Dinner for Schmucks - ***
There's a certain calm that comes with being a friendly dope. I'd say that "ignorance is bliss," but in this instance, it's more like "obliviousness allows optimism."
At least, that's what Dinner for Schmucks shows us. Based upon a French film called "The Dinner Game," Schmucks stars Paul Rudd as Tim, a mild-mannered low-level but ambitious employee of a financial company run by a boss (Bruce Greenwood) who ends up making the audience question whether the true idiot is the idiot or the guy who has to amuse himself by laughing at idiots. In a chance meeting, he impresses his boss with a business opportunity, and gets invited to the eponymous dinner--a "Dinner for Winners," where the word "winners" is used ironically.
Tim's not a bad guy, and is conflicted, especially when his girlfriend, Julie, tells him that it's wrong. But he goes along with it--oh, no! behind his girlfriend's back--, especially when what seems to be fate jumps right into his lap in the form of Barry, an oblivious IRS agent (believe me, the IRS bit is important for a number of jokes). Barry (Steve Carell) is perfect, and a sure-fire winner for this promotion, simply because his hobby is "rescuing" already-dead mice, taking them to a taxidermist, and using them as subjects in dioramas.
This is basically the set-up for a bunch of sometimes-awkward screwball situations involving Barry's obliviousness, such as when a crazy stalker ex-girlfriend of Tim's shows up, a rich Austrian looking to invest with Tim's firm, as well as the constant "it's not what it looks like"s with Julie.
I'm not going to reveal any of the fellow dinner guests, or any of the situations, except to say that while Paul Rudd and Steve Carell are the stars, a lot of scenes are stolen by Jemaine Clement (one half of the New Zealand folk duo Flight of the Conchords) as a pretentious-sounding but really weird artist, as well as Barry's IRS boss: an equally-eccentric Zach Galifianakis.
This movie depends on one thing: whether or not you feel that Barry is a pitiful man. The secret to this is Carell's acting. Carell plays him with such wide-eyed naivete that makes you wonder whether or not you can pity a man who truly feels no shame. After all, can you really threaten a man by withholding something which he already believes he has?
August 17, 2010
August 13, 2010
Salt - Review
Salt - ***
The obvious jokes about the title of the movie have been made, like "Salt cures the summertime blues" (geddit? Like how salt cures ham! Haw haw) or "Salt spices up a bland summer", so I'll spare you any any more of it.
Salt is a modest, inoffensive, but fun thriller starring Angelina Jolie as a CIA interrogator that is implicated as being a deep-cover double-agent by a Russian defector. The Russian's story is mostly bogus, until he name-drops Salt as being said agent, who will start World War III by assassinating the Russian president during his visit to New York. She is immediately detained by her immediate superior (Chiwetel Ejiofor), but her company partner Ted (Liev Schreiber) tries to protect her. Unfortunately, Salt is too smart for them and escapes. But why? If she's innocent, then surely they can just hold on to her until this blows over.
Unfortunately, she's married. And she's been an agent long enough to know that when an active agent is being burned by an enemy, then the enemy is using that to discredit and destroy the agent's whole life. Including Mike, her husband (August Diehl, who you may remember as Major Hellstrom from Inglourious Basterds. Y'know, the officer during the 20 questions game in the bar?). She fears for his life, and escapes to find him when she can't get in touch with him.
But enough about the plot. It's a standard thriller plot that sounds like it's one step removed by so-called "terror babies," only that these kids are Russian. The plot gives us enough to understand what's going on, and keep us interested with the whys.
The action is what's fun. A lot of viewers complain about movies that can't seem to use a tripod or keep from cutting every second. Well, this movie does these people proud. Salt works well enough as a thriller for the simple reason that the action is easy to follow. There's not much else I can say. It's not a deep thriller, and the pacing is a bit weird at times, but the movie delivers some earnest action and a surface-deep plot that gives you enough to follow along without a lot of exposition.
The obvious jokes about the title of the movie have been made, like "Salt cures the summertime blues" (geddit? Like how salt cures ham! Haw haw) or "Salt spices up a bland summer", so I'll spare you any any more of it.
Salt is a modest, inoffensive, but fun thriller starring Angelina Jolie as a CIA interrogator that is implicated as being a deep-cover double-agent by a Russian defector. The Russian's story is mostly bogus, until he name-drops Salt as being said agent, who will start World War III by assassinating the Russian president during his visit to New York. She is immediately detained by her immediate superior (Chiwetel Ejiofor), but her company partner Ted (Liev Schreiber) tries to protect her. Unfortunately, Salt is too smart for them and escapes. But why? If she's innocent, then surely they can just hold on to her until this blows over.
