Tag: movie review

THE CREATOR – Review

John David Washington as Joshua in 20th Century Studios’ THE CREATOR. Photo courtesy of 20th Century Studios. © 2023 20th Century Studios. All Rights Reserved.

In the sci-fi action extravaganza THE CREATOR, a mash-up of hero-quest movies from STAR WARS to BLADE RUNNER, the hero played by John David Washington battles a host of daunting foes and powerful weapons to save a little girl. Only she isn’t a little girl – but a human-like AI android that was built with a massive power, to neutralize any weapon humans might possess in a AI-versus-human war. Which means the human hero in this big, splashy special effects movie is helping an AI robot that looks like a child defeat humankind. Yet audiences cheer at the end of this sci-fi action adventure, seemingly unconscious of what they are cheering. What?

It’s a disturbing experience. I am not the only critic to note that THE CREATOR is pretty much a propaganda film, manipulating its audience with classic mythic hero tropes to tell a tale of AI triumphing over humanity. Sure, some will argue it’s just entertainment and close their eyes to the subtext, and even cheer at the end (as the audience I saw it with did) without thinking about what that end means. But you have to wonder who financed this opus, and what they intend by calling the androids “AI” and portraying them as harmless things, even though labeling these robots that way is both inaccurate and misleading. The false connection between harmless robots and AI is a message that will sink into the subconscious unbidden. With real-world IT industry leaders warning real-world leaders about the dangers of AI, and even the possibility of an existential threat to humankind, maybe that message and a heroic yarn about “good” AI defeating “bad” people isn’t want we need. Add in that this story casts Americans as the “bad guys” who want to get rid of AI versus a fictional nation called “New Asia” who defends AI, and it’s really stirring up the proverbial hornet’s nest.

Directed by Gareth Edwards, and written by Edwards and Chris Weitz, the story almost sounds like it was written by AI. It recycles tropes and story-lines from a plethora of sources, including familiar heroic movies and series like STAR WARS and BLADE RUNNER, as mentioned above, but also METROPOLIS, CHILDREN OF MEN, THE MANDOLORIAN, THE LAST OF US, EX MACHINA and even APOCALPSE NOW, among others. It is a messy mishmash but all that mess draws on the classic roots of all hero myths which speaks deeply to the human psyche. Throw in a child (or what looks like a child) for the hero to protect and save, and you have really powerful stuff. Except this isn’t a child – it’s an artificial bio machine with incredible power, a power that grows as it grows, and something to be used defeated humanity.

After a run of sci-fi movies like EX MACHINA, HER, THE MATRIX and THE TERMINATOR that pitted mankind against some kind of intelligent robot-like adversary, this movie turns things around to cast the humans as the villains and the machines as the good guys. And then encourages audiences to cheer that.

THE CREATOR starts out in a more conventional hero-tale way, which is what you see in the movie trailer.

In an old newsreel style prelude, we see a world where human-like robots (called sometimes call simulants but mostly called AI) are fully integrated into human society. That suddenly changes when a newly deployed military AI, intended for defense, decides people are the threat and drops a nuclear bomb on Los Angeles. Flash forward to years later, and the U.S. has outlawed AI (again, meaning the androids) and they have been nearly eliminated. The last remaining AI have taken shelter in a country called New Asia. But the American military has built a super weapon, a big airship, to defeat these last AI, and finally end the threat to mankind’s existence.

John David Washington plays Joshua, an uncover American operative embedded in the new country of New Asia trying to find a brilliant scientist who is developing a new kind of AI robot that can destroy the U.S.’s most powerful weapon in the war against AI. But a clumsy attempt at an invasion blows Joshua’s cover and, worse, separates him from his pregnant wife, Maya (Gemma Chan), a robotist, and maybe kills her.

Years later, the U.S. tries a second invasion (there is supposed to be a coalition of nations but we only see American forces), and Joshua is sent in again, under the command of Colonel Howell (Allison Janney), to find and destroy a new AI weapon with the power to destroy all human weapons.

But soon after, THE CREATOR flips the script, and makes the humans the bad guys and the androids into the good guys. We go from a movie that echoes disaster films about people defending Earth from alien or robot attack, to APOCALYPSE NOW with American soldiers from this futuristic world now threatening unarmed women and children in what looks like a village in 1960s Vietnam, even threatening to shoot a puppy. Throwing in an American versus Asia thing makes it extra unsettling, but especially given current real-world tensions. Nothing like stirring the pot.

