Review: Jack the Giant Slayer

Snow White (and the Huntsman), Hansel & Gretel (Witch Hunters), and now Jack the Giant Slayer (sans Bean Stalk) – having finally viewed the latter I have officially completed the recent trifecta of fairy tales turned Hollywood action vehicles.  And suddenly my confidence in director Bryan Singer’s next X-Men is considerably shaken.  And this isn’t a case of high expectations either as I went into Jack the Giant Slayer with very little hope.  While box office receipts aren’t the be-all-end-all indicators of quality filmmaking, a $65M domestic take against a reported $195M budget (which was really more like $235M) will temper any and all hype surrounding a movie.  So where did this dud (one in a extended string of underwhelming WB theatrical releases) go wrong?

It wasn’t necessarily the premise.  Unlike some of its fellow fairy tale adaptations, the story of Jack and the Bean Stalk would seem to lend itself nicely to an action treatment without too much cajoling.  The mythical beans, a magical crown, nefarious giants, a princess, and the potential for some large-scale battle scenes are elements that could easily provide a decent foundation for an epic fantasy film in the vein of so many other classics.  And with Bryan Singer at the helm - no newcomer to the action genre, the table seemed set for a raucous ride.

Where I believe the film first goes awry is with the tone.  There’s a fine line between catering to a young adult audience and then to a more mature one, and it so rarely works when a script tries to toe that line.  There are moments in this film when the characters dialogue and actions seem to pander to youthful viewers and that in turn greatly diminishes its credibility with the older viewers.  So when those characters enter grave moments in which the stakes are raised and consequences dire, those scenes fail to carry the weight that they should.  This proves true even when characters of varying significance meet their demise.

The second major issue plaguing this film is most definitely the CG.  With a budget hovering around the $200M mark, it’s hard to fathom that the effects could be so shoddy, but that’s precisely what they are.  From start to finish, the CG appears second rate and this is incredibly crippling for a film that is set in a fantasy world with an army of computer-generated giants as the chief antagonists.  Needless to say, that any “willing suspension of disbelief” is impossible to achieve while watching this film when the visuals keep reminding you that none of it is real.

The third major issue with the film surprisingly has to do with the work of the cast.  On paper, a roster that features Ewan McGregor, Stanley Tucci, Ian McShane, and Nicholas Hoult would seem very impressive.  Unfortunately, things never come together for this ensemble.  Hoult as Jack is merely satisfactory, and not nearly dynamic enough to carry a film of this scale.  McGregor’s performance as Elmont, the head of the royal guards, is completely over-the-top.  Clearly in this for the paycheck and loathing himself for it, McGregor turns in the kind of performance we haven’t seen since the days of Star Wars Episode II.  As for the usually interesting Stanley Tucci and intense Ian McShane, to say that they sleepwalked through the film would be an understatement.  The words “bag job” would probably be a more accurate description.

The lone bright spot in the cast has to be Eleanor Tomlinson as Princess Isabelle.  I have never noticed her work before and am not in a rush to see more, but she was credible and did her best with very little support from her cast mates.  Regardless, she could have turned in an Oscar winning performance and it would have been for naught in a film such as this one that was plagued with so many issues.

I would have to concur then with all the people who decided not to watch this move in the cinema (and there were many of them).  There’s just so little to truly like about Jack the Giant Slayer and because of this, I don’t think you should waste your time renting it.  There is a plethora of action movies out there in the home entertainment sphere that may not be great films but are exponentially more entertaining than this title.  If you happen to catch this movie on television and your only other viewing option is MTV’s Teen Mom, then I would suggest you give it a look.  Otherwise take a pass.  Going forward, here’s hoping Bryan Singer does a better job with his re-entry in Marvel’s Cinematic Universe.

Standout Performance:  Eleanor Tomlinson, for not being as bad as the rest of her cast mates.

Read More

Review: The Internship

Have you ever found yourself flipping through the channels only to land on a movie you haven’t seen in a while?  And by movie’s end you think to yourself how they don’t make movies like that anymore?  The reason that you are thinking that is because you are probably right.  Hollywood has for the most part stripped down its slate to a few “proven” paradigms due to a slowing economy, a perceived shift in viewing tastes, but mostly because of the slow death of the home entertainment market.  Every once in a while though, a movie slips through the cracks of the green light process (or has that rare star who can push it through) and makes it onto the big screen, reminding you of movies long since passed.  The Internship is one of those films.

The Internship is a classic fish-out-of-water narrative that finds Vince Vaughn's and Owen Wilson’s characters recently fired from their now obsolete sales jobs.  In an attempt to right their wrongs and set a new course for their respective lives, Vaughn and Wilson finagle their way into the Google internship program with designs on earning a full time job.

