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

Review: The Secret World Of Arrietty (2012)

"Human beings are dangerous. If we're seen, we have to leave."

*This review concerns the English dubbing of the film and thus will reference the US version’s titles, translation, and release dates*

Japan’s Studio Ghibli produces some of the finest films in the world. Since 1985, the studio has been churning out quality picture after quality picture. Their hard work culminated at the 75^th Academy Awards where Studio Ghibli’s Spirited Away won the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature, the very first time (and one of only two overall) for a non-US film to win. I love the films Ghibli create. I’ve seen them all and, save for one (I’m looking at you Pom Poko), I highly recommend checking out their full catalog. Studio Ghibli’s founder and key player is Hayao Miyazaki who wrote and directed 9 out of 18 of the studio’s films and produced four others (of those, he wrote the screenplays for two of them). The man has a perfect track record and is easily one of my favorite directors. For The Secret World Of Arrietty, Miyazaki serves as a developing planner and the co-writer of the screenplay. Miyazaki’s usual themes of environmentalism and feminism are still interwoven throughout the story (based on Mary Norton’s The Borrowers), but first time director Hiromasa Yonebayashi puts his own touches to this heartwarming and exciting tale.


The plot revolves around Arrietty, voiced by Bridgit Mendler, and her family of “little people” or “borrowers” who live in the cupboards of a human family’s house. They take small things the humans would never notice/miss in order to survive. They range from a single sugar cube or one tissue or the tiniest scraps of fabric. When a young sickly boy, Shawn (voiced by David Henrie), spots Arrietty, her family must make the difficult decision to either stay in the comfort of their home and risk more humans finding them or traverse harsh conditions to find a new one. It’s a fun story that does an excellent job of making you care about the characters.


The voice acting is good, but not amazing. David Henrie in particular seems out of place and lacking. It’s interesting to note that Disney (who distributes all of the Ghibli films outside of Japan) seems to be using their position in casting the English voice actors to use it as a platform for their own Disney channel stars (both the two mentioned earlier are from Wizards of Waverly Place, while 2009’s Ponyo had both Noah Cyrus and Frankie Jonas in the main roles who’s older siblings were on Disney’s biggest shows at the time). I only mention this because earlier releases saw big names like Christian Bale & Emily Mortimer (2005’s Howl’s Moving Castle), Claire Danes & Billy Bob Thornton (1999’s Princess Mononoke), and Michael Keaton & Cary Elwes (1992’s Porco Rosso). I’m not sure if Disney is getting less and less of a budget to attract big stars or their just choosing young stars from their own roster, but Ponyo and Arrietty both had much weaker voice acting than the previous Ghibli dubs.


What is amazing, however, is the animation and attention to detail. Not since Pixar’s Toy Story have we been able to see such a tiny world seem incredibly massive. From a drop of dew on a leaf, to the heft of a single sugar cube, to the sprawling forest that is the human’s backyard, The Secret World of Arrietty creates a grand narrative out of the smallest details. The animation is bright and fluid, as it always is with Ghibli films. Whether Arrietty is running from the house cat through the grass or a crow on the roof, the animation never rests and is absolutely breathtaking.


Of final note to Ghibli aficionados like myself, The Secret World of Arrietty marks the first major Studio Ghibli release to use a composer other than the veritable Joe Hisaishi. Instead, director Yonebayashi went with French singer Cécile Corbel. Trading Hisaishi’s piano for harp lines, Corbel creates lush atmospheres with tinges of both Celtic and Japanese sounds. Ultimately, I think it works. A new director’s fresh take on a classic story matched with a new composer to give a unique and different feel to anything else Studio Ghibli has released.

8/10


Follow @astraeus_

Review: Final Destination 5 (2011)

"Death... doesn't like to be cheated."

