bridesmaids: what has a cornfield done for kristen wiig lately?

*review contains spoilers.  SPOILERS people.*

bridesmaids: film starring kristen wiig, maya rudolph, melissa mccarthy, rose byrne, wendi mclendon-covey, ellie kemper, jon hamm, chris o'dowd, and some others

due to the ambiguity of the title of this blog, i want to clarify right off that i liked this film very much.  i thought the premise was funusual (combination of "fun" and "unusual"--you're welcome!), the acting was incredible, and the writing was often very funny.

melissa mccarthy!!!  in a daringly makeup-free performance, melissa mccarthy was freakishly dead-on comedic.  she got the broad stuff just right (speech to the air marshall was incredible), the weird stuff just right (more of a six dog than a nine dog person--amazing), and the sensitive characterization stuff just right (whole pep talk to kristen wiig character done very, very right, i thought.  i mean, she was that character exactly while she was doing it, so it made me really respect the woman she was playing, and not in a grudging way [it would have been grudging if melissa mccarthy hadn't been so fabulous; i would have (being the paranoiac asshole that i can be) been like, "meh, this movie wants me to respect this character now so i guess i will because i have no reason not to, but i don't want to because this is kind of coming out of nowhere," but melissa mccarthy didn't make it come out of nowhere, she made it an integrated part of who the character was, and that toughness-through-vulnerability thing was quite awesome]).  it was like melissa mccarthy asked the question, "how does this woman survive--nay, celebrate--being who she is?", found the answer, and went with it full-bore.

it's pretty super-easy to steal the show when you're playing melissa mccarthy's character, and i thought she did, so i'm not going to ramble about anyone else quite so much, but i really thought everyone was super-good.  wendi mclendon-covey took her three jokes about the grossness of her marriage and really sold them; same to ellie kemper (some way in which she described wendi as like a disney princess and smelled good or something--very funny); i think rose byrne played her petulant, paranoid, managing, spoiled and vulnerable hot girl role very well, hitting all of that stuff at one point or another so that we did end up feeling sorry for her and liking her.  i also really thought maya rudolph was pretty fantastic insofar as she didn't let her character get any less sweet despite her increasing gentrification.

a lot of what i'm talking about is attributable to the writing--i think, anyway, not knowing ANYTHING ABOUT FILMMAKING.  i mean, like, rose byrne character could have been a managing maneater, but she wasn't; maya rudolph character could have gotten entirely and enthusiastically lost in the wedding stuff, but she didn't (that is, she got lost in it, but it wasn't for stupid superficial reasons like some films like to offer us--rose byrne character didn't have a stronger personality than maya rudolph character, for instance, and maya rudolph character was hardly a social climber or anything like that; her getting lost in the wedding stuff seemed eminently reasonable, is what i'm trying to say).

which is why when the film occasionally veered into algorithm-driven rom-com territory, it was kind of disappointing.  i love the IT crowd, and i think chris o'dowd is a hilarious and pretty sensitive actor, but all the algorithmic rom-coming happened on his time, so he gets evaluated accordingly.  okay, so let's break down exactly what leads up to his reconciliation with kristen wiig character: 1., they sleep together (oh, spoilers--why do i always forget to warn about spoilers?  i'll do it now).  2., he asks her to bake with him and she refuses.  3., this pisses him off extensively.  4., she bakes him something he ignores.  5., he eats racoon food and then kisses her with that mouth.  now, i'm not getting all the subtleties down here exactly, but the point is that chris o'dowd character, even taking into consideration the fact that he likes kristen wiig character a lot and that therefore her hurting him is extra-important and deserves a more sulky rom-com-esque punishment than it otherwise would, is either underwritten at this point, or is being sucked into rom-com algorithmia.  she's already told him she doesn't want to bake, so he is actively ignoring her expressed thingee in getting the baking ingredients.  of course she ought to bake, of course it's what's good for her, and he can go ahead and purchase the materials if he wants, he can push her, but if she refuses, it's kind of not her fault that she's not ready, and it's not realistic that he wouldn't acknowledge that without a more pressing reason than what we're given (that he really likes her and is a sensitive guy).

