REVIEW: The Sandlot 2

I want to start this by saying that The Sandlot is one of my personal favorite movies of all time. While some may see it as just another kids sports movie about a ragtag bunch of misfits, I feel as though it captures the childlike nostalgia of summertime the way A Christmas Story captures the feeling of the holidays. Like A Christmas Story, The Sandlot is a great little film with something for just about everyone to latch on to. Like A Christmas Story, The Sandlot in no way needed a sequel. And, like A Christmas Story, The Sandlot got one anyway.

This would be the point in which I relay the plot, but I'd just be recounting the plot to the first Sandlot; it's seriously at least 75% the same exact movie. A wimpy kid with the last name of Smalls stumbles upon the titular Sandlot, a vacant field where a group of neighborhood kids (fat one, black one, one with some kind of speech-related quirk, quiet one who's actually good at sports, and the rest) all play baseball in the summer. After the plot meanders around for a bit and you begin to wonder if this is actually going to be an original film instead of a cheap rehash meant to cash-in on early 90's nostalgia, Smalls loses a very valuable possession in the yard of his neighbor, James Earl Jones. This valuable item is now made unattainable, due to James Earl Jones' gigantic, man-eating dog, The Beas-I mean, "The Great Fear". Change the characters' names around some and replace the autographed Babe Ruth ball with a model of a NASA space shuttle and you've got the plot to The Sandlot 2. 

It's really shameless just how much of a rehash this movie is. It's so bad that James Earl Jones' character has an entire bit of dialog at the end that highlights how everything that happened in this movie is just like the things that happened years ago in the first movie, pointing out a little too accurately how the film you just watched amounted to absolutely nothing. Entire scenes and moments from the first movie are just reenacted without a hint of irony or hesistation; they go to a carnival, one kid steals a kiss from an older girl, there's a patriotic "fireworks on Fourth of July" montage, the story of the killer dog is told through a dramatic reenactment shot in black-and-white, the fat kid gets into a name-calling contest with the preppy little league team (and of course someone says "you play ball like A GIRL"), the athletic kid puts on some new shoes and outruns the dog (who SURPRISE, isn't so bad after all), they try to retrieve the lost item with an Erector Set, and James Earl Jones acts like a kinda-spooky-but-still-cool old man who gets a bad rap despite one of the main characters being directly related to one of the main characters from the first Sandlot, so naturally he would know all about James Earl Jones and his dog, thus making this entire thing utterly pointless, but I digress. "Utterly pointless" is a good way to sum up this entire thing, really. Hell, even when the space shuttle is retrieved, we learn that it was pretty much inconsequential. In the first movie, there was some modicum of closure; Smalls had to come clean and admit what he did, while still making up for it. It made for some good character development and added to the overall film; here, the primary conflict is based entirely around misunderstandings, half of which the audience already knows about.

It never really dawned on me just how big an issue that is until I watched this film; probably because no film I've seen prior to this is incompetent enough to present a mystery that the audience is given the answer to while the characters are left in the dark. Normally, interest and tension are created by characters knowing something the viewer does not, but here, we know everything already. We know that James Earl Jones is really nice, we know that the dog isn't a giant monster, we know that the athletic kid is the one who got bit by the dog in New Smalls' story; all of this information is presented to us early on, yet the characters treat it like some great revelation when THEY finally catch up to the audience and learn the truth. It's an objectively wrong way to make a film; all it does is make the characters seem slow-witted and idiotic while bogging down the plot with unnecessary nonsense and annoying the audience to boot. Imagine if The Princess Bride opened up by explaining who the Dread Pirate Roberts was, or if Alien began by informing the audience of the company's true intentions for the crew of the Nostromo. It's such a simple, blunt way to kill any and all interest in a movie, to the point that it's almost fascinating. One must wonder, what was the mission statement here? What goal could director David M. Evans possibly have had in mind when he made the decision to return to direct a straight-to-DVD sequel to a film he directed over a decade prior? How could someone consciously make the same exact film so shamelessly? It's not like money was a huge draw here; The Sandlot was a modest success in 1993 and went on to garner a cult following over the years. Did someone really expect to make a fortune off of a direct-to-video sequel to a cult classic, released in an era when kids' sports flicks were all but extinct? The Sandlot 2 fascinates me with its mere existence, simply because it has no reason to exist. At least, none that I can find.

The Sandlot 2 is a complete and utter nothing of a movie. It's actually something of a shame, considering the first 20 minutes or so are actually not an exact carbon-copy of the first movie. I went in expecting something irredeemably bad, only to get something that felt as if it was almost about to be something original. But then it just became The Sandlot, but again and with much, much worse child actors. If you ever wanted to see what The Sandlot would be like if everyone who isn't James Earl Jones struggled to stutter out every line, then by all means, check out this pointless, insipid sequel. Nobody asked for it, and nobody will remember it. That is the legacy of The Sandlot 2. Well, that and a THIRD one that exists for some reason. A third one that involves time travel, apparently. So there's a point in The Sandlot 2's favor; it may be a terrible rehash of the first movie, but at least it doesn't have time travel.

REVIEW: The Gift

I believe it was back when I went to go see Insidious: Chapter 3 when I first saw the trailer for Joel Edgerton's The Gift. The idea of a horror/thriller based entirely around an unrequited friendship elicited but one reaction from me; this was either going to be legitimately great or hilariously schlocky. Having finally experienced The Gift for myself (and expecting the latter), I'm honestly surprised at just how good it turned out to be.

Married couple Simon and Robyn (Jason Bateman and Rebecca Hall) have just moved from Chicago to Los Angeles, ready to start a family and begin a brand new chapter in their lives. Things become complicated, however, with the addition of "Gordo" (Edgerton, really pulling his weight on this production), an old high school classmate of Simon's. Though he comes off as a little awkward, Gordo really puts forth an overzealous effort to be friends with Simon and Robyn, leaving them lavish housewarming gifts and attempting to organize hangouts at every opportunity. Eventually, Gordo's constant presence begins to wear on the couple and it becomes apparent that this friendship is wholly one-sided. After an attempt to end the whole relationship is made, things take a sinister turn and we slowly begin to realize that all is not as it seems. For about the first half of the runtime, things play out exactly as one would expect. It's full of exposition and cheeriness to contrast with how dire things will surely get later, while plot points and tiny bits of foreshadowing are sprinkled throughout. It lulls you into a false sense of security in the fact that you know exactly how this is all going to play out, right before things take a wild turn. Had it not been for the quality of the third act, I'd be writing this off as just another fun but altogether pointless thriller. Just like You're Next, this is a film that plays with the audience's expectations and absolutely revels in subverting them.

It's almost a little frustrating, since I can't really go into detail in regards to what made me enjoy this movie without just spoiling everything, but the places this film goes to really makes up for the comparatively not-as-good beginning. While everyone gives a great performance, the first act is really quite slow; up until things start going bad with Gordo, there isn't really much that happens. We get introduced to our characters, see them go about their lives, exposition is exchanged, but Gordo is really the only thing that moves the plot along until a certain point in the story. It's something of a disservice to these characters; they're all really fleshed-out and interesting, but I feel like we should have gotten some more hints of the aspects of their personalities that become important to the plot later on. That's not to say that there's NO early characterization (especially when it comes to the character of Simon), but some more (particularly for Robyn) would have been greatly appreciated. I've also got to take a proverbial point away for the film's use of jump-scares. While it's true that this kind of scare is "effective" (in that it makes people flinch and go "AAH!"), the startled reactions are almost always followed by laughter. The movie is really good at building tension and suspense, but then it blows it all for a cheap payoff like a dog jumping into frame. The unsettling atmosphere would have been even better than it already is, had a little more time and care been given to developing these moments.

The performances from the main three cast members are all spectacular. I'm most familiar with Jason Bateman as George Bluth on Arrested Development, so it was really impressive to see him play such a dramatic role as well as he does here. Rebecca Hall does a good job as Robyn, but I would have liked to have seen more of her character. The two make for an interesting pair, with Simon being more extroverted and Robyn being more reserved. Simon quickly tires of dealing with Gordo, but Robyn tries her hardest to be kind to him. They act as strong foils to each other, but the nature of the character makes Hall's performance stand out less than Bateman's. That's not to say that her character doesn't have any depth to her, but rather that she feels a bit too passive considering she's such a major player in the story. I really must applaud Joel Edgerton's work here; not only did he pull triple duty writing, directing, and producing this picture, he also stars as Gordo, giving a really nuanced performance. We never really know what to make of Gordo; at times he can come off as sympathetic and misunderstood, at others he feels like a legitimate antagonist. You never quite know what he's capable of, even up to the very end; there is no moral black and white in this film. Even if you wanted to make a decision as to who's right and who's wrong, the film doesn't give you all the pieces to the puzzle. No matter how you feel about these characters and what they do, you can never be 100% certain that your feelings are totally justified, which is something I feel makes this movie quite special.

Beautifully shot and legitimately surprising, The Gift is a great first effort from Joel Edgerton. While it does occasionally fall victim to periods of slowness and the various tropes and clichés of the genre, it showcases enough creativity and cleverness to make for something really unique and substantial. I recommend it and hope to see more from Edgerton, both behind and in front of the camera.

REVIEW: The Skeleton Twins

The Skeleton Twins has been on my watch list for quite some time. I adore Bill Hader and think that Kristen Wiig's potential is utterly wasted doing comedies where the punchline always comes in the form of either a silly voice or a pratfall, so when I heard that the two were starring opposite each other in an independent comedy/drama, my interest was naturally piqued. It was through sheer serendipity that I happened upon this movie sitting on the main page of Netflix, after having heard next to nothing about it since its release.

The film concerns fraternal twins, Milo and Maggie (Hader and Wiig, who might as well be related in real life); after a failed suicide attempt, Milo ends up staying with his sister and her husband (Luke Wilson) in New York until he can get back on his feet. The two haven't seen each other in ten years; Milo traveled out to Los Angeles to pursue a career as an actor and Maggie settled down in their hometown. Neither of their lives are panning out quite exactly as they'd hoped, and we get to see the two reconnect and deal with the various ghosts of their past. Saying anything more would delve into spoiler territory, as it's up to the audience to gradually figure out exactly what has happened to the siblings in the past that made them the damaged people they became. It drip-feeds you information in a very methodical but natural way; you're never left completely lost as to what's happening, but you're always hungry for more information. There are no exposition dumps here, it keeps the audience invested without seeming overly vague or muddled for the sake of appearing mysterious.

The thing that makes this movie work is the titular twins themselves. Hader and Wiig are so compelling, all thanks to their utterly stunning natural chemistry. There's more than a few moments on display here where it's clear they were given free reign to improvise, to great effect. They really feel like two people who grew up only having each other to turn to; the only downside to their amazing performances is that every other character feels somewhat underdeveloped in comparison. That's not to say that anyone gives a bad performance here, everyone is excellent (and it is clearly a film that is meant to focus primarily on the two siblings), but it runs into the problem of certain characters doing nothing more than entering and exiting the plot in order to introduce a new situation or move things along. For example, Milo and Maggie's mother, played by Joanna Gleason; she appears for one scene, coming off as wholly self-righteous and emotionally detached from her children's lives. We only meet her once, but she leaves a huge impression. I personally found this character very interesting, perhaps only because we know so little about her. I would have loved more scenes with her, delving into her strained relationship with her children, but this is a luxury we are denied. Luke Wilson's portrayal of Maggie's husband, Lance, is equally interesting. When we are introduced to him, we assume he's going to be that classic Gaston-type; a rugged man's man who is emotionally checked-out and self-absorbed. In truth, he's the exact opposite; while he enjoys working with his hands and he isn't particularly book-smart, he is just a genuinely nice, all-around good guy. Once he leaves the plot, that's it; we get no closure with his character, which I genuinely would have liked to see. Whether this was done for budgetary reasons or in service of maintaining the solid, even pace, I'm not quite sure, but it's definitely an aspect of the film that I found to be somewhat lacking.

This all feels like a very small, intimate film, most likely because the main cast is so compact. I've already sung the praises of Hader and Wiig (though admittedly not as much as they deserve, seeing as how they are truly spectacular in this), Gleason is excellent for how little we see of her, and Wilson is surprisingly endearing for the part he plays. In the supporting cast we also have Boyd Holbrook as Maggie's scuba instructor (and possibly the only totally one-dimensional character in the story) and Ty Burrell as Rich, an ex-lover of Milo's. Between Hader, Wiig, and Burrell, this movie has a knack for making me appreciate how incredible primarily comedic actors can be when taking on more serious roles; everyone here is a chameleon, totally unrecognizable from their various hijinks on SNL or Modern Family. 

I would say, "even if this movie wasn't good, you should still watch it, just for the performances", but then it dawned on me that this movie is good because of the performances. Not to disparage the writing, directing, cinematography, or music (all of which is top notch), but this is a character-driven story. If we didn't care about these believable characters, there would be no movie here. It's funny and gloomy at the same time; it's the kind of cry you need to have once in a while. The Skeleton Twins is a heartfelt look at the bond, not between family, but between siblings; if you've ever felt totally alone, except for that one person who gets you when you need a friend, definitely give it a watch. 

REVIEW: Wet Hot American Summer

What with the end of summer fast approaching and a new Netflix series just released, I figured it was appropriate to take a look at the 2001 comedy from David Wain, Wet Hot American Summer. This was one of those movies that I'd heard of for quite some time, but knew absolutely nothing about. After my usual post-viewing round of research, I was surprised to see that this movie was actually widely panned when it was released; this came as a surprise to me, considering I was laughing pretty consistently throughout the hour and a half runtime.

The movie is an irreverent love letter to 80's summertime comedy romps such as Meatballs and The Sandlot; it's the last day of camp at Camp Firewood, meaning that the gaggle of adolescent counselors only have one final day to find themselves in a classic summertime romantic entanglement. There's a large ensemble cast of characters, each one with their own story. As the day goes on, we flit from story to story, watching each bit progress little by little, all leading up to the big camp talent show. This method of storytelling is more than a little stilted, but I feel it works to the benefit of the jokes; so much of the humor here is situational, so it can be difficult to draw scenes to a close. For example, there's a great sequence in which Camp Director Beth (Janeane Garofalo) and Counselor Neil (Joe Lo Truglio) are desperately trying to find one of the counselors; it's a hilarious scene, shot with tons of energy. However, there isn't really a clear way to end it once the joke has run its course, which is where the cuts to different characters and their stories come in handy. It's a little disjointed, but it's made apparent very early on that this movie doesn't operate on any modicum of logic; like most classic parodies, the jokes don't have to make sense, so long as they're funny.

The cast is composed of a wealth of great comedic talents, from Molly Shannon to Amy Poehler to David Hyde Pierce to Bradley Cooper, everyone does a great job here. The only downside is that, with so many characters, no one is really defined all that much. Everyone has a base characterization, but only a small handful of the cast really gets individual moments to shine. Personally, I'd say the standout here is Paul Rudd, playing definitive 80's bad boy, Andy. Everything this character says is so wonderfully quotable; I also really enjoyed Christopher Meloni as Gene, the camp cook (who is dealing with shellshock, having served in Vietnam). It feels like a lot of the jokes and dialog was born from improvisation, which isn't a bad thing at all. Letting naturally funny people do what they do best can result in some magic. Another aspect of this film that I really adored was its rapt devotion to just about every single cliché born from this type of movie. I'm a humongous fan of films that take a classic trope and turn it on its head, but Wet Hot American Summer takes it to another level; in just about every scene, there's some sort of wink or nod, some as subtle as the way a line is delivered, to the contrived platitudes found in every summer-themed comedy. Michael Showalter's motivational speech to his plucky softball team of ragtag misfits comes to mind as being a prime example of this kind of lampshading which the movie excels at so well.

My only criticism is that this isn't really much of a film. It's more like a collection of skits that one might find late at night on Adult Swim; the plot and characterization are nearly nonexistant. Whatever fragments of these exist serve only as a platform for more humorous soliloquies. Don't get me wrong, it's funny, but that's about all this is. There's literally nothing here but the humor. No great story, no great characters, no especially great performances. Just a collection of funny gags done by some funny people. This, as you might imagine, puts the film in something of a precarious position. Humor is subjective, and when that's all that a film has to go on, it can be a total coin toss as to whether or not a particular viewer might enjoy it or not. I personally found it hilarious, but I can easily see it not being everyone's cup of tea. When I say things get ridiculous, I mean that things get ridiculous. It's difficult to put into words what exactly makes this film work for me, other than it's just funny. Truthfully, it's not particularly smart or clever, more just well-constructed; a very basic, yet effective kind of humor. I don't particularly know why it's funny to see a high-speed motorcycle chase brought to a dramatic end by a single bale of hay, all I know is that it made me laugh.

Wet Hot American Summer is definitely an interesting piece of work. I personally found it hilarious, highlighting all my favorite clichés and never dropping the delightfully absurd tone for even a second. That said, it's definitely not for everybody; if this is the type of humor that makes you roll your eyes rather than crack up, maybe give this one a pass. However, if you want to see something really goofy and really fun, I highly recommend you give it a watch.