Special Features - Five Recent Movies That Deserve A Second Look

Although we act as though we are the supreme authority and last word on movies, it's important to remember that critics are humans.  The notion of watching a movie objectively without any opinion or agenda creeping in is not true. Even if indifferent to a movie, when we sit down to watch, generally speaking we have an idea what to expect. Moviegoers often walk into a film having already made up their mind about whether they're going to love it or not. Critics are no different. I've seen movies receive praise purely because of the filmmakers behind it. Of course, there's also the flipside where a critic walks into a movie ready to tar and feather. Over the past year, there have been several movies not given the praise they deserve - be it because of their lead, attachment to a franchise, or the person behind the camera - and, in my opinion, have not been viewed objectively by critics...

Reasons for Backlash: Controversial subject matter and Adam Sandler in the lead role

Now let me start of by saying in no context is That's My Boy a good movie.  I'm going to repeat this one more time so nobody gets the wrong ideas. IN NO CONTEXT IS THIS A GOOD MOVIE.  It's actually pretty bad in parts, and at best I'd call it very uneven.  I guess if all else fails, if a comedy is funny it wins on some level.  And while most of the jokes in That's My Boy are lazy and obvious, every once in a while a line of dialogue or a very funny sight gag would make me laugh.  Not to mention the heart of the story of a father trying to relate to his son is actually pretty endearing.  That being the core of the story was really the anchor, along with Adam Sandler's performance which had moments of sincerity in it. 

***SPOILERS*** I'd also like to address the controversy surrounding That's My Boy.  To me a comedy can use any subject matter it wants, providing it deals with it with respect.  This movie not only has moments of statutory rape, but also incest between a brother and sister.  Now, South Park already had an episode dealing with statutory rape, and nobody complained. Outside of Star Wars I haven't seen the whole incest situation in a mainstream movie.  I think this is a bold choice and I actually thought they handled it pretty well.  It shows the implications of statutory rape with Adam Sandler's character not doing very well when he grows up.  It's clear that the relationship he had with his teacher not only ruined his psyche, but also his relationship with his son. At no point did I feel like they were condoning it at all.  And with the incest thing it's clear that the brother and sister were shallow jerks and both got what they deserved in the third act of the movie.*** SPOILERS END***

That's My Boy isn't very good, but it made me laugh hard, which is more then I can say for most comedies, and espicially Sandler's recent batch of movies.  And when say batch I mean infestation.

Reasons for Backlash: Being a prequel to a beloved movie

Sam Raimi's prequel Oz the Great and Powerful received flack for basically not being The Wizard of Oz. James Franco is a little miscast and - as with a lot of Sam Raimi's movies - the pacing isn't perfect, but a majority of the criticism comes from it being a prequel to one of the most iconic movies ever to grace the screen.  Now, if you have never seen The Wizard of Oz or can push it out of your memory for two hours, Oz the Great and Powerful is a solid family movie.  Only Sam Raimi can bring out the kid in me and then proceed to scare the hell out of it.  Generally Sam Raimi's tone with his movies is idiosyncratic.  It's supposed to be scary and then funny and whimsical. The Lord of The Rings has a similar approach. It also has some absolutely beautiful set design and visual effects.  But of course any effects heavy movie is deemed style over substance.  Is there really that much substance in the original? 

Even in its handling of elements from The Wizard of Oz, these are all done really well.  There is a cameo from one of the more popular characters in the original that I didn't even realize until I caught it online.  And let's not forget this is not a remake - it's a prequel. That means it's necessary for certain characters to have roles in the movie or else it wouldn't make sense. Everything is done with respect and love for the original.  If people were to go back and watch The Wizard of Oz instead of remembering it out of nolstagia they'd realize it's actually similar in tone and everything lines up pretty well. The only difference is that it's lacking the the charm of the original, but it had no chance and doesn't even try to emulate this, instead opting for it's own charisma. I would put this alongside X-Men: First Class and Rise of the Planet of the Apes in that it not only works on it's own , but also helps to support the original.

Reasons for Backlash: The talent involved

I'll admit that Hotel Transylvania looked absolutely dreadful from the trailers.  It looked like the typical second rate animation studio movie that instead of leaning on great characters, great voice acting, and a good story, opts for a big celebrity and his friends to do the voices, with stale jokes and loud obnoxious entertainment.  But what we got was great voice acting from Adam Sandler and his pals David Spade, Steve Buscemi and Kevin James, incredible creature design, great jokes, and a story that works better than it should.  This movie does what a lot of animated movies forget to do now - create interesting characters with several running jokes around them.  It reminds me a lot of Rango, which also looked bad from the trailers but ended up winning Best Animated Feature at the Oscars.  Don't get me wrong - Hotel Transyvlania is not as good as Rango, but it is easily as funny - if not funnier - than Rango.  Each character is based upon a classic monster and instead of sticking with a design template (looking at you Monster's University) every character looks like they've been cherrypicked from a different animated movie.

What many people don't realise is that Hotel Transylvania is directed by Genndy Tartakovsky who also is behind Dexter's Laboratory and Samurai Jack.  This guy is talented and it's clear that this is his brainchild. The movie that this was before his appointment shows through with a few scenes of the main character singing rock and roll and CeeLo Green showing up, but moments like this are far and few between. The thing that works the best is not only the real life chemistry that Adam Sandler has with his buddies, but also the emotional core to of his character's relationship with his daughter, played by Selena Gomez.  Sandler is a good actor and he emotes constantly with his voice giving Dracula dimension and also getting across how much he loves his daughter.  Even Andy Samberg who approaches being annoying has moments of sincerity and genuinity as his character connects with Dracula on a personal level, instead of having them constantly feud like a lesser movie would.  I wished I had scene this opening weekend when it came out. I'm always on the search for a comedy that can make me laugh hysterically whilst having good, fun characters.  If you give this movie a shot I doubt you'll be disappointed.

Reasons for Backlash: Pacing, being a prequel to a beloved franchise, technical aspects

This movie had a few things going against it.  It was shot in 48 frames per second which made it look like a soap opera and hyper real to some people. It's a prequel to one of the most highly-regarded trilogies of all time, and it was split from two movies to three. With Peter Jackson getting a trilogy from one book, it's been said that it moves too slowly and has more filler than The Lord of the Rings.  I completely diasagree. This movie shouldn't be compared to The Lord of the Rings trilogy - it should be compared to The Fellowship of the Ring, because they're both essentially first acts in a larger story. And in my opinion, compared to The Fellowship of the Ring it is vastly superior on several levels.  Fellowship is all build up with mostly exposition and backstory.  And it had a clear formula: Frodo runs into trouble, character saves him.  It's two hours until they actually go off on the big adventure, which you don't even see until you get to the second movie. This isn't necessarily a problem, but why bring it up for The Hobbit when it wasn't brought up for Fellowship?

The Hobbit only takes 45 minutes to get going, which is standard for a first act of a three hour movie. And while I appreciated the LOTR trilogy - the set design, the sense of awe, the acting, and everything else good you can say about the movie - I feel like The Hobbit is where Jackson perfected the formula.  There's just no denying that Fellowship didn't have pacing  issues either, and I have a feeling that had it never been announced as a trilogy instead of two movies, nobody would have complained.  I can't comment on the 48 fps because I saw it on Blu-ray in 24 fps and it looked beautiful, but from what I saw in the trailers those complaints may have been warranted.

Reasons for Backlash: Controversial subject matter and name behind it

Pain & Gain looked to me like it was going to be a painful experience. Instead, what I got was the lovechild of Fargo and Horrible Bosses with Seven Psychopaths in the corner watching the conception process.  I love black comedies and I have a morbid sense of humor.  I like how they explore the human psyche and explore taboo subjects.  I also like "dark" movies.  Because of Christopher Nolan, people think "dark" means gritty and realistc. Dark means being introspective and meloncholy with sinister undertones. Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely wrote this script and while their dialogue has always stood out to me, here they step up to a whole new level.  This script has been sitting around for a while and it shows how much work they put into it.  It feels very tight and focused and the story is so crazy that I had a sense of being drunk while watching it.  You know that moment in a movie where all hell breakes loose and everything is on crises level? Imagine that for two hours.  It presents an outrageous idea and then follows through with it and I found myself laughing and being equally disturbed by seeing these guys get out of a situation by any means necessary as the consequences pile up.  I love movies that have stories which spiral out of control and this might be the best one in recent memory.  

The elephant in the room is that it's directed by Michael Bay.  Now, there are a few moments that I felt Bay added in for laughs, like most of the jokes with Rebel Wilson's character, but I feel like his excesses actually made the movie crazier and added to the insanity.  He's never been this assured behind the camera using his tropes effectively to tell the story - there's a brilliant scene with the 360 zoom around from room to room trick.  Bay even gets the best performance out of Dwayne Johnson and if Johnson ever was going to get an Oscar, this is the role.  I ask the question, had this been directed by the Coen brothers would people have the same complaints? Not at all in my opinion. People complained that this was based on true events and made it inappropriate, but so was Fargo and nobody complained (I'm well aware Fargo isn't actually based on one incident, but for arguments sake I'm using it as an example). This certainly wouldn't be in the top tier of the Coens' films, but it would be one of their better ones, and let's be honest they haven't made a real Coen brothers-style thriller since No Country for Old Men. Let's say the Coen Brothers had made this. It would definitely get an Oscar nomination for Best Original Screenplay, hands down.  It'd also be considered a satire of bodybuilder culture.  I'm willing to give Bay the benefit of the doubt and say that he realizes that this movie is right up his alley.  It's got bodybuilders, hot girls, cocaine, and it's in Miami. The only thing that could make this more of a Michael Bay movie is if had muscle cars in it.  But Bay doesn't glorify these protagonists. He makes them out to be meatheads and idiots.  They're naturally likeable due to the charisma of the leads and the funny dialogue, but ultimately at no point are you suppossed to feel bad for them.  Pain & Gain was made for me.  It's a satire of Bay films, it's a black comedy, it's a crime thriller, it's got a morbid sense of humor, and its pacing is incredible. This is easily my favorite movie of the summer and more than likely will end up as my favorite movie of the year simply for its craziness, great dialogue, and one of my least favorite directors proving he's more talented than I thought.

While I admit to being a very cynical person, I don't understand the notion of holding a grudge against an entertainer, whether that be an actor, director, or writer. If somebody sticks their neck out and does something new and it turns out good shouldn't they be rewarded?  Isn't the goal of critiquing a movie the hope that the filmmakers will learn from their mistakes and make better movies?  That's what I do it for.  And of course the droves of women who love bloggers.

Which movies to you believe deserve a second look? Let us know in the comments below...