Moonrise Kingdom (2012)

This is going to be one those entries, I can just feel it. It's going to take me forever to write this because the entire process is going to be bogged down by wanting to be fair and objective about "Moonrise Kingdom." I don't have to do that, mind you. This is my blog. I can write whatever the crap I want to. But I do want to be fair, because with a movie like this, I can tell that there will be an audience for it.

I'm just not it.

I've only seen two of Wes Anderson's movies, this and "The Royal Tenenbaums," and just by seeing those I can pretty much guarantee that I'm probably not going to like anything he makes very much. I didn't necessarily hate "The Royal Tenenbaums," but it wasn't exactly turning my dials. I think that's obvious considering I remember absolutely nothing about it besides that tombstone of Gene Hackman's.

But that's not surprising, because it illustrates perfectly what my main issue with Wes Anderson's films are: They are about nothing. Wes Anderson's films are what you would get if the Coen Brothers took their usual drama/comedies about quirky slackers getting their hands on a lot of dirty money, ditched the dirty money angle, made it a slice-of-life drama/comedy and kept everything else. And put Bill Murray in it. I swear, Wes Anderson is like Tim Burton with the amount of recycling he does with his casts.

Some may say that it's unfair to claim "Moonrise Kingdom" is about nothing. Well, they're right, it is about something. It wouldn't be much of a movie without something happening. And for this film, that something happens to be that a boy and a girl run away together on an island, and the adults and the rest of the boy's scout troop go out to find them. The whole film is presented in a very picturesque, storybook style fashion that gives the impression that you're looking at a pop-up book or something. And unsurprisingly, the charm is cranked to 11. This is a film with a death-grip on the throat of whatever cute little animal they're milking the charm out of, and they're squeezing it dry to the very last drop.

I actually noticed in the camera movements themselves that great pains were taken to be sure that the actors on screen appeared as literally two-dimensional as possible. For instance, there were never any panning shots around anybody, many shots were static as the characters walked in and out of frame, and there were a lot of very wide shots with actors on the extreme opposite sides of the screen. What this did, in addition to the bright, cheerful color palate, was to give the impression that you were looking at a picture book. In fact, it's to the point were the house of the main girl looks more like a dollhouse, and I'm not sure they didn't actually use a miniature with some camera tricks to put the actors inside.

If you saw the movie you'd understand what I'm talking about. They look 6 inches tall inside there.

There was also a lot of scrapbook style cutaways and inserts of maps or whatnot that would have looked out of place had this rest of the film not been just as stylistic. One thing I must admit was that "Moonrise Kingdom" was very effective in conveying its style and tone, and it never wavered from that.

However, and maybe I was just in a bad mood, it didn't work on me. It smacked of effort. It beat me over the head with a crowbar covered with Beatrix Potter artwork while yelling "HERE! ARE YOU CHARMED YET!?! HAH?!? HOW ABOUT NOW?!?!?" And frankly, I didn't appreciate it. Now on the other hand, if you enjoy that kind of thing, specifically crowbars with Beatrix Potter artwork on them smashing into your cranium, than by all means, watch "Moonrise Kingdom."

In all honesty, I would have been fine with the tone, and much of the movie as a whole, had it been for some changes to the cast. Not big changes, mind you. Just the two main characters. That's all. Nothing huge.

Now, in this case, one was not as bad as the other, although I felt they suffered from much of the same problem. Kara Hayward as Suzy, the girl who runs away from her home, was actually somewhat entertaining and even occasionally convincing. That is, when she was given an opportunity to emote. This only happens very rarely, I assure you.

Just go ahead and guess what emotion she's conveying. It's the same expression for all of them...

You remember Wednesday from "The Addams Family?" Yeah. That's about the level of passion and intensity she displays about 97% of the time. All of her line readings - ALL of them - are said with the same monotone, lifeless, nobody-on-the-planet-talks-like-that way that apparently is the only way to portray a "quirky" character. I don't really blame her, though. I think Kara is probably a fine actress, and will probably have a good career ahead of her. I blame Wes Anderson, because this kind of dullness is, from what I've seen, one of his calling cards.

Now, I gave Kara some slack, but it's hard to do the same for Jared Gilman, playing Sam, our hero. He's the boy scout that abandons his troop, and I have to come out and say that I found him to be downright unwatchable. He is terrible, and again, I'm not sure if I should blame the actor or the director. I'm more inclined to say it's Anderson's fault for making him read his lines in such a way, but at the same time, at least Kara was able to slightly convince me that she was a real-life person. There's no chance with this Jared kid.

It appears that this kid has no concept of the use of punctuation or normal cadences when speaking. Everything he says is delivered in this rapid-fire, disinterested manner that comes off like a night of really really bad amateur community theater, and it just baffles me that anyone could not find him distracting. He comes off a total creep - or someone who is going to grow up to have a nice collection of human femurs under his mattress. He's supposed to be charming?
 

He also looks like Steven Page from BNL. Which is also weird.

I can't believe I'm throwing up a defense for him here, but even a bad kid actor could do better than the wretched performance I saw here. It's got to be Wes Anderson telling him to do it like that. Apparently when you're a Indie film darling, you can get away with terrible performances all in the name of being "quirky." What a crock.

Oddly enough I did like the rest of the cast, but then again when you've got great actors like Edward Norton, Bruce Willis and Bill Murray it's easy to like them. And although both Tilda Swinton and Frances McDormand were kind of roped into the same Wes Anderson patented goofiness that plagued much of the rest of the cast, they still managed to be likable. It wasn't like "Burn After Reading," where I wanted to take a hatchet to the face of every single last cast member.

Look out, the camera is telling me we're about to get zany! Woah-ho-ho!

Actually, I found myself liking Edward Norton's character a lot. Despite starting off as one of the goofiest, he became one of the most believable and likeable, since he's pretty much the only one with an actual character-arc. Imagine that. He was also able to elicit most of the laughs I got from "Moonrise Kingdom." In fact, I'm trying to think of a laugh I got that didn't involve him, and I'm drawing a blank.

Okay, it's time to wrap this up. Did I like "Moonrise Kingdom?" No. Was it pretty much predetermined that I wasn't going to? Yeah. It's just not for me. But if you like Wes Anderson, all of what I said above can be disregarded, because the reasons that I disliked "Moonrise Kingdom" is probably the reasons you'll love it.

But there's one thing that is not defensible. The dog. They killed the dog. There is a body count of exactly 1 in this film, and it's the damn dog. And there was NO reason for it at all. In fact, I'm still not sure what the crap happened, but the dog is dead. It's name was Snoopy. And "Moonrise Kingdom" had him in the movie for one reason: To die for no reason.

Moonrise Kingdom...you're a jerk.

 
THE BOTTOM LINE - I don't like Wes Anderson, so I didn't like "Moonrise Kingdom." I found it boring and not a little bit pretentious, and it tried way too hard to be charming. But fans of Wes Anderson will probably consider it the masterpiece they consider anything he touches.

The Bourne Legacy (2012)

You know, spy movies are like making bacon. To make sure it is perfect, there are certain things to look out for.

First, when frying it in a pan, be sure to only cook it in its own greases, as it needs nothing else. For this reason it is also advisable to cook more than simply a few strips at a time, so as to be sure there is enough grease to go around, otherwise it may burn.

Also, there is no need for constant flipping. Once per side is enough, similar to if you were cooking a steak.

Finally, never put cold bacon straight into a hot pan. Always lay the strips in a room temperature pan first, then put the pan on a burner at medium high heat. This will ensure an even cooking, and prevent burning.

You see, if the bacon were the characters, and the pan is the script, and the grease is the action, you have to make sure that the script isn't too hot, because the characters might start splattering action everywhere and make your stove-top all greasy. Maybe some might splash on your arms and it might string real bad, and you want to wipe it off you quick because it's burning your arm, but your hands are full because you're turning the characters with a fork and if you drop it than a bunch of action is going to get all over your shoes and the floor and it might cause moderately severe burns and grease fires suck to put out so you better just take the pain.

The point I'm trying to make here is that I don't like the Bourne movies. But I do like bacon. Hmm. That analogy made more sense in my head...

Pictured above: Espionage.

Going into "The Bourne Legacy" I had been made aware that unless you were a big fan of the Bourne series up to this point, and had a pretty good knowledge of them going into it, this was going to be a really rough movie to watch. The word "confusing" popped up more than a few occasions. Apparently "The Bourne Legacy" takes place while the events of the third film are going on, kind of like a companion piece to it, if you will. However, from what I understood watching the film, while events from "The Bourne Ultimatum" affect this film, the events from this film don't affect "The Bourne Ultimatum." I think.

I get the feeling I'm going to have to fall back on the phrase "I think" more often than I'd like when talking about this film. In the case of "The Bourne Ultimatum" I have to resort to it because honestly, I slept through a good chunk of that film. That was an intensely boring experience for me, and I literally have no memory of it. None. The only thing I think I remember is a shot near the end where someone sitting in their car looks in their side mirror and sees someone else walking down the street. That's it. Mothra could have gotten elected as the new Pope in that movie and I wouldn't remember it. Although since I can't remember otherwise, I have to assume that Mothra becoming Pope could have indeed happened.

Unsurprisingly, I didn't care for this movie any more than I cared for the others, which was not a lot. And while I had no idea what was going on in the Matt Damon Bourne movies, at least they had the decency to have a modicum of action in them. Well, at least the first one did. I can't remember the others.

The biggest problem with "The Bourne Legacy" is that it's boring. It's a bunch of talking heads spewing lingo-laden techobabble. Remember in any of the various "Star Trek" series whenever someone, usually Spock or Data would start rattling off some indecipherable science speak which basically boiled down into something really simple like "We need to increase the power to this thing" except it sounded really smart? That's "The Bourne Legacy" in a nutshell. Just 2 hours and 10 minutes of just that, except they're replacing science-speak with espionage-speak.

Every line of dialogue Edward Norton has could be followed by the question, "What?"

