The Conjuring: Hitchcock Would Be Proud

Hitchcock was first.  He was the one who essentially defined the horror genre.  He did it with pizzazz and with class.  His films were not bloody or gruesome or filled with foul language or nudity, they were filled with great characters, clever plots, and brilliant pacing.  And they were damn scary.  Then George A. Romero and John Carpenter and Tobe Hooper and Wes Craven all entered the picture adding their own distinct brand of horror to Hollywood, each a little more violent than the last.  Soon, the nobility of Horror was becoming less and less distinguished.  Horror became buckets of blood and teenagers getting cut down after either having sex or running upstairs when they really shouldn't be.  Horror became the joke of Hollywood.  Never taken too seriously, and reproduced like little clones with minor defects that separate each other.  Then came the trump card (and I hate to say this) in M. Night Shyamalan.  Yes, he's lost all respect and credibility today, but when he released The Sixth Sense, the world of horror was re-examined by everyone.  Horror was no longer a joke.  Horror could be subtle.  It could be smart.  And it could be damn scary once again.  I personally think that his best film, and still one of the scariest movies ever made is Signs, but I know those who would disagree.  Shyamalan was our shot at the resurgence of good horror, but Hollywood, unfortuately, got the better of him and that tiny light at the end of the tunnel fizzled out.  But, he wasn't our last hope.

A little cheaply made film produced in 2004 came out entitled Saw.  It was different from the horror muck clogging the theaters at the time.  It was smart.  It was engaging.  It was pretty freaky.  And it was a great film.  It was made for almost no money and it spawned a gaggle of [terrible] sequels making studios tons and tons of money and giving a name to new director, James Wan.  After separating himself from his Saw baby and handing sequels 2-19 over to someone else, Wan was given free reign to direct other films.  His next film, while a respectable effort, was essentially a failure.  Dead Silence had a great, even scary premise but was poorly executed and miscast.  Wan could've easily been written off, but even though Dead Silence was not the horror hit of the year, it caught the attention of horror movie buffs around in it's homage to the older-style of horror filmmaking.  It wasn't overly violent or gory, but it had an aura of creepiness around it.  The creepiness, however, didn't end up giving the audience much of a payoff at the end.  Finally came Insidious, a complete and total throwback to the heyday of horror.  It drew heavily from the great horror films of the 60s and 80s, like Poltergeist and It.  It was able to scare the living crap out of everyone and still remain a PG-13 film that anyone could watch.  Yes, there were moments of definite cheese, but on the whole, if you were lucky enough to see Insidious in theaters, chances are you were significantly scared.

Now, with The Conjuring under his belt, it appears that James Wan is the savior of horror that everyone thought Shyamalan would be.  Let me begin by saying this: The Conjuring is a very scary film.  I love horror, I've seen many films, I know what to look out for and what to expect and it's fairly difficult to scare me, especially make me jump.  The Conjuring, while still being a definite throwback to Hitchcock faire, was able to defy all expectation and scare the bejesus out of me.  I'll put it this way: the film is rated R.  A significant amount of bad shit has to happen in a film to earn an R rating.  This one is rated R for literally being too scary.  There is no profanity, no blood, no gore, no nudity, nothing.  My 88-year-old grandmother could handle this movie if it weren't for the blood-curdling screams around her that might possibly send her frail heart launching out of her chest.  That sentence right there was more violent than The Conjuring, but it's so damn scary and outright disturbing that the MPAA had to deem it R.

The Conjuring tells the *cough* true *cough* story of Ed Warren (Patrick Wilson) and Lorraine Warren (Vera Farmiga), two paranormal investigators hired by Carolyn Perron (Lili Taylor) and Roger Perron (Ron Livingston) in order to rid their home and family of the malicious spirits haunting the house.  The build up is slow, as it should be, giving us backstory on the Warrens as well as the Perron family.  We get subtle noises and bumps in the night that build towards shifting shadows, to bodies being thrashed about to the entities showing themselves entirely.  Wan's pacing is perfect. He establishes character, something most horror writers or directors have any interest wasting time doing.  There are so many characters in the film that each one ends up being haunted differently.  We care about each one of them and fear for their safety during each night.  The first hour is essentially filled with creepy music and faint noises, while the last forty-five go balls deep in to scaretown and it doesn't let up until the credits roll.  You'll walk out of the theater stiff from how tensed up you get watching the film.

