Director Report Card: Robert Rodriguez (2005) Part Two

12. The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl in 3-D

The “Spy Kids” films prove that Robert Rodriguez is very in-touch with his inner child. This might be because he has five kids of his own. They all have the kind of names you’d expect Robert Rodriguez to give his children: Rebel, Racer, Rogue, and Rocket, with daughter Rhiannon having the sole normal-ish name. Rodriguez seems pretty proud of his offspring, often giving them bit parts in his movies. This creative relationship with his children would become more involved with “The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl.” Seven year old Racer has a story credit on the film, his dreams and imagination seemingly inspiring most of it. An obvious attempt to recreate the success of the “Spy Kids” series, the film would not have the same commercial or critical reach.

Max is going through a hard time. His parents are arguing a lot, prompting fears that a separation may come soon. He’s bullied at school, especially by a little prick named Linus. Even his teacher, Mr. Electricidad, enjoys teasing Max. (Probably because his daughter, Marissa, has a crush on him.) Max’s only companion is his vivid imagination. He dreams up Sharkboy and Lavagirl, heroes of the Planet Drool. When Linus steals his dream journal, Max goes into crisis. So does Planet Drool, which is now ruled by the cruel Minus and his robotic henchman, Mr. Electric. Sharkboy and Lavagirl emerge from Max’s dreams, take him to the real Planet Drool, and hope he can save their world.

It’s great that ol’ Rob is such a loving father but there’s a reason seven-year-olds don’t usually get to write fifty million dollar movies. “Sharkboy and Lavagirl” is an unerringly juvenile motion picture experience. There’s no interior logic to the story, Max’s fantasy and waking worlds having uncertain boundaries. The two cross over, despite clearly influencing one another, and no attempt is made to justify this. The characters travel to bizarre lands, like a place made of warm milk and cookies, inhabited by “cookie giants.” Most of all, “Sharkboy and Lavagirl” strikes the viewer as a facile power fantasy for Rodriguez’ son. Racer’s middle name is Max, making the viewer assume this film rose out of a misplaced promise to turn a playtime fantasy into a cinematic reality.

While the humor in the “Spy Kids” series was sometimes crude, it at least showed a manic imagination parents could appreciate. “Sharkboy and Lavagirl” doesn’t have that broad an appeal. Most of the jokes are aimed squarely at the kiddie crowd. Characters belch several times, sometimes right in the viewer’s face. There’s an extended fart joke I really could’ve done without. The Land of Milk and Cookies scene features a lot of squishing, stomping, and falling into wet foodstuff. Even aside from the kind of messy humor young kids favor, the jokes in the film are mostly pedestrian slapstick. Like Max falling crotch first onto a rope or Lavagirl repeatedly burning people by accident. The best humor in the film are puns, like dog-like trackers made of electric plugs called “plug-hounds.” And when puns are the best thing a film has to offer, that’s a bad sign.

While the first “Spy Kids” featured an unintrusive moral about appreciating family, the sequels got more heavy-handed with similar messages. “Sharkboy and Lavagirl” also suffers from this approach. Not more than five minutes past in this movie without the word “dreams” being mentioned. The film wants kids to know the healing power of their own imagination, how they can process real world pain through dreams and stories. It’s a valuable message that the film makes too broad - Max can very literally dream up solutions to his problems - and also repeats ad nauseam, draining it of any power. There’s also an awful moment where Max and Linus become friends, suggesting that the best way to deal with bullies is to befriend them. This is terrible advice to send children, in my opinion, though the film luckily that much.

Further preventing me from enjoying “Sharkboy and Lavagirl” is its protagonist. Max is, in the most simple language possible, a wienie. He spends long stretches of the movie whining. Even though the movie is largely set in his dream world, he doesn’t understand his own powers or abilities until closer to the end. This makes him kind of useless throughout, to the point where the titular characters become very irritated with him. An emotion the viewer can sympathize with. The movie constantly tells us Max is a very special boy but his behavior rarely backs that up. He’s a kid going through pain but his petulant behavior makes it hard to sympathize with him. Eventually, he learns to stop being so selfish but the viewer already dislikes him by that point.

With the “Spy Kids” films, Rodriguez was lucky to discover two child actors that had compelling screen presences and natural acting skills. Lightning does not strike a second time. The kid actors in “Sharkboy and Lavagirl” exhibit all the worst tendencies of child actors. Nobody's delivery is convincing, least of all Cayden Boyd as Max. At one point, he does a fake scream so bad, it gave me flashbacks to recess playtime. Jacob Davich, as Linus, seems like he’s being fed every line through a TelePrompTer while Sasha Pieterse seems visibly uncomfortable as Marissa. Taylor Dooley as Lavagirl almost gets there a few times, showing some emotion, but is undone by the general un-reality of the entire production. Perhaps sticking a bunch of ten-year-olds on a green screen and telling them to use their imagination wasn’t the best idea.

The worst performance, by far, is future “Twilight” heartthrob Taylor Lautner as Sharkboy. Lautner spends the entire film furiously mugging. His face bends in horribly unconvincing manners while he shouts all his dialogue gruffly. But even that isn’t the most painful thing in the movie. About halfway through, Lautner is called upon to sing. The minute or so of cinema that follows is among the most uncomfortable a film has ever made me. Lautner talk-sings in an off-key manner while doing more physical grandstanding at the camera, flipping and punching. It’s not all his fault, as the lyrics he’s given are utterly, painfully inane. The entire chorus is the word “dream” repeated six times. Few film moments have made me cringe as hard as this one.

I know, I’m an adult man ragging on a bunch of literal children. Rodriguez certainly doesn’t do his young performers any favors by building most of the film around them. There’s really only three adult performers in the entire film. Rodriguez once again pairs himself with established Latino talent by casting George Lopez as Mr. Electricidad. In Max’s dream world, his teacher becomes the supervillain Mr. Electric. This means Lopez’ face is stretched across a giant monitor in the center of a big robot body, an effect that wouldn’t be flattering for any actor. But at least the comedian seems to have some fun hamming it up in the exaggerated role. Lopez also voices a few other characters, which is pretty distracting. Rodriguez also got David Arquette and Kristen Davis to appear as Max’s parents, parts that feature a lot of oversized emotion but no truth or heart.

Like “Spy Kids 3,” “Sharkboy and Lavagirl” was largely filmed on green screens and released in 3-D. Also like “Spy Kids 3,” this brings out the worst in its director. Nearly all the film is set on hugely unconvincing digital back lots. The CGI is garish and artificial. Never do the film’s environments feel real while the actors weightlessly float around them. A good example is whenever Lavagirl shoots lava from her hands. It seems effortless for her and has no effect on anything around her. The movie feels like a PlayStation 2 cut scene some times. The 3-D effects are no better, just drawing attention to how fake everything looks. Globs of green slime or cookie crumbs being tossed at the viewer is just exhausting. (I didn’t see the film in theaters but apparently it was post-converted to 3-D, which I’m sure made the effects look even worst.)

So do I have anything positive to say about “The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl?” There’s very little practical production design in the film but what is there is pretty good. Sharkboy and Lavagirl’s costumes are neat. Sharkboy’s, in particular, does a good job of suggesting a shark, with a fin in the back and teeth on the front, without overdoing it. I also like the design of his rocket ship. It’s a big silver cartoon shark with rocket fins on the back, the kind of fun and intuitive design you’d expect a kid to come up with. There’s also a tin-can robot named a Tobor, a cute design that is creepily reduced to a floating set of eyeballs and lips through most of the film. (And given a slow, drawl of a voice by Lopez.)

Truthfully, the most interesting thing about the film is not its actual content but how it reflects on the filmmaker’s life. You see, Rodriguez and his wife of 16 years separated about a year after “Sharkboy and Lavagirl” came out. And if Max is an obvious stand-in for Racer, it’s easy to assume his dad is a stand-in for Robert. His parents fight a lot, with his father being beleaguered by his mom. Dad is a dreamer but Mom insist on dragging him back down to Earth, a dynamic that is putting strain on their relationship. During the climax, Mom is sucked into a tornado while Dad begs her to stay. Magically, she’s transported back to him, all their material problems being resolved. It’s a lazy conclusion to the subplot, suggesting feckless hope can overcome irreconcilable differences. Is it too much to assume Rodriguez was venting his resentment at his dissolving marriage while half-heartedly wishing it would stay together here? It’s pretty weird that he put such a personal element into this goofy kids movie, isn’t it? Of course, kids are unlikely to pick up on this particular element of wish fulfillment. Nevertheless, this gossipy conjecture proves way more compelling than the movie around it.

If “Sharkboy and Lavagirl” had remained as Racer Rodriguez’ childish playtimes, that would’ve been fine. A kid thinking up these characters and scenarios is really cute actually. Rodriguez taking inspiration from his kid could’ve been okay as well, if he paired those ideas to decent narrative coherence or pacing. (Look at “Axe Cop,” which had a similar origin with much more entertaining results.) Instead, “Sharkboy and Lavagirl” is like watching a family talent show that goes on for an uncomfortably long time. Once again, the director detached himself far too much from reality with his green screen shenanigans. Then again, I’m obviously not the target audience for this motion picture. Practically flopping in theaters, I’m sure “Sharkboy and Lavagirl” entertained some kids on home video. But it ain’t no “Spy Kids,” that’s for sure. [Grade: D-]

Director Report Card: Robert Rodriguez (2005) Part One

11. Sin City
Co-directed with Frank Miller

In 2005, I thought “Sin City” was the coolest shit imaginable. I'm not even talking about Robert Rodriguez' film but Frank Miller's original comic books. I was vaguely aware of the comics and, upon hearing that a high-profile film adaptation was coming from one of my favorite directors, decided I needed to track them down. I was immediately blown away by the graphically intense black-and-white art. The beyond hard boiled writing seemed catchy to me. And as a try-hard, faux-edgy fifteen year old, the extreme content was classified as “bad ass.” When the movie came out, I thought it was bad ass too. Of course, we are all more mature now and “Sin City's” cinematic legacy is a complicated one. I've probably only seen the film once or twice since my teen years so I knew this would be an interesting re-watch.

As in Miller's source material, our setting is Basin City, a shadow and rain soaked metropolis. The grimmest and grittiest city in the world, three tales unfold there. In “The Hard Goodbye,” unstable brute Marv is loved for one night by prostitute Goldie. Upon finding her dead the next morning, Marv sets out on a bloody trail of vengeance, which leads to the highest seat of power in the city. In “The Big Fat Kill,” Dwight protects his girlfriend from an abusive ex. When the same man crosses the women of the red light district, he's killed. This act of violence leads to a full-blown gang war. Finally, “That Yellow Bastard” follows cop Hartigan as he hunts down a brutal serial killer and rescues a little girl. Framed for the crimes, he rots in prison for eight years, but gets out when he realizes Nancy – the child he rescued – might be endangered. Nancy isn't the same girl he remembers and both of them are soon endangered by an inhuman monster.

It may be regarded somewhat derisively now but “Sin City” was critically praised in 2005, by professional people who get paid to know what movies are and aren't good. Aside from maybe not being as sophisticated a time, there's another reason “Sin City” received such critical praise back then. Visually, there hadn't been anything else quite like this in mainstream cinema before. Robert Rodriguez used his tendency to shoot largely on green screen for good this time. “Sin City” replicates the look of Miller's comics as closely as possible. Thus, the film has a highly stylized look. Shadows contrasts brightly against greyscale settings. The largely shades-of-gray world is punctuated by bursts of exaggerated color. When combined with actors in extensive make-up and Rodriguez' typically energetic direction, “Sin City” creates a fantastically artificial world. The use of digital back lots have become common sense but, at the time, “Sin City” was groundbreaking. Moreover, it was visually intoxicating. It still is.

Rodriguez doesn't just attempt to recreate the look of Frank Miller's comics. “Sin City” used Miller's original panels as storyboards. The film follows Miller's story beat-for-beat. Rodriguez even invited Miller to co-direct, to further insure utmost fidelity to his original books. But at what cost does such slavish devotion to the source material come? As a teen, I got a thrill out of seeing those comics I love come to life. Watching as an adult, I honestly wonder what was Rodriguez' motivation for translating the comics so faithfully to screen. There are definitely moments a higher level of adaptation might've been required. Such as the heavy reliance on voice-over narration. Or scenes that looked awesome as stationary panels but look a little silly when brought to life, such as Marv grinding a guy's face into the asphalt. The visual thrill is worth something but, if you've read Miller's books, you're halfway to getting everything Rodriguez' “Sin City” offers.

Aside from being claimed by juvenile film-bros, there's another reason for “Sin City's” derisive reappraisal. In 2019, we all know that Frank Miller is completely insane. And if you've read all the “Sin City” comics, you know Miller getting the freedom to do whatever he want eventually led to self-indulgent nonsense. Rodriguez adapts three of Miller's best stories. Even then, “Sin City” is such a distillation of the hard-boiled noir aesthetic that it's practically a parody. Some of the dialogue is patently ridiculous, such as lines about “punching out God” or a not exactly sensitive mention of cerebral palsy. The film is such a hyper-macho, overblown experience of bygone stereotypes that it straddles the line between homage, spoof, and uncritical permissiveness.

It's also, of course, sexist as fuck. Though the movie doesn't think it is. (I don't know if that's better or worst.) Frank Miller probably thought he was creating strong female characters. The women in this movie brandish guns. They drive cool cars and fight back against bad guys. The villains are sexists, rapists, women-targeting serial killers, or all three. The male heroes would never lay a defensive finger on a woman. Yet all the women in Basin City are also prostitutes or strippers. They dress almost exclusively in revealing lingerie, when they aren't straight-up naked. Extreme violence against women is a common theme. So is the patronizing, dehumanizing way the would-be chivalrous heroes treat them. All the women in the film are objects of male gratification, regardless of how good or evil the guys are.

But let's just put all that aside for a minute and focus on how incredibly entertaining these stories are. “The Hard Goodbye,” which was the original “Sin City” story, remains my favorite. Marv is a fascinating figure. Miller has described him as inspired by Conan the Barbarian. In a modern context, that means he's an incredibly violent and mentally unstable psychopath. His shaky moral code is all that keeps him from being the serial killer people accuse him of being. Yet there's also a child-like vulnerability to Marv. Despite his clear cleverness, he thinks of himself as stupid. His love for Goldie is simple, incorruptible, pure in a way. And it's because she's the first woman to ever love him in return. Marv also loves his mama. It's easy to assume this guy had a rough, lonely childhood. He may be a cackling, sadistic lunatic who pays cruelty to the cruel. He has no problem unleashing his violent tendencies on those he thinks deserve it. He's also a deeply sad man, an overgrown kid in a monster's body.

When I first read the original “Sin City” graphic novel, which became “The Hard Goodbye,” I was surprised by how far it went. “Sin City” is so gruesome and grotesque that it nearly becomes a horror movie. The antagonist of the first story is a cannibalistic serial killer with razor sharp claws. He never speaks, never shows any emotion, and moves with an inhuman speed. We hear all about his habits and even see some of the grisly evidence of his crimes. Kevin is right out of a nightmare. And it's far from the film's only fantastical element. By the end, more than one regular human has been mutated into an ugly creature. It's like “Dick Tracy” on crack, with a more extreme but familiar need to exaggerate reality into an over-the-top fantasy.

