Movie Reviews

CHOICE Movie Reviews: Kung Fu Panda 3 by Andy Peth

1/30/2016

First, my score guide:

Quality:  This score indicates entertainment value.
0 stars is horrible, while 5 stars is spectacular.

Political:  This score addresses political messaging.
0 stars is aggressively anti-Conservative, while 5 stars is highly pro-Conservative.

Moral/Religious (M/R):  This score addresses moral and religious messaging.
0 stars is either intensely immoral or all-out, needless assault on Christianity. 5 stars is either great moral messaging or highly pro-Christian.

Kung Fu Panda 3
Quality – 3 stars, Political – 3 stars, M/R – 1.5 stars

In “Kung Fu Panda 3” from DreamWorks Animation, Jack Black returns as Po, the bumbling but powerful martial arts Panda. Yes, he’s still klutzy. Yes, he’s still chubby—and stairs are not his friend. Leading a village of pandas against the vengeful Kai (an evil bull returned from the spirit realm—played by J.K. Simmons), Po remains a lovable hero.

Po’s personal story expands with the return of his biological father, Li (voiced nicely by Bryan Cranston). Clumsy like Po, Li was summoned by “the universe” to find his son and bring him back to the hidden panda village, high in the mountains. There, Po will discover what it means to be a panda. Naturally, Po’s adopted father, a goose named Mr. Ping (James Hong), is highly jealous of this paternal intruder. Thus ensues a tug-of-war, where kids eventually learn having an extra parent can have benefits too (a comforting message for today’s splintered culture).

But in this third entry, Po’s story ventures far beyond issues of family, training, and fighting, veering sharply into the supernatural. Much more than the first two films, this was a pretty intense tutorial in Taoist mysticism. Reeeeally Eastern-Religious. At one point, I’d swear the theatre doors locked behind us, as some old guy in a robe started burning incense. It was heavy, man. And yet, as spiritual as this movie got, its message actually lacked the profound impact we’ve grown to expect.

We all know the moral of the first film: “There is no secret ingredient.” In other words, stop looking for one missing element that will complete you, and start enjoying the collection of strengths you already have. This was a great message for kids, since our never-ending quest for “missing ingredients” can make us feel inadequate.

But this time, the message was, well, confusing. Sure, there was a nice dash of “Don’t make others be like you,” but the rest seemed hopelessly scattered. Here’s how Po’s training felt in “Kung Fu Panda 3”—and I’m not exaggerating:

“Master, how will I find strength to defeat the evil Kai?”

“Po, you must learn to be you! The best ‘you’ you can be! Strive for inner you-ness!”

“By following you?”

“Only you know the real you! Too much me will make you less you!”

“But—”

“Discover you in the inner you, thus releasing the power of your Chi!”

“And with my inner Chi, I’ll be strong enough to defeat—”

“Only if others contribute their Chi to yours!”

“But how—”

“Their hands will glow!”

“Wait…what?”

“You must help them achieve inner them-ness!”

“So they should follow me to learn the glowing hand thing that I don’t know?”

“Yes! I mean, no! Each must discover their own Chi! You shall help them as I’m helping you!”

“But you’re not helping.”

“Ahhhh…at last you see!”

“See what?”

“That your inner you-ness releases your Chi with no help from me as I guide you!”

“My head hurts—”

“And their inner them-ness releases their Chi with no help from you as you guide them!”

“—really hurting—”

“And somehow, it all just works out!”

“—of course it does. Ten aspirin, please.”

“All their Chi flows to your Chi, as your you-ness and their them-ness combines everyone’s Chi to battle Kai!”

“Who?”

“The villain!”

“Oh yeah. Does his Chi do the glowing thing?”

“Indeed it does! And he has stolen the Chi of many great warriors!”

“Chi seems pretty transferrable. Maybe I could just loan you mine—”

“Never!”

“But if you had everyone’s everyone-ness, that would make for one big batch of Chi, and—”

“Only the Dragon Warrior can wield that much Chi!”

“So the one guy who knows none of this stuff is destined to use everyone’s Chi—because it’ll just work out?”

“Exactly!”

“Word of advice, Master: Don’t ever become an evangelist.”

Please understand, there’s much to like in this movie. The artwork is breathtaking. The humor, while a step down from its predecessors, is still pretty good. All the pandas of the hidden panda village are ultra-cuddly, and the little ones are adorable.

Master Shifu (Dustin Hoffman) is witty and wise as always, while Tigress (Angelina Jolie) provides caring friendship from a fierce warrior. Monkey (Jackie Chan), Mantis (Seth Rogan), Viper (Lucy Liu), and Crane (David Cross) are more or less afterthoughts, but they provide some continuity from the earlier films.

And what of Kai? Is he a great villain? Meh—he’s okay. Oddly enough, though he poses the greatest threat Po has faced, no one seems to know who he is—or was—and he doesn’t feel as compelling as the first two villains. Thankfully, DreamWorks makes sure his Chi-stealing (where he basically takes his victims’ souls) isn’t too scary for young viewers.

Oftentimes with final sequels, writers seize upon their “last big chance” with these characters as an opportunity to preach. This was no different. Along with multiple sub-plots, the resulting Chi stew was emotionally unsatisfying—leaving me feeling nothing when the credits hit. By comparison, after the first “Kung Fu Panda,” I was buzzing for a week.

“Kung Fu Panda 3” will keep kids engaged for 1½ hours, so mission accomplished. But with all its supernatural talk, this beloved franchise appears to have lost its magic.

2 Comments

CHOICE Movie Reviews: 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi by Andy Peth

1/15/2016

2 Comments

First, my score guide:

Quality:  This score indicates entertainment value.
0 stars is horrible, while 5 stars is spectacular.

Political:  This score addresses political messaging.
0 stars is aggressively anti-Conservative, while 5 stars is highly pro-Conservative. 3 stars is apolitical.

Moral/Religious (M/R):  This score addresses moral and religious messaging.
0 stars is either intensely immoral or all-out, needless assault on Christianity. 5 stars is either great moral messaging or highly pro-Christian.  3 stars is inoffensive either way.

13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi
Quality – 2.5 stars, Political – 4 stars, M/R – 3 stars

Speed kills our enemies. Lack of speed kills us. This is the distinct message of “13 Hours,” an apparently honest and accurate retelling of the siege at Benghazi.

Though “13 Hours” avoids politics like the plague, I won’t. No, my chief concern isn’t Republican vs. Democrat, but rather the main element missing from almost every debate regarding our war against Radical Islam: Speed. This movie, while too chaotic early on and too long overall, conveys the direct cost in lives when our protectors are hindered by bureaucrats.

For those who don’t understand Muslim terrorists, “13 Hours” makes it crystal clear: This enemy comes from everywhere, has great numbers, hits with lightning speed, and is religiously driven to kill. Because of this, we must be well-equipped and trained, but above all, we must be fast.

So before discussing the movie itself, let me apply the lone political message of “13 Hours” with three statements:

1. When designing rules of engagement that endlessly restrain our soldiers against unrestrained enemies, we create immense hesitation and doubt. That costs lives.

Speed kills our enemies. Lack of speed kills us.

2. In gathering, assessing, and using intel, every delay is measured in the blood of soldiers and civilians. That doesn’t mean there should be no constitutional limits; but rather that, in debating them, we factor in the price paid for each delay.

Speed kills our enemies. Lack of speed kills us.

3. When our President speaks of how our military spending is greater than other governments, he forgets that our greatest enemy isn’t a government. This enemy comes from everywhere with lightning speed, so hesitation in readiness doesn’t affect politicians—it affects the soldiers they presume to command.

Speed kills our enemies. Lack of speed kills us.

And now, on to the movie itself.

Our central character is Jack (a superbly cast John Krasinski), who arrives in Benghazi to join a team of CIA contractors (they’re called “Global Response Staff”—GRS) tasked with protecting diplomats and CIA personnel. Introducing him to the area is longtime friend Tyrone "Rone" Woods (James Badge Dale), who drives him through chaotic streets until they’re trapped in a local shootout. Welcome to Benghazi, pal.

Other members of the bearded, muscly team are Kris "Tanto" Paronto (Pablo Schreiber), Dave "Boon" Benton (David Denman), and John "Tig" Tiegen (Dominic Fumusa). These are battle-worn former Navy Seals and Marines, doing their jobs in awful settings without regard for political correctness. All expert marksmen, they are living weapons, but weapons with hearts. Much of their downtime is spent conversing with wives and kids via Skype and cellphones.

Perhaps the finest performance is put forth by David Costabile, who plays “Bob,” the CIA Chief at Benghazi. Bob is the bad guy—not because he’s evil, but rather because this is his last post before retirement, and he wants to delay any actions that might blemish his diplomatic career. Because of his indecisiveness, our heroes are held back a fateful 25 minutes while the US Embassy is stormed by Islamic killers.

Trapped at the Embassy is Ambassador Chris Stevens (played with well-meaning naiveté by Matt Letscher), who along with Information Officer Sean Smith, dies from smoke inhalation within an inferno while our heroes are told to “Stand down!” They eventually attempt rescue against Bob’s orders, but the lack of speed proves fatal.

Worse yet, the terrorists aren’t done. After torching diplomats, they lay siege to the CIA Annex itself, creating an Alamo-like experience where our outgunned heroes must hold off waves of ghostly figures approaching through the weeds, showering the Annex with RPG’s and bullets. It’s exhausting and infuriating, as the CIA personnel huddling below keep begging for air support that never comes. For whatever reason, the American military machine is holding off.

Speed kills our enemies. Lack of speed kills us.

This isn’t a great film. Not bad, per se, but certainly not great. The build-up to the first attack is far too slow, spanning over an hour. The now-obligatory “shaky camera” technique, though contributing to the “who’s good and who’s bad” chaos of the first battle, creates so much confusion that it’s hard to maintain interest. It’s just bullets flying. Thankfully, this method is largely dropped for the Annex siege, allowing us to follow the action and enjoy this heroic stand against incredible odds.

Let me close with some “13 Hours” advice to all politicians. Have your debates. Talk about our rights. Talk about our place in the world. Unraveling hard questions, do your best to ensure our liberties are still worth defending. But understand, we face a savage enemy that holds no respect for any of these things, and the greatest weapon against them is speed. So whatever you propose, if speed isn’t the central ingredient, your policies will kill Americans.

When discussing war, politicians see chess pieces, and chess is a slow game. In reality, war is about monsters against real people with families, not endless measuring of each move. No agency or military leader should be given complete control, as that breeds corruption. But at some point, we must trust those real people whom we ask to defend us.

And if Benghazi has taught us anything, we must give that trust…with speed.

2 Comments

CHOICE Movie Reviews: Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens by Andy Peth

12/18/2015

1 Comment

First, my score guide:

Quality:  This score indicates entertainment value.
0 stars is horrible, while 5 stars is spectacular.

Political:  This score addresses political messaging.
0 stars is aggressively anti-Conservative, while 5 stars is highly pro-Conservative. 3 stars is apolitical.

Moral/Religious (M/R):  This score addresses moral and religious messaging.
0 stars is either intensely immoral or all-out, needless assault on Christianity. 5 stars is either great moral messaging or highly pro-Christian.  3 stars is inoffensive either way.

Star Wars: Episode VII – The Force Awakens
Quality – 4.5 stars, Political – 4 stars, M/R – 3 stars

I was privileged to watch “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” with two distinguished Star Wars veterans: Jar Jar Binks and Yoda. Though the movie itself was spectacular, getting there was a challenge.

“Master Yoda, we’ve spent half an hour just walking to our auditorium. Could you pick it up the pace?”

“Patience, young Padawan.”

“Master, it’s a couple hundred feet...30 minutes…”

Yoda shook his head. “Impatience. Leads to the Dark Side it does.”

“Here Master, I think you’ll like this. It’s called a ‘Rascal Scooter,’ and it helps your mobility. Just sit right there. Now push this lever…not too hard…how’s that feel?”

As the Rascal pulled forward, Yoda’s eyes bulged out and he giggled with delight. “Mmmm-hm-hm-hm-hmmm!” Yoda bumped into a 5-year-old carrying Twizzlers. “Move you will! Rascal I have!”

The child started crying, prompting his mother to glare at me.

“Okay, this was a bad idea. How do I turn this thing off?”

“Mmmm-hm-hm-hm-hmmm! Cannot be turned off! Runs by the Force it does!”

“No it doesn’t! I just have to find the switch or battery or—will you please keep still?”

“Mmmm-hm-hm-hm-hmmm!”

“Oh for the love of—Jar Jar, give me a hand with—wait, where’s Jar Jar?”

A theater employee approached me. “Sir, can you please get your friend out of the popcorn popper?”

Jar Jar was spinning around, oil and seeds stuck to his face. “Oweee! Meesa hot! Whassa happenings! Hot, hot, hot, hot, oweeee!!!”

I grabbed Jar Jar’s feet and yanked. “Will you get out of there?! I’ll buy you some popcorn after we get seated!

“How wude!”

“Shut up! We have to get Yoda off the Rascal, and—omigosh, where’d he go?”

“Meesa know.” Jar Jar pointed down the hallway.

As a line of people waited for the show, one after another was magically levitated and then lowered as Yoda sped underneath. It looked like a wave at a ballgame.

“Strong in the Force I am! Rascal I have! Mmmm-hm-hm-hm-hmmm!”

Finally, and with much effort, I got the guys seated. Yoda sat quietly, almost meditating. Jar Jar chatted loudly with nearby children—until I quieted him. Then he defiantly slurped his soda—until I quieted him. Then he began texting. At long last, the film began…

…and it was awesome!

Gone were the monotone, political discussions of the three dreadful prequels. Remember those? C-SPAN in the stars? Revived were all the things we’ve missed—compelling characters, shocking plot twists, and high-flying action. Oh, and the humor was terrific; easily the best of the franchise.

The lone drawback? An all too familiar plotline.

“Thissa Episode IV: A New Hope! Meesa sees before!”

“Shhh! Movie you watch!”

But Yoda had to admit, Jar Jar’s point was valid. This storyline seemed a complete rehash. One hero hails from humble origins on a desert planet, an adorable droid (scene-stealing BB-8) carries critical information, a brash young pilot leads daring missions, a Dark Force villain dons black helmet and cape, a mega-powerful space station of evil must be destroyed…

That’s okay. It works. Director JJ Abrams breaks from the rut (if only demographically), casting a white woman and black man as the leads. That’s a start. Rey (wonderfully played by Daisy Ridley) assumes icon status with Jedi traits and mysterious origins. A fantastic heroine, she packs more fun in five minutes than Princess Padme gave in her full, miserable trilogy. But oh, those mysterious origins…

“Family they all are. Kiss they should not!”

True, everyone appears related somehow, and it will no doubt unfold in the next film, “Star Wars: Episode VIII – Return to Arkansas.” But that’s a staple of this hallowed franchise. Dramatic tension is largely built through tracing genealogies, and the characters would be wise to follow Yoda’s advice, perhaps requesting family tree printouts before dating.

Rey’s flirting interest is Finn (also well-played by John Boyega), an ex-Stormtrooper with a conscience. Having abandoned the First Order (which was borne from the Empire’s wreckage) Finn joins the Resistance, adding noble effort and comic timing along the way. You’ll love this guy. Oscar Isaac plays Poe Dameron, the cocky young pilot working for now-General Leia.

Our new villain is Kylo Ren (Adam Driver), and he’s a delight. Still learning his Dark Side craft, this black-clad baddie is a Darth Vader fanboy, even spending time communing with Vader’s recovered helmet.

“Unstable he is. A life he should get.”

Fair enough, Yoda. But after seeing Darths Sideous, Vader and Maul, I found it refreshing to watch this unsure (and unstable) villain on the rise. He is torn, still needing a clean break from his past before going full Sith. A fine young actor, Adam Driver brought maximum depth to Kylo without maximum screen time. Very impressive.

Added to this new group are our beloved returnees, including Leia (Carrie Fisher), Han Solo (Harrison Ford in a surprisingly central role), Chewbacca, C3PO, R2D2, Luke, and everyone’s favorite rust bucket, the Millennium Falcon. The Gang’s all here, and Abrams shows a deft touch weaving nostalgia with new faces.

“Woweeee! Thissa exciting a lot!”

Oh yes. The action. Choreographed with precision and power, this film’s battles produced plenty of crowd-pleasing booms – each of which led Jar Jar to shower food on me and an increasingly irritated Yoda. I didn’t care. Driven by its musical score, “The Force Awakens” was an indulgence for my senses, feasting my eyes on epic clashes amidst stunning scenery. Jar Jar was euphoric. At one moment screaming, the next he’d be howling with laughter, bouncing about while leading nearby kids in cheers. To my right, Yoda just growled beneath a growing mountain of soda-drenched popcorn.

“Yayyyyy! Like movies weesa done, huh?”

“Ummm…what?”

“Meesa remembers movies made togethers with Yoda!”

“Hmmph!” Yoda began hitting Jar Jar with his walking stick. “Ruined those movies you did! Expensive they were! Expensive they were!”

The guys quieted down as the ending approached. Though terribly predictable, it was handled with style and grandeur, as Abrams took great care while treading on hallowed ground. Loose plot ends were tied up. New ones were opened. A hero went forth. And of course, things blew up.

Jar Jar cheered. And cheered. And cheered, until Yoda could take no more. Shaking beneath wrinkled brow, he reached out his trembling hand.

“Aaaack!” JarJar was grabbing his neck. “Meesa can’t breathe! Aaaack!!”

“Mmmm-hm-hm-hm-hmmm!”

“Master Yoda, isn’t this sort of, well, Dark Side-ish?”

“The Dark Side…misunderstood it is!”

Jar Jar was on the floor, gasping. “Mee…sa…dy…dy…dy…”

“Just say it you will!”

“…ing…”

“Yeeeeeessss…over it will soon be…yeeeessss…”

Fortunately, Jar Jar survived when Yoda was carried off by Security (if four teenage employees qualify as Security). Kicking and writhing, Yoda was incensed. “Unhand me! Destroy him I will! Mmmm-hm-hm-hm-hmmm! Rascal I have! Destroy! Destroy!”

