At this point in my rankings, I’ve basically come to a count down of my top ten films of the summer, though there are technically eleven movies in these top two tiers. (Had I included Blue Jasmine (which I saw in September) and Mud (from back in April), there would be thirteen films to go. If anyone is wondering, Blue Jasmine would have tied with The Butler, and Mud would have stolen the #2 spot in the tier that’s yet to come.)
Even though 2013 gave us fewer mind blowing blockbusters than 2012, I still saw a number of really solid films this summer, and we’re now slowly approaching the top of my list.
11.) Lee Daniels’ The Butler (B+/A-)
Why I Liked It:
When a movie that could win Oscars comes out in August, I’m always excited. Summer blockbusters started with a bang back in May, but by mid-July, most of the really big movies were already over. We needed something substantial to make August worthwhile, and The Butler definitely has substance.
Grounded in the historical fact of 20th century Civil Rights struggles, this piece of well written fiction asks us to imagine the tumultuous disconnect between a father who strives to make a room feel empty while he’s standing in it, and a son who wants to change the world to make his presence felt. Danny Strong’s screenplay gives Cecil Gaines a traumatic (but probably not uncommon) background. The son of a murdered sharecropper, brought up in the house and treated basically as a slave, Cecil heads to the city to make a life for himself, and the one thing he knows is domestic service. Remembering his father’s advice not to make trouble, Cecil through merit (and luck) quickly rises to the position of butler at the White House. He makes sure his wife and children have the security and opportunities he never did. He can afford to send his son Louis to a good college. But Louis wants much more than his father can understand. Louis wants true equality. Louis wants the world.
As Cecil, Forest Whitaker does some of the best and most nuanced work of his already strong career. As Louis, David Oyelowo gives a powerful performance, too, and gets the more interesting storyline. As Cecil’s wife Gloria, Oprah Winfrey fights demons of her own and seems like a lock for a Supporting Actress nomination. And as Cecil’s younger son Charlie, Elijah Kelley makes such a positive impression that I’m more confused than ever that he hasn’t had a more prolific career following his fantastic turn as Seaweed in Hairspray.
The Butler also features what must be the most improbable string of White House cameos ever captured on film. Robin Williams as Eisenhower took me by surprise, but that was nothing compared to the moment when Vice President Nixon showed up in the kitchen. John Cusack as Richard Nixon—really??!! James Marsden as Kennedy makes sense, but who’s expecting Live Schreiber as Johnson (and he’s good!) or Alan Rickman as Reagan (and he’s pretty good, too!)? Then, of course, comes the cameo that feels like the punch line to a truly bewildering joke. Jane Fonda as Nancy Reagan!?? Really???!! Really???!!!! Keep your eyes on the Oval Office, everyone! You never know who is going to show up next!
The film’s supporting cast is stellar, too. Terrence Howard and Adrianne Lenox are phenomenal as the perpetually bickering neighbors, Lenny Kravitz has his moments, and Cuba Gooding, Jr. does some of his best work in years.
The Butler has a great cast, a thought-provoking premise, and a screenplay that provides plenty of fodder for exciting conversations after the movie.
Why You Might Not Like It:
The Butler is based on a true story, yes, but it would rank higher on my list if it were more true and less story. I never go to a movie expecting complete historical accuracy, but the Cecil Gaines as presented in the film barely even exists. The White House butler’s true life inspiration is a man named Eugene Allen. Though he actually served even longer than Gaines (beginning under Truman), Allen had only one son. Like Charlie Gaines, Charles Allen did serve in Vietnam, but then he returned home to live a quiet life. Activist son Louis is a complete fabrication. (Don’t get me wrong. Obviously somebody was a Freedom Rider and sit-in participant who knew Martin Luther King Jr. personally. But that somebody wasn’t the son of White House butler Cecil Gaines.) Gaines’s childhood trauma and his wife’s alcoholism don’t appear to be grounded in truth, either. Maybe it’s naïve of me, but when I found out, I was disappointed. I always want powerful stories to be true.
