5 Movie Reviews: Zombieland Double Tap, Dolemite is My Name, Laundromat, Honey Boy, and Terminator Dark Fate

Zombieland Double Tap: "Zombieland" is innovative in its special effects and in an era when one out of every three movies has people shooting at people in some form, that's quite a compliment. The film is littered with clever narration and on-screen text but the use of both treads the fine line between additive and cloying.

More importantly, the film has chemistry between its quartet who form a found family and the introduction of Zoey Deutch as a valley girl along with cameos by Luke Wilson and Thomas Middleditch are comic highlights.

For someone who has no inherent attraction to the zombie genre, I thoroughly enjoyed this film and that's saying a lot.




Terminator Dark Fate- After three extremely underwhelming sequels, it’s pretty miraculous alone that James Cameron and company managed to make something halfway decent. Like “Logan”, a future-leaning genre is given n post-modern Western feel by setting it in the desert landscape of Mexico. While the return of Linda Hamilton’s  Sarah Connor character was hyped up as the missing ingredient, she’s a disappointing straw man, and it’s really Arnold Schwarzenegger’s mellowed-out performance (as opposed to his annoyingly silly performances in “Terminator: Genysis”) that steals the show. The high-water mark of the franchise was “Terminator 2” which combined the state-of-the-art action and novelty factor with a Spielbergian story of a kid and an unconventional parent figure. Although McKenzie Davis and Natalia Reyes have their pluses, this film doesn’t capture that magic from “Terminator 2” but the action is a non-stop adrenaline rush.


Dolemite is My Name-The “film behind the film” genre can get pretty tired but Rudy Ray Moore was such an audacious anamoly (I was planning to use the word “original” until I realized he stole his act and still remained a likeable protagonist) that his biopic is worth exploring. The rags-to-riches rise of Moore is a tale of perseverance, adaptation to the times, and is laced with underlying racial commentary without being preachy. The show boasts a strong ensemble but no one overshadows Eddie Murphy which is the way it should be: His performance needs room to  shine.


The Laundromaut-The film will garner comparisons to “The Big Short” because of the fourth wall devices, focus on financial fraud, and the loose cobbling together of different plot threads. This film is a bit more stylized (the typography is quite heavenly) but it’s a pretty apt comparison. Because “The Big Short” came first, this one’s going to look fairly derivative by comparison, but it also is a film that feels a bit pretentious and uninspired outside of its gimmickry. For an ensemble film, the film seems to put its focus in the wrong places as well. Some of the subplots don’t seem to have a suitably meaty arc and (some are going to differ from me) Gary Oldman and Antonio Banderas’ characters are underused here. The two are treated as emcees to tie together the string of events rather when they could be more deeply involved in the story themselves. Still, the cast is rather impressive and the film has its moments.


Honey Boy-The film is difficult to take because it portrays parental abuse so barely, but it is an assured work of art. Shia LaBeouf has been a very unconventional star and this is a culmination of much of his grappling with himself that’s happened in public. He faced the same hurdles of growing up under the limelight that has befallen other child actors and he's been charged with drunk driving, plagiarism, bad relationships with co-stars, concealing on-set relationships, and and misbehaving so badly during a Broadway performance that he got thrown out of a theater and sent to jail. Rather than follow the script during his rehabilitation,his form of damage control in these situations, he used transparent honesty. This resulted in one of the funniest interviews I've ever seen on Jimmy Kimmel, the I'm Sorry Tour, and the thing where he watched his own movies. And now this film.

My Top Ten (Plus Five HM) for 2009

      In an effort to stretch my critical muscles, I thought I'd pick a random year and write up my top ten. Check here for my top 25 performances of 2009

       Film of the Year: Up in the Air-The opening montage of borrowed aerial shots lets us know that this is going to be an apologetically modern story for our modern times. Jason Reitman’s third film is a spiritual successor of sorts to his debut, “Thank You For Smoking”, in looking at grandiose themes with cutting satire. This time Reitman looks at the glitzy but ultimately unfulfilling life of corporate travel as well as the soullessness of human resources. Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) travels around the country firing people with dignity. His social needs are taken care of by the occasional rendezvous and the familiar faces of gate attendants and airport lounges are the closest thing he has to a home. Through Bingham, Reitman looks at modern detachment from the inherent contradictions of the firing of employees with dignity, and a telescope view of at the loneliness such a job would entail. Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick both compliment in roles that deservedly won accolades.

