Blog Posts

CHOICE Movie Reviews: Taken 3 by Andy Peth

1/9/2015

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.

Taken 3
Quality – 2 stars, Political – 4 stars, M/R – 3 stars

“Now listen very carefully. I have a very particular set of skills. If you don’t return my wife…or daughter…or dry cleaning you picked up by accident…to be honest, I’ve forgotten who or what you took…but if you don’t return it, I will find you. And I will kill you. There will probably be chase scenes. So unless you have great cardio, consider your next move very carefully.”

“Who am I? That’s not important right now. What should matter to you is what I do. I am a political writer. Though I never actually leave home, I have amassed deadly skills through hundreds of hours playing ‘Game of War.’ I do not rest. I rarely shower, as that is not one of my particular skills. I make my wife wear Kate Upton’s costume from the ‘Game of War’ commercials. My wife is only 5’1”, so she must pull the sword behind her in a red wagon. In truth, I can’t be sure you’ve taken her, as she might only be standing behind the wagon. I’ll go check when we’re done speaking.”

“This is your last chance. There will not be another, as I am over on my minutes.”

What you’ve just read is the script for my voice mail. Yes, I love the “Taken” movies.

In “Taken 3,” Liam Neeson returns as ex-CIA agent, Bryan Mills. Now in his 60’s, Neeson nonetheless carries himself well as the brutal, methodical, aging action hero. This time the mayhem takes place stateside, in L.A., beginning with Russian mafia types viciously killing an innocent to send a message. Standard stuff for the “Taken” series.

More awkward is the following scene where Bryan brings a big teddy bear to his now adult daughter (Kim, played by Maggie Grace) for her birthday. Too old for such a gift, Kim is also distraught from some recent news—but her choice to actually reject the bear and have Bryan take it back seems awfully cold. Aren’t dads supposed to give corny, impractical gifts sometimes? It’s sad to see Bryan driving away, the bear seated next to him.

But the story must move forward, and Bryan finds his ex-wife Lenore (Famke Janssen) murdered in his own bed. Bryan’s framed, of course, and a chase ensues. Bryan is after the real killers. The cops are after Bryan. Leading the cops is Forest Whitaker as Detective Frank Dotzler; who, though very bright, fidgets too much. He carries a chess piece—okay, that makes sense for a bright, deductive thinker. But he also plays with a rubber band, which is irritating. He taps his fingers. Fortunately, his hair isn’t long, or he would probably twirl it while popping gum and humming tunes from “Frozen.” It’s annoying. There’s a real “Rain Man” quality here.

“Detective Dotzler, we’ve got Mills cornered. Let’s go!”

“Can’t. Time for Wapner.”

Though some twists emerge as Bryan closes on the villain, the predictable plot lacks that tension we expect from Bryan Mill’s exploits. It’s too bad. I love revenge flicks, from “Braveheart” to “Kill Bill” to “Punisher” to the last part of “Kung Fu Panda”—it’s great when evil receives its comeuppance. And true to form, Bryan puts a villain through some of his CIA-style, “Enhanced Interrogation.” Good stuff. But the plot is mostly known early on, and the action feels frenetic, like someone fastened a camera to the end of a firehose and turned on the water.

Aimless and chaotic, the images switch every few frames of film. Now you see many cars chasing one car. Now you see a bumper. Now a trunk pulls away. Now you see Mills steering. Now a car spins out of control. Now the bear is steering. Now a car rolls down a hill—shouldn’t have let the bear drive. Before long, you’d give anything to watch just five seconds of straight footage.

It’s disorienting, really. Leaving the auditorium, moviegoers were bumping into each other, unable to regain equilibrium. One teenager kept running in a circle, begging passersby to make it stop—but we had our own problems. I myself plowed through several yards on the way home. Just…couldn’t…focus.

And in the end, neither could this film. The silly, “wrap-it-up” dialogue at the end fell flat, and even the fight scenes were too patchy. Pity. Like so many third-in-the-series movies—there have been a lot recently!—this unflattering conclusion to the “Taken” series leaves a bad taste.

I hope there isn’t a fourth. I might not make it home.

1 Comment

CHOICE Movie Reviews: Unbroken by Andy Peth

12/25/2014

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.

Unbroken
Quality – 4 stars, Political – 4 stars, M/R – 4 stars

First, about the Rare Quality of Greatness

Life, for most of us, is that rather uneventful intermission between birth and death. We eat things—gotta eat, you know. We complain a lot. We vote for people to either rob others on our behalf, or prevent others from robbing us.

We diet—gotta diet, you know—while complaining a lot. Convinced we forever change the world by marching for legalized weed, we sustain our self-importance through watching people whose lives matter even less. Hence, reality TV.

We exercise a lot—gotta exercise, you know—after which we complain bitterly. Frustrated by dieting and exercise, we race across meadows to joyfully embrace more food. This brings great sorrow, so we return to the streets, marching to rescue flourishing polar bear populations with exorbitant tax subsidies—all while checking our wrist-held calorie counters. Sometimes, we look down too long, veering off into different marches altogether, but no matter…we’re burning carbs here…making a difference…

Hours later, we’re discovered face down, having created snow angels in heaps of powdered donuts. The cycle begins anew.

My point? Merely this: While greatness lies within each human soul, few ever grasp it. Too often, life becomes a series of surrenders—I need this, I’m lost without that, I fear him, they’re denying me that—and comfort is found in blaming others.

And Now, the Movie

Lou Zamparini, on the other hand, was exceptional. In “Unbroken,” director Angelina Jolie shows us a life so amazing, the film must first remind us it’s a true story. Lou was an elite Olympic runner. Lou was a bombardier in WWII, whose plane crashed in the Pacific. Lou and a fellow crewmate survived 45 days on a raft in shark-infested waters. Lou was taken prisoner, then tortured mercilessly by a sadistic Japanese guard. Lou was human, but tough. He never gave up.

Feel guilty yet? Need a donut? I’ll take two.

“Unbroken” sometimes seems dispassionate, as Jolie apparently wants us moved by a raw unfolding of events. Jack O’Connell (playing Lou) portrays a young man who, though incredibly impressive, is not very deep. Watching his life, we realize there is no mystical secret to becoming exceptional; just a decision to do so. “If I can take it, I can make it,” says Lou.

This film’s torture is the real kind—not some sanitized version upsetting Dianne Feinstein (though it still falls well short of what we’d receive from jihadists). Lou’s torturer is a head guard nicknamed “The Bird,” whose sick fascination with Lou drives him to senseless wrath. Superbly played by Japanese actor, Miyavi, The Bird is deeply conflicted; one moment self-loathing, the next arrogant. The beatings become somewhat monotonous, bogging down the film’s pace, but this conveys a bleak perpetuity that is essential to the plot. By the end, Jolie—a proud Hollywood liberal—has nonetheless reminded us how savage other nations can be when compared to the good ole USA.

Lou’s experience speaks powerfully for us today. Our lives, pampered by pleasures and thrills, can become so sheltered that we must create drama. “I can’t believe he said this.” “I can’t believe they did that.” Everything…matters to us.

But when measured against lives like Lou’s, I wonder if I’ve really been living, or just aging. Perhaps I’ve been broken by the most withering force of all: Comfort.

For perspective alone, I’m honored to have spent a couple hours in Lou’s life. I’m better for it.

Rating: PG-13, for war-related brutality and brief backside nudity.

1 Comment

CHOICE Movie Reviews: Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb by Andy Peth

12/19/2014

17 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.

Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb
Quality – 1 star, Political – 3 stars, M/R – 1 star

Oh my, my, my, where do I start? This was a dreadful movie. Just tragic.

In its first couple scenes, “Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb” portends an interesting third act in the series. The magical tablet will be explained. The museum will offer new and exciting exhibits, complete with living galaxies performing overhead. Cool stuff! And familiar characters will go out in one last comedic hurrah, complete with Robin Williams offering his final words of wisdom and pose of inspiration (which, though brief, was the movie’s highlight).

This started pretty well, and could have stayed that way. But then, unfortunately, come several mistakes Hollywood often commits in final installments:

• Forcing Agenda – Two of the most beloved characters from this series are the miniature Roman Centurion Octavius (played by Steve Coogan) and his equally diminutive Cowboy partner, Jedediah (Owen Wilson). But now, surprise! Octavius is gay! And he’s attracted to Jedediah! And to other guys, too!

Sure, call me a prude. But gay characters work fine in movies where they matter to the plot—come to think of it, ALL characters work best this way. For instance, Greg Kinnear’s gay character works well in the Jack Nicholson gem, “As Good as it Gets.”