Unfortunately, she's married. And she's been an agent long enough to know that when an active agent is being burned by an enemy, then the enemy is using that to discredit and destroy the agent's whole life. Including Mike, her husband (August Diehl, who you may remember as Major Hellstrom from Inglourious Basterds. Y'know, the officer during the 20 questions game in the bar?). She fears for his life, and escapes to find him when she can't get in touch with him.
But enough about the plot. It's a standard thriller plot that sounds like it's one step removed by so-called "terror babies," only that these kids are Russian. The plot gives us enough to understand what's going on, and keep us interested with the whys.
The action is what's fun. A lot of viewers complain about movies that can't seem to use a tripod or keep from cutting every second. Well, this movie does these people proud. Salt works well enough as a thriller for the simple reason that the action is easy to follow. There's not much else I can say. It's not a deep thriller, and the pacing is a bit weird at times, but the movie delivers some earnest action and a surface-deep plot that gives you enough to follow along without a lot of exposition.
July 21, 2010
Inception - Review
Inception - ****
Christopher Nolan's latest film comes on the heels of his--nay, one of cinema's biggest--movies. Namely, The Dark Knight, where he shaped a tale of human mind coping with various maze-like twists and turns as we delved deeper and deeper into the psyches of the movie's irresistable force (the Joker's chaos) and the movie's immovable object (Batman's justice). This time, Inception puts us literally into the maze of the mind.
Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is the world's best extractor: someone who can enter a mark's dream reality to expose hidden secrets, both literal and metaphorical. After proving his skill to Saito, a wealthy Japanese businessman (Ken Watanabe), Cobb assembles his team, including his partner Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), forger Eames (Tom Hardy), chemist Yusuf (Dileep Rao), and architect Ariadne (Ellen Page). But this job goes beyond what they can normally do. Not extraction of information, but inception. That is, the implanting of an idea in someone's head in such a way that they think that they thought of it. Think about it: how many ideas have started with the phrase "It came to me in a dream?"
Ariadne, the architect, is an especially important character. She works as the audience's guide throughout the world of Inception: being shown what's possible, how dreams work, and even being shown that a dream's reality is not limited by physics, but by imagination and feeling. The very word "paradox" comes to mind (like the Penrose stairs).
Inception creates a complex web (I'm getting tired of it being referred to as a maze, even though it really is one), but unlike most movies centred around the idea of dreaming and false reality, never loses sight of the whole web. We are never lost in the world of the dream, even though we know there are levels and layers of it all. In fact, the movie ironically is paradoxically complex in its simplicity.
Part of the plot is also the death of Cobb's wife, Mal (Marion Cotilliard). To call her part of a sub-plot would be short-sighted, considering she becomes a very intricate and important piece of the puzzle. While that sounds like a spoiler, I can assure you that (to use another maze metaphor) even if you can see where the movie begins and where the movie ends, navigating the web is the important part.
If I have one complaint about the movie, it's that it felt a little long. There are action scenes that I did get engrossed in, but there's only so much that you can do when you realize that the attackers are nothing more than the brain's version of an immune system fighting off an invading virus. Still, the action isn't hard to follow, and Nolan's style of what I like to call "not stopping to breathe" editing is not distracting (not that it ever really is).
Nonetheless, Inception gives us just enough to chew on at the end. It doesn't feel heavy-handed like other movies do when they make you question "Oh, was that a dream? Well, what about that?" but gives us just enough to wonder. There are a lot of subtle interactions that I'm sure will give me more on a second viewing.
Christopher Nolan's latest film comes on the heels of his--nay, one of cinema's biggest--movies. Namely, The Dark Knight, where he shaped a tale of human mind coping with various maze-like twists and turns as we delved deeper and deeper into the psyches of the movie's irresistable force (the Joker's chaos) and the movie's immovable object (Batman's justice). This time, Inception puts us literally into the maze of the mind.
Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is the world's best extractor: someone who can enter a mark's dream reality to expose hidden secrets, both literal and metaphorical. After proving his skill to Saito, a wealthy Japanese businessman (Ken Watanabe), Cobb assembles his team, including his partner Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), forger Eames (Tom Hardy), chemist Yusuf (Dileep Rao), and architect Ariadne (Ellen Page). But this job goes beyond what they can normally do. Not extraction of information, but inception. That is, the implanting of an idea in someone's head in such a way that they think that they thought of it. Think about it: how many ideas have started with the phrase "It came to me in a dream?"
