Tag Archives: funny

‘Fantastic Bore’ Is Frustratingly Awful

Fantastic_Four_2015_posterI am at a loss for words on how uneventful this movie is, so no time for a clever opening. Let’s just get right into this evisceration.

“Fantastic Four” is the latest attempt to reboot the Marvel Comics team of the same name, and stars Miles Teller, Michael B. Jordan, Kate Mara and Jamie Bell as Mr. Fantastic, the Human Torch, the Invisible Woman and The Thing, respectively. [Normally this is where I would insert a brief plot summary, but truly this film is so massively uneventful that I couldn’t give you a storyline if I tried]. Josh Trank, who directed “Chronicle,” directs and co-writes here.

Right from its conception, this film was a mess. It was no secret that Sony made it simply to hold onto the rights, and then there are plenty of stories of Trank showing up on set stoned and drunk, or not showing up at all (for legal reasons, I should say “allegedly”). Then they had to do extensive reshoots, which are painfully obvious due to haircuts/wigs and awkward dialogue dubs. In all honesty, look up all the behind-the-scenes drama involving the director and producers; it is 100x more entertaining than the movie they ended up creating.

On top of those red flags, ear-piercing alarms should have been sounding when it was announced the film wouldn’t allow reviews to be posted until the day before release (which is as sure a sign that a movie is terrible as dark clouds mean it’s going to rain), and lead actor Miles Teller saying that none of the stars had seen the finished film, and that “rarely are films of this size critically well received”. That’s…comforting.

Boy, halfway done with this review and all I’ve done is give reasons why we all thought it would fail. Where are my manners? Who knows? Maybe all the reshoots and on-set tension created something truly special, and we were worrying for nothing! (We weren’t, though, this movie is awful)

I truly, honestly, sincerely have no idea where to begin. I am genuinely at a loss for words, and that isn’t a great thing to be considering my God-given talent (and livelihood) is putting pen to paper. I guess we can start with how badly they botched the amazing cast. I am a huge Miles Teller fan; I’ve had a man-crush on him ever since “21 & Over.” But here? Oh boy, did Trank and Co. try their very hardest to make him awful. The entire cast, in fact; they’re all talented young actors who together have no chemistry. I hate to compare this to the 2005 film because I think reboots should be judged on their own accord, but say what you will about the old F4 films, at least the four members seemed like they were friends.

Next is the “plot.” If you’ve seen the trailer you’ve seen the film. I remember watching the trailers and every time I would think, “this looks like it’s spliced from just three scenes, what’s the plot?” And I was right to question; there is no plot. What shred of a narrative there is revolves around the group building an interdimensional transportation device (because simply going to space nowadays is too mainstream), getting their powers, and then everything kind of rushes an oh-my-god awful ending.

Seriously, though, the ending to this movie is just…I don’t even know. To steal a quote from Michael Scott: “It’s simply beyond words. It’s incalculable”. The first third of the film is innocent enough, showing a young Teller trying to crack all the science, and then there’s a few (I stress, A FEW) interesting and fun moments. Then they get their powers by traveling to “Planet Zero” (named after how much interest I had left in the film by this point) and Trank treats it like a horror film, which for a second I liked. The idea of finding your one friend burning alive and another trapped in a pile of rocks is enough to break a psyche. But then they skip ahead a year (because who wants to watch them struggle and learn to control their new powers, right?) and everything gets worse. You get bored and the film goes nowhere.

Then the climax happens, and oh my God. I didn’t think it was possible to have negative amount of suspense or emotional attachment to a film, but give “Fantastic Four” credit because it did just that. When Victor Von Doom (Toby Kebbell) arrives to be the villain (after all, with a name like that, he had a limited pool of career choices), you don’t care. There is one fun tracking shot of him walking down a hallway and he makes everyone he passes’ head explode, but then he engages in a horrible CGI battle with the Four. And you just. don’t. care.

Look, I could go on for days about why this movie is awful, but my head may just explode like one of those poor people Dr. Doom strolls past. The film plays out as one big (boring) trailer for future films, which, based on critical and fanboy reception, I doubt we’ll ever see, and it’s adorable the filmmakers thought they ever would. “The Incredibles” remains the only truly good Fantastic Four film, and this makes the 2005 film and its sequel look like “The Dark Knight.”

