“Sausage Party”

Directors: Greg Tiernan, Conrad Vernon
Writers: Seth Rogen, Evan Goldberg, Kyle Hunter, Ariel Shaffir
Producers: Megan Ellison, Seth Rogen, Evan Goldberg, Conrad Vernon
Year: 2016
Starring: Seth Rogen, Kristen Wiig, Jonah Hill, Bill Hader, Michael Cera, James Franco, Danny McBride, Craig Robinson, Paul Rudd, Nick Kroll, David Krumholtz, Edward Norton, Salma Hayek
Genre: Comedy; Animated
Format: Big-Screen

There are three different lenses through which this movie can be seen: 1.) The Pervert Lens, 2.) The Woke Lens, and 3.) The I Am Easily Offended and Have No Sense of Humor Lens.

Let me explain what I mean by that. A movie is a piece of art that is released to the public, and how you interpret and react to this art is going to be different to each person, but people will tend to fall into a few categories. When I explain this concept, I typically jump right to “Shrek”. “Shrek” is a movie that parents and their kids can watch together, both highly enjoy it, and both walk away from it with completely different conversations, because they focused on different aspects of the movie. A 7 year old kid will not point out the funny parts that a 30 year old will. This is because they are taking in the movie with different lenses.

“Sausage Party” can be viewed from the Pervert Lens, which would focus on on the jokes referring to orgies, reproductive organs, and used condoms. There’s nothing wrong with this lens, but it is definitely low brow humor.

Now, I’m the type of person who has an 8:30 bedtime and wakes up at what I would deem a “reasonable” hour in the morning, so, as you might imagine, my slang vocabulary is rusty. But in an attempt to be hip and cool, I’m calling the second lens the Woke Lens. What I mean by this is, aware of society’s flaws.

[Perhaps this is not the correct movie review to be using the term “woke,” seeing as how apparently “Social Justice Warriors” (doesn’t that just invoke a vision of knights in shining armor?) are getting angry at this movie for its “racism,” but we’ll get to that later.]

Using the Woke Lens, the viewer catches all of the references to anti-Semitism, the destruction of the Native Americans, and peace in the Middle East.

Lastly, applying lens number three, The I Am Easily Offended and Have No Sense of Humor Lens, you skip watching the movie all together. I mean, who has time to go see a movie before judging it? Their time is much better spent behind a crusty keyboard in a dimly lit basement which reeks of body odor, making sure everyone is aware of how offended they are. Besides, all that money they save on rent (because they live in their mother’s basement, in case that wasn’t clear) won’t cover the price of a movie ticket because they’ve already spent that money on buying a second desk chair because one chair is not wide enough for them to sit in.

Now that we’ve addressed the gigantic troll in the room, we can get into the substance.

“Sausage Party” is fun and raunchy, and sometimes it goes a tad too far, just like you’d expect from a movie that has Seth Rogen’s name attached to it. Granted, I am not one for perverted humor, but this movie was definitely more than a mindlessly perverted film. It was a film with a good, original premise, that had frequent sex-related jokes, and a crazy long (no pun intended) orgy.

If you’re looking at the movie through the Pervert Lens, that’s what you’ll see.

If you’re watching through The I Am Easily Offended and Have No Sense of Humor Lens, you will see the “racist” (hater’s words, not mine) aspects of the film. These “Social Justice Warriors” argue that it is racist to have a taco who speaks Spanish, a potato with an Irish accent, German mustard with, you guessed it, a German accent. I would tear this argument apart, but it would be like arguing with a wall — walls have no brains and will not change their mind.

If you’re watching through The Woke Lens, though, you can appreciate all of the very subtle and non-spoken jokes. This is a movie where I am sure you can watch it two or three times and still not get all the jokes. For instance, in one scene a human character has a box of Chinese food, which is from a restaurant called “Pu Ping”. If you don’t get it, whisper it out loud, but make sure nobody hears you or they’ll think you’re weird. Actually, go ahead and say it out loud. I’ll wait.

If you’re watching through The Woke Lens you’ll see the homage to “Saving Private Ryan” and be amazed at how clever the whole movie is. I really thought the Hitler joke in the main song was hilarious, but when the “Saving Private Ryan” part came along, I knew I was in for a very funny movie, not a mind-numbingly dumb one.

Speaking of the song, it was created by Alan Menken. You may or may not recognize his name, but he’s done the music for tons of things, not limited to “Little Shop of Horrors,” “The Little Mermaid,” “Beauty and the Beast,” “Aladdin,” and “Hercules”. The song for this movie was funny and really helped to set up your understanding for the plot.

For as much crap as this movie is getting from people with a stick in an uncomfortable place, I definitely liked how Salma Hayek’s lesbian character was not the butt of jokes. It seems like gay jokes are go-to easy shots, but this movie didn’t do that. They also referred to the fruits as…you guessed it, “fruits,” and they were supposed to be gay. That was hilarious, but it was not making fun of them for that reason. If people actually watched the movie, perhaps they would see that it is far from offensive.

The ending was definitely interesting, when it went particularly meta. Again, stupid humor does not do this. By default, meta humor has to be clever.

And just wait until you see the end of the big fight scene in the super market. No spoilers here, but dang did I not see that one coming.

If you want to see a movie that is funny, clever, and includes an orgy, then this is the movie for you.

