Let's talk about movies

Project X [2012]

A lot of times, while I’m watching a bad movie, several questions arise: “What the hell is that?” or better yet: “What the hell were they thinking?” That’s exactly what I asked myself while suffering through “Project X”, which is anything but funny, as some might lead you to think. I think “tragic” would be a more appropriate word, “pathetic” even. But not funny. I can’t imagine who the filmmakers envisioned as their target audience. Is it a date movie? Hell no. It’s really not for teenagers either, unless they happen to be on crack. But that’s another story. Following in the footsteps of “The Hangover” (a solid movie by the way, unlike this “horror”), the plot follows  a bunch of idiots who decide to throw their shy pal a 17th birthday party he’ll never forget, while his parents are away for the weekend. There’s no point in my telling you more than that, because the plot doesn’t make a lot of sense, and its resolution is even harder to swallow. One can’t blame the actors, who do their best, but even they aren’t very appealing, because their characters are paper-thin to begin with, and the material they have to work with here is hopeless. I’ve been told the movie plays best with teenagers. That’s an insult teenagers should not be forced to endure, especially teenage girls who has to suffer the foul-mouthed profile of the “typical” high-school boys shown here. The only positive thought I can derive is that this movie will never eclipse “The Hangover” or even “Superbad”. That’s why I felt a surge of happiness when this party finally ended. “Project X” suddenly stops, and I felt nothing except relief. This crap joins “One for the Money”, “Ghost Rider 2″, “Mirror Mirror”, “The Devil Inside” and “Battleship” on my list of worst movies of the year so far.

Rating: 1.5/4

Snow White And The Huntsman [2012]

Poor Grimm brothers can’t get a break from Hollywood, at least not since two “Snow White” movies were released this year. The first one, “Mirror Mirror”, was pure garbage. Now “Snow White and the Huntsman” is here. So how bad is it? Not that bad to be honest, uneven to be sure and terribly slow at times, but strengthened by the presence of Charlize Theron, who rises above the script as the evil Queen Ravenna. Judging by the evidence, it isn’t easy making a good movie based on a beloved book these days. “Mirror Mirror” was proof of that. “Snow White” on the other hand, starts out promisingly enough, as we meet Ravenna (Theron, looking good) the woman who bewitches a widowed king into marrying her a day after meeting her. On their wedding night, she kills him and throws his young daughter Snow White into a dungeon. You know the drill. Snow (Stewart) escapes a few years later and vows to take back the Kingdom with the help of a handsome huntsman (Chris Hemsworth, with long hair and badass attitude left over from “Thor” and “The Avengers”), and seven dwarves (played by Ian McShane, Ray Winstone, Bob Hoskins, Nick Frost and Toby Jones- none of them real dwarves by the way). But halfway through the movie, which runs close to two hours, my mind started to wander. Instead of being pulled into this world, I felt myself drifting away from it. Another problem with a film that uses CGI as a substitute for good writing is that virtually every picture that comes along nowadays has impressive visual effects; this has leveled the playing field, to say the least.  Director Rupert Sanders can only do so much with the script he was given, and the same is true of the talented actors (except for Stewart who looks clueless as usual). Without full-blooded characters to drive the story, “Snow White and the Huntsman” is just a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Worse, the  movie asks us to believe that Kirsten Stewart can outclass Charlize Theron in the art of beauty. Ha! Not on my watch, hunny. Underneath the fancy CGIs and pretty actors, all that’s missing in “Snow White and the Huntsman” is a sense that all the running, jumping, climbing and fighting is leading to something. Sadly, it doesn’t. The movie is simply content to skim the surface. Damn shame if you ask me.

Rating: 2/4

Battleship [2012]

I really wanted to like this movie. No wait, I didn’t. I mean, who wants to see a movie based not on a book, or an animated series, but a board game? Not me, not you, not anyone. It’s tempting to dismiss Peter Berg’s long, loud and ludicrous “Battleship” with three words — piece of junk. Yet even with all its faults, you have to give the movie some credit, mainly because it rises above every “Transformers” movie ever made. But that’s a small compliment. When Hasbro invented the “Battleship” game, the intention was for kids to use their imagination about what those ships could do. Berg crushes that imagination with his own crude interpretations that seem untouched by human hands and spirit. Yes I know it’s popular. But so is junk food, and they both poison your insides and rot your brain. The plot? Nothing interesting. Alex Hooper (Taylor Kitsch), is a Navy lieutenant stationed in Oahu, Hawaii, who gets caught up in an alien invasion at sea. “Release the Kraken” says Liam Neeson at some point. No wait, that’s not the same movie. I believe the correct words are “Prepare to fire”, or something like that. Very cheesy indeed. There’s also a subplot involving Kitsch and Neeson’s daughter, but that’s another story. Dumb dialogue aside, there’s honestly nothing else to discuss. If you’re familiar with the “Transformers” movies, you’ll know exactly what to expect from “Battleship”. But the question is: are you really willing to go though with it again? Didn’t think so. I know there are still 7 months to go, but I’m thinking ”Battleship” has a shot at the title of Worst Movie of the year. Good luck. Oh and did I mention that Rihanna is in it as well? (Was Michelle Rodriguez too busy or something?).

Rating: 1.5/4

Men In Black 3 [2012]

Says it isn’t so. Are they actually releasing a third Men In Black movie even though part two was a total disaster? Seems like it. But here’s the good news: the sequel nobody asked for is actually pretty enjoyable. Why? It’s not that the characters got more interesting; Will Smith is still Will Smith, while Tommy Lee Jones has a very small role this time around (damn shame if you ask me). But there’s something about time travel which I find irresistible. And “MIB 3″ is exactly about that. That and the addition of Josh Brolin as a younger version of Jones (he says he’s 29, but don’t take his word on it). The plot involves an alien enemy of Agent K (Jones) who goes by the name of “Boris The Animal” (how original). Boris escapes from prison and travels back to 1969 to kill the young K. Are you still following me? Good, cause things are about to get a little bit confusing. Ok so now it’s up to Agent J (Smith) to travel back into the past to save K, with the help of… young K. That would be Josh Brolin, as I mentioned earlier. The plot goes from weird to weirder later on, but oddly enough, this is a good thing. That’s why “Men in Black 3″ leaves you giggling like a damn fool. It starts as funny and rockets on from there. Screw the feeling of guilt. This is not to say that the movie isn’t filled with enormous plotholes, because it is. But then again, such is the case with every “time travel” flick, and as long as you’re not a picky person, you won’t be complaining. 

But the real star of the show has to be Josh Brolin. The dude puts in an incredible performance using his impression of the great Tommy Lee Jones as the younger K. He totally aced Jones’ attitude and voice. Another standout here would be Michael Stuhlbarg, who plays a being that can see all possible timelines and variations of universes at once. Watching him predict the future and its different outcomes is one of the highlights of the movie. I suggest you keep an eye on him.

I can’t say that 3-D made a big difference to my enjoyment of the film; there are moments where foreground pieces really stand out and show off the dimensionality of a shot, but I suspect the film and its interesting special effects play just as well in 2-D. Content is what makes “Men in Black 3″ fun to watch. Do not expect a masterpiece, and you will have a good time at the movies. After all, it’s that sense of fun that keeps the movie afloat, and the story is interesting enough to keep your attention all the way through the closing credits. Against all odds, this sequel works. It really does.

Rating: 2.5/4

Shame [2011]

“Shame” is a disturbing but vivid portrait of a sex addict that will push you out of your comfort zone into uncharted territory. Director Steve McQueen, who previously worked with Michael Fassbender in the equally good “Hunger” creates a palpable sense of unease from start to finish. But you won’t be able to take your eyes off the screen. Fassbender’s character Brandon is a sex addict, as I mentioned earlier. The thing is, you won’t know what a sex addict really means unless you see this movie. Brandon is a man who will have sex with anyone, anywhere. If he can’t find anyone to do the job, he hires a prostitute, goes to a gay bar, or simply masturbates. Brandon also lives alone, well until his younger sister, a club singer in from Los Angeles shows up. She isn’t the best person to be around with, and whatever their family history, we know something isn’t right between them. Sister is played by Carey Mulligan, who’s been terrific these past few years in “An Education”, “Never Let Me Go” and more recently “Drive”. I admit: the movie is rough and difficult to watch at times. But Fassbender’s performance knocked my out of my seat (why was he robbed of at least an Oscar nomination, I’ll never know). McQueen’s storytelling approach is oblique and untidy, but that seems to suit the subject and its multiplicity of characters. There are no weak links in the cast, an impressive array of actors who make their flawed characters seem absolutely real. McQueen’s “Shame” is an extreme alternative to the Hollywood formula—the polar opposite of escapism. But it is a striking and unusual piece of work; too shocking and too good to be called anything but a failure. You’ll never feel closer to a sex addict.

Rating: 3/4

The Five Year Engagement [2012]

Here’s the thing about comedies: Even when the script is freighted with formula, the right actors can keep it afloat, even airborne. That’s where “The Five Year Engagement” really lucks out, even though it goes on for two hours (that’s too long for a comedy in my opinion). For that, all credit to Jason Segel, who’s the best guy a comedy movie could have. The guy has skills. He can get laughs without the sitcom pimping. It’s a rare gift, staying hilarious and recognizably human. His presence and ace comic timing kicks the movie up a notch. Director-writer Nicholas Stoller, who teamed up with Segel previously in “Forgetting Sarah Marshall”, hangs the plot on a straightforward premise: Segel and Emily Blunt are engaged, but life’s many obstacles keep delaying the wedding. Complications follow, as if you thought they wouldn’t. And that’s it. That’s all. So in case you’re expecting another “Bridesmaids” in the making, you might be slightly disappointed. “The Five Year Engagement” is clearly a movie that dares to take its time, as it chronicles a very long period in a continually changing relationship. Which means not everyone will welcome its unusual pace. Personally, I was thrilled at first, as it won me over almost instantly. I’m not going to pretend that it rises above every comedy ever made, but when the script sags, Stoller and producer Judd Apatow rely on a top team of actors to keep you laughing. Segel and Blunt build an easy rapport. And Chris Patt is a hoot as Segel’s best pal. A scene, early in the film, has him singing a completely inappropriate song about Segel’s long list of former lovers. Indeed I laughed. Add to that a number of lively supporting performances by a talented cast including Alison Brie, Rhys Ifans, Mindy Kaling and Jim Piddock and there’s no way you won’t be tickled. The movie goes soft in its final stages, but Segel and Blunt keep it real. Now try to take that goofy smile off your face. You can’t.

Rating: 2.5/4

The Cabin In The Woods [2012]

Start hating me now, horror fans. But the gory, predictable and plodding “Cabin in the Woods” is one of the most disappointing movies of the year. Disappointing why? Because judging from every review on the planet, I expected something memorable. Something huge. Something so damn exciting I couldn’t wait to tell everyone about it. Alas, none of this happened. Instead, “Cabin” is a painfully familiar horror movie with a “twist”, but at the end of the day, it never rises above the routine. I’ve seen my share of horror flicks, and while I know every trick in the book, I still wanted this movie to impress the hell out of me. Ok ok maybe I’m being too harsh on it, but I bet you can understand my frustration. Plot-wise, I won’t spoil anything (like there’s anything to spoil anyway. Ha!). All you need to know is that five friends go to a remote cabin in the woods. Later on, bad things happen (duh!). There’s the jock (played by Thor a.k.a Chris Hemsworth), the slutty blonde, the nice girl and the pothead. Been there, done that. The atmosphere couldn’t be more creepy, but that’s all I can say here without revealing too much. Hell it’s hard for me to discuss this movie without revealing the final “twist”, which some have already heaped praise on it, and they’re entitled to their opinion. I can only be honest in describing my reaction: it was the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen. There I said it. But how well you react to the movie as a whole will have a lot to do with your expectations. Maybe my hopes were too high, or maybe the movie isn’t that good to begin with. But if you’re a fan of director Joss Whedon, you’ll probably disregard my opinion and watch it anyway. But know this: if you like your horror movies to be truly scary, you will be disappointed. I wasn’t scared while watching this film. To me, that’s never a good sign. Some enthusiasts are already calling it “one of the best horror movies ever made”. I beg to differ. It’s a clever attempt for sure, but I don’t think “Cabin in the Woods” is as original as it claims to be. Far from it actually.

Rating: 2/4

Hysteria [2012]

Part of me doesn’t even want to tell you that “Hysteria” is a movie about the invention of the electric vibrator. My guess is, you’ll laugh and stop reading. Not so fast. There’s a promising premise on the boil here, and screenwriting team Stephen Dyer and Jonah Lisa Dyer make sure you get a history lesson out of it. Of course part of it is fictionalized, but the story is based on true events. Really it is. Hugh Dancy plays the doctor behind this invention. When we first meet him, it’s1880, and he is continually losing jobs. Then he lands a position as assistant to Dr. Robert Dalrymple (Jonathan Price), who specializes in manipulating a woman’s uterus to produce “paroxysms”, or the release of nervous tension. The method consists of having them lay down on a table, bare legs parted, as he manually massages their privates. It is strictly therapeutic he says, but we all know what the idea behind this procedure is. What the women know however, is that they are really into it (go figure). No more spoilers from me. Cheers to Dancy for making it hilarious at times, especially when he learns how hard work it is massaging women’s privates all day. The supporting cast includes Felicity Jones (“Like Crazy”) as Dr. Dalrymple’s daughter, Maggie Gyllenhaal as his “other” daughter, and Rupert Everett in a funny role as Dancy’s wealthy pal. ”Hysteria” is not great, by any measure, but I found it diverting, and pretty entertaining. That’s a welcome combination in my book. And remember: it is strictly therapeutic!

Rating: 2.5/4

The Devil Inside [2012]

We’ve seen it all before. Just last year, in fact, in “The Last Exorcism”. But hey, people watch horror movies all the time, so why not see the same movie with slightly cheaper production values? “The Last Exorcism” cost $ 2 million. This one cost $ 1 million, yet made $ 53 million. You see where I’m going. But is this really the best scare flick Hollywood could come up with? Seriously? Oh wait, “The Devil Inside” is another “found footage” kind of movie. So it’s all real. Yea right. It’s 2009, and we follow a twenty something woman who is searching for an exorcist who is willing to free her mother from a long-running demon possession. If you can’t fill in the rest of the plot, you haven’t seen “The Last Exorcism” or any movie at all. “The Devil Inside” is a terrible production with any hint of orginality sucked out of it. Have something pop out in the dark. Wait for a scream. Le’ts hear the devil’s voice. Then drag out the next surprise for an eternity. Repeat cycle. Fall asleep. But hey, I fully expected “The Devil Inside” to be box office gold, mainly because the public fell for its attractive marketing campaign. But just like its campaign, the movie is a scam, from start to finish. The ending? it sucks. OK, that’s it. Congrats to director Willam Brent Bell, for building tension since not a damn thing happens for 45 minutes. But the movie is barely worth one star, let alone 1 cent. As for future “found footage” followups, I offer this plea: Stop! Just stop!

Rating: 1.5/4

Take Shelter [2011]

Add this one to your list of must see movies. “Take Shelter”, directed by Jeff Nichols and starring the great Michael Shannon (terrific in both “Revolutionary Road” and “The Runaways”) is a hauntingly beautiful picture about a family man who starts having visions of an impending apocalypse, disturbing visions that alienate him from his family and his co-workers. Dreams? Hallucinations? Schizophrenia? None of that matters to him. To prepare for the worst, he takes out a home improvement loan to fix the old storm shelter behind his house. More series of vivid nightmares (brilliant scenes by the way) only intensify his will and make him more determined to save his family from the coming storm. “You think I’m crazy?”, he tells his friends and family at some point. And that’s exactly what the film explores, with detail and terrific acting, especially Shannon, who gives a disturbing yet unforgettable performance. But to say more would be unthinkable, especially if you have yet to see this film, which is an emotional journey from start to finish. Jeff Nichols has crafted a unique piece of cinema, one that keeps its distance from Hollywood formula. His movie dares to take its time, and keeps coming at you, before it leaves you completely devastated. The performances couldn’t be more real; the wife is played by Jessica Chastain, who starred in a handful of movies last year (“The Debt,” “Tree of Life,” “The Help”). Here, she’s more than just a good wife; she’s also a loving woman who is more than willing to help her husband, but makes it clear there are lines that cannot be crossed. I’ll say no more, except that “Take Shelter” is a must see experience that is as breathtaking as it is devastating. I loved it.

Rating: 3.5/4