As you can tell from the premise, there is nothing ground breaking about this film.  In fact, director Shawn Levy’s narrative is incredibly formulaic – an almost paint-by-numbers approach to comedic filmmaking.  The twists and turns are right on cue as if timed to a metronome and the outcome a forgone conclusion even as the opening credits roll.  So you may be wondering why then I waxed poetic about this kind of movie at the outset of this review?  Well, the simple answer is that it’s a positive story littered with likable characters.  Most of the movies that come down the pipeline these days are incredibly dark or driven by massive action; and this is not a bad thing.  Many of my favorite movies fit into one or both of those buckets.  But every once in a while, it’s nice to sit down to a movie that is easy to digest where you can just root for the underdog.  That’s The Internship.

The work of Vaughn and Wilson in this movie will not make anyone forget Wedding Crashers, but their chemistry is spot on and they never miss a beat.  Vaughn delivers his usual glib shtick spewing one-liners at break neck speed while Wilson is the same affable happy-go-lucky goof that we’ve seen in so many other movies.  Again, it’s nothing new and nothing edgy, but it’s familiar and comforting – as if you are seeing an old friend on screen.  It’s nowhere near their best work individually or as a tandem, but the two show that even with the loss of a few miles per hour off the proverbial fastball, they can still get the job done.

As for the work of the rest of the cast, it is unremarkable but not unpleasant.  Rose Byrne as love-interest Dana is endearing in small doses and fits the bill – nothing more and nothing less.  Aasif Mandvi’s Mr. Hawtrey is a caricature of a bunch of stereotypes, but Mandvi does an admirable job of making his character likable enough while setting up Vaughn for some of his best gags.  Josh Brener, Dylan O’Brien, Tiya Sircar, and Tobit Raphael do a decent job of playing the band of misfits surrounding the bumbling protagonists and add a bit of value to the likability of this film.  As for Max Minghella’s Graham Hawtrey, he delivers a spot on portrayal of an aspiring MBA candidate.

So as I consider the complete picture that is The Internship, I am hard pressed to call it a good movie or maybe even a decent movie.  It’s not original, not innovative, and not a must see in the cinema type of film.  But there are some funny moments and there is something to be said for a movie that is easy to watch and that leaves you feeling good by the  time the credits roll.  I don’t suggest you plunk $15 down on the counter at your local cinema for this one, but I would suggest you save it on one of your rental queues.  It probably will not impact your life in the least, but by the end of those two hours you will feel a little better about the world.

Standout Performance:  Rob Riggle and Will Ferrell.  Great cameos.

Read More

Review: Stoker

If you have never heard of Chan-wook Park, then you should do a Google search and take a look at his filmography.  The South Korean director is a master of suspense in the way everyone mistakenly thought that M. Night Shyamalan would become on the heels of the Sixth Sense, only Park has a strong sense of visual flair and a disciplined directorial approach that makes even the most mundane act explode with life onscreen.  He’s that good.  The film Stoker represents his first foray into “mainstream” Hollywood (though one would hardly dub “Stoker” mainstream) and the result is a suspenseful highly stylized narrative that feels slice of life but proves to be something else altogether.

The narrative tells the story of India (played by Mia Wasikowska), a young woman who is mourning the passing of her father.  When her uncle Charlie – a man she has never heard of before, comes to live with her and her mother (Nicole Kidman), it unlocks a bevy of conflicting feelings for India against the backdrop of violence and sexual innuendo that ultimately leads to the revelation of a dark family secret.

As you watch the plot of the movie unfold, you realize that visually you are watching a master at work.  The attention to detail, the subtlety, the sound, the framing of the shot, it becomes apparent that all these elements are coming together to tell the story; that each piece is contributing to the tension as much as the dialogue and grandiose action undertaken by the actors.  At times it feels the attention to visual detail and to the minutiae are bringing the plot to a plodding place, but as the scenes unfold you realize Park is slow playing his hand – suffocating you in the way the reality of the film suffocates the protagonists.  If I were critiquing this film based on directorial efforts alone, it would be an unmitigated A.

Unfortunately, the film falls apart for me in the third act.  Without spoiling the plot, it’s hard not to feel that the climax and subsequent reveal fall short of this masterful taut narrative that Park has brought to a boil.  The blame for this has to fall on writer Wentworth Miller as his script proves to be more a house of cards than a sound taut thriller, tumbling under its own weight.  At the precise moment that the film should explode with large reveals and some sort of cathartic release, it goes out with the whimper that is predictability.  Sadly, that makes Park’s directorial clinic seem largely for naught.

Mia Wasikowska (as India) turns in a solid lead performance.  It’s a character that falls right into her comfort zone; one who is offbeat and troubled.  It’s not easy to sell a story that is set in this sort of timeless world with no signature to define its context in the past or present, but Wasikowska does admirably to that end.  As for Nicole Kidman, she continues this run of playing women whose moral compass points south and though I don’t always appreciate her performances I always give her credit for really going for it.  While I don’t think this performance was particularly game changing, I do think that she was credible as the detached matriarch of the house.

