Movie Review: ‘This Means War’

If you’re making a romantic comedy with a sub-plot, the sub-plot should make sense. Remember True Lies? That’s what made it so great. In This Means War, the only thing I know about the main characters’ profession is that they are CIA agents trying not to get killed by a mysterious man with an accent. The romance begins when they both meet the same woman, and they decide to compete for her affection. It gets complicated when they use their CIA resources to trace each others’ dates, and it gets funny when they use those resources to impress her with the contrived commonalities they discovered by researching her life at the CIA. It’s certainly entertaining, but the impressive concept failed in its execution. That being said, it’s good enough to see. After all, who doesn’t want to stare at Chris Pine’s beautiful blue eyes for an entire movie? You cannot go wrong.
Overall Rating: 3/5 Dishes

 

‘Hugo’ — Movie Review

Written By: Kris Arnold, Contributing Editor

‘Hugo’ might be the most personal film of Martin Scorcese’s career. Based on Brian Selznick’s children’s book, ‘The Invention of Hugo Cabret’, Scorcese shows his love for the history of cinema through the eyes of Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield).

Set in a dreamy version of 1930’s Paris, Cabret is an orphan who lives in a train station where he steals food and avoids the Station Inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen) who sends stray kids to an orphanage.

Cabret learned the art of clockmaking from his late father (Jude Law) and inherited his love of film. Hugo longs to finish restoring a relic left behind by his father, an automaton (a robot made of clock parts resembling a turn of the century version of C-3PO). The key to the restoration lies with another orphan, Isabelle (Chlöe Grace Moretz), and the couple she lives with (Ben Kingsley and Helen McCrory). Hugo introduces Isabelle to the magic of movies, and their quest ferries them through film history and the pioneering works of Georges Méliès.

Hugo is a film that doubles as an art exhibit, curated by Scorsese, who’s passion for cinema permeates this entire production. On display are works from a stellar cast and a list of Academy Award winners for cinematography, film editing, visual effects, music, costume design, all against the backdrop of the imaginative set designed by Dante Ferretti. At it’s core, Hugo is a touching tale with wounded characters searching for a purpose, and it will appeal to anyone passionate about the history of film.

OVERALL RATING: 4/5 DISHES

‘Young Adult’ — Movie Review

Written By: Kris Arnold, Contributing Editor

When asked about ‘Young Adult’ at a press conference for the film, Patton Oswalt said, “You have finally made progress as a group when you can be depicted as the full spectrum…a hero, and a villain, and funny, and an asshole just like we all are every second of the day.” If this is true, then women have definitely made progress in Hollywood.

This second collaboration between screenwriter Diablo Cody and director Jason Reitman stars Charlize Theron as Mavis Gary, a teen-lit ghost writer, who abruptly flees Minneapolis for her small hometown to win back a former boyfriend who is now a happily married new father. Mavis lives in a fantasy world not unlike the characters she writes about, only her lifetime of compiling misdeeds and shallow decisions have left her empty and desperate. This is not the typical woman that Hollywood usually offers, but a bold portrayal of a complex female lead character bearing all her strengths and weaknesses. It is a pleasure to have another Reitman film with all the enjoyable laughs of a stylized comedy and the soul of a realistic drama.

THE DISHMASTER RATING: 4/5 DISHES

Movie Review: ‘Like Crazy’

Love is necessary but not sufficient for a relationship to survive. And that painful realization is beautifully illustrated in ‘Like Crazy.’ The film follows Anna (Felicity Jones), a British exchange student studying in Los Angeles, who falls in love with Jacob (Anton Yelchin). She overstays her visa to spend the summer with Jacob after graduation, which later results in a ban from the United States. Their attempt at a long distance relationship becomes the center of the film, and no matter how hard they fight against it, their love keeps them intertwined. The film presents some haunting questions about love. Should it be that hard? Should it cause that much pain? Is it worth fighting through the obstacles that shackle your happiness? And if it is truly love, and the obstacles are removed, does that automatically equate to a sustainable relationship? I won’t reveal how this movie ends, but I will say that it’s the most accurate portrayal of love I’ve ever seen on film.

OVERALL RATING: 5/5 DISHES

Movie Review: ‘The Ides of March’

George Clooney is a good director. But he’s not great. The first two acts of ‘The Ides of March’ lacked the movie magic necessary to keep me entertained. Translation? — It was boring.

