Girl Week 2020: Thelma & Louise

The Quick and Dirties: Ranking the The Ocean's Quadrilogy

Deadpool 2

Proof of a Movie God: Se7en

The Counselor

12 Years a Slave

Directed by Steve McQueen.

2013. Rated R, 134 minutes.

Cast:

Chiwetel Ejiofor

Michael Fassbender

Benedict Cumberbatch

Lupita Nyong'o

Paul Dano

Paul Giamatti

Sarah Paulson

Brad Pitt

Alfre Woodard

Quvenzhane Wallis

Garret Dillahunt

Dwight Henry

It's 1841 in Saratoga Springs, New York and Solomon Northrup leads a somewhat idyllic life. He is a free black man living with his wife and children and interacting with whites as a near equal. He is also known around town as a excellent violinist. When a couple of out-of-towners offer him a job playing in their traveling show, he takes them up on it. Assured they'll go no further south than, Washington DC things seem to be going well when he goes to a celebratory dinner with his new benefactors. However his world is turned completely upside down when he wakes up in chains, is taking below the Mason-Dixon line and sold into slavery. Based on the real Solomon Northup's autobiography of the same name.

There is one word that I've seen used repeatedly to describe this movie. That word is visceral. The reason I keep seeing it is because it is an entirely accurate description. Every epithet hurled and whip cracked is both physically and emotionally jarring. Each indignation is repulsive. The shame of it all is that this is as much American history as any story that could possibly be told. It depicts the roots of problems we're still dealing with all these years later and it does so unflinchingly.

To make it all work, we need totally committed performances. There can be no a moment where any actor appears even the least bit unsure of his/her character's situation in this world. Throughout the movie there are none. As Solomon, Chiwetel Ejiofor is a man who cannot hide his sophistication in spite of his circumstances, and is powerless to change them. His frustration bleeds into every frame, none more than when he is forced to administer the punishment of a fellow slave. However, he still tries to see the good in people and appeal to that side of them. As you might imagine, the results aren't always pleasant.

As good as Ejiofor is, the performance that makes the movie is Michael Fassbender's as Master Epps. For quite a bit of the film's run time, everything that happens is either his own action or a reaction to him. He is a man who fully believes what he is doing is divinely right. Without even a hint of doubt, Fassbender brings this across with such assuredness that is downright frightening. Playing a less empowered, slightly less scary version is Paul Dano. That he is less scary is not a function of his acting which is excellent, but of his role as someone a bit further down the food chain.

Of course, we can't conclude any discussion of the acting in this movie without giving serious consideration to the work done by Lupita Nyong'o. She became a media darling even before winning the Best Supporting Actress for her work here. She plays Patsey who is something of a star slave on Epps' plantation. She picks more than twice as much cotton as any man on a daily basis. As such she is his favorite. Her reward? He oddly dotes on her and rapes her from time to time. In his own very twisted way, he cares for her. This makes the cruelty she endures feel even worse than it does when suffered by others. Nyoug'o masterfully brings this to life. It is actually Patsey, not Solomon, who gets the lion's share of our sympathy. What happened to Solomon is undeniably cruel and unjust. What happens to Patsey is even beyond that. Much of it is done upon the encouragement of Mary, Epps' wife, in an under-appreciated performance by Sarah Paulson. She has a coldness that permeates the screen whenever she appears. what makes her such an important figure is that she is the one person who bends Epps to do her bidding. She holds a demented moral authority over him. Paulson completely owns this every time she comes into the picture.

Enabling these actors to disappear into the roles, and more than believably reconstructing the world as it was in the mid-nineteenth century, is director Steve McQueen. I've already mentioned how he doesn't let his camera flinch. More impressively, he places it in very intimate positions. The viewer is not just seeing the atrocities take place but feeling them. Making us feel them, no matter how uncomfortable we might get is clearly the goal. This is why he frames the story in a manner that forces us to deal with Patsey's plight, as well as Solomon's. Even as the movie ends, McQueen's still hasn't let us off the hook. It's an effective move. A friend of mine, both of us African American, watched 12 Years a Slave weeks before I did. He immediately texted me that he didn't like it much. Its not that he thought it was bad. It just put him in a bad place. He was infuriated by the visual reminder of the unbridled cruelty of slavery. My response? Dude, that's kind of the point.

