CAINE MUTINY

Journey 2: They Mysterious Island

*1/2

Review by Dave Herbelin

“I hope it doesn’t like food with poop in its pants.”
- Luis Guzman as Gabato in “Journey 2: The Mysterious Island”

Yes, Michael Caine chose to be in a movie that included this line. It used to be that you could tell the quality of movies by the actors who chose to be in them. I should have been warned by the stars such as Dwayne Johnson, who probably learned comedy from watching ’90s episodes of “Full House”, or Vanessa Hudgens who seems to think she’s still filming sequels of “High School Musical”. But I thought if Michael Caine chose to do this, then there has to be a gem hidden somewhere in there between the overacting and the video game special effects. Afterall, the first one was so horrible, how could he not know already? Mr. Caine, you lead me astray, you dirty rotten scoundrel!

“Journey 2″, which was a big piece of Number 2 (yeah, I watched “Full House” too), takes place a short time after the first “Journey”, with Sean, played by Josh Hutcherson, as the only returning cast member (perhaps the first wise choice of Brendon Fraser’s career in a long time). No one really says what happened to Sean’s dad, except that he left and now his mom has a new boyfriend, Hank (Dwayne Johnson). Sean recieves an encoded message from his granfather, Alexander (Michael Caine) and the journey begins to the mysterious island.

One gaping hole in the relationships of this story is the history of these people. Sean’s mother and Hank are reluctant to let Sean search for the mysterious island, and Kailani, Sean’s love interest (Vanessa Hudgens), doesn’t think much of him. And once on this island (that was for you theatre nuts), Sean’s judgement is questioned. Why are we questioning the one person in the party who has been to, oh well… THE CENTER OF THE EARTH?! I think after journeying there, you pretty much have a backstage pass to the universe. “Sorry you can’t go in the White House.” “Oh, can’t I? I’ve been to The Center Of The Earth!” “What do you mean, I can’t have dessert? I’ve been to The Center Of The Earth!” “Hey baby, earth’s center… that’s me.” Did the writers really forget this small detail?

If the movie was a turd, Luis Guzman was the smell. Every line he delivered was either a girlish whine or a homo-erotic come on to Dwayne Johnson. I think he was using the script to “The Birdcage.” Each time he opened his mouth, I cringed. If you want to make a movie that would end all movies, just film Guzman having lunch with Rosie Perez, Fran Drescher, and Gilbert Gottfried. It would replace waterboarding.

Guzman’s character was one of many bad directoral choices; another being “popping pecks.” It’s in all the ads. You see Dwayne Johnson flexing his pecks while Hutcherson bounces berries off them. Johnson has done this move before. I couldn’t believe that they did it again and tried to pass it off as original. I didn’t understrand how it made it into the movie until I saw the end credits with Johnson as a co-producer. This, along with other moments, had to be Johnson saying, “You know what would be funny….” And those waiting to get paid saying, “Oh yes, Mr. Johnson. You are the god of comedy. The Carrot Top of Film” “You know what would be funny: giant bird poop.” Yes, that’s what Jules Verne would have wanted, Mr. Johnson. “You know what would be good: 3D effects for no reason.” Yes! You’re right: We learned nothing about 3D in the past decade. “You know what would be cool: filming everything green screen so the audience doesn’t buy anything they see.” Yes, Mr. Lucas Johnson.

This movie must have been made using a check list.
Over acting: check.
Pointless special effects: check.
Needless action sequences: check.
High school love interests: check.
Teen heart throbe removing shirt: check.
Main character injured for no plot reason: check.
No real investment in story: check.

It’s the same list used in many teen vampire movies. But they added one item…

Respectable actor which those who don’t know better may go to see: check ….and I fell for it.

To use a term a proud touting Christian told me, Mr. Caine, you are a “whore.” (Yes, she told me many times she was a Christian, then called my dog a whore.) Well, to use another Christian phrase. DAMN! Damn! Damn! Never again, Mr. Caine. You are off the list of reliable actors. You have lost your credit. I thought you were above doing it for the money. I questioned your choice when you joined “Miss Congeniality”, but after seeing it, you and William Shatner proved me wrong and gave short term credibility to Sandra Bullock. Short Term!! Now I’ve gone back and looked at your roster of movies and I see more money choices. “Gnomeo and Juliet”?!! You couldn’t have actually thought this was the ideal adaptation Shakespeare saw in his mind.

We look to A-list actors because we want to make a wise investment with our $12 ticket price. No name actors are a risk to the viewer, while an A-lister is to not lead them astray. A-listers are the bonds, while the no names are the stocks. We exepect the A-listers to do the research, know their fund completely before endorsing it for others to spend their hard-earned cash. The rewards may not be as high as the they can be when taking a risk on the no-name stock, but they are consistent. Michael Caine, you went Bernanke on me. You focused on your paycheck and not on how I spent mine. I’m not asking that you play the same consistent character. Explore and play all you want. But I do expect you to research the script and the production on which you are putting your name. And you can’t use the editor or any post-production as a scapegoat. “Food with poop in it’s pants” was delivered in a scene you were in, you… you (excuse my Christianity) whore!!!

