I breached my six-movie average to seven in July.
Actually, I almost hit eight (which would’ve been a record) since I considered
checking out
The To-Do List on the
last day of the month. Couldn’t bring myself to do it, though. Not because I
was sick of watching movies (that’ll never happen), but because the
trailers
couldn’t really sell me on it; mostly because I’m not crazy about
Aubrey Plaza. I appreciate dead-pan
performances, but she just strikes me as downright emotionless. Anyway, why am
I talking about movies I
didn’t see?
These are the ones I did:
Movie Twenty-six: Despicable Me 2 – The first
Despicable Me wasn’t that long ago, yet
I don’t remember much about it. I remember I liked it, but beyond that, all I
really recall is that the minions stole the show. The same is true here (probably
even more so this time). However, I’m relieved the filmmakers had sense enough
to not make them the focal point of the movie because, even as amusing as they
are, I don’t think they could support a whole feature film on their own (a
concept actually referenced over the end credits with “auditions” for a minion
movie). While this is a pretty unnecessary (if not downright pointless) sequel,
it’s not without its good moments. Indeed there are some genuine laugh-out-loud
gags and it remains consistently entertaining enough to never feel tiresome.
The showing I was at had both kids and adults laughing a lot and I can’t
imagine this movie aspiring to accomplish anything more than that. However, I’m
also fairly certain I won’t remember much about it by the time
Despicable Me 3 comes out.
Movie Twenty-seven: Pacific Rim – I was expecting something more like
Independence Day (in terms of structure,
not content or the lacking quality thereof). In other words: Monsters attack,
humans rally, robots are built, vengeance is served. But, after a short
preamble, they flash forward to where the monsters have already destroyed a
great deal of the planet (giant robots included) and the movie we’re about to
watch is humanity’s last-ditch effort at victory (with whatever robots are
left). While I felt deprived of what would probably be an equally good origin movie,
I can’t complain since the way they did it gets you right into the action from
the get-go. Not many surprises here. If you’ve seen the trailers, you’ve pretty
much seen the movie. But, on that note, if you liked the trailers, you’ll like
the movie.
Guillermo Del Toro is a master at wielding CGI. He’s even better at
it than
Spielberg. I can’t put my finger on what he does differently, but
somehow, it seems so much more authentic and never feels cartoony. More
importantly, the action sequences (while truly epic) don’t feel overwhelming or
disorganized (like they did in
Zack Snyder’s
Man of Steel). It’s not easy to do right, but it’s quite effective when
it is. On those grounds,
Pacific
Rim is Del Toro’s masterpiece. I’ve been thinking for years
that I’d like to see a live-action “
Voltron” movie. Now, I don’t think we need
one.
Movie Twenty-eight: The Lone Ranger – I can’t say I liked
this movie all that much, but it was probably the most interesting movie
experience I’ve had so far this year. Y’see, my dad was a huge Lone Ranger fan
when he was a kid. He used to listen to the
radio show in the late 40’s/early
50’s religiously – literally never missed an episode. To this day, he can still
recite the introductory speech by heart. He was such a big fan of the
original Lone Ranger that he held the
subsequent television series starring
Clayton Moore – widely considered the
definitive
Lone Ranger (just as
Bela Lugosi is considered the definitive
Dracula) – in contempt, finding it corny and ridiculous. He’d been saying for
years how he wished they’d make a Lone Ranger movie and do it right. A
version made in 1981 bombed so bad, I don’t even think he saw it. So, he got excited
when he heard a new one was in the works. It was heartbreaking to see his
excitement wane with every update about this latest version (starting with the
news that
Johnny Depp would play
Tonto). It got to the point where my dad
pretty much gave up and decided that, since this was the closest he was ever
going to get to a bona fide Lone Ranger film in his lifetime (he’s 73 –
although, at the rate Hollywood’s doing “reboots”, he may actually still get
another chance), he’d just hafta take what he could get. His exact words were,
“I'm training my mind to not look at this movie as being about the Lone Ranger,
but a western with a lot of special effects. Maybe that will make it
acceptable.” We went to see the movie together and I braced myself for his
walking out in disgust (although it was probably more likely that he’d just
fall asleep). Now, I don’t know much about the Lone Ranger, but I have my own
impressions of how the legend should be represented. This wasn’t a horrible
movie, but it certainly squandered its potential by making what I thought were
poor decisions. For starters, the Lone Ranger himself is kind of a bumbling
fool and a very reluctant hero. That doesn’t seem right to me. Even more
implausibly, he seems to go from a wimpy priss to an expert-marksman/master-equestrian
overnight. Almost everything Tonto says is a punchline and he’s more comic
relief than faithful sidekick. Sporadically, there are several awkward attempts
to make the movie appealing to modern audiences. For instance, the familiar
catch phrase “Who was that masked man?” is replaced by “What’s with the mask?”
