Review: Oz the Great and Powerful

Raise your hand if you’re fan of Sam Raimi, he of The Evil Dead, The Quick and the Dead, and Spider-Man fame.  I too once was a fan of his work especially after Spider-Man 2 – a movie, which at the time I considered to be the pinnacle of superhero films.  Then the colossal disaster that is Spider-Man 3 happened; a movie loaded with scenes that made me cringe as if an army of fingernails were raking across a giant chalkboard.  When he followed that up with a pedestrian effort in Drag Me to Hell, I completely lost interest in his work.  But really, the damage had been done as the stink of that one huge debacle had completely soured me on the director’s work.  So when I first heard about Oz the Great and Powerful, I had very little interest in seeing it.

So does Raimi acquit himself with this movie based on Frank Baum’s novels?  Not quite, but he doesn’t exactly embarrass himself either.  The plot of the movie is set some twenty years before The Wizard of Oz and details Oscar Diggs’ journey from Kansas to Oz.  When he arrives in the mythical land he finds that a wicked with is tormenting the land that the natives believe him to be the wizard who will free them from their plight. 

Despite the fact that there are a number of things that could not appear in the film (footage from the The Wizard of Oz, the ruby red slippers, certain design specs of the yellow brick road), because of WB’s ownership rights, the latest Disney cash cow ($84M opening weekend) plays very much like an homage to its predecessor with a number of winks and nods.  I have to wonder though if Raimi makes the same mistake that Bryan Singer made with Superman Returns.  While I understand the desire to create this palpable connective tissue between the two films, this almost dogmatic approach to evoking images from the past makes things feel familiar but dated.  More importantly, I think it represents a missed opportunity to build out a fresh new approach to some very familiar source material.

Obviously, I am not exactly in the target demographic here as this film is clearly family fair.  But I do think that the movie slow plays a bit too long for any demographic and as a result, the first two acts feel like one big set up – albeit one unfolding at a snail’s pace.  Normally, this would not completely spell doom for a film, unless said movie features James Franco in the lead.  Once upon a time, Franco was an up-and-comer lauded for wanting to improve his craft.  Then Spider-Man 3 happened (and subsequently Pineapple Express, hosting the Oscars, Your Highness).  Coincidence?  I think not.  In this film, Franco hams it up as the con man Oscar Diggs but unfortunately he is not fooling anyone.  Of the cast, his overacting is the worst performance by a mile.

The damage of Franco’s ineptitude could have been mitigated had the three witches dazzled onscreen.  Unfortunately, those three performances were very much a mixed bag.  At times, Michelle Williams (Glinda) is electrifying onscreen.  Then there are those moments where she is muted and disconnected.  Rachel Weisz (Evanora) seems to be channeling a bit of Charlize Theron from Snow White in the Huntsman, but fails to tap into that unbridled rage, which made that performance work.  And Mila Kunis (Theodora) seems sorely out of place in this film.  Everything about the way she speaks and moves is so contemporary that through the proceedings, you are constantly aware that you are watching someone play a character from the fantastical past.  And that is not a good thing for a movie that demands the suspension of disbelief.

Rounding out the rest of the cast is Zach Braff (where have you been?), Joey King, Bill Cobbs, and Tony Cox.  Each is competent in limited roles, but it is of no consequence as the stink of James Franco permeates this entire film.  I will say that the narrative does pick up in the third act as all the moving pieces come to a head.  It was at this time that I finally became engaged by the plot.  Unfortunately, it is a bit too little and way too late, because when you know where a film is going to end up (based upon the beginning of The Wizard of Oz), the journey has to be as good as the payoff.

So in considering all this I would give this movie an extremely mild recommendation as a Netflix rental only.  There are some strong visuals and a few fun moments (especially if you have children), but not enough to warrant paying cinema prices or going out of your way to view it.  Anything more than that and you will come away from the movie disappointed.  Talk has begun in regards to a sequel (perhaps sans Raimi) so here’s hoping James Franco suddenly remembers how to act in the interim or that they pull the ole switcheroo.

Standout Performance: Michelle Williams.  She is not always great, but she is my favorite in this movie though this may be a function of her character more than anything else.

Read More

Review: Life of Pi

For years, a number of filmmakers have been interested in bringing Life of Pi (the novel by Yann Martel) to the big screen, but were unable to find a reasonable way to create a visual depiction of the story.  Only recently had technology advanced to the point where translating the novel to film seemed plausible.  So when Ang Lee committed to the process, my interest in the project increased immensely as that ensured the film would be visually stunning.  The question remained though, could the CG realistically capture the vision without sacrificing realism and could the structure of the narrative lend itself to the conventions of cinematic storytelling.  After watching the film, I am of the opinion that the movie is a bit of a mixed bag.

The plot of the movie is a survival narrative wrought with isolationism.  Think Tom Hanks in Castaway except the protagonist is a young man named Pi who along with his family must move from India to Canada.  As part of the move, his father must transport animals from their zoo in order to sell them at their next destination.  When a ferocious storm sinks their ship, Pi is forced to battle the elements and survive the perils of the open ocean.

It should come as no surprise that Ang Lee absolutely delivers with stunning visuals.  The scenery is magnificently framed and an uninterrupted sense of motion permeates the film to almost no end.  Likewise, the rich use of color makes it difficult to take your eyes from the screen.  Unfortunately, there is another side to filmmaking that has to do with meat and potatoes storytelling and that is precisely why I consider this film a mixed bag.  I found myself feeling at various points of the movie that it shifts from being very good to very mediocre, from riveting to filler, from having a singular focus to losing its way.  I suspect that this partially due to the source material as it is meant to be a bit of a slow burn.  Unfortunately, this results in highly uneven pacing.

If director Ang Lee is the most important person involved with this film, then Suraj Sharma as Pi Patel is the second most significant.  In much the way that Tom Hanks had to carry Cast Away, Sharma has to bear the weight of much of this movie.  He does a nice job in the role canvasing the broad range of emotions associated with Pi’s plight.  His work is complemented nicely by Irrfan Khan’s performance. As adult Pi Patel, Khan does a fantastic job as the present day narrator and greatly enhances the film by lending a robust layer of color to the narrative.

As for the rest of cast, Adil Hussain, Tabu, Vibish Siavkumar, Rafe Spall, and Gerard Depardieu are all competent in their roles, but do not receive nearly enough screen time to impact the film significantly.  The most significant supporting player in the movie is the tiger, Richard Parker, who shines as a stunning example of CG.  This is no small detail as the misuse of CG can derail even the best of efforts.  That such a strong connection can be made between the protagonist and this animal is a testament to Lee, his technical team, and to Suraj Sharma.

At the end of the day, I liked the movie.  My issue here is that the plot necessitates Lee slow play his hand in telling the story.  This completely grinds the movie to a halt and allows the creative team these moments of self-indulgence where plot advancement is sacrificed for visual style and flair.  And in those moments, my interest in the movie waned and I found myself wanting to fast forward to the conclusion.  This is an unfortunate turn for a film that at times is flat out brilliant.

Despite some of these shortcomings, I would absolutely recommend the movie.  Though he would not have been my choice for the Academy Award, Ang Lee is a fantastic director, who does an admirable job with a project that many deemed impossible to film.  I don’t think you will walk away from this movie thinking it the best of the year, but there will be times when you find yourself unable to pry your eyes from the screen. 

Standout Performance: Irrfan Khan.  Through words and no action, Khan is not only able to emote effectively, but his performance resonates throughout the film from start to finish.

Read More

Review: Hitchcock

During my undergrad days at Brandeis, I took a course that focused on Hitchcock’s filmography.  Most enrolled in this class because they thought it was a lay up; I took it because I love movies.  For the next three months I had the pleasure of watching more than fourteen of his films and delving into a series of interviews conducted between Francois Truffaut and Hitchcock himself.  After twelve weeks and three term papers, I came away with an appreciation for the master of suspense, so it was with a curious eye that I watched Hitchcock starring Sir Anthony Hopkins.

The plot of the film finds Hitchcock some thirty plus years into his career searching for his next great endeavor.  When he comes upon Psycho, a gruesome novel about a trouble young man, he decides that it should be the basis of his next film.  Unfortunately, the esteemed director has trouble getting studio backing, thus the plot of the film focuses on his endeavors to finance, produce, and direct the controversial project himself.

I liked the film, but I readily admit that it’s not for everyone.  A movie about making a movie doesn’t exactly scream, “Must see!”  So if you have never had an interest in Hitchcock, his movie Psycho, or gaining a small window into the history of movie making this film is not going to do much for you.  Let me be clear though in this one regard, Hitchcock (the movie) isn’t a biopic or a documentary-style film, but instead a clear dramatization of real life events that at times panders to the lowest common denominator in regards to Hitchcockian associations.  Even still, director Sacha Gervasi spins a decent yarn about the man’s efforts to bring the violent offbeat story of Norman Bates to life.

What elevates this movie above others of this ilk (i.e. Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story) is the work of Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren as Hitchcock and his wife Alma Reville respectively.  Their attention to detail, their chemistry as a couple, and the way they cultivate the flaws in their respective characters makes this film an interesting character piece.  That you can at times forget you are watching a story about an iconic director and instead focus on the nature of the relationship between a husband and wife is a credit to their crafts.

Also in the plus column is Scarlett Johansson.  I love Scarlett Johansson, but that doesn’t mean I think she is a good actress.  The last time I thought she was really extraordinary onscreen was way back when in Lost in Translation.  While her work as Janet Leigh is nowhere near that stratosphere, she does a nice job with the character.  Likewise for Toni Collette who absolutely disappears into the role of Peggy Robertson – Hitchcock’s production assistant.  In a lot of ways, this movie is about the women in Hitchcock’s life and Collette does a great job of making her character feel important.

Unfortunately, it’s not all pluses across the board in the acting department as Jessica Biel continues her unimpressive run of underwhelming performances.  Looking both pouty and sleepy at the same time seems to be one of her go to acting moves, but she has yet to realize that it simply does not work.  As Vera Miles, she fails to add anything to the narrative besides apathy.  Danny Huston also turns in a pedestrian performance as Hitchcock’s antagonist, but more than anything he seems like a walking cliché straight out of a bad episode of Mad Men.

The best way then to frame a movie like Hitchcock is to think of it as the gambling equivalent of a pick ‘em.  Is it good movie?  Sure.  Is it well acted?  For the most part.  Will you like it?  Maybe not so much, depending on your sensibility.  The premise is niche and the pace is slow and this will be a major turn off for most.  If however, you are a fan of cinema of Hitchcock himself, I would recommend giving this one a look.  There are no big reveals or stand out moments, but it is well acted and films with good acting have been in incredibly short supply lately.

Standout Performance: Helen Mirren.   She does a great of delivering a nuanced performance as Alma, who represents the heart of the film. 

Read More

Review: Lay the Favorite

There is a grand tradition of movies associated with gambling set in rich locations like Las Vegas or New York City with seedy characters, ambiguous morality, and the threat of financial windfall and ruin – movies like Rain Man, Rounders, and The Colors of Money to name a few.  Then there is that next tier of gambling movie that appeals to the degenerate gambler in each of us, but does n’t give much of a cinematic payoff (Two for the Money, 21).  Then, of course, is that third tier of movies; the ones that would stink no regardless of the subject matter but just happen to have people making bets and money exchanging hands.  That is precisely where Lay the Favorite resides, amongst those very films that have long since been forgotten.  But since you've probably never heard of this movie, should this come as any surprise?

The reason you have never heard of this flick is because it made a whopping $21,000 in its theatrical release.  Based on the autobiographical novel by Beth Raymer, the film stars Rebecca Hall (The Town), Bruce Willis, and Catherine Zeta-Jones and follows Hall’s Beth as she ventures from Florida to Las Vegas only to find herself immersed in the world of professional book making under the tutelage of gambling guru Dink Heimowit (Bruce Willis).  When things turn sour for the protagonist, the outcome of the film hinges on her ability to take command of her own life and display true emotional maturity.

Autobiographical or not - this movie plays like a series of clichés.  The stripper backstory, the seedy underbelly of Vegas, New York bookies, it’s as if they have been taken straight from the cookie cutter for your viewing displeasure.  Almost nothing about this movie feels real from the relationships to the machinations and this is born from the creative team’s paint-by-number approach to filmmaking.  Emotions are tossed around loosely like a football at a picnic and relations turn on a dime for reasons unknown.  The dull washed-out quality that permeates this film not only ensures that you do not understand what motivates the principle characters, but also that you absolutely do not care.

This movie is Rebecca Hall’s show and unfortunately I think the role falls outside her wheelhouse.  I mostly like Hall’s work in the past – specifically in The Town and to a lesser degree in Vicky Christina Barcelona, but in my opinion, the kind of role that suits her best is the type that she played in the aforementioned The Town.  Smart, thoughtful, and down-to-earth seems like something she could pull off in her sleep.  As a stripper turned bookie who has a good heart but is sorely lacking in street smarts, her performance is uneven, unconvincing, and clunky.  This makes her character difficult to root for.

Her cohort Bruce Willis isn’t bad as career gambler Dink.  He is just not good.  It’s a different kind of turn for Willis as his character is a superstitious man riddled with the uncertainty that any professional gambler would struggle with and Willis has moments where he nails the role.  They are just not enough to offset those other times when he reverts back to his typical shtick.  While this is not a memorable performance by the actor, he certainly does not embarrass himself.  As for Catherine Zeta-Jones, who plays Willis’ wife, she serves as the biggest cliché of all and could easily have been replaced by almost any other actress with little or no consequence.  Is this her fault?  No, but she does nothing to improve the situation.

As for the rest of the cast, Frank Grillo does little more than pump his fist and overact.  Josh Jackson spends most of the movie alternating between looking love struck and hemming and hawing, essentially reprising his role as Pacey from Dawson’s Creek.  And as for Vince Vaughn, well, it’s another sad turn for this former A-list actor who once used to be a guaranteed laugh-a-minute.  He seems to have ventured passed the line (as so many other comedians do) that separates funny and weird. 

I don’t think it should come as any surprise that I do not recommend this movie.  Now is the point in the review where I would normally go into my usual spiel about how you should avoid it at all cost but I am pretty sure that if you live your life of normalcy, this movie will never cross your path.  It made $21,000 at the box office and essentially was a direct-to-dvd movie in a market that no longer really supports that kind of title.  So yeah, if you read this review (and I have no idea why you would) then thanks for reading and here’s hoping that Vince Vaughn recaptures his comedic genius opposite Owen Wilson in The Internship.  The odds are long but one can always hope.

Standout Performance: The nod goes to Corbin Bernsen, because his character pulls the ripcord early in the plot.

Read More

Review: Identity Thief

I have long been a fan of Jason Bateman, dating back to his days on Valeri (a.k.a. The Hogan Family) and was glad to see him come back strong back in 2004 with appearances in several movies (Starsky & Hutch, Dodgeball) headlined by the Frat Pack.  In those ensuing years, I have come to realize this about Bateman, his shtick works better on the periphery of a film’s plot rather than as its epicenter.  He’s dry, sarcastic, and quirky, but lacks that huge presence to carry an entire film on his shoulders.  Two of his most recent movies (The Change-Up, The Switch) really hammered this home.  And after watching Identity Thief, you can add another title to the list of movies that reinforce this point, because it’s not good.

The plot of the movie is some kind of amalgamation of Horrible Bosses and Midnight Run as Bateman plays Sandy Patterson, a bean counter who must travel across the country to retrieve a con artist (Melissa McCarthy) who has stolen his identity and soiled both his name and his credit rating.  Gunplay, dirty jokes, and car chases ensue as the film morphs into a buddy flick / road trip movie. 

The pairing of Bateman and Melissa McCarthy is a perversion of the straight man/funny man dynamic as the dichotomy, sight gags, and punch lines feel like they are pumped up on a cocktail of steroids and amphetamines.  Subtlety, comedic timing, and wit are tossed out the window in favor of a balls-to-the-wall approach.  This can work in small doses but there are nuances to the art of good comedy that are vital components to this type of film.  In the absence of those nuances, you are treated to buffoonery.  Throwing Melissa McCarthy into the mix is like throwing gasoline on a fire.  What emerges is a loud hot mess of vulgarity and nonsense – and not the funny kind either.

In looking at this film, it’s hard not to wonder if McCarthy’s five minutes are up.  She was great in Bridesmaids, and good in This is 40 (albeit in a very small dose), but she is very much a one trick pony.  This becomes glaringly apparent in Identity Thief as she does not have an ensemble cast to pad her performance.  Director Seth Gordon goes back to the well repeatedly, looking to exploit her shtick to the point that her humor loses its punch.  To say that her brand of gags is completely milked dry in this movie would be a huge understatement. 

And as I mentioned before, Bateman lacks the presence to carry his share of this movie, but the blame for its failure goes beyond the aforementioned shortcomings.  Few from the cast distinguish themselves.  Jon Favreau (Swingers), John Cho (Harold & Kumar), Amanda Peet, Morris Chestnut, and Eric Stonestreet  (Modern Family) are all actors who in the past have been responsible for dispensing plenty of onscreen laughter, but in Identity Thief they collectively seem to be content to mail it in.  Clearly, this was a paycheck project for most of them.

So then what’s the verdict here?  Well, I don’t think anyone walked into this movie thinking they were going to witness the cinematic arts revolutionized or to experience the dawn of a new day in comedy.  In fact, I bet most expected to walk out of the cinema with a million fewer brain cells than when they walked in.  Still, a comedy has to make you laugh and I cannot recount a single time where I even cracked a smile.  In my opinion, this makes this movie a no go and one you should probably leave off your rental queue.  There’s enough bad comedy out there in the world for you to experience without going out of you way to subject yourself to such an inconsequential project.  So pretend you never heard of this movie and hope that Bateman comes out swinging in the reincarnation of Arrested Development and that Sandra Bullocks was able to bring out the best in Melissa McCarthy in the soon-to-be released The Heat.  Because on can never have enough good comedy.

Standout Performance: I like what Genesis Rodriguez has been doing, but the nod goes to Robert Patrick.  How can you not enjoy him as a relentless chaser a la Terminator 2.

Read More

Review: Broken City

Ever make a really complicated dinner?  Sometimes you can have the perfect recipe, the freshest ingredients, and a huge appetite to match, yet after throwing everything into the pot and letting it stew, things just don’t come together properly.  Broken City starring Mark Wahlberg is the cinematic equivalent of that culinary dish gone awry, because on paper it has a lot going for it - dirty cops, politicians, infidelity, city-wide corruption, and a competent cast to play things out.  Despite this, none of it melds into anything resembling a riveting film, but rather a less than appetizing finished product. 

In the film, Mark Wahlberg plays Billy Taggart a disgraced cop turned private investigator who is hired by the Mayor of New York City to spy on his wife.  His work leads to a series of revelations that could impact a multi-billion dollar real estate deal and the NYC mayoral campaign, but may come at the steep cost of all that he holds dear in his life. 

Plots of this ilk that focus on corruption, infidelity, and intrigue need to be intelligent and emotionally charged in order to work, because the challenge is to keep the viewer constantly guessing and to keep them invested in the inevitable outcome.  Justice served is only a satisfying payoff if the crime is egregious enough and the emotional scarring palpable.  Unfortunately, Brian Tucker’s script really falls short in the intelligence department.  The plot tips its hand way too early and the mechanisms of misdirection are as transparent as a windowpane.

As for the emotional component of the script, that responsibility falls to the cast.  The biggest factor working against this movie is what I call “The Erosion of Mark Wahlberg’s Credibility as a Serious Lead.”  It all started harmlessly with the Andy Samberg's “Mark Wahlberg Speaks to Animals” skit on Saturday Night Live.  That it was so funny, really gave birth to the realization that Wahlberg’s muscle bound machismo could serve as a great punch line.  This movement picked up great steam with The Other Guys – a movie in which Wahlberg was hilarious working opposite Will Ferrell.  And the deal was essentially sealed when he absolutely tore it up in Seth McFarlane’s Ted.  From then on, it has been virtually impossible for me to take Wahlberg serious especially when he raises his voice an octave as a means of emoting.  The guy is just naturally funny, and unfortunately, this is not good for a narrative that is all about gravitas, intrigue, and city grit.

What serves as the nail in the coffin for this troubled project is that no one is up to the task of picking up the slack for Wahlberg.  There was a time when Russell Crowe was an A-lister, and when Catherine Zeta-Jones was an A-lister.  Clearly we are no longer in those times.  Crowe plays a NYC version of his character from Body of Lies and guess what?  It still doesn’t work.  The smug devil may care grin he sports in this film is spot on but nothing else is.  As for Zeta-Jones, she has yet to make the transition into an actress venturing into her golden years as Sigourney Weaver and Jamie Lee Curtis have and thus the vampy histrionics of her youth simply do not play in this role.  The net result is that her portrayal of what should be a strong and defiant first lady of NYC, feels like it is more bark than bite.

The rest of the cast has a group of notable actors in Jeffrey Wright, Barry Pepper, Kyle Chandler, James Ransone, and Natalie Martinez but director Allen Hughes really stifles their talents by placing them in these one dimensional characters that march in straight lines and only make ninety degree angle turns.  This is supremely disappointing as they represent a diverse collection of actors that could have created an interesting mix onscreen.

When I look at the finished product, I can’t help but think that it feels like an extended episode of Law & Order or any other cop drama you can name off the top of your head.  So paying for this film will leave you feeling supremely cheated.  I don’t recommend this movie, but at the same time I am sure there is a segment of the population who will find some enjoyment in it.  At best, this is one you should wait to catch on TNT or TBS on a night when you have a few hours to burn.  You probably won’t remember the name of the movie after you watch it, but at least you won’t be kicking yourself for going out of your way.

Standout Performance: Natalie Martinez.  This is the second movie I have seen Martinez in and I think that in small doses, she has done a good job of delivering authentic performances.

Read More

Review: Seven Psychopaths

If you’ve seen In Bruges from writer/director Martin McDonagh it’s plainly evident that he fancies himself a disciple from the Guy Ritchie school of movie making.  He utilizes the same tone, voice, and style that Ritchie wielded in movies like RocknRolla, Snatch, and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.  McDonagh’s latest movie, Seven Psychopaths, likewise follows in this tradition of overly violent movies that feature huge ensemble casts, intertwining plot lines, and a dearth of intelligence obscured by outlandishly skewed sensibilities. 

The plot of the film focuses on a writer (Colin Farrell), who is currently struggling to pen a screenplay about seven psychopaths.  When his friend Billy steals the dog of a particularly violent crime boss and initiates a quest on his behalf to find inspiration by reaching out to other psychopaths, the plot takes on a series of violent twists and turns leading up to a bloody climax.

To enjoy this film, you have to check your common sense at the door and embrace the chicanery that ensures.  And even then it can be a tough sell.  Characters move and act in certain ways with the singular purpose of delivering blood and guts, but it’s far too easy for viewers to see through the paper-thin plot mechanisms that merely serve as window dressings along the way to catchy punch lines and bloody visuals.  At its base, a film has to have a story that moves from point A to point B.  Seven Psychopaths lacks this basic component.  It’s more a collection of violence thrown together with the end goal of Farrell’s Marty writing his script.  And that begs the question as to where the payoff is in that.

Still, as you look up and down the cast one cannot help but feel hope.  Sam Rockwell, Christopher Walken, and Woody Harrelson are three accomplished actors who are always a threat to steal every scene they are in.  Unfortunately, the script and direction never put them in a position to do so.  Likewise Abbie Cornish and Olga Kurylenko – two competent actress that are also very easy on the eyes – are terribly underutilized and make no impact on this film whatsoever. 

As for Colin Farrell, he is not his typically terrible self.  Normally after watching one of Farrell’s films, I am left with some choice words to describe what I have seen.  However, after watching Seven Psychopaths, I have come to the simple realization that he is perfectly incapable of playing a likable character.  Whether it’s the personal baggage or his craft limitations, the man cannot pull it off – even if you cast him as a war veteran who saves a thousand babies from a burning building, writes a haiku to the his high school sweetheart, and subsequently fends off the world from an alien invasion.  People would still come away from that movie disliking him, and it is this quality that cripples the narrative as his character must be the moral center drowning in a sea of immorality.

Am I saying that there is no entertainment value?  Absolutely not.  It is just difficult to enjoy a movie that is not metaphorically comfortable in its own skin.  The writing, directing, and acting comes off as overly earnest in its desire to be off beat, quirky, and edgy.  In a lot of ways, this movie is not unlike that weird cousin who invites himself over for the holidays.  He/she provides a few moments of ridiculousness that produces a round or two of chuckles during dinner, but ultimately at the end of the night you are left regretting ever letting them through the front door.  There’s just not enough in this film to fully warrant watching this movie, though under very specific circumstances, value can be found.  Leave it at the bottom of your Netflix queue or catch it on HBO and you probably won’t hate yourself when you finally get around to watching it.

Standout Performance: Woody Harrelson.  While it’s not his best performance he definitely commits to the role and goes for it.

Read More

March 2013 Movie Guide

MARCH 1, 2013

21 AND OVER

Starring: Justin Chon, Miles Teller, Skylar Astin, Jonathan Keltz

Why You Should See It: Because it looks like The Hangover set on a college campus.
Why You Should Avoid It: Because it looks like Project X set on a college campus.

And the Magic 8 Ball Says: Only if you are under a male under the age of 23.

JACK THE GIANT SLAYER

Starring: Nicholas Hoult, Stanley Tucci, Ewan McGregor, Bill Nighy

Why You Should See It: Because it features a great cast.
Why You Should Avoid It: Because director Bryan Singer is the epitome of hit or miss.

And the Magic 8 Ball Says:  Coin toss.

THE LAST EXORCISM PART II

Starring: Ashley Bell, Spencer Treat Clark, Andrew Sensenig, Judd Lormand

Why You Should See It: ....
Why You Should Avoid It: Because Hollywood has run out of good horror ideas to rip off.

And the Magic 8 Ball Says:  Stay away.

STOKER

Starring: Carrey Mulligan, Jodie Foster, Mia Wasikowska, Nicole Kidman

Why You Should See It: Because Park Chan-Wook is a master at capturing suspense on screen.
Why You Should Avoid It: Because the quality of Nicole Kidman’s work has been on a steady decline.

And the Magic 8 Ball Says:  Do it.

Other theatrical releases:  Phantom

MARCH 8, 2013 

OZ: THE GREAT AND POWERFUL

Starring: Mila Kunis, Michelle Williams, Rachel Weisz, James Franco

Why You Should See It: Mila Kunis, Michelle Williams, Rachel Weisz.

Why You Should Avoid It: James Franco

And the Magic 8 Ball Says:  Yes...but partly because there haven't been too many reasons to go to the cinema.

DEAD MAN DOWN

Starring: Colin Farrell, Noomi Rapace, Terrence Howard, Dominic Cooper

Why You Should See It: Because all principle cast members not named Colin Farrell are solid actors.

Why You Should Avoid It: Colin Farrell.

And the Magic 8 Ball Says:  Only if you have a free movie pass, no plans whatsoever, and you live above a movie cinema.

Other theatrical releases:  Emperor

MARCH 15, 2013 

THE INCREDIBLE BURT WONDERSTONE

Starring: Steve Carell, Jim Carrey, Olivia Wilde, Steve Buscemi, Alan Arkin

Why You Should See It: Because this could be the Anchorman for magicians.

Why You Should Avoid It: Because you make your movie choices based on the looks of the lead actors.

And the Magic 8 Ball Says:  Worth the risk.

THE CALL

Starring: Halle Berry, Morris Chestnut, Abigail Breslin, Michael Imperioli

Why You Should See It: Because Morris Chestnut always does something funny (even when it's not intended).

Why You Should Avoid It: Because it's clearly a rip off of the movie Cellular, which is a movie that clearly did not need to be ripped off.

And the Magic 8 Ball Says:  Never. Ever.

SPRING BREAKERS

Starring: Vanessa Hudgens, Selena Gomez, Ashley Benson, James Franco

Why You Should See It: ...

Why You Should Avoid It: James Franco, Selena Gomez, Vanessa Hudgens, Ashley Benson.

And the Magic 8 Ball Says:  If you are between the ages of 18 and 23 this movie is for you.  Everyone else, just say no.

MARCH 22, 2013

OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN

Starring: Gerard Butler, Angela Bassett, Aaron Eckhart, Radha Mitchell

Why You Should See It: Because Air Force One and other action movies surrounding Potus usually entertain.

Why You Should Avoid It: Because the same can't be said for Gerard Butler (except in 300).

And the Magic 8 Ball Says:  Game time decision.

ADMISSION

Starring: Tina Fey, Michael Sheen, Paul Rudd, Wallace Shawn

Why You Should See It: Because you're girlfriend wants to see it.

Why You Should Avoid It: Because you're girlfriend broke up with you so now you don't have to see it.

And the Magic 8 Ball Says:  Depends on your relationship status.

ON THE ROAD

Starring: Garrett Hedlund, Kristen Stewart, Sam Riley, Kirsten Dunst, Amy Adams

Why You Should See It: There's no reason to ever watch a Kristen Stewart movie.

Why You Should Avoid It: There's no reason to ever watch a Kristen Stewart movie.

And the Magic 8 Ball Says:  No. No. No. No. No.

Other theatrical releases:  The Croods

MARCH 29, 2013

G.I. JOE: RETALIATION

Starring: Channing Tatum, Dwayne Johnson, Adrianne Palicki, Bruce Willis

Why You Should See It: Because Dwayne Johnson movies always have great action.

Why You Should Avoid It: Because the first G.I. Joe was flat out terrible.

And the Magic 8 Ball Says:  Probably a rental.

THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES

Starring: Bradley Cooper, Ryan Gosling, Eva Mendes, Ray Liotta, Dane DeHaan

Why You Should See It: Because Ryan Gosling and Bradley Cooper have each been on good runs.

Why You Should Avoid It: Because when real life paramours appear in a movie together, the finished product tends to be bad. (Gosling, Mendes)

And the Magic 8 Ball Says:  Take a pass.

Other theatrical releases:  Tyler Perry’s Temptation

Read More