Movie Review: "The Great Outdoors" (1988)

Image Source

Movie: "The Great Outdoors"
Director: Howard Deutch
Year: 1988
Rating: PG
Running Time: 1 hour, 31 minutes

Chet Ripley (John Candy) simply wants to give his wife Connie (Stephanie Faracy) and their two boys, Ben (Ian Giatti) and Buck (Chris Young), a nice vacation at the same lake he used to go to with his father. When Connie's sister Kate (Annette Bening) and her husband Roman (Dan Aykroyd) arrive uninvited with their twin daughters, it throws a wrench in Chet's plans. Roman is a Chicago stock broker and looks down on Chet's simple life, scoffing at the thought of grilling hot dogs and renting pontoon boats, and instead, insisting on lobster tail and high speed jet boats. Roman interjects himself in every facet of Chet's family vacation, criticizing him the whole way. 

Well, folks, we hope you enjoys our little summer series this year! If you did, please let us know, and if you have any other ideas for themed months, let us know that, too! For the month of September, we'll be going "back to school," so stay tuned!

This is one of John Candy's more memorable roles and he does an excellent job opposite the very funny Dan Aykroyd. Their 'odd couple' type of dynamic works, with Candy playing his usual "every-man" roll in Chet to Aykroyd's upper-crust, snobby Roman. They bring a lot of funny moments to the table, a lot of chuckles throughout, and a few heartier laugh-out-loud moments sprinkled in the movie as well. Some of the funniest scenes in the film come when Chet and Roman are left to go toe-to-toe with the local wildlife, bats, bears, you know, the usual forest fare. Beyond the main two actors, Annette Bening seems to play a snobby wife really well, knowing little about what's really going on with her husband and his dealings beyond what he tells her. Her obliviousness makes her character funny. Both of the actors who play the sons are basically interchangeable, but the two girls who play the creepy, menacing ginger twins serve a purpose and do a great job exuding an awkward, ever-watching "The Shining" twins type of feel, though they have almost zero dialogue.

There are elements of the script that drag the story down, unfortunately. One element in particular is the romantic sub-plot between Chris Young's Buck and a local girl named Cammie, played by Lucy Deakins. This silly, week-long summer teen romance is superfluous and completely unnecessary to the rest of the story.  In fact, their entire sub-plot could have been completely cut from the film and it probably would have been an improvement overall. The primary plot and this sub-plot never intersect. In addition, Cammie is never even mentioned in the main story line! It seems that this relationship only exists in order to give the film a full 90 minute run time. It runs its course early in the film, leaving a ton of wasted minutes that could have been used with more Candy and Aykroyd hysterics.

Overall, this is a decent family comedy with a ton of heart. Many families can relate to wanting the perfect vacation, just like in last week's movie, so when things goes awry, it can really pull a family apart. "The Great Outdoors" is a good mix of competition, family-friendly fun (minus a few bad words here and there), comedy, and nature written by wonderful John Hughes.

My Rating: 7/10
BigJ's Rating: 7.5/10
IMDB's Rating: 6.5/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 40%
Do we recommend this movie: Sure, why not?
~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "Admission"

Movie Review: "The November Man" (2014)

Movie: "The November Man"
Director: Roger Donaldson
Rating: R
Running Time: 1 hour, 48 minutes

Image Source

Devereaux (Pierce Brosnan) is a retired CIA operative who has just been reactivated by his old friend Hanley (Bill Smitrovich), who is still with the agency. Devereaux is told to extract a woman he was once very close to named Natalia (Mediha Musliovic), who has information as to the whereabouts of a witness to war crimes committed by Arkady Federov (Lazar Ristovski), the lead candidate for the president of Russia. It turns out Devereaux isn't the only one trying to get Natalia: both the CIA, who are unaware of Devereaux's involvement, and the Russians are out to get her as well. Once Devereaux receives the name of the witness, he locates the last person to see her alive, a social worker named Alice (Olga Kurylenko), who may very well be in great danger. As it turns out, this witness may also have information about the involvement of the CIA in these war crimes. In an attempt to get Alice for themselves, the CIA has assigned Mason (Luke Bracey), who was trained by Devereaux, to kill him and obtain Alice for the CIA. 

There seems to be a recent trend of older, more mature actors playing ass-kickers lately, and this movie doesn't deviate from that trend. Pierce Brosnan is good in the lead role of Devereaux. He performs his part well and plays a convincing older spy as he has a history with this type of character. He might not have been the best James Bond in the history of Bonds, but being chosen for that role gave Brosnan a much more convincing air about him when playing Devereaux. The same can't be said for his younger counterpart Mason, played by Luke Bracey, who has the stiffness and personality of a tree stump. He might as well have been reading his lines off of a cue card. His facial expression hardly changed throughout the film. Even when someone he cares about is in great danger, he can't bring himself to look even the slightest bit concerned for her safety.

The story itself is rather weak and is full of nonsensical twists that will leave audiences saying WTF instead of leaving them genuinely surprised. There are also a lot of plot holes and unexplained circumstances throughout the film. For example, Devereaux and Alice end up in an apartment to spy on Mason. Devereaux promptly raids the liquor cabinet and begins downing drinks. Moments later, he shows up at Mason's apartment seemingly intoxicated. There are many scenes throughout the movie that beg the question: is Devereaux an alcoholic? If so, why isn't it casually mentioned, and if not, why is he showing drinking many times in the movie? It might not seem like a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but it seems to be a plot point that obviously made it into the film more than once, and yet never gets explained. Also, how and why did the neighbor's cat keep getting into Mason's abode? Was the neighbor really that desperate for a reason to talk to him? If a cat can get into Mason's apartment when he's supposed to be this intuitive, super-sleuthing CIA badass, maybe he would just, I don't know, naturally WANT to figure out how the hell the cat is getting inside his apartment, where he keeps his top secret CIA information? Maybe these incidents are explained in more detail in the book, but they sure didn't go anywhere during the film, and there are a host of other examples we won't divulge for fear of giving away the ending.

The one thing that pissed me off the most about this movie was how the character of Hanley kept calling one of the female agents interrogating him "Tits," and "Twat," and "Bitch." I usually take these comments in stride and try not to let them bother me, but it was the degrading way in which he called her these names that was disturbing. I feel like every single time she was on screen, he was calling her another name when he didn't even really need to; it was just to show how much of an ass his character was and nothing more. His character's name may as well have been Mel Gibson with that lazy and stereotypical sexist trash talk.

Another quick but unrelated point is that this movie is one that relies heavily on the use of drones, not just for filming, but as part of the plot, too. Many camera shots are obviously taken via drone, and the camera pans on them quite a few times during a car chase early on in the film. It was very noticeable and pretty creepy in a "big brother is watching you" sort of way. Beyond that, there's not really all that much to say about this movie. The story is weak and if you don't mind the ridiculous plot and Luke Bracey's terrible stump acting, there are a lot of cool, mindless action sequences, some decent fight scenes, and a few car chases to keep the audience entertained. It would be worth a cheap ticket price of admission just to sit in a cool, air conditioned theater for almost 2 hours.