At this point, Joshua is now in a pretty dark place personally, still mourning his lost wife and unborn child and even borderline suicidal. He takes the mission to defend humankind against the new threat but his heart isn’t in it. He’s really more interested getting back to New Asia to try to find his wife, whom is he hopes may still be alive, than in finding the weapon he is supposed to destroy, his assigned mission.

When Joshua does locate this powerful AI weapon, it turns out to be in the form of an adorable little girl. Well, not a girl but a girl-like android – a pretty clever form of “protective coloring” if you think about it. Almost as soon as Joshua sees the adorable little girl robot (Madeleine Yuna Voyles), who appears to be about the same age his own child would have been, he’s pretty much a goner. Instead of destroying the cute android as instructed, he takes along the AI he dubs Alphie, protecting and hiding her/it, maybe intending to keep others from capturing her/it and maybe intending to take her/it back to his team. Maybe.

The little girl AI is irresistibly cute and we fall under her spell as quickly as Joshua does. But this is not like EX MACHINA where the creation’s true nature is eventually revealed. Here Alphie remains sweetly charming, even as she disables any weapon aimed at her (by adopting a Buddhist prayer pose), clearing the path for her and Joshua.

That the movie’s androids are always called “AI” instead of robots or androids is significant, indicating the movie has a message about AI rather than being just an ordinary robot movie, There has to be an intention behind that. The usually-gentle human-like robots in this movie harken back to classic science fiction novels (including Isaac Asimov’s), where loyal servant robots, which had programming that prevents them from harming humans, are mistreated by people and have fight for their rights.

In the real world, AI do not have programming to prevent them from harming people – that is science fiction. These fictional androids are following fictional Asimov’s Rules of Robots – something real-world experts in the AI field say is not possible to “program” into real AI. Nor are real AI being “mistreated” (although misused may be another matter, but that is misuse is aimed at people, not AI). So the peaceful “AI” robots in this movie are something far different from actual AI that people are concerned about in the real world. Clearly the makers of this film want you to forget that detail.

So why would you want to mislead people by suggesting that real AI is or could be programmed to be harmless? It’s a question you might want to ask yourself if you choose watch this movie.

Once we get to New Asia, we hear a recurring refrain from humans there, one repeated several times in the movie, that the AI robots have “never been anything but kind to me” – unlike other people. We are clearly supposed to see the AI as better, kinder, than humans.

In fact, there is a kind of “diversity” theme here, with the AI robots presented as just another form of people. We see them as police and soldiers, but also as subsistence fisherman and even Buddhist monks.

Why robots would be monks? It makes no sense, but the whole thing is designed as a distraction from why people in the real world might be worried (and should be) about AI – and it’s not because they might replace monks.

Oddly, although you see more people than androids in New Asia when the film starts, as the film progresses we see fewer people. By it’s end, we see mostly AI, with only an occasional human if any at all. Dialog about how modern human replaced Neanderthals seems a chilling commentary on that, although the movie completely misrepresents how that happened. A character in the film states that modern humans replaced Neanderthals because people were “meaner,” but was more likely because of a more advanced culture and more creative, adaptive brains (not bigger ones). This was perhaps due to a genetic difference that gave modern humans more neurons in the frontal lobe of the brain, which would give an advantage in cognition, as recent research suggests. (Yeah, OK, I know, let’s not have real science in the science fiction.) Instead, that remark about people being mean sends the audience a message about who to root for, and it isn’t us.

Still, there are a couple of good points to this disturbing, manipulative movie, although not enough to rescue it from its mashup script or creepy message. The actors do a good job in this unfortunate film, with John David Washington playing his mournful, nearly suicidal hero well, and young Madeleine Yuna Voyles being very appealing as the child android. Alison Janney is impressive playing a relentless and ruthless American commander, who is supposed to be Washington’s despondent character Joshua’s boss although Joshua often ignores her or thwarts her in his sad, unstoppable quest for his lost wife. Washington’s performances are strong enough that one could even see how this broken man might ignore what is he is really doing to humanity, to embrace a child-like creation that makes him think of his lost child and grasp at straws to see his beloved wife again.