Morgan Freeman Week: Se7en

Morgan Freeman Week Continues...

Directed by David Fincher.

1995. Rated R, 126 minutes.

Cast:

Brad Pitt

Morgan Freeman

Gwyneth Paltrow

Kevin Spacey

R. Lee Ermey

John C. McGinley

Richard Roundtree

Daniel Zacapa

Mark Boone Junior

Hawthorne James

Richard Schiff

Reg E. Cathey

Like The Shawshank Redemption, which kicked off Morgan Freeman Week, Se7en is not only considered a classic, it's a revisit for me, as well. My first encounter with this film was during its initial theater run. I remember being fascinated all the way through, thoroughly enjoying myself. Then the finale came. My jaw hit the floor. I took a few moments to assess what I had just seen and immediately crowned it on of the best movies I've ever seen. I have watched well over a thousand movies since. Still, it remains one of my all-time favorites. I'm just glad that first viewing took place during my adult years. Had the teenage me been watching this, my head may have literally exploded as I tried to reconcile it with my Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jason Vorhees world. Piecing it all together might have proven difficult. For those of you who haven't seen it, it's not nearly as complex as I am making it seem. However, it's still light years away from the movies I usually watched, even as I entered the theater to see Se7en, mostly action and slasher flicks with some comedies mixed in.

Unlike a lot of my other faves, I didn't return to this film very often. In fact, I hardly watched it again at all. I've caught bits and pieces of it on TV a few times over the years, but I don't remember sitting down to watch it in its entirety again. Until now. It was finally time to put this movie to the test. The climactic scene was truly an indelible moment in my movie watching life. With full knowledge of the surprise awaiting me, how would it hold up? Quite well, thank you very much.

As far as plots go, Se7en has a fairly simple one. Detective William Somerset (Freeman) is a genius, but weary cop a week away from retirement. In a bucking of Hollywood law, he doesn't die once we receive this information. He does, however, have to give Det. David Mills the lay of the wasteland where they work. Mills is a young hotshot whose just moved to town with his wife Tracy (Paltrow). He worked homicide in a nicer part of the world. Strangely, he begged to be transferred here, to one of the most hellish parts of Chicago. The first case they come upon is one in which the victim appears to have eaten himself to death, upon initial inspection. A little more looking around reveals the man was forced to do this. As more facts are learned, Somerset believes this murder is only the first of what someone plans to be many more. When a second body is found, it becomes apparent the two are related and that our killer is using The Seven Deadly Sins as inspiration.

Even without the mystery it holds for first time viewers, Se7en is still a movie that draws you in. It does this by keeping not just the police a step or two behind the bad guy, but the audience, too. In a lot of films, even those that conceal its villain like this one, we get to see the crimes in progress. We have more knowledge than the hero and we know where they are going wrong. Here, all we get is the grisly aftermath. We arrive upon it with the cops and don't have any more tools than they to put this puzzle together. For someone who has seen it, this automatically makes us scout the crime scene closer than we did that first time around. We desperately look for clues we and/or the detectives may have missed that would lead to the villain more quickly. We are not just watching this film. We are studying it.

The relationship between our two heroes is also a major factor in our continuing enjoyment. At first, the men try to size each other up. It's plain to see they don't really click. Freeman's Somerset takes the far more cerebral approach to everything. It is no surprise he is divorced and still alone. He seems to have trouble dealing with us mental midgets. If there is one scene that perfectly sums up who he is, it's our first trip with him to the library. Before getting there, he hops into the back of a cab. When the driver asks where he is going, he laments "Far away from here." He is a man who despises his surroundings, but understands that this is the place where he is needed. Once arriving, he spots a group of security guards playing poker. Never mind it seems to be an excessive amount of guards for a library. It is more important that other than those guys, he is alone (it is at night), which appears to be how he likes things. It's also important to show just how different he is from other law-enforcement folk. Who goes to a library to research the possible motives of a serial killer? Regardless of his differentness, though, he is well respected. This is evidenced by the guards seemingly trying to impress him by cranking up the classical music to show off their own "culture." Their display is a reaction to the one line that most explicitly shows us Somerset's outlook on things. To them, he says "I'll never understand. All these books, a world of knowledge at your fingertips. What do you do? You play poker all night."

Pitt's David is much more the cop we're used to seeing, nearer the every man for us to identify with. He shares our frustration with both the case and with the things his partner does that appear almost completely dissimilar to police work as he knows it. He is also not afraid to cut corners. Occasionally, it's to keep up with the old man. We see this in his acquiring of the Cliff Notes version of the texts that Somerset painstakingly researched. Other times, it is a way to cover his tracks after making a rash decision. However, what really endears him to us is that he's hilarious. I'd forgotten how funny he is. He isn't doing slapstick and pratfalls. He just makes us laugh by his delivery of some sharp dialogue and his reactions to the situations in which he finds himself. And given the fact he's married, his wife also plays an important role. In one of Gwyneth Paltrow's best performances, she gives us a woman distraught and conflicted by her choice to support her man's career choices and where it has taken them. The matter seems to be destroying her even as she seeks, in her own way, to protect her husband.

As good as its actors are, the real star of Se7en is director David Fincher. He packs every frame with symbolism and/or mystery. The library scene I described earlier is just one of many examples. Another involving Freeman is when he destroys the metronome by his bed. The case he is working is about rules, yet it's creating chaos all around him. This is a man who thrives on order. What's more orderly than a metronome? As far as mystery goes, Fincher reveals our killer at precisely the right time, but we still feel lost. We don't see his endgame. Us repeat watchers don't see a way we could have seen his endgame. Then, there are those amazingly unsettling visuals. Each corpse is a true depiction of someone dying by the sin of which they've been deemed guilty. It's a remarkable feat by a remarkable film maker.

I could go on praising this movie forever. From the time it starts, I am intrigued by it. I am trying to crack its code. More accurately, I'm trying to see where I should have been able to crack it before, and failing. I am also enjoying the fantastic acting taking place across the board. And I haven't even mentioned the person who is causing all the fuss. Because of that person, Freeman's scholarly approach, Pitt's levity, and top notch story telling, to name a few things, we always have a marvelous movie watching experience. Yes, even if we already know what's in the box.

Click here for at least Se7en more Freeman related posts!

World War Z

Directed by Marc Forster.

2013. Rated PG-13, 116 minutes.

Cast:

Brad Pitt

Mireille Enos

Fana Mokoena

Daniella Kertesz

James Badge Dale

David Morse

Matthew Fox

Ludi Boeken

Peter Capaldi

Abigail Hargrove

Sterling Jerins

We're told Gerry (Pitt) used to do "dangerous work" for the United Nations. These days he is a stay-at-home dad in Philadelphia. Nothing makes him happier than cooking pancakes for his wife Karin (Enos) and their two daughters. Television news reports tell us that a strange virus has broken out in a number of cities around the globe. Well, you know how it is sometimes. The TV is just background noise to whatever is going on in our lives. However, Gerry should have been paying closer attention. While moving the family about on their daily travels, we all find out this virus has come to the City of Brotherly Love in a major way. The biggest problem with this virus is that it can almost instantly transform a person into a ravenous, mindless creature out to feed on the rest of us. It seems you contract the disease after being bitten by one of the infected. So yeah, Z is for zombies in case you somehow didn't get that.

