QUICKIE MOVIE REVIEWS

The Bling Ring:

(2013, Sophia Coppola)

Pure magic. There are moments that dragged, but most of them are subjective stylistic choices. Overall I thought there were some brilliant performances, and Coppola married the content with the film style stunningly. What amazes me is how absurd the scenario is but most of the truly outrageous behavior is pulled straight from reality. I've watched this half a dozen times since I picked it up. Great attention to detail, simple scenarios and dialogue that end up being powerful. Watch watch watch. A year end favorite for sure. 9/10

Oblivion:

(2013, Joseph Kosinski, Karl Gajdusek, Michael Arndt)
I'm somewhat torn, like I have been on several action blockbusters lately. It was a great adventure with fun visuals and a good balance of action. As with the directors other big hit, Tron legacy, I'm happy to take a unique universe and give the audience lots of time to absorb it and enjoy the detail put in. I liked spending time in the creepy sky house. I liked the strange cult-like behavior they promoted. The creepy reappearance of the same drone. 

But this wasn't that great of a movie. It's stole some plot points from Moon. It has atrocious dialogue, hidden by the fact that Morgan Freeman can literally say anything and make it sound like a revelation. It also kind of avoided action sequences. Which isn't the point at all. I think Tom Cruise was a bad casting choice. He isn't an every-man. If someone else played this guy, then I'd believe their avoidance of fighting and basic instinct he has for a simple life. When there is a crazy helicopter chase scene I'm like "It's cool, I saw Top Gun. No problem." It also needed to lose about 20-30 minutes in editing. Good to see, but don't expect anything revolutionary. 7/10

Jobs:
(2013, Matt Whiteley)
I thought this was the Aaron Sorkin one. I didn't really realize there were two Steve Jobs movies being made. This one sucked. Good luck Aaron.

Ok Ill hand them a few compliments. Ashton Kutcher and Josh Gad were great. I genuinely think they did a great job with the material they were handed. My biggest problem with Jobs is that it's only purpose is to glorify the creation of Apple computers. Regardless of inspiration, I think a movie should stand firmly on it's own two legs. There's no substantial story or conflict, no relatable characters. There are some huge missing puzzle pieces that make me furious.

Steve Jobs is set up as both a hero of his time, and the worst boss I've ever seen. From the get go, his only redeeming characteristic as a protagonist is his genius and vision for the company. Which is fine, I love a flawed character, but as someone in the movie said, he's an asshole. He's an asshole who does shitty things, then gets fired from his own company. Then he's let back in and he's... better? He planted some radishes and he's magically a better person? When you make a movie someone doesn't just magically go from neglecting their family to being father of the year. Aaron Sorkin, show these amateurs how it's done please. 4/10

The East

(2013, Zal Batmanglij, Brit Marling)
I liked it? I think?
It might be stockholm syndrome. Brit Marling is brilliant and makes great movies. I just don't know if I want to see this again. Cults are big this year, and I sort of feel like I joined one by watching this. It's great, but jarring and slightly disturbing in an unconventional way. It's flawed in execution but I'm giving this movie a lot of credit for being substantially different, with a strong sense of story and good characters. 6/10

The Croods 

(2013, Kirk DeMicco, Chris Sanders)
For a kids movie it's great, but I'm annoyed that its about men showing how they can save their women.

I thought Emma Stone was the lead, but I was mistaken. This movie is only tangentially about her. If you make a badass female character, can you at least make her badass? She doesn't need to be saved by a handsome prince. Have her save the prince.

I also don't like that many kids movies illustrate a kid branching out and finding themselves by deliberately disobeying their parents. Maybe not a good role to show? Anyways I think it's a much better movie than Wreck it Ralph (which isn't saying much.) It's like James Cameron's Avatar, for kids. Its worth seeing. 7/10

REVIEW: We're the Millers

3/10 - How come it's so hard to make Jason Sudeikis famous?

This movie sucks.

There is nothing about this that's funny, original, vaguely interesting or memorable. I'm having a hard time coming up with adequate words to explain how bad this is, and yet it has been a box office smash. I am deeply concerned for the state of comedy when regurgitated garbage is a runaway success.

Plot Summary: these four people are all shady, and of poor circumstances, and have to pretend to be upper middle class suburbanites, for pretty contrived reasons. Here's where this plot fails, it relies on the comedy being about exaggerated stereotypes (as seen in the one-word descriptors on the poster) and yet none of them come close to portraying that stereotype.

Jason Sudeikis plays the cleanest, most organized drug dealer you have ever seen. His character is deeply unbalanced, as he tries to maintain likability but also portray a scumbag. The "Jim from The Office" charm of looking into the camera to be cute doesn't work when his inconsistent role flutters between cool guy, asshole, and dad. I get that this role is meant to be a vehicle to launch Sudeikis, but his character seems to have facts instead of characteristics. There are things that we are told about his character, but that doesn't mean he has to continuously portray them as an actor. They are simply facts.

Equally as ambivalent is Jennifer Aniston, who plays a stripper. She never gets naked, just putting that out there. As a stripper, you would think that she too should be at a low point in her life, maybe she's also a drug addict, or can't feed her baby, I don't know you can choose your own stripper cliche. Fortunately she seems to act like stripping is in the same ballpark as being a secretary, or in sales at Best Buy. To be blunt, she's a prude even at her most sexually charged, and isn't that just a little pathetic?

As for the kids, one is a runaway or homeless or something unexplained, and the other is a kid living in the building who looks up to Sudeikis like a role model. Regardless of where they come from or what the situation is, these kids were essentially kidnapped and brought across an international boarder. Didn't that seem like a red flag to anyone?

My biggest criticism is that it's flat out lazy. This is a movie that wants to be raunchy and crazy, but comes across as being out of touch, and unoriginal. It's predictable in the worst kind of way, with every recycled trope of the genre being featured at some point. Since it's about drugs, they accidentally befriend a DEA agent. Since they drive an RV, it breaks down at some point. Cursing is often a punchline, and that's never enough to carry a film. Don't get me wrong, I like a raunchy comedy, but this is tame enough to bring my parents, and grandparents. It's dated material, and the jokes don't add any substance to the movie, they're just there to kill 90 minutes.

This is a superficial movie. It has a story that could have real potential, Breaking Bad has certainly shown audiences that drug culture doesn't have to remain a stereotype. Characters are so shallow that despite all of them coming from an impoverished situation, it's never once discussed. Worst of all, no one ever smokes the drugs. What a shame.

Don't waste your time on this unless you think a few dick jokes and a shot of some ballsack is worth your hard earned money.

IMDB - We're the Millers (7.2)
Wikipedia - We're the Millers
Rotten Tomatoes - We're the Millers (47%)
Amazon.ca - We're the Millers

REVIEW: The World's End

8/10 - Well it was a lot of fun, wasn't it?

Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg bring another fun adventure movie that's sort of, but not quite like, the other movies they've done. 

Just like the other movies in this alleged "trilogy" (a status I don't feel should automatically imply a level of quality) The World's End stars Shaun, I mean Gary, who is an every-man facing unconquerable alienation, this time with aliens. As in the previous two movies (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) where everyone else became a zombie, and everyone else became a murderer, in The World's End everyone else becomes some sort of robot alien thing. As with the other two movies, the social outcast Shaun/Nicholas/Gary/Simon must harness the power of friendship to fight against the literal social pressure and save the day. 

The World's End was good. Comparatively it is much more matured then their previous efforts. I worried that this movie would become repetitive and boring when at the launch their goal is to visit twelve pubs, something that doesn't lead to fascinating new adventures. Most of the comedy felt fresh, and the action never became monotonous. It was exciting and engaging, with a unique story that still felt grounded in character. There were in-jokes to let the audience feel smart, and the pacing allowed a huge number of events to occur without the stretched out feeling that Hot Fuzz had. It was unpredictable, not random, and just a lot of fun.

I wish there had been more women in this movie. I don't know how else to say this when I repeat it at almost every movie review. I don't know why it's such a complicated task. Perhaps when you take a boy's club like Edgar Wright, Simon Pegg, and Nick Frost, they want to reflect what they know, and what they know is their own friendships. Almost every character was married, and had major relationships with women in their lives, yet there were no women with significant roles. None of them were full characters and only one appeared on screen. Honestly, why is this considered acceptable? 

I thought the ending was a bit off. It was fine, just clunky and obvious. I wanted the subtext to be sprinkled throughout, but there were large chunks of the movie where the character's growing stories were forgotten in lieu of action sequences, and in order to make up for that there were long explanatory passages that were being shared like it was an instruction manual. In fact, the movie opens and closes with an unmemorable history lesson. Granted, these are subjective kind of issues that took me out of the movie, but maybe wouldn't bother everyone. It just all feels jarring and abnormal for some, otherwise great, storytellers. The major problem that may have snowballed was the antagonist. They are passive and have no motivation. When you don't have a force that can outsmart or out fight the protagonist, these problems happen. 

Having said all that, The World's End really did meet my expectations. Maybe it didn't surpass them, but that's okay because it was still great. It's worth seeing several times, because without questions there are details that are meant to be picked up on during your second or third watch. It's fun and original, and will be a nice addition to the blu-ray collection. Give them your money, they need it for beer. 

IMDB - The World's End (7.7)

Wikipedia - The World's End

Rotten Tomatoes - The World's End (90%)
Amazon.ca - The World's End

Suggestions?

I haven't posted any new reviews in the last week, and I have none in the works. Basically I've run out of movies.

I'd love to hear some suggestions, new or old, because I'm always looking for new stuff to talk about.

HIT ME UP