All posts by Tim Lammers

Reviews: ‘Chappie,’ ‘Unfinished Business’

'Chappie'  (Sony Pictures)

“Chappie” (R) 1 star (out of four)

There’s no other way of putting it: “Chappie” is crappie.

After a brilliant debut with the Best Picture Oscar nominee “District 9” and the sharp downward turn with the preachy, universal health care polemic “Elysium,” writer-director Neill Blomkamp has sunk to even deeper depths with “Chappie” – a ridiculous artificial intelligence action thriller that makes the sci-fi disaster “Transcendence” look, well, intelligent.

While the film’s trailers and TV spots highlight such A-listers as Hugh Jackman and Sigourney Weaver, the true star of “Chappie” turns out being the voice and motion-capture movement of Sharlto Copley, the lead in “District 9” and bad guy opposite Matt Damon in “Elysium.” Set in the near future in Johannesburg, South Africa (the same setting as “District 9”), the streets are policed by robots invented by  Deon (Dev Patel), a young scientist on the verge of creating artificial intelligence.

When Deon finally cracks the AI code, he uploads the technology into a damaged robot (Copley), only to lose control of the now sentient being to a small gang of thugs looking to gain the upper hand on police and other criminals. Standing in their way, though, is Vincent (Jackman), a driven rival robot developer who will go to extreme lengths to put into play “The Moose,” a larger and much more lethal brand of law enforcement.

The sad part about “Chappie” is that Blomkamp wastes Patel, Jackman (in a supporting role) and Weaver (in a small role as the profits-driven CEO of the robotics company) in favor of South African rave-rappers Ninja and Yo-Landi Visser (of the group Die Antwoord), who dreadfully overact in their major roles as two of three gang members who educate the very impressionable Chappie in the ways of gang life and hip-hop slang.  And while Chappie at first leaves you feeling sorry for him in his infantile stages, by the time he quickly grows into an “adult” and starts swaggering around with bling around his neck, talking trash, shooting a gun sideways and grabbing his robotic crotch, the movie becomes laugh-out-loud funny, but in a bad way.

Half-heartedly  using the formula of “District 9,” and borrowing inspiration from “Short Circuit” and the original, classic 1987 version of “RoboCop” (Chappie in a sort of way mimics RoboCop, while The Moose is clearly ED-209), “Chappie’s” fatal flaw comes with Blomkamp’s decision to make the sentient robot his protagonist, instead of focusing on the dangers of artificial intelligence.  The movie is just a jumbled mess. At first, Blomkamp seems to satirize the gang-banger culture, only to eventually pander to and glorify it, as if he somehow hopes we’ll identify with a robot as a street thug merely because he’s developed feelings.  There’s a weakened battery that’s keeping Chappie “alive” throughout the course of the film, and it doesn’t die out quick enough.

Tim Burton Book 2
Click book cover for info on how to buy!

Reviewed in brief:

“Unfinished Business” (R) 1 star (out of four)

Vince Vaughn leads a trio of struggling businessmen who travel overseas in a desperate bid to score a deal that will save their small company. The outcome is predictable from the get-go, and in between, we’re treated to 90 minutes of one horribly unfunny scenario after the other. Vaughn and his co-stars Tom Wilkinson and Dave Franco are talented enough, but the actors – along with James Marsden, Nick Frost and Sienna Miller in supporting roles – are totally wasted here. “Unfinished Business” is a movie that had no business being made.

Tim Lammers is a veteran entertainment reporter and a member of the Broadcast Film Critics Association, and annually votes on the Critics Choice Movie Awards. Locally, he reviews films for “KARE 11 News at 11” and various Minnesota radio stations.

Hot Toys Ichabod Crane
Click photo to learn how to buy!

Remembering Leonard Nimoy

Leonard Nimoy in 'Star Trek' 2

By Tim Lammers

Like millions of others, I was saddened to learn Friday that “Star Trek” star Leonard Nimoy died at 83. Nimoy, who of course, embodied Mr. Spock in the “Star Trek” TV series and many of the subsequent “Star Trek” movies, truly deserved his label as an icon, given the amount of impact he had on popular culture here and the world over for nearly five decades.

I had the opportunity to interview Nimoy one time over the years, and it couldn’t have been for a better project: J.J. Abrams’ reboot of the “Star Trek” movie franchise. A fascinating and charming gentleman, Nimoy shared with me in an interview for Internet Broadcasting his thoughts on passing Spock’s torch to Zachary Quinto, and how he played the future Spock (aka, Spock Prime) in the film felt in a way like a bookend to the role.

“I think that Spock and I have really merged. I’m totally comfortable with where I am and so is Spock,” Nimoy said. “Zachary is playing a character that still has to find himself, and he comes to a point at the end of this movie, which I think is just wonderful, where he takes the final step to becoming the Spock I played in the original series.”

Nimoy also shared with me his hopes of his longtime friend and co-star, William Shatner, somehow returning to the franchise.

“Bill Shatner and I are very close friends and we see each other quite regularly, and we get together with our wives have dinner quite frequently,” said Nimoy, who was 78 at the time of the interview. “I’m sorry he’s not in this film. I hope that it’s pretty clear that it would have been difficult to include him because of the backstory on Kirk. They did offer him a role in this movie, but I guess he didn’t believe it was appropriate for him to be doing what they offered … I had no idea what the role was. Bill and I have not talked about it. It’s just understood that this is a movie that he’s not in.”

Read the entire interview HERE.

Live long and prosper, Mr. Nimoy. The universe with be a lot less interesting without you in it.

Movie reviews: ‘Focus,’ ‘The Lazarus Effect’

Will Smith and Margot Robbie in 'Focus'

“Focus” (R) 2 1/2 stars (out of four)

It’s not a full recovery, but Will Smith is definitely looking sharp again following his sci-fi disaster “After Earth” with “Focus,” a con-game thriller that’s fuzzy around the edges but overall comes out a winner.

Smith plays Nicky, the head of a pick-pocket ring who recruits Jess (Margot Robbie) to become a part of his crew after she unsuccessfully tries to pull a con on him at a hotel. A quick study, Jess also falls for Nicky at the same time, and the expert and protégé soon become lovers.

After using her in an elaborate con that takes a wealthy gambler for a ride through the power of suggestion, Nicky unceremoniously dumps Jess, only to cross paths with her three years later as he launches a plan for the biggest swindle of his life. The problem is, Nicky seems to still have feelings for his old love, which only complicates his scheme – and naturally, things can turn deadly if everything doesn’t go off just right.

Co-writers and directors Glenn Ficcara and John Requa have the wheels constantly turning in “Focus,” which not surprisingly as a con-artist movie has plot twists bubbling under the surface the entire time. And while the payoff takes a bit of time to unfold, it’s still fun trying to figure out exactly what kind of con is going to be pulled off and who exactly is going to execute it, even if it’s done in a cold and calculated manner.

While the ultimate con is fully explained by the end of “Focus,” the big mystery that remains for audiences is how Nicky and Jess in reality could possibly even like one other, considering the mean-spirited stunts each of them will employ to get and stay ahead in the game. But as a movie couple, Smith and Robbie (Leonardo DiCaprio’s wife in “The Wolf of Wall Street”) definitely work well together, which ultimately makes us suckers because we want to root for them despite their major flaws. In a way, the con in “Focus” is much more on the audience than it is the people marked for swindle in the film.

Tim Burton Book 2
Click book cover for info on how to buy!

“The Lazarus Effect” (PG-13) 2 1/2 stars (out of four)

Stupid human characters aside — almost a prerequisite for horror movies — the new back-from-the-dead thriller “The Lazarus Effect” is good for what it is. An amalgam of several different scary movies and mind-bending thrillers, “Lazarus” gets it life from a good cast and examination of concepts not often found in your average horror movie.

Olivia Wilde and Mark Duplass star as Zoe and Frank, who along with fellow scientists Niko (Donald Glover) and Clay (“American Horror Story” standout Evan Peters) are working on a serum that is meant sustain brain function in clinically dead patients while they are being revived.

While experimenting on a dead dog, the team discovers that the substance – dubbed the “Lazarus Serum” – not only sustains brain function but enhances it, gives the animal powers that can’t fully be explained. Despite the obvious risks, Frank uses the serum on Zoe after she is electrocuted in a follow-up experiment, spawning frightening, unintended consequences that not only endanger Zoe, but her fellow scientists.