Verdict: Cinema

“Suicide Squad”

Director: David Ayer
Writer: David Ayer
Producer: Charles Roven, Richard Suckle
Year: 2016
Starring: Will Smith, Jared Leto, Margot Robbie, Joel Kinnaman, Viola Davis, Jai Courtney, Jay Hernandez, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Ike Barinholtz, Scott Eastwood, Cara Delevingne
Genre: Comic Book; Action
Format: Big-Screen

I went into this movie with an open mind, as usual, but I’d be lying if I said that I wasn’t wanting to see why so many people are giving it bad reviews. After I write this I’ll have to go and read beyond the title of those reviews, to see what their complaints are.

I feel like I’m pretty easy to please when it comes to movies, but if I think a movie is bad I will have a plethora of reasons to back up my opinion (like my latest review, of “Star Trek Beyond”).

This was not a bad movie. I don’t really have many complaints about it. When my friends ask me how it was, I’ll just shrug and say “it was ok, but a million times better than Batman v. Superman”.

“BvS”, actually, let’s just shorten it to “BS”, because that’s what it was, was a trainwreck which deserved every bit of the negative criticism that it got. The characters didn’t grow at all, there was no plot, it was impossible to follow what was happening, etc. In a lot of ways I feel like “Suicide Squad” is very similar, but it didn’t stink like “BS” did.

So, then the question is, why? “SS” did not have much of a plot, and the characters who did have growth, barely grew. In fact, I would say that there was essentially no growth, just insight into the characters.

There were two scenes that I particularly liked, and I’ll let you know if there’s a spoiler. They happened within a few minutes of each other, and probably about 75% through the movie. The first one being the bar scene. This scene gives us depth into these characters which have had a fair amount of screentime by this point in the movie, yet we basically only know what was literally put up on the screen with text when they are introduced by Viola Davis’ character.

A few minutes later there is a scene when they are in the room with the big bad guy of the film, who makes the Suicide Squad dream their biggest desire, but it feels so real that the Squad gets tricked. This is a huge moment, from a storytelling perspective, because we get to see what the characters actually want.

Perhaps I’m being generous. In the bar scene we only really go in depth with Diablo, who, because of that scene, is my favorite character in the movie. In the dream scene, Harley’s desires struck me in particular, but are those two moments worth watching a full two hour movie?

I will say no. If the movie focused on the Squad more it would have been much better. Instead, as action movies tend to do, they focused on the overall mission, which was, quite frankly, kind of boring.

Before this movie came out, I had absolutely no experience or knowledge about the Suicide Squad, and coming out of the theater, I still feel like I don’t really know anything about the people who make up the Squad. No character is particularly defined, which is a wasted opportunity. They did a good job with Diablo, and I wish they would have had the courtesy to extend that humanity to all of the villains. That’s what makes a great villain — writing them human enough to trick the audience into empathizing with them.

Action movies tend to focus on violent conflict instead of the conflict within the character. I want to know what makes Harley Queen tick. What conflict does she feel? Experience? Live? Maybe it’s the theater-lover in me, but violent conflict can be boring. Why not combine both violence and internal conflict?

And, there were some logic problems with the violent conflict, too. At one point (not really a spoiler) Deadshot gets upset when he gets his hand on a binder with Top Secret information that was collected about him and the rest of the Squad. He confronts the military guy in charge, and says that he’s not going to continue. I didn’t understand why, and what made him mad. Of course they’re going to have information about him, he was already in jail. And we, the audience, didn’t see anything in particular that would have been damaging to Deadshot. It just didn’t fit.

Later on (slight spoiler), the military guy drops a stack of letters in front of Deadshot, and reveals that Deadshot’s daughter had been writing to him every day, but the military guy kept them from Deadshot. Um, why was he carrying Deadshot’s kid’s letters with him on a mission? That’s weird. Again, logically, that doesn’t make sense.

On a different note, the movie had occasional subtle humor, which was nice. It was definitely not a laugh-fest as the first trailer made it seem to be. I think it would have made it a better movie if they did add more humor, but I’m very much into comedies and less into action, so I’m biased.

Overall, I think the movie looked really good. The colors were beautiful, the music was great, the graphics looked good, and the editing was well done. The acting was good but, as much as it pains me to say it, sometimes Margot Robbie (Harley Quinn)’s accent slipped through, even though her acting was on point.

Harley’s presence was not for sex appeal alone, even though her butt got more screentime than Viola Davis. Harley was the source of probably more than 85% of the humor throughout the movie, and kicked some serious butt. She is clearly devoted to the Joker, but I never felt like she was an object to be had or won over. She was not only able to hold her own, but (slight spoiler) be the person to save the day. Considering the Marvel Cinematic Universe really only has Black Widow, who doesn’t talk or do much, I’ve got to chalk one up for DC.

[Guys, we’ve seen Black Widow in five movies, and I still don’t really know anything about her. But that’s a venting session for another time. I’m counting down the days to “Wonder Woman”.]

Last thing. A minute after I sat down a mom and her two little kids sat next to me. The daughter was probably around 6 and the little boy was maybe 4 or 5. The movie is rated PG-13, and it was probably for the violence, since there wasn’t any sex, and a fairly minimal amount of cussing. If I was a parent, I wouldn’t take a kid under 13. Not because of the violence, but because they may not be able to sit still that long during a movie that drags its feet. There were multiple slow parts in the movie, where it was pretty clear that the audience wasn’t too into it because they were moving around, softly chattering, etc.

After the disaster that was “BS”, “Suicide Squad” had a big responsibility — to rebuild people’s trust with the DC movie universe. I think it was good enough to tie people over until “Justice League” comes out a year from now. But, I don’t think it’s a good enough movie to watch more than once.

Verdict: Enema

 

“Star Trek Beyond”

Director: Justin Lin
Writer: Simon Pegg, Doug Jung
Producer: J. J. Abrams, Bryan Burk, Roberto Orci
Year: 2016
Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, John Cho, Simon Pegg, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Anton Yelchin, Idris Elba
Genre: Sci-Fi; Action
Format: Big-Screen

If memory serves me right, and most of the time it doesn’t, I don’t think Spock ever used the word “illogical” in this movie. Which is kind of disappointing, because the word definitely helps to explain my problems with this movie.

This movie was practically brought to you by “Inception,” but I honestly did not have too many problems following “Inception”. Take that as you will.

I feel like I am easy to please, cinematically. (That’s probably not a word, but let’s pretend that it is.) I am not picky about anything in particular and try to look for the merit in any movie. But if there are major problems with logic and/or the details of the story, my mind tends to hyperfocus on those details, which ends up ruining the whole thing.

I’ll go in order of the movie. The first problem, which was not a logic problem, was that the first 15-ish minutes seemed like boring exposition. That’s not that big of a deal, many films have exposition. That’s why there’s a word for it — it’s commonplace. But the point of exposition is to set the tone, and to set up the story. The exposition of this movie didn’t do either, at least in my opinion. It was wasted time that I didn’t find entertaining or helpful.

SPOILERS — 

Now let’s get into some of the specifics, because clearly the movie didn’t. Can someone please explain to me the alien lady and why they blindly went into uncharted space, or should I say *~nebula~*?

This random alien ship, not registered with the Federation, approaches a big-ole space station, which Bones describes as a “snowglobe”, and does not appear to follow the Federation’s instructions about turning off their engine, etc. I have no idea whether or not this ship ends up obeying the commands, but an alien lady is projected into some room on the space station and communicates with them. She says something about needing help and says a location. This location is in an “uncharted nebula”.

Next thing we know, the Enterprise is on its way to this uncharted nebula. No rhyme or reason, no discussion among the crew, no interview of this literally alien woman. They just go blindly.

I have a hard time explaining what happened. Not because I wasn’t paying attention or it was too complicated, but because they didn’t explain. And what makes this worse is that this whole situation makes the Federation and the crew of the Enterprise look ridiculously dumb. Like, you’re not going to figure out more about this weird lady and her suspicious story? And the fact that she’s luring you into territory that nobody in your race has gone to?

Then, we’re on the Enterprise and we see an alien lady who looks very similar to the one we saw before. I thought it was her, but then one of the main characters asks her for help on something, and I thought it must not be her, but another character of the same alien race, because why else would they be asking a stranger this question?

It turns out, they were asking a perfect stranger for their request. I honestly can’t remember what the question was because I was trying to figure out who this person was.

Then, in a later scene, we see another alien girl who isn’t an exact copy, but is similar, and it turns out she’s one of the crew. I am not good at minute details, and I felt like this was a bit confusing. But so was everything else, so why am I picking out the minute details, such as which character is which. Yeah, there’s enough problems here that figuring out which character is which is the least of my problems.

We find out that, SURPRISE, she was luring them into a trap. The alien woman and Kirk get into a fight, and then the alien woman ends up dying a little later on.

Maybe 75% through the movie Checkov asks Kirk how he knew that the alien woman was tricking them, and he said something along the lines of “I’m a good judge of character.” I almost laughed out loud. I couldn’t tell if that was supposed to be a serious line, or if they were laughing at themselves, acknowledging their own plot holes.

But wait, there’s more!

When they’re on this strange planet, which was explained as being abandoned by its indigenous population who left behind drones and mining equipment, the main characters work together to fix an old space ship, which was one of the original ships of the Federation, and is hundred or two hundred years old (again, I was too confused to remember the details, but it was at least a hundred years old).

Our crew works with an alien lady (a different one than previously mentioned) who is very friendly and handy with tools. When the guys ask how she hasn’t been found by the bad guys, she shows them the camouflage mechanisms that she has put on the top of the ship, so that it reflects what’s around it, making it invisible.

Cool. But there’s a problem.

At the end we find out that the bad guy was the captain of the ship when it crashed. He’s been accessing some technology that allows him to sustain life.

Let me repeat that. HE WAS THE CAPTAIN OF THE SHIP. THAT SHIP. THAT SHE’S CAMOUFLAGED.

He knew about the ship. And I’m sure he knew where it was. They never mentioned anything about memory loss or losing the ship. But I think the writers had some sort of amnesia or dementia because none of this makes sense.

But, wait! One more thing.

Again, the ship they were fixing up was an old piece of junk. It hadn’t been run in well over a hundred years, and so obviously some things were broken. They end up getting it running, but one of the crew specifically likens the ship to a “horse and buggy” compared to the drones headed to go attack Yorktown, the Federation snowglobe.

Let me remind you, the majority of this movie takes place in an uncharted nebula, which means that this would be a place very far away. Which would make me think that it would require the Warp Drive to get to and from there, right?

Now, perhaps a horse and buggy could have a Warp Drive. But you’re telling me that undamaged drones could get to Yorktown at the same speed as a ship that’s been rotting for over a hundred years? The ship gets to Yorktown just as the drones are attacking. Yeah, I’m just not to convinced about that.

