Girl Week 2019: See You Yesterday

Thursday Movie Picks: Teen Angst

Pariah

In Like a Lion Out Like a Lamb Blogathon

Movies I Grew Up With: House Party

Boyhood

Thursday Movie Picks: Movies Set in a High School, Secondary School or the Equivalent

The Spectacular Now

The We and the I

White Bird in a Blizzard

G.B.F.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1

Thursday Movie Picks: Teen Comedies

The Fault in Our Stars

Vampire Academy

Directed by Mark Waters.

2014. Rated PG-13, 104 minutes.

Cast:

Zoey Deutch

Lucy Fry

Danila Kozlovsky

Gabriel Byrne

Sarah Hyland

Olga Kurylenko

Dominic Sherwood

Cameron Monaghan

Sami Gayle

Ashley Charles

Claire Foy

Vampires were once cool. They were bloodthirsty, yet refined and highly seductive creatures barely able to hide their deadly intentions beneath the mischievous twinkle in their eye. Ones that couldn't hold it together were downright savages, literally going for the jugular of whomever was in their path, finishing meals with fresh blood staining their faces. Whatever the case, vampires were not to be trifled with. Then, they were suddenly named Sullen Cullen, moped around looking constipated, sparkled in daylight, had emo girlfriends, and got jealous of her platonic werewolf friend like a little beyotch. Now, there's a whole high school full of emotionally fragile blood suckers. Sigh.

Before we even get to the school we find out there are three types of vampires. The Moroi make up the ruling class. They're described as peaceful, and mortal. Mortal. Yeah. How mortal, like what's their life expectancy? Never comes up, but I will say they seem like a bunch of wusses. It doesn't help that instead of declaring a major, all these Harry Potter wannabes have to declare which magic they'll practice. You know the magics - fire, water, etc. - like this was The Last F'in Airbender. We're told sunlight bothers them, but other than characters randomly saying it hurts a little there's no real evidence of this. The one true vampire thing about them is that they can only digest human blood. However, they get that from Twilight fans who volunteer it willingly so even that part sucks. Okay, bad pun. And the volunteers aren't Twilight groupies. Explicitly.

Let's move on.

The Dhampir are half-human/half-vampire. They exist solely to protect the Morons Moroi. To be honest, I've no clue what makes them even remotely vampiric since the sun has no effect on them, they can eat toaster strudels, and I'm fairly certain they've never heard of Bram Stoker, nor are they aware of the fact that they're pissing on his grave. Hell, I think some of it is trickling over into Bela Lugosi's casket and staining his red satin lined cape.

Phew. Deep cleansing breaths. Sorry. Tangent.

Finally, we have the Strigoi. They are the downright savages I mentioned earlier. Strangely, they're never referred to as immortal even though it's stressed that the Morons Moroi are not. By the way, a Moron Moroi can turn into a Strigoi. I guess it works like your favorite good guy wrestler turning heel. Whatever. At least they can't come out during the day. Better yet, they can be killed by silver. Oh wait. That's supposed to be for...you know what? Screw it. I'll give them credit for being badasses. Unfortunately, they disappear for large chunks of the.movie. Boo.

Alright, I've been at this review way too long and haven't gotten anywhere. The point of this whole movie is that Dhampir Rose (Deutch) is assigned to protect Moroi Lissa (Fry), heiress to the throne, from the Strigoi. Well, that's what it's supposed to be about. What we really get is Lissa maneuvering her way around the school's cliques and rumor mill while Rose crushes on her dark haired Fabio of a combat instructor. I swear Rose is written and performed like a rip off of Ellen Page from Juno. We meet a made up to be really old and decrepit Gabriel Byrne try to pass time until he could cash his check his one big scene, and watch Olga Kurylenko impersonate Elizabeth Banks from The Hunger Games. Later, we say "Look, there's that girl from Modern Family who looks like she could be Mila Kunis' little sister." Well, she looks like that to me. Anyhoo, none of this is very interesting. Exception made for the thinly veiled anti-lesbian sentiment. Well, I read it that way. Toward the end, we get a couple of unsurprising twists to cap off this particular teen soap. The credits roll and we realize yet another novel for young adults (that I'll never read) has been made into a crappy movie.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Directed by Francis Lawrence.

2013. Rated PG-13, 146 minutes.

Cast:

Jennifer Lawrence

Josh Hutcherson

Woody Harrelson

Donald Sutherland

Phillip Seymour Hoffman

Elizabeth Banks

Jeffrey Wright

Stanley Tucci

Lenny Kravitz

Liam Hemsworth

Jena Malone

Katniss (Lawrence) and Peeta (Hutcherson) are the darlings of the twelve districts after winning the most recent Hunger Games in rather unconventional fashion. President Snow (Sutherland) is quite pissed about it. After all, it was their suddenly blooming love that forced the games to end in such an unorthodox fashion, leaving him and the Capitol looking a bit foolish. This wouldn't be quite so bad if his instincts didn't tell him, correctly, that their relationship is a fraud. He tells Katniss they better play nice for the cameras for the rest of their lives or heads will most definitely, and literally, roll. Those heads belong to her family and friends, of course. Since even that doesn't squash her defiant personality, and the people have made her a symbol of hope, President Snow changes the rules, putting her and Peeta into the next year's games. Their competition this time is made up of prior winners.

One of the things this movie does better than its predecessor is get to the point. That first flick took forever to actually get to the Hunger Games. I understand that in the first movie of a franchise, the setup typically does take longer than it does in sequels. However, in that first flick, it feels unnecessarily long. Like a dog dragging a broken leg, it limped along slowly while we watched Katniss is wardrobe, practicing, and being a talk show guest. Repeatedly. Thankfully, we spend much less time in talk show mode. Generally speaking, I love watching Stanley Tucci perform. In this series, as the host of said talk show, he's just an annoyance. I understand what is trying to be accomplished with this character. It's just not working for me.

Tucci aside, another plus for Catching Fire is the acting of its supporting cast. This more mature group gives us more interesting characters and better portrayals of them. The two standouts being Jeffrey Wright and Jena Malone. Malone gives us someone we're not sure how to take. Wright does what he normally does and disappears into his character. Another newcomer, the late Philip Seymour Hoffman, is his usual excellent self as the Game Master. Among the returnees, Woody Harrelson and Donald Suther land are again very fun to watch. Surprisingy, so is Elizabeth Banks, once more in full drag-queen regalia.

Unfortunately, once we get to the games, it's the stretches between action where this movie, and the series as a whole, continues to fail. These are the times when Katniss and her allies plot the next move and get to know each other a little better. It should also be the time during which the tension is building until that next burst of excitement releases it. Instead, that tension dissipates as the scenes drag on, trying and failing, to establish emotional bonds between the characters. Part of this is due to Katniss herself. We know she cares about her friends and family. However, she comes across so coldly to everyone else that no one else's plight seems to resonate with her until it becomes an imminent part of her own survival. In other words, if she doesn't really care about them until the very moment her life depends on their ability, why should we?

Finally, where the first movie positions itself as social commentary, Catching Fire seems to lack any such aspirations. This is partly due to it being the second movie of what we know will be a quadrilogy. What it is trying to say may become more transparent after subsequent installments are released. No, I didn't read the books and please, do not explain it to me. Another reason is this movie's focus on being a "bigger" movie than its predecessor. It does more, but says less. Still, it is the doing more that makes this a more enjoyable movie than its predecessor. By breezing through the setup quicker, we get a more concise effort, even though it's actually a few minutes longer than the first film. We still hit some snags, but fans of the first should be pleased.

The Last American Virgin

Directed by Boaz Davidson.

1982. Rated R, 92 minutes.

Cast:

Lawrence Monoson

Diane Franklin

Steve Antin

Joe Rubbo

Louisa Moritz

Kimmy Robertson

Tessa Richarde

Brian Peck

Way back when I myself was a virgin, I stumbled upon this movie late one summer night on HBO. In those days, I spent my break from school with my grandparents. The very first time I tried to watch it, I actually didn’t get very far. In true 1980s teen sex romp fashion, there is a good deal of nudity, particularly early on. What I didn’t know was that, upstairs, my grandfather had also come across this movie. Seconds after the first boob pops out, he appeared at the top of the steps and told me to “Turn off that X-rated show!” The Last American Virgin isn’t really X-rated, but in his eyes nudity was equivalent to hardcore porn. I’m only guessing that he continued to watch himself since I never had enough courage to ask.

As for me, all was not lost. At least in back then, if not still, whatever appeared on HBO would likely be aired at least three or four times a week throughout whichever month it happened to be. I studied the TV guide and memorized a number of the upcoming airtimes. Over the course of the next thirty days, I must have watched this movie a dozen times at all hours of the night. I also saw it a few more times over the next couple of summers. To a curious and horny young boy, it was one of the greatest films ever made. That was thirty years ago. Though I hadn’t seen it since, it was still a piece of my adolescence I could never forget. By now, I figured it was time for a rewatch to see if it really is the sacred cow I’d built it up to be in my head.

After all this time, I once again meet Gary (Monoson). Unfortunately for him, he is the title character. He may not actually be the last virgin in the entire country, but he sure feels like it. Like lots of teenage boys, his entire existence is dedicated to changing that status. Things would probably go a lot easier for him if he weren’t so awkward around the opposite sex. To help him break the seal, so to speak, he has his two bestest buds Rick (Antin) and David (Rubbo), plus the very liberal use of his boss’ car when he is not using it to deliver pizza. We join the boys on their adventures in tail-chasing which includes run-ins with a trio of girls looking to get high, a very horny Latin cougar, a prostitute, and a couple regular girls from their school. Of course, one of them is Karen (Franklin), whom our hero has a very big crush on. Rick, with the help of his boys, trying desperately to get into someone’s pants ensues.

Early on, the movie takes on a sketch-comedy quality as the boys bound from one escapade to the next. All of these are merely to drive home the point that Rick is a ladies’ man, David picks up his left-overs, and something outrageous is going to happen to prevent Gary from getting some. To its credit, these situations are generally funy in the most juvenile way. It’s just believable enough that any of these things could happen that really sells the jokes. Granted, they often happen in a manner that’s way too slapstick, but up until that point we have fun with their sexual misadventures.

Between these, our hero agonizes over Karen whom eventually starts dating Rick. This part of the movie works, but doesn’t come off quite as intended because Lawrence Monoson is not a strong enough actor to pull it off. The script helps him out as it gives us easy pointers on where the emotion should be. Overall, the writing is actually fairly courageous for the genre. It brings up the debate on pro-choice vs. pro-life, and is actually ambiguous enough that its stance is open to interpretation. Perhaps even braver, it does not end the way we expect it to. It’s actually a fairly harsh conclusion, especially for a teen sex comedy. For me, this finish elevates the movie above most of its ilk.

Often, when I go back to movies I loved during my youth I’m sadly disappointed to discover them to be not nearly as good as I thought. Watching The Last American Virgin again, I was bracing for this strong possibility. I must say I was pleasantly surprised. It still makes me laugh and it holds up pretty well. After all, the theme of a boy efforting to lose his virginity is timeless. Aside from that, it manages to include many of the type of antics the genre is known for, but also takes it in a less traveled direction.

Jack & Diane

Directed byBradley Rust Gray.

2012. Rated R, 105 minutes.

Cast:

Juno Temple

Riley Keough

Cara Seymour

Kylie Minogue

Neal Huff

Haviland Morris

Michael Chernus

Jen Ponton

Diane (Temple) finds herself in a part of town she’s unfamiliar with, having lost her cell phone and unable to stop her nose from bleeding. Looking for a phone to use, she wanders into the store where Jack (Keough) works. The two ladies, yes Jack is a girl, have a love at first sight moment and wind up spending the rest of the day together. This also becomes all night as they, both underage, sneak into a nightclub. They do some talking, some drinking, and eventually, some kissing. Throughout, Diane isn't feeling too well. Her nose keeps bleeding and she vomits. In the morning, she returns home to be grounded by Aunt Linda (Seymour). Since love must persist, she continues to see Jack and the girls fall hard for one another. There are two issues at hand, though. First, Diane appears to literally be some sort of monster. Second, she’s supposed to be going away to school in a few weeks. Her tumultuous relationship with Jack ensues.

Though this is a romance, the element of horror runs throughout the movie. Every so often, there is a cutaway to what we can only assume is going on inside Diane’s body. It shows hair seemingly growing and moving through her innards. Between these shots, nosebleeds keep happening. However, our concentration is on the issues our troubled teens are having. This includes dealing with the baggage they each brought into the relationship. It is fairly interesting since the two lovebirds appear to be from opposite ends of the universe. Diane is confused about her future, her relationship with Aunt Linda, her twin sister, and which lines she can and cannot cross with Jack. On the other hand, Jack struggles mightily with authority figures, the recent death of her brother, how much she should commit to Diane, and at least in my opinion, personal hygiene.

The problem is that the horror meant to prop up the story actually undermines it. Initially, it’s set up as if sexual arousal brings about the physical change in Diane that gives us our monster, a la Cat People. Later, it appears Jack might suffer the same affliction. Then, it’s abandoned all together as the movie ends. This means that our monster is one hundred percent metaphor with no literal bearing on the plot. This can work. After all, it was done to great effect in Beasts of the Southern Wild. In that movie, the beasts were not only a constant part of the story, their plot line came to a head. Though open to interpretation, they clearly mean something. That doesn't happen here and what exactly this creature is supposed to symbolize is murky, at best. Is it supposed to represent the raging hormones of teenagers? The dangers of teenage love and/or sex? The dangers of lesbian love? All of these? None of these? The questions do more than nag. They leave a void in the narrative. What the movie is trying to say is far too ambiguous, even for me. In the immortal words of the great Roger Ebert (R.I.P.): “If you have to ask what something symbolized, it didn't.”

I am more than willing to say maybe I just don’t get it. Someone else may watch this and instantly form some tangible idea about the monster and how it informs Jack and Diane’s relationship. This is fine. Just understand that whether or not you can do this is key to your enjoyment of the movie. Our two leads are intriguing enough to fly the plane. They need the other aspects of the film to step up and land the thing. For me, that never happens.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Directed by Stephen Chbosky.

2012. Rated PG-13, 2012.

Cast:

Logan Lerman

Emma Watson

Ezra Miller

Mae Whitman

Paul Rudd

Nina Dobrev

Johnny Simmon

Kate Walsh

Dylan McDermott

Melanie Lynskey

Joan Cusack

Nicholas Braun

Like most kids, Charlie (Lerman) is nervous about starting high school. He might actually be more afraid than most. After all, he couldn’t make any friends in middle school. He survives the first day, invisibly as ever. His only new friend is Mr. Anderson (Rudd), his English teacher who lets him borrow books whenever he likes. Things continue along that path until our hero accidentally finds himself hanging out with The Wallflowers, a tight-knit group of kids that certainly are not part of the in-crowd. He becomes bestest buds with Patrick (Miller), who happens to be carrying on a secret relationship with the school’s most popular athlete, and instantly develops a crush on Patrick’s sister Sam (Watson). Fun with drugs and alcohol, the pursuit of love, and other issues ensue.

In the lead role, Lerman gives us a kid that believably grows in confidence as he becomes comfortable in his own skin. However, he’s never fully comfortable and what confidence he has is fragile, at best. Lerman ably conveys this, makes his character easy to empathize with. He’s someone we want to see breaking out of his shell even though that means indulging in behavior that is less than exemplary.

The cast surrounding our hero is just as good. Each brings their own brand of pain to the screen, continuously proving themselves to be perfect complements to our hero. They’re tortured souls that shelter each other. Their fierce individualism is the facade through which they operate as a group. Whatever they can’t combat with smartassness is doused with the stuff pulled from their parents’ liquor cabinets and viewed hazily through constantly refilling glasses and laughter.

Even within such an idyllic dynamic, problems between them arise. Here, more than anywhere else, us older viewers are thrust back into thedays when there was turbulence amongst our own circle of friends. Younger viewers may be going through this now. We feel bad for Charlie, especially considering the tremendous difficulties this causes for him. As his entire situation crystallizes, our heart breaks for him. The movie does a great job of pacing our awareness, letting us learn a little at a time, just enough to keep us on our toes. The two halves of our protagonist’s life work in tandem to maintain a shroud of mystery around him until he bursts, throwing open the cloak we’ve only been getting peeks beneath.

On the minus side, I’m not sure what to make of Charlie’s parents. They seem to be nice caring people, but a clueless lot even when the obvious punches them in the face. I’m not talking about the big reveal late in the movie, but of the things we see all along – the drinking and the drugs. Even after their son lands in the hospital they just shrug their shoulders at the whole thing even though they know that he’s always been troubled. Now that I think about it, that big reveal only warrants a slightly more vehement reaction. Maybe it’s just the dad in me speaking, but even after our hero’s news is out in the open, they still aren’t as present as they should be.

Regardless of how Charlie is parented. The Perks of Being a Wallflower is an enthralling movie. It draws us into this young man’s life and lets us love it or loathe it as he does. Best of all, we realize that he is a work in progress. His problems aren’t solved in time for the closing credits. He has a lifetime of work ahead of him. This makes him much more real than most guys that save the day and get the girl.

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