My Rating: 5.5/10
BigJ's Rating: 5/10
IMDB's Rating: 6.3/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 32%
Do we recommend this movie: Meh.
~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "Closed Circuit"

Movie Review: "Sin City: A Dame to Kill For" (2014)

Movie: "Sin City: A Dame to Kill For"
Director: Frank Miller, Robert Rodriguez
Rating: R
Running Time: 1 hour, 42 minutes

Image Source

Basin City's favorite group of characters are back in four new story lines. Marv (Micky Rourke) is having another Saturday night dishing out his vigilante justice against some wealthy punks who get their kicks by burning the homeless. A young gambler named Johnny (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) has a long hard night. In the main story of the film, Dwight (Josh Brolin) enlists the help of Marv to help Ava (Eva Green), Dwight's former lover, and who they believe is a dame to kill for, get justice on her husband, who roughs her up from time to time. Nancy (Jessica Alba) has her last dance before going crazy, cutting up her own face and asking Marv to help her take revenge on Senator Roark (Powers Booth). 

Everything about this movie is different from its predecessor. Even the look of the movie is different. It's still black and white with splashes of color here and there, but it almost looks more computer generated and less comic book-y like the first film. It's like they didn't take the same amount of painstaking attention to detail as they did nine years ago. And speaking of nine years ago, when filmmakers and directors make their audience wait almost a decade for a highly anticipated sequel, they damn well better make it spectacular. Unfortunately for the "Sin City: A Dame to Kill For" filmmakers, this movie underwhelms and borderlines on being just OK.

First of all, this movie is both a sequel AND a prequel. We'll give you time to process that for a second. While Robert Rodriguez, the director of this film, doesn't come right out and tell you which is which, it's almost always clear what came before and what came after, except in the case of one of the four stories. Marv and Nancy's timeline seems to be both a prequel AND a sequel, making the entire story a little unclear. In Nancy's last dance, we assume it's a sequel to the Hardigan story from the first film. However, the inclusion of Marv doesn't make sense, especially since Nancy is in the Goldie and Marv story line of Sin City before she goes completely crazy, and at the end of which, Marv winds up dead. If this is a spoiler to you, sorry, but shame on you for waiting nine years to see the original film!!!

The film starts off strong enough, featuring just another Saturday night with Marv doing his thing, teaching some punks a fatal lesson. Though we like Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Johnny and he performs well, his story is a quite underwhelming and drags down the film's pace. Powers Booth's performance as Roark is nothing short of amazing. Booth is able to capture just how truly evil Roark is as a person, and in one scene, goes as far as breaking all of Johnny's fingers. See, heads flying off bodies, multiple gunshot wounds, Marv removing someone's eye...none of this really bothered us that much. But Johnny's fingers being broken?? Having just broken my foot a few months ago, I felt the agony, the horrific and searing pain of a bone being broken deep down in my loins. THAT was truly gruesome. The next segment has the opposite problem. We were not a fans of Josh Brolin in the role of Dwight, though his story is quite enthralling. We did have a question, though: what the hell was Clive Owen doing that he couldn't take the time out of his busy schedule to reprise his role as Dwight? THE ANSWER IS: NOTHING AT ALL. Eva Green does an excellent job as the ruthless, vicious, master manipulator Ava and was one of our favorite parts of the film. The final story and the only sequel (the other three are prequels) seems rushed and we actually started to get a little overloaded with how much Marv is in the film. By now, it just seems like they are trying to capitalize on Marv's popularity and his inclusion doesn't seem to fit the timeline. Maybe they should have made a spin-off all about Marv, it might have made more money than this sequel.

Overall, this sequel/prequel/whatever the hell it is is simply uninspired. We waited with baited breath to see this film and left sorely disappointed. In the grand scheme of movies, it's not a terrible one and does boast some pretty awesome death and actions scenes, but most of the movie was just sort of...there. The violence and sex appeal get amped up in this sequel, only to go little to nowhere. It doesn't help that the movie completely flopped at the box offices its opening weekend, making way under the total it was estimated to make. Everything from the visual effects to the voice-over narration lacked the same clever, neo-noir, and groundbreaking spark of the first film that made it one of our favorite movies of the last decade.

My Rating: 5.5/10
BigJ's Rating: 6/10
IMDB's Rating: 7.2/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 45%
Do we recommend this movie: Sure, why not?
~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones"

Movie Review: "Sin City" (2005)

Image Source

Movie: "Sin City"
Director: Frank Miller & Robert Rodriguez
Year: 2005
Rating: R
Running Time: 2 hours, 4 minutes

Basin City is full of the dregs of society: criminals, prostitutes, crooked cops and politicians. Through a series of short, slightly interwoven stories, a few shady characters are tangled in the muck of this treacherous city. There's Marv (Mickey Rourke), an ugly, brutish ex-con looking the avenge the death of the woman who loved him, if only for one night. Next, we have Dwight (Clive Owen), a man who is a little crazy but helps the prostitutes of Old Town keep their independence after they kill an abusive cop named Jackie Boy (Benicio Del Toro). Finally, there is Hardigan (Bruce Willis), a good yet disgraced cop, who was framed for the assault of the very children that he rescued. He must take the law into his own hands to save Nancy (Jessica Alba), the last girl who knows the truth and is the target of the actual criminal and child molester, Junior (Nick Stahl), who framed Hardigan.

This film is nothing short of brilliant. Its stunning visuals are groundbreaking, which completely drive this neo-noir classic. Along with this, the practical makeup work and CGI settings make for one hell of a film. Its unapologetic use of blood, gore, and sex make this a pioneer in the adaptation of adult-oriented graphic novels. It's thrilling, it's chilling, and we, for one, LOVE this movie! It has been a while since we have watched it, and seeing it again makes us appreciate it even more.

The cast of characters in this film is an eclectic but awesome one. There are too many wonderful performances to mention in great detail, but we will name just a few of our stand-out favorites. It is our belief that this movie helped to reanimated Mickey Rourke's career. He was the perfect casting choice for Marv. Everything about his rugged, hardened-by-life exterior contributed to the believability of his character. One of our favorite performances actually comes from a smaller role, and that's Elijah Wood's character Kevin. He is a silent cannibal killer who has a very eerie aura about him. His smile is horribly creepy and menacing, and Wood pulls it off extremely well. His trophy room of prostitute heads has a macabre feel and brings the sinister factor up a few notches. The fact that Kevin is also very religious makes it that much more disturbing.

We must admit, some of the dialogue is quite over the top and cheesy, often delivered in a dry type of manner. This was obviously intentional and doesn't ever become distracting. It seems to fit the overall feel of the film and reminds us of dialogue from 1930's gangster movies. The voice-over narration, use of old-school automobiles and the mostly black and white coloration, along with this dialogue, really adds to the overall noir feel of this film.

If you're looking to watch a movie where characters kick some serious ass and don't feel bad about it, this is your movie! It's stylish, fun, creative, and most of all, sinful. We cannot wait to see what the sequel holds.

My Rating: 9.5/10
BigJ's Rating: 10/10
IMDB's Rating: 8.2/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 78%
Do we recommend this movie: ABSOLUTELY YES!!!
~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "Kick-Ass 2"

Movie Review: "If I Stay" (2014)

Movie: "If I Stay"
Director: R.J. Cutler
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 1 hour, 46 minutes

Image Source

Mia Hall (Chloë Grace Moretz) is an attractive girl and an avid cello player with cool, hip, supportive parents. Despite all this, she is extremely insecure about herself and her talents. When she draws the interest of a handsome local rockstar and all-around cool kid Adam (Jamie Blackly), she can't believe he's possibly interested in her. Despite her being hesitant, Adam convinces her to go on a date with him. They quickly fall in love as Adam's music career skyrockets into stardom. They hope to get a place together in Oregon after Mia graduates, unless she follows her dream and gets accepted into Julliard. Before she can make a decision one way or the other, her and her family are involved in a severe car accident, putting her in a coma and leaving the majority of her family dead. Now, she must decide whether to stay alive with Adam or follow her family into the light. 