Ariadne, the architect, is an especially important character. She works as the audience's guide throughout the world of Inception: being shown what's possible, how dreams work, and even being shown that a dream's reality is not limited by physics, but by imagination and feeling. The very word "paradox" comes to mind (like the Penrose stairs).
Inception creates a complex web (I'm getting tired of it being referred to as a maze, even though it really is one), but unlike most movies centred around the idea of dreaming and false reality, never loses sight of the whole web. We are never lost in the world of the dream, even though we know there are levels and layers of it all. In fact, the movie ironically is paradoxically complex in its simplicity.
Part of the plot is also the death of Cobb's wife, Mal (Marion Cotilliard). To call her part of a sub-plot would be short-sighted, considering she becomes a very intricate and important piece of the puzzle. While that sounds like a spoiler, I can assure you that (to use another maze metaphor) even if you can see where the movie begins and where the movie ends, navigating the web is the important part.
If I have one complaint about the movie, it's that it felt a little long. There are action scenes that I did get engrossed in, but there's only so much that you can do when you realize that the attackers are nothing more than the brain's version of an immune system fighting off an invading virus. Still, the action isn't hard to follow, and Nolan's style of what I like to call "not stopping to breathe" editing is not distracting (not that it ever really is).
Nonetheless, Inception gives us just enough to chew on at the end. It doesn't feel heavy-handed like other movies do when they make you question "Oh, was that a dream? Well, what about that?" but gives us just enough to wonder. There are a lot of subtle interactions that I'm sure will give me more on a second viewing.
July 14, 2010
Despicable Me - Review
Despicable Me - ***
Sitting in the theatre and waiting for the movie to begin, I started realizing that my showing of Despicable Me was populated by a large percentage of moms and elementary school-age children. But it didn't hit me that this is the audience until there was a slight joke in the movie that went over 99% of the audience.
Despicable Me tells the story of a self-professed super-villain named Gru (voiced by Steve Carell) who has, compared to most movie villains, a relatively minor goal: to be known as the greatest super-villain of all time. Why? It's a hobby, I suppose. After all, what's the point of putting your time and money into an operation if you don't want to be the best? He certainly doesn't seem to make a lot of money off of stealing the Times Square jumbotron (complete with NBC logo). Maybe he just likes being evil. You don't just walk into a coffee shop and freeze-ray everyone lined up in front of you just because you want a coffee.
But when another super-villain one-ups him by stealing the pyramids, he has to shift things into high gear. By stealing the moon. How? Shrink-ray. He's going to fly a rocket to the moon, shrink the moon, grab it, and hold it ransom. At least, he happened to mention that he'll get anything he wants. But in order to succeed, he has to get a bank loan. What bank would give him a loan to complete this plan?
Here's where that joke comes in. I don't feel bad spoiling it because it's not a really big joke, but it's still clever. Here goes. Gru heads to the bank, enters through a secret entrance to a giant underground complex with a giant underground door that reads: BANK OF EVIL (formerly Lehman Brothers). The fact that I heard very few parents makes me wonder. Maybe they're just there to make sure the kids don't scream or something. I don't know.
Anyway, when the plan fails (don't worry, that's the set-up), his new plan necessitates the adoption of three adorable little girls. The girls have no idea that he's a super-villain--but there sure are hints. Oh, boy, are there hints. The girls have an idolized vision of what their adoptive parents (yes, plural) will look and be like. But it's no surprise that when they spot Gru, they go with it because he still seems better than the mean Miss Hattie that runs the orphanage.
You can guess what happens when Gru is forced to spend time with the girls, so I won't mention it. Just let me say that seeing the imagination in Gru's lair is wonderful, including the retrospectively-laborious process of going to his lair from the main floor of his suburban-yet-gothic (seriously, it sticks out like sore--or necrotic--thumb) home.
And the minions. I won't be surprised if these tennis ball-looking plush toy-seeming little guys end up on shelves in toy stores (marketing. Go figure). But don't let that scare you from them. They're cute little guys who do most of Gru's grunt work and are happy to do it (working for Gru must have one hell of a benefits package if that underground complex of his includes room for a spin class).
But why did I mention that barely-noticed Lehman Brothers joke? The movie has very few (in fact, I think that was the only one. Maybe.) noticeable jokes for adults. But it's enough fun that parents with kids won't mind watching it. I don't have kids, and I had fun. But I did say "noticeable." Well, the rival super-villain Vector (voiced by Jason Segel) has an eerily similar look to Bill Gates (if Bill Gates didn't grow up and became a super-villain), and the whole idea of an underground society where super-villains scheme and invent just makes me wonder how far around the world this extends.
