Delayed Reaction: When a Man Loves a Woman

The Pitch: A couple tries to work through the wife's alcoholism.

How I Came Into It: I really am in that part of my Club 50 project where the movies that are left are either ones I've specifically avoided or I know absolutely nothing about. This is the latter.

Why I Saw It: (Club 50) Meg Ryan is at times very good in this. I don't know how often she's made awards plays like this, but I wouldn't mind discovering a couple more. My primary exposure to Andy Garcia is always going to be the Ocean's movies and it's very hard for me to separate him from Terry Benedict. He does well here too though, once I get past that. What most pleased me though was that the daughters are played by Tina Majorino (Veronica Mars) and Mae Whitman (Parenthood), and Philip Seymour Hoffman shows up too (in a role so small that even he couldn't steal the show with it).

Why I Wish I Hadn't: It goes on too long, first an foremost. There's too long between beats so the story never gains any momentum. So much of the conflict stems from the characters not always acting like people. If the characters would talk like real people then half the conflict, especially in the third act would go away.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

May Movie Preview

That's what I'm talking about!
April wasn't the complete bust I thought it would be. Furious 7 delivered. Unfriended was fun. Ex Machina was better than expected. It was a far cry from overflowing with options though. That's not the case this month. There's one or two movies every week that I'm looking forward to and several of those are the kind that I set my calendar around. This will not be a month for art house cinema I'm sorry to say. It's blockbuster season!

2015

Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr  

2014

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

2013

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

5/1

Avengers: Age of Ultron
Working For It: The first Avengers is the third highest grossing movie of all time, destroyed the opening weekend box office record, cemented the Marvel brand as a force to be reckoned with, and, oh yeah, was a pretty damn good movie. The whole cast of the first is back as well as additions like my favorite Olsen (Elizabeth), Kick-Ass (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), and of course, James Spader as the voice of Voltron, which is not the Voltron I initially assumed it was. Joss Whedon is directing again as well, so that's a big plus.
Working Against It: There's nothing working against this. There's just not. The next movie I'm looking forward to as much as this is Star Wars. Good job Disney!
Interest Level: Highest available

Far from the Madding Crowd [Limited]
Working For It: A Carey Mulligan Victorian period piece about a woman choosing from three suitors is really only on my radar because of that first part: Carey Mulligan. She doesn't do enough movies, so any chance I get to see her is worth considering.
Working Against It: This does not sound like a movie that I'd like much. I haven't seen anything else from the director (notably The Hunt) so I don't know what to expect. This is certain to make a netflix queue of mine in the future. Nothing more.
Interest Level: Much lower than for Avengers

Welcome to Me [Limited]
Working For It: This is a Sundance movie I believe starring Kristen Wiig as a mentally unstable women who wins the lottery and buys her own talk show. It sounds crazy enough to be sneaky good counter programming.
Working Against It: I'm not sure when this would even expand wide enough for me to see it. As a September release, I'd consider it a lot more.
Interest Level: Slight

5/8

Hot Pursuit
Working For It: A road trip buddy cop movie starring Sofia Vergara and Reese Witherspoon as a cop who looks like she belongs in Super Troopers? I mean, sure. Why not? Shockingly, I've seen all of director Anne Fletcher's movies, liking some (The Proposal) more than others (27 Dresses). Wild reminded me how much I love Resse Witherspoon and that's the driving force of my interest in this.
Working Against It: The advertising for this has already started pretty hard. That worries me. It reeks of desperation (anyone remember Unfinished Business a couple months ago?). That could just be me. I'm pretty committed to seeing it already, so it doesn't much matter.
Interest Level: cautious, clear-eyed interest

5/15

Mad Max: Fury Road
Working For It: The trailers make this look like a god-damn masterpiece. With a core cast of Tom Hardy, Charlize Theron, and Nicholas Hoult, I know it won't be lacking in performances I like. This is the Mad Max that George Miller always wanted to make, at least in terms of the budget. There's almost no way this meets the high expectations I have for it, but it sure looks like it's going to try.
Working Against It: I haven't seen any of the original movies. I'm basing a lot of excitement on reputation alone. That's dangerous, but as someone who loved The Matrix Reloaded, it would be fine with me if this is nothing but a bunch of explosions and car crashes with no other aim.
Interest Level: A step below Avengers

Pitch Perfect 2
Working For It: Pitch Perfect was a stealth hit in 2012 and its reputation has only gotten better. Anna Kendrick, Rebel Wilson, Brittany Snow, and virtually everyone else are back. Even if it's just more of the same that's good enough for me.
Working Against It: This is Elizabeth Banks' feature directorial debut (she was a producer for the first movie). That's a bit of a wild-card, but I don't think there's much to worry about there. No, the only concern should be if the alchemy that made the original work can be reproduced or not.
Interest Level: It's reaching a fever pitch.

