Good Luck, Have Fun, Don't Die - "It's Going to Be Okay. Or It's Not. I Don't Know."

AI has been an inevitable enemy in science-fiction for decades now. As it became more and more prevalent in recent years we could all make nervous jokes about Skynet, quietly hoping something or someone would step in and slow it down. And now that it's rearing its awkward head into our everyday life with weird-ass social media profile pics, slightly wrong search results, and somehow worse customer service chatbots than ever before, it’s time to get serious. Or is it?

Before, with film franchises like The Terminator, the AI revolution was treated with apocalyptic dread. But now that it might be real, Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die (hereafter simply referred to as Good Luck) presents it with apocalyptic humor. AI is inevitable, so why not have a little twisted fun while the world ends?

Just like The Terminator, Good Luck (Gore Verbinski’s first film in nearly a decade) starts with time travel. A crazed Sam Rockwell, dressed in apocalyptic future-chic plastic and electronics, walks into a diner at 10:10 P.M. and tries to start a revolution. He claims to be from the future. A future in which our addiction to our screens has turned the human race into full-on technology addicts unable to take off our VR headsets as we choose a manufactured reality over the actual one. Of course, Rockwell just seems insane, and he pretty much is. According to him, he’s already tried this nearly two hundred times, trying and failing to pick the right combination of unwilling diners to save the world by making it to the house of the child who created the AI program that dooms the world and installing software from the future that will alter it enough to allow humanity to come back to reality. 

This isn’t a mission to destroy AI. AI is inevitable, but with the right safeguards the world can continue to exist. None of this sounds very fun on paper, but Rockwell’s future man is fed up after so many attempts, so while he tries to recruit the unbelieving diners he also gets to point out how terrible some of them have been on past missions, telling certain diners how many times they have died in previous attempts. He’s like a video game player at the end of his rope attempting an impossible level. 

Rockwell isn’t the only player in this particular video game. Through flashbacks scattered throughout the mission, we learn about his ragtag group of world-savers. There’s Mark (Michael Peña) and Janet (Zazie Beetz), teachers who live in constant fear of their phone-addicted zombie students. Susan (Juno Temple) is a mom who recently lost her son in a school-shooting, which is such a common occurrence that a company has now begun cloning victims (and the shooters), allowing grieving parents to tweak their new children by picking their personality, hobbies, and beliefs. And there’s Ingrid (Haley Lu Richardson), a birthday party princess who is so allergic to wi-fi and phones that it causes nosebleeds, who recently lost her boyfriend to AI (he left to go to a facility that will take care of his body while he stays plugged into the VR world that he finds better than the real one). There are a few others, but just like in video games, they’re just there to be bodies as the core group advances.

This still doesn’t sound very funny, I know, and the school-shooting element is sure to ruffle plenty of feathers. It’s satirical, but people have a harder time accepting satire when it seems like something that could really happen in our lifetimes. Satire is easier to laugh at when it takes place hundreds of years in the future like Idiocracy. But when a movie acknowledges that school shootings are so commonplace that we don’t even treat them as major events anymore, then suddenly that satire becomes more scary than funny to some. 

And that’s the balance that will tip people one way or the other with Good Luck. How funny do you find our current path to dystopia? Beyond the school shooting aspect, many people might not find the humor in the film’s commentary on technology and AI, especially with AI starting to take jobs away (they’re even giving away free tickets to the film to anyone who has lost their job to AI). 

Some people, like myself, will find the humor in Matthew Robinson's lively script acceptable and welcome in a genre that is often too serious. Others will either find the film too accurate for comfort or too exaggerated to laugh at. It might be a generational issue, though I can’t stand lumping people into individual generations that all agree on things. I’ll put it this way: if you look around at people, especially younger people, glued to their phones and think the world was better before phones and the internet, then this might be frighteningly on point. Or: if you grew up with social media and phones and everything, this might come across as “old man yells at cloud,” and it could be distractingly alarmist. People like me (millennials, if a generational tag is necessary), who grew up as phones and the internet became more prevalent and adapted along the way, might be able to see the current world with equal parts amusement and fear. And that’s the sweet spot to enjoy this film.

Rockwell is another key to enjoying Good Luck. He keeps the film going even if you don’t find the subject matter comedic. He’s perfect at playing a crazed asshole who seems to be annoyed that he has to save the world. The film is at its best when he’s talking to shit to his reluctant team. Aside from that, the pure chaos of the film is fun if you’re just willing to go with it. Once you accept that insane shit is going to keep happening, it’s a fun ride. It’s a long ride, though. There’s no reason for this to be over two hours long. I complain about this too often, but if a film has a character constantly checking a timer on his wrist, it’s going to make the viewer check the time, too. It doesn’t ruin it, but a film with this tone and pace should keep things as brief as possible, especially when the main character seems to be in such a hurry from the get-go. All of these aspects don’t matter one way or the other, though, depending on your fear of technology.

