Movie Reaction: Get Hard

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

Movie Reaction: The Divergent Series: Insurgent

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

Delayed Reaction: K-9

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

Movie Reaction: Cinderella

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

Delayed Reaction: Eragon

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

Delayed Reaction: Passenger 57

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

Delayed Reaction: The Game Plan

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

Delayed Reaction: Practical Magic

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

Delayed Reaction: The Preacher's Wife

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

Delayed Reaction: Dreamgirls

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

Movie Reaction: Chappie

Formula: District 9 + RoboCop + Short Circuit

Why I Saw It: There's not a lot of completely original SciFi out there worth watching.

Cast: Neill Blomkamp good luck charm, Sharlto Copley does good work as Chappie. The fact that I often forgot that I was watching motion capture is a credit to how he played Chappie and, of course, the animators who brought Chappie to life. If nothing else, that makes the movie worth seeing. Dev Patel, Hugh Jackman, and an underused Sigourney Weaver represent the corporate side of things. South African hip hip artists Ninja and Yo-Landi Visser are the street view for Chappie. No one particularly blew me away.

Plot: It's a little scattered. Slightly in the future, Scout bots are developed and deployed in Johannesburg to combat crimes and supplement the police force. Deon (Patel), the creator of the Scouts, develops a program that can give a bot consciousness. Yolandi and Ninja are small time crooks who abduct Deon as he uploads the program to his first Scout, creating Chappie, and take ownership of Chappie, training him to commit crimes for them. Vincent (Jackman) is a jealous co-worker of Deon's who wants to get his own bot used instead of the Scouts. He's onto what Deon is doing early and wants to use it to bring him down. You see, Deon's boss (Weaver) isn't too keen on his idea of giving consciousness to the machines (And who could blame her?). From that, the movies goes in several directions.

Elephant in the Room: It sounds like the robotics company is playing pretty fast and loose? The security is atrocious for the company that makes the Scout bots, so much so that I don't even think it was an oversight in the script. The only way for any of this movie to work is if the security for the company is on par with a temp. agency. Apparently, any employee can enter and leave any area, get any equipment, or arrive at any hour, with no security officers questioning anything. Way too much of this movie falls apart if you pick at this, which is a sign of a weak script. This shouldn't surprise me though. I had similar issues with Elysium. Blomkamp chooses to ignore actual human nature and instead have people act in ways that fit the story he wants to tell. It's just bad writing.

To Sum Things Up:
Chappie wants to be a lot of movies. It's Short Circuit in that we follow Chappie as he learns how to be "alive". It's Robocop in that we have the machines being used to enforce the laws of men. It's District 9 in that it's about people's prejudice against outsiders. It's Amadeus in that Vincent is always a step or two behind Deon. I'm bothered by how the beats of the story are so similar to Blomkamp's previous movies (District 9 and Elysium) and to diminished returns. This movie doesn't get me thinking in ways that I haven't before, which is not how I was supposed to come away from that movie. On the other side of things, it's a pretty boring action movie too. The things that I like about this movie (the motion capture, the South African setting, the development of Chappie's character) are not enough to make up for the lack of focus and holes in the story.

Verdict (?): Strongly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Madea Goes to Jail

The Pitch: Madea goes to jail...and some other stuff happens.

How I Came Into It: I really do try to not hate things blindly, so I'm going through and making sure there aren't any gems hidden in the Tyler Perry catalog.

Why I Saw It: (Club 50) There's...I mean...Madea is a fun character. In a more straight-comedy, something like Madea's Witness Protection, she plays very well.

Why I Wish I Hadn't: Subtlety is not Tyler Perry's strong suit, in comedy or drama, which the movie has in equal and incohesive measure. The title is pretty misleading given how little of the movie is spent with Madea in jail. The villains are so extreme that it kills the authenticity of the more emotional moments (i.e. it tries to shift between being in a cartoon world and a real world, negating both). And, like, no one has an issue with the fact that Madea staight-up should be in jail for the rest of her life, given all her felonies. How can you expect me to laugh that off and also take the stuff with Keshia Knight Pulliam seriously?

Verdict (?): Strongly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: The Burbs

The Pitch: You know that weird house on your street growing up? What if there really was something strange going on in there?

How I Came Into It: This is definitely one of those movies that everyone has fond opinions of while never being called a favorite. I had numerous people tell me this one was good and no one tell me why.