I thought critic Ben Mankiewicz’s description of the film perfectly sums everything up: “it feels like the first episode of a TV series that you are certain to not watch the second episode of.” Amen, brother. “Fantastic Four” is not fun, it’s not exciting and it’s certainly not good. Just go plop yourself down in front of the dryer for an hour 45; you’ll get more entertainment and odds are more character development than this film could ever offer.

Critics Rating: 2/10

Variety

Variety

‘Trainwreck’ a Dramedy That’s Right On Track

Leave a reply

Trainwreck_posterI found it funny that Paul Rudd and Judd Apatow used to make movies together all the time, and now each of them had their own movie come out in the same weekend. Anyone else chuckle? Nope, just me? Alright, well…onto the review.

“Trainwreck” is the latest film from director Judd Apatow, and is the first film he directed that isn’t written by him. Stepping in the writer’s shoes is Amy Schumer, who also stars. When a commitment-phobic working woman (Schumer) meets a sports doctor (Bill Hader), she begins to wonder if she has been living her life wrong. I know that plot sounds like near every rom-com ever, but as you’ll find out (by reading!), the film overcomes that. OK, moving on.

I’m a middling fan of Judd Apatow’s work. I enjoy all of his films about the same, but while they all often scratch greatness, they fail to reach their full potential. “Trainwreck” isn’t going to be a film I remember and reference for years to come, however it may be Apatow’s best film to date.

As I said above, the story of the film is pretty cliché; everything you think is going to happen will happen. So for the movie to succeed, it needed to be able to provide something extra, and “Trainwreck” does just that by having relatable moments, self-deprecation and a surprising amount of dramatic heft.

Amy Schumer, who has been on fire as of late and is being touted as a trailblazer for women in comedy, is very good in her first starring film role. She essentially is playing the version of herself that she jokes about in her standup, being the heavy drinker who goes home with any guy from the bar that she wants. She does a surprisingly tender work in some of the film’s more dramatic scenes, too, and until she becomes Melissa McCarthy and beats us over the head with her presence, I welcome more Amy Schumer in my life.

Doing fine work in supporting roles are Bill Hader (who I always forget how charming his is) and LeBron James, who plays a fictionalized version of himself. Hader does his normal deadpan nice guy routine, and LeBron makes a lot of references to Cleveland and the NBA, which I’m sure were entered specifically for the guys who are dragged to this by their girlfriends and wives (not to say the movie as a whole isn’t full of jokes for everyone).

The biggest problems with the film are the issues found in all Apatow films, in that there are plenty of scenes that exist for the sake of one joke, and if cut wouldn’t change the plot at all. And even though the runtime is two hours, just like with every one of his films you walk out feeling like the film lasted much longer than it actually did. The climax somewhat drags before suddenly ending, but it doesn’t derail the film (ha! “Derailed”! I didn’t even try and make that train wreck reference! I’m hilarious even when I don’t even mean to be…).

I enjoyed a lot about “Trainwreck,” and even if the plot is cliché and the narrative a bit rough around the edges, those flaws are mostly redeemed by charming actors and a smart script. How much fun you get out of the film really depends on how many raunchy jokes you can handle, but seeing as this is Apatow’s fifth directorial effort, you should know what to expect by now.

Critics Rating: 8/10

Variety

Variety

Someone Please Arrest the ‘Paul Blart’ Sequel

Paul_Blart_-_Mall_Cop_2_posterIn a world of pointless movie sequels, this one may take the cake.

“Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2” is the follow-up no one asked to from the 2009 film, “Paul Blart: Mall Cop”. Written by and starring Kevin James, the film follows Paul Blart (whom, if you haven’t guessed by now, is a mall cop) to Las Vegas where he attends a security guard convention. While there, he discovers a plan for thieves to steal precious art, and must step up to save the day. Neal McDonough plays the villain as Andy Fickman directs.

I enjoyed the first “Paul Blart” for what it was. It wasn’t too serious and featured enough solid laughs to be worth a one-time watch. But near everything that worked about the first film, and by everything, I mean all the funny and charming actors including Bobby Cannavale and Stephen Rannazzi, are gone. Jayma Mays, who played Blart’s love interest, even chose not to return for this sequel and this is the same woman who said yes to “Smurfs” 1 and 2, so you know she’s willing to make trashy franchises. All this leaves “Paul Blart 2” with little to play with, and the result is a film that has little entertainment.