But I still can't figure out something about the shrink ray. I know it shrinks the size of an object, so I assume it would shrink all the molecules and atoms that make up the object, too. But you'd think that if you shrank the moon, that mass would still be there, and you'd end up orbitting it like a black hole. But then-- oh, forget it.
Sitting in the theatre and waiting for the movie to begin, I started realizing that my showing of Despicable Me was populated by a large percentage of moms and elementary school-age children. But it didn't hit me that this is the audience until there was a slight joke in the movie that went over 99% of the audience.
Despicable Me tells the story of a self-professed super-villain named Gru (voiced by Steve Carell) who has, compared to most movie villains, a relatively minor goal: to be known as the greatest super-villain of all time. Why? It's a hobby, I suppose. After all, what's the point of putting your time and money into an operation if you don't want to be the best? He certainly doesn't seem to make a lot of money off of stealing the Times Square jumbotron (complete with NBC logo). Maybe he just likes being evil. You don't just walk into a coffee shop and freeze-ray everyone lined up in front of you just because you want a coffee.
But when another super-villain one-ups him by stealing the pyramids, he has to shift things into high gear. By stealing the moon. How? Shrink-ray. He's going to fly a rocket to the moon, shrink the moon, grab it, and hold it ransom. At least, he happened to mention that he'll get anything he wants. But in order to succeed, he has to get a bank loan. What bank would give him a loan to complete this plan?
Here's where that joke comes in. I don't feel bad spoiling it because it's not a really big joke, but it's still clever. Here goes. Gru heads to the bank, enters through a secret entrance to a giant underground complex with a giant underground door that reads: BANK OF EVIL (formerly Lehman Brothers). The fact that I heard very few parents makes me wonder. Maybe they're just there to make sure the kids don't scream or something. I don't know.
Anyway, when the plan fails (don't worry, that's the set-up), his new plan necessitates the adoption of three adorable little girls. The girls have no idea that he's a super-villain--but there sure are hints. Oh, boy, are there hints. The girls have an idolized vision of what their adoptive parents (yes, plural) will look and be like. But it's no surprise that when they spot Gru, they go with it because he still seems better than the mean Miss Hattie that runs the orphanage.
You can guess what happens when Gru is forced to spend time with the girls, so I won't mention it. Just let me say that seeing the imagination in Gru's lair is wonderful, including the retrospectively-laborious process of going to his lair from the main floor of his suburban-yet-gothic (seriously, it sticks out like sore--or necrotic--thumb) home.
And the minions. I won't be surprised if these tennis ball-looking plush toy-seeming little guys end up on shelves in toy stores (marketing. Go figure). But don't let that scare you from them. They're cute little guys who do most of Gru's grunt work and are happy to do it (working for Gru must have one hell of a benefits package if that underground complex of his includes room for a spin class).
But why did I mention that barely-noticed Lehman Brothers joke? The movie has very few (in fact, I think that was the only one. Maybe.) noticeable jokes for adults. But it's enough fun that parents with kids won't mind watching it. I don't have kids, and I had fun. But I did say "noticeable." Well, the rival super-villain Vector (voiced by Jason Segel) has an eerily similar look to Bill Gates (if Bill Gates didn't grow up and became a super-villain), and the whole idea of an underground society where super-villains scheme and invent just makes me wonder how far around the world this extends.
But I still can't figure out something about the shrink ray. I know it shrinks the size of an object, so I assume it would shrink all the molecules and atoms that make up the object, too. But you'd think that if you shrank the moon, that mass would still be there, and you'd end up orbitting it like a black hole. But then-- oh, forget it.
July 10, 2010
Toy Story 3 - Review
Toy Story 3 - ***1/2
It's a strange feeling I got when I realized that I had been awaiting a sequel as an adult to two movies that I saw in childhood. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that if this had been a sequel to two movies by almost anyone else, I would've laughed it off as childhood nostalgia.
Toy Story 3 is the third and final chapter in the relationship that a group of toys have with their human owner. We've seen how a favourite toy deals with being shoved aside for a new number one, and we've seen toys deal with their own mortality. Oh, but not by dying. The idea of what makes these toys alive versus being dead or inanimate is never explored and any philosophical exercises about their existence is best left to philosophers (both expert and wanna-be ones).