“The Lazarus Effect” seems to borrow its inspiration from several different movies, from “Flatliners,” “Pet Sematary” and “The Shining,” to any number of Freddy Krueger’s “Nightmare on Elm Street” movies and “X-Men: The Last Stand” — as Zoe’s behavior tends to mimic Dark Phoenix during her fits of uncontrollable fury.

More than anything, though, “The Lazarus Effect” examines, like in the Scarlett Johansson summer blockbuster “Lucy,” the potential of the brain’s power if used beyond 10 percent of its capacity.

The result is much less outlandish than the lengths we see in “Lucy,” as Zoe not only can move items and read other people’s thoughts, but manage to possess people’s minds to the extent that they’re placed in the nightmare that’s been haunting her since she was a child. The notion the film examines is that hell after death is essentially the person’s worst nightmare suffered during their life — and Zoe is trapped in it because the Lazarus Serum prevented her from dying and passing through the gateway to the other side.

Aside from a big twist and the mind-bending aspects of the narrative, “The Lazarus Effect” on the whole is fairly predictable. There are plenty of jump-out-at-you moments (some you will see coming, others will take you off-guard), and the naturally, the door is left open for a sequel. Despite its faults, horror fans will still likely get a charge of “The Lazarus Effect,” which is mostly void of blood and gore because of its PG-13 rating. Ultimately, “The Lazarus Effect” is sort of a thinking person’s horror movie, even though its characters do the dumbest things imaginable in the name of science.

Tim Lammers is a veteran entertainment reporter and a member of the Broadcast Film Critics Association, and annually votes on the Critics Choice Movie Awards. Locally, he reviews films for “KARE 11 News at 11” and various Minnesota radio stations.

Hot Toys Ichabod Crane
Click photo to learn how to buy!

2015 Oscars: Tim Lammers predicts who will win, should win

Birdman and Michael Keaton

By Tim Lammers

The 87th annual Oscars are Sunday night, bringing to an end another controversial awards season. At this point with all the guild awards decided, it’s pretty clear who and what film will win the big prize, although I personally hope for some big upsets just to keep the perennial overlong night interesting.

As usual, my predictions aren’t a reflection of who and what I hope will win, but educated guesses based on voting trends throughout the awards season. Of course, no one — no one — is a sure thing (remember Juliette Binoche upsetting Lauren Bacall?), so included in the picks is a wild card in each major category.

Best Supporting Actress nominees:  Patricia Arquette, “Boyhood”; Laura Dern, “Wild”; Keira Knightley, “The Imitation Game”; Emma Stone, “Birdman”; Meryl Streep, “Into the Woods.”

Analysis: This category will likely signal the overrated “Boyhood’s” only big win for the night, but if any categories have upsets, it’s the supporting acting ones. Perennial nominee Streep generally bulldozes everyone she’s up against, and this year is no different. Arquette’s performance is the best of all those in “Boyhood,” but all the awards love for the movie is still mystifying.

Count Arquette’s win as the Academy’s tip of the cap to the year’s most gimmicky movie. A Dern win would be a salute to not one, but three Hollywood acting stalwarts: Dern and her parents Bruce Dern (who should have won for “Nebraska” last year) and Diane Ladd, but don’t hold your breath.

Will Win: Arquette.

Should Win: Streep.

Potential Upset: Dern.

Best Supporting Actor nominees: Robert Duvall, “The Judge”; Ethan Hawke, “Boyhood”; Edward Norton, “Birdman”; Mark Ruffalo, “Foxcatcher”; J.K. Simmons, “Whiplash.”

Analysis: Not only has Simmons proven to be a great actor who has consistently delivered in his roles over the years, his turn as the vitriolic jazz conservatory conductor in “Whiplash” is hands-down the best nominated performance across all of the categories.

“Birdman” is shaping up to be this year’s awards juggernaut, and Norton — who is brilliant in the movie — could be a benefactor of that. Duvall, who is terrific as usual in “The Judge,” would be a shoo-in as a sentimental winner, but he already has an Oscar thanks to “Tender Mercies.”

Will Win: Simmons

Should Win: Simmons.

Potential Upset: Norton.

Tim Burton Book 2
Click book cover for info on how to buy!

Best Actress nominees: Marion Cotillard, “Two Days, One Night”; Felicity Jones, “The Theory of Everything”; Julianne Moore, “Still Alice”; Rosamund Pike, “Gone Girl”; Reese Witherspoon, “Wild.”

Analysis: With five Oscar nominations (including this year) to her credit, Moore is long-overdue. But this award isn’t being earned by Moore for sentimental purposes: Her turn as an early-onset Alzheimer’s disease patient is heartbreaking and emotionally exhausting, and one that stays with you long after the credits roll.

Cotillard (who previously upset Julie Christie, oddly enough, in Christie’s Alzheimer’s-themed movie “Away From Her”) and Witherspoon don’t have a chance because they’re won in the category before and it’s hard to repeat, and Jones, while great, is simply over-matched in the category. An upset for Pike’s ultimate ice queen role in “Gone Girl” would be a way to rectify the Academy huge oversights in several categories — including Best Picture and Best Director (for David Fincher) — in what is easily one of the best films of the year.

Will Win: Moore.

Should Win: Moore.

Potential Upset: Pike.

Best Actor nominees: Steve Carell, “Foxcatcher”; Bradley Cooper, “American Sniper”; Benedict Cumberbatch, “The Imitation Game”; Michael Keaton, “Birdman”; Eddie Redmayne, “The Theory of Everything.”

Analysis: Keaton’s career performance in “Birdman” has dominated most of this year’s awards season, and since he’s sidestepped personal controversy (i.e., he’s said all the right things in his acceptance speeches and has been genuinely gracious) the award has been his to lose. Keaton is brilliant in the role with a fine mix of comedy and drama, but Cooper took the biggest risk with his moving, understated turn as late Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle.

It’s not a flashy role, but yet somehow you can sense the inner-turmoil of Kyle as deals with the stress of the battlefield and suppressing his emotions on the home front. It’s an amazingly subtle role and a gutsy move for an Cooper since it flies in the face of Hollywood’s political ideas.

As much as Cooper deserves to win, the only possible person capable of upsetting Keaton is Redmayne, who gives a “My Left Foot” Daniel Day-Lewis-caliber performance as Stephen Hawking in “The Theory of Everything.” His unlikely Screen Actors Guild upset opened the door for a possible upset at the Oscars, but don’t bet on it. Carell’s and Cumberbatch’s nominations are well deserved, so don’t be surprised to see future noms, especially for the latter.

Will Win: Keaton.

Should Win: Cooper.

Potential Upset: Redmayne.

Best Picture nominees: “American Sniper”; “Birdman”; “Boyhood”; “The Grand Budapest Hotel”; “The Imitation Game”; “Selma”; “The Theory of Everything”; “Whiplash.”

Analysis: The race all along this awards season has appeared to be an even match between “Birdman” and “Boyhood,” but then a surprising surge with “American Sniper” (and a $300 million North American box office) with a strong showing in the nominations suddenly made the race that much more interesting.

Conventional thinking at the moment points to a big night for “Birdman,” since it has taken top honors with the Producers Guild of America, the Directors Guild of America (for Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu – who will also win the Best Director Oscar) and the Screen Actors Guild Best Ensemble Award (the equivalent for a Best Picture prize) — so don’t be shocked when it when it wins the Best Picture Oscar.

As refreshing and inventive as “Birdman” is, remember 2015 as the year the chickens come home to roost on Hollywood. The Academy will appear completely out of touch with Middle America for not naming “American Sniper” its Best Picture; even more so if it goes the upset route and names the low-budget, gimmicky “Boyhood” as “the best.”

A film that rightfully puts the focus squarely on the American soldier and his or her families (and avoids the politics of war), “American Sniper” has had a profound emotional experience on viewers, and it will no doubt enrage them when it is passed over (watch out, Twitter!). Ultimately, if one film is going to make Hollywood stand up and listen to its audiences, this is the one, but they’re too afraid to honor a movie with ties to the right wing by default.

Will Win: “Birdman.”

Should Win: “American Sniper.”

Potential Upset: “Boyhood.”

Tim Lammers is a nationally syndicated movie reporter and author of the ebook “Direct Conversations: The Animated Films of Tim Burton (Foreword by Tim Burton).”

Hot Toys Ichabod Crane
Click photo to learn how to buy!