Review: 21 Jump Street (2012)

 

"You are here because you some Justin Beaver, Miley Cyrus lookin' muthas."



 




Remakes are a tricky bag. Hollywood has been churning out reboots of movies and TV shows for so long now, that most people groan at the thought of having to sit through another one. They usually are either exactly the same (or maybe slightly modernized) or so different that they really have little in common with the original. Occasionally the remake is critically lauded, sometimes even over the original (2010’s True Grit comes to mind but 2007’s 3:10 To Yuma and 1983’s Scarface both work). But really those are the minority. Most remakes are cliché, pointless, and a testament to the “there’s no new ideas in Hollywood” mentality. 21 Jump Street is not one of those films.

Based on the 1987 TV series of the same name, 21 Jump Street follows two cops who go undercover as high school students trying to bust a drug ring open. My extent of knowledge on the TV series, other than it being the jump off point to Johnny Depp’s career, starts and ends with the basic premise. And honestly it’s a pretty ridiculous idea that grown men and women could go undercover in a high school. Luckily for moviegoers, this 21 Jump Street makes it clear pretty quickly that everyone involved knows how outlandish this idea is, and continually makes fun of it. From early on, directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller lambast the original show, as well as high school and buddy cop movie tropes. And it’s easily one of the funniest films of the year.

Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum star as the two aforementioned cops each complementing the other one; Hill is a brainiac and lousy at physical exertion while Tatum is fine with running and jumping but not so good at tests. They’re predictably asked to adopt identities similar to their own but they accidentally switch profiles while in school, leaving the athletic Tatum to hang with the nerds and dorky Hill to chill with the cool kids. Much of the drama derives from this simple setup whether it’s Tatum coming to terms with Hill being the new cool kid or Hill awkwardly auditioning for the school play.

The real humor of the movie lies in it’s satire of conventions of both the high school and the cop movie. Tatum is stunned to find out on the first day of school that the cool kids now care about the environment, get straight A’s, and in general are nicer to other people. It’s a clear sign that someone is actually paying attention to modern high schools and not just rehashing The Breakfast Club stereotypes. Honestly, I’m not sure what other people’s high school experiences were, but this is about as close as it comes to what high school was like for me. And that’s a refreshing change from literally any other high school-related media in recent memory (I’m looking squarely at you, Glee). Tired of how in every car in every cop movie (or anything in a Michael Bay movie) explodes regardless of context? 21 Jump Street plays that up. Annoyed that Hollywood keeps rehashing the same storylines in movies and hope you never notice? 21 Jump Street goes there. Nothing is off limits and the jokes land whether in context of the story or as a meta-analysis of the genre(s).

On the acting side of things, Jonah Hill is predictably good and well suited to the role (he actually co-created the story the screenplay was based on). But the real highlight is Channing Tatum. It’s no secret I’ve never really thought too much of him, but Jump Street proves he has the chops. He lands both the funniest jokes and the most dramatic moments and can switch between them seamlessly. Also of note is Dave Franco (James Franco’s younger brother). I’ve been a hopeful fan of his since Funny or Die’s Acting with James Franco web videos and he was a highlight on the otherwise dismal ninth season of Scrubs, so it’s nice to finally see him get a decent role in a quality production.

Overall, it’s a solid film from start to finish and the jokes are still funny on a second viewing (a problem with most comedies). Remakes rarely live up to the expectations of the original, but 21 Jump Street surpasses it’s television roots by leaps and bounds with it’s sharp script and invigorating performances by all involved.


8/10


Follow @astraeus_

Review: Blood Simple (1984)

"Well, ma'am, if I see him, I'll sure give him the message."











Before the review, we’re gonna have to jump into a small film history lesson to talk about a specific film movement called ‘film noir.’ Noir is hard to classify but the consensus usually falls that it is not a genre (like a western or a comedy), but a film with a specific mood and feel to it. Obviously this is very subjective so what films constitute a noir and even what noir itself needs to have to be considered a noir are always dependent on the individual. Well somehow, most critics did come to a somewhat vague consensus that film noir is pretty much a descriptor of certain dark, crime films from the 1940’s (this is an incredibly loose definition in order to get to the point). Thus any film since that era that uses some of the same tropes are typically called ‘neo-noirs.’ With a collection of antiheroes, unusual camera angles, and prominent use of Chiaroscuro (light and shadows), Blood Simple is one of those films.

From 1984, Blood Simple is the debut film by the now famous Coen brothers. Joel Coen directed, Ethan Coen produced, and the two wrote the screenplay together. For the past 28 years, the Coen brothers have been a critically acclaimed, filmmaking machine and have been nominated for Academy Awards 33 times. They continue to impress audiences with their unconventional approach to genre films and an increasingly sharp wit. What’s truly impressive is that everything great about the Coen brother’s films can be seen in their earliest form in Blood Simple. The plot itself is dense and filled with double crossings, love triangles, and drawn out suspense. It’s dark and incredibly thrilling. And yet, somehow despite the murders and betrayals, Blood Simple manages to create some genuinely funny moments. It’s a testament both to the Coen brother’s intellect and vision and to the commitment from the actors.

Of particular note are the performances of Frances McDormand and M. Emmet Walsh both of whom really make the characters their own. Much of the aforementioned humor comes from Walsh’s portrayal of the private detective, Loren Visser, who does much of the double crossing. At first glance, Visser seems like a bumbling redneck in a 10-gallon hat with a goofy smile, but in Walsh’s talented hands, there is a real dark tenacity to him. We’re laughing with him at one minute, then scared of what he might do next. It’s a complete shift and like any great actor, you can see this shift in his eyes.

Frances McDormand plays the female lead and in a traditional noir, she would be the femme fatale. The Femme fatale usually was a seductive woman who would charm multiple people (including the main character) into dangerous situations and are typically considered villains. However in Blood Simple, Frances McDormand’s Abby seems much more innocent. Yes, her involvement in an affair ends up in several deaths, but unlike classic noir women, it was never her intention and she is genuinely shocked when someone is killed. It’s an interesting twist on a classic archetype, but this is the Coen brothers and that is usually one of their signatures.

On the technical side, the shot composition and cinematography are absolutely great. The entire roadside sequence is a classic, and is such a treat in lighting, editing, and pacing. This was cinematographer Barry Sonnenfeld’s first film, yet it looks like a seasoned veteran did it (Interestingly enough Sonnenfeld would later move to the director’s chair and direct the Men In Black trilogy, Get Shorty, The Adams Family, and…Wild Wild West. Well, we can’t all be perfect.).

Blood Simple is a thrilling ride and a great historical lesson on all things Coen brothers and neo-noir. But make no mistake, you don’t need to be a fan of the Coen brothers or possess any knowledge on a niche cinema style to enjoy this well-crafted movie.


7/10


Follow @astraeus_

The Instruction Manual

By now our loyal readers (Hi Jake!) should be used to the basic format for the posts, but I’d like to briefly delve into our review system to better explain our thoughts on scoring a film. At Chaz and Ryan Love Movies we use a scale of ‘1’ to ‘10’, with ‘1’ being the lowest score and ‘10’ being the highest. On this scale, if a film gets a ‘1’, it is an abysmally bad experience. Any number of things can lead to this but usually it’s a combination of aspects including, but not limited to: lackluster direction, stiff “acting”, incomprehensible scripts, messy editing, bad sound mixing, generic or inappropriate-placed soundtracking, etc. A perfect example of a film that would score a ‘1’ would be Plan 9 From Outer Space. Unless you are watching Plan 9 to make fun of it, there is literally nothing redeemable about this “film.” Basically any film we give a ‘1’ through ‘4’ to, is a movie we recommend not seeing unless, of course, you enjoy pain.

By that logic, a ‘5’ on our scale results in an average film. Some things they get right, some things they screw up beyond belief. Usually a film with a ‘5’ gets a lot of technical aspects right (although never exceeds them) but the fault usually lies in the scripting, acting, or overall direction. Once again, these are by no means bad movies; they are simply average and, unfortunately in some cases, forgettable. These films will be the hardest to review as there simply isn’t too much to say and likewise, we can neither recommend nor discourage you from seeing it. If you’ve been following us for a minute now, my review of Puss In Boots should suffice as an example.

Now anything that gets a ‘6’ or higher we recommend that you try and see. Whether that’s in theaters, download, rented, Netflix’d, or purchased on home video (Blu-Ray is the official format here at Chaz and Ryan Love Movies), these are all worth your valuable time. At about an ‘8’, the film in question is a truly great movie and you should really try and see it in theaters. Trust us, it’s worth the ticket price. Also if you’re curious, anything we give a ‘7’ or higher to, we usually deem a purchase and add to our own, vast Blu-Ray/DVD collections.

If all of this makes sense so far, than it should not surprise you that a ‘10’ is something we consider a perfect film. Obviously perfection is something that is very personal, but in general these lucky few are able to make every aspect of film production flawless. And while it’s not required, these movies usually follow Chaz and I’s theory on film being the ideal merger between entertainment and art. To get an idea of what I’d personally consider a perfect film, these are a handful of movies I’d give a ‘10’ to: Drive, Inception, The Shawshank Redemption, Shutter Island, Blade Runner: The Final Cut, Rear Window, The Social Network, Gone Baby Gone, Contact, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Prestige, and The Fountain. Don’t expect to see a lot of ‘10’s; perfection is hard to come by. Likewise, don’t expect a bunch of ‘1’s. The likelyhood of having more than five of either score in a year is incredibly low.

A majority of movies are average, not terrible or incredible despite what Rotten Tomatoes or your local newspaper will tell you. And since we choose the movies we watch (rather than being assigned), we’ll be a lot less likely to see something that we think looks terrible (if you’re holding your breath for a Transformers 4 review, give up now). Therefore you may notice a trend of ‘6’s and ‘7’s, but keep in mind that is a positive score here. Hope this clears up any questions you might have had about the reviews. If not, hit us up in the comment section or on Twitter.

Follow @astraeus_

Follow @chazclassic