Past Movie Reactions
Formula: Stir Crazy / Fun With Dick and Jane
Why I Saw It: Will Ferrell has seemingly limitless goodwill from me after Stranger Than Fiction.
Cast: Will Ferrell is an established comedy giant and Kevin Hart is rapidly becoming one. They have different comedic voices that could play well off one another in the right situation. It's a little awkward though, because neither is comfortable playing the straight man here and the movie doesn't commit to the anarchy needed to ignore having a straight man altogether (See: Anchorman 2). Alison Brie is underused and poorly utilized (what's new?). They dust off Craig T. Nelson to play a corrupt old white guy. T.I. and some others show up too as some gang members. It's really a two-man movie with cameos.
Plot: James (Ferrell) is a big time Wall Street millionaire living in Bel-Air who gets sent to jail for Bernie Madoff stuff. Darnell (Hart) is a clean cut black man who washes James' cars. James thinks Darnell went to prison, because he's black and all, and hires Darnell to prepare him for prison life with the month he has before going. It's a pretty simple setup and plays out as you'd expect, be it having a lot of good jokes early and wearing the premise out well before the end, or James and Darnell becoming close friends by the end, or James being innocent and trying to clear his name. This is a perfect example or a movie that lives and dies on if the jokes land.
Elephant in the Room: Prison rape is hilarious. Am I right? That's legitimately the driving force of this movie: Will Ferrell wants to 'get hard' specifically to not get raped in prison*. It's hard to say how much of this movie was hurt by this being such a familiar character for Will Ferrell. Literally everything he says in this could've been said in The Campaign or by Ron Burgundy. Most of the best moments are when Kevin Hart punctuates a familiar punchline in an a new way (which didn't happen often).
*That is, except for one off sequence when they decide that there's no way to get around it, so he should get good at it instead, but whatever.
To Sum Things Up:
This is a movie of shocking humor for people who don't normally hear shocking humor. If "white people shouldn't say that" jokes are all you need, then great. This is the movie for you. Ferrell and Hart are completely game for whatever is thrown at them. The other actors don't get in the way, which is exactly what is needed from them. I laughed a few times, but a very low percentage of the jokes landed. The writing is inconsistent (Ferrell's character changes from scene to scene as the story beats demands) though. For a movie with a plot this thin to work it needs to be funnier, and it's not.
Verdict (?): Strongly Don't Recommend
Formula: Divergent + middle movie lull
Why I Saw It: Divergent was fun in a "just above average" way compared to the other teen dystopias that are taking over.
Cast: The Divergent series wins the award for casting the right people just in time. Shailene Woodley again makes most of this movie work through sheer force of will. She's the kind of actor who makes up for a lot of other problems. It's almost not even worth mentioning the rest of the cast, given how completely she takes over the movie, but I will anyway. Theo James is tough and brooding. Ansel Elgort is very one dimensional. Miles Teller is criminally underused. Jai Courtney is more of an obstacle than a character/antagonist. Kate Winslet is delivering exactly the performance she's supposed to. Naomi Watts and Octavia Spencer give the movie some clout. Others like Zoe Kravitz come back, basically to link this back to the first movie.
Plot: Tris (Woodley) is still on the run, Woodley's cadre of on-screen boyfriends (James - Divergent, Teller - The Spectacular Now, Elgort - The Fault in Our Stars) in tow. The Erudites have assumed full covert control over the city (Is there a name for the city? I didn't catch one). She spends her time trying to get the other factions and non-factions to rebel. Meanwhile, Jeanine (Winslet), has a McGuffin, er, a box that has an important secret in it that for some reason, can only be opened by a divergent. Not just any divergent though: one that can pass a bunch of tests. Tests similar to the ones in the first movie, expect much more pixelated. A lot of jumping through glass and walls. The movie kind of lost me at some point. I got what was going on, but not really the point of any of it.
Elephant in the Room: How is this different from the other dystopia's out there? It's not. Somehow, Insurgent just made it all feel less plausible. The first movie was grounded in a lot of ways. It had a ground level view of things. This movie increased the scale tremendously, which only highlighted how silly this world is. If I stop to think about any one beat of the story for too long, I lose the thread of the plot completely and get bombarded with internal (or external) logic questions that come down to "how can such an smart society be so dumb?".
To Sum Things Up:
I'll watch more of these movies because I'll watch Shailene Woodley in just about anything (The same goes for Miles Teller as a scene-stealer). Pretty much everything else is a mess though. The story is muddled. The world isn't as well built as the first installment (you can really feel the change in directors). The effects are overdone (Please, no more of these virtual reality sequences). I'd really like to see a version of all this that doesn't feel like there's a checklist of young-adult dystopian tropes that had to be followed. I don't know how they did it, but I'm actually more excited for the Maze Runner sequel than another one of these movies.
Verdict (?): Strongly Don't Recommend
The Pitch: Cop movies and dogs are huge right now. Let's combine the two!
How I Came Into It: I was all prepared to call this a rip-off of Turner and Hootch. It turns out, this was released a few months before that though. I haven't compared production dates, but at the very worst, we've got a Deep Impact/Armageddon situation on our hands where two studios both liked the same idea.
Why I Saw It: (Club 50) A cheap way to earn my approval is to get a puppy involved, even a fully grown puppy. Jim Belushi plays off the dog believably. It's hard to ever see him as a big movie star (Belusi, not the dog), but he's sturdy in a mid-level hit like this. And, that dog is well trained.
Why I Wish I Hadn't: Jim Belushi is no Tom Hanks. He masks far fewer limitations of a canine co-star than Hanks and there's a reason why Turner & Hootch is the better remembered movie (let's start with how it has the better title).
Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend
Past Movie Reactions
Formula: (Maleficent * Cinderella) / Sleeping Beauty
Why I Saw It: I like Disney in its wheelhouse.
Cast: Lily James is perfectly fine as Cinderella. She didn't blow me away, It also didn't seem like the direction she was given was much more than "breath deeply and be nice to everyone". Richard Madden as the Prince is similarly not deep as a character. Cate Blanchett is having a good time sinking her teeth into the wicked stepmother role. Sophie McShera and Holliday Granger are equally indistinguishable as the wicked stepsisters. Helena Bonham Carter appears briefly as the Fairy Godmother, soaking it up every bit as much as one of her oddball characters in a Tim Burton movie.
Plot: It's Cinderella. Do I really need to tell you the plot? No. Instead, I'll say this: It's all there. The glass slipper. Fairy godmother. Wicked step-mother/sisters. GusGus. If you are familiar with the animated movie, I can't think of a lot that Disney left out, and that's to their credit. The only appreciable difference is that there's a little more buildup at the beginning to give some context to [Cinder]Ella's situation. That's nice, because she doesn't seem like such a pushover now. This is pretty much the story you know though.
Elephant in the Room: Right, but what's different about it? Seriously, it's not that different from the story you already know, and that's a good thing. For the better part of a decade, Disney has been apologizing for its animated past with with its live action features. Enchanted deconstructed the "Disney model" of stories. Alice in Wonderland and Maleficent tried to reinterpret the classic movies with a new perspective. Even Into the Woods, while not originally created by Disney was all about them being aware of their own legacy's shortcomings. Cinderella though, is finally Disney remembering what built the brand. This movie does believe in magic. There's not a trace of irony in it and it rigidly follows the beats that we already know. Toward the end, for example, it's clear that they could skip the whole part where she puts on the glass slipper. The Prince knows who she is. "Happily ever after" is already a given, but dammit, the slipper is part of the story and they aren't going to leave anyone shortchanged. It's quite refreshing.
To Sum Things Up:
There's a cynic in me who could find a reason to not enjoy this. I'm not sure it works well without a working knowledge of the animated/classic tale. The characters aren't fully realized. It's just a silly movie. But, it's sincere. The motto of the movie is "Have courage and treat people kindly". I think that works. It's not ironic. It's not winking at the camera. It's the story you expect going in. It does justice to all the scenes that you want it to: The fairy godmother preparing Cinderella's dress and carriage, the grand ball, Cinderella racing away at the stroke of midnight. I liked it. If this is what Disney plans to do with future live-action remakes, I'm completely fine with that. The thing that makes Disney cool is that it doesn't care if it looks cool or not. Cinderella is a perfect example of that.
Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend
The Pitch: These books sold really well and they have a Lord of the Rings-y vide. Make this movie!
How I Came Into It: I've hated these books for years. Blindly, I admit. I refuse to read them. I was initially impressed by the author Christopher Paolini writing the book while still a teenager, then got very turned off when I found out that is was because he was able to take a year off to write it and his parents had connections to a publisher already. I was even more turned off to hear word like 'generic' and 'derivative' used by people who's opinions I trusted. This movie is one of the greatest tests to my "try to go in with an open mind" policy for movies and I can't say that I wasn't more than ready to start laying into it at the first sign of it being bad.
Why I Saw It: (Club 50) Then the movie started and I didn't even need to go in hating it to find things to pick at. Before I get to that, let me say that if you tell me the cast of a movie is going to include Rachel Weisz, Jeremy Irons, John Malkovich, and Djimon Hounsou, I'm generally going to expect good things. They...do what they can with this.
Why I Wish I Hadn't: Where to begin? Ok, there is no doubt that the source material was written by a teenager because this is the lamest hero's journey I've ever seen. I don't think there was a single original thought in the world building, character, dialogue, or conflict. I hate when I'm watching a movie and I feel bad for the actors in it. Fantasy doesn't get more "by the numbers" than this. I'm actually tempted to read the books because they almost have to be better. They can't be worse. I have to believe that they can't be worse. What an awful movie. I'm done thinking about it.
Verdict (?): Strongly Don't Recommend
The Pitch: An expert of airplane security get on a plane that is hijacked! What are the odds, right?
How I Came Into It: Why do I know who Wesley Snipes is? Was the "Bad" video that good? He has some fine movies, but I don't get why he got as big as he did. This movie is in the middle of a string of hits for him that culminated in the Blade movies, and from what I've heard, he was a real prick by the time he did those. Part of the fun of watching his movies is tracking when exactly he became so difficult to work with.
Why I Saw It: (Club 50) I have a long love of the number 57. It's my favorite number, because apparently, I'm the kind of person who has a favorite number. That really works in this movie's favor, although it isn't mentioned much if at all which passenger number Snipes is. I was all prepared for another Air Force One, Non-Stop, or Executive Decision. Instead, this was very landlocked which made this a very different movie: one that I liked better.
Why I Wish I Hadn't: I don't think I like Wesley Snipes, because I kept watching this the way that I watch something with Kanye West: I assume he's there because of his name recognition and so much that's in the movie is to service his ego. Like when he's getting frisked at the airport by the attractive security guard. Why is that there?
Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend
The Pitch: The Rock is a tough football player with a long lost daughter who cutes up his life.
How I Came Into It: I kind of love this weird sub-genre: The "tough guy gets funny" movie. It's that thing when action movie stars take on a family movie to round out their fan base. Some dip into it once, like Vin Deisel in The Pacifier. Others get very comfortable in it, like Arnold Schwatzenegger. The Rock, I'm sorry, Dwayne Johnson, is somewhere in the middle because he's never shied away from the comedies, but family films are not as common for him. Regardless, I've learned to set a low bar for these by the nature of them not setting a high bar for themselves.
Why I Saw It: (Club 50) The Rock Dwayne Johnson is a solid comedic actor. He knows how to play up a scene for laughs and he does good work with Madison Pettis, who is a capable child actor. I'm rarely going to laud a child actor more than that. More than I expected, the emotional beats got to me. Dead mother is a cheap move. It's emotional manipulation, and I saw it coming, but dammit, it worked. Having the daughter with The Rock Johnson for a full month, rather than a couple days even made him missing her feel plausible.
Why I Wish I Hadn't: It almost goes without saying the none of the jokes really landed with me. And, if I'm being discerning here, there's no way someone doesn't try to collect child support from an MVP-level NFL quarterback. That's not even a greed thing. That's a "taking care of your child as best as you can" thing. That's a qualm for a "bar set high" movie though. This movie though is exactly what it needed to be.
Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend
The Pitch: Let's tell a story about persecuted witches from the witches' perspective.
How I Came Into It: I knew it starred Sandra Bullock and Nicole Kidman from a much less prestige period in their careers and little else.
Why I Saw It: (Club 50) 90s Bullock is as likable as you get (The only real competition is 2000s Bullock). Some people really hate Kidman. I really like her when she isn't trying so hard. Drama's fine, but she does well with lighter fare too. This is a pretty low stakes story, so as long as it stays moderately entertaining, I don't need much more.
Why I Wish I Hadn't: I know this is based on a book, and I get the feeling that the tone of the book didn't fully translate here. I wasn't sure what kind of movie I was watching: comedy, romance, drama. I'm not saying the movie needs to stick to a single genre, but I do need to know how to approach it and I had a hard time finding the entry point. It doesn't help that I saw Bewitched not long before this and that's a Nicole Kidman witch movie that had a much clearer sense of what it was.
Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend
The Pitch: What would you do if Denzel Washington was an angel sent down from heaven? Fall in love with him, right?
How I Came Into It: I really hadn't ever heard of this movie before and had no idea what it was about. This Club 50 project has really highlighted how much of a box office draw Denzel Washington has been for a long time and how many of his movies I haven't seen.
Why I Saw It: (Club 50) This movie is so likable at times that it hurts. Denzel hams it up and has a great time doing it. This is the most I've liked Whitney Houston in anything (the memory of Waiting to Exhale still has me soured on her). Even having the kid narrator didn't manage to annoy me by the end. The kid is so damn endearing that's it's hard to hate him.
Why I Wish I Hadn't: I'm a little confused why this had to turn into a sort of romance. What began as a straight-up parable nearly became City of Angels by the end. I'm still not sure that I understand why the kid is the only one who remembers any of this though.
Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend
The Pitch: Based on the musical that's based on Motown, but not really, but it totally is.
How I Came Into It: I remember Dreamgirls as an awards player, less for its victories (Jennifer Hudson for Supporting Actress, Sound Mixing) than its losses (Eddie Murphy for Supporting Actor, Best Song despite three nominations) and outright snubs (Best Picture, Director).
Why I Saw It: (Club 50) That's some good music. Especially with the amount of time it has to cover, this does a great job keeping the energy up and never going too long without a musical number. It doesn't try at all to hide the fact that the characters are stand-ins for Berry Gordy, Diana Ross, and others, which I kind of like. The nominated performances were the best ones in the movie. Jennifer Hudson and Eddie Murphy are a level above the rest of the cast.
Why I Wish I Hadn't: I think anyone who complains about Anne Hathaway winning for Les Miserables because of one song has to agree too that Hudson didn't deserve her win either then (and at least Hathaway had years of support from Rachel Getting Married and Brokeback Mountain propelling her forward). While Eddie Murphy is solid here, he also never should've considered himself a frontrunner in his category. Quite frankly, this whole movie reeks of award desperation.
Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend
