Tag Archives: movie

‘Ant-Man’ a Fun but Frustrating Marvel Ride

Ant-Man_posterIf nothing else, this is proof that Paul Rudd makes everything bearable.

“Ant-Man” is the latest film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and it stars Paul Rudd as the titular superhero. Armed with a suit that gives him the ability to shrink, career burglar Scott Lang (Rudd) is recruited by an aging scientist (Michael Douglas) to pull off a heist that will save the world from the scientist’s ex-protégée (Corey Stoll). Peyton Reed directs.

There was a lot of behind-the-scenes drama before “Ant-Man” even began filming. Originally, Edgar Wright was supposed to write and direct the film, however left after those pesky “creative differences” arose with the studio. So Marvel brought in Adam McKay (known for directing Will Ferrell flicks) to rewrite the script with Rudd, and “Yes Man” director Peyton Reed to helm the project. It was clear that they were trying to go heavier on the comedy than the action with “Ant-Man,” which may be where the film’s biggest pluses, and faults, lie.

The film is a bit frustrating in that it does a lot right, and creates a fun ride for the audience, but at the same time bogs itself down with a cliché and sloppy narrative. For every step forward “Ant-Man” takes, it takes one back. The biggest problem I have with the film is that essentially the first half, if not more so, is exposition and explanation. We are introduced to the characters, and rightfully so, but the movie beats us over the head with facts repeatedly, like how Rudd is a good guy who just can’t go straight, and how Douglas needs to make sure his research isn’t duplicated.

The film just feels cookie-cutter, and it feels that way because it is. The villain of the film (Stoll, known for “House of Cards”) is one big, bald cliché: the ex-protégée is angry at his former mentor and tries to get back at him. He then creates a bigger and badder version of the hero’s suit, and the two must face off (if that sounds like the ending to “Iron Man” it’s because it is). Not too much about “Ant-Man” felt refreshing or new, and one can only imagine how much more energetic it would have been had Wright (“Shaun of the Dead”) had stayed on as director.

That’s not to say the film doesn’t have its positives. Rudd is as charming as ever as our leading man; I’m pretty sure he could make reading the Wall Street Journal while eating a bowl of Fruit Loops into comedy gold. His wit and charisma save some scenes from feeling bogged down, and is believable in the action sequences. Michael Douglas turns in an entertaining performance as well, playing a man who truly cares about protecting his research because it is what’s best for humanity, not just for him.

Director Reed, like the film itself, is a mixed bag. He has a career in comedy, and most of the humor scenes are handled well; nothing ever feels too awkward or out of place. However it is the narrative and camera work that seemed slacking, which makes sense seeing as this is Reed’s first big-budget action flick. Most of the film is just build-up and preparation for the big heist, and when that finally comes it under-delivers. The film never truly flows well, and that usually falls at the fault of the man in charge.

“Ant-Man” is far from a bad movie, and it isn’t quite a failure for Marvel, but it certainly is one of their weaker films (I doubt anything will ever beat out “Thor 2” for their worst). Rudd and Douglas keep the film watchable, and some of the abilities they give Ant-Man are creative, but all these positives are almost knocked out by a tedious pace, formulaic plot and stereotypical supporting characters.

The film’s tagline is “Heroes Don’t Get Any Bigger Than Ant-Man.” Well they may not get bigger, but they certainly get better.

Critics Rating: 5/10

Variety

Variety

Someone Please Terminate ‘Genisys’

Leave a reply

Terminator_GenisysCalifornia just can’t seem to catch a break at the movies this summer. First an earthquake tears it apart in “San Andreas,” then Los Angeles is again soiled by the trash that was “Entourage,” and now it is the host of the nuclear apocalypse. And we thought a drought was their biggest problem.

“Terminator Genisys” is the fifth film in the Terminator franchise and the first since 2009. When Kyle Reese (Jai Courtney) is sent back to 1984 to protect Sarah Conner (Emilia Clarke), he finds out that he has entered an alternate timeline, and must team up with Sarah and the T-800 (Arnold Schwarzenegger) to stop Judgement Day from ever happening. Alan Taylor directs.

