Deepwater Horizon

Posted on September 29, 2016 at 5:54 pm

I’m a fan of director Peter Berg. His excellent “Friday Night Lights” film has been eclipsed by the popular television series it inspired. And I like the much-derided “Battleship,” which I thought was a great example of well-executed action movie, taking its entertainment value seriously without taking itself too seriously. His new “Deepwater Horizon,” based on the 2010 explosion and sinking of BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, shows his skill in cinematic storytelling and his gift for pacing and action. But it is curiously constructed, as though for a fictional story more along the lines of Bruce Willis fighting a meteor than a real-life environmental catastrophe that killed 11 people and spread an estimated 3.19 million barrels of oil into the Gulf. It should be an action-movie version of “The Big Short.” Instead, it’s an updating of “The Towering Inferno,” meaning — spoiler alert — the bad guy is the one who tries to cut costs.

Berg and screenwriters Matthew Michael Carnahan and Matthew Sand follow the established formula for action films. The first ten minutes make us fall in love with the hero, his adoring wife, and adorable child. That’s not hard to do. The hero is Mike Williams, Mark Wahlberg, his wife is Felicia (Kate Hudson), and their daughter happens to be working on a report for school about Daddy’s job, which gives us a chance to find out about some very technical stuff in very simple terms. Daddy works on an oil rig out in the middle of the Gulf that pumps up oil from under the ocean. “That oil is a monster like the dinosaurs it used to be. My daddy tames the dinosaurs.” And Mommy will miss him very much when he goes. They are adorable. Got it.

The next scene introduces us to hero number 2, the weary veteran who is all about competence and integrity, Captain Jimmy Harrell, superbly played by Hudson’s real-life dad, Kurt Russell. And then there are the guys in suits, who are all about making their numbers and therefore cutting the corners that the veterans knows are not there for show but are actually necessary. There’s a lot of jargon, but basically all you need to know is that the good guys understand that there may be a problem and the bad guys do not want to take the steps necessary to find or prevent it. And the good guys are really endearing, and therefore it all matters a lot.

And then it all starts to blow up, and we get to the real reason for the movie, which is the “who will get out of this and how will they do it?” part. This is where Berg’s strengths really show, as each of the set-pieces are thrillingly staged. He has an exceptional clarity in conveying a three-dimensional space on screen — actually, several of them in different locations — and balancing the urgency of the action with genuine emotion. We see how the people on board think through the problems, from the logistics and the mechanics to the choices based in morality and courage. Wahlberg is, as ever, just right to play the guy you’d like to have next door, a decent, hard-working, family-loving man with enormous capability and integrity. Here, as in their previous collaboration, “Lone Survivor,” Berg keeps the focus on the challenges faced by individuals who have little control over the monumental, life-or-death tasks they are assigned by people far away with little understanding of the consequences of their orders. That worked better in the earlier film, as the story of the soldier far from command has existential implications that are inherent and instantly recognized. Here, the action is disconnected from the consequences that a brief text coda before the credits cannot make up for.

Parents should know that the movie includes extensive peril and violence, with some disturbing images and characters injured and killed, some strong language, and sexual references and a situation.

Family discussion: Why do the people on the rig use the term “Mr.”? Who could have prevented the explosion?

If you like this, try: “The 33” and the documentary about Deepwater Horizon, “The Great Invisible”

Related Tags:

Action/Adventure Based on a true story

Daddy’s Home

Posted on December 24, 2015 at 5:25 pm

It is sometimes said that competition between men is a substitute for comparing their male body parts. In “Daddy’s Home,” the men actually lower their trousers — in front of a doctor and a woman who has been married to them both — so they can measure their differences. Belief me, metaphoric competition is better.

Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg, who were terrific together in the buddy cop film The Other Guys, reunite with far less success in “Daddy’s Home,” about the battle between a stepdad and a biological dad for the affections of the wife and children.

Ferrell plays Brad, a decent, devoted, responsible, guy who wants more than anything in the world for his stepchildren to love him. It is supposed to be very funny that (1) he lost his ability to have his own biological children in a dental x-ray machine accident depicted in the film’s first moments, (2) he works for a Smooth Jazz station, and (3) his little step-daughter draws a family portrait that shows him with a knife in his head and poop in his hair. Wahlberg is Dusty, Brad’s worst nightmare. He is dashing, exotic, mysterious, and he looks like Mark Wahlberg.

Each tries to outdo the other to impress the children, their mother (Linda Cardellini), Brad’s boss (Thomas Hayden Church), the fertility doctor (Bobby Cannavale), the handyman (Hannibal Buress in one of the film’s few bright spots), and anyone else they can find.

This is a great issue to explore with comedy and heart. Unfortunately, in this film the comedy is not funny and the heart is missing. The competition is all about the men vying against each other; there is not even the most perfunctory suggestion of any benefit for the children or even any consideration of their feelings. They exist as props, and Cardellini is relegated to a thankless role somewhere between sympathy and scold. Ferrell and Wahlberg still have great chemistry, but their characters are just pale imitations of roles we’ve seen them in too many times. A series of lackluster skits based on insults, virility panic, and slapstick don’t make a movie.

Parents should know that this film includes extremely crude and raunchy content with many sexual, reproductive, and bodily function references, drunkenness, very strong language, and themes of rivalry between step and biological fathers.

Family discussion: What did Brad and Dusty most dislike about each other? What did each do best?

If you like this, try: “Big Daddy” and “The Other Guys”

Related Tags:

Comedy Family Issues

Trailer: Daddy’s Home with Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg

Posted on June 26, 2015 at 8:00 am

Will Ferrell plays a devoted stepdad who gets into a competition for the kids’ attention and affection with their biological dad, played by Mark Wahlberg, in “Daddy’s Home.”

Related Tags:

Trailers, Previews, and Clips

Ted 2

Posted on June 25, 2015 at 5:22 pm

“Subtle” is not a word that naturally comes to mind for a movie that features a bong in the shape of male genitalia (which is more powerful — the longing for weed or the ew-factor of a straight guy who does not want to appear to be sucking on a dong-shaped bong)? Or for a movie that shows us a fertility clinic accident drenching a character with an output of said body part, followed by a joke insulting African-American men and those with a genetic ailment. A trifecta!

The raunch-fest “Ted 2” does indeed rely on gross-out, juvenile, misogynistic, homophobic, racist, marijuana-philic, oh-no-they-didn’t humor, though much of it is more humor-ish, fake-funny, outrageousness pretending to be comedy. It spends most of its running time, too long at almost two hours, on jokes about bodily parts and functions, drugs, the joys of slackerdom, and pratfalls, which I admit pretty much sums up my least favorite kind of comedy. So if the two examples above strike you as hilarious, kick my rating up a couple of notches and go enjoy yourself.

The parts I did enjoy were the low-key, random, off-beat moments, especially in the performances of Mark Wahlberg and, briefly Liam Neeson. The gimmick may be the talking teddy bear, but the star of the film in every way is Wahlberg, who in the midst of a slob comedy gives a performance that is so precise and witty it is close to adorable.

“Ted” was an amiably crude film about a boy named Johnny who wished that his teddy bear would come alive, like Pinocchio, or the Nutcracker. Ted does come to life and decades later, John (Wahlberg) and Ted (voiced by writer/director Seth MacFarlane), are happily still best friends, enjoying the pleasures of adulthood (sex, porn, weed, beer) while happily holding on to childhood when it comes to thunderstorms and responsibility. The happy ending of course has to be unraveled for a sequel, so we begin with John now divorced from the long-time girlfriend who gently suggested he might want to grow up, and Ted getting married to his girlfriend, Tami-Lynn (Jessica Barth). After a great musical production number right out of a Busby Berkeley film, we skip ahead a year, and find Ted and Tami-Lynn bickering to the point of not speaking to one another. So, of course they decide to have a baby. This requires the assistance of a fertile male human. Ted’s first choice is, of course, Tom Brady, so he and John come up with a plan to obtain a sample without Brady’s finding out.

It does not end well, so John volunteers to provide the sample himself, leading to the scene described above. That does not work out well, either, so they try adoption, which brings Ted’s situation to the attention of the authorities. Apparently, one has to be human to adopt a child. Ted is classified as property, and is thus ineligible to adopt, work, or even be married. This being America, they find a lawyer (Sam L. Jackson — get it? played by a very game Amanda Seyfried) to go to court and have Ted declared human. This leads to a thoughtful exploration of existential ontology.

Kidding! It’s just a series of dumb situations and dumb jokes made by dumb characters in various locations, including the aforesaid fertility clinic, courtroom, and very lovely home of Tom Brady, plus a pot farm and New York Comic-Con. Giovanni Ribisi returns as the demented Donny, who conspires with the head of Hasbro (did they really consent to product placement in this film) to kidnap Ted because, oh, who cares. Certainly not MacFarlane, who makes no attempt at any kind of storyline or character. He just throws in a gross joke, pop culture shout-out, or surprise cameo (the cast of SNL! Some “Star Trek” actors! Liam Neeson, who clearly did not learn anything from his appearance in “A Million Ways to Die in the West!” Patrick Warburton in a Tick costume!) instead. Neeson is wonderful. Wahlberg is terrific. But not enough to overcome the movie’s limp, puerile, vapidity.

NOTE: Stay all the way to the end of the credits for an extra scene.

Parents should know that this film has constant very strong language with crude and explicit sexual references, sexual situations, drinking, extensive drug use, comic peril, and violence. Some of the humor is intentionally offensive. Some is is just offensive. See the thoughtful discussion of the racist themes and jokes by Wesley Morris in Grantland.

Family discussion: Is Ted human? Who should decide?

If you like this, try: “Ted” and “Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle”

Transformers: Age of Extinction

Posted on June 26, 2014 at 5:59 pm

The script for the new Transformers movie is basically: Noise. Explosions. Chases. Guy-on-guy fighting. Transformer-on-Transformer fighting. Brief pauses for father-teenage daughter conflict, father-boyfriend of the teenage daughter conflict, paranoia-inducing rogue government operatives, paranoia-inducing megalomaniacal one-percenter, and a flicker of a robot existential crisis. Then back to the noise, explosions, and massive PG-13 destruction, meaning more damage to buildings than people or giant robots, though one of the human characters does get incinerated early on. Repeat. Repeat again.

Yes, this movie is nearly three hours long. That’s a lot of robots. It is long, and it is loud. The primary focus is the special effects, including the use of the first-ever IMAX 3D camera (though the credits reveal some post-production 3D work as well). The depth of the frame is impressive.

That’s expected and it is fine. The special effects are better than the non-special effects moments, which come down to 1. Exposition, which makes very little sense, 2. Banter, which is weak, and 3. In-jokes about sequels and product placement.

The special effects are excellent. And I can’t help it, I still love to see cars turn into robots and robots turn into cars. This time there are even Transformer dinosaurs!

Somewhere among the robots, there’s an all-new human cast in this fourth Transformers movie, again inspired by the Hasbro toys and the animated television series. Mark Wahlberg takes over the lead as Cade Yeager, broke inventor and overprotective widowed dad of a 17-year-old daughter (Nicola Peltz as Tessa). His specialty is “making junk into different junk,” and he has a barn that serves as his lab/repair shop. He buys a beat-up old truck that turns out to be none other than alpha-bot Optimus Prime (again with the deep and resonant voice of Peter Cullen). The problem is that since the massive destruction of Chicago in the last movie, which we recall as Cade drives by billboards that say “Remember Chicago,” the consensus in the human population is that all Transformers have to be eliminated.

A government operative named Harold Attinger (Kelsey Grammer) is leading a black ops program to rid the planet of all Transformers, regardless of whether they are autobots or decepticons. He refuses to give any information to a clueless and ineffectual White House Chief of Staff (Thomas Lennon). And he plots with one-percenter Joshua Joyce (Stanley Tucci), an inventor/multi-billionaire sort of cross between Tony Stark and Donald Trump.

So the injured Optimus Prime and his friends are the target of attacks by a business mogul, a government agency, a sort of bounty hunter, and the decepticons, including a sort of re-animator version of Megatron. That means a lot of collateral damage back in Chicago and in China as well, though the cities are not as well differentiated as the robots and that is not saying much. While there seem to be references to current debates about immigration and terrorism, the themes are less overtly political (or dramatic) than a random assortment of words selected for their emotional charge.

Notoriously unreconstructed Michael Bay directs as though it is the first iteration of the Transformers, back in the 1980’s. The racial and gender stereotyping is only slightly less clunky than in earlier installments, which means that the autobots represent various ethnic caricatures for no particular reason and Cade calls his daughter’s Irish boyfriend “Lucky Charms.” It also means that despite the almost infinite budget for the film, apparently there was not enough to pay for enough material to clothe teenage Tessa. No matter what she wears, for some reason there is always a lot of skin showing. There are various sexist comments (jellyfish are compared to women because they are “erotic and dangerous”) and an ooky discussion of why it is not statutory rape when a 20 year old has sex with a 17 year old (the 20 year old in question helpfully carries a copy of the Texas “Romeo and Juliet” law in his wallet, along, I hope, with other protection as well). The politics of the movie are as incoherent as the fight scenes; in both, it is not always clear who the good guys are supposed to be. Basically, everyone is bad except the autobots and their human friends. And the movie is bad except for the robots.

Parents should know that this film includes strong language (s-words, b-words, one f-word), suggestive discussion of teen sex and teen pregnancy, extensive sci-fi action-style violence, constant peril and chases, some characters injured and killed (one burned to a crisp) and widespread destruction and explosions, references to genocide, some disturbing images and scary creatures, some ethnic stereotyping and alcohol (intrusive, if self-mocking, product placement).

Family discussion: What mistakes have turned out well for you? Why was it important to Cade to turn junk into something useful? Why did Attinger insist that all Transformers were bad?

If you like this, try: the other “Transformers” movies and the television series, and “The Iron Giant”