And now the toys deal with a new change in status quo. Toy Story 3 picks up years after the second installment, where we realize that the toys have been living a neglected life ever since their owner, Andy, lost interest in toys and gained interest in more "mature" activities (note: the only thing I'm implying by "mature" is that it's a relative term. And nothing else). In fact, he's given away or sold most of his collection, leaving only most of the core group--a scene where Pixar show their mastery by mentioning that Bo Peep is gone, letting Woody have a quite moment. But what makes this time different? Andy's going to college, and is tasked with the ultimate fate of the toys: a) take to college, b) attic, c) daycare. Except for Woody (voiced by Tom Hanks), he puts them all in the attic. That is, until a mix-up with Andy's little sister that gets them almost thrown in the trash. The toys don't like this. They instead volunteer themselves to be donated to the daycare, despite Woody's insistence that it was a mix-up.
They arrive at the daycare, run by a big pink stuffed bear named Lotso (voiced by Ned Beatty) who fools them into believing it's a paradise. And it would be. Except for the fact that new toys (I'm tempted to call them "fresh meat," but this isn't strictly a prison flick) are forced to play with the younger kids who have no toy etiquette (I'm sure you've seen the scene in the trailer where a kid jams Mr. Potato Head's eye in his nose).
There are scenes reminiscent of The Great Escape, and the toys really do out-do themselves with the plans. The movie is clever (the jokes with Buzz's reset button are especially memorable), and the movie really works on even the most steel-hearted. I really doubt that anyone who's seen the first two will feel disappointed.
There's only one problem, and I'm going to admit that it may be a problem with me, and not the movie, but I'll say it anyway. After movies like Up, Pixar would have to work really--and I mean really-- hard to out-shine itself. Toy Story 3 does meet the barrier, but it doesn't quite break it. So this may be from raised expectations, and over time, I may end up liking this more than Up (I doubt that this'll get an Oscar nomination. Maybe, but I doubt it), but movies aren't made in a vacuum.
Nevertheless, this was a very touching movie and I'd say that the eleven-year wait was just about worth it. Now if only the Star Wars prequels would've worked out the same.
Oh, and I saw this in 3D. Don't see it in 3D. I'm pretty sure that if those stupid glasses weren't on and the distraction of depth wasn't there (seriously, why do you need to see a children's daycare in 3D?), my persistent cries to "man up" wouldn't have worked.
It's a strange feeling I got when I realized that I had been awaiting a sequel as an adult to two movies that I saw in childhood. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that if this had been a sequel to two movies by almost anyone else, I would've laughed it off as childhood nostalgia.
Toy Story 3 is the third and final chapter in the relationship that a group of toys have with their human owner. We've seen how a favourite toy deals with being shoved aside for a new number one, and we've seen toys deal with their own mortality. Oh, but not by dying. The idea of what makes these toys alive versus being dead or inanimate is never explored and any philosophical exercises about their existence is best left to philosophers (both expert and wanna-be ones).
And now the toys deal with a new change in status quo. Toy Story 3 picks up years after the second installment, where we realize that the toys have been living a neglected life ever since their owner, Andy, lost interest in toys and gained interest in more "mature" activities (note: the only thing I'm implying by "mature" is that it's a relative term. And nothing else). In fact, he's given away or sold most of his collection, leaving only most of the core group--a scene where Pixar show their mastery by mentioning that Bo Peep is gone, letting Woody have a quite moment. But what makes this time different? Andy's going to college, and is tasked with the ultimate fate of the toys: a) take to college, b) attic, c) daycare. Except for Woody (voiced by Tom Hanks), he puts them all in the attic. That is, until a mix-up with Andy's little sister that gets them almost thrown in the trash. The toys don't like this. They instead volunteer themselves to be donated to the daycare, despite Woody's insistence that it was a mix-up.
They arrive at the daycare, run by a big pink stuffed bear named Lotso (voiced by Ned Beatty) who fools them into believing it's a paradise. And it would be. Except for the fact that new toys (I'm tempted to call them "fresh meat," but this isn't strictly a prison flick) are forced to play with the younger kids who have no toy etiquette (I'm sure you've seen the scene in the trailer where a kid jams Mr. Potato Head's eye in his nose).
There are scenes reminiscent of The Great Escape, and the toys really do out-do themselves with the plans. The movie is clever (the jokes with Buzz's reset button are especially memorable), and the movie really works on even the most steel-hearted. I really doubt that anyone who's seen the first two will feel disappointed.
There's only one problem, and I'm going to admit that it may be a problem with me, and not the movie, but I'll say it anyway. After movies like Up, Pixar would have to work really--and I mean really-- hard to out-shine itself. Toy Story 3 does meet the barrier, but it doesn't quite break it. So this may be from raised expectations, and over time, I may end up liking this more than Up (I doubt that this'll get an Oscar nomination. Maybe, but I doubt it), but movies aren't made in a vacuum.
