Pixar does it AGAIN. 4/4

Just when I think I’ve outgrown Pixar films, they go and release a film like Toy Story 3.

The best cartoons are the ones that are made for kids, yet have something for the adults to enjoy, whether it’s a few well-disguised jokes that go past the kids’ heads, fascinating animation, or just good old-fashioned nostalgia.  It’s in this way that Pixar is the sneakiest of film companies: they don’t make cartoons, they make real films.  They just happen to be animated.

Kids love Pixar movies.  The animation is state-of-the-art, there are a few good lines that they enjoy, and stories are laid out easy enough where children can follow along with ease.  However, Pixar films tend to contain a lot that their apparent demographic will miss entirely.

Toy Story 3 opens with a great train robbery in the midst of being foiled by heroic sheriff Woody (Tom Hanks) that quickly descends into anachronistic delight.  Following the playtime fantasy, we are quickly re-introduced to the old gang, including recent high school graduate Andy, who has outgrown his beloved toys and is preparing to go off to college.  Fearing the threat of being thrown out, the gang deals with issues of age and abandonment, and decide to get themselves “adopted” by a nearby daycare facility, run by old plushy bear Uncle Lotso (Ned Beatty).

Having yet to deal with age and change, kids will recognize the conflict in the plot, but fail to recognize its depth; adults will not have that luxury.  Toy Story 3 perfectly captures everything about the pains of watching your children growing up.

Parents in the audience will no doubt feel an uncomfortable foreshadowing concerning their own children’s entrance into college and adulthood, and the toys stand in for those who feel neglected of abandoned by their own children.  Most of us never really abandon our parents in the most grave of definitions, but our children, like us before them, never stay “Daddy’s Little Girl,” or “Mommy’s Baby Boy” forever.  In fact, once we hit our teens, it’s the first title we’re glad to leave behind us.  Not to mention that there is nothing more heart wrenching for a parent than the thought of their child suddenly running off to college to become whoever they’re meant to be.  But, there is little else for a parent to do, other than remain behind on standby for whatever reason brings one’s child back to the nest, a sentiment embodied by the ever loyal Woody.  Always the patriarch of the group, it is appropriate that Woody plays the stand-in for parents: old and underappreciated, but dedicated to always be there.

The changes people (and toys) go through while growing up is at the heart of virtually every scene in Toy Story 3.  Buzz (Tim Allen), Jessie (Joan Cusack), and the rest of the gang are faced with the question, “Well, where do we go from here?” a question that haunts those of us who suddenly realize that our childhood is now something behind us.  As Andy prepares to leave his home behind for an unwritten tomorrow, the toys also leave their home for a place rife with uncertainty.  In a way, we’ve all felt that kind of fear against new horizons, always hounded by that question, “Where do I go?  Am I in the right place?”  Pixar, of course, displays this sentiment perfectly.

More so than the previous Toy Story films, Toy Story 3 indulges in the dark side of age and abandonment.  With some coming to grips with some very real fears and others being entirely changed by them, the film refuses to sugarcoat the effects of being left behind by loved ones.  If any other film had dealt with the anger and depression of loss by telling the story of a toy left behind, I can’t imagine taking it too seriously, let alone be effected by it, yet Toy Story 3 conveys some pretty tangible emotions with an impressive amount of honesty and thought behind it.

Deeper themes aside, Pixar shows that it has its eye on the changing times and trends of today’s youth.  The Apple invasion and presence of iEverything cleverly makes itself into several parts of the film, which makes for a clever gimmick, but also shows us just how much time has gone between now and the other Toy Story films.  The realization that iPods, let alone their expected place in our culture, are barely a decade old makes you feel your age.

The storytelling in the film is nothing less than perfect.  The film’s plot flows effortlessly, and the filmmakers know just when to make what reference in the story.  The second half of the film delights in showing of the resourcefulness of the toys’ interaction in the real world, and invokes the memory of some of our favorite prison escape films, from The Great Escape to Escape from Alcatraz.  The cast of new characters are highly enjoyable as well, particularly the inclusion of Barbie (Jodi Benson), who’s just as you’d expect, and a scene stealing Ken (Michael Keaton, always a pleasure), who’s obsession with clothes will have adults in stitches.

Toy Story 3 secures itself firmly as one of Pixar’s finest films, which is especially impressive given it’s the third of a series.  Never stale or recycled for a moment, it captures that universal spark that touched the imagination of every child and adult alike.  It is nothing short of amazing that an animated film about walking and talking toys can so profoundly make us laugh, make us cry, make us reflect, and leave us feeling young and vulnerable again.