The other bright spot is that the movie has big-budget polish and impressive visual effects, despite a relatively modest budget (by the standards for this kind of FX movie) of $8 million, compared to other special effects adventure or superhero movies with budgets more like the annual budgets of small nations. How these film-makers did that is something that others might look into.

Still those few points are not enough to redeem this coldly manipulative propaganda film, with its chilling message for mankind. Yes, there will be audiences determined to see this sci-fi drama as mere entertainment, and resent any suggestions to the contrary. But the subtext is there, and subtext seeps into brains. Adding that East-West conflict theme is even more troubling, as this film will surely be seen by Asian audiences too, which might whip up a hostility that is good for no one.

THE CREATOR opens Friday, Sept 29, in theaters.

RATING: 1.5 out of 4 stars

Review: THE WARLORDS

Directors Peter Chan and Wai Man Yip have made what is easily one of the biggest, most epic stories in the history of modern Chinese cinema. The true story of a 19th century General Pang (Jet Li) and his blood brothers, is beautifully shot, incredibly moving, and has as much action as any one could ever want.

When THE WARLORDS starts General Pang is playing dead on the battlefield surrounded by the bodies of his brothers and soldiers. His army was tasked with wiping out another, and the Kui army was supposed to back him up. Instead, the Kui army stood and watched as Pang’s army was wiped out completely. Pang, shamed with his loss hides out for a while, before running into some bandits and joining their ranks.

Pang and the bandit leaders Xiang (Takeshi Kaneshiro) and Er-Hu (Andy Lau) become blood brothers out of revenge for an army that’s done them both wrong. Together they gather 800 men and soon become a true military force, taking cities with  unparalleled  courage and honor. You really do get the feeling that these men would do anything for each other, through their actions, and beautifully delivered words.

Sadly there are points in the film where the narration and story is a little hard to follow. There are huge amounts of time that pass and characters motivations change without really showing why. This doesn’t hinder the film too much, but it’s a little confusing and might take some people a little while to catch up to what everyone is doing.

The films strong points are it’s action scenes by far. This is by far the bloodiest Jet Li film I’ve ever seen. The action isn’t the wire-fu (wushu) martial arts many Jet Li fans may know. Instead it’s a military combat style of film, along the lines of Braveheart, Kingdom of Heaven or the beginning of Gladiator. The choreography is beautifully done in it’s quick brutality. I can’t count how many times I was saying “oh wow” at the over the top flurry of blades. Gone is the dancing style of sword fighting and instead blades sink deep into shoulders, heads and throats with large amounts of blood flying from wounds and showering the ground. It’s incredible.

What pulled me in even further into the film was Jet Li’s performance of General Pang. He was an old, gruff, battered man who’d obviously been through quite a lot. Li’s really playing a distinguished man, a man who’s age shows with every crack in his face. Pang is often referred to as “Big Brother” and he grabs onto that and shows some real leadership. There are no speeches or rally cries like you’d see in almost every single Western action film. There’s no “They’ll never take our land…” but you never question that these men would follow Pang into the gates of hell if he asked.

The dynamic between Pang, Xiang, and Er-Hu is completely believable. Their loyalty for each other is the central force of the film and it really does work. How these three interact is incredible. The interactions between Lau’s Er-Hu and Li’s Pang will have audience members really battling over who they identify with more. While these three men are brought together through a lust for revenge, their priorities are completely different, and what they want for their men are often drastically opposed. Both of them are in the right and the wrong in many of the situations they’re in, and will have you talking about it well after the film’s last frame.

THE WARLORDS is one of the best films I’ve seen out of China in quite a while. Huge set pieces, sprawling battlefields with hundreds of extras, in full costume, riding horses and carrying swords into what looks to be certain doom for the idea of honor and revenge. Cinema doesn’t get much better than this.

4 1/2 out of 5 stars

Review: IT’S COMPLICATED

Wow! This is probably the best romantic comedy that I have seen in a long time. “It’s Complicated” is sure to be a hit around the holidays.  Meryl Streep plays Jane, a successful, divorced mother of three with her own bakery.  Her ex of 10 years Jake, played by Alec Baldwin has  remarried a 20 something with a super tight body but is less than happy. While at their suns graduation, sparks fly and the two begin an affair.  She also happens to be dating Adam, played by Steve Martin, a sensitive, divorced architect with a big heart. Now she must choose between an old flame and a new romance.

