This review was originally published on the KPC Media Group website. Read the original review here.
It's so nice that movie studios let audiences stay home during the cold winter months.
That has to be the reason that they released "I, Frankenstein" during January, right? Anybody who ventures out in the cold and snow to see this stinker is crazy. You'd be better off staying home and watching Netflix. Or a DVD. Or the snow fall, or melt, depending on the weather report. It's not worth getting up off the couch to see this movie.
"I, Frankenstein" follows Victor Frankenstein's monster (Aaron Eckhart). After killing his master, he is attacked by demons. But before the demons can get him, he's saved by a group of gargoyles, led by the queen gargoyle, Leonore (Miranda Otto). The gargoyles, who can switch from flying stone beasts to a human appearance with a swish of a cape, try to get the monster, who Leonore names Adam, to help them kill demons, but he refuses. Fast-forward 200 years, and a big, bad demon (Bill Nighy) is trying to figure out the secret of reanimating corpses - just like Frankenstein did to Adam.
No, I am not making any of this up, despite the fact it sounds like a goth kid's fever dream, right down to the part where the story doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
It's sad that such a bad movie came from a relatively cool concept. Frankenstein's monster in the modern world, fighting demons alongside gargoyles sent from heaven by the archangel Michael. Yes, it's still a goofy concept, but in the hands of an excellent writer and director it could be a super hip supernatural thriller.
Sadly, "I, Frankenstein" just plods along with about as much life as Frankenstein's monster before it was zapped with electricity. The plot is nearly incoherent, with characters' motivations changing every 10 minutes. The city where the movie takes place (it's never explained where it's supposed to be) doesn't have a strong vision and just feels bland.
Aaron Eckhart is a dull leading man for "I, Frankenstein," too. The most exciting thing in his boring performance is when he pulls off his shirt, revealing an artfully scarred, totally ripped chest. But, it isn't worth the price of admission. Other than that brief interlude, Eckhart delivers his lines in a completely wooden fashion, without a hint of irony or enjoyment or even interest in what's going on. Bill Nighy, at least, is more fun to watch. He chews the scenery as the bad guy, complete with delightful dramatic pauses. I think he's at least trying.
There are a few laughs to be had when watching "I, Frankenstein." I certainly enjoyed whispering snide comments to my husband when the plot took yet another inexplicable turn, but that's also no reason to bother with seeing a movie like this in the theaters.
Despite a concept that could have worked, nearly everybody involved with "I, Frankenstein" just seemed to phone it in. The result is a big, sloppy mess, otherwise known as "just another January at the movies."
Jenny's Take: See it on DVD.
(Rated PG-13 for sequences of intense fantasy action and violence throughout. Runs 92 minutes.)
Showing posts with label kpc media group. Show all posts
Showing posts with label kpc media group. Show all posts
Monday, January 27, 2014
Monday, January 20, 2014
'Jack Ryan' solid, despite treading little new ground
This review originally appeared on the KPC Media Group website and in its three daily newspapers on Sunday. Read the original review here. Reprinted with permission.
I suppose there is some way to reinvent the action-thriller, but until some genius comes up with a new twist on the old standby, Hollywood will probably keep churning them out.
But if they're as zippy and fun as "Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit," you won't hear me complaining.
The movie follows Jack Ryan (Chris Pine), a brilliant young former Marine turned CIA analyst who is thrust into the field to try to stop evil Russian banker Viktor Cherevin (Kenneth Branagh) from ruining the U.S. economy with a terror attack timed perfectly with some economic mumbo-jumbo. Adding an additional wrinkle - but also an additional asset, as it turns out - Jack must also protect his fiance, Cathy (Kiera Knightley).
Jack is a little different from your basic action-thriller hero, in the sense that he is not immediately good at field work. Even though he is a former Marine, he is an egghead at heart, with a Ph.D. in economics and very little training in field work. But like every good action hero, he soon finds his footing and is sneaking into heavily guarded buildings, beating bad guys to a pulp and generally being awesome by about halfway through the movie.
Also a little bit refreshing is Cathy, who, thank goodness, breaks out of the suspicious, shrewish girlfriend role partway through the movie and proves herself to be a brave, capable sidekick for Jack for a big chunk of the middle of the movie before being relegated to the background for the final showdown. Still, she's also incredibly smart - I mean, she's a doctor - and she's brave, too. I would actually love to see Cathy and Jack put their brains together to bring down terrorists on a regular basis in movies. Get on that, Hollywood!
Still, these notable aspects are really just slight tweaks on extremely common tropes. During the movie, even though I enjoyed it, "Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit" all seemed pretty familiar. And, let's face it, that's not a surprise. In addition to being in more than a dozen novels penned by Tom Clancy, this is far from the first time Jack has been on the big screen. Although he's played by different actors, Jack Ryan is the main character of "The Hunt for Red October," "Patriot Games," "Clear and Present Danger" and "The Sum of All Fears."
Despite the fact that it's not exactly fresh, though, "Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit" is not a waste of time at the movies. Chris Pine does an excellent job putting his own stamp on the character, which can't be easy when Jack Ryan has also been played by Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford and Ben Affleck. Pine does an excellent job of making Jack's motiviations clear. He's tough, but that's because he's determined to do his job and save the country. He's not an action hero robot, though - it's nice to see the main character in a thriller visably shaken after killing somebody. There's an underlying humanity that is always there, and it gives "Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit" just a little more depth.
This movie doesn't reinvent the wheel, and it doesn't even really tread much new ground. What it does do, though, is deliver a solid, watchable story with a lead character that's relatable (and good-looking, if you're into that sort of thing). Some days, there's nothing I'd rather watch more.
Jenny's Take: See it before it leaves theaters.
(Rated PG-13 for sequences of violence and intense action, and brief strong language. Runs 105 minutes.)
I suppose there is some way to reinvent the action-thriller, but until some genius comes up with a new twist on the old standby, Hollywood will probably keep churning them out.
But if they're as zippy and fun as "Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit," you won't hear me complaining.
The movie follows Jack Ryan (Chris Pine), a brilliant young former Marine turned CIA analyst who is thrust into the field to try to stop evil Russian banker Viktor Cherevin (Kenneth Branagh) from ruining the U.S. economy with a terror attack timed perfectly with some economic mumbo-jumbo. Adding an additional wrinkle - but also an additional asset, as it turns out - Jack must also protect his fiance, Cathy (Kiera Knightley).
Jack is a little different from your basic action-thriller hero, in the sense that he is not immediately good at field work. Even though he is a former Marine, he is an egghead at heart, with a Ph.D. in economics and very little training in field work. But like every good action hero, he soon finds his footing and is sneaking into heavily guarded buildings, beating bad guys to a pulp and generally being awesome by about halfway through the movie.
Also a little bit refreshing is Cathy, who, thank goodness, breaks out of the suspicious, shrewish girlfriend role partway through the movie and proves herself to be a brave, capable sidekick for Jack for a big chunk of the middle of the movie before being relegated to the background for the final showdown. Still, she's also incredibly smart - I mean, she's a doctor - and she's brave, too. I would actually love to see Cathy and Jack put their brains together to bring down terrorists on a regular basis in movies. Get on that, Hollywood!
Still, these notable aspects are really just slight tweaks on extremely common tropes. During the movie, even though I enjoyed it, "Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit" all seemed pretty familiar. And, let's face it, that's not a surprise. In addition to being in more than a dozen novels penned by Tom Clancy, this is far from the first time Jack has been on the big screen. Although he's played by different actors, Jack Ryan is the main character of "The Hunt for Red October," "Patriot Games," "Clear and Present Danger" and "The Sum of All Fears."
Despite the fact that it's not exactly fresh, though, "Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit" is not a waste of time at the movies. Chris Pine does an excellent job putting his own stamp on the character, which can't be easy when Jack Ryan has also been played by Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford and Ben Affleck. Pine does an excellent job of making Jack's motiviations clear. He's tough, but that's because he's determined to do his job and save the country. He's not an action hero robot, though - it's nice to see the main character in a thriller visably shaken after killing somebody. There's an underlying humanity that is always there, and it gives "Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit" just a little more depth.
This movie doesn't reinvent the wheel, and it doesn't even really tread much new ground. What it does do, though, is deliver a solid, watchable story with a lead character that's relatable (and good-looking, if you're into that sort of thing). Some days, there's nothing I'd rather watch more.
Jenny's Take: See it before it leaves theaters.
(Rated PG-13 for sequences of violence and intense action, and brief strong language. Runs 105 minutes.)
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Legend and laughs continue with 'Anchorman 2'
This movie review was originally posted at KPC Media Group's website. You can read the review here. Reprinted with permission.
When I told my husband I was planning to review 'Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues' this week, he gave me a wary look and told me, "You don't need to review that!"
"Why not?" I asked.
"Because, from the previews, it looks like all you'll need to say is, 'If you liked the first 'Anchorman,' you'll like this movie," he replied.
And, as much as I hate to admit it, he was pretty much right. "Anchorman 2" does not quite live up to the screamingly hilarious, intensely quoteable "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy," but it still delivers enough laughs to make it well worth the time and money.
