22 Jump Street ****
Short Take: Our 21 Jump Street loveable lunkheads, officers Schmidt and Jenko, go undercover at college.
Reel Take: After seeing The Immigrant and The Rover, both of which are relentlessly grim, I was definitely in the right frame of mind for 22 Jump Street. At press time the sequel was poised to become the top grossing comedy of all time, surpassing records set by The Hangover in 2009. I was pleasantly surprised with 2012’s cop show parody 21 Jump Street, and while not a fan of most comedy sequels, (e.g. The Hangover II), this one seemed to hold promise. This sequel not only delivers, it’s better than the first.
22 Jump Street reteams our loveable lunkheads, officers Schmidt (Jonah Hill) and Jenko (Channing Tatum). Mocking the first films ginormous box office success, Jump Street is reaping the financial rewards of inflated budgets thanks to Schmidt and Jenko’s last bumbling success. Nick Offerman’s Deputy Chief Hardy lectures Schmidt and Jenko, “Nobody cared about the Jump Street reboot, but you got lucky, so now this department has invested a lot of money to make sure Jump Street keeps going.”
The perks include sweet new departmental digs, a la CSI. Jenko notes that their boss’s office looks like “a giant cube of ice”. Captain Dickson is played by Ice Cube so this throw-away line gets lots of laughs. The new budget is further mocked by filmmakers with an expensive action sequence, which Schmidt and Jenko utterly botch, of course. This gets them sent back to school, only this time it’s college. They are to infiltrate the source of trendy new drug among the student body.
If that sounds familiar, it should (the filmmakers even mock their own winning formula). When Deputy Chief Hardy gives them their new assignment and they ask, “What do we do?” He replies, “It’s the same case. Do the exact same thing.” For the most part they do, but if high school was all about fitting in, college is about finding yourself. Jenko finds his niche at a fraternity and on the football team, while Schmidt falls in [sort of] with the artsy crowd. Finding out about themselves causes a predictable rift between the two, but eventually the case brings them back together.
Hill and Tatum are just plain funny and are just plain having a good time. The antics are hilarious. Their bromance, buddy flick chemistry is palpable and the filmmakers go the extra mile to poke fun at that as well. Writers / directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller were the creative team behind the 21 Jump Street, The Lego Movie and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs. They’ve got another colossal hit on their hands with 22 Jump Street and if the end credits are any indicator, they’ve got lots more left in them.
Rated R for language throughout, sexual content, drug material, brief nudity and some violence.
Review by Michelle Keenan
Chef *** ½
Short Take: One of the best routine movies I’ve encountered in quite some time with a special appeal for local audiences.
Reel Take: If ever a movie was tailor made for Asheville, Chef is it. All you have to do is drive down Coxe Avenue sometime during the day or visit several different locations throughout the city to see that a movie about a master chef who loses his job at a fancy restaurant and then opens a food truck is bound to have a broad appeal locally.
The last part of the last sentence is essentially the movie in a nutshell. Chef Carl Casper (Jon Favreau) was once a cutting edge chef renowned in certain circles for his creativity. Now he’s working in a fancy restaurant for a conservative owner (Dustin Hoffmann) who insists he give the customers the tried and true food options (shades of Big Night). He’s also a divorced father who’s so busy with food that he’s losing touch with his young son (Emjay Anthony).
Things come to a head when Hoffman orders him to prepare an unadventurous meal for a visiting food critic (Oliver Platt) who then mercilessly lambasts him online. Favreau responds with an e-mail that goes viral and then verbally accosts the critic in an incident captured on customers’ cell phones. He loses his job and any chance at future employment until he is persuaded to return his roots.
Back in Miami, where he first started, he acquires a rundown food truck and with the help of a loyal co-worker (John Leguizamo) and Favreau’s son who’s with him for Summer vacation, he becomes creatively energized and the three of them work their way cross country to L.A. serving great food and giving father and son a chance to bond.
Cashing in on the national craze for cooking shows and cable food networks, Favreau has created a basic concoction much like the food that he mocked in Dustin Hoffman’s restaurant but a concoction that is sure to please just about everyone. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. In the end Hoffman’s character is right, give the people what they want and they’ll reward you for it.
Chef closely resembles a Lifetime movie being shown on the Hallmark Channel. It tells a predictable story in a predictable manner but it does it very well. Writer-director-star Favreau is an engaging presence as the chef in midlife crisis and he has surrounded himself with an all star cast who do their parts very well. In addition to Dustin Hoffmann, Scarlett Johansson scores as a member of the wait staff with a sympathetic ear who, unfortunately, leaves the movie much too soon.
Also in the cast is Sofia Vergara as his understanding ex-wife and Robert Downey Jr in what amounts to a hilarious cameo as Vergara’s looney ex-husband who arranges to get Favreau a food truck. Oliver Platt is also very good as the food critic whose snarky review sets the plot in motion. The look on his face when he’s served the exact same meal that he previously trashed, is priceless.
The movie starts off well and it ends well but, for me, it bogged down in the middle which hindered my enjoyment of it. Chef isn’t a bad movie, just a routine one. However it’s one with major audience appeal (at least here in Asheville) judging from local reports of audience members standing and applauding at the end.
Rated R for language and suggestive references.
Review by Chip Kaufmann
How to Train Your Dragon 2 ****
Short Take: Sequel to the 2010 film is a coming of age story as Hiccup & Toothless, now 5 years older, must deal with a powerful enemy that threatens their existence.
Reel Take: 5 years have passed since the events of the first Dragon unfolded. Vikings and dragons on the island of Berk live together in harmony and Hiccup, the central character from the first film, is on the verge of young adulthood. Toothless the dragon is still his constant companion but serious events are on the horizon that will change everyone’s lives.
Director and co-writer Dean DeBlois, when asked by Dreamworks to make a sequel to the highly successful first film, said he would only do it on the condition that he be allowed to make it into a trilogy so that the story can have a beginning, a middle, and an end. It therefore comes as no surprise that, in interviews, DeBlois cited the original Star Wars trilogy as his favorite movies as a kid and now he wants to do the same thing only in animation.
Just as in The Empire Strikes Back, things take a darker turn for the principal characters. While out flying one day, Hiccup and his pals and their dragons are momentarily captured by a crew of dragon hunters who inform them of a rogue warrior who is creating a dragon army so that he can become supreme ruler of every territory he encounters. In order to create this army the warrior, Drago Bludvist, possesses a mysterious power that bends the dragons to his will.
Hiccup, believing that he can reason with Drago, sets off with Toothless to do just that when he encounters a huge cave of ice which is populated by hundreds of dragons under the sway of a mysterious dragon master named Valka who reveals that dragons can be controlled by an alpha dragon known as a Bewilderbeast. Unfortunately that is also Drago’s secret and his Bewilderbeast is bigger and badder and defeats Valka’s putting all the dragons, including Toothless, under his control.
The final third of the film has Drago setting out for Berk to destroy it so that he can use his dragon army to rule the known world. This leads to a colossal battle with the islanders who are aided by the young dragons who, like teenagers, don’t listen to authority and aren’t subject to being controlled. You already know who wins but a heavy price will be paid.
All of the voice actors from the first film return and blend perfectly with their characters as before although it’s always a hoot to hear Gerard Butler’s unmistakable Scottish accent portraying a Viking. This time around Cate Blanchett as the mysterious dragon master Valka and Djimon Hounsou as the villainous Drago have been added to the cast.
Not only have the characters in Dragons 2 gotten 5 years older but the visual technology that created them has become even more sophisticated. This is no longer digital animation but a sophisticated upgrade that resembles the motion capture technique of Beowulf without having to use live actors. I didn’t see the movie in 3D but you can clearly see how this process would enhance the look of that version.
Having said that, the film does indeed look great but I found myself, after awhile, being impressed by the technology but not so much with the story or the characters. This is probably just an age thing but I should add that I felt the same way about the original Star Wars trilogy back in the 1970s. As family entertainment, How To Train Your Dragon 2 is top notch and, by all means, go see it but I’ll take Maleficent any day.
Rated PG for adventure action and mild rude humor.
Review by Chip Kaufmann
Locke **** ½
Short Take: A man navigates personal and professional crises via phone during a drive from Birmingham to London.
Reel Take: By the time this issue comes out, Locke will be long gone from its short run in Asheville. But in keeping with our promise to cover unsung films that we think are worth your time, we’re including it in this issue. As a feature film, the premise for Locke sounds a bit boring. In fact people have responded with bewildered amazement when I tell them they simply must see this movie. It’s difficult to convey how interesting it actually is, but here goes.
It’s evening, darkness has fallen. Ivan Locke (Tom Hardy) is a successful construction manager and a happily married family man. Locke is leaving his job site and getting into his car. We realize almost immediately that he’s making a decision – to go home or elsewhere. He chooses elsewhere, a choice that could irrevocably divest him of the life he has so carefully and lovingly built. The rest of the film takes place in that car, on his drive from Birmingham to London, the titular character explaining his decision to colleagues, family, and the person awaiting his arrival at his journey’s destination. The only person we ever see is Locke. We hear other voices, but the camera stays with Locke throughout.
The minimalistic and unnecessary challenge to tell the story from this vantage point may seem like a stunt to some and/or a little too ‘artsy’ to others. Both of which could have been true in the wrong hands. In this instance it seems to have challenged the filmmakers and the actor to work that much harder to create an incredibly compelling piece of work. While watching it I wondered if the film was based on a short story or a play, both of which would seem a more natural fit for a story that unfolds in such a way. It was not. Locke is original in its content and its telling.
Locke loves his job. He knows concrete the way a painter knows his canvas. He takes pride in “the piece of the sky we are stealing” with his perfectly formed structures. Locke is also an adoring husband and father. The son of a good-for-nothing, deadbeat dad, he determined to be a better man than his father; he may make mistakes but will ultimately do the right thing, even at his own expense.
Locke’s fateful drive takes place after he receives a call (a call that has already occurred at the start of the film). A woman he barely knows, and for whom he feels very little, is in premature labor with his child (the result of a night where he behaved not at all like himself). When he sets out for London, he’s determined to take care of things at work and on the home front and still be there for the birth of his child.
He navigates alternately through all three pressing situations. The result is an emotionally riveting film and a brilliant performance from Hardy. Hardy, who is best known to American audiences as the villa in The Dark Knight Rises, draws the viewer in with his calm and painfully controlled demeanor and an a Welch accent reminiscent of a young Richard Burton in tone and Anthony Hopkins in its rhythm. Seeing Hardy’s face for the entire 85 minutes of the movie is remarkably powerful; all the cracks in the not-so-subtle foundation metaphor play out in his every expression.
Written and directed by Stephen Knight (Dirty Pretty Things) and produced by Joe Wright (Anna Karenina, Pride and Prejudice), Locke is an impressive, not-to-be-missed little movie. Ride shotgun with Locke when it makes its way to DVD in mid-August.
Rated R for language throughout.
Review by Michelle Keenan
Maleficent **** ½
Short Take: Disney’s live action reboot of the classic 1959 animated film is not only much better but it’s destined to become a classic itself.
Reel Take: I did not have high hopes for Maleficent based on the previews. In fact my daughter and I saw it with the intention of poking fun at it. We thought that it was going to be a live action version of the classic 1959 film, which my daughter hated when she was a child. I was all of 7 at the time it first came out, and I didn’t care for it either. I’m happy to report that we couldn’t have been more wrong.
There are numerous elements that make Maleficent a much better film. First and foremost is the screenplay by Linda Woolverton who also did the recent Alice in Wonderland for Disney. Her whole rethinking of the original Charles Perrault fairy tale is little short of brilliant and incredibly effective.
Second is the look of the film. First time director Robert Stromberg has been a visual effects supervisor on several films (Life of Pi, The Golden Compass) and it shows. He creates a magical setting that relies heavily on the look of Victorian book illustrations especially the engravings of Gustave Dore (Maleficent’s wings are straight out of Paradise Lost). This makes the movie look old and new at the same time. His use of color and light is particularly striking recalling the Ridley Scott-Tom Cruise vehicle Legend (1985).
Third and not to be taken lightly is the performance of Angelina Jolie. She dominates the film without overpowering it. Her Maleficent characterization is constantly transforming throughout the film allowing her to show a wide range of justifiable emotions that are tied in with the reworking of the story. This Maleficent is clearly no cartoon villain.
Elle Fanning is an ideal and charming Princess Aurora. While she isn’t given a whole lot to do, what she is given, she makes the most of. The highest compliment that I can give her is that she is fully believable in an unbelievable role. The Fairy Godmothers, who dominate the 1959 film to the point of nausea, are kept in proper perspective here and they are much more effective. Actresses Imelda Staunton, Lesley Manville, and Juno Temple give solid character performances.
The one weak element (which keeps the film from a 5 star rating) is the performance of South African actor Sharlto Copley as the story’s new villain King Stefan. To be fair his characterization is two dimensional at best and that is the one fault in an otherwise remarkable screenplay and not really his but it is there nevertheless. However there are more ways of portraying morose paranoia than he is giving us.
In the final analysis, I was totally besotted with Maleficent and will be adding it to my home collection as soon as it becomes available. However don’t you wait until it comes out on DVD. A movie that looks this magnificent should be seen on the big screen and the way the box office receipts are rolling in, you’ll have plenty of opportunity.
Rated PG for sequences of fantasy action and violence including some frightening images.
Review by Chip Kaufmann
The Immigrant **** ½
Short Take: Circa 1921, unfortunate circumstances drive a young Polish immigrant into a life of prostitution and pit her between her morally conflicted pimp and his cousin who loves her.
Reel Take: The Immigrant, written and directed by James Gray (Two Lovers) is old fashioned melodrama with 21st century ferocity, or maybe it’s really 1921 ferocity. The film is centered on Ewa (pronounced Eva). Shortly after arriving at Ellis Island, after what was apparently not an easy voyage, Ewa (Marion Cotillard) and her sister Magda (Angela Sarafyan) are separated. Magda is suspected of having lung disease and sent to the infirmary. Meanwhile, Ewa is accused of having behaved [on the boat] in a manner not befitting a lady and is flagged as a floozy. Overwhelmed and confused by the less than warm welcome on America’s shores, Ewa falls prey to the seemingly good intentions of Bruno, a man posing as a member of a newcomers association.
Bruno is completely smitten by Ewa, but that love is secondary to his manipulation of her for financial gain. To be fair, Bruno treats his gaggle of ladies like family. He fancies himself a burlesque impresario than an actual pimp. Conflicted though he may be, Bruno deals in flesh. Meanwhile, Ewa loathes Bruno and the morally depraved world in which Bruno and his ladies live. However Ewa is single-mindedly focused on making enough money to get her sister well and out of the hospital on Ellis Island.
Tricked, duped and manipulated by everyone she’s met since setting foot on U.S. soil, the situation is bleak and hopeless until she meets a magician, whose illusions and speeches restore an inkling of faith and hope in the American dream to an Ellis Island audience. When he gives her a rose with a simple, “God, you’re beautiful.” and an almost dumbfounded earnestness, he offers Ewa light in the darkness. However as luck (or lack thereof) would have it, he also turns out to be Bruno’s cousin.
The Immigrant marks the third collaboration between Gray and Phoenix, both of whom seem to specialize in character studies of morally conflicted people. They both achieve their objective here, garnering our empathy, if not forgiveness, for Bruno. The layers of the film are complex and at once painful beautiful to peel away. The film is photographed by Darius Khondji in dark tones befitting, even conjuring, the era, but free of any contrivance.
Cotillard is Madonna-like, she is at once serene, scared and determined. Phoenix likeable and despicable; Bruno is the kind of character that Phoenix embodies so well. Renner infuses Orlando with a special spark and an old fashioned goodness. Unfortunately Gray makes a pivotal mistake in underutilizing Renner. That said, Gray excels in showcasing complex, lost souls and battering them with the underbelly of humanity, and The Immigrant is his finest film so far.
Rated R for sexual content, nudity and some language.
Review by Michelle Keenan
Words and Pictures *** ½
Short Take: An English teacher and an art teacher at a prestigious private school engage in spar over whose medium is better – word or pictures.
Reel Take: I had high hopes for Frank Schepisi’s Words and Pictures. Schepisi has had a wide and varied career since the mid 70’s. Moreover, Juliette Binoche and Clive Owen are A-1 actors and both tend to pick their projects quite carefully. Unfortunately Gerald DiPego’s script is not as clever as it hopes to be, and in spite of some wonderful moments, it fell short of my expectations.
Clive Owen is Jack Marcus, a once famous poet and longtime teacher at a prestigious New England prep school. Marcus is burned out on teaching and on life, but not on words. Ever seeking to reignite that spark, he pushes and challenges his students beyond convention. When a new art teacher arrives on the scene, sparks may turn to flames.
Dina Delsanto (Juliette Binoche) is renowned painter hired mid-term to teach honors art. Her career has suffered a setback because of advancing Rheumatoid Arthritis, but she is as passionate and demanding with her students about art as Marcus is about words. They spar and bicker and banter relentlessly (sometimes most delightfully) until Marcus challenges her to a battle of Words versus Pictures.
The challenge is issued partly out of vanity and partly to engage his students, but also to help him improve his standing with the school. Marcus is also a functioning alcoholic who has caused the school some embarrassment and his job is on the line. The catch in this battle royale is that both Marcus and Delsanto have to produce work for the competition too. This of course means they’ll have to work through their own struggles, leading us to a cathartic, if not contrived climax.
I didn’t mind the predictability of the story and was relieved it didn’t go all Dead Poet’s Society on us (though it had a few moments). There are moments of literary passion and witty banter that are sublime, which are complete at odds with other rather banal or ill-fitting scenes. The leads are strong. Owen, who often shows a simmering reserve, lets it all out here, and he looks like he’s enjoying it. He does credit to some of DiPego’s windy speeches, infusing them an inspiring love of word. Binoche meanwhile dances beautifully between a woman filled with rage at the debilitating disease wracking her body and her life’s passion and her own vulnerability. It should be noted she actually painted the pieces for Delsanto’s studio, and she’s quite an artist.
Words and Pictures gets a passing grade from me, but I don’t know that it would from Marcus or Delsanto.
Rated PG-13 for sexual material including references, drug content, violence and some mature thematic material.
Review by Michelle Keenan