Among “Sin City's” all-star cast, “The Hard Goodbye” features probably my favorite collection of performers. Mickey Rourke's comeback would begin in earnest here. Marv may be the quintessential Rourke role. He's nasty, tough, macho, even gets an explicit sex scene, but remains fascinating throughout. Elijah Woods, meanwhile, has the uncanny elements necessary to bring the chilling Kevin to life. It's also neat when Rutger Hauer drops in for a brief role as the unholy clergyman behind the entire scheme. Carla Gugino's doesn't-give-a-fuck attitude is well suited to Lucille, Marv's put-upon parole officer. Only Jamie King as Goldie/Wendy seems miscast, as her attempts to be tough come off as unconvincing.

As a teenager, “The Big Fat Kill” was my least favorite segment of the movie and among my least favorite comic in the series. As an adult, it plays a little better. Probably because I realize it's supposed to be a comedy. It's during this story that “Sin City” bends the most towards the surreal and absurd. We are obviously meant to laugh at Jack Rafferty, as his own belligerence brings a deadly fate down on him. His death scene is appropriately humiliating. The scenes were Rafferty's corpse begins talking to Dwight are obviously meant to be farcical. If there was any doubt, this story features a weirdly hilarious scene of a henchman trying to get people to notice he's been impaled. I'm pretty sure Rodriguez and Miller were well aware of how weird and funny this stuff was.

Or maybe they weren't, as “The Big Fat Kill” also has long and relatively serious stretches. The attempted romance between Dwight and Gail is just impossible to take seriously, even as farce. Long portions of the episode are devoted to action. By detaching himself entirely from reality, Rodriguez is allowed to make his most over-the-top action film yet. Limbs, heads, and other body parts are cleaved away, blood of varying shades spraying wildly. People are tossed through the air by gunshots and explosions. How hurt someone is by such a blow depends entirely on whether or not they are a named character. There are cartoonish scenes of faces slammed into walls and overblown car crashes. This works in “Sin City's” favor. No matter how extreme its violence gets, it's all so exaggerated to become pure stylization.

As for “The Big Fat Kill's” cast, it's also not my favorite of the film. Clive Owen makes for a compelling leading man. Yet Dwight is such a weird character. I think he's supposed to be a stand-up dude but, in Sin City, that still means he's an unnerving and overbearing nut. Benicio del Toro affects an odd voice as Rafferty but happily hams it up once he's a corpse. Rosario Dawson is a great actress but there's no convincing way to play Gail, an utterly ludicrous character and among the film's most facile fantasies, without coming off badly. Michael Clarke Duncan is an appropriately intimidating villain. Devon Aoki is fittingly athletic as Miho, and Brittany Murphy gets off a few good lines as the abused Shellie.

Among “Sin City's” stories, “That Yellow Bastard” is a strong second favorite for me. There's definitely something icky about the near-romance between a nineteen year old girl and the sixty-something man she sees as a father figure. Yet “That Yellow Bastard” works because it grounds an outrageous story in a melancholic heart. Hartigan is at the end of his life and knows it. He's totally willing to sacrifice himself if it means something pure – such as a little girl or the young woman she grows into – survives. He's the ultimate cynic too, beaten down by the cruel world and all too aware of how unbeatable it is. Though its villain is among the film's most monstrous and its dialogue the most outrageous – not easy feats – there is touching pathos in Hartigan's hopeless quest to stick to his principals in an unprincipled world.

It's also among the last good Bruce Willis movies. Willis' gravelly voice is perfect for Miller's absurd dialogue. Willis' face is perfect to carry all of Hartigan's regrets. Nick Stahl is also pitch perfect as the Yellow Bastard. He may look like a comic book super villain but he acts like a petulant brat, a spoiled little boy and a sickening sadist. When it was new, I didn't think Jessica Alba was very good as Nancy, another stripper in a Robert Rodriguez movie who doesn't take her clothes off. Watching now, she comes off a little better. Despite her professional, Nancy is meant to be a wide-eyed girl with a childish crush on an unavailable man. That's how Alba plays it. Attention must also be paid to Powers Booth, who gets a viciously intense monologue all to himself, and Michael Madsen, whose immediately recognizable rasp fills up a thin part.

Considering I'm a bit older and wiser now, I was curious how my thirty year old eyes would receive “Sin City,” when compared to the enthusiastic reception I gave it as a teen. Here's the truth: I still really like this movie! The stories are the very definition of problematic. Rodriguez hewing so closely to Miller's illustration is a sometimes frustrating move. It's all ridiculously macho and over-the-top. Yet it's still a lot of fun to watch. There's enough of a carnal of truth to these ridiculous stories, to make them more meaningful than a lot of hyper-masculine, juvenile provocations. The film's visual presentation is still fantastic. The cast is still extremely good. While I'm all too aware of its flaws now, and wouldn't blame anyone for deriding this shit as totally stupid, I am not too woke to admit I still get plenty of enjoyment out of “Sin City.” [Grade: B+]

OSCARS 2019: Nominations and Predictions

I had someone ask me recently why the Oscars matter. It’s a good question and one I have no satisfying answer for. The most correct answer is that the Oscars only truly matter to the Hollywood elite it’s celebrating, that the whole thing is an act of masturbatory self-congratulations on Tinseltown’s behalf. But the truth is I can’t really tell you why the Oscars matter on a grand scale or even if they do at all.

However, I can say definitively that the Oscars matter to me. I was so excited by the nominations today that I could barely sleep last night. Even this is a statement I can’t easily reconcile. It’s pretty rare for me to see that many of the nominees before the announcement, as glossy Hollywood dramas are not the kind of movies I usually seek out on my own. And it’s a foregone conclusion that the Academy rarely honors what are truly the best films of the year. Look no further than this year, where deeply problematic mediocrities like “Bohemian Rhapsody” and “Green Book” become frontrunners while indie darlings like “Eighth Grade” or “Burning” are totally ignored.

Nevertheless, the announcements of the Oscar nominees and the month-long marathon I do throughout February, my attempt to watch as many of the chosen films as possible, gets me hyped. Like, way too excited. I guess this is me trying to participate in movie history, or at least be a properly informed cinephile. Whatever the reason, I love this time of year. So, here, let me throw out my doubtlessly inaccurate predictions about what films may or may not take home Oscar gold at the end of next month.

BEST PICTURE:

Over the last few years, a “villain” movie has emerged among the Best Picture nominees. In prior years, people feared that “La La Land,” often reduced to being a movie about a white guy explaining jazz, or “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri,” which kind of ambiguously supported police brutality, would win the top prize. (Neither did, though “La La Land” came close.) Thus are the perils of our politically divided times. This year brings two villain movies but the most odious is “Green Book.” It’s another proud entry in that self-satisfied, middlebrow genre of “white people solve racism.” Moreover, it was written by an Islamophobe and twists history in ignorant ways. Despite that, normie audiences love it and the film has picked up quite a few high honors among the award circuit. The controversy will likely divide Academy voters but who the fuck knows.

“Green Book” is also the latest in a line of comedy directors reinventing themselves as Oscar-nominated auteurs. (It’s from Peter Farrelly, of the Farrelly Brother.) Another example of this phenomenon is Adam McKay, who has successfully transitioned from making goofy bro comedies with Will Ferrial to directing serious awards fare like “The Big Short” or this year’s “Vice.” While the Dick Cheney biopic has been received divisively, McKay’s socially conscious and flashy dramas seem irresistible to the Academy. As least as far as nominations go, as a Best Picture win isn’t in sight.

Oscar Season 2019’s second villain movie is “Bohemian Rhapsody.” Freddie Mercury is a beloved, delightful figure in rock history but, by most accounts, the movie hits all the expected musician biopic beats. More offensive is how it whitewashes Mercury’s queer life. Oh yeah, it was also directed by an accused rapist who didn’t even show up to set half the time. But, once again, mainstream audiences have loved the film. For whatever reason, the awards circuit likes to reflect this and “Bohemian Rhapsody” has become a surprise contender.

