Review: Rock of Ages

In my review of The Roommate, I tabbed it – as well as Johnny English Reborn, Jack and Jill, and Footloose (2011), as the worst movies I had seen in the last year.  Well, I owe a sincere apology to the creative teams and acting talent behind those films, because I have found a movie that truly takes the cake; a movie so onerous that I did not make it past the halfway point before calling it quits.  That movie is the well-intentioned but incredibly misguided Rock of Ages.  One quick disclaimer before I launch into my review is that I have history with this projoect.  It’s incredibly poor theatrical performance almost singlehandedly derailed a significant entertainment opportunity for me, but I have long since moved on from that.

The movie features an ensemble cast acting out the lives of a bunch of people tied to the 80’s rock scene in Hollywood via a fossil of a dive bar on Sunset Boulevard renown for live shows.  The plot is lined with every possible paper thin stereotype you would expect against this backdrop from the innocent Midwestern aspiring songstress to the burnout eccentric metal head cut from the same cloth as Guns ‘N Roses and Def Leppard.  For this you can thank Chris D’Arienzio – the creator of the Broadway musical on which the film was based.

Before watching a single frame of this film, you know immediately that it is a tricky proposition as it’s a filmed musical. Most screen adaptions of live musicals not named Grease tend to be underwhelming.  That this film is built around 80’s Rock anthems really makes this an even greater stretch.  In the forty minutes that I watched, there wasn’t much to grasp on to.  Occasionally there was the semblance of a plot (romantic and otherwise) to pass the time between the songs, but even the musical numbers felt forced and really poorly choreographed. 

As for the cast, their overall work is subpar from start to finish.  Julianne Hough and Diego Boneta get the most screen time and neither have the charisma and acting chops to carry a movie.  Alec Baldwin, Malin Akerman, and Catherine Zeta-Jones seem painfully out of place in this film, and to Tom Cruise, Bryan Cranston, and Paul Giamatti, I would ask what they were thinking when they signed on the dotted line for this one. Nothing in this film works on any level and I tend to find some entertainment value in just about everything. 

So it should come as no surprise that I am not recommending this movie.  It doesn’t matter if you are a fan of Cruise; you think Julianne Hough is cute; you love 80’s rock; you are in theater troupe; or any other reason you can find to consider this film.  Whatever you can come up with, it won’t be enough.  Bad is just plain bad, and this is something far worse.  For those of you itching for a musical fix, I suggest you wait two weeks and pony up the fourteen dollars to watch Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway in Les Miserables on the big screen.  While it’s not really my cup of tea, I can firmly say that it features a superior cast and infinitely better source material.

Standout Performance: Russell Brand.  The guy was asked to play a burn out wannabe rocker who is constantly liquored up, so basically he was asked to play himself.  

Read More

Review: To Rome with Love

If you have never been to Rome, you will long to visit the eternal city after watching To Rome with Love.  And if you’ve been before then you will find yourself itching for a return trip.  Woody Allen’s latest film does an amazing job of framing captivating visuals of some of the most tourist-friendly parts of the city.  As one who has been a few times before, I found myself easily navigating the geography of the city during the movie and recognizing small boutiques and cafés where I passed the time between monuments.  Had an Italian tourism office commissioned the film, it would have been deemed a smashing success.  Unfortunately, it is a movie and as a narrative, it leaves a lot to be desired.

I’m on record as not being a fan of movies that follow multiple disconnected storylines (Valentine’s Day, et al), because what you end up with is a collection of smaller stories that are not fully developed in lieu of one strong cohesive narrative that is both complete and driven by character depth.  Quality always trumps quantity.  But I digress.   Allen’s latest film follows four completely self-contained stories with Rome-as-a-backdrop the lone shared thread.  These glorified vignettes follow the plight of a newly wed couple, a retired music producer and his newfound vocalist, an American man reliving his salad days, and an overnight celebrity sensation.

