bedsitter23

As much buzz as it got, the one thing I couldn't shake about The Call was that it was a WWE film.

WWE Films, up to this point, have been largely straight to video B-, C-, and D-movies, often starring WWE wrestlers.

The Call looked to be WWE Films' great big hope, giving the lead roles to people like Halle Berry and Morris Chestnut, and the biggest role given to a pro wrestler is David Otunga as a policeman in a support role.

Of course, putting Halle Berry in a movie doesn't answer that question either.  She has won both an Oscar and a Razzie. 

Berry is very good in the film, though, and the film is good as well.  Berry's performance is strong and no doubt the movie succeeds because of it.  it goes against every Hollywood article I have read in the last two years that movies with female leads can be successful.

It never quite overcomes the trappings of a B-movie, but as the genre goes, it is one of the better B movies I have seen in years.  The plot is pencil thin- 911 dispatcher vs kidnapper, but to a certain extent, that is why it works.  in fact, the attempts at character development are the worst things about the movie- whether we should care about Abigail Breslin's teenager or we should fear the Silence of the Lambs-style villain.

The movie does go for a l;ot of cheap, generic "don't go in there?' horror elements that it probably doesn't need (as it works well more as an action thriller), but for those who are easily scared, you should have the warning up front.

It also should be noted that end of the movie, and the events leading up to the end of the movie) are pretty silly, even coming from a company that sells pro wrestling finishes.  It won't ruin the movie, but it will leave probabyl ever viewer going "really, c'mon now" at the credits.

Overall, for what it is and if you are okay with the expectations of something with the budget of a made-for-tv movie, it actually is worth the watch.

I have been cheering for Melissa McCarthy's career as she has hit megastardom through Mike & Molly and Bridesmaids.  With due respect to her, the way Hollywood works now, she didn't really need another Identity Theft-like flop.

The set-up is about as basic as you get- McCarthy is loud, messy and crude, Sandra Bullock is overly straight-laced to the point that she annoys everyone.  It's a buddy cop/mismatch movie, the template that we've seen over and over, but it still works (for example, last year's 21 Jump Street), and in this case, no new ground is broken- McCarthy playing a character that we've seen a few times and Bullock recalling Miss Congeniality.

It all works though, which is what we care about.  It's the funniest movie I have seen in awhile (which if you recall, has been quite a few comedy duds) and is doing well in the theaters appropriately.

A big reason this works is that the characters have a lot of heart and are empathetic, which is where this goes right and Identity went wrong.
 
There is a lot of filthy language in the film, and at the risk of sounding like a prude, it probably isn't all necessary.  Also, as a friend noted, the film is pretty much start-to-finish funny, but you don't walk out quoting any lines from it (Mccarthy's lengthy diatribes are probably the funniest things in the film).

Overall, this is a pretty standard case of what you see is what you get, but if you are looking for a basic screwball comedy, what I call weekend entertainment, this is it, and it succeeds.  I liked it much better than Identity Theft (no surprise there) and even better than Bridesmaids (which just wasn't consistently funny enough for me).  The mismatch buddy comedy lives.

I would not want to be the director to take up the Wizard of Oz franchise.  I remember the hype about Return to Oz when I was a kid (McDonald's or someone was promoting it) but it never came to our theater and I never heard anyone talk about it ever again.

So, I wouldn't want this assignment.  You have hardcore fans of the original to please, you have today's children to please, and you have an older adult audience who want both a good tribute and and an enjoyable movie.

In which case, I think this is an unwinnable proposition.  That also explains my review as saying that the movie just about pulls it off, but ultimately, doesn't quite.

James Franco seems to get a lot of the blame.  I am not sure if that is completely fair.  Of course, the default for movies like this is that it would be Tim Burton and Johnny Depp at the helm.  Instead, it's Sam Raimi, who I think does a good job and ultimately, might be a better fit at this type of move than Burton.

But Franco?  You can maybe get me to agree that he isn't the right fit, but then who is?  So, I made a list in my head of the various ways you could have taken the film.  There are several actors in terms of style, age and skill- Tom Cruise, Robin Williams, Steve Carrell, Will Smith, Jim Carrey.  Ultimately, I think Franco is the right pick.  Depp might have pulled it off, Heath Ledger likely could have pulled it off, and you could probably debate all day about actors who may or may not have been a better fit- Hugh Jackman, Joseph Gordon-Levitt.  I am not sure.

You could have the same conversation about Mila Kunis, who I thought was fine, but would likely not be anyone's first pick.  Unlikely, Zach Braff as the sidekick monkey was a highlight of the film, and though we always have sidekicks, the monkey worked well. 