I'll See You in My Dreams
Working For It: Blythe Danner plays a woman in her 70's who decides to start dating again. Her along with Martin Starr (Silicon Valley), Sam Elliott (any cowboy, ever), Malin Ackerman (Trophy Wife), June Squibb (Nebraska), and Rhea Perlman (Cheers) make for an interesting cast.
Working Against It: Director Brett Haley's only other feature was The New Year in 2010, which I never saw. This is already going to be a busy weekend. I don't imagine I'll have time to fit in this year's over-50 counter programming play.
Interest Level: My interest is on life support

5/22

Tomorrowland
Working For It: This is a movie based of the land in the Magic Kingdom parks. It's directed by Brad Bird (Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, The Incredibles, The Iron Giant). They got George Clooney and Hugh Laurie, among others, on board. I, for one, will have just returned from a trip to Disney World. I don't see a reason to not be excited.
Working Against It: The trailers I've seen still don't really explain what the movie is. Something about an alternate world of retro futurism that needs to be saved. Being based on the land in the Magic Kingdom, there's a concern that the focus is on corporate synergy first, story second. That could be unfounded, but you can't deny that it's there.
Interest Level: Suspiciously high

Poltergeist
Working For It: I'm always up for a good horror movie. Reboots aren't necessarily bad as long as they play for scares more than nostalgia. Sam Rockwell, Rosemarie DeWitt, and Jared Harris are all interesting actors who I've liked in things before.
Working Against It: Any time a horror movie gets a PG-13 rating, that concerns me. It also concerns me how similar this feels to the Insidious movies which are already three movies in.
Interest Level: Frighteningly low

5/29

Aloha
Working For It: It's a Cameron Crowe movie with Bradley Cooper, Emma Stone, Rachel McAdams, John Krasinski, and Bill Murray. I don't even need to know the plot to consider seeing this based on that list. As far as I know, the plot is something about a military officer returning to a Hawaiian base for some publicity thing. That's as much of a spine of a story as Crowe needs.
Working Against It: We're ready to forgive Elizabethtown by now, right? It wasn't even that bad. It was too listless, that's all. Aloha runs the same risk though. Crowe likes gentle pacing in his movies. When it works, it's great. When it doesn't it kind of meanders forever and mercifully ends. Right now, it's hard to tell where this will fall.
Interest Level: Very curious about it

San Andreas
Working For It: It's a big ass disaster movie starring Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson. What more do you need to know? That's either the selling point or the nail in the coffin.
Working Against It: This is director Brad Peyton's first not sequel feature, and Journey 2: The Mysterious Island and Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore don't inspire much confidence. I'm expecting The Day After Tomorrow here, not Independence Day. That's the important piece of this: expectations.
Interest Level: Low, through no fault of its own.

Movie Reaction: Ex Machina

Formula: Under the Skin + A.I. Artificial Intelligence

Why I Saw It: The preview looked interesting and the casting was on point.

Cast: Essentially, it's a three person cast. I love Domhnall Gleeson from About Time. I love Oscar Isaac from Inside Llewyn Davis. I liked Alicia Vikander's work in Anna Karenina, even if I didn't love the movie. I know what all three are capable of and they stepped up to the challenge with this one.

Plot: Caleb (Gleeson) wins a contest that sends him to a remote research facility of billionaire genius Nathan (Isaac). Caleb is assigned to test the A.I. of a robot, built by Nathan called Ava (Vikander). Rather quickly into this, Caleb realizes two things: 1) Nathan isn't telling him everything and 2) Ava is one hot robot. It's a slow burn story and it doesn't try to do too much in the relatively short run time. I can say that it ending up surprising me and also going where I expected at the end. I'm still not sure how that happened.

Elephant in the Room: But is there any dancing? Of course there's a dancing scene! All I can say about it is that it comes out of nowhere, cuts the tension better than just about anything I've seen in a movie, and is pretty glorious. Oscar Isaac's got some moves.

To Sum Things Up:
I liked this movie a lot. It's simple. The story is clear and interesting. The actors are all doing good work. It ends up feeling a little familiar by the end, but it has a couple good gut punches that kept me engaged regardless. It's rather violent at times and it has some pretty stark nudity. I guess that should be noted. Beyond that, I can't think of any big deterrents about the movie. Don't let the slick visuals confuse you. This is a SciFi movie but with a more meticulous, indie movie feel. Kind of like the inverse-Avengers: Age of Ultron.

Verdict (?): Strongly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer

The Pitch: The first movie made enough that we need to have a sequel, even if we don't have any ideas for it.

How I Came Into It: I remember seeing the first movie and thinking that it was the closest to pure "by the numbers" superhero movie making it gets. The cast was right. The characters and conflict were there. It felt like it was there out of requirement more than anything. Part of this is unfair hindsight from a Marvel Cinematic Universe present where it's all big picture as opposed to the "one movie at a time" world when it was made.

Why I Saw It: (Club 50) I really do like the Fantastic Four casting for these movies. Chris Evans needed to get this out of his system before becoming Captain America. I'm just not going to protest Jessica Alba no matter how much of a non-character she's given. Michael Chiklis is smart casting. I still don't know where Ioan Gruffudd came from or where he's been since, but I assume it's the same factory that Brandon Routh was developed in. Where Dark Knight was dark, Spider-Man was camp, and X-Men was political, Fantastic Four tried to be the light-hearted franchise. Oh, and I should also mention that supporting actors Kerry Washington, Andre Braugher, and Laurence Fishburne makes for the best TV cast of 2015.

Why I Wish I Hadn't: I'm not sure how, but a movie about the world being destroyed didn't feel like it had any stakes. It takes way too long for anything non-wedding to happen, and when something does happen, it's all an afterthought. The Surfer shows up and spends almost no time as the bad guy. I'm pretty sure this is the closest I've ever come to watching a movie where the antagonist was a Macguffin. Seriously, I have no idea what they were fighting or why Johnny Storm had to take everyone's powers. It's very clear why they opted to reboot this.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Sommersby

The Pitch: It wasn't the pitch at the time, but I'm going to go ahead and sell it as "A Civil War veteran pulls a Seymour Skinner/Don Draper with an aim for redemption".

How I Came Into It: Luckily, I knew nothing about this. I even avoided the Netflix blurb. I didn't know who was in it or what time period it was set in. There's a certain thrill to being about to say "Is that Richard Gere?" when a movie begins.

Why I Saw It: (Club 50) This is a really interesting idea. I've liked it on The Simpsons and Mad Men (or the excellent documentary The Imposter) and it's even more plausible here with the amount of time and the time period. Richard Gere and Jodie Foster are very solid in this and really sell the emotion of the characters.

Why I Wish I Hadn't: I wasn't a huge fan of the angle they chose for this. Sommersby is pretty much a saint. He has no believable darkness left in him and that makes the overall debate kind of boring. As a result, I wasn't nearly as engaged by the trial as I should've been. The movie really does get bonus points for my lack of awareness of it allowing me to be genuinely surprised once or twice.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Mo Money

The Pitch: Think, The Secret to My Success but played by a Wayans brother.

How I Came Into It: Pretty blindly. Here's the thing about Damon Wayans that I've learned from several seasons of My Wife and Kids: he's likable. No matter what he's doing, I'm going to like that he's the one on camera.

Why I Saw It: (Club 50) I was surprised by how direct and simple the movie was. Wayans likes a girl, gets a job to work with her, commits some credit card fraud, cons his way out of it, happy ending. No, it didn't actually make me laugh, but I like Wayans and whichever brother he got to show up (Marlon). Pre-Clueless Stacy Dash is there too. I'd certainly watch it again.

Why I Wish I Hadn't: At the same time, I won't go out of my way to watch it again either. The aim of the movie looks to be comedy, so not laughing at it isn't a good thing. It's a little hard to root for Damon Wayans' character when you really think about it, which only affirms the wiseness of the casting decision.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Out for Justice

The Pitch: Take the Steven Seagal movie formula (and believe me, by his fourth movie there was a formula) and make him a Brooklyn cop.

How I Came Into It: I'm only recently becoming acquainted with Seagal's movies having never had a reason to seek them out before this list. I think there is an importance to seeing these movies to understand what was trending at that time in movies.

Why I Saw It: (Club 50) Seagal has some good moves and he certainly likes to show them off. Part of me can't help but appreciate how transparent his movies are both in why he wants to make them and how he tries to play the characters. And, there is a puppy. No matter what else happens there is a puppy, although I can't think of a more obvious way to try to trick an audience into caring about a character. The dog adds nothing to the plot. It's there only to soften Seagal.

Why I Wish I Hadn't: I'm going about seeing Seagal's movies in the wrong way, watching them out of order and often edited for TV. The latter is especially a problem since the super violence is what he's about. I am a firm believer that the cream always rises though. Even bad cuts of good movies work well enough to make me want to seek them out otherwise. I will not be seeing this again. Seagal is simply too limited as an actor to carry my attention, the story is too heightened to be tenable, and the action scenes did little for me. I still have a number of Seagal movies left on my list, so this is only going to get rougher.

Verdict (?): Strongly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Flushed Away

The Pitch: A house rat becomes a sewer rat...and  it's British.

How I Came Into It: There's that awful title. That's most of what I knew. Then there were the immediate Ratatouille comparisons. That wasn't going to work in its favor.

Why I Saw It: (Club 50) I like Aradman Animation in theory. There's not a lot of animation that makes its way to the U.S. from other countries in a big way, so the Dreamworks deal was nice. I can't remember the last movie with a climax revolving around a soccer game. There's some good jokes peppered in and the soundtrack is pretty good (Nice to hear some Dandy Warhols).

Why I Wish I Hadn't: I like Aradman Animation in theory. I don't prefer the movies I've seen of theirs (although I need to see Curse of the Were Rabbit still). I'll admit, I set a higher bar for animation. They have to be VERY good for me to think much more of them than watchable.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

Movie Reaction: Unfriended

Past Movie Reactions

Formula: That One Episode of Modern Family * I Know What You Did Last Summer

Why I Saw It: This is in my horror sweet spot. Young, attractive people. Some sort of found footage gimmick. A blender. C'mon. You had me at blender.

Cast: As works best with most found footage movies, I didn't recognize anyone in the cast. Ok, I knew Renee Olstead from back in her Still Standing days but she's nearly unrecognizable (puberty will do that). The gimmick of the movie masks a lot of the acting. Any of the actors could be giving Oscar-worthy performances (they weren't) and it would've been hard to tell through the webcams. I think there's a girl from Teen Wolf (Shelley Hennig) who is the most likely draw here. She's essentially the lead (it's her computer we see) and she's fine throughout. Again, no one is going to impress you.

Plot: Six friends in high school get on a video chat one night. A year ago, that day, a classmate committed suicide after an embarrassing video of her was posted online. They have varying levels of involvement in what went down before her death. There's a mysterious person in the chat who they can't get rid of, signed into the account of the dead classmate. You've seen a horror movie before, so you know the rest. Ghosts. Revenge. Reveals. Death. The story assumes that just because the characters are on screen though that we're supposed to care about them. That's problematic. The movie doesn't give me a reason to care about any of the characters. It also fails to make them awful enough to root for their demise. They're just characters on the screen and I'm not even sure why the spirit of the dead girl [oops...spoiler alert?] is going after more than two or three of them.

