REVIEW: The Great Gatsby

6/10 - At least Pitbull wasn't on the soundtrack.

“In my younger and more vulnerable years
my father gave me some advice that I've been
turning over in my mind ever since.

"Whenever you feel like criticizing any one,"
he told me, "just remember that all the people
in this world haven't had the advantages
that you've had.”

I do have a great fondness for The Great Gatsby. I disliked the book when I was forced to read it in school but I've grown to really love it over the years. There's something beautiful, and poetic about the writing of F. Scott Fitzgerald.

With far less poetic subtly, Baz Luhrmann adapted the novel into a visual showcase that is The Great Gatsby in 3D. I'm not the biggest fan of his films. I find they peak in the first act and I lose interest by the end. A a trend that continues with The Great Gatsby.

Gatsby is a tale of romance and heartache in the roaring 20's. The narrator, Nick Carraway (Toby Maguire), recounts the summer he spent reuniting with his cousin Daisy (Carey Mulligan) and discovering just who the mysterious and legendary Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio) is.

The first half of this movie is really a spectacular. It opens on the legendary parties that Gatsby's reputation was built on. This is where Baz Luhrmann shines. The frantic pace works well, showing Nick getting swept away by the idealistic lifestyle of his upper class neighbors. But then the movie crawls to a stop. The Great Gatsby isn't a fast paced novel, it's a slow character story that shows how Nick grows disenchanted with the idols he once held in high regard. For the film that means an hour in there's a clunky halt to the once fast pacing, and suddenly it's a movie about long tea parties filled with subtext. Suddenly the lush environment becomes jarring, and distracting to the story. Suddenly the movie feels about 90 minutes too long.

The best reason to see this film, is without question for the fantastic cast. It's not often Leonardo DiCaprio plays a role where he's mostly happy. He embraces all of that Gatsby mystery, with a smile  that oozes charm and charisma, but with fear brewing beneath the facade. Carey Mulligan and Joel Edgerton as Daisy and Tom Buchanan are a terrific individually. They both bring dimension to their otherwise shallow characters. The missing element is the chemistry that pulls them together or pushes them apart, but that doesn't seem so necessary in this film as the relationships seem to take a back seat to the production design.

Baz Luhrmann's style is really appealing. He creates fantastic images that are better than the imagination. That scene from the trailer with Leonardo DiCaprio raising his glass with the fireworks behind him is stunning. It's a style that needs an operatic story, which Gatsby is far from. I'm not opposed to changing the original story, regardless of how revered it is. In this case even the most dramatic story changes wouldn't make the aesthetic and novel more compatible. Instead of being engaged in the characters, I found myself disappointed in how flat out boring the movie was. Perhaps that's a good reflection for the tragic elements of the story, but the audience should feel for the characters, not feel like they wasted their time.

"Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future 

that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, 

but that's no matter- tomorrow we will run faster, 

stretch out our arms farther... And one fine morning-

So we beat on, boats against the current, 

borne back ceaselessly into the past."

IMDb - The Great Gatsby (7.3)
Wikipedia - The Great Gatsby
Rotten Tomatoes - The Great Gatsby (48%)
Amazon.ca - The Great Gatsby

REVIEW: Mr. Holmes

6/10 - Wasps?! Not in my backyard. 

Sherlock Holmes has become a massive media icon. The modern day BBC miniseries, Sherlock stars Benedict Cumberbatch as Holmes. Elementary, a CBS procedural features Johnny Lee Miller portraying Holmes in NYC. Other shows like House, Forever, and The Mentalist are essentially re-imaginings of Sherlock Holmes. Among the absolutely massive list of Sherlock Holmes films that have been created over the years, the 2009 Guy Richie franchise Sherlock Holmes was a recent success starring Robert Downey Jr. It's hard to get away from Holmes, whether it's in a summer blockbuster, straight to DVD movie, or a Japanese puppet show. The list of actors who have portrayed Sherlock Holmes is both impressive and infinite.

Added to that list is now Sir Ian McKellen.

Mr. Holmes is a family film about Holmes during his retirement. He returns to a home where he is cared for by his housekeeper, the underutilized Laura Linney, and her young son played by Milo Parker. Two immediate things came to mind when I began watching this film.

The first was "My GOD Ian McKellen has aged!" which I felt was a sentiment shared by many in the audience. Don't fret, he's actually playing older than he is in real life, if you can believe that. They hired a 70 year old actor to portray a man in his 90's. Hollywood has some fabulous makeup artists, and Ian McKellen is not as fragile as he appears in this film.

The second thing that struck me as unusual was that this was a live-action family film. Do those even get made anymore? Animated films have become so wildly popular (thanks to Pixar) that they have really swamped the kids film market. When I think back to all the great family films from the 90's it becomes really clear that they aren't being made anymore, just big budget blockbusters with a PG rating. Mr. Holmes is somewhat of a call back to that old fashioned idea of a family movie. Not a cheesy comedic kids movie, but a family film for everyone.

If you're wondering why I've spent most of this review talking about the context of Mr. Holmes as a movie, and not the movie itself it's because I found this film utterly forgettable. The characters were quite limited, and the emotional story for the leads was a bit strange to me. Holmes evokes images of the detective, someone only interested in cold hard facts. This Holmes tale is saturated with sentimentality. Holmes seems to bond with this young boy more than he ever did with his partner Watson, someone he worked with closely for many years. I also felt a disconnect between the three story-lines, as they felt like separate stories that didn't enhance one another.

Ian McKellen, however, gives a truly stellar performance as Sherlock Holmes. His character transforms from a younger version at the height of his career, to an older and frail man who needs tending to. He gives a sincere performance with tremendous subtly, without ever condescending the audience. I only wish there was a franchise of Sherlock Holmes films wherein McKellen could reprise the entire history of the fictional character.

Laura Linney and Milo Parker round out this cast as mother and son. Laura Linney is one of those fantastic actresses who tends to fall off the radar. I really enjoyed her acting in this, but I thought her role was a bit flat. I wish she had been given the opportunity to bring more depth to that character. On the other side of that coin, young Milo Parker as Roger is a delight. He is as much the main character of this story as Mr. Holmes is, and he does a great job carrying much of this film.

While the expectation for a jaw-dropping mystery reveal is somewhat unfair, the mysteries in this story simply felt unsatisfying. Perhaps I'm being heavily influenced by the previously mentioned Sherlock Holmes installments, but I don't think I would praise any film with such a wishy-washy ending. That being said, this film is a far way from being unwatchable, and I actually believe many audiences will enjoy Mr. Holmes. McKellen is brilliant, and it's a tense and fascinating story that isn't often portrayed on screen anymore. It's just not for me, someone who over thinks the plot.

IMDb - Mr. Holmes (7.6)
Wikipedia - Mr. Holmes
Rotten Tomatoes - Mr. Holmes (87%)

REVIEW: Burt's Buzz

6/10 - A story of an old man and bee's wax.

Burt Shavitz.

As you can predict from the image on your lip balm, Burt is a dirty hippy through and through. Now approaching 80, he lives a reclusive life on a farm in Maine. As his company became a massive corporation, his lifestyle never changed. He hangs out with his dog and wood stove. Oh and his name is associated with a billion dollar corporation, but whatever.

To be fair, this is a documentary about Burt. Burt just happens to be associated with Burt's Bee's. This is not a docu about lip balm company in any way. I suppose it is in a little way, but there isn't really a sufficient story about Burt's Bees to call that the focus of the movie.

Burt has done a lot of fascinating things in his life. He was a successful photojournalist, an activist, he was a bee keeper (duh) and reluctant business man, now he's the face and spokesperson for a company he has no stock or investment in. What's even more interesting is how reclusive his life is. It felt a bit like the documentary crew had a difficult time finding people to talk to about Burt. He is very isolated, and is quite content to live that way even after spending stretches in 5 star hotels.

That being said, Burt is also the kind of person you can size up immediately. What you see is what you get. I found this film to be a bit aimless, as they tried to unveil facets of his character that were quite clear from the beginning. Without any revolutionary or unbelievable scenes, this movie ends up a bit boring. While the concept and the person might be memorable, the movie itself isn't.

IMDb - Burt's Buzz (6.5)
Rotten Tomatoes - Burt's Buzz (73%)
Amazon.ca - Burt's Buzz

REVIEW: The Interview

6/10 - Yeah yeah, Sony Hack, terrorist threat, controversy, blah blah. Don't care.

You know what's weird? The thing that stood out to me the most about The Interview is the production value. Really outstanding sets, costumes, graphics. Great editing on quick montages. Good music, lighting, cinematography, everything. Scenes that could have been bland were spruced up with a healthy budget to create great visuals.

I don't care much for the actors, jokes, or story though.

I will confess, this is another movie where I read the script before seeing the film. Perhaps that deflated some of the story and comedic elements? You can judge.

I feel like this is The Hobbit of comedy. All the elements are there, to make a funny film. On paper it should work. But with too big of a budget and too much confidence it's lost the whole reason people wanted this movie to begin with. They thought they were making another Jump Street or This is The End but instead they ended up with something messy and boring.

The Interview is a perfectly mediocre film about regular schmucks getting thrown into international espionage. James Franco plays an exaggerated Ryan Seacrest type entertainment reporter, and Seth Rogan plays himself? Is Seth Rogan best buds with Ryan Seacrest? I'm not sure. I think in this film Seth was supposed to be a producer or something, but he really just played himself. It opens with some really hilarious scenes showing Franco interviewing celebs and uncovering the best juicy gossip. I'd watch a whole movie of just that. Then they get thrown down a rabbit hold of interviewing the dictator of North Korea and being fuck ups about it.

I'm not sure what exactly turned me off from this movie but I think it's somewhere in the combo of unmemorable jokes and a weak plot. At the end of the day this concept lends itself to some serious political satire. I'm not sure if making fun of Kim Jong-Un in a pre-school way is really sufficient. I also found in the script, there was greater emphasis on the fact that as the dictator of North Korea the population was suffering inhumane atrocities, and they were heavily manipulating their image for the these two media representatives. The final cutting of the film doesn't go near the oppressed people aspect, perhaps because it's a mood killer, but then it's harder justify Kim Jong-Un as the ultimate enemy.

I also found myself frustrated that The Interview is self aware enough to comment on the use of women solely for male seduction, and yet every woman in the movie is only there to seduce a man. What can you do?

I think the best things to take away from The Interview are Randall Park and Diana Bang. Both actors were great in their roles and were quite funny. Something that isn't easy when this film is a vehicle for Franco and Rogan to be funny.

So The Interview gets a big pass. If you saw the trailer you probably saw about as much memorable material as their is in the whole film. It's not an offensively bad comedy like We're the Millers, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone out there enjoyed this film. It's just not my cup of tea.

Wikipedia - The Interview
IMDb - The Interview (7.1)
Rotten Tomatoes - The Interview (51%)
Amazon.ca - The Interview

REVIEW: Chef

6/10 - Are you hungry? You will be...

Chef is part passion project and part paint by numbers. Writer and director and star Jon Favreau created this film about how leaving his job as head chef in a well respected restaurant brought his family together to help him launch a food truck.

It's actually quite a good film. There's plenty of heart with a touching relationship between father and son, and lots of support from the friends and family in the supporting cast. It's beautifully shot with exquisite scenes of cooking that will certainly leave any audience drooling, I also like the integration of technology in this film. Often movies that try to utilize social media come across like an advertisement. In this case, the web is part of the universe we all live in, with both real implications and the ability to walk away from it. The focus stays on what's important, without getting too involved in tricky explanations.

I cannot say I particularly loved this movie. There's something bizarre about the plot that frustrated me as a viewer. This is meant to be a story about bottoming out, and finding what's really important. He embarks in a much smaller venture, cooking out of a food truck with his family. My problem is how he got to that point. Jon Favreau doesn't seem to like conflict. Scene after scene, characters are trying to lift up Carl, characters that shouldn't help him are going out of their way to help him.

There's a point halfway through the film where Favreau's Iron Man buddy makes a one scene appearance as the eccentric ex-husband of Carl's ex-wife. After some circular discussion, Chef Carl Casper walks out with a food truck. Seriously. Someone is going to have to explain that to me. It's like a bizzaro-world version of the Ex-Wives Club formed in the middle of this movie and through the magic of cinema, Carl got to move forward with his dream.

That's exactly the sort of thing I hate seeing in a movie. An entertaining scene is still not good if it's pushing forward an illogical plot. What's the message being presented here? Carl didn't have to work to get what he wanted. Was it meant to illustrate that buttering up to the first husband of his ex-wife is the same as relying on family? It's just so disjointed and improbable to me that it makes me out of the movie.

For a film written by, directed by, and starring the same person, it's surprisingly well paced. There's a lot of charm and chemistry between the cast which bails it out of some of the more improbably exposition scenes. It's a movie universe you want to live in, for more reasons then just the food.

IMDb - Chef (7.3)
Wikipedia - Chef
Rotten Tomatoes - Chef (88%)
Amazon.ca - Chef

REVIEW: Delivery Man

BLOGGER NOTE: Yeah, this wasn't an Academy Award Nominee. The weekend of the awards, I smashed my laptop, thus putting the breaks on any unnecessary computing. I have a few more Oscar nom reviews to do, but it might take a little while longer than I intended. In the meantime, here's something completely different.

6/10 - More like "Meat Truck Man" amirite? 

Delivery Man is based on a french movie called Starbuck, that a good reviewer might have watched before writing a review. I'm not a good reviewer. 

The mixed reviews for Delivery Man are accurate. It's a great concept with a great cast, but I kept thinking there are so many missed opportunities in this film. Missed chances for comedy, for a more dynamic plot, for more interesting characters. One of the reasons I think writer/directors are not always a great idea. This was well written, and well directed, but a separate voice might have improved this film tremendously. 

Here's the plot rundown: Vince Vaughn as David Wozniak, donated sperm under the pseudonym Starbuck for many years, and then 20 years later all the many hundreds of kids he helped produce decide to try and find him. 

The first 10 minutes of this movie are so dreadfully boring that you might wonder if you accidentally started watching a real life documentary about depressing jobs in America. I went on Wikipedia to double check that it was, in fact, meant to be a comedy. Typically, Vince Vaughn spearheads comedies that cater to his strengths, fast talking absurd situations. Surprisingly, this is neither and I wished it was. Despite Vince Vaughn being naturally funny, and Bobby Moynihan playing his younger brother, nothing is particularly funny until Wozniak's friend Brett shows up, played by Chris Pratt. Somehow the movie gods shined upon his role because he injects the first moments of laugh out loud comedy. Chris Pratt really shines in this movie being effortlessly hilarious in a movie so nuanced, more seasoned comedians fell flat.

Cobie Smulders play's Wozniak's girlfriend, Emma, a cop. My first gut reaction is to throw my arms in the air, overjoyed by the fact that Emma is a cop. She is casually playing a role typically reserved for males on screen, showing that her character has her own life with consequences, and it's not the butt of a joke. That being said, Cobie is hilarious and she doesn't get the chance to make a single joke in the whole movie. She's a buzzkill, ruining the momentum in every scene she's in. It's not really the fault of Cobie who is a great actress, but rather the fact that David's life with Emma represents the serious steps toward adulthood and responsibility and that's not so funny. Every scene does not have to be comedic, but they do have to be entertaining. 

I was also quite put off by the fact that every one of the kids in this movie who David helped create, considers him their "real" father, or "biological" father, or something to that effect. Granted the movie proposes that of the many hundreds of children that David helped create, only a smaller percent chose to actively investigate his identity. I also understand that this movie is about David accepting fatherhood through very extreme circumstances. However, I was desperate for someone to stand up and remind those kids that they had their own real parents. Not adoptive parents. Parents. These kids had families that choose to have kids and choose to get pregnant through this method. At what point is it okay to imply that real parents who raised these kids are not as important as someone who provided the DNA but never wanted kids themselves. Again, that's not the point of the movie. I just felt like it was a strange message to put on the screen, pretending that their real parents don't exist. Also, can we talk about why his kids are 80% male?

I've been doing quite a lot of complaining, but this isn't really a bad movie. Many of these complaints stem from the fact that this feels like a great movie in disguise. With some more polish and punchier jokes, it would be a great comedy. This is a movie about family and fulfilling the desire to be a better person. It's quite heartfelt and there's nothing wrong with a movie that can put a smile on your face. This is one of those movies that tries to discover the unbridled optimism in everyday life, and that's why I go to the movies. 

IMDb - Delivery Man (6.4)

Wikipedia - Delivery Man

Rotten Tomatoes - Delivery Man (39%)
Amazon.ca - Delivery Man

REVIEW: Thanks for Sharing

6/10 - Candlelit romance and sex addiction

Based on the title, poster, and leads, I assumed this was a rom com about people in New York falling in love... which isn't wrong. But it's also about sex addiction. With some drugs and alcohol mixed in, too.