Nevertheless, this was a very touching movie and I'd say that the eleven-year wait was just about worth it. Now if only the Star Wars prequels would've worked out the same.
Oh, and I saw this in 3D. Don't see it in 3D. I'm pretty sure that if those stupid glasses weren't on and the distraction of depth wasn't there (seriously, why do you need to see a children's daycare in 3D?), my persistent cries to "man up" wouldn't have worked.
June 19, 2010
The A-Team - Review
The A-Team - **1/2
The A-Team is a revamped big-screen adaptation of the '80s television show with the same name, so it should be obvious how it would-- or should-- pan out. It's a more violent, more action-packed, and more modern than it's small-screen counterpart, and it sometimes strays too far for it to be considered fun.
Updated for today, The A-Team is a story about four Iraq War veterans (as opposed to Vietnam veterans) who are accused of a crime they didn't commit. In the show, the "crime they didn't commit" was barely ever discussed except for an episode or two near the end, where their past catches up to them. However, the movie gives specifics on what happened in the first act; that is, after showing how Hannibal (Liam Neeson), Face (Bradley Cooper), Murdock (Sharlto Copley), and B.A. Baracus (Quinton "Rampage" Jackson) meet for the first time.
The story? While trying to take down a corrupt Mexican general (or sheriff? I wasn't sure which, but never mind), Hannibal recruits B.A. to help save Face from being burned alive by the Mexican after Face's libido gets the best of him. They then hid out in a US Veterans' hospital located, for some reason, in Mexico. There, they recruit Murdock, who, as I'm sure you no doubt seen in the trailer, has tried to escape by jump-starting an ambulance with a defibrillator. This'd be clever if it weren't repeated so many times in television commercials. The four of them in a daring escape, use the hospital evac helicopter to lure the corrupt Mexican-- I'll stop, since what happens is rather clever.
Having spent eight years together in Iraq, they're relaxing before being sent home, but not before they're given one last mission by a CIA agent Lynch (in the show, Colonel Lynch was the man originally tasked with capturing the A-Team, but he was just a Military Police officer who led a squad) to recover plates used by Saddam Hussein's forces to counterfeit American currency. But there's another snag: the person in charge is Captain Sosa (Jessica Biel)... Face's ex, who warns him that the case is hers, and if anyone interferes... I'm still not clear on that part. Rest assured, that the A-Team take the mission, and it goes off without a hitch... until they're betrayed by a group of thugs: the movie's equivalent of a Blackwater team. Hired guns. The A-Team are arrested, then escape, and go after who's responsible.
If it seems as if I've said a lot, it's because the introduction and the set-up take a lot longer than I think they should have. It's as if they expanded the set-up because there wasn't enough plot to justify two hours on the screen, and-- if you haven't seen the show-- there was never much plot with the A-Team to begin with. I guess you can't have a movie where the A-Team keeps pulling wonderful plans, but somehow never get the bad guy.
Still, some of the plans are wonderful to see, even though a lot of the time, I sat there wondering what incredible luck they have for these plans to succeed, since a lot of the time, these plans act like three intertwined Rube Goldberg devices.
While the movie benefits by an increased movie budget as well as modern effects, the action isn't exactly up to par. Yes, there are more sleek explosions, and yes, they do have the benefit of CGI now, but there's also a heavy overuse of the so-called "shaky-cam," which includes sharp cuts that are very disorienting to the viewer (I know that the use of the word "shaky-cam" in reviews is cliched, but then so is it's use). Part of the charm of the TV series was that the action was explicitly spelled out for you, and you knew who was where, since part of the fun was seeing it as an elaborate game of chess.
Still, the movie knows it's fun (for the most part), and there is no over-the-top violence, though a lot of people DO get shot or blown up or die in one form or another, unlike the TV series where it was mostly guns being fired but no hits. And there's no graphic romance other than some slight innuendo, few kisses and Face's charm, so it's not a ridiculous "sex for the sake of sex"-type movie. The actors fit their roles: Sharlto Copley as the crazy fool Murdock was especially wonderful, and "Rampage" Jackson wasn't imitating Mr. T. Though I think casting Liam Neeson was a bit of a stretch. Don't get me wrong, I think he's a wonderful actor, but Neeson doesn't have that constant smirk that George Peppard's Hannibal did, reassuring the audience that it's only a fun TV show, and that no one's really hurt. Neeson's Hannibal smiles a lot, and has fun, but it's not quite the same.
The A-Team is a revamped big-screen adaptation of the '80s television show with the same name, so it should be obvious how it would-- or should-- pan out. It's a more violent, more action-packed, and more modern than it's small-screen counterpart, and it sometimes strays too far for it to be considered fun.
Updated for today, The A-Team is a story about four Iraq War veterans (as opposed to Vietnam veterans) who are accused of a crime they didn't commit. In the show, the "crime they didn't commit" was barely ever discussed except for an episode or two near the end, where their past catches up to them. However, the movie gives specifics on what happened in the first act; that is, after showing how Hannibal (Liam Neeson), Face (Bradley Cooper), Murdock (Sharlto Copley), and B.A. Baracus (Quinton "Rampage" Jackson) meet for the first time.
The story? While trying to take down a corrupt Mexican general (or sheriff? I wasn't sure which, but never mind), Hannibal recruits B.A. to help save Face from being burned alive by the Mexican after Face's libido gets the best of him. They then hid out in a US Veterans' hospital located, for some reason, in Mexico. There, they recruit Murdock, who, as I'm sure you no doubt seen in the trailer, has tried to escape by jump-starting an ambulance with a defibrillator. This'd be clever if it weren't repeated so many times in television commercials. The four of them in a daring escape, use the hospital evac helicopter to lure the corrupt Mexican-- I'll stop, since what happens is rather clever.
Having spent eight years together in Iraq, they're relaxing before being sent home, but not before they're given one last mission by a CIA agent Lynch (in the show, Colonel Lynch was the man originally tasked with capturing the A-Team, but he was just a Military Police officer who led a squad) to recover plates used by Saddam Hussein's forces to counterfeit American currency. But there's another snag: the person in charge is Captain Sosa (Jessica Biel)... Face's ex, who warns him that the case is hers, and if anyone interferes... I'm still not clear on that part. Rest assured, that the A-Team take the mission, and it goes off without a hitch... until they're betrayed by a group of thugs: the movie's equivalent of a Blackwater team. Hired guns. The A-Team are arrested, then escape, and go after who's responsible.
If it seems as if I've said a lot, it's because the introduction and the set-up take a lot longer than I think they should have. It's as if they expanded the set-up because there wasn't enough plot to justify two hours on the screen, and-- if you haven't seen the show-- there was never much plot with the A-Team to begin with. I guess you can't have a movie where the A-Team keeps pulling wonderful plans, but somehow never get the bad guy.
Still, some of the plans are wonderful to see, even though a lot of the time, I sat there wondering what incredible luck they have for these plans to succeed, since a lot of the time, these plans act like three intertwined Rube Goldberg devices.
While the movie benefits by an increased movie budget as well as modern effects, the action isn't exactly up to par. Yes, there are more sleek explosions, and yes, they do have the benefit of CGI now, but there's also a heavy overuse of the so-called "shaky-cam," which includes sharp cuts that are very disorienting to the viewer (I know that the use of the word "shaky-cam" in reviews is cliched, but then so is it's use). Part of the charm of the TV series was that the action was explicitly spelled out for you, and you knew who was where, since part of the fun was seeing it as an elaborate game of chess.
Still, the movie knows it's fun (for the most part), and there is no over-the-top violence, though a lot of people DO get shot or blown up or die in one form or another, unlike the TV series where it was mostly guns being fired but no hits. And there's no graphic romance other than some slight innuendo, few kisses and Face's charm, so it's not a ridiculous "sex for the sake of sex"-type movie. The actors fit their roles: Sharlto Copley as the crazy fool Murdock was especially wonderful, and "Rampage" Jackson wasn't imitating Mr. T. Though I think casting Liam Neeson was a bit of a stretch. Don't get me wrong, I think he's a wonderful actor, but Neeson doesn't have that constant smirk that George Peppard's Hannibal did, reassuring the audience that it's only a fun TV show, and that no one's really hurt. Neeson's Hannibal smiles a lot, and has fun, but it's not quite the same.
May 27, 2010
MacGruber - Review
MacGruber - **1/2
MacGruber is the latest in a long line of movies based upon sketches and skits from Saturday Night Live. In fact, we've had so many of these that it's unavoidable to compare them to those that came before. And as we all know, the majority of them have been crap. So that when I say that MacGruber is light on humour, but give it two and a half stars, you'll know that my expectations were low to begin with.
MacGruber stars Will Forte as the eponymous hero based from a series of 30-second Saturday Night Live sketches. Based on the name and the clothing, almost anyone can infer that it's a MacGyver parody. Well, it is and it isn't. The character is based on MacGyver--MacGruber also refuses to carry guns, and instead improvises sometimes really ridiculous items, but for a completely different reason--but the story is far from it.
