Movie Review #265: "San Andreas" (2015)

Movie: "San Andreas"
Ticket Price: $12.50
Director: Brad Peyton
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 1 hour, 54 minutes

Image Source

After an ice shelf large earthquake the size of Rhode Island falls into the Antarctic ocean hits near the Hoover Dam and destroys it, paleoclimatologist Los Angeles Fire Department search and rescue helicopter pilot Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid) Ray Gaines (Dwayne Johnson) has a hypothesis that the over saturation of fresh water in the ocean will cause a shift in the north Atlantic current causing erratic weather and possibly a new ice age been called to action. This change happens faster than anyone expected and beings bringing massive storms in the northern hemisphere. When the entire San Andreas fault goes off, an even larger series of earthquake shake the entire state of California. Ray hears his soon to be ex-wife Emma (Carla Gugino) in danger in LA, so he immediately changes direction to save her. Meanwhile, Jack's Ray's son daughter Sam Blake (Jake Gyllenhaal) (Alexandra Daddario), is competing at an academic competition in New York City who recently left for college, when he is caught in a super storm that brings flooding and eventually a blizzard that will freeze anyone outside in a matter of seconds. is trapped in a parking garage in San Francisco by her mom's current boyfriend Daniel (Ioan Gruffudd).  Jack Ray and Emma head his team to New York to San Francisco to save his son and those with him and will stop at nothing to save his daughter and those with her and reunite his family.

We swear we just saw this movie, but it was called "The Day After Tomorrow." You can see the similarities in the above synopsis.

When this movie started, we got a little worried. We mentioned in a previous review that most of the CGI from "The Day After Tomorrow" was good then and still holds up now. The opening scene in "San Andreas," though, involves a car getting run off a mountain road and tumbling down the side of a cliff. The CGI in this scene is horrible as the car falls in a very unnatural manner, so we were automatically led to wonder, is all the CGI in this film going to be this bad? Luckily, it wasn't, and those horrible graphics were isolated to that one particular scene. Paul Giamatti plays Lawrence, a seismologist working out of Cal Tech. He and his partner Dr. Kim Park, played by Will Yun Lee, discover a method for predicting earthquakes. Though the warning time is inconsistent throughout the film, anywhere from 30 seconds to 30 minutes, it serves as a chance for Lawrence to foreshadow the oncoming destruction and give an ominous monologue before all hell breaks loose and the grounds of California start shaking. Of course, these earthquake scenes are cool visually: freeways, bridges and buildings collapse every which way, things catch on fire in the madness, cars and people get crushed by falling debris, it's everything you would expect from a disaster movie about earthquakes, though we maintain it's almost the exact same destruction you'd find in every other disaster movie ever made. This might be where the movie succeeds, but its success is short lived.

As we all know, simple destruction is not enough for such a disaster movie. There needs to be a hero and an intimate character driven story about love and family to go along with it, which we feel is sort of pointless if they are going to half-ass it. Enter Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, who plays Ray Gaines, a former military pilot working for the Los Angeles Fire Department. He is, of course, the best in the business and with his bulging, glistening muscles, is able to do things normal fireman can't, like tear the door of a car clean off to perform a rescue. Johnson is one of the most charismatic people in Hollywood right now, and he can basically do no wrong in our book. He has really won me over with his flashy smile and his willingness to sell his product, regardless of how mediocre that product is. Carla Gugino plays Emma, who despite going through a divorce with Ray, is his love interest. But wait! There's more! What about Emma's current multi-millionaire boyfriend Daniel, played by Ioan Gruffudd, who she is about to move in with and has one of the weirdest names ever?! Don't worry, he is made to be a cliché, self-centered asshole, and his sister, played by superstar singer Kylie Minogue in a random cameo of sorts, is kind of a bitch, so there's no need to worry about them since they probably won't be around for long. Then, there's Ray and Emma's daughter Blake, played Alexandra Daddario, whose main purpose other than showing off her assets is to be the ultimate end goal of Ray and Emma, so the whole family can be reunited and have a happily ever after once again. Blake tries to survive in San Francisco with her brand new, known him for 5 minutes, would-be love interest Ben, played by Hugo Johnstone-Burt, and his little brother Ollie, played by Art Parkinson, who is very funny in a cute little kid kind of way. All this is going on while Ray and Emma navigate the ruins and dumps of California by helicopter, truck, plane AND boat, all of which they miraculously knew how to hot-wire, to get to her. Just like the aforementioned "The Day After Tomorrow," the story has excitement in the beginning and the end, and then a loooong period of lulling right in the middle. Whenever the ground is shaking and buildings are falling, it's fun to watch, but with a humanistic story built around such mass destruction, then inevitably comes the walking around and meandering, as well as pointless, poorly written character development and corniness. This slows things down considerably and made us wonder, once again, why these movies feel the need to be 2 hours long.

Though it is a fun popcorn movie and The Rock is compelling and charming enough to be a leading man, "San Andreas" doesn't further the destruction genre far enough or add anything new to it to be anything other than a west coast remake of any of the other various disaster movies already out there. Though earthquakes are more tangible than the overnight speeding up of global warming or the annihilation of the planet in 2012, as Southern Californians, this did little to get us interested in preparing for "the big one." Plus, it's much more fun to see our precious national monuments like the statue of liberty get covered in ice and floods than see an underwhelming tsunami hit the Golden Gate Bridge.

My Rating: 5.5/10
BigJ's Rating: 5.5/10
IMDB's Rating: 6.7/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 48%
Do we recommend this movie: Meh.

Weekend Box Office Results: May 29th, 2015 - May 31st, 2015

"San Andreas" shakes up the competition; "Aloha" no paradise at the box office.

*all numerical information provided by boxofficemojo.com

As expected, the big budget disaster flick "San Andreas," starring Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, opened at number one this week, out-performing all early estimates by bringing in a respectable $53,215,000 over the weekend. The musical comedy "Pitch Perfect 2" takes second place in its third week out, bringing in another $14,841,300, making its total domestic gross $147,540,020. Disney's family adventure film "Tomorrowland" drops to #3 in its second week, bringing in another estimated $13,803,000. "Mad Max: Fury Road" comes in at #4, finishing just slightly below "Tomorrowland" and drawing another $13,625,000. The box office juggernaut that is "Avengers: Age of Ultron" brings in another $10,920,000, widening its lead as the largest money earner of the year with a domestic total of $427,070,025. Also debuting this week was the Cameron Crowe written and directed and atrociously crafted flop "Aloha," which just missed the top 5 and its projected estimates by bringing in $10,000,000 in its opening weekend. Yikes.

		This Week	Domestic Gross
1	San Andreas	$53,215,000	$53,215,000
2	Pitch Perfect 2	$14,841,300	$147,540,020
3	Tomorrowland	$13,803,000	$63,188,651
4	Mad Max: Fury Road	$13,625,000	$115,914,534
5	Avengers: Age of Ultron	$10,920,000	$427,070,025
6	Aloha	$10,000,000	$10,000,000
7	Poltergeist	$7,800,000	$38,266,646
8	Far from the Madding Crowd	$1,420,000	$8,362,438
9	Hot Pursuit	$1,370,000	$32,350,587
10	Home	$1,150,000	$170,408,530

**See you at the movies!!**

Movie Review #264: "Aloha" (2015)

Movie: "Aloha"
Ticket Price: $12.50
Director: Cameron Crowe
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 1 hour, 45 minutes

Image Source

Military contractor Brian Gilcrest (Bradley Cooper) is hired by billionaire Carson Welch (Bill Murray) and is called to Hawaii to broker a deal with King Dennis "Bumpy" Kanahele (himself) to bless a military building location that used to be a native burial site. As a private citizen, Brian must be escorted everywhere by his military liaison, Captain Allison Ng (Emma Stone), who he becomes quite taken with. He also reconnects with an old girlfriend named Tracy (Rachel McAdams), who is now married with children, living in Hawaii, and has unfinished business with Brian. 


Just about every movie we have seen in the last couple months has had the "Aloha" trailer attached to it to the point where we could recite it word for word. We do have to admit that we were pretty excited to see this flick considering its incredible cast and the fact that it was directed by the talented Cameron Crowe, who we have loved in past projects. The people who had a hand in crafting the trailer for this film really did a good job of making it look like a good movie.

Then we saw the actual final product and wondered, "where was the film we were promised?"

To say "we didn't like X movie because it wasn't what the trailer promised" is a cop out and something we hear quite a bit from critics and fans alike. We are often guilty of complaining about trailers themselves because they can spoil plot points, or be too vague, or in this case, be representative of nothing like the actual film at hand, but we have never based our ultimate review and thoughts on a movie based on what the trailer said. In this business, you simply have to assume things are spliced and fudged and altered since they are selling points to put butts in seats and make tons of money. Besides, why would studios want to produce crappy trailers? Ask the people who woefully mislead the public in making the "Aloha" trailer.

When you strip all of this away, we left the theater very disappointed with what we had just seen and it has nothing to do with the trailer. This is just a bad movie and one that, realistically, probably should have never been made. After being outted as a major topic of conversation in the 2014 Sony email hacks, even the producers of this film said it was a stinker, and folks, they were right. The biggest problem falls square on the shoulders of writer and director Cameron Crowe, who has seen his fair share of flops as of late. The story and the telling of it is just sloppy, there's no other word for it. It's part romantic comedy, part romantic drama, and then there is a weird subplot about a billionaire civilian trying to smuggle a nuclear weapon into outer space without anyone knowing. On top of all of this, weaved throughout the course of a sometimes grueling 1 hour and 45 minutes are stories about Hawaiian mythology and Hawaiian culture despite the fact that the primary cast doesn't include anyone who is native Hawaiian. There has been some controversy online about this, too, which we mostly brushed off until actually seeing the end result. The movie can't have it both ways. To us, we think it cannot espouse Hawaiian stories and mythology, or as Crowe himself put it, be "a love letter to Hawaii," focusing on the culture, values, and beliefs of the Aloha State and its people, but be told by someone who is not Hawaiian. It just doesn't add up. Emma Stone's character is named Allison Ng, and she goes on to state that she is 1/4th Hawaiian. What? Would it simply be too much to ask that this character be cast as a person of color? It's really not that hard to figure out.

There are individual parts in this film that are good. There is a great cast including Bradley Cooper, Emma Stone, Rachel McAdams, Bill Murray, Alec Baldwin, John Krasinski, hell, even Danny McBride, who we aren't typically fans of, but it's as if there was so much talent involved, Crowe didn't know what to do with all these great actors and just started throwing stuff at the wall to see what stuck. John Krasinski was our favorite part of the movie and he has less than 10 speaking lines total. Emma Stone and Bradley Cooper just didn't connect with us as a couple and we didn't get invested in their relationship at all, mainly because we didn't believe it or in it. Though McAdams and Cooper formed a much more believable, emotional bond, this was not the focal point of the story. There are some good individual lines in this film, but when put in context, they are out of place and unnatural. It's like Crowe had this pseudo-philosophical line in his head that sounded good on it's own, but he couldn't make it sound natural in an actual conversation, so he just made a character blurt it out with little to no reason or prompting, which makes it seem so out of place. It doesn't just happen with dialogue, either. There are many times while watching this film where a scene or situation just doesn't fit, and we were left thinking, "why is this here?" Many scenes feel as if they were supposed to be part of a different movie. This is most certainly a case where the individual parts are worth far more than their whole, because when it was all brought together, it's a complete and total mess. We can't even say it was hasilty slopped together, either, because Crowe spent 8 years making this movie. 8 YEARS!! I would be pissed as hell if I had dedicated so much time and wasted so much of my life on a project that basically felt like something a 4th grade cut and paste together for home room the night before their project was due.

This is one of the biggest disappointments of 2015 to date and will probably be on our list at the end of the year. As we said, BigJ and I were really looking forward to this movie and left wholly unfulfilled. At the end of the day, "Aloha" is a movie that should have never been made and we're baffled why Cameron Crowe didn't at least attempt to tweak it after such negative criticism from executives and fans alike. It's dopey, senseless at times, unbelievable, devoid of any chemistry and emotional punch, and features a bizarre series of rambling mythos stories and plot points which makes it seem like it was 3 or 4 projects wrapped up into one untidy package and haphazardly thrown under the Christmas tree, because it does take place during Christmas.

My Rating: 3.5/10
BigJ's Rating: 4.5/10
IMDB's Rating: 5.3/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 19%
Do we recommend this movie: No.

Movie Review: "The Day After Tomorrow" (2004)

Image Source

Movie: "The Day After Tomorrow"
Director: Roland Emmerich
Year: 20004
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 2 hours, 4 minutes

After an ice shelf the size of Rhode Island falls into the Antarctic ocean, paleoclimatologist Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid) has a hypothesis that the over saturation of fresh water in the ocean will cause a shift in the north Atlantic current causing erratic weather and possibly a new ice age. This change happens faster than anyone expected and beings bringing massive storms in the northern hemisphere. Meanwhile, Jack's son Sam (Jake Gyllenhaal) is competing at an academic competition in New York City when he is caught in a super storm that brings flooding and eventually a blizzard that will freeze anyone outside in a matter of seconds. Jack heads his team to New York to save his son and those with him. 

Forget everything and anything you know about science before you sit down and watch this film because you don't need it. The premise of this film is global warming will lead to a new ice age. Yes, you heard that right, the warming of the earth will cause it to freeze. Not that this is totally implausible, but the rate at which it happens in the film is a complete fantasy. We understand why it transpires like this, though, as it's hard to make a big budget disaster movie themed on global climate change without fudging a few things in the spirit of fastness. In disaster movies, a sense of imminent danger is needed and you don't get that with gradually rising sea levels, California drought conditions and the occasional flash flood. All that stuff, when faced with it in real life, is scary, but not "I'm going to freeze to death in a matter of seconds" scary. These are all long term problems that slowly sneak up on us all and this doesn't play well on film, thus the need for this highly implausible narrative.

This being said, there are quite a few entertaining elements to "The Day After Tomorrow." It doesn't matter that the weather patterns are fantastical and the script is totally contrived and borderline silly because, let's be honest, what Roland Emmerich disaster film isn't? We watch movies like this to see tornadoes happen in Los Angeles, hail storms rage in Japan, and to watch a giant tsunami hit New York City and become and iceland, covering our beloved symbol of pride, the statue of liberty, all the way to the very tippy top of it in miles of snow. The movie brings all of this within the first hour. Once we pass this first hour and the blizzard settles, the pace slows down dramatically and to its detriment. We don't want to see a bunch of teenagers moping around during a damn snowpocalypse burning books and falling in love. Sam, played by Jake Gyllenhaal, and his fellow academic competition teammates are holed up in a public library just trying to stay warm for the last hour of the film. Their biggest problem arises when Sam's love interest Laura, played by Emmy Rossum, has an infected cut and Sam and a couple others have to go to the sick bay of a Russian ship that conveniently floated up right next to library to get some penicillin. The only excitement in this elongated scene comes from a trio of terribly CGI'd wolves and the fear of them freezing to death when the eye of the storm crosses over. The rest of the peril is to be had by Sam's dad Jake, played by Dennis Quaid, and his team drudging across the frozen tundra that use to be New York City to find his son. His team faces snow, cold, more snow, and falling into holes covered by the snow. The color palette of this movie is extremely drab, so don't expect a lot of color from something filled with buildings and snow and rain.

Apart from the poorly CGI'd wolves, however, the film must be commended for its awesome special effects. Even in 2015 and by today's standards, these effects hold up and still look really good on screen. A pretty picture doesn't save mediocre acting and awful dialogue, though, which makes this movie more of a dud than anything. There really is nothing fun or tremendous here, and since it's all doom and gloom, it can get taxing and uninteresting after the first 65 minutes. And by the way, how does Dennis Quaid simply outrun the cold? Once he shuts the door on the storm, it wouldn't just stop moving. These tiny inconsistencies in its storytelling add up to one heaping mess of wasted potential.

My Rating: 5.5/10
BigJ's Rating: 5/10
IMDB's Rating: 6.5/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 45%
Do we recommend this movie: Meh.

Movie Review #263: "Tomorrowland" (2015)

Movie: "Tomorrowland"
Ticket Price: $9.75
Director: Brad Bird
Rating: PG
Running Time 2 hours, 10 minutes

Image Source

As a young boy, Frank Walker (Thomas Robinson) had hope and a vision for the future. This leads him to be invited to Tomorrowland, a place where all great minds go to build a better world and to develop new discoveries, by a girl named Athena (Raffey Cassidy). What he eventually wound up discovering was a machine that could predict the imminent destruction of mankind, and this leads to Frank's banishment from Tomorrowland by Nix (Hugh Laurie). Many years later, Athena discovers a brilliant teenage girl who also has hope for the future named Casey Newton (Britt Robertson). Athena believes Casey is the key to saving mankind, but she will need the help of a much older and much more pessimistic Frank Walker (George Clooney) to do it. 

