PG-13

Zoolander Review

August 8, 2015 by JD Hansel

It’s a happy coincidence that I happened to come across Zoolander right around the time that the news of the sequel started spreading, and I’m hopeful that the coincidence could hand me an extra slice of attention for this review. What’s important for that to work, however, is that I have something new and interesting to say about this film. The problem is that I oddly have very little to say about it. It’s simple, passable, and done correctly.

If I may be honest, I generally don’t go for the brand(s) of humor developed by Ben Stiller, Will Ferrell, and Owen Wilson, which generally involve(s) idiots shouting, or just over-the-top awkwardness. This film, however, seems to play its cards right, and it knows how to make a “correct” film. Its jokes are based on the interactions of its strong characters, with very appropriate cameos, and its moron protagonists are innocent enough to be likable. The biggest laugh for me is the nod to 2001, which is strangely perfect. The overall plot is clever, the visuals are appealing, and the soundtrack is a delight. While I may have my little gripes about a couple of things I’d have done differently, I can’t dis a film that makes the smart choices and strives to be “technically correct,” even if it has a deliberately incorrect comedy style.

I must wonder, however, if it could have been better had it worked out a clever way to be successfully incorrect. Perhaps this is what’s required for a good movie to be more than just a good movie.

Paper Towns Review

August 3, 2015 by JD Hansel

Alright, I think it’s time for us to have “the talk.”

As a proud cinema snob, this is tough for me to talk about openly, but we need to discuss the true implications of “the C word” – cliché. We critics have always assumed that it’s a Cinema Sin for a story to be cliché and/or stereotypical. Obviously, a film would ideally be entirely original, and would set itself apart from even its best imitators. On the other hand, while it might be disheartening to think that one of our favorite critiques to use against the mediocre could be a moot point, we may have to admit that rejecting the unoriginal can cheat a film that would be absolutely brilliant… had it only come out a few years earlier. Let’s really think about this: can an otherwise good movie be condemned solely for its inappropriate chronological placement?

Sometimes we do appreciate a film that reuses old ideas in better ways, and I think Doug and Rob Walker have extinguished Inside Out criticisms definitively on multiple occasions. The problem arises when a story is pleasant enough to be enjoyable, but it uses a stereotypical formula for its genre – without adding enough originality or twists to give it significance. For the “based on a book all the teenage girls and their mothers have read” genre, there is a trick to dodge this, namely built-in fill-in-the-blanks for unique character details, but is that enough to keep the audience from feeling like they’re watching the genre rather than a movie? In the case of Paper Towns, that is exactly the problem, and to drive the point home, I counted the number of clichés responsible for this effect that appear throughout the film.

It’s thirty five. That is scary.

To clarify the kind of clichés I’m talking about, I will further explain the concept of built-in fill-in-the-blanks. Please refer to the now infamous Tumblr post entitled “John Green’s writing process” by clicking here. This writing style, which seems rather common today, uses a Mad Lib formula to add bizarre little details and fun idiosyncrasies to each character, usually consisting of a curious mismatched adjective/noun pairing. This adds flavor to the story, but it can quickly grow stale, because one can only see so many combinations in the vein of Patrick’s cancerous balls in TFioS or Margo’s random capitalization in Paper Towns before it’s all the same. The most prominent combo of this nature in the film is the “black Santas,” which sounds so, so, so much like it comes from a Mad Lib that I’m starting to think John Green really does employ a dartboard in his writing process.

That being said, I’m limited in the extent to which I can criticize the film due to the other tricky dilemma that makes critics uncomfortable – adaptations have to stick to their source material, for better or for worse. Any problems I have with the film from a writing standpoint can really only take up about half of my review, and my problem with clichés should take up only a small portion of that, because I really don’t like shaming a film purely for its similarity to others in its genre (especially since the book came out a few years before all these clichés became so established). So, I guess the real question to ask about this movie is: did I have a good time experiencing it? I’d say I did. It’s a pleasant film that never fails to entertain with its lovable cast (particularly Jaz Sinclair, whose charm will take her far, I suspect) and its interesting plot, which was paced and stylized appropriately. The dynamic of the characters, particularly during the Pokémon scene, is enough to make the film quite pleasant to watch, and it leaves me wanting more… unless maybe I wanted more because the ending was anticlimactic, but let’s not think about that.

Austin Powers Review

July 22, 2015 by JD Hansel

Some of us are blessed, at one point or another in life, with a special kind of friendship. It’s a magical thing when one can plan a get-together without actually planning anything but getting together, secure in the knowledge that it’ll be a fun time no matter what happens. With certain special friends, one could even sprawl out on the lawn and watch the grass die for hours, and yet it would still be a delight. This is my only explanation for how a film as pointless Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery can be so enjoyable.

At the heart of the picture is a bunch of lovable characters. In spite of the shortcomings that could make a person of Austin’s intelligence unlikable, it’s clear that Austin doesn’t know any better than to be… well, Austin. He may be a moron, but he clearly means well, and he strives to do good work (often with success). Dr. Evil still has an innocence about him because, much like Dr. Doofenshmirtz, he does what he feels he’s supposed to be doing. He’s playing the role in life that he truly believes he’s meant to play, and he tries his best, although he’s constantly conquered by a fool. The Charles Schulz concept of empathy generated by being “more acquainted with losing than winning” applies here. Evil’s son also seems to mean well, but is just confused. This film even found a way to make the flat protagonist from Cabaret likable, and that is no small feat. In spite of the number of scenes that do not really move the plot along, we would watch these characters in any number of situations, regardless of whether or not we were getting a proper story.

This actually may challenge a theory of mine to which I have been quite devoted: “People don’t go to a movie theater to watch a film, but to experience a story.” I now suspect I must amend that to include, “and/or explore ideas,” but might that be redundant? After all, at the heart of a story is the exploration of an idea, namely showing what would happen if a particular character were put in a peculiar situation, with a narrative built to explicate the idea. That, I think, is the root of all storytelling, and perhaps it is because of that that we can forgive a scene or two that would conventionally be forbidden from a screenwriting standpoint (e.g. showing Dr. Evil and his son in a support group, which has no relevance to the plot whatsoever). I may go so far as to say that the deliberate ignorance of conventional storytelling (as seen in the Monty Python films) is not only forgivable, but has a disorderly and chaotic quality that only adds to the comedy.

So, in short, while I don’t think I laughed aloud as much as I would have hoped, I do think this movie has an irresistible joyful quality about it. It is a celebration of freedom, of heroism, and of the 1960s. It is very visually appealing and stylistically crafted. The soundtrack is not only perfect for the story, but would be great to have in my music collection. Its leading lady does a stupendous job at portraying the type of competent and intelligent woman that is most desirable for stories in this age of film. Another thing to note is that I actually had seen the third film in the series many years ago, and although I did not remember it well, I’ve been surprised by just how much I enjoy seeing these characters again and going back to this whimsical world of bizarre lunacy. It may not have been a huge laugh for me, and I may not have related to the characters as much as I would like in order to really care about them, but I must confess that the film is undeniably quite well done, baby.

A Night at the Roxbury Review

June 26, 2015 by JD Hansel

I thought it would be interesting to follow up my review of Blues Brothers with a review of another SNL spin-off, so I chose Roxbury since I enjoy the old “What Is Love” sketch. I went into the film expecting a weak, virtually plotless story about detestable characters, and perhaps it was my low expectations that allowed me to kind of enjoy the film. I could tell I was watching no masterpiece, but it was surprisingly easier to watch than Blues Brothers. Why? It was simple.

I’m all for movies that get a bit complex in terms of story structure and details, such asCLUE in terms of a detailed screenplay or Pulp Fiction in terms of a unique story structure. The problems occur when a movie is more wrapped up in details and complexity than it is in showing/telling the plot. The Dark Crystal suffers from this, although I still respect it deeply, and I wonder if Blues Brothers is in a similar category. Blues Brothers is hard to follow only because it seems to forget where it’s going, and there is something unsettling about following an unfocused movie. After all, a filmmaker is, to a large extent, the tour guide through an unknown world, and it’s a little disrespectful to the tour group to wander about aimlessly instead of focusing on what the tourists came to see. (I am unwavering in my conviction that audiences don’t go to theaters to see films, but rather to experience stories, so I naturally propose that the story ought to be the focus of nearly every movie.)

While I do not mean for this to become another review of Blues Brothers, I think the comparison is important to me because of how much easier it was to watch Roxbury, if only because it was more focused. I know on an intellectual level that Roxbury is a weaker film, but it felt easier to watch, and I think that’s where simplicity and focus come into play. It’s pretty clear from near the beginning that the story is simply two idiots trying to get into a nightclub, and I suppose Blues Brothers has a story with about the same simplicity. The difference is that Roxbury is only about 80 minutes long, whereas Blues Brothers, which could have been the same length, is over two hours long. Roxbury was kind enough to get to its point … the problem is, it doesn’t have much of a point.

It’s severely lacking in humor, and some critics have gone as far as to say that the film only has one joke: the protagonists are idiots. I contest, as I think the butt-touching gag was fun, but it’s not good when the best joke in the film is butt-touching. I didn’t hate the protagonists as much as I thought I would since there seems to be some kind of innocence about them. They clearly just never grew out of middle school, and they very much reminded me of my younger self, so I was able to empathize with the characters. I honestly was routing for them, wondering how the story and conflicts would all be resolved, which I suppose means it didn’t fail as a movie. It just failed as a comedy, and certainly did not reach the heights of the comedy films I most enjoy. I certainly don’t hate the film, since it is basically harmless; I just think it’s best for the viewer to be doing something else to keep his/her mind busy while it’s on, lest the mind be weakened by the stupid.

Avengers: Age of Ultron Review

May 20, 2015 by JD Hansel

First of all, everyone needs to see the first Avengers movie, preferably after seeingCaptain America and Iron Man. Then, watch Avengers, and after that, Capt 2 and maybe a few of the others in between. After that, you care about all the characters in Avengers: Age of Ultron. That’s really all that matters with this movie.

The movie is an excuse to hang out with the characters. That’s all. The story is not really special, and the visuals are typical for this kind of film. (I will give it props for its excellent opening, which is very impressive, but I prefer the look of the current Daredevil series to the look of the Avengers films.) The movie is really a blast so long as you really enjoy seeing what the characters throw at one another (figuratively and literally) and you enjoy good bantering, drama, one liners, and character development. The story is, at the very least, set up so that the audience is very interested in seeing what the characters will do next, and how they’ll get out of tricky situations. It’s a fun summer movie, and that’s all it needed to be. I highly recommend it.

Ever After Review

May 8, 2015 by JD Hansel

Do you know how often I give a movie four and a half stars? I’ve done over 50 movie reviews and I only gave such a rating to two of them … but today you can make that three. To be honest, I probably should have given this rating to a couple other really good movies I’ve reviewed, such as Annie Hall, but I really wanted to save such a high number for the absolute best of the best. For this reason, it is odd that I would choose to give this rating to a film that stars one of my least favorite actors in the lead role. (What, you don’t see why I don’t like Drew Barrymore? I can’t really explain it, but I find her voice pretty annoying, and the roles she plays are often the kind of characters that seem like they were written just to bug me.)

Here’s the thing: that’s pretty much the movie’s only flaw. Everything else, from the story to the dialogue to the performances to the visuals to the music, was done right. The world of the film is enchanting, the characters are delightful, and the story manages to capture all of the best elements of the story upon which it is based, Cinderella, while carefully adjusting what does not hold up. The story of “Cinderella” is a timeless one, which means it does not need an update unless something extra special will be added. Rather than adding anything too terribly brilliant or different, this film adds the basic thing that “Cinderella” lacked – a love story that’s actually a love story. And it’s a good love story at that.

The movie owes much of its success to the main character, and while I think it was the writing that made the character great, Barrymore’s performance was really not bad. The character could have been ruined by someone who lacked talent, but Barrymore’s acting talent allowed for the character to shine through in exactly the way it needed to, making aCinderella that the audience really cares about. It helped that she was doing an accent, but what really helped was the way the dialogue was written. It was done in such a way that the character is strong, smart, independent, and brave, without seeming like an annoying know-it-all. This is a fine example of the type of character I would like to see more often in cinema.

If I may note one other thing, and I do believe this is key, I think it helps to have the writer be the director, or at least have some additional control over the project so his/her vision gets across. Many of the other movie’s I’ve reviewed that I enjoyed the most had Woody Allen as both the writer and the director, or at the very least as both writer and star. Planes, Trains, and Automobiles came very close to getting four and a half stars out of me, and Silver Linings Playbook succeeded in doing so. Both of those had the writer direct as well. Perhaps this is just the wishful thinking of a screenwriting control freak, but I want to see this become common practice.