirts them and settles in to tell the story in a very straightforward way. He doesn't totally succeed, managing to land some totally tone deaf moments such as Cecil and Gloria getting terrible news while dressed in absurd, matching disco outfits, or virtually every scene with John Cusack playing Richard Nixon with a preposterous fake nose, but for the most part, he manages to make his most wholly satisfying film yet.

The script by Danny Strong is good, if a bit lethargic. It suffers from entirely too much bloat, which is odd since he scripted the HBO political films Recount & Game Change which were both lean and engaging all the way through. This film felt, right around the ninety minute mark, as if it might never end. I was never disengaged from the story, but  it really began to feel as if he and Daniels just didn't want to jettison any of their multiple subplots, and the overall film is weaker as a result.



Whitaker is one of the most reliable actors working today, and scores here with an even-handed and strong lead performance. Much has been made of Winfrey's return to the big screen, and she does an admirable job playing an almost entirely one-note character. Oyelowo gives probably the strongest among the three leads, however, likely because his character is by far the most developed, with the strongest arc. He is excellent in the film, and his story line was much more involving than Cecil's despite being obviously relegated to the b-plot.

The actors playing the former Presidents are a bit all over the map. Williams is unusually restrained as Eisenhower, but then Liev Schreiber chews every bit of scenery in sight as LBJ. James Marsden looks nothing like JFK, but has his voice and mannerisms down to a t, and Alan Rickman looks exactly like Ronald Reagan, but makes almost no attempt to sound like him. And the less said about Cusack's Nixon, the better. The rest of the supporting cast is good as well, with Lenny Kravitz & Cuba Gooding Jr being the two standouts for me.



Lee Daniels' The Butler isn't a bad film; As I said earlier it's probably the best film Daniels has made. It mainly suffers from too much bloat and from being far too ambitious. That's not always a bad thing, but here I can't help but think of Shakespeare's Macbeth, who said: 'I have no spur to prick the sides of my intent, but only vaulting ambition, which o'erleaps itself and falls on the other." I would much rather watch a movie that tries to do too much and fails than one that tries to do nothing and succeeds, it's just not a film that I would watch again anytime soon, nor one that I would recommend running out to see in a theater. Better to catch it at home and watch it at your own pace, since Daniels & Strong gave the film no pace of its own.

GO Rating: 3/5


[Photos via BoxOfficeMojo]

Day 231: Jobs

"Jesus!"
"No, it's just Steve."

Whenever two similarly themed films are announced, one is almost always rushed into production to be the first one in the marketplace. When it came to the dueling biopics about Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, one film was always going to be at a disadvantage merely due to the fact that Oscar-winning writer Aaron Sorkin was working on the other. So what choice did producer/director Joshua Michael Stern have but to get his film, Jobs, into theaters first?  And more importantly, is there any chance the film was any good, so as to give Sorkin's future film a run for its money?



Opening at the 2001 Apple Town Hall meeting in which Steve Jobs (Ashton Kutcher) unveiled the iPod, Jobs asserts from minute one that it has no intention of pursuing the art of telling a good story, but is rather interested in compiling a highlights reel of the life of Steve Jobs. Jumping back to his early life as a college drop-out who scrapes by on his ingenuity, the film hits all his major life events from his contentious job at Atari, to his reliance on close friend Steve Wozniak (Josh Gad) to be the creator of all the ingenious ideas Jobs himself wasn't able to actualize. Jobs & Wozniak set out to sell people on the idea of a home computer, something unthinkable in the halcyon days of the late 1970s, and thanks to the investment of Mike Markkula (Dermot Mulroney) and the hard work of an assortment of their friends, they succeed in creating the Apple II, a revolution in home computing.

Things begin to go south for Jobs in a hurry though, as his demanding nature causes him to rack up just as many enemies as he does allies. When Apple's board, headed by Arthur Rock (JK Simmons) insists that they bring in a CEO that has tons of real world business experience, Jobs hones in on John Sculley (Matthew Modine) the former Pepsi CEO & advertising genius, to help get the company back on track. A coup from Rock, Markkula & Sculley, however, ends up forcing Jobs out of his own company after the failure of 1984's Macintosh computer, and Steve is powerless and directionless for the first time in his life.



The thing that makes Jobs such a legitimately terrible film is the fact that it is solely interested in following the standard biopic format that was so derided for so many years that most filmmakers wisely chose to abandon it. The film, while it doesn't shy away from the more unsavory aspects of Jobs' personality, is grade-A hero worship at best. The filmmakers treat every revelatory moment in his life (and there are a bunch) with the fanfare of an explorer discovering a new world. The film is full of this nonsense, and the frequency with which it swells the music and slowly zooms in on characters is such that you could be forgiven for thinking you were watching a parody of self-important biopics.

You know you're in trouble almost immediately when Jobs and some friends take acid, and Steve goes from mourning his birth parents' decision to give him up for adoption to spinning around and conducting an unseen orchestra in a wheat field. I legitimately thought it was a joke, but the film has no levity or aesthetic distance with which to see how absurd many of its choices are. Every character speaks in platitudes or quippy dialogue that no one in real life spouts off without thinking long and hard about first, and the movie is never worse than in the early scenes when it treats every little thing with the awe of a child discovering a shiny object for the first time.

The film never recovers however, and later in the film busts out such obvious cliches as Jobs getting so frustrated with his "garbage" walkman that he throws it in the trash. It's the kind of thing that might have happened in real life, but to put it front and center in a film is just nonsensical. What truly makes the film awful is its score by John Debney. It is full of the most egregious musical cues this side of Amistad. You'll never have to wonder what emotion you're supposed to be feeling because the directorial and musical choices will make it painfully clear how you're supposed to react.



As for the 800 lb gorilla in the room, Kutcher's performance is just fine. He's not going to surprise you, but he's also not awful. He can't help but be dragged down to the film's level by a terrible script and awful directorial choices, but he's not bad. You're always aware that you're watching Ashton Kutcher, though. He never totally loses himself in the role, and he's almost more concerned with using his hands the way Jobs did or emoting in a similar fashion to the man himself than he is in giving a portrayal of a realistic human being, but he's not terrible.

Josh Gad, on the other hand, is the standout in the cast. His performance is great, and even though his role late in the film is reduced to dropping by to deliver sentimental nuggets of wisdom to Jobs, his Steve Wozniak shows that the guy behind the guy is often the true genius in the room. Many of the supporting actors similarly acquit themselves of the awful material they were given, in particular Simmons, Mulroney, Modine & Lukas Haas as Jobs' childhood friend Daniel Kottke.



Jobs is world class dross; the kind of film that one might joke about making if they wanted to make a film so obvious and over-sentimental it wouldn't even be shown as a movie of the week on network television in the late 70s or early 80s. The film just doesn't pass muster. For a film that's about one of the true pioneers of the twentieth century, it plays out as a paint-by-numbers film so childish in its obviousness that it can't even be enjoyed as a guilty pleasure. Stern is a filmmaker better suited to working in parody because he knows exactly what all the tropes of the genre are, he just can't help falling into them and drowning. Do yourself a favor and skip this film entirely.

GO Rating: 1/5


[Photos via BoxOfficeMojo]

Day 230: The Frighteners

"Sheriff! You are violating my territorial bubble!"

Before he was the king of the geek world and the heir apparent to Spielberg & Lucas, Peter Jackson was a journeyman director working on low budget, gross-out horror comedies like Braindead & the perverted puppet film Meet the Feebles. With 1994's Oscar nominated Heavenly Creatures, however, Jackson showed he could do more than just pile on the gore; He and partner Fran Walsh could create great character-driven stories that were enhanced by visual effects rather than reliant upon them.

His last film before he devoted his life to big budget adaptations like The Lord of the Rings, King Kong, The Lovely Bones & The Hobbit, was the 1996 Michael J. Fox horror comedy The Frighteners. The film was a box office failure when it was released that summer, despite an ad campaign that really played up the fact that its Executive Producer was Robert Zemeckis (it only ended up earning back a little more than half its $30 million production budget). Watching the film again now, it's easy to understand why the film was not a commercial success, but it's also plainly obvious why the film has a ton of ardent admirers, myself among them.



Supernatural con man Frank Bannister (Fox) is trying to eke out a living in the small California town of Fairwater. Due to an accident years earlier that left his wife dead, Frank can now see ghosts walking among the living. He uses several of them (Chi McBride, Jim Fyfe & John Astin) in a scheme to bilk money out of poor, unsuspecting people. Things begin to take a turn for the bizarre when Frank notices numbers appearing on various people's foreheads, just before they turn up dead.

Frank becomes a suspect because of his close proximity to each victim, but he can see the cloaked spirit that is killing these people, and sets out to find out the truth. It isn't long before the FBI gets involved, in the form of a creepy, derelict agent by the name of Milton Dammers (Jeffrey Combs). Along with the help of a local widow (Trini Alvarado), Frank uncovers a plot that may tie back to a serial killer that used to live in Fairweather by the name of Johnny Charles Bartlett (Jake Busey).



The thing that stands out most about The Frighteners is the fact that it seems almost designed to be a cult classic. The performances are all over-the-top and borderline hammy, which likely prevented the film from being a huge mainstream hit, but certainly now helps to cement it as a b-movie throwback. There's a malicious spirit at work on the film, the kind of spirit that is conspicuously absent from Jackson's work since this film. There are hints of it in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but there is a sense that King Kong and especially The Hobbit are the work of a director not having much fun anymore.

Much like the early work of Tim Burton, Jackson always somehow managed to do more with less. As his budgets have increased, the wonder has diminished from his films significantly. Now, I understand that his films have gotten much more high minded than the ones he made early in his career, but nothing in any of his subsequent films has equaled the sheer, unbridled ecstasy on display when he had the main character in Braindead fire up a lawnmower & literally mow down the undead.

