Movie Review: "The Bling Ring"

The fact that a group of rich teenagers would break into the houses of celebrities and take their clothes, jewelry and money is an unfortunate window into our world and highlights the fact that our culture worships celebrities. Its a theme ripe for analysis, and Sofia Coppola takes a stab at saying something about it in The Bling Ring, which happened to be my second most anticipated film of the year (after Spike Jonze's Her). Coppola's style is a fascinating one, as she manages to depict her films in a way that feels both stylized and simple, while always tapping into the emotions behind the drama. While she's far from universally beloved, I loved what she did with Marie Antoinette, really enjoy The Virgin Suicides, and consider Lost in Translation a masterpiece. But while The Bling Ring certainly has moments of greatness, the film is undeniably her weakest to date. Coppola brings the audience on a roller coaster ride with monumental highs, dull lows, and only a bit of social analysis where there is room for much more.

A major problem with The Bling Ring is that it finds itself stuck between two very different tones: realistic and hyperrealistic. Sometimes we'll eavesdrop on the titular group of friends during their daily conversations. Other times we'll see them dance at the club, with slow motion and blaring music used to evoke the feel that they view their lives are nothing more than never ending music videos. Both scenes work well enough on their own, but the constant cutting back and forth between the two vastly different moments is distracting and uneven. Even more troubling is that these two tones also bring two very different methods of satirizing- when the film moves at a realistic pace, the commentary is subtle and easy to miss. But other times, it bashes you over the head. The film would have been much stronger as a whole had Coppola stuck with one method of filmmaking. 

But regardless of subtlety, the satire works remarkably well. I was reminded of Jason Reitman's devastatingly underrated Young Adult during the film's quieter moments, where a seemingly random line opens a window into a character's psyche. One particularly great moment is when Israel Broussard's Marc describes himself as feeling like he's on "the b-list." It's a quiet moment, and there isn't much attention drawn to it, but it helps build the main theme of the film: many people are aspiring to be rich and known for their looks as opposed to being remembered for their good deeds. The same theme is reinforced during the more blatantly satirical moments, many of which involve Emma Watson and her mother. There is a hilarious scene where Watson is being interviewed about her crimes and impending trial and seems to only care about promoting her public image. Both scenes work well due to their content, but would have had more of an impact had Coppola stuck to just one type of commentary. 

The best qualities Coppola has as a director, however, are on display and help make the tougher moments in the film easier to swallow. For one thing, it's absolutely beautiful. The late Harris Savides (to whom the film is dedicated) has photographed some breathtaking scenes that are always crystal clear and well lit, while also realistic. At times, the film takes on a look that feels very similar to a documentary. But the film also includes some glorious, slightly stylized shots including a terrific burgling sequence shot from outside the house in one, long take. Coppola's unique but inspired use of music is also in full force. With a soundtrack made primarily of rap, it helps to emphasize the party lifestyle these kids are leading. But songs like "All of the Lights" by Kanye West or Frank Ocean's "Super Rich Kids" drive home the main theme of the movie. Add in some Phoenix tracks and the incredibly addictive "Crown on the Ground" and you have yourself one hell of a playlist.

The cast also uniformly strong. Coppola's decision to cast mostly unknowns pays off big time, as Israel Broussard and Katie Chang (the film's leads, regardless of what the trailers lead you to believe) turn in spectacular and wholly convincing performances. Not once do they seem like they're acting. Instead, it feels like the actors have truly become their Bling Ring counterpart. The only A-lister in the cast, Emma Watson, also turns in her finest post-Potter performance as the comedic relief of the group. It's a hilarious performance that Watson absolutely nails. Hell, she's funnier in this than This Is the End. But during her most dramatic moment- as she is arrested- she singlehandedly drives another major theme from the film home- these aren't criminal masterminds, but kids making (really terrible) mistakes. 

The Bling Ring may be Coppola's worst film to date (though I haven't seen Somewhere) but it's hardly a bad one. Even with some highly disjointed moments, Coppola gets a lot right and absolutely nails the satirical scenes. Add in the finest teen cast in ages and you've got a solid drama. Granted, this could have been a great drama. But I'll take a solid drama any day. 