In which case, as I said before, you will never win with a movie like this.  But once you get past some of that, the movie really succeeds on its own terms.  It pays homage to the original movie, while doing its best to create a dreamworld, and while the first half drags in setting up everything, by the time you get to the second half's action-packed finale, it's impossible not cheer along.

It's not Wicked.  It's not a character sketch.  It's by-the-numbers 'beat the bad guy'.  I also will say that it will likely recall Burton's Alice in Wonderland and for my money, Oz trumpets it in every way (except that Male lead thing, again).  I think the CGI makes it feel realistic and again, credit to Raimi for making an awesome alternate world.

So, going in with those expectations.  It drags at time, but yes, you will enjoy it. Will you want to see it again?  Probably not any time soon.  Will it be a cult hit?  Doubtful, but it is a fun film.  IMDB users give it a 6.9 (out of 10) which is just about right.   

I am going to start my review with everyone else's review.

There's something about 2012 and 13.  Movies that are Oscar-bait have crossed over.  It may be Hollywood's fault.  They expect people to rush out to see an Arnold Schwartznegger/Johnny Knoxville buddy flick, but America is not buying.

Zero Dark Thirty like Lincoln (especially) and Silver Linings Playbook might not have been a blockbuster in another year, but people are going to it in droves.

If not that, then maybe audiences just are hungry to see a film that captures the Bin Laden assassination story.  Thus, ZDT is marketed as everything for everyone. 

People are expecting an Act of Valor style action movie that captures the American military at its best (and oddly, everything these days feel like video games, not that anything is wrong with that).

There is that, but the focus of the film is the protagonist Maya and her intelligence gathering that leads to the killing.

Thus getting back to others' reviews, it is able to pull off being both.  Most people are going for the action, not the drama, but both elements are strong.

Jessica Chastain as the lead is strong, and a cast that is largely free of A-list stars (James Gandolfini is almost unrecognizable as a Leon Panetta-ish CIA Director.) certainly helps things.

There are some torture and waterboarding scenes, though they are not over-the-top, they certainly will have you leaving the theater with some inquiring thoughts in your head.

Best film of the year?  Hard to say, but it certainly feels like it.  It's a strong film in about every aspect and at two and a half hours, it never feels over-long.

Looper- The reviewer at the local alternative paper hated this movie, so I wasn't sure what I was getting into.

Sure, it does owe a good debt to Phillip K Dick, but I liked this movie a lot.  I thought Joseph Gordon-Levitt was a strong lead.  He reminded me a bit of the confident cool of Ryan Gosling and the smart tough of Ed Norton. 

Bruce Willis also continues a career that keeps him one of the most vital men in the industry right now.  He is a bit Ed Harris in this one - a tough old geezer not to be messed with.

Anyway, I dug the subtle sci-fi effects and though time travel movies can be tricky, I really liked the way this one played out.  It had a certain late 70s vibe (the kind of movies that Tarantino riffs on).  There was one place the plot went that kind of gave me a scare (oh no, we are going in this direction now?)

Overall, I think time travel movies can be tough, but I was happy with the way this story was told.  I also think that it had a good feel to it- the sci-fi universe did feel like something out of Philip K Dick and the drama and elements played well.  I give it a big thumbs up.

The Trouble with the Curve  - I am a sucker for sports movies and I really like Clint Eastwood, so I had to try this one.

It's a promising enough plot.  It's a bit of the anti-Moneyball -the story of a 70 year old baseball scout who make decisions not on stats and boxscores, but on gut feeling and seeing a sweet swing.

Eastwood plays the irascible character that seems to have served him well in recent years (Million Dollar Baby, Gran Torino, whatever the hell that thing was with the chair at the GOP convention).

Unfortunately, named as the movie is, one feels compelled to say 'the trouble with this movie' is.

We've all seen plenty of grumpy old men movies, but Eastwood's character doesn't give this film much to work with.  He's not sympathetic, and worse yet, not particularly funny.

One guesses that getting to work with Eastwood is what dragged all the stars along.  This really is a straight-to-video movie.  The cast features Amy Adams, John Goodman, Robert Patrick, Matthew Lillard, and Justin Timberlake, but feels like a TV movie (and a lower basic cable network movie at that)

The film is filled with the worst film cliches, and though I didn't necessarily expect much, I surely expected more than this.

The baseball portion is entirely predictable.  Complain as I might about Disney's sports films, at least they are based on reality that gives things a hint of authenticity.  The baseball plot is fun, but feels entirely made up, and at then, made up by a first-time screenwriter.

The other plot points - Adams and Eastwood's father/daughter relationship and the obvious romance angle between JT and Adams - do finally have some redeeming scenes at the very end of the movie. However, for the majority of the film, these plotpoints don't quite gel- they feel forced and chemistry lacks.

Skip this one.

Is it okay not to like Lincoln?

The movie was always going to be an Oscar buzz-fest, but it took off in theater sales too.

That said, I did like Lincoln. 

It's just that I don't see how it ended up being such a success.

The acting is incredible.  Daniel Day Lewis brings Lincoln to life unlike anyone I have ever seen.  Tommy Lee Jones steals the show, though as Thaddeus Stevens.  The rest of the cast is just as incredible- Sally Field as Mrs. Lincoln, Jackie Earle Haley as Alexander Stephens, Hal Holbrook, David Straithairn, Joseph- Gordon-Levitt.

Equally incredible is how the characters represent the actual people and the era's landscape.

The film has been advertised as being based on Dorris Kearns Goodwin's book Team of Rivals.  I think the Lincoln of this movie is largely based on the observations captured in that book.  However , this isn't Rivals: The Movie as I hoped, but is instead a telling of how the 13th Amendment got passed.

If you didn't know, political backbiting and gridlock was around before Limbaugh and Hannity.

So, this movie gets a tempered recommendation.  If you know what is about to happen when Major Rathbone comes to pick up Lincoln for the night, you will enjoy this movie.  History buffs will be tuned in the entire time. 

Otherwise, if you are not a fan of Historical drama, this might be a bit of a struggle. Like say, The King's Speech, I think most anyone would like it if they were in the right mood and wanted to put the time in (and have someone who could explain the main characters).  However, despite the strong performances, this doesn't have the immediate accessibility of some biopics.  Maybe a film like this shouldn't be accessible, but be warned. 
 

I am vigorous defender of Iowa, and often try to reflect it here. Still, you have to be careful.

Iowa doesn't take to people calling it 'flyover country', so it's a rough week for the state.

While last year, Iowa had to suffer through Cedar Rapids, an offense that they felt that city was being singled out for ridicule.

This week sees the release of two films based in the Hawkeye State.

I admit I know very little about Janeane from Des Moines, but it is a mockumentary about the Iowa caucus. It probably won't be in a theater near you, unless you live in a place with a cool indie theater like Des Moines (see... I am defending).

Janeane fooled the Register, Politico, and even got a hug from Romney; though I gather perhaps it's more Michael Moore than Ali G or Borat.

She never abandoned the masquerade, not in Iowa. Which was occasionally frustrating. “When I was at a Santorum event, a woman told me this harrowing story about all these emergency room visits she’d been through and how she owed $20,000 and how she’s going to pay it off on an installment plan,” Ms. Wilson said. “And then she immediately says how much she hates Obamacare and how much she loves Santorum and hopes he wins. And there’s a part of me that wanted to say, ‘Are you crazy?’ ”

Then, there's the higher profile Butter with Jennifer Garner, Olivia Wilde, and Hugh Jackman. It has a political satire element, too; but takes place in an Iowan town where a young girl finds her knack for sculpting butter. Her talent puts her into competition with Garner and Ty "Phil Dunphy' Burrell.

Yes, I have been saving this story for about a month since receiving word from garbagecanmusic.



Of course, Iowans know the premise is silly.  Sure, there is a storied history of butter sculpture at the State Fair; but it's not a competition.  There's only room for one, and her services are the ones people call on when they need a Butter Mascot for their School's 100th Anniversary.

So, if Butter is American Idol, the reality is Elvis Presley.  it's not a competition, it's a singular icon.

It's not either movie though that has the real ire of angry Iowans.  Arby's is that target.

Arby's asks if you would rather have your deli turkey sliced in the back of the restaurant where you go to eat or in an Iowan manufacturing plant (which they imply about Subway)..

The answer is pretty obvious, unless your economy is supported by the local meat manufacturing plant.  For good measure, Arby's made sure the sting was historically accurate by using footage of an Eastern Iowan plant.

Arby's has re-edited the ad (and I have seen the edited version) and though it should be effective (it's a poor cousin to Pace Picante Sauce's "New York City?" ad), you would think someone would have made sure it might not offend someone before airing it.

You've probably seen the ads and may have been pulled in by this quirky little movie.

Interestingly, it was produced by and based on a story by Ahmet Zappa.  Ok, I am in.

This is a basic Disney PG flick, but largely succeeds over that.  It is a simple plot, and the ending is predictable, but I also really enjoyed it.

Jennifer Garner and Joel Edgerton are likable, and the supporting cast ( bunch of people you would probably recognize but may not know - Dianne Weist, David Morse, Common, and Ron Livingston as anti-Peter Gibbons) are excellent.

This movie could have been a lot of things- heavy-handed, cheesy, generic- but it succeeds in a lot of ways (in my mind) over similar Disney flicks. 

Yes, a lot of it is CJ Adams, playing the optimistic, hard-not-to-love title character, and good support from another child actor, Odeya Rush.

Okay, for a Zappa, it could have been a lot weirder, I guess, but I really have no complaints, it's perfectly paced, and told extraordinary well,  There are a lot of good lessons to be taken from this movie, although I am not sure I would call it a kid's movie.  I would say maybe older elementary children would be more appropriate. 

Indeed, it's story of individualism will be appreciated best by kids at heart.  Reviews I have read have been sort of a mixed bag.  I think this is probably due to some unmet expectations.  Viewers need to understand that they are getting a Disney film, and in such, should expect the basic storytelling of something like Secretariat, Invincible and the like.

Green is firmly in the Disney family film vein, but the film has enough originality to put it a bit above relative fare.  It's funny, it's sad, and it's better than what online reviews say.

Rock of Ages is a musical movie based on the recently popular Broadway musical.  I just wish i had the foresight to make a musical based on 80s power ballads.  In retrospect, it's a license to print money. 

The musical is homage, not parody; and in a way, the earnestness of those songs makes the musical work.  I am not a huge fan of that genre, but it is the music of my youth, so I feel drawn to it.

Of course, the plot is paperthin.  Catherine Zeta-Jones as a Tipper Gore-style politician's wife who wants to shut down the Sunset Strip.  The main story a love story of a boy and a girl who left their small towns to make it big.

It's that part that is the weakest.  Julianne Hough, like in Footloose fills a role as eye candy, but doesn't bring much more.  Diego Boneta is even worse as the most recent 'terribly miscast male teenage rebel'.  He's so soulless, he makes Daughtry look like Ronnie James Dio.  It's hard to really care that much about these characters, and their love story is too generic to be inspiring.

Of course, I didn't expect Tom Cruise to fill the lead role, but it's an inspired pick.  Cruise plays a slightly past-his prime star who is just a bet mentally imbalanced (if the litigious Cruise ever reads it, I would like to point out here how very different this Stacee Jaxx character is from his personal life).  cruise channels his inner Axl Rose to comedic effect.  This is probably my favorite Cruise role in years, and I would love to see him make a sequel to this rather than doing another Mission Impossible film.

I was excited for this film because of Russell Brand and Alec Baldwin.  Brand is laugh out loud funny in every scene he is in, and he's the reason I'd watch this film over again.  We now know Baldwin has strong comedy chops, so that really isn't a surprise, but he's strong.

Paul Giamatti is excellent as a scumbag manager.  There's only a couple of unexpected twists in the movie- one good (with Gaimatti and Boneta), one unnecessary.  I expected some cameos but it's largely devoid of that (Kevin Cronin and Sebastian Bach show up.)

Mary J Blige shows up in a supporting role, and unsurprisingly bring a lot of necessary soul and is a highlight.

This is pretty much what you would expect.  pretty lightweight fare, but it's fun enough, that if it sounds like you might enjoy it, you probably will.

I always had a soft spot for this franchise.

The original came out in 1997 and it seemed like that year even the popular blockbuster movies were "deep" (LA Confidential, Full Monty, As Good as it Gets, Good Will Hunting).  Men in Black was just fun.

I generally like Will Smith and although he has moved towards more serious roles, I still think he is best as the wisecracking action hero that vaulted him to fame in these films and Bad Boys.

Also as mismatched duos ( the all-time movie cliche) go, I think Smith and Tommy lee Jones just work great.

It is with that in mind (and with the smart idea of revisiting a franchise after several years) that I am going to say I really liked MiB3.

I thought the interaction with Smith and Jones (and Josh Brolin playing a carbon copy of Jones) was great, and consistently funny.

To keep the series going, the plot revolves going back in time, and that idea idea seems a bit risky, but I think that generally works.

There are also quite a few "third" films that feel like they are trying to stretch things too thin.  This is one of the rare ones that captures a lot of the fun of the original.  It should please anyone who liked the earlier MiB films, and though I don't know if anyone cares about this franchise any more (given the years since the 2nd film), but I do feel this is going to be one of the better 'popcorn' films at the multiplex this summer.

Laughed all the way through, the pacing never really drags, and I found the ending strangely touching (which just means I am getting old.)  Going to recommend it, for sure.