Like a Good Neighbor: Neighbors Review

NO SPOILERS BTW!!!

Weed. Bro humor. Slapstick. The three essentials to a Seth Rogen movie. Let’s face it, it would not be a Seth Rogen movie without it; despite This is The End being a summer smash hit, we’re still loathing in apprehension about the aftermath of the Green Hornet. (I heard Seth Rogen single handed-ly deleted every meme from the internet, BUT WHAT ABOUT THOSE GIF'S THOUGH?!?!)

Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg have a keen knack for writing a stellar comedy; Rogen’s strength lies in his pen (insert Pen is Mightier than the Sword reference, or typical Seth Rogen joke and re-read after “insert” and delete the space between Pen and is) and his natural Will-Ferrell-esque ability to command onscreen attention without saying a line. However by me saying that, it was not Seth Rogen who took the final shot in the fourth quarter. 

That’s right; Seth Rogen was methodically outdone by his supporting cast. For starters Rose Byrne (more recently known for Insidious), playing Rogen’s wife in Neighbors, went blow for blow (spare me the indecent, cheap sexual innuendo) with Rogen throughout the whole movie. As an actress, Rose Byrne is solid and generally plays her characters well (I am not reducing her into merely a character actress) and I’m sure she has done some fine stage work. 

In Neighbors, she almost effortlessly improvises well enough to suggest a career in cinema comedies. I say that ashamedly, because I honestly thought that she was miscast for this role; I felt as though Leslie Mann would have been a more comedic-familiar face, especially since she’s done work with Rogen in Knocked Up and Funny People (age may have been a factor but don’t tell her that, or it would've been somewhat reminiscent of a “This is 40” feel). Ultimately, my bad Miss Byrne you did a fantastic job and surprised the jakes out of me. 

Next up is Lil Franco; yeah Dave Franco, the outrageous yet talented James Franco's younger brother, does his best mellow Dave Franco impression (laid back, yet introverted-ly spastic, with a intrepid delivery that has the potential to turn any punch line into a knockout) as he adds his bro-medic flair to the party. Franco is "lights out" as a wing-man, as he serves as a change of pace character to his counterpart. 

Another fresh face is Jerrod Carmichael who is the oddball in the whole equation but in a good way; he’s passively naive and has the comedic delivery of a seasoned Dave Chappelle apostle (since all black people look alike, he kind of looks like him too). 

To round out my starting five, I introduce, in my opinion, the star of the show; the elusive assassin two-guard; the headliner at Lollapalooza; Zachary “High School Musical” Efron. Zac Efron, in my opinion, was the main event of this production, channeling his inner 21 Jump Street Channing Tatum, Pain & Gain Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, jock with a soft side to deliver possibly the best comedic performance of his young, and hopefully bright comedic career PUSH IT PUSH IT, TO THE LIMIT LIMIT!!! 

Technical foul

Now, I may have pushed pass my limit in saying that Seth Rogen got upstaged left; I mean, he kind of wrote the screenplay for the movie.  So, technically, he’s writing jokes and punch lines for his supporting cast; he’s throwing dimes; he’s located in a remote location somewhere in the world representing OnStar; he’s like a good neighbor (nice Segway). 

Watching Seth Rogen pitter patter throughout his transcendent, simplistic, genuine, comedic screenplay without contributing a hefty amount of onscreen yuck’s to my yuck tank was like watching Boston Batman being pallid and unremarkable in BOTH The Town and Argo; two astonishing movies, that are directed and written in such a manner that would make John Huston proud. 

Hold your horses, I say transcendent because (well I love the word, duh) this movie is introduced as a suburban battle between neighbors; the movie transforms into a generational struggle, with the two parties compromising their established values to progress. The movie further dives into a bilateral expose by highlighting the inner conflict within the two factions; eventually, the film rounds out to a complete comedy, with a 4^th of July-like ending.  

With that said, Seth Rogen surfaces as the Wizard of Oz (paying homage to his buddy James Franco) by being the mastermind behind the curtain, and helms the pen with wit and ingenuity to maneuver a vehicle effectively, and by effectively I mean box-office bullying and critical acclaiming (for the second summer in a row, after an interesting five year comedic flop/acting chop development journey), while at the same time not being all what he’s exactly cracked up to as an Yucknited States Postal Service deliveryman, like his supporting cast undoubtedly were. 

Ultimately, if you haven’t seen it by now, definitely go see it this weekend if you are looking for your monthly yuck’s, because this movie is a very balanced, well rounded comedy, drawing inspiration from comedy reaching from the 60’s physical comedy to the present “just-go-with-it-improv’ comedy (especially if you’re in the male age demographic of 18-35); plus, I'm 50/50 (ha, pun intended) on how good the other Seth's movie will be (although, Ted was a surprise hit, lol).

Outside of that demographic, I honestly feel that this movie has key movements that even an untrained ear could detect and enjoy; the dynamics within the neighbor factions is an interesting dynamic that has enough material and depth to support a standalone movie. 

The Efron/Franco universe felt “21 & Over/Superbad” (another Seth Rogen penning)-ish, and the banter between Rogen and Byrne felt as though they shot another spin-off to Knocked Up (it was very “This is 40”-ish). By no means am I saying that the movie would have been enhanced by splitting them up, Mr. Starks; I am saying it would be interesting to see them focus solely on these story lines.

Sooooo, like I said earlier I’d go see it this weekend if you want to be entertained and enjoy yourself via penis humor (cockloads of them) and slapdick, excuse me, slapstick humor; and if you are skeptical about Seth MacFarlane's second outing, and need an Old School'd laugh; (MacFarlane plays heavily on shock-value humor and references (which is something that I enjoy; however, you may not enjoy this) so it's not say don't go see his movie).

Out in theaters..TODAY, you should g(WHAT A MINUTE!!! #familyguyjoke)

For a summer comedy, I would give it an A+, but for a movie I'd give it a C+ because it doesn't develop characters well (for example, Fogel (yes, I said Fogel) was underutilized) and it kind of just dwindled away pallidly at the end; this averages it out to a B+ overall. B+ for the 'burbs ain't bad for a bro-comedy; hopefully sorority girls don't move in next door **wacka wacka** sequel anyone?!?!

X-cutioner Style: Days of Future Past Review

NO MAJOR PLOT SPOILERS!!!!

On its knees knelt, on its last stand, the "present" and initial vehicle of the X-men franchise. With its back to the wall and seemingly devoid of any oxygen to utter it's last breath, a tourniquet of some sorts arrived in the form of a spin off.

As we both know, tourniquets only temporarily ease the problem and once again, there is a bullet 2 seconds from being in its head. Then a blast from the past arrives like Brendan Frasier in `99 and the gun jams, giving the X-men enough time to regroup, and us enough time to go to the bathroom.

Back on death row, we return to see the X-men on its last stand, now wasting material, thirsting for relevance, and we can't help but to wonder how in the Raven-Kurt-Hank blue Hell are they going to get out of this one.

But just as the trigger is being pulled, and the bullet is being relieved from its chamber, nothingness occurs. Existence disapparates (check your Magical Terms for Dummies book); it ceases to exist, or does it? Did this wonky-eyed situation really ameliorate or did Nightcrawler abscond with Time itself, like he did with my head?

Well, I think the camp at Fox would like you to think or at least believe as though nothing occurred in this apologetic production. But the fact of the matter is, it did occur; X-men The Last Stand DID happen; it was that one night that you wish you could have back; the three that you thought was an eight due to your beer goggles, the same night Bryan Singer turned his back on the franchise, and consequently his ace pilot, to go home with his ex, with whom he only got to second base with because of her subscription to Mother Nature Monthly...I'm sure she knew.

Cyclops reincarnated into "this" guy

I'm very impressed with Mrs. Donner as a producer and no one in this blogospgere or vast space that which we do not have a complete grasp on yet (insert net neutrality quip here) can tell me that this was not a ploy; they can't tell me that She did not consciously sit down and ponder over the Rita-like aftermath of her third X-men stepchild, searching for an alternative or "way out".

THIS porcupine is Kid Omega?!?! I guess I'm Spiderman

Well she found it in this X-men Something Something Time Travel movie, based off of probably one of my top five favorite X-men story arcs, Days of Future Past (The Hunt for Xavier, House of M, Age of Apocalypse **daily double**, and Necrosha are the other four).

However, if for S's & G's (shits & giggles) we were counting (which I'm not), then this would technically be the franchise's third mulligan.

