Movie Review #417: "A Hologram for the King" (2016)

Movie: "A Hologram for the King"
Director: Tom Tykwer
Rating: R
Running Time: 1 hour, 37 minutes

Image Source

Alan (Tom Hanks) is a salesman trying to pitch his company's new product to the king of Saudi Arabia. Once arriving in the desert country, he has trouble adjusting and finds the accommodations for his team less than satisfying. Alan also has many personal problems that are taking his focus off work, leading to a series of events that may change his life.

"A Hologram for the King" is based on the novel of the same name. The book is written by Dave Eggers and has been since adapted for the screen by director Tom Tykwer. Twyker is know for his unusual films, such as "Cloud Atlas" and "Run Lola Run." He has, once again, made a somewhat unconventional film about a salesman named Alan, played by the always wonderful Tom Hanks, who is trying to sell his company's holographic conferencing system to the king of Saudi Arabia. Alan has recently gone through a bitter divorce, is having financial troubles, doesn't have a great relationship with his father, doesn't seem well respected by his boss, and has a strange growth on his back. Talk about piling on the problems, huh? Upon arriving in Saudi Arabia, Alan doesn't receive much better treatment from his hosts. People miss meetings, others don't arrive when they claim they will, and his hosts have stuck him and his team in a tent in the middle of the desert with shoddy Wi-Fi and no food. Alan is stuck in a position in his life where he's wandering aimlessly, without direction, in a midlife crisis of sorts.

Let us be clear, the problem with "A Hologram for a King" is definitely not in its acting. Tom Hanks one of the best actors on the planet, this is no lie. Even in a middle of the road movie, he acts in circles around mediocrity. Hanks is clearly the best part about this film, so it's not for his lack of trying as an actor. He plays Alan as well as any ordinary part he's played in the past. Sarita Choudhury is great, too, and she should be given more opportunities to act more in films. Together, they are a great pair.

Much like its protagonist, "A Hologram for the King" really feels like it's wandering around its run time without much direction at all. Scenes and scenarios jump from place to place with little rhyme or reason. In many ways, it's just a simple character sketch about Alan, how he comes to terms with his life how it is, and a cultural exploration of Saudi Arabia. This is blended with some flashback dream sequences about the many regrets in Alan's past. The way this is all explored feels very messy and unfortunately isn't that engaging. There is a bit of comedy here and there, some romance towards the end, and a lot of drama throughout the entire thing. This lack of clear focus makes it extremely hard to pay attention, even with the likes of Tom Hanks at the acting helm. There are many moments involving culture misunderstandings, as well as the exploration of cultural differences that do work created by its fish out of water scenario, but it's all pretty white bread. No chances are taken. It's bland and sometimes boring, and we understand that it's based off of a book, but we can't say we'd be thrilled if we were forced to read it. Luckily, Tom Hanks is there to help elevate the film just a bit.

Unfortunately, a meandering pace makes "A Hologram for the King" a bit of a task to get through. It's too many things and nothing all at the same time. It's partially a surface level romance, partially a culture clash comedy, partially a faux-deep drama about a man going through a midlife crisis. It's not terrible by any means, but its aimless nature and real lack of a plot beyond a simple character sketch hurts it in more ways than it helps it. Nothing really flows, and barring some good performances by Tom Hanks and Sarita Choudhury, this is just another film added the mediocre movie heap we cannot recommend.