But what about movies people actually liked? “Black Panther” is in the position of being both critically acclaimed and enormously popular. A billion dollar success and the most popular film of last year domestically, “Black Panther” is certainly a big deal for placing such an Afro-centric story in the hyper-popular superhero milieu. In my opinion, a lot of the rave reviews went too far to pat themselves on the back over what’s a solid, but not spectacular, Marvel movie. But it is pretty cool that a superhero flick finally got a Best Picture nomination.

Early in the Oscar buzz cycle, Bradley Cooper’s remake of “A Star is Born” seemed primed to win some prizes. It was, after all, both well liked by critics and audiences while being the third iteration of a story the Academy has awarded in the past. The hype has cooled considerably over the last few weeks, Cooper’s remake grabbing lots of nominations but few wins. It seems likely that this pattern will continue. “A Star is Born” has a good shot in a few other categories but not this one.

But Oscar buzz can be weird. Early in the cycle, someone suggested that “The Favourite” could scoop up some little gold men. Considering how aggressively weird, absurd, and chilly Yorgos Lanthimos’ last few films were, I thought his latest was a long shot. That’s more crow for me to eat, as “The Favourite” has nabbed a Best Picture nomination, one of ten nominations it received. The film even seems likely to take home a few wins on the 24th. I guess historical pictures, even ones from oddball auteurs, are like catnip to the AMPAS.

Some also suggested that Spike Lee’s “Black Klansman,” obnoxiously stylized as “BlacKkKlansman,” might’ve been forgotten by the Academy. After all, it came out in the summer and Oscar has notoriously overlooked Lee. Yet I think “Black Klansman” was always a lock for a number of nominations. Critically acclaimed, financially successful, relevant, and ever-controversial, the film seemed like a contender from the beginning.

While it certainly seems plausible that nonsense like “Green Book” or a buzzy indie like “The Favourite” could win, that’s not what I’m betting on. While being a partial Netflix production has caused some controversy, “Roma” remains among last year’s best reviewed films. By most accounts, it's actually a good film. While a foreign language film winning Best Picture would be groundbreaking, it's also not entirely unprecedented. In a slate of nominees, where more controversial picks may split the vote, a gentle but beloved drama like this seems likely to emerge as the Best Picture winner.

Official Prediction:
“Roma.”

BEST ACTOR:

Bradley Cooper might've been snubbed in Best Director, a category he was a front runner for at one point, but at least he has a Best Actor nomination to keep him company. He won't win though. Neither will Viggo Mortensen, “Green Book” giving him his third nomination, whose performance has been marked with controversy of his own. It's nice that Willem Dafoe grabbed some notice, even if it's for conventional sounding Van Gogh biopic “At Eternity's Gate.”

Once again, Best Actor is coming down to two actors in flashy, biographical roles. Rami Malek has picked up some awards for his portrayal of Freddy Mercury. By most accounts, Malek's performance is the best thing in a mediocre film. He faces off against Christian Bale as Dick Cheney in “Vice.” While Malek's odds are still pretty good, the kind of severe physical transformation Bale underwent to play the former vice president is hugely popular among Academy voters. Bale has also picked up some statues on the way to the Oscars, meaning his chances are very strong in general. If he wins, it'll be his second Oscar and, personally, I think he will.

Official Prediction:
Christian Bale for “Vice.”

BEST ACTRESS:

Best Actress is definitely one of the tighter races this year. Once again, a few month ago, Lady Gaga seemed like the easy pick for “A Star is Born.” A pop star successfully transforming into a stunning actress is the kind of shift the Academy loves. Yet Miss Gaga's chances at winning have also been harmed by that movie's cooling buzz. Maybe some other day, Lady. Another story the Academy loves is going from obscurity to star status. The most surprising nominee was Yalitza Aparicio, for “Roma.” It's also her debut role.

Another gimmick that frequently results in gold is a comedic performer successfully giving a dramatic performance. In-between broad and sometimes grotesque comedies, Melissa McCarthy has supposedly given an excellent performance in “Can You Ever Forgive Me?” In another year, this sort of thing would give her a pretty good chance of winning. However, in such a packed field, McCarthy is winding towards the lower end of the category.

Olivia Colman's critically praised performance in “The Favourite” certainly seems like strong contender. She's been picking up awards over the last few weeks and could very well still win the Oscar. In any other year she'd be the clear frontrunner.

However, the Academy really likes to give out legacy awards, statues to make up for lost time, to actors who should've won years ago. Despite being one of the most beloved performers of her generation, Glenn Close has never won an Oscar before. This is her seventh nomination, for some movie called “The Wife” that I hadn't even heard off until a few weeks ago, and frankly I think her time has finally come.

Official Prediction:
Glenn Close for “The Wife.”

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:

The Supporting categories are less heated. In Best Supporting Actor, most of the performance have been from buzzy pics that gained nominations in bigger categories. Sam Rockwell in “Vice,” as George W., was always likely to get nominated but he just won last year. Sam Elliot is a beloved, legendary performer but his chances at winning are likely another victim of “A Star is Born's” softening support. A lot of people seem to agree that Adam Driver in “Black Klansman” wasn't even the best Supporting choice from that movie.

This basically leaves two possible winners. Richard E. Grant is a cult icon and a beloved character actor, getting his first nod for “Can You Ever Forgive Me?” The part seems to play to his bitchy strengths. There's about a 50/50 chance he'll get it but Mahershala Ali in “Green Book” offers tough competition. Ali is playing a historical figure, always a good sign, and the quality of his acting seems like the one thing people agree on about “Green Book.” I think he'll get it.

Official Prediction:
Mahershala Ali for “Green Book.”

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:

Amy Adams is quickly becoming a perennial nominee. For playing the wicked wife of Dick Cheny, she's earned her sixth nomination. “Roma's” support across the board continues with a nod for Marina de Tavira here. While both performances are supposedly excellent, neither seem to have good shots at winning.

The film dominating the category is “The Favourite.” Rachel Weisz and Emma Stone are both up for the film. One or the other seems like a good pick to win. Weisz' buzz is slightly stronger. But there is the possibility that the two could split the votes, opening a chance for Regina King to win for “If Beale Street Could Talk.” (The highest nomination for a critically beloved film that was widely expected to get a Best Picture nom.)

Official Prediction:
50/50 split between Weisz and King

BEST DIRECTOR:

The most pleasant snub of this morning was Peter Farrelly getting overlooked for “Green Book.” The former gross-out comedy king has been grabbing nominations left and right and seemed like a lock. Instead, Pawel Pawlikowski, formally of “Ida,” got picked up for “Cold War.” That was a nice surprise, as Pawlikowski is obviously more talented than Farrelly.

As for the rest of the nods, Adam McKay rounds out the category for “Vice.” Yorgos Lanthimos officially graduates to the big leagues by grabbing a nomination for “The Favourite.”

Yet two names will likely dominate the field. Despite being a groundbreaking filmmaker with a large following, Spike Lee has never been nominated for Best Director. The only previous nominations he's gotten were for Best Original Screenplay back in 1990 and Best Documentary in 1998. A lot of people are saying Lee is due this year. And he very well might get it.

Yet Alfonso Cuaron has been grabbing more wins over the last month for “Roma,” making me suspect that he might win the night. “Roma” is a highly personal passion project of Cuaron's, making a win in this category an appropriate choice.

Official Prediction:
Cuaron for "Roma,"  Lee as a close second.

BEST WRITING:

First let's talk surprises. “First Reformed” was one of my favorite films of last year and lots of people agree with me. Ethan Hawke was a much hoped-for dark horse in Best Actor. Instead, the sole nomination the movie got was in Best Original Screenplay. Somehow, this is the legendary Paul Schrader's first nomination. How was “Taxi Driver” not nominated? Anyway, Schrader has already reacted to the news of nomination in a dryly hilarious manner. Will he win? I'd sure like that but “Roma” or “The Favourite” seems way more likely to pick up the win in this category. (“Green Book” and “Vice” round out the category.)

As for Best Adapted Screenplay, this is probably the Academy's big chance to honor the largely overlooked “If Beale Street Could Talk.” However, this might also be “A Star is Born's” big chance to grab an Oscar, so it'll probably come down to those two. The Coen Brothers grabbing a nom for “The Ballad of Buster Scruggs” was a not-totally unpleasant surprise, though I don't think their odds at winning are great. “Black Klansman” and “Can You Ever Forgive Me?” don't seem to have much hype in this category.

Official Predictions:
“Roma” and “If Beale Street Could Talk”

BEST MUSIC:

Disney doesn't crank out musicals the way it used to. Usually they reserve their singing and dancing moments for their princess-featuring animated features. The studio did produce a live action musical with “Mary Poppins Returns.” “The Place Where Lost Things Go” is a pretty enough number, but I would've preferred if the more upbeat “Trip a Little Light Fantastic” had gotten chosen instead.

This is not the only Disney approved single to get noticed. I'll fully accept to not keeping up with rap music, so most of the “Black Panther” soundtrack wasn't to my taste. Yet even I'll admit that radio friendly single “All the Stars” was pretty damn catchy. I was similarly delighted that “Buster Scrugg's”  “When a Cowboy Trades His Spurs for Wings,” a song equal parts ridiculous and gorgeous, managed to pick up a nomination.

It's become increasingly common for documentaries to include songs by recognized singers, in hopes of earning a Best Song nod and bringing more attention to their topic. While “RBG” is not exactly an issues doc, it did feature such a single. “I'll Fight” by Jennifer Hudson is a little overproduced for my taste but Hudson's delivery is still lovely.

By why am I even bothering to talk about the other nominated songs when we know “Shallow” from “A Star is Born” will win? It's a breakout radio hit, has already become a karaoke favorite among certain crowds, and seems destined to be the biggest win for Cooper's film. Do I like the song? Eh, it's okay. Kind of repetitive. I tend to find this sort of modern radio country/adult contemporary stuff a bit boring.

In the score category, I've already heaped some praise on Alexandre Desplat's fantastic score for “Isle of Dogs.” Ludwig Goransson's “Black Panther” score is among the better Marvel soundtracks, even if it still doesn't give its hero a hummable theme. (An absolute must for a superhero flick, in my opinion.)

Terence Blanchard's eclectic “Black Klansman” score is probably my favorite of the bunch, as it mixes more traditional score elements, including sweeping military themes, with more intense blues guitar riffs. Nicholas Britell's contemplative jazz score for “If Beale Street Could Talk” does seem to be the favorite to win though. I can't complain too much, as it's also a fantastic score. Marc Shaiman's pretty if by-the-numbers “Mary Poppins Returns” score rounds out the category.

OTHER FILM CATEGORIES:

This was a pretty strong year for animation. Normally, Disney or Pixar would be the obvious choice in the Best Animated Film category. While “Ralph Breaks the Internet” and “Incredibles 2” were well received, both look to be runner-ups this year. “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse” has been beloved by fans, critics, and audiences. For being genuinely one of the most visually spell-binding films of last year, it seems like a lock in this category. (It was nice “Isle of Dogs” got noticed while the token indie animation/GKids slot went to “Mirai” this year.)

As always, I don't have much familiarity with the Documentary or Foreign Language Film nominations. While “Roma” might seem like the lock for Best Foreign Language, its chances at Best Picture actually opens the category up for other films. Pawlikowsk's “Cold War” is the only one of the nominations I've heard much about. The director getting selected in Best Director certainly suggests the Academy likes that one a lot. (Japan's “Shoplifters” has been critically praised, making it a possible dark horse winner. I know nothing about the Lebanese “Capernaum” while “Never Look Away” is apparently a three hour long German war epic. Sounds delightful.)

Similarly, I'm not that familiar with the Documentary nominees either. “RBG” was certainly a crowd pleaser in theaters but “Free Solo” seems to be more critically praised, making it my prediction to win.

MISC:

As for the other nominations, I'll keep things brief. Best Cinematography has leaned back on the epic, sweeping visuals this year, most of the nominees being smaller scale. It seems likely “Roma” will win here. (Amusingly, the also black-and-white “Cold War” scored a nod as well. Monochrome is big in 2019!)

I was pleasantly surprised to see “Christopher Robin” score a nomination for Best Visual Effects, though “Avengers: Infinity War” seems likely to go home with the gold. “The Favourite” and “Black Panther” are going head-to-head in Production Design an Costume, either looking like good picks.

“First Man” was once considered a frontrunner but the muted reaction from audiences and a really stupid controversy seems to have sunk its Oscar odds. The movie still looks like it'll grab some statues in the Best Sound Editing and Mixing categories. It faces tough competition from musicals “A Star is Born” and “Bohemian Rhapsody.” I was also pleased that “A Quiet Place” scored a very appropriate nod in Best Sound Editing.

As has sadly become typical, the Best Editing and Best Make-Up categories are really underwhelming. Instead of being dominated by movies with lots of action and moving parts, Editing is owned by the movies that all got nominated for Best Picture. Did “Green Book” really feature that much spellbinding editing? Meanwhile, historical pictures like “Mary, Queen of Scots” and “Vice” dominate Make-Up, with Danish horror/fantasy “Border” being the sole oddball stand-out.

After finishing up my latest Director Report Card, and at the start of next month, I'll try and squeeze in as many of these nominated films as possible. It'll lead up to the utterly hostless ceremony on February 24th. While the Academy thankfully shelved that Best Popular Film bullshit, it still sounds like they'll cut out some of the less popular categories from the broadcast. Where is the justice for the Short filmmakers? Anyway, for the tenth – yes, really! – year in a row, I will live-blog the ceremony. I'm looking forward to it and I'm not even being ironic! Stay tuned, dear readers.

Director Report Card: Robert Rodriguez (2003) Part Two

10. Once Upon a Time in Mexico

You can blame Quentin Tarantino for this one. Or, at least, that's how I remember it being told in the pages of a film magazine I no longer recall the name of. When production started on “Desperado,” Robert Rodriguez figured that would be the end of it, that El Mariachi's story would conclude there. Supposedly, while filming his bit part, Tarantino suggested to Rodriguez that this series was his equivalent to Sergio Leone's Dollars Trilogy. That he needed to make one more movie with these characters, that it needed to be epic, and that it needed to be called “Once Upon a Time in Mexico.” Rodriguez apparently took Tarantino's suggestion very seriously. Filmed before the second and third “Spy Kids” movies but released afterwards, “Once Upon a Time in Mexico” would roll across theater screens in 2003.

In Mexico, the newly elected President has declared war on the drug cartels. Armando Barillo, the leader of the Barillo cartel, can not let this happen. He funds a planned coup lead by General Marquez, a rogue man from the Mexican military. CIA agent Sheldon Sands, on behalf of the US government, wants to make sure that the President is killed but Marquez' coup doesn't succeed either. To insure this happens, he hires El Mariachi, who has a personal grudge against Marquez. Sands is playing all sides of the conflict. He convinces Jorge Ramirez, a former FBI agent who also has a grudge against Barillo, to track the drug lord. He has a relationship with Ajedrez, a Federale agent with eyes on Barillo's cash. However, Sands' plans soon go awry right before the attempted coup, before Mexico descends into a battle zone.

Robert Rodriguez obviously intended “Once Upon a Time in Mexico” to be an epic. However, the director seems to have confused “epic” with “convoluted.” This was the main criticism directed at the film when it was new. No doubt, “Once upon a Time in Mexico” is overstuffed. There's at least three or four main storylines to follow, a main cast of over a dozen characters. The film is constantly juggling these various stories. If the viewer doesn't keep up, they are likely to be left behind. Rodriguez does not bring all of these stories to a satisfying end nor properly balance them.

A big mistake “Once Upon a Time in Mexico” potentially makes is reducing El Mariachi, ostensibly the character fans of this trilogy are most invested in, to practically a supporting character. Antonio Banderas is largely silent throughout the film. Traumatized by the loss of his loved ones, he quietly broods for most of the run time. For about half of the story, he's pushed around by the whims of other characters. Banderas does an excellent job of conveying that level of loss and pain, though he still smolders in a few key scenes. Yet making El Marichi but one player in a large game is disappointing.

Something else that may be disappointing about “Once Upon a Time in Mexico,” if you enjoyed the trailers and posters, is that Salma Hayek's role is even smaller. In fact, Carolina is dead by the time the story begins. Hayek gets a few plum appearances in flashbacks but that's about it. She has even less dialogue than Banderas. There's a lot that can be written about the way the film kills off its principal female character, and her daughter too, in order to provide its male protagonist with a motivation. More than anything else, it's disappointing that Hayek's tenure as an action hero, hugely compelling in the few scene she has, is cut so short.

El Mariachi, or El as he's called throughout most of the film, is not the actual protagonist of the film. Instead, Agent Sands is who drives most of the story. The part allows Johnny Depp, who hadn't yet become a total caricature, a chance to indulge his eccentricities. Sands has plenty of quirks. He insists on eating pulled pork in every restaurant in Mexico. He wears gaudy T-shirts with trashy messages on them. He dresses up in various outfits, putting on ridiculous voices. He uses a false arm in several scenes, in order to get the drop on people. The character is an agent of American imperialism, responsible for most of the death that follows, and the movie treats him like a puckish anti-hero. But Depp's hamminess is certainly entertaining. He's never boring to watch and makes a lot of “Once Upon a Time in Mexico” pretty damn interesting.

If “Once Upon a Time in Mexico” was just about El, Sands, and the attempted coup, its story would probably be fairly easy to follow. Instead, Rodriguez has to gum up the gears by throwing in yet more stories. Among the least essential subplot is probably the story of Jorge Ramirez. It's not the fault of Ruben Blades, who does fine in the role. He brings the weight of someone who has suffered some tragedies to the part. He also doesn't make the character's guilt ponderous or overdone. Yet his role in the plot is ultimately fairly negligible. What he does add to the proceedings could have easily been handled by something one else, that wouldn't have necessitated adding an entire new thread to the film.

With “Once Upon a Time in Mexico,” Rodriguez creates probably the biggest action movie he's ever made. In the last act, it practically becomes a war movie. There's bazookas, machine guns, massive explosions, and a car chase. As you'd expect, Rodriguez' editing is as frenetic as always. Yet he goes perhaps too far this time. There are moments where “Once Upon a Time in Mexico” is cut too quickly. Sometimes, people and objects seem to leap forward in time suddenly. Other times, the camera appears to shake wildly, making the action scenes unnecessarily difficult to follow. That motorcycle/car chase is probably the worst offender in that regard. Rodriguez' work here approaches Michael Bay levels of incoherence, which is a shame.

Yet the director still knows how to throw together some creative mayhem. El Mariachi continues to toss goons through the air with his hand cannon, stuntmen tossed around by CGI'd out cords. A shoot-out in a church doesn't top anything in “Desperado” but is pretty damn cool. That climatic last act features guitar cases doubling as a flamethrower and a remote control bomb. In a likely John Woo homage, El rides a guitar case down the stairs, blasting away at enemies. In turn, dead bodies slid down banisters. Though that car chase borders on incoherent, it does feature a really awesome scene of Banderas leaping from a motorcycle, landing in a pink Cadillac, and driving off without missing a beat. Sometimes, the violence borders on the ridiculous – CGI exploding kneecaps? – but it's effective for what it is.

Yet the best action scene in “Once Upon a Time in Mexico” occurs fairly early on. During one of El's flashbacks, we see him and Carolina in happier times. This sets up an amazingly inventive set piece. Connected by a chain, the two make a quick escape down the outside of a building. The two swing back and forth, the camera following them smoothly. All the while they dodge bullets from across the street. After an awesome shot of an air conditioner falling towards the camera, a bus is thrown into the mix. Naturally, the entire sequence concludes with a huge explosion. It's maybe the best action sequence Rodriguez has directed in his entire career.

Considering its sprawling story, “Once Upon a Time in Mexico's” supporting cast is massive. There's a few notable names floating around. Mickey Rourke, on the way to his comeback, appears as the remorseful henchman of Barillo. Rourke brings one of his dogs along too, though doesn't have quite enough room to actually develop the character much. Willen DaFoe, in what has to be a weird homage to “Touch of Evil,” plays a Mexican crime lord. DaFoe happily hams it up at the very least. Eva Mendes brings a fitting amount of sensuality to a part that amounts to an evil seductress. Marco Lenardi is colorful as the alcoholic partner of El. Enrique Iglesias, as the second partner, has some of that Banderasian smolder but looks ridiculous holding a gun. Danny Trejo and Cheech Marin show up too, naturally.

Robert Rodriguez has always made his Mexican heritage a proud part of his cinema, putting Latino actors in prominent roles and making his culture parts of his stories. “Once Upon a Time in Mexico” is a full-blown love letter to his background. Rodriguez makes the streets and hills, vacation homes and poor housing, part of the films' DNA. The hazy tropical heat of Mexico informs the color palette and feel of the entire film. When all out war explodes in the last act, Rodriguez proudly portrays the people of Mexico fighting back against the drug cartels, trying to protect and maintain the man who wants a more peaceful nation. Most subversively, he portrays an American agent as the villain behind it all, exploiting Mexico for the U.S.'s greed and power.  The final shot is Banderas kissing the Mexican colors as he walks off into the sunset, cementing the huge affection the filmmaker has for this place.

The first time I saw “Once Upon a Time in Mexico,” like most critics, I didn't like it. I found it needlessly hard to follow, excessive, and ultimately a disappointing conclusion to the Mexico Trilogy. And it is all of these things. Yet there's definitely a case to be made for style over substance. “Once Upon a Time in Mexico” has style in spades. Though deeply flawed, if you just let this rambling mess wash over you, there's plenty of fun to be had here. Despite this being the intended grand finale, Rodriguez has occasionally hinted at wanting to do another El Mariachi movie eventually, once Banderas is older. (If this is his “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,” I suppose that would be his “Unforgiven?”) I have no idea if that movie will ever get made, and if it'll be any good when it is made, but, for now, this conclusion is satisfying, if hopelessly ovestuffed. [Grade: B]

Director Report Card: Robert Rodriguez (2003) Part One

9. Spy-Kids 3-D: Game Over

Robert Rodriguez knew that, if the “Spy Kids” series was gong to continue, he had to act quickly. Alexa Vega and Daryl Sabara were already on the percipience of becoming teenagers and no longer being “kids.” So, right after wrapping up “Spy Kids 2,” work began on “Spy Kids 3.” Or, as the original posters described it, “Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over.” As the subtitle indicates, this was intended to be the end of the series. As the designation indicates, the film was also released in 3-D, a few years before that particular fad would re-establish itself. While the first two films were both critical and commercial successes, the third film would have to be satisfied with just being a commercial success. It made 190 million at the box office, the biggest moneymaker of the series, but the reviews were rotten.

Juni Cortez has retired from the Spy Kid business, according to him. Now working as a juvenile private detective, he's soon informed by the O.S.S. that his sister Carmen has disappeared. She was investigating “Game Over,” a new virtual reality video game created by a mysterious and villainous character called the Toymaker. Her mind is now trapped inside the fourth level of the game. Hoping to save his sister, Juni intentionally allows himself to be uploaded into this digital world. There he teams up with a group of beta players, working together to rescue Carmen and stop the Toymaker before he successfully sets himself free into the waking world.

While the series was sold on its zany, special effects driven comedy, the main driving force behind the “Spy Kids” franchise has always been the relationship between Juni and Carmen. Watching them gain each other's respect, and face off new challenges together, provided the first two installments with heart. “Spy Kids 3” makes a big mistake by separating the siblings for most of the run time. It turns out Juni is not a horribly compelling protagonist by himself. Especially this version, who is intermittently haughty and insecure. By the time Carmen comes back into the story, it's too little, too late.

“Spy Kids 3” ditches the primary gimmick of the series in other ways too. This movie is barely riffing on spy fiction conventions at all. Juni is no longer a secret agent. In this installment, the O.S.S. is not really doing much international spying here. Though they are chasing after a bad guy, there's little in the way of gadgets or espionage. The subtitle might make you assume “Game Over” is shifting its focus to video games. And it's sort of doing that. There’s plenty of talk about levels, lives, enemies, programmers, and power-ups. Yet “Spy Kids 3” doesn't really make fun of video game tropes the way the first two did for spy movies. While the film seems to know the gaming lingo of the time, it doesn't really use these ideas in any interesting way.

It's pretty obvious why Robert Rodriguez would set the third “Spy Kids” movie inside a video game. He clearly saw this movie as more of a technical challenge, than a narrative one. Though he's been skirting the line for a while, with “Game Over,” the director officially pushes his love of green screen too far. The majority of the film takes place in this digital playground. While this is now common for big blockbusters, in 2003, CGI was not that convincing. So the actors weightlessly leap through computer-generated environments, never truly seemingly like they are interacting with each other or the objects around them. This cartoonish quality does not end once we re-enter the real world. The finale has characters flying through the air while fighting unconvincing robot gorillas. The focus is so keenly on the effects, the film disinterested in giving us anything else.

Rodriguez’ fascination with pushing technical boundaries manifest in another way here. Following the tradition of the “Jaws” and “Friday the 13th” franchises, this is another third installment released in 3-D. Rodriguez was actually ahead of the curve here, as another full-blown 3-D revival had begun by 2009. But this isn’t “Avatar.” The 3-D effects are crude. The film makes a point of shoving as much shit into your eyes as possible. Characters conspicuously reach toward the audience. Via pogo sticks, giant springs, and cartoon frogs, cast members fly into our faces. A racing sequence was seemingly designed primarily to shove stuff into our eyes as much as possible. At one point, a whipped cream-like substance covers the foreground. It’s all trying way too hard and is more obnoxious than entertaining.

You would think that, in a film so chocked full of special effects, surely there’s something cool or interesting here. Conceptually, some of the sequences sound fun. How can surfing down a volcanic river while a lava monster throws rocks around be boring? Surely, there’s entertainment value to be gleamed from a cowboy Bill Paxton branding a giant robot. Sadly, the excessive effects are so numbing, very little of it makes an impression. A giant robot fight is probably the film’s nadir, a lifeless and utterly humorless burst of computer generated excess. I don’t even like the few practical effects much either, as the costumes the cast wear are clunky.

In it all, there’s exactly one joke that made me laugh. Throughout the film, the beta players assume Juni to be The Guy, the prophecized video game savior that will lead them to the final level. Just as their belief in Juni is fading, a random guy proclaiming himself to be The Guy enters into the scene. Elijah Wood plays the part at his most gee-whiz, faux-heroic. The scene diffuses in a very funny way, which I won’t spoil. Otherwise, “Game Over” is low in laughs, aside from goofy in-jokes like Ricardo Montalbán mentioning Corinthian leather.

The “Spy Kids” moral about the love of family was already starting to wear thin in the second film. By the third, this note has been hammered so many times, it’s rendered totally meaningless. The only variation is that Juni realizes friends can be family as well. The sequel does include another moral. Through his adventure in the computer world, Juni develops a crush on another player named Demetra. Later, we learn Demetra is a computer program designed to mislead the players. By the end, Juni is given a chance to forgive the girl for her programmed actions. If you didn’t get that the movie was making a point about forgiveness, the climax involves Grandpa Cortez forgiving the Toymaker for his offenses against him. It’s delivered in a very ham-fisted manner, if you couldn’t have guessed.

The subtitle seems to indicate that this will be the epic conclusion for the “Spy Kids” series. The actual film doesn’t include much in the way of finality though. The only acknowledgment that this is the big ending is that nearly every important character from the first two movies returns. Ricardo Montalbán is given a much larger part. However, the plot results in his real life head awkwardly floating above a ridiculous CGI robot body for most of the film.  The climax has Juni calling on nearly every person he’s met. So his parents, grandma, Uncles Machete and Felix, the Giggle siblings, Steve Buscemi, Alan Cummings, Tony Shalhoub and, yes, Bill Paxton rather literally drop out of the sky. A huge series reunion was a nice idea but shoving everybody into the last ten minutes means most of these amount to walk-ons. Alexa Vega and Daryl Sabara still seem to be taking their characters seriously, at least.

In fact, a lot of “Game Over” is focused on new characters. The plot requires Juni to meet a band of friends in the computer world. It would’ve been easy to make these returning characters but Rodriguez instead thought up new parts. Named Francis, Arnold, and Rez, these new boys are largely indistinguishable from one another. Their role in the plot is largely unimportant as well. At least Courtney Jones as Demetra is a little more memorable, striking a nice balance between tough and vulnerable. Salma Hayek once again also appears in a tiny supporting part, doing nothing of note. Also, a ten year old Selena Gomez makes her feature debut with a small part in the beginning. It’s always sort of fun to see a future star at the beginning of their careers.

These are not the flashiest additions to the film. None other than Sylvester Stallone plays the villainous Toymaker. This was before Sly successfully relaunched the “Rocky” and “Rambo” series, giving his career a much needed shot in the arm. Instead, this was after flops like “Get Carter” and “Drive” had Stallone starring in direct-to-video flicks like “Eye See You” and “Avenging Angelo.” Though his most successful film of this period, “Spy Kids 3” did not revive interest in Sly’s career. It’s a grotesquely hammy performance, Stallone shouting and mugging the whole time. Perhaps this is befitting for a cartoon super villain like the Toymaker but watching Stallone debase himself like this is embarrassing. Furthermore, the movie has Sly playing extensions of the Toymaker’s personality. I love the guy but Sylvester Stallone is not well known for his range. His attempts to play a nerdy scientist or a hippy is cringe inducing.

There is, perhaps, an explanation for why “Spy Kids 3” turned out so shoddy. The film was in production at the same time as “Once Upon a Time in Mexico.” It’s easy to imagine the director was a little more focused on ending his other trilogy when working on this one. If this was the case, maybe “Island of Lost Dreams” should’ve been the capper for the Cortez chronicles. Though the 3-D gimmick would make it a box office success, “Spy Kids 3” is a visually tedious and at times incoherent kid flick. The first two were entertaining features but maybe trying to rush out a third installment wasn’t the best idea. [Grade: D+]

Director Report Card: Robert Rodgiruez (2002)

8. Spy Kids 2: The Island of Lost Dreams

Grossing 147 million against a 37 million dollar budget, making it the 17th most popular movie of 2001, “Spy Kids” was a certified blockbuster. I imagine Robert Rodriguez and Miramax realized immediately that they had a potential franchise on their hands. The producers were eager to capitalize on the first film's popularity. Rodriguez, meanwhile, wanted to make more “Spy Kids” movies while his young actors were still, well, kids. “Spy Kids 2: The Island of Lost Dreams” was quickly rolled into production and would hit theater screens the next year. Though not quite as commercially successful as the first, I seem to recall the reviews being a little better than the first at the time.

A year after the events of the first film, Carmen and Juni Cortez have become the star agents of the OSS’ new Spy Kids division. To the point that they have rivals, in the form of the Giggle siblings. (Not coincidentally, the son and daughter of the agency’s head.) At a gala dinner, the Transmooker - a device that can disable all technology- is stolen. Stripped of their credentials, the Cortez siblings secretly head out on a mission to retrieve the device. They track it to a mysterious island off the coast of Africa, populated with strange monsters. Their parents and grandparents, as well as the Giggles, are hit on their trails.

Considering his last sequel wasn’t much more than a bigger budget remake, I’m happy to say “Spy Kids 2” rather organically builds on the original’s premise. Carmen and Juni’s journey in the first movie had them going from ordinary kids to super spies. “Island of Lost Dreams’” has their new skills and expertise being tested. Due to the effects of the Transmooker, none of their gadgets or gear work on the titular island. Instead, they must rely on their natural skills and training, a nice reworking of the gadget-loving super spy genre. (Rodriguez was even somewhat prescient here, as the spy genre would move away from flashy gadgets in the 2000s.) Beyond that, the characters are allowed to grow. Carmen and Juni bicker but they rely on each other as partners. Carmen even gets her first crush.

The zany tone of this world established, “Spy Kids 2” allows itself to become even more of a live action cartoon. The film begins at a highly farcical theme park, the rides modeled after the mascot of Rodriguez’ then-newly formed Troublemaker Studios. At the gala event, secret agents wield bizarre weapons involving flashing and spinning cords. They fly through the air with rocket boots. The villainous henchmen ride around on giant horseshoe magnets. This is not the only Looney Tunes-esque gag. After falling into a volcano, Carmen and Juni continue to fall for several hours, becoming conversational and even relaxed. Some of these gags are better than others - a reoccurring joke about overly protective secret service agents is pretty good - but Rodriguez’ willingness to stretch the elasticity of live action comedy is admirable.

The director’s commitment to child-like creativity continues to make “Spy Kids” interesting to look at. Look at the impressive production design here. The OSS headquarters is done in bright colors, yellows and blues, with big walls that are both angular and sloping. The head of the organization has an office set upon giant rising platforms, surrounded by huge computer monitors. The Cortez kids journey to the island in a submarine shaped like a dragonfly, a really neat decision. They receive their assignments in canisters shot out of huge tubes, just because it’s cool. Even the kids’ tree house is cleverly designed, with high-tech chairs folding out of the floors.

“Spy Kids 2” continues to show its director’s wildly inventive imagination. Rodriguez has always been eager to use technology to push that vision further. His love of green screen trickery was a part of the first “Spy Kids” that didn’t age well, the effects looking hugely dated sixteen years later. The sequel, despite being more elaborate, had the same effects budget. Rodriguez was simply allowed more freedom. This means the quality of the special effects vary more wildly. Some of the CGI creations look pretty good. Such as Ralph, the robotic bug that Juni uses for reconnaissance and treats as a pet. A sequence devoted to Ralph crawling around O.S.S. HQ is pretty cool. However, anytime actual human bodies interact with the CGI constructs, the seams start to show. Meaning the various flying scenes or fight sequences look very dated.

However, one element of “Spy Kids 2’s” special effects menagerie remains highly charming. The Island of Lost Dreams, it turns out, is inhabited with a number of fantastical creatures. These gene-spliced giants are walking puns: A literal horse fly, tiger shark, sheep dog. These creatures are also created with CGI. While still not very convincing, the monsters are made to intentionally resemble stop-motion effects, making their occasional janky quality part of the charm. Before too long, “Spy Kids 2” launches into a full-blown homage to Ray Harryhausen. The skeleton warrior fight from “Jason and the Argonauts” is recreated here as farce. The battle between a centaur-like “spider monkey” and a tanystropheus-like “slizard” recalls the monster-on-elephant fight in “20 Million Miles to Earth.” A giant flying pig seems right out of “Mysterious Island.” Obviously, as a classic monster fan, I’m predisposed to love this stuff. It’s not the kind of thing I expected from a kid’s movie in 2001 and it’s inclusion was delightful. To complete the homage, Rodriguez gives Harryhausen a little cameo.

The first “Spy Kids” included a decently executed moral about family. Unlike a lot of children’s entertainment, whose proclamations on the power of love and family can feel a bit insincere, you can tell Rodriguez was invested in his moral. I don’t know how true that still was in “Island of Lost Dreams.” The Cortez parents, also accompanied by Ingrid’s highly capable parents, track their kids down. There’s a lot of hugging once the family is reunited. Yet there’s not as much emotion this time and it feels slightly tacked on. The familial moral is sidetracked for a “my dad could beat up your dad” joke that is, admittedly, a decent bit of physical comedy.

The first “Spy Kids” movie was commended for featuring very little bathroom humor, during a time when children’s entertainment was especially scatological. (Though the gross-out humor that was there stuck out a lot to me.) Ultimately, Rodriguez wrote these films as if a kid made them. And, let’s be real here, kids like poop jokes. So “Spy Kids 2” does feature some minor stinky, smelly gags. There’s a gratuitous nose-picking joke. Most notably, the Giggles go shoulder-deep into a pool of camel shit. While I’m sure this stuff hit the mark for the ten-and-under crowd, I found it a little desperate.

And the film is not free of other elements desperately designed to appeal to the little ones. There’s more McDonald’s product placement, the camera lingering on the Golden Arches as soon as they pop up. Even though the whole point of the movie is that the Spy Kids are more than capable without their gadgets, when those gadgets do appear, they feel specifically designed to sell toys. Lastly, just as the end credits start to roll, we get a totally gratuitous song-and-number. Alexa Vega performs the movie’s theme song in the style of then-trendy, hyper-sexualized pop sirens. I can recall this moment playing as a stand-alone music video on the Disney Channel at the time, making it obvious which bubblegum-hungry demographic the scene was aimed at. And the song, I must stress, is not good. Mostly, this stuff bugs me because it feels like Rodriguez was capitulating to the troupes of the genre, instead of following his own muse.

The sequel can be commended for having pretty strong continuity with the first. Alan Cummings and Tony Shalhoub return for what amount to cameos, just to let the audience know they are still around. One of those creepy thumb men even put in an appearance. Cheech Marin has a similarly small role, seeming somewhat baffled by his inclusion. Mike Judge graduates from bit-player in the first movie to full blown bad guy here. He seems to enjoy hamming it up. Danny Trejo is back as Uncle Machete. The tough guy actor seems to really enjoy the chance to play a lovable, avuncular, genius inventor. (Trejo, notably, gets the sole funny moment during the music video scene.) Naturally, Antonio Banderas and Carla Gugino remain utterly lovable as the somewhat goofy but 100% sincere Cortez parents.

A minor goal of “Spy Kids 2” seems to be to introduce kids to cult-favorite character actors. Most notably, Steve Buscemi has a hilarious role as the mad scientist responsible for the island’s monsters. Buscemi’s talent for twitchy comedy works just as well in a kid friendly setting. (He also gets a moment of genuine profundity that has survived as an internet meme.) Bill Paxton trots out a funny cowboy act as the owner of the beginning amusement park scene. Returning from “The Faculty,” Christopher McDonald is typically blustery as the President. The most notable of the special guest stars is Ricardo Montalbán as the Spy Kids’ granddad, a part that successfully cashes in on the star’s legacy of smoothness and effortless cool. Holland Taylor is also pretty funny as the grandmother.

Of course, Alexa Vega and Daryl Sabara are comfortable and funny in the lead roles. I definitely enjoy “Spy Kids 2” more than the original. It still has a lot of the same issues they bugged me about the first, namely its reliance on green screen technology and because I’m an old man and can only take so much manic kids stuff. However, the stop-motion-inspired monsters are a lot of fun. If this film inspired some seven year old in 2002 to check out Ray Harryhausen's movies, then it was definitely a force for good. Rodriguez’ ingenuity is obviously admirable. The cast is having a lot of fun. I would certainly prefer a hypothetical child of mine watch this over a lot of other kiddie movies. [Grade: B-]