2. Inglourious Basterds-Quentin Tarantino’s gleeful take on the World War II film is less beholden to history than having a good time. The film is marked by Mexican shoot-outs, explosions, and memorable characters of both the good and evil variety. From the polyglot colonel played with theatricality by Christophe Waltz to the egotistical sniper with a voyeuristic streak played by Daniel Bruehl to the larger-than-life German actress played by Dianne Kruger, this is a movie where the action isn’t second to performances.

3. The Soloist-This film, about the relationship between a human interest reporter and a homeless cellist with Julliard training, came and went without making much of a dent but there’s a lot to recommend about this film. Being a human interest reporter for seven years and having a fascination with what makes classical musicians tick certainly helps enjoy this film, yes, but it’s also a more universal story of two people symbiotically rediscovering themselves with Robert Downey Jr’s stoical performance keeping the film from dripping out any excess sap. Lisa Gay Hamilton, Catherine Keener and Tom Hollander all provide great supporting roles.

4. Star Trek-My cynical attitude towards franchise reboots quickly dissipated from “why?” to “why not” within a few scenes. J.J. Abrams’s sleek visuals and fully-realized action scenes are complimented by one of the most perfectly selected casts I’ve ever seen. Sure they all look unrealistically pretty compared to their predecessors but I’m willing to let that slide.

5. In the Loop-Armando Iannucci’s political satire is populated with fast-talking characters straining to be taken seriously who ultimately have little clue what they’re talking about. If you’ve seen “Veep”, the pace of dialogue and humor won’t surprise you (and I can’t say I’m qualified in any comparative analysis having only seen a couple episodes of "Veep") but it’s a joy to see this type of energy in cinematic terms. It might even be said that the one-off nature of the plot makes a sharper point about the directionless bureaucracy that guides politics considering that serialized television has to take a direction sooner or later.

6. Up-While not Pixar’s most ambitious movie concept, there’s a lot to be said for the execution. Ed Asner gives, for my money, the best voice over performance in history, the film rightfully gains recognition for its emotional punch of an opening montage, and a balloon trip to South America lends itself to visuals that dazzle in a whole new light. More than that, it’s a story with a sense of non-stop adventure backed by a pair of characters one gets easily invested in.

7. Sin Nombre-Cary Fukunaga explores the bleak life choices of people in the middle triangle of Central America whether they decide to risk their lives emigrating northward or live under a lawless void that’s pervaded by the lure of gang life. The story finds its heart in a gang member who makes a decision to do something decent (stop a brutal rape) and follows his impending doom.

8. 500 Days of Summer-Tonally, this love story is wispy fairy tale but it’s also an unflinching look at unhealthy romantic expectations. Wide-eyed Joseph Gordon-Levitt (matched in charm and cuddliness by a flighty Zooey Deschanel) is a man with a wide-open heart but is doomed by his unwillingness to face the reality of what his partner wants.

9. The Blind Side-The true story about a homeless teenager who gets adopted by an affluent white family in Tennessee is a classic sports film with unusually quiet and somber notes and a focus that takes place mostly off the field. It’s not the post-racial declaration of coexistence people might be looking for but it’s told with nuance and anchored by strong performances.

10. District 9-Neil Blomkamp’s regionally specific version of dystopia is so gritty and visceral, one can feel its otherworldly landscape. The film plays with P.O.V. and format to maximum effect. Set in a future version  of South Africa, the film parallels the struggles of apartheid without hitting the allegory angle too hard.

Runners-up:

Stephen Soderbergh’s  The Informant isn’t particularly coherent on a first viewing but it’s a very clever playing out of the “unreliable narrator” trope and has some curious casting.

The Invention of Lying is a classic man-environment mismatch comedy: In this case it’s lying man vs. honest society, an inversion of 1997’s Liar Liar. It doesn’t deliver on Ricky Gervais’s trademark cringe humor but it gets maximum comic mileage out of its premise and has a surprising amount of heart.

Extract is an underappreciated Mike Judge film that once again takes on his familiar themes of working class frustration but delivers its “the right workplace for you is waiting out there somewhere” parable with a bit more conviction and heart than his previous films. The film deftly juggles a pair of intersecting hair-brained schemes while leaving room to fill out the quirks of its auxiliary characters with a strong sense of place.

Funny People is the only Judd Apatow (or Judd-Apatow-by-association) film I’ve seen that seems like a genuine attempt to move people with humor than a quest to inject moviedom with as many dick jokes as possible.

The Hangover created a sizeable dent in the pop culture sphere due to its lightning-in-a-bottle chemistry between and the gut punch value of its reveals as three friends try to piece together what happened the night before. With a naked Ken Joeng popping out of a car and Mike Tyson’s (with pet tiger in tow) extremely random cameo, the film kept audiences in an anything-can-happen trance that still holds up today.

Film 26: The Informant!

The Informant! and Food Inc.

"The Informant!" is an adaptation of Kurt Eichenwald's expose on a most curious price-fixing scandal on account of the fact that the whistle blower was an unideal candidate for the FBI to work with because he was pretty much nuts.

Everything is pretty much up in the air here. Mark Whitacre (played by Matt Damon), a top executive at a food enrichment products company, might be tipping off the CIA to an enormous price-fixing scandal to cover up for a smaller lie he made up, because his wife is nagging him to, because amid all the racing thoughts in his head (this is one of the main motifs of the film as that internal monologue is done by Matt Damon in voice over) he just hasn't thought it through, or because he sees it as some convoluted master plan to get a big raise and take over management. Stephen Soderbergh, one of the premiere directors of the decade, is a master of experimentation and here he is experimenting with story to a great degree: The story is constantly in flux because the plot is driven by what's going on in the protagonist's head, and the the viewer is never entirely sure what is going on there.

That being said, sometimes the movie comes off as cleverer than it thinks it is, expecting the viewer to jump on board every twist that comes aboard every 3 minutes. The score comes off as a little desperate. It reminds me of how hard the film is trying to market itself as a comedy when it's really nothing of the sort.

The cast is also the most curious thing I've ever seen in my life. I would imagine that the kind of supporting roles needed for this movie would have gone to character actors like Alec Baldwin, Tom Wilkinson, Brian Cox, and Chris Cooper.

Never in a million years if I were to make a movie about a price fixing scandal at an industrial company would I have thought: Joel McHale from the Soup (he hadn't yet done Community) or Scott Bakula from Quantum Leap/Star Trek with more minor roles going to Arrested Development's Tony Hale, 30 Rock's Scott Adsit, Best Week Ever's Paul Thompkins, and Back to the Future's Thomas Wilson.

I don't think I mind because these guys are all just as serviceable as the serious choices. I mean, it makes sense, Scott Bakula is a trained actor and probably needs a job, I'm just surprised.

More power to Stephen Soderbergh, I guess, he probably saved a lot of money.

Is it Ocean's 13 or Ocean's 4?

Ocean's 13 is coming to theaters this week and I'm already wishing this film was never made. It's not the actual film I'm wishing didn't exist. Despite the abysmal failure of Ocean's 12, it's very probable that, considering the potential of Stephen Sodebergh and the strength of Ocean's 11, this film will be good and I'm looking forward to seeing it.


But the question is whether it's worth having to see these self-indulgent fests of self-praise that occurs when Matt Damon, George Clooney, and Brad Pitt all over the press circuit this week? Now, don't get me wrong. I have no problem with Matt Damon and while Brad Pitt can tend to get a little overly metaphysical/spiritual/philosophical when asked simple interview questions, he's OK with me as well. If George Clooney is far off in Africa or campaigning for his dad, I'm OK with him too. My problem isn't really with George Clooney as much as it is how his ability to make every (male and female) Hollywood reporter fall in love with him results in an over coverage of him with hard-hitting stories like "George Clooney: a great and selfless guy or the greatest, most handsomest, most selfless guy there is?." By selfless, do you mean "talks about himself less"? Because, I haven't seen much evidence of that. Also, did you omit actor with range in there? Well, that's cause he doesn't have much of it. I do think he deserved the Oscar for Syrianna (and some people don't), but that's about as far as his range stretches. "Oh, let's not bash George Clooney," you say, "He's doing great stuff for Darfur." Well, the George Clooney publicity machine is not doing it' s job very well because I challenge you all: How much do you know about Darfur because of George Clooney? The articles that have come out with regard to George Clooney are along the lines of "Clooney: Great guy because he went to Darfur" rather than "Here's what's going on in Darfur"