Thus ended my time seeing “Star Wars: Episode VII – The Force Awakens.” This is a great, great movie—and if you go with the right people, a great experience.

Bring on Episode VIII.

1 Comment

CHOICE Movie Reviews: The Good Dinosaur by Andy Peth

11/25/2015

2 Comments

First, my score guide:

Quality:  This score indicates entertainment value.
0 stars is horrible, while 5 stars is spectacular.

Political:  This score addresses political messaging.
0 stars is aggressively anti-Conservative, while 5 stars is highly pro-Conservative. 3 stars is apolitical.

Moral/Religious (M/R):  This score addresses moral and religious messaging.
0 stars is either intensely immoral or all-out, needless assault on Christianity. 5 stars is either great moral messaging or highly pro-Christian.  3 stars is inoffensive either way.

The Good Dinosaur
Quality – 3.5 stars, Political – 3 stars, M/R – 1.5 stars

Cute, but disturbing.

Those were the words echoing in my mind after Pixar’s “The Good Dinosaur.” It starts with a heavily evangelistic Hindu short, dedicated from a director to his father. Pretty cute. But pretty disturbing. The audience was stone silent, and I doubt they’d have felt any better if the short were themed, “Jesus is my hero!”

Then came the feature film, leading off with a fun premise: “What would happen if the dinosaurs never went extinct?”

We begin elsewhere in our solar system. An object hurtles toward Earth. This of course is the meteor that supposedly wiped out the dinosaurs—but instead of wreaking devastation, it actually misses our planet (presumably with Bruce Willis’s help). Cool. New direction. Lots of possibilities. Perhaps a sequel is planned to follow the exploits of the little meteor.

As a result, dinosaurs continue as Earth’s dominant species, even progressing to farming and other human-like activities. How? Never mind that. It’s a kid film. After all, if 60’s rockers had never gone extinct, maybe they would have mastered hygiene, right?

We’ll never know.

The landscapes in this movie take your breath away. Dazzling to the eye, scene after scene makes you wonder if any film can ever top this. But amidst all the oohs and ahs, a disturbing element rears its head:

“This is too much for kids.”

Case in point: A cute little animal is eaten by an evil Pterodactyl right before your eyes--not off screen. Worse yet, you first see how cute the animal is, complete with big eyes and smiling, thinking it’s being saved—before being gobbled, tail still sticking out of the Pterodactyl’s mouth. Still worse, two other Pterodactyls reach in, tearing at the dead creature to get their share.

No, I’m not kidding. That’s wayyyyyyy too graphic for little kids.

And of course, there’s the now obligatory Bambi scene, where the little hero’s parent dies. At one point, a boy bites a head off a large bug—which was semi-funny, but still pretty shocking.

Graphic. Disturbing. Yikes.

Another problem plaguing “The Good Dinosaur” is, of all things, predictability. That seems odd, given its unique start, but the storyline is classic Pixar retread. Young character is cute. Young character suffers great loss—emotionally gripping young viewers. Young character gets wacky buddy—emotionally relieving young viewers. Young character and wacky buddy must find their way home. There are funny characters (especially a hilarious scene with groundhogs) and harrowing dangers along the way.

Just think Jurassic Nemo.

Our young hero is Arlo, a timid Apatosaurus voiced by Raymond Ochoa. Raised by Momma (Frances McDormand) and Poppa (Jeffrey Wright), Arlo wants to make his place on the family farm, but that’s difficult given him being, well, a little wimp—much smaller than his siblings. Seriously, if I ever wanted to become a bully, I’d use Arlo as a training wimp, before moving up to real wimps who might one day resist.

After tragedy strikes in a flood, Arlo finds himself lost. Trying to get home, Arlo slowly befriends a little human boy whom he names, “Spot” (voiced by Jack Bright), all while meeting good guys (some T-Rex’s operating as cattle ranchers) and villains (the aforementioned Pterodactyls). Set at an early stage of human development (or the reverted stage seen at college frat parties), Spot walks on all fours and acts like a dog. He barks. He pants. He growls and bites. Spot is a Dino’s best friend.

The movie’s message is simple: “Face your fears.” Unfortunately, the makers of “The Good Dinosaur” believe that shocking children—and their parents—is the best way to do this. To them, little ones must be desensitized sooner; become jaded, quicker. After all, it’s a Pterodactyl-eats-Thumper world out there, kids.

You know what I’d like? I’d like to sit these Hollywood filmmakers in a room. Then I’d bring in Grade School faculty who insist on sex education at earlier ages. They’d sit down, too. Then I’d bring in all the coked-out Disney girls of the past two decades. Sit, girls, sit.

Addressing these invasive preachers, I’d say, “Newsflash: No one asked you to raise their kids. Filmmakers should entertain. Teachers should equip. Coked-out Disney girls should scream at nurses during rehab. But raising kids? Deciding when it’s time for the next step? Why don’t you leave that to adults, ‘kay? Leave that to people who will still be there to pick up the pieces after you’ve gone back to your mansions and faculty lounges. Leave parenting to parents, because frankly, you’re not up to the task.”

Sorry. Sermon over.

Please understand, “The Good Dinosaur” has plenty of entertainment value. There are fun moments and a touching interaction describing the value of “family.” Great stuff. But sometimes, Disney and Pixar refuse to stop at the great stuff. That’s when things go from cute…

…to disturbing.

Pixar, let’s just stick with cute.

2 Comments

CHOICE Movie Reviews: The Hunger Games: Mockingjay II by Andy Peth

11/20/2015

1 Comment

First, my score guide:

Quality:  This score indicates entertainment value.
0 stars is horrible, while 5 stars is spectacular.

Political:  This score addresses political messaging.
0 stars is aggressively anti-Conservative, while 5 stars is highly pro-Conservative. 3 stars is apolitical.

Moral/Religious (M/R):  This score addresses moral and religious messaging.
0 stars is either intensely immoral or all-out, needless assault on Christianity. 5 stars is either great moral messaging or highly pro-Christian.  3 stars is inoffensive either way.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay II
Quality – 4 stars, Political – 4 stars, M/R – 3 star

Have you noticed movies with young people are getting depressing?

“Day 1: The name’s Dorothy. My team and I are going to kill a Wicked Witch. I didn’t want this job. But the people said I was their Mockingjay. Said the Force was strong with me. Said I was Divergent—huh? Said I was the Ring Bearer. They wouldn’t stop saying I was things till I took the mission.”

“Day 2. Our numbers are dwindling. Scarecrow went first. Bringing the world’s most flammable man to a war zone—that one’s on me. Poof! Gone. And Lion? Turned and ran—right into a wall. We just left him there.”

“Day 3. Had to cut Tin Man loose, once his oil dependency flared up. I got no time for junkies.”

“Day 4. Should have known Toto was helping the Witch. He changed after her ‘treatments.’ Wouldn’t come when I called. Twitched a lot. Never blinked. When I caught him giving away our position, he just laughed and said, ‘Trust me! We’re both from Kansas!’ Those were his last words. This ain’t no freakin’ Kansas.”

“Day 5. I’m all that’s left now. Not my fault. I promised them brains, heart and courage in a magical land of music and dancing—but recruiters always say that! I needed bodies, dammit! I needed bodies!”

“Day 7. Haven’t eaten in two days; not since that flying monkey crossed my path. It was him or me. War changes a girl.”

“War changes a girl.”

“The Hunger Games: Mockingjay II" is a worthy finale for this blockbuster franchise. There’s good action. Terrifying special effects. Though at times predictable, Hunger 4 maintains a dystopian blend of coolness and dread.

The lone drawback? This film is grim. Hopes keep getting dashed. Beloved characters keep dropping—one seemingly from nowhere. Like Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Matrix, and any other “Chosen One” series, the central character becomes gloomier as the climax nears.

No light remains in the eyes of Katniss Everdeen.

Reprising her signature role, Jennifer Lawrence balances poise with vulnerability. Katniss is hurting, yet more driven than ever. She races through peril. But wearing her down are swirling political agendas—so she often appears, frankly, irritated. Josh Hutcherson captivates as the damaged Peeta, a tortured soul with literal love-hate feelings toward Katniss. And oozing villainy from every pore, Donald Sutherland dominates as the evil President Snow, while Julianne Moore brings cold ambition to President Coin (neither Snow nor Coin are polling well for 2016).

It’s not like “Hunger Games: Mockingjay II” is always depressing. There’s romance—okay, conflicted romance, as Katniss remains torn between Peeta and the hunky but wooden Gale (Liam Hemsworth). And there’s some honest discussion of war; both its necessity and horror. For young viewers, this will provide more insight than most academic lectures.

There’s political intrigue, with Coin wanting Katniss held back from the front lines as more of a PR goddess—all to help Coin’s ascendency. Wary of Coin’s goals, Katniss prefers fighting to rallying, but Coin has a point: This dystopian world is a strange one, where citizens only fight after lengthy speeches from hot girls wearing leather. Go figure.

If the action drags, it’s because Director Francis Lawrence does a fine job building tension. Just wait…it’s coming. Of particular interest is watching Katniss’s shrinking Seal Team Six press forth to the Capital, setting off “pods” that bring everything from boiling oil to monsters called “mutts.” (Note: These are almost identical to vampires from the movie, “Priest”) It’s cool stuff.

Okay, maybe this whole film is depressing. Bleak to a fault, “Hunger Games: Mockingbird II” feels like a kid’s birthday party where the clown is going through a nasty divorce. “Don’t ever trust a broad, kids. I drink to quiet the pain. Hey, who wants cake?”

I do. I want cake. I want fun. I want to laugh again—to feel the warm sun upon my face. But with all its misery and woe, Hunger 4 sends us off with thrilling combat and a satisfying ending—one of the more pleasing conclusions I’ve seen in years. Sure, young people will stream from the theatre with shaken expressions, looking for their safe space. But I liked it.

Still, I’ll probably rent The Wizard of Oz now. The happy one.

1 Comment

CHOICE Movie Reviews: Spectre by Andy Peth

11/6/2015

1 Comment

First, my score guide:

Quality:  This score grades entertainment value.
0 stars is horrible, while 5 stars is spectacular.

Political:  This score grades political messaging.
0 stars is aggressively anti-Conservative, while 5 stars is highly pro-Conservative. 3 stars is apolitical or middle ground.

Moral/Religious (M/R):  This score grades moral and religious messaging.
0 stars is either intensely immoral or all-out, needless assault on Christianity. 5 stars is either great moral messaging or highly pro-Christian.  3 stars is inoffensive either way.

Spectre
Quality – 2.5 stars, Political – 3 stars, M/R – 2 stars

This latest Bond film opens with a thrilling sequence in Mexico City, following Agent 007 James Bond (Daniel Craig) through a Day of the Dead parade to a spectacular helicopter fight. It weakens from there. Still haunted by the “Skyfall” death of his previous M (the title given every Bond boss), Bond is pursuing a villain on his own—without authorization from MI6. This leaves him fighting as much against the British Secret Service as for it. Once again, he’s on the outside.

Once again.

Pardon my angst, but this is getting old, as Daniel Craig’s 007 keeps going rogue. Like, almost every movie. How M (now played by Ralph Fiennes) puts up with it is beyond me:

M: “James, as you can see, the compound will be vulnerable to approach from the north, and—oh, could you hand me that pen?”

Bond: “No. I’m going rogue.”

M: “But…it’s just a pen.”

Bond: “I’m my own man. I do as I will.”

M: “Fine! I’ll get one from the next room!”

Bond: “I’ll be gone when you return. Off the grid, outside the rules, blending in with the natives—”

M: “Are you finished?”

Bond: “—almost—like a phantom, fighting evil my own way…I call it ‘rogue-ing.’”

M: “Stop that.”

Bond: “I have this full head of hair, thanks to—”

M: “—please don’t say it—”

Bond: “Rogaine.”

M: “I’m getting a pen. Back in a minute.”

Bond: “I’ll be in this room—but not this chair. I could be anywhere, off the grid, blending in…”

Honestly, why can’t this Bond just do his job? It’s so simple, James! Just kill musclebound henchmen with fake karate chops! Escape shark tanks in a tuxedo! Have unprotected sex with women whose names are sexually suggestive--just cut the drama and do your job! Why is this Bond such a…well…annoying employee?

(Then again, the sex names were a bit awkward. I'd rather say, “Mom, meet my new girlfriend, Cori,” than “Mom, meet my new girlfriend, Baroness Von Octopussy from Slutvakia.” But I digress.)

Thankfully, this film still provides harrowing fun. At its best when smirking through nostalgia, “Spectre” rehashes characters and concepts from Bond movies past. Fight an unstoppable brute on a train? Check. Demented supervillain with a white cat? Check. Gorgeous, self-assured woman (Madeleine Swann, played by Lea Seydoux) vowing not to be seduced—wink, wink? Check-a-roo! Eschewing the Gloomy Gus aura of the past three outings, Craig’s 4th Bond flick restores some Bond wit, embracing formula enough to make fun of formula. It works.

If only Director Sam Mendes had settled for that. If only. Even with tracking down Spectre (a secret terrorist organization from multiple Bond films), this film’s playful frolic should only have taken 2 hours—but it’s about 2½.

I believe this is the longest Bond movie ever. Dragging it out is a needless subplot, wherein British leadership wants all intel under one roof—endangering the “00” program—and favors smothering surveillance of the population. Hence, our fun is invaded by an anti-Patriot Act lecture (regardless of one’s opinions, such sermonizing slows the pace). And typical of Hollywood, the antagonists are painted in exaggerated terms; blind with power, contemptuous toward our heroes.

Well, 007 doesn’t like this one bit.

“The name’s Snowden…Edward Snowden.”

“Spectre” is a classic example of doing too much. It already has a terrific villain (the evil Franz Oberhauser, beautifully played by Christoph Waltz). It boasts gorgeous scenery, amusing banter, charming characters like Moneypenney (Naomi Harris) and Q (Ben Whishaw), and action galore. It even offers an engaging mystery—but creeps through it at a snail’s pace. The problem? Topical preaching. Such political evangelism requires a movie of its own, but shoving it in creates that uneasy feeling of ulterior motives; like we’re only being entertained so the director can slip us his propaganda.

No one likes that feeling. It cheapens both the movie and the director’s pet issue. Worse yet, it cheapens the audience—those paying big money for movie tickets and popcorn. In the end, “Spectre” basically give our money’s worth, but…

…it’s a bit too preachy. A bit too fight-the-system. A bit too rogue.

1 Comment

CHOICE Movie Reviews: The Last Witch Hunter by Andy Peth

10/24/2015

1 Comment

First, my score guide:

Quality:  This score indicates entertainment value.
0 stars is horrible, while 5 stars is spectacular.

Political:  This score addresses political messaging.
0 stars is aggressively anti-Conservative, while 5 stars is highly pro-Conservative. 3 stars is apolitical.

Moral/Religious (M/R):  This score addresses moral and religious messaging.
0 stars is either intensely immoral or all-out, needless assault on Christianity. 5 stars is either great moral messaging or highly pro-Christian.  3 stars is inoffensive either way.

The Last Witch Hunter
Quality – 2 stars, Political – 3 stars, M/R – 1.5 stars

Halloween approaches! It’s a magical time, when evil roams the land, and ordinary women can legally wear as much black as Megyn Kelly. Per usual, Hollywood unleashes horror films of all kinds, from slashers to ghosts to zombies. The first monster this year?

Witches!

And these aren’t just any witches. No, no! Employing impressive CGI, these covens wield a dazzling array of visual horrors. They blow crystalline fire. They insta-grow tree branches and roots over victims. Obeying their commands, swarms of flies move in spectacular patterns. And naturally, this all occurs in darkness and shadows.

But herein lies a problem, for much of the action transpires against drab, dismal backgrounds. It’s all just a bit too…dark. And this muddles the action. And characters. And story. I felt like I was dreaming about watching my latest nightmare while drunk.

Vin Diesel plays Kaulder, an ageless witch hunter who has spent the past 8 centuries bringing down these ultra-baddies. Cool as always, Vin’s up to the task—and he’s got help. Assisting his enduring quest is a Catholic Priest with the designation, “Dolan.” Michael Caine plays Dolan 36, Kaulder’s longtime friend who is finally retiring, while “Don’t-call-me-Frodo” Elijah Wood plays the youthful Dolan 37. Apparently, Kaulder needs a priest at his side.

(If this sounds like a “Van Helsing” ripoff, that’s only because it’s a “Van Helsing” ripoff)

Cursed by the Witch Queen at her death centuries ago, Kaulder must forever live “without really living”—a concept we grow to understand the longer we watch this film.

The Witch Queen is a muddy mess of a villain. Though other witches are shown freely altering their appearance, this all-powerful vixen (actress/model Julie Engelbrecht) can’t, for some reason. It’s crazy. Hiding beyond public view, she skulks about with skin peeling, drooping from her face and arms. She looks like a snake in mid-shed—or Madonna standing too close to a heat lamp. At any rate, she’s just too icky and goopy to really, you know, despise. I half wanted to start a GoFundMe account for her condition.

Rounding out the cast is Chloe (Rose Leslie); Hollywood’s latest obligatory example of a well-meaning witch. Chloe’s cute and visionary, but why can’t movies just let witches be bad anymore? I don’t recall seeing thoughtful, misunderstood sharks in “Jaws,” and the absence of jolly old Orcs in “Lord of the Rings” provided a reassuring consistency. But witches? We always need some good ones. It’s like a Wiccan somewhere has little dolls of every Hollywood producer, hovering over a flame.

Gotta get me one of those.

Anyway, “The Last Witch Hunter” has plenty of action, special effects, and dark, oogity-boogity chills for this holiday season—but without the heart (which is ironic, as it contains an actual beating heart). It’s just too difficult to embrace the characters, or care what happens to them.

My advice? Rent “Van Helsing,” or a true Vin Diesel masterpiece, “Pitch Black.” Guys, dress like Count Dracula. Girls, dress like Megyn Kelly. Halloween comes but once a year, so you might as well enjoy it.

