We are experiencing one of the most brutally mediocre summer movie seasons I can remember. Every week a sequel (Hangover 3, Despicable Me 2, Monsters University, The Wolverine, Red 2, Grown Ups 2) of some kind is coming out. If it isn't a sequel, it is a movie based on a pre-established story (R.I.P.D., Lone Ranger, World War Z). This summer has been almost completely devoid of original stories at the mainstream multiplex. The only one that succeeded (both in terms of money and in terms of quality) was "This is the End". "Pacific Rim" was mediocre at best and the less said about "White House Down" the better. Now comes "Turbo", an original story about a snail who aspires to be a race car driver, which is being all but passed off as nothing more than a silly child's film. It is. It is also one of the funniest films released this summer hitting on surprisingly dark humor all while containing genuinely touching scenes with interesting characters. It is a much better film than both "Despicable Me 2" and "Monsters University" which will hopefully find the audience it deserves.
The almost ridiculous plot summary of "Turbo" would simply read "what if a snail could go really fast". Theo (voiced by Ryan Reynolds) is a snail who dreams of one day competing in professional racing. His fellow snails think he is crazy for having such a ridiculous dream and encourage him to simply continue working at the tomato patch (referred to as "the plant"). One day a freak accident with a supercharged car results in Theo receiving special powers which allow to "drive" at extremely fast speed. He draws the attention of a local taco shop owner, Tito (voiced by Michael Pena), who believes that Theo (who goes by the name "Turbo" now) has a chance at winning the Indianapolis 500.
On the surface, there is nothing new in "Turbo". The "follow your dreams and you can achieve anything" plot has been done countless times before. Where "Turbo" succeeds is in not taking itself too seriously. It knows it is a movie about a talking snail who wants to race. It makes up for this silliness by being genuinely funny. While the voice-cast (which also includes Paul Giamatti, Bill Hader, Samuel L. Jackson, and many other recognizable names) delivers their lines with great comic timing, it is "Turbo"'s surprisingly dark sense of humor which succeeds so often. Various jokes revolve around snails being picked up and taken away by carnivorous birds. An animated film with humor that revolves around animals essentially dying is a gutsy bit of writing. Each of these scenes are surprisingly hilarious.
There are quite a few very nice little touches in "Turbo". One of the most interesting and well-developed touches is the inclusion of the shop owners at the strip mall where Tito works. While these characters aren't necessarily given ample screen time, they feel like real people and are never played for laughs. Michelle Rodriguez plays an auto shop owner. The fact that she is a woman is never forced into a ridiculous sub plot (there is no love story and she never breaks from being a "tough" businesswoman). The relationship between Tito and his brother Angelo (voiced by the always great Luis Guzman) is also given a good amount of screen time and feels genuine. The shop owners of this strip mall are not ridiculous (not an easy feat when one is voiced by Ken Jeong). They are simply people who love their businesses even though nobody seems to be coming to frequent their shops. It feels natural and makes the film that much more enjoyable.
"Turbo" is not without a few faults though. The inclusion of Snoop Dogg (or Snoop Lion now) is unnecessary. In a film that is so often well-written and original, hearing Lion's trademark way of delivering dialogue (adding "izzle" often) is tired, unfunny, and feels incredibly dated. It feels like a relic from a "Shrek" script that was desperately trying to include pop culture references to appeal to the masses. I kept waiting for a character to turn to Lion's snail character to ask him why in the world he still talks like that. The fact that I expected it to happen in this movie shows that the comedic writing is far more intelligent than what you might be expecting.
As I mentioned earlier, "Turbo" is a much better film than "Despicable Me 2" and "Monsters University". While those movies (especially "Monsters University") may be better-animated and show a slightly more serious tone, they are mediocre. Their mediocrity is not simply because they are "sequels". They fail because they simply aren't as fun as they could be. "Turbo" contains some comedic sequences that you will remember long after the film ends. The heart of the film feels natural and not forced like we so often see in animated films these days. One wonders if Pixar had made "Turbo" using the same script and contents if we would be seeing critics calling this a "return to form". If you had told me years ago that films like "Turbo", "How to Train Your Dragon" and even "Madagascar 3" would be much better than what Pixar is putting out, I wouldn't have believed you. "Turbo" isn't good simply because it is an original story or that it isn't produced by Pixar. It is good because it is hilarious, well-written, surprising, and one of the most fun times you can have at the theater right now.
