Review: “The Lazarus Effect”

When analyzing the current state of Hollywood, anyone who sees even a handful of films in a year would be able to identify the horror genre as the one whose quality has declined the most drastically. A genre once filled with terrifying delights such as “The Shining” and “Poltergeist” or B-movie campfests like “The Evil Dead” and “Friday the 13th” series has become tired and bland with a heavy reliance on useless jump scares. Rather than fit in on either side of the spectrum these recent releases such as Ouija, Annebelle, and a slew of others just sit in the middle, lifeless direction directing audiences from one tense less scene to another.

People Like Me: The Career of David Cronenberg

David Cronenberg’s career can be split down the middle, one half blood-and-gut splattered, heads blown off in “Scanners,” genders swapped in “Videodrome,” genes mutated resulting in the manifestation of the grotesque, the physically repulsive in “The Fly.” The other half is a much more subdued horror. The comfort of Americana corrupted in “A History of Violence,” the darkest recesses of the mind in “A Dangerous Method,” fame violent and vane in “Maps to the Stars,” the latest Cronenberg film set to hit theaters nationwide this weekend.

Review: “Focus”

“I’m not falling for that shit.”

Just because you’re making a movie about the smartest people in the room doesn’t mean that you’re automatically one of them too.

The artistry behind the con movie is one of unpretentious misdirection and sincere cleverness, a combination that some filmmakers are unable to pull off convincingly. This usually occurs when the script lies in a questionable state, because underneath the stylish filmmaking, glossy camerawork, and crackling dynamic of the cast, the con movie needs a cemented plot as foundation. You could argue this for just about any movie, but in the con movie it’s especially important because without valid twists and turns or a plan that logistically checks out, it’s easier to make an audience feel unfairly duped instead of excitedly surprised or intrigued. The finest examples of the genre make the paramount nature of a concise script pretty clear: “The Sting” or the Sinatra-starring “Ocean’s 11” and it’s Soderbergh-helmed remake, “Matchstick Men,” and “The Grifters” are high-and-mighty in terms of writing, with George Roy Hill, Lewis Milestone, Ridley Scott, Stephen Frears and Soderbergh provided ample slickness to make it function cinematically. Proper slickness also involves a sense of invisibility, which is why it’s easy to plug Soderbergh as arguably the most successful in recent tacklings of this genre. There’s a persuasive ability to con movie filmmaking which lures you closer and closer to predictability, before it comes around and surprises you in a fitting way. Again, misdirection and cleverness, two necessary principles, and both require great skill to maintain.

Review: “Hot Tub Time Machine 2”

When the first “Hot Tub Time Machine” came out back in 2010, even as a wee lad I remember feeling skeptical about the premise. The movie turned out to be enjoyable enough as a sleepover party time killer (bad pun intended), and it had its moments. Although it wasn’t the kind of movie that my friends and I quoted regularly (especially considering that “Scott Pilgrim vs. The World” and “Kick Ass” quickly removed any memory of the hardly bearable experience), it was decent overall. The problem is that the concept wasn’t built to last, and director Steve Pink really shouldn’t have tried to milk it any further, and judging from the sequel’s god-awful script, he probably didn’t get a lot of money for it in the first place.

87th Annual Academy Award Predictions: “Boyhood” vs. “Birdman”

Merry Christmas movie lovers!

Tonight is the night. After months of campaigns and swarms of critic circle lists, various Guild awards, and a constant change in momentum behind so many of this year’s previous frontrunners, we are finally in the 11th hour of the 2014 awards season. Voting has long ceased, the ballots are finally counted and recounted, envelopes are sealed and history will yet again be made tonight in the beautiful Kodak Theater on Hollywood Boulevard in Los Angeles, California. This has been on hell of an awards season and there are still a number of key categories that will remain a surprise until the envelopes are finally opened. Last year, we saw a race to the finish between “12 Years a Slave” and “Gravity” and the end result was a suitable Best Picture/Best Director split. We also saw four deserving, though long set in stone, wins in each of the acting categories and everything else below the line fell into place accordingly and expectantly. This year we have a similar situation, Richard Linklater’s “Boyhood” goes head-to-head with the guild sweeping “Birdman,” a 12-years-in-the-making meditation on youth in the early 2000’s and a satirical ensemble comedy about the pains of celebritism and ego. But, amazingly enough, that is not the only battle going down this evening. The Best Actor category is still a question mark, and the screenplay categories are still being juggled, as are some other interesting categories. It should be an exciting night for film lovers and, as hosted by the lovable Neil Patrick Harris, a highly energetic and potentially quite musical evening of cinematic celebrations as well.

But before things get moving this evening, we must lay out our predictions. For the first time I will be posting my ballot alone here at Reel Reactions. I’ve bolded my predicted winner and have also discussed potential upsets and hopes for the less sure categories. Take a look, leave a comment, and enjoy the 87th Annual Academy Awards.

Review: “McFarland, USA”

The sport movie is a tired and formulaic genre, and no film proves this more than “McFarland, U.S.A.” While watching, I couldn’t help but think of another sports film, “Foxcatcher.” Perhaps this is an unfair comparison, but I think it highlights an important aspect of filmmaking: Intent. Bennett Miller took the story of John DuPont’s relationship with the Schultz brothers and made it scary, sad, and beautiful all at once. Niki Caro took the story of the 1987 McFarland High School cross-country team and made it uninteresting, uninspired, and dumb. For what it’s worth, Caro likely made exactly the film she wanted, which begs the question: what the hell is the point of purposefully making a boring, generic movie?

Review: “The DUFF”

As far as high school comedies go, there’s little left to infuse the genre with that hasn’t previously been done. We’ve seen takes on cliques and the stressful nature of teenage social life several times over, most recently in “21 Jump Street,” a film that, by taking the classic teenage drama and combining it with buddy-cop action, made it fresh enough that the familiar hallways, classrooms, and bedrooms are a tad easier to stomach. “The DUFF” is the latest entry to a list that includes “The Breakfast Club” and “Clueless.” While it does little to separate itself from its thematic predecessors, “The DUFF” boasts moments of greatness to the point that I’m disappointed it wasn’t funnier.

Review: “The Last Five Years”

“And I’m still hurting.”

Hollywood doesn’t make movie musicals the way it used to, it’s just the truth. Think about this for a moment: What was the last movie musical you saw that was not based on an existing stage show or earlier film, adapted from a television show or novel, or remade in some way, shape, or form looking to stand on its own? Every big awards baiting musical – “Les Miserables,” “Dreamgirls,” “Nine,” “Chicago,” – or desperate money-grubbing sparkle – “Hairspray,” “Rock of Ages,” “The Producers,” “Rent” – have all bitten off of Broadway, looking to cash in on a similar level of success (with usually less favorable commercial and critical results), forgetting how truly great, one-of-a-kind, strictly cinematic musical ventures did it decades ago when audiences still cared about the art of the movie musical and big movie stars could actually really sing, really dance, and did not have to try their hardest to fool you into believing they were the real deal (that’s because just about all of them really were). Rarely over the course of my entire lifetime, honestly, has a movie musical been made in the way that classic movie musicals once were.

Excluding all animated Disney movies or anything of that cartooned ilk (which includes “South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut”), the last singular movie musical that I can find – one that actually constructed extensive musical numbers set to original music that was written for the film, carried the story forward, and was even sung by the artist, who also starred in the film to boot – was Lars Von Trier’s “Dancer in the Dark.” That’s right, Lars Von Trier, Nazi-sympathizer, Dogme 95 co-founder and curator of all things sad, strange, and beautiful (and “Nymphomaniac”) is quite possibly the last filmmaker to ever tackle the nearly deceased genre of the movie musical, and he presented an end result that is wholly, unequivocally Von Trier-ian. But he still did it, and masterfully at that. “Dancer in the Dark” was released in the year 2000…fifteen years ago…and for all of the heartbreaking sadness that culminates over that film’s grueling 140 minute runtime, I would still, without hesitation, take any number of Von Trier musicals over even the best of the Hollywood-does-Broadway films of recent years. No matter what they do, they just can’t seem to get it right.

Why It Takes Intelligence To Make a Comedy

Comedy is subjective. What you find funny and what I find funny are likely two different things. The effectiveness of a joke depends on the synchronization of several elements all working at once. Success in comedy is so rare because of how dependent that success is on other people. Telling a funny joke is hard, performing a routine of a few dozen jokes, all of which have to be funny, is harder.

Review: “Leviathan”

“All power comes from God. As long as it suits Him, fear not.”

Director Andrey Zvyagintsev, a tadpole fostered by the influential juries of the Cannes Film Festival over the past decade, has successfully made an international mark with his newest film, the tensely bleak and darkly allegorical “Leviathan.” Simultaneously brooding and gorgeous, and even nervously funny, “Leviathan” is an amalgamation of influences ranging from biblical adaptations to contemporary appropriations of real-life events. Set on the peninsula by the Barents Sea, the drama chronicles the spiraling events of an unemployed simpleton named Kolya (Alexei Serebriakov) who is combating the self-serving actions of a local mayor who crookedly schemes to repossess Kolya’s private property for his own devices. Concurrently, Kolya is dealing with his dysfunctional family, which is quickly tearing at the seams, worsened by the emotional restlessness worn visibly by his second wife, Lilya, and the raucousness of his delinquent son, Roma. Amidst the frenzy, Kolya seeks assistance from an old army friend, Dmitri, who went on to become a lawyer in Moscow, who soon proves to be of the utmost value in the legal case. However, unforeseen circumstances and interactions both within the family and surrounding it start to send Kolya into a crippling state, one that only evidences the widening fissures found in various social contracts. Through its acute observation of the iciness of human nature, Zvyagintsev’s dense, provocative, and downbeat film provides an intimate deconstruction of modern morality that speaks to the greater abuse served by the governmental and judicial systems of present-day Russia, yet viewed on an expectantly vast cinematic palette.