in most romantic comedy situations, the whole "it's not realistic" argument is...what's the phrase i'm looking for...completely irrelevant?  sure, i'll go with that.  but bridesmaids is good.  sure, it has a little too much of kristen wiig falling apart in front of a cornfield, but she does it so well.  her refusal to take care of herself is interesting and relevant and uplifting in a weird way and, like, doesn't gloss over failure stuff, really reflects what it's like to lose everything and have to self-destruct over it (aside from the super-cute outfits--when i get depressed i never bother to dress nice [though i know everyone is different, it would have been nice if she'd owned some sweatpants, but this is a very fine point]).  and chris o'dowd's character is well-written and well-played too, as honest and gruffly charming dude.  so why does a super-generic plotline have to swoop in and steal the sensitive sanity right out of the movie?

maybe it's because we don't know how to settle romantic conflicts in movies--maybe bridesmaids is trying to assure us it's more 40-year-old virgin than juno (though they're both awesome, and wildly popular, movies, and i don't see why a movie would want to be one more than the other).  but i really don't have the answers.

final analysis: see movie!  (keeping it simple.)  for yea verily it is most enjoyable.

the dolph lundgren the punisher: no, thank you, america

the punisher: '80's version starring dolph lundgren

i have been waiting to see this movie for a long long time.  the tom jane the punisher is one of my favorite movies ever--can't exactly explain why (something about its extreeem baroque aesthetic), but i love that movie.  and so naturally seeing one version of the punisher that makes one feel all fuzzy and violent inside makes one wish to see all versions of the punisher, and hopefully thereby achieve more fuzzy, violent feelings.  the ray stevenson version was, as far as i remember, okay--i mean, it was awesome*, but was it anything more than awesome**?  i don't know.  i think i was drunk.  i'll have to give it another shot.

the dolph lundgren version was...yeah.  it had all the elements.  the twisted moral platform, the racism against japan...the eyelid surgery by which dolph lundgren was made to look perpetually on psychotropics...  no, i really enjoyed it.  not as much as the tom jane version, but it was up there.  here's the thing: it was totally racist, but it was more than that too.  i mean, you can't just sell the mobsters' kids into white slavery, yakuza!  that is uncalled for!  BUT the pre-o-ren ishii female yakuza lesbian (?) boss (which just proves that quentin tarantino is a filter for everything that is cool) and her adopted mute (america's own deadly little miho) of a sidekick (who has next to nothing to do but is awesome nonetheless) in their ratted bangs and pleather are, like, really worth seeing.  in the same manner that the tom jane version is baroque in its execution--that is, filled with ornate, replete details, crafted in ways that do not augment but rather become the point (which details are, in some ways, the essence of action movies, but most action movies aren't up-front about this, and most action movies don't spend enough time to make the details that they're really actually about as complete as they need to be), so that this "outside stuff" actually sucks right back to the center of the movie and the whole thing turns into some kind of tone-poem with a beating singularity at its heart (i really like the tom jane the punisher)--the dolph lundgren version has an almost rococo approach to violence and human suffering. 

as opposed to sin city, which is much more italian rennaissance in its aesthetic.  or to kill bill, which is definitely an el greco.  WHAT?

what's the conclusion we draw here?  that all punisher movies are NEAT.  and that they should really re-release the dolph lundgren version on something other than videocassette.

and that die hard is attributed to peter bruegel but was probably actually a copy painted in the 1560's.  here is a poem about it:

Musee des Beaux Arts
W. H. Auden
About suffering they were never wrong,
The old Masters: how well they understood
Its human position: how it takes place
While someone else is eating or opening a window or just walking dully along;
How, when the aged are reverently, passionately waiting
For the miraculous birth, there always must be
Children who did not specially want it to happen, skating
On a pond at the edge of the wood:
They never forgot
That even the dreadful martyrdom must run its course
Anyhow in a corner, some untidy spotWhere the dogs go on with their doggy life and the torturer's horse
Scratches its innocent behind on a tree.

