Obvious Child - Movie Review by Michael Clawson

Obvious Child

Starring Jenny Slate, Max Lacy, Gaby Hoffmann, Gabe Liedman, David Cross and Richard Kind

Directed by Gillian Rebespierre

From A24

Rated R

83 minutes

Jenny Slate laughs, cries her way through Obvious Child

by Michael Clawson of Terminal Volume

Obvious Child will forever be known as the “abortion rom-com,” which is a shame because it aspires to be so much more than the one unremarkable scene that everyone is talking about.

First and foremost, it’s a character study about a hopelessly endearing hipster — or millennial, pick your poison — flailing through life on a whim. It’s also a frank and honest romance that reveals the pitfalls of dating in a major city. The movie stars Jenny Slate as Donna, a stand-up comic whose routine is far better than the club she performs it in. Her opening routine had some roaring lines, including one about “commando crawling through cream cheese” that had everyone retching. After one of her sets, Donna’s boyfriend breaks up with her. More humiliating is the location the dumping occurs: the co-ed graffiti-covered bathroom where, presumably, someone was eavesdropping on the public breakup while they were pooping.

Donna, heartbroken and self-destructive, lets herself go in her next performance as she drunkenly staggers around the stage in self-pity. It’s not a good look on her, which doesn’t seem to faze Max (Jake Lacy), the software developer who is schmoozing clients in the Brooklyn comedy club. They buy each other drinks and before long they’re arm and arm, peeing in the alley. He accidentally farts on her head mid-pee, and she’s not grossed out all — really, she’s honored that he would embarrass himself so early in front of him. The scene culminates into a sexual encounter, but not before a lovely bedroom montage set to the Paul Simon song that the film has named itself after.

You’ve probably guessed that Donna gets pregnant. She decides to get an abortion in a scene that can be summed up like this: Donna decides to get an abortion. There is little debate, or arguing, or soul searching. She just makes a choice. Obvious Child doesn’t debunk abortion myths so much as it demystifies the controversial act by presenting us a pregnant woman and then letting us watch as she goes in for a procedure that, in her mind, might as well be a teeth cleaning. It doesn’t provoke controversy, preach, or belittle the opponents. It just exists as a testament to one woman’s right to control her body. When the film finally gets to the procedure, Donna cries a little, but the movie suggests her decision was a simple one, and that might be it’s strongest argument: the debate rattles on in Washington, D.C., but in the minds of women, their minds have already been made up.

Slate is the right performer for this material. She’s intelligent, fiercely witty and her nasally voice gives Donna a whiny presence within the film’s Brooklyn setting, where everyone has money for $20 drinks but seemingly no jobs to earn that money. She has a funny way of delivering the most devilish of lines with a brand of innocence that comes with a halo and glowing aura. She’s so sweet, and petite, and childlike. But then she drops her bombs: calling something “softer than angels’ titty skins,” or telling her friend that she was playing “Russian roulette with her vagina.” She has one abortion gag that’s so self-aware and prescient that it explodes in your face. Slate, a bratty cross of Bridesmaids and Bikini Kill, comes from the Lena Dunham school of acting: just throw it all out there and let the audience sort it out.

As the film strives for realism, though, I found it unfulfilling. The relationships, pregnancy and abortion are handled in honest ways, but almost nothing else is. When the woman at the abortion clinic tells her the procedure is going to cost $500, Donna hardly blinks and plops down the money. How? She works part-time at a failing bookstore, and she lives in a notoriously expensive city, one she seems to enjoy without limits. A pregnant woman’s financial stability might be a factor in any decision she makes, so it’s curious that this film would gloss over that issue.

That aside, though, Obvious Child is an important comedy, if only because it is by women, starring women and aimed at women. The abortion might be its foundation, but there is so much more to see, namely Jenny Slate in her first starring role.

22 Jump Street - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

22 Jump Street  

Dir: Phil Lord and Chris Miller

Starring: Jonah Hill, Channing Tatum, Ice Cube, Peter Stormare

From Columbia Pictures

Rated R

112 Minutes

Sequels, especially to great first films, are difficult to accomplish effectively. Creating new conflicts, coming up with fresh comedy, or allowing the characters to change are all reasons for failed second films. The team behind “22 Jump Street” ignored these suggested sequel stumbles, instead making a completely self-aware and consistently self-referential film that indulged in the “why mess with a good thing” sentiment.

The undercover team of Jenko (Channing Tatum) and Schmidt (Jonah Hill) are assigned with infiltrating a university and bringing down the organized drug dealings. They again pose as brothers each working into different social groups, Jenko becomes fast friends with the star of the football team Zook (Wyatt Russell) while Schmidt finds himself separated from his partner and instead meeting an art major named Maya (Amber Stevens). The partners find themselves in a broken relationship of sorts and not one step closer towards solving their case.

The winning chemistry between Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum kept the film funny and interesting as it began to falter throughout. Even though the jokes between the two weren’t much different than the comedy in the first, the rapid-fire banter of the two, like during a drug-induced stakeout or the deadpan emotion when participating in a hilarious couples therapy scene, made the repetition have grinning charm. The two actors also handled the physical comedy well, playing to their respective physical attributes in chase and fight scenes that found Channing Tatum in full action hero maneuvers while Jonah Hill reservedly favored the stairs instead of jumping off buildings like his counterpart.

From the start of the film there was a consistent reminder, blatantly so, that this was a sequel and nothing was going to change. A few characters even forwardly predicted plot details and character changes familiar in these films. This self-nodding joke to the perpetual staleness of sequels was initially quite funny. In one instance the partners, referring to the location of their new headquarters at 22 Jumpstreet, address the construction of another building across the street at 23 Jumpstreet. This device was a clever strategy that allowed new ways of telling the same joke and knowingly pointing out the many traits found in sequels. Unfortunately the film began to suffer from a simple redundancy of jokes and the dragging “bromance” of Jenko and Schmidt, both of which prevented the film from growing into something more memorable.

While it’s hard to blame the filmmakers for sticking to an effective formula, where it was much easier to play it safe for success, it did form a line between an average and good movie. The laughs were much better than expected, due in large to Hill and Tatum, and although “22 Jumpstreet” may be treading mediocrity the sequel boldly played originality against itself with mostly fun results.

Monte’s Rating

3.00 out of 5.00

22 Jump Street - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

22 Jump Street  

Starring Jonah Hill, Channing Tatum, Ice Cube, Amber Stevens, Peter Stormare, Nick Offerman, and Jillian Bell

Directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller

Rated: R

Run Time: 112 Minutes

Genre: Comedy/Action

Opens June 13th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

It’s rare to find a mainstream comedy sequel as progressive, character-driven, and self-aware as 22 Jump Street. With those going for it, the film didn’t even need to be funny. But it is, hilarious even, demonstrating that buddy cop films can offer something new and insightful while still thriving on their inherent absurdity. The film’s central characters, Jenko (Channing Tatum) and Schmidt (Jonah Hill), are still as inept and unready for their work as ever, failing to catch black market dealers in the film’s opening scene. It’s preceded, of course, by a montage of them handling guns and parading them as their prized possessions. They are idiots. But they are lovable, compassionate ones that need to work together undercover to be successful. If you think Lethal Weapon and Rush Hour put twists on buddy comedies and action, you haven’t seen anything yet.

The 21 Jump Street remake was never meant to work, as we’re often reminded by Deputy Chief Hardy (Nick Offerman), whose meta approach to life feels like he’s the direct link to the audience’s pulse. He tells the main characters that their failures are okay because the department decided to give them more money to do the same thing they did before; changing up the formula too much would ruin their success. There are references to Tatum’s past career choices, the basic premises of sequels, and the budding bromance between the two. Jenko and Schmidt are being assigned to a community college to find out about a drug known as “Whyphy” which recently killed a student. They need to “find the supplier, infiltrate the dealer,” a line uttered by Captain Dickson (Ice Cube) that is identical to his mission in the first film. The two friends befriend various people in fraternities and art clubs that lead them down different paths, straining their budding partnership and leading to countless jokes about their romantic ties.

The film is keenly aware of the tropes of the buddy comedy and pushes its dichotomies to extremes. Schmidt becomes highly feminized, latching onto a girl after a one-night stand and insisting that they be more. He’s even seen making the famous walk of shame across campus with his shoes off. The girl he’s interested in, Maya (Amber Stevens), is independent and has a roommate named Mercedes (Jillian Bell) that constantly mocks Schmidt’s age. There are role reversals all-around, with the strongest emphasis placed on the main bromance’s intimacy. These are two men that clearly love each other and have the makings of a romance under every definition of the word. It’s a hilarious pursuit because of the way they still desire women and don’t seem to have success. Hill and Tatum are terrific fits in the leads because Hill plays the deadpan, emotionally driven Schmidt with ease while Tatum plays the affably stupid and charming Jenko with a great comedic presence. Their chemistry is remarkable.

Perhaps most importantly, 22 Jump Street is driven by its strong set of supporting characters. Female characters are given room to talk and gain power, something often reserved for men in comedies, and directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller tackle the subplots with a surprising balance. The film handles serious relationships with a comedic bite. The writing is a bit drawn out at times, and the running time is too long (over 110 minutes, a staple of many comedies over the past few years), but the film moves through its busy plot swiftly. The story often acknowledges how similar it is to the first film; for those that didn’t care for 21 Jump Street, there won’t be much that will please here. The subversive look at modern college life and the making of films themselves leads to a strangely distanced yet universally approachable work. It’s hilarious, heartfelt, well-acted, and features the best end-credit sequence I’ve encountered all year. 22 Jump Street delivers a sufficiently developed story with a promise for many more to come.