Elephant in the Room: 80 minutes on a computer monitor? I'm going to use the word 'gimmick' a lot because that's what the movie is. A different way to look at it is it's an experiment. Whatever word you use for it, the goal was to tell a story through a computer screen. That's a tough thing to do and they do it as well as could be reasonably hoped. The main girl, Blaire (whose computer we're watching) moves between Facebook, video chats, web searches, and all that in a way that seems natural enough and drives the story. The main drawback is that the director relies too heavily on the same tricks. Specifically, the webcams cut out or lag at especially tense moments too much. A few times is fine, but it leans on that same trick every time it needs something to be scary. There's also the limitation of needing to follow everything on the screen. Unlike subtitles, there's things to read all over the screen and more than once, I missed some valuable information because they didn't keep it on the screen long enough to notice it. The gimmick of the movie is a hard one to pull off.

Movie Theater LVP (Least Valuable Patron): The guy who made comments to his girlfriend at normal volume throughout the movie? Yeah, you know all those people who started clearing their throats after you started talking? That wasn't an accident.

To Sum Things Up:
This needs to have one of two things: good writing or good direction. It either needs to be populated with characters that I'm invested in with a smart story or it needs to be told in a visual way that keeps me at the edge of my seat and scared (preferably more as the movie continues). Ideally, it would have both, but at least one is needed to bolster the other. This lacked either. It was at times fun and in the beginning, there's a real tension to it that had me wondering what kind of craziness I was about to see. The scares stopped being effective when they got lazy with the tricks and I never developed a reason to care about the characters. This movie fell short of being anything other than another disposable horror movie.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Halloween H20: 20 Years Later

The Pitch: It'll be Halloween, 20 years later. Seriously? How did you not get that from the title.

How I Came Into It: I have something to admit. It's a little shameful but I feel safe here amongst my faithful Stumble button pressers and people who haven't figured out how to take me off their Facebook news feed. I haven't seen Halloween. Any of them. I'm not sure how that's happened and ideally, I would've gotten to the originals first rather than starting with this pseudo-reboot of the franchise.

Why I Saw It: (Club 50) Halloween is rightfully an iconic horror franchise. Michael Meyers is one of the great antagonists. You better believe that when the Halloween music started playing, I got chills. Jamie Lee Curtis had a big enough career by the time this movie came out that her return wasn't simply for continuity (unlike, say, putting Ralph Machio in a Karate Kid movie would be). The younger cast has some gems like Oscar nominee Michelle Williams, "one of these days we'll find the project to make him an A-lister" Josh Hartnett, and even "that girl from those 90s teen movies" Jodi Lyn O'Keefe. It's so short too - not even 90 minutes - that it's over before it can get tedious. 

Why I Wish I Hadn't: All the things that people normally complain about horror movies still apply. Characters continually make dumb decisions. Everyone is always sneaking up on everyone else. The fakeouts. All that. Also, since they are trying to service both the old generation (Curtis) and the new (the kids), the whole thing feels pretty limited. I feel like the body count should've been higher, right? I should've started from the beginning rather than this. They didn't gain any points by killing off Joseph Gordon Levitt off in the beginning either.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Just Cause

The Pitch: A "wrongfully accused" story for someone who's not wrongfully accused.

How I Came Into It: I had to repeatedly check the title of the movie while I was watching it, so that tells you how familiar I was with it.

Why I Saw It: (Club 50) If not for the run time of the movie, I don't think I would've expected the twist about Ferguson being guilty after all (as is, when he's found innocent with 30 minutes left, you start to assume some things). I completely changed my opinion of Lawrence Fishburne's Sheriff Tanny Brown by the end: a reaction that was designed. There's a young Scarlett Johansson too, so that's fun. It took my roommate to recognize her though.

Why I Wish I Hadn't: Am I the only one who found Sean Connery slightly-to-way too old for his part? 23 years older than his wife. 54 years old when ScarJo was born. Good for him, I guess. Whatever. I kind of lost track of some of the twists partly because Ed Harris' character was more confusing than crazy. And, I may be missing some of the specifics of the situation, but Connery and Fishburne finding the knife so long after the investigation is due to policework so shoddy, that it's a stretch for even that town.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Snow Dogs

The Pitch: There's this Gary Paulsen book about the Iditarod that I think would make a great comedy starring...who's available?....Cuba Gooding Jr!

How I Came Into It: I saw Eight Below. That's, like the same thing, right? Both about sled dogs, both made by Disney. I'm pretty sure they even used some of the same dogs. Cuba Gooding Jr. has spent the better part of his post-Oscar career making head scratching choices for roles and this gets lost in the list of Boat Ships and Daddy Day Camps.

Why I Saw It: (Club 50) If you are going to make a stupid movie, own up to it. Snow Dogs does just that. It's very slapstick. The plot is simple and straightforward. The cast is aware that they are playing for kids here and doesn't belabor anything. I even learned a little (very little) about dog sledding.

Why I Wish I Hadn't: It is a stupid movie. Knowing that it is only makes it more tolerable. And, I'm sorry, I still can't get over this being inspired by a Gary Paulsen book. Now I can't stop imagining Rob Schneider in Dogsong, or Hatchet, starring Corbin Bleu. Thanks for that, Disney.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Journey 2: The Mysterious Island

The Pitch: Jules Verne wrote a bunch of books. Throw a dart at the list and make a sequel.