There is a bravery about this film that gives it some legs. I appreciate the originality injected into an otherwise cliche backdrop. (I am really starting to hate movies set in New York, there are other cities in the world, filmmakers. Maybe start checking them out.) Regardless, AA has developed its own sets of cliches. I thought none of them were used here, to my great relief.

The main story in Thanks for Sharing is about the relationship between Adam (Mark Ruffalo) and Phoebe (Gwyneth Paltrow) as they navigate their new relationship, having to overcome the hurdles of Adam's sex addiction. I don't know if I have an appreciation for the rom-com spin on an otherwise dramatic film. At the film's opening, Adam has been "clean" for 5 years, and hides his addiction from Phoebe who once dated an alcoholic and swore off dating another addict. Then they have beautiful charming dates. Perhaps Phoebe is too perfect for a film of this nature.

The cast really made this movie. During my brief Jobs review I said Josh Gad was great. In Thanks for Sharing he is outstanding. Truly, I found myself frustrated that his character wasn't the lead. He was both ambitious and self loathing. The best scene in this film is early in the movie with Josh Gad's character Neil is alone in his apartment, wanting to start the 12 steps but just spiraling out of control and into old habits. It's heart wrenching to watch. Tim Robbins and Patrick Fugit spend most of the film pushing and pulling at each other in a strained father-son relationship that's agonizing. Even Alecia Moore is able to get right to the core of hurt and pain.

As a character Adam is introduced as being vigilant, that he cannot go easy on himself. As if he is constantly aware of the monster under the surface. He lives a life of restraint and repetition. This would be extraordinarily fascinating if it was adequately displayed, but I don't get that feeling from Mark Ruffalo. His character is most frequently relaxed, joking around, comfortable, anything but ever-vigilant. Perhaps it's because his performance is overshadowed by Tim Robbins who play's Adam's mentor, and is the definition of a hard ass. I was desperate to see that struggle for self control that the other addict's showed. I wanted to see that intensity early in his relationship to show the depth of it's importance. It all went a little bit wishy washy because it was all too casual. It just stopped short of really hitting home.

Like the critical reviews, this film is a mixed bag. There are some brilliant performances and some mediocre ones. There are some scenes of incredible writing, and some that are tremendously boring. In retrospect it's a quality film that's worth watching all the way to the end, even if it's a bit long. I do have an appreciation for a film that explores some territory that isn't often shown in

IMDb - Thanks for Sharing (6.5)
Wikipedia - Thanks for Sharing
Rotten Tomatoes - Thanks for Sharing (49%)
Amazon.ca - Thanks for Sharing

REVIEW: About Time

6/10 - Perfectly fine in a quiet romantic, ideal world kind of way. 

About Time marks the second occasion where Rachel McAdams marries a time traveller. A strange way to get type-cast, but with charisma like hers she can make whatever movies she wants. There is something special about making a romcom with a time travelling twist. It's an adventure that is specifically and solely about sentimentality.

If you're wondering what this movie is about, you'll catch on pretty quickly in one viewing. It's one of those movies where there is a message and it hits you over the head with it. In fact, the movie is basically saying "This is the way to live your life. Here, look, this guy is doing it and he's happy! See? DO IT."

The problem with this kind of hammer on nail morality tale is that it puts plot in second place. There are so many problems with the story that I cannot possibly mention them all in this post.

Do not try to follow the "rules" of time travel. They don't exist. If you're a sci fi junkie and thought Looper was problematic, then don't even consider this film. The only "rules" that are stated are all broken at some point in the movie. All of them. But of course, time travel is a metaphor! Sure, sure. Then don't ruin your metaphor by breaking the rules.

It's also a movie about appreciating life you have and finding the best way to spend your time. Of course, it's easy to demonstrate this with a mid to upper class privileged, steadily employed family. Appreciate what you have! When you're well off, and there's no risk of losing what you have.

That's the essential problem with About Time. There is no external conflict, just an internal debate about the best way to use Time Travel to have the fewest regrets. There are mildly irritating friends who are charming in their own flawed ways. His sister gets into trouble, but they use that as an opportunity to come together as a family. It's all a little too perfect, but perhaps that's the perk of being a time traveller, you get to have perfect.

Overall there are some brilliant moments that makes it an enjoyable movie. The seasoned direction of Richard Curtis makes the movie feel intimate and romantic. Domhnall Gleeson is captivating as a growing, slightly awkward kid who grows into his family. It's genuinely fun to relive all the awkward moments and the terror that comes with meeting someone new and almost losing them. It's easy to become quite invested in the warm Bill Nighy as the guiding father. It's a good movie, but not one I would ever want to rewatch.

IMDb - About Time (7.8)
Wikipedia - About Time
Rotten Tomatoes - About Time (69%)
Amazon.ca - About Time

QUICKIE MOVIE REVIEWS

The Bling Ring:

(2013, Sophia Coppola)

Pure magic. There are moments that dragged, but most of them are subjective stylistic choices. Overall I thought there were some brilliant performances, and Coppola married the content with the film style stunningly. What amazes me is how absurd the scenario is but most of the truly outrageous behavior is pulled straight from reality. I've watched this half a dozen times since I picked it up. Great attention to detail, simple scenarios and dialogue that end up being powerful. Watch watch watch. A year end favorite for sure. 9/10

Oblivion:

(2013, Joseph Kosinski, Karl Gajdusek, Michael Arndt)
I'm somewhat torn, like I have been on several action blockbusters lately. It was a great adventure with fun visuals and a good balance of action. As with the directors other big hit, Tron legacy, I'm happy to take a unique universe and give the audience lots of time to absorb it and enjoy the detail put in. I liked spending time in the creepy sky house. I liked the strange cult-like behavior they promoted. The creepy reappearance of the same drone. 

But this wasn't that great of a movie. It's stole some plot points from Moon. It has atrocious dialogue, hidden by the fact that Morgan Freeman can literally say anything and make it sound like a revelation. It also kind of avoided action sequences. Which isn't the point at all. I think Tom Cruise was a bad casting choice. He isn't an every-man. If someone else played this guy, then I'd believe their avoidance of fighting and basic instinct he has for a simple life. When there is a crazy helicopter chase scene I'm like "It's cool, I saw Top Gun. No problem." It also needed to lose about 20-30 minutes in editing. Good to see, but don't expect anything revolutionary. 7/10

Jobs:
(2013, Matt Whiteley)
I thought this was the Aaron Sorkin one. I didn't really realize there were two Steve Jobs movies being made. This one sucked. Good luck Aaron.

Ok Ill hand them a few compliments. Ashton Kutcher and Josh Gad were great. I genuinely think they did a great job with the material they were handed. My biggest problem with Jobs is that it's only purpose is to glorify the creation of Apple computers. Regardless of inspiration, I think a movie should stand firmly on it's own two legs. There's no substantial story or conflict, no relatable characters. There are some huge missing puzzle pieces that make me furious.

Steve Jobs is set up as both a hero of his time, and the worst boss I've ever seen. From the get go, his only redeeming characteristic as a protagonist is his genius and vision for the company. Which is fine, I love a flawed character, but as someone in the movie said, he's an asshole. He's an asshole who does shitty things, then gets fired from his own company. Then he's let back in and he's... better? He planted some radishes and he's magically a better person? When you make a movie someone doesn't just magically go from neglecting their family to being father of the year. Aaron Sorkin, show these amateurs how it's done please. 4/10

The East

(2013, Zal Batmanglij, Brit Marling)
I liked it? I think?
It might be stockholm syndrome. Brit Marling is brilliant and makes great movies. I just don't know if I want to see this again. Cults are big this year, and I sort of feel like I joined one by watching this. It's great, but jarring and slightly disturbing in an unconventional way. It's flawed in execution but I'm giving this movie a lot of credit for being substantially different, with a strong sense of story and good characters. 6/10

The Croods 

(2013, Kirk DeMicco, Chris Sanders)
For a kids movie it's great, but I'm annoyed that its about men showing how they can save their women.

I thought Emma Stone was the lead, but I was mistaken. This movie is only tangentially about her. If you make a badass female character, can you at least make her badass? She doesn't need to be saved by a handsome prince. Have her save the prince.

I also don't like that many kids movies illustrate a kid branching out and finding themselves by deliberately disobeying their parents. Maybe not a good role to show? Anyways I think it's a much better movie than Wreck it Ralph (which isn't saying much.) It's like James Cameron's Avatar, for kids. Its worth seeing. 7/10

REVIEW: Now You See Me

6/10 - Boom! KaBlam! Alakazam! I have made a cow appear! (And $12 is gone from your wallet)

I think the movie makers believe magic is real.

Really real. Not showmanship, like Harry Potter real.

This makes for a really bad movie when the premise is cops trying to debunk a magic trick, because some magicians robbed a bank. It was MAGIC.

Now You See Me goes for the smart, mysterious, caper feel of Ocean's Eleven. I think that's what audiences want too, they certainly showed up in theaters for it. Instead of following creating and executing the heist (like in Ocean's), the movie centers around and follows the guy chasing them. And that guy is boring.

I, too, falsely presumed that the four magicians would be the stars of this movie, something anyone who sees the poster or trailer would be inclined to think. Big name actors, who are clearly the smart ones, with a plan. I was wrong. The "Four Horsemen" are a red herring, acting as nothing but an intermediary. They are following orders to some McGuffin ending, which isn't even clear in the end. After the first 20 minutes, their role is marginalized and those four characters no longer make decisions. Meaning they are useless. I watched a whole movie about these useless people.

Now You See Me is actually about Dylan Rhodes (Mark Ruffalo) running around trying to "solve their crimes" through no investigatory technique or intelligence. Seriously, this is the protagonist, the dumbest person in the movie. There's also Morgan Freeman, who can figure out magic tricks (thank god someone in this movie can) and Melanie Laurent who plays a lady following Mark Ruffalo around. She's a great actress and is one of the only characters in the movie with charisma.

The movie itself falls apart after the first act. From the trailer it's clear that four magicians rob a bank during their stage act. This is promptly investigated, and rather quickly, explained. The next two acts try to replicate this, but don't do a good job. Neither the "illusions" or the "explanations" have any impact. I really want more of what was promised at the beginning. The story of the Four Horsemen coming together, and planning this would be wildly entertaining. The sleek magic act was really enjoyable to watch. It's sad that the magic really ends when the movie begins. The story should be straightforward, but becomes muddled with unclear character motivations, and false suspicion.

I think the actual magic is probably the worst element, distracting from, and ruining the movie. The magic illusions don't even need to be explained, they just needs to be plausible. Isla Fisher's character is constantly doing CGI tricks, to my utter annoyance and frustration. There is a long, documented history of real magicians creating elaborate and inventive illusions. I have a hard time believing many of them used post-production computer generated effects.

Not to mention that becoming a magician makes you a superhero! The magicians in Now You See Me not only gain strength and agility, but Tony Stark like technology, and some sort of telekinesis. I'm not making this up, I guess the writers couldn't conceive of what magic a magician could pull on other magicians, so they just made impossible things happen.

To round it out (hopefully I can summarize this in a way that won't spoil anything) the ending sucks. The ending to a caper like this should be highly anticipated with clues and hints, but wasn't. It's simply a convenient way to wrap up the story, and I think it's lazy and makes this movie cheap. It looks down on the audience instead of engaging them. I feel like this is a prime example of endings gone wrong, but I'll save that essay for another day.

Poof! The cow I made appear, just disappeared. Are you disappointed? I was.

IMDB - Now You See Me (7.3)
Wikipedia - Now You See Me
Rotten Tomatoes - Now You See Me (49%)
Amazon.ca - Now You See Me

REVIEW: Drinking Buddies

6/10 - Everyone gets drunk. I bet you weren't expecting that. 

Previously I put this in my "Most Anticipated Movie Whatever" list meaning - I had high expectations.

I was wrong. It wasn't that great.

Ok, ok. There was some good direction, and some great actors, but at the end of the day it was boring!

I like a movie that focuses on the mundane, making natural dialogue a priority and telling more grounded stories of everyday people. From what I understand writer/director Joe Swanberg specializes in naturalistic improvisational style. I also have a huge appreciation for low-budget filmmaking. Drinking Buddies tries to pull on all those strings for me, but at the end of the day, it's a jump that doesn't quite stick the landing.

I got to know these characters, I became invested in their lives and wanted to know more. I thought it balked at the end and didn't get there for me. This wasn't unsatisfying, but just uninteresting. It develops beautifully but by the final act, it became a flat story. Maybe the stunted action was meant to be real, but there are ways to do that without making me want to fall asleep. For me it's an incomplete emotional story.

I think I need to dole out some compliments, so I will say that I think the acting was superb. I've always considered the sign of a good actor to be conveying a range of emotions without dialogue. Across the board, this is a talented group of people.

I also genuinely appreciate the journey that it tried to go on. Relationships are complicated, and exploring the evolving relationship of friends was very smart. This script taps into an experience that will relate to a lot of people. I think there are a lot of stories like this that haven't been told on screen.

Drinking Buddies is most memorable to me for having great potential. I don't see nearly enough drama's that are grounded, not high concept or melodramatic. I want more real humans in movies who say things like "I just got really nervous" or for the silence to say more than the people. I want stories about women, and stories about real life and not cliches. I want more movies like this. But better.

IMDB - Drinking Buddies (6.0)
Wikipedia - Drinking Buddies
Rotten Tomatoes - Drinking Buddies (69%)
Amazon.ca - Drinking Buddies

REVIEW: Oz the Great and Powerful

6/10 - The great and powerful cash grab. 

Does this movie add anything to The Wizard of Oz that makes a prequel worthwhile? No, not really.

Is it a great movie that makes you think? Absolutely not.

Compared to some other big budget bombs that have come out lately, this movie really isn't that bad. Zack Braff is very entertaining. The combination of the beautiful score, with the imaginative, saturated visuals engages the senses. I never found it predictable, as the whole movie relies on a suspension of belief. There is a lot of charm in this movie, as it tries to show hope for "goodness", bordering on cavity-inducing sweetness.

It's never lacking in something to look at, or laugh at. It also has lots of those "did you like that part?" moments.

That stuff kind of kills me, as a movie fan. Moments that are cinematic but totally not stimulating. Writer's have to put in those moments, and for the most part I think that's why people see movies, for the big action scene at the end, or that super funny part that they can quote with their friends. It's the overabundance of cinematic sequences that are either predictable, pandering, or irreverent in terms of story. Moments that are either visually stunning, engaging with action, incredibly funny, or obviously emotional. It's movie paint-by-numbers. Sad-part here. Funny-part here.

That's the essential problem with Oz the Great and Powerful- The story doesn't actually make sense, it just wants the audience to feel like it does.

Does Oz learn anything in the end? No. What's the deal with the witches? Why did the evil one become not important, the good one become evil, and the other good one, stay kind of goodish? I still can't make sense of that. And just to get the story straight... They free The Emerald City from the oppressive witch who pretends to be good so that Oz (the guy) can pretend to be good instead? Is this an improvement? It's thin. At best.

I think what lacked in story, translated to some of the performances, on screen. Playing a Wicked Witch ought to be the role of a lifetime. But the three witches are bland and boring. Does Michelle Williams pour her heart out while retelling Oz of the terrible lies her sister has told, about killing her own father? No. It's not even a big deal. She's just stating a fact.

Mila Kunis seems to want to bring the drama, but her role doesn't make any sense. She's a witch, doing nothing, who becomes love sick, and then turns evil against her will. She should be a powerful central figure, but she floats through it all. Should a powerful witch be so easily crushed by a broken heart?

Rachel Weisz has one of the best roles in the film, being the one major schemer who's truly evil and sinister. But she is hardly remarkable. Not to mention James Franco. I will admit, that their must not have had an easy task, presumably filming most of this on green screen. Perhaps that's why these characters don't seem to react or resonate. The original Glinda was glorious to behold. Oz ought to be smart as a whip, and charming beyond belief.

The movie also drags it's heels, trying to make unimportant sequences grandiose. It runs at around 2 hours and it should be 90 minutes, max.

I have a lot to pick apart in this movie, but that might be because on first watch I saw that it was technically sound, very entertaining, and the scenes kept rolling, as it should in a big budget spectacle. It's not really a terrible film, as long as you don't think about it afterwards.

IMDb - Oz the Great and Powerful (6.6)
Wikipedia - Oz the Great and Powerful
Rotten Tomatoes - Oz the Great and Powerful (59%)
Amazon.ca - Oz the Great and Powerful