Tag Archives: rotten tomatoes

Chuckles, Butts and America in ‘The Interview’

The_Interview_2014_posterNothing says Christmas like Seth Rogen and James Franco trying to kill an Asian dictator.

“The Interview” is the second film to be directed by Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, with a script by the duo and Dan Sterling. In case you have been as secluded from the outside world as a citizen of North Korea for the past seven months, the film follows an American talk show host and his producer (James Franco and Rogen) who are recruited to assassinate North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un (Randall Park).

Comedy is at its best when it takes risk. And making a film about killing the real-life leader of a country is certainly a risky move by Rogen and Goldberg. And is “The Interview” worth all the extra attention and scrutiny that it has received the past few months? No, not at all. But it is still a pretty funny movie.

I’m a huge Seth Rogen fan and I believe “Pineapple Express” and “This Is the End”, his two previous collaborations with Franco, rank among the greatest comedies of all-time. “The Interview” is not as laugh-out-loud as those two, or Rogen’s other works for that matter, but the screenplay has enough constant chuckles that keep the film flowing when the concept begins to stretch thin.

“The Interview” is essentially a buddy film so chemistry is key, and Franco and Rogen have some of the best in the business. Their give-and-take is second to none and Rogen knows how to deliver his own dialogue.

For some reason, some people hate James Franco. Here he plays a character that is in love with himself and strives to earn other people’s approval. Did Franco use his real-life experiences to tap into his character? I’m not to say, but either way, it’s a fun performance.

The real show stealer is Randall Park, who plays Kim. A huge fanboy of Franco’s show, Park plays Kim as sheepish while at the same time angry. It is a nuanced performance that lends some humanity to Kim and makes the audience question if the assassination is the right thing to do.

The film’s finale is by and far its best part. We get to see the interview with Kim which is entertaining and actually a bit insightful, but also features some fantastic Tarantino-like action sequences. Rogen and Goldberg have some well-staged scenes, partnered with cinematographer Brandon Trost, and the action really comes out of nowhere and grabs your attention.

The film is not perfect. Like I said, the laughs are not as roaring or often as Rogen’s other films, or even as other 2014 comedies including Rogen’s “Neighbors”. There are still plenty of chuckle moments, and a few one-liners that made my sides hurt, but it isn’t crazy.

The film isn’t as much of a biting satire that it could have been, or as much as I think the filmmakers intended. There are a few nuggets of insight and the film almost raises a few points on how America may not actually be any better than North Korea, but then Rogen throws in a butt joke or doesn’t carry the line far enough.

“The Interview” is disappointing in that it isn’t worth getting nuked over, but it still is a fun movie with a few surprises.  Rogen is impossible not to love, Randall Park gives a scene-stealing performance, and the look of the film is engaging. If you don’t run out and see the film will you miss out on a historic event, or lose your right to call yourself an American? No, but like an actual celebrity interview there are enough entertaining and interesting moments to keep your interest if you do.

Critics Rating: 6/10

Wallis Shines in Meh ‘Annie’

Leave a reply

Annie2014PosterThere’s a point about halfway through the 2014 remake of “Annie” where Cameron Diaz’s character says, “people love musicals”. Well that may be true in most circumstances, just not this time around.

“Annie” stars Quvenzhané Wallis as the title character, an orphan who desires a home almost as much as she enjoys erupting into spontaneous song and dance. Jamie Foxx plays a mayor candidate who starts to hang out with Annie as a publicity stunt, and Rose Byrne plays his assistance. “Easy A” director Will Gluck writes and directs here.

The trailers for “Annie” looked awkward, painful and just plain awful. Well I am happy to report that it is none of these things…but it still isn’t a great film.

First things first, Quvenzhané Wallis is great and lovable as Annie. We know Wallis can act (12 years old and she already has an Oscar nomination) and she carries the film here. Without her charm and cuteness, I don’t think Annie would be watchable. She has nice chemistry with Foxx, too, which aids the film.