The truly surprising thing about this movie is its focus.  Of course, Troll 2 is ever-present, but surprisingly the first few scenes make no mention of it.  Instead we’re pulled into the story by one of the most incredible characters in a film of any type in recent memory.  And he is a dentist.  Why is George Hardy so incredible?  In all honesty, it has very little to do with Troll 2.  Simply put, he is one of the nicest, happiest guys you’ve ever seen, and he really seems to have an understanding of how to live life properly.  He played the father in Troll 2, giving the film some of its most memorably strange moments.  The existence of the film is, to him, one of the only blemishes in his life.  He seems to be liked by almost everyone in his Kentucky town, even his ex-wife.  The miracle of the film is, once he and his fellow cast members see the cult following that begins to build around the film, even this one mistake becomes a source of celebration and joy.

As with George Hardy, what makes this film so compelling is its focus on the characters.  There’s Claudio Fragasso and his wife Rossella Drudi who seem to be the only ones that still don’t understand that the film is a failure in almost every respect.  There’s Margo Prey, the actress who played the mother, who acts as Best Worst Movie’s most tragic figure, trapped by her own life.  Each of the other actors has their own horror stories to tell about how the film affected their life negatively, and we see many of their struggles to overcome it.  Because the film focuses on people and not necessarily the film itself, we get a much more distinct narrative about the effect of this film, and why it is so incredible.

That’s not to say that the magic of Troll 2 is not covered in depth.  There are certainly talking heads here, but they are mostly the people with a fervent passion for the film.  One of them quite correctly notes, “Never has a film failed so completely [in every aspect] of filmmaking, and still managed to be completely entertaining all the way through.”  Another notes that the gods had to look down on Utah those three weeks of filming, because this film could not have been created without an immense series of happy accidents.  Best Worst Movie serves as a fascinating document of how something could go so incredibly awry.  But what is most notable is the fact that every person involved was trying as earnestly and as hard as they possibly could to make a great film, and it just turned out to be this beautiful mess anyway.  It’s something that could not be faked, and Stephenson does a great job of pulling together the evidence of this and presenting it in a way that fits in with the narrative he’s created around the people involved in the film.

None of this does any justice to how truly funny the film is.  Yes, there’s entertaining clips from Troll 2, but the people themselves are so entertaining that the film would be hilarious without them.  The characters involved here are just so wild that there’s no way not to smile through the whole film.  Not only that, but it’s simply an incredibly inspiring story.   Captured on screen are some of the exact moments when each of these people is able to take this thing that was a source of darkness and embarrassment in their lives and realize that they’ve been able to give laughter and honest appreciation to hundreds, even thousands of people.  While Best Worst Movie, as with many documentaries, is not technically a masterpiece in the realm of cinematography, the fact that they were able to capture some of these genuine emotions on screen is so valuable to the viewer.

Going back to George Hardy, because he really is the star of this film, you really get to see this amazing arc of him learning about this other world he had no idea existed.  He morphs from sheepishly sharing the movie with a few of his patients to wanting to share it with the world because he’s been able to realize it’s greatness.  There’s a moment when he is being read a fan’s screenplay for a sequel to Troll 2 where you can see the complete bafflement.  Later, when he trolls the floors of conventions trying to spread the joy, he does so with such sincerity and innocence that you can’t help but marvel.

Would this film be as enjoyable without having seen Troll 2?  I can’t speak from experience, but I think it would.  There’s a story here that should be seen by all, and it’s hard to put into words the experience of seeing this movie.  It’s a lot of fun, it’ll have you laughing throughout, and it’s honestly and truly inspiring.  Go see it if it’s playing near you, and catch it on video in October if it’s not.  It’s a small film and it needs all the help it can get.

Letters to Boo-liet. 1/4

Hoping to latch onto fans of Twilight and Nicholas Sparks, Letters to Juliet isn’t hopelessly romantic so much as it is just plain hopeless.  What’s more frightening is girls from the ages of 14 to young women in their mid to late twenties (or tweenties maybe?) will be coming in droves to see this saccharine disaster.

The film introduces us to Sophie (Amanda Seyfried), our doll-faced heroine who works at a New York newspaper as a “fact checker”, a delightfully vague occupation that suits the film and it’s plucky protagonist.  Sophie is a sweet, hopeless romantic from the start, yet is engaged to up-and-coming chef Victor (Gael Garcia Bernal, who must have really needed the money), who seems to love food far more than his blushing bride-to-be.