This is the third Clooney-directed film I’ve seen, and I’ve noticed it’s a common issue. Where’s Jack Nicholson screaming, “you can’t handle the truth!” Where’s the fist fight? Where’s the heavy-hitting music to create suspense? When actors turn to directing, they leave behind these essential elements in favor of an understated approach (remember Robert De Niro’s ‘The Good Shepherd,’ for example?). I think they feel above it. I think they resent having spent so much time executing cheesy dialogue while running from a burning vehicle that they feel they can accomplish the same task without it. But like it or not — those things are often necessary to make a movie enjoyable. Otherwise, it’s as if I’m watching a documentary.

The movie stars Ryan Gosling as Stephen Meyers, the Junior Campaign Manager for Mike Morris (George Clooney), the Pennsylvania Governor who is trying to win the Democratic Primary to later run for President. Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Paul Zara, his Senior Campaign Manager. The campaign can be cutthroat at times, and by the end of it, it really doesn’t matter what anyone’s political belief is as long as Morris wins. The plot is relatively expected, with the exception of an interesting twist in act three. Unfortunately, by the time act three hit I had already mentally checked out of the film.

OVERALL RATING: 3/5 DISHES

‘Footloose’ 2011 — Movie Review

This movie never stood a chance. It’s a remake of a fluke hit, and the original story is dated. But it’s a library project owned by Paramount, so the studio stood to gain a substantial amount of money with very little financial investment. Translation? — Greed surpassed creativity. Remakes are easy because the title recognition alone saves a tremendous amount of money marketing the film, and there’s a hope that nostalgia will bring people to the theater. But if you’re gonna do it, do it right.

The biggest problem in this film is the casting. Though Julianne Hough was impressive, Kenny Wormald was an unfortunate miscast. I think he has some serious potential as an actor, and he’s certainly capable. But he was doomed in this role. He’s a nerd in cool-guy clothes, and his lack of chemistry with Julianne Hough made it impossible to believe that a girl like her would ever find him attractive. And speaking of those cool-guy clothes, something went seriously wrong in the wardrobe department. The costume designer took almost every single outfit from the original movie. We aren’t in the 80’s anymore, so if you walk into a school with your collar up today, you’ll likely get picked on for looking ridiculous. Furthermore, Kevin Bacon was considered “cool” in the original story because of his big-city, anti-establishment attitude, which came as a shock to the small town. The only thing anti-establishment about this kid was his Boston accent.

I presume Kenny Wormald landed this role because of his dance background, but given there are only three choreographed dance sequences in the film, I think the old-fashioned rule of cinema applies here — it’s easier to teach an actor to dance than it is to teach a dancer to act. And if they were going to prioritize the dance background, I actually think that when Zac Efron dropped out, Derek Hough should have been hired and Julianne Hough should have been recast (obviously because her real-life brother cannot play her love interest). The male lead is more important than the female lead, and Derek would have been a stellar choice. But that’s neither here nor there.

And to pre-empt your you-like-to-pick-on-the-new-guy attack, I’d like to also point out that Dennis Quaid was another unfortunate miscast. Sure this movie needed some star power to lend it some big-studio street cred, but Quaid just doesn’t look like an uptight preacher. He’s a proven talent, but even great actors can’t pull off the wrong role. The shoe has to fit before you start to walk in it.

The other issue is that the story is too true to the original film. In fact, with the exception of the iPod use, it’s a carbon copy. The purpose of a remake is to take a great story and modernize it. Remember ‘The Thomas Crowne Affair’ with Pierce Brosnan? It’s the same great story, but it’s nearly unrecognizable compared to the Steve McQueen version. Without a new spin, it would make more creative and financial sense to re-release the original. I think Craig Brewer (the director) should have substantially changed the original story, or at least changed the clothes. For goodness sakes, the kid even drove the same car.

But despite the trouble, I’d still say the movie is enjoyable enough to watch. There just aren’t enough cheesy films out there, and this fits the bill.

OVERALL RATING: 2/5 DISHES

Quote of the Day — ‘Columbiana’ Movie Review

“Co-writer and co-producer Luc Besson tries a new spin on his tried-and-true “La Femme Nikita” formula, but the results are so clumsy and over-the-top that they should have just called the movie “Panty Assassin” and played the whole thing for laughs.” Alonso Duralde very funny movie review of Zoe Saldana’s new film, ‘Columbiana.’

Movie Review — ‘Rise of Planet of the Apes’

I asked one of my editors to write me a review of ‘Rise of Planet of the Apes’ tonight, primarily because I’m over-worked, and I thought, “that’s what my editors are for, right? They take the burden off of me when I want a mini-vacation.” He insisted that he’s “way under-slept,” and he’s “being harassed by a “very dumb black and white cat who does not know how her claws work.” Since I’m a convincing boss, I insisted, and he delivered what has to be the worst movie review I’ve ever read. But because I needed a laugh, and he delivered — I’m posting his review in its entirety. Enjoy!