1 Comment

Bridge of Spies by Andy Peth

10/17/2015

0 Comments

First, my score guide:

Quality:  This score indicates entertainment value.
0 stars is horrible, while 5 stars is spectacular.

Political:  This score addresses political messaging.
0 stars is aggressively anti-Conservative, while 5 stars is highly pro-Conservative. 3 stars is apolitical.

Moral/Religious (M/R):  This score addresses moral and religious messaging.
0 stars is either intensely immoral or all-out, needless assault on Christianity. 5 stars is either great moral messaging or highly pro-Christian.  3 stars is inoffensive either way.

Bridge of Spies
Quality – 2 stars, Political – 1 star, M/R – 4 stars

A lost opportunity…to the nth degree. This sums up Steven Spielberg’s “Bridge of Spies.”

Depicting insurance lawyer James Donovan (nicely played with low-key distinction by Tom Hanks), Spielberg stylishly recreates the Cold War 1950’s, wherein Donovan defends a Soviet spy and negotiates his trade for a captured American pilot.

The spy was Rudolph Abel (Mark Rylance in a superb performance). In real life, Abel was a deeply committed enemy of America, assisting one of history’s most murderous regimes—but you’d never know it from this film. Spielberg’s Abel is a sympathetic character—a good guy of all good guys. And Americans who despised him? Why, they were all close-minded lunatics.

Lest you feel I demand flag-waving patriotism, my real concern (beyond the terribly slow pace) was Spielberg’s lost opportunity. Had he attempted some level of even-handedness, we’d have enjoyed thoughtful treatment of a complex issue; that of balancing American liberties against foreign threats. Alas, “Bridge of Spies” is the opposite of “Dead Man Walking,” the terrific 1995 film on capital punishment. Like a newscast showing only one side, Spielberg’s latest effort leaves us wanting more; more real debate, more ideological tension, more thoughtful conversations afterward.

More reason to look at the screen, not one’s watch.

On one side, Donavan gives a rousing statement in favor of the 4th Amendment, as Abel is shown searched without rights and railroaded by a biased judge. Hanks’s delivery of this speech might well be the movie’s finest moment. Unfortunately, no counterpoint is offered—leaving a boring, painfully predictable storyline.

One wonders what might have been, had Spielberg shown another side. What if we learned the real threats posed by Russian spying, or the disadvantage created by following strict rules when your opponent does not? Facing these issues with today’s terror conflict, Americans would be glued to the screen, wondering how we maintain personal liberty while protecting against its enemies.

Instead, Spielberg opts for a Hollywood sermon, portraying Communist spies as cuddly old men who liked to paint, and the Cold War as a time of baseless paranoia. One would think no real threat existed—seriously.

Performances beyond the two main characters are solid, but unspectacular. Donovan’s wife is supportive yet concerned, his boss and the judge are simplistic anti-Russian antagonists, the pilot (along with an imprisoned economic student thrown into the trade) is a scared kid, the CIA agent assigned to Donovan is an uncaring zealot—like the story itself, none exhibit any depth or struggle with conscience.

Thankfully, there are some humorous moments, and Donovan’s deal-making provides occasional interest. Though you still know how it all plays out, his bluffs and strategies create some doubt as to how.

So I was less bored. Not a lot less, but less. After 2½ hours in that theatre seat, I saw the whole experience as…what else?...a lost opportunity.

0 Comments

CHOICE Movie Reviews: Pan by Andy Peth

10/9/2015

1 Comment

First, my score guide:

Quality:  This score indicates entertainment value.
0 stars is horrible, while 5 stars is spectacular.

Political:  This score addresses political messaging.
0 stars is aggressively anti-Conservative, while 5 stars is highly pro-Conservative. 3 stars is apolitical.

Moral/Religious (M/R):  This score addresses moral and religious messaging.
0 stars is either intensely immoral or all-out, needless assault on Christianity. 5 stars is either great moral messaging or highly pro-Christian.  3 stars is inoffensive either way.

Pan
Quality – 1 star, Political – 3 stars, M/R – 1.5 star

Until now, Robin Williams’ “Hook” stood alone as history’s worst Peter Pan movie. Robin, I wish you’d lived to see “Pan.” It would have brought you comfort.

Levi Miller plays Peter—a 12-year-old boy of destiny, left on the doorsteps of a WWII-era orphanage. Such a dreary place. Oddly blending “Oliver Twist” with “The Blues Brothers,” this hellhole is run by ridiculously wicked nuns who sell kids to pirates. Why nuns? Don’t ask me. Apparently, the writer has some axe to grind with Catholics, and we’ve paid to watch it. Perhaps the sequel will depict Mother Theresa running an India-based network of identity thieves.

Forever haunting Hugh Jackson will be his role as Blackbeard, the more-sadist-than-pirate leader of a mining slave camp. Hugh, I know someone other than Johnny Depp had to play one of these roles, but why you? Anyway, Blackbeard keeps stealing kids to work the mines on his hidden island, though he dreads a prophecy regarding a child who will one day start flying and lead a rebellion against him. Huh. In biblical times, such prophecies were cause for killing kids off, but this guy imports them. Ummm…Hugh, is it really too late to call Johnny Depp?

Confusing? That’s nothing compared to the action scenes, which appear drawn from a Picasso…that’s spinning. Everything is sideways, upside-down, computer-generated, crystalline or foggy—like being in Miley Cyrus’s brain the morning after her latest “I’m not Hanna!” party. It’s awful. Lining the theatre aisles were dizzy patrons, crawling toward exits, convulsing as stray popcorn stuck to their sweating faces. Some kid was selling Dramamine. I paid $300 for one hit. Totally worth it.

Garrett Hedlund plays James Hook—soon to be Captain Hook—who at this stage is a good guy. Thus, we must endure a second film to see him turn to the Dark Side. I’ll pass. Dressed like Indiana Jones, Hook is the much overused “Not interested in being a hero”—hero. Yeesh. Formulaic to the core, this reluctant hunk comes through when we need him most—the big lug!

Assisting Hook is Mr. Smee (Adeel Akhtar), a comedic character who isn’t remotely funny; like today’s Whoopi Goldberg.

Peter and Hook are captured by a painted tribe which dances about in similar fashion to those cuddly Ewoks from Star Wars’ Forest Moon of Endor. No one says why this tribe is celebrating or dancing about; they’re just a thinly sketched group of morons. Their warrior princess, Tiger Lily (ably played by Rooney Mara) fights with the skill of Marvel’s Black Widow. Honestly, I don’t know why Peter Pan is needed, since Tiger Lily pummels Blackbeard just fine on her own.

But hey, Hook needs a love interest, and his romance with Lily carries all the chemistry of an “It’s Just Lunch” pairing. He's a dashing rogue. She's a lovely spitfire. Together, they're an ultra-predictable cliché. In our wrath-filled auditorium, even teen girls gagged at this pairing.

The mermaids are electric…like eels. No, seriously. This makes zero sense, except that every new film with mermaids seems driven to change them. The next attempt will probably make them puff up like blowfish, complete with spikes. If they can grow legs, they’ll each get four, retaining tails as they first slither onto land (this approach might have hurt Ariel’s chances with the Prince). Well, at least the next batch won’t be electric. That’s taken.

The fairies are so tiny, they display neither expressions nor compassion. But there are millions of them! Echoing The Ten Commandments, Peter unleashes these little shimmering hoards upon hapless Egyptians—er, pirates—like swarms of locusts. Simultaneously horrifying and sparkly (words I’ve never before combined), the fairies overrun defenseless prey, plunging men to the depths below…or above...or staggering into theatre aisles…wait, that was me. Honestly, I don’t know what became of the screaming villains…wait, the screaming was me too.

I’m lost. I’m just lost. Please make the film stop spinning. Now the Dramamine kid is selling maps to the exit. $200 a pop.

Totally worth it.

1 Comment

CHOICE Movie Reviews: Inside Out by Andy Peth

6/19/2015

1 Comment

First, my score guide:

Quality:  This score indicates entertainment value.
0 stars is horrible, while 5 stars is spectacular.

Political:  This score addresses political messaging.
0 stars is aggressively anti-Conservative, while 5 stars is highly pro-Conservative. 3 stars is apolitical.

Moral/Religious (M/R):  This score addresses moral and religious messaging.
0 stars is either intensely immoral or all-out, needless assault on Christianity. 5 stars is either great moral messaging or highly pro-Christian.  3 stars is inoffensive either way.

Inside Out
Quality – 3 stars, Political – 4 stars, M/R – 3 stars

I love Pixar. Though not perfect (Wall-E, Cars 2), the famed animation studio almost always generates thrilling experiences—and usually, its films aren’t preachy (except for Wall-E and Cars 2).

Visually impressive and fairly funny, “Inside Out” drags some, due to endless metaphors and symbols. Is it preachy? No, not at all. In fact, the message is sound. Is it worth seeing? Sure—if only for the performances of 11-year-old Riley’s five emotions, headlined by Joy (Amy Poehler) and Sadness (Phyllis Smith). Though Joy is the star, Sadness is clearly the key, as “Inside Out” teaches the value of letting kids experience sadness rather than suppress it. The other three emotions (Anger-Lewis Black, Disgust-Mindy Kaling, Fear-Bill Hader) provide comedic background that works, if not hilariously.

This is the story of a young girl going through the hard transition of uprooting from one place (Minnesota) and moving with her parents to another (San Francisco). The whole experience is conveyed through her five emotions, who must grapple with change while holding Riley together. Naturally, since this is Pixar and most everything occurs in Riley’s mind, the cartoonistry is terrific; the action, fun.

Girls will connect easily with Riley’s emotions, while boys might struggle a bit. We guys generally experience movies with all five of our emotions (Anger, Anger, Anger, Lust, Confusion), but this film only requires Confusion. In fact, Confusion has himself a field day.

The first and last quarters are brilliant, entertaining, and touching. The inner half, however, wanders badly with too much psychology, and it made dozens of kids around me shift with disinterest (as did I). I kept tugging on my wife’s sleeve, saying, “I wanna go home. I wanna get ice cream. I wanna go pee-pee, then cry for hours without knowing waaahhhhyyy.”

One stint where Joy and Sadness endure an “Abstract Shortcut” resembles awful performance art in a community college courtyard. Yikes. The whole section feels like a pot-scented clown reciting ‘60’s beatnik poetry, saying, “Kids, this isn’t funny or interesting, but it’s trying to be! And it’s artsy, too! Do you want a hit off this?”

I listened to children talk with their parents as they left, and they sounded perplexed. I heard no “And then there was a train, and then the puppy made me laugh, and then…”

Instead, they were saying, “I regret, Mother, the way I acted out earlier today—perhaps due to prenatal impressions visiting themselves upon present times. Yes, that must be it, for I was projecting my own insecurities upon you. I believe the word I’m searching for is ‘sorry’—yes, I am sorry I posted pictures of you and Daddy online.”

“Inside Out” will no doubt wow the critics, as it plays like a 2nd-Semester Psych course adapted in 3-D animation. I expect phrases like “childhood exuberance conveyed through a thoughtful study, all with delightful sights and winning performances.” Yes, the accolades will be many—and justified. But while kids will like it enough, and some adults will discuss it for hours, I just didn’t find it that enjoyable.

Is “Inside Out” the next “Wall-E?” No. Is it the next “Cars 2?” Goodness, no! But if I combined “Finding Nemo” with an hour of looking at a painting and saying, “This really speaks to me”…

…I’d be watching “Inside Out” a second time. Which I won’t.

1 Comment

<<Previous

CHOICE Movie Reviews: Kung Fu Panda 3 by Andy Peth

CHOICE Movie Reviews: 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi by Andy Peth

CHOICE Movie Reviews: Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens by Andy Peth

CHOICE Movie Reviews: The Good Dinosaur by Andy Peth

CHOICE Movie Reviews: The Hunger Games: Mockingjay II by Andy Peth

CHOICE Movie Reviews: Spectre by Andy Peth

CHOICE Movie Reviews: The Last Witch Hunter by Andy Peth

Bridge of Spies by Andy Peth

CHOICE Movie Reviews: Pan by Andy Peth

CHOICE Movie Reviews: Inside Out by Andy Peth

CHOICE Movie Reviews

Archives

Categories