Why I Saw It: (Club 50) Tom Hanks is the ideal everyman. We can all agree on this by now. I like how limited the movie is. It's just in the neighborhood where no one seems to have a job to go to and everyone can waste way too much time worrying about one another. It's a weird, entertaining slice of Americana

Why I Wish I Hadn't: Am I the only one who wanted this to go in a more straightforward direction and have the neighbors not be up to anything nefarious, so Ray and the others completely ruin the Klopeks' lives by exploding their house out of sheer bored paranoia?

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Journey to the Center of the Earth

The Pitch: It'll be a modern 3-D take on the well known story, except most theaters won't have 3-D showings because it's 2007 and Avatar hasn't made that kind of thing super profitable yet.

How I Came Into It: It's a movie that earned $100 million but never did better than third on any weekend. It did well quietly which is fitting of its star, Brendan Fraser, who was in the middle of a last-ditch effort to make it back on the A-list.

Why I Saw It: (Club 50) It's a movie with a lot of sense of fun. It's not trying to be smart, or deep, or layered, or ever remarkable in any way. It's in that weird category of action movies you can watch while folding your laundry (which is precisely what I did) and lose almost nothing from it. It's like the Burn Notice of movies, and I love Burn Notice. Brendan Fraser is singular screen presence in that I can't think of anyone to replace him with for the same effect. It's also fun to be reminded of a pre-Hunger Games Josh Hutcherson.

Why I Wish I Hadn't: Did I mention how quietly it succeeded? It's a kitschy movie. It plays like counter-programming and never like the main attraction. It was CG-heavy to service the 3D which hasn't allowed it to age very well. I'd complain about the science of it, but it so clearly doesn't care that it would be a pointless criticism.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

March Movie Preview

February was fun, wasn't it? All the best picture nominees still floating around. The studios released a lot of delayed-productions, strategically placed films, and risky ventures resulting in a damn strong month. I'm just going to go ahead and say that March will be a little deflated. There's a lot of room to exceed expectations, but going in, it's not looking like there will be anything special. Then again, the "special" movies are often the ones you don't see coming, so who knows?

Before I get to that, a little bookkeeping is in order. I'm going to change things up a little. I'm going to do away with the Lock status and Odds I'll See a movie. Recently, the Locks have been unreliable as of late (Hot Tub Time Machine 2, anyone?). The odds have never made sense. They are completely made up and unreliable anyway. Instead, I'm going to try out a more broad "Interest Level". I'm not sure If I'll standardize it at some point (or how). For now, I'll try to keep it simple. As always though, each week I will order things from most to least likely to see.

2015

Jan | Feb  

2014

Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec

2013

Mar |  Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec

3/6

Chappie
Working For It: From writer/director Neill Blomkamp, of District 9 fame, this is the story of a robot in a not too distant future who learns how to think and feel (Not unlike Short Circuit). It's a neat, somewhat familiar idea, that looks to have a lot of the things that made District 9 so appealing. Hugh Jackman, Sigourney Weaver, and Dev Patel lead a good cast.
Working Against It: Blomkamp is also of Elysium fame. Where the Apartheid commentary of District 9 was well done, the 99% commentary of Elysium was nonsense in its handling. I like that Blomkamp has ideas like this on his mind, but his record is spotty enough to give me pause.
Interest Level: Cautiously very curious.

Unfinished Business
Working For It: Vince Vaughn, Dave Franco, and Tom Wilkinson are a small company looking to finish a big deal in Europe. From there, hijinks ensue. It's a simple enough premise. Those three are a ideal Odd Couple (Odd Trio?) grouping. It's like the idea for The Internship was adapted by the Eurotrip guys and given the freedom of an R-rating.
Working Against It: The ads for it are ubiquitous enough that if I heave to hear Dave Franco say "I've never been on a business trip before", I'm going to lose it. In that respect, there is a "trying too hard" element to the promotion of it that leaves me wondering what they are trying to hide. The director is famous for Delivery Man, with Vaughn, which was just a remake of a French-Canadian movie he made, so I don't know what to expect behind the camera. Lately, I've been getting played out on Vaughn as a lead comedic presence. I don't dislike him. I just haven't seen anyone try something new with him in a while.
Interest Level: Low, but willing to change with good word of mouth.

The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel
Working For It: Returning Maggie Smith, Judi Dench, Bill Nighy, and Dev Patel (big week for him) and bringing in Richard Gere, this is a sequel to the quite 2011 counter-programming hit. I remember the word "charming" being used a lot regarding the first movie and it's not the kind of franchise I expect to change much in that regard.
Working Against It: It's a pleasant looking movie of which I'm far out of the target demographic. I can go ahead and say that there's no chance I'll have seen the first movie before this comes out, which is likely to prevent me from seeing this.
Interest Level: Slight, with too much otherwise hindering it.

