"The Rover" Review

"The Rover" is an amalgamation not many could've predicted: part "Blues Brothers", "Pulp Fiction", "The Devil's Rejects", and "Of Mice and Men". It's indulgent by Hollywood's standards; such a film would normally trade Kubrick-like silence for explosions, a droning score for a wall of guitars, an episodic story for a stricter narrative. But this is the beauty of "The Rover": it indulges, provokes, discomforts. And it doesn't give a damn what you, or I, or anyone thinks.

Australia is now a dystopia, ten years after an event called "The Collapse." The inhabitants survive on scraps in a barren desert, shooting their way into any means they can use to live another day. And in the midst of all the chaos, Eric (Guy Pearce) is searching for his blue sedan. Three bandits have crashed their truck escaping from a shoot-out, so the next logical step was to take the car. This fuels Eric's rage as he chases the group down in their truck (apparently only takes about 45 seconds of maneuvering to free it from a pile of tires) interrogating, intimidating, and murdering anyone in his path. After coming across Rey (Robert Pattinson), the brother of one of the bandits, Eric forces Rey to lead him to the bandits' hideout to get back his prized possession...and his revenge.

Amidst the silence, there's an ever-present layer of tension. Someone always has a weapon, someone is always watching their back. Suddenly, a flurry of bullets rips a door apart, or an assailant makes his presence known. Guns also have a knack for making Rorschach paintings out of people's skulls. For the majority of the film, the theater was so quiet that when a cell phone rang, it filled up all the space in the room, echoing off the walls. (Never has a Nokia phone sounded so bold.)

All this madness is an overreaction; at least, we, the audience, can afford ourselves the luxury of analysis. We can find the comedy in how random these interactions can be, trying to defuse tension by latching on to a witty piece of dialogue. We can detach ourselves from the film and ask "how the hell does this kind of character end up here?" I don't think Eric is much aware of the oddity as he composes himself to make the ever-quotable statement, "I'm looking for a car." But we are. As a defense mechanism, we have to find a way to laugh, or cry, or come up with a logical reason for it all, in order to not give in to the insanity.

Eric, in a typical action picture, would be played by Jason Statham. His gruff exterior and 'don't-mess-with-me' attitude would contrast the cockiness of the bandits and we would root as he, justified through every battle, gets back what's rightfully his. In "The Rover", we have Guy Pearce. Pearce comes out guns-a-blazing. He bashes heads in. He robs, assaults, and murders. Statham is justified. Pearce is not. However, Pearce's eyes allow us to see the gears whirring in Eric's head. His 1960's computer of a brain lacks the programming to see another option, often taking the longer, more complicated route to be able to approach any situation from his status quo. But as Pearce's eyes also reveal Eric's vulnerability, it allows the audience just enough rope to hang on to his character, continuing to follow, out of sheer intrigue.

If there's a star-making performance in this film, Robert Pattinson earns it. I feel Pattinson will be forever known as "that kid with the botched nipple from Twilight", but as his track record with David Cronenberg shows, Pattinson is a man of the arthouse, perfect at capturing the mindset of off-kilter men. As Rey, Pattinson brings a child-like, almost innocent quality. Rey's happy-go-lucky attitude combined with his naivete is a sharp contrast to Eric's bitter outlook on life; there's a sense that if things could work out differently, Rey would be able to transcend the attitudes of the desert, do well for himself. However, Rey is so easily malleable that any strong enough personality can influence him, lead him down the darkest paths. Because of this, we sympathize with Rey's desire to just have a good life; he's like a puppy who's been kicked. He's the closest we get to an identifiable character, the emotional center of the film.

"The Rover" is a creature all its own: tense, hilarious, dark, heart-wrenching, vulgar, hopeful. Its risky storytelling and direction crafts an experience that leaves me in constant thought. What happens when men are pushed to a breaking point? Can we transcend our primitive desires in search for something more meaningful? What the hell is inside this blue sedan? "The Rover" provides answers, but the journey getting there is full of twists, laughs, shocks, and drama: worth every minute.