Wallis and some creative uses of everyday objects to implement an infectious beat by Gluck are really the only bright spots of the film, however. There are some parts that are lazy, some that are boring and some that are cliché or contrived.

Example of the lazy: there is a part (shown in the trailer) when Foxx saves Annie from being hit by a truck. Later it is said that a man recorded the incident on his cell phone, yet when that clip is shown, it is just the exact same footage used earlier in the film, including the uses of different angles. You know, not possible when you record on your phone.

Example of boring: the film is two hours long. A child’s film is two hours long; there is no excuse for that. There are points that aren’t needed that just add to the run time, such as Annie and Foxx’s character attending a movie premiere for nearly 15 minutes.

And example of the cliché: when the film is approaching the climax, you know exactly what is going to happen with all the characters, assuming you didn’t guess it when you saw the trailer. Let’s just say I saw this movie a decade ago when it was called “Like Mike”.

The music is at times toe-tapping, sure. Wallis has a great voice and New York City makes for a vibrant backdrop to some of the musical numbers. But there are other times where the singing does not work, including one cringe-inducing, painfully awkwardly obvious lip syncing by Diaz. When her little rendition is completed, a character compliments her on her singing.

This made me think two things: first, that character is clearly tone deaf. And second, this means everyone in the world of “Annie” can hear each character when they break out into song, which makes a number when Annie is running down the streets of NYC singing in people’s faces pretty awkward.

“Annie” is drenched with fluff, cuteness and product placement (a trend that is brought up in the film in a moment of satirical self-deprecation), and while it isn’t a great movie, it is far from the disaster that it could have been. If you’re forced to see it with your kids then you won’t be looking at your phone the whole time, but aside from humming “the sun will come out tomorrow”, there is little you’ll take away from “Annie”.

Critics Rating: 4/10

Horrible Accurate Description of ‘Bosses 2’

Horrible_Bosses_2            The moment they announced “Horrible Bosses 2” was a thing I scratched my head. I loved the first film, it remains one of my favorite comedies of all-time, but it just didn’t have substance to warrant a sequel. Then director Seth Gordon said he wouldn’t be returning and he was replaced with Sean Anders. All these were red flags but I held up hope that the returning cast would make this sequel work.

They couldn’t.

“Horrible Bosses 2” follows Nick, Kurt and Dale (Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis and Charlie Day) after they have quit their jobs and started their own business with their invention, The Shower Buddy. When they are scammed by an investor and his son (Christoph Waltz and Chris Pine), they decide their only course of action is to kidnap the son and hold him for ransom (because, duh).

I don’t really know where to start with this film, because it really is disappointing. Comedy sequels are rarely as good as the original (“22 Jump Street” excluded), but I expected “Horrible Bosses 2” to at least have the same tone as the first film. The writers of the original film, John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein, wrote a draft for this film but when Anders took over as director he and his writing partner John Morris reworked the script (the duo helped on the scripts of the scattershot but very funny “We’re the Millers” and “Hot Tub Time Machine”). Some of the first film’s bite and self-awareness still remain, but most of the jokes now are nothing more than poop and sex gags, which are Anders’ trademark.

The movie is paced in a way that just doesn’t work. It takes a full hour before the trio even discusses the kidnapping scheme, or at least it felt like that. This clearly was not an idea that could carry an entire film, so it was stretched by having an entire subplot involving Jennifer Aniston’s sex-crazed dentist. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for Jennifer Aniston, but when she starts to fantasize about 14-year-old boys at wrestling camp, you lost me.

Bateman, Day and Sudeikis (whom I love and believe is very underrated) all still have fun chemistry and give and take among each other, and Electro himself Jamie Foxx is back as Dean MF Jones, but they can’t save this sinking ship.

Christoph Waltz is criminally underused as the film’s antagonist (pun intended?), but there’s still something about seeing Hans Landa play a ruthless business man that put a smirk on my face. Pine seems to be having a blast as the spoiled son, who partners up with the trio in the hostage plan to get back at his dad. Kevin Spacey also returns for a few minutes as Dave Harken, but in the end that only made me miss the first film even more.

In retrospect, expectations for “Horrible Bosses 2” shouldn’t have been high, as they put “horrible” right in the title, alongside the number two, which is all this film is: poop.

There is a saving grace towards the end of the film with a few twists and an interestingly executed hostage plan, but that saving grace comes in the form of a bullet to the head, saving my soul from this unjustified, heart-crushing sequel.

Critics Rating: 4/10

‘The Giver’ an Interesting Adaption

Leave a reply

The_Giver_posterAll too often when a movie is adapted from a novel, especially one that is as popular and well-known as Lois Lowry’s “The Giver”, the resulting film is a letdown, both as a film as well as to the source material. But “The Giver”, based on Lowry’s book, does a better job than most when it comes to bringing pages to the big screen.

Set in the year 2048, the world has been divided into “communities”, perfect living arrangements devoid of color, emotions or other social aspects. When a young boy named Jonas (Brenton Thwaites) is taught to see and feel all the memories lost by a man known as The Giver (Jeff Bridges), the perfect community is threatened. Meryl Streep and Katies Holmes costar as Phillip Noyce directs.

Jeff Bridges spent nearly two decades trying to get Lowry’s novel made into a film, and originally envisioned his own father, Lloyd, playing the titular character. More than 20 years and 10 million copies sold, “The Giver” is finally a major Hollywood film, and the result is a mixed bag, however an interesting one.

The concept of a “perfect society” isn’t new, and technically this film is even less original because it is based off a book. However “The Giver” still manages to keep our interest by hinting at what used to be. Unlike “The Hunger Games”, these communities, also forged because of a great war, have no recollection of the old world, and know not that the government, led by Streep, is controlling and manipulating them. This makes us root for Jonas to overthrow the system even more.

Noyce directs the film beautifully, transitioning from black-and-white to small amounts of color as Jonas becomes more and more intelligent. He infuses The Giver’s memories with lively and colorful images that make us realize how gorgeous the world we live really is, and how awful it would be to lose it.

There are some tonal and pacing issues with the film, and they are certainly its biggest flaw. Towards the film’s climax, when the energy should be racing and our hearts pumping, it is actually the driest and slowest part of the film. There is no real suspense; any suspense that should be present is replaced with walking. A lot of walking.

Not every performance is also up-to-par, however that is not entirely the actors’ fault. Because this is a world with no emotion or true expression, many characters, especially Katie Holmes’s mother character, feel more like robots than human beings, and it is at times distracting from the film, whether loyal to the book or not.

If you loved Lowry’s novel, then “The Giver” won’t disappoint. It embodies everything that has made the book so popular, even if it does shy away from some of its deeper, thought-provoking ideas. From a standalone film perspective, the film is gorgeously shot and features a few interesting aspects, almost acting as modern social commentaries. I found myself generally entertained for a majority of the film, and that is more than I can say for most non-Harry Potter adaptions.

Critics Rating: 7/10

‘Boyhood’ Is Honest, Moving and Nostalgic

Leave a reply

Boyhood_filmTrue story: when I was 10 and watching “Racing Stripes”, a thought came to me: what if a director filmed flashback scenes with children, and then finished the movie with the same kids when they got older? The idea never returned to my mind until I heard about the movie “Boyhood”, a movie filmed over 12 years using the same actors.

Directed and written by Richard Linklater, “Boyhood” follows one boy, Mason, from the ages of six to 18. Ellar Coletrane, who was seven when cast, portrays Mason, Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette play his parents and Linklater’s real-life daughter, Lorelei, plays Mason’s sister.

Just the production story behind this film is enough to make someone interested to see it. The crew got together for 12 days a year for 12 years beginning in 2002, so we get to see the young actors grow and the adults age before our eyes. There is so much that could have gone wrong, yet somehow it all went right.

I personally have some additional ties to the film. Since I was 8 years old in 2002, many of the songs and pop culture references in the film played large parts in my own childhood. Nostalgic things such as the Oregon Trail computer game, or waiting in line for the midnight release of a Harry Potter book were enough to bring a lump to my throat. There’s a part where Mason says “the best movies of 2008” were Tropic Thunder, Dark Knight and Pineapple Express, which is absolutely true and instantly brought me back to that wonderful summer.

It is almost as if Linklater knew how to timestamp his film, using things that are relevant, but never doing it to be lazy or contrived, like some films do when trying too hard to convince you a scene takes place during a certain point in time.

The acting in the film is superb, save for maybe the first years of the children’s lives (you know, because kid actors). Ethan Hawke gives perhaps the best performance of his career as Mason’s dad. He is a man who is at first somewhat distant from his kids, and is trying to connect with them but just doesn’t know how. Over time he begins to form bonds with them, and we see how tough parenting, especially when single, really is.

Linklater just has such a delicate touch with the emotional scenes, and has written an honest script, looking at everything we all experience growing up, from awkward talks with our parents to peer pressure. We all know Linklater is a talented director (the guy has gotten two Golden Globe nominations out of Jack Black), and he cements his place among the Hollywood greats with this film.

There are a few scenes that could have been cut, however I understand why Linklater kept them in; cutting them would mean an entire year of filming, and an entire year of Mason’s life, would have been not seen and all for naught. The movie does have a running time of two hours, 45 minutes but it never gets boring and rarely lags.

You can believe the hype: “Boyhood” is as creatively impressive and emotionally moving as they say. But while the scope of the film is massive and ambitious, it truly is the little, intimate moments that make “Boyhood” so good. Everyone, parent, preteen or especially 20-something, should see this film and will have something to connect with. I enjoyed the movie, even when it was uncomfortably honest, and I almost feel like I should be thanking Richard Linklater for allowing me to relive my childhood over one last time.

Critics Rating: 8/10

Little Funk in ‘Get On Up’

Get_On_Up_poster            There are lots of typecasts in Hollywood. Melissa McCarthy always plays a slacker. Liam Neeson always plays a badass. And Chadwick Boseman plays influential African Americans in biopics. This time around, instead of portraying Jackie Robinson, Boseman takes on the role of the Godfather of Soul himself, James Brown.

“Get On Up” tells the tale of James Brown, from his troubled childhood to his rise to fame all the way until his final days. Nelsan Ellis stars as Bobby Byrd, Brown’s longtime friend, and Dan Aykroyd plays Brown’s manager. Tate Taylor, made famous by “The Help”, directs here.

I love me a well-done biopic. Any film that is set in the past, particularly in the 1950’s and 60’s like this film is, instantly should earn bonus points with me. It’s what made me enjoy “Jersey Boys” and “J. Edgar” more than other people. However “Get On Up”, despite featuring a dedicated performance from Chadwick Boseman, is a basic biopic, and doesn’t feature anything too fun or engaging.

I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again here, because it’s true: sometimes an actor does such a good job in a role that it exposes the rest of the film for how truly mediocre it is. It happened with Denzel Washington in “Flight” and this year with Phillip Seymour Hoffman in “A Most Wanted Man” and it happens again here in “Get On Up”.

Boseman is at times electric as Brown, and portrays him from ages 17 to 73. He immerses himself into the role and much like with Robinson in “42”, you truly believe you are watching a documentary of Brown, instead of an actor portraying him.

However, the film around Boseman is average. While it doesn’t sugarcoat or ignore Brown’s demons, such as drug use or money issues, it does choose to discuss them in limited amounts, never having the guts to fully pull back the curtain.

The biggest thing the film does wrong, however, is its use of non-linear story telling. The film opens in 1988, only to jump to the 60’s in the next scene, 1939 in the scene after that and then ends up in the 1950’s. Confused? Yeah, it’s not much easier watching the film, even with time stamps on screen.

Example of how confusing this choice of narrative is: Brown’s mother comes to one of his shows and then comes back stage to introduce herself. The film then cuts to a flashback of James’ mother ignoring him, and then goes to an entirely unrelated scene altogether. When they finally return to the mother backstage, it has probably been 25 minutes, and you forgot completely that the first scene had happened.

Aside from Boseman, what the film does do well is the music. All of the musical scenes are toe-tapping and infectious, with a few interesting shots by Taylor, such as cutting to TV-quality, or slowing down to see what Brown is taking in while on stage.

“Get On Up” gets some brownie points for trying not to be the cliché biopic, however it really shot itself in the foot with its constant shake up of the place and time. Boseman is worth checking it out, but especially with a running time of 2:18, this looks more like a decent Redbox movie.

Brown occasionally turns to the camera to address the audience, and at one point warns them, “if you look backward, you’re dead”. I find those words ironic, as every time the film takes us on a trip down memory lane, it becomes less and less lively.

Critics Rating: 6/10

Third Time’s the Charm for ‘Expendables’

Leave a reply

Expendables_3_posterThe “Expendables” franchise in a nutshell: Sylvester Stallone has gathered the biggest action stars from the past 30 years, thrown in a few old jokes and sprinkled it all with excessive violence and gunplay. The results have been mixed, with the first film being fun but taking itself way too seriously, while the sequel was a little more self-relevant but was still sloppy.

With “The Expendables 3”, Stallone and his team have clearly taken notes because, while not a masterpiece or even particularly good film, the third time is the charm for this group for the steroid and Botox mercenaries.

Directed by Australian newcomer Patrick Hughes, “Expendables 3” follows Barney Ross (Stallone) as he tries to find new, younger blood in order to bring down an arms dealer, and former Expendables member, played by Mel Gibson. Wesley Snipes, Antonio Banderas and Arnold Schwarzenegger are among the many costars.

First things first, the jokes are much more prevalent than in past films. Stallone brought onboard Creighton Rothenberger and Katrin Benedikt, writers of “Olympus Has Fallen”, to co-write the script with him, and it results in the same irrelevant, intentionally awful jokes that not only made “Olympus” so much fun, but the action films from the 80’s. Harrison Ford, filling in for Bruce Willis who was fired after demanding $1 million a day, has the most fun of the newcomers, and unlike Willis looks like he actually gives a darn about being there. He has smile on his face the entire film, and has one funny running gag where he tells Jason Statham to “stop mumbling” whenever he speaks in his British accent.

Also, unlike the first two films, we know and actually empathize with the villain. Gibson’s weapons dealing character is given an actual backstory and there is one scene where he is talking to Stallone about why he does what he does and feels genuine.

Of all the newcomers, two stand out for reasons they may not like, the first being the lone female Expendable, played by UFC fighter Ronda Rousey. Her acting has a lot of opportunity for improvement (nice way of saying she’s not very good), and on more than one occasion she clichély says “men” when a group of the guys do something stupid. The other “standout” is Antonio Banderas, who, I swear to God, pulls a Jar Jar Binks. He is just over-the-top, quickly saying unfunny lines and never stopping the talking.

When news broke that this film was PG-13 instead of R, most people freaked out. We saw what happened when an R-rated franchise goes PG-13 earlier with RoboCop, so many people were nervous that this one. However the 4th Die Hard was rated PG-13, and that is arguably featured the best action of the series. And “Expendables 3” luckily falls closer to the Die Hard side of things.

Director Patrick Hughes stages some fantastic action sequences, and right from the start of the film you know you’re in for a thrill ride as it opens up on a train during a hostage rescue. Yes, there are the obligatory close-ups and shaky cams that accompany PG-13 films, but it never distracts you (this was shot as R but was cut to PG-13, because money).

At this point you know whether you like these films or not. I personally found the mix of new age tech versus old school fist fights an entertaining step in a new direction for the franchise, and is the best film in the series (take that statement for what it’s worth). There’s a part in the film when Ford turns to Stallone and says “that’s some of the most fun I’ve had in years”. I wouldn’t be lying if I said “Expendables 3” is some of the most fun I’ve had all summer.

Critics Rating: 7/10

You Have the Right to Laugh at ‘Let’s Be Cops’

Leave a reply

Let's_Be_Cops_posterWhat would happen if Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill finally stopped looking young enough for school and had to become actual patrol cops? Well, probably something like “Let’s Be Cops”, which features insane buddy cop chemistry between Jake Johnson and Damon Wayans Jr.

“Let’s Be Cops” focuses on two down-on-their-luck friends who dress up as cops for a costume party, only to quickly realize that people believe they are actually police officers. They play along until they get mixed up with the mob, and have to put their fake badges on the line. Andy García and Rob Riggle costar as Luke Greenfield directs.

I am a huge fan of Jake Johnson. He is by and far the best part of the show “New Girl” and is memorable in smaller roles in films such as “21 Jump Street” and “A Very Harold and Kumar Christmas”. Now he finally gets the opportunity to star in his own film, alongside fellow “New Girl” alum Damon Wayans Jr., and he does not disappoint.

The chemistry between Johnson and Wayans is what makes the movie. They have great back and forth, and you truly believe that these are two longtime friends from Ohio (which the film oddly feels the need to remind you of numerous times, for whatever reason). Whether it is improvising an interrogation, or simply telling the other one to “shut the [blank] up”, you can’t help but smile every time these two are on screen together.

“Let’s Be Cops” also has some very well done cinematography and editing, two aspects that don’t receive enough credit by the average filmgoer, especially when it comes to comedies. Cinematographer Daryn Okada has some beautiful pan-up shots of the Los Angeles skyline, and also infuses the film with some throwback TV cop drama-style techniques. Meanwhile, editors Bill Pankow and Jonathan Schwartz keep the film moving at a brisk pace and it makes for an enjoyable 104 minutes.

Now the script is a bit shotty, with some scenes featuring a joke and then cutting to the next scene quickly. In many cases the scene cut because you realize had it continued, the characters would be exposed as fake cops and the movie would be over right there (like waving their guns in a restaurant or driving their homemade police cruiser through the middle of a park). Also, much like last August’s “We’re the Millers”, “Let’s Be Cops” does begin to slow at the homestretch, because both films’ gimmick plots began to wear thin.

I laughed countless times watching “Let’s Be Cops”, and on more than one occasion I laughed very hard. True story: I missed gym session today (well, skipped it). Luckily, I still got a solid ab workout from watching this film. Get it? Because I laughed so often?! Ohhhh boy. I’m just too funny sometimes.

Critics Rating: 7/10

‘Lucy’ All Dumb, No Fun

Lucy_(2014_film)_poster            Oh, boy.

Well, here goes nothing. In “Lucy”, Scarlett Johansson stars as the title character who begins to access more and more of her brain after accidently being injected with an experimental drug. Morgan Freeman costars as Luc Besson writes and directs.

The trailer for this film made it look like the film was going to be very, very bad; awkward dialogue paired with that awful Besson “humor” where random violence is supposed to be funny (because it’s a riot and totally hashtag relatable when someone shoots a cab driver for not speaking English in Taiwan, right?). Well rest easy because “Lucy” isn’t as bad as the commercials made it out to be; it’s worse.

I don’t think I have ever seen a movie try to be so smart, and then end up being so dumb. For the whole film, “Lucy” tries to ask questions while giving the impression that it has all the answers. It then pulls the rug out from under the audience in a messy (and moronic) climax. Seriously, by the time the film was wrapping up its painfully long 88 minute run time, I didn’t know what was going on. And you know you you’ve lost a filmgoer’s interest when I was questioning why a character still had a flip phone in the year 2014 instead of pondering what had just happened during the climax.

