Showing posts with label remake. Show all posts
Showing posts with label remake. Show all posts

Sunday, June 29, 2014

22 Jump Street review



                Phil Lord and Chris Miller have a made a career out of meta-absurdism, first in their short-lived Mtv cartoon “Clone High” and then later with their feature-length animated films “Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs” and  this year’s  “The Lego Movie.” While primarily working on high concept, half-thought adaptations, these guys know exactly how to approach a project with enough creative distance to see Hollywood cynicism for what it is and point it out on screen, while still living up to their end of the bargain. This puts them in the unique position where they can make fun of their own movies and be as subversive as they want as long as they still make a profit.
                Like their animated features, nobody expected a “21 Jump Street” movie to be anything worthwhile, but because of their devil may care self-awareness they managed to wrangle an adaptation of a forgotten 80s high school drama into being a pretty relevant and effective comedy. The sequel—an even harder pill to swallow conceptually— doesn’t deliver as much heart or as much insight into the modern American teenage experience, but it does maintain the first movie’s quick wit and the skewering of its own commercial purpose.
                After a disastrous drug pinch, undercover agents Jenko (Channing Tatum) and Schmidt (Jonah Hill) are placed back into their student personas, now enrolled in University to find the source of a new street drug called WhyPhy. While there, they each find a new niche to fit into. Jenko finds his fit as a super-jock football star, and Schmidt finds love as a sensitive poetry slammer.
                While the plot is peripherally interested in the drug case they’re supposed to be following, the movie tends to focus more on the two’s relationships and the awkwardness of masculine bonding in male dominated crime-comedies. The Lord/Miller meta-humor is prevalent throughout, including many fourth-wall shattering in-jokes about the franchise itself as well as pop-culture references surrounding both actors’ celebrity. However, instead of the perceptive commentary surrounding teen trends that peppered the first movie, this installment delves more into homoerotic tension inherent in cop movies and post-Apatow buddy flicks. As Jenko finds kinship with a dreamy football meathead and Schmidt falls for an artsy creative writing major, the two begin to drift apart, causing jealousies and comedic set-pieces based on clichés and set-ups from American rom-coms.
                 The gay jokes become even more punctuated when Tatum’s character berates a drug dealer for using the three lettered ‘F’ word, in a scene that could be interpreted as a sign that casual homophobia is officially intolerable or that straight Hollywood has to find craftier ways to get away with it. This double-sided suspicion can be read throughout the film’s entirety, but because it kept me laughing and because I am still on board with the unlikely comedic screen chemistry between Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill I am willing to give the questionable social politics within movie the benefit of doubt. Others may not be as forgiving.
                As a pop-corn comedy “22 Jump Street” does exactly what it says on the box, it’s funny, it’s fast moving, and while it’s constantly winking at the camera it manages to surprise with quick plot shifts and mini-jokes hidden underneath the folds of the major set-ups. What it doesn’t do as well is tell a coherent story that moves effortlessly from point-A to point-B. Between the jokes and the character work, the framework of the story is occasionally muddled from too many gags and too many call-backs to the previous movie. In poking fun at the excessive nature of unwarranted sequels Lord and Miller have--maybe intentionally?--created an excessive sequel that, intentional or not, still suffers from the same trappings.

Grade: B-

Originally published in the Idaho State Journal/June-2014

Monday, October 28, 2013

Carrie review



              Brian de Palma’s 1976 adaptation of Stephen King’s “Carrie” is not only one of my favorite horror movies of all time, but among one of the greatest films of the 70s. It’s full of surprising performances, tender sentiments and it brilliantly walks a stylistic tight-rope between intentionally campy melodrama and operatic terror.  But despite my adoration of the original film, I can confidently say that this 2013 remake really, really sucks.
                The idea of Kimberly Peirce taking a stab at this story isn’t the worst idea anyone ever had. After all, this is the indie director of 1999’s “Boys Don’t Cry”, the film that got Hilary Swank her first Oscar, playing a transgendered victim of intolerance.  In a lot of ways the structure and themes of that film is not too far off from King’s first novel— a teenage female protagonist with a secret, spends the first two thirds of the story heading towards a violent but inevitable conclusion.  And though we didn’t exactly need a new iteration of “Carrie”, at least Pierce’s approach to “Boys Don’t Cry” was unflinching and painfully honest.  However, none of that nuance or personality is explored in this flaccid, overproduced remix of a remake.
                Whether trying to remain faithful to the original novel or paying homage to de Palma’s 1976 version, this new adaptation doesn’t stray far enough from what we have already seen. Carrie White (Chloe Grace Moretz) is a depressed, unpopular high school senior who’s bullied at school by the other students and emotional and psychologically abused at home by her religious zealot mother (Julianne Moore).  Upon secretly realizing that she has the ability to move things with her mind, a fellow student surprises her with kindness by having her football star boyfriend take her out to the prom, where she is unwittingly targeted by her enemies with a dark and disgusting prank.
                What makes this story unique to the horror genre is the way the audience is asked to sympathize with Carrie’s plight.  She’s a meek and vulnerable character in a cruel and mean spirited world, and when the violence and mayhem does take place, it’s not only supposed to be cathartic and thrilling but also tragic and unfair as well.  Unfortunately, this updated version seems so poised to get to the action that it blandly glosses over the gravity and pain that’s necessary to inform the characters and their motivations. This is in no small part due to the obvious miss-casting of Chloe Moretz in the lead role. 
                Unlike the mousy pathos that dripped from every gesture and tick that Sissy Spacek encoded her character with, Moretz simply mugs and pouts as a way of ineffectively masking her natural confidence.  By the end of the film, when she does get to boldly enact her revenge, Chloe’s physicality, combined with the film’s artificial looking special effects, more closely resembles a superhero than an enraged victim of life-long abuse. Either way, she never makes an effective connection with audience.
                 Julianne Moore does her best to downplay the histrionics of Piper Laurie’s iconic portrayal as the monstrous Margaret White, but in trading Piper’s operatic tantrums with whispered brooding, the character recedes to the point of barely registering on camera.
                Stylistically, this lazy remake doesn’t have a specific vision. It’s vaguely modernized, as we can tell by the inclusion of smart phones and Youtube, but even this semi-clever cyber-bullying conceit isn’t explored deep enough to fully realize its potential.  Most of all, and most importantly, this film is frustratingly boring.  It slavishly copies the original beat-per-beat but somehow still manages to miss the power and the sorrow inherent to this story. It isn’t scary when it’s supposed to be scary, it isn’t sad when it’s supposed to be sad, and it’s only funny when it isn’t supposed to be at all. 

Grade: D-

Originally published in the Idaho State Journal/Oct-2013