But a gay Octavius is just cringe-worthy, and the audience responded accordingly. As his comments became more revealing, the crowd fell into awkward silence. Children, parents, grandparents, teenagers—whether liberal or conservative, none seemed to enjoy having an agenda gratuitously shoved at them during a holiday movie.

It didn’t work. And the insulting part? Hollywood doesn’t care.

• Tedious Gags – Timing is everything in comedy. Too quick, and people don’t get it. Too slow, and the crucial element of surprise is lost. But if you really want to blow it, here’s how: Take familiar slapstick or dialogue—the kind your audience knows from previous films—and unleash it slowly, dragging out scenes with well-worn schtick for a couple extra minutes each. Now the audience is neither surprised nor amused. They’re not even bored, as they passed that point several lines ago. Now, they’re angry.

• Tired Performances – Ben Stiller, in the lead role as Larry Daley, looks far too serious during much of the show. In other supposedly funny moments, he seems irritated with the routines. The late Robin Williams (Teddy Roosevelt) also looks weary, though in his case it’s justified—this material was beneath his abilities. Ricky Gervais (Dr. McPhee) holds up well, but he’s given little to do. Rebel Wilson’s character (a British security guard named “Tilly”) is inserted for laughs, but the jokes fall flat or miss altogether. The only saving grace, temporarily, is Dan Stevens as “Sir Lancelot.” He’s funny for a while.

• Weak Problem Resolution – Okay, spoiler alert: The whole plot revolves around fixing a magical tablet that gives life to all the museum exhibits. Seems it’s decaying—quickly. I won’t bore you with the path by which our heroes find an answer, but here’s the upshot: All the tablet needed was moonlight. No, seriously, that’s it. Moonlight. Wow. That’s pretty hard to find in a series of movies where all the action occurs…AT NIGHT. That’s like saying, “I’m sorry Mrs. Smith, but we can only save your goldfish by adding water.”

There’s a cheapness to this solution. “Raiders of the Lost Ark” would have rung hollow if Indiana Jones found Lost Arks on clearance at Walmart. “Rudy” wouldn’t have inspired us if, after all his failures making Notre Dame’s football team, he discovered the magic of steroids. Moonlight? Moonlight?! My goodness, read from a sacred text or something! Toss some virgins in a volcano! Have Obama issue an executive order! Do something!

Then again, I have a better solution: Do nothing. Don’t make this movie. Don’t roll out disinterested actors with unrelated agendas and agonizing comedy sketches. Just don’t do it, Hollywood.

17 Comments

CHOICE Movie Reviews: The Hobbit - The Battle of the Five Armies By Andy Peth

12/17/2014

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.

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
Quality – 2.5 stars, Political – 3 stars, M/R – 4 stars

For those who enjoy 60 minutes of story neatly tucked into 150 minutes of movie, it’s that time again. It’s time for Bilbo Baggins, our Shetland hero, who must once more survive deadly battles, evil monsters…and…and…am I the only one not drawn to the characters in this trilogy?

Honestly, this is no “Lord of the Rings.” We all cared for Frodo, Sam, Legolas the Elven Archer, Gimli the Dwarf, King Aragorn and his Elf honey, Arwen. Captivated by their lives, we sat through “Fellowship of the Ring,” “The Two Towers,” and “The Return of the King”—which, to my knowledge, hasn’t ended yet. For nearly 10 hours, we stayed with those films longer than most Hollywood couples stay married. Why? We were invested in the players.

This feels different.

It’s not like “Battle of Five Armies” lacks strong acting. On the contrary, it’s superb. Martin Freeman is a terrific Bilbo; one moment brave, the next terrified, and often wise. Ian McKellen completes a wondrous run as Gandalf the Wizard, Benedict Cumberbatch voices the wicked Smaug, and Richard Armitage impresses as the conflicted Dwarf King, Thorin Oakenshield.

Then of course, some old stand-by’s (Orlando Bloom, Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving) recapture their youths through an unholy alliance of CGI and Botox. Their faces are Ken doll smooth, though a bit stiff. When they speak, it’s like watching C3PO from Star Wars.

What’s missing? Tough to say, but Frodo had one big advantage over Bilbo: Frodo had Sam. Whereas “Lord of the Rings” centered on camaraderie and tension between two good friends, “Hobbit” depicts a solitary Bilbo amidst distant players. Perhaps, with no compelling bond in the middle, “Hobbit” struggles to develop chemistry throughout.

The result? Plenty of fireworks, but little fire. Still, the fireworks are pretty cool.

The previous film (Desolation of Smaug) concluded abruptly, apparently due to a film break. Picking up there, the evil—but stunning—dragon Smaug descends in a vicious—but stunning—attack on the human village of Lake-town. Smaug apparently blames humans for the previous movie—as do I—so his assault seems at once cruel but reasonable.

Meanwhile, having retaken the mountain Smaug left, Thorin comes down with “dragon sickness”—obsessive greed midst a veritable lake of gold. Spawning division amongst dwarves, men, and elves, Thorin’s greed fractures the alliance which must confront an oncoming horde of orcs and other baddies. War approaches. Evil is focused, bent on destruction. And Good? It’s splintered and petty. Pardon my political reference, but one would think Thorin is a paid advisor for today’s Conservative Movement. Thanks to him, the coalition seems ill-prepared against a single-minded swarm.

But as so often happens in the face of certain doom, allies—even unsteady ones—rally to the fray. The final “Battle of the Five Armies” is awesome, tragic, and a useful precursor to the “Lord of the Rings” series. While this prequel fails to strike the triumphant note of that better-known successor, it does the best it can—especially given less-beloved characters. The prolonged ending, however, is downright brutal.

“The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies” might be worth watching. It might even be worth renting. It will not, however, be worth remembering.

0 Comments

CHOICE Movie Reviews: Exodus - Gods and Kings

12/13/2014

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.

EXODUS - Gods and Kings
Quality – 2 stars, Political – 3 stars, M/R – 0 stars

To begin, I must question releasing this desert classic at Christmastime, for it evokes images of Santa whipping his elves as they build pyramids for him at the North Pole. That film is probably in production, depicting one brave elf rising up against his rotund oppressor—all in stunning, sweeping Claymation. It will be released in July.

But I digress.

Directed by Ridley Scott, “Exodus: Gods and Kings” starts strong, developing a charismatic version of Moses (capably played by Christian Bale), along with his troubled, Pharaoh-to-be brother, Ramses (Joel Edgerton). There’s battle action, political intrigue, jealousy, spectacular sets, and basically all the elements of a great epic. For the first third, this is good fun.

Unfortunately, Scott then launches a needless assault on the biblical narrative—which might be okay if it doesn’t hamper the movie’s pacing and interest. But it does. A lot. Imagine reading a story to your child, but every time something magical occurs, you set out to debunk it:

“And when she ate the apple, she fell into a deeeep sleep, as poor health standards in that kingdom resulted in bacteria and toxins that could induce coma. Later, before the prince kisses her, he injects her with medicine. This would be far too painful with the large syringes available in that province, but thankfully, she’s fully sedated by her illness. Look here! Mommy has drawn a picture of the syringe in the margins! Makes you want to clean your hands before and after dinner, doesn’t it? Of course it does. Now where was I…”

Memo to Ridley Scott: Tortured rationalizations aren’t just insulting; they’re boring. Like a mother crafting nightmares for her child, Scott endlessly bogs “Exodus” down with anti-biblical insertions. These are too numerous to detail, so I’ll note just a few:

•   Moses only “sees” God—who is portrayed as a petulant child—due to being struck in the head by
stones in a rockslide. For the remainder of the movie, God is more Moses’s hallucination than
the Hebrews’ inspiration, as Moses himself dons increasingly maddened expressions. Edited
from the film was my favorite scene, in which Israel’s new leader rallies his nation with a
Braveheart-like speech: “They may take our women and our children, but they’ll never take our
freedom…to enjoy great savings! Come buy a used chariot from Crrrrrazy Moses! These deals
are INSANE! Did I mention I saw God? He’s a brat, but I obey him because my head hurts!
Follow me!”

To honor the movie, I’ve drawn a straightjacket in the margins of my Bible.

•   Most of the plagues are explained down as natural phenomena bringing each other about
    (beginning when alligators on a killing spree turn the Nile red with blood). Did God cause
    them? Who knows? Ask Crazy Moses! Surprisingly, Scott goes biblical with the final plague
    (death of firstborns), only to lecture us on how mean God was for doing that. But then, God
    was just a petty hallucination on a power trip, and…well…it’s in the margins.

•   Perhaps worst of all is “parting” the Red Sea, which combines a “low tide” for crossing on foot
    with an impressive storm bringing a tidal wave (from just one side, of course). So, did God
    produce this cool-looking storm with miraculous power? Then why wouldn’t He just
    miraculously do what is written in the Bible—which is way more fun?