and “Hi-yo, Silver! Away!” is played for laughs. Even when they finally perform
the
William Tell Overture, it seems more like an ironic joke than a triumphant
fanfare. So, I walked out of the theater shaking my head and thinking my father
was going to go home and slit his wrists. Imagine my surprise when he said,
“That was good.” Apparently, it was more true to form than I was even aware. Things
I thought the filmmakers had just fabricated were actually part of the original
story – even certain minor events and smaller characters. Remember that scene
in
A Christmas Story when the dad is
answering trivia questions and asks the name of the Lone Ranger’s nephew’s
horse? Well, the
nephew’s in there too and was indeed The Lone Ranger’s only
surviving relative in the legend. So, as weak as the movie was, they at least
did their research and I hafta respect that. The one thing my dad did take
exception to was the overabundance of CGI. Can’t say I blame him. It was
phony-looking and thus distracting. If
Gore Verbinski had the command of
special effects that Guillermo Del Toro had, this would have been a much better
movie. More importantly, this film shouldn’t have tried to be something it
wasn’t. One of the saving graces of the recent
Captain America film was that it embraced its timeframe and felt
nostalgic, like an old swashbuckling movie serial.
The Lone Ranger seemed to want to have it both ways, which created
a mess. Audiences have reacted accordingly and it’s turned out to be one of
this summer’s biggest flops. All that matters to me, though, is that my dad
enjoyed it. After 50+ years of waiting, he finally got his Lone Ranger movie. I’m
happy for him.
Movie Twenty-nine: The Conjuring – This has got to be
the most derivative horror film I’ve ever seen. I realize that horror films by
their very nature have to use similar gimmicks employed by movies made before
them, but this is ridiculous. This movie is basically a checklist of horror
movie clichés that could be entitled “What’s that from?” I’m not kidding, it
borrows elements from 1944’s
The Uninvited to 2007’s
Paranormal Activity (and every haunted ghost story ever made in between). There’s even
a creepy old car that resembles
Christine.
It’s comprised of so many movies we’ve already seen, the filmmakers might as
well have made it a spoof and called it
Scary
Movie 6. One might argue that the movie is the way it is because it’s
“based on a true story”. Right. I saw a
documentary that interviewed
Lorraine Warren (the paranormal investigator portrayed by
Vera Farmiga in this movie) and
the one thing about her I believe to be true is that she’s bat-shit crazy. Realism
is irrelevant in this case, anyway. As
Jack Nicholson said about being directed
by
Stanley Kubrick in
The Shining: Just
because something’s realistic doesn’t mean it’s interesting.
The Conjuring is neither realistic nor
interesting. It’s not scary, either.
Movie Thirty: R.I.P.D. – Speaking of derivative,
R.I.P.D. clearly tried to re-create the
magic of
Men In Black by taking the
exact same formula and simply replacing the aliens with ghosts. Unfortunately,
what the filmmakers failed to realize is that it wasn’t the aliens that made
Men In Black great, it was the humans.
The chemistry and banter between
Tommy Lee Jones and
Will Smith was what really
sold that premise. Plus, everything was thought out so comprehensively in
Men In Black, they made every ridiculous
scenario seem hilariously plausible. So much of
R.I.P.D. doesn’t make sense. I’m perfectly willing to suspend my
disbelief for any
movie that deserves it (in fact, that’s what I want from
every movie), but you’ve gotta meet me
half way. I don’t want to go into too many details about the number of things
that made me scratch my head because that would take too long (and, frankly, I
don’t want to frustrate myself further by dismantling a movie so perplexing),
but here’s an example: You’ve probably seen in the
trailer that the officers of
R.I.P.D. have “avatars” so they can work undercover amongst the living.