Quick, scroll down and check the score out. Go ahead, I’ll wait. Surprised? Yes, Final Destination 5 is actually quite good. Is it ridiculous? Yes. Is it stupid at times? Yes. Does that stop if from being entertaining? No. First things first, I did not see this in 3D so I cannot comment on those effects. Second and perhaps surprisingly, this is only one of two Final Destination movies that I’ve seen (the other being number 2). So how is it that someone who’s only seen one other film in the franchise and in general dislikes horror/gore movies somehow finds this good? Well to put it simply, Final Destination 5 is filled with gruesome fun. From the expertly staged opening disaster of a suspended bridge collapse to the succession of violent deaths of the main cast, Final Destination 5 gets all the pieces right.

The plot is pretty much the same as the other four movies; one person gets a premonition of a coming disaster and “saves” a bunch of people by keeping them away from whatever catastrophe the writers throw at them this time, but of course death has a way of catching up everyone, in the most grisly ways imaginable. It’s a tried and true formula in both the franchise and horror films in general, but Final Destination 5 keeps the film moving and doesn’t get bogged down in trivial matters like “realism.”

As with all the Final Destination movies, they do a good job of building suspense for the kills. We, as the audience, know that these people will die (especially after 4 previous films) so it’s admirable that the script and direction can still keep us on the edge of the seat wondering which knick-knack will set off a chain of events that, ultimately, will result in a CG bloodbath (most of the deaths have great foreshadowing or a thematic connection to how they were ‘supposed’ to die in the bridge accident as well).

Probably the biggest highlight of number 5 though, is how it really ties the franchise together. Towards the end we get a montage of all the previous deaths throughout the past four movies, but what really shines, are the small moments that really connect the movies; the plane from the first movie, the logging truck from the second, the “Hice Pale Ale” beer that is seen throughout the films, background appearances by other Final Destination characters, and more just do a great job of giving a small nod to any fans of the series watching. The ending is by far the best thing about the movie and without giving away too much, it firmly serves the darker tone the first movie originally set out to depict. We’d be lucky if all horror movies were this well thought out.

6/10


Follow @astraeus_

Review: Lost In Translation (2003)

"...Is that all he said?"

Lost In Translation is such an apt title. Yes, the film deals with people attempting to overcome a language barrier, no- a cultural one, in a foreign place, but what the film is really about is people who are lost. Lost in work, lost in relationships, lost in a mid-life crisis, lost in life. And yet among all these people drifting aimlessly, two very different people find comfort in one another.

Bill Murray is an aging film actor, named Bob, in Japan to shoot a whiskey commercial to make a cool $2 million. Scarlett Johansson is Charlotte, a newlywed woman whose continually left behind in the hotel room by her husband (the always awesome Giovanni Ribisi), a celebrity photographer on assignment in Tokyo. Much of the first half of the film shows Bob and Charlotte in desperate loneliness. When the two finally do meet, the forge a charming friendship and take ease that neither of them understand the culture here in Japan.

The first glimpses we see of Tokyo are through Bob dealing with culture shock. While shooting his whiskey commercial, Bob is given comically long directions from his Japanese director, yet the translator simply says, “He wants you to turn, look in camera. O.K.?” Scenes like this give the film it’s comedic edge. And this is much needed; from the get-go Bob is painted as being bored with his life, yes he is rich and successful, but somehow he’s not happy. Between the brief glimpses into Bob’s mid-life crisis and a heartbreaking phone call confessional from Charlotte questioning if she is happy with the man she married, Lost In Translation is overall a somber movie.

Director Sophia Coppola also wrote the screenplay and does an incredible job balancing between laughter and the serious beats that make the film a poignant one. As a director, she’s no slouch either; the film moves quickly enough yet we are treated to some shots that Coppola is not afraid to hold on screen for a second more than a lesser director would. These scenes usually revolve around windows: Charlotte looking out during the day, Bob coping with insomnia at night (i.e. the theatrical poster), or both of them at a karaoke bar. These usually leave us with beautiful shots of Tokyo at night and as anyone who knows me well enough, my favorite cinematography involves cities at night (Heat, Drive, The Dark Knight, Collateral). Anyway, these windows also serve as metaphorical “windows into the heart” as these scenes always show the character’s true feelings/self. Lost In Translation has so many layers to it that practically anyone can watch it and take something away from it. This just shows the talent of Sofia Coppola. Like her father, directing is in her blood and she has an undeniable talent for it. This was Coppola’s second feature film and it earned her an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay, as well as nominations for both Best Picture and Best Director (which she was the first American woman to be nominated for and remains the youngest). Going through life we’re bound to lose ourselves once in a while, but as Lost In Translation shows us, sometimes it takes being lost to find what we need.

7/10


Follow @astraeus_

Analysis: The Town's Alternate Ending

"I'll see you again, this side or the other."

*This post is different from usual and contains spoilers*

On March 6^th of this year, Warner Home Video released the ‘Ultimate Collector’s Edition’ of Ben Affleck’s 2010 crime/drama The Town on Blu-Ray. The major draw of this re-release is the inclusion of an alternate ending. When The Town was released in 2010 it easily made my “top 10 list” of that year, and the subsequent Blu-Ray release (which included an extended cut adding an additional 28 minutes of footage) was a day one purchase. Fast-forward to today and it still remains a film I adore. So of course I had to see Affleck’s alternate ending.

A quick refresher on the original ending: Ben Affleck’s character, Doug MacRay a professional bankrobber from Charlestown, is on the run from Jon Hamm’s Special Agent Adam Frawley and his FBI agents after the Fenway Park heist which resulted in the death of Doug’s crew/friends. The only thing he has left is the take from the heist and his love for Claire Keesey, portrayed by Rebecca Hall, who feels betrayed when she finds out Doug was one of the assailants to rob her bank and take her hostage. Despite this, she still loves him and secretly tips him off about the Feds at her place and the film ends with Claire finding the stolen money buried in her garden with a note from Doug saying she would find a better use for it then he would. The final shots show that Claire donated the money to renovate the hockey arena that Doug once played in, while Doug is seen looking over the water at sunset, safe but alone.

This ending was great in that it didn’t let the two lovers live happily ever after together, forcing the viewer to reconcile that when you live that type of life, you cannot have everything. The music is perfect, the shot composition and cinematography of Doug at sunset is beautiful, and Doug’s monologue over top of all this culminates in such a way that the ending feels real and earned. Basically, it was going to be a tough ending to top.

However, despite being the butt of many jokes, Ben Affleck has proven to be an incredible director despite only having two credits to his name (this, and 2007’s Gone Baby Gone), and I knew I was in for a well thought-out alternative rather than a cheap one that wouldn’t fit in the context of the film.

In the alternate ending, all the actions play out almost the same. After Claire warns Doug of the FBI at her place, we follow Doug leaving, something we did not get in the original. However, when Doug turns the corner to his car, he is confronted by three thugs he and his friend Jem (Jeremy Renner) had attacked earlier in the movie (one of whom has a broken leg courtesy of them). There’s brief dialog here that is incredibly intense and the tight shot focus and quick, back-and-forth editing force us to realize what Doug is realizing as he looks up in the sky and sees a plane leave; he isn’t going to make it. As the main thug holds his gun up to Doug, toying with him, Doug, defiant to the end, asks him about his leg. The thug immediately shoots him several times and Doug falls down and dies looking up at the sky, finally seeming at peace. The film continues with Claire seeing a news report that Doug was murdered. After this, the original ending resumes with Claire finding the money and the note buried in her garden. This time his words have a different weight and meaning to them, as she knows he is dead. The final shot is her at the refurbished ice rink watching kids play hockey, presumably coming to terms with Doug’s death and ready to try and move on. What’s truly remarkable of this version is it really changes the meaning of the film. While the original ending was about Doug and his personal journey with escaping his past life of crime and being able to leave Charlestown, this alternate ending infers that these career criminals can never escape their ‘birthright’ and the film becomes a story about this town and it’s hold over it’s residents. It’s dark, chilling, and, ultimately, an absolute joy to see how one change in the ending scene can completely alter an already incredible film.

Alternate endings are a tricky bag. They can be pointless (EuroTrip) or they can make the original ending seem terrible in comparison (I Am Legend). The Town somehow gives us two great endings that fundamentally change how we view the film. I can’t say which ending I prefer, but I’m certainly glad to have them both.



Follow @astraeus_