Archive for mark wahlberg

TED (2012)

Posted in 2012, Adult Fairy Tales, Cinema Knife Fights, Comedies, Fantasy, Kelly Laymon Reviews, LL Soares Reviews, Michael Arruda Reviews, R-Rated Comedy, Raunchy Fun with tags , , , , , , , on July 2, 2012 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: TED (2012)
Movie Review by Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares and (Special Guest Star) Kelly Laymon

(THE SCENE: A toy store. L.L. SOARES is standing in front of a shelf full of talking teddy bears, activating them all to talk in unison, when MICHAEL ARRUDA comes down the aisle)

TEDDY BEARS: You are the best critic! You are the best critic!

L.L. SOARES (waving his arms around like a conductor): Well, of course I am. Nice to see you bears are not only really good at the verbal thing. You’re smart, too.

MICHAEL ARRUDA: How do you know they’re not talking about me?

LS: Because you just got here, and they’ve been singing my praises for the past 15 minutes.

MA: Well, if praise from talking teddy bears floats your boat, you can have it. (laughs) Yes, ladies and gentlemen, L.L. Soares is the best critic around, 50 teddy bears say it’s so!

(One of the teddy bears kicks MA in the head.)

MA: Why, you little—! (grabs bear by the throat just as a little boy and his mom walk by.)

LITTLE BOY: Mommy, what is that man doing to that teddy bear?

MOM: Come on, son. Let’s go tell the manager.

MA: Wait a minute. I was just defending myself. This bear— (The Bear kicks him in the head again.) See? Did you see that?

LS (shaking his head): You’re mean.

MA: Me? If this bear had kicked you, you would have ripped its head off!

LS: Sure I would have. But it kicked you.

MA: So it did. (Kicks the bear football style over the shelf to the next aisle somewhere.) And now I have kicked it out of here. Wasn’t Kelly Laymon supposed to be joining us today?

LS: She’s probably hiding because you’re so mean.

MA (sarcastically): Ha, ha!

KELLY LAYMON: What’s all the commotion going on?

LS: Look folks, it’s Kelly Laymon!

(Cue audience to applaud)

LS: Glad you could make it. Did you have trouble finding us?

KL: I heard you guys from the other side of the store. What’s going on? Is Arruda causing a ruckus again?  He’d better not be touching my Pooh bears.

LS: Yep, I can’t take him  anywhere!

MA (rolls eyes): This is going to be a long day. Anyway, we’re not here to play with toys, we’re here to review the new movie, TED (2012), starring Mark Wahlberg.

LS: Oh yeah, that’s why we’re here. I almost forgot. (to Kelly) Are you still up for reviewing the movie with us?

KL: Sure! But why does this Knife Fight feel like a three-way? Are we riding the tricycle?

You know, I can’t wait to talk about this movie. TED made me want to race home to my Pooh bear doll and rip a giant bong-load with him.

MA: That’s— nice. Anyway, these stuffed bears have been singing L.L.’s praises, and he’s about to prove how good a critic he is and start us off.

LS: Yep, that’s what I’m gonna do.

TED begins in 1985, introducing us to Johnny Bennett, a little boy who has no friends, so he makes a wish on Christmas night, wishing that the new teddy bear he just got as a gift would come to life and be his friend. Frankly, this kid seems a little old to be wanting a teddy bear as a present. And he seems a little simple-minded in his belief in wishes. But hey, let’s move on.

So—guess what? you guessed it! —his wish comes true and the teddy bear comes to life and the kid tells him “I’m going to call you Teddy!” which just proves my point that the kid is a little soft in the head. Not only does Teddy become his best friend, he also becomes something of a celebrity as word gets out about this amazing talking teddy bear.

But like all trendy reality stars who don’t really have any other talents besides being famous, poor Teddy eventually becomes a has-been. But he doesn’t care, because he’s still got Johnny. Of course, when we’re reintroduced to them, now as adults, they’re called John and Ted.

KL: Am I the only freak who cried through those first eight minutes?  Seriously.  I sobbed like a bitch.  I want a Ted doll. Not the pristine one that little Johnny gets for Christmas when he’s eight years old. I want the dingy version with the little worn spots where his fur’s almost gone.

LS: Maybe Uncle Michael will buy you one. (laughs)

Anyway, John, now in his 30s, has become Mark Wahlberg. And Ted, who had a little kid kind of voice when he was a kid, now sounds exactly like Peter Griffin from the FOX animated show, FAMILY GUY. Maybe this is because Seth MacFarlane, who created FAMILY GUY, and does Peter Griffin’s voice, also does Ted’s voice. I guess MacFarlane doesn’t have a lot of range as a voice artist, because instead of coming up with something new for TED, he just uses the same old voice he always uses. And if you’re wondering why the guy from FAMILY GUY is doing Ted’s voice, that’s because MacFarlane also directed, and was one of the writers of, TED.

KL: See, I’ve been torn on Seth McFarlane since day one. I’ve never been able to get into FAMILY GUY, but I’ve always found the guy funny and interesting in interviews. So that’s one reason why I was really looking forward to TED.

As someone who likes raunchy comedies, yet cries like a baby at TOY STORY 3 (2010), I had a hunch that this would finally be right up my alley.

LS: So have these two changed much by becoming adults? Well, John and Ted are constantly smoking bongs, drinking shots, and getting into all kinds of mischief. This doesn’t go over very well with Lori (Mila Kunis), who has been dating John for four years and is getting a little tired of waiting for him to grow up. She’s also getting tired of Ted being always around, since he lives with John (Where else is talking teddy bear going to live?).

MA: It didn’t go over very well with me, either. I kept thinking, why do I care about these guys? They’re a couple of losers.

(One of the bears leaps at MA, but MA side-steps the lunging bear, and the stuffed animal crashes into a pile of LEGOS instead.)

LS: To prove he’s a responsible adult, John agrees to find Ted an apartment somewhere else, so he and Lori can have more time alone. But the two buddies are still always hanging out together. Can John get his act together in time to save his relationship with Lori? And can Ted make it on his own?

These are just some of the questions that TED then proceeds to answer for us.

MA: Who cares? Which is the primary problem with this movie.

LS: Who cares? I care! That’s why I go to the movies, to care.

MA: Seriously, if the characters don’t do anything for me, I’m not going to care about them.

LS: Okay, maybe I’m exaggerating a little.

KL: I cared!  I’m a borderline plushie!  Or is it furry?  I think it’s plushie.

MA: This is really going to be a long night!

LS: There are lots of supporting characters, too, like Matt Walsh as Thomas, John’s boss at a rental car company, who is trying to groom the irresponsible John to take his place when he gets promoted. Walsh is most currently the Vice President’s aide, Mike McLintock, on the new HBO comedy, VEEP, but he was also on lots of other TV shows, as well as having roles in movies like OLD SCHOOL (2003), THE HANGOVER (2009) and DUE DATE (2010). And Patrick Warburton (probably best known as Puddy from SEINFELD, The Tick from the short-lived live-action series THE TICK (2001- 2002) and currently Jeff on the CBS sitcom RULES OF ENGAGEMENT) as Guy, a co-worker of John’s who seems very confused about his sexuality.

MA: Yes, Warburton is very funny in what amounts to a very small role, but he makes the most of it.

LS: Yes he does! You know, I always liked Warburton and thought he’d be a bigger star. This movie proves how great he is. He has a little tiny role, and he’s funny and memorable. Give this guy his own movie already!!

MA: Calm down.

LS: See, I told you—I care. Anyway, at Lori’s job, her boss Rex (played by Joel McHale, currently the star of the NBC comedy series COMMUNITY and formerly the host of the E! Channel show, THE SOUP) is a sleazy rich guy who keeps hitting on her, even though he knows she has a boyfriend.

There’s also a really creepy father and son (Giovanni Ribisi and Aedin Mincks, respectively) who have their eye on Ted. They approach John in the park one day, offering to buy Ted from him (but he’s not for sale, he’s alive!) and who never seem very far away after that.

KL: Well, while I like Joel McHale and Giovanni Ribisi, McHale is wasted in a role far too similar to his much more complex narcissistic semi-jerk from COMMUNITY.

Giovanni Ribisi is one of my few favorite child stars who I still enjoy. (He’s in there with Jason Bateman and Neil Patrick Harris.) Ribisi is NOT wasted. He takes The Creepy Factor and ups it. He has a disturbing little dance scene that ranks up there with Ted Levine in THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (1991) and Michael Madsen in RESERVOIR DOGS (1992).

MA: I didn’t find it creepy. I just found it plain goofy.

KL:  Hmmm.  I got a serious “ick” off of that scene.

LS: I dunno, I liked McHale as the sleazy boss and Ribisi as the creepy stalker guy.

But not everything about TED worked for me. First off, I don’t think Mark Walhberg is all that great a choice here. He has been good in funny movies in smaller roles, but seems kind of bland to be the main guy in a comedy like this. He just isn’t a natural comedian. There are times when his cluelessness kind of works, though. Remember, Johnny seemed a little soft in the head earlier in the movie, so maybe this makes sense. But I still wish they’d hired someone funnier to be the star of this movie.

MA: In general, I think I like Wahlberg more than you. I didn’t have a problem with him in this movie, as I thought his performance worked just fine. The problem I had was with the character of John. He’s not a particularly likeable guy. I didn’t hate him by any means, but let’s put it this way, he wasn’t the type of guy I’d want to hang out with.

LS: You know, that’s true. I’m not a big Wahlberg guy. Maybe it was the atrocity called the PLANET OF THE APES remake (2001) that really turned me off to the guy, I don’t know. But even though I think he’s miscast here, and they could have hired someone funnier, he does kind of grow on me as the movie progresses. I at least find it believable that he would care about Ted and really want to hang out with him all the time. Hell, by the middle of the movie, I didn’t really mind him anymore.

And as for you not wanting to hang out with John and Ted—you gotta be kidding me! Those guys look like wicked fun!

MA: They looked like a couple of losers to me.

KL: I’ve always liked Wahlberg. THREE KINGS (1999), THE DEPARTED (2006), and BOOGIE NIGHTS (1997) are three of my favorite films. However, he hadn’t done much comedy until the past couple of years. His small role in DATE NIGHT (2010) was memorable, but he was the saving grace in THE OTHER GUYS (2010). His tough guy sarcasm was the only thing that kept me hanging on in the face of Will Ferrell.

LS: As for Ted himself, he’s kind of amazing. He’s a CGI creation who seems pretty flawless. Since he’s a teddy bear come to life, he doesn’t have to look like a real person, and the way he moves is pretty great. The voice thing bugged me a little bit, since we’ve heard this same voice many times before, but after a while, it didn’t bother me as much. I think the character is actually pretty cool.

KL: The detail on the bear and his animation were solid. He didn’t look too much like a CGI cartoon. His facial expressions and reactions were always perfect, so expressive.

MA: Yeah, Ted is very funny, and nearly all his jokes work. The problem is he’s stuck in a movie with a predictable plot and unlikeable, boring characters.

LS: Mila Kunis is on a hot streak, and she’s good here as the hot girlfriend who loves John, but wants someone more responsible. She’s not in the movie to be funny, but she does a good job as the “straight man” here, and Walhberg and MacFarlane play off her well.

KL: Yep, Mila Kunis is blessed to be so likable in every comedy she’s in. Her role here as The Girlfriend With The Ultimatum could come off as a real bitch, but manages not to.

LS: Yeah, I dig her.

MA: Really? I thought she was completely, utterly boring.

LS: Boring? Maybe there’s something wrong with your eyesight, boyo. I could just look at her and that would be enough. She doesn’t have to say a word.

MA: I didn’t say I didn’t like to look at her. I said her character was boring.

LS: She didn’t bore me.

MA: I did find a couple of other supporting characters funny, though. I really liked Jessica Barth as Ted’s girlfriend Tami-Lynn. The scene where she tells off Lori over dinner during their double date is one of the funnier bits in the movie.

LS: Yeah! I thought she was great!

KL: Am I an idiot?  I had to Google Tammi-Lynn because I was convinced that was Denise Richards.

MA: I also enjoyed Bill Smitrovich in a small role as the manager of the supermarket where Ted works. His brief scenes with Ted had the audience laughing out loud. Smitrovich played the Vice President in the ill-fated TV show, THE EVENT.

LS: Oh yeah! He rocked, too! I loved all his scenes. What a great boss!

There’s also a long segment of the film where John and Ted meet their childhood hero, Sam J. Jones himself, star of the 1980 version of FLASH GORDON, at a party, which is one of my favorite parts of the movie (Jones is actually pretty funny and very cool here).

MA: Yeah, that was the funniest sequence of the whole movie, the party scene with Sam Jones. I enjoyed all the 80s references, from ALIENS to T.J. HOOKER, they were all pretty funny, but the Sam Jones/FLASH GORDON stuff was the funniest.

LS: You better believe it! In the universe of this movie, I believed, without a doubt, that Sam Jones was the coolest guy on the planet. I wanted to hang out with the guy, too! That’s called good direction.

MA: I wouldn’t go that far.

KL: Well, I disagree. I enjoyed the FLASH GORDON stuff, but I thought many of the pop culture jokes missed the mark. A lot of them seemed to be thrown in unnecessarily and randomly. That’s one of the gags that has prevented me from getting into McFarlane’s FAMILY GUY. I’d like to see him tone that down a bit.

LS: Well, to set the record straight, Michael is the one who raved about those 80s references. I just wanted to do shots with Sam Jones!

MA: I didn’t quite get the running gag about Tom Skerritt. I’m assuming it had to do with his appearance in TOP GUN (1986)? I forgot he was even in that movie, but that’s because I’ve blocked that movie from my consciousness.

LS: I’ve actually avoided seeing it somehow, maybe it’s my Tom Cruise allergy, although I may correct that. TOP GUN sounds campy as hell.

MA: TOP GUN was about as shallow and boring as the TWILIGHT movies. That’s my memory of it.

LS: But seriously, I didn’t really “get” the Skerritt thing, either. But I think that’s the point. Everyone thinks he’s such a big star and that they’re cool for knowing him, and he’s not that big a deal. The line Skerritt says toward the end, though, is hilarious.

To any dopey parents who want to bring their kids to see TED – it’s rated R for a reason!

MA: And let’s not forget, for the STAR TREK fans, Captain Picard himself, Patrick Stewart, serves as the narrator in this one.

LS: Yeah, he does a good job.

The movie actually had some similarities to the FX series WILFRED (which is itself a remake of an Australian version of the series), where Elijah Wood sees his neighbor’s dog as a man in the dog suit, and the two of them are always sitting on the couch, smoking bongs, much like John and Ted. TED is much more than that (and it’s funnier), but I thought the similarities of these scenes were interesting.

There were some scenes where I didn’t laugh much at all, and other scenes where I laughed a lot, but despite my complaints, I liked this movie for the most part. Enough of it works to make it an enjoyable comedy.

I give it three knives out of five. This is exactly the kind of movie that I think will grow on me more over time, and I’ll like it even better.

KL: I liked it a lot, too.

All in all, it’s also a sweet little movie, without being too heavy-handed about life lessons or messages.

MA: Wow. Of all the words I could have used to describe this movie, “sweet” isn’t one of them.

KL: You have a heart of iron, Arruda!

LS (starts to sing in a deep voice): You’re a mean one, Mr. Grinch!…

KL: But there were some things I didn’t like…

Something that I can’t stand in films is when a character takes to a stage in a public place to sing to the angry boyfriend or girlfriend to try to win them back or say sorry. That ridiculous stunt always pulls me right out of the film and makes me roll my eyes.