First things first, the film tries too hard to be funny, and there is nothing more desperate and unappealing than trying too hard (just ask any woman). Right from the opening scene, Blart’s mother (played by two-time Oscar nominee Shirley Knight) is run over by a milk truck—for laughs. Sure, you may smirk at the shock value of it, but the film treats what should be a horrific moment in Blart’s life as a punchline, and then keeps on doing so for the rest of the film. I also lost track at the amount of fat jokes in here.

Deep down, somewhere in this movie, there are a few jokes that work, like when cliché bad guy Neal McDonough (who is by far the film’s biggest asset) and Blart are having a yelling match about who is crazier, and McDonough goes, “I have two different colored eyeballs, because that’s how I live my life!” (I don’t know, I chuckled). But for every well thought out one-liner, there are a dozen, or baker’s dozen, because fat jokes, that fall flat. For example, when Blart beats one bad guy and says, “Always bet on Blart”, I cringed. All this leads up to a final act that is so ludicrous, and so full of terrible CGI, that it made me almost angry.

This is produced by Adam Sandler’s Happy Madison production team, so it should come as little shock that it is an unfunny comedy, featuring stale jokes, shameless product placement, and exotic locations so that the actors can vacation while they happen to film a movie.

“Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2” is far from the worst movie of 2015 (4+ months in and “50 Shades of Grey” still holds that distinction), and I chuckled a few times, but it really is a struggle to get through. Numerous times throughout the film, fellow security guards tell Blart that no one cares about him and what he did six years ago; audiences don’t care, either. This isn’t stupid fun like the first film; it’s just plain stupid.

“Avengers,” you cannot come soon enough…

Critics Rating: 4/10

Variety

Variety

‘Batman & Robin’: Cinematic Gold

Leave a reply

In honor of April Fools Day, here is a sarcastic, positive review of “Batman & Robin”, one of the worst (but, hilarious) films ever made. Please don’t take anything in here seriously. If you’ve never seen the film, it’s really, really bad… But without further adieu…

220px-Batman_&_robin_posterForget Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale: Joel Schumacher and George Clooney are the masterminds behind the greatest Batman movie of all-time.

Released back in 1997, “Batman & Robin” remains not only the best film about Bruce Wayne’s alter ego, but quite simply one of the greatest superhero films ever made (right up with “Green Lantern” and “Superman IV: The Quest for Peace”). Directed by Joel Schumacher, B&R is a continuation of the original Batman franchise. George Clooney is the 3rd actor to put on the tights, after Michael Keaton and Val Kilmer both (I can only assume) realized they weren’t good enough for the role. Chris O’Donnell returns as Robin, while Alicia Silverstone portrays the character everyone was asking for, Batgirl. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Uma Thurman play Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy, our villains.

Right from the opening scene of “Batman & Robin”, you know this will be unlike anything you’ve ever seen in a Batman film. The very first shots are close up on the crotches, butts and nipples of Batman and Robin. Now, the first three films were alright, but let’s be honest: there was a serious lacking of overly detailed rubber butts.

Then we get one of the greatest exchanges in maybe the history of ever. After the Batmobile appears, Robin says, “I want a car. Chicks dig the car”, and Batman quickly responds, “this is why Superman works alone”. This line is important because, on top of being hysterical, it means we are in a world where Superman exists. So we should get excited for the inevitable crossover.

Of course, a superhero film is only as good as its villains, and B&R has one that would put Heath Ledger’s Joker to shame. Schwarzenegger portrays a scientist gone mad, and it works because I always thought he was wasting his muscular physique in those action films. Speaking strictly in hilarious puns like, “what killed the dinosaurs? The ice age!” and “allow me to break the ice” (get it? Cuz he’s Mr. FREEZE), this is one cool character (ha! I made one myself!).

His plan is brilliant, too. He wants to steal diamonds to fuel a freeze ray to freeze Gotham City and hold it hostage so he can afford to save his dying wife. “Why couldn’t he just sell the diamonds to save his wife?” you may ask. The film never tells us; it makes us think, only adding to the brilliant depth of it all.

The action in the previous Batman films was alright, but they made attempts to stick to something resembling the rules of physics. But not “Batman & Robin”, oh no! It has Robin climb rocket ships that are way past the livable atmosphere, as well as the crime-fighting duo sliding down a dinosaur’s tail ala Fred Flinstone.

I’m sure by this point you’re itching to see “Batman & Robin”, so I’ll end the review here. All you need to know is it’s a fun, masterfully written portrayal of Batman, and I’m so glad that it was the last adaption that Bob Kane, the man who created Batman, ever lived to see.

Critics Rating: 10/10

NOTE: Please don’t watch “Batman & Robin”. Like, ever. This part is not a joke. It’s really, really awful.

‘The Gunman’ Low On Guns, High on Snoozes

The_Gunman_Official_Theatrical_PosterA message to Sean Penn: Liam Neeson you are not.

“The Gunman” stars Sean Penn as an ex-gun-for-hire who carried out a foreign assassination and finds his past catching up to him eight years later. Idris Elba, Ray Winstone and Javier Bardem also star as Pierre Morel (director of the first “Taken” film) directs.

On paper, this movie should have worked. Sure, the “retired gunman comes out for one last job” is a rehashed genre (heck, I just reviewed “Run All Night” the other day), but “Gunman” has an A-list cast, a director who showed he can direct a 50-year-old in an action film, and a fun-looking trailer. What’s the end result? A bunch of A-list cameos, shoddily executed action scenes, and a trailer that clearly knew it had to lie about the true content of its product.

For a movie entitled “The Gunman” there sure is a scarcity of guns in this film. Like seriously, I think there are three shootouts in this, and most of them consist of Sean Penn ducking in-and-out of cover, spraying his gun at what he hopes are enemies.

The film takes a few minutes to get up and running, giving us what I assume they intended to be character development (it’s just boring forced narrative). When the first shot is finally taken, you think you’re in for a solid action film. LOL, nope. The rest of the first act is an awkward and unbelievable soap opera drama between Penn, Bardem and Penn’s ex-girlfriend, who is now Bardem’s wife and Bardem is threatened by Penn, but he’s not, and…I don’t know what to tell you, the film is a mess.

Let’s get to the characters. No one in this film acts like a real person. Bardem is a clowny cartoon, who says things that made me cringe and scratch my head. In his limited screen time he is just a laughing, bumbling goofball, paranoid that Penn is simply there to steal his wife. Idris Elba shows up for five minutes simply to put his name on the poster, and Ray Winstone does his grumbling Ray Winstone thing. Any big name actor on the poster not named Sean Penn is in this movie for no more than 15 minutes, I kid you not.

I really don’t know if there’s anything good I can say about “The Gunman”. The more I write about it, the more I’m growing to dislike it, and I walked out disliking it a pretty fair amount as was. Even the set pieces of the Congo, London and Rome are so bland they don’t add any visual candy to the experience.

Sean Penn clearly wanted to make this movie (he also produced and co-wrote it), but this passion project was a struggle to sit through. The film is so agonizingly paced, clichédly written and boring in its narrative that when the gun battles we were promised in the trailer finally arrive, we just don’t care.

“The Gunman” has all the looks and feel of a mid-day soap opera, but all the razor-sharp excitement of a mid-day soap opera. The only reason this mundane “action” film won’t derail Sean Penn’s career is because the only people who will hopefully ever be forced to sit through it are in an interrogation room in Guantanamo Bay.

Critics Rating: 3/10

the-gunman-sean-penn

Variety

There Are 100 Things Wrong with ’50 Shades of Grey’

Leave a reply

Fifty-Gray-posterWell…let’s get this thing over with, shall we?

“Fifty Shades of Grey” is based off the best-selling novel of the same name by E. L. James (maybe you’ve heard of it?). The film stars Dakota Johnson as Anastasia Steele, a recent college grad who falls for a young billionaire named Christian Grey, played by Jamie Dornan, who has very specific tastes, to keep things PG. Sam Taylor-Johnson directs.

