Review: A Million Ways to Die in the West

by Trevor Kirkendall

★

Seth MacFarlane is better heard from and not seen. After writing and directing his first big screen feature two years ago – “Ted” – the creator of TV’s “Family Guy” proved himself to be competent enough to take his sense of humor onto the big screen. I really liked “Ted” and thought it was a smart comedy, even if he flirted with crossing certain lines with his jokes. That’s what he’s known for, so there shouldn’t be any surprises there. With his sophomore feature “A Million Ways to Die in the West,” MacFarlane steps in front of the camera this time and tries his hand at being a leading man. The results are disastrous.

MacFarlane plays Albert Stark, a sheep farmer in the Arizona frontier in 1882. He’s just been dumped by his girlfriend Louise (Amanda Seyfried), a young woman who he says is the only reason he’s happy in this awful time and place. His best friend is the naïve Edward (Giovanni Ribisi) who dates the town prostitute Ruth (Sarah Silverman). Ruth sleeps with many different men in town every day, but refuses to have sex with Edward until they’re married. Both Edward and Ruth have Albert’s back in this difficult time, especially after Albert discovers that Louise is now dating Foy (Neil Patrick Harris), a dashing man with a glorious moustache.

Enter the new girl to town, Anna (Charlize Theron), who is instantly attracted to Albert’s charming personality. What Albert doesn’t know about Anna is she’s actually married to Clinch Leatherwood (Liam Neeson), the most feared outlaw in the entire frontier. She keeps this little fact about her quiet as a means to protect Albert. Anna decides that she’s going to help Albert become a more confident person and a better gunslinger. That way he can beat Foy in a duel and win back Louise.

The premise of “A Million Ways to Die in the West” works – surprisingly. The storyline makes sense. The characters are likeable. There’s a definite rooting interest in Albert and Anna. The only problem is MacFarlane has completely polluted this entire film with the kind of trashy jokes he’s not able to deliver on “Family Guy.” From the moment the film starts, it’s full of juvenile toilet humor that is not at all funny.

Now, I know what you’re thinking: he did this in “Ted” too. He did, but to an extent. The humor is very adult oriented, but it worked for what the film was all about. Furthermore, “Ted” had a very big heart at its core. It was a very well written and well-made film, even with the dirty jokes. The story and the situations helped make the film funny. The dirty jokes added to the humor.

“A Million Ways to Die in the West” completely relies on the toilet humor to generate its laughs. Most of the jokes are overused and worn out, having been included in just about every sex comedy since the genre began. I’d be lying if I said this movie didn’t have its humorous moments; I did laugh at times. But this is by no means a movie that will have you rolling in the aisles. Unless you’re 12. Or jokes about genitals cause you endless hours of side-splitting laughter.

MacFarlane is a decent enough actor in his own right, but he’s probably better suited to work behind the camera, or in a voice-over booth. He’s not a leading actor, and proves himself unworthy by essentially playing himself here. And he doesn’t allow the rest of his supporting cast any room to move around either. Every single person in this film has been better elsewhere. The only person I enjoyed in this film was Harris simply because of the absurd level in which he played his role.

I can’t say I’m surprised by anything about “A Million Ways to Die in the West.” I was hoping MacFarlane could tap into that same type of magic he found with “Ted” but it didn’t work at all this time out. There was no emotional connection made at all. But should one really expect an emotional connection from every film they see? I don’t think it’s too much to ask for. And MacFarlane has already proved he can do that with a movie riddled with adult jokes. Just because it’s crude doesn’t mean it can’t connect with an audience.

The only emotions I felt out of this film with disgust and boredom. Despite its intermittent moments of genuine humor, the film has a very poor script that doesn’t do the story any justice. It’s a painful movie going experience, and I was glad when it was finished.

Review: Cold in July

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★

Fans of “Dexter” will rejoice upon seeing “Cold in July.” It shows Michael C. Hall taking on a different kind of role than his forensic analyst by day/serial killer by night character from the popular Showtime series. What they’ll be most excited about is that “Cold in July” is a smart and mature film that has at least some semblance of resolution rather than the abomination that was Season 8 of “Dexter.”

“Cold in July” is set in East Texas in 1989. One quiet night, a burglar breaks into the home of Richard Dane (Hall) and his wife Ann (Vinessa Shaw). Attempting to protect his wife and young son Jordan, Richard loads up a pistol and nervously sets out to see who has broken into his home. In a panic, Richard shoots and kills the unarmed intruder.

The local police say the man Richard shot was Freddy Russell, a wanted felon. His father Ben (Sam Shepard) had just recently made parole from a nearby prison. Ben shows up and threatens Richard’s son prompting the police to get involved again in order to catch Ben and protect Richard’s family.

This is about the point where “Cold in July” makes a sudden turn and starts to go down a completely different and unexpected path. Enter Jim Bob (Don Johnson), a private investigator who will help us get to the bottom of mystery wrapped in lies and red herrings. The plot zigs and zags until the shocking and brutal truth is revealed before a violent and bloody third act.

Director Jim Mickle confidently directs this taut thriller. His sharp script, co-written by Nick Damici from the novel by Joe R. Lansdale, is full of cynicism balanced nicely with the right amount of wit and humor, albeit dark humor. The tone and time period in which the film takes place is nicely accented by a great 80s style score by Jeff Grace. And Ryan Samul’s cinematography is reminiscent of some of the 80s best thrillers.

Despite the film being full of mystery and plot twists, there are many holes within the script that leaves several unanswered questions. None of them are quite as ridiculous as, “Why is Dexter Morgan a lumberjack now?” but there are enough to leave you scratching your head.

Hall is great in his new role as an everyman concerned with the protection of his family and the questioning of his own masculinity. It’s a much different role for him than his well-known parts on “Dexter” and “Six Feet Under” but he blends in to it seamlessly. Seeing him struggle with killing someone was something I thought would be hard to get past since I know him so well in his serial killer role, but it’s not. He fits in perfectly here.

Likewise, the supporting roles from Shepard and Johnson are equally great. Both veteran actors bring something different to their roles. Especially Johnson, who is a welcomed addition to this film the moment he walks on screen.  It’s been awhile since he’s been in a role that was more than just a caricature. While this is Hall’s movie, Johnson ends up stealing many of the scenes in the film’s back half.

It’s not perfect, but “Cold in July” is a nice break from all the superheroes that occupy so many movie screens in the summer. There’s plenty wrong here, but its faults don’t necessarily hinder the plot at all. With so many twists and turns, it’s easy for a script and the director to lose focus. But Mickel has a good grasp on the story and the film’s theme to not let all the mistakes of the script diminish what is ultimately a very effective, intense and violent thriller.

Review: X-MEN: Days of Future Past

by. Joe Moss
★★★

There has been a lot of hype, Easter eggs hidden in other Marvel films, movie-teaser trailers...otherwise a TON of money poured into this summer's installment of the widely successful X-Man series. I can tell you this much...Bryan Singer and company do NOT disappoint. "X-Men: Days of Future Past" is over the top, introduces a few newer characters, and even allows for the return of fan favorites long gone. In short...IT IS AMAZING!!

Much as the trailers show, the movie begins 50 years into the future, with mutants being hunted to extinction by Trask Industries Sentinel destroyers. They are able to hone in on mutant blood (and track mutant sympathizers) to capture and destroy. It is a grizzly sequence of film right at the start and paints the future bleak for mutant and human alike. No part of the globe is unscathed by the rampant disregard for life that these AI creatures possess.

In a catch-22 moment within this beginning series of the film, Wolverine volunteers to do the impossible and is transported back through time to juxtapose with his former "1973 self' to stop a crucial event in the early inception of the Trask Industries military Sentinel contract. He must bring together Magneto and Professor X, as well as Raven/Mystique, Beast (Nicholass Hoult), and Quicksilver (Peter Evans) for this plan to have a chance. AND it must be accomplished in 5 days time. Will this crazy plot even work? Seemingly impossible, right...you will just have to wait and see how the movie ends.

Simon Kinberg (X2 and X-Men Last Stand) was brought back to finalize the screenplay (in a story collaboration with Jane Goldman and Matthew Vaughn who worked on X-Men: First Class). This writing team allowed the past decade of X-men films to have some crucial continuity and attempted to fix errors from the past. The story affords the next film (X-Men Apocalypse) to utilize whichever mutants it so desires to fight (you'll have to wait for the Easter Egg at the end of the credits to see the next villain).

While we have all come to expect Hugh Jackman to embody Wolverine 100%, I feel that he gets better with every film as he comes to understand the character--be Wolverine, not just look like Wolverine. Nevertheless, as great has Hugh is, Jennifer Lawrence (Mystique) steals the movie with every scene. Her ability to make the entire audience empathize with the twisted past of Mystique is truly amazing. She is confusing, passionate and lovely all at the same time. I hope that she is around for many films to come..albeit both of their required paychecks may stretch the budget in the future.

While I am a fan of the X-Men. and a fan of a few of the comic series, I cannot say that I have been 100% happy with all of the liberties taken in the films to date. I do feel that this film has attempted to rectify many problems of the original 3 (as well as the horrible Wolverine: Origins), by allowing for a complete reboot of the story-line by the end of the credits. Therein lies the best part of the movie--the final sequence allows for hope for the future of the X-Men franchise. It is a MUST see for this summer!! Go and enjoy with the entire family!

Review: Godzilla

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★

It seems to me that the monster movie genre would be one of the most difficult genres to screw up. Yet somehow Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin managed to do just that with their atrocious 1998 version of "Godzilla." Most of the film made absolutely no sense and paid no tribute to the original source material. Furthermore, it ruined the film careers of just about all those involved. Now, 16 years later, filmmaker Gareth Edwards tries his hand at Godzilla. His result is a vast improvement on the 1998 movie (which isn't very hard to do) but it still doesn't exactly feel very satisfying in the end.

Our main character here is Ford Brody (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), a Navy Lieutenant and member of the Explosive Ordnance Disposal team returning home to San Francisco from a mission overseas. His wife Elle (Elizabeth Olsen) and son Sam are happy to have him back, but their excitement is short lived. Ford is called up to go tend to his father Joe (Bryan Cranston) who has been detained by police in Japan for trespassing in a quarantined radiation zone. Joe is trying to prove that some “thing” caused a meltdown at the nuclear power plant where he worked 15 years ago. Of course no one believes him. 

And of course he's right. A team of scientists, lead by Dr. Ichiro Serizawa (Ken Watanabe) and Vivienne Graham (Sally Hawkins), is hiding a cocoon that feeds off the radiation of the former plant. The creature, which they call a Muto, breaks out and starts terrorizing everything. But something else knows that this Muto is here. A giant lizard from the sea that Serizawa calls Godzilla who only has one purpose: to prey on these creatures. 

"Godzilla" has all the makings of a pretty fantastic old school monster movie, but it ultimately falls short of being that great. It really has nothing to do with the story because the screenplay by Max Bornstein is surprisingly solid. There is plenty of rooting interest in these characters, especially since they dedicate so much time to setting up the back-story of the Brody family. It's pretty dark too with very little humor built into the script.

The problem is there are very few scenes featuring monsters in this monster movie. Isn't that what you want to see in a monster movie? One shot shows two monsters ready to engage in epic battle, but the camera is behind two doors as they shut. The last thing we see are these two creatures inches away from each other but we don’t see them fighting. Two big ugly monsters fighting each other is what makes the old "Godzilla" movies so entertaining. You won't hear me say this often but I think the thing that hurts this "Godzilla" the most is the story.

I find it hard to fault the movie for this, but I have to. The movie's title character doesn't even show up for an hour, and after that he’s never the star. You're paying for monsters fighting, and that's what they should be delivering. But where I'm torn is that the dramatic narrative is actually very polished. I find it very hard to fault anything like that, but this is an instance where “more monster/less story” would have been desirable.

Director Gareth Edwards hasn't done much else before being handed the large budget for this film, and he proves himself to be a success. He handles the well-developed script well and does not go overboard with his use of CGI. Sure, the monsters and the destruction they leave behind aren’t real, but it blends in seamlessly with the organic action in the foreground.

And the monster battles when we do get to see them are great and enormously entertaining. Edwards pays great homage to the original "Godzilla" movies by letting the monsters have at it with no regard to anything around them. Even the score from composer Alexandre Desplat has a nostalgic feel for the monster movies of old. But he doesn't maintain that old style throughout the film. He adds some nice dissonant cues to the more intense moments, which help prove that he's one of the best music composers working today. 

"Godzilla" is more than just a standard monster movie and it’s certainly better than any Roland Emmerich disaster film. There's a lot of depth in this movie, which is nice to see from a big budget studio picture. But that gets in the way of us wanting to see what we came to the movies to see. There's very little Godzilla in "Godzilla." I can't say I loved it because it didn't deliver what it promises by the title. The story is great, don’t get me wrong, but that’s not what we paid to see. It's supposed to be a monster movie, and that's not what this is.

Review: Neighbors

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★

Unlike my movie-reviewing counterpart Joe Moss, I was not involved in any type of fraternity during my college years. Sure, I attended an event or two but I wasn’t a member of that particular scene. I know nothing about the inner-workings of a fraternity, but I do know enough people who were members to know their lifestyle is being exaggerated for the sake of some cheap laughs in Nicholas Stoller’s new film “Neighbors.”

Seth Rogen is about as reliable as the come in Hollywood these days. You always know what you’re getting with him and “Neighbors” is nothing different. He’s good at what he does, but he never seems to branch out to anything else. He played himself in last summer’s hilarious movie “This Is the End.” He plays Mac Radner in “Neighbors” but I can’t tell the difference. I do still like him though and would consider myself a fan of his.

In “Neighbors,” Mac and his wife Kelly (Rose Byrne) have just moved into a beautiful new house in what appears to be a quiet neighborhood. They are brand new parents to the very adorable Stella. Mac and Kelly were hard partiers in their day and are looking to settle down and be good parents. But Mac can’t resist a good joint at work with his pal Jimmy (Ike Barinholtz) and Kelly desperately wants to hang out at raves with her friend – and Jimmy’s ex-wife – Paula (Carla Gallo).

Without any warning, the Delta Psi fraternity moves into the house next door. Immediately fearing that the neighborhood is about to become quite a bit louder, Mac and Kelly decided to head over to the house and come off as the hip and cool neighbors. They think that if they come across as “dope,” they’ll be able to convince their partying neighbors to keep it down. They immediately make friends with the fraternity’s president Teddy Sanders (Zac Efron) and vice president Pete Regazolli (Dave Franco).

Things start off pretty well with Mac and Kelly partying with the college kids all night long (great parents, right?). Teddy tells Mac if he has any problems with the noise to let him know personally and he’ll take care of it. He makes Mac promise him that he won’t call the cops if there’s an issue. But Mac calls the cops the next night anyway. This is a declaration of war in Teddy’s eyes. He’s planning to make Mac and Kelly’s life a living hell. But Mac and Kelly are also out to see the Delta Psi house get shut down as well.

The setting of Nicholas Stoller’s new film is something that resonates well enough with any current or former college kid (member of the Greek society or not) to be a modestly entertaining movie, but its own plot gets in the way of being as hilarious as it could have been. With every new Seth Rogen movie, I always go back to one of his first films, “Knocked Up.” That film came out at a time when audiences were still being introduced to Rogen, and his trademark antics were not as well known. Take the opening scene in “This is the End” when the random fan asks him to do the “Seth Rogen laugh.” Everyone knows that now.

But not only did that movie introduce the masses to Rogen, “Knocked Up” was also one of the best

comedy films made during the last decade. Judd Apatow proved to moviegoers that just because it’s an R-rated comedy film filled with hundreds of expletives and raunchy sex jokes, the movie could still have an enormous heart. Occasionally, you’ll get another movie that comes close to that (“Superbad,” “This Is the End”). So is it wrong of me to expect a raunchy sex comedy to actually be a good movie in addition to be entertaining, especially when Rogen seems to be in many of the good ones?

The problem with “Neighbors” is that it gets so lost in its own plot it almost forgets to push its theme across. My three-paragraph description of the plot above takes up about 25 or 30 minutes of screen time, which is also known as the first act. There’s still two acts and over an hour of movie left to go. At only 97 minutes, you’d think the film was already short enough, but it feels like it runs long.

The movie is filled with Rogen going after Efron, and then Efron going after Rogen, and back and forth. It’s a classic example of a comedic revenge story. One comment I saw online said that “Neighbors” was Dennis and Mr. Wilson all grown up. I couldn’t agree more. And what’s worse, the things these guys do to each other just aren’t funny. Are there moments of humor? Sure there are. Are they moments that leave you gasping for air because you’re laughing so hard? Only one. Just one.

“Neighbors” is filled with one college cliché after another. “Animal House” is still the definitive college film after all these years, and any other movie produced within that genre is an attempt to outdo it. “Neighbors” is a failed attempt. Each scene portrays the stereotype that fraternities nothing but sex crazed, drug addicted, alcoholic party animals. And while that might be the case for some people, those labels aren’t exclusive to fraternity brothers. The film probably could have still portrayed its messages – as vague as they are – without these over exaggerated and overused cliché.

And while “Neighbors” features Rogen doing what Rogen does, the real star of the film is Efron. Admittedly, I have seen very little of Efron’s work up until this point. I am aware of his Disney Channel beginnings and his desire to shed that image. It’s pretty hard to get rid of that image outside of leaking risqué pictures of one’s self to the Internet. Efron has done a lot of independent work to try and show a more grown up side, but this might be his first mainstream adult role.

And he turns out to be the movie’s best moment.  His character has a surprising amount of depth built into it. Efron portrays this role with great ease. This role and movie might very well have spoken to him more than anyone else. He’s a former teen heartthrob trying to move on to the next stage of his life and career, while also working on his own sobriety. This part works for him, and he plays it exceptionally well.

But that’s not enough to save “Neighbors.” It has its moments that make you laugh but its ultimately unsatisfying. I think that if Rogen wants to continue what’s been a very successful career, he should be branching out more to some different kind of comedies that are little further developed. Films littered with clichés will not be very memorable. Which is why this one will quickly fall away from people’s minds and “Animal House” still remains the must see college comedy.