I don’t really know where to start with “Genisys”. I guess a fair place would be with the name, which isn’t even technically a word. In the film Genisys is the name of a program, but even then they don’t explain why it couldn’t be “Geneses”. I suppose that perfectly sums up “Terminator Genisys”: is doesn’t fully know what it wants to be, and is just a rip-off of a better, more coherent item.

“Genisys” [sigh] starts off in the events leading up to the opening moments of the original “Terminator” film, which was kind of cool. We get to see the other side of the time portal and what really led to the machines sending back Arnie, and why Reese was selected for the mission. Then everything starts to go downhill.

I got the feeling from the trailers and seeing the film just confirmed it: there is nothing special about this film, on any level. By that I mean it is just a cookie-cutter, PG-13 summer action flick, filled with standard, cliché action sequences and some cringe-worthy dialogue (which makes sense seeing as one of the film’s screenwriters has spent most of his career as an editor). And when lines aren’t clunky, they’re attempts at humor that are just that: attempts.

The biggest swing-and-a-miss at a joke was when Reese is fighting the 1984 Schwarzenegger Terminator he says, “I didn’t volunteer for this”. Oh, really? Because last time I checked you signed up to go back in time and protect Sarah Conner from the very Terminator you are currently fighting.

Not helping the cause is Jai Courtney, who plays Reese. Courtney seems like a cool guy in real life, but in movies he has done little to establish himself as a charismatic leading man. He delivers each line of serious dialogue with unintentional laughs, and botches every attempt at comedic relief. You never for a second buy that there is romantic chemistry between him and Sarah, and the absolute only reason you even window shop the idea is because you know in the first film they fell in love.

Alan Taylor directs this and I want to know the name of the studio executive that watched “Thor: The Dark World” and went, “Yes! Know the guy who directed the only bad Marvel film? Get me him; he’s the man to save the Terminator franchise!” Alan does nothing inspiring with his camera or narrative, and by the halfway point of the 30 minute climax I just kept rolling my eyes and thinking “oh my God, movie, end!”

The special effects aren’t even great, and if your special effects aren’t good in 2015, you really messed up. The film has a few nice twists (even though most are ruined in the trailer for whatever reason), and almost has an interesting bit of social commentary on what led to the apocalypse, but these are all squashed under the cardboard characters and increasingly frustrating tangled web that is a plot.

“Terminator Genisys” starts off well, and for a few minutes in the middle showed a glimpse at maybe getting good, but it quickly makes a detour back into Snoozeville…Population: the audience. Seeing Arnold back in his most famous role was fun for a second, but he’s ironically said “I’ll be back” in every film he’s been in since 1985, so my face remained stoic when the line was delivered here.

If you’re a diehard Terminator fan, then watch “Genisys” (that name, man, I’m telling you) when it comes out on DVD. If you could care less about the mythology of the franchise and just want some summer fun, go see “Jurassic World” again. Or throw two robot action figures at each other for two hours. I’m sure there’s more of narrative and fun to be found doing that than watching this.

Critics Rating: 3/10

Variety

Variety

2015 in Film: Halfway Recap

With 6 months of films behind us, we have officially reached the halfway point of 2015 (you’re welcome for that clarification). And although we’ll likely not see many of these films mentioned come Oscar Season, it’s still fun to do a bi-yearly recap. So, as Pink once said: let’s get this party started.

Best Film: Jurassic World

I was shocked how great this film was (more on that in a second). It is one of the best and most summer movies I have ever seen, and Chris Pratt continues to kill it as Hollywood’s next big thing. Unlike most other things in this list, “Jurassic World” will definitely be in my Top 10 of the year, and could even hold out for number one overall when all is said and done.

