Some of the best (and worst) films of 2014

A scene from "Ouija," which is not one of the top films of the year but is among the funniest. © 2014 Universal Studios. 

It's been a pretty good year for movies. This hasn't been a year with a plethora of standout films — certainly nothing as memorable as “No Country for Old Men” or “There Will Be Blood” — but 2014 had a number of well-above average films during both the blockbuster summer months and the prestige season, which is a rather rare feat.

As in years past, this list of top films only includes reviewed movies during the last 12 months. That knocks out a pretty terrific selection of films like “The Lego Movie” (my favorite from 2014), “Godzilla,” “Snowpiercer,” “Under the Skin,” “Big Hero 6,” “Blue Ruin” and “The Grand Budapest Hotel.”

So here are the top six movies I reviewed in 2014, along with the very worst film I had the pleasure of witnessing this year. 

No. 1: “Foxcatcher”

Channing Tatum as Mark Schultz and Mark Ruffalo as David Schultz in "Foxcatcher." Photo by Scott Garfield, courtesy Sony Pictures Classic.

The top spot goes to “Foxcatcher” due in large part to the terrific trio of lead performances by Channing Tatum, Steve Carrell and Mark Ruffalo. All three have received well-deserved accolades for their work, although the subtle wonder of Tatum's performance has gotten a little lost during the award season.

But “Foxcatcher” is much more than an actor showcase; it's a marvel of mood and tension by director Bennett Miller. There's nary a moment when the audience feels safe, as the undercurrent of dread and woe forges a constant chill and discomfort. I wish more films based on real events — “Foxcatcher” is a fictionalized retelling of wrestler David Schultz's death — could keep viewers guessing as well as this one does.

No. 2: “The Raid 2”

Iko Uwais as Rama and Cecep Arif Rahman as The Assassin in "The Raid 2."

Photo by Akhirwan Nurhaidir and Gumilar Triyoga, courtesy Sony Pictures Classic.

When I mentioned the minimal number of memorable films from 2014, this one is among the exceptions (along with “Under the Skin” and “Snowpiercer”). “The Raid 2” might be one of the greatest action films ever created, complete with a collection of unforgettable fight scenes immaculately staged. Just writing this brings back thoughts of the prison yard brawl, the toilet stall melee, the nightclub, the car chase and a particularly impressive final fight sequence.

What separates “Raid 2” from the average action flick is an operatic story that plays like a lesser “Godfather,” which I promise is not an insult. The film starts off with a bang, setting the stakes and showcasing the repercussions of the actions from the original film, and the scope just gets broader and broader from there.  

No. 3: “Captain America: The Winter Soldier”

 

Captain America/Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) and Black Widow/Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson) in a scene from "Marvel's Captain America: The Winter Soldier." Photo by Zade Rosenthal. © 2014 Marvel

Admittedly I liked the No. 4 film more than this, but I flipped the spots because “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” is, objectively, the better film. It's a 1970s thriller transplanted to the future present (present day but with future technology), which is kind of a risk given the relatively low box office tally from the first “Captain America” flick.

Fortunately, the filmmakers succeeded in creating a spot-on replication of films from that era like “All the President's Men,” and it's buoyed by lead performances by Chris Evans — he has the Captain America role down pat — and Scarlett Johansson. The two establish an excellent rapport, their initial mutual distrust evolving into a platonic friendship. Hopefully, Marvel will finally make a Black Widow film; Johansson proved her acting chops in 2014 in this, the No. 6 film, and her Academy Award worthy performance in “Under the Skin.”

No. 4: “Guardians of the Galaxy”

The very ripped Chris Pratt stars as Peter Quill/Star-Lord in "Guardians of the Galaxy." © Marvel 2014

I liked all of the films on this list, but the two movies I had the most fun watching were “The Lego Movie” (I seriously love that film) and “Guardians of the Galaxy.” It gets dinged a bit for being an origin film — like “Captain America,” the sequel should be much stronger — but the film has a strong blend of heart, melancholy and joy (the opening credit sequence featuring a dancing Chris Pratt sets the tone perfectly) and it doesn't skimp on the action sequences.