The Frighteners is most assuredly a kindred spirit to Tim Burton's Beetlejuice. The ghostly horror-comedies would make a fantastic double feature. This film's biggest detriment however is that, unlike Burton's film, this one doesn't have a centerpiece character like Michael Keaton's Beetlejuice to make the film an instant classic. The antics of the various comic relief ghosts like McBride, Fyfe & Astin are funny, but in a much different way, and are not likely to be the most memorable thing about the film for most viewers.



As I mentioned earlier, the film's performances range from the more reserved (Fox & Alvarado) to the flat-out over the top (Combs, Busey, & Dee Wallace Stone). Overall, they add up to a fantastically realized world that makes the film a delight to return to again and again. In 2005 Jackson released his director's cut of the film, and this was my first time watching this cut (which incorporates 14 minutes of deleted and extended scenes back into the film). I prefer the theatrical version, but some of the extra scenes with McBride, Fyfe, & particularly Combs are entertaining.

Despite the film's low budget aesthetic, the visual and makeup effects still manage to score. They're not ground breaking, and many of them bear the hallmarks of executive producer Zemeckis (Death Becomes Her) & make-up artist Rick Baker's work (An American Werewolf in London). It most assuredly feels like a ramping up of the effects people of WETA to their much better work on The Lord of the Rings however, and isn't likely to impress the younger generation raised on cgi everything, but those of us that can appreciate old school and practical effects will find a lot to love here.



It may be years before Peter Jackson grows weary of special effects extravaganzas, or it may never happen at all, but I sincerely hope that if and when he does, that he returns to making films like The Frighteners. The film may not be on the cutting edge of storytelling or visual effects, but it's very clearly the work of someone who loves what they're doing. If you haven't seen The Frighteners, you're truly missing out on one of the great genre flicks of the 90s. It may not be the most revelatory film you'll ever see, but I sincerely doubt that anyone who's a fan of horror comedies and b-movies would dislike the film. In fact, I'd be willing to bet it'll be an instant classic to such folks.

[Photos via FanCarpet]

Spotlight: The Day The Clown Cried

[via]

As a film geek, there are very, very, very few films that I have always wanted to see but could never get my hands on. In the digital age, it's become easier and easier to see a lot of these films, everything from Matthew Barney's Cremaster Cycle to Claire Denis' Trouble Every Day have been crossed off my list, but one film destined to remain on that list forever is Jerry Lewis' 1972 Holocaust dramedy The Day The Clown Cried.

Footage was recently uncovered, via a 7-minute Danish making-of documentary of sorts. Even the tiniest bit of footage from this film is enough to send the most reserved film geeks through the roof with excitement. Below I've included more information about the film, along with every youtube video that exists with footage from or about the film, including this new video that has just recently emerged...

This seven minute video was found by Devin over at Badass Digest, and his article's title should be some small indication as to what a holy grail this film is for us film geeks.

The film tells the story of Helmut Doork (Lewis) who lives in Germany during World War II, and one night, in a drunken rage he slanders the Third Reich, a crime which gets him a one-way ticket to a concentration camp. While at the camp, he's given the job of entertaining the children, which includes leading them, Pied Piper-style to the gas chamber. It sounds horrifying, and those who have seen it (Simpsons voice actor Harry Shearer among them) have verified as much. The film's script can be found here, for those interested in reading it.

Lewis completed the film, but refused to release it, and allegedly keeps the only copy of it locked in a vault, to be destroyed upon his death. As time goes on, you would think that he would soften to the desperate pleas of filmdom's biggest geeks, but he remains steadfast in his determination to never release the film. Some say it's because Roberto Benigni's 1998 Oscar winning film Life is Beautiful handled similarly dicey material in a much better fashion; Others say it's because the film is such an embarrassment to Lewis that he can't bear to let anyone see it.

Whatever the case may be, it's unlikely that I'll ever get to see the film in its entirety, so footage like this makes me go nuts when it's discovered because it's the closest I'll ever get to the film itself. Below are a few more select videos (big thanks to Slashfilm for collecting these in one place), including a 2011 interview with Lewis & the thoughts of Shearer after having seen the film.

The film seems destined to languish in unseen obscurity, lost to time and egos much like Orson Welles' original cut of The Magnificent Ambersons. If you have other holy grail films, let me know what they are in the comments section below, I'd love to discuss what some of your favorite unattainable films are...







[Slashfilm]

Day 229: Planes

"Why hello ladies... You ready to lose?"

Pixar's least original film, Cars, at least came from a wholesome place. Director John Lasseter was inspired to make the film after traveling cross country with his family on Route 66. It doesn't completely excuse the fact that the plot of the film was ripped off almost wholesale from the Michael J. Fox film Doc Hollywood, but at least the road to the film was paved with good intentions.

It's virtually impossible to say the same about the new Disney Toons' animated spinoff Planes, which plays like a ninety two minute cross between a Saturday morning cartoon & a commercial for all the toys your kids are going to want you to buy when you leave the theater. If the plot weren't so by-the-numbers obvious and had the jokes aimed slightly higher than various aviation puns, it might have been a worthy successor to the much maligned franchise, but instead, it fails to take off (Okay, I promise, that will be the first and only pun in this review).



