Review: Spring Breakers

Sometimes something is so bad that it’s actually starts to seem good; or so outrageous that it actually makes sense.  And for about two seconds in the middle of Spring Breakers, I started to wonder if this was one of those instances.  But then James Franco went on a ten minute monologue about guns and Calvin Klein Escape and I was reassured that this was nothing more than cinematic refuse.  In fact, this film is so bad that there is no lens I can think of, through which this movie can be rationalized as anything more than terrible.  Sure, there are the apologists and contrarians who will look at the bright colors and the gratuitous sexual innuendo and convince themselves that this is art nouveau on crack, but then those are probably the same people who think dog poo smeared across a blank canvas is artistically meaningful.

The plot of the movie follows four incredibly misguided youths (Selena Gomez, Vanessa Hudgens, Ashley Benson, and Rachel Korine) as they go to extreme measures to participate in the annual rite of spring break in Florida.  When a local drug dealing wanna-be-rapper (James Franco) bails them out of jail, they embark on a low-rent-low-level crime spree that puts them on a collision course with a local heavy. 

The problem then with the synopsis in the preceding paragraph is that it gives the impression that this movie has an actual plot when it is in fact a muddled mess of graphic sexual exploitation and every ignorant stereotype that you can come up with.  That is not the fatal flaw of this movie, as many a movie have been built on rocky foundations but still managed to entertain.  No, the problem here is that it looks and feels as though director Harmony Korine simply has no idea how to direct, cut, and score a feature film.  So then it should come as no surprise that this is his first time in the big chair. 

Rather than a movie, this set of scenes plays like the fetish fantasy of a seventeen years old boy who takes too many drugs and plays too many video games.  The visuals are a cheap rip off of Miami Vice with neon and pastels and the dialogue is so amateurish that the crowd spent half the film laughing through scenes that are unintentionally funny.  The edits are incoherent and sloppy, and the musical score completely bungled. 

As for the cast, James Franco follows up his subpar effort in Oz with a performance that is even worse.  I give him credit for taking a risk and going for it, but this character Alien is an unbelievable caricature of ten outdated stereotypes.  The stench of his performance may be as much a product of Korine’s writing as it is his performance, but there are just too many cringe inducing scenes to give Franco a pass.  As for the cast of former tween stars headlining this movie, Selena Gomez gets the nod for worst in show.  I’m not going to mince words here.  She simply cannot act.  Regardless of film or role, she simply does not have enough talent to convince anyone of anything.  My guess here is that her biggest claim to fame going forward will be as Bieber’s on-again-off-again girlfriend until his five minutes of fame mercifully come to an end.

Then there is the trio of Vanessa Hudgens, Ashley Benson, and Rachel Korine.  The three of them essentially delivered the same performance.  When they weren’t naked and participating in some kind of erotica, they were desperately overacting to convince viewers they were street ready and hardcore.  Was it embarrassing?  Yes.  Were they worse than Franco or Gomez?  No.  So in this context, that has to be viewed as a win.  As for the rest of the cast, there were a bunch of exaggerated stereotypes walking around with guns, bongs, and bibles but none of them bring anything to the table and thus are not worthy of a mention.

In my experience I have come to find that voices that are the most loud and obnoxious tend to have the least meaningful thoughts to express and that’s what this movie is.  It’s loud, bombastic, and over-the-top but it doesn’t have anything important to convey and doesn’t really have a compelling story to tell.  This movie is nothing more than a director (and I use that word loosely) indulging his own personal fantasies onscreen and does not need to be seen let alone paid for.  Watch pretty much anything else (yes, even Project X) and you will find yourself far more entertained.

Standout Performance: Anyone who passed on this movie.

Read More

Review: Journey 2: The Mysterious Island

When Journey 2: The Mysterious Island was first released I didn’t make the connection that it was a sequel to Journey to the Center of the Earth.  Brendan Fraser and pretty much everyone else from the first film were not brought back for the second installment save for Josh Hutcherson.  Before the release of The Hunger Games, I could not have picked Hutcherson out of a police line up, so his reprising the role of Sean Anderson did nothing to aid me in making a connection between the films.  I’m not exactly sure when I did finally figure it out, but now having seen the movie I wonder if any of that really matters, because it’s not a terribly good flick. 

The plot of the movie follows Hutcherson’s Sean and his stepfather Hank (played by Dwayne Johnson) as they trace a mysterious  radio signal to a mythical mysterious island born from the pages of classic adventure novels.  Along for the ride is a tour guide and his tween daughter who join Hutcherson and Johnson in their search to find Sean’s grandfather as well as a way to return home.

The best way I can describe this movie is that it is to action/adventure movies what Coors Light is to beer – very very soft.  It plays like it is geared to a younger audience that probably could care less about volcanic explosions and aerial chases.  Director Brad Peyton's film clearly panders to tween viewers by delivering  large doses of cotton candy puppy dog romance through Hutcherson and Vanessa Hudgen’s Kailani, while intermittently flashing shots of Dwayne Johnson flexing his pecs to appease all the mom's in the viewing audience.  Regardless, I am clearly not in the target demographic for this film.

With that in mind, here are the four observations I came away from the film with:

Michael Caine is a great actor.  He could read the pages of the dictionary and make it seem compelling and emotive.  On the other hand, Josh Hutcherson – he of Hunger Games and general Hollywood douchebaggery fame – is the polar opposite.  Not only can he not act, but if you could somehow quantify charisma, his score would rate just barely above that of a med school cadaver. 

As for Hutcherson’s paramour in the movie, Vanessa Hudgens, I feel like this may be the first time I have really seen her try to act as I don’t remember her saying anything of consequence in Sucker Punch.  Her performance makes me wonder why in the past she registered on anyone's radar in any way . My guess is that she may have dropped out of the same school of acting as Hutcherson.  On the bright side, neither of the two were able to upstage the  other on screen since neither know a thing about acting.

And, say what you will about Dwayne Johnson but the guy is fun to watch (even when the movie he is in absolutely stinks).  On the one hand he can play the imposing larger than life action star – the kind that doesn’t exist anymore (unless you acknowledge the cast of The Expendables which features a slew of them though long past their prime).  And on the other hand, he can be the egotistical guy in a family-friendly movie, who doesn’t quite get “it” but deep inside has a big heart and will eventually win you over with both his 1000 watt smile as well as his guitar and vocals.  Seriously, Johnson plays the guitar and sings a song in almost all his PG movies (it must be in his contract).  Hey may not be a great actor, but he is definitely a very good entertainer. 

My last thought on this film is that just because a movie is geared towards a younger audience, that shouldn't make it acceptable to have huge plot holes and to demand huge logic leaps.  Putting out a product with these kinds of issues is either born from a general disrespect for the fan base or just plain laziness.  Either way, it’s irresponsible.  In the case of this movie some of the plot issues are so egregious that a nine year old could pick it apart.

What this all means for Journey 2 is that the movie is not very good, but how bad it is really depends on the eye of the beholder.  If you’re over the age of twenty, this movie is a definite no.  No matter how much you love dHunger Games (and I guess Josh Hutcherson by extension), or how attractive you think Vanessa Hudgens and/or Dwayne Johnson are, there’s absolutely no reason for you to watch this film.  If the movie is to be viewed by someone under the age of fifteen then some entertainment value should be found.  And as for someone between those two age groups, it’s a crapshoot.  Proceed at your own risk.

Standout Performance: Dwayne Johnson gets the nod in this film because he carries most of the action sequences and the bulk of the comedic relief as well to the point where at times it almost feels like a one-man show.

Read More

Review: Sucker Punch

When you walk into a movie directed by Zack Snyder – he of "300" and "Watchmen" fame, you more or less know what you are going to get – a highly stylized film loaded with digital effects. In this regard, “Sucker Punch” does not disappoint. In this film, Snyder immerses us into a dark world that snakes its way between reality and fantasy with a stunning brand of visual bravado. While this film differs from his last two live action jaunts in that it does not come from comic book source material, its roots lay in the genre and pander to every fetish and whim of that segment of fandom.

What works about this film is the action. Say what you will about Snyder, whether it involves the clanging of razor-sharp blades or the rat-a-tat-tat of semi-automatic firearms, the man knows how to frame a fight scene. In “Sucker Punch” we have a film that revolves around four major action sequences that have the complexity of a cutting edge PRG video game with the accompanying near visual overload. While at times it felt like Snyder went a little too John Woo/Michael Bay with the slow motion, his attention to detail in these scenes is his ultimate strength.

What does not work about this film is that the characters seem like mere vehicles to deliver four action sequences. The plot that threads these pieces together is contrived. Taking a group of individuals – each bearing a layer of catastrophe, does not add depth to the proceedings. Of course this can be easily remedied if the major players develop throughout the narrative, but unfortunately more attention has been paid to the visual than the cerebral. Cinematic gravitas only bears true weight when one is invested in the character of the protagonists and this is hard to do when the filmmaker himself pays little attention to such details.

As for the cast, Emily Browning as Baby Doll is bland and unconvincing; Abbie Cornish and Jena Malone inject a bit of genuine grittiness to the sense of noir that underlies the sets; Hudgens and Chung are pure eye candy; Oscar Isaac plays a stock heavy; while the presence of Jon Hamm and Carla Gugino serve only to provide a modicum of credibility to the cast.

I did not hate this movie, though I did not particularly like it. It feels a lot like “Scott Pilgrim versus the World”- a movie I really enjoyed - without the humor and no way near as fun. Throughout this film, I spent most of my time wondering (and worrying) how Snyder’s style would translate to his next project (produced by WB golden boy Christopher Nolan) – Man of Steel.  At the end of the day, if you liked Michael Bay’s Transformers movies then you will find entertainment value here via Netflix or On Demand. If not, then you should steer clear. This one has “caveat emptor” written all over it.

Notable Performance: Jena Malone of Life as a House fame outshines the rest of the cast.

Read More