OVERALL GRADE: B-

Movie Review: "This Is the End"

Stoner comedies like the ones Seth Rogen, Jay Baruchel and even Oscar nominated actor James Franco have taken part in are a decidedly polarizing subgenre. It's very easy for a film to go from funny to annoying, they are almost always built around a stupid premise, and they tend to hold up horribly on re-watches because the sheer randomness of the film is gone. But if  This Is the End is a stoner comedy, then it is The Cabin in the Woods of stoner films. Just like that meta-horror film from last year, This Is the End is massive in scope, wildly unpredictable and while certainly filled with low-brow humor it is intelligently written and always privy to what audiences want from these actors and how they feel about them.

As anybody who has seen the trailers can tell, the biggest joke in this post-apocalyptic buddy comedy is that the celebrities are all playing themselves. While a joke like this would usually wear thin after the opening moments, Rogen and his co-writer/director, Evan Goldberg, somehow make it work by not necessarily have the actors play themselves, or comedic versions of themselves, but full fledged characters who happen to share their names and a few characteristics. While the film is arguably an ensemble film, Jay Baruchel is very much its central character and his friendship with Seth Rogen is the movie's heart. That's what makes the film so unique- Barauchel and Rogen, somehow, manage to disappear into their performances as Jay and Seth. Each of the comedians at the center of the film do the same, with each character serving an important part to the overall plot.

But the fact that the celebrities are appearing as themselves certainly add to the experience, mainly because Rogen and Goldberg seem aware of the way the public views the many celebrities that walk on screen and take advantage of that. Michael Cera is the polar opposite of how he is depicted in the media- snorting coke, slapping Rihanna's ass, etc.- but James Franco is just as pretentious and self righteous as we'd expect. And while the fact that Emma Watson drops f-bombs and threatens people with an axe has been spoiled by virtually every trailer of TV spot, there are plenty of surprise cameos in the film.

But the biggest surprise for me was how much Goldberg and Rogen crammed into the film. It's hard to dwell into details without revealing some huge twists, but the film went places I didn't see coming. Comedies may not be known for their originality in terms of plot, but This Is the End is defined by it. Just as Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard surprised horror fans by playing with the clichés in last year's Cabin, This Is the End constantly surprises audiences by twisting their expectations. Avoid the marketing for this one at all cost, and make sure that any conversations you have with somebody who has seen the film are heavily moderated. The film is an absolute joyride thanks to its unpredictability. Knowledge of what's to come will only lessen the experience. Just know this: it is much, much more than just a group of comedians making crude jokes at the end of the world.

That being said, This Is the End has a very specific brand of comedy that will not appeal to all. Unlike previous Rogen films, namely Knocked Up, the comedy here is extremely crude, immature and offers very little crossover appeal. Essentially, those who don't enjoy hard-R jokes about dick sizes and masturbatory habits will likely be miserable. While there are a few humorous jabs at celebrities and two surprisingly funny tributes to classic horror films, a majority of the film involves middle school levels of immaturity. Personally, some of the jokes did fall flat. The sight of a penis really isn't all that funny, and the film contains not one but two visual gags involving the male reproductive organ, so that really didn't work for me. And I'm not exactly a fan of pot jokes. A few work fine in the film, but it can only go so far. And watching Pineapple Express was one of the most excrutciating experiences of my life as a filmgoer, so any and all references to the film just brought back bad memories. But these jokes will no doubt work for others, and the fact that This Is the End managed to make me laugh as much as it did- even with the moments that fell flat- is quite an accomplishment.

I'd be much more enthusiastic about the film had it not relied so much on the element of surprise. I have a slight suspicion that the film will not work nearly as well on a repeated viewing, and I can't say I'm itching to find out. But comedies are my least favorite genre by a mile. Maybe it's what Hollywood is putting out these days, or maybe it's just my apparent lack of a funny bone, but I find myself losing interest in the genre as a whole. When one makes me laugh as much as This Is the End, I'd consider it worthy of attention. It's filled with low-brow humor yet somehow manages to be intelligently written, and the film is more surprising and entertaining than any film this year so far. It won't work for everyone (few comedies do) but it's definitely worth checking out if you don't mind your humor dirty, immature and unpredictable.

OVERALL GRADE: B+

Movie Review: "Stoker"

It's funny how many critics complain that summer blockbusters exhibit a "style over substance" method of filmmaking. While such claims are certainly true for a majority of those films, it is easy to forget that, occasionally, an art house film can fall into the same category and be just as unbearable- or perhaps, even more. While I don't want this review to be mistaken for a tirade against critics for showing a bias towards less mainstream films (most critics don't), it's baffling to me that 67% of film critics have deemed the film "Fresh" on Rotten Tomatoes. Maybe I missed something. Stoker is a mess of a film, where any beautiful shots, strong performances or interesting themes are drowned out by filmmaking that reeks of pretension.

Right from the opening scene, two things about Stoker become abundantly clear: the film is absolutely beautiful, and the major theme being explored is the loss of innocence. We're introduced to India Stoker, a teenager so mellow and unaware of her burgeoning sexuality that she would definitely be found only in the movies. Writer Wentworth Miller infuses India's maturation from girl into woman with a gothic mystery about her mysterious uncle, her oddball family and a steadily increasing list of missing persons. Mixing these two themes together is an interesting notion, but the film never explores the themes fully enough to make it work. Even worse, the film abandons logic for the sake of exploring said themes. India may not be fully aware of her sexual (and potentially incestuous) desires, but why does she seem like a shell of a human being before discovering it? She just sits, like a statue, as her classmate harasses her or, in a particularly bizarre scene, reacts violently to it. Both scenes come off as odd and both scenes also prove that India is not a fleshed out character but, simply, a device Miller and director Chan-wook Park can use to make the film feel "weird." When India masturbates in the shower shortly after a particularly violent moment, it didn't come off as "shocking", "edgy", or "thought provoking"- it came off as silly. Maybe if the film explored this theme more thoroughly, as opposed to simply presenting it while convenient, this scene would have worked. But, as it stands, it just comes off as one of many unnecessary moments in the film.

The script also presents major problems as the intentions of India's Uncle Charlie (and much of the plot itself) are left shrouded in mystery, with the film teasing the viewers with possible scenarios for its first two thirds. But once the mask comes off and the "big twist" is revealed, I was left disappointed. As a whole, the film's plot was remarkably average. If you were to strip the film of its glorious visuals and A-list actors, you'd be left with a Lifetime Movie of the Week. While Miller didn't have to write an amazing twist on the level of The Sixth Sense or The Crying Game, choosing the simplest answer to the audience's question is a major letdown. Which brings us back to the first problem with the script- the film has been made in a way that practically begs for the audiences attention, with dozens of gothic, moody shots that will keep the audience glued to the screen. But if the story being told and the themes being explored don't live up to the cinematography, is the film really worth celebrating? If I wanted to admire the cinematography of Chung-hoon Chung, I'd search for the film on Google Images.

But I will spend time praising his cinematography anyway. The film looks wonderful, with a style that feels both unique and old fashioned. The camera is always placed in the perfect location to evoke a feeling of dread. While the film takes place during modern day, the Stoker residence is photographed in a way that feels reminiscent of classic horror films set during the Victorian age, with corridors of the house obscured in mystery, and Matthew Goode's slender Charlie resembling the classic depiction of a vampire. Even the more pretentious shots, like a completely unnecessary scene where India surrounds herself with boxes of shoes (it's a symbol of her growing up and losing her innocence, duh!), look beautiful.

The acting is also worth giving notice to. Mia Wasikowska constantly impresses me in the films I see her in due to the way she constantly feels believable yet never seems to play the same part twice. Whether she's a modern teen struggling with boy problems and the sudden reemergence of her biological father (The Kids Are All Right) or dealing with her beloved Rochester's terrible secret (Jane Eyre), she is wholly convincing. I only wish she had better material to work with. Matthew Goode also gives his mysterious part his all, walking the dangerous tight rope between charming and terrifying. But Nicole Kidman absolutely steals the film as the manipulative Evelyn Stoker. Kidman is one of the finest actors working today, and I love how she doesn't stick with Oscar bait or blockbuster pictures. Her work in Stoker may not be the best of her career, but it's certainly up there with her best performances. Unfortunately, her best scene is featured in the trailer, so the film isn't really worth seeing just for her.

Had the script gone a bit more in depth while analyzing the slightly clichéd but still interesting themes at the center of Stoker, it could have been great. Had the film featured a plot that was a bit more surprising or inventive, it could have been great. But Stoker is not great. It's not even good. And adding insult to injury, the film presents itself as being profound or unique. But cinematography doesn't make a movie. As a whole, Stoker is one of the best looking messes you'll see this year.

OVERALL GRADE: D+

"Stoker" is currently available on DVD, Bluray and Video on Demand

Movie Review: "Man of Steel"

If someone was to tell ten year old me that by the time I turned nineteen I'd be tired of superhero movies, I'd probably laugh in your face. Growing up at a time when you could expect at least one superhero movie a year, my summer wasn't complete until I got to see a masked hero take on bad guy in a special effects driven blockbuster. Little did I know that I was only experiencing the beginning of this cultural phenomenon. In the summer of 2008 Robert Downey Jr. donned the Iron Man armor for the first time, the Dark Knight faced off against the Joker and Nick Fury emerged from the shadows to announce that the Avengers would finally assemble. Hollywood suddenly became a comic book movie factory, with films ranging from entertaining but unimpressive (Captain America), wildly disappointing (The Dark Knight Rises), wholly unnecessary (The Amazing Spider-Man) and occasionally epic (The Avengers). The novelty of seeing your favorite hero on the big screen is gone, and I've found myself straddled with a bad case of superhero fatigue.

Enter Man of Steel, a film from a director whose films I don't enjoy very much and with a hero at the center that I've always found quite boring. Warner Bros. really deserves praise for their highly effective marketing because when I was on the long line to enter the theater with dozens of other moviegoers, I was actually excited. Not just interested, not just curious and not just in search of a way to kill a few hours. I was genuinely anticipating Man of Steel. And while the film was not a great one, it was one that left me satisfied in a way few comic book films have.

As I mentioned above, the big thing missing from comic book movies these days is novelty. The first time Tobey Maguire donned those red and blue tights, filmgoers were given the chance to see what they have never seen and do what they have never done: fly through the streets of New York, battle a menacing villain in midair, and kiss the pretty girl next door (upside down no less). That's what made The Amazing Spider-Man so disappointing- it wasn't bad, just bland. That's what makes the best superhero films stand above the rest: the ability to give something to audiences they have not seen on the big screen before. Christopher Nolan managed to bring superheroes into the gritty "real world", with an incredibly unique villain to boot. Iron Man had a hero like no other: an incredibly entertaining wiseass with a garage of cool gadgets. Even the tagline for 1978's Superman offered a window into what made that film a classic: "You'll believe a man can fly." So, what can Zack Snyder bring to the classic superhero that audiences haven't seen before? The answer is simple; action scenes of epic proportions that are simultaneously brutal and beautiful.

Right from the opening scene one thing about Man of Steel was abundantly clear: this was going to be a great looking film. Great cinematography is not uncommon with superhero movies these days- The Dark Knight received an Oscar nomination for theirs and Sin City is renowned for it's style- but Man of Steel may be the best looking comic book adaptation to date. Clearly inspired by Terrence Malick's films, cinematographer Amir Mokri has crafted a beautiful looking film that manages to personify the term "eye candy" without necessarily relying on CGI to do it (though, rest assured, the CGI is there and great looking). Many have lauded Snyder's visually style in his previous films, namely 300 and Watchmen. While Watchmen is fine looking (albeit a bit too dark and grimy for my liking), I never saw what was so special about 300's look. To me, it looked like nothing more than a polished video game. But here, Snyder and Mokri lighten things up and truly capture Superman in all his epic glory- a feeling that is supported by the scope and size of Snyder's action scenes.

Not being particularly knowledgeable in all things Kryptonian, you can imagine my surprise the first time I saw Superman fly down from the heavens, grab General Zod by the neck and toss him through a silo of grain miles away. In all my watching of superhero flicks, I had never seen something like that happen. For the final hour or so of Man of Steel, Snyder unleashes huge action sequences that remind us why audiences flock to the theater during the summer movie season. By having his hero and the film's many villains toss each other through the streets, obliterating buildings in the process, the film becomes more exciting and more action packed than any film I've seen this summer. Not to mention that each action scene brings something new to the table, whether it's by placing Lois Lane at the center of things or by having Zod and Clark flying through the city. We've seen Iron Man use his armor to take on bad guys before. We've never seen a hero punch a man toss a villain through a building.

But, while Snyder has brought some originality to the action scenes, David S. Goyer brings absolutely nothing to the table as the screenwriter. The film relies heavily on dramatic flashbacks between Clark and Jonathan Kent to develop our hero, but these scenes are all just versions of Uncle Ben's "Great Responsibility" speech. There are just enough lessons in morality to serve as bridges between action scenes so the film can't be deemed "brainless." Likewise, the romance between Lois and Clark, while expected, breaks no new ground. There is no extra layer or interesting twists- Lois and Clark meet, Lois and Clark flirt, Lois helps Clark, Clark saves Lois, they kiss. While Cavill and Adams have chemistry, they aren't given any material that makes their romance worth caring about.

The film also tries to add religious imagery where it, simply, doesn't belong. Yes, Superman is essentially a reinterpretation of Moses or Jesus, and acknowledging that is fine, but Man of Steel doesn't use the imagery enough to make it mean anything. The most annoying of these scenes is a moment where Clark consults a priest to gain guidance on a particular plot point, despite the fact that virtually everyone in the audience can predict what's going to happen. The sequence feels both unnecessary and out of place- Clark never questions his purpose in life, and jumps into action to save people at earlier moments. Why is this one any different? While the film (thankfully) doesn't bash audiences over the head with the metaphors, a la Superman Returns, Goyer should have made a firm stance: incorporate the religious imagery throughout the film, or not at all.

Thankfully, Henry Cavill does his best to to make Goyer's script less troublesome. This man was born to be a movie star. Radiating with charisma from the moment he walks (excuse me, flies) on screen, Cavill has the physique of a super hero, but is likable and relatable in a way too few protagonists are. The rest of the cast isn't quite as strong, but there still isn't a bad performance in the bunch. Michael Shannon and Russell Crowe turn in solid performances, while Laurence Fishburne, Kevin Costner and Diane Lane do their best in their handful of scenes. Stealing scenes from the A-lists in the cast is Antje Traue, portraying the sidekick to Zod as both sinister and badass. The only disappointment amongst the group is Amy Adams. Adams is a wonderful actress, but she's clearing phoning this one in. She's not bad, but uninspired and merely serviceable.

The response to Man of Steel has been polarizing to say the least. Some have praised it to the high heavens. In my opinion, that's a bit too hyperbolic. Some have been tearing it apart. That's a bit unfair. Man of Steel is hardly original in it's script, but it carries out the worn out clichés more efficiently than many of its peers. And its action scenes are truly one of a kind- a perfect combination of epic visuals with a lead that brings humanity to the special effects on the big screen. Toss in some awe inspiring cinematography, and you have yourself a winning summer movie. So while Man of Steel hasn't cured my superhero fatigue, and I'm not necessarily excited for Man of Steel 2,3, Justice League or the inevitable reboot, I can say, without hesitation, that the film left me thoroughly entertained as a fanboy and mostly satisfied as a film critic.

OVERALL GRADE: B

Movie Review: "The Purge"

The  biggest complaint many audiences have about The Purge (regardless of whether or not they've seen it) is that the plot "doesn't make sense." And to that I say: well, duh. The Purge is a film, not a documentary, and nobody involved with the film is asking the audience to take it as fact. Yes, there will never be a law that allows us to commit any crime during a twelve hour period without having to fear punishment. But there will also never be a law that would call for the slaughter of children to be televised for the entire nation, and I don't think anybody up in Washington is secretly assembling a team of superheroes to help fight crime. If The Purge was set in some fantastical dimension where the characters wore crazy costumes and drove hover cars, would ignorant critics still cry foul? So, no, I'm not going to tear apart the legitimacy of The Purge in this review. Sorry.

With that out of the way, let's get to the movie itself- The Purge is like a twisted episode of "The Twilight Zone" complete with social commentary, a handful of twists and an excessively creepy tone. Even before the masked villains featured prominently in the film's apparently effective advertising campaign emerge, the film manages to make the audience feel uncomfortable. Neighbors wear smiles that feel a bit too fake, almost resembling those on the aforementioned masks. Radio chatter on talking heads on the TV talk about whether or not the poor are deserving of the violence they experience on the night of the Purge due to their lack of worth in the moneymaking society that is America 2025. And characters watch men and women get killed in the most brutal of ways not in horror or in glee but in stoic, emotionless glances. Within minutes The Purge makes one thing clear: this is political commentary first and a horror movie second.

In the best of cases, horror films can reflect the ugly side of today's society. For centuries, writers have used the genre to do more than just make the audience jump at a startling music cue. Night of the Living Dead dealt with racism. Dawn of the Dead dealt with consumerism. The Thing was about cold war hysteria. My personal favorite, Rosemary's Baby, is about religion in modern America and the paranoia associated with living in New York City. Hell, we can go all the way back to Bram Stoker's "Dracula" and talk about the way the classic novel dealt with the repression of sexuality in 17th century England. With so many crappy horror films getting released these days, it's easy to forget that horror can be much more than a slasher flick filled with blood and tits (not that there is anything wrong with that- I love Piranha 3D too). But more often than not, the social commentary in films that dare to be different is placed in the background, left to be analyzed by overeager cinephiles. So it's startling to see how writer/director James DeMonaco puts the social satire in the forefront of the film.

One scene after another viewers are reminded of major events or political debates from the past few years- Occupy Wall Street, the vast differences between the rich and the poor, etc. When the main villain screams about how a homeless character is "worthless swine" he comes off as a psychopath but also seems eerily similar to an overeager commentator on Fox News. Later, a character is faced with a decision - help someone less fortunate than him at a great personal cost, or care only about helping himself. While the film may be about murder and crime, the issue at the core is not unlike the debate over helping the poor and raising taxes that is waged on news programs today. And while the film does abandon these metaphors for an intense but clichéd "monster in the house" sequence, the film returns to its satirical roots for a surprisingly dark but terrific ending. DeMonaco takes the risk of alienating his audience with a bizarre final moment that will leave gore-hounds (and perhaps much of the audience) disappointed, but it fits perfectly within the context of the film. Is any of this commentary subtle? No, but nothing about the film is subtle. And I'll take excessive political metaphors to excessive gore any day.

But, the reliance on social satire does come back to haunt DeMonaco. A writer's job is to flesh out an idea into a feature film by meshing it with numerous other ideas. He's supposed to build characters, develop the main conflict, and end the film by tying up all of these loose ends. I got the sense that DeMonaco started writing with an idea- a horror film that doubles as commentary on the state of modern America- but only fleshed out that idea, and not the others that are required to make a feature film. The characters in The Purge are shells of human beings that serve only two purposes: perpetuate the metaphor at the center of the film and line up for the slaughter. We don't find out much about the family at the center of the film, and they don't so much feel like clichés as they do robots. That's not an insults towards the actors- Ethan Hawke and Lena Headey are both perfectly competent as the two leads, while the child actors both show potential. But they never escape the script's shortcomings.

The best actor in the film is likely the most polarizing: newcomer Rhys Wakefield, who plays the chief villain credited only as Polite Stranger. Some seem to find Wakefield cheesy and over the top, while others (like myself) found him creepy and utterly fascinating. If anything comes from The Purge please let it be a decent career for Wakefield (not an endless stream of sequels). But Wakefield's performance only further highlights the problems DeMonaco has with this script: the villains are fascinating and terrifying in theory but once they are thrust into action, they become nothing more than a symbol. When the masked figures actually invade the house (not a spoiler, it's in the trailer and virtually every advertisement), these symbols become nothing more than standard masked villains. They transform from fascinating characters to knockoffs of the villains from 2008's The Strangers. On their own, the Polite Stranger and his demented cohorts are a great idea. Meshed with the other ideas in the film, it just doesn't work.

Yet, I'm recommending The Purge. Even with writing problems, this is a film that manages to say a lot more than any horror film in recent memory. It's more intense and exciting than many films released this year. As disappointing as it is when a film goes into autopilot and plays out like a standard home invasion thriller, DeMonaco managed to make these scenes suspenseful and startling. The film remained tense throughout, exploding with jolts of intensity reminiscent of 2010's The Crazies, but with a disturbing undertone that makes an audience think twice before cheering at the mayhem on screen. While he may not have screenwriting down pat, DeMonaco proves to be a competent horror director that would absolutely nail a film with a great script.

There are two types of horror films I like: ones that  depict violence and gore with a sort of self-aware glee, and horror films that use violence and gore in a way to do more than shock the audience. While there are certainly flaws with The Purge, there is no denying that it is more than just a simple thriller. While he may rely on social commentary a bit too much for his own good, DeMonaco has berthed a new horror franchise that manages to scare audiences and ask them thought provoking questions. Even if their are some problems with the execution, I think a film that intends to do more than just make audiences jump and wince deserves some praise.

OVERALL GRADE: B-

Movie Review: "Gangster Squad"

Clichés are certainly tired and trite, but when used well a film can be entertaining enough, even if it isn't original or all that great. But Ruben Fleisher's Gangster Squad can't even recycle clichés in an interesting way. This is a blatant ripoff of The Untouchables with elements of L.A. Confidential thrown in for good measure, but these clichés are executed in such a way that it's almost impossible to find enjoyment in them. But coupled with cheesy performances and a tonally confused script, the film quickly goes from being boring to almost unwatchable. Gangster Squad is not a dull film. It's not a clichéd film. It is, simply, an absolute mess.

Gangster Squad opens with the film's main villain, Mickey Cohen (Sean Penn), standing menacingly behind the Hollywood sign, snarling about how he's slowly taking over the West Coast and then commanding that his cohorts rip apart an enemy of his using two cars speeding into opposite directions. Almost immediately after, three gangsters take a young girl, fresh off the train, into a dark room where they intend to rape her. This is dark, very violent material that would be found in the hardest of R ratings, and this is only the beginning of the gruesome material that will be on screen. And I'm fine with graphic violence- there is nothing wrong with it by itself. But there is something wrong with graphic violence in a film that doesn't call for it.

The tone the writers of Gangster Squad call for is one of a cartoon. The characters are all one dimensional, the plot is simple, and the action scenes have an over the top tone to them. Hell, the film even has a stylized look to it. There is nothing realistic about the film- except for the violence. And that just doesn't add up to a solid film. It's one thing to have graphic violence in a film, but it's a whole other to have violence that's intended to disturb a viewer in a film that isn't even striving for realism. It'd be like having the nameless bad guys that Iron Man beams lasers at blowing up and spewing their guts around the screen. Now, I was never disturbed by the violence in Gangster Squad. I've seen plenty of films that are considerably more graphic. But I found myself rolling my eyes at it.

Speaking of rolling my eyes, let's talk about Sean Penn. Penn is a great actor, but he's an actor that can go wildly over the top to a point where his performances can border on greatness and flat out camp. In Gangster Squad, Penn's performance is campiness at its absolute worst. He screams and yells and lacks anything close to villainy. His performance is laughable, and it's not just because of the material. But he's not alone. The typically fantastic Ryan Gosling turns in a cringe inducing performance as the smooth talking Sgt. Wooters. He plays the part like an actor dressed as a 1940s detective at the most expensive Halloween party of all time. It also doesn't help that he's given some of the cheesiest dialogue to read (more on that later). Out of the other principal actors, Josh Brolin tries his best to elevate the less than stellar material but his character is just boring. Meanwhile, Emma Stone is stuck in a role as one of the most degrading sex objects in recent memory.

And finally, the script showcases some of the laziest incorporation of clichés imaginable. The plot points are practically announced to the audience as they come, with the primary story resembling the dated but entertaining The Untouchables just a bit too much. Then you have dialogue that seems to be made up entirely of catch phrases and cheesy one liners that are read without the slightest hint or irony. Characters are paper thin and it seems that screenwriter Will Beal had never heard of the "show, don't tell" method of writing as any key character traits are explained by the other characters onscreen.

Gangster Squad is a poorly made film. There is no way around it. The writing is horrible, the director cannot choose what tone he wants his film to take, and even the stellar cast fails to deliver solid performances. If you're at all interested in Gangster Squad, I advise you seek out The Untouchables or L.A. Confidential. I just can't imagine somebody watching all three of them and finding Gangster Squad the best of the bunch. In fact, I can't imagine anybody finding Gangster Squad the best of any bunch.

OVERALL GRADE: D

"Gangster Squad" is now available on DVD, Blu-Ray and video on demand.