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.

Unbroken is an incredible journey through the life of Louis Zamperini. It is a superbly inspirational film that will be sure to touch everyone who watches this extremely cinematic war-time masterpiece that harkens to classic Hollywood story structure. Based on the best-selling novel by Laura Hillenbrand, this film is truly one of the most gut-wrenching war-time movies. Angelina Jolie showcases her talent for the directing chair, and it is evident. Although there are elements of the story which could have been executed better, the greatness of the narrative outweighs them. This is one of those movies where there is nothing overtly wrong with it, but at the same time, there isn’t anything technically outstanding about it either–with the exception of a compelling screenplay, exquisite acting by Jack O’Connell, and a realistic depiction of what life in a Japanese prisoner of war camp was like. It is sure to garner Oscar nominations and quite possibly some wins as well.

“As a boy, Louis “Louie” Zamperini is always in trouble, but with the help of his older brother, he turns his life around and channels his energy into running, later qualifying for the 1936 Olympics. When World War II breaks out, Louie enlists in the military. After his plane crashes in the Pacific, he survives an incredible 47 days adrift in a raft, until his capture by the Japanese navy. Sent to a POW camp, Louie becomes the favorite target of a particularly cruel prison commander” (IMDb). Follow Louie as he holds fast to wise words imparted to him by his older brother, “if you can take it, you can make it,” and does not break or lose faith under the abominable treatment by the Japanese during World War II. Many years later, he then returns back to Japan forgive his captors. Finally, in 1998, Louis fulfills his dream to one again run in the Torch Relay in the Olympic Games hosted by Japan.

The most incredible element of this movie, beyond the story in and of itself, is the amazing and authentic acting by Jack O’Connell, who plays Louis Zamperini. He truly possesses the ability to convey genuine pain and anguish. And, unlike many nearly super-human stories like this one, he also shows that he struggles with decisions and emotionally breaks down from time to time. As unreal as his ability to remain “unbroken” is to the audience, he is also very real emotionally, psychologically, and physiologically. This humility and earthy-ness of Zamperini allows almost anyone in the audience to identify with his struggles. Most likely, very few in the movie-going audiences would have had experience in war, or even less likely, as a prisoner of war. We all go through extreme trials of the mind or body and can learn from Zamperini to not break under undue or unfair pressure. Stay true to what you believe in and your goals.

The opening of the movie is a memorable throwback to classic Hollywood wartime movies with expansive aerial views and the hum of the propeller-driven aircraft engines. The movie remains here only for a short while before flashing back to Zamperini’s life as a child. Starting out as a petty thief, his family desired for him to become more. After being busted by the local police a few times and thanks to the guidance of his older brother, Zamperini refocuses his energy on becoming a star runner for his school. This is where I feel the screenplay could have improved the storytelling. Flashbacks are seldom a good idea. It would have been much more pleasing to the pace and structure of the narrative to have just started the movie out with Zamperini as a child and told the story from there. This would have allowed for the audience to witness the building up Louis’ character from selfish thief to a steadfast soldier with genuine integrity and a love for his country and comrades. Although his character is unyielding during the movie, there lacked true development or character arc. He went from thief to hero much too quickly. Even though the majority of the movie dealt with his life as a POW, it would have been better to have added more story concerning his family and the US as they battle Japan. This would have helped to break up the monotony of spending so much emotionally draining time at the camp, because the material is so very heavy.

Over all, this movie is very well directed, written, edited, shot, acted, and scored. And, there is a little bit of humor prior to Zamperini’s internment at the camp. There is even a moment that feels like it is right out of Jaws and an extremely funny Hellen Keller joke. Although some more lighthearted material would have been nice to alleviate the heavy and dark cinematic material, it is understandable why that could have prohibited the movie from touching people as much as it does. After the narrative failure of Fury, I was wondering if Hollywood could provide us with another Saving Private Ryan, and Universal Pictures accomplished just that with this wartime masterpiece for a new generation.

I wish…more than anything…more than life…I wish Disney hadn’t worked extra hard to nearly ruin such a beloved show. I knew from the onset of the then-rumors of Disney’s acquisition of the film rights to the Sondheim-Lapine masterpiece, that they ran a risk of mutilating a show’s plot in order to make it more kid-friendly. And, just like the forbidding words of the Soothsayer in Julius Caesar, the worries over this production came to pass as nearly predicted. This is supposed to be a satirical FUNNY stage show; however, nearly all the funny was sucked out of the film adaptation that’s oddly enough already received Golden Globe nominations. The first act is adapted to the screen well enough; but the second act was essentially rewritten–and rewritten badly. If this is the direction that movie studios are moving when adapting smash hit Broadway musicals, then please leave the shows intact on the stage where they can thrive.

Stephen Sondheim and James Lapine’s smash hit Broadway musical comes to the screen by Walt Disney Studios and directed by Rob Marshall. The film is about several fractured fairy tales including Cinderella, Jack and the Bean Stalk, Rapunzel, and Little Red Riding Hood woven together with a story about a barren baker and his wife who have been cursed by a witch. The baker and his wife are sent on a mission to bring four items to the witch in order to break the curse. Searching for four items in the mystical woods will bring different fairy tale characters together in a tangled web of lies, deceit, bribery, and death. Filled with beautiful musical numbers and iconic characters, this film takes on the daunting task to bring the beloved musical to a theatre near you.

There have certainly been successful film adaptations of wildly popular and long-running Broadway shows. And, sometimes, the film adaptations are better than the stage shows because of the addition of the camera, visual effects, and editing. Some examples of film adaptations of musicals that are arguably better than the originating stage productions are: Chicago, Mamma Mia, Funny Girl, Les Misérables, Annie (and no, not the present incarnation), and yes I’m saying it Phantom of the Opera. However, Disney’s Into the Woods will not make that list. But, it could very well make the list of worst film adaptation of Broadway musicals. For fans of the original show starring the incomparable Bernadette Peters as the Witch, the first half of the movie is pretty well in line with Act I of the show, only missing the entertaining and funny witch, the Baker’s father’s humorous antics, Godmother’s extended dialog, the sexual tension between Red and the Wolf, the playful nature of the Wolf–wait–that’s a whole lot of important material left out. Well, once you get a load of the second half of the movie, you will understand why the first half can be seen as close to the original.

The second half of the movie is barely a shadow of its stage counterpart. With very few elements of the second act from the Great White Way remaining part of the film adaptation, Disney essentially reimagined the second half of the film to create a new less memorable or endearing story. The pace of the second half of the movie is way off-step, the story structure is abominable, and the characters are not endearing. Although, it may have added a few minutes to the running time of the movie, the eliminated songs and subplots that were removed in this mashup of fractured fairy tales could have helped to bolster the appeal of the second half. Again, this is supposed to be a funny story. I seldom laughed during the movie.

And, let’s talk about the white elephant in the room–Meryl Streep’s Witch. Let’s just say that Streep, for all her accomplishments–and I genuinely believe her to be the greatest female actor of all time, she cannot hold a candle to Bernadette Peters. Peters made the original show with her voice, antics, humor, and effervescence. Streep plays the Witch much darker and far less playful. Although the film was cast pretty well, the screenplay and direction failed to inspire the screen actors to live up to the bar set by the original Broadway cast.

Receiving mixed reviews and a moderate ranking on IMDb, Into the Woods is a failed attempt at translating a Broadway show to the silver screen. The only positive consequence of this production is quite possibly opening up the world of Broadway musicals to a new generation. There has been an increase in screen musicals in recent years: everything from Fox’s Glee to the new film version of Annie, and it’s wonderful to witness musicals becoming more popular and touching people that may not have otherwise given a musical a chance. But, if a timeless show is going to be adapted to the screen, the movie studio undertaking the task should keep the soul of the stage show alive on the screen instead of rewriting it.

The defining chapter in the Hobbit Trilogy is anything but. Beyond the impressive visuals and all-too-familiar sweeping landscape shots that are the hallmark of Peter Jackson’s directing, the movie leaves the audience feeling empty and unfulfilled. However, as disappointing as this last installment was, it was still better than the previous two. The best thing the second movie had going for it was Smaug, and in this last chapter of the nearly short story turned into three movies, but he dies off faster than Anne Hathaway in Les Mis. One thing is for sure, Norma Desmond would be quite proud of the movie, seeing as that the amount of diegetic dialog probably amounts to 15-20minutes of the 2hour movie. But, it is called Battle of the Five Armies, so that is pretty much what you get. A little exposition, a little setting up of the Lord of the Rings, from Lady Galadriel, Saruman, and Gandalf, but mostly just massive battle after massive battle. It was quite boring.

The final chapter of The Hobbit trilogy begins with the defeat of Smaug and quickly moves to the Lonely Mountain where the dwarves stake claim to the treasure and kingdom that was once theirs. Falling prey to “dragon sickness,” Thorin begins to succumb to the magic of the massive treasure and becomes consumed with the search for the Arkenstone. With Lake Town destroyed by the dragon, the people move to reclaim Dale for their own. However, the dark shadows in the east are rising and Orks take to the battle theatre to stop the Elves, Men, and Dwarves from claiming the Kingdom of Erebor for themselves. Thorin must overcome his sickness in order to help defeat the evil lurking at the base of the mountain. And, peoples that are very divided from one another must join forces or die.

This is one of those movies where there really isn’t much to talk about. You have the death of Smaug and a long sequence of battles that finally culminate at one massive battle for Erebor and Dale. The beginning is quite exciting with Smaug wreaking havoc upon Lake Town and her people. After waiting for a year to see Smaug in action–the actual desolation of Smaug that really wasn’t seen in the second movie–he dies during the prologue. Before you think that you’re going to get a lot of narrative exposition setting up The Fellowship of the Ring, think again. Beyond seeing the Witch King of Angmar and Sauron’s fiery eye, there isn’t much to tell. Lady Galadriel, Saurman, and Lord Elrond put up an amazing fight against the undead kings of men and the reawakened force of Sauron, but that’s pretty much it. I recognize that this is the closing chapter so it isn’t smart to add lot of new information, but because it is part of a larger story, there should have been more effort put into setting up the following LOTR trilogy. Bilbo makes appearances here and there, and somehow manages not to die in battle, but there is very little of the hobbit in the series that bears his namesake. Dialog, exposition, and story truly suffer in this movie. If you want to see epic battle scenes very well and impressively executed, then this is a movie for you.

If you prefer a movie with a compelling or intriguing story, with memorable characters, then this movie is not for you. I am glad I saw it so I can close out this trilogy, but I don’t think I will be rushing to get it for myself anytime soon. It is quite apparent in this final chapter that Peter Jackson has gone from a boyhood Tolkien fan to a fan of money. His first trilogy captured the very essence of The Lord of the Rings books (says fan Jen Wead), even though certain elements had to be cut because film is a visual medium. He put so much emphasis on the dragon and kills off his star even faster than Janet Leigh in Psycho. Maybe this movie will see better reviews from the ardent fans. But, that is not likely the case.

Although Ridley Scott is considered by many critics, film academics, and filmmakers to be one of the greatest directors of all time, like with the last couple of films, he disappoints again with the Biblical film adaptation that is probably the most difficult to ruin. Exodus: Gods and Kings needed to be another Gladiator but instead it is more like Prometheus. The story of Moses and the enslaved children of Israel is an epic story that needs very little to be successfully translated to the screen because of the prolific amount of material that makes up a story that is engrained in the conscious of many. It’s been nearly 70 years since the Cecil B. DeMille’s cinematic masterpiece The 10 Commandments and nearly 20 years since Prince of Egypt and both of those films tell a much more compelling story than this tragic retelling of the oh so familiar tale. With a travesty of a screenplay coupled with painfully terrible acting and missing the mark on so many crucial elements to the story, this film is not destined for any Oscar list, but could make the Raspberries.

Exodus: Gods and Kings is the most recent film adaptation of the Biblical (and Torah) story of Moses, Pharaoh, and the children of Israel. It chronicles the prince of Egypt from his high rank as a general in Pharaoh’s army, into exile, to raising a family, from an encounter with a representation of God to demanding Pharaoh to free the enslaved Hebrews. It ends with the crossing of the Red Sea and quickly introducing the 10 Commandments.

You have to work pretty hard to ruin the story of Moses…but that is exactly what Scott did with his most recent film dedicated to his late brother Tony. This Biblical epic has everything a film needs: the parting of the Red Sea, plagues, death, violence, and a dysfunctional family. It’s all there!! How could Scott have missed it? The movie starts out well enough because it adds some family backstory that is not included in the Biblical text, which does greatly help to understand the relationship between Pharaoh, Ramses, and Moses. However, this was better accomplished in DreamWorks’ Prince of Egypt. But, conspicuously missing from the beginning of the movie is baby Moses in the basket being picked up by Pharaoh’s sister Bythia. Instead, we get some very rushed exposition from Nun (Joshua’s father) in a bizarre encounter between Moses and the Hebrew elders. Fortunately, the infamous plagues were showcased pretty well, but they too were rushed and all divine epic-ness was nearly sucked out of them; and Moses just stood by virtually clueless as to what was going on. For someone that was supposed to be the earthly mouth of God, Moses was often internally confused and insecure with his confrontations between him and Ramses.

And talk about that burning bush experience. I am not sure if Scott failed to read the passage, watch C.B.’s masterpiece or the DreamWorks film, but he completely botched the catalyst for Moses’ return to Egypt. There was nothing special about it, and it came off as a delusional dream. Actually, there is no reference to the burning bush at all in the burning bush scene. Probably the most contentious point for Jews, Christians, and Catholics is the fact that God is represented by a little British boy who does not address Moses with any authority and instead talks to him as Moses’ conscious embodied. We at least get the “I Am.” The boy who represents the voice of God never even refers to the children of Israel as his people–always Moses’ people. The scene leading up to the burning bush included a torrential rainstorm. How epic would it have been to have seen the burning bush ablaze amidst a storm!?! But, instead it’s treated as a cliche and boring dream sequence.

The character dynamics and acting were as awful as the script itself. Coming across as a History Channel original movie more than a work of cinema, this film’s actors suffered from lack of direction and inspiration. There is not one performance that stands out–not one. Each and every performance is equally lackluster and one dimensional. Even the massive battle scenes lacked shock and awe. If only Scott’s writing team spent as much time in detailing and crafting the script as his graphics, prop, and camera teams did in recreating the ancient empire with great detail. The balance that must be struck between narrative and spectacle, in a story such as this one, was very much off balance. Probably the most disappointing part of the movie is the parting of the Red Sea. This should be the most climactic part of the movie that impresses both the audience and the characters on the screen. Sadly, it does neither. We barely see the sea part for the Hebrews. Apparently, it happened very slowly while they were all sleeping??? Very little comment is made beyond something to the effect of “oh look, we can cross.” With today’s modern computer assisted and generated visual effect technologies, this should have been treated much better and used as the piece de resistance. Instead we get a very anticlimactic drying up of the Red Sea. Scott tried to make up for it after the Hebrews cross by having tsunami sized waves rush Ramses’ army and crash onto the ground to close the sea back up. Where was this spectacle when it parted? And again, Moses is clueless as to what God is doing and acts utterly surprised.

When Scott needed to provide movie-going audiences and the arts community with another Blade Runner, Alien, or Gladiator, he produces cinematic schlock with terrible performances from notable actors, underused performances from others, and a tragically misguided and depressing script. And, the well-executed technical achievements do very little in helping to overshadow the empty and awful screenplay. With 2.5 hours of run time, you’d think the movie would have turned out so much better. All it does is leave the audience with feelings of disappointment and a lukewarm “meh.” Looks like C.B. still wins the best retelling of this classic tale of Biblical and historic proportions.