I could figure out the "what" of the movie. I knew what was going on, because at the core it's really not difficult to "get." Jeremy Renner is part of what can only be described as a super solider program. He needs meds to stay alive. Jason Bourne happens. The people running the program flip out and try to kill all their agents to cover it up. Jeremy Renner grabs a doctor who worked on the meds to make it so he doesn't need meds anymore. They go to Malaysia, get the cure, and now he doesn't need meds anymore. The end.

That's the plot. I knew the "what" but the thing that made it really frustrating was that I had no idea what was going on with the "who" or "why." It's just a bunch of people talking about whatever and doing stuff and running from some other people because of who knows why and they need to get this thingy because they need it for that thingy and oh look a motorcycle. I know what one of those things are. So hey, is anyone going to get shot in the face in this thing or what?

"Oh, this? Naw, man. This is my cell phone. I made it look just like a gun. And in hindsight, I'm not sure why."

I shouldn't have to tell you that it's a very annoying way to watch a movie. But such is the current state of the "spy thriller." Nothing can be simple like blowing up Fort Knox to make the price of gold skyrocket. No, you need plots within schemes within conspiracies. And you know, it really makes me miss the overblown, exposition laden monologues the villains give where they explain what their plan is, because trust me, some clarity in this movie would have been nice. Not that it would have mattered much, since "The Bourne Legacy" doesn't even have a central villain.

That's right, there's no antagonist. Oh sure, there are people out there trying to shoot him for various, poorly defined reasons, but really, the antagonist in this film is the fact that he has to take medication. Oh, take THAT Blowfeldt! That's some hardcore conflict going on there. What's next, is Wilfred Brimley going to get into a high-speed helicopter chase with his diabeetus?

Oh man. Now I want them to bring back "Airwolf" and cast Wilfred Brimley in the lead.

And for those of you who saw the film and are going to bring it up, no, the little Asian man on the motorcycle doesn't count. I said "central villain." You can't throw a random little Asian man in with 20 minutes left for a chase scene and call him the antagonist. And Edward Norton doesn't count, either. With the exception of a flashback which makes little sense and adds nothing to anything, the two are never on screen with each other, and I'm not entirely sure that Renner's character knows if Norton is the one trying to find him. So it's entirely possible that our protagonist isn't even aware of the "bad guy." Truly an earth-shaking rivalry equal to Holmes and Moriarty!

Don't lie to me, press photo. This 35 second scene is the only time they share screen time.

The action that's in it, when it feels like having it, is at best just OK. Certainly it's not good enough to make us wait for as long as they do. There's a shootout in a house that's halfway passable, and there is the centerpiece action scene with the motorcycles, but I honestly found that last chase to be kind of redundant to the point of boredom. It also didn't help that I had no idea who the guy chasing them was supposed to be. And of course it's all filmed in that patented Bourne style shaky camera which guarantees that you'll have no idea what's going on, although to be fair it's better shot than the rest of the Bourne movies.

But there was one other thing that "The Bourne Legacy" had that the Matt Damon series did not. And what that thing was is quite possibly one of the singlehandedly greatest moments that I've seen in any movie ever, and I'm dead serious. There's a scene in this film that is Barney Stinson level Legendary. You can't even contemplate the awesomeness. Or the hilarity.

Allow me to set the scene for you.

So Jeremy Renner is 2 miles from the middle of Nowhere, Alaska, right? He has a tracking device in his hip. The people trying to kill him are using that device to lock on to him and fire missiles at him from a drone aircraft. So he cuts out the tracking device and sits by a tree to wait for the wolves that have been following him for days to find him.

As the wolves find him, Jeremy Renner straight up tackles the pack leader like Warren Sapp, an act which is by itself so absurdly hardcore that it deserves its own discussion. As he wrestles the wolf into a full-nelson headlock, he manages to jam the tracking device down its throat.

See where this is going? Yeah, it's going exactly where you think it's going.

"Oh crap."

Jeremy then starts running away from the wolves as we see the drone lock on to the signal. As the missile is launched, streaking towards the target, Jeremy, in slow motion action hero glory, makes his final dash through the woods. And then BOOM! A massive explosion behind him completely annihilates that poor furry bastard who had no idea what was in store for him when he woke up that morning.

And I could not stop laughing. It was one of the most hysterical things I'd seen all year up to that point. I mean, how many movies have the hero taking out a wolf with a goddamn Stinger missile? That's one of the best uses of "overkill" I've seen. That's Schwarzenegger level ridiculous. That's like John Malkovitch's death scene in "Con Air." That's like dropping Knights of The Round on an Imp with 3 HP in "Final Fantasy." That's like the Mythbusters cleaning out a dump truck with 500 lbs of high explosives.

That, my friends, is awesome.

THE BOTTOM LINE - I will be the first to admit that I am not the best judge of these movies based on the fact that I plain don't like them, but I did not like "The Bourne Legacy." Maybe if you're a huge Bourne fan you'd dig it. Maybe. But for me, with the exception of the exploding wolf scene, it's just boring, unmemorable, and confusing. Skip it.