"Tomorrowland" is another attempt on the part of Disney to turn part of their theme park into a film. This can be blamed on the "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchise, and as if films 1-4 weren't enough, movie #5 is on its way, although no one really asked for it to come to fruition. There are other movies based on Disney theme parks such as "The Haunted Mansion," which was a relative failure and was a one and done movie, and now, we have "Tomorrowland." This film is different from the other park-based films in that, much like Pixar's "Wall-E," it has a clear, persistent message it is trying to seep into the minds of kids and adults alike. Sure, it's a bit of a fun sci-fi family adventure with great special effects, but it's this message filmmakers are really focused on, and it couldn't have been more clear if they put it on a giant billboard and waved it right in front of your face. Despite its clarity, many people seemed to have missed the blatant environmental message it attempts to plaster all over itself, that the future is now and the problems of climate change are affecting us today, and despite our vast knowledge and all the evidence, many of us choose to ignore it or deny it's happening (which is really just silly, but this is not a political discussion). There is a glimmer of hope in the movie and in life, however, since it's not to late to do something about it and make a change to make the world a better place. It wants to espouse this message, but also maintains that there is hope, so long as we believe and be a dreamer. We think this message is a large reason why it has not been as critically acclaimed as its filmmakers intended, but this is certainly not its only problem. Whatever narrative the film has beyond this is built around that message and only exists to put the characters into fun, wacky, fantastical and exciting situations which are enjoyable to watch so the audience will be entertained while receiving the aforementioned (and sometimes preachy) message.

All the acting in the movie is really good, too. George Clooney always does a great job and I have really come to like him. He plays the disillusioned, angry Frank with a real conviction, but also maintains a hopeful twinkle in his eye. Britt Robertson, who didn't really impress us in "The Longest Ride," manages to be much more tolerable in this film as the optimistic, science-minded genius Casey. The real star of the show is Raffey Cassidy, a relative newcomer, who performs extremely well alongside the likes of veterans Clooney and Hugh Laurie, displaying a wide range of emotions for such a young kid (and a robot!). Speaking of Hugh Laurie, it's sort of weird after watching multiple seasons of "House, M.D." to hear him speaking in his actual British voice! Laurie is the baddy here, but has little to no time to really shine until the latter portion of the film, and even then, he could have sadly been interchanged with anyone else. As we mentioned earlier, the special effects are exceptional! There are some really cool gadgets and gizmos on display in this movie, though it seems like director Brad Bird gets caught up in the showmanship of these items and often gets lost along the way. There are some outstanding action sequences involving some hilarious smiling androids trying their damnedest to blend in with everyday Earthlings. These droids want to stop our heroes from accomplishing their goal, even if the heroes themselves aren't quite sure what that goal is. These obvious bots break up some of the more meandering and elongated scenes and provide some much needed humor.

While we left the theater satisfied enough, it still felt like something was missing when all was said and done. Despite the film's patchwork storytelling, however, "Tomorrowland" is still a good, enjoyable time, and though it sort of feels like something we have seen before, it was still a fun movie to watch on the big screen. Though it is clearly written for a younger audience, be aware that it is surprisingly violent for a PG film. Even though most of the said violence is against androids, there are a couple of scenes that could be deemed pretty perilous scenes for little ones. All in all, if you don't mind the message along the way, the visual spectacle is more than enough to justify the price of an early day admission.

My Rating: 7.5/10
BigJ's Rating: 7.5/10
IMDB's Rating: 6.9/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 51%
Do we recommend this movie: Sure, why not?

Movie Review #262: "Black Souls" (2014)

Movie: "Black Souls"/"Anime Nere"
Ticket Price: $9.75
Director: Francesco Munzi
Rating: R
Running Time: 1 hour, 43 minutes

Image Source

Leo (Giuseppe Fumo) is the son of a goat farmer named Luciano (Fabrizio Ferracane), but Leo has no interest in following in his father's footsteps. Leo is more interested in the business of his uncles Luigi (Marco Leonardi) and Rocco (Peppino Mezzotta), who deal in drugs and head a small crime family, a business Luciano never wanted any part of. When Leo creates some trouble by shooting up a local bar, it may be his family who pays for his mistake.   

To say "Blacks Souls" isn't interesting would be a lie, because it is, in fact, very much so. We were extremely intrigued by its premise and the interactions taking place on screen. The acting is solid and great and the drama is plenty throughout. Here, we have another movie dealing with the mob, this time set in the Italian heartland itself. It is a character sketch of a family, but not one specific person in said family. Each male member gets their chance to shine in the spotlight and we slowly learn how each of them are connected, if at all, to the mob that has seemingly torn them apart, sometimes limb from limb. This is very much a modern day "live by the sword, die by the sword" type of tale deeply rooted in realism, tradition and anger. In fact, we wonder if director Francesco Munzi was influenced by his real life and his own personal experiences to make a story this realistic. The mafia is heavily entrenched in this particular family, as well as their Italian community as a whole, yet there never seems to be any concrete, real facts to go on when placing the blame on others, it's always just a given. There is always hearsay that other rival mobsters were behind certain murders and betrayals, but little else other than speculation and the need for revenge. Much like "A Most Violent Year" from earlier this year, this film is a slow-burning, dramatic affair wrought with backstabbing and tears, though the violence is kept to a relative minimum when considering the gangster genre as a whole, especially its American counterparts like "The Godfather" and "Goodfellas."

The way the film ended was deeply perplexing to say the least. While we think we know the impact filmmakers were going for, but to us it felt like large chunks of the movie were mysteriously missing. Certain plot points were brought up and discussed at length, only to go nowhere in the end. The audience is left with little clues as to what is meant to happen, but it wraps up ambiguously, which both helps and hurts the film. It seems as if Munzi was interested in telling a realistic story so much so that he ended up sacrificing his part of his narrative to get there. This is definitely not a movie for the American public at large because of this rapid conclusion and the lack of a general story. It might be authentic, but the absence of any clear direction, its downtrodden feel and its inconclusive finale can leave you wanting a lot more from "Black Souls" than what you are given.

My Rating: 6.5/10
BigJ's Rating: 6.5/10
IMDB's Rating: 7.1/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 97%
Do we recommend this movie: Sure, why not?

Movie Review: "Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood" (2002)

Image Source

Movie: "Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood"
Director: Callie Khouri
Year: 1957
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 1 hour, 56 minutes

Professional writer Siddalee Walker (Sandra Bullock) does an interview with Time Magazine that doesn't portray her mother Vivi (Ellen Burnstyn) in the best light. This upsets Vivi and causes a bitter conflict between her and her daughter. In an effort to correct the situation, Vivi's lifelong friends Teensy (Fionnula Flanagan), Caro (Maggie Smith), and Necie (Shirley Knight), affectionately known as the Ya-Ya Sisterhood,  abduct Siddalee and share their past with her in an effort to help her understand her mother better and hopefully get them to make amends.  

Can one family seriously have this much unnecessary drama??

This film features the dramatic tale of the relationship between a mother and a daughter who are not exactly on the best of terms. When Siddalee Walker, played well enough by Sandra Bullock, opens up to a reporter about her rough childhood, her very self-centered, very Southern mother Vivi, played by Ellen Burnstyn, absolutely freaks out, even going as far as removing Siddalee from her will because she is so angry with her. The Ya-Ya Sisterhood then abducts her and takes her to her hometown in an effort to try and teach Siddalee about her mother's life and the tragedy she faced, but we're not sure or convinced its much of an excuse. Much of the story is shown through flashbacks and Ashley Judd fills the part of Vivi in her younger years. Filmmakers give Vivi some background depth that makes her likable before really delving into the atrocities she committed as a parent. It's people like her that should not have kids and there are scenes where she genuinely seems to despise her children. She is an alcoholic that beats them severely with a belt at one point. Though the anger she has bottled up inside of her and the pain she seems to be going through is palpably felt by the audience, we don't understand why she refused to simply move on and save herself and those around her, including her kids, years and decades of heartache. We get that Vivi has emotional issues and understand and sympathize with her when her true love died in the war, but even then, she merely settled for the man she wound up marrying and constantly lets him know just how miserable she is with him. Through all this, Vivi never seems to apologize for any of her actions and really had no right to be mad at her daughter for telling the truth in the first place.

There is nothing wrong with any of the acting in this film, and in fact, most of it is quite good. Many of the characters are also very likable, especially the three Ya-Ya friends, mainly aided by an incredible performance by queen Maggie Smith. But despite all its good acting and what could have been a compelling drama, it's just not the kind of story we can abide. The basic message about forgetting the bad things that happened in life despite them being horribly, terribly traumatic to others and continuing to focus on the good just because it's easier to suppress your issues as opposed to confronting your demons and dealing with them we just cannot get behind. In its effort to be secretly dramatic and emotionally powerful, it turns into a boring, slowly paced, run of the mill movie with a lot of wasted potential.

My Rating: 5/10
BigJ's Rating: 5/10
IMDB's Rating: 5.9/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 44%
Do we recommend this movie: Meh.

Netflix Instant Queue Movie Review: "Virunga" (2014)

Image Source

Movie: "Virunga"
Director: Orlando von Einsiedel
Year: 2014
Rating: NR
Running Time: 1 hour, 44 minutes

In the war-torn country of the Congo, workers at the Virunga National Park risk their lives to protect the last remaining mountain gorillas. Meanwhile, warring armies battle over control of the mineral rights as a multi-national corporation known as SOCO attempts to gain access to drill for oil in the nature reserve. 

If you watch one Oscar nominated documentary from 2014, make sure it's "Virunga." What a moving and deeply tragic story. Virunga National Park is home to the last remaining mountain gorillas in the wild. Serious damage to Virunga would mean the extinction of this primate species. The Congo is embroiled in a civil war as those vying for power all want a piece of the money that the natural resources of the country would bring. Filmmakers introduce us to the park workers, as well as the gorillas who were ill or injured and have been brought to the rehabilitation facility at the reserve for care and comfort. It's not only warring factions that the park rangers must protect the gorillas from, it is also poachers, who sell parts of the gorillas on the black market. There are also many dangerous moments of the film that have nothing to do with combat. There are several undercover investigations that took place in order to make this film, and several SOCO executives and workers were caught on hidden camera spewing out vile, racist, hatred and vomiting out willy nilly their evil plans to funnel money to rebels to create civil unrest in an attempt to unseed the current government who would not allow them to access the rich minerals and resources of Virunga for their own.

A film like this can bring you to tears on more than one occasion, and even thinking back on it while writing this review is difficult. There are some tragic and very disturbing images which will sear into your mind forever, but there are also some uplifting ones, too. When a ranger is willing to stand guard and lay down his own life if necessary to protect these gorillas that are more like friends to him than animals, it is unbelievably moving. This is not a documentary about something that has happened in the past. This is going on right now, continuously, we type this review. People at the Virunga National Park are still risking their lives and fighting to protect the mountain gorillas at any and all costs in heart-wrenching fashions. This is an important cause that needs to be broadcast all over the world repeatedly so another species of animal does not go extinct due to warring humans and their deadly footprint all in the name of gaining monetary compensation for natural resources and oil. Please see this documentary.

My Rating: 9/10
BigJ's Rating: 9/10
IMDB's Rating: 8.3/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 100%
Do we recommend this movie: ABSOLUTELY YES!!!

