Bad Teacher Review

Let's be real before we start going into whether this movie is good or bad... it has a lovable cast. Cameron Diaz, Justin Timberlake and Jason Segel are all just so likable, it's almost unfair to put them in the same movie, especially in a love triangle situation where the audience is rooting for all three of them.

That is Bad Teacher's ace in the hole: its charm. Ironically enough, the film is all about immoral decisions and terrible life choices. Elizabeth Halsey (Diaz) pretends to teach elementary school while she dates a rich schmuck who basically acts as her sugar daddy. He soon wises up to her two-faced shallow lifestyle and dumps her, right after she quits her day job to begin her full-time career of living off someone else. After this, she comes back to the school to take her job back while she finds another wealthy man to fool.

As you would expect, she's a terrible teacher. She disrespects everyone from kids to parents to colleagues and hardly does any "work" at the school. She thinks the only way she'll find another man is by increasing her boob size (which was probably Diaz's only real physical fault), so she tries everything she can to raise the $9000+ to afford the procedure.

Hilarity ensues.

One thing that Bad Teacher definitely does right is the pacing and the continuous comedy. One element of many modern comedies that I truly dislike, as I mentioned in my Bridesmaids review, is when the plot turns severely melodramatic just to flesh itself and its characters out a bit. Some people might appreciate it!

But I don't.

If I'm going to see a movie called "Bad Teacher," I'm expecting it to be funny all throughout, and luckily that's exactly what I got. Diaz's character learns the error of her ways, she (somewhat) rectifies them, and everything works out in the end! Nothing sappy, no one cries, there's no slow piano music accompanying a montage of flashbacks of terrible things that have happened; it's all just fun and pretty campy.

But the comedy cuts short most of the time, considering a good chunk of your laughter will come from someone dropping the "F" word in front of middle school children. There's so much material and potential here, but it's all squandered for relatively cheap gags. The whole cast is fantastic, but the moments with Phyllis Smith (of "The Office" fame) and Eric Stonestreet (of "Modern Family" fame) are the best by far. The gimmick is in the title: Cameron Diaz is just a really really bad teacher, not just as profession, but by moral standards as well. She curses every other word, purposely pisses off anyone she can, smokes marijuana at leisure, and resorts to sex and drugs to get her way. It's hard to imagine how or why you would be rooting for her the whole time considering she has no redeeming qualities to begin with, but by the end she has a sudden turnaround.

Note the word "sudden." This is another flaw Bad Teacher faces; there's hardly any lead into Diaz's change of heart toward the end. Throughout 90% of the movie, she is detestable in almost every respect, and then around the end she helps a kid (whom she initially makes fun of) be "cool," albeit not by the most wholesome means but she means well. But why? There's no back story that tells how she was teased in school or anything; in fact, she alludes to how pretty and popular she was. She drugs and swindles the head of the statewide school test to get the answer sheet so her class can perform the best, she keeps trying to win over Timberlake's character solely for the money, keeps putting down Smith for being old and fat, keeps ruining children's hopes and dreams... you get the point. But suddenly she falls for the underdog and becomes a good person.

It's not too big a deal, but this complaint really lies in the shadow of the bigger complaint: Bad Teacher is formulaic and predictable. The audience can call out the ending from the get-go with simple movie-by-numbers logic, and by the halfway mark, jokes start to repeat themselves.

With these negatives in mind, I still have to give Bad Teacher some extra credit for not resorting to the sort of sappiness that plagues other films of its kind. Bad Teacher is funny. With some low expectations, it can actually be pretty good, but it's also forgettable and serves as a Summer comedy to pass the time with.

Bad Teacher gets an average C. A 2.5 GPA. A check minus.

Whatever.
6.0/10
-Kyle Shelton

Bridesmaids Review

Chick flick. Star vehicle. Summer release.


These are three valid reasons why you would expect a film like "Bridesmaids" to be awful. Why shouldn't you? "The Sex and the City" films were under the same labels, only stirred with the adaptation/remake/sequel  titles as well, and look how those turned out? Not to mention it's using a star known primarily for her SNL work, and that tends to receive mixed reactions as well.


But why be so negative and narcissistic when glimmering hope arrives in the form of a movie like this one. "Bridesmaids" is far from perfect, but is aided by your low expectations that are soon trumped. 


Kristen Wiig stars as a woman chosen to be her best friend's (Maya Rudolph) maid of honor at her wedding. Unfortunately, her life is in shambles, and it only gets progressively worse as the stress of planning the perfect wedding for her BFF combines with the rivalry of a newer, prettier, more perfect best friend (Rose Byrne), threatens to replace her. 


Naturally, this all culminates in hilarity when everything goes awry for Wiig, and quite honestly, she shines. She's great at physical comedy as well as verbal; she also co-wrote the film, and it's not hard to notice. She deviates pretty dramatically from her usual SNL schtick, though, as she plays a relatively normal and relatable character. She isn't really the funny girl, though; it's the situations and the supporting cast that generate all the laughs, particularly the other bridesmaids themselves. Each of them has a great character and persona that are easy to fall in love with, and this is only helped by Wiig's connection to them. Her chemistry with Rudolph is fantastic and it's obvious that they're close friends off-screen as well as on it.


As great as all these things are, however, Bridesmaids still suffers from some clichés. Most notably, the film needlessly meddles with drama and a relatively lengthy "sad" streak of events. Sure, this might help the audience connect with Wiig a little more and give her more dimension, but in a film with mostly gross out, shock and over-the-top humor, it's just a nag to have this sequence right in the middle. It makes sense in context, but thematically, comedies like this don't need these sorts of scenes. Luckily, it never delves into depressing or tissue-clinging sappiness, but I also don't want to be laughing one second and then have to feel upset the next. If a film can achieve that without making the feeling awkward or out of place, great! But most films, including Bridesmaids, don't hit that mark. Compare this to a similar stand-out comedy like The Hangover, which hardly has any dramatic elements to it. Why? Because it doesn't need them. Its whole purpose is to make you laugh from start to finish, and it does so while maintaining fully fleshed-out characters and an engrossing plot. No need to make you sad or feel bad!


I'm also not a fan of unnecessary romantic sub-plots. Read my other reviews... go ahead, I'll give you a second.












Okay, most of them probably have some reference to my hatred of these plot devices (if they can even be called such) because they're not important and their only purpose is to give the character(s) involved some sort of dimension. There is certainly a romantic sub-plot involving Wiig and a substantially less important character here, but it actually plays a part in the theme and directly into Wiig's own plot branch, so I can forgive it. That's another element of Bridesmaids that I love; there are specific things that are referenced in Wiig's life that play a role in how everything else play out: her living conditions, her career and her love life. These are all integral elements of her life that are shown enough times to make them important without being absolutely necessary, and they don't detract from the main story at all. 


So what Bridesmaids ends up being is a much better-than-average chick flick romantic comedy that both men and women can enjoy... although women are probably much better suited to it. Although it suffers from a few clichés and sometimes resorts to low-brow humor, it's still hilarious and proves that chick flicks, star vehicles and summer movies don't have to suck. Prepare for the drunk airplane scene, the dress-fitting scene and the.. well, the scene where Wiig tries to get pulled over. Bridesmaids offers what we love about these  It'll end up being forgettable, but let's be honest... Kristen Wiig is looking at a bright future.


8/10
-Kyle Shelton

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides Review

I finally watched the fourth installment of the preposterously lucrative and popular "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchise, entitled, with barely a breath to spare, "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides." They should have divided it up into parts just to be a little extra ridiculous, and acknowledged which installment. Imagine: "Pirates of the Caribbean Four: On Stranger Tides: Part 1: The Fountain of Youth." 


But no, seriously, Pirates 4 (much easier) is not very good. Or "good" for that matter. In a nutshell, Pirates 4 mirrors the last film in many ways: the special effects still dazzle, explosions abound and astound, sword-fights are exquisitely heart-pounding, and there is a lot of water. Unfortunately, most of the cons have carried over as well: needlessly overwrought dialogue, an overly ambitious plot, a weak script with weaker performances, and new characters we could care less about. Perhaps the most glaring failure of this installment as well as its predecessor is how tiresome [Captain] Jack Sparrow has gotten over the years.


As far as I know, most people will concede that the first "Pirates" film is still the best. Of course, when confronted with the ever-astounding "Why is that so?" I'll probably get a blank stare and an explanation not unlike "because it's the original. Duh."