I really had no idea what to expect as I walked into this film. I knew that the novel was controversial (I also heard it was one of the worst books ever written), but that’s about it. Even the trailers of the film didn’t do much to suggest a plot summary. Walking out I now know why the trailers didn’t show much: it’s because this movie isn’t about anything and is just downright awful.

I could probably write a thesis paper on what is wrong with this movie, but let’s start with the two leads, Johnson and Dornan. By themselves they’re both serviceable, but together they have almost an awkward amount of lacking chemistry, and are given some of the worst dialogue in the history of cinema to recite.

Seriously, within the first 10 minutes of the film I was cringing at some of the writing, and my friend even leaned over to me and said that the dialogue was awful. I can’t even repeat most of the lines because they’re hilariously intentionally vulgar, but I’ll give you an example of a scene that had me shaking my head.

After having met Christian Grey on two occasions combining for probably about 25 minutes of together time, Anastasia Steele drunk-calls him while out celebrating having just finished college. He gets all upset and mad at her, a 25-year-old woman, for being at a bar, and then somehow (never explained how) he finds her and brings her home. And then the next morning she’s all impressed and they begin their relationship. Like, no. I know Grey is supposed to be a control freak, but no one is that uptight about people they just met.

The pacing in this movie is also an atrocity; I saw people checking their phones every 10 minutes. Every scene consists of essentially the same arc. Christian and Anastasia do their “Fifty Shades of Grey” thing, Anastasia wants Christian to open up to her, he yells and says he can’t, she cries, rinse, repeat. It’s so mundane and repetitive that it makes this two hour runtime feel like an eternity.

It’s also worth noting that there are three scene transitions that burned my eyes. It goes from inside a dark room at night to a bright Seattle skyline instantly, and everyone in the audience exclaimed at once.

Let’s get to the positives. …I mean… director Sam Taylor-Johnson used to be an artist, so the film looks nice. Some of the scenery and tonal colors work well together…that’s actually all I can think of.

I was bored out of my skull watching “Fifty Shades of Grey”, and it isn’t even like the graphic and racy parts live up to the hype (I’ve seen way worse in movies). The whole movie is about Christian Grey tying up and torturing Anastasia, yet I felt like the only one trapped and abused. This isn’t a “so-bad-it’s-good” movie. This is a “so-awful-I-actually-feel-dumber” movie. The actors have no chemistry, the writing is cringe-worthy and the plot is pointless.

There’s a part in the film when Christian is talking about a disclosure contract he makes Anastasia sign, and he says, “forget the contract, it’s getting redundant”. I just rolled my eyes and thought, “this movie is getting redundant…”

Critics Rating: 2/10

fifty-shades-of-grey-berlin-film-festival

Variety

‘SpongeBob’ Sequel Does Source Material Justice

SB-2_posterMy childhood remains intact!

“The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water” is the second big-screen adaption of everyone’s favorite ocean sponge, following the 2004’s “The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie” [realizes it has been 10 years since the last film and slowly stares up into the sky as “Dust in the Wind” begins to play]. Instead of rescuing King Neptune’s crown, SpongeBob (again voiced perfectly by Tom Kenny), Patrick and company must this time retrieve the Krabby Patty secret formula from a pirate (Antonio Banderas). Paul Tibbitt directs.

When they first announced they were making a second SpongeBob movie, I got excited. SpongeBob and Harry Potter are the two staples of my childhood, and the first SpongeBob film remains one of the funniest kid’s films ever made (my humble opinion). However when I began to learn more and more about this sequel, I became worried. The trailer painted it to be almost completely CGI, and I was really concerned the film would be more of the recent kid-pandering, dumbed-down Sponge humor.

However after seeing “Out of Water”, I was happily surprised that about 80% of the film is the classic animation, and the film itself finds the rhythm, tone and references that made the original film and early seasons, hits.

Let’s get one thing straight: this is nothing but one big episode of SpongeBob SquarePants stretched to fit a motion picture runtime. There are so many nods to the classic episodes (like Patrick yelling “Finland!” after getting concussed) that it serves as an homage for long-time fans like myself, but it also has many other references people not familiar to the character will love (I lost track at the amount of Stanley Kubrick jokes in here).