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Friday, July 12, 2013
"Pacific Rim" 2.5 stars out of 4 (C+)
You know the state of film is in a bit of trouble when people are championing a film simply because it is an "original idea". By this, I don't mean that the film is necessarily original or has an unpredictable storyline. "Pacific Rim" is being championed simply because it isn't a pre-existing story. It is not based on a graphic novel or comic book. It is not a sequel. That coupled with the fact that it is directed by Guillemo Del Toro, arguably one of the most impressive directors in big-budget cinema, made many believe that "Pacific Rim" would be the saving grace of the summer. That it would deliver us from sequels and origin stories. That raises this film to an expectation that it simply can't reach. Even without the hype, "Pacific Rim" is simply a mostly interesting spectacle with occasional inspired moments. It is "Top Gun" meets "Transformers" meets "Godzilla" with elements of "The Avengers" and even Del Toro's own "Hellboy". This is not necessarily a good thing.
In the 2020s, giant alien creatures called Kaiju have risen from an interdimensional portal inside the Pacific Ocean. The Kaiju damage nearby cities and are difficult to kill. Various countries band together to creature Jaegers, towering mechanical robots operated by two humans. These humans must form a mental bond with each other in order to power the Jaegers and defeat the Kaiju. The Jaegers easily take out Kaiju after Kaiju, raising the Jaeger pilots to stardom. Slowly but surely though, the Kaiju that start coming out of the portal are becoming smarter and adapting to the fighting style of the Jaegers. With the Jaegers losing public trust, military leader Stacker Pentecost (Idris Elba) must ask Raleigh Bucket (Charlie Hunnam), a former Jaeger pilot who is extremely talented though he doesn't "play by the rules", to be a pilot of one of the remaining Jaeger's and save mankind from the ever-increasing Kaiju threats.
If that plot summary made you roll your eyes, this film is not for you. Del Toro seems to be aiming his film at a very specific audience. While the story is not necessarily complex or difficult to follow, it seems as if this film was created for people who are fans of monster combat movies and teenagers. There are occasional glimpses at telling a bigger and more interesting story but they are often interrupted by scenes of combat that are honestly not that impressive. Most of the combat scenes between the Kaiju and Jaegers are nothing we haven't already seen. It almost seems as if the film and Del Toro are impressed with what they are showing to a degree where they just assume you will be too. We have already seen several movies where giant beings fight. There is very little new you can show us. Although there are a few inspired moments, they almost seem like they are grasping for new ways to show something we are so used to in big-budget blockbusters.
"Pacific Rim" occasionally gives glimpses to the film it could have been. When it isn't showing us scenes of destruction, it has a few genuinely impressive moments. The opening introduction that chronicles how the Kaiju went from being murderous and devastating creatures to late-night TV jokes and children's toys is an especially interesting moment. An interesting satire exists there that would have been a nice direction that Del Toro could have easily pursued. A moment of a young child dealing with a Kaiju attack shows the true destructive powers of these creatures and give us a human element that is not really pursued otherwise. A handful of the Jaeger and Kaiju battles take place during daylight which is an uncommon occur in big-budget cinema. Often directors will hide their visual effects behind the darkness of night. These scenes allow us to get a better glimpse of the creatures and robots, although most of the fights take place at night. It is also always great to see Charlie Day and Ron Perlman on screen and the scenes they have together are especially good.
The largest problem with "Pacific Rim" is that despite being an "original" story, it feels like a mishmash of films we have already seen. The rebellious but talented Bucket feels almost as if they transposed Tom Cruise's Maverick from "Top Gun" into a science-fiction film. There is nothing he does, says, or thinks that is surprising. He doesn't feel like a hero, something that is desperately needed in a film where we are essentially cheering on soulless robots. The climax of the film echoes "The Avengers" in such an obvious way that it is almost shocking that it made it into the final cut. The filmmakers had a year to develop a different and more original way to finish the film.
"Pacific Rim" will no doubt appeal to many. It is loud, occasionally funny and the fight sequences are full of impressive visual effects. Seen through the eyes of a genre fan or a child, this film would no doubt be a lot of fun. The problem is that Del Toro films are not and have never been "turn your brain off" films. His last film "Hellboy 2: The Golden Army" was an interesting and visually-appealing big-budget film that was unfortunately ignored by audiences. It showed that you can make an original "blockbuster" film that entertains and occasionally challenges audiences. "Pacific Rim" never challenges or truly surprises. It feels like Del-Toro-lite. While it is far from a failure, it is nowhere near the film it could be.
In the 2020s, giant alien creatures called Kaiju have risen from an interdimensional portal inside the Pacific Ocean. The Kaiju damage nearby cities and are difficult to kill. Various countries band together to creature Jaegers, towering mechanical robots operated by two humans. These humans must form a mental bond with each other in order to power the Jaegers and defeat the Kaiju. The Jaegers easily take out Kaiju after Kaiju, raising the Jaeger pilots to stardom. Slowly but surely though, the Kaiju that start coming out of the portal are becoming smarter and adapting to the fighting style of the Jaegers. With the Jaegers losing public trust, military leader Stacker Pentecost (Idris Elba) must ask Raleigh Bucket (Charlie Hunnam), a former Jaeger pilot who is extremely talented though he doesn't "play by the rules", to be a pilot of one of the remaining Jaeger's and save mankind from the ever-increasing Kaiju threats.
If that plot summary made you roll your eyes, this film is not for you. Del Toro seems to be aiming his film at a very specific audience. While the story is not necessarily complex or difficult to follow, it seems as if this film was created for people who are fans of monster combat movies and teenagers. There are occasional glimpses at telling a bigger and more interesting story but they are often interrupted by scenes of combat that are honestly not that impressive. Most of the combat scenes between the Kaiju and Jaegers are nothing we haven't already seen. It almost seems as if the film and Del Toro are impressed with what they are showing to a degree where they just assume you will be too. We have already seen several movies where giant beings fight. There is very little new you can show us. Although there are a few inspired moments, they almost seem like they are grasping for new ways to show something we are so used to in big-budget blockbusters.
"Pacific Rim" occasionally gives glimpses to the film it could have been. When it isn't showing us scenes of destruction, it has a few genuinely impressive moments. The opening introduction that chronicles how the Kaiju went from being murderous and devastating creatures to late-night TV jokes and children's toys is an especially interesting moment. An interesting satire exists there that would have been a nice direction that Del Toro could have easily pursued. A moment of a young child dealing with a Kaiju attack shows the true destructive powers of these creatures and give us a human element that is not really pursued otherwise. A handful of the Jaeger and Kaiju battles take place during daylight which is an uncommon occur in big-budget cinema. Often directors will hide their visual effects behind the darkness of night. These scenes allow us to get a better glimpse of the creatures and robots, although most of the fights take place at night. It is also always great to see Charlie Day and Ron Perlman on screen and the scenes they have together are especially good.
The largest problem with "Pacific Rim" is that despite being an "original" story, it feels like a mishmash of films we have already seen. The rebellious but talented Bucket feels almost as if they transposed Tom Cruise's Maverick from "Top Gun" into a science-fiction film. There is nothing he does, says, or thinks that is surprising. He doesn't feel like a hero, something that is desperately needed in a film where we are essentially cheering on soulless robots. The climax of the film echoes "The Avengers" in such an obvious way that it is almost shocking that it made it into the final cut. The filmmakers had a year to develop a different and more original way to finish the film.
"Pacific Rim" will no doubt appeal to many. It is loud, occasionally funny and the fight sequences are full of impressive visual effects. Seen through the eyes of a genre fan or a child, this film would no doubt be a lot of fun. The problem is that Del Toro films are not and have never been "turn your brain off" films. His last film "Hellboy 2: The Golden Army" was an interesting and visually-appealing big-budget film that was unfortunately ignored by audiences. It showed that you can make an original "blockbuster" film that entertains and occasionally challenges audiences. "Pacific Rim" never challenges or truly surprises. It feels like Del-Toro-lite. While it is far from a failure, it is nowhere near the film it could be.
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Best and the Worst of 2013... So Far
We are halfway through 2013 and I've seen... a lot of movies. So many movies. Too many movies. Still, this experiment has been successful so far. I can honestly say that I haven't completely regretted seeing anything this year. "The Lone Ranger" came very close but at the very least it allowed me to strengthen my chops at tearing into a movie (more on that later).
The most interesting part about this experiment is the movies I have seen that I absolutely loved that would have no doubt not been seen if I didn't see simply everything. I don't think I would have found myself in the theater to watch something like "What Maisie Knew" or "Disconnect". These are movies that would have probably just been added to my Netflix Instant queue somewhere down the line and then ignored and deleted months later. I also more than likely wouldn't have paid to see "Spring Breakers", another good surprise.
On the other hand, I also wouldn't have been able to say that I actually made the request "One for 'Scary Movie 5'". I more than likely wouldn't have seen "The Lone Ranger" or "The Iceman". I would have still seen (and been massively disappointed in) "A Good Day to Die Hard" and "Evil Dead".
These lists are totally complete. I still have yet to see the following movies:
21 and Over, A Haunted House, A Place at the Table, Arthur Newman, Beautiful Creatures, Black Rock, Broken City, Bullet to the Head, Dark Skies, Emperor, Escape from Planet Earth, Fill the Void, From Up on Poppy Hill, Gangster Squad, Ginger and Rosa, Identity Thief, Mama, Movie 43, No, Parker, Safe Haven, Snitch, Stories We Tell, Texas Chainsaw, The Call, The Sapphires, To The Wonder, Upside Down, Unfinished Song.