My Rating: 5.5/10
BigJ's Rating: 5/10
IMDB's Rating: 6.3/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 65%
Do we recommend this movie: Meh.
~~~~~~~~~~

One year ago, we were watching: "Planetary"

Movie Review #416: "Elvis & Nixon" (2016)

Movie: "Elvis & Nixon"
Director: Liza Johnson
Rating: R
Running Time: 1 hour, 26 minutes

Image Source

Disenchanted with the direction America is heading, Elvis Presley (Michael Shannon) decides he needs to meet with President Richard Nixon (Kevin Spacey) so he can be appointed an undercover federal agent at large. Though Nixon is not thrilled with the idea of meeting Elvis, the King and his people are determined to make it happen.

Directed by Liza Johnson, "Elvis & Nixon" is a comedy based on the real life meeting between Elvis Presley and President Richard Nixon in December 1970. It stars two fantastic actors in the titular roles that are each the perfect fit for their part, though you might not expect them to be associated with the characters they are playing. Michael Shannon is excellent as 'The King of Rock 'n' Roll,' Elvis Presley, and the incomparable Kevin Spacey takes on the role of former president Richard Nixon. Each plays their part with a certain level of sincerity mixed with a bit of caricature that is perfect for a comedy like this. Let's be real, neither Shannon nor Spacey looks exactly like their real life counterpart, but with a bit of shadowing and makeup, we totally bought it. Shannon, lanky and intimidatingly tall, when donning Elvis's clothing and sunglasses, is truly something to be experienced as a moviegoer. He is absurd in the best sense, bad karate moves, gigantic gold rings, giggling and all. Shannon plays up Elvis' style to off-the-wall status, and we couldn't love it more. Spacey, with a grumbling voice and a hunched over stature, so perfectly embodies Richard Nixon's staunch bitchiness. Full of expletives, brooding, grouchy, and unwilling to meet with anyone during nap time, not even King of Rock 'n' Roll, Spacey so perfectly encapsulates what we'd expect Nixon to be like behind closed doors. From side angles and when he's moving quickly, Spacey really does look like he could be Nixon.

The downright absurd circumstances that would bring these two historical icons together makes for a riveting and hilarious movie. One day while watching TV (well, to be accurate, 3 TVs) and seeing stories about crime, drugs, poverty, the general state of the nation, Elvis gets fed up and decides he needs to personally do something about it. By this point in his life, Elvis is so disconnected with how the real world works, he decides he needs to have a face-to-face meeting with the president so he can become an undercover federal agent at large and do whatever he can to restore his great country to its rightful, peaceful state. Without any help, on his own and of his own accord, Presley hops a plane Washington DC and, after writing a letter to the president on board, walks up to the White House's northwest gate and requests a meeting with Nixon. Though the president isn't exactly thrilled about the idea and initially says no (read: "who the f*ck set this up?"), Elvis and his friends are determined to use every single bit of Elvis's celebrity status to make sure the meeting happens.

When it comes down to it, some may say "Elvis & Nixon" doesn't have enough plot because it's based on a photograph of the event someone thought would make a good feature length film, but this photograph has spawned something much more hilarious than one could ever imagine. You wouldn't think a film about this short meeting between Elvis and Nixon would make for a compelling comedy, but it really does and it's extremely well written in our opinion. We were absolutely riveted with the film, the situation, the acting by Spacey and Shannon, the precision point dialogue, the odd mannerisms of Elvis, and the character interactions. It is loaded with wit and awkward moments that bring the laughs throughout its 86 minute run time. The back and forth between the President and The King when they first meet had us and everyone else in our theater riotously laughing as the two compare who has the bigger sized..............house, and really, in a way, try to find out which one has more clout with the world at large.

Going into "Elvis & Nixon," we really didn't know what to expect, but we left the theater immensely pleased with what we had just watched. It has always been a privilege to watch Kevin Spacey and Michael Shannon act separately, so watching them together on the big screen is like being a kid on Christmas morning. We found ourselves hanging on their every brilliantly spoken, truly ridiculous word with our eyes widened and our mouths grinning, that is, when we weren't wiping the tears away from its massively hilarious yet simple plot. See this comedy, you won't regret it!

My Rating: 9/10
BigJ's Rating: 8/10
IMDB's Rating: 7.2/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 77%
Do we recommend this movie: ABSOLUTELY YES!!!

The Significance of "Mad Max: Fury Road" at the Oscars

At this year's Academy Awards, "Mad Max: Fury Road," our favorite movie of 2015, was nominated for 10 Oscars and won a total of 6 trophies. It was the winningest film of the night, eclipsing even Best Picture winner "Spotlight," which only won 2 awards, and the front-runner for most nominations this year, "The Revenant," which only won 3 Oscars. As we sat in our home screaming in jubilation each time "Fury Road" was victorious, we couldn't help but feel like we as a society have finally reached a turning point when it comes to cinema, and not just where #OscarsSoWhite is concerned. Many may hate to admit it, but the Oscars shape the way society views movies. The term "Oscar-worthy" is often used to denote quality in film making, much to our chagrin. In recent years, the Best Picture award seems like it has been reserved for a certain genres. The Academy heavily favors historical films, namely biopics and war movies, inspirational sports films, and period pieces. Dramas dominate award ceremonies, leaving sparse nominations for action movies, comedies, and science fiction flicks. Even when and if these types of movies get nominated, they are usually still drama-heavy, like "Silver Linings Playbook," "Gravity," "The Big Short," and "The Martian," to name a few.

The last pure action film to be nominated for Best Picture came in the form of the science fiction fantasy film "Avatar" six years ago. The only pure fantasy action film to ever win Best Picture was "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King," and even the "Lord of the Rings" series is still of epic scale with heavily dramatic elements. When "Mad Max: Fury Road" was released, there was a phrase we heard over and over again: "sure, it's a fun action flick, but it's just not Oscar-worthy. It's not the type of film that gets nominated for an Oscar." So, why is it that a movie like "Fury Road," which is a beautifully shot, deeply emotional, amazing spectacle of a film that is loved by critics and audiences alike, is not deserving of the distinction of being named one of the best overall pictures of the year?

We as a society have been so conditioned over past few decades to understand and accept what type of films get nominated. This has led to many cinephiles and critics to predict what will get nominated, sometimes before said films even see the light of day. You can spot these flicks from a mile away and are often referred to as "Oscar bait." Trailers for films like "Burnt," "Our Brand is Crisis," "Joy," "The Big Short," "Bridge of Spies," and "The Revenant" this past year all looked like prime Oscar bait, though half wound up failing to impress, and some of these movie were even downright bad. Too often, we let the Oscars shape our view of movies when we should really be letting our view of movies shape the Oscars. Too often, people truly aren't looking for the best, most enjoyable movie of the year, but are instead searching to find films that match their preconceived notions of what makes a movie appealing to Oscar voters, or what might line up with what has been nominated in the past.

This year, to the surprise of many, "Mad Max: Fury Road" received a total of ten nominations, including Best Picture and Best Director, the second most nominated film of 2015 behind "The Revenant."  Should this really be a surprise? "Fury Road" was not only Rotten Tomatoes' best reviewed film of the year, but it also topped many other lists as the best movie of 2015 and won many other prestigious awards beyond the Oscars. If so many people really believed it to be the best of the year, why is it shocking that it got nominated for Best Picture at all? People forget, above all else, movies are meant to entertain the audience through engaging stories and interesting characters. Every technical aspect of a film is meant to aid in our enjoyment of it, from the acting and camerawork, to the cinematography, music, and direction. All of these elements are put together with one goal in mind: to keep the audience invested in the film and invoke an emotional reaction of some kind from viewers.

There's no denying the Academy Awards, as a whole, are losing their edge within our culture. Sure, 34.3 million people tuned in to watch the ceremony, but the 88th annual Oscars telecast was still the least viewed in the last 7 years and is the second lowest on record. We can understand why. In our ever-changing, fast paced world, movies either come and go, fizzling out of theaters a few measly weeks after they are released (like "Rock the Kasbah" and "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies"); or, they are burned in our collective psyche long after they have left cinemas, penetrating the minds and hearts of cinephiles everywhere like soda on a sticky-floored movie theater you can't quite shake off your shoes. These are the movies destined to be taught to future generations of films students, like "Citizen Kane," "The Godfather," and "Star Wars." It might sound presumptuous, but we believe "Mad Max: Fury Road" will be one of those films, the ones referenced in textbooks as game-changers and culture-shapers, the ones that made history, and for good reason. We say this not to diminish the great work of "Spotlight," which was our #3 favorite film of 2015, but to say to the Academy directly: don't be afraid to take a chance on a movie like "Fury Road." Take a chance on wild creativity and back movies that challenge cultural norms and expectations. We hope the newest incarnation of "Mad Max" serves as a turning point, and want nothing more than to see the status quo of Hollywood change just a little bit more year by year so more films like this can get the credit and recognition they so obviously deserve.

Movie Review #415: "Miles Ahead" (2016)

Movie: "Miles Ahead"
Director: Don Cheadle
Rating: R
Running Time: 1 hour, 40 minutes

Image Source

Rolling Stone reporter Dave Brill (Ewan McGregor) learns about legendary jazz musician Miles Davis (Don Cheadle) through a series of crazy events on a quest to understand his hiatus from the music industry and to hear his unreleased session recording. All of this is mixed in with flashbacks of his relationship with his wife Frances Taylor (Emayatzy Corinealdi).

"Miles Ahead" stars Don Cheadle as Miles Davis in a film he directed, helped write, and produced. The film is an unconventional biopic about the legendary jazz musician that paints a picture of Davis through a wild adventure he has with a Rolling Stone reporter named Dave Brill, played by the always stellar Ewan McGregor. Their wild few days together involves drugs, alcohol, guns, shootouts, and a stolen session tape Miles is attempting to retrieve from a crooked music producer. This oddball caper story is interwoven with flashbacks of Miles Davis's relationship with his wife Frances Taylor, played by Emayatzy Corinealdi, who is his muse. These sections involving Taylor are more like what you'd see in a traditional biopic, and reminded us of "Get On Up," which was about James Brown from a few years ago. Don Cheadle is excellent here and had to maintain Davis' distinct, gravely voice for the duration of the film. We cannot imagine how hard it must have been to do this, but Cheadle vocalizes it as if it were his own voice and it were easy to him. His appearance ranges from clean-shaven in flashbacks, to a disheveled, coked out mess in the scenes taking place in 1979. Cheadle is also really playing the trumpet during the movie, and learned to play some years before in preparation. What a class act. McGregor, Corinealdi, and Keith Stanfield are also very good in their roles, but are mostly outshined by Cheadle. McGregor, long locks flowing, looks like he's having a swell time as smarmy 70's reporter Dave Brill, who basically lies to get the inside scoop on Davis' comeback. Brill is thrust alongside Davis during his wild adventure. Corinealdi hasn't acted in many movies, but she's great as Davis' wife Frances in this more limited role.

The best part about "Miles Ahead" is Don Cheadle's job as director. The transitions between the time periods are handled quite well and flow together rather flawlessly. One moment, Miles will be in the present, talking to someone about cocaine or melodies, and then, BAM, he'll move in a certain way that propels the film into the past. This is an interesting way to tell a story about a figure like Davis, who was famous for his jazz music, or as they call it here, "social music." This movie, much like jazz itself, is technically proficient, but at the same time, wildly chaotic. However, in that chaos, it somehow works for those who are in to it. BigJ and I can't call ourselves jazz fans, but no one can deny that Davis was a star with a trumpet in his hand. Cheadle also expresses the present and Davis's inability to commit to making new music during his hiatus through a stellar metaphor, which is a symbol for him losing his mojo. It's little elements like this, expert types of storytelling that even big name directors often miss, that will make Cheadle an excellent director in the future.

Look, we're not going to lie, biopics can be some of the most boring movies to watch when they are done poorly. Part of it is just going to the movies so frequently, and part of it is the want of a filmmaker to replicate already successful biopics to the point where they don't offer anything new in their own film. "Miles Ahead" is an unorthodox biopic that mixes fantasy and reality to tell the story about social music great Miles Davis, who was clearly a storied, complicated man. Don Cheadle should really direct more films. This is not to say we don't like to see him act, because we do, but he has a unique flair behind the camera, an interesting flash in his eye, we'd hate to see him miss out by not directing more movies. He does an excellent job as Davis himself, but we think we appreciate his efforts as director more in this instance. Many audience goers may be put off by its jumpy narrative, but we really enjoyed how seamlessly Cheadle integrates the past and the present through jump cuts, photographs, and musical moments. This is a well paced, well acted film, and one we have no doubt was a passion project for Cheadle. A great cinematic directorial debut!

My Rating: 7/10
BigJ's Rating: 6.5/10
IMDB's Rating: 7.3/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 72%
Do we recommend this movie: Sure, why not?
~~~~~~~~~~

One year ago, we were watching: "Iron Man 3"

Movie Review: "Doom" (2005)

Image Source

Movie: "Doom"
Director: Andrzej Bartkowiak
Year: 2005
Rating: R
Running Time: 1 hour, 45 minutes

A group of Space Marines have orders to secure a Mars research facility that has come under attack from strange creatures.

Based on the first person shooter video game of the same name, Andrzej Bartkowiak's "Doom" is a science fiction action horror film starring Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson, Karl Urban, and Rosamund Pike. Johnson plays Sarge, the commander of a troupe of Space Marines, because all other marines are apparently not good enough. He and his team are called into action when a research laboratory on Mars has been attacked by a slew of unknown creatures. Urban plays John Grimm, who is one of Sarge's soldiers. Grimm spent much of his life at the Mars lab where his sister Samantha, played by Pike, works. Together, the scientific-minded Sam and the muscle-bound group of Space Marines must find out just what kind of creatures are killing off people in the lab one by one before they, too, become dinner.

The plot of the movie is pretty thin, but what do you expect from a movie based off of a video game? We aren't avid gamers, and I don't ever recall playing Doom. First person shooters aren't exactly our thing. We had no expectations going into this film. It's essentially a 'go to Mars' mission, but with a BFG (big f**kin' gun). The Space Marines must contain the threat of whatever alien being is tearing people apart by shooting a bunch of things that go boom in the darkness while simultaneously getting home safely with minimal casualties. Of course, this is easier said than done. There is also a bit of a subplot about the type of research that's going on in the laboratory, but it is only lightly breezed over in order to give Pike's character a purpose. When it gets down to it, "Doom" is about monsters ripping people apart and a bunch of Marines shooting up the monsters. So, essentially, an "Alien" ripoff, only distinguished by the fact that it was a video game first. Surprisingly, there is actually some pretty good make-up work done in the film. When people are ripping off their own ears and the creatures are dismembering the cast and crew of the Mars lab, more often than not, the grotesque nature of the injuries look halfway decent. Most the monsters look okay, but when outdated CGI is added to them, then they start to look cheesy as hell. The horror aspect to this story is mostly based on jump scares and an overabundance of gore, but we don't know if we'd really call this movie a horror film. There is some decent action to be had, but after the first formulaic death (crew breaks off, crew goes into an empty room, silence falls over the room, a crew member gets maimed), it gets to be a little tiresome. As always, Dwayne Johnson is his charming self, even when he's screaming at his troupe.

There is an ode to the first person shooter video game style in the very last portion of the movie as we watch the film conclude from the first person perspective of one of the characters, but it feels very shoehorned in and we were left scratching our heads at its inclusion. Overall, "Doom" is not a great film, but it's not a completely bad one either.

My Rating: 5/10
BigJ's Rating: 5.5/10
IMDB's Rating: 5.2/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 19%
Do we recommend this movie: Meh.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "The Avengers"

Movie Review: "Before Sunset" (2004)

Image Source

Movie: "Before Sunset"
Director: Richard Linklater
Year: 2004
Rating: R
Running Time: 1 hour, 20 minutes

Jesse Wallace (Ethan Hawke) has returned to Europe on a book tour for the story he has written, inspired by his one-day relationship with Céline (Julie Delpy) in Austria. His last stop is in Paris, France. There, after nine years, he is reunited with Céline. The two pick up right where they left off, and before his flight back home, they walk around Paris having conversations about how their lives have changed. The pair discuss where their lives are at, now that they are in their 30's and in committed relationships, and how things could have been different.

Richard Linklater's "Before Sunset" is the sequel and continuation to his 1995 low budget romance "Before Sunrise." Nine years have passed since Jesse, played by Ethan Hawke, and Céline, played by Julie Delpy, spent their evening together in Austria. Despite their proclamation to meet again in Vienna six months after that fateful night, they haven't seen each other since. Jesse has written a book about the experience, which has become a best seller. While on an international book tour, he runs into Céline in her home town of Paris, France, the last stop on his tour. Jesse has a little bit of time before his flight home, so they decide to spend the afternoon together catching up, walking around the streets of Paris and divulging the details of their lives, hopes, dreams, and failures with one another.

