V/H/S

Horror anthologies really need to come back. I really dig stuff like Creepshow, Tales From the Crypt, and Masters of Horror, and I'd really like to see more new stuff in that vein. Anthology horror can be a great way to let filmmakers "do their thing" so to speakm and can allow for really unique work. This is especially true in terms of modern independent horror; directors working together can definitely be a method of getting their stuff out there. So I was pretty excite for V/H/S, and hoped it could convert me from my hatred of found footage. Did it? Let me tell you. When a group of sleazy, low-level criminals are hired by anonymous benefactor, they expect an easy payday. After all, all they have to do is break into some guy's house and steal a VHS tape. It seems easy enough, but they find that the owner of the house is dead and the basement is filled with tapes. They decide to take as many as they can and get the hell out, but something keeps them there. As creepy as the house is, they don't leave, and one of them decides to start playing random tapes. Each one contains something scary and supernatural, and watching them has an effect that nobody could predict. V/H/S didn't make me like found footage. To me, it's still the easy way out, and it's still an excuse to be cheap. So ven though the style works in a few of the shorts, the majority of them would've been much more effective without the camera having a seizure half the time. The films are, for the most part, very well made and entertaining, but the found footage thing just looks bad. As a result, several shorts that could've been very scary aren't very scary at all. V/H/S also suffers from Indie Syndrome: a trope of independent film that commonly results from a filmmaker who wants to fit in just one more tribute to his idols. One specific short is quite good, until the director pushes too far at the last minute. Nevertheless, most of the shorts are very fun to watch; filled with good jump scares, great gore, and hilarious acting. The films by Ti West and Radio Silence are in particular fantastic. Over the corse of the tapes, most horror cliches are covered, and each director does try to do their own thing. We see cool twists on genres like slashers, scary women, home invasions, and exorcisms; but like The Last Exorcism, it's just not that scary. Partially because of the found footage, partially because of IS, but generally because they're not scary. It's hard to pinpoint or explain exactly why this is, in fact it's nearly impossible, but it's the truth. V/H/S just needed better writing and less found footage. In terms of bringing back the horror anthology, I'm not so sure that V/H/S is a step in the right direction. Sorry, but found footage is not the way to go. If some of the segments were found footage, with other genre experimentation filling out the rest of the film, V/H/S would've been much stronger. And again, many of the parts simply are not scary, which is disappointing. Still, it's a fun ride, and when it's good, it's damn good. If nothing else it makes me want to further explore the works of Ti West and Radio Silence. Overall, V/H/S is entertaining, but has a stench of wasted potential.

Dredd 3D

Wow, really guys? Of all the comic book movies we could and should be making, you're gonna do Judge Dredd again? Really? Fine. It's not like a movie about a generic dude shooting people in a city should be that hard. Oh right, the original Stallone movie. Oh, and both Punisher movies. To be fair, this one does have a really promising cast, and claims to keep more true to the comic books. I changed my mind, let's give this 3D, low-budget remake of a nineties action movie a chance, shall we? Wait, it doesn't suck? In post-apocalyptic America, MegaCity-One holds over half a billion people, and all the crime that entails. The City is rampant with drugs, gangs, and murder, and the only enforcers are the Judges, armored supercops who also serve as jury and executioner. Judge Dredd (Karl Urban), one of the most legendary Judges, is paired with rookie Judge Anderson (Olivia Thirlby) for a standard assessment, or so he thinks. It's all routine until the Judges run afoul of Ma-Ma (Lena Headey), a famously violent criminal. Dredd and Anderson threaten Ma-Ma's business by arresting a possible snitch, so she traps the two in her two-hundred-story housing complex chock-full of criminals. Now, the Judges have to convict the defendants. Ok, I know what you're thinking: "come on Jess, don't go all 'Conan the Barbarian' on us." I'm not, I promise. Dredd is a much better film than Conan, Battle LA, and most other action movies coming out these days. Dredd is surprisingly well done; the pacing is steady, it's really cool to look at, and the acting is actually pretty good. Olivia Thirlby isn't just a pretty face and holds her own, and Karl Urban is a total badass, but also brings a level of humanity so Dredd isn't just a robot with a big gun. The script, while completely ridiculous has a good structure and natural story progression, with just enough dumb one-liners so that it never gets too serious and keeps a sense of humor about itself. And yes, of course there are the plot points that go nowhere, deus ex machina up the wazoo, bad 3D, and underdeveloped characters. But the film does a good job of creating a (mostly) unique and interesting universe witha great aesthetic feel. and a reasonably good story for what is. Its highest points are definitely the action scenes however, which are pretty damn awesome. Dredd makes great use of slow-motion and the tight environments of Ma-Ma's lair. The mandatory buckets of gore are also lots of fun; eyeballs fly, people explode, it's great. By the end of the film, Dredd is knee-deep in corpses, and each one was killed in a different crazy gunfight, each one equally entertaining. Dredd is a film I walked into expecting exactly nothing of. It started off badly with cheesy narration, and didn't progress well by throwing a lot of silly stuff at me. But by the end I was very happy with the movie. Dredd turned out to be way more smooth and well made than I thought it would be, and was just goofy enough to satisfy my action sweet tooth. The film was definitely a pleasant surprise, and it killed time and left me in a good mood. I could've speculated on whether or not the whole Judge Dredd concept is a just neofascist wet dream (it is), but I didn't. Sometimes, it's just fun to watch the good guys kick some ass.

Lawless

I hate to see things go to waste. Like Shia LaBeouf: very funny and charming in Even Stevens and Holes, and clearly capable of drama based on Disturbia. Then he somehow became synonymous with being smarmy, arrogant, and insufferably obnoxious. I guess he played Sam Witwicky too well. Also, "The Road" movie. Beautiful opportunity ruined by cheesy narration, terrible music, and too much happy. I hoped Lawless would be a new chance for both the Beouf and The Road director John Hillcoat. Come on, it has Tom Hardy. No such luck. Jack (Shia LaBeouf), Howard (Jason Clarke), and Forrest (Tom Hardy) Bondurant are successful bootlegging siblings in Franklin, Virginia during prohibition. The law doesn't bother them, they are well liked in town, and allegedly, Forrest is unkillable. Things shake up with two new arrivals from Chicago: Maggie (Jessica Chastain), a waitress with a past, and Charlie Rakes (Guy Pearce), an eyebrow-less FBI agent who wants a cut of the business. The Bondurants refuse to bow down, and Jack tries to court Bertha (Mia Wasikowska) in his spare time. But Rakes won't give up, and when he decides to make it personal, all hell breaks loose. When your violent gangster movie features Tom Hardy as a hulking yet wise tough guy with a penchant for brass knuckles and a reputation for surviving death, why make his little brother the main character? Especially when that brother is Shia LaBeouf and is cowardly, useless, and the cause of every bad thing that happens to the characters in the film? Also, why go through the trouble of having Gary Oldman if you only have him in one scene? So yeah, the plot and characters of Lawless aren't great. In fact, both are pretty boring. God knows the actors work hard with nothing, but there's a limit. The script by Nick Cave (seriously?) is hyperbolic, shallow, and confusing, and like in The Road, Hillcoat's direction is much too slow. As I said earlier, it sucks to see things go to waste, especially an interesting story like Lawless that could've been a unique and interesting prohibition film. I admit that I'm a bit tired of big-city shootouts and fedoras. But Lawless is so endless and monotonous that I'm reconsidering that. Not much happens, but the film takes so long to do anything that I couldn't get invested. It's also relentlessly and cartoonishly violent, which is completely unnecessary and only served to take me further out of the story. Saying that I was disappointed by Lawless wouldn't be true. But at the same time, I know it could've been so much more. Especially since it's a true story, which should've been a reason to attach emotionally to the characters and narrative. Sadly everything is underdeveloped; the people are uninteresting, the dialogue is insipid, the plot is a mess, and the pacing is terrible. Lawless probably would've been silly no matter who made it, but it could at least have been more fun to watch. So stay away, because something nasty got into the moonshine.