Weekend Box Office Results: May 22nd, 2015 - May 24th, 2015

"Tomorrowland" under performs, but claims top weekend spot; "Pitch Perfect 2" comes in second.

*all numerical information provided by boxofficemojo.com

"Tomorrowland" has edged out "Pitch Perfect 2" to take the #1 spot at the box office this Memorial day weekend, but it still pulled in a slightly disappointing $32,159,000, under the amount analysts were projecting it would make. "Pitch Perfect 2"  pulls in an additional $30,349,000 in its second weekend in theaters, passing the $100 million dollar mark and bringing its total domestic gross to $117,835,595 so far. "Mad Max: Fury Road" had a strong third place finish, making another $23,885,000. The modern day horror remake of "Poltergeist" opened at #4, bringing in an estimated $23,000,000.  "Avengers: Age of Ultron" closes out the top 5 this weekend, earning another $20,895,000 to tack on to its $392,925,708 domestic total. It has also passed the $200 million dollar mark in China to bring its global gross just shy of $1.3 billion.

		This Week	Domestic Gross
1	Tomorrowland	$32,159,000	$32,159,000
2	Pitch Perfect 2	$30,349,000	$117,835,595
3	Mad Max: Fury Road	$23,885,000	$87,315,279
4	Poltergeist	$23,000,000	$23,000,000
5	Avengers: Age of Ultron	$20,895,000	$392,925,708
6	Hot Pursuit	$3,475,000	$28,920,240
7	Far From the Madding Crowd	$2,280,000	$5,442,605
8	Furious 7	$2,124,105	$347,013,290
9	Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2	$1,755,000	$65,572,709
10	Home	$1,680,000	$167,994,929

**See you at the movies!!**

Netflix Instant Queue Movie Review: "Ida" (2014)

Image Source

Movie: "Ida"
Director: Pawel Pawlikowski
Year: 2014
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 1 hour, 28 minutes

Anna (Agata Trzebuchowska) was raised as an orphan in a convent and is now a Novitiate nun waiting to take her vows to become a full-fledged nun. Before she can do so, she must meet her only living relative, her Aunt Wanda (Agata Kulesza). Her aunt is a promiscuous, smoking, heavy drinking judge who refused to adopt Anna as a child. When Anna meets Wanda, she is told that her real name is actually Ida and that she is also Jewish. Wanda tells Anna/Ida that her parents were killed during World War II, which is why she was raised in a convent as a Catholic. Ida wants to visit her parents' grave, but they don't know where they are buried, so Wanda and Ida go on a quest to find out what happened.

"Ida" is a critically acclaimed foreign film out of Poland and it was nominated for and eventually went on to win Best Foreign Language Film at this year's Academy Awards. We were excited to watch it because of this acclaim and word of mouth, but honestly, we didn't enjoy it all that much. We will say this film has some beautiful shots of gorgeous scenery and in some ways, is extremely visually striking being that it was shot in black & white in a 4:3 aspect ratio to mimic films of that era. The decision to make this movie black and white serves to couple its bleak themes and plot points, but, as we have mentioned in the past, pretty scenery and gorgeous camera shots do not a good film make. Beyond this, there isn't much else positive to say. The narrative is weak and the characters are under-developed, though well acted enough. For such a short film, we would have expected the characters to at least have a little more depth since there isn't much time to get to know them, but no such depth ever came. The dialogue is nothing special and isn't even that impactful for a movie about such a heavy topic. Though the relationship between Ida and her aunt should have been a powerful one as she learns the truth about her family and what really happened to them, the time it takes to get to any eventful conclusion or plot point we cared about couldn't have come soon enough, and even then, it's still underwhelming at best.

Arthouse directors are churning out these muted, understated films that are essentially character sketches so often it is now becoming cliché, but critics just eat movies like this up for breakfast, lunch, dinner and a snack. It's like there is a book out their somewhere called "Making Pretentious Films that Critics Will Love For Dummies" and Pawel Pawlikowski and company followed is step by step. Pawlikowski never manages to make us care about the characters or what they are going through, but we know we should since we have seen enough World War II movies to know better. We don't know if simply setting this film in post-WWII Poland is supposed to make us feel something or anything by default due to its historical significance, but it certainly doesn't. If someone is going to make a character sketch and turn it into a film, it needs to move the audience emotionally in some direction, whether it's to anger, laughter, sorrow, or empathy, and this moved us to nothing else but the next film on our Netflix instant queue. It's nothing new and it's not even interesting, just long patches of slow moving silence.

My Rating: 5/10
BigJ's Rating: 4.5/10
IMDB's Rating: 7.4/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 96%
Do we recommend this movie: No.

Netflix Instant Queue Movie Review: "Pootie Tang" (2001)

Image Source

Movie: "Pootie Tang"
Director: Louis C.K.
Year: 2001
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 1 hour, 21 minutes

Pootie Tang (Lance Crouther) is an actor, musician and local hero of sorts. He has always had a way with women ever since childhood. He protects the inner city from criminals with his trusty belt and teaches kids good values like healthy eating and staying away from drugs. Evil big corporations want Pootie to work for them and sell unhealthy junk food and alcohol to the masses, but he refuses. So, the leader of the big corporations Dick Lecter (Robert Vaughn) sends a woman named Ireenie (Jennifer Coolidge) to seduce and steal his belt, which is the source of his power, and force him to sign a promotional contract with evil corporate America. Now, Pootie must find a way to get his powers back and save his image. 

Louis C.K. directed this?!

Having a film about an inner city superhero who only speaks in jibberish with a belt that wields powers is either the dumbest idea ever or possibly the most brilliant idea known to man. We would have leaned towards the latter if the movie surrounding the Pootie Tang character had been better, but unfortunately, it just wasn't. There was so much potential for Louis C.K. to produce something much better, and ultimately, he failed to capitalize on what he both wrote and directed. Wait, he WROTE THIS, too?! What the hell, man!? If this was a full-on, over-the-top, outrageous satire of the blaxsploitation genre like "I'm Gonna Git You, Sucka" or "Black Dynamite," it could have been really great. Instead, what we get is this rather silly, toned-down movie that feels try-hard from the beginning. Sure, there are some laughs here and there, mostly at the sheer and utter insanity taking place on screen, but much of the film relies on running jokes that overstay their welcome. This movie hits best when it is poking fun at corporate America and popular culture, but misses big in other places. It's a film where the whole is actually worth less than the sum of its parts. When separated out, there are a few good concepts and even some great quotable lines that are fantastic, but when put together as a single, cohesive story, it just loses so much and comes off as disjointed, falling apart at the seams as quickly as it was shaggily stitched together. There are just too many dull moments in between what is gold. Apparently, it was based off of a short skit, and maybe it should have stayed that way.

On a side note, I have incorporated "cole me down on the panny sty" into my vernacular, so in a way, we have all won already.

My Rating: 4/10
BigJ's Rating: 4.5/10
IMDB's Rating: 5.1/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 29%
Do we recommend this movie: Meh.

Movie Review #261: "Poltergeist" (2015)

Movie: "Poltergeist"
Ticket Price: $12.50
Director: Gil Kenan
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 1 hour, 33 minutes

Image Source

After losing his job, Eric Bowen (Sam Rockwell) moves his family into a new, less expensive home. Unbeknownst to them, their house is already occupied by some angry poltergeists are trapped in limbo who wish to use their youngest daughter Madison (Kennedi Clements) as a guide to the other side.

Why would you keep a crapload of clown dolls if you had just moved into a new house and didn't know where they came from? Hell no, you trash that shit IMMEDIATELY.

I must let it be known that the original "Poltergeist" is one of my all-time favorite horror movies, so on principle, I reject the remake of this movie. However, that's not very "critical" of me, so I digress.

It's bad to start a review by saying "this isn't as bad as we thought it was going to be," but in the case of the new "Poltergeist," it's true. We fear the worst with remakes such as this, and though we were not wholly disappointed in it, it still isn't the best remake ever, nor is it the best horror movie ever, and it's not even the best horror movie of this year. It is a noble effort on the part of Gil Kenan to bring such a classic horror film to life in the 21st century with contemporary modernization. The movie starts out relatively weak premise with the Bowen clan moving into a new, smaller house because patriarch Eric, played by Sam Rockwell, has recently lost his job. This is the same stupid, cliched premise where most horror movies begin. By the way, good luck getting a home loan after being laid off, but again, we digress. Even before they sign the escrow papers, daughter Maddy, played by adorable newcomer Kennedi Clements, starts noticing strange goings on and is already talking to closet doors within 5 minutes of stepping into the new house. Shortly after getting settled in their new rooms, son Griffin, played by Kyle Catlett, who is already afraid of the dark, immediately starts to hear noises and see objects move about on their own. Of course, no one believes him and the rest of the family chalks it up to him being a scardey cat. Eric and wife Amy, played by Rosemarie DeWitt, in an effort to network new business connections that never seem to pan out, attend a dinner party where they learn their new house was built on a former cemetery that was moved to a nicer neighborhood. This is the only reason this scene exists in the film. When they get home, all hell has broken loose and Griffin has been grabbed by the tree outside his window, eldest daughter Kendra, played by Saxon Sharbino, has been held down by sludge-hands in the basement, and Maddy has been dragged into the closet vortex by ghosts, much like in the original "Poltergeist," but slightly different in execution. From there, the family contacts a group of paranormal investigators from Amy's old college to try and get Maddy back. The movie starts out looking like a run of the mill modern horror film riddled with nothing but jump-scares, but as the movie rolls along, filmmakers do manage to add some creepy elements and set an eerie mood from time to time. Most of these menacing parts of the film come from electric disturbances and some moving objects caused by the poltergeist, though there is a lot of resorting to loud banging noises in lieu of actual jump-scares. At first, I liked where the movie was headed as far as getting Maddy back from inside the closet vortex spirit world. In an effort to be cool and new and different, it's as if director Gil Kenan looked back at the original "Poltergeist" and decided, "you know what? We have the technology to show the inside of the closet vortex spirit world, so LET'S DO IT!" Only, instead of taking the time to produce pristine, quality graphics that could and would have elevated this film above just another useless remake, he resorted to hokey, cheesy CGI video game graphics to make his spirits even more generic than they already were. These bad graphics completely removed us from the movie and hurt our overall enjoyment and experience of the film. Instead of being scared or creeped out by these visuals, we simply thought, "these spirit ghosts graphics look like complete shit!" The reason these types of scenes in the original "Poltergeist" worked so well was because director Tobe Hooper used prosthetic bodies and applications to make the creepiness seem more realistic, without being a typical bloody horror mess. It was sold on the eerie, unsettling factor you alone, and it seems as if the effects were better 30 years ago then they are now.

Though there is nothing fundamentally all that wrong with the new "Poltergeist," it simply didn't need to happen in the first place. It's yet another pointless remake in a long list of rehashings that would have been better off left alone, unsullied and untouched. This film in no way advances or elevates it anywhere close to the original, though tweens will probably love it for all the modern changes and the teenage daughter's 'oh so cool' talking back to her parents that would make me embarrassed to call her my kid. Nevertheless, there were some cool technical elements in the middle of the film that we really enjoyed and would have liked to see oomphed up a bit. Unfortunately, filmmakers don't come all that close to genuinely scaring audiences without loud thuds and clangs attached. Rockwell's signature witty delivery is good for a chuckle every now and then, but he's not completely funny. And on top of all of this, the one thing we had hoped to see was the young daughter exclaiming, "they're heeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!" just like in the original, but Clements quickly monotones this most important line and sets the stage for a bummer to come.

My Rating: 5.5/10
BigJ's Rating: 5.5/10
IMDB's Rating: ~6.3/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: ~48%
Do we recommend this movie: Meh.

Movie Review #260: "Far from the Madding Crowd" (2015)

Movie: "Far from the Madding Crowd"
Ticket Price: $7.00
Director: Thomas Vinterberg
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 1 hour, 59 minutes

Image Source

A young independent English woman named Bathsheba Everdene (Carey Mulligan) inherits her uncle's land and farm. Proving she can make in a man's world and in a position of financial security, she is able to make her own decisions when it comes to her relationships. In her recent life, she has had three suitors: Gabriel Oak (Matthias Schoenaerts), a sheep herder who came to work for Miss Everdene after losing his farm in a tragic accident, William Boldwood (Michael Sheen), her wealthy neighbor who owns 1,000 acres of his own, and Sergeant Francis Troy (Tom Surridge), a military man and a romantic who has had his own tragedies in love. Bathsheba is determined to make her own choices on the matter, right or wrong, and deal with whatever consequences come with it. 

Who run the world? GIRLS.

In many ways, Bathsheba is a strong female character, especially in the era when this movie/book is supposed to take place. She is financially independent, free spirited and is extremely bullheaded. She is confident and is willing to show off her talents at any time. She also mentions several times that she knows the world in which she resides is one chiefly made for men to express their feelings and live comfortably without a care, but is willing to accept challenges thrown by such men in front of her whenever she gets the chance. Sometimes, though, we wish such a seemingly strong woman was given a more important choice in a movie besides 'what man shall I choose as my husband?' At first, Bathsheba beings the story promising to never marry because she doesn't want a husband, saying she will never find someone who can "tame her" wild spirits. Eventually, as the story and time go on, she changes her tune as if to spite others, showing she will do what she wants, when she wants, without anyone's approval. That being said, this is a choice many woman do make and the fact she has a choice at all in a time where marriages were often treated more like business deals than relationships does say something for her character's will.

Because of her free spirit, she has attracted the eye of many different men who long to be with such a unique woman. Each of her three suitors offers a different central quality. Gabriel, played extremely well by Matthias Schoenaerts, is loyal and often puts the needs of others above his own. It is clear that he has always been in love with Bathsheba, but hides his feelings and offers an objective opinion, until he can no longer say it is so. Gabriel and Bathsheba don't just have a mutual love for one another, they have a mutual respect for one another. It is painfully obvious that they are meant to be together, but in an effort to make her own choices, Bathsheba unfortunately makes a series of poor choices in an effort to prove she can make her own. Her second suitor is William, played sheepishly and amazingly by Michael Sheen. He is a rich man, owning the farm next to hers, and can offer Bathsheba constant security, and choosing him would also mean doubling their lands and having absolutely no money worries for the rest of their lives. William has been scorned in the past and is subject to rampant rumors about town. He is meek, timid, and never forceful, but this does not make him an idiot. He knows how the world works and knows he is a middle-aged man with no romantic prospects. But, in his almost pathetic attempts at forming more of a partnership than a romantic relationship With Bathsheba, he lays a world of guilt and responsibility on her, for picking him as a husband would mean lifting him up emotionally, as well as herself. Though Sheen is not on screen all that long, the audience is able to get the sense that, while their friendship/relationship has been brief, he truly does care for Bathsheba and is willing to do anything for her, even if it means living a life of solitude and sadness in exchange for her happiness. Finally, there is Francis, played by Tom Sturridge, who offers Bathsheba romance where there previously was none. She has never even been kissed by the time she meets suitor #3, and Francis, a sergeant in the army, cloaked in a red uniform and wielding a sword, has an air of fun and excitement about him, but little else. It is clear he is the worst possible choice for her, but, even in Victoria era England, women loved bad boys, apparently. Francis also comes with a lot of baggage due to his past failed romance. He has little farming skills, since he was a soldier, and spends his days chasing geese as opposed to working hard in the fields, as Bathsheba has become accustomed. Bathsheba quickly learns when we have the freedom to make choices, we often wind up making the wrong ones and have to live with them and learn from those mistakes. Her less than wise decision leads her to a world of heartache and the loss of her independence, and it makes everyone else miserable in the process.

As with most period piece movies, "Far from the Madding Crowd" is extremely beautiful because of the country where it was filmed. Long, lingering camera shots of hills and dales and cliffs and shores make us yearn for a vacation to such a charming place. Unlike other period piece films as of late, though, this movie is actually good, not just a pretty thing to look at with no substance. It's genuinely a good movie, and not just because of the empowerment issue behind it, either. Carey Mulligan is the driving force behind its success and greatness as she breathes such an incredible life into the character of Bathsheba, who is basically my spirit animal. Mulligan plays her so extremely well and shows what kind of an actress she really is. She is able to play the serious, stoic Bathsheba, but can easily transfer into the free, cool Bathsheba at the drop of a hat. When she is alongside one of the other supporting actors in this film, their interactions all bring something completely different but necessary to the table. The story is good, the directing is crisp, and apparently this is a faithful adaptation to the book, which I am going to be reading as soon as possible. We were quite surprised with how much we enjoyed this movie, so don't be thrown off and think it's "just another old-timey movie," because it really is so much more.

My Rating: 8/10
BigJ's Rating: 7/10
IMDB's Rating: 7.2/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 85%
Do we recommend this movie: Yes!