If I had to describe it in one word: Awesome. If I get two words: Super-Awesome.

But I must admit up front that I am super-biased. Why?

1. I am a discerning dude who loves the appropriate kind of movie destruction – and I think destruction by Apes is very appropro.

2. I love James Franco (but I am not gay)

To dispel all suspicions to the contrary this film is not a remake of any of the old Planet of the Apes films, it is a reboot – this story has not been done before.

Notwithstanding this hyper-technical factoid, any type of remake, reboot, revisit of prior films poses all kinds of risks of a major letdown. Fortunately, I myself have no stake in the original series.

You have to take this film for what it is. It is not high art. There are gaps in the plot. But overall it is an exciting and enthralling film.

As a foundation, it effectively offers character sketches of the three strong lead actors: James Franco as a passionate, flighty, and somewhat socially inept scientist bent on helping the world; John Lithgow as a father struggling with Alzheimer’s, and Caesar the lead ape, the movie is really about him and they really did a great job humanizing this ape.

And then the film added some themes that I really like: humans tampering with the natural order, existentialism, and animal rights.

Finally, as one would hope, the apes (I am so tempted to call them monkeys but they aren’t), kick major ass – they tear things apart, they ride horses, they defeat the SWAT team – you can’t go wrong, here. I mean if you are not into the ape carnage, still see it for Franco and Lithgow.

OVERALL RATING: 4/5 DISHES

Movie Review: Crazy, Stupid, Love

Love is crazy. And it’s also stupid. And only the acting prowess of Julianne Moore, Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling, and Emma Stone, could properly show why anyone in their right mind would engage in such an emotionally tumultuous activity. At the opening of this film, Cal (Steve Carell) gets dumped by his long-time wife, Emily (Julianne Moore), and in an effort to avoid her apologetic monologue, he literally jumps out of their moving car. She had an affair, and she leaves their marriage because it’s “broken.” Cal subsequently spends an inordinate amount of time lamenting to a bartender. It’s during these rants that Cal meets Jacob (Ryan Gosling), who can only be defined as a “pick-up artist.” Jacob takes an interest in Cal, and gives him a makeover to “get his manhood back.” The transformation becomes both external and internal, and the emotionally vapid Jacob unsuspectingly adopts some of Cal’s love-struck ideology in the process. There are some enjoyable sub-plots in this movie, which I won’t ruin, but let’s just say that Cal learns a thing or two about soul-mates from his un-jaded son. This movie proves that you don’t need a high-concept gimmick to keep a film afloat. When you have great actors who execute what is often thought of as ‘cheesy’ material, then you get an enjoyable movie that doesn’t feel like a chick-flick. My favorite line of this film came from Cal, who said, “I’ve loved her even when I hated her.” If you’ve ever been cursed and blessed with being in love — then I’m sure you can relate. OVERALL RATING: DISHTASTIC

Movie Review: Larry Crowne

Not even Julia Roberts and Tom Hanks can rescue a bad script.  I’m surprised their agents even signed off on this mess.  Actually, they didn’t sign off on it — Tom Hanks wrote and produced it, which explains how it hit the big screen.  Actors often become too big for their own good, and there’s no one willing to break unfortunate truths to them.  So here’s the truth — the movie is terrible. Tom Hanks plays Larry Crowne, a navy veteran who gets laid off from his retail job because of his lack of education. He decides to go back to school, where he takes a speech class with Mrs. Tainot, played by Julia Roberts.  It’s unclear what Larry Crowne hopes to learn from Mrs. Tainot, given that she’s an extremely unlikable professor who’s miserable with both her personal and professional life.  The problem with this film is that the characters have nothing to offer.  Crowne is misguided, and he seems to have no particular skill of note.  If he served in the Navy as a cook, then why isn’t he running a restaurant?  Furthermore, why would Tainot ever be interested in him or vice versa? She’s a terrible teacher with a crummy attitude, and he’s a bit of a loser.  In fact, I wasn’t even sure these two even liked one another until they started kissing, which was so confusing and random, I found myself rolling my eyes. I presume the original intention of the script was to have two lost souls fall in love and help one another move forward with their lives — but that’s not what came across. Instead, it was two lost souls that felt like making out once or twice.  OVERALL RATING: DISHASTER