Variety

Variety

Worst Film: Fifty Shades of Grey

Oh my God, is this thing dreadful. I can’t imagine a world where this isn’t my worst film come the end of the year. The dialogue, the narrative, the chemistry (or painful lack thereof) all combined for a movie-going experience that made me almost hate movies. I don’t remember much about it (thank God), but from what is stained in my brain I recall this thing just being awful and lazy and the fact that there are going to be two sequels makes me physically ill.

Variety

Variety

Biggest Surprise: Jurassic World

I didn’t expect this to be awful, but I was never wowed by the original “Jurassic Park” film, and the trailers for “Jurassic World” made it look like standard summer fluff. And as previously stated, I was dead wrong. If somehow you aren’t one of the millions of people who have pushed the film to $1.2 billion (and counting), or you have only seen the film one time so far… whatever you’re doing can wait. Go now.

Variety

Variety

Biggest Letdown: Entourage

I was a late addition to the “Entourage” series bandwagon, but once I was on it I instantly fell in love with Ari Gold, Johnny Drama and the rest of the, well, entourage. When the beginning of 2015 rolled around the film adoption was one of my most anticipated films of the impending year, and not a day went by that I didn’t think about it. Then I saw it. It is an unfunny, lazily constructed shadow of its former self, and it depressed me. Maybe it was my own fault for hyping it up so much in my head, but hey, this is my list, and “Entourage” let me down.

Variety

Variety

Shocked It Didn’t Suck: The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water

I love SpongeBob and I love, love the first film from 2004. However when the trailers for this sequel dropped, I was horrifically worried. They made it out to look like most of the film would be sellout CGI instead of flat 2D animation, as well as lazy potty “comedy” that studios think dumbed-down kids enjoy in 2015. However I was relieved and thrilled when about 80% of the film was both the classic animation and humor of the show’s early seasons. The film itself isn’t great, but it is a lot of fun and didn’t ruin my childhood, and that was good enough for me.

Variety

Variety

Most Underrated: Run All Night

Unlike the other “Liam Neeson Has a Gun!” film from January (“Taken 3”), “Run All Night” was a lot of fun and had a few fun twists. Not too many people caught this one, and I feel like even less appreciated it, but if you get a chance to watch this on a rainy Saturday afternoon I really think it’s worth your time.

Variety

Variety

Most Overrated: Mad Max: Fury Road

OK, I seriously am still baffled by this one. Just like last year’s “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes”, I can’t begin to fathom why people thought this was a good film, much less how it has a 98% on Rotten Tomatoes and is being lauded as one of the year’s best films. It is an impressively made but narratively hollow film, and while I don’t expect much plot or character development in my action films, I do enjoy them having a shred of either.

Variety

Variety

Thanks for reading, and here’s to a successful second half of 2015, which includes my personally most anticipated films, “Ant-Man”, “Black Mass”, and a little indie film called “Star Wars: The Force Awakens”.  It also includes the latest Adam Sandler project, “Pixels”, but we’ll cross that bridge when we are unfortunately forced come to it.

‘Ted 2’ a Bearable but Bumpy Sequel

Ted_2_posterAs far as 2015 sequels go, “Ted 2” lies somewhere in the middle.

The follow-up to “Family Guy” creator Seth MacFarlane’s 2012 hit, “Ted 2” follows John (Mark Wahlberg) and his talking teddy bear (voiced and motion captured by MacFarlane), who must prove Ted is human in a court of law in order for him to have a child with his wife. Amanda Seyfried also stars as MacFarlane directs and co-writes.

The first “Ted” was an entertaining bromance flick that made $550 million; so in other words, a sequel was inevitable. While I found MacFarlane’s last film “A Million Ways to Die in the West” amusing enough, I have been reminded on numerous occasions by various people that I am wrong and it is awful. So I walked into “Ted 2” just hoping this wouldn’t be another step back for MacFarlane.

The opening sequence of “Ted 2” had me worried. Very worried. Because there’s no joke to ruin, I’ll just tell you what happens: after the film opens with Ted getting married, it breaks out into a dance number. But it’s not for laughs, it’s played completely straight. I kept waiting for the joke to come or for someone to trip, but no one does. Then when it wrapped up I expected some one-liner acknowledging how dumb what we just sat through was, but it never comes. The movie just begins.

MacFarlane is a very talented guy, and as his hosting of the Oscars showed he can make song-and-dance amusing, but I really have no clue what the dance routine was doing in here, unless he lost a bet with the head of some tap dance studio.

But luckily, the film gets (sorta) better. Wahlberg and MacFarlane maintain the same quick chemistry from the first film, and some of the jokes are inspired and clever. There is one scene that may offend some viewers–but then again if you’re easily offended, don’t go to a Seth MacFarlane film–where John and Ted yell off-color suggestions to an improve group. It’s awful and in bad taste and I loved every second of it.

The biggest flaw “Ted 2” has is its pacing. There are times when the film just seems to drag, and it honestly becomes un…bear-able, to sit through (I’ll be here all week). It’s not so much the fault of the editing as much as the narrative. The plot of Ted wanting a kid and needing to prove he’s human only lasts about half the film; the second half is like the lovechild of “Planes, Trains and Automobiles” and the first “Ted.” That’s to say it becomes a buddy roadtrip film with the sideplot of the creepy stalker from the original film (Giovanni Ribisi) trying to kidnap Ted (*sigh* again). The final 25 minutes of the film had me getting anxious for it to just be over with.

Look, “Ted 2” is one of those films that you already knew whether or not you were going to see it before the trailers even came out; no review is going to alter your decision. That being said, I can still prepare you for what you’re walking into (or what you’re skipping). Like MacFarlane’s last film, “Million Ways to Die,” “Ted 2” suffers from pacing and a stretched-thin plot, however it is relatively funny. If you only care about watching a teddy bear say the f-bomb while throwing apples at joggers, then go enjoy yourself. If you need any real depth, development or surprises in your comedies, then you need not apply. I personally found enough enjoyment in “Ted 2” to avoid disappointment, but still not quite enough to feel satisfied.

Critics Rating: 5/10

Variety

Variety

McCarthy Back to Being Funny in ‘Spy’

Leave a reply

Spy2015_TeaserPosterAnd the rollercoaster ride that is Melissa McCarthy continues.

“Spy” is the latest collaboration between Melissa McCarthy and director Paul Feig. When the identities of every CIA agent are blown, an analyst (McCarthy) must go out into the field to stop a nuclear bomb deal. Jason Statham, Jude Law, and Rose Byrne co-star as Feig writes and directs.

I had pretty much given up on Melissa McCarthy after last year. She stood out in “Bridesmaids,” but then made the disappointing “Identity Thief.” She then rebounded with the surprisingly great “The Heat,” before crashing back down to Earth in spectacularly awful fashion with the abysmal “Tammy” (my review/rant). “Bridesmaids” and “The Heat” were directed by Feig; the other two…well, weren’t. So all McCarthy has to do is only make movies with Paul Feig directing and her career will be great.

First things first, “Spy” is a very funny film. McCarthy tones it down and while is still poking slight fun at her appearance and goes on her foul-mouthed rants, she never overdoes it, which is both appealing and appreciated. This is only Feig’s second-ever movie screenplay that he has written (after the 2003 drama “I Am David”), and while it follows the spy genre cliché checklist to the letter, it is still full of plenty of witty dialogue and is briskly paced.

While the script and McCarthy complement each other each other quite well, the real standout in the film is Jason Statham, who has never starred in a full-out comedy before. While some of his delivery and timing could use some polishing, Statham is perfectly cast as the arrogant CIA agent who sees himself as indestructible. Every scene he is in features him listing impossible tasks that he’s completed, and the funny thing is that you almost buy it because it’s Jason Statham; you can totally see him jumping off of a bridge onto a moving train while on fire.