How I Came Into It: I only recently saw the first movie. It was a very quiet hit in 2008. Josh Hucherson was still a couple months away from Hunger Games superfame and The Rock already had a reputation for breathing new life into franchises. At the very least, I expected this to be about as good as the first movie: not a high bar set.

Why I Saw It: (Club 50) There's much worse ideas than making movies that are essentially Jules Verne fan fiction. That's an immediate plus. Swapping out Brendan Fraser for The Rock fits the movie better, although Fraser pulled off the emotional beats better. It was smart to expand out the cast too. Three people wasn't enough. Luis Guzman comes in and does what he needs and it's hard for me to complain about Vanessa Hudgens being on screen. Michael Caine was just gravy midway through. This is definitely a series I wouldn't be irritated to see get another sequel (which is good, because they are making one).

Why I Wish I Hadn't: Likable and easy to watch isn't the same as strong and engaging. It's a wacky story that I think kids would enjoy and parents wouldn't suffer through. And with the bar set low, as I previously mentioned, that's as much of a success as I could've hoped for.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

Movie Reaction: Home

Past Movie Reactions

Formula: Independence Day / (WALL-E * Mars Needs Moms)

Why I Saw It: I literally showed up to a movie theater and picked the next showing of a movie I hadn't seen. Sorry Lady in Gold and It Follows.

[Voice] Cast: Jim Parsons has a distinctive and lively voice that is perfect for animation*. Rihanna (who, by the way, I've managed to see all of the movies she's been in, mostly by accident) lends herself well to the role. I didn't feel like the animators were trying too hard to work around her (Bruno Mars was a bird Bruno Mars in Rio 2. Rihanna was just a random teenage girl). It took me a while to remember that that was even her doing the voice. I get the feeling that Steve Martin lives for voicing characters like the one in Home. Captain Smek is virtually an extension of his Jerk character. Other than Jennifer Lopez and Matt Jones (Badger from Breaking Bad), Dreamworks didn't feel the need to over-stuff this with voice talent, much to its benefit.

*Somewhere, there better be an animation studio working on a project with Jack McBrayer and Jim Parsons called "No, You Go First" that is 90 minutes of the two nicest people both insisting on holding the door for the other person.

Plot: The Boov are an advanced but cowardly species who move from planet to planet to escape their enemies, the Gorg. Their latest home is a little planet called Earth. So, they round up all the humans, move them to Australia, and inhabit the rest of the planet. Oh (Parsons) is a Boov who is disliked by all the other Boovs and accidentally sends a message informing the Gorg where they all are. He goes into hiding and meets a girl, Tip (Rihanna) who was missed by the Boov and is trying to reunite with her mother. They form a friendship and you know the rest, even if you don't know the details of each beat.

Elephant in the Room: What, how do the Boov take over the entire planet? And are there really enough of them to fill the planet? Their technology makes no sense and... Slow down. This is a silly movie, not to be examined closely at all in that way. It has a good heart to it, but don't expect to understand anything about the invasion. It doesn't make sense.

To Sum Things Up:
This is a sweet little movie. Parsons' voice work is the lovable heart of it all. The other voice actors work around him well (not to suggest that he is overbearing as opposed to a lead worth building around). The animation is fine by today's standards, but not exceptional by any measure. There was a moment at the end of the movie that got me a little choked up, so that speaks to its effectiveness. I'm not going to recommend this to everyone I see, but there's a lot worse animated movies out there. 

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Wrath of the Titans

The Pitch: $163,214,888.

How I Came Into It: I saw Clash of the Titans. I remember getting the DVD from Netflix. I remember being in my room, having it on, and looking at the screen. It was an afternoon and I wasn't drinking or falling asleep. Yet, I don't remember anything about it. Outside of Alice in Wonderland, no mediocre movie benefited from the post-Avatar 3D craze like Clash of the Titans. I thought I'd already seen this movie but that turned out to be Immortals.

Why I Saw It: (Club 50) Who doesn't love a little Greek Mythology fan fiction on occasion? And, this wasn't as egregious a take on it as the first movie, so there's that. The action is big and loud and busy and constant and expensive-looking. I loved the addition of Rosamund Pike too, especially if I pretend she's Amazing Amy the whole time. How many more movies before we get a Roman or Norse Gods crossover?

Why I Wish I Hadn't: Much like the first movie, I spend most of this not know and not caring what was going on. It has a specific look and style, but that doesn't mean I liked it. The action was too hectic most of the time to get into.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Flatliners

The Pitch: Pretty people resurrect themselves, but they're still pretty people when they come back. No worries.

How I Came Into It: I don't even remember hearing about this in passing. It's one of those movies where the summary now begins with "Featuring an all star cast" that isn't one of the movies that any of the actors are most associated with (i.e. You'll never hear "Julia Roberts, from Flatliners). I assumed that there was a reason for that while also remembering that there are hidden gems sometimes (such as Dead Again).

Why I Saw It: (Club 50) The idea of finding out what's on the other side of life is ripe with potential, mostly as a horror movie (What comes back with you?). Mix that in was a good cast (Keifer Sutherland, Julia Roberts, Kevin Bacon, Oliver Platt, and even a Baldwin) and at times this is a very fun movie. And, any movie that has a scene with a little girl unleashing a string of profanity like the one in this has my respect.

Why I Wish I Hadn't: From the perspective of movie critique, I wish this would've moved more toward horror than thriller because there's a deeply unsettling movie here that I could have a tough time shaking [as a horror movie]. Instead, by going for thrills, there's too much of an attempt to explain everything and leave it close-ended which leads to some of the more insane plot points. From the perspective of even pseudo-science, well, come on, this is stupid. Would defibrillators even work when the body is out for that long? I assume this is one of those movies in which people too close to the actual science of it all can't  watch it.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: City Slickers II: The Legend of Curly's Gold

The Pitch: Remember all the fun of City Slickers? Let's do it again in functionally the same way.

How I Came Into It: I'm fond of the first movie. It's not a favorite or anything. It's a reminder of why I like Billy Crystal and it has a great sense of fun. I can't blame anyone for wanting to make a second movie, even if the premise was exhausted by the first movie.

Why I Saw It: (Club 50) Billy Crystal is still amiable as ever. Daniel Stern, there's someone you just don't see much anymore. It's good to bring him back. From Bruno Kirby to Jon Lovitz is a lateral move at best, but the shakeup keeps things fresh. I liked the ending, as unsurprising as it was. Let me clarify. I didn't see it coming that it was all part of a Wild West vacation package. I did figure they'd find the real gold. This is perfectly good filler.

Why I Wish I Hadn't: Here's a question I've been asking myself more and more the deeper into this list I get: Under what circumstance would I watch this again? For some of these sequels (Santa Clause 3 comes to mind), the answer is an emphatic "never". You see, if I'm in the mood for something like this, I'll watch City Slickers. There's nothing about this that's better than the first movie and not enough that's different. I didn't not enjoy the movie. I just found it inconsequential.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: On Deadly Ground

The Pitch: There needs to be a movie about being environmentally conscious that has a lot of explosions too.

How I Came Into It: "Wait, wait, wait. Steven Seagal directed this too? Now that I have to see" -My internal dialogue when I heard about this

Why I Saw It: (Club 50) This is the ultimate Stephen Seagal movie. Not the best. Not the most entertaining. The ultimate Steven Seagal movie, meaning that it doesn't get more Steven Seagal than this. Cheesy one liners. Bar fights. Hammy villains. Hammy everything, for that matter. If you like Steven Seagal movies, it's hard to call this anything but essential.

Why I Wish I Hadn't: Steven Seagal was actually a thing at one point. Like, something that people watched. Always a punchline, but one that people saw. That's a sad truth (not to say there aren't reprehensible trends now too). This veers into "so bad that it's good territory" as it's nothing but explosions and fight scenes until the end, when it goes for broke with Seagal delivering a speech about the importance on conservation. It's nearly unfathomable the level at which this takes itself seriously and doesn't simultaneously. I've got a stack of Seagal movies left to watch and I'm not looking forward to them.

Verdict (?): Strongly Don't Recommend

Movie Reaction: Furious 7

Past Movie Reactions

Formula: Fast and Furious 6 ^ Fast Five*

Why I Saw It: I call it The Dark Knight Effect. Sequel that looked to up the stakes + Final screen appearance of an actor who died + Massive box office potential.

Cast: The Fast & Furious franchise has cherry picked its cast for a while. There's turnover, both intended and not. What they have left now is the right mix of toughness and comedy, camp and heart. So, you have Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez, and a little bit of Jordana Brewster from the original core. Ludacris, Tyrese Gibson, and Dwayne Johnson have been picked up along the way. Nathalie Emmanuel represents this movie's new blood. Jason Statham and Djimon Hounsou are the big bads. And, Kurt Russell shows up as a covert government super agent who I'm sure will be used for future missions/employment. The only knock I have against the cast is not a new one. Everyone acts like they're in a different movie. Diesel and Robriguez are super serious. Johnson is in a campy super hero movie. Ludacris and Tyrese are in The Italian Job. It's only as distracting as you let it be, but it's there to pick at if you want.

Plot: If you can track what is going on with this series' mythology, good on you. It all makes a loose sense and that's all that it needs. This movie finally catches us up to the present with the events of Tokyo Drift occurring at the beginning (Are we in the future or is Tokyo Drift in the future?!?!). The driving force of this movie is two part: 1) You have Jason Statham as the brother of Luke Evans from the last movie, out for revenge and 2) you have Hounsou as a super villain trying to get a hold of a program called God's Eye, which is basically the computer from Eagle Eye without the sentience. What you need to know is that there's car chases and explosions throughout with a few jokes mixed in. If you need more than that, your are watching the wrong movie.

Elephant in the Room: How do they handle Paul Walker's death? Most of Walker's scenes were filmed before he died. They didn't have to change the story significantly to work around his absence (or if they did, they edited it masterfully). He gets a proper send off at the end. In fact, he gets one of the more touching farewells on any character in any franchise. The big thing I want to drive home is that [SPOILER ALERT, I GUESS] his death isn't worked into the movie. That would've been crass and I applaud the producers and writers for that.

To Sum Things Up:
The Fast and the Furious is one of the more confounding stories in modern film. It's on its seventh movie, which is going to be by far the highest grossing entry yet. The difference between the first and seventh movies is night and day, yet they feel of the same whole. In short, the franchise has grown and changed as needed. There's a oneupsmanship to this movie which is getting insane. The fifth movie had the stuff with the train. The sixth takes down a plane. Naturally, this movie gets even crazier. At several points, I expected for one of the cars to transform into Bumblebee. The level of mayhem is Michael Bay explosive and that is a compliment. I don't know where they go from here, but this is good escapist fun.