Much like the first film, "Before Sunset" is about these two individuals having conversations about their lives. Again, Jesse has a flight to catch to head home back to the states, which puts them within the confines of a short time span. The main difference is now, they are nine years older. Instead of being idealistic young adults in their early 20's talking about ideas and dreams about life, love, and romance, they are pretty jaded adults in their 30's who have lives and responsibilities. They are both in relationships, and Jesse has a wife and a young child, though it would seem neither of them are happy in their current situations. They talk about what they have done over the past 9 years, the regrets they have both in and out of the context of their missed connection, as well as why they didn't meet up all those years ago.

What makes these films work is, of course, the acting and the believability that these two individuals have, could, and would be in love with one another. Delpy and Hawke have wonderful chemistry, even for people who haven't seen each other in nearly a decade. They seem to pick up right where they left off with aimless banter, philosophical and deep discussions, and even some bickering, too. The acting is good and the chemistry is still there between Hawke and Delpy. Though their relationship is more of a friendship with underlying sexual tension because of what could have been, the spark still exists between these two individuals, even after a considerable amount of time and many different life changes. The run time of this film is short, too short for such a long emotional layoff for viewers. It breezes by at only 80 minutes, and just as it feels like it's about get going and barrel head first towards a resolution, it ends rather abruptly. Oh, Linklater, you tease.

The movies in the "Before" series are clearly a labor of love for director Richard Linklater and actors Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy. The dialogue is engaging and interesting, the feelings between protagonists is still there and still palpable, and the cinematography, once again, is stunningly gorgeous and methodically long lingering. This film is a slight step down from the original for us, but with such a natural, real flow, it's hardly a drop at all.

My Rating: 7.5/10
BigJ's Rating: 7.5/10
IMDB's Rating: 8.0/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 95%
Do we recommend this movie: Yes!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "Thor"

Weekend Box Office Results: April 22nd, 2016 - April 24th, 2016

"The Jungle Book" claws passed "The Huntsman: Winter's War" with ease to take the #1 spot yet again

*all numerical information provided by boxofficemojo.com

Hey, movie lovers! Hope you had a great weekend! Here are your weekend box office results!

"The Jungle Book" is still going strong at the box office, and Disney seems to be unstoppable this year. It came in first place yet again this weekend, dropping 41%, making $60,803,000. Since there can't be a weekend with a reboot, sequel, or prequel, "The Huntsman: Winter's War," the sequel/prequel to 2012's "Snow White and the Huntsman," came in second place to the tune of $20,080,000. Coming in 3rd place this weekend was "Barbershop: The Next Cut," which made $10,830,000. Proving that Disney is unstoppable even further, "Zootopia,"  which has been out for 2 months and has still been making moolah, came in fourth place, making $6,611,000, bumping its domestic total gross to $316.4 million.. Rounding out the top 5 was "The Boss," which pulled in another $6,080,000 to its nearly $50 million domestic total gross.

		This Week	Domestic Gross
1	The Jungle Book	$60,803,000	$191,477,426
2	The Huntsman: Winter's War	$20,080,000	$20,080,000
3	Barbershop: The Next Cut	$10,830,000	$36,031,492
4	Zootopia	$6,611,000	$316,435,606
5	The Boss	$6,080,000	$49,508,205
6	Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice	$5,520,000	$319,501,603
7	Criminal	$3,100,000	$10,864,486
8	My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2	$2,100,000	$55,374,740
9	Compadres	$1,350,000	$1,350,000
10	A Hologram for the King	$1,175,000	$1,175,000

**See you at the movies!!**

Movie Review: "Walking Tall" (2004)

Image Source

Movie: "Walking Tall"
Director: Kevin Bray
Year: 2004
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 1 hour, 26 minutes

Chris Vaughn (Dwayne Johnson) comes back to his hometown after finishing a tour of duty with the Marines. He quickly finds the town he used to love has been overtaken by crime and corruption. He decides to take it upon himself to clean up the city by running for sheriff so he can potentially replace the corrupt cops protecting the criminals in charge.

Kevin Bray's "Walking Tall" claims to be inspired by a "true story," which in this case is used in the loosest sense of the phrase. In reality, this is a modernized and fictionalized remake of a 1973 film of the same name, which was based on the life of Sheriff Buford Pusser. So, this not-so-true story is about a former Marine named Chris Vaughn, played by Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson, who returns to his hometown to discover it being overrun with crime and corruption. Chris decides he's seen enough and wants to attempt to clean up the town he knows and loves by getting elected as the sheriff of Kitsap County. When he eventually gets into the job, he slowly but surely starts beating the piss out of every single criminal element with a literal giant stick. Joining 'The Rock' is Johnny Knoxville who plays Chris's best friend and former junkie Ray Templeton. Ray helps Chris clean up the town as his deputy, and Knoxville also provides a comedic break from all the ass kicking in the film. Johnson and Knoxville actually have surprisingly good chemistry, playing off of one another like they really were long time pals from a small town.

Though Dwayne Johnson can and will certainly make you smile with his occasional witty one liner and flashy, sometimes brooding smile, "Walking Tall" is the definition of a basic, short, simple action film. There aren't a lot of complex characters and ideas coming out of this material. It isn't exploring any interesting themes, it's basically just a dumbed down version of good cop versus bad cop where the lines are as black and white as they come. It doesn't matter what Chris does to the criminals in his town because, well, they are criminals. This isn't going to serve as a guide for criminal law or constitutional civil rights and proper due process. No no, this is strictly a "a good guy smashes his way through baddies until there are no baddies left" type of cop film. That being said, even with such a silly plot, "Walking Tall" is moderately entertaining, even if it's not all that memorable. Dwayne Johnson was just starting out his career here and really transitioned from wrestling for the WWE to wrestling guys on screen, but with guns and sticks as weapons in addition to his other guns. Johnny Knoxville provides some decent humor, and at the end of the day, this is a rather harmless action crime offering.

My Rating: 6/10
BigJ's Rating: 5.5/10
IMDB's Rating: 6.2/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 26%
Do we recommend this movie: Sure, why not?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "Iron Man 2"

Movie Review #414: "The Huntsman: Winter's War" (2016)

Movie: "The Huntsman: Winter's War"
Director: Cedric Nicolas-Troyan
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 1 hour, 54 minutes

Image Source

After her baby is murdered by her lover, Freya's (Emily Blunt) heart is broken and her true inner power is unleashed. She uses her new found ice powers to create a kingdom in the north where love is outlawed. Freya creates an army of elite huntsman that have been trained since childhood to fight in her name as their one true queen and expand her kingdom. When her two greatest huntsmen, Eric (Chris Hemsworth) and Sara (Jessica Chastain) fall in love and want to run away together, Freya uses her powers to drive them apart. Now, many years later, Eric may have his chance for revenge.

"The Huntsman: Winters War" is a prequel/sequel to 2012's "Snow White and the Huntsman," a movie with a lot of potential and some really cool visuals, but brought down by stale acting and bad writing. This film marks the directorial debut of Cedric Nicolas- Troyan, who prior to this had primarily worked in visual effects. Right off the bat, we have to complain about another trailer ruining a movie. The trailers and marketing for this film are very misleading. The title is a poor description of the film as a whole, and the trailer manages the magnificent feat of completely misrepresenting what the film is about, while simultaneously giving far too much of its plot away. Why companies and studios do this, we will never understand. Doesn't everyone involved in a project, like, want to make money? Dissuading an audience and leading them in a direction that gives too much away will isolate more viewers, we think. We digress, if you manage to avoid trailers for the most part and want to watch this film, you're lucky.

If you can look past the horribly bad mismarketing for "The Huntsman: Winter's War," this is actually a fairly entertaining film, one that, in many ways, is superior to its predecessor. Gone are the days of Kristen Stewart's stodgy, emotionless acting with a horrible British accent, and in its place are Emily Blunt as Queen Freya, a real Brit with a commanding, fierce screen presence, and Jessica Chastain as Sara, who has more actual human emotion in her little finger than in all of KStew's existence (though her Scottish accent is pretty damn terrible). Back again is Chris Hemsworth as the Huntsman, who has been given a name this time around??? In the beginning of the movie, we learn of Eric's backstory and how Queen Freya drove a literal ice wedge between him and his beloved Sara. After we get a grasp on how Freya makes her "army," which doesn't really ever go anywhere in the grand scheme of the title of the movie, the film jumps several years to a time after Snow White (aka Kristen Stewart from the original) has become queen. With a cameo from her hubby William, played by Sam Claflin, we are brought up to speed on what's going on in her kingdom. It feels a little bit messy and is basically an excuse to  bring the film into the present, but we guess it sort of works.

Once again, "Winter's War" is full of some great imagery. It's all quite pretty looking when it comes to its set decoration and location shots, the ones that aren't entirely created with a computer. Though some of the CGI is good, such as the gold melting mirror (something that was also in the original), other parts of it, such as the overly phony looking fairies and goblin forest creatures and some of the magic used by Freya and Ravenna, aren't quite as good as the effects displayed in "Snow White and the Huntsman," which was all style and no substance. Though the budget is a bit less than that of its predecessor, we are firm believers that any movie with over a $100 million budget shouldn't have CGI that looks as mediocre as it does here. Instead, where this sequel does its best to distinguish itself is in its emotional elements and its much more exciting and thrilling action sequences. We really believe Hemsworth and Chastain, bad accents and all, as a couple fighting to reconcile with finding one another again. Blunt is a brilliant actress, and even in a dopey movie like this, we find her mildly appealing through her Elsa-On-Anger-Pills routine. She might scream a lot to draw out her powers, but she's just so good, we don't actually mind hearing her casual screech. The chemistry between characters, including the returning Charlize Theron as Ravenna, it somehow more believable in this sequel.

Sure, "The Hunstman: Winter's War" is an absolute fluff piece devoid of any powerful significance with the same basic story we have seen many times before, but sometimes, you just want to watch something fluffy. This is a pleasing enough choice if you don't mind a looooooooooot of talk about love and betrayal for love. We don't get all the hate this film has been garnering, maybe it has to do with the aforementioned poor marketing. This time, "Huntsman" is a little more fun and even a bit funny, which is vastly different from its predecessor, which seemed far too desperate to be taken seriously. There is enough excitement to keep you mostly engaged throughout its slightly shorter run time, which is something the original lacked, though there are the occasional moments of dullness. This simple by-the-numbers fantasy will work for people who are not looking for anything too serious to watch on a weekend with friends, but let's be real, there didn't need to be a sequel to "Snow White and the Huntsman." This movie serves as yet another unnecessary example of how any film that makes over $100 million domestically gets an automatic sequel, no matter how shoehorned in the plot appears.

My Rating: 6.5/10
BigJ's Rating: 6.5/10
IMDB's Rating: ~6.2/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: ~18%
Do we recommend this movie: Sure, why not?
~~~~~~~~~~

One year ago, we were watching: "True Story"

Movie Review: "Snow White and the Huntsman" (2012)

Image Source

Movie: "Snow White and the Huntsman"
Director: Rupert Sanders
Year: 2012
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 2 hours, 7 minutes

After her evil stepmother Ravenna (Charlize Theron) murders her father and takes control of his kingdom, Snow White (Kristen Stewart) is locked away in the castle tower for many years. Once Snow White grows more beautiful than Ravenna, the wicked queen decides to have her murdered, too. However, Snow White escapes the clutches of her wicked stepmother and raises an army of those who were loyal to her father in an attempt to overthrow the evil queen. 

"Snow White and the Huntsman" is a re-imagining of the classic Snow White fairy tale. This film is directed by Rupert Sanders in his feature film debut, and his inexperience seems to have shown quite a bit with this offering. Visually, though, this is quite a stunning movie. The art direction, some of the CGI, the makeup, and the costumes are all downright gorgeous. Each scene gets a chance to tell an intricate, cool story with its awesome visuals and cinematography. What it lacks as a whole is gravitas. There is a massive lack of emotional weight to everything happening on screen. Some of this is caused by its messy, shambled script, and some of it is caused by its ineffective acting. With a bevy of beautiful visuals, we expect to have at least a small sense of wonder for such a story, but for some reason, this never comes to fruition.

We have a rule when we write our reviews that we don't like to talk about how actors look in our blog posts because we think it's pretty trashy and doesn't usually have anything to do with movies themselves. Go to TMZ for that kind of reaction. Unfortunately, we are going to break our rule. Whatever idiot thought Kristen Stewart was "fairer" than Charlize Theron must have been having been smoking something pretty strong...either that, or they were having an affair with her........oh, wait.......Stewart stars as Snow White, fresh off her stint as Bella Swan in the "Twilight" series. As per usual, Stewart offers up the same emotional range here as she did in those sparkly vampire films, only this time, she does so with a rather unconvincing British accent. Chris Hemsworth plays the Huntsman and is serviceable in this action-centered part. Hemsworth alone has not been a huge box office draw, so when paired with power houses like Stewart and Theron, well, let's just say he caught a lucky break. Speaking of Charlize Theron, it is her who steals the show as the evil queen Ravenna. Theron is most certainly the best part of this film and is able to rise slightly above its overall mediocrity. She gets a chance to flex her own British accent, which is much more convincing and less distracting as Stewart's. Covered in gold makeup or dipped in milky white goo or cloaked in black, Theron shows what it means to be a crazy badass in a world that doesn't really know what it wants to say or be or where it wants to go. She makes "Snow White and the Huntsman" tolerable.

The biggest problem with this movie is the lack of cohesion overall. The tale takes itself way too seriously, but isn't really rooted in seriousness. The chemistry between characters is basically nonexistent. Once again, we don't believe Stewart in this role, and we don't believe her to be fairer than Theron whatsoever. We also don't buy that Stewart's Snow White is so beautiful and so pure of heart, she can tame a rampaging troll with a look. "Snow White and the Huntsman" is also inexplicably too long to the point where it begins to feel like an absolute dull drudgery about 30 minutes into its run time. It takes too long to get to its point, and by the time it does, we just don't care. Overall, there are a lot of missed opportunities here. Even though Theron is brilliant and the makeup, costumes, and effects are fun to look at on the big screen, there are still many times where things happen and either don't make sense within this story or are simply unnecessary.

My Rating: 5.5/10
BigJ's Rating: 5/10
IMDB's Rating: 6.1/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 48%
Do we recommend this movie: Meh.
~~~~~~~~~~

