Movie Review: The Butler

"Cotton was all I ever knew."

Pop quiz hotshot: Is this quote from the opening of "The Butler," or a proposed sequel to "The Jerk." Surprisingly, the answer is the former. 

"The Butler" is a big historical drama that is filled with some shining moments, and some others where Lee Daniel is practically screaming "Give me an Oscar!" at the screen. 

"The Butler" is based on an incredible true story. It is one of those stories that chronicles history from a character who was always behind the scenes as opposed to the forefront. Those stories can often be the most truthful, as observers tend to be a little more objective than participants. 

Movie Review: Hot Tub Time Machine

In his review of "Shutter Island," the New Yorker's Anthony Lane drew upon a quote from Umberto Eco: "Two cliches make us laugh but a hundred cliches move us, because we sense dimly that the cliches are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." Lane was using this to describe a totally different movie, but I think it fits even more perfectly into "Hot Tub Time Machine."

"Hot Tub Time Machine" is the 1980s comedy made for 2010, both stylistically and literally. It begins in the modern day. The film's anti-heros, three best friends who've hit some rocky times, are typical everyday schlubs. Adam (John Cusack) has to deal with both a recent breakup and his reclusive nephew (Clark Duke) who lives with him. Nick (Craig Robinson) is a burnt out musician, and Lou (Rob Corddry) is an alcoholic who has just hit rock bottom.

Well, the first half of the premise probably made this movie sound a little too serious. Just wait until you hear the next part. The four head up to a now decrepit ski resort to try and relive their glory days. After a night of too much to drink, the boys' hot tub sends them back to the 1980s. There, they relive all the greatest moments of their life, and those they tried to totally forget about.

"Hot Tub Time Machine" can be described as a different kind of nostalgia. It's a nostalgic tone that's both a little mocking, and a little reminiscent. Unlike some other previous homage films such as "Black Dynamite," "Hot Tub Time Machine" wouldn't totally fit in as a film in the 1980s. It does contain everything we love about an 80s classic, but with the wisdom of someone living in the year 2010.

However, this isn't to say that "Hot Tub Time Machine" doesn't evoke its era well. When it does go back in time, it does everything it can to put you into the year 1986 from the music people listened to, to the kind of shoes they wore. Then, it crams in about a million different 80s movie cliches. There's the upper class bully, the losing-your-virginity story, and of course, some anti-Communist paranoia. "Red Dawn" style.

It really does feel like all of these different cliches are having a reunion together. It could be that the writers, director, and actors were actually having a fun time with it all, or that this era of filmmaking had a little more depth than ever imagined. Maybe this was just an era where people were making films about the world they wished they lived in, rather than what it actually was.

Even for a film that's unapologetically dirty (consider this a warning), there is still something very smart behind its stupidity. The film's humor is a mix of gross out and tongue-in-cheek.

Perhaps the one moment in the film that could actually be described as brilliant comes after the characters have been transferred back to the 80s. Robinson remarks, "must be a...hot tub time machine." Then he just stares at the camera. Not only have the filmmakers broken the fourth wall, but they've also managed to make fun of how films try to incorporate their titles into their dialogue while at the same time creating one of the best title tie-ins I've seen in a movie.

"Hot Tub Time Machine" would definitely have been a failure had it not been for a cast and crew who actually knows their way around the subject. I would like to point out that co-writer Sean Anders, who also wrote the awful "Sex Drive," manages to succeed here by actually putting funny words on a page.

I think the cast really helped make the film even better. You can feel that they took control and made it their film as well. Corddry finally got the breakout role he deserved, and he's certainly gotten the a-hole personality down well. Robinson always incorporates his smooth talking, but sometimes very angry, personality and turns it into laughs.

Then, of course, there's Cusack. Here, Cusack seems to play a bit more of a demented version of Lloyd Dobler and any other romantic he played during the 80s. There's something about his personality that is so endearing. Maybe it's that he never seems happy yet he's never a killjoy. I think it might be a little closer to his performance than "Better Off Dead" than in "Say Anything..." What I really want to say here is that I hope Cusack takes more roles like "Hot Tub Time Machine" and less like "2012."

There is one thing I've thought about complaining about in "Hot Tub Time Machine." However, I can't bring myself to because it actually works here. That one thing is how much the premise resembles "The Hangover." It's also about the result of a night of debauchery and contains the same archetypal characters. But as long as this premise keeps working, I will keep seeing movies just like it. This premise might one day become the cliche to define the 2000s.

"Hot Tub Time Machine" broke the fourth wall in more ways than mentioned before. The sum of the film and its characters is not just homage to the films of the 80s, but rather both the characters and the filmmakers looking back at what that era meant. It fits the style of the 80s into the style of the present. Oh, and most importantly, it's just the kind of film that you see, laugh at, and then keep laughing at long after it ends.

80s Movies That Likely Inspired Hot Tub Time Machine: Back to the Future, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, One Crazy Summer, The Breakfast Club, Say Anything..., Red Dawn, Sixteen Candles, Better Off Dead, Weird Science, Encino Man (Not 80s, but close enough)

Movie Review: 2012

I picture Roland Emmerich, director of "2012," being something like Woody Harrelson's character in the film: standing on top of a mountain, and cheering as the world came to an end.

Yes, "2012" is what some might describe as "death porn" or "destructo-porn." It's a disaster film based on an old conspiracy that goes where so many disaster films before it have gone. It's a marvel of special effects, but an absolute disaster in story telling.

"2012" is based off the popular conspiracy that on December 21, 2012 the world will end because it's the very day the Mayan calendar ends. Hours of unnecessary footage on the History Channel have tried to take everything from history and put it together to convince us that it will happen.

Now, I'm not saying I didn't like "2012" because I don't subscribe to this whole theory. Let's take a look at the story to see what is actually wrong with it.

The film has multiple story lines. One involves the President of the United States (Danny Glover) and two scientists: one with good intentions (Chiwetel Ejiofor), and another with shadier intentions (Oliver Platt).

The most important story involves Jackson Curtis (John Cusack). Jackson is a divorced writer who must get his two kids, his ex-wife (Amanda Peet), and her annoying new husband (Tom McCarthy) to safety as the world crumbles. That seems nice, until you realize that it's the exact same plot of Spielberg's "War of the Worlds."

The rest of "2012" basically involves the audience watching the world get destroyed. The Los Angeles freeway collapses. The Vatican crushes an entire crowd. The White House is crushed by a giant tsunami. Yellowstone National Park turns into a giant volcano. This then goes on for another two-and-a-half hours. It's entertaining, and even a little enthralling at first. But after a while, you're just waiting for it all to end.

Don't get me wrong, I love a good, special-effects laden blockbuster. If done well, it can make for great cinema, and even greater entertainment. However, what prevents "2012" from the possibility of being good is Roland Emmerich. Emmerich you could say is obsessed with destruction, as he also directed "Independence Day" and "The Day After Tomorrow." It's a testament to how lazy "2012" is when you see that it has literally the exact same closing shot that "The Day After Tomorrow" had. That's right, Emmerich ripped off himself.

Anyway, Emmerich's problem is that he cares more about the spectacle, than the humanity. As a giant earthquake splits the earth in two, splitting streets and causing buildings to collapse, thousands of innocent people crash to their deaths. They are not seen as humans, but merely as small specs in the distance. Even when main characters die, nobody seems phased by it in the slightest bit. Perhaps most tastelessly, is when an entire office building filled with people collapses, but the only thing we're supposed to be paying attention to is that the family got away safely in a jet. How can we cheer for one person, when everyone else around them is dying? Quite ironic for a film that preaches to remain humane in dire times.

For films like this, one should leave the idea of reality at the door. Good movies can suspend your disbelief from reality, but bad movies make you wish they had a little reality injected into them. How is it that Jackson and his family can narrowly escape death that easily? Not to mention, most of what is passed off as sound science in this film is completely wrong.

Possibly the one redeeming aspect of "2012" is Woody Harrelson's hilarious performance as an apocalypse-loving DJ. Seriously, this man can make eating a pickle seem funny. Most importantly, Harrelson looked like he was having a good time. Too bad no one else in the cast was.

Emmerich not only directed the film, he also co-wrote it. And what an awfully written screenplay it is. It's filled with so many inconsistencies and gigantic plot holes. Not to mention, it also makes the main character incredibly unlikable. I know that some people in life are bad people, but shouldn't the guy we're rooting for be at least a little bit nice. He can't even obey a clear "No Trespassing" sign.

I'd like to say that despite the flaws "2012" is nonetheless a good, entertaining time at the movies. It is, for about an hour and a half. The rest is dull and often laughable. The viewer can never really enjoy any of the film's thrill's because of how much is happening at once. Emmerich can't decide which way the world should end and therefore decides to gives us every possibility. "2012" might've been more enjoyable if it paced itself better.

Maybe the worst part of "2012" is the sense of smug superiority that it gives off; it believes itself to be much more intelligent that it actually is. At one point, the last survivors on earth board a life-saving ship known as the Ark. There's also a character named Noah on it. Coincidence?

I hate to call a film sadistic, but "2012" truly is, as it is not a celebration of life and survival, but rather a film that enjoys at the destruction of a planet and the loss of life. You're bound to have a more entertaining time looking at the crazy 2012 theories online, then spending $10 on this film.

Better Apocalyptic/Disaster Thrillers: Children of Men, War of the Worlds, Zombieland, Jaws, Akira, 12 Monkeys, Wall-E, Planet of the Apes, Titanic