When the two head off to Italy for a “pre-honeymoon”, Sophie stumbles upon Juliet’s Wall in Verona, in which women write their romance woes to Juliet (yes, Shakespeare’s Juliet) and stick them between the cracks of the wall.  When Sophie responds to a fifty-year-old letter about a love lost, Clair (Vanessa Redgrave), the writer of the letter, returns to Italy with the hopes of being reunited with her true love from fifty years ago.

For as silly as this all sounds, Juliet’s Wall is actually a real place.  The wall is depicted here as a sanctuary for the lost and broken-hearted, populated by weeping woman who, instead of dealing with their problems head on, decide to write to a fictional character to clean their messes up for them.  It should be noted that Juliet Capulet, the fictional character from William Shakespeare’s play, was a thirteen-year-old girl who killed herself for a teenage boy she knew for about a week.

For a film about the quest for true love in one of the most beautiful places on the planet, it’s incredibly lazy.  Seyfried walks about as if she’s sleepwalking through the film, and Redgrave appears to be in some stage of dementia; the film thus follows by example.  The two somnambulists, with Claire’s cynical grandson Charlie (Christopher Egan) in tow, essentially knock on some doors hoping Clair’s long lost lover will answer, and sit in fancy cafes; that’s about it.  Even the unlikely romance between Seyfried and Egan just floats in and out like a narcoleptic Cupid.

The only thing holding the film together (relatively) is the intended desperation for a love less ordinary (or real) encapsulated by “Romeo and Juliet,” which the film references numerous times in the most heavy-handed of ways.  Although this kind of needy desire for a man is what drives films of this genre, Letters, as well as many films like it nowadays, indulges in flimsy sensationalism that inversely paints a rather demeaning portrait of it’s target demographic.

Letters displays it’s two lead female characters as victims, not by chance or fate, but of their own doing.  Sophie and Clair both live in a bubble created by their own flimsy sensibilities and flit around obstacles that lack any real conflict.  Both are shown to live for a half-realized ideal, only to abandon it for something convenient, then procede to fail upwards through an ill-conceived heroine’s journey of their own design.  It’s self-indulgent, self-absorbed, and audiences deserves better.

On the other hand, cynics will probably have a hearty laugh as they pull out their own hair, since the film could easily serve as a parody of itself with ease.  For those more inclined to find humor in the face of the ridiculous, Charlie initially acts as the sole voice of condescending reason and openly mocks Sophie and Clair’s search, as well as their fickle grasp on true love.  Unfortunately, Charlie falls victim to Sophie’s big green eyes, and is welcomed into the big dumb machine that is this film.

A suspension of disbelief has always been required for these kinds of sappy romance films.  They are designed to let people throw caution to the wind and become immersed in dramatic fantasy; they’re guilty pleasures.  That being said, Letters to Juliet is guilty for more than just sensitive sensibility; it panders to the lowest common denominator.  Whereas films like Love Story, the godmother of lovey-dovey pictures, are over-the-top in every way, Letters is a blank slate; its boring, vacant, and perfect for sad-faced victims of adolescent ego to project their own issues onto.  It doesn’t provide a place to suspend reality and reason, it requires it, demands it in order to work.  And for that, it doesn’t.

Harry Brown will most likely be described as “British Death Wish with Michael Caine”, and to an extent, it is.  However, Michael Caine’s performance as the titular elderly avenger and the film’s political tone turns the film into something greater than your run-of-the-mill revenge shoot ‘em up.

Harry Brown begins with grainy, cell phone footage of the inclusion of a new gang membe, then cuts to a woman with a stroller getting shot by said gang members.  Right off the bat, the film establishes its intent of brutal realism; you can practically feel the kick of the gun as it shoots down the single mother for the sake of fun and games.

Cut to Harry Brown (Michael Caine), a recently widowed elderly man who lives a life of near-deafening silence in a dumpy neighborhood in South London.  Harry’s only remaining friend Leonard (David Bradley) is terrified by the neighborhood gangs, whereas Harry does what most tend to do: ignore the problem and count on the police to handle it.  When Leonard is found murdered outside his apartment and the police prove themselves useless, Harry decides to investigate on his own.

The revenge film has been a popular genre for years.  Since Death Wish, many have aspired to reach the level of success and legend as Charles Bronson and his brand of street justice.  The formula is often been the same: man (or woman) loses family to gangs, kills gang members, cue the end credits.  Harry Brown avoids the cliché by redefining the genre, and casting an actor who can effortlessly master the role.