No Escape
Working For It: Luke Wilson and Lake Bell are an American family abroad trying to stay alive amidst a coup that puts non-natives in danger. Pierce Brosnan is in there, although I'm not sure if he's an ally or the villain. It's from the people who made Quarantine, and I did like that movie.
Working Against It: I don't know much about it. I've seen no advertisements for it. The cast looks like it's made up of whoever was available at the time. It's less that I think it will be bad, and more that I think it will be wholly unremarkable.
Interest Level: About as small as the theater count and box office returns for this will be.

3/13

Cinderella
Working For It: Disney is back with another live-action adaptation/retelling/reimagining of a classic story. I can't fault their effort from the look of things. Kenneth Brannaugh is directing. The cast is filled with names both familiar (Helena Bonham Carter, Cate Blanchett), less familiar (Hayley Atwell, Holliday Granger), and familiar mainly to fans of the right shows (Lily James, Richard Madden). It's certain to be a pretty movie with a hundred million dollar sheen on it.
Working Against It: Disney has been dipping into this live-action well for a while. At best (Maleficent) they've been fine. At worst (Alice in Wonderland) they've been not awful. They have yet to produce a great movie out of these and one begins to wonder if they will only serve to tarnish the brand down the line.
Interest Level: Very interested but worried.

Run All Night
Working For It: Liam Nesson has to kill a bunch of people to protect his family. Unlike some of his similar movies, it looks like they hired a real cast around him, including Ed Harris, Vincent D'Onofrio, Joel Kinnaman, and Genesis Rodriguez. It's impressive how many of these movies he can churn out per year.
Working Against It: I wonder why Nesson is so committed to making this kind of movie. He can't need the money. Is no one offering him any other roles? Is he just having a lot of fun making these? Whatever the reason may be, the marketing for this one isn't trying very hard, relying on the same Taken strategy (advertise only one scene and hope it's enough to get people's interest) to greatly diminished effect. Also, it's from the director of Non-Stop. I hated Non-Stop.
Interest Level: After Non-Stop and Taken 3, almost none.

3/20

Insurgent
Working For It: It's the sequel to last year's Divergent. Shailene Woodley is back. That's enough for me. The first movie left off on a good cliffhanger so it's ridiculous to assume I won't be back. A supporting cast including Miles Teller, Kate Winslet, and Naomi Watts is just gravy.
Working Against It: Not a whole lot. I am getting tired of all these Young Adult dystopia adaptations. Divergent was in the upper-tier of those though. Unless this one falls off a cliff, narratively speaking, then I'm in until the end.
Interest Level: Highly interested

The Gunman
Working For It: Starring Sean Penn, Idris Elba, and Javier Bardem. It's a crime thriller in which Penn is an army veteran with PTSD traveling through Europe, trying to clear his name. I mean, with those three front and center, it's hard to not be a little curious.
Working Against It: This sounds like the Taken formula on crack. Penn isn't a guarantee of quality. People just tend to forget his questionable projects (This Must Be the Place anyone?). The screenwriter's last movie credit was for The Avengers. No, not that Avengers. This Avengers. The director* is best known for directing Taken, but hasn't done much else. There's a possibility for this to become something of note, albeit remote.
Interest Level: Quite low
*I swear, I wrote the Taken comment before I looked this part up.

Do You Believe?
Working For It: From what I can gather, it's like a religious Love, Actually. It's written by the same guy as God's Not Dead, so you kind of know what to expect. Telling a movie with interlocking narratives is a quic way to my heart and I think it's nice that the religious sub-genre isn't sticking too rigidly to a formula.
Working Against It: Once these movies very directly go into the god stuff, I'll admit that I'm turned off. I'm sorry, but it's true. The cast is weak for a theatrical release. It's a first time director. The screenplay credits of the writer are unremarkable, except, perhaps for God's Not Dead (which no doubt benefited financially from a direct title).
Interest Level: About as low as my desire to go to mass.

3/27

Get Hard
Working For It: Kevin Hart teaches disgraced businessman, Will Ferrell how to be tough before being sent to prison. It's a simple premise with a lot of opportunity for jokes. Ferrell inhabits a specific comedic universe that it looks like Hart is trying to fit into. I'm more than a little exited to see Alison Brie in the credits (how is she not a bigger star by now?).
Working Against It: Sadly, Ferrell has had more misses than hits lately. Hart hasn't connected with me in any of his leading roles yet. I'm open to this being really good, but it has the look of something that starts really funny and ends weak*.
Interest Level: Higher than it should be
* The classic "comedy movie that remembers it has to have a plot in the third act". For good examples of this, watch almost ANY comedy movie ever.