Albeit, most franchises tend to hold the first installment most prominently - the shiny trophy that everyone still holds the standard to. Yet there are plenty of trilogies and what-have-you that improved with time, and even if this weren't true, this doesn't mean that just because something came first, it is automatically better. How many parents consider their oldest child their most sacred? Practically none. And don't even get me started on middle-children.


It's usually the "only" children who get the best treatment. They don't have to comprise quantity for quality or vice-versa because they get A LOT of AWESOME things. Thus, while I certainly have enjoyed all the Pirates films up to this point, even "On Stranger Tides," not only do I vastly prefer the original but I think it should have been left alone.


Leave it to our industry to milk one good thing for all its worth, though. I'm looking at "The Hangover 2" or "Part 2" or "The Same Movie You Saw 2 Years Ago but in Asia." Okay, I haven't seen it, but that's what I'm expecting and that's probably what I (i.e. we) will get.


But you're not reading this because you want to hear me moan about a movie that hasn't come out yet! No! You're probably here because I guilt tripped you into reading and "liking" this because I fear no one cares about my opinion! And also to (maybe) hear more about Pirates 4.


Everything I've just said applies to the new "Pirates" so far, though. It's giving us more of what we want... it's not giving us pirates and the open sea and the hilarious antics of a monkey; it's giving us Captain Jack Sparrow. Realistically, the film might as well be called "Pirate of the Caribbean." Throughout the years, I've still held Captain Hector Barbossa as the best character and the scene-stealer, from the beginning up to now. In the first film, Sparrow and Barbossa were about on equal footing, but due to my instinctive need to be "different," I gave Barbossa the upper-hand. And I've proudly stood my ground. Jack Sparrow (oh, sorry, Captain Jack Sparrow, because that joke hasn't gotten old) has just lost his touch. He chimes in with a witty one-liner here and there, and Depp's acting is impeccable, but those are his best characteristics. In the original Pirates, top billing went to Bloom and Knightley before Depp. Of course, Sparrow is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than "Will Turner" and "Elizabeth Swan" in almost every respect, but using him as a secondary character worked tremendously better than putting his face on EVERYTHING and up-selling it. 


But that's Disney, isn't it? They've become so successful because they know how to milk. If the Disney corporation was a farmer's company, we would be drinking milk out of our faucets. And speaking of milk, that's what I'm comparing Jack Sparrow to. A lot of people love him! Some think he's gross. Others just don't care or can't really get into him (probably due to a medical condition). But he's only great for so long and in spurts; you leave him around for a whopping EIGHT years, he's going to grow gross and he'll need to be thrown away. At that point, the only people that will like him are the same who prefer chunky moldy milk.. you know, the weird people.


Alright, no offense to the Jack Sparrow devotees. I still like him and, as stated before, Depp's performance is brilliant. There's only so many times he can stumble around in an effeminate matter, get a close up on his gold teeth, and make fun of anyone and everyone he can. That got pretty old in the second film, let alone the third and fourth. But nothing "piratey" is going to sell unless Depp's mug is all over it, so what else can you expect?


Also stated above, all the effects and blockbuster elements are there and just as good as ever, despite lacking a whirlpool vortex of doom. The action sequences are all directed superbly, though the film delved into camp territory with the whole mermaid sequence. Also, I'm sure plenty of people were excited for the idea of "zombies" in Pirates 4, but they're not there. I mean, they are, but nary a zombie-related concept is referenced. They serve as loyal, super-strong subordinates of Captain Blackbeard, and that's it. I think there is a scene where someone stabs one of the zombies through the heart, and then the zombie doesn't die. Awesome.


Speaking of Captain Blackbeard, what the f***? Here's a list of what Captain Blackbeard can, allegedly, do with his mystical sword of God:

-Shrink objects
-Create weather
-Telekinetically control inanimate objects
-Raise people from the dead (and then give them the power of super strength and receive eternal loyalty)
-Voodoo
-Probably something else that I forgot

A good argument, one that I uphold, against most of my grievances is the simple "It's a movie, get over it!" Alas, everything in a film has to go together and be consistent. So while the "Kraken" hasn't been proven to exist and Tia Dalma can summon thunderstorms and grow into the 50-foot woman at will, excuse me for being taken aback when Blackbeard can f***ing control things with his mind. If he had a white beard, people would have thought this was a Harry Potter/Lord of the Rings/Pirates crossover, except not knowing who was who. Blackbeard was never referenced before this (much less his superpowers), so yes, it's shoddy writing when that's how they pose him as a threat. These powers don't even help him accomplish anything! Each of these magical abilities are exposed once, then forgotten. So who cares if he's psychic? Barbossa and Davy Jones were way more iconic and they didn't resort to raising the dead to do it. Sure, knock them for being supernatural since one was a REAL zombie and the other was a fishman, but these were both concepts that were referenced and kept consistent throughout the films. The world of Pirates of the Caribbean, despite being far from "realistic," has mostly posed plausible situations (at least within its own territory). I don't think any pirates escaped being hung or shot in the manner (or as many times) as Jack Sparrow has, but at least he didn't just summon a cloud that took him away as it rained fire on his enemies. No, he (more or less) cleverly utilizes his surroundings to his advantage to flee from his pursuers, only using lethal violence as a last resort. He's kind of like Batman. Batman is awesome. So is Jack Sparrow (when he's doing stunts).


His main nemesis in the film? Everyone, I guess, but his main-main nemesis is Blackbeard. It's beyond me why Blackbeard even has a sword when he can control ropes with his mind to hang a dozen people or just shrink them to the size of a shilling and the squash them. Or, better yet, why didn't he just kill everyone and then raise them from the dead? He would have an unbeatable army of pirates who obey ONLY HIM. If Sparrow is like Batman (who is awesome), then Blackbeard is like an evil Superman (who is overpowered and awful).


And just because every movie ever released absolutely has to have a romantic sub-plot (which, if you read any of my other reviews like a real friend, you'd know I hate), you have two to tango with: Jack with Angelica (Penelope Cruz) and some mermaid who was named, like a newly bought puppy, "Syrena" with a crazy religious fellow named Philip (Astrid Frisbey and Sam Claflin, respectively). I find it peculiar and a bit funny that Philip is heavily referenced as being a man of God, always donning a bible and talking about saving one's soul and whatnot, but the guy gets stabbed twice, is tied to the mast of a ship for a veiled amount of time, and is even patronized for his beliefs. Realistically, though, he is the only "good" character with the only "good" morals and objectives. I was always a fan of Sparrow's ever-ambiguous side-taking, but in the end he's just selfish and trusts no one. Despite never really liking Swan or Turner from the older films, their innocence and naiveness were charming and complimented Sparrow's performance and hilarious lines, usually at their expense. If you've seen the last three films, you'll know it's bad when you start to miss Swan and Turner.  Every other character is virtually the same, with the small exception of Angelica, but even she double-crosses a few times. 


And she's a pirate so by default she's going to hell. But back to Syrena and Philip, their ..."relationship" is severely underplayed. Philip apparently loves her, but with no justification. She's a bone-munching version of "The Little Mermaid," and even Ariel was a thief and an idiot. In the end, he falls for her for her looks... which, coming from a morally positive man of the Lord, is a pretty shallow reason to fall in love with someone. And a stupid one, at that, considering that's their feature that kills people. They lure men with their angelic beauty, and then eat them. That's like if you became infatuated with Freddy Kreuger because he's the man of your dreams. So why would you trust her, Philip? I'm still convinced she killed and ate him at the end, for the record. 


You know what, though? None of my words matter. None of the words of any critic or any person in the world will matter. If you've seen the last three films, you will most likely be watching this one for the shameless popcorn-movie that it is. Several instances of the film make absolutely no sense (both physically and psychologically), none of the characters are interesting, certain questionable elements (like a certain accident that has befallen Barbossa) are flat-out explained to the audience like an end-user license agreement, Sparrow's funniest moments aren't in this film, and it just feels rushed and haphazardly thrown together. I totally approve of another installment of the "Pirates" franchise, but I sincerely wish they downplayed Sparrow a bit, had a more interesting and well-developed story, more interesting characters (Blackbeard is hardly a villain, especially compared to Davy Jones) and made it less than two hours. I enjoyed the film, mainly by pretending I was a 5 year old boy who was permitted to watch a "big boy" movie by my mom, but upon realizing I have quadrupled in age since then, I also realized my intelligence and dignity have as well.


...Even if I still threw $8.50 at Disney for this movie. But I did it angrily.


4.0/10
-Kyle Shelton