In an effort to capitalize on the current trend of young adult novels being adapted and turned into movies, "If I Stay" also continues a different trend: KILLING OFF TEENAGERS. Why is this such a hot thing right now? Because Hollywood knows teenage girls and their sucker parents will pay to see them.

Most adults will pass by this movie without a second thought since it focuses on a relationship between two young people, and as we all know, young people are whiners and are moody and broody. This movie can be broken up into three basic parts: Adam, the cello, and her family. Before the accident, Mia had the perfect life with a wonderful younger brother and two super cool, understanding, and lenient parents who were uber-hipsters and former musicians. Once the accident happens and with one of those three parts eliminated, out-of-body Mia wonders, what's the point of staying alive when my family is gone? Ultimately, her ghost has to choose between living, which means working it out with Adam and playing the cello (hopefully at Juilliard) but not having her family around, or dying because there's no point in sticking around without her family. There is a real story buried in between the romance and the death, though. Mia is also essentially forced to choose between her true love, Adam, and her dream of playing the cello at the prestigious performing arts school Juilliard. While this is a big deal to her, in reality, it feels like a bunch of trumped-up, first-world, white people problems, and this is coming from someone who felt the same way while reading the book.

Let's make no bones about this: this movie was made because Hollywood and the people who adapt these sappy books into movies are cash cows. The only parts of the movie and the book that are compelling are the parts where Mia is making music, and no, not in that kind of way. You can see it on screen and read it in between the lines, her music is her voice. Everything about her oozes classical music and the cello, but that does not a story make. Teenage girls need intrigue, they need romance, they need ~*drama~*, so there needs to be a romance to keep them interested. Enter Adam, who, of course, is a musician, too, but a more mainstream and successful one. He's the fantasy, the older rocker who loves her unconditionally for who she is and how she plays.

Most of us had romances when we were teenagers, right? Well, it seems like the author of this book and subsequently the writer of this movie made Mia and Adam act like they are the only two people in the world who have ever faced a separation, whether it's from going off to college, joining a band, or something far greater. In fact, much of their relationship is eye-rolling on screen and in print. Teenagers don't talk the way Adam and Mia do, come on now, we're not naive enough to think they really do. The chemistry was sort of there between Moretz and Blackly, but it didn't feel like the epic love story it was meant to be. In fact, there was only one part of this movie that was actually sad enough to elicit tears; we know from the trailer that her parents die, that part is abundantly clear, but when Mia's grandfather, played by Stacy Keach, tells her comatose body that it's okay if she wants to "go," that he's fine with it? The dialogue he says is truly heartbreaking. I am an adult and I bawled my eyes out, maybe because of real-life experiences, maybe because it was just a sad scene altogether, but either way, I'm not ashamed to admit it.

This is not a perfect movie whether you've read the book or not. Filmmakers can't please everyone. Not everyone will be happy with a book-to-film adaptation. If someone has read the book and had a vision of how things should be portrayed on-screen and their expectations aren't met, they will be angry. In an effort to make books more relateable and adaptable, sometimes creative license is taken at the behest of filmmakers and directors and things are omitted or changed. No one will ever be the perfect cast, there will most likely be changes to the story, and people need to learn to analyze them as separate entities and not take it so personally when their demands aren't met. It's not the book, it's one director's interpretation of the book.

And for people saying this book is just like "The Fault in Our Stars," ARE YOU INSANE?!?! Mia is in an accident, and up until that point, she has a wonderful life with her boyfriend and her cello and can do pretty much whatever the hell she wants because of her hipster parents. Hazel Grace Lancaster from "The Fault in Our Stars" has cancer. Let us repeat that: SHE. HAS. CANCER. These stories are only the same for one reason: they are young adult romances. THAT'S IT. That's where it ends, so just stop.

My Rating: 6/10
BigJ's Rating: 5.5/10
IMDB's Rating: 6.8/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 41%
Do we recommend this movie: Sure, why not?
~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "Lee Daniels' The Butler"

Movie Review: "When the Game Stands Tall" (2014)

Movie: "When the Game Stands Tall"
Director: Thomas Carter
Rating: PG
Running Time: 1 hour, 55 minutes

Image Source

De La Salle High School holds the record for most consecutive football games won in the entire nation: 151 straight games. This film, inspired by true events, focuses on the lives of the players and the life of coach Bob Ladoucer (Jim Caviezel) leading up to their streak-breaking loss and the team's subsequent quest to regain glory. 

Where to begin, where to begin...

For being billed as a story inspired by true events, it doesn't seem inspirational or interesting enough to warrant a movie, let alone a 2 hour one. The movie starts by showing the team claiming its 151st straight victory in a championship game. Pretty good so far. After this point, not 5 minutes into the film, it takes a turn, and the rest of the movie continues to drag on very slowly through its run time and becomes a melodramatic, syrupy, pseudo-inspirational and very generic sports film.

It's a little bit hard to knock this movie, for what its worth, since many of the events surrounding the team really did happen. One of their teammates really did get shot and killed, Ladoucer really did have a heart attack, and many other events portrayed happened in reality, though the timetable of said events was moved up in an effort to make it seem more dramatic. On top of these real-life dramas, one of the main focal points of the film is the relationship between Ladoucer and his son Danny (Matthew Daddario), who is also on the football team. Their relationship is seemingly strained for no good reason and their problems seem quite trivial compared to other father/son relationships throughout the film. Unfortunately, this doesn't really go much of anywhere and barely gets resolved. Just because Danny hands Bob the game-winning football doesn't mean Bob is going to be there for his son any more or any less, especially since he obviously still has intentions of coaching for years to come. Right after Bob has his heart attack, while he is laying in a hospital bed and is lucky to be alive, his son somehow finds it appropriate to badger him about how he cannot coach the team anymore. He emphatically and quite callously storms out of the hospital room, leaving his mother Bev, played by Laura Dern, to blame Bob himself for not being around to father his children. When Bob is given a gloomy forecast for his recovery, Bev cannot contain her smile because he is going to be forced to stay home and be with his family. You almost feel bad for Bob since his family seems selfish as hell.

While the overall message of the film is a good one, there is no "I" in "team," but how many times has this message been turned into a movie? How many times has this message been turned into movie but executed better? The answer is COUNTLESS TIMES. It's so cliche it's not even funny. Beyond this, who really gives a hoot about the longest winning streak in HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL??? The answer should be no one! When sports movies are made, they usually focus on teams and players who are underdog stories, or teams and players who have the odds against them, not a team from a private school who is almost expected to win every single game because of their past record. Really, none of the experiences they go through (while some are heartbreaking) are that new, groundbreaking, or extraordinary, or really that inspirational at all. Who cares that they lost a game? It's only high school football and yet it is held up on a pedestal with great regard.

Whoever said this movie had nothing to do with religion obviously doesn't know what religion is. Since De La Salle is a Catholic private high school, much of this movie seems overly preachy, from crosses and crucifixes hanging in classrooms to Bible versus being quoted and interwoven throughout the film. There are many scenes in the movie where the situation at hand is turned into something "deeper" through the guise of religion. It feels like the audience is being blatantly preached to at a sermon, and the religious aspect is being inserted into the film where it seems out of place, such as a conversation outside of a Dick's Sporting Goods (we'll get into that in a second). It goes beyond the happenstance of the setting, and this may be off-putting to many viewers of different faiths.

Good product placements are done in such a way that they don't feel overt or in-your-face. This may as well have been a commercial for Dick's Sporting Goods, Gatorade, Nike, and/or Muscle Milk. The camera seems to hang just a little too long on logos placed in center frame on scoreboards, in locker rooms, and on t-shirts. Seriously, every. single. t-shirt. has a Nike logo on it. Most of the time, we don't notice such things, but this time, it was laughable. These products are also name-dropped within dialogue between characters and inserted into the movie lazily and obviously.

It may just be how the film was shot, but Jim Caviezel's character as a coach only seems to focus on brotherhood and compassion as a team after they are handed their first loss in 14 years. After they lose, his character gets wound up whenever anyone talks about winning again, or starting a new "streak," as it is called throughout the movie. We personally don't think Jim Caviezel is the actor you cast when you're looking for passion (except maybe "Passion of the Christ," *rim-shot*). He has a low-key acting style and doesn't ever seem passionate or happy about anything, showing almost no emotion throughout his performance. None of the acting really stands out and it isn't much better than your average made-for-TV film.

Really, there are only a few types of people who will probably enjoy this movie: 1) parents with kids in high school football; 2) kids who play football (as seen at our theater last night, there was an entire freakin' football team present for the screening); 3) De La Salle fans, former players, or members of that community; 4) football fanatics and those who love sports movies; and 5) the religiously devout. We don't happen to fall into any of these categories, so obviously this movie wasn't made for us, but it wasn't for a lack of trying. Even still, it's just not that good.

My Rating: 4/10
BigJ's Rating: 4/10
IMDB's Rating: 6.6/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 19%
Do we recommend this movie: No.
~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "The World's End"

Movie Review: "What If" (2013)

Movie: "What If"
Director: Michael Dowse
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 1 hour, 34 minutes

Image Source

Wallace (Daniel Radcliffe) is med school dropout just getting over a year-long funk after his now ex-girlfriend cheated on him. Ready to finally socialize a little, Wallace heads to his friend Allan's (Adam Driver) house for a party. It is at this party he meets a girl name Chantry (Zoe Kazan), to whom he instantly connects. In fact, she seems to be the perfect...until Wallace finds out she already has a successful long-term live-in boyfriend named Ben (Rafe Spall). At first, Wallace is ready to forget about Chantry and move on with his life, until he runs into her one night at a screening of "The Princess Bride." He decides to put his romantic feelings for her on the back burner and is ready to give being just friends a try. 

We went into this movie having only seen the trailer once many months ago, putting it from our minds and figuring we'd just catch it on DVD. We were very surprised to find it showing at our local theater last week. Apprehensively, we watched it...and really enjoyed it! In fact, I was almost blown away by how much I liked it. This movie deals with a very common relationship problem: can men and women ever really be just friends? The overall answer is yes, but this movies takes the question a step further: can Wallace overcome his romantic feelings for Chantry and remain just friends with her? We'll let you find out the answer for yourselves.

Daniel Radcliffe and Zoe Kazan had crazy good chemistry throughout this film. Daniel Radcliffe bring his dry British cynicism into the character of Wallace, who bitter about love, having been burned recently, but has a sharp charm about him that makes him charismatic through his anger. Zoe Kazan shines as Chantry. She is a quirky graphics designer who has the same fun-but-weird sense of humor as Wallace, and this is why and how they click so quickly. Their witty banter is pretty out there for strangers and yet we were instantly connected and rooting for them to get together. Radcliffe certainly has come into his own as an actor since the Harry Potter series, and we look forward to watching him whenever we get the chance. It's nice to see Adam Driver getting so many film opportunities. His character was funny, but his humor felt a bit more forced and obnoxious than Wallace's.

This is a very white-bread, hipster comedy that not everyone will enjoy. Not ever single person who sees this movie will identify with it. The humor is built on a foundation over the absurdity of the Fool's Gold sandwich and the overall irony of every day life. It's self-aware that this type of humor isn't for everyone, as seen in Chantry's Cool Whip story, which is tried on two groups of people, one finding it hilarious and the other finding it childish and uninteresting. We like this type of humor, so it worked just fine for us.

The most surprising thing of all is that their romance felt genuine. We believed in their connection and ended up wanting to see it through til the very end. It just goes to show that love can spring out of the most awkward, random conversations and scenarios. It puts its heart into something that isn't necessarily reciprocated all the time, but that's the beauty in its simplicity. The story as a whole isn't anything new or groundbreaking, but the romance feels real and their connection is undeniable. Plus, the movie also features some of "Chantry's" very cool drawings coming to life and fluttering around the screen, which was a neat break from all the talk about love and poop. Oh yeah, that's the one strange thing: this film talks an awful lot about feces, which is something you don't see in most romance films geared towards adults. Overall, this was a pleasant surprise and one that touched our hearts quite a bit.

Shout out to my best friend Craig, who I have known since the 7th grade and have never slept with, let alone thought of sleeping with. No offense. Love you, bro!

My Rating: 8/10
BigJ's Rating: 7.5/10
IMDB's Rating: 7.3/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 70%
Do we recommend this movie: Yes!
~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "The Spectacular Now"

Movie Review: "Summer Rental" (1985)

Image Source

Movie: "Summer Rental"
Director: Carl Reiner
Year: 1985
Rating: PG
Running Time: 1 hour, 27 minutes

Jack Chester (John Candy) is an air traffic controller in Atlanta that's getting a little burned out at work. After a small incident involving a fly, his work is forcing him to take a mandatory vacation. He packs up the family and takes them down to Citrus Cove, Florida for the summer. While they are there, Jack has a run-in with one of the locals, Al Pellet (Richard Crenna), who is the Florida Sailing Regatta champion 7 years running. As luck would have it, Pellet turns out to be Jack's new landlord and demands they cut their vacation short and get out of his newly acquired house. In an effort to save his family's vacation, Jack makes a bet with Pellet over the upcoming yacht race. If Jack can take Al's championship cup, he can finish his vacation rent-free, and if he loses, he leaves and Al still keeps the rent. Jack enlists the help of his new friend Scully (Rip Torn), who loans Jack his boat/fish restaurant the Barnacle for the race. 

This film is a very lighthearted, sweet comedy that is good for chuckles, but not belly-laughs. For being PG, it still has its moments of risque-ness. Ahhhh, the 1980's! It has a similar plot to plenty of other 80's comedies, which seems to represent the formula of the comedies for that decade: a bumbling but likable underdog confronts a usually snotty and wealthy upper-crust jerk who is the best at something. In an effort to make the situation right, it is always settled with a competition in the thing the jerk is good at, leaving said jerk to usually bite the dust. This situation always leaves the films predictable and formulaic, with no real surprises when all is said and done. See: "One Crazy Summer," "Revenge of the Nerds," "Better Off Dead," and countless other films. That being said, none of these other movies have John Candy, and he carries the entire film on his shoulders. It banks on his charm and comedic chops for laughs. It still isn't his best or most memorable film, though he does give a great performance. Candy is very relateable as a person, he reminds us of an every-man type of guy. It's always sad to think that he is no longer with us. Rip Torn plays Scully, a nationally non-descript pirate character, who seems to be performing a role at his restaurant from which he never stops. It's strange to make him be this way, but it also adds some much needed zaniness to the movie.