The Expendables 2

The first Expendables was disappointing, at least to me. I didn't see the point of Terry Crews and Randy Cotoure, I wasn't big on the villain, and there wasn't enough blood. Seriously, I could make a list of people who should've been in the last movie, but that would take way too long. This inevitable sequel has a few of the people that list, and a few I didn't overall. Overall, I was more confident with this movie going in. Should I have been? Lemme tell you. Barney Ross (Stallone), Lee Christmas (Statham), and the rest of their gang of bad puns have returned, but so has Mr. Church (Willis), and he's calling in his favor. Threatening the team with prison time, Church sends them on a routine snatch-grab that turns bad fast with the arrival of Jean Vilain (Van Damme), a terrorist for hire. After Vilain makes it personal, the Expendables are left with no option but payback. Now in a world where the odds are against them, these steroid-pumped seniors must get paid back, no matter the cost. If nothing else, Expendables 2 is consistent. From the very beginning, reality is head-butted out of the way, and we are treated to a buffet of eighties action cliches, gore, bad CGI, worst plastic surgery, bromance, and Dolph Lundgren. There's more action, more blood, more one-liners, and more nostalgia. Sadly, it's not as great as it may sound. Jet Li disappears around fifteen minutes in, and Liam Hemsworth leaves soon after, only to be replaced by a generic "I can take care of myself" girl character. And my main man Jean-Claude throws barely five roundhouses. For some reason Stallone decided to focus more on specific characters than the team, and the film suffers. Also not helping is the schizophrenic and ridiculous plot that tries too often to be brooding and fails miserably. But when you see Stallone, Willis, and Schwarzenegger all together blowing away armies of henchmen, it's difficult not to enjoy yourself. I admit that I have a bias towards loving Arnold no matter his age, but still, it's pretty glorious at parts. The overall action is just better, with more attention paid to being fun to watch than brutal. And yes, there's a Chuck Norris fact. And yes, it's pretty funny. People expecting anything deep or smart from Expendables 2 shouldn't go see it. At the same time, people who want to see it shouldn't expect much. The Expendables 2 is a silly and fun action movie, nothing else. It is very flawed and very dumb, but I still enjoyed it way more than the first one. I like to check my brain at the door every now and then, so I welcomed this movie, however I completely understand why someone wouldn't like it. The Expendables 2 is a big goofy train ride that's a lot of fun if you're in the right mindset. That's all it will ever be, so take it or leave it.

The Campaign

If anyone is going to lambast the giant game of grab-ass that is American politics, Will Ferrel is a great choice. And if one were to choose Ferrel's opposite, Zach Galifianakis is good too. And of all the comedy directors that came out of the nineties, Jay Roach is one of the best. All these ingredients coming together should make something absolutely hilarious; as biting as Thompson and as side-splitting as Anchorman. The Campaign only sort of succeeds. Cam Brady (Will Ferrel)is a seedy North Carolina congressman who will say and do anything to get reelected for his fifth term. After a sex scandal, Brady's corporate backers decide to set up local loser Marty Huggins (Zach Galifianakis) as their personal candidate. Innocent and naive Marty just wants to help the people, but a dirty campaign manager (Dylan McDermott) changes his whole world and forces Brady to start get desperate. With both sides going nuts, war is declared, things get personal, and hijinks ensue. A political comedy is a comedy that would understandably be hard to do. What with the brilliance of Jon Stewart, Colbert, South Park, and hundreds of others out there, it's gotta be hard to stand out. That's why The Campaign gave me quite a bit of hope, because the people involved are so great. And there are a lot of moments that are side-splittingly funny, but it's just that: moments. The film as a whole isn't that great. I blame this mostly on the script, which to be honest is thin on character and doesn't go far enough. As a result The Campaign isn't as focused and tight as it should be. Still, when the film is funny, it is damn funny. The best jokes in the movie are really biting satire on the whole Super-PAC corporatization of congress and its representatives from both parties, and I laughed hard. But there are just too many in between moments that aren't funny and go on way too long without progressing or developing anything. There's a message about Citizens United that's forced into the end, and I almost want to say that it doesn't go hard enough on the corporations that it sets out against. I also wish there were more analogues for real world politicians, but hey, ya can't have it all. The Campaign is a step down from Jay Roach's other political and comedic films, and Adam McKaye's writing, but it's a step up for pretty much all else. It's good to see Will Ferrel outside of dramadies and Mexico, and it also moves Zach Galifianakis from his Awkward Beard-Man persona for once. Sadly the script is underwritten and a bit of a mess, and I know it could've been better. In the end The Campaign has many great moments, but just never rises to the level it should have.

The Imposter

True crime is great; TV, books, whatever. I can spend hours watching Unsolved Mysteries or looking up serial killers on wikipedia. The subject of what darkness is just behind the layer of society and morality is fascinating to me.This also ties into my love of mystery fiction, specifically the hardboiled stuff by Raymond Chandler and Edgar Allen Poe. I love stories of weird circumstances, dad ends, gumshoes, and dark secrets. Who knew you could have all that with a documentary? In mid-1994, thirteen-year-old Nicholas Barclay disappeared while walking home in San Antonio, Texas. His family did an extensive search, but nothing came up. Three years later, they get a call from a shelter in Spain claiming they have Nicholas. Nicholas' sister personally went to pick him up. The person she brought back claimed to have been kidnapped into a child prostitution ring. He also looked nothing like Nicholas, had different colored eyes, and spoke with a French accent. But the Barclay family took him in without question. Why would they? Were they that desperate? And what happens when the impostor becomes scared of those he's duping? For lack of a better term: holy cow is this movie engaging. I was literally on the edge of my seat for most of it, and I was talking and thinking about the film for days after seeing it. The documentary interviews everyone involved with the case, including Nicholas' family, an FBI agent, a private eye who noticed early discrepancies, and the impostor himself. We get the facts of the story packaged with speculation from two equally unreliable narrators, and the director handles it magnificently. I'm no Marlowe, but I have mild confidence in my observational skills, and for the first time I did real detective work. I won't say my conclusion, but let me say I was surprised. Most unique about The Imposter is how the story is told. The film is a completely new and original take on crime documentaries, and it's cool. As we listen to first hand accounts from the various taling heads, we watch high quality reenactments, news footage, and home movies that reveal intricacies that otherwise wouldn't have been included. The Imposter also makes use of voice filters, nonlinear narrative, and creepy music to tell a truly haunting and bizarre tale full of lies and unsolved suspicions. For me, watching this film was like reading a great whodunit novel. What killed me was the fact that it was all real. Not "based on a true story" real. Nobody's names were changed, no sides are taken. There's just the facts, set up in an incredibly fascinating way. It's definitely a film I'd see again with others who haven't seen it, if not just so I can reexamine the story. There's really nothing else for me to say except go see The Imposter because it's awesome.

The Bourne Legacy

I really do love the Bourne movies. They're a great representation of serious and realistic action films, and I enjoy the hell out of them. The original Bourne films with Matt Damon are visceral, engaging, and smart. And you know what? I was open to Jeremy Renner being a new character in the same universe, because realistically there had to be other secret agents besides Bourne who weren't sent after him. So when the trailers had Ed Norton saying Bourne was but the beginning, I allowed myself to get psyched. I'm not sure that was wise. Taking place during the second half of The Bourne Ultimatum, The Bourne Legacy follows Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner), another agent of Outcome. After surviving an attempt by Eric Byer (Edward Norton) to eliminate loose ends in wake of the Bourne scandal, Aaron finds that he is running out of the CIA drug that allows him to function as an enhanced individual. Unwilling to face withdrawal systems, Aaron seeks out his program physician (Rachel Weisz) for help after saving her from being taken out as well. The good doctor suggests they go to the main lab and try to cure Aaron's addiction, and the pair starts a race against time. Ok, that isn't exactly the plot. I admit, I paraphrased a bit, but for good reason. The real plot makes much, much less sense. Maybe it's because I haven't seen Bourne Ultimatum in a while, but that shouldn't be a reason for me getting lost in the narrative like five times. Considering how long it's been since the original trilogy came out, I feel like Legacy should've been an easy refresher. Remember, the Damon films, especially Ultimatum, are pretty complex. But even if I remembered the original ones perfectly, the whole pill thing still wouldn't make a lick of sense. Jeremy Renner is a good actor. He was the best part of The Hurt Locker, I dug him in Ghost Protocol, and he's Hawkeye. But he's not given much to work with here. The action scenes, while awesome, are few, far between, and short. So when Renner has to single handedly bring the story forward through the convoluted dialog, he doesn't do so well. I'd love to see more of Aaron Cross, he's an interesting character, but Legacy falls on its face developing him. And as gorgeous as Rachel Weisz is, her character is really boring in this movie. Bourne Legacy is not a bad movie, no matter how awful I've been making it sound. It's just not really good, per se. It's the perfect example of "not bad," or "could be better." Hopefully, there will be another film that improves on Legacy's mistakes, because while I miss Matt Damon, Jeremy Renner could be great if only they give him the right script. In the end The Bourne Legacy is a fine first effort at a totally new kind of Bourne movie. It isn't fantastic or horrible, it's honestly just ok.