LS: I hate that, too. I just figured it’s a good time to get some popcorn.

KL: However, the Norah Jones cameo and material was funny. She shot up a few notches in my book for being a great sport.

I’ll give it a solid four knives. The only reason I can’t give it five is because of that ridiculous singing stunt that I hate like poison each time I see it. Also for the overdone “Where Are They Now?” end credits round-up. Other than that, the whole thing worked for me.

MA: Yeah, I didn’t like that end credits round-up either. I thought it was lame.

LS: Me, too.

MA: I laughed at some things but not at others, like you said earlier, L.L., but when all was said and done, I guess I liked it less than both of you did.

Here’s my problem with TED—the jokes for the most part, especially the 1980s references, work and they’re all pretty funny, but the story this movie tells is lame, dull, and cliché, and the characters aren’t likeable, and so I didn’t really care about them. I could care less if John and Lori get together or not. I was hoping they’d just break up so the movie could move on and forget about them. They were two very unlikeable characters.

LS: I don’t think so at all. I liked them both.

MA: As a result, while I laughed frequently during this movie, but I didn’t really enjoy it.

And for a movie about a talking Teddy bear, it wasn’t all that imaginative. I kept wondering, why was Ted attracted to human women? He’s a  teddy bear. Shouldn’t he be attracted to other stuffed animals? Likewise, why were human women attracted to him?

LS: Because it’s funny! HOWARD THE DUCK (1986) —okay, awful movie, but great character from the comics— dated a human woman, too. It works. It’s a funny idea—a funny animal banging a human woman.

MA: If you say so. There were creative paths this movie could have taken but didn’t. It was too interested in making jokes about getting high and farting.

Speaking of which, I thought some of the vulgar jokes misfired. For example, what the hookers leave on the floor of the apartment didn’t make me laugh one bit. All it did was make me stop eating my popcorn. Vulgarities can be funny sometimes, don’t get me wrong. So, where do I draw the line? Well, if it makes me laugh, then I’m good with it. In this movie, a lot of these scenes weren’t making me laugh.

KL: The humor is raunchy. Really raunchy. The guy sitting behind me brought his ten-year-old son to the showing I attended. I wondered if the guy was slightly misinformed and thrown off by the cute teddy bear.

MA: Oops!

LS: Actually I think the guy was just plain stupid. How hard is it to find out about a movie these days before you see it? You can check it out on the Internet in like two seconds and find out why it’s rated R.

KL: The kid laughed through the whole thing, but I did a few double takes as the kid whooped it up at the sex jokes. I’m not sure if I hoped the kid didn’t know what some of those terms meant or not.

LS: I don’t know, I guess it was kind of raunchy, but after a while, I didn’t notice it anymore.

And I thought the “present” the hooker left behind tried more to be a “shocking funny” moment than a laugh-out-loud funny moment. I’m okay with that. But hey, not all the jokes were for us. I’m not a big fan of fart jokes myself, but I know people in the audience I saw this with laughed their asses off whenever there was a fart joke. C’est la vie.

MA: I also didn’t like the subplot about the obsessive guy and the little boy trying to kidnap Ted. I thought it was the worst part of the movie.

LS: I thought that worked fine—the scene in their house was really creepy, and I liked it, especially Ribisi was dancing to an old Tiffany video, that cracked me up—but I wish Ted had kicked that creepy boy’s butt.

MA: The movie takes place in Boston, and the city looks great! There’s even a chase scene in Fenway Park, although this scene bugged me. In trying to rescue Ted, John and Lori in effect break into Fenway Park at night. Afterwards, they’re back home, no problem, even though we see the police on the scene. You’re caught trespassing at Fenway Park by the Boston Police and you’re not arrested? Yeah, that’s realistic!

LS: Yeah, you got it…And a talking teddy bear. Yeah, that’s realistic!

MA: Even a movie about a talking teddy bear needs to have realism. Otherwise, it’s stupid.

LS: Not really.

Personally, I thought the Boston references were a double-edged sword. Since I’m from Boston, I thought a lot of those jokes were funny, and seeing a lot of locations that I know was interesting—but after a while it was just distracting me from the story. And if people are from outside of Boston, they’re not going to get the joke, which means a lot of the jokes aren’t going to work for them. I guess I’m just not a huge fan of “inside jokes” about a city of something. Hell, when a stand-up comedian says “Hey, how’s it going, Boston!” I wanna kick him in the nuts. Get on with the jokes!

MA: Well, I lived in Boston for 10 years, and I always enjoy seeing the city in a movie.

KL: I only lived there for four years, but the Boston scenery was a lot of fun. I had to stop myself from staring at the background to pick out familiar spots. And the climax at Fenway Park was a nice treat. It gave me flashbacks to the climax of THE TOWN (2010).

MA: Yep, I thought of THE TOWN too.

(LS snores)

MA: (nudges him): Wake up!

I saw TED in a packed theater, and the audience was very generous in their laughter. They laughed much more than I did. I can’t deny that I was disappointed with this movie.

LS: The audience I saw it with liked it a lot, too. Then again, where I saw it, they served beer.

MA: I expected a more complete movie, with the jokes balanced by a likeable story. TED isn’t balanced at all. Its jokes are stuck inside a lame plot that doesn’t go anywhere.

Wise-cracking Ted speaks like a foul-mouthed stand-up comedian, and at times, listening to him speak, that’s how I felt, as if I were at a comedy show listening to him perform, and you know what? That would have been more enjoyable.

I give TED two knives.

KL: A heart of iron, Arruda!

LS: Well, everybody’s entitled to their opinion. Including them. (Points to the army of talking Teddy Bears all wielding knives marching towards MA.)

BEARS (chanting as they approach MA): Kill, kill, kill!

LS: Hey, I really like these toys. I might buy a couple of them.

KL: I’ll stick with my Pooh bear, thank you very much!

MA (to BEARS): Are one of you guys named, Chucky? I really hate to do this, but sometimes, a guy has to do what a guy has to do.

LS: Of course.

(MA pulls out a machete and leaps at bears, striking them down just as the little boy, his mom, and the store manager appear.)

MANAGER (into walkie-talkie): Security to the Teddy Bear aisle.

MA: Wait a minute. I can explain. (To LS) Tell him.

LS: Tell him what, strange person? (to cops) I’ve never seen this man before in my life.

MA: Kelly?

KL: Those poor teddy bears! Do they wanna grab a drink later?

(Security arrives and arrests MA)

LS (to audience): Don’t worry. I’ll bail him out. Some day. (laughs.)

MA (off-camera): Take your stinking hands off me, you damned dirty Teddy Bear! It’s a madhouse!

—END—

© Copyright 2012 by Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares and Kelly Laymon

Michael Arruda gives TED~ two knives out of five!

LL Soares gives TED ~three knives!

Special Guest Reviewer Kelly Laymon gives TED ~four knives!

Leave A Comment »

CONTRABAND (2012)

Posted in 2012, Action Movies, Cinema Knife Fights, Crime Films, Gangsters! with tags , , , , , , on January 16, 2012 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: CONTRABAND (2012)
By Michael Arruda

 

(The Scene: A huge cargo ship. A group of FEDERAL AGENTS searching for illegal contraband have descended upon the ship from helicopters. They are holding MICHAEL ARRUDA at gunpoint, while they search a van being transported on the ship.)

AGENT: Tell us where it is.

MICHAEL ARRUDA (calmly, as if discussing a stamp collection): I have no idea what you’re talking about. I told you, I’m on this ship to review a movie. I’m not smuggling anything.

(AGENTS rip through the back of the van. They remove a spare tire and don’t seem to notice the inside of the tire is filled with DVDs.)

AGENT: Whatever it is your smuggling, we will find it.

MA: I don’t know how. I’m not smuggling anything.

