Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

[dell71]

Robot & Frank
<strong>Directed by Jake Schreier.</strong>
<em>2012. Rated PG-13, 85 minutes.
Cast:
Frank Langella
James Marsden
Susan Sarandon
Liv Tyler
Jeremy Strong
Jeremy Sisto
Peter Sarsgaard</em>​

Once a globetrotting cat burglar, Frank (Langella) is retired and lives alone. These days, he gets all of his excitement flirting with Jennifer (Sarandon), the local librarian, while checking out books. The problem is he’s suffering from what appears to be the early stages of Alzheimer’s. That word is never used in the movie to my recollection, just my amateur diagnosis. His adult son Hunter (Marsden) is worried about him and has entertained the idea of putting the old man in a nursing home. Thinking better of it, Hunter buys Frank a robot that functions as an automated in-home healthcare attendant. Though reluctant at first, Frank and machine develop a fascinating relationship.

This movie raises many of the same questions we’ve been asking for years about the potential good or harm that may come from our ever-increasing dependency on technology. However, it does it in a way that’s refreshing. It’s refreshing because no matter how plainly we can see that their friendship is artificial, it feels as authentic as any other. Clearly, we’re viewing the world through Frank’s cloudy perception. The idea of a mutual bond between he and the robot is as much a figment of his imagination as it is reality. The line between the two blurred by the robot often responding as a friend might. As a result, we’re caught in that abyss between the heart and the mind. We know one thing to be true and hope that the other thing is also, though we know it to be impossible.

Frank Langella gives us a great portal for such feelings. He plays his part perfectly. We see Frank as a stubborn man, aware he’s not as sharp as he once was, but thinking he can handle it. The robot reinvigorates him, helps him reclaim his zest for life. This is not always good thing, necessarily, as Frank entertains the idea of returning to his old tricks. On the other hand, his synapses are firing once more.

There are a couple of narrative issues. Namely, the way Susan Sarandon’s character is handled feels like a bit of a cheat, to me. I see what the filmmakers are trying to do, but it renders Frank much further gone than has been let on to that point. In fact, it makes it seem as if there should never have a purchase of the robot in the first place. His son should have went with his first instinct. For fear I’ve already said too much, I’ll leave it at that. I will say that Sarandon herself is great in the role. Other supporting players are just as good. The whirlwind turn by Liv Tyler as Frank’s daughter especially impresses.

While superheroes and dystopian futures dominate the box office, the truth is that most of the best science fiction of recent vintage shies away from explosions and invasions. Instead, they use futuristic premises to examine our present circumstances. In lieu of eye-popping visuals, they engage our minds. Ultimately, they are films about us human beings. Movies like <em>Another Earth</em> and <em>Safety Not Guaranteed</em> understand this and weave wonderfully relatable tales out fo their sci-fi frames. They’re barely even recognizable as part of the genre, at all. <em>Robot & Frank</em> strikes a similar chord, though the presence of the machine renders it more obvious. Sure, it presents us with a society where it is becoming increasingly normal to have a robot around to do chores for you, but this isn’t the hyper-paranoid universe of <em>I, Robot.</em> This is one man trying to come to grips with his own very personal situation.

<strong>MY SCORE: 8/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

This is 40
<strong>Directed by Judd Apatow.</strong>
<em>2012. Rated R, 134 minutes.
Cast:
Paul Rudd
Leslie Mann
Megan Fox
Albert Brooks
Jason Segel
John Lithgow
Maude Apatow
Iris Apatow
Charlyne Yi
Melissa McCarthy
Graham Parker
Tatum O’Neal</em>​

Whether she admits or not, Debbie (Mann) has just turned 40. Even more disconcerting than her age is that her entire life seems to be falling apart. Nearly every conversation with her husband Pete (Rudd) disintegrates into argument. His fledgling record label is about to go under while her clothing store is treading water, at best. On top of all this, their oldest daughter is in full-blown crazy teen mode, looking for a shouting match with anyone in the house, anytime. By the way, both of this couple’s daughters are played by the directors real life daughters, Maude and Iris Apatow. Much of <em>This is 40</em> consists of the couple in question dealing with the above problems. They must also contend with a host of periphery issues that do nothing but throw lighter fluid on an already raging fire.

The movie gives us a fairly honest look at the relationship of a long-married couple. Many of their concerns and conversations ring true. It feels like we’re watching a real family, albeit a dysfunctional one on the verge of imploding. Both Mann and Rudd feel natural in their roles and have a nice chemistry with one another. We understand that they care deeply for one another, are entirely too familiar with each other, and are going through a rough patch. We get that they love their kids and would do anything for them, but there are also times when they can’t stand them.

In typical Judd Apatow fashion, there are also plenty of over-the-top moments. A number of these work, giving us some memorable scenes. A few of them involve our two leads. Others feature Albert Brooks as Pete’s forever mooching dad. Later, John Lithgow gets in on the fun as Debbie’s father and even Megan Fox has some unforgettable moments. Granted, hers are due less to her acting than her looks, but you take what you can get. Most indelible is the extended cameo of Melissa McCarthy. She plays the parent of a boy that’s been bothering Pete and Debbie’s older daughter. Her face-to-face with Pete and the ensuing meeting in the principal’s office with both Pete and Debbie present are the high points of the movie.

Also in usual Apatow style, the movie goes on for far too long. It becomes too on the nose in the sense that we begin to feel as if we’re really living every single day with these people, and not in a good way. Things are stretched way too thin as the time between laughs keeps getting bigger while the plot just drones on and on…and on. We’re ready for the conclusion long before we finally get it. I’m no movie director, and have no expertise to speak of when it comes to creating cinema so take the next sentence with a grain of salt. In my viewing experience an hour and forty to forty-five minutes is a good rule of thumb for comedies. Most don’t have enough funny material to sustain more than that. <em>This is 40</em> is no exception and it runs thirty minutes past that point. Much could be cut, it seems, just from the subplots of supporting players without altering or detracting from the main plot one bit. There are probably fifteen or twenty minutes wasted on superfluous storylines that didn’t need to be introduced in the first place. All of this extra time serves to wear us down and makes the final act a chore to sit through. Our hare that bolted out of the starting gates morphs into the tortoise ever so slowly creeping across the finish line.

<strong>MY SCORE: 6/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Hitchcock
<strong>Directed by Sacha Gervasi.</strong>
<em>2012. Rated PG-13, 98 minutes.
Cast:
Anthony Hopkins
Helen Mirren
Danny Huston
Scarlett Johansson
Toni Collette
Jessica Biel
Michael Stuhlbarg
James D’Arcy
Michael Wincott
Richard Portnow
Kurtwood Smith
Ralph Macchio</em>​

After reading a novel inspired by the exploits of real life serial killer Ed Gein entitled “Psycho,” director Alfred Hitchcock (Hopkins) is so enthralled he decides that he must immediately adapt it to film. He forges ahead despite the fact he won’t get any help from his bosses at Paramount and will have to finance it himself. Not only do the powers that be not believe in the project, they have their doubts about Hitch, as well. After all, he’s never done a horror flick to that point. The only person in his corner is his wife Alma (Mirren) who has worked alongside him on everything he’s ever done. She even agrees to let him mortgage their home to pay for the movie without any objection. However, having been together for thirty plus years, their relationship appears to be circling the drain. The movie proceeds to give us a way behind the scenes look at the making of <em>Psycho</em>.

Anthony Hopkins is in rare form as the iconic director. From everything I’ve ever seen of the real Hitchcock, Hopkins has his mannerisms and speech down cold. He also manages to go beyond just being a surface imitation and gives us a real sense of the man’s ego, dismissiveness of those he has no use for, possessiveness of those he does, and the fragility beneath it all. Many of his most heartfelt moments are when he says nothing at all. It helps tremendously that his leading lady is just as good. Actually, I’d rater her work just a slim shade below his, but only because she isn’t hamstrung by having to replicate her character’s physicality. In any case, it’s another strong performance in a career filled with them.

<em>Hitchcock</em> is also visually strong, but in subtle ways. These are nods to the man’s work and likeness sprinkled throughout the movie. Perhaps most noticeable are the several prominent shots of our hero’s shadow. He is the rare icon you’re likely to recognize quicker by his silhouette than his face. Another obvious thing is the famous peep hole from <em>Psycho</em>. Due to implications of it being put to use in the real world makes it even more disturbing here than in the horror classic.

With those good things comes some not-so-good things. Chief among these are the nightmares and daydreams Hitchcock has about Ed Gein. I gather they’re intended to give us some insight on Hitch’s mental state at various points during the production of <em>Psycho</em>. All they really do is interrupt the flow of the movie to pointlessly inject horror flick elements. It’s a misguided attempt at showing a man at war with himself. The effort put in here would have been better spent focusing on his battle with the bottle as it sets up to. He’s seen drinking at all times of the day, but only passing mention is made of this.

The most serious problem is that this movie is lacking any suspense whatsoever. This is ironic since our hero is known as the master of that very thing. I understand that creating some is probably an impossible task with regards to how <em>Psycho</em> plays out, but there is none in the lesser known aspects of the story that have nothing to do with the movie. This is most evident on Alma’s excursions with Whitfield (Huston), a writer who not only wants Hitch to film one of his scripts, but seems to have a thing for Alma. The way it’s written we never feel he’s a real threat to their marriage, yet she acts as if it is because the plot needs her to. I’ve no idea how any of this played out in real life, but it’s not handled well here.

The subpar storytelling overwhelms the performances of the two leads, rendering everything we like about the movie merely superficial. Yes, watching Hopkins and Mirren is nice, as are the numerous nods to the man that inspired this production. Everything else is either cliché or just plain botched. We’re left with a film with clever little touches, but is unable to sufficiently pull us into the story.

<strong>MY SCORE: 5.5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

The Devil’s Double
<strong>Directed by Lee Tamahori.</strong>
<em>2011. Rated R, 108 minutes.
Cast:
Dominic Cooper
Ludivine Sagnier
Philip Quast
Mimoun Oaïssa
Raad Rawi
Nasser Memarzia
Tiziana Azzopardi</em>​

We follow the exploits of Latif (Cooper), a young Iraqi soldier hired to become the body double of Uday Hussein, son of none other than Saddam Hussein. Okay, hired isn’t the right word. Forced is more precise, as in made to under the threat of harm coming to him and his loved ones. Quickly, we find out what was apparently Iraq’s worst kept secret. Uday is a complete psychopath. Life with him is a neverending stream of sex, drugs, rape, and murder. None of this sits too well with the straight-laced Latif. How can our hero possibly escape the hell he’s found himself in? Complicating matters, there’s a girl. There is always a girl. Based on the life story of the real Latif Yahia.

I meant what I said about the neverending stream of sex, drugs, rape, and murder. The movie wastes no time settling into a pattern of showing Uday snort coke, drink, make a lot of noise, commit a violent and often sexual act, then repeating the cycle. The difference between one set and the next is that whatever heinous act he engages in is an attempt to top the last one. While all this is going on, Latif looks on disapprovingly. Actually, he completes the cycle of events by voicing his disdain and/or refusing to do something Uday has ordered him to, at which point we get a battle of wills between the two. This pattern continues throughout the first two acts. It’s interesting simply for the sheer nuttiness of it all, but is isn’t particularly thought provoking. We know what each guy is going to do every step of the way. Everything in this world is distinctly black or white. Nothing either man does even slightly veers from the path they started on before the opening credits were finished.

For the third act, we switch gears into <em>The Bourne Identity</em> territory. Of course, our couple on the run is being pursued by a government nutjob instead of shady bureaucrats. This is when the movie starts to rapidly fall apart. Set up and timing go out the window. Our hero, with girl in tow, show up some place and the phone immediately rings with Uday on the other end. The explanation doesn’t jive, given our knowledge of the timeline, and leaves us a bit perturbed because we suspected as much but it feels like an impossibility. When we get to the finale, the bottom totally falls out. The movie lets us know that it is exactly what it has been threatening to be. It is a film entirely about Uday Hussein’s penis. Never you mind that the premise is bursting with possibilities. A picture inspired by the true story of the body double of the volatile son of a ruthless dictator during the days leading up to The Gulf War can do no better than showcase the villainy of the pecker. Sigh.

As shallow as it turns out to be, <em>The Devil’s Double</em> is hard to take your eyes off. The insanity is constant and the performances of Dominic Cooper are a sight to behold. As Uday, he chews scenery with reckless abandon. As Latif, he mostly just scowls, but it’s effective. Unfortunately, neither he nor his antics can carry the rest of the movie’s flimsiness. They struggle under the pressure of being its savior. As a result, Cooper’s histrionics as Uday grow tiresome as they become increasingly cartoon-like. This, in turn, crystallizes the main problem. Two men who share a potentially amazing story are reduced to uninteresting archetypes.

<strong>MY SCORE: 4/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Parker
<strong>Directed by Taylor Hackford.</strong>
<em>2013. Rated R, 118 minutes.
Cast:
Jason Statham
Jennifer Lopez
Michael Chiklis
Nick Nolte
Emma Booth
Wendell Pierce
Clifton Collins Jr.
Bobby Cannavale
Patti LuPone
Carlos Carrasco</em>​

Parker (Statham) is a professional thief who run big-time burglaries. With the help of a crew run by Melander (Chiklis), a group he’s never worked with before, he successfully robs the Ohio State Fair of about one million dollars. Instead of splitting the money as previously agreed to, Melander suggests they put all the money toward a bigger score that will net them a few million bucks each. Parker balks at the notion and winds up in a roadside ditch with several bullet holes in him. Thanks to some good Samaritans who happen to be driving by, he makes it to the hospital. Of course, as soon as he opens his eyes he escapes and goes looking for Melander and the rest of his cronies. A broke and lonely real estate agent played by Jennifer Lopez figures into things later.

While watching that setup, I am immediately reminded of the Mel Gibson flick <em>Payback.</em> Gibson’s character there, and Parker in this movie, are essentially the same guy. Indeed, the two movies play out in much the same manner as far as major plot points go. The biggest difference between them is in tone. <em>Payback</em> strikes a darkly comic one, quite brilliantly in my humble opinion, while <em>Parker</em> plays it as a straight up action flick with the usual small doses of humor, here and there. This is where the movie’s biggest problems are. No, it’s not a terrible picture. It’s just that with little or nothing to truly call its own, the conventionality of its frame is laid bare. Surprises are minimal.

It doesn’t help that our hero is a pretty flat character. We get that he’s been wronged and he’s incredibly focused on getting his just due. Unfortunately, that’s it. We understand that he loves his girlfriend Claire (Booth) and her father Hurley (Nolte). However, the depth of that love is summed up in the fact that whenever he does something to piss off another bad guy, he calls them on the phone to tell them someone’s going to be coming for them. Gee, thanks.

On the other hand, J-Lo’s Leslie is much more fleshed out with a good deal less screen time. The movie pushes the sympathy envelope hard with her, and simultaneously uses her for comic relief. However, it’s an up and down role that Lopez struggles with. Unlike many, I actually think she’s a fine actress. It seems to be at least as much an issue of presentation and writing as it is of her. How we’re supposed to take her changes from scene to scene and the jokes she’s given aren’t funny. Besides, as good as I think she is, comedy has never been her strong suit.

All is not lost. Remember, this is an action flick. It’s a Jason Statham action flick, at that. Most people will watch to see our hero beat the crap out of and/or kill lots of bad guys. That’s precisely what he does. True to form, it’s brutal, bloody, and exciting stuff. His first fight, inside a moving SUV, and one he has later in a hotel room take top honors. Both are just plain fun to watch, no matter how preposterous they may be. Speaking of preposterous, even though the idea that Park is affected by all the damage done to his body is a fraud, I’ll at least give the film credit for trying in that department. The point is, if you’re looking for a testosterone fueled popcorn flick you could do a lot worse than <em>Parker</em>.

<strong>MY SCORE: 6.5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel
<strong>Directed by John Madden.</strong>
<em>2012. Rated PG-13, 124 minutes.
Cast:
Judi Dench
Tom Wilkinson
Bill Nighy
Penelope Wilton
Maggie Smith
Celia Imrie
Ronald Pickup
Dev Patel
Tena Desae
Sid Makkar
Lillete Dubey
Diana Hardcastle
Seema Azmi
Paul Bhattacharjee</em>​

In rapid succession we meet various Brits all in their golden years, who don’t know each other, all going through a crisis of some sort. Evelyn (Dench) is a widow struggling to cope with the loss of her husband and will need a place to live now that she has to sell the flat they shared. Graham (Wilkinson) is seriously considering retirement and dreading the possibility. Madge (Imrie) is looking for her next husband. Norman (Pickup) is not looking for a wife, but is a horny old dude who keeps striking out. Mrs. Donelly (Smith), a blatant racist, needs a hip replacement. Who knows how long it will be before she gets to the top of that list. Mr. and Mrs. Ainslie (Nighy and Wilton, respectively) are having trouble finding suitable living arrangements after losing much of their life savings. Invariably, all of these people come across an offer to live out the rest of their days at the Best Exotic Marigold Hotel for the Elderly and Beautiful. Their trips will be paid for by the hotel itself. All of them decide to take this place up on its offer. By the way, the hotel is in India. Of course, when they get there and meet the energetic, fast-talking, and youthful owner Sonny (Patel), they quickly realize things aren’t quite what they were led to believe. Unable to afford return flights back to England, they try to make the best of things.

We weave in and out of these people’s lives as they have made them in their new home. They deal with culture shock, try to get used to the food and each other, and some long for home. We also watch Sonny try to keep the failing hotel afloat, speak passionately to his girlfriend Sunaina (Desae), and argure with his mother (Dubey) about both her and the hotel. Through each of the numerous subplots, the surface is made up of light-hearted humor, but powered by an undercurrent of sadness. These are not happy people, but people in search of what will make them so. As expected, they must also contend with the effect their living situation has on them, not only individually, but also as a group. It’s not completely different than a septogeneric version of “Big Brother.” Though they don’t vocalize this, and no one is voted out of the hotel, we clearly see alliances form.

To the movie’s credit, the veil of comedy holds up nicely. It manages to keep us chuckling most of the way through. The cast, and the script they are working with, is so terrific in this area that it accomplishes this without resorting to making buffoons of its characters. The exception here is Sonny. He is a bit of a nut, but he has purpose. Patel gives off a fun, used car salesman vibe, but one that is somehow earnest even though he’s never sure if he can deliver on whatever has flown out of his mouth. The rest of the cast is brilliant. Credit starts at the top with the always excellent Judi Dench and the equally great Tom Wilkinson. By the way, Wilkinson’s story line is the only one without a hint of comedy. Everything surrounding him is draped in sorrow. However, he’s such a marvelous actor, and his character is written so well, it never feels out of place. Also great is Maggie Smith as Mrs. Donnelly. She does so much acting with facial expressions and makes us laugh with each one.

One of the film’s shortcomings is that it has a little bit too much going on. As proof I offer Madge and Norman. They have separate but intertwining plots forming their own little clique. Unfortunately, they both get a bit lost in the shuffle. While we’re watching the lives of the others turn upside down they disappear from the movie for a really long stretch, almost long enough to make us forget who they are. They eventually get re-introduced, but it feels like their fates are afterthoughts in comparison to the rest of the bunch. This is particularly true of Madge. Nearly everything about her feels tacked on.

The other drawback is the easy ending. Everything is wrapped up in neat little bows just in time for the credits. No one we like is left unhappy while those we don’t merely clear the path for the “good guys.” For a movie that shows it can effectively deal in grays, it’s a bit disappointing for it to separate itself into clearly delineated sections of black and white. Then again, this is a comedy so I cannot rightfully expect some hard hitting and/or ambiguous finale. It just would have been nice for it to test us just a bit. Therefore, instead of being something that truly resonates, it becomes a cute and harmless picture.

Both of my complaints with <em>The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel</em> are minor. They’re things an already good movie could have done better. As it stands, it’s an enjoyable experience. Our ensemble is an absolute delight and enables us to see all of the heart in the material. In return, we’re glad to share ours with them.

<strong>MY SCORE: 7.5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Jack Reacher
<strong>Directed by Christopher McQuarrie.</strong>
<em>2012. Rated PG-13, 130 minutes.
Cast:
Tom Cruise
Rosamund Pike
Richard Jenkins
David Oyelowo
Robert Duvall
Werner Herzog
Alexia Fast
Josh Helman
Dylan Kussman
Joseph Sikora</em>​

Our movie begins with a seemingly random shooting spree. From a parking deck across the street, sniper James Barr (Sikora) picks off five people, gets back into his van and speeds away. Through some crack police work, Det. Emerson (Oyelowo) figures out who the bad guy is, takes the SWAT team over to the guy’s house and arrests him. While awaiting trial in prison, some fellow inmates lay a beatdown on Barr. Before falling into a coma, he requests that Emerson, and District Attorney Rodin (Jenkins) get Jack Reacher (Cruise). They have no idea how to get a hold of Mr. Reacher since he’s been missing for the last few years. Luckily for them, Reacher catches wind of the shooting on the news and just strolls into the police station on his own. In a strange move for both parties considering Reacher’s feelings on the matter, he winds up working for Helen (Pike), Barr’s defense attorney, who also happens to be the daughter of the DA. Reacher investigating the crime ensues.

If you’re a Tom Cruise hater, there is no reason for you to watch this movie or read beyond this point. You’ve already decided not to see this movie. And yes, he more or less plays Tom Cruise. This character feels no different than Ethan Hawke from the <em>Mission: Impossible</em> flicks, or from his character in <em>Knight and Day</em>, or any number of films where he’s tasked with saving the day. On the other hand, if the mere mention of his name does not make you physically ill, then stick it out. By this point, he seems to have become a one trick pony. Thankfully, it is not a terrible trick.

Fortunately, our supporting cast is solid. Pike does fine work as Barr’s lawyer. She’s delightfully defiant in her willingness to defend an apparently guilty man. The drawback is that her chemistry with Cruise is a bit off. This is, at least partly, due to the script. It can’t figure out if it wants there to be sexual tension between them or not. Things initially head down that path, but the trip is abandoned. Richard Jenkins is great, as always, albeit in brief bursts of screen time. During the movie’s latter parts it is completely stolen by Robert Duvall and, surprisingly, famed director Werner Herzog. The two find themselves on opposing sides, but neither is any less enjoyable than the other. We just enjoy them differently. Duvall brins us comic relief while Herzog creeps us out.

Since we follow him around much of the time, we must get back to our hero. Reacher goes all over town chasing down leads and, as expected, this gets him into the occasional scrape. We focus more on the following of the clues than the violence. The movie is successful with this as what’s going on becomes increasingly interesting. There are just enough twists within the narrative to keep us paying attention to what’s between action scenes. This is very important because there really is not that much action. That fact, plus our expectations, for those of us who have seen the trailer, help create an identity crisis for our feature. It never seems sure if it’s a procedural or an action flick. As the former, things tend to come a little too easily for our hero. As the latter, as I’ve mentioned, there’s not quite enough of it. Of course, our finale is one where bullets and fists fly. While that’s not terribly original, it is entertaining. For some, however, it may be too little too late.

Overall, <em>Jack Reacher</em> is a fun movie. It’s a popcorn flick with ever-so-slightly more on its mind than the usual. We get an intriguing tale with some enjoyable performances. It’s not a bad way to pass two hours. That said, you must understand that if you’re looking for a non-stop action shoot ‘em up, this is not it.

<strong>MY SCORE: 7/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Oz the Great and Powerful
<strong>Directed by Sam Raimi.</strong>
<em>2013. Rated PG, 130 minutes.
Cast:
James Franco
Mila Kunis
Rachel Weisz
Michelle Williams
Zach Braff
Bill Cobbs
Joey King
Tony Cox
Abigail Spencer
Bruce Campbell</em>​

Oscar, Oz (Franco) for short, is a carnival magician and ladies man only making chump change from his chosen profession. While trying to escape a certain beating, and possible death, at the hands of The Strong Man, Oz takes off in a hot air balloon. Like Dorothy would years later, he finds himself entangled in a tornado which dumps him in a place also called Oz. Immediately, he discovers that the people think he is the wizard that has come to save them from the wicked witch, as has been prophesized. Once successful, he will be named king and be given the royal treasure, a Scrooge McDuckian room filled with gold coins and other objects, both large and small, made of the precious metal. It’s an offer he finds too enticing to resist. In case you somehow haven’t caught on, this is a prequel to the revered classic <em>The Wizard of Oz</em>.

Like the movie it’s leading up to, <em>Oz the Great and Powerful</em> is a visual treat. Yes, there is lots of CGI, including some interesting creature effects. However, it’s the endlessly vivid color palette that dazzles the most. It’s particularly effective early as the movie transitions from the black and white of Kansas to the multi-hued Oz, but manages to remain a source of pleasure throughout. This adds to the movie’s overall sense of fun. Our eyes happily dart around the screen as our adventure bounds forward.

Story wise, <em>Oz</em> gives us a fresh take on characters we thought we knew. Most notable is the evolution of The Wicked Witch of the West, which I’ll not completely spoil if you haven’t seen it. I will say that it adds layers to the dynamics between she and Oz. In all, there are three witches. Honestly though, their work is a bit of a mixed bag. Rachel Weisz fares best. Of the trio, she is the most thoroughly believable. Michelle Williams, perhaps taking it easy after some emotionally draining films over the last few years, is solid but doesn’t knock our socks off. Mila Kunis seems to be miscast. She gives a game effort, but it feels like she’s out of her element. Thankfully, she’s nowhere near a big enough detriment to ruin the movie. In the title role, James Franco seems to be having a great time. His enjoyment transfers to us. I am on record as saying I’m not a big fan of his. Still, I found him to be a blast here.

I understand this isn’t the most liked film. In some circles, it’s downright reviled. To me it appears to be a victim of expectations. <em>The Wizard of Oz</em> is so pervasive in American culture, nearly every person of every age goes into it with a preconceived idea of what story this movie should tell and how that story should be told. This is an impossible tree to climb. Fiddling with a universe we all know and love will piss some people off. These folks will then declare with absolute certainty that <em>Oz the Great and Powerful</em> is not worthy of being a prequel to the iconic original. And they would be right.

The truth of the matter is <em>Oz</em> wouldn’t be a worthy prequel no matter what. The movie that inspired it is nothing less than a national treasure. Think of it this way: it’s the only movie older than the original <em>Star Wars</em> that most people you know have seen at least once. I’m not talking about your small circle of friends and family, either. I’m talking anyone you’ve ever laid eyes on in real life. In fact, most of them have seen it twice. And it was made nearly fifty years before <em>Star Wars</em>. Living up to such a legacy feels like an impossibility. Yes, I am aware how well received the novel (which I’ve read) and the play (I’ve not seen) <em>Wicked</em> are. Trust me, if (when?) an adaptation of that hits the big screen many will cry foul. It might even play for too narrow an audience, depending on how true it stays to its source(s).

Here, we get the wizard drawn from behind the curtain, fleshed out a full of energy. The movie breezes by and looks great. Sure it’s flawed. I’m not saying it’s a masterpiece. I am saying that it keeps us involved enough in the story to keep us engaged. We enjoy the new characters and develop a new understanding of the old ones. Like many prequels, the conclusion suffers from a lack of tension because we already know how it ends. Despite this, it still functions nicely as a stand alone project. Unfortunately, it will never be allowed to actually stand alone. If you go in just looking for a fun flick, you shouldn’t be disappointed in <em>Oz the Great and Powerful</em>. Once you start comparing it to <em>The Wizard of Oz,</em> both the facts and your rose-colored memory of it, it will wither and die like The Wicked Witch of the West after a bucket of water has been poured on her head. Don’t pour water on it.

<strong>MY SCORE: 7/10</strong>​

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Oz The Great and Powerful might be the worst movies of 2013, for me. It'll be the worst major release, I'm almost certain. The movie certainly looks nice. But its just so bad.

 

[dell71]

Oz The Great and Powerful might be the worst movies of 2013, for me. It'll be the worst major release, I'm almost certain. The movie certainly looks nice. But its just so bad.

I know most people hate it, but I had fun with it.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

I know most people hate it, but I had fun with it.

Its very rare where I'm like

:forgetit:

to a movie I see in a theatre.

Oz The Great and Powerful was one of those times. So bad.

 

[dell71]

Its very rare where I'm like

:forgetit:

to a movie I see in a theatre.

Oz The Great and Powerful was one of those times. So bad.

lol, sorry 'bout that.

 

[Houston]

Was there any scene in Hitchcock regarding a direct influence on Psycho?

A few years before, Hitchock lost a screenplay rights battle to a guy who made Les Diaboliques with it. I think it's a better film, it inspired Hitchcock and even the guy wrote Psycho preferred it.

It's one of my favorite movies and I was wondering if there was anything about it. Please save me the trouble of having to watch the movie myself.

 

[dell71]

Was there any scene in Hitchcock regarding a direct influence on Psycho?

A few years before, Hitchock lost a screenplay rights battle to a guy who made Les Diaboliques with it. I think it's a better film, it inspired Hitchcock and even the guy wrote Psycho preferred it.

It's one of my favorite movies and I was wondering if there was anything about it. Please save me the trouble of having to watch the movie myself.

No, nothing about Les Diaboliques. It's presented as...

1. Ed Gein commits murders
2. Guy writes novel inspired by his crimes called "Psycho"
3. Hitchcock reads said novel and loves it so much...
4. he decides he's making a movie version of "Psycho" come hell or high water.

 

[dell71]

Aiiight people, it's October again. That means all horror for the next couple weeks. We'll mix in some classics with the more recent stuff, and find some horror comedies, too. We'll start with...

 

[dell71]

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
<strong>Directed by Tobe Hooper.</strong>
<em>1974. Rated R, 74 minutes
Cast:
Marilyn Burns
Gunnar Hansen
Allen Danziger
Paul A. Partain
William Vail
Teri McMinn
Edwin Neal
John Dugan
Jim Siedow</em>​

Sally (Burns), her wheelchair bound brother Franklin (Partain), and a few of their friends are riding around somewhere in Texas, looking for some sights to see. Along the way, they pick up a hitchhiker who is obviously a few burgers short of a cookout. He likes to play with knives and cackle maniacally. Luckily for them, they manage to dump this weirdo before anyone suffers a fatal injury. They drive along some more and eventually find a nice secluded/abandoned house to hang out in. There is a lake out back and no authority figures around for miles. Ah, the perfect spot for kicking back and having a good time. Things are going great until they figure out they’re out of gas. One of them gets the bright idea to see if the neighbors in the only other house around will help out. The title and the birth of a sub-genre ensues. You know which sub-genre, right? That one where a group of teens off on an excursion wander into some back woods and meet some inhospitable hillbillies. Truthfully, we can probably trace its birth back a year further to the release of <em>Deliverance</em>. This one, however, creates the template we’ve been following ever since.

The genius of this movie is threefold. First, it comes dangerously close to boring us. During the setup stages, other than some grisly images right at the very beginning, there aren’t all the tell-tale signs that let us know this is a horror flick. Sure, there’s the wacko hitcher, but once that passes it’s fairly mundane for a good little while. No strange sightings, or shadows crossing the camera, or cats suddenly jumping out at us and no foreboding music. The bad stuff starts happening pretty spontaneously. Second, it doesn’t go into lengthy exposition to explain the back-story of our psychos. It’s not interested in why this is happening. It merely wants to give us the sinking feeling that something bad lurks in the bowels of America. This also keeps the runtime short, a scant seventy-four minutes, packing its thrills tight and not allowing us to grow immune to its tricks. Something the various remakes and sequels suffer from is giving us too much info, using all sorts of ridiculousness to explain things. Finally, it doesn’t ever feel the need to make us in the audience feel better. Yes, at the risk of spoiling a near forty year old movie, there is a survivor. However, it’s hardly the ending we’ve grown accustomed to. We’re not experiencing any sense of triumph when the credits roll.

Where <em>The Texas Chainsaw Massacre</em> might lose newer audiences is in the visuals. Don’t get me wrong. The look of the film is still perfect. It’s got the griminess befitting its subject matter. However, for those raised on <em>Saw</em> and <em>Final Destination</em> movies, the blood and guts aspect might be a tad disappointing. When the heinous acts are occurring they’re often just off-camera or somehow obscured. The power of suggestion is a marvelous story-telling tool, but hardcore horror fans, especially those of slasher fare, may feel cheated. As sadistic as it sounds, part of the thrill of watching dead teenager movies is seeing horrible things done to the human body. Here, we only sorta see it. For its era, it is a gory flick. In 2013, it’s still not for the faint of heart, but far short of all those torture porn movies in terms of visible nastiness.

Excessive mutilation or not, <em>TTCM</em> still stands head and shoulders above most films of its ilk. Inspired by real life serial killer Ed Gein, it sparsely presents its story as a matter of fact, not stylized violence and overly elaborate contraptions. This rawness is where its power lies. When things happen we don’t feel like we’re watching a movie crew’s handiwork.

<strong>MY SCORE: 8/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Texas Chainsaw 3D
<strong>Directed by John Luessenhop.</strong>
<em>2012. Rated R, 92 minutes.
Cast:
Alexandra Daddario
Dan Yeager
Trey Songz
Scott Eastwood
Tania Raymonde
Shaun Sipos
James MacDonald
Thom Barry
Bill Moseley
Paul Rae
Gunnar Hansen
David Born</em>​

In true reboot fashion, <em>Texas Chainsaw</em> decides to ignore all the sequels and remakes that came before it and link itself directly to the original. In this case, that means re-working the ending of the original, using actual footage to sync it with the story being told in this newer version. After the events of the classic, the twisted family’s baby was snuck away by a couple incapable of reproducing while the evil clan is being slaughtered by the townspeople. Wait…what? Okay, none of this is even remotely implied by the original, but whatever. Let’s just fast-forward to the present, to somewhere that’s not Texas, and we meet the roughly college-aged Heather (Daddario). It quickly becomes obvious that she was the baby in the opening scene. However, in case you have doubts she finds out she’s inherited a great big house from her grandmother in the Lone Star State even though she thought all of her grandparents died before she was even born. Never you mind the fact she should be closer to 40 than 20, given the fact of when that first movie was made and the dates this movie uses itself. The important thing to note is that after arriving at her new house with a few friends in tow, she finds out there is another surviving member of the family: Jed, AKA Leatherface (Yeager). He’s been locked in the basement for all these years. When he gets out, well, chainsawing ensues.

What I like most about this addition to the series is that it gets right to it and never lets up no matter how ridiculous it is. Much of the killing from the original is incorporated into the beginning, including the killing of the family. All that inheritance stuff is set up fairly quickly. The ladies in the viewing audience get to see R&B star Trey Songz without a shirt. Fellas, we get Heather’s supposed friend aggressively trying to get into her boyfriend’s pants. That boyfriend is Trey Songz, of course. The dialogue is horrible. The acting is the standard “meh” fitting a relatively big budget horror flick starring no one you’d pay to see. But hey, chainsawing ensues and all is good.

In the midst of all the flesh cuttin’ another villain is presented. After all, we have to find a way to make Leatherface a cute and cuddly sympathetic figure, right? Okay, not so cute…or cuddly, but definitely sympathetic. They think. Well, really, it’s a setup for another sequel. What did you expect? I expected nothing less. As long as whatever cockamamie plot they come up with next is just as eye-rollingly bad and chainsawing ensues, I’m there.

What? You’d thought I’d be all upset about this movie pissing all over the seminal classic? I understand why you might think that. I mean, it does haphazardly re-write the conclusion of its source material adding random characters and situations. Am I supposed to be outraged that all of the slasher movie tropes are lazily employed? Yes, that guy goes to investigate the foreboding basement and walks right up to the metal door obviously meant to contain something dangerous. Yes, the girl that has sex gets hacked up. And yes, the other girl falls while running through the woods, away from the killer. Here’s the deal: going in, I didn’t pretend that this was anything other than an attempt to cash in on the franchise name. I didn’t expect any great tension to be created. I just wanted chainsawing to ensue. It did, and the movie is goofy. And bloody. And beyond dumb. And so, I am happy. In other words, it’s so bad it’s awesome!

<strong>MY SCORE: -10/10</strong>​

 

[Buzzman]

I watched TCM at the right time and loved it. So damn funny. I loved they made Leatherface out to be the good guy by films end.

 

[JimLeavy59]

Still waiting for that Last Ounce of Courage review.

okerface:

 

[dell71]

Sinister
<strong>Directed by Scott Derrickson.</strong>
<em>2012. Rated R, 110 minutes.
Cast:
Ethan Hawke
Juliet Rylance
James Ransone
Vincent D’Onofrio
Michael Hall D’Addario
Clare Foley
Fred Thompson
Nick King</em>​

Ellison (Hawke) is a true crime writer looking for his next best-seller. About a decade earlier, his magnum opus, “Kentucky Blood,” was not only a best-seller, it captured the national spotlight, earning him fame, wealth, and notoriety. He likes to work close to the scene of the crime he’s researching. This time, unbeknownst to his family, he moves them in to the actual house where it all went down. It being the hanging of four people out of the family of five that lived there. The fifth, the family’s youngest daughter, is still missing and the perpetrator has not been caught. Shortly after settling in, he finds a box of films and a projector in the attic which actually shows the crime, along with several other killings. Pretty soon things are going bump in the night and Ellison is freaking out.

As per the standard in such flicks, one adult is losing his mind, the other is mostly oblivious for much of the movie, and the kids are affected in various ways. In this case, the oblivious adult is wife/mom Tracy (Rylance). Son Trevor (D’Addario) experiences an increase in his “night terrors,” which means he wakes up in odd places screaming his head off and not knowing how he got there. The daughter eventually sees stuff. Most of our time is spent with dad as watches the films, hears something, goes to investigate, and tries to get help from either the local deputy (Ransone), or Professor Jonas (D’Onofrio) from the local university. Rinse. Repeat.

Despite its repetitive nature, <em>Sinister</em> manages to draw us in enough to keep us interested. Ethan Hawke’s performance helps quite a bit. His motivations are laid bare as is his increasing fragility. The man is clearly falling apart. However, he can’t help but dive deeper and deeper into this case. The case also has a bit of power over us, as well. The revelations come slow, but quick enough not to lose us. That said, reasoning is left unexplained and even undiscovered. This might be a potential turn-off for some, but I think it works.

The acts depicted in the films our hero watches are heinous, presented sans the over-stylization of most horror flicks. This gives them a real feel that holds up even though, or perhaps because, we’re visually spared the gory details. Again, Hawke does the work for us. Last second cutaways to his reactions work perfectly. In these moments, he is our conduit. He behaves as one might were we viewing something so despicable happening to real people and not actors. It’s an odd tactic for an R-rated horror movie, one that I usually rip movies for employing. Here, it works pretty well, maintaining the illusion that our protagonist is working on a “true” crime.

Where the movie ultimately falls short is in the most basic goal of horror. It’s entirely too hard to gauge how much danger this family is in. Cinematic logic dictates that they’re likely the next target of whoever the bad guy is. However, when things start to escalate, it doesn’t always seem that way. We eventually discover why that is. Sorta. By that point, well, the movie is just about over. Until then, we can’t quite get fully vested in the welfare of these people.

All in all, <em>Sinister</em> is an interesting watch that does some interesting things. Though it is occasionally unsettling, it never gets all the way around to submerging deep enough in our heads to make it remarkable. We like the tone, the films within the film, Hawke’s reaction to them, and even the ending. However, it is also tedious and, for some, the unanswered questions will be unsatisfactory. And yes, we’re threatened with the possibility of a sequel. This is a decent watch, but I can live without another one.

<strong>MY SCORE: 6/10</strong>​