Slaughterhouse Rulez

Spoiler-free!

After careful consideration, I have decided that this movie would've been significantly improved by the inclusion of an exclamation mark in the title. Or, as others have pointed out, the words, "Edgar Wright" in the writing credits.

Not that I'd have minded his inclusion, but it's not THAT bad. It's just a British teen horror comedy... on the raunchy side.

It's easy to jump there since Edgar Wright's go-to comedy duo Simon Pegg and Nick Frost both appear in this horror comedy in supporting roles, but really, this movie didn't need him to be involved; all it needed was to put a little more effort into the writing on its own. In the first scene it starts off strong -- introducing its lead in Don (Finn Cole), a middle-class teen from the North of England whose mother convinces him to attend a supremely posh private school that's he's inexplicably been accepted into. There's a briskness to this scene that suggests an urgency to get to the good stuff -- all the crazy, humorous horror the title promises.

And that's why it's weird that the movie doesn't actually get going until about 45 minutes in. And at that point the thing is almost half over. There's a lot of introductions; introducing the massive school, Don's pent-up roommate Will (Asa Butterfield), the headmaster (Michael Sheen), teachers, the school bully (Tom Rhys Harries) and the girl (Hermione Corfield) and the idea that something sinister is going on. But each one of these basically take up a whole scene each to introduce, and they invariably end with some kind of ominous hint of what's to come. We really wish it would just arrive already, but not all the time is wasted; we do get a good sense of all the characters relationships and the hierarchy of the school.

It's good stuff, just over-explained and over-dwelt on when we're here for mysterious horror goods.

Finally you think the horror will get going along with the introduction of the plot -- that some greedy company is fracking near the school and accidentally opens up a giant sinkhole. This is paired with a fantasy-horror type legend of dragons or monsters living in a labyrinth under the school. Cool. Then the movie piddles around some more. Around then is when people as dense as I am will finally pick up on the truth -- this movie doesn't actually have much of an idea for the meat of its events. It spends all its time avoiding the monsters and chasing down dead-end side-plots until it just can't put it off any longer.

Then it gives the action its best shot and it's only marginally better than the piddling. Because the piddling is piddling, sure, but it's still funny, and it's nice seeing the lead make friends and chase an out-of-his-league romance. Once the action starts everything else essentially is done and all that's left is lots of running around from one okay set piece to another, losing one or two people along the way, until the movie finds the finish line and sprints over it like it was scared of the monsters. Overall a bewildering pace, but rarely not amusing. On the cheaply budgeted side, but not noticeably held back by that.

Unless of course the movie was scared of the action because it couldn't pay for too much of it.

I think this movie could've used an exclamation mark in the title to convey a more accurate and low-grade vibe. But the "Rulez" with a 'Z' does a decent enough job at that. Movies with exclamation marks also seem to possess an extra boost of boldness, and in the end that's what this movie needed to sell itself. It did what it wanted and did it decently; I applaud and enjoyed it for that. But it did what it wanted while constantly promising something else -- something it never fully delivered. Either follow your own rulez or throw them completely out, I say. This sloppy British horror romp is a low-expectations-only kind of deal.

Passengers

Some spoilers.

Thirty years into a hundred and twenty-year voyage into deep space, a cryogenic pod malfunction wakes up Chris Pratt to the biggest bummer of his entire life: he's gonna have to spend the rest of his life alone. Starving for company, he wakes up Jennifer Lawrence to join him.

Romance blossoms! Oh but wait -- that was actually a super mean thing to do...

For such a straightforward movie, my thoughts on it are annoyingly complicated. I wish I could just say, "It's pretty, its characters are pretty, there's science fiction, there's romance, it's not great, but it's decent." That would be true enough, but not the full truth. The full truth is that this movie bugged me creatively and caused me to think about what I would have wanted to be different, which opened up a whole lot of possibilities -- potential alternate timelines if you will -- against which to judge the version we got stuck with.

It is pretty though. Oh boy. I can't even say that and leave it alone, because I think the movie's dedication to being beautiful actually hindered its storytelling. It's pristine, and when things go wrong, it's still pristine, just in red and black, instead of blue and white, and with a bit of glossy sweat. If it had committed, and stuck its hands in the mud, it might have pulled out something valuable.

See???

I wanted to see Pratt's character be darker -- like as dark as you can go while still clinging to a sliver of sympathy. As dark as only scifi can support so eloquently. But he's Chris Pratt, so no; he has to be a good guy who makes an extremely dark mistake. What if he didn't see waking Jen up as a mistake until near the end? That would have been dark, and honestly more believable, but Pratt is so much more enjoyable as a good guy. Also, he does some fine acting in this movie. Very fine. Like, Jen does her exploding-anger-mental-breakdown-serious-acting and I was still more impressed with Pratt and his subtlety.

I just couldn't buy that good-guy-Chris-Pratt would ever fall so low as to actually wake someone else up. He's hyper aware of how terrible a thing it is, and even immediately seems to regret his actions. The movie's inability to commit to its premise was irritating. I'd like to see a version play out where he doesn't hide that he woke her up, so the anger can be immediate, and then he can spend the rest of the movie returning to sanity and understanding his error, while Jen slowly falls in love.

Check out how creepy he looks here.

Or, as my family and I were discussing during the movie, there could be a horror twist where he goes completely crazy, and has woken up several people before Jen. They all get angry with him so he kills them. Jen finds out, and has to fight for her life. That, in all honesty, seems like the least contrived direction this movie could have taken -- the honest progression of a character who is so desperately alone that they ruin another person's life to help themselves. I would hate to see Chris Pratt do horror-villain, but at the same time, his innate niceness and charm would make the twist all the more disturbing.

As it is, the plotting is as straightforward as they come, and incredibly, hopelessly predictable, in spite of the forced direction it takes. If only they had hidden something from us. I saw a video suggesting that the film begin with Lawrence waking up, and filling in Pratt's character slowly. That would have been tremendously better. Or even if we aren't told that he woke her up -- if were allowed to believe maybe it was an incredible coincidence; be suspicious of him; any kind of intrigue or mystery at all!

This movie focused way too much on looking good. (Note Michael Sheen in the background. He's the android bartender. The reveal of him being an android was spoiled by the trailer. My fault for watching it, I suppose.)

There is mystery involving why the original malfunction happened, and that's the most intriguing aspect of the movie. Until the mystery is solved of course, (by deus ex machina Laurence Fishburne) and then it becomes the film's most trite aspect. But since this movie is a character piece, it needs more character intrigue than plot intrigue. It desperately needed character intrigue, and was sadly, sadly lacking. You would think there would be a lot, considering the fantastic situation these characters are put in, but the bulk of the meager character interest is due to performances that are better than their material.

It's unfortunate. A great number of things could have been done to change this movie into something, if not great, at least better. As it is, it isn't terrible. It has two fine leads, and a memorable premise -- the things that attracted me in the first place. It's visually unique, and should get credit for being an original story in this age of remakes. It has plenty of small flaws, but nothing huge or glaring.

Probably works best if you're looking for a romance rather than a scifi.

If you can turn off your mind, suspend your disbelief, and be ready for a disproportionate amount of romance, you might get something out of Passengers. And if that something is being entertained for two hours by Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence roaming through a pretty scifi world... well, it could be better, sure, but it certainly could be worse.

Far from the Madding Crowd

Given a limited release in May, this adaptation of the Thomas Hardy novel finally made it to a theater near me, and, I actually went and saw it!

The story is set in 1870, and focuses on the life, trials and love of a young woman named Bathsheba Everdene. (The ever-immaculate Carey Mulligan.) Like a similarly named young female character (who is now more famous than this character who inspired her existence) Ms. Everdene is a strong-willed and free-spirited woman. She is an orphan, and relishes the fact that she has no one to answer to or depend upon. She inherits a farm and begins to run it herself.

But there are three men in this story and you know what that means -- tons of that very special drama that only a love triangle can create. (Is it still a triangle if there are four persons involved?)

I can hardly talk about anything I liked or didn't like without spoiling the entire basic plot of the movie, so the next several paragraphs will be doing just that. If you want to avoid spoilers skip to the marked end of the section. (Six paragraphs down, near the bottom, after the last photo.)

---- Spoilers! ----

He appealed to her dependence -- something she rejected and repressed.

The first of the three men is Gabriel Oak, (Matthias Schoenaerts) a shepherd who becomes her friend while she is still poor. He is a very straightforward, no nonsense kind of man, and when he falls in love with her, he asks her if she would like to marry him -- just like that, simply and sincerely. Bathsheba is not impressed, but turns him down gently. Then when he loses his flock and land to an accident and after she inherits her farm, she hires him to shepherd her sheep, and though he gives up on the possibility of marrying her he is always loyal to her -- a friend and an honest councilor.

The second is her neighbor, William Boldwood. (Michael Sheen) He is an older gentleman and never would have given her a second thought if it weren't for a silly and thoughtless act on her part of sending him a Valentine. He falls hopelessly, and she feels too sorry for him to tell him no outright, so there is almost always an unanswered marriage offer between them. Of the three men I feel most sorry for Boldwood -- hung up on her, miserable, and always kept in suspense.

He appealed to her purse -- something that constantly worried her.

