Formula: Wedding Crashers * Neighbors
Sometimes, raunchy is enough.
That's my takeaway from Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates. It's not a groundbreaking movie. It won't be getting screenplay or acting awards (Ok, maybe an MTV Movie award). It isn't a turning point in anyone's career. In five years, it'll won't stand out among a dozen similar movies.
What it is though, is very funny, and that's all anyone was ever aiming for. This is director Jake Szymanski's first feature film, owing his career so far to a lot of TV work and FunnyOrDie shorts. Writers Andrew Jay Cohen and Brendan O'Brien wrote the Neighbors movies. If that doesn't paint the picture for what this movie is, I don't know what will. It's also a convenient way to determine if the movie is worth your time. If you hate Frat Pack humor and would like to watch a movie with more prepositions than swear words, please direct your attention elsewhere.
This has a great premise title. You see, these brothers, Mike (Adam Devine) and Dave (Zac Efron). They need wedding dates. After years of being loose cannons who ruin family gatherings, their sister (Sugar Lyn Beard) demands that they arrive to her Hawaiian wedding with dates, hoping that will keep them under control. Mike and Dave post and online ad that goes viral is seen by two best friends, Alice (Anna Kendrick) and Tatiana (Aubrey Plaza), who are even more of a mess than the brothers. They pretend to be classier than they really are in order to get the brothers to pick them for the trip. Once in Hawaii, the girls unleash all sorts of hell which brings out the worst in Mike and Dave too.
The single greatest strength of the movie is its lack of restraint. No one is holding anything back and the script doesn't ask them to. This is actually the second raunchy comedy movie that Plaza and Efron have been in together this year (the first being Dirty Grandpa) and Efron's third R-rated comedy overall (along with Neighbors 2). This is also pretty similar to what Devine does on Workaholics. Kendrick is the most fun to watch because you can tell that she's wanted to do a role like this for a while. There's no vanity in any of these performances and they all have so much fun with that. One of the easiest ways to get me to fall in love with a comedy is convincing me that the cast had a blast making it. It's why I love the Apatow movies. Its's why I love the Ocean's movies. It's why I enjoyed this. The only difference among the leads is based on their backgrounds. Devine and Plaza cut their teeth in the comedy world. They live in this environment and there's an ease they bring to it, like it's reflexive. Efron and Kendrick, despite their many forays into comedy, have a harder time creating the laughs. They are still very funny, but they look like they are trying harder than their partners. I hope they keep at it though. They offer a lot to a movie like this, even if their improv game isn't quite there. The supporting cast, including Stephen Root, Sugar Lyn Beard, Sam Richardson, and Alice Wetterlund are all on point.
The script has the same third act problems that nearly every comedy movie has, where it drags a little as it switches to focus on the story rather than the jokes. It plays out very similarly to Wedding Crashers except it's 20 minutes shorter, which is in its favor. Overall, it has better balance than a lot of comedies, saving some of the best jokes for the end.
This is just a very funny movie made even stronger by four leads with a variety of talents. I went into this movie looking to see if this would out-Neighbors the Neighbors sequel. It definitely wins that head to head (with the sequel, not the original). Perhaps the better comparison would be to call it more of a successor to Wedding Crashers than The Hangover. Regardless, I want to see the outtakes for this one. And I'll say something that I don't think I'm allowed to say as someone who wants to critically talk about film: I'd love to see a sequel with these characters.
Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend
The Pitch: Now that people like The Raid, it's time to do all the stuff that the budget wouldn't allow the first time.
How I Came Into It: After seeing the first movie, it was only a matter of time before I got to this one. Even if it followed the Matrix Reloaded formula (more of the same, but bigger), it would be worth watching.
Why I Saw It: And bigger it was. Gareth Evans really is special when it comes to staging an action sequence. Where the first movie is all about the close range combat, the sequel expands out a lot more. This moves out of the single building and into the streets, slums, and board rooms. I don't watch a lot of martial arts movies, but when they're done this well, they're very thrilling to watch. Iwo Uwais is a total badass.
Why I Wish I Hadn't: It does cross a violence threshold that I had trouble with. Not morally, just, in my stomach. And, the downside to leaving the single building confines of the first is that there's more story to this that I simply didn't care about. Then again, it allowed for madness like the muddy prison brawl or Hammer girl's train throwdown. That's more than a fair trade-off.
Verdict (?): Strongly Recommend
The Pitch: A deaf woman fights off a home invader.
How I Came Into It: I love Oculus, which was also written and directed by Mike Flannagan, so when I saw that his newest film quietly dropped on Netflix, I sought it out.
Why I Saw It: My understanding is that Hush was a side project of Flannagan's while making Before I Wake. He wrote this with his now wife and star of the movie, Kate Siegel. I think that's important when considering this movie. This is basically them playing. Similar to the Cloverfield movies, it's Flanagan thinking "here's a nifty idea/gimmick. Let's explore it some". In this case, it's making an intruder movie with a deaf character. And, that aspect of it is great. Flanagan does a great job in a mostly wordless role. John Gallagher Jr. (speaking of Cloverfield) handles himself well as a villain with absolutely no stated motivations. And that's a good thing. For this movie, I don't really care why he's killing people and trying to get in the house. Flanagan makes great use of the set. He shoots the hell out of that house. Nothing about Hush is revolutionary. It's a successful experiment, tightly edited, and entertaining.
Why I Wish I Hadn't: The thing I love about Oculus is that it doesn't rely on characters doing dumb things. People doing dumb things is the main thing I dislike about most scary movies. Smart people can be scared too. Siegel's character isn't dumb. Gallagher's character is. That's where not knowing his backstory is maybe an issue. I don't really know what's motivating him, so I don't know his "rules". He has a crossbow, not a gun. Why? Because the movie needed him to have something with range that doesn't kill Siegel, I guess. Once he gets in the house, he doesn't kill her from the bathtub. He waits for her to have a chance to strike back, ultimately leading to his death. So, maybe that's it: I need to know what game he is playing. Without that, I don't know which choices are inconsistent or calculated.
Oh, and did I just miss the point early on where they mention that the glass is that strong? I spend most of the movie trying to figure out why he wouldn't just break a window.
Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend
The Pitch: You know "What would you do for a Klondike Bar?" What if a Klondike Bar was money?
How I Came Into It: This is one of those movies that a couple unrelated people I know recommended to me but otherwise, no one has heard of it. It has a solid cast. Pat Healy is excellent as the voice on the call in Compliance. This is the kind of role that David Koechner could really shine in. I don't know what I remember Sara Paxton from, which is starting to bother me. Ethen Embry, I didn't even recognize from his Can't Hardly Wait days (God, that was a while ago).
Why I Saw It: This movie delivers exactly what it promises. It's a night of escalating challenges until it goes too far. And what "too far" is is quite a doozy. I appreciate that it didn't stretch out longer than it needed to, clocking in under 90 minutes, which many bloated features don't have the courage to do.
Why I Wish I Hadn't: There's a reason I never watched Fear Factor. I don't need to see a couple guys race to eat the remains of a dog. This is such a gritty movie. It has a divisive appeal. For what it's trying to be, it's very good. I just land on the wrong side of the appeal.
Verdict (?): Strongly Don't Recommend
The Pitch: The story of every salutatorian told as a period piece.
How I Came Into It: Some movies you don't need to see to already know it. Amadeus has been parodied and referenced so many times in so many things that there wasn't much about it that I didn't already know. Fun fact that I didn't realize until I finished watching it: The version of the movie that won the Oscar for Best Picture is not the version that Netflix uses. The "original" version was edited down for time by the director. Supposedly, this was his choice since getting people to watch it in the first place sounded like a tall order.
Why I Saw It: I had no issue with the extended or "full" version though. The most brilliant move in the movie is having Salieri tell the story. F. Murray Abraham is so good in the role and it's such an interesting perspective. The story does a wonderful job shifting away from all Saleiri in the beginning to the point that he's almost an afterthought by the end. What the hell has Tom Hulce been up to? His only work in the last decade has been Stranger Than Fiction and Jumper. He's excellent as Mozart in this movie though. Was that just a fluke? There is a history of Oscar winners not working much after winning, but there's generally a reason* (ex. Mo'Nique is also a standup. Heath Ledger is, in fact, quite deceased).
*It took me all of 10 seconds to look him up and determine that he
stopped acting because he's been producing shows on Broadway. So, it's
not like Hulce has retired altogether.
Why I Wish I Hadn't: When I say "Three hour historical feature", all the natural concerns that come to mind affect this as expected. It does drag a little in the middle (It feels like it's as long as it is) and I'm going to spend the rest of my life assuming that all of what happens in the movie is completely true. I'm ok with that. This holds up a lot better than I expected given that the Oscar winner right after it was Out of Africa.
Verdict (?): Strongly Recommend
The Pitch: You know what Interview with the Vampire needs? Irish accents.
How I Came Into It: I'm embarrassed to say that I didn't realize until after I saw the movie that this was from the guy who made Interview with the Vampire. That's makes a lot of sense now. No, I saw it for Saoirse Ronan and Gemma Arterton. I'd been putting this movie off for a while out of a fear that the accent work might be impenetrable (specifically, I'm thinking of Under the Skin).
Why I Saw It: Saoirse Ronan is just a damn good actress. She's still only 22 and has had a busier career than people twice her age, not to mention 2 Oscar nominations. Byzantium isn't her crowning achievement, but still pretty good for a teenager. This is the most acting I've seen from Gemma Arterton. Normally she takes the "tough hot woman" roles, which she's quite good at. This is enough of a departure from that to be interesting. The ambience of the movie is nice and chilling. This isn't a "horror movie" but it's shot like one.
Why I Wish I Hadn't: This is more of a mood piece than a movie. At least, it is until the end, when it seems like all kinds of plot starts happening. It's an odd mix of tones.
Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend
Formula: (The Jungle Book + The Lone Ranger) ^ Superman
There's a lot of reasons why I shouldn't like The Legend of Tarzan. David Yates has made a sequel to a movie that doesn't exist. It's nearly a "white savior" movie. Despite the claims that she is not a damsel in distress, the female lead spends the majority of the movie in chains. The main villain's weapon of choice is a friggin' rosary. The expository story is rather convoluted. The best movie I can compare it to is The Lone Ranger of all things. More simply, it's a movie that I could've just as easily been laughing at.
Yet, somehow, it works.
The film begins in London in 1890-ish. Tarzan (Alexander Skarsgard) has worldwide fame and goes by John Clayton now. He's been married to Jane (Margot Robbie) for eight years. They get an invite to return to the Congo to inspect the infrastructure set up by the Belgians. He, Jane, and an American envoy, George Washington Williams (Samuel L. Jackson)arrive there to discover that something nefarious is going on. A man named Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz) kidnaps Jane and uses her to bait Tarzan. Tarzan and Williams must travel through the jungle to stop Rom and save Jane.
There's a number of things that you simply have to buy into to accept this movie. Most important: Tarzan is a superhero. Despite everything in the setting that implies that this is a real world, including the real-life people, it's not. Tarzan is super human. He can battle a gorilla and be old pals with lions. Think of it like The Jungle Book, except that he can't actually converse with the animals. You have to believe that Tarzan could be raised by apes. There's no way to take large portions of the movie seriously without that. Tarzan speaks English pretty well given his upbringing. And, if you know anything about Belgium and the Congo in that era, I wouldn't think too hard about the exposition.
One of the most interesting things about the movie is that Yates assumes that the story of Tarzan is public domain enough that he can cover his origin in a series of short flashbacks. The vast majority of the movie is long after the more famous adventures of Tarzan. He rushes through the apes finding Tarzan and "Tarzan meet Jane" in a handful of scenes that mostly exist to inform the present. It is not the direction I assumed the story would go in when I first heard about a Tarzan movie, but it's a decision I appreciate.
The tone of the movie is an odd one. It's an odd mix of literary, pulp, and realistic. Setting it in the late 1800s Congo is something I haven't seen before at this level and it's something that Yates has a lot of fun with. I almost think the opportunity to build that world is what drew him to make the movie. While the setting aims for realism, the action doesn't at all. Get Tarzan swinging from vines and fighting creatures twice his size and it's fast-paced, energized, and not remotely to be taken seriously.
The cast works better than I expected. You don't get a much blanker canvass than Alexander Skarsgard. He's in incredible shape and that's his character. He's the only drag though, and even then, his physicality does work very well for the character. This is a man raised outside of society after all. He's not going to be charming and sociable. He's a beast and not about verbal nuance. Margot Robbie injects a great deal into Jane. She's in relative control the whole time, even when she's a prisoner. She isn't a superhero, but she's crafty and confident. This is the perfect kind of role for Waltz. He twirls his mustache for 2 hours and that's about it. Samuel L. Jackson is transparent comic relief, but dammit, he's good at doing that. All the characters don't really fit together in the same movie. That kept me off balance watching it in a way that made me like it more.
Yates and Co. do everything they can to stop this from being a white savior movie. They really do. The native Congo warriors are treated as hyper-capable. Djimon Hounsou is a chief of a rival tribe who is at odds with Tarzan for legitimate reasons. Jackson's character feels inserted in but he's a wise addition. It doesn't shy away from addressing the slave trade either. Still, blame the source material, but this is a movie about a white dude who is king of the African jungle. There's no getting around that.
I'm having hard time understanding why I enjoyed this movie so much. Maybe it's the earnestness of it all or simply that I'll give a pass to anything with Margot Robbie in it. All I know is that I was willing to turn off my brain, soak up the atmosphere, and enjoy the ride. It's a traditional summer action movie in a less common package. In a summer of underwhelming sequels, it's a different kind of sequel that broke the monotony.
Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend
The Pitch: This is going to do to When Harry Met Sally what Bachelorette did to Bridesmaids.
How I Came Into It: Leslye Headland's debut feature, Bachelorette, was a mixed bag. I thought it had as many issues as it had strengths, but over time, the strengths stuck with me and the issues didn't matter as much. By the time I heard about her follow up, I was very excited to see it. The Venn diagram of the movies and TV shows I like has virtually the entire cast of this movie in the middle. Seeing this movie was less of an interest and more of an inevitability.
Why I Saw It: The thing that I like the most about Headland's movies is how she dirties up her characters without making me hate them. The Bachelorette trio of Kirsten Dunst, Isla Fisher, and Lizzie Caplan are pretty unlikable people, played by actresses who I like almost unconditionally. I never stop being on their side in the movie. In Sleeping With Other People, Headland's not as focused on seeing how messy the leads can be. Alison Brie and Jason Suidekis are so damn likable, why try to turn an audience against them. They've got giant flaws that the movie doesn't avoid. Mostly though, it's just scene after scene that allows them to shine. I think Alison Brie's lack of major roles is one of the greater oversights in Hollywood of the last 6-7 years. She and Suidekis are great together, able to move from comedic to dramatic beats with ease. Others like Jason Mantzoukas, Andrea Savage, Adam Scott, and Amanda Peet add a lot of flavor to it as well. I love Mantzoukas and Savage's end credits scene.
Why I Wish I Hadn't: Yeah, the ending is a little "Hollywood" if you want to use that as a pejorative. Personally, if given the choice, I'd rather see a happy ending than a sad one, so I'm fine with that. And, it's not like the movie was building toward anything other than that.
Really, everything after the time jump is a little off, like it was added in a later draft or something. I'm not sure what the smoother way to handle it would've been, but what they did needed another pass or two.
Verdict (?): Strongly Recommend
The Pitch: Gangs of New York. Not the Scorsese movie. It's just a movie about gangs, in New York.
How I Came Into It: It's been in my Netflix queue for years with no urgency. After a friend's confusion between it and West Side Story, it got bumped up a few spots. I also wanted to see how much of "Modern Warfare" really took from that movie.
Why I Saw It: This is a cool movie. It's specific to a time and aesthetic, but it's still cool. The soundtrack is pretty great and I like how bare bones the story is. There were clearly some budgetary limitations which they worked around pretty well. I spent at least a week with "Warriors, come out to plaa-i-aay" stuck in my head, so that's some effective ad-libbing. The fun thing about cult movies is that they aren't perfect movies, but they get something so right that people can't let it go. The visual style and zip is what keeps The Warriors going.
Why I Wish I Hadn't: The reason a movie is a cult movie rather than a classic is because there's a lot of it that doesn't work. In this case, the dialogue is painfully clunky, the acting is stilted, and it's surprisingly dull, given the premise. And, like any good cult movie, I don't really care. That's all part of its charm.
Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend
The Pitch: Guillermo del Toro wants to make something dark and pretty.
How I Came Into It: I was really looking forward to seeing this in theaters and backed out at the last minute. I don't remember why. That was probably a mistake, since I was sure the visuals would play better on a big screen.
Why I Saw It: I like Guillermo del Toro, maybe more as a concept than for his work. I haven't seen many of his movies. Pan's Labyrinth is solid. Great visuals. I really enjoyed Pacific Rim too. I wouldn't put del Toro in my top tier though. Crimson Peak is a great example of what I expect from him. It's pretty. I like that he looks at horror elements with an artist's eye. I appreciated that the movie is more of a mystery than a horror movie. It's more like a supernatural What Lies Beneath. Mia Wasikowska, Tom Hiddleston, Jessican Chastain, and Charlie Hunnam are a solid quartet, even though I kept waiting for Jax to unleash some whoop-ass.
Why I Wish I Hadn't: The movie had to rely a little too much on the visuals and performances, because the story was way too familiar or just predictable.
Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend
