CINDERELLA

Cinderella

Grade: B+

Starring: Lily James, Richard Madden, Cate Blanchett, Derek Jacobi, Stellan Skarsgard, Nonso Anozie and Helena Bonham Carter, with Ben Chaplin and Haley Atwell as Cinderella’s Parents and Sophie McShera and Holliday Grainger as her Stepsisters

Premise: An orphaned young maiden struggles to keep alive her belief in magic and goodness while she is cruelly treated by her stepmother and stepsisters. But, after a chance meeting with a prince, the maiden’s destiny seems on the verge of a drastic change if only a little magic can be summoned on her behalf.

Rated PG (contains emotional content and some intense moments)

It just so happened that I didn’t have to buy my ticket to the new Cinderella movie myself. This was a relief, as I had been slightly embarrassed at how I would seem to the box-office attendant, walking up to buy a lone ticket for Cinderella, what with being a 26-year-old man and all. It turned out I didn’t have to (shout-out to a certain very good friend :) ), but, in hindsight, I’m not sure I would have minded. True, I have bought tickets to much more terrible movies, but I could probably have proudly bought a ticket for this movie mainly because, in hindsight, this new Cinderella movie is special.

I can’t imagine that anyone was clamoring for a new Cinderella movie. The original Disney cartoon from 1950 is as entrenched in Disney lore as anything, the title character already a staple of the Disney Princess collection, and it’s difficult to imagine anyone today not knowing the basics of the Cinderella story. There have also been at least a dozen Cinderella remakes, updates, adaptations, etc… So, we all know the gist. Plus, amidst the recent wave of gritty-live-action fairy-tale upgrades (Alice in Wonderland, Snow White & The Huntsman, Oz the Great and Powerful, Jack the Giant Slayer, Maleficent, etc…) it’s clear Hollywood studios will turn anywhere these days to make a quick couple million bucks, so it was easy to consider the release of a new Cinderella a purely mercenary move. Basically, I wasn't that excited about.

Well, it was worth getting excited about (read more below). Really, it was. I mean, I thought it was better than Frozen…

Plot

Raised in the foothills of a wealthy, majestic kingdom by her loving, affectionate parents (Ben Chaplin and Haley Atwell), Ella (played as a child by Eloise Webb) was taught to be brave, and to be kind to anyone and everyone. She was also taught to believe in her dreams, to believe in magic. Even as her mother faded from a mysterious illness, Ella was taught to chin up and smile, because her “Fairy Godmother” was watching over her to protect her. Holding onto her cherished memories of her mother, Ella (played as an adult by 25-year-old actress Lily James), even manages to smile and earnestly welcome the arrival of her father’s second wife (Cate Blanchett) and her two snooty daughters, Drisella (Sophie McShera) and Anastasia (Holliday Grainger). Ella even retains a sliver of optimism when her father unexpectedly passes while on a trip out of the country. However, her optimism and kindness are not matched by her stepmother and stepsisters (there’s a reason her stepmother’s cat is named Lucifer). Within days, Ella is reduced to living in the attic, doing all the cooking and cleaning in the household while eating her meals by herself and having no one for company but a band of crumb-snatching mice.

Her days consistently more dreary and difficult, Ella’s resolve starts to crack. One day, she considers running away, making it all the way into the nearby woods. There, she happens to meet a handsome, well-dressed young man (Richard Madden) on a hunt with his companions. His name is Kit, he says, and, while he doesn’t admit it to Ella just then, he’s the son of the aging king (Derek Jacobi) who lives in the nearby palace. While they go their separate ways—Ella compelled by her unending kindness to go back to the house to continue to do her stepmother’s bidding—both are charmed, and, when a ball is announced to which all young maidens in the land can attend, both dare to hope they’ll see that person again. After all, the ball is meant to help the prince find a bride, and the prince is actually open-minded enough to consider marrying someone who isn’t royalty. Ella’s hopes seem snuffed out when her stepmother not only refuses to let her go to the ball but also tears a beloved old dress of Ella’s mother’s, which Ella hoped to wear to the ball. But, just as Ella seems to be encountering her darkest, saddest moment, it turns out she does have a Fairy Godmother (Helena Bonham Carter). And the fact that Ella doesn’t have a dress, a carriage, horses, or any of the other trappings needed to get her to the ball and help her make an impression doesn’t seem to bother her Fairy Godmother in the least. Turns out, all that’s needed is a little magic.

What Works?

To me, the main thing that works in this Cinderella is the movie’s avoidance of the traps that have hindered pretty much all of the other recent live-action upgrades of fairy tales. That is, this movie doesn’t try to be any hipper, funnier, sexier, quirkier or cooler then the cartoon version. There are no added action scenes. No make-out scenes. No modern-day pop-culture references. No toilet/bodily humor. No exaggeratedly goofy humor (in a family film in this day and age, that’s an unbelievable feat). No corny sidekicks. No extra villains or potential love interests. No wink-wink innuendos. No over-the-top musical number to close things out. This movie is earnest and straight-forward.