— END SPOILERS 

I really haven’t seen much on the internet, or any kind of advertisements, for this movie. I did see some hubbub about the fact that Sulu had a husband and a kid, but that was it. I’m not too sure what they were complaining about, but I hated that they put him in there for no reason. They literally didn’t even bother to give him a line, and played absolutely no purpose in the story. It seemed like it was something to do to be cool, but he was really just there as a pawn that wasn’t played.

On that same note, there was absolutely no character development for anyone. They slightly built it up for Spock and Kirk to have an important conversation and they literally never had the conversation.

I am not of the belief that a story has to have characters arcs and change every single time. “Napoleon Dynamite” is one of my favorite movies ever, and it’s literally about nothing. But “Star Trek Beyond” had a crazy amount of logic problems, and it had no character development.

The only emotion I felt during the whole thing was seeing Anton Yelchin on screen, after his freak accident death about a month ago. So, the only connection I felt during the film was for a completely unrelated reason. Again, I don’t think that’s necessary to make a good movie, but I think it helps to get attached to the characters. We spent two hours with the characters, and I don’t know anything new about them? How is that possible?

At then end of the movie they did the quote that introduced the episodes in the original series. You know, “Space, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise…” And I thought that was very fitting. Not the content of the quote, but the fact that it was said as the preface to television episodes. That’s what this two hour long movie felt like — an episode of TV. I absolutely love TV, and the quality has improved drastically over the past ~10 years, but before then TV wasn’t exactly known for its story telling depth. That is the same problem this movie had, except that this movie was two and a half times longer than an episode.

This movie will not create any Star Trek fans, and if the creators of the movie are lucky, it will barely satisfy those that already were fans.

It almost felt like the only reason this movie was made was just so that they could make a scene were a bunch of things were blowing up while they played “Sabotage” by the Beastie Boys.

One last thing. JJ Abrams got a lot of crap when the first one came out because people thought he used lens flares too much. I didn’t really mind it. This movie had a different director, and his thing was to slowly spin the camera around. I’ll be interested to see how many people point that out and are annoyed by it.

Clearly I was not a fan of this movie, and it all boils down to the writing. I absolutely love the Three Flavours Cornetto Trilogy (“Shaun of the Dead”, “Hot Fuzz”, and “The World’s End”), written by Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright, but something went wrong here, and perhaps that’s because Simon Pegg co-wrote with a different writer. Whereas the Trilogy is extremely well connected, “Star Trek Beyond” was anything but.

Do yourself a favor and go see “Ghostbusters” this weekend instead. Wait for “Star Trek Beyond” to come out on Redbox, and even then you might want to reconsider.

Verdict: Enema

“Ghostbusters” (2016)

Director: Paul Feig
Writer: Katie Dippold, Paul Feig
Producer: Ivan Reitman, Amy Pascal
Year: 2016
Starring: Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon, Leslie Jones, Chris Hemsworth
Genre: Comedy
Format: Big-Screen; 3D

I don’t know where to begin. I suppose I should start off with the fact that not only did I go into the theater with an open mind, but I have also been not-so-patiently waiting to see this movie. I was excited for it. I wanted it to be funny, and awesome, and full of girl power. I wanted it to be quality, and for it to shut up all the naysayers.

Well, it exceeded my expectations, and naysayers live on negative energy, so I doubt they’re going to go on a diet anytime soon.

I had heard that the 3D was excellent, and although I am a cheapskate (many of my friends do not like it when I refer to myself as such, and prefer I use the word “frugal”), I decided to splurge and spend the couple extra bucks and put the clunky 3D glasses over my already clunky real glasses, which, yes, do have lenses.

Yet another good choice for me; I’m on a roll today. Old 3D used to make me sick and distracted, but it has been getting better over time. As of late, I’ve been skipping the Dramamine, but I still get distracted when the film pokes something in your face just because they can.

This film doesn’t do that. Instead, they have two little black bars, one on the top and one the bottom of the screen. They’re small enough that if you’re not paying attention specifically to the dimensions of the screen (who does that?), you won’t notice it at all. To really make the 3D effects pop, sometimes the image goes into the black, creating a very cool effect. For those film nerds out there, I know this is not the first movie to do that. But it’s not that it’s groundbreaking, it is that they use that groundbreaking technique to make it work extraordinarily well. And, if you notice by paying even closer attention, you will see that they do not pop out every possible thing. This pays off by putting emphasis on specific things, and it is not overdone.

This use of 3D shows that the filmmakers controlled themselves as opposed to being slaves to their impulse. Like, “let’s throw this knife at the camera so we can make it in 3D” and the other dude is like, “DUDDDDE! THAT’S AWESOMEEEEE!” and you’re not sure whether they’re just like that to begin with, or if it’s because they just smoked a bowl. Regardless, the friend I saw this movie with normally gets a headache from 3D movies, but she felt fine leaving this movie. I think that’s a testament to the restraint used by the filmmakers.

We’ve got to address the elephant in the room. No, not the ladies. This movie is a reboot of a great movie that was made 32 years ago, so the question is, “why?” That’s a fair question to ask, and one that I often ask myself. Why do movie companies keep remaking/rebooting their own movies? Were the originals not good enough?

And therein lies the important part. This is not a shoot-by-shoot remake. Nor does it have the same story. It is not trying to catch lightning in a bottle for the second time, and it is not trying to do what has already been done before but with updated graphics. It is its own piece, which in no way contradicts the original.

This movie recognizes where it comes from, and does frequent tips-of-the-hat to what inspired it to be created. All of the actors who played major characters in the original film played a small part in this movie, minus Rick Moranis, since he’s not acting anymore. They even had a nice bust of Harold Ramis, and dedicated the whole movie to him, since he passed in 2014.

They made great use of the music. It was not distracting, as it had potential to be, and the new music had bits of the original soundtrack woven through, with a snippet here or there. None of the homages seemed like they were screaming “WINK WINK!!” but were subtle nods to pay respect, and to acknowledge the original and its fans.

One of my favorite characteristics about this movie was the attention to detail, and I am mostly thinking about the scenes in Times Square when I say this. At the start of their big battle scene (I will make no spoilers), someone says something about going back in time. Obviously I was paying more attention to the black bars at the top and bottom of my screen, because I totally forgot who mentioned this.

Anyway, if you pay attention to the advertisements being displayed, you’ll notice some cool details, such as a giant poster for the movie “Taxi Driver,” another for a Boris Karloff movie, and a marquee on a movie theater advertising for the movie “Fist of Fury.” Perhaps one of the most subtle nods to the original film is an advertisement for Hostess that contains a giant Twinkie. Again, not too distracting, and if you didn’t see the original film it wouldn’t necessarily stick out to you. But it’s a great touch.

From the trailer, you might expect Chris Hemsworth to be a a prop to be gawked at. Although that was some of the jokes, he was used to further the plot along. He was not an object to be competed over or won, and he wasn’t unattainable, either. And he got to flex his comedic muscles as well as the ones that are visible. But he wasn’t really used as an object, which is an important thing to note.

When talking about visual effects, it is also important to note that not only was the 3D done awesome-ly, but there was a great use of colors overall. The original movie feels kind of dingy, which is not a bad thing, considering it was in New York City in the early 80’s, but I really do love the use of bright colors. They did such a great job of using beautiful shades of blues and greens for the ghosts, and the colors and saturation used throughout all the rest of the film were beautiful as well.

“Ghostbusters” was funny from the very opening scene, which is obviously always a good sign. The exposition did not seem to drag at all, and it always felt like the story was moving forward. The acting was great all around, and you could tell that the reason why their chemistry was so good on screen was because they were truly having fun together. You can’t fake, or in this case act, chemistry like that.

The characters were not carbon copies of the original, and that was great. These felt like four fresh, new characters who we had not met before. In this movie we got to learn much more about the characters and I felt like I could connect to them much more than in the original. I watched the original one yesterday, and I felt like I had no idea who these guys were. I didn’t know anything about them, and I didn’t really see their characters grow in any meaningful way. That being said, I’m a fan of the show Seinfeld, so it’s not like I am bound to plots with meaning or character growth, but I do typically enjoy experiencing it. Even though, technically, this movie was about 10 minutes longer than the original, I felt like I grew to really like and appreciate these characters much more than I did in the original.

I’m just gonna come out and say it — I enjoyed this one better than the original, and for all of the reasons previously mentioned. The original is great, don’t get me wrong. And I don’t like this one for superficial reasons. It’s not because it has better graphics, the gender of the cast, or whatever, it’s because of the development of the characters, and the fact that I was laughing out loud almost continuously, and during the original it got some chuckles out of me.

Anyone who says this is a bad movie is a negative nancy who went in there with a bad attitude. Why go into a movie with a closed mind? I say this, but those people are the same ones who go around pointing a running garden hose towards the sky, and complaining about how it’s always raining. It’s your choice to be a happy person. Give people a chance, then you can make a decision.

Oh, and don’t forget to stay until the very end, there’s an extra tag scene.

Verdict: Cinema

 

“Nightcrawler”

Director: Dan Gilroy
Writer: Dan Gilroy
Producer: Jennifer Fox, Tony Gilroy, Michel Litvak, Jake Gyllenhaal, David Lancaster
Year: 2014
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Rene Russo, Riz Ahmed, Bill Paxton
Genre: Drama
Format: DVD

What, specifically, is an anti-hero? A main character who does bad things instead of making the right choice? Do you have to root for them, or can they be so unsavory that you wish that they fail?

Thefreedictionary.com says that an anti-hero is “a main character in a dramatic or narrative work who is characterized by a lack of traditional heroic qualities, such as idealism or courage,” but what happens when the lead does exhibit those two qualities, just in ways that aren’t socially/morally acceptable?

This was one of many questions that popped into my mind while watching “Nightcrawler”. This movie focuses on Lou Bloom, a sociopath who seems to find his calling in videotaping messy crime scenes and car accidents at night, and selling that footage to local news stations. And while filming people’s most scary (and sometimes their last) moments to sell them to a news station may be trashy enough as it is, when you add in a pathological liar, a lack of morality, and a disdain for humanity, it only gets worse.

And Lou does have those two qualities listed above, idealism and courage. But his definition of those terms are different from anyone who thinks rationally. To him, being courageous is going into a house after he just saw two men who just committed a triple homicide leave the property, while the bodies were still bleeding and the cops hadn’t arrived. Being courageous to him would be getting the right framing of the video of the crime scene, not worrying about contaminating the crime scene or getting his DNA and fingerprints all over the place.