Dusty Crophopper (Dane Cook) is a crop dusting plane from Propwash Junction that dreams of one day competing in the Wings Around The Globe rally. His only problem is, he's a crop dusting plane. After placing sixth in a qualifying race, his dreams seem to be squashed, but after another plane is disqualified, Dusty gets to live his dream and fly in the big race. Populated with various stereotypes, I mean planes from around the globe like El Chupacabra (Carlos Alazraqui), Bulldog (John Cleese) and the perennial favorite Ripslinger (Roger Craig Smith), his dreams seem like they're never going to achieve lift off (I promise, that's the last one).

Inspired by his plot device coach-with-a-dark-past Skipper (Stacy Keach) and his misfit automobile friends Chug (Brad Garrett) & Dottie (Teri Hatcher), Dusty goes from underdog to front-runner just long enough to backslide. As the race intensifies, the odds seem hopelessly stacked against Dusty, but his friends, old and new, put a tailwind under him that may just propel him to victory (I have a problem, I might not be able to stop now).



The Cars films sort of lived and died on two things, children's love of cars & the hackneyed shenanigans of Larry the Cable Guy as Mater. Your enjoyment, or at the very least your children's enjoyment, of the films is in direct correlation to your tolerance for those things. But Planes is already at a disadvantage because it just doesn't have the built-in appeal those films provided. It's about propellor planes, something virtually none of the children I know give a rat's ass about, and it's voice cast is a veritable who's who of second and third choices for seemingly every role (including the famous last-minute replacement of star Jon Cryer with Cook).

The film is a mildly amusing diversion (incredibly mild... like white bread mild) that utilizes the underdog formula, once again, which was used to much better effect mere weeks ago with Turbo. The packed house at the screening my daughters and I attended today leads me to believe that this film will fare better than Turbo did, but unfairly so as that film actually subverted expectations and played out in a more interesting way than this one does. It's always a tad disappointing to me when people, especially families, turn a cold shoulder to originality in favor of familiar brands.

I'm at least heartened by the fact that there were only a few chuckles at the obvious and awful humor this film was populated with, though this audience may have been an anomaly. I'm similarly bothered by a subplot in which the film's Mater surrogate Chug begins to make a ton of money by selling Dusty paraphernalia. It's as if the film is goading children into begging their parents to take them to Wal-Mart after the film is over to load up on similar nonsense. It's one thing to merchandise your movie, it's another to turn it into a part of the plot of the film.



As I mentioned earlier, the voice cast is fine, but everyone feels like they weren't the first choice for the role. There are some decent actors such as Cleese, Alazraqui, Hatcher, Garrett, Keach and Julia-Louis Dreyfus, but I never would have known it were any of them without reading it in the credits. In fact, Anthony Edwards and Val Kilmer also voice characters, making this a Top Gun reunion of sorts, but again, never would have figured that out.

And while we're on the subject of Top Gun, the film opens with a song that is eerily reminiscent of that film's Kenny Loggins anthem "Highway to the Danger Zone," but turns out to be some knock-off song I couldn't even remember well enough to look up the credits for.  It's just indicative to me of the fact that Disney wasn't even willing to shell out money for the original. I know that films are a business, now more than ever, but they're just being so patently obvious about trying to get a maximum return on as little investment as possible that it makes the whole film feel even more shallow and cheap as a result.



There are plenty of other things I could get easily bogged down with, such as what on earth commuter-sized airliners would be doing in a world devoid of people. I can at least get the crop dusting corn because it's used for ethanol thing, but how on earth would a plane operate an iPad (or Flypad as it's called here)? There are just far too many lazy inconsistencies in the film for me to even give it another thought.

Even my daughters, who are easily entertained, didn't laugh much, if at all, and seemed horrendously bored at times. When your film fails to even entertain its core audience, it's a true indictment of how much you're selling a product and not making a film. I hate to be so harsh on a film like this, but it deserves such treatment. It was as shameless a cash grab as I've ever laid eyes on, and hopefully other parents will be savvy enough to recognize that. I've never been more worried that they won't, however.

GO Rating: 1.5/5


[Photos via BoxOfficeMojo]

Day 228: Blue Jasmine

"Anxiety, nightmares and a nervous breakdown... There's only so many traumas a person can withstand before they take to the streets and start screaming."

Woody Allen is a true anomaly. Since his debut as a director with 1966's What's Up Tiger Lily, he has put out a film a year, every year except for six. His run from 1971's Bananas to his first Oscars for writing and directing Annie Hall is unimpeachably great, arguably one of the best runs a filmmaker has ever gone on. His work since has been much more spotty, with some ups (The Purple Rose of Cairo, Bullets Over Broadway) and lots of downs.

