Showing posts with label Dakota Goyo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dakota Goyo. Show all posts

Friday, July 5, 2013

Dark Skies (2013)

"Dark Skies" was looking pretty shaky from the trailer, and if my experience was anything close to the average movie-goer's, nobody was buying it from the best-go. I first caught it in front of "Django Unchained," and perhaps it was because I was in a crowd of people ready to have a great time, but the trailer for "Dark Skies," which I remind you is supposed to be a horror film, got riotous laughter from the audience. I should know. I was one of the people laughing till my guts were fit to burst.

It would take a Brobdingnagian amount of talent to make scenes such as Keri Russell heartily banging her forehead on a glass door while wearing a face like she's the T-1000 after John Connor anything but laughable, let's not even talk about scary. And when the trailer hit us with the big shock of Josh Hamilton standing out in the yard with his mouth agape like he's a Big Mouth Billy Bass, it was clear that "Dark Skies" was made by people who have a very strange concept of what constitutes terror. And every single person in that theater did nothing but laugh and jeer at the trailer for it.

What we finally received was pretty much as silly as the trailer made it out to be, although it wasn't nearly as hilarious. Actually I think had that been the case it would have made for a far more entertaining film considering that the majority of "Dark Skies" is honestly kind of boring. This isn't something to be laughed at and lampooned like "The Happening" or some other ill-conceived train wreck. It's just kind of "there." It does what it does, and is not interested in anything other than existing, because the film industry needed a sci-fi horror flick to throw in theaters during the slow winter months. Enjoy.

So you thought that boarding up your windows would keep highly advanced, intergalactic traveling aliens out? This isn't "Signs."

The story is the very well-trodden alien abduction plot that you'd see in any random episode of "The X-Files," although in "The X-Files" the characters were seldom as dumb, annoying, or such terrible actors as they were in "Dark Skies." The film follows the Barrett family as they are being tormented by strange occurrences which are clearly not-of-this-realm-of-reality, but like most movies like this it takes them an absurd amount of time to come to the conclusion that this weird stuff isn't normal, and it isn't "because they're stressed" or some other contrived, tired cliche. And naturally, once they finally come to terms with the situation and decide to do something about it, they instantly do the exact opposite of what they were told to do by the one person who knew what was going on, and at the end of the movie they wind up losing one of their sons by alien abduction because they're all stupid. Good job. I'm glad they were my main characters.

Since there's barely anything worth talking about besides the ending, as the rest of the movie can be explained away as "Stupid stuff happens until they talk to someone about UFOs," I'll just talk about the end. Dan (Josh Hamilton) and Lacy (Keri Russell) are told by the alien abduction expert they see (J.K. Simmons in his only scene) that there's probably little they can do to prevent the abduction of their son. They believe it's the youngest son, Sam (Kadan Rockett) who is the target of the aliens. It turns out that it's the older son, Jesse (Dakota Goyo) who is the real target, which they release only after he gets abducted, even though based on the evidence the parents had in front of them, it should have been as obvious as a mace to the back of the skull.

But despite which child the aliens were after, it didn't matter because they would both be equally screwed when their protectors are Dan and Lacy. They were told to do one thing: Stick together. They simply had to do that ONE THING. A single task. But what do they do when the aliens show up? They immediately split the party. And they do it not once, but twice. They split a party of 4 people twice. For those keeping score, that leaves 2 family members completely alone. And as any self-respecting D&D player will tell you: You never split the party. Ever.

Damn it, Dan. You had one job. ONE JOB.

So of course their kid gets abducted. They're all idiots. And the kicker of it is that Dan and Lacy actually had the balls to be shocked by this development.

But that whole abduction thing is a rather odd endgame considering the process leading up to it. The aliens torment this family so much and in such weirdly pranksterish ways that I honestly have no clue as to the purpose behind any of it. If I was an alien, I can dig abducting someone, but why would I be rooting through people's garbage, stacking chairs in their kitchen, making birds fly into their house, and stealing all their pictures out of frames? None of that makes any sense as to what the aliens are actually attempting to do. Unless of course it's some kind of bizarre fourth-wall shattering creature with the power to know that it's in a horror movie, so they need to make weird, creepy stuff like that happen. Just abduct the damn kid and call it a day. Why all the shenanigans?

"Some photo-dude is gonna see all the photos gone, and it's gonna blow his mind!"

And this is just me, but I can't stand it when stuff like that goes down. Since I know that it's an alien abduction movie there's no mystery in it for me, so I don't have the luxury of ignorance that the characters do. So when I see what I know to be aliens pulling stupid pranks I am forced to ask myself what the purpose of all of it is. "Dark Skies" never gives us an answer. They just do it because.

The cast is nearly all terrible. Josh Hamilton and Keri Russell's characters would be grating to begin with, but they're played so low-key and clueless that it's nearly impossible to even root for them to be okay, and the chemistry between them and their on-screen children is equal to mold on bread. Although they aren't the worst here. The award for "Worst Child Actor since Jake Lloyd in 'The Phantom Menance'" has to be given to Kadan Rockett. I'm actually throwing out the possibility that Rockett might actually be worse. I'm not joking because this kid is atrociously bad. I never thought I'd see an actor of any age group read every line like he was both asleep and brain damaged at the same time. But I have now.

The only exceptions to the bad acting are J.K. Simmons, L.J. Benet and Dakota Goyo. Simmons is fine in his one scene despite not having much to work with. L.J. Benet plays Jesse's stoner friend Ratner, who is admittedly really obnoxious in his dumbass 15-year old wanksterness. But he's probably the most believable actor in the whole damn movie.

Dakota Goyo I find to be a pretty solid young actor, having been quite good in "Real Steel." And he's good in "Dark Skies," too. At the very least he's way ahead of the rest of the actors portraying his family. And that's despite being the centerpiece of a horrendously awkward scene of attempted heavy-petting, which basically implies that young girls totally like being fed terrible pick up lines from a porno and then being felt-up in an aggressive, potentially rapey way, as long as the act is performed knowledgeably and with confidence. So take a note, boys: Grab those teenage boobs with gusto! The ladies love it, and if you do it they'll even offer to show you how to kiss better!

Trust me, despite all that he's still light years ahead of pretty much everyone else.

The one positive thing I can say about "Dark Skies" is that whenever the aliens are actually on screen, which isn't often, it's actually pretty well done. There's one or two really good scares, and one moment that I found to be genuinely scary, when Keri Russell is being followed down the hallway by an alien that she doesn't know is behind her, and it's just checking her out. That was good. But I spent an hour and a half getting there, and it wasn't worth it.

And the ending is crap, too.

Want a laugh? Here you go! I've seen comedies less funny than this trailer.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Dark Skies" is one of the few movies I can say would have benefited from actually being worse. The fact that it's not as outwardly hilarious as the trailer would have us believe makes it boring. It's a by the numbers alien abduction feature that makes less sense than usual and, apart from about 5 total minutes of decent scenes, leaves you asking what the point of the whole damn mess is.

Sunday, March 31, 2013

Rise of The Guardians (2012)

On occasion, I hit a bit of a wall. I get to a place where I just can't do it. I can't lie to myself. I just can't get excited over a movie sometimes. Despite a fair amount of anticipation from everyone else and generally glowing feedback coming off of "Rise of The Guardians," I was unable to make myself care about it at any point. None. Zero. There was not a single moment in the stretch of time from when I first saw a trailer for this film and when I fired up my Blu-Ray player to reluctantly watch it that I could make myself give the slightest damn about it. Not a single damn was given.

Listen. I don't care if it looks pretty. I don't care if it looks cute. I don't care if it looks like a fun time for the whole family. I don't even care that it's by the makers of "How To Train Your Dragon," a film I legitimately love. It's about Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Toothfairy, Jack Frost, and the Sandman. Only now they're like the freaking Justice League.
 
That's...just stupid. And even if I wound up being surprised by a hidden wealth of mystical wonderment and glee by the whole affair, not a single molecule in my body will be able to accept that concept and roll with it.

This is a movie I was predestined to dislike.

Not that I was expecting it to be bad, necessarily, but I honestly didn't want to waste an hour and a half of my time with it. There's literally hundreds of films sitting on my shelf that I've never seen that I would love to watch, but no. I have to go to Blockbuster and have "Rise of The Guardians" mock me from the shelf saying "What about me? You still haven't watched me! I'm a new release! You should watch it so people stop recommending it for you! And "Skyfall" is still all rented out! What? You'd rather watch that again? NOPE! Bwahahahaha!"

As a grown man, of course I'll watch a movie about the Easter Bunny over James Bond. It's just logical.

So I watched "Rise of The Guardians," against the instincts of every fiber of my being. And unsurprisingly, I didn't like it. It was exactly what I imagined it was going to be - a big steaming pile of cute. And, like I feared, I found it to be an immensely boring endeavor, not due to any kind of poor craftsmanship, but due to my not caring at any point about anything I was seeing. That's the trouble with the whole thing. It's not necessarily a bad movie, although it's no more than okay at best, but "Rise of The Guardians" is such a sizable chunk of nothing.

It's a strange place for me to be in where I don't care about something as opposed to outright dislike it. In fact it's almost worse. Michael Bay I loathe, but I'm more likely to watch a new movie of his as opposed to "Rise of The Guardians," since I know at the very least it will elicit an emotion from me. True it will most likely be anger, but at least I'll get a good rant out of it. The prospect of seeing a Terrence Malick movie may encourage me to drill out my eyes with an auger, but at least it's driving me to do something. I'll be active in some way. Not just sitting on the couch willing time to go by faster so my wasted 90 minutes are over and done with like I'm in a freaking time-out.

At some point I suppose I should talk about this thing. The idea is that...ah hell, I don't know. Not much about "Rise of The Guardians" made that much sense to me. Apparently The Man in The Moon, who we never hear speak but apparently is totally talking to our heroes, is running the whole shebang when it comes to...I guess the happiness of children?  Making sure kids are happy are the Guardians, being Santa and the Easter Bunny and whatnot. The Guardians keep the spirit of happiness alive in children, but they have power only so long as kids believe in them.

It's kind of like Queen Mab in that movie "Merlin" with Sam Neill. And for some reason the happiness of children, which is directly proportional to their belief in occasionally arguably mythical characters, is directly proportional to the fate of the world or something.

Whatever. That works I guess. It's dumb but as far as a movie concept goes it's serviceable. But why in the hell does Santa Claus, oh sorry, his name is North now, have swords?

Seriously with this?

What kind of sense does that make? It's true that's it been a number of years since I believed in Santa, but I can't recall at any point imagining him being a stern, tattooed, Russian version of Conan. Wouldn't the concept of Santa having swords be kind of terrifying to a little kid? I thought the whole concept of Santa was that he was supposed to be a kind, jolly, fat man. And the thought of someone like that visiting your house in the middle of the night was acceptable. But if he's all hardcore and is this hulking brute who duel-wields like a freaking ranger in D&D, that's a little bit more intimidating than I want Santa Claus to come across as!

He has "Naughty" and "Nice" tattooed on his arms. Is...is he going to punch naughty kids?

I would also question the logic of getting Alec Baldwin to voice Santa Claus when he's going to do it in a heavy Russian accent, making it so you can barely tell that it's him. Not that Alec Baldwin is a bad choice for the part or a bad actor, because he's neither one of those, but that's like getting Cindy Crawford to do a photo shoot while wearing a Christie Brinkley mask. What's the damn point?

The scary thing is that Santa isn't the most ridiculous one of the group. What they do to the Easter Bunny is downright laughable. Being the logically least physically imposing member of the group, I guess it's logical that the Easter Bunny was made into this 6-foot tall, steely eyed, Australian Snake Plissken type, but that doesn't mean that him being the tough guy of the group wasn't ridiculous. Although to the film's credit, that is made into the subject of more than a few jokes. So in that sense I guess there's some cheeky self-awareness, but that couldn't help me figure out what in the blue hell this movie was trying to accomplish.

Okay. Fine. You're a badass. That's not what one would usually expect. You know you have eggs in your bandolier, right?

Am I supposed to laugh simply because he's tough when, being the Easter Bunny, you'd imagine him to be otherwise? That's such an obnoxiously lazy form of humor. That's like all the MLP fan-art of Fluttershy being a serial killer. Because she's the quiet and overly-polite one, you see? And it's the juxtaposition of those two extremes that makes it funny. Or boring and way too easy. Take your pick.

At least Hugh Jackman got to speak in his normal voice for a change. But not being used to his normal voice, like Alec Baldwin, I could barely tell it was him. As is probably obvious, that was a pretty consistent problem I had with "Rise of The Guardians," being that the admittedly upper-echelon cast seemed really wasted. Baldwin and Jackman were both okay but were fairly unrecognizable, while Isla Fisher as the Tooth Fairy and Chris Pine as Jack Frost both have such indistinct voices that it really could have been anyone. Again, they didn't do a bad job, but I fail to see the point in getting actors without distinct voices to do voice work for movies.

It also didn't help that the majority of Chris Pine's dialogue is "Whoa!" "Ha Ha!" "Woo!" and "Yeah!"

That's true, by the way. I can only assume that in a cost-cutting measure, to get about 40 pages worth of dialogue out of him, they simply put Chris Pine in a recording booth for 5 minutes and gave him a script which was a single direction written in the middle of the page that read:

JACK FROST
(sounds of boyish laughter and excitement)

And that was probably it. Boom. We've got a movie, you guys. Quick, get the conceptual art team to conjure up some whimsical sequences where we can make the camera go all over the place and follow Jack Frost as he's flying around and causing snow and ice to happen. In fact, have them make a crap ton of that. That can be like 30% of the film. Don't worry about it. The whimsy will make up for the lack of anything significant happening.

The only, I repeat, ONLY character that I gave two craps about was the villain, Pitch. I will admit to really liking this character, who is essentially The Boogie Man. I actually felt more sympathy towards the villain than I did any of the heroes, since he has a far more interesting story which is full of tragic self-fulfilling loneliness, and as a result he feels like a far more fleshed out character than ANY of the Guardians by quite a wide margin. On top of that, Jude Law was the only cast member who stood out with his voice work, and easily turns in the best performance of the cast. And what do you know, I could actually tell it was him.

And for some reason, and I don't know if it was just my imagination here, the animation on Pitch's face was so much better than anyone else. Maybe it was because I knew who I was listening to speak, which made it easier to imagine their face, but I got so much more emotion out of Pitch than the Guardians. I don't want to come out and say that it's because Jude Law is a better voice actor, which while unlikely is honestly a reasonable possibility, but the animation certainly helped him blow everyone else out of the water here.

Wow. A character with complexity. Too bad he's the villain.

But it's a movie. You know the bad guy is going to lose. The bad guy always loses. I knew the character I liked most was going down in the end, which didn't help with my enjoyment of the whole affair. I knew these people I couldn't care less about were going to stop the only character with an interesting story simply on the basis that he was the villain, and I just wanted them to beat him and get it done so the movie could be over, kind of like ripping off a band-aid. Such was my experience with "Rise of The Guardians." I wanted the option of ripping out some of my hair in a quick moment of pain in exchange for it just being done.

But, and this is just a quick question of logic here, but when the fate of the world depends on children believing in the Guardians, why don't they just do this:

Behold. Problem solved.

I don't mean to be overly nitpicky, but that's a legitimate complaint here. The Guardians go around trying to covertly fix things when it's clear that all they would have to do is show themselves, proving they exist without question, and Pitch is instantly defeated. I'm sure an answer may have been given at one point, but I don't recall ever hearing it. Perhaps it was because I was bored.

Can I just watch "Wreck-It Ralph" again?

Here's the trailer for "Rise of The Guardians." Just imagine me rolling my eyes and picking at a hole in the arm of my chair and you've got my general reaction to the entire film.

THE BOTTOM LINE - My negative reaction to "Rise of The Guardians" is directly proportional to my apathy towards it. It's not that it's bad. I just never gave a damn about it. Did you think it looked good? Then you'll like it. I guess it's decent family entertainment, although the message of blind faith in something demonstrably untrue is unsettling to me. But it's supposed to be a fantasy, not an allegory. I hope. Otherwise the message to the target audience is "Hey kids! The Easter Bunny is totally real! And you better believe in him or the world is doomed!" Because that's healthy.