Directed by: Brad Peyton
Release Date: February 10, 2012
Run Time: 94 Minutes
Country: USA
Rated: PG
Distributor: New Line Cinema

OFFICIAL TRAILER

PLEASE EXIT THE THEATER…
YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE.

“Schwarzenegger or Sony Classics”

THE MIDDLE SEAT: Column by Steve Matuszak

Let’s face it, different people like different kinds of movies. Some people stick to certain movie genres, like Romantic Comedies or Science Fiction, while others, like myself, enjoy a wide variety. But, in my humble opinion, there are certain people who don’t “get” movies, and thus should not be allowed to view movies at all.

Now, before you accuse me of getting all “snooty,” let’s remember we are talking about an art form here. And just as there are many types of painting styles – Impressionism, Realism, Cubism, etc., so, too, are there many types of films.

And I also understand that there are times that your particular mood can determine the movie you want to see. That’s OK. But what irks me are those people that do not understand the entire basis of the art of cinema. These are usually the people breaking the “shut up” rule from my previous column.

Let me illustrate my argument with a specific, illuminating example. I was at a restaurant a few years back with a large group of people and we began discussing the latest releases.

At that time, “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” was just finishing it’s run and was widely acclaimed. I mentioned it as an excellent choice for those who had not yet seen it and had this exchange with an ill-informed, should-not-be-allowed-to–frequent-movies woman,

Woman: “That movie was terrible! No one can fly or run on top of buildings. It is not real!”

Me: “But the writer, director and others involved created a world in which that was possible – again within the world they created.”

Woman: “No, it was on the EARTH!”

Me: “Maybe, maybe not. Either way, it fits within the world of the Earth they created. Did you ever see Star Wars?”

Woman: “Yes”

Me: “Well, see, there’s my point. Those worlds don’t really exist either. It’s not a ‘realistic’ film. We do not have space ships that can shoot lasers and carry light sabers and such.”

Woman: “Yeah, but that was in SPACE. Anything can happen in space, not on earth!”

Do I really need to drag this out any further? Is anyone else ready to vomit? And this could have easily been a man – gender is not an issue here. Then there was the time, in a GRADUATE LEVEL COLLEGE CLASS, a student got irate that I mentioned Harry Potter.

“That movie is just liberals trying to convert our Christian children into witches. It’s all about witches and the Devil!”

Ladies and gentlemen, a movie about any topic, if done well, is not a support for, or final arbiter of, that topic (and Harry Potter is about kids, dreams, being unique and so much more – it’s not about witches and the devil, although it does address “evil”). Movies are narratives that relay stories to us that we then, on our own, make choices about and explore emotions concerning.

For instance, “Leaving Las Vegas” does not support or celebrate alcoholism or prostitution. In fact, if anything, it shows us the tragic consequences of alcoholism and prostitution. “Dead Man Walking” did not say that the death penalty was wrong or right. It showed us both sides, from very human perspectives, of people dealing with it and allowed us, with that additional information, to make up our own minds about the topic.

Now, don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of movies which are terrible and actually support things like teens having rampant sex with zero consequences and taking illicit drugs and partying until they drive and almost kill someone with their car – and think it’s funny (although that does happen). I have no love for those movies that force an opinion down your throat or superciliously support a ridiculous lack of any decency.

But, good movies simply tell you the narrative creatively and let you decide how it impacts you. I know someone who won’t watch movies “that don’t end right” – that everything doesn’t work out in the end (lovers stay together, etc.). What? How is that reflective of life? If movies are only suppose to make us feel good then why bother with art in the first place?

Life is a story. Movies are stories about life, whether real or imagined. And life is comedy and tragedy. It is good to do both – fantasize a little as well as steepen yourself in reality.

I understand moods change on certain evenings, but when I hear someone say “Oh, I don’t want to go see that it’s a (fill in the blank with movie genre – chick flick, Merchant Ivory, Suspense, Horror, etc.)” I want to scream and burn celluloid into their brain! I will see ANY film if it has the promise of being a good film.

Sure, there are films I have not seen nor will ever see. Now, how can I judge a book by it’s cover you ask? Because, well, sometimes you just know – but that statement is made by a person who “gets” what art is for. So sorry “Good Burger”, “Phat Beach”, “I Got The Hook Up” and “Starship Troopers 2″ – no chance!

Other than those rare grotesque duds, I am game for anything that has heart, art and/or soul – slice of life, high drama, comedy, tragedy, documentary and so forth. Give me a good story (script), good acting, good direction, good anything and I will take that journey. But don’t judge a masterpiece by whether or not people can really fly – or we’ll have to keep our kids from watching E.T. – which might actually satisfy the Harry Potter witch hater.