How to Train Your Dragon 2 - Movie Review by Eric Forthunn

How to Train Your Dragon 2

Starring the voices of Jay Baruchel, Cate Blanchett, Gerard Butler, Craig Ferguson, Jonah Hill, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, America Ferrera, and Kristen Wiig

Directed by Dean DeBlois

Rated PG

Run Time: 102 minutes

Genre: Animation/Action-Adventure

Opens June 13th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

How to Train Your Dragon 2 is an improvement on its predecessor, a sequel that focuses on advancing character and plot rather than rehashing ideas from the previous film. The first film in the series established a relationship growing between Hiccup (Jay Baruchel), a timid Viking going against the norm, and Toothless, a dragon that Hiccup wounds during a battle between the humans and winged beasts. The Vikings misunderstood the dragons only to learn that they are protective, caring creatures that were threatened by man’s inability to show them compassion. Humans were cast in a generally unforgiving light until the whole island of Berk accepted the dragons and bonded peacefully with them. Now, five years later, the two species are thriving together and living amicably. The opening scene reaffirms that by showing a packed house watching dragon races where riders guide the animals to different colored sheep worth points. Things are running smoothly without a hitch.

Now that they can coexist peacefully, Hiccup and his friends use their dragons to explore the rest of the world around them and chart out the lands. They discover a secret ice cave that houses hundreds of dragons and is overseen by the famous Dragon Rider, a force that promises to help maintain the peace that’s been newly established. A force like Drago Bludvist (Djimon Hounsou), however, poses a threat since he hopes to gather an army of dragons to take control of the lands. He enlists the help of dragon trappers, led by Eret (Kit Harington), who do not understand the kindess of dragons like the people of Berk. They are more open to learning their ways, though, and aim to work with Stoick (Gerard Butler) and his men to purge the world of this malevolent force. Other returning faces include armor-making Gobber (Craig Ferguson) and competing love interests for Ruffnut in Snotlout (Jonah Hill) and Fishlegs (Christopher Mintz-Plasse).

There’s a lot happening in How to Train Your Dragon 2, but the film moves forward without losing sight of necessary dramatic action. Every action and motivation is established and grounded within the film’s narrative, allowing for the traditionally cutesy elements in animation to exist more quietly and effectively. The film’s weighty and lofty in its ambition: at its heart is the desire to communicate the importance of animal rights and the necessity to better understand every animal that exists on the Earth. The aimless killing and subjugation of animals (and to an extent, individuals) that we do not understand is a mandatory message even in today’s world with extinction facing many species. But most importantly, the film furthers the relationship between man and animal with Hiccup and Toothless, turning into something akin to a man and his famed best friend, a dog. Most of the dragons have the kindhearted, free-wheeling spirit of dogs that makes them perfect companions, and the emotion within this relationship is impressively unique.

The film is the most stunning animated film ever made, a visual wonder that capitalizes on 3D perfectly and understands how the scope of a scene can be visually represented. That’s a huge testament to legendary cinematographer Roger Deakins acting as a visual consultant on the film, providing the necessary mix of background and foreground action within stunningly captured scenes. The action has meaning and is genuinely exciting because of the way it is captured; the 3D pops off the screen in the flying sequences and allows for the dragons and humans to coexist peacefully in the viewer’s eyes. There’s a beauty to the film’s enhancement of the narrative through its visual effects. While the developments in the film may not be perfect, like a love interest for Ruffnut that makes for an aggressive competition for her attention, the address of love, loss, and loyalty is a deliberately heavy topic that writer-director Dean DeBlois handles with intimacy and care. This is a lovingly crafted sequel that advances characters and narrative with ease and integrity.

The Signal - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

The Signal  

Starring Brenton Thwaites, Olivia Cooke, Beau Knapp, and Laurence Fisburne

Directed by William Eubank

Rated PG-13

Run Time: 95 minutes

Genre: Sci-Fi/Thriller

Opens June 13th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

The Signal is a flashy, ambitious piece of science fiction that forgets that character development and narrative coherence make a story more compelling. The film is writer-director Will Eubank's second feature, an effort that demonstrates his passion as a director but also his knack for inconsistency in writing. The film centers on three hackers: Nic (Brenton Thwaites), his girlfriend Haley (Olivia Cooke), and Jonah (Beau Knapp). Nic suffered an injury to his legs in a race that left him with forearm crutches and daily struggles, yet his passion for his work remains. Haley is heading to college, the purpose of the three gathering for a road trip, but Nic knows that she will have countless opportunities, both professionally and romantically, that he doesn't want her to miss. Essentially, he breaks up with her. Jonah joins for the trip because him and Nic are best friends, and they code and hack together. They face a familiar threat, though, when a genius computer hacker demonstrates his power by messing with their technology and leading them to a random place in Las Vegas.

They discover a creepy, abandoned house that they soon found out to be a trap. When everything goes dark, Nic wakes up in a laboratory room shaded with all things white; for much of the film's second act, the characters are surrounded by white, bright colors and primaries like blue and red. Here, the protagonist encounters men in hazmat suits, with their representative being Damon (Laurence Fishburne), a man who speaks mostly to confuse Nic and further his psychological torment. Nic wants to know where his friends are, what's happened to him, why he's in a wheelchair, and where the hell he is. He has a lot of questions that they are just not willing to answer. The film sets up this premise with intrigue and paranoia, a tonally compelling build that allows the audience to constantly struggle with what they are seeing in attempts to understand the central premise.

Every bit of information doled out, however, seems to further the convolution of the plot and emphasize the one-dimensionality of the characters. Nic is largely developed through flashbacks that are emotionally triggered and mute; they are seen as memories that he revisits often. Thwaites is a talented actor when the script allows him to dig into Nic's emotional torment, but much of the film asks him to be concerned and confused without the audience knowing much of the context. Nic's relationship with Haley is defined by their break-up, since that's the starting point for the audience, but Cooke is a genuine non-presence. Her character is mostly silent and submissive, a love interest without much direction or purpose other than to aid the protagonist. And Jonah is given some emotional heft if there were any context for his outbursts and crazed mannerisms; the characters are so thin that the audience has nothing to grasp onto. When characters cry and seem distraught, I could care less.

The Signal has ambition, though, aiming to address themes of technology, mental instability, and the presence of otherworldly beings. Yet they never mesh coherently into a singular narrative. A scene where Nic and Haley wander the corridors of the lab feels like they are the luckiest people in the world, only to have that squandered as their despair knows no bounds. It's a dark, manic look at their struggle to persevere, but there's nothing really at stake when watching most of the film. Eubank is a tremendously talented director, though, since his film is beautifully framed and shot, visually evoking an early Kubrick and Lynch with his deliberately negative camerawork. The last scene makes the audience think rather than explicitly laying out the themes, a testament to strong science fiction that attempts to show rather than tell. The problem is, there has to be context to show the audience the meaning of the film. The Signal remains distant and thin despite a promising and lofty premise.

Alone Yet Not Alone scores a Phoenix release

Alone Yet Not Alone stars Kelly Greyson (Return To The Hiding Place) with Jenn Gotzon (God’s Country, Frost Nixon) and actor/musical artist Clay Walker (Clay Walker: Jesse James).  

Last fall the movie was shown at 11 select locations as part of a "sneak peek” week long release (Sept. 27, 2013), achieving the second highest grossing per screen average (combining theater ticket sales with Seatzy ticket sales) in the country. Alone Yet Not Alone banked $11,434 per screen average in its limited release opening in Grand Rapids, Mich.; San Antonio, Houston and Dallas, Texas; Knoxville and Franklin, Tenn.; Raleigh-Durham, N.C.; Atlanta, Ga. and Colorado Springs, Colo. The Christian audience's enthusiastic reception helped rank Alone Yet Not Alone as one of the highest per screen average independently released faith-based films to date.

"I am thrilled that Alone Yet Not Alone is the first nationwide release for Seatzy theatrical distribution and our advance sales ticketing platform," says Dan Merrell, founder and CEO of Seatzy. "We've developed a unique screen by screen marketing program that we are confident will allow us to open successfully in Phoenix. It's an exciting new way to bring a compelling story like this to market."

Alone Yet Not Alone is based on the true story taken from the novel of the same name written by Tracy Leininger Craven that speaks of hope triumphing over despair, of faith overcoming fear and of victory prevailing over adversity.

Depicting a family at a critical juncture in America’s history, the film is designed to encourage and uplift families in difficult times, through sharing the inspiring story of Barbara and Regina Leininger and their journey of faith and survival during the French & Indian war in 1755. Captured by the Delaware Indians after raiding their home, and transported over 300 miles of wilderness to Ohio, the sisters are sustained only by their abiding trust in God, and their hope of escape against all odds to be reunited with their family.

Alone Yet Not Alone is a movie filled with action, drama and suspense shot on location at historical sites in Tennessee, Virginia, Pennsylvania and North Carolina to allow audiences to take the journey with the characters. Filmmakers realized that in order to tell the story authentically, they would need to shoot where the events actually occurred or those similar in terrain.

The film will be opening locally on Friday, June 13th at Harkins Superstition Springs and AMC Mesa Grand

An interview with Will Eubank, the director of The Signal

by Eric Forthun   

I had the chance to sit down with writer-director Will Eubank, whose upcoming film The Signal premiered at the Sundance Film Festival and opens theatrically this week. The film’s plot centers on a road trip where a hacker, Nic, and his two friends are drawn to an isolated area by a computer genius that leads them down a path akin to a waking nightmare.

I talk to Will about his love for science fiction, his cinematic influences like Stanley Kubrick and David Lynch, and his next film and future plans.

Eric: This is your second feature after Love. Along with The Signal, both are science fiction. Why do you enjoy working in the genre so much?

Will: A lot of the next stuff I’m working on isn’t science fiction, but one of the bigger ones I want to do is science fiction, my be-all end-all movie. I won’t make it for a long time. I think science fiction is really fun, especially when you don’t have much money to explore big thematic elements and can show them in a humanistic way. A lot of people get outside of themselves a little bit, and use the stage of something bigger to come full circle to something they can relate to. I’ve always found science fiction fascinating and enjoyed science fiction that isn’t necessarily genre-based; something like Solaris (the 1972 Russian film by Andrei Tarkovsky), where it’s a movie about love and things that are close to your heart. But it puts them on the wildest stage, and because of science fiction gets the freedom to explore that in a really unique way.

