Unequivicably the most torturous 2hrs of a theatrically-released movie ever. It is so incredibly bad that I don’t even want to write more than one paragraph about it. And, if you follow this blog, you know I am unable to relay my thoughts on a given movie in one paragraph. It was like a glorified undergraduate film shot with broadcast cameras and incompetent audio operators. The only somewhat positive element of the movie was the well-executed visual effects and concept of the inner-workings of a computer circuit board. Structurally, the narrative is haphazard and boring; there were times I had no idea what was going on. Approximately halfway through the movie, I seriously considered leaving the auditorium. It is of little surprise that this movie received a January release date. If you have a movie date planned with someone that you would rather not go out with, take them to this movie and they will most certainly never talk to you again. And the opposite is also true; if they like it, they are probably not the one for you.
Category Archives: Movie Review
Taken 3 (review)
Bryan Mills is at it again in this last installment of the Taken series. Taken 3 is a thrilling roller coaster of a movie that will have you on the edge of your seats from beginning until the end. This time, the assault on Mills’ family is not in Europe, but in his own backyard. Liam Neeson is truly the reason to see these films, and this last one is of no exception. The best part about this installment and all the Taken movies is that they are action/thriller movies with a family side. It is probably one of the only action movies that you can sit down and enjoy with the whole family. Like last years’s 3 Days to Kill, Taken 3 adds a positive family elements that makes the audience root for our hero. It hits all the marks– for a cliche action movie that is–for a successful action-packed narrative that has characters you love and villains you love to hate. In addition to the car chase and fight scenes that are the hallmark of the Taken series, Taken 3 adds the element of mystery to this glorified “who-done-it.”
“Ex-covert operative Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) and his ex-wife, Lenore (Famke Janssen), are enjoying a reconciliation when Lenore is brutally murdered. Bryan is framed for the crime and flees, with the CIA, FBI and police all in hot pursuit. For the last time, he channels his rage and particular set of skills into hunting down Lenore’s real killers, taking his revenge and protecting the one important thing left in his life: his daughter, Kim (Maggie Grace)” (IMDb). Only this time, he is not alone. The mysterious murder of Lenore sparks an investigation that will include Mills’ ex-covert circle of friends as well, in a spine-tingling action-packed adventure where answers to questions only spawn more questions in this labyrinth of deceit. Only Mills is not the only one trying to solve this mystery, the LA Chief Inspector (Forest Whitaker) is also working to piece together the answer as his men seek to bring Mills in for questioning.
Like the previous two movies, this one is full of action from start to finish, and includes the quirky comedy that comes along with these films. It’s just enough to cleanse the pallet for more action and covert operations. Not a movie that is intended to cause you to ponder life issues, not self-reflexive, nor is it designed to prompt you to question this, that, or the other, it is a movie that is produced for pure entertainment value. And, you know what? That’s perfectly fine! I have never thought of Liam Neeson as an amazing actor; however, he plays the role of Bryan Mills so incredibly well that he holds the movie together and sparks enjoyment in the audience. Although he gets type-casted in similar roles (i.e. last year’s Non Stop and A Walk Amongst the Tombstones), he never fails to deliver his character with excellence.
From a technical perspective, the movie pulls out all the stops and action-movie tropes for a multi-sensory experience. You get it all: elaborate and unrealistic car chases, thousands of bullets flying all over the place that never graze Mills, explosions, and countless brawls with police and assassins. You even get a subplot involving Kim that is introduced near the beginning of the movie. Narrative-wise, there are definitely elements that don’t quite make sense logically, the pace slows a bit too much sometimes, and there are holes here and there, but the moderate amount of exposition helps to fill in the gaps. Audiences don’t watch action movies because they are incredible artistic masterpieces, they watch them for the utter enjoyment of a very visually driven story. So, that is why I feel this movie does what it is designed to do, and does it well.
The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death
Return to the infamous Eel Marsh House in The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death. This less terrifying sequel to the original neo-classic horror film is a fun horror movie to watch with friends. Like the previous installment, this film evokes memories and feelings of classically structured horror films. Although there are narrative issues and unanswered questions, this film hits the mark for creating an eerie feeling throughout the movie. To my pleasant surprise, the jump scares from the first movie are all but left out from this installment; however, there are some scary moments that are reminiscent of the original that are used effectively. This film is one that would have benefited greatly from being shot in greyscale (black and white) like the classic horror movies of the 1930s and 40s. With the camera changing from objective to subjective shots, it’s sometimes unclear whether the audience is watching the characters or looking through the eyes of someone more sinister, but that is part of what gives the movie its suspenseful flare.
The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death is about a group of orphaned evacuees from London during the time of the bombings of World War II. Led by Jean Hogg (Helen McCrory) and Eve Parkins (Phoebe Fox), the children are brought to Eel Marsh house in the British countryside where they awaken the vengeful spirit of Janet Humphries once again. Having to face both the ghosts of the present and the ones from her past, Eve teams up with handsome pilot Henry (Jeremy Irvine) to discover the reason Janet has her eyes fixed on the recently orphaned Edward.
This is very much hit or miss horror film. Some fans of the original are definitely going to like it, and others are going to feel as if they wasted an hour and a half that could have been spent in another movie. In an effort not to spoil some of the plot for those who have not seen it, I won’t spend time on material that may give away some of what should be a surprise. BUT, there are definitely some plot points that were severely left undeveloped and should have been worked into the story much more effectively. As far as the acting, it is on par for this style of horror film, but is not nearly as good as acting Daniel Radcliffe was able to deliver in the previous movie.
As is a standard in classically structured horror films, this one comes complete with a light romance story between Eve and Henry. Thankfully, it is carefully worked into the plot in such a way that it is both believable and plays an important role towards the close of the movie. (Slight spoiler alert) Shockingly, this film did not hold back on placing children in perilous situations. Ordinarily, horror films featuring children do not often show children dying but this one plays that card very well and strikes a good balance.
Ultimately, The Woman in Black 2 fails to provide general audiences with a successful sequel to the original movie. Perhaps, had the studio shot the film in black and white, the film would have been better received. Underdeveloped characters, subplots, and a slow pace hurt this film and prevent it from appealing to most fans of horror. On the other hand, fans of the original or the book upon which the series is loosely based will likely enjoy this film.
Big Eyes
Over the decades, there are movies produced that act as commentary on the state of politics, socio-economics, and sometimes humanity itself. And that is exactly what visionary director Tim Burton has done with the artful film Big Eyes. If you have ever had your creative work stolen by someone else, or taken part in or perpetuated a lie for so long that you begin to believe it yourself, then this is a movie for you! Although not blatantly “Burton” production style, the subtleties of his genius are meticulously woven throughout the film. Amy Adams and Christoph Waltz are brilliant together and genuinely sell their respective characters. For fans of Don’t Trust the B!&@h in Apartment 23, Krysten Ritter makes several cameo appearances that are reminiscent of Chloe. Not a deep story, but this is a narrative that is extremely well executed, funny, and is a testament to authenticity and honesty. For those who have ever felt vulnerable or helpless, then you will likely find inspiration in this film.
Based on a true story, the movie Big Eyes depicts the the evolution of one of the most popular art empires during the mid 20th century. “In the late 1950s and early ’60s, artist Walter Keane (Christoph Waltz) achieves unbelievable fame and success with portraits of saucer-eyed waifs. However, no one realizes that his wife, Margaret (Amy Adams), is the real painter behind the brush” (IMDb). A double-edged sword, Walter’s discovery of Margaret’s works would be both a blessing and a curse. Although Margaret is first horrified to learn that Walter is passing off her work as his own, she is too meek to protest too loudly; but she actually helps to perpetuate the lie and even begins to believe it herself. It isn’t until the the Keanes’ marriage comes to an end and a lawsuit follows that the truth finally comes to light. Follow Margaret on a journey that takes her from vulnerable single-mother to protective mother and finally proud artist.
When coming to the theatre to watch a Tim Burton film entitled Big Eyes, one might expect that there would be crazy big eyes throughout the film and the production design would reek of abstract impressionism. But, that is definitely not the case with this movie. There is only one scene that reeks of the classic Tim Burton style we have all come to expect most of the time from such a visionary. The overall production design is quite simple and typifies what middle and upper class life was like in the U.S. in the 1950s and 1960s. Everything from the Edward Scissorhands neighborhood in the opening to the retro A-frame house design later on in the film is reminiscent of architecture in the mid 20th century. The use of vibrant colors in the production design helps to set the artistic mood of the narrative. The colors also assist the visual storytelling of the film by matching the mood of various scenes.
Probably the best parts of the film are the casting and acting. Adams and Waltz are absolutely perfect for their respective roles. The degree to which Waltz sells his charming, manipulative, manic, psychopathic character is outstanding. There is even a moment in the movie where he totally goes “Jack Torrence” on his wife and step-daughter. This moment is right out of Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining. But, my favorite scene has to be the one in which he is both the defendant and attorney in the court-case that is the center of the movie’s showdown. His antics are crazy, funny, and extremely entertaining. Adams plays her mousy, meek, vulnerable, motherly role with excellence. Although her character lacks the charisma of Walter, she plays her character so convincingly. She possesses the skill to both communicate her acceptance and reluctance to perpetuate the lie that is the crux of the film. Krysten Ritter shines as Margaret Keane’s best friend DeeAnn. She really was the perfect choice for the role that harkens back to her character of Chloe in Apartment 23. All the characters have amazing chemistry on screen, and it truly supports the creative narrative.
The movie is also a strong depiction of commentary on humanity in and of itself. It shows the audience how a small and innocent lie can snowball into a lie so large that it is eventually the undoing of an entire empire. Often times, a lie has to be told to cover up a previous lie, and if one does this long enough, one can very well begin to believe the lie to be true and lose sight of reality or the truth. Interestingly though, it is easy to see and understand why Walter does what he does in the film. It can be argued that if he hadn’t stepped in to sell Margaret’s artwork, that she would still be an undiscovered artist underselling her art on the sidewalk. At one point in the movie, it is quite apparent that even with celebrity, Margaret still cannot sell her artwork and is dependent on Walter’s smile, charisma, and brilliant sales mind. I still find myself thinking about character backstories, rationale, and decisions long after the movie is over.
Perfect for art lovers and anyone who loves to create, sell, or critique. This movie is a wonderful addition to the list of movies you may want to see this holiday season.
The Interview
Some of the most successful theatrical comedies are those that take risks, and that is exactly what Sony Pictures has done with The Interview. If you were disappointed that Regal, AMC, Carmike, and other high profile movie theatre chains decided not to carry the film and Sony (parent company to Columbia Pictures) refrained from releasing it on DVD/BluRay, you can catch it on Google-Play. James Franco and Seth Rogen are a hilarious match with fantastic comedic chemistry. Is the movie irreverent? Yes. Is it offensive? Yes. Was it well structured, paced, have memorable characters you either love or love to hate, and well-acted? YES. In other words, this film is a very well executed comedy that, in the words of The Magic School Bus’s Ms. Frizzle, “takes chances, makes mistakes, and gets dirty!” Comedy is drama in disguise, and this concept is well played-out in this political comedy that will have you rolling in your seats and laughing out loud with your friends.
The Interview is one part self-reflexive movie and two parts political, satirical comedy starring Seth Rogen as the veteran television producer Aaron Rappaport of the TMZ-ish talk show Skylark Tonight hosted by Dave Skylark played by James Franco. After receiving word that the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea’s supreme leader Kim Jong-un is a huge fan of the show, Rappaport and Skylark decide to conduct the interview. Using this as an opportunity to assassinate the oppressive leader of North Korea, the CIA approaches the two media professionals with a plan to poison the reclusive leader in order to free the nation and protect the United States. Follow the uptight television producer and his eccentric host on an unexpected journey filled with espionage, intrigue, and laughter as Skylark prepares for his most important interview of his career that could have major repercussions in the world.
Ordinarily, I am not a huge fan of comedies. However, every once in a while there comes a comedy that is well-executed all the way around. The Interview is the type of movie that will likely develop a cult following because of the simple fact that is was essentially kept from public exhibition, but it truly has a lot to offer. Furthermore, it is also excellent commentary on how to work through political upheaval and strife between nations. The self-reflexivity of the movie is evident in the production of the Skylark Tonight show because the audience gets a taste of what it is like for a national television show to prepare for a high profile interview of a country’s dictator. A little bit of the curtain is pulled to see how questions are developed and arranged, and how manipulating the format can have great implications for the results of an interview.
Throughout the movie, there is so much satirical political comedy that it will be hard not to laugh. From the faux celebrity interviews to the master plan of the CIA, from the security guards to the supreme leader himself, this screenplay is filled with situations that are simply laughable. Not laughable in that there is no rhyme or reason to the plot, but for the reason that it is woven together in a manner that greatly supports the narrative. Timing of comedic content is key to a successful movie such as this one, and the writers did their job very well in laying out the jokes and humorous messes in which the characters find themselves.
If you enjoy political satire or self-reflexive comedies, then this is a movie that you will undoubtedly enjoy. Much of the content is for mature audiences only, so it definitely isn’t the movie you play for family movie night. And yes, a large portion of the irreverent comedy is at the expense of Kim Jong-un, so it is of no surprise that Sony decided to release it online instead of in theaters. However, I feel it could have been a smash hit with audiences this festive season when so many are getting together with friends and family to enjoy the laughter that comes along with the holidays.
