Seven Psychopaths

I'm a sucker for Sam Rockwell.  When you add in Christopher Walken and Woody Harrelson, you have just created a film that I will watch, regardless of the story.  So why try to get around it?  Check out the red band trailer for Seven Psychopaths:

Judging from the trailer, Seven Psychopaths is writer/director Martin McDonagh's attempt to make a fast-paced heist movie, along the lines of Snatch, but in English and with better dialogue.  McDonagh's first film (he is also a playwright) was the surprisingly enjoyable In Bruges; at first glance, it looks like he was trying to keep the humor, but up the pace with his follow-up.  And there is nothing wrong with that approach --- I bet McDonagh could make one hell of a great breakneck crime flick.  But that's not what he's going for with Seven Psychopaths, although it takes a little while for that to become clear to the audience.

Although there are hints that things will get weird

Marty (Colin Farrell) is a successful screenwriter suffering from writer's block.  The script he is working on is titled "Seven Psychopaths," but he's having trouble actually coming up with any characters.  That's where Billy (Sam Rockwell) comes in.  Billy is Marty's best friend, but he's not a particularly good influence.  Instead of working, Billy and Hans (Christopher Walken) kidnap dogs and then collect reward money when the owners post flyers around the neighborhood.  Billy is trying to help Marty finish his script, although nothing seems to be working.  That's why Billy puts an ad in the paper for psychopaths to contact Marty to tell him their stories.  

...which ultimately leads to Tom Waits carrying a bunny during a firefight

Meanwhile, it seems that Billy and Hans have made a mistake in their choice of dognappings.  Instead of a spoiled trophy wife's pet, they picked up a shih tzu belonging to a violent mob boss (Woody Harrelson).

That would be pretty bad, but they could theoretically give the dog back on the sly and hopefully avoid any violent repercussions.  Well, they could if Billy was a rational human being.  By holding on to the dog, the mob boss is able to identify the dognappers and send his underlings out to kill them.  Unless there happens to be some other psychopath on the loose, killing killers (and there is!).  So what do we wind up with?  A homicidal criminal out for revenge, a random killer on the loose, a confused and mostly drunk writer, an idiotic dognapper, and Christopher Walken.  And that is when the story takes an unusual turn, a metafictional turn that is better experienced than explained.

This is what you expect, but you get something slightly different

The acting in Seven Psychopaths is some of the better comedic work I have seen in a while.  As the mostly normal point-of-view character, Colin Farrell does a great job being surprised and helpless; he is mainly reacting to the other actors here, but he's refined the acting capabilities of his eyebrows as he's gotten older.  Sam Rockwell, as usual, was a bizarre delight.  Rockwell plays goofy exceedingly well, but he is exceptional when given a good script.  Christopher Walken was unmistakably Christopher Walken.  Some might argue that he's leaning into self-parody territory these days, but I love seeing him in good movies --- especially ones where his weirdness doesn't stand out more than anybody else's.

If I walked into my home and found Christopher Walken, I would expect him to look like this

Woody Harrelson clearly benefited from a script full of amusingly foul things to say.  Harrelson is a good actor, but he's at his best when playing up his comedy roots, and he does absurd comedy as well as anybody in mainstream Hollywood.

"Somebody cast me in a Coen Brothers movie!  A comedy, this time!"

The rest of the cast has what amounts to featured cameos.  Some of them, like Abbie Cornish, Olga Kurylenko and Harry Dean Stanton, don't get to do much, although their parts move the plot forward.  Others, like Michael Pitt, Gabourey Sidibe and Kevin Corrigan, receive little screen time but compensate by having chunks of pretty great dialogue.  Even the actors playing straight roles, like Zeljko Ivanek, turn in quality character work.  Of all the supporting cast, Tom Waits has the meatiest and strangest role, although it is easily the least bizarre movie role I have seen of his.  It's always a pleasant surprise when you watch a movie and see only good acting in it, and it's a treat seeing an ensemble cast having this much fun.

More entertaining than it appears

Martin McDonagh clearly has a talent for getting the best from his actors, although the more readily apparent skill would be writing awesome dialogue.  Here's where McDonagh succeeds where Guy Ritchie and Quentin Tarentino often fail: he actually develops his one-dimensional characters.  It would have been extremely easy to make Marty the soul of this movie --- he's the only remotely normal main character, after all --- but he went out of his way to show the pain of almost every goofy-ass character in this script. 

Exception noted, Mr. Harrelson

The technical side of the film was all done well enough (I liked the cinematography, although it was never too showy), but it is the writing that stands out the most. 