Nightmares, Mr. Scott. You’re giving us nightmares.

•   Scott even has Moses chisel out the 10 Commandments, rather than God doing it. Whatever.
    By this point I was well beyond caring, like a child acting sleepy so Mommy would stop reading.

Again, if all this makes the movie more fun, so be it. Entertain us. But in “Exodus: Gods and Kings,” God and His miracles become annoying—which often occurs when Hollywood replaces entertainment with agenda. Belabored retellings tend to plod along, where simply using the Bible narrative speeds things up.

Hilariously, the biggest complaint from most media observers is Scott’s usage of white actors to portray Jews and Egyptians. No, seriously, that’s their issue. I for one wasn’t offended, though I thought I heard a little boy in the audience asking his father why the Norwegians enslaved the Swedes. “Well,” replied his patient father, searching for words, “someone had to do it.”

Alas, no one had to make this film. The only purpose in doing so was to invalidate or diminish the source material—in this case, The Bible. Why do that? Who makes a movie out of a book they don’t like?

Ultimately, while attempting to portray God as petty and vindictive, “Exodus: Gods and Kings” reveals these features in someone else: Its director.

0 Comments

CHOICE Movie Reviews: Penguins of Madagascar by Andy Peth

11/26/2014

0 Comments

First, my score guide:

Quality: This score indicates entertainment value.
0 stars is horrible (think “Cars 2”), while 5 stars is spectacular (think “Raiders of the Lost Ark” or “Dead Poets Society”).

Political:  This score addresses political messaging.
0 stars is aggressively anti-Conservative (think “Cars 2” or anything from Michael Moore), while 5 stars is highly pro-Conservative (think “Atlas Shrugged” or “Team America”).  3 stars is apolitical.

Moral/Religious (M/R):  This score addresses moral and religious messaging.
0 stars is either intensely immoral (think “Team America”) or all-out, needless assault on Christianity (think “Paul” or “The Lego Movie”). 5 stars is either great moral messaging (think “Kung Fu Panda” and “The Blind Side”) or highly pro-Christian (think the “Narnia” movies and the less intentional, “The Matrix”). 3 stars is inoffensive either way.

Penguins of Madagascar
Quality – 3 stars, Political – 4.5 stars, M/R – 3 stars

“Penguins, penguins, penguins, penguins, penguins!!!”

This sound will jar millions of moms and dads awake on Thanksgiving morning. With relentless exuberance, the nation’s little scamps will jolt exhausted parents from hours of neglecting them. These kids will be eager. They will be bouncy. They will be insanely high-pitched. And I relate, for I feel as they do, having woken my wife the same way at 3am this morning.

What can I say? Penguins—a species for which God has yet to find a purpose—are adorable. They’re funny looking. And combining madcap antics with high tech animation, “Penguins of Madagascar” launches the holidays with a blend of slapstick humor and action—leaving me in cinematic heaven. I needed this. Still bubbly on my way to the theatre, I even rolled down my windows and sang “Mony Mony”—inviting other drivers and passersby to sing along. Several lacked holiday spirit, however, and opened fire.

Didn’t matter—they couldn’t steal my buzz. I skipped into the theatre.

The movie itself exhibits predictable, formulaic style, solid quality, and surprising content—more on that later. Chronicling the lives of four penguins from the “Madagascar” movies, this spinoff serves as an origins story for Skipper (the leader), Kowalski (the brains), Rico (the eating machine who never digests), and Private (the shy youngster craving a role on the team). Fittingly, the movie begins with a mock documentary. Filming penguins in their icy habitat, “Penguins” soon blossoms into a globe-spanning battle of penguin versus evil.

Along the way, the flightless fowls join an elite team of super spies called The North Wind. Their leader is Agent “Classified” (his true identity is top secret), a dashing hound wonderfully voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch. With his highly trained unit, “Classified” aids the penguins in their fight to stop Dr. Octavius Brine, an evil octopus voiced by John Malkovich. Dynamic as always, Malkovich shines, though his character gets a bit old with constant puns.

And now for the startling content. Brine’s wrath burns against penguins because their cuteness has stolen his limelight at countless zoos. Plotting revenge, Brine develops a ray gun that makes cute creatures into un-cute monsters, never to be loved again. This won’t raise his cuteness—Brine admits as much—but at least it will bring penguins down.

See where this is going? While not preaching politics, “Penguins of Madagascar” is a very conservative film. Not only does the villain seek to punish success, but a few lines in this movie craft an almost Tea Party mood. One zinger chides the “nanny state” for pushing healthy snacks—not hard to see where that one’s aimed—and another mocks French tax policies. Nothing leans left; not a thing (though there's a musical number where they play slappy-butt, for what that's worth). I honestly didn’t see this coming.

Is “Penguins of Madagascar” great? No, but it’s pretty good. Though funny for the first hour, the frenetic tempo lacks enough quiet moments to highlight the action and gags. It’s like driving 80 mph for sixty minutes—you soon feel like you’re driving 30. For the final half hour, “Penguins” feels slowed by its zany plotline and frantic pace, and kids go home not treasuring the experience.

But they still have a good time. It’s worth getting the parents out of bed.

0 Comments

CHOICE Movie Reviews: “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1” by Andy Peth

11/21/2014

0 Comments

First, my score guide:

Quality:
This score indicates entertainment value.
0 stars is horrible (think “Cars 2”), while 5 stars is spectacular (think “Raiders of the Lost Ark” or “Dead Poets Society”).

Political: This score addresses political messaging.
0 stars is aggressively anti-Conservative (think “Cars 2” or anything from Michael Moore), while 5 stars is highly pro-Conservative (think “Atlas Shrugged” or “Team America”). 3 stars is apolitical.

Moral/Religious (M/R): This score addresses moral and religious messaging.
0 stars is either intensely immoral (think “Team America”) or all-out, needless assault on Christianity (think “Paul” or “The Lego Movie”). 5 stars is either great moral messaging (think “Kung Fu Panda” and “The Blind Side”) or highly pro-Christian (think the “Narnia” movies and the less intentional, “The Matrix”). 3 stars is inoffensive either way.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1
Quality – 3 stars, Political – 4 stars, M/R – 3 stars

I always hoped I’d see a deathly serious dystopian movie, while snapping selfies of myself seeing a deathly serious dystopian movie.

Check – both for me and pretty much every teen girl in the audience.

“The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1, Subset 4, Category: ‘Dramaction’” is more than a movie. It’s an event, and apparently not for the faint of heart. One girl in line appeared trapped in some sort of praying time loop—“Omygod-omygod-omygod-omygod-omygod-omygod-SLAP!”—until a friend struck her, screaming, “Kira, be strong! Katniss needs you! Don’t fail Katniss! WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT OUR MEETING!!”

Creeping warily toward my seat, I found myself surrounded by hundreds of girls, many of whom carried bows and arrows (which I’d always thought were, well, illegal weapons). This made me look like an awkward victim-to-be in some chick adaptation for “Lord of the Flies.” No, I wasn’t harmed. But when several warrior maidens eyed my jumbo popcorn and drink, I timidly surrendered them to the mob. Quietly, fearfully, I watched the movie.

Mockingjay 1 picks up after the Hunger Games have collapsed. Our hero, Katniss Everdeen (well played by Jennifer Lawrence), evolves into a military icon, to whom everyone looks for inspiration and courage. No pressure, kid. After seeing her native District 12 reduced to carnage and rubble, Katniss declares war on the evil President Snow. And since much of this movie centers around the PR war, she does this on camera while looking downright smashing.

These Hunger Games films are very good, especially for teen-centered views of government run amok. The action is slick. The acting is solid. The villain? Chilling. In fact, if Jonathan Gruber dressed in white while reciting his “Let’s control America’s idiots by lying to them about Obamacare” speeches, he’d fit right in. Seriously. Rand Paul could preach against surveillance drones outside these packed theatres, then sail to victory in 2016.

Just a suggestion, Rand. Carpe diem.

Alas, this third film out of four doubles the studio’s income by splitting the final book—and it shows. One hour of story is stretched into two, as Mockingjay 1 explores Katniss’s pain and loss, complete with loads of political drama. Tension is maintained throughout, albeit plodding along at an art film pace.

Remember the 2nd-to-last Harry Potter film? Remember enduring what felt like hours of Blair Witch-style wandering in the woods? Yikes. I half envisioned Hermione holding a flashlight to her face, saying, “I’m so scared…don’t know what to do…the script ran out hours ago…my feet hurt…”

Thankfully, this was better.

Aided by a strong cast featuring Donald Sutherland, Liam Hemsworth, Julianne Moore, Woody Harrelson, and the late Philip Seymour Hoffman, Lawrence holds our interest, navigating a turbulent story of ruthlessness, tragedy, and deception. Well done, Katniss. The film’s best work, however, comes from Josh Hutcherson playing the captured and manipulated Peeta. A terrific performance.

Mockingjay 1 serves its purpose as a buildup for Mockingjay 2, but that’s about it. It’s all very sharp, very gripping, very visually appealing...and very okay. Yes, it’s as okay as any okay movie I’ve ever okay’d.

But this is no movie. It’s an event. Okay?

0 Comments

CHOICE Movie Reviews: "Dumb and Dumber To"

11/14/2014

0 Comments

First, my score guide:

Quality:  This score indicates entertainment value.
0 stars is horrible (think “Cars 2”), while 5 stars is spectacular (think “Raiders of the Lost Ark” or “Dead Poets Society”).

Political:  This score addresses political messaging.
0 stars is aggressively anti-Conservative (think “Cars 2” or anything from Michael Moore), while 5 stars is highly pro-Conservative (think “Atlas Shrugged” or “Team America”). 3 stars is apolitical.

Moral/Religious (M/R):  This score addresses moral and religious messaging.
0 stars is either intensely immoral (think “Team America”) or all-out, needless assault on Christianity (think “Paul” or “The Lego Movie”). 5 stars is either great moral messaging (think “Kung Fu Panda” and “The Blind Side”) or highly pro-Christian (think the “Narnia” movies and the less intentional, “The Matrix”).  3 stars is inoffensive either way.

Dumb and Dumber To
Quality – 2 stars, Political – 3 stars, M/R – 1 stars

“Dumb and Dumber 2” is the latest Farrelly Brothers movie, in which Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels reprise their roles of Lloyd and Harry (respectively), two disgusting but lovable morons. Twenty years after their original “story” (term used loosely), these witless buddies hit the road to find Harry’s child, after Harry informs Lloyd he needs a kidney transplant.

That’s basically the plot. Okay, we also have dangerous villains, big money, and super-science, but these are hopelessly beyond our heroes’ comprehension. No biggie—it’s a Farrelly movie.

Being a male of our species, I like Farrelly movies. The dumber, the stupider, the ridiculouser—the better. It’s a guy thing. In fact, studies show most marriages fail due to money, infidelity, or the male’s insistence upon renting Farrelly movies. But since early gems like, “There’s Something About Mary,” “Dumb and Dumber,” and “Kingpin,” the Farrelly’s have faded, producing debacles like “The Heartbreak Kid,” “Hall Pass,” and if rumors are correct, Mary Landrieu’s 2014 Senatorial Campaign.

Career-wise, the Farrelly’s and Jim Carrey are on life support, and while better than recent duds, “Dumb and Dumber To” does little to revive their comic prestige. All these guys needed a new hit, but it’s not happening. Not this time.

The Farrelly’s used to shock us with one hilarious gross-out moment after another—sort of like great horror films, but with laughs instead of screams. In “Dumb and Dumber To,” the gags are grosser than ever (one nursing home bit will leave even the sickest viewers cringing), but they don’t jump out anymore. Instead, these moments lumber up to you; awkwardly, predictably. Ever listen to someone labor through a joke when they lack timing? Same thing.

Sure, “Dumb and Dumber To” still has some good laughs, and teenage boys will still enjoy surviving the nauseating moments—it’s just what they do. But for the rest of us, watching two tired actors stumbling through an occasionally funny ick-fest is just…well…I need another word…foolish.

0 Comments

CHOICE Movie Reviews: "Big Hero 6"

11/8/2014

0 Comments

First, my score guide:

Quality: This score indicates entertainment value.
0 stars is horrible (think “Cars 2”), while 5 stars is spectacular (think “Raiders of the Lost Ark” or “Dead Poets Society”).

Political: This score addresses political messaging.
0 stars is aggressively anti-Conservative (think “Cars 2” or anything from Michael Moore), while 5 stars is highly pro-Conservative (think “Atlas Shrugged” or “Team America”). 3 stars is apolitical.

Moral/Religious (M/R): This score addresses moral and religious messaging.
0 stars is either intensely immoral (think “Team America”) or all-out, needless assault on Christianity (think “Paul” or “The Lego Movie”). 5 stars is either great moral messaging (think “Kung Fu Panda” and “The Blind Side”) or highly pro-Christian (think the “Narnia” movies and the less intentional, “The Matrix”). 3 stars is inoffensive either way.

Big Hero 6
Quality - 4 stars, Political - 3 stars, M/R - 4 stars

Disney’s latest animated entry, Big Hero 6, is a visual delight. Images are sharp and fast, with all the soaring action sequences we’ve come to expect from modern cartoons. The hero (appropriately named, “Hiro”) learns good moral lessons and even the value of hard work and ingenuity. Alas, Big Hero 6 also furthers today’s kid movie trend of jarring young viewers with tragic loss. This won’t cause years of recovery therapy like “How to Train Your Dragon 2” (which had me considering drug use), but it’s still a bit tough on the kiddies.

The movie is set in “San Fransokyo,” an imaginary, Japanese-American hybrid city, where young people with Japanese names look disturbingly un-Japanese. Seriously, I could move there calling myself “Takeshi: Samurai Warrior,” and no one would blink. Appearing plucked from a Romney family album, young tech genius Hiro squanders his talent on an obsession with “Bot Fighting”—an illegal practice of creating robots and entering them in unlicensed battles for money. I think I saw Michael Vick in the crowd.

Hiro’s brother, the equally Romneyesque Tadashi, draws Hiro from his dead-end vices into a nerdy tech school Tadashi attends. Here we quickly meet several one-dimensional characters; and that is a good thing. Funny and diverse, the nerds brandish one trait apiece and zero character development, allowing the plot to speed along unencumbered. Nicely done, Disney—some editor deserves an “A.” Granted, this makes us feel nothing for them as their roles expand, but the nerds will surely receive further development in sequels.

The show is then stolen by Baymax, an inflatable healthcare bot constructed by Tadashi, and with whom Hiro forms a charming friendship. Comparisons to the Pillsbury Doughboy are inevitable, and though emotionless, Baymax proves lovable, cuddly, attentive, and more polite than Maria from “The Sound of Music.” Rarely will young viewers enjoy a funnier and more comforting character than the huggable Baymax.

Without spoiling the rest, Hiro commits to the institute, experiences terrible loss, then must help the nerds equip themselves with superhero tech to fight the bad guy (who knows a little about loss himself).

Is Big Hero 6 a great movie? No, but it’s a good one. Funny but not hilarious, touching but not gut-wrenching, Big Hero 6 will please viewers of any age.

0 Comments

Forward>>

CHOICE Movie Reviews: Taken 3 by Andy Peth

CHOICE Movie Reviews: Unbroken by Andy Peth

CHOICE Movie Reviews: Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb by Andy Peth

Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb
Quality – 1 star, Political – 3 stars, M/R – 1 star

CHOICE Movie Reviews: The Hobbit - The Battle of the Five Armies By Andy Peth

CHOICE Movie Reviews: Exodus - Gods and Kings

EXODUS - Gods and Kings
Quality – 2 stars, Political – 3 stars, M/R – 0 stars

CHOICE Movie Reviews: Penguins of Madagascar by Andy Peth

CHOICE Movie Reviews: “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1” by Andy Peth

CHOICE Movie Reviews: "Dumb and Dumber To"

Dumb and Dumber To
Quality – 2 stars, Political – 3 stars, M/R – 1 stars

CHOICE Movie Reviews: "Big Hero 6"

Big Hero 6
Quality - 4 stars, Political - 3 stars, M/R - 4 stars

CHOICE Movie Reviews

Archives

Categories

Night at the Museum: Secret of the TombQuality – 1 star, Political – 3 stars, M/R – 1 star

EXODU﻿S - Gods and KingsQuality – 2 stars, Political – 3 stars, M/R – 0 stars

Dumb a﻿nd Dumber ToQuality – 2 stars, Political – 3 stars, M/R – 1 stars

﻿Big Hero 6Quality - 4 stars, Political - 3 stars, M/R - 4 stars﻿

CHOICE Movie Reviews

Archives

Categories

Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb
Quality – 1 star, Political – 3 stars, M/R – 1 star

EXODUS - Gods and Kings
Quality – 2 stars, Political – 3 stars, M/R – 0 stars

Dumb and Dumber To
Quality – 2 stars, Political – 3 stars, M/R – 1 stars

Big Hero 6
Quality - 4 stars, Political - 3 stars, M/R - 4 stars