The Thin White Dude's Movie Of The Month: July 2014 - Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes

Between this and Edge Of Tomorrow, it's been nice to have at least two summer blockbusters which deliver both the spectacle you'd expect from a big-budget picture, but also that they are of a high artistic quality. The harmony between the motion capture action (particularly Andy Serkis and Toby Kebbell) and the visual effects is breathtaking, with Weta Digital outdoing their amazing work in the previous film, truly bringing these apes to life. Their interactivity with the composites departments and Michael Seresin's cinematography deserve to be duly credited, as does Michael Giacchino's score, which legitimises the epic feeling of this franchise film. Design-wise, it's beautifully realised, a film of real provocative ideas and daring directions, with Matt Reeves delivering his best film to date. Aside from the 1968 original, it's the best film of the Apes saga. 

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 8.8/10

Runner-Up: Begin Again - Even with problems, John Carney's film has empathy and understanding for human emotions, displays an ear for dialogue and boasts strong performances from Keira Knightley and Mark Ruffalo.

Second-Most Deadly Disease: Transformers: Age Of Extinction - While there are things to admire, it's a $210 million movie with a horrible script full of cardboard cutout characters, cliches and expository nonsense which in conjunction with consistently inconsistent editing, make for a long expenditure of 165 minutes of your life.

Avoid Like The Plague: Tammy - With episodes of mish mash and balderdash, dulled underlying messages and a whole lot of other things I missed because the movie is too stupid to get it across appropriately, Tammy is not McCarthy's vehicle to set the world on fire.

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Maleficent

Directed by: Robert Stromberg

Produced by: Joe Roth

Screenplay by: Linda Woolverton

Based on: Disney's Sleeping Beauty

La Belle Au Bois Dormant by Charles Perrault

Starring: Angelina Jolie

Sharlto Copley

Elle Fanning

Sam Riley

Imelda Staunton

Juno Temple

Lesley Manville

Music by: James Newton Howard

Cinematography by: Dean Semler

Editing by: Chris Lebenzon

Richard Pearson

Studio(s): Walt Disney Pictures
Roth Films

Distributed by: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures

Release date(s): May 28, 2014 (United Kingdom)
May 30, 2014 (United States)

Running time: 97 minutes

Country: United States

Language: English

Production budget: $180 million

Box-office revenue (as of publication): $743, 781, 750

So, this will be my last film to review for the month of July. I've already given y'all enough excuses and reasons as to why everything has been belated this summer. This will be followed by a review of the July, and hopefully I'll get one, maybe two more reviews done before Thursday, because I'm on the road again for V Festival and for the next few weeks. I've already got ahead and seen Guardians Of The Galaxy and The Purge: Anarchy, and hopefully I'll see a couple of more before I head away. As ever, for all the latest and greatest about the movies, keep your eyes posted!

Today's film up for review is Maleficent, Disney's live-action re-imagining of the story of Sleeping Beauty, made previously by Walt Disney in 1959 as animated feature, only for this 2014 adaptation the story is portrayed from the perspective of the titular antagonist. Angelia Jolie, who stars as the main character and is the name on the marquee, has been attached to this project for a number of years, as Tim Burton was originally planning to direct the picture. When he opted to leave, Robert Stromberg, the production designer for Burton's Alice In Wonderland, Avatar (for which Stromberg won with Rick Carter my Dante Ferretti Award for Best Production Design) and Oz, The Great And Powerful, was drafted in to helm. While I think her work outside acting is perhaps even more commendable than her film work, I've been a fan of Angelina Jolie for some time (she won Best Female Actor in a Leading Role from me in 2008 for Changeling) and feel she's one of the most interesting female actors of the past ten-fifteen years, so I was interested enough going into this. So, story goes that Maleficent (Jolie) is a faerie living in the Moors, a magical realm bordering a human kingdom, who has over the years developed a friendship with a human peasant called Stefan (Sharlto Copley). However, his ambition to become king overshadows their mutual affection, and when the current king is defeated in battle by those of the faerie kingdom, he offers to name whoever kills Maleficent the successor to his throne. Stefan burns off Maleficent's wings, offering them as evidence of her death, and ascends to the throne. A little while later, Maleficent, the once humble and benevolent faery who has since become a cruel, wicked witch, is informed by her servant Diaval (Sam Riley) that Stefan and his queen are christening their daughter Aurora. Gate-crashing the ceremony, Maleficent takes her revenge on Stefan out on Aurora, who is cursed prick her finger on a spindle wheel on her sixteenth birthday to fall into a death-like sleep, from which she can only be awakened by true love's kiss. Fifteen years later, Aurora (Elle Fanning) becomes enamoured with faery world and develops an acquaintance of sorts with Maleficent, who she believes to be her fairy godmother, unwitting of the true scheme at work. Blah blah blah. That's just expository setup, so excuse me for the mouthfuls! Got it? Good!

Starting with the good, the film has four solid performances, nothing groundbreaking by any means, but still enough positive work to give the film some anchoring. Angelina Jolie absolutely revels in the opportunity to play the fairy tale 'good girl gone bad' Maleficent. Beginning the film as an earthy creature, after the much-discussed (and legitimately harrowing) scene in which Stefan drugs her and takes her wings (which Jolie plays brilliantly), Jolie's Maleficent transforms into every bit the pantomime Disney villain as much as Glenn Close's Cruella de Vil. It's a very theatrical part, but it's never over the top, with Jolie's vocal line delivery being deliberate and authoritative. Also, her expressive features mean that when moments of humour come along, we start to see the facade of callousness break. Jolie deserves the praise she's received for this textured performance. We also have Sharlto Copley in there as Stefan, who, though occasionally hammy, is reminiscent of Gary Oldman in that he does manage to bring credibility to the part. Same can be said for Sam Riley (the inaugural winner of my Kevin Spacey Award for Best Male Actor in a Leading Role for 2007's Control), who has strong onscreen chemistry with Jolie as Maleficent's confident Diaval. Finally, Elle Fanning, though in a less complex role than we've seen her in the past, continues her rise as one of Hollywood's most promising young talents with her charismatically likeable Princess Aurora. One of the other things to be praised about the film is the overall look of the mise-en-scene. Perhaps this is to be expected with director Robert Stromberg's history in various aspects of design, but Maleficent does have a distinctive and unique look about it. The visual effects and production design of the faerie kingdom in various stages (after Maleficent's evolution, it changes from a wondrously cute land of cute things and what have you to the proverbial "hillside desolate" Morrissey would sing about in a long forgotten song; nudge nudge, wink wink!) is simply splendid, and the goes for many of the other sets and design aspects involved. Also, the make-up/hair department and costume designers deserve credit for their collective efforts in bringing these characters to life. With the greatest of respect to Jolie's natural abilities, they've done a terrific job in making her look every bit the part, with her cheekbones elevated, jawline sunken in and red lips standing out as a contrast to the paleface make-up, and the headpiece and long black dress just adding more and more character to, well, this character. All of this is accentuated by the cinematography of Dean Semler. From the Mad Max sequels, Oscar-winning work on Dances With Wolves and the likes of Mel Gibson's Apocalypto, Semler has a way of shooting unobtrusively in a way that the cinematographer and camera does not supersede but instead highlights and adds to the atmosphere made by the designers. The case is no different here; there's no gimmickry or shaky-cam buffoonery, just good old-fashioned photography. Finally, as far as directorial debuts go, Stromberg could do a lot worse than Maleficent. This is a good, enjoyable release from Disney, a welcome surprise and at just under one hundred minutes, it's a lot more immediately accessible than some of the more cumbersome releases of this blockbuster season. While Maleficent is not without issue, which I'll get to, it clearly hit home with its audience, and shows there is a market for this big-budget, Tim Burton-esque kind of picture when it's done well. Although judging by Burton's recent work, Stromberg has arguably out-Burtoned Burton, and needn't worry about having to establish himself outside of that director's looming dark shadow.