Streep, Baldwin, and Martin are FANTASTIC in this movie. They are funny, entertaining, and down right nutty. The humor is graphic and sexual at time, but they keep it on a funny level rather than it being uncomfortable. To be honest, I couldn’t decide if I wanted Baldwin or Martin to prevail as the winning middle aged Romeo. They were both too like-able and funny to choose between. Baldwin was less than shy about his  physique, showing and making light of his pretty impressive, yet solid gut. He and Streep are very likable despite their affair in the film. She has a hard time accepting what she is doing, but the love that they have for each other has never truly died. The fact that they put the affair in a grey area, or even a slightly positive one would normally be bothersome to me, but they played this one juuuussttt right.  Another notable character is Harley, played by John Krasinski. Harley is Jane’s future son in law, and boy is he funny in his role. He is often in the know when no one else is, and is visibly uncomfortable with it. His performance even upstages some of the veterans in a  couple  of scenes.

Streep shows that romance and sex appeal are not just for the young. At 60, she is vibrant, funny, and proves that she still has a sexy side. The whole cast actually shows that sex doesn’t die after 40. Most movies tend to show this in an extremely uncomfortable way. They did a very good job of keeping it fun, intriguing, and relatable.  The writing was incredible too. Every moment was entertaining an intriguing. I was especially rolling on the floor when Streep and Martin took a stroll back 20 years at a party. Don’t worry, I won’t spoil it.

I highly recommend going to see this film. Even if you are male, it appeals to everyone! I will say that every male in the theater seemed to enjoy this film. This is not just a chick flick by any means.

Review: ARMORED

armored

ARMORED is easily one of the dullest action films I’ve ever seen in my entire life. The story is bland, the characters are uninteresting and worst of all, it’s just plain lazy. ARMORED is about a young war veteran Ty (Columbus Short), and his younger brother Jimmy (Andre Kinney), who’s parents have passed away in the last year. Ty has taken it upon himself to get a job and take care of his younger broth. Ty’s job is that of an armored truck guard. He helps move large amounts of money from one place to another. He got the job because his father worked at the company, Eagle Shield Security, as does his godfather Mike (Matt Dillon). The biggest problem in Ty’s life is that he’s just not making enough money and the bank is threatening to take his house.

When ARMORED starts, Ty is just a rookie, a probationary member of the team, but soon he’s a full fledged guard. This is when Mike presents Ty with an offer. Knowing that Ty is down on his luck and that he could lose his house and Jimmy he presents the idea of robbing the armored trucks by setting up a fake ambush. The take would be fourty two million dollars split a few different ways worthless supporting cast of armored truck security agents.  Ty of course, being the moral force of good in the story can’t really justify the theft of that much money until he’s present with another problem that could separate him from his brother until Jimmy tuns 18. Ty’s in, but only if no one gets hurt… of course everything goes terribly wrong and soon it’s Ty against a group of actors that I would have loved to have seen in any movie but this.

I have a lot of complaints with ARMORED and the biggest one is the cast. You have actors like Laurence Fishburne playing Baines, a veteran in the world of armored trucks. You also have Jean Reno, a favorite actor of mine, playing Quinn, a character with so few lines that he’s barely a character at all. The rest of the cast is filled out with the likes of Skeet Ulrich who doesn’t say a word for the first 45 minutes he’s on screen. Milo Ventimiglia shows up as Eckhart, a sherif who stumbles upon the situation and who gives a pretty decent performance considering the role he’s given. But other wise you have a completely wasted cast. Any of these characters could have been punched up, given some depth and made the story interesting. Instead they sit around for about an hour trying to get Ty out of a truck. It’s one of the most boring films I’ve ever seen for that reason.

My other huge complaint with the film is just the wasted potential. You have a movie about armored trucks, moving vaults armed to the teeth, safer than most banks, and what does the story have them do? Nothing. A guy sits in one for a long time trying to figure out how to not get killed while the rest of the guys try to get in. When you have a movie about cool looking powerful trucks, and you give them so many glory shots at the start of the film, it’d be best to keep them moving for the majority of the movie. Instead the movie comes to a crawl when the thieves make off with the money and hold up in an old steel mill that suffers from “Hollywood Design-itis” which is when it’s very obvious a set was made for very particular shots and lacks any organic feel whatsoever. Had this movie really been about a moving heist, a constant chase for money involving these two amazing vehicles, it could have had some punch to it, instead it just sits and gets very boring very soon.