"Anchorman 2" picks up in 1980, several years after the original "Anchorman." Newsman Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) and his now-wife, Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate), are an anchor team in New York City. But after Veronica is promoted to nightly news anchor and Ron is fired, Ron leaves for a disasterous new life alone in San Diego.
Lucky for Ron, though, he is soon tapped to work at a new news venture - GNN, the first 24-hour news network. He gets his news team - Champ Kind (David Koechner), Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd) and Brick Tamland (Steve Carrell) - out of retirement and they jet off to New York to work under tough producer Linda Jackson (Meagan Good). Unfortunately, they have to contend with the likes of stuck-up newsman Jack Lime (James Marsden), and Ron has the added complication of Veronica's new lover, Gary (Greg Kinnear).
"Anchorman 2" has a couple of things going for it. One is the incredible chemistry and comedic timing of the actors. Many of the scenes with Ferrell, Koechner, Rudd and Carrell all together are magic. Their characters are all totally weird and sometimes just too much when they have scenes apart from each other, but when they mesh, that's when the belly-laughs start. Applegate, unfortunately, gets relagated to the background for most of "Anchorman 2," but when she is on screen, she's solid. However, Kristen Wiig does a great job with a super strange character, a GNN secretary named Chani. In another actress' hands, Chani might not have worked, but Wiig is talented and unself-concious enough to make the character a welcome addition.
Ferrell is also, once again, a wonderful star for the center of this crazy circus they call "Anchorman." Ron Burgundy is clearly a character that Ferrell loves to play, and it shows throughout the movie. He has fleshed out the character so completely, and he inhabits him so fully, that it's actually kind of amazing to watch. Ferrell's comedic characters can sometimes cross the line into being obnoxious, but with Burgundy, Ferrell walks that line between hilarious and annoying perfectly.
The other thing that makes "Anchorman 2" great is the way it critiques 24-hour cable news. There is a lot about those channels to mock, and "Anchorman 2" hits them just right. When Ron comes up with the brilliant (and ratings-friendly) idea to give people what they want to watch - funny videos of animals, car chases and good old-fashioned patriotism - it's funny because it's so true-to-life. But it goes deeper than that. The commentary gets biting at times, like when an investigative story gets cut because it messes with the "synergy" of the parent company. I think writers Ferrell and Adam McKay have been paying attention!
But despite some solid satire, "Anchorman 2" is really just another super-silly, ridiculously goofy comedy that exists to make a whole lot of jokes, most of which are funny. "Anchorman 2" does have some low spots, but the hilarious highs more than make up for slow moments. Ferrell and McKay employed the "throw it all at the wall and see what sticks" method of comedy, full of rapid-fire jokes that are sometimes hit-and-miss, but a smattering of hysterical scenes throughout the movie and an enjoyably ridiculous last half-hour featuring no less than a dozen celebrity cameos make it a lot of fun to watch.
"Anchorman 2" is exactly what I'm looking for in an "Anchorman" sequel - a couple of hours of laughing really hard at stupid jokes. The fact that it made a bit of a satirical point about something that actually needs to be mocked now and then - 24-hour cable TV news - is just a little added bonus to an already enjoyable couple of hours.
Jenny's Take: See it before it leaves theaters.
(Rated PG-13 for crude and sexual content, drug use, language and comedic violence. Runs 120 minutes.)
When I told my husband I was planning to review 'Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues' this week, he gave me a wary look and told me, "You don't need to review that!"
"Why not?" I asked.
"Because, from the previews, it looks like all you'll need to say is, 'If you liked the first 'Anchorman,' you'll like this movie," he replied.
And, as much as I hate to admit it, he was pretty much right. "Anchorman 2" does not quite live up to the screamingly hilarious, intensely quoteable "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy," but it still delivers enough laughs to make it well worth the time and money.
"Anchorman 2" picks up in 1980, several years after the original "Anchorman." Newsman Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) and his now-wife, Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate), are an anchor team in New York City. But after Veronica is promoted to nightly news anchor and Ron is fired, Ron leaves for a disasterous new life alone in San Diego.
Lucky for Ron, though, he is soon tapped to work at a new news venture - GNN, the first 24-hour news network. He gets his news team - Champ Kind (David Koechner), Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd) and Brick Tamland (Steve Carrell) - out of retirement and they jet off to New York to work under tough producer Linda Jackson (Meagan Good). Unfortunately, they have to contend with the likes of stuck-up newsman Jack Lime (James Marsden), and Ron has the added complication of Veronica's new lover, Gary (Greg Kinnear).
"Anchorman 2" has a couple of things going for it. One is the incredible chemistry and comedic timing of the actors. Many of the scenes with Ferrell, Koechner, Rudd and Carrell all together are magic. Their characters are all totally weird and sometimes just too much when they have scenes apart from each other, but when they mesh, that's when the belly-laughs start. Applegate, unfortunately, gets relagated to the background for most of "Anchorman 2," but when she is on screen, she's solid. However, Kristen Wiig does a great job with a super strange character, a GNN secretary named Chani. In another actress' hands, Chani might not have worked, but Wiig is talented and unself-concious enough to make the character a welcome addition.
Ferrell is also, once again, a wonderful star for the center of this crazy circus they call "Anchorman." Ron Burgundy is clearly a character that Ferrell loves to play, and it shows throughout the movie. He has fleshed out the character so completely, and he inhabits him so fully, that it's actually kind of amazing to watch. Ferrell's comedic characters can sometimes cross the line into being obnoxious, but with Burgundy, Ferrell walks that line between hilarious and annoying perfectly.
The other thing that makes "Anchorman 2" great is the way it critiques 24-hour cable news. There is a lot about those channels to mock, and "Anchorman 2" hits them just right. When Ron comes up with the brilliant (and ratings-friendly) idea to give people what they want to watch - funny videos of animals, car chases and good old-fashioned patriotism - it's funny because it's so true-to-life. But it goes deeper than that. The commentary gets biting at times, like when an investigative story gets cut because it messes with the "synergy" of the parent company. I think writers Ferrell and Adam McKay have been paying attention!
But despite some solid satire, "Anchorman 2" is really just another super-silly, ridiculously goofy comedy that exists to make a whole lot of jokes, most of which are funny. "Anchorman 2" does have some low spots, but the hilarious highs more than make up for slow moments. Ferrell and McKay employed the "throw it all at the wall and see what sticks" method of comedy, full of rapid-fire jokes that are sometimes hit-and-miss, but a smattering of hysterical scenes throughout the movie and an enjoyably ridiculous last half-hour featuring no less than a dozen celebrity cameos make it a lot of fun to watch.
"Anchorman 2" is exactly what I'm looking for in an "Anchorman" sequel - a couple of hours of laughing really hard at stupid jokes. The fact that it made a bit of a satirical point about something that actually needs to be mocked now and then - 24-hour cable TV news - is just a little added bonus to an already enjoyable couple of hours.
Jenny's Take: See it before it leaves theaters.
(Rated PG-13 for crude and sexual content, drug use, language and comedic violence. Runs 120 minutes.)
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
Best Movies of 2013
It's hard to put together a list of the best movies of 2013, but I did it, in a recent article I wrote for KPC Media Group. You can check it out here.
One of my New Years Resolutions is to post more on the blog, since I've been slacking for, oh, a few months ... so expect to hear more from me soon!
One of my New Years Resolutions is to post more on the blog, since I've been slacking for, oh, a few months ... so expect to hear more from me soon!
Monday, December 30, 2013
'American Hustle' sparkly bit of '70s fun - and a great film to boot
This review was originally posted at KPC Media Group's website. You can read the original review here. It was also published in KPC's three daily papers. Reprinted with permission.
Conventional wisdom says that a movie that features nothing but deplorable characters with very few redeeming qualities won't work.
But conventional wisdom flies out the window in the face of a crime film as delightful as "American Hustle." While it does indeed feature some pretty terrible people in the leading roles, everything is just so glittery, funny and so darn likeable that there isn't anything to do except love this film.
The movie, based loosely on the FBI's ABSCAM operation, follows con man Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale) and his beautiful partner-in-crime, Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams). The pair is doing well for themselves, embezzling and selling fake art, until they're caught by FBI agent Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper). DiMaso is looking to make a name for himself in the FBI, and in exchange for letting them avoid a long stint in jail, he has them help him take down Camden, New Jersey, mayor Carmine Polito (Jeremy Renner), who is trying to raise money to open casinos in Atlantic City. Unfortunately, they almost immediately get in way over their heads, especially when Irving's nutty wife, Rosalyn (Jennifer Lawrence), gets involved.
The people in this movie are all pretty awful people, when you really think about their behavior. Irving and Sydney are conning people left and right, with Sydney especially adept at using her feminine wiles to play Irving and Richie against each other. Irving is, of course, a cheater and a terrible husband to Rosalyn, who is unstable and goofy, but also smart enough to be excessively manipulative. Richie is an incredibly angry, unstable person himself. The nicest person in the movie is Carmine Polito, the guy that our "heroes" are trying desperately to catch bribing government officials.
And yet, they're all so likeable and sympathetic in their own ways. Their motivations, while morally questionable at best, are also incredibly understandable. They are ambitious and desire to climb the ladder of life by any means necessary. Who hasn't had a moment of that ambition? They only really get into trouble when they try to climb too high, too quickly. And as they do get into trouble, it's a blast to watch - the situations are so ridiculous, and they just keep piling up and causing more and more crazy problems.
"American Hustle" is a dynamic, energetic movie that is absolutely irresistable. It's the same talent that was on display in director David O. Russell's Oscar-nominated "Silver Linings Playbook" last year. I didn't find "American Hustle" as cozy or as compelling as "Silver Linings," which is one of my favorite movies I've seen in years, but "Hustle" has the same snappy dialogue, quick editing and dark humor that makes a movie like this so fun to watch.
It helps that the lead actors are perfectly cast. I was thrilled to see such a high-caliber cast in a movie, and they didn't disappoint. There is sleaze all over the screen - Christian Bale and Bradley Cooper made my skin crawl at times, and Amy Adams can turn from icy to sexy on a dime and make it completely believable - but there also is charisma and chemistry everywhere. Especially delightful is Jennifer Lawrence in a rather small but completely memorable role as Rosalyn. She's deliciously daffy in the role, and the screen lights up even brighter every time she's on it. It just reiterates my opinion that Lawrence is one of the most talented people in Hollywood right now.
"American Hustle" is rounded out with the perfect tone of the costumes and sets. The movie has a wonderful sense of time and place, in the overblown, scuzzy late 70s. The outfits, the hair, the decor - it all just screams 1978. That's the cherry on top of this wild sundae. It's already a treat to watch because of the story and characters and acting, and then the movie is just that much better because it's also an eye-searing spectacle.
"American Hustle" is clearly gunning for an Oscar, and it definitely deserves the buzz its receiving. It's an energetic, entertaining, darkly funny, well-told story with an all-star cast that elevates the movie into the stratosphere. It's definitely not a feel-good movie, but it sure does feel good to watch it anyway.
Jenny's Take: See it tonight.
(Rated R for pervasive language, some sexual content and brief violence. Runs 138 minutes.)
Conventional wisdom says that a movie that features nothing but deplorable characters with very few redeeming qualities won't work.
But conventional wisdom flies out the window in the face of a crime film as delightful as "American Hustle." While it does indeed feature some pretty terrible people in the leading roles, everything is just so glittery, funny and so darn likeable that there isn't anything to do except love this film.
The movie, based loosely on the FBI's ABSCAM operation, follows con man Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale) and his beautiful partner-in-crime, Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams). The pair is doing well for themselves, embezzling and selling fake art, until they're caught by FBI agent Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper). DiMaso is looking to make a name for himself in the FBI, and in exchange for letting them avoid a long stint in jail, he has them help him take down Camden, New Jersey, mayor Carmine Polito (Jeremy Renner), who is trying to raise money to open casinos in Atlantic City. Unfortunately, they almost immediately get in way over their heads, especially when Irving's nutty wife, Rosalyn (Jennifer Lawrence), gets involved.
The people in this movie are all pretty awful people, when you really think about their behavior. Irving and Sydney are conning people left and right, with Sydney especially adept at using her feminine wiles to play Irving and Richie against each other. Irving is, of course, a cheater and a terrible husband to Rosalyn, who is unstable and goofy, but also smart enough to be excessively manipulative. Richie is an incredibly angry, unstable person himself. The nicest person in the movie is Carmine Polito, the guy that our "heroes" are trying desperately to catch bribing government officials.
And yet, they're all so likeable and sympathetic in their own ways. Their motivations, while morally questionable at best, are also incredibly understandable. They are ambitious and desire to climb the ladder of life by any means necessary. Who hasn't had a moment of that ambition? They only really get into trouble when they try to climb too high, too quickly. And as they do get into trouble, it's a blast to watch - the situations are so ridiculous, and they just keep piling up and causing more and more crazy problems.
"American Hustle" is a dynamic, energetic movie that is absolutely irresistable. It's the same talent that was on display in director David O. Russell's Oscar-nominated "Silver Linings Playbook" last year. I didn't find "American Hustle" as cozy or as compelling as "Silver Linings," which is one of my favorite movies I've seen in years, but "Hustle" has the same snappy dialogue, quick editing and dark humor that makes a movie like this so fun to watch.
It helps that the lead actors are perfectly cast. I was thrilled to see such a high-caliber cast in a movie, and they didn't disappoint. There is sleaze all over the screen - Christian Bale and Bradley Cooper made my skin crawl at times, and Amy Adams can turn from icy to sexy on a dime and make it completely believable - but there also is charisma and chemistry everywhere. Especially delightful is Jennifer Lawrence in a rather small but completely memorable role as Rosalyn. She's deliciously daffy in the role, and the screen lights up even brighter every time she's on it. It just reiterates my opinion that Lawrence is one of the most talented people in Hollywood right now.
"American Hustle" is rounded out with the perfect tone of the costumes and sets. The movie has a wonderful sense of time and place, in the overblown, scuzzy late 70s. The outfits, the hair, the decor - it all just screams 1978. That's the cherry on top of this wild sundae. It's already a treat to watch because of the story and characters and acting, and then the movie is just that much better because it's also an eye-searing spectacle.
"American Hustle" is clearly gunning for an Oscar, and it definitely deserves the buzz its receiving. It's an energetic, entertaining, darkly funny, well-told story with an all-star cast that elevates the movie into the stratosphere. It's definitely not a feel-good movie, but it sure does feel good to watch it anyway.
Jenny's Take: See it tonight.
(Rated R for pervasive language, some sexual content and brief violence. Runs 138 minutes.)
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Review of "American Hustle" posted at KPC Media Group
It's getting Oscar buzz, and it's well-deserved. "American Hustle" is a sparkly, energetic delight. My review is online at KPC Media Group - you can read it by clicking here - or you can read it in the newspaper on Sunday. I'll post it here on Monday!
Friday, December 13, 2013
Review of "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" online at KPC Media Group
It's still totally overkill - there's NO WAY "The Hobbit" should be three movies - but "The Desolation of Smaug" is a huge improvement over "An Unexpected Journey."
My full review of the movie is online at KPC Media Group's website now. Read it by clicking here, or wait until Sunday to read it in print in one of KPC's daily newspapers. I'll post the full review on the blog on Monday.
My full review of the movie is online at KPC Media Group's website now. Read it by clicking here, or wait until Sunday to read it in print in one of KPC's daily newspapers. I'll post the full review on the blog on Monday.
Monday, December 2, 2013
Review: 'Frozen' a warm, fun treat for both children and adults
This movie review was originally written for KPC Media Group and published online and in its daily newspapers. Read the original version here. Reprinted with permission.
Despite the huge amount of snow and ice in Disney's latest animated feature, "Frozen" is as warm and fun an animated musical as I've seen in several years. The movie hearkens back to the old Disney princess movies, which makes it feel extra cozy for fans, but it also has a modern edge, featuring princesses with a little more personality than the old damsels I grew up watching.
"Frozen" follows Anna (voiced by Kristen Bell), the princess of a small kingdom called Arendelle. On the coronation day of her sister, Elsa (Idina Menzel), Anna discovers why Elsa has been cold to her for years - Elsa is magical and can turn things to ice and snow, but she can't control her magic. When the people of Arendelle find out, however, they call Elsa a monster, and Elsa disappears into the mountains, leaving the kingdom in a deep freeze. Anna, however, wants to help her sister, and so she enlists the help of the burly Kristoff (Jonathan Groff) and his reindeer, Sven.
It's a sweet, exciting story, but what really gives "Frozen" some bite are the characters - specifically Elsa and Anna. The sisters are distant and at odds for most of the movie, but it's clear throughout the entire film that they really love each other. It probably helped that I was sitting next to my own sister when I was watching the movie, but I was really touched by the depth of their bond and the way they watched out for each other.
It was also incredibly refreshing to see some royal women who could stand on their own two feet. Elsa is an incredibly strong, magical woman, and although she functions somewhat as the villain for a lot of the movie, she's a much more nuanced character than the old Disney villains. As much as I adore old-school bad girls like Maleficent from "Sleeping Beauty" or Ursula the Sea Witch from "The Little Mermaid," it's refreshing to see a powerful woman who isn't irredeemably corrupted by power. She's confused and terrified, and she does some bad things, but it isn't because of jealousy or because she's just plain old evil, like the villains of old.
Anna is also an interesting and strong character. Yes, she's silly sometimes, and, yes, she does need the help of Kristoff sometimes, but she's also brave, smart and cares deeply for her sister. There's even a some sly commentary on the Disney princess tendancy to fall in love immediately with a cute guy she barely knows. A friend of mine was just complaining about that tendency a few weeks ago, so I was pleased to note that it's not treated as the norm in this movie.
There are plenty of other characters to love, too. Kristoff is quirky and adorable, and his friendship with his goofy reindeer provides a lot of the comic relief in the movie. Also on the silly end of the spectrum is a snowman named Olaf (Josh Gad) who Elsa has brought to life. The posters and some of the commercials for "Frozen" made me nervous that Olaf would be too obnoxiously silly, but he actually hit the perfect balance between the wackiness that children will enjoy and being a real enough character so that he doesn't annoy the adults in the audience.
"Frozen" is also a very beautiful movie. The characters' designs are fairly reminiscent of those in "Tangled," but the scenery is stunning. Arendelle was clearly influenced by Scandinavian countries, specifically Norway, and the buildings are all decorated beautiful, colorful rosemaling designs. The warmth of those buildings stands in contrast to the stunning ice castle that Elsa creates for herself. The winter scenes are the most beautiful in the movie, and they're so realistic that I shivered several times while watching the movie. You can almost feel the icy cold coming off the screen.
"Frozen" is never going to be a timeless classic like "The Lion King" or "Beauty and the Beast," but it's solidly in the second tier of Disney movies - a little less stunning and a little more silly than the best the studio has to offer, but ultimately still a pretty darn great movie. "Frozen" is a warm little treat that children and adults alike will enjoy.
Jenny's Take: See it tonight.
(Rated PG for some action and mild rude humor. Runs 108 minutes.)
Despite the huge amount of snow and ice in Disney's latest animated feature, "Frozen" is as warm and fun an animated musical as I've seen in several years. The movie hearkens back to the old Disney princess movies, which makes it feel extra cozy for fans, but it also has a modern edge, featuring princesses with a little more personality than the old damsels I grew up watching.
"Frozen" follows Anna (voiced by Kristen Bell), the princess of a small kingdom called Arendelle. On the coronation day of her sister, Elsa (Idina Menzel), Anna discovers why Elsa has been cold to her for years - Elsa is magical and can turn things to ice and snow, but she can't control her magic. When the people of Arendelle find out, however, they call Elsa a monster, and Elsa disappears into the mountains, leaving the kingdom in a deep freeze. Anna, however, wants to help her sister, and so she enlists the help of the burly Kristoff (Jonathan Groff) and his reindeer, Sven.
It's a sweet, exciting story, but what really gives "Frozen" some bite are the characters - specifically Elsa and Anna. The sisters are distant and at odds for most of the movie, but it's clear throughout the entire film that they really love each other. It probably helped that I was sitting next to my own sister when I was watching the movie, but I was really touched by the depth of their bond and the way they watched out for each other.
It was also incredibly refreshing to see some royal women who could stand on their own two feet. Elsa is an incredibly strong, magical woman, and although she functions somewhat as the villain for a lot of the movie, she's a much more nuanced character than the old Disney villains. As much as I adore old-school bad girls like Maleficent from "Sleeping Beauty" or Ursula the Sea Witch from "The Little Mermaid," it's refreshing to see a powerful woman who isn't irredeemably corrupted by power. She's confused and terrified, and she does some bad things, but it isn't because of jealousy or because she's just plain old evil, like the villains of old.
Anna is also an interesting and strong character. Yes, she's silly sometimes, and, yes, she does need the help of Kristoff sometimes, but she's also brave, smart and cares deeply for her sister. There's even a some sly commentary on the Disney princess tendancy to fall in love immediately with a cute guy she barely knows. A friend of mine was just complaining about that tendency a few weeks ago, so I was pleased to note that it's not treated as the norm in this movie.
There are plenty of other characters to love, too. Kristoff is quirky and adorable, and his friendship with his goofy reindeer provides a lot of the comic relief in the movie. Also on the silly end of the spectrum is a snowman named Olaf (Josh Gad) who Elsa has brought to life. The posters and some of the commercials for "Frozen" made me nervous that Olaf would be too obnoxiously silly, but he actually hit the perfect balance between the wackiness that children will enjoy and being a real enough character so that he doesn't annoy the adults in the audience.
"Frozen" is also a very beautiful movie. The characters' designs are fairly reminiscent of those in "Tangled," but the scenery is stunning. Arendelle was clearly influenced by Scandinavian countries, specifically Norway, and the buildings are all decorated beautiful, colorful rosemaling designs. The warmth of those buildings stands in contrast to the stunning ice castle that Elsa creates for herself. The winter scenes are the most beautiful in the movie, and they're so realistic that I shivered several times while watching the movie. You can almost feel the icy cold coming off the screen.
"Frozen" is never going to be a timeless classic like "The Lion King" or "Beauty and the Beast," but it's solidly in the second tier of Disney movies - a little less stunning and a little more silly than the best the studio has to offer, but ultimately still a pretty darn great movie. "Frozen" is a warm little treat that children and adults alike will enjoy.
Jenny's Take: See it tonight.
(Rated PG for some action and mild rude humor. Runs 108 minutes.)
Friday, November 29, 2013
Review of "Frozen" posted at KPC Media Group website
Hope everyone had a super Thanksgiving and Black Friday! I have so far ... not only because I got to eat delicious food and bought a couple of great deals, but also because I got to see "Frozen." It's not a top tier Disney classic like "The Lion King," but it's a solidly entertaining second-tier Disney film which, let's face it, is way better than a lot of movies geared toward the kiddies. I really enjoyed it! Plus, it had some pretty decent female character who weren't completely stupid or evil! Success!!!!!
Anyway, read my entire review online RIGHT NOW at KPC Media Group's website by clicking here, or read it in Sunday's KPC Media Group newspapers. Monday, I'll post the whole thing on the blog!
Anyway, read my entire review online RIGHT NOW at KPC Media Group's website by clicking here, or read it in Sunday's KPC Media Group newspapers. Monday, I'll post the whole thing on the blog!
Monday, November 25, 2013
Review: "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire"
This review was originally posted at KPC Media Group's website and published in their three daily newspapers. You can read the original review here. Reprinted with permission.
There's a glorious phenomenon in fiction, when suddenly the reader or viewer realizes how much more there is going on in the world that these fictional characters inhabit.
For me at least, that's the moment that a piece of fiction in any form starts to take hold of my emotions, and I start to inhabit that world alongside that fictional character.
And that's what "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" is all about. The franchise goes from the first movie, a tidy little story about a girl trying to survive a battle to the death in a dystopian future, to a sprawling tale of rebellion centering on that same girl, who discovers that she's still trying to survive a battle to the death - just against different opponents. It's an affecting tale, made especially emotional by a stunning performance by the young woman in the center of it all.
"Catching Fire" picks up where "The Hunger Games" left off - teenagers Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) have won the annual teenage death battle the Hunger Games by manipulating those in power with their mostly-for-the-cameras romance. Katniss thinks she'll be able to settle down and live a relatively normal life, but she soon discovers she can't.
Because Katniss and Peeta made the authoritarian Capitol and its ruthless leader, President Snow (Donald Sutherland), look weak during their games, the pair - especially the fiery Katniss - inadvertantly spurred the downtrodden citizens into revolt. To save those they love - including Katniss' mother (Paula Malcomson), sister Prim (Willow Shields) and friend/sometimes love interest Gale (Liam Hemsworth) - Katniss and Peeta must try to calm tempers in the districts during their victory tour. When that doesn't work, Snow and the new head of the Hunger Games, Plutarch Heavensbee (Phillip Seymour Hoffman), devise a new way to scare the districts into submission - hold a Hunger Games featuring former champions, including, of course, Katniss and Peeta, as tributes.
The scope of the story is just much bigger in "Catching Fire" than it was in "The Hunger Games." We got a sense in the first movie that there was unrest in one of the districts, partially sparked by Katniss' actions in the games, but in "Catching Fire," the scope of the actions by Katniss and Peeta take on a new weight. The audience discovers along with Katniss just how important the events of the first movie are, and the first half of the movie is a dizzying buildup of tension as the weight of her actions - and the realization of the trajectory of the rest of her life - settles on her shoulders. Add to that a nice big dose of PTSD for Katniss from her participation in the Hunger Games, and you have a recipe for a pretty big, emotional story.
Katniss is a lead character who often internalizes her feelings, though, so it's important that the actress playing her can show the audience the depths of her pain, rage and despair. That's where Jennifer Lawrence comes in. She was very good in the first "Hunger Games" movie, but Lawrence is nothing short of brilliant in "Catching Fire." Without her, this movie would pack a lot less of a punch. With Lawrence taking center stage, though, "Catching Fire" is a tense, scary, emotional roller-coaster of a movie.
"Catching Fire" is also just a better made, more streamlined movie. As much as I like the work of Gary Ross, who directed "The Hunger Games," Francis Lawrence clearly has a better handle on the themes of the material. Ross' biggest flaw was the same problem that happens with so many other book-to-movie adaptations - the director wants to be too faithful to the books, to the detriment of the film. It's not that Lawrence wasn't faithful too, because he was - if memory serves, he took several scenes straight from the books - but he also made the story his own. He wasn't as constrained by the source material, and it improved the flow of the movie immensely from the first movie.
The only real flaw with "Catching Fire" is the fact that it ends on a cliffhanger that won't be resolved for another year. Even if you read the books like I have, it's fun, yet tough, to walk out of the theater with so much unresolved. Still, don't skip the movie just because of the ending - other than the big unknowns at the end, "Catching Fire" is a well-made, immensely entertaining, satsifying sequel that outshines its predecessor.
Jenny's Take: See it tonight.
(Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, some frightening images, thematic elements, a suggestive situation and language. Runs 146 minutes.)
There's a glorious phenomenon in fiction, when suddenly the reader or viewer realizes how much more there is going on in the world that these fictional characters inhabit.
For me at least, that's the moment that a piece of fiction in any form starts to take hold of my emotions, and I start to inhabit that world alongside that fictional character.
And that's what "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" is all about. The franchise goes from the first movie, a tidy little story about a girl trying to survive a battle to the death in a dystopian future, to a sprawling tale of rebellion centering on that same girl, who discovers that she's still trying to survive a battle to the death - just against different opponents. It's an affecting tale, made especially emotional by a stunning performance by the young woman in the center of it all.
"Catching Fire" picks up where "The Hunger Games" left off - teenagers Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) have won the annual teenage death battle the Hunger Games by manipulating those in power with their mostly-for-the-cameras romance. Katniss thinks she'll be able to settle down and live a relatively normal life, but she soon discovers she can't.
Because Katniss and Peeta made the authoritarian Capitol and its ruthless leader, President Snow (Donald Sutherland), look weak during their games, the pair - especially the fiery Katniss - inadvertantly spurred the downtrodden citizens into revolt. To save those they love - including Katniss' mother (Paula Malcomson), sister Prim (Willow Shields) and friend/sometimes love interest Gale (Liam Hemsworth) - Katniss and Peeta must try to calm tempers in the districts during their victory tour. When that doesn't work, Snow and the new head of the Hunger Games, Plutarch Heavensbee (Phillip Seymour Hoffman), devise a new way to scare the districts into submission - hold a Hunger Games featuring former champions, including, of course, Katniss and Peeta, as tributes.
The scope of the story is just much bigger in "Catching Fire" than it was in "The Hunger Games." We got a sense in the first movie that there was unrest in one of the districts, partially sparked by Katniss' actions in the games, but in "Catching Fire," the scope of the actions by Katniss and Peeta take on a new weight. The audience discovers along with Katniss just how important the events of the first movie are, and the first half of the movie is a dizzying buildup of tension as the weight of her actions - and the realization of the trajectory of the rest of her life - settles on her shoulders. Add to that a nice big dose of PTSD for Katniss from her participation in the Hunger Games, and you have a recipe for a pretty big, emotional story.
Katniss is a lead character who often internalizes her feelings, though, so it's important that the actress playing her can show the audience the depths of her pain, rage and despair. That's where Jennifer Lawrence comes in. She was very good in the first "Hunger Games" movie, but Lawrence is nothing short of brilliant in "Catching Fire." Without her, this movie would pack a lot less of a punch. With Lawrence taking center stage, though, "Catching Fire" is a tense, scary, emotional roller-coaster of a movie.
"Catching Fire" is also just a better made, more streamlined movie. As much as I like the work of Gary Ross, who directed "The Hunger Games," Francis Lawrence clearly has a better handle on the themes of the material. Ross' biggest flaw was the same problem that happens with so many other book-to-movie adaptations - the director wants to be too faithful to the books, to the detriment of the film. It's not that Lawrence wasn't faithful too, because he was - if memory serves, he took several scenes straight from the books - but he also made the story his own. He wasn't as constrained by the source material, and it improved the flow of the movie immensely from the first movie.
The only real flaw with "Catching Fire" is the fact that it ends on a cliffhanger that won't be resolved for another year. Even if you read the books like I have, it's fun, yet tough, to walk out of the theater with so much unresolved. Still, don't skip the movie just because of the ending - other than the big unknowns at the end, "Catching Fire" is a well-made, immensely entertaining, satsifying sequel that outshines its predecessor.
Jenny's Take: See it tonight.
(Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, some frightening images, thematic elements, a suggestive situation and language. Runs 146 minutes.)
Friday, November 22, 2013
"The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" Review posted at KPC Media Group
It was the moment we'd all been waiting for ... the premiere of "Catching Fire," the sequel to "The Hunger Games." And it delivered!!!!!!!! And it was even better, because I went to a double feature of the first movie and the sequel!
Read my full review of the movie over at KPC Media Group's website by clicking here, or pick up one of the KPC Media Group Sunday newspapers to read it in good old fashioned print. I'll post the full review here on Monday!
Read my full review of the movie over at KPC Media Group's website by clicking here, or pick up one of the KPC Media Group Sunday newspapers to read it in good old fashioned print. I'll post the full review here on Monday!
Monday, November 18, 2013
Movie Review: Balance of sap, silliness makes 'About Time' a sweet treat
This movie review was originally published on KPC Media Group's website and in the Sunday editions of its daily newspapers. Read the original review here. Reprinted on the Pop Tarts blog with permission.
Watching "About Time" is like watching a tricky balancing act.
It would be easy for it to tip over and fall into gag-worthy sticky-sweet sentimentality, but every time it sticks its toe into the pool of sap, it throws in a dash of spice and the movie is back on track. There was only one scene that really had me rolling my eyes in a way rarely seen outside of a Nicholas Sparks romance, and it was short-lived. Overall, "About Time" had just the right mix of gooshy goodness and quirky humor.
The movie follows Tim (Domhnall Gleeson) who, at the age of 21, is told by his father (Bill Nighy) that the men of his family can travel through time. They can't change history, in the sense that they couldn't go back and kill Hitler or anything, but they can travel within their own timelines and change their lives. His father used the time to get some extra reading done, but Tim decides to do what any gawky, nerdy-cute, single 21-year-old would do - he uses his power to get a girlfriend.
Enter Mary (Rachel McAdams), an adorable American girl Tim meets when he moves to London. After a series of fits and starts brought on by Tim's time-travel, the pair of them begin their ordinary lives together - made just a little more extraordinary by Tim's gift.
"About Time" works despite its relatively simple concept. Yes, time travel is not exactly "normal" in the real world, but since Tim is an ordinary man who can only travel back in his own history, there isn't really much he can do except improve or further screw up his life. There are no massive repercussions for the world when this man goes back in time. There is no "butterfly effect," where some small change causes big differences to other people. Everything that Tim changes effects Tim's little world - his parents, his girlfriend, his friends. The movie, therefore, becomes a celebration of the things in life that are beautiful but, in the great scheme of things, mundane - a chance meeting at a restaurant, a wedding, a walk on the beach.
"About Time" also features a pair of perfectly likeable but, ultimately, slightly dull characters. Tim and Mary are certainly cute and blandly charming, but they wouldn't be able to carry a movie without the help of the quirky, deliciously acted characters that surround them. Not only is Tim's father a delight as played by Bill Nighy, but his spacy sister Kit Kat (Lydia Wilson), earthy mother (Lindsay Duncan), dorky friend Rory (Joshua McGuire), crazy uncle (Richard Cordery) and perpetually discontented family friend and playwright Harry (Tom Hollander) all lend some personality to the film.
In the capable hands of chick-flick master Richard Curtis, everything works just as it should. "About Time," which Curtis wrote and directed, is reminscent of Curtis' other, similar works - the "Bridget Jones" movies, "Notting Hill" and "Four Weddings and a Funeral." While it doesn't quite live up to my favorite of Curtis' movies, "Love Actually," "About Time" has the same charm, humor and warmth that made his other works so famous and well-loved.
"About Time" takes a gauzy look at ordinary life, but does it in such a way that there's still a little sass and a touch of silly fun to temper the sap. It's one of those warm, fuzzy movies that, sometimes, is just what you need. It isn't an earth-shaking movie, and it doesn't have a terribly deep meaning, but it is a fun, sweet morsel of a movie.
Jenny's Take: See it before it leaves theaters.
(Rated R for language and some sexual content. Runs 123 minutes.)
Watching "About Time" is like watching a tricky balancing act.
It would be easy for it to tip over and fall into gag-worthy sticky-sweet sentimentality, but every time it sticks its toe into the pool of sap, it throws in a dash of spice and the movie is back on track. There was only one scene that really had me rolling my eyes in a way rarely seen outside of a Nicholas Sparks romance, and it was short-lived. Overall, "About Time" had just the right mix of gooshy goodness and quirky humor.
The movie follows Tim (Domhnall Gleeson) who, at the age of 21, is told by his father (Bill Nighy) that the men of his family can travel through time. They can't change history, in the sense that they couldn't go back and kill Hitler or anything, but they can travel within their own timelines and change their lives. His father used the time to get some extra reading done, but Tim decides to do what any gawky, nerdy-cute, single 21-year-old would do - he uses his power to get a girlfriend.
Enter Mary (Rachel McAdams), an adorable American girl Tim meets when he moves to London. After a series of fits and starts brought on by Tim's time-travel, the pair of them begin their ordinary lives together - made just a little more extraordinary by Tim's gift.
"About Time" works despite its relatively simple concept. Yes, time travel is not exactly "normal" in the real world, but since Tim is an ordinary man who can only travel back in his own history, there isn't really much he can do except improve or further screw up his life. There are no massive repercussions for the world when this man goes back in time. There is no "butterfly effect," where some small change causes big differences to other people. Everything that Tim changes effects Tim's little world - his parents, his girlfriend, his friends. The movie, therefore, becomes a celebration of the things in life that are beautiful but, in the great scheme of things, mundane - a chance meeting at a restaurant, a wedding, a walk on the beach.
"About Time" also features a pair of perfectly likeable but, ultimately, slightly dull characters. Tim and Mary are certainly cute and blandly charming, but they wouldn't be able to carry a movie without the help of the quirky, deliciously acted characters that surround them. Not only is Tim's father a delight as played by Bill Nighy, but his spacy sister Kit Kat (Lydia Wilson), earthy mother (Lindsay Duncan), dorky friend Rory (Joshua McGuire), crazy uncle (Richard Cordery) and perpetually discontented family friend and playwright Harry (Tom Hollander) all lend some personality to the film.
In the capable hands of chick-flick master Richard Curtis, everything works just as it should. "About Time," which Curtis wrote and directed, is reminscent of Curtis' other, similar works - the "Bridget Jones" movies, "Notting Hill" and "Four Weddings and a Funeral." While it doesn't quite live up to my favorite of Curtis' movies, "Love Actually," "About Time" has the same charm, humor and warmth that made his other works so famous and well-loved.
"About Time" takes a gauzy look at ordinary life, but does it in such a way that there's still a little sass and a touch of silly fun to temper the sap. It's one of those warm, fuzzy movies that, sometimes, is just what you need. It isn't an earth-shaking movie, and it doesn't have a terribly deep meaning, but it is a fun, sweet morsel of a movie.
Jenny's Take: See it before it leaves theaters.
(Rated R for language and some sexual content. Runs 123 minutes.)
Friday, November 15, 2013
Review of "About Time" posted at KPC Media Group's page
Looking for a sweet-yet-funny romantic comedy that doesn't make your teeth hurt from all the saccharine sappiness (most of the time, anyway)? Look no further than "About Time," which has enough quirk 'n' Britishness to keep it fun to watch.
My review of the movie is posted at KPC Media Group's website, and you can read it here. It will also appear in KPC's daily newspapers on Sunday, and I'll post it here on the blog on Monday!
My review of the movie is posted at KPC Media Group's website, and you can read it here. It will also appear in KPC's daily newspapers on Sunday, and I'll post it here on the blog on Monday!
Monday, November 11, 2013
Movie Review: New 'Thor' movie pure superhero fun
This review was originally posted on KPC Media Group's website and published in its daily newspapers. Read the original column here. Republished with permission.
As much as I appreciate deep, dark comic book-inspired films, like Christopher Nolan's "Dark Knight" trilogy, sometimes geeky girls just want to have fun.
Thank goodness, then, for movies like "Thor: The Dark World," which excellently blends a solid save-the-world story with a dash of humor, sprinkle of romance and a lot of pure entertainment value.
And, honestly, could a "Thor" movie work any other way? He's a Norse god who's really an alien who occasionally shows up on Earth to save humanity, and sometimes teams up with a group that includes a supergenius billionaire in a flying metal suit, a World War II supersoldier and a scientist who turns into a giant green monster when he gets angry.
It's actually quite a testiment to everyone involved that the movie works at all, and doesn't devolve into complete ridiculousness - although it does teeter on the edge of ridiculous more than once.
The movie follows astrophysicist Dr. Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) - Thor's love interest from the first "Thor" movie - who, when investigating some really weird scientific happenings, gets sucked into another world and infected with some very powerful energy. The energy is called the Aether, and it is being sought by the long-defeated dark elf Malekith (Christopher Eccleston). Thor (Chris Hemsworth) brings Jane to his home of Asgard in hopes of curing her, but instead Malekith seeks Jane in order to extract the energy from her to destroy the universe.
It's a ridiculous mix of fantasy - Elves! Armor! Swords! - and sci-fi - Aliens! Spaceships! Physics! - that shouldn't work at all. And occasionally, it doesn't. There are a few too many scenes of battles between sword-wielding Asgardians and elves with sci-fi blasters jumping out of spaceships. The movie stretches out just a tad too long and gets a smidge tedious at points.
But just when I would start to think, "OK, this is just getting ridiculous," something delightful would happen, and I'd be sucked right back in. And more often than not, I wouldn't be sucked in by Thor and his quest, or his relationship with Jane, or the impending doom of Asgard and Earth at Malekith's hand, but with the other major character in the movie - Loki (Tom Hiddleston), who provides many of the laughs and most of the emotional core to the movie.
Loki, if you've kept up with the quickly growing Marvel Cinematic Universe, was the bad guy in "The Avengers," but for "Thor: The Dark World," he's back to being a complicated, tricky antihero. Without Loki, this movie would be just another sudsie hack-and-slash superhero movie, but with Loki - and Hiddleston's gleeful, nuanced performance, which is the best in the movie - this "Thor" outing is elevated. It's still not a particularly deep or artistic movie, but it has some depth.
Still, the movie's depth isn't too deep, and when things start to get too dour and serious, a good dash of humor is inserted to keep the audience smiling. Chris Hemsworth spends a good chunk of the movie playing the straight man to trickster Loki, but Hemsworth is a master at playing his ridiculous character with just enough of a wink to the audience to make Thor not only bearable, but fun. And, let's face it, without that undercurrent of knowing humor, Thor would be an unbearably boring, stupid and, probably, rather unlikeable character. The excellent chemistry between Hemsworth and Hiddleston brings it all together into an entertaining and intensely watchable package.
"Thor: The Dark World" is not even close to the best movie in the "Avengers" franchise. This is no "Iron Man," and it doesn't even touch "The Avengers," but it takes what worked in 2011's "Thor" and improves upon it. There are certainly some bumps along the way, but, wow, is it a fun ride nonetheless.
Jenny's Take: See it tonight.
(Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence, and some suggestive content. Runs 112 minutes.)
As much as I appreciate deep, dark comic book-inspired films, like Christopher Nolan's "Dark Knight" trilogy, sometimes geeky girls just want to have fun.
Thank goodness, then, for movies like "Thor: The Dark World," which excellently blends a solid save-the-world story with a dash of humor, sprinkle of romance and a lot of pure entertainment value.
And, honestly, could a "Thor" movie work any other way? He's a Norse god who's really an alien who occasionally shows up on Earth to save humanity, and sometimes teams up with a group that includes a supergenius billionaire in a flying metal suit, a World War II supersoldier and a scientist who turns into a giant green monster when he gets angry.
It's actually quite a testiment to everyone involved that the movie works at all, and doesn't devolve into complete ridiculousness - although it does teeter on the edge of ridiculous more than once.
The movie follows astrophysicist Dr. Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) - Thor's love interest from the first "Thor" movie - who, when investigating some really weird scientific happenings, gets sucked into another world and infected with some very powerful energy. The energy is called the Aether, and it is being sought by the long-defeated dark elf Malekith (Christopher Eccleston). Thor (Chris Hemsworth) brings Jane to his home of Asgard in hopes of curing her, but instead Malekith seeks Jane in order to extract the energy from her to destroy the universe.
It's a ridiculous mix of fantasy - Elves! Armor! Swords! - and sci-fi - Aliens! Spaceships! Physics! - that shouldn't work at all. And occasionally, it doesn't. There are a few too many scenes of battles between sword-wielding Asgardians and elves with sci-fi blasters jumping out of spaceships. The movie stretches out just a tad too long and gets a smidge tedious at points.
But just when I would start to think, "OK, this is just getting ridiculous," something delightful would happen, and I'd be sucked right back in. And more often than not, I wouldn't be sucked in by Thor and his quest, or his relationship with Jane, or the impending doom of Asgard and Earth at Malekith's hand, but with the other major character in the movie - Loki (Tom Hiddleston), who provides many of the laughs and most of the emotional core to the movie.
Loki, if you've kept up with the quickly growing Marvel Cinematic Universe, was the bad guy in "The Avengers," but for "Thor: The Dark World," he's back to being a complicated, tricky antihero. Without Loki, this movie would be just another sudsie hack-and-slash superhero movie, but with Loki - and Hiddleston's gleeful, nuanced performance, which is the best in the movie - this "Thor" outing is elevated. It's still not a particularly deep or artistic movie, but it has some depth.
Still, the movie's depth isn't too deep, and when things start to get too dour and serious, a good dash of humor is inserted to keep the audience smiling. Chris Hemsworth spends a good chunk of the movie playing the straight man to trickster Loki, but Hemsworth is a master at playing his ridiculous character with just enough of a wink to the audience to make Thor not only bearable, but fun. And, let's face it, without that undercurrent of knowing humor, Thor would be an unbearably boring, stupid and, probably, rather unlikeable character. The excellent chemistry between Hemsworth and Hiddleston brings it all together into an entertaining and intensely watchable package.
"Thor: The Dark World" is not even close to the best movie in the "Avengers" franchise. This is no "Iron Man," and it doesn't even touch "The Avengers," but it takes what worked in 2011's "Thor" and improves upon it. There are certainly some bumps along the way, but, wow, is it a fun ride nonetheless.
Jenny's Take: See it tonight.
(Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence, and some suggestive content. Runs 112 minutes.)
Saturday, November 9, 2013
Review of "Thor: The Dark World" posted at KPC Media Group
It's not the best Avengers-related movie, but it's a lot of fun! I really enjoyed seeing "Thor: The Dark World" yesterday, and not just because Chris Hemsworth is hot and Tom Hiddleston is villain-sexy! It was better than the first "Thor" movie, with a perfect mix of plot, romance and humor!
Read my review here or in KPC Media Group's newspapers on Sunday, and I'll post the full review here on Monday.
Read my review here or in KPC Media Group's newspapers on Sunday, and I'll post the full review here on Monday.
Monday, November 4, 2013
Movie Review: 'Ender's Game' succeeds on several levels
This movie review was originally written for KPC Media Group's website and print newspapers. You can read the original review here. Reprinted with permission.
My mom always had a rule, which I still largely follow even as an adult: “You must read the book before you see the movie.”
It’s a good rule for kids, because it gets them to read - not that I needed any help on that front - but as an adult, it hasn’t always served me well.
Since the book is always better than the movie, a lot of times, reading the book before watching the movie leads to major disappointments.
I went into “Ender’s Game” prepared for the same. The book, written by Orson Scott Card and published in 1985, is a classic of military science fiction, and it’s a good read. It’s also a book, despite the fact that it takes place in the middle of a futuristic war in space, is structured mostly around the internal struggle of its main character, Ender Wiggin.
I liked reading the book, but I was incredibly skeptical that it could be made into a watchable, entertaining movie that still stayed true to the themes of the book.
It turns out “Ender’s Game” wasn’t as unfilmable as I thought it would be. In fact, it was quite the success, both as a standalone movie and as a book adaptation.
“Ender’s Game” follows Ender Wiggin (Asa Butterfield), a boy tapped by the International Military to train from a very young age to defeat a destructive race of aliens. Under the watchful eyes of Colonel Graff (Harrison Ford) and Major Anderson (Viola Davis), Ender quickly rises through the ranks at the isolated, outer-space military training school he attends. He is pushed to exhibit the fierceness of his violent brother, Peter (Jimmy Pinchak), and the empathy of his sister, Valentine (Abigail Breslin).
I was afraid that “Ender’s Game” was going to neuter the thought-provoking themes of the book, which takes a hard look at the morality of war, in favor of cool, wham-pow battle sequences. I was pleasantly surprised that the movie kept a lot of aspects of the book’s main themes. In fact, the movie was a little more subtle about asking the tough questions, as opposed to the hit-you-over-the-head nature of the book.
But, never fear, there are still some truly spectacular action sequences that are fun to watch and deserve a lot of praise. One of the centerpieces of the battle school is a zero-gravity globe where trainees float around among obstacles, shooting one another with guns that freeze their limbs. It’s fun to watch the kids floating around, and I was impressed with how seamless and real it seemed. Special effects have truly taken a step forward in the past few years, and it’s those leaps that allow good science fiction like “Ender’s Game” to be filmed. Even five years ago, it probably couldn’t have happened.
I was also pleased with how streamlined the plot of “Ender’s Game” was. One of the biggest problems with movie adaptations of books is that they suffer from bloat and pacing problems, because filmmakers try to stuff every scene from the book into the film. Screenwriter/director Gavin Hood is to be commended, then, because this is one of the slickest adaptations of a book I’ve seen on the big screen in years. Hood made the tough choices to take out several subplots - most notably, an interesting but ultimately marginal subplot about Ender’s siblings back on Earth. He also combined characters, changed relationships and condense time in order to make the story work as a movie. The movie clips along at a nice pace, without any of the awkward flow problems that are practically hallmarks of book adaptations. If I didn’t know it was a book adaptation, I doubt I would have been able to sense that “Ender’s Game” was adapted from another medium.
Despite all the expert writing, directing and adapting that happened to bring this movie together, though, “Ender’s Game” really hinges on its titular character. Ender is a complicated boy in a very difficult, strange situation, and casting the wrong kid in the role could have been a disaster. Thankfully, Asa Butterfield is a gem. He perfectly captures both Ender’s compassion and brutality, and is able to encapsulate those conflicting emotions and channel them into a raw, interesting performance.
“Ender’s Game” still isn’t a perfect film. The plot is deeply unsettling - it’s tough to watch preteens preparing to fight in a war - and I never feel like the story, either in the book or the movie, goes far enough to condemn some of the terrible things that happen in it. And even though the movie is a truly great adaptation of the book, it still doesn’t quite measure up to the source material. I was disappointed by the marginalization of a few characters, even though I understand why it happened, and as well-paced as it was, there were still some fairly important scenes that were hurried or glossed over.
Still, my only complaints are really little more than quibbles. “Ender’s Game” is an excellent piece of science fiction, and proof that, with a little work, you really can make a good book into a good movie.
Jenny’s Take: See it before it leaves theaters.
(Rated PG-13 for some violence, sci-fi action and thematic material. Runs 114 minutes.)
My mom always had a rule, which I still largely follow even as an adult: “You must read the book before you see the movie.”
It’s a good rule for kids, because it gets them to read - not that I needed any help on that front - but as an adult, it hasn’t always served me well.
Since the book is always better than the movie, a lot of times, reading the book before watching the movie leads to major disappointments.
I went into “Ender’s Game” prepared for the same. The book, written by Orson Scott Card and published in 1985, is a classic of military science fiction, and it’s a good read. It’s also a book, despite the fact that it takes place in the middle of a futuristic war in space, is structured mostly around the internal struggle of its main character, Ender Wiggin.
I liked reading the book, but I was incredibly skeptical that it could be made into a watchable, entertaining movie that still stayed true to the themes of the book.
It turns out “Ender’s Game” wasn’t as unfilmable as I thought it would be. In fact, it was quite the success, both as a standalone movie and as a book adaptation.
“Ender’s Game” follows Ender Wiggin (Asa Butterfield), a boy tapped by the International Military to train from a very young age to defeat a destructive race of aliens. Under the watchful eyes of Colonel Graff (Harrison Ford) and Major Anderson (Viola Davis), Ender quickly rises through the ranks at the isolated, outer-space military training school he attends. He is pushed to exhibit the fierceness of his violent brother, Peter (Jimmy Pinchak), and the empathy of his sister, Valentine (Abigail Breslin).
I was afraid that “Ender’s Game” was going to neuter the thought-provoking themes of the book, which takes a hard look at the morality of war, in favor of cool, wham-pow battle sequences. I was pleasantly surprised that the movie kept a lot of aspects of the book’s main themes. In fact, the movie was a little more subtle about asking the tough questions, as opposed to the hit-you-over-the-head nature of the book.
But, never fear, there are still some truly spectacular action sequences that are fun to watch and deserve a lot of praise. One of the centerpieces of the battle school is a zero-gravity globe where trainees float around among obstacles, shooting one another with guns that freeze their limbs. It’s fun to watch the kids floating around, and I was impressed with how seamless and real it seemed. Special effects have truly taken a step forward in the past few years, and it’s those leaps that allow good science fiction like “Ender’s Game” to be filmed. Even five years ago, it probably couldn’t have happened.
I was also pleased with how streamlined the plot of “Ender’s Game” was. One of the biggest problems with movie adaptations of books is that they suffer from bloat and pacing problems, because filmmakers try to stuff every scene from the book into the film. Screenwriter/director Gavin Hood is to be commended, then, because this is one of the slickest adaptations of a book I’ve seen on the big screen in years. Hood made the tough choices to take out several subplots - most notably, an interesting but ultimately marginal subplot about Ender’s siblings back on Earth. He also combined characters, changed relationships and condense time in order to make the story work as a movie. The movie clips along at a nice pace, without any of the awkward flow problems that are practically hallmarks of book adaptations. If I didn’t know it was a book adaptation, I doubt I would have been able to sense that “Ender’s Game” was adapted from another medium.
Despite all the expert writing, directing and adapting that happened to bring this movie together, though, “Ender’s Game” really hinges on its titular character. Ender is a complicated boy in a very difficult, strange situation, and casting the wrong kid in the role could have been a disaster. Thankfully, Asa Butterfield is a gem. He perfectly captures both Ender’s compassion and brutality, and is able to encapsulate those conflicting emotions and channel them into a raw, interesting performance.
“Ender’s Game” still isn’t a perfect film. The plot is deeply unsettling - it’s tough to watch preteens preparing to fight in a war - and I never feel like the story, either in the book or the movie, goes far enough to condemn some of the terrible things that happen in it. And even though the movie is a truly great adaptation of the book, it still doesn’t quite measure up to the source material. I was disappointed by the marginalization of a few characters, even though I understand why it happened, and as well-paced as it was, there were still some fairly important scenes that were hurried or glossed over.
Still, my only complaints are really little more than quibbles. “Ender’s Game” is an excellent piece of science fiction, and proof that, with a little work, you really can make a good book into a good movie.
Jenny’s Take: See it before it leaves theaters.
(Rated PG-13 for some violence, sci-fi action and thematic material. Runs 114 minutes.)
Friday, November 1, 2013
Movie Review of "Ender's Game" Posted at KPC Media Group
I was super skeptical of "Ender's Game" - how could that book possibly make a good movie? - but I was very pleasantly surprised! Read my review at KPC Media Group's website by clicking here. I'll post it on the Pop Tarts blog on Monday.
Also, sorry for the horrendous lack of posts this week. It's been a long week, and, frankly, I just hit a wall! (I don't know what Kel's excuse is, though!) As long as things go well, it'll be back to normal posting next week!
Also, sorry for the horrendous lack of posts this week. It's been a long week, and, frankly, I just hit a wall! (I don't know what Kel's excuse is, though!) As long as things go well, it'll be back to normal posting next week!
Monday, October 28, 2013
Movie Review: 'The Counselor' should have worked but it really, really doesn't
This movie review originally appeared at KPC Media Group's website and in its daily newspapers. Read the original review here. Reprinted with permission.
On paper, "The Counselor" isn't just a good movie. It's a great one.
It was written by the legendary Cormac McCarthy. Directed by Ridley Scott. Starring Michael Fassbender, Penelope Cruz, Javier Bardem, Cameron Diaz and Brad Pitt. How could it go wrong?
Oh, but it went wrong. Startlingly, disappointingly, upsettingly wrong.
The movie follows a lawyer addressed only as Counselor (Michael Fassbender), who enters the fraught and dangerous world of drug trafficking from Mexico and almost immediately screws everything up and endangers everybody around him, including the man who brought him in on the scheme, Reiner (Javier Bardem); Westray (Brad Pitt), the middleman; and his fiance, Laura (Penelope Cruz).
Even the plot sounds pretty good, right? I love the idea of telling the story of a man dealing with the terrifying repercussions of one very ill-advised decision made out of greed. That is a great idea for a movie!
Unfortunately, "The Counselor" never comes together. It's obvious where McCarthy and Scott were going with it, trying to make an artistic character drama examining the consequences of greed. But apparently they overthought their strategy, because instead they made a winding, piecemeal movie with a plot that often was incredibly vague. I fancy myself a pretty smart person who can follow a movie that doesn't spell out the entire plot and makes the audience think, but I was utterly lost at several points, and not in a fun way. After all, sometimes it's great to wait until the end of the movie for everything to click into place. But "The Counselor" just plodded along, showing seemingly unrelated scenes with characters from other scenes occasionally wandering in and out of them. "Inexplicable" is probably the best word to describe the whole bewildering experience.
"The Counselor" is a very talky movie, too, which is not inherently a terrible thing either. But the dialogue is often unnatural, and it didn't feel like that was an artistic decision. The characters also have a weird propensity to break into strange, stilted soliloquies. They were an attempt to insert a Very Important Lesson into the proceedings, I think, but they just came off as pompous and self-important. Even worse, they were dull and, often, not very well-acted. If even a great actor like Javier Bardem or Michael Fassbender can't make it work, you have a problem, and when Cameron Diaz, who isn't quite so talented as her costars, attempts one, it's just painful to watch.
Even the occasional ultra-violent beheading and awkwardly graphic sex scene can't spice up "The Counselor" too much. I wasn't offended by the scenes - in fact, the violent scenes especially were important to the story that I think they were trying to tell - but they just even more brought to the forefront what a mess the whole movie was. They could have been so effective if the audience cared about the characters or the plot made a lick of sense.
"The Counselor" is an exercise in wasted opportunity. There was so much talent involved both on camera and behind the camera, and there is such a wonderful, interesting plot in there somewhere, buried by self-important mumbo-jumbo and bad writing. Muy high expectations walking in made "The Counselor" just that much more of a major disappointment.
Jenny's Take: See it on TV during a bout of insomnia.
(Rated R for graphic violence, some grisly images, strong sexual content and language. Runs 117 minutes.)
On paper, "The Counselor" isn't just a good movie. It's a great one.
It was written by the legendary Cormac McCarthy. Directed by Ridley Scott. Starring Michael Fassbender, Penelope Cruz, Javier Bardem, Cameron Diaz and Brad Pitt. How could it go wrong?
Oh, but it went wrong. Startlingly, disappointingly, upsettingly wrong.
The movie follows a lawyer addressed only as Counselor (Michael Fassbender), who enters the fraught and dangerous world of drug trafficking from Mexico and almost immediately screws everything up and endangers everybody around him, including the man who brought him in on the scheme, Reiner (Javier Bardem); Westray (Brad Pitt), the middleman; and his fiance, Laura (Penelope Cruz).
Even the plot sounds pretty good, right? I love the idea of telling the story of a man dealing with the terrifying repercussions of one very ill-advised decision made out of greed. That is a great idea for a movie!
Unfortunately, "The Counselor" never comes together. It's obvious where McCarthy and Scott were going with it, trying to make an artistic character drama examining the consequences of greed. But apparently they overthought their strategy, because instead they made a winding, piecemeal movie with a plot that often was incredibly vague. I fancy myself a pretty smart person who can follow a movie that doesn't spell out the entire plot and makes the audience think, but I was utterly lost at several points, and not in a fun way. After all, sometimes it's great to wait until the end of the movie for everything to click into place. But "The Counselor" just plodded along, showing seemingly unrelated scenes with characters from other scenes occasionally wandering in and out of them. "Inexplicable" is probably the best word to describe the whole bewildering experience.
"The Counselor" is a very talky movie, too, which is not inherently a terrible thing either. But the dialogue is often unnatural, and it didn't feel like that was an artistic decision. The characters also have a weird propensity to break into strange, stilted soliloquies. They were an attempt to insert a Very Important Lesson into the proceedings, I think, but they just came off as pompous and self-important. Even worse, they were dull and, often, not very well-acted. If even a great actor like Javier Bardem or Michael Fassbender can't make it work, you have a problem, and when Cameron Diaz, who isn't quite so talented as her costars, attempts one, it's just painful to watch.
Even the occasional ultra-violent beheading and awkwardly graphic sex scene can't spice up "The Counselor" too much. I wasn't offended by the scenes - in fact, the violent scenes especially were important to the story that I think they were trying to tell - but they just even more brought to the forefront what a mess the whole movie was. They could have been so effective if the audience cared about the characters or the plot made a lick of sense.
"The Counselor" is an exercise in wasted opportunity. There was so much talent involved both on camera and behind the camera, and there is such a wonderful, interesting plot in there somewhere, buried by self-important mumbo-jumbo and bad writing. Muy high expectations walking in made "The Counselor" just that much more of a major disappointment.
Jenny's Take: See it on TV during a bout of insomnia.
(Rated R for graphic violence, some grisly images, strong sexual content and language. Runs 117 minutes.)
Friday, October 25, 2013
Review of "The Counselor" on KPC Media Group's website
Ya know, I didn't think a movie that started out with Michael Fassbender and Penelope Cruz in bed together would be so darn boring and inexplicable - especially when it was written by Cormac McCarthy and directed by Ridley Scott! Alas, "The Counselor" is a stinker. Read my full review at KPC Media Group's website by clicking here.
Monday, October 21, 2013
Movie Review: What's the point of remaking classic 'Carrie'?
This column was originally published in the KPC Media Group newspapers and online at kpcnews.com. Read the original column here. Republished on The Pop Tarts with permission.
I understand the desire to remake horror movies. So often, the special effects in movies from decades ago fall flat, and for horror movies, bad special effects can be the kiss of death for modern audiences.
However, the really great horror movies of years past, like other classic films, hold up well, and 1976's "Carrie" is a great horror film. If you don't believe me, go back and watch it again. It really is one of the great ones.
I'm not saying that the new remake isn't good, too, because it is. In fact, if it were the first version of "Carrie" to hit theaters, it would probably feel like a pretty darn good movie, because it is. But because it's so faithful to both the original movie and the book, and it's solid and well-made with no huge changes, it feels like a case of "been-there, done-that."
I understand the desire to remake horror movies. So often, the special effects in movies from decades ago fall flat, and for horror movies, bad special effects can be the kiss of death for modern audiences.
However, the really great horror movies of years past, like other classic films, hold up well, and 1976's "Carrie" is a great horror film. If you don't believe me, go back and watch it again. It really is one of the great ones.
I'm not saying that the new remake isn't good, too, because it is. In fact, if it were the first version of "Carrie" to hit theaters, it would probably feel like a pretty darn good movie, because it is. But because it's so faithful to both the original movie and the book, and it's solid and well-made with no huge changes, it feels like a case of "been-there, done-that."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)