The 35th Annual Razzies "Winners"

Against the Crowd Blogathon: The Kubrick Klassick Worse Than a Michael Bay Flick

Last week, I decided to start a blogathon in which we bloggers get to rant against the popular opinion. The rules are simple:

1. Pick one movie that "everyone" loves (the more iconic, the better). That movie must have a score of at least 80% on rottentomatoes.com. Tell us why you hate it.

2. Pick one movie that "everyone" hates (the more notorious, the better). That movie must have a score of less than 30% on rottentomatoes.com. Tell us why you love it.

3. Include the tomato meter scores of both movies.

Easy-peasy, right?

Like some have expressed, it was easy picking out a movie I hated that most people loved. I can instantly name dozens of them. My first thought was to go with the movie that inspired the idea for this blogathon, Dallas Buyers Club. It didn't quite work for me. I figured that would be lazy since I just reviewed it a couple weeks ago. Besides,  I don't actually hate it. My next thought was The Tree of Life, which I did flat out hate, but I've also reviewed that. I decided to go with the movie The Tree of Life most reminds me of...

2001: A Space Odyssey

95%

I know. It's a classic. I know. It's one of the most influential movies of all time. I know. It's a groundbreaking cinematic achievement. I know. I know all that and there is lots more you want to tell me about this movie. Yawn.

I hate this movie.

More accurately, I don't think I've ingested enough mind-altering substances to fully appreciate it. To me, it was an excruciatingly boring experience. Five minute long shots of objects floating around are snore inducing and scream pretentious to me. Sure its got great visuals but do we have to dawdle on each one, forever? Put bluntly, there is no good reason this movie is nearly two and a half hours long.

None.

I understand fully what Stanley Kubrick was trying to do with this movie. Unfortunately, it just became a self-indulgent exercise in film technique. I cannot deny that the man gave us a number of iconic shots and even a much ballyhooed finale, it just should have gotten to the point a hell of a lot quicker. I mean like 90 minutes quicker. That's approximately how much time he spends in a circle jerk with the cinematographer and the composer. Again, these are beautiful pictures. I don't stare at pictures for longer than a few seconds no matter how great they are. It only takes a couple moments to figure out that it looks like the Mona Lisa's eyes are following you. No need to keep ogling the damn thing. If these shots are limited to a reasonable amount of time, you get the same story playing out in much less time and it is unquestionably the greatest short film ever produced. As it is, it's us watching a few guys practice making a movie.

Yup, I mentioned the composer. The score is a breathtaking piece of music. When paired with objects floating hypnotically about for what seems like hours it adds to the unbearable pretentiousness of it all. The sounds emanating from the speakers seem to be screaming "Look at this, it's some important shit!" It also becomes part of the giant sleeping pill that is this movie. I'm not even joking about this. It took me several attempts to get through this as it just dragged my eyelids toward the ground. I made my last attempt only after a very long and fulfilling nap. Even this was a struggle. Try this at home: put on any piece of classical music (no offense to classical music fans), grab any picture in your house, and stare intently at it for the duration of the piece you're listening to. Zzzzzz....

zzzzzz...cmmmp cmmmp... ...Ahem...where was I?

Oh yeah, watching 2001 was a thankless chore I'll make every effort to not repeat.

On the other hand, this is a movie I have and will watch repeatedly...

Bad Boys II

 23%

Yup, it's a Michael Bay movie. It's not just any old Michael Bay movie, either. It's pretty much everything us critics hate him for all rolled up into one noisy package. Everything and then some goes boom, the humor is crass, Gabrielle Union's supposedly seasoned vet FBI agent is reduced to a beautiful, but helpless damsel in distress, and yes there are a good deal of unnecessary slow motion shots.

You know what?

It works.

I enjoy the ridiculous shoot out with the Jamaican drug dealers. I have fun watching a truck full of cars being dumped all over the freeway as our heroes chase them down. I laugh hysterically when Martin Lawrence accidentally takes some Ecstasy. For two hours and change I forget Michael Bay subjected me to Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, and far too many Transformers movies.

The biggest reason for how enjoyable I find this movie is the chemistry between our heroes: Will Smith and Martin Lawrence. It was very good and helped carry the first Bad Boys. Here, it's taken to a few notches higher. Their back and forths are plain hilarious. Their ad libbing elevates Bay's juvenile humor to rib tickling art.

Now, I have to speak about my favorite scene.

Martin Lawrence's daughter is about to go out on her first date. When the lucky young man knocks on the door, he is greeted by an angry Lawrence and a liquor swilling, gun waving Smith. They scare the poor boy to death. Damn your meditative journey through mankind, your iconic score, and the sci-fi masterpiece they created. This shit is cinematic gold. My brother and I both have daughters that just became teenagers. We've vowed to re enact this scene at each others' houses.

Call us stupid.

Fear for our daughters' love lives.

Just don't tell me 2001 is better than Bad Boys II.

Pain & Gain

Directed by Michael Bay.

2013. Rated R, 129 minutes.

Cast:

Mark Wahlberg

Dwayne Johnson

Anthony Mackie

Rebel Wilson

Tony Shalhoub

Ed Harris

Ken Jeong

Rob Corddry

Bar Paly

Michael Rispoli

Daniel Lugo (Wahlberg) knows that you'll never get anywhere in life without going after it, full throttle. He's a personal trainer tired of the dead-end position he holds at the gym where he works. Knowing that he's capable of much more, he talks his way into a better job at Sun Gym which is barely keeping its doors open. Within six weeks, he triples its membership, turning the place into the latest fitness hot spot. He still trains some of the clients himself. One of those people is Victor Kershaw (Shalhoub), a millionaire deli tycoon. Lugo befriends him and then hatches a plan to kidnap and extort him. To carry it out, he recruits his bestest buddy Adrian (Mackey), a body builder trained by Lugo who also happens to be impotent thanks to all the steroids he takes. That's the easy part. The hard part is getting a third party to join in. He manages to convince Paul Doyle (Johnson), an ex-con/body builder who has recently given his life over to Christ, but is in desperate need of income. Since none of the three is a criminal mastermind, things fall apart quickly. Blood and wackiness ensues. Oh, almost forgot, it's based on a true story. Mostly.

I'll just go ahead and say it right off the bat. This film is much better than it has any right to be. Let's keep it real. The first of this post, directed by Michael Bay, doesn't inspire confidence in me. I get a sense of dread when those words flash across the screen. That said, he has made a few movies I enjoy. I thought the first of the Transformers flicks was damn good, and so was The Island. I didn't hate The Rock, either. And sue me, but I'm an apologist for both Bad Boys movies. Ironically, seeing the first Bad Boys is a drawback going into Pain & Gain. That may be because I've seen Bad Boys way too many times, but the two films are way too similar looking. Lots of P&G is shot through the same orange filter. Many of the same establishing shots of the city are used. In fact, he repeats so many it often appears he's using stock footage. Finally, the way he shoots his characters is drenched in the familiar Michael Bay style, lots of low angles with the camera swirling around them. While those things detract from the movie, it's where Bay goes against his own grain that the movie excels. He lets the story breathe, giving us something to contemplate, and thankfully cuts way back on the explosions.

Helping that story sink its teeth into us are three very fun performances from this group of stooges. Lugo is clearly the Moe of this group. He's smarter than they are, but not anywhere near as intelligent as he thinks. The somewhat thoughtful Doyle is our Larry with Adrian stepping into Curly's shoes. Granted, this is a seriously demented version of the comic legends, but they pull off the act nicely. They have a nice chemistry that is glued together by Mackie. His character is a dim bulb that manages to make us laugh nearly every time he speaks. The Rock is also an underrated comic actor, and does fine work here. Of the three, he plays it straightest, giving Doyle an obliviousness that serves the movie well. Wahlberg, also underrated in the funny business, treads similar territory to his work in The Big Hit, Three Kings, and, most recently, 2 Guns. The major difference being that Lugo is easily recognizable as a slug right from the start and is just not likable.

As good as those guys are, the best performance in the movie belongs to Tony Shalhoub as their victim. He's also a disagreeable person. However, being that he's the one kidnapped and tortured we sort of feel for the guy. Sort of. Shalhoub plays it as a sweat soaked ball of slime. Really, it's that bad. Of course, bad means good. He causes a serious conflict in the viewer. We know we should sympathize with him, but he himself is so despicable we have to fight the urge to wish him harm.

We're not sure how we should feel about any of this. This is part of the movie's charm. We see things happen and laugh at them as we are appalled by them. When people get into tight situations, we want them to be punished AND to get away with it. At least early on. As the movie goes on, these people shred the hope that there is anything redeemable about them. This is where some people will be turned off. If you're looking for someone to root for here, you're watching the wrong movie. The two who come closest to fitting that description are Rebel Wilson in a hilarious turn and Ed Harris as our voice of reason. We like her because she's an innocent bystander in this outlandish turn of events. We get behind him because he is the de facto good guy. He's not fleshed out enough for us to really care about him, but we know he wants to see the right thing done.

Pain & Gain is not an easy movie to watch. As mentioned, it's a bunch of stupid and unlikable people doing stupid and unlikable things. Starts off sleazy, and only descends further from there. Much of humor is of the juvenile sort and, thanks to Adrian's impotence, is built upon an endless string of dick jokes. Somehow, in the midst of all this, it gives us a film provokes some thought in us even as we might be recoiling from all the scummy behavior. I'm not trying to tell you this is some high-minded drama worthy of Oscar praise. I will say that it is an enjoyable, if twisted adventure.

MY SCORE: 7/10

The Amityville Horror (2005)

Directed by Andrew Douglas.

2005. Rated PG-13, 89 minutes.

Cast:

Ryan Reynolds

Melissa George

Chloë Grace-Moretz

Jesse James

Jimmy Bennett

Rachel Nichols

Philip Baker Hall

In 1979, The Amityville Horror hit theaters, and not only became a hit movie, but a cultural phenomenon. People actually made the trek to New York to see the house where the movie was set because it was supposedly a true story. I don’t knock anyone for believing in ghosts and/or haunted houses. To each his own. However, I do have to question the intelligence of people who believe it to be true and go there on purpose. What if it is? Being in the midst of a demonic paranormal entity doesn't sound like a barrel of laughs to me. As noted in my review of the original, whether or not our tale is rooted in reality has been hotly debated and largely debunked. What is inarguable is that it provided the template for the modern haunted house movie which is still being ripped off ad nauseum all these years later.

This brings us to the remake you came here to read about. The setup is the same as the older movie. The Lutz family is house shopping for a place suitable for their family of six: George (Reynolds), Kathy (George), three kids, and one dog. The kids and the dog came with Kathy as part of a package deal, having remarried after the death of her first husband. They check out the fateful house and it is obviously out of their price range. No worries, the real estate agent assures them she’s letting it go cheap. When asked what gives, she explains what we saw at the very beginning. The year before, some nut got up out of bed at 3:15 AM and blasted everyone in his family with a shotgun. Since it is a beautiful house, and George wants to make his woman happy, the Lutzes decide to buy it. After all, as George so eloquently puts it, “houses don’t kill people.” We’ll just see about that, won’t we.

Right away, and every night at 3:15, things go haywire. George is affected more than anyone. The movie, including Reynolds himself, does a nice job with his rapidly deteriorating mental state. This is very clearly a man losing it. Just to make sure we know that it’s the house causing all of his issues, he’s a much nicer guy whenever he is away from it. For the most part, he drives the movie. The film, and the house, uses him to crank things up or ratchet them down at the appropriate times.

The character who shoulders the rest of the load is the daughter Chelsea. She interacts with the house in a way no one else does. As a result, she’s often in harm’s way. This is one of the very early performances of child star Chloë Grace-Moretz. She’s about as solid as any kid would be in the role, but it’s hard to tell from this that she would become a top notch and highly sought after talent with many horror titles on her resumé. Still, the movie effectively uses her to score easy sympathy points and provide some harrowing scenes.

On its own, this is a briskly pace film packed with creepy visuals. It hardly gives us a chance to catch our breath as it is constantly sprinting to the next big moment. Juxtaposed with its predecessor, we see that it is a more concentrated effort. This version is almost solely focused on the Lutz family. The story of Father Callaway (Hall), Father Delaney in the original, ran prominently alongside the main plot in that older flick, but is barely included here, almost totally diminished in importance and altered in execution. Conversely, the bit about Lisa (Nichols), the baby-sitter, is expanded into a much more intense scene and the character herself is completely different. The other major difference is how the dog is handled. In the original, it is used to show how caring a person George really is when not under the house’s influence. This time it’s used to demonstrate George’s loosening grip on reality.

It is my opinion that this is a very underrated movie. It ramps up the tension early and doesn't let up. Ryan Reynolds gives a very convincing performance of a guy flipping out. There are also excellent and unsettling visuals throughout. Normally, a ninety minute remake of a two hour movie is cause to ring the alarms. Ring them even louder when you add the fact that Michael Bay is a producer on this one. Logic tells us that so much would be left out it would feel incomplete. Honestly, there are things left out of this version. However, it feels like what was removed made it a more concise effort without sacrificing the essence of its predecessor. It’s just plain fun to sit through.

MY SCORE: 7/10

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Directed by Michael Bay.

2011. Rated PG-13, 157 minutes.
Cast:
Shia LaBeouf
Rosie Huntington-Whiteley
Josh Duhamel
John Turturro
Frances McDormand
Patrick Dempsey
Tyrese Gibson
John Malkovich
Ken Jeong
Kevin Dunn
Julie White

The Decepticons take a third crack at conquering Earth. Of course, Sam Witwicky (LaBeouf), the Autobots and the guy from Sector 7 (Turturro) stand in their way. Megan Fox does not. There is another pretty face in place of hers. More on that later. Moving on, this tale actually begins with man’s first landing on the moon back in 1969. Unbeknownst to us for over forty years, during that initial lunar expedition Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldridge discovered Sentinel, who appears to have crashed landed on the dark side of the moon. He’s an old Autobot who evidently taught Optimus Prime everything he knows. The astronauts bring what they can back to Earth which includes five thingamajigs. Fast forward to the present when Megatron and company have a bunch more of these things. They plan on getting the five that somehow wound up in the Middle East, but are now possessed by the US government. Once they do that they’ll be able to reconstruct their home planet Cybertron in a place that appears to be extremely close ot Earth. Never you mind the science of any of this just know that this is the bad guys’ plan. Oh, once Cybertron is operational they’re going to use mankind as its own slave-labor force.

Essentially, we get a remake of Revenge of the Fallen. That said, there are some revisions. As you can probably tell, the main change is switching out the whatchamacallit for the thingamajigs. Next, instead of destroying the Egyptian pyramids we tear up Chicago pretty darn good. And don’t forget we trade in The Fallen for Sentinel. These changes are neither here nor there. Some others actually do improve upon its predecessor, thankfully. For starters, the two jive-talking bots are nowhere to be found. Ma and Pa Witwicky’s annoying antics are also scaled back. Don’t worry, there’s still plenty of lame humor to go around. Much of it comes from the go-for-broke performance of John Turturro.

The most easily recognizable difference is we have a new damsel in distress, Carly Spencer played by model Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. She buys collector items for some uber-rich dude. Yes, this turns out to be a very large part of the reason she comes to be in distress. Sadly, she can’t give Ms. Fox a run for her money in the acting department. By the way, it’s not like I think Megan Fox is ever in danger of winning an Oscar. For Ms. Huntington-Whiteley, her looks are all she brings to the table. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn she won this part in a raffle where only models were allowed to buy tickets. Any one of them would’ve been just as good.

The bottom line is that Dark of the Moon is a Transformers movie. If you enjoyed the last one, you’ll enjoy this one. Robots transform, fight, knock over skyscrapers and blow stuff up. Once again, this goes on for a way too long two and a half hours. I will say that this is a step up, though. The Fallen made me want to gouge out my own eyes with a spoon and puncture both eardrums with an icepick. This one merely made me want to bang my head on a hard surface. Heres to progress!

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
2009. Rated PG-13, 150 minutes.
Director: Michael Bay.
Starring Shia LaBeouf, Megan Fox, Josh Duhamel, John Turturro, Tyrese Gibson, Kevin Dunn, Julie White, Ramon Rodriguez.

Plot: An ancient Decepticon known as “The Fallen” returns to Earth to destroy blah blah blah to gain ultimate blah blah blah moowahahahaha (evil laugh). Robot fighting, screaming and anatomy jokes ensue.

The Good: Director Michael Bay knows that the majority of people attending a Transformers movie want to see giant robots beating the crap out of each other so he gives us more of it than the original. Since he also knows that most of these people are boys, no matter what age, he throws in pretty girls, off-color jokes and slow motion, lots of slow motion. Most of it features either a robot being ripped apart or Megan Fox running “Baywatch” style. And living up to its name, nearly everything transforms. Like its predecessor, it’s a visual spectacle.

The Bad: Like numerous other sequels, this suffers from “more is less” syndrome. The action and silly jokes increase exponentially from what was in the original, yet the things that might make it engaging are far flimsier and much less coherent. Its simply two and a half hours of flashing lights and noise. Therefore, we never really care if what’s-his-face activates the thingamajig with the whatchamacallit. Even worse, if your main focus is robot fighting then the robots should be easier to tell apart. This isn’t that big a problem for the Autobots who are pretty much color coded. However, almost all the Decepticons of any significance are plain chrome and blend together in combat. Shallow as it seems, I’d like to know which bad guys are actually fighting. And don’t even get me started on the two jive-talkin’ bots.

The Ugly: Two words: robot scrotum.Recommendation: You probably already know if you want to see this or not. If you’re not sure, see the first one first with a surround sound system cranked up pretty good, if possible. After that, imagine it bigger, louder and dumber.

The Opposite View: Amy Biancolli, San Francisco Chronicle

What the Internet Says: 6.8/10 on imdb.com (6/28/09), 20% on rottentomatoes.com, 36/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 4/10