That is a good thing and a bad thing.  The good side I have already explained --- funny script, unexpected depth, etc. --- but the bad side comes into play about halfway through the film.  It gets meta.  I'm not a huge fan of metafiction, but I can appreciate when it is done well.  Thankfully, Seven Psychopaths doesn't screw it up or get too pretentious.  This is probably my favorite metafictional movie since Adaptation.  It's not that the movie has a metafictional aspect to it that bothers me --- it's that that aspect doesn't really come into play until the film is half over.  It felt like the script suddenly sobered up at the 45-minute mark and decided to put off the predictably silly and violent ending that it was so clearly heading toward in the first half of the film.  Had the meta been more prevalent earlier in the movie (or less prevalent later), this would have been far more effective.  Still, Seven Psychopaths is a blast to watch.

The Hunger Games

Young Adult literature has come a long way in the past few years, with some of the most popular books and movies falling within that genre's boundaries.  I don't consider myself a YA fan (although I did enjoy Harry Potter), but it's hard to ignore the success and rabid fan base for some of these franchises.  When The Hunger Games was announced, I have to admit that I wasn't particularly excited.  My knowledge of the series came primarily from my youngest cousin, who also enjoys Twilight to a disturbing degree.  Still, the dearth of other interesting movies in theaters, combined with its impressive opening weekend box office numbers piqued my interest in catching The Hunger Games.

I'm so happy that I'm not the only person who immediately thought of this

Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) is a teenager living in District 12, which appears to consist of what was once Appalachia.  Thankfully, there isn't any meth in this future, but the region is still dirt poor, with the inhabitants scraping just to survive.  While the setting doesn't look futuristic (yet), you do catch a glimpse of a flying car.  That's not the only innovation in this future; taking a hint from Shirley Jackson's The Lottery, the kids of this futuristic super-state participate in the Hunger Games.  Every year, a boy and a girl (ages 12-18) are randomly chosen  to represent each district (hint: there are twelve) as Tributes in a fight to the death, which serves as televised entertainment for the masses.  You get entered in the lottery in a variety of ways, whether once for every year you are eligible, or your family can opt to enter your name in multiple times to receive more food or other necessities.  Thanks, Mom.  When Katniss' sister is selected as Tribute in her first year of eligibility, Katniss volunteers to take her place.  Why?  Well, Katniss is basically a bad-ass; she is an ace archer, she's obviously strong, is emotionally tough, and already cares for her sister like she would a daughter.  Of course she volunteers to save her sister's life.  Just as obviously, this wouldn't appeal to the YA fans if it was just about teens murdering teens.  No, the cards are beyond stacked against Katniss.  For starters, there are other Tributes who spend their lives training for the Games, who have grown up learning how to kill and how to survive. 

The first lesson is to look extremely smug

And it's not like this battle royale is taking place in a stadium; they are inserted into an environment that is a hostile and rugged wilderness.  Well, maybe not a wilderness.  Actually, it's a huge structure that takes the shape of whatever the evil Gamesmakers choose; it looks like an ordinary forest, but if the Gamesmakers get bored, they can add horrifying predators or natural disasters to the mix and spice things up.  Oh, and there is the added challenge of being likable while going through this terrifying ordeal.  Sometimes, when a Tribute gets popular enough with the home viewers, but finds him/herself in a bind, the viewers can choose to sponsor that contestant and send them a little help (food, medicine, etc.).  Katniss the tough girl isn't a natural pick for the country's little darling.  Add a little teenage romance to all that, and you've got The Hunger Games in a nutshell.

The first thing you will probably notice about The Hunger Games is how familiar it is.  The most obvious parallels are The Lottery and Battle Royale, but the basics of this story have popped up in a variety of films before.  The reality television angle has been covered in The Truman Show, the battle to the death has come up in a number of movies (Death Race 2000 is a personal favorite), the invasive government is similar to so many post-apocalyptic futures (1984, V For Vendetta, etc.), and the whole kids-killing-kids theme has obviously been popularized in Lord of the Flies.  Hell, even movies you wouldn't immediately compare to a dystopian science fiction tale have some surprising parallels; Jennifer Lawrence first gained acclaim for her work in Winter's Bone, where she played poor white trash in Appalachia that is strong, determined, takes care of her siblings, has a worthless mother, hunts to supplement the family income, and puts herself in harm's way to protect her family.  Sound familiar? 

Some scenes are even reminiscent of Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo

Luckily, the story is told in a way that doesn't force those realizations on you immediately (or, at least you don't really mind when you figure them out).  Director Gary Ross does an admirable job respecting the audience's intelligence throughout this film.  So many other directors would have gone out of their way to explain some of the concepts in The Hunger Games, but Ross often chooses the subtle approach.  Sure, he could have characters in District 12 mutter about how posh and spoiled the people in the capital are, but he simply opts to let their appearances speak for them.

This look suggests "jackass"

Ross also refuses to give much background to the story.  A history of the Games is not given.  The meanings of certain gestures are learned only through context.  Many plot details are handled in a similar fashion.  I have to admit that I really, really appreciated that.  I hate when science fiction films go out of their way to showcase how awesome/ridiculous their technology is (I'm looking at you, Aeon Flux).  The Hunger Games tells an interesting (if familiar) story within a fully-realized sci-fi world, a la Blade Runner.  I wouldn't say that Ross had excellent cinematography or any spectacular artiness on display here, but I thought he did a good job making a story-driven film that was accessible to casual viewers but had enough details to please hardcore fans.

Except, of course, for the racist ones

The acting in The Hunger Games was pretty solid.  Jennifer Lawrence again plays a strong heroine, and she once again impresses.  There are so few good, strong female roles in Hollywood, it is nice to see someone play such a role convincingly.  Katniss is definitely the main character in this story, but the leading supporting cast member, Peeta, was played ably by Josh Hutcherson.  Yes, he's kind of a weenie, but that appears to be how the character was meant to be played.  The next most noteworthy cast member was definitely Woody Harrelson; he went from uncaring drunk to able mentor a little too easily for my liking, but Harrelson is a welcome addition to just about any cast.  Elizabeth Banks was almost unrecognizable as Effie, wearing a nightmarish makeup blend that seemed to mix a poodle with cotton candy.

Good idea.  Put the mic close to capture the sound of mouth breathing

The other Tributes didn't really impress me much.  Out of the other twenty-two contestants, I recognized Alexander Ludwig and was mildly impressed with his choice to play a villain; I was a little creeped out by Isabelle Fuhrman; and I thought Amandla Stenberg was adorable.  Oh, and the son of Meg Ryan and Dennis Quaid, Jack Quaid, makes his debut here, but he doesn't say or do much.  There are a number of smaller parts played by recognizable actors in this film, as well.  Donald Sutherland plays the evil Big Brother analogue with tired competence.  Toby Jones appears to be in a Phil Spector lookalike competition.

Stanley Tucci looked just as ridiculous as an overbearing television personality.  This film also marks a few milestones for certain actors.  Lenny Kravitz was surprisingly good in his small role; I was expecting Gavin Rossdale-level crappiness from Kravitz, but he was actually quite likable.  I was also happy to see Wes Bentley in a movie; ever since American Beauty, I have been hoping for him to do something cool.  This isn't it, but it's a solid supporting role that will hopefully lead to that movie I dreamed up where he and Christopher Walken play father-son psychopaths.

P.S.: Fantastic beard.  That is Wooly Willy good

So, the question remains: is this a movie for you?  Well, I can't imagine anyone who would absolutely hate The Hunger Games.  That's not necessarily an endorsement, I know, but this is an entertaining movie.  The familiarity of the concept made it feel a little long to me, but I wasn't bored.  As much as I liked Jennifer Lawrence, I wish she had shown a little more range; she had the same wide-eyed look of surprise in a number of scenes, and she always seemed to convey nervousness by leaving her mouth open.

Given that the target demographic for this film is teenagers, and since all teenagers (even former ones) are by definition complete idiots, I thought The Hunger Games turned out surprisingly well.   It's pretty dark, the romance angle is fairly subtle, and it was well-directed.  Personally, I wouldn't put it on par with the joyous fantasy of a Harry Potter movie, but it is definitely leaps and bounds above Twilight.  It didn't blow me away, but there is no denying that this is a solid film that can appeal to just about everyone.

2012

Director Roland Emmerich hates buildings.  I know what you're thinking.  "Whoa, whoa, whoa, Brian...Just because the guy directed 2012, The Day After Tomorrow, Godzilla, and Independence Day doesn't mean he hates buildings.  Maybe he just likes to direct insultingly stupid special effects movies."  Well, then, riddle me this: if he doesn't hate buildings, why did he write the screenplay for all those films?  Check and mate, Mr. Argumentative-voice-that-I-hear-in-my-head-as-I-type-this.

Now that I've got that off my chest, let's get to the movie.  Well, not so fast...did you see the poster?  The movie poster for the film has "We Were Warned" as a tag line.  Warned?  By who?  Okay, the movie is named 2012, and there is the famous Mayan Long Count calendar that starts with the date August 11, 3114 BC and ends with December 21, 2012 AD, so I'll assume that the Mayans warned us.  I have to assume this, because the movie only casually alludes to the Mayans a couple of times, never giving an in depth connection of how they knew the Mayans were warning us.  Alright, let's make that assumption.  What did they warn us about?  Presumably, since this is a disaster movie, the end of the world.  I'm not about to debate the merits of that idea (Well, maybe just for a second...my calendar ends on December 31, 2010.  Does that mean we all die on New Year's Eve?), but let's just assume that end of their calendar equals disaster.  The tag line implies that we are responsible, though.  "We Were Warned."  What?  "Don't let time continue in a linear fashion past December 20, 2012, or you'll be sorrrrrrryyyyyy!"  You'd think this preordained global event would tie in to nuclear war or global warming or dinosaur-killing asteroids, but no, not this film.  The earth just decides to go for humanity's jugular.  There are a lot of earthquakes, tidal waves (same idea, I know), and typhoons.  No tornadoes, oddly enough.  But "We Were Warned" that nothing humans did had any effect on the planet, and we were all just living on borrowed time.  We took out a loan from Mother Nature, and she's coming to collect on 12/21/2012...with interest!

Dear marketing team for 2012, I hate you so much.  Sincerely, Brian.

This movie could have also been titled "John Cusack: Faster Than Nature."  On four separate occasions, Cusack is being chased by a force of nature (an earthquake, volcano fumes twice, and a tidal wave) that tends to travel faster than a person, but apparently not John Cusack.  Don't get me wrong, I like John Cusack, but the man doesn't like being in good movies any more.  I also believe that, no matter how good a driver you are, you cannot drive a limousine through an office building that is falling down without crashing.  That's just my opinion, but I dare you to prove me wrong.


The plot to this masterpiece is pretty bare bones: the token scientist that everybody listens to (played by Chiwetel Ejiofor) realizes that the world is going to end.  He and his friends have even calculated how much time we have left.  He tells the government, the government listens, and the governments of the world agree to secretly prepare some way to survive.  That's the plot. 

Reading that, you'd think this movie was 45 minutes long, but it clocks in at over two-and-a-half hours.  How do you fill all that extra time?  Well, Roland has the tried and true method of having one or two main characters, and the disaster happens, and it impacts the main characters and their loved ones.  In Independence Day, it was Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum; in The Day After Tomorrow, it was Dennis Quaid; in Godzilla, it was...um, I remember rooting for Godzilla, so she must have been the main character.  In 2012, the main characters are Ejiofor and Cusack.  How does that work out for their loved ones?  Let's see...Ejiofor fails to save his family or any of his friends, while Cusack's estranged family almost makes it through the film unscathed until his beloved replacement as husband and father (seriously, they really liked this guy) dies at the very end.  Don't feel bad for them; they just have Cusack fill in the newly vacant position.

The main idea in the film is the optimistic notion that, when all the chips are down, people are inherently good and will try to help each other because it is the right thing to do.  John Cusack's character wrote a (not terribly successful) book with that as its theme, and Ejiofor is reading the book.  The natural disasters occurring represent the tough times, and now it's time for humanity to save itself with its inherent goodness.  That's not a bad theme.  I don't necessarily disagree with it, either.  But every movie needs a villain, and in this movie it is Oliver Platt.  And nature, but nature has no dialogue.  Oliver Platt is the government guy who is trying to save the few thousand people he can in the time that Ejiofor gives him.  But Ejiofor's estimates are wrong every time (making him the worst movie scientist ever), which forces Platt's character to act aggressively to get the survival mission off the ground.  Don't get me wrong, Platt is a jerk in this film, but he's a logical jerk.  He does not try to save his 89 year-old mother because she's old and they will have to rebuild society if they survive; he allows rich people (instead of smart or genetically superior people) to pay billions of Euros for spots on the survival ships because the survival ships cost billions to make; when one of the survival ships can't be used, Platt chooses to not let them on board his ship because the final killer tidal wave will arrive in five minutes.  Is he a nice guy?  No, but his actions are understandable.  But Ejiofor has to make a swinging-for-the-fences-and-striking-out speech about how, if humanity is going to survive, it can't let go of its goodness, its...humanity.  And everyone but Platt totally agreed with him.  What?  Really?  Nobody says, "Let's try and get past this first extinction-level threat and then we can start being nice?"  Man, I must be ripe with villainy to think like that.

So how are the actors?  Well, the star of the show, Special Effects, was okay.  Buildings got destroyed.  Water rose.  Whatever.  Cusack was fine, but he needs a new agent.  Ejiofor was less good, but is generally a solid actor, so I'll give him a pass this time.  Cusack's son could be out-acted by lukewarm yogurt.  Amanda Peet and Thandie Newton are women; that's all the script really says about them.  Danny Glover looked really tired as the most depressing President of the United States ever...he's basically the anti-Bill Pullman in Independence Day; where Pullman had everyone fight back against annihilation, Glover just said "I quit, time to die."  Woody Harrelson plays a convincing crazy dirty hippie (he actually reminded me of my uncle in Montana, if my uncle was absolutely poo-flinging crazy), but it's still not a good role.  George Segal is in the movie for reasons that are never revealed.  There are some characters from China and India, too, but you're not supposed to care about them.

Really, that's the problem with this movie.  It spends so much time and effort (and did I mention time?) trying to make this feel epic, it has no room left for the characters.  And there are so many characters that just serve as cannon fodder to show how deadly the end of the world can be.  "Epic" means something with huge scope, but it always comes back to the characters.  Or, it's supposed to.

I give this film two stars for the effects, two stars for Cusack's charm, one star for Danny Glover not saying "I'm too old for this shit," and one star for killing George Segal, but I take away three stars for royally pissing me off.

Zombieland

I was talking with a friend at work about this movie and he said "There's nothing wrong with Zombieland."  I am going to have to wholeheartedly agree with that.  Do you need to know anything more than that?  Well, I guess I'm forcing my opinion out into the internet ether by having a blog, so I will go on, regardless.

Zombieland is set in the near future, when the inevitable zombie apocalypse has finally struck.  This movie is different from most zombie flicks (excepting, of course, George Romero sequels) because we don't watch the zombies rise up.  Zombies are a fact of life, and you have to "nut up or shut up," in the words of Woody Harrelson's character.  While the plot doesn't do anything to surprise you, it doesn't let you down either.  Basically, it's about zombies.  And awkward young love.  And zombies.  And family.  But especially zombies.

Jesse Eisenberg does a good job as the awkward Point of View character for the film.  His character has many rules for survival in the post-zombie world, and they appear on-screen whenever appropriate, serving both as reminders and subtle jokes along the way.  When you have an awkward lead male, he is obviously going to fall in love with any girl close to his age, so Emma Stone plays the part of the bad girl that he has a hell of a time trying to impress.  Not that Emma has a lot of other non-zombies to choose from, but even after the apocalypse, it's still ladies' choice.  Abigail Breslin plays Emma's little sister with her usual competence and Woody Harrelson plays a zombie-stomping bad-ass.

From those descriptions, I know it's hard to figure out which is my favorite character, but it's Harrelson.  Generally overlooked for his work (possibly because people remember The Cowboy Way and Money Train), Harrelson is always good in his movies, and he performs with relish here.  Yes, the script has a lot of good dialogue, but Harrelson's character could have been cartoon-ish in the hands of a lesser actor.  Here, he's bigger than life and is truly getting the most out of living in a world with zombies.  Jesse Eisenberg, who is sometimes unjustly seen as a low-rent Michael Cera, plays his usual awkward character here, but he has come a long way since Roger Dodger because he now has timing and delivery down pat.  I'm also enjoying the development of Abigail Breslin; while she doesn't have a whole lot to work with here, nothing seems forced.  Really, her character serves as a plot device to justify the cast traveling to a Disney-esque theme park, but on the rare occasions where Breslin is called upon to personify childish innocence and/or ignorance (the fact that her character didn't know who Bill Murray made me feel sooooo old), she delivers.  Plus, she just seems like a lot more fun than Dakota Fanning, the only other credible actress in their age group.  Emma Stone does a decent job, too, hitting all the right notes, but I didn't feel that her performance was anything special.

None of this does justice to the joy that is Zombieland, because I don't want to spoil the many small moments that make this fun and funny.  There are a number of recurring character moments that really pay off, whether it be the one food on Earth that Woody Harrelson is craving, or the thing that scares Jesse Eisenberg the most.  Here's a hint to that last one:

 Come on!  That is so awesome!  This movie has a cameo by Bill Murray that is easily the best bit part I have seen in years.  And you'll notice that I haven't even mentioned the inevitable violence of a zombie movie.  Well, there are a lot of good zombie kills, too.  This movie really has everything: violence, gore, humor (not stupid or gross humor...real humor), romance, emotional arcs for the characters, and Bill Murray being awesome.  Yes, you can see the plot twists coming a mile away, but that's not always a bad thing in a comedy.  Comedy is about setting up expectations and then meeting them...or not meeting them in a fun way.  This film could have been a Shaun of the Dead knock-off, but it instead comes across as a fun adaptation of Max Brooks' Zombie Survival Guide.  I can't believe that this is essentially Ruben Fleischer's first directorial work.  And I mean that in the best possible way.