Here’s the other thing. Since the story is so heavily embroidered, why not make Cecil’s part of it a bit more exciting? I understand the point The Butler is trying to make. While Louis Gaines and others like him actively protest and risk their lives trying to make their world a better place, Cecil must stand by unassumingly, attempting to make the room feel empty when he’s in it. Danny Strong’s screenplay should spark a number of lively discussions after the movie, but the problem is, as you’re sitting there staring at the screen, it’s hard not to get just a little bit frustrated that the actor clearly giving the strongest performance (the male actor, anyway) must play a character who is forced to show such frustrating restraint for what feels like forever.
The Butler is a well-made film that makes some fantastic points and gives us several very strong performances. (Oprah Winfrey could win the Supporting Actress Oscar). But because of the restrained nature of its lead and the odd pacing of the story, it’s not always a very satisfying movie. Parents should also be aware that although The Butler is not rated R, it contains some very harsh scenes (in terms of violence and language) of civil disobedience provoking a far less than civil response.
10.) Iron Man 3 (A-/B+)
Why I Liked It:
Iron Man 3 kicked off the summer, so it benefits from being the first of something new and exciting. I remember when traveling in Italy one summer, we visited a small museum that housed countless pre-Renaissance paintings and just one Raphael. I’ve never forgotten that particular museum visit, and here’s why. None of us had to be told which one was the Raphael. It was obvious. When you’re looking at something new, something different, you just know. It stands apart. Now, of course, distinguishing between a museum full of Raphael paintings would require a far more trained eye. And I’m sure in his entire celebrated career, Raphael produced greater masterpieces than the one I saw that day. But when you’ve spent an hour or so admiring art that has no interest in perspective, you notice the one with depth right away. (In the case of the Raphael, one look at the painting also made manifest the reason for the artist’s renown.)
Back in May, I sat down to watch Iron Man 3, and before my eyes, the whole spring faded away into another era of film making. Summer movies are something different, something better, something more expensive, something more exciting. And Iron Man 3 was actually much better than I’d expected, so I left with a very positive impression of the film.
Now detractors will point out (correctly) that most of this movie is just Robert Downey, Jr. walking around talking to himself. Yes, that’s true, but here’s the thing. Who wouldn’t pay to see that? Downey has enough talent, charisma, and help from screenwriters Drew Pearce and Shane Black to make two hours of dedicated screen time pass in what seems the blink of an eye, no matter what he’s doing (or not doing). He’s the kind of actor who’s easy to watch and listen to, particularly when he’s given such witty lines in his adversity.
I’ll allow of course, that this is a somewhat unusual comic book adaptation. But by now we have all seen so many comic book movies. I’m not complaining (necessarily), but we’ve reached the point where every major summer tentpole is either adapted from a comic or not as profitable as a competitor that is. Clearly Marvel is monopolizing the box office, and other studios are responding by haphazardly throwing out hero/villain projects, motivated by sheer desperation to stay relevant. Soon the movie going public will develop an immunity to graphic novel dramatizations. Eventually, thanks to toxic levels of overexposure, super heroes will become our Kryptonite.
Shane Black is clearly trying to make the comic book movie feel fresh again, and I think his bold move to set this movie apart from the field is a gamble that succeeds. Think of the last line in the original film. Tony Stark is Iron Man. The two are interchangeable. People who complain that in this film, Tony’s hardly ever wearing the suit are (perhaps deliberately) missing the point. Iron Man 3 doesn’t distinguish between Stark and Iron Man because there’s no need. Those who complain that this film feels more like Black and Downey’s previous collaboration Kiss Kiss Bang Bang than Iron Man just don’t want to acknowledge that the two projects have always been tonally similar thanks to their reliance on Downey’s offbeat charisma and dramatic/comedic acting chops.
Iron Man 3 works because it’s funny, unexpected, and entertaining. It’s also fast and upbeat despite the fact that it’s addressing very serious issues. Over the course of his four Marvel feature films, Tony Stark has gotten an astonishing amount of development. It’s rare to see such a dynamic super hero (dynamic in the literal sense of a character who undergoes change). Robert Downey, Jr. basically carries the entire movie. He’s in almost every scene. There’s also great supporting work from Gwyneth Paltrow, Rebecca Hall, Ben Kingsley, Guy Pearce, and beguiling child actor Ty Sympkins.
Why You Might Not Like It:
I can’t deny that hard core fans of the comics have legitimate cause to bemoan the misuse of the Mandarin. What happens with him works for me, but I was once a teenager moaning, “Why change The Count of Monte Cristo to make it more boring? Rebecca doesn’t dress like a boy and steal her mother’s jewels! You call this Ivanhoe?!! What do you mean Queen Elizabeth didn’t know Robert Dudley married Amy Robsart?! She was a guest at their wedding!” Every fevered trip to the video store to search for a film adaptation of my latest arcane obsession ended in teeth gnashing, hysterics, keening, raving, despair. So I totally get why Mandarin enthusiasts are upset, and I can’t take their righteous indignation away from them.
People with no emotional investment in Iron Man’s arch nemesis should be pleasantly surprised by Ben Kingsley’s unexpectedly charming turn as the Mandarin. Still, while Iron Man 3 is fantastically entertaining, there’s no denying that the villain is weak. Being able to breathe fire is cool. You know what’s not cool? Being able to breathe fire and playing that so close to the chest that you barely do it once.
And the weak villain is not the only thing to complain about. Maybe like me you’re still disappointed that Terrence Howard was replaced by Don Cheadle back in Iron Man 2. War Machine (and Colonel Rhodes) could be used a bit better here, but part of the problem may be that Cheadle (despite his undeniable talent) doesn’t fit the part as well as Howard. Gwyneth Paltrow’s also in the movie a lot (as usual), so if you hate her, you’ll have to find some way to cope with that disappointment as well.
To call the ending a little improbable is extremely kind. If you go to this movie hoping to watch Iron Man save the day by defeating the dreaded Mandarin, and you cry when you’re disappointed, then take Kleenex. Most of Iron Man 3 features plain ol’ Tony Stark trying to cope with post-traumatic stress long enough to pull a bizarrely delayed stunt and (with lots of help, at the last minute) save the day (from a disappointing threat).
So I thoroughly enjoyed Iron Man 3, but for people deeply invested in the source material, this movie is overloaded with emotional minefields just waiting to drive you over the edge into a full blown hysterical breakdown.
9.) World War Z (A-)
Why I Liked It:
Who doesn’t love an action movie with Brad Pitt and zombies? Oh wait. That’s right. Me.
But I loved this one (or at least, I liked it well enough to stay engaged to the bitter end and look back on the film favorably). I usually like Marc Forster’s movies, and while I’ve never felt as passionately about Brad Pitt as my younger sister, I’ll readily acknowledge that he’s one of the few leading men working today who can successfully open a movie as the only star.
For a zombie movie, World War Z has an unorthodox relationship to brains. Apparently, according to this film, brains aren’t meant to be eaten but used. What a novel approach! This is a strangely cerebral zombie flick featuring action scenes that are atypically elegant. The last time I saw such beautifully choreographed fights and chases in a big budget action movie, I was watching Jackie Chan. (There’s a fabulous tribute to Singin’ in the Rain in Shanghai Knights that sticks with me because it makes martial arts seem like a dance.)
Watching World War Z, I often found myself lost in thought during the well-choreographed chase scenes, but that’s okay because I was thinking about the movie.
This is basically Brad Pitt’s real life, I often thought. He travels to an exotic location. He gets chased by mindless zombies (the paparazzi), and he runs away (always thinking of his family first).
Seriously this movie is like Pitt’s metaphorical autobiography. As over-exposed celebrities go, the Jolie-Pitts annoy me less than others, mainly because in an industry full of people pretending to be weird to be noticed, Angelina Jolie strikes me more as somebody who doesn’t care if people notice that she’s not pretending not to be weird. Brad Pitt usually chooses interesting projects and gives solid performances, and I hear he played a significant role in the development of this movie. I hope it’s the beginning of a franchise. I’d watch another of these, and this one needs more closure.
But what really got my attention was Gerry Lane’s discussion with Jurgen Warmbruggen (played by Ludi Boeken) in Israel. Some of the ideas discussed here were so out-of-the-usual-action-movie-box that I’d now be interested to read Max Brooks’s book.
Also outside-the-box is Segen (played by Daniella Kertesz), a female character who in most other movies would be male. Seriously how often do action movies give us a female character who gets tons of (almost entirely nonverbal) development? Segen doesn’t seem like a woman. She seems like a person. Of course, a woman is a person, but we don’t always get that idea from action movies. More typically in an action movie, a woman is someone a) to love, b) to save, c) to lust after, d) to fight, or e) to see as a foil for the other (more important) woman who fulfills some combination of (a)-(d). Segen is just there because she’s there. If a male soldier were dropped into a story so casually, we wouldn’t bat an eyelash. And the movie is commendably nonchalant about this female soldier, as well. But the audience should be excited.
All the characters in the movie just seem like people doing their jobs or trying to cope with life. They really don’t seem like characters in an action movie. There’s a wonderful, unassuming quality about the entire thing that gives the story a strange realism even though it’s about a zombie apocalypse.
Aside from Gerry’s wife who doesn’t get to do much, all of the characters are pretty interesting, and the film is well cast and peppered with solid supporting performances from Ruth Negga, Fana Mokoena, Matthew Fox, David Morse, James Badge Dale, Pierfrancesco Favino, and (fans of Dr. Who take note) Peter Capaldi. Oh and the moment when I first realized that the movie was going to exceed my expectations? That chat in the air with Dr. Fassbach (Elyes Gabel). When Fassbach began to talk, I suddenly realized that this movie might have something interesting to say, after all. And then, of course, what happens the moment they land is absolutely priceless.
Why You Might Not Like It:
Remember that Brad Pitt hit from 2011, Moneyball? It was all about winning with statistics. Remember? Well if Jonah Hill’s Peter Brand were watching this movie, he would catch on to its driving pattern pretty fast. (Is it possible to have a “driving pattern”? That makes statistics sound so sexy and intense. But there’s a lot I don’t know about the glamorous world of statistics, so I’ll let that stand.)
Anyway, my point is, you don’t have to be one of those uber-sexy statistician types to spot the pattern in this film. Unless you’re a zombie yourself, after a while, you’re going to start to notice that World War Z is an episodic series of action set pieces, and every single one of them (A-Z) plays out exactly as follows: 1) Brad Pitt travels to location A 2) Brad Pitts makes a realization 3) Brad Pitt runs away.
Is that a bad thing? Don’t ask me! I’m no statistician. I’m lucky I passed geometry. (My notes were all about two lines who fell in love at a chance meeting but could never cross paths again. Isn’t that so tragic? But doomed love doesn’t get you extra credit in geometry!)
But before I get off on a tangent (the plot of my racier line story), let me get to the point. Just how substantial is the plot of World War Z? To the movie’s credit, the lack of substance is made up for by almost an excess of suspense and a surprisingly elegant flash of razzle dazzle. It’s hard to find a non-suspenseful moment to take a breath and notice the lack of plot depth until after the story ends.
Did you notice, too, that I had to make a bunch of stupid geometry jokes to fill space in this section? If you like Brad Pitt and zombies, then like me, you might have trouble finding fault with this movie.
Of course, if you love zombie movies mainly for the graphic violence and gore, and you think bicycle chases through the rain have no place in an action blockbuster, then you may find yourself screaming at artistically minded director Marc Forster, “Why didn’t you go for an R? Whoever heard of PG-13 zombies? Wait! You’re the jerk who made Quantum of Solace so boring? I hate you!” But I’m not a zombie enthusiast, and I usually like Marc Foster’s work, (and, shhh! Don’t tell anyone, but I really liked Quantum of Solace, maybe better than Casino Royale), so World War Z’s lack of gruesome gore is fine with me, though I do think the “resolution” at the end is a bit of a parlor trick and a copout.
(P.S. I actually got a 98 in geometry, but all I can remember now is my tragic line story—oh! and the day we entered the classroom to discover our teacher mysteriously sitting with her feet in a tub of epsom salt solution, holding up a sign that said, “I will explain after the bell rings.” As it turned out, she had to “SOHCAHTOAH.”)
8.) The Great Gatsby (A-/B+)
Why I Liked It:
Have you ever seen a Baz Lurhmann movie? Have you read F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel The Great Gatsby? If you answered “yes” to both questions, then close your eyes and imagine a screen adaptation of Gatsby directed by Baz Lurhmann. (Hint: Imagine Leonardo DiCaprio in the lead role.)
If the film playing in your head right now isn’t practically identical to The Great Gatsby released on the big screen back in May, then you should borrow some money and make the movie you’re imagining because I’d love to see it. Lurhmann’s actual Gatsby is the best (and only) Lurhmann Gatsby that I can imagine and also the best Gatsby film adaptation I’ve seen to date. So if you have a completely different vision of a Lurhmann Gatsby, then maybe you should call up Baz and see if the two of you can brainstorm a sequel. I, for one, would be seriously intrigued.
I thought this Gatsby was practically perfect (minus some serious missteps with Nick), though I will admit that I’m not particularly a fan of the book. I don’t hate the novel, but I know so many people who love it (my younger sister included), and I could never muster the enthusiasm to jump on the Gatsby bandwagon. (About the most positive thing I take away is that by projecting their own fantasies onto them as if they are blank slates, men can make powerless women seem so despicable. I also like the line about the butler’s nose (and speaking of conspicuous noses), I’m sort of a fan of Jordan Baker (but mainly just because I like the name Jordan and enjoy seeing names I like in print.))
I am, however, a fan of Leonardo DiCaprio. (His performance in The Departed is one of my favorite of all time, but I liked him even before that.) Sometimes he tries too hard to win an Oscar (okay, always), but you’ve got to admit that he’d probably knock it off if they’d just give him one already or at least nominate him every time he deserves it.
I think he makes a fantastic Gatsby. He has pretty good chemistry with Carey Mulligan (and fantastic chemistry with Tobey Maguire). The scene with the silk shirts really works in this movie. He’s great there.
After DiCaprio, the best performance in the movie probably comes from Jason Clarke as George Wilson. It’s such a small part (comparatively), but Clarke inhabits the character perfectly and easily wins the audience’s sympathy (and curiosity). I never thought twice about Wilson in the novel, but Clarke really got my attention with a wonderful performance.
The most perfectly cast character is Jordan Baker. Elizabeth Debicki plays Jordan exactly as I’d imagined her. That’s probably why she got the part. I remember reading she’d been cast and asking myself, “Who on earth is Elizabeth Debicki?” I have my answer now. She’s Jordan Baker. I’ll keep an eye on Debicki from now on because maybe she can be other people just as well. If only Jordan Baker had a bigger part in the movie!
Besides featuring a talented cast, the movie looks great, and sounds phenomenal. I’ve heard people complain that the soundtrack doesn’t work, but it works for me. My stepson (who hasn’t seen the movie) has heard the soundtrack with his mom and really likes it, too. (Every time a song from the Gatsby soundtrack gets radio play, he calls it out excitedly.)
Why You Might Not Like It:
Even though I’m not a fan of the novel, I did read it. Basically, if a book was assigned, I read it (until midway through college when the words of The Ambassadors (which I tried to read, honest!) somehow got lost between the page and my brain. Maybe now that I’m older, I should forgive Strether for conducting his life with so much muddled verbiage between his subjects and their predicates and give The Ambassadors another try.) Anyway, thanks largely to the diligence of my junior English teacher, I still remember quite a bit about The Great Gatsby from high school.
Here’s what I don’t remember—a bizarre frame story featuring Nick Carroway narrating from a mid-Western insane asylum while his mysterious doctor tries to grow an indoor flower garden during a blizzard. Even though I don’t claim to have perfect recall of every word, I’m positive Baz Luhrmann and Craig Pearce added that part themselves.
It’s fun to imagine Lurhmann brainstorming these enhancements. I’ve seen enough behind the scenes segments from his other productions to know that he often gives interviews as if he’s part hummingbird or has Red Bull running through his veins instead of blood. His explanations are always highly…um…kinetic. So it’s great fun to imagine him explaining and defending his choice to add these odd and ineffective scenes with Nick. (I’m just guessing here, but I’m almost positive this strange frame has something to do with Zelda Fitzgerald’s notorious stint in a sanitarium, where she wrote an autobiographical novel that her husband did his best to suppress.) Just imagine the temptation. Enriching the The Great Gatsby for the screen by adding tensions from Fitzgerald’s real life? What a heady, hypertextual spree for some lucky filmmakers!) But Lurhmann and Pearce should have resisted the urge to include these intercalary scenes because they’re awful. Not only are they uneventful and unnecessary, but they also interfere with the otherwise adequate pacing of the story.
Basically Nick’s character is just mishandled in general. Maguire is not the problem. In fact, he has wonderful chemistry with DiCaprio (probably because they’re such old friends). But the movie showcases our narrator’s fascination with Gatsby to the point that Nick’s less satisfying relationship with Jordan (so important in the book) doesn’t even seem to be happening in the film. In both the novel and this movie, Nick is clearly obsessed with Gatsby. But in the book, he’s dating Jordan, and he doesn’t seem any better at keeping a romantic relationship together than any of the other characters he’s so obsessively watching and judging. Getting rid of Nick’s relationship with Jordan gives us fewer opportunities to explore Nick as a participant rather than just an observer. When we forget that Nick is a flawed person, too, we are more likely to miss his biases and simply believe every word of his Gatsby worship.
Nick and Gatsby are great together, thanks to DiCaprio and Maguire’s ease in sharing the screen. But in this production, Nick has absolutely no identity apart from Gatsby, so why in the world should we care about what he’s up to once Gatsby’s out of the picture? Those sanitarium scenes don’t belong in the movie. Simply removing them now would probably improve the film immensely. Baz Luhrmann should consider it.
7.) Epic (A-)
Why I Liked It:
Humming birds in armor, fitted with miniature saddles and adorable little humming bird stirrups! Who could resist a movie that features miniature knights riding armored humming birds? Not me! That’s for sure! I totally understand why Ronin and the other Leaf Men would sacrifice everything to defend their society! I’d sacrifice everything to defend that society! What a beautiful, magical world!
I’m looking forward to fall, to less punishing temperatures that allow me to indulge my natural inclination to wander through the park with my four-year-old, a camera, and our favorite book of poetry. I’m the type of person who could spend all day crawling around on my hands and knees through a field of wildflowers (aka weeds) trying to get the perfect close-up of a ladybug. And (as I admitted in my recap of Iron Man 3), I had an early adolescent obsession (which became an adult obsession and a component of a dissertation topic) with Queen Elizabeth I (really the entirety of Tudor England). So the idea of a tiny kingdom of Leaf Men, featuring a captain of the guard loyally serving/pining away for a fairy queen highly appeals to me.
Based on its previews, I expected this movie to be shallow and slapdash. It looked like it picked the carcasses of other popular movies looking for the easiest way to pack the house and make a quick buck. But when I actually saw Epic, I realized that the film’s previews do it an immense disservice. This is a good movie, lovingly made, with beautiful animation, strong voice acting, deeply resonant themes, and commendable courage. (It doesn’t shy away from dark themes or true conflict.)
