Fun Size

Directed by Josh Schwartz.

2012. Rated PG-13, 86 minutes.

Cast:

Victoria Justice

Jackson Nicoll

Thomas Mann

Jane Levy

Chelsea Handler

Thomas Middleditch

Johnny Knoxville

Josh Pence

Thomas McDonell

Ana Gasteyer

Kerri Kenney

Instead of going to the Halloween party thrown by the cutest guy in school, Wren (Justice) gets stuck baby-sitting her eight year old little brother Albert (Nicoll) while mom (Handler) hangs out with her way-too-young boyfriend. She loses track of the little scamp while they’re out trick-or-treating. With the help of her friends, she must find him before mom figures out what’s going on and, hopefully, still make it to that party.

I have a lot of issues with this movie. Many of them have to do with Albert. In true movie fashion, the boy relishes his status as missing. He also refuses to talk or obey any rules whatsoever. He goes along with strangers whenever possible, plays with fireworks, and eats practically nothing but candy. Honestly, though, I have less of a problem with what he does than the things that are done to him by the so-called adults around him. For instance, one of the good guys is Fuzzy (Middleditch), the clerk at the convenience store, and a grown man. He doesn't know Albert, he’s only seen him at the local arcade and, therefore, a stranger. Yet, he talks Albert into going with him on a mission to get revenge on his ex-girlfriend’s new beau. I couldn't care less what he’s going to do to whoever that guy is, especially since he’s being played by Johnny Knoxville. However, I do care that it’s being presented as if taking someone else’s child with you anywhere without the permission of anyone in the child’s family is somehow acceptable. Even worse is that is seems the movie itself is cognizant of how dangerous this idea is. Just before Fuzzy drives off with Albert, he says out loud to anyone within earshot “I’m not luring a child into my car!” Of course, that’s exactly what he’s doing. Later, in the hands of other similarly irresponsible “adults,” for lack of a more accurate word, Albert spends time in a fast-food joint, a nightclub and eventually winds up in the house of Knoxville’s creepy character. That last one is entirely of Albert’s own volition, but the movie botches this as well. What turns into his kidnapping is passed off as something Knoxville is in the right for doing. Maybe I’m being an old fuddy-duddy, but for a dad of young children, this is stomach churning stuff. Most surprising it that the people responsible for such a movie are none other than the normally good folks at Nickelodeon. I understand that much of children’s entertainment features absentee parenting, or at least kids that have free reign to do as they please, however, this goes overboard to the point that it is in extremely poor taste. You would think that a company which built an empire on kiddie shows, and claim to have the best interest of children at heart, would know better.

Sorry for the rant. Back to “regular” criticism.

With regards to the rest of the plot, things play out in paint-by-numbers fashion. There are a number of near misses between brother and sister, the cute guy has a crush on our heroine, so does the nerdy guy, and mom has to come to grips with the facts of her life. Yawn. Nothing unexpected happens and almost none of it is funny when it does. As a result, the whole thing runs a scant 86 minutes, but feels at least ten times as long.

Finally, I’m going to have to call a double-fault on Nickelodeon. The PG-13 rating feels incredibly forced. Nothing in the tone or surface content suggest it has to have this rating. Instead, a couple of choice words are slammed into the script where they don’t necessarily have to be. It reeks of someone at the company daring to put out what they think is an edgy production. Of course, it’s anything but. Is it of questionable morality? Yes, but that’s not really grounds for a PG-13. More than anything, it’s proof that movies do indeed have target audiences. My daughters loved it despite me often vocalizing my displeasure. I know, I should've pre-screened this one. The trailer looked harmless enough and the back of the DVD says it’s “an adventure the whole family will love!” Score one for marketing.

MY SCORE: 0/10

This Means War

Directed by McG.

2012. Rated PG-13, 97 minutes.

Cast:

Reese Witherspoon

Tom Hardy

Chris Pine

Chelsea Handler

Angela Bassett

Til Schweiger

John Paul Ruttan

Abigail Spencer

Rosemary Harris

Tuck (Hardy) and FDR (Pine) are super secret agents for the CIA hot on the trail of international bad guy Heinrich (Schweiger). Even though they're also bestest buds, they have very different love lives. FDR is a ultra smooth ladies' man snapping up any woman he speaks to. Tuck, on the other hand, is stuck in neutral as he repeatedly, and unsuccessfully tries to get back with his baby-mama Katie (Spencer). To break out of his funk, Tuck gives online dating a try. We also meet Lauren (Witherspoon). She's a thirty-something big-wig at a "Consumer's Reports" type company and thus, has no time for a social life. Her besty, Trish (Handler), takes it upon herself to create a profile for Lauren that so happens to be on the same online dating site Tuck uses. See where we're going? Through a minor twist spoiled by every one of this movie's trailers, Lauren ends up dating both men. From there, half the movie is spent on watching Lauren get bad love advice from Trish as she tries to pick between suitors. The other half is spent watching our two would-be heroes misappropriate government funds and violate everyone's code of ethics in order to win their pissing contest for Lauren's love.

No need to beat around the bush, This Means War is a mess of a movie. Cliched dialogue and flat jokes run rampant as the story goes nowhere until it's decided that sex has to be involved. Even then, it only lurches forward a bit until someone remembers there's actually a case these guys are supposed to be working. Seriously, I can't think of a movie where the villain is less important. His only function is to show up near the end and put our damsel in distress.

Even as the story creeps along there are some things brought up. Unfortunately, a number of them are dropped without explanation. For instance, the boys get grounded early on because their covert operation becomes very public and causes lots of property damage. That's a clever place for an action flick to start. However, it's never mentioned again despite the fact that everything they do has the same effect. Other things aren't brought up that clearly need to be, like why one of the guys insists on going by FDR. Those are some of the weightiest initials in American history and were obviously chosen on purpose, but why? I get that these are also this character's initials but going by them is ridiculous. Besides, nothing we know of the real FDR is even remotely related to this guy. Still, we get no explanation.

To their credit, the performers try valiantly to breathe life into this thing. As we all know, reanimating a corpse is impossible. Hardy and Pine play off each other well enough. Witherspoon is generally likable, but annoying during the scenes where she agonizes over which hunk to choose. Thankfully, those scenes are rescued by Chelsea Handler, one of the film's few bright spots. She seems to have been borrowed from a Judd Apatow flick. Her "answer for everything" patter feels improvised, but hampered by the movie's PG-13 rating. Regardless, most of the funny stuff in the film comes out of her mouth. Despite the best efforts of the cast, it never even threatens to become anything worthwhile. I blame the director, McG. Has this guy ever made a decent movie? Maybe, just maybe the first Charlie's Angels qualifies. That was his first and, still, best movie. Ever since, he's been putting out crap like this.