Tag Archives: roast

‘Annabelle’ Boring, Lazy and Unscary

Annabelle-posterThere’s a trend I’ve noticed with Hollywood in 2014: if a title of a film is simply a female name, then the end product is trash. First we had “Tammy”, then “Lucy” and now “Annabelle”.

A prequel/spin-off/rip-off of “The Conjuring”, “Annabelle” tells the tale of how the creepy little doll became possessed in the first place, and how it torments the lives of a married couple and their newborn baby. The couple is played by Ward Horton and Annabelle Wallis (crazy first name, right?!) and the film is directed by John R. Leonetti.

I wasn’t the biggest “Conjuring” fan. I appreciated its production value and acting but I just didn’t find the film very scary. And like I said in my review, a horror film that isn’t scary is like a comedy without any laughs; it failed at its objective. That being said, if “Annabelle” was intended to be a horror film, then it botched even harder than “Conjuring” ever could have hoped to.

Nothing in this film works. Let’s start with the acting. It’s as wooden as the rocking chair that the Annabelle doll sits in the entire film. The actor’s deliveries are off and their emotions are non-existent. As my one friend brilliantly said to me, “you know you’re in trouble when the doll is the best actor in the movie.”

The script is just as awful as the acting. The plot makes no sense and puts no effort into explaining how Annabelle actually comes possessed, and it takes until the final scene to tell us why the demon is after the family. The dialogue is equally as dreadful. Like I’m perplexed as to how some of these scenes made it into the finished product. At one point the husband says “ha ha it’s true; everyone HATES her grandmother”. Like, in the most awkward tone possible. And nearly completely out of context to the conversation. That would mean the director had to have looked at that take and said, “Perfect! Cut. Print.”

Speaking of direction, Leonetti does nothing special here at all. All my issues with “Conjuring” aside, director James Wan (who produced “Annabelle”) knew how to build tension in a scene using practical effects (his mistake was never having much of the tension boil over and lead anywhere). Leonetti lingers on actors faces for too long and stares at a still Annabelle for extended durations. There were a couple interesting camera tricks he employs, such as showing a little girl running past an open door only to have her turn into a full-grown woman upon entering, but I think if you had simply put a camera on a tripod it would have done a more engaging job.

All of this could be forgiven if the film was scary, or even interesting, but “Annabelle” is neither. It is boring and uneventful, and by using all no-name actors to ensure the budget was as low as possible it’s not even like we have a big-name star to hold our hand (I would pay good money to see Nicolas Cage scream and throw the Annabelle doll).

I can go on and on bashing “Annabelle”, but then I would be just hurting my brain more than this film did by itself. It is a lazily constructed and awfully executed horror film that should be condemned alongside the demons that control its title character. The silver lining about nearing the end of this review is I will never have to revisit this film ever again. Well, except when I write my Year’s Worst Films list in December. Or until they milk yet another sequel out of this already dried up franchise and I have to relive it all over again…

Critics Rating: 3/10

‘Transformers’ is Less Than Meets The Eye

Leave a reply

Transformers_Age_of_Extinction_Poster_jpeg

               I have a new expression I hope catches on: fool me once, shame on me. Fool me four times, you’re Michael Bay.

“Transformers: Age of Extinction” is the fourth film in Michael Bay’s Transformers series. It  features an all-new human cast, including Mark Wahlberg as Cade Yeager, the only Texan with a Boston accent. This time around the Autobots are being hunted by the US government to avenge the events from the last film.

I don’t really know where to begin to review “Extinction”, so I’ll start with the script. It’s awful. Like on every conceivable level. From the dialogue to the plot, everything is atrocious. There’s a part in the film when Wahlberg’s daughter turns to her boyfriend and says “still glad that we met?”. She says that 100% out of the blue; he didn’t say anything to make that a coherent sentence. The screenwriter just thought he should have the girl say something cute to show that the couple cares about each other.

Still want proof the dialogue is awful? Ok, I have plenty of ammo. When the CIA storms into Wahlberg’s front yard and begins to search the grounds, he tells the guy that he needs a warrant. The agent turns to Marky Mark and says “my face is my warrant”. [sigh]

On my way out the theater I heard a 5-year-old boy tell his mom that the movie was poorly written and didn’t make sense. A child recognized that.

