johndavidwest20 Reviews

A Million Ways to Die in the West (2014)

Million Ways to Say Poop in Seth MacFarlane's Scatological West

[2/10 · 15 August 2014]

Writer and director Seth MacFarlane (Ted, Family Guy) has taken scatological humor to repulsively infantile new lows with his comedy-Western, A Million Ways to Die in the West. Some might attempt to compare this effort to Mel Brooks's irreverent 1974 classic, Blazing Saddles, but that would be as unfair as comparing Porky's to The Searchers. MacFarlane proves that, as a screenwriter, he has about as much creativity as a hyperactive thirteen-year-old boy who just entered the hormonal battlefield of puberty and recently discovered the F-word.

The story features MacFarlane as the film's protagonist, Albert Stark, a cowardly, talkative sheepherder (in the vein of Bob Hope's gutless characters), who is out of place in the dangerous 1882 Wild West (Arizona). He is soon dumped by his girlfriend, Louise (Amanda Seyfried); he later falls in love with an unlikely villainous gal, Anna, played by Charlize Theron. (It takes oxen-strength levels to suspend reality and believe that this clever, ethereal beauty could fall for MacFarlane. But, hey! Why not? Diane Keaton fell for Woody Allen in many of his films, and, of course, countless other squirrelly, comic, writer/directors have had many an unapproachably hot babe as their love interests). So Albert eventually proves that he's no longer a coward as he faces the Irish, gunslingin' Clinch Leatherwood (Liam Neeson) in a duel finale that does have a rather smartish surprise. Oops, did I give away too much? Not really. You can predict every plot point five scenes ahead, or before MacFarlane can distract you with a line about a prostitute returning from her date in time to "do anal" with a regular customer. . While this predictable story plays out, our thirteen- year-old boy throws in as many poop, fart, and diarrhea jokes as his juvenile mind can think of before inducing an E. coli outbreak. But he's not a one-trick pony. He coats on layers of—he he—sex jokes, lots of sex jokes (hand-over-mouth, "Oh my God! No he didn't say that!" sex jokes). Endless gags including a prostitute Ruth (Sarah Silverman) with a heart of gold and a "huge vagina," and, of course sperm (both talking about it and showing it, recalling There's Something About Mary's hair gel scene. Yep, been there seen that). He then takes us back to some good, old, toilet humor with erect golden showering sheep (another hand-over-mouth "Oh my God! No he didn't!"); he does steer clear of the obvious sheep jokes and rather gives us a retarded sheep! There are a few comic surprises that amuse, but not enough to redeem this film.

Now, I don't have a problem with silly, irreverent, gross-out humor, but it's so much more enjoyable and less intellectually insulting when it is bathed in an element of wit. I don't necessarily need lofty Woody Allen literary cleverness in my comedies. But MacFarlane's potty humor represents a paucity of imagination. In using the word f-word and other four-letter words gratuitously in his depiction of the Western United States of 1882, he betrays his inability to express anger, distress, annoyance, and other strong emotional outbursts in his dialog. In fact, all of the film's dialogue feels out of place, too contemporary, and lacking any craft. I couldn't help but think that MacFarlane excessively uses "f***, along with the other expletives, because he knows no other way of expressing extreme distress, anger, annoyance, or basic dialog that's interesting and or engaging. Well f*** him! Sorry, I'm extremely distressed. Clearly, I have no problem with the word. I think South Park: Bigger Longer & Uncut is still one of the best musicals of the past twenty years; it's filled with the F-word, but it's also clever and carefully crafted. How could I possibly object to the F-bomb as one of my favorite directors, Martin Scorsese, drops bombs throughout his films? It's appropriate to his characters and to the diegesis of the respective films. But MacFarlane's disproportionate use of the word distracts from any substance that may exist in the dialog among the characters.

One pleasant surprise in this western is Charlize Theron's performance—this woman can act. Despite an infantile acting partner, she's somehow able to transcend the inane material and produce an honest performance. Given the challenging task of crafting a sincere presence that relies on more than just her fantastically stunning face, Theron is able to rise well above all in this fecal folly.

I am being unfair to Seth MacFarlane since he is not the sole writer of this movie; he shares that credit with two other writers, Alec Sulkin (Ted, Family Guy) and Wellesley Wild (Ted, Family Guy), so, clearly it took a village. If you remove all the sex jokes, eliminate the four-letter expletives, soften a few of the violent scenes, MacFarlane would have a funny(ish) thirty minute kids' show. Or, better yet, animate it, leave in the sexual innuendos and irreverent humor, and you'd have a quite funny twenty- two minute animated TV sitcom—Family Guy? If poop, sperm, and urine are what sells tickets these days, then this puerile movie is going to make a load of money.

-John David West

Godzilla (2014)

Godzilla: Inert Actors and a Middle-aged Monster

[6/10 · 15 August 2014]

It was in 1998 that Godzilla last dared to invade American soil. That last endeavor proved to be a critical disaster. Come on! Matthew Broderick's silly, bumbling scientist, and a very un-Godzilla-like mutant lizard! The only thing familiar was the famous roar. Of course, seeing Manhattan's skyscrapers destroyed, in the then new CGI, was pretty impressive. But, other than that, it wasn't Godzilla! In director Gareth Edwards' 2014 version, downtown destruction is spare; heart-pounding action is tempered; and the King of Monsters plays only a supporting role in the film that bears his name. Perhaps ol' King G has hit a point in his sixty-year-long career where all he has to do is show up, shoot some scenes in which he knocks down a few buildings, and fights a couple of monsters (with some rather unsatisfying collateral building damage). Despite putting on a few extra midsection pounds (even movie star monsters get midlife pudge), he still possesses the iconic name that makes audiences cheer when he (or she?) appears on screen. Like a sci-fi version of Brando—who later in his career occasionally came out of obscurity to fill a supporting role, collect his paycheck, become more eccentric, elusive, and obese— Godzilla has a name that is carved in cinema history, and Hollywood has proved in one week that they can bank on that name with ticket sales in excess of $150 million. Although he may need to shed a few pounds, he (or she) has certainly proved that Godzilla is back.

Since 1954, when Japan introduced the world to Godzilla, he has played the antagonist, the protagonist, destroyed megacities, fought armies, monsters, aliens; and, with the aid of pocket-size, singing, Japanese twins, he's defeated two giant moths; he's made us examine our neglect of the environment, as he fought a pollution-ingesting smog monster (Godzilla vs. Hedorah, 1971), and he's made us question our use of atomic weapons (Godzilla, 1954). Edwards's subtle homage to the film history of Godzilla is a pleasure for the knowing Godzilla fan. He gives audiences the traditional half-crazy scientist; the scientist's reluctant child, who holds some of their father's knowledge about the monster (see Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla, 1974); two modern-day radiation-consuming, winged insects (versions of Mothra, 1964); and a Japanese scientist (Ken Watanabe) in dramatic close-up, with grave seriousness, as he tells the military the giant lizard-monster's name is Godzilla. (insert audience cheers).

Despite the young and attractive Elizabeth Olsen and Aaron Taylor-Johnson, a large portion of the cast is surprisingly older: Bryan Cranston (wearing a Barry Manilow- like wig), David Strathairn (forgettable military-commander Everyman); Ken Watanabe (whose every close-up says, "I'm more concerned about my chronic constipation than these radiation-ingesting monsters"), Sally Hawkins (was she in it?), Juliette Binoche (also wearing Cranstone's Barry Manilow wig—or a short-haired wig that seems to say, "Women scientists can't have long, flowing, girlie hair; they have to have short, practical hair"; but I think they allocated the film's hair- and makeup budget to CGI, or a trainer to build Aaron Taylor-Johnson's massive, Godzilla-like neck). Although these very accomplished actors' talents are grossly ignored and comic-bookized, they seem to serve the purpose of connecting the large audience of baby boomers, who grew up with the Godzilla movies during Monster Week on their local TV stations, to this 2014 version.

Like Godzilla vs. Hedorah, which used Godzilla's antagonist—a smog monster—as a metaphor for man's abuse of the environment (an early example of today's trend in environmental sci-fi flicks), environmental worry has supplanted the original Godzilla metaphor for nuclear anxieties. This time it's mistreated nature's wrath that we have to fear in the form of MUTO (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organism). Environmental anxieties are ever-present today with some real monsters causing mass destruction, such as Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, Japan's earthquake, and the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami; and countless Midwest tornadoes, just to name a very few. It's satisfying to symbolically destroy that which is destroying us. We may not be able to take revenge on Hurricane Sandy or predict the next mega-quake, but we can take cathartic satisfaction in watching Godzilla pummel radiation-ravenous, pterodactyl-Mothra-bat-glowworm-like things (a result of man's abuse of nature).

Gareth Edwards (Monsters) establishes his cinematic vision with some stunning shots that beg to be seen only on the big screen. One moment of note occurs high above the monster-ravished downtown San Francisco as a team of soldiers skydive into the city holding flairs that stream long ribbons of red smoke. It's a welcomed pause of cinematic beauty. While the special effects are impressive, Edwards doesn't overwhelm the picture with a constant roller-coaster ride of action sequences. There are some careful dynamics to his pacing. However, while we're waiting for the monsters to appear, we're subjected to countless dull scenes, filled with characters who are about as thrilling as watching people wait in line at the DMV. I just wish this Godzilla had fewer stars, less waiting, and more Godzilla. But at least the King of Monsters is finally back!

—John David West

Siddharth (2013)

Siddharth: Suspenseful and Revealing

[7/10 · 13 August 2014]

Siddharth is a film inspired by Canadian director Richie Mehta's (I'll Follow You Down, 2013) chance encounter in Delhi with a man who asked him for help in finding a place called Dongri. When Mehta asked what Dongri was, the man told him that it's a place where he thinks his lost son was kidnapped and sent to. Siddharth is Metha's fictional exploration surrounding the disappearance of twelve-year-old Siddharth after he was sent by his father to work in another village.

Siddharth is a suspenseful and insightful drama that explores the difficulties of life for the poor and undereducated in India. Mehta has successfully crafted a film that gives the viewers a real sense of location and family—he takes you into the Saini family's world, from living in their very small apartment to working on the busy streets of New Delhi as a chain-wallah (someone who fixes zippers). With bleak reality, Mehta shows Western viewers just how impossible life is. Siddhartha's father, Mahendra, played by Rajesh Tailang with sensitive honesty and subtly, not only doesn't own a photograph of his son, but also cannot take time off to search for him without losing money to feed his family. Despite the film's harsh realities, Mehta successfully stays clear of preaching to the audience and simply allows the film to live and breathe. Regardless of the subjects of child trafficking, family loss, and a desperate world without hope, there is an intelligently crafted sense of optimism. As an alternative to the nutrient vacant, car chase, bang-bang summer blockbusters, Siddharth is a film that is definitely worth checking out and digesting.

—John David West