And the third is Sergeant Francis Troy (Tom Sturridge) -- young, handsome, charming, and bitter. The woman he loved jilted him at the altar, and he looks at Bathsheba as nothing more than an interesting challenge. Mr. Oak and Mr. Boldwood respect, and are perhaps even a little intimidated by her stubborn independence, but Troy knows how to play a woman, and the willful Bathsheba bends to him just as easily as any other woman might. They marry and he begins to gamble away her money. Then his love turns up again, and explains how she didn't mean to jilt him. He promises to help her, but she dies. After that, there are only two options for a character in his situation, and he tries both unsuccessfully. I won't spoil this specifically, but I just love it when that happens to a character, and this one was handled particularly well.

He appealed to her vanity -- something she would never deny.

In the end Bathsheba is left with only two choices: one man, or no man, so we can hardly be proud of her choice. In fact she chose wrongly several times and still ends up with the best man. I must say though I was pleasantly surprised. I did not expect Bathsheba's independence to be portrayed as such a bad thing as it was, but she wasn't really a strong and independent woman -- not at first. At first she was only willful so that someone could tame her, and that's why she fell for Troy. She wanted to be trouble for someone and she was. The end doesn't see her as changed as I would have liked to see, but she is at least not a silly schoolgirl who relishes drama anymore. She begins to adopt a real strength, learns to understand herself and discovers what she really wants, and then chooses the man she should have chosen in the first place.

Though Ms. Everdene is the center of this story, I hesitate to call her a heroine. The hero, however, is obviously Gabriel. He always there though sometimes in the background and (at least to me) was the character with whom we can most naturally identify, and the one we most often feel for. This man only has two character flaws that I can see, and one is his choice of a woman. Really, she only deserves him at the end, and by then his extraordinary patience and loyalty places him even higher above her. The other is hardly a flaw either but it bothered me that he would never pursue her, even though that's what she wanted. She is that "elegant female" Mr. Collins knows all about that gives Lizzy such a bad rep.

Anyway, all's well that ends well, and if all there was to this movie was an opening and one proposal it would have been much too short. But not really bad -- after all, his first proposal was one of the best proposals I've seen on film. I would have said yes. He brought her a tiny baby lamb for goodness sake, and who cares if the wording was blunt? The look he had on his face while delivering those words said more than the words ever could.

This woman has a heart of stone.

---- End of Spoiler section. ----

So while I did enjoy this story well enough as a romance and a period piece -- full of all the elegant music, beautiful cinematography, fantastic costumes, and sweeping romance typical of a good installment to the genre -- it was the characterization that makes it stand out. I was quite impressed with the journey our heroine took, even if the result wasn't a drastic a change as I would have preferred. And I was even more impressed with what the story had to say on the subject of love, character, the dangers of certain behaviors, and the one thing few stories like this don't comment on; the depravity of human nature. And it was all done with a happy ending, and not one instance of overly-dramatic melodrama in between. And there were only a few romantic clichés -- per scene -- which were done so well that I only minded once.

Though I only recognized three faces in the whole cast, I became quickly fond of the characters I was supposed to, and equally quickly despised the appropriate ones as well. I have never witnessed Carey Mulligan do anything wrong, and here is no exception. She fits the character perfectly and plays her expertly, walking the balance of likeability and realism to ideal results. Schoenaerts, Sheen and Sturridge are all equally impressive in their respective and diverse roles, each one characterized thoroughly and confidently, and all put together they make a great cast and play their part to make a very good movie.

There were some plot holes, and things glossed over confusingly as I was sure there would be, but I do wonder if it has to do more with honest adapting problems or if they were holes that could have been filled with a little more effort. I am now inspired to read the Thomas Hardy novel to explore deeper into these unique characters, and flesh out my understanding of this quite fascinating story.

Midnight in Paris

 To set mood: Push play, and start reading.

Gil is a self-proclaimed Hollywood hack who never took his chances with anything. He writes movie scripts and wishes he'd tried novels first. He lives in California and wishes he'd given Paris a shot. He also wishes he lived during "the Golden Age" -- the 20's, but that's not his fault. He's engaged to Inez, who is beautiful, and can be charming, but never seems to be while around him. Maybe she's just annoyed with him currently; they're in Paris for her dad's business, and he's talking about staying permanently; he's trying his hand at a novel, faltering, and stubbornly refuses help or advice, and he keeps mentioning how amazing Paris must have been in the 20's... in the rain. What's up with that?

"What's wonderful about getting wet?"

