22 Jump Street (2014)

I think I've lost my touch with comedy.  I really do believe it.  I used to enjoy these Jonah Hill/Seth Rogen raunchy type of films back when they were still fresh (such as Superbad, Pinapple Express, and the 40 Year Old Virgin).  However, as of late, I've stopped caring and found every new release from them (with the exception of This is the End) to be very tedious and just plain unfunny.  So, seeing Jonah Hill's name kinda took me.  It's not the directors' fault that I didn't really care (They really have no association with the Apatow gang), but just seeing Hill's name took me out.  And it didn't help that the trailers for the film were bland.  And the first one wasn't good.  So it's a safe bet to say that I went in with low expectations.  Thankfully, the film wasn't as bad as I thought it would.  Unfortunately, that doesn't mean it was good either.

22 Jump Street is basically a rehash of the first film, but set in a different location: College.  Officers Schmidt (Hill) and Jenko (Tatum) are infiltrating a college to find the supplier of a new drug: Wyfi (Not sure I I spelled it right, but it went something like that)  Same old, same old stuff.  However, the film is "self aware" of this and pokes fun, which made many people gush over it.  I didn't, and it's not like the film constantly poked fun at it.  It was just in a couple of scenes and that was it.

I can't hold a comedy film to the same standards as, let's say the Godfather, for the simple fact that the comedy isn't going for that.  This film prefers to go for a much more less serious vibe.  I could point out various plot holes and inconsistencies, but I don't cause they weren't really trying to make an award winning masterpiece. However, if I don't find a comedy to be funny, then what's the point of watching it?  Therein lies my first problem.  The film just wasn't funny.  Many jokes fell flat and the few jokes that did work were stretched out until it was just unfunny.

I find it hard to convey my exact criticisms on the film, save for the fact that it's unfunny, because there's just something about this film that I didn't enjoy.  Is it entertaining?  Mildly.  I found some of the action sequences to be a little enticing.  The two leads, along with supporting cast member Ice Cube, are very likable and have great chemistry.  The film perfectly captures the essence of college.  So what is it about this film that doesn't work?  It's a very vague question in my mind.  And I may find out as I continue to write on.

I think it might have been due to how obnoxious it was.  The film glorifies it's wit to an unbearable point.  When a film isn't amusing, yet it thinks it is, there's a problem to be had.  That's what maddened me so much about this film.  I love for a movie that has confidence, but there's a fine line between confidence and brash, and this film is brash.  A film so conceited and self glorifying usually gets my blood boiling.  And this film did, but I couldn't hate it cause others in my theater seemed to enjoy it, so I guess it's just me.

Now, with all that said, there are some positives within this film.  As previously mentioned, the two leads do decent with what they're given.  Both are likable, especially Hill, who I usually tend to find annoying.  Tatum and Hill's chemistry work in the film, and even though there isn't comical gold, the film is somewhat entertaining because of them.  With that said, they're not the bright spot of this film.  Instead, that title belongs to Ice Cube, who actually makes the film more worthwhile than it would've been.   He has one moment, in particular, that made he film much, much better, and it was one of the few comical moments in the film.  Unfortunately, it dragged on a bit, ruining the joke.  But, I found myself cackling during the first few punchlines.

Overall, 22 Jump Street is a missed opportunity.  Very few of the jokes hit, and the film is overly obnoxious with it's self referential gags and conceited tone.  However, I cannot say the film fully appalling, just bland. Lest I face the wrath of Phil Lord/Chris Miller fans, I'll just say that they did an okay job directing.  The two leads make the film work through their chemistry, and it's action scenes are thoroughly entertaining.  Ice Cube is also very enjoyable to watch as he literally chews the scenery up in one scene.  However, the film is nothing more than an exercise for me.  Partly cause it thinks highly of itself and partly because I just don't find it funny.  In the end of the day, 22 Jump Street is a good time killer, but nothing more than that.

6/10

Deliver Us From Evil (2014)

Where do I begin on this?

Deliver Us From Evil is director Scott Derrickson's 5th film in the director chair.  Derrickson himself is a hit-or-miss director.  When he hits gold (Sinister), it's really impressive.  However, when he misses (The Day the Earth Stood Still remake), it's perplexing that a director of his talent failed to conceive a worthwhile film.  After viewing Deliver Us From Evil, it's more in the ballpark of the latter.  The film attempts to be many things it's not.  One side is a story of redemption and struggle.  On another, it's a cop investigation film.  And on the final side, it's a possession story.  It sounds like an original idea, and one that could be rather impressive.  It starts off intriguingly, but then it devolves into a wide array of jump scares and knife fights.

Deliver Us From Evil chronicles the true story of Detective Ralph Sarchie, a tough-as-bricks cop who lost all faith in God.  Then, he investigates a case that ends up proving the existence of true evil, and, of course, he slowly begins to unravel the truth of whether a Devil exists.  Apparently, the film is base on real life cases that did happen and the officer did write a book on it, though the film stylizes all of it.  After reading up on it, I thought the film could've been infinitely better had they actually followed the book.  Unfortunately, the film doesn't go for a unique film, and end up feeling like a run-of-the-mill horror escapade.

And that's the first major flaw in this film.  It takes a rather unique premise and makes it into a by the books horror film.  It has a lot of horror tropes thrown in, and it's not the good ones.  There's the obligatory exorcist scene.  The main character regains his faith in God.  All the scares in here have a big "boom".  Something always happens to the cross.  And that's just scraping the surface of this film.  It's not necessarily boring, but it's been done multiple times and by better horror films.

The acting from the most part ranges from "Good" to "Laughable".  Eric Bana is good, not great, as Sarchie.  I can't fully fault him for the fact that he wasn't given anything to work with and some of the lines themselves are hilarious.  "You're in my house?" Sarchie says casually as he realizes that a possessed serial killer is lurking in his home.  Yeah, the script was awful.  The acting from the two possessed folk is downright laughable.  I began grinning at the sight of the possessed lady and her attempt at being menacing.  The main antagonist, the possessed guy, is not anywhere close to being scary, and around the time he begins a knife fight with Joel McHale, I didn't laugh.  Instead, I groaned.  How could a film with this much promise fail!?

*SPOILERS IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH*

Joel McHale is the only highlight in this film.  He's used more as a comic relief character throughout the most part.  However, he gets very limited screentime and he exits the film in the aforementioned knife fight between him and the demon.  The quickest tonal shift seen in film history, I think.  It goes from horror to action in a blink.  It just became laughable.  I thought that if you're going for a horror vibe and want to throw in a knife fight, you should make it much more brutal rather than the tactical method both fighters used.

*SPOILERS DONE*

Then, the film attempts to balance a cop investigation film with a paranormal film.  Think an episode of Cops being spliced in with scenes from the Exorcist and you can get this film.  Only thing different, is the locale.  Once you get passed the different scenery, you get every horror film made.  The ending exorcism is nothing interesting.  However, I'll say that the inclusion of "The Doors" music did catch my attention...in the worst possible way imaginable.  They never really explain what was the point of it's inclusion.  They explained why most of Sarchie's visions were used (He had superpowers?  That's just outright stupid), but they never explained what significance the Doors had.  Was it there in an attempt to seem original with the unoriginal content, Derrickson?

Now, while I've been seemingly ranting on this film, there are some notably good things in this film.  Whether you're laughing unintentionally or not, the film is pretty entertaining.  I wasn't really bored to tears by this film, so isn't that worth something?  Also, while the film did rely on a lot of horror tropes, one good deviation from the usual tropes is the priest.  Usually in any horror film, the priest is some nice guy, who has barely any faults.  In here, the priest is a highly flawed man, and it felt refreshing after being bombarded by the usual steps.  However, there's one thing that happens to his character that makes him less interesting during the exorcism scene.  And, as mentioned before, the acting is good for the most part.

Overall, Scott Derrickson attempts his 2nd homerun (after hitting it with Sinister), but strikes out.  Deliver Us From Evil is just as generic as it's name(for a horror film).  It relies heavily on tropes that have been done to death now, and isn't exactly new.  In fact, the only inventive things to be scene are minuscule by comparison.  The film attempts to mold a cop drama, redemption, exorcist themes all together and the final product is less than rewarding.  Ending it on a positive note, the film isn't boring at least.

4/10

North by Northwest (1959)

 

 

Alfred Hitchcock, a name synonymous with the horror genre, is one of the more interesting characters of early cinema, and one of the frontrunners in modern cinema.  Everything you see in a film right now, most likely wouldn't have been the same had it not been for Hitchcock.  Orsen Welles was the innovator.  Hitchcock was the force.  Of course, that's not to say Hitchcock's films are really that great.  Most of them, or at least the ones I've seen, have all become very dated, and it shows in most of them.  After having seen movies like the Birds and Dial M for Murder, I started to question the director's legendary status.  So, I decided to watch his most critically lauded film: North By Northwest.  I can honestly say that this film will stand the test of time.  It's witty, fun, and engaging.  With a very likable lead, and some very hilarious moments, this is what most thrillers should strive to be: Fun.  Something that's lacking in most films today.

 

North By Northwest starts almost immediately in it's plotting.  10 minutes in and we're already thrusted into the mystery.  Cary Grant, the Tom Cruise of the past minus the Scientology, stars as Roger O. Thornhill, a New York exec, who is kidnapped, and is mistaken as another man: George Kaplan.  He's soon in a race against time in order to save his life and clear his name.  It's short (well, not really), sweet, and simple.  It's fast past and once the 2 hour 16 minute runtime is over (oh, and it's really 2 hours and 16 minutes long), you'll be confused at how fast it went by.

 

Positives early on, include Cary Grant's spectacular performance as Thornhill.  He deftly combines humor and drama with his character, and I'll never forgive Hollywood for his mistreatment (just like Tom Cruise).  Another great thing to note is the scope of this film.  In all honesty, it's sort of like what all James Bond movies should be, in my opinion.  I think if you change the names up a bit, and a couple of roles, you'll have a typical James Bond film.  And, if I say so myself, it's much funner than those films, especially the newer ones. 

 



 

Another positive to note is how funny the movie can be at times.  I went in expecting cheesy 1960s humor that would make me cringe rather than laugh (80s is when comedy hit a high point), but I got to give it to this film.  I laughed at a lot of the jokes.  Yes, some of them are cheesy, but it adds to the charm of the film, and I really enjoyed it.  On a smaller, but equally positive, note, Bernard Herrmann's score was absolutely gorgeous, capturing a grand scale and making the movie feel much more like an epic than a spy film.

 

And finally, I can't discuss this film without mentioning the iconic plane scene.  *MINOR SPOILERS* I'm sure most of everyone in this world knows of the plane scene.  The slow, tense build up to it adds a lot to the film.  You knew what was coming, but you didn't know when, and that's what Hitchcock pulled off right.  The plane attacks Thornhill unexpectedly and I must say that very little action films of this time could pull of the sheer thrills of this.  Yeah, nothing blows up...well, until the end.  But the fact that they pulled this off in 1960 is just amazing.

 

Now, with all the positives of this film, there comes a couple of negatives.  I'll put a *SPOILERS THROUGHOUT THIS PARAGRAPH* notice because most of my complaints deal with the ending. First off, the main villain, Van Damme, isn't the main villain, or at least, someone else upstages him.  It's kind of a shame, considering that the entire film, I was promised a Van Damme vs Thornhill fight, and instead, Van Damme's henchmen become the main villains.  Then, there's the ending, which if you have watched the film, you'll hopefully understand.  After both the henchmen are killed, Thornhill is trying to save his girlfriend from falling, and then, it jump cuts to Thornhill pulling her up on a bed.  And I felt like that was Hitchcock giving me a middle finger.  Not only did it feel rushed, but there were many things that still needed to be explained.  What ever happened to VanDamme?  I know, we're supposed to think he got caught, but his jet was ready to fly off and he most likely saw the cops.  Also, why did the cops just randomly show up right before Thornhill was going to die?  Convenient?  Of course it is.  Then, there's the fact that the jump cut actually took away tension from the film.  I don't know about most of the people, but I kinda felt like the suspense just died automatically.  Kinda hurt the film as a whole.

 

*SPOILERS DONE*

 

Overall, North by Northwest is a good, but unfortunately not great, Hitchcock film.  There are moments where the film shines and outdoes many films, but then, it falls apart during the ending.  Fans of Hitchcock most likely will adore this film, and so might the uninitiated.  Viewing it as a cinephile, I kind of loved seeing all the innovations Hitchcock threw into this film.  It's a film I think most directors should study and follow, but not copy.  However, I just wished that Hitchcock could've given us a much more satisfying ending.

 

 

 

8/10



True Romance (1993)

Quentin Tarantino is most commonly known for reinventing film in general.  His script for Pulp Fiction defied all laws of film and is considered by most to be the greatest script ever written.  However, a year before he released Pulp Fiction, he wrote the script for True Romance, a genre bending wild ride filled with very intriguing performances and some very funny dialogue.

People tend to think, oh, this is that one film that was written by Tarantino, but directed by someone else (though that someone is an established director).  What they forget to mention, is that this film is actually better than most, if not all his films.  Yeah, it is pretty violent.  Yeah, it does get cheesy at points, but they all enhance the experience for this film.  It truly makes for an entertaining fest of guns, romance, and just Tarantino.

I am not the biggest fan of Tony Scott, granted he has made some fun films, like Unstoppable.  However, here his direction is actually good!  It's nicely shot in that 90s crime format that I love so much.  And he expertly handles the cheesy love moments well along with the bloody, over the top action scenes along with the humor.  It's his best film to date, and I really felt he had talent.

The best moments of the film focus more on Clarence's borderline obsession with Elvis Presley.  These moments can be comical, and trust me, they are so funny.  But these reveal a lot about Clarence himself.  He's a good hearted man, but he's too hotheaded to think straight.  At times, he lets his emotions get the best.  In fact, had he not been so emotional, the events of the film wouldn't happen.  The Elvis Presley moments are some of the best moments in the film....Not to mention Val Kilmer plays it excellently.

The acting in this film is phenomenal.  Christian Slater, who's been on a huge slump, is fit to play the role of Clarence.  He's got that thing where he can talk slickly and act cool, but when you notice what he's saying, you realize he's a creep.  Yeah, that kinda thing.  Christopher Walken is in the film for a short 10 minutes, but those 10 minutes were the greatest 10 minutes ever....Not to mention he was in the scene with Dennis Hopper.  Two great actors, one great scene.  Brad Pitt comes in as a stoner, but he's more of a side character, but he's very likable and I think Chase Nyland would enjoy his moments.  Samuel L. Jackson has a small cameo as a random gangsta who, quote-on-quote, "loves to eat pussy."  Oh, and there's Gary Oldman, who I did not recognize until afterward.  He plays a wigger that is the root of the problem, and yeah, he's amazing.  If you don't like the film, you must admit, there is some top notch acting going on.

Lots of people think Tarantino's name can help a bandwagon, but they're wrong.  There have been blunders on Tarantino's account that I cannot forget.  However, with True Romance, he hits the nail on the head.  He writes a wonderful script, filled with likable characters and moments of pure awe.  I can see why people would think that this film is just some random love film, with action scenes.  And some people might hate that.  However, since I grew up on romance films, I've had a personal bond to them.  And seeing Tarantino make a parody of them, makes me feel right at home.  I guess I had so much fun with pointing out the romance tropes that Tarantino and Scott were making fun of, that I would feel bad if I didn't give this a 10/10.  It truly deserves it....

Also, points for the name, which is a play on all the cheesy, sappy romance books/films on the 50s.

10/10

The Last Stand

Such a disappointment this film was.  Listen, I'm a huge Kim Jee-Woon fan and an even huger Arnold Schwarzenegger fan, but this film just didn't work.  I have an undying fangasmic appreciation for Korean cinema, as they tend to be the best, and Jee-Woon is supposed to be the greatest.  He brought us the Good, the Bad, and the Weird, I Saw the Devil (A personal favorite), and quite possibly the scariest film ever, A Tale of Two Sisters.  That coupled with "You're a fucking choir boy compared to me!  Choir boy!" should have equated to pure awesomeness.  Unfortunately, though, the Last Stand is the biggest letdown since Park Chan Wook's Stoker.  I think these Korean filmmakers are out of their element when they make these American films.

The Last Stand's problems begin almost immediately as we're given some uninteresting villain, who's goal is rather uninteresting.  Sure, this is nothing new for an Arnold film, but when we're talking Kim Jee-Woon, I was expecting a bit more.  Then, there's the lack of quotable Arnold lines.  When I saw the trailer for this, I expected to come out of this film quoting away every line Arnold said.  Unfortunately, he has none.  Not even one remotely funny line.

Then, there's the acting....Now, listen, when Arnold isn't hamming it up as a one-liner, you can really notice his terrible acting.  There's a scene where he's supposed to drop a tear (That alone is just wrong on so many levels.  Schwarzenegger doesn't cry...He kills) and you can really see that he's trying his best to drop one tear.  But, it's nearly impossible to get this man to cry.  I really wish he was given some form of one-liners, so that scene could be erased from memory, but it doesn't help.  I mean, I really hate to dog on this guy, considering he has a thick Euro accent, has no vocal range, and is "old", but it cannot go unnoticed.

Then, the film is too cartoony, Jee-Woon's signature style.  Yes, it may have worked in the Good the Bad and the Weird, but here, it just doesn't quite work.  It seems very cheap looking.  Come to think of it.....cartoony isn't Jee-Woon's style.  Two Sisters and I Saw the Devil were very gritty, though sometimes Devil could get a little too cartoonish.  It's just that the style in this film is so grating.  It reminds me of the Good the Bad and the Weird, but it definitely doesn't have the scripting style that film had.

Then, comes in another problem, it's script.  I like some of the actors that showed up in this film.  From Forrest "Something Bad Happened Here" Whitaker to Peter Stormare (the bad guy in Fargo), I really did like their appearances and they had some real charm to them.  However, the script more than often lets them down as, again, nothing witty or funny is thrown at them.  It's just really sad to see that their careers have come down to this....Well....Forrest Whitaker did star in that racist film, the Buttler....But, I'm kinda pissed that Peter Stormare hasn't had a John Lithgow career yet.  I liked the guy in Prison Break and in Fargo.  Sad.

It's attempts at humor are, again, awfully bland.  Who wrote this film?  Peter Jackson?  Goodness, the humor ranges from Johnny Knoxville (a painfully unfunny comedian) shooting a watermelon to fucking Johnny Knoxville shooting a mini-gun.  Also, it stars that fat Mexican guy from all those strange films like Waiting.... and Punch-Drunk Love (though I love this one), and let's say that this guy is rather interesting....And then, he gets a 50 cal bullet to the chest.  Which brings me to the one redeeming value of this film.  It is gleefully violent.  Some of the action sequences are freaking sweet.  Take for example, when Schwarzenegger blew that guy's brains out while falling.  Now that is what I came for...Too bad it took 1 hour and 20 minutes just to get to some Schwarzenegger kicking butt!!!

Overall, it does have some gleefully over-the-top moments of pure fun...But that doesn't excuse the boring first half, the terrible acting, and the lack of Schwarzenegger one-liners.  I came for a freaking sweet time!  From the director of my second favorite horror film (Love ya, Freaks) and my personal favorite action star, comes quite possibly the most disappointing film ever.  Kim Jee-Woon's perfect track record with me is now ruined because he went to America to film this film.  I think Koreans should just stay making their films like how they are, considering how this and Stoker were awful.  In the end, there's much worse fare (Bullet to the Head?  Anyone?), but this is not a good film.

3/10