It’s like how back in 2010 when Mark Wahlberg, then known just for drama, starred in “The Other Guys” and everyone went, “huh. I guess Marky Mark is funny”. Statham should start seeing a few more comedies offered to him in the future (and he should please take them).

But of course, a spy movie would be nothing without quality action and exotic locations, and this film delivers both. McCarthy’s mission takes her all across Europe, from Paris to Rome to Hungary, and Feig makes sure to get plenty of (albeit passé) shots of landmarks and monuments to give the film a nice flavor.

As for the action, Feig has some wonderfully fun pieces staged. Whether it be a shootout, a knife fight or a car chase, Feig utilizes slow-mo and some nifty camera tricks to really make the sequences engaging, and McCarthy is able to mostly sell that she can kick some serious butt. Just like “The Heat,” “Spy” can be surprisingly graphic at times, but it is never over-the-top gore level. Just know this isn’t going to be like “Get Smart” where the bad guys trip or hit their head on a pipe; there are quite a few kills in this movie (and I loved that).

The only real flaws of “Spy” are nitpicks; overall it is a pretty well constructed comedy. Some conflicts end rather abruptly and you just have to accept the outcome, and if you are looking for any real twists and turns than you’ll be in for a letdown (I guessed the ending within the first 10 minutes, you know, not to brag).

I really was surprised how much I liked “Spy,” and it has, at least for now, restored a little bit of faith in Melissa McCarthy. It has some fun banter, a few engaging action scenes, and the right balance of parody and homage to the classic spy genre. It’s just a really fun film that had me laughing throughout, and I walked out having thoroughly enjoyed myself. And isn’t that all comedies aim to do?

Critics Rating: 8/10

Variety

Variety

‘Entourage’ Movie an Immense Letdown

Entourage_film_2015_posterWell, “Entourage” may have gotten bigger, but it certainly isn’t better.

“Entourage” is a continuation of the TV series of the same name, and stars the main cast, including Kevin Connolly, Adrian Grenier, Kevin Dillon, Jerry Ferrara, and Jeremy Piven. When movie star Vince Chase (Grenier) goes over budget on his directorial debut, agent-turned-studio head Ari Gold (Piven) must secure financing from a billionaire investor (Billy Bob Thorton). Showrunner Doug Ellin writes and directs.

I was late on the “Entourage” bandwagon but once I watched it, it instantly became one of my favorite all-time series, and Piven’s Ari Gold remains one of the best characters television has ever produced. So for the past six months I have been waiting patiently (or impatiently) for the feature length adaption. I loved the show, I love Hollywood, I love Los Angeles; what would go wrong? The answer: apparently a lot.

Throughout its run people referred to “Entourage” as “Sex and the City” for guys, and that point is even further emulated because now we have a feature length film adaption of a series that clearly did not have the substance to become a feature length film adaption. There is the overarching plot of Vince’s film, but really most of the movie is just scattershot. Each character has a side mission or two that they get to go on, and it almost always ends with them shaking it off and saying, “well, it’s no big deal”, which makes you realize that side story was only in the film to get the running time up to an acceptable theater amount.

There is one part where an embarrassing video gets leaked online of one of the characters, and they are ignoring the other guys’ calls and go into the doctor’s office screaming about how they’re sad and desperate. But they then get one phone call (about an event they knew was coming), and suddenly are all peaches and cream. It is just unfulfilling.

The biggest problem I probably had with “Entourage,” however, is that is just isn’t that funny. Look, I love comedies; some would say to a fault (I still stand by my recommendation of “Let’s Be Cops”). But this movie, despite Ari’s offensive rants and the two dozen celebrity cameos, just didn’t have me cracking up all too often. And many of the times I did laugh, it was because of a reference to the show, so viewers who go in cold having never seen an episode will not get the joke.

The film looks great, that I can’t deny. Every shot is colorful, sun-kissed, and neon-soaked, and it makes this pretty to stare at if nothing else. It will certainly please people like me who are obsessed with Los Angeles.

Seeing the old faces was comforting, but overall, I am hugely disappointed with “Entourage.” It was clear in season eight of the show that they were running out of stories to tell, so maybe that should have been an indication to retire the franchise there.

The “Entourage” movie is like a high school reunion: you show up wanting to see some old friends, but after a half hour things start to get stale, and you realize that you just don’t have much to say. Only difference is “Entourage” is that friend who forces a conversation for an hour and 44 minutes.

Critics Rating: 4/10

Variety

Variety

‘San Andreas’ a Rock-Solid Disaster Flick

San_Andreas_posterWell, my California summer vacation plans may have just have taken a hit.

“San Andreas” follows Dwayne Johnson as a rescue-helicopter pilot who must travel from Los Angeles to San Francisco with his ex-wife (Carla Gugino) to save their daughter (Alexandra Daddario) after the San Andreas Fault causes largest earthquake of all-time. Brad Peyton directs.

Contrary to what you may think, it isn’t easy to make a dumb, fun disaster film; Roland Emmerich has been trying and failing for years. But “San Andreas” manages, for the most part, to be an engaging and visually awe-inspiring tale of mayhem and natural destruction, thanks to a charismatic lead and some steady direction.

On paper, “San Andreas” looks like just another Emmerich film, ala “2012” or “The Day After Tomorrow”. You have a huge, unstoppable natural disaster that is going to wipe out important cities, and a father figure must race through the chaos to save his child. However there is one thing this film has that no Emmerich film ever has: a larger-than-life lead actor holding everything together.

Dwayne Johnson is the perfect actor for this role, and the film needed someone charismatic and physically dominating like Johnson at its center, as half the film is him driving, whether it is in a helicopter, truck, or plane (he eventually rides a boat, too, to complete the “Will The Rock Drive Every Type of Vehicle?” game). Of the flaws this film has, certainly none of them are Johnson’s…fault. [drops mic]

[picks up mic in order to continue the review]

From a visual perspective, Peyton and his crew deserve major props. We’ve seen earthquakes tear down towers and tsunamis wash out major cities before, however there was just something about the way “San Andreas” is shot that really makes you feel the magnitude (ha. Puns) of the situation. There was one shot in particular (it’s in the trailer but no less awesome) of Los Angeles literally rolling like a flag on a windy day. It’s a massive shot, but intimate all at once, as if you look at specific parts you see buildings exploding or palm trees falling.

Now as much as I have talked this film up, let’s get one thing straight: this is still a dumb disaster film. The dialogue is cheesy, the plot and characters are cookie-cutter, and some narrative points are lacking. Example of all three:

Dialogue: when Paul Giamatti’s scientist character realizes the quake is about to strike, his colleague asks who they should call. Out loud I said “please don’t say ‘everyone’”. But of course he said it, and all that was missing was him turning to the camera and removing glasses before delivering the line.

Cookie-cutter: there is the resourceful daughter, the reluctantly divorced dad, the jerk new boyfriend; you name it, and the character is in here. And they all live about how long you think they will in a movie like this.

Narrative: both LA and San Francisco are rocked by massive earthquakes simultaneously. Instead of implementing real-world post-earthquake problems like fires, looting, or lack of supplies, the film decides it will double down and announce to the audience (thus erasing even the element of surprise) that an even bigger quake is coming, just so it can showcase more destruction (and it starts to feel like an afterthought by the film’s climax).

For what it is, I really enjoyed “San Andreas”, even as a single tear rolled down my face watching my precious Los Angeles being torn apart—er, I mean, as I got pumped with testosterone watching things blow up. Look, here’s the bottom line: if you are able to overlook the scientific impossibilities of the film (which start early on as the Hoover Dam is destroyed by a 7.1 earthquake despite being built to stand up to an 8.0—just saying), then this film is for you.

It isn’t art and it won’t rock your world (THAT WAS A DWAYNE JOHNSON *AND* EARTHQUAKE PUN!), but if you can overlook its clichés and by-the-numbers storytelling and look at it for what it is, “San Andreas” is solid. Rock solid.

Critics Rating: 6/10

Variety

Variety

‘Poltergeist’ Remake is Stupid, Clichéd Fun

Leave a reply

Poltergeist_2015_posterHey, what do you know? A remake that doesn’t totally stink!

A remake/reboot/reimagining of the 1982 classic of the same name, “Poltergeist” stars Sam Rockwell, Rosemarie DeWitt and Jared Harris and is directed by Gil Kenan. The film follows a family that is haunted by evil spirits, and must save their daughter when she is abducted by them.

If the plot to the film sounds familiar, it’s because it is. Not just because it is quite literally a remake, but also the original “Poltergeist” was so revolutionary that in the past 30 years since its release, dozens of horror films have copied plot points. But despite being stupid and cliché, I kind of dug this remake.

Most modern horror films are PG-13, found footage garbage, and consist more of jump scares and soundtrack explosions rather than genuine tension and frightening moments. So, despite being PG-13 and having its share of jump scares, it was nice to see a scary movie that built on tension rather than special effects or gore. There are some genuinely well-executed moments of tension in “Poltergeist,” brought on my dark shadows and some pretty creepy clown dolls.

Sam Rockwell is one of the actors many people know the face but not the name, but I am a big fan of his. Here he is able to elevate an otherwise cliché and at times pandering script, creating moments of charm while also delivering some emotional bits as a father who just wants his daughter back.

Speaking of said script, like I said, it’s pretty standard scary movie stuff. David Lindsay-Abaire, best known for penning “Oz the Great and Powerful,” has some interesting twists and bits of dialogue, but just as much, if not more, clichés. Oh, the little girl is talking to a wall but it’s actually a spirit? Brilliant! The dad recently lost his job so the family has to move and the haunted house is their only option? Revolutionary!

And of course, while the acting is better than most horror films, the character’s themselves are a few fries short of a Happy Meal. They move towards strange sounds in the dark, or don’t think it’s weird how a wooden stairwell can create static electricity, and you’ll groan every time they ignore the kid who of course knows what is going on.

Despite its clichés, however, I really enjoyed most of the “Poltergeist” remake. It has some great effects and production value in climax (I just reread that; I’m such a movie dork), and the acting and story are interesting enough to keep your attention when ghosts aren’t throwing chairs and flickering lights.

It won’t win any awards, and remains to be seen (or not seen, because ghosts. HA!) whether or not this remake was necessary, but for what it is, that being a 90 minute summer scary movie, “Poltergeist” gets the job done.

Critics Rating: 6/10

Variety

Variety

Don’t Have Your Future Involve ‘Tomorrowland’

Tomorrowland_posterFor a movie that is all about trying to succeed, this film sure fails a lot.

“Tomorrowland” stars George Clooney as a former boy genius who embarks on a mission with a teen (Britt Robertson) in order to uncover the secrets of a distant place caught between space and time. Hugh Laurie co-stars as Brad Bird directs.

I really didn’t know much about “Tomorrowland” going in. I avoided trailers, but from what I was hearing even the trailers divulged very little about the film other than it involves George Clooney and spaceships. So I went in with an open mind, and what filled that mind was over two hours of sci-fi guns, robots and other futuristic gadgets, but all leading to very little avail.

Because the trailers don’t give much of the plot away, I won’t do the same here, but just know that it is incredibly simple yet somehow widely convoluted. While things are hinted at throughout, you don’t really get a clear view of what is happening and where our characters are going until the final act of the film, and I for one was not a fan of the mystery.

The film runs 130 minutes and oh boy does it feel like it; the pacing really is poor. It takes a while for things to get going, and Clooney doesn’t really come into play until around the first hour mark. When he finally does show, he is a breath of fresh air in an otherwise mundane “run away from the bad guys who want to catch me for reasons I don’t know why” plot, but that air can only stay fresh so long.