I honestly can’t recommend this movie in any way. It’s a stagnant slab of mediocrity filled with big names that are given nothing to do. Matt Dillon is an academy award winner, Jean Reno is one of the better French actors of all time, and Laurence Fishburne is Morpheus, the ultimate symbol of cool. But here they’re all just faces standing around. The dialog is boring and I swear I nodded off for a second and didn’t miss a thing (my room mate informed me of such). Any movie that puts me to sleep (which is really hard to do) doesn’t deserve my time. ARMORED gets 1 out of 5… and that’s like getting an E for effort.

Review: COCKHAMMER (NSFW)

cockhammer

Kevin Strange and the Hack Movies family have returned with their newest cinematic endeavor into low-budget, uncensored debauchery… and our review begins with this warning:

This film contains scenes depicting violence, gore, nudity, profane language, and a generally distasteful, albeit good-natured, sentiment.  If this sounds like the type of film you’d rather not get into…

STOP WATCHING NOW! Continue reading Review: COCKHAMMER (NSFW)

Fantastic Fest 2009: SALVAGE Review

salvage

Talk about a disappointing film. Salvage is the story of a girl being dropped off at her mom’s house on Christmas eve against her will. Her father is going on to his mother’s house and they’ll all meet back up on “boxing day”. BUT THEN out of no where the girl finds her mother having sex with a random guy and leaves, going across the street dropping her character almost completely. We spend a large portion of the movie with a character only to have the entire movie shift to her mom’s perspective and it ruins all of the set up.

But that’s not the plot. The plot is that just a mile from a small British town a unmarked cargo container has washed up on shore and brought something dangerous with it. When a random military group shows up telling everyone to get in their house after shooting the local doctor single mother Beth must find her daughter and save her from what’s outside their house.

The premise actually isn’t bad, but the execution is so poor and the characters are so bad that there’s nobody worth rooting for. Beth is a selfish bitch, her daughter is an annoying snot, and Beth’s lover Kieran is even worse because he’s a father and cheating on his wife.

The scares in the film are few and far between, and when you finally see what the container has brought it’s the most underwhelming thing I’ve seen in a movie in a long time, very disappointing.

Review: ‘Big Fan’

bigfanmovie

BIG FAN, originally reviewed from Sundance by Scott here at WAMG, is a movie that’s been getting a lot of praise from various critics, which made me curious as to why people have been enjoying it so much. Inherently, it’s this curiosity that has led me to see the film for myself and find out “why all the fuss?”

The film, written and directed by Robert D. Siegel, is his first directorial outing. Prior to BIG FAN, Siegel has written THE ONION MOVIE and most importantly, THE WRESTLER, which was one helluva great film, directed by Darren Aronofsky. So, this leads me to my first inclination… would certain films be better if they weren’t directed by the writer? After seeing BIG FAN, I am inclined to believe this, in some cases, it may be true. THE WRESTLER would not have been as good, in theory, ifSiegel had directed it himself.

With that said, I cannot write BIG FAN off as a total bust. It’s not. On the other hand, it’s not an easy film to watch either, which ultimately becomes part of it’s success. The story follows New York Giants super-fan Paul, played by comedian PattonOswalt (THE KING OF QUEENS, OBSERVE AND REPORT). Paul is obsessed with his team, and especially his hero Quantrell Bishop. He lives at home with his mother, works a crumby job collecting fees for a parking garage and has one friend and fellow fan named Sal (KevinCorrigan) whom he watches games and debates football with.

That’s Paul’s life. Nothing fancy, no ambitions and he likes it that way. His family can’t stand that he’s a loser and that he seems to be OK with that. Everything changes suddenly when Paul and Sal spot Bishop at a gas station and follow him to a Manhattan high-rolling strip club and things get “complicated” from there. After his encounter with Bishop, Paul has to struggle with the choice between doing what’s “right” by everyoneelse’s standards, or doing what’s best for “his” team which is what’s right by his standards.

BIG FAN is a dark, uneasy and altogether uncomfortable movie to watch. I love sports, even if football’s not my main preference, but anyone who sees this film, super-fan or otherwise, should know that you’ll be in for 86 minutes of discomfort. That doesn’t mean it’s a poorly made movie, but rather that I believeSiegel wants us to be uncomfortable. Paul is not a very likable guy, but it’s not because he’s a jerk or a psycho… it’s because few of us will be able to truly relate to him.

Despite the various flaws in the film’s production, including an overly video-esque visual quality to the film, Siegel does a great job of setting the audience up for an entirely unpredictable and satisfying end to this progressively dark story. Watching BIG FAN is equivalent to driving past a gruesome, brutal and bloody train wreck in which you know you shouldn’t look at and you try not to look at, but inherently end up gawking at with an almost hypnotic inability to pull your eyes away from.

Siegel has written the film in such a way that the suspense and intensity draw the viewer in, pulling at our innate morbid curiosity. We do not consciously wish any harm upon poor Paul, but at the same time we can’t help but wonder what his seemingly alien lifestyle will lead to, actively imagining the worst that may happen to him at every step of the journey.

Overall, after the not-always-enjoyable rounds of head-shaking, seat-squirming and jaw-dropping that I experienced watching BIG FAN, I can honestly say it’s not perfect, but it is ultimately an awkwardly enjoyable film.

BIG FAN opens in Saint Louis at the Plaza Frontenac cinema on Friday, September 25, 2009.

Review: ‘$9.99’

999movie

If you are into the interesting stop motion claymation of days past, then $9.99 is for you! If you are looking for an upbeat, interesting story that leaves you all warm and fuzzy inside, then you might want to skip this one.

$9.99 is an Australian based clay-mation based on the writings of Etgar Keret. The plot revolves around 12 characters (all voiced over by Australian actors), and their struggles in life. The stories are all scattered, some even dream or surreal like, and strung together in no particular pattern. The short stories don’t really seem to intertwine to much, or relate in any sort of relevant way to each other. They are just stories of people living in their small town. The only thing that they seem to have in common is that they are all way to caught up in their own lives.

The first story is pretty much about an angry homeless man begging for money in a very aggressive manner. Miraculously, and with no real explanation, he turns into an angel. I don’t know if there is suppose to be some sort of significance to an angry, aggressive man transforming into a higher being (whether mortal or not) but it didn’t really make much sense… at all! This seems to be the trend with a lot of the stories. There is also a beautiful woman who seems to get what she wants, and what she wants is a man with no skin or bones. The weird part is, that there is a man willing to try this! There is also a young person who can’t seem to hold a job. This one is pretty obvious and relatable, but the confusing part is how they jump from realistic to surreal, nonsensical problems. It’s not done in a symbolic way where there is some deeper reasoning to make you think. If that in fact was their goal, they missed the mark big-time! I found myself asking what was the point of these stories, and why should I care. The foul language, drug use, and clay animated sex couldn’t even make things interesting!

The only thing that was mildly entertaining was the creepy stop motion clay-mation. The figures are dark and worn with a twist of looking life like. They are quite creepy. Their lips actually remind me of how Gumby was animated… where they look like they are just stuck on. Watching how they move was the only real highlight to this film.

Review: ‘A Perfect Getaway’

perfectgetawaymovie

When a film has a title like A PERFECT GETAWAY, one should be able to have that very expectation going in. Unfortunately, the only perfect element of this cinematic getaway is the scenery, as the movie was shot almost entirely in Hawaii. The landscapes in the film are often simply breathtaking. Unfortunately, the only other breathtaking that occurs in this movie are the sighs of disbelief over the terrible writing. Well, that and some laughter.

A PERFECT GETAWAY was written and directed by David Twohy. What’s amazing is how Twohy, who wrote THE FUGITIVE (1993) and wrote/directed PITCH BLACK (2000), could have fallen to writing such a generally unimpressive movie as A PERFECT GETAWAY. As far as the action/suspense serial killer genre goes, movie fails. The plot devices used to generate the mystery, intended to keep the viewer guessing are misleading, culminating in a twist at the end that feels like some guy took a cheap shot in a fair fight.

The story is primarily focused on three couples, all of whom are “vacationing” on a remote part of one of the Hawaiian island. Cliff and Sydney (Steve Zahn and Milla Jovovich) are a newlywed couple on their honeymoon. They’re typical city folk. He’s an aspiring screenwriter and she’s happy being a newlywed housewife dreaming of a big family. Shortly after they arrive in Hawaii, they encounter Kale and Cleo (Chris Hemsworth and Marley Shelton), a rough and wild looking married couple with dreadlocks and tattoos. Cliff and Sydney find themselves intimidated by Kale and Cleo from the very start as they try and hitch a ride. Once Cliff and Sydney are fully committed to the beautiful but dangerous trail leading them to a remote beach they encounter Nick and Gina (Timothy Olyphant and Kiele Sanchez), an adventurous and uninhibited, unmarried couple out to simply enjoy themselves in paradise.

To be perfectly honest, the mystery didn’t hold up. The “twist” was revealed to easily in an earlier scene than Twohy likely intended. I won’t be that guy that spoils the ending, but I will say that the film has more than one red snapper, uh… I mean, red herring. [That’s an inside joke. You’ll get it if and when you see the film.] One thing A PERFECT GETAWAY certainly is not short of is plot holes and an excessive use of these red herring moments. After exiting the theater, if you’re not trying to keep track of all the plot holes and story elements that don’t really work, then you were probably making out with your partner or fell asleep.

Twohy abuses the writing tool known as the red herring, intended to throw the viewer/reader off the correct trail and onto a fake trail, abuses it to the point of being shameful. As Hitchcock did so masterfully in his films, the red herring is a plot device that, if done correctly, is needed only one in a story and maintains its strength through, or at least until it’s no longer needed. In Twohy’s script, the suspicions hop around like little red herring bunny rabbits, bouncing from one to another, then another and then back to the original and so on. Once the real killer(s) is revealed, it no longer holds any dramatic weight.

I have a general dislike of movies that try to be a serious addition to a specific genre of film, but at the same time plug in repeated tongue-in-cheek moments where it clearly and obviously makes fun of itself. Is this a serious killer suspense film, or is it a parody of one? A PERFECT GETAWAY attempts to be both, but fails. This isn’t to say there aren’t some funny moments. Myself and much of the audience were laughing frequently, but the laughter was a mixture of humorous moments, usually provided by Timothy Olyphant, and moments that were just simply too stupid not to laugh at.

Timothy Olyphant (HITMAN, DEADWOOD) is actually a lot of fun in A PERFECT GETAWAY. He’s funny and crazy (in a good way) and gets most of the laughs. He’s also the only really interesting character written into the story. Nick, aka “Micko”, is a hard man to kill, as Gina repeatedly points out to Cliff and Sydney. Steve Zahn actually isn’t bad, giving a decent performance, but the part isn’t that well-written and that means even a great actor will have trouble conveying a truly believable character. Kiele and Milla are average in their performances and certainly not hard to look at at least.

A PERFECT GETAWAY is filled with typical jump-in-your-seat scares and fairly stock styles of suspenseful techniques. Nothing truly stands out in this movie. Most of the running time is filled with cliched moments or ridiculously written scenes intended to explain some part of the plot. One of the worst parts of the movie is right after the intended reveal point in the story as to who the killer(s) really is, when Twohy chooses to lapse into a Cliff’s Notes style retelling of all the major plot points, as if we needed a reminder. This entire recapping is shot in black and white, edited together in block frame style, sort of like a motion comic book… except far less interesting.

Let’s get down to brass tacks here. A PERFECT GETAWAY isn’t the worst movie you’ll see all year, but it certainly isn’t worth your hard-earned $9-12 ticket price, in my opinion. It’s possibly worth a $3-5 rental, if you’re a fan of Timothy Olyphant, or just desperate for a mindless action/suspense film and nothing better is available at your local video store. The movie is visually energetic, but the overall outcome is less than electrifying.

Review: ‘Funny People’

funnypeoplemovie

Suggesting that funnyman filmmaker Judd Apatow is a comic genius is like suggesting the world is round… it’s old news. It’s well-established that the man behind so many of today’s most hilarious and successfully crafted cinematic comedies can practically do no wrong. Well, he’s produced a couple of stinkers, but as a writer and director he’s nearly unbeatable. Shall I say he’s this generation’s Mel Brooks? No, his films are nothing like Mel’s. I’m merely suggesting he is that kind of comedic powerhouse.

FUNNY PEOPLE is, believe it or not, only the third feature film with Apatow as director. Having both written and directed this newest project, the film clearly has the feel of being a very personal project. How much of the inspiration from this story comes from his own life is unknown, but any good writer or artist will tell you that there’s always a bit of themselves in their work, whether they like it or not.

Adam Sandler plays George Simmons, an absurdly wealthy and successful comedian turned movie star, having made a fortune from making crappy kid’s movies and big studio comedies. Seriously, this guy’s house is nuts, so think of Simmons on the level of Jim Carrey, for example. We quickly learn that George has a rare form of leukemia and the news of his chances for recovering rock his world. At first, George opts to play it cool and not tell anyone his bad news. But as the burden of keeping this knowledge to himself begins to wear on him, he seeks solace from fellow comedians.

George happens to meet Ira Wright, played by Seth Rogen, an aspiring yet not well-hones stand-up comedian that somehow sparks George’s curiosity. In an effort to make the best of his remaining time, George hires Ira as an assistant and asks him to write jokes for him to start performing stand-up again. Ira lives with his two roommates Leo (Jonah Hill) a slightly more successful stand-up comedian and Mark (Jason Schwartzman) an ego-driven, less talented semi-star of a WB-style teen sitcom called YO TEACH. Ira also works at a local grocery store to make ends meet while struggling at his comedy, so being asked to write for George Simmons in a windfall.

Ira and George develop an awkward implied friendship. They’re an odd couple, but it works and they feed off each other, personally and professionally. The humor in FUNNY PEOPLE is smart, real and filled with substance, while not ignoring the type of writing and dialogue that has made past Apatow films so great. This is really more of a dramedy than any of his other films. FUNNY PEOPLE deals with some fairly sensitive human emotions and experiences, including that of realizing the one George let get away was his own fault. Leslie Mann plays Laura, George ex-girlfriend from 12 years past that nearly became his wife, but is now married to an Australian rugby-obsessed businessman played by Eric Bana.

FUNNY PEOPLE is a film about what’s truly important in life and what things like fame and fortune can do to us. It’s a film about how sometimes we need a serious wake-up call in life, an uncomfortable moment as we stare into the face of death to truly realize that the life we lead isn’t always the life we want. George isn’t perfect. Far from it as we witness him make many of the same mistakes over and over again in life, even after he faces it’s potential end and it’s that strange relationship he shares with Ira that will ultimately define how he pursues his second chance at life.

FUNNY PEOPLE is a real treat, laying out a wonderful story with great comedy both on and off the stage. Rogen’s performance has two stages, as he begins as a painfully struggling amateur that instills the need to cringe but develops over time into a more polished and promising comedian. The moments on stage from Sandler and Jonah Hill are near priceless. There’s an element of watching Lenny Bruce’s downward spiral from entertaining comical brilliance to over-bearing political indulgence as George Simmons takes his sickness on stage with him in one scene and a hush falls over the crowd and he slips into a very dark place. It’s an extremely powerful scene as George has some inner moment of harsh clarity.

The cast also includes Aubrey Plaza (Mystery Team) as a fellow amateur comedian and Ira’s love interest, The RZA as Ira’s co-worker in the grocery store deli, Aziz Ansari (Parks and Recreation) as another comedian as well as several surprise guest appearances playing themselves as friends and colleagues of George Simmons. Another element of the film that plays an unlikely but welcome role in the film is the music, featuring artists uncommonly heard in such big films like the brilliant Wilco.

Long story short, FUNNY PEOPLE is almost entirely a grand slam. The only real complaint I have about the film is the long segment at Laura’s house when George and Ira visit. This portion of the film does drag a bit and takes up precious screen time with non-essential plot elements that could have been effectively touched upon in a much shorter and refined approach. The total running time for FUNNY PEOPLE is 146 minutes, but a good 30 minutes or so could have been cut and the film would have been a that much better. Otherwise, FUNNY PEOPLE is a fun and light-hearted comedy with Apatow flair and a good, inspiring story that will have you leaving the theater feeling satisfied.