Overall, it won't make you think too much and is short enough if you're trying to kill some time and have a few laughs. It's a film that the entire family will most likely enjoy because, really, who can't relate to being burned out from work or school and needing to take a vacation?

My Rating: 6.5/10
BigJ's Rating: 7/10
IMDB's Rating: 6.1/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 15%
Do we recommend this movie: Sure, why not?
~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "Kick-Ass"

Movie Review: "Let's Be Cops" (2014)

Movie: "Let's Be Cops"
Director: Luke Greenfield
Rating: R
Running Time: 1 hour, 44 minutes

Image Source

Justin (Damon Wayans Jr.) is a video game developer hoping to sell his game, Police Officer L.A., to his company. Ryan (Jake Johnson) is his unemployed roommate who has been living off of the money earned from his herpes commercial. One night, they are invited to a college alumni costume party, where they decided to go dressed as cops with the uniforms Justin had for his game presentation. These uniforms are very authentic and people around town mistake them for actual police officers. Ryan decides he wants to take this as far as he can; since getting injured, which cost him his college football career, he has wasted his life and feels this is an opportunity to do something with it. While pretending to be cops, they unintentionally provoke and draw the attention of a group of local gangsters who are involved in extortion and other heavy crimes. What Ryan and Justin are starting to realize is that pretending to be cops may wind up really cost them their lives. 

We saw a trailer for this movie many months ago back-to-back with a trailer for "A Haunted House 2." In both of these short clips, a similar joke about "jumpin' out on brothers" was used and we almost couldn't believe it. In fact, it was pretty much word for word. Even more surprisingly, the line was delivered by two people who are from the same family! What a coinky-dink.

Not to get too deep into the analyzing of this obviously implausible movie, but the story goes beyond just what the trailer shows. In the preview, two guys are dressed as cops are goofing off and being dumbasses, while trying to pick up women and taking silly police calls. As far-fetched as the story is as a whole, it actually gets sort of interesting the longer it goes, especially related to Ryan, who almost starts to believe that he really is a cop. He ends up wanting to bring down a major extortion and gun-running ring whatever the cost might be. Another thing about the trailer is that it made the movie look much more stupid than it really is. We were more than surprised when we laughed out loud several times throughout the movie, though it does have its fair share of eye-rolling misses. Damon Wayans Jr.'s Justin gets overly whiny from time to time. You just want to slap him and tell him to stop being so sniveling. He does have his moments as a character, though, and garners a few laughs here and there. We think part of why this movie got made in the first place is based off of the success of "New Girl," where Johnson and Wayans Jr. play roommates and friends. Their chemistry on the show is really great and is reflected on-screen in this film, though their "talent" isn't really allowed to show 100% with what they are given.

All in all, we did laugh a number of times, but this film is really nothing more than a cheesy, unnecessarily long comedy sketch that was drawn out into a feature length film. Critics will and have hated this movie, but we didn't mind it and welcomed something where we could actually chuckle from time to time in a month where most movies have sucked worse than this one. It is pretty generic for an R-rated comedy, though. It also came out at the wrong time, during the civil unrest going on in Ferguson, Missouri, which may have hurt its box office numbers and its overall rating. It's sad to think that two random people who purchased the necessary police tools on the internet were better cops than the actual police themselves. There are a host of pretty good supporting performances by Rob Riggle, Keegan-Michael Key, and Natasha Leggero, but none of these are enough to keep the steam between bad and flat jokes. If you take it for what it is, a raunchy and highly over-the-top comedy, you might smile every now and then.

My Rating: 6.5/10
BigJ's Rating: 6.5/10
IMDB's Rating: 6.5/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 12%
Do we recommend this movie: Sure, why not?
~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "Blue Jasmine"

Oscar Movie Review: "Traffic" (2000)

Image Source

Oscar Movie: "Traffic"
Year Nominated: 2001
Director: Steven Soderbergh
Rating: R
Running Time: 2 hours, 27 minutes
Did It Win?: No.

Exploring the drug trade between the United States and Mexico, the lives of many people are impacted as their stories are seemingly woven together. Judge and "drug czar" Robert Wakefield (Michael Douglas) deals with his honor student/drug addicted daughter Caroline (Erika Christensen), all while trying to stop the influx of drugs being imported into the United States. Meanwhile, Javier Rodriguez (Benicio Del Toro), a Mexican Federale, is trying to stop drug exportation from Mexico's side, but is hindered by corruption within his own government. In San Diego, Carlos Ayala (Steven Bauer) has just been indicted on federal drug trafficking charges. His pregnant wife Helena (Catherine Zeta-Jones), after their assets have been seized by the government, has to find a way to make the money necessary to pay off her husband's debts to the Obregón cartel, even that means getting involved in the drug business herself.

We live right down the street from where part of this movie was filmed. #HumbleBrag

BigJ had seen this movie many years ago when it was first released and liked it enough, but thought it was too depressing and put it in the back of his mind. For a long time, he seemed to resist movies involving drugs because they made him uncomfortable. After many years of desensitization, he has now become more tolerant of them, especially if they are Oscar nominated like this one. Upon re-watching it, he now appreciates it much more, and I liked it a lot as well...well, as much as a person can like a movie about drug trafficking and the worst parts of humanity.

It's still extremely depressing in particular situations, most notably the story of Caroline Wakefield, the daughter of a wealthy politician and honor's student who had all the advantages life has to offer. We watch her character spiral slowly out of control, deeper and deeper into drug addiction, eventually resorting to stealing and whoring herself out for drug money. She's obviously rebelling against the one thing her father has made his livelihood from, and doing what will hurt him the most. We like the fact that she is portrayed as an outgoing honor's student. Having her be this type of person does away with the stereotype that drug users are bad in school or are anti-social outcasts that are so often portrayed in film and television.

Beyond this, there is a lot of top-notch acting in this film, though a few performances of the many stand out as being especially good. Benicio Del Toro won an Oscar for his portrayal of Javier Rodriguez and was one of the best performances in this movie. He's not a perfect cop, he doesn't absolutely do good all the time, but he still has a conscience though his flaws. You can see the concern in his face, though the character himself is always very stoic. Catherine Zeta-Jones starts out as a naive, whiny, upper-crust housewife but ends up turning into a ruthless boss bitch with little remorse for the people who have wronged her and her husband. Don Cheadle might be slightly underutilized here, but the time he is on screen, he does a fantastic job. He makes acting look easy and natural.

This has probably been said many times before, but Steven Soderbergh does a brilliant job with his use of color and different film stocks. At first, we thought the differentiation of color between the story lines would get distracting, but it wasn't, and we really liked his use of this technique. There's not much to say about the war on drugs that hasn't already been said. Someone exports, someone else imports, someone profits, someone tries to stop the drug trade altogether, and when they are removed from power, someone else pops up as leader. We like how Soderbergh doesn't shy away from the futility of the war on drugs itself. In fact, it is discussed heavily throughout the film and he acknowledges this endless cycle of violence and moral outrage. The intricate way he weaves the story together from each perspective is quite effective in making its point.

There is a small part in this film, however, that we take issue with as San Diegans. It describes a location as "La Jolla, California, just outside of San Diego." We want to this CRYSTAL CLEAR: La Jolla IS NOT, we repeat, IS NOT "just outside" of San Diego. It's less than 5 minutes away from where we live, AND WE LIVE IN THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO. The people of La Jolla will tell you they are their own city, which is complete and utter bullshit. They "BOUGHT" their "rights" to be called "a city" when really, they are just one of the richest suburbs of San Diego that feel the need to call themselves something they are not in an effort to make themselves feel more important and to establish their status as living in the community of La Jolla!!!! /end rant

My Rating: 8/10
BigJ's Rating: 8/10
IMDB's Rating: 7.7/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 92%
Do we recommend this movie: Yes!
~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "Paranoia"

Movie Review: "Peter Pan" (1953)

Image Source

Movie: "Peter Pan"
Director: Clyde Geronimi, Wilfred Jackson
Year: 1953
Rating: G
Running Time: 1 hour, 17 minutes

The Darling children Wendy (Katherine Beaumont), Michael (Tommy Luske), and John (Paul Collins) spend their time playing in their nursery. Wendy often tells the boys stories of the adventures of Peter Pan (Bobby Driscoll) and his battles with Captain Hook (Hans Conried) and the Pirates. One night when their over-rambunctious playing upsets Mr. Darling and he accidentally ruins his tuxedo, he declares that Wendy has grown too old for such nonsense and says it is her last night in the nursery. That night, Peter Pan and Tinkerbell sneak into their house try and find his shadow, which he lost there few nights ago while listening to Wendy's stories. The children eventually awaken and Wendy helps Peter reattach his shadow; she also tells him that it is her final night in the nursery because she's too old now. He offers to take them to Neverland, a place where they will stay young forever and where they can join him on his adventures with the lost boys. They agree, and with the help of some happy thoughts and fairy dust, they all fly to Neverland. The children must then decide if they want to stay in Neverland forever with Peter for fun and excitement, or go home to their parents where they will grow old and lead normal lives.  

OH, to be a lost boy!

For a story that seems to be adapted quite a bit, Disney manages to do a good job with their take on this classic children's story. It remains one of our favorite adaptations to this day. A big part of any Disney animated film is, of course, the music, and Peter Pan has some very memorable and catchy songs that we find ourselves singing from time to time. Tinkerbell became so memorable, in fact, that she was a mainstay for the opening logo of Disney films, and garnered her own spin-off film series. It doesn't get much better than that! Of course, upon watching this as adults, there are parts in that now seem derogatory and insensitive, one in particular BigJ is almost embarrassed to say was one of his favorite songs as a child, but then again, it was 1953 when this movie was released.

The idea of the story as a whole, never growing up, is a simple one, but will have mass appeal for kids, as well as adults who are kids at heart. With adulthood comes responsibility and the drudgery of everyday life, HOW BORING!!! It's probably a huge fantasy of many people to be able to do whatever you want whenever you want with no worries, to always have fun, and to always have a stress-free life. That's what Peter Pan epitomizes, shirking responsibilities in lieu of fun and adventure and exploration and frolicking. He can fly, he can be anywhere whenever he wants to be without a care in the world. This movie runs the whole spectrum of emotions, from an innocent romance to jealousy, from adventure to peril, from being afraid of flying to overcoming your fears and embracing the magic wholeheartedly.

It seems like this movie often times gets passed up for other Disney classics from the 80's and 90's, but this is still a fantastic film for kids and adults alike to enjoy. It reminds us to try and focus on the positive, even when life seems stressful and hectic, but to also look inside ourselves to find our inner child every now and then.

My Rating: 7.5/10
BigJ's Rating: 7.5/10
IMDB's Rating: 7.4/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 75%
Do we recommend this movie: Yes!
~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "Becket"

Movie Review: "The Expendables 3" (2014)

Movie: "The Expendables 3"
Director: Patrick Hughes
Rating: PG-13 (WHAT?!?!?!?!?!)
Running Time: 2 hours, 6 minutes

Image Source

The Expendables are back and on a whole new mission. They have been tasked with capturing an international arms dealer who needs to stand trial for war crimes. They fail this mission and are shocked to find out that this arms dealer is a former Expendable named Stonebanks (Mel Gibson). When one of the team members is critically shot, Barney (Sylvester Stallone) is worried he could lead his whole crew, who he considers his family, to their grave. Barney fires his old team and recruits a new team of young crazies to whom he is less attached. Stonebanks is craftier than they expected and it may take both teams working together to bring him down. 

Let's get the elephant in the room out of the way first. We never thought we'd see an "Expendables" movie be PG-13. It's almost sacrelig to the entire idea of the franchise. We were not looking forward to the drop in rating. Besides the fact that the success of the first two films was, in large part, because they were throwbacks to the unapologetic, violent, bloody and destructive 80's action movies starring the guys who are in this series (Stallone, Schwarzenegger, etc), a PG-13 rating could alienate its core audience. The days of bodies getting blown in half and heads popping like grapes are unfortunately over. Now, people fall dead with little to no blood and quick cutaways are implemented during hand to hand combat, which hides knives being buried into people. What a bummer.

Beyond what we think was this potentially huge faux pas (judging by this weekend's box office numbers, we may have been right), this film was not as bad as we were expecting. Many newcomers to the cast add quite a bit of fun, while others are, for lack of a better term, expendable. Wesley Snipes seemed to find his niche early on in the movie and fit in well as Doc, though we think is underutilized. Antonio Banderas, though some might find his character grating and annoying, added some much needed coming relief with his role a Galgo. It's always nice to see Harrison Ford emerge from his crypt to kick more ass. Just kidding, we love the guy! His character, Drummer, is a good replacement for Church, and he plays his role very convincingly. As opposed to so many thin, unbelievable Hollywood female action leads, UFC Bantamweight champion Ronda Rousey is believable as a genuine ass-kicking tough woman. This is essentially what she is in real life, though she is a little stiff with her line delivery since she's not really an actress. Mel Gibson is perfect for a villain like Stonebanks because he plays crazy well...maybe a little bit too well...in fact, he might not be acting at all.

For a movie that is built on the idea of old, seemingly washed up action stars using old-school techniques for major ass-kicking with a side of stale and overused geriatric jokes in a world riddled with technology and new-age combat, Stallone and his friends might need to hang it up after this one. The shtick is getting redundant. There's not much they can do from here that hasn't already been done...oh, no, it looks like there's already a 4th installment of this franchise being pitched as we speak....we stand corrected. Regardless of the fact that this movie got leaked online a couple of weeks before it came out, we don't think it made that much of a difference as far as box office numbers are concerned because those people probably don't pay to see movies, anyways. It appears people are getting tired of the franchise as a whole. This, coupled with a PG-13 rating, will cause die-hard fans of blood squibbs and decapitations to be severely disappointed. If you take it for what it is, it's decent enough, but nothing we'd see again.