They received one for The Last Stand (finally atoning for its sins) and then another one for Wolverine Origins (rebooting that into The Wolverine), and another unbeknownst mulligan for botching and back-burning the production of the Magneto: Origins (somewhere David Goyer wails); it's so hard to get a movie made about you.

But wait there's more, not only did the movie attempt to right it's wrongs, but it essentially wronged it's rights. In comparison to the other X-men movies, this is the first one with an actual purpose but where it made up in actual direction, it lacked in direction. Wait? What? Yes, I absolutely mean Bryan Singer had a rather heavy hand, and (I know this isn't his department) the editing made it look heavier.

Like Mystique, the film limped and limped with a sallow demeanor; the events were lain out rather lazily, correcting itself at the end but the rising phase was a snoozer without much density, in my opinion; I was left wanting a little more substance with less shooting in each scene, as they lily-padded throughout the movie.

These are not tears of joy

Now that's not to say that the movie didn't have substance; the material that was covered in the film was substantial as far as quantity, it's just I'm more so bothered by the quality displayed with the source material and the characters within the medium; if you can't read between the lines, I'm currently scalping the writers.

On the operating table, the writers lie, anesthetized (this isn't Saw, geez), as a formaldehyde drenched swine on its last oink. Yes, the end goal was attained but the pathway meandered towards it; I swear they wrote this movie with a crayon.

Screeching to a halt as I dismount from my soap box pummel horse, I will ask if the movie was effective by its standards. Was it? Well if conveniently erasing all of what we know formerly as the X-men franchise was it's objective, then I tip my mask to them. But as a consumer and a cog... SWEET CREAM ON AN ICE CREAM SAMICH! did you think that a wave of your magic cinematic wand would be satisfactory enough to justifiably nullify three movies?!?

Well in the words of a modern day showman and philosopher, it doesn't matter what I think; I will sit here and be force fed whatever post-apocalyptic, allegory of the cave/Matrix-like gruel that Fox feeds me.

So, when should you go see it? I would definitely go to see it this weekend, so it's second/third weekend worthy because it lacks the blockbuster appeal that garners an opening weekend crowd (outside of the comic fans); it lacked the amount of action that the average person would expect, this allowed it to really focus on the story.

It also has a dark undertone, which is understood when dealing with mass genocide; moreover, the emotional and physical grief that three of the four main characters bore, along with the amount of death, could be used to argue for a superhero drama genre label.

Moreover, the performances by the four leads (especially James McAvoy) were gripping. Grant it, three of four have been nominated for Academy Awards (Hugh Jackman, Jennifer Lawrence, and Michael Fassbender); with J-Law having earned two Academy's thus far (Winter's Bone and Silver Linings Playbook); and all four have been nominated for Golden Globes; J-Law and Jackman own three between them. With that said, the acting was spot on; James McAvoy had a stellar performance compared to his performance in First Class (not that it was bad or anything; Fassbender just stole the show).

The lack of action and the dark, dramatic tone were well welcomed by me, I just feel that summer blockbusters have less of those two characteristics and more laughs and explosions; nothing wrong or awry with that fact, just go see it this weekend or next weekend if you didn't see it opening weekend.

Grade wise I'd give it a B because despite my disdain for the technicalities and production, it accomplished its mission effectively by its own terms. Demerits are given for the fact that this movie carried out a "Clean Slate Protocol" to ultimately ask the comic book superhero movie gods for forgiveness.

That along with a boatload of inconsistencies and unanswered questions that would drive Monk crazy, the movie picked and chose aspects to incorporate and black out, leaving an attractive, overall coherent Frankenstein monster; all it wants is love from its fans.

Penny Dreadful Sundays 10:00 pm ET/PT (nice Showtime ad)

So, I feel as though I have every right to be perturbed by Fox's expensive and elaborate parlor trick. A parlor trick that has left me with a jammed gun in the middle of a desert, and what seems to be the long lost member of the Blue Man Group building pyramids, and two other pale riders. I mean really though, after two hours of apologizing, I don't even know if Wolverine has adamantium claws...you dodged another bullet my elusive, and dear friend.

Ma[g]le[ni]ficent: Maleficent Review

NO MAJOR PLOT SPOILERS BTW!!!!!

If you were to tell me that Disney could give wings to aroute story centered around a historically crucial villainess and ultimately magic her into a fable-like, partially tragic heroine, I'd call bullshit quicker than Tinkerbell getting aroused at the sight of Peter Pan. Well, when you have a lead with such a high aptitude for acting, almost anything is possible...if you suspend disbelief a little and believe in magic. 

Angelina Jolie, making her return to the silver screen after a four year hiatus (not counting voice acting), elevates the standard for not only a villainess, but a heroine in an live-action fairy-tale movie. Disney turned this villainess into a motherly character troubled with the strife of her past and the consequences of emotionally rash decisions made in her younger, vindictive form. Maleficent is a healthy blend of a tragic heroine mixed with dark lady mixed with a Byronic heroine. 

The heroic villainess Maleficent experiences a roller-coaster of emotional progressions throughout the movie: joy, love, grief, despair, forgiveness, betrayal, anger, jealousy, pride, resentment, compassion, sacrificial burden, pain, forgiveness, apathy, and joy. Yes, one character went through the wire and returned, redefining the hero cycle. 

There were crucial moments where the character could have either chosen the hard route or taken a lifeline. Early on in the movie, Maleficent frets to make the tough decision in order to preserve the innocence of Aurora, which is something that parents may experience with their children at the dawn of major life stages, like in the movie. 

With a cynical outlook on life and love, Maleficent is softened by the purity of Aurora; the character development of Maleficent is harped on in this movie, as opposed to the character development hinted at in most Disney fairy-tale movies (although Beauty & the Beast did a good job with this).

Maleficent, the movie, does a great job keeping the viewer involved and emotionally invested, making you understand both sides; the movie undoubtedly casts shade on the human condition of greed and lust for power, also showing the stark contrast and antithesis of obsession and irrational paranoia of protection. 

King Stefan, the true villain played by Sharlto Copley, like all fairy-tale and narrative villains caused his own demise, although he was not caught monologue-ing; Copley transforms the archetypal king into a tragic anti-hero. 

King Stefan represents any underdog with a desire to be respected, putting him into a similar category as Tony Montana; he does what he must to ascend through the ranks. Yet, like Al Pacino in another Brian De Palma movie, he doesn't vanquish his threat like he's supposed to...major tragic flaw. 

[Sidebar, Maleficent's winged flight in this movie (probably expensive) showed Fox and Warner Brothers what they could do with Archangel and Hawkgirl/man, respectively.] 

Aurora, played by Elle Fanning, represents the ingenue in the movie and serves as a balance between the two troubled characters: one led by fear and guilt to protect her, and the other, jaded, led by resentment and jealousy to hurt anyone who cares about her (boomeranging to hurt the three characters in the process). 

Aurora also represents hope, as King Stefan has hope that concealing her and sheltering her from the world and its ills will prevent her from experiencing despair; this is an action that I've observed fathers partake in with their daughters; this unfortunately can do more harm than good, and is a selfish act, led by personal, not altruistic reasons; this quest for hope leads the king into a Dark, Forbidden forest, pun intended.

Aurora represents hope for Maleficent in a more positive way; Aurora personifies the good nature of humans and leads Maleficent down a righteous path in an effort to right her wrongs, sacrificing her well-being and knowingly walking up Mount Calvary. 

Stretching for similarities, one could say that Aurora bearing the curse of Maleficent represents a sacrificial lamb bearing the flaws of humanity (and in the movie, her father's and Maleficent's); humans must act in good faith to avoid them; Aurora, representing the positive side of human nature, must experience true love's kiss to arise from her death. I am no theologian, so I digress.

Right to left: Aurora, Maleficent, Stefan

Overall, the three main characters (Jolie, Copley, Fanning) with the comedic help of three fairies (Knotgrass, Thistlewit, and Flittle; played by Imelda Staunton, Juno Temple, and Lesley Manville, respectively) and the ravenous crow Diaval (played by Sam Riley) acted extremely well (especially Jolie, who puts on a clinic), transcending this seemingly, and skeptically directionless live-action re-imagining of 1959's animated Sleeping Beauty; oh yeah, the Ent creature Groot makes an appearance, lol.

Technically, the movie was well paced with a substantial amount of material and depth crammed into its 97 minute start to finish run time. The plot was stretched thin, which is expected of Disney, but with the complexity and character development of Maleficent, the thin plot was welcomed as it would have been tedious with more plot points. The beat changes were enough to carry the movie, as well as the unconventional route to "happily ever-after".

I would classify this as an alternative fairy-tale because the script was flipped sideways, serving as a pioneer (in this decade for Hollywood) for more live-action fairy-tale stories (see Cinderelly). The last time I remember this occurring was back in '91 with Hook, yet the captain ended up with the same villainous handicaps as the original animated adaption; no, Enchanted does not count. This universe, created by the writing, gives Disney options for spin-offs.

Visually, the movie was a sight for sore eyes, as the action sequences and the magic were carried out without being completely soaked in CGI juice. Robert Stromberg did a good job directing the movie, as the story was carried out in an effectively efficient manner.

From a cinematic standpoint, it accomplished its objectives by shedding light on and inducing compassion for an established villainess, morphing her into a heroic figure; therefore, I would give it an A, as it was also a magnificent, and refreshing cinematic experience (can't go wrong with a Lana Del Rey closing credit song).

Hitting me in soft spots with light drama, entertaining me comic relief, awing me with stunning acting, intriguing me with surprisingly interesting characters, and leaving me with no choice but to feel good, while dazzling me with visuals and a "hell-yeah" moment or two, and impressing me with a nice battle sequence, magic, and fire (yes, I said fire), Disney does a great job making this a summer blockbuster **crosses fingers for Star Wars** that deserves to be seen opening weekend. 

Jack is Back

There are heroes. And there are those guys you know you can call on no matter what to get the job done. Then there's Jack Bauer. Jack is THE guy. The hero you love to watch, but only from afar because no one wants that job. No one wants that pressure. No one wants to take on the risk or suffer the consequences or can handle the toll that Jack takes on himself every time he's called upon once again to save the nation. The man strikes fear into the hearts of terrorists and shady politicians alike. 

24 premiered in 2001 with a pretty interesting gimmick. Each episode took place in real time in exactly one hour. We were introduced to a younger Jack Bauer, played by Kiefer Sutherland, who seemed to have everything going for him. Great job as the head of CTU (Counter Terrorist Unit), great wife in Teri Bauer, and your average, annoying, airhead teenage daughter. You know... Pretty decent life. The clock starts. Jack's called in to investigate a threat on President Palmer's life (played by Dennis Haybert and arguably the greatest fictional president ever) and things spiral out of control for the next 8 seasons. 

Jack got betrayed by his closest confidant. He lost his wife. His relationship with his daughter was severely strained. He lost his job. He started listening to Drake. Nothing was the same. And this was all in Day 1...  Just kidding about the Drake thing but I'm sure you get the point. THAT WAS JUST SEASON 1! Time and time again, Fox writers came up with a new threat to national security and Jack had to come out of retirement to show the kids how the big boys handled business.

How does he keep coming back over and over? At the end of every 24th episode, Jack fades off into obscurity. Wandering off and disappearing off the grid, at times presumably dead. Yet he comes back. Jack never dies. Somewhere along the line I believe, Jack Bauer sneaked all stealth-like into Kiefer Sutherland's bedroom and killed him in his sleep and has been living his life since then. It only makes sense. For a show that should have had a shelf-life of 5 seasons, he came back for a tv-movie and 3 more seasons. 

Last time we saw Jack, he had wandered off once again after delivering brute, uncompromising justice to the highest officials in the land. Two Presidents of the United States. The show honestly fell off after the 5th season. The gimmick was old. How many more threats could Jack believably take on. But Jack Bauer did a great acting job portraying the lead character and carrying the show's weak writing. It was a satisfying end to see our hero run off into the morning sun. 

Until now... NOW THIS. 24 Live Another Day. This zombie... How many more damn bullets do we need to collectively pump into this show before it goes away? I love Jack as much as I love Batman, but honestly enough is enough. Let the man breathe. Unless you dug up Tom Clancy from his grave too, it is going to be tough to rewrite this show into its former greatness. Inasmuch as I feel this way, I do sincerely hope the season pans out well, so that new generations can see the hero that is Jack Bauer... Or at the very least pick up Seasons 1-5 on Netlfix. You won't be disappointed.