The End of the Page

MacGruber: The Laughter Will Be There Waiting For You

Let’s see their rabid bunny defense system handle this little snack… filled with C4!!!

Rating: 8 out of 10

It seems to be the hidden goal of every idea in the universe to end up in movie form. Whether it started as a TV show, comic book, video game or an action figure (possibly featuring kung-fu grip); everything strives to be blown up and projected to a captive audience. Many of them fail, in extraordinary fashion (ahem… McHale’s Navy, Steel, Double Dragon and Masters of the Universe, respectively), but some break through the barrier of novelty and succeed as memorable theatrical experiences (the recent J.J. Abrams reboot of Star Trek deserves mention, along with the gothic wonderment of The Dark Knight). In the particular world of translating comedy skits, Saturday Night Live takes center stage as the longest running live comedy show with a continually growing treasure trove of material, but they are equally challenged with bringing about quality movies. While many will celebrate the original Wayne’s World and The Blues Brothers, we also hope beyond hope to block out train wrecks like It’s Pat. The newest effort to come out of the SNL think-tank, after a decade-long hiatus, seems primed to ride the wave of 80′s nostalgia, but will it catch hold? Read on…

MacGruber is an absurdist parody of the 80′s adventure show starring the jack-of-all-trades namesake, MacGuyver. In the original SNL skits, each one only ran thirty seconds while MacGruber would ask for random knick-knacks in order to build a bomb-defusing device and save everyone trapped inside a repeatedly locked room. He never fails to distract himself past the point of detonation, killing everyone. The feature length version finds MacGruber yanked out of seclusion into the armed forces as the only one who can track down his arch-enemy, Dieter Von Cunth, who gains possession of a nuclear warhead and plans to reduce Washington D.C. to tiny piles of radioactive dust.

I’ll fully admit the first time I heard they were pushing forward with the idea of a MacGruber feature film, I thought it would be a waste of time, space and celluloid. Yet, months later when that first trailer rolled out I found myself shocked to actually be chuckling and thinking it actually had a shot at being something worth watching. Many people believed it couldn’t be done, that an absurdist parody born from a 30-second skit could never last for over 80 minutes, but writers John Solomon, Jorma Taccone and co-writer/star Will Forte succeeded at just that. As numerous film business outlets have reported by now, the opening weekend box numbers were dismal and some are already calling it the ‘bomb of the year’, a moniker I strongly feel is undeserved, at least not in terms of quality. One of the keys to triumph was pushing each and every joke just a handful of beats past the point of normal, ‘safer’ comedies. Both of the main SNL alums, Will Forte and Kristen Wiig held on doggedly to drain each moment of the last possible chuckle, which for some audience members actually makes it even funnier. I felt Ryan Phillipe was an odd choice for the straight man because I didn’t think he could hold the screen against Forte, but he grew on me during the film and in the end proved that he was indeed willing to ‘go there’ to get the laughs. As for the villainous Val Kilmer and his portrayal of Von Cunth, he’s at his best when his characters are smarter than the rest of the people on screen, and the crowd, and the writers (see Real Genius or Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang). While Kilmer doesn’t come near that level of comedic ownership, he does balance out nicely with the rest of the cast and digs into the second-grade humor when it’s called for.

The End of the Page Recommendation: While it may play out to be one of the year’s biggest box office disasters, MacGruber will ride on and gain a solid life on DVD as a cult comedy, not unlike Hot Rod, starring Andy Samberg, another SNL superstar. No matter what happens, they can always rest easy knowing it’s still better than It’s Pat.

The Taking of Pelham 123: Slides Off The Rails

Go ahead, mention “Battlefield Earth” one more time. I dare you!

Rating: 3 out of 10

Remake, rehash, reboot; call it what you want, it all boils down to the same thing, this story has been seen before. Now that doesn’t imply automatic boredom or even a certain level of quality, all it means right off the bat is the audience will be coming in with a particular expectation set by the previous version of the story. How big the expectation is will depend on how popular the original film was and how recently it was in the theaters. Most second chances at the silver screen come more than ten years after the original version, but that gap seems to be closing in the last decade. Maybe it’s a statement about our national attention deficit disorder or it could be a comment on there being a complete lack of new and original ideas.

It also could resonate in our current economic climate as a safer bet in the eyes of the studio. The film has a built in audience, which at least a portion of them will certainly be curious enough to come out and see it in an updated fashion. But, beyond the financial aspect, someone in the studio, whether it be the director or the writer or whomever, must think they have something new to add, some new take on the tale to make it worth all the time and energy to return it to the screen. On occasion they do follow through and allow us to see some entirely new dimension we previously looked right past, but in a number of examples the new version just proves to be flashier CGI and more contemporary actors, nothing at all to do with the story. In the end, the eternal question, looking past the bank accounts, is “Was it worth it?”

In today’s example, I would say not.

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is an action/thriller about a random New York City subway controller who gets unwillingly pulled into becoming a hostage negotiator when a ransom plan for a carload of subway passengers is hijacked underground. It’s a psychological tug-of-war between a devious and determined kidnapper and a seemingly moral citizen who can’t help but try and do the right thing. Each step along the way leads to bigger consequences as lives are lost and the money in play skyrockets until the whole world is tuning in to see how it will all end.

The original version of this was released in 1974 starring Walter Matthau as the unassuming hero and Hector Elizondo as one of the gang of hijackers. There was also a TV movie version in 1998 that tossed in Edward James Olmos as the good guy and Vincent D’Onofrio and Donnie Wahlberg as members of the gang. This new millennium version posts Denzel Washington in the hero role and counterparts him with John Travolta as the leader of the gang. The early versions were much more based around tension and intrigue, while this one went after it with more action, fast editing and hyper-kinetic camera tricks to infuse energy into the story. One of the other main differences was the hijackers were originally only named by color (possibly the inspiration for the same decision in Reservoir Dogs), but this version skipped out on that plot point altogether.  Tony Scott, the director of this installment, definitely retained his current style of loud noises, quick cutting and washed out coloring to instill a raw, edgy reality to the universe, but it didn’t feel like it added anything new to the story. I appreciated his visual stylings much more in Man on Fire, with Domino a close second.

As for the performances, Denzel Washington rarely disappoints. He is near the top of any list when thinking about an ordinary character put into extraordinary circumstances. He really embodies the everyday man having to rise up and take on situations way beyond his normal expectations. Even when playing the bad guy, as in John Q., he still relies on his ability to connect with the blue-collar movie watcher and portray that reality on screen. Yet, with all that said, being the best part of this film doesn’t give him a huge boost. On the other side of the punch card is John Travolta, who turns in a slightly less than believable performance as the criminal mastermind. Some of his issues can’t be discussed without giving away plot twists, but let’s just say he doesn’t fit the bill once the story is unraveled. Also, I’d have to go back to the other versions to see if this was present, but Travolta made an unusual amount of references to the attractiveness of Washington, both in person and over the phone. At a certain point in the film I wondered if Travolta would switch the ransom demand from large amounts of cash to a single date with Washington. I can easily and happily give Travolta his due credit when his performances merit it, as in Michael, Pulp Fiction and Face/Off, but this time out he pales in comparison to his co-star and borders on the ridiculous.

Recommendation: Not a great outing for Scott, Washington or Travolta. Avoidable on most accounts. Maybe catch it on HBO someday if you don’t feel like getting off the couch and you’ve already drained your TiVo.