The sign of a truly great child’s film is that it has jokes for all ages, not just kids, and “Out of Water” has just that. Sure, there are the butt jokes or simple things like a character yelling, “your brain is made of cotton candy!” that will have grade-school kids chuckling, but there are quite a few Family Guy-esque jokes in this movie too, including one back-and-forth with SpongeBob and Plankton that had me laughing out loud.

As funny as the film can be, it is just one stretched episode of SpongeBob, and at times it shows. Some scenes run a little long, and while the overarching message is about teamwork, other than that the movie really isn’t *about* anything. It is just SpongeBob and his friends involved in several (kind of trippy) montages while singing songs. At this point, though, what else could you really expect?

The series’ creator Stephen Hillenburg, who left the show at the completion of the first film, returns here to write the story and executively produce, and his presence is felt. The film has the sense of fun and wit about it that have been missing in recent years. Is this as good as the 2004 film? Not by a long shot, no, but it isn’t the train wreck I at one point feared.

If you don’t like SpongeBob then “The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water” probably won’t convert you, however if you are a fan, old or young, then this is colorful, hyper fun (if you couldn’t tell, I fall into the latter category). If you’re a parent who takes their child to see this, you’ll enjoy yourself. If you’re a 20-something like me who grew up on SpongeBob, then this is a fantastic trip down nostalgia lane. And if you’re a kid who currently watches SpongeBob…well first off, I doubt you’re reading this, and second, go watch the first three seasons; they’re much better than what they air for you guys now.

Critics Rating: 6/10

Variety

Variety

Third Time is Far From the Charm with ‘Taken 3’

Taken_3_poster            I really have to stop giving movies the benefit of the doubt.

Liam Neeson returns as Bryan Mills, the man with a particular set of skills, in “Taken 3”. This time around no one is taken but instead Bryan is framed for the murder of his ex-wife and must run from the LAPD and clear his name. The film is directed by Olivier Megaton, who directed “Taken 2” but not “Taken 1”, so do with that info what you will.

“Taken 3” is the third movie in a series, is following a subpar sequel, and is being released in January. There is literally no reason why I should have thought this would be a good film but alas, I went in optimistic.

That was my mistake and I take full responsibility

There’s a lot going on in “Taken 3” and almost none of it is done coherently. Much like “Taken 2”, Megaton cannot shoot a clean PG-13 action scene, and everything is done using shaky-cam, close-ups and quick, nausea-inducing edits. There is one segment when Neeson is running from the police and you can’t tell what is going on. I actually had to look away from the screen because it was hurting my eyes.

The saving grace is that there isn’t much action in this action film. I actually timed it: it takes 40 minutes for Neeson to punch someone, exactly an hour for him to kill someone and an hour-twenty before he fires a gun. In a movie that is marketed as Liam Neeson killing bad guys, and the third film of a franchise that has seen him kill a combined 50 men, taking over half the film for someone to finally die is unacceptable.

One of the things “Taken 3” almost does well is Forest Whitaker’s new character. Playing the inspector assigned to solving the murder, Whitaker is pretty much Neeson’s mental equal. Every time Neeson tries to pull something, like lose a cell phone or distract the police with a fake car, Whitaker knows it’s a trap and doesn’t fall for it. For a while it is was interesting, however by the end of the film is becomes more tedious because it means that no one is actually gaining any ground on one another.

Try now, if you will, to remember “A Good Day to Die Hard” and how indestructible John McClane has become. That is Liam Neeson in the Taken franchise. He survives things that no human being could ever live through, such as a car flipping a dozen times down a hill and said car then exploding. What’s worse is in the very next scene he is shown completely unharmed, and the film either doesn’t explain how he survived and just expects you to accept it or worse offers a ludicrous, implausible explanation.

This is the best way I can sum it up: the Taken trilogy is just like the Hangover films. The first film was a fun surprise, the second was a subpar but passable carbon copy, and the third tries to divert from the original formula but it ends in horrifically boring results.

“Taken 3” is an uneventful film that is hampered by ineffective PG-13 action sequences, and even seemingly dedicated performances by Neeson and Whitaker can’t elevate an awful script. There isn’t much more to say about this film. The word “taken” is in the title, yet the only thing taken is the audience’s $10. The poster for the film says “It Ends Here”; I sure as heck hope so.

Critics Rating: 3/10

Variety

Variety

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