AGENT: Search him. (Agents search MA and discover magazines stuffed into his pants). What are those? (reads) Famous Monsters of Filmland. What the hell is that?

MA: Nothing. Just reading material for the bathroom.

AGENT #2: There’s nothing to be found here, sir.

AGENT: Damn! I’m sure he was smuggling something! (To MA) Don’t go far! We might be back.

MA: Where am I going to go? We’re on a ship. (AGENTS leave). Now that they’re gone (removes magazines from his pants and puts them in the back of the van) I can review today’s movie, CONTRABAND (2012) the new action-thriller starring Mark Wahlberg.

In CONTRABAND, Mark Wahlberg plays Chris Farraday, a former smuggler who has since gone legit, running his own home security business, happily supporting his beautiful wife Kate (Kate Beckinsale) and their two young sons. But when his teenage brother-in-law Andy (Caleb Landry Jones) screws up a run and ends up owing a huge amount of money to a crazy crime boss named Briggs (Giovanni Ribisi), Farraday steps in to save the day.

In order to come up with the money to pay Briggs, Farraday decides to return to his old business and engage in one last run, an elaborate scheme to go to Panama and smuggle back counterfeit money. Farraday assembles his team, which includes his buddy Danny (Lukas Haas), but leaves his best buddy Sebastian (Ben Foster) behind to look after his wife and kids, since Briggs has threatened them.

Everything that could go wrong does go wrong, and the suspense builds as Farraday, his pals, and his family get deeper and deeper into trouble. Yet, through it all, Farraday keeps his composure, breaking about as much sweat as Mr. Rogers putting on his shoes. Even when they cross paths with an insane Panamanian crime boss named Gonzalo (Diego Luna) and become involved in crazy scheme to rob an armored truck, in the movie’s best action sequence, Farraday seems to know he’s going to survive unscathed.

And this is one of the biggest problems with CONTRABAND. Wahlberg’s Chris Farraday is like Bugs Bunny. Everything he does works. This kinda kills the suspense after a while. You’re not going to be that worried about the safety of Farraday and his family when you realize, hey, this guy can do no wrong. He can be in the cross-fire between an army of South American police with high powered rifles and a gang of bad guys with machine guns, and you know what? He’s going to walk away without even a scratch! Bugs Bunny material!

(There’s a knock from inside the van. MA opens it and finds BUGS BUNNY inside.)

BUGS BUNNY: Er…..What’s up, doc?

MA: Bugs Bunny! How cool to see you! You’ve always been one of my favorite cartoon characters of all time!

BUGS BUNNY: I hear I’m in this new movie you’re reviewing.

MA: Actually, you’re not in the movie. I’m just using you to make a point.

BUGS BUNNY: Really? Tell me more.

MA: Yeah. The main character can do no wrong, and everything he touches ends up smelling like roses, and this reminded me of you.

BUGS BUNNY: I’m not in the movie?

MA: No.

BUGS BUNNY: You realize this means WAR!

MA: What? (BUGS lights a cannon and aims it at MA). No. Wait. I didn’t make the movie. I just—.

(Cannon explodes. There is a huge animated BOOM! and a puff of smoke, and when it clears, BUGS is gone, and MA is covered in black powder.)

MA (brushing himself off): That was unexpected. Oh well. Like I said, Bugs Bunny always comes out on top.

But back to CONTRABAND. Not only is Farraday unable to fail in this movie, but he knows it. No matter what happens, how difficult things become, he acts as calmly as if reading a newspaper. It just didn’t ring true.

And a lot of the situations in the movie felt contrived as well, like the aforementioned sequence where Farraday and Danny get involved with the Panamanian criminals as they attack an armored truck. Great action sequence, no doubt about it, but it’s completely unbelievable.

CONTRABAND is a fairly entertaining movie as these things go, as there’s genuine intrigue surrounding the whole smuggling caper, but it’s too contrived to be mentioned in the same breath as some of the other gritty action thrillers of recent years, films like GONE, BABY GONE (2007) and THE DEPARTED (2006).

But you can’t fault the cast, which is probably the best part of the movie. That being said, it’s not the two leads in this one who impress the most.

That’s because Mark Wahlberg is just OK as Chris Farraday. Again, my biggest problem with his character is all these horrible things are happening to him and his family, and he’s as relaxed as a guy on a sofa. Wahlberg was certainly better in THE FIGHTER (2010). There’s also something very smug about his performance here, as if he knows he’s Bugs Bunny.

The other lead, Ben Foster as Sebastian, also fails to impress. I like Foster a lot— he was terrific in 3:10 TO YUMA (2007), but he’s just not that memorable here. Part of the problem is his character undergoes a transformation from cool guy to loser.

Sebastian starts out like he’s a really cool customer, a major player, Farraday’s best buddy and right hand man, but as the movie goes along, it becomes apparent that Sebastian is not this guy at all but the complete polar opposite. He’s really a big loser.

But the movie’s not really about him, and so when everything falls apart for him, we don’t feel that sad for him. We just want him to go away. I would have liked to have seen Foster more in this one so he could have delivered a deeper performance.

Wahlberg and Foster are both OK, but it’s the rest of the cast that shines.

Kate Beckinsale— who we are going to see again next week in UNDERWORLD: AWAKENING (2012) is very good as Farraday’s wife Kate.

(A bunch of vampire warriors crowd into the door, chanting, “Kate! Kate! Kate!”)

MA: Hey, settle down! I’m reviewing a movie here!

VAMPIRES: Kate! Kate! Kate!

MA (slams door on them): Sounds like the crowds outside the polls on Election Day. Jeesh!

Anyway, Beckinsale gives a solid performance, and I enjoyed watching her.

The best performance in the movie probably belongs to Caleb Landry Jones, as Kate’s younger brother Andy, the guy responsible for all the trouble in the first place. Andy is one character in this movie who is scared, which is refreshing in a gritty movie like this where people should be scared. Jones was also memorable in THE LAST EXORCISM (2010) as he played the possessed girl’s weird brother in that one, and he also played Banshee in X-MEN: FIRST CLASS (2011).

(Door bursts open again, and now a bunch of X-Men mutants are in the door, chanting “Caleb! Caleb! Caleb!”)

MA: What is it with everybody today? (Slams door on them). What kind of a ship is this? There must be a convention on board.

Getting back to my discussion of the cast, as Tim Briggs, the main bad guy in this movie, Giovanni Ribisi delivers an excellent performance as well. The problem is, as the movie goes on, Briggs turns out to be less of a villain than we originally thought. Whereas everything Farraday does goes right, everything Briggs does seems to go wrong. He ends up not being a very effective villain. He starts off seeming almost as ruthless as the Albert Brooks character in DRIVE (2011) but by the end of the movie, there’s no comparison.

In smaller roles, J.K. Simmons is memorable as the ship’s captain, and Diego Luna makes the most of his brief screen time as the Panamanian crime lord Gonzalo, who I wish had been in this movie more.

Lukas Haas is also in this one, as one of Farraday’s buddies, Danny. It’s a decent role for Haas and he’s good here, playing a character who, like Andy, actually seems to be afraid that he might die when he’s being shot at. What a concept! It’s certainly a better role for Haas than his last one, in RED RIDING HOOD (2011), where he was almost an afterthought.

(Door opens and Red Riding Hood and her pals The Three Little Pigs, and the Gingerbread Man fill the doorway, preparing to shout.)

MA: Don’t even think it!

(Slams door on them before they can utter a word).

MA: CONTRABAND was directed by Baltasar Kormakur, and for what it’s worth, some of the scenes here do generate decent suspense, my favorite being the armored car heist. But most of these scenes are eventually done in by the knowledge that you know what the outcome is going to be, and that is because, once again, the screenplay by Aaron Guzikowski tells a story that is incredibly contrived.

The characters in this movie should all be dead. There’s no way Farraday and his buddies should survive, yet they live to tell about it.

Even the whole premise of this movie is contrived. Briggs threatens Farraday’s family, and to handle it, this is the best Farraday can come up with? Concoct an elaborate smuggling scheme that involves riding a freight ship to Panama to smuggle counterfeit money? Isn’t there an easier way to deal with Briggs? Yeah, I know, smuggling is what Farraday knows, but even still, Briggs blatantly threatens to kill Farraday’s wife and kids, and yet Farraday leaves them alone to go to Panama? Again, sure, he leaves them with his best buddy Sebastian, but really now, what husband would do that when he knew that a crime boss was ready to take out his wife and kids? I didn’t buy this.

Yet, in spite of this, I actually had fun watching this movie. I just didn’t believe much of it. Ultimately, it ends up being less like MYSTIC RIVER (2003) and more like OCEAN’S 11 (2001).

I give CONTRABAND two and a half knives.

Hey, it looks like the ship has reached port. Time for me to get back to the mainland and prepare for next week’s movie.

(Door opens and FEDERAL AGENTS return).

AGENT: Stop. Where do you think you’re going?

MA: To the movies.

AGENT: Really? Can we come?

MA: Only if you promise to silence your walkie-talkies.

AGENT: Deal. Come on, boys, we’re heading off to the movies! (to MA) Can we get popcorn?

MA: What’s a movie without popcorn? (Agents run out of room ahead of MA) Okay, folks, that’s it for now. We’ll see you next week with a review of another new movie. (Calls after AGENTS) And don’t forget to read CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT afterwards! (to camera) You can never have enough readers.

(MA exits, closing door behind him).

—END—

© Copyright 2012 by Michael Arruda

Michael Arruda gives CONTRABAND ~ two and a half knives!


Leave A Comment »

CKF COMING ATTRACTIONS FOR JANUARY 2012

Posted in 2012, Action Movies, Cinema Knife Fights, Coming Attractions, Pagans, Vampires, Werewolves with tags , , , , , , on January 6, 2012 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT – COMING ATTRACTIONS
JANUARY 2012
by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

(The Scene: A giant tree on a hillside. A group of pagan worshippers proceed towards the tree, chanting. Awaiting them, MICHAEL ARRUDA & L.L. SOARES.)

MICHAEL ARRUDA (to LS): Aah, your followers, come to worship you.

L.L. SOARES:  What can I say? When you got it, you got it!

MA (shaking head): You got it all right. By the looks of that crowd, you better hope we don’t get it! They look like they’re in the mood for a good old-fashioned human sacrifice.

LS: What’s wrong with that?

MA: Nothing. As long as we’re not the sacrifice!

Anyway, let’s start our CKF COMING ATTRACTIONS column for JANUARY 2012. Nothing like being excited about a movie that I’m most likely not going to see. I’m talking about THE WICKER TREE, which opens to a limited release on January 27, meaning most likely I will not get a chance to see it.

LS: I’m not sure when it will open around me, either, but I’m sure as hell going to see it when it does.

MA: THE WICKER TREE is the long awaited sequel to THE WICKER MAN (1973), the classic movie from the 1970s, starring Christopher Lee, Britt Ekland, and Edward Woodward. It features one of my all-time favorite performances by Christopher Lee. THE WICKER MAN was directed by Robin Hardy, and Hardy is at the helm again here for the sequel. He even wrote the screenplay based on his book, COWBOYS FOR CHRIST.

This is one is definitely the most exciting movie release in January, as far as I’m concerned – and I would really like to see -  but I have a feeling it won’t be playing anywhere near me.

Anyway, we’re getting ahead of ourselves here.

LS: You can say that again. Can you believe it’s 2012 already!!

MA: We’ll kick off January by reviewing two movies for you. L.L. here and Nick Cato will be reviewing the new exorcist thriller, THE DEVIL INSIDE, and I’ll be reviewing the Dennis Quaid “evil mortician” thriller, BENEATH THE DARKNESS. (to LS) Since you’ll be reviewing THE DEVIL INSIDE, why don’t you tell us a little bit about that one?

LS: Well, based on the trailers, this one looks like another fake documentary-style film like THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, but about demons and exorcisms. Just like another recent exorcism movie, THE LAST EXORCISM. I liked that one a lot. And I hope this one is even half as good. The trailer has promise.

MA: As I said, that same weekend I’ll be reviewing BENEATH THE DARKNESS, a movie that looks pretty silly. The only thing I’m looking forward to is Dennis Quaid being cast against type as the psycho bad guy. He’s usually the goodie-goodie hero, so it might be refreshing to see him play the villain for a change.

Other than Quaid, it’s got a primarily young cast, a bunch of twentysomethings playing teenagers, which unfortunately makes me think this one might play out like some of those dreadful recent Wes Craven movies – MY SOUL TO TAKE anyone? Ugh! Let’s hope it’s better than this!

LS: I’m surprised you didn’t want to review THE DEVIL INSIDE. It looks good to me. But I don’t know anything about BENEATH THE DARKNESS. Hope it’s at least entertaining for you.

MA: Well, it’s not like I refused to see THE DEVIL INSIDE. The trailer just didn’t do anything for me. It made it look like yet another EXORCIST rip-off. I liked THE LAST EXORCISM too, but that was the exception to the rule. And since we have two movies to cover, and you and Nick really wanted to see THE DEVIL INSIDE, I went with BENEATH THE DARKNESS.

On January 13, ( John Harvey and) I will be reviewing the new Mark Wahlberg thriller CONTRABAND, while L.L. here will be at home entertaining his followers.

(Pagans start skipping and dancing around the tree.)

LS (smiling): Life is good.

MA: Anyway, I’m looking forward to CONTRABAND. It looks like a hard-hitting, gritty action thriller, a story about a former smuggler—Wahlberg—battling a drug lord to protect his family. Could be cliché, but in the right hands, this one could also be very compelling.

I like Mark Wahlberg a lot, and I’m hoping this will be another in his line of notable performances, along the lines of THE FIGHTER (2010) and THE DEPARTED (2006).

LS: What about THE HAPPENING (2008) and the PLANET OF THE APES remake (2003)?

MA: Nobody’s perfect! CONTRABAND also features Kate Beckinsale, who we’ll also be seeing in the latest UNDERWORLD movie this month, as well as Ben Foster who was so memorable in 3:10 TO YUMA (2007) and was also in 30 DAYS OF NIGHT (2007).

LS: Foster was also really good in 2011’s THE MECHANIC, with Jason Stratham, too.

On January 20, we’ll be reviewing the latest in the UNDERWORLD series, UNDERWORLD: AWAKENING. I haven’t been too impressed with these movies so far. They’re basically about gangs of vampires and werewolves (they’re called Lycans here) who are at war, with humans caught in the middle. And the way they’re filmed, the emphasis is on action, not horror. In this sequel, a hybrid child is born and everyone’s nervous what that will lead to. It stars Kate Beckinsdale, who I normally like. But I haven’t liked her much in this series. Still, at least it’s not TWILIGHT.

MA: I’m not looking forward to this one either. I haven’t seen the previous three movies. I kept away because they all looked pretty dumb. Maybe I’ll check them out on DVD before we see this one.

Also coming out on January 20 is the new thriller HAYWIRE, a story about a female super soldier seeking revenge against the folks who betrayed her. This one’s got some star power behind it, as it’s directed by Steven Soderbergh, who just directed the disappointing CONTAGION (2010) but whose long impressive resume includes early hits like SEX, LIES, AND VIDEOTAPE (1989) and ERIN BROCKOVICH (2000).

The impressive cast includes Ewan McGregor, Michael Douglas, Antonio Banderas, Bill Paxton, and Michael Fassbender. Gina Carano plays the lead role of the female super killer. It looks like an adult version of last year’s HANNA to me. I liked that one. I’m hoping I’ll like this one too.

LS: Yeah, I haven’t heard much about this one, either. But it sounds like it has potential.

MA: On January 27, it’s the limited release of the aforementioned THE WICKER TREE, so limited that, most likely, I won’t be seeing it.

LS: Well, I hope I get to see it.

MA: What I will be seeing will be the Liam Neeson thriller THE GREY. THE GREY is the story of plane crash survivors who find themselves stranded in the Alaska wilderness having to fight for their survival against a pack of hungry wolves. I can’t say that I’m overly excited about this movie, but it might be good.

LS: Yeah, I’ve seen the trailer for THE GREY a few times, and it doesn’t look all that great to me. Plane crash survivors trying to stay alive in the frozen north with hungry wolves hovering nearby. This one could go either way, I guess.

MA: I usually like Liam Neeson. It’s just that he’s made so many movies, there’s been a decent number that I haven’t liked as well. Recently, I liked him in the thriller UNKNOWN (2011), as that was a fairly entertaining movie. And I liked him in CHLOE (2009), but he was forgettable in CLASH OF THE TITANS (2010). But, then again, he can be forgiven for this since everyone was forgettable in that movie.

This is the guy who played Oskar Schindler in SCHINDLER’S LIST (1993). It’s been a while since I’ve seen Neeson do something as memorable as that.

And I guess I find it hard to get excited about a movie called THE GREY. It’s like THE BLAND. Or THE VANILLA. It’s just not doing it for me.

Well, that about wraps things up for us here.

(The crowd of pagans begin to grow loud.) Uh oh. The natives are getting restless. (to LS) Why don’t you do something to quiet your minions?

LS: Certainly. Hey, everybody shut up and listen! We’re done here. Go home!

MA: That was tactful. (The crowd starts to throw things at MA and LS.) This isn’t good. Well, I suppose we should be grateful they’re not into human sacrifices.

(Several in the crowd begin setting up an altar.)

MA: Then again, I think it’s time we leave.

LS: Hey, look, they’re setting that big tree on fire! That’s pretty!

MA: Run!

LS: You always spoil the fun!

MA: Stay if you want to, but I’m going home.

(The pagans start to smear their faces with lamb’s blood, and passing out weapons)

LS (suddenly seems nervous): Well, we do have those movies to review.

MA: Okay folks, we’re outta here. See you next week at the movies!

(LS & MA flee, as the Wicker Tree goes up in flames.)

—END—

© Copyright 2012 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Leave A Comment »

Screaming Streaming: THE FIGHTER (2010)

Posted in 2011, Boxing, Michael Arruda Reviews, Screaming Streaming with tags , , , , , on December 9, 2011 by knifefighter

SCREAMING STREAMING!
Movie Review: THE FIGHTER (2010)
By Michael Arruda

 

The recent passing of boxing great Joe Frazier had me reminiscing about days long gone when, as a child, I followed the careers of Frazier, Muhammad Ali, and George Foreman. Their exploits were grand theater, and their bouts were the Super Bowls of their time.

So, with boxing on my mind, I thought it would be the perfect time to move beyond my reservations and finally watch a movie that people had been recommending to me for quite a while, THE FIGHTER (2010), starring Mark Wahlberg and Christian Bale. The reason I held out so long, in spite of the positive word of mouth about this movie, and the Oscar buzz surrounding Bale’s performance, was the simple fact that the trailers just never did anything for me. It didn’t look like anything I hadn’t seen before, and so it didn’t exactly make me feel like running to the theater to see it.

But now it’s available on streaming video, and so I thought, it’s about time to check it out. I’m glad I did. THE FIGHTER is as good as its hype, and better yet, it plays well on the small screen, so you won’t miss much watching this one in your living room.

Less an excellent boxing movie than an excellent slice-of-life movie about a family in Lowell, Massachusetts, THE FIGHTER is nonetheless A+ material, a tour de force for both its ensemble of actors and team of screenwriters, because when it comes to phenomenal acting and superior writing, THE FIGHTER delivers a knock-out blow.

Welterweight boxer Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg) has spent most of his life in the shadow of his older half-brother Dicky Eklund (Christian Bale) who’s known as the “Pride of Lowell,” famous for knocking down Sugar Ray Leonard in a classic boxing bout. Still, it was Leonard who won the fight, and from that moment it’s been downhill for Dicky, who’s now addicted to crack.

Meanwhile, Micky’s boxing career is gradually getting stronger, but with his brother Dicky as his trainer, who regularly misses or is late to their training sessions because of his crack addiction, and his domineering mother Alice (Melissa Leo, who also won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress, and deservedly so) as his manager, others around Micky, including his father George (Jack McGee), begin to wonder if he’d be better served with someone else calling the shots.

Things come to a head for Micky when Dicky and Alice allow him to fight a much bigger and heavier fighter, and Micky gets his lights knocked out. The final push comes when Micky becomes involved with a new girlfriend Charlene (Amy Adams) who straight out tells him after listening to his doubts about his family that in order to take his career to the next level, he needs to do it without his brother and mother.

This does not sit well with his domineering mother Alice, and the fights between Alice and her clan of daughters (seven of them!) vs. Charlene rival any of the fights conducted in the ring. On his way to a title shot, Micky has to decide whether his chances are better with or without his troubled but boxing smart brother by his side.

Even though he didn’t receive as much hype as his co-star Christian Bale, Mark Wahlberg does play the lead role in THE FIGHTER, and his performance as Micky Ward is one of his best. True, I may have enjoyed Wahlberg more in THE DEPARTED (2006) but as Micky, he creates a complete character with nuances and angles most “nice guy underdog” characters don’t possess. Wahlberg delivers an understated, restrained performance, showing us a young man who loves both his girlfriend and his brother, the two polar opposites in his life, and who, in spite of this capacity, is also a fierce fighter in the ring.

Of course, most of the hype surrounding THE FIGHTER went to Christian Bale for his performance as Dicky Eklund, and while I’ve never been a big fan of Bale, in this case, the hype is deserved. By far, this is the best performance I’ve seen Bale deliver in a movie. He changed his entire appearance for this role, looking noticeably thinner and drawn. His Dicky is thoroughly believable.

Dicky is also a multi-dimensional character. In lesser hands than Bale’s, Dicky could have come off simply as a bum, a has-been, a guy who may think he’s looking out for his younger brother but really isn’t. The strength of Bale’s performance, besides the fact that he nails the look and behavior of a crack addict, is that he makes us believe that he really does love his younger brother, and that, in spite of himself and his family, he really does want to help his brother become the best fighter he can be. He’s just not doing a very good job at it. His conversation towards the end of the movie, when he tries to convince Charlene that he really does care for Micky, is one of the best moments of the film.

I really enjoyed the relationship between Micky and Dicky. They were like real brothers. They got along, they fought, they suffered deep rifts, but at the end of the day, they were brothers, and they loved each other.

As Charlene, Amy Adams also delivers a first rate performance. Adams was also nominated for Best Supporting Actress, but she lost out to co-star Melissa Leo. Adams makes Charlene one tough cookie, and she does this without sacrificing beauty or sex appeal. She’s still very sexy as Micky’s girlfriend. She also kicks butt. It’s a great performance.

As Micky’s and Dicky’s mother, Alice Ward, Melissa Leo did win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress, and it would have been shameful had she not won. Bale got all the hype, but Leo gives the best performance of the entire troupe in this movie. I wouldn’t call it my favorite performance, because she’s so damn annoying, but she dominates every scene she’s in.

Jack McGee is also excellent as Micky’s father, George Ward, as he represents the voice of reason in the family, and he’s one of the first to recognize that Micky needs to break away from his mother and brother to take his career to the next level. However, while he may be the voice of reason, he’s not the loudest voice in his family, and he’s also not the one wearing the pants. When Alice finds out that he encouraged Micky to drop Dicky as his trainer, she rewards him by firing a frying pan at his head.

I said earlier that THE FIGHTER is less a boxing movie than a movie about a family in Lowell, Massachusetts. Having grown up in Massachusetts, I’ve seen my share of Massachusetts families, and I believe they are an entity in and of themselves. I’ve seen my share of Alice Wards in real life as well, mothers who think they are queens of the world, who believe their families cannot survive without them, who make all the decisions, and who make those who cross them feel helpless, unless they let their mother run the show. Melissa Leo nails Alice Ward and all those like her. It’s a frightening performance.

While the acting is first rate in THE FIGHTER, the writing is every bit as good. Screenwriters Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy, and Eric Johnson have written a phenomenal screenplay, based on a true story, giving us layered multi-dimensional characters with lots of depth. I really cared for Micky, Charlene, and George, was terrified and aggravated by Alice, and while I disliked Dicky for most of the movie, towards the end, he becomes difficult to dislike anymore.

Director David O. Russell also does a nice job with the Massachusetts locations, and, for the most part, the movie looks great, but one drawback is I didn’t find the boxing scenes all that compelling. ROCKY (1976) this ain’t, nor RAGING BULL (1980), nor even CINDERELLA MAN (2005). For a boxing movie, the boxing scenes are miles away from being the highlight.

Watching THE FIGHTER is like reading a good novel. There’s a depth to the characters and to the story that is very rare in a motion picture. Its richness is much more akin to what one usually finds on the printed page. As such, THE FIGHTER is an immensely enjoyable movie, highly recommended.

With its one-two punch of superior acting and rich writing, THE FIGHTER is more than just a contender. It’s a champion.

—END—

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda

2 Comments »

THE HAPPENING

Posted in 2008, Cinema Knife Fights, M. Night Shyamalan Movies with tags , , , , , on December 16, 2009 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: THE HAPPENING (2008)
by Michael Arruda and L. L. Soares

(The scene:  A vast field of grass. MICHAEL ARRUDA and L. L. SOARES stand in the middle of the field. A wind suddenly arises and pushes through the tall blades of grass)

LS: Oh no, it’s the wind!!

MA: Run away! Run away!

(They both run around the field, trying to avoid being touched by the wind.)

MA (trembling):  Look out for that tree!

(A quick shot of a maple tree.)

(LS stops dead in his tracks.)

MA:  What is it?  Are you losing focus?  Are you receiving signals to kill yourself?

LS:  No, I’m realizing how stupid this all is.

MA:  I agree. And on that note, why don’t you tell the people about M. Night Shyamalan’s new movie, THE HAPPENING.

LS: Certainly. Although, I wish I didn’t have to. I really can’t believe that I sat through this one with a straight face. I mean, in retrospect, it’s pretty damn absurd. Did he really expect us to swallow this one?

(MA points to the sky. They look up to see cream pies falling from the sky. A pie each hits MA and LS in the face.)

MA (licking cream):  I don’t know, but I’ll swallow this. Delicious!

LS (wiping cream from his face): Mine’s lemon meringue! M. Night Shyamalan, the man who gave us THE SIXTH SENSE and SIGNS, now gives us yet another elongated TWILIGHT ZONE episode. This time, it’s called THE HAPPENING. And no, it’s not a party where a bunch of hippies take LSD. If it were, it might actually be entertaining.

The movie begins promisingly enough. All of a sudden, people start acting weird and committing suicide in droves. A woman plunges a hair pin into her throat. A bunch of construction workers leap to their death from a high building. A policeman shoots himself in the head. What the hell is going on? At first, nobody knows, and the country panics. Or rather, the east coast does, since that’s where all this craziness happens. For once, California is spared.

Mark Wahlberg plays a robot – er, a high school science teacher – named Elliot Moore-

MA:  I liked Wahlberg. As a teacher myself, I thought he nailed the classroom teacher persona rather well.

LS: Wahlberg is a convincing teacher? Where do you teach – the robot academy? But c’mon, most teachers have to be more animated than this guy!

MA:  Maybe you weren’t paying attention (slaps LS’s wrist with a ruler). I found him animated enough.

LS:  Anyway, Wahlberg takes part in a mass exodus out of Philadelphia to the suburbs because all these suicides appear to be taking place in the big cities. Along for the ride are his wife Alma (Zooey Deschanel), math teacher Julian (John Leguizamo), who is also Elliot’s best friend, and Julian’s 8-year old daughter, Jess (Ashlyn Sanchez). They get as far as a small town in the middle of nowhere before the train stops, and everyone has to get off. When asked why, the conductors say they have lost all contact with the outside the world.

Not knowing what to do, the stranded people try to find ways out of town. They gather in a local diner and watch the news. When it’s clear that whatever is killing everyone is branching out from urban areas to small towns, they realize they have to keep moving.

(A giant carrot  jumps on LS and they wrestle on the ground. LS throws it off)

LS: Hey, didn’t I see you in an episode of LOST IN SPACE? Get outta here, before I make a salad!!

(CARROT runs away)

LS: Where was I? Oh yeah. Wanting to find his wife, who was headed towards Princeton, Julian separates from the rest of them and leaves his daughter with Elliot. Along the way, Elliott and Alma try to repair their damaged marriage, and bond with little Jess.

At first, everyone thinks that the mass deaths are some kind of terrorist attack, but as it goes on, they realize it’s something much more bizarre. Somehow, the planet earth is rebelling against its human parasites and is killing them off using the toxins of various plants. Normally, I wouldn’t reveal this since it would be a big spoiler. Shyamalan is known for his famous twist endings, after all. But this time around, we find out what’s “happening” pretty early on, and there’s no big twist at the end.

MA:  It’s not much of a spoiler. Technically, the film never states with certainty that the plants are responsible. While it is strongly implied, the story leaves open the option that it’s just one of those things that will never be explained. Like your taste in movies, for instance.

LS  (sneers and goes on) The toxins are carried on the wind, so every time there’s a big gust of wind, people start acting strange and then killing themselves off. The first symptom is confusion/ disorientation. In the second stage, victims become incoherent. And the third stage is death.

My two main problems with this movie are the characters and the plot. The characters are just about all annoying. Wahlberg plays his role like he’s an android. Deschanel isn’t any more animated. In fact, they don’t seem to show any real emotion until the very end, and by then it’s too late. I don’t get any sense that I know these people, or that I should care about them. Throughout the film, they remain one-dimensional. And there’s something odd about Walhberg trying to play a nice, innocent everyman. He’s just not believable. I’ve liked him in a few movies like BOOGIE NIGHTS and I HEART HUCKABEES. Some directors can just get interesting performances out him. But most can’t.

Other characters along the way include two teenage boys, Josh (Spencer Breslin) and Jared (Robert Baily, Jr.). But I cared even less about them. The only interesting character at all is an insane hermit lady (Betty Buckley, yes the mother from the old 70s show EIGHT IS ENOUGH) who takes them in for awhile and seems very capable of violence.

The plot, as it is, is ludicrous. I really liked the scenes where people kill themselves – I thought they were very effective and the movie starts out really good. Especially powerful were a guy who goes into a lion cage at the zoo and offers himself up as dinner (the lions are happy to oblige), and a guy who turns on a giant riding lawn mower and then lays down in front of it. But no matter how powerful and disturbing these moments are, they’re quickly forgotten so we can move forward with the lame plot.

And once Wahlberg and company figure out that the wind is dangerous, they always try to stay one step ahead of it, which starts to seem incredibly silly. Suddenly, everyone is terrified of the wind! I’ve seen old Roger Corman B-movies that were scarier!

It doesn’t help that Shyamalan feels the need to give us a moral with our story. He’s always been an incredibly preachy director and THE HAPPENING is no exception. His ham-handed pro-environment message actually takes all the fun out the proceedings rather effectively.

MA:  I didn’t mind the message, probably because I agree with it, and I didn’t find it all that preachy.

(Behind MA, a group of trees jump and down and cheer.)

LS:  As I’ve said before, I really liked Shyamalan’s films THE SIXTH SENSE and UNBREAKABLE. But from SIGNS on, I’ve just lost all my trust in Shyamalan as a director. The stories he has to tell just aren’t very compelling. And his infamous “twists” have become pretty laughable. Any promise this guy showed early on has drifted away on the wind.

One thing that surprised me was that the showing I went to was a full house. You’d think that after getting burned on bad movies like THE VILLAGE and LADY IN THE WATER, audiences would have gotten smart to Shyamalan’s tricks and stopped spending money to see his movies. No such luck.

MA:  I wouldn’t worry about this too much. As I walked out of the theater, a man next to me said loudly, “That was horrible!”  I had to laugh.

Anyway, I agree with you here. I didn’t like THE HAPPENING either, but not always for the same reasons you didn’t like it. You thought the characters were annoying. I liked them. As I said earlier, I enjoyed Wahlberg. I found having a sensitive lead character in a movie refreshing, rather than the usual macho hero.

LS: It would have worked better with another actor.

MA: I also enjoyed Zooey Deschanel as Alma. I thought she was quirky, and I liked her. I didn’t find them as one-dimensional as you did, and I was caught up in their relationship, although I have to admit that the scene near the end with the two of them expressing their love to each other because they expected to die made me want to throw up.

I also agree with you about Betty Buckley’s performance. She scared the crap out of me!  It says something that a crazy old lady is scarier in this movie than the film’s main menace.

To me, the acting wasn’t the problem here. It was the storytelling.

This movie worked best as a series of images. The people falling from the sky— scary. That image definitely evoked horrible memories from 9/11 and the bodies falling from the towers. People hanging themselves from trees, and the images you mentioned, like the man at the zoo with the lions. These images worked. They were truly creepy!  However, you can’t make a successful movie based only on a few creepy images.

LS: That’s exactly what I said. The suicide imagery is very effective. But the actual story stinks.

MA: See, I don’t think it’s the story. I have no problem with a plot about wind and plants being a menace. I thought it was creative. The problem I have is that everything just stalls out.

LS: It stalls out because shots of plants and the wind aren’t compelling. And they aren’t scary.

MA:  I disagree. I thought those shots were creepy and set up a mood that was ripe for a kick-ass second half.

(MA picks an apple off a tree and it suddenly has an angry face)

TREE: Do I go around picking things off you?

MA:  If I had an apple dangling from my arm you might!  Go back to Oz!

The story was set up perfectly by all the images we found scary, but when it came time for the payoff, it just didn’t deliver.  At the very moment when things should be picking up, they die out. There’s no pacing towards the end. Okay, it’s the wind, it’s the plants, but what do these phenomena do?  I’ll save you the cost of a ticket— nothing. But they could have. The first half of THE HAPPENING is crafted very meticulously and works, but by the time we get to the farmhouse, all those images and creepy scenes we enjoyed are nowhere to be found. The only thing scary is Betty Buckley as that crazy old lady. The story at that point needed to be taken to a higher level. Something REALLY scary should have come out of the woodwork for the last third of this movie, but it doesn’t.

To use a baseball analogy, it’s akin to loading the bases with no outs, and then having the scoring threat fizzle and only scoring one run on a harmless ground out.

LS: A baseball analogy? Are you trying to put me to sleep?

MA:  Hmm, there’s an idea!

THE HAPPENING would have worked better as a 4-hour TV miniseries a la one of the Stephen King adaptations, where we could have followed a bunch of characters on their exodus to safety. It would have been more compelling, and we would have had time to learn more about the threat. Of course, such a story would still need a better payoff.

LS: They’re also making a big deal out of the fact that THE HAPPENING is rated R, like this is something important. Wow, finally a Shyamalan movie aimed at adults! Not really. The only reason it got an R is because of the gore of some of the suicides. And even that is done quickly – for the most part he doesn’t dwell on the more gruesome scenes. This is especially ironic since Shyamalan was the guy, back in 1999, who ushered in the era of the PG-13 horror movie with one of the few good horror flicks with that rating, THE SIXTH SENSE.

MA: I also thought the R-rating hype was humorous. This film played much more like a PG-13 movie. Even the scenes you mentioned were hardly of the intensity we usually see in an R rated movie.

(THE LORAX jumps out from behind a bush)

LORAX: I’m the Lorax, I speak for the trees!

LS: Okay, okay. We’re listening. What do the trees have to say?

LORAX: (blushes) Um…I forgot.

MA: Oh, go away!

I’ve been down on Shyamalan’s recent movies as well, but to give him some credit, I thought this story was creative, and the movie creepy. It just didn’t have the intensity to sustain it to the end.  The feel of this movie reminded me somewhat of Hitchcock’s THE BIRDS (1963), taking an otherwise harmless thing (birds then, wind and plants here) and making them a threat. I’m not a big fan of THE BIRDS, but this film came towards the end of Hitchcock’s career (sort of- he worked for another 13 years but only made 5 films in that span) and certainly didn’t tarnish the immense body of work the famed director left behind.

LS: What are you talking about? THE BIRDS is a classic! Hitchcock took everyday creatures we don’t think twice about and made them genuinely scary. How can you compare a powerful film like that this flaccid flick?

MA:  Simple. Because THE BIRDS isn’t all that powerful. I don’t place THE BIRDS among Hitchcock’s best.

LS:  And you comment on MY taste in movies? THE BIRDS is terrific! It’s funny that you should mention Hitchcock, though. One thing they have in common is that Shyamalan loves to make clever cameos in his films. This time I didn’t remember seeing him, so I made sure to wait for the credits – and yep, Shyamalan plays “Joey.” Who is Joey? He’s a character who has a crush on Deschanel’s character and keeps calling her cell phone. We never actually see Joey, but at one point we hear his voice on the phone saying “Hello, Hello.” How clever!

MA: Good job. I completely missed that.

LS:  Well, I guess this is preferable to LADY IN THE WATER, where Shyamalan gave himself the role of savoir of the human race!

MA: Getting back to my previous point about comparing this to THE BIRDS. Don’t get me wrong. I like THE BIRDS better than THE HAPPENING, but the point I was making was that Hitchcock could be forgiven for making an average thriller because he had made so many extraordinary movies already. On the contrary, I’m not so forgiving with Shyamalan. His body of work is still very small.  While he certainly is talented, he needs to make a string of solid movies in order for him to deserve the amount of hype which usually surrounds his films.

THE HAPPENING is not that movie. It’s about as solid as a gust of wind.

LS: It’s not even a gust. It’s a soft and boring breeze. A minor film for a minor director. At this point, he has more failures than successes.

What’s sad is that Shyamalan does have talent. His movies always have at least a few very compelling scenes, and he always hires talented cinematographers – his movies look great. But he can’t seem to follow through with his plots and give us something truly satisfying. I still think that the big problem is that he’s a good director, but an awful writer. Instead of writing his own scripts, He should leave that to someone with more ability. I think if he just stuck to directing, he’d turn out a much better product.

And I actually find it frustrating that this guy continues to get funding for his movies, and still gets wide releases, while true masters like Romero and Argento have to take the crumbs of limited release. Even Romero’s so-so new flick DIARY OF THE DEAD is a work of genius compared to THE HAPPENING. I just don’t understand how studios continue to get hoodwinked by this guy.

MA:  One answer may be that a film with an environmental message is probably a better sell than a blood and guts movie about zombies. I wouldn’t call Shyamalan a minor director either, or even a poor writer. He’s too talented. I’m confident he’s got more work worthy of the term “classic” left in him.

LS:  Care to put that in writing?

(LS hands MA a pen. As MA prepares to write on a tree, a loud growl is heard, and the tree suddenly is holding axes in its branches.)

MA:  Um, some other time.

(They run away)

—END—

(Originally published on Fear Zone on 6/17/08)

© Copyright 2008 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares



Leave A Comment »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers