Movie Review: 2012

It was not a banner week for movie critics here at the ole Reader. Whilst I was being hoisted by my own petard through Pirate Radio, Ben was bending over for 2012...which I'm totally going to see anyway. I know it's maniacally stupid, but last night I paused AGAIN during The Day After Tomorrow on FX (this time to see how the fire that my wife and I had going in our fireplace stacked up against the fire that kept a room full of people alive in a giant library when temperatures dropped to negative blurgillion degrees). So, I'm fully prepared for the junk kick that will come, but 2012 and I have a date with misery. Here's Ben's take.

Oh Maya God!
2012 details the end of the Mayan calendar...and the world
Ben Coffman

Roland Emmerich (10,000 BC; The Day After Tomorrow), the director of 2012, is to natural disasters what Michael Bay is to explosions or Megan Fox—fond of them to the point of fetishism. While some directors cast young starlets because they find them attractive, the adored actor in 2012 is Emmerich’s earthquake cracks, which are both sneaky like Gremlins and destructive like Godzilla.

Before stuff starts disintegrating, however, 2012 audaciously takes half an hour to introduce us to its characters. First, we meet Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor), a geologist who has discovered that solar flares (or solar climaxes as one character, without giggling, calls them) have caused the Earth’s core to melt like a suppository, giving the Earth a bad case of fiery diarrhea.

Next we meet Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), a failed writer and father so irresponsible that he overslept instead of picking up his kids for summer vacation. After driving to Yellowstone, Curtis and company meet Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson), a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist who distrusts the government as much as he loves pickles (this detail is an example of what passes for characterization in 2012). Harrelson, with all of his freaky overacting, seems to be the only one who realizes that his director cares more about CGI cracks than actors. Likewise, his character is the only one who realizes (other than the aforementioned Helmsley) that something bad is happening with the Earth.

After Curtis and his kids return to Los Angeles, the world falls apart, resulting in a “let’s escape the earthquake” chase scene in a limousine. As they wend their way through the crumbling streets of Los Angeles, which is being shuffled like a deck of cards, their limo is showered with raw sewage, providing one of the movie’s grossest images—and strongest metaphors.

The latter half of the movie, a fight for survival against an increasingly awful world, is like the latter half of a demolition derby: everything is damaged, smoking and slow. A few scenes at the end of the movie feature crying and strings, but ultimately, and I mean this in the nicest possible way—nobody cares. Watching millions of people die in fiery natural disasters is a bit numbing.

2012 does some things right: it is full of sweeping, grandiose overhead shots and great disaster CGI. It is The Poseidon Adventure on a worldwide scale, with better effects. It is a summer blockbuster in November, the 96-ounce truck-stop steak of movies. However, it’s over two and a half hours and requires a rare type of visual gluttony.

Ultimately, 2012 is meant to be a romp. It is, without exception, wholly devoid of pathos, or even good characters. With the amount of attention, time and money ($200 million) thrown at a film like this, our society probably could've cured some moderately malignant disease like the swine flu. Or bought winter coats for homeless people. Or paid down the national deficit for future generations. Instead we have the opportunity to face our end-of-days fears together. And watch every building in the entire world collapse.

Grade: D+

A pair of sequels (one of them is a sequel about pairs)

First, let's get the obvious one out of the way: Rumors are already abounding that Zombieland is getting a sequel. No shit? Perhaps because it's a movie that made its entire production budget back in one weekend and was relatively low cost in the first place and has no notable stars that will break the bank (f**k you, Harrelson, don't you look at me like that). This is actually a good thing, as the movie was conceived of as a TV series and has more room to go with the characters (and Emma Stone). So, yippee for that news, I give it one angry, undead zombie kittie!

Now, the second bit of news...this one's on the more stupendously awesome level. JoBlo has reported that...Showgirls is getting a sequel, a sequel with an awesome title and plot description at that. It's called Showgirls: A Story of Hope (leading one to believe this is a drama about Obama's trip to Jigglers), and it involves a minor character named Hope from the original movie (yes, for those demanding it, the role will be played by the original actress). Apparently a stripper dies from bad cocaine and her brother goes to Germany to kick ass. The writer/director claims to have a $25 million budget, which is $24.5 million more than is need to supply the amount of cheese required. Look, Showgirls was effin' hilarious, really it was. I feared a sequel because I thought they'd do it intentionally funny (and, let's face it, if we see Elizabeth Berkley's ta-tas one more time, we all turn to stone), but this sounds like they're taking their characters seriously...which is hilarious. I give this idea four pictures of Elizabeth-Berkley-trying-to-lick-a-stripper-pole-sexy-but-OMG-she's-licking-a-stripper-pole-and-now-has-herpes-and-it-looks-like-she's-a-zombie.

Movie Review: Zombieland

I think I enjoyed this at an "A" level but could only justify a "B" rating...so I split the difference. Things I couldn't get in the review for wordcount reasons: (1) Avoid the cameo spoiler if you can. It's soooooo gooood if you don't know it's coming. (2) It's really not a true horror movie. Sure, there's a few boogity-boogity-boo moments and quite a bit of vomited blood and splatter, but it's really just funny. My wife saw it and didn't have zombie nightmares, and having zombie nightmares is pretty much what she does. Anyway, here's the review:

Mutilation Vacation
Zombieland proves road trips are more fun with corpses

How’s this for a comparison? If Sean of the Dead is the Citizen Kane of horror comedy, Zombieland is the genre’s Singin’ in the Rain. Mind blowing, right? Director Ruben Fleischer and writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick have made the first toe-tappingly cheerful, downright optimistic film about the downfall of humanity due to cannibalistic carnage. To put it another way, if you’ve ever had this much fun with dead bodies before, you’re probably in jail.

Realizing that audiences speak fluent apocalypse and no longer need a primer on the ins and outs of zombies, Reese and Wernick begin well after the evil outbreak. A snarky, self-aware voiceover from Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg), our Michael Cera–esque hero, describes how he’s used his neuroses to stay alive. This leads to one of the most gorgeous, disgusting opening sequences, filled with well-composed cinematography and copious amounts of bloody vomit.

Columbus joins up with Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), a character destined to be etched into cult status quicker than you can say Bruce Campbell, and, shortly thereafter, the duo meets up with (and gets conned by) Witchita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin). The characters use the name of destinations to avoid giving away their real identities, and thus a piece of themselves, to strangers they aren’t quite sure they won’t have to slaughter. Once united, the gang meanders, hopping vehicles and chopping up wayward reanimated corpses; you know, just like all family vacations.

Although ostensibly a horror film, the scariest thing about Zombieland is that it’s likely going to make Woody Harrelson famous again. His violent, one-liner spouting redneck in search of a Twinkie is a perfect foil for the razor-tongued, Woody Allen–light Eisenberg, and the combination coyly animates the nuanced dialogue and clever gags rife in the script. As for the females, Breslin is fine in a thankless role, whereas Stone sizzles with smoky eyes and smoldering voice subtly demanding she become the next big thing.

What’s problematic is mostly expected: The bad-ass girls become beautiful bait by the end, and the now generic feel of all things zombie permeates. Also, the film was pitched as a television show, so the final moments feel more like a pilot than a true cinematic denouement. That said, the film’s overtly reiterates Columbus’s rule about enjoying small things for a reason: as a hope-filled horror comedy, Zombieland is a terribly enjoyable small thing.

Grade – B+

Ryan's Junk Drawer

This week has been slower than a slug stuck in molasses (I don't know, apparently I felt like using some kind of expression that you'd use if you were born in 1940s Mississippi). There hasn't been much news of any kind, let alone ones that weren't important enough to get their own post. Still, I'm nothing if not resourceful, so here's the top 5 things that STILL didn't stand out despite this week being quieter than a tongueless church mouse on Sunday.

1.) - The Hornet is gonna sting ya face! - Despite rumors that had Seth Rogen's Green Hornet deader than an armadillo with its shell split (I can't stop), it turns out the delay in the date of release for The Green Hornet wasn't a nice way of saying that it ain't gonna happen. Filming has started and Columbia pictures took the time to confirm some rumors. Tom Wilkinson and David Harbour have been added to Michel Gondry's cast. They look like this (image thanks to Slashfilm.com):

Nicholas Cage is still in negotiations to be the bad guy, and Cameron Diaz is still sluttin' it up in this. Do I want to see a superhero movie from Gondry starring Rogen? You bet yer ass I do. Do Wilkinson and (the now confirmed) Edward James Olmos inspire confidence in me? You bet yer ass they do. Do Diaz and Cage still make me shudder with fear of horrendous suckitude? You bet their talentless asses they do.

2.) Suck it Hancock - Speaking of superhero movies (which is just about all we do these days), Woody Harrelson is on the cusp of a potential return to relevance given his role in Zombieland and this new Defendor trailer. The movie looks like a creative, inspired little indie riff on the superhero genre; a breath of unique flavor, which is what Hancock could have been if it was done right and what Kick Ass may still be. For now, this little flick looks pretty damn intriguing. Check it out:



3.) We all know someone who loved Boondock Saints - That or YOU are the person who loved Boondock Saints, a somewhat clever, mostly effed up and weird little indie action movie that some people flipped their nuts for. Personally, I thought it was just okay. I watched it once and then went right on living my life. Other people practically started a religion out of it, which is why so many years later we have Boondock Saints 2, in which we can only hope that harm befalls others thanks to a toilet and Willem DeFoe's transsexual freakouts. Seriously, ask yourself why you loved that first movie if you did. My favorite tweet on the release of this IGN exclusive trailer was from Drew McWeeney at Hitfix: "What bet did they lose?"



4.) 3D can't be stopped - When suits find a way to make more money doing something they're already doing, you can probably be assured that they're going to do that, whether it's a good idea or not. Apparently, rumor has it they are retro-fitting Iron Man 2, which was not shot in 3D, to have some 3D scenes. They did the same thing with the Toy Story movies that they're re-releasing this fall and this is apparently going to become the norm. Why? Because they can charge you more for 3D movies. Really, that's it. I'm not saying that it can't deeply enrich a movie's experience, like it did with Up, but when it's not a part of the creative process and you just go back and shoehorn it in...well, being shoehorny is never a good thing. At the end of the day, this probably isn't all that significant, but it does represent a simple truth: 3D is taking over and you can't do shit about it.

5.) Me from 5-7 years ago just got really aroused - Used to be that there weren't no two hotter hotties than Dominique Swain (Lolita) and Shannyn Sossamon (A Knight's Tale). Mmmm, mmm were they smokin' hot. Now, Swain's been doing God knows what, and Sossamon's last role was a brief spot in Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang. I should point out, they're still very attractive women and they have joined forces for Road to Nowhere, a noirish romantic thriller in which Sossamon plays the femme fatale lead role. If we're being honest with each other, this is likely going direct to video. Still, given how much my blood pressure would have risen 5-7 years ago at this pairing (think Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis...actually don't if you're at work), I had to at least mention it.