Review: A Haunted House

When one looks back upon their lives, there’s always a handful of wrong decisions that makes you shake your head right there on the spot.  Maybe it was dressing up like Punky Brewster in the third grade or wasting six months of your life chasing a certain someone you would like to forget.  It doesn’t matter whether it was twenty years ago or twenty minutes ago, the pain of those memories elicits that involuntary action.  It had been a while since I last added to my personal list of epic missteps but that all changed the moment I decided to watch A Haunted House.  You may wonder why I even bothered with this film.  Was it because of boredom?  Sure and partially a reaction to the paucity of movies in the marketplace, but a mistake is a mistake and I paid for it dearly throughout the ninety minutes of running time.

The movie is a spoof of the Paranormal Activity franchise in much the same way the Scary Movie franchise approaches other horror films.  It should come as no surprise that Marlon Wayans serves as the writer and star of the projecting considering how bitter he has been even since he and his brother were pushed out of the Scary Movie films.  The plot of this film follows Wayans’ Malcom and his girlfriend Kisha (Essence Atkins) as they move into a house together and find a frivolous reason to set up a number of cameras all over their house only to find that a ghost is in their midst.

From start to finish this is a step-by-step parody loaded with lowbrow sex, race, drugs, and bodily function humor to go with a flurry of asinine physical comedy – and I use that word “comedy” very loosely.  Director Michael Tiddes, a man who going into this film had directed the same number of feature films as me (zero), should petitions IMDB to get this movie stricken from his resume as it is potentially the worst movie of not only the year but perhaps the decade.  While there are only so many things you can do in terms of cinematography with the “found footage concept,” my guess here is that you could get better entertainment value from watching the security feed of a retail store.  Across the board, A Haunted House is amateurish in humor, style, and direction.

It almost seems absurd to critique the acting in this movie, because, it’s like shooting fish in the barrel.  However, I am going to give a pass to David Koechner, Nick Swardson, and Cedric the Entertainer.  They knew what they getting into when the signed on the dotted line, and they give this film precisely what you would expect from each of them – over-the-top utterly nonsensical character portrayals whose successes are predicated upon the work of the protagonists.  Unfortunately, Marlon Wayans and Essence Atkins leave a lot to be desired in that department.

We’ve seen in the past what Wayans' can potentially be as an actor can be (Requiem for a Dream), but unfortunately more often than not we see what he is not (Scary Movie, Little Man).  It’s more of the same for Wayans in this movie – overacting and an array of histrionics designed to appeal to the lowest denominator in society.  It’s a tired act that torpedoes what little (if any) this movie has going for it and it’s precisely why he has been relegated to the fringe of the industry.  As for Atkins, she is a stereotype, a caricature, who does absolutely nothing to distinguish herself as a performer.  She and Wayans bring out the camp in each other.

So the movie is bad and the acting is terrible.  At the end of the day are you really surprised that A Haunted House is such a debacle?  Of course not.   The Paranormal Activity story arc is played out so there was no possible away a parody about it would play well.  Even still, there’s no excuse for a movie to be this bad.  Sure there are one or two moments where you almost laugh, but those moments are far too fleeting and far too few to make this worth the film it was printed on.  Avoid this one, and Scary Movie 5 (which is out in theaters today) and you will be far better off for it.  In fact, you would do well to strike the entire parody genre from your movie radar as it has morphed from a  once regarded comedic art form into cinematic poop.  You have been warned. 

Standout Performance: Shawn Wayans for sitting this one out.

Read More

Review: Liberal Arts

When people write about liminal moments they wax poetic about the “coming of age.”  And when they crack jokes, it’s usually about the follies associated with the mid-life crisis.  And what of the thirty years that lie between?  That is what the plot of Liberal Arts is about – those three decades when an individual struggles to graduate from who they are to what they think they should be as adults.  When Richard Jenkins’ Peter Hoberg tells Josh Radnor’s Jesse that the world’s dirty little secret is that none of us feel like adults, he reveals the singular thread that ties the plot of Liberal Arts together. 

The narrative follows Jesse (Josh Radnor) – a overly sentimental man-child who spends too much time in the pages of a book and in his own head.  Lost as a thirty something, he carries around an idealized vision of his youth that is reinvigorated by a return trip to his college campus to celebrate the retirement of his favorite professor (Richard Jenkins).  The experience of seeing some old familiar faces, befriending a troubled youth (John Magaro), and striking up a romance with a precocious nineteen years old (Ashley Olsen) forces Jesse to take a hard look at his life – past, present, and future – and assess his struggles to grow into adulthood.

Radnor, of How I Met Your Mother fame, acts as both writer and director in the film and doesn’t completely fall on his face.  The narrative is a bit chatty and there are clearly some moments of self indulgence, but the arcs do a good job of capturing the pitfalls of nostalgia and contrast them nicely with the sense of impeding finality associated with one’s twilight years.  The young who struggle to be young and the old who struggle to be old with the Radnor stuck in the middle creates a natural tension that helps frame his emotional paralysis. 

It’s not a perfect film though.  Some plot elements are cliché and at times realism is sacrificed for an all-too-cute detail.  Furthermore, the tone oddly sacrifices it subtle touch at crucial junctures of the film, instead opting to hammer home points almost ad nauseum.  Still these issues and an ending that is all too predictable are covered up nicely by good acting.  Richard Jenkins is thoughtful, tragic, and genuine as the retiring professor who is fearful of life beyond his world of academia.  Likewise Elizabeth Olsen as Zibby is precocious, charming, and dynamic – the perfect embodiment of a romance that simply-should-not-be.

As for the rest of the cast, I found Josh Radnor’s protagonist satisfactory.  It’s hard to separate him from the character of Ted Mosby but in this film he has penned a character that is not much of a stretch for him to play.  It’s not easy to play a likeable character that does some questionable things, but he pulls it off.  On the other hand, I found the work of the usually solid Allison Janney (as cynical Prof. Judith Fairfield) an exercise in hokey over-the-top acting.  Hers was the least palatable of the principle characters and her scenes amongst the worst in the film. 

Clearly this is a movie with the look and feel of the indie production that it is.  It’s dialogue driven and loaded to the gills with sentimentality and nostalgia, and because of this it is not going to appeal to everyone.  However, if films about introspection and those in which the experiences of many come together to paint a complete narrative spark your interest, then this is a movie that you should see.  I don’t think it’s a great movie, but it has some nice qualities.  I don’t think it is supremely entertaining, but I did want to watch it to completion.  Thus, I give Liberal Arts a soft recommendation as a midweek rental that may make you ask yourself a question or two about your life even as you completely forget the film a couple hours after watching it.

Standout Performance: Elizabeth Olsen.  It’s hard not to like the younger sister of Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen as she has shown herself to be a good actress with great screen presence.

Read More

Review: G.I. Joe: Retaliation

If you saw G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, which starred Channing Tatum and Marlon Wayans, then you know that G.I. Joe: Retaliation really had nowhere to go but up.  To ensure that this would be the case, director Jon Chu and company enlisted the help of the franchise rehabilitator Dwayne Johnson to ensure that the sequel would do a better job stuffing Paramount’s coffers.  Going into this movie if you were looking for an intelligent plot or an action movie grounded in reality, then you probably weren’t paying attention to the marketing of this film.  No, this film is all about explosions, gunplay, and hand-to-hand combat  - nothing more nothing less - and the creative team makes no apologies for it.   As for whether it is a highly entertaining nuts-and-bolts action movie, well that is a whole other question.

The plot of the movie picks up where the last one left off with Cobra having replaced the President of the United States with a doppelganger looking to promote their terrorist agenda.  After the GI Joe unit is dealt a crippling blow via sneak attack, a small group of remaining soldiers led by Road Block (Dwayne Johnson) enlists the help of General Joe Colton (Bruce Willis) to avert global destruction.

Sound good?  Ok.  So there is a bit of a backstory to this film.  It was originally slated for release last summer, but Paramount pushed back the release to March 2013 to accommodate 3D conversion.  Or so they say.  Sources allege that the film was delayed on account of massive reshoots to not only “fix” the film, but also to beef up Channing Tatum’s role in the movie – since his star had risen significantly post The Vow, 21 Jump Street, and Magic Mike.  So did the reshoots help?  The quick answer is probably not.

The plot is tough to digest even if you go into the film expecting total fluff summer popcorn fare.  It stretches your disbelief farther than it wants to go and does so with mediocre acting.  The movie tries to be both an intimate action narrative and a story written on a global scale and that’s a bit too much to chew for this kind of film.  There’s not enough plot development, not enough attention to the written word, and not enough acting acumen in this film to pull that off.  Sure, the action sequences are good (not great), but the stuff in between prevents you from buying in.

The bright spot in this film is Dwayne Johnson.  He knows how to play this type of role and has done so in nearly all his films.  He has the imposing physicality and the  wry sarcastic delivery to add a bit of levity when the movie demands it.  Is this a new or groundbreaking turn for Johnson?  No, but it’s his bread and butter and the reason he is known as a franchise rehabilitator.  As for his partner in crime, Bruce Willis, it’s not his most egregious effort and it’s not by any means his best. I can’t say that he actually was trying in this film, but he didn’t completely fall asleep at the wheel. 

The rest of the cast is hit or miss.  D.J. Cotorona as Flint is terrible.  He has no onscreen presence and no charisma whatsoever.  The same cannot be said of his cohort Adrianne Palicki.  The camera loves her and she is oozing with personality, but unfortunately she is not ideal in this role.  The tough girl with a soft heart is something she can pull off, but when you add the military component to the package, things feel off.  Byung Hyun Lee, Ray Park, and Ray Stevenson are satisfactory as Storm Shadow, Snake Eyes, and Firefly respectively, but Jonathan Pryce and Luke Bracey (the President and Cobra Commander) leave tons to be desired.  Worst in show goes to RZA as Blind Master.  Not only is he the worst actor ever, but his mere presence in this movie knocks it down a half grade as it reminded me of the debacle that is The Man with the Iron Fist. 

Though you would never say the bar was set high for this film, it still falls painfully short of what the finished product should have been.  Expansive ninja fight scenes, established veteran action stars, and a built in mythos – this is a move that should have been much more fun.  With narratives of this ilk, we don’t ask for depth, character development, and all that much logic, but what we do expect is a raucous adrenaline rush of a film.  It fails to deliver on the latter and that makes this one a very bad rental at best.  Given that we’re only a month away from the summer movie season, better ways to satisfy your action fix loom on the horizon.

Standout Performance: Channing Tatum.  He is least culpable for this film going awry.

Read More

Review: Spring Breakers

Sometimes something is so bad that it’s actually starts to seem good; or so outrageous that it actually makes sense.  And for about two seconds in the middle of Spring Breakers, I started to wonder if this was one of those instances.  But then James Franco went on a ten minute monologue about guns and Calvin Klein Escape and I was reassured that this was nothing more than cinematic refuse.  In fact, this film is so bad that there is no lens I can think of, through which this movie can be rationalized as anything more than terrible.  Sure, there are the apologists and contrarians who will look at the bright colors and the gratuitous sexual innuendo and convince themselves that this is art nouveau on crack, but then those are probably the same people who think dog poo smeared across a blank canvas is artistically meaningful.

The plot of the movie follows four incredibly misguided youths (Selena Gomez, Vanessa Hudgens, Ashley Benson, and Rachel Korine) as they go to extreme measures to participate in the annual rite of spring break in Florida.  When a local drug dealing wanna-be-rapper (James Franco) bails them out of jail, they embark on a low-rent-low-level crime spree that puts them on a collision course with a local heavy. 

The problem then with the synopsis in the preceding paragraph is that it gives the impression that this movie has an actual plot when it is in fact a muddled mess of graphic sexual exploitation and every ignorant stereotype that you can come up with.  That is not the fatal flaw of this movie, as many a movie have been built on rocky foundations but still managed to entertain.  No, the problem here is that it looks and feels as though director Harmony Korine simply has no idea how to direct, cut, and score a feature film.  So then it should come as no surprise that this is his first time in the big chair. 

Rather than a movie, this set of scenes plays like the fetish fantasy of a seventeen years old boy who takes too many drugs and plays too many video games.  The visuals are a cheap rip off of Miami Vice with neon and pastels and the dialogue is so amateurish that the crowd spent half the film laughing through scenes that are unintentionally funny.  The edits are incoherent and sloppy, and the musical score completely bungled. 

As for the cast, James Franco follows up his subpar effort in Oz with a performance that is even worse.  I give him credit for taking a risk and going for it, but this character Alien is an unbelievable caricature of ten outdated stereotypes.  The stench of his performance may be as much a product of Korine’s writing as it is his performance, but there are just too many cringe inducing scenes to give Franco a pass.  As for the cast of former tween stars headlining this movie, Selena Gomez gets the nod for worst in show.  I’m not going to mince words here.  She simply cannot act.  Regardless of film or role, she simply does not have enough talent to convince anyone of anything.  My guess here is that her biggest claim to fame going forward will be as Bieber’s on-again-off-again girlfriend until his five minutes of fame mercifully come to an end.

Then there is the trio of Vanessa Hudgens, Ashley Benson, and Rachel Korine.  The three of them essentially delivered the same performance.  When they weren’t naked and participating in some kind of erotica, they were desperately overacting to convince viewers they were street ready and hardcore.  Was it embarrassing?  Yes.  Were they worse than Franco or Gomez?  No.  So in this context, that has to be viewed as a win.  As for the rest of the cast, there were a bunch of exaggerated stereotypes walking around with guns, bongs, and bibles but none of them bring anything to the table and thus are not worthy of a mention.

In my experience I have come to find that voices that are the most loud and obnoxious tend to have the least meaningful thoughts to express and that’s what this movie is.  It’s loud, bombastic, and over-the-top but it doesn’t have anything important to convey and doesn’t really have a compelling story to tell.  This movie is nothing more than a director (and I use that word loosely) indulging his own personal fantasies onscreen and does not need to be seen let alone paid for.  Watch pretty much anything else (yes, even Project X) and you will find yourself far more entertained.

Standout Performance: Anyone who passed on this movie.

Read More

April 2013 Movie Guide

APRIL 5, 2013

EVIL DEAD

Starring: Jessica Lucas, Elizabeth Blackmore, Jane Levy

Why You Should See It: Because there are no other major nationwide releases that weekend.
Why You Should Avoid It: Because it's a remake and 99.9999% of the time, remakes are inferior.

And the Magic 8 Ball Says: Never.

Other theatrical releases:  Jurassic Park 3D, The Company You Keep, Trance

APRIL 12, 2013 

SCARY MOVIE 5

Starring: Ashley Tisdale, Lindsay Lohan, Charlie Sheen, Terry Crews

Why You Should See It: Because you've seen the first four and you don't want to break up a good streak.

Why You Should Avoid It: Because each successive movie in the series has been exponentially worse than its predecessor.

And the Magic 8 Ball Says:  Never. Ever.

42

Starring: Chadwick Boseman, Harrison Ford, Nicole Beharie, T.R. Knight

Why You Should See It: The story of Jackie Robinson is a compelling tale that holds a lot of historical significance.

Why You Should Avoid It: Because there are so many better places to go for historical accuracy than a hollywood production.

And the Magic 8 Ball Says:  Game time decision.

Other theatrical releases:  To the Wonder

APRIL 19, 2013 

OBLIVION

Starring: Tom Cruise, Olga Kurylenko, Andrea Riseborough, Morgan Freeman

Why You Should See It: Because there hasn't been a decent action movie in months.

Why You Should Avoid It: Because Tom Cruise has been very hit or miss lately.

And the Magic 8 Ball Says:  Sure, why not.

Other theatrical releases:  Home Run, The Lords of Salem, Disconnect

APRIL 26, 2013 

PAIN AND GAIN

Starring: Dwayne Johnson, Mark Wahlberg, Tony Shalhoub, Bar Paly

Why You Should See It: Dwayne Johnson and Marky Mark can be pretty entertaining.

