Taken 2

This is gonna be a weird one to talk about. I mean, even though every bad action movie and their brother gets a sequel these days, was Taken 2 really expected. The first Taken was its own thing; it had a unique tory and a badass main character, and it ended without a cliffhanger. There wasn't much wiggle room: what would your Taken sequel even be about? Who would be kidnapped, and who would rescue them? Liam Neeson again? Why? Well, somebody answered these questions, because here's Taken 2; it's really real. I wish they'd left it alone. When good-old Brian (Liam Neeson) brings his ex-wife Lenora (Famke Janssen) and his daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) to Istanbul for a vacation, he (literally) puts his guns in the closet and is ready to have some fun. Reconciliations and cute conversations are abound; Brian even seems to accept his daughter's serious relationship back home. That is of course, until the family of the Albanian traffickers from the first movie and kidnaps Brian and Lenora. Kim helps Brian to escape, but the baddies escape with Lenora. Now, Brian needs to get her back...2. If I'm going to judge Taken 2, and I absolutely am, I'm gonna have to forgive the fact that it's incredibly dumb. Because come on, nobody was gonna attempt an intelligent and complex sequel to Taken. And even if someone did, they wouldn't have succeeded. So yes, I can forgive the silliness. However, I absolutely cannot forgive how cheap, boring, and lazy Taken 2 is. Every expense was spared, every shortcut was Taken; so much so that it would be hard to make a worse version. Liam Neeson is apparently a teleporter, Albanian terrorists only speak English, the clearly twenty-something Maggie Grace apparently doesn't have her driver's license yet, it's a mess. Absolutely nothing many any damn sense. Not even the action, literally the only thing director Olivier Megaton had to deliver on, is any good. For some reason Liam Neeson does all his own fights, and he's no Tom Hardy, so all of the kung-fu is very jerky and boring. Megaton also decided to up close and with tons of cuts, so it's very disorienting and hard to follow. There are even scenes where Neeson kills bad guys by just kind of pushing them over. And it's just as bad in the ludicrous car chases and the gunfights, when somebody can shoot in the wrong direction and still hit someone dead on. The script is just so bad and none of the actors put in any effort; it's really frustrating how little work went into Taken 2. Seriously though, Taken 2 is awful. I didn't expect much from the film, and I didn't really want anything out of it. But this is just so...lame. Like I said earlier, this really is the most barebones sequel they could've done. Keep in mind there was no chance this would be a good movie, but it could have at least been kind of fun. At least it could've been entertaining. Taken 2 is exactly the opposite; it's dumb, boring, terribly made, nonsensical, ridiculous, and strangely trippy. As goofy as the first Taken was, at least it kept my attention. This does nothing of the sort; don't let it Taken your money.

Hotel Transylvania

C'mon Hollywood, why are you doing this to Genndy Tartakovsky? He is literally one of the most talented animators working today; he created Samurai Jack and Powerpuff Girls for Pete's sake. Why is he doing movies like Hotel Transylvania? Films like this allow almost no creativity or experimentation with the medium of animation, and are really scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of humor and story. Want barebones animation? Look here. Want a terrible plot? Look here. Want a cringe-worthy song at the end? You're in luck. Want a film that should've been direct to DVD and is worse than Shrek Forever After? Welcome to Hotel Transylvania. After losing his wife and being forced into hiding, Dracula (Adam Sandler) starts a hotel for monsters which doubles as a safe haven where he can raise Mavis (Selena Gomez), his teenage daughter. Mavis is about to turn 118, and Dracula wants the celebration to be perfect and to curb Mavis' desire to leave and travel the world. Stuff seems to be on track, and usual guests like Frankenstein (Kevin James), Wolfman (Steve Buscemi), and The Mummy (Cee-Lo Green) are all showing up and helping with the party. That ends however, with the arrival of Johnny (Andy Samberg), a human backpacker who finds the Hotel by way of being a complete idiot. Dracula hires to get rid of Johnny, but Mavis falls for him, and hijinks ensue. Hotel Transylvania made me feel like I was on some sort of hallucinogenic drug, in a bad way. A very bad way. Dear god, was this a bad trip. Hotel Transylvania is, for lack of a better word, schizophrenic. Someone or something is constantly moving or jiggling or twitching, even when nobody is talking or making noise. And when there is talking and noise making: oy. Just oy. I honestly had no idea what the hell was going on ninety-nine percent of the time, and when I did follow the story, it was so absurd and insane I started looking for the David Lynch credit. People in the audience around me laughed at what I think were jokes, but as it stands I cannot identify specific lines or scenes that made me laugh or were supposed to. If anything, I left Hotel Transylvania extremely confused and mildly terrified. Furthermore, whose stupid idea was it to make Cee-Lo Green a minor character? I love the guy and I love his music, and making him an exuberant and musical mummy is a great idea, but don't just keep him for the very end. Also, Fran Drescher as Frankenstein's wife? Why? Why would you subject us to that? Not to mention how profoundly dumb the plot is; it's a complete pandering to Disney kids, and it's really boring. I'm not quite sure what I expected, but I didn't expect something this shockingly lazy and terrible. Now I know what it's like for Roger Ebert to sit through a Friday the 13th film. It's just bewildering and upsetting and maddening. I mean it. I am baffled by Hotel Transylvania. I literally have no words. Wow. I mean wow is this one bad. Everything falls flat. Everything backfires. Nothing works. Wow. I don't care if it's a kid's film, there is no excuse. Bible cartoons put more effort into their productions. Sorry, I know I'm overreacting, but I just can't deal with this film. Hotel Transylvania truly needs to be seen to be believed. It's Wal-Mart Bargain Bin level terrible. How do I even end this review? I have no idea what else to say. Genndy Tartakovsky...I feel so bad for you man. You're so talented and creative, I don't understand how you get stuck with crap like this. Maybe that's why I had such a problem with a dumb kids film. Or maybe just because it's awful.

The Master

Recently, I've seen a lot of lists online naming the so-called "Best Directors of the Modern Era." There are parts of the lists I don't agree with, parts I would change, but I always agree with the inclusion of Paul Thomas Anderson. Anderson is unique in his talent; few other directors get the performances from their actors Anderson does. Almost no one else puts the detail into their cinematic worlds Anderson does, and nobody does character pieces like Anderson does. Even in this world of Quentin Tarantino and Christopher Nolan, Paul Thomas Anderson has his own niche that no one can touch. For me, The Master only elevates him more. World War Two veteran Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix) is doing pretty badly. He's an alcoholic, he's vulgar, violent, abrasive, promiscuous, and alone. One night while intoxicated on his homemade paint-thinner moonshine, Freddie takes refuge on a yacht belonging to Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour-Hoffman), a charismatic intellectual and leader of "The Cause," a religious movement based in Dodd's writings. Dodd and his wife (Amy Adams) take Freddie in as a patient, and Dodd in particular becomes attached to him. Freddie travels the country with The Cause, hoping to find his purpose and curb his PTSD. But his cycle of depression and self-destruction only seems to get worse, and threatens to bring everyone down with him. The Master is not the scientology story. It's not a commentary on said group, it's not a fictionalized origin story, and it's not a biopic. The film's trailers unfortunately marketed it as such, and while Lancaster Dodd's character is clearly based a lot on L. Ron Hubbard, The Master isn't really about him or The Cause. Rather, Freddie Quell is the subject here; he carries the film, and while his friendship with Dodd is a huge part of the film, at the end it's about Freddie. And as a result, The Master is a much richer experience then it would be as a scientology movie. Paul Thomas Anderson knew exactly what he was doing while writing the film, and it makes the movie very worthwhile. But the most impressive part of The Master is the directing. Everything from the dialogue to the scene structure to the jackets on the books Philip Seymour-Hoffman carries around is so thought out and perfectly placed it's ridiculous. The Master is one of those films with a story but without a real narrative, and if you let it take you in you won't regret it. And the acting, dear lord the acting. Everything about the lead performances is noteworthy. Their body language, how they talk, it's incredible. Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymour-Hoffman are very captivating in their roles, and are both completely Oscar-worthy. You have to be willing to let The Master wash over you. If you go into it expecting a hardcore slam of scientology through the eyes of Daniel Plainview, you will be disappointed. Each of Paul Thomas Anderson's films is different, so when you watch this one, don't compare it to Boogie Nights or Magnolia, etc. Just dive into this film. Let the characters, the story, and the production flow. Be a transparent eyeball. Enjoy yourself. The Master is a brilliant rumination on post WWII America, and being emotionally detached and isolated from everything, especially the plastique of the time. It's unbelievably well acted and shot and written and directed. It's just a great piece of American filmmaking.

Looper

Why isn't sci-fi fun anymore? Why does everything have to be a commentary on religion or a 2001 wannabe? Why are all the societies dystopian? Why are all the main characters jaded and brooding? What happened to the sense of adventure and hope for the future? Where are the science villains and the ray guns and the jet packs? And since when did doing away with all that become synonymous with "smart" genre filmmaking? Tarantino is smart, the Coen Brothers are smart, and they have lots of fun with genres. So how come sci-fi is becoming so pretentious and empty? I'm not exactly sure, but Looper doesn't help anything. Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a Looper, a hitman who kills targets sent back from thirty years in the future by the mob. He gets paid in silver and is saving most of it to move to France. Joe is doing well for himself, but notices that most of his colleagues are "closing their Loops;" killing their future selves for a huge payday and erasing evidence of the Looper working for the mafia. This doesn't bother Joe, even when he gives up his friend (Paul Dano) for cash. One day, Future Joe (Bruce Willis) arrives with a mind to change the past and prevent a future, and knocks out Joe before getting away. Now Joe has to avoid mob assassins while trying to close his Loop, and figure out their plan for each other. I feel pressured by Looper. I feel like it's a movie that I'm supposed to love, just because of the cast, and Rian Johnson, and because it's "smart." It's a film that chastises me for bringing up the flaws because like Scott Pilgrim, it's "cool" to like it. As if I needed another reason to dislike Looper. Looper is one of the messiest and surprisingly shallow action films I've seen since Unknown. Around ninety-five percent of the film is hype riding on the coattails of Johnson's previous films, and the remaining five percent under the simple fact that Looper doesn't really make sense. The time travel concept is unique, but it's so convoluted, and it's made moot by the endless explanatory dialogue that just contradicts itself. The other major problem with Looper is that it desperately wants to be Blade Runner, and it just isn't. To say that Looper is influenced by that film would be a gross understatement. The entire visual aesthetic, especially the lighting and use of narration, is so similar that I actually scrubbed my eyes a couple times to make sure it wasn't a remake. Looper isn't as clever as it seems to be; people teleport, consequences are selective, and nothing really happens. It's also far too long before Bruce Willis shows up, and then he introduces a whole new plot that adds another level of silliness to the whole thing but ALSO ends up being the driving point of the story. One thing I will give Looper is that the makeup used on Joseph Gordon-Levitt is incredible. He looks just like a young Bruce Willis, if Bruce Willis had a full head of hair. THe acting, besides the pointless Emily Blunt character, is pretty good, but it's hard to praise it when JGL is just doing an imitation of Willis. Plus, there's a criminal underuse of Jeff Daniels, which I cannot condone nor forgive. So overall, Looper has a lot of good intentions and ideas. Futuristic hitmen are after all, badass. But it's sadly such a big mess and such a misfire on almost all counts that I cannot recommend it.

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.