So as I was saying: Matt Damon by himself = Good, Brad Pitt by himself = Mostly good, George Clooney = Mildly Tolerable. However, when you get the three in the same room, it's a whole different monster. They start congratulating each other on winning People Magazine's sexiest man award, fooling around with reporters and giving humorous answers (except when the questions are about politics in which case, George never misses the opportunity to promote his cause*), and talking about how great each other are. Add Julia Roberts and see things get worse. so it might be a blessing in disguise that she's absent from this one.


These guys were so distracted by how much fun they were having on the set of Ocean's 12 that they forgot to double-check at the end of the film if they had made a coherent plot (Stephen Sodebergh has been guilty of this before: see Full Frontal). I remember on three separate (Letterman, Inside the Actor's Studio and Good Morning America) occasions, Matt Damon had felt a need to remind us in interviews that while he and the gang were having fun in Ocean's 12, that they were still professionals and were going to deliver us a professional product. That should have been our first clue as to how bad Ocean's 12 would be. When he was promoting The Legend of Bagger Vance, he wasn't bragging about how professional he and Will Smith were able to maintain their work. That's sort of implied.
Ocean's 11 was notable in 2001 for the fact that all these A-list selflessly took pay cuts so that the film could support such a large ensemble. It doesn't look like their egos took a pay cut, unfortunately. These guys have so much fun with each other that I think they forget there are other people in the cast. I seriously wonder if Brad Pitt could even name the other 11 members of his own cast? Don Cheadle pops up occasionally so at best, we should just call this film Ocean's 4 judging by the press releases. I never see Shaobo Qin, Eddie Jemison, Scott Caan, or Casey Affleck involved in any of the press interviews. Poor Casey has the unfortunate distinction of being Ben Affleck's brother and on top of that he doesn't even get any recognition for his own film.
Lastly, what about Elliot Gould and Carl Reiner? Carl Reiner is a comedic legend and Elliot Gould was one of the best actors in the '70s through a string of Rob Altman films. You would think they might have gotten some recognition as well.
*I don't have anything against Clooney's politics and agree with his viewpoints. In my opinion, the political views expressed in his pictures are that if nothing else, "we should be open and be allowed to criticize our government." At the same time, he babbles on non-stop about his politics to the point where it bores me to death and doesn't seem to have an off-switch. I felt it was slightly insensitive to use his Golden Globe acceptance speech to deliver a Jack Abramoff as if he was filling int for Jay Leno on the Tonight Show.
Footnote:
I'm slightly less upset over this matter, when I learned that Carl Reiner was on Late Night with Craig Furgeson tonight. In the film, he admits that Ocean's 12 wasn't good but Ocean's 13 is well-written and greatly enhanced by Al Pacino. We will wait and see. Reiner was also shilling out for the greatness of Cheadle, Clooney, and Pitt. Well, Carl, don't sell yourself short, you're a great actor yourself.

The campaign to improve oscar acceptance speeches

Because I'm trying to get some of the attention from all those oscars-obsessed sites, I thought i'd comment a little bit about some oscar-related topics. One main controvoursey at the Oscars and Golden Globes as far as I can understand as people are always wondering "how can we keep the speeches shorter?" It seems like the people in charge of the Oscar ceremony and everyone involved are making conscious efforts to keep the speeches short, but if they were really determined to keep the speeches short than people might confide in their oscar-nominated friends beforehand, "you know, I know you like me and appreciate what i do for you and you don't have to waste America's time for an extra 3 seconds to let the country know it on national television." But somehow it doesn't work that way. It seems like the winners are somehow obligated to list their influences in front of an audience like it's show-and-tell and it's a mandatory part of Kindergarten class.

Take Hugh Laurie at the Golden Globes, for example. Let me first just say, I loved his speech. I especially like the part about how he said, "I want to thank my crew, because they're truly great. Now, logically we can't all have great crews. Somewhere, there's someone operating with a crew of drunken thieves. But that's not our crew, our crew is great." And that's absolutely true! When every actor praises their crew and costars when asked about them in interviews, it just becomes an exercise in political correctness and none of it really feels sincere.

What was also interesting about Laurie's speech was how he remarked on how he wishes he had a speech on him. Well, from the standpoint of an audience member, I'm perfectly happy you don't have a speech on you, it means the ceremony is going to go quicker. But nevertheless, he did give a speech because "that was the thing to do." I remember the 2004 Oscars, Charlie Kaufman really was uncomfortable with public speaking and stated he just wanted his speech to be over. Charlie buddy, relax! You just won an oscar, your life and career will be drastically improved. This should be a time of celebration for you, just do what you want. If the speech is that much of a hastle, Charlie, just say thanks, and get off the stage.

But it seems like people have to earn their oscar with a speech, like it's a silent agreement. Well, if that's the case who's the agreement between, anyway? Is the agreement between the presenter and the people running the ceremony and, if so, why? Do the people running the ceremony demand that the stars get on stage and speak a little for the entertainment benefit of the audience? Because, if so, the speeches don't really seem aimed at entertainment, per say. It doesn't personally entertain me to hear a laundry list of names anymore than watching the end credits of a movie entertain me. If these awards ceremonies are really entertainment, have the stars get up and juggle or so. Since we're rewarding there acting, I'd love to see them (especially stars like Kate Winslet, Naiomi Watts, Hugh Laurie, and Christain Bale who are really talented at accents) jump into their character for a couple lines and spit off a couple quotes from their movies. Maybe Julia Roberts could've accepted her award for Erin Brockovitch in character and acted like a total bitch (which would've been a change of pace from her annoyingly phony smiley self), Jamie Foxx could have played a little piano when he won for Ray, George Clooney could have shot someone when he won as an assassin for Syrianna, etc. Someone actually did this in 2004: the best original song winner got on stage sang the song himself (it was performed that night by Antonio Banderas), said thank you and got off. From watching the post-win interviews that year, I'd say it was pretty unanimously the best loved acceptance speech from the folks in the press room.

But I digress. With this precedent set, the fact that remains that it has now become the de facto proper etiquette for the nominees to read off a laundry list of names, so it would just be flat-out rude to not give a long list of names of everyone associated with you or your production, boring as it may be. And with Hollywood having a reputation of being composed of shallow self-serving people, it's hard to blame people for wanting to show grattitude. It's also really hard to blame someone for speaking their heart out. Some people (at least one or two on a messageboard I frequent) complained about Jamie Foxx's lack of originality (he already gave it at the Golden Globes) or oversentimentality when he gave that speech thanking his grandmother and crying, but personally I just don't feel that that's up for judgement. I think it's their moment and an oscar winner saying whatever he truly feels and thanking his grandmother, is not something we have a right to criticize. But, as I've said all along, I just wish that the majority of them didn't have to be so boring.

One of the only times in recent years I've seen anyone breaking this contract of mass-thanking was Stephen Sodebergh upon his win for Traffic. He said "I have some people that I want to thank but I'll thank them in private. Instead, I want to thank anyone who spends part of their day creating. I don’t care if it’s a book, a film, a painting, a dance, a piece of theater, a piece of music. Anybody who spends part of their day sharing their experience with us. I think the world would be unlivable without art.”

What a beautiful speech! It makes me almost want to forgive him for Ocean's 12. It also makes me want to write and blog even more for my possibly non-existent audience, because he inspires me to make art just for art's sake.

My only question is how many people got pissed off at him for their 2 seconds of fame being taken away by not hearing their name heard? Maybe, they didn't get pissed off. Maybe they didn't care, and if that's the case, why do many people feel obliged to name so many names in every other oscar speech in the last ten years?