Double Feature: R.I.P.D. and Turbo

The common theme for today's double feature is Ryan Reynolds. Back in the early 2000's, the Van Wilder actor was going to be the next superstar of the big screen. Unfortunately, while still a talented performer, he's never quite achieved the level of career prosperity that folks once predicted, and his Hollywood experience has consisted of peaks and valleys, with most of his appearances coming in supporting roles and his biggest draws being shared with bigger, more prestigious actors (Denzel Washington in Safe House, Sandra Bullock in The Proposal). He's certainly been busy this year, with roles in TWO animated features (the first was The Croods) and one sci-fi action film. We'll look at the live-action flick first, as Reynolds teams up with Academy Award-winner Jeff Bridges in RED director Robert Schwenke's R.I.P.D.

When Boston Police detective Nick Walker (Reynolds) is killed in the line of duty, his soul does not go to Heaven or Hell. Instead, it is transferred to the Rest in Peace Department, an afterlife police agency that tracks down bad souls on Earth that have escaped judgment. Partnered with former US Marshall and curmudgeon cowboy Roy Pulsipher (Bridges), the pair clash frequently in their search for hiding "Deados". But when an ancient artifact is discovered that threatens to return the dead to the Earth, Nick and Roy must settle their differences before the world as they know it comes to an ectoplasmic end.

Bridges is of course playing Rooster Cogburn.

On paper, R.I.P.D. seems to look something like a cross between Men in Black and Ghostbusters, with a decent amount of Ghost thrown in. Based on the comic book series of the same name from Dark Horse Comics, you figure that there would be plenty of material to mine in putting together the story. Unfortunately, Schwentke's final product is rushed, cramming potentially two and a half hours worth of material into a slim 96 minutes. Everything is hurried, with no chance for the audience to slow down and adapt to the idea of the R.I.P.D. and its role in protecting the planet in secret. The result is that the story comes off as phony and unbelievable, and the films that should have been sources of inspiration (the three above) are instead mined for specific imagery, their theft leaving R.I.P.D. without an identity all its own. The special effects are at least better than you might expect, but the quality isn't consistent, switching between good and mediocre in a heartbeat.

R.I.P.D. even stole M.I.B.'s secret locale.

There are two factors in which the film does redeem itself, however: humor and acting. Annoying physical humor aside, R.I.P.D. actually has excellent dialogue, which is crisp and helps alleviate the mediocrity of the overall story. And that humor really comes across thanks to a cast not just composed by its leads, but also by Mary-Louise Parker, Stephanie Szostak, and Kevin Bacon, who has really enjoyed a career renaissance on screens big and small the past couple of years. They manage to elevate the movie by a couple of rungs, and both Reynolds and Bridges carry the film through the strength of their constant interactions.I do wish the director had stepped away from the duo a bit more to focus on the support cast, but otherwise I can't really complain, as the result is entertaining enough.

Get to the choppah!

But despite some fun that can be had, it's hard to get around the fact that R.I.P.D. could have been much, MUCH better than it turned out. It's just too derivative to fully get behind, and while it's not nearly the train-wreck that many critics have attested, for the money that was allegedly spent ($130 million got us THIS?), it's definitely going to go down as one of the most disappointing comic book adaptations this year. It might be worth a rental in a few months, but don't rush out to see it just yet.

A much better Ryan Reynolds jaunt (and one for the whole family, no less) is the latest animated film from Dreamworks, Turbo. If you were to take Ratatouille, change the animal in question from rats to snails, and then fuse it to Cars, you have an idea of how this one plays out. Theo (voiced by Reynolds) is an average gastropod, weary of his slow-paced existence and dreaming of becoming a world-class racer like his heroes on the NASCAR circuit, much to the chagrin and embarrassment of his sensible older brother Chet (Paul Giamatti). When a freak accident with nitrous oxide turns Theo into the super-fast snail Turbo, his dreams of going fast quickly become true. Soon, he is teaming up with fellow dreamer and taco truck driver Tito (Michael Pena), whose family business is suffering due to its poor location. Tito and Turbo hatch a plan that's so insane and unbelievable that it could only happen in a Dreamworks movie, as Tito uses all his saving to enter Turbo into the Indy 500, racing against the top car racers in the world. But could Theo's powers be only temporary, and if they are, what will happen if he slows down during the big race?

Turbo; a snail with a plan.

Like all Dreamworks animated pictures, Turbo is quite pretty to watch, but not quite on par with its superior competition. The company's response to the idea that they aren't as deep or emotional as those put out by Pixar (even over the last couple of years, Dreamworks has struggled to maintain its second-place status on the animation front), the response has apparently been to crib the best themes from Pixar's highlights (in this case the excellent Ratatouille). First-time feature director David Soren at least does a decent job with his second-hand story, mixing the idea of never giving up on your dreams with a healthy mix of characters.

Just stand back and let the merchandise sales roll in.

And it's the characters that stand out most in Turbo. Excellent actors such as Paul Giamatti and Michael Pena hold key roles, and the gang of renegade racing snails (which feel remarkably akin to the Fast & Furious gang), are a lot of fun. They're led by Samuel L. Jackson, but Soren never relies on them to pick up the slack elsewhere. In most films, that would be a great sign of restraint, but here it seems a little foolhardy. Turbo, and Reynolds as his voice, are interesting enough to maintain their lead character credentials but is a bit vanilla for an animated lead. Though there's a great cast in here, they can't quite make up for an uninspired lead.

In the grand scheme of Dreamworks animated films, Turbo is certainly not bad. On a scale between the excellence of How to Train Your Dragon and the much-reviled Shark Tale, their latest comes in somewhere around Kung Fu Panda. While the concept is almost as absurd as it is derivative, kids will definitely get into seeing this animated feature on the big screen, and unlike a lot of Dreamworks' other titles, Turbo has enough for adults to get into the act, especially if they're fans of the still-growing race culture. But with Monsters University and Despicable Me 2 still in theaters, I can't see any reason you should rush out your door to see it either, unless your kids really love the idea of racing snails. Or if you do. No judging.

True Disappointment

John Wayne is no longer the definitive Rooster Cogburn. There, I said it.

Some of my older readers may remember my stint as a comics reviewer a few years back. In the comments field for this review, a discussion began on what actors were the "definitive" versions of the characters they played on screen. The commentators, including several friendly blog authors, bandied about several names, including Lynda Carter as Wonder Woman, George Reeves as Superman and Patrick Warburton as the Tick. Then came the comment of The Opinioness (who went by a different moniker back then), recommending the legendary cowboy actor John Wayne as Rooster Cogburn. My first reaction was obvious: "Who the bleep's Rooster Cogburn?"

Marshall, the best picture award got away!

Backtrack and rewind to 1969, when True Grit was adapted for the silver screen from the novel by Charles Portis. A classic western film, True Grit told the story of US Marshall Reuben "Rooster" Cogburn, a one-eyed, overweight drunk who is supposed to have "grit", or a fearless nature that makes him not one to be messed with. Played by the legendary cowboy actor John Wayne, the film won him his only Academy Award and the movie itself is considered one of the greatest westerns of all time. With any such classic, a retelling would warrant quite a bit of skepticism from anyone wishing to see it, as remakes are often lacking in the same intangibles that made the originals so great. Even with the recent modernized westerns such as 3:10 to Yuma and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford showing such promise, there's still room for doubt. So despite the great trailers preceding this film's release, it was with a bit of uneasiness (and memories of the bitter pill that was the final act of the Coen Brothers' 2008 film, No Country for Old Men) that I went into the theaters Christmas day (keeping a family tradition alive). I was hopeful that what I was about to see would be good, but you can never be sure of anything, even if it's trailer uses Johnny Cash to great effect.

I'm %#@&ing Matt Damon!

Following more closely the story from the book than the original film, True Grit tells the story of Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld), a fourteen-year-old girl in 1800's rural west, whose father was killed by by one of his hired hands while on a business trip. Ross decides to hire  the services of Marshall Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges), because she's convinced he has "true grit", to hunt down the lowlife Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin) since she believes otherwise that justice won't come for the crime of her father's death. With the insistence that she go along, and the unwanted help from a Texas Ranger named La Boeuf (Matt Damon), the hunt for Tom Chaney is on, with a wild frontier and a nasty assortment of bandits in between the trio and justice.

If the hat doesn't fit, you must acquit!

For the first three quarters of the film, all you can do is sit back and let the experience of viewing the film wash over you. If you've seen the original film, you can appreciate how some scenes in the new version are complete different than before, and how some scenes were surprisingly untouched. Having never read the book, I'm inclined to think that these changes were to make the story more along the lines of the novel, since that was the Coens' stated intention. The script is also appropriately funny in places. While much of the humor is Rooster's drunken ramblings or the occasional quip from La Boeuf, there are some scenes - like one in which Mattie negotiates to sell back the ponies her father had bought to the original seller to raise money to hire Cogburn - are intentionally gut-bustingly funny. That of course is not to say that this western film has been turned into a situation comedy, just that the Coens still have a good grasp on how and when to use humor effectively.

Rooster needs a smoky smoke to make Mattie more bearable

What was probably the biggest challenge would be recasting the inimitable Cogburn, whose prior performer John Wayne created a permanent retinal image for many a western fan. Nabbing Academy Award winner Bridges was surely not difficult, since he'd worked with the Coens before in 1998's The Big Lebowski, but matching Wayne blow for blow would surely be folly. That's why it's great to see this Rooster Cogburn as less sympathetic and more surly than his earlier contemporary. The original film made Cogburn out to be heroic despite his personal failings while the remake shows him to be more true bastard than true grit. Here, his drinking has real consequences, and while he does worry somewhat about the well-being of Mattie, it's often overshadowed by his demons and violent streak. Bridges, to his credit, never tries to make Rooster too likable to the audience, and his personal faults create a divide between him and his allies almost as deep as those between he and his enemies.

Someone's True Grit is spilling out on the ground as we speak...

The rest of the cast put on notable performances, though none near as effectively as Bridges. Newcomer Hailee Steinfeld, daughter of "Body by" Jake Steinfeld, is the best of the rest, spunky and resourceful as young teenager Mattie Ross. While purposely annoying at times to the elder characters in the film, Ross's single-minded determination to see justice brought to her father's killer despite the hardships involved is admirable, and Steinfeld's performance conveys everything that is good and right about the character. Texas Ranger La Boeuf has far less focus here than he did in the original film, but it does nothing to lessen Matt Damon's performance as the Ranger hunting Chaney for his own reasons. Damon brings a sense of humor and spirit of adventure to the role, and while it's not his best performance, he does enough to keep the story moving forward and his role is actually more believable here than in the first film's tale. I wasn't sure what to expect from Tom Chaney in this film, if the Coens would decide to make him more vicious, but thankfully Josh Brolin is just as mewling as Jeff Corey was in the original. The fact that Chaney was more pathetic than anything made him surprisingly a more effective villain, and the Coens thankfully realized this as well. Barry Pepper rounds out the cast as "Lucky Ned" Pepper (no relation, I'm guessing), the surprisingly-noble bandit who Chaney throws down with after escaping into no-man's land. Pepper in his small role is believable, though perhaps his character is somewhat less so as a supposedly-ruthless gang leader who seems to at least treat Mattie with some respect when the two characters meet late in the tale.

Like La Beuf with his poor aim, Damon has no shot at an acting award this year

Unfortunately, all the good ideas that appears in the film are halted immediately entering the film's final act. Suddenly this movie becomes dull, lifeless, needlessly dark and practically another story rather than an ending to the one we've been watching to this point. I also didn't like the narration from Mattie Ross's older self, as I thought it was unnecessary and didn't add anything to the story. The ending of the original film might have been a bit hokey, but at least it was a satisfying conclusion, of which we have none here. Even more than the aforementioned No Country for Old Men, the film ends in a most unsavory manner, upending all the good that had happened before it.

"I'm just going to close my eyes now. You just keep on talking"

Of course, unlike that somewhat overrated 2008 film, True Grit was snubbed completely at this year's Golden Globe nominations, despite overwhelming critical acclaim. While Bridges should probably still be recognized for his performance of the legendary US Marshall, it's hard to argue with the results. To be completely honest, True Grit didn't need to be remade, and while the slick modern camerawork, excellent acting by Bridges, good performances by everybody else, and tremendous storytelling all come together for a true visual experience for much of the film, it's the depressingly poor ending that ruins that same experience for us the viewers. When you look at the films instead being nominated for the Best Picture category - The Fighter, Black Swan, The King's Speech, Inception and even The Social Network - I would be severely hard-pressed to argue any of these out to make room for True Grit, especially when I feel The Town was a superior film that had been snubbed. Another disappointment from the Coen Brothers, from whom I haven't seen a truly enjoyable film in years, and who will have to perhaps go back to their roots to rediscover what made their earlier films so great. In the end, while John Wayne may no longer be the definitive Rooster Cogburn, his 1969 film is still the definitive True Grit.

Twenty-Eight Years: Worth the Wait

When Tron was released in theaters waaaay back in 1982, it was right on the forefront of what was then a technical revolution. Though you may not think so to look on it now, the film was far more advanced in the special effects department than anything that had come before, and paved the way for generations of big budget special effects blockbusters. Because of Tron's financial success at its release, I'm hesitant to call it a cult classic, but it's obviously difficult to deny the effect this film had on both people and filmmakers, whether or not you could agree on the film's quality.

It's Tron! Oh, wait, it's just Alan

And so all these years later, we finally have a Tron sequel. Tron: Legacy takes place in the modern world, one in which your standard .jpg file is larger than that of the 1982 Grid, the digital universe Kevin Flynn had gotten trapped in so many years ago. In 1989, Flynn (Jeff Bridges reprising his role) disappeared off the face of the planet, leaving behind his tech company, ENCOM, and his young son Sam. Fast-forward to the present day, and Sam (Garrett Hedlund) is still the largest shareholder of ENCOM, but doesn't have much interaction with the company. When his father's friend Alan (Bruce Boxleitner, also reprising his earlier role) arrives with a clue that might lead Sam to find his long-lost father, it sets him on a journey to the very place dear old dad told him stories about in his youth: the Grid.

Looks like somebody's got a battle disc with Sam's name on it

Frankly, any trailer you've seen or commercial you've witnessed advertising this film doesn't do justice to the special effects present here. Granted, I saw Tron: Legacy in a digital 3D Imax theater, and I couldn't really recommend you see this film for the first time in any other capacity, but since the effects are the meat and potatoes of the film-going experience in movies like this, it's a relief to not be let down in this capacity. Like those of Avatar or Resident Evil: Afterlight, the effects do an amazing job of drawing the viewer into the film's atmosphere. Almost everything is impeccably rendered, from the light cycle battles to the flight path of hurled identity discs to the lights of the Grid's great city. The 3D aspects of the film are not necessarily needed, but do add a bit of depth to the effects that are obviously already light-years ahead of the film's predecessor.

Hey, digital boots off the couch!

Like the original film, the sequel has a bevy of acting talent that make their mark on the digital plane. At this point it's obvious Jeff Bridges can do any damned movie he wants, even (and perhaps especially) a Tron sequel. Playing two roles, as the Grid's creator Kevin Flynn and antagonist Clu, Bridges has the opportunity to literally be all over the place, and being not one but two driving forces behind the story is no small task. Bridges does a great job in both roles, matching the patience and paternal instincts of Flynn with the rash arrogance of Clu. Hedlund is surprising good as Flynn the younger, and while the "spurned son looking for his father" role is a bit trite, he makes it work well, and makes a fairly convincing hero. Olivia Wilde is no doubt attractive, but I've yet to see her play a character with much in the way of depth. True, she gets kudos for her role on the TV show House, but that's unfortunately not a show I've been watching and I don't know how good she really is. She seems to be experiencing a career surge right now, but hopefully the roles she gets in the future will be stronger than the mainly useless Quorra, who manages to be both an important plot device and incredibly inconsequential all at the same time. I want to believe Wilde is talented, but I've yet to see her in a role that proves it. Boxleitner appears in no more than a few scenes as Alan, and even fewer as the film's namesake, but that's fine as he's stepping aside to let a younger hero step up. And Michael Sheen is quite entertaining as a flamboyant program who owns a nightclub in the city, which I know sounds weird but you don't think about it when you're watching the movie. Sheen, who has made a name for himself by portraying real-life personalities such as Tony Blair, David Frost and Brian Clough, is positively cheeky in this nice change of pace from his more serious fare.

The digital young Jeff Bridges is scarier than the new, older Jeff Bridges

If there's one complaint to be had with Tron: Legacy, it sadly has to do with the film's main antagonist. Clu is a digitally-represented model of the younger Kevin Flynn. While, when we're seeing Clu on the Grid, he USUALLY looks fine, once in a while - and especially in an early flashback scene when the same style is used to depict a young Flynn - the model looks no more advanced or realistic than those used in the CGI animated film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within... which was back in 2001. When talking about CGI characters, people may make mention of "uncanny valley", which is a robotics term referring to artificial humans. The more realistic and "human-like" you make a synthetic, the more direct a revulsion that creation ellicits from a human audience. It's a problem with most human CGI characters in film, and only children's films seem to not be affected like this, since most human characters in that genre have exaggerrated features to make them more animated. Regardless, being creeped out by the film's antagonist is certainly not a disaster, simply my biggest problem with the film. Some people had problems with the plot and story at parts, but Tron never claimed to be Shakespeare. This was a problem the original film had as well, a weak story overshadowed by state-of-the-art special effects and good acting. I'll let the minor quibbles be handled elsewhere and enjoy the film for what it is.

What, do all digital women just lounge around until needed?

And enjoy it I did! Despite the fact that the original Tron was not a very good film and to outshine it would have not taken an enormous effort, Tron: Legacy took today's technology and told Tron the way people could have only dreamed of doing so almost thirty years ago. The directorial debut of Joseph Kosinski has been a success, if not exactly a perfect opening. Sure the story is silly and hackneyed, I'll fully admit to that. However, the visual spectacle is the main reason you're going to see this film, and the good acting is simply icing the cake. It's got problems, but this sleek, sexy world is unlike anything you've ever seen and even its eventual release on DVD will be impressive if you've got a blu-ray and a sufficiently high-tech entertainment rig. It's my new #10 film for the year, and while it's appearance in the Top 10 will certainly be short-lived, I reiterate my statement that you should absolutely see it in the biggest, loudest movie theater showing it while you can.