*Has any franchise been this inconsistent with the naming structure?
The Fast and the Furious
2 Fast 2 Furious (loves using those '2's)
The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (drops the 3 and refranchises)
Fast and Furious (No need for numbers or articles)
Fast Five (But not furious)
Fast & Furious 6 (Trying to go for efficiency)
Furious 7 (But not fast)
The only thing I can think of to compare is Rambo (First Blood. Rambo: First Blood Part II. Rambo III. Rambo)

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

April Movie Preview

May can't come soon enough. Other than one sure-fire, "Summer starts in April" hit in the first weekend, this month looks weak. Even the limited releases that are floating around look pretty insignificant. It's going to be hard to come up with something to see every week. I wouldn't be surprised if I settled for seeing Home four weeks after its release. We'll see.

2015

Jan | Feb | Mar 

2014

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

2013

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

4/3

Furious 7
Working For It: After six movies, you know what these movies are about. Action. Fast cars. Vin Diesel talking about family. This has extra stakes attached with the death of Paul Walker in the middle of filming. The Rock, Michelle Rodriguez, Ludacris, Tyrese Gibson, and Jordana Brewster are all back. Jason Statham, Kurt Russell, and Ronda Rousey join along. I for one am very excited because I gave up finding a reason to hate (or explain logically) these movies a long time ago.
Working Against It: Obviously, no one planned on Paul walker's death and it happened in the middle of filming. It would take some truly impressive editing to not make that clunky in the final cut.
Interest Level:As much as anything this April

Woman in Gold
Working For It: Helen Mirren is a Jewish refugee who goes against the government to reclaim a famous piece of art that was stolen from her family by the Nazis in WWII. It also has Ryan Reynolds and Daniel Bruhl (Remember him? The best part of Rush). This looks like a vintage prestige movie.
Working Against It: Vintage is another world for old. This reminds me a lot of The Railway Man from last year. Both would've been major Oscar-bait a decade (or more) ago. It's also really difficult to make legal proceedings interesting without some more salacious plot points, which this appears to lack.
Interest Level: Virtually none

4/10

The Longest Ride
Working For It: Another Nicholas Sparks adaptation. This time, it tells the story of two timelines: one is a woman in the present day falling for a studly bull rider; the other is a woman from the 50s (?) falling for a military officer who is an old man where the people in the present live. I'm pretty sure that anyone who plans to see this knew by the time I said "Nicholas Sparks", and that's fine for them.
Working Against It: More so than most of these movies, this is a no-name cast. When Alan Alda is by far the biggest star in the cast, you know that that means people aren't clamoring to be in Sparks adaptations like they were in the days of Rachel McAdams and Channing Tatum*. It certainly doesn't help that this looks as formulaic as could be. Only die-hards could still be excited for this.
Interest Level: About as low as the chance that all the characters survive the movie.

*The Vow was not actually a Nicholas Sparks adaptation apparently**.

**Oh, but The Notebook and Dear John were...They really need to diversify the talent pool a little bit in this genre.

Ex Machina (Limited)
Working For It: Domhnall Gleeson helps Oscar Isaac with an experiment involving the creation of artificial intelligence in the form of an unsettlingly attractive robot played by Alicia Vikander (anyone remember A Royal Affair?). The teaming of Gleeson and Isaac makes this either an Unsung Heroes of 2013 collaboration and a peak at The Force Awakens. Both make this exciting for me. I also remember Alicia Vikander as one of the better parts of the forgettable Anna Karenina. The writer/director also wrote 28 Days Later... and Never Let Me Go, which are promising credentials.
Working Against It: This is the kind of high concept movie that can either been greatly effective (Her) or completely fall apart (Transcendence). With this being a first time Director, I don't have a ton of confidence.
Interest Level: High, if I can find it

Clouds of Sils Maria (Limited)
Working For It: Juliette Binoche plays a veteran actress hired to be in a remake of a movie she received acclaim for years ago but with the younger Chloe Grace Moretz playing the role that made her famous. Oh, and she might be in love with her assistant, played by Kristen Stewart. It comes from a French director who, while I've never heard of him, is prolific over there, and Stewart won a Cesar award (a French Oscar; the first American woman to do so) for it, which is encouraging.
Working Against It: I can't shake the feeling that this movie is being buried for some reason. It's been in the festival circuit for a while (I think it played in Cannes even) but I don't recall reading any great reviews for it. It's doubtful that I get enough of an idea about it in time to see in theaters (not to mention the unlikelihood that it expands to me anyway).
Interest Level: Middling

Kill Me Three Times (Limited)
Working For It: It's an Australian comedy with Simon Pegg, Teresa Palmer (Warm Bodies), Alice Braga (City of God...anyone?), and a Hemsworth brother (Luke). It involves a hitman, a bit hit, and a lot of double-crossing. More than anything, it looks like lively, fun farce.
Working Against It: This doesn't strike me as particularly original. Immediately, it reminds me of The Big Hit, The Big Bounce, and Hit & Run. None of which are bad movies, merely familiar. I'm not going to dismiss this, but I will assume that it isn't executed well enough to be something special.
Interest Level: I'll look for it streaming

4/17

Child 44
Working For It: A Russian soldier investigates a series of child murders in Stalin's Russia. It features an impressive cast including Tom Hardy, Gary Oldman, and Noomi Rapace. This is certainly not a setting I've seen before for a thriller.
Working Against It: Based on the trailer, it looks like the period aspects of it swallow up the mystery part. Also mystery thrillers are hard to get right. So many things can go wrong, and in many cases, even good ones aren't very memorable given all the parity in the genre. I'll say this though: the setting, if this turns out to be a strong movie, will set this apart.
Interest Level: Low to diffuse the chance that it lets me down

Monkey Kingdom
Working For It: Disney Nature has a new one of these each year in time for [I want to say] Earth Day. This year, it's a documentary about monkeys. I like monkeys. According to IMDB, this is starring Tina Fey. I don't know if that means she's narrating or if she's doing a voice for a monkey for some reason or even just randomly popping up for no reason. Whatever the reason, having her name attached to it excites me about it.
Working Against It: It doesn't excite me enough to actually see this. Documentaries are a tough sell to begin with. Child-geared monkey documentaries with no narrative hook are virtually a deterrent.
Interest Level:Variable based on Tina Fey's involvement

Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2
Working For It: You know, Paul Blart: Mall Cop was charming. It wasn't too long. It knew the audience it was targeting. Kevin James committed to it fully. Paul Blart 2 looks to capitalize on all the same things. The director, Andy Finkman, is the right guy for this kind of movie having previously directed movies like Parental Guidance, You Again, and The Game Plan. The Vegas setting ups the stakes appropriately too.
Working Against It: First of all, the first movie was a surprise hit for a reason. I mean, I don't know why it was a hit exactly, but I know why it was a surprise that it was a hit. Based on James' follow-up efforts, I'm not expecting this to match part one. Secondly, I worry that this will have the same problem as Die Hard. The conceit of the first movie is "wrong place, wrong time". For it to happen a second time takes away some of the charm. This doesn't immediately look like it should be franchised into more than the first movie (creatively, that is. I get the financial incentive).
Interest Level: directly proportional to the amount of money it makes

Unfriended
Working For It: It's I Know What You Did Last Summer for the found footage generation. Some kids film an embarrassing video of a classmate who then kills herself. A year later, they all start dying while on a video chat. Not much more to it. If you recognize a single actor in this, good on you. I'm a sucker for found footage movies. Also, despite being transparently aimed at teens, it keeps an R rating, meaning they won't hold any punches (unlike, say, Ouija).
Working Against It: This style of movie has reached a point where the gimmick is bigger than the story. There's a chance this movie is nothing more than a movie executive demanding that someone "make Skype into a horror movie". In fact, it's very likely that that is all the thought that went into it.
Interest Level:Who am I kidding, I'll see you there that weekend

True Story (Limited)
Working For It: The Oscar nominees of the Judd Apatow tribe (James Franco and Jonah Hill) team up in a movie about a disgraced reporter who "befriends" a man in jail for killing his family. It also has Felicity Jones. In other words, the casting director gets me.
Working Against It: The first time I saw the trailer, I spent until the closing seconds waiting for the punchline. I'm physically not ready to see those two in a serious movie like this together. When surrounded by others, sure. As leads together, I can't do it, not yet. It doesn't help that I've heard tepid reviews for it coming out of the festival circuit.
Interest Level: Lower than it should be.

4/24

The Age of Adaline
Working For It: Blake Lively plays a woman who stops aging in the 30s and learns to love again in the present day, with the son of a man she used to love (played by Harrison Ford). This kind of high concept love story has been showing up a lot in recent years (Benjamin Button, The Time Traveler's Wife). I don't think it would take much to make this an easy watch.
Working Against It: Has Blake Lively ever ever led a movie this big? I like her. I've see way more of her movies than I realized before I looked up the IMDB page. I just don't know if she can pull this off. And, there doesn't look to be enough of a movie leftover to salvage if she can't make her part work. There's also some weirdness to the 100+ year old woman falling for a 20-something guy. I guess if it works for vampires though, it can work here.
Interest Level:Higher than it should be.

Little Boy
Working For It: A little boy with magic powers tries to end World War II to get his dad out of fighting in it. I'm not sure if these are literal magic powers or if it's a perception thing like Pan's Labyrinth. Regardless, it looks like it will be high on imagination and heart swelling spectacle.
Working Against It: What's the nicest way to say something looks like a B-movie? Emily Watson and Tom Wilkinson give it some clout, but when was the last time they turned down a movie? Otherwise, it's got Paul Blart, that guy who I just assume is Bill Burr's brother, and the Doritos Girl. Hardly a murderers row.
Interest Level: I mean, no?

Adult Beginners (Limited)
Working For It: Nick Kroll moves back to the small town he grew up in and reconnects with his sister, played by Rose Byne. Honestly, I'm nearly obsessed with Rose Byrne enough to see this.
Working Against It: If this sounds familiar, that's because it is. Just last year I can think of This Is Where I Leave You and The Skeleton Twins that sound very similar to this. It's become an indie trope at this point, going back to your childhood home in a small town. I'm pretty tapped out on this type of movie. Perhaps others aren't.
Interest Level: Pretty low despite having Rose Byrne

Misery Loves Comedy (Limited)
Working For It: This is a documentary about why comedians are depressed. A large (albeit not diverse) pool of comedians contribute to this and that's all I need to know. I'll see it...
Working Against It: ...at home one night by myself, a glass of bourbon in hand right after I watch The Aristocrats. This is not a theater experience I wish to have.
Interest Level: I won't be in the theater but I will be seeing it.