by George Wolf
DESPICABLE ME 2
Three years ago Despicable Me scored at the box office, thanks mainly to a funny bunch of yellow creatures who speak nothing but gibberish.
These “minions” made the film, which was fairly average otherwise, easy to like. It should come as no surprise, then, that Despicable Me 2 trots them out early and often.
At the end of part one, evil genius Gru (Steve Carell) wasn’t despicable any longer, his heart inevitably melted by three incredibly cute kids (yes I realize they’re animated but they remind me of my nieces so whatsittoya?)
This time out, Gru is recruited by special agent Lucy (Kristen Wiig) to help the good guys, in hopes that his bad guy instincts will help ferret out a villain in hiding.
Everybody – writers, directors, most of the cast – returns from the original, but an important piece is missing. Being despicable is what made Gru a character, and taking that trait away also discards much of what makes him interesting. The love story with Lucy isn’t developed enough to fill the gap, so it’s up to the little Twinkie-looking things!
For the most part, they come through. Much like the Madagascar series continues to be hilariously saved by the supporting lemur and penguin characters, Gru’s minions are able to provide the laughs when things start to drag. Without them, kids would be squirming and parents might be thinking of an early exit.
The sum of unequal parts, DM2 is perfectly pleasant, if unexceptional, family fare.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwXbtZXjbVE
THE LONE RANGER
Back in 1995, I watched Johnny Depp in a Western of sorts that paired a supposedly dead white man with an outcast Indian on a journey through the wild west. There were trains and bad men. Iggy Pop co-starred. I’m not sure what else a person could want in a film.
This was Jim Jarmusch’s wondrous Dead Man, and I was reminded of the film repeatedly as I watched its super-mainstream Disney counterpart The Lone Ranger. In case you’ve missed the typhoon of advertising, Depp plays Tonto to Armie Hammer’s masked do-gooder.
Iggy Pop is nowhere to be seen. Pity.
The handsome pair (although one is caked in mud the entire running time – if it’s not giant teeth or Eddie Munster make up on Depp, it’s mud) are flung together quite against their respective wills, but a shared desire to bring down Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner) binds them.
This is the Lone Ranger’s origin story, told mostly for laughs, but director Gore Verbinski and his team of writers hope to stir a bit of historical context into the mix.
If you’re going to resurrect the culturally insensitive figure of Tonto for a modern film, it might be important to address the racism of the time head on. But, if you’re bringing the Lone Ranger back to life, then clip-clopping action and fun are requirements, so finding the correct balance is imperative.
Well, for the fun and excitement, Verbinski re-teams with the writers of his other Depp adventures, the Pirates of the Carribbean films (Ted Elliott and Terry Rosio). Indeed, The Lone Ranger has far too much in common with Verbinski’s Pirates series – down to one sparsely blond outlaw sporting a parasol.
For the serious underpinnings of genocide – a tough topic for a family adventure film – Verbinski nabbed Justin Haythe, who’s penned two pretentious dramas (The Clearing, Revolutionary Road) and a Dwayne “the Rock” Johnson film (Snitch).
The socio-political context is mishandled, is what I’m saying, and the drama feels wildly out of place in a film that puts a hat-wearing horse on a tree limb.
The tonal mishmash hampers everything about the film. In fact, though he tried for a full 2 ½ hours (good lord, Verbinski, give it a break!), the director simply cannot find an acceptable tone. Depp and Hammer generate an immediately likeable odd couple chemistry, buoyed immeasurably by Fichtner’s gleefully unseemly bad guy, but the movie remains a slapped together mess.
Plus, no Iggy Pop.
HOW TO MAKE MONEY SELLING DRUGS
While securing a screener and finalizing info on opening dates, the phrase How to Make Money Selling Drugs found its way into many of my email subject lines. Hopefully the NSA and DEA don’t come calling, but if they do, I have a fascinating movie to recommend.
Matthew Cooke’s documentary on the cost of America’s War on Drugs is not the smug expose the title suggests. Cooke expertly molds his impressive pool of data into this sardonic shell, offering lessons to lead you to the success the title offers.
He approaches the lessons as one would approach a video game. There are levels to ascend – from street corner dealer all the way to cartel drug lord. Each stop offers background information (where to start, how much you can earn), as well as hints and tips galore. (Tips for basic smuggling – hire an ex-DEA officer to watch your back.)
What he’s actually done with all these clearly labeled nuggets embedded in well-defined categories is outline a comprehensive look at our drug culture.
Data-dense and expansive, How To quickly separates itself from the recent glut of drug-related docs. Cooke does not simply recommend legalization, noting the tax benefit and lessening crime that came from striking down Prohibition. Indeed, Cooke does not do anything simply.
He emphasizes the genuine danger of drug use as one of many related crises being improperly addressed because of the nation’s crime and punishment attitude. There’s the underlying racism in the basis and execution of the laws. Don’t forget the enforcement incentivizing, which creates an overzealous police force. And of course, there’s the simplicity in the facts of supply and demand. Cooke covers it all, and does so with richly textured, strangely entertaining narratives.
We hear from nearly every type of stakeholder: dealers, kingpins, police officers, informants, ex-DEA, politicians, lawyers, academics, and that guy who wrote The Wire (David Simon – disturbingly informative). While they may not all agree on the nuance of the issues, they paint a picture of a dangerously wrong-minded approach to the problem.
And Cooke is not satisfied to simply provide anecdotal evidence and opinion. Rather, he populates his brisk 90 minutes with enough clarity, data and statistics on every imaginable front that it’s hard to believe his film is as engaging and entertaining as it is.
Thank the candor of Cooke’s subjects, and his own directorial skill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THu4E99uvYw