Now, as I said, Maleficent is not without issues, the issues laying in a few certain areas which, while not degrading the movie to the point that's of a bad quality, do deny it from being a great or a very good movie. The first thing at fault I found was the script. As you saw, there was a lot waffle to get through in my plot synopsis, and the same can be said for the movie, because it takes about thirty to forty minutes of screen-time to just establish the backstory. Realistically, all of the expository details there should have been done and dusted in ten to fifteen minutes, and the fact that it takes up approximately a third of the film's runtime does reveal a structural flaw. Secondly, although I was impressed with the characterisation of some of the principal's, many of the film's minor characters are simplistic tropes which just come across as filler. For instance, the three pixies are quite clearly just comic humour fodder, their existence merely serving to provide for stupid moments of levity amid the film's drama, and do not serve to do justice to Imelda Staunton, Lesley Manville or Juno Temple, three female actors talented enough to hold lead roles in their own right. Also, the Prince Philip character, who like Aurora we're meant to realise is 'the one' who's going to break Maleficent's curse upon her, is so bland that I refused to buy into him in any way, shape or form. On another point of issue, though rather more minor than the script, although I like James Newton Howard, this is one of those films scores that is just phoned-in without any active participation or providing elevation of the material. Maybe it was studio-imposed impositions (this is, after all, $180 million-budgeted picture), but I just didn't have the feelings of inspiration I have got from Newton Howard's work in, say, Pretty Woman, The Fugitive, Primal Fear or The Sixth Sense. My final issue was with the editing, which I do have to say feels a bit scattershot. The film's two editors Chris Lebenzon and Richard Pearson are associated mostly with working on action movies, not that that is a problem for the film's occasional action scenes, but the same aesthetics do not apply to conversations, dialogues and some of the more serene moments involving the film's design. I feel that the editors needed to show a little more tact when it came to the bigger picture.

I will not deny Maleficent is a movie with it's flaws, most specifically in the departments involving the script, the score and the editing. I do feel that these elements hold the movie down from achieving the status of being among the great Disney fantasies that it could have been. That said, neither will I deny that even with these flaws, it still stands as a good, perfectly acceptable watch. I think that Angelina Jolie is terrific in the title role, completely relishing playing the part of playing the cold-hearted villainess, but not without an element of pathos. Also strong in the principal cast are Sharlto Copley, Elle Fanning and Sam Riley. From a design standpoint, this is a well-realised picture, with director Robert Stromberg's background lending to the whole shebang. It's also shot by an atmospherically-intuned cinematographer in Dean Semler, whose work accentuates that of the designers and visual effects departments. At under one hundred minutes, this is a relatively brisk studio picture from Disney, and judging from the box-office (it has grossed over four times it's budget at $736 million worldwide), there have been some smart decisions in the archetypal boardroom meetings as regards to marketing and the film itself. Though by no means anything as special as the box-office figures would indicate, Maleficent is still a solid Disney fantasy with a terrific lead performance from Jolie and an enjoyably brisk flick.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 6.4/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Racked (with many things to do! V Festival coming up this weekend and still work to be done. Argh!)

Maleficent Trailer

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes

Directed by: Matt Reeves

Produced by: Peter Chernin

Dylan Clark

Rick Jaffa

Amanda Silver

Screenplay by: Mark Bomback

Rick Jaffa

Amanda Silver

Based on: Characters created by

Rick Jaffa

Amanda Silver

Suggested by Planet Of The Apes by Pierre Boulle

Starring: Andy Serkis

Jason Clarke

Gary Oldman

Keri Russell

Toby Kebbell

Kodi Smit-McPhee

Music by: Michael Giacchino

Cinematography by: Michael Seresin

Editing by: William Hoy

Stan Salfas

Studio(s): Chernin Entertainment

TSG Entertainment

Distributed by: 20th Century Fox

Release date(s): July 11, 2014 (United States)

July 17, 2014 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 131 minutes

Country: United States

Language(s): English

American Sign Language

Production budget: $170 million

Box-office revenue (as of publication): $451, 633, 624

So, with things back in action, I'm going to keep the ball rolling on this bad boy. On an outside of topic note, currently New Japan Pro Wrestling's annual G1 Climax tournament is going on, and I'd urge anyway who's into wrestling in any shape or form to follow it, because frankly, much as I like WWE's product, I've been more interested in NJPW's output of late. With that being said, this is a movie blog, so, bringing out the usual mantra (drumroll, please!), for all the latest and greatest in the movies, keep your eyes posted!

Today's movie up for review is Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes, the eight film in 20th Century Fox's Planet Of The Apes franchise and sequel to 2011's reboot Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes. Like the Transformers franchise, I have a bit of history with that of the Planet Of The Apes, albeit on far more positive notes than the former. The original film from 1968, based on Pierre Boulle's novel of the same name, is a bona-fide science-fiction classic, a startling depiction of a world turned upside down which, like George A. Romero's Night Of The Living Dead, released the same year, used the genre film format for allegorical means to challenge prevalent ongoing societal issues. The tone is much the same for the film's four sequels, with varying results and quality. Beneath is a very strange and bizarre film which, though decent, doesn't quite nail it the same way the original did, while Escape is a lot more satirical in form, transplanting Zira, Cornelius and Dr. Milo to present day Los Angeles. The sequels hit their darkest and highest point with Conquest, a truly nightmarishly dystopian vision of racial conflict and slavery, but finished on a bum note with Battle, the only film in the series which is truly flat and uninspired. Toys, television series, and twenty-eight years later, Tim Burton's Planet Of The Apes hit the big screens, and while making no dent on the original film, is admirable in it's own way and a whole lot better than people care to remember. Ten years and a lot of technological advances in the film industry later, another film came round in the guise of Rupert Wyatt's Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes. Now, I was the first to start groaning about motion capture and visual effects replacing the traditional make-up designs originated by John Chambers which were such a key part to the series. However, Weta Digital done a terrific job, accentuating the powerful central performance by Andy Serkis (for which he won in 2011 my Kevin Space Award for Best Male Actor in a Leading Role) in the part of Caesar. More so than The Lord Of The Rings, King Kong and Avatar (all done by Weta), Rise made me believe in the power of motion capture technology, with the central protagonist, a non-human ape, being fully understandable and emotionally engaging. Not only that, it was a thought-provoking film with the socio-political commentaries of the original series, and with it's performance at the box-office, successfully rebooted the Apes franchise. Which brings us now to Dawn, so here we go with the story: the ALZ-113 virus has caused the collapse of human civilisation. Ten years after Rise, there is a group of genetically immune humans living in San Francisco, led by Dreyfus (Gary Oldman). One of their other leaders Malcolm (Jason Clarke) encounters a group of apes, led by Caesar (Andy Serkis), who have created an entire community and new generation in the Muir Woods. When one of the apes is shot by Carver (Kirk Acevedo), tensions are created between the apes and man. After retreating, Malcolm leads an expedition to reconcile with the apes in order to gain access to a hydroelectric dam which would restore power to their territory. However, Koba (Toby Kebbell), a bonobo who in the past suffered torture at the hands of humans, bears a grudge after the shooting, and threatens to channel violent dissent against Caesar to lead the apes to war against the humans. Got it? Good!

Starting off with the good, I have to lavish much praise on the interaction between the motion capture acting and the visual effects. Once again, Weta have outdone themselves. With Rise they succeeded in managing to make a non-anthropomorthised character the centre of a picture and have him be completely understandable and engaging. Here, we have a whole society of non-anthropomorthised apes realised with the wondrous harmony of motion capture and visual effects. Andy Serkis is simply terrific again in the part of Caesar. This time round, Serkis does a mighty job of juggling a troubled Caesar who is on the one hand torn between the independence he wishes for his ape compatriots but also his undying love for humanity. His wide range of expressiveness is simply extraordinary, getting across all of the character's internal conflicts, pains and anxieties across with tangible poignancy. The other great performance in the film belongs to Toby Kebbell as Koba. I've made no bones in the past about my fondness for Kebbell and his wide versatility of roles, but this is a tone from his palette we haven't quite seen before. Koba is one bad ape, conspiring in all manners (including getting the ear of Blue Eyes, Caesar's son), but Kebbell is intelligent enough to not let this be simply a two-dimensional villain. Instead, Kebbell portrays Koba's venom towards humans as based on deeply-ingrained trauma. While at times Koba managed to inspire my hate for his actions, Kebbell makes us understand that there's more to this than simple 'ape-good, human-bad' logic. For my money, this is the best performance of a franchise villain since Javier Bardem's Raoul Silva in Skyfall, and for that Kebbell and the effects teams should be commended. Speaking of harmony and visual effects, it seemed to me that just about every other technical department involved with the film worked well with it. The cinematography by Michael Seresin is another strong part of the tapestry. Capturing all of the visual effects in their splendour, it takes an intelligent cinematographer to also ensure that this remains something we can buy into. It's also one of the few Apes movies since the first where the cinematographer plays an active part in telling the story. In the apes' charging of the tower, one of best action sequences I can recall seeing over the past few years, the absolute chaos and wanton destruction sees Seresin do some very interesting things with the camera, including a long-shot of Koba taking over a tank which is a truly amazing bit of work. Editing-wise too, this is a remarkable achievement. It's amazing to think of all the work hours that must have went into the digital composites to make all the images, both real and effects-created, all appear as part of one seamless frame, much less a two-hour feature film. From the story's perspective, the script takes a number of bold and rather daring moves, but in the end I think that it works out. Much of the dialogue(s) between the apes is in American Sign Language, which is made understandable to us non-acquanted viewers by way of subtitles. Knowing there is a general wariness regarding subtitles, it could have went either way. Also, although Caesar was the protagonist of Rise, there were many human characters surrounding him for an audience to sympathise with. Although there are humans here, what we are asked to do is to embrace an entire society of apes, and the screenwriter's more than rewarded me that investment. The story of the apes in Dawn is thoroughly engaging, full of twists and unexpected turns, and makes it feel like a genuine epic in and of itself, much less how it fits into the larger scheme of the franchise. Mark Kermode mentioned recently in his review for Transformers: Age Of Extinction that 'epic' is not a default status that comes with a gut-busting running time: epic denotes not only a certain level of scope, size and scale, but it only feels 'epic' if we have a strong level of emotional investment in the characters. Here, we certainly do. Ty Burr of the Boston Globe referred to Caesar's plight "Shakespearean grandeur," a not unfair comparison, as I do feel that the film parallels Shakespeare the same way The Lion King did Greek tragedy and Hamlet, using allegory and metaphor to great effect. I had a high level of emotional involvement throughout much of the film, and part of that is thanks to strong screenwriting. Another welcome addition to Dawn is series newbie Michael Giacchino, who gives us one of his better scores of recent years. Don't get me wrong, I like Giacchino, always have done, but there've been times where his scores, very much of the classical film scoring school, go too far over onto the other side and end up being The Honking Histrionics and/or Emotional Heartstring Orchestra. Like any good score, what Giacchino does here refuses to overtake the drama, instead accentuating it and elevating it towards greater heights. There are echoes of the old Jerry Goldsmith score with the use of some offbeat tribal instrumentals, which, along with a vocal chorus line, make for an eerie atmosphere of tension and mystery. Also, when the proverbial shit hits the fan, Giacchino is more than able to rack things to eleven, hammering in the carnage onscreen and when the mood is needing to be muted, he's brings it down to a state of minimalist melancholia. Another thing I'd like to praise about Dawn is the overall design of the film. Much attention has been lavished (rightly) on the incredible visual effects, but I think that other departments deserve credit. The budget for this film has been increased by $80 million over that of Rise, and they don't half spend it on creating a suitably post-apocalyptic landscape. Everything in an area approaching urbanity has an aged look about, with weeds, ivy and various flora and fauna growing all over the place, cracks in the walls, ugly tones in the paintwork. The only place that seems to flourish is 'Ape City,' which the apes have made out to be their own sort-of woodland utopia, not that we'd recognise it as utopian, but you get the picture. The overall design of the piece seems to cater towards giving it a whole primal atmosphere, in keeping almost with a Gaian template of nature fighting back against man's crimes against Mother Earth, reaping what they have sowed. Finally, I would like to praise director Matt Reeves for what he brings to the film. While I think Rupert Wyatt did a great job with Rise and certainly deserves credit for laying out the groundwork, I think Reeves has brought to Dawn a greater sense of immediacy and prescience. One does have to wonder could Wyatt have done for Apes what Nolan did for Batman, but Reeves' work on Dawn, while a collaborative effort, is the best of his career (and I'm including his terrific debut feature Cloverfield in that sweeping statement!). I was gripped and emotionally engaged throughout Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes, a film whose two-hour run time flies by like the wind, and is, for my money, the best so far of this year's summer blockbusters. 

Now, as you can tell by the amount of space and words I have spent gushing over it, I loved Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes and think that it is a great movie. However, it is not a masterpiece, and unfortunately I have to get down to the nitty finer points which hinder it from being so. The first of these niggles lies in the fact that once again I am more interested and invested in the story of the apes over the human story, as opposed to being equally interested in each. As such, while I think that Jason Clarke and Gary Oldman bring suitable credibility to their parts (nice to see Clarke in a major blockbuster, and Oldman has a short standout scene halfway through the film), I feel that once again this side of things is underwritten. When tensions rise and the apes have Koba leading the paranoia front, his human equivalent in Carver is a two-dimensional trope that lacks the development you'd expect, especially noticeable when there is a rich cast of memorable characters among the apes. This is just one example out of about four or five underdeveloped characters who exist merely as face within the wider scheme of things. As such, this also has implications with the way in which the film's story is told, especially in the editing suite. Towards the climax of the film, without giving anything away, the plot moves with two separate arcs being told at the same time, so the montage cuts back and forth between one arc and another. Frankly, because of the developments (or lack thereof) earlier and throughout the course of the film, I wound up getting slightly cross any time it cut away from the arc I was more interested in. It was like that situation with the boats in The Dark Knight: I just wanted to see Batman and The Joker duke it out and couldn't care less whether or not the human fodder got blown up or not!

Anyway, while I have my reservations about the film in some regards (which did require that space to explain, incidentally), such the underdeveloped human characters and a number of different issues with the montage storytelling aesthetics, I do think that Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes is right now the best blockbuster of the summer. The harmony between the motion capture acting (particularly Andy Serkis and Toby Kebbell) and the visual effects is breathtaking, with Weta Digital really outdoing themselves in bringing these apes to life. The visual effects also interact well with the terrific cinematography of Michael Seresin, whose work alongside the composite departments must be duly credited. It's a legitimate franchise epic, with some daring and provocative screenwriting ideas, bolstered up by Michael Giacchino's score. Design-wise, it's beautifully realised, and Matt Reeves has delivered his best directorial film to date. I don't think any film has quite reached the heights of the original 1968 Planet Of The Apes, but in my estimation this is as close as we've got so far, and I look forward to see where they go with the franchise after this fine entry into the Apes saga.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 8.8/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Chillin' (before I hit the grind again next week!)

P.S. The 3D skeptic in me was also challenged thoroughly by this movie. Along with Avatar and Gravity, this is one of three movies that you could use to argue for 3D as a legitimate means for storytelling. 

Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes Trailer

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Transformers: Age Of Extinction

Directed by: Michael Bay

Produced by: Don Murphy

Tom DeSanto

Lorenzo di Bonaventura

Ian Bryce

Screenplay by: Ehren Kruger

Based on: Transformers by Hasbro

Starring: Mark Wahlberg

Peter Cullen

Stanley Tucci

Kelsey Grammar

Jack Reynor

Nicola Peltz

Sophia Myles

Li Bingbing

Titus Welliver

T.J. Miller

Music by: Steve Jablonsky

Cinematography by: Amir Mokri

Editing by: Paul Rubell

Roger Barton

William Goldenberg

Studio(s): Paramount Pictures

di Bonaventura Pictures

Hasbro

China Movie Channel

Jiaflix Enterprises

Distributed by: Paramount Pictures

Release date(s): June 26, 2014 (Hong Kong)

June 27, 2014 (United States

July 5, 2014 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 165 minutes

Country(s): United States

China

Language: English

Production budget: $210 million

Box-office revenue (as of publication): $1, 005, 326, 510

Ahoy there sailors, that's me back from another one of my many excursions to be made over the course of the summer. I spent the week in Newcastle's Tipperary Woods by the side of the Mourne Mountains with my Scout troop and had a great time with the boys. Truth be told, even though there's a good bit of work that comes with the responsibility of being a leader in the Scouts, I have gotten as much back over the years, so not only is it a nice break from relative tedium, I'm always grateful for what the Scouting movement has given me in return. Nevertheless, the show must go on, and I've got reviews for this film, Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes and Maleficent to fill out the July reviews, which will be followed by a review for the month, after which I'll dive into as many of August's releases as I can. So, for all the latest and greatest in the movies, keep your eyes posted. 

So, today's film up for review is Transformers: Age Of Extinction, the fourth instalment in what looks like is now going to be at the least a six film live-action film franchise spun off of the Hasbro toys. For those of you who don't know, my good self (I will excuse the self-complimentary gabber for now) and this film series have a bit of history. In 2007, my first year of film reviewing, I found the first Transformers to be a charming surprise, garnering a nom for Most Surprisingly 'Good'/Entertaining Film (losing out to the deliriously fun Die Hard 4.0). Then the second one came along in 2009 and won itself the dubious Ed Wood Award for Worst Film of the Year, an award for which it was wholly deserving in all it's two-and-a-half hour plus running time of loud and excessive boredom (I still refer to it as 'The Robot Movie,' incidentally). Dark Of The Moon was a whole lot less bad and better shot, but still a poor movie, and Michael Bay, (not to make a scapegoat) the one who is to blame for all of this nonsense, was the inaugural inductee to my coveted Hall Of Shame, for his myriad of cinematic crimes (here's looking at the torture chamber of horrors that is Platinum Dunes), a space he shares with no less than Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer. The crux to the Michael Bay problem is that unlike those two heathens he is a genuinely talented action director who has the tools at his disposal to do great things but insists on continuing to produce and direct diabolical rubbish. So, with this new film, Age Of Extinction, Bay has started afresh, bringing a whole new cast into the mix to play new characters in a franchise I have to say I've long been tired of. Story goes that five years after the Battle Of Chicago (Dark Of The Moon's climatic action sequences) all Transformers have been outlawed and the military has a zero-tolerance policy regarding their activity. Cade Yeager (Mark Wahlberg), a struggling inventor and single father to teenage daughter Tessa (Nicola Peltz), discovers with his friend Lucas (T.J. Miller) an old truck that they buy to strip it for parts to sell, money for which will go towards sending Tessa to college. The old truck though is none other than Optimus Prime, and his arrival and alliance with the humans following a CIA unit ambush led by agent Harold Attinger (Kelsey Grammer) leads our heroes, along with Tessa's boyfriend Shane Dyson (Jack Reynor), into another big lambasting adventure. Got it? Good!

Now, I've made no bones in the past about my dislike for this franchise, but I'm going to make it perfectly clear that I went into this (relatively) unbiased and had an open mind. Starting with the good about this film, the change in the cast and characters is a welcome injection of a fresh quality to the franchise. At the centre of the human story, you've got a game Mark Wahlberg, who nearly always seems to have his charisma buttons turned on (as opposed to charisma vacuum Shia LaBeouf), and Stanley Tucci, who lends his talents to play Joshua Joyce, the incredibly narcissistic head of the KSI corporation. Both are seasoned veteran of the acting game and the film benefits greatly from having them on board and at least giving us the impression that they care about the material. Also, as I mentioned regarding Dark Of The Moon, Amir Mokri's cinematography ensures that the movie also looks good. The second film (The Robot Movie) was horribly shot, and when Amir Mokri came in it meant that not only were things at least visible, but also that it was done well, and the case is the same here. It means that we can at least admire the whole point of the movie and that is the visual effects, stunts and production design. All of these are done rather well in this instalment, to the extent that for the first time since the first Transformers in 2007 I was for portions actively enjoying a Transformers movie. Say what you will about Michael Bay (and I will say a lot!), the guy knows how to do action sequences, so that, even if story-wise they don't add up to a lot, I can at least say I admired them as a singular pieces in this whole thing. Speaking of design, while the Transformers themselves are well done, the standout for me was the combination of production design and visual effects that went into the bounty hunter Lockdown's ship. This thing is a twisted, macabre chamber of horrors not dissimilar to something H.R. Giger would have come up with for Alien with it's dark, dank corridors and rooms full of a combination of jutting edges with a strangely symmetrical feel. It's unusual seeing something so distinctly nightmarish in what is essentially meant to be a kid's movie, but it was among a number of welcome surprises that Age Of Extinction gave me.