Why You Should Avoid It: Because Michael Bay is a mixed bag as a director.

And the Magic 8 Ball Says:  Yes.

THE BIG WEDDING

Starring: Katherine Heigl, Robert DeNiro, Diane Keaton

Why You Should See It: Ehh....

Why You Should Avoid It: Katherine Heigl.

And the Magic 8 Ball Says:  Just say no.

Other theatrical releases:  Mud, At Any Price, The Numbers Station

Read More

Review: The Call (2013)

Sometimes when you watch a movie, you just know that creative threw a bunch of stuff against the wall and went with whatever muddle mix of ideas happened to stick.  The Call starring Halle Berry is precisely this type of movie.  Forget that it’s almost a direct rip of Cellular (Chris Evans), because that alone would not have warranted someone opening his/her checkbook in order for this movie to be made.  No, this movie is more like five parts Cellular, and one part Silence of the Lambs and Kiss the Girls, with a little of The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 sprinkled in.  The problem here is that none of these mismatched parts is done particularly well.

The plot of the movie focuses on Halle Berry’s Jordan Turner, a 9-1-1 operator who becomes embroiled in the machinations of a serial killer when she accepts a call from Casey Welson (Aibgail Breslin), a girl who is kidnapped from a mall parking lot.  The plot plays out like a game of cat and mouse as Berry and Breslin work together to try to stop the killer (Michael Eklund) before it is too late. 

Though this has been done before, the premise has a few things working for it – a clear objective, the feeling of time constraints, lots of enclosed spaces; all the tools one would need to build a taut suspenseful narrative.  And that’s what makes director Brad Anderson directing miscues all the more glaring.  To be fair, this movie is a low budget B-level film and thus should come with tempered expectations, but that doesn’t mean you can’t tell a compelling story.  Sadly, writer Richard D’Ovidio seems content to pick pocket elements from other films and does a shoddy job of sewing them into one meaningful plotline.  The story is so week that you could have watched the entire film with the mute button on and not have been any worse off.

Still, I am going to throw a ton of blame for this debacle at the cast.  When you are making a B-level movie, much of the onus to elevate the narrative falls to the acting talent.  Despite some of the acclaim that Halle Berry has received, I’ve never been high on her acting abilities.  Still, regardless of where you stand on this debate it is undeniable that her recent filmography leaves a lot to desire.  So to me, her work in The Call is the continuation of a steep decline.  I found her performance lazy and unconvincing and the delivery of some of her lines downright cringe inducing.

As for her co-star Abigail Breslin, her work was a pedestrian paint-by-numbers damsel in distress performance.  You could have gotten this (or more) from half the actresses at an open casting call, but my guess is that she was placed in this film for whatever bump at the box office her slight name recognition might contribute.  Still her performance probably could have graded better had Michael Eklund brought a bit of menace to the table.  It is not hyperbole when I tell you that he is probably one of the least intimidating villains I’ve ever seen in a film from the thriller genre.  His performance is total amateur hour.

So to recap, the plot is an amateurish amalgamation of a bunch of mismatched films; poorly written and directed; produced on the cheap; and features a cast that brings nothing to the table.  I don’t think this needs to be stated, but I am going to say it anyway.  Do not watch this movie.  Ever.  It is a supreme waste of time and/or money that can be spent on more interesting activities like mowing your lawn with nail clippers or…breathing.  In lieu of this, watch Cellular.  By no means is that a cinematic masterpiece, but Chris Evans and Kim Basinger are ten times better than the aforementioned cast of this film.  And as you move forward in your life, I highly recommend that you avoid all movies that feature Halle Berry as the lead.  Consider yourself warned.

Standout Performance: Morris Chestnut.  He wasn’t terrible.

Read More

Review: A Good Day to Die Hard

When did the Die Hard franchise officially “jump the shark?”  Was it in the second film, when Bruce Willis’ John McClane jumped onto the wing of a movie 747?  Or was it in the third film, when he survived an underground flood by being harmlessly thrusted out a manhole.  Surely, by the time he was paired opposite Justin Long to stop an imminent cyber attack against the U.S., you were well aware this was no longer the John McClane you knew and loved.  Still, many critics have opined that the problem with A Good Day to Die Hard is that the film betrays its roots – that John McClane should be an everyman who not only survives but also overcomes realistic circumstances through grit and determination.  Realistic?  Really?  What about the last three movies has seemed at all realistic?  No, the real problem with the fifth Die Hard is that it’s a pointless excuse to smash a bunch of cars and blow up stuff.

The plot of the movie finds McClane off to Moscow to find his son, who has apparently found himself in a bit of trouble.  As in the previous films, we are reminded repeatedly that McClane has been a horrible family man and is hoping to mend fences with his son.  Sending him to Moscow adds the fish-out-of-water layer to the plot but that only manifests in a few re-hashed American cowboy jokes.  The rest of the plot plays out with McClane repeatedly schooling his son, so much so that I was waiting for him to break out into a rendition of “Kids” from Bye Bye Birdie.  It all gets tired really fast.

If I could make an analogy to illustrate what ails this film it would be that director John Moore and writer Skip Woods gives us the cinematic equivalent of a BMW 1-series.  People may call the 1 series a BMW, slap the logo on the hood, and pay BMW prices, but nothing under the hood suggests that it is a real BMW.  That’s the deal with Die Hard 5.  Other than casting Bruce Willis and giving it a title that not-so-cleverly uses the words “Die Hard,” there’s nothing about this movie that looks or feels like Die Hard.  The plot is generic and uninteresting.  And save for one or two way-over-the-top scenes, the action sequences are pretty unimaginative.  And in a movie like this, if you don’t have top not action then you don’t have anything.

Where I knew things had gone wrong was when the plot took us to Chernobyl.  Having seen Chernobyl Diaries before this film, I can safely say that I hope no other film ever uses this as a backdrop to a fictional plot.  It doesn’t play.  Not even “Looper” Bruce Willis or “Moonlighting” Bruce Willis could have overcome the stink of this whole Chernobyl plot line.  But worry not, because Willis doesn’t bring his A-game to this movie.  He treats it like a paycheck movie.  I have come to realize that Die Hard has become the cinematic equivalent of “fat sweat pants” to Bruce Willis.  It lulls him into not even trying.  As a result, his work in this movie is even worse than his work in Armageddon.   Ouch!

Working opposite Willis is Jai Courtney as his son, Jack.  Courtney recently played the heavy in Jack Reacher and after seeing these two performances I can tell you that he has the screen presence of an uncooked potato - Yes, uncooked.  The issue here is that not only is he a bad actor, but I suspect that he may also be a boring guy. My guess is that he is probably not the person you want to station yourself next to at a cocktail party.  His lack of charisma is a huge issue for this film since he receives as much screen time as Bruce Willis.  As for the rest of the cast, Cole Hauser (Pitch Black), Yuliya Snigir, Sebastian Koch, and Rasha Bukvic are adequate at best and could have been easily replaced by any other actor.  That Mary Elizabeth Winstead is only used in a cameo capacity is one of the more egregious offenses committed by the creative team.  She is a good actress who would have brought a lot more spunk to the narrative than anyone else in this cast.

So, I suspect that there are some who are going to watch this movie regardless of what anyone says.  You’ve seen the first four so you’re pot committed.  There’s nothing wrong with that.  I am right there with you.  But for those of you on the fence, you probably don’t need to see this movie, even if you are an action/adrenaline junky.  There are titles upon titles upon titles that will give you more bang for your buck (or your time) sans the curmudgeonly old man jokes.  At best, it is a FX, TBS, TNT movie but even then you’ll probably regret losing those ninety-one minutes.  If you are a huge Bruce Willis nut, go rent Looper - his best work in the last ten years.  And if you’re a Jai Courtney fan, well then I guess there’s no accounting for taste.  

Standout Performance: Me for not using a joke like this one in the review: “The only thing that needs to Die Hard is this movie.”  ZING!

Read More

Review: The Incredible Burt Wonderstone

Who doesn’t love a comeback, right?  I guess that’s why we have so many stories of redemption put to print and screen.  Blood and guts, sweat and tears, gut busting laughter – whatever the packaging the plot mechanisms remain the same: a meteoric rise to the top, out right acts of hubris, a disgraceful descent into ruin, and after the appropriate amount of suffering a return to top form with a newfound sense of humility.  Take a look at your Nook, your iTunes, and at your DVD shelf and you will see that paradigm all over the place.  Its latest big screen incarnation comes wrapped in the magical packaging in The Incredible Burt Wonderstone.

The movie follows Steve Carell’s Burt as he goes from bullied child in grade school to the pinnacle of the magic world as a headliner at Bally’s in Las Vegas.  Along for the ride is his childhood friend and fellow magician Anton (Steve Buscemi).  But after years of working together performing the same routine day in and day out and living a life of excess, the two magicians lose their popularity and have a falling out.  The movie goes on to detail how Carell’s Burt deals with his plight and his attempt to recapture that former magic.

Going into this movie, you know two things: that the movie is not going to be a cinematic masterpiece; and exactly where the plot is going to take you.  So I am not going to tell you about the cinematography, the directing, and the level of believability.  None of that matters here and people who say otherwise are cinema snobs.  The only thing you really need to know is whether writers Jonathan Goldstein and Jon Francis Daley can make you laugh with the inevitable slew of punch lines aimed at Criss Angel, David Copperfield, Siegfried and Roy, et al.  And the answer to that question is…a bit.

I went into the movie with tepid expectations even though the cast is littered with some very funny acting talent.  Carell, Buscemi, and Carrey each on their own are capable of delivering an entire film’s worth of laughs so the prospects of the three of them together made me wonder if this would be to the world of magic what Anchorman is to television journalism.  Still, given the release date and WBs recent track record (very poor), I had the feeling this one would be quite forgettable.  Judging by the sparse crowd for 7 PM on a Friday night, I wasn’t the only one who felt this way.

So much of the film feels pedestrian.  The plot really doesn’t matter much as ninety percent of the movie feels like filler between the occasional big gag, some of which are quite funny.  In this way, I liken most of the narrative to commercials that run during sporting events.  You sit tolerate them until the action starts.  Needless to say, this is not a ringing endorsement for the film.  There are however a few times when the comedic bits make the down time worthwhile but that is more the exception than the rule.  More often than not, the gags fall short of the mark - especially Jim Carrey’s.  Clearly his role in this movie is to deliver a series of grotesque sight gags that get played out very early on.

On the opposite end of the spectrum from Carrey is Alan Arkin, as retired magician Rance Holloway.  If it feels like he is the only one really trying in this movie, it’s because he probably was.  He’s the moral conscience of the film, but at the same time he is incredibly funny.  Arkin’s an absolute pro and that especially shows opposite some of his underperforming cast mates.  If Steve Carell could have bottled some of that magic, this film might have been a letter grade higher, but Carell doesn’t give you anything you haven’t already seen in The Office or Get Smart. 

As for the rest of the cast, Buscemi is mostly window dressing and never gets to stretch his chops in this movie, which is disappointing.  When he is on his comedic game, he can steal the show.  James Gandolfini, Jay Mohr, and Brad Garrett are in this movie, but probably dropped their funniest lines on the way to cashing their paychecks. And as for Olivia Wilde, I am not always the biggest fan of her work, but I found her character in this movie very likable.  It was a nice turn for the actress.

I am going to be frank and tell you that there is no way you should pay to see this movie – not at the cinema, not at as a purchase, and not at a Red Box kiosk.  You will regret every single penny spilled.  At best it’s a middle-of-the-queue Netflix movie, but probably better left to a random viewing on HBO, Starz, or MAX.  With low expectations and little investment, you will probably appreciate the humor a bit more.  This is a movie that could have been better, but it also could have been worst.  So take it for what it is and you’ll probably achieve the best entertainment value.

Standout Performance: Alan Arkin.  He is the best of the cast hands down.

Read More