Movie Reviews: Pompeii (2014)

No warning. No escape.

Director: Paul W.S. Anderson

Writers: Janet Scott Batchler, Lee Batchler (screenplay), Michael Robert Johnson

Stars: Kit Harington, Emily Browning, Kiefer Sutherland, Carrie-Ann Moss, Jessica Lucas, Jared Harris, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje

Synopsis: The story has some redeeming qualities, but overall what it gets right, historically, is outweighed by a weak story that’s mostly not enough.

You know nothing, Jon Snow Kit Harrington.

Nothing about picking good films, at least.

In fairness, on paper Pompeii probably looked like a good bet: an action/adventure star-crossed lovers’ romance with the backdrop of a painstakingly recreated historical event, albeit with a few Hollywood flourishes.

Harrington plays a Celtic slave forced to fight as a Roman gladiator who catches the interest of Cassia (Emily Browning), the daughter of the city’s ruler. Cassia is pursued by Corvus, a Roman Senator who just so happens to be the same person who slaughtered Harrington’s parents and entire Celtic tribe, and now wants Harrington dead, too ... all as the volcano looming above the city belches ominous smoke. As with Titanic, audiences might know the fate of the doomed city but will nevertheless root for the unknown fate of the fictional characters set inside it.

And as with Titanic, director Paul W. S. Anderson takes great pains to recreate ancient Pompeii with great historical accuracy – in some regards, at least. Special effects artists relied on photographs and recent video footage of other volcanoes, and while the lightning strikes might seem like a Hollywood embellishment, but vulcanologists have praised the lightning’s accuracy and other details. And historians have praised the meticulous recreation of the city of Pompeii which accurately contours to the excavated ruins.

Anderson admits to taking certain other liberties for the sake of the story, including condensing the timeline of the eruption and allowing women more freedom than the ancient Roman Empire would have allowed. Audiences will forgive such alterations if they make the story better. Unfortunately for Pompeii, they don’t.

Visually, Pompeii is sumptuous, especially Harrington’s sculpted body which audiences will be forgiven for assuming (incorrectly) is another CGI effect. But the story is weak and predictable. Harrington and Browning have virtually no chemistry and their romance, based on a few seconds of screen time, isn’t believable. (Titanic may have taken three hours, but that’s at least in part because James Cameron needed to properly develop his characters.) Kiefer Sutherland’s villain is one-dimensional, cartoonishly cropping up whenever more tension is needed, somehow magically always knowing where our protagonists will be.

The story has some redeeming qualities, but overall what it gets right, historically, is outweighed by a weak story that’s mostly not enough.

Rating: 2 ½ stars

Movie Reviews: Jezebel (1938)

The South's Greatest Romance!

Director: William Wyler

Writers: Clements Ripley, Abem Finkel, John Huston (screen play); Owen Davis, Sr. (play); Robert Buckner, Louis F. Edelman (uncredited contributors to treatment)

Stars: Bette Davis, Henry Fonda, George Brent, Donald Crisp, Margaret Lindsay, Fay Bainter

Synopsis: Although Gone With the Wind, the other Southern belle drama of the 1930s, is overall a superior film, Bette Davis’ performance in Jezebel is not to be missed.

Jezebel helped make Bette Davis a box office superstar, for which she won her second Best Actress Oscar, and costars Henry Fonda in the prime of his dashing youth.

Davis plays Julie Marsden, a Southern belle in New Orleans who loses her fiancé because of her rebellious petulance, then seeks to win back his favor. She is labeled a “Jezebel” by her aunt (in an Oscar-winning performance by Fay Bainter) for her attempts to meddle and manipulate others, and like the Jezebel of The Bible, an undue amount of her scandal comes from her brazen attire.

Modern audiences may be a bit startled by the moralizing, the degree to which Bette Davis’ Julie is punished for her willfulness and for wearing the wrong clothing – though in fairness, her harshest criticisms come from manipulating others with tragic consequences. And like Gone With the Wind, the film is a casual apologist for racism, whitewashing the atrocities of slavery by having Davis sing with the well-kept, happy plantation slaves.

Jezebel is the first Bette Davis film I’ve seen of her in her youth, being far more familiar with her raspy, throaty performances in All About Eve, Whatever Happened to Baby Jane, Death on the Nile, and – my first Bette Davis film – Return From Witch Mountain. I knew her as a talented actress, but I was unprepared for her beauty and her melodic voice. It no longer seems surprising to see her cast as an ingénue. But even then, the power of her acting is apparent. Witness, for example, the range of emotions her expressive face conveys during her first meeting with Amy.

Though it is widely reported that Jezebel was offered to Bette Davis after she failed to win the role of Scarlett O’Hara for Gone With the Wind, it was filmed long before Gone With the Wind finished casting, and David O. Selznick apparently never seriously considered her for Scarlett despite her being the audience’s favorite in a radio poll. But the two films have striking similarities, albeit important differences. Both show the ravages of the American South, one through the Civil War, the other through an epidemic outbreak of yellow fever nearly a decade before the war. Both feature willful Southern belles who need to be “put in their place” and taught a lesson. Both heroines seek to redeem themselves of their childish selfishness, one through achieving personal independence, the other through self-sacrifice. And both went on to win the Best Actress Oscar.

In the end, Gone With the Wind is overall a superior film, but Bette Davis’ performance in Jezebel is not to be missed.

Rating: 3 ½ stars

Movie Reviews: Neighbors (2014)

Family vs. Frat

Director: Nicholas Stoller

Writers: Andrew J. Cohen, Brendan O'Brien

Stars: Seth Rogen, Rose Byrne, Zac Efron, Dave Franco, Brian Huskey, Ike Barinholtz, Carla Gallo, Christopher Mintz-Plasse

Synopsis: Though a bit mean at times, and Efron’s character is fairly unlikable for parts of the movie, the humor in Neighbors works, albeit at a juvenile level. Rogan and Efron play off each other with a lot of chemistry.

Zac Efron has two bromantic comedies out this year, Neighbors and That Awkward Moment. Of the two, Neighbors is more low-brow but perhaps has broader appeal.

Efron plays the President of a college fraternity that moves next to new parents (Seth Rogen, Rose Byrne) and then wages war on the couple after they call the police to quiet one of the fraternity’s rowdy parties.

Dave Franco (along with Christopher Mintz-Plasse, who costarred with Franco in several “Funny or Die” skits) plays another fraternity brother and gets his career’s breakout nude scene. Efron won the Cosmo two years ago for Actor’s Character You Would Most Like to be Intimate With for The Paperboy, which Franco won the year after for Now You See Me. Will they face off against each other for the award this year?

Though a bit mean at times, and Efron’s character is fairly unlikable for parts of the movie, the humor in Neighbors works, albeit at a juvenile level. Rogan and Efron play off each other with a lot of chemistry in ways that I suspect are largely improvised.

Rating: 3 stars

Movie Reviews: That Awkward Moment (2014)

So ... where is this going?

Director: Tom Gormican

Writer: Tom Gormican

Stars: Zac Efron, Michael B. Jordan, Miles Teller, Imogen Poots, Mackenzie Davis, Jessica Lucas

Synopsis: That Awkward Moment won’t be for everyone. Like a chick flick, it can be satisfying in the moment but rarely memorable. But it will probably make my list for Best Use of (Gratuitous?) Nudity, and for that reason alone it was worth it.

That Awkward Moment, a film about three guys committed to being single, appears to be targeting guys for their audience. But unlike other buddy films that tend to be hybridized with other genres – like road movies, westerns, and especially action cop films – That Awkward Moment seems to be more of a romantic comedy for guys. A chick flick for dudes. A bromantic comedy.

But surprisingly, it works. Well, it worked for me. It may work for a lot of gay guys happy to finally see Zac Efron’s naked ass – and once again see Miles Teller’s, too. Does it work for straight guys? I honestly have no idea. But if straight girls go to see it to see Zac Efron naked and end up dragging their boyfriends along, I suppose in many ways it’s exactly like a chick flick.

Zac Efron has actually attempted a surprising amount of variety in his young career, from musicals (High School Musical, Hairspray, The Lorax), coming of age films (17 Again, Charlie St. Cloud), period pieces (Me and Orson Welles, Parkland), and romantic dramas (The Lucky One, The Paperboy). This year, this film along with Neighbors appears to be his stab at dude comedies. He received a Cosmo nomination for Actor’s Character You Would Most Like to be Intimate With at the 2012 awards for Charlie St. Cloud, and won the award the following year for The Paperboy (dancing with Nicole Kidman in the rain in his tighty whiteys).

The film also costars Miles Teller (Rabbit Hole, 21 & Over) and Michael B. Jordan (Chronicle, Fruitvale Station), both of whom will be in the upcoming reboot of The Fantastic Four. The three guys have good chemistry and are believable as friends – more natural, in fact, than the romance between Efron and  Imogen Poots.

That Awkward Moment won’t be for everyone. Like a chick flick, it’s satisfying in the moment but rarely memorable. But it will probably make my list for Best Use of (Gratuitous?) Nudity, and for that reason alone it was worth it.

Rating: 2 ½ stars

Movie Reviews: Maleficent (2014)

Evil has a beginning.

Director: Robert Stromberg

Writers: Linda Woolverton; Charles Perrault; Jacob & Wilhelm Grimm; Erdman Penner, Joe Rinaldi, Winston Hibler, Bill Peet, Ted Sears, Ralph Wright, Milt Banta (based from the motion picture "Sleeping Beauty")

Starring: Angelina Jolie; Elle Fanning; Sharlto Copley; Sam Riley; Brenton Thwaites; Imelda Staunton; Junto Temple; Lesley Manville

Synopsis: All the right elements are in place, particular Angelina Jolie. But something is missing. The cinematography is spectacular. The effects are impressive. The battle scenes are dramatic. But the script somehow fails to make all of this coalesce.

In this “untold story from the villain’s perspective” of Sleeping Beauty, Angelina Jolie is superb as the titular Maleficent, the fairy guardian made bitter by the human king when her wings are stolen.

And yet…

It’s challenging to try to articulate just went wrong. All the right elements are in place, particular Jolie who makes the titular character such a fascinating character study. But something is missing. The cinematography is spectacular. The effects are impressive. The battle scenes are dramatic. But the script somehow fails to make all of this coalesce.

The other cast members seem perfect for their roles – save for Sharlto Copley, who works as the villainous king by the film's end but simply cannot pull off looking like a dashing young knight earlier in the movie. Elle Fanning has a dewy innocence for the Princess Aurora. Imelda Staunton, Juno Temple, and Leslie Manville are perfect as the hapless fairy godmothers. Brenton Thwaites as Prince Phillip is, well, charming. As Maleficent’s sidekick Diaval, Sam Riley is expressive and nuanced.

But all are overshadowed by Angelina Jolie, who is truly magnificent. And the writing, which succeeds in giving Maleficent’s character purpose and depth, fails to do the same for the other characters.

At the 2005 awards, Angelina Jolie made Cosmo history by being the first person to be nominated simultaneously for both heroic and villainous categories for the same film (Mr. & Mrs. Smith). I wouldn’t be surprised if the same thing happens with Maleficent.

Rating: 3 stars

More Top-Nominated Films - Part 3

In parts one and two, we've reviewed the twelve most-Cosmo nominated films of 2013. Now it's time for the next six.

Four are historical films -- one from an American literary classic set in the 1920s, one of a murder in the early 1940s, one in the early 1960s (with flashbacks to around the 1920s), and one of a hijacking that occurred not even five years before the film was made. The other two are contemporary dramas (one of which was rather oddly pushed as a comedy at the Golden Globes).

Voters are reminded that they have until Friday, April 18, 2014 by midnight PDT to cast their final ballots. You can vote online.

August: Osage County

Total Nominations: 5
Highlights: Best Actress (Meryl Streep); Supporting Actress (Julia Roberts); Best Drama

For some reason, the film was pushed in the comedic categories for the Golden Globes, but Cosmo voters disagreed and (rightly so) nominated it for Best Dramatic Film of 2013. Meryl Streep is well-beloved by Cosmo voters: in addition to her numerous nominations and awards, she was inducted into the Best Actresses of All Time Hall of Fame years ago. Julia Roberts, on the other hand, has never gotten much love from the Cosmos, but I honestly think this may be one of her best performances to date. The entire cast is excellent and well deserving of their Best Ensemble nomination. And the sharp dialog makes this film a worthy contender for Best Script.

My Rating: 4 stars

The Great Gatsby (2013)

Total Nominations: 5
Highlights: Best Historical Film, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design

When I previously reviewed The Great Gatsby, I wrote, "There are some classics that should never be touched. But Robert Redford’s 1974 adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby is not so perfect that it should be sacrosanct." And in truth, I found Baz Lurhmann's take to be much more engaging that Robert Redford's phoned-in performance. But that said, it's a beautiful film (evidenced by its technical nominations) but the story itself is a bit overhyped (witness its Most Overrated nomination). Nevertheless, I enjoyed it.

My Rating: 3 1/2 stars

Kill Your Darlings

Total Nominations: 5
Highlights: Best Film, Best Actor (Daniel Radcliffe), Best Supporting Actor (Dane DeHaan)

Kill Your Darlings, though ostensibly about a murder, is really a historical look at Allen Ginsberg's coming of age. As I wrote before, Radcliffe is transformative as Allen Ginsberg, and his chemistry with DeHaan is palpable. I have no doubt that Radcliffe has successfully transitioned to an accomplished adult actor and will enjoy a long, varied career. As a character study and a peek at a bit of history in the 1940s, Kill Your Darlings is triumphant.

My Rating: 4 1/2 stars

Captain Phillips

Total Nominations: 4
Highlights: Best Director, Best Actor (Tom Hanks), Best Historical, Best Action/Adventure

I'll be honest, I kinda didn't care about seeing this one. I do like Tom Hanks (some Cosmo voters think he's overrated, but I'm not one). But the previews didn't seem that compelling to me. And when Academy voters passed him over for a Best Actor nod, I thought I might pass on it, too. But then we got it through Netflix and I'm so glad I gave it a chance. Tom Hanks really is brilliant. Without spoiling anything, there's a scene near the end where he really earns his nomination (he barely edged out Robert Redford for the last Best Actor slot). Definitely recommended.

My Rating: 4 stars

Mud

Total Nominations: 4
Highlights: Best Supporting Actor (Matthew McConaughey), Best Young Actor (Tye Sheridan, Jacob Lofland)

What a year Matthew McConaughey has had, culminating in winning the Best Actor Oscar for Dallas Buyers Club. But while some pundits were also pushing him for Best Supporting Actor for The Wolf of Wall Street (an enjoyable performance that honestly was little more than a cameo), I was pushing him in that category for Mud. But let's focus for a moment on Tye Sheridan, who, as I wrote before, shines as Ellis, the young teen who, with his friend Neckbone (Jacob Lofland) discovers a loose-with-facts homeless outlaw named Mud (McConaughey) while seeking the wreck of a boat and the potential for ensuing adventures. Sheridan is my clear favorite for Best Young Actor, and I can't wait to see what he does next.

My Rating: 4 stars

Saving Mr. Banks

Total Nominations: 4
Highlights: Best Actress (Emma Thompson), Best Young Actress (Annie Rose Buckley), Best Historical, Best Musical

Emma Thompson and Annie Rose Buckley were both nominated for playing the same character: Buckley as the young girl Ginty, and Thompson as the woman she grew up to be, the Mary Poppins author P. L. Travers. It's an enjoyable film, though I must say it's a weak year for musicals when a film with barely any music, and all of it heard before, can earn a Best Musical slot. Tom Hanks missed out on a Supporting Actor nod here, but it was a fine performance. Ignored by many critics (and Cosmo voters, too), but worthy of mention is Colin Farrell. My opinion of him changed completely after A Home at the End of the World. He's fantastic in Saving Mr. Banks, even if the critics have focused on the excellent performances of the film's other stars.

My Rating: 3 1/2 stars

More top-nominated films of 2013

In our previous post, we did a run-down of the six films that received the most nominations for the Tenth Cosmique Movie Awards. Our thoughts was that perhaps that will help guide voters in deciding which films to catch up on before it's time to vote.

Voters shouldn't feel they have to watch everything: the awards are as much about what we're compelled to see as they are about what we liked that we saw. Even so, some voters will want to try to log as many as possible.

The deadline to vote is April 18, 2014, and you can vote online.

Here, then, are the next six most nominated films of 2013 -- three fantasy films, two biopics covering relatively recent historical people, and a modern adaptation of Shakespeare from a director better known for his science fiction and fantasy work.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Total Nominations: 7
Highlights: Female Hero (Jennifer Lawrence), Male Villain (Donald Sutherland), Intimate Actor (Sam Claflin)

The second film in The Hunger Games franchise, like the first, is fairly faithful to the book. It's not exactly Oscar material (one of its nominations was for Favorite Guilty Pleasure), but the Cosmos also tries to reward the fun, escapist movie fare as well. Sam Claflin received a surprise Actor's Character You Would Most Like to be Intimate With nomination last year for Snow White and the Huntsman. This year he's up for the award again, this time playing Finnick Odair, a young previous victor whom the book presents as one of the most dashing characters.

My Rank: 3 1/2 stars

Carrie

Total Nominations: 6
Highlights: Best Young Actress (Chloë Grace Moretz); Female Villain (Julianne Moore, Chloë Grace Moretz)

It's a valid question to ask why old films ever need to be remade, especially one as iconic as Sissy Spacek's portrayal of the Steven King's telekinetic classic. Perhaps because it's an easy pitch to film executives who can also spare thirty seconds? Regardless, the 2013 remake worked for me because of brilliant casting – not just Chloe Grace Moretz as Carrie and Julianne Moore as her religiously-twisted mother, but the entire supporting cast as well. Ansel Elgort brings a wide-eyed innocence to his performance as Tommy Ross, which voters seemed to like as they nominated him for Actor's Character You Would Most Like to be Intimate With. Check out our complete review of the film.

My Rank: 3 1/2 stars

Dallas Buyers Club

Total Nominations: 6
Highlights: Best Film, Best Actor (Matthew McConaughey), Supporting Actor (Jared Leto)

What a year for Matthew McConaughey! The actor, who previously received two Worst Performance Cosmo nominations, this year received a Best Actor nod for Dallas Buyers Club and a Best Supporting Actor nomination for Mud. He also won the Oscar for Dallas Buyers Club, as did Jared Leto for Supporting Actor. The film chronicles the more-or-less true story of Ron Woodroof, a Texas cowboy who, after being diagnosed with AIDS, sets out to create an underground market for pharmaceuticals from Mexico not yet approved by the FDA. Though some may quibble with some of the historical accuracy, both McConaughey and Leto deliver powerful, career-changing performances.

My Rank: 4 stars

Much Ado About Nothing

Total Nominations: 6
Highlights: Best Script, Best Ensemble, Sexiest Ensemble, Best Comedy

Many Cosmo voters are huge Joss Whedon fans: Serenity's 16 Cosmo nominations scored enough points for it to earn a 17th, a Best Director nomination for Whedon. Still, I don't think anyone expected his next film would be a Shakespeare classic set in more contemporary times. True to form, much of the cast are people who've worked with him before -- Amy Acker on Angel, Alexis Denisof on Buffy and Angel, Nathan Fillion on Firefly and Buffy, and so on. This is the first film solely using Shakespeare's own words to earn a Best Script nomination, though another film inspired by him and using some of his words, Shakespeare in Love, was nominated for Best Film Script of All Time.

My Rank: 3 stars

Oz the Great and Powerful

Total Nominations: 6
Highlights: Best Fantasy, Favorite Male Hero (James Franco), Best Female Villain (Mila Kunis, Rachel Weisz)

The Wizard of Oz is a huge, huge thing for me. I can't even talk about it. And though it absolutely wasn't all my doing, it should be noted that it was the very first film inducted into the Cosmique Movie Awards Best Films of All Time Hall of Fame. So I went to see Oz the Great and Powerful with both excitement and trepidation. It's not going to be a classic, like Judy Garland's 1939 film. But it's fun, escapist fare that does right by L. Frank Baum's original books. It a good one to have on the shelf, a go-to film when you want something in the background, something you've seen a dozen times before and could still see again.

My Rank: 3 1/2 stars

The Wolf of Wall Street

Total Nominations: 6
Highlights: Best Film, Best Director, Best Actor (Leonardo DiCaprio), Supporting Actor (Jonah Hill)

As I wrote in a more expansive review, The Wolf of Wall Street revels in its excesses. Hours are spent documenting New York stockbroker Jordan Belfort’s descent from a family man into drunken, drugged, sex-fueled debauchery. And yet it’s a fun ride, one that I enjoyed though clearly not for everyone. I'm a huge Leonardo DiCaprio fan, and though I knew he wouldn't win the Oscar (what a strong year for the Best Actor category!), he will eventually. And Cosmo voters can be surprisingly fickle, so who knows...? It comes out on DVD next week and I do plan to see it again.

My Rank: 4 stars


Check out the complete list of nominees by category and by film, and vote the winners by April 18, 2014.

Movie Reviews: The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

More, more, more, more, more, more is never enough!

Director: Martin Scorsese

Writers: Terence Winter (screenplay), Jordan Belfort (book)

Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio; Jonah Hill; Margot Robbie; Matthew McConaughey; Kyle Chandler; Rob Reiner; Jon Bernthal; Jon Favreau; Jean Dujardin; Joanna Lumley

Synopsis: The Wolf of Wall Street revels in its excess, having great fun while attempting (and possibly failing) to present a cautionary tale.

Leonardo DiCaprio brilliantly portrays the villainy and excesses of New York stockbroker Jordan Belfort, who turned to penny stocks and later Independent Public Offerings as a way of making millions by defrauding other investors.

The Wolf of Wall Street revels in its excesses. Hours are spent documenting Belfort’s descent from a family man into drunken, drugged, sex-fueled debauchery. And yet it’s a fun ride, one that I enjoyed though clearly not for everyone.

Early this year when The Great Gatsby came out, many awards pundits were predicting that this could be Leonardo DiCaprio’s year to finally win an Oscar – not for Gatsby but for The Wolf of Wall Street. But that was before 12 Years a Slave, Dallas Buyers Club, and other films took him from frontrunner status to he-might-also-get-nominated (he did, beating out Tom Hanks who was widely predicted to be nominated for Captain Phillips). I would love for Leo to finally win an Oscar. But I suspect this won’t be the year. 

Jonah Hill also earned a well-deserved Supporting Actor Oscar nomination. And Matthew McConaghey was on some critics’ short list of predicted nominees (though had he received a Supporting Actor nod, it should have be for Mud). But man, what a competitive year!

Some critics have complained that The Wolf of Wall Street glorifies Belfort’s debauchery. Others, including DiCaprio and Scorsese, have argued that the film is a cautionary tale, showing how Belfort’s greed and excess led to his downfall. I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle. Many will likely be turned off by DiCaprio’s portrayal, hardly enticed to lead a similar life themselves. But one could argue that in the end, did Belfort really fall as far as he should have? And did he learn any lessons?

The real Belfort’s own recent comments suggest otherwise. He’s defending his actions, arguing that they only targeted wealthy people for the penny stock investments (most penny stock investors are decidedly not wealthy) and didn’t lose anyone’s entire life savings. But can he be sure? Does he really know that only wealthy people used his firm? I doubt it. Can he be sure that no one lost their entire life savings on his fraud? Unlikely. But more importantly, does it matter? Is it somehow okay to steal from people as long as you only target wealthy people and still leave them something? It’s still a crime, it’s still immoral, and decades later, the real Belfort doesn’t seem to understand that.

The Wolf of Wall Street will definitely make my Cosmo list in many categories. But I never thought I’d see the day when an Oscar powerhouse film was a clear frontrunner for Best Use of (Gratuitous?) Nudity. So gratuitous that some had to be cut from the film. Let’s hope they make the special features section of the DVD.

Rating: 4 stars

Movie Reviews: Now You See Me (2013)

Look closely, because the closer you think you are, the less you will actually see

Directed by: Louis Leterrier

Written by: Ed Solomon, Boaz Yakin, Edward Ricourt (screenplay); Boaz Yakin, Edward Ricourt (story)

Starring: Jesse Eisenberg, Mark Ruffalo, Woody Harrelson, Mélanie Laurent, Isla Fisher, Dave Franco

Synopsis: Now You See Me is a fun, flashy mystery/suspense film, a summer popcorn flick that, like popcorn, leaves you full and satisfied in the moment but feeling a little empty a few hours later.

Now You See Me is a fun, flashy mystery/suspense film, a summer popcorn flick that, like popcorn, leaves you full and satisfied in the moment but feeling a little empty a few hours later.

Best Actor Cosmo nominee Jesse Eisenberg, Worst Performance Cosmo nominee Woody Harrelson, Isla Fisher, and Dave Franco play street con artists and stage magicians who team together to create a spectacular magic show and, in the process, pull off a spectacular bank heist while pursued by an FBI agent played by Cosmo nominee Mark Ruffalo.

The action is engaging in the moment and I often found myself smiling. But in the end, it may not hold up well to other Best Mystery/Suspense/Horror/Thriller films, especially on the mystery side like Mulholland Drive, Gosford Park, or Shutter Island. Critics have compared it (generally unfavorably) to Ocean’s 11. Like that film, it’s a bit more of a how-dunnit than  who-dunnit, with flashbacks used to fill in missing pieces. But the plotting is thin and the character development is almost nonexistent for most, but it still makes for a fun adventure.

It will probably make my top five Best Mystery/Suspense/Horror/Thriller Films of 2013 list, though I have to revisit potential nominees to see for sure if it made the cut. And Dave Franco, James’ scrumptious little brother, will certainly make my list for Actor’s Character You Would Most Like to be Intimate With.

Ultimately, Now You See Me is worth a look. Like its starring characters, it's escapist fare, but pleasant and enjoyable.

Rating: 3 ½ stars

Movie Reviews: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

Beyond darkness... beyond desolation... lies the greatest danger of all.

Director: Peter Jackson

Writers: Fran Walssh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson, Guillermo del Toro (screenplay), J.R.R. Tolkien (novel)

Starring: Ian McKellen; Martin Freeman; Richard Armitage; Benedict Cumberbatch; Ken Stott; Graham McTavish; William Kircher; James Nesbitt; Stephen Hunter; Dean O'Gorman; Aidan Turner; John Callen; Peter Hambleton; Jed Brophy; Mark Hadlow; Adam Brown; Orlando Bloom; Evangeline Lilly; Lee Pace; Cate Blanchett; Mikael Persbrandt; Sylvester McCoy; Luke Evans; Stephen Fry

Synopsis: Desolation’s greatest fans will probably still be those who loved the books as a child and revel in every excessive, lingering moment of the films. I would be one. But Peter Jackson’s changes, however bloated, overall improve the book’s deficiencies. 

As the hobbit Bilbo and the company of dwarves continue their journey through the perilous Mirkwood Forest to rescue the dwarves’ gold from the dragon Smaug, the wizard Gandalf must leave them to embark on his own secret quest.

Though nearly as long as the first film, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is able to pick up a much faster pace. We’ve met the characters, we understand their quest, we’re ready for more action. And Desolation is filled with action.

Much has been made about how bloated The Hobbit franchise is compared to The Lord of the Rings films. The latter had three films to cover three books, each book averaging around 500 pages. The Hobbit films, in contrast, take another three films to cover a single book that’s only about 285 pages.

I’m okay with that.

First, it must be remembered that The Hobbit is more densely packed with action than any of The Lord of the Rings books (which, much as I love them, were a bit bloated themselves with excessively long descriptions of journeys that took pages and pages, telling us little). And action takes a long longer to show on the screen than to describe on the page. An army marching onto the field might take a single paragraph to describe, but a whole five minutes to show.

Second, Peter Jackson has the opportunity, using the appendices from The Return of the King, to show us things that were happening concurrently. In the book, Gandalf disappears repeatedly, including a long stretch that happens to cover most of Desolation. He hints at his reasons in The Hobbit, and explains a bit more in The Fellowship of the Ring, but it’s really only the appendices that fully explain what he was doing. Peter Jackson instead takes the opportunity to show us, and for that I’m grateful.

Jackson had to be careful with the tone of The Hobbit films. The book was much more lighthearted than the other Lord of the Rings books. Jackson has to capture that while still tying this franchise to the darker, sweeping epic that with thrust Bilbo’s nephew Frodo into danger. I believe he manages to straddle the line well enough, though perhaps he’s lost a bit of the whimsy along the way.

The film has a few significant deviations from the books. The first involves the elves from Mirkwood. In the book, their motivations seem to be primarily about greed. Jackson gives them a clearer intent, and introduces us to Legolas (Orlando Bloom), a central figure of The Lord of the Rings who never appears in The Hobbit, though we do meet his father and so it’s not surprising that he would be present, too. He also creates an entirely new elf, Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly), a female Captain of the Guard who helps address one of Tolkien’s greatest faults: the dearth of essentially any female characters in The Hobbit.

Jackson’s second change involves the dwarves themselves. In the book, actions happen to the dwarves. They are swept along by events, constantly rescued by Gandalf, Elrond, Beorn, Bilbo, even the men of Laketown. Jackson’s dwarves are more much active and, frankly, heroic. It’s another change for the better.

It’s a full two hours into the movie before we even meet the dragon, Smaug. But Benedict Cumberbatch’s performance makes the wait worth it. And like Andy Sirkis’ portrayal of Gollum, motion-capture technology was used so that Cumberbatch provides not only the voice but the movements of the dragon.

Desolation’s greatest fans will probably still be those who loved the books as a child and revel in every excessive, lingering moment of the films. I would be one.

Rating: 4 ½ stars

Movie Reviews: Errors of the Human Body (2013)

Mutation. Experimentation. Regeneration.

Director: Eron Sheean

Writers: Shane Danielsen (screenplay), Eron Sheean

Stars: Michael Eklund, Karoline Herfurth, Tómas Lemarquis

Synopsis: This brooding, psychological thriller could have survived its terribly slow pace if the payoff had been worth it.

Errors of the Human Body begins with an interesting premise – the study of a top-secret human regeneration gene that promises to be the basis of this sci-fi thriller. We don’t object too much to the languid pacing because the cinematography beautifully captures Dresden, Germany, and the ominousness of the research lab.

It’s easy to get lost in these shots as the story unfolds. Unfortunately, there’s not much of a story to unfold. And in the end, the climactic dramatic reveal isn’t all that surprising and isn’t nearly enough of a payoff to merit sitting through this film.

But I do have one question (our watchers were split): did the mouse grow a tail, or did the tail grow a mouse?

Rating: 2 stars

Movie Reviews: Girl Most Likely (2013)

She has a lot to live up to. And a few things to live down.

Directors: Shari Springer Berman, Robert Pulcini

Writer: Michelle Morgan

Stars: Kristen Wiig, Annette Bening, Matt Dillon, Darren Criss

Synopsis: Tepid romantic comedy with a talented cast wasted on a script that is more flat than funny.

IMDB lists Girl Most Likely as a 2012 film, but it didn’t get a U.S. release until July of 2013, and even that was a limited theatrical run. That should have been my first clue that it wasn’t exactly a worthy successor of Kristen Wiig’s Bridesmaids.

But I loved Bridesmaids. It was unexpectedly funnier than the typical rom-com. Annette Bening is a two-time Best Actress Cosmo winner.  And I was so curious to see “Glee’s” Darren Criss in a feature film. So after confirming that it was technically eligible for the 2013 Cosmique Movie Awards, I put it in my Netflix queue.

Sadly, it just didn’t work. The talented cast was wasted on a script that was more flat than funny. I love Darren Criss’ fresh innocence, but he and Kristen Wiig had absolutely no chemistry. They seemed more like good friends than romantic interests.

I really don’t know where this might end up on my Cosmo ballot. Not bad enough to merit Worst Movie, but not good enough for even a Guilty Pleasure nod unless I’m desperate. It was just … eh.

Rating: 2 ½ stars

Movie Reviews: Mud (2013)

Director: Jeff Nichols

Writer: Jeff Nichols

Starring: Matthew McConaughey, Tye Sheridan, Jacob Lofland, Reese Witherspoon, Sarah Paulson, Ray McKinnon, Sam Shepard, Michael Shannon, Paul Sparks, Joe Don Baker


Matthew McConaughey first came to my attention in 1997 with Contact, a film I loved so much that I saw it in the theaters four times, and it was the first DVD I ever bought.

But that promising start didn’t seem to go anywhere. He did a series of unworthy romantic comedies, like How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, and his two Cosmo nominations were for Worst Performance (Reign of Fire at the 2002 Awards and Failure to Launch at the 2006 Awards).

In recent years, however, he’s had better opportunities to flex his acting muscles. Some critics had him on their “dark horse” lists as a potential Oscar nominee for fan-favorite Magic Mike. And he wowed me with The Paperboy and Killer Joe. This year, critics are suggesting he could get his first Oscar nomination for either Dallas Buyers Club or The Wolf of Wall Street … or for Mud. Critics (98% of whom gave Mud a positive review) are repeatedly using terms like “confirmation of a career” and “career redemption” about his performance in Mud, and it’s well deserved.

My first impression of the film was that it felt like a modern take on Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, and it turns out that wasn’t an accident. Writer/director Jeff Nichols fostered that impression deliberately, even naming one of the characters, Tom Blankenship (Sam Shepard) after the real life childhood friend that served as Mark Twain’s inspiration for Huck Finn.

Tye Sheridan shines as Ellis, the young teen who, with his friend Neckbone (Jacob Lofland) discovers a loose-with-facts homeless outlaw named Mud (McConaughey) while seeking the wreck of a boat and the potential for ensuing adventures. Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Tom Sawyer was much more of a kid’s adventure story, while Adventures of Huckleberry Finn – called by many critics as the first Great American Novel – was much more serious and thought-provoking. While Mud has some of the adventure and rites of passage of Tom Sawyer, it ultimately strives for and achieves to be a more impactful film like Huckleberry Finn.

This will certainly make my list for quite a number of Cosmo Awards, including Best Performance by a Young Actor or Actress (Tye Sheridan). In fact, there are so many worthy nominees in that category that I’m tempted to split it into separate male and female categories. And the entire cast – Matthew McConaughey (Mud), Tye Sheridan (Ellis), Jacob Lofland (Neckbone), Reese Witherspoon (Juniper), Sarah Paulson (Mary Lee), Ray McKinnon (Senior), Sam Shepard (Tom Blakenship), Michael Shannon (Galen), Paul Sparks (Carver) and Joe Don Baker (King) – are well deserving of a shared Best Ensemble nomination.

Mud is one of the big surprises of the year, in my opinion – a film that hadn’t made my “must see” list but should have.

Rating: 4 stars

Movie Reviews: Pacific Rim (2013)

Director: Guillermo del Toro

Writers: Travis Beacham (screenplay), Guillermo del Toro (story and screenplay)

Stars: Charlie Hunnam, Idris Elba, Rinko Kikuch, Charlie Day, Diego Klattenhoff

Genres: Action/Adventure; Science Fiction & Fantasy

I really wanted to like Pacific Rim even though I hated the trailer. My eyes were rolling in their sockets so wildly, I thought they were going to spin out of my head.

It had a lot of good things going for it. Guillermo del Toro is a great director, though as another friend pointed out, he hasn’t done anything great since Pan’s Labyrinth. I loved Charlie Hunnam in the British version of Queer as Folk as well as the Cosmo-nominated Nicholas Nickleby, and though I’m too scared to watch “Sons of Anarchy,” friends say he’s very good in it. I do enjoy sci-fi movies, even cheesy summer popcorn flicks that don’t aspire to greatness. And 72% of critics on Rotten Tomatoes gave it a positive rating, so it couldn’t be that bad.

So though the trailer made me skeptical, I was willing to give Pacific Rim a shot and went in with suitably low expectations.

Apparently my low expectations weren’t low enough.

Charlie Hunnam was enjoyable, especially shirtless, and might make my list for Actor’s Character You Would Most Like to be Intimate With, but the script was just awful. Even ignoring the clumsy plot holes (this, unlikely Gravity, is not a film that Neil deGrasse Tyson would bother to scientifically critique since it makes no attempt to strive for scientific realism), the dialog was clunky and the dramatic twists were utterly predictable. The special effects were nice, but in an age of digital effects, they didn’t stand out as being unusually innovative. Sure, whole cities got wiped out (how many times do we have to see the Golden Gate Bridge destroyed?), but the scale of the destruction is so immense and rapid that it becomes depersonalized.

Some of the plot weaknesses come from a deliberate homage to Japanese horror films which might delight hard-core fanboys but leaves the rest of us rolling our eyes. My favorite review snippet on Rotten Tomatoes comes from Christopher Orr of The Atlantic, who observed:

"Its visual achievements notwithstanding, Pacific Rim's greatest breakthrough may be that it's the first Hollywood blockbuster to sport a title less descriptive of its plot than of its intended market."

-- Christopher Orr, The Atlantic

I’m sure Pacific Rim will make my Cosmo list for at least one category, but that’s not necessarily a good thing. (Really, Rotten Tomato critics – 72% of you liked this?)

Rating: 1 star

Movie Reviews: Lee Daniels' The Butler (2013)

The film tells the fictionalized story of Cecil Gaines, a butler for the White House loosely inspired by the true story Eugene Allen, who served in the White House for eight presidents, from Eisenhower to Reagan.

By fictionalizing the story, Lee Daniels is able to take dramatic liberties not only for plot effect but also, ironically, to make the film more historical. Through Gaines and his family, Daniels is able to portray significant moments in American history: the Civil Rights movement, the end of segregation, the Viet Nam War, the campaign to end apartheid in South Africa, and the election of the first African American president – events that he could allow Gaines and his family to participate in directly, in a manner that perhaps Allen’s family did not.

Fictionalizing the story may have also given Daniels' some flexibility in punching up some family dynamics that may have been rather more ordinary for the real Eugene Allen. And here the film truly succeeds, carefully weaving personal stories together against the backdrop of decades of historical events.

The star cameos are occasionally distracting, but that shouldn’t detract from the stellar performances. Forest Whitaker may well win his second Best Actor Oscar and Cosmo (his first for both was for The Last King of Scotland), and Oprah Winfrey is well deserving of Supporting Actress consideration, as is David Oyelowo for Supporting Actor. It will almost certainly make my list for Best Ensemble along with a number of other categories as well.

Rating: 4 stars

Movie Reviews: Kill Your Darlings (2013)

There is a murder in Kill Your Darlings, but this is no murder mystery. We see killer and victim in early shots of the film, even before we know their identities, but only shortly before. This is no whodunit but rather a whydunit.

And in telling the why, most of the film is told in flashback, and the murder itself ends up being the least interesting aspect of it. The story is more about the origins of the Beat poets: Allen Ginsberg (Daniel Radcliffe), his muse Lucien Carr (Dane DeHaan), the victim David Kammerer (Michael C. Hall), William S. Burroughs (Ben Foster), and Jack Kerouac (Jack Huston).

Radcliffe is transformative as Allen Ginsberg, and will almost certainly make my top five for Best Actor performances. His chemistry with DeHaan, a potential Supporting Actor nominee, is palpable. I have no doubt that Radcliffe has successfully transitioned to an accomplished adult actor and will enjoy a long, varied career.

Ginsberg’s first sexual experience with a man is juxtaposed with the murder in alternating shots, and ultimately is far more interesting. As a character study and a peek at a bit of history in the 1940s, Kill Your Darlings is triumphant.

Rating: 4 ½ stars

Movie Reviews: Parkland (2013)

Peter Landesman’s take on one of the most pivotal moments of the 20th century, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, makes for a decent movie, but one that in the end seems to lack perspective and a point.

Landesman pulls together a terrific ensemble cast, including Zac Efron, Paul Giamatti, Billy Bob Thornton, Jacki Weaver, and Marcia Gay Harden, among many others. All of them give perfectly fine performances, but none of them are given much of a chance to do much with what they’re given, and their characterizations of real, historical people lack dimension. As Abraham Zapruder, who happened to capture the assassination on film, Paul Giamatti has a few shining moments, but they’re limited.

Though the film is named after the Parkland Hospital where both Kennedy (Brett Stimely) and Lee Harvey Oswald (Jeremy Strong) are taken after they're each shot, none of the staff there – Zac Efron as the internist who first operates on the President, Colin Hanks as the surgeon, and Marcia Gay Harden as the head nurse – are given much of an opportunity to flesh out their roles, nor does the hospital itself get as much screen time as one might expect.

One would expect Kat Steffens as Jacqueline Kennedy to be the emotional heart of the story, but she doesn’t do much more than weep throughout the film. It is actually James Badge Dale as Lee Harvey Oswald’s brother Robert who stands apart, conveying nuanced emotion with his stoicism.

It’s a refreshing idea to show the Kennedy assassination through the eyes of everyday people who were unexpectedly thrust into the center of a national tragedy – but one already done a bit more deftly in 2006 with Bobby, the story of JFK’s brother Robert Kennedy’s assassination in 1968.

In the end, even a terrific ensemble needs something to work with, and the best actors in the world can’t elevate a muddled script into an awards-caliber movie. This might make my list for Best Historical Film of 2013, but I’ll have to check the competition. It should have made my list for Best Ensemble, but it probably won’t. It’s not a bad film, but it should have been much, much better.

Rating: 3 stars

Movie Reviews: World War Z (2013)

In general, I’m not a super big fan of zombie movies. But there are exceptions. I loved 28 Days Later for its simplicity and focus on survival. And I enjoy television’s The Walking Dead because so much is focused on the interactions of the human survivors.

And sometimes a simple shoot-em-up zombie flick can be fun. You go into those films without any reasonable expectations of it being anything more than a popcorn flick.

But World War Z tried to be something more, and for that reason it failed miserably. Brad Pitt plays an ex-United Nations operative recruited to track down the viral source – and therefore, however improbably, the cure – of a global zombie outbreak. His race around the world changes from seeking the source (which, for a viral epidemic, seemed rather useless to me from the get-go) to instead working on a sort of a cure or protection.

Normally a shoot-em-up zombie film can gloss over the details and whatever plot hole there may be are inconsequential to the film. But a film that this that focuses on finding a cure relies heavily on those details, and the plot holes themselves become overwhelming. (If, as the film awkwardly documents early on, it only takes 12 seconds for an infected person to proceed from exposure to outbreak, how was the virus spread globally through airplane travel? Even the most elite fliers couldn’t get through TSA security in under 12 seconds.)

Eventually you have to suspend your disbelief, which is hard when the film’s plot relies so heavily on so many contradictory details. As a character film, it fails. None of the characters are more than one dimensional cardboard cutouts. Not even Brad Pitt’s character, the only one who gets significant screen time. It’s hard to really care about what happens to them. And as an action flick, many of the zombie scenes were great at first, but in attempting an epic depiction of cities overrun, the action ended up being too removed and impersonal.

Still, I must admit that I was engaged. I watched the whole thing without getting distracted by my phone or by Facebook. So that’s something, I suppose. Perhaps a potential nominee for Favorite Guilty Pleasure? Not that it was that pleasurable, but I do feel guilty about even that faint praise.

Rating: 2 stars

Movie Reviews: Gravity (2013)

It takes a talented actor to be able to hold focus when they are the only person on screen for large stretches of a film, as Tom Hanks did in Cast Away, Ryan Reynolds did in Buried, and Adrian Brody did in The Pianist.

Sandra Bullock absolutely pulls it off in one of the most riveting performances not just of 2013 but of all time.

The cinematography is breathtaking, and the special effects are beyond amazing. Gravity will absolutely make my nomination list for both awards, as well as for Best Film of 2013.

But it is Sandra Bullock who makes this film. Every movement and facial expression is so nuanced, so carefully choreographed, so brilliantly orchestrated. At the first Cosmo Awards, Bullock was nominated for Most Overrated Actress of All Time. I thought that was a bit much at the time. But I have to believe that even her harshest critics will have to change their minds now. The Cosmos were on hiatus when Bullock won an Oscar for The Blind Side. There’s no doubt in my mind that she’s well deserving of a Best Actress Cosmo nod this year.

George Clooney is perfectly affable in his role. It’s possible he might make my list for Best Supporting Actor, though it could be a competitive year. But this is no ensemble film and, pun somewhat intended, Sandra Bullock sucks up all the oxygen and there’s no room for anyone else.

I am not, in general, a big fan of the over-use of 3D effects these days. And I can find it distracting to watch a movie on an IMAX screen. So often, I feel like I have to move my eyes back and forth to take in everything. But I found with Gravity that sitting near the back row helped me see the full screen, and the filmmakers used the 3D technology wisely and carefully.

In trying to rate this film, I was leaning towards 4 ½ stars. But in trying to articulate its flaws, I honestly couldn’t think of anything germane.

Rating: 5 stars

Movie Reviews: Carrie (2013)

So many horror movies are being remade these days, and sometimes you have to sit back and wonder why. Oh, sure, the obvious answer is that it’s an easy Hollywood pitch. When you only have 30 seconds to get the appropriate executive’s attention, it’s hard to pitch an original story. That’s why so many films are adaptations of successful books, or comic books, or stage plays … or horror films from the 70s and 80s. “Let’s remake _______, but we’ll cast _____ as the [hero/villain], and we’ll [make it truer to the original source material / change the story by adding ____ / show more of the villain’s back story / etc.].

But though it may be an easier pitch for Hollywood executives, it can still be a tough sell for fans who don’t want their classics touched. And perhaps that’s why the 2013 remake of Stephen King’s Carrie has faltered at the box office, even though I would argue that it’s a great film.

The 2013 remake works because of brilliant casting – not just Chloe Grace Moretz as Carrie and Julianne Moore as her religiously-twisted mother, but the entire supporting cast as well. Unlike the 1976 film, which seemed like it should have been Carrie: The College Years, most of the high schoolers actually look like they could be in high school. Ansel Elgort brings a wide-eyed innocence to his performance as Tommy Ross. Who could say no if he asked you to the prom? And Alex Russell brings an intensity to Billy Nolan that I don’t recall John Travolta showing in the original.

Carrie will certainly make my list for Best Mystery, Suspense, Horror, or Thriller Film of 2013, and no doubt some of the other categories as well.

Rating: 3 ½ stars