The problems with this film begin and end with the plot(s).  All of Allen’s recent films share a whimsical nonsensical quality that at their best play charming and at their worst feel like neurotic dissections of minutia.  Always though, his films leave you with a nugget of insight - some key takeaway - that justifies the narrative.  In To Rome with Love, the plot is more nonsensical than whimsical, and thus far less charming and the typical Woody Allen brand of neuroses swells into self-indulgence.  And since the movie features four plots instead of the one, we - the viewers - are treated to four sets of useless takeaways, thus leaving the film feeling incredibly didactic.  The two hour rudimentary lecture – or at least that’s what the movie feels like – could have been redeemed had any one of the stories' morals produced a Eureka moment, but sadly no such moment ever materialized.

The performance of the cast is adequate at best but in all fairness, each is handcuffed by limited screen time and poor pacing.  No one is given ample opportunity to shine.  Of the group, Roberto Benigni and Alessandra Mastronardi stand out as best, while Ellen Page is strikingly miscast as an alluring struggling actress.  In his first appearance as an actor since 2006 (Scoop), Woody Allen’s self-deprecating stream of consciousness shtick wears thin very fast and is perhaps the most troubling of all.

I wanted to love this movie like I loved Midnight in Paris, but everything that Midnight in Paris was, this movie is not.  Midnight in Paris feels like it takes you within the inner walls of Paris with wit and charm and gives you this protagonist in Owen Wilson's Gil that you can invest in emotionally.  To Rome with Love constantly reminds you that you are an outsider – a viewer of a jumbled mass of events from behind a glass window.  In lieu of charm, you get a soapbox and the constant nagging question as to why any of this matters.  That perhaps is the biggest indictment of the movie.

I don’t recommend this movie, but I think that at some point you should see it – perhaps on Netflix or on cable.  Allen as a writer and director at his worst is still better than a lot of other individuals who are currently working in the world of film.  In his next project, Allen has cast Andrew Dice Clay and Vinnie from Doogie Howser M.D. so at the very least, that should be interesting.  Here’s hoping that he recaptures the magic and stays behind the camera from here on out.

Standout Performance: Fabio Armiliato as Giancarlo shows why he is one of the renowned vocalists in all of Europe.

Read More

May 2012 Editorial: Who's Hot. Who's Not.

As we all know, stars rise almost as quickly as they fall in the revolving door, what-have-you-done-for-me-lately world that is Hollywood.  So here’s quick look at which actors and actresses are trending up (Who’s Hot) and down (Who’s Not) with the help of some friends.

HOT: Joseph Gordon-Levitt.  Because he is about to appear in The Dark Knight Rises after some  great performances in 500 Days of Summer and Inception.

NOT: Taylor Kitsch.  Because he starred in two movies this summer (John Carter and Battleship) with budgets of $200M that will represent huge busts for Disney and Universal.

HOT: Robert Downey Jr.  Because he is the lead player in the ensemble cast headlining the record shattering The Avengers (as evidence by his $50M payday) and because I expect him to be just as great in Iron Man 3.

NOT: Reese Witherspoon.  Because she has traded in the innocence and charm that made her famous in Legally Blonde, Just Like Heaven, and Four Christmases for more traditional starlet roles in Water for Elephants and This Means War.  Why go away from what is working?

HOT: Jeremy Renner.  Because he was great in The Hurt Locker,  Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol and in The Avengers.  I look forward to seeing him in the Bourne Legacy.

NOT: Nicolas Cage.  Because of Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, Drive Angry, Season of the Witch, and the list goes on and on.

HOT: Zac Efron.  Because he has successfully made the transition from child/adolescent roles to adult roles as evidenced by his recent performance in The Lucky One.

NOT:Alec Baldwin.  Because 30 Rock and his annoying Capital One commercials – while once great – have clearly gotten old.

HOT: Charlize Theron.  Because she is coming off in an interesting turn in Young Adult, and is appearing next in Snow White and the Huntsman, and the much anticipated Prometheus.  And also because she is Charlize Theron.

NOT: Jason Segel.  Because he is coming off  three lukewarm performances in The Muppets, Jeff, Who Lives atHome, and The Five-Year Engagement and because this past season of How I Met Your Mother was the worst yet.

Read More