Review: Pitch Perfect 2 (The Pitch is Back!)

The Pitch is Back.

And it will be back for a third installment.  You can carve that in stone after we learned this weekend that the only thing that can beat Mad Max is the Bellas of Barden University to the tune of $70M at the domestic box office (to Mad Max: Fury Road’s $44M).  Between Pitch Perfect 2 and Furious 7, it’s been a good year at the cinema for Universal and all this success no doubt has left their deep pocketed but suddenly frugal neighbors down the street in Burbank feeling green with envy.

But all the financial success aside, Pitch Perfect 2 is very much the same movie as its predecessor only it’s different.  The movie is different from Pitch 1 in that the plot and its characters are meaner, more cynical, and thus a little less likable.  And it’s the same as its predecessor in that the creative team knows the film’s audience, knows what that fan base loves about the first movie, and gives them the exact same formula – fluffy story lines and snarky pulp references dressed up with catchy acapela mashups of pop hits from yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

There is something to be said for the ole saying, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” but there’s a lot of truth to the caveat of “going back to the well one too many times.”  And while I muster up every possible cliché in the book to describe the experience of watching this movie, what I am trying to say is that this movie is not fun enough and its characters not likable enough to offset the been-there-done-that feeling that pervades this film.  See formula below:

Act 1: Bellas find themselves in a bit of a pickle. 

Act 2: Bellas try to come together but have a falling out while trying to remedy the issues in Act 1.

Act 3: Bellas reconcile and put things back together to deliver a rousing musical performance.

Like I said, been-there-done-that.  In a lot of ways, Anna Kendrick’s careers arc is emblematic of Pitch Perfect’s in that Kendrick used to be the cool plucky underdog in Hollywood on the fringe of the big-time churning out good performances here and there in movies such as Up in the Air and 50/50.  Then somewhere along the way (really, after the first Pitch Perfect), she became a big star not only for her acting skills, but also for her vocals and social media savvy.  And as her star shined brighter and brighter, her sharp sarcasm started to play less charming and more the product of unwarranted ego.  In much the same way, Pitch Perfect 2 feels less charming and more obnoxious – no doubt the product of the cult status its predecessor received during its post-theatrical life.

That’s not to say that the movie is not funny.  There is a lot of fun to be had with the supporting cast – Rebel Wilson (Fat Amy), Adam Devine (Bumper), Snoop Dog (Snoop Dog), and Keegan-Michael Key (Becca’s Boss) supply plenty of laughter, but Kendrick’s Becca is the rock upon which this foundation is built and whether its her performance or the way the character is written, it never really comes together for her.  She’s no longer the too-cool-for-school outsider who realizes that friends do matter, but instead the too-cool-for-school insider who decides maybe they don’t matter as much until maybe they really do. 

But very little of what I has to say here really matters, because if you were all in on the first movie, then nothing will really change how you feel, especially if you are anything like the Kool-Aid drinking crowd that I watched the movie with – a crowd that buzzed with anticipation when even David Cross came on screen.  And if you are someone who has to see the movie because the person you are with wants to see the movie, then well, you’re going to see it and endure it because you have to.  Just don’t expect a “Cups” moment or any originality.  This one’s for the congregation and there’s no need to preach.  They’re going to love it.  And for the non-believers, well, not all the music is rubbish so there’s that.

Since movie will be an A+ to those who really want to see it, and a D to those who really don’t, I’ll Split the difference and call it a C+.

Read More

Review: Pain & Gain

Whoa.  That’s my first reaction to Pain & Gain.  Not because it is so amazing or because it is horribly bad, but because the movie from start to finish is all over the place.  This probably doesn’t sound like a shocking reveal since Michael Bay was the man behind the camera.  No person cinematically represents the antithesis of “less is more” to a greater extent than he of Armageddon, Bad Boys, and Transformers fame, but his latest film has a decidedly different feel then its frenetically paced predecessors.  Slower and more drawn out, the pacing allows you to take in everything that is unfolding onscreen.   But is this necessarily a good thing?