E: So do you see the benefits of making a low-budget science fiction film, lying within the fact that you want to emphasize characters because you don’t have a huge budget to use on visual effects?

W: Yeah, that sounds weird because a lot of people associate science fiction with needing big things, but I think that’s cool with where we are in filmmaking right now. We can all get the tools to nod toward something, and people’s imaginations…people often sell people’s imaginations short. As long as they are led to a place and fill in the gaps with their imagination, usually that’s a little more powerful than revealing too much. In a way, you can tell a really simple science fiction story using the power of somebody’s imagination and a few nuggets leading somebody to that, getting to the core of your story. Films like Another Earth have done that really well, filling in the gaps while exploring something very human.

E: How was it working with Laurence Fishburne, an accomplished and established actor, along with Brenton Thwaites and Olivia Cooke, who are both up-and-coming actors?

W: It was a cool contrast. All of the younger actors we had: Bo, Nat, Brenton, Olivia…all are very talented and great human beings and super passionate. We’re all younger and coming up at the same time, so we’re eager to make stuff happen. And when we got Laurence, he showed up with the same gusto, and that made me feel good because a legend like Laurence still loves what he does. He’s been doing this all these years and he still loves it! He loves telling the story and character, so it was satisfying to know that you can keep that passion no matter how big you are or how much you’ve done.

E: One of the central elements I noticed in the film’s set-up is the way a foreign object communicates technologically with the protagonist and leads him to a mentally unstable state. The main characters, as hackers, face a threat that can disrupt their technology and lead to their collapse. Was there a message surrounding technology and the way it can impact and threaten our personal lives in a way we didn’t intend?

W: There are different levels of what I was trying to explore. A basic way to explain what I was thinking is the weird way that technology and computers work. They act as a metaphor for film because there’s all this stuff on the surface and you can take it away on surface level if you want. But if you know how the core works and how the guts and programming work, much like a hacker does, then suddenly there’s an entire other world open for you. That’s scary to a lot of people, and scary to think that if all of the people who made computers just disappeared one day, we would pretty much go back to the Stone Age. It’s wild to me how computers are a language but they are built to be used by people who don’t know how to speak that language. There’s an interesting power to that that I think is represented in the film to a certain degree. At the start of the film, it’s face value but by the end, there’s something else going on with that.

It’s something I’ve always been personally into. My cousin goes to MIT, he just got his doctorate, and his girlfriend goes there too. I used to go to DEF CON when I was younger and enter into war drive competitions, but I was never the guy who knew how to do it all. I was just trying to do research and get it right. I’ve never been a hacker myself.

E: One thing I noticed is that the film is stunning visually. Once they enter the lab, the film uses white as the main color and there’s also an emphasis on primary colors, like blue and red. What was the impact of color, or lack thereof ,on the story?

W: I like negative framing a lot, through color or negative space on screen. It’s really fun to draw attention to certain things by having a lack of color, and it means that anything that now has color can have purpose. There are intentional colors represented that, if you were to trace them throughout the film, all start and end and point to certain traits. As humans, we often try to define certain colors and that’s a mystery to me. Like, why a color would represent this, or why are we afraid of the dark and light makes us less afraid. I’ve always found that interesting and I have my certain theories for why, so I wanted to explore those.

E: I also noticed that you used a lot of long corridors and especially focused on the center framing of characters that Kubrick employed. I read that he was one of your influences, as was David Lynch. For Kubrick, 2001 is an obvious influence, but which of Lynch’s works have influenced you?

W: Believe it or not, Twin Peaks is one. Brian Berdan, my editor, edited a lot of that, and he was an assistant editor on Blue Velvet. He’s naturally very Lynchian, way, way more than me, so we have to scale that back sometimes. Obviously Eraserhead and Twin Peaks are films that have affected me; I really hadn’t liked Eraserhead when I watched it, and I still don’t know if I like it, but I can’t stop thinking about it. And I don’t know why. That has always affected me. It led me to a different place in cinema. It stayed with me, whether I liked it or not. I’ll think, “That was a really unique experience.” There are characters in my film that are pulled from the Lynchian world.

E: Off the topic of the film, I’m curious: what are some of your favorite films?

W: My favorite film in the world is Casablanca, second favorite film is Chinatown, third favorite film is Dumb and Dumber, fourth favorite film isUncle Buck…no, I’m just kidding.  (laughs) I’m actually a big fan of Dumb and Dumber and John Hughes, I love Uncle Buck and Planes, Trains, and Automobiles. I love Home Alone. I like films about characters, whether or not those are old-fashioned characters that represent a different time…I remember when I realized Chinatown wasn’t a period piece. Or when I realized it was a period piece. When I was watchingChinatown as a little kid, it was actually filmed back then! And it took me a while to wrap my head around that. Even Faye Dunaway, I thought she was that old, I guess; I thought she was a real old Hollywood dame. I guess she was one of the last true Hollywood dames. But yeah, I remember being blown away thinking, “Jack Nicholson really can’t be that old! He’s still alive!” I found that so unique and interesting. I’m from L.A. so I romanticize that film.

E: You mention Dumb and Dumber. Lin Shaye was in that, and she pops up a little bit here. She’s been in Insidious and other recent films, so what was the influence for casting her and creating that religious zealot of a character?

W: She’s awesome. So sweet, so lovely. Because of Insidious and having the same producer on this one, he made the connection. We showed her the role, the small role, and she was so eager to do it and found so much that when I explained to her how her character works and where she’s from, she just found that touching and did it to the max. We had a press day the other day in L.A. and she was talking about her character and getting teary-eyed, so it’s wonderful how much she invests in the roles that she plays. She’s the real deal.

E: Are there any actors that you are dying to work with in Hollywood?

W: There are a lot of great actors that would be exciting to work with. I love Ralph Fiennes, obviously I love Daniel Day-Lewis…I’m just gonna say all of the best actors right now. (laughs) I really like what Tom Hardy is currently doing. He interests me because he looks so gigantic and powerful and strong, but he’s really not that big of a dude, so I find that interesting. I’m drawn to male actors because I’m prone to thinking in a male perspective when I’m writing a movie just because that’s me, that’s what I know. There are a lot of talented actresses. I love Natalie Portman, I think that what Jennifer Lawrence is doing right now is just out of control. She’s a powerful young woman who’s super amazing. There are people all over the board, you never know! If I get that opportunity, I’m not afraid of anything.

E: You mentioned earlier that you had a film you want to make later in your career, an opus of sorts. I wanted to know what you meant by that?

W: I stumbled onto an idea and I know that it’s in my pocket. It’s one where I know I can pull the covers up at night and go to sleep knowing that I have one of the best ideas ever. It’s really cool. I know it’s never been done before, where I know it’ll blow people’s minds, and the twist at the end is so heavy. It’s also beautiful and will really be a beautiful film. I was so scared when I heard of Interstellar that I thought he [Christopher Nolan] stumbled upon the idea that I had. Fortunately, it wasn’t even in the same realm, so thank gosh! It’s my big one, so I won’t make it until I make two more films because I need to learn more and get to a place where I feel really comfortable making this one. I also want a certain amount of creative control over it and I have to earn it.

E: Do you know what your next project will be?

W: I don’t, but I’m close on some things. I just talked with one of my writers that I’m working with, and it’s a movie centering on a Scottish highlander. It’s not based on any real history, but it’s loosely based on the Norman invasion of England. The film isn’t set in England, though, kind of like how Game of Thrones isn’t really set anywhere. It’s a movie about fatherhood and wanting to leave behind the better parts of you with your children and not the bad parts. I don’t know if that one will be next, since I’m working on another project with the same writers asThe Signal. That one is about a mining incident in South Africa in one of the world’s deepest mines. It’s a pretty exciting film, so we’ll see what comes out of that. It’s a wild ride trying to get a film made, so you never know until you actually know what’s coming next.

The Signal opens Friday, June 13^th in select theaters. 

Edge of Tomorrow - Movie Review by Michael Clawson

Edge of Tomorrow  

Starring Tom Cruise, Emily Blunt, Bill Paxton, Brendan Gleeson and Noah Taylor

Directed by Doug Liman

From Warner Bros. Pictures

Rated PG-13

113 minutes

Slick sci-fi premise sends Edge of Tomorrow sailing

by Michael Clawson of Terminal Volume

If The Edge of Tomorrow were just the sum of its parts — its internal mechanisms being Saving Private Ryan, Groundhog Day and War of the Worlds — then it would be a perfectly acceptable action blockbuster. But the film excels past its formula, soaring into the lower tiers of sci-fi greatness.

At the center of Edge of Tomorrow’s mech-suited bombast is Tom Cruise, who — no surprise, here — knows his way around a bonanza of futurist ideas and concepts. Few actors seem very interested in experimenting with science fiction, but Cruise is fearless at the genre, from Steven Spielberg’s one-two punch of Minority Report and War of Worlds, to last year’s fascinatingly ambitious, though hammy, Oblivion. Here in Edge of Tomorrow, Cruise plays Cage, a PR flack for the United States military. The opening moments show us a Starship Troopers-like flip-through of cable news, where we learn that an alien race has hijacked a comet and crash landed in Europe to breed like a bacteria. And there’s Cage, grinning like only a public relations geek can, as he analyzes the alien invasion with Wolf Blitzer.

