Killer Joe (2011) ***1/2

 

I like a good neo-noir as much as the next guy. And I don't mind them being trashy. John McNaughton's lurid 1998 film “Wild Things” is one of my favorites. It turns out, though, that I have my limits when it comes to trashiness, and as good as it is, the southern gothic “Killer Joe” pushes those limits.

Adele Smith is a thorn in the side of her family. Her kids, Chris (Emile Hirsch) and Dottie (Juno Temple), and her ex-husband, Ansel (Thomas Hayden Church), can't stand her. Her latest transgression is stealing cocaine that Chris was supposed to sell, putting him in serious debt to his supplier. It's the last straw. Chris visits his dad with a plan. He has heard about a dirty cop named Joe Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) who does murder-for-hire. Chris convinces Ansel that they can have Adele killed and have Dottie collect as the beneficiary on her insurance policy. That should give them more than enough to pay Joe's fee and split a nice profit amongst the family.

It's a straitforward plan, except that Joe doesn't take jobs on spec. Dealing with the kind of people he does, it makes sense that he would be more of a cash-up-front operator. Joe takes a shine, however, to Dottie, and agrees to do the job in exchange for her favors. Dottie actually likes Joe, and soon he's like a member of the family, hanging around the trailer, spending nights with Dottie, and preparing to murder Adele. The family's various white-trash entanglements and general stupidity, however, get in the way of a smoothly-running plan.

This is actually a tightly-crafted tale of murder and deception, neo-noir at its best. The Smith clan are a sordid enough bunch that, other than Dottie, it should be hard to feel sorry for any of them. Solid acting on the parts of Hirsh and Church, however, make it possible to feel symathetic towards even these low-lifes. Joe, however, is really creepy. McConaughey plays Joe as a cool, collected killer, but his wooing of the intellectually disabled Dottie has an ick factor that is off the charts. Between Joe's weird, domineering seduction style and the gratuitous violence in the film, this is not something to watch on a full stomach.

At the end of the day, “Killer Joe” is a perfectly-paced black-comedy thriller. It's too lurid by half, but a great narrative and great acting make it required viewing for the neo-noir fan who can stomach it.

3.5 stars out of 5

The Ghost and The Darkness (1996) **

Memory plays tricks on you, some big, and some small. In this case, I could have sworn that the name of this movie was “The Ghost IN the Darkness.” It makes sense. But the title is “The Ghost AND The Darkness,” because the African and Indian workers who were terrorized by a pair of man-eating lions in this tale named one of the lions The Ghost and one of them The Darkness.

The story is set in Kenya, in 1898. British Lt. Col John Henry Patterson (Val Kilmer) is an engineer sent to build a railroad bridge over the Tsavo River. Under his capable command, things go swimmingly until a pair of man-eating lions start killing off his workers. Construction grinds to a halt, and all of Patterson's energies become consumed by trying to kill the lions. The beasts really come to seem evil spirits, as they repeatedly evade Patterson's traps and feed on his workers. Even a famous American hunter (Michael Douglas) is stymied by the lions.

The true story is fascinating, but the movie is a hot mess. Val Kilmer was in the middle of a divorce and fresh off the legendary disaster that was “The Island of Dr. Moreau.” He just looks exhausted, and while that sometimes fits his character, it mostly just leaves us with bad acting of a bad script. Michael Douglas does the best he can with the cringey lines he has to recite, but there is only so much you can do with a horrible script. Screenwriter William Goldman is known for wonderful films like “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” and “The Princess Bride,” but with “The Ghost and The Darkness,” he takes an amazing true story and mangles it. Even director Stephen Hopkins admitted the film “was a mess... I haven't been able to watch it.”

The historical true story of John Henry Patterson and the lions is one outrageous tale. Those two cats really did manage to stymie the efforts of the British Empire for a brief period. The number of men they killed is unknown. Patterson, in his book “The Man-Eaters of Tsavo,” claims the number was 135. The railroad company only verified 28 deaths. Either way, the terror they created was undeniable, and it remains one of the most notorious examples of man-eating behavior in wild animals. Patterson killed both lions himself, without the help of any fictitious American hunter (sorry, Michael Douglas), and their stuffed remains are on display at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History. It remains a mystery why these two cats developed such a taste for human flesh. Almost as big a mystery is how a legendary screenwriter and a couple of talented actors turned this amazing true story into such a mess.

2 stars out of 5

Tammy and the T-Rex (1994) ***

 

Before "The Velocipastor," there was “Tammy and the T-Rex,” a goofy, bizarre, and delightful dinosaur-themed movie about teenage love and weird science. A baby-faced Paul Walker (7 years before “The Fast and the Furious”) plays Michael, a high-school football star. A run-in with some hoodlums and a mad scientist leads to Michael's brain being installed in an animatronic T-Rex, and it is up to his girlfriend Tammy (Denise Richards) to save him.

This is a pure cult classic. The story goes that Director Stewart Raffill was approached by a theme park owner who had gotten his hands on an animatronic dinosaur. The T-Rex was scheduled to be shipped to Texas in 2 weeks, and the guy suggested they try to make a movie with it first. In record time, Raffill wrote a script around the beast and filmed a low-budget movie.

Is it good? Well, that depends on your expectations. It's really dumb, but I found it silly, funny, and an unmitigated good time. You may recognize Terry Kiser from “Weekend at Bernie's” as the mad scientist, and he actually classes the film up a bit, as does J. Jay Saunders as the black sheriff, named Sheriff Black. Denise Richards can't act her way out of a wet paper sack, but she sure looks good. Paul Walker is not much of a thespian, either, although he doesn't actually get a lot of screen time. That animatronic dinosaur is amazing, though! It really has a lot of movement and expressions, and may be the best actor in the film.

This is not a must-see like, say “UHF” or “The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8^th Dimension” or even “The Velocipastor,” but if you dig a goofy cult classic, you can put this one on your list.

3 stars out of 5

Oldboy (2003) ****

 

At the juncture of Greek tragedy and “The Count of Monte Cristo” sits “Oldboy”, a classic of Korean cinema. I've been hearing about the film for years, but I was put off by reading that it is the second film in a trilogy by writer/director Park Chan-wook (who also did "The Handmaiden"). I figured I had to watch the first movie before seeing “Oldboy”. That turns out not to be a concern at all. Chan-wook's “Revenge Trilogy” is a trilogy only in the loosest sense of the word, with the films (“Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance”, “Oldboy”, and “Lady Vengeance”) linked only by the theme of revenge. “Oldboy” stands just fine on its own. With that out of the way, I finally got a chance to watch it on Netflix, and it turns out to be much more convoluted and just plain weird than the revenge flick I was expecting.

Oh Dae-su is an ordinary businessman, maybe a bit of a cad and a drunk, who finds himself kidnapped and imprisoned with no explanation. For 15 years he is kept in a solitary room with no explanation of why and no human contact. When he finally gets out, he seeks his revenge. This is the bare outline, and I don't want to give much more plot than that and ruin any of the surprises.

The violence is plentiful in “Oldboy”, but this is much more than a kung-fu movie. Oh Dae-su has to solve the mystery of who imprisoned him and why, and the mystery turns out to be much more twisted than you would expect. There's a love story in there as well. And did I mention the kung-fu? Oh Dae-su spends his years of confinement training, and he kicks some serious ass once he hits the streets. The cinematography is amazing, and the film is especially known for a fighting scene in a corridor that is done in one, long shot. Be warned, though, this is not all lighthearted chopsocky action. There are some very disturbing scenes of torture and mutilation, and the plot takes some really perverse twists.

The story can also be hard to follow at times. As a non-Asian viewer, I sometimes struggled to tell who was who, especially as the story jumps back and forth through the years. It doesn't help that Oh Dae-su's enemy, who is supposed to be his age, is played by a much younger actor. That was an odd casting choice.

“Oldboy” is not for everyone, and I don't think I would re-watch it anytime soon. Once is enough! Even with its flaws, though, I would consider this required viewing for real cinephiles. The writing, cinematography, and mix of violence and humor conspire to make this a genre classic.

4 stars out of 5

Horrible Bosses 2 (2014) ***

 

I resisted watching this sequel when it came out, because, really? “Horrible Bosses” was a delightfully funny movie, but it did not seem to demand a sequel. I figured “Horrible Bosses 2” was a blatant cash grab that was bound to suck. It turns out I was both right and wrong. This sequel is totally gratuitous, but it is more fun than a barrel full of monkeys!

Nick (Jason Bateman), Kurt (Jason Sudeikis), and Dale (Charlie Day), the would-be criminals who tried to kill their horrible bosses in the first film, are trying to become bosses themselves. With an invention called the Shower Buddy, the trio go into business with investors Bert and Rex Hanson (Christoph Waltz and Chris Pine). This father/son duo wind up screwing the boys over, and to get revenge, they decide to leap back into the world of crime by kidnapping Rex for ransom.

Objectively, “Horrible Bosses 2” is not a good movie. It doesn't even have an interesting title. It was a pretty typical studio cash-grab, shamelessly meant to capitalize on the success of the first movie. “Horrible Bosses” director Seth Gordon did not wind up returning for the sequel. He was replaced by Sean Anders, who has a couple of reasonably-respectable writing credits (“We're the Millers” and “Hot Tub Time Machine”), but whose directing filmography includes features like “Daddy's Home” and “Daddy's Home 2”. The original screenwriters were also replaced by Anders and his writing partner John Morris.

The thing is, none of that seems to matter. The first movie was a machine-gun barrage of hit-or-miss jokes. Unbound by any requirements of taste or logic, it was free to just be funny, and it was dumb but highly-entertaining. It's the same with the sequel. I wasn't proud to be laughing out loud at these nitwits, but there I was. It helps that they got the whole gang back together, including Jennifer Aniston, Kevin Spacey, and Jamie Foxx, and Chris Pine is a great new addition. Many critics wrote this off as a massive waste of an A-list cast, but for my money it's an example of a skimpily-written film succeeding on the charms of a talented ensemble.

There is no “Horrible Bosses 3”, and thank goodness. It's hard to imagine this franchise holding up for a third outing. It was hard to imagine it holding up for this sequel, but in its own, sophomoric way, it does. If you want a story with heart and intelligent humor, this is not it. If you just want to giggle yourself silly, “Horrible Bosses 2” may be your jam.

3 stars out of 5

Waterworld (1995) ***

 

There's a collection of movies out there that are known for being bad. This is strange, when you think about it, because, really, there are a LOT of bad movies. Most of them are bad. Most of those simply fade away into obscurity, while a handful are “so bad they are good” and achieve cult status. Another handful get written into history as famously bad films, and 1995's”Waterworld” is one of those.

On a future Earth covered in water due to global warming, Kevin Costner plays a loner, the Mariner, wandering the endless ocean on his sailboat, growing limes in a potted tree, recycling his own urine, and eking out an existence on a planet that is no longer designed for humans. There are other lone wolves out there, and then there are people banded together pathetically on small, floating islands. There are also pirates called Smokers, led by the sadistic Deacon (Dennis Hopper), who have access to gasoline and zip around on motorboats and jet skis, preying on the weak.

The one dream shared by all of these miserable humans is the dream of dry land. The story converges around a young girl (Tina Majorino) whose tattoo may be the key to finding dry land in the vast ocean. Everyone wants the girl, including the Smokers, and the Mariner gets roped into helping her and her adopted mom (Jeanne Tripplehorn).

There is nothing wrong with the story setup or the cast. “Waterworld”'s problems largely center on execution. Costner has been accused of wooden acting, but in fairness, he is playing the Mariner as a loner, isolated from other humans. His reticence makes sense, but it does keep us at arms length from our hero. No one else in the cast is given enough to do to let us live the story through them, so it winds up being hard to get really invested in the story. The film also feels oddly claustrophobic, given that it takes place on an open ocean that covers the entire globe. It's weird that with all that open water, these characters keep running into each other. It's also a LONG movie at 2 hours 15 minutes, and even with all the swashbuckling, it feels long.

Still, “Waterworld” is not without charm. Dennis Hopper chews scenery delightfully as the main villain, and there's plenty of action. This is reasonably-diverting entertainment, better than a lot of action movies. I agree with reviewers who have said that the film deserves to be reassessed. It is not so much legendarily bad, as it was disappointing in its time. “Waterworld”'s bad reputation stems from a combination of a massive budget along with the attendant hype that created expectations that this film simply could not meet.

3 stars out of 5

The Descent (2005) ***1/2

 

The thing about setting a horror movie in a cave is that the very setting does most of the work for you. The claustrophobia of squeezing through tight spaces, the terror of getting stuck, the threat of cave-ins, and the absolute darkness if your light sources fail, these are all as scary as any monster. Even if there is nothing evil in the cave (spoiler alert: there is!), you've got plenty of scary material to work with. “The Descent” makes effective use of all of it.

The story involves some adventure-seeking female friends who enter a remote cave in North Carolina and run into more trouble than they bargained for. I'll leave it at that, not to avoid spoilers, but because there really isn't much more to the plot. This movie isn't about narrative arc. It's about atmosphere, dread, panic, and sheer terror.

British director Neil Marshall wrote and directed the film, which is only his second feature. He gets excellent performances from his cast of mostly-unknown actresses, and he takes his time building up the tension and horror. This is not a movie that makes any profound, philosophical statements about life. It's just a terrifically-wrought scary movie. If I have any criticism, it is that once we find out why the women are in this particular cave, it seems rather improbable. Also, the story perpetuates the stereotype of female friendships being fraught with competition, jealousy, and infidelity.

Be aware, too, that there are two endings: Marshall's original, bleaker ending, and the version edited for American audiences, which is what I saw. The film loses points for that, in my book. Ever since I read Great Expectations, I've had a grudge against stories with alternate endings. If I'm going to invest my energy and attention in a story, I want it to commit to an ending, happy or sad, comedic or tragic.

“The Descent” scores a perfect 10 when it comes to being scary. I'll take points off for the weak story and for the alternative ending thing, giving it

3.5 stars out of 5

The Deer Hunter (1978) **

 

Writing about “The Deer Hunter” is an intimidating prospect. The movie is, by consensus, a Work of Art, and criticizing it is like criticizing the Mona Lisa. Anything you write about this film says as much about you as it does about the film (but isn't that always the case?). With that preface, here goes:

Michael Cimino wrote and directed this three hour epic about a group of Pennsylvania steelworkers. These guys work hard, drink hard, and go on hunting trips together. Michael (Robert De Niro), the quiet, serious one, is the best hunter of the group. He ranges far into the hills with his rifle, and his ethos is to kill a deer with “1 shot.” Back in town, Michael is socially a bit awkward when it comes to dancing at weddings and such, and he is secretly in love with his best friend Nick's (Christopher Walken) girlfriend, Linda (Meryl Streep).

Three of the group, Mike, Nick, and Steven have volunteered to fight in Vietnam. There they find the hell-on-earth that we are all familiar with from Vietnam War movies. They are taken prisoner, and their Vietcong captors force them to play Russian Roulette. Without giving away more than I already have, suffice it to say that the men come away from their service with serious scars, physical and mental.

“The Deer Hunter” is, in many ways, an amazing film. The cinematography is beautiful. The scenes in the steel mill and in the mountains are just stunning. The scene at Steven's wedding is like its own little short film. In the un-rushed way the scenes are allowed to develop, the movie feels very much like a novel, which is ironic because it was written as a screenplay from the beginning.

The film is also REALLY long, at just over 3 hours. In my opinion, it is longer than it needs to be. Many scenes are longer than necessary, and some of them, the bowling alley scene, for example, could have been cut entirely.

Cimino has been criticized for failing to do any actual research on POWs or to interview any Vietnam vets when writing the film. This is reflected in the Russian Roulette motif. While Vietnam was likely a miserable experience for most veterans, especially POWs, there is no evidence that Russian Roulette was part of the torture. I'm inclined to give Cimino a pass on this point, however, as the game is such an apt metaphor for the experience of the war itself. The randomness of death, the dread with each risky pull of the trigger, and the sheer pointlessness of the game would probably feel familiar to many Vets.

What I'm not prepared to give the director a pass on is the ridiculousness of the deer hunting scenes. You might say “The Deer Hunter” is NEITHER. The “deer” in the footage is not a North American deer at all. It's a European red stagg, a very different-looking animal. The “hunting” is also ridiculous, with Michael chasing on foot after his deer, running up and down ridges after a stagg that keeps stopping and offering him broadside shots. Anyone who has hunted knows that it is a much slower, methodical process. Once a real deer sees you, it will head straight for the next county. For anyone who thinks I am being nitpicky, I will point out that the movie is named “The Deer Hunter.”

The film is not only made by and for people who know nothing about deer or hunting, but people who know nothing about American geography. Watching the movie, I was distracted by how rugged and high the mountains looked for a story that was set in Pennsylvania. Sure enough, the hunting scenes were filmed in the Cascade Mountains of Washington state. It's just another example of how Cimino's lack of verisimilitude really reflects a lack of respect for his audience.

That lack of respect culminates in the nihilistic ending of the film. Despite its flaws, I actually enjoyed the greater part of the movie, impressed by the novelistic character development and storytelling. By hour 3, however, I was expecting some kind of payoff. The ending here just makes a person ask, “What's the point?” - of life in general, and specifically of this film.

2 stars out of 5

Barbie (2023) ****

 

On on hand, it's surprising it took so long for someone to make a live-action Barbie movie. After all, every other intellectual property has had its big-screen moment, in a Hollywood that seems willing to do anything to avoid coming up with an original idea. On the other hand, it's amazing that “Barbie” got made, given how fraught the road to production was. Here you have a brand with world-wide recognition, loved by many, but also hated by many. The modern-day Barbie collection includes dolls with different skin colors and different body types, but the original Barbie design, still the biggest seller, is the epitome of western beauty standards: tall, thin, blonde, busty, and white. This drives some people absolutely crazy. The modern collection includes Barbies who are doctors, scientists, and even President, but the brand has a history that includes a sugar-daddy Ken and a teenage Skipper doll whose boobs grew when you raised her arm. Any post-”Me, Too” story about Barbie would have to address the controversies and criticisms of the dolls, and it's hard to imagine the toy company Mattel would be excited to see their brand criticized. There have been a number of failed attempts over the years to get a Barbie movie off the ground, but writer-director Greta Gerwig and her husband and co-writer Noah Baumbach managed to make theirs fly.

Margot Robbie plays “stereotypical Barbie,” the white, busty one. She lives with all the other Barbies (Black, Asian, President Barbie, etc.) in the imaginary world of Barbie-land, where every day is perfect. When the Barbies aren't running the Supreme Court or doing brain surgery, they are having fabulous dance parties followed by girls-night sleepovers. Barbie-land isn't only populated by Barbies. There's also Ken (tall, blond, played by Ryan Reynolds). Along with all the other versions of Ken, stereotypical Ken spends his days trying to get Barbie's attention. In Barbie-land, where Barbie has all the power, Ken is really just an extension of Barbie.

Everything is going swimmingly until Barbie starts to have an existential crisis. She sets out on a journey to the real world to find the troubled girl who is playing with her and creating all the confusion. Ken hitches a ride to reality, where his mind is blown by a world in which men don't always have to play second fiddle.

It's a pretty damned clever movie! Barbie's journey is an existential odyssey, which goes down easy on account of all the humor. Meanwhile, Ken's story flips the script on The Patriarchy, providing a warning on the risks of oppressing part of your population, as well as commentary on the wrong ways to achieve equality. The tightly-woven story is helped by an excellent cast, including Kate Mckinnon, Issa Rae, and, of course, Robbie and Reynolds. Did I mention it has a great soundtrack, including the Indigo Girls' “Closer to Fine”? Whether you love or hate Barbie dolls, you'll find something to love in the “Barbie” movie.

4 stars out of 5

Hustle & Flow (2005) ***

 

Going to a few film festivals over the years, I have noticed that movies seem a lot better when you see them in that environment. I saw “Hustle & Flow” when it premiered at the 2005 Sundance Film Festival, and it seemed like the best movie ever. Watching it again all these years later, in the comfort of my own home, it's a pretty good movie, but not nearly as epic as I thought it was at Sundance.

Terrence Howard plays Djay, the least glamorous pimp in the history of pimps. Working the sweltering Memphis streets with a stable of 3 women, one of whom is pregnant, he struggles to pay the rent on a crappy house and keep gas in a beat-up car without air conditioning. Experiencing a mid-life crisis in his 30's, Djay rediscovers his talent for rapping. With the help of his women and a couple of friends (Anthony Anderson, DJ Qualls), he sets out to make a demo tape that will hopefully change his life.

Sounds a lot like 2002's “8 Mile,” doesn't it? “Hustle & Flow” is just too derivative to be considered a great movie. It also is just very typical of the kind of stories Hollywood loves to tell. Hollywood artists have a tendency to tell stories about their fellow artists, and this film continues a tradition that suggests that the only way out of poverty is to succeed as a musician, an actor, or maybe an athlete. Would “Hustle & Flow” have been as engaging if Djay had gone to night school to study dentistry? Probably not, but his poor, Memphis neighborhood could probably use a dentist a lot more than another rapper.

The redeeming factor here is the music. The songs Djay and his friends produce are pretty catchy, and one of them, “It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp,” (by Three6 Mafia) won an Oscar. Also, Terrence Howard has enough charisma to smooth over a lot of cinematic flaws in a film, and Taraji P. Henderson and Taryn Manning also give memorable performances. “Hustle & Flow” isn't the greatest, but at the end of the day, its strengths outweigh its weaknesses to make for a reasonably-entertaining film.

3 stars out of 5