31 Days of Horror: Green Room

Only Lovers Left Alive

Directed by Jim Jarmusch.

2013. Rated R, 123 minutes.

Cast:

Tom Hiddleston

Tilda Swinton

Mia Wasikowska

John Hurt

Anton Yelchin

Jeffrey Wright

Adam (Hiddleston) and Eve (Swinton) are a married couple who, for some unexplained reason, are named Adam and Eve and live on opposite ends of the Earth. She tools about Tangier while he's holed himself up in his cluttered Detroit apartment. Dude is definitely a hoarder. Eve's thing is apparently listening to men speak. Like, I'm not even joking about that. After speaking to him on the phone, Eve decides she misses her hubby and hops a flight to Motown. Oh, I forgot to mention that they happen to be vampires. However, they no longer go around biting people. Instead, they get their food from blood banks and black market dealers. Mostly, they lounge around and talk art and science. Things change when Eve's sister Ava (Wasikowska) comes around. She's more of a free spirit. Understandably, she turns their world upside down. Something artsy ensues.

Every now and then, a movie comes along that just makes me admit defeat. It makes me confess that there are people in the world smarter than myself. There has to be because they're all seeing something that, for the life of me, I can't. Only Lovers Left Alive is one such film. However, before completely giving up, I try my damndest to find it. And since I don't know any better, I'll start looking in the places where I always look.

This means that the plot is the first place I check. There really isn't one to speak of. We find out some vaguely interesting things about the people involved, though. Adam is apparently responsible for much of the great music of centuries' past, I think. However, other than showing that he's a total recluse who occasionally releases his new material through 'a guy' named Ian (Yelchin). We also see he's a technological genius of some sort. He must be. He rigged a cell phone to connect to a TV from I don't know how many decades ago and uses it like Skype. Let's be honest, if you or I were alive for a couple hundred years we still couldn't figure out how to do that. Despite all this, dude is definitely depressed. He's been contemplating suicide hard...HARD. About Eve, well, she...um...she really loves Adam and...uh...she loves hearing men speak. Didn't I say that, already? Sorry, folks. That's all I got on her. Oh, wait. There is one other thing about her. She can tell exactly how old something is just by putting her hands on it. It's a cute trick, but fairly useless in everyday life. As for Ava, she likes to party and well, occasionally she drinks too much. Yup, she's a vampire so it's possible I've just spoiled the only thing that actually happens in the entire damn movie. Wait, I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's just say that I looked at the plot and found nothing.

My next logical step is to examine the characters. Of course, if you've been paying any attention at all then you know that I've already done that because the plot was missing from its normal spot. If we're keeping count then you know we have a grand total of one mildly interesting character. That's it. Hell, the only other character who matters at all in the whole movie is Marlowe (Hurt), an old dude that, yes, Eve loves listening to. His claim to fame is that he is evidently the one and only Christopher Marlowe that some people allege to have faked his own death and assumed the name William Shakespeare and penned all of those classics. And, of course, he's been around ever since and knew every dead writer you ever read in high school personally. The most interesting thing about him is something that perpetuates the Marlowe/Shakespeare myth. It is implied that, like the real Christopher Marlowe, his human life ended at age 29. However, this Marlowe is an old man and vampires don't age once they've been turned. Hmmm...very clever. Still, that's not quite enough to really give a crap about him. So, yeah, we're still at one mildly interesting character.

Well, what about what these people have to say? You know, dialogue. I'll start by saying this, I generally do not read reviews of movies I haven't seen, if I plan on seeing them in the near future. So even as a lot of my blogging buddies were posting their reviews, possibly including yours, I either clicked off that page or just looked at whatever score you gave and then clicked off. Now that I've watched it, I've gone back and read a number of reviews on it. The dialogue of this movie is getting lots of praise. I'll say this for it, it takes someone with a brain to keep up. That much is for sure. For comparison's sake, I'd say imagine a Quentin Tarantino script that instead of referencing all sorts of pop culture, references historical figures in music and literature. By historical, I mean people who died before the twentieth century. Now strip away all of QT's snark and most of his humor of any sort, and voila, you have Only Lovers Left Alive. Well, that's actually dialogue from Adam and Marlowe. The only other thing Adam really says is "Get off my lawn!" He doesn't use those words, but the sentiment is definitely there. He peeks out of his window and sees a couple of youngsters hanging around and then calls Ian, or wait until he sees him, and orders him to keep those "rock and roll kids" away from his house. Eve mostly just says, "Tell me about ___, darling." Seriously. She does go ape shit when she finds out about teeny tiny thing Adam was hiding from her, but that lasts all of a minute and then its' back to sitting around with her listening ears on until very late in the movie when she finally has to do something. Ian just basically says "Dude, you should get out more." Later, Ava shows up and says "Wooohhh, let's go out!" And, when they get out, she switches over to "Wooohhh, Paaarrrr-tay!" Again, not in those words. Sentiment, people. To sum up the dialogue, we'll say Adam's and Marlowe's is creative, but not riveting and everyone else's is repetitive.

After dialogue, it only makes sense to talk about the acting. Finally, we've reached a strong point. Scroll back to the top and look at that cast again. I don't think anyone of them could be accused of phoning it in. In fact, they are selling it for all they're worth. Tilda Swinton is a phenomenal actress. I've no choice but to give her credit for never seeming bored with her role. She seems genuinely interested in what her mate has to say, even though she's probably heard it all literally a million times before. After all, some of her lines begin with "Tell me again about..." Sigh. Tom Hiddleston gives us his emo-hipster best. We really feel like this is a guy that is more than ready to check out. John Hurt's role is small, but he makes it work. Wasikowska adds what little energy this film has.

The next thing I have to ask myself is what does the movie say? Is there any sort of social commentary or insight into the human condition? Maybe. As far as commentary, we get a drive around a barren Detroit landscape and some lamenting the plight of a once great city. There's also some mumbo-jumbo about it coming back because it's near water. The human condition? There is a nod to the dangers of us constantly consuming junk, the way that we do, and what it's doing to our bodies. I guess you can also say it's a testament to the enduring power of love. Or, whatever the hell else you want. I am so tired of playing this game.

Before I quit, I at least should take a look at more superficial things. I mean, this is a movie about vampires, right? Well, alrighty then. Is it scary? No. Gory? No. Romantic? I guess we can give it that one, begrudgingly on my part, though. Are the action scenes fun? They might be, if there were any. In short, I was bored as shit and struggled mightily to make it through this thing. Going back to our lovebirds, they really started to annoy me, quickly. To make matters worse, I put my finger on the pulse of my dislike for these people. With Adam's rather Cullen...er...sullen attitude and Eve's (I think) misplaced giddiness over just being in his presence really made me feel like I was watching another Twilight sequel, this one set years after the last. Since she's long over Jacob, Charlie has probably collapsed and died beneath the weight of his own mustache, and the Volturi are no longer chasing them, nothing happens. Nothing at all.

The Smurfs 2

Directed by Raja Gosnell.

2013. Rated PG, 105 minutes.

Cast:

Neil Patrick Harris

Hank Azaria

Jonathan Winters

Brendan Gleeson

Katy Perry

Christina Ricci

George Lopez

Jayma Mays

Anton Yelchin

J. B. Smoove

Jeff Foxworthy

Paul Ruebens

Shaquille O'Neal

Kenan Thompson

Shaun White

Since the events of the surprisingly decent first movie, Gargamel (Azaria) has remained in our dimension and become a world famous magician thanks to the smurf essence he extracted from Papa Smurf (Winters). Of course, wealth and glory is not enough for him. He wants to rule the world. To do this, he needs an unlimited supply of smurf essence. To that end, he's created Vexy (Ricci) and Hackus (Smoove), the Naughties. They look like smurfs, but lack the magical element to make them blue and thus, true smurfs. If he figures out how to do this he can create that endless supply of essence and world domination will be his. He opens a portal between worlds and sends Vexy to Smurf Village where she kidnaps Smurfette (Perry). Gargamel then tries to force her to tell him the secret formula to turn the Naughties blue.

 As in the original, watching Hank Azaria play Gargamel is a joy. He is so good in the role, it really is like the cartoon character took human form. Unfortunately, his is pretty much a stand-alone performance. The smurfs themselves are rather hit or miss. A few of their jokes are funny, but many are not. A number of the flat ones involve Grouchy Smurf (Lopez) trying on a more optimistic outlook. I get what they're trying to do, but it just doesn't work for me. this is a shame since this character was a high point of the first film. The humans in the cast, aside from Gargamel, are generic. The one possible exception is Victor (Gleeson), step-dad to our hero Patrick (Harris). He's not necessarily a great or original character, but he does bring some life to the screen.