In a slithery little PR move that reeks of bureaucracy, Cage is sent to the front lines of the alien invasion, where he’s fatally mangled during a gruesome D-Day-inspired beach-storming that turns out to be an ambush devilishly orchestrated by the sinewy tentacle-strewn aliens. But Cage doesn’t die, at least not permanently. He wakes up in the previous day, and only he’s aware of it. It’s as if the world reset back 24 hours just for him — and indeed it did. This is where Tomorrow’s intricate construction begins to shine: now in the second version of the same day, Cage makes tiny changes to his original delivery, which reveals different outcomes and permutations to the events of a day he’s already lived (and died) through. A complacent Cage yields one scenario, while an ambitious Cage gets another one entirely. Those familiar with Groundhog Day and Bill Murray’s oft-repeated routine — “I Got You Babe,” coffee in the lobby, Needlenose Ned, Punxsutawney Phil — will find Tomorrow’s version of the same concept to be a riot, including when Cage tirelessly attempts different stunts through several weeks worth of catastrophic deaths. I especially enjoyed Bill Paxton, playing a commanding officer, who is often perplexed at Cage’s apparent clairvoyance.

The finale to each of Cage’s days is the European invasion, which he can never survive — like a difficult video game level, but with unlimited lives. He’s crushed, impaled, shot, blown up, drowned, set on fire, eaten, chewed up, ground into a chunky paste … death knows no bounds as he re-lives the same day over and over again. He eventually teams up with Rita (Emily Blunt), who had her own neverending day a couple months before. She relived her day for so long that she eventually became a badass super soldier that earned her the nickname Full Metal Bitch. But her day ended, and now she latches onto Cage to try to crack this alien enemy, which uses time travel and forever-days as a tactic to refine their strategy. When she realizes he’s in the middle of one of the déjà-vu days, she tells him to “find me when you wake up,” and then promptly shoots him, starting another rebooted sequence. Later, they hunker down over topographical maps and sketch out their plan of attack; after each failure they make new annotations to their notes. The maps get quite cluttered.

Edge of Tomorrow works so well because its inventive with its concepts. I especially appreciated how the script assumed we would understand the material. When Cage finds Rita for the first time, he doesn’t have to spend 30 minutes convincing her. She knows what he’s going through, and the film doesn't torture us with his long explanation of it to her. And like Bill Murray’s weatherman in Groundhog Day, Cage dramatically goes through all the stages of grief as he wanders through the same day over and over again, whether its months or 10,000 years. The first week is spent in denial, trying desperately to win the invasion. Then he goes through anger and a nasty bout of depression, including when he lets a fellow soldier get repeatedly squished by a falling deployment chopper. And then comes acceptance, where the film kicks into overdrive as Cage finally learns how to crack the day. This isn’t as philosophical or spiritual as Groundhog Day, but it has its charms.

It also has its special effects, which are abundant and cleverly used. The big one is the mechanized suits worn by the soldiers. These hydraulic war costumes — kinky lingerie for cyborgs — seem too clunky and silly to wear into battle, but the plot builds much of every action scene around their overpowering ferocity. Although, Rita’s suit brings up a point I last brought up on the first Transformers movies: why would someone use a sword when they’re body is essentially one big gun? The other big special effect is the aliens, who move so quickly they’re hard to see until later in the movie. They achieve locomotion by spinning their squid-like arms around and rolling forward, like dust bunnies or tumbleweeds. They’re rather terrifying, with jump scares to prove it, but they’re generally harmless, if only because no one really stays dead in the movie.

Edge of Tomorrow is a fascinating and remarkably well-equipped science fiction film, one that allows Cruise to shine in a genre he has cornered for himself. The action and special effects are largely impressive, but the core science-fantasy mechanic bundles everything up nicely. That and the subtle chemistry of Cruise and Blunt, the latter of which is more than capable as an action heroine. It also embodies all that a summer movie should be: action, drama, romance, comedy, special effects, as well as some lesser-known pieces, like invention, wit, mystery and some light philopsophy. It’s doesn’t overdo or neglect any one element. It just finds a nice balance for all of it, and then snaps it all together in what might be the most worthwhile blockbuster of the summer.

The Fault in Our Stars - Movie Review by Michael Clawson

The Fault in Our Stars  

Starring Shailene Woodley, Ansel Elgort, Laura Dern, Nat Wolff, Willem Dafoe and Sam Trammell

Directed by Josh Boone

From 20th Century Fox

Rated PG-13

125 minutes

Woodley turns in lovely performance in Stars

by Michael Clawson of Terminal Volume

The Fault in Our Stars is a compendium of dying-people clichés. You’ve seen and heard all its parts scattered throughout other films, but here they are all together in one place — a junk drawer labeled “cancer.”

This isn’t meant as an insult, just an observation of the film’s inclusion, and then re-tooling, of all those sick-people scenes that other movies perpetuate, from the first ominous cough to the agonizing funeral. But that’s why John Boone’s film, based on John Green’s hit young adult book, is a deeply moving and beautifully written piece of humanity: it’s not just a strummer of heartstrings, but a delicate examination of young people as they maneuver through the final chapters of their lives.

We begin with teenager Hazel, our narrator and star. She’s cancer-free thanks to an experimental drug that has permanently eradicated the cancer, but rendered her lungs terrifyingly fragile. She must breathe from an oxygen tube that snakes around her ears and under her nose, an accessory she wears well. The oxygen tank is in a cute little rolling backpack she tows at her heels, her life-giving trailer. Although her health is good, Hazel is a broken soul: her sickness has made her cynical and depressed, and she’s slowly spiraling into a void. When she stands up at a survivor support group, she tells everyone that “oblivion is inevitable.” Her doctor wants to prescribe her an antidepressant. She resists: “Depression is a side effect of dying.”

Hazel is played with astounding confidence by Shailene Woodley, an actress who seems to have no limitations. Fault in Our Stars shows her simply and exquisitely: her hair is short and simple, her makeup is minimal, her actions are muted and hushed. But there is never a single moment that Woodley does not own the screen. Her Hazel meets Augustus (Ansel Elgort), an eccentric older boy who was robbed of one of his legs by cancer. Gus, as he’s called, is the opposite of Hazel: confident, bright, smiling, and eternally hopeful. In an unfortunate quirk serving as a metaphor, Gus walks around with a cigarette in his teeth. He doesn’t smoke it, just chews on it, because by not lighting it he’s taking away its power. (Nevermind that he funded big tobacco for that privilege.) He’s especially kind to his best friend, who’s about to lose his eyes to cancer. When the friend is dumped by his girlfriend, Gus gives him his basketball trophies to smash in a cathartic rage.

Gus and Hazel meet at their support group — colliding in a trademark Meet Cute — and they start dating. “I fell in love with him the way you fall asleep: slowly and then all at once,” she says. His infectious smile seeps into her life, and before she knows it, she’s happy and invigorated — her outlook brightens. Aside from her failing health, and his upbeat spirit, the film spends a great deal of time worrying about author Peter Van Houten, who wrote Hazel’s favorite book, An Imperial Affliction, about a cancer patient. After Gus and Hazel start an online correspondence with Van Houten (Willem Dafoe), they travel to Amsterdam to meet him and get answers about his cryptic novel, which ends mid-sentence, signifying the character’s sudden death. Of course, they show up and Van Houten isn’t what they thought, which sends them on a detour through the Anne Frank house and other gorgeous locations.

This is what happens in The Fault in Our Stars, but this is not the core of the movie. Within the scenes, and the loosely thatched plot, is a dialogue to young people about their mortality, their love and their fragile hearts. Hazel and Gus ponder their existence, the eternities, cancer … they seem to be struggling through a thoughtful analysis of the entire universe, stars included. The dialogue is smart and engaging, and the characters are informed and intelligent. They act and talk like adults, a believable aspect to young people who have encountered adult-sized illnesses. This might all sound very existential and ambiguous, and it is because the film wants you to sort out what it all means — life, love and death.

The movie has a grim style of comedy; gallows humor is probably the right classification. At one point, someone says the word “cancertastic.” Later, Hazel and Gus take a blind friend to an ex-girlfriend’s house so he can chuck eggs at her convertible. Van Houten is awkward and awful, even as he blasts Swedish hip-hop for his new guests. Cancer seems to hang over everyone, yet they have to smile and push forward under that gloomy cloud. Such is life.

The Fault in Our Stars is not a reinvention of teen dramas — it’s certainly no dismal Nicholas Sparks book — but it does take great care in trying to understand teens and their hopes, dreams and fears. Teens aren’t the idiots that movies make them out to be. They yearn for smart movies as much as adults, if not more so.

Edge of Tomorrow - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Edge of Tomorrow  

Dir: Doug Liman

Starring: Tom Cruise, Emily Blunt, Bill Paxton, and Brendan Gleeson

Rated PG-13

 113 Minutes

By: Monte Yazzie  from www.thecodafilms.com

Tom Cruise knows how to make an entertaining film and director Doug Liman understands action film storytelling. Combine these two consistent artists in a film and you are bound to have one entertaining experience. “Edge of Tomorrow” is a smartly designed and skillfully constructed science fiction thriller, with good performances from the two leads.

Major William Cage (Tom Cruise) is a high level recruiter for the military and the new war against alien invaders known as mimics, who have the ability to reset time, giving them the advantage of being a step ahead in warfare. Cage, a non-combat officer, is stripped of his rank by an overzealous General (Brendan Gleeson) and placed in a ragtag group known as “J Company” for frontline defense in the impending first assault. Cage doesn’t make it very far on the battlefield, dying within minutes but in the process killing a mimic that bleeds on him and gives him the ability to reset time. On a learning curve with his new power, Cage enlists the help of a respected soldier named Rita (Emily Blunt) in an effort to defeat the mimics.

Cruise was good throughout the film, starting the story as a privileged officer in the military who had an aversion to blood and had never used the weapons he promoted. But by the end he was a hardened expert of combat, motivated by the needs of humanity over his personal fears. It was a shift that Cruise handled with ease. Emily Blunt was enjoyable to watch, wielding a massive combat sword with an attitude that challenged most manly military stereotypes. She was best when paired with Cruise; mostly kicking him around during training sessions and repeatedly killing him so she could reset the day, it became fairly humorous after awhile.

The narrative was complicated, but not confusing. Liman kept the story nicely paced up to the final act, which changed tone and unfolded too predictably. The battle sequences were in the style of Liman’s past films, a mix of frenzied handheld perspectives awash with a grey color palette. Liman constructed a maze-like battlefield with explosions from nearly every direction that was an impressive display even with the unneeded 3-D gimmickry. The initial battle, that would again be replayed more than few times, was dizzying and exciting.

The CG aliens were in a constant state of hyper movement, reminiscent of the chaotic transition seen with the conversion from machine to robot in the “Transformers” series, and it became cluttered when mixed with Liman’s distinct action design in some parts. The artistic design of the futuristic weaponry was reminiscent of the first person shooter game “Unreal Tournament”, though the gore was much less. The restraint, in regards to violence and the many deaths of the lead character, were handled subtly with a camera pan or an intentional edit.

While the movie incorporated elements from some familiar sources, most notably “Source Code” and “Groundhog Day”, director Doug Liman kept the story easy to follow and the action exciting to watch, making “Edge of Tomorrow” an unexpected summer surprise.

Monte’s Rating

4.00 out of 5.00

Edge of Tomorrow - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

Edge of Tomorrow

 

Starring Tom Cruise, Emily Blunt, Bill Paxton, Brendan Gleeson, and Jonas Armstrong

Directed by Doug Liman

Rated: PG-13

Run Time: 113 minutes

Genre: Action/Sci-Fi

Opens June 6th

 

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

Edge of Tomorrow is intelligent, fun science fiction. Like a demented blend of Groundhog Day and Source Code, the film emphasizes the humor in repeating a single day from the former while also demonstrating the seriousness of solving a mystery with only a limited amount of time before things reset from the latter. It’s more original than that, though, due to its terrific use of gender role reversal alongside its kinetic, character-driven action. The film centers on a futuristic Earth that’s ravaged by an alien invasion, starting in Europe and leaving most global countries decimated. Officer William Cage (Tom Cruise), a spokesman for the war effort, insists with others that deliberate action and strategy against the aliens will lead to their success, yet they continue to fail. Cage is approached by General Brigham (Brendan Gleeson), a leader of the United Forces that guides the world’s concentrated effort against the aliens. He tells Cage they are planning an attack tomorrow, and Cage will be leading the charge. He’s never been in battle, let alone led an army. After attempts to blackmail and escape Brigham, Cage wakes up in handcuffs at the battlefront.

Cage is a man who sells things, working for an advertising agency and participating in ROTC in high school. He can sell what the military does. Officers in the field, though, are not impressed by his actions, with Master Sergeant Farell (Bill Paxton) even saying that Cage would attempt to escape if given the chance and is a deserter. When he is forced into battle, he is ill-equipped and sees a coordinated attack go to waste when the aliens thwart their every move. It’s as if they knew what was coming, a soldier says. Cage is killed in combat after executing an Alpha, which sprays acid over his face and body, ending his life quickly. Then Cage wakes up. Again. He keeps entering the battle, more and more confused, leading to his death and their loss every time. He’s in a time loop, which a Special Forces officer named Rita (Emily Blunt) notices, using this opportunity to prepare themselves for victory every time he wakes back up. Yet the aliens are smarter than they can imagine, and the familiarity of the situations and increasingly difficult circumstances take a toll on Cage’s psyche.

Cruise is playing a role largely devoid of action hero stereotypes, which is refreshing in the landscape of similar summer blockbusters. He has always been a charming screen presence, one that has had his public image torn apart due to personal affairs left for the media to judge. But that doesn’t take away from his talents on screen, where he can sell a plot much like his character and make an audience care about the situation at hand. The film shines even more, though, when Rita controls the action. She is affectionately coined the “Full Metal Bitch,” which Cage sees every time he wakes up, often to increasingly comedic effect. Blunt is outstanding in the role because she shows that she is made for any genre, so long as the role is strongly written and orchestrated. She fits the action heroine perfectly because the film provides her with stronger development than most traditional leads. She is masculinized in every way: the story provides her with the troubled emotional backstory usually held for stoic men; she is the more experienced warrior that knows how to survive in battle; and she even has her wounds tended to by a man, something usually reserved for passive romantic interests.

The plot is fairly straightforward for a time travel science fiction tale, although the ending leaves a bit to be desired in terms of dramatic impact. The film succeeds when it grounds the characters in the context of the story and surrounds them with action, not the other way around. That’s a testament to the writing as well as Doug Liman’s direction. In previous efforts like The Bourne Identity and Mr. and Mrs. Smith, he develops strong scenarios in which the characters logically exist. He doesn’t provide mindless action without context. Edge of Tomorrow also stands as an allegory, however basic, for the way war trivializes human life. Cage is put into battle without preparation and it leads to his death; he’s lucky to have a chance to relive the battle, because plenty of soldiers never come back from concentrated war efforts. The film isn’t made to be a staunch metaphor for militarization or anything of the sort. It’s made to blow stuff up really well. Which it does, alongside a twisty plot, well-developed characters, and effectively paced action. It’s a surprisingly exciting actioner.

Cold in July - Movie Review by Michael Clawson

Cold in July

Starring Michael C. Hall, Don Johnson, Sam Shepard, Vinessa Shaw and Nick Damici

Directed by Jim Mickle

From IFC Films

Rated R

109 minutes

Celebrate July early with crime stunner

by Michael Clawson of Terminal Volume

Modern crime movies don’t get much pulpier than Jim Mickle’s wickedly sinister Cold in July.

This rapturous and sweaty thriller, about a man’s journey into his own fear and obsession, crept up on me in an ambush of filmmaking and storytelling. It’s an electric film, one of my favorites of the summer.

It opens on big boxy cars, plastic coffeemakers, acid-washed jeans, floral-printed couches and rotary phones. “East Texas, 1989,” the screen says, and it feels it. Little time is wasted: Richard (Michael C. Hall) is asleep in bed when he hears a noise in the living room. He loads a revolver and creeps out in his pajamas. An intruder stands in the living room. A shot rings out. The intruder drops.

The police arrive and determine the killing was in self defense, but that doesn’t settle well with Russel (Sam Shepard), the intruder’s madman of a father, who was just released from prison. Soon, Richard and his wife and son are being terrorized by Russel — telephone hang-ups, bullets sprinkled in their house, break-ins. The police can’t do anything because there is little proof. An overnight stakeout reveals a terrible surprise, but it doesn’t end Russel’s campaign of terror.

Now, at this point I thought I knew what Cold in July was all about. But this is no Cape Fear, a point that is made abundantly clear after a huge twist remaps the landscape of Mickle’s crime universe. The twist is so delicious that I won’t be spoiling it here, but know that it is one of two major plot twists the film will whip you through.

Drenched in delicate nuance and so tightly woven I thought it would pop, Cold in July is based on a book by Joe Lansdale, and adapted to the screen by Mickle and Nick Damici, who plays a police officer. The script might be the genetic offspring — or from within the same psychosphere — of HBO’s True Detective and a movie like Winter’s Bone, or even David Gordon Green’s Undertow. It’s about men of low moral character, and how their actions bleed into the rest of the world.

The movie asks its audience to bite into some implausible plot developments that are almost too big to swallow, but the many payoffs more than make up for it. One payoff late in the movie has Richard, the suburban picture framer, shooting up at a man from the floor. Blood sprays up coating a lightbulb and bathing the scene in a deep crimson. Rarely is a man’s descent into violence more explicitly shown then here in this scene, as the blood literally changes the color of the world.

Blood is a frequent motif. Early in the film, at a point I knew Cold in July was something very special, Richard and his wife clear out the bloody couch from their run-in with the intruder. After moving the heavy load outside, they drop to the floor in exhaustion and look up at the blood splatter on their once-clean wall. The act of killing a man has drained them, and left them a twisted new piece of artwork.

Hall, so often wasted on Dexter’s repetitive plotlines and predictable meanderings, is given more to chew on here as the curious husband and father. Against his better judgment, Richard is propelled forward into the darkness; Hall plays it believably and simply. Shepard is appropriately vile, even as his character grows more sympathetic as secrets are revealed. Don Johnson, so great now in his later years, turns up as a private detective that steals every scene he’s in.

This is a legitimate thriller with a sophisticated presentation and powerful characters. The summer’s tend to produce a lot of big-budget dreck; Cold in July is not part of that heap.

Maleficent - Movie Review by Michael Clawson

Maleficent

Starring Angelina Jolie, Elle Fanning, Sharlto Copley and Sam Riley

Directed by Robert Stromberg

From Walt Disney Pictures

Rated PG

97 minutes

Disney goofs up with awful Maleficent

by Michael Clawson of Terminal Volume

And this is why you don’t needlessly tinker with franchises.

Never before in Disney’s history — at least, not its theatrical history — has a movie been so poorly constructed, so rattled, so lost, so hopelessly written and so inconceivably misguided. From top to bottom, Maleficent is a wreck heaped on more wreck, a smoldering ruin of what was once 1959’s Sleeping Beauty. Disney has been sitting pretty the six months since Frozen blew out the windows, and now comes this awful setback.

Fairy tales are known for their simplicity, but you’d never guess that here as a simple premise — an enchanted sleep, “true love’s kiss” and a demonic sorceress — is turned on its head and punted into the backfield. Angelina Jolie stars as the fairy Maleficent, a name that will challenge even the most gifted public speakers. I think the syllable-busting name is pronounced mall-eff-iss-cent, though it’s hard to tell since each character says it differently.

The winged and horned fairy lives in a tree kingdom called James Cameron’s Avatar, which is right next door to a human kingdom of stone and iron, presumably called King’s Landing based on its number of mindlessly cruel old white dudes. One day she falls in love with the human Stefan (Sharlto Copley), who is clearly just bored with life. When Stefan doesn’t show much interest, and later hacks off her wings, she goes on an epic bender that culminates into her publically cursing a baby in its cradle. You’ve heard the curse before: before her 16th birthday, the baby will prick her finger on spindle and fall into a death-like sleep. The movie gets that part right, though not much else.

This plot is a mess, one that begins with a 25-minute voice-over introduction and then flops forward in flailing lunges for the next hour. Once the film establishes Maleficent is a wounded lovelorn fairy, it doesn’t take long to make her a villain, first with a big Lord of the Rings-style battle and then with her creepy stalking of the baby, Aurora, as she grows up in a nearby forest. These Aurora scenes are unintentionally hilarious as Maleficent lingers outside windows and behind trees for 16 years. Other witches have glowing orbs or swirling cauldrons that will show them the things they want to see; Maleficent has to sneak through the bushes in black latex bodysuits and velvet robes. And with those horns, she better hope it’s not elk season.

Making matters much worse is the comedy relief, three fluttering bobbleheaded fairies played by Lesley Manville, Imelda Staunton and Juno Temple. Of the dozen or so jokes they were given — including throwing flour, fidgeting with blue butterflies, and lots of ditzy cluelessness — only about two ever land a hit as the others fizzle into oblivion. Their heads are digitally cut and pasted onto little pixy bodies in a terrifying special effect right out of 2002. Another noteworthy side character is Maleficent’s henchman Diaval, a shapeshifting crow. He’s played by Sam Riley, who bears so much resemblance to another feminine-featured fantasy hero that his Rent-a-Bloom tag is showing.

Even Jolie, an Academy Award-winning actress, struggles. Aside from a few sequences of giddy delight as she hams it up, Jolie has the loosest grasp on the shoddy material. Her tortured screams early in the movie are especially cringey and in need of some overdubbing. Much of her role is about holding uncomfortable poses for dramatically long periods of time in forests, behind bushes, hovering with her wings high above the clouds, or in Stefan’s lifeless castle. and speaking of poor Stefan, this guy is simply the worst. First he snubs his lady and then the flubs roll one after another: he starts a pointless war, marries another lady, ditches his baby in a forest, spends more time burning spindles than being a father, and then he tries to kill Maleficent after she’s saved the day. This character literally does nothing right for an entire movie.

What irks me most about Maleficent is the dangerous branding that Disney is imposing on its vintage franchises. The premise here is that the evil sorceress isn’t all that evil; in fact, she’s the hero who’s been misunderstood all these years. By recasting the villain as the hero, Disney is invalidating its own movies.

What’s next, a movie about a gentle wildlife enthusiast who heads deep into the woods to shoot a deer to feed his starving family? They could call it Bambi Killer.

A Million Ways to Die in the West - Movie Review by Michael Clawson

 

A Million Ways to Die in the West

Starring Seth MacFarlane, Charlize Theron, Sarah Silverman, Giovanni Ribisi and Liam Neeson

Directed by Seth MacFarlane

From Universal Pictures

Rated R

116 minutes

Laughs, deaths about equal in MacFarlane western

by Michael Clawson of Terminal Volume

Filling in the long-dormant void of absurdist cowboy humor left by Mel Brooks’ Blazing Saddles, Seth MacFarlane’s equally batty A Million Ways to Die in the West goes far at convincing us Saddles’ unchallenged dominance might be ready for a toppling. Just not quite far enough with this lesser, though still amusingly irreverent, western.

If anything, MacFarlane — the star, writer and director — restrains himself. If you recall, Blazing Saddles ended when the cowboys spilled out of the picture and into adjacent movies. A Million Ways to Die in the West seems poised for a similar feat, but then it reins back its galloping absurdity even as Neil Patrick Harris, mid-duel, fills a ten-gallon hat with 12 gallons of you’d-rather-not-know.

The Family Guy and Ted creator is a curious actor. He enters the Old west scenery as an oddity: suspenders, vest, impeccably smooth plastic-like skin, an anime-like tuft of hair above his forehead. He looks like he’s headed to an audition for Pinocchio, not The Searchers. And then that voice — it booms like he’s about to advertise for American-made pickup trucks.

MacFarlane plays Albert, a sheepherder with some confidence issues. In the opening moments he loses his girlfriend (Amanda Seyfried) because he’s perceived as weak and not manly enough for the West. This is the mantra of the movie: the Old West is so dangerous that literally anything can kill you. And if it doesn’t kill you — perhaps just wounds or maims — then the doctor will finish you off with his bizarre frontier treatments. We meet the doctor later when he lets a bluejay peck at an open wound on Albert’s face.

Albert isn’t a coward. He just values life, which is why he doesn’t take any risks, although he does have a few too many drinks in the saloon and then tries to ride home — “Don’t drink and horse,” his friends warn him. Later, Albert goes to the town fair, where an escaped bull skewers a man like a hot dog over a roasting fire. “People die at the fair,” he confirms to himself after a photographer’s flash lamp explodes, igniting the photographer and his two subjects. Two nearby cowpunchers “put out” the fire by shooting the burning victims. Yeah, people die at the fair.

The beautiful part of this deadly motif is that it allows MacFarlane to dredge up every western cliché, if only to lampoon it to the bar in his cynical tone and style. Gunfights, whorehouses, snakebites, horses, saloons, sheriffs, preachers, American Indians … if it’s been in a western then it’s desecrated here with MacFarlane’s vitriolic wit. Some of the jokes crack like thunder, including one where a man pulls out a dollar bill and the gathered townspeople bow their heads out of respect to a denomination they have not been privileged to see in the flesh. “Take your hat off, boy, that’s a dollar bill,” a father yells at his son.

Other jokes land with thuds, including a scene with a pot-laced cookie, Islamic death chants, a sheep with “retardation,” and an unfortunate line about women and the size of their butts in frontier fashion. White guys opening jokes with “If I were a black guy I would …” rarely goes well. Racial humor comes up several times, including at the fair where Albert plays a game called Runaway Slaves, with century-old imagery that is still shocking today. The arcade game turns up in the post-credit sequence with some vindication, but it’s a risky joke that almost derails the West’s forward momentum.

The movie is all fun and games until Clinch (Liam Neeson) and his posse ride into town with the intention of killing and robbing before moving onto the next town. Little humor is written into this villain, which is such a shame considering that Neeson, with that classical cowboy face, seems like a sport for MacFarlane’s twisted sense of humor. Charlize Theron plays Anna, Clinch’s wife and Albert’s new love interest. Theron’s Anna is written some jokes, but Clinch is not — he’s a completely serious character in an otherwise wacky movie. It’s very strange.

Giovanni Ribisi and Sarah Silverman play a deeply religious couple in the middle of a very chaste courtship, even though she plays a rather accomplished prostitute who has sex with “10 men … on a slow day” but won’t go all the way with her man because God forbids it. Silverman is appropriately foul mouthed, and Ribisi feigns timid embarrassment — they are hilarious performances. Neil Patrick Harris plays a man who works in the town’s Mustachery; he has a largely perfect song and dance number about facial hair. The film has many fart jokes, including four in the first 20 minutes, but Harris will out-gross everything late in the movie with his painful hat maneuver. Keep your eyes open for many cameos, including Ryan Reynolds, Ewan McGregor, Gilbert Gottfried, Bill Maher, Wes Studi and Christopher Lloyd pulling a John-Hurt-in-Spaceballs appearance.

As rewarding as this western-themed comedy is, A Million Ways to Die in the West could have gotten away with so much more. The rambunctious farce, a horse hair shy of an outright spoof, should have went bonkers, yet came up a day late, but not — hats off — a dollar short.

Maleficent - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Maleficent  

Director: Robert Stromberg

 Starring: Angelina Jolie, Elle Fanning, Sharlto Copley, and Sam Riley

From: Walt Disney Pictures

 Rated PG

97 Minutes

By: Monte Yazzie (www.TheCodaFilms.com)

The 1959 Disney animated classic “Sleeping Beauty” is given a makeover with a new leading lady, the villainous Maleficent. The elements from the original film are still well intact but Director Robert Stromberg, a former production designer, guides his story on the sturdy shoulders of Angelina Jolie and the striking imagery of her character. While the film is filled with production allusions to the original, the special effects become more distracting than accommodating and the narrative has trouble finding the proper direction for such a captivating character.

Maleficent begins the story as a young girl who lives, and flies above, an enchanted land. She encounters a human boy named Stefan who tries to steal a valuable stone from the forbidden territory, though Maleficent shows charity towards him. A friendship develops between them and, after a movement in time, romance blossoms. However, Stefan has aspirations of making his own life in the human world where Maleficent isn’t accepted. More time passes and Stefan has moved into a position helping the king, who desires nothing more than taking Maleficent’s home for his own. Stefan, realizing opportunity, betrays Maleficent by cutting her wings off. Maleficent turns to darkness, hiding for some time until she hears word that the new king, Stefan, has had a child named Aurora.

Angelina Jolie makes an impressive villain. Her already beautiful features are modified with a stunning crown of horns and prominently framed wings, the attractive design makes some of the more mundane moments of the film watchable. The style incorporated into the wardrobe of the character is also finely rendered, while her mischievous grin and darkly enchanting voice only add to the commanding presence of her character. However, it’s during the more quiet moments between Fanning’s Aurora when Jolie’s character becomes more than just a striking image. The rest of the cast is merely playing catch-up with Jolie who commands nearly every scene.

The story is familiar though it begins with interesting promise. Introducing Maleficent as a compassionate and caring young fairy who is the protector of the moors, an overly computer generated world with all manner of glowing and murky creatures, and then immediately follow it with a swift love story that ends in betrayal and heartbreak gives the title character a fitting backstory. Maleficent survives the deception, albeit with retaliation directed at the offspring of her deceiver, and her coldness soon changes into something different over the course of Princess Aurora’s life. Unfortunately, once the familiar elements from the original story are presented, the film stumbles into a waiting game of expected developments. While Maleficent watches the vessel of her curse grow into a kind hearted young woman the retelling of the story makes a slight turn with elements that illustrate the significance of forgiveness, maternal love, and feminine confidence. Diversion returns to accustomed strides as the inevitable confrontation between Maleficent and the king takes priority in an action display of tedious visuals.

While “Maleficent” may not deviate from the original tale or delve deeper into the malevolence insinuated in her name, it does offer a new representation of a character that was otherwise unredeemable. Jolie is excellent in the lead, which makes it all the more frustrating that the script didn’t offer more to work with. Still, “Maleficent” even with its faults will undoubtedly find admiration from the Disney fans.

Monte’s Rating

2.50 out of 5.00

A Million Ways to Die in the West - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

A Million Ways to Die in the West  

Starring Seth MacFarlane, Charlize Theron, Amanda Seyfried, Neil Patrick Harris, Giovanni Ribisi, Sarah Silverman, and Liam Neeson

Directed by Seth MacFarlane

Rated R

Run Time: 116 minutes

Genre: Comedy/Western

Opens May 30th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

A Million Ways to Die in the West isn’t really a Western or even a satire of a Western, but more of an uneven critique of the American West and the myth surrounding it. The film is Seth MacFarlane’s second theatrical feature after 2012’s successful Ted, a merging of MacFarlane’s television talents and a genuine display of visual humor and heart. His latest effort showcases the abilities of the filmmaker to bring together a terrific ensemble and repeat jokes as if we did not hear them the first few times. It’s a staple of his humor, though, something that his non sequiturs on Family Guy accentuate. He’s not a particularly revolutionary comedian. Yet he’s always been funny when exploring the most absurd aspects of stories: the concept of a boy’s wish being extended to adulthood in Ted, a protagonist as angry, hostile, and conservative as the one in American Dad, and having bears as neighbors in The Cleveland Show. With Million Ways, he shows the deadly nature of the old West and debunks the myth that the West was a haven of success for everyone.

Cut to 1882 Arizona, where Albert Stark (Seth MacFarlane) is an incompetent sheep farmer that is too meek and passive for his own good. His girlfriend, Louise (Amanda Seyfried), breaks up with him because she wants some time to herself and, now that the life expectancy is around 35, a girl doesn’t have to get married right away. She starts up a relationship with Foy (Neil Patrick Harris), a mustachioed man who has a lot of wealth due to his mustache parlor. Albert, a jealous man, foolishly challenges Foy to a duel in hopes of winning Louise back, but he cannot shot a gun and knows he is doomed. So he enlists the help of Anna (Charlize Theron), a new woman in town who spends time away from her husband, Clinch (Liam Neeson), an outlaw taking advantage of newly found gold. A supporting plot also follows Albert’s best friend, Edward (Giovanni Ribisi), who is in love with a prostitute named Ruth (Sarah Silverman), yet their love has never been consummated.

The story is ripe for satire and occasionally handles its opportunities well. A strange conversation about kids playing with “stick wheel” leads to a mirror of children and technology in our age. The idea that Edward and Ruth are saving themselves for marriage because they are Christians and want to honor the lord’s wishes is hilarious considering every time they mention it, Ruth leaves to engage with a customer. The concept of a mustache acting as a true sign of manliness and status in society while everyone else stands inferior is ridiculous. Anna responding sarcastically when Clinch says that women must love and obey their husbands demonstrates a clear societal problem that the film revisits. Yet no matter how many times the film addresses these concepts, it often repeats the jokes for increasing effect but never delivers new laughs. Most of the humor that lies within the film originates from revisiting a joke made previously in the film and putting a twist on it. MacFarlane has a knack for beating jokes into the ground, no matter how funny they originally were, and he does that here.

The film often mistakes vulgarity and gross-out humor for exciting storytelling. There’s little imagination left to the audience: a joke about a sheep dealing with mental retardation is enough, but the mention of said sheep going on the roof and then seeing it on the roof a couple minutes later lessens the impact. Wouldn’t a joke about Albert’s poor herding naturally lead into a sheep being on the roof? I feel like some jokes would work better if the writers spent more time spitting out ideas. There are instances where a character poops into a hat, a character looks in horror at sheep penises, a man gets gored by a bull, an ice block falls on a man, and a character makes a joke about a woman being hairy in a certain spot. Yet what makes these jokes insufferable is the nature of repeating the joke and showing the audience exactly how the joke looks; there’s nothing to give the audience in terms of creativity and verbal prose. MacFarlane tends to do this through many of his works, some more effectively than others.

The performances are committed and the cameos are worthwhile. SIlverman and Ribisi in particular seem to be having a blast with their material since it is the most ripe for commentary, but MacFarlane feels a bit out-of-place in the lead role. He’s a much better off-screen presence when he can focus more on creative direction and writing, yet here he feels like a misplaced emotional anchor for a film that needs it. The story attempts to balance a respectable amount of drama with its comedy, but it never gels into a coherent narrative. The satire never works with the bouts of slapstick humor, and the drama never feels grounded in enough human emotion to work. The elements of the West being a cesspool of death and chaos work perfectly for the narrative, with MacFarlane delivering a great monologue about doctors, mayors, wild animals, diseases, and everything else that doesn’t work in the West. There’s a story to be told here, and it’s admirable to see MacFarlane hoping to achieve the level of success that Mel Brooks did with Blazing Saddles, a far funnier and smarter film. But for a new visit to the Western, it’s never funny or inventive enough to work as a unique story.

X-Men: Days of Future Past - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

X-Men: Days of Future Past  

Starring Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, Michael Fassbender, James McAvoy, Jennifer Lawrence, Peter Dinklage and Halle Berry

Directed by Bryan Singer

From Twentieth Century Fox

Rated PG-13

131 minutes

The “X-Men” films have always been an interesting addition in the comic book film world. While most superhero films have one extraordinary figure, the X-Men are a wealth of exceptional people who are otherwise shunned by the bulk of society. They compose two very identified factions, one being protectors of mankind to promote their coexistence and other being survivalist looking for the advancement of their own kind with zero regard for humanity. It becomes a reflective mix of political and social commentary. Bryan Singer returned to the director’s chair and successfully combined the journey to the past established in “X-Men: First Class” with the characters that started the whole franchise fashioning a worthwhile summer popcorn film.

It’s the future and mutant-hunting machines called Sentinels are defeating the X-Men. Professor X (Patrick Stewart) and Magneto (Ian McKellan) devise a plan to send the Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) into the past to motivate their past selves into an alliance to change the future, one that involves the participation of the now self-sufficient Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) and her motivations for Dr. Bolivar Trask (Peter Dinklage), the inventor of the Sentinel program being offered to the U.S. government.

Focusing the transition of the storyline on the sturdy shoulders of Hugh Jackman, and his time weary Wolverine character, was a great choice. The character, already solidified in the franchise history through his stand-alone films, had an established relationship with every character, which made the chemistry work between the past and future teams. Peter Dinklage was a great antagonist, his motivations were none too complicated but instead were reasoned as a strategic move for humanity. In one exchange he complimented the powers of the mutants, in a way envious of them, while at the same moment discussing his intrigue for experimenting on them for his Sentinel program. In this film the mutants were unified against a common foe, making the character Magneto (played by both Ian McKellan and Michael Fassbender) embrace a whole new level of complication. Fassbender, in a calm and monotone presence, particularly blurred the line of Magneto’s true motivations and was consistently enjoyable to watch on screen. Some characters were unfortunately shorthanded screen time and relinquished to glaring stares at far off foes, the overpopulation gave a few great actors only minor occasions to shine.

While the narrative may seem complex the film did a great job of never feeling confusing but instead remained interesting in ways that other comic book films struggled. Most try to incorporate a steady amount of action; this film had some stunning sequences, in particular an exchange with speedy character Quicksilver (Evan Peters) amidst a perfect choice of music, but it was far more restrained than other films and instead forwarded the story with character altercations that were more for development than extravagance. While the time travel aspects began to fall apart in the finale, amidst back and forth transitions between the future and past, it was not enough to hurt anything established before it.

“X-Men: Days of Future Past” organized a great ensemble of characters familiar to fans of the X-Men chronicle. With the addition of a good script and solid performances from leading characters, this film is the comic book experience to beat this summer.

Monte’s Rating

4.00 out of 5.00

The Love Punch - Movie Review by Michael Clawson

The Love Punch  

Starring Pierce Brosnan, Emma Thompson, Timothy Spall and Celia Imrie

From Ketchup Entertainment

Rated PG-13

94 minutes

Mischievous couple score big in slow-moving comedy

by Michael Clawson of Terminal Volume

Charm is a valuable currency in movies. Where action, humor and drama might be deficient, charm can swoop in and make a bankrupt film much more solvent.

That little feat happens several times in The Love Punch, a movie that frequently rewards your patience in its plodding plot and overacted gags.

The film, written and directed by Joel Hopkins, is a slightly madcap comedy about white-collar banker Richard (Pierce Brosnan) and his ex-wife Kate (Emma Thompson) teaming back up many years after their divorce to go on a covert mission to rescue their stolen pensions from a swindling venture capitalist.

Brosnan and Thompson, James Bond and Nanny McPhee, play their roles as bickering children with long-healed wounds. These are mostly hammy performances — especially Thompson, who overacts in several agonizing scenes — although they’re occasionally very fresh and funny, like when the divorced couple share a tense dinner from across a courtyard; their conversation involves the comparing of cholesterol numbers.

The action takes the film to France, where their crook is going to be married to a sweet-natured French woman with a diamond that could double as a boat anchor. Spy-movie clichés get goofy makeovers, including car chases, elaborate heists, climbing fortress walls via grappling hooks and ropes, and the hijacking of some Texans’ identities. “Who are we now, the Pink Panther?” Thompson says as their stunts get wilder and more dangerous.

Late in the film, Timothy Spall and Celia Imrie turn up as Kate’s neighbors and fellow wannabe spies. Spall’s character brings a gun to a dinner and, of course, everyone has to see it and point it until someone shoots a hole in wine barrel. These jokes feel old, but the giddy looks on everyone’s faces is light-hearted and fun. After they grapple their way up a castle wall, Imrie suggests they all break for lunch; she’s packed sandwiches into her scuba suit. In another scene, Brosnan suggests they all synchronize watches: the numbers said out loud are 7:28, 7:32, 7:32 and 6:30 — Spall’s face looks deeply, and hilariously, troubled at his misplaced hour.

You can see the writing on the wall as the film draws closer to its finale: Richard and Kate have never gotten over each other. And their wanton mischief sparks new life in their dead romance. It’s a predictable turn, but one that works simply and effectively. The Love Punch is not a great comedy, but it has its occasional charms. And that goes a long way.

X-Men: Days of Future Past - Movie Review by Michael Clawson

X-Men: Days of Future Past  

Starring Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, Michael Fassbender, James McAvoy, Jennifer Lawrence, Peter Dinklage and Halle Berry

Directed by Bryan Singer

From Twentieth Century Fox

Rated PG-13

131 minutes

Days of Future Past course corrects the X-Men franchise

by Michael Clawson of Terminal Volume

After six stupendously scattered X-Men movies, someone at Twentieth Century Fox finally straightened a paperclip and poked it into the back of this overcooked franchise. That much-needed hard reset is a refreshing development here in X-Men: Days of Future Past, a flail-free action bonanza that proves less is almost always more.

Right off the bat, you’ll notice there are fewer mutant superheroes. At first, though, it doesn’t feel that way as they are paraded out in their ridiculous outfits. There’s a fire guy, an ice guy, some sort of hawk man, a Thor clone, portal girl, metal dude and a mutant that needs to be charged like a cell phone before he goes into service. These are the future X-Men, the X-Kids perhaps, and they’re in trouble as giant robots descend on their corner of a futuristic wasteland. My expectations sunk as the film trotted out each character, introduced their superpower and then discarded them within a mindless action scene reminiscent of any action scene from any other X-Men movie — “More of the same,” I grumbled.

But then Days of Future Past jumped the rails and did something very risky: it went back in time. And it might have saved the entire franchise. The setup is rather simple, which is notable even in a film without time travel: Because of toxic mutant-human relations, an elite race of robotic future cops called Sentinels have been allowed to police the planet, which is now a gloomy apocalypse-strewn field of rubble. Our team of X-Kids have survived only because Kitty Pryde (Ellen Page) has learned to take the group back in time in brief spurts.

When the real X-Men — Wolverine (Hugh Jackman), Storm (Halle Berry), Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart) and the reformed tag-along Magneto (Ian McKellen) — turn up, they hatch a plan to send Wolverine back much further in time to stop the events that lead up to worldwide catastrophe. Only Wolverine can go, because he’s basically immortal, a convenient superpower (especially when he only takes his claws out like three times). The plan is to stop a mutant-hating scientist before he builds the first Sentinel prototypes. It’s a Terminator mission, and it allows the film to switch gears and detour away from the trappings of the last films.

Wolverine is sent back to the 1970s, presumably not long after the events of X-Men: First Class, where he finds young Professor X (James McAvoy) and blue teddy bear Beast. Other notable mutants are young Magneto (Michael Fassbender), shapeshifting Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) and the speedster Quicksilver, who can run so fast he can play ping pong with himself. Five mutants. That’s it. And it’s a perfect amount.

Much of the drama in the plot comes from Professor X trying to convince Magneto that, while they’re enemies now, in the future they’ll be best buddies, and they have to unite to stop the world from sinking into an anti-mutant hysteria that will doom them all. Mageneto, though, is a surly little bugger. Villainy just pours from him, and he can’t help it. We first meet him underneath the Pentagon, where he’s being held for the JFK assassination, which is likely a legitimate conspiracy theory according to someone somewhere.

His incarceration sets the stage for a break-out and what is ultimately the best scene of the film, and quite possibly the best from any X-Men movie. The scene stars Quicksilver (Evan Peters) as he zips through a Pentagon kitchen repositioning security guards, gently altering bullet trajectories and taste-testing airborne soup. The whole sequence, shot in extreme slow motion to show us Quicksilver’s time-bending speed, is scored to Jim Croce’s “Time In a Bottle.” The scene is a howler — the audience gave it a rousing round of applause and, for once, I felt compelled to join them — and it's easily worth the price of admission all by itself.

Other scenes, of Wolverine fighting the Sentinel prototypes and of Mystique doing her naked blue iguana kung-fu, aren’t as rapturous, but they serve their purposes. Fassbender and McAvoy are gifted actors, which is obvious as they split the seems on their respective characters. Magneto seems to be checking his watch until he can do his final-act supermove — hauling some really really big piece of metal around for no reason whatsoever. This time he flies in a baseball stadium to drop over Richard Nixon’s White House.

I’m not an X-Men fan. The previous movies were jumbles of bland characters, wandering plots, utterly stupefying comic minutiae, and horribly staged action centerpieces. X-Men: Days of Future Past doesn’t reinvent the wheel here, but it does not succumb to the problems of the previous films. The story is clean and concise, the characters and their motivations are easy to follow, the action is restrained and never zany, and the film ends in a way that allows for some very interesting possibilities for later entries in the X-Men story.

This movie seems to have righted a sinking ship, an exhilarating development for a franchise I had all but given up on. Until now.

Blended - Movie Review by Michael Clawson

Blended

Starring Adam Sandler, Drew Barrymore, Bella Thorne, Shaquille O'Neal, Kevin Nealon and Joel McHale

Directed by Frank Coraci

From Warner Brothers and Happy Madison

Rated PG-13

117 minutes

Sandler slumps through another mediocre comedy

by Michael Clawson of Terminal Volume

Measuring one Adam Sandler movie with another is like ranking the world’s worst sewer systems, or death rows, or wars — the futility of that endeavor is just too vile to stomach.

Yet, here we are, with another tone-deaf Sandler movie that’s so awful you can’t help but get out a ruler to compare it to all that came before it: Mr. Deeds, Big Daddy, Little Nicky, Grown Ups or the brown standard, Jack & Jill, in which two Sandlers pummeled the life out of the theater’s real estate.

Blended is no Jack & Jill, though it certainly aspired to be — a terrifying thought. The comedy begins with a set of jokes that do not give much hope for the rest of the film: a babysitter is blasted with a fire extinguisher that is likely filled with vanilla frosting, the perplexing phrase “like Weird Al starring in Weird Science,” and a gag that ends with someone saying “you should roofie her and shave her head.” Even the crickets were cringing.

The setup is that Jim (Sandler) and Lauren (Drew Barrymore) go on a terrible blind date, but the next day they score some discount tickets to Africa from a man who was going to take his five kids and girlfriend on a “blended familymoon.” Jim takes his three daughters and Lauren takes her two sons, and off they go to Africa. Where in Africa, though? I’m still not sure, because the movie never says. Hopefully director Frank Coraci knows Africa is a continent made of many countries, but that might be wishful thinking.

Making matters worse is Africa itself, which looks and sounds like one of those safari movies from the 1940s, with lots of ivory chairs and stuffed zebra heads. Coraci — whose comedy credentials include The Waterboy, Click and Zookeeper, an unholy trinity of cringe-worthy cinema — puts all his African characters in dashikis and then promptly gives up at portraying the culture or its people with any nuance or respect. Apparently, all of Africa is a theme park for white tourists. Blended isn’t overtly racist; it’s just obnoxiously negligent.

Jim and Lauren start out hating each other, first at their date (at a Hooters) and then during an embarrassing run-in at a pharmacy. Jim is there to get tampons for his daughter; Lauren is there to get porn for her son. It’s an interesting visit that ends with the pharmacist revealing something they teach in pharmacy school to never do. By the time they get to Africa, they’re still bickering, but it’s shortlived as the two fall in love amid scenes of rhino humping, warthog evisceration, and Terry Crews and his harmonizing a cappella group photo-bombing every scene.

Sandler seems to have transferred his trademark rage onto the child actors, who channel Sandlerisms through comedy so unfortunate that I was secretly hoping Rob Schneider would pop up to slow the descending momentum. Hilary (Bella Thorne) plays the oldest daughter; her dad calls her Larry. She wears an awful pageboy haircut and boyish clothes, which spawns some uncomfortable transgender jokes. “All the kids think I’m a lesbian,” she says after she stuffs her training bra with some Dr. Scholl’s foot inserts. The middle daughter is called Espn (pronounced ess-pen), after Jim’s favorite TV channel. The youngest daughter makes it out mostly unscathed aside from a demonic little growl she gurgles out “in the name of Lucifer.”

Lauren’s boys have their own brand of issues, including the elder son, Brendan, the serial masturbator. There’s a recurring joke about him taping a picture of their babysitter onto his porn. This actor seems too young for jokes this crude. His brother spends much of the movie asleep so we can get repeated shots of Lauren bonking his head into walls and doors as she maneuvers his sleeping corpse into bed.

This is Barrymore and Sandler’s third movie together after 50 First Dates and The Wedding Singer. No significant improvements are made on their chemistry, which can be gentle and rewarding at times. Like most Sandler movies, there is a tenderness hidden within key scenes — if only the jokes that lead into and out of it weren’t so tonally destructive. Mostly, Blended is just amateur and juvenile. It’s the kind of movie that names a character Dick so another character can say things like “I miss Dick so much” or “I can’t get enough Dick,” because that’s never been done before.

Sandler is an acquired taste, and American audiences are an acquiring bunch. The audience I saw the movie with howled in approval. Maybe it was the free movie, or maybe they’re just Sandler True Believers. Either way, Blended is a largely terrible comedy from my point of view. It made me miss Eddie Murphy in fat suits, Tyler Perry in drag, or Ryan Reynolds in anything. I guess I should be grateful it wasn't Jack & Jill.