Fun Size

With each scene that passes in Fun Size it becomes less clear what demographic the movie is intended for. But that probably shouldn’t be such a surprise seeing that this notion is consistent with how Nickelodeon, who made the film, presents some of their television content. Is it for teenagers, who aren’t likely to watch the child based brand or pre-teens, who probably shouldn’t watch some of the material presented? I don’t know.

Fun Size stars Victoria Justice (from Nickelodeon TV fame) as a high school senior stuck with taking her young brother out trick or treating instead of going to a party where a popular boy wants to… sing a song to her. Yeah, weird. But when the brother ditches his escort, Justice’s character, her best friend (Jane Levy) and two “geeks” (Thomas Mann, Osric Chau) go on a crusade to find him. The results include a shootout, explosions, weird sexual tension and actually some pretty funny moments. The problem is I don’t know what ages would actually find these situations funny. I know mid-20’s male is not the target demographic.

The directorial debut for Josh Schwartz, known for his work on “The OC,” ”Chuck” and “Gossip Girl,” there is a strong sense of trying to achieve that epic teenage experience that John Hughes movies became famous for. This one isn’t actually that far off from that. The determining factor would be how famous these relatively unknown actors become and if teenagers like watching it. Chances are Fun Size doesn’t quite reach that status.

The young cast carries the film well, making the mom storyline with Chelsea Handler unnecessary and out of place. Justice is a pleasant enough lead for a movie of this genre balancing her perceived popularity with grounded likeability. Mann is the other standout following up the heavy R rated Project X with something that has much less binge drinking. It is funny though that in both films he incurs the wrath of his parents for wrecking their cars. What antics!

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Seven Psychopaths

It’s tough to diagnose a genre for movies like Seven Psychopaths. I can come up with similar titles that deal with the same sort of thing, but not a genre. Let’s call them shoot ‘em up comedies dealing with interweaving flawed characters. Ahh, problem solved. Seven Psychopaths follows Colin Farrell, a struggling screenwriter who accidentally finds himself in a conflict with a dangerous criminal (Woody Harrelson) after his friends (Sam Rockwell, Christopher Walken) steal the criminal’s dog. This seems like a situation that could easily be remedied by returning the dog, but that doesn’t quite work because, you guessed it, many of the characters are psychotic.

Playing his usually seedy character in the film’s first half, Sam Rockwell emerges as the stand out performance of the movie. His quirky ticks lead to bigger issues that come out later, but to come across in a serious way while the majority of his lines are comic in nature, shows Rockwell’s understanding of the script and his ability to guide the film. Farrell plays the clueless common guy most of the time, which is a bit disappointing. He’s played crazy so well (Horrible Bosses) that it’s half expected that he show something before the end.

At times, the film’s dialogue reaches great heights with its thematic and witty nature. Though it does suffer at times due to a script that (excuse the critic cliché) insists upon itself. Ideas of vigilante justice and the sane battling the insane are so prominent that the concepts trip over themselves. Similar movies have weaved a better web in terms of the story coming full circle. Then when the audience learns that some of the characters are fictional ideas and not part of the film, I can’t help but feel a bit cheated. Seven Psychopaths is interesting, but falls short of the expectations of the” shoot ‘em up comedies dealing with interweaving flawed characters” genre. I need to trademark that.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Frankenweenie

When I was in college, my fiction writing professor told us that a good place to start writing was to take one of your favorite stories and change the setting. His example was writing Star Wars with a college campus subbed in for space. Well Tim Burton was obviously thinking something similar when he made his 1984 short, Frankenweenie. Now, in 2012, he resurrected the story with his signature stop motion animation as a full length feature. The story is a tweaked version of “Frankenstein.” A young Victor Frankenstein, heartbroken from the sudden death of his dog, Sparky, uses a lesson learned in science class to bring his dog back to life. Though when the other students hear of this, they fear Victor will now win the science fair. So they aim to repeat the experiment.

The film works with many of Burton’s common themes of loneliness, under-appreciated genius and a misguided public. The use of black and white ties Frankenweenie to the monster movie concepts it pays homage to, as well as acknowledging the home movie making aspect of childhood Burton has admitted to relishing. But even with the many themes, the film still runs under 90 minutes. That actually proves to be a positive in this case. Since both The Nightmare Before Christmas and The Corpse Bride follow similar suit, apparently the stop motion medium functions best in the 80 minute range. It doesn’t feel rushed, so there can’t really be any complaints in this area.

The voice cast is split with recognizable actors (Martin Short), Burton regulars (Wynona Ryder, Catherine O’Hara), and younger voices (Charlie Tahan, Robert Capron). The dynamic works well. Fans of the hybrid family/horror genre Tim Burton works in will find Frankenweenie to be fun and enjoyable. But others will think they’ve seen this before. The innovation that was paramount in works like The Nightmare Before Christmas and Alice in Wonderland hasn’t progressed in this instance, making it relatively predictable. Fun, but predictable.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Taken 2

When watching the trailer for the Liam Neeson action sequel, Taken 2, it’s difficult not to laugh when he forcefully delivers the line, “Your mother is going to be taken.” Come on, that’s just a lazy way to allude to the similar moment in the original film and try to give the title some relevance. Unfortunately that’s the way some of the movie goes, unintentionally funny. The plot follows Neeson’s character, Bryan Mills, on vacation in Istanbul with his ex-wife (Famke Janssen) and daughter (Maggie Grace.) But while there, family members of the killed villains from the first movie track Bryan down to enact their revenge.

The plot is actually less cut and dry than Taken. The viewer sees Neeson’s character in a peaceful setting to start and witnesses the types of characteristics that make him so strong in life threatening situations. He is always perfectly on time and doesn’t trust car wash employees to hand dry his car. These are minor events, but in the grand scheme of this (unforeseen) franchise, it’s important to learn something about these characters.

The most unanticipated development that occurs is the lack of fisticuffs. The whole draw of Taken 2 is the guarantee of ridiculous violence. Plus, sequels are supposed to be bigger and badder than originals, right? But contrary to that scientific stance on sequels, this film opts for car chases, foot chases and massive property damage. There’s less shooting and even less hand to hand combat. Neeson is a bona fide star these days, so there’s no question his presence carries the movie. But everything from the script to the characters needs to be better in order for an unexpected sequel to live up to its overachieving counterpart. Unfortunately, if this were the first in the series it would also have been the last.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower

High school in movies is very rarely comparable to actual high school. It’s become a clichéd expectation. The Perks of Being a Wallflower doesn’t present that same glossy teenage experience. But it covers enough tough real life situations that teens watching can probably relate to one if not many of the stressful events. Perks stars Logan Lerman as Charlie, a shy high school freshman who carries some pretty intense middle school baggage. Though when he befriends two more expressive seniors, (Emma Watson and Ezra Miller) he begins to come out of his shell and experience high school in a positive way.

While Lerman has been around the film set a bit with parts in some mid-level blockbusters, (Percy Jackson, 3:10 to Yuma) this performance showcases his acting abilities very well. He masters a difficult character, who carefully balances between sulky, optimistic, and mentally ill. Even if the viewer doesn’t know someone like Charlie, the film will leave them thinking that they do. Watson’s big post Harry Potter role is also cleverly handled. Though after watching her eight film run in the HP films, the iffy American accent is very noticeable. Had she been an unknown, it may not have been as easy to notice. Miller rounds out the film’s lead trio with a quality performance as a character facing a tough set of circumstances. In fact, most of the characters face tough circumstances.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower at times feels like a laundry list of what could happen in high school to make things difficult. But to just sit back and watch the movie, it reaches the infrequent achievement of captivating an audience. It’s masterly crafted with precision dialogue and unmatched pacing. Director Stephen Chbosky, who wrote the screenplay and the original novel, has made a movie that deserves to go down as one of the great coming of age films of the decade. But if one more movie tells me that music sounds better on vinyl… I’ll probably do nothing more than come on W^M and complain about it.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Pitch Perfect

I’m not one to take the awkwardness of movie characters singing to each other lightly. Out of the context of a full on musical, this can be quite jarring. Luckily for those invested in Pitch Perfect, the fairly unknown world of a cappella plays out awesomely in this comedic cinematic setting. Anna Kendrick plays Beca, a college freshman that joins a female singing group even though she doesn’t really want to. You see, Beca is a DJ and a rebel and doesn’t really want to play the whole college game. It’s not really necessary for her to fight joining the team like she does. It drastically slows the pace early on.

Even as the audience is waiting for the singing to feature more prominently, it’s really quite the surprise how funny the movie is. The trailers feature funny moments, but I’d be surprised if anyone expected Pitch Perfect to be such a success in that department. The humor tends to be a bit adolescent, but it’s consistent with college life. Then when the characters do get around to singing, the film does for a cappella what the Step Up franchise does for dancing. It’s just a very cool presentation that gives the audience a glimpse into that world.

Kendrick leads the film with a strong performance as the coming of age, jaded student. She’s unlikeable for a while, which is consistent with how the script wants it. Luckily, almost every other character (with the exception of the overbearing Aubrey, played by Anna Camp) is likeable and interesting. Even the film's villain from the rival group, Bumper, (Adam DeVine) is likeable in his own hysterically insulting way. Fans of the genre will come for the singing and stay for the comedy. Even though the singing performances are really well done, it’s tough to outdo the witty script that accompanies it.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Trouble with the Curve

Clint Eastwood hasn’t been in front of a camera for a few years. But he’s back as an old, ornery baseball scout. Now does this man who spends his days watching baseball alongside his scout friends and evenings reminiscing with them at bars, need to be so angry and ornery? Probably not, but Clint plays angry, so Gus, his character, is angry. The film follows Gus as he goes on a scouting trip for a sought after prospect just before the MLB draft. But in addition to battling the threat of being replaced by a computer in his team’s front office, he finds out he’s losing his vision. So his daughter (Amy Adams) lends a helping hand on the important trip. Gus, of course, grumbles about this.

There is a great deal of time spent with Adams whining about her relationship with her father. The first few instances are used to establish the characters; the last few confront the issue head on. It’s those middle dozen or so times the audience is told about Gus being an unlikeable dad that are unnecessary. It’s not a very complex movie, the audience gets it. When Adams’ character finds herself in a slowly budding relationship with another young scout, played by Justin Timberlake, the film adds the new dimension it needs to be successful.

Baseball fans will enjoy the movie, as well as those seeking a lighthearted story with some drama mixed in. The rewards come in response to the challenges the characters face. The patient viewer will enjoy the film, but will need to endure the slow moments that occur fairly regularly throughout. In addition to the three leads, who give strong performances, the supporting players, John Goodman, Matthew Lillard, etc. help move the film along as well. Trouble with the Curve is an entertaining film with interesting characters, though its slow pace proves a strike against it.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Hotel Transylvania

I was reading an article written by a supposed film expert, and they said that they expected Hotel Transylvania to under perform because Adam Sandler’s last few movies have underperformed. But this is an animated monster movie, so needless to say that writer is wrong. Hotel Transylvania does star Sandler, but as the voice of the animated Dracula, who owns a hotel resort for monsters to escape the taxing threat of human interference. The hotel also helps the overprotective vampire keep tabs on his teenage (118 year old) daughter, Mavis (Selena Gomez). So when a human (Andy Samberg) happens upon the place just when Dracula’s monster friends (played by Sandler’s real life acting friends) show up for Mavis’ birthday party, the Count is understandably paranoid.

The film may star the monsters you’re used to, but it’s quite family friendly. There is hardly an inclination of anything scary, except during one Dracula flashback to an angry mob. In fact, the angry mobs prove to be the main fear of all of the monster characters. They consider the humans to be bullies who threaten them without warrant. This isn’t a new idea. Even August’s ParaNorman used a similar anti-bullying, give monsters a chance premise. But this one is much lighter in tone with physical comedy, fart jokes and exploiting cinematic stereotypes, like Frankenstein (Kevin James) being afraid of fire. The laughs come often, even more so with the young viewers.

The monster hotel idea is a fun one, which the script takes full advantage of. However after that runs out, there is the standard Shrek-like ensemble sing along and Corpse Bride similar skeleton band, but you can’t blame them for going with what works. It’s a kid movie, which successfully caters to its target audience all in the two month confines of the plot mirroring Halloween season. Bingo!

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Looper

Looper is a new idea. The film has been highly praised for its innovative approach to a sci-fi genre which borrows heavily from itself. Though after screening the film, it’s worth noting that aspects of the plot are not completely original, but what sets them apart is their execution and commitment to the film’s internal themes. In the future, time travel is used by powerful criminals to send back targets to be killed and disposed of. The past assassins are known as Loopers. But when Joe’s (Joseph Gordon Levitt) latest target turns out to be the future version of himself (Bruce Willis), he hesitates and lets him escape. Will Joe find himself before the Loopers and Gat Men catch them both!?

While the main idea of the plot has been heavily advertised, the film gets really complex when Willis comes into the fray. In fact, the writing is some of the best this year. Acting wise Willis and Gordon-Levitt give top notch performances, though even with the prosthetic features, it is a bit difficult to buy that they are the same character. If I were director Rian Johnson, I would have jumped at having two such quality actors as my leads, as well. But the similarities aren’t quite there.

The film’s second half reveals a darker, more vital plot point than what had previously been the main conflict. This turns out to be incredibly intriguing and powerful on screen. The action is stepped up along with a more introspective look at the way the futuristic characters remain grounded in the wake of unchecked violence. Looper never pushes its limits by telling too much back story or revealing more than is needed to know about what their world is like. It’s a slow burn of a film that can even keep interest through the relaxed parts and have you on the edge of your seat without even knowing it. When it hits its peak and the credits roll, I didn’t even know what hit me, hence the silence during the first few moments of the credits. This movie matters, and the director wants to make sure we realize it.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.