The opening credits state, “Michael Caine is Harry Brown,” announcing the film’s intent on where, or in this case, who the film will focus on.  The revenge film formula is a straightforward one; everyone knows what to expect it.  Harry Browndoesn’t try to change the formula, but it focuses on the man rather than on the mission.

Harry’s age is the backbone of the movie.  The loneliness, loss, and lack of purpose that comes with old age motivates Harryto avenge his fallen friend.  It transforms him from a quiet senior citizen to avenging grandfather, angry at what has become the world.  There is something proud and nostalgic about seeing an old timer take up arms to fix the problems of the world he helped build in his youth, and Michael Caine does a perfect job embodying this transformation from start to finish.

Harry Brown’s transformation is best seen when he tracks down a pair of vagabonds to buy a firearm.  The place where the transaction takes place encapsulates all the filth and horrors that have run rampant on the outside world, and coming face to face with it visibly shakes Harry’s constitution.  Yet his disgust at seeing a woman in a heroin-induced coma being used solely for sex makes him take control of the situation, and he takes an unsettling amount of pleasure in doing so.  Beginning to end, it is nothing short of a perfect scene.

Just as Brown settles into his second-wind, the film unfortunately starts to spend too much time with Deputy Inspector Alice Frampton (Emily Mortimer), who is more compassionate than her peers, but just as anemic.  The film paints the police as bureaucratic figureheads who do little to prevent crime from running rampant in the streets.  On the occasion that they actually do something, they end up making things even worse for the law-abiding public.  Mortimer doesn’t do a bad job, but the character is set up as a foil for Harry, and frankly, he doesn’t need one.  As a result, the film sacrifices time with our hero in order to instill the audience with a message that is made abundantly clear in the first fifteen minutes.

Whereas most revenge films are about the action, Harry Brown is surprisingly political, and dives head first into England’s own escalating problems with youth gangs and the government’s inability to handle it.  Those of a more liberal persuasion may find themselves horrified by the conservative lens in which the filmmakers present their solution, but the film states its case clearly, and with passion.  After seeing what these young thugs are capable of, not to mention how much they enjoy doing it, it would be difficult for anyone to not want to see them repaid for their crimes in full.

Harry Brown is not a reckless shoot ‘em up.   Rather than concern itself with shootout after shootout, the violence in the film acts as an exclamation point to some serious social themes.  Furthermore, Michael Caine’s spot on performance gives the film a humanity seldom seen in films of this nature, and as a result, the film is sure to resonate with the young and old alike.

Due to an early screening of The Losers, LS2FG writers James Goux and B.S. Hadland have brought back the Film Duel to share both of their opinions on the film. You’ll find James’ review below Benn’s.  More after the jump.

Benn says:

With graphic novel and comic book adapted films at their peak, The Losers looks to be amongst the more two dimensional of the bunch.

The Losers follows a team of soldiers who are betrayed and left for dead by the mysterious Max (Jason Patric), an apparently omnipotent entrepreneur who has his finger in every political pie the world has to offer. Soon, the team, led by Col. Clay (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), is given the means to exact revenge and clear their names (of being dead, I suppose) by a mysterious woman (Zoe Saldana).

The film is pretty simple: gun-totting, grizzly heroes conduct a series of missions to get a slick bad guy.  With such a straightforward story, one would think that the filmmakers could fill in all that space with something, anything.  Alas, that’s not how The Losers roll.  It has a number of missions, one-note characters, and little else in its 100 minutes of time to kill.

With a film like this, one only requires gunfights, some snappy one-liners, boundless machismo and a sex scene or two; nothing particularly complex.  Oddly enough, the film never really rises to the occasion.  The gunfights are pretty standard, and when the characters aren’t going through the motions of an ambush, they’re usually walking in slow motion to a power chord dominated score.  And the sex scene?  Its brevity aside, you would be surprised at how flaccid it turns out to be.

Although flat characters are to be expected in a film like this, most of the characters are barely that.  Despite his husky voice and broad shoulders, Morgan lumbers about more than exude anything particularly commanding.  Saldena seems to be more of a dues ex machina than anything else; she gets them back into the U.S. with money and guns, and… that’s about it.  Armed with infinite resources and powerful connections, Saldena’s ornamental sphinx has no real mystery, and her secrets are pretty weak.  She looks good in booty shorts though, so make of that what you will.

The humor comes from other team members Pooch (Columbus Short), Cougar (Oscar Jaenada) and Jenson (Chris Evans).  Evans is no stranger to the class clown action hero role, as his character speaks entirely in quips.  The jokes wear thin every now and then, but Evans numbskull repartee between Short and Jaunada is the only thing keeping the audience awake.

Jason Patric makes a return from the ether of Eighties fame as Max, and seems to be enjoying himself as a smarmy jerk of a villain.  Clad in cream-colored suits, Patric plays the role like a second rate Bond villain with a touch of irony.  Unfortunately, there is very little for Patric to work with, as he’s surrounded by your garden variety of meathead thugs and clueless employers.  It’s not a breakout role in the least, but Patric does the best at rising above plain, mediocre archetypes.

The Losers tends to play out more like a video game with its clear-cut objectives, programmed dialogue (variations of “I can’t let you go alone” make up 70 percent of the dialogue), and its vague, but infinitely powerful bad guys.  Yet even by video game standards the film misses the mark.  There is a scene in which the gang commandeers a police-escorted hummer by ambushing everything in sight in broad daylight.  I’ve seen 13-year-olds, armed only with game controllers, execute similar instances with far more exhilarating results.

The Losers is all about style, and little else.  Sure, slow motion and fast edit cuts make everything look really cool, but no one wants to watch a slick movie trailer than lasts nearly two hours in place of a real film.  As far as action flicks made from testosterone, lead and dumb fun go, I’ll put my money on The Expendables.

2/4

James says:

Sometimes it’s easier to enjoy a movie if you judge it by what the film itself is attempting to accomplish.  The Losers, the new film based on Andy Diggle and Jock’s comic series, is not trying to become a new classic.  Its sights are set a little lower, a lot lower in fact.  But I do think it achieves what it’s trying to do, which is call back to the classic action films and shows of the past: the ones with a little less grit and realism, and a lot more fun.  It’s true, there were a lot of scenes and lines of dialogue that feel a little wonky, and if you’re not along for the ride you’re going to find plenty to nitpick.  But perhaps it was the fact that I didn’t have to pay for my ticket in, but I just sat back and enjoyed what the film had to offer.

The plot here is pretty simple, The Losers themselves are an A-Team like group of soldiers who get fucked over by someone who they know only by the name Max.  As a result, they’re on a quest to restore their names and their former lives, and figure out their place in the world.  Even that seems to over-dramatacize things because, basically, this is a revenge flick.  The movie essentially serves to do two things, showcase a whacky cast of characters and move them from action set-piece to action set-piece.  As such, the film relies entirely on the success of those two previously mentioned aspects, its characters and action.  But really doesn’t every action film?

So do they work?  For the most part, they do.  Jeffrey Dean Morgan is great as the stern and cool Clay.  I think he anchors the film well, and brings an innate sort of likability that makes the character work even if he doesn’t do that much other than lead and grumble about revenge.  Zoe Saldana also excels, turning a relatively bland and unbelievable character into something watchable and somewhat organic.  But the man who really makes the movie work for me, is Chris Evans as Jensen.  I mean, the guy’s got all the good lines.  His comedic quips come almost like clockwork, and to my mind, they almost all work.  Even his “action” scene showcase was one of my favorite scenes in the movie.  Yes, he’s the nerdy computer guy of the bunch, but he’s also the most enjoyable.  Perhaps that’s because in a film that doesn’t take itself seriously, he’s the only character that’s truly playing along with that tone.  On the other hand, the integral character of Roque just did not work for my any way it was sliced.  I didn’t like his acting, and there was some seriously flawed character logic as well.  The other two members of the team had too little to do for me to really comment, but I can say the sniper managed to look cool, but even his sparse lines managed to ring emotionally false for me.  The villain, Max, also fell just short of hitting that perfect amiable villain I love.  While he got the amiable right, their attempts to show his darker side didn’t work for me, and he never felt truly threatening.

Still, I don’t think all of these things have to work perfectly to enjoy the movie.  There’s a lot of camp here, and I think it’s present intentionally.  The action scenes are over the top, and so is the melodrama.  If you came to watch bazooka rockets fly and vehicles explode, you will get what you want, and you’ll get it in uncharacteristically colorful fashion.  The romantic beats play out exactly the way you expect, almost like an old Bond film.  In fact, there were multiple times when I got a Bond vibe, particularly from the character Clay.  It seems he’s positioned as an American Bond, working in an ensemble, and the music queues they use during his action sequences say that the filmmakers agree.

I’m not sure this film wraps up in a way that’s quite satisfying for me.  The climax could’ve been bigger, and its attempts at setting up a sequel seemed unnecessary.  And as I look over what I’ve written, it does feel like there’s more criticisms than compliments.  This is not a film to analyze, it’s a film to grab some beers and cheer at with your friends.  If you can’t revel a little in a little sexual tension between the two leads, or light up at a nice motorcycle stunt, I’m not sure if this will have anything to give you.  But I do know that I saw it, and I had fun.

3.5/5

In this era of redone, re-envisioned and rebooted superhero films, it is expected that our superheroes be portrayed in a more realistic, edgy manner than that of their Golden Age-era counterparts.  But there hasn’t been a film that, both, pays homage to caped crusaders and displays gleeful irreverence to the genre.  At least, not like Kick-Ass.

Like Zombieland and Shaun of the Dead before it, Kick-Ass is a film made by and for die-hard fans of the genre.  The film, based on a comic book series of the same name, makes open references to the superhero mythos and addresses questions thoroughly discussed in comic book shops everywhere.  Director Mathew Vaughn (Layer Cake, Stardust) masterfully balances these elements together and tells a great story, while making sure that the narrative is always self-aware of it’s own origins, thus pushing the genre into a new direction.

The film opens with Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson), a painfully average teenager who asks the question: “Why hasn’t anyone ever become a superhero?”  Dave isn’t the most obvious candidate: he isn’t wealthy, has no super powers or training, and has no tragedies weighing down upon him.  Nonetheless, our plucky protagonist purchases a green wetsuit, creates a MySpace page for his alter ego, and becomes the crime-fighting Kick-Ass.

Soon after he embarks on his new endeavor, Kick-Ass becomes a media sensation, inspires others to don capes and cowls,

What can I say? Getting hit hurts.

stumbles into the middle of the city’s crime syndicate, and finds the answer to his question: getting stabbed, kicked, and punched in the face really, really hurts.

At its core, the film really does address the reality of our hero’s question.  The film focuses on violence, injury, and the abandonment of morals a superhero would have to deal with on a regular basis.  Of course, since reality tends to be a bit boring, the film indulges in exploitative violence as it progresses, which leads us to an idiosyncratic view of the world of a superhero.  In fact, due to brightly colored look of this world and the over-the-top action it holds, the film is less, “what would the real world be like with superheroes?” and more “what would comic books be like if they better resembled the real world?”

Although the film deals with the real world trials and tribulations of crime fighting, Kick-Ass chooses to have fun with consequences, and the film gets quite a kick out of its own over-the-top violence.  People get sliced, diced, microwaved, and beaten to bloody pulps, yet the execution of said violence is colorful and playful.  No one pulls any punches in this film, yet the audience will find themselves quite entertained by watching the characters fight crime, only to find out that crime fights back, and dirty too.

For an ultra-violent farce, the acting is quite good.  Johnson does a pretty good job as the film’s titular, everyman hero, and his two friends (Clark Duke and Evan Peters) bring a much welcomed smart-ass banter that keeps the filmed grounded in its comic book loving, nerdy roots.  The only real flaw between these three characters is the lowbrow, crude sense of humor involving the mythical teenage sex drive.  Although adolescent male humor is naturally rife with dick jokes, there are moments where the film is trying a little too hard to tap into the Superbad market, which looses focus of the film’s real story.

Speaking of Superbad, Christopher Mintz-Plasse co-stars as the city’s reigning mob boss’ son and fellow “super” hero Red-Mist.  Despite his past penchant for nerdy roles, Mintz-Plasse displays a little more range with this character.  He’s still a little awkward, yes, but there’s also a depth and maturity that Mintz-Plasse portrays quite well.

The best performances of the film lie with Nicholas Cage and Chloe Moretz, playing the father/daughter duo Big Daddy and Hit Girl.  Both characters completely embody the films blend of sardonic giggles and extreme, graphic violence.  Cage, who has officially accepted his role as the “King of Weird”, is perfect as Big Daddy, who sports a Batman-inspired suit and Adam West impersonation.  As per usual with intriguing superheroes, Cage is at his best whilst out of costume, as he plays his alter-ego as a kind of psychopathic Ward Cleaver, which would be unsettling if he wasn’t so earnest.  Moretz matches her daddy’s off-kilter viciousness with a foul, foul mouth to boot, yet the 13 year-old-actress has equal parts energy and control that keeps her out of “obnoxious kid” territory.  The result?  She steals the show.

Kick-Ass isn’t the first film to take a look into the lives of costumed heroes; it’s not exploring what makes them tick, or what they must endure in their quest for justice, but it definitely has the most fun doing so.  Granted, the film isn’t a serious study into the mind of a vigilante, but the film fills in the gap between reality and cartoonish fantasy, and kicks some serious ass while doing so.

The film's title says it all: 3/4

This week, Benn Hadland embarked on a solo review on Boondock Saints 2: All Saints Day, which just opened last Friday, 30 October 2009. So far its in limited release, playing in several theaters in Los Angeles (go figure), and a couple places in the Orange County area, such as the Irvine Spectrum, the Edwards Long Beach 26, and the AMC at the Block (in Orange) to name a few.

The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day
Year: 2009
Directed by: Troy Duffy
Written by: Troy Duffy
Starring: Sean Patrick Flannery, Norman Reedus, Billy Connolly
Genre: Crime

More after the jump. Amen.

Ten years after The Boondock Saints opened to an audience of zero, only to become our generation’s cult sensation, writer/director Troy Duffy returns with The Boondock Saints 2: All Saints Day. Armed with a bigger budget and a built-in fan base, Duffy tries to give his fans what they want, yet falls into the old trap of more being less, and not better.

The film opens with a Boston priest being execution in the same manner in which the brothers McManus (the titular Saints) would execute mobsters in their heyday. Cut to pastoral Ireland, we find Connor and Murphy McManus (Sean Patrick Flannery and Norman Reedus, respectively) have been hiding out all these years in a farm with dear old dad (Billy Connelly). After hearing about the murder, the boys return to Boston to track down the killer and wipe out the rest of the re-established criminal element that gets in their way.

The original film thrived on its simple story and high-octane execution. Now, with more money in his pocket, Duffy wants to give his loyal fans more of what they loved, which turns out to be the films greatest downfall. Yes, we have quirky characters and blazing, Woo-esque shoot outs, but the film spends so much time with local Mafia boss Yakevetta (Judd Neilson) and his crew, who speak in clichéd Sicilian slang and faulty accents, that the action sequences feel rushed and thrown in without anything really leading up to it.

Aside from its attempt to include a Mafia crime drama element, the film also deals with betrayals and interwoven conspiracies surrounding the priest’s murder that lead to Poppa “Il Duce” McManus’ past, and his relationship with the mysterious Mafia strategist known only as “The Roman” (Peter Fonda). The entire back-story and related conspiracy is wholly unnecessary and convoluted, and detracts from the film’s central plot and characters rather than add anything new or of real interest.

The characters, luckily, make enough of an impression that saves the film from being a complete disappointment. Norman Reedus and Sean Patrick Flannery (who, due to reconstructive surgery, is virtually unrecognizable) have a chemistry that keeps the film afloat, yet both are used more as a means to an end and are not given enough screen time to show any real conviction, or rise beyond being vengeful, yet flat characters. All the same, it is good to see the boys back in action after so long.

The film’s best characters are, oddly enough, the two newcomers to the film series. Clifton Collins Jr. delivers an electric performance as Romeo, an eccentric Mexican drifter and honorary Saint. Although he could have played into simple stereotypes, Collins Jr. brings a wide-eyed enthusiasm and intrigue to the character, making him the most exciting character to watch.

Actress Julie Benz had, possibly, the most difficult task ahead of her in taking her role as FBI Special Agent Eunice Bloom. Taking the place of the unforgettable Willem Dafoe from the first film, Benz’s casting was controversial and universally hated by fans. Benz, however, proves herself to be more than “that chick from Buffy” and fills Dafoe’s shoes perfectly. As the insightful, Southern spitfire, Benz steals nearly every scene she’s in, and holds her own with the boys nicely.

Of course, it’s the familiar references and throwbacks from the original that are the highlights of the film, and feel like a real nod from Duffy in the fans direction. The three returning detectives Greenly, Duffy and Dolly (Bob Marley, Brian Mahoney, and David Ferry) bring the humor of the film front and center, and act as the glue that really holds the film together. David Della Rocco returns as Rocco, the Saints fallen ally from the previous film in the form of an opening voice over and dream sequence. This sequence is the most enjoyable scene in the movie because it exhibits the old school machismo and glorious, prideful working class spirit that was ever-present in the first film, and severely lacking in this sequel. You can tell Duffy invested the most emotion in this scene; due to his fall from Hollywood’s grace, this scene serves as a mantra of triumph and, as a result, is the film’s most soulful moment.

Above all else, The Boondock Saints 2: All Saints Day is for the fans. One cannot deny its faults, and it is certainly not the underground masterpiece that fans have been hoping for. Nonetheless, Duffy gives the audience their fair share of flash-bang, Catholic iconographic shoot ‘em up violence that they have been waiting for all these years. If this is your first pilgrimage to the Saints, hold off until you see the first film. In fact, buy it; it costs less that a ticket of admission and its way easier to track down (the sequel is in limited release). This second coming is not what it was the first time around, but it is nice to see the Saints one more time.

It Might Get Loud
Year: 2009
Dir.: David Guggenheim
Starring: Jack White, Jimmy Page, The Edge
Genre: Documentary

Benn and James’ reviews and rebuttals follow after the jump.

Since this obviously doesn’t qualify as a Film Duel, let’s call this an “Early Bird Review”

Paper Heart
Year: 2009
Dir.: Nicholas Jasenovec
Written by: Nicholas Jasenovec and Charleyne Yi
Starring: Charleyne Yi and Michael Cera
Genre: Comedy

James’ review follows after the jump.

Paper Heart is a difficult movie to categorize. There’s documentary aspects, but there’s also a narrative through that is completely and utterly manufactured. As a whole it’s very comedic, but it also has some very dramatic and introspective analysis of love. Through all this, the film manages a surprising level of cohesion, never comes off the rails, and manages to complete its theme at the end in quite a comprehensive way.

The film presents itself as a documentary about a girl, Charleyne Yi (co-writer of the film, and playing a character of the same name), who doesn’t believe in love interviewing people about love. We’re treated to her awkwardly interacting with these people throughout, and at certain points the film stops entirely to present these real people’s love stories through their own narration companioned with a visual of cardboard dolls reenacting the tale. In addition to all this, Charleyne meets Michael Cera (the actor, also playing a character of his own name) and begins a relationship with him after being pushed into it by the documentary’s director Nick (a character named for the real co-writer and director Nicholas Jasenovec, but played by an actor named Jake Johnson). Confused yet? The trick is to try and forget the what’s real and what isn’t and just go with the flow, but most audiences will probably be distracted by the constant interweaving of reality with fiction.

Some of the best moments of the film are really propelled by the people being interviewed. But of course their stories are brought out wonderfully by the interactions and reactions of Yi, who is charmingly awkward. The narrative aspect doesn’t work quite as well. It often seems forced and is essentially a very simple courtship story. There are a few brilliant scenes, like one in a restaurant where Michael Cera leaves and returns, but these are far and in between. The acting in these points can be surprisingly good, but a lot of this is due to the fact that the actors are either playing themselves or a character they’ve done numerous times. Michael Cera is doing a character he’s done for years, and he does it so well that you can’t help enjoy it anyway. The actor playing Nick is a bit hammy but he’s likable and has a great rapport with Charleyne.

The love stories, while sweet and educational, probably slow down the film the most. But you can’t help but smile during them. It’s just that they function better as separate entities, and whether you look at the narrative aspect of the film or the documentary aspect, they still bring the piece to a grinding hault. Seeing Charleyne just generally discuss her feelings with Nick also feels a bit too expositional. She says what she feels instead of letting us see what she feels. There are some great editing transitions in specific points, but in the broader sense it can be a bit jarring the way the narrative and doc segments are treated in such large chunks. It would’ve been nicer if we could’ve seen a more seamless integration. That said, the movie never really feels like you’re watching two divergent films and manages to keep a unified style across the board.

Finally, the soundtrack, by Michael Cera and Charleyne Yi is both clumsy and adorable. It fits perfectly with Yi’s personality and compliments the film really nicely. The song which is the centerpiece of their romance and the credits is silly and yet beautifully heartfelt. It’s a great love song for the Juno generation, if not a technically well written song in the musical sense. That’s too bad, I almost made it through the review without a reference to Juno.

Overall the film is very cute, funny, and entertaining, but unlike many other quirky comedies of its ilk and from similar groups of people, it doesn’t rise to the level of greatness.  The narrative is too jerky and it doesn’t come together in a way that really speaks all that universally.   It’s worth seeing at some point, but if you miss it in theaters you’ll find it just as satisfactory on DVD.