Gil is certainly a romantic. Longing for a time when he considered everything to be better -- and who could argue with the 20's in rainy Paris? Paris is still beautiful in the 21st century of course, so when faced with the decision of wandering the streets by himself at night, or spending another couple hours tagging along with Inez, and her friends Paul and Carol who they met by chance earlier, the answer is easy, and the answer is "alone."

A little while later, he's lost and sitting on some steps somewhere, watching the city, listening to the clock strike midnight. A vintage car pulls up. Heavily accented people call him to hop in, then he's at a party. The guy playing Cole Porter at the piano actually looks like Cole Porter. That's not possible. A feisty American lady introduces herself as Zelda, and then calls over her husband, Scott. Fitzgerald. Gotta be a coincidence.

The Fitzgeralds!

No, Gil Pender has somehow time-traveled, and that was just the beginning of his experience in that allegedly perfect time that is 1920's Paris. He muddles through the day with Inez and her increasingly annoying friends in 2011, then spends his nights living it up in the 20's with the likes of Hemingway, Picasso, and a breathtaking French girl, Adriana.

Adriana and Gil at a surrealist's wedding. Hence the taxidermy birds. ...That makes sense, right?

This little Woody Allen film starts out with various lovely, saturated shots of Paris slowly progressing day to night as a soprano sax belts out a jazzy tune. An easy, effortless artistic feel flows from there through the rest of the movie. None of the shots look really "composed," but if you pay attention, you begin to appreciate the scenes composed of a single shot, drawn out over several minutes as characters walk about and interact with each other realistically; competing to get a word in, and having to make an effort to express themselves intelligently.

And who exactly is in this movie? Everyone. Okay, maybe not, but it certainly does seem like it at times. Owen Wilson is our protagonist Gil, and is his usual charming, goofy, funny self. Rachel McAdams is Inez, and is great at being, well, dis-likable (to put it nicely), but you can see her appeal as well. Michael Sheen is Inez's "pedantic" friend Paul, perfectly described with one word. Then there's the crazy coroner Woody from Psych, Kurt Fuller, being normal as Inez's dad, and the assassin girl from MI4, Lea Seydoux, playing a local girl.

Paul, Carol, Inez and Gil touring Paris. Paul serves as tour guide, and says "if I'm not mistaken" a lot.

In the 20's side, the ever-lovely Marion Cotillard is the equally lovely and sweet Adriana. When Gil says she has "one of the most interesting faces ever" I couldn't agree more. Adrien Brody gets a single, memorable scene as Salvador Dali. Kathy Bates plays Gertrude Stein. Corey Stoll is Ernest Hemingway, and this movie's scene-stealer, which is really saying something when there's also Tom Hiddleston there, playing F. Scott Fitzgerald with a great "20's American" accent, and his classic, but (as of then) not-quite-yet discovered charm.

Gil, Ernest Hemingway, and Gertrude Stein examine Picasso's latest painting.

I must briefly mention a kind of technical aspect here. The film is rated PG-13 for "some sexual references and smoking." As to the smoking, I just wonder why they don't mention all the drinking as well, but the sexual references are scattered around the film, and are not especially crude like some PG-13's can easily be, but are inappropriate enough to warrant a warning.

Loose morals abound just as you'd expect from the 20's and 2000's, but the moral of the film goes in a much different direction.

First we are drawn in with simple, delightful appeal, to fall in love with a place we've perhaps never been to, and feel nostalgia for a time we never experienced. It's easier than it seems; I don't get all the references to the time, and I don't know all the famous people of the 20's introduced or mentioned, but when nostalgia is this contagious, it doesn't make a difference. I think Woody Allen could make me nostalgic for last week if he presented it like this.

Because I really, really like this still.

Midnight in Paris is pleasingly sentimental and nostalgic. But instead of ending there and letting us wallow in our new-found disappointment of having to live in the here and now, it says it doesn't matter; everyone wishes their lot was different. Paris is still here, so if you want to live there, go. If you want to write a novel, take the risk and try it. Walk in the rain if you can appreciate it. It encourages us to love the past if we want, but to live in the present.

And then, when paired with the easy artistic delivery and cute wry humor, it becomes much, much more than a typical comedy. Instead of cheap jokes and meaningless romance, you actually get to think while watching. And sure it doesn't go as deep as some serious thinking movies, but that's not bad -- it simply doesn't presume to be anything it's not, and doesn't take itself too seriously. Because what it is, is plenty good; lighthearted, fun, genuinely charming... like a walk through Paris in the rain.

-- 4.5/5 stars

My sixth review for this!

Bonus -- because I can't resist. Tom Hiddleston is being interviewed for The Avengers and Midnight in Paris, and does the most perfect Owen Wilson impression. (Start at 3:55 to avoid The Avengers part, which is mostly the smitten host flirting awkwardly anyway.)