"Bad Grandpa" Review

Other than the ‘Jackass’ movies, the films that Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa is reminiscent of are the Sacha Baren Cohen films Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (2006) and Brüno (2009). In terms of quality, Bad Grandpa is closer to Brüno than Borat though. That’s not to say it’s all bad however; I enjoyed myself a lot more than I was expecting.

Bad Grandpa involves Jackass’s Johnny Knoxville as 86 year-old Irving Zisman, who must take his 8 year-old grandson across country to his real father. A simple enough plot, which is reasonably distracted to make way for the selling point of this film: Knoxville and newcomer Jackson Nicoll catching people off-guard with the crazy stunts they pull.

Johnny Knoxville isn’t that great of an improviser. There are plenty of moments where you notice his voice switch back to normal. His dialogue with other people is often stinted and unnatural. This is okay though, Knoxville is more known for his stunts than his acting, though there are only a few physical stunts throughout the film. Nicoll is pretty average as far as child actors go (meaning not very good), however it should be noted that he keeps his composure remarkably well throughout the movie. He even shines in a few scenes saying outrageous things to adults in a normal, childlike manner.

The old-age makeup is surprisingly good, which is necessary to make this movie work. The hidden camera work is decent enough as well, though there are noticeable moments where reactions are faked because they weren’t captured initially.
Ultimately the weakest parts of the film are the scripted scenes that are served as filler between the public displays. They don’t take too much time, but I found myself wishing they would hurry up these scenes, as many of the scripted jokes fall flat.

As expected, some of the antics are very effective, and others aren’t. This ratio is surprisingly favorable though. I found myself laughing more often than not. There are definite places where the movie could have been cut down, but it never dragged on too long. This movie is best watched with some of your friends, so you can cringe and laugh in the company of others. 6/10.

"Carrie" Review

1974’s Carrie is the first published novel of horror king Stephen King. Its 1976 Brian De Palma adaptation, starring Sissy Spacek in an Oscar-nominated role, is generally considered to be a landmark horror film, albeit dated. Chloë Grace Moretz stars in the title role in this remake directed by Kimberly Pierce. I use the term ‘remake’ rather than ‘adaptation’ because while there are a few new ideas present from the novel, this movie draws heavily from the original film. That said, a remake should be viewed as a singular experience, not as a comparison; while I may mention the original as a reference point, I’m judging this movie on its own merits.

I don’t think Chloë Grace Moretz was right for her role. Carrie is bullied extensively by her peers, and in this version it’s hard to understand why. We’re supposed to believe that Carrie is generally considered unattractive, but Moretz is a very photogenic actress. Not much is done to alter her appearance, and so you’re just left confused at why everyone gets so much pleasure out of tormenting her. This coupled with Moretz’s mediocre performance take you out of the film. She falls back on a nervous/pouty facial expression for the majority of the movie. When it comes time for the famous prom scene, Moretz just goes to an angry action star face, rather than showing real emotion.

The real star of this remake is Julianne Moore. As Carrie’s mother, she gives a frightening take on the religious zealot. I was in an awkward position of both wishing for more of her, because of the quality of her performance, and less of her, because of the intentional amount of aggravation you feel about her character. I did feel emotion towards her performance though, which is more than I can say about many of the other characters in this film. Most of the performances are unfortunately forgettable. They simply lack any dimension whatsoever. Portia Doubleday and Alex Russell play malicious for the sake of malicious as the couple scheming against Carrie (Speaking of Alex Russell, if you haven’t seen Chronicle (2012), watch it immediately. It has a similar story to Carrie but is also uniquely inspired.).

There’s nothing boring or painful to watch in this film, but it’s similarly devoid of any passion or excitement. Although Carrie is rated R, this is not used to the film’s benefit. A PG-13 cutting of this film would be very similar to the theatrical cutting. The prom scene was especially disappointing. The editing and reliance on CGI rather than practical effects make this scene more reminiscent of an action movie, rather than horror. The trauma of the event is very much toned down. This was likely to avoid controversy about violence in schools, though I feel like that argument is a bit counterintuitive. Overall, there isn’t much that’s inherently bad about this film, but there just isn’t a lot to love. 5/10.

"Captain Phillips" Review

Based on the alleged true story of the first hijacking of an American Cargo ship in 200 years, this at-sea drama is directed by The Bourne Ultimatum’s Paul Greengrass and stars Tom Hanks in the name role. Adapted from a book by Richard Phillips himself, there has been some controversy surrounding this film. Many crewmembers involved in the event have said that the film glorifies Captain Phillips too much, and that he led his crew into harms way.

I think by this point we’ve all come to realize that most Hollywood ‘true stories’ are over-dramatizations. While I’m sure the true story could have made a more interesting and complex plot, I don’t necessarily believe this film is a bad one. Tom Hanks’ performance is definitely very solid. It’s not one of the standout performances of this year, but Hanks definitely blended well into the role. The breakout performances in this film were definitely by the four Somali pirates. Having attended a casting call with no previous experience, these Minneapolis actors stole the show.

The film starts out with Boston-accented Captain Phillips talking to his non-accented wife about how hard it is to make it in the world nowadays. The symbolism is a bit in-your-face but not too distracting. The film’s real problem is that it’s just too long. At 134 minutes, it could easily be cut down to a less exhausting run-time. Not to say anything bad about long movies, but the events in the latter half of the film are so drawn out and repetitive that the film borders on boring and tedious.

Likely the most notable aspect of the cinematography to this film is that it’s shot mostly on a steady-cam. My guess is that it’s supposed to make the audience feel like they’re more at sea and less in a controlled environment. This idea works for a portion of the film, but there are also scenes where it seems like the camera operator forgot how to operate a camera. There are definitely some questionable shots that take you out of the moment and wonder if the filmmakers took enough footage.

On the whole, I was able to feel emotion for this film. There are some intense moments and good performances. The script is no spectacle, though it could certainly be worse. Far from one of the best films of the year, I still enjoyed myself. 7/10.

"Gravity" Review

Starring Sandra Bullock and George Clooney, this drama about a medical engineer and an astronaut stranded in space is the 80 million dollar passion project of Mexican director Alfonso Cuarón.

There's no doubt this movie is incredibly visually stunning. Cuarón essentially created the technology necessary to make it. A large portion of the film takes place in outer space, and it's incredibly convincing. Cuarón's stylistic long takes really lend themselves well to this film. A behind-the-scenes documentary would be absolutely fascinating. The film is gorgeous and it's obvious a lot of effort was put into making it that way.

The script however, is not very good. Gravity is only an hour and a half long, and definitely stretches itself out in order to make it to that point. Littered with clichés, this survivalist tale meanders through a list of obstacles without any real motivation, the only goal being to force drama. For example, the incident which sets things in motion is a large amount of debris that collides with the astronauts shuttle; immediately after Clooney's character (the suave professional, one mission from retirement) saves Bullock's (the newcomer), he tells her to set her watch for 90 minutes. Why? Because in that time the debris will travel across the entire world and hit them again. Because the debris is moving at the accessible speed in order to calculate this and they clearly will still get hit if they move to a different place. These aren't things that bother me too much, but they definitely took me out of the moment.

Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) is simply not a good female character. In an interview with New York Magazine, Cuarón says that the choice to make the lead character a female was to "strip it from heroists". My biggest fear walking into this movie was that it would be 90 minutes of Sandra Bullock screaming and acting unprofessional. That was largely fulfilled. Bullock's character seems to not be able to act without the guidance of her male companion. Coupled with awkward romantic tension and it almost seems like a metaphor that women need men to survive. Not to mention the implausible (and by implausible I mean remarkably stupid) trauma we learn about her that is supposed to help us accomplish the difficult feat of feeling sympathy for someone fighting for their life.

I didn't think Sandra Bullock's performance was that great. She was far from the first choice for the part, and I think it showed. It was by no means bad, but I'd be genuinely surprised if she walked away with another Oscar. The entire basis of the performance was breathy and scared. There were plenty of awkward line deliveries and I often felt it lacked a certain amount of emotion. It may be the weak writing for her character but I don't believe it's the show-stealing performance that's been hyped.

It may seem like I really hated this film. I didn't. I actually enjoyed it quite a bit. Visually, it's mind-blowing. If you're interested in this film, see it in IMAX. I just wish they had spent a fraction of the amount of time they spent on the technology on the script. The movie seems to be an excuse to show off cool tricks Cuarón developed. That doesn't mean that the movie is terrible though. Just that a lot of potential was wasted. 7/10.