I'm not sure if I knew this beforehand or not, but the movie was directed by Kenneth Branagh, who is best known as Hollywood’s main cinematic auteur of all things Shakespeare. Well, the Cinderella story is not based on Shakespeare, but it’s not difficult to fathom that this movie came from someone who loves Shakespeare but is also trying to connect with today’s audiences, because, what “extra trappings” the movie has are clearly meant to give it a glossy, classic feel. There are a few swooping camera/CGI crane shots showing the whole kingdom or the lands surrounding Ella’s home. The building interiors and, especially, the costumes, are gorgeous—the colors just pop. Key plot points are iterated by a town crier (Alex Macqueen, in a likeably-committed performance), which makes them seem all the more epic. Like I said, there are no unnecessary villains or forced love triangles, but there is just enough intrigue late to keep things from being completely by-the-numbers as we progress to our predetermined conclusion. Die-hard fans of the cartoon will appreciate both the appearance of Lucifer the cat, and the mice Ella befriends, who don’t talk or sing but figure prominently at a couple points, one of which sees them turned into horses. The critters are convincingly rendered and aren’t used for comic relief. And the phrase “bippity-boppity-boo” is heard, though it is only briefly done—the closest this movie has to a wink-wink moment.

While the look of the movie figures prominently in my overall impression (it is worth seeing on the big screen), the movie’s characters are, of course, first and foremost. And Branagh has assembled quite a troupe, even if there are no real household names in the bunch. Audiences may recognize Lily James from Downton Abbey, Richard Madden and the hulking Nonso Anozie (as one of his royal captains) from HBO’s Game of Thrones, Cate Blanchett from her appearances in all six Lord of the Rings/Hobbit movies (she’s also won two Oscars), Hayley Atwell from the Captain America/Avengers/Agents of Shield universe, Stellan Skarsgard (as the Grand Duke) from his mentor roles in Good Will Hunting and Thor, and some might even recognize Derek Jacobi from his appearances in some of Branagh’s early ‘90s Shakespeare adaptations. And, of course, there's Helena Bonham Carter, from movies as varied as The King’s Speech, the Harry Potter series, and the remakes of Willy Wonka, Alice in Wonderland, and Dark Shadows--her single-scene appearance here as the Fairy Godmother is a treat.

It’s a stretch to say any of these actors give three-dimensional performances, but they don’t need to. In a movie like this, with a story everyone knows, Oscar-worthy acting/character development isn’t necessarily needed. But nearly every character has two dimensions—something to them—that makes it click. Time is taken to develop Madden’s prince and Jacobi’s ailing King, not to mention their subordinates Anozie and Skarsgard. And while Blanchett is certainly capable of playing sheer villainy, she’s convincing as the stepmother who is snooty and imperious but also embittered (another big bonus point for this movie: though Ella cries several times about her treatment at the hands of her stepmother and stepsisters, their cruelty isn’t over-the-top—this movie avoids the sheer misery that engulfed the 1998 version, Ever After).

Basically, I know we’ve had everything from Maleficent to a brooding Alice in Wonderland to two different Snow White adaptations, but, to me, this it the best and most well-rounded “fairy tale adaptation” so far.

What Doesn’t Work?

I honestly don’t have many criticisms. Like I said, this movie avoids the kinds of pitfalls that usually nag family films, like over-silliness. I will say that, while James’ performance is believable, it was slightly hard to believe her character would be so kind and naïve that she wouldn’t try to stick up for herself a little bit more against her stepmother and stepsisters. I don’t know if they should have made her stepmother a little more cruel and domineering or have Ella try to stick up for herself and be rebuffed, but she seemed to give in awfully quick. It’s also worth noting that, with the exception of the glowing ball gown she wears for the story’s signature sequence, she wears the same plain, light-blue dress the entire movie, even when she’s not locked in the attic (I couldn’t help wondering if this was a merchandizing ploy, but you know little girls are going to want Ball-Gown Cinderella anyway, not Regular-Everyday-Dress-Cinderella). She also seems to forget at one key point that her actual name is Ella, not Cinderella (that was a cruel nickname hoisted upon her by her stepsisters)—if you see the movie and recognize the moment I’m talking about, let me ask you: do you think she was trying to be especially humble or something?

Anyway, these are nitpicks. This was a lovely movie.

Content

PG! Nary a cussword, make-out, drop of blood or bodily gag to be found. There are a few intense moments with Ella’s chariot turning back into a pumpkin while racing down a country road, or with the same pumpkin’s transformation into a chariot occurring so suddenly that it threatens to squash our heroine, but nothing more severe then that. There are also a fair amount of emotional moments, and not all of them have to do with Ella’s parents dying or with her being mistreated—the film’s emotional peak actually has to do with the prince, and I’ll be darned if that didn’t get me choked up. You’re dead inside if that scene doesn’t “hit you in the feels”.

Bottom Line

Cinderella wasn’t perfect, but it was really close. It’s a gorgeously-made, well-acted movie that’s not excessively girly, excessively silly, or trying to be anything other than a sincere recreation of a beloved Disney story. To me, this is the best yet of the “live-action fairy-tale adaptations” we’ve seen in recent years, better then even Alice in Wonderland, Maleficent and Snow White & The Huntsman. Really, it’s perfect for the whole family. I had to nitpick to find things wrong with it. And, if you have the slightest bit of interest, it is worth seeing on the big screen.

Cinderella (2015)

Directed by Kenneth Branagh

Screenplay by Chris Weitz

Rated PG

Length: 112 minutes

THE PURGE: ANARCHY

The Purge: Anarchy

Grade: B-

Starring: Frank Grillo, Carmen Ejogo, Zoe Soul, Kiele Sanchez, Zach Gilford, John Beasley and Michael K. Williams

Premise: Three sets of strangers join up to try and survive the annual Purge in 2023.

Rated R for strong bloody violence, intense, disturbing thematic material, constant profanity, and scary moments

Made on a tiny budget with only a few recognizable stars, the 2013 thriller The Purge had an unexpectedly strong box-office haul, immediately granting the film a sequel (sound familiar?). I didn’t see the original film, but I heard a lot about its Hunger Games-esque premise, in which all laws and emergency services are suspended for a 12-hour period, allowing people, in the not too distant future, to let out all their pent-up aggression by any means necessary. The film’s claim was this tactic, instituted by a group called The New Founding Fathers, helped lower crime and unemployment—albeit often by having the people who might be in such conditions brutally bumped off. I guess writer/director James DeMonaco wanted a good idea for a free-for-all that would allow the Panic Room-type scenario of the first film to play out without such petty distractions/plot obstacles as police being summoned. Having done that, and emboldened by the success of the film, he cranked out a sequel the very next year: The Purge: Anarchy. From what I’ve heard, Anarchy is the big bad brother, darker, meaner, with a wider range of crimes experienced, and with its main characters out in the open, fleeing for their lives in a dark, unfriendly city—a different kind of terror from the claustrophobia of the first film.

Anarchy is definitely dark and gritty and intense; it’ll keep you watching. But, as you’ll read me say later, it slowly sinks in that, hey, even though the idea of a government-sanctioned annual free-for-all is kind of intriguing for a movie, it’s not plausible in the slightest. No, not at all. And even a movie with such a singular idea isn’t immune to certain horror-movie-staples, which become more and more obvious as the movie goes on.

Plot

It’s 2023, the ninth year of the reign of the New Founding Fathers of America, whose idea for their citizens to have the chance, once a year, to purge themselves of all dark thoughts and impulses has done wonders for society the other 364 days of the year. Sure, there are dissenters, like Internet blogger Carmelo Jones (Michael K. Williams), but, for the most part, the ‘rules’ are pretty straightforward: if you wanna purge, go for it, and good luck getting all the yucky out; if you’re not purging, stay inside, keep weapons close, and hope to God no one comes for you.

The film follows three sets of characters on Purge night—an estranged young couple (Kisele Sanchez and Zach Gilford) who bicker over every little thing right up until their car breaks down in the middle of an empty Los Angeles highway with less than an hour until the Purge kicks off; a kindly waitress (Carmen Ejogo) and her grown daughter (Zoe Soul) who want to weather the storm, if they can, in their downtown apartment; and a mysterious man (Frank Grillo), who drives downtown armed to the teeth with a serious look on his face and a mystery man’s pictures apparently giving him motivation. Wherever he’s going, you clearly don’t want to be there when he gets there. But the night is dark and full of terrors. The waitress and her daughter are yanked from their apartment by the armor-wearing denizens of a baddie in an 18-wheeler who’s mowing down any people he gets in his sights. The young couple seems to have been ‘tagged’ by a gang of mute, mask-wearing thugs, who follow them everywhere. Even when the mysterious man unexpectedly takes them under his wing, they’re still stuck downtown, in the dark, with gangs swirling around. And the mysterious man is clearly hell-bent on getting to his destination, whether his new ‘friends’ survive or not.

What Works?

The Purge: Anarchy is undeniably intense; it hooks you from the early going, getting you wondering just how horrific a night of such free-for-allness would truly be. Of course, with a movie and a premise like this, you just know, every time the characters get a breather, another threat is right behind. With a premise like this, a movie could almost have no specific characters and just be a faux-documentary, and it would be great—really, really dark, but great.

The characters we have, though not super-developed, are reasonably engaging. Frank Grillo is solid in what must be his first starring role (he should look familiar to audiences for his often-scene-stealing roles in Warrior, The Grey, End of Watch and Captain America: The Winter Soldier); I’ve heard it said he was perfectly cast. The script doesn’t really require a lot of him, and the character is a clichéd type, but he’s solid. There’s not a whole lot for the other characters to do but scream, gasp, cry, and be scared, but they hold your attention. The movie is really all about the suspense, the attitude, the darkness of its premise, and the haunting promise that, just before the end credits, there are “364 days until the next annual purge”.

What Doesn’t Work?

Before I get started, let me remind you (and myself), I gave this movie a B-, and it held my attention fairly easily. Most thrillers have a good idea or two to get the ball rolling and set up the screams and suspense, and Anarchy was no different (I mean, it certainly got me a little paranoid, thinking about how I would hold out on such a night of criminal debauchery). But…

But, the main premise—the idea of the annual purge—is complete nonsense in my opinion. Complete nonsense. And I’m writing this as a Christian, who believes that all people have a sin nature and are, at their root, evil. Thus, the idea of ‘purging’ one’s darkest impulses has a sort of ring of authenticity. But there is no way, no way, this would fly in real life, even a ‘real life’ set almost a decade from now. In this day and age of tolerance and acceptance and let’s-settle-our-differences-and-find-peace, this kind of raw sadism would never happen. Not to mention, that’s a heck of a mess one 12-hour period causes. Each half-day purge would have to be followed by a several-day (or week) clean-up period to take care of all the bodies, blood, fires, bullet shells and general wreckage—it would be way too inconvenient for any city or country’s budget. The Purge isn’t the first story to tackle the idea of popularly-accepted savagery (The Hunger Games, anyone?), but it fails to address how a society centered around this event would hold together. For instance, there’s a late scene—very reminiscent of The Hunger Games, not to mention Richard Connell’s famous short story The Most Dangerous Game—in which unwary (usually poor) people are snatched off the street by gangs and delivered to the rich, who have auctions in which they buy people to maim and kill, or else buy their way into a sort of arena where they can go after the hapless, unarmed people placed in it. The film does make a great deal about how the rich need to purge as much as anyone, but they do it in this high-society way, complete with the non-participants in the little ‘Game’ watching excitedly from behind glass.

This scene, which is actually effective in that it’s so sickening and cruel it kind of makes you want to vomit, represents the real problem with something like The Purge, in my opinion. Forget the clean-up that would have to happen afterward. Forget even the numerous lawsuits that would likely ensue the next day, once Purge rules were up and people wanted recompense for their losses. There is no way a society could function as a decent, happy, almost crime-free society for 364.5 days and then give itself over to complete and utter heartless, sadistic, animalistic crime against itself, and still function again like everything was hunky-dory afterward. I don’t see it. I know the first film presented the idea of neighbors who smile and laugh with each other on the 364.5 turning against each other and going cuckoo, but I just don’t see it. A society would not be able to happily turn a blind eye to the horrors it commits on one night. It would not continue to function. There would be wars and crime galore during the 364.5. If anything, the Purge would have to be a 12 hour period in which no one is allowed to commit a crime, and society can catch its collective breath. That wouldn’t be much of a ‘purge’, but I’m just saying.

But this is all the premise, right? As long as the movie pulled it off, why worry? Well, Anarchy, in addition to suffering from the can-you-really-leave-your-disbelief-at-the-door-for-this skepticism from people like me, does succumb to many regular horror movie tropes. Where to begin? People who think hiding in a closet in their broken-into apartment will keep them safe from armed intruders? An elderly father who gives a long, tearful speech about how much he hates the Purge and says he’s going to sleep in his bedroom and don’t disturb him? (He’s going to stay put, right? I mean, he’s not up to anything) A character who gets killed right after telling someone they love them? A woman who screams in a you-need-to-be-quiet moment while hiding when a small animal (a rat, in this case) jumps on her? People who out of nowhere become expert marksmen with heavy automatic weapons, firing on moving targets in the dark? The friendly neighbors who take you in, promising safety and “no Purge here”? People who leave their only weapon in a room they vacate, only to be cornered when their apartment is broken into? People who are so comfortable that they’re asleep in their beds on a night when anyone can break into their house and do anything they want to them? Guy who’s life is spared saves the life of the person who spared him? Any of this sound familiar?

Oh, and it did feel the tiniest bit insulting that statements like "God Bless America" or, for heaven's sake, the song "God Bless America" are used in such a dark, brooding movie--including a credit's sequences set to the song played in operatic form against a montage of images of guns and crimes and killings. No patriotism here...

Content

Anarchy is dark. While some of the blood effects are a little cheesy (a couple times, people getting shot through with many holes reeked of CGI), there’s no denying that a lot of the happenings onscreen are dark. People are shot, stabbed, run over, set on fire, hit by cars, blown up, etc… People hurting/killing/maiming other people becomes a fixture of the background, a matter-of-fact detail that’s kind of sickening. Yeah, it’s dark.

Bottom Line

The Purge: Anarchy is a pretty good movie in that it will hold your attention and keep you watching, but I didn’t love it. Its key premise is way too far-fetched if you really think about it, even for a gritty, futuristic thriller. There’s also a lot of horror movie staples like people trusting people they shouldn’t, people going into rooms/buildings they shouldn’t, would-be “innocent” characters turning out not to be innocent, etc… It’s an interesting idea, and there’s sure to be a third one (because when do movie franchises ever stop at two these days), but I thought it was just okay.

The Purge: Anarchy (2014)

Written and Directed by James DeMonaco

Rated R

Length: 103 minutes

CHAPPIE

Chappie

Grade: B+

Starring: Dev Patel, Hugh Jackman, Jose Pablo Cantillo, and Sigourney Weaver; with Ninja as 'Ninja', Yo-Landi Vi$$er as 'Yolandi', and Sharlto Copley as Chappie

Premise: A pioneering robotics engineer creates a ‘consciousness’ for robots in defiance of his corporate superiors’ orders, and plugs it into a simple scout droid. Almost as soon as the scout begins to walk and talk, it is hijacked by a group of thugs who want to use it as protection while they rob a bank.

Rated R for strong bloody violence, language, intense emotional content, some scary moments and drug references, and a brief nude image

South African writer/director Neill Blomkamp burst onto the scene in 2009 with his Oscar-nominated sci-fi adventure District 9 and followed it up with 2013’s underrated post-apocalyptic thriller Elysium. His newest film, Chappie, is the latest in a long line of films (Bicentennial Man, The Iron Giant, I-Robot, Wall-E, Big Hero 6, etc…) in which a mechanical humanoid is given a realistic human personality. However, unlike those other films in which a robot was plunked down in a fairly innocent setting, Chappie sees a mechanical being thrust into the run-down, bullet-ridden Johannesburg ghetto, becoming both an important player in a gang war and the ultimate MacGuffin for a pair of competing scientists.

I had seen the trailers for Chappie many times, to the point that I was quite weary of seeing it and, at one time, swore off seeing the movie. With the awkward robot of the title shown doing various childish things while different characters muttered solemn platitudes like “I brought you into this world” and “you can do anything you want to do”, I thought it might be some dopey fable about, basically, a kind of grown-up Wall-E. It isn’t that. It’s closer to a robotic Frankenstein tale, set in a unique, gritty setting with a unique cast that gives it a kind of naturalistic, anti-blockbuster vibe. Despite my initial reservations, this disorienting and uncouth atmosphere started to draw me in, only to leave me awash in adrenaline with a tremendous action-packed, edge-of-your-seat final third. It’s not perfect, but Chappie was far better than I expected, a welcome surprise in my first trip to the movies in almost a month.

Plot

It’s 2016, and crime in Johannesburg, South Africa, is at an all-time low thanks to the addition to the police force of robotic ‘scouts’, human-like figures able to take commands, kick down doors, tote guns, and arrest criminals. Though the scouts have helped save lives and stop crimes and make his company a fortune, the scouts’ creator, Deon Wilson (Dev Patel, of Slumdog Millionaire fame) isn’t satisfied. He’s as interested in creating a robotic consciousness—the ability for robots to think and learn and act for themselves—as he is in continuing to turn a profit for weapons manufacturers. His CEO (Sigourney Weaver) scoffs at the notion, as does rival robotics inventor Vincent Moore (Hugh Jackman), who, wanting to one-up Deon and his scouts, has created a bigger, more powerful robot called a Moose, which a human driver can control by wearing a helmet that forms a connection with the human’s neural transmitters. However, with the scouts’ success, the Moose isn’t needed, and Vincent remains second-class.