There was a lot of research done in preparation of the film and Wan personally took it upon himself to make the film as "accurate" as possible.  Now, I'm not going to say what's true and what's not, because by saying it is a completely true story would mean for us to accept that evil forces are around and can take hold of us at any time.  Most people choose not to believe it, but some do.  Wan spent countless hours interviewing the actual family involved in the hauntings, hoping to make everything in the film as real as possible. Wilson and Fermiga are fantastic as the doubting Warrens who, over time, start to realize that the trouble may, in fact, be real.  Lili Taylor also holds her own as the mother who the spirits tend to like fucking with the most.  And what's great about Wan's style of directing is that he's able to scare us with plausible situations because these characters are real.  When something frightening happens, it very well could be happening in our own home.  He's smart in his execution as well.  He's not going for the cheap jump-scare with a loud noise or something popping up behind a mirror (though that isn't to say these moments aren't in the film), but the scares come organically.  They build on one another until it's hard to even breathe because anything could happen at any moment. 

The Conjuring is by far one of the scariest movies I've seen in recent memory, as well as one of the smartest.  It's the best movie of the summer so far and it's sitting in contention to be the best.  Anyone who loves to go to the theater and get scared will have a blast with this film.  Even those who are weary of horror films because of the amount of gore guaranteed to be present shouldn't worry.  There's nothing to be grossed out about.  It's just a good, old-fashioned fun at the movies that will be sure to scare the pants off of you.  I can't wait to see what James Wan has in store for horror in the years to come.

A

Pacific Rim: Poor Asia, Targets of Huge Aliens Once More

In Guillermo Del Toro's Pacific Rim, Will Smith plays a fighter pilot who, in a previous battle with aliens, lost his best friend, or "brother", if you will and must now exact revenge as part of saving planet Earth.  Jeff Goldblum plays a quirky smart guy that no one will really listen to, but somehow figures out how to tap into the brain (virus-style) and learn the inner most secrets of the aliens in order to effectively defeat them.  He is constantly right about most things and not listened to by, none other than Bill Pullman- a veteran fighter who is now in a position of leadership.  He tries to prepare those around him for the inevitable while still trying to fight from his desk.  But, once the shit hits the proverbial fan, he stands atop the machine he's about to fight in, gives a dramatic speech, hops in a fighter plane and personally engages in battle with the aliens.  Randy Quaid plays a hot-headed drunk, whose relationship with his son is broken, and the only way he can save face is by sacrificing himself at the end by blowing up the ship and ending the alien wars.

Conversely, in Roland Emmerich's Independence Day, Charlie Hunnam (Sons of Anarchy) plays the pilot of a large mechanical man dubbed a Jaeger who, in a previous battle with aliens, lost his brother, or "best friend", if you will, and must now exact revenge as part of saving planet Earth.  Charlie Day (Always Sunny) plays the quirky smart guy that no one will really listen to, but somehow figures out how to tap into the brain (mindmeld-style) and learn the inner most secrets of the aliens in order to effectively defeat them.  He is constantly right about most things and not listened to by, none other than Idris Elba - a veteran fighter who is now in a position of leadership.  He tries to prepare those around him for the inevitable while still trying to fight from his desk.  But, once the shit hits the proverbial fan, he stands atop the machine he's about to fight in, gives a dramatic speech, hops in the Jaeger and personally engages in battle with the aliens.  Robert Kazinsky plays a hot-headed ego-drunk, whose relationship with his father is broken, and the only way he can save face is by [possibly] sacrificing himself at the end by [doing something] and [maybe] ending the alien wars.

Pacific Rim IS Independence Day.  It is.  It's the same film, but without great characters, without well-written dialogue, and without any of the heart.  Sure, I'll admit Pacific Rim totally annihilates ID4 in visual effects.  Pacific Rim is stunning to see.  As you watch it, it honestly seems like the most expensive movie in existence.  But, what ID4 does better is that it provided us with characters that we actually care about and want to see succeed.  There are many intricate relationships between each character and we are deeply invested in each one.  If even one of these people are put in harm's way, we worry.  When it looks like Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum won't make it out, our hearts ache for them and their loved ones (especially Judd Hirsch).  When the battle between fighter pilots and aliens seems doomed and Bill Pullman calls out "doesn't anyone have any missiles left?" and we hear that old familiar Russell Case voice "Sorry I'm late, Mr. President!" we know he's about to fly in and save that day!  And when he flies into the ship, mocking the aliens the entire way, it's heartbreaking to know he finally made his children proud because HE'S the one that gets to save the world.  There's none of that in Pacific Rim.  There's not a single character you latch on to that you genuinely care if they live or die.  By the first twenty minutes of the film, if you haven't already figured it out, who lives or who dies, then you haven't seen that many movies.