As for Matthew Goode, I have always found his work hit or miss.  For a while I felt Goode was on the verge of breaking out as a star, but that one great role and/or performance always seemed to elude him.  Having watched his uneven turn in this film, it seems that he will forever be just another British actor who is capable playing the type of character played in Match Point, and shaky when forced outside that comfort zone.  Never is that more apparent than in this film where on the one hand he must be the charismatic gentleman, and on the other hand he must portray a highly troubled individual.

The net result here is a movie that has great directing and mostly solid acting, but fails to deliver a worthy a payoff.  That doesn’t completely dismiss it as a worthy way to spend ninety-minutes of your life, but it keeps the movie from achieving the heights that it could have.  If you are one who can appreciate the merits of filmmaking even while walking away from the movie feeling unrequited then this would be a decent way to pass the time; but for you if it’s all about the ending,, then you may find Stoker far less appetizing.  For those who are more the former than the latter, I suggest viewing this one on a night when you’re in a particularly odd mood as there’s very little that is warm and fuzzy about this one. 

Standout Performance:  Mia Wasikowska.  I don’t think it was by any means a signature performance, but she is best in show.

Read More

Review: The Hangover Part III

When I think of a great movie that was really damaged by the last two legs of its trilogy the first one that comes to mind is The Matrix.  All that was good about that first film (and there was a lot) was compromised and marginalized by the overwrought cinematic trash that followed.  Even now when I catch the original Matrix film in passing, it’s hard to separate that movie from the painful dialogue, the silly plot twists, and the uninspired acting that dominated Reloaded and Revolutions.  Sadly, having watched The Hangover Part III, I can now say the exact same for that franchise.  As good a comedic adventure as the first film was, the second and now the third have ensured that it will no longer be remembered fondly.

Part three of The Hangover trilogy finds the Wolf Pack looking to take Alan to a facility in Arizona to assist him with his own emotional well-being.  Along the way, they get caught in the cross hairs of a Vegas wise guy who is desperate to find Leslie Chow, who has recently escaped from a Bangkok prison.  When the wise guy (played by John Goodman) takes Doug captive (of course), Stu (Ed Helms), Phil (Bradley Cooper), and Alan (Zach Galifianakis) are forced to chase down Chow in order to make things right.

Here’s the thing, when you’re making a sequel loaded with beloved characters, you are playing with house money as fans already have a built in affinity for your protagonists.  And that’s what makes it all the more painful when a writer/director like Todd Phillips takes that good will and flushes it down the toilet.  Sure, he had already inflicted a ton of damage to the franchise with The Hangover Part II (a point-by-point copy of the first film sans the fun), but with The Hangover Part III, it’s as if he wanted to pound the proverbial nail into the coffin.  How he chose to bring about such destruction was to make a comedy that is not at all funny.

The quickest analogy I can make to this movie is the series finale of Seinfeld.  Those of you who watched the last episode will remember that far too much time and effort was spent ensuring that every bit player who ever appeared on the show would be paraded across the screen, rather than doing what they did best; setting up jokes and then delivering the laughs.  That represents part of what is wrong with The Hangover Part III.  Far too much time is spent setting up this cameo and that cameo and returning to this location and that.  Sure, it’s a nice cookie for hardcore fans of the franchise (if there are any), but not when it sacrifices screen time that would be better served setting up witty jokes or hilarious sight gags.

The second half of what goes wrong in this film is the same problem that befalls pretty much every comedian/comedic property in Hollywood.  The longer anyone (or anything) funny exists in this industry, the more inevitable it becomes that he/she begins to take himself/herself far too serious.  Part III epitomizes this notion.  The script is dark, the peril real, and the talent in the cast, well some take themselves far too serious and seem to consider themselves above the source material.  And because of this, all that is fun and charming about the first film seems like less than a distant memory.

In regards to the work of the stars, Bradley Cooper and Ed Helms seem to be going through the motions in this movie.  Clearly, the film represented a healthy paycheck to the duo and nothing more.  If either actor had a legitimate comedic moment during the film’s two hour running time, then I am hard-pressed to remember it.  On the other hand, Zach Galifianakis to his credit seems to be giving a better effort than his co-stars.  But trying to sell tired jokes and playing the funny man without a legitimate straight man along for the ride (thanks to Cooper’s and Helm’s apathy) is an unbalanced formula which amounts to delivering punch lines without setting up the jokes.

As for the rest of the cast, Justin Bartha remains an under utilized bit player (what else is new); John Goodman does nothing more than show up; and Jamie Chung, Heather Graham, Jeffrey Tambor, Mike Epps, and Melissa McCarthy show up on screen long enough to register as nothing more than a blip.  Of the supporting cast, Ken Jeong clearly stands out as he is afforded the most screen time and does an admirable job of trying to bring Chow to life from this lifeless script, but by films end even Chow comes off as bland and neutered.

So by now you have probably surmised that I would not recommend this movie.  There’s just so little to appreciate about it, no matter your expectations, that I feel hard-pressed to justify any kind of viewing scenario.  I understand that desire to watch the movie in order to complete the cycle and get “closure” for this trilogy as that was very much my own motivation for heading out to the cinema, but I must warn you that watching this movie is going to greatly devalue your affinity towards the Wolf Pack.  Take a pass on Part III and try and forget Part II.  Maybe then you’ll be able to enjoy the next time you catch The Hangover on TV.