The film’s main interest point (at least in its own pretentious mind) is “oh boy, what’s going to happen when Lucy reaches 100% access of her brain?!” Only thing is, you don’t care. The more intelligent Lucy gets, the more dumb the movie gets. By the time Lucy has accessed 30% of her brain (instead of the normal person’s 10%) she can already throw other human beings with her mind. So do I really care to wait and find out what is going to happen when she reaches 70%? Spoiler: No, I don’t.

If this was a sitcom, it would be called “I Hate Lucy” (OK that was a lob down the middle). I just didn’t like much of anything in this movie. Besson does know how to shoot an action sequence, as demonstrated by the final 15 minutes being the only enjoyable part of “The Family”, and once again his climatic action scene is the highlight of the film. It’s fun enough when the guns are going off, but the fight isn’t enough to distract you from a plot that has become unintentionally hilarious.

“Lucy” is too moronic to be a smart sci-fi and too boring to constitute as dumb fun. The film doesn’t know what it wants to be, nor what message it wants to send. Really all I got out of it is “drugs are bad, m’kay?”. Johansson is an emotionless robot for most of the film, and nothing in the film is engaging. The film maintains that human beings use 10% of their brain; this film would be lucky if the people who made it exhumed anything over two.

Critics Rating: 3/10

‘Hercules’ Much More Brawn than Brain

Hercules_(2014_film)            Because there truly are no original ideas left in Hollywood, we now have the second film in 2014 about the legendary mythical character of Hercules. The first movie, which few people remember and even fewer liked, was released in January. This second attempt features Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson in the titular role, so it should be awesome right? (That was rhetorical)

Directed by Brett Ratner, “Hercules” follows The Rock as a sword-for-hire, having completed his legendary twelve labours. When a king’s daughter approaches Hercules to save her father’s kingdom, his skills will be put to the test. Ian McShane and John Hurt costar.

Walking into a film directed by Ratner and starring Dwayne Johnson in a loincloth and sandals, one shouldn’t have very high expectations. However I still expected more than what this film ends up delivering.

The world of Greek myths and gods is an incredibly immersing one, and has created some amazing stories and movies. And this telling of Hercules takes an interesting twist on the legend, implying that perhaps Hercules really is a mortal man, and his legendary triumphs are just that: legend. But instead of taking these questions somewhere, the film breezes over all of the stories and confirms them as fact or fiction in the first 10 minutes of the film, leaving the rest of the time for you to simply wonder what could come next. No, literally wonder what could be possibly be next; most everything shown in the trailers are part of the opening montage.

Johnson does a solid job as Hercules however he is given surprisingly little to do. He is pretty one-note, just having to play the solider with bulging muscles who yells things during battle. Many of the other performances range from hammy to awkward, especially those of the princess and her son. Both shriek and scream most of their dialogue (in distracting British accents, I might add), and you actually debate rooting for the villains when the two are put in danger. Plus, a lot of the characters have that forced, unfunny Brett Ratner humor, which rivals Michael Bay for the worst in films.

There are two main battle sequences in the film, and both are shot well by Ratner, especially by PG-13 standards, so I must give him props there. There isn’t an overabundance of shaky-cam or slowmo, and there are a few fun camera shots that put you in the action. However in both instances the scenes overstay their welcome, and become redundant and derivative instead of exciting and invigorating.

The special effects are nothing special, the dialogue is at times abysmal and the story flips between rushed and underdeveloped. I went in wanting an over-the-top sword-and-sandal blockbuster and “Hercules” doesn’t delivery even that. The Rock tries his best but it was just too big a Herculean task (pats self on back) to save this drawn out, and awkwardly paced, adventure that we’ve seen many, many times before.

Critics Rating: 4/10