Thank you all for reading; I'm the Man Without a Plan, signing off.

                                                                                           "The Rover" trailer:

"How To Train Your Dragon 2" Review

Images of "Star Wars" and "Indiana Jones" are popping in my head, and I feel it only appropriate to include the "How To Train Your Dragon" series in the same conversation. These characters are archetypes, these stories have been done to death. However, in the same way George Lucas add his ideas to the blend Kurosawa and Flash Gordon serials, Dean DeBois takes cues from Pixar and Lucas, infusing it with bold creativity and technological wizardry.

"How To Train Your Dragon 2" follows Hiccup (Jay Beruchel) in the Viking land of Berk, where the inhabitants now live harmoniously with dragons as companions. Hiccup is accompanied by his dragon, Toothless, excited to soar among the clouds, exploring new territories and islands. However, Hiccup is being pressured from his father, Stoick (Gerard Butler), the chief, to take on more responsibilities and become his successor. Hiccup is hesitant to accept the position, unsure of his place in the world, but there's no time to think, as Berk is threatened by a hunter (Djimon Hounsou) who's building a dragon army for invasion.

The cast does well: Beruchel gives Hiccup his awkward, kind charm, Butler balances being stern, goofy, heartbroken with ease. New characters such as the Dragon Rider (Cate Blanchett) and Eret (Kat Harrington), a young dragon trapper are welcome additions. The Dragon Rider finds a protege in Hiccup, teaching him all there is to know about dragons with the excitement of a puppy. Eret's the bad boy with a heart of gold. Imagine an animated Winter Soldier, if you will. The ladies of Deviantart will more than likely have their fan art already up.

Speaking of art, this animation is phenomenal. The amount of detail placed into every aspect of motion and design blows my mind. For someone who grew up during the polygonal era of the Nintendo 64 and early years of Pixar, to see the littlest hairs on the back of Hiccup's neck move in the wind or the diversity of each species, it's breathtaking. The movie allows each setting to exude atmosphere, looking like breathing paintings. (The credits show off some gorgeous hand-drawn concept art.) The effort is apparent and impressive: from the jam-packed battles to the simplest sunset, each frame of film dazzles.

When not pulsing with adventure, characters are being developed, heartstrings are being tugged, or laughs are being shared (usually because of Kirsten Wiig's snarky Ruffnut). However, similarly to Lucas's original "Star Wars" trilogy, the story moves smoothly between different focuses. The movie is stuffed, full to the brim, but executed in such a manner that it never feels exhausting, just right.

And while I think the first "How To Train Your Dragon" is a more impressive movie, I find myself liking the sequel a bit better. This advances the story, develops new aspects of the characters, challenging them in different ways, bringing in new ideas that not only make sense in the universe, but fit like a glove. This has the makings of a strong, entertaining, intelligent series. It's not really a smash hit (as I write this, "22 Jump Street" has beaten it in box office draw), but similarly to "Captain America: The Winter Soldier", "How To Train Your Dragon 2" is a solid film: capturing the Saturday morning matinee feel while backing it up with wisdom and creativity. It's definitely worth your time. Thank you for reading; I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.

                                                                       "How To Train Your Dragon 2" trailer:

"The Fault In Our Stars" Review

"Neither novels nor their readers benefit from attempts to divine whether any facts hide inside a story. Such efforts attack the very idea that made-up stories can matter, which is sort of the foundational assumption of our species." John Green begins the novel "The Fault In Our Stars" with this author's note, and while his statement serves to preempt any claims of the novel's medical inaccuracies, it applies for the film.

If you lay out a synopsis of "The Fault In Our Stars", some sections stretch the elastic band of disbelief. But, as Green puts it, this is fantasy, and its strength comes from what it represents. By this measure, "The Fault In Our Stars" is a charming, intelligent work that makes the claim that all lives are immeasurably valuable, regardless of circumstance. And it does it all through the lens of a star-crossed love story.