The script, written by Bird and Damon Lindelof, is all about never giving up, thinking positively, and trying to better humanity. Lindelof has never been one to write coherent works (just take a look at “Lost” or “Prometheus”), but the fact that this has Bird’s fingerprints on it is a bit of a letdown. He has two Oscar nominations for Best Original Screenplay (for “The Incredibles” and “Ratatouille,” both of which earned him Best Animated Feature statues), but some of the dialogue and plot points here just really had me cringing or rolling my eyes.

The film is rated PG, and since it makes sure to slap the Disney name on it you know that the film is meant for kids and families of all ages. I’m sure kids will be wowed by the towering future buildings and people soaring on jetpacks, but they also will have to put up with a teenage girl driving a truck and asking a lot of questions that never get answered, as well as images out nuclear holocausts. Fun stuff.

I don’t hate “Tomorrowland” because it is overly opportunistic or because it tries to get political (revealing what about would ruin the film, but it does make some good points). No, I disliked “Tomorrowland” so much because it is conflicting in its messaging and felt like each scene was disjointed moving from one the next.

The underlying message of the film is to think positively, so fine, here it goes: I’m positive “Tomorrowland” is a bad film.

Critics Rating: 3/10

TOMORROWLAND

Variety

‘Fury Road’ Will Drive You Mad

Leave a reply

Max_Mad_Fury_Road_Newest_PosterSome franchises are just better left untouched.

“Mad Max: Fury Road” is the fourth film in writer-director George Miller’s Mad Max franchise, and the first since 1985. Tom Hardy takes over the titular role from Mel Gibson, and this time around must aid a rogue commander (Charlize Theron) as they are chased by a cult leader and his army across the future desert wasteland.

“Fury Road” suffers from the same problem that plagues much of Hollywood today, and that is that filmmakers and audiences alike put style over substance. From a technical standpoint, this latest Mad Max film is constructed brilliantly, with expert stunts and well-staged action sequences. However from a narrative perspective, it leaves much to be desired, and unfortunately the film turns out to be much more exhausting than it is entertaining.

I’m not saying action films need in-depth storytelling and a hefty plot, but all we get in “Fury Road” is that Max must lead a group of women away from a kingdom to a safe area known only as the “Green Place”. The film then acts in a series of repeating motions: they get into a fight, they outrun the bad guys, their truck breaks down, and they must fix the truck. Rinse, repeat. Like I said, the action sequences themselves are often breathtaking at first, but they drag on for so long and eventually just become nothing more than expendable bad guys getting thrown around, so you stop caring.

There is just no real weight or suspense in the film. In the first 10 minutes we are thrown out of the gate and just have characters shoved in our faces, without time to really learn about them or what makes them tick. We then are supposed to root for same characters simply because the movie tells us to. There are several points where two of the girls traveling with Max ask what will happen to them if the cult leader catches them, and I kept wondering the same thing. They never build up the stakes so there is no real reason to feel worried for anyone.

Individually, the two leads, Theron and Hardy, work. Theron digs down deep and conveys a woman who has been torn apart by war and tragedy while Hardy keeps his mouth shut most of the film and certainly could pass as a younger Mel Gibson. Together, however, their chemistry is lacking. Yes, the whole point of the film is that Max is a loner so he doesn’t want to communicate and bond with others, but most of the time it really just looks like two A-list actors simply spewing lines of dialogue at each other.

“Mad Max: Fury Road” is fun in small doses, and at times clever, but in my humble opinion (and isn’t that all a movie review is?), I’ve had more fun watching a Michael Bay film. I just spent way too much of the film either scratching my head at the bizarre imagery or trying to figure out certain character’s motivations.

If you loved the original Mad Max films then this is probably a grand trip down memory lane, and I’m sure that making this film was a labor of love for George Miller. But for me, sitting through it was just plain labor.

Critics Rating: 4/10

FRD-27924.TIF

Variety