The plot of the movie is based on the real life activities of Daniel Lugo (Mark Wahlberg); a low rent con man that spends the bulk of his time cultivating his muscle more than his mind.  Driven by self-help drivel, he enlists the help of two of his fellow gym mates Adrian Doorbal and Paul Doyle (Anthony Mackie and Dwayne Johnson) to kidnap and rob local douche bag Victor Kershaw (Tony Shalhoub).  This kicks off a series of miscalculations that leads to a crime spree.

The premise seems interesting enough, but is prone to stretches where it’s just not that interesting.  For a director who is known and panned for over-the-top action sequences unfolding at breakneck speed, the pacing of the film is startlingly slow and bogged down at times in exposition.  Another problem with Bay easing on the rapid cuts and taking his foot off the gas pedal is that it allows the viewer a chance to see all the warts on his production.  And there are more than a few. 

Wart 1: The plot is too convoluted.  Three guys did a bad thing.  That’s the story, but the way Bay wants to tell it, the viewer must sit through the backstory of every peripheral character and let them take turns as a third person narrator.  This is a delicate balance to maintain and Bay lacks the directorial touch to pull it off.  As a result of this, the film’s tone and congruity are completely demolished beneath the weight of mismatched machinations. 

Wart 2: The movie is just too long.  I couldn’t help thinking that if Bay pulled this movie off at his usual pace, the movie would have been more palatable.  A typical Hollywood production has three distinct acts and while we live in a world that now detests formulaic procedure, this is one formula that works.  And when something goes awry, the average moviegoer can sense it.  Pain & Gain not only has three plodding acts, it feels like there is a fourth and fifth act added on for bad measure.  Every time the narrative builds to a crescendo, it veers off into another direction and prolongs the inevitable.

Wart 3: The character mix.  It’s tough for a film to be enjoyed without one decent character that the viewing audience can identify with or root for.  Somewhere in each film, there usually needs to be that one person the audience would like to see land on their feet when all the rubble settles.  It’s why there are cops and robbers stories instead of just robbers and robbers.  Unfortunately, this is a movie about a bunch of really bad people doing really bad things to each other.  The closest we get to a sympathetic figure is Johnson’s Paul Doyle, but Bay swings him across the spectrum of good and bad like the pendulum on the clock thus compromising his likability.

As for the work of the cast, I found most everyone to be perfectly adequate.  Wahlberg does what he does and never takes an acting risk.  He doesn’t ruin the movie, but he also doesn’t make it better. Anthony Mackie proves himself to be a capable sidekick for Wahlberg’s foibles, but none would mistake this for his best work.  Rebel Wilson, Tony Shalhoub, Rob Corddry, and Ed Harris are absolutely satisfactory and unremarkable in their supporting roles and never make a significant impact to the quality of the finished product.  Given that the cast is littered with people who know how to deliver a scene, one has to wonder if it was the nature of the plot and direction that accounts for the plethora of muted performance.

The two who shine best in Pain & Gain are Dwayne Johnson and Bar Paly.  Johnson takes some risks and offers genuine comedic moments with the brand of charisma that has made him a star in the action genre.  Few in the business today can combine action and humor better than the former WWE star.  As for Bar Paly, while it is easy to dismiss her as mere eye candy, she does a nice of parodying herself and poking fun at a character that is perhaps the most ridiculous amongst of a gallery of undesirables.

It would seem then that my takeaways from this film are that Dwayne Johnson and Bar Paly are good, Michael Bay is bad, and everyone else is in between.  But does that mean you should run out to the cinema to see Pain & Gain?  The simple answer is no.  It’s too long and not enough fun to pay the premium.  There are too many interesting movies on the horizon to waste your time with this one.  Instead, put this title on your Netflix and give it a spin in the comfort of your own home.  It may or may not entertain you, but at least you will have spent a lot less money and will get to enjoy it in the comfort of your own home.

Standout Performance: Dwayne Johnson.  He’ll never be confused with a Dustin Hoffman or a Daniel Day-Lewis, but he always keeps it interesting. 

Read More

Review: Pitch Perfect

Before Pitch Perfect was released in theaters, I received invites to at least twelve different free screenings of this movie.  Depending on how you look at it, this was either a sign that the film had some issues so the creative team was looking for feedback or that the powers that be at Universal felt like they had a hit on their hands and were trying to generate word-of-mouth buzz.  Whatever the reason, the screenings and the marketing worked because the film earned a robust $76M against a $17M production budget.

Before renting this movie, I thought it would play like a glorified episode of Glee, but there was just enough of a Bring It On (vastly underrated movie) vibe to elevate it into something more.  The plot follows Anna Kendrick’s Beca – an aspiring DJ/producer with intimacy issues, who matriculates at Barton College and finds herself a member of The Bellas – an all female a cappella group.  Thrust into a national singing competition, Kendrick and her teammates must find the right formula to capture the coveted championship.

So as you might have guessed, we're not exactly dealing with Shakespeare or Milton here in regards to the subject matter and the plot asks for a bit too much suspension of disbelief, but one area where the film works is in the acting.  Don't get m wrong.  I am not implying that the acting is particularly great - in fact there are a few cringe-worthy moment - but what I do mean is that it is the right brand of acting to fit the film and its target audience.  Everyone not named Anna Kendrick needs only be perfectly one-dimensional to help fill the time between musical numbers (which are the nuts and bolts of the movie), and for the most part they are.

Rebel Wilson works the same side of the street as she did in Bridesmaids and What to Expect When You are Expecting, and it still works.  She is consistently the only legitimate comic relief in the movie and steals the show with her unique delivery.  Skylar Astin is charged with playing Kendrick’s love interest Jesse, and the only thing I can say about him is he has a good voice and looks like a cross between Dane Cook and Ben Savage.  As for the rest of the crew, Brittany Snow, Alexis Knapp, Elizabeth Banks, John Michael Higgins, Kelley Jakle, et al excel as vocalists and are mediocre as actors.  But really, that is all they need to be.

As for Kendrick, I have been a huge fan of hers in the past as I loved her work in Up in the Air, 50/50, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, and End of Watch.  Her work in this film is not nearly on par with those other performances, but she does show herself to be a tremendous singer.  Those moments are when she shines best, while the character development scenes feel rather pedestrian.  This I suspect is the result of the lackluster script, but yes, Kendrick has seen better days as an actress.  Still, she is just charismatic enough to keep the viewer engaged for the duration of the film.

Much like my review, my opinion of this movie is all over the place.  There are things that worked and things that didn’t.  However, there are just enough positives to make this movie mildly entertaining.  If you like light hearted films, then this one will play for you.  But if you are looking for gravitas or fisticuffs, then this movie probably will be your Kryptonite.  It won’t leave you feeling pensive or thoughtful, but Perfect Pitch may leave you wanting to add a few tunes to one of your playlists.  At the very least, the vocals are top notch. 

Standout Performance: Rebel Wilson.  She provides good comic relief.

Read More

Review: Bachelorette

Bachelorette is one of those films first released via On Demand and Electronic-Sell-Through before a very modest theatrical release.  Back in the day when people were buying DVDs like bread and milk before a big storm, such movies were distributed Direct-to-DVD.  In other words, those movies stunk.  So I find it curious that some have described Bachelorette as a cross between The Hangover and Bridesmaids, because the latter two are actually quite entertaining. 

The plot of the movie chronicles the missteps surrounding three high school friends - Regan (Kirsten Dunst), Gena (Lizzy Caplan), and Katie (Isla Fisher) – who reunite as bridesmaids for the wedding of their friend, Becky (Rebel Wilson).  Selfish and mean-spirited, their respective behaviors cause problem after problem and ultimately threatens to derail the wedding.

The problem here is that writer/director Leslye Headland is trying to capture that R-rated comedic magic that others have seemingly bottled with movies such as Bridesmaids and Ted, but unfortunately she neglects the three key elements to successfully creating a solid R-rated romantic comedy – likability, humor, and some semblance of redemption.  Here is how I think she and her film fared:

1. Likability of the cast.  At some point in the past I liked most of the individuals in this cast; Isla Fisher in Definitely, Maybe; Kirsten Dunst in Bring It On, James Marsden in Bryan Singer’s X-Men movies, and so on and so forth.  Unfortunately, I loathe all of them in this movie and that goes ditto for Adam Scott, Lizzy Caplan (Parkey Posey 2.0), and Kyle Bornheimer.  Most everyone in this movie is unsavory and worse still is that nearly every actor in this movie is clearly mailing it in.  As a result one cannot help but feel ambivalent about whether or not the movie’s emotional strings (romantic and otherwise) end up tied in a neat bow.