Ryan Reynolds’ avatar is an
elderly Chinese man. That’s great. It’s ironic, it’s
effective and it’s amusing. However,
Jeff Bridges’ avatar is a
smoking-hot blonde who, for some reason, wears a tight, form-fitting, low-cut dress.
Clearly, the writers did that to be funny, but the gag is nullified by its
senselessness. If you’re working undercover – especially as covertly as a
spirit among the living – how is it effective to draw attention to yourself by
being exceptionally good-looking? Even the movie itself shows how inconvenient
it is since human bystanders are constantly ogling
Officer Pulsipher and, in
some cases, interrupting their investigation by hitting on him. It’s kinda
funny, but not funny enough to justify its absurdity. The whole movie’s strung
together by such aberrations that I just couldn’t swallow it. I was ready,
willing and able to buy the concept of deceased lawmen hunting fugitive
spirits, but I guess the filmmakers weren’t willing to take it as seriously as
I was.
Movie Thirty-one: The Wolverine – I didn’t see
X-Men Origins: Wolverine until a month
or two ago and, I gotta say, I think it kinda got a bum rap. It’s not a
particularly good movie, but it’s nowhere near the stinky turd everyone made it
out to be. Never really having read X-Men comics, my pre-conceived notions were
minimal at best, so maybe that’s why. At the very least, I thought it delivered
enough mutant vs. mutant action to be worth watching.
The Wolverine is a better movie, but seriously lacks in the mutant
department. There are a couple in there besides Wolverine, but for all intents
and purposes, this more closely resembles a samurai flick than a superhero
movie. In a lot of ways, that’s a good thing. It’s a good thing mainly because
it makes this a decent individual movie (as opposed to a chapter in a series).
With the exception of references to the end of
X-Men: The Last Stand and an epilogue that sets the stage for
X-Men: Days of Future Past, there’s not
much connection to the other movies and you don’t even need to have seen the
previous installments (unless you require the basic exposition of
Wolverine’s
character, which the movie sums up well enough as it goes along) to get the
gist of it. Frankly, given the haphazard non-sequential chronology they’ve been
following with these movies, it’s felt a bit confusing trying to keep the
timeline straight. Doesn’t sound like
X-Men:
Days of Future Past is gonna cut us any slack, either, since it will
contain characters from all different time continuums. So, a stand-alone film
with minimal mutants and a self-contained story is actually quite refreshing.
Plus,
Hugh Jackman as Wolverine is always entertaining any way you slice it.
Movie Thirty-two: The Way Way Back – It occurred to me
the other day that so much of everyone’s childhood is just waiting. By that, I
mean all the times your mother or father would take you somewhere merely
because they had errands to run and you were too young to look after yourself.
I was thinking of all the times I sat in a shopping cart while my mom bought
groceries or being in the car with my dad while dropped stuff off to and from
work or even in the waiting room of the doctor’s office because my
brother was sick, not me (to say nothing
of all the “naps” I was forced to take where I just laid there wide awake
looking up at the ceiling and thinking what total bullshit naps were).
Suddenly, I felt deprived of a significant percentage of my youth by having to
sit quietly and patiently while not playing, learning, or even working. My
thinking on this didn’t even extend into my pre-driver’s license adolescence.
That opens up a whole new level of painful memories and this movie is almost
entirely based around those miseries. It effectively illustrates how sucky it
is to be drug along on family outings (and exactly why they suck), but it kinda
fails in its coming-of-age moments of actualization and redemption. Not from
lack of trying, there are some great set-ups, but the outcomes aren’t as
satisfying or realistic as I was hoping. Overall, the movie is basically the
same story as 2009’s
Adventureland,
with a bit more emphasis on family. In other words, there’s nothing much new
here. That’s okay, though. It’s important to tell stories like this every few
years so we don’t forget our own experiences growing up. This movie wasn’t
nearly as touching as it aspired to be, but I appreciated it for making me feel
reflective.
And so, onto August. Not sure what my first movie will be,
but it probably still won’t be The To-Do
List.