His persistence, however, makes the lesser films all the more forgettable because the promise of a great film is always right around the corner. It's only been two years since Midnight in Paris netted him the most acclaim for any of his films in over a decade, so could his latest film, Blue Jasmine, actually be another great film? Are we in the midst of another Woody Allen renaissance? Read on to find out...



Jasmine (Cate Blanchett) is a woman who's life has just come unglued. We're told through flashbacks that her husband Hal (Alec Baldwin) had been arrested for all manner of shady business practices, which he and Jasmine had reaped the benefits of for years through an extravagant lifestyle. Destitute and on her own, Jasmine is forced to move to San Francisco and live with her sister Ginger (Sally Hawkins), even though their relationship is tenuous at best; A few years back Jasmine convinced Ginger and her then-husband Augie (Andrew Dice Clay) to invest all of their money in a real estate scheme that Hal had cooked up which resulted in them losing everything.

Now Jasmine has inserted herself back in Ginger's life, and is ridiculously judgmental of every aspect of her life, particularly her new boyfriend Chili (Bobby Cannavale). Jasmine has plans to move on with her life and takes a job working as a dental receptionist and also takes night classes to learn more about computers in hopes of getting an interior design degree. However, a chance meeting with a rich and charming stranger named Dwight (Peter Sarsgaard) gives Jasmine a glimpse of regaining her old lifestyle, and her old habits begin to emerge once more.



The most interesting thing about Blue Jasmine is that it seems like a return to Allen's days writing female-centric serio-comedies, best illustrated by the 13 films he made with former lover Mia Farrow. The film felt very reminiscent of September or Alice, especially since there was no Allen surrogate character in the film (the closest we get is Michael Stuhlbarg as the lecherous dentist Jasmine goes to work for). The film also recalls earlier works like Stardust Memories, in that it's constantly moving in and out of flashback, similar to the way Jasmine's fragile mind is currently working.

It's hard to call this a true "change of scenery" film for Allen, since all of the flashbacks take place in New York City, so it's not the kind of revitalizing take on a new city that Match Point and Vicky Christina Barcelona were. It does feel like a kindred spirit to those films, however, in the fact that with the exception of a handful of supporting characters (namely Cannavale, Stuhlbarg, Max Casella & Louis CK) this didn't feel like a Woody Allen film. It was expansive and had a lot of shots along the Bay in Northern California that made it feel much more open and expressive than a lot of his work (not totally surprising since this film reunited him with Vicky Christina cinematographer Javier Aguirresarobe).

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that this was written by him during that Mia Farrow period and then repurposed for 2013 (a tactic he's used before with 2009's Whatever Works). The biggest issue I had with the film, by far, was that none of the characters were really worth caring about. Some of the periphery characters were nice people, but for the most part, everyone was just selfish and uncaring, and even their moments when they showed a side of themselves that was more than that were too few and far between to make them wholly redeemable. I'm not saying that everyone's got to be nice, it just makes it a long trek to the end of the film when you're in the company of such repulsive people.



The best thing about the film, by far, is its cast. Blanchett is transcendentally good, and will most assuredly get major awards recognition for her performance. She plays a wholly repugnant woman that you somehow still root for, which is truly disorienting. Her performance is measured when it needs to be and brash when the script calls for it, and its some of the best work of her career. The other revelatory surprise here is Andrew Dice Clay. He appropriately plays on your expectations of what he's going to do as an actor, and delights in subverting them. He plays one of the only truly decent people in the whole film, and seems to be right at home in this world and character, and it was really great to see him having fun on screen.

The rest of the supporting cast was good as well. Hawkins, Cannavale, Stuhlbarg, and Baldwin all turn in solid performances, and people like Casella, Sarsgaard & Louis CK do the most they can with such small parts. As I mentioned earlier, the cinematography was top notch and his soundtrack selections, particularly Lizzie Miles' cover of Eddie Green's "A Good Man is Hard to Find."



Blue Jasmine was not the rollicking good time I wanted it to be, and that probably hampered my enjoyment of the film. In retrospect, it is a very good film with some great performances and gorgeous cinematography, but it's not the kind of film that will achieve universal acclaim in the way Midnight in Paris did. The unlikeable characters, particularly the protagonist, will be too much for some people to look past, and that's a shame because there is some truly great stuff happening here on screen.

While this is not the kind of film Woody Allen normally makes, it's definitely right in line with a lot of his work from the 80s and early 90s, which is likely to be a major turn-off for some people. While I'm not the biggest fan of that period in his career, I think this is above average work from Allen, and it certainly has me looking forward to his next film, which will likely be out in about a year.

GO Rating: 3.5/5


[Photos via BoxOfficeMojo]

Day 227: We're The Millers

"You're telling me this woman in the capris and the sensible shoes is a stripper?"

One of the biggest surprises of the summer of 2004 was the film Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story, if for no other reason than it was one of the very few comedies that didn't give away every single funny joke in the trailer. In fact, the trailers made the film look so unfunny, I almost avoided it entirely, but thankfully they trusted audiences enough to not give away all their best jokes in the advertising. That film's writer & director, Rawson Marshall Thurber, made one other feature, 2008's The Mysteries of Pittsburgh, which I, like everyone else apparently, have never seen.