My Rating: 6/10
BigJ's Rating: 6.5/10
IMDB's Rating: 6.2/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 35%
Do we recommend this movie: Sure, why not?
~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "Identity Thief"

Movie Review: "Magic in the Moonlight" (2014)

Movie: "Magic in the Moonlight"
Director: Woody Allen
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 1 hour, 37 minutes

Image Source

Stanley (Colin Firth) is a renowned British born magician that goes by the stage name Wei Ling Soo. He is also a professional skeptic and debunker who is always happy to expose phony psychics and mediums. A friend and colleague of his, Howard Burkan (Simon McBurney), has come across a particularly tricky case that has him baffled. Sophie (Emma Stone) is a young American psychic medium whom Howard seems to believe is genuine, in his opinion.  He wants to bring Stanley to the south of France where Sophie is providing her services to a family of wealthy aristocrats to see if he can show them she's a fraud. Stanley quickly accepts, but this task may be more difficult than he expects. 

Woody Allen's last few movies have been ones we have enjoyed quite a bit, mainly because he isn't the star of them. While "Magic in the Moonlight" doesn't actually have Allen in it, the writing of his characters seems to be part of the problem with this film, besides the fact that it's extremely predictable. The part of Stanley, played by Colin Firth, is wholly unlikable as a person and as a main character. He is extremely abrasive because of his skepticism and is very belligerent about his beliefs. If this is meant to come across as humorous, it's not. His rude and sometimes obnoxious pushiness erases whatever humor he offers as a character. Emma Stone's Sophie is like a lost child, unsure of herself as a person, and many times, unsure of "her gift" as a whole. We got the sense that she was trying to model the quirkiness and behaviors of Diane Keaton, but this seems unsuccessful.

Beyond this, Allen as a director (and probably as a person judging by the rumors of his personal life) appears to be content in forcing his own views and perceptions of love onto his audiences. Now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with having a sizable age difference between you and your loved one, we're far from prudes about such things. In fact, BigJ (my husband) and I are 7 years apart in age and some people think/have thought that is too weird and too much of an age gap. The age difference between Colin Firth and Emma Stone (who is 25) is 28 years, and it could be a different story altogether if they had any sort of chemistry in this movie, but they don't. Their romance lacks no passion and feels completely forced. We liken their relationship to that of a bickering father and daughter, or child and not-so-distant family member. We felt no spark, no love, and no chemistry between the two of them.

The one specific scene that had any potential to further the development of their relationship or romance in general involved a stargazing observatory in the rain. Could you ask for a better setup?! When the two were close to one another, dripping wet and trying to keep warm, the maladroitness of their age is truly shown in the faces of the actors themselves. It's not their acting that suffers, but their seeming awkwardness as a potential couple. Also, Sophie's lack of a father figure may attribute to her attraction of Stanley. Yeah, we went there, she seems to have "daddy issues." And how could you fall in love with someone who constantly talks down to you like Stanley did to Sophie? It's not the least bit attractive.

There are some positives about this movie, though they are few and far between for us. The scenery is absolutely gorgeous, but of course, it is the south of France. For as poorly as the characters were written, all of the acting is just fine and dandy. The actors do well with what they are given. The soundtrack and late 1920's feel of the decor, costumes, and setting is charming, but ultimately lacks in outweighing the bad.

Most of the lack of emotion and passion in the film stems from the underdeveloped script. Woody Allen loves a good screwball movie and most hardcore fans may disagree with how we feel about this film, but we didn't find it all that new or compelling. It is a far cry from his much better, more recent works like "Blue Jasmine" and "Midnight in Paris." We also don't care for the general message of the film, which is about how happiness can only come from deluding yourself into believing in fantasies. Just because we only get one life doesn't make it pointless! In fact, since that is the truth, we should live it to the fullest, Carpe Diem, you know?...or as many of hip kids say, YOLO!

Maybe we're just as skeptical of this movie as Colin Firth's Stanley. It doesn't go much of anywhere and lacks a connection to keep us intrigued with their lives. It's not a horrible film, it's just falls flat and is very expected, almost like a recycled, second-rate Woody Allen classic twisted into something different and less magical. Woody Allen, we know you're reading this. Just because you've decided to stop starring in your own movies doesn't mean to need to cast men who are as old as your leading lady's father to get your point across.

My Rating: 4.5/10
BigJ's Rating: 4.5/10
IMDB's Rating: 6.9/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 50%
Do we recommend this movie: No.
~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "An Unmarried Woman"

Movie Review: "The Giver" (2014)

Movie: "The Giver"
Director: Phillip Noyce
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 1 hour, 34 minutes

Image Source

In what appears to be a Utopian society, the public has sacrificed their emotions and individuality to live in peace and harmony. All of the aspects of their lives are planned, including where they work and who is in their family. Jonas (Brenton Thwaites) is a young man who is about to be assigned his career. It turns out, he is very special and is assigned the job Receiver of Memories, a position that involves learning the history of everything, including the past, as well as advising The Elders. The previous Receiver, now dubbed The Giver (Jeff Bridges), opens Jonas’ mind to a world he never knew existed as he discovers his utopia is not everything it seems.

I'm sure Lois Lowry is mad as hell that even though her book was written "first," so many other movies based on books dealing with the same topics and themes came out before it. It just feels too little too late for this book-to-movie adaptation.

Now, as per usual, we must preface: we have not read the book, and always strive to treat books and movies as separate entities. For starring two of our favorite actors, we walked away from this movie extremely underwhelmed. We believe that it was too short, in many ways. For a film that has so many deep ideas that are interwoven, it doesn't seem to get anywhere prolific with a 94 minute screen time. The lack of development is where it suffers most. Because it is so short, it fails to give the characters involved any real depth to the point where we don't get emotionally invested in their plight. Rather than letting the back-story about their society as a whole unfold naturally, it quickly glosses over its concept through a blurb on the screen in the first 30 seconds of the movie. We as an audience never get a real feeling of the everyday lives of the people within their supposed utopia.

This film seems to focus a lot on a seemingly forced romance between Jonas and Fiona. In doing this, the entire movie trivializes the true power of the emotions we are supposed to feel by reducing it to no more than a teenage crush. For a story that focuses so much on emotional enlightenment, it simply isn't emotional or engaging enough to make us interested. Jonas' transformation as he discovers the knowledge of the past isn't drastic enough, either. A person who has never felt an emotion in their entire life would (we hope) have a greater reaction upon seeing their first gorgeous sunset, or hearing their first piece of music, or learning about love for the first time. However, Jonas' emotions seem muted and underwhelmed. We don't know if it's Brenton Thwaites as an actor or the script in general, but he seems to have far too much control over what little emotion he asserts during these should be dramatic revelations. Even the montages he sees in his mind of holding hands and dancing and puppies and general happiness seem like something lazily pulled from National Geographic with the intent of provoking something greater.

Beyond all of this, the set design looks fine, though it's rather simple since the story is focused on sameness and uniformity. Everything from the costumes to their housing units look pretty much the same and fit the story well. Meryl Streep gives another fine performance, but what else would you expect from her? Jeff Bridges seems to be the go-to Hollywood veteran for a grizzled, stoic old man these days, and while he is also great in his role as The Giver, it seemed like his audio was dubbed in order to give him a more gravely sounding voice in post-production. We noticed that the sync was off several times to the point of it being distracting. Also, it looked like he had marbles in his mouth throughout the entire movie, which was equally as puzzling. This was the ideal, perfect role for Katie Holmes as we're pretty sure she's an emotionless cyborg and plays one in this film. We're also perplexed as to why Taylor Swift was cast as Rosemary because filmmakers could have put anyone else in that role since she was only on screen a short time.

The book didn't get banned because it was an emotionless romance, so where was all the good stuff in the film adaptation we have been hearing so much about? In the end, this movie probably won't "wow" audiences, but it's not the worst movie we have seen this year.

My Rating: 6/10
BigJ's Rating: 6/10
IMDB's Rating: 7.1/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 30%
Do we recommend this movie: Sure, why not?
~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "Jobs"

Movie Review: "A Most Wanted Man" (2014)

Movie: "A Most Wanted Man"
Director: Anton Corbijn
Rating: R
Running Time: 2 hours, 1 minute

Image Source

Gunther Bachmann (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is head of a small band of German spies stationed in Hamburg whose primary purpose is to combat the war on terror. Issa Karpov (Grigoriy Dobrygin) is a half Russian. half Chechnyan Muslim extremist who has entered the city illegally and has sought the help of civil rights attorney Annabel Richter (Rachel McAdams). He hopes to gain asylum and assistance in the retrieval of a large inheritance from his father, who gained it through less than honorable measures. Gunther and his team play a manipulative game of cat-and-mouse as they allow Issa to walk freely in the hopes that he will lead them to a bigger target.

Who knew signing a legal document could be so intense?!

It is such a great shame that Philip Seymour Hoffman passed away earlier this year because he was one of the greats of our time. He had so many excellent and memorable roles throughout his career, and his performance in this film is no exception. He does a spectacularly brilliant job as Gunther. Without Hoffman, we don't think this film would have been as great as it was. Gunther is a persistent, intelligent, and calculated man who is not afraid to take a risk in order to stop international terrorism. Hoffman is not your typical Hollywood spy that you'd see in a Bourne type of film, and definitely isn't the first actor you'd think of when thinking about a terrorist hunter. As Gunther, he and his team remain in the shadows, making contacts when they can, and that is why Philip Seymour Hoffman works so well in this film. His character's ability to convince others what to do, his glances, his staunch and somehow menacingly haunted and often times desperate face, even every word Hoffman utters is almost musical, his deep, husky voice meshing so well with his "put on" German accent, and convincingly so. He doesn't need to be front and center in the action, he can remain "hidden," so to speak, and still do his job efficiently. Maybe it was because I was hanging on his every word, knowing they would be some of his last, and sure, the other actors put on fine performances, but it's really Hoffman who drives this film to its realized greatness. This is his last completed film besides his part as Plutarch Heavensbee in "The Hunger Games" series, and he definitely went out with a bang. It could have very well been part of his character, but in separating the man himself from that character, I did think he looked a little different than he had in the past, more flustered and more jittery. It's purely speculation on our part, but something seemed almost off with him as a person. As we now know, he had his demons and had his battles, but that doesn't diminish him any less as an actor or as a person.

The film as a whole is not an action-packed thriller, but more of an "on the edge of your seat," slow burning, cerebral and dramatic type of thriller. Because of this, many will be underwhelmed and think that it's nothing they haven't seen before. The pacing might also be viewed as slow by some, but some scenes are seemingly elongated on purpose, and we got the sense that this was done to give audiences a feel for what it would be like to be part of the cat-and-mouse game that terrorism so often is. As for the other actors in this film, Rachel McAdams did an overall good job in her role as liberal lawyer Annabel, though we did notice she lost her German accent from time to time. It's always nice to see her venture outside of the rom/dram/com box she was seemingly put into many years ago. Willem Dafoe has the perfect face for a shady banker and did a great job in this movie as well. His accent was just as convincing as Hoffman's. Robin Wright seems to have found her niche screwing up people's lives with her manipulative bitchiness and this movie is no exception. Altogether, these four actors, with the help of others, created an unconventionally smart spy movie.

It is going to be difficult moving forward from here knowing Hoffman won't be around to grace us with his presence on the big screen any longer. In fact, when the film was over, I cried a couple of tears of sadness, not just for knowing he was gone, but for knowing his final performance was one of his best. This movie is not one to miss.

My Rating: 8.5/10
BigJ's Rating: 8/10
IMDB's Rating: 7.5/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 90%
Do we recommend this movie: Yes!
~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "Planes"

Movie Review: "The Seven Year Itch" (1955)

Image Source

Movie: "The Seven Year Itch"
Director: Billy Wilder
Year: 1955
Rating: G
Running Time: 1 hour, 45 minutes

Every summer, the men of Manhattan send their wives and kids on vacation while they stay home and "work." Most men take this opportunity to do everything they aren't allowed to when their wives and kids are around, like drink, smoke, and spend time with younger women but not Richard Sherman (Tom Ewell). Richard is determined to follow his wife Helen's (Evelyn Keyes) instructions and refrain from these activities. Unfortunately for him, a young woman (Marilyn Monroe) is renting the upstairs apartment for the summer, making his task that much more difficult. It also doesn't help that Richard has an overactive imagination that often gets the better of him. 

It's always interesting to watch old-school movies through a modern-age lens. At the time this movie was made, we're sure it was commonplace for a husband to send his wife away for the summer while he stays at home and drinks like a fish, smokes like a chimeny, and gallivants with the tartlet from upstairs. Nowadays, this movie seems much more sexist, violent towards women, slightly racist, and absolutely favors these ideals of the 1950's. The women who portray the wives of this film are seen as more matronly, leaving behind a giant list of rules like a mother would do, and the younger women flagrantly flaunt their bodies and seem to have no problem throwing themselves at married men. Every single man in the movie wants to cheat on his wife as soon as she is out the door, ready to hook up with whatever young hottie he comes across first with no regard to his wife or kids.

There is some humor in the movie, particularly Richard Sherman's over-imaginative fantasies. Some people might think his incessant babbling to himself isn't funny at all, but the way he goes from zero to something with the drop of a hat provides for a lot of hilarious scenes and scenarios, though they are not all a hit. Let's be honest, Marilyn Monroe was not that great of an actress, but damn if she wasn't a sex symbol. She plays the same overly-ditzy blonde in a tight dress with a squeaky, childlike voice and men seem to eat it up every single time. This movie features Monroe's most notable and iconic scene where her dress gets blown up by the subway. Perhaps one of the reasons this movie is still around is due to this scene alone, but if you didn't grow up watching it and saw it today for the first time, you might think twice about how wonderful it is and may question why it has survived this long at all. One scene in particular that is disturbing to us is when Richard is having one of his fantasies and he slaps a nurse that is fawning over him. She says something to the effect of, "hit me again, I'll just keep crawling back to you!" WHAT????? We had the same jaw to the floor reaction that we did when we saw Mickey Rooney show up on screen for the first time in "Breakfast at Tiffany's," just in a sexist manner, not a racist one. We like to think we're pretty even-handed when it comes to accepting all matters in cinema, even if we are uncomfortable with a subject matter, but this is just too much, too desperate, and too untrue.

It's funny that the parts of this film that were considered to be "the norm" are now considered passe and offensive in 2014, while the parts of the movie that were seen as odd or made fun of (IE: eating at a restaurant that serves exclusively healthy foods and soy products) are now commonplace and customary in a world filled with health-nuts and the diet conscious. While we don't particularly identify with this movie, it's funny in an ironic sort of way, and we can't believe some of the thing that were deemed normal in the 1950's. This isn't a bad movie and has its moments of humor, but it's really nothing special and Marilyn Monroe plays the same character as always with an interchangeable male lead.

My Rating: 6/10
BigJ's Rating: 6/10
IMDB's Rating: 7.3/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 86%
Do we recommend this movie: Sure, why not?
~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "Blackfish"