Marvel and Disney took an enormous risk — much larger than the one made for film three — making the unknown “Guardians of the Galaxy” a tentpole film starring the doofus from “Parks and Recreation” and directed by the man behind “Slither,” and the risk paid off in the top grossing domestic film of the year. 

No. 5: “The Signal”

Beau Knapp stars as Jonah Breck and Brenton Thwaites as Nic Eastman in "The Signal." Photo by Focus Features.

What a strange little film “The Signal” is. It has but one star (Laurence Fishburne) with a modicum of fame and a mishmash tone that bounces from found footage flick to CW drama to epic sci-fi action film, which, combined, leaves the audience a bit dizzy.

Aside from a dreadful final twist no filmmaker should ever try again, the film works. It's a shocking, disjointing film with a few visually stunning scenes courtesy director William Eubank and cinematographer David Lanzenberg — the most notable being a final, magnificent shot that drives home the film's themes of isolation. A weird film for sure, but a well executed one nonetheless. 

No. 6: “Lucy”

Scarlett Johansson in a scene from writer/director Luc Besson's "Lucy." © 2014 Universal Studios.

While “The Signal” is weird, “Lucy” is straight-up gonzo, vomiting up pseudoscience and some very strange action sequences to form a wonderful mess of a film. Writer/director Luc Besson lets his mighty imagination run wild and forms a singular action/sci-fi B-movie. I have a soft spot for films that just go for lunacy (I advocate for “Southland Tales” for that reason alone), as it takes more cajones to go big than to play it safe.

“Lucy” wouldn't succeed though without the yeoman work put in by Scarlett Johansson. She's the heart of the film, the one thing keeping Besson's insanity from going completely amok, and her dry, cool and focused performance adds a vital balance to the film's ridiculousness.

Last (and least): “The Bag Man”

We had a few contenders for this award, with “Dumb and Dumber To,” “Expendables 3,” “Purge: Anarchy,” “Endless Love” and “Ouija” all putting up a fight to be the worst. All five had major flaws, but they either least showcase a modicum of filmmaking competency (“Dumb and Dumber To,” “Purge: Anarchy” and “Expendables 3”) have one delightfully over-the-top performance (Bruce Greenwood in “Endless Love”) or are entertaining because of their awfulness (“Ouija”).

And then there's “The Bag Man,” a risible film that created far more questions than answers. What the hell are John Cusack and Robert De Niro doing in this thing? Who the hell is Rebecca Da Costa and why does she get second billing? Who gave writer/director David Grovic funding for this thing? Why did Grovic adapt a different screenplay to make this film? Seriously, who the hell is Rebecca Da Costa?

“Bag Man” is the rare film to fail on all fronts. The actors lack talent (Rebecca Da Costa), lack interest (Cusack, De Niro and Crispin Glover) and lack any motivation besides cashing that check (Cusack and De Niro). It's a poorly shot film with an illogical and ugly script with the vibrancy of a dead water buffalo, and there's nothing worse than a film that's bad and boring. If “Bag Man” contributes one thing to our society, it's the death of Grovic's and Rebecca Da Costa's filmmaking careers.

It reaches Sandlerian levels of vitriol.

The woods are a strange and wondrous place

Anna Kendrick in a scene from "Into the Woods." Photo by Peter Mountain, © 2013 Disney Enterprises, Inc.

The downside of a cinematic musical is a lost connection between the players on stage and the audience. There's a vitality the filmed equivalent just cannot capture, the digital perfection eradicating the sense of spontaneity bred by the theater. Anything, for better or for worse, can happen on a live stage; films are incapable of reproducing that sense of danger.

What a film adaptation of a musical must do then is justify the translation to screen. Filmmakers need to take advantage of what the new medium can bring to the script and see what they can do with better technology and the option to reshoot, which can forge a technically perfect musical performance.

I'm not sure that's the case with “Into the Woods,” which tries too hard to replicate a trip to the theatre to its detriment. Still, the film is carried by a pair of terrific performances by the two female leads, and the show itself is so much fun and just a hint wicked it makes for a rather good time … just not as good as it could be.

Like any good fairy tale, it's best to begin at the beginning of this adaptation of the Stephen Sondheim musical, one that opens with an introductory medley with the denizens of a small village. There’s Cinderella (Anna Kendrick) completing a series of disgusting tasks for her stepmother (Christine Baranski) and stepsisters (Lucy Punch and Tammy Blanchard); Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford) picks up treats for her grandmother; and poverty-stricken Jack (Daniel Huttlestone) takes his beloved cow to a different village to sell her at his mother's (Tracey Ullman) urging. Joining the bedtime staples are a baker (incoming “Late Late Show” host James Corden) and his wife (Emily Blunt), who dream of having a child. Unfortunately, a neighboring witch (Meryl Streep) reveals she put a pox upon Corden's family after a bout of thievery by the baker's father that prevents anyone who lives under their roof from procreating.

As is the case with such situations, there is a way to reverse the curse, and it requires the baker and his wife to obtain the following items within a three-day span: a white cow, a red cowl, some yellow hair, and a golden slipper. It sounds better when recited in musical form, but you get the gist.

So into the woods do Corden and Blunt go on a quest to complete their family. They encounter the aforementioned characters, along with a pair of vain princes (Chris Pine and Billy Magnussen), Rapunzel (Mackenzie Mauzy), a wolf (Johnny Depp), a giant, and a series of escalating shenanigans that could impede upon a happy ending.

Given how fairy tales original ended, this might be a blessing.

Any disappointment with “Into the Woods” for novices that haven't seen the show on stage is based on the self-inflicted limitations director Rob Marshall places upon himself. The man behind the film adaptation “Chicago” has so much at his disposal given the fairy-tale world and the magic that setting brings, yet he rarely does anything with it. Sure the giant looks a little more interesting than it might on stage, and there is a bit of CGI tossed into the mix, but he doesn't build a world out of it; rather, he erects a barrier between the audience and the fantasy land in front of it that just reinforces the faux staginess of it all.

Also at issue is an uneven flow, as the back third moves as expeditiously as a sloth covered in molasses. Chopping a song would solve the flow problem beautifully.

Yet I still enjoyed “Into the Woods” immensely despite its problems. Even a weakened cinematic translation reveals a rather splendid show with imagination, wit, a cruel streak and some excellent songs, highlighted by “On the Steps of the Palace,” “Moments in the Woods” and a rendition of “Agony” that evoked some sighs of gratitude from female audience members.

Credit too goes to the person or people who corralled a very game cast that, aside from a moderately flat Corden, bite into their roles with glee. Depp and Streep embrace the campy aspects of their performances, although Streep reins it in a little more and delivers a perfectly good performance. The again, it would have been much more interesting if played by the show's original witch, Bernadette Peters.

Peters, pictured here amid a moment of melancholy.

But the highlights are Kendrick and Blunt, as the former plays Cinderella's indecisiveness perfectly and maintains a level of likeability to a character who could easily mosey into shrillness. Blunt is simply delightful, a bastion of joy and playfulness who finds the right blend of fire and mourning to a woman who resigns herself to a meager life with the poor baker. She nails the role's comedic elements and never goes too broad with her performance.

Blunt is “Into the Woods'” heart and soul; the moments when either she (or Kendrick) are off screen reveal the underwhelming artifice of the whole production.

Rating: Four out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG

Run time: 124 minutes (Two hours and four minutes)

Genre: Musical

Ask Away

Target audience: We'll go with Stephen Sondheim followers and anyone who's into a good musical during the holiday season.

Take the whole family?: “Into the Woods” does have a modicum of sexual undertones — something of a given due to Sondheim's involvement — but there's nothing overly objectionable to prevent a family outing.

Theater or Netflix?: It's cool to venture out as a matinee or as a way to blow time on Christmas; otherwise, stay home and wait.

And the Oscar goes to? Meryl Streep will get a nomination just for being Meryl Streep, and the fortune tellers have Emily Blunt getting a well-deserved nomination (although I'd trade Anna Kendrick for Streep in the best supporting actress category). It should earn a best picture nod and might get some love for adapted screenplay and the technical/costume categories.

Watch this as well?: I've always had a soft spot for “The Company of Wolves,” a little nasty retelling of the Red Riding Hood legend. You could revisit classics like “West Side Story” or “Singin' in the Rain” or, if you want to keep the kids involved, just re-watch “Frozen” for the 70th time. 

Plus, Olaf is just delightful.

Lifestyles of the rich and crazy

Channing Tatum as Mark Schultz and Mark Ruffalo as David Schultz in "Foxcatcher." Photo by Scott Garfield and Courtesy Sony Pictures Classic.

Every generation dreams of saving America. Every new generation dreams of rescuing it from some great evil, treating it as if it were Penelope Pitstop. Every generation wants to return America to a former glory defined most clearly by its opaqueness.   

The country is a shell of itself, says Steve Carrell's eccentric John du Pont in Bennett Miller's remarkable and brutally graceful “Foxcatcher.” America is a place that can only be saved through heroism and people like Channing Tatum's wrestler Mark Schultz. As Carrell tells his young, male ingénue as he readies himself for the 1988 Olympics, “You're going to do great things, Mark, great things.”

The definition of great things beyond ephemeral success on the mat is never explained, nor does Miller want them to be. Really, the important part isn't how America is saved or what that actually means; rather, what’s most important is the person who leads it to the Promised Land.

Carrell — eerie and dang-near perfect in his performance — inserts himself as the coach of America's next batch of champions, a leader of men who gives himself the nickname “Golden Eagle.” He has little knowledge of the sport and no perceivable athletic talent — his pasty figure contrasts greatly with the nubile young wrestlers around him — but he has money, and he has just enough charisma to lure Tatum into the Pennsylvania woods. 

It's an overly difficult task to accomplish; Tatum, whose performance is nothing short of excellent, lives a lonesome life defined by rigorous training routines as he goes for his second gold medal, half-cooked Ramen noodles, a dingy apartment, and rambling speeches to bored students as a replacement for his more successful older brother David (the terrific Mark Ruffalo).

 

As he always is.

Living deep inside your brother's shadow is a torturous experience, so an opportunity to move into a wealthy man's kingdom (the titular Foxcatcher estate) to train aspiring wrestlers and train for a shot at world glory is impossible to pass up. And things go quite well in the kingdom for a while, with Carrell becoming Tatum’s de facto father figure and the young wrestler earning success on the mat and dabbling in a world of riches and opulence he could barely dream of before.

But nothing gold can stay even in Shangri-La, and Carrell's desperate and ultimately failed attempts to please his mother (Vanessa Redgrave) drive him to spurn Tatum for Ruffalo to add more legitimacy to his operation. Tensions mount between Tatum and Carrell, and the latter seems to fall deeper and deeper into his eccentricities. It ends in blood and tears.

There is no hope for a pleasant ending in “Foxcatcher” — Miller quashes any signs of optimism through his terrifying, foreboding atmosphere — because no such conclusion exists in the real-life story of the Schultz brothers and du Pont the film is based upon. (It’s worth reading about independent of seeing the film.) Then again, based on is not quite the right way of describing how real life relates to the scenes in “Foxcatcher.” The film is more of a grotesque retelling – see Carrell's prosthetics as an example – mixed with the filmmakers’ attempts to explain how a man like du Pont plunges so far into the mental abyss. The aforementioned mother issues receive a nod, as does a life of loneliness forced upon the heir to an empire, although both are too simple to fall on.

No, what drives Carrell's destruction, along with the film’s machinations, itself is the idea of an America in peril, a place that can only be saved by the strongest warriors fighting on the international stage. Those expectations are enormous, capable of crushing the fittest of men, let alone one as soft and strange as the du Pont shown in “Foxcatcher.” It’s simple enough to call yourself a leader of men; actually being one is a far different beast.

Expectations of excellence and individual success haunt Tatum too, bringing the heartbroken warriors together in search of a more perfect America. They place the burden of being a savior upon their heads, and neither man is capable or strong enough to bear that pressure.