2.  Humor.  Simply put, there is none.  Someone forgot to tell Headland that cocaine humor stopped being en vogue in the 90’s.  In all seriousness, I cannot recall one scene that elicited anything more than a mild chuckle.  Completely void of any semblance of wit, most attempts at a punch line come off as cruel and mean-spirited.  Sure, having protagonists who make snarky comments can play in a movie, but only when those characters are either likable or have redemptive qualities, which leads me to my third point.

3.  Redemptive qualities.  In a film, redemption comes form the journey where the characters emerge from the events of the plot transformed – finding themselves in a better place from whence they came.  In an R-rated comedy, this also means having the sensibility to straddle the line that divides adult humor and cras vulgarity, so as to ensure that no matter how far the protagonists stray into mean-spirited douchebaggery, viewers can all walk away from the film feeling good about the protagonists.  The trio of Dunst, Kaplan, and Fisher not cross that line, they aslo emerge from the journey (if there actually was one) unchanged.

So in taking stock of this film, it becomes obvious that Headland and her creative team swung and missed on all three criteria.  It should come as no surprise then that I am not recommending this film.  The purported romantic comedy is neither funny nor emotive, thus this is a film to be avoided  at all costs.  There are too many films in this raunchy comedy space that execute this formula infinitely better to waste your time on this one.  You have been warned.

Standout Performance: None.

Read More

Review: What to Expect When You Are Expecting

I did not want to see What to Expect When You Are Expecting.  No man does and if he says otherwise then he is either lying because his significant other is within earshot or the person he has been dying to go out with, finally said “yes” and in an act of sheer cruelty chose this movie.  So then you may be wondering why I plunked down thirteen hard earned dollars to see this movie.  The simple answer is The Dictator.  A wise person once told me that relationships are all about compromise and since my girlfriend gave in on that movie, I had to give in on this one.  Having seen What to Expect, I can tell you that both of us left the cinema absolutely disappointed because I wanted the movie to be short and she was expecting to laugh.

Based on the novel of the same name, the title of the plot kind of says it all.  The movie is about a bunch of couples that are pregnant or expecting to welcome a new child into their respective homes.  They all face a different set of problems as they move towards the big day and somehow all amazingly end up at the same hospital at the same time for the same reason.  Fear not, the credibility of this movie has completely evaporated long before you ever reach that implausible point in the plot.

I have mentioned it in this space before, but I really don’t like these movies that have ridiculously large ensemble casts and trace a number of loosely connected storylines (i.e. Valentine’s Day and New Years Eve).  What to Expect When You are Expecting has definitely reinforced my distaste for this disturbing trend.  Forget about all the things that are annoying about this type of filmmaking (stunt casting, poor character development, et al), the central issue with this project is that it is simply not funny.  Don’t be fooled by the presence of Chris Rock and the daddy crew as their jokes are as bland and neutered as their characters.  This paucity of laughter could have been forgiven if only the plot of the film tugged at the proverbial heart strings, but the only time it elicits any kind of reaction from viewers is when a newborn baby is paraded across the screen.

As for the cast, they are for the most part uninspired.  There are too many people in this group and an overabundance of weak performances to address, but there are a few who stood out as particularly subpar.  Chris Rock had to be laughing all the way to the bank when he cashed the check for this movie, because clearly he mailed it in.  He is not funny and he is clearly not trying.  Likewise to Elizabeth Banks who often does good work, but fails to bring any sort of charisma to a very significant role.  If there is one person who acquits herself, it is Rebel Wilson who essentially reprises her character from Bridesmaids and in doing so provides what few laughs there are to be had.

Needless to say I do not recommend this movie.  Avoid this movie at all cost.  If someone should give you a copy of the DVD for your birthday, then throw it away (and de-friend that person on Facebook).  If you happen to see it on TV, change the channel.  There are a million better ways to spend your time than watching the cinematic equivalent of a root canal.  In lieu of this movie, watch anything else.  You’re more likely to be entertained.

Standout Performance: Rebel Wilson is the lone source of laughter in this purported comedy.

Read More