Most of those movies are more than likely not good at all. I don't necessarily know if any of them would make my "Worst" list (with the exceptions of "Haunted House", "Identity Thief and "Movie 43" possibly). I do have an interest in seeing a few of these though. I've been debating if I simply must see everything in order to give an informed opinion or if my "time" is more important. I suppose some of these movies could be watched while I'm cooking or something. I highly doubt I would miss extremely important parts of something like "Bullet to the Head" or "Safe Haven" if I looked away for a moment. I might have to join Netflix for a month and plow through as many of these as possible in the smallest amount of time possible.
There has been quite a lot really excellent movies this year. I would recommend any of the following movies in a moment's notice. Some of these might not appeal to everyone ("Spring Breakers" is more than likely an acquired taste although it is hard to ignore the fantastic cinematography and maybe even the wonderful dark humor). Still, I could defend and explain why all of these films are very good. I don't necessarily know how many of these will make it to my end of the year list but only time will tell that.
Best (in no order)
Before Midnight
Disconnect
Spring Breakers
The Great Gatsby
What Maisie Knew
Honorable Mentions: Frances Ha, Oblivion, Side Effects, Stoker, This is the End
The following movies are all bad. Some are very, very bad. These were chores to sit through and often had no redeeming qualities. I would recommend going far away from any of these. Even if you have an interest in seeing these, I would do whatever you can to destroy that interest. If they are playing in a room that you happen to walk into, you should turn around. Your time is more important than these movies.
Worst (in no order)
A Good Day to Die Hard
The Hangover 3
The Lone Ranger
The Purge
White House Down
Dishonorable Mentions: Dead Man Down, Evil Dead, Scary Movie 5, The Company You Keep, The Iceman
The most interesting part about this experiment is the movies I have seen that I absolutely loved that would have no doubt not been seen if I didn't see simply everything. I don't think I would have found myself in the theater to watch something like "What Maisie Knew" or "Disconnect". These are movies that would have probably just been added to my Netflix Instant queue somewhere down the line and then ignored and deleted months later. I also more than likely wouldn't have paid to see "Spring Breakers", another good surprise.
On the other hand, I also wouldn't have been able to say that I actually made the request "One for 'Scary Movie 5'". I more than likely wouldn't have seen "The Lone Ranger" or "The Iceman". I would have still seen (and been massively disappointed in) "A Good Day to Die Hard" and "Evil Dead".
These lists are totally complete. I still have yet to see the following movies:
21 and Over, A Haunted House, A Place at the Table, Arthur Newman, Beautiful Creatures, Black Rock, Broken City, Bullet to the Head, Dark Skies, Emperor, Escape from Planet Earth, Fill the Void, From Up on Poppy Hill, Gangster Squad, Ginger and Rosa, Identity Thief, Mama, Movie 43, No, Parker, Safe Haven, Snitch, Stories We Tell, Texas Chainsaw, The Call, The Sapphires, To The Wonder, Upside Down, Unfinished Song.
Most of those movies are more than likely not good at all. I don't necessarily know if any of them would make my "Worst" list (with the exceptions of "Haunted House", "Identity Thief and "Movie 43" possibly). I do have an interest in seeing a few of these though. I've been debating if I simply must see everything in order to give an informed opinion or if my "time" is more important. I suppose some of these movies could be watched while I'm cooking or something. I highly doubt I would miss extremely important parts of something like "Bullet to the Head" or "Safe Haven" if I looked away for a moment. I might have to join Netflix for a month and plow through as many of these as possible in the smallest amount of time possible.
There has been quite a lot really excellent movies this year. I would recommend any of the following movies in a moment's notice. Some of these might not appeal to everyone ("Spring Breakers" is more than likely an acquired taste although it is hard to ignore the fantastic cinematography and maybe even the wonderful dark humor). Still, I could defend and explain why all of these films are very good. I don't necessarily know how many of these will make it to my end of the year list but only time will tell that.
Best (in no order)
Before Midnight
Disconnect
Spring Breakers
The Great Gatsby
What Maisie Knew
Honorable Mentions: Frances Ha, Oblivion, Side Effects, Stoker, This is the End
The following movies are all bad. Some are very, very bad. These were chores to sit through and often had no redeeming qualities. I would recommend going far away from any of these. Even if you have an interest in seeing these, I would do whatever you can to destroy that interest. If they are playing in a room that you happen to walk into, you should turn around. Your time is more important than these movies.
Worst (in no order)
A Good Day to Die Hard
The Hangover 3
The Lone Ranger
The Purge
White House Down
Dishonorable Mentions: Dead Man Down, Evil Dead, Scary Movie 5, The Company You Keep, The Iceman
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)