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: Spring Breakers

7/10 - Watching this movie felt like an acid trip.

Summer time… perfect for a fun, exciting, sexy movie adventure. Just not Spring Breakers.

This movie is a dramatic exploration of party culture. It’s surrounded by sex, booze, music, drugs, and guns, but unlike other movies, it’s not about that stuff, its about girls who get lost in that world. Possibly why so many Disney stars flocked to this movie to shed their wholesome image.

I really enjoyed the story telling aspect of this film. The writing and editing was fascinating. There is very little narrative, this movie talks with it’s action. That being said, this is not a fast paced thriller. It's far more of a character study then a crime movie. If you are expecting a summer hit with lots of memorable action, you've come to the wrong place. 

Writer/Director Harmony Korine seems to take the totally absurd and make it realistic and raw in this universe. I never found anything to be incredibly funny or shocking while watching it, only after did I realize how bizarre this movie gets. At points is uses Britney Spears bubblegum culture to drive home corruption, but it doesn't feel out of place. It just feels honest and gritty.

The biggest flaw in Spring Breakers is how none of the young stars are charismatic or engaging. The four girls who go to Florida are tightly knit but completely interchangeable. It was difficult for me to keep watching, initially because of this, but in retrospect I don't think it was unintentional. 

James Franco as Alien is something else. For being such an incredibly over the top exaggeration of a stereotype, he is also the salt of the earth in this film. I still can't tell whether he is a good actor or whether he is good at choosing movie roles. His role turns this movie around in more ways than one. 

I have a hard time deciding whether I enjoyed this movie. I am grateful to experience something atypical from the Hollywood blockbuster, but there are times when it dragged and felt self indulgent. But again, that's sort of the point. When you get beyond the "shock value" of what you expect the movie to be compared to what you get, there is a satisfying journey that sneaks up and takes the audience by surprise. 

When you take away the stars, this is a low budget, gem that will likely get overlooked. If you do decide to watch it, make sure it's late at night. 

IMDB - Spring Breakers (6.1)

Wikipedia - Spring Breakers

Rotten Tomatoes - Spring Breakers (65%)

Amazon.ca - Spring Breakers

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