2014: The Year in Film: "22 Jump Street" Review

So 21 Jump Street, the Jonah Hill/Channing Tatum reboot of the late 80's TV series, was one of the more pleasant movie surprises of recent years. Directed by the awesome Phil Lord and Chris Miller (LEGO Movie), the flick accomplished several things: it continued the resurrection of the action/comedy genre in the style of Beverly Hills Cop, and it revealed that Channing Tatum is secretly an uber charismatic dude with a great sense of humor.

In the sequel, the stars and creators don't even bother with pretending that this one is anything other than more of the same, shamelessly making meta comments on the bigger budget and "more of the same" approach. In the hands of lesser talent, that would be obnoxious and grating, but the filmmakers pull it off here.  After 21 Jump Street, where Schmidt (Jonah Hill) and Jenko (Tatum) successfully brought down a major drug trafficking operation in a chaotic and mad-cap way, the department has decided to continue the undercover operation, only across the street at 22 Jump Street, with Schmidt and Jenko being sent to college in order to investigate another dangerous new drug.

The Good: the "bromance" hetero while pretty damn homoerotic love story between friends should be played out at this point, a solid 10 years after 40 Year Old Virgin, but owing to the chemistry between Hill and Tatum, the film makes it work. This is a story about the enduring bond between friends/bros through the turmoil of new relationships, new places and new friends wrapped in a college film wrapped in an action cop movie. The film never fails to recognize that everything happening is preposterous, but Hill and Tatum are so charming and hilarious in their roles that everything feels funny, smart and fresh. Several supporting characters are given more to do in this iteration, especially Ice Cube, who really relishes the opportunity to play a father, boss and badass police captain in this ridiculous universe. There's an extended post-credit sequence that provides the most LOL's I had in any movie all year.



The Bad: as much fun as everyone involved is clearly having, it's still undeniably lazy to just do the SAME THING over again. This flick is basically a complete rehash of the first one, and while that's a lot of fun, I think there would have been something to be said for letting this one breathe a little more, as it kind of treads the line of tedious and lazy on occasion.

Ultimately, despite being the EXACT SAME movie as 21 Jump Street, and making a ton of lazy bromance jokes, everyone involved is charming and funny enough to still make everything work. The chemistry between Tatum and Hill is palpable, and the flick offers a ton of laugh-out-loud worthy moments. If you liked 21 Jump Street, you'll like this one... and if you didn't, why would you want to watch this one anyway?

7.5/10.

2013: The Year in Film: "The Wolf of Wall Street" Review

Late? YOU BET.

Let's talk The Wolf of Wall Street, guys, as this one caused quite the stir upon its release.  First: Martin Scorsese is an absolute legend of the silver screen. The guy is 71 years old, has been releasing meaningful, crucial films for more than 4 decades now. Taxi Driver is 40 years old! Most filmmakers who were releasing classics in the 70's are either dead or have long ceased to be relevant in a creative sense. As Spielberg has long passed into bloated sentimentality and Coppola has faded into irrelevance, Scorsese is releasing kinetic, controversial, mad cap romps that display the confrontational irreverence of a man 40 years his junior. In Wolf, he's re-teamed with his new De Niro, Leonardo DiCaprio, for the 5th time now.

Wolf of Wall Street, titled after a memoir of the same name, follows a young stockbroker named Jordan Belfort as he seeks to break into the big time by any means necessary.  Through hubris, greed, innovative practices, and an uncompromising desire to do whatever it takes for success, Belfort builds an empire from nothing, exploiting, stealing, breaking the law and abusing whoever gets in his path all the way.

The Good: the enthusiasm of all involved in this production is infectious. The film is kinetic, engaging, and almost manic in its unyielding nihilism in the service of the true American religion: the almighty dollar.  Everyone is having so much fun that at times its tough to remember that what they are doing is despicable, giving financial scammers the same treatment afforded to mobsters in Scorsese's classic Goodfellas.  DiCaprio's performance is infectious, as he imbibes the persona of the sleazy Belfort. Jonah Hill is electric as his friend and business partner, Donnie Azoff, and I quite enjoyed Jon Bernthal's depiction of sleazy drug dealer/sometimes associate Brad. Matthew McConaughey is in this film for roughly 15 minutes, and steals every damn one of them.  The film is often funny, just as often revolting, and electric from front to back. It's a three hour film that has more uses of the F-word and its derivatives than any film in history, and I couldn't take my eyes off the screen.