Standout Performance: Based on effort alone, Ken Jeong gets the nod.

Read More

Review: Fast & Furious 6

All who thumbs their noses at the Fast & Furious franchise just don’t get it.  Everyone from the suits to the creative team to the cast and crew know that these films aren’t Weinstein material and that no Awards Season campaign is going to be launched for an Oscar push.  The movies have and will always be about fast cars, big action sequences, and just enough sentimentality to make you care about the characters.  Each film has gone bigger than its predecessor and at times less believable, but that’s part of the fun and why it is a billion dollar franchise for Universal.  The latest entry in the series - Fast & Furious 6, proves to be the biggest and best of the lot.

The plot finds Dwayne Johnson’s Hobbs seeking out Vin Diesel’s Toretto for helping in capturing an international arms dealer played by Luke Evans.  The hook to this deal is the reappearance of Letty (Michelle Rodriguez), Toretto’s former paramour who was thought to be deceased.  With an offer of immunity on the table, Toretto and O’Conner (Paul Walker) reassemble their team to assist Hobbs’ manhunt and to bring their lost friend Letty home.

If it sounds like heavy stuff to you, then you’re wrong.  No matter what gravitas may seem to hang over the heads of the protagonists, this film is paced far too fast to take notice.  No, what the premise actually is, is a good launching point from which to thrust the crew onto an adrenaline-infused ride.  Since director Justin Lin first jumped into the franchise with the underrated Tokyo Drift, he has done a masterful job of framing the action steering this cast away from its racing roots towards heist narratives.  The continuity between franchise and director over the last four films shows itself well in the way that Fast & Furious 6 continuously ties back to its predecessors; something ardent fans of the franchise will appreciate.

And while Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, and (to a slightly lesser extent) Dwayne Johnson get top billing, Fast 6 is very much an ensemble film.  One could in fact make the argument that some of the best scenes unfold while the big three are off camera.  Thus each member of the cast deserves a bit of ink (and an individual grade):

Vin Diesel as Dominic Toretto (B-): Diesel has played this role in just over four films spanning well over a decade.  While it seems like at times he is it on cruise control, it doesn’t affect his performance because: a.) It’s a roll that he could probably play in his sleep and b.) it’s not like the he is being tasked with playing Hamlet.

Paul Walker as Brian O’Connor (B-): The one constant throughout Walker’s career has never been his inability to act well.  There’s one role and only one role that he can play – Brian O’Connor.  This may be a product of his playing it fives times or because the writers tailor it to his persona.  Regardless, there’s not a lot of heavy lifting for him in this film and that allows him to be adequate.

Dwayne Johnson as Hobbs (B): If you tracked all the cringe worthy lines in this movie most would have to be attributed to Johnson’s Hobbs, but that is partly a byproduct of how his character is written.  He’s big; he’s militant; he’s over the top; and Johnson goes all in to portray him.  And as always, Johnson is downright entertaining.  Seriously, when was the last time you saw one of his movies and were not entertained?

Tyrese Gibson as Roman Pearce (B+): As usual, Gibson provides the comic relief and gets some of the best lines in this film and what he does with those lines is absolutely steal the show.  While no one will ever convince me that he is a good actor, I admit that he is very good at precisely the brand of shtick he brings to this franchise.

Sung Kang as Han (A-):  If Gibson is 1A in this movie, then Kang is 1B.  Try as the film does to make Vin Diesel’s and Paul Walker’s storylines serve as the heart of the movie, it’s Kang’s Han storyline that really drives that train.  Kang runs the acting gamut from comedy to physicality to emotional sensitivity and in doing so delivers the most complete performance in the movie.

Gal Gadot as Gisele (B): She’s not given the most robust role in the film but Gadot shows she is more than eye candy this time out.  She, along with Sung Kang, provides a different element to this movie, because in a franchise that constantly brings the same characters back into the same kind of fray each time out, Gadot (along with Kang) bring their characters on a journey that has a beginning, middle, and an end. 

Jordana Brewster as Mia O’Connor (C): Brewster is fairly irrelevant in this movie and serves as barely more than window dressing.

Chris Ludacris Bridges as Tej (C+): See also Jordana Brewster.  Okay, that’s a little harsh as Ludacris has his moments to shine occasionally, but in a robust cast with big personalities, his Tej falls a bit by the wayside.

Michelle Rodgiquez as Letty (C-):  I was never been a big fan of Michelle Rodriguez as an actress because I have always thought of her as a one trick pony.  Judging by her work in this film, she still is.

Luke Evans as Shaw (B-): I have seen Evans in some mediocre films (and roles) and despite this I have remained convinced that he is a very good actor.  After watching Fast 6, I am still waiting for him to prove me right.

Gina Carano as Riley (C-):  Carano is a beast.  Her MMA background and her work in Haywire says as much, but every time she speaks a line I am reminded that she is not an actresses.

So with all this being said, I will tell you that Justin Lin’s last hurrah in this franchise is a worthy send off.  The best films happen when the director loves the source material and respects its fan base and that is precisely what is happening in Fast & Furious 6.  It’s not a deep narrative and there are a few big plot holes and leaps in logic, but if you buy a ticket to this film looking for taut coherent storytelling, then you are stepping into the wrong theater.  If you are a fan of this franchise or looking for some good summer popcorn fare, then you will absolutely enjoy this movie on the big screen, as as there are some very impressive action sequences.  If you’re more of a “This is 40” or “Crazy Stupid Love” fan, then you may want to wait for this title on Netflix or maybe take a pass altogether.  And for all you hardcore Fast & Furious fans, fear not.  Number seven is already slated for a July 2014 release.

Standout Performance: Tyrese Gibson for the reasons mentioned above.  Honorable mention goes to Sung Kang.

Read More

June 2013 Movie Guide

JUNE 7, 2013

THE INTERNSHIP

Starring: Vince Vaughn, Owen Wilson, Rose Byrne, John Goodman

Why You Should See It: Because you just loved Wedding Crashers so much.
Why You Should Avoid It: Because of every other movie Vaughn and Wilson have done since Wedding Crashers.

And the Magic 8 Ball Says: Game time decision.

THE PURGE

Starring: Ethan Hawke, Lena Headey, Adelaide Kane

Why You Should See It: It's a moderately interesting premise.
Why You Should Avoid It: Because it looks like a carbon copy of The Strangers and countless other home invasion thrillers.

And the Magic 8 Ball Says: Rental.

Other theatrical releases:  Violet & Daisy, Rapture-Palooza, Much Ado About Nothing

JUNE 14, 2013 

MAN OF STEEL

Starring: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Russell Crowe, Diane Lane, Kevin Costner

Why You Should See It: Because it's a Superman movie.  'Nuff said.

Why You Should Avoid It: Because you’re a hater.

And the Magic 8 Ball Says:  The must see movie of the summer.

THE BLING RING

Starring: Emma Watson, Katie Chang, Israel Broussard, Leslie Mann

Why You Should See It: Because of Emma Watson and director Sophia Coppola, but really just Emma Watson.

Why You Should Avoid It: Because you saw Spring Breakers and you're afraid this is in the same vein.

And the Magic 8 Ball Says:  Yes to Emma Watson.

THIS IS THE END

Starring: James Franco, Jonah Hill, Seth Rogen, Jay Burachel, Danny McBride, Craig Robinson, Emma Watson

Why You Should See It: Because there are a lot of funny people in this film.

Why You Should Avoid It: Because this movie wreaks of a self-indulgent, self-congratulatory project with far too many inside jokes.

And the Magic 8 Ball Says:  A flip of the coin.

Other theatrical releases:  Twenty Feet from Stardom, Hatchet III

JUNE 21, 2013 

MONSTERS UNIVERSITY

Starring: John Krasinski, Steve Buscemi, John Good man, Billy Crystal, Helen Mirren

Why You Should See It: Because you just loved the other Monsters, Inc. movies.

Why You Should Avoid It: Because you’re an adult.

And the Magic 8 Ball Says:  No.

WORLD WAR Z

Starring: Brad Pitt, Mireille Enos, Matthew Fox, James Badge Dale

Why You Should See It: Because you love all things zombie related.

Why You Should Avoid It: Because of Brad Pitt's Chanel commercial and the massive rewrite and delays associated with this movie.

And the Magic 8 Ball Says:  Take a pass.

Other theatrical releases: A Hijacking

JUNE 28, 2013 

THE HEAT

Starring: Sandra Bullock, Melissa McCarthy, Marlon Wayans, Taran Killam

Why You Should See It: Because the odd couple formula tends to be a winner.

Why You Should Avoid It: Because the prominent Melissa McCarthy is in a movie, the quicker her schtick wears out its welcome.

And the Magic 8 Ball Says:  Pick 'Em.

WHITE HOUSE DOWN

Starring: Channing Tatum, Jamie Foxx, Jason Clarke, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Richard Jenkins

Why You Should See It: Because you're one of ten people on the planet who think both Jamie Foxx and Channing Tatum are great actors.

Why You Should Avoid It: Because you already saw it 2 months ago when it was called Olympus Has Fallen.

And the Magic 8 Ball Says:  Not even as a rental.

Other theatrical releases:  Byzantium, I’m So Excited

Read More

Review: Snitch

Judging by his recent box office success, everyone knows Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson – action star.  With his imposing physicality and sharp charisma honed on a live microphone in front of a WWE crowd, he has very much earned the reputation as a franchise rehabilitator.  What gets overlooked is that Johnson has worked at his craft and turned himself into a decent actor.  In Snitch, you get a look at his improvement as he checks the fast cars and big guns at the door (for the most part), and delivers a performance that is a bit more character driven.

The plot of Snitch finds Johnson, the concerned but estranged father of an eighteen year old who mistakenly gets caught up in a drug transaction and as a result finds himself in jail and facing a ten-year sentence.  In order to reduce his son’s jail sentence, Johnson’s John Matthews strikes a deal with the District Attorney to assist in a drug bust in exchange for a reduced sentence.

As in any Dwayne Johnson movie, there are indeed gunfights and car chases, but this film is more about a father’s relationship with his son and the lengths that the father will go to protect him.  There is absolutely nothing new in this movie that you have not seen in a father/son narrative or even one centered on drug busts.  It’s pretty formulaic in both regards, but director Ric Roman Waugh does a decent job of turning out a fair B-movie action drama.  The plot and pacing remain taut as most of the fat trimmed off in the editing room.  The result is a steady growth in tension leading up to the film’s climax.  This helps offset what is for the most part an uninspired script.

Johnson’s work in this film as a concerned father is solid.  He effectively dampens his trademark over-the-top charisma to play a subdued everyman and it works just enough to make his character believable.  It’s not his most entertaining work nor is it his most impressive, but he ably carries the film on his shoulders.  I would liken his work in this film to the performances he turned in with Walking Tall and Gridiron Gang than any other in movie on his resume.  Is it a performance that saves the film from relative mediocrity?  No, but this one would by no means land him in any hall of shame. 

As for the rest of the cast, Susan Sarandon as the District Attorney is incredibly banal.  Clearly just a paycheck film for Sarandon, you almost get the feeling that she is reading her lines directly off cue cards (a la SNL).  Jon Bernthal (as an ex-con roped into helping Johnson infiltrate a drug ring) is satisfactory at best.  He seems to tap into every possible stereotype associated with his character and never elevates his performance beyond that.  Rafi Gavron, Melina Kanakaredes, and Nadine Velazquez portray various members of Johnson’s family, but none of the three do very much with the limited screen time they’ve been afforded.

The best performance from the supporting cast is delivered by Barry Pepper (as DEA Agent Cooper).  It’s not a shining example of the craft, but Pepper immerses into the role and gives it a good effort in a way that most of his fellow cast mates do not.  What his character lacks in substance and depth, he somewhat makes up for with conviction.  Still, his work is not enough to help Johnson make this film something more than just run-of-the-mill.

Ultimately, this movie has FX, TBS, TNT, et al written all over it.  Snitch is not atrocious, but there’s just not anything good enough about the movie to warrant making an effort to see it.  Even the most ardent Dwayne Johnson fan would have to admit as much.  You could literally replace this film with dozens upon dozens of titles based upon drug busts and not see any palpable difference.  Forget about this movie for now, because I am sure at some point you will run into it while flipping through the channels.  The movie should feel satisfactory, as a spur-of-the-moment viewing to offset extreme boredom.  Here’s hoping Johnson’s new movie, Fast & Furious 6 plays much better.

Not-So-Standout Performance: Benjamin Bratt.  I didn't even realize that he was in the movie.

Read More

Review: Wreck-It Ralph

I’m not an animated movie guys.  I’ve properly stated this about a hundred times in this space, but every once in a while I will run out of things to watch or there will be an animated film that my girlfriend wants to see that will necessitate my giving one a look.  In the case or Wreck-It-Ralph, both scenarios came into play.  After one hundred and eight minutes of eye popping pastels and fluorescents, I came to the conclusion that Wreck-It-Ralph slots itself somewhere towards the upper end of the scale of the animated movies that I’ve seen - meaning I wouldn’t go out of my way to see it, but I also didn’t want to throw the remote at the television.  So what does this mean for you?

Well, let’s start with the premise.  The plot of the film tells the story of a video game villain named Wreck-It-Ralph (voiced by John C. Reilly), who has grown tired of playing the bad guy and aspires to become a hero.  When he sets out across the virtual world of his arcade to win a medal and achieve his dreams, he find that his journey wreaks havoc and threatens the fabric of all the games and the very arcade in which he resides.

A bit of a backstory to this movie involves Disney’s acquisition of Pixar.  Back when the deal went down, a lot of industry insiders wondered allowed if Pixar would be “Disnified” and if as a result, the onscreen product would suffer.  This was a legitimate concern given Disney Animation's recent history of spotty theatrical releases.  However, Pixar has for the most part been left to run as its own entity and judging by Tangled and Wreck-It-Ralph, has in fact effectually influenced Disney Animation.

The result then is a sleek movie with visuals that pop off the screen.  The animation is top notch and no stone is left unturned to foster any character that can provide a financial windfall for the Disney Consumer Products Group.  The story is creative-enough with just enough likability to grab both children and adults alike with such universal themes as friendship and loyalty and the plot provides a payoff worthy of the time invested. 

What stood out best about this movie is the voice work of John C. Reilly as Wreck-It-Ralph.  His voice, inflection, and timing lend itself perfectly to the character, who is a physically intimidating, but softhearted guy who always finds himself on the outside looking in.  Reilly’s ability to capture that with his voice work really keeps the film afloat.  Another aspect of the film that really worked was the appearance of some video game characters from classic games long past their prime.  Their respective appearances were a nice nod to the gaming community and provided some of the best comedic moments in the film. 

What didn’t work so well was the voice work of Jane Lynch (as Calhoun – a soldier) and Sarah Silverman (as Vanellope – a race car driver).  Lynch has a distinct very dry delivery that lends itself to blunt sarcasm and portraying mean streaks and in a lot of ways, her casting makes sense for what director Rich Moore was trying to achieve with this character.  But her work always feels out of place in the reality of this film and I could not help but always be aware that it was Jane Lynch speaking.  This proved damaging for the character.  As for Silverman, while her work never took me out of the reality of the film as she did a better job of disappearing into the character, I found her tone, inflection, and some of the choices she made very grating on the sense.  Her character is a key element to the film and for a film that banks on likability for its success; I found hers to be the least likable of the protagonists.

As for the rest of the cast, Jack McBrayer (Fix It Felix), Dennis Haysbert (General Hologram), Ed O’Neill (Mr. Litwak), and Alan Tudyk (King Candy) do a decent job of vocally bringing the members of this digital world to life – with Tudyk, of Dodgeball fame, standing out as the best of the rest.

In the end, I think that most people will enjoy this film. It has a moderately creative story with the right amount of sentimentality to keep you engaged with the characters’ plights.  If you have children this is a must see, but if you’re like me and not the biggest proponent of animated films, you may want to catch this on free television on a slow night.  While I haven’t changed my stance on animated films, I like the direction that they are going towards and should this trend continue, will look to put a few more on my movie queue.   

Standout Performance: John C. Reilly.  He does a great job of capturing the essence of Wreck-It-Ralph and ably carries the film.

Read More

Review: Star Trek Into Darkness

Rest easy Star Wars fans.  If Star Trek Into Darkness is any kind of indicator, then the fate of a galaxy far, far away is in very good hands.  In what is clearly a down year at the cinema, J.J. Abrams’ second entry into Gene Rodenberry’s universe is easily the best film I’ve seen this year.  Sure, there are plot elements in this film that are sure to enrage the guys who dress as Klingons for Comicon every year, but to those who are not wedded to some sense of cannon or are relatively new to Star Trek, this film will absolutely delight and entertain. 

When last we saw Abrams’ version of the Enterprise crew, all things Trek had been turned upside down with a nifty reboot.  Some four years later, we find Kirk, Spock, and the rest of the team exploring and observing civilizations on different planets.  When a mysterious figure named John Harrison emerges from the shadows to wage a one-man war against Starfleet, Kirk and crew find themselves caught between a web of dueling machinations executed by the aforementioned Harrison and Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller).

To say anything more about the plot, would venture into spoiler territory and you want to stay as spoiler free as possible going into this film.  There are twists and turns that unfold throughout the film that not only manipulate the plot but will also play with your emotions.  Does everything stand up to compulsive scrutiny?  No, there are a few logic leaps, but mostly the kind that should be checked at the door for a sci-fi action film.  Abrams and his team of writers (Orci, Kurtzman, and Lindelof) weave a tale that is as much about space travel and war as it is about family and friendship.  It’s not easy to balance hand-to-hand combat and bombastic explosions with character development, but the creative pulls it off. 

The cast that you came to know and love in the Abrams’ first Trek is back and each slip into their respective roles as though no time has passed.  Chris Pine’s Kirk is still cocky and defiant showing glimpses of the sensitivity and compassion that brims beneath Kirk’s bravado.  Zachary Quinto brings the same consistent effort to the role of Spock this time out and expertly elevates the character when the script calls for a new emotional layer for the beloved Vulcan.  Karl Urban as Bones remains a great sidekick to Pine’s Kirk, playing a great straight man for Pine’s sarcastic barbs.  But of the original crew Simon Pegg as Scotty steals the show by being the most likable of the bunch, adding the perfect amount of comedic relief to offset the grave tone of the second and third acts. 

As for the newcomers, it is hard not to be impressed with Benedict Cumberbatch.  The role of Harrison requires him to move seamlessly from cold and calculating to unbridled brutality and he does so admirably with the kind of presence that is necessary to be one of the key driving forces of a plot that is so large in scale and scope.  As for Peter Weller (Admiral Marcus), I found his work to be satisfactory at best.  Weller is no stranger to sci-fi action films and that may have contributed to his casting, but there are a large number of actors who could have easily brought a lot more to this role.  And rounding out the newcomers is Alice Eve as Carol Wallace.  Eve (from She’s Out of My League fame) is a nice actress who is very easy on the eyes, but she isn’t given much to do in this film beyond serving as a wink, wink to hardcore Trek fans.  Unfortunately, in a film with so many interesting characters, Eve’s Marcus get lost in the shuffle; a fate she shares with returnees Zoe Saldana (Uhura), John Cho (Sulu), and Anton Yelchin (Chekov).

The long and short of it is that Star Trek Into Darkness is a really fun action movie.  The film takes the crew of the Enterprise on a harrowing journey that not only provides huge cinematic moments punctuated by expertly framed action scenes, but also allows for character development.  Perhaps the greatest trick Abrams’ pulls off is to make the movie feel like a stand-alone product while at the same time bridging it to its predecessor in a way that shows growth and the continuation of the reboot that defined the first Star Trek (2009).  In a year that has produced very few must see movies, Star Trek is the best of the bunch and a must see on the big screen.  Going forward, here’s hoping J.J. Abrams and company can bring this kind of storytelling to Star Wars Episode VII.

Standout Performance: Simon Pegg.  There were a lot of capable performances in this movie, but in my opinion, Pegg hits every mark with just the right touch.

Read More

Review: Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters

When Snow White and the Huntsman had a modicum of financial success, you knew it wouldn’t be the last time we’d see Hollywood dip their toes into the pages of children’s literature in search of another tale that could be spun into a commercially viable action narrative geared towards an adult audience; hence the production and theatrical release of Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters.  That the movie was released in January is a telling sign of how the execs at Paramount felt about the film, but it still managed to pull in a respectable $223M worldwide.  But does that mean Hansel & Gretel is actually a good movie?  Not necessarily.   

The movie kicks off by retelling the classic tale of Hansel and Gretel and using it as the origin story for the witch hunting adult version of the siblings (played by Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton) we are introduced to onscreen.  The plot finds Hansel and Gretel hired by a village to stop a group of witches from kidnapping their children, but as the duo investigate the occurrences, Hansel and Gretel uncover a deeper more nefarious plot that may ultimately shed some light on their long lost family.

So it’s not the absolute worst premise, but what little hope there might be is critically damaged by some curious choices on the part of the creative team.  Unlike Snow White and the Huntsman, the tone of this film makes you feel like no one from top to bottom is taking this movie seriously.  There’s always a tongue-in-cheek/ wink wink vibe that gives the impression that the entire production is one inside joke, and Jeremy Renner’s natural inclination towards wry sarcastic delivery only fans these flames.  As a result, the movie feels off kilter, unbalanced, and makes it a difficult narrative to digest.  It’s like eating food during a blind taste test; you’re hesitant and distracted because you’re not really sure what they are feeding you.

Where this film truly falters though is in its failure to get you to invest in the characters.  Orphaned, traumatized, always venturing perilously close to death, and yet it is near impossible to care for the protagonists and their cohorts in the least.  The blame for this has to falls on the shoulders of director Tommy Wirkola and his inability to flesh out the characters and build tension and suspense into the plot.  Besides getting the film in the can on budget, ensuring those two elements were probably his primary points of emphasis, so it’s hard to view his work as anything but a failure.

Jeremy Renner does him absolutely no favors as Hansel.  Renner is very good in certain roles, but I don’t think he is the fountain of acting talent that many claim him to be.  He’s a one-gear actor limited range and this role resides far outside his wheelhouse.  His Hansel costume looked more suitable for a bad SNL and rendered him every bit the fish out of water that Mila Kunis seemed in Oz The Great and Powerful.  While he does provide the occasional entertaining moment, his work for the most part feels clunky and awkward.

If there is a redeeming quality for this movie it has to be Gemma Arterton as Gretel.  She may not be significantly more successful than Renner at disappearing into her character, but she does perform most of the heavy lifting in regards to advancing the plot and does so with an impressive screen presence.  I am guessing that Arterton could read the pages of the phone book and make it sound like a canonical piece of literature with her voice inflection and accent.  It’s a quality that is not lost on the viewer despite the morass of incidental nonsense taking place on the big screen.

As for the rest of the cast, Famke Janssen reprises the role of Jean Gray from X-Men: The Last Stand only this time she is supposed to supposed to be Muriel, a wicked witch.  Unfortunately, the performance is as weak this time out as it was six years ago in the Brett Ratner directed fiasco.  Peter Stormare as Sheriff Berringer also recycles the past as he delivers the exact same performance that he has put forth in last ten movies.  Sooner or later someone is going to figure out that they can just edit his past performances into each subsequent movie and save him the trouble of showing up to the set.

So what you have then in Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters is a movie with a soft of premise, poor directing, uninspired acting, and moderately entertaining action scenes – all of which collectively induce apathy.  I don’t think the movie is a complete write-off as there is just enough to keep you occupied on an extremely slow night, but in order to appreciate this film, you will have to approach it with a tongue-in-cheek attitude and very low expectations. It’s not a purchase or a rental and maybe not even a pay cable channel movie.  My best suggestion is to forget about it until that one day you randomly happen upon it while flipping the channels.  Those conditions probably give you the best chance of enjoying this film.   Under any other circumstances, it is probably a “no.”

Standout Performance: Gemma Arterton.  She’s not the best actress of her generation and at times she may not even seem like a very good one, but she has an indefinable screen presence – something sorely lacking in today’s cinema.

Read More