In Breughel's Icarus, for instance: how everything turns away
Quite leisurely from the disaster; the ploughman may
Have heard the splash, the forsaken cry,
But for him it was not an important failure; the sun shone
As it had to on the white legs disappearing into the green
Water, and the expensive delicate ship that must have seen
Something amazing, a boy falling out of the sky,
Had somewhere to get to and sailed calmly on.


...and here is another (dub-cee williams, the filter for everything that is cool):

Landscape with the Fall of Icarus

According to Brueghel
when Icarus fell
it was spring

a farmer was plowing
his field
the whole pageantry 

of the year was
awake tingling
near

the edge of the sea
concerned
with itself

sweating in the sun
that melted
the wings' wax

unsignificantly
off the coast
there was

a splash quite unnoticed
this was
Icarus drowning


the above is an example of the moveable foot.  the dolph lundgren the punisher, on the other hand, was an example of the kicking-ass foot.

*like hotdogs
**like, for example, a billion hotdogs

check-up time

here's the thing: i began this blog as a way (in part) to find out what reviewers are thinking, how reviewers do what they do.  i think i've learned a lot from it (not just about reviewers, but about aesthetics and the process of judgment), and i'm not going to stop doing it, but i have to step back and ask myself,

"is this honestly okay?"

now, i'm up-front about the fact that i'm not a trained moviemaker (am i up-front about it?  i think i am--must go check--yes, i appear to be up-front about it [check the sidebar if you don't believe me]).  a performer myself, i tend to be generous with actors and downright rude to producers.  i profess to hate the hollywood machine (see entries about government-generated algorithms being used for writing evil scripts), and i draw a distinction between reviewing a multi-billion dollar industry and the kind of reviews that make me pretty mad--that is, the completely unsympathetic slams that get delivered to certain local performance companies who are trying to get by with about five dollars and a dream.

but how real is this distinction?  should i be more sympathetic to...

wait a second.  no.  i am sympathetic.  to a certain extent.  i appreciate the struggles that people who are trying to express something go through--often...  i don't appreciate it when there are no struggles and nothing gets expressed (except sometimes, in the case of dance movies, i really really do appreciate it).

or maybe i'm not sympathetic.  i slaughtered the imaginarium of dr. parnassus--in my defense, i thought the movie sucked, but it still wasn't nice of me. i mean, is the epistolarium of clive and his cellist really a legitimate example of the hollywood machine being hollywoody and machinistic?  i can profess to say, but i don't really know.  i just didn't like it, and thought it looked high-budget.

the end diagnosis is that i have no idea if what i'm doing on this blog is right, or morally reprehensible.  considering that i've probably gotten about six views TOTAL, this probably shouldn't matter too much to me.  on the other hand, considering the fact that i occasionally scour google for my name, and end up hurt when reviews are anything but absolutely stellar...maybe i should be worried about the people i'm slamming.

okay, people i'm slamming (michael bay springs to mind, as does james cameron): if by some chance in hell i've hurt your feelings, i am truly sorry.  i will probably not stop hurting your feelings, but as much as i like to pretend otherwise, i can't truly see into anyone's aesthetic soul, and therefore all that my whining about your movies really boils down to is "i don't like (many of) them."  and what do i know?  nothing.  nothing period.  and we all know what comes from nothing (hint: it's nothing.  "nothing from nothing" is one of the best philoso-math-related relationship songs ever, in my opinion).

what have we all learned?  sra admits to, a., being kind of a jerk, and b., thinking that she knows stuff but not actually knowing stuff.  oh, and that billy preston plus parmenides equals awesome math funk.

thor: the hammer is so much more than his penis

*uh, this review contains a couple spoilers. consider yourselves warned, chumps!*

thor: starring natalie portman as the god of thunder


...no, wait, she was something else. and was she ever!

i really liked this movie. really, really, really. here's the thing: i feel like i liked it a lot because kenneth branagh directed--but hopefully i didn't like it because kenneth branagh directed, if you see what i'm getting at. in the best-case scenario (which is how i remember it happening, but i might not be remembering accurately), i was thinking to myself at the end, "hunh. this movie was not super-original, and sometimes the dialogue wasn't great. why did i like it so much? the acting? the directing?" and then kenneth branagh's name popped up on the screen and i was like "OH!"

the above sounds pretty harsh, or damning with faint praise, or what have you.  but i think that plot and even dialogue are often just window-dressing.  see previous entries to do with thoughts about a well done cliche being much better than a weak original idea (how to train your dragon is the main entry on this subject--there are also plenty of entries where i'm really mean about badly-done cliches.  hey, i don't have to be consistent; i'm a woman!).

i liked it so much because it really was all about the characters. perhaps unfairly, i am attributing that to branagh.  it reminded me of iron man (1), but a little more basic, though not in a bad way--the same sort of, like, "focused more on character development than originality" fight scenes (not that i've ever in my life attempted to write a fight scene, here), and the same sort of focus on expressing who the people in the film were as opposed to what they were up to (indicative detail of both sides of this point: thor fighting the frost giants with a grin on his face, completely despite the fact that the "action" of the fight was happening elsewhere). and so it was awesome, because no matter how semi-fleshed the plotline was (and it did occasionally have that hopping-from-sequence-to-sequence feel about it, which is, you know, pretty common to most movies that have a crapload of plot to cover in not a ton of time), there was always something you cared about watching to watch, and that something was always being done very well.

of kat dennings (playing the ipod owner) i've never had enough, obviously--she's always great. natalie portman (playing the assorted clothes wearer) was awesome--really great vulnerable-eager-quasi-unafraid thing going on. chris hemsworth (god of haircut) was really fabulous--both ripply AND emotionally on-point, straightforward without being stupid (i'm guessing not a simple balance to strike, but he did so real well). shout-out also to stellan skarsgard (furrowed brow), who didn't have a ton of things to do but did them all (including an evacuation scene made somewhat fatuous by lack of time) with an awesomely complete character, and tom hiddleston (sulky steve valentine), who played his gay satan role with its unbalance lingering very skillfully below the surface. everyone was good. i didn't like anthony hopkins as much in this as i did in the wolfman. i think he does bad daddy better than he does good daddy, but i still liked him.

half the time i thought the aesthetic of the movie was beautiful, and half the time i thought it was olivia newton john's xanadu meets bart station. but that stuff doesn't really matter. i'm just getting my digs in because i like to dig. because somebody (that would be me) is just a rude gus.

OH!! and the man of color DOESN'T DIE! heimdall, excellently played by idris elba, comes close-ish, but he doesn't!

and plenty of the time, the dialogue is quite good, by the way.  thor's elevated diction and nordic god habits are confronted really well with the not-overdone disbelief of the human realm--and he doesn't just talk fancy without meaning anything (which in my opinion does sometimes happen, and i notice it, because i am stupid-picky).

the only thing i really violently protest is the tagline. "the god of thunder" isn't a tagline, it's too basic a description of the thing itself (would dub-cee* williams approve?  food for thought...or not). maybe it's trying to capture the straightforwardness of the nature of thor-the-character's aesthetic? i just know it didn't work for me. i thought maybe they could have gone with "the hammer is my penis" as the tagline, but according to my movie friend, that would have been just as much a description.


*still william carlos williams' '90's emcee name.  i am just too proud of it to give it up.

sucker punch: EXTREMELY alien she

sucker punch: movie starring emily browning, vanessa hudgens, jamie chung, some other people, and jon hamm for about five seconds total

things that were awesome about this movie:
1. girl singer cover of "search and destroy."  raw power is one of my favorite albums ever--and the cover featured in sucker punch was awesome.  the "white rabbit" cover struck me as overproduced, but i remember really enjoying the "search and destroy" one, maybe just because it's a song we haven't heard covered like six thousand times in a movie context.  apparently the band is called skunk anansie.  it's possible i will be purchasing that album.

2. the ladies were quite good looking.

things that were not awesome at all about this movie:
1. i could talk about the acting (not given a chance) and the dialogue and the inception-lite plot, but what's the point?  no real point.  the movie wasn't good, but i forgive bad movies all the time (loved burlesque.  saw it twice.  thought it was crap, but i couldn't get enough of christina's wide open eyes and cher's sense of humor--and i wasn't even wild about the songs).

2. the real thing, for me, was what i've mentioned before in connection with percy jackson, and, much more recently, tron: the decline and fall of the strong pretty girl.  there's always something exploitative about depicting shiny women in what basically amounts to underwear, but that exploitation itself can't be entirely bad all the time, right?  just based on the principle that next to nothing is fundamentally bad?  like, in mr. and mrs. smith (the pitt/jolie remake) when angelina had on that OUTFIT at the beginning--i saw that movie a long time ago, and it was a sexy shiny outfit, don't get me wrong, but the movie was playing around with ideas of surface identity versus connection and what it meant to exploit one's own possibilities for exploitation.  i mean, in a way.  and it certainly exploited brad pitt in a similar way (again, as far as i remember).  there are arguments that context is just the excuse for experience, there are arguments that "bad" and "good" are childish qualifiers, and these things are possibly true, but i need my excuses and my qualifiers.

the best/worst part is that sucker punch seems to have no awareness of the fact that its ideological platform is CRAP (we can call this the boogeyman syndrome.  but we don't have to). 

or does it???  according to a small part of some dude's review that i just read on wikipedia, the "pseudo-feminist fantasies of escape and revenge" are an ideological platform that lead to the sucker-punch of getting stabbed through the eyeball (dude was Andrew O'Hehir).  gotttta think about this one--was the sexism intentional?

oh, wait, i don't care.  do i?  no, no i do not.  i didn't read the entirety of mr. o'hehir's review, and i know that magazine writers seem to have less leeway in their reviews than newspapers (and irate bloggers), so i won't turn his statement into some kind of bete noir, but if i were to accept that the crappitude of this film were accounted for by the director giving us "what we want (or what we think we want, or what he thinks we think we want)..." it's asking too much.  the fact that both women of color die for literally no reason--sure, because there has to be a (meaningless, pointless) sacrifice--okay, it's a cliche, which i suppose in some very very scary way could be conflated with the things we want to see (insofar as we want to see what we know, as the mildest construction of the continuing reoccurance of this meme in "post-racial" america [seriously, i joke about this stuff in a mildly exasperated tone, but it's gross]).  the tiny skirts and bustiers and what have you...do we want to see that?  hell yes, councillor!  do we want to see girls kick ass while wearing next to nothing?  of course we do!  so what's the issue?  these aspects of the film are executed so idiotically that it's got to be pseudo-ideology, right? 

right?

aha.  the problem with this argument is that the movie offers us literally nothing with the necessary amount of substance to put in the place of the "pseudo-"ideological tenets of the world in which these "pseudo-feminist" fantasies take place*.  in the absence of alternatives, we have to assume that the movie doesn't realize said fantasies are pseudo-feminist, and thinks that they are actually feminist.  because shiny ladies with makeup on looking doe-eyed at a coruplent chef and wielding machine guns with pouty mouths to a grindy-poundy soundtrack is not feminist.  my personal opinion is that mr. o'hehir's review is being nice on purpose--but if it's not, then i respectfully disagree with him.

i don't count a bunch of psychobabble about making the fantasy your own as a fair exchange for pseudo-feminism.  and i don't mean psychobabble as in "much talk in a psychological vein."  i mean psychobabble as in "WHAT???  HUNH?????"  i mean psychobabble as in "DAMNIT, GOVERNMENTAL ALGORITHMS, YOU'RE GENERATING LINES AGAIN!!!"  because someone plugged "feminist fantasy justification" into the machine, and look what they came up with!  all they needed to get said lines totally ready for production was to type them into bing english-german translator, hit translate, have a chimp in a bowtie edit, translat back from german into english, and bam!, as emeril would say.  delicious script-ness.  half the words of an actual script, and with none of the fatty content!

and why was the asian one the one who ran the technologies?? (i was actually excited to see jamie chung because i enjoyed her immensely in dragonball [dragonball--another crappy movie that i liked--see? i'm not an unreasonable person], but she certainly didn't get enough character development to justify killing her [which is typical--it happened to jazz in transformers]).  COME ON, MOVIE.

i had a stressful semester.  this is my unwinding.  sucker punch was bad enough that its badness probably spoke for itself.  i should be more sympathetic.  and would be, if these fools didn't keep coming in and messing around with the lady power.  i'm not even an uber-feminist.  the movies are just making me one.  yeah, yeah, i shouldn't go to see them in the first place.

the soundtrack--full of cast-sung covers--has two songs on it** that were originally performed by women.  this may not be a very good point on my part...maybe music transcends gender.  but this film sure as hell does not.


*sorry so convoluted!
**it's three songs.  i don't know what i'm talking about hardly ever.

jane eyre: notes after percolation

WHY JANE EYRE WHY??

now let's just all bear in mind that had i liked this film, i would have been somewhat disappointed.  i came to watch it suck, and it sucked.

acting: quite good.

direction: not bad.

basic premise of fragmentary kaleidoscope of jane eyre plot-nessfulness: RUDE but promising, for the first half hour or so.

presentation of conditions of jane eyre's young life: not bad!  helen burns was there and she didn't dispense any advice about advertising!

other points of eyre-y goodness: two whole rivers sisters!  with lines!  st. john/jane eyre relationship made interesting, and is not totally disrespectful of what appear to me to be bronte's intentions!  jane eyre has no pretensions to being a naturalist...mia wasikowska gave a luminous performance...soundtrack could have been worse...blanche is not blonde...

it was the core rochester/jane relationship that sucked, though not for lack of trying.  my personal opinion of rochester is that bronte gives a very exact depiction of him, and thereby renders him impossible to cast.  jane eyre is also a very exacting character, but somehow you can get a likeable jane out of many different types of people (not charlotte gainsbourg, but many people [ruth wilson still being my favorite--though i have a friend that i think would play the part the best of anyone ever]).  the closest i've ever been able to come to getting a good casting of rochester, though, even just in my head, is right now, when i'm thinking that kristin chenoweth would do a great job with the part, if hell froze over and she somehow got the opportunity.  rochester is just impossible to make right.  orson welles is all thunder and no humor, timothy dalton, though awesome, is too byron and not enough bothwell, toby stephens is way too suave... and i like all of these performances.  i just feel bad for michael fassbender.  he's trying to play this impossible part, and the only support he's getting from either the script or the production is a miniscule flower and a neckcloth.  who could do anything with those materials?  mcguyver?  maybe he could make a weapon with which to free himself from a tricky situation (victorian england, for instance), but even he couldn't construct a rochester characterization worth balls.  fassbender did a great job with what he was given--but this seemed to consist of, "okay, now stare at an angle to the camera.  you can't flirt with jane, so just pant at her.  make it more angry!  now more sensitive!  angrier!  sensitiver!  i don't know, something with your nostrils, maybe?  are you wearing the neckcloth?  do you have your tiny flower?"

i'm wondering how many woman directors there have been of jane eyre...how many woman screenwriters...  it's sexist of me, i know.  i didn't think the direction was that bad.  i read a review at the movie theater (you know, one of those they post on cardboard) in which cary fukunaga discussed having read the book several times, and i felt like i could see what he'd read expressed in the movie.  his interpretation of jane, who, as the review pointed out, can get lost in the furor sometimes, was quite respectable.  not perfect (for a rabid fangirl, there is no such thing) but certainly well within respectable range.

to put it in the most abstract terms, i felt like the movie's intensity of purpose was admirable, and its use of its materials was kind of deplorable.  it faltered worst when it came to rochester, turning the whole thornfield sequence into something almost painful to experience, and not in the i-identify kind of way, but in the i-wish-this-were-less-teh-suck* kind of way.  a sequence of shots of cherry trees does not a romance make. 

UNFORTUNATELY!!  am i right?  am i right?

hey, maybe robert downey jr. could rochester it righteously.  i just like the idea of kristin chenoweth.

*rereading my megatokyo volumes; sorry.

i am number four: lay on moglodytes, and damned be he who first cries "*insert randomly generated script here*"

I Am Number Four: movie starring quinn from glee, that kid from that movie we watched that was, i think, england's answer to agent cody banks, and a bunch of special effects

oh man.  well, yeah, it was bad, but, on the bright side, at least it wasn't oscar-nominated bad.  and it was also kind of charming.  i was expecting nonstop action; i did not get that.  i got a paean to somewhere that read as forks, ohio.  i got a lot of that blond kid with no shirt on.  i got one or two voice-overs a la legion.  and i got a darlingly improbable soundtrack (this is not intended to be sarcastic; i really liked the soundtrack.  it was like the '40's circa the '80's--roy webb for a new millenium).  i got an arty girl who of course lived in an attic.

and again, i got some really good acting.  where have all the crappy actors gone?  i remember in my youth, we had a lot of pretty faces playing a lot of interesting roles fairly badly.  nowadays it seems like the faces are just as pretty, the performances are 100% more fantastic, and the roles are freaking stupid.  maybe i've changed.  it's certainly possible.  i just find it bizarre that despite being extremely good-looking for-the-most-part-blond people, all of these kids were very, very excellent actors.  they made their ridiculous dialogue sound almost reasonable.

main dude did sound like he had a russian accent, which was confusing as i thought he was masking an english one, but he was very good.  i mean, the accent issue was pretty easy to ignore, because aside from the assorted voice-overs, he had about four lines period, but even without dialogue he managed to set him up the characterization.  quinn from glee was also really good, even going so far as to develop a blonde ex-cheerleader character totally distinct from her glee blonde sometime ex-cheerleader character, which i think shows not just impressive talent, but impressive commitment to her art.  her bullying ex-boyfriend was really good with his edgily-sneering-yet-more-than-quasi-gay lines.  the emotionally abused weakling character was really good with his liquid billy elliot-style eyes and straightforward-as-a-choice delivery.

the plot made no sense.  the dialogue made no sense.  there was no point in attempting to make any sense of any of it.  i was annoyed by main dude's failure to open the box that his legacy had left to him--i felt that we had been promised a box-opening scene that was denied to us.

but the movie was pretty entertaining, and the characters were likeable.  kind of airborne meets predators. 

and since michael bay was somehow involved, i'm sure we will see a sequel.  because knowing what is actually inside that box is really going to haunt me.  i'm guessing some variety of nut brittle--peanut, brazil nut, walnut, space nut?  or maybe the little prince's lamb?

i did think of a way to address the nonsensicalness of the plot that i am fairly proud of: to every question your friend begins with "but why the hell did *insert something to do with i am number four here*?" you simply answer, "because of the *insert whatever qualifier and noun you choose here*."  you are bound to be within an acceptable margin of correctness, because it's pretty probable that the point being questioned will make as much sense as your answer does.
example question: "but why didn't the protector and main dude have any chemistry when main dude was able to have chemistry with the very chairs around him?"
answer: "because of the janitorial catacomb."
question: "but why did the dialogue read like mad libs?"
answer: "because of the sad engine coolant."
etcetera.

one of my friend's triumphs was in pointing out that main dude WAS buffy.  which is why (spoiler alert) they blow up the high school!