Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

  • Written by Matthew Parkinson
  • Posted June 20, 2013 at 12:00 am

This week in sequels to movies that people had forgotten about because they are over two decades old, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps comes to us. Did anyone really need a sequel to Wall Street? Do people even remember that movie. Money Never Sleeps is a 2010 release to a movie that, while good, wasn’t exactly a smash hit back in 1987. At least the filmmakers made the right choice in having the only main reprisal going to Michael Douglas’ character. Could you imagine a film following Sheen’s character twenty years after the climax of the first film?

Douglas once again plays Gordon Gekko, who was the villain of the first film. He wound up in prison, we learn, and served almost a full ten years. No, he didn’t murder anyone — and he claims that a killer only gets five years, anyway — he instead used illegal means to acquire money on the stock market. If you recall, money was the end goal of his entire life back in the ’80s. He’s been softened, and so has Oliver Stone’s movie. It’s no longer all about the money, or the social criticism.

The new lead character is the young Jacob Moore (Shia LaBeouf), who essentially does the same thing that Charlie Sheen’s Bud did in the first film. He works as a trader at an investment firm. He’s dating Winnie Gekko (Carey Mulligan), a woman who doesn’t speak to her father, even now that he’s out of prison. Why, if she hates him and his type so much, would she date someone exactly like that? I have a feeling I know what Freud would suggest in this case, and that’s about the only thing I can guess, too.

A great deal of the film involves Gordon attempting to get closer to his estranged daughter. It doesn’t at all matter, so don’t even begin to worry that it will. Nothing matters in this subplot, and trimming it would have so desperately helped the film’s overlong running time that we might have wound up with a genuinely good movie. Instead, we get a mediocre one that spends far too long on something that’s about as interesting as watching the ticker go by when you have no stake in it.

The main plot, which is actually worth watching, involves Jacob attempting payback at a rich man named Bretton James, with the help of the senior Gekko. Bretton is blamed for causing the suicide of Jacob’s old mentor (Frank Langella), so Jacob wants to put him out of business, despite not having the skill set for such a job. With Gordon’s help, maybe, just maybe, it will be possible. You have to give Stone credit for at least trying something different with the story; a retread and updated version of Wall Street would have been an easy way to make some money.

There never seems to be much risk in Money Never Sleeps. These people are all rich even when they’re “broke,” and seeing people sit around in nice suits mumbling technical jargon isn’t that interesting. In the last film, we had an up-and-comer in Jacob’s spot, and he actually had things to lose. Jacob loses his job and even tells Winnie that he’s probably going to be broke, but that just never really happens. He then gets hired seemingly the next day.

Some of the sharpness is gone, too. These characters are all really smart, and they show that at times, but the dialogue is just kind of plain. You would think that these people would be able to have more interesting conversations, but it seems like they’ve been put through a filter, dumbing down everything that they say and think so nobody will feel left out. I didn’t always understand the complexities behind the stock market in the first film, but I understood the reasons, which was good enough.

This time around, while the jargon is still there occasionally, there’s little motivation behind it other than the simplest of reasons. And the character interactions, while sometimes interesting, fail to do much more than generate a mild curiosity. There’s no depth to them or their relationships to each other. While I didn’t care about anyone in Wall Street, either, at least there was enough there to think about. This time around, they’re all surface-level examples of what could, potentially, be fascinating.

Michael Douglas is still very fun to watch in the role he played 23 years earlier. His character is nicer, but still smart, sly, and charismatic. You like watching him. Nobody in the first film could match him, and nobody here can, either. Every time Gordon Gekko appears on-screen, you start to get interested. When he disappears for long stretches, all momentum is lost. Shia Labeouf and Carey Mulligan can’t carry the load, and Frank Lengella’s role is too short to ultimately matter, even if he’s great in a small part.

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps isn’t a terrible film. Oliver Stone’s failures still look great and are competently made. But there’s none of the commentary that was prevalent last time around, which means it’s a shallow film. The plot is a bit more complex, but without any sort of subtext, and with a terribly dull subplot involving a man trying to get back into the life of his daughter, it can’t carry the film. Douglas is as fun as ever to watch, but the film around him isn’t worth your time.

No Comments
Filed under: Drama, Movies

The Kings of Summer

  • Written by Matthew Parkinson
  • Posted June 18, 2013 at 12:00 am

Focusing on a trio of individuals, The Kings of Summer is a genuine and sweet movie which is filled with love and enough laughs to qualify itself as one of the better comedies of the year. That it does so with an innocent spirit and primarily focuses on three children is quite impressive. I really enjoyed The Kings of Summer and I recommend that you check it out, too.

The film begins with a couple of teenagers who are sick of their lives. The lead, Joe (Nick Robinson), has a father (Nick Offerman), with whom he doesn’t get along. The father is abrasive, sarcastic, and speaks his mind, which leads to many hilarious lines of dialogue. Another boy, Patrick (Gabriel Basso), has parents who treat him as if he’s still in the first grade. Both boys wish to be seen as more independent than their parental figures allow, so they decide to do what any intelligent person would do: run away from home and build a house in the woods where nobody will find them. They’ll live off the land and no longer have to deal with the rest of the world.

They’re joined by Biaggio (Moises Arias), a strange child who functions as the films “odd child,” which is someone who will spout off the weirdest lines which often have no relation to what’s going on at the time. The other two boys, best friends since forever, don’t have the heart to tell Biaggio to go home, so they permit him to live with them. Soon enough, they’re living their own lives, masters of nothing but their own well-being, and serving absolutely nobody.

Anyone who can get themselves into the mindset of a 12-year-old and can appreciate the desire for more independence will at least be able understand where these characters are coming from. That will allow you to enjoy watching them just go about their business in the woods. There are some sweet and some funny situations that occur, and seeing a film that treats its young subject matter with respect is something to admire. The Kings of Summer almost functions as a character study during the moments when its leads are in the woods.

Of course, the parents aren’t just going to sit back and let their children go missing, so the parents, all of whom are played by comedians, attempt to locate their children. It’s during these points when The Kings of Summer really shines. Because of the actors’ comedic backgrounds, the dialogue and delivery in these scenes is absolutely hilarious. If the film had featured more of these moments, I wouldn’t have complained, as they were the most enjoyable parts. They will make you laugh.

They also function as a nice contrast to the scenes in the woods. The film is far more dramatic when it’s focused on Joe, Patrick, and Biaggio. They all have different ideas, complicated relationships, and it all plays out in an interesting way. Nothing that happens in the film is terribly surprising, but it’s honest and I couldn’t help but enjoy almost every moment. The only problem that these sections of the film suffer from is being very repetitive. Much of the film feels like filler and we go through the same thing a few times before we reach our conclusion.

The coming-of-age story, along with the outsider adult perspective, allows The Kings of Summer to appeal to everyone. If it didn’t have a surprising amount of profanity — which helps with that genuine feeling; how many teenagers nowadays don’t curse incessantly? — it would be something that I would recommend for everyone. The potential is there for people of all ages to take something from this film, whether they be the troubled child or the parent who is either too controlling or doesn’t treat their child with the respect they deserve.

The reason it’s all successful is that everything is so believable, even if the premise really isn’t. How can three teenagers go live in the woods and actually survive? Somehow, The Kings of Summer makes us believe. The friendships, in both their highs and lows, feels true, and for a while you forget you’re watching a fictional story and not a documentary about a trio of kids who decided to run away and become sustainable in the middle of the forest.

The actors are all good. In the lead role, Nick Robinson reminded me of a young James Franco — even right down to having a similar smile. He’s a charming and charismatic actor. As his friend, Gabriel Basso shows potential, even if his role is less important. Moises Arias is hilarious even if he seems to exist solely for comedic relief. All of the adults are hilarious in supporting roles, and I would have liked to see more of them. When names like Nick Offerman, Alison Brie, Marc Evan Jackson and Megan Mullally are all in your cast list, you should use them to their full extent.

The Kings of Summer is a good coming-of-age movie. It hits all the right notes and feels completely genuine, which is important here. This is a very funny, very sweet movie, and I really enjoyed watching it. It has good actors and it has a story which will resonate with the majority of people in the audience. It suffers from repetition in its story, leading to a lot feeling like filler, but it’s the enjoyable kind of filler that is really tough to hate.

No Comments
Filed under: Comedy, Drama, Movies

Get the Gringo

  • Written by Matthew Parkinson
  • Posted June 17, 2013 at 12:00 am

It’s a shame that we’re at the point in Mel Gibson’s life when he’s no longer a big box office draw. His personal life is perhaps the biggest reason for this, although I’ve never been one to take that into account when deciding whether or not to watch a film. I know others do, however, and if there’s one star still working in Hollywood that’s more disliked than Mel Gibson, I’m not sure who that would be. It’s too bad, because Gibson is a really good actor and if people just view him by his work on-screen, he should still be able to put people in seats.

It’s with Get the Gringo that a film produced, written by and starring Mel Gibson has almost reached direct-to-DVD status. It’s not quite there, as this film is going to VOD first, but it’s close enough, isn’t it? In America, you don’t get to go to the theaters to see this movie. Overseas, some theaters will show it. I suppose it shows the lack of faith from any studio given Gibson’s last two flops. Get the Gringo is a pretty decent film, too, which makes this even more disappointing.

Gibson plays the lead role as an unnamed character who begins the film dressed as a clown. He and another man have recently acquired a great deal of money, illegally, and are being pursued by police officers just a couple of miles from the Mexican border. They crash through the fence, killing the man not named Mel Gibson, while our lead is captured by the corrupt Mexican cops who sentence him to a prison and take the money that he stole. It’s in this jail that the majority of Get the Gringo takes place.

Now, picture what you normally think a prison looks like and throw that image out the window. The one in the film is portrayed more like a down-on-its-luck flea market. There is a community, an ecosystem, present in this place, and despite it being difficult to survive within, it’s not exactly the worst place one could be sentenced. I mean, there’s always the threat of being killed for no reason whatsoever, but you can own possessions and can take days off from “prison” work. Children can come and go as they please.

In fact, this setting is so fascinating that it works as its own character, far more interesting than anyone else in the film. That’s not even a knock on them — Gibson’s flawed, yet kind character is just fine, for example — but I just really got into this environment. Gibson’s survival in this place is somewhat reliant on a child (Kevin Hernandez), who becomes his only real friend. There is eventually something that the pair of them have to do, but I’ll leave that to be discovered by you.

This isn’t as action-packed as you might have been led to think based on the trailers. Most of the film is about surviving in this environment. It’s more of a drama than anything else for the majority of its running time. That’s fine, and Gibson has never had a problem with playing this type of character, but if you’re thinking it’ll be action from start to finish, you’ll be disappointed. This is more a thinking man’s action movie. Think The American and you’ll have a better idea of what to expect.

Get the Gringo is a slick, somewhat funny movie, too, which helps ease it along. Oh, its subject matter isn’t at all pleasant to watch, but because it’s well-made and has some funny moments, the time flies by. It’s been trimmed to the bones, too, which is usually a good thing with a project like this. It plays for only 96 minutes, and that’s just about the perfect length. Any longer and we might start to get bored. If it was shorter, we might wonder why things are happening, or we might lose some of our character moments.

The action that we do get isn’t very good, mostly to keep the budget down and stop it from being as violent as Gibson’s Passion of the Christ. Maybe that’s a bit extreme, but it did seem like the too-fast moving camera and quick cutting was done to hide what would have been extremely graphic scenes. Maybe the fake blood or CGI budget ran out early on so they had to ensure we couldn’t see anything. The drama is far more compelling than mediocre action.

Mel Gibson could probably play this role in his sleep, but he’s not allowed to. If he slips, especially because he’s the brain behind the film — he wrote and produced the film, and the director, Adrian Grunberg, serves as his assistant director on Apocalypto, among other things — he could completely vanish from the movies. He’s already pretty far down. But he gives a convincing and gritty performance here, as he often does, and I would hate to see him leave cinema. Kevin Hernandez holds his own as the kid sidekick, too, although Gibson is clearly the star.

I don’t know if Get the Gringo will turn Mel Gibson’s career around, but for the controversial star, it’s a valiant effort with decent execution. Inside this film is a well-crafted environment for a tale of survival and character drama, where the prison acts as a separate and ever-changing character. If you don’t hate Gibson enough as a person to stay away from his films, and you really shouldn’t, this is an attempt at a comeback that is worth a watch.

No Comments
Filed under: Action, Drama, Movies

Man of Steel

  • Written by Matthew Parkinson
  • Posted June 16, 2013 at 12:00 am

If absolutely nothing else, Man of Steel is worth seeing because it looks fantastic. The director is Zack Snyder, someone who has never made a film that is boring visually. He is a stylish director and what he’s done here is truly something that should be watched. The film made with those visuals isn’t quite as impressive, but it’s unlikely to disappoint too many people, unless you’re looking for a cheerful, optimistic movie, because this is definitely not one of those.

Snyder’s film begins with the destruction of the planet Krypton, which is how 1978’s Superman began, too. We get to see more of the planet in this film, and we also learn why it will soon blow up. The Krytonians have used up all of their energy sources and tapped into their planet’s core, which destabilized it and caused the inevitable explosion. I wonder if that’s supposed to function as a warning to us watching the film? Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and Lara Lor-Van (Ayelet Zurer) have had a son and send him to Earth to save his life. This is the origin Superman needs and it’s the one the film delivers.

The son, now given the Earth name Clark Kent (Henry Cavill), grows up and eventually learns that because of Earth’s atmosphere, gravity, and the sun, he has superpowers on the planet inhabited by humans. He keeps them a secret at the request of his adoptive parents, Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane, respectively), although the plot will force him to reveal himself. Prior to Krypton’s destruction, a man named General Zod (Michael Shannon) staged an unsuccessful coup and was banished. He’s now back and looking for Clark Kent.

The reason for all of this is convoluted, not very interesting, over-explained, and also quite pointless. There’s some discussion to be had at the idea of genetic engineering which might be interesting if the film did anything with them, but they function here as a MacGuffin so that General Zod — likely the second most well-known villain of the Superman universe — has a reason to track down our hero.

Primarily, the film should be viewed because it looks outstanding. The CGI is fantastic, the production design makes you gasp at how good it looks, the cinematography keeps things interesting, and the editing doesn’t get in the way, even if there are far too many flashbacks which tell us information that we either already know or don’t need. Visually, Man of Steel holds up against any other film out there, and should be heralded as something to strive toward. The DragonBall Z fight scene that closes it out, while too long, is perfectly crafted.

Unfortunately, the story is rather dull and drab, an it’s really doesn’t do much to separate itself from the other Superman films that we’ve already seen. Some moments feel like shot-for-shot remakes of Superman and Superman II. And while the film has more messages and themes than its predecessors, they’re rarely a focal point; they are brought up but aren’t important and could easily be overlooked.

Superman as a character can be boring. He’s immortal and invincible, meaning those around him have to be the ones who are put in danger. In this film, it’s the entirety of planet Earth, and those living on it, who are threatened. I think that works. The character has to choose whether his actual people, the Krytonians, or the people who welcomed him to their planet, the humans, should live. That element works. It’s the subplots and needless explaining of how everything functions and is related to everything else that drags the film out and makes it feel three hours long.

There’s no immediate sense of danger. The entire population could be destroyed but none of the human characters we meet manage to resonate. Lois Lane (Amy Adams) is in the movie because making a Superman movie without her would be criticized. She has little reason to be here. Ma and Pa Kent exist to tell Clark how he should behave. Perry White (Laurence Fishburne) and the other Daily Planet staff have extended cameos and nothing more. Everyone’s so poorly written and paper-thin.

The action scenes, while exceptionally well-made, often drag on for too long. That’s almost acceptable because they look so amazing, but they are a touch repetitive and as a result feel long. How long can you see two dudes punch one another while flying? Ten minutes? That’s how long it feels like they do just that in Man of Steel. They look wonderful but when it’s the same thing over and over again even something incredible can become dull.

Man of Steel isn’t bad. It isn’t terribly good, either, because its plot isn’t good, its characters have no depth to them, and the way it over-explains points that don’t matter makes it drag on and on. It’s also not a whole lot of fun, as the tone is definitely downtrodden. But visually it looks amazing and if you need a reason to see it, its style is just that. In fact, I’d recommend seeing Man of Steel just because of how incredible it looks. And possibly for Michael Shannon’s performance as General Zod, because it’s a lot of fun to watch — and the only fun in an otherwise pretty but drab movie.

No Comments
Filed under: Action, Comic Book, Drama, Movies

Supergirl

  • Written by Matthew Parkinson
  • Posted June 15, 2013 at 12:00 am

After the box office success of the Christopher Reeve-led Superman movies, it makes sense for the studio to attempt to cash in on a similar property. In this case, it’s Supergirl, who winds up being Superman’s cousin. We don’t see the Man of Steel in this spin-off, but his presence on Earth is noted. At one point in the production, a Reeve cameo was considered, but it was never filmed. His absence is explained with him going into space on an adventure that probably isn’t exciting enough to be made into a movie.

Supergirl’s plot has to work in an origin story for its titular character. It winds up using a MacGuffin, the Omegahedron, something that disappears from the planet of Krypton after some tomfoolery on the part of a couple of people. It winds up on Earth, so Supergirl (Helen Slater), travels through space in order to go back and get it. We’re told that everything will shut down if she doesn’t retrieve it in a matter of days. If I remember correctly from the father series, that time frame won’t matter a whole lot because Kryptonian days equate to years on Earth.

Anyway, she comes to our planet, magically acquires the suit, and then decides to join an all-girls school, because when you have superpowers, what else is there to do? She befriends Lois Lane’s sister, Lucy (Maureen Teefy), and uses her advanced brain to do really well in math class. This sounds a lot like the type of superhero movie you want to see, right? You want to see an extremely powerful individual hide her powers and go to school, I’m sure of it.

Okay, there’s also a plot involving a witch, Selena (Faye Dunaway), who acquires the MacGuffin and uses it to do nefarious things like … try to make a guy fall in love with her. She also eventually tries to take over the world, but it takes a good two-thirds of the film until this comes to fruition. In this time, we get maybe two action scenes of Supergirl saving random people, one of whom is Jimmy Olsen (Marc McClure), the only character to appear in both Superman and Supergirl.

My point is that the film is pretty boring for a good chunk of the time. It runs for over two hours, and a significant portion of this time is spent on character development and other things you’re not going to care about. This would be completely fine if, say, the characters were interesting or even deep, but they’re coming from a comic book and they’re not exactly going for high drama. This is a campier approach to a superhero, much like Superman III was. It’s a shame, because if the tone was more in line with the first two Superman films, we might have had a good movie.

The direction and the performances seem to be at odds with the script. They want to treat the property like it’s a joke, while it wants to be taken seriously. The result is an odd mixture, and doesn’t work because of this tension. How can you take a film seriously if everyone involved doesn’t want to. Superman got worse when it went for camp, and now Supergirl has started this way. How do the comic book fans feel about this? How do they like seeing their hobby being made fun of on the big screen?

When we do get some action scenes, they’re not terrible. They can be fun, at least, when they actually try to be. There are points when the special effects look worse than the earlier Superman films, but for the most part, they look fine. The problem mostly comes from the inevitable comparison to Superman and Superman II, both of which contain more interesting action that looks better. This film hasn’t topped them, and because of that, a lot of people are going to wonder what exactly the point is.

The entire production seems like a weaker version of a film we’ve already seen. It’s the same type of story — a lot of meandering until a climactic battle between the villain and the hero, with a couple of minor action scenes in the middle — just with a lot less interesting people being involved. There’s a reason that Superman is an icon and Supergirl is barely noticeable. He stands for something; she comes across as a cheap knockoff.

That is to take nothing away from Helen Slater, in her first feature length film role. She plays the character straight and stoic, despite the campy performances all around her. Now, does that make it a good performance in a bad movie, or an actor who couldn’t take direction and decided to just do her own thing? I think that her performance in Supergirl would work in a movie with a straighter tone, but here it comes across as either the best thing or something so out of place that it further ruins the movie. Yes, it can be one or the other, each on polar ends of the spectrum.

Supergirl is not a good movie. It has competing factors for tone, meaning it can never decide whether it wants to be serious or silly. It has special effects that are sometimes good, sometimes not, and a lead actress who is either strong in a bad movie or out of place in a silly one. Either way, she stands out, but I can’t decide if that’s a good thing. It’s still not a good movie, and if you have seen the first two Superman films, there’s very little reason to watch this one.

No Comments
Filed under: Action, Comic Book, Movies
View more »
?>