The thing missing most is the magic of our little blue heroes. This is ironic considering the movie repeatedly tells us that their essence is indeed magical. For two movies now, they've been drawn into our world in limited numbers and share the spotlight with humans in the form of Patrick and his family. The greatness of the Saturday morning cartoon that spawned this franchise is that they were in their own world and solely responsible for their own well-being. There were also lots of them for us to get to know. Dropping them into Paris, or New York as in the prior movie, strips them of their autonomy, reducing them to dependents in their own movies. Worse, everything feels bland and rehashed. It's like they've just been slipped into a ready-made plot. The same story, at least their part of it, set entirely in and around Smurf Village and Gargamel's castle could probably have added some oomph to things.

My feelings on the matter aside, all is not lost. I'm willing to admit to being an angry fanboy on this one. I did watch the cartoon every Saturday morning during the mid-80s. This does seem to violated the spirit of the way I remember the show. As a self-contained movie, plenty of it just isn't good for  the reasons I pointed out. Still, kids who only know the first film are likely to enjoy it. It has a good deal of action and the Smurfette storyline works well enough. They may even laugh at more of the jokes than I did. The Smurfs 2 is a solid baby-sitter, not a solid movie.

MY SCORE: 4/10

Star Trek Into Darkness

Fright Night (2011)

Directed by Craig Gillespie.

2011. Rated R, 106 minutes. 
Cast: 
Anton Yelchin 
Colin Farrell 
Christopher Mintz-Plasse 
David Tennant 
Imogen Poots 
Toni Collette 
Dave Franco 
Reid Ewing 
Sandra Vergara 
Will Denton 
Lisa Loeb 
Chris Sarandon

In a small Las Vegas suburb things are going pretty well for Charlie (Yelchin). He has a good relationship with his single mom. Not only has he recently become one of the cool kids at his school, he’s also dating Amy (Poots), one of its hottest girls. There are some minor irritations in his otherwise perfect life. His neighbor Jerry Dandridge (Farrell) has been moved in for a while but still hasn’t had the dumpster removed from his front lawn. How dare he? Apparently, Jerry doesn’t realize how much of an eyesore this thing is. Charlie’s bigger issue is Ed (Mintz-Plasse). The two were once bestest buddies but Charlie has moved on. Ed hasn’t. He basically throws very public temper tantrums because Charlie won’t play with him anymore and blackmails him into doing so. It’s complicated.

Neighbor Jerry further complicates things. Aside from taking his sweet time getting rid of the dumpster, he flirts with Charlie’s mom. Even worse, Charlie soon discovers Jerry is a real live vampire. He’s not the type that Peter Vincent (Tennant) slays in his Las Vegas show, but an actual, homicidal bloodsucker. Jerry is also fond of apples and beer, but it’s the blood that’s most troublesome.

Troublesome also describes the way our tale is constructed. In case you didn’t know, this is a remake of the 1985 hit. That movie begins with Jerry moving in next door to Charlie. Everyone in the movie becomes aware of him as we do. Here, he’s been around for a while. It may not sound like much, but this little change to our entry point is enough to set the entire movie off-kilter.

Our view of those involved is off-kilter, as well. We don’t like any of them. In the original, Jerry is a debonair devil. We know he’s a killer, but he’s awfully charming. This version is more the sweaty, creepy type. He just happens to be as handsome as Colin Farrell. Farrell does a good job with the role, but it is what it is. Our new Ed is a jerk. We start actively rooting against him within thirty seconds of meeting him. Amy is just kinda there most of the time. Her subplot from the first film is not used. Peter Vincent is no longer a once-great facing the end of his career. This time around he’s at the height of his popularity. Instead of being insecure and incredulous of the events surrounding him, he’s a self-centered jackass we’d rather punch in the face than go vampire hunting with. He also seems like he was written for Russell Brand or David Tennant is just doing his darndest impression, but that’s beside the point. Charlie is pretty bland in both movies. However, when surrounded by unlikeable characters he also becomes hard to really care for. At best, we’re not aching for him to be brutally murdered.

The vocation of screenplay writing has been brutally murdered. Well, probably not. It has been severely injured, at least. The various strands are haphazardly slapped together. The comic relief isn’t funny and the horror isn’t horrifying. That nice bit of self-awareness the original had is almost completely gone. The make up for these lapses in execution we get the trusted method of multiplying the body count. Yawn. Since most of the killings are of the loud noise, look of fear, camera cuts away variety, double yawn.

I did a lot of double yawning while watching the Fright Night remake. Strangely enough, going into this it was the rare case where I didn’t mind something from my youth being remade. The original is pretty good, but there is room for improvement and the basic premise welcomes updating. Unfortunately, this movie did none of the things that would’ve made it better.

Star Trek (2009)