Michael Louis Calvillo Must Be Destroyed

The past few years have been pretty miserable when it comes to deaths and tragedies. Worst of all, I lost my dad. When it happened I had trouble crying and getting it out. I was sort of shocked and numb. It hurt like crazy. After his funeral, pain came prancing in, hitting below the belt, striking me stupid for a few minutes of sobbing. Every few months there it is, but time marches on. We get further from one death and closer to another. Life can be woeful, Loyal Reader.

All of this matters much in the matters surrounding my HUGO review. The movie tapped into themes that tapped into me. It made me feel mournful.

I think Martin Scorsese is an incredibly gifted filmmaker. I enjoy all of his movies (I even enjoyed GANGS OF NEW YORK, and that one didn’t do so well critically). In making a family film, what it lacks in brutal violence and a criminal element, it makes up for it in whimsy, heart, a sweet history lesson on early cinema, and some marvelous filmmaking. The film is a beautiful thing. It just might end up in my top 10 of all time.

(Automaton love)

Its plot (I’ll spare you the breakdown) is a series of interesting puzzles, but there’s real depth in the interaction between the characters. There’s a morose undercurrent – Hugo’s father is consumed by a ball of fire, his alcoholic Uncle dies and is found in the river, the police officer’s crippling war injury, add in film pioneer, Georges Melies’ fall from grace (and then even more sentimental – his restoration to greatness) – that give the movie its sad soul.

There’s lots here about loss and sorrow and regret. Little Hugo’s quest to figure out who his father was and the way the repercussions of his actions enable relationships that essentially make a few very sad lives, very happy ones, drives the film through a series of fantastical mysteries involving an automaton and film theory books and teeny tiny sprockets and springs. It warmed me and trust me, Loyal Reader, I’m not the type to fall for sentimental bull, feeling has to be grounded to work, it has to be a perfect storm of acting, directing, score, everything just comes together – most of these movies simply can’t pull it off. HUGO’s got it in spades.

We saw it in 3D. Scorsese uses the process thoughtfully. Things do not jump out at us, but scenes are constructed in way that they become physically deeper. Paired with fast moving tracking shots, like the opener that takes us through a train station, it’s a pretty cool effect. I really dug it. There are a few scenes, one with paper flying about, that look great in 3D. It’s incredible how in telling a tale about the world’s first special effects artiste, Scorsese manipulates 3D as if it’s an integral part of the film going experience. It’s actually worth the few extra bucks.

If you can’t catch it in 3D it is still totally worth watching. The movie looks great in either format.

In any case, I loved HUGO. It stirred me up. Only truly special films have that kind of power.

If you haven’t seen it, get out there! It’s definitely one for the big screen.

We all know superheroes without powers are a bit touched. Wealthy playboys, Batman and Ironman, are ego-maniacal head cases with psychotic tendencies. The comic books and movies give us shades of their instability, but mostly gloss over neurosis in favor of some good, old-fashioned good vs. evil action and adventure. So long as they’re taking the bad guys to task, we forgive them their psychosis.

SUPER, James Gunn’s nerds-gone-wild origin story about the Crimson Bolt (Rainn Wilson), his sidekick, Bolty (Ellen Page), and their efforts to take down a wife-stealing, egg-lovin’, drug dealer (played with maximum sleaze by Kevin Bacon), gets that self-made-men in costumes are nutzo. Wilson’s Frank (a nice departure from Wilson’s omnipresent Dwight) is clearly crazy, masking his insecure insanity with a righteous belief in the purity of good, but the movie’s uneasy tone has us unsure whether we should be smiling and cheering him on or cringing and worrying about the uber-violence on-screen (which can’t be good for anybody, self-appointed super heroes included).

Not that any of this is a bad thing. Though SUPER doesn’t know if it’s a comedy or a jet black vigilante piece, I rather liked the off-kilter approach. I like that nothing feels safe (a few scenes had me gasping loudly). I like that the movie wants to have its cake and eat it too. I like that it’s as insane as its wrench wielding lead.

At long last, here’s an original film that kept me on my toes with its unpredictable nature.

(SUPER style!)

Let’s not get into the plot (google as needed), instead, let’s talk about a few things that make SUPER kind of special.

For one, it’s a very well-made indie. Director, James Gunn knows his stuff. He’s been working in genre films forever, cutting his teeth on micro-budget Troma fare (TROMEO & JULIET) before moving on to studio films like DAWN OF THE DEAD (writer) and SLITHER (director). SUPER, with its stylized bursts of color, interesting fades and cuts, and a rousing, animated opening, functions as a nice, little piece of pop art. Big ups to Gunn for getting the balance right. The movie looks great.

While SUPER falters somewhat in the emotional connection department (all of the characters are way out there), I appreciated the presence of True Menace. Once things get going (that is, once the Crimson Bolt is born and begins taking action), ancillary characters are dispatched brutally. The fight scenes are tense and uncomfortable. I appreciated it even more that during these barbaric moments, this True Menace, this percolating danger, this razor’s edge, doesn’t arise from Kevin Bacon and his evil henchmen, but from Wilson’s, cagey, nerdy avenger.

(Taking care of business…)

We can usually find safe harbor in a strong, good, super hero, but when the Crimson Bolt vanquishes evil, he usually does so with a heavy lug wrench (bombs and gadgets come in to play eventually) and the resulting mess isn’t pretty. The clunky hunk of metal, swung with blind, nerd-rage, clumsy and wild and deathly sure, does major damage to evil-doers and the semi-innocent alike (cutting in line gets you a broken skull, buddy). The Crimson Bolt’s willingness to destroy (however petty the crime) is a fearful thing. It keeps us on edge.

Many, many movies would benefit from a healthy dose of this True Menace, don’t you think?

Anyway, Loyal Reader, seek this one out. You’ll dig it.

Highly recommended!

If you trust critics and follow their picks and pans, The new Muppet movie is way, way overrated. At 97% on the Tomatometer, I was expecting a minor masterpiece – something moving along the lines of TOY STORY 3. I expected to be (minorly) wowed.

Lately, children’s films, have a pretty stellar track record. Mostly all the Pixar stuff – TOY STORY, and WALL-E, and RATATOUILLE, and UP, and THE INCREDIBLES (and more that aren’t coming to mind at the moment) – is top notch, taking live action films to task in the warmth department. One of these films (TOY STORY 3) even made me cry (well, almost).

All of these movies (I’ll throw in THE IRON GIANT, so we aren’t only talking Pixar) take you places and generate genuine emotion. Their potential drives me out to pay top dollar on things like THE MUPPETS. If the filmmakers have real heart, and know how to push the right buttons, these things can be very effective entertainment. Never underestimate the power of a well-made family film.

(That’s a lot of Muppets!)

As far as THE MUPPETS go…meh…sorry…no dice.

It’s cute. And a little funny. And completely harmless. But…well…meh.

Maybe my expectations were simply too high (same goes for biases – I’m a Muppet fan from way back).

I must admit, I was enchanted by the opening. Jason Segel, and Amy Adams (both perfectly cast), and Walter, a Muppet living amongst humans (created new for the movie), sing and dance their way through Smalltown, USA, in joyous anticipation of their big trip to Los Angeles (where a dilapidated Muppet Studios so happens to run daily tours).

The setup, where we get to see Gary and Walter grow up together, and learn about Gary and Mary’s ten-year romance, is sugary good fun. I don’t think I stopped smiling for the entire first ten minutes. So far, so magical.

Things go downhill faster than Gonzo being shot from a cannon (which does not happen in the movie – a major misstep for sure). There’s a villain (Chris Cooper…meh), and a getting-the-gang-back-together-and-then-put-on-a-big-show plotline (meh), peppered with amusing musical numbers and goofy, golly-gee-innocent jokes (my wife argues it would have been a better a film had it been more of a musical. Even an opera. I agree). It moves along innocuously introducing a new generation to The Muppets, whistling, smiling, having a good old-time. I think the kids will dig it.

(With Animal on the sticks, picking a fave Muppets is a no brainer…)

Though the film mostly flies, it never soars. Segal and crew were smart to keep the tone light and whimsical. A hip, in-your-face reboot would have been a bad, bad thing. As it is, THE MUPPETS, is still highly watchable. It’s a little anemic and squanders tons of interesting storylines for the safe roadtrip / big show formula (Kermit shines, the rest of the Muppets have very little to do), but, despite missed opportunities, it’s sort of fun, and providing it does well (I predict huge $$$boxoffice$$$), a nice introduction for the inevitable sequels.

(My musical number got cut from the final film. Maybe it’ll show up in the video extras?)

Hey look! It’s Animal vs. Buddy Rich…

In one sequence, Jill, Adam Sandler’s nails-on-a-chalkboard Tootsie, is left sitting alone at dinner, as Sandler alumnus, Norm MacDonald, her blind date, excuses himself to the restroom. We feel bad for Jill as she waits and waits for her date to return.

An hour or so passes. She stalls the wait staff, but it’s pretty obvious she’s been ditched. She makes a sad face. It’s broadly comedic (and even a little bit heart-breaking).

Before leaving the restaurant, Jill checks the men’s bathroom, calling her date’s name. She checks the stalls. The bathroom is empty. Jill sags her frumpy shoulders and hangs her gigantic head and mopes out of the frame. We feel for the poor lug. Sandler actually has us caring about this insane cartoon of a character. This Jill is abrasive, and annoying, and silly, but she’s nice and doesn’t deserve the abuse.

Never fear. Here’s where Sandler’s genius becomes apparent. Even though he has us feeling for Jill, he knows we care little about caring about characters. That’s for Real Movies. This is an Adam Sandler movie, Loyal Reader. You better believe it that the moment sad-sad Jill leaves, the camera pans up and there’s good old Norm hanging upside down on a flourescent lighting fixture, clinging for dear life, evading Jill like Bugs Bunny out smarting Elmer Fudd.

(For your consideration…)

Like all Adam Sandler films, JACK AND JILL is a sloppy affair. It jumps from scene to scene, sometimes incomprehensible, as settings and situations rub shoulders without resolve or narrative cohesion. Reaction shots punctuate, rather, intrude upon the action. Lapses in time become the norm. If you bother thinking back about particular scenes, you’ll quickly realize how little context matters. Still, though the movie rambles, and clips, and sputters like something rabid and wild and begging to be put down, one thing remains consistent throughout – no matter what – The Joke reigns supreme.

Everything in the movie is there to serve The Joke.

Characters and plot fall at its funny, knobby feet.

Those lapses in time (the movie takes place between Thanksgiving and New Year’s Eve without much mention of Christmas or Chanukah) shift and unspool in service of The Joke.

From dining rooms to cruise ships, the settings are all set-ups for punchlines.

And that’s why, despite their shaggy ridiculousness, Sandler films work. They’re funny. Disembowel them all you want, at the end of the day, you’re going to laugh. Even cooler, with his latest crop of films, Sandler has figured how to make family films that truly entertain all members of the family.

There was a blip in time where Sandler seemed uncertain of which way to go. Pg-13 fare like YOU DON’T MESS WITH THE ZOHAN ramped up the sleazy, sex jokes – it still worked (just like DEUCE BIGALOW, and GRANDMA’S BOY, and the recent bomb, BUCKY LARSON), the film was still pretty hilarious, but it’s not something you could watch with your teenage daughter. His PG comedies have managed to clean it up, but they keep that low-brow stupidity. The jokes still work. The comedy doesn’t have to be dirty to click, just dumb. Lucky for the man, this formula seems to work well on audiences of all ages.

So roll your eyes and shake your head all you want. Be critical. I’ll take my laughs where I can get them. More please, Mr. Sandler