Micmacs

It's been far too long since we last saw Jean-Pierre Jeunet's special brand of crazy on the screen. Best known for Amelie, he has made a career out of whimsical, off kilter films about outsiders struggling with the strange world they've been dropped into. Whether it be the new tenant in the cannibalistic apartment complex in Delicatessen, or the mercenaries in Alien: Resurrection, it is a common theme throughout his work. Micmacs offers more of the same, so if you enjoy his brand of storytelling, you will probably find more to like here. If not, be aware that he is at perhaps his most whimsical with Micmacs, arguably to the film's detriment. Inspired by both the slapstick comedies of the silent era and the films of Jacques Tati, Micmacs follows Bazil, a man who is accidentally shot in the head and still has the bullet lodged in his skull. He one day discovers that the manufacturer of the bullet in his head is operating near where he lives. Not only that, but the company that built the landmine that killed his father is across the street from that building. With the help of some eclectic friends, he decides to take down both companies at the same time.

One might argue that Micmacs is the logical conclusion to the idea of the eccentric loaner in Jeunet films overcoming the fantastical world around him. Never has one of his protagonists been quite as much of an outsider as Bazil, who literally has nothing to his name after being shot. But through the discovery of others like him living in a junkyard, he is able to achieve something like a perfect existance by film's end. Bazil's struggles aren't simply against a butcher (Delicatessen), an Alien (Resurrection), or a war (A Very Long Engagement), but against society itself. Only the other rejects will have him, and he ultimately abandons all connections to reality to live out his junkyard fantasy with people that could politely be called "caricatures." It's a simplistic way of looking at life, which fits Bazil's very simple nature throughout the film. Bazil is often portrayed as little more than a man-child. He says little, watches videos all day, and likes to play games with his hands. That he would find bliss in a junkyard filled with misfits makes sense.

Due to the nature of the kinds of films Jeunet makes, the acting can rarely be called subtle. There is a lot of mugging, a lot of shouting, a lot of broad physical comedy. It makes sense in the context of the genre that Jeunet is working in, but it can become insufferable to those not in tune with what he is doing. The two most engaging performances, interestingly enough, is that of the two weapons manufacturers. While they don't exist in much more of a realistic world than the protagonists, they do have layers to them that are lacking from all the supporting players. I often found myself enjoying the film most when it spent some time with these two men, often oblivious to the machinations of Bazil and company. The things Bazil does to get revenge on the two ends up looking more like corporate subterfuge, so the two men suspect each other and not Bazil, providing the film's best moments of comedic paranoia.

This is almost certainly the slightest film Jeunet has done, but one can't deny the infectious goofiness on display. While Jeunet's worldview can some across as regressive at time (abandon the difficulties of society and enjoy life with friends!), he does populate his films with amusing characters, visual splendor, and numerous sight gags. The plot is nothing more than a MacGuffin to provide a framework for the characters to exist in (the bullet in Bazil's head is mostly forgotten, even though we are lead to believe he could drop dead at any moment). Let's hope that this was a necessary recharging film some directors need in order to get back on their game. Whimsy is fun once and a while, but to make a whole career out of it doesn't seem feasible.

Iron Man 2

Rereading my review of the original Iron Man from two years ago, I was struck by the fact that all the minor issues I had with that film are also what I took issue with in the sequel. But where those issues were minor annoyances in the first film, here they become almost unbearable. It's as if Jon Favreau took all the wrong lessons from the first film. Where once there was a loose structure, now there is no structure. Where once we had villains with little screen time, here we have villains who make little sense and essentially do nothing. Where once the actors not named Robert Downey Jr. felt underused, here they are wasted. It's a shame, because this seemed like such an easy film to knock out of the park. I ended my review of Iron Man confident that the sequel would easily surpass it, as most comic book sequels seem to do. Sadly it was not to be.

One of the things I found so interesting about the first film was that Iron Man wasn't a small hero: he was essentially a man out to protect the world. The stakes in an Iron Man film should be huge. So the fact that the only real drama comes from Iron Man's personal demons is a major letdown. Iron Man alter ego Tony Stark fears he is dying (the only clue to this is the infection we see around his arc reactor, as he never displays any signs of weakness). The film follows his struggles to cope with this fact. The main villain, as such, is not the megalomaniac Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) or the vengeance seeking Whiplash (Mickey Rourke), but his own failing body. Because that's what we really want from a summer blockbuster. For the first hour or so, I didn't mind this fact. I figured they were laying the personal stakes for Tony so that there would be more weight to the drama when the S hits the F. But by hour two, you realize that no, there is no other drama. This is it.

So what of these villains? Well, Whiplash is a joke. He has so little screen time that you'd be forgiven if you forgot he exists during the middle section of the film. He has the most stock of villain motivations: revenge. Now, this could be treated in an interesting way if the film allowed him to actually share any screen time with the man he is seeking revenge on. But because his motivation is so weak, the filmmakers decided to keep him and Tony Stark separated for the whole film. They meet twice and talk to each other even less. And that's the "main" villain. The other villain of sorts is Justin Hammer, the main competitor of Stark Industries. Rockwell makes him into a fun character, but again, there is little motivation for him beyond corporate rivalry. He ultimately comes across as a child who is mad he isn't getting all the attention.

Why do you hire all these really great actors if you aren't going to use them? I get that they want to focus on the sublime performance by Robert Downey Jr. but part of what makes him so much fun is seeing him play off of these other actors. Stark is by himself for so much of the film that even he becomes dull after a while. Don Cheadle gets a fun, if obvious joke when he is introduced as Rhodey, commenting on the fact that he is not the person we remember from two years ago. But beyond that he is put in the background with Gwyneth Paltrow, only allowed to pop in once in a while. And Scarlett Johansson is the biggest waste of the whole film. She exists only because they want to continue to build up the Avengers film. And there in lies perhaps why this film was doomed to fail: it's one big advertisement for another film.

Iron Man 2 is not allowed to have its own plot. Instead, it's a constant reminder that there are other movies that Marvel wants you to see in the future. Why is Nick Fury here? To remind Stark that they want him on their superhero team. The film ends on a note that adds absolutely nothing to the film, and is only there to advertise the big Marvel movie coming out next summer. It has zero to do with anything that has happened in the film previously, or with anything that will happen in any future Iron Man movies. It's all excessive, and is simply filler for a film that otherwise has no interesting plot threads of its own.

I'm not sure what anyone involved here was thinking when they made this film. There is almost no action, Tony Stark rarely dresses up in the Iron Man suit (and when he does, it is often as a joke, such as when he throws a birthday party for himself). The final fight is perfunctory and short (mainly because it's obvious that no villain they came up with was really any match for Iron Man, let alone Iron Man and War Machine). It's just such a nothing film, you can't help but wonder why it was made (besides to advertise other movies). Were it not for Robert Downey Jr. delivering his usual great performance, this would be a total waste. All in all, this is not how you start the summer movie season.

How to Train Your Dragon

Perhaps it is because I am spoiled by Pixar every year, but I have never been able to really enjoy a Dreamworks Animation movie before. Sure Shrek was ok at the time, but it has not held up well over the years. Indeed, that is the problem with all of Dreamworks' movies: they are so invested in pop culture jokes that they can feel dated only a few years later. How funny, really, is a Who Wants to be a Millionaire joke or an American Idol spoof now? Not very. And yet, Dreamworks continued to allow these films to be made, not caring about any sort of longevity. So along comes How to Train Your Dragon, and I brush it off, in spite of the glowing reviews. Kung Fu Panda got good reviews, and that wasn't very good either. But after hearing from many people that this is the anti-Dreamworks Dreamworks movie, I finally gave in and watched it. And I am so glad I did.

How to Train Your Dragon is in the tradition of Pixar's best: it's about the characters first and foremost. Any story, jokes, or emotions all develop from the characters, not the other way around. The film tells the story of Hiccup, a Viking child who is training to be a dragon killer. One day he comes across a downed dragon in the forest, but can't bring himself to kill it. In letting it live, he learns that everything he thought he knew about dragons is wrong. Naming it Toothless, the boy and dragon become friends and try to change the Vikings' view on dragons. It's a simple enough story, but it is told with such weight and emotion that you really care about the characters. Key to this is the voice talent, or lack thereof.

Jay Baruchel plays Hiccup, and his performance hits the right notes. But it wouldn't work if Toothless wasn't mute. The most surprising thing about this film is the fact that they allowed the dragons to not speak English. Toothless isn't a wisecracking sidekick; he's a pet. This allows us to project on to him the things we need to in order to empathize with him. The voicelessness gives all the dragons a noble, sad quality that is vital to making them sympathetic. The rest of the voice talent is a bit more hit and miss. Actors like Jonah Hill and Christopher Mintz-Plasse feel a bit out of place, like something left over from an older Dreamworks film. But then Gerard Butler uses his persona to great effect as Hiccup's disappointed father. And America Ferrera disappears into her role of the love interest, making her into more of a tough girl than a damsel in distress.