Yes, I had a number of good things to say about a Transformers movie, woop woop! It's a cause celebre! Well, I won't be eating my shoe yet, because even though there were things that I liked and admired about Age Of Extinction, there was a fair bit more that I didn't. First and foremost of the film's problems is, yep, you guessed it, the script, for while Age Of Extinction has it's moments, they don't all add up to much. For starters, while there is a strong enough cast at the front of this, none of the characters are given any depth or legitimacy that would make me credibly believe in their characters. They're all made up of fairly simple-minded cliches designed in a marketing package to tick all boxes; the central character is a widower, we have a token hippy/stoner/comic humour trope (an insultingly poor character), the daughter is going through a secret period of teenage rebellion, and her boyfriend's Irish so he ticks the racial box, it all seems a little convenient, doesn't it? Also, there's a lot of dialogue in the movie regarding the history of the Transformers and their related phenomena which unfortunately serves to be a lot sleep-inducing wiffle waffle designed specifically for the purposes of hypnotising the audience into thinking something profound is at work here. This is all once again disappointing work from series stalwart Ehren Kruger, who made such a promising start to his career with the wholly underrated Jeff Bridges/Tim Robbins psychological thriller Arlington Road. Also, though I think there is blame to be split here, there really is no need for this film's excessive running time of 165 minutes. Kruger really needs to cut back on the basil expository nonsense, which really sees the movie drag itself limply along for the last hour, and just get back to basics: this film could have been done in under two hours and we'd be none the less wise to everything that went on. Not helping facts is that it is a poorly edited movie with nearly every scene, never mind sequence, drawn out way past the end of the line. There are three editors credited as having worked on this film, but instead of a team who pools their collective resources to the benefit of the bigger picture, instead their work sees that the film lacks a fluidity, remaining consistently inconsistent, jumping back and forth between various paralleling action scenes, spending long times digressing with the expository hoo-ha etc etc. To me, if you're going to ask that an audience dedicates nearly three hours of their time and spend their hard-earned money to fill up multiplexes, you've got to give them something more than this. Give us something like The Good, The Bad And The Ugly, The Lord Of The Rings films, Terminator 2: Judgment Day or Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy and Inception, you've really got to go the extra mile when you spend that much money on a movie and demand the audience's attention that much, and unfortunately, Age Of Extinction just doesn't make the cut. Speaking of the extra mile, Steve Jablonsky goes about ten too many with his musical score. In between the crashes, bangs and explosions, we are subjected to the honking histrionics of Jablonsky's brass orchestra, which sounds like the aural mutant spawn of martial music and the kind of vainglorious nonsense you find in those 'Inspirational' videos that are a strange trend known only to YouTube. To think that this man is a graduate of Remote Control Productions and was mentored by the great Hans Zimmer is at times hard to comprehend. This is sonically repugnant work, and I don't get how many people think this good music, because it's about as far removed from good music as David Bowie is from Chris Brown. It's full of that 'feel music' baloney, with swells, fanfares and cascades designed to tell the audience how they should react to something; no thank you, I have a brain and I know when I'm being talked down to! Which brings me to Michael Bay. I remember growing up a cineaste and watching many of Bay's movies, such as The Rock and Bad Boys, as part of Jerry Bruckheimer's school of action movies, and thinking "this guy's got talent." In the case of Age Of Extinction, unfortunately, once again, as he has done for much of the past decade-and-a-half, Bay has squandered that talent to produce lacklustre work that is only designed for the express purpose of worshipping The Almighty Dollar. Notwithstanding the excessive amount of advertising and product placement (I counted Budweiser, Tom Ford, Gucci, Ray Bans, a whole scene involving Bud Light and no less than ten products from China, many of whom were unhappy at their prominent inclusions in the film for being not blatant enough!), there is a stinkingly corporate, capitalistic heart at the centre of this which takes away from any credibility this could have had as a serious film. While I can't get as actively angry about this as I have about other Transformers films, Age Of Extinction is still a much less than satisfactory experience.

Overall critical reception to this latest Transformers has not been pleasant to say the least. Presently, it sits at 18% on Rotten Tomatoes, the lowest rating for the series to date on critical consensus. However, it has made over a billion dollars worldwide, so I doubt that Bay and company are going to lose any sleep in the comfort of their king-sized beds in their villas on Miami Beach or some place of the like. From my perspective, while I found things to admire about Age Of Extinction, namely Wahlberg and Tucci's performances, the cinematography, the production design, stunts and visual effects (I can also confidently say it's the best of the Transformers sequels), I still found this to be a poor movie. For $210 million, you expect more than a movie with a horrible script full of cardboard cutout characters, cliches and expository nonsense which, in conjunction with the consistently inconsistent editing, make this a particularly long expenditure of 165 minutes of your life. In between the overly loud sound effects, we have the overly loud honking histrionics of Steve Jablonsky and his brass orchestra, and when I was given any space to breath or think, I couldn't help but think how low Michael Bay has become since he sold his talents out to unworthy causes. 

On a side note, although I don't know how much of this can be attributed to Transformers: Age Of Extinction (wink wink!), I was violently sick when I got home, so be wary, filmgoers, be wary!

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 3.9/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Relaxed (nice to be home and chillin')

Transformers: Age Of Extinction Trailer

 

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Mrs. Brown's Boys D'Movie

Directed by: Ben Kellett

Produced by: Stephen McCrum

Brendan O'Carroll

Screenplay by: Brendan O'Carroll

Based on: Mrs. Brown's Boys by Brendan O'Carroll

Starring: Brendan O'Carroll

Eilish O'Carroll

Nick Nevern

Paddy Houlihan

Fiona O'Carroll

Jennifer Gibney

Sorcha Cusack

Keith Duffy

Danny O'Carroll

Amanda Woods

Chris Patrick-Simpson

Robert Bathurst

Dermot Crowley

Gary Hollywood

Music by: Andy O'Callaghan

Cinematography by: Martin Hawkins

Editing by: Mark Lawrence

Studio(s): That's Nice Films

Penalty Kick Films

BocFlix

BBC Films

Distributed by: Universal Pictures

Release date(s): June 27, 2014 (United Kingdom & Ireland)

Running time: 94 minutes

Country(s): Ireland

United Kingdom

Language: English

Production budget: £3.6 million

Box-office revenue (as of publication): £13, 263, 304

Rightio, so, for a change I've actually been able to keep to my promises and see all of the big movies at the box-office that I said I would, so be expecting reviews coming in for both the new Transformers and Planet Of The Apes movies. Seeing the latter was a nice piece of happenstance, as the Northern Ireland release date for Richard Linklater's Boyhood was pushed back a week, so I got to see that yesterday at the Odyssey. Also, seeing as how I haven't got to see to much recently, I'm going to try and get at least one more in (probably Maleficent) to fill out the month. So, for all the latest and greatest regarding the movies, keep your eyes posted!

Up for review here is Mrs. Brown's Boys D'Movie. For those of you who don't know (and there's a chance you mightn't, seeing as Mrs. Brown is very much a regional comedic act), the television sitcom Mrs. Brown's Boys, despite negative response from critics, is a big success in the ratings, drawing huge numbers in both Ireland (where it is based and produced) and throughout the United Kingdom. My own personal experiences of the Mrs. Brown phenomenon is having worked a run of live performances by Brendan O'Carroll's troupe of actors largely consisting of relatives and friends at the Odyssey Arena, and yes, while I was working, I'll admit to finding it slightly humorous. So, Agnes Brown's adventure to the big screen is the natural progression to be expected, right? The critical response was overwhelmingly negative, even more so than the TV show, and yet it topped the UK box-office for two weeks, grossed over £20 million off of it's £3.6 million budget. It took Transformers: Age Of Extinction to knock this off the number one spot, that's how popular this foul-mouthed old woman from Dublin, played by a man in drag no less, is over here! Originally, I was meant to see it with my work colleagues, but my end of it didn't materialise unfortunately (working the next festival with them, I was told "all the funny bits are in the trailer," which ain't no glowing recommendation), and then I tried to arrange something with my good friend at Danland Movies, who made a steadfast refusal to go on account of the TV show, saying "I have a high threshold for bullshit," but ninety minutes of Mrs. Brown would be too much. So, on my lonesome I went to see Mrs. Brown's Boys D'Movie, plot synopsis please!: Agnes Brown (Brendan O'Carroll) runs a fruit and vegetable stall down in Dublin's Moore Street market, and when she is sent an unpaid tax bill for ninety-six Irish pounds (the 'punt' as it used to be known in Irish down South) left by her grandmother, which, she is reliably informed has inflated to the sum of €3.8 million. With this tax bill hanging over her, and threat coming in the form of P.R. Irwin (Dermot Crowley), an MP, his Russian business associate and his hired goons, will Mrs. Brown and the whole gang from the TV series be able to raise the money or find some way to eradicate her tax bill and ensure that she can keep her stall? Let's see!

I just want to make it clear right from the bat that this is abominably stupid humour that is shades of a non-satirical When The Whistle Blows from Extras. However, while I don't think this is by any means a great movie, or even a half-ways decent movie, there are things that I enjoyed about it. Maybe it's because my own personal threshold for stupidity includes ultra-violent borderline homo-erotic 80s action movies and a penchant for finding humour in old woman. After all, the misadventures of Hyacinth Bucket in Keeping Up Appearances ranks among my favourite television series, and I always seem to latch onto these characters like Edith Evans' Lady Bracknell in The Importance Of Being Earnest, so the fact that I find a semblance of humour in Mrs. Brown's Boys D'Movie isn't too much of a stretch. Bernice Harrison of The Irish Times said regarding the series that "the whole thing is entirely predicated on viewers finding a man dressed as a foul-mouthed elderly woman intrinsically funny:" well, call me an idiot, for while I don't count myself among the show's viewership, I do find that funny. Brendan O'Carroll's Agnes Brown is an amusing character, and thankfully they manage to retain that and ensure that the character itself at least is done justice. O'Carroll seems be at his strongest, both from an acting and writing standpoint, when surrounded by his fictional and real-life family and friends. I must admit to finding myself slightly amused at certain parts in the movie, most of them involving Mrs. Brown and her antics, which probably says as much about me as it does the movie. At risk of making myself sound like I'm clutching for straws, I've thought about recently what makes a really bad movie, what makes it go from being a bad movie to a hideous, a repugnant movie, and at least where my barometer is concerned, I believe that I have to feel an active hostility, the work in question bringing to mind emotions of venom. For instance, I saw Tammy there, and while it sucks, I couldn't get actively angry, and even though I know Mrs. Brown's Boys D'Movie is terrible, the same could be said, but more so, that I found it vaguely amusing is a plus in it's favour.

That said, it isn't enough of a plus in the movie's favour, because, as the old saying goes, "you can put lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig." While I could perhaps watch Mrs. Brown's Boys in digestible (relatively speaking) twenty-thirty minute chunks, at ninety minutes this at times does get thoroughly nauseating. It's not because of issues with Mrs. Brown's Boys by default, but because frankly Brendan O'Carroll does not have enough or appropriate material to make a half-ways decent feature-length film. The central premise, which ends up involving the gang trying to smuggle Mrs. Brown's grandmother's tax payment receipt out of a public records office because of various mis-happenings (including an even older woman getting hit by a bus, a receptionist who won't get off her telephone headset thingimijig and Buster and Dermy making arses of themselves), is so wafer thin that even if it was edible it'd hard to imagine that anything of substance went down your throat. Also, although O'Carroll is obviously trying to make it bigger (after all, "this is D'Movie," as Mrs. Brown is wont to say), the inclusion of these new characters and trying to make them fit the story is horrible. I'm not even going to get stuck into the racial implications behind Mr. Wang, a character so stupid that it'd be too great a service to even get offended by it (same can be said for the Indian man who everyone thinks is Jamaican), but the primary heavy villains, a group of Russian mobsters, are completely without any semblance of tension and bring absolutely nothing to the table. I'm sorry, but when you can't hit a target as inconspicuous as Mrs. Brown and then stand there continuing to shoot your empty gun about five or six times with your hair slicked back and a mug like a podgy Kurt Russell, you ain't going to convince me that you're a figure worthy of any level of intimidation. Furthermore, Cathy, the character of Jennifer Gibney (O'Carroll's real-life wife) has one of the most wince-inducing 'inspirational speeches' I've seen in a good bit. I would say it was worse than God Is Dead, but the fact is is that God Is Dead consisted largely of speeches being spewed out at me, and in this case, however banal, there was at least only one. It'll be on YouTube at some point no doubt, but look up the title of this movie with 'Cathy's Speech' or 'This Is Dubin' and try not to grimace. G'wan, I dare you! Also, while there a number of other things wrong with this, the other major problem is that it sounds like shite, to be frank. I don't know if that's down to the same crew on the TV show not being used to location shooting as opposed to a sound stage before a live audience, but some of the stuff with mic's is like Lina Lamont in Singin' In The Rain. There's an outdoor scene with a discussion between the two main antagonists in what seems to be a landfill, and you can't hear most of the conversation behind them because there's a lorry driving slowly past behind them. Also, the editing done indoors has the sound either floating off into the space of the room, becoming inaudible through gradually descending volume or bouncing off the walls like they're an echo chamber. NEWS FLASH, to the live sound crew, there's a thing called directional microphones and appropriating figuring out acoustics, to the sound/editing suite, it's called equalisation. 

What save Mrs. Brown's Boys D'Movie from being an absolute stinker in my eyes is because I think it is one of those movies that does have be taken with a pinch of salt. Don't get me wrong, it is utter stupidity in the highest order, but I'd be a liar if I didn't laugh a bit throughout the thing at the happenings of the central character. If that makes me one of those idiots who finds "a foul-mouthed elderly woman intrinsically funny," then so be it. However, don't let it be forgotten that this is still for all intents and purposes a pile of cack. Twenty-thirty minutes at a time of Agnes Brown is enough, because unlike the stage show O'Carroll has not written enough plot to string together a half-ways decent movie, along with new characters that are just filler and bring nothing to the table either from the side of dramatic tension or that of humour. Also, the movie sounds horrendous, with conversations outdoors being obscured by activity going on in the background and indoors jostling between sounding like echo chambers and limitless voids into the abyss. I would personally pay to see (or sacrifice an arm and a leg in some alchemical experiment gone wrong?) what the late Alan Splet could have done with this sound-wise, an experiment which would have been more interesting than the movie in itself. I can't get actively hostile here, but it's still a pile of poop.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 4.1/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Busy (tight schedule next day or two)

Mrs. Brown's Boys D'Movie Trailer

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Begin Again

Directed by: John Carney

Produced by: Anthony Bregman

Tobin Armbrust

Judd Apatow

Screenplay by: John Carney

Starring: Keira Knightley

Mark Ruffalo

Adam Levine

Hailee Steinfeld

James Corden

CeeLo Green

Mos Def

Catherine Keener

Music by: Gregg Alexander

Cinematography by: Yaron Orbach

Editing by: Andrew Marcus

Studio(s): Exclusive Media

Likely Story

Distributed by: The Weinstein Company

Release date(s): September 7, 2013 (TIFF, Premiere)

July 11, 2014 (United States and United Kingdom)

Running time: 104 minutes

Country: United States

Language: English

Production budget: N/A

Box-office revenue (as of publication): $14, 124, 922

Well, it seems that thus far I have managed to keep up with at least one of the three movies that I said I would see in the coming week: on Friday I went to my local The Strand to see Mrs. Brown's Boys D'Movie, a review for which will follow this one. Apart from that, I haven't been up to a whole lot, and frankly that's okay considering the glut of work I had before my week off. It's been nice to actually spend a weekend at home for the first time since the start of the summer. I watched Looper there and I have to say it was a shame I didn't see it when it came, because it was an absolutely cracking genre flick right up my alley. Anywho, for all the latest and greatest regarding the movies, keep your eyes posted!

Today's movie up for review is Begin Again, which was formerly known under the title Can A Song Save Your Life? The film is directed by John Carney, who is best known for helming 2007's spellbinding Once, a true example if ever there was one of an independent film and frankly one of the finest films in it's decade of release. Not to try and suggest too much of a similarity between Begin Again and his previous film, Carney's latest is a spiritual successor of sorts, at least where topic matter and thematic content is concerned: Dan Mulligan (Mark Ruffalo) is a troubled man, recently fired from his long-time job as an executive at a record label he helped found, and while on the lash at a bar, becomes entranced with the talents of Gretta (Keira Knightley) a young independent songwriter at an open-mic night. Dan, despite his being fired, offers to sign her to his label, but she refuses to compromise her artistry, and instead the two hatch a plan, in cooperation with various musical contacts that both have, to produce and record their own album in various different locations throughout New York City. Comprende? Good!

Starting with the good regarding Begin Again, compliments are in due order for the film's two leads. Over the years, Keira Knightley has grown on me as an actor, and once again she proves herself a formidable talent and screen presence. Her performance here as Gretta is another part on the weave of her CV, showcasing a complex character capable of moments of both true strength and honest vulnerability. In what could have been a hugely idealistic part, Knightley never overdoes anything and plays it just right. The same can be said for Mark Ruffalo's Dan, who could have been the humorous klutz the marketing and trailers make him out to be, but with Ruffalo's ability to tap into the humanity of his characters, Dan too is revealed to be someone suffering from real emotional fragility. Ruffalo does a solid balancing act between playing that fine line between comedy and drama. Also, for a movie with music at the centre of it all, you'd like to think that the songs written for the picture were good, and thankfully they are indeed. There's a variety of songwriters involved here (including Gregg Alexander, Danielle Brisebois, Nick Lashley, Nick Southwood, Rick Nowels, Glen Hansard, director John Carney, and CeeLo Green and Adam Levine, both of whom have acting parts in the film), however, despite the numerous different artists, crucially it does feel as though it is part of one unified voice. From a performance standpoint, both Adam Levine and Keira Knightley do some fine work with these songs. With respect to Levine though, this is his bread and butter, while Knightley could have easily went the long-tried and tested route of miming with overdubs in a singing voice, but she's made it completely her own and succeeded in this regard. Also, though I won't be getting too much into this, it's a nice looking movie, but works at it's best when shot a la verite on the streets on location throughout different parts of New York City. Where Begin Again is at it's best is when gets down to the crux with these characters at the forefront. As a writer and director, that too is what John Carney does best. Carney just seems to bring with him this empathetic understanding of human emotions, particularly those associated with melancholic romanticism, such as heartache, trauma, turmoil and determined courage in the face of great trial(s). This, combined with his ear for believable dialogue, are what makes Begin Again, a film that on the surface could be dismissed as mush, an endearing charmer, even if it ain't perfect...

(I have to use "ain't perfect" instead of "ain't chopped liver" these days. Being a veggie now it sounds inappropriate to talk about meat that way!) ...which segues me in a way into what I find wrong with the movie. I like this movie a good bit, but it has to be done. The first thing I'd like to make reference to is the fact that the film does make use of these long sequences chopping back and forth between the film's timeline, and as such the first half of the film is largely non-linear. Now, I have no problem with non-linear, but the film reverts in the second half back to linear format and you can't help but thinking "what was the point there?" Also, there's an ensemble feel to the lineup of characters in the movie, and yet though Carney has an ear for dialogue and understanding of people, some of the characters don't strike me as particularly engaging or sympathetic. In particular, Adam Levine's character, who admittedly is a bit of a douche, is meant to be some kind of metaphor for the perils of fame and how damaging it can be on people's relationships. I never bought into that arc as something particularly plausible, not that it can't happen, but you don't see people just transform overnight like that. The same can be said for other characters, such as James Corden's Steve, who only gets over because Corden actually manages to make him slightly endearing, but in fact he's a relatively two-dimensional critter at heart.

As I said, I did have those issues with the film involving plot inconsistencies and some of the characters, which meant (I hate to keep flagging this up) I didn't connect to it in the same way as Once, but Begin Again is still as a whole a very good movie. We've got two fine lead performance from Keira Knightley and Mark Ruffalo, the songs and performances of them are terrific, it's a well-shot movie, especially when it's done a la verite on the streets of New York City. Finally, even with it's problems, Begin Again displays director John Carney's ear for dialogue and an empathetic understanding for human emotions. Begin Again could have been mush, but I found it an endearing and rather enjoyable film.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 7.3/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Hot (this week has been roasting heat-wise!)