Honestly I would have watched a feature that focused entirely on the eternal struggle of Leaf Man Ronin and his relentless opponent Mandrake. Colin Farrel brings a refreshing dignity to the character of Ronin. Yes, this could be dismissed as a children’s cartoon about fairies and talking gastropods, but Farrel plays the part without a hint of irony. He makes us believe that Ronin is a noble hero fighting to the last gasping breath to preserve his society and protect the world he believes in from encroaching evil. Meanwhile Christoph Waltz takes the same approach and makes the villainous Mandrake a chilling and worthy foe. Not only is the voice work excellent, but the artistry of the design of these two old enemies is magnificent (particularly the lovely/horrible way Mandrake has of corrupting everything beautiful).
One of my favorite things about this movie is that the actors don’t put on weirdly contrived voices. I’ve seen so many movies this summer that feature some bizarre imagined accent that every actor in the film tries (and often fails) to emulate. But (unless we’re dealing with professional voice actors) I think stars do better work (ninety percent of the time) when they’re allowed to speak in their own natural voices. (I’m a big fan of strong accents and vocal diversity. I have no intellectual defense for this, really. The ear wants what it wants.) In this movie, Colin Farrel sounds like Colin Farrel. Christoph Waltz sounds like Chrstioph Waltz. Beyoncé sounds like Beyoncé. That’s incredibly refreshing.
Speaking of Beyoné, her queen Tara has a confident, down-to-earth charm that should encourage little girls who plan to become princesses and an ethereal wardrobe that would make Tinkerbelle green with envy. (Of course, making Tinkerbelle jealous is about as hard as making Miss Piggy enraged, but I think any fairy would be envious of Tara’s elegant raiment. She’s very beautiful.)
Amanda Seyfried and Jason Sudeikis are both very good as M.K. and her passionate but bumbling father the professor. And I was surprised to find the comic relief snail and slug (Chris O’Dowd and Aziz Ansari) endearing rather than annoying.
Movies featuring a shrunken human protagonist trying to navigate an elaborate garden fairy/tiny creature world are plentiful, and Epic is a fairly strong and beautifully animated addition to that long established subgenre. As a bonus, it has a great message for kids (that it refrains from driving home with a sledge hammer). The world is bigger than you think. Even though your personal problems may seem like the center of the universe, there are other people all around you living and dying for things that you aren’t even aware exist. Become a bigger person by realizing how small you really are.
Why You Might Not Like It:
Probably the best and certainly the most prolific male child actor of his generation, twenty-year-old Josh Hutcherson is still playing teens on screen, and his character in this movie just will not grow up. Seriously, what is wrong with Nod? In most stories, characters who take this long to mature turn out to be somebody really important—Han Solo, Thomas Becket, Darth Vader, Henry V. (Apparently, all important people come from either Star Wars or England.)
He’s a really frustrating character because he’s not just indulging in arrested development under ordinary circumstances. Even in extremis, Nod still remains a whiny, defiant, rebellious brat. Apparently he can’t resist testing Ronin until Ronin isn’t there to test. But come on, even then he doesn’t really step up. He just stops dragging his heels and falling down throwing a tantrum. After such a long wait, we expect a more dramatic improvement or at least a slide into darkness. In the end, we get the idea that MK has outgrown Nod in more ways than one.
Some of the other characters feel a little weak, too. Pitbull’s character Buffo doesn’t get enough development or use. He’s gets an incredibly long introduction, then does one thing and vanishes. And even though I’ve got nothing against Steven Tyler, his voicing of Nim Galuu seems a little off (although I will admit, the character worked slightly better for me in a second viewing on the small screen).
And then, of course, there’s the fact that the entire movie (while Epic on its own scale) is actually nothing more than a (well) animated adventure played out by a bunch of fairies in somebody’s overgrown back yard. Some people just aren’t going to get as excited as I do about humming birds wearing armor.
6.) The Heat (A-)
Why I Liked It:
The Heat is not quite as funny as director Paul Feig’s previous feature Bridesmaids, but it’s also nowhere near as depressing. (I’m not knocking Bridesmaids, but unless you’re the bride, a wedding’s a stressful occasion, and Kristen Wiig creates a character so real that we tend to empathize with her stress and anxiety just as often as we laugh at her jokes.)
As a comedy, The Heat definitely works. The laughs aren’t consistent, but they’re big, and many delightful moments that don’t merit a belly laugh at least coax a smile. If you asked one-hundred audience members, “What’s the funniest scene in The Heat?” you’d probably get between seven and sixteen different answers. (I keep editing that sentence. My original point—that not everyone will find the same things funny—keeps getting lost in fuzzy math. I mean, I can’t with a straight face claim that there are one-hundred possible funniest scenes to choose from, but a sample audience of only a handful of people hardly seems representative, so I don’t know a way to suggest this pole without making it sound crazy.)
Maybe I should just reveal the scene that made me laugh most—the chase past the fruit cart. Melissa McCarthy and Spoken Reasons are both so committed to this totally off-the-wall moment that they really sell it. Usually comedians trying too hard is a sign material is not funny enough, but in this case, the scene works precisely because they’re both pouring so much energy into a chase that goes way off on a strange tangent never to return. Tony Hale also contributes briefly to the humor of the scene. The whole thing is a masterpiece of kinetic hilarity. Of course, Bullock’s character gets an equally hilarious, scene stealing moment simply by holding still in the background of a scene. If that sounds obscure, I’m talking about the running sight gag of the photograph. The set up of the joke is pretty darn hilarious, but the more times its echoes come back to us, the funnier and funnier it all gets.
The supporting cast is packed with people who know how to get a laugh, comedians who make the absolute most of limited screentime. Spoken Reasons is the clear standout here, but we also get funny moments from Taran Killam, Kaitlin Olson, and Thomas S. Wilson as Captain Woods. (Do you realize that he played Biff in Back to the Future?) Jane Curtain shows up, too, but she’s underutilized. In a brilliant twist, The Heat also gives us actors known for comedy in the understated dramatic parts, most notably Marlon Wayans who had better be back in the sequel. Demián Bechir and Michael Rappaport also give nice dramatic performances with comedic elements.
As a buddy cop movie, The Heat works even better. Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy are a winning pair. Each actress is a master of exuding a suppressed-but-still-latent girl-next-door quality, but clearly Ashburn and Mullins grew up in very different neighborhoods. At the beginning Ashburn is tightly wound, and Mullins has a screw loose, but by the end, they’ve learned to overlook one another’s weaknesses in order to play off each other’s strengths.
I walked out of this movie with a smile on my face and a grinning man at my side. (Wow, that sounds creepy! I meant that my husband enjoyed the movie as much as I did—possibly more. So don’t worry, I’m not being stalked by some mysterious grinning stranger.)
Why You Might Not Like It:
Burned by Speed II and Miss Congeniality 2: Armed and Fabulous, Sandra Bullock says she might not sign on for a sequel.
But she should. The Heat’s Achilles heel is that Bullock (whose easy charm and casual girl-next-door quirkiness made her a star) plays an uptight, socially awkward, self-conscious perfectionist. Bullock spends much of the movie being Melissa McCarthy’s straight man, and while she does it perfectly, she’s got a scene-stealing charmer trapped inside, and she doesn’t get to release her until the movie is almost over.
Now that Sarah Ashburn has come out of her shell, however, Bullock can let her conspicuous delightfulness flow freely in a sequel. I hope she signs on eventually because The Heat could easily become a financially successful female buddy cop franchise. I’d be happy to take a peek at Mullins and Ashburn’s further adventures. Bullock and McCarthy are a winning pair, Spoken Reasons is a rising star, and Marlon Wayans’s character is poised to play a bigger role next time around.
The Heat isn’t perfect. Early on, there are definitely some long stretches in the first half when Mullins and Ashburn’s bickering seems more tiresome than hilarious. But the movie has some huge laughs and finishes so well that I would love to see a sequel.