This film simply would not work if it wasn't about the story and characters first. Some really funny moments come out of who these characters are, and the connection between Hiccup and Toothless is palpable and fun. Visually it is stunning, especially during the flying scenes. All in all, it is a far better movie than I ever would have given Dreamworks credit for. I hope they learn from this movie and continue to grow in the right ways. Is it too much to ask that Shrek Forever After is the last of a dying breed, and that How to Train Your Dragon is the future for Dreamworks?

Hot Tub Time Machine

When a movie has a title like Hot Tub Time Machine, reviewing it almost seems futile. Movies like this come down to whether or not you find it funny. Unfortunately, it seems that the movie had most of its jokes ruined by the trailers, so I found myself laughing less than I would have liked to. Sure, there were a few surprises, and the characters were occasionally entertaining, if not a little stock. Still, if you like knowingly dumb comedies, you could do worse than Hot Tub Time Machine.

Do I even need to explain the plot? Four friends get into a hot tub and it takes them back to the 80's. It's the barest of premises, and it serves to give us a lot of riffs on both the 80's and the 00's (Indeed, while there isn't a lot of 10's culture yet established for a film to make fun of, this film seems most comfortable with jokes about things that are more than a few years old, like "Let's Get Retarded" by the Black Eyed Peas). Like any good 80's satire, everything is extremely exaggerated. People all wear ridiculous clothes, love Red Dawn, and listen to the most on the nose 80's songs. The 80's are such an easy target, it can often make for very lazy jokes (what color is Michael Jackson?). It would have been nice to see the film try a little harder. Still, when the jokes do work, they work well. The running joke about Crispin Glover's character is probably the standout.

The cast is strong for this kind of film, even if they have little to do. John Cusack seems so out of place here, and as our de facto lead he is probably the only dull spot. His straight man routine doesn't really provide any real comedy, he is mostly there to comment on what is going on. Craig Robinson and Rob Corddry are, as expected, very reliable. While we've seen the Corddry character a thousand times before - the boorish friend who seems to have no boundaries - Corddry takes the guy to new and outlandish heights. And Clarke Duke, as the youngster of the group, is surprisingly amusing as the only person who seems to be aware of how much damage they could cause to the future. Realizing he was conceived the very weekend they end up in, his neurosis over erasing his birth is very funny. And then there is the cameo by Chevy Chase. Chase seems to be in the midst of a very minor comeback, which is a wonderful thing. Sadly, his talent is squandered here in a borderline non-sequitur performance. He is apparently some sort of time traveling God who only speaks in riddles, but he is so insignificant to the plot and is clearly only there because he is a familiar face.

Your mileage may vary, but I found the film to lack the big laughs and truly memorable characters of something like the similar Hangover. Still, it does have some nifty riffs on time travel, and the callback to the "Johnny Be Good" sequence from Back to the Future is a clever moment that doesn't hit you over the head about being a reference. Again, when you call your film Hot Tub Time Machine, you aren't exactly delving into the intricacies of time travel or the profundity of life.

Greenberg

What is it that drives Noah Baumbach to create some of the most unlikable characters in recent cinema? Greenberg is his third film in a row that centers on how an essentially irredeemable misanthrope ruins the lives of those around him. If that doesn't sound like a whole lot of fun, you wouldn't be mistaken. While The Squid and the Whale was saved by some truly great performances, Greenberg does not have Jeff Daniels and Laura Linney to depend upon. Instead, it has Ben Stiller and Mumblecore queen Greta Gerwig at its center. They try their best with such difficult material, and they ultimately save it from being as passionless as Margot at the Wedding. Still, not being as bad as Margot is damning with faint praise.

Stiller plays the titular Greenberg, a man who had the world in the palm of his hand fifteen years earlier, but let it slip away. Now he is a socially awkward, angry, bitter man with only one tenuous friend and no real prospects. He meets Florence (Gerwig), who is sort of an errand girl for Greenberg's brother. The two don't exactly hit it off, but for some reason Florence is intrigued by Greenberg. The two start an on and off relationship, which often results in some demeaning moments for Florence. Baumbach doesn't really seem to think people can change who they are, so we know from the beginning that this relationship can never really work. That's a big part of why it can be such a slog to sit through.

Stiller does a good job of being unlikable, but he isn't able to make being unlikable interesting. Aside from a few uncomfortably funny quips ("That's the worst story I've ever heard. Bye!"), he is difficult to watch. Gerwig, on the other hand, is kind of a delight. Her Florence is the opposite of Greenberg, a bit of a doormat that lets people use her. She's such a sad and endearing person, and Gerwig gives her just the right amount of spark to make you care for her. Gerwig helps you understand why this girl would settle for Greenberg, even if you don't agree that she should.

To say this film offers nothing new to Baumbach's oeuvre wouldn't be totally fair, but not entirely off the mark, either. It's certainly got some of the funnier moments in any of his films, and Gerwig is enjoyable to watch. But if you've seen The Squid and the Whale, this isn't something that ever reaches the same heights. It's not easy to endure the kinds of characters and situations that Baumbach likes to create, so I simply can't recommend sitting through this one if you've seen anything else he has done.

Cop Out

I think I'll keep this one quick, as there's really little to be said about a film like Cop Out. Director Kevin Smith has made a film that plays homage to the classic buddy cop comedies of the 80's. Everything is there: mismatched partners, a synth score, a ridiculous plot driven by a MacGuffin. Indeed, the only thing Smith left out is the actual comedy. Cop Out is simply a dreadfully dull film. Everyone involved seem to be either bored or don't care. The performances are lifeless, the story is tedious, and no amount of riffs on a genre can change that.

Smith is better known for his scripts than his directing, and he has said he took this as a way to test out what it would be like to direct a film he didn't write. Well, he should stick to his own scripts. It would appear that, when he doesn't write out the film himself, Smith has little to no actual ideas as to how he wants the film to flow. People, including Smith himself, have knocked the directing style of his previous films, but his directing always served the writing. His films may not look good, but the directing never got in the way of telling a good story. Not here. Smith seems so hung up on trying to prove he can create a visually interesting film, he ignored one of the real keys to being a director: pace. Scenes do not flow well together at all, the film feels disjointed and sluggish, and subplots either go nowhere or pop up at the wrong times. A funny running gag could have come out of Tracy Morgan's character trying to determine if his wife is cheating on him, but there is no rhythm to the way these jokes are parsed out through the film. This lack of pace kills any chance of someone like Morgan or Bruce Willis creating memorably funny characters.

I think Smith's concern over being a visual director is holding him back from making truly great movies. Chasing Amy looks really bad, but it is still one of the best films of the 90's because it is an interesting story told well. Anyone who has listened to the guy talk knows he is a pro at telling a story. For a man who holds the words of the script so high, it's shocking how little he cares about them here in Cop Out, focusing too much on what looks cool and little else. Let's just hope that now that he got this experiment out of his system, he can go back to crafting intelligent and insightful character pieces.

Another Oscar Season in the Books

And there you have it, the lowest grossing film (ever?) to win Best Picture. And you know, I think that's pretty cool. I'm sure there will be a lot of Avatar fans who are disappointed by the outcome, but hopefully they will give this thrilling and unique film a chance. And special kudos to Kathryn Bigelow for becoming the first woman to win Best Director. As for the rest of the categories, it was all pretty clear who would win. The big surprise, certainly, was Precious shutting out Up in the Air for screenplay. Not entirely in agreement with that decision, but at least it was surprising. Anyway, some stray thoughts:

• Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin were awful. Really, really awful. Which is a shame, since these guys are usually very funny. You'd think given ten nominees, they'd have a wealth of material to work with.
• Indeed, the whole show was a big letdown. From the strange dance sequence during the score nominees, to the return of the supremely awkward acting presentations by other actors, this year was, dare I say, a disaster. It was becoming clear these last few weeks that Adam Shankman, the producer, had no love for the Oscars at all, so this wasn't all that surprising.
• Jeff Bridges finally won! He has True Grit, with the Coen Bros, coming out this Christmas, maybe there's a chance he will be the first consecutive winner since Tom Hanks?
• So, of all the people who have died since Stanly Kubrick in 1999, none have been more worthy of a standalone In Memoriam than John Hughes? I like the guy's films plenty, and his impact is undeniable, but that's just silly.
  
• Less silly? The horror montage. I was doubtful when they announced it, but damn if it didn't make me want to go watch a bunch of scary movies. Good on them for recognizing it in the show.

So it seems the 10 was a big success for the Academy. I'm sure the ratings this year will be huge. Hopefully the Academy will make as good of a selection in their picture choices next year as they did this year. If they continue to show good, varied taste, this could be an experiment I can get behind.