The Bad: if anything, everyone is having so damn much fun that it's easy to lose sight of the deeper message, and that's what led to the bulk of the criticism of the film on its release. In this way, it's also not unlike Goodfellas.  The sex and drug use and good times are relentless and occasionally gratuitous, and I can see how that would be distracting and/or disturbing for more squeamish tastes.

Ultimately, this film is a joy to watch, but ultimately more important for what it represents: a time-capsule type view of a corrupt institution and the kind of people who inhabit this world, who also happen to be the wealthiest and most powerful people on the planet.  To me, my biggest takeaway was that Belfort and Co., despite their scumbaggery, aren't even that big time. They were dealing in hundreds of millions in a circle where billionaires are oddly common. (Yet another similarity with Goodfellas)  In the end, this film becomes the white collar Goodfellas, and one that will stick around for decades, so that we can (hopefully!) look back on the outlandish decadence of the height of Wall Street's power with disbelief after we, as a society, have brought the financial industry to some measure of reasonable control. If Wolf of Wall Street seems unbelievable, it's because the wealth and power of Wall Street truly is unbelievable.

A fun flick that ultimately has a lot to say about the power structures and incentives of our society, and ultimately paints an unflattering view of the role of greed and material wealth in America today. I kind of loved it, but I'll acknowledge that it's not for everyone.

8.5/10.

2013: The Year in Film: "This Is The End" Review.

You may have (and probably should just go ahead and do it if you haven't) forgotten about all of the hoopla surrounding the supposed "apocalypse" that was all over the internet last year. Well, it spawned a pair of comedies from some of the funniest people in Hollywood - "This Is The End" from the people who brought you Superbad and "The World's End" from the people who brought you Shawn of the Dead. This one had the benefit of coming out first and featuring a large number of extremely funny and well-known comedic actors from the Judd Apatow orbit. Featuring actors playing ridiculous versions of themselves, this flick focuses on a funny group of friends as they deal with a world-ending calamity.

Old friends Seth Rogen and Jay Baruchel (most recognizable for me from "Tropic Thunder" though he also played Danger in "Million Dollar Baby") have a pot and video game filled reunion weekend in LA planned. Jay, who doesn't like LA, begrudgingly agrees to accompany Seth to a celebrity-filled party at James Franco's house. (Among the celebs in attendance: Jonah Hill, Franco, Craig Robinson, Emma Watson, Michael Cera, Rihanna, and more) After what appears to be an earthquake hits LA, a small group boards themselves up in Franco's mansion to await what they think will be inevitable rescue. They soon discover that the calamity that has befallen LA may be much more than a simple earthquake and seek to survive and keep their sanity among the madness.

The Good: this flick at once features some very funny people who clearly get along quite well sharing whip smart barbs over preposterous and often terrifying situations. There is enough reality in their performances and interactions to really give the film a fun and intimate feel. Don't get me wrong, it never really feels like a documentary, but there's enough of a personal vibe that you really get a glimpse at what hanging out with this group might be like. Much of the film is obviously improvised, and the cast has hilarious interactions with one another based on real or fictionalized relationships. The cast is put through some preposterous and occasionally gruesome situations, but the script and cast is quick-witted and smart enough to find the humor in just about every situation. I found Jonah Hill, James Franco and the entire early party scene to be especially funny, and this group of people has a way to write real-feeling dialogue that you just don't find all that often. [See: Superbad] In addition, some of the more horror-y elements, while always remaining funny on some level, can result in some legitimate low-level scares. This apocalypse feels legitimate, and it's never completely laughed off.



The Bad: it drags a bit in the middle section, and doesn't become clear where exactly the film is going immediately leading up to the sprint to the close. If anything, the film could have benefited from pushing the actual event back a little and letting the party scene breathe more. Many of the film's funniest scenes happen in quick succession by using the available star power, and a movie could have been made from the party alone. In addition, there's a rather abrupt turn from one character in particular that feels unearned. Minutes prior the whole group was hanging out as friends and shortly thereafter one is trying to murder the others? It doesn't feel legitimate and feels a lot more like a device to push the plot along.

In all, this is an extremely enjoyable movie with a lot of solid laughs. There are hilarious sight gags and characterizations that take the interactions between these well-known and well liked actors to ridiculous places. Well worth seeing in the theater for the laughs alone. Ultimately, this one isn't as funny as Superbad (though very few comedies are) but it definitely works on a Pineapple Express (which is heavily referenced throughout) level. A solid time at the movies.

7.5/10

2012: The Year in Film: "21 Jump Street" Review

To be perfectly honest, I had less than no interest in seeing this one, I thought it looked like absolute toilet.. but then a crazy thing happened: the reviews were actually damn good. (As a nerd, I check the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores of basically all upcoming releases. Here's a pro-tip: Rotten Tomatoes scores by themselves aren't all that helpful. For instance, a movie like "the Town", which is undoubtedly good but not great, has a Rotten Tomatoes score of 94%. So I look at a combination of the RT score and the average rating, listed right below. Anything over 7 is good, anything over 8 may well be great. Obviously movies are a subjective business, but if you're deciding whether or not you want to see something, you could do worse than considering the Rotten Tomatoes scores.) So something like "21 Jump Street", that I would have expected to have a RT score in the 30's, comes out with an 86% and 7.1 average? This requires investigation, and said investigation took the form of a slightly hungover weekend matinee. Going in, I knew that I liked Jonah Hill and have long been a fan, but I sort of hate Channing Tatum.. the dude is largely a rubbish actor and was pretty stiff on SNL, so my expectations for his comedic abilities were.. nil? This has been a passion project of Jonah Hill's for years and is basically the reason he got freakishly skinny, so let's check it out.

First, I have no familiarity with the late 80's show that 1.) launched the career of Capt. Jack Sparrow himself and 2.) served as the inspiration for this flick. According to my mom we used to watch it, but I have spent the last 10 years of my life memorizing trivial facts and drinking, a combination that's highly non-conducive to retaining childhood memories. However, from what I know, the show was an earnest police procedural featuring young police going undercover in high schools and other teenage settings. Jonah Hill and co. have reimagined 21 Jump Street as an action comedy in the "Pineapple Express" vein.

Schmidt (Hill) and Jenko (Tatum) are high school acquaintances (Jenko being a cool jock and Schmidt being a nerd) who become friends in the Police academy and eventually partners assigned to bike cop duty. A bumbled bust leads them to be reassigned to a revived undercover operation from the '80's, where they discover they'll be placed undercover as brothers in a local high school in pursuit of a new drug. A mix up over their identities leads to the two having vastly different high school experiences than they did the first time around as they bumble through the case and their lives.

First, this flick is significantly better than it has any right being. Hill and Tatum have great chemistry, and you really believe that this modern day odd couple are in fact good friends despite their obvious differences. There's also an undercurrent of sweet sentimentality and nostalgia as our protaganists use their second high school go-around to make up for lost time. The changes in teen culture over the last decade ("nerds" are now "cool", for one) throw our erstwhile heroes for a loop, and Jenko and Schmidt soon find themselves in over their heads in their new environment.


This flick contains a lot of funny moments and features solid comedic performances from Tatum (I know.. I was shocked as well), the always-strong Jonah Hill and Rob Riggle as a gym teacher/coach. The film is unafraid to confront certain tropes head-on and if anything is a bit TOO knowing with its snarky satire. The action scenes are over the top and feel a bit out of place.. but I'm not a huge fan of the whole "comedy/action" genre as a whole. This flick is at its best when it's being an actually strong high school flick featuring believable characters and interactions. It's often sweet, usually funny, and all in all, well worth a watch. 21 Jump Street is plenty decent, you guys.

7/10.

2011: The Year in Film: "Moneyball" Review

Moneyball Before we review this badboy, let's have a brief discussion about theater etiquette. Where did people learn that it's ok to carry on a full-volume conversation in a theater? It seems that theater behavior is pretty fundamental.. they remind you on the screen prior to the start of the movie for christ's sake. Like, how self-absorbed are you that you really aren't even whispering? What the hell? The most annoying thing people do (listen up, ladies) is ask questions mid-movie. Let me let you in on a little secret: ALL WILL BE REVEALED. Seriously, something fun about books, and movies, and TV shows is that they tend to explain things in time. I can guarantee one of two things: either the very thing you are asking will be explained, probably in short order, or the movie you're watching is full of holes and a piece of shit. Questions like "who's that?", "what's he doing", etc. are so incredibly stupid. If it isn't already painfully clear, either explicitly or through context, it's about to be made explicitly clear. If you're unable to interpret the clear signals given to you by people who tell stories for a living, either you're stupid or the movie you're watching is. Either way: DON'T ASK QUESTIONS DURING THE FUCKING MOVIE. It is getting to the point where I am considering bringing some sort of shank to the theater. A woman probably aged between 55 and 70 was seated directly behind me and asking pretty basic questions at full volume. Literally no effort to whisper whatsoever. If you don't know what baseball free-agency is.. 45 minutes into a movie that you paid and everyone else paid $10 to get into is probably not the time to familiarize yourself with an extremely elementary concept that would probably be best solved BEFORE SEEING A BASEBALL MOVIE. The whole concept of whatever that woman was up to is so damn stupid to me that it hurts my brain. But anyway, ON WITH THE REVIEW.

So "Moneyball" is based on a book of the same name by Michael Lewis that chronicled Billy Beane, the GM of the Oakland A's then and now, and his push of a computerized, sabermetric approach to building a major league baseball team. I love baseball, I love science, and I love statistics and the new sabermetric approach to baseball and sports in general, so I'm embarrassed to say that I haven't read the book, despite it being recommended to me literally 10+ times. However, I am familiar with the story and people involved, so I was excited to see this one. Bennett Miller, best known for directing "Capote" is at the helm, and Aaron Sorkin co-wrote the screenplay, adapting Lewis' book.

It is 2001, and the Oakland A's, fresh off a 100+ win season and disappointing playoff loss, find that they've lost their three best players (Jason Giambi, Johnny Damon and Jason Isringhausen) to free-agency and are facing the difficult prospect of rebuilding on a serious budget. At the time, the Oakland A's had a payroll of less than $40 million while the New York Yankees (among others) had a payroll of around $140 million. (In case you're curious, this situation has only become worse over time) Beane, frustrated at the situation he's facing, decides that a new approach is required to help his team compete. After meeting a young staffer for the Cleveland Indians (sad face) who is using an innovative computer program to evaluate talent and maximize value, Beane brings the staffer to Oakland as Assistant GM, and the two overhaul the team based on statistical analysis rather than "look" and "tools" and the traditional things valued by old-school baseball scouts.

I know, it sounds boring. But Aaron Sorkin wrote it... and he's an amazing, amazing screenwriter. Did you like "the Social Network"? Yeah, he did that. Among many, many other things. Sure, on the surface it's about baseball, but really this film is about science and rationality and change challenging tradition and the old guard. There was, and continues to be in some circles (cough, Joe Morgan, cough) substantial resistance and even hostility to the "moneyball" approach... but make no mistake, sabermetrics are now used to at least some extent by just about every baseball franchise and are spreading to other sports. Billy Beane and co. were first. By mixing in baseball action with drama and scenes fleshing out Billy Beane, the film manages to rise above its somewhat limited synopsis to become part biopic, part social commentary, part sports movie and part documentary.

Brad Pitt stars as Billy Beane.. and this flick would have succeeded or failed based just about entirely on his performance. He does not disappoint. His version of Beane is intense, standoffish and a whole lot of a prick, but also very likable. Considering that probably 1/3rd of the movie is Beane by himself or with one other person being intense, a strong Beane is an absolute requirement. Jonah Hill makes a foray into the serious as the fictional (his character is in fact a combination of a couple of different assistants to Beane) Peter Brand, a Yale-educated computer whiz who never played baseball at any level. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is virtually unrecognizable as the pudgy, priggish Manager of the A's who is skeptical of Beane's new approach. Chris "Andy from Parks and Rec" Pratt makes a foray into the serious as Moneyball wet dream exemplar Scott Hatteberg. Once I got over "holy shit, that's Andy!" mode, he was very good and brought an "aw schucks" charm to the role. The supporting players are all very good and believable, but make no mistake, this is Pitt's film.. and he more than rises to the challenge.



The screenplay is tight and brings, through the use of flashbacks, some context and depth to the proceedings so it's not just simply a straightforward telling of the A's 2002 season. The dialogue is crisp and often funny, the characters feel very human, and by framing the film as a contest between underdog outsiders vs. good old boy traditionalism, the film transcends sports and has a lot to say about society in general. I really liked this movie.. it's top 3 for the year.

8.5/10. See "Moneyball" if you like baseball, if you liked "The Social Network", or if you're in the mood to see something made for grownups and demonstrates the growing potential of film. If they can turn "Moneyball" and Bill James' sabermetrics into a movie, I'm excited to see what's coming.