But you don’t pay to see a Michael Bay film for an elaborate script, you pay for the action. And how is it in “Extinction”? Its fine…for the first ten minutes. But after near THREE HOURS of boom, boom, boom, boom boom boom, boom. Boom. Boom. Boom, you get bored. Think the climax of “Man of Steel”, just metal on metal and with less character development (if that’s possible).

Its like this: imagine a nine year old boy is smashing pots and pans in front of his action figures. No give that boy a few million dollars. That’s Bay’s “Age of Extinction”.

And the run time, oh my God the run time. The film has a runtime to match its budget (160 for both), and you feel every minute of it. There was a point in the film I was sitting in the chair thinking “well, the climax of this film is boring”. Oh no, that wasn’t the climax, it was somewhere in the middle of the movie. The best part of this movie is at the beginning, before the Transformers even show up.

I really don’t know what more to say about this movie. It has impressive visuals but eye candy can only get you so far. “Transformers: Age of Extinction” is an assault on the eyes, ears, common sense, common decency and the desire to be entertained. It is also has awful dialogue, disgraceful depictions of women, over-the-top explosions and unfunny racial jokes. In other words, it’s a Michael Bay film.

Look, if you are one of those people who can turn your brain off 100% and the idea of robots throwing each other in nonsensical action scenes intersts you, then you may be able to tolerate this movie. But all others I implore you: don’t give Michael Bay three hours of your life, nonetheless 10 of your dollars.

Critics Rating: 4/10

‘Transcendence’ Nothing Special or New

Transcendence2014Poster            You know those movies that leave the audience with burning questions about real life issues? Yeah, “Transcendence” isn’t one of those movies.

Directed by cinematographer Wally Pfister in his directorial debut, the film stars Johnny Depp as an artificial intelligence researcher who is mortally wounded by a radical anti-technology group. Before he dies, however, his wife Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) uploads his consciousness to a computer. As the radical group approaches to finish what they started, Evelyn must decide if the intelligence claiming to be her deceased husband is who it says it is. Sound confusing? Yeah, you’re telling me.

This film features a rookie director, a rookie screenwriter and an ensemble cast. All three were red flags before the title card in “Transcendence” even showed up on the screen. Pfister is a fantastic cinematographer (he won an Oscar for “Inception”) but maybe he should not quit his day job anytime soon. His first time in the director’s chair, Pfister heads a film with pacing issues and a narrative that ranges from awkward to just plain non-existent. Oh, and the movie really doesn’t know what it wants to be or what messages it wants to send, either.

In the film’s opening act there is a decently thought provoking line about whether man creating artificial intelligence and “playing God” is any different than mankind “making up gods” throughout history. Then they drop that possible storyline for the whole “anti-technology” group. Then yet again the film decides that angle isn’t interesting enough so it goes into whether A.I. is capable of comparing to humans. If you haven’t figured it out yet, allow me to clarify: the film is a mess.

There are some redeeming qualities to the film. Obviously with Pfister being an award winning cinematographer, the movie is shot beautifully; even if half of the cool shots are completely irrelevant to the scene. For example the very first shot of the film shows rain on a window and car headlights blurred in the background. The movie then cuts to a completely unrelated scene and starts the actual story. Was the shot cool to look at? Sure. Was it confusing and irrelevant? You betcha.

The movie does make a couple interesting points about where we’re going and how we may be letting technology get the best of us, but these aren’t things that you haven’t read about or pondered before; go to any website and they’ll tell you to put down your phone and go play outside. You don’t need to pay $10 to have the voice of Johnny Depp tell you.

For what it was striving to accomplish, “Transcendence” fails. It went for broke and came up short, but not horrifically. There are a few interesting parts and for about five seconds you actually wonder if Johnny Depp’s A.I. is good or evil, but in the long run this is a very forgettable film. I guess you could say that “Transcendence” transcends the definition of an average film [I’ll pause so you can laugh].

Critics Rating: 5/10