Indianapolis is home to seventeen-year-old Hazel Grace Lancaster, (Shailene Woodley), whose cancer has a way of making her lungs "suck at being lungs". Cancer not only takes over a person's body, but identity; Hazel struggles to find some bit of life that's not prescribed, and in a support group, she finds it in fellow fighter Augustus Waters (Ansel Egort). Augustus is a dreamer: a man of unlit cigarettes, metaphors, and a thirst for legacy. When matched with realist Hazel, the two hit it off, sharing text messages, books, and international travel, slowly falling in love.

In the same vein as the novel, their relationship builds slowly. Gus's lines, which would usually melt any girl, finds a diminished return on Hazel, whose wit hilariously throws Gus off his game. The movie isn't frigid about their love, however; these characters aren't opposites thrown together in a 'what if?' scenario, bickering until they find a common thread. This develops naturally through each first: call, date, kiss, etc.

Woodley and Egort are ugly criers. They snivel, scream, and snot up. Woodley's face turns forty different shades of red, while Egort juts his lip out, uttering unintelligible curses while bellowing like a baby whale. In other words, they're perfect. Their chemistry is electric; Egort charms, Woodley blushes, they argue, joke, and weep. It's almost impossible not to believe they're actually in love.

As far as adaptation goes, fans of the novel will find a myriad of little touches: scenery, actors' body language, props. The one shortcoming is common with all adaptations: the use of time. I read the novel in two days, saw the movie in two hours. The film sticks closer to plot while the book takes its time, strengthening the relationship. The novel lets Hazel and Gus do things; the movie has things happen to Hazel and Gus, giving them less of an active role. This change of pace isn't inherently bad, but simply a consequence of the medium.

"The Fault In Our Stars" takes its characters as they are: pretentious, naive, intelligent, broken. It doesn't change them, but rather shows the peak of their lives. There is beauty, joy, glory in everyone; it doesn't matter what your race, gender, class, health or financial standing is. Everyone can find love and purpose in their lives, regardless of what society can see on the surface. It's a beautiful film with loving characters making the best of their little infinity.

Thank you all for reading; I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.

                                                                      "The Fault In Our Stars" trailer:

"Maleficent" Review

I don't think it's uncommon opinion to call Sleeping Beauty the most boring of the Disney Princesses. I mean, if Princess Aurora is passed out for a good chunk of the film, there's not much development one can have, right? By far, the most dynamic character in the 1959 film is the villain, Maleficent. She's powerful, majestic, enjoys every second of her villainy. Who else will condemn an infant to sleep-like death for being snubbed from a party? You may see it as a pathetic motivation for evil, but I'm fascinated at the kind of temper and rage that lies under the surface in order for her to snap. 55 years later, we finally have an answer.

The movie takes place during the events of "Sleeping Beauty"; this is pretty much a remake. But the benefit comes from understanding the backstory; Maleficent (Angelina Jolie) comes of age in the Moors, a land full to the brim with fairies and other magical creatures. With her powerful wings and magic, she assumes the role of protector, leading a defense force of tree-like creatures against the neighboring human kingdom.

Jolie is a powerhouse; I don't think any other actress would able to command such a presence. I could feel my breath cut off as she strides into a palace hall, drawing every eye. No matter what situation, Maleficent is in control, gleefully shutting down anyone who dare stand in her way. Jolie gives her the lifeblood, regality, and menace to not only scare, but fascinate. She can be playful, silly, but never in a way that satirizes or feels over-the-top. It's just another side of glee.

The production oozes atmosphere; it's an organism, reacting and adapting to the forces around it, mainly Maleficent. Light and shadow dance back and forth: obscuring profiles, draping Maleficent in shadow except for her eyes, always piercing. When furious, green flashes of light surround her, the orchestra swelling to a chaotic climax. The forest, at its darkest, writhes with a wall of thorns, uninhabitable. However, the Moors can be breathtakingly beautiful with its crystal blue skies; dragon-like fish swim through the air while goblin dwarfs go about their merry cheer below. The swamp glows with calming multi-colored lights at night, and Maleficent walks through the Moors like Adam through the Garden of Eden, completely at peace.

Careful writing integrates the mythos into the story; this is a solid script tying together all the little details. For a fairytale so enveloped in its suspension of disbelief, the movie takes its logic seriously and cleverly enough to bring the audience in. Each character is integrated well, especially Aurora (Elle Fanning) whose cheerful naivete is delivered with charm by Fanning.

"Maleficent" is proof that sometimes, a different point of view can completely change a story for the better. The original "Sleeping Beauty" never carried much weight in my eyes, outside of Maleficent. Here, she's the focus of a film that's not only marvelous, dark, and clever, but heartfelt and emotionally enrapturing. I love this new take on the fairytale; go see it if you haven't already. I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.

                                                                                 "Maleficent" trailer:

 

"A Million Ways To Die In The West" Review

I paid $8.25 to see a sheep's genitals. Need I say more?

Seth MacFarlane's "A Million Ways To Die In the West" satirizes Westerns with a vibrant, romanticized production design, but the similarities to "Blazing Saddles" stop there. This has little of the charm and none of the wit Mel Brooks and team infused 40 years ago. MacFarlane can satirize well; the "Family Guy" parodies of "Star Wars" teased the originals with love while succeeding on their own merits. Here, when the plot doesn't drag, the jokes are at best unfunny, at worst, horrendous.

MacFarlane plays Albert Stark, an unskilled sheep farmer living in the town of Old Stump in 1882. His disdain for the "American West" is legendary, rivaling the most cultured 21st Century historian. Full of rampant shootouts, primitive medicine, and cholera, Stark's environment sickens him. The only thing keeping him going is his lovely girlfriend Louise (Amanda Seyfried), whom, dissatisfied with Albert's wishy-washy demeanor, breaks up with him for Foy (Neil Patrick Harris), a rich, wondrously mustachioed snob.

At the same time, a ruthless team of bandits, led by Clinch Leatherwood (Liam Neeson) zone in on Old Stump. Clinch sends his disgruntled wife Anna (Charlize Theron) and another bandit in to spy for a week, giving him and the rest of the crew time to rest before the ransacking begins. After Albert saves Anna during a bar fight, the two develop a friendship, but her past is unbeknownst to Albert, and may end up putting him in the middle of affairs that are way over his head.

My "Blazing Saddles" comparison starts and ends with the production design, which is similarly vibrant and romanticized. The opening credits fly through the mountains with grand titles and a bouncy, adventurous score; the atmosphere is wonderfully set. Star-lit skies, wide landscapes, and subtly sepia-toned settings make the film not only faithful to its genre, but visually appealing.

For whatever the movie has going for it in looks, the humor murders. The movie treats its audience like imbeciles, pairing each joke with an explanation, just in case we didn't get it the first time around. Stark is such a coward, he runs away from the comedy. It's as if MacFarlane is scared the character can't hold his own with the movie's jokes. To be fair, I don't blame Albert: one can only take so many bodily fluids and grotesque dismemberment. There's no punchline under the surface; the jokes are obvious, crass, and unpleasant. 

Each character is given one note and one joke to work off of; this is a waste of talented cast, primarily Sarah Silverman and Neil Patrick Harris. (I didn't think it was possible for him to fall flat, but boy was I wrong.) The only ones unharmed are Charlize Theron, whose spunk, snark, and fun-loving attitude carry most of the film, and Liam Neeson, who relishes in playing the over-the-top bad-ass. Both infuse enough charm to get me through the movie. 

For an hour and fitfy-five minutes, the movie slumps along, padding out the story with meaningless subplots. When the climax is teased, the movie continues on, throwing in more unfunny jokes, constantly draining on my nerves. I'm surprised I didn't leave the theater with a headache. I'm going to consider this my one saving grace.

Have I made my feelings towards "A Million Ways To Die In The West" known? I'm going to sum this up: this movie was insufferable: unfunny, offensive, boring, and irritating without a shred of charm. I was furious in the theater, the parking lot, and the restaurant where I went to get lunch afterwards. All hope abandon ye who enter here. Thanks for reading; I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.

                                                                   "A Million Ways To Die In The West" Review