I think we’re all, young and old, on our screens too much, but I also don’t think it’s the end of the world. Every generation hates advancing technology because it’s just another example of our impending deaths. But death is inevitable, and if AI is going to end the world, that’s probably inevitable, too. So why worry so much? The film’s title says it all. In the film it’s a saying used in the VR world that will eventually end life as we know it. But it works for the real world, too. What can we do but hope for some luck, try to have fun, and put off dying as long as we can? 

If that sounds too nihilistic, then Good Luck probably isn’t for you. But if you’re willing to laugh a little at our possible impending doom (because what else can you do) then this overlong, chaotic film can be a good time. 

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Since this is the rare movie I had a chance to watch and write about before wide release, I tried to keep my review as spoiler-free as possible. But there’s a lot I want to get into in spoiler-territory, so here goes.

This film is dark, but I think the darkest element is that the whole film takes place in the VR world, meaning no matter what happens, the humans lose. The film doesn’t acknowledge this, though, as the ending seems almost hopeful with Rockwell seemingly having things figured out because of his mom’s allergy to technology. But the film clearly doesn’t take place in reality. Ignoring the time travel, there are the zombie teenagers and the school shooting clones. Okay, maybe this is an alternate reality. But what about the giant centaur cat that pisses glitter? And the impossibly large room the AI-creating kid is in? That shit means everyone is in a video game. And there’s a reason the title of the film comes from the VR game: they’re in the VR game.

When you think about this as a video game film, a lot of it falls into place. Rockwell talks shit to the diners so much because he’s the main character, and they don’t realize that they are NPCs, to use a gamer term. For the record, I believe everyone in the diner is an actual person with a VR headset on somewhere; but, like in life, some people don’t know that they’re unimportant.

“AI’s gonna try and give you everything you ever wanted: constant distraction, memorable characters, challenges and obstacles to overcome, exciting stakes that matter, and a satisfying ending. But in the end, it will all be a lie. And you’ll live in a cage.” 

This quote is repeated as Ingrid realizes they didn’t complete the mission. I took it to also mean they’re all in the VR world. Once again, the film makes it seem like there’s still a chance they can beat the AI at the end. But that’s not possible within the VR world. Or maybe it is? The ending really has me torn. I just wish there was an acknowledgement that they are in the VR world, but now they’re looking for a way out of it. 

More evidence that they’re in the VR world: the existence of time travel, the clientele of the diner at 10:10 at night (especially the boy scouts), the stuffed animals in the claw game foreshadow future issues (a robot, a rat, etc.), the police response, and the general otherworldliness of it all.

This is not the best movie to watch right after you got your kid a VR headset for Christmas, and he’s pretty obsessed with it. The battery life is shit, though, so I’m sure it’ll all be fine. 

Rockwell’s character is fun because he’s equal parts grizzled vet who knows everything and clueless bystander who doesn’t know what’s going on half the time. And Rockwell is so good at both sides.

Rockwell punching the kid really got me. Best surprise kid punch since Due Date.

John Carpenter vibes, mainly during the school segment. The score is an obvious homage, but I also found the zombie-like teenagers to be reminiscent of the homeless in Prince of Darkness. 

I bitch about movie length a lot, but in this one it just felt like things dragged on a bit too long near the end. Case in point (thanks to getting a digital screener I could check the time stamps because I’m fucking crazy), when Rockwell checks his timer near the end, it reads 5:20. This happens at 1:42:12, but instead of it reaching zero at 1:47:12, it gets to its final seconds at 1:52:12, and then time slows to a crawl as Ingrid is sucked into the machine to talk to the evil AI boy. By the time she comes out and the clock actually reaches zero, it is 1:57:32. Five minutes takes fifteen minutes in this movie. 

By the way, it’s just a nitpick. I had a lot of fun with this one.

Even Without Edgar Wright, "Ant-Man" Turned Out Pretty Good

Ant-Man

Ant-Man, along with last year’s wildly successful Guardians of the Galaxy, definitely shows that Marvel is digging deep for new heroes to introduce. Audiences don’t seem to mind the B- and C-listers getting their own films because the movies wisely take a more comedic route. (By the way, I know Ant-Man is not consider

ed a B- or C-lister in the comic book world, but he definitely is in the movie world.) Guardians was easily the goofiest film Marvel has ever made, and Ant-Man often plays more like a comedy than a superhero action film, which is precisely the tone this movie needed to have to succeed.

This film has been a huge question mark for Marvel not only because of the lesser known main character, but also for some behind the scenes trouble. Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead) was well into the process of making this film when he dropped out. He realized he wasn’t going to be able to make the movie he wanted to make because Marvel has such a strict plan for the next few years. So Peyton Reed (Yes Man) was brought in. Nothing against Reed (especially since the movie turned out all right), but it doesn’t instill a lot of confidence to go from the director of Shaun of the Dead to the director of Yes Man. It would definitely be interesting to see what Wright would have ultimately done with the film, but it appears he left his stamp on enough of it so that what we see on the screen is a Wright-like film.

Most likely, the visual style of the film was sacrificed when Wright left (more on that in a bit), but the comedic tone of the film remained. Much like Shaun of the Dead, Ant-Man is about a very unlikely hero in Scott Lang (Paul Rudd), a convict who can’t seem to catch a break. Returning to a life of crime leads him to Dr. Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) and the shrinking suit Pym has made. Then more comic book stuff happens, and Scott has to try to save the world, and you’ll probably see him again in other Marvel movies, and you get the idea.

Ant-Man sets itself apart from other Marvel movies by having a stronger emotional core than other comic book films. The emotional theme focuses on parents, specifically fathers, and how complicated it can be to protect their children, or in this case, daughters. Scott’s main goal is to get his life back on track so he can see his daughter, who sees him as a hero already. For Scott, it’s all about living up to an image his daughter has for him. Hank Pym, on the other hand, has kept his daughter Hope (Evangeline Lilly) so far away that she now resents him. Each man needs to prove himself to his daughter to have peace. These subplots were a welcome distraction from the save the world plotline, which is getting a bit tiresome in the Marvel world.

The emotional scenes never get too heavy, though, and the film in general is quite funny. Paul Rudd has a lot to do with that. He’s a natural for the reluctant hero part. But the comedy comes more from the gang of idiots he pals around with. The standout is Michael Peña, whose rambling stories are the comedic highlight of the film. They are also the scenes that felt the most like an Edgar Wright film.

Comedy aside, this is still a Marvel superhero movie, so the action and visuals have a lot to live up to. In this case, the visuals actually lead to comedy at times. When we’re zoomed in on the action, for instance, a child’s trainset turns into a real train bearing down on someone. Pull back and it becomes a pretty goofy sequence. When the action is taken seriously, it’s par for the course for Marvel. There’s nothing that stands out, aside from the goofiness of pulling back during action scenes. Edgar Wright could have possibly created some action scenes that would have stood out from the rest of the Marvel pack, but we’ll never know. The miniature stuff looks great, though. Overall, Ant-Man boasts some great visuals with decent action.

 Ant-Man could have been Marvel’s first big misstep since it started this takeover of Hollywood. But like Guardians, the risk paid off. Sure, the save the world plotline is flat out boring at this point, but that comes with the territory in a comic book movie. Ant-Man simply had to distinguish itself from the rest of the pack with comedy, and it completely succeeded. 

Ant-Man receives a:

"Fury" - A Review in Which I Sincerely Praise the Acting of Shia LaBeouf...

                Fury

Good acting, Shia, but I don't know about that mustache...

                  American tank movies are few and far between in cinematic history possibly because of the less than enthralling claustrophobic quality of a tank.  It might also have something to do with the fact that the German tanks were superior to American tanks during World War II so there aren’t many feel-good, gung-ho true stories to work with.  This might be why writer/director David Ayer decided to write a fictional story for his tank movie, Fury.  But while the film might be a bit gung-ho, there is certainly nothing feel-good about it.

                Fury, at its core, is a miserable story about the horrors of war.  It doesn’t dwell on the horror or even condemn it, however.  Instead, the focus is on what war does to a man, or group of men, in this case.  Fury is a warts and all depiction of brotherhood through war.  Most war films cover this unique relationship, but few filmmakers have realized that the tank is the perfect setting to condense that complicated situation into a film.  (The only film that came to mind as I watched this was The Beast, an under-watched 1988 film about a Russian tank crew in Afghanistan.)  While the inside of a tank does not make for a compelling visual, it does wonders for character interaction.

                The characters are what make Fury interesting, but also strange.  The plot of the film is essentially about a newcomer, Norman (Logan Lerman), to the crew of the titular tank, Fury, and his initiation by fire (quite literally) into World War II.  Since this is a fictional story, there is no historic grand battle for Fury to take part in, instead the plot is relegated to vague missions about “holding the line” and not giving up.  The story truly does not matter since this is a character study.  It is a strange character study because we learn almost nothing about most of the characters apart from their role in the war.  Some might see this as a weakness, but it is actually beneficial to the story.  Fury does not attempt to create complete characters, just men shaped by war.  It isn’t important to know what Brad Pitt’s character did before the war.  Perhaps it would add a level of complexity to the proceedings if it turned out that this brutal man was actually a librarian or something, but that would be cheesy and unnecessary.  No matter what jobs these characters had back home, there job now is to kill other people.  Fury attempts to show the disturbing effects war has on the soldiers.  Whether or not it successfully does that is up for debate.

                When we meet the tank crew, they are already battle-hardened and on edge.  Don “Wardaddy” Collier (Pitt) is the tough leader, whose most important mission is to protect his men.  (There is actually no point in naming the other characters because their names are fairly forgettable and/or underused.  In fact, I didn’t know what Brad Pitt’s character’s name was until I looked it up on IMDb a few minutes ago.  This all goes back to the lack of character development beyond the moment of each scene.)  The other men in the tank are played by Shia LaBeouf (the religious one), Jon Bernthal (the redneck), Michael Peña (the driver), and Logan Lerman (the new guy).  Just because the names of the characters are not important does not mean that these are one-note characters.  It just means they can be identified more easily by their first impression. 

                Instead of getting to know these characters in depth, we just discover them in battle, which is the point of the film.  If Fury has something to say about the effects of war on a person, then knowing anything about that character beforehand belittles that point.  It does not matter what these characters were, look at what they have become.  And they have become brutal, cold killing machines.  This makes Fury more of a spiritual companion to Full Metal Jacket more than Saving Private Ryan.  Although, tonally, this film is even more depressing than Jacket.  All of the main characters say or do things that make you wonder whether they are “good” men throughout the film.  They are never meant to be hated, though, quite the opposite.  These men are meant to be pitied for what war has done to them.  Because of that, and because of casting, it’s easy to end up liking this crew, despite some of their harsher moments.

                Brad Pitt brings some natural authority to his role, and he’s as likable as always.  It was a bit hard to divorce this character from the one he played in Inglourious Basterds, however.  It’s not that they are all that similar (though they both are very good at killing NATzees…), it’s just that the roles are close together in his filmography.  Bernthal provides the sole comedic relief of the film with his almost cartoonish redneck antics, and that is certainly welcome in such grim proceedings.  Peña is proving to be a very diverse actor with this role (I know him mostly from comedies like Eastbound & Down and Observe and Report).  Lerman doesn’t get a lot to do aside from look scared/angry, but he handles it well.  Surprisingly (to me, at least), LaBeouf was the most impressive.  Perhaps it’s because of his off-screen behavior, but he’s hard to take seriously.  But here, he truly appeared to be in the moment, and his performance allowed his character to be the most complex of the film. 

                The performances in a war film are the most important aspect of it, especially if it is making a statement on war itself.  But it’s also very important to present the action in a realistic way, as well.  Fury has some of the most effective and tense battle sequences of recent memory.  It is also shockingly gory at times.  It does tiptoe that fine line between realism and glorification, but realism does win out, for the most part.  There are still battle sequences that the more gung-ho viewer can fist pump to, but most viewers will feel the brutality rather than cheer it on.  The only thing that hampers the action is the music.

                Normally, the score to a war film is naturally patriotic, somber, rousing, etc.  And that is as it should be.  But Fury is an anti-war film meant to display the real brutality of the violence.  There was no soundtrack during the real battles of WWII, and Fury would have been even more effective if the filmmakers would have left out the soundtrack as well.  The audience doesn’t need “sad” music playing when characters have died to let us know that it is sad.  It is just insulting to the audience to think that they wouldn’t know when to feel sad.  Also, using music that sounds borderline militaristic during battle scenes takes away from the realistic tone the film was going for.  It doesn’t ruin the film, but it certainly cheapens it from time to time.  When it comes to disturbing violence, silence is the most effective option.

                Despite that slight misstep, Fury should go down as one of the better war films in recent decades.  While it wasn’t memorable enough to be considered one of the best ever (the topic of war has just been covered too much for new ground to be broken…), it has certainly earned its place as one of, if not the, best tank film ever made. 

Fury receives a: