PAIN & GAIN Is Whacked-Out Michael Bay at His Most Excessive

PAIN & GAIN Review:

- After the last couple of Transformers movies, I'll be honest ... my desire to see any new film by Michael Bay was at an all-time low. There was a time when I considered Michael Bay to be a promising action director who had the ability to deliver big, epic, over-the-top, high-concept roller-coaster-rides with aplomb. I'll always hold a special place for the cheesy awesomeness that is THE ROCK (the movie, not Dwayne Johnson). But dozens of crappy movies later ... I'd about had it. Now, Pain & Gain is at least an attempt by Bay to do something a little different. It's a smaller-scale story that still has its share of action. It's got some dark humor, and a subversive streak of social satire lurking somewhere in there. And Bay approaches the story with an eye towards mixing things up stylistically. He throws in little fourth-wall-breaking moments. He isn't afraid to get sort of weird in his creative choices. And hey, he's got a dream cast of talented actors, adept at both playing the badass but also at being self-deprecatingly funny. There are reasons to like Pain & Gain. It's worth watching for those reasons. But there is also a realization here: Michael Bay is now incapable of cranking it down a notch, even when that's exactly what he should be doing.

What do I mean? I mean that, like I said, this is a small-scale story. But Bay just plain *attacks* it. The colors are hypersaturated. The camera angles are extreme. There's slo-mo, speed-up, and yes, numerous "vintage Michael Bay" shots of swirling helicopters, groups of guys cocking their guns in slo-mo sync-up, dudes in silhouette with red-sky backdrops as the camera circles around them ... And, oh yeah, Bay doesn't stay with any given shot for more than three seconds - the rapid-fire cuts come at you as if the movie were edited while under the influence of some seriously potent drugs. One can only imagine that the movie's script includes the words "SMASH CUT" on numerous occasions. But ... why is this the case? Why, for his smallest movie in years, did Bay feel the need to dial up his Bay-ness to eleven? I have no idea. At times, the overall absurdity of the movie's look and directorial style does add to its comedy. But mostly, you just wish that it had been handled by someone who knew how to make a point without also trying to make you hurl.

The movie's extreme visual style is a bit of an eye sore, no question. A few directors, like the late great Tony Scott, were able to pull this sort of thing off in a way where extreme, amped-up stylization contributed to a movie's atmospherics and tonality in a positive way. But that doesn't really happen here. There's no apparent artistic rhyme or reason to most of the creative choices. What's worse though - the movie ends up being all surface, no substance. It's frustrating, because the movie seems to hint at having some thoughts on things like The American Dream. It seems to have some ambition to satirize American culture and physical fitness culture. It appears to have one or two things on its mind. But those things are never explored in any meaningful way. Other filmmakers might have crafted a parable with some thematic resonance. Bay puts in some surface-level "artsy" touches, but for the most part films this as if it's Transformers 4.

The story of Pain & Gain, based on a true story, is interesting. It takes place in the mid 90's, and tells the tale of a group of jacked-up bodybuilders who are as frustrated with their lot in life as they are pleased with their puffed-up pecs. Mark Wahlberg plays Daniel Lugo, a bodybuilder and trainer who, despite his relative success, wants more. When he begins training a middle-aged millionaire named Victor Kershaw (a very good Tony Shaloub), Lugo becomes increasingly envious of his client's wealth and success. Determined to make a big move to up his station in life, Lugo recruits fellow muscled-up malcontents Paul Doyle (Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson) and Adrian Doorbal (Anthony Mackie) to kidnap Kershaw and force him to sign over all of his assets to them.

The movie unfolds as a comedy of errors, with Lugo and his bumbling crew of novice criminals screwing things up and self-sabotaging at every turn. Honestly, I give a huge amount of credit to the cast here - they are all excellent, and sell every line, every gag, every bit of over-the-top absurdity to the nth degree. Wahlberg in particular is in top form - bringing the same sort of earnestness-meets-naivete that he displayed in Ted to the role of Lugo. Wahlberg is consistently entertaining throughout, from his misguided adherence to a con-job self help guru (Ken Jeong) to his hilarious interactions with the kids who live in his neighborhood (he talks to them about scoring with the ladies as if they were his peers and not wide-eyed ten year olds). The Rock and Mackie are also both quite good. The Rock, in particular - while his character is written completely inconsistently, it's nice to see him finally play a character that gives him a chance to be a little more big and broad, and a little more like his in-ring "Rock" persona. Shaloub is fantastic in the role - slimy and sleazy, yet oddly sympathetic, in his role as self-made millionaire Kershaw. And I'll also mention the great Ed Harris, who shows up late as a private investigator working for Kershaw. One thing I'll say about Michael Bay: he always manages to get super badass performances out of Harris (though I guess he is always pretty badass, so maybe it's not all that impressive). In any case, Harris is quite good, and brings some real gravitas to the film - conveying things in his facial expressions that add a nuance and a deeper meaning to the film that I'm guessing may not have been in the script. Oh - Rebel Wilson gets in some funny moments as Anthony Mackie's doting wife.

On that note, the jumpy, manic script fits Michael Bay's style, but ultimately does its characters a disservice by giving them a bare minimum of understandable motivation or personality. I mentioned The Rock's character earlier - despite Dwayne Johnson doing his best and having some funny moments, the character is a mess. He's a born-again ex-con cokehead who seems to be completely all over the map. His character seems to behave completely sporadically and randomly according to the whims of the script. Mackie's character is extremely undercooked. And Wahlberg - well, the whole movie centers around his quest for the American Dream, for self-made perfection. But it all feels totally hollow. Anything that the movie seems to want to say about these characters gets lost in all of its sound and fury. There's nothing to take away from it all, except some very vague concepts about what happens when a couple of overly ambitious guys get in way over their heads. The lack of self-examination or awareness makes the movie feel strangely immoral. As in, the three main characters go from well-meaning dumbasses to pretty horrible, violent, murderous people over the course of the movie. But the movie never really comments on this or addresses it. I guess the blase attitude towards the characters' immorality is supposed to be part of the joke? I don't know. Because Michael Bay is incapable of filming violence in a way that *isn't* supposed to look badass, it's hard to tell what he's going for at any given moment in the film.

Pain & Gain can be a fun film. It's got a great cast that helps to elevate the movie's humor. And so there are some genuinely funny and entertaining moments. And as pure car-crash style exploitation entertainment, there's definitely more than enough energy and perpetual motion in the film to keep your attention. But again, it's all pretty hollow. Frustrating, given how a story like this seems to demand some sort of thematic justification for being told in movie form. What does this real-life story tell us about America? What is its worth other than as an eye-grabbing tabloid headline? And that, essentially, is what this movie is: tabloid sleaze told with tabloid-style excess - filtered through the lens of Michael Bay.

My Grade: C+

IRON MAN 3 Has Its Moments, But Not Quite Indestructible

IRON MAN 3 Review:

- How important is it that a movie subvert expectations and deliver a major twist? As I tried to process some of the curve balls that Iron Man 3 throws at its audience, I noted that some major movie critics were singing the film's praises in large part due to its element of surprise. On some level, I see their point. The big-budget superhero movie has become so paint-by-numbers, in so many ways, that it's undeniably refreshing when a major franchise film like this one dares to be different. But what is the twist without a purpose? Is a twist really that great if it's more of a "gotcha" and less of a true, jaw-on-the-floor "holy $%&#" moment? It's hard to talk more about this without walking into major spoiler territory. But I will say this: while I appreciate a film that isn't beholden to cannon and that takes pains to be original, I ultimately put more value - especially in a superhero epic - on high drama. The novelty alone of the big "WTF" moment isn't enough in and of itself.

That's not to say that IRON MAN 3 doesn't have its moments. In a way, I really admire that this is an auteur-style Marvel movie. Think about it: in the world of comics, Marvel began on the backs of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko, and then eventually had a very defined in-house style for years to come. But then you think about the creative dynamos who came into the House of Ideas and created the most exciting stories and artwork, re-imagining classic characters under a unique lense. In general, some of the best modern superhero stories have come when a classic character is paired with a visionary creator or creators. In comics, we've been living in an auteur era for a few decades now, and we're still feeling the reverberations from the likes of guys like Frank Miller, Alan Moore, Grant Morrison, Ed Brubaker, Warren Ellis (whose Extremis story forms some of the basis for this flm) and many others putting their own unique spin on the big superhero universes. So why not let the same thing happen in movies? Marvel's whole Phase 2 plan seems to be opening that door. Shane Black on Iron Man, James Gunn on Guardians of the Galaxy, Edgar Wright on Ant Man (and before that, of course, Joss Whedon on The Avengers). And so what we have here is most definitely "Shane Black's IRON MAN." And that's cool - sort of awesome, really. In some ways, Black and Iron Man are a natural fit. Black specializes in the kind of snappy dialogue and sardonic humor that was already a big part of the first two Iron Man films. Robert Downey Jr. is also, of course, a near-perfect vehicle for Black's style (see Kiss Kiss Bang Bang for further evidence). I like it. I like that we are now in a place where we can get not just the uber-generic superhero movie, but the film noir superhero movie, the urban crime superhero movie, the cosmic space epic superhero movie, the fantasy/magical superhero movie. Bring it on.

But maybe the problem here is that there's too much push and pull between a pure Shane Black Iron Man, and the big, franchise, post-Avengers event-movie Iron Man that fans expected and the corporate overlords at Disney likely felt comfortable with. What I mean is, Shane Black seems to want to do a stripped-down movie about Tony Stark. He finds an interesting angle - a Tony Stark who is now a hero, who has settled down with Pepper Potts, who is at a good place, on paper ... but in practice, he is still haunted by the sins of his past. This Tony Stark spends long hours alone tinkering in his workshop, suffers from anxiety attacks brought on by his battles with evil aliens in The Avengers, and who can't quite give his relationship with Pepper the attention it deserves.

I'm all for the stripped-down, Tony Stark-in-a-crime-caper version of Iron Man - especially in a third movie where the usual formula's gotten a bit tired. But this movie can't fully commit. The moments that lend themselves to Shane Black's trademark style tend to shine. When Tony Stark finds himself invading a hostile compound sans his armor - having to assemble makeshift weapons from common household items - it's an awesome moment. That sort of clever, slightly-subversive stuff ... Black nails. Same goes for the scenes between Tony and a young boy named Harley who helps him out in a bind, and becomes a sort of defacto kid sidekick. Scenes that could have been positively painful in the wrong hands are funny, smart, and surprisingly touching under Black's guidance. Even little moments - like Tony and Rhodey (formerly known as War Machine, now known as Iron Patriot) - bickering back and forth in the heat of combat ... this is the stuff that Shane Black knows and loves and 100% gets.

And I will give Black and the movie some major credit - Iron Man 3 has some of the best, big-time, major-league "superhero" moments we've yet seen in a Marvel film. When Stark has to fight a battle with only pieces of his Iron Man armor in place - one leg and one arm - the result is thrilling and badass. An aerial raid on the Stark compound is similarly breathtaking - a violent, explosive assault that makes you wonder how the hell Stark and co. will make it out alive. And the big finale - a notable weakness of the first two Iron Man films - is suitably lengthy and action-packed. So I don't want to imply that Iron Man 3 simply coasts on clever bits of dialogue ... it delivers the goods when it comes to epic action as well.

So what keeps this from being the classic that it could have been? There are several elements - some new, some inherited - that derail the film a bit. One is the Tony Stark / Pepper Potts relationship. Stark and Potts rarely seem like star-crossed lovers - and their bickering seems more like genuine mutual annoyance and less like playful sparring. What this means is that when Pepper inevitably becomes the damsel in distress, we as an audience don't feel much sense of real danger or urgency. In fact, in a climactic moment when Pepper seems potentially dead and gone, Tony barely seems to bat an eye, and continues wise-cracking with barely a moment's pause. I do also slightly blame Paltrow. When she has her big moment in which she gets to turn the tables and kick some ass, there's barely a hint of excitement in her eyes. When Pepper kicks ass, it should have been the big money shot of the whole film - and it's filmed in a way that practically invites us to stop and applaud. But there was no applause in the theater I was in. Paltrow's line-reading of "wow, that was violent" (or something to that effect) came off less like the clever musings of an empowered woman of action, and more like the resigned observation of a disapproving mother. Meanwhile, there's an attempt at some forced tension between Pepper and Tony with the introduction of a scientist played by Rebecca Hall, who Tony once had a one-night-stand with years earlier. Not only is Pepper's instant "I hate you" reaction pretty contrived, but Hall's character is pretty problematic from the start. Keeping track of which side she's on (let alone her motivations for switching sides) is a chore. I don't blame Hall - it's just an element of the script that is given short shrift. It's probably no coincidence that this element - the one that feels the most pulled from the superhero cliche-book - is also the one that Black seems least interested in really developing.

Paltrow has rarely been a standout in these films, and perhaps she was a bit miscast from the get-go. I feel similarly about Don Cheadle as Rhodey. He just doesn't have the right stuff for the role - I don't buy him as a badass soldier. He seems like he'd rather be in a boardroom than out kicking ass for his country. Cheadle is featured in some great set-piece action scenes, but they're more notable for the choreography than for anything he really brings to the table. He's a great actor in general, no question. But an action hero? Iron Patriot? Not so much.

The second problematic element of the movie is, well, the plot. Earlier I mentioned all of the cool individual scenes in the film - the stuff with Tony and young Harley, the cool banter, the big action. But it all feels tied together on the loosest of threads. I mean that from a pure narrative standpoint, and also from a thematic standpoint. Guy Pierce plays Aldrich Killian, a scientist with a screw-loose and a mad-on for Tony Stark. Pierce is one of my favorite actors, and he makes the most of what he's given. But the fact is, Killian as presented here is a pretty weak villain. And as his role in the movie becomes more prominent, I kept waiting for him to take on a grandiosity worthy of Iron Man. But everything about his character feels half-baked, from his stalker-crush on Pepper Potts to his been-there, done-that evil plan to profit from a manufactured war on terror (heck, his plan is practically identical to Jared Harris' scheme in RDJ's last Sherlock Holmes movie). It's even more frustrating in that Killian's status as Big Bad comes at the expense of the initially-promising Mandarin, played with theatrical verve and presence by the great Ben Kingsley. I won't say what happens to the Mandarin that sort of takes him off the board, but I don't really get the point. To me, it comes back to: what is the movie saying? What is the theme? Iron Man vs. an Osama Bin Laden-esque terrorist (The Mandarin) - I would have liked to have seen that. Iron Man tends to have a political slant as a character, so there's rich thematic territory to explore there. And indeed, in the movie's first half, there is some interesting mini-satire as we see The Iron Patriot's futile quest to track the Mandarin. But once Killian usurps the Mandarin, the movie becomes about something else entirely - it becomes something that Black probably wanted all along - a movie about Tony Stark fighting his past. But if that's what the movie is about, then why the bait and switch? Why include the Mandarin at all? To me, the net result was a movie that initially feels big and high stakes, but that ends up feeling sort of small and inconsequential. The subversion of expectations works against the movie's narrative momentum, in my opinion. And Guy Pierce's Killian - while potentially perfect as a sleazy, unhinged henchman - feels way too lightweight to be the movie's main antagonist.

And maybe that's why Iron Man 3 entertained me throughout, yet left me with a slightly sour aftertaste. Deep in this movie's DNA, there is a huge action epic waiting to come out. And perhaps a straight crime caper Iron Man - the kind that Shane Black would have made if left completely on his own -would have been awesome and badass in its own right. But this movie is never confident enough to go all-out and just *be* that version of Iron Man. The fact that it had to go to all the trouble of messing with expectations and playing a bait-and-switch with the audience is, I think, proof of that.

It's a small thing, I guess, but even the post-credits scene annoyed me. I won't spoil it, but it's ultimately just a cutesy, jokey little epilogue, and doesn't really leave you with anything too meaty to chew on. I was dying for something awesome to get me pumped for Marvel Phase 2, and what I got was a comedy bit. It added to the feeling that this movie was clever and funny, yes, but ultimately perhaps too much so for its own good. And there's no denying that this perception was colored by The Avengers. Joss Whedon was clever and funny, but he also took un-ironic joy in playing in Lee and Kirby's sandbox. There's not much of that joy that shines through here. I'm not saying that this had to be a "Marvel" movie in the traditional sense. But there has to be a love of the world and characters as a starting point for any genre-subversion or deconstruction to really work. There's a temptation to say "suck it fanboys, this is Shane Black's Iron Man and it's different and awesome." But remember what I was saying before about how comics evolved when auteur creators put their stamp on classic characters? Well, for every Frank Miller Daredevil or Grant Morrison Superman, there are examples where the blend of creator sensibility and character just doesn't 100% mix. Auterism alone does not a great story make.

I'll remember many of the coolest scenes and moments in Iron Man 3 as some of my favorites in the Marvel movie canon to date. The movie gets the little moments right in a way that so many superhero flicks do not. But the broad strokes and big-picture narrative don't fare as well. So I think my lasting impression of the film is one that tried to be many things to many people, and ended up as sort of "meh" because of it. The first two Iron Man movies had their flaws, but they coasted by on RDJ's charisma and the general feeling that we were watching something very exciting happen - the birth of the Marvel movie universe. Now, the universe is here, the Avengers have assembled, and this return to the less-exciting cast of characters in the Iron Man-verse marks a drop in momentum from last summer's epic high.

My Grade: B

OBLIVION Is An Imagination-Packed Trip to the Twilight Zone

OBLIVION Review:

- I went into Oblivion having read some mixed and negative reviews. After having seen the film, I can say that it's probably not for everyone, but I can also say that I really enjoyed it. In fact, I'd call Oblivion one of the best real sci-fi movies in quite some time. Of course, I came into the film with certain predispositions. For one, I'm a sucker for any and all Twilight Zone-esque "nothing is as it seems" sci-fi. I love stories that play out like puzzles. And I love movies that can throw a unique, high-concept premise at me that actually makes me think. So many of the big sci-fi blockbusters these days give plot the short shrift in favor of big action and cool moments. Oblivion has both, but it's also got some real thought and discussion-provoking concepts at its core. For another thing, I count myself as a big fan of director Joseph Kosinski. Sure, some still claim that his first feature, Tron Legacy, was underwhelming. Maybe, perhaps ... I could see where the movie had some script issues. But visually? Stylistically? To me, Tron was 100% awesomesauce in that regard. Bottom line: I don't get Kosinski's detractors. The guy has a knack for crafting incredible visuals and eye-popping sci-fi worlds.

The less known about the plot specifics of Oblivion going in, the better. The very basic framework is this: Tom Cruise plays Jack, one of the last men on a now-desolate planet earth. Following an alien attack by a mysterious race known as the Scavs, humanity used a last-ditch nuclear countermeasure to destroy their enemies - but doing so left the earth largely irradiated and uninhabitable. The surviving humans have left earth and have migrated to a massive space station called The Tet, with the goal of eventually relocating to Titan, one of the moons of Saturn. To accomplish their goal, the humans have sent an army of drones to earth, to convert the oceans' water into energy and fuel for their journey. At various outpost towers around earth, the last remaining humans on the planet oversee the mission and the drones. In Tower 49, Jack and his partner/lover Victoria take orders via satellite feed from their commander, Sally. They are an efficient team, and they mostly do as they're told without question. But Jack - restless, nostalgic for the planet he's soon to leave behind, and plagued by visions of pre-war times - begins to sense that something is not quite as it seems.

Say what you want about Tom Cruise, but this is the sort of part he was born to play. Cruise is the kind of actor who gives off so much intensity and restless energy that it's not hard to buy him as a guy who can't simply accept his orders and not question the truth behind his assigned tasks. Cruise puts his all into this role, and never seems to be phoning it in for a second. At this point in his career (or at any point, really) Cruise probably couldn't get away with playing an ordinary Joe. But Cruise does pull off the part of the man of destiny - the exceptional Chosen One seemingly guided by fate towards the role of hero. There's almost a film noir-like aspect to the film, and to Jack. A man trapped by circumstances beyond his control, a pawn in larger game. To this end, I found myself fully onboard as we - alongside Jack - begin to question what's really going on.

The rest of the cast is uniformly quite good. I wasn't familiar with Andrea Riseborough before this film, but I thought she was excellent as Victoria. The entire film is colored by a creeping sense of dread, a sense that something is off - that beneath a character like Victoria's facade of preternatural calm, there lay some sort of deep existential torment. Riseborough really conveys that and sells it. She's a by-the-book company woman on one hand, but there is also something about her that's slightly unhinged. And as more is revealed about her, we see why, exactly, that is.

A little more problematic is Olga Kurylenko's character, Julia. Julia's identity is a quasi-mystery for much of the film, but I felt Kurylenko plays things a little too sedately and soberly. Her character's entire world has been turned on its head, but that isn't 100% conveyed in the script or through her performance. I really like Kurylenko overall though - she has an old-school beauty and screen presence that most other actresses of her generation do not. I just think there is something slightly off about Julia as portrayed in the film. Otherwise, Morgan Freeman has a brief but important role in the film, and it's one of those roles that may not have been all that memorable if not played by the titan that is Freeman. We have such a built-in attachment to the actor that the movie can use a lot of shorthand with his character. It might have been interesting to get a little more backstory on his character, but Freeman gets some nice moments nonetheless. I'll also give a special shoutout to Melissa Leo, who plays Jack's commander, Sally, and who only appears via grainy video transmissions. Leo does a bang-up job here - striking the perfect tone of so-friendly-she's-actually-creepy menace.

Now, visually, OBLIVION is pure eye-candy. For one thing, this is an incredibly-realized sci-fi world. You can see the effort that went into designing the movie's buildings, vehicles, drones, and costumes. You see a little of stuff like Star Wars and Mass Effect in the designs, sure. And yes, the overall aesthetic has a lot of homages to 70's and 80's sci-fi in general (a lot of white, a lot of stuff that wouldn't have felt out of place in Tomorrowland at DisneyWorld circa 1987). But I still think that the movie feels unique, and just meticulously thought-out from a design perspective - and how often can one say that about sci-fi these days? But what makes Kosinski stand out for me is not just his world-building, but how he captures these really amazing images from inside those worlds. He doesn't just zoom around, he hovers and idylls and lets you absorb certain scenes in a very old-school fashion. Today, some might call this slow-pacing. But to me, the more measured and methodical pacing is perfect for this sort of movie - in the same way that classics like Blade Runner let you linger in the world and soak in the atmosphere. Kosinski's style also helps emphasize the size and scope of the film - there's a sense of awe and wonder here that you just don't get from the likes of a Michael Bay. With all that said, Oblivion still delivers a couple of fairly breathtaking action scenes, including a rip-roaring aerial chase scene that is a major highlight. In any case, I'm now even more a fan of Kosinski's capabilities, and I'm excited to see what he tackles next.

And by the way, I've got to mention the soundtrack from French techno outfit M.8.3. It's awesome. Moody digital beats and ominous synthetic grooves create perhaps the most memorable sci-fi soundtrack since Daft Punk amped up Kosinski's last film, Tron Legacy, with their future-shock sounds.

Where Oblivion falters just a bit is in the way the story is paced. The movie's major revelations are all back-loaded in its final act. This makes for a pretty riveting final act, but it also means that the middle can get pretty draggy. What's more, because the movie keeps so many of its plot points close to the vest for so long, that means that, in the end, characters like the one played by Freeman feel slightly undercooked. On the flipside, I think in retrospect that a few of the major twists were perhaps telegraphed a little *too* early. For example, very early on in the film, we find out that the memories of Jack and Victoria have been majorly messed with. If we hadn't known that right off the bat, later revelations might have been a bit more shocking.

This is also a movie that people are going to pick apart, plot-wise, until the end of time. I don't think the unanswered questions are that big of a deal though, for the most part. The movie paints in broad strokes, and doesn't get into a lot of uber-specifics. A lot is left to the imagination or individual interpretation, and I'm okay with that. Again, I see it as a bit of a throwback to the days of Blade Runner - where part of the appeal is that we get to fill in many of the blanks as we see fit.

Overall, I felt like the film did a commendable job of keeping up that Twilight Zone-ish "what the hell is going on here?" sort of tension for most of its running time. And I also felt like the final-act payoff was well worth the wait - a thrilling and epic climax that I found to be fairly jaw-dropping. That climax is ever so slightly undermined by a coda that's a little bit "meh" in comparison. But man, the movie's last twenty minutes or so had me on the edge of my seat.

For those who enjoy classic, mind-bending science fiction, Oblivion is a unique and welcome throwback of sorts to 70's and 80's genre films that were as much about igniting your imagination as they were about getting your adrenaline pumping. Oblivion has its share of fun action scenes, but I really admire the way it presented us with this strange, gorgeously-realized future world scenario, and slowly but surely peeled back its layers to get at the terrible truth at its core. I want more movies like this one.

My Grade: B+

EVIL DEAD Hails to the Kings of Horror, But Must Also Live In Their Shadows

EVIL DEAD Review:

- Way back when, Sam Raimi made THE EVIL DEAD - on a shoestring budget and with a cast of unknowns - and it was pretty awesome. The film won a cult following for its visual imagination, over-the-top gore, and harrowing cinematography. At the same time, there was a do-it-yourself quality to the film that inspired horror fans. If Raimi could do so much with so little, then maybe they, too, could create low-budget scares with a little ingenuity and imagination. Still, the low-budget cult classic seemed ripe for a remake. And it got one - EVIL DEAD 2. This second installment essentially re-told the story of the original, but in a way that heightened everything that made the original so cool. The second film took advantage of star Bruce Campbell's natural charisma and made his character, Ash, into a bonafide monster-slaying, one-liner-spouting, chainsaw-wielding action hero. Evil Dead 2 birthed the modern-day cult of Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell - it took the gore of the first film to Looney Tunes extremes, and pitted a crazy-eyed Ash against all manner of nightmarish undead creatures (including an army of evil miniature Ash clones). Eventually, Raimi and Campbell made a third film - ARMY OF DARKNESS - that shifted from horror/comedy to action/comedy - making the time-displaced Ash an epic hero, leading an army of medieval warriors against an army of skeletal demons.

As I said, the original EVIL DEAD was, really, already remade by its own director and star. But now, with the film series' fandom at an all-time high - cultivated over multiple generations of fanboys and fangirls - and a new generation of Evil Dead n00bs poised to discover the franchise a-fresh, the original is once again being mined for a remake. I don't know all the backstage politics behind the remake, but ultimately, Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell signed on as producers (along with original producer Robert Taipi), hired newcomer Fede Alvarez to direct, and here we are - a new Evil Dead that yes, is a reboot of sorts - but also a film with definite creative ties to the original cult classics.

Before I go further, let me just say that in and of itself, it's sort of mind-blowing that an EVIL DEAD film was #1 at the box office this past weekend. While I had slightly mixed feelings about the movie, and mixed feelings about its existence in general, if the end result is a true booster shot for the franchise that helps shine the spotlight on the originals (and maybe even lead to a true fourth film, or a crossover with this version) - then, hey - awesome!

But even just based on its own merits, I am happy for this film's box office success. After seeing the film, I can say it was deserved. While I don't think it has the same spark of holy-crap awesomeness that the originals (and for me, EVIL DEAD II, in particular) possessed, there is enough coolness, enough ingenuity, enough fun to place this new Evil Dead above most of its horror competition.

I saw Fede Alvarez speak at WonderCon in Anaheim a few weeks ago, and he made a great point. What separates Evil Dead from other horror franchises is this: Evil Dead films have a hero. This is why Army of Darkness was a natural extension of Evil Dead 2 ... Evil Dead 2 wasn't just a movie about monsters preying on people. It took the next step, and eventually became about those people - one in particular (Ash) - fighting back. The same is true of this new Evil Dead, and in that respect, it honors the spirit of the originals, and leads to a scenario in which the monsters do their damage, but then, well, they get theirs.

I have mixed feelings about Alvarez's direction. On one hand, the guy is clearly uber-talented. He does some great stuff here - and the film is positively stacked with horror-movie money shots. The guy knows how to do the sorts of big, jaw-dropping, can-you-believe-this-is-happening moments that are a trademark of the franchise. He also never fails to pay homage to Sam Raimi, utilizing Raimi's (and the series') trademark "unseen evil force zooming through the woods" shot at key moments - marking this instantly as an heir to the Evil Dead empire. To his credit, he also insists on using practical f/x for most of the film, and it really pays off - giving the gore a visceral, tangible quality that is a nice call-back to the original's home-made aesthetic. What is lacking in Alvarez's direction is a little harder to quantify. I guess I'd say it's "atmosphere." Sam Raimi is the master of creating fantastic, left-of-center worlds that have a quirky, fantastical, surreal quality to them - whether you're talking the fog-filled nightmare-scape of Evil Dead or the Marvel Comics-verse of Spiderman. This new Evil Dead ... it feels too generic, too slick, too same-y as compared to other modern horror flicks. The gore and action is there, but where was the mood, the imagination? It's funny, because during the end credits of the film, the spooky narration from the original plays, describing the Necronomicon and the mythology of the series ... and it was one of the few times when the movie felt a little less in-your-face and self-consciously gritty, and a little more creepy and atmospheric.

To that end, the other place where this movie lacks is in the imagination department. Now, it's clear the film is going more for an Evil Dead 1 vibe and less Evil Dead 2. It's not trying to be quite so cartoonish. Or is it? The movie is a bit schizo in that department. Because really, the big applause-worthy moments are all either a.) call-backs to the original, or else b.) super over-the-top moments that veer towards the comedic. But the movie *also* seems to want to be sort of gritty, sort of serious. More serious, certainly, than Evil Dead II or Army of Darkness. You get the sense though, that there's a bit of an internal battle there. After all, none other than Diablo Cody was brought in to do script punch-ups. But back to the imagination thing ... when I think of Evil Dead as a franchise, for better or worse, I think of mini-Bruce Campbell's, horrifying demons, armies of skeletons. The monsters here are never all that engaging - just your usual undead-types. It goes back to that lack of Raimi's eye for characters and creature design.

Who knows though - maybe that's what this is, in some ways - a mirror of the original franchise. Maybe this film is supposed to be mostly dark, mostly played-straight, but hint at the humorous, cartoonish possibilities that could color a second or third entry in the series. The movie's post-credits tag certainly hints at a more fun direction to come. As it stands though, I think many will debate just how "funny" this movie is supposed to be. I detected an undercurrent of dark humor throughout. But I think some might label this as a mostly "serious" take on Evil Dead. Alvarez tries to have it both ways. It works, mostly. But it also feels like a movie that - even over the course of its own running time - is struggling a bit to figure out what kind of movie it is. Even many of the film's big, gory moments are walking a very fine line between hardcore/gritty and over-the-top/funny. At times, it's almost hard to know how the movie wants us to react.

Alvarez does add a very clever twist to the story though, making it about Jane Levy's Mia, and her struggle to recover from drug addiction. In the original movies - hell, in many of these kinds of movies - the characters end up going to the proverbial cabin in the woods ... just because (a cliche that was brilliantly satirized in last year's Cabin in the Woods). But Alvarez mostly avoids making "Cabin in the Woods: The Serious Version" by using Mia's story as a metaphor and framing device. In order to overcome the demons in her head, she's got to literally battle through an army of honest-to-god demons.

Luckily, Jane Levy kills it in the film. I was already a fan from Suburgatory, but man, this film demonstrates she's got the chops to be a new horror movie icon. Levy has no easy task - she's got to play drug-addicted Mia, demon-possessed Evil Mia, and then badass horror hero in the Ash mold Mia. And she does all three with aplomb. In particular, I loved Levy's evil demon-possessed stuff - seeing the sweet-faced TV star say horrible and filthy things as she taunts and torments her friends is a lot of fun.

The other actors in the film? Much more "meh." Lou Taylor Pucci is decent as the geeky English teacher who reads "the words" from the Necronomicon and accidentally dooms his friends, but post-Cabin in the Woods, he does feel a bit like a wannabe Fran Kranz. The rest of the cast is okay, but there are no real standouts. Luckily though, MVP Jane Levy is there to carry the film. During the segments where she's out of the picture though ... there is a lot of lost momentum.

What really upped my opinion of the movie though was its balls-to-the-wall third act. Once Levy gets to let loose and kick ass, I sat up in my seat and began to smile. Alvarez said it, Evil Dead is about a hero taking on the armies of darkness. And while this new one takes its sweet time establishing its hero, the payoff is pretty damn entertaining. The film finds its gory groove towards the end, and with Levy at the helm, really takes off. I'm not saying that I don't appreciate a good slow build. Only that the middle section of the film feels a little too "dumb characters making dumb decisions," and I began to lose interest.

There is a lot to like in this new Evil Dead. It pays a ton of homage to the originals, while delivering to us a new horror hero - a damaged-but-determined girl named Mia - who makes an interesting counterpoint to the square-jawed S-Mart employee Ash. Will we get to see their universes collide one day? We can hope. And it's to this film's credit that, despite its flaws, it still left me eager for more Evil Dead, and excited about the directions that the franchise could go from here.

My Grade: B

G.I. JOE: RETALIATION Is Joe For the XBOX Age

G.I. JOE: RETALIATION Review

- The first G.I. Joe movie was, to me, a pleasant surprise. Instead of an overly grim and "edgy" reimagining of a beloved kids' property from the 80's, we got a fun, over-the-top action film that embraced the show's cartoon and comic-book roots. Stephen Sommers is an underrated director who makes the most of any film he works on - visually, few can match him for sheer spectacle. Now, it's director Jon Chu's turn to try his hand at building G.I. Joe into a legitimate action franchise. Based on box office numbers, he's done his job. But is this sequel enough to get nostalgic fanboy's blood pumping? Or is this a weaksauce cash-in, whose troubled production schedule is indicative of a disaster-in-the-making? The fact is, the movie is fun and harmless - with some nice moments and some fist-pump worthy action scenes. But, it also lacks the madcap comic-book fun of the first film, giving the film a greyed-out feel, with only scattered moments of color and vibrancy.

Here's what *is* sort of awesome about the move:

1.) Jonathan Pryce playing the shape-shifting Zartan inhabiting the body of Jonathan Pryce/The President of the United States. Look, Pryce is a phenomenal actor, one who can do more with a subtle head nod or half-smile than most can do with an entire monologue. He does a fantastic job of making Evil President truly and entertainingly evil. And in fact, Pryce emerges as the movie's unlikely MVP. He spouts all kinds of gleefully menacing lines. When a terrified diplomat asks him what he wants, he flashes a sinister grin and hisses "I want it all." Awesome. Plus, Pryce even plays opposite himself - as the actual, not-evil President - and manages to do a bang-up job of it. G.I. Joe is lucky to have him as such a big part of the cast.

2.) There is something crazy going on in this movie with fan-favorite ninja-Joe, Snake Eyes. While most of the movie is a little more reigned-in, a lot less cartoonish and crazy than the first film - Snake Eyes and eternal nemesis Storm Shadow are in their own mini ninja epic that seems to be playing out in parallel to the rest of the film. In this quasi film-within-the-film, RZA of the Wu-Tang Clan plays a bushy-browed sensei, Elodie Young plays a badass warrior woman named Jinx, and there are all kinds of insane ninja fights. In fact, midway through the movie, there is an action sequence so badass and so breathtaking that it literally seems like it's excerpted from a different movie altogether. In this scene - which has been previewed in most of the trailers - Snake Eyes and Jinx engage in a jaw-dropping battle with an army of Cobra ninjas while suspended from the side of a rocky, snow-covered mountain. And it is one of the coolest action scenes I've seen in some time. And yet, nothing else in the film even comes close to it - or even feels like it came from the same director. Seriously, what is going on here? It's like someone ran up to John Chu and pumped him up with a nitro boost before he went to direct that scene. Or else Stephen Sommers was brought in to inject some Mummy-style awesome on the sly. I don't know. But damn, what a scene. Overall though, the tone of the Snake Eyes segments is pretty crazy - aping old kung-fu flicks and possessed of a reckless abandon that the rest of the movie lacks. It creates some pretty jarring tonal inconsistency, but still, I dug all the Snake Eyes stuff.

3.) Walton Goggins plays a badass prison warden. No, he doesn't use his cool accent from Justified, but he still sort of rules it, and gets in a moment or two where he gets to go toe to toe with Storm Shadow. No, this is not a part anywhere near worthy of Walton Goggins, but still, a nice surprise.

Here's what is a mixed bag in the movie:

1.) The Rock. I always come away from watching The Rock in an action movie thinking that he is a pretty solid actor. But at the same time, he rarely wows me. He's a hard worker - you can tell he's not just going through the motions. And yet, he sort of is. He's playing "The Rock" - not the charismatic and hilarious prima donna WWE character, but the toned-down, generic blue-collar badass-with-a-soft-side version that crops up in most movies starring Dwayne Johnson. Which is to say that his turn here as Roadblock is pretty bland. The Rock is watchable, he's entertaining, but I also don't know if he'll ever be as entertaining as he is when he's the WWE version of "The Rock." Roadblock is basically a generic tough guy bruiser type. Nothing special, not a memorable character in any way shape or form.

2.) Cobra Commander. There's actually a huge upside to Joseph Gordon-Levitt not returning to this film as Cobra Commander: we actually get to see the character with his mask on the whole movie, looking straight out of the cartoons, using a modulated voice that sounds awesomely evil. Great, right? Not so much, because Cobra Commander - aside from looking cool - does jack squat the whole movie. Zartan is really the one with the screentime (along with Ray Stevenson's Firefly, who's sort of the hired thug of Cobra), but it's a mistake to leave CC on the sidelines for so much of the film. We never really get a sense of the cult of Cobra, of his hold on his followers, of him as an uber-villain. He's mostly just there.

3.) Adrianne Palicki. She's pretty good as Lady Jay. She looks the part. She believably kicks ass. She does solid work here. Too bad she's stuck in a lame, chemistry-less romance with personality-less Flint.

Speaking of which, here's what sort of sucks about G.I. JOE:

1.) Flint. This dude sucks. He does parkour stuff and, well, that's about it. Not worthy of main-player status. And as played by DJ Cotrona, he's bland as hell.

2.) Destro. He makes a cameo, but then isn't in the movie, with no real explanation except Cobra Commander saying something about how he's "not in the band anymore." Um, what? Maybe this is all set up for G.I. Joe 3: Destro's Revenge? I don't know. Lame.

3.) Bruce Willis as "Joe," the original G.I. Joe. Yep, his name is freakin' Joe, and *that's* why they are called Joes. Really? Yes, really. Anyways, Willis pretty much sleepwalks through this one, and does nothing that cool or interesting. And his character adds nothing to the Joe mythology and feels tacked-on. Couldn't we have gotten Sgt. Slaughter or something for this role? I'm not saying Willis doesn't have some fun moments, but they're all based on "look, it's Bruce Willis as a world-weary grizzled badass who's too old for this $#%&." In other words, 90% of all Bruce Willis roles.

4.) The pacing of the plot is broken. Basically, the end of this movie should have been the middle. The film is way too concerned with giving extra screentime to Channing Tatum's ill-fated Duke in the first act, and not nearly concerned enough with raising the stakes and positioning Cobra as a serious threat. Zartan and co. take over the White House and replace the American Flag with the Cobra flag - awesome ... if it happened in the middle of the movie, setting up a Cobra-controlled government that only the now-rogue Joes could topple. But withing the span of minutes, the Cobra flag is flown, the Joes burst on the scene, and the day is saved before Old Glory has even touched the ground. Basically, it makes the movie's third act feel rushed and fairly anticlimactic.

5.) Cobra's plot is pretty uninspired. We can infer that they want to use Zartan-as-Prez to arrange a forced disarmament of the world's nuclear powers, but then secretly have the newly-installed Cobra world order control the last remaining nukes. I'm not saying it's not a good plan, from a practical perspective. I'm just saying from a story perspective, it's so cut and dried as to be, well, boring. I mean, this is Cobra we're talking about. They must have some master plan beyond just controlling the nukes? Perhaps if we were allowed to glimpse what the world would look like under Cobra's iron fist (see above), their plan would have a bit more oomph. But as it stands, it feels too much like we're watching the plot of a "24" movie play out, except with guys named Roadblock and Firefly instead of Jack Bauer.

Overall, I found G.I. JOE: RETALIATION to be a pretty enjoyable - if not sort-of-stupid - popcorn flick. The Snake Eyes segments showed glimpses of the type of visual imagination and flair I would have liked to have seen throughout the rest of the film. But mostly, I was a bit surprised at how, well, ordinary everything felt. Perhaps it's a sign of the times that this G.I. Joe feels in some ways less like the colorful cartoons of the 80's and more like the brown-hued worlds of Halo and Gears of War (they even replicate those games' fire-and-seek-cover mechanics in the action scenes) - more about big guns and bad attitudes than over-the-top costumes and personalities. This G.I. Joe is, certainly, more XBOX 360, less Saturday morning cartoon.

My Grade: B-

THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES Is An Ambitious Genre-Mashup

THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES Review:

- The Place Beyond the Pines is one of those films that I'd easily recommend that any real film fan check out asap, but also one that I had some reservations with. It's frustrating, because the movie is admirably ambitious, features some incredible performances, and has certain sequences that are truly memorable. But it's also a movie that feels like it's overreaching a bit, halting its own momentum with a clunky structure and a number of plot points and twists that feel contrived. There is greatness in this film, but it's weighted down by a number of elements that just don't quite work. Still, it's easily worth watching as an interesting and discussion-provoking film - an example of a movie that has a lot on its mind, but can't quite articulate it all in a cohesive and fluid fashion.

This is a film, primarily, about fathers and sons. From Derek Cianfrance, the guy behind Blue Valentine, The Place Beyond the Pines has a similar moody darkness that permeates throughout. It's also a hard movie to talk about without giving away major spoilers, so bear with me as I try to talk around any major plot points. I will say this though: in my opinion, the first third of this film is incredible. If the film had simply stuck to its initial narrative, expanded it, filled in some of the gaps, and called it a day, I think we'd be looking at a possible Oscar contender. But Cianfrance isn't necessarily interested in telling that sort of story. Instead, he divides the film into three distinct but interconnected segments, with each segment completely shifting its focus to a different set of characters. And unfortunately, the film seems to lose momentum each time a new segment begins.

To back up though, the first segment is an amazing piece of filmmaking. It features Ryan Gosling as Luke, a down-on-his-luck drifter circa 1990 or so. Luke, perpetually sporting a tattered Metallica t-shirt, feels like a slightly de-mystified version of Gosling's character from Drive. He's a loner, a vagabond who makes end's meat by working as a motorcycle stuntman in a travelling carnival. One day, however, while at a show in upstate NY, Luke runs into a woman, Romina (Eva Mendes) who he'd had a brief fling with a year prior. Luke discovers that Romina has a son - it's his - and Luke becomes determined to force his way into Romina and their child's life (despite Romina shacking up with another man and wanting little to do with him). But Luke is persistent. He quits the carnival and gets a job working for a burnout mechanic named Robin (an amazing Ben Mendelsohn). Eventually, Robin convinces Luke to partner with him to rob banks. Luke goes along with it, and becomes quite good at it to boot. And so a classic sort of story begins to unfold - the kind that will be familiar to fans of Breaking Bad. Even as Luke finds something he's good at, his life of crime creates two problems for every problem it solves, and even as he enjoys success, it's only a matter of time until the other shoe drops.

Man ... this initial segment with Gosling is so well done - it had me captivated. From a visual perspective, the entire first third is incredibly shot. The heist sequences are gritty, visceral, ultra-intense. Other scenes have a moody, foreboding, neon-lit film noir atmosphere. And Gosling, Mendes, and Mendelsohn are absolutely at the top of their games. Gosling brings the same sort of quiet intensity that he brought to Drive, and delivers a powerful, magnetic performance. Mendes is at her best, world-weary yet ever so slightly curious about the mystery man who's come back into her life. And Mendelsohn is wonderful - funny, charismatic, and memorable as a ne'er do well small-time hood who sees Luke as his ticket back to the bigtime. The absorbing characters, the top-flight performances, and the visually-stunning direction make this first segment positively electric. As the segment culminated in a shocking chase scene (as we are introduced, on the fly, to Bradley Cooper as the driven cop Avery Cross), I was on the edge of my seat, and my jaw was on the floor as the screen faded to black.

But that is only the first of three segments. In the second segment, the focus switches to Cooper's character, who we learn is also the father of a young son. The tone of the film switches - no longer a neo-noir, the look and feel of the movie takes on the stylings of a procedural cop drama. The film adopts a more drab, more dull look. And the story, while compelling, lacks the all-or-nothing drama of Luke's tale. As it turns out, Cooper seems to be one of the few good cops in his precinct - hailed as a hero cop following an on-patrol injury, Cross seems to be a sort of white knight figure - especially in contrast to the corrupt, racist lawman played by Ray Liotta. But as the story progresses, we begin to see that Cross is partly motivated by altruism, but also partly by an aggressively political streak. Cross may not be as inherently corrupt as his colleagues, but he's got a survivalist instinct that makes him dangerous. Similar to Luke, we see how Cross makes a series of decisions that come, initially, from a pure place, but that end up becoming corrosive and corrupting.

The movie's middle section is carried by a great performance from Bradley Cooper - right up there with his work in Silver Linings Playbook. It's nice to see Cooper continue his streak of fantastic performances - and even more impressive, he's very much playing against type here - Cross is quiet, measured, carefully masking his motives with a mild-mannered demeanor. Liotta is also characteristically excellent - scary and imposing. But while the story works well in and of itself, it unravels a bit as it becomes apparent how Cianfrance wants it to connect thematically with the first segment. The ways that Cross' story mirrors Luke's - they don't quite hold up to scrutiny. And there starts to be a contrivance to the way that Cross keeps running into characters from Luke's story. Cianfrance is going for a "we're all connected" vibe, but as that increasingly becomes what the movie is about, it comes off less as profound and more as stretching.

And it feels like stretching to the breaking point when the film gets into its third and final segment. I won't spoil what this segment is about, but it continues Luke and Cross' story in an interesting, but ultimately forced-feeling manner. The highlight is, easily, Dane DeHaan (who was great in last year's CHRONICLE), playing Jason - a high school outcast. DeHaan does some fantastic work here, but it's offset a bit by the extremely over-the-top performance of Emory Cohen as AJ, a friend/rival of Jason's. This may be one of those love-it-or-hate-it things, but Cohen's performance in the film - where he seems to be trying to channel the ghost of Marlon Brando in A Streetcar Named Desire - really took me out of the film. It was just too much - too cartoonish, too weird. And the backstory of his character - which has some major gaps and makes little sense - is also an issue. And so this third segment - which is essentially a mini high school coming-of-age drama - is easily the film's weakest. As Cianfrance attempts to tie up his ambitious saga in a bow, it collapses a bit under its own weight. There's two much we as an audience must blindly accept for it all to work, and the jumpiness of the narrative ends up hurting rather than helping the film.

And yet ... the last ten minutes or so of the film are quite strong, and function as a moving, memorable, and iconic epilogue to the first segment. It really made me wish that the movie had focused on Gosling's Luke, kept Cooper's Cross as a side character/rival, and perhaps featured a short epilogue with DeHaan's Jason. The ambitious structure, ultimately, makes the movie feel less fluid and much more clunky than it might have been otherwise. Like I said, it's frustrating, because I feel like the movie has all the ingredients to be a masterpiece. And for the first forty minutes or so, I was convinced I was watching a classic unfold. It's a great cautionary tale about how to tell (or perhaps not to tell) this sort of generation-spanning saga (and who knows, perhaps the story would have been better served as a TV miniseries). As is, THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES is a movie overflowing with incredible scenes and moments and performances. This is in many ways a must-see, because the film's best moments will likely be, at the end of the day, some of the best of any movie this year. It just, sadly, doesn't quite come together as it should. But ... what is there is well worth taking in, flaws and all.

My Grade: B+

THE CROODS Rocks

THE CROODS Review:

- It's strange how the economics of showbiz work sometimes. From my standpoint, for example, Dreamworks Animation has been on quite the roll these last few years. Where I once considered them a weaksauce would-be Pixar, I now find many of their films to be right up there in the same upper-echelon of awesome as the Disney-owned 500 pound animation gorilla. Kung-Fu Panda, How To Train Your Dragon, Megamind ... these are some of my absolute favorite animated films of the last several years. And yet, it seems as though an underperforming film or two reportedly caused some major financial issues at the company, and suddenly, a lot was riding on their latest film, THE CROODS. Well, luckily for Dreamworks, The Croods was a box office success - hopefully, it keeps them afloat and making movies for a long time to come. But fortunately for fans of great animated movies, The Croods is also a major creative success. It's a visually-dazzling movie with a lot of heart, fun characters, fun humor, and a sensibility that will entertain kids and adults alike. The movie isn't sensory-overload like Wreck-It-Ralph, or as thematically complex as a Wall-E or Toy Story 3, but it's uber-enjoyable and well worth checking out.

THE CROODS tells the story of a caveman named Grug and his family, who live alone in rocky prehistoric terrain. They live alone because - as is explained in an amusing prologue - all of the other nearby families have met fairly horrible fates ... devoured by wild beasts, etc. Grug is convinced that the reason that his family has persevered is because of his super-paranoid, super-cautious, uber-overprotective ways. His family motto is "Never don't be scared." And he keeps his family sheltered in their cave - their only excursions are to go out hunting/gathering - adventures which unfold with the timed precision of a carefully-executed football play. Grug takes no chances, and leaves little room for improvisation or going off-script. This, of course, annoys his teenage cave-daughter, Eep. Eep wants to go out and explore and see the world. And she gets her chance, but not in the way she anticipated. Her world, and that of her whole family's, is turned upside down when Eep encounters Guy, an evolved human who is convinced that the world is headed for disaster of apocalyptic proportions, and that the only chance for survival is to hightail it to high ground, and head for the towering mountains that lie in the distant horizon. In fact, Guy is right - the continents are shifting, land masses are colliding, and major stuff is goin' down. And so even though it's very much against Grug's nature to leave his cave and venture out into the unknown, he reluctantly takes his family - along with the cavalier, inventive, and very un-Grug-like Guy.

The first act or so of The Croods can feel a little slow at times - there's a lot of slow-build in order to establish Grug's stubbornness and the father-daughter tension between him and Eep. But once the film gets a head of steam - as The Croods venture out into the brave new world and encounter all sorts of strange flora and fauna - it becomes very engrossing and quite the roller coaster ride. There are all sorts of captivating visuals - and a lot of imagination on display. Sure, some might take issue with the fact that the movie takes huge liberties with history (and reality), in that most of the primordial beasts that the Croods come across are pure fantasy. But it does allow for some dynamo sequences and some eye-popping encounters. In any case, all of that initial character work does eventually pay off. The third act - which puts the Croods (and Grug in particular) in some surprisingly harrowing situations - is very effective and quite emotional. While the movie is set in a heightened, oversaturated, prehistoric cartoon world - the family dynamics in the film really ring true. Anyone that's ever dealt with an overprotective dad - or been one themselves - will find a lot to relate to in the relationship between Grug and Eep. Point being: despite the cartoonish and over-the-top nature of the film, there's a real relatability and humanity to these characters.

Part of that is in the script, part of it is in the outstanding voice work in the film. Nicholas Cage, for one ... well, he just may have been born to voice a cartoon caveman. He does a great job as Grug - infusing him with his trademark manic energy, but also giving him a fatherly sense of nervousness mixed with determination to protect his family. Rarely has Nic Cage been in the sort of movie that you would call "heartfelt," but he does a great job of bringing the heart to The Croods. Same goes for Emma Stone as Eep - she's really, really good - a mix of teenage rebellion and cavegirl goofiness, she's a thickly-built brickhouse of a girl who can be both a badass huntress and a wide-eyed teen smitten with the mysterious Guy. Ryan Reynolds is also quite good as Guy - making him both a know-it-all and a dude who has to overcompensate a bit given his semi-tragic backstory. Similarly good are Catherine Keener as supportive cave-mom Ugga, Cloris Leachman as the wily grandma, and Clark Duke as well-intentioned son Thunk. It's an excellent cast, though I'd definitely call Cage and Stone the MVP's.

As far as the animation goes - the art style itself didn't wow me, but many of the action sequences were very, very impressive, and everything looked great in 3D. There are also some more serene sequences of the new world that are pretty gorgeously animated. Honestly, I've always been a sucker for stories that take place in prehistoric times, so I loved exploring the world here alongside the Croods.

And like I said, while the overall story is fairly simple, it works really well and is propelled by the character dynamics. The movie probably has one too many montages that conveniently help the film condense a lot of plot and character stuff into a couple of quick music-video-style sequences. But this is at it's core a fairly straightforward movie with a straightforward message. But that message - about *not* being afraid of new and different things, of new ideas and of new adventures - is delivered in a fun, entertaining, and sincere manner.

THE CROODS was a surprisingly fun and sweet adventure. I'd recommend it to any and all animation fans, and I would also suggest that the bar has now been raised pretty high for other animated films in 2013.

My Grade: B+

OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN Is Highly Entertaining, Highly Ridiculous

OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN Review:

- OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN is not a good movie. The script has more holes than swiss cheese, the f/x are spotty, the direction is muddled and rushed-feeling, and even though the film plays things essentially straight, it's filled with moments that are flat-out ridiculous. And yet ... this is a highly entertaining popcorn flick that I would urge any old-school action movie fan to run out and see in a crowded theater asap. The film mixes the over-the-top, ra-ra patriotism of an Independence Day with the brutal, hilariously extraneous violence of an 80's-era Schwarzenegger flick. So for all of the movie's faults, it is, still, one heck of a crowd-pleaser. Even as I was rolling my eyes at the stupidity, I was smiling at the sheer insanity of it all.

The set-up for this film is so cheesy, yet awesomely so (if awesomely cheesy floats your boat like it does mine). The movie even begins with a lengthy prologue that establishes the back-story for Gerard Butler's Mike Banning (even his name feels old-school!). We learn that Mike was once the President's (the President, as played by square-jawed Aaron Eckhart, is clearly in the Bill Pullman-in-Independence Day mold) lead secret service agent, until a fateful day when Mike failed to protect the President's wife (Ashley Judd) from the destructive force of ICE-COVERED ROADS. Following the first lady's death, Mike resigns from the secret service in disgrace, and takes a pencil-pushing office job in DC, mere blocks from the White House. Of course, Mike being the paranoid, overprotective type, keeps one eye out his office window for any signs of trouble at 1600 Penn. And one day, trouble comes. An undercover army of North Korean extremists (note: this is NOT the North Korean government, just a radical group from North Korea, FYI) INVADES WASHINGTON. Suddenly, the streets of DC are filled with machine gun-wielding evil North Koreans blowing the crap out of everyone and everything. Their ultimate target is the White House. After mowing down nearly everyone in the vicinity, the leader of the North Koreans (who is actually named KANG - seriously!) hold the President and key members of his cabinet (including feisty Melissa Leo as the Secretary of Defense) in a security bunker, eager to extract launch code information from them. Meanwhile, the President's young son is hiding somewhere in the White House, an ill-prepared Morgan Freeman (playing the Speaker of the House) assumes the role of Acting President, and dammit all, Mike Banning springs into action, on a one-man mission to infiltrate the heavily-guarded White House and singlehandedly kill as many evil North Koreans as possible, preferably via the method of STABBING IN THE BRAIN.

There are many, many things that make little to no sense in the film ... but at the end of the day, logic and sense are thrown out the window so that Gerard Butler can stab North Koreans, Aaron Eckhart can boldly refuse to give up classified information, and many slo-mo shots of the American flag being either lowered in defeat or raised in triumph can be shown. Butler is pretty okay in the role, though I don't think he does "ordinary Joe who can kill like a mofo" as well as he does "ancient king who can kill like a mofo." Suffice it to say, I did wonder a few times what this would have been like had it just been the 24 movie and starred Jack Bauer in all of his gravitas-infused glory. But while Butler doesn't have any truly iconic "yipee-kay-ay" moments (though he does stab many people in the head in quite remarkable fashion), he does a good job overall of carrying the film. And others like Eckhart, Leo, and Freeman just feel super-overqualified. You've got to give them credit - they commit fully to their parts, and imbue every line with so much sincerity and gung-ho purpose that, my god, you can't help but root for them to save the day (and god bless America while we're at it).

While it's easy to forgive, say, Aaron Eckhart, for some of the absurdities of his character in this movie, it's a little less easy to find the good in some of the other characters. One example is Dylan McDermott's shifty diplomat, who seems to have paper-thin motivation and seems only there to be the obligatory slimeball character. I get that this is a big action movie and we're dealing with archetypes, but there are certain character beats in the film - and certain twists in general - that really have no explanation beyond "just because."

In all honesty though, the biggest distraction in the film is the spotty direction and visuals. Whole segments often seem oddly/poorly lit and hard to decipher. Director Antoine Fuqua seems to get a little lost at times trying to keep track of all the action, which often feels sloppily cut. There's a lot of chaos in the initial North Korean invasion scenes - which I get is part of the point - but it's also sometimes nearly impossible to tell who's shooting at who. The f/x also veer from decent to laughable, with some scenes of aerial combat feeling particularly Playstation 1-ish.

Still, man ... the movie is just so bombastic, so gleefully over-the-top, so unabashedly absurd ... I had to admire it. While Antoine Fuqua shows little of Roland Emmerich's directorial panache, he seems to share his love for ham and cheese. This is a movie that doesn't miss a chance for a Big Speech, a Last Stand, or a Last Minute Save. It's an SNL parody waiting to happen, but not at all ashamed of that fact.

And so I'm a little torn. There is enough that is downright silly, dumb, or shoddily-handled in this film that I really hesitate to sing its praises too much. And yet, it's uber-watchable, and I had to admire the movie's giddy sense of balls-to-the-wall, anything-goes insanity. If nothing else, I was both shocked and amused to see a modern action film that embraced both 90's-style earnestness and 80's-style violence, all in a single package. And hey, when you've got guys like Morgan Freeman onboard - it makes the madness that much more epic. If you've got a soft spot for movies from those eras, and can ironically appreciate a cheesy action film and all of its so-bad-it's-good schlock (and as a pleasant antidote to the uber dark n' serious action films we tend to get nowadays), you'll probably want to see this. Good? No. Ridiculous? Yes. See it? Yeah, you really, probably should.

My Grade: B

STOKER Is Dark, Disturbing, Creepy, and Unforgettable

STOKER Review:

- Over the years, I'd heard whispers about an already-legendary Korean film called OLDBOY. Circa 2006, I'd seen it referenced in many articles, heard it spoken about reverently by film geeks and cinephiles. Oldboy was the movie you had to see if you considered yourself a film fan, and director Chan Wook-Park was the next big thing in badass filmmaking. So one day, I drove over to Amoeba in Hollywood on the hunt for the film. I purchased the DVD (Amoeba has everything), and eagerly brought it home. I watched OLDBOY, and instantly, I got what the hype was all about. This was the dawn of a new era of Asian extreme cinema. Now, several years later, comes STOKER. Stoker is Park's first American-made film, following an already legendary career in the Korean film world. Certainly, there was reason to be cautious about this one - would Park's unique sensibility - and his tendency towards extreme, psychological, intense filmmaking - get lost in translation? As it turns out, the answer is - hell no. Stoker is right up there with the most badass films that Park has yet made. It's visually stunning, disturbing, creepy, and just downright absorbing. Like all of Park's films, this one buries into your brain, gets you thinking, gets you talking.

STOKER is a story of innocence lost. Our main character is India Stoker (Mia Wasikowska), a sullen, brooding teenage girl - only child to a wealthy family - who is an outcast at school, and who has a troubled relationship with her Stepford-esque mother Evelyn (Nicole Kidman). India's world is thrown into further tailspin when her father Richard (Durmot Mulroney) is killed in a car accident. While India's relationship with her mother was frosty, she spent a lot of time with her father - he even made her his unlikely hunting companion on many occasions. Things take another strange turn when India's long-absent uncle, Charles (Matthew Goode) comes in for his brother's funeral. Charles - who explains away his scarcity by claiming to be a world traveler, decides to stay with India and her mother, in their stately home, for an extended period.

I hesitate to say much about the plot, because this is a narrative that slowly and hypnotically unfolds and reveals itself, and part of the joy here is letting the various twists and turns shock and surprise you. Suffice it to say, uncle Charles is not exactly what he seems. He's a rather dark, twisted sort of person. And he's all too eager to take the lonely, tormented India under his wing - to see if his suspicion is correct, that she too shares some of his darker proclivities.

Crazily enough, Stoker's got a screenplay written by none other than former Prison Break TV series star, Wentworth Miller. And - who knew? - the man can write. The more I thought about it, the more impressed I was with the screenplay's many layers, and with its thematic depth. There is a dreamlike/nightmarish quality to the storytelling that sees the narrative, at times, unfold in a nonlinear fashion. We also alternate between reality and the characters' psyches, at times having to parse out what's actually happening, versus what a character is imagining. It could have been clumsy, but it's all handled pretty elegantly. There's also a real sharpness to the dialogue - it's all delivered in a surreal, left-of-center manner - this is very stylized stuff - but it's memorable, striking, and effective.

And of course, the strong, twisty script is augmented immeasurably by Chan Wook-Park's fantastic direction. The guy does mood and atmosphere like few others, and here he creates gothic imagery that pops. He also adds to the film's haunting quality with a number of head-spinning shots and sequences that help to accentuate the film's feeling of danger, disorientation, and steadily-growing intensity. The film is nothing if not intense - both on a plot level (where *had* George been all of those years?), and on a psychological one. Park never shies away from using the story as a psycho-sexual coming-of-age allegory. George is the catalyst that jump-starts sullen-but-innocent India into her own twisted sort of awakening - one that mixes sex, violence, rebellion, and utter disillusion with the world around you. India begins realizing how dark and dangerous the world is - how filled with malice the people in her life (her mother, her classmates) really are - and so she decides to turn the tables, and become even worse, even darker.

Mia Wasikowska is terrific as India Stoker. She pulls off India's girlish innocence, but is just as believable (and intensely creepy) when her dormant darkness is unleashed. I had similar thoughts after her noteworthy turn in The Kids Are All Right, but this movie cemented it - Wasikowska is truly a young actress to watch. This is an amazing performance. Matthew Goode is also really great as creepy uncle Charles. It's almost funny - I always thought he was perhaps miscast in Watchmen ... but after seeing him in Stoker, I'm almost curious to see what he could do as Ozymandias now that he's got more experience under his belt. I say that because in Stoker, Goode is *very* Ozymandias-like. He's got "the voice" down pat - a chilling, cold, upper-crust dialect that makes his cool - almost snobby - exterior fairly chilling. He's smooth to the point of creepy, cool to the point of threatening. Definitely some Patrick Bateman in their as well. As for Nicole Kidman, I've always liked her when she's in these sorts of off-kilter, left-of-center, semi-creepy roles (To Die For, anyone?). And so it's no surprise that she really nails the part of Evelyn - a desperate housewife with some serious issues.

Stoker takes a little while to get going, but it really weaves a web as it goes that you can't help but get sucked into. From a narrative perspective, it all comes together fairly straightforwardly in the end - despite some of the storytelling tricks used by Miller and Park. But, like I said, there's a lot of depth here - symbolism, subtext, and some open-ended psychological questions that game me a lot to chew on once the film was over. I guarantee - there are certain sequences in the film - a piano duet scene, a certain shower scene - that will leave you breathless.

It's nice to know that, even in his first American film - an American Gothic with an Asian Extreme spin - the great Chan Wook-Park has not gone soft in the least. This is as extreme, as dark, as deep, and as badass as just about any movie he's yet made.

My Grade: A-

OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL: A Worthy Return to Oz?

OZ: THE GREAT AND POWERFUL Review:

- I grew up with OZ. There was the classic film, there was the 1980's Disney pseudo-sequel, Return to Oz. But most of all, there were the books. I've talked about this a lot recently, but I grew up with the Oz books because my grandparents actually had original prints of every book in the series - the originals by L. Frank Baum, as well as the later canonical entries in the series written after his passing. The Oz books were my grandmother's most treasured items - she (along with my mom) shared a love for all things Oz, and my grandmother knew the world and mythology of Oz inside and out. She often spoke of seeing the original movie in the theaters when it was released - about how the film's transition from black and white to color was, at the time, a jaw-dropping revelation. But while I liked the film, I loved the books. Part of it was how my grandmother read them to us - with her distinct, measured reading style and her never-wavering enthusiasm for the material, she transported us to the land of Oz. But I also just loved the books in and of themselves, and the weird and whimsical style that Baum (who claimed to be transcribing actual events, as related to him by Dorothy and others) wrote them in. To me, Oz was every bit as epic and as captivating a place as the other fantasy worlds I loved - Narnia, Prydain, and Middle Earth. Sure, the film had the witches and the flying monkeys - but it was, ultimately, a musical - not the epic adventure I pictured in my mind. Where was Ozma, the Nome King, Tik Tok, and Jack Pumpkinhead? Many of the Oz series' cooler elements made it into Return to Oz, but that film saw success only as a cult classic, not as a franchise-starter. But now, in an era where Lord of the Rings and Narnia had been turned into big-budget, multi-part adventure series, I wondered if the same could finally be true for OZ. Now, the pieces were in place - Sam Raimi was at the helm, the full weight of the Disney machine was there, and Oz finally seemed poised to go big on the big screen.

The new OZ has some of the elements I was looking for in a new Oz flick. First and foremost, it's visually stunning. Sam Raimi once again proves himself to be a true wizard when it comes to creating stylized worlds and roller-coaster-like sequences that are a thrill to just sit back and let yourself get immersed in. OZ is a 100% must-see in 3D, and even better in IMAX. It looks awesome. Hyper-realized fantasy worlds and landscapes and cities, massive battles, eye-melting landscapes, visceral set-piece sequences - Raimi makes OZ into a film that practically bleeds color from the screen. He also just plain has fun with the toys at his disposal. This being Raimi, he tries every trick in the book to wow you from a visual perspective. The opening of the film is in black and white, old-school 1930's aspect ratio - but then expands and colorizes as the Wizard makes his way to Oz. The 3D sees spears hurled at the audience, and all sorts of little instances of things popping off the screen. In terms of visuals, OZ is indeed a marvel.

In terms of story, OZ is less of a marvel, and a little more by-the-numbers. The film functions as a surprisingly reverent prequel - and homage to - the original 1939 classic. In fact, the movie almost seems designed to fit into the world of the original film nearly seamlessly. I have to admit, I was sort of surprised by this. In a way, it reminded me slightly of how Superman Returns felt like an overly reverent homage to the original Donner film. So this new Oz has many moments that are designed to be crowd-pleasing call backs to the 1939 film, and many plot points that are the "secret origins," of sorts, for some of the iconic aspects of that film. Given how the overall tone of the film is so different from the 1939 film (it's not a musical, for one thing), and given that that film is from, well, 1939, I wouldn't have minded if this new movie carved its own path, and/or stuck more to the tone of L. Frank Baum. There are, certainly, moments that seek to make things feel quasi-LOTR epic. Glimpses of the sprawling world-map of Oz, gleaned from the books. Large-scale battles and mammoth flying-monkey attacks. Witch-on-Wizard showdowns. All of that stuff is great fun, which makes the callbacks to the conceits of the 1939 film feel especially quaint and out of place. Did we really need, for example, the extended black-and-white intro in which we meet regular Kansas folks who will later manifest as denizens of Oz?

There are other visual cues that feel forced. The pains taken to make this film's wicked witch resemble Margaret Hamilton's iconic portrayal in the 1939 movie seem strained, and make this new witch look unnecessarily awkward. There are a couple of other examples in this vein.

OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL, for those not in the know, tells the story of how The Wizard first arrived in Oz, and how he became the great and powerful leader that Dorothy and friends eventually encounter. The Wizard (James Franco) begins the story as a huckster and a womanizer who works as a carnival illusionist. While being chased by some angry colleagues, he jumps into a hot air balloon to escape, but gets caught up in tornado that whisks him away from Kansas to Oz. In Oz, The Wizard finds a land besieged by a wicked witch, and finds that he is the long-expected and foretold-by-legend savior, destined to save the people from their oppressor (it can be debated to what extent there may or may not be an anti-feminist message here, but I didn't really find that). In conjunction with Glinda the Good Witch (Michelle Williams), as well as a slew of other companions, The Wizard must contend with the evil witch Evanora (Rachel Weisz), her conflicted sister Theadora (Mila Kunis), and, of course, their army of evil flying monkeys. How to counter the witch's magic, when The Wizard is not really a wizard, but simply a trickster? Franco attempts to use modern tricks and tech to go Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court on the wicked witches.

If any of this sounds familiar, it might be because Raimi once made a film very much in this same spirit - Army of Darkness. Of course, that film involved a time-lost, chainsaw-wielding antihero named Ash fighting off an army of the undead in medieval times ... but hey, it's all pretty similar in a lot of ways. And that's why many are calling OZ Sam Raimi's Disneyfied Army of Darkness. And you can't deny a lot of the structural similarities. What's interesting though is that Raimi, for better or for worse, infuses OZ with a lot of the same madcap, living-cartoon vibe as AoD. Even the Wizard's wise-cracking, smart-alecky dialogue seems almost lifted from the classic Raimi playbook, and from iconic cult-hero Ash. Now, it's sort of cool to see that anarchic sort of subversiveness make its way into this film. But it also never 100% works, because Raimi is clearly being pulled in multiple directions here. On one level, you sense him wanting to do a really subversive, madcap take on Oz. His version of The Wizard is even very much in the Ash mold - a blue-collar hero who thinks on his feet and makes all of the women around him (even the goddess-like Glinda) swoon helplessly (and man, it would have been fun to see Raimi partner-in-crime Bruce Campbell - who has a small cameo here - take a crack at playing The Wizard). And yet, this is also a Disney movie and a major family-friendly franchise-starter, and so Raimi can't really go full throttle. You can tell that Raimi is perhaps less interested, for example, in really building up the cute sidekick characters all that much. And so the silly good-flying-monkey voiced by Zach Braff, or the uber-cute china-doll girl voiced by Joey King, or the jive-talkin' munchkin played by Tony Cox ... they all feel sort of one-dimensional and tacked on (though I will say, China Girl is one of the most amazingly-rendered digital characters I've yet seen in a film). And some, like that aforementioned jive-talkin' munchkin, are just plain out of place in this world (you wouldn't see that in Lord of the Rings, that's for sure).

In any case, OZ is tonally a bit all-over-the-place. There's a little LOTR-style epicness, a little Raimi madcap action and insanity, a little Disney fairy-tale magic and cutesiness, a little broad humor, a little darkness. a little Tim Burton-esque weirdness and hyper-stylization (and a super Burton-esque / Nightmare Before Christmas-esque score courtesy of Danny Elfman) ... somehow it holds together and basically works, but it also feels like a movie with a lot of cooks in the kitchen - like no one was sure what, exactly, this movie was supposed to be. That also means that a lot of the movie's most interesting concepts - Chinatown, for example (a town where all of the denizens are made of breakable china) - don't feel as fleshed-out as they could be.

That unevenness also extends to the casting. Some of the casting choices here are just effortless and fit like a glove. Rachel Weisz as Evanora - basically perfect, pretty much iconic. Michelle Williams as Glinda - also completely works and feels exceedingly right. Both actresses disappear into the roles, which is what you want in a movie like this. But James Franco ... he's still pretty much James Franco. I just am not sure that Franco has it in him to play a fantasy character like this convincingly - to lose all of his Franco-ness and be someone else entirely, to be The Wizard. Franco does a pretty good job here, overall. He elicits some big laughs and, mostly, sells the sweeter parts of the film. But he just seems ill-suited to this type of role. Same goes for Mila Kunis. Kunis gives it her all as Theadora, but throughout the film, she still seems like Mila Kunis. There wasn't that timeless sort of quality that a Rachel Weisz brings to the table. Even worse, I kept hearing Meg Griffin whenever Kunis voiced her character post-CGI transformation. Kunis is great in that she has such a girl-next-door, blue-collar quality to her that many actresses don't. But that's not what you need for OZ - you need larger-than-life. And neither Franco or Kunis brings that to the production, and the movie suffers for it.

Despite these complaints, there's still a likability to this new OZ movie that's hard to deny. The visuals are so overwhelmingly awesome that it tends to drown out everything else. And when the movie hits its big, go-for-broke beats in its third act ... man, it really nails 'em. Raimi knows more than most how to hit a home run with those big, crowd-pleasing moments. But as much as OZ was a fun, theme-park ride-esque theatrical experience, I have to wonder what legs it will have as time goes on. Perhaps future entries in the revitalized Oz franchise will ultimately cement this film's place in the larger Oz cannon. And perhaps its legacy will prove to be less about this movie's lasting impression, and more about serving as a gateway to the world of Oz that L. Frank Baum created. The original 1939 film is famous for overcoming a fraught production filled with mishaps, re-starts, and dozens of creative challenges to somehow emerge as a classic. This new OZ may not end up with such a notorious backstory, but it does, more so than The Wizard of Oz and Return to Oz, feel more like the product of the Disney machine rather than a Peter Jackson-style labor of love. Raimi's visual inventiveness and subversive streak shines through, but it isn't quite enough to propel Oz to greatness. Funny, because the entire lesson of the film is that The Wizard must learn to strive less for greatness, and more for goodness. The movie seems to have had it slightly backwards in that regard. Still, there is enough goodness here to make the film worth checking out, and kids in particular will likely get caught up in Raimi's eye-popping adventure.

My Grade: B

In Tribute To My Grandma, Sally Wagner

A TRIBUTE TO MY GRANDMA - Sally Wagner

Sally Wagner sadly passed away on February 26th, 2013. The below is my eulogy to her.

- Many people – myself included – wonder how I got to be the way I am. In a family of lawyers and politicians, how on earth did I end up a writer, a reader, a movie-loving creative type who moved to Hollywood in order to work in the entertainment business? The truth is, perhaps the single biggest influence on my life, and the person who most made me what I am, has been my grandma, Sally Wagner.

Sally, or just “Grandma” as she is known to my brother and I, was pretty much the coolest person I’ve ever known. I know, it sounds strange to describe one’s grandma as cool, but it’s true. My grandma was downright awesome. From an early age, she instilled in me a love of stories and imagination. In fact, Grandma was probably the best storyteller I’ve ever met. She could read a book or a passage or an article aloud, and as soon as you heard her distinct, calming, reassuring, Boston-accented voice, you couldn’t help but be captivated. Many of my earliest memories of my grandma involve me, curled up beside her on a chair or on her lap, enraptured by the book she was reading or the story she was telling me. One thing I always marveled at was that my grandma owned every Oz book there was – and she and my mom shared a fascination with all things Wizard of Oz-related. When I was little, I used to sit with Grandma as she read every Oz book to me – and later to my brother - one by one. I didn’t want to experience the books any other way except with her reading them to me – nothing else could match the way she told the story.

My Grandma taught me to use my imagination and to dare to think differently. Before I was old enough to watch them, Grandma would tell me about her favorite episodes of Quantum Leap or Dr. Who or Star Trek: The Next Generation. She described the stories so well that I felt like I had seen the shows. The joy that my Grandma took from these stories was contagious – and she opened my mind to all of the far-out concepts that became my passion. She loved talking to me about all of the wonders the future would bring. And she would always say “I hope I’m around to see all those things.” “So do I,” I would think. When I myself finally graduated to more adult TV shows, one of my first favorites was The X-Files. The show had mysteries, conspiracies, monsters, and aliens – everything that I loved. The show became me and Grandma’s thing. After dinner, we’d go down into her living room, shut off the lights, and watch a new episode. Grandma would sometimes be busy cleaning up after the meal, but I’d yell for her to come downstairs and join me. It just wasn’t the same without her.

Grandma was always willing to indulge me in whatever it was I was into. When I drew a picture, I’d show it to her to get her approval. When I had a new favorite show, I’d beg her to watch it with me. Yes, as a kid, I loved spending Saturday nights with my grandmother. Because when my parents were away, and Grandma would babysit, that meant that she’d be there to watch “Are You Afraid of the Dark?” with me. When I got a new videogame, I’d excitedly explain to her why it was cool. And she’d always listen - she never walked away or dismissed me. She was always there for me.

Like I said, I had the coolest Grandma ever. She loved Star Trek and The X-Files and The Wizard of Oz. She read all the Harry Potter books. She loved reading and read voraciously. She loved drawing, and was an absolutely incredible artist who was capable of producing stunning and lifelike drawings. Of course, I always just wanted her to draw me superheroes. And she drew some amazing ones.

Me and my Grandma were alike in so many ways, it’s scary. We both loved sleeping late. During a busy week, I would tell Grandma about how I couldn’t wait for the weekend, to just sleep, lie in bed, read, and relax. She’d smile, and say “yeah, that’s the good stuff!” We both had a bit of a sweet tooth. She would caution me and my brother not to eat too many candy or cookies, lest we end up with some of the same tooth problems she had. But, when a good dessert crossed her path, my Grandma would indulge, even if just a tiny sliver. Like I said, she had an expert appreciation for the good stuff, and I think she and I pretty much agreed on what the “good stuff” in life was. We both had slightly inappropriate senses of humor, and it has to be said that my Grandma was one of the funniest, wittiest people I’ve ever known. Not only did she have great taste in comedy – but she had a sharp wit that didn’t dull for a second, even as she got older. She could really tell it like it is, but she was also the best person with whom to commiserate about anything and everything. She had an infectious laugh and a comforting smile. She never failed to find the humor in any situation, could always brighten a bleak situation with humor, and could always appreciate a good dirty joke – even if she feigned shock and horror upon hearing it. She loved to disapprovingly remark how raunchy her favorite TV comedies were getting. But make no mistake, she secretly loved the raunchiness. No question, for better or worse, my own offbeat sense of humor was shaped by my Grandma.

And no doubt, in more ways than I can count, I am my grandma’s grandson.

One of the most important things that Grandma taught me was the importance of being young at heart. She would always laugh at all the “old bubbes” she saw around town, and exclaim how she never wanted to be one of them. And she never was. Even as she got older, my grandma rarely seemed old.

Even more importantly, Grandma was always there for us. Literally, she was always there when we needed her. As a kid, every Tuesday and Thursday was a “Grandma Day.” While my mom was working late, teaching Hebrew school, my brother and I would come home from school to find our Grandma waiting for us. Usually, she’d be sitting at the kitchen table, sifting through magazines, most likely watching Oprah. After a long day, I don’t think there could have been any sight more comforting to come home to. My brother and I would grab a snack, join her, and tell her all of our problems. And that’s the other way in which Grandma was always there for us. She was the best listener, the best advice-giver, and the best advocate and supporter of her grandchildren. And all I could say to anyone who messed with us was: watch out! Our Grandma always offered to personally track down any bully who bothered us, any teacher who gave us an unfair grade, or any employer who wouldn’t hire us, and give ‘em what-for. After I moved to LA and told her about some of my early frustrations working for NBC, she even volunteered to fly down to Burbank and kick Jay Leno’s butt on my behalf.

No doubt about it, my Grandma loved her family more than anything. She loved having us over for Shabbat and holiday dinners. She loved attending our school events, our bar-mitzvahs, and our graduations. She loved reading to us, and writing to us, and sharing stories with us. She loved her husband of over 60 years, my Zayde, Jerry Wagner. Even though she enjoyed joking about her days as a young knockout in Boston – she was real “hot stuff” back then, attracting the attention of sailors and soldiers, she enjoyed even more telling us the stories about how she met our grandfather, fell in love, and knew that he was the guy for her. She loved her brothers and sister, her sons, her daughter, and of course all of her grandchildren. A familiar sound in our house was my mother answering the phone with a relieved greeting of “Hi, Mom.” In almost daily phone conversations between my Mom and Grandma, the two would gab, vent, and chat for hours on end. Grandma was known for her ace Scrabble skills – and was the favorite opponent of my Uncle Jonathan. And Grandma also loved joking and reminiscing with my Uncle Michael, and of course loved playing with and spending time with her granddaughters, my cousins Rachel and Abby. Often, in the middle of a large dinner or gathering, I’d glance over and catch Grandma looking at me or another member of the family, just smiling – perhaps a bit in awe of how we’d grown – but mostly, I think, just happy that we were there together. 

For me, my Grandma taught me about what it was that I valued in life. She was an original. She was creative, and funny, and witty, and loved her family. I think we kept her young, but she also kept us young. Because what is being young if not enjoying life, always being excited to discover new things, and always being interested in the world around you. My Grandma was all of that and more. She was the best, and I only hope that I can live my life in a way that would make her proud.