MacGruber begins with the hijacking of a Russian nuclear missile, by the "untouchable" Dieter Von Cunth (Val Kilmer); the name, thankfully, is played straight. To stop Cunth, MacGruber--just "MacGruber"--is taken out of retirement from a monastery, and given the details. MacGruber rallies the best of the best (played by about six professional wrestlers), but MacGruber's ineptitude forces him to instead go with Lt. Piper (Ryan Philippe), who MacGruber instantly dislikes. Why? Who cares? It's funny. Eventually, Piper proves himself a valuable ally, especially when helping MacGruber convince their third teammate, Vicki St. Elmo (Kristen Wiig), to join.
Now, I should point out that a lot of humour comes from MacGruber's ineptitude, and if you've seen the skits, you'd know that. Still, MacGruber does have skills, despite the fact that things never go the best route; they just happen to work out.
MacGruber is a fun little movie, and the actors certainly give it their 110%, but the movie is certainly light on laughs. Considering it's a comedy, that's pretty scathing indeed. Still, it was fun, no joke really bombed for me, and it's entertaining as long as you assume it's a ridiculous movie with the occasional laugh. I credit first-time feature director Jorma Taccone who, along with fellow Lonely Islanders Akiva Schaffer and Andy Samberg are responsible for most of Saturday Night Live's current Digital Shorts, which are arguably the most consistent segments on the show. These guys are pretty funny, and did a wonderful little movie a few years back called Hot Rod.
But how does MacGruber stack up against other SNL movies? Reasonably well. The movie certainly isn't boring, and it's not brain-dead. It's not close to the league of Wayne's World and its sequel, but it's a far cry from the recent tripe like The Ladies Man or A Night at the Roxbury (which I will admit is a guilty pleasure of mine sometimes), let alone It's Pat! Fans of the MacGruber skits may very well enjoy this movie, but anyone expecting a lot of frequent laughs may be disappointed.
Still, it may be worth it just to see Val Kilmer act evil and taunt MacGruber.
MacGruber is the latest in a long line of movies based upon sketches and skits from Saturday Night Live. In fact, we've had so many of these that it's unavoidable to compare them to those that came before. And as we all know, the majority of them have been crap. So that when I say that MacGruber is light on humour, but give it two and a half stars, you'll know that my expectations were low to begin with.
MacGruber stars Will Forte as the eponymous hero based from a series of 30-second Saturday Night Live sketches. Based on the name and the clothing, almost anyone can infer that it's a MacGyver parody. Well, it is and it isn't. The character is based on MacGyver--MacGruber also refuses to carry guns, and instead improvises sometimes really ridiculous items, but for a completely different reason--but the story is far from it.
MacGruber begins with the hijacking of a Russian nuclear missile, by the "untouchable" Dieter Von Cunth (Val Kilmer); the name, thankfully, is played straight. To stop Cunth, MacGruber--just "MacGruber"--is taken out of retirement from a monastery, and given the details. MacGruber rallies the best of the best (played by about six professional wrestlers), but MacGruber's ineptitude forces him to instead go with Lt. Piper (Ryan Philippe), who MacGruber instantly dislikes. Why? Who cares? It's funny. Eventually, Piper proves himself a valuable ally, especially when helping MacGruber convince their third teammate, Vicki St. Elmo (Kristen Wiig), to join.
Now, I should point out that a lot of humour comes from MacGruber's ineptitude, and if you've seen the skits, you'd know that. Still, MacGruber does have skills, despite the fact that things never go the best route; they just happen to work out.
MacGruber is a fun little movie, and the actors certainly give it their 110%, but the movie is certainly light on laughs. Considering it's a comedy, that's pretty scathing indeed. Still, it was fun, no joke really bombed for me, and it's entertaining as long as you assume it's a ridiculous movie with the occasional laugh. I credit first-time feature director Jorma Taccone who, along with fellow Lonely Islanders Akiva Schaffer and Andy Samberg are responsible for most of Saturday Night Live's current Digital Shorts, which are arguably the most consistent segments on the show. These guys are pretty funny, and did a wonderful little movie a few years back called Hot Rod.
But how does MacGruber stack up against other SNL movies? Reasonably well. The movie certainly isn't boring, and it's not brain-dead. It's not close to the league of Wayne's World and its sequel, but it's a far cry from the recent tripe like The Ladies Man or A Night at the Roxbury (which I will admit is a guilty pleasure of mine sometimes), let alone It's Pat! Fans of the MacGruber skits may very well enjoy this movie, but anyone expecting a lot of frequent laughs may be disappointed.
Still, it may be worth it just to see Val Kilmer act evil and taunt MacGruber.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)