The only one who could is Ruffalo, although he never aspires to be anything more than a wrestler and a decent human being. He’s found and cherished everything he needs out of life; a family (two kids and wife Sienna Miller), excellence on the mat, stability in life and an overarching sense of accomplishment. Ruffalo doesn’t need to save anyone and serves as a contrast between broken men like Carrell and Tatum, who force themselves to chase windmills and scowl as Ruffalo smiles through life.

Again, as he always is.

Review: Four and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: R

Run time: 134 minutes

Genre: Drama

Ask Away

Target audience: Prestige film followers trying to keep tabs on Oscar contenders, along with current and former grapplers; the film's wrestling sequences are very well performed.

Take the whole family?: It's not suitable for kids, but that's much more attributable to the film's length and haunting ambiance than for any on screen action. For the life of me I'll never understand how the MPAA hands out its ratings; how is this worse than the vomit of gunfire and murder produced “Expendables 3,” which picked up a PG-13 rating?

Theater or Netflix?: Worth a trip to the theater to understand the Oscar buzz. Speaking of which ...

And the Oscar goes to? Possibly no one from this film, although that depends on what the tea leaves say this week. Steve Carrell has a strong shot at earning a (deserved) best actor nod, with Mark Ruffalo a pretty safe bet to make it in supporting actor; unfortunately, that will probably mean nothing for Channing Tatum's surprisingly nuanced performance. “Foxcatcher” might receive some nominations for Bennett Miller for best director, best picture and best original screenplay.

Watch this as well?: Rent David Fincher's “Zodiac” if you can. Also based on real events (and it also happens to star Ruffalo), “Zodiac” is Fincher's reinterpretation of the infamous Zodiac case that, like “Foxcatcher,” never lets the audience have a moment to breath.

 

This sequence always gets me.

How to create a war without even trying

From left, Patina Miller, Liam Hemsworth, Mahershala Ali, Jennifer Lawrence and Elden Henson a scene from 'Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1." Photo by Murray Close

Three films into the four-movie franchise and “The Hunger Games” series remains one of cinema’s biggest teases. For two years the series has offered an underlying promise of some grand battle between good and evil loaded with flaming arrows and bodies being tossed about with little regard for the lives of the stunt people.

It didn't happen in films one and two — scenes of violence in those films are pretty well contained to the arena — and the third, “Mockingjay – Part 1,” has even fewer action sequences than either of the first films. Yet that doesn't prove problematic for the entertainment level on screen; rather, the first half of the final chapter does a very good job showing the machinations of revolution and continuing the unraveling of torture of poor Katniss Everdeen's mind and soul.

A textbook example of psychological torture.

“Mockingjay” picks up right after from the end “Catching Fire,” with Katniss, once again portrayed by Jennifer Lawrence, and fellow tribute Finnick Odair (Sam Claflin) undergoing medical treatment in District 13 as a result of the last games. Lawrence's healing is interrupted by a request from district president Alma Coin (Julianne Moore) and former game designer cum Capitol traitor Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman) to serve as the face of the rebellion, aka the titular mockingjay. It’s an obligation she prefers to avoid, but her mind changes after visiting the remains of her home in District 12 and watching love interest Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) shill on behalf of the villainous Snow (Donald Sutherland).  

The goal is to brew a revolution through a series of propaganda pieces sent out to the outlying districts featuring Lawrence, Claflin, and the series’ second love interest, Gale Hawthorne (handsome Liam Hemsworth). Also on board to help are a film crew, mentor Haymitch Abernathy (Woody Harrelson), daffy Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks), genius tribute Beetee (Jeffrey Wright), her sister and mother (Willow Shields and Paula Malcomson, among others), and a collection of new faces.

There's not much more to add to the outline aside from a few funky character names and some hyper-specific plot points due to the aforementioned dearth of on-screen action. There are glimpses from rebellious districts, executions, and one scene with Lawrence, an explosive arrow and a pair of bombers that ends as one would expect from that scenario; the rest is talk about war and overturning Sutherland's oppressive regime.

Everything is, in essence, a promise to what will come in 2015, when the final film and the back half of the finale comes out. It's a promise to what should be an epic spectacle, a showdown between Sutherland's troops and the angry district denizens led by Lawrence and Moore, as well as the fulfillment of the dreams many fans have had since the series started.

So what to make of the part one then, a film designed to serve as a prelude to war? Splitting a movie into two parts has picked up steam for obvious economic reasons (in other words, double the profit), and the results have been hit or miss. It didn't work for the “Harry Potter” films, as splitting “Deathly Hallows” in twain created two plodding films that somehow managed to elide over a few important moments from the book and straight-up ruined the duel between Bellatrix Lestrange and Molly Weasley. 

 

    This should be at least 10 times more intense.

But the split worked splendidly for the “Kill Bill” films, as director Quentin Tarantino used the tactic to create two distinct films that still flowed together perfectly.

Tarantino’s success provides a primer for “Mockingjay,” and the filmmakers hint at following that blueprint by focusing on the propaganda needed to spur revolt. The revolution must be televised in “Mockingjay,” and getting a diverse group of people to rally together requires a symbol, a beacon of hope in the often drab “Hunger Games” universe.

It falls to Lawrence to serve that purpose, but at what cost to the poor 16-year-old girl who is dragged into the middle of a war she never wanted to be in? That's a question posed in “Mockingjay,” and the film's answer is as opaque and muddled as it should be. She's a hero by default, but the expense of her heroism is constant guilt over Hutcherson's fate and twisted psychological games orchestrated by Sutherland. She's trapped as a dystopian version of Joan of Arc — a woman who inspired greatness but paid for it dearly.

That’s kind of a cool concept to ponder in a teen film, and it at least makes the first round of “Mockingjay” a pretty good film without the second film taken into account. “Mockingjay” round one could still ascend to very good, though, if the second round picks up the action and doesn't abandon the philosophical ideas presented in part one. Consider this grade quasi-incomplete with undertones of optimism.

Review: Four out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 123 minutes

Genre: Adventure

Ask Away

Target audience: Teen and preteen girls, along with anyone else who has followed the series since 2012. This will probably be the top grossing film of the year, or at least in the top five, which indicates an audience that is broad and devoted.

Take the whole family?: There’s no cursing or anything overly sexual, but the violence gets intense to the point that it could scare some kids.

Theater or Netflix?: Diehards are more than justified to seek it out in theaters.

So long, Philip Seymour Hoffman. The final two “Hunger Games” films mark the last big screen appearances for Hoffman, who remains one of the greatest actors of his generation. I had a difficult time not thinking about his end during the screening, and although his send off isn’t Hoffman’s best work, he's still wonderful as the sleazy yet earnest backroom shaker. 

 Rest in peace, Tru.

 Watch this as well?: Japan's “Battle Royale” is the more mature version of the “Hunger Games” and is worth a look just for its intensity and cynicism. Either version of “The Manchurian Candidate” also make for solid companion pieces due to their propaganda paranoia, and watch “The Passion of Joan of Arc” for the obvious parallel between Katniss and Joan (it’s also a terrific film to boot).

Samsonite! This is way off!

Jim Carrey, Jeff Daniels and Rob Riggle in a scene from 'Dumb and Dumber To." Photo by Hopper Stone, © 2014 Universal Studios. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 

Twenty years is a rather long gap to bridge between films, especially for a story that filled its original runtime just fine. Yet, somehow, “Dumb and Dumber” evolved from a singular comedy to encompass an animated series (featuring the voice of Patrick Star), an abysmal prequel and the just-released sequel titled, fittingly enough, “Dumb and Dumber To.”

Your guess as to what the Farrelly brothers did with the missing “w” is as good as mine, but that faint attempt at a joke is about as interesting as the brothers Farrelly (Bobby and Peter) and stars Jeff Daniels and Jim Carrey get in this overlong opus of inane idiocy. Their sole accomplishment in this wasteland of tired humor is to spur the audience to ask itself why it felt any attachment to these two jerks in the first place.

“Dumb 2: The Dumbening” brings back Lloyd Christmas (Carrey) and Harry Dunne (Daniels) for another road trip through the heartland, which arrives after Carrey spends two decades in a fake catatonic state (if you didn't laugh at the joke in the preview, it won't get any funnier in the theater). The impetus for the road trip is Daniels' apparent need for a new kidney, and he finds out the only living relative he has is a daughter he apparently fathered in a one-night stand with Fraida Felcher (Kathleen Turner). Turner, whose character received a name drop in the first film, put her daughter (Rachel Melvin) up for adoption, leaving it up to Daniels and Carrey to find the young girl and one of her kidneys. Oh, and there's a murder plot involving Melvin's adopted mother (Laurie Holden) and lawn keeper (Rob Riggle) against the girl's adopted father (Steve Tom) that adds to the shenanigans that ensue lazily.

Like this, but slower and more haphazardly.

 Plot was never the strongest part of the Farrelly boys' repertoire, and that issue is front and center in “Dumb II: Re-Dumbed.” The film is aimless at best and languorous at worst (it needs at least 20 minutes of trimming) with little urgency to create, let alone get to, a finish line of any sort. It slouches and slogs through the motions, fueled by bitterness and appeasement for the mindless.

Good filmmakers can get away with minimal plotting — heck, many of the best sequences “Dumb and Dumber” are on the road — but there needs to be some additional reason for the audience to stick around to the end. The original — a film I still contend is unimpeachable despite what it hath wrought — compensated with some very clever dialogue and vibrancy among the stars and even the then neophyte filmmakers.

But everything feels just very, very old and very, very tired this time around. The brothers Farrelly fill “Dumb Two: Dumbed Down” with way too many flashbacks, callbacks and fantasy sequences that stop the film in its tracks, and many of the jokes or pratfalls are bundled together so tightly there's no room for any of them to breathe. It’s a rather a stark contrast to the original, which keeps the protagonists' silly antics reasonably in check and at least grounded in a modicum of reality.

Essentially, the filmmakers went for a more is more strategy, and the result is almost immediate diminishing returns with one or two quality jokes. More egregiously, there is not a single one anywhere near as quotable as “Samsonite? I was way off!”

 

                                                                    Or this.

I'm still unsure then what motivation the Farrelly boys, Carrey and Daniels decided to do a sequel after two decades. Maybe they wanted to recapture something lost long ago, especially the Farrellys, who haven't made a decent film since 2000's “Me, Myself & Irene,” (maybe 2005's “Fever Pitch” if you're feeling generous). They, and perhaps audiences, might try to sell it as a way of spending more time with the lovable couple Harry and Lloyd, although that would require the central duo to have redeemable qualities.

“Dumb 2: Dumbledore's Revenge” is a joke that comes at the viewers’ expense perpetrated by the Farrellys, Carrey and Daniels to emphasize how awful Christmas and Dunne are as people. They're selfish brutes who are insensitive to the cares and considerations of other, and always, always, always broadcasting their ignorance with pride born of shamefulness. Harry and Lloyd are just mean people in a cruel movie made by brothers who've abandoned all shreds of the decency and kindness they once exhibited.  

Then again, perhaps revisiting two people who haven't changed their idiotic ways in 20 years is more frustrating than cute. Which raises the question: why, again, does this film even exist?

Why indeed?

Review: One and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 110 minutes

Genre: Comedy

Ask Away

Target audience: People lured in by their fond memories of 1994.

Take the whole family?: The film does get a hint scatological that makes it inappropriate for kids younger than 10, but it really shouldn't be a problem for older viewers.

Theater or Netflix?: Netflix if you really, really, really must watch this thing.

What's with all the murder and infidelity, anyway? An additional peccadillo to add to the laundry list above is the Farrellys' excessive use of murderous schemes as plot material. Both “Dumb” films use murder and betrayal (along with a token McGuffin) as story motivation, and they repeat it in the abysmal “Three Stooges” flick they made. It's another sign the Farrellys have lost at least some motivation for their films, and an indication of their lack of respect for their female protagonists.

Watch this instead?: Just watch the first one again and I promise you'll be just fine.