One year ago, we were watching: "Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2"

Movie Review #413: "Barbershop: The Next Cut" (2016)

Movie: "Barbershop: The Next Cut"
Director: Malcolm D. Lee
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 1 hour, 52 minutes

Image Source

After the recession, Calvin (Ice Cube) and Angie (Regina Hall) have combined their shops into one. However, with violence on the rise on the south side of Chicago, as well as concerns for his son Jalen's (Michael Rainey Jr.) well being since he may join a gang, Calvin considers moving his shop to Chicago's north side. In the meantime, in an effort to make things better in their neighborhood, the shop organizes a 48 hour ceasefire between local gang leaders.

"Barbershop: The Next Cut" is the fourth film in the "Barbershop" series, though it is only the third bearing the "Barbershop" moniker. A new director has taken the helm of each installment, and this time, that director is Malcolm D. Lee, who is best known for his "The Best Man" movies. Of the original Barbershop cast, only four individuals return with major parts in this film, those being Ice Cube as Calvin, Cedric the Entertainer as Eddie, Eve as Terri, and Anthony Anderson as J.D., who was in the first film but not the second (and for a reason...he was locked up). Two other originals return in cameo or bit parts: Sean Patrick Thomas as Jimmy, and Troy Garrity as Isaac. New to the cast are Regina Hall as Angie, Calvin's co-owner at the shop; Common, who plays Terri's husband Rashad, Nicki Minaj, who plays Draya; Lamorne Morris as Jerrod, the nerdy black guy; Margot Bingham, who plays Bree, a staunch feminist and ho-hater; J.B. Smoove is One-Stop, who literally provides a one-stop shop for numerous random services at his booth, and Utkarsh Ambudkar as Raja, the token Indian guy. The old cast does a really great job mingling with the new additions. Morris provides a lot of cringeworthy secondhand embarrassment, Ambudkar seems to be the social media guru of the group, Minaj is clearly only in this film to show off her ass-ets, Common has actually become a really good actor in the last few years, and Smoove is a goofy, all over the place salesman who is always at a 10.

The films in the "Barbershop" series are and have always been comedies, but each film has had some kind of different, underlying social commentary to it. We were surprised to hear about a new film in this series nearly 10 years after the last installment, but then we thought about the current social and political climate, especially in Chicago. In this offering, the social commentary comes to the forefront as most of its comedy takes a backseat to much more pressing issues framed from the beginning as a love/hate letter to the city of Chicago. We are completely for a powerful message, and this film has a strong, resonating one mixed in with all the jokes about today's social media, whether or not Eddie should get on the floor as gunshots go off outside (because, you know, he won't be able to get back up), and today's awful slanguage (IE: the addition of phrases like "on fleek," which Eddie is all too keen to point out are made-up phrases). Most of the humor has to do with Eddie, which we expected since that's how it was the first two films. Unfortunately, the movie as a whole seems to take breaks while its characters offer speeches about the political issues facing our country, which feels, as BigJ put it, "more like an after school special than a comedy with a message." This becomes most apparent when these speeches are delivered by Common and Utkarsh Ambudkar. It stops sounding like friendly banter between people in a barbershop and starts sounding like straight-up stumping. We get that the messages being delivered are important ones, and even though we 100% agree with them, in the context of the film and the series, it comes off a bit heavy-handed, which may isolate some viewers. Still, it's nice to see this message being put out there. There are also elements we didn't think flowed at all, primarily what happens between Rashad and Terri and Draya. As Draya looks to target Rashad in her sights for a side fling, a jealous (and rightfully so) Terri must make her point and 'claim' her man from the evil 'ho,' which feels more like something you'd see on a daytime soap opera than in a comedy. Finally, the young actor who plays Jalen, Michael Rainey Jr., might need to take an acting lesson or two before continuing in Hollywood. He felt a bit stiff overall.

There are a few laughs in "Barbershop: The Next Cut," but it's definitely not as funny as the original. Though this installment is better than the other 2 films in the franchise, it's not without its flaws. We hope this is the end of the series, mainly so it ends on a higher note than what was found in "Beauty Shop."

My Rating: 6.5/10
BigJ's Rating: 6/10
IMDB's Rating: 6.2/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 93%
Do we recommend this movie: Sure, why not?
~~~~~~~~~~

One year ago, we were watching: "The Incredible Hulk"

Movie Review: "Wayne's World" (1992)

Image Source

Movie: "Wayne's World"
Director: Penelope Spheeris
Year: 1992
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 1 hour, 34 minutes

Wayne Campbell (Mike Myers) and Garth Algar (Dana Carvey) have their own very popular TV show called Wayne's World on Chicago public access. Wayne's dream is to eventually be paid for doing Wayne's World. Luckily for him, that dream is about to come true as local TV producer Benjamin Oliver (Rob Lowe) offers to buy the show and pay them to do it weekly. Selling the show may come with some concessions Wayne isn't willing to make, like selling out to their local sponsor, Noah's Arcade. 

A lot of "Saturday Night Live" sketches have tried to make the move from television to feature-length film, but only a few have been really successful at it. Of all the SNL properties, "Wayne's World" is by far the most financially successful, making $64 million more than the #2 film on the list, "The Blues Brothers." Though we personally think "The Blues Brothers" is a better film, "Wayne's World" is still hilarious in its own right and is definitely our second favorite of the SNL transfers. This is the movie that turned Mike Myers from a television sketch actor into a genuine film star and we can see why as he and cohort Dana Carvey really tear up the joint with their laughs. Not everyone will find their brand of humor amusing, but we think Wayne and Garth are comedic gold together. This movie is super funny and has so many great, memorable moments, too many to name off hand. We have loved the band Queen and the song "Bohemian Rhapsody" for a long time, but we can no longer hear it without thinking of this film, seeing Wayne and Garth lip-syncing and head banging to the music in our minds. It's also very self-aware as Wayne and Garth regularly break the fourth wall and talk directly to the audience. They also poke fun at selling out to corporate sponsors while they clearly and satirically sell out to corporate sponsors like Doritos, Reebok, and Pizza Hut. There are a lot of laughs to be had in this movie as Carvey and Myers combine quick wit with slapstick and parody to develop a final product that is appealing on many levels to many different people no matter what their sense of humor.

Some might call it lowbrow, but "Wayne's World" is obviously highbrow enough to have lasted a couple of decades. It's just as good today as it was in the 90's when it was released and at its most relevant. It's silly, sort of odd, and there's quite a bit going on in such a short amount of time, but it's still hilarious every step of the way. It's definitely one of those movies we pop in and enjoy each time we view it.

My Rating: 7.5/10
BigJ's Rating: 8.5/10
IMDB's Rating: 7.0/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 85%
Do we recommend this movie: Yes!

Movie Review #412: "Midnight Special" (2016)

Movie: "Midnight Special"
Director: Jeff Nichols
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 1 hour, 52 minutes

Image Source

A young boy with unique gifts named Alton (Jaeden Lieberher), his father Roy (Michael Shannon), and their friend Lucas (Joel Edgerton) are trying to reach a certain place on a certain date for an unknown reason. As long as they have been on the run, they have been pursued by a cult who believe the boy is their messiah, the NSA and the FBI who believe he may be a weapon, and the local police who believe the boy has been kidnapped.

"Midnight Special" is an indie sci-fi drama from writer/director Jeff Nichols, who has a penchant for keeping Michael Shannon gainfully employed. Nichols received some minor notoriety a couple years ago with his 2012 film "Mud," a movie we enjoyed quite a bit. Taking this into account, plus the fact that we heard positive buzz about this film while it was still in limited release, plus the outstanding cast, we were very much looking forward to it. Now that we've seen it, we have to admit we're a little underwhelmed by it. The film stars the aforementioned Michael Shannon, Jeff Nichols' apparent muse. We're not understating this at all: Shannon has been in every single movie Nichols has done. Shannon plays Roy, the father of a young boy with special powers named Alton, played by Jaeden Lieberher, who we loved in 2014's "St. Vincent." Roy has "kidnapped" his son from a ranch, which is where Roy and Alton have lived and is also home to a cult where they had been members. This cult believes Alton to be their savior. However, Roy believes he must get his son to a certain location on a certain date because reasons. The cops are looking for Roy and Alton, and they must move fast to evade capture. To do this, Roy has enlisted the help of an old friend named Lucas, played by Joel Edgerton, another recent favorite of ours, to get them as far away from the ranch as possible. Because of his powers, Alton has managed to intercept some top secret, highly classified government information, which makes him a target of the NSA and FBI. All of these groups are looking to get Alton for their own purposes before said specific date and time.  

One thing we both agreed on right after the movie was over is that "Midnight Special" does not need to be as long as it is. We were not annoyed with the amount of time we were in the theater, but we were left puzzled as to why the movie is simultaneously dialed back and overlong. With a bit of truncation here and there, as well as some tightening up of its script and narrative, this could have been a much more clear and concise story, even with several unanswered questions as the credits roll. The amount of actual compelling content could fit in an extended television episode, and everything else, including the dialogue and its delivery, seems to have been stretched out to nearly two hours in length. It all gets off to a brilliantly strong and intriguing start, but the further we get into it and the more that gets revealed, the less we cared, which is a shame. Nichols tries to sell it as a slow-burning kind of mystery thriller, but any revelation past the first 30 minutes is pretty underwhelming. The filmmakers leave the right amount of enigma for the audience, and the end of the film is pretty amazing, but there's just a little something left to be desired. The acting is great. We like Michael Shannon, Joel Edgerton, Kristen Dunst, and Adam Driver as actors, but it doesn't really feel like there's a lot of chemistry between any of the characters until the very end of the movie. Finally, probably the best part of the film is its special effects. When combined with some magnificent cinematography, the science fiction parts of the story really get to shine. Other big budget films don't even get the CGI and special effects this good, and the end visual product is quite stunning.

"Midnight Special" has a couple of really great moments but lacks a certain emotional weight we felt it needed to really drive its point, whatever it may have been, home. We do like the overall concept, but felt it could have been executed a little better. Please, Jeff Nichols and everyone else that makes movies like this, don't ever stop making them! Just because we were a little disappointed here doesn't mean the next one will be the same case! Always make movies people perceive as different.

My Rating: 6.5/10
BigJ's Rating: 6/10
IMDB's Rating: 7.3/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 82%
Do we recommend this movie: Sure, why not?
~~~~~~~~~~

One year ago, we were watching: "Unfriended"

Movie Review: "New Year's Eve" (2011)

Image Source

Movie: "New Year's Eve"
Director: Garry Marshall
Year: 2011
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 1 hour, 53 minutes

A look into the intersecting lives and relationships of many different people on New Year's eve.  

Garry Marshall's "New Year's Eve" is a film that tells the story of numerous different characters whose lives intertwine in one way or another on one day in all of their lives. These type of films seem to be habitual for director Garry Marshall, but we're not exactly sure why. The movie has tons of different characters, really far too many to list or give an in-depth description of in one review. Marshall brings together an ensemble cast including the likes of Ashton Kutcher, Jessica Biel, Hector Elizondo, Julia Roberts, and a slew of many, many other actors who may or may not be good elsewhere, but when placed in a movie with a terrible script, a cheesy premise, and a lack of any sort of feeling, are devoid of any and all chemistry and are unable to deliver their lines with conviction. Marshall even brings in a token musician into the fray, in this case Jon Bon Jovi, who has the acting ability of a flailing stick in the breeze (look, we love you as a musician, but stick to the music, your acting career is awful).

Like most holidays, there are those who hate New Year's eve and those who love it. Being about New Year's eve, the central theme is romance and relationships. The film looks into many different types of relationships, including a story about a pair of star-crossed lovers, a tale of unrequited love, the exploration of new relationships, and even sometimes unfaithfulness. There are at least some attempts at humor throughout the film, though most attempts fall flat on their face and are delivered in an awkward, unfunny manner by actors who are just not capable of making dreadful script writing sound even slightly decent. The characters and stories, from an execution standpoint, are so, so bad, and so, so contrived, and so, so boring. This makes this movie as a whole tedious, eye-rollingly stupid, and extremely difficult to watch. We don't care about a single character, we don't care about any of their problems, we don't want to see any of the solutions to their problems, and we just wound up being bored most the time as the minutes seemed to tick by ever so slowly. Since there's no real plot to this movie beyond a day in the lives and relationships of all these different, connected people, it has to rely on the dialogue spoken between characters and the performances given by the actors and actresses. Neither of these two things are even remotely good. The dialogue is cheesy, poorly written, and sloppily executed, and we know what's coming before the words are even spoken. The acting is either stiff or over-exaggerated, uninspired, and forgettable. "New Year's Eve" is ridiculously predictable, and we can't help but think we've seen this all somewhere else, but done in a better, more emotional film. It's called "Love Actually."

By the end of it all, we were so annoyed and insane out of our minds with boredom, we wanted to stick pencils in our eye sockets and ear holes to cleanse ourselves of what we had just witnessed. Garry Marshall, STOP THIS MASSACRE OF CINEMA!!!

My Rating: 2/10
BigJ's Rating: 2/10
IMDB's Rating: 5.6/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 7%
Do we recommend this movie: AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "Love Actually."

Movie Review: "Valentine's Day" (2010)

Image Source

Movie: "Valentine's Day"
Director: Garry Marshall
Year: 2010
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 2 hours, 5 minutes

A look into the intersecting lives and relationships of many different people on Valentine's day.  

Garry Marshall's "Valentine's Day" is a film that tells the story of numerous different characters whose lives intertwine in one way or another on one day in all of their lives. These type of films seem to be habitual for director Garry Marshall, but we're not exactly sure why. The movie has tons of different characters, really far too many to list or give an in-depth description of in one review. Marshall brings together an ensemble cast including the likes of Ashton Kutcher, Jessica Biel, Hector Elizondo, Julia Roberts, and a slew of many, many other actors who may or may not be good elsewhere, but when placed in a movie with a terrible script, a cheesy premise, and a lack of any sort of feeling, are devoid of any and all chemistry and are unable to deliver their lines with conviction. Marshall even brings in a token musician into the fray, in this case Taylor Swift, who has the acting ability of a flailing stick in the breeze (look, we love you as a musician, but stick to the music, your acting career is awful).

Like most holidays, there are those who hate Valentine's day and those who love it. Being about Valentine's day, the central theme is romance and relationships. The film looks into many different types of relationships, including a story about a pair of star-crossed lovers, a tale of unrequited love, the exploration of new relationships, and even sometimes unfaithfulness. There are at least some attempts at humor throughout the film, though most attempts fall flat on their face and are delivered in an awkward, unfunny manner by actors who are just not capable of making dreadful script writing sound even slightly decent. The characters and stories, from an execution standpoint, are so, so bad, and so, so contrived, and so, so boring. This makes this movie as a whole tedious, eye-rollingly stupid, and extremely difficult to watch. We don't care about a single character, we don't care about any of their problems, we don't want to see any of the solutions to their problems, and we just wound up being bored most the time as the minutes seemed to tick by ever so slowly. Since there's no real plot to this movie beyond a day in the lives and relationships of all these different, connected people, it has to rely on the dialogue spoken between characters and the performances given by the actors and actresses. Neither of these two things are even remotely good. The dialogue is cheesy, poorly written, and sloppily executed, and we know what's coming before the words are even spoken. The acting is either stiff or over-exaggerated, uninspired, and forgettable. "Valentine's Day" is ridiculously predictable, and we can't help but think we've seen this all somewhere else, but done in a better, more emotional film. It's called "Love Actually."

By the end of it all, we were so annoyed and insane out of our minds with boredom, we wanted to stick pencils in our eye sockets and ear holes to cleanse ourselves of what we had just witnessed. Garry Marshall, STOP THIS MASSACRE OF CINEMA!!!

My Rating: 3/10
BigJ's Rating: 3/10
IMDB's Rating: 5.7/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 18%
Do we recommend this movie: AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "Love Actually"

Movie Review: "It's A Disaster" (2012)

Image Source

Movie: "It's A Disaster"
Director: Todd Berger
Year: 2012
Rating: R
Running Time: 1 hour, 28 minutes

Tracy (Julia Styles) brings her a new date Glen (David Cross) to her regular Sunday brunch with all of her friends. While having brunch, a dirty bomb is dropped on the city, trapping them inside the house while the world may be coming to an end outside. Since it may be their last day on earth, everyone takes it as an opportunity to let the others know how they really feel.

We knew absolutely nothing about "It's A Disaster" going into it. In fact, we hadn't seen any marketing for it and really only found it because we were browsing Netflix looking for something different to watch. With an decent cast (okay, mainly because of David Cross), we decided to give it a go. This movie is a dark comedy from writer/director Todd Berger, who also plays a small role in the film. He brings an ensemble cast together, including the most well known of the bunch, Julia Styles, who plays Tracy, a woman with a history of picking really bad boyfriends as they all end up being a little crazy. In addition, David Cross plays Glen, Tracy's new date. Glen is a teacher and someone Tracy hopes isn't nuts. America Ferrera plays Hedy, a chemistry teacher who starts to fall apart when the end of the begins because she understands what damage the chemical in the bomb can do. Finally, there's Rachel Boston, who plays Lexi, the free-spirited vegan swinger. This group of friends have monthly brunches that are often full of awkward moments, but this brunch in particular becomes an outright disaster, as the title explicitly states.

Once the group discovers this is probably it for them, their last day on Earth because the end of the world is coming, they all start to tell each other how they really feel and with hilarious, dramatic consequences for a group of people trapped together in one house. They start to air their grievances and show their full, true selves, some maybe even for the first time, and what better way to do it than with a sense of impending doom? This situation allows some great humorous moments to happen, but not in a normal ha-ha funny way. "It's A Disaster" is a cleverly written dark comedy, and the situations these people find themselves in are probably not ones we should be laughing at, but we simply can't help it. All of the actors perform their parts well and fit nicely into their given roles. They also play off of one another greatly, especially David Cross, who we love. It's also nice to see Julia Styles in a movie since she hasn't been around much since the 2000's. I've personally always liked her. Despite knowing nothing about this film, "It's A Disaster" is a prime example of how picking a random movie can pay off handsomely. It wound up being an enjoyable, pleasant surprise with a lot of riotous moments and some unexpected ones, too, just hope you don't wind up at a brunch like this when the dirty bombs hit.

My Rating: 7/10
BigJ's Rating: 7/10
IMDB's Rating: 6.5/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 77%
Do we recommend this movie: Sure, why not?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "Iron Man"