Begin Again Trailer

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Tammy

Directed by: Ben Falcone

Produced by: Melissa McCarthy

Will Ferrell

Adam McKay

Screenplay by: Ben Falcone

Melissa McCarthy

Starring: Melissa McCarthy

Susan Sarandon

Kathy Bates

Allison Janney

Dan Aykroyd

Gary Cole

Sandra Oh

Mark Duplass

Toni Collette

Nat Faxon

Ben Falcone

Sarah Baker

Music by: Michael Andrews

Cinematography by: Russ T. Alsobrook

Editing by: Michael L. Sale

Studio(s): New Line Cinema

Gary Sanchez Productions

Distributed by: Warner Bros. Pictures

Release date(s): July 2, 2014 (United States)

July 4, 2014 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 96 minutes

Country: United States

Language: English

Production budget: $20 million

Box-office revenue (as of publication): $72, 078, 000

And so, with June out of the way, I think nearly three weeks in it's about time I get the show on the road and get on with my reviews for July. This is going to be a busy wee period for the movies, so while I can only guarantee so far a review for this and Begin Again, I fully intend on getting round to seeing Mrs. Brown's Boys: D'Movie, Transformers: Age Of Extinction, Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes and more. Also, on an off-topic matter, I'm reading Franz Kafka's The Trial and despite starting yesterday already a hundred pages plus into it. Kafka is one of my literary masters, one of the very few writers with a style that is distinctly his own and more or less impossible to replicate. Idiosyncratic, full of complex and challenging thematic content, Kafka is always a pleasure to read. There are many that I admire in the arts, but there are less in that number who I count as genuine influences on my own craft: from the standpoint of literature, Kafka would be right up there, and as far as my plans for the future, I would love to adapt some of his work. Anywho, enough of my gushing about Franz!: for all the latest and greatest regarding the movies, keep your eyes posted!

So, today's movie up for review is Tammy, the latest in the recent line of star vehicles for Melissa McCarthy. I don't care what anyone else says, but after her turn in Bridesmaids (which garnered her a deserved Best Supporting Actress Oscar nod) and the box-office successes of Identity Thief and The Heat, McCarthy has made the transition to that of a bona-fide star with marketable name value. There aren't many comics with that ability to draw the numbers, but clearly McCarthy's brand of comedy (loud and gregarious foul-mouthed everywoman dialled up to twenty) sells. Tammy is very much a family affair, given that she and husband Ben Falcone (who makes his feature directorial debut) share screenwriting credit, she is the star and he has a small supporting role and she is also one of the producers (alongside Will Ferrell and Adam McKay). So, story goes that Tammy (Melissa McCarthy) is fired for consistently showing up to work late, and after her car dies on the way home, she returns to find her husband Greg (Nat Faxon) having a romantic dinner with their next-door neighbour (Toni Collette). She leaves him, telling her mother (Allison Janney) about her plans to hit the road and, taking her grandmother Pearl (Susan Sarandon), plus her car, savings and beer, the two go on a bit of a strange road trip. Got it? Good!

Starting with the good regarding Tammy, I do have to say that I like Melissa McCarthy as a comedic talent. There's a reason people are lapping up this stuff and paying their hard-earned money to see this stuff, and that's because McCarthy does have a charm. Also, it's obvious that this extends to above and beyond her ability to draw an audience, because judging from the ensemble cast here, there's a whole line of people just waiting to work with her. You've got Susan Sarandon, Kathy Bates, Dan Aykroyd, Sandra Oh, Mark Duplass, Toni Collette, a whole bevy of talented actors who signed up to this movie, and even if their parts aren't anything particularly special, it's nice to see them there. In fairness, Susan Sarandon, although the character's a second-rate version of Alan Arkin's Grandpa Hoover in Little Miss Sunshine, is clearly giving it stacks to try and get the film over, using her wealth of experience to try to sell us on the chemistry and relationship between Tammy and Pearl. Finally, I do have to say that although they are few and far between, there are a number of good gags in Tammy. Little things such as the title character leaving her husband, declaring her independence (cute play on the tagline, eh?), only to walk two doors down the street to her mother's house. If the movie had more moments like this it certainly would have elevated it above the standard of work we are presented.

If it looked like I was perhaps trying to make space for what I thought was good about Tammy, it probably was because I did. However, much as I do think highly of Melissa McCarthy, after Tammy, I'm going to be taking her work with a pinch of salt, because this was a rubbish comedy. As I said, you've got all these talented people clamouring to work with McCarthy, and while I don't like to presume, I find it hard to believe that they all read that script and said "this is a great bit of work, let's do this," because it's a horrible script. It doesn't have to be Shakespeare, Chekhov or Ibsen, but it isn't even a half-decent script, it's just rotten. For all intents and purposes, genre-wise it appears to be a road movie in the vein of something like Rain Man (though nowhere near as dramatic or entertaining), but the problem is is that there doesn't seem to be any consistency in what these characters do. All it is a mish-mish of bits without any real link to it all, and this is all supposed to be under the guise of some sort of female empowerment and declaring independence from society's male-imposed shackles: I'm sorry, but what the hell does robbing a fast food restaurant have to do with all this? Also, there comes a point in the film at a Fourth of July party celebration and aftermath in which there is supposed to be a sort-of underlying point to all this, a message to be delivered by way of the protagonist finally waking up to the fact that she has been running away her whole life and she needs to take responsibility for herself. However, the plot device (which I won't say, because it involves spoilers) used to get this across is completely botched with that whole "we'll tease you with some real dramatic tension, but then we'll go 'hey, it's all okay!' just to mess around with you" schtick, and it just destroys any chance the film has at legitimate resonance. Also, as I said, the characters are by no means anything special on paper, so even these seasoned veterans are exposed as quite clearly phoning it in and not really doing much to contribute to the film apart from simply being there as part of the wallpaper. I went to see this with my good friend over at Danland Movies (who has published a less belated and rather eloquent review for this film) and we were both near aghast in horror when I made the mistake of referring to my watch, discovering we were only about fifty minutes in. When I went and took my obligatory trip to the toilet, I asked a member of staff what the running time was, and nearly could have kissed him when he said it was just over ninety minutes, because I don't think I could have stood two whole hours of this. Don't get me wrong, Tammy's not an outrageously bad film by any stretch, but when you're not enjoying a movie you feel every minute, so the short running time here was a saving grace alright.

Saying that Tammy isn't an absolutely terrible comedy ain't exactly a glowing recommendation, but I'd be dishonest if I said otherwise. Perhaps there are people out there who will eat this up (and judging by the box-office receipts, though less than most of her other movies, it seems there is), but I didn't find much to go on here. I don't know if you could call this a passion project or what, but it's obvious that while McCarthy has talent, she does need to reigned in and have someone there who can objectively say to her and husband Ben Falcone that their script is utter tripe. I have no doubt that there could be good collaborative work here in the future. However, with episodes of mish-mash and balderdash, dulled underlying messages and a whole lot of other things I'm sure I'm missing because the movie is too stupid to get it across appropriately, Tammy is not McCarthy's vehicle to set the world on fire.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 3.4/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Pondering (the finale of The Shield. Finished one of my all-time favourite television series last night. I was spellbound by the haunting ending.)

Tammy Trailer

Danland Movies' Review of Tammy