Lou is repulsive but for some reason you can’t stop watching this movie. But, then again, it’s kind of like watching footage of a horrible car crash — you can’t help but watch in awe. I’m not comparing this movie to a car crash, I’m just saying, as the old saying goes, art is a reflection of life, and that’s got to have been what they were going for with this movie.

Unlike with some films with inhumane characters, “Nightcrawler” doesn’t want you to sympathize with Lou. He’s a crazy bastard, and you’re supposed to think he is one, not some misunderstood guy with a good side. He’s straight up gross, but, nonetheless, you can’t look away.

This is why this movie was so successful — it is unique, but not in the we’re-so-edgy-we-want-you-to-feel-bad-for-the-crazy-killer way, which I can’t stand. It’s almost like a movie gives you this story and this character, and you can take it or leave it. The major thing they’re doing with this movie is criticizing us, society, for feeding this nonsensical and irresponsible behavior. We are never meant to change our viewpoints or to pity a guy who’s arguably a killer, we’re just open our eyes.

Wait, before I wrap this up, we need to take a second to talk about Jake Gyllenhaal. This man is a great actor. I mean, we have all known since “Donnie Darko” that he is great at playing thoroughly messed up characters, but in “Nightcrawler” Gyllenhaal knocked it out of the park yet again. I wonder how many people walk over to the other side of the street when they see him coming because they find him so disturbingly believable.

To be fair, every actor in this movie is great. Rene Russo plays a news editor who gets exclusives from Lou, and he ends up manipulating and threatening her, on various levels, but mainly threatening her job security. Riz Ahmed plays an intern of Lou who questions his morals, but the intern is desperate to keep the job. He’s a scene stealer and put on a great performance.

If you’re wanting to watch something different, with great acting, writing, and cinematography, this is the piece for you.

Verdict: Cinema

“Whiplash”

Director: Damien Chazelle
Writer: Damien Chazelle
Producer: Jason Blum, Helen Estabrook, Michel Litvak, David Lancaster
Year: 2014
Starring: Miles Teller, J. K. Simmons, Paul Reiser, Melissa Benoist
Genre: Drama
Format: DVD

Many times when I watch “critically acclaimed” movies I have a hard time understanding why they are given such distinction. But every once in a while my faith in the system is renewed. This is one of those movies that do that.

I just finished watching this movie and now I am exhausted. It’s kind of like when I watched “Captain Phillips” and it made me ridiculously thirsty. If it’s possible to be too empathetic, that’s me.

“Whiplash” is the story of a student-teacher relationship and pushing your limits to achieve greatness.

The teacher, Terence Fletcher, played by J. K. Simmons, blurs (and sometimes crosses) the line between tough-love and abuse. Fletcher’s motives are pure, though, seeing as how he sincerely wants to help create the next big jazz genius.

Andrew, the student played by Miles Teller, wants to be that next big jazz genius. He has a drive much stronger than most, and Fletcher’s tactics work great on him — every time Fletcher yells at him, cusses him out, and/or throws things at Andrew, he practices until his hands literally bleed and fling blood all over the drum kit. He’s focused and doesn’t have time for friends or a girlfriend because of it. But he’s fine with that because he knows those kinds of sacrifices are what will help him be the best.

The premise of the movie is simple, but it was clearly made by people who understand the art of music, and particularly the drums. As someone with no music background, I was definitely able to keep up with what they were saying, but I appreciated the sense that the writers knew what they were talking about. This movie seems to be an all-around labor of love.

This is a movie that I think everyone should see. It’s not particularly artsy, complex, or anything like that, it’s just a refreshing movie that hooks you in from the first scene. You will become invested in the story and characters early on and it pays off throughout the story.

Don’t make the mistake of passing this one up.

Verdict: Cinema

“Gone Girl”

Director: David Fincher
Writer: Gillian Flynn
Producer: Leslie Dixon, Bruna Papandrea, Reese Witherspoon, Ceán Chaffin
Year: 2014
Starring: Ben Affleck, Rosamund Pike, Neil Patrick Harris, Tyler Perry, Carrie Coon
Genre: Crime; Drama
Format: DVD

I always mention how I like movies that make me think. And if we’re ever in a conversation together about television, I’ll be sure to bring up House of Cards, which takes the viewer kind of a long time to figure out what’s happening, since you’re dropped in the middle of the action without any character explaining who’s who.

But sometimes I watch a movie that is cerebral but drawn out. “Gone Girl” fits that description. There were times that I literally thought “Wow, this is a great movie!” but most of the time I was waiting for the next interesting moment.

I think that’s the way it was supposed to be, though. When you are looking for a missing person, most of the time there is no new information being uncovered, so perhaps the speed of the action was supposed to reflect that. Plus, we’re in the day-and-age of instant gratification so it should be ok that a movie takes a while to reveal itself.

At first glance this is a movie about a man whose wife has gone missing. That in and of itself is an interesting premise, but something doesn’t feel right about the husband; he’s a bit off, but you can’t quite place why. The audience takes the side of the wife (well, at least I did), assuming that Ben Affleck’s character killed his wife, even though he swears that he didn’t.

About an hour into the movie, you found out that what you think has been the case up until that point has been completely backwards.

SPOILERS —
It turns out that the wife has faked her murder in order to frame her husband, and she is so unhappy that not only does she want him to get life in prison (or the death penalty?), but she plans on killing herself in the end, anyway. It’s at this point where I changed my mind about who I thought was the good person. Clearly she’s not an innocent victim, as you were lead to believe in the beginning.

That’s fine, I have no problem with that. It’s interesting to mess with the audience like that, especially after spending a whole hour, thinking that you’re on one character’s side, when it turns out she’s a psychotic asshole.

The only person worth rooting for is the detective, but then she is made incompetent when the wife is back at the hospital and makes up some cock-and-bull story about being kidnapped and raped. The detective asks a good question and then drops it as though she has Alzheimer’s and completely forgot what was on her mind.

That brings up my next point: some things in this story don’t make that much sense. My sister begged me to watch this movie because she had seen it and wanted to talk with me about it. She said that she wasn’t a fan, but didn’t tell me why. After I finished, I asked her what she thought was so bad. There was a few things she cited:

1. Nick (Ben Affleck) and Amy (Rosamund Pike) had to move out of New York City because they lost their jobs, but then they moved into a super big, nice house in a nice neighborhood. Apparently the recession hit them super bad.

2. The characters were extremely unlikable, and didn’t stay true to themselves. For instance, Margo and the Detective radically change their stances on things that they are very involved in.

3. Margo tends to be the voice of reason throughout the story, and when Nick tells her everything at the end, she gets upset, asking how Nick could possibly stay with Amy, after all the crap she’s put him though, but then Margo does a 180 and basically says that’s she’ll support Nick anyway.

4. Neil Patrick Harris’ character has a security system with tons of security cameras at his house, which is where Amy ends up going. In the end she tells the police that NPH’s character kidnapped and raped her, and even though in the movie we see her make it look like she was tied up for the security cameras, undoubtedly there would be massive amounts of footage to show that she was lying.

5. After Amy comes back, Nick tells the police that Amy must have been lying, because how could she have gotten a weapon if she was tied up. That is a very logical point that should’ve been taken into account by police, especially the detective who seemed smart at the beginning, but it was shrugged off.

6. Why was Amy sent home from the hospital covered in blood? Even if it was her own blood, that’d be weird, but the fact that it was NPH’s character’s blood makes it even more ridiculous.

Speaking of NPH’s character, what’s up with that? Amy kills him while having sex with him? I mean, I suppose they wanted some points for originality on that, but it was just odd. Amy was definitely a psychopath, but still.
–End Spoilers

This movie was long, relatively boring, with moments that strike you as being either particularly awesome, or particularly weird. It’ll leave you asking two questions: “What did I just watch?” and “Why did it receive so much attention during award season?”

It’s probably one of those movies that you should watch just so you know what everyone is talking about, but I honestly doubt you’d watch it again.

Verdict: Cinema

“Hot Tub Time Machine”

Director: Steve Pink
Writer: Josh Heald, Sean Anders, John Morris
Producer: John Cusack, Grace Loh, John Morris, Matt Moore
Year: 2010
Starring: John Cusack, Rob Corddry, Craig Robinson, Clark Duke, Crispin Glover, Lizzy Caplan, Chevy Chase
Genre: Comedy
Format: Digital

I have mentioned this time and time again — we need to allow silly movies to be silly movies. Just because a movie is silly doesn’t mean that it can’t be a good movie. A bad movie is one that tries to be good but crashes and burns. A good movie could be one that set out to be good and accomplished its goal, or one that set out to not be taken seriously and did so in a good way.

This is the latter. Nobody who made this movie thought it was an excellent movie, at least not in the typical way. It’s a silly movie and that was the intention. If you needed any proof of this, just wait until Craig Robinson says “hot tub time machine” and looks right at the camera.

In case there’s any confusion about what this movie is about, let me break it down for you: it’s about a hot tub. That’s a time machine.

Well, to be fair that’s not what it’s about. That’s how the characters are transported from 2010 to 1986. But you get the point. I suppose you could say that this movie is about three friends (and another dude) reflecting on their past.

Overall this movie was silly and not necessarily mind numbing, but let’s just say your mind isn’t doing too much while watching this movie. If you enjoy perverted humor and wish you were back in the 80’s, this is a great movie for you. If you’re like me and aren’t really a fan of perverted humor and think that the 80’s were pretty rad, then it is still an enjoyable watch.

There’s only one thing I would’ve changed about this movie. I would’ve added more of Lizzy Caplan. Like, a lot more. Because her character was interesting, and I like it when she’s on my screen.

In comparison with Hot Tub Time Machine 2, which I watched before I watched the first one, the first movie is way better. I actually wouldn’t mind seeing the second one again because I know that there are many jokes that I would actually understand now that I’ve seen the first, but I would definitely think that the first one was better.

Verdict: Cinema (in a loose meaning of the term)

“Hot Tub Time Machine 2”

Director: Steve Pink
Writer: Josh Heald
Producer: Andrew Panay
Year: 2015
Starring: Rob Corddry, Craig Robinson, Clark Duke, Adam Scott, Chevy Chase
Genre: Comedy
Format: Big-Screen; Preview

It is very important to preface this with one fact — I have not seen the first “Hot Tub Time Machine”. I found out about the screening at the last minute, so I wasn’t able to do any research about it beforehand, either. But I knew what it was about, though I suppose the title says it all, and figured that the first one was probably low-brow enough for it not to be a problem to have not seen the first.

Here’s the thing. The information from the first movie would’ve been very useful for the first ten or fifteen minutes for the second movie. It’s almost like a “where are they now?” kind of deal, so whatever jokes were in there for the loyal viewer, I didn’t get. There were also obvious throwback jokes to the last movie scattered throughout the movie.

As for the other jokes in the film, they mostly only elicited slight chuckles from the audience. Apparently nobody in the audience is a big fan of dick jokes, or else they might’ve been rolling in the aisle.

Every once in a while there was something that might be considered clever, like how the guys are so lazy they don’t even high five each other, they just tell each other “high five.” And the reason why I found this funny is because some of my students are lazy to that point.

But that being said, it mostly felt like a slight, definitely inferior, rip-off to one of my favorite movies of all time, “Idiocracy”. I mean, when looking at the world today, to think that the future would be anything but “Idiocracy” would be stretch, but I didn’t think “Hot Tub”s version of it was anything more than subpar.

For instance, the dumb asses in “Idiocracy” watch a TV show called “Ow, My Balls!”, in which guys get hit in the balls, and everybody thinks it’s hilarious. In “Hot Tub” they have a show called “Choozy Doozy Celebrity”, which has some complicated rules, and in the end two of the guy characters are forced to have virtual (or is it?) sex with each other in front of the millions of people who are watching it. Ha ha, so funny.

I have a weird sense of humor and most of the time it seems like my friends have a hard time following my humor and my train of thought. Even for me, though, this movie kind of gave me whiplash. This movie seems to be more of a compilation of silly skits rather than a cohesive piece. It seemed like you could take out a few scenes and not feel like something was missing.

One of the most interesting scenes to watch was when Adam Jr., played by Adam Scott, had an intense trip from a crazy future-drug called a lady bug. It was by no means groundbreaking, but it was silly, and that’s the point of the movie.

That being said, I wouldn’t say this movie is stupid. Some of the characters are, and the situations they get into definitely are stupid, but the time travel logic, for instance, seemed to make sense. Normally time travel storylines make me confused, but it felt like they had thought that part out, which is definitely a good thing to spend time on.

I thought that the best part of the movie was during the end credits, when the guys travel through time and insert themselves into historical events. Can we have a movie just about that?

I was not a fan of this movie, and I wouldn’t recommend anyone to see it in theaters, except, maybe, if you really enjoyed the first movie. Again, I haven’t seen the first one, but I imagine this is probably about the same type of humor as it.

However, just like with “Mortdecai”it is important to let silly movies be silly movies. Movies don’t need to be groundbreaking, mind-altering, or life-changing experiences. And that’s ok.

If you’re wanting to see a silly, laugh-out-loud funny movie this weekend, you’re almost definitely better off seeing “Kingsman” instead. But if you have some cash to spare and enjoyed the first “Hot Tub”, then you should see it.

Verdict: Enema

“Dear White People”

Director: Justin Simien
Writer: Justin Simien
Producer: Effie Brown, Ann Le, Julia Lebedev, Angel Lopez, Lena Waithe, Justin Simien
Year: 2014
Starring: Tyler James Williams, Tessa Thompson, Teyonah Parris, Brandon P Bell, Kyle Gallner
Genre: Satire
Format: DVD

I wasn’t quite sure what to expect when I rented this movie. I wasn’t sure if the tone was serious or funny, and I felt that even when I was a little into watching the movie I still couldn’t figure it out.

“Dear White People” has an ensemble cast that starts off with a girl named Sam, played by Tessa Thompson. Sam is the creator/host of a radio show called “Dear White People” in which she spews racist tips at white people, like “Dating a black person to piss off your parents is a form of racism.” Of course she’s assuming that the only reason a white person would want to date a black person is because the white person wants to spite their parents. But as she says later in the movie, “black people can’t be racist.”

I enjoy movies that make me challenge what I know (or think I do), but I don’t like it when people assume things about someone because of their color of the skin.

At the beginning, the part of Sam was so well-written that I couldn’t tell if the writer was actually speaking through Sam or not. And then other characters expressed their dislike of what Sam says, and the writing of their parts is so good that now you really can’t tell what side of the issue the writer is on.

That’s a great thing.

This being an ensemble piece, there are two other characters that the movie focuses on, and they’re both very different from each other, and from Sam.

Marque Richardson plays Reggie, the son of a dean (Dennis Haysbert) at the university. Reggie and his dad have different opinions on things and it gets in the way of their relationship. But who doesn’t fight with their parents?

Then there’s Lionel, played by Tyler James Williams, and he’s got the best story by far, in my opinion, but I might be biased. Lionel is black and gay, and doesn’t fit in with the black kids, or the gay kids.

The movie starts off with something as mundane as the “randomization” of housing on campus, which breaks up the traditionally black dorm, and ends with a massively racist party where the partygoers dress “black”.

But those things aren’t really important. This movie is thought-provoking and challenges your ideas about race relations, whether you relate to Sam, Reggie, Lionel, or a mix. As the movie progresses, the issue of race gets more and more complicated, just like it can be in real-life. And, just like real-life, this movie doesn’t claim to know any answers. It’s not at all preachy, but its goal is to make you question the society around you and to think about how you interact with it. Just because you’re of a specific race doesn’t mean that you need to conform to what is expected of you because of your skin color, this movie argues that you should be you, whatever that may be.

This is a movie that I would recommend to everyone. It’s a humorous way to talk about a potentially serious topic, and it helps you think about your own opinion on the subject.

Verdict: Cinema