MRMOVIESETC
REVIEWS:
“The Paperboy”
(2012)
Wait, hold on a second.
I just need to check something really quickly.
Matthew McConaughey
Zac Efron
Nicole Kidman
David Oyelowo
Scott Glenn
John Cusack
Macy Gray
Lee Daniels, Director
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
Wow, with all of that talent, I should consider it
impressive how much this movie sucks.
***
Pete Dexter, the author of the 1995 novel for which this
film is based upon, is listed as a screenwriter credit alongside Director Lee
Daniels. Part of me wants to immediately jump to the conclusion that Dexter
must not have had a huge part in the process, aside a blessing or two,
considering how non-cohesive and overcomplicated the final cut turned out. Then again, this is the Hollywood Money Machine,
so it is hard to be entirely sure until different cuts of a film come to the
surface.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand, I will say you can
immediately strike McConaughey, Oyelowo, Glenn, and Gray, for all intents and
purposes, off the list of anything that matters in this film, because their
arcs or lack thereof, have little to no bearing on the outcome. Boiled down,
“The Paperboy”, in its cinematic form, is really only about Efron being poorly
written as a horny twenty-something that wants to get between the legs of
Nicole Kidman’s character who’s poorly written as having a hard fetish for
prison dick (no nicer way to put it), and she lands a particularly
greasy-looking one in Cusack whom is so clearly psychotic to everybody except
Kidman that Efron knows he must come to the rescue.
Fuck it – if that’s all “The Paperboy” was I would
entertainment it. Granted, in this format and being told in the stale way that
it is with a group of actors achingly too good for the paygrade, it would probably
still suck even then. Nevertheless, at least it would cut to the chase better
than this and avoid a half-ass murder mystery with no adequate conclusion. The
sad part is, even if the screenplay was shredded to bits for whatever reason,
there’s nothing of substance here. Instead, it’s pure shallowness trying to
pass itself off as edgy art material, and it’s so nakedly fails at it.
Ugh, I don’t really know what else to say. I guess Kidman
is really the one shining performance as she didn’t come off as mailing it in,
and while I’m sure it was fake, we do get to see her urinate on Efron’s
jellyfish stings, so there’s that?
Bottom-line is: Don’t waste your time.
“The Paperboy”: 3/10
“Aquaman” (2018)
Well, I’ll be damned; Wonder Woman is going to have to
share some of her thunder.
To be clear, “Aquaman” doesn’t raise quite to the heights
that “Wonder Woman” set back in 2017, but I would be remiss if I failed to
recognize that perhaps the DCU is possibly starting to dig out of its
self-imposed hole. Between “Wonder Woman”, “Aquaman”, “Shazam” looking so dumb
it might just work, and James Gunn coming to help everybody forget about the
first “Suicide Squad” - there may be some hope after all.
There were certainly a handful of things about “Aquaman”
that I didn’t much care for, but the thing is so off-the-walls bonkers and
assaulting to the senses most of the time that it was hard for me to care about
them. For one, I am a little sad that nothing about this film felt like a James
Wan picture that has so fueled my man-crush on him. I can tell that he probably
had one Hell of a good time making the movie, and good for him, but a lot of me
really wanted to see some of his signature suspense and I just couldn’t feel it
anywhere. Secondly, DC seems to be suffering the same way as MARVEL in the
villain department in which they are, shall we say, lacking intimidation and
memorability. They did give Patrick Wilson a pretty cool costume for the final
battle, though. Third, I’m still not entirely sold on Jason Mamoa. He’s a big,
booming presence, and much like Dwayne Johnson, he has to be acknowledged
solely for that fact. That’s not to say he doesn’t have his moments, because he
mostly certainly does, but somebody will have to pinch me if he shows off
anything in the way of range. Lastly, I could have done without the pirates. I
know that Black Manta’s portion of the narrative gave him that *henchman with a
bone to pick*, but seeing “Aquaman” as it stands is already rather lengthy, the
battle sequences involving the pirates didn’t do much for me when compared to
the underwater scenes with all the beasts.
Speaking of which, now that the bitching part of the
session is done: The final battle with the giant kracken – BADASS. In fact, the
entire climax is probably one of the most jaw-jarring spectacles DC has put on
screen possibly ever. I haven’t read any reviews as to how the 3D version of
“Aquaman” turned out, though I’d really like to take a peek at it just for the
last twenty minutes alone. Truthfully, in the end, this was all “Aquaman”
needed to be in the first place: a popcorn action flick with a CGI-onslaught
and Jason Mamoa using his smolder to deliver a few one-liners and keep the
audience trained on his charisma. While some of the hand-to-hand combat didn’t
quite work in the CGI underwater, the film does deliver where it needs to.
Obviously nobody knows yet if DC can truly be saved from
the WB’s countless errors in judgment, but if it can and Aquaman does come back
for more (there’s one billion dollars’ worth of reasons that he will), I will
definitely give it a look.
“Aquaman”: 7/10
“Stan & Ollie”
(2018)
Growing up, I was never really
exposed to the comic workings of Stan Laurel & Oliver Hardy, Charlie
Chaplin, or The Three Stooges, and fair enough, I probably wouldn’t have
understood much as a kid that was highly transfixed in the animation world.
Truth be told, there were only two reasons why “Stan & Ollie” caught my
attention to begin with, and those reasons were Steve Coogan and John C.
Reilly; a couple of my favorite comedians whom effortlessly transition from
comedy to drama and back again. Also, I was intrigued that the film was
focusing more on the duo during their more tumultuous middle-age years when
their popularity had long since dissipated, and they decide to do a big
European tour in hopes to gain the funds to create a “Robin Hood” passion film
project.
Not surprisingly, Coogan and
Reilly were absolutely excellent together. They bring the laughs, and thanks to
a well-constructed screenplay, the duo also brings a sufficient amount of heart
to the screen that, being a virgin of sorts to the material, I did not see
coming. I’m not sure exactly who the target audience was for “Stan &
Ollie”, but if it was to open the eyes of people like myself, then the film was
a total success. Due to the strength of the two leads, I started falling in
love with the legend (and some of its baggage) that is these two men, and I
truly did not want it to end.
I know this doesn’t constitute
as much of a review, although “Stan & Ollie” is a simplistic biography
without a lot of bells and whistles and does a great job at telling a story. I
guess I could level one minor complaint in that it often tried to bring the
wives of the two men front and center a few times out of necessity, but in the
same breath, didn’t really know what to do with them. It’s not so much crippling
as it is a minor distraction.
Regardless, I’d be lying if I
said that, by the end, it was holding a couple of onions close to my face to
make my tear ducts moist.
“Stan & Ollie”: 9/10