What's wrong with these big-budget alien/monster movies today is that filmmakers think that what the audience wants to see is an eye-candy hero.  It's not true.  The pretty boy hero is something that, I believe, keeps most people away.  No one saw either Taylor Kitch disaster Battleship or John Carter.  No one cared about the Clash or Wrath of the Titans with Sam Worthington.  It's the reason the Taken movies have done so well.  People want to see the everyman take matters into their own hands.  I mean, the heroes in Independence Day are Will Smith (who, back then was nothing close to a sex symbol) and freaking Jeff Goldblum!  Goldblum!  Not once does anyone in the movie take their shirt off to expose ripped abs.  When these stale, emotionless pretty boys engage in epic battles, I lose interest because I just do not care if they make it back or not.  And, come on, if you're going to give your character a motivational speech, at least try not to draw parallels to the greatest motivational speech of all time!

Visually, however, it is certainly a sight to see.  Guillermo Del Toro has a gift as a director and one I can recognize even through a film like this.  He's a visionary that will always deliver on the action, the creativity of the creatures, and the awe-inspiring visual moments of his films.  However, he's not much of a writer, especially when it comes to character development and dialogue.  He's a lot like George Lucas in that way.  Put him behind the camera and gold will come out.  Allow him to write his stories and the film will suffer (obviously we're not speaking of Pan's Labyrinth).  But, he's always had a way with the visual.  In his Hellboy films, the most interesting parts were when we saw creatures and monsters that we'd never seen before.  Not so much the story or the characters or what they were saying, but we wanted to watch what happened next.  Much like Pacific Rim.  I was visually engaged and when there was a battle sequence I was on the edge of my seat.  I studied the monsters that rose out of the sea, noticing the detail of how different each one was and how much thought and commitment Del Toro put into each one.  The Jaegers however... are a different story.  They are supposed to have all of these different fighting techniques and weapons hidden among them, yet each one began a battle punching the monsters.  Why waste time doing that if you have a hidden sword that can easily slice them in half or a plasma blaster that YOU KNOW is going to take them down the quickest and cause minimal damage.  It's like in Power Rangers when they all came together with the mega-zord and fought whatever strange large creature, then when it looked bleak, they pulled out the magical sword of justice (or whatever the hell it was) and in one fell swoop ended the battle.  It's like: why didn't you do that in the first place?!

I feel like I'm being overly harsh on Pacific Rim, and maybe I am.  But, my expectations were higher on this one.  This was supposed to be the monster movie to end all monster movies.  It was supposed to be bigger in scale, and smarter in brain.  But, it's not.  While it might be the most stunning monster movie ever to see (and I HIGHLY recommend seeing this in theaters, do not wait for blu-ray), it just didn't have the smarts to go with it.  It was done by a George Lucas.  Not a Spielberg.  Had it been handled by a Spielberg, it would've had everything and you can damn sure assume more time would've been spent so that we gave at least one shit about one character.  Pacific Rim is its own entity.  It's not as bad as Battleship or Transformers, but it's not as good as Independence Day  or Armageddon.  Even in Armageddon (a film directed by Michael Bay, mind you), when Bruce Willis sacrifices himself so that Affleck can be with his daughter, there isn't a dry eye in the house.  Notice too who the hero is in that film... not a pretty boy.  Pacific Rim is at the heart of Summer moviedom.  It is incredibly entertaining, and while you care about HOW the characters are going to stop these things from ending life on Earth as we know it... you just don't care WHO is going to do it.

Pacific Rim: C
Independence Day: A+

As an added bonus for making it this far... here is the greatest speech in the history of film:

 

The Lone Ranger: Hi-Ho Silver!

Jerry Bruckheimer is having a tough time these days.  He's picking movies that are supposed to be making billions worldwide on a grand scale that people enjoy, then immediately forget.  Now, he's in a bit of trouble.  Trying to recoup $800 million in expenses from a remake of a show that was on in the 40s and 50s.  Not exactly a summer winner by far.  I still remember when he was putting out great movies like Bad Boys, The Rock and Enemy of the State.  Fun, yet smart and very entertaining fare for moviegoers.  Now, it's him trying to find the next Pirates.  While The Lone Ranger is certainly no Pirates of the Caribbean, it definitely doesn't deserve the harshly negative reviews it has been getting.

Written by Pirates scribes Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio, The Lone Ranger chronicles the life of John Reid, his origins in becoming said Lone Ranger, his meeting and eventual friendship with oddball indian Tonto and saving the town from a couple of baddies.  While the movie is obviously too long, the plot is a fun ride.  John, his brother Dan and a few Texas Rangers are sent out to capture known killer Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner), Butch and his men kill everyone save for John.  Tonto discovers a wounded John, saves him and the two partner up to seek revenge on Butch.  There's a ton of subplots however that involve building a railroad through Cherokee land, broken white and indian treaties, etc. etc.  It can become a tad convoluted (like most of Elliot and Rossio's scripts are-- did you see the third Pirates??), but overall it's still pretty fun.  What the epic duo do best in their writing, along with collaborator and director Gore Verbinski, is know how to take a big budget action film, ripe with hardcore violent situations, and still make it fun.  There are a lot of funny moments in the film, some a little too silly to be appropriate, but it's in their humor a good script is derived.

I think what has happened here, however, is that The Lone Ranger just isn't a marketable movie.  Just as John Carter or Prince of Persia fell by the wayside, none of those films really appeal to the masses.  John Carter was about Mars starring people no one really liked.  Prince was a period piece that Jake Gyllenhaal wasn't strong enough to draw in the crowd.  Now, with Ranger you do have a big name attached in Johnny Depp, but as Tonto, he tends to draw back to his weird schticky Captain Jack Sparrow quirk a little too heavily and the majority of audiences are a mite tired of it.  I, personally, still enjoy watching Depp act weird and crazy, and I get a big kick out of it.  But, the masses are looking for something fresh, something new, something different from Depp.  I also believe that a big-budget western film is hard to sell in any market.  Westerns are a very niche genre and one that a lot of people aren't fans of.  So, to revive a story from the late 40s and market it towards audiences from ages 12-30 that most aren't even familiar with in the first place or have any clue who The Lone Ranger actually was... it was bound to fail from the beginning.  Back that with bad reviews and, my friends, you've got a flop on your hands.

Normally, this would be a movie I avoid altogether.  Much like Prince of Persia or John Carter, films like those aren't ones I rush out to see when Summer arrives.  However, I had the distinct pleasure of meeting William Fichtner (seriously one of the greatest character actors of our time) and he talked of how much fun he had shooting the film.  He also gave the film the Fichtner seal of approval.  This was good enough for me.  I've always been a fan of his work, and with him playing the villain, I was sold.  And while he probably is the best part of the movie (his talent far exceeds films like this) the rest of the cast wasn't terrible either.  Armie Hammer played the character a little too rigid and a lot of the silliness stems from him, but he's a decent Lone Ranger choice.  Johnny Depp is good for a few laughs.  Tom Wilkinson is always a joy to watch.  And Helena Bonham Carter serves her purpose, like everything else she's been in.  But, there was just something about the movie that didn't make it feel like a whole.  It's like the writers watched every episode of the TV series and tried to combine two or three seasons worth of plot into one overly long film.

But, trust me when I say this: it's not as bad as you keep hearing.  If you find yourself in a theater watching it, just know that you WILL be entertained.  Yes, you will laugh at some bad dialogue.  Yes, you will scoff at some ridiculously dumb moments.  But, on the whole you won't be leaving as angry as you think you might.  It's not as big of a bomb as Wild Wild West was back in '99, but it's not the summer's saving grace as Bruckheimer was hoping for.  It's the epitome of summer wrapped in a wet blanket.  It's big, it's loud, it's dumb, but it's also a lot of fun.

B-

This Is The End: It's The End Of The World And I Feel Fine

From 2005 to the most recent Bridesmaids, Judd Apatow's frat pack of friends/actors have ruled the comedy screen.  They've successfully redefined the comedy genre by not only providing some of the crudest, filthiest, and funniest movies of the last eight or so years, but these movies are also smart, charming, full or heart, and overall (save for a select few) great films.  It all began with The 40-Year Old Virgin which taught Hollywood that a movie could be crass as hell, but still have a ton of heart.  It could appeal to both men and women alike.  Knocked Up only served to back that argument and solidify, not just Judd Apatow as a comedy staple, but introduce us to some of the most key players in comedies to come.  We met Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill, Jason Segal, Jay Baruchel, and were re-introduced to Paul Rudd, Michael Cera, as well as cementing James Franco as a household comedic name.  For the first few years, these players could do no wrong in the eyes of viewers.  Some of the best comedies of all time have come out of the last few years (The 40-Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up, Superbad, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Pineapple Express, Bridesmaids).  But, just as all comedy does, people got a little tired of the same schtick.  While the movies themselves were far better than most comedies released at the time, audiences were looking for something new.  Apatow films, while still bankable by name alone, weren't producing the best of films (Get Him To The Greek, Funny People, Year One).

Then, the frat pack split up.  Seth Rogen did a "superhero" movie and a shitty Hollywood mom-com with Barbara Streisand.  Jonah Hill lost weight and went a more serious route.  James Franco went back to being a douche.  Segal focused more on his television show.  Paul Rudd is really the only one mass producing forgettable movies one after another.  So, a reunion of the guys is exactly what all of us were rooting for.  This Is The End, based off a fake trailer by Seth Rogen and Jay Baruchel called Jay and Seth Versus The Apocalypse.  It stars everyone you can think of that you've ever seen in an Apatow related film.  The vague hint of a plot is this: Jay has come to town to spend the weekend at Seth's place.  Seth suggests they go to Franco's house for a big housewarming party.  There, Jay is uncomfortable around all the celebs because he's never really adapted to the life of a celebrity.  During the party, naturally, the apocalypse happens.  Most everyone is killed during it save for Seth, Jay, Jonah, Franco, Craig Robinson, and Danny McBride.  The six of them must band together to stay alive barricaded in Franco's house.  Of course, all does not go to plan.  Danny McBride unknowingly cooks a majority of the food, their water supply is limited, there are demonous creatures on the outside of the house, they get robbed by Emma Watson, etc.

What's great about the film is that these guys get to play themselves.  It's funny to hear celebrities talk about being celebrities as if they were real people.  It's hilarious to hear them rag on one another for some of the film choices they've made.  It's perfect to hear Danny McBride chastise Jonah Hill's acting ability since he's supposed to be an Academy Award nominated person.  But, what works the best besides the meta-plot are the little [fake] nuances each character is given.  On the surface they're themselves, but deep down some of the actions displayed are hilarious movie characters with quirks that make everything click.  Jay hates Jonah Hill for apparently no reason, Jonah acts like America's sweetheart, but underneath is an asshole.  Franco has some deep man-love for Rogen because of their experiences filming Pineapple Express.  Craig Robinson acts tough, but underneath is a kitten.  And Danny McBride acts like the self-centered piece of shit everyone expects he is in real life and he probably gets the most laughs.  But, the scene stealer of the movie is Michael Cera.  He's not in it long (spoiler: he doesn't survive the apocalypse), but the scenes he's in, he's a misogynistic, coke-snorting, drunk animal.  It's such the opposite of what you'd expect out of Michael Cera, you'll laugh so hard you'll cry.

The end of the world is also the perfect backdrop for a reunion film for these guys.  It gives them plenty of conflict that isn't forced.  I mean, it's the end of the world.  You don't really have to think too hard while writing the film about what conflicts to introduce to the six friends.  There's conflict all around.  It's how these guys react to these situations as well as try to solve them is where the best moments of comedy are found, which is nice considering there isn't much of a plot.  But, there doesn't need to be.  It's famous people fighting to stay alive amidst the end of the world.  And while there's hardly a female face to be found in the film, there's still plenty of heart.  There's man-love aplenty. 

It's also refreshing to see a spin on the post-apocalyptic film genre by spinning it into a comedy.  And it's funny.  It's really, really funny.  Not all the jokes hit, and the ones that don't are quite obvious and awkward, but a majority of them do.  There's also a couple of instances of incredibly hilarious cameos.  It's definitely not the year of the comedy this year, but you'll be hard-pressed to find a film funnier all year.  If you've loved any of the Apatow films of the past, this is one film that's worth your dollars.

B+

The Purge: Resist The Urge To Purge

I love junky horror movies.  Films like Saw or The Collection or even to an extent Evil Dead (though I would hardly call it junky), it's fun to see helpless teenagers in bad situations being gutted and fried and killed in the most gruesomely original ways possible without so much as providing a single scare.  On the other hand, I love scary movies.  Movies like The Descent, Insidious, and Paranormal Activity (just the first one).  So, when I see a trailer for a horror movie coming out, it's nice to see it defined for what type of "horror" being provided.  When I saw the trailer for The Purge, I couldn't make up my mind.  At first it looked like that fun kind of junky horror movie not to be taken seriously that I really enjoy.  But, as it went on it looked like that creepy as balls, home invasion, terrifying type of scary movie that I love.  So, either way I was excited to see it.  Not to mention one of the most original plots I've heard for a horror movie in recent memory.

The Purge is set ten years in the future when crime has almost all but dissipated and unemployment is down to less than one percent.  This is all due to The Purge, a 12-hour period once a year when all crime, including murder, is legal.  All emergency services are suspended for the period during the Purge when human beings can take out their wrath on those who are less fortunate (the poor) in order to live in peace the rest of the year.  Already, I'm like: what an awesome premise for a film!  This is like a Twilight Zone episode with more blood.  Except, it's not.  And I truly think The Twilight Zone would've killed it with a premise this rich. But, the movie simply failed in almost every facet possible save for the premise itself.

I'm going to break down everything that went wrong with the movie, because it was all based on simple wrong decisions.  First, the right decision: setting up a premise as fundamentally awesome as the 12-hour Purge to a central location of a single family and what happens when shit goes awry.  That was smart.  While some of us would've loved to have seen a larger, city-wide purging, it was essentially a better decision to centralize it to one house and one family.  Another right decision: family patriarch James Sandin (Ethan Hawke) has just risen to the top of his company selling everyone in his upper class neighborhood security systems designed specifally to keep everyone safe during The Purge.  Due to his success, he's been able to add a second wing to his house making it the biggest house in the neighborhood (which also leads to a bit of envy amongst neighbors).  This is still part of the right decisions.  His son, a naive youngster who doesn't have the adult experience necessary to understand the necessity of the Purge itself.  So, when the Purge begins, and the house is locked down, and the family assumes they're safe... young Charlie Sandin helps a man in dire straits running down the street screaming for help.  He lifts the security system to let the man in and hide, unknowingly putting his family in harm's way.  This is all still good stuff leading the story down a very exciting and nerve-wracking path.

This is when everything goes to complete Hell.  These are when the utterly wrong decisions are made by writer/director James DeMonaco.  There's a backstory that James' daughter is dating a much older man, to which he does not approve of.  He bans her from seeing him, so before the Purge begins, he sneaks into her room, is locked in the house with the family, pulls a gun on papa Sandin, tries to kill him, and is killed by big daddy.  So, where does lil daughter Sandin go after this?  Who the fuck knows!  She disappears for a good twenty minutes!  Why?  I'm guessing because the sophistication of writing emotional tragedy was too much for DeMonaco.  So, she's gone.  Then, helpless vagrant is let in by lil' brother Sandin, and he goes... um... hiding too.  Yeah, he disappears.  Obviously, mama and papa Sandin are worried about this man until a group of fifteen or so masked killers show up at the door demanding the Sandins release the vagrant due to their right to Purge.  They claim they have heavy artillery and machinery that will crack their security system and if they don't release the vagrant by the time it arrives, they will be killed as well.  Now they've got a real problem on their hands.  So, naturally, lil' daughter Sandin would come out of hiding to find mom and dad, right?  Nope.  She's gone still.  No reason behind it.

Okay, so now the Sandins have a real problem on their hands.  They gotta get this dude out of their house or they will be surely killed.  Papa Sandin knows this and snaps immediately into action getting his family together to find the vagrant, capture him, and give him up in order to save his kin.  Well, after much searching, and the random unexplained return of the daughter, they finally catch him, tie him up and are about to wheel him out when... the rest of the family has a change of heart.  They witness the animalistic instincts big papi has exhibited and they are now more afraid of him than they are the intruders outside.  They chastise him for giving up an innocent soul to be killed and leave him be to do the deed himself.  Sandin has a great line when the vagrant claims he doesn't want to die, he says, "you're going to die tonight.  You can either die like a man and save the family, or die like a coward and get everyone killed."  This makes sense to me!  I would sacrifice ANYONE to save my family, no matter who they were.  This is the correct choice.  Unfortunately, that's as far as that right choice goes.  Guilt tripped, Daddy Sandin develops some sort of retarded conscience, and decides to let the guy live and "fight" the armed intruders.  So, instead of putting his family in the clear, he decides to put them in an impossible situation and directly in harm's way.

The cavalry arrives for the intruders which includes a large chain that they attach to the steel security walls and pull them down with ease.  That was the plan to breach this impeccable security system.  What?!  So, the intruders arrive, guns in tote, and start to hunt everyone in the house.  Even after all the tomfoolery that has unfolded in the house, I was excited for this part.  The deaths of the intruders had to be exciting, right?  Save for one scene in the family's game room involving an axe, the rest of the deaths are all gunshot related and boring.  There are countless amounts of moments where it looks like a family member has met their end and someone else comes up behind the killer and blasts them from behind.  This took me out of every moment knowing that no one in the house was in any real danger because there'd always be someone behind to save the day.  In the end, more dumb spoiler-ish stuff happens and the movie ends on a less than satisfactory note.

The whole movie could've been saved if the right decisions had been made.  The right decision to create the best conflict would've been for the family to ultimately decide to send the vagrant out to be killed, follow through with it, then have the intruders change their own minds and decide to kill the family anyway.  But, these gutless Sandins, all of whom deserved to die and all of whom, save for Big Daddy D, I was hoping would be offed, were just too emotional for the liking of any audience.  I wanted to love this movie so much.  Even towards the end when I knew EXACTLY what was going to happen, step-by-step, I wanted it to be something it wasn't.  It just so happened to wind up being a movie that was plagued by wrong decisions and multiple missteps.

D 

The Hangover Part III: Third Time's... Not Exactly A Charm

The original Hangover was not just a financial success, but it successfully launched the careers of Bradley Cooper and Zack Galifinakis.  They were relatively unknown actors, but familiar faces that I personally didn't believe were bankable when it came to a summer comedy.  It was rated R, it looked like a newer version of Dude, Where's My Car and I thought it would just come and go without a second glance.  I was wrong, obviously, because The Hangover went on to become the highest grossing R-rated comedy of all time.  So, naturally the powers that be thought it would be a great idea to put out a sequel as fast as possible.  It was honestly, a smart idea, because who wouldn't want to see another adventure with the Wolf Pack?  Well, writers didn't exactly realize that while viewers wanted another Hangover film, they didn't want the same Hangover film.  The second installment brought our boys to Thailand where... exactly the same events of the first film happened.  They were drugged, they lost the fourth member, they were lost, instead of a baby it was a monkey, instead of a missing tooth it was a tattoo, and so on and so forth.  We literally watched the same movie, with the same jokes, in a different location and the result was, well... disappointment.  Sequels to successful films are given the difficult task of continuing on a story that has (almost always) been concluded in the previous film.  What's not supposed to happen is recreate the same story again.  So, when everyone learned that lesson, they announced The Hangover Part III specifically mentioning that it would be a brand new story.

I thought that the film would be "apology" film for messing up so bad on the second one.  It was the unnecessary second sequel, but was simply put out to apologize to viewers for leaving them with a sour taste in their mouths about the franchise.  It was kind of like the Ocean's 13 to the abysmal Ocean's 12.  The first Ocean's film was a beautiful heist movie set against the neon lights of Vegas.  Then, they tried to do a second one, which was almost exactly like the first one except not even as close as clever in a different location.  So, they brought it back to Vegas for Ocean's 13 which was a good film, but didn't successfully capture the magic the first film brought,  This is exactly the problem with The Hangover Part III.  While the filmmakers and writers certainly learned their lesson from the second film, they couldn't really capture the magic of the first film.  I think it's probably because these guys' story was fun and unique, but it's not something that these guys would really get themselves into over and over and over again and still be funny.

This time around, we've got the Wolf Pack concerned about Alan (Galifinakis) when he's stopped taking his medicine and got himself into a deep funk after the death of his father.  So, Phil, Stu and Doug opt to take him to a mental hospital in Arizona.  On the way they're intercepted by cronies that work for the villainous Marshall (John Goodman) who has been scammed by Chow (Ken Jeong).  Marshall kidnaps Doug and tells the Wolf Pack that they need to bring Chow to him or Doug would be killed.  So, while it's not the same formula of the previous two, poor Doug (Justin Bartha) still doesn't get to be a part of the fun.

There are a lot of fun call backs to the original two films including characters from the first returning as well as the epic return to Las Vegas, but in the rest of the movie a lot of the laughs fall flat.  It almost looks like they were trying TOO hard to get laughs.  And while there are a good amount of laughs, including one that had me in stitches, the movie will basically be exactly as you expect it to be.  If you're excited about Part III, then you'll probably go in with an open mind and allow the film to give you those few and far between guffaws, but if you're over the antics of the Wolf Pack, chances are this isn't going to be the installment to bring you back.

Galifinakis looks like he's having the best time in the role of Alan, but it's almost overboard.  He's become almost too unruly, too weird, to actually think that these guys would genuinely care this much about him.  Bradley Cooper looks like he's just there as a favor to the fans, but is more or less above this type of film.  And Ed Helms is severely underused in the role of Stu, the guy who brings back the group to reality, always bringing to light the true ridiculousness of the situations they constantly find themselves in.  While it's certainly not the worst way to go out, it's that harsh realization that maybe everyone involved should've just left The Hangover alone after the success of the original.  That way, there's nothing bad that can be said about a film that will, most likely, define the comedies of the late 2000s.

C

Now You See Me: The Closer You Look, The Less You'll Believe

Did you forget this movie came out already?  It was a big hit it's debut week at the box office, but does anyone really remember it, anymore?  I mean, I've seen it and I kind of already forgot about it.  Not that it's a bad movie, because it's not, at all, it's just going to, unfortunately, slip by everyone who didn't see it the first week or two and fade into the obscurity of Redbox.  Now You See Me is a different kind of magician film.  Unlike The Prestige or The Illusionist, this film, I think, is easier to sell than any other.  A group of magicians use their illusions as a cover for robbing banks?  Hell yeah!  Sign me up!  I mean, no matter what, it's going to be better than The Incredible Burt Wonderstone.

Now You See Me tells the story of a group of four different magicians with different abilities: Jesse Eisenberg (the leader), Woody Harrelson (the hypnotist), Isla Fisher (the escape artist) and Dave Franco (the pickpocket).  These four are roped in by a mysterious fifth party in order to plan out a series of intricate heists.  Mark Ruffalo stars along side the troupe as the FBI agent tasked with bringing this magical four down.  Unfortunately, they're always one step ahead of the guy.  The main key in magic is misdirection, which is perfect in robbing banks.  When they've got you looking over here, they're making their move over there and you never saw a thing.

The whole film you're sitting there trying to figure it out yourself.  You're trying to put yourself a step ahead, thinking you're keeping an eye on their misdirection when in reality, there's no way you could figure it out.  I tried my damndest and to the film's credit, they got me.  I honestly didn't see it coming.  Abracadabra alakazam.  I mean, there's even a scene in the very beginning where they pull a card trick on you, the audience member, and they get everyone in the theater.  All of those types of elements and scenes in the film are what make it work.

What hinders the film a little bit are the bits of unbelievability.  Morgan Freeman plays an exiled Magician who makes a living by spoiling the secrets behind magic's most sacred tricks.  During their first heist, the fantastic four seemingly transport a guy from Las Vegas to his bank in Paris, steal the money, lock him in the vault, and release the cash upon the audience.  Later, Freeman explains each part of the trick so that it now makes sense.  But, there's still a lot of little questions that follow the explanation.  How did he do that part?  How did she do that? And so on and so forth.  The unexplained elements of the trick are the ones that couldn't possibly have happened on a live stage.  It's movie magic and believability has to be chopped at the door.  Keep your mind open because it is a lot like a magic trick.  It's fake.  You know it's fake.  But, you're not sure how they did it, so you turn that part of your brain off and just enjoy the show.

There's also not a lot of character work here, either.  Most are just stock characters these actors have already played well in different films in the past.  Eisenberg is the fast-talking dickhole, and he's great at it.  Harrelson is the manipulative comic relief- yup, great too.  It's Fisher and Franco who aren't really given much of anything to do in the film other than what the plan dictates they bring to the table.  The closest we're given to actual character development is the relationship between Mark Ruffalo and the female Interpol agent sent from France to help out with the investigation.  But, it's not a character driven film.  It's a mystery.  It's a magic trick.  It's a fun little distraction from life with a nice little twist at the end.  This is where the film is perfect.  Once you see it, if you can turn your brain off, I'm sure you'll enjoy it.  But once your brain turns back on, Now You See Me will fade from your memory swiftly only to be remembered as that one magic movie I saw that one time a few years ago.

B-