For his third feature, he's right back in familiar territory with We're The Millers, a raunchy late summer comedy that had an advertising campaign which seemed to suggest it was following in Dodgeball's footsteps. Did this hold to be true? Read on to find out...



David Clark (Jason Sudeikis) is a low rent drug dealer working for the much bigger supplier, Brad Gurdlinger (Ed Helms). When David is robbed of his stash and all of his money, Brad gives him a chance to work off his debt, plus earn $100,000 extra. He has to go down to Mexico and pick up " a smidge, smidge and a half" of weed and bring it back across the border to Denver, where they live. David is at a loss for how to do this until he sees a "real-life Flanders" driving an RV through the city, and it dawns on him: Get some folks to pile into an RV, pretend to be a family, and the border patrol won't give them a second look.

Kenny (Will Poulter) a teenage loner in David's apartment building is all too eager to pose as his son, but unless they want to look like they're competing in the "pervert Olympics," they'll need a mother and sister. They rope Casey (Emma Roberts) into helping them by offering her $1000, and David enlists the reluctant help of his stripper neighbor Rose (Jennifer Aniston) to pose as the kids' mother.

With a family in place and an RV waiting for them on the US side of the border, The Miller "family" sets out to do some light drug smuggling. Of course when they arrive in Mexico, the RV is loaded down with so much marijuana, they'll have no hope of making it back across the border, but that becomes the least of their problems when all hell begins to break loose.



First and foremost, anyone hoping for a second lightning strike with director Thurber will be sorely disappointed. This is, unfortunately, one of those films where virtually all of the funniest jokes were in the trailer, particularly if you've seen both the green and red band versions. If you're holding out hope that there would be some variety in the riffing and improv runs that were shown in the trailer, you're likely to be letdown as most of the jokes appear exactly as is. There are a handful of funny jokes, and a very funny supporting character named Scottie P (Mark L. Young) that came as a surprise, but for the most part, the filmmakers had nothing up their sleeve.

It also doesn't help that the plot was absurdly predictable and by the numbers, almost to the point where you could feel the next story beat being telegraphed twenty minutes ahead of time. There were a handful of things that I expected to happen that did not happen (which was odd considering how obvious the setups seemed to be), but for the most part, everything played out exactly as I expected it to before I even set foot in the theater, which was severely disenchanting. It's not completely unexpected however, particularly considering the film has four credited writers (with credits that include the similarly predictable Wedding Crashers & Hot Tub Time Machine).



Much like Wedding Crashers lived or died on how much you enjoy Vince Vaughn's extended riffing, so too does We're The Millers rely on Jason Sudeikis to do all of the heavy lifting in the comedy department. I like Sudeikis a lot, but there's something utterly repellant about the characters he tends to play in these big budget comedies like this and Horrible Bosses. I don't know why he's being pigeonholed into these kinds of roles, but he seems like a decent guy in real life, and I'd like to see him play one sometime.

The rest of the cast is nothing to write home about. Aniston is fine, though I've never cared for her much as an actress (she's just not that funny) and her two "striptease" sequences seemed contractually obligated more than plot driven. Poulter and Roberts are fine, though neither stand out as doing anything unexpected. Nick Offerman and Kathryn Hahn have some genuinely funny bits as a white bread RV family that keeps crossing paths with The Millers, but their scenes are so drawn out, they cease to be funny after several minutes.

As a matter of fact, that seems to be the biggest issue overall with this entire film. It just doesn't know when to say enough is enough. Virtually every scene goes on minutes longer than it needs to, and the entire film runs easily twenty minutes longer than it needed to. Honestly, what happened to the days of the ninety minute comedy? Are they gone for good?



Overall, I would say that unless you're really hard up for some laughs, just wait for We're The Millers to hit home video. It's a mildly amusing diversion, but doesn't pack enough laughs to merit a running time that close to two hours, and the characters aren't even fun or interesting enough to want to spend that much time with. Their arcs are patently predictable and the whole film just reeks of being completely inessential. Apart from the fact that it's likely the first film whose plot revolves around marijuana in which I can't recall a single soul smoking any, the film doesn't tread any new ground, and frankly just isn't worth paying more than five or six bucks to see.

GO Rating: 2/5


[Photos via BoxOfficeMojo]

Top 5: Scenes That Should Have Never Been Deleted

One of the major selling points of the dvd format, when it was first introduced, was its inclusion of bonus features. Director's commentary tracks had been around since the days of laserdiscs, but now we could see behind the scenes footage, visual effects progressions and, best of all, deleted scenes. With the bulk of deleted scenes, however, it became apparent very quickly why they were deleted in the first place. But some of them were pretty great. Some of them should have never been cut at all, and today I'm looking at my Top 5 favorite deleted scenes that should never have been cut from the film.

5. Lethal Weapon (1987, dir. Richard Donner)



While this scene has technically been restored to Richard Donner's director's cut released on dvd in 2000, the version I grew up with did not have this scene intact. The scene would come early in the film to establish Riggs (Mel Gibson) as being a true loose cannon with nothing to live for since the death of his wife. He arrives at the scene of a school shooting, where the police are unable to negotiate or communicate with a sniper who has opened fire on a school yard. Riggs walks right into his line of fire, taunts him, and then dispatches of him brutally. It's vintage Shane Black, setting up a character who summarily ignores everyone around him to go out and take care of a real scumbag before he can hurt any more children. While the scene has been restored into the film proper now (along with a scene where Riggs picks up a prostitute and brings her back to his place for a Three Stooges marathon), it's still one of the big missed opportunity character moments that make Martin Riggs one of the most memorable action movie characters of all time.

4. Caddyshack (1980, dir. Harold Ramis)



It's no surprise that Caddyshack continues to dominate people's lists of the funniest films ever made, along with another masterpiece from the same year Airplane! However, one of the biggest missed opportunities within the film itself is the dearth of scenes between arguably the two funniest alumni from the early years of Saturday Night Live, Bill Murray & Chevy Chase. This scene, in which the deranged groundskeeper Carl (Murray) gives wealthy Ty Webb (Chase) some pointers on his swing, combines all the best elements of what makes these two men so funny. The go for broke insanity of Murray and the sardonic wit of Chase combines for what is arguably as funny a scene as anything else in the film proper. While the scene is regularly added into tv versions of the film that need to cut other scenes for content, it's sadly not available in its entirety in the bonus features section of the blu-ray or dvd versions of the film.

3. American Movie (1999, dir. Chris Smith & Sarah Price)

In a documentary filled with memorable characters, Mike Schank manages to steal the film American Movie away from virtually everyone else around him. The film is about Milwaukee-area filmmaker Mark Borchardt's attempt to get a feature film made, but eventually becomes a chronicle of his life and friends once he abandons that film to finish another he never completed. Mark's best friend Mike is by his side through thick and thin, and though years of alcohol and drug abuse have put him a step behind most other people, he somehow manages to pull out some of the most profound quotes of the entire film. This deleted scene perfectly encompasses everything there is to know about Mike, as he goes from answering a question about what he thinks will happen to his best friend to summing up his philosophy on life and ending with the details of his schedule for the rest of the day. It's a wonderful little moment that would have been a great button for this character, but instead it's relegated to a litany of other, equally brilliant deleted scenes on the dvd. 

2. Ed Wood (1994, dir. Tim Burton)



I truly wrestled with the notion of putting another Bill Murray scene on this list, but let's face it, you can never have enough Bill Murray in your life. His turn as real life drag queen Bunny Breckenridge in Tim Burton's 1994 masterpiece Ed Wood is one of the best performances in his career, and there is sadly not enough of him in the film. While the tail end of this clip did end up in the film, I find it to be truly lesser for not including this extended sequence of Bunny walking through a meat locker at the wrap party for Bride of the Monster singing "Que Sera Sera" after returning from Mexico with a mariachi band that inexplicably rescued him from his failed sex change operation. It's the kind of thing that would have made an already bizarre and sweet film even more so on both fronts, and it's the kind of scene that makes you wonder why they cut it in the first place, apart from the fact that it does nothing to further the plot. Thank goodness we live in a world where scenes like this can live on thanks to home video and youtube.

1. High Fidelity (2000, dir. Stephen Frears)



High Fidelity was a film that truly had to grow on me. I was not as enamored with it the first time I saw it as many people were, but after reading the book and watching it again, I now count it as one of my favorite films. One of the best scenes in the book was cut from the film adaptation, but it was shot and later deleted. In it, Rob (John Cusack) a record store owner, responds to an ad from a woman (Beverly D'Angelo) selling her cheating husband's collection of 45s. We can see the excitement in Rob's eyes when he digs into the collection, and are equally frustrated when he can't bring himself to pay next to nothing for them to the woman who is only looking for revenge against her infidel husband. It's an absolutely amazing and perfect character moment that tells us more about who Rob is and what he is and isn't willing to do for love, and the film is just slightly hurt by its exclusion from the finished product. It's heartbreaking, funny and sad all at the same time, much like the film itself.

[header photo via]

Day 226: The Smurfs 2

"After all, that is why we came to this cheese infested metropolis."

Unlike most people who were willing to dismiss 2011's The Smurfs sight unseen, I actually didn't mind the film all that much. As a parent, believe me when I tell you that I've been dragged to much, much worse films than that one. Don't get me wrong, it's got its issues, but one thing it had going for it was an unexpectedly dedicated live action cast, headed by a go-for-broke performance from Hank Azaria as Gargamel. It goes without saying that I would similarly have to sit through the sequel, so while I was guarded, I didn't enter the theater with the appropriate amount of dread required to enjoy a film like this. That's my diplomatic way of saying that the paper thin premise on which they've chosen to hang a franchise has started to tear apart at the seams.



Picking up some four years after the events of the first film, The Smurfs 2 opens with Smurfette (Katy Perry, ugh) facing an identity crisis. Because she was created by Gargamel (Azaria), she feels that she's never been a true blue Smurf (see what I did there? Clever, right?) She becomes completely despondent when she thinks the other Smurfs have forgotten her birthday, and her world is thrown into a tailspin when she is abducted by a grey complexioned "Naughty" by the name of Vexy (Christina Ricci).

Vexy, along with the significantly dumber Hackus (JB Smoove) are creations of Gargamel's that he is hoping to turn into real Smurfs with the help of the secret formula used to turn Smurfette into one. Once he's done that, he can use their essence to take over the world. Confused yet? Remember, this film is aimed at the under-10 set. Papa Smurf (Jonathan Winters) sets in motion a rescue plan to travel to the human world, along with three other arbitrarily chosen Smurfs, and prove to Smurfette that she's a real Smurf.

Papa and the others once again enlist the help of Patrick (Neil Patrick Harris) & Grace (Jayma Mays) Winslow, who are soldiering through city life and raising their young son Blue (Jacob Tremblay). Patrick is having a paternal crisis of his own when his overbearing step-father Victor (Brendan Gleeson) keeps popping into his life and wreaking havoc. Will Papa Smurf and Patrick once again be able to help one another through a good old fashioned heart-to-heart? Will Smurfette realize that she is good after all? Will Gargamel's plan for world domination meet with a comically ridiculous end? Well, you're not getting any spoilers out of me!



Am I being a tad harsh on The Smurfs 2? Probably, but it's got an agenda in its story line, and that would, at least superficially, elevate it above the average mindless child-focused entertainment. The message behind the film is actually quite sweet and pertinent to a lot of kids in this day and age, namely that it's not about where you come from or whether or not the person raising you is your birth parent, it's all about how you choose to look at the world that defines you as a person. At a time when many children are facing divorced, adoptive or surrogate parents, it's a theme that will apply to many of the children in the audience, and it's one that's a tad headier than the average film featuring pint-sized blue dwarfs could be expected to convey.

The ultimate problem, however, is that the message is buried in a film that derives endless amusement from bodily functions and Smurf-based puns (Smurfholm Syndrome? Really?) I can't help but admire any film trying to teach kids a lesson such as the one this film has in mind, but to constantly undercut it with pratfalls and eye-rolling gags ultimately diminishes that message into nothingness. The film also really piles on the non-Smurf related subplots to the point where many kids in the audience will be wondering what the Smurfs are even up to as the film sometimes goes for ten minute stretches with no sight of the little fellas.

In fact, I likely wouldn't be so bothered by the toilet humor, which I've honestly come to expect at this point, if the film weren't so interminably long. At 105 minutes, it's at least fifteen minutes too long, and could likely have stood to lose closer to twenty. In typical sequel style, the film gets bogged down in trying to give all of the characters something to do, and ends up suffering from nearly fatal bloat. While I was pleasantly surprised that they didn't try to shoehorn in as many Smurfs as possible this time, sticking once again to the small band of stowaways, it's really a backhanded compliment since the ones that aren't Papa or Smurfette are nothing more than plot devices anyway.



As with the first film, the biggest asset that The Smurfs 2 has going for it is Hank Azaria. He goes all out here, holding nothing back, and it pays off handsomely. His dedication to the character of Gargamel is admirable in the way that more serious actors in more serious films often get awards recognition for. I don't want to draw a straight line between his performance here and the work of someone like Daniel Day-Lewis, but I wouldn't be opposed to a squiggly line connecting those dots. It's that level of commitment, however, and he's the only reason I'll likely see the inevitable third film.

When the filmmakers pulled the stunt casting of Katy Perry out of their bag two years ago, they probably didn't know she was going to be the focus of the sequel and would have been wiser to cast an actual actress in the role. The less said about her work here, the better. Winters is expectedly good as Papa, in what is sadly his last role, and JB Smoove manages to create a character that is equal parts fun and revolting that I'm sure most kids will get a big kick out of. The rest of the live-action cast is good as well, as to be expected from three solid actors like Harris, Mays & Gleeson.



The film most assuredly falls victim to the too many cooks in the kitchen syndrome that can't help but come from a script credited to five people (and likely had many more hands in it than that). I hate to harp on how crucial a good script is for a film like this, but it seems like there was a kernel of a truly good idea in there somewhere until they brought someone in to punch it up with fart jokes.

I want so badly to think that the next film will be better, as the film's ending sets it up to take place in The Smurfs' home world rather than the human world (the globe trotting in this film was a tad ridiculous). However, I just don't have enough faith in director Raja Gosnell, and his coterie of writers dedicated to nothing more than jokes that will appeal to the lowest common denominator, to provide a film that will rise to the level of its most dedicated actors. Your children deserve better than this film will give them, and considering much better films like Turbo are still in theaters, I can't even recommend this as something to do on a rainy day.

GO Rating: 2/5

[Photos via BoxOfficeMojo]