What ensues is a string of chase scenes punctuated by moments of game-planning. In this case, simplicity is sublime. It generates excitement and tension that lasts throughout. The next wave of sprinting, body-locking zombies is never far off. The tension comes from our heroes running from and/or sneaking around them. Hoping that the good guys aren't heard, seen, smelled, touched, or worse, tasted, is a nerve racking experience. This is especially true when Gerry and company find themselves in a spot where the best solutions have significant risks involved. True, the narrow escape is the oldest trick in the action flick book, but this movie performs it with expert level sleight of hand. For its main distraction, it uses the maximum amount of carnage and mayhem that can be shoe-horned into each PG-13 frame.

Simplicity not only works for the action, it works for the story, too. Sure, it's predictable right from the jump. even the dimmest bulbs can feel illuminated when they figure things out pretty easily. Keeping the viewer intellectually alert is not this movie's aim. The job of the plot is to provide a link between chases without complicating things. In other words, it merely has to stay out of the way. Normally, I would slam a movie for such a lack of ambition. In this case, it works marvelously. Our focus on whether or not our heroes will survive the next scene carries the day.

World War Z is a popcorn flick through and through. And a damn good one. It quickly draws us to the edge of our seats and keeps us there. Visually, it's often stunning in its depiction of the zombies climbing over and interlocking with one another to climb things and/or launch themselves just to get at the nearest human. Brad Pitt gives us a "good enough" performance. This isn't Moneyball or Benjamin Button where he has to emotionally carry the film. He merely has to be cool, like we imagine he always is, zombies be damned. He is. That said, I'll admit that I've not read the novel the movie is based on. I don't know where it cuts corners or added things that weren't there. I have no idea if it remains true to the spirit of the book in any, way, shape, or form. I only know that this is thoroughly fun movie.

MY SCORE: 7.5/10

Mr. & Mrs. Smith

Directed by Doug Liman.

2005. Rated PG-13, 120 minutes.

Cast:

Brad Pitt

Angelina Jolie

Vince Vaughn

Kerry Washington

Adam Brody

Keith David

Chris Weitz

Michelle Monaghan

Jennifer Morrison

Stephanie March

Angela Bassett

Ah yes, the birth of “Brangelina,” AKA Jennifer Aniston’s least favorite movie of all time. Possibly. You know what? That’s about all the celebrity gossip I can stand so we’ll move on. With your permission, of course.

The actual movie revolves around John (Pitt) and Jane Smith (Jolie). They met five or six years ago, depending on which one you ask, at a hotel in Bogota. Due to an assassination within that country, local police were looking for someone traveling alone. As luck would have it, and their wits, they managed to convince everyone they were together. This inadvertently sparks a romance and the two were married shortly thereafter. Like many couples, particularly those having problems, they keep secrets from one another. Theirs are probably a little bigger than the ones in your marriage. Neither of them knows that the other is a paid assassin. That all changes when they find themselves in the same place, at the same time, trying to kill the same target.

Unsurprising, in hind sight, Pitt and Jolie share a playful chemistry. It carries the movie rather nicely. The jokes, aimed directly at anyone who has ever been in a long-term relationship, and the double entrendres, are all smooth, delivered with the perfect amount of sarcasm. It keeps us chuckling pretty consistently, even during their action scenes together, of which there are plenty. Our two leads appear to be having a great time. Pitt’s scenes with Vince Vaughn also work very well. It’s basically the usual schtick we get from Vaughn, but it works.

Back to the action. It is very well done. Things blow up real good while bullets and fists fly everywhere. Again, our stars are to be commended as both pull off the physicality of their roles without issue. Of course, there are some things that are too much to be believed, but they’re worked in nicely and become part of the fun. Therefore, we laugh and don’t really analyze things that probably shouldn't, or couldn't, happen.

In my world, maybe not the same as yours, Mr. & Mrs. Smith is a movie that’s stood up to repeated viewings. I've seen it several times and enjoyed it immensely each time. Our heroes work great together on the screen and it is exciting. The script they’re working with is clever and completely tongue-in-cheek. For my money, this is one of 2005’s most under-appreciated films.

Killing Them Softly

Directed by Andrew Dominik.

2012. Rated R, 97 minutes.

Cast:

Brad Pitt

Richard Jenkins

Ray Liotta

James Gandolfini

Scoot McNairy

Sam Shepard

Ben Mendelsohn

Slaine

Vincent Curatola

Max Casella

Trevor Long

Linara Washington

When a mob run card game gets robbed, the local economy is severely affected. It pretty much comes to a halt and won’t get going again until the people responsible are dealt with. And I don’t mean by the police, either. This is where enforcer Jackie Cogan (Pitt) comes in. He promptly gets to work figuring out the issues. Of course, his taking any action requires permission he has to work through his unnamed liaison (Jenkins) to get. Meanwhile, we also watch the schmucks who did it assess the situation from their point of view.

Brad Pitt is excellent in the lead. He hits every note perfectly. His cold-blooded arrogance is difficult to look away from. The supporting cast, mostly of sporadic screen-time is wonderful, as well. Each one makes us feel what’s at stake for them more than just by the words they speak. Of course, two characters never fully understand the potential consequences, but we feel that too. There is one performance that stands head and shoulders above the rest, though. James Gandolfini as overly seasoned vet hit-man Mickey is absolutely fantastic. He’s a very bad guy with a bad attitude and some serious personal problems. Somehow, the actor crafts him into someone we feel sorry for in spite of who and what he is. He commands your attention whenever he’s on screen, even away from Pitt.

This is not a movie heavy on action. However, what is there is visually arresting. Unfortunately for him, Markie (Liotta) is on the receiving end of two of these scenes. One is spectacularly brutal and the other is an amazing slo-mo sequence. Other than that latter scene, all of the action has an real feel to it. I’ll admit to flinching once or twice.

As great as the performances and  the visuals are, the hardly concealed subtext has to be addressed. The movie is set during the financial crisis that marred the final days of George W. Bush’s presidency and set the table for Barack Obama’s. Just so you don’t forget this, political news is constantly used as background noise, either on television or radio. From time to time, the focus even shifts directly to it. It comes across as totally cynical and, perhaps, a way right leaning view on America. It’s possible I could be misreading the latter, but not the former. It’s fairly clear that everything happening on the screen is a metaphor for what went on in late 2008. In case somehow, after an hour and a half, you’re not so sure this movie isn't too excited about the country’s future, it’s last spoken line will confirm it for you. For some, it might decide whether or not you like the film.

For me, the last line doesn't dictate either as I figured out that was the movie’s outlook early on. Regardless of whether I agree or not, Killing Them Softly is a fascinating experience with a different take on the mafia and how it operates, presenting them more symbollically than anything else. I rather enjoyed it. Sadly, I was disappointed that despite the movie’s title, we never get to hear Roberta Flack’s nor The Fugees’, or anyone’s rendition of the classic song from which it is derived. Hmph.

(Note: I’m generally a little slow getting reviews up. Depending on what’s going on in real life, it usually takes me three or four days to write a review and get it posted, but it can be over a week. This is my hobby, not my job. Yet. I only mention this because I actually watched this and had the review hand-written a few days before the passing of one of this movie’s stars, James Gandolfini. He was an amazing talent that I’ve praised in other reviews and, of course, he IS Tony Soprano. That said, I really do think his performance in this movie is amazing and I’m not just saying nice things because he’s recently deceased.)

MY SCORE: 8/10   

Happy Feet Two

Directed by George Miller.

2011. Rated PG, 100 minutes.

Cast:

Elijah Wood

Robin Williams

Pink

Benjamin Flores Jr.

Hugo Weaving

Brad Pitt

Matt Damon

Common

Sofia Vergara

Hank Azaria

John Goodman

Carlos Alazraqui

Ava Acres

Lombardo Boyar

Mumble (Wood), along with seemingly every penguin in the world finds themselves trapped when a giant hunk of ice blocks their path out of a frozen valley. Meanwhile, Will and Bill, a pair of krill played by Brad Pitt and Matt Damon, respectively, break loose from their school and venture out into the ocean on their own. Pop song medleys and dancing ensues.

As with its predecessor, the singing and dancing is the strength of the movie. The way songs most of would never think of in the same sentence blend seamlessly is brilliant. The numbers are lively and make time speed  by as we tap our own happy feet and maybe even sing along. That is, of course, as long as the thought of musicals aimed at children doesn’t automatically turn your stomach.

Where the first movie falters is in its sudden twist in tone. After two cheerful acts encouraging kids to be true to themselves, the third is an excruciatingly dark one involving man’s exploitation of animals for financial gain and destruction of the environment on top of our hero suffering spells of dementia. Even though we never get anywhere near those depths this time around, we’re only given one fun act before settling in for lots of penguins fretting about their pending doom and worshipping false idols. Sure, there are plenty of attempts at humor but most of them fall flat. To gauge this, I made sure to notice my children who weren’t laughing very often. The truth is the penguins and most of the other creatures fail to engage us unless they’re belting out a tune.

One exception, at least on a minor level, is Mumble’s son Erik (Ares). Like his dad, he’s a bit different than the other penguins. He doesn’t join in on any of the songs they sing. In fact, he doesn’t say much at all and spends as much time as possible hiding. As in almost every other movie ever made that features such an insecure character, this is all leading up to the moment he bursts out of his shell. The pleasant surprise is how effective a moment this is. It’s an absolute showstopper, by far my favorite part of the entire movie.

The rest of the film proceeds as it must, efficiently but not always joyfully. Everything happens right on time as we’ve been trained by countless other kiddie flicks. The climax is ridiculous, even for a cartoon about singing penguins. All of this would be forgivable if it didn’t commit a cardinal sin. There are large chunks of Happy Feet Two that are just plain boring.

MY SCORE: 5/10

The Tree of Life

Directed by Terrence Malick.

2011. Rated PG-13, 139 minutes.
Cast:
Brad Pitt
Jessica Chastain
Sean Penn
Hunter McCracken
Laramie Eppler
Tye Sheridan
Fiona Shaw
Nicolas Gonda
Kelly Koonce
Cole Cockburn

Mr. O’Brien (Pitt) is an overbearing father. He doesn’t take any guff from his three boys, or his wife, for that matter. He doesn’t physically abuse them, but it’s clear who is in charge. Things have to be done his way or not at all. Well, actually all this comes later.

Jack (Penn) doesn’t have the greatest relationship with his dad. That’s understandable since that’s the guy in the first paragraph. Jack’s grown up to be very successful, but is agonizing over something he’s said to the old man. He mopes around looking like his dinner didn’t agree with him, calls his father and apologizes profusely. Wait, that also comes much later.

In the beginning. By the way, given what actually happens early on, in the beginning is a holy, er uh, wholly appropriate phrase. So in the beginning, Mr. O’Brien’s wife, of course she’s named Mrs. O’Brien (Chastain), receives a telegram. Yes, I said telegram. This happens during the 1950s. The telegram informs her that their oldest son has died at 19. With that, we break into an updated version of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. We see something that looks like The Big Bang. There is also fire, shots of the sky, wide open plains, prehistoric creatures and so on. A number of these images include voice overs whispered by one of the three people named above. Often, they’re questioning God. For the most part, the questions boil down to “Why did You have to let him die?” These theatrics go on for an excruciating 45 minutes or thereabouts and feels like a half-baked mix of Creationism and Evolution. It desperately wants to be deep, but simply feels pretentious. I feel the same way about 2001. I hate 2001. My apologies to the legions of that movie’s fans.

Eventually, we get back to the story of the domineering father. This part of the movie holds some intrigue. It’s not that the story is so unique, it’s that the storytelling is. There aren’t many scenes that would play as conventional. We get a constant barrage of short bursts that advance the plot. They play as memories might, in quick flashes of our most unforgettable moments. It’s an interesting technique used effectively.

Unfortunately, the part of the movie I enjoy gives way to more surreal visuals. This is obviously meant to complete a number of circles. It does. However, it’s all just a bit much for me. Many will praise the movie for being different and for some stunning visuals. Director Terrence Malick does indeed deserve kudos for this. The same goes for the massive quantity of symbolism and the wonderful performance by Hunter McCracken as the young Jack. Still, a huge portion of the movie, while beautiful, bored me to tears. Yes, I know. People smarter than I have put it on many of their “Top 10” lists for 2011. It was even nominated for Best Picture. Maybe I just don’t get it. You’re probably right. I’m OK with that.

MY SCORE: 4/10

Moneyball

12 Monkeys

Directed by Terry Gilliam.
1996. Rated R, 130 minutes.
Cast:
Bruce Willis
Brad Pitt
Madeline Stowe
Jon Seda
Christopher Plummer

James Cole (Willis) believes he is a time-traveler sent back from the future by his captors to investigate "the Army of the 12 Monkeys." This "army" apparently loosed a virus upon the Earth. This virus is believed to have killed 5 billion people and driven the survivors to live beneath the planet's surface. The movie opens with a quote that is actually a prediction that this whole virus thing would go down in 1997. It's attributed to a "diagnosed schizophrenic." This is key because the question of Cole's sanity is really the central theme of the movie. A brief soliloquy by a patient in the mental institution Cole is thrown into when he arrives in the year 1990 explaining his own mental condition gives us a possible explanation of what's actually going on. Of course, the alternative is that Cole is perfectly sane but indeed living in an insane reality. To his credit, director Terry Gilliam doesn't discount either possibility giving viewers something to debate. Willis gives a frantic, even fragile performance befitting the role. Stowe is solid as usual but Brad Pitt lights up the screen during the intervals in which he appears. Overall, it's an excellent, if a bit quirky, piece of science fiction.

MY SCORE: 9/10

Megamind

Directed by Tom McGrath.
2010. Rated PG, 95 minutes.
Cast:
Will Ferrell
Tina Fey
Brad Pitt
Jonah Hill
David Cross
J. K. Simmons
Ben Stiller
Jessica Schulte
Justin Theroux
Amy Poehler
Like most supervillains, Megamind (Ferrell) can never quite beat the hero in town. Try as he might, his plans are always thwarted by Metro Man (Pitt). To give you a point of reference, Metro Man is basically Superman dressed in all white. Megamind has spent practically his entire life trying to overcome the do-gooder. However, he hasn’t really thought about what he would do if he were actually victorious. So, when he finally manages to defeat Metro Man, he finds out that total domination isn’t all he thought it would be. With no one to challenge him, and no one to share his success with, he gets bored.

In order to spice things us, Megamind takes on two tasks. First, he tries to woo TV news reporter Roxanne Richie (Fey). Essentially, she’s the Lois Lane of our tale. In the past, he’s kidnapped her way too many times to count. Therefore, he creates an alter-ego. He also creates an alter-ego for his second task: coaching someone else up to be a hero and provide him with some opposition. This other alter-ego is a bit problematic for the movie’s target audience. Most kids simply won’t get it. They’re just too young. Whether or not parents get it seems to depend on whether they’re fans of the Superman movies, or not. That’s because the shape Megamind takes for this is that of Superman’s father as portrayed by Marlon Brando in those movies. If you have that point of reference, it’s a great source of comedy. If you don’t, not so much.

The rest of the movie works pretty well. It nicely spoofs both superhero and supervillain lore by poking fun at the clichés we’ve all come to know and love. This keeps us chuckling for much of the runtime. In addition, we come to genuinely feel for the bad guy. We even come to be on his side as he works to correct his mistakes. Surprisingly, we also find ourselves thinking about Metro Man at the end. What happens when the hero becomes tired of, or is left unfulfilled by being heroic? The movie treads lightly in this area so it doesn’t drag us down, emotionally. However, it is still a question that’s left out there.

In the end, Megamind is a fun affair that does what it sets out to. It entertains us with a family-friendly redemption story. It shares a number of similarities with Despicable Me, but is different enough that watching both is no issue. However, I will say that even though I enjoyed both, which you like best might be predicated on which you see first.

MY SCORE: 7/10

True Romance

Directed by Tony Scott.
1993. Rated R, 120 minutes.
Cast:
Christian Slater
Patricia Arquette
Gary Oldman
Christopher Walken
James Gandolfini
Dennis Hopper
Bronson Pinchot
Brad Pitt
Michael Rapaport
Saul Rubinek
Samuel L. Jackson
Sarah Silverman

The setup is nearly too unbelievable for words. Since words are all I have, I’ll just tell you what happens and let you make of it what you will. Clarence (Slater) is a loner who has way too much love for Elvis Presley and decides to spend the night of his birthday alone in a theater showing a triple feature of all three of Sonny Chiba’s Street Fighter movies. While there, he meets the beautiful Alabama (Arquette). The two hit it off, he shows her the comic book shop where he works and spends a good deal of his off time. They end up making love in his hole-in-the-wall apartment. In the wee hours of the same night she admits to him she’s a call-girl that was hired by his boss who wanted to make sure his top employee got laid for his birthday. She also admits that what started as an act became genuine and she is truly in love with him. Not the least bit upset about any of this because he had a great time, he admits that he’s also in love with her. Clearly, he needs to get out more. Then again, even if he had he might never meet another girl who’s not only into martial arts flicks but is really interested in his endless pontification on all the things in pop-culture he’s passionate about. Anyhoo, our two lovebirds get up first thing in the morning, head to the Justice of the Peace and get hitched. Um…yeah, I guess.

I’m with you. It plays like a geek’s wet dream come true. It’s the ultimate affirmation for those of us who tend to spend too much time in fantasy land. Keep immersing yourself in the alternate reality of your choice, without compromise and sex with beautiful women will miraculously (immaculately?) occur because you’re just that cool. Before any of you geek gods try to strike me down with the bolt of lightning you acquired from the roll of a twenty-sided die, spare me. I’ve been called a geek more than once by people who actually know me. Luckily for you strangers, my ridiculously sexy exterior conceals the analytically superior processor within my skull. Oh, wait…you wanna read about the movie, don’t you?

The reason the open plays like a fanboy’s fantasy is because, essentially, that’s what it is. For those unaware, this was written by a then video store clerk, still pop-culture and b-movie enthusiast named Quentin Tarantino. An opening like this only makes perfect sense.

Enough of this. I’ve spent way too much time on the first fifteen minutes of the movie. The truth is, even though we’ve got a flimsy basis for love, the rest of the film absolutely sizzles. In no way is this a conventional love story. All you really need to know to prove that is that what sets the story in motion is that Clarence's stupidity…er…bravery causes him to try and get Alabama’s things from her pimp, Drexel (Oldman). That’s former pimp, unbeknownst to Drexel. Bada-boom, bada-bing Clarence accidentally ends up with a suitcase full of cocaine and our loving couple goes on the run from the people it belongs to.

Like the best of Tarantino what makes the movie is not the plot but the situations the plot puts the characters in. The more tense the situation, the better the writing is a general Tarantino rule and it applies here. These moments are deliciously outrageous, violent and often clever. This is what drives the movie, makes it a thrilling watch.

The other major factor in making it a good movie are the characters. Really, most of them aren’t well developed. What they are is purpose driven, extreme and totally willing to say whatever comes to mind. Many of them are people we love to hate. Filling these roles is a superb cast that delivers every line perfectly. Stealing the show, however, are two guys who were relative newcomers at the time, James Gandolfini and Brad Pitt. Pitt plays a great stoner and Gandolfini is flat scary.

To his credit, director Tony Scott seems to stay out of the way of the screenplay. It doesn’t feel like his other movies. It’s less him, but in this case that works out well. It does, in fact, feel like a Tarantino movie except it doesn’t bounce around the timeline the way most of his self-directed films tend to. That said, atop what seems to be a faulty foundation an excellent movie is built.

MY SCORE: 8.5/10