           

 Even further down the food chain are a local gang of petty criminals, Amerika (Jose Pablo Cantillo) and sweethearts Ninja and Yolandi (South African actors/musicians Ninja and Yo-Landi Vi$$er), who have run afoul of a notorious, deadly gangster, Hippo (Brandon Auret). Though their lives were spared by police and robot scout intervention, Hippo escaped, too, and he holds them to a significant debt. Ninja figures the best way to pay Hippo what they owe is a bank heist, but with impervious robot scouts stopping crimes everywhere, their prospects of pulling one off seem hopeless. It occurs to them to try stealing a robot and figuring out a way to reprogram it just as Deon smuggles a damaged robot scout out of his company’s headquarters and tries to bring it to his home, where he can implant the new consciousness program he’s created. He’s hijacked halfway by the gang, who are delighted to learn they can teach and influence the robot however they want once the consciousness is implanted. It’s Yolandi who names the robot once he comes to life and begins to warm to their presence, calling him a “happy chappie”. Deon has to go to work each day, but he gets off whenever he can to help teach the robot. So, Chappie (voice of South African actor Sharlto Copley) gets a unique dual influence—the gentler Deon and Yolandi want to teach him nice things, like how to read and paint and draw and appreciate beauty, while Amerika and Ninja want to teach him how to wield guns and knives and knock down walls. Meanwhile, an increasingly-obsessed Vincent has begun dogging Deon’s steps and his trips away from the office, and, infuriated at the idea that giving the robots a human-like consciousness could make them even more popular and profitable, he begins hatching a wild scheme to discredit the scouts, and Deon, once and for all.

What Works?

There are a lot of things I’d like to praise about Chappie, but the main reason the movie is so effective is Chappie himself. Sharlto Copley is, at this point, best known for playing a pair of extremely vindictive characters, the stop-at-nothing hit-man in Elysium and the scheming, power-mad king in Maleficent. Considering that’s the major impression of the actor, the humanity he infuses in Chappie through just the power of his voice and movements (thanks motion-capture animation!) is both indelible and incredible. He generates laughs, tears, and even gasps of fright, and does so without exaggeratedly gooey material (props to the gritty and moving screenplay, by Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell). You feel for Chappie, you care about him, you hope he’ll spare someone’s life at one point, and you hope he’ll save the day by grabbing a gun at another. He’s a wonderful creation, as effective on a personal level as Wall-E or Beymax or any of the other popular movie robots. The animators of the film deserve a huge hand, as well; not even once, from the very start of the film, does it occur to one that Chappie, or any of the other dozens of robots in the film, are mere CGI. Chappie seems every bit as real and present as any other popular CGI character of recent years—Gollum, the Na’vi from James Cameron’s Avatar, the new Planet of the Apes simians, any.

It would be easy, however, for the makers to have simply invested all their time and energy in a robot and left the plot and other characters out to dry. Thankfully, they haven’t. Dev Patel shines in what is probably his best role since Slumdog, convincingly taking the ride from nebbishy inventor to avenging creator. Hugh Jackman, able to speak in his native Australian brogue, is also supremely effective as Vincent—obviously known the world over for his portrayal of the tough, gruff-with-a-heart-of-gold Wolverine in X-Men, Jackman is rather surprisingly convincing as a sneering villain. I won’t be the only Jackman fan cheering for the actor to get pummeled late in the film, as his diabolical schemes unfold. The three unknowns who make up the gang that takes Chappie in deserve a huge hand as well. It takes a few scenes for one to get over Cantillo, Ninja and Yo-Landi’s bizarre appearances and thick accents, and all eyes are on Chappie from the get-go, but when all the characters end up in mortal danger late, you realize how much you care about them (random fact: the basically-playing-themselves Ninja and Yo-Landi are former real-life romantic partners. They have a daughter, and they front the South African rap-rave group Die Antwood). None of these actors will win Oscars or anything, but, as stated, their naturalistic appearances and layered portrayals greatly enhance the story. It is thanks to their contributions that the movie’s pell-mell, high-stakes action sequences are as gripping as they are.

What Doesn’t Work?

I don’t have a whole lot of criticism, other than the fact that the movie’s first 15 or so minutes are, as mentioned, rather disorienting, given that the early approach seems so different from what was shown in the trailers (including an enormous time jump). Blomkamp’s choice to subtitle a number of scenes in which characters like Ninja and Hippo speak heavily-accented, gangster English is also a questionable one; it feels like a gimmick, which isn't a great way to start a movie. For my money, they should either just have them speak regular English in a heavy but discernible accent, or have them speak a completely different language and subtitle it. Other than that, however, I can’t think of any other issues—Chappie is about as good as it could’ve been, and I want to praise Blomkamp for, just as he did in Elysium, coming up with a sort of feel-good ending that doesn’t feel cheap or phoned-in. His movies are quite ingenious.

Content

If you can discern the dialogue, you’ll be able to discern plenty of cuss-words. There’s also the fact that, as was also the case in Elysium, when the going gets tough, the going gets bloody. The violence in Chappie tends to be fierce and brutal, though it does have a point and you do keep track of the characters in it. This movie, uncouth and gritty as it is, can be tough.

Bottom Line

Chappie is not a perfect movie, but boy was it a surprise! Engaging, well-written, thought-provoking, exciting, and electrifying, this quasi-real-life fable from South African writer/director Neill Blomkamp (who made the similar District 9 and Elysium in recent years) outperformed even my best expectations. Hugh Jackman’s great in a non-Wolverine role, a bunch of unknown South African actors make invaluable, memorable contributions, and Chappie himself proves to be every bit as engaging and believable a CGI creation as Gollum from Lord of the Rings. There’s laugh-out-loud humor, there’s white-knuckle action, and there’s a point to all of it. I was quite pleasantly surprised.

Chappie (2015)

Directed by Neill Blomkamp

Screenplay by Neill Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell

Rated R

Length: 120 minutes

THE INTERVIEW

The Interview

Grade: C+

Starring: James Franco, Seth Rogen and Lizzy Caplan, with Randall Park as Kim Jong-Un and Diana Bang as Sook

Premise: A lively TV interviewer and his producer land a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to interview North Korea’s Supreme Ruler, only for the CIA to immediately recruit them for an assassination attempt on the dictator.

Rated R for constant crude, profane language (including graphic sexual references and racial and ethnic slurs), bloody violence, coarse humor, some sexuality, brief graphic nudity, and some drug content

I doubt it ever struck anyone in the majority of the world’s countries as anything but mere farce, but the broad 2014 comedy The Interview became a hot topic a few months ago when North Korea—the country that’s heavily ridiculed by the film—allegedly threatened terrorist attacks on the U.S. if the picture screened in theaters. It was almost immediately yanked from major theater chains, and there were rumors the film would never, ever, see the light of day, in any medium. But, amidst cries of patriotism (“American does not negotiate with or bend to the demands of terrorists!”), Hollywood muckraking (“you’re cowards if you don’t show the film”, dozens of celebrities tweeted), and social memes that were gleefully passed from person to person (“I can’t wait to see what movies North Korea lets me see this Christmas!”), the movie leaked out, first as a pirated property, then as a Video-On-Demand and limited release. It was something of a Must-See there for a while, just for the purpose of the thing (many people undoubtedly watched it believing their doing so was an act of patriotism for ‘Murica, or else one of defiance against North Korea). I had never truly wanted to see it—being a fan of neither James Franco nor Seth Rogen—even if the premise struck me as fairly intriguing, but, on yet another snowy, icy day this winter, I couldn’t help checking it out on Netflix to see just what all the fuss was about.

Absurd. That’s my instinctive one-word reaction to this socio-political hot topic. Utterly absurd. While you can't make the argument that no one should be upset by the film when it’s obviously supposed to just be silly escapist entertainment, The Interview is really quite harmless, a crass, lame-brained, feature-length version of a drunken party joke, one that is largely-cliché and embarrassingly-acted. I’d be tempted to call it the most outrageously-vulgar movie I’ve ever seen if I hadn’t seen star/director Rogen’s last comedy (Neighbors). Basically it pairs Rogen—doing his expletive-mumbling underachiever gag—alongside Franco—who does his patented weird, over-acting, wink-wink-I’m-smarter-than-this-but-I’m-doing-it-anyway shtick—and just wants to make anyone not from North Korea belly laugh while pointing an amused finger at the world’s most hostile dictator and his tight-lipped nation. A good idea? Hard to say. An intriguing premise? Sort of. A good movie? Ehhhh…

Plot

After years of producing a popular late-night talk show, TV executive Aaron Rapaport (Rogen, playing the straight man for once) hasn’t gained much respect, mainly because his show, Skylark Tonight, is a vehicle for flamboyant dufus Dave Skylark (Franco, in his most intolerable role ever) to exchange gossip with celebrities. The show is so low-brow that its idea of breaking news is a rapper admitting on the air that some of his blatantly homosexual lyrics point to the fact that he is actually a homosexual. Inexplicably, however, the show is watched by millions, including none other than the Supreme Ruler/Dictator of North Korea, Kim Jong-Un (a likeably-game Randall Park). Delighted by the idea that he could interview someone important and serious and look like a real journalist, Dave convinces reluctant Aaron to call the North Korean embassy and request an interview with Kim. Surprise! The interview is granted. And, within days, the CIA shows up on Aaron’s doorstep, with a sharp but comely agent (Lizzy Caplan) informing the men they are to be part of a plot to put the world’s most dangerous man out of commission.

Though disbelieving and then nervous at first, Dave and Aaron manage to grasp the basics of a surprisingly simple assassination plan, to poison the dictator by having a tiny pellet of a lethal substance penetrate his skin when he shakes Dave’s hand to start the interview. However, things go awry almost immediately, when Dave and Aaron are met by a stern female head of security, Sook (the winning Diana Bang), and a baggage check loses them their precious sample of poison. They manage to obtain another sample later, at great cost, by which time Sook has grown very suspicious of Aaron. Worse, Kim Jong-Un himself instigates a private audience with Dave, in which he shows Dave that is really a lonely-at-heart frat boy with daddy issues, a lot like Dave. If he wasn’t so pressured, Kim reckons, he could be free to drive hot cars, make out with hot women, drink, snort, and live the debauched lifestyle he craves. Touched, Dave begins to have second thoughts about attempting to kill the dictator, while Aaron is dogged consistently by the stern and forbidding Sook. As the big interview draws near, both men wonder if it really is worth trying to kill the man.

What Doesn’t Work?

The first flaw of the movie that comes to my mind is also its biggest—top-billed actor James Franco is absolutely insufferable in the role of Dave Skylark. I haven’t been a fan of the actor since he bombed in his major attempt at epic romantic drama/tragedy (2006’s Tristan & Isolde, in which he did nothing but brood and mope), but he gives one of the most maddeningly-awful performances I’ve ever seen in The Interview, even if it was probably the goofy leading performance co-Directors Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg were looking for. By turns fey, fussy, shrill, obnoxious and cloying, Dave is nails-on-a-chalkboard annoying for about 97 percent of his screen time, the last third of which he spends baby-talking to a puppy, to give you an idea. It’s distressing to think that the actor’s fans, and many Hollywood personalities, likely hailed the actor for his ‘fearless performance art’ here; Academy members should feel ashamed for ever considering this man for an Oscar (even if it was for his admittedly solid one-man-show in 127 Hours), let alone for letting him host the show (he was memorably ticked/embarrassed/stoned while co-hosting with Anne Hathaway back in 2010). Anyone, like me, who thinks of the actor as smug and overrated will have no reason to think or feel otherwise after watching this (note: I think his brother Dave, of Neighbors and the 21 Jump Street remake, is a much more talented comedian).

I probably shouldn’t have been surprised by this, but The Interview is vulgar to the max, beating the viewer over the head with words that starts with F, C, and P, or that consist most notably of letters like M and F. There’s not a hint of subtlety to be found in The Interview, whether it pertains to the movie’s politics, racial stereotyping, bromance, budding romance, or to the fact that Dave has the hots for the CIA agent (Caplan) who hired him. Its main characters are both nitwits, its antagonists are largely cliché, and, of course, it’s determined to make broad comedic fodder out of an entire country, its people, and its traditions. Mostly, The Interview is flat-out stupid.

What Works?

That said, in its best moments, The Interview manages a sort of rollicking entertainment factor, particularly in a wildly-over-the-top in-studio fight between Rogen and one of Kim’s cronies (I was howling with laughter during this scene), and an incident where Rogen has to retrieve a high-priority package and hide it from Korean sentries while Dave and the CIA both yammer in his ear (another doozy). The final action sequence is exciting, and the titular televised conversation, while played mostly for laughs or embarrassing farce, manages a modicum of actual suspense. It’s also worth noting that Rogen—as I said earlier, for once playing the straight man—is rather more watchable than usual here, even if it’s only because your options are him and the hamming-it-like-there’s-no-tomorrow Franco. It’s also commendable that the movie’s main attempts to develop “character” involve the two main Korean characters. Kim and Sook—played by western-raised actors born to Korean parents, Randall Park and Diana Bang, respectively—have hints of actual personalities, and motivations and feelings, even if every moment of actual decency is almost immediately followed by expletives or other wild bluster.

 Content

As I pointed out, The Interview is just about as lewd and crude as they come, notching bad words by the score and firing away with sexual references, sexist jokes, racist jokes, ethnic jokes, violent jokes, and other fairly insensitive material. This probably shouldn’t surprise anyone, but it’s worth noting. If they have tried to make a more serious movie out of this premise (not a straight drama, but a less goofy farce), The Interview could’ve really been something.

Bottom Line

You can’t argue that The Interview isn’t insulting to North Koreans, but this wild and crazy comedy farce is mostly a lightweight, goofy, vulgar-to-the-max party joke for party boys. James Franco gives one of the most annoying would-be comedic performances I’ve ever seen in my life, actually giving Seth Rogen a chance to seem endearing.  A couple Korean actors do well, too (isn’t it appropriate the movie’s most interesting and well-rounded character is Kim Jong-Un?). There’s definitely some laugh-out-loud stuff, but, even with all the support-freedom-of-speech, we-don’t-negotiate-with-terrorists, rah-rah hoopla that surrounded its release, The Interview is not even close to a Must-See movie. I just grabbed it on Netflix because I’m snowed and iced in, again.

The Interview (2014)

Directed by Evan Goldberg and Seth Rogen

Screenplay by Dan Sterling

Rated R

Length: 112 minutes