While We're Young
Working For It: Writer/director of Frances Ha and Greenberg, starring Ben Stiller, Naomi Watts, Amanda Seyfried, and Adam Driver (of Girls and soon Star Wars fame). As far as indie movies go, that's great credentials. I don't know a lot about the plot, but it sounds generic enough (a couple with marital problems) that knowing it's from Noah Baumbach tells me most of what I need to know.
Working Against It: It doesn't help that it's certain to have a limited expansion. It'll matter less what I'm scheduled to watch in March than in April or later. I'm not a big enough fan of Baumbach yet that I can't wait to catch it online in some capacity rather than see it immediately.
Interest Level: Pretty high, but not in a "gets me to a theater" way.

Home
Working For It: A Dreamworks movie about an alien from another planet hiding on Earth from his own people. With Jim Parsons as the voice of this alien, Oh, it's hard not to assume he will be lovable. Employing a diverse voice cast including Rihanna, Steve Martin, J-Lo, and Badger Matt Jones, this should be welcome by families to end the animated movie drought of the weeks preceding it.
Working Against It: There's always potential for a How To Train Your Dragon to surprise me, but Dreamworks largely underwhelms me. Often, they have an upside of being "easily watchable" and not much more. The onus is on Home to prove to me that it's anything more, fair or not.
Interest Level: Mildly interested

Serena
Working For It: It's a period piece starring Jennifer Lawrence and Bradley Cooper set in the Great Depression about a man with a timber empire. I'm interested in this based on the strength of the two leads.
Working Against It: I haven't heard of the director. The screenwriter hasn't gotten a script produced in a decade (Alexander, oh boy). Just looking at the posters makes me think this will take itself entirely too seriously.
Interest Level: Tepid and that much is generous.

Delayed Reaction: Muppet Treasure Island

The Pitch: Remember how we did A Christmas Carol with Muppets? Let's do Treasure Island with Muppets.

How I Came Into It: I really don't remember ever seeing this, but I must've. I simply don't see how I would've seen The Muppet Christmas Carol so many times without ever getting around to this. I haven't read Treasure Island. I barely know what it's about. Any knowledge I have of it is probably the original Pirates of the Caribbean ride by mistake.

Why I Saw It: (Club 50) I'm not dead inside, so I like the Muppets. As I also mentioned, I enjoyed The Muppet Christmas Carol, so I could assume this is enjoyable too. Guess what? I was right. The mix of stupid humor, puppets, and Tim Curry as a pirate is a winning combination.

Why I Wish I Hadn't: It's also pretty forgettable, like, to the point that I'm hazy about it only a couple days removed from seeing it. There's a reason why this doesn't top the list of beloved Muppet properties.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Dirty Rotten Scoundrels

The Pitch: Two con men, one a big-timer, the other a small time crook go after the same woman for a big score.

How I Came Into It: I knew nothing about this. I wasn't aware that it starred Michael Caine and Steve Martin. I didn't know it was a Frank Oz movie. I barely knew it was a comedy.

Why I Saw It: (Club 50) Machael Caine playing the straight man to Steve Martin is a pairing that I never thought of before, that works spectacularly. Glenne Headly more than holds her own with them. This is very much of a piece with other Frank Oz movies in the tone and sense of humor. It is not a particularly inspired comedy in any particular way, but boy is it charming.

Why I Wish I Hadn't: Ok, I don't think the big twist fooled anyone. That didn't stop  me from grinning ear to ear when the Jackal returns with yacht of wealthy people at the very end to start a new con. No, the only thing that soured this movie for me was finding out that it was originally developed for Mick Jagger and David Bowie and that is a movie I would've loved to see more.

Verdict (?): Strongly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Here Comes the Boom

The Pitch: "I just watched Warrior and I really think it would work better as a comedy." -Kevin James

How I Came Into It: Kevin James struck gold with Paul Blart Mall Cop, a movie that I still think no one can figure out why exactly it did so well. Zookeeper was a let down, so Boom tried to tap into the fact that James is actually quite the athlete.

Why I Saw It: (Club 50) It was on, I was drunk, I thought it was on my Club 50 list, and I like Kevin James, in theory. Like his other star-vehicles, this is a completely likable movie (I believe that's a requirement of anything featuring Henry Winkler as the third lead). There's a certain tone to these James-written movies that makes them hard to pan. I think it's earnestness. The audience doesn't need to take the movie seriously because the characters will. It's strange.

Why I Wish I Hadn't: The audience doesn't need to take the movie seriously. This is a comedy without any jokes that really landed for me, and despite the earnestness, that didn't translate to me getting emotionally invested. Sometimes "good enough not to hate" also means "bad enough not to love", although saying 'good' or 'bad' doesn't feel right. It's a movie effectively made for different tastes than my own.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

Movie Reaction: Focus

Formula: Ocean's Eleven / Two Can Play That Game

Why I Saw It: A slowly building obsession with Margot Robbie. A too long dormant obsession with Will Smith. A established love of heist movies. A desire to support the directors of Crazy, Stupid Love, my favorite RomCom in a decade. Take your pick.

Cast: Will Smith is back in a leading role in an original movie. I won't bother tracking how long it's been since that happened. Suffice it to say that it's been too long. He's back to his old ways, not far removed from the Hitch character. Margot Robbie is the lead female. She isn't as defined by her onscreen persona, so she gets to craft her own character, and it's a familiar one for the genre. Adrian Martinez gets a memorable supporting role. Veterans Gerald McRaney (House of Cards), Rodrigo Santoro (LOST), BD Wong (Law and Order: SVU), and Brennan Brown round out the cast.

Plot: Nicky (Smith) is a con man. Jess (Robbie) is an aspiring con woman. Nicky decides to take her under his wing and she plays a big part in a weekend of Super Bowl cons, until they ultimately go their separate ways. Fast forward a few years. Nicky is working over a Formula 1 owner in Buenos Aires and discovers that Jess is with him now. She says she's out of the game. He doesn't believe her. Several twists later, The End. In other words, it's a standard heist/con movie.

Elephant in the Room: Is it clever or convoluted? What sets a good heist movie apart from a great one is how well planned it all is. I remember being completely turned off by Now You See Me because the plans were completely ridiculous and relied heavily on luck. Ocean's Eleven, on the other hand, is an all-time favorite, largely due to how well executed the plan is. Focus, is a bit more the former than the latter. Its saving grace is that it admits that plans don't always work as you'd like, and the ability to lie you way out of a corner, however messy, is essential. It doesn't mean the movie isn't bailed out by a little luck a time or two, but it makes it a bit more forgivable than saying "he probably would've done x, so we can base all our planning on that".

To Sum Things Up:
Focus gives the people what they want. There's shirtless Will Smith wise-cracking and acting like a movie star. There's Margot Robbie wearing swimsuits and more than holding her own with Smith. There's several cons and twists that keep you guessing (even if it's the "I'm pretty sure this is where they are going, but I'm not sure" kind). My big issue with it is that it peaks (by a lot) at the end of the first act and nothing in Buenos Aires comes close to that part. As a whole, it still delivers exactly what it promises.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Please Subscribe

The Pitch: Who are the people behind the YouTube personalities.

How I Came Into It: Literally had never heard of this before and it basically started playing on my Netflix after I finished Video Game: The Movie. At that point, I was too lazy to stop it.

Why I Saw It: I know of Drunk Kitchen and she was the opener. By the time her segment was over, I was too far in to stop. The documentary features a good mix of personalities and leaves you feeling like you have a good sense of both the person and the Youtube channel.

Why I Wish I Hadn't: Ok, maybe you don't get a good sense of their channel, because I came away from most of those thinking "Really? She/He makes a living off that? Anyone could do that". Or maybe that's the point... 

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: You're Next

The Pitch: It's a home invasion movie...oh, you need more than that? Ok, it's a kind of fun one. Violent. Guys in masks. Did I mention the home invasion part?

How I Came Into It: I knew it was a kind of horror movie that was better than its plot description and had a high energy.

Why I Saw It: Here's the thing. This belongs in a double feature with Tucker and Dale vs. Evil, not The Purge. Once you remember that, it's a lot of fun. Sharni Vinson as Erin is the perfect "way too good at killing people" heroine to the movie. The movie takes a little while to get going and once it does, it keeps going at that pace until the very end.

Why I Wish I Hadn't: As I said, it takes a little while to get going, and honestly, the plot is never all that interesting. The raw parts of the